The topic Hoffman was addressing in her post happened to be Scientology. From personal experience I know that the subject of Scientology regularly results in angry-off-the point comments that contribute little to productive dialogue. (Note: comments off topic are regularly and [hopefully] hastily deleted from this site.) The challenge of the subject of Scientology is that some people believe they are an evil cult while others, those who believe in Scientology, believe it is all about achieving self-improvement.
Here's what Hoffman wrote about a German government official's comments that Scientology is "not compatible with the" German constitution:
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 AP reports that "The North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Administrative Court in Muenster refused last month to hear an appeal to a February ruling allowing the intelligence agencies to continue observing the Scientologists. . . .
Ban Scientology? Doesn't that seem kind of extreme? They are a religion largely focused on self-improvement. While I'm well aware of their checkered past, decrying it unconstitutional seems like a threatened position to take by a nation.
It is unconstitutional because it is a self-help organization, which claims to be a "religion" and is exempt from US taxes. If KBR (Halliburton) did this, you would all be up-in-arms.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |