"Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

_You_ · Dec 10, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Timmibal;1097848 said:

Think about what you just asked...

I don't need to think about it, the response previously was (a) larger (or at least larger more quickly, time will tell); (b) not 100% rote response. [Admittedly with 3, now 4 (wahey!) replies, it's not exactly a representative sample on the latter count, so you may be right, but was just interested to see whether other people were seeing any difference.]

...TBH I'd be surprised if they're even being READ by the senators without being vetted for samefag by an aide.

That's a given. Even a backbencher's gonna receive several hundred emails a day, and I'd hate to think what a Minister's inbox looks like.

jensting · Dec 11, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Pierre Bourdieu;1096393 said:

You're close, but still missing the point. You cannot logically take an instance of a scientologist killing themselves or committing a violent act and then saying it happened because of scientology.

Maybe not, but in the case of Patrice Vic, in Lyon France, the local head of the "mission" of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology was indeed found guilty of manslaughter (conviction upheld in all appeals).

Even if you could show such causality you still cannot logically say such actions would have been prevented by initiating inquiry into Scientology.

Indeed. Having the criminal organisation stopped from breaking the law is the purpose, not the holding of hearings.

Best Regards

Jens

Oh, and 2/10

JohnnyRUClear · Dec 13, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Sponge;1093545 said:

words

helmets.

That was one of the best posts ever on this site, IMO. I'm not quoting it since it's WTFTL, but anyone who may have missed it should go back and read it, long though it be.

Lorelei;1094659 said:

The "r" word does freeze some politicians' blood, but the question must be asked:

What makes something a religion?

and more words

Lots of good convo-fodder there, but THE WRONG QUESTION FOR AUSTRALIA at this time. Their high court already decided that "Scientology is a religion" so arguing that it isn't one means challenging that court decision. You vs. the Aussie court is not a good fight to pick.

Instead, focus on the distinction which "Pierre" keeps trying to obfuscate:

Pierre Bourdieu;1096255 said:

The next time a Christian commits suicide or goes Mr. Stabby should we call out every governmental official who didn't call for inquiry into christians?

Here is a proper response, with the key word highlighted to remove any possibility of failure to catch it:

themadhair;1096337 said:

If there was a particular Christian [SIZE="5"]organisation[/SIZE] that had a history of exploiting their followers in the way Scientology does, and if this same Christian [SIZE="5"]organisation[/SIZE] had pressured one of their followers into suicide in the way Scientology did with McBride and if this same Christian [SIZE="5"]organisation[/SIZE] had a legion of ex-members speaking out loudly about the abuses this Christian [SIZE="5"]organisation[/SIZE] is continuing to commit…..then you might be getting into the ballpark of making a valid point rather than making a comment you mistook for being insightful.

Notice: within Christianity (the -- "the" indicating singular -- religion) there are many organizations (plural). The confusing factor here is that within Scientology (the "religion" or whatever you want to call the activity of "being a Scientologist&quot there is mainly ONE ORGANIZATION -- or, more precisely, one organizational structure. [COLOR="Red"]We are calling for an investigation of the practices of that organizational structure, not into the everyday practice of Scientology "public" at large.[/COLOR] We are also not calling for any investigation of other minor organizations (FZ, MZ, etc.) which may exist within the broad picture of the practice of Scientology.

Clarify this and the senators will stop peeing themselves over their fear of being seen as investigating "a religion". Investigating an organization is perfectly acceptable. Fail to clarify this and the battle will continue to be long and tough.

_You_;1096519 said:

Surely, you are a professor of logic at a prestigious university.

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

JohnnyRUClear;1100687 said:

Lots of good convo-fodder there, but THE WRONG QUESTION FOR AUSTRALIA at this time. Their high court already decided that "Scientology is a religion" so arguing that it isn't one means challenging that court decision. You vs. the Aussie court is not a good fight to pick.

