Freedom of Religion
Dave Bird --- St Hippo of Augustine
<andy...@aol.com> writes
>More from Tilman...
>
>>And there has no criminal prosecution for deceptive recruitement, as far
>as I know. This should be changed.<
>
>With all due respect,
Tilman, are you sure you meant this? ''Deceptive recruitment''
as a crime??
There are precedents of a kind, I suppose.
As a matter of contract, if you are induced to pay a membership fee
to an organisation and it turns out to be quite different
in purpose from what you were told, you might argue you had been
sold a pup and go to court to get your money back.
There is consumer protection, but when it comes down to it
religions don't HAVE a testable, material purpose which you
were told they'd fulfill but they didn't--you were never told it did.
when it comes to obtaining monet by false pretences, con merchants,
selling the Washington Bridge, etc, this point is even more relevant.
You were never told there WOULD be a material benefit or profit
as the main purpose of the transaction. That is the real core
of such offences, and it really dooesn't apply to deceptive
recruitmant.
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug:
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : :Pope Potamus3rd/St Hippo of Augustine
_______________________________>>FUCK THE C.D.A<|>FUCK THE C.D.A<<
"Wanna buy a Bridge for $300,000?"..attributed to ElRon Hubbard
Jacob A. D. Minas
> In <tpfbzOCj...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird --- St Hippo of
> Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <4iu9mt$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, AndyBacus
> ><andy...@aol.com> writes
> >>More from Tilman...
> >>
> >>>And there has no criminal prosecution for deceptive recruitement, as far
> >>as I know. This should be changed.<
> >>
> >>With all due respect,
> >
> > Tilman, are you sure you meant this? ''Deceptive recruitment''
> > as a crime??
>
> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
> protected by the state.
"Just as another consumer product before the law."
What exactly are the "product defects?" What "fraudulent
misrepresentations?" What possible assertions could a religion make that
would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory? If the Catholic
Church told me they could redeem my sinful soul, can I sue them in court,
which would make a finding that my soul had not, in fact, been redeemed?
If they told me that they were the "true faith" could the court make a
finding that some other religion is in fact that true faith?
Such a result, needless to say, would be barred by like eight different
branches of the First Amendment.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Tilman Hausherr
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4iu9mt$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, AndyBacus
><andy...@aol.com> writes
>>More from Tilman...
>>
>>>And there has no criminal prosecution for deceptive recruitement, as far
>>as I know. This should be changed.<
>>
>>With all due respect,
>
> Tilman, are you sure you meant this? ''Deceptive recruitment''
> as a crime??
Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
protected by the state.
You may not have seen the context in which I posted this, because that
context was only in a.r.u.: according to the Molko decision,
if the Moonies use deception for the purpose of causing a
person to unwittingly expose himself to brainwashing techniques,
the person to whom that has been done may sue for fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for restitution
of all money "donated" as a result of such conduct.
The problem is that the above is only a civil decision, which means that
each cheated member must first go thru the courts for 10 years (and pay
advance costs), before they cough up the money.
Tilman
Elizabeth C King
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
>religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
>(i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
>Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
>They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
>gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
I assume that when you talk about "freedom of religion" you are talking
about the First Amendment. So, for your information only the government
can violate the First Amendment. Private citizens, i.e. cults, are not
capable of violating the First Amendment.
--
---
"Sure don't know what I'm going for
But I'm gonna go for it, for sure." GD
Elizabeth
ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
---
Jacob A. D. Minas
> In <jam81-23039...@dialup166.cc.columbia.edu>,
> ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
> >What exactly are the "product defects?" What "fraudulent
> >misrepresentations?" What possible assertions could a religion make that
> >would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory? If the Catholic
> >Church told me they could redeem my sinful soul, can I sue them in court,
> >which would make a finding that my soul had not, in fact, been redeemed?
> >If they told me that they were the "true faith" could the court make a
> >finding that some other religion is in fact that true faith?
>
> Religion is belief. Religion can't be proven. There is no "true"
> religion. A religion can promise all sort of spiritual things, that's
> not the problem. Problem is when they suck people in deceptively.
Yes the problem it is is that it can't be proven. I can't prove, on the
one hand, that a single religion is not a "true" religion. But you on the
other hand cannot disprove that one single religion is not the true
faith. Thats the difference between a proposition that is unprovable and
one that is disproven. But since we're talking wide ranging theories of
deception, shouldn't that be an issue for the jury?
> Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
> religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
> (i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
>
> Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
> They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
> gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
Yes but what does "not respecting people's beliefs." At least in the
normal sense of the words, it would destroy the concept of freedom of
religion or any kind of freedoms First Amendment freedoms of speech, etc.
The First Amendment just says we have to tolerate each others views
(i.e.not use the government to ban them), not that I have to love
everyone's views. I don't, for example, respect religions which advocate
the murder of nonbelivers. Where is it written that I have to respect
everyone's views? In fact, if those believers tried to make me respect
them, that would be a violation of *my* freedom of conscience. The
freedom to believe is also the freedom to disrespect other people's
beliefs. I, for example, believe that that particular religion deserves
none of my respect.
There's a reason I am picking on this. Your terminology is exceedingly
vague and wide-reaching. What are "fraudulent methods?" What is
"cheating?" What is "brainwashing?" Vague prohibitions infringing on
core First Amendment freedoms are not tolerated. Why should they be? I
could think up all sorts of interesting ways to destroy the First
Amendment by wide-ranging prohibitions on fraud and deceptive practices.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Tilman Hausherr
>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>> protected by the state.
>
>"Just as another consumer product before the law."
>
>What exactly are the "product defects?" What "fraudulent
>misrepresentations?" What possible assertions could a religion make that
>would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory? If the Catholic
>Church told me they could redeem my sinful soul, can I sue them in court,
>which would make a finding that my soul had not, in fact, been redeemed?
>If they told me that they were the "true faith" could the court make a
>finding that some other religion is in fact that true faith?
Religion is belief. Religion can't be proven. There is no "true"
religion. A religion can promise all sort of spiritual things, that's
not the problem. Problem is when they suck people in deceptively.
Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
(i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
I know, the above paragraph is in contradiction with the "consumer
product" idea expressed a few hours ago. Maybe one should call it a
"spiritual consumer" product. I doubt this will ever be done - which
religion would ever agree to be considered as a "consumer product",
except maybe the Church of the SubGenius ?
Tilman
Tilman Hausherr
: >Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
: >They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
: >gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
: I assume that when you talk about "freedom of religion" you are talking
: about the First Amendment. So, for your information only the government
: can violate the First Amendment. Private citizens, i.e. cults, are not
: capable of violating the First Amendment.
How convenient !
Tilman
Elizabeth C King
>How convenient !
How Constitutional. It is not just convenient, it is the basis of our
constitution. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from our government,
not other citizens.
Tilman Hausherr
ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>Yes the problem it is is that it can't be proven. I can't prove, on the
>one hand, that a single religion is not a "true" religion. But you on the
>other hand cannot disprove that one single religion is not the true
>faith. Thats the difference between a proposition that is unprovable and
>one that is disproven. But since we're talking wide ranging theories of
>deception, shouldn't that be an issue for the jury?
You don't have to evaluate the beliefs. One should watch if the general
behaviour would be acceptable if it isn't a religion. For cults like
scientology, moon, tm, etc, its becomes quite obvious.
>> Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
>> religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
>> (i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
>>
>> Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
>> They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
>> gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
>
>Yes but what does "not respecting people's beliefs." At least in the
>normal sense of the words, it would destroy the concept of freedom of
>religion or any kind of freedoms First Amendment freedoms of speech, etc.
>The First Amendment just says we have to tolerate each others views
>(i.e.not use the government to ban them), not that I have to love
>everyone's views. I don't, for example, respect religions which advocate
>the murder of nonbelivers. Where is it written that I have to respect
>everyone's views? In fact, if those believers tried to make me respect
>them, that would be a violation of *my* freedom of conscience. The
>freedom to believe is also the freedom to disrespect other people's
>beliefs. I, for example, believe that that particular religion deserves
>none of my respect.
>
>There's a reason I am picking on this. Your terminology is exceedingly
>vague and wide-reaching. What are "fraudulent methods?" What is
>"cheating?" What is "brainwashing?" Vague prohibitions infringing on
>core First Amendment freedoms are not tolerated. Why should they be? I
>could think up all sorts of interesting ways to destroy the First
>Amendment by wide-ranging prohibitions on fraud and deceptive practices.
Yeah, it is very tricky and I agree that I am not able to provide a
correct definition of "freedom of religion".
Fraudulent - look in law books or in a dictionary. Same for cheating,
which is similar. Brainwashing is a word more related to what happened
to US war prisoners in the 50ies. I think the current word is called
"coercive persuasion", achieved by a busy schedule, sleep deprivation,
food shortage, information deprival, prevention of outside contact, love
bombing, etc.
About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
Tilman
Jacob A. D. Minas
> In <jam81-24039...@dialup129.cc.columbia.edu>,
> ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>>
> >There's a reason I am picking on this. Your terminology is exceedingly
> >vague and wide-reaching. What are "fraudulent methods?" What is
> >"cheating?" What is "brainwashing?" Vague prohibitions infringing on
> >core First Amendment freedoms are not tolerated. Why should they be? I
> >could think up all sorts of interesting ways to destroy the First
> >Amendment by wide-ranging prohibitions on fraud and deceptive practices.
>
> Yeah, it is very tricky and I agree that I am not able to provide a
> correct definition of "freedom of religion".
>
> Fraudulent - look in law books or in a dictionary. Same for cheating,
> which is similar. Brainwashing is a word more related to what happened
> to US war prisoners in the 50ies. I think the current word is called
> "coercive persuasion", achieved by a busy schedule, sleep deprivation,
> food shortage, information deprival, prevention of outside contact, love
> bombing, etc.
If life were that simple, we wouldn't have courts. Just saying look at
law dictionary doesn't help too much. There is, for example, a lot of
difference between what constitutes "fraud" for securities actions, and
what constitutes fraud in other contexts.
I don't exactly get this. If a religious organization imprisons you and
then deprives you of sleep, they are liable civilly for all sorts of
common law torts (arrest, imprisonment, etc. lots more, we skipped
intentional torts in torts class) and lots of criminal liability. And any
kind of contractual benefits they gain during this period can be Xed out
on various contract law escape clauses. What does this have to do with
religious freedom? They face the same sorts of liability as non-religious
actors. If the government were to create laws heightening civil and
criminal liabilities for religious organizations, that would surely fly in
the face of the First Amendment.
The question is then what are you talking about that is specific to
religion. And if it is specific to religion, how in the world are you
going to justify it against First Amendment claims. I might also point
out that of all the objectionable conduct you mentioned, none of it is
fraudulent in the legal sense of the word. Fraud generally means
intentionally making misrepresentations to get someone to surrender a
legal right. If you torture someone to get them to do something, its not
fraud unless you lie to them about something too.
> About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
> religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
> countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
> One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
> a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
Oh but this is the difference. You mention objectionable *beliefs* (i.e.
believing in murdering opponents) in the same sentence as objectionable
*conduct* (i.e. taking drugs where prohibited by law). The government is
free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
For the same reason that I can advocate the repeal of federal securities
law and yet not be imprisoned if I engage in securities fraud.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Dave Bird --- St Hippo of Augustine
D. Minas" <ja...@columbia.edu> writes
>> > Tilman, are you sure you meant this? ''Deceptive recruitment''
>> > as a crime??
>>
>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>> protected by the state.
>
>"Just as another consumer product before the law."
>
>What exactly are the "product defects?" What "fraudulent
>misrepresentations?" What possible assertions could a religion make that
>would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory?
Quite right on this score. You cannot say you bought into a religious
belief then decided you didn't like it as a ''product defect''.
It is possible as a cause of legal action that you bought into
what is [from a secular viewpoint] a recreational group,
and it (a) did you serious harm of which there was no warning
or (b) involved you in something you greatly objected to of
which there was no fair description at the outset of what you
were being recruited into.
You might be able to sue because...
(i) OT3 drove you into a psychotic breakdown for the actual harm done
(ii) you were told it was comparable with your Xian beliefs then
heard Hubbard saying 'there is no christ', you want your money back
because it was misdescribed and you wouldn't have bought in if you'd
had a true description
(iii) becaue you were given heavy RPF: both for the harm done, and
because RPF is misdescribed on the staff contract so you didn't give
fully informed consent and you want your money back because the church
misrepresented what you were buying into.
Marm done, and money back because the product was MISREPRESENTED
[I do not say objectively defective] are ggod grounds.
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug:
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : :Pope Potamus3rd/St Hippo of Augustine
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T FORGET-THE CLAMS R MAKING A BIG NOISE TO DISTRACT US KOZ THEY
JUST HAD A 'BIG LOSE'(TM) IN HOLLAND *&* TAX ASSOCIATES JUST WON !!
Dave Bird --- St Hippo of Augustine
D. Minas" <ja...@columbia.edu> writes
> What "fraudulent
>> >misrepresentations?" What possible assertions could a religion make that
>> >would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory?
The following [in scientology]:
that the beleifs I was subscribing too [in OT3] were so weird and
divergent from what I was initially told, that I would not have joined
up or paid for counselling services if I knew that at the start.
And/or, OT3 drove me into a psychotic breakdown.
on similar reasoning, it told me it was compatible with my Xianity
which is an out and out lie: it was sold to me on a decptive basis
and, at least, I want my money back.
it did not tell me about RPF -- degrading punishment assignments
for months on end -- and I both want compensation for that treatment
to which I did not give informed consent and my money back
bacause I wouldn't have joined if I'd known.
Those do you ?
Steve A
>In article <31550149...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
>
>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>> protected by the state.
>
>"Just as another consumer product before the law."
>
>What exactly are the "product defects?" What "fraudulent
>misrepresentations?"
Where to start? How about the claims made (oh, so, deniably) that
Scientology is capable of assisting with medical problems, from AIDS
to short-sightedness?
>What possible assertions could a religion make that
>would be subject to fraud or products liabilities theory? If the Catholic
>Church told me they could redeem my sinful soul, can I sue them in court,
>which would make a finding that my soul had not, in fact, been redeemed?
It would rather depend on how much you had paid for that service. How
much money would you hand over to an organisation that told you it
could "redeem your soul", given that you're unlikely to find out until
it's too late to ask for your money back? The Catholic Church do not
demand (any more!) fixed sums for redemption, and it is highly likely
that few takers would be found for any religion or enterprise that
did. Hence, Scientology starts off by selling people
"life-improvement" or save-yer-marriage courses, which in reality turn
out to be entrees into ever-more-persuasive sales pitches for ever-
more-ludicrous services. If that is not deception, I don't know what
is. Since the deception is closely tied to getting large amounts of
money out of the mark, I cannot see why it should be considered to be
anything other than a commercial matter. After all, if you, say,
bought a Bible from your church and it fell to bits after a fortnight,
you'd expect them to take responsibility for that.
>If they told me that they were the "true faith" could the court make a
>finding that some other religion is in fact that true faith?
>
>Such a result, needless to say, would be barred by like eight different
>branches of the First Amendment.
And those things are not the things that we here on a.r.s. (in
particular - I presume other cults are similar) are taking issue with.
They can go on about redemption, faith and body thetans till the cows
come home: it's the fact that this represents but a thin veneer over
the much more important process of unloading vast amounts of money
from the marks, including getting them to "max" their credit cards and
sign over authority on savings accounts.
--
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster, KoX, KOh
Minister in the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT,
High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up? [on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", official CoS stooge showing Scientology's caring side.
A good home awaits a NOTS pack available for legal adoption. Apply by email...
Steve A
>In article <3155e2ba...@news.snafu.de>,
>Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
>>religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
>>(i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
>
>>Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
>>They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
>>gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
>
>I assume that when you talk about "freedom of religion" you are talking
>about the First Amendment. So, for your information only the government
>can violate the First Amendment. Private citizens, i.e. cults, are not
>capable of violating the First Amendment.
Tilman posts from Germany: I post from the UK. Neither country has,
AFAIK, anything resembling the First Amendment. Furthermore, I took
Tilman's point to be a theoretical one: not a case-in-point specific
to the US where you are of course right - the US government and
legislature is hamstrung in any attempt to deal with abusive cults
like Scientology in a way which the goverments of Holland, Germany,
Spain and the UK (none of them what could be described as
"totalitarian") are not.
Perhaps the Constitution needs reviewing?
Elizabeth C King
>>In article <3155e2ba...@news.snafu.de>,
>>Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>>Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
>>>religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
>>>(i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
>>I assume that when you talk about "freedom of religion" you are talking
>>about the First Amendment. So, for your information only the government
>>can violate the First Amendment. Private citizens, i.e. cults, are not
>>capable of violating the First Amendment.
>Tilman posts from Germany: I post from the UK. Neither country has,
>AFAIK, anything resembling the First Amendment. Furthermore, I took
>Tilman's point to be a theoretical one: not a case-in-point specific
>to the US where you are of course right - the US government and
>legislature is hamstrung in any attempt to deal with abusive cults
>like Scientology in a way which the goverments of Holland, Germany,
>Spain and the UK (none of them what could be described as
>"totalitarian") are not.
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
Andrew P. Bacus
>
> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
> protected by the state.
Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
> You may not have seen the context in which I posted this, because that
> context was only in a.r.u.: according to the Molko decision,
> if the Moonies use deception for the purpose of causing a
> person to unwittingly expose himself to brainwashing techniques,
> the person to whom that has been done may sue for fraud,
> intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for restitution
> of all money "donated" as a result of such conduct.
Yes, there were allegations of decption by Molko. He claimed for example, that
he had no idea the group he became involved with was "religious" until after he
joined. He also claimed that in the first day he affiliated with the group (prior to
joining, mind you) that the group prayed before and after each lecture, before
meals, and before bed. Gosh, most people would attribute praying ten times a
day with something religious, wouldn't you agree, Tilman?
Andrew
Andrew P. Bacus
>
(Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>
> >one hand, that a single religion is not a "true" religion. But you on the
> >other hand cannot disprove that one single religion is not the true
> >faith. Thats the difference between a proposition that is unprovable and
> >one that is disproven. But since we're talking wide ranging theories of
> >deception, shouldn't that be an issue for the jury?
>
> You don't have to evaluate the beliefs. One should watch if the general
> behaviour would be acceptable if it isn't a religion. For cults like
> scientology, moon, tm, etc, its becomes quite obvious.
Yes, that is the point. Society sets up a set of rules which dictate whether
certain conduct is acceptable in a civilized society or not. Those are called laws.
In America, the symbol of the law is a statue of a women holding a balance with
her eyes blindfolded. What that means is that the law is administered fairly and
without reference to a person's skin color, religion, or whatever. Thus,
according to the ideal, if someone breaks the law, regardless of who he or she
is, then he is to be prosecuted (or sued, in the case of a civil violation). But the
limitations that you and others seek to invoke against minority religions is
beyond that. It says, well, what you are doing is not against the law, but we
don't like it so you should be prosecuted, sued or prohibited from conducting
otherwise legal activities. To anyone who values freedom, such a point of view
is a dangerous load of bunk. That is why the efforts of AFF and CAN to institute
laws restricting the activities of so called "cults" was met with derision by
most lawmakers and all civil libertarians.
> >> Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
> >> religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
> >> (i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
> >>
> >> Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
> >> They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
> >> gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
> >
> >Yes but what does "not respecting people's beliefs." At least in the
> >normal sense of the words, it would destroy the concept of freedom of
> >religion or any kind of freedoms First Amendment freedoms of speech, etc.
> >The First Amendment just says we have to tolerate each others views
> >(i.e.not use the government to ban them), not that I have to love
> >everyone's views. I don't, for example, respect religions which advocate
> >the murder of nonbelivers. Where is it written that I have to respect
> >everyone's views? In fact, if those believers tried to make me respect
> >them, that would be a violation of *my* freedom of conscience. The
> >freedom to believe is also the freedom to disrespect other people's
> >beliefs. I, for example, believe that that particular religion deserves
> >none of my respect.
> >
> >There's a reason I am picking on this. Your terminology is exceedingly
> >vague and wide-reaching. What are "fraudulent methods?" What is
> >"cheating?" What is "brainwashing?" Vague prohibitions infringing on
> >core First Amendment freedoms are not tolerated. Why should they be? I
> >could think up all sorts of interesting ways to destroy the First
> >Amendment by wide-ranging prohibitions on fraud and deceptive practices.
>
> Yeah, it is very tricky and I agree that I am not able to provide a
> correct definition of "freedom of religion".
Exactly. And neither can anyone else. As the APA said in its Molko brief, its
nothing but a "negative value judgement in scientific garb".
> Fraudulent - look in law books or in a dictionary. Same for cheating,
> which is similar. Brainwashing is a word more related to what happened
> to US war prisoners in the 50ies. I think the current word is called
> "coercive persuasion", achieved by a busy schedule, sleep deprivation,
> food shortage, information deprival, prevention of outside contact, love
> bombing, etc.
Fraud, and cheating are covered by penal and civil laws. Let the guilty be
charged. No one would argue with that. But the fact is, despite all the
accusations that flourish from the pen of Tilman and Steve, Unificationists have
a high standard when it comes to the violation of criminal laws, and our church
has had, relative to its size, few civil suits. Indeed, we have never had a civil
judgement against us that I am aware of.
> About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
> religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
> countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
> One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
> a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
I like the way you put murdering people, taking drugs, and spreading "lies" about
ex-members in the same sentence. The first one is a heinous crime, the second
a lesser but still serious crime, and the third, at best, a cause for a civil
complaint. In any event, for each of those, the law has in place clear penalties
for the crimes, and civil rememdies for the agrieved.
Andrew
Damian J. Anderson
: > About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
: > religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
: > countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
: > One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
: > a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
: Oh but this is the difference. You mention objectionable *beliefs* (i.e.
: believing in murdering opponents) in the same sentence as objectionable
: *conduct* (i.e. taking drugs where prohibited by law). The government is
: free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
: infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
: within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
: For the same reason that I can advocate the repeal of federal securities
: law and yet not be imprisoned if I engage in securities fraud.
Thank you Jake for your impartial third party view on this. I agree
with you that though behavior is regulated by law, belief should
not be.
: Jake Minas
: ja...@columbia.edu
Damian Anderson +1-301-921-0082 Home +1-301-306-7855 Work dam...@cais.com
Unification Home Page http://www.cais.com/unification - Web pages in English,
French, Spanish, German, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian
See daily articles on alt.religion.unification, or to receive by e-mail,
Send "subscribe unification-texts your name" to list...@garcia.com
Send "subscribe world-scripture your name" to list...@garcia.com
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
>inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
>explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
>since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
The mind control theory is hardly discredited. I know only about the
fishman case. Of course we won't hear from you the court cases in which
Singer, West, Clarke, Ofshe and others were allowed to testify.
In the Molko case the court accepted the theories.
The trial court and Court of Appeal ruled the Singer and Benson
declarations inadmissible on the grounds that (1) the doctors'
testimony conflicted with that of Molko and Leal and (2) introducing
the declarations would [***26] raise inquiries forbidden by the
free exercise clause of the First Amendment. We disagree with both
conclusions.
(...)
The courts below also held that the Singer and Benson declarations
raised questions not allowable under the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree, for
reasons we will discuss momentarily.
The amicus brief of the APA is not even mentioned in the decision.
And I also suggest you to look on page 490 on DSM4.
>Yes, there were allegations of decption by Molko. He claimed for example, that
>he had no idea the group he became involved with was "religious" until after he
>joined. He also claimed that in the first day he affiliated with the group (prior to
>joining, mind you) that the group prayed before and after each lecture, before
>meals, and before bed. Gosh, most people would attribute praying ten times a
>day with something religious, wouldn't you agree, Tilman?
So in other words, the people prayed a lot, and when Molko asked them
"are you a religious group", they lied (as per policy), so Molko is to
blame that he didn't immediately call Mark Bush and Ernest Patton liars.
Here the excerpt:
On Sunday, January 21, Mark Bush and Ernest Patton approached Molko
as he waited at a bus stop in San Francisco. Bush and Patton told
Molko they lived in an "international community" of socially
conscious people from different occupations who met in the evenings
to discuss important issues. They invited Molko to come to dinner
that evening. Molko asked the two their occupations and was told they
did social work and worked with environmental programs. He asked if
Bush and Patton had a "religious connection." They said "no." Bush
and Patton did not reveal to Molko that they were members of the
Unification Church, or that their purpose in approaching him and
inviting him to dinner was to recruit him into the Church.
Basically Andy you are (as usual) blaming the victim. Btw, what are Mark
Bush and Ernest Patton doing these days ? Are they still looking for
prey at bus stops ?
I am also amazed that you can't just can't accept the court decision,
and maybe issue a public apology for all members in the past who were
lied to, and offer their "donations" back, since they were based on
fraud.
Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
"If you tell a lie to make a person better it is not sin... even God tells
lies very often." (Moon in Master Speaks, 3-16-72 pg.11)
Tilman Hausherr
ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>I don't exactly get this. If a religious organization imprisons you and
>then deprives you of sleep, they are liable civilly for all sorts of
>common law torts (arrest, imprisonment, etc. lots more, we skipped
>intentional torts in torts class) and lots of criminal liability. And any
>kind of contractual benefits they gain during this period can be Xed out
>on various contract law escape clauses. What does this have to do with
>religious freedom? They face the same sorts of liability as non-religious
>actors. If the government were to create laws heightening civil and
>criminal liabilities for religious organizations, that would surely fly in
>the face of the First Amendment.
Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
crimes in the year 1995 (see the timeline of harassment somehwere at
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html), but the FBI
hasn't bothered to investigate it. Because Scientology is a religion,
they can do everything. A guy committed stock frauds for the cult, and
the cult got away with it, but he went to jail.
When a couragous state attorney (James De Vita, the same who handled
Leona Helmsley) busted Moon, all sort of people whined because he was a
religious leader and busting him for tax evasion would be against
religious freedom.
>The question is then what are you talking about that is specific to
>religion. And if it is specific to religion, how in the world are you
>going to justify it against First Amendment claims. I might also point
>out that of all the objectionable conduct you mentioned, none of it is
>fraudulent in the legal sense of the word. Fraud generally means
>intentionally making misrepresentations to get someone to surrender a
>legal right. If you torture someone to get them to do something, its not
>fraud unless you lie to them about something too.
If a lie is told so that someone offers his workforce and his money,
then this is a fraud.
>> About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
>> religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
>> countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
>> One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
>> a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
>
>Oh but this is the difference. You mention objectionable *beliefs* (i.e.
>believing in murdering opponents) in the same sentence as objectionable
>*conduct* (i.e. taking drugs where prohibited by law).
conduct follows belief. Someone who beliefs in murder will finally do
it. See Japan.
My point is about conduct. I.e. when someone lies to get money from
another person, then the government (i.e. state attorney) should step
in. It is a shame that such unethical behaviour must be fought in civil
courts by the victims.
>The government is
>free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
>infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
>within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
No you can't publicly call for murder. Or can you ? In Germany this
would be illegal, "Volksverhetzung".
Ron Newman
Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
>crimes in the year 1995 (see the timeline of harassment somehwere at
>http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html),
That's
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Andrew P. Bacus
>
> In <31581F...@hsanahq.org>, "Andrew P. Bacus" <aba...@hsanahq.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
> >inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
> >explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
> >since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
>
> The mind control theory is hardly discredited. I know only about the
> fishman case. Of course we won't hear from you the court cases in which
> Singer, West, Clarke, Ofshe and others were allowed to testify.
Well, it has been rejected by the APA, the ASA, and is not permitted as a
bonafide theory in the U.S. Federal Courts. Yes I would call that discredited.
Can you cite for me a case in the past five years in which Singer's testimony has
been accepted as bona fide scientific theory? Not too may, huh? But then,
maybe she has not had too much time in light of her filing a Federal RICO action
against the APA (which was dismissed) trying to regain her reputation (she
didn't).
> In the Molko case the court accepted the theories.
