2008 May 07 Wednesday
German Government More Opposed To Scientology Than Islam

The German government is downright stupid.

Whatever you think about Scientology, you have to wonder about the Church's treatment by the German state.

In December, Germany's interior ministers said they considered the religion to be "not compatible with the constitution." Yesterday, an AP story reported that the German Scientologists have dropped a legal battle to keep the country's intelligence services from monitoring its activities. What is Germany so afraid of?

German officials have categorized Scientology as a business, not a religion, and tax accordingly. Scientology has responded by complaining about "religious discrimination."

The German government has a much easier time opposing Scientology that Islam because Germany has orders of magnitude more Muslims than Scientologists inside its borders and the Scientologists do not control governments of trading partners. But if the German government wanted to look out for the interests of the German people it would focus much more on reducing the Muslim presence and put less effort into the much smaller threat from Scientology.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 May 07 11:09 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
Memphis Two said at May 8, 2008 12:25 AM:

What about Judaism?

Deuteronomy 6:4-6:9 are written on a piece of paper and put inside a box that is hung out of every Jew's house (it is called a Mezuzah). Deuteronomy 6:10-11 tells the rewards the Jews get for doing so:

And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;

Given that Jews control most major reserve banks are controlled by the Jews (the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the USA is an Orthodox Jew pandering to a reserve board of Orthodox Jews, giving lucrative off the books hidden M3 repurchase agreements to investment banking institutions that are exclusively Jewish) and the Israeli lobby is of overwhelming power in the US and the UK, it seems they are succeeding in commanding their "divine right" of militarism, parasitism and genocide.

In Deuteronomy 7:16 it then outlines how the Jews are to destroy the native peoples of all nations they subvert:

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

and again in 20:16:

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

They're want to wipe us out now just as much as they do the Canaanites, Moabites, Jebusites and Moabites then. That is why they are Balkanizing our Western societies with those of 3rd world genetics and giving them unfair advantages via racist affirmative action programs and welfare. They want to divide us, so they can conquer us. Why do you never speak of Judaism as the source of these policies?

Stephen said at May 8, 2008 1:09 AM:

Memphis, pretty much every religion wants to kill off every other religion. Its just part of the religious ecosystem. Judaism isn't better or worse than any of the other one-true-god(tm) religions.

Wolf-Dog said at May 8, 2008 2:28 AM:

Memphis, you seem to be personally opposed to the word "Jewish", and what you are saying about "Jews trying to divide an conquer the Western World", seems to be plagiarized from the European and Russian 19th century political writings. Even if the Old Testament contains some discriminatory "us against them" type statements, most Jews in America and Europe are very secular, and also in America, more than 50 % of the Jews are assimilated, and 75 % of the well educated Jews are assimilated. In any case, your statements do not seem to be based on fact but fiction that you are blindly accepting. The Nazis were also saying that after World War I, Jews made sure that Blacks were brought into Germany (by the British and French governments influenced by the Jews) in order to dilute and weaken the Aryan race.

But returning to the main subject of Scientology and Islam, it is precisely the classification of Scientology as a "business" that makes it possible for the German government to take action against it. If Scientology were recognized as a religion, it would have been impossible to discriminate against it, especially given the stigma of World War II in Germany, and the fear of being seen as bigots. But once Scientology was classified as a business with fascist aims to control people, then it became quite acceptable for Germany to take action against such a "fascist" entity. But in the future, if it becomes possible to classify Islam as a fascist political ideology in stead of religion, then Germany will have no difficulty taking action against it.

But the main point is that despite the Old Testament (which influenced Christianity as much as Judaism), the modern Europe and North America is much more reasonable than before, and the Bible is no longer being used to justify colonialism, while the Islamic nations are increasingly interpreting the Koran in a more backward fashion that leads to aggression. This is the issue.

Kenelm Digby said at May 8, 2008 3:18 AM:

I cannot agree with you Randall.
In my opinion the problem is not with Islam but with the RACE of the third world immigrants into Europe.
The fact is that Turkey had been a major European power for centuries - and was always recognized as such by the leading European power, that gave it a seat at the table with full equality.Although European relations with the Islamic states have often been fraught, a realistic, respectful accomodation was always made to accomodate strategic, diplomatic and political realities, the present 'issue' with islam is really a backwash of the Arab/Israeli conflict.
The issue of unrestricted, third-world immigration into Europe, some of whom happen to profess the muslim faith (which is only 50 or so years old), is entirely separate and obnoxious - the main cheerleaders for this disasterous and oppressive policy have been the hookworms and lice at the WSJ, The Economist and other neocon ass-holes.

Scientology is another kettle of fish.It is not recognized as a 'great religion', instead it is a confidence trick devised by L.Ron Hubbard to fatten his profits (for an excellent expose' read 'Bare-faced Messiah' by Russell Miller).
It operates on dubious 'mind-control' techniques - and costs the dupe a great deal of money to complete the Courses - what sort of religion is that.

al said at May 9, 2008 7:14 AM:

What a stupid idea to even suggest that Germany should oppose more Islam than Scientology?

