Slashdot Mirror


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.

364 of 511 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting name. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    Senator Xenophon? He must be in the clutches of Xenu! Someone get me an e-meter, quick!

    1. Re:Interesting name. by Mikkeles · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, he just rode in with his 10,000 followers and is trying to crush the opposition ;^)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    2. Re:Interesting name. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Funny
    3. Re:Interesting name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"

      I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a religion not a charity.

    4. Re:Interesting name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Looks like somebody is definitely Fair Game now!

    5. Re:Interesting name. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nah, it's cool. If he knows about Xenu without being properly audited his R6 implant is exploding his head at this very moment.

    6. Re:Interesting name. by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only Tom Cruise, with his awesome mental powers, can free Senator Xenophon from the clutches of the evil psychiatrists and their terrible leader, Lord Xenu himself! (To hear the exiting conclusion of Incident II: suggested donation of $23,148,855,308,184,500.00)

    7. Re:Interesting name. by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      He'll be doing a forced march if he's not careful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    8. Re:Interesting name. by robbak · · Score: 1

      But he's not crushing the opposition, he spends most of the time trying to crush the government.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    9. Re:Interesting name. by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As he should. I don't agree with the man on most of his points, but I can appreciate someone getting up and metaphorically saying "Are you fucking serious?!" to the rest of the parasites he has to work with.

      A government should be doing what is best for the country, not what is seen to be most politically correct - at least Nick is working on getting that to happen.

      Even if he is a filthy South Australian.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    10. Re:Interesting name. by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Portable e-meters!

      Does this means that I will be able to measure my thetans wherever I am?

      What an age we live in!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    11. Re:Interesting name. by GrubLord · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well... if politicians aren't going to be politically correct, then who is? One might say that's their job.

    12. Re:Interesting name. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Plus, judging from the story title he's made of gold. That's must mean something.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Interesting name. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Nah, he just rode in with his 10,000 followers and is trying to crush the opposition ;^)

      I thought he was just trying to get home...

    14. Re:Interesting name. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Jeez, look at the color scheme. I didn't know they made a Barbie(tm) voltmeter.

    15. Re:Interesting name. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"

      >I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a business not a religion.

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    16. Re:Interesting name. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Initial mod: informative. Only on slashdot....

    17. Re:Interesting name. by IronSilk · · Score: 2
      Xeno = foreign

      phon = sound

      So, he must be speaking a foreign language. Australian, I guess. Fair dinkum!

    18. Re:Interesting name. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Watt exactly do you mean by that?

    19. Re:Interesting name. by digitalgiblet · · Score: 1

      Xenophon? Sounds like a foreigner...

    20. Re:Interesting name. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "
      Re:Interesting name. (Score:2)
      by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) Alter Relationship on Wednesday November 18, @10:50AM (#30144386) Homepage Journal
      Initial mod: informative. Only on slashdot....
      --
      Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
      "

      Online Anonymity: You're Doing It Wrong.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    21. Re:Interesting name. by flyneye · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sorry but political correctness is a code of behavior, while well meaning on the surface, that hobbles any practitioner to never offending anyone. If no one ever offends themselves, then one might say all is fair. If all is fair, nothing will ever get done, everyone will starve and world population will soar out of control because the only thing left to do is f**k.
                This also implies a non existent right to never be offended, which fuels morning radio talk show gags and covers laziness on the part of politicians who use this to explain non actions and no-positions on controversial subjects.
      Political correctness is an invention of the U.S. Democratic party to cover wrongdoing while masquerading as goody-two-shoes. Perfected by Hillary Clinton during her Listening Tours to cover the fact that she had absolutely nothing of value to say, else it would've been a speaking tour and she would've trashed her career early on.

      One might find the business adage " If you're not pissing anyone off, you're not getting anything accomplished" useful.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    22. Re:Interesting name. by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between playing politics and being politically correct. Playing politics is about not offending people, political correctness is about refraining from things like racial slurs.

      Call someone an idiot all day long if their work shows them to be an idiot. Stay away from ad hominems and you're automatically politically correct.

    23. Re:Interesting name. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Ohm guessing you can figure it out if you try.

    24. Re:Interesting name. by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

      This Crime Syndicate is not a business.

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    25. Re:Interesting name. by si618 · · Score: 1

      Even if he is a filthy South Australian.

      That's filthy *hot* South Australian to you mate!

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion
    26. Re:Interesting name. by tyrione · · Score: 1

      >"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"

      >I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a business not a religion.

      Fixed that for ya.

      That would cover them all, even if their business is Soul management.

    27. Re:Interesting name. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Forgive me I used political examples since this was a politician in question.
              For the man on the street to alter and edit his speech merely to offend no one is twice as reprehensible and makes him appear foolish.
                We first must delve into "being offended"
      If you are ever offended. Stop! It is your choice to feel this way.Choose a different way to feel.
              If I " make" you feel this way, then you are little more than my puppet and I am controlling your emotions.This makes you appear foolish.
                Therefore If I make my self politically correct around you, it could only mean that I believe you are incapable of self control and I am patronizing you.
              Politically correct is just a "safe" way of saying I am superior to you because I don't believe you have the self worth to hear what is thought and not said.
              Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make the distinction.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    28. Re:Interesting name. by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      "A government should be doing what is best for the country, not what is seen to be most politically correct"

      Seems like you ought to be able to say the same thing about a religion, any religion, not necessarily what's best for an individual country, but certainly what's best for people in general.

  2. Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anonymous should now use Nick Xenophon masks for all of their events.

  3. Senator Xenophon? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Something tells me he's a CoS plant, hmmmmm...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Senator Xenophon? by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Informative

      nope, just an evangelical.

    2. Re:Senator Xenophon? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, that's the other independant senator Steve Fielding from the Family First evangelicals.

      Nick Xenophon is from the 'No Pokies' party, and doesn't interfere his religion with his politics.

  4. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good

  5. tax shelter by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:tax shelter by aztektum · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Never underestimate the stupidity of rich 'n greedy white people!

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:tax shelter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What part of what the parent said is untrue? The COS is a known tax shelter and exists for the purpose of enriching the few individuals at the top.
      L. Hubbard himself essentially said that religion was a great way to make money.

    3. Re:tax shelter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      With the tax exemption, new members only have to pay x% of their salaries to the church instead of y%. Since x is still a positive number I wouldn't call it an incentive to join, just a reduced burden.

    4. Re:tax shelter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    5. Re:tax shelter by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you've never heard of the Socratic Method?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:tax shelter by Tellarin · · Score: 1

      Reduced burden = incentive.

      Just look at any form of subsidy.

    7. Re:tax shelter by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point (or maybe I misunderstood what everyone is saying). With tax exemption, new members pay x%. If COS did not have tax exemption, new members would pay (x+y)%, where y is a positive number. This means that, in theory, without tax exemption there should not be as many members since the cost to join is higher.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    8. Re:tax shelter by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you've never heard of the Socratic Method?

      Suicide by hemlock ingestion?
      Seems a bit drastic.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    9. Re:tax shelter by Tellarin · · Score: 1

      The tax exemption in the case of religious entities being discussed here is the one on the church side. They are exempt from taxes on the money they make (from donations or other means). A regular company or person would usually pay some sort of taxes on income. This happens as an incentive for the entity to do the charitable work and keep investing everything in its goals (as a non-profit).

      You're talking about tax exemption like in donating your money to something like a charitable entity. Then, yes, for certain charities you are exempt of taxes. And this reduced burden works as an incentive for you to donate; exactly as you said.

      So in both cases Reduced burden = Incentive.
         

    10. Re:tax shelter by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was talking about tax exemption of the COS. If currently they rake in $x, all of it tax exempt, then if their tax exempt status were to go away, they would have to take in $(x+y) from their members in order to net the same $x they previously got.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    11. Re:tax shelter by socz · · Score: 1

      oh excuse me, hello!

