David --

This is a wonderful piece, and one of the few I've come across that has its facts straight. Much of the coverage I've seen here in the states paints Germany as the villain in all this.

The "church" of Scientology is an insidious cult that effectively uses its vast wealth to squelch any and all who dare criticize it. I've always admired the German government for their stance against them.

Thanks, FB. I've stopped counting the number of times I've seen variations of "Germany Bans Cruise Film" in the headlines today. Ridiculously irresponsible.

Great piece, David. Thanks for adding some much-needed context to the sensationalism.

As an atheist and not a Scientologist, I can't help but smile when German officials accuse Scientology of brain washing and totalitarianism. I have no love for Scientology, but how well the official German response about the evils of the 'cult' applies to, say, the Catholic Church or a Baptist organization or orthodox Jewish sects or a Muslim madras, etc.

Frankly, free speech means defending those people with whom you don't agree. All of the above mentioned 'official' religions have been involved in murderous wars, but what has Scientology done other than "take people's money" as the Germans keep saying? If you don't like that, then ban organized religion in general, and since when do you care who Tom Cruise gives his money to? It seems like Germany still has a thing to learn about tolerance.

Plus, If they had let them film, there wouldn't even be a controversy.

There are worlds of differences between the CoS and the organized religions you name.

And again: Germany has not banned the film or its production in the country. Authorities will simply avoid the perception of giving their blessing by granting permission to shoot on locations they oversee.

Long Live Germany and Long Live Psychiatry.Psychiatry every day saves millions of lives.On the contrary,scientology contributes substantially to untreated mental disorders and consequently to deaths,crimes and so on...I couldn't agree more...Germans are the best:-)

I never said they banned the film. You do not cite anyone who ever said the film was banned. The production was banned from filming in certain locations, as the Post states, which may or not be the German government's right depending on how German law is structured.

However, it's the publicly stated reasons for the shooting ban that has led some, including myself and many others, to see this as a dangerous position for a government to take. Especially a government with the history it has.

What gives any government the right to decide a group is a dangerous cult and another group a great, helpful religion? On what criterion is the state to judge? Taking money? Christianity does that. Extreme devotion? All major book religions have that? Irrationalism? Come now. As far as I know, Scientology hasn't started a Crusade or plowed planes into any tall buildings.

On another blog ( http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/06/is_germany_right_to_ban_tom_cruises_film.html ) somebody called "Biskieboo" posted :
"This is the relevant bit:

"Germany's longstanding refusal to recognise Scientology as a religion, instead officially classing it as a business"

which seems totally fair to me. Scientology is not banned in Germany, it is just correctly classified."
- He's right.

Jerry, this line of argument is precisely why Scientology wants to be classified as a religion. Which Germany refuses to do. I understand that you, too, are not referring to Scientology as a religion, but rather, as "a group," but this "group" has managed to get itself corralled in the same mental category regardless.

I'm afraid I'm going to regret this, but... a couple of questions. You refer to the current government in Germany and "the history it has." So which similarities, specifically, which through-lines, exactly, between Hitler's National Socialists and Merkel's grand coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats make Jung's decision so frightfully "dangerous"?

Second, could there possibly be, in your view, any group of any persuasion, be it religious, political or all or none of the above, that might warrant particular scrutiny and concern on the part of any government charged with the protection of its citizens?

Meanwhile, Danny Leigh has a very fine entry on all this at the Guardian's film blog and it is, of course, drawing a wide range of comments.

Thanks, Hurz. Looks like we were both tracking Danny Leigh's entry at about the same time.

David Hudson: "Could there possibly be... any group of any persuasion... that might warrant particular scrutiny and concern on the part of any government charged with the protection of its citizens?"

Charged with the protection of its citizens? From _Scientology_? Are you kidding?

We should see any government investigation, financially audit, or attempt to declare a any group dangerous as highly suspect, and should assume the group is innocent until proven guilty.

The criteria for guilt should be exceptionally high. Unless Scientology turns into the Red Brigades or Al Qaeda, I rather doubt they will ever meet the necessary criteria.

To be clear: this has to do with government officials going to the media and calling a particular group "dangerous." If so, they should prove it. To argue against requiring proof would be illiberal, if not authoritarian.

Just because you and the other readers of this blog (probably rightfully) see Cruise as a dolt and Scientology's belief's as kitsch, should not simple turn you against a vigorous defense of their right to not be slandered by a government as 'dangerous'.

The government is not doing this to 'protect you.' Please, it's frightening to think you would even take up the argument.

I was a Scientologist (left of my own accord) and have seen this from the inside. I don't dislike them but I decided I had what I wanted wanted to do other things. It has been over 10 years since I have been in any contact. Aside from getting mailings, which are a bit annoying, they have not been after me or harrased me in any way. So take that for what you will at least I have some first hand experience with the group which is probably more that many of the posters can say.

I saw a lot of people get helped and a few that didn't. Psychiatry is very threatened by Scientology, because they are competition and their main critic. The APA works very hard in the press to give Scientology a bad name They tend to do it covertly such as getting articles published by "disinterested journalists". I have no way of knowing, but this article could well have been written or paid for by the APA. I have seen such cases traced back to the APA more than once.

