Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Meister]

Originally Posted by adamark

Skyshot I will assume that it isn't trolling since the 'German dude' is a mod and would have corrected us if we broke the rules.

The whole "Christianity is a cult" thing definitely was toeing the line, but as an example for how religions could start out it actually wasn't too bad, so I let it slide. (On a sidenote, Christianity today does not equal Christianity 2000 years ago. I think that was part of the controversy, but let's not get into that - at least not in this thread.)

As for the relevant laws I have no idea, as much as I could tell they did pretty much go "we don't like Scientology and get out" but then I haven't really been following the news. In fact a quick google search tells me over here it's mostly the less serious news who're picking this up in the first place; MTV news and such. Apparently it's not front page material.

[Tyrazial]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

I mean, here in the States, we have the Bill of Rights, and the first amendment in that mentions religion, so if this were happening over here, we could argue over whether refusing usage of a military site counts as Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Heck, it might could even be discussed without actually discussing whether Scientology is a cult and/or dangerous. Just, "hey, Germany's not letting them film a movie on their military bases because they don't like Scientology for whatever reason they don't like Scientology. Can they do that?"

Actually, I was reading up on the whole "intellectual property rights" thing online in regards to application via laws. Apparently even in the U.S. The government can refuse the usage of footage containing -anything- pertaining to the government, the military, and their subsidiaries. No reason is needed. It's government land is not sanctioned as "open for public use".

I found it interesting while looking at various other movie expenditures that they actually have to pay a nice amount of money, as well as put in the credits a thanks to blahblah, whenever they use any building sanctioned as "Official U.S. Government Property".

Than somehow my linking to "related" sites got me to pr0n so I stopped looking... cause work computers suck like that...

So that's all I got.

Now, if the US did refuse him because he was a Scientologist, they'd have to drum up either a different reason, or just flat out refuse. The minute they link it to him being a scientologist than -that- is where it violates the first amendment, as well as seperation of church and state, and a half a dozen other laws made to prevent persecution and oppression.

[Angelfire Blackwolf]

This could be what you're looking for about german law and scientology for reference Scientology and germany

They don't class scientology as a religion, and class it as a business, which could be part of the reason, as well as some of the more questionable tactics the scientologists are alleged to use.

[Sesshoumaru]

I'm still confused on what exactly this is about. Did the German gov't say he (Cruise) couldn't use any footage from Germany? Or just that he couldn't film his movie on German military bases? Because if its the latter, I'd have to wholeheartedly agree, I wouldn't want any filming done on a base with potentionally sensitive information either.

*Oh and I hit the 'report post' button on the Christianity is a Cult post before I read Meister's post that he was going to allow it, so I guess you can just ignore that.

[Gorefiend]

Well, to my understanding they're telling the camera crews "No you may not film in this military building (which I think may be more akin to a museum nowadays) because Cruise is a scientologist and we don't want him in our building."

Note that this wouldn't be filming any current military things; its like requesting to film in the White House or Congress, only (I think) a degree or two less sensitive. It is not, however, an active military building with armed soldiers and stuff on-site.

[Fifthfiend]

Inasmuch as this has branched into generally religious discussion I'm gonna go ahead and bump this into Big Big.

Seriously Aerozord that wasn't called for. You outright said you don't care about the thread's topic - which was mostly about freedom of expression issues - and then pulled out that Christian Axe that you just couldn't help but grind.

I actually had looked at this thread and said well okay, maybe a freedom-of-speech thread that sort of tangentally concerns religion can be let go and I'll trust people to keep out of full-blown religious religioning, but I guess I was wrong.

Anyway since I'm in here:

And yet Christ did not require overly obsessive worship.

I find this pretty debatable, as the bible would have it he definitely made a lot of pretty stringent demands of those who would follow him.

[Gorefiend]

Well, Jesus never claimed to be God, nor do we believe it was spelled out as such in the Gospels (the Johannine Comma, the only verse in the Gospels spelling out a divine trinity, was added in later). His divinity was established in the Council of Nicene later. For more info, look up Athanasius and Arius, and their conflict.

As far as being cultish, while it may have begun as a cultish sect of Judaism, it soon enough became its own cultish thing, and then grew up into a full religion, pretty soon after Jesus' death. Probably while St. Paul was still writing, even. Pretty much when they figured out that 1) they were pretty big, and 2) the world is NOT about to end, they began to jump into the "religion" bracket and began to turn from an individual-salvation religion into a social religion.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The trouble is that people are thinking of different things when they think of a cult. I've always thought that a cult is simply when people have a religious devotion to something that isn't generally thought of as a religion. Sithdarth apparently sees another picture, where this group also has to be dangerous and destructive somehow.

By the former definition, any young faith would be a cult; it involves religious conviction but is not yet established as a "real" religion (I'm not even going to speculate on the standards for this...). The latter does not necessarily apply to every new faith. Although I would say that when the kind of devotion associated with religion faith is given to anything, the results have potential to be dangerous.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Gorefiend

Well, Jesus never claimed to be God, nor do we believe it was spelled out as such in the Gospels

During Jesus' trial, the chief priests asked him directly if he was the son of God. These were the three responses, written by different authors.

"I am." (Mark 14:60-62)
"Yes, it is as you say." (Matt. 26: 63-65)
"You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:67-70)

[Archbio]

That, by itself, doesn't contradict Gorefiend.