Wrong. How will the high court realize they got it wrong if we don't let them know,

_You_ · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage;1103387 said:

Wrong. How will the high court realize they got it wrong if we don't let them know,

That's not how a court operates: "Oh, some dudes from the Internet disagree with us, we have to change our decision now". No. Just leave religion out of this.

This is about abuses, violation of law and about a specific organization, which isn't above the law and which deserves further scrutiny by the Senate.

_You_ · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Mind you the Australian court decision is not so one-sided in favor of Scientology as they like to portray it, but yes the point has to be made that it's the organization which should be investigated.

Moonbatshitfag · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

_You_;1103397 said:

Just leave religion out of this.

This is about abuses, violation of law and about a specific organization, which isn't above the law and which deserves further scrutiny by the Senate.

^ ^ ^

_You_ · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

_You_;1103397 said:

That's not how a court operates: "Oh, some dudes from the Internet disagree with us, we have to change our decision now". No. Just leave religion out of this.

This is about policy-driven abuses, doctrine-mandated violation of law and about a specific organization, which isn't above the law and which deserves further scrutiny by the Senate.

fify

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

If anyone has read the high court decision they'd realize scientology does not actually fit into the standard definition of a religion. You are quoting aids ridden scino propaganda.

Secondly, new laws will be coming in 2010 which if the recommendations are followed will make it harder for Scientology to be classified as a religion.

Thirdly, the courts in Australia play by public opinion. Public opinion in Aus at the moment is at an all time low for scientology. People really don't like it when their taxes are being shifted offshore.

The only reason why scientology was barely allowed to survive in Australia is because they pressurized the government. This time the pressure needs full force from another angle.

Finally, It's the truth. Scientology is not a religion and should not exist as such, specifically for tax purposes. We have the proof. Why pussy foot around?

All that's needed is education and telling it like it is.

_You_ · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage;1103492 said:

We have the proof.

Fail.

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

_You_;1103516 said:

Fail.

When i say we, i mean me and my kiteh

And we have the proof!

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

Actually on these points , disregard my points. I suck cock. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

SEE HERE on the argument in case put forward by Anon lawyer.

Moonbatshitfag · Dec 16, 2009

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage;1103950 said:

SEE HERE on the argument in case put forward by Anon lawyer.

Nice explanation

fisherman;1099406 said:

1. What is the line between beliefs and illegal activity?

The line is performance of an illegal act. It's legal to believe whatever you want. It's illegal to act unlawfully. Many people believe marijuana should be sold legally. They're perfectly entitled to believe that. But, if they act on that belief and start selling marijauna, those actions would be illegal.

Claiming that an illegal act is "religious" doesn't make it legal. A religious group that believes in marijuana, cannot legally use marijuana in a ceremony, claiming that it's 'part of free religiion' and protected under the constitution.

If a groups belief system is illegal are they still constitutionally protected?

Yes. More accurately, a "belief system" cannot, by itself, be illegal. A group's right to believe whatever they believe, is protected and cannot be discriminated against. But again, the Constitution does not 'give permission' for religions to break the law. You can believe in cannibalism, sing songs about cannibalism, gather with other cannabibalists and share recipes -- but you can't eat people!

Are they still allowed classification of being called a religion?

In the U.S. religions are 'self defining' -- if you start a "church of cannabilism", get a few members together, and call it a religion -- it is a religion. Your new religion would be protected against discrimination under the Constitutional. If you hold Sunday services dancing around an enormous iron pot of chicken stew chanting, "the bird is anthropomophically made man" -- no-one can interfere with your religious practice. It they do, you can call the cops and feed them lunch.

Whether your 'Church of Cannibals' can attain tax exempt status, to subsidize iron pots and long handled spoons, is entirely up to IRS. I'm not familiar with the petitioning process, but, this is seperate trom the Constitutional issue. The Constitutional right to freely practice your religion does not automatically include public subsidy for your religion.

2. If a persons belief system is manipulated by a process created by a group leader then are the members beliefs seen as of free will and therefore does the groups belief system constitute being a bona-fide religion?

