Statement by UK Charity Commission on Scientology
Chris Owen
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
The Church of Scientology (the Church) is an international organisation
which promotes a belief system, doctrines and practices known as
Scientology. The international headquarters of the Church are in the
United States, but assets which are owned by the Church in this country
are currently held and administered by a branch of the Church incorporated
in Australia. The Church has now established a company incorporated under
the Companies Acts and limited by guarantee called Church of Scientology
(England and Wales) (CoS) to further its work in this country. In
September 1996, CoS applied to the Commission for registration as a
charity pursuant to section 3(2) of the Charities Act 1993. Since that
date CoS has had a regular dialogue with the Commission about the
application.
The application made by CoS was supported by a full legal and factual case
and expert evidence. CoS argues that it is a body established for the
charitable purpose of the advancement of religion under the third head of
charity law, or, in the alternative, if not so established, that it is
established for a charitable purpose which promotes the moral or spiritual
welfare or improvement of the community under the fourth head of charity
law. Whether under the third head or fourth head of charity law, CoS
argues that it is established for the public benefit.
A significant element in the application made by CoS is that the
Commissioners ought to have regard to the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR), which is not directly applicable until the Human Rights Act
1998 (HRA) is in force. This is likely to be in October 2000. Once the HRA
is implemented, it will be unlawful for the Commissioners, as a public
authority, to act in a way incompatible with ECHR. This would include
decisions of the Commissioners with regard to the registration of
charities. Any common law authorities would accordingly need to be
interpreted in a way consistent with ECHR as interpreted by case law of
the European Court of Human Rights and opinions and decisions of the
European Commission. Until the HRA is in force, the Commissioners are
under no clear legal obligation to take into account ECHR in considering
issues related to charitable status and accordingly the registration of
charities.
The Commissioners however decided that as a matter of good practice,
prudence and indirect legal obligation, they would, in considering CoS’s
application for registration as a charity, construe the relevant legal
authorities, where they were ambiguous, in a way compatible with ECHR and
would otherwise take a broad and flexible approach to the relevant legal
authorities in keeping with their policy and practice concerning the
recognition of new charitable purposes as set out in the Report of the
Charity Commissioners for 1985 at paras. 24-27.
The Commissioners having considered the full legal and factual case put to
them by CoS, and having reviewed the relevant law, taking into account the
principles embodied in ECHR where appropriate, decided that CoS was not
established for charitable purposes or for the public benefit and was
therefore not registrable as a charity under section 3(2) of the Charities
Act 1993.
In making that determination the Commissioners further concluded as
follows:
(1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
purposes of English charity law.
(a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
(c) The Commissioners decided that the criterion of worship would be met
where the belief in a supreme being found its expression in conduct
indicative of reverence or veneration for the supreme being. R v Registrar
General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2QB, 697 Winn LJ at p. 709A. It was not
possible to worship an ethical or philosophical ideal with reverence. Re
South Place Ethical Society, Dillon J at p.1573A. Worship may manifest
itself in particular activities which might include acts of submission,
veneration, praise, thanksgiving, prayer or intercession. R v Registrar
General ex parte Segerdal, Buckley LJ at p. 709 F-G. The Commissioners
having considered the activities of auditing and training, which
Scientology regards as its worship, concluded that auditing is more akin
to therapy or counselling and training more akin to study and that both
auditing and training are not in their essence exhibitions of reverence
paid to a supreme being and such Scientology practices are not worship for
the purposes of charity law.
The Commissioners decided that auditing and training do not constitute
worship as defined and interpreted from the legal authorities.
(2) That CoS was not established for the charitable purpose of promoting
the moral or spiritual welfare and improvement of the community.
(a) The Commissioners considered that CoS was not analogous to the
established legal authorities which governed this area of the law. Re
Scowcroft [1898] 2 Ch 638, Re Hood [1931] 1 Ch 240, Re Price [1943] Ch
422, Re South Place Ethical Society. They concluded CoS was not analogous
to the decided cases because it promoted a formal and highly structured
system of belief (which it regarded as a religion), necessitating
membership of or adherence to a particular organisation for access to or
participation in its doctrines, practices and beliefs such that these were
not generally available to the public at large. However the Commissioners
further concluded that these legal authorities were ambiguous.
(b) The Commissioners considered and interpreted these authorities
compatibly with ECHR and concluded that the key aspects of the charitable
purpose of promoting the moral and spiritual welfare or improvement of the
community which could be discerned from these authorities was that the
doctrines, beliefs and practices involved were generally accessible to the
public and capable of being applied or adopted by them according to
individual judgement or choice from time to time in such a way that the
moral and spiritual welfare or improvement of the community might result.