>
> The trial court and Court of Appeal ruled the Singer and Benson
> declarations inadmissible on the grounds that (1) the doctors'
> testimony conflicted with that of Molko and Leal and (2) introducing
> the declarations would [***26] raise inquiries forbidden by the
> free exercise clause of the First Amendment. We disagree with both
> conclusions.
>
> (...)
>
> The courts below also held that the Singer and Benson declarations
> raised questions not allowable under the free exercise clause of the
> First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree, for
> reasons we will discuss momentarily.
>
> The amicus brief of the APA is not even mentioned in the decision.
Not withstanding the decision in Molko, the mind control theory is not being
presented in the the U.S. Courts as a bona fide theory. I guess the courts started
balking at it when Singer showed up in court arguing that the Snap-On Tools
Company had utilized mind control in "forcing" some guy to enter into a contract.
She claimed the guy should not be responsible for signing it.
She also showed up trying to testify in criminal court that someone should not be
found guilty because he was under mind control at the time he committed the
crime.
Imagine where those theories would lead to in a free society.
> And I also suggest you to look on page 490 on DSM4.
I will check it out.
> >joining, mind you) that the group prayed before and after each lecture, before
> >meals, and before bed. Gosh, most people would attribute praying ten times a
> >day with something religious, wouldn't you agree, Tilman?
>
> So in other words, the people prayed a lot, and when Molko asked them
> "are you a religious group", they lied (as per policy), so Molko is to
> blame that he didn't immediately call Mark Bush and Ernest Patton liars.
No, the point of what I posted is to discredit Molko's story. He claimed
something which, in light of his deposition testimony, no reasonable person
would believe. After praying ten times, "is this something religious?" "No."
Yea, right. That's believable, Tilman.
> Here the excerpt:
>
> On Sunday, January 21, Mark Bush and Ernest Patton approached Molko
> as he waited at a bus stop in San Francisco. Bush and Patton told
> Molko they lived in an "international community" of socially
> conscious people from different occupations who met in the evenings
> to discuss important issues. They invited Molko to come to dinner
> that evening. Molko asked the two their occupations and was told they
> did social work and worked with environmental programs. He asked if
> Bush and Patton had a "religious connection." They said "no." Bush
> and Patton did not reveal to Molko that they were members of the
> Unification Church, or that their purpose in approaching him and
> inviting him to dinner was to recruit him into the Church.
>
> Basically Andy you are (as usual) blaming the victim.
No. I am merely pointing something what anyone familiar with litigation knows,
what someone alleges, does not make it true. Molko, who by the way was
deprogrammed, alleged one thing but condradicted what he said during his
deposition. A rational person would not believe someone who said that he did not
know the group he was involved with was religious after several days of
praying ten times a day, and listening to religiously oriented lectures. Wouldn't
you agree?
> I am also amazed that you can't just can't accept the court decision,
> and maybe issue a public apology for all members in the past who were
> lied to, and offer their "donations" back, since they were based on
> fraud.
>
> Tilman
>
Again, you display a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Molko court
found. They did not find that Molko's allegations were true. They found that the
theory of his case, based on the mind control theory, could proceed to trial.
That's all. The facts as recited by the court were taken as true because for
purposes of deciding the merits of a summary judgement motion, all facts are
construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. The facts as
stated by Molko would have been blown out of the water at trial.
Andrew
Lynnette Weldy
-> another person, then the government (i.e. state attorney) should step
-> in. It is a shame that such unethical behaviour must be fought in
-> civil courts by the victims.
At this point I would like to ask a question...why is it lawful for the
police to lie to you repeatidly and it is all right, but should you lie
to them, it is a crime?...It does not make sense that the very people
we hope our children can look up to and trust, are the very ones they
sometimes have to be afraid of...I have a BBS that has alot of callers
who are traumatized teenagers and adults...I have heard all too many
times about the police lying to them in order to make them tell them
something they do not know...such as "If you don't tell us your father
molested you, then we will have to take your sister away from
you"...and I also have callers who were <at the age of 13> lured into a
cult and when they tried to get away, the only exit was either move to
another city or state...or die. What are the laws protecting people
against terrorists no matter what wool suit <as in sheeps> that they
might wear...?
where does religious persecution end and self preservation begin?
I thought as long as the individual concented, then it was their choice
but when they are being forced to stay a part of something they do not
want to belong to, then it is going beyond the boundaries of the laws
man set up to protect against the right of religious belief...I
strongly believe and respect people in finding their own truth as long
as it is kept within their own being...but when they force another to
be a part, even though they once agreed, there is the right to change
your mind...no matter when or why. I do not believe in dictating to
religions what they can or can not do to
Daniel E. Collins
>
>>How convenient !
>
>How Constitutional. It is not just convenient, it is the basis of our
>constitution. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from our
>government,not other citizens.
>--
>Elizabeth
>ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>---
Good response! I have a question thou, since I see your posts on many
constitutional issues. Why shouldn't the constitution protect the
speech rights of private citizens against other private citizens. I
know this question goes to form rather than substance, and probably
wouldn't go far in a lawsuit between, say, posters in a newsgroup, but
what about a powerful private corporation that censors it's empoyees
speech? How about the basketball player who didn't want to stand for
the anthem? What do you think?
-Dan C.
Damian J. Anderson
: >>How convenient !
: >
: >How Constitutional. It is not just convenient, it is the basis of our
: >constitution. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from our
: >government,not other citizens.
: >Elizabeth
: >ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
: Good response! I have a question thou, since I see your posts on many
: constitutional issues. Why shouldn't the constitution protect the
: speech rights of private citizens against other private citizens. I
: know this question goes to form rather than substance, and probably
: wouldn't go far in a lawsuit between, say, posters in a newsgroup, but
: what about a powerful private corporation that censors it's empoyees
: speech? How about the basketball player who didn't want to stand for
: the anthem? What do you think?
In some cases, companies are required to enforce controls on what
their employees say, such as when they are privy to highly classified
government secrets, or trade secret information, or inside company
information, where such disclosure is covered by insider trading
laws, and so on.
I have frequently had to sign forms indicating that I would not
disclose confidential company information when signing contracts
with companies for technical work.
: -Dan C.
Cory Brennan
>
>>
>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>> protected by the state.
This idea that 'the state' needs to babysit people to protect them from
their own decisions in life is extremely foreign and distasteful to most
Americans I know.
>
True, the psychiatric idea that you are not responsible for your own
condition or actions (which has translated into, criminals are not guilty
of their crimes because they are incapable of being responsible - ala
Menendez, etc), has been absorbed into the culture somewhat. But as we
can see by the recent result in Menendez, there is a backlash against
that viewpoint.
With a philosophy that the 'state" must protect one from potentially bad
decisions in life, where does one draw the line?
Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about the relationship between
freedom and independance. I would recommend that you read some of his
works, Tilman. It may help free you from the mind-set you seem to be
slave to. He seemed to feel that people were capable of figuring things
out on their own, for starters.
If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
stultifying education. It's education's job to teach people to think. If
people can't seem to be able to think for themselves without government
intervention, your educational system should be the target. Or perhaps
the government discourages thinking and prefers to tell people what they
should and shouldn't do in various aspects of their lives, even their
spiritual lives.
What religion would you call that, Tilman?
>Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
>inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
>explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
>since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
>
Amen. It is time that people take responsibility for their decisions in
life, and allow others the freedom to make their own decisions too. It is
more civilized, and also a more respectful viewpoint of others, and
oneself, than the one Tilman forwards.
Cory
Tilman Hausherr
>If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
>stultifying education. It's education's job to teach people to think. If
>people can't seem to be able to think for themselves without government
>intervention, your educational system should be the target. Or perhaps
>the government discourages thinking and prefers to tell people what they
>should and shouldn't do in various aspects of their lives, even their
>spiritual lives.
>
>What religion would you call that, Tilman?
I have deleted most of you post. You start with "freedom from the
state", you continue with psychiatry, you throw in the Menendez trial,
then you name Jefferson just so that your texts sounds great (it
doesn't), then you attack education, and then you're back at your
so-called freedom of religion.
Scientology's freedom of religion is that scientology has the freedom to
pretend it is a religion and get away with everything, and that the
state and the courts should stay out of it. Just consider the
Wollersheim litigation: the guy sued because of some very non-religious
activities. Yet scientology claimed it was the freedom of religion to
destroy him.
The government is allowed to prosecute crime. I know that you don't like
that, Cory, but governments have prosecuted crimes for centuries. When a
person gets scammed, a state attorney will prosecute for them. It means
that you can get justice even without money.
The problem in the US is that when you got scammed by a religion (who
internally claims to be scientific, workable, proven, etc), then
suddenly the government does nothing, and the victims have to come up in
civil court. And this might take a decade or more. Thus religions in the
US have freedoms that ordinary scam artists don't have. Moon considers
it correct to steal money from the US state because he is a religious
leader. Same for L. Ron Hubbard. I think it is not correct to do so.
Btw, Cory, I notice you are non-confront on the thread "Skewed reality".
I refuted every allegation you made.
>Amen. It is time that people take responsibility for their decisions in
>life, and allow others the freedom to make their own decisions too. It is
>more civilized, and also a more respectful viewpoint of others, and
>oneself, than the one Tilman forwards.
When will scientology take responsability and pay Wollersheim, and when
will it follow its own creed and kick the Holocaust denier Tom Marcellus
out of its "Church" ? Please explain me how the 6,000,000 are
"responsible" for being libelled after their death.
Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX] http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
Tom Marcellus is a Holocaust denier (IHR-director for 14 years) and is
also a $40,000 "Patron of the IAS". If a scientologist lost family
members in gas chambers, then Tom Marcellus is the one telling them
it didn't happen at all. Scientologists prefer not to comment.
Jacob A. D. Minas
> >> About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
> >> religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
> >> countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
> >> One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
> >> a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
> >
> >Oh but this is the difference. You mention objectionable *beliefs* (i.e.
> >believing in murdering opponents) in the same sentence as objectionable
> >*conduct* (i.e. taking drugs where prohibited by law).
>
> conduct follows belief. Someone who beliefs in murder will finally do
> it. See Japan.
Ever heard of thoughtcrime (see below). And second, that line of
reasoning is incredibly oversimplistic. I think the fact that antitrust
law makes maximum resale price maintenance a crime is a silly and stupid
idea, I openly advocate overruling of the Albrecht line of cases. Yet if
I were a manufacturer in a non-vertically integrated industry, I would not
impose maximum resale price maintenance on the distributors. Why not?
Because I don't want to get sued, and because, even though I think the
Supreme Court was wrong in so deciding, I respect the Supreme Court's
legitimacy in the interpretation of Federal law.
> My point is about conduct. I.e. when someone lies to get money from
> another person, then the government (i.e. state attorney) should step
> in. It is a shame that such unethical behaviour must be fought in civil
> courts by the victims.
Yes, but when talking about fraud, you have to be a lot more particular
about what is "lying" and what is "unethical behavior." There is
something specious about your argumentation here. You are vague about
exactly what kind of conduct you want to prohibit. When you do give
specific examples of wrongdoing (e.g. spreading lies about ex-members,
confinement and torture, etc.) those are all covered by the laws we
already have. And they are all covered by laws which ban conduct and not
speech (well, except for libel). What you seem to be complaining about is
that law enforcement is lax about prosecuting those cases. The
conventional solution is not even a real legal one, its just make law
enforcement more vigilant in enforcing the bread and butter criminal law
against religious organizations. It is an extremely far stretch from
there, to say this all illustrates how we need new laws banning speech and
discriminating against religious organizations. In sum, its hard to say
we need new and radically different laws, when your major complaint is
that the old and boring laws are not being enforced.
> >The government is
> >free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
> >infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
> >within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
>
> No you can't publicly call for murder. Or can you ? In Germany this
> would be illegal, "Volksverhetzung".
Two things:
1. This is an international setting. Your country may feel comfortable
with this line of reasoning. But you are trying to tell me what should be
done with my country, the United States, within the borders. I don't hack
on Germany for not having an airtight First Amendment, so try and respect
our political values similarly.
2. And it depends how you phrase it. If I said to someone "lets kill
some infidels," I would be culpable for criminal solicitation most
likely. If I said, "the sacred text says it is good to kill infidels"
thats another thing. The question is, are you willing to take your
"speech begets conduct" theory to its logical limits? If I advocate
lawful repeal of the laws regarding securities fraud, should I be culpable
as if I had committed securities fraud? Because, in saying that I think
securities fraud is not a bad thing, I am encouraging others to commit it
in one way or another? Is anyone allowed to have different opinions than
the government? If you make thought equivalent to conduct, not only do we
have to obey the law, we have to play cheerleader to the laws currently on
the books. Whats the point in democracy if differences in opinion are
disallowed.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Jacob A. D. Minas
Richardson) wrote:
> That's what I'd like to know about your "Church," Cory. Wouldn't
> you admit that your "Drug Free Marshals" program, for example is
> an effort to protect people from potentially bad decisions in
> life? Why is that program any more laudable than the
> government's efforts to keep people from taking drugs.
>
> Is it because it's *right* when your "Church" does it, but
> *wrong* when the government does it? Hmmmmm.....
Wait a second,
Are you saying if I try to persuade one of my friends not to do drugs,
because it is bad for you etc, it is exactly the same as if the government
used the coercive force of the criminal law to force you not to do so?
Are you saying giving advice is exactly the same as using force to effect
that advice? There's rather a difference from trying to protect people by
non-coercive persuasion and throwing people in jail for as the method of
persuasion.
Jake Minas
ja...@columbia.edu
Tilman Hausherr
prosecuted: the state attorney didn't want to "go after a reverend".
Peter Popoff was / is a "faith healer", who was told by God what his
"patients" were suffering about. James Randi exposed that "God" was
female, had the voice of Popoff's wife, and spoke to him thru radio
waves.
Peter Popoff was also probably the inspiration for the Steve Martin
movie "Leap of faith".
Tilman
TarlaStar
>>
>>>How convenient !
>>
>>How Constitutional. It is not just convenient, it is the basis of our
>>constitution. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from our
>>government,not other citizens.
>>--
>>Elizabeth
>>ek...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>>---
>Good response! I have a question thou, since I see your posts on many
>constitutional issues. Why shouldn't the constitution protect the
>speech rights of private citizens against other private citizens.
It does. You can't stop another person from speaking publically.
>know this question goes to form rather than substance, and probably
>wouldn't go far in a lawsuit between, say, posters in a newsgroup, but
>what about a powerful private corporation that censors it's empoyees
>speech? How about the basketball player who didn't want to stand for
>the anthem? What do you think?
The employee is taking compensation for not speaking, as is the
basketball player paid. Both COULD cease to take compensation from
that entity and say whatever the hell they please, but while they're
taking money from someone who tells them that they can't speak on
company time...well, them's the breaks, bubba.
****
"The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a
deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the power
of our unexpressed or unrecognised feeling."- Audre Lorde
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
Diane Richardson
>"Andrew P. Bacus" <aba...@hsanahq.org> wrote:
>>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>>> protected by the state.
>This idea that 'the state' needs to babysit people to protect them from
>their own decisions in life is extremely foreign and distasteful to most
>Americans I know.
Well, then, Cory. Does that mean that you and your "Church"
agree with Szasz that the government has no right to tell
individuals that they are not allowed to use illegal drugs?
That's CERTAINLY a prime example of "the state" babysitting
people by deciding what they are and are not allowed to do to
themselves.
You've done quite a bit of waffling on this issue, Cory. On one
hand, you claim that you admire Thomas Szasz and his philosophy
of individual responsibility. On the other hand, you shout quite
loudly that illicit drugs are an evil that must be eliminated
from society.
Wouldn't you admit that you and the "Church" that you are paid to
represent are being more than a little hypocritcal here?
>True, the psychiatric idea that you are not responsible for your own
>condition or actions (which has translated into, criminals are not guilty
>of their crimes because they are incapable of being responsible - ala
>Menendez, etc), has been absorbed into the culture somewhat. But as we
>can see by the recent result in Menendez, there is a backlash against
>that viewpoint.
>With a philosophy that the 'state" must protect one from potentially bad
>decisions in life, where does one draw the line?
That's what I'd like to know about your "Church," Cory. Wouldn't
you admit that your "Drug Free Marshals" program, for example is
an effort to protect people from potentially bad decisions in
life? Why is that program any more laudable than the
government's efforts to keep people from taking drugs.
Is it because it's *right* when your "Church" does it, but
*wrong* when the government does it? Hmmmmm.....
>Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about the relationship between
>freedom and independance. I would recommend that you read some of his
>works, Tilman. It may help free you from the mind-set you seem to be
>slave to. He seemed to feel that people were capable of figuring things
>out on their own, for starters.
Just ask any of Thomas Jefferson's more than 200 slaves about
Jeffersion's belief that people were capable of figuring things
out on their own, Cory. At least Jefferson was tormented by the
hypocrisy of his own actions, Cory. That's not quite the case
when it comes to you or the "Church" you are paid to represent.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@ibm.net
Paul Campbell
> Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
> because it has not committed any.
no, $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it has not been
convicted of any crimes. Just because it hasn't been convicted doesn't mean
it hasn't committed any - it may just means it has more lawyers than most
people consider decent.
Taniwha
Cory Brennan
> In <4jikci$2...@ni1.ni.net>, Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>
> >If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
> >stultifying education. It's education's job to teach people to think. If
> >people can't seem to be able to think for themselves without government
> >intervention, your educational system should be the target. Or perhaps
> >the government discourages thinking and prefers to tell people what they
> >should and shouldn't do in various aspects of their lives, even their
> >spiritual lives.
> >
> >What religion would you call that, Tilman?
>
> I have deleted most of you post. You start with "freedom from the
> state", you continue with psychiatry, you throw in the Menendez trial,
> then you name Jefferson just so that your texts sounds great (it
> doesn't), then you attack education, and then you're back at your
> so-called freedom of religion.
>
> Scientology's freedom of religion is that scientology has the freedom to
> pretend it is a religion and get away with everything, and that the
> state and the courts should stay out of it.
I've never said the courts should stay out of it, or anything like that.
Again, you misrepresent me. Is this deliberate, or do you really have such
little understanding of what I say?
In fact, I am quite glad that religions do have recourse to the courts
when prejudiced or totalitarian individuals in governments try to take
away the constitutional rights of their members.
What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able to
confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide have
found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And will
continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other vested
interests to deny this fact.
> The government is allowed to prosecute crime. I know that you don't like
> that, Cory, but governments have prosecuted crimes for centuries. When a
> person gets scammed, a state attorney will prosecute for them. It means
> that you can get justice even without money.
>
> The problem in the US is that when you got scammed by a religion (who
> internally claims to be scientific, workable, proven, etc), then
> suddenly the government does nothing, and the victims have to come up in
> civil court. And this might take a decade or more. Thus religions in the
> US have freedoms that ordinary scam artists don't have. Moon considers
> it correct to steal money from the US state because he is a religious
> leader. Same for L. Ron Hubbard. I think it is not correct to do so.
This is one of the most ignorant viewpoints on the concept of freedom of
religion I have ever seen, outside of the Inquisition and the like
perhaps. It is also an egotistical viewpoint, because it assumes that you
are capable or determining whether or not another man's belief and
practices are "legitimate" or "a scam" You of course are welcome to your
personal opinion. But to suggest that government get involved with
determining such is a violation of your country's constitution, as well as
plain good sense and basic principles of freedom, tolerance and personal
liberty. It is an especially noxious viewpoint when expressed in the world
community of the Internet. Your posts continue to illustrate that your
understanding of religious freedom issues is extremely undeveloped and
insulated.
What religion are you, Tilman (if any)? And which religions do you
consider to be "legitimate" religions? Why? What characteristics must a
religion have to pass your personal test in this regard? Why? Please give
specifics and not generalities, if you can. I think it is highly relevent
to the discussion at hand. I will be very surprised if you answer the
questions though.
I really and sincerely suggest you read some Thomas Jefferson. And some of
the other great thinkers that have discussed religious freedom. If you do
that, and then wish to discuss religious freedom issues, I will be happy
to do so. If not, I have to assume that you don't wish to understand the
issues, but would rather cling to your own narrow-minded viewpoint,
without having it inconveniently disturbed by any others that may disagree
with it.
I will include one of my favorite quotes from Jefferson below:
Thomas Jefferson's notes on Virginia, 2:219-25 (I believe this is Vol 2
pages 219-225 of Lipscomb, Andrew A., and Bergh, Albert Ellery, editors,
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library Edition. Issued under the
auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoication. 20 Volumes.
Washington, 1903.)
"Let us experiment"
"But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No
two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the
infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and
New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all.
The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered
beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported;
of various kinds indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve
peace and order; or if a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals,
good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors without
suffering the state to be troubled with it... They have made the happy
discovery that the way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice
of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we
may, of those tyrannical laws.
"It is true we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the
times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an
execution for heresy, or a three years' imprisonment for not comprehending
the mysteries of the Trinity. But is the spirit of the people an
infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of
protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the
spirit of the times my alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt,
our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better
men be his victims.
"It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every
essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and
ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going
downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the
people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights
disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of
making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for
their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at
the conclusion of this war will remain on us long, will be made heavier
and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."
Here is another quote by John Locke, on religious toleration (from "A
Letter Concerning Toleration" 1685:
"In the next place: as the magistrate has no power to impose by his laws
the use of any rites and ceremonies in any Church, so neither has he any
power to forbid the use of such rites and ceremonies as are already
received, approved, and practiced by any Church, because if he did so, he
would destroy the Church itself, the end of whose institution is only to
worship God with freedom, after its own manner.
"You will say,[and Tilman has said] by this rule if some congregations
should have a mind to sacrifice infants, or (as the primitive Christians
were falsely accused) lustfully pollute themselves in promiscuous
uncleanness, or practicese any other such heinous enormities, is the
magistrate obliged to tolerate them, because they are committed in a
religious assembly? I answer, No. These things are not lawful in the
ordinary course of life, nor in any private house; and therefore, neither
are they so in the worship of God, or in any religious meeting. But indeed
if any people congregated upon account of religions should be desirous to
sacrifice a calf, I deny that that ought to be prohibited by a law.
Meliboeus, whose calf it is, may lawfully kill his own calf at home, and
burn any part of it that he thinks fit, for no injury is thereby done to
anyone, no prejudice to another man's goods. And for the same reason he
may kill his calf also in a religious meeting. Whether the doing so be
well-pleasing to God or no, it is their part to consider that do it. The
part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive
no prejudice, and that there by no injury done to any man, either in life
or estate. And thus what may be spent on a feast, may be spent on a
sacrifice. ...
"By this we see what difference there is between the Church and the
commonwealth. Whatsoever is lawful in the commonwealth cannot be
prohibited by the magistrate in the Church. Whatsoever is permitted unto
any of his subjects for their ordinary use, niether can nor ought to be
forbidden by him to any sect of people for their religious uses. If any
man may lawfully take bread or wine, either sitting or kneeling, in his
own house, the law ought not to abridge him of the same liberty in his
religious worship; though in the Church the use of bread and wine be very
different, and be there applied to the mysteries of faith, and rites of
divine worship. But those things that are prejudicial to the commonweal of
a people in their ordinary use, and are therefore forbidden by laws, those
things ought not to be permitted to Churches in their sacred rites.
***___Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he does not
misuse his authority, to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of
public good."___*** [emphasis mine
"It may be said: What if Church be idolatrous, is that also to be
tolerated by the magistrate? *** [emphasis mine] ___In answer I ask:
What power can be given to the magistrate for the suppression of an
idolatrous Church, which may not, in time and place, be made use of to the
ruin of an orthodox one?___***
For it must be remembered that the civil power is the same everywhere, and
the religion of every prince is orthodox to himself. If therefore, such a
power be granted unto the civil magistrate in spirituals, as that at
Geneva (for example), he may extirpate, by violence and blood, the
religion which is there reputed idolatrous; by the same rule another
magistrate, in some neighbouring country, may oppress the reformed
religion; and, in India, the Christian. The civil power can either change
everything in reliiogn, according to the prince's pleasure, or it can
change nothing. If it be once permitted to introduce anything into
religion, by the means of laws and penalties, there can be no bounc\ds put
to it; but it will in the same manner be lawful to alter everything,
according to that rule of truth which the magistrate has framed unto
himself. No man whatsoever ought, therefore, to be deprived of his
terrestrial enjoyments upon account of his religion. Not even Maericans,
subjected unto a Christian prince, are to be punished either in body or
goods for not embracing our faith and worship. If they are persuaded that
they please God in observing the rites of their own country, and that they
shall obtain happiness by that means, they are to be left unto God and
themselves....."
> >Amen. It is time that people take responsibility for their decisions in
> >life, and allow others the freedom to make their own decisions too. It is
> >more civilized, and also a more respectful viewpoint of others, and
> >oneself, than the one Tilman forwards.
Cory Brennan
Cory Brennan
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> In article <3159b21c...@news.snafu.de>,
> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>
> >Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
> >crimes in the year 1995
This is a load of bunk, and propaganda forwarded by anti-religionists such
as Tilman.
Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
because it has not committed any.
I could equally say "Tilman Hausherr has committed a lot of crimes in the
year 1995" and make allegations, and even put up a web page. It would not
make my allegations true.
As Andrew and others have said, if individuals of any religious persuasion
(or non-religious persuasion) commit crimes, they can be charged and found
guilty. And they should be.
But the assertation by a known religious bigot that an entire religion is
guilty of crimes it has never been charged with or convicted of is as
ludicrous as would be a white supremist's assertion that all Jews are
guilty of crimes and should be locked up.
Cory Brennan
Baba ROM DOS
>Cory Brennan wrote:
>> Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>> because it has not committed any.
>no, $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it has not been
>convicted of any crimes.
Whoa! $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it is
a corporate entity, and corporations are immune to criminal prosecution.
Senior $cientologists, on the other hand, up to and including the wife
of the founder, *have* been convicted of crimes, and have gone to jail.
Steve A
Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>"Andrew P. Bacus" <aba...@hsanahq.org> wrote:
>>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>>> protected by the state.
>
>This idea that 'the state' needs to babysit people to protect them from
>their own decisions in life is extremely foreign and distasteful to most
>Americans I know.
Were "the state's" babysitting analogous to Scientology's you might
have had a point. The trouble is that there comes a point,
notwithstanding all the rights and freedoms of the individual that are
made so much of, where an individual's mental state means that he is
no longer competent to make basic life-or-death decisions, and thereby
represents a threat to himself or others. Since, given the
availability of medication to resolve such problems in many cases (not
all: only a charlatan would claim almost-universal success), these
problems can be regarded as temporary, it makes sense to have a
legislative mechanism whereby such people can be involuntarily
committed in order to receive such treatment.
I have participated in the early stages of organising an involuntary
committal (called a "section" here in the UK). It wasn't part of a
psych plot to ensure world domination: it was because someone whom I
loved very much was becoming so depressed that, after the second or
third (you lose count) suicide attempt, I had grave fears for her
safety. She wanted to be left alone to die; I considered that to be
because of the nature of her illness, and set in motion the initial
stages of organising a section. Fortunately, she saw sense, and agreed
to voluntary commitment, which has, despite lots of setbacks, been a
wise decision.
I might also add that, far from rubbing their hands with glee at the
prospect of another patient, the mental health professionals I spoke
to were very cautious, and very keen to establish the facts of the
case beyond any doubt before they would even countenance my
suggestion.
>True, the psychiatric idea that you are not responsible for your own
>condition or actions (which has translated into, criminals are not guilty
>of their crimes because they are incapable of being responsible - ala
>Menendez, etc), has been absorbed into the culture somewhat. But as we
>can see by the recent result in Menendez, there is a backlash against
>that viewpoint.
I would not be surprised if there were a backlash against the
viewpoint that criminals are not guilty for the crimes they commit.
But I strongly suspect that the number of people making such a claim
is very, very small. What *does* happen, and what I suspect you are
screeching about, is that some individuals who commit crimes are
identified as suffering from some or other mental illness which has
prompted the commission of those crimes, and succeed in receiving
treatment for that illness. I am sure that mistakes are made, but I'm
a bit happier about the idea of someone being given the benefit of the
doubt rather than being sent to the electric chair because some ultra-
conservative or religious fundie has decided to "crack down on crime".