How someone arrives at their religious convictions has no bearing on their Constitutional protection. No State or Federal law regulates whether a religion is 'bona-fide'. There's no 'pass-fail' test of religious credibility.

Frankly, that's what the Constitution prevents under the "Establishment Clause" -- the government MAY NOT decide whether a religion is 'bona-fide'. You are free to establish the 'Church of Canabils' and worship as you see fit, just so long as you don't eat people.

This is why Scientology's 'claim to fame' that they are 'recognized as a religion' by the U.S. Government is so totally bogus. Of course they're recognized. The Constitution 'recognizes' the rights of every religion -- even the 'Church of Cannibals'.

Tax exemption is entirely different. But, Constitutionally, tax exemption is NOT what makes a religion.

IANAL, fisherman

The Anonymous · Jan 16, 2010

Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

WTF;1092413 said:

I am not familiar with .au executive branch composition. I would assume there is a national investigation agency. Is there an "organized crime" unit?"

There is indeed an organized crime division which could quite posibly partake in the investigation but since the organisation is present in all states it is likely that it will be carried out by the AFP (Australian Federal Police) similar to the FBI, they have a reputation of being ruthless and using deadly force, they control all the swat teams, if the cops need swat they call AFP, they can also use the army etc if they see fit.

And in reguard to the guy who said that xenephon may wind up dead, he has an AFP protection detail which is taken from the Army so good luck to them, hope they truly belive in reincarnation or their 90 virgins or w/e bullshit scientologists believe in.

JohnB2008 · Jan 16, 2010

Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

The Anonymous;1127421 said:

There is indeed an organized crime division which could quite posibly partake in the investigation but since the organisation is present in all states it is likely that it will be carried out by the AFP (Australian Federal Police) similar to the FBI, they have a reputation of being ruthless and using deadly force, they control all the swat teams, if the cops need swat they call AFP, they can also use the army etc if they see fit.

And in reguard to the guy who said that xenephon may wind up dead, he has an AFP protection detail which is taken from the Army so good luck to them, hope they truly belive in reincarnation or their 90 virgins or w/e bullshit scientologists believe in.

How do you know that he has such protection? Did you see it in a newspaper or on a TV newsbroadcast, or something?

Anonymous · Jan 16, 2010

Re: Aussie government rejects Xenophon's request to investigate Scientology

The Anonymous;1127421 said:

There is indeed an organized crime division which could quite posibly partake in the investigation but since the organisation is present in all states it is likely that it will be carried out by the AFP (Australian Federal Police) similar to the FBI, they have a reputation of being ruthless and using deadly force, they control all the swat teams, if the cops need swat they call AFP, they can also use the army etc if they see fit.

And in reguard to the guy who said that xenephon may wind up dead, he has an AFP protection detail which is taken from the Army so good luck to them, hope they truly belive in reincarnation or their 90 virgins or w/e bullshit scientologists believe in.

Are you posting in this thread after 4 weeks because you have new info ?

themadhair · Jan 17, 2010

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

SCIENTOLOGY IS A METHODICAL SYSTEM FOR TAKING MONEY FROM EMOTIONALLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE
- now illegal to say this in Ireland.

Scientology is exempted under the cult clause.

Anonymous · May 13, 2010

Re: "Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage;1103950 said:

Actually on these points , disregard my points. I suck cock. Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

SEE HERE on the argument in case put forward by Anon lawyer.

You suck cock you say ?

Log in or Sign up

"Move for Senate Scientology inquiry fails" (Hayden Falconer email)

_You_ Member

jensting Member

JohnnyRUClear Member

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage Member

_You_ Member

_You_ Member

Moonbatshitfag Member

_You_ Member

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage Member

_You_ Member

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage Member

isupeonedDavidmiscaviage Member

Moonbatshitfag Member

The Anonymous Member

JohnB2008 Member

Anonymous Member

themadhair Member

Anonymous Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins