Germany has banned Tom Cruise from shooting scenes at military sites for his film about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler because the Hollywood actor is a member of the Church of Scientology. Cruise was to play the part of Claus von Stauffenberg, a member of the German nobility who attempted to assassinate Hitler in July 1944. The film, entitled Valkyrie, is due to go on release next year and its makers planned to start shooting in Berlin next month.However, Germany’s Defence Ministry formally banned the actor, who is also one of the movie’s producers, from filming at authentic military sites in the German capital which are central to the movie’s plot.”The film-makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult,” Harald Kammerbauer, a Defence Ministry spokesman, said yesterday.
Usually I am a big proponent of freedom of religion, and frankly if this were any other religion I’d be upset. But Scientology is NOT a religion — it’s a money-making scheme that CLAIMS to be a religion. It is criminal in nature, ruining lives, and families as it takes their money. I immediately lose respect for any member of this organization — including Cruise, Travolta, and Ally. There is no reason to respect such an organization.Bravo, Germany!
Shane,
Germany has more freedom of speech than we do? Please tell me you are joking.
Just to get the facts straight: Tom Cruise is not and will not ever banned from Germany. Neither is Scientology. Actually, they just opened a really big subsidiary right in Berlin.
What the movie makers won’t be able to do is to shoot the movie in the historical place. Not because it’s a memorial or anything, but the former army HQ building where it all happened is now (still) the army HQ building, or better: the ministry of defense. It’s like Oliver Stone wanting to shoot “Armies of the Night” from within the Pentagon. No one needs any excuse to not allow that.
Kamenin, when you put it that way, it makes the movie producers seem like arrogant American Hollywood types who don’t see other nations as being equal to the Greatest Nation on Earth.
It is not a question of freedom of speech.
It is about competition. Germany is not a secular country. The federal administration collects tax for the two churches, religion is being teached in schools, 10 thru 12 religion holidays per yr, creationism as an alternative to biology, the ruling party is the Christian Democratic Union, …
And it is not the money Scientology takes from its members.
Christians regard Scientology as a serious competition these days. Christians regard any other church, sect, cult which they did not endorse as evil. In this case they are right but only by incident.
Scientology never can become as evil as christianity is for already 1500 yrs.
The quote above from the Defence Ministry spokesman seems quite clear that it is Tom Cruise, Scientologist that is persona non grata on any of several military sites.
I hate to say this. My non-American heritage is part German, including my name. I now add Germany to my list of European countries that I will never root for nor ever visit less they retract this rediculous prejudice against one religion but not the other fake ones. Italy is the other one on my list. Likely they will always be on that list.
Ok, sorry for the late reply, but I was busy last couple of weeks.
You believe that god doesn’t exist and that people came around by the process of evolution, don’t you? Even if you don’t, I do, and I’m guessing so do a lot of people – and that kind of puts us in the same group. Those are beliefs to me. Believing in a scientific theory is also a belief.
Personally, I think atheist existentialism fits my belief system fairly well. That may work for others, or it may not.
Look at theists, they can’t even believe in one same god, and don’t agree on the same beliefs. Since those are the only religions which fit the sociological definition, I’m comparing it(atheism) to them. Can’t atheism be divided into groups according to what they believe, say, like christianity? This may be a tu quoque type of mentality(they disagree, then why can’t we too), but no definition of religion ever says that different groups can’t disagree. Religion is just a tool used by people to unite groups with same beliefs, for whatever purposes they feel necessary. And beliefs do vary.
All you need to get a religion is a group of people with the same beliefs(what ever they may be), that meet together on a regular, or irregular, basis. If the group has meetings, it will develop some customs(and rituals – just an example of a ritual: wiping your feet before entering a building). Not only that, but through discussion and repetition the current beliefs will be reinforced and unified. At that point the group becomes a religion by definition.
This post isn’t finished, but I gotta run. Write some more stuff later if I won’t forget.
tri:
A clumsier effort at tu quoque I haven’t seen in a while.
There’s a distinct difference between knowledge-based ‘belief’, as opposed to belief-based knowledge.
I call shenanigans.
That logic makes company picnics, concerts, car clubs, any sort of hobbyist get-together a religion.
I’d advise you actually go & look up any of the words you choose to use – they don’t mean what you want them to mean.
“A word means what I say it means,” – Tweedledum.
Say hey to Tweedledee for me, wouldja?
According to Durkheim, those things indeed can be considered religion, I don’t see what the problem is. All on how serious you(or the member of the community) get about the group.
By definitions of different sociologists, religion can have different purposes(all considered legit) – which was explained to us, that all of these purposes can apply to different religions in varying degrees.
Also, definition of a word as a term in sociology and a regular dictionary can be different.