As per usual, Cory, your cult, like much of your conservative
bedfellows in the US, is only ever interested in window-dressing -
dealing with the outward appearance of a problem rather than its
causes - and you only serve to discredit yourself in the process.
>With a philosophy that the 'state" must protect one from potentially bad
>decisions in life, where does one draw the line?
One starts by looking at the ethics of the situation. That's ethics in
the usual English use of the word, not the Scientology redefinition.
I cannot speak for the US, but I can say that here in the UK that
question gets addressed on a regular basis. Offenders who are deemed
to be "criminally insane" are committed to one of a small number of
secure mental hospitals, such as Broadmoor or Rampton, where they
receive treatment at the same time as they are incarcerated. The
ethical or moral difference is that their incarceration is not per se
society extracting retribution on them for their offences, but a means
of keeping them out of society's way until they are considered to be
cured. Commitment to a secure mental establishment is by no means a
soft touch, but perhaps it offends the over-simplistic "lock 'em up
and throw away the key" knee-jerk reaction of those who don't want to
think too deeply about anything.
>Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about the relationship between
>freedom and independance. I would recommend that you read some of his
>works, Tilman.
It is possible to pervert the words of any good person to evil ends,
and that's something your cult has had plenty of experience of.
>It may help free you from the mind-set you seem to be
>slave to. He seemed to feel that people were capable of figuring things
>out on their own, for starters.
How can you possibly know whether Tilman is "slave to" any particular
mindset. You talk about people being capable of figuring things out
for their own, yet all we ever see from you is prepackaged boilerplate
rubbish about da evil psychs, which you can't actually discuss. Put
your own house in order, Cory.
>If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
>stultifying education.
And I suppose word-clearing and clay demos *aren't* mind-numbing or
stultifying? I must agree, as someone who finished his formal
education over 15 years ago, that I think that not enough attention is
paid to the underlying structures of language and numeracy. I would
prefer to see somewhat more emphasis put on grammar, expression, and
"numerical literacy". But I wouldn't say that the cult of Scientology,
with the, ah, literary quality of its materials, is in any position to
criticise.
>It's education's job to teach people to think. If
>people can't seem to be able to think for themselves without government
>intervention, your educational system should be the target. Or perhaps
>the government discourages thinking and prefers to tell people what they
>should and shouldn't do in various aspects of their lives, even their
>spiritual lives.
Ah, I get it. This is another sideswipe at Germany, right?
>What religion would you call that, Tilman?
Tell us what religion *you* call it, Cory. Just assume our meat bodies
are too dumb to figger it out for ourselves, eh?
>>Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
>>inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
>>explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
>>since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
The "mind control" theory has not, as far as I'm aware, been
discredited. If the teachings and principles of the "church" of
Scientology are so damn impressive that they cause people to want to
join, how come Scientology devotes so much time and effort (legally
and otherwise) to keep people from seeing them? From here, it looks
like the "church" would like people to be impressed by what it has to
offer, but knows that the vast majority of its marks would probably
die laughing if they got to see the ridiculous space opera that they'd
be expected to believe in.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster, KoX, KOh
Minister in the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT,
High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up? [on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", official CoS stooge showing Scientology's caring side.
A good home awaits a NOTS pack available for legal adoption. Apply by email...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMWAqX2K4mshjLd+dAQHqZAP8CIsapgZObwhgkttpq6UQ2xINfchCnP/z
UqtOfAbO7e3VDF/FYCwjgyw30l6u5c5e+dFr9TELSRp0mgNkEN6Nne7zS7Y0zPpP
hZLlc6yXsIb2YPqVkEcTIhEZ0Q0AY5a09aA8RQT2eYymlIP/N7nu+cW19YA9K7fd
29dRHph7M90=
=hWql
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tilman Hausherr
(Cory Brennan) wrote:
>In article <4je0ou$4...@kalypso.cybercom.net>, rne...@kalypso.cybercom.net
>(Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>> In article <3159b21c...@news.snafu.de>,
>> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>
>> >Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
>> >crimes in the year 1995
>
>This is a load of bunk, and propaganda forwarded by anti-religionists such
>as Tilman.
>
>Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>because it has not committed any.
Funny that your logic does not apply to Steve Hassan. He has never been
convicted of a crime, but you constantly accuse him of it. Great
communication powers, Cory.
>I could equally say "Tilman Hausherr has committed a lot of crimes in the
>year 1995" and make allegations, and even put up a web page. It would not
>make my allegations true.
Indeed. This applies to the Fishman pages set up by one anonymous person
and by "Alan Rachins" or "Sam" or whoever.
So make allegations, Cory.
You libelled me in 1995 and it took you more than a month to retract it.
If you had been a resident of Germany, I would have sued you for it. In
a similar case, a scientologist (a spokesman for Germany) had to pay
over $10,000 to a christian reverend. Luckily, penalies are low. Another
scientologist was convicted a few days ago for making a death threat to
a 17 year old boy. In the US, nothing has happened with the guy who
chased a mexican girl, threatening to kill her. I guess it was a
religious act to do so (and besides, I assume that she "somehow" quickly
got kicked out of the country).
>As Andrew and others have said, if individuals of any religious persuasion
>(or non-religious persuasion) commit crimes, they can be charged and found
>guilty. And they should be.
Is that the reason scientology sued the whole court, just because it
accepted to take the Wollersheim case ?
>But the assertation by a known religious bigot that an entire religion is
>guilty of crimes it has never been charged with or convicted of is as
>ludicrous as would be a white supremist's assertion that all Jews are
>guilty of crimes and should be locked up.
Are you talking about me or about Aagaard ? Scientology has indeed
committed these crimes in 1995. It isn't guilty of it because US state
attorneys prefer not to investigate religions.
If there is anything on Ron's page not committed by scientology, please
clarify it. Criminal behaviours isn't special for scientology - 11 went
to jail, and the founder was named an unindicted co-conspirator.
Just because you get away with it doesn't mean you didn't do it.
Tilman
P.S.: Please look up the thread "skewed reality". Or are you
non-confront ?
Tilman Hausherr
>In article <315cecbd...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de wrote:
>
>> In <4jikci$2...@ni1.ni.net>, Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
>> >stultifying education. It's education's job to teach people to think. If
>> >people can't seem to be able to think for themselves without government
>> >intervention, your educational system should be the target. Or perhaps
>> >the government discourages thinking and prefers to tell people what they
>> >should and shouldn't do in various aspects of their lives, even their
>> >spiritual lives.
>> >
>> >What religion would you call that, Tilman?
>>
>> I have deleted most of you post. You start with "freedom from the
>> state", you continue with psychiatry, you throw in the Menendez trial,
>> then you name Jefferson just so that your texts sounds great (it
>> doesn't), then you attack education, and then you're back at your
>> so-called freedom of religion.
>>
>> Scientology's freedom of religion is that scientology has the freedom to
>> pretend it is a religion and get away with everything, and that the
>> state and the courts should stay out of it.
>
>I've never said the courts should stay out of it, or anything like that.
>Again, you misrepresent me. Is this deliberate, or do you really have such
>little understanding of what I say?
You have your own way of talking. For example, my full paragraph shows
it:
Scientology's freedom of religion is that scientology has the
freedom to pretend it is a religion and get away with everything, and
that the state and the courts should stay out of it. Just consider
the Wollersheim litigation: the guy sued because of some very
non-religious activities. Yet scientology claimed it was the freedom
of religion to destroy him.
See: I did not say *you* personally said this. It is scientology as a
whole. Wollersheim won, and you don't pay. You respect the courts only
when you win. And you snip parts of texts, like you did with in the
psych-related discussions. Luckily Diane is a librarian, so she can look
up the quotes within minutes, and exposes you for what you are.
I (and most a.r.s. critics) also respect the courts when the critics
lose. For example when people ask me if scientology wins or loses in
court, I tell the truth: they win and lose. Scientology on its web pages
makes it look as if they only win.
> In fact, I am quite glad that religions do have recourse to the courts
>when prejudiced or totalitarian individuals in governments try to take
>away the constitutional rights of their members.
Yes, but you are not happy when someone sues a religion. That should of
couse not be allowed. And when a guy wins against a religion, that
religion doesn't bother to pay him.
>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able to
>confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide have
>found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And will
>continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other vested
>interests to deny this fact.
Cory, I have repetably asked you to posted these 25 cases, you have
_never_ done it. Instead, you have posted this and that, without
context, with a bogus court number, or cases without precedent, cases
that have been purged from the court almost a decade ago, etc. Your
information is worthless - especially since you do not mention the labor
court decision. The truth is that until recently, scientology has won
and lost in german courts - and in the last months, it has had the three
biggest losses in its history (although it has won a few smaller cases)
>> The government is allowed to prosecute crime. I know that you don't like
>> that, Cory, but governments have prosecuted crimes for centuries. When a
>> person gets scammed, a state attorney will prosecute for them. It means
>> that you can get justice even without money.
>>
>> The problem in the US is that when you got scammed by a religion (who
>> internally claims to be scientific, workable, proven, etc), then
>> suddenly the government does nothing, and the victims have to come up in
>> civil court. And this might take a decade or more. Thus religions in the
>> US have freedoms that ordinary scam artists don't have. Moon considers
>> it correct to steal money from the US state because he is a religious
>> leader. Same for L. Ron Hubbard. I think it is not correct to do so.
>
>This is one of the most ignorant viewpoints on the concept of freedom of
>religion I have ever seen, outside of the Inquisition and the like
>perhaps. It is also an egotistical viewpoint, because it assumes that you
>are capable or determining whether or not another man's belief and
>practices are "legitimate" or "a scam" You of course are welcome to your
>personal opinion. But to suggest that government get involved with
>determining such is a violation of your country's constitution, as well as
>plain good sense and basic principles of freedom, tolerance and personal
>liberty. It is an especially noxious viewpoint when expressed in the world
>community of the Internet. Your posts continue to illustrate that your
>understanding of religious freedom issues is extremely undeveloped and
>insulated.
So who should determine that something is a scam or not ? Let's imagine
that someone would "really" (even in your opinion) build a scam
religion. Who then you stop it ?
>What religion are you, Tilman (if any)? And which religions do you
>consider to be "legitimate" religions? Why? What characteristics must a
>religion have to pass your personal test in this regard? Why? Please give
>specifics and not generalities, if you can. I think it is highly relevent
>to the discussion at hand. I will be very surprised if you answer the
>questions though.
My religious affiliation is none of your business. You and Vera would
really like to know, so I guess.
It is indeed difficult to state what is a religion and what isn't. Even
a real religion can be criminal. But for scientology, the answer is
obvious when one reads their own papers: a money-making scam machine.
>I really and sincerely suggest you read some Thomas Jefferson. And some of
>the other great thinkers that have discussed religious freedom. If you do
>that, and then wish to discuss religious freedom issues, I will be happy
>to do so. If not, I have to assume that you don't wish to understand the
>issues, but would rather cling to your own narrow-minded viewpoint,
>without having it inconveniently disturbed by any others that may disagree
>with it.
Cory, you are the one who cannot "discuss". There is a long list of
questions you evade. For example, why a holocaust denier is a
scientologist. Or why some GO felons are still in scientology. Or why
scientology used a wanted man for its investigations.
There is no need to discuss Jefferson, Cory. He is a "wog", so his ideas
don't apply to scientology. Jefferson isn't "source". Let's discuss the
ideas of L.Ron Hubbard, instead. For example his quote about how it
would be great if the ennemy camp would go up in flames as a birthday
gift.
Tilman
P.S.: Please look up the thread "skewed reality". Or are you
non-confront ?
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX] http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
Tilman Hausherr
ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
It's hard to say whether it is just the enforcement or wether the state
attorneys simply don't care. Maybe both. I don't have the legal
experience how to make it better - I can just say where it stinks.
>> >The government is
>> >free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
>> >infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
>> >within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
>>
>> No you can't publicly call for murder. Or can you ? In Germany this
>> would be illegal, "Volksverhetzung".
>
>Two things:
>
>1. This is an international setting. Your country may feel comfortable
>with this line of reasoning. But you are trying to tell me what should be
>done with my country, the United States, within the borders. I don't hack
>on Germany for not having an airtight First Amendment, so try and respect
>our political values similarly.
Sorry. I do not mean that any country should take up our system. I just
provided an example that calling for murder is illegal here. I don't
know if it is illegal in the US or not. Scientology gets away with it,
considered the recent case of the security chief of their HQ's chasing a
mexican girl on the streets, threatening to kill her.
The guy has been interviewed and that's it. I have not heard on any
charges.
The german legal system is not perfect, and I do not say it should be
taken as "the" example.
>2. And it depends how you phrase it. If I said to someone "lets kill
>some infidels," I would be culpable for criminal solicitation most
>likely. If I said, "the sacred text says it is good to kill infidels"
>thats another thing. The question is, are you willing to take your
>"speech begets conduct" theory to its logical limits? If I advocate
>lawful repeal of the laws regarding securities fraud, should I be culpable
>as if I had committed securities fraud? Because, in saying that I think
>securities fraud is not a bad thing, I am encouraging others to commit it
>in one way or another? Is anyone allowed to have different opinions than
>the government? If you make thought equivalent to conduct, not only do we
>have to obey the law, we have to play cheerleader to the laws currently on
>the books. Whats the point in democracy if differences in opinion are
>disallowed.
It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a religion
who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of the other
religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any tax
exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception" or
supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday gift".
(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
these!).
Tilman
>
>Jake Minas
>ja...@columbia.edu
Dave Bird --- St Hippo of Augustine
<kor...@jovanet.com> writes
>n article <4je0ou$4...@kalypso.cybercom.net>, rne...@kalypso.cybercom.net
>(Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>> In article <3159b21c...@news.snafu.de>,
>> Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
>>
>> >Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
>> >crimes in the year 1995
>
>This is a load of bunk, and propaganda forwarded by anti-religionists such
>as Tilman.
>
>Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>because it has not committed any.
FLUNK! Senior Scientologists were though.
Mary Sue did jail time for stealing government files
Kendrick Mor\\oxon was an unindicted co-conspirator.
So was El Rotundo himself.
START AGAIN.
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug:
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,Golden Gate Bridge Club member#017
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : :Pope Potamus3rd/St Hippo of Augustine
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DON'T FORGET-THE CLAMS R MAKING A BIG NOISE TO DISTRACT US KOZ THEY
JUST HAD A 'BIG LOSE'(TM) IN HOLLAND *&* TAX ASSOCIATES JUST WON !!
Terry Carroll
>Paul Campbell <pa...@taniwha.com> writes:
>
>>Cory Brennan wrote:
>
>>> Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>>> because it has not committed any.
>
>>no, $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it has not been
>>convicted of any crimes.
>
>Whoa! $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it is
>a corporate entity, and corporations are immune to criminal prosecution.
Not so. Corporate entities can be prosecuted.
--
Terry Carroll | "For those too young to remember them, peace signs
Santa Clara, CA | closely resemble the hood ornament ornament on
car...@tjc.com | Mercedes-Benz automobiles." - Roulette v. Seattle,
Modell delenda est | 94-35354 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 1996), n.4.
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
>vested interests to deny this fact.
It doesn't matter if or how many German courts have found the Co$ a
religion in the past. Your 'church' lost its religious status and is now
considered a *business*. Learn to live with that little sister.
Mike,
Anthony Fore
On 01.04.96 kor...@jovanet.com wrote:
>>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
>>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
>>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
>>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
>>vested interests to deny this fact.
The Oz High Court did not find that cos was a religion. It decided
that the High Court had no business deciding who was and wasn't a
religion. The Court said that if anyone wants to call themselves a
religion they can. ARSCC.aus could call itself a religion if we
wanted to.
[ Notice of motion for AGM given]
The real issue is tax exemption - isn't it. The most important
religious belief of cos.
Reasons to be cheerful about religious status:
Copyright - careful we are a business with trade secrets.
Business laws? - huh? - we're a religion.
-----+----
No guru, no method, no teacher
"When I cleaned up my diction, I had nothing left to say"
Monwhea Jeng
>ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>>> >The government is
>>> >free to ban conduct -- it is not free to ban belief. I can believe that
>>> >infidels be murdered, I can even speak out about it so long as I stay
>>> >within the bounds of the Constitutional tests for subversive advocacy.
>>> No you can't publicly call for murder. Or can you ? In Germany this
>>> would be illegal, "Volksverhetzung".
>>2. And it depends how you phrase it. If I said to someone "lets kill
>>some infidels," I would be culpable for criminal solicitation most
>>likely. If I said, "the sacred text says it is good to kill infidels"
>>thats another thing. The question is, are you willing to take your
>>"speech begets conduct" theory to its logical limits? If I advocate
>>lawful repeal of the laws regarding securities fraud, should I be culpable
>>as if I had committed securities fraud? Because, in saying that I think
>>securities fraud is not a bad thing, I am encouraging others to commit it
>>in one way or another? Is anyone allowed to have different opinions than
>>the government? If you make thought equivalent to conduct, not only do we
>>have to obey the law, we have to play cheerleader to the laws currently on
>>the books. Whats the point in democracy if differences in opinion are
>>disallowed.
>It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a religion
>who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of the other
>religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any tax
>exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception" or
>supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday gift".
>(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
>these!).
Except that, in the United States, these examples are cases of protected
speech that the government may not discriminate against. As long as my
speech does not have th direct purpose and effect of immediately
inciting the commitment of a crime, then the speech is protected. For
example, I am perfectly free to say "President Clinton is a dick, and
should be shot" (but not to actualy contract his assassination) or "All
Jews should go to the gas chamber" (but, of course, not actually
permitted to kill Jews). This is all part of the free Speech part of the
First Amendment, and has nothing to do with religion at all.
Furthermore, under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the
state may not differentiate among religions on the basis of their
belifs, no matter how awful their beliefs or speech are. As long as
Christian churches get the tax exemption, the Scientologists have to as
well.
Momo
henry
In article <koreenb-3103...@cs1-27.datadepot.com>,
Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>> >Theoretically yes. Practically no. Scientology has committed a lot of
>> >crimes in the year 1995
>This is a load of bunk, and propaganda forwarded by anti-religionists such
>as Tilman.
>Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>because it has not committed any.
then why is gene ingram still hiding out on the lam like a crook,
evading a felony warrant in florida? your cult hires this criminal
to harass people, go through their garbage, and harass elderly
mothers of USEnet posters even while they are convalescing from
surgery. what do you call hiring a crooked ex-cop kicked off
the force for being a pimp and tipping off drug dealers to raids,
and ratting out undercover officers to armed thugs?
why is heber "jailbird" jentzsch still out on bail from a
trial that he has stated his criminal intent of evading?
why, this year, were over a dozen scientologists in greece
arrested for everything from coercion and undue influence
to drug smuggling?
>I could equally say "Tilman Hausherr has committed a lot of crimes in the
>year 1995" and make allegations, and even put up a web page. It would not
>make my allegations true.
your cult already has accused him of being a nazi with no evidence,
in fact for months, practically daily multiple cultists harassed
tilman by endlessly calling him a nazi every time he said anything.
i read a book by your cult recently called _the rise of hatred
and violence in germany_, published by freedom magazine. it's
a real piece of shit. there's a row of swastikas on the top of
every page, with pictures of psychiatrists next to pictures of
hitler and similar smear tactics.
it even has the gall to say that simon wiesenthal said that
the SS idolized psychiatrists as the most expert professional
killers. this is the kind of insanity you find out of this
criminal cult that can't do anything but howl NAZI or something
lame like that whenever they get caught in crimes and dragged
off to jail as they deserve.
h
- --
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck
f f
u "When you can't say 'fuck,' you can't say u
c 'FUCK THE CDA!' -- Lenny Bruce rephrased c
k k
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck
ObURL: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/erlich/defense-fund
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMWLXGW130hVrA/MJAQHKDQP9FeHLvAFaEOMVf4rpYUpFTh9ROEYuybxK
o/r/YcfTQppvd360dA+RTBes0vuJEuZBqqK/0LNhW1XadFxhp5OkY0yDTLSLbCOy
r1ZQiKc8xYW5t6kyQuVKaV+udWyABJfp0s/a041MHD77FTqdeTjFh/QvpGnzabvK
I9IsDmF5N3M=
=uz81
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joel Hanes
>>
>>>> Scientology has not been convicted for any of these alleged "crimes"
>>>> because it has not committed any.
>> Paul Campbell <pa...@taniwha.com> writes:
>>
>>> no, $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes
>>> because it has not been convicted of any crimes.
> ba...@jones.neu.sgi.com (Baba ROM DOS) wrote:
>>
>> Whoa! $cientology has not been convicted of any crimes because it is
>> a corporate entity, and corporations are immune to criminal prosecution.
car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>
> Not so. Corporate entities can be prosecuted.
Cory is either deluded or lying; no surprise there.
Paul Campbell is correct, if a bit tautological.
Baba is mistaken.
Terry is, of course, quite correct.
As a corporate entity, Scientology _has_ committed crimes
(Operation Snow White, Operation PC Freakout,
libelling Hon. Casey Hill, et.al.)
In Canada, the Church of Scientology Toronto has been prosecuted
as a corporate entity for crimes connected with Operation Snow White,
and for libelling Casey Hill, and convicted.
viz.:
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1st, 1983, a Sergeant from the Ontario Provincial Police
[O.P.P.] Anti-Rackets Branch swore an information before His Honour
Chief Justice F. Hayes of the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) to
obtain a warrant to search the premises of The Church of Scientology of
Toronto [hereafter referred to as "Scientology"]. The information had a
total length of more than 1,000 pages, including several appendices. On
the same day, Chief Judge Hayes issued a warrant authorizing a search of
the premises on March 3rd and 4th.
The information presented to Judge Hayes proposed three allegations of
criminality:
Count 1 [tax fraud]:
... that he has reasonable grounds to believe that the above
described things to be searched for will afford evidence in
respect to the commission of offences against the Criminal Code
of Canada, to wit:
that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY of
Toronto and Garry JEPSON (President), Dan CROCINI (Secretary),
Arnelle PEARSE (Treasurer), Kathy WHITMORE (Past Secretary), and
others unlawfully did between January 1, 1976 and February 15,
1983 at the City of Toronto, in the Judicial District of York
and elsewhere in Canada commit an indictable offence, to wit: by
deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means did defraud Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario (Province
of Ontario, Ministry of Revenue) and Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada (Government of Canada, Department of National
Revenue, Taxation) of money, property, valuable securities of a
value exceeding $200.00 by representing to those officials
responsible for registration of non-profit corporations under
the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario and the Income Tax Act of
Canada that SCIENTOLOGY was a non-profit organization,
collecting "donations" from its members, without distribution of
profit to any of its proprietors or members thereby obtaining
non-profit status and exemption from corporate taxes otherwise
payable while said SCIENTOLOGY in fact distributed and paid
monies or profits raised by the Church of Scientology to the
personal use of L. Ronald HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD and other
members of the Church of Scientology, such profits arising from
the sale of courses and other materials, contary to Section
338(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count 2 [fraud]:
and further that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY of Toronto, Gerry JEPSON (President), Dan CROCINI
(Secretary), Arnelle PEARSE (Treasurer), Kathy WHITMORE (Past
Secretary) and others unlawfully did between January 1, 1976 and
February 15, 1983 at the City of Toronto, in the Judicial
District of York and elsewhere in Canada, commit an indictable
offence, to wit: did defraud the public, more specifically
persons to whom Scientology made representations concerning the
qualities of and benefits receivable from, courses, including
the Purification Rundown, and from E-Meters, for sale at costly
prices in no way related to the real value of such things, such
things being without the represented benefits, thus by deceit,
falsehood or other fraudulent means defrauding such persons of
money, property or valuable security of a value exceeding
$200.00 contary to Section 338(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of
Canada.
Count 3 [conspiracy]:
And further that L. Ron HUBBARD, Mary Sue HUBBARD, CHURCH OF
SCIENTOLOGY of Toronto, Hilarie ROCKL, Scott CARMICHAEL, Harvey
SHMIEDEKE, Nicole CRELLIN, Marion EVOY, William O'MEARA, Gerry
JEPSON, Dan CROCINI, Arnelle PEARSE, and others unlawfully did
between January 1, 1972 and February 15, 1983 at Toronto, in the
Judicial District of York and elsewhere in Canada, commit an
indictable offence, to wit: did conspire together and with other
persons to effect a lawful purpose, the operation of
Scientology-owned and controlled companies and organizations, by
unlawful means, to wit: the use of the GUARDIAN OFFICE OF
SCIENTOLOGY to commit indictable offences, including theft and
break, enter and theft, when perceived necessary by the said
persons to protect the interests of Scientology contary to
Section 423(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On March 3rd, an additional information was sworn before Justice of the
Peace A. Kosteka, to obtain a warrant to search the premises of Michael
P. Zaharia. The warrant was issued the same day.
The search warrants were executed by officers of the O.P.P. together
with forensic accountants and accountants of the Federal Department of
Revenue. The six floors of the Scientology premises were searched from
2:30 PM on March 3rd until 11:00 AM on March 4th. 129 OPP officers
attended, with about 30 officers doing the actual searching. Some 850
boxes containing about 39,000 files and books, or about 2,000,000
documents, statements and tapes were removed.
The warrant to search Zaharia's house was executed on March 3rd, and two
boxes of documents, records and correspondence were removed.
...
On March 7th, Mr. Justice Linden ordered the "sealing" of all seized
documents described as "Pre-clear folders" so as to preserve the status
quo until such time as the question of the existence of a priest and
penitent or confidential religious communication privilege was
determined.
On December 1st, 1984, an information was sworn charging Scientology and
a number of individuals with various criminal offences. Eventually 19
persons (Scientology + 18 individuals) were charged or summonsed. It is
significant that the Church of Scientology of Toronto, as a corporate
body, was charged with criminal acts.
An indictment for 11 of the persons charged follows. It shows that
the following organizations were infiltrated or victimized by the Church
of Scientology:
1. Fasken & Calvin [law firm].
2. Goodman & Goodman [law firm].
3. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [medical governing body].
