Comments:Court in France convicts Scientology of organized fraud
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
How do you feel about the verdict?
[edit]Feels good man. HansTaub (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about the verdict?
[edit]I think it was thoroughly justified, except the court should have banned scientology all together. It is a dangerous, obnoxious and terribly vindictive cult, that harrasses those who disagree with it. All countries should ban this horrible sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanafen (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uh... No. That's a horrible idea. We shouldn't ban ideologies. Groups don't do anything wrong; individual members do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.80.250 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, groups can do something wrong. It's hard to believe so many unorganized individuals are running this con; they just happen to all be concentrated in Scientology's leadership, right? Moreover, you don't see the Roman Catholic Church trying to sue Anglicans or Christian denominations for preaching about the same God and Jesus fellows. What "ideology" is more concerned with trademark and copyright than reconciling differences among sects? The Church of Scientology as a corporation needs to be shut down; if any members want to continue believing in what they paid to 'learn' then that's their choice. The thing is, their members are dependent on the products of the "Church" and would have little to go on to found their own society or similar organization. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This "religion" was started b/c of some sci-fi novels. I think it's hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.114.166 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about the verdict?
[edit]Scientology is obviously guilty of taking advantage of the gullibility of the followers that they mislead, but what makes Scientology worse than Christianity or Islam is that its leaders are obviously charlatans, whereas most Christian and Muslim religious leaders are genuinely religious and do only what they think is right. All Scientologist leaders are charlatans who have no motive but profit. It is difficult to put my finger around how even they can get tax exemption in the US, whereas in more sensible countries they are prosecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.40.231 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Mixed Feelings
[edit]I'll be honest, I'm not big on Scientology. However, I am worried that it will set a precedent against other NRMs. Forget not that early Catholicism was itself a cult, and religions today still participate in the brain-washing of children. 'Tithing' comes to mind, regardless of what the money is used for. All in all, before one steps to judge another religious movement, one should consider where his own choice came from. --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about the verdict?
[edit]It was about bloody time!--193.157.250.247 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about the verdict?
[edit]Viva la France! I am so glad to see that some countries aren't so star struck and open to getting their palms greased that they allow this "religious" mafia and human right's abusers.