Re Price, Cohen J at p. 432. Accordingly, the Commissioners concluded, it
would be possible for non-religious belief systems promoted by a
membership organisation to be established for such a purpose if those
criteria were satisfied.
(c) The Commissioners considered in relation to the doctrines and
practices of CoS whether these were so accessible and capable of such
application, but concluded that because of the nature and organised
practice of the beliefs of Scientology they were on balance neither so
accessible nor could be so applied such that the moral and spiritual
welfare or improvement of the community might result.
(3) That CoS was not established for the public benefit.
In considering the legal test applied to organisations established for
purposes falling within the first three heads of charity law in that they
were entitled to the presumption of public benefit and the different legal
test applied to the fourth head of charity law where public benefit had to
be demonstrated, the Commissioners considered that such a distinction
between the legal tests was consistent with ECHR. Public benefit was a
requirement of charity and needed to be established in every case. Public
benefit was therefore considered on a case by case basis. Under the first
three heads of charity, it had been established that public benefit was
presumed to exist although in individual cases it may need to be proved if
there was evidence to the contrary. For the fourth head of charity, public
benefit needed to be established although there were cases where it may be
self evident and need not be proved.
The Commissioners considered whether if CoS had been established for the
charitable purpose of advancing religion, it was also established for the
public benefit.
The Commissioners considered the presumption of public benefit applicable
to organisations established for the advancement of religion. They
concluded that, as in the case of all organisations established for
charitable purposes, public benefit had to be present in fact for an
organisation established for the advancement of religion to be charitable.
Coats v Gilmour CA [1948] Ch 340, Lord Greene MR at p. 344. They further
considered that in the case of such organisations, the presumption may be
rebutted by evidence indicating public benefit may not be present and such
evidence was not confined to evidence suggesting that the organisation was
adverse to religion or subversive of morality. Coats v Gilmour, C.A., Lord
Greene MR at p. 345, In re Hetherington, decd. [1990] Ch 1, Sir Nicholas
Browne-Wilkinson V.C. at p. 12 D-G.
The Commissioners decided that in the case of CoS, the relative newness of
Scientology and the judicial and public concerns which had been expressed
about its beliefs and practices, led them to conclude that it should not
be entitled to the presumption of public benefit. Accordingly, it was for
CoS to demonstrate that it was established for the public benefit.
The Commissioners considered the legal test of public benefit to be
applied to organisations established for the advancement of religion. They
concluded that where the practice of religion is essentially private, or
is limited to a private class of individuals not extending to the public
generally, the element of public benefit will not be established. In re
Hetherington, decd., Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V.C. at p. 12 D-G,
Coats v Gilmour CA, Lord Evershed at p. 357. The Commissioners considered
that this test must be applied to the core practices of such an
organisation and not to incidental activities or other activities which
may already be regarded as charitable.
After reviewing the practices of auditing and training, considered by CoS
to be the central features of the practice of Scientology, the
Commissioners considered that these are in fact conducted in private and
not in public and that in their very nature are private rather than public
activities such that no legally recognised benefit could be said to be
conferred on the public. It could not be concluded that the benefits of
the practice of Scientology extended beyond the participants. Accordingly
public benefit was not established.
The Commissioners went on to consider whether, if CoS had been established
for a charitable purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or
improvement of the community, it was also established for the public
benefit. The Commissioners considered that it was for CoS to establish
public benefit as this was a purpose falling within the fourth head of
charity law. The Commissioners considered the relevant legal test of
public benefit to be applied to organisations established under the fourth
head of charity. The Commissioners concluded that the test was that the
whole tendency of charity in the legal sense under the fourth head is
towards tangible and objective benefits but that in the case of an
intangible benefit that at least approval by the common understanding of
enlightened opinion for the time being would be necessary before an
intangible benefit could be taken to constitute sufficient benefit to the
community. National Anti Vivisection Society v IRC [1948] AC 31, Lord
Wright at p. 49. The Commissioners considered that in the case of the
purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the
community, and thus of CoS, the issue was one of intangible benefit and
that in relation to intangible benefit the Commissioners considered the
legal test to refer to a common consensus of opinion amongst people who
were fair minded and free from prejudice or bias.
The Commissioners considered the core practices of Scientology, namely
auditing and training, and concluded that the private conduct and nature
of these practices together with their general lack of accessibility meant
that the benefits were of a personal as opposed to a public nature.
Accordingly, following the legal test referred to above, public benefit
had not been established.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Alec
Chris Owen wrote in message ...
>CHARITY COMMISSION
>
>DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>
>APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>The Commissioners considered the core practices of Scientology, namely
>auditing and training, and concluded that the private conduct and nature
>of these practices together with their general lack of accessibility meant
>that the benefits were of a personal as opposed to a public nature.