4. Ontario Medical Association.
5. Canadian Mental Health Association.
6. Ontario Provincial Police.
7. Metropolitan Toronto Police.
8. Attorney General of Ontario.
9. Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Persons named but not charged in this indictment:
Cynthia Bake, Donna Lee Cavanaugh, Jaqueline Dianne Carmichael, John
Bradley, Kathleen Lepp, Marilyn Linda Belaire, Michael Symington, Nancy
Troiani, Nanna Krogh Anderson, Susan Leah Lemieux.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
THE QUEEN
v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ,
PAUL FRANCOIS CHARBONNEAU, JANET ELSIE WILKENS, ANNE MARIE WALSH,
CLARA ANNE SCHNEIDER, ERNEST LEHMANN, MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, JAAN JOOT,
JANICE WHEELER and DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE
Theft Over :
Theft Under :
Breach of Trust :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D I C T M E N T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
CANADA ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
)
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO ) - against -
)
TORONTO REGION ) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF
) TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ,
) PAUL FRANCOIS CHARBONNEAU,
) JANET ELSIE WILKENS, ANNE
) MARIE WALSH, CLARA ANNE
) SCHNEIDER, ERNEST LEHMANN,
) MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, JAAN
) JOOT, JANICE WHEELER and
) DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE
(1) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, PAUL FRANCOIS
CHARBONNEAU, JANET ELSIE WILKENS and ANNE MARIE WALSH
STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period commencing on or about
the 11th day of February, 1975 and ending on or about the 2nd day
of September, 1977, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,
did steal documents, the property of the law firm of Fasken &
Calvin, Barristers and Solicitors, of a value exceeding $200.00,
contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
(2) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JACQUELINE MATZ
STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with NANCY TROIANI, within the
period commencing on or about the 27th day of December 1976 and
ending on or about the 6th day of January, 1978, at the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the
property of the law firm of Goodman & Goodman, Barristers and
Solicitors, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of
the Criminal Code;
(3) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JACQUELINE MATZ,
CLARA ANNE SCHNEIDER and ERNEST LEHMANN STAND CHARGED THAT they,
within the period commencing on or about the 26th day of January,
1976 and ending on or about the 31st day of August, 1978, at the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the
property of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, of a
value exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
(4) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO STANDS CHARGED THAT
it, together with NANNA KROGH ANDERSON, within the period
commencing on or about the 1st day of November, 1976 and ending on
or about the 29th day of June, 1978, at the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the
Ontario Medical Association, of a value exceeding $200.00, contrary
to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
(5) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ
STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with KATHLEEN LEPP, SUSAN LEAH
LEMIEUX and MICHAEL SYMINGTON, within the period commencing on or
about the 29th day of July, 1974 and ending on or about the 19th
day of March, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,
did steal documents, the property of the Canadian Mental Health
Association, of a value not exceeding $200.00, contrary to s.294(b)
of the Criminal Code;
(6) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ
STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with DONNA LEE CAVANAUGH, an
official employed by the Ontario Provincial Police, within the
period commencing on or about the 21st day of May, 1974 and ending
on or about the 12th day of May, 1975, at the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust, in
connection with the duties of the office held by DONNA LEE
CAVANAUGH, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons
information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her
office, contrary to s.111 of the Criminal Code;
(7) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and JAQUELINE MATZ
STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with CYNTHIA BAKE, an official
employed by the Ontario Provincial Police, within the period
commencing on or about the 31st day of May, 1976 and ending on or
about the 12th day of November, 1976, at the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in
connection with the duties of the office held by CYNTHIA BAKE, in
that the latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information
coming to her knowledge or possession by reason of her office,
contary to s.111 of the Criminal Code;
(8) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ and
MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JOHN
BRADLEY, within the period commencing on or about the 28th day of
February, 1976, at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, did
steal documents relating to the investigation conducted by the
Metropolitan Toronto Police into the activities of Church of
Scientology of Toronto, the property of the Metropolitan Toronto
Police, of a value exceeding $200.00, contary to s.294(a) of the
Criminal Code;
(9) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ and
MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, an official employed by the Metropolitan
Toronto Police, STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JOHN
BRADLEY, within the period commencing on or about the 23rd day of
July, 1974 and ending on or about the 28th day of February, 1976,
at the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit
a breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held
by MARILYN LINDA BELAIRE, in that the latter disclosed to
unauthorized persons information coming to her knowledge or
possession by reason of her office, contary to s.111 of the
Criminal Code;
(10) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, JAAN
JOOT and JANICE WHEELER STAND CHARGED THAT they, within the period
commencing on or about the 25th day of April, 1974 and ending on or
about the 11th day of July, 1975, at the Municipality of
Metropolitan Toronto, did steal documents, the property of the
Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, of a
value exceeding $200.00, contary to s.294(a) of the Criminal Code;
(11) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO, JAQUELINE MATZ, JAAN
JOOT and JANICE WHEELER, an official employed by the Ministry of
the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, STAND CHARGED
THAT they, within the period commencing on or about the 25th day of
April, 1974 and ending on or about the 11th day of July, 1975, at
the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, unlawfully did commit a
breach of trust in connection with the duties of the office held by
JANICE WHEELER, in that the latter disclosed to unauthorized
persons information coming to her knowledge or possession by reason
of her office, contrary to s.111 of the Criminal Code.
(12) AND FURTHER, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO and DONALD BRYAN
WHITMORE, an official employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, STAND CHARGED THAT they, together with JAQUELINE DIANNE
CARMICHAEL, within the period commencing on or about the 27th day of
November, 1976, at the City of Ottawa in the Judicial District of
Ottawa-Carleton and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario,
unlawfully did commit a breach of trust in connection with the
duties of the office held by DONALD BRYAN WHITMORE, in that the
latter disclosed to unauthorized persons information coming to his
knowledge or possession by reason of his office, contrary to s.111
of the Criminal Code.
Pursuant to Section 574 of the Crminal Code, I hereby prefer Counts 1 to
11 of this Indictment in the Ontario Court (General Division), and,
pursuant to Section 577 of the Criminal Code, I consent to the
preferment of Count 12 of this Indictment, and hereby prefer Count 12 in
the Ontario Court (General Division).
DATED at Toronto, this 8th day of February, 1991.
(signed)
HOWARD HAMPTON
Attorney General for the
Province of Ontario
...
The 11 defendants were committed for trial in 1990, but due to extensive
legal arguments, the trial only began in April, 1992. For example, the
defence objected because the jury was selected by computer. They said
the juror ballots should be scrambled and chosen by hand. The judge
ruled that a computer is a modern ballot box (that is, a container from
which juror ballots are selected). The defence objected because there
were no veterinarians on the jury. And so on.
All accused pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The trial lasted two months. With adjournments, it ended on June 25th,
1992. The most important ruling during the trial concerned the evidence
to be used in support of the charges of theft of documents. Mr. Justice
James Southey ruled that all of this evidence was protected as
"confessional materials". The prosecution is appealing this ruling.
Following Judge Southey's ruling, the prosecutor told the jury there was
insufficient evidence to make a case, so there was a directed verdict of
not guilty on the theft charges.
On the breach of trust charges, the defense admitted the spying, but
claimed that it had been done without the knowledge of church officials
by former members of the church who were testifying for the Crown (i.e.
the prosecution) in exchange for immunity from prosecution. In addition
to these witnesses, the trial heard from a female Ontario Provincial
Police officer who had worked undercover for three years as a
Scientologist, partly in the Guardian's Office. This undercover
operation began after Ontario Government papers were found by the FBI in
its raid on the Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles.
NOT GUILTY VERDICTS
On charges numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10, there was a directed
verdict of not guilty, due to inadmissibility of evidence. These
are the theft charges.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was found not guilty on charges
#6 (breach of trust, O.P.P.), #9 (breach of trust, Toronto Police),
and #12 (breach of trust, R.C.M.P.).
Jaqueline Matz was found not guilty on charges #6 and #9.
Marilyn Linda Belaire was found not guilty on charge #9.
Jaan Joot was found not guilty on charge #11 (breach of trust,
Attorney General of Ontario).
GUILTY VERDICTS
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was found guilty on charges
#7 (breach of trust, O.P.P.), and #11 (breach of trust, Attorney
General).
Jaqueline Matz was found guilty on charges #7 and #11.
Janice Wheeler was found guilty on charge #11.
Wheeler had sent copies of secret documents from the office of the
Attorney General of Ontario to the Guardian's Office, and allowed a
member of that office to go through ministry files in an
unsuccessful attempt to find a file on Scientology.
Donald Bryan Whitmore was found guilty on charge #12 (R.C.M.P.).
Whitmore was a Scientology plant who memorized information from
R.C.M.P. files.
SENTENCES
Sentences were pronounced on September 11th, 1992.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto was fined $100,000 on count #7,
and $150,000 on count #11.
Jaqueline Matz was fined $2500 on count #7 and $2500 on count #11,
with 60 days imprisonment if she defaults.
Janice Wheeler was fined $2000 or 30 days on count #11.
Donald Bryan Whitmore was fined $2000 on count #12.
The Church of Scientology of Toronto had statements documents to the
court showing that its liabilities exceed its assets, and argued that it
should receive only a nominal fine. Judge Southey rejected this
argument, and also rejected a prosecution request that the fine be at
least $1 million. He suggested that since the "mother" church in
California had contributed to the $7 million cost of fighting the
criminal charges through interest-free loans, they could pay a portion
of the fine. He noted that the Church in Toronto is governed by three
appointed directors, over whom the 7,000 parishoners have no control.
The judge rejected the contention that the church had shown remorse for
its role, and suggested that in reality there was a continuing attempt
to blame individuals within the church for illegal activities that had
been carried out at the direction of senior Scientology officials.
Meanwhile, outside the court, church officials distributed pre-printed
statements declaring the sentence "an outrage and miscarriage of
justice."
Judge Southey also said he was satisfied that the British-based
Guardian's Office World Wide was "subject to the control of founder
L. Ron Hubbard and his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard. He said that a heavy
fine was necessary to deter any organization from placing "plants" in
law-enforcement agencies.
...
Canada's Largest Libel Award
After the police raid on its headquarters in Toronto, the Church of
Scientology decided to destroy the reputation of Casey Hill, the Crown
Attorney who was preparing the case for the prosecution. False
allegations of contempt of court were prepared. Appearing on the steps
of Osgoode Hall (Appeal Court) in his barrister's robes, lawyer Morris
Manning announced to a press conference that his client, the Church of
Scientology, was bringing contempt charges against Hill for allegedly
misleading a judge and breaching a court order sealing seized documents.
The contempt charges were later dismissed by a judge, and Hill sued the
church for libel. Hill's lawyers met with the church's lawyers before
the libel trial and offered to settle for $50,000, but the church
refused. The jury trial ending October 3rd, 1991 awarded general
damages of $300,000 against Scientology and lawyer Morris Manning. The
jury also awarded $500,000 in aggravated damages against Scientology,
and a further $800,000 in punitive damages against Scientology, for a
total of $1.6 million.
The Church of Scientology appealed the size of the award, and on March
11th, 1992, Mr. Justice Douglas Carruthers decided that the church
should pay pre-judgement interest at the rate of 10% since 1985,
effectively adding $500,000 more to the award. He also issued a
permanent injunction against church officials from making defamatory
statements about Hill.
When a lawyer for Mr. Hill, Robert Armstrong, attempted to collect, he
found that the Church's offices, with an appraised value of $6 million,
had been mortgaged to the Church of Scientology of California within
weeks of the judgement. The cash from the mortgages had ostenstibly
been used to pay legal fees. A payment of $3.1 million was shown to
the law firm of Clayton Ruby, although $2.1 million of that was not
owed at that time.
Armstrong asserted that the church's property was essentially debt-free
before the trial, but within weeks it had three mortgages registered
against it for $10 million.
The Church appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and in a unanimous
judgement on May 10, 1994, the court found in favour of Mr. Hill. The
three-judge panel was severely critical of the church's conduct, calling
it "character assassination" and noting that Scientology kept an
internal file on Hill, identifying him as "Enemy Canada" - a category
reserved for the vilest individuals.
"Scientology decided that Casey Hill was the enemy and it set out to
destroy him", the court said in its 129 page judgement. "It levelled
false charges against him. It prosecuted him on those charges ... In
summary, the evidence suggests that Scientology set upon a persistent
course of character assassination over a period of seven years with the
intention of destroying Casey Hill."
Although the church knew within 10 days of the Osgoode Hall news
conference that some of its allegations were untrue, it continued to
defend them as justified right up to the start of the appeal.
Mr. Justice W. David Griffiths wrote that the appeal court had reviewed
the evidence and found that it was sufficient to find "malice and
egregious conduct on the part of Scientology". The malice alone was
sufficient to merit the punitive damage award, the judgement said, and
"what seemed to be of overriding importance was the need for specific
deterrence of Scientology to prevent it from repeating its libel."
Scientology was not easily deterred, the appeal court judges said. It
not only published the libel when there was no evidence to support the
allegations but continued its unfounded proceedings against Mr. Hill
when it knew the principal allegation was untrue. It also made
allegations that it knew were untrue in documents it submitted to court.
---
Joel Hanes SP4
"Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" G.B. Trudeau
henry
In article <momo.82...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu>,
Monwhea Jeng <mo...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>Furthermore, under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the
>state may not differentiate among religions on the basis of their
>belifs, no matter how awful their beliefs or speech are. As long as
>Christian churches get the tax exemption, the Scientologists have to as
>well.
it is a common misconception that 501(c)(3) tax-exemption is
a statement that an organization is not a religion, when this
is simply not the case, and is specifically forbidden by the
establishent clause of the first amendment.
the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization
and its profits are inured to several individuals, most prominently
david miscavige, who makes countless millions from his fraudulent
scam.
this alone means that the organization has no legal basis for
501(c)(3) tax-exemption.
(cue milne reposting his lies that the government blatantly
violated the constitution by declaring scientology a _bona
fide_ religion).
>Momo
h
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMWL/E2130hVrA/MJAQFIZwP9G6J2YaU6kuUk+F4ZqJoprha5r1p4jVWO
bVhYLu5pP6qAcEpAgd7CiRabh1//beg59fVPdKhrq32gNGN8CQvkGgvynp06pdF1
gaDDKkSndWpgGVZet4pdsiFbrBMM+cXtvmk/T3ICthbKIXNbVwHk8zw3dIlljpRV
i9kNsua7CpE=
=DR3h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cat Davidson-Hall
kor...@jovanet.com (Cory Brennan) wrote:
> In fact, I am quite glad that religions do have recourse to the courts
> when prejudiced or totalitarian individuals in governments try to take
> away the constitutional rights of their members.
Do you also believe that Church members and members of the public have a
corresponding right to recourse to the courts when Churches attempt to
take away their constitutional rights?
> What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able to
> confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide have
> found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion.
This is especially rich coming from the Queen of Non-Confront. What you
fail to confront, Cory dear, is that a number of courts in Germany and
elsewhere have found that Scientology is a business (not a religion), and
should be treated as such. A number of countries don't even recognize
$cientology as a religion at all, and are not likely to in the foreseeable
future.
> What religion are you, Tilman (if any)? And which religions do you
> consider to be "legitimate" religions? Why? What characteristics must a
> religion have to pass your personal test in this regard?
Quit trying to confuse the issue, Cory. We're talking about *your*
"religion" here, not Tilmann's.
FWIW, though, I would consider any institution which serves only those who
have the money to pay for its spiritual secrets rather than all humankind
regardless of wealth, and/or which charges grotesque sums to those who
wish spiritual enlightenment *not* to be a religion. Just MHO.
If you really want to, we can bring *my* religion into it, but I don't
think you're gonna like how its teachings compare with those of your
"Church".
Cat
SP4, KoX
Who is Xenu? Where is Pat Broeker? Who killed Judge Swearinger's dog?
Did humans *really* evolve from clams? When will Scientology pay Lawrence Wollersheim the $5,000,000+ it owes him? Why does Dennis wear a blue bathrobe? All this and more on alt.religion.scientology!
--
"One day he's going to kill me, and he'll get away with it because
he's O.J." - Nicole Brown
"I wanted to know the exact dimensions of hell. Does this sound
simple? Fuck you." - Sonic Youth
Cory Brennan
>Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew P. Bacus" <aba...@hsanahq.org> wrote:
>>>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure I mean it. These people destroy the freedom of religion of their
>>>> members, i.e. they use deception to make people drop their old religion
>>>> and enter a new one. And the result of it is both loss of freedom (cause
>>>> you get into a cult) and loss of money. A religion should be considered
>>>> just as another consumer product before the law. And comsumer have to be
>>>> protected by the state.
>
>>This idea that 'the state' needs to babysit people to protect them from
>>their own decisions in life is extremely foreign and distasteful to most
>>Americans I know.
>
>agree with Szasz that the government has no right to tell
>individuals that they are not allowed to use illegal drugs?
>That's CERTAINLY a prime example of "the state" babysitting
>people by deciding what they are and are not allowed to do to
>themselves.
>
>You've done quite a bit of waffling on this issue, Cory. On one
>hand, you claim that you admire Thomas Szasz and his philosophy
>of individual responsibility. On the other hand, you shout quite
>loudly that illicit drugs are an evil that must be eliminated
>from society.
>
What? My stance on this has had no mention of government. And I don't
necessarily believe that government should be made the responsible for
forcing people off drugs. That is one reason that I am active in
promoting drug education - because I do believe it is society's job, not
the governments. I have also mentioned more than once that a person has
to *want* to come off drugs for rehab to be successful in most cases. So
that free will element is most definitely there on this issue.
On the other hand, if a person breaks the law as a result of drug use,
that is a problem that government should be concerned with.
>Wouldn't you admit that you and the "Church" that you are paid to
>represent are being more than a little hypocritcal here?
>
The government should enforce laws which protect people's life, liberty,
and property. The government should not interfere with people's religious
practice or belief. That is babysitting.
>>True, the psychiatric idea that you are not responsible for your own
>>condition or actions (which has translated into, criminals are not guilty
>>of their crimes because they are incapable of being responsible - ala
>>Menendez, etc), has been absorbed into the culture somewhat. But as we
>>can see by the recent result in Menendez, there is a backlash against
>>that viewpoint.
>
>>With a philosophy that the 'state" must protect one from potentially bad
>>decisions in life, where does one draw the line?
>
>That's what I'd like to know about your "Church," Cory. Wouldn't
>you admit that your "Drug Free Marshals" program, for example is
>an effort to protect people from potentially bad decisions in
>life? Why is that program any more laudable than the
>government's efforts to keep people from taking drugs.
The government in Germany is trying to enforce whether or not certain
religions can practice unhindered. There is a big difference. I'm sorry
that some people do not seem able to see it. Another difference is this.
It is not the government's place to make spiritual decisions for its
people. Its place is to serve and protect physically. It *is* a Church's
place traditionally in society to promote a moral society, even if it is
only within its own ranks.
>
>Is it because it's *right* when your "Church" does it, but
>*wrong* when the government does it? Hmmmmm.....
Yes, absolutely. Aside from the fact that you are talking about two
different things (enforcement vs. education), it is the Church's place,
and not the government's, to deal in spiritual matters. That is called
seperation of Church and state in this country. Just as the Church cannot
interfere in government matters, so the government should not interfere
by dictating what a Church can and cannot practice, as long as the
practices do not violate already existing laws. Using drug education is a
weak metaphor, when this thread is actually about spiritual practice, and
the right to engage in it unhindered by government.
Cory Brennan
///////////////
Cory Brennan
>
>
>> >> About believing in murdering opponents - that's exactly what freedom of
>> >> religion is *not* about. But it is the same for taking drugs (in
>> >> countries where drugs are illegal) or spreading lies about ex-members.
>> >> One cult argued before a court that spreading lies about ex-members was
>> >> a part of their religious belief - and succeeded. Case is under appeal.
>> >
>> >Oh but this is the difference. You mention objectionable *beliefs* (i.e.
>> >believing in murdering opponents) in the same sentence as objectionable
>> >*conduct* (i.e. taking drugs where prohibited by law).
>>
>> conduct follows belief. Someone who beliefs in murder will finally do
>> it. See Japan.
>
>Ever heard of thoughtcrime (see below). And second, that line of
>reasoning is incredibly oversimplistic.
Yes, it is. There are many people who might think of something that don't
ever do it. The laws of society may restrain them, or other
considerations may restrain them. If you put everybody in jail that
believed in murder as a solution to anything, there might be a lot of
people in jail. But the majority of them will never murder anyone.
Conduct does not necessarily follow belief. If it did, religious people
would be a lot more godly and perfect than they are, for one thing. :)
>
>> My point is about conduct. I.e. when someone lies to get money from
>> another person, then the government (i.e. state attorney) should step
>> in. It is a shame that such unethical behaviour must be fought in civil
>> courts by the victims.
>
>Yes, but when talking about fraud, you have to be a lot more particular
>about what is "lying" and what is "unethical behavior." There is
>something specious about your argumentation here. You are vague about
>exactly what kind of conduct you want to prohibit. When you do give
>specific examples of wrongdoing (e.g. spreading lies about ex-members,
>confinement and torture, etc.) those are all covered by the laws we
>already have.
Fraud is a very specfic crime, for very specific reasons. When you are
discussing religion, for instance, a person, say - a Catholic or Lutheran
- might believe - and represent to others - that if someone belongs to
their Church and contributes regularly they will go to heaven. What if
this is not really true? Did they then lie to people by telling them
that?
Tilman, do you think Catholics who encourage contributing to their Church
because the Church is saving people for their eternal existence are lying
to people? After all, they don't know for a fact that heaven exists
if they have never been there. Should there be a law against this??
Under your suggested scenario, it should be illegal. Not only is it a
possible lie, but the person will not have any recourse once they are
dead to even go to civil suit if it turns out they don't go to heaven!
And because the German government collects taxes for Catholics and
Lutherans the government would have to be charged with the crime as well.
The crux of the matter is this.
You obviously believe that your world view is right and the view of the
religions you attack is wrong. You have the right to believe that. But
when you start trying to enforce your world view on others, simply
because you disagree with it, by using government intervention, then it
is no longer your right, but becomes oppressive and totalitarian.
Cory Brennan
Cory Brennan
>It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a religion
>who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of the other
>religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any tax
>exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception" or
>supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday gift".
>(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
>these!).
>
Tilman, do you think the Jewish religion should not be given tax
exemption? After all, the Old Testament says "An eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth." That is their holy scripture.
There is a real problem when someone who obviously has a vested interest
against a particular religion would be allowed to interpret the scripture
of that religion and make laws against the religion as a result of their
(almost always bogus) interpretation.
Cory Brennan
///////////
Cory Brennan
fraud in the US as a result of insurance scams by
psychiatrists, many of them based on involuntary commitment of people who
didn't need treatment. Nor the statistics, agreed to by at least one
government psychiatrist, that 50-70% of adolescents committed into
hospitals did not need the treatment.
I wasn't referring to psychiatry in my above comment, but it would
certainly be apropo to bring them into it. Since they feel that on one
hand they can tell when a person is a 'danger to self or others' but on
the other hand, they admit they cannot predict violence or violent
tendancies (proven out statistically by their utter lack of ability to
determine when someone labeled 'criminally insane' is 'cured.)'
>>With a philosophy that the 'state" must protect one from potentially bad
>>decisions in life, where does one draw the line?
>
>One starts by looking at the ethics of the situation. That's ethics in
>the usual English use of the word, not the Scientology redefinition.
>
>I cannot speak for the US, but I can say that here in the UK that
>question gets addressed on a regular basis. Offenders who are deemed
>to be "criminally insane" are committed to one of a small number of
>secure mental hospitals, such as Broadmoor or Rampton, where they
>receive treatment at the same time as they are incarcerated. The
>ethical or moral difference is that their incarceration is not per se
>society extracting retribution on them for their offences, but a means
>of keeping them out of society's way until they are considered to be
>cured. Commitment to a secure mental establishment is by no means a
>soft touch, but perhaps it offends the over-simplistic "lock 'em up
>and throw away the key" knee-jerk reaction of those who don't want to
>think too deeply about anything.
>
In actual fact, and if you actually looked at the statistics -
"treatment' of the "criminally insane" does not result in "cure." In the
US, for instance, the experiment of treating sex offenders was such a
failure that it has been discontinued completely in many cases. And in
two studies, prisoners on psychiatric drugs to 'help' them be less
violent and criminal, became _more_ violent than their counterparts who
were given no drugs. In no reference have I seen conclusive evidence that
psychiatric treatment of criminals dubbed insane has decreased recividism
rate under any circumstance.
Scientology does not preach "lock-em-up and throw away the key" Quite the
opposite. Hubbard has isolated what actually makes a criminal into a
criminal, and we have - by statistic (measured recividism) one of the
most if not the most successful rehabilitation program in the world.
One can find out more about it at:
>>If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
>>stultifying education.
>
>And I suppose word-clearing and clay demos *aren't* mind-numbing or
>stultifying? I must agree, as someone who finished his formal
>education over 15 years ago, that I think that not enough attention is
>paid to the underlying structures of language and numeracy. I would
>prefer to see somewhat more emphasis put on grammar, expression, and
>"numerical literacy". But I wouldn't say that the cult of Scientology,
>with the, ah, literary quality of its materials, is in any position to
>criticise.
>
Just so people know what is being discussed here, word clearing, in
Scientology means that a person looks up any word he doesn't understand
in the dictionary and fully clears the meaning of it so that he fully
understands what he is reading.
It is highly encouraged that Scientologists do this with whatever they
read, whether it be sciences, other religions, political writings,
manuals, etc. Scientologists are also encouraged to be well read and to
find out about things. Scientology teaches that understanding the basic
words of a subject is very fundamental to understanding the subject fully
- and most importantly - that there is a correlation between full
understanding of a subject and the ability to apply the information in
that subject to life.
I fail to see how anyone could think that was mind-numbing and
stultifying, unless they themselves had a misunderstood on the term 'word
clearing." Which is a very good example of why one would want to clear up
terms they don't understand.
>>>Either that or people hear the teachings and principles of the Church, are
>>>inspired by it, and then decide to join... That's certainly a more logical
>>>explanation than the discredited "mind control" theory. And far more civilized
>>>since it posits the notion that people are responsible for their own decisions.
>
>The "mind control" theory has not, as far as I'm aware, been
>discredited. If the teachings and principles of the "church" of
>Scientology are so damn impressive that they cause people to want to
>join, how come Scientology devotes so much time and effort (legally
>and otherwise) to keep people from seeing them? From here, it looks
>like the "church" would like people to be impressed by what it has to
>offer, but knows that the vast majority of its marks would probably
>die laughing if they got to see the ridiculous space opera that they'd
>be expected to believe in.
>
In two court cases thus far, the theory of mind control as forwarded
by anti-religionists has been debunked. It has also been debunked by the
CIA and those who have tried to develop it - they would be able to tell
you very quickly that a person cannot be 'controlled' and made to do
things against his will simply by talking to him. The CIA (and their
hired psychiatrists) have used very intrusive methods such as heavy pain,
heavy drugs and hypnotic commands to try to put people under 'mind
control', because they know anything less than that just doesn't work.
People who say they have been under 'mind control' are simply trying to
avoid taking responsibility for actions they took in the past which they
now disagree with. They are trying to blame their actions on somebody
else. This is not just my opinion, I will see if I can pull up some
references on this to post.
The Church of Scientology and many of its parishioners have made a
concerted effort to make available our most fundamental and important
beliefs, including texts of L Ron Hubbard, and even a full taped lecture,
on its web pages at;
http://www.scientology.org
http://www.lronhubbard.org
http://www.dianetics.org
One can judge for oneself what our beliefs are by viewing these pages.
Cory Brennan
///////////////////
STEVEN FISHMAN
>Scientology does not preach "lock-em-up and throw away the key" Quite
>the opposite.
Yes, that's true. While I was out on bond for securities class action
fraud which I committed for the cult, I was ordered to do an End of
Cycle, or suicide, by Ethics Officer Frank Thompson of the Miami Org,
and by Flag Banking Officer Leona Grimm of the Miami Org, who received
their orders by telex from Carol Martiniano at OSA INT.
>Hubbard has isolated what actually makes a criminal into a criminal,
>and we have - by statistic (measured recividism) one of the
>most if not the most successful rehabilitation program in the world.
True again. It's called the RPF, where people go PTS Type III (raving
psychotic), and sometimes it's so successful that they DIE! Or, in the
case of Annie Broeker, they vegetate for years and live on Nine Lives
Cat Food from garbage pails. They are imprisoned under armed guard
(they can't leave the place), and are audited to death and denied
sleep.
>One can find out more about it at:
Bullshit. You won't find the truth there. But you will on a.r.s.
>>>If they can't do that, the fault may be in modern mind-numbing and
>>>stultifying education.
Go stultify yourself with an enema bag, Cory.
With Best Wishes and Happy Stultification,
Steve Fishman
STEVEN FISHMAN
>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>>It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a
>>religion who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of
>>the other religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any
>>tax exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception"
>>or supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday
>>gift".
>>(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
>>these!).
She sure can't spell worth shit for a "Clear". Enemy is spelled with
one "n", you dumb bitch.
And don't keep comparing your Body Thetan Litigation Cult to real
religions.
Here is why yours is a cult and not a religion, piss-brain:
(1) Prayer in Scientology puts you at effect rather than at cause.
(2) The highest "ecclesiastical scriptures" have the "parishioner"
remove non-existent demonic entities known as Body Thetans which by
definition can't exist because of (1) there is no faith in them and (2)
because the patological liar Flubbard told you they existed when they
are nothing more than an analogy of "germs" and a substitution for
"germs."
(Which leads me to conclude that this is one sick, diseased cult).
Medicine and psychiatry gets rid of germs, while Scientology keeps them
around until the money to exorcize them is used up.
(3) Your "ministers" are auditors who are led by the nose by
registrars and other financial terminals.
(4) A large chunk of your income is earmarked for lawsuits and fair
game operations.
(5) You covertly have nothing but contempt for genuine faiths.
