BBC News posted:

Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise
Germany has banned the makers of Tom Cruise's new movie from filming at military sites in the country because the actor is a Scientologist.
The German defence ministry said Cruise has "publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".
Scientology masquerades as a religion to make money, Germany said, but leaders of the church reject this.
Cruise's producing partner Paula Wagner said the star's own convictions had no relation to the film's content.
"Personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the movie's plot or themes," she said.

'Heroic and principled'
Scientology has been monitored in Germany in the belief that its activities are "directed against the free democratic order" in the country.
Its status there as a commercial enterprise has prompted repeated protests from the organisation.
Cruise will play Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg in Valkyrie, leader of the 1944 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler using a bomb hidden in a briefcase, scheduled for release next year.
German defence ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said that Germany's military "has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person".
Wagner said Cruise's portrayal in the film would be as a "heroic and principled figure", while "Germany is the only place we can truly do the story justice".
"We believe the film will go a long way toward reminding the world that even within the ranks of the German military, there was real resistance to the Nazi regime," she added.
Stauffenberg's son Berthold told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper earlier this week that he objected to Cruise taking the role because of his involvement with Scientology.
"He should keep his hands off my father," Mr von Stauffenberg said.
Mr Kammerbauer, meanwhile, said that official requests for filming in the country had yet to be received.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6240312.stm

Well, this should be an interesting development. ;)

I just have to say, Well Done Germany!!

Hmm, question to the moderators- Will discussions of scientology be banned due to moratorium?

I will comment more after i will know the answer. ;)

Only Xenu knows

Nah, it's okay, scientology is not a religeon, it's an idiocy. :D

<font color=skyblue>Let's not discuss the religion or what it is or is not.

Instead, the topic should ask the question as to why a country would have a prejudice against a personal belief. Would he be proselyting? I would not think so. Too busy working on the scenes, I'd assume. Would it make Germans want to learn more of his faith? I don't know how much time an actor spends in local establishments hanging out with the "commoners" because Cruise is one of Hollywood's "royal A-Class". </font>

A hardy "Amen"!

Edit: And a hardy welcome to Papa Smurf! ..for them what cannot translate. I will be going home to Germany in August. It's only been 32 short years!

[ 06-26-2007, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Variol (Farseer) Elmwood ]

Though I'd usually be the last person to play devil's advocate for Scientology, even if it is "directed against the free democratic order", surely banning it is exactly that?

Jaradu-sometimes democrasy has to defend itself.
I will refrain from mentioning some known facts about scientology (and especially its founder), due to moratorium.

I trust your imagination to fill up the gaps.
:D

Scientologists are kinda odd, but I'm not sure you should ban them. And I'm worried that Germany will try to spread this to the rest of the European Union. They're already on a crusade against anything in any way related to Hitler.

We make sure they'll never forget about that, especially during footballmatches. :D

Because Hitlers "personal belief" - which was very much spiritual and religious in content - killed 6 million Jews, and destroyed Germany for decades.

Because Hitlers "personal belief" - which was very much spiritual and religious in content - killed 6 million Jews, and destroyed Germany for decades. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=skyblue>So Scientology is viewed by Germans to be potentially destructive in nature or harmful enough to warrant a ban?

I know they don't ban all religions or faiths so why be so selective? I cannot figure out what makes this one more threatening than any other.</font>

<font color=8fbc8f>Too bad we can't follow that lead!</font>

Yea, scientologists give me the creeps, but a ban against them in the States would never fly.

That appears to be the case. According to the story, Germany does not view it as a religion at all.

Quote:

I know they don't ban all religions or faiths so why be so selective? I cannot figure out what makes this one more threatening than any other.</font>

^....See above answer....^ [img]smile.gif[/img]

Subjective perception breeds different responses.

Hey... now here's an idea.

Does America respect the democratic decisions of Germany, and the concept of international sovereignty, to leave Germany the hell alone if it makes a decision concerning Scientology's religious status?

Or is America suddenly the ruler of the world that will impose it's values on other nations and peoples whether they like it or not, and with scant regard for the lessons those nations have learned about themselves from their own history?

Yorick: Whaddya mean suddenly the ruler of the world?