It is not generally known but anyone in journalism will tell you that articles in blogs, web sites magizines etc are mainly written by someone who never gets a by-line. A person from, say a toothpaste company will write an informative article that explains how to take care of your teeth, and incidently pushes tootpaste and in particluar the kind of toothpaste that is very like the one his company makes. This is sent to various newspapers, health magizines blogs and websites. Such places are generally understaffed and are hungry for such things. The article will be gone over by one of the writers who will alter it a bit to suit what s/he things the readers want and publish with his/her by-line. This is often used by different groups to spread "black-PR" about some group that they see as compitition or the enemy. Both Psychiatry and Scientology engage in this sort of thing against each other.

Scientology is not a cure-all but it does handle a lot of things and the majority of people who try it end up getting some benifit from it. Scientology may at times overstate their claims, but they do have something worthwhile for most people.

It is truely a religion with a very specific spiritual belief structure which they stick to and which is reflected in what they do. It does have a business side but so does any religion or they wouldn't survive. And believe me, if you compare them to the Catholic church the Scientologists know nothing about business.

There are plenty of annoying Scientologists who prosilitize, but you expect that of any religion. There are many more that don't.

One thing that makes Scientology frightening to many governments is that they can undo the brainwashing of their spys. (Yes, Virginia, Goverments do brainwash their own spys.) To my knowledge there has never been any threat to any government because of this, because the Scientologists have always kept what is said in their "sessions" confidential, and have stood up to governments, and at times their people have gone to jail to protect this confidentiality. However, just the fact that there could be sets politicians teeth on edge. The gradual acceptance of Scientology by world goverments has come from the fact that they have realized that the church is not a threat in this area.

Scientology does mess up with some of their people, when it is poorly or badly applied, but they don't electric shock, or drug or do brain operations so their failures are far fewer and far less damaging overall than Psychiatry.

In short, the Church of Scientoloty does have ways of improving peoples lives, it has successes, makes mistakes, has mainly well meaning people and some not so well meaning people in about the percentage that most groups do.

The majority of the major governments of the world have recognized it so why not Germany?

The world has been fairly quick to hold Scientology accountable for some of its abuses which is a good thing. On the other hand the world does not hold Psychiatry accountable to the same degree. In fact the main critic of psychiatry has been Scientology. In this sense alone they serve an important function. Psychiatry has done many good things but there have been abuses as well and without oversight from somewhere, these abuses will only get worse.

I do not know why Scientology is not recognized as a church in Germany. Germany is the place where psychiatry was invented. I am not a betting man but if I were, I'd bet that there is a psychiatrist behind it.

Well, this'll teach me. I haven't been going on the GC blog for a week or more and consequently missed the most interesting article of the year. As (almost) everyone else here did too, David, I want to congratulate you. Excellent piece--and done with your usual refusal to slam us over the head while still calling a spade a spade. How fine that we have someone based in Berlin who can set the record straight when every other American journalist seems content to repeat a peer's mistake, over and over and over.
And Francis (whose comment is above), Scientology may have worked out OK for you (although your piece does begin to sound like it might have been bought and paid for a certain group beginning with the letter "S"), but my own closest run-in with Scientology came 30 years ago when neighbors of mine were trying desperately to extricate themselves from this cult or religion (it's pretty much all the same to my mind) and were having one hell of a time doing so. I determined then to never allow this crap group anywhere near me or those I love and/or have any charge over. And I will contune to do this. The leopard, as they say, does not and can not change its spots.
Further: Your third paragraph needs rebuttal. So here it is, with the paragraph copied, and my answers in CAPS....
It is not generally known but anyone in journalism will tell you that articles in blogs, web sites magizines etc are mainly written by someone who never gets a by-line. HUH? I DON'T ANYONE WHO WILL TELL YOU THIS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF FINE BLOGS WITH HIGH JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS, AND THE GREENCINE DAILY BLOG IS ALONG THEM. AND IT IS BY-LINED, IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED. A person from, say a toothpaste company will write an informative article that explains how to take care of your teeth, and incidently pushes tootpaste and in particluar the kind of toothpaste that is very like the one his company makes. This is sent to various newspapers, health magizines blogs and websites. Such places are generally understaffed and are hungry for such things. SURE THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME BUT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHONG TO DO WITH MR. HUDSON'S ARTICLE. GREENCINE DOES NOT DIDDLE WITH THIS SORT OF FAUX NEWS. The article will be gone over by one of the writers who will alter it a bit to suit what s/he things the readers want and publish with his/her by-line. This is often used by different groups to spread "black-PR" about some group that they see as compitition or the enemy. Both Psychiatry and Scientology engage in this sort of thing against each other. IT CERTAINLY IS NOT JUST THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION THAT IS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW ARE AGAINST IT, AND SO ARE MANY, MANY POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT ANYONE WHO THINKS FOR HIM/HERSELF WOULD FIND THE SCIENTOLOGY CREDO DIFFICULT TO TOLERATE.

Once a cultist, always a cultist it appears. The very fact that you landed up in this cult in the first place says it all, Francis. Xenu shall reward you in the afterlife after all, yeah?

Once I was walking out of a bookstore carrying a book I just bought for a relative who was ill and I ran into Karen Black who used to be married to a friend of mine. She went on and on about how the book I was holding had helped her and all her friends, so I asked, "Do you have Diabetes?"

The book I had was about diabetics.

"Oh, I thought it was Dianetics! Well, you know there's help for that!" she said.

Francis wrote:
"The majority of the major governments of the world have recognized it so why not Germany? "

This is just not true. France and the UK (to name just a few) don't recognize Scientology as a religion either. How come noone makes a big stink about that?
Oh right, they don't have Germany's history...

For a more detailed account of Germany's view of Scientology read this:
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/background/scientology.html