      Just to clear things up, Socrates did not 'commit suicide.' He fulfilled his sentence which was to drink the hemlock. :P

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  6. Makes me sick by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops. Don't just splash allegations around under parliamentary privilege. If people in the CoS have broken laws then that says nothing about other people who associate with that organization.

    In the absense of facts the senators statement in the summary could be applied to pretty much any set of people.

    I don't like Scientology either but I value my freedom to associate.

    1. Re:Makes me sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you read what he said? Oh that's right, this is /.

      All he is saying is that we should question the tax free status of Scientology. He then gave some examples of what the cult does.

    2. Re:Makes me sick by Onetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For those unfamiliar with the australian parliment - the definition of what "Parliamentary Privilege" is: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/briefs/brief11.htm#1

      I think you miss understand the purpose of "parliamentary privilege", my fellow australian. Our elected representitives can discuss such issues as the authenticity of Scientology, without fear of slander/libel suits or gag orders or general legal hoop-la to silence their criticisms. It is their role to raise issues of their consitutents in such as manner, so that members of the public can come forth/organise/e.t.c to provide the necessary PROOF that the laws are being broken. Then the appropriate law enforcement agency can be engaged.

      Sorry mate - I don't want to live in your world where if no-one talks about a problem it doesn't exist - that's just plain foolish.

      But regardless, by READING THE FIRETRUCKING ARTICLE, you would have encountered the first two paragraphs stating:
      "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."

      First sentence of your post: "If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops" ... Check - he's passed on the letters to the police.
      As for the rest - I can't believe you're trying to align criticism of Scientology with an attack on your freedom to associate ... Unless you're a scientologist too...

      Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)

    3. Re:Makes me sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops. Don't just splash allegations around under parliamentary privilege. If people in the Outlaws Motorcycle Club have broken laws then that says nothing about other people who associate with that organization.

      In the absense of facts the senators statement in the summary could be applied to pretty much any set of people.

      I don't like the Outlaws Motorcyle Club either but I value my freedom to associate.

      There fixed that for you. In America they should be tried under RICO just like the Outlaws were.

    4. Re:Makes me sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)

      Just a nitpick - the USA is the same way. The Bill of Rights goes one step further in some cases and stipulates that some rights cannot be prohibited by law unless the Constitution is modified first. "Congress shall establish no law..."

    5. Re:Makes me sick by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      It really goes even further. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because some of the founding fathers didn't think the Constitution did a good enough job of saying that you have all rights not directly prohibited and that any governmental rights not given directly to the federal government went to the state governments.

      However, I'd argue that this day and age it's more of a question about whether or not you have the right to do things that aren't spelled out either way.

    6. Re:Makes me sick by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      We are big on precedents here. The Bill of Rights is a long list of precedents we can point to when someone tries to:

      - sue someone else for speaking out
      - take away their guns
      - make them talk about a crime they may have committed
      - etc

      Without that list, we really are too
      divided a country to not have a few of those rights removed. If Australia is better in that regard, kudos to you and yours.

    7. Re:Makes me sick by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There are currently investigations into organised crime in motorcycle gangs, but just the same it does not mean that every member is a criminal even if those leading the organisations are. It is a very similar situation here and organised crime and fraud should be dealt with by law enforcement no matter what front is put up by the organisation.

    8. Re:Makes me sick by MrCawfee · · Score: 1

      We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law

      That is the real kicker there, the bill of rights specifies certain things that can not be prohibited by law. It doesn't specifiy the only rights you have, it specifies the rights that can not be taken away.

    9. Re:Makes me sick by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have

      There actually is,

      Look at the five fundamental freedoms. These are implied freedoms, so isn't an explicit document like the US bill of rights but as we've seen in the last few years that's only as good as the government who enforces it.

      I find it funny that immigrants have to learn about the Australian constitution and the freedoms pertained within but born citizens rarely do, yet we spend 1 term per year (6-8 hours per week for 10 weeks, for our non Australian friends) in out social studies classes (History, Geography) learning about Aboriginal history (not that I have anything against the Aborigines but everything really can be learned in 1 term, perhaps 2 leaving more time for other local and international history studies in the three mandatory years of high school).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Makes me sick by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should learn what the Bill of Rights is before declaring what "you guys have".