Hubbard's writings were replete with anti-religious statements, mocking
organized religions the same way as he mocked organized mental health
groups and pra
ctitioners.
>Tilman, do you think the Jewish religion should not be given tax
>exemption? After all, the Old Testament says "An eye for an eye, a
>tooth for a tooth." That is their holy scripture.
We also say "a brain for a brain" but you don't have one. You just
have invisible thetans and body thetans. Yours is the "religion of
ghosts and goblins and ghouls (and don't forget Helena Kobrin)."
And your "holy scripture" talks about an implant station where you
spend 36 days getting the memory of your previous life wiped out by
alien third invader implanters. You're playing with yourself, Cory
Brennan.
>There is a real problem when someone who obviously has a vested
>interest against a particular religion would be allowed to interpret
>the scripture of that religion and make laws against the religion as a
>result of their (almost always bogus) interpretation.
It ain't "almost always bogus" now, thunder thighs.
Why?
Because crap is always crap no matter how you interpret it.
Show me a real live Body Thetan and I'll kiss it's ass.
(Another priceless quote from Fishman, and I say that without modesty).
With Best Wishes,
--- Steve Fishman
>Cory Brennan, Clear But Incredibly Stupid.
Hud Nordin
>The Church of Scientology and many of its parishioners have made a
>concerted effort to make available our most fundamental and important
>beliefs, including texts of L Ron Hubbard, and even a full taped lecture,
>on its web pages at;
>http://www.scientology.org
>http://www.lronhubbard.org
>http://www.dianetics.org
Visit those commercial pages. Then, visit some of these independent efforts:
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/modemac/cos.htm
http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plmlp/
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
http://www.sky.net/~sloth/sci/sci_index.html
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/scientology.html
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
If you REALLY want to know what they believe in, visit the pages
Scientology, Inc. tried to SUPPRESS, for instance:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/
Make up your own mind.
--
Hud Nordin, Cybernetic Arts, Post Office Box 2066, Sunnyvale, California 94087
Tilman Hausherr
>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>
>>It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a religion
>>who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of the other
>>religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any tax
>>exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception" or
>>supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday gift".
>>(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
>>these!).
>Tilman, do you think the Jewish religion should not be given tax
>exemption? After all, the Old Testament says "An eye for an eye, a tooth
>for a tooth." That is their holy scripture.
That is not a call for murder, this is an old form of justice. Jewish
scripture does not say "burm the houses of the non-believers".
Btw, Cory, do you believe that there is really a religion that talks
about "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday gift" and got
away with it, and even got tax exemption ?
>There is a real problem when someone who obviously has a vested interest
>against a particular religion would be allowed to interpret the scripture
>of that religion and make laws against the religion as a result of their
>(almost always bogus) interpretation.
Thanks for explaining this. It means that whatever someone cites of
scientology, it is *always* out of context, and should never be admitted
as evidence - since the critic is against the movement anyway !
And of course this logic should also admitted in courts, Cory ? Only
scientology (or any religion) is admitted to "interpret" their writings.
Keep dreaming. Or emigrate to Bulgravia. Even the US has laws, and even
scientology can't get away with all.
In <4k1vrd$f...@ni1.ni.net>, Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>Tilman, do you think Catholics who encourage contributing to their Church
>because the Church is saving people for their eternal existence are lying
>to people? After all, they don't know for a fact that heaven exists
>if they have never been there. Should there be a law against this??
If you had taken the time to read the articles, you would have seen that
I do *not* consider this a fraud. Donations to religions are fine.
Promises of spiritual advantages are fine too. And yes, they can't be
proven. The problem comes when donations are *linked* with salvation.
Or when a religious promises physical feats in exchange with money.
Cory, don't you know that the catholics stopped doing this centuries
ago ? Word-clear "Martin Luther", Cory. I know that scientology forbids
to "mix practices", but it doesn't forbid you to take a refresh course
in history ! You talk about "religious freedom" and don't even know the
most important milestones in religious history ?
There is a very good reason, Cory, that you take the catholics, instead
of looking at your own cult. For example, promising people to get better
eyesight thru scientology. Or promising them physical healing thru
scientology. Or promising them that they would get the money for the
course after doing the course, so that it wouldn't matter if they victim
has to take a loan first. Or using bait-and-switch so that people sign
up for more and more. And if they get a psychotic break, then they get
even more courses to handle it. And if it can't be handled, they are
kicked out. Has all happened.
>Under your suggested scenario, it should be illegal. Not only is it a
>possible lie, but the person will not have any recourse once they are
>dead to even go to civil suit if it turns out they don't go to heaven!
No I have not said that. And I have clarified my viewpoint days ago, and
you have ignored it, like you have ignored the evidence that a holocaust
denier is a Patron of the International Association of Scientologists.
You simply prefer to accuse me of whatever, and do not listen to
responses. THAT is your religion.
Here is what I said:
Religion is belief. Religion can't be proven. There is no "true"
religion. A religion can promise all sort of spiritual things, that's
not the problem. Problem is when they suck people in deceptively.
Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
(i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members -
that gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't
cheat.
I know, the above paragraph is in contradiction with the "consumer
product" idea expressed a few hours ago. Maybe one should call it a
"spiritual consumer" product. I doubt this will ever be done - which
religion would ever agree to be considered as a "consumer product",
except maybe the Church of the SubGenius ?
Tilman
Cory Brennan
> On 01.04.96 kor...@jovanet.com wrote:
>
> >>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
> >>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
> >>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
> >>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
> >>vested interests to deny this fact.
>
> The Oz High Court did not find that cos was a religion. It decided
> that the High Court had no business deciding who was and wasn't a
> religion. The Court said that if anyone wants to call themselves a
> religion they can. ARSCC.aus could call itself a religion if we
> wanted to.
> [ Notice of motion for AGM given]
In August 1976, Herbert Graham, Deputy Premier of Western Australia,
formally opologized for the passing of earlier legislation which had
banned Scientology in his state, describing it as "the blackest day in the
political history of Western Australia."
There were numerous strongly worded local decisions throughout Australia
that Scientology is most definitely a religion and should be tax exempt.
There are numerous court decisions world wide which definitively
proclaimed Scientology a religion. Here is a a very small sample of some
of the wording (including some from the High Court of Australia). People
can decide for themselves what the courts were or were not saying about
Scientology:
After reviewing the judicial precedents concerning the
religious nature of Scientology, the United States Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in {Church of Scientology Flag
Service Organization v. City of Clearwater} stated on
September 30, 1993:
{"The history, organization, doctrine and practices of
Scientology have been thoroughly recounted in numerous
judicial decisions. We need not reiterate this background
because the district court found that no genuine factual
issues existed to dispute Scientology's claim of being a bona
fide religion."}
On January 30, 1985, in {In Re Karl-Friedrich Munz,}
the Stuttgart District Court ruled:
"{[The Church of Scientology's] purpose in this world is
considered to help man in his striving for spiritual freedom
and to completely free him from problems and burdens to reach
total freedom in order to recognize himself as a spiritual
being and experience the existence of a Supreme Being...."}
In {Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,} on June
5, 1989, the United States Supreme Court found as follows:
{"Scientology was founded in the 1950s by L. Ron Hubbard. It
is propagated today by a mother church in California and by
numerous branch churches around the world. The mother church
instructs laity, trains and ordains ministers, and creates new
congregations.... Scientologists believe that an immortal
spiritual being exists in every person. A person becomes
aware of this spiritual dimension through a process known as
auditing.... The Church also offers members doctrinal courses
known as training. Participants in these sessions study the
tenets of Scientology and seek to attain the qualifications
necessary to serve as auditors.... Scientologists are taught
that spiritual gains result from participation in such
courses."}
And in Italy, in the case of {State v. Eight Defendants,}
the Trento Court of Appeals made the following finding:
{"Scientology ... has the target to achieve an inner and
outer freedom, one that transcends the human, one that belongs
to the field of spiritual things, and that moves up to
infinity; indeed, the progress toward realization of the
eighth dynamic force -- concerning Infinity and God --
actually is the characteristic that describes Scientology as
a religion and as a church."}
{Scientology falls under the definition of a religion because
of: 1) belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; 2)
the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect
to that belief}.
(High Court of Australia, 27 Oct 83, The Church of the New
Faith v. The Commissioner for Payroll Tax)
{The origins and development of the Scientology religion
are legitimate.}
(High Court of Australia, 27 Oct 83, The Church of the New
Faith v. The Commissioner for Payroll Tax)
The Australian court also found the evidence that Scientology was a
religion to be "irresistable."
Cory Brennan
Tilman Hausherr
(Cory Brennan) wrote:
> On January 30, 1985, in {In Re Karl-Friedrich Munz,}
> the Stuttgart District Court ruled:
> "{[The Church of Scientology's] purpose in this world is
> considered to help man in his striving for spiritual freedom
> and to completely free him from problems and burdens to reach
> total freedom in order to recognize himself as a spiritual
> being and experience the existence of a Supreme Being...."}
No, Cory, the court did not "rule" this. Here the fuller text of the
court decision, posted by Milne:
===
According to its own understanding this Church is a salvation
religion which deals with the human soul and the riddles of life and
which sees its roots and historical tradition in Buddhism, Hinduism and
other religions. Its purpose in this world is considered to help man
in his strive for spiritual freedom and to completely free him from
problems and burdens to reach total freedom in order to recognize
himself as a spiritual being and experience the existence of a Supreme
Being to be able to be more aware and to reach satisfaction and
happiness. In the course of this one also reaches an understanding of
God as the Supreme Being ...
===
So word-clear "According to its own understanding", Cory. You are
posting that decision all the time, although I have told you that the
decision is not even available from the court, because it has been
purged.
I might guess that the other "wins" of scientology in Germany are
similarly bogus. Not bogus is the decision of the labor court, where
scientology lost big, and the court submitted a text *devastating* to
scientology. The text is so bad for scientology, that no scientologist
has ever dared to discuss it here, although several people have posted
translations.
Btw, Cory, you are very non-confront... You claimed that scientology
doesn't "evaluate" people, and it does; you claimed that the was no
policy that a complaint was to be rejected if sumbitted by several
people, and there was one ("petition"); you claimed that you had changed
a lot in scientology for the better, and could never provide anything;
you claimed that I am wrong about Holocaust denier Marcellus, and you
could never tell me what is wrong; I told you that the court number of
the Munz case is the fax number of the court, but you never provided the
correct court number ? What kind of dilletante are you ?!
Monwhea Jeng
>the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization
>and its profits are inured to several individuals, most prominently
>david miscavige, who makes countless millions from his fraudulent
>scam.
>this alone means that the organization has no legal basis for
>501(c)(3) tax-exemption.
I don't know too much about the structure of the Scientologists, or the
legal meaning of non-profit. Why is the Catholic church a non-profit
organization. It takes in money -- the money is usually from donations,
but sometimes for certain services, like Bingo. At least some of that
money goes to pay room, board and wages for priests and so forth.
Also, I seem to vaugely recall (I don't have a cite right now) arguments
used in the earlier half of this century that the Jehovah's Witnessess,
by charging for the distribution of their literature, were engaged in
commerical speech which would be regulated, and the Court rejecting
these arguments. What distinguishes the Scientologists from these
religions?
Momo
Laszlo Weress
Hausherr) writes:
[snip]
>Just because you get away with it doesn't mean you didn't do it.
>
>Tilman
Just becasue you deny it it's not proof you didn't do it, therefore he
can accuse anyone with anything, and from that point on it is the
accused's responsibility to prove that s/he is not guilty of the
accusation.
Love Tilmanism; the root of one-way philosophy.
He repeatedly accuses others with things that stands without any proof.
The difference between his logic, in comparison to the REAL judicial
system that he tries to maskarade under, is that the accuser(state
attorney's) required to present tangible (not tangential) evidence of
their accusations. Not heresay, not newspaper articles, not "MoC said
so", not "it's Hassan's book", but hard evidence.
Anthony Fore
>In article <4ju5dm$1g...@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, This NG wrote:
>> On 01.04.96 kor...@jovanet.com wrote:
>>
>> >>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
>> >>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
>> >>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
>> >>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
>> >>vested interests to deny this fact.
>>
>> The Oz High Court did not find that cos was a religion. It decided
>> that the High Court had no business deciding who was and wasn't a
>> religion. The Court said that if anyone wants to call themselves a
>> religion they can. ARSCC.aus could call itself a religion if we
>> wanted to.
>> [ Notice of motion for AGM given]
>In August 1976, Herbert Graham, Deputy Premier of Western Australia,
>formally opologized for the passing of earlier legislation which had
>banned Scientology in his state, describing it as "the blackest day in the
>political history of Western Australia."
I have stated before I don't think cos should be banned. People can
believe what they want. But cos should be open to scrutiny of its
beliefs.
BTW you clearly now nothing of W.A. politics - there has been a lot
more blacker days on bith sides of the fence.
Why don't you let someone from Australia or Western Australia post
about the sirtuation here. Not only is your church not tolerant of
critiscm inside or out, you won't even let people be represent the cos
in their own countries. Everything must be controlled from the USA.
You show no respect for other countries ability to interpret your
churches policies.
Show us that some one from Australia can talk about the cos
officially.
Give our country and the scientologists in it some respect.
Is David Cooke from the South Australian Government your Australian
Representitive?. Let him have a go.
Don't trust anyone who is not American to speak for the church hey??
Catherine Hampton
from the Newsgroups: line. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with
the Boston Church of Christ, and (possibly due to Cory's crossposting)
a bunch of irrelevant threads have shown up in a.r.c.b-c. I'd rather not
have to keep killing threads that shouldn't appear here in the first place.
Thank you!
--
Catherine Hampton
==================================================
ar...@best.com hr...@gw.traveller.com
--------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Web: http://www.traveller.com/~hrweb/
Home Page: http://www.best.com/~ariel/
==================================================
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--The Constitution of the United States of America
First Amendment
henry
In article <momo.82...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu>,
Monwhea Jeng <mo...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:
>>the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization
>>and its profits are inured to several individuals, most prominently
>>david miscavige, who makes countless millions from his fraudulent
>>scam.
>>this alone means that the organization has no legal basis for
>>501(c)(3) tax-exemption.
>I don't know too much about the structure of the Scientologists, or the
>legal meaning of non-profit. Why is the Catholic church a non-profit
>organization. It takes in money -- the money is usually from donations,
>but sometimes for certain services, like Bingo. At least some of that
certainly games of "bingo" played by blue-haired old ladies for
a few dollars at most on sundays and used for charity is not even
remotely similar to charging tens of thousands of dollars for
absurd 'courses.' i defy you to name a single catholic church
from which a person has been removed because they can't afford
the sacraments. scientologists have 'fixed donations' of thousands
of dollars, sold by high-pressure salesmen who even will call banks
and credit card companies to have the mark's credit limit raised
so the mark can spend it all on scientology.
how that's even remotely comparable to anything the catholic
church does today is beyond me.
>money goes to pay room, board and wages for priests and so forth.
whereas the scientologists' donations are used to build tennis
courts for david miscavige and tom cruise, not to mention buying
them rolls royces, exquisite living quarters and fund money-laundering
and real estate scams.
>Also, I seem to vaugely recall (I don't have a cite right now) arguments
>used in the earlier half of this century that the Jehovah's Witnessess,
>by charging for the distribution of their literature, were engaged in
>commerical speech which would be regulated, and the Court rejecting
>these arguments. What distinguishes the Scientologists from these
>religions?
the degree of the prices, the demands made on their followers, the
manner in which scientologists harass everyone from critics to even
the police and the IRS. have the jehovah's witnesses ever been
hauled before a court and thrown _en masse_ into federal prisons
for stealing government documents? do the jehovah's witnesses have
the wanted felon gene ingram on their payroll, a man who was kicked
off the LAPD for being a pimp and tipping off drug dealers to raids?
as far as i can tell, the JW, while a cult and probably not
good for the mental health of their followers, will go away
if they wake you up in the morning if you simply ask them to,
whereas the scientologists will slash your cat's throat and
leave it on your doorstep.
>Momo
h
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMWXAmG130hVrA/MJAQGRMAP/Zz8ZhVfCrnkx+adk4cFDAeSvxOO+H2mt
WOa15WI2oI/4CfFlvciGtIQ2Jois+ZD2ZGVg8dLkJBFM0LlSiYLmGMweXmkbt3aV
27mYe9lMvVFIc87Bw5SvZyO56zEiIw7YmE2uNqoa14FhD8qcze6CjB3ST9ZVRvcu
avC0ZMQNypI=
=Hy/G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Catherine Hampton
when you respond to this thread. Despite the title, it appears to be about
Scientology, and that has nothing to do with the Boston Church of Christ.
Tilman Hausherr
) wrote:
>In <4k2060$f...@ni1.ni.net> Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> writes:
>
>>til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>
>>>It is indeed tricky. It won't be done only with one law. But a
>>>religion who supports a text which states "let's toast the members of
>>>the other religions", then such a religion should *not* be given any
>>>tax exemption. Same for religions that support "heavenly deception"
>>>or supports that "the ennemy camp goes up in flames as a birthday
>>>gift".
>>>(Btw, there really are two religions in the US that go away with
>>>these!).
>
>She sure can't spell worth shit for a "Clear". Enemy is spelled with
>one "n", you dumb bitch.
In this case, I was the "dumb bitch", since the ">>>" part was from me.
Thanks for the spelling hint, Steve.
Maybe you should really stop these 4 hour sleep sessions :-) You would
then have seen that the ">>>" text was critical of what is currently
called "freedom of religion" by the IRS.
There is indeed a US tax exempt religion that has a text that supports
that the enemy camp go up in flames as a birthday gift.
Quiz: which "religion" are we talking about ?
[ ] Jehovah's witnesses
[ ] Boston Church
[ ] scientology
[ ] Hare Krishna
[ ] Moonies
Tilman
Rex Basterfield
>There were numerous strongly worded local decisions throughout Australia
>that Scientology is most definitely a religion and should be tax exempt.
I personally don't have a great problem with it being a religion. It's
when it pretends to be a science that I get irritated.
Much of Mr Hubbard's work claims to be scientific, and it isn't.
Unless you re-define the scientific method beyond recognition.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>There is a real problem when someone who obviously has a vested interest
>against a particular religion would be allowed to interpret the scripture
>of that religion and make laws against the religion as a result of their
>(almost always bogus) interpretation.
>
>Cory Brennan
How does even an illiterate wog misinterpret, "The man on the
Cross .... there was no Christ." Or, "MAKE MONEY!" Or, "Fair
Game: may be tricked, lied to, cheated or destroyed." Or, "The
law can be used very easily to harass."
You can't spin the truth away, Koreen. Retribution is at hand.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>when you start trying to enforce your world view on others, simply
>because you disagree with it, by using government intervention, then it
>is no longer your right, but becomes oppressive and totalitarian.
>
>Cory Brennan
Best condemnation of the cult, by a scieno. Connect the dots,
girl. You can do it.
Anthony Fore
>In article <4ju5dm$1g...@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, This NG wrote:
>> On 01.04.96 kor...@jovanet.com wrote:
>>
>> >>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
>> >>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
>> >>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
>> >>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
>> >>vested interests to deny this fact.
>>
>> The Oz High Court did not find that cos was a religion. It decided
>> that the High Court had no business deciding who was and wasn't a
>> religion. The Court said that if anyone wants to call themselves a
>> religion they can. ARSCC.aus could call itself a religion if we
>> wanted to.
>> [ Notice of motion for AGM given]
Ms Brennan said:
>There were numerous strongly worded local decisions throughout Australia
>that Scientology is most definitely a religion and should be tax exempt.
>There are numerous court decisions world wide which definitively
>proclaimed Scientology a religion. Here is a a very small sample of some
>of the wording (including some from the High Court of Australia). People
>can decide for themselves what the courts were or were not saying about
>Scientology:
Here is a quote from the Australian High Court re Scientology or the
Church of the New Faith as it called itself then:
9. Of course, the present case is not concerned with a personal
freedom of religion; it is concerned with an exemption of a religious
institution from a fiscal burden imposed upon other institutions, but
no narrow definition of religion can be accepted on this account.
There can be no acceptable discrimination between institutions which
take their character from religions which the majority of the
community recognizes as religions and institutions that take their
character from religions which lack that general recognition.
The statutory syncretism which a Parliament adopts in enacting a
provision favouring religious institutions is not to be eroded by
confining unduly the denotation of the term religion and its
derivatives. (at p132)
End quote.
Anthony Fore
>In article <4ju5dm$1g...@news.unimelb.EDU.AU>, This NG wrote:
>> On 01.04.96 kor...@jovanet.com wrote:
>>
>> >>What I _have_ said, numerous times, and what you seem to not be able
>> >>to confront is that the courts in Germany and the courts world wide
>> >>have found overwhelming evidence that Scientology is a religion. And
>> >>will continue to do so, in spite of attempts by bigots and other
>> >>vested interests to deny this fact.
>>
>> The Oz High Court did not find that cos was a religion. It decided
>> that the High Court had no business deciding who was and wasn't a
>> religion. The Court said that if anyone wants to call themselves a
>> religion they can. ARSCC.aus could call itself a religion if we
>> wanted to.
>> [ Notice of motion for AGM given]
>There were numerous strongly worded local decisions throughout Australia
>that Scientology is most definitely a religion and should be tax exempt.
>There are numerous court decisions world wide which definitively
>proclaimed Scientology a religion. Here is a a very small sample of some
>of the wording (including some from the High Court of Australia). People
>can decide for themselves what the courts were or were not saying about
>Scientology:
From Australian High Court.
CHURCH OF THE NEW FAITH v. COMMISSIONER OF
PAY-ROLL TAX (VICT.) 1983 154 CLR 120 .
[ NB: NOT only did this include Lionel Murphy but a Justice
Brennan.!!!! ]
25. We turn next to the beliefs, practices and observances the
character of which is to be determined. The findings of the learned
trial judge furnish some but not all of the relevant material.
Crockett J. examined the history of the Scientology organization. He
found that its predecessor in Australia was the Hubbard Association of
Scientologist International ("H.A.S.I."), and that that Association
had published, at some time not earlier than 1961, a magazine
which unequivocally asserted "H.A.S.I. is non-religious -it does not
demand any belief or faith nor is it in conflict with faith. People of
all faiths use Scientology."
His Honour investigated the subsequent history of the
development of the cult, and found that a considerable transformation
had ostensibly occurred. But his Honour thought that "the
ecclesiastical appearance now assumed by the organization is no more
than colourable in order to serve an ulterior purpose", namely, the
purpose of acquiring the legal status of a religion so that the
organization might have the fiscal and other benefits of that status
in Australia and elsewhere and the purpose of avoiding
the legal disabilities to which the organization was subject by reason
of the Psychological Practices Act 1965 (Vict.).
His Honour expressed his clear conviction that the purported
transformation of Scientology to a religion was no more than a sham,
the proclaimed belief in the efficacy of prayer was bogus, and the
adoption of the paraphernalia and ceremonies of conventional
religion was a mockery. He said (1983) 1 V.R.,at p. 109.:
"The very adroitness - and alacrity - with which the tenets or
structure were from time (to time) so cynically adapted to meet a
deficiency thought to operate in detraction of the claim to
classification as a religion serve to rob the movement of that
sincerity and integrity that must be cardinal features of any
religious faith."
Though his Honour found that at least some parts of Mr. Hubbard's
writing contained merely pretended doctrines and practices of
Scientology, his Honour found also that members of the Scientology
movement are expected to and, apostates excepted, do accord blind
reverence to the written works of Mr. Hubbard. Although the sincerity
and integrity of the ordinary members of the Scientology movement were
not in doubt, his Honour held that Scientology was "no less a sham
because there are others prepared to accept and act upon such
aims and beliefs as though they were credible when they can not see
them for what they are. Gullibility cannot convert something from what
it is to something which it is not" (1983) 1 VR, at p 111 (at p141)
26. Yet charlatanism is a necessary price of religious freedom, and
if a self-proclaimed teacher persuades others to believe in a religion
which he propounds, lack of sincerity or integrity on his part is not
incompatible with the religious character of the beliefs, practices
and observances accepted by his followers. If his Honour had
approached the matter from the standpoint of the general group of
adherents, he may well have found Scientology to be a religion, for he
said (1983) 1 VR, at p 108
"Quite possibly if I were to accept as genuine the principles,
beliefs and practices supposedly now subscribed to by the scientology
organisation, then I, too, might agree readily enough that its
institution was religious in character." (at p141)
End quote from High Court.
Word clear words *sham* and *charlatanism*
But the cos still got tax exempt status. The holiest of all beliefs
for most new religions.
We here accept that freedom of religion will give charlatans and scams
some credence, but we grant it just the same.
Monwhea Jeng
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <momo.82...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu>,
>Monwhea Jeng <mo...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:
>>>the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization
>>>and its profits are inured to several individuals, most prominently
>>>david miscavige, who makes countless millions from his fraudulent
>>>scam.
>>>this alone means that the organization has no legal basis for
>>>501(c)(3) tax-exemption.
>>I don't know too much about the structure of the Scientologists, or the
>>legal meaning of non-profit. Why is the Catholic church a non-profit
>>organization. It takes in money -- the money is usually from donations,
>>but sometimes for certain services, like Bingo. At least some of that
>certainly games of "bingo" played by blue-haired old ladies for
>a few dollars at most on sundays and used for charity is not even
>remotely similar to charging tens of thousands of dollars for
>absurd 'courses.' i defy you to name a single catholic church
>from which a person has been removed because they can't afford
>the sacraments. scientologists have 'fixed donations' of thousands
>of dollars, sold by high-pressure salesmen who even will call banks
>and credit card companies to have the mark's credit limit raised
>so the mark can spend it all on scientology.
I'm not saying that the Scientologists are just like the Catholics. I'm
saying that the fact that an organization collects revenue and pays its
officials does not prevent it from being non-profit, as both the Sierra
Club and Catholic Church engage in these practices. The rest of your
argument seems to center not on giving some sort of neutral definition
of non-profit, but on characterizating the Scientologists as evil and
expensive. While this may be true, I don't see how that's relevant to
whether or not they are properly classified as non-profit.
>how that's even remotely comparable to anything the catholic
>church does today is beyond me.
I'm not comparing them morally.
>>money goes to pay room, board and wages for priests and so forth.
>whereas the scientologists' donations are used to build tennis
>courts for david miscavige and tom cruise, not to mention buying
>them rolls royces, exquisite living quarters and fund money-laundering
>and real estate scams.
Your point being?
>>Also, I seem to vaugely recall (I don't have a cite right now) arguments
>>used in the earlier half of this century that the Jehovah's Witnessess,
>>by charging for the distribution of their literature, were engaged in
>>commerical speech which would be regulated, and the Court rejecting
>>these arguments. What distinguishes the Scientologists from these
>>religions?
>the degree of the prices, the demands made on their followers, the
>manner in which scientologists harass everyone from critics to even
>the police and the IRS.
I'e already discussed the degree of their prices above. Your other
points seem totally unrealted to questions about whether the
Scientologists are legally a non-profit religioin. They seem rather to
be arguing that the Scientologists do many evil things. While this is
probably true (by my moral standards) it has no bearing on whether or
not they are religion. Furthermore, your other points do apply to other
relgions. Many other religions, including the Catholics, place high
demands on their followers -- e.g. the Church of Unification
("Moonies"), the Catholic church (nuns, "Trappists"), monks in many
Eastern religions, etc. . . And if by harass you mean that they
annoying, then this holds for many religions (especially the Jehovah's
Witnesses, which is why there were so many laws directed against them,
and why they appear so often in early First Amendment cases).
If by harass you mean that they break laws, see below.
have the jehovah's witnesses ever been
>hauled before a court and thrown _en masse_ into federal prisons
>for stealing government documents? do the jehovah's witnesses have
>the wanted felon gene ingram on their payroll, a man who was kicked
>off the LAPD for being a pimp and tipping off drug dealers to raids?
Your point here being? Again, let me point out that I am not arguing
that Scientology is a good religion. I am arguing that they are
religion. If Scientologists, or leading members of the Scientology
religion engage in criminal activities, then they should be prosecuted
for these crimes like any other individual. This has no bearing on
whether they are a religiion or should be tax-exempt.
