AU Senator Calls Scientology a "Criminal Organization"

An anonymous reader passes along news that an Australian senator, Nick Xenophon, has denounced the Church of Scientology as "a criminal organization" from the floor of Parliament. "Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment, and forced abortion. He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status." It wasn't that long ago that the CoS was calling for Net censorship in Australia; a month later the organization was convicted of fraud in France.

Comments

tax shelter

[wizardforce]

I can't help but wonder if the COS would even exist without its tax exempt status. Sure the people up top would be doing well like any pyramid scheme but would there be such an incentive for new members to join without the tax exemption?

Related?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nick Xenophon is the only independenr of the Australian Senate. I wonder if that is related, as he doesnt have to please his party?

Re:Hmm

[ZDRuX]

I agree 100% with you. My mother is highly religious - but I wouldn't dare try and convince her of my views. My father recently died of cancer just a year ago, and she seems to find peace and some sort of comfort and hope when she goes to church and has a personal relationship with God - and if that makes her life easier to live in this tough time, I don't care if she prays to a rock.

I understand the role that religion plays in some people's lives, and being agnostic or an atheist is not for everyone. It's just religion is usually imposed upon people at a young age where they don't have a choice or can't mount a logical defense against what they're being told so they take it as truth. I wish people were baptized at the age of 20 or so, and I bet we'd have a lot less followers.

Re:Should they get off tax-free?

[electrons_are_brave]

It's opened up a good debate in Australia - should any religion be tax exempt? People here are mentioning other religions which are corrupt (Catholoic Priests and child abuse is never our of the media) or which operate commercial activities but get an unfair competitive advantage because they don't pay tax (Hill Song and the Seventh Day Adventists are being mentioned).

Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia. He said it wasn't government's job to determine which religious beliefs are worthy of recognition and which are not.

Overall, religions should have to pay their own way.

Re:Hmm

[wizardforce]

Most religions don't copyright their message and charge large sums to move up the hierarchy. Most religions attempt to spead their message to as many as possible. The COS has gone as far to copyright the message and sue those who infringe. The most famous case of this happened right here on Slashdot.

Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore...

[ThePengwin]

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. - L. Ron Hubbard, 1948

I used to be a Scientologist

[leereyno]

.....and I can tell you from personal experience that it really is pure concentrated evil.

Scientology has gotten away with innumerable crimes over the years in part because the average person is incapable of imagining that anything can be so completely malign in its goals. The organization is completely sociopathic.

They kicked me out because I wouldn't drink the koolaide.

If you want to know more, I recommend you check out operation clambake (www.xenu.net)

Re:I used to be a Scientologist

[MoralHazard]

How did you get involved, originally? My first guess (having known a few scientologists) is that your parents were/are members and you were raised in it. Second guess: One of the substance abuse programs. Third guess: One of their entrepreneurial outreach programs.

Any hits? Just curious--I'm always happy to see somebody leave the CoS. it's a terrible, hurtful thing, and I've seen it ruin peoples' lives while making them feel it's their own fault.

Also, out of curiosity, have you ever been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, or at least seen the symptoms in yourself?

Personally, I think there's substantial co-morbidity between substance abuse problems and scientology for a very specific reason: Undiagnosed (or untreated) ADHD, mostly the "inattentive" kind (which is pretty substantially under-diagnosed, since the kids aren't unruly or acting out). It tends to breed feelings of worthlessness in afflicted adults, and opens up a lot of psychological vulnerabilities. Many suffers either self-medicate (hence the substance abuse issues), and/or get attracted to cults that promise direction, motivation, and self-improvement. Scientology, in particular, has substance-abuse outreach and treatment programs, which makes a handy recruiting strategy for the larger cult.

Of all the scientologists I've met (~2 dozen), almost all of them seem like classic ADHD cases. That is partly based on observing behavior, and partly on what people have said about their life histories, and partly on what they say about their relatives (ADHD is highly inheritable). I've also met a lot (~100s) of 12-steppers (mostly AA)--the proportion of them showing ADHD symptoms or personal/family histories isn't quite as high, but it's still enormous, far more than the normal population.

(Interesting side-note: According to my psychiatrist uncle (who performed a lot of criminal insanity consultations, and is borderline ADHD, himself), American prison populations also show substantial ADD/ADHD over-representation, possibly as high as 70-80% of all prison inmates. As an adult with ADHD, I have to suppress a chuckle at that little trifecta: Prison, addiction, or scientology--take your pick, kids, so many ways to ruin your life.)