    11. Re:Makes me sick by soundguy · · Score: 1

      All religions are criminal then.

      I have no problem with that observation.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    12. Re:Makes me sick by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If people in the CoS have broken laws then that says nothing about other people who associate with that organization.

      Interesting argument. Think it would work for the mob?

      The simple fact is, that CoS members acting on direct orders from their top leaders have repeatedly committed crimes. This is a matter of public record in about half a dozen countries. It would take you all of a minute with Google to find any number of examples.

      Sure, there may be some lower-level clambots who have a clean rap sheet (so far), but the truth is that as soon as anyone starts moving up in the hierarchy, they are prevailed upon to participate in fraud to extract as much money as possible from the marks.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Makes me sick by sergueyz · · Score: 1

      Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have .

      Which do not impose constraints on the law, so every right could be denied by court.

      I don't think that's right.

    14. Re:Makes me sick by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)

      Which is why the 9th and 10th amendments (last two clauses in what is popularly known as the Bill of Rights) are so important:

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Many politicians and media talking heads tend to conveniently forget those two whenever they're pushing for yet another limitation of our civil rights. (sigh)

    15. Re:Makes me sick by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If people break the law on behalf of an organisation then yes, I think it's time to go after the organisation. Else, how would you want to fight organised crime?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Makes me sick by conureman · · Score: 1

      I think that any probe will turn up a few "rogue members" who will be chastised and relieved of their duties within the "Church". That should take care of the problem.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    17. Re:Makes me sick by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 1

      And the Hon Xenophon is asking a reasonable question that can be expanded. Does a specific organization deserve tax benefits? To my mind the answer would be only if they can prove social benefit.

      For instance. A soup kitchen run by atheists would qualify as they are providing a tangeble service to society. The atheist association who sponsor it, not so much.

      --
      A sig is placed here
      To display how futile
      English Haiku is
    18. Re:Makes me sick by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Which is why the 9th and 10th amendments (last two clauses in what is popularly known as the Bill of Rights) are so important:

      The Supreme Court has essentially said that because they don't specify anything, they can be ignored. So they are the two most important, and the two that are completely ignored.

  7. In before... by Laser_iCE · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In before Xenophon/Xenu jok-... -sigh- too late.

  8. Hmm by ZDRuX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me, all religions are a scam. Some have been around longer than others and thus emanate a sense of legitimacy but they're mostly cults with a God that we offer our prayers and money to in return for a hope of a better life.

    Religions come and go, their Gods are offered gold, placed upon altars and have great building and churches erected in their names - and yet, people die of violence, starvation, and famine. Their Gods grow weak and frail, their subjects grow old and a new religion eventually emerges and takes its place as the new "true" religion. A sad cycle indeed.

    --
    The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Hmm by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Religions give followers a sense of belonging and an answer to questions like who made the universe and what happens when I die. They also give a group of people a sense of belonging.
      It's just a pity when religions get in the way of our society (abortion, contraceptives and gay rights are good things) and when people take them too far (terrorism). Also when they exist solely for monetary gain.

    2. Re:Hmm by ZDRuX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Hmm by SanguineV · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be forced to pay for it to be a scam. Having the same philosophy as a scam doesn't make the scam legitimate.

    4. Re:Hmm by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:Hmm by stillpixel · · Score: 1

      Are you somehow saying the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a scam??? Blaspheme!

    6. Re:Hmm by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most religions don't copyright their message and charge large sums to move up the hierarchy.

      The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.

      I think you'll have trouble enshrining any law which will target one and not the other. I'm sure the CoS will open up their texts if substantial money is on the line.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Hmm by xtracto · · Score: 1

      To me, all religions are a scam. Some have been around longer than others and thus emanate a sense of legitimacy but they're mostly cults with a God that we offer our prayers and money to in return for a hope of a better life.

      For me, religions are not a scam, but churches (the organizations behind). For the case of Catholicism, I can enter any church without paying (unless it is Germany!, but I think they are not catholic) and sit down to hear the mass. I can even take pictures of some nice interiors.