Momo
Lance S. Buckley
In article <4k2252$f...@ni1.ni.net> kor...@jovanet.com "Cory Brennan" writes:
[in response to this paragraph]
] >I might also add that, far from rubbing their hands with glee at the
] >prospect of another patient, the mental health professionals I spoke
] >to were very cautious, and very keen to establish the facts of the
] >case beyond any doubt before they would even countenance my
] >suggestion.
] >
] This is anecdotal,
You have the -gall- to say that?
I'm surprised you can walk with balls that big.
] which in no way handles my posts on the billions in
] fraud in the US as a result of insurance scams by
] psychiatrists, many of them based on involuntary commitment of people who
] didn't need treatment.
This is anecdotal.
] Nor the statistics, agreed to by at least one
] government psychiatrist, that 50-70% of adolescents committed into
] hospitals did not need the treatment.
This is anecdotal.
A few cites would be considered appropriate when making sweeping
statements of this nature Cory.
] I wasn't referring to psychiatry in my above comment,
Persish the thought...
] but it would
] certainly be apropo to bring them into it. Since they feel that on one
] hand they can tell when a person is a 'danger to self or others' but on
] the other hand, they admit they cannot predict violence or violent
] tendancies (proven out statistically by their utter lack of ability to
] determine when someone labeled 'criminally insane' is 'cured.)'
This makes no sense to me.
If I saw someone wandering around the post office with a
shotgun, it wouldn't take an expert opinion to draw the
conclusion that they were probably a 'danger to self or others'.
On the other hand to -predict- the probability that the person
would do such a thing, and even worse -use- the weapon on
innocent bystanders, would be impossible in most cases without
an in depth knowledge of the subject. Your involvement in the
Co$ seems to have clouded your judgement yet again Cory. In the
"wog" world, people are not machines that can be programmed with
predictable behaviour. Psychiatry is an inexact "science"
because it attempts to predict the behaviour of an extremely
complex chaotic system. Like weather forcasters, all they can
hope to do is predict trends, and using the techniques and
experience at their disposal, make subtle adjustments. Your 100%
workable "tech" on the othe hand is the psychiactric equivalent
of the sledgehammer used to force square pegs into round holes.
At best it fails completely, at worst it permanently damages the
subject.
] In actual fact, and if you actually looked at the statistics -
] "treatment' of the "criminally insane" does not result in "cure."
Show us the statistics you are referring to Cory, then we can
evaluate at them. The words "treatment", "criminally insane" and
"cure" are all relative anyhow. We are all too aware that in your
cult, it takes very little to be considered "criminally insane".
The criteria used is totally at odds with those used outside
the cult in the "wog" world. As for "treatment" and "cure",
tell us how effective the "RPF" and "isolation rundowns" are
at curing scientology's own criminally insane members.
] In the
] US, for instance, the experiment of treating sex offenders was such a
] failure that it has been discontinued completely in many cases.
Which experiment was this Cory? Describe the treatment for us.
Better still, how about citing the research itself so we can
evaluate the data ourselves.
] And in
] two studies, prisoners on psychiatric drugs to 'help' them be less
] violent and criminal, became _more_ violent than their counterparts who
] were given no drugs.
Which studies were these Cory? Describe the studies for us.
Better still, how about citing the research itself so we can
evaluate the data ourselves.
] In no reference have I seen conclusive evidence that
] psychiatric treatment of criminals dubbed insane has decreased recividism
] rate under any circumstance.
Ah, you haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist.
What's true for you is true Cory. Isn't
that what LHR said?
] Scientology does not preach "lock-em-up and throw away the key" Quite the
] opposite.
Does the term "Isolation Rundown" ring a bell Cory? Have a
look at www.scientology.org's search engine and see what it
comes up with. If you have no luck, try www.altavista.com for
the same phrase. You'll be surprised at the results!
] Hubbard has isolated what actually makes a criminal into a
] criminal, and we have - by statistic (measured recividism) one of the
] most if not the most successful rehabilitation program in the world.
Oops, you blew it again.
I think you meant to say "Hubbard was an Isolated Criminal"
Any statistics generated by the Co$ aren't worth the paper
they're written on. If they were, you'd point us to the
research itself so we can evaluate the data for ourselves. You
don't because you know we'd tear it to shreds.
] One can find out more about it at:
] http://www.lronhubbard.org
Could you be more specific please? There's a whole load of
bullshit to wade through on that site. A reference like
http://www.lronhubbard.org/lies/damned-lies/statistics.html
would be more helpful.
] Just so people know what is being discussed here, word clearing, in
] Scientology means that a person looks up any word he doesn't understand
] in the dictionary and fully clears the meaning of it so that he fully
] understands what he is reading.
Using one of LHR's own dictionaries usually. Yet another way of
distancing the poor victim from reality. After all, if you no
longer understand the language that tells you the truth, all you
will hear are the lies.
] It is highly encouraged that Scientologists do this with whatever they
] read, whether it be sciences, other religions, political writings,
] manuals, etc.
Hmm... why not try word clearing:
Criminal Cult
Paid Liar
OSA Goon
RPF
Isolation Rundown
Barratry
R2-45
and tell us what you find.
] Scientologists are also encouraged to be well read and to
] find out about things. Scientology teaches that understanding the basic
] words of a subject is very fundamental to understanding the subject fully
] - and most importantly - that there is a correlation between full
] understanding of a subject and the ability to apply the information in
] that subject to life.
And to aid in that laudable endeavour, here are a few books you
should consider reading to help you understand the nature of the
cult that pays you.
A Piece of Blue Sky
The Total Freedom Trap
The Road to Xenu
Religion Inc.
The Mindbenders
The Hubbard is Bare
The Scandal of Scientology
] I fail to see how anyone could think that was mind-numbing and
] stultifying, unless they themselves had a misunderstood on the term 'word
] clearing." Which is a very good example of why one would want to clear up
] terms they don't understand.
The fact you "fail to see" the obvious leads me to entertain the
notion that you are indeed the brainwashed victim of a
pernicious and criminal cult.
] In two court cases thus far, the theory of mind control as forwarded
] by anti-religionists has been debunked.
Which court cases?
Which "anti-relgionists"?
Get it throught your zombie skull Cory, we don't take your word
for -anything-. If you told me the sky was blue, the first thing
I'd do would be to stick my head out of the window, look up, and
see for myself.
] It has also been debunked by the
] CIA and those who have tried to develop it - they would be able to tell
] you very quickly that a person cannot be 'controlled' and made to do
] things against his will simply by talking to him. The CIA (and their
] hired psychiatrists) have used very intrusive methods such as heavy pain,
] heavy drugs and hypnotic commands to try to put people under 'mind
] control', because they know anything less than that just doesn't work.
What do you mean by "debunked"? Can you point us to you CIA data
so we can check this out for ourselves? If you believe that "a
person cannot be 'controlled' and made to do things against his
will simply by talking to him" why does the cult of $cientology
spend so much time and money attempting to do just that?
] People who say they have been under 'mind control' are simply trying to
] avoid taking responsibility for actions they took in the past which they
] now disagree with. They are trying to blame their actions on somebody
] else. This is not just my opinion, I will see if I can pull up some
] references on this to post.
Bullshit plain and simple. Is this your personal opinion Cory?
If so, (IMHO) you're an ignoramus.
] The Church of Scientology and many of its parishioners have made a
] concerted effort to make available our most fundamental and important
] beliefs, including texts of L Ron Hubbard, and even a full taped lecture,
] on its web pages at;
] http://www.scientology.org
] http://www.lronhubbard.org
] http://www.dianetics.org
] One can judge for oneself what our beliefs are by viewing these pages.
One can indeed, and I suggest people do just that. Then why not
check out some other sites such as:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plmlp
or
http://www.altavista.com and search for "scientology"
and see what the -informed- opinion is on the criminal cult of
$cientology.
Lance.
- --
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of the
Cult of Scientology. But I repeat myself." (With apologies to Mark Twain)
[Case level: SP4, Member of the GGBC, ARSCC(UK) Hat: J&D]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCVAgUBMWpS2SjzbaRloMBtAQHMvQP8D0r5Jt6N3BPhVeSQpPkl9Wsl4ApEE2re
mDNknlUFd4OphkUxZd7q8kXWVIekwvBC+ugKrU0wQkzdko4hUiYTCS6BSGXbhy+g
TXv9YLIhl2x2yUQks2kpj693LZSFR+j8llmp+zn99OkrDjfBXwgjMv15foXIjh66
6v2cZe4sxuc=
=tW8a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>
>I'm not saying that the Scientologists are just like the Catholics. I'm
>saying that the fact that an organization collects revenue and pays its
>officials does not prevent it from being non-profit, as both the Sierra
>Club and Catholic Church engage in these practices. The rest of your
>argument seems to center not on giving some sort of neutral definition
>of non-profit, but on characterizating the Scientologists as evil and
>expensive. While this may be true, I don't see how that's relevant to
>whether or not they are properly classified as non-profit.
Well it seems to me you are failing to think the issue through.
What sought of organisation should be exempt from tax?
One which comprises ordinary people combining for mutual aid
and comfort or a shared recreation, or for the general benfit
of society as in providing education or religious enlightenment etc.
One in which officials may be paid, but no more than is a reasonable
going rate in the outside world; and services may be charged for,
but at not much more than is necessary to sustain the organisation
so that it can continue to provide services, the aim not being
to generate a pile of profits generally or for the private
benefit of the officers or owners of the organisation.
That is, to me, a fairly neutral definition.
One would question this if the prices are very high. Thus ted Mayett
went into a Christain bookshop where the tapes and books were around
the $5.00 mark, then into a scientology org where they were around
the $100.00 mark. Why---are such prices really necessary simply
to sustain the provision of scientology services on a nonprofit basis?
One would question this if the officers and leaders of a cult were
disposing of vast private sums themselves, for their personal benefit,
building giant swimming ppols in the desert etcetera. One would
question this if a cult spent 1/3rd of its income on lawsuits designed
to silence all criticism: is this really ''acting for the public
benefit''? Is this ''generating and spending income only as much as
is necessary to have the organisation continue providing services''?
Doesn't sound like it to me.
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug:
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,Golden Gate Bridge Club member#017
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : :Pope Potamus3rd/St Hippo of Augustine
henry
In article <momo.82...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu>,
Monwhea Jeng <mo...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:
>I'm not saying that the Scientologists are just like the Catholics. I'm
>saying that the fact that an organization collects revenue and pays its
>officials does not prevent it from being non-profit, as both the Sierra
>Club and Catholic Church engage in these practices. The rest of your
>argument seems to center not on giving some sort of neutral definition
>of non-profit, but on characterizating the Scientologists as evil and
>expensive. While this may be true, I don't see how that's relevant to
>whether or not they are properly classified as non-profit.
yes, it is. there is nothing against the law about a 501(c)(3)
tax-exempt organization paying employees. however, in the thirteen
classes of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization classes, all of them
share similarities. one of them is that profit can NOT be inured
to the benefit of any private individual or corporation.
scientology inures almost all of its profits to the private benefit
of david miscavige and a few others. in addition to making the
organization unfit for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, it is tax
evasion and fraud.
people go to jail for that, you know.
h
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMWr67G130hVrA/MJAQE6IwQAg+8tDnIESIcylUpkhs0CJ6viW6PBZNQi
Sm+GdUvO7WBT/uBqGxKSVU4brwX2SuEGggHc4TD3rQV1ZUUS1og3z4OoiulRUfff
gnaUflMJiFJ6oDHbNxv7EsoNgmUo+2Q5MP63EnYjtEeQsVLrHN/jvxm+nCXFirLh
t1z2iwO9MuU=
=gnwi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joel Hanes
>
> I'm not saying that the Scientologists are just like the Catholics. I'm
> saying that the fact that an organization collects revenue and pays its
> officials does not prevent it from being non-profit, as both the Sierra
> Club and Catholic Church engage in these practices.
Contributions to the Sierra Club are not tax-deductible.
Contributions to the criminal cult of $cientology are.
Go figure.
---
Joel Hanes SP4
[MAK]
>he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:
>>the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization...
>I don't know too much about the structure of the Scientologists, or the
>legal meaning of non-profit. Why is the Catholic church a non-profit
>organization. It takes in money -- the money is usually from donations,
>but sometimes for certain services, like Bingo. At least some of that
An astronomical society with the following URL:
http://bradley.bradley.edu/~dware/astro9.html
provides a very good condensed description of tax exempt (or Section
501{c}{3}) status. I provide it below w/ some comments:
-The following information is condensed from several publications and
-forms of the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury...
-Complete information may be obtained by calling the IRS toll free at
-1-800-829-3676...
-Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
-Most {astronomical} societies obtain exemption under this section of the
-IRS code. An organization may qualify for exemption if it is organized
-exclusively for one or more of the following purposes: charitable, religious,
-educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering
-amateur sports competition or prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess the IRS dosen't consider drowning a Judge's dog cruelty... ;)
-The society must be a corporation or foundation.
-The society must be organized and operated exclusively for one of the
-purposes described above. No part of a society's net earnings may inure
-to the benefit of an individual....
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah; here we go. Wow; seems like a lot of religious organizations could fail
to pass this test!
Then again, groups like the Catholic Church allow *their* accounting books to
be inspected by interested individuals, to verify that the exemption rules
concerning benifits to individuals are being upheld. (I checked this out with
the religious organization with which *I* am affiliated. It's was like a Zen
koan; [MAK] opened the ledgers, and was enlightened!) Wonder if the CO$ would
be as open to an inspection by members or non-members?
>Also, I seem to vaugely recall (I don't have a cite right now) arguments
>used in the earlier half of this century that the Jehovah's Witnessess,
>by charging for the distribution of their literature, were engaged in
>commerical speech which would be regulated, and the Court rejecting
>these arguments.
I'd like to see the cite; I'll try to look it up myself.
(I also wonder if the IRS - and Section 501{c}{3} - existed in the earlier
half of this century?)
>What distinguishes the Scientologists from these religions?
From the standpoint of CO$ belief in unprovable fiction (such as
nuclear-bombed volcanoes, Xemu, mental telepathy with plants and animals)?
Not much.
From the standpoint of how CO$ mistreats dissidents, tries to silence free
speech, stifles informed discussion of thier faith, and abuses the legal
system for its own selfish gains?
All the difference in the world.
Note: Newsgroups will be trimmed to a.r.s on any future thread.
(posted and mailed)
[MAK]
Monwhea Jeng
kel...@oasys.dt.navy.mil ([MAK]) writes:
>mo...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu says...
>>he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:
>>>the church <spit> of scientology is NOT a non-profit organization...
>>I don't know too much about the structure of the Scientologists, or the
>>legal meaning of non-profit. Why is the Catholic church a non-profit
>>organization. It takes in money -- the money is usually from donations,
>>but sometimes for certain services, like Bingo. At least some of that
>>money goes to pay room, board and wages for priests and so forth.
>-Most {astronomical} societies obtain exemption under this section of the
>-IRS code. An organization may qualify for exemption if it is organized
>-exclusively for one or more of the following purposes: charitable, religious,
>-educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering
>-amateur sports competition or prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
>-The society must be a corporation or foundation.
>-The society must be organized and operated exclusively for one of the
>-purposes described above. No part of a society's net earnings may inure
>-to the benefit of an individual....
>Ah; here we go. Wow; seems like a lot of religious organizations could fail
>to pass this test!
Again, I don't know much about the tax law. But clearly this cannot mean
that no one can be paid anything by the organization. I just asked a
friend of mine who reads about the tax code a lot about what the "inure"
section meant, and he said that this means that no one can get money
from the organizations without working for the corporation to some
degree. So this means that if an organization sells stock, since the
stockholders are clearly not employees, the organizations cannot be
non-profit. However, the CEO of a non-proft corporation, or the people
who run a church, are employees of the church, and therefore can be
paid.
I asked my friend whether there was any sort of requirement that the
CEOs of non-profit organizations be paid a "fair amount," and he seemed
unsure, but said that if there was such a requirement, it had to be
fairly loose, since many non-profit organizations pay their CEOs much more
than the CEOs of businesses which take in a similar amount of money,
and while this is often the basis of moral condemnation by others, it
does not lose the organizations their tax-exempt status.
Again, I don't know much about the tax code. But the fact that
Scientology pays its leaders cannot mean that they are not a non-profit
organization, nor, apparently, can the fact that they pay them a lot.
As to whether or not it can be said to make them not a religion
(legally, not morally) see statements below about constitutional law.
>>Also, I seem to vaugely recall (I don't have a cite right now) arguments
>>used in the earlier half of this century that the Jehovah's Witnessess,
>>by charging for the distribution of their literature, were engaged in
>>commerical speech which would be regulated, and the Court rejecting
>>these arguments.
>I'd like to see the cite; I'll try to look it up myself.
>(I also wonder if the IRS - and Section 501{c}{3} - existed in the earlier
>half of this century?)
I haven't read these cases myself, but they are described in a 1976
Supreme Court Reveiew article on commerical speech (p.51-3)
A bunch of quotes follow
------------------------
Jamison v. Texas 318 U.S. 413 (1943)
"The city acknowledged that the handbills were distributed to further
the Jehovah Witnesses' religious activity, but argued that the handbills
in fact had a comemrical purpose because they 'contained an invitation
to contribute to the support of that activity by purchasing books
related to the work of the group." . . .The Court held that this
handbill was protected because of its primary purpose was distribution
of "information and opinion" or a religious nature. The fact that the
handbill had what could be termed commerical content did not make it
comemrical speech."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The Court in _Murdock_ used _Schneider_ and _Jamison_ to strike down
'and ordinance which as construed and applied requires religious
colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their
activities.' As with Jamison's handbilling, the Court held that
Murdock's door-to-door soliciting was a 'religious venture' protected by
the Fitst Amendment, not a commerical endeavor. Although it foresaw
problems in drawing the line between religious and purely commercial
activity, the court asserted that, 'the mere fact that the religious
literature is 'sold' by itinerant preachers rather than 'donated' does
not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise."
Similar to Murdock was Martin v. Struthers 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
On the issue of tax exemption:
_Walz_ v. _Tax Commission_ (1970) -- the Supreme Court upheld
the tax exemption of churches as constitutional, but despite numerous
amicus curae briefs on each side, made no statement as to whether or
not such exemptions were constitutionally required.
Also, in "Religion, State and the Burger Court," Leo Pfeffer describes
some of the cases involving tax exemption of churches. Annoyingly, the
book has not citations. He describes (p.6-7) the status of the tax code
in the 1940s and 50s. He says that the tax exemption for churches has
pretty much always been there, and
"A question left in the _Walx_ decision was the constitutionality of
taxing churches' income from businesses and other purely secular
commercial enterprises owned by them. In the 1940s a professor of law at
New York State University advised the university that under the federal
tax law, as it then read, it could acquire the tax of the Mueller
Spagetti Company and pay no tax on the profits earned by the sal of
spagetti, so long as all the profits were used for educations purposes.
The university accepted the advice and entered into business ina
position to undersell non-tax-exempt competitors. Hardly surprising,it
was not long before other tax-exempt organizations followed suit.
" The ensuing hue and cry raised by non-tax-exempt organizations forced
Congress in 1950 to change the law so as to limit the exemption to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
income earned from enterprises directly related the the purpose of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exempt organization. . ."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He goes on to describe how Congress initially continued to allow
churches, unlike other non-proft businesses, to operate purely
commerical activities tax-free, but then change its position back in
1969. Most state laws were changed similarly. Florida continued to allow
tax exemption of churches' purely commerical activities, and this was
challenged in Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami (1972),
but the law was changed in the period before it reached the Supreme
Court, so the case was dismissed as moot.
Quotes end here
---------------
From the emphasized quote above I would infer that income earned from
enterprises part of the a churches religious mission (i.e. selling
religious materials, religious services, etc. . .) are all tax exempt.
Further, the cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses would seem to
indicate that since the material is religious, it is cannot be regulated
as normal commmercial speech can. Combining all of the above, it would
seem that as long as Scientology is a religion, it is free to charge
prices that seem outrageously high to me, for absurd materials, and these
activities are all tax-free and do not endanger its tax exempt status.
The activities are of course all taxable and in many cases are subject
to fraud prosecutions, if Scientology is not a religion, but a scam.
However, however silly or dangerous I find Scientology to be, there seem
to be members for which it is a religion. If one wishes to prosecute the
leading members of the Scientology religion for fraud, it is neccessary
to prove not simply that what they say is false, but that they believe
what they say is false (U.S. v. Ballard, no cite available now). That
is, it is not enough to demonstrate that their beliefs or statements
about psychology, e-meters, etc. . .are false -- you must demonstrate
that they know that these statements are false. This would seem to be
pretty much impossible.
So then, discarding all the statements about how Scientology is just a
scam or a cult, or charges outrageous prices for its services, the only
reason I can see that Scientology could not be entitled to tax-exempt
status under federal law and the Constitution, would be the high
salaries earned by Scientology leaders. However, I do not understand the
quoted section of 501(c) above
>-purposes described above. No part of a society's net earnings may inure
>-to the benefit of an individual....
I don't understand exactly what this means, since as I pointed out
before, it cannot mean that organizations cannot pay their officials.
Incidentally, it is not clear under constitutional law whether it would
be constitutionally acceptable to remove a churches' tax exemption. The
issue arose last year in _Church at Pierce Creek_ v. _Richarson_, when
the IRS removed a churches tax exemption for the engaging in political
campaigning. The IRS action was challenged, and I believe is still in
the courts today. The "Church and State" magazine had an article on the
case where they said that this the IRS had removed tax exemption from
various churches two or three times before, but that none of these cases
had ended conclusively (that is, the court cases dies out, or the
tax-exempt status was eventually restored).
Momo
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<kel...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> writes
>-purposes described above. No part of a society's net earnings may inure
>-to the benefit of an individual....
Nett of salaries paid to officials and employees i.e. what they
can't do is have shareholders who draw on the profits without limit.
If salaries and perks at the top were tantamount to drawing whatever
they wanted, this would probably also be seen as a breach.
RDD
Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>
> >when you start trying to enforce your world view on others, simply
> >because you disagree with it, by using government intervention, then it
> >is no longer your right, but becomes oppressive and totalitarian.
> >
> >Cory Brennan
>
> Best condemnation of the cult, by a scieno. Connect the dots,
> girl. You can do it.
>
Cory,
This discussion about "religious freedom" relating to scientology is
really a deluded thing. What a cowexcrement is about freedom, when a group
that is part of the society, establishes a "secret-society" within.
Just to give one example: the "private justice system".
It is not only that way, that there is a big fraud and cheat from the
inside to outside, what means scienos to wogs ...
There is much more fraud, violence, cheatening and raid within the
scieno-scene.
It is so normal, that the registrar(tm) from the next higher org is coming
to a mission, and ripp the mission public and the mission staff...
it is normal, that one scieno cheats the other to get the stats up, or
achieve higher position on the hierachy...
it is normal that people lose everything they have, in frauds and under
pressure done by their "good" friends in the org...
So we find the yesterday well situated busynessman, under supervision of
the "dissemination Sec" (a pimp from the beginning, who has ruined his
life) today bodyrouting in front of a shabby office. But the Dissem-Sec.
made the privilege to go for higher levels. And the Bodyrouter now, can
wait for a "handling" till eternity.
But all that has nothing to do with the common justice and law...
as long as the money goes from the basic to the top.
What a justice, that "forbids his membaas" to use law and justice in a
case against someone in the group ... but enforces law and justice against
people outside...
Hubbard established a complete "private" justice-system, that has nothing
to do with the common law and justice of the country and the society.It is
absolutely despotic. But if you go to ask for the common law and justice
you will be declared a suppressive.That is simple fact!
And in fact, if you are in scientology, and if you want to stay in scientology..
then you have no rights anymore than those, Elrondo grants to you..
only to make sure, that the money is going upwards the hierarchy,
and that the common law and justice - on which your and my live must be founded
is of no meaning anymore.
Is it usual in america, that an organisation, that deals with workers and
publics makes a "privat" justice and law system, with the strict order to
enforce harrasment and social decease and defamation on those who wanted to
save their rights and interests by the common law and justice?
What a crazy discussion, if it is done on the basis of two "separated law
and justice systems"? If there is a group that is not part of the system
that commonly grants "duties and freedom" to a society and the individual
within.
What freedom do you talk about?
The cowboy Jimmy freedom, while smoking a marlboro and viewing the grand canyon?
That kind of freedom is an illusion, or a dream.
The freedom within a society regarding humanity is defined by "duties" and
rules, and as long as there are different duties and rules, or a group
that believes it has the right to "privat duties and rules" there is no
freedom, only despotism.
What is the duty of religion?
Well the duty of a so called "religious and social group" must be, to work
towards a society that is founded on "equal rights" for all the different
and varying groups and individuals in that society.
It can't be "constitutional" that a gropup of what ever kind creates and
realizes a separated "private law and justice system" which is different
and contrary to the common law and justice..
If that is your american reality, I am glad to have the whole wide
atlantic ocean between your and my country. And you scienos will not win
this game here in germany :-)
f.d.i.K.
Freimann Boddhisatva
--
Religious Discrimination Defence
Blue Buddha Club
"It's time to clean up the empty aquarium."
Laszlo Weress
writes:
>In article <3166a949...@news.primenet.com>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
>Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>
>> Cory Brennan <kor...@jovanet.com> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>This discussion about "religious freedom" relating to scientology is
>really a deluded thing. What a cowexcrement is about freedom, when a group
>that is part of the society, establishes a "secret-society" within.
[snip]
>But all that has nothing to do with the common justice and law...
>as long as the money goes from the basic to the top.
[ramblings about some skewed understanding of "american" justice]
>What freedom do you talk about?
>The cowboy Jimmy freedom, while smoking a marlboro and viewing the grand
canyon?
>That kind of freedom is an illusion, or a dream.
>
>The freedom within a society regarding humanity is defined by "duties" and
>rules, and as long as there are different duties and rules, or a group
>that believes it has the right to "privat duties and rules" there is no
>freedom, only despotism.
>
>What is the duty of religion?
>Well the duty of a so called "religious and social group" must be, to
work
>towards a society that is founded on "equal rights" for all the
different
>and varying groups and individuals in that society.
>
>It can't be "constitutional" that a gropup of what ever kind creates
and
>realizes a separated "private law and justice system" which is
different
>and contrary to the common law and justice..
>
>If that is your american reality, I am glad to have the whole wide
>atlantic ocean between your and my country. And you scienos will not
win
>this game here in germany :-)
That "cowboy Jimmy freedom" is that liberated the world from your kind
Uncle Adolf. But as I am reading on it seems that you would be happier
if he or his system of justice is still around to protect the citizens
from themselves. As well as the whole world fashioned after German
orderliness.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> kel...@oasys.dt.navy.mil ) writes:
> |
> | mo...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu wrote:
> | > ?????????????????????????quote:
> | > :
> | > : he...@netcom.com (henry) wrote:
> | > : ]
> | > : ] the church <spit> of scientology is NOT
> | > : ] a non-profit >> organization...
> | > :
> | > : Why is the Catholic church
> | > : a non-profit organization---it takes in money ?
> | >
> | > An organization may qualify for exemption if it is
> | > purposes: charitable, religious, educational [...and is]
> | > organized and operated exclusively for [such] purposes.
> | > No part of [its] nett earnings may inure to the benefit
> | > of an individual....
> |
> | Seems a lot of religious bodies could fail to pass this test!
>
> Again, I don't know much about the tax law. But clearly this can't
>
As you say, it must be nonPROFIT.
This does not mean that is voluntary = nonSALARIED
i.e. gets its work input without paying
[though it is forbidden to pay dividends to shareholders
because this is not a necessary payment for work].
Nor does this that it is charitable = nonTRADING
i.e. gives away its product without charge
[though it may only trade in relevant items, not be a church
and 'therefore' trade nontaxably in shoeleather or chewing-gum];
and indeed you cite the JW's legitimately 'trading' in magazines.
