Talk:Scientology in France

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy about Conviction for fraud section

The two sources sited for the first paragraph, which looks like a Scientology advertisement, cite the same website, which is a pro-alternative medicine site according its own description, and there is no link to the actual court decision, and on the contrary, sources that say that Scientology lost the appeal can be found https://www.france24.com/en/20131016-french-scientologists-lose-appeal-fraud-conviction, so the first part of this section is quite problematic. RandomGamer123 Disc (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

a honest question

is there any information of the court files when church was first convicted in france? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.210.84 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What did they do?

So I'm as big a critic of Scientology's crimes against innocent victims as anyone, but this page seems a bit slanted to me. Perhaps we could have more about what /specifically/ the "Church" did? If I didn't know better about Co$ I could almost buy the Church bullshit about this being persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.176.105 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• as I understand it, they were charged for handing out or perhaps even pushing prescription drugs on their followers, without the proper authority to do so. 71.111.190.19 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Freemasons

Some critics of French policy on sects have complained that the Freemasons have never been mentioned in official government reports on the matter, presumably because Masonic groups like the Grand Orient of France exercize strong pressures on the national government itself. Some have even claimed that the entire witch hunt against cults is actually a kind of Masonic Inquisition destined to remove possible competition among sects that seek possible candidates for progressive illumination. [1] ADM (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Some critics"? Who? Scientologists? "Some have even claimed"? Well, "some have claimed that you're spouting nonsense" (yep, I did so right there, so technically, I'm correct). Your conspiracy-mongering leads "some to suspect" (that is to say, me) that you're both a conspiracy propagator and a Scientologist-apologist; the two may be more closely linked than many realize. Sorry I can't take your link to the unsigned, unsourced nonsense on "NewsNours.com" too seriously, but I got distracted by its "All Anti-Sarkozy, All the Time" screeds. Let me know when that axe you're grinding is finally sharp. Bricology (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognition as a religion

The French government does not grant recognition to religions; it is actually prohibited from doing so under the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, article 2 ("The Republic recognizes, salaries or subsidizes no religion"). Instead, some government organizations recognize some private organizations as organizations supporting religious worship. The criteria for such recognition have nothing to do with theology, and are more of an administrative and financial nature (e.g. the organization must solely support religious worship and not have side activities, especially commercial ones).

This is why it is very wrong to start by saying that the French government does not recognize Scientology as a religion. David.Monniaux (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

fraud allegations may have an impact to the whole religious question globally religion independent.

By accusing any religion or sect or theology or ideology (of fraud) you in effect go into the path of actually putting logic and reason to every aspect of life. If any "official" Christian religion in France or Elsewhere says to its people Devil will eat your soul and this treatment by the church will save your dirty soul it is in effect fraud in the eyes of a reasoned individual especially if it involves - at least indirectly - the loss of personal wealth and the increase of wealth of the church (indirect wealth can be easily proven by such practices in every church). Hence, this article should not take monopoly of this situation, wikipedia should have a place/article to discuss this decision/way of thinking with huge implications elsewhere in a more general place since it is clearly not limited to scientology. --Leladax (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I THINK the prosecutor's point is not that they took/accepted money from people (like anyone else does as you said) but that they did that in an illegal way (somehow forcing them). I think (at least that's what I understood from the article) that the fraud was against "methods of harassment" not against requesting money. I go to church (well ... once in a while) and (no names), yes, I see a basket passing in front of me BUT I haven't noticed any difference in reaction of people/church/priests when I put something there and when I don't. I hope you'll get my point. Also, on the other hand, there should be a more strict difference between attitudes towards harassing and towards beliefs. Anyone is free to accept any cult no matter how stupid it might sound from someone else's point of view but that should be out of his/her free will. Believing just like leaving or giving money or preaching or any other activity connected to the cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.44.87 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I saw that on 28 October 2009, this page was linked-to from the Wikipedia english home page in a "current news" item. After going to this link, then looking at the whole page linked-to (this page), I found this phrase after the first paragrarh in the Legal Status sections, with several blank lines before and after:

Diamond from pirate is awesome forever

It appears to have nothing to do with anything on the page, and so therefore appears to be vandalism, possibly directly related to it being a current news item -- although I'm not entirely positive. I removed the phrase and cleaned up the article when I saw it. 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.201.220 (talk)

Diffamation : the Church comments

Hello, are the Church final comments as "France is pretty much in the Dark Ages on the subject of religious tolerance" & "in total violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and French constitutional guarantees on freedom" acceptable ? I looks such statement as naive diffamation, which should not stay on wikipedia. Yug (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutralised, I replaced most the "the Church's lawyer state that they will [win, wipe the fine, etc.]" by "claims".

To be clear: we state facts ; we give opinion on the future. Not to mix up. Yug (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wording in 2nd paragraph of 2nd section

It says "Since 1995, France has classified the Scientology as a sect (or cult) as seen in the report of the National Assembly of France." I added the bolding. That wording does not sound right. Are they talking about just the French Church of Scientology? Or, are they talking about the whole of Scientology overall? Either way, that should be reworded.--Rockfang (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

French ban?

According to DOAJ free paper, "in France, “The Order of the Temple of Sun” and so-called Church of Scientology have been banned lately, while in Italy there have been close monitoring and controlling of occult religious organization going on."

It has to be verified with a translation from Serbian into English, not yet available.Philosopher81sp (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yLc3T9Xn?url=http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html to http://www.sptimes.com/News/32999/Worldandnation/Abroad__Critics_publi.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5o4YGXMBa?url=http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf to http://www.umhb.edu/files/academics/crl/publications/articles/the_church_of_scientologypursuit_of_legal_recognition.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506140937/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2371180.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)