Germany cannot and shall not oppose Islam, if it does it will create a major crisis and German interests, public diplomacy, status and its own people will feel the strong repercussions throughout large parts of the globe of such a hateful and foolish act....
Islam is an ancient religion, more than 1400 years old and followed by more than 1500 million believers all over the world but primarily in Asia...Islam has been around and engaged with others throughout those centuries
Anyway, Germany did once oppose an ancient religion, Judaism, and we all know now the consequences to that!
History repeats itself, I hope NOT

Wolf-Dog said at May 9, 2008 7:43 AM:

Germany did not just "oppose" Judaism as an ancient religion, but there was a pathological mystical racism going on during the first half of 20th century over there. And German Jews were not antagonizing war against European civilization, there was a pathological madness going on in the German leadership and also society to some extent. This is what Goebbels said during the 1930s before WW II, when the discriminatory laws were created against Jews: "The French government and media are accusing Germany of being unintellectual and culturally intolerant and backward by persecuting the Jews because of their religion. This is a misunderstanding and we are not culturally backward and unintellectual, since we are not persecuting the Jews because of their religion: we are persecuting them because of their race."

On the other hand, currently the new extremist interpretation of Islam is considerably more aggressive and intolerant than the version of Islamic culture that flourished during the Middle Ages. Thus the current aggressive interpretation of Islam is at least as bad as the Crusader mentality a thousand years ago. So it is not so much how old the Islamic culture is, but the current attitude of the Islamists that is the issue.

Anonymous said at May 9, 2008 10:33 AM:

"Thus the current aggressive interpretation of Islam is at least as bad as the Crusader mentality a thousand years ago."

The Crusades were a response to muslim aggression. If the West had just a little bit more of this horrid "crusader mentality these days, these fucking muslims wouldn't be a problem, now would they? But I guess self-defence is just so 12th century.

tommy said at May 9, 2008 10:39 AM:
Memphis, pretty much every religion wants to kill off every other religion. Its just part of the religious ecosystem. Judaism isn't better or worse than any of the other one-true-god(tm) religions.

Nonsense. Judaism isn't a proselytizing religion and the verse in Deuteronomy cited refers to the Canaanites and their land and not all non-Jews. That is quite unlike statements in the Qur'an and Hadiths which call for killing or subjugating all non-Muslims. There aren't many Canaanites around today, but there are plenty of non-Muslims. Besides, Judaism has been a minority religion in every land throughout much of the past two thousand years. Judaism has necessarily developed a more pragmatic, flexible character than Islam.

I'm no fan of the "Israel First" crowd, but to say that all religions are equally harmful because all religions are irrational is itself irrational. Some irrational belief systems really are more harmful than others.

On the other hand, currently the new extremist interpretation of Islam is considerably more aggressive and intolerant than the version of Islamic culture that flourished during the Middle Ages. Thus the current aggressive interpretation of Islam is at least as bad as the Crusader mentality a thousand years ago.

It should be remembered that the Crusades didn't occur until about a millenium after the founding of the religion and until Muslims had already overran the Middle East, North Africa and Spain, all of which had previously been Christian lands. The First Crusade was as much a response to Muslim aggression against the Byzantine Empire as anything else. While Christianity's early history is filled with martyrs who did not violently resist their oppressors, Islam has been waging war from its earliest days.

Wolf-Dog said at May 9, 2008 11:22 AM:

Buddhism is totally harmless and placid, and it is not part of any religious ecosystem trying to compete with any other religion. But apparently this wasn't enough for the extremist Taliban in Afghanistan who dynamited all the ancient Buddhist monuments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

Anonymous said at May 9, 2008 11:50 AM:

Wolf-Dog,
I'm not sure of what your point is with this comment thread. First you bemoan the "Crusader mentality" then you go and give evidence of what kind of savage lunatics muslims are blowing up Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan(you should see what they do to actual, living Buddhists in Thailand). But like I said, a little of that "Crusader mentality" would be useful these days to deal with the islamic menace. The West is playing softball with these people. You know the Chinese would have wiped these vermin off the map if they pulled a 9-11 in Shanghai or Beijing.

Wolf-Dog said at May 9, 2008 12:01 PM:

"You know the Chinese would have wiped these vermin off the map if they pulled a 9-11 in Shanghai or Beijing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is possible that they will try to pull a 9-11 in Beijing, because the Muslim separatists in northern China are becoming restless. We shall see.

Aha! But politics is such that if China starts wiping out the Muslims as a result of a 9-11 in Beijing, then Uncle Sam might start taking the side of the Muslims against the "communists", just like we did in against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan... When Sylvester Stallone was making his last movie "John Rambo" last year, he discouraged the other actors to see the "Rambo III" movie, where Rambo actually helped the Afghan fighters defeat the evil Russians in the movie. Apparently Stallone was NOT proud of this movie he had made during the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_III

Anonymous said at May 9, 2008 12:08 PM:

Wolf-Dog,
You've lost me...

