Comments:Scientology branch in Germany drops legal fight against government surveillance
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Don't fuck with the Germans; they do what they want ask France
Keep it up Germany
editThe German government has every right to monitor these totalitarian groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.131.209 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
what gives the govt the right to monitor a religious group?Imind - (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- what makes a religious group exempt from monitoring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.159.2 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
i guess we need to discuss where our rights come from. however, avoiding this rather ambiguous question, can we not agree with an objective morality which says that the govt has no right to monitor its citizens? that there is, in fact, a right to privacy at least to a certain extent? having said this, and being admittedly ignorant of german law, i feel comfortable saying the german govt has no right to 'monitor' this group any more than it 'monitors' another, meaning it should, at least to some extent, have its due privacy. -Imind - (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about Raymond Hill's Opinion
editSpeculation about the reaction and stance of Scientology in relation to Germany should be removed from the article. Raymond Hill is a critic of scientology and his quotes have no bearing on this story. He may be an expect but all he can do is speculate. There should be a quote or maybe something from a scientology supporter, but not something from somone who is openly trying to mae the group look bad. I think articles like this, just make wikinews look like a complete joke with thier firm stance on continued Scientology bashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikinews is clearly run by Anonymous! FUCK YEAH SEAKING!! Let's show those scilons we're not gonna take their crap!! 96.252.61.169 —Preceding comment was added at 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikinews does not bash scientology, it simply writes about how others bash scientology —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.100.25.133 (talk • contribs)
- There is a counterpoint given from blogger Claire Hoffman. Cirt - (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)