>Accordingly, following the legal test referred to above, public benefit
>had not been established.
Quick. Someone tell the United Snakes of Amerca.
Thaddeus J. Beier
>
> CHARITY COMMISSION
>
> DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>
> APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
> REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>
>
......snip rationale and description of application
> In making that determination the Commissioners further concluded as
> follows:
>
> (1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
> charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
> to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
> purposes of English charity law.
>
> (a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
> the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
> construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
> that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
> being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
> Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
> E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
> broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
> it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
> require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
> religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
> reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
> of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
>
> The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
>
.... snip correct finding that the Scn do not confer a public benefit
I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
thad
Gerry Armstrong
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>CHARITY COMMISSION
>
>DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>
>APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
<snip>
> The Commissioners
>having considered the activities of auditing and training, which
>Scientology regards as its worship, concluded that auditing is more akin
>to therapy or counselling
There you are $cientology and $cientologists. Admit it, you are
practicing psychotherapy. Your "tech" is a "school" of psychology.
> and training more akin to study and that both
>auditing and training are not in their essence exhibitions of reverence
>paid to a supreme being and such Scientology practices are not worship for
>the purposes of charity law.
Amen. Oh, $cientologists, tell us how auditing is religious worship.
>
>The Commissioners decided that auditing and training do not constitute
>worship as defined and interpreted from the legal authorities.
<snip>
>
>(3) That CoS was not established for the public benefit.
Say amen to that too.
<snip>
>
>The Commissioners decided that in the case of CoS, the relative newness of
>Scientology and the judicial and public concerns which had been expressed
>about its beliefs and practices, led them to conclude that it should not
>be entitled to the presumption of public benefit. Accordingly, it was for
>CoS to demonstrate that it was established for the public benefit.
Cool. Let's see $cientology do that. Oh yes, the wogs want fair game
for their own good.
>
>The Commissioners considered the legal test of public benefit to be
>applied to organisations established for the advancement of religion. They
>concluded that where the practice of religion is essentially private, or
>is limited to a private class of individuals not extending to the public
>generally, the element of public benefit will not be established. In re
>Hetherington, decd., Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V.C. at p. 12 D-G,
>Coats v Gilmour CA, Lord Evershed at p. 357. The Commissioners considered
>that this test must be applied to the core practices of such an
>organisation and not to incidental activities or other activities which
>may already be regarded as charitable.
These Commissioners, from what I've read so far, did their job. VWD.
>
>After reviewing the practices of auditing and training, considered by CoS
>to be the central features of the practice of Scientology, the
>Commissioners considered that these are in fact conducted in private and
>not in public and that in their very nature are private rather than public
>activities such that no legally recognised benefit could be said to be
>conferred on the public.
That is very funny.
>It could not be concluded that the benefits of
>the practice of Scientology extended beyond the participants. Accordingly
>public benefit was not established.
They'll have to do more charity work. They'll have to teach a few
million English kids to read. Wait, even doing that doesn't help them.
They've hung their cross on auditing.
>
>The Commissioners went on to consider whether, if CoS had been established
>for a charitable purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or
>improvement of the community, it was also established for the public
>benefit. The Commissioners considered that it was for CoS to establish
>public benefit as this was a purpose falling within the fourth head of
>charity law. The Commissioners considered the relevant legal test of
>public benefit to be applied to organisations established under the fourth
>head of charity. The Commissioners concluded that the test was that the
>whole tendency of charity in the legal sense under the fourth head is
>towards tangible and objective benefits but that in the case of an
>intangible benefit that at least approval by the common understanding of
>enlightened opinion for the time being would be necessary before an
>intangible benefit could be taken to constitute sufficient benefit to the
>community. National Anti Vivisection Society v IRC [1948] AC 31, Lord
>Wright at p. 49.
Ah, the old intangible "$cientology works" benefit.
> The Commissioners considered that in the case of the
>purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the
>community,
And $cientologists wonder why their organization's moral or spiritual
condition is of such interest to us. $cientology operates like a moral
or spiritual cancer on the community.
>and thus of CoS, the issue was one of intangible benefit and
>that in relation to intangible benefit the Commissioners considered the
>legal test to refer to a common consensus of opinion amongst people who
>were fair minded and free from prejudice or bias.
There's a test $cientology never wants to take. To $cientology, the
fair minded are fair game.
>
>The Commissioners considered the core practices of Scientology, namely
>auditing and training, and concluded that the private conduct and nature
>of these practices together with their general lack of accessibility meant
>that the benefits were of a personal as opposed to a public nature.
