CNN is reporting a move to ban Scientology in Germany, which some may greet with a degree of discomfort. Could Germany again be moving toward religious intolerance as a matter of official policy
Hardly.
If you read the German Federal Ministry of the Interior's 2004 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, for instance, specifically pages 266-275, you'll see a well-documented analysis of Scientology's insidiousness, which convincingly puts the lie to the cult's claim to be a group dedicated to the betterment of mankind. It is well worth a look, especially when you consider Germany's unique perspective on the dangers of embracing a cult of personality.
As the political season heats up, we are sure to hear more and more about religion in this country. The most recent—and to my ears, the most ridiculous—example is the bromide Mitt Romney shared with a group of evangelical Christians, which is as meaningless as it is offensive to free thinkers: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." (Beware, secularists: Religion is absolutely necessary for there to be freedom! Mitt Romney says so!) Interestingly, if you read the German report I refer to above, you'll see that L. Ron Hubbard's cult claims something remarkably similar.
There may be no official religious test for holding office on the federal level (the state level is another story), but there certainly is a religious test administered by the noisiest subset of the electorate. It is a troubling trend that continues largely due to the hands-off attitude many of us have toward questioning religion.
We are consumers of dirt, eager to learn every sordid detail in the lives of celebrities, but we are incongruously polite champions of privacy when it comes to the irrational religious beliefs of others. Further, Michael Richards and Duane "Dog" Chapman are pilloried (and rightly so) for their racist leanings, but Mitt Romney is respected for simply being a "man of faith," despite his faith being one that officially discriminated against blacks until 1978 and still maintains racially biased scriptural passages. (The Institute for Religious Research concluded in a 2003 report that in "Mormon scripture, dark skin is a sign of moral and spiritual inferiority and was given by God as a curse.")
The incuriousness that keeps us from questioning religious beliefs—our own or others'—must be defeated if modern, civilized culture is to survive and advance. What may look here to be an advocacy of intolerance is a move to forestall the evolution of an American theocracy, a fearful possibility that becomes more likely whenever we permit policy to be influenced by politicians' religious convictions.
The closer we get to becoming a society that elects its leaders based on their religious beliefs, the further we move from the intentions of this nation's Founding Fathers. Bear in mind that at least some of the very men who designed the democratic system we cherish would fail to meet the religious benchmark set by today's evangelical voter and would likely have no prayer of serving within it.
Hardly.
If you read the German Federal Ministry of the Interior's 2004 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, for instance, specifically pages 266-275, you'll see a well-documented analysis of Scientology's insidiousness, which convincingly puts the lie to the cult's claim to be a group dedicated to the betterment of mankind. It is well worth a look, especially when you consider Germany's unique perspective on the dangers of embracing a cult of personality.
As the political season heats up, we are sure to hear more and more about religion in this country. The most recent—and to my ears, the most ridiculous—example is the bromide Mitt Romney shared with a group of evangelical Christians, which is as meaningless as it is offensive to free thinkers: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." (Beware, secularists: Religion is absolutely necessary for there to be freedom! Mitt Romney says so!) Interestingly, if you read the German report I refer to above, you'll see that L. Ron Hubbard's cult claims something remarkably similar.
There may be no official religious test for holding office on the federal level (the state level is another story), but there certainly is a religious test administered by the noisiest subset of the electorate. It is a troubling trend that continues largely due to the hands-off attitude many of us have toward questioning religion.
We are consumers of dirt, eager to learn every sordid detail in the lives of celebrities, but we are incongruously polite champions of privacy when it comes to the irrational religious beliefs of others. Further, Michael Richards and Duane "Dog" Chapman are pilloried (and rightly so) for their racist leanings, but Mitt Romney is respected for simply being a "man of faith," despite his faith being one that officially discriminated against blacks until 1978 and still maintains racially biased scriptural passages. (The Institute for Religious Research concluded in a 2003 report that in "Mormon scripture, dark skin is a sign of moral and spiritual inferiority and was given by God as a curse.")
The incuriousness that keeps us from questioning religious beliefs—our own or others'—must be defeated if modern, civilized culture is to survive and advance. What may look here to be an advocacy of intolerance is a move to forestall the evolution of an American theocracy, a fearful possibility that becomes more likely whenever we permit policy to be influenced by politicians' religious convictions.
The closer we get to becoming a society that elects its leaders based on their religious beliefs, the further we move from the intentions of this nation's Founding Fathers. Bear in mind that at least some of the very men who designed the democratic system we cherish would fail to meet the religious benchmark set by today's evangelical voter and would likely have no prayer of serving within it.