The limitation is not that there should be no flow of money,
but rather that money flows only as is necessary to maintain
the provision of services for the sake of doing so, rather
than flows in order to make a commercial profit. I would think
the courts are able to interpret that in a commensense way.
The question of prices is therefore a legitimate one. While the
courts will not quibble between $5.00 and $15.00 books or tapes,
at $100 dollars for every item they could surely say ''come off
it -- the prices you charge are NOT simply necessary to keep
the services flowing on a nonprofit basis, they are
[especially inconjuction with evidence the money generated
was misused] a form of private profit.''
While they are not going to quibble about $1000/year plus
or minus, there must come a point where a 'church' with a
small number of members is bleeding the marks to pay their CEO
as much as Bill Gates earns. I would have thought they could
then say ''come off it -- this is inurement disguised as
slary. It is _not_ essential to keep services flowing.
You could lower his salary, or get someone else cheaper,
at no harm to the activity.'' It would have to be taken
beyond all reason for this to happen, though.
There is also a question when the church leadership can
ORDER the disbursement of moneys for private purposes
irrelevant to that of the organisation e.g. building giant
ship-shaped swimming pools for their cronies in the middle
of the desert [which is what Scn has actually done].
This is fraudulent. It is faudulent if someone gets the
benefits of being a director separate from the company
finances on the basis they recieve, and pay tax on,
a fixed salary -- then order gifts to their own or other
private benefit with 'company' money. So also if they
get the benefits of it being a nontaxable body, then
make private disposition of its funds.
There is a further question of misuse other than
money going into private pockets. The ''Church of the Holy
Lawsuit'' spends fully one third of the income it sucks out
of dupes on attorneys to persecute its critics with. I
do not think this can be justified as legitimately
part of it's nonprofit purpose.
For these reasons --- that there is inurement both disguised
as inordinately high salaries and by directing the use of
organisational funds for personal benefit, that the inordinate
spending on litigation is a misuse of funds outside the purpose
of the organisation, and that inordinately high prices are
charged which do not relate to the nonprofit purpose but
in practice feed this misuse --- I would say CoS should
not, in law, benefit from 501(c) status. It is really a
question of degree rather than kind, and in each case I
feel that Scn has pushed it beond all reason & should
forfiet their status.
In addition, can such
status be withdrawn because the organisation has engaged in
criminal actions or employs a known felon for felonious purposes,
or indeed that the keeping of private prison camps is not
a fit purpose for such an organisation? All these things
can be readily be proved!
Hope this helps,
Rogue13227
religion means that it ought to be legal for the CoS to recruit adults by
making false or at best (I'm being profoundly generous), unfounded
promises of benefits, should it also be legal to recruit minors by making
such claims.
Example: A while ago, an acquaintance of mine, then a minor, was recruited
into the "Sea Org." This is a dedicated group within the CoS whose members
have signed billion-year contracts and dedicate their lives to "putting in
ethics" in the universe. According to what I was told, the recruiter made
a number of promises and claims, namely:
1. According to inside information, the major governments of the world
were very close to collapse due to the sinister and artful maneuvering of
an evil group of plotters (almost certainly dominated by the very
inventors of evil, the PSYCHS), known as the NEW WORLD ORDER. By joining
right away, my acquaintance would have the privilege of strengthening the
only group that could possibly pick up the pieces. (Of course, if he
didn't join, he would now, being privy to this authoritative peek at the
future, be partly responsible for the eternal damnation of the planet.)
2. My acquaintance, not yet a high school graduate, was told he would be
able to continue his schooling after signing his billion-year contract.
Instead, I'm told he was discouraged from continuing any non-Scn ("WOG")
education and sent to take a test for a state certificate of minimum
proficiency.
3. My acquaintance was promised Scn "auditing" and training to the highest
levels, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Total Freedom." The "Bridge"
usually winds up costing paying public hundreds of thousands of dollars,
but Sea Org members are not charged for it unless they leave. No one
mentioned that there is no objective evidence that such a "bridge"
actually exists in Scn. Belief that it does exist is, I believe, mostly
based on faith in the truthfullnes, good intentions and transcendent
wisdom of the late founder of Scn. Judge Brekenridge, after examining a
huge volume of evidence and testimony in the Armstrong case, said this
about Hubbard: "The evidence protrays a man who has been virtually a
pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and
achievements." (From "L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN? by Bent Corydon,
Barricade Books)
4. I'm told the recruiter also promised minimum wage and livable berthing.
My acquaintance say he received about $11 per 70 plus hour week and had to
live packed in with a dozen or more young men in a smelly, squalid room.
My acquaintance became dissatisfied after a short time and announced he
was leaving. "Routing out" took another four months or so, during which
time he had to continue putting in 12 or more hours of menial labor per
work day. He couldn't just leave without permission because if he did, he
faced the strong possibility of being declared a "suppressive person,"
whom other members of the CoS would not be allowed to communicate with.
This was unappealing as both his parents and all of his friends were
members of the CoS. Besides he still considered himsel a loyal member of
the CoS. He continued working as a virtual slave (in my view) until he
completed his "security check" (mandatory confession of misdeeds) and was
finally allowed to leave.
I do not agree that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution means
that certain abuses--exploitive child labor practices for example, or
various kinds of deception-- which ought to be illegal generally, ough to
be legal when done by a religion, assuming it even qualifies as such. I
have more to say on but would like to hear from others, including members
of the CoS, before I say more.
Monwhea Jeng
>QUESTION: Assuming for a moment for the sake of discussion that freedom of
>religion means that it ought to be legal for the CoS to recruit adults by
>making false or at best (I'm being profoundly generous), unfounded
>promises of benefits, should it also be legal to recruit minors by making
>such claims.
I doubt you'll find many people claiming that "freedom of religion"
means that religions can break whatever laws they wish. But your
examples, and most discussions I've seen on the tax exempt status
combine constitutionally protected bad things from genuinely illegal
bad things. While the freedom of religion clause does not prevent all
government laws from effecting religions, it does prevent the government
from applying these laws in a manner that requires the government to
determine whether the religion is correct, or whether the religion is
doing the things that religion "should" be doing.
To take an example of an argument that (IMO) would be blatantly
unconstitutional if used in a prosecution :
>3. My acquaintance was promised Scn "auditing" and training to the highest
>levels, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Total Freedom." The "Bridge"
>usually winds up costing paying public hundreds of thousands of dollars,
>but Sea Org members are not charged for it unless they leave. No one
>mentioned that there is no objective evidence that such a "bridge"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>actually exists in Scn. Belief that it does exist is, I believe, mostly
>based on faith in the truthfullnes, good intentions and transcendent
>wisdom of the late founder of Scn. Judge Brekenridge, after examining a
>huge volume of evidence and testimony in the Armstrong case, said this
>about Hubbard: "The evidence protrays a man who has been virtually a
>pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and
>achievements." (From "L. RON HUBBARD, MESSIAH OR MADMAN? by Bent Corydon,
>Barricade Books)
Here you are suggesting that the Scientologists have engaged in incorrect
religious teachings and that this is a prosecutable offense. If you
think about it, you will see that this would essentially be a heresy
trial, since the outcome of the trial would presumably depend on whether
or not there was good evidence that this bridge existed. As an analogy,
consider the Catholic church. As a non-Catholic, I could argue that the
Catholic church is based on extremely skimpy evidence that Jesus gave
future popes positions of theological importance, and that the Catholic
church, having fooled many into this incorrect belief, proceeds to use
their psychological power to get people to make decisions not in their
best interests (e.g. lack of birth control, becoming a nun), or to
solicit donations in order to build big fancy churches and stained glass
windows that are unrelated to the true purpose of religion (the money
could be better spent as pure charity). As a moral argument, this is
not unreasonable. I think it probably doesn't resonate well with mostof
us, because the Catholics are today a mainstream religion -- but these
arguments would have sounded much better 100 years ago. But the argument
fails constitutionally, both then and now, because the arguments are at
their heart based on two impermissble arguments : 1) That the religion
is teaching things that are false and 2) That the religion is not doing
things that religion "should" be doing. But I think
everyone today would admit that it would violate the Constitution for
the government, even under the operation of a valid neutral law, to
force priests to admit to their members that the doctrinal evidence for
papal infallability was weak.
While I don't have them here, many (not all) of the arguments against
their tax-exempt status are based on one of these two impermisslbe
assumptions. Many of the arguments are intertwined with statements about
how the Scientologists are evil, or how they fool people in false
beliefs, or they do bad things. Many people have pointed out that many
of the things that Scientologists do are not charitable -- i.e. things
that religions should not be doing, because they do not really improve
the world. For example, people have pointed out that they charge high
prices for their services, and then use the money for things that
science should not be doing -- i.e. we feel that religious leaders
should not be living in luxury, but this is an evaluation of what
religions should be doing. Similarly, going to Court to protect
Scientology may be the best use of Scientology funds, if you believe in
the Scientology religion. I should stress that I do not actually believe
that Scientology is a good religion, or that that these are things that
Scientology should be doing -- but I don't think, constitutionally, it
should matter what you or I believe.
The argument is analogous to the one that arose when Nazis wanted to
give a speech in Skokie, a town largely composed of Holocause survivors.
Arguments for censoring the Nazis centered on the belief that the Nazis
were evil, making statements dangerous for society, that their beliefs
were harmful to the public, or morally wrong -- the ACLU (and I agree
with them) agreed with all these statements, but said that
constitutionally these reasons could not be used in censoring speech.
Similaly, many of your arguments may be true, but are impermissible in
arguing for what the legal status of the Scientologists should be.
>My acquaintance became dissatisfied after a short time and announced he
>was leaving. "Routing out" took another four months or so, during which
>time he had to continue putting in 12 or more hours of menial labor per
>work day. He couldn't just leave without permission because if he did, he
>faced the strong possibility of being declared a "suppressive person,"
>whom other members of the CoS would not be allowed to communicate with.
>This was unappealing as both his parents and all of his friends were
>members of the CoS. Besides he still considered himsel a loyal member of
>the CoS. He continued working as a virtual slave (in my view) until he
>completed his "security check" (mandatory confession of misdeeds) and was
>finally allowed to leave.
If he was not physically forced to stay, but was simply psychologically
coerced, then I fail to see how this can be (legally) distinguished from
other religions that use psychological coercion to get people to do
things that do not appear in their bests interests (in the view of
those outside of the religion). For example, I would consider becoming a
Cisterian monk a very bad career choice.
>4. I'm told the recruiter also promised minimum wage and livable berthing.
>My acquaintance say he received about $11 per 70 plus hour week and had to
>live packed in with a dozen or more young men in a smelly, squalid room.
Here you present an example of where the Scientologists have done
something that violates a generally applied religion-neutral law that
has nothing to do with what religions should be doing, or if there
teachings are true. This, IMO, does not always guarantee that the
application of the law would be OK (for example, a generally written
religion-neutral law against types of discrimination in all non-profit
organizations would doubtlessly be unconstitutional if applied to force
the Catholic church to hire homosexual or female clergy). However, most
religion-neutral laws do apply to religions, and I would agree that #4
above is economic misrepresentation about a job whose applications does
not require the inspection of the beliefs or morality of a religion, and
would thus that the application of this law would not violate the
Constitution.
Other people have pointed out that the Scientologists have broken
numerous laws such as killing a judge's dog, or breaking into people's
houses. I doubt that many people would claim that these activities are
constitutionally protected. I certainly do not.
>I do not agree that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution means
>that certain abuses--exploitive child labor practices for example, or
>various kinds of deception-- which ought to be illegal generally, ough to
>be legal when done by a religion, assuming it even qualifies as such.
Again, whether or not I agree with the above statement would depend on
what sort of illegal practices you are talking about. Religious untruth
is not constitutionally prosecutable.
Momo
Steve A
rogue...@aol.com (Rogue13227) wrote:
>I do not agree that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution means
>that certain abuses--exploitive child labor practices for example, or
>various kinds of deception-- which ought to be illegal generally, ough to
>be legal when done by a religion, assuming it even qualifies as such. I
>have more to say on but would like to hear from others, including members
>of the CoS, before I say more.
I am not a student of the American Constitution, nor an expert on
constitutional matters generally, but I have to say that, like all
legislative or political systems, things only work while there is a
general consensus in favour of the system.
It seems to me that there is an increasing general perception that the
US justice system is corrupt, and the Constitution no protection. When
that becomes a generally held view, which at the rate things are going
right now, can't be that far away.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster with Bar, KoX, KOh, Institutional Case, Member
of the Golden Gate Bridge Club #6, Minister in the First Electronic Church
of SCAMIZDAT, High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius, DNRC
Member. If I join many more, I won't be able to post in demon.local :-(
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMXokRGK4mshjLd+dAQGmFgP/bNnGXpvP5Nr7RKthEE276ZG6vApZQroV
aiyREcA3VG05m3VZyvgHa1OqYECdFpwU9ny06yna+eNcNp0B1idzMFRmoiNfJzYO
jGUOIrSOilmE3V7M1DpuLLY/pVrQncuh3TRb0h7xTONvrJBo2skbVKF45tHY5EHA
ht63pHWwv7E=
=Zeox
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> rogue...@aol.com (Rogue13227) wrote:
> : <|POSTED & MAILED TO M.J.|>
> : QUESTION: Assuming for a moment for the sake of discussion that
> : profoundly generous--unfounded promises of benefits, should it
> :
> I doubt you'll find many people claiming that "freedom of religion"
> means that religions can break whatever laws they wish. But your
> examples, and most discussions I've seen on the tax exempt status
> combine constitutionally protected bad things from genuinely illegal
> bad things. While the freedom of religion clause does not prevent all
> from applying these laws in a manner that requires the government to
> determine whether the religion is correct, or whether the religion is
> :
> : 3. My acquaintance was promised Scn "auditing" and training to the
> : highest levels, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Total Freedom."
> : The "Bridge" usually winds up costing paying public hundreds of
> : thousands of dollars, but Sea Org members are not charged for it
> : unless they leave. No one mentioned that there is
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
You are quite right to point out the absurdity of this objection:
if you are told something is a religious belief, you __are__ being
told it is a matter of faith; that there is ''no objective evidence''
such a thing actually exists in a way demonstrable to nonbelievers.
You can hardly complain, afterwards, that this was the basis!
Three questions for you:
(1) can it be subject to such a test __if__ it is sold on the basis
of Hubbard's assertions that it is objectively verifiable: has it
then forfeited such protection?
(2) what if the content is misrepresented...''well, you are joining
this kind of a thing'' and it turns out years & $1000s later it was
quite other than represented; what if compatibility with other
religions is misrepresented; what if the true and mandatory cost
is misrepresented. Can you advance the objection, not that you
were told beliefs which you now know are falsehoods--tough!--
but that you were told falsehoods about what the beliefs were?
> : actually exists in Scn. Belief that it does exist is, I believe,
> : mostly based on faith in the truthfullnes, good intentions and
> : transcendent wisdom of the late founder of Scn.
> :
> Here you are suggesting that the Scientologists have engaged in
> incorrect religious teachings and this is a prosecutable offense.
>
No, he's saying he can take action--not directly because the belief
is wrong--but because it rests in the credibility of the founder of
the religion, which he has now discovered to be defective.
Well, you probably can't put the founder's character or existence
on trial any more than the beliefs [try it for Mormon, Xian, etc ;0)].
Anyway, you believed the beliefs on faith because you liked them,
not simply on the founder's word. This one is clearly also faulty.
> proceeds to use
>their psychological power to get people to make decisions not in their
>best interests (e.g. lack of birth control, becoming a nun),
>
....submits to imprisonment, makes large payments directly
after hypnotic type rituals and being deprived of sleep and
beein crowed & verbally coerced into staying in the building?
I think there may be limits [which CoS have overstepped] in this
where undue influence might apply, as it might to a priest or
a shrink in similar circumstances. I agree you can't just
say ''well this was a little odd and, I now realise, against
my interests'' if you made a free and informed choice to do it.
Note the ''free and informed'': a reputable church might
accept conversion after a big emotional ceremony. Ethically,
it would almost certainly give time for sober reflection
on a decision to donate the value of your house or to
become the equivalent of a monk or nun. Such things should
not be done lightly or under any coercion.
>or to
>solicit donations in order to build big fancy churches and stained glass
>windows that are unrelated to the true purpose of religion (the money
>could be better spent as pure charity).
>
Can we distinguish between two things here. It is very difficult
to stop a religion spending on anything directly part of the religion
by saying that's not what a religion should do, including display
of wealth in buildings or even the leaders ostentation if it
is for general consumption in promoting the religion; as your stained
glass windows are. What about the leader building giant swimming
pools shaped like ships in the middle of the desert for personal
benefit and not based anywhere in the scriptures and practices.....
It's impossible to dictate what the practices should be,
but nevertheless it is possible to take the teachings & practices
in their own terms and judge ''this spending is a personal rip-off
unrelated to them,'' surely?
> 1) That the religion
>is teaching things that are false and 2) That the religion is not doing
>things that religion "should" be doing. But I think
>everyone today would admit that it would violate the Constitution for
>the government, even under the operation of a valid neutral law, to
>force priests to admit to their members that the doctrinal evidence for
>papal infallability was weak.
>
You're quite right on these points. ''False'' becomes absurd if
you mean ''objectively & scientifically unprovable'' [all faiths
are so, this is why they are faiths], or becomes discrimination
if you mean ''religously false [''religion X is the revealed truth
and this faith is contrary to it'']. Your ''should be doing''
often amounts to the second form of this.
American law won't do it, but I think it might be possible
to test ''what is reasonably describable as religion'' separate frpm
tests simply designed to make one religion false on spurious grounds.
This would be jusdgement based on how far it fits criteria including
''that it (i) affirms love for humankind and charity
to the weak; and (ii) usually that it also affirms a nonmaterial aspect
to humanity and usually worships a nonmaterial deity, or is at least
traditionally recognised as a religion.'' Most people would agree
this is in commonsense a boundary of what is religion, rather than
directed at favouring one religion over another. But this is an aside.
>While I don't have them here, many (not all) of the arguments against
>their tax-exempt status are based on one of these two impermisslbe
>assumptions. Many of the arguments are intertwined with statements about
>how the Scientologists are evil, or how they fool people in false
>beliefs, or they do bad things.
>
You missed they deceive people ABOUT what the beliefs in fact are.
Also, if they do bad [criminal] things, might not this be against
the religion-neutral presumption that they are operating for general
public benefit, and are a fit body [criminal behaviour might make
them unfit and inproperly managed] to recieve such public support.
>Many people have pointed out that many
>of the things that Scientologists do are not charitable -- i.e. things
>that religions should not be doing, because they do not really improve
>the world. For example, people have pointed out that they charge high
>prices for their services,
> [FUNDAMENTALS OF NONPROFIT STATUS:]
You are missing the point of the argument here. The point was
that, religion-neutral, a nonprofitmaking body is conducted
in such a way that money may flow and trading may occur in such
a way as is necessary to sustain the provision of the service
for the sake of providing the service, not to inure private
benefit or to do things which are clearly irrelevant
to providing the service judged in its own terms.
This would be more useful if combined with showing the high prices
were the instrument of getting money for a misuse or misappropriation
of funds.
The same applies to paying the CEO a grossly disproportionate, for
the actual size of membership, salary near to Bill gates level.
It isn't a salary needed to get the services distributed; it is
so large as to be personal inurement disguised as salary payments.
This casts new light on unreasonably high prices if they have been
hiked up simply to pay for such inurement. How do you respond to this?
>and then use the money for things that
>science should not be doing -- i.e. we feel that religious leaders
>should not be living in luxury, but this is an evaluation of what
>religions should be doing.
>
I made two points which you neglect. One is if the spending
is not, in its own terms, relevant to the service being provided.
The other is if the CEO orders spending of church funds to
personal benefit not involved in the public promotion of the church,
in a way that is clearly fraudulent. The income is being treated
for tax purposes as the church, it is being used in practice
as his private salary even where not declared and taxed as such:
swimming pools in the desert again.
I want to hammer this point home to the full. If he's paid
a salary as CEO, that's one thing. He -- the CEO -- is not a tax
free religion. Income tax is paid on this (surely?). Income tax
is not paid on organisational spending. If he directs that
organisational funds be used even for his job function, that's fine:
popemobiles and organisational hospitality are work. If he
blatantly directs it for personal use irrelevant to his job,
that's disguised salary and hence tax evasion. Just exactly
the same as fiddling your tax deductible expenses. If a lunch
combines buisness and pleasure, that's a legitimate deduction:
if it's a free lunch for you and your uncle during which business
is never mentioned, then it's fraud to claim it as a deduction.
Ulike checking on past lunches, it is rather easy to determine
that a giant swimming pool in the leaders private living area
for hima nd his cronies is NOT a part of his job function.
>Similarly, going to Court to protect
>Scientology may be the best use of Scientology funds, if you believe in
>the Scientology religion.
>
No, done to the extent of one third of income
this is clearly a misuse of religious funds for something
which is not the religion, and if American law cannot
say so then it has its head up its ass.
>I should stress that I do not actually believe
>that Scientology is a good religion, or that that these are things that
>Scientology should be doing -- but I don't think, constitutionally, it
>should matter what you or I believe.
Agreed;
and you give an example of something which people may
undoubtedly judge as immoral and objectionable, but is still
protected by [in your example] free speech. One cannot try to
rule what beliefs a religion should have. But have you considered:
[@] What if the NATURE of the beliefs
is being misrepresented?
[@] What if things are done WITHOUT a free and informed choice
through lack of sleep, gently pushing back into the chair, etc?
[@] What if a publicly supported body is unfit to recive such support
because of criminal, or even grossly unethical, behaviour?
[@] What if (tax-free) organisational moneys are being used,
without declaring this, as the CEO's (taxable) personal salary?
> : My acquaintance became dissatisfied after a short time and
> : announced he was leaving. "Routing out" took another four months
> : or so, during which time he had to continue putting in 12 or more
> : hours of menial labor per work day. He couldn't just leave without
> : permission because if he did, he faced the strong possibility of
> : being declared a "suppressive person," whom other members of the
> : CoS would not be allowed to communicate with.
> :
>If he was not physically forced to stay, but was simply psychologically
>coerced, then I fail to see how this can be (legally) distinguished from
>other religions that use psychological coercion to get people to do
>things that do not appear in their bests interests (in the view of
>those outside of the religion). For example, I would consider becoming a
>Cisterian monk a very bad career choice.
>
There is a distinction between fair and unfair pressure. I suspect that
a priest would, when you requested to become a monk, allow a cooling off
period and make careful checks about the seriousness of your commitment.
Things such as [not directly related to this example],
obtaining large payments after sleep deprivation and long periods of
auditing, or ''sitting between the person and the door, and firmly
guiding them back into the chair if they attempt to leave'', amount
to unreasobale coercion and the absence of ionformed choice. Things
you just do because you have chosen the belief and you're told
''the church wants this of you, you'll go to hell if you don't''
are fair enough --- they are an immoral and deceitful scam in my
private view, but one to which you lawfully gave you informed consent
so tough luck, you bear the responsibility of your own free choices.
> :
> : 4. I'm told the recruiter also promised minimum wage and livable
> : berthing. My acquaintance say he received about $11 per 70 plus
> : hour week and had to live packed in with a dozen or more young
> : men in a smelly, squalid room.
>
>Here you present an example of where the Scientologists have done
>something that violates a generally applied religion-neutral law that
>has nothing to do with what religions should be doing, or if there
>teachings are true. [.........] most
>religion-neutral laws do apply to religions, and I would agree that #4
>above is economic misrepresentation about a job whose applications does
>not require the inspection of the beliefs or morality of a religion, and
>would thus that the application of this law would not violate the
>Constitution.
Agreed.
>Other people have pointed out that the Scientologists have broken
>numerous laws such as killing a judge's dog, or breaking into people's
>houses. I doubt that many people would claim that these activities are
>constitutionally protected. I certainly do not.
Agreed.
But do they mean that an organisation claiming to be for religious,
educational etc of general public benefit is not fit to receive
public subsidy. And handing back the taxes normally due so that others
make up the shortfall in tax gathering __is__ a public subsidy. It's
just the same as if I say ''are you going to give me something
for my help decorating your room,'' and you say ''yeah, you can keep
that hundred dollars you lent me''; waiving a debt or handing over
cash, the effect is just the same.
> : I do not agree that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
> : means that certain abuses--exploitive child labor practices for
> : example, or various kinds of deception-- which ought to be illegal
> : generally, ough to be legal when done by a religion, assuming it
> : even qualifies as such.
>
>Again, whether or not I agree with the above statement would depend on
>what sort of illegal practices you are talking about. Religious untruth
>is not constitutionally prosecutable.
How about the points made above??
>
>
>Momo
>
XEMU
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug--
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,Golden Gate Bridge Club member#017
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Award of$2.9M against clams in RTC v Scott upheld on appeal 15/4/96
see article author Maureen Garde, title *BIG WIN* for David Mayo
<a href="http://superlink.net/mgarde/scott5.txt"></a>
Ed McCloskey
etc. You don't provide even the pretense of offering proof for any of your
accusations. Anyone that wants to know the what Scientology offers should
visit www.scientology.org. There they can listen to L. Ron Hubbard, read his
writings, and make their own decisions.
Ed
efis...@wimsey.com
<edmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snipage of dave's very good and informative questionings>
> guilty of endless ramblings, innuendo, false accusations,
> etc. You don't provide even the pretense of offering proof for any of your
> accusations. Anyone that wants to know the what Scientology offers should
> visit www.scientology.org. There they can listen to L. Ron Hubbard, read his
> writings, and make their own decisions.
> Ed
<bell>
wrong!
and... time's out, back in the toy-chest, you odious (jack-in-the-box) twit!
regards
ef
Mark Phaedrus
>Once again you are guilty of endless ramblings, innuendo, false accusations,
>etc. You don't provide even the pretense of offering proof for any of your
>accusations. Anyone that wants to know the what Scientology offers should
>visit www.scientology.org. There they can listen to L. Ron Hubbard, read his
>writings, and make their own decisions.
>Ed
Hey, Ed, thanks very kindly for including the entire text of the
prior message in your reply. The original message had expired at my site
while I was away, so I would have missed it entirely. Thanks to your
thoughtful repost, I was able to read and archive this useful
information. Another big win for CO$...
(Does Earthlink provide specials to Scientologists or something?
"Buy one account and all your BTs can use it free" or something along
those lines? Coupons on clam chowder?)
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes,\o\
\o\please try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/Menu.html>, or \o\
/o/anonymous-ftp to ftp.halcyon.com in /local/phaedrus/translist. /o/
/o/ Comments and submissions to this list are always welcome. /o/
Monwhea Jeng
lot of your points and questions fall into common classes, so don't need
to be answered separately. You raise good points, so if I've
accidentally snipped something important, please point it out]
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In art<momo.82...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu>, Monwhea Jeng writes:
>> bad things. While the freedom of religion clause does not prevent all
>> government laws from effecting religions, it does stop the government
>> from applying these laws in a manner that requires the government to
>> determine whether the religion is correct, or whether the religion is
>> doing the things that religion "should" be doing. [For example:]
>You are quite right to point out the absurdity of this objection:
>if you are told something is a religious belief, you __are__ being
>told it is a matter of faith; that there is ''no objective evidence''
>Three questions for you:
>(1) can it be subject to such a test __if__ it is sold on the basis
>of Hubbard's assertions that it is objectively verifiable: has it
>then forfeited such protection?
I think that when a reasonable person hears assertions from a religion,
she understands that things presented as fact can be unverifiable, or
even verifiably wrong by outsiders to the religion. For example,
Christians may claim that it is known that Christ arose from the dead,
or that evolution is demonstrably wrong, or so forth, and any reasonable
person understands that things asserted to be true may lack verifiable
evidence.
>(2) what if the content is misrepresented...''well, you are joining
>this kind of a thing'' and it turns out years & $1000s later it was
>quite other than represented; what if compatibility with other
>religions is misrepresented; what if the true and mandatory cost
>is misrepresented. Can you advance the objection, not that you
>were told beliefs which you now know are falsehoods--tough!--
>but that you were told falsehoods about what the beliefs were?