>Accordingly, following the legal test referred to above, public benefit
>had not been established.
Thank you. This is a memorable document. A big day for the Brits.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Chris Owen
<th...@hammerhead.com> writes
>Chris Owen wrote:
>>
>> CHARITY COMMISSION
>>
>> DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>>
>> APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>> REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>>
>>
>
>
>> follows:
>>
>> (1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
>> charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
>> to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
>> purposes of English charity law.
>>
>> (a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
>> the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
>> construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
>> that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
>> being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
>> Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
>> E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
>> broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
>> it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
>> require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
>> religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
>> reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
>> of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
>>
>> The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
>>
>
>
>I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
>believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
>straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
They've evidently fallen for the line about the "Eighth Dynamic".
Nothing to do with Xenu. Scientology *does* have a little corner of
belief for God, but it appears to be purely theoretical.
Phil Scott
<th...@hammerhead.com> wrote:
>Chris Owen wrote:
>>
>> CHARITY COMMISSION
>>
>> DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>>
>> APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>> REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>>
>>
>
>......snip rationale and description of application
>
>> In making that determination the Commissioners further concluded as
>> follows:
>>
>> (1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
>> charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
>> to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
>> purposes of English charity law.
>>
>> (a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
>> the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
>> construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
>> that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
>> being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
>> Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
>> E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
>> broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
>> it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
>> require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
>> religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
>> reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
>> of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
>>
>> The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
>>
>.... snip correct finding that the Scn do not confer a public benefit
>
>
>I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
>believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
>straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
>
Hubbard gives thin lip service to the existence of a supreme being via
his technical dictionary definitions, but there is no further address
in any of his processing. On exchange by dynamics at flag, when we
finished the 7th the dynamic they wanted me to attest! I said what
about the 8th! They sent me to ethics and tried to talk me out of
doing exchange by dynamics on the 8th dynamic.
I ended up prevailing and did that dynamic. Stunning results, that
may have been the point at which it became obvious to me that hubbard
was er....a bit of a problem.
Best Regards, Phil Scott
>thad
Gerry Armstrong
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38502691...@hammerhead.com>, Thaddeus J. Beier
><th...@hammerhead.com> writes
>>Chris Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> CHARITY COMMISSION
>>>
>>> DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>>>
>>> APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>>> REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>>>
>>>
>>
>>......snip rationale and description of application
>>
>>> In making that determination the Commissioners further concluded as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> (1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
>>> charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
>>> to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
>>> purposes of English charity law.
>>>
>>> (a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
>>> the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
>>> construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
>>> that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
>>> being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
>>> Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
>>> E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
>>> broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
>>> it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
>>> require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
>>> religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
>>> reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
>>> of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
>>>
>>> The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
>>>
>>.... snip correct finding that the Scn do not confer a public benefit
>>
>>
>>I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
>>believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
>>straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
>
>They've evidently fallen for the line about the "Eighth Dynamic".
>Nothing to do with Xenu. Scientology *does* have a little corner of
>belief for God, but it appears to be purely theoretical.
You are drilled from your day of entry that $cientology does not
consider the eighth dynamic, that is to say, God. So it could be that
God to $cientology and $cientologists is "purely theoretical," but
whatever God is, theoretical or real or a maybe, $cientology and
$cientologists do not include Him. $cientology is actually an effort
to exclude God from philosophy, psychotherapy, education, religion,
and as the $cientologists would say, livingness.
$cientology is utterly cynical on the Subject of God. But heh,
$cientology is utterly cynical on any number of subjects.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Hartley Patterson
> I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
> believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
> straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
See, for example, the Creed of the CoS, written by Hubbard, which
mentions God twice. It was written by Hubbard in imitation of the Creeds
of some Christian denominations, but as usual he hadn't bothered to
research the subject and what he produced isn't a Creed at all.
What the CoS says is that it has no beliefs about the nature of God (the
Creed contradicts this), then pretends that other religions are *only*
concerned with theology and the nature of God and therefore that
scientology is compatible with other religions.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta, how to outrun
Thread and some riddles preciousss....
Hartley Patterson
> > The Commissioners
> >having considered the activities of auditing and training, which
> >Scientology regards as its worship, concluded that auditing is more akin
> >to therapy or counselling
>
> There you are $cientology and $cientologists. Admit it, you are
> practicing psychotherapy. Your "tech" is a "school" of psychology.
Our friends the academic cult apologists redefined 'worship' to
specifically include auditing. It's good to see that the Commissioners,
like Lord Denning before them, could see through this.
