Germany: 1 Scientology: 0

Again this has nothing to do with the issue. They can refuse to recognize whatever the hell they want, it doesn't stop people having those beliefs, and it doesn't change that they are refusing on the basis of those beliefs. If they want to charge him with fraud go ahead if that's what they believe it to be. If they consider him in some way morally flawed then fine. I do not have a problem with them not recognizing it.
What that has to do with filming a movie however is absolutely nothing and using those beliefs as a basis for a decision is something I consider to be dangerous. Don't confuse not diluting the issue with not understanding it, this is an entirely seperate issue to if scientology should be recognized.
I accept the military can deny people access to their bases for whatever reason they like as they are not public facilities, right down to reasons of the colour of someones skin if they desire. I'm questioning how dangerous this is. There would be uproar if it was because of an official religion. Or because he's short, or brown haired or white. The only basis anyone finds this acceptable is because of their views against scientology, which, whilst possibly being justified, doesn't make denying filming a movie acceptable.

Southpark is a comedy show, lightheartedly it makes fun of EVERYTHING, Jews, Osama Bin Laden, Canada, and none of those episodes were pulled. Why would I think the scientology one should be? It's not special. Of course he is free to say what he likes, but it shouldn't be pulled on the special basis of his beliefs. Same as he shouldn't be refused a location on the basis of them. Not entirely sure why you mention it, unless perhaps you think I'm a scientologist and would be offended by it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm still anxious to see how this pans out. I just reread the article and it looks like they don't want Cruise, who is affiliated with a 'religion' that Germany thinks is a scam, playing Stauffenberg; a figure that Germany holds in such high regard. It looks to be about reputation and representation here.
I neither agree, nor disagree with Germany's stance on Cruise playing Stauffenberg, but I do agree with them on their views of Scientology.

Even though the original airing wasn't pulled, because I saw it and it was fukin hilarious, the scheduled subsequent airings of it were initially pulled before Trey and Matt told CC to put that shit back on the air or they weren't making anymore episodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park)

Cliff notes:

Even Cruise is smart enough to deny something like that. He would have been on most, if not all SP fans' shit lists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did read in a different source that a family member of Stauffenberg(grandson?) was unhappy at Cruise playing the role because of his beliefs, which perhaps the rest of Germany agrees with. I think they're free to boycott the cinema and refuse to see the movie, but where to draw the line? I think individuals can make that choice, but a government should be impartial. Why don't they just outright ban the movie in Germany?(I highly doubt they will). As I said earlier I don't think they'll follow through with this refusal or they will look very hypocritical at some point.
I agree with your last two lines, but that's why I don't consider it reasonable to prevent filming on location, it's just a movie and he's just a part.

Quite right that Trey and Matt would say that. They've done everything else on Southpark and when it came round to Isaac Hayes' turn he quit. If you can't take it don't dish it out. I'd only back him up if he felt his beliefs had been grossly misrepresented and would be influential in some way to peoples views. Most people will realise it's not true and just comedy though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is not about his beliefs, but the organisation he is a member of. His beliefs aren't litigious, mind controlling, and profit oriented, his organisation is.

 

Please explain how religions like Christianity or Islam fit this description.

 

Well, the Church of England has assets mounting to nearly £4Bn, and spends nearly £1Bn a year, so generates that in revenue from it's holdings. I would say therefore it fits the description.

 

I don't need to , George Carlin did it perfectly:

 

France is looking to ban scientology

A government committee in France has recommended dissolving the Church of Scientology there, on the grounds that its activities threatens public order.
http://www.raids.org/banfran5.htm
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/635986.stm

 

The organisation they have a problem with him being a member of is scientology, which as I recall has a belief system, his movie has nothing to do with that so why should they base their decision on it? His organisation has no part in this movie only him, so yes, they ARE doing this specifically because of his beliefs; which is entirely wrong and sets a bad precedent.
There is a fine line between scientology and some religions when it comes to mind controlling and profit making, as I believe has been pointed out in this thread. Either way, it is no basis for making the decision they have regarding this movie.

 

they put up a disclamier when talking of scientologys beliefs so people wouldn't think they were making anything up. they stated the groups real beliefs with a diclamier on screen saying they were not making this up and it was real.

 

Ha don't forget Mormonism.

Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

 

thats exactly the first thing i said when i found out about it, spot on.

peace.

 

Scientology is a business over a belief system. Germany can do what it wants when we are talking about allowing access to a military base. They aren't disbarring Cruise from entering the country, just a secure installation, so get a grip.

 

I think you'd find I wrote most of that earlier. Yet still nobody has come up with a reason why they should base a decision like this on beliefs, looks, or even affiliations. Economic reasons, practicality, security, there are, I'm sure, many more criteria to base the decision on.
I don't believe the way someone looks or what they believe should come into it however I accepted the military can do what they like with regards to base access as it is not public, but I also pointed out that if they had denied access on the basis of anything else then you'd all be up in arms about it for discrimination reasons; Regardless of whether or not it is their prerogative. Unfortunately this is exactly the precedent for the future they have now set and you're defending it when I highly doubt you'd allow it with regards to others.
The simple fact is you dislike scientology and agree with them on this sole basis, not your objective ability to look at the subject at hand, which you don't seem to deny so we'll have to leave it at that. I don't need to get a grip on anything as I've covered both sides of the arguement, I merely dislike your blatant hypocrisy and bias.