I see no reason that freedom of religion permits religions to lie about
what their religion is in recruiting members. However, I would think
that proving a lie would require a great deal of latitude in allowing
the religion freedom in representing itself. For example, if a religion
claims that it is compatible with other religions, this is not something
the government can verify or disprove -- compatability of religious
faiths is a personal judgement. Furthermore, statements about what a
religion actually does can be religious judgements. If the Catholics
claim that if I join their religion I get to eat bread that becomes the
body of Christ, and I say "hey, that sound's great ; I'll become a
Catholic," and later I scientifically demonstrate that the bread stays
molecularly bread, then that's just my tough luck. If I recall right,
the leading constitutional case (U.S. v. Ballard) requires me to prove
not only that statements about the religion and/or its activities were
false, but that the religious representative making the statements
believed them to be false.
This leaves your final example of monetary misrepresentation. If a
religion says to reach level X will cost Y, and it actually ends up
costing 50Y, then I would not think that this is constitutionallt
protected, because a comparison of Y and 50Y is a purely objective fact,
and it seems unlikely that the Scientologists could claim that their
religious beliefs were such that Y and 50Y were in fact the same.
>> proceeds to use
>>their psychological power to get people to make decisions not in their
>>best interests (e.g. lack of birth control, becoming a nun),
>....submits to imprisonment, makes large payments directly
>after hypnotic type rituals and being deprived of sleep and
>beein crowed & verbally coerced into staying in the building?
>I think there may be limits [which CoS have overstepped] in this
>where undue influence might apply, as it might to a priest or
>a shrink in similar circumstances. I agree you can't just
>say ''well this was a little odd and, I now realise, against
>my interests'' if you made a free and informed choice to do it.
>Note the ''free and informed'': a reputable church might
>accept conversion after a big emotional ceremony. Ethically,
>it would almost certainly give time for sober reflection
>on a decision to donate the value of your house or to
>become the equivalent of a monk or nun. Such things should
>not be done lightly or under any coercion.
"Free and informed" is certainly an important moral difference between
the activities of these churches. My primary point was that both
religions have enormous psychological power over adherents, and exert
that power in ways that to outsiders, do not seem in the best interests
of the adherents. Now you point out that there are significant
qualitative differences, and I agree that they make a significant moral
difference. Cases in which the religion engages in actual illegal
activities (i.e. involuntary imprisonment or threats), are certainly not
protected. But excluding those cases, I don't see how a difference in
degree in pressuring a voluntary subject can be used to characterize a
religious choices as involuntary (and in fact, there may be cases in
which there is not even a difference of degree -- I would tend to think
that some Catholic priests would not encourage followers to make fully
independent choices on having an abortion, but would rather engage in
high-pressure religious messages to discourage truly independent
choices (I don't mean to be picking on Catholics -- like I said, I'm not
trying to morally equate Catholics and Scientologists) ).
In both of the above examples, I've agreed that some of the activities
you've described are illegal (monetary misreprentation, involuntary
imprisonment, etc. . .) but limited the scope of the categories. While I
am willing to concede, for the sake of the argument, that the
Scientologists have engaged in activities we both agree are not
constitutionally protected, I don't see what this has to do with their
non-for-profit status.
>Can we distinguish between two things here. It is very difficult
>to stop a religion spending on anything directly part of the religion
>by saying that's not what a religion should do, including display
>of wealth in buildings or even the leaders ostentation if it
>is for general consumption in promoting the religion; as your stained
>glass windows are. What about the leader building giant swimming
>pools shaped like ships in the middle of the desert for personal
>benefit and not based anywhere in the scriptures and practices.....
>It's impossible to dictate what the practices should be,
>but nevertheless it is possible to take the teachings & practices
>in their own terms and judge ''this spending is a personal rip-off
>unrelated to them,'' surely?
But how does the government know whether it is good or bad, by the
standards of the religion, for the leaders to be living in comfort?
Maybe God or the gods, or the overlord Glumpas from the Zeeman galaxy or
whatever want religious leaders to live a life of abstinence and
austerity, or maybe they want them to be as comfortable as possible. I
don't know what God wants religions spending their money on -- neither
does the government.
>American law won't do it, but I think it might be possible
>to test ''what is reasonably describable as religion'' separate frpm
>tests simply designed to make one religion false on spurious grounds.
>This would be jusdgement based on how far it fits criteria including
>''that it (i) affirms love for humankind and charity
>to the weak; and (ii) usually that it also affirms a nonmaterial aspect
>to humanity and usually worships a nonmaterial deity, or is at least
>traditionally recognised as a religion.'' Most people would agree
>this is in commonsense a boundary of what is religion, rather than
>directed at favouring one religion over another. But this is an aside.
Well, I don't know if I'm most people, but this categorizations seems a
bit odd. Especially (i). Why does a religion have to affirm "charity for
the weak." This might be part of most Christian religions, but I don't
see why it is part of the defintiion of religions. And in (ii) I would
agree to the "nonmaterial aspect to humanity," but many religions rather
than having one deity can have multiple deities (Hinduism, or Chrisitian
trinity, if you want to could 3 as 3 instead of as 1), animalistic
spirits instead of supreme deities (some American Indian and African
religions) or more of a general design to life than a supreme designer
(Eastern religions). I don't know much about these religions, so I may
be off base on some of these, but I wouldn't include love of humanking,
charity to the weak, or a deity in a general definition of religion.
>>While I don't have them here, many (not all) of the arguments against
>>their tax-exempt status are based on one of these two impermisslbe
>>assumptions. Many of the arguments are intertwined with statements about
>>how the Scientologists are evil, or how they fool people in false
>>beliefs, or they do bad things.
>You missed they deceive people ABOUT what the beliefs in fact are.
>Also, if they do bad [criminal] things, might not this be against
>the religion-neutral presumption that they are operating for general
>public benefit, and are a fit body [criminal behaviour might make
>them unfit and inproperly managed] to recieve such public support.
>[snip]
>The same applies to paying the CEO a grossly disproportionate, for
>the actual size of membership, salary near to Bill gates level.
>It isn't a salary needed to get the services distributed; it is
>so large as to be personal inurement disguised as salary payments.
>This casts new light on unreasonably high prices if they have been
>hiked up simply to pay for such inurement. How do you respond to this?
[snip]
>is not paid on organisational spending. If he directs that
>organisational funds be used even for his job function, that's fine:
>popemobiles and organisational hospitality are work. If he
>blatantly directs it for personal use irrelevant to his job,
>that's disguised salary and hence tax evasion. Just exactly
>the same as fiddling your tax deductible expenses. If a lunch
There are several separate arguments here. First, you point out that
some of the bad things are illegal under religion-neutral laws, so that
we can view these activities as bad without reference to impermissible
religious judgements. I am willing to agree with this, but no one has
shown me a reference in the tax code that convictions for illegal
activities deprive a nfp organizations of their tax-exempt status, so
I'm not sure why this is relevant. You point out that it means that they
are not operating the public benefit -- if a portion of the tax code
explicitly defines, in religion-neutral terms, when an activitiy is bad
enough to make an organization no longer operate in the public benefit,
and therefore lose its nfp status, then I will agree with you. But if
this is just a qualitative determination that they are no longer
operating in the public benefit, then to make these sort of
individualized determinations about religions without references to
fixed rules allows arbitrary religious discrimination under the guise of
after-the-fact religion-neutral determinations. To make another analogy
with the Free Speech clause, there government may allow everyone to
campaign and exercise freedom of speech at a limited public forum (e.g.
a post office), or it may alow no speech. But to allow a governmental
individual to make individualized statements about what speech
ispermitted and what it not without fixed rules describing the standards
of the limited public forum is impermissible because the government
official could then censor based on viewpoint and then come up with
viewpoint-neutral reasons afterwords.
As to the second point about the high wages, I see no reason that a
religion may not want its religious leaders to live in comfort. This is
contrary to many of our more common religions, but it is not contrary to
the concept of religion.
I have to go now. I'll try to answer the rest of your post later.
Momo
Monwhea Jeng
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In art<momo.82...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu>, Monwhea Jeng writes:
>>Similarly, going to Court to protect
>>Scientology may be the best use of Scientology funds, if you believe in
>>the Scientology religion.
>No, done to the extent of one third of income
>this is clearly a misuse of religious funds for something
>which is not the religion, and if American law cannot
>say so then it has its head up its ass.
How is this clearly a misuse of religious funds? As I said above with
the question of the high salaries, it is not the place of the government
to judge how a religion best spends its money. A religion may
believe that its leaders should live in luxury, as in fact
some Christian religions did in the past.
And while I am not a Scientologists, I can see how if I was one I could
believe that legal measures would be a good use of church funds. Pretend
you are an ardent Scientologists, and believe that Scientology is
correct, and is being attacked by critics and the media, that religious
secrets are being illegally disseminated to those not yet ready to
recieve the higher levels, and that there is rampant compyright
infringement. It then seems reasonable, to protect the religion, to
attempt to silence your enemies, and prevent copyright violations from
ruining your religion.
>>I should stress that I do not actually believe
>>that Scientology is a good religion, or that that these are things that
>>Scientology should be doing -- but I don't think, constitutionally, it
>>should matter what you or I believe.
> Agreed;
>and you give an example of something which people may
>undoubtedly judge as immoral and objectionable, but is still
>protected by [in your example] free speech. One cannot try to
>rule what beliefs a religion should have.
or what sort of things a religion should be doing.
[snips because the discussion here is similar to that above, and the
post is already getting really long]
>>Other people have pointed out that the Scientologists have broken
>>numerous laws such as killing a judge's dog, or breaking into people's
>>houses. I doubt that many people would claim that these activities are
>>constitutionally protected. I certainly do not.
>But do they mean that an organisation claiming to be for religious,
>educational etc of general public benefit is not fit to receive
>public subsidy. And handing back the taxes normally due so that others
>make up the shortfall in tax gathering __is__ a public subsidy. It's
>just the same as if I say ''are you going to give me something
>for my help decorating your room,'' and you say ''yeah, you can keep
>that hundred dollars you lent me''; waiving a debt or handing over
>cash, the effect is just the same.
I agree that a tax break is the same a public subsidy. But that doesn't
mean that the government is constitutionally free to condition this
subsidy on constitutionally protected behavior.
There have been suggestions both that the tax exemption for churches is
unconstitutional, since it is state support of religion, and that it is
constitutionall required, since taxing churches would unduly entangle
the affairs of church and state. In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme
Court said that the exemption was permissible, but said nothing about
whether it was required. To make the discussion simpler, I have assumed
that the tax exemption is permissible, but not required.
However, even asssuming that the government is not required to give tax
exemptions to all churches, it is not free to differentiate among
churches in granting this subsidy on the basis of constitutionally
protected behavior. As I said above, if there is a clause in the 501c
that says that no organization convicted of certain crimes (e.g.
misrepresentation of prices or involuntary confinement, killing a
judge's dog, etc. . .) and the Scientologists are convicted of these
crimes, then it seems reasonable to say that they should be deprived of
their tax-exempt status (an argument could be made that even under these
conditions, the government may not tax any religions, or tax some but
not all -- however, I will not make these arguments).
But not one has pointed out such a specific religion-neutral clause. The
argument that by engaging in these activities the Scientologists have
ceased to act in the public interest, and hence deserve to lose their
non-profit status, must fail because the freedom of religion clause
prevents governmental determinations of whether certain religions are
behaving in the public interest or not. Absent clear religion-neutral
standards, it is impossible to determine whether the government is
concluding that they are no longer acting in the public interest on the
basis of the constitutionally protected but unpopular behavior, or
actual secular unprotected behavior.
And just because tax exemptions are subsidies does not give the
government freedom to condition these subsidies on constitutionally
protected behavior. As the Supreme Court has often remarked (and often
ignored) it would be odd if the government, by conditioning vital
benefits such as welfare or police protection, could effectively bargain
away people's constitutional rights.
Momo
scott goehring
In article <momo.83...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu>,
Monwhea Jeng <mo...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>This leaves your final example of monetary misrepresentation. If a
>religion says to reach level X will cost Y, and it actually ends up
>costing 50Y, then I would not think that this is constitutionallt
>protected, because a comparison of Y and 50Y is a purely objective fact,
>and it seems unlikely that the Scientologists could claim that their
>religious beliefs were such that Y and 50Y were in fact the same.
Scientology would be more than willing to make such a claim, or claim
that their religious beliefs prohibit them from comparing monetary
quantites, or any of a number of other absurdities. that is the
nature of Scientology.
>In both of the above examples, I've agreed that some of the activities
>you've described are illegal (monetary misreprentation, involuntary
>imprisonment, etc. . .) but limited the scope of the categories. While I
>am willing to concede, for the sake of the argument, that the
>Scientologists have engaged in activities we both agree are not
>constitutionally protected, I don't see what this has to do with their
>non-for-profit status.
in my opinion, the reason why the CoS does not deserve NPO status is
that a great deal of the money is going to the personal inurement of
David Miscavige and others in the top hierarcy. i can't prove this;
it's more of a suspicion.
>As to the second point about the high wages, I see no reason that a
>religion may not want its religious leaders to live in comfort. This is
>contrary to many of our more common religions, but it is not contrary to
>the concept of religion.
but it is contrary to the (religion-neutral) doctrine that a
non-profit organization may not inure to the benefit of a private
individual. in fact, this is what _defines_ a non-profit
organization, as the fundamental purpose of a for-profit organization
is nothing but to inure profts to the benefit of its owners.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCUAwUBMXz11RbgfSHT/piVAQEwJAP2P9cBo7MrmB+fTvgUrq6WD1wcqGXFZ7iY
xhsWeJUgH8nNmXgFtqpZIsn+orPOWVIY8WTy2fnlvMRfaCETuYiwU+P7ReoyI0qP
6tppxvS/MRXk0/SiK3cBUN0AZC7hCgdLcPgWPlvh1XuXjUl5jvuL680YiIyPU6M/
ohJ68kI+LQ==
=hwXi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eric B. Richardson
>
>
> in my opinion, the reason why the CoS does not deserve NPO status is
> that a great deal of the money is going to the personal inurement of
> David Miscavige and others in the top hierarcy. i can't prove this;
> it's more of a suspicion.
>
Somehow I feel, I can't prove this, but if most of the critics on ars
were honest this is how they would have to qualify their criticisms.
--
======================================================================
# Eric B. Richardson, student, Univ of Minnesota Medical School #
# rich...@maroon.tc.umn.edu #
**********************************************************************
#"Giving money and power to government is like giving car keys and #
# whiskey to teenage boys." P.J. O'Rourke #
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Basics
>
> In <jam81-24039...@dialup129.cc.columbia.edu>,
> ja...@columbia.edu (Jacob A. D. Minas) wrote:
>
> >Yes the problem it is is that it can't be proven. I can't prove, on the
> >one hand, that a single religion is not a "true" religion. But you on the
> >other hand cannot disprove that one single religion is not the true
> >faith. Thats the difference between a proposition that is unprovable and
> >one that is disproven. But since we're talking wide ranging theories of
> >deception, shouldn't that be an issue for the jury?
>
> You don't have to evaluate the beliefs. One should watch if the general
> behaviour would be acceptable if it isn't a religion.
What is "general behaviour", and what is "acceptable"? Sorry - I don't agree.
> For cults like scientology, moon, tm, etc, its becomes quite obvious.
Is it?
>
> >> Religion is for the spiritual consumer. Freedom of religion means that
> >> religion or people have to respect other religions or non-religions
> >> (i.e. the idea of not believing in religion).
> >>
> >> Not respecting other people's beliefs is exactly what cults are doing.
> >> They use fraudulent methods to recruit and to keep their members - that
> >> gives them an unethical advantage over religions that don't cheat.
> >
> >Yes but what does "not respecting people's beliefs." At least in the
> >normal sense of the words, it would destroy the concept of freedom of
> >religion or any kind of freedoms First Amendment freedoms of speech, etc.
> >The First Amendment just says we have to tolerate each others views
> >(i.e.not use the government to ban them), not that I have to love
> >everyone's views. I don't, for example, respect religions which advocate
> >the murder of nonbelivers. Where is it written that I have to respect
> >everyone's views? In fact, if those believers tried to make me respect
> >them, that would be a violation of *my* freedom of conscience. The
> >freedom to believe is also the freedom to disrespect other people's
> >beliefs. I, for example, believe that that particular religion deserves
> >none of my respect.
> >
> >There's a reason I am picking on this. Your terminology is exceedingly
> >vague and wide-reaching. What are "fraudulent methods?" What is
> >"cheating?" What is "brainwashing?" Vague prohibitions infringing on
> >core First Amendment freedoms are not tolerated. Why should they be? I
> >could think up all sorts of interesting ways to destroy the First
> >Amendment by wide-ranging prohibitions on fraud and deceptive practices.
>
Very good!!
------
Basics
*Man, there are some places in this universe where nothing is the truth
(Netscape 2.0 manual, p27)
Monwhea Jeng
>Monwhea Jeng <mo...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>>This leaves your final example of monetary misrepresentation. If a
>>religion says to reach level X will cost Y, and it actually ends up
>>costing 50Y, then I would not think that this is constitutionallt
>>protected, because a comparison of Y and 50Y is a purely objective fact,
>>and it seems unlikely that the Scientologists could claim that their
>>religious beliefs were such that Y and 50Y were in fact the same.
>Scientology would be more than willing to make such a claim, or claim
>that their religious beliefs prohibit them from comparing monetary
>quantites, or any of a number of other absurdities. that is the
>nature of Scientology.
There is a difference between a religious claim that seems ridiculous to
those outside the religion, and a claim that a belief is religious when
in fact it does not seem to be so. I have said that the constitution
both requires courts to presume that people's states religious beliefs
are in fact religious, unless it can be proven otherwise (U.S. v.
Ballard, roughly). I have not said that the constitution requires courts
to blindly take my word that anything I claim to be a religious belief
in fact is. It is perfectly plausible that a religion would believe that
the leading members should be paid large amounts, or that their
interests are best advanced by spending their funds on court cases. This
is contrary to what our mainstream religions do, but it is not contrary
to what a plausible religion might do. However, if a Scientologists says
"This will cost you $5," and it in fact costs $500, then two issues
arise -- first, it is very hard to argue that Scientologists actually
cannot differntiate between the numbers 5 and 500. They can argue that
they do not believe money is important, or other "absurdities," but not
that they do not understand that the numbers 5 and 500, as understood by
most people, are actually different. This is qualitatively different
than, say, a something significant occurs when an e-meter is use, or
bread is eaten at mass.
>>As to the second point about the high wages, I see no reason that a
>>religion may not want its religious leaders to live in comfort. This is
>>contrary to many of our more common religions, but it is not contrary to
>>the concept of religion.
>but it is contrary to the (religion-neutral) doctrine that a
>non-profit organization may not inure to the benefit of a private
>individual. in fact, this is what _defines_ a non-profit
>organization, as the fundamental purpose of a for-profit organization
>is nothing but to inure profts to the benefit of its owners.
As I stated in my last post, if there is a section that puts an absolute
cap on the wages people in nfp organizations can be paid, that is one
thing. However, no one has shown me a section. They have shown me a
section with the word "inure" in it, without a definition of inure. As I
explained in my last post (and am not going to repea my argument here)
even if this section means what people claim it does (apparently contrary
to the fact that many nfp's pay their CEOs wages comparable or greater
to those of profit businesses) application of such a vague standard to
the internal workings of a religion would be unconstitutional, even if
the application of a more straightforwardly objective clause would not
be. I see nothing above that answers either my objections to your
reading of the "inure" clause.
Momo
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <momo.83...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu>, Monwhea Jeng writes>>Monwhea Jong:
>>>
>>>Similarly, going to Court to protect
>>>Scientology may be the best use of Scientology funds, if you believe in
>>>the Scientology religion.
>
>>No, done to the extent of one third of income
>>this is clearly a misuse of religious funds for something
>>which is not the religion, and if American law cannot
>>say so then it has its head up its ass.
>
>How is this clearly a misuse of religious funds? As I said above with
>the question of the high salaries, it is not the place of the government
>to judge how a religion best spends its money. A religion may
>believe that its leaders should live in luxury, as in fact
>some Christian religions did in the past.
>
My argument was that, if a 501(c) grant/exemption is being made
because on organisation is nonprofit and for the public good,
then it is religion-netral to say it is behaving grossly
against the public interest. I felt that American law might
not follow this analysis based on what is ordinary commonesense
to most people, and therefore ''had its head up its ass''.
If it cannot even make a religion-neutral judgement that
bodies are not fit for public subsidy if they are involved
in multiple and systematic felonies then it has its
whole body up there too, and John Gotti might as well apply
for 501(c) status for his organisation. Felonies are no bar,
after all. (Oh, he'd have to call it a religion first).
Tilman Hausherr
>> You don't have to evaluate the beliefs. One should watch if the general
>> behaviour would be acceptable if it isn't a religion.
>
>What is "general behaviour", and what is "acceptable"? Sorry - I don't agree.
You should know what this is... unless you were you born into a cult.
For example, you don't lie to people. You don't beat them up. You don't
use mind control methods to promote your religion (sleep deprivation,
imformation control, love bombing, etc). You don't charge money for
enlightment. You accept money, but you don't pressure for money. You
don't break up families.
>> For cults like scientology, moon, tm, etc, its becomes quite obvious.
>
>Is it?
Yes... Read the newsgroup.
Tilman
Sherilyn
<rich...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes
>scott goehring wrote:
>>
>>
>> in my opinion, the reason why the CoS does not deserve NPO status is
>> that a great deal of the money is going to the personal inurement of
>> David Miscavige and others in the top hierarcy. i can't prove this;
>> it's more of a suspicion.
>>
>
>Somehow I feel, I can't prove this, but if most of the critics on ars
>were honest this is how they would have to qualify their criticisms.
Except, of course, where they catch Cory or Milne in an objectively
proveable lie, post court rulings, peer-reviewed scientific papers,
quote Hubbard saying what they claim he said, put wav files on the web
pages of Hubbard saying "there was no Christ", in a taped dianetics
lecture, or defeat the cult corporation in court (Mayo, the Washington
Post, Karin Spaink et al, Wollersheim and the Canadian Judge Hill have
all won victories in the courts of late, though I admit it's unlikely
WashPost or Hill will be posting here.).
I don't know (or care) whether Miscavige is getting money he shouldn't.
I do KNOW that the cult is hanging onto money that was awarded to
Wollersheim, and that it performed some very fancy (and, on the face of
it downright illegal) chicanery in order to do this.
I do KNOW that the cult harassed and drove near suicide the critical
journalist Paulette Cooper, and mounted an illegal campaign to frame her
in the courts on false charges of bomb threats.
I do KNOW that the cult mounted a massive campaign of infiltration,
burglary, theft and destruction of government property as part of its
illegal Operation Snow White. I KNOW this because this is what the
cult's OWN ATTORNEYS agreed happened in the Stipulations from the GO 11
trial.
I do KNOW that the cult falsely libelled Judge Hill by accusing him of
abuse of his position, prompting one of the longest cases in Canadian
history.
I do KNOW that the cult was found in a US court to have falsely claimed
that the E-Meter could be used to cure physical ailments.
I also know that the cult has been ruled to have tried to kill another
church in the Mayo case--so much for its commitment to the
constitutional right to Freedom of Religion--and that RTC was severely
censured by the courts over its abuse of the pretrial phases of nearly
every case I can mention (details on this URL):
If you have any questions about why I know (not suspect, KNOW) these
things, please just drop me a line, and I will post the proof.
--
Sherilyn
"I was expelled from the church of scientology for the crime of 'Suppressive
Reasonableness.'" -Neal Hamel on alt.religion.scientology.
Sherilyn
>sgoe...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) writes:
>
>>Monwhea Jeng <mo...@dolphin.physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>This leaves your final example of monetary misrepresentation. If a
>>>religion says to reach level X will cost Y, and it actually ends up
>>>costing 50Y, then I would not think that this is constitutionallt
>>>protected, because a comparison of Y and 50Y is a purely objective fact,
>>>and it seems unlikely that the Scientologists could claim that their
>>>religious beliefs were such that Y and 50Y were in fact the same.
>
>>Scientology would be more than willing to make such a claim, or claim
>>that their religious beliefs prohibit them from comparing monetary
>>quantites, or any of a number of other absurdities. that is the
>>nature of Scientology.
>
>There is a difference between a religious claim that seems ridiculous to
>those outside the religion, and a claim that a belief is religious when
>in fact it does not seem to be so. I have said that the constitution
>both requires courts to presume that people's states religious beliefs
>are in fact religious, unless it can be proven otherwise (U.S. v.
>Ballard, roughly). I have not said that the constitution requires courts
>to blindly take my word that anything I claim to be a religious belief
>in fact is.
The court of course would only be interested in actions, not beliefs.
Ifa church made a specific claim in a non-religious context, the First
Amendment would not protect it. In a famous ruling in 1971, the
District Court of D.C. found that an organization designated The
Founding Church of Scientology (that is, the parent organization of the
cult at the time) had made many specific non-religious (medical) claims
in its literature. The use of the E-meter in a non-religious context
was consequently severely limited--prior to the case, the court said,
the scientology cult had freely sold the E-Meter for use by untrained
lay people who were not ordained ministers of the church, and the cult's
literature claimed that it had medical properties.
Reference: United States of America, Libelant, v. An Article or Device.
. . . "Hubbard Electrometer" or "Hubbard E-Meter," etc., Founding Church
of Scientology et al., Claimants, No. D.C. 1-63, United States District
Court, District of Columbia, July 30, 1971 (333 F.Supp. 357).
>
>As I stated in my last post, if there is a section that puts an absolute
>cap on the wages people in nfp organizations can be paid, that is one
>thing. However, no one has shown me a section. They have shown me a
>section with the word "inure" in it, without a definition of inure. As I
>explained in my last post (and am not going to repea my argument here)
>even if this section means what people claim it does (apparently contrary
>to the fact that many nfp's pay their CEOs wages comparable or greater
>to those of profit businesses) application of such a vague standard to
>the internal workings of a religion would be unconstitutional, even if
>the application of a more straightforwardly objective clause would not
>be. I see nothing above that answers either my objections to your
>reading of the "inure" clause.
Just to clarify the case, while there is no objective evidence that the
scientology cult's current leadership receives inurements (because the
tax agreement between IRS and the scientology cult is strangely "closed"
to the public--but this is now being subject to legal challenge) the IRS
is on record as finding, in 1983, that overt and covert benefits did
indeed inure to the family of the founder.
Church of Scientology, 83 T.C. at 491.
The Tax Court identified indicia of both "overt" and
"covert" benefit to L. Ron Hubbard and his family:
"In the instant case, there can be no question
that L. Ron Hubbard and his family are clearly private
shareholders or individuals within the meaning of
section 501(c)(3).n69 During the tax years at issue,
the obvious indicia of benefit to L. Ron Hubbard and
his family include salaries, directors fees,
management fees, complete support of the family, and
royalties; while covert indicia of benefit include
repayment of alleged debts in unspecified amounts and
unfettered control over millions of dollars in funds
purportedly belonging to OTC and the United States
Churches of Scientology Trust."
Reference: Church of Scientology v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 381
(1984), aff'd, 823 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
486 U.S. 1015, 108 S.Ct. 1752, 100 L.Ed.2d 214 (1988),
--
Flying Walinda's...? That certainly doesn't sound like a menace to society.
It sounds more like a Chevy Chase movie. -Dennis Erlich on TM, to John Knapp,
in alt.religion.scientology. "Playing the macho cult game."
Joel Wormer
"Eric B. Richardson" <rich...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>scott goehring wrote:
>>
[SNIP]
>Somehow I feel, I can't prove this, but if most of the critics on ars
>were honest this is how they would have to qualify their criticisms.
>
Actually, my criticism is based on the Co$'s persistent use and abuse of
net rules and etiquette, while claiming to stand for "Free Speech on the
Internet[tm]".
--
--
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space."
Joel A.Wormer - Hired Gun (hire...@kudonet.com)