> > and training more akin to study and that both
> >auditing and training are not in their essence exhibitions of reverence
> >paid to a supreme being and such Scientology practices are not worship for
> >the purposes of charity law.
We should perhaps explain that the Commissioners are, like the IRS in
the USA, working with laws that are long overdue for revision, dating
from a time when all religions worshipped in the traditional sense. The
politicians are under no circumstances going to open this can of worms
and revise the law however, it would cost a fortune and earn them no
friends and lots of enemies.
> Thank you. This is a memorable document. A big day for the Brits.
To be honest we were seriously worried the CoS would win this one, and
certainly we didn't expect such a forthright rejection. Thanks to all in
the UK and elsewhere for their support.
There doesn't seem to be much room for appeal either, though that won't
stop Graeme Wilson and CoS(UK) from throwing away more money as they did
in the Bonnie Woods case. I predict some nasty attacks on the Charity
Commissioners which will only succeed in convincing them that they made
the right decision.
Dave Bird
>CHARITY COMMISSION
>DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONERS
>
>APPLICATION BY THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY (ENGLAND AND WALES) FOR
>REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY
>
>The Church of Scientology (the Church) is an international organisation
>September 1996, CoS applied to the Commission for registration as a
>charity pursuant to section 3(2) of the Charities Act 1993. Since that
>date CoS has had a regular dialogue with the Commission about the
>application.
>The application made by CoS was supported by a full legal and
>factual case and expert evidence.
>(A) that it is a body established for the charitable purpose of
>the advancement of religion under the third head of charity law,
> or,
>for a charitable purpose which promotes the moral or spiritual welfare
> AND
>whether under the third head or fourth head of charity law, CoS
>argues that it is established for the public benefit.
In arguing the above, none of "religious" or "welfare" or "public
benefit" exists because the petitioner in his own mind believes
and asserts it is so, but because at least reasonable members of
the public would accept it as so on objective grounds, and particularly
on the basis of law and precedent; Scientology is given to believing
they are religious and ethical "because we say we are".
=======================================================================
>A significant element in the application made by CoS is that the
>Commissioners ought to have regard to the European Convention on Human
>Rights (ECHR),
[which broadly says you have to give people a right of natural justice
to argue and appeal their case, and you have to treat all religions on
an equal basis not favourable treatment for the big and influential
but unfavourable treatment for the small and obscure].
>The Commissioners having considered the full legal and factual case put to
>them by CoS, and having reviewed the relevant law, taking into account the
>principles embodied in ECHR where appropriate, decided that CoS was not
>established for charitable purposes or for the public benefit and was
>therefore not registrable as a charity under section 3(2) of the Charities
>Act 1993.
>In making that determination the Commissioners further concluded as
>follows:
>
>(1) That CoS is not charitable as an organisation established for the
>charitable purpose of the advancement of religion because, having regard
>to the relevant law and evidence, Scientology is not a religion for the
>purposes of English charity law.
...which states it very precisely; not that it isn't a religion
at all, but that -- under the precise definitions they have to
work with -- it is not eligible for a religious tax exemption.
>
>(a) The Commissioners considered that the legal authorities establishing
>the meaning of religion in charity law were ambiguous, but having
>construed such authorities in a way compatible with ECHR they concluded
>that the definition of religion was characterised by a belief in a supreme
>being and an expression of belief in that supreme being through worship.
>Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR1565, Dillon J at p. 1572 D-
Exactly so: that they hold and declare belief in a respected supreme
being which forms the main motive of their activity, and carry out
various actions which directly express their veneration for that being.
>E.(b) The Commissioners decided that the concept of a supreme being was
>broader than the theistic concept of a personal creator god, but otherwise
>it would not be proper to specify the precise nature of that concept or
>require it to be analogous to the deity or supreme being of any particular
>religion. However the Commissioners did not find themselves compelled to
>reject the concept of theism altogether nor to accept the abstract concept
>of the notion of a supernatural thing or principle.
>
>The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
I would say this is untrue both as to "believe in" and "supreme being".
The term "believe in" is being misused if it is meant to encapsulate
how a religion thinks and feels about its god. They hold a belief
in their deity as the central part of their religion, and immediately
declare it if asked "what is your religion about?".
Scientology at most "acknowledges the possible existence of a creator
being" without specifying what it is. The concept is not central to
their beliefs but is mentioned about 10 times in the 100 full-length
books forming their founder's writings. I believe the concept of
respect is inherent, and what mentions are made of a creator are
contemptuous rather than respectful.