But you are correct, Germany should be allowed to do whatever it wants. As long as they don't try to use their position in the EU to spread their agenda here. Which I think it might do.

<font color=skyblue>Let me go on record, in the event of misinterpretation, to say that I am acutally glad to see Cruise hit another speed bump. Ever since he started bringing his personal life into Hollywood, he's been met with rejection from what I've heard. The biggest hit ever was when his studio dropped him as a regular actor for their movies. Now this. All because he decided that he was suddenly important enough to try pushing with the supposed power that he had obtained as a worldwide celebrity.

I just hate it when celebrities suddenly get famous enough to decide to start running for political seats or trying to make the world see their viewpoint.

Why do I hate it? Because it distracts from their jobs...to be on a movie. I want to watch a movie and see the characters that are in the story...I dunno...its hard to describe.</font>

So its O.K. for all the countries of the world to critisize U.S. laws but if we say something against another country we'll be scolded, and I don't even know if any States officials made a comment about it one way or the other. By the way, I'm glad Germany chose to do what they did.

I believe Z referred to it as a cult and a viable topic of discussion over in the CEF a year or two ago, if that has changed then I apologize, but I think the following interview with Hubbard Jr. just about says it all. link

Hey now, Ronald Reagan did a fine job and Schwarzenegger's is doing very well in Cali. Heck, even Jesse "The Body" Ventura did well during his stint as governor.

Yeah, but celebrities are citizens and perfectly allowed to run for representation like anyone else. And what's the difference between a celebrity being hired to endorse a product, and a celebrity chosing to publicly express their own views? In both cases, it's someone using someone's fame to spread a message.

Aside from which, public officials and power-brokers become "celebrities" themselves. Aka Donald Trump, the Clintons, Giuliani, etc. so the lines blurr.

If you're getting distracted by the actor (losing the character) when you're watching a film, they've failed as an actor, and if enough people experienced this failure and don't like it, then market pressures would ultimately mean they lose work.

<font color=8fbc8f>No, not against scientologists. Against Tom Cruise!</font>

Tom Cruise and Scientology both creep me out. Oh, and I heard Germany changed it's mind and will let him in to do his movie.

That's a very helpful ink. Thanks Sir Krustin !

Xenu was real dammit. Praise Xenu and pass the beer!

edit-bad spelling [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have a question, is that stuf about the 747 space ships true, like in the South Park episode?

According to L.Ron Hubbard, yes

Good. You can't go around banning opinions just because they're wrong.

Good. You can't go around banning opinions just because they're wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh sure, we can't ban wrong things like murder, fraud, assault, theft, etc. All results of antisocial opinions.

Or can we?

A society is allowed to determine what elements it wants to encourage and what it doesn't. You're doing the exact same thing in your statement. The values shift, the methodology doesn't.

Yorick, those are acts, not opinions. You can still, in quite a few countries, claim that murder is sometimes acceptable. Or preach against copyright laws in radio.

Oh, and I'm not trying to say that Germany can't ban scientology (or Tom), or that someone should do something hideous to it if it does, only that I don't think it should. Maybe I could have expressed it more clearly.

Proselytising is an act too, not an opinion. As is writing a cheque for all your money. What action is divorced from an underlying opinion? Only reactive reflexes. Murder is the result of an opinion that ones actions are somehow in some way justified, and that the victim's life is somehow expendable, and that the act needs to occur. (To satisfy vengance, protection, entertainment, business... whatever)

Point being that opinions and actions are hard to divorce, but that what society should have every right to ban is things which result in the said society destructing or individuals being harmed.

You cannot protect some without infringing on the rights of others. It's a balancing act.

AMERICA traditionally encourages FREEDOM TO DO.
Whereas Europe has traditionally encouraged FREEDOM FROM.

The two emphasis often collide, as to be free from drunk drivers, you lose the freedom to drink and drive.

So people from either culture should take care when criticising the other as being "not into freedom", and ask "which freedom?"

Germans apparently want to be free from oppressive and damaging pseudo-religious bodies harming their society again. Americans apparently want to be able to practice whatever religion they want whenever they want. Both values have historical roots and are understandable given the past experiences of each culture.