Dave said at May 9, 2008 12:42 PM:

I think you are wrong on that Wolf-dog.
Islam was not less agressive in the Middle Ages than it is now, infact it was much much worse its just that the European Empires had such strong navies that Islamic countries weren't easily able to attack the West.
Look at what the Ottoman Empire was doing with slavery and wars of conquest in the Balkans.

"How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780?"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html

Barbary pirates:
http://www.answers.com/topic/barbary-pirate-1

I think piracy is the wrong word for what was going on here, a pirate is normally an individual group working outside of the state and outside any law, these guys were often if not always sanctioned by the governments of their home countries and sometimes working directly for them, so they were more like privateers.

And ofcourse to the East there was the Islamic invasion of India.

Now I don't necessarily claim Islamic colonialism is any worse than European colonialism but come on here, lets get over this liberal myth that the Islam we see today is not the real Islam and how it wasn't like that a few hundred years ago, it was, and it was worse, and there is plently of evidence out there.

tommy said at May 9, 2008 1:44 PM:

"How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780?"

Andrew Bostom wrote about this at FrontPage a few years ago:

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Thus as Joshua London’s Victory in Tripoli elaborates in lucid prose, an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 years—exploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.

tommy said at May 9, 2008 2:00 PM:

Here, here and here are a few essays touching upon the supposedly shiny, happy era of Muslim rule in Spain. The whole myth appears to be the creation of multicultural-minded historians and their leftist enablers in the media and the educational establishment.

Wolf-Dog said at May 9, 2008 2:46 PM:

OK, maybe I was wrong about the impression that only the modern extremist Islam is aggressive, but the past is not as important as the present: Returning to the present situation where we all agree that the current version of Islam is dangerous for Europe, what kind of scenario do you see in the future? We all agree that EU will be conquered demographically by Islamists within a couple of generations, but what will the EU do? By the time the EU realizes that it is too late, EU will already have a high enough critical mass of native Muslims that cannot be deported. Currently only 50 million Muslims live in Europe.

My scenario, is very bleak: There will be a very nasty civil war with many millions of deaths in Europe after two decades. This "civil war" in Europe, within a few decades, will also involve Iran and possibly other nuclear Islamic countries that will support their Muslim friends in Europe.

Separately, within two decades, the demographic situation in Russia regarding Islam, will be even worse that Europe.

I would like to hear your scenarios about how exactly the WW III will be fought.

Dave said at May 9, 2008 6:39 PM:

Well I agree to some extent with Kenelm Digby. Its not really about Islam.
At the moment Europe is under going massive change because of 50 years of liberal immigration policies, and 'liberal' birth control which is pushed mostly at the natives and not to strong religious new communities.
But imagine that it wasn't Islam that was the largest growing 'new' group in Europe, imagine it was some other group of people coming into Europe and possibly displacing the natives over a period of time, would you be ok with that as long as it wasn't Muslims? I personally think we'd have the same issues regardlesss of who the majority of newcomers were, if we were having changes in demographics on this scale over such a short period of time.

But I think WWIII will be lost by the West unless it happens fairly soon. Much of Western Europe has a rapidly aging demographic who will not do anything to risk damaging the economy and wrecking the pension system, so it will be only once the conflict begins that these people will realise they need to do something, and by that time the demographics will be very unfavorable.

Derek said at May 9, 2008 8:14 PM:

I really wonder about the left sometimes... it's almost like they have a death wish for west.
Communism had failed so many times before the 20 century and yet they embraced it and tried to drive us all off that cliff.

Now they embrace Islam? It's so diametrically opposed to their own world view and yet they bring it into their hearts. And try to push it for everyone else.

Is it that they fear murders and thugs? When people are afraid of something they often make themselves subservient to it. Is that what’s going on here?

And yet west continues to dominate despite this death wish. Is that the secret of our success? Part of us must hate ourselves enough to continue to grow?

tommy said at May 9, 2008 8:55 PM:
I really wonder about the left sometimes... it's almost like they have a death wish for west. Communism had failed so many times before the 20 century and yet they embraced it and tried to drive us all off that cliff.

The Left is intellectually moribund. They seem to have nothing resembling a set of concrete guiding principles and instead rely upon emotionalism and a sort of vague utopianism to guide their course of action. Naturally, with the fall of Communism, they've come to embrace their own logical dead end: multiculturalism über alles. There isn't a feminist, Marxist, "homosexualist", secularist, peacenik, or even environmentalist cause that cannot and will not be sacrificed upon the altar of that Holy of Holies. Racism is easily the most heinous and unforgivable sin in the Bible of the Modern Left. The term "progressives" is a misnomer for these people: they should really be called the "regressives" since they would happily guide us into a new Dark Ages if only to satisfy their insatiable thirst for self-congratulation.

tommy said at May 9, 2008 9:01 PM:
I would like to hear your scenarios about how exactly the WW III will be fought.

If I had a strategy, it might be one so brutal and sinister that I wouldn't be sharing it over the internet. ;-)

I'm hoping against hope that we will not get to that point.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©