The other part is "supreme being". This has to have some definition,
presumably that the creator is a higher kind of spirit than humans
(and who has the traditional attributes that they are all-knowing
all-seeing etcetera). But this is not so. The central part
of Scientology as Scientologists would express it is that human
beings ARE immortal spirits called thetans who happen to control
bodies, and that thetans control various alien bodies or live bodiless.
All are thetans; some have done more and some less, but all are the
same. This includes XEMU, a sort of Satan figure from their secret
myth of the fall "O.T.3", who is just a person occupying a body like
the rest of us. It includes any creator, who is depicted as being
punished for his evil act of creating the material world.
>(c) The Commissioners decided that the criterion of worship would be met
>where the belief in a supreme being found its expression in conduct
>indicative of reverence or veneration for the supreme being. R v Registrar
>General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2QB, 697 Winn LJ at p. 709A. It was not
>possible to worship an ethical or philosophical ideal with reverence. Re
>South Place Ethical Society, Dillon J at p.1573A. Worship may manifest
>itself in particular activities which might include acts of submission,
>veneration, praise, thanksgiving, prayer or intercession. R v Registrar
>General ex parte Segerdal, Buckley LJ at p. 709 F-G. The Commissioners
>having considered the activities of auditing and training, which
>Scientology regards as its worship, concluded that auditing is more akin
>to therapy or counselling and training more akin to study and that both
>auditing and training are not in their essence exhibitions of reverence
>paid to a supreme being and such Scientology practices are not worship for
>the purposes of charity law.
>
>The Commissioners decided that auditing and training do not constitute
>worship as defined and interpreted from the legal authorities.
Exactly. For an activity to be "worship" it must in some way be
contemplating or directed at the supreme being, and aimed at
expressing respect. Neither of these hold. No god is mentioned
in any of these activities nor thought about by the participants,
which do not express respect or anything else to the being they
do not mention. Auditing may be described as quack psychotherapy
or developing the individual spirit but god has no place in it.
Training is just training, it is not worship either.
>(2) That CoS was not established for the charitable purpose of promoting
>the moral or spiritual welfare and improvement of the community.
I would read this as
"promoting the moral welfare (crudely speaking, better and more
kindly behaviour) of the community; or the spiritual welfare
of the community (crudely speaking, religious awareness and
participation which is assume to be a good thing) of the
community; or the moral and educational improvement of
the community (moral improvement is covered earlier)."
The Commissioners main argument seems to be that nothing is
in practice communicated to the community.
>
>(a) The Commissioners considered that CoS was not analogous to the
>established legal authorities which governed this area of the law. Re
>Scowcroft [1898] 2 Ch 638, Re Hood [1931] 1 Ch 240, Re Price [1943] Ch
>422, Re South Place Ethical Society. They concluded CoS was not analogous
>to the decided cases because it promoted a formal and highly structured
>system of belief (which it regarded as a religion), necessitating
>membership of or adherence to a particular organisation for access to or
>participation in its doctrines, practices and beliefs such that these were
>not generally available to the public at large. However the Commissioners
>further concluded that these legal authorities were ambiguous.
It may be that raising the spiritual awareness of the community is
considered, in and of itself, to be inherently for the public good;
and it may be that "spiritual" (concerning the individual spirit)
would be seen as different from "religious" (worship of a supreme
being).
>
>(b) The Commissioners considered and interpreted these authorities
>compatibly with ECHR and concluded that the key aspects of the charitable
>purpose of promoting the moral and spiritual welfare or improvement of the
>community which could be discerned from these authorities was that the
>doctrines, beliefs and practices involved were generally accessible to the
>public and capable of being applied or adopted by them according to
>individual judgement or choice from time to time in such a way that the
>moral and spiritual welfare or improvement of the community might result.
>Re Price, Cohen J at p. 432. Accordingly, the Commissioners concluded, it
>would be possible for non-religious belief systems promoted by a
>membership organisation to be established for such a purpose if those
>criteria were satisfied.
>
>(c) The Commissioners considered in relation to the doctrines and
>practices of CoS whether these were so accessible and capable of such
>application, but concluded that because of the nature and organised
>practice of the beliefs of Scientology they were on balance neither so
>accessible nor could be so applied such that the moral and spiritual
>welfare or improvement of the community might result.
Personally I think the Commissioners have missed a trick here:
if the CofS claim that they deserve to be charitable because
they are communicating their moral, spiritual, and educational
values to the public, then one should consider -- not just whether
they are communicating it -- but whether it would be a good thing
to communicate were they managing to?
So, we should consider Scientology ethics that production is all
and not to reward the downstat; in particular that low toned
people should be rounded up and exterminated if Scn got to power.
We should ask whether, if widely promoted, the idea that the creator
of the material world is being punished for that great sin by living
as a beetle under a stone would be to the public benefit. We should
also consider CofS "Study Tech" and whether it works.