For the general Slashdot audience: If you or your family have symptoms of ADHD or inattentive (no-H) ADHD, I'd recommend reading Nancy and John Ratey's books, and then going to see a psychiatrist, in that order. Even if you decide not to try the drugs (which can be helpful, but aren't a magic cure by themselves), there is a LOT you can do to improve your life. It's cheaper than a cult, too.

It should even have been dissolved here in France

[Yvanhoe]

It should have been dissolved in France but what happened instead is really shameful. The judge was probably going to order the dissolution of the scientology, considered culprit of being a criminal organization of fraudulent aim (that means that money was considered their driving motivation). But two weeks before the verdict (a perfect synchronization). Our parliament made a "mistake". Inside a huge corpus of law modification (aimed at simplifying the laws regarding buisnesses and companies), someone "inadvertently" put a law removing the dissolution as a possible verdict for fraud. Nobody was able to point out the person who put this amendment (how comes !?) and everybody said it was a mistake and they would correct it with a new law. Unfortunately, the verdict was due two weeks later and instead of dissolution, the scientology got a record fine.

They are loosing adepts, but they still have people in the higher spheres...

Re:Should they get off tax-free?

[name*censored*]

I'm not GP, but this really bugs me:

So you're argument is pretty much bunk. Rich people don't pay as much taxes as the poor or middle class right now, and my proposal is not to keep to the status qou. The opposite in fact.

So, you've basically said

1. We are in System A, which has problem X
2. I propose System B
3. System B is not the same as System A, therefore System B does not have problem X

Really, this kind of black-and-white "not A therefore B" extremism (which is really a large family of bad arguments) is perhaps the biggest generator of problems in our democratic/capitalistic (ie, the masses decide) society. To wit:

I don't see why we need to punish the successful.

Tax is not a "punishment". (In theory) tax should be "We (the government) need money for services that are (arguably) untenable in or unsuited to private enterprise, how are we going to get it?". It's not "Hey, I don't like that guy, let's rob him! *cackle maniacally*". You are again making the "NOT A THEREFORE B" mistake by conflating "tax" with "punishment", because they both fit into the broader category "authorised arbitrated unpleasantness based on behaviour". But just as a motorbike is not an automobile (despite their many similarities), TAX IS NOT A PUNISHMENT, IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE NECESSITY.

I don't see why we need to punish the successful. Especially, those who worked damned hard to get it.

Some people are poor because they deserve to be.

Not every poor person is a lazy bum, and not every rich person is a hard worker. Now whilst I have no specific moral objections to tax in and of itself (I don't like it, but don't find it immoral), you regard it as a "punishment", and therefore imagine that you're "punishing" people simply for being poor - and conversely, rewarding people for being rich. Which would be fine if everyone who was poor deserved it - but for the third time, NOTHING IS THAT BLACK AND WHITE (even you admit there's not 100% correlation). Is it that you have no ethical quarrel with "punishing" people for probably being lazy (in which case, you are a frighteningly heartless person), or do you simply ignore corner cases (ie, another incarnation of the black-and-white mistake)?

As for the actual point you were trying to make about tax reform, I'm not going to enter into that. I'm merely going to point out that

• Reducing the tax rate on luxury items to the same rate as non-luxury non-essentials
• Removing the tax on non-essentials
• removing the tax on income
• Removing the tax on property
• Removing the tax on possessions

means a MUCH smaller tax revenue (unless you plan to simply make the figures your tax proposal extremely high, which will probably create a black market and public outcry). Although many here might support reducing tax and reducing services (and this is an argument I *DEFINITELY* don't want to enter into), no government would never agree to it, in the same way that no employee would ever agree to take a massive pay cut just to make a moral stand (especially when morals are highly subjective - an argument I don't want to enter into because anyone who argues for universal morality is a damned moron, and I have better things to do than argue with morons).

Re:Should they get off tax-free?

[DangerFace]

Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic. Richard Dawkins has a big thing about trying to persuade a Hindu temple to go to court for charity status, since they are legally a polytheistic, and thus heathen, religion, but actually all the gods are avatars of the one God, or something. Anyway, profit should be taxed, whether you dance around chicken innards or sell chocolate.

Re:Hmm

[zx75]

There are religions that don't accept members (through baptism) until they reach adulthood. They are called Anabaptists (many sects began during the Reformation because they believed that Martin Luther didn't address all their grievances with the Catholic Church).

One of the more widespread of the Anabaptist sects are the Mennonites (of which I am one). I was baptized at the age of 26, because prior to then I didn't have a reason or desire to attend church. But, things happen, and I found a reason and a need in my life to be part of the church. It hasn't changed my belief structure (I still am agnostic/athiest) but that does not preclude the need for the belonging and philosophy of church. I may not believe there is a god, but a small hope that it might be true can give strength in trying times.