>
>(3) That CoS was not established for the public benefit.
>
>In considering the legal test applied to organisations established for
>purposes falling within the first three heads of charity law in that they
>were entitled to the presumption of public benefit and the different legal
>test applied to the fourth head of charity law where public benefit had to
>be demonstrated, the Commissioners considered that such a distinction
>between the legal tests was consistent with ECHR. Public benefit was a
Good.
>requirement of charity and needed to be established in every case. Public
>benefit was therefore considered on a case by case basis. Under the first
>three heads of charity, it had been established that public benefit was
>presumed to exist although in individual cases it may need to be proved if
>there was evidence to the contrary. For the fourth head of charity, public
>benefit needed to be established although there were cases where it may be
>self evident and need not be proved.
>
>The Commissioners considered whether if CoS had been established for the
>charitable purpose of advancing religion, it was also established for the
>public benefit.
>
>The Commissioners considered the presumption of public benefit applicable
>to organisations established for the advancement of religion. They
>concluded that, as in the case of all organisations established for
>charitable purposes, public benefit had to be present in fact for an
>organisation established for the advancement of religion to be charitable.
Good.
>Coats v Gilmour CA [1948] Ch 340, Lord Greene MR at p. 344. They further
>considered that in the case of such organisations, the presumption may be
>rebutted by evidence indicating public benefit may not be present and such
>evidence was not confined to evidence suggesting that the organisation was
###
>adverse to religion or subversive of morality. Coats v Gilmour, C.A., Lord
>Greene MR at p. 345, In re Hetherington, decd. [1990] Ch 1, Sir Nicholas
>Browne-Wilkinson V.C. at p. 12 D-G.
So, it may include all sorts of criminal and ant-social behaviour.
>
>The Commissioners decided that in the case of CoS, the relative newness of
>Scientology and the judicial and public concerns which had been expressed
>about its beliefs and practices, led them to conclude that it should not
>be entitled to the presumption of public benefit. Accordingly, it was for
>CoS to demonstrate that it was established for the public benefit.
Yes... and confront allegations of over-charging, driving people to
suicide, introspection run-downs, etcetera.
>
>The Commissioners considered the legal test of public benefit to be
>applied to organisations established for the advancement of religion. They
>concluded that where the practice of religion is essentially private, or
>is limited to a private class of individuals not extending to the public
>generally, the element of public benefit will not be established. In re
>Hetherington, decd., Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V.C. at p. 12 D-G,
>Coats v Gilmour CA, Lord Evershed at p. 357. The Commissioners considered
>that this test must be applied to the core practices of such an
>organisation and not to incidental activities or other activities which
>may already be regarded as charitable.
>
>After reviewing the practices of auditing and training, considered by CoS
>to be the central features of the practice of Scientology, the
>Commissioners considered that these are in fact conducted in private and
>not in public and that in their very nature are private rather than public
>activities such that no legally recognised benefit could be said to be
>conferred on the public. It could not be concluded that the benefits of
>the practice of Scientology extended beyond the participants. Accordingly
>public benefit was not established.
Yep. It would be of public benefit if it offered for free personal and
physical comfort to persons in trouble, and also offered the choice of
participating in such activities as prayer and worship which they felt
of comfort to them if the person seeking help also felt them helpful.
>
>The Commissioners went on to consider whether, if CoS had been established
>for a charitable purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or
>improvement of the community, it was also established for the public
>benefit. The Commissioners considered that it was for CoS to establish
>public benefit as this was a purpose falling within the fourth head of
>charity law. The Commissioners considered the relevant legal test of
>public benefit to be applied to organisations established under the fourth
>head of charity. The Commissioners concluded that the test was that the
>whole tendency of charity in the legal sense under the fourth head is
>towards tangible and objective benefits but that in the case of an
>intangible benefit that at least approval by the common understanding of
>enlightened opinion for the time being would be necessary before an
>intangible benefit could be taken to constitute sufficient benefit to the
>community. National Anti Vivisection Society v IRC [1948] AC 31, Lord
>Wright at p. 49. The Commissioners considered that in the case of the
>purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare or improvement of the
>community, and thus of CoS, the issue was one of intangible benefit and
>that in relation to intangible benefit the Commissioners considered the
>legal test to refer to a common consensus of opinion amongst people who
>were fair minded and free from prejudice or bias.
Erm, yes. To be of public benefit would have to be a benefit, not in
the view of the petitioner, but in the view of reasonable members of
the public: either jointly (finding a cure for a disease) or
severally (helping the disadvantaged), and of course it may be
an intangible benefit as in a general awareness against cruelty.
One need only consider what values Scn promotes, and what would be
the effect of them coming into general effect.
>
>The Commissioners considered the core practices of Scientology, namely
>auditing and training, and concluded that the private conduct and nature
>of these practices together with their general lack of accessibility meant
>that the benefits were of a personal as opposed to a public nature.
>Accordingly, following the legal test referred to above, public benefit
>had not been established.
It's worth keeping an archive of this, if only to lodge objections
everywhere they *DO* have charitable status to try getting it removed.
There will be a court-case over this, but only judicial review i.e.
it will only consider whether they carried out the procedures laid
down and considered the kinds of evidence laid down, within the
normal rules of fairness. And they did, so it will get nowhere.
________
(________)
-- | |
_.' '._
.' '.
|_________________|
| |when you've been building a thirst for 65million yrs
| X_E_M_U's |
| Alien Ale | Da...@XEMU.demon.co.uk
| .:::. :: |
| (o\ /o) .::. | Knight of Xemu. Official ARS hake-monger.
| \ " / XEMU | SP5(:). Clambustin' since 1995. ><_'> "_>
| '-' :::: |
| :v: | www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/
| with a kick |
| _like an HBomb_ |preserve your thetan in alochol and glycol with.....
| |
'._______________.'
Fredric Xenu L. Xenu Rice Xenu
[...flr cuts...]
> In arguing the above, none of "religious" or "welfare" or "public
> benefit" exists because the petitioner in his own mind believes
> and asserts it is so, but because at least reasonable members of
> the public would accept it as so on objective grounds, and particularly
> on the basis of law and precedent; Scientology is given to believing
> they are religious and ethical "because we say we are".
The crooks _could_ claim that some of their front companies like
Narcanon are charitable, couldn't they? That would probably be their
next step -- to try to register their fragmentary organizations. Yet
that would mean they woiuld expose themselves to further public record
-- something they would probably do if they really want to shoot what's
left of their feet off.
>>The Commissioners decided that auditing and training do not constitute
>>worship as defined and interpreted from the legal authorities.
> Exactly. For an activity to be "worship" it must in some way be
> contemplating or directed at the supreme being, and aimed at
> expressing respect. Neither of these hold.
The worship of the All Mighty Dollar?
--- "de omnibus dubitandum" All is to be doubted --- Descartes
24-hour file archive access: (626) 335-9601 (FidoNet 1:218/890.0) SP4
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm
Scientology Criminals: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/csindex.htm
What the Scientology cult doesn't want you to know: http://www.xenu.net/
ML Poulter
Fredric Xenu L. Xenu Rice Xenu <Fr...@LinkLine.COM> wrote:
>
>The crooks _could_ claim that some of their front companies like
>Narcanon are charitable, couldn't they? That would probably be their
>next step -- to try to register their fragmentary organizations.
Narconon *has* charitable status in the UK. :-(
--
MARTIN L: Postgrad. researching philosophy of belief and Bayesian inductive M
POULTER : logic at Bristol Uni., UK. * $665.95 = Retail price of the Beast c
Cult Concern FAQ + Soppy Compliments Page + Celibate FAQ + Gifts from "Bob" Q
Helena Kobrin Page + Scientology Criticism: http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plmlp/ !
tigerlily2000
>>The crooks _could_ claim that some of their front companies like
>>Narcanon are charitable, couldn't they? That would probably be their
>>next step -- to try to register their fragmentary organizations.
>
>Narconon *has* charitable status in the UK. :-(
>
it?
Tiger
Dave Bird
That's a new one on me. Could you tell us more..................?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Shy David www.xenu.net
wrote:
> > The Commissioners concluded that Scientology believed in a supreme being.
> .... snip correct finding that the Scn do not confer a public benefit
> I'm really surprised here, that the Commissioners concluded that Scientology
> believed in a supreme being. Is this Xenu? Everything else in this remarkably
> straightforward document makes sense, but I cannot imagine what they mean here.
Yes, Scientology does believe in a supreme being. The US$100,000 bill. Though
they also believe in lesser gods such as the US$100 bill, the US$50 bill, the
US$20 bill, the US$10 bill, the US$5 bill, the US$2 bill, and the US$1 bill. And
of course added to their pantheon is Yen, Marks, Krons, Colons, Pounds, etc.
They also have a very wide following of the Plastic tripple-godhead (Silver
Card, Gold Card, and Platinum Card credit cards), and all manner or the
more creative gods such as bank loans, CDs, insurance checks and the like
are also worshiped.
So yes, Scientology does believe in a supreme being. It's called -MONEY.-
> thad
---
"Maybe this used to be your town, but we're taking it back." --- Bob Minton