      Also, if I want to read what the church is about, I just have to go to internet and can download or read online its "sacred books", in *many languages*. Such a church promotes the dissemination of information.

      Of course, the catholic church has learnt in the bad way how much they can exploit their followers (from hundreds of years of fighting).

      Other churches such as the Islam or CoS (or the last day saints) use specific religious beliefs they use to exploit their followers in worst ways. Such actions are illegal in some places (France, Belgium), and tolerated in others (USA).

      Me? I "sadly" believe as much in religion as I believe in Santa Claus. I say "sadly" because sometimes it would be just great to be able to blame whatever "all powerful" entity for the mistakes we do.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    8. Re:Hmm by strangemachinex · · Score: 1

      Eh, I would say most religions aren't scams. I'm not very religious, but alot of Christian churches help people without asking much in return. All churches ask for money because it has to come from somewhere, but giving money isn't a condition for attending. I don't know much about other religions. But yeah, Scientology is stupid.

    9. Re:Hmm by bjomape · · Score: 1

      Religions come and go, their Gods are offered gold, placed upon altars and have great building and churches erected in their names - and yet, people die of violence, starvation, and famine. Their Gods grow weak and frail, their subjects grow old and a new religion eventually emerges and takes its place as the new "true" religion. A sad cycle indeed.

      Where do you see this trend? From what I've seen, most of what we call religion has been around for thousands of years. Sure, there are some short lived cults as well, but the followers of long term religions outnumber them by far.

    10. Re:Hmm by mpe · · Score: 1

      The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.

      Can you read the Book of Mormon and/or information about it without joining the church.? AFAIK you can.

    11. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the height of its power the easiest way to get someone into a position of power within the various Christian churches in Europe was to cough up cash and the higher you wanted to go the bigger the donation. Rich families often did just that for their non first-born male children. For centuries the bible was not allowed to translated from Latin to limit who had access to it and keep the interpretations in the hands of the priests. Virtually the same thing as Scientology.

    12. Re:Hmm by the_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but you know that before you join.

      Anyone can find out exactly what the Mormon's believe, and they would be quite happy to explain it more fully if you are interested.

      The CoS wants you to pay first, before you decide whether what they believe is credible. Given what they belive there is a good reason for that....

    13. Re:Hmm by the_womble · · Score: 1

      A scan by whom, practised on whom. The founders of Christianity and Buddhism did not exactly benefit by founding a religion.

      What do you mean by a better life. None of the major religions promise a better life in this life, only the next.

      The other problem is that you are assuming that there is no God. If so, then theistic religions are clearly a waste of time.

    14. Re:Hmm by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Umm.. that's blatantly false. There's still plenty of secret knowledge and secret practice in the Mormon church, and all allegations against the church are denied and disbelieved by everyone who joins it. Ignoring evidence is a prerequisite of joining a religion, I don't know why people are surprised that so many people "don't know what they're getting into".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:Hmm by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      Religions didn't start off as a scam. But form any institution, and people will rise to power within that institution to take advantage of its constituents. It happens everywhere, from Catholicism to the government to the Red Cross. While the uppers of many religious institutions may have been taking advantage of the lowers for years, the central belief that holds them together has remained the same for centuries... this applies to all religious institutions that I've seen, except for Scientology: which is clearly, without question, a scam. I honestly can't figure out how Scientology still exists. The fact that people are willing to believe in such a thing as Scientology makes me question my faith as a Christian. And that makes me a sad panda.

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
    16. Re:Hmm by bcmm · · Score: 1

      The founders of Christianity and Buddhism did not exactly benefit by founding a religion.

      Jesus Christ didn't found any churches.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    17. Re:Hmm by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      The big difference is that those religions are founded upon religious beliefs. Scientology at its core is a criminal organisation that at a certain point changed its image to reflect that of a religion in order to get tax exemption and to be able to hide behind religious beliefs and claims of hate speech. The late L. Ron Hubbard, who founded Scientology, once wrote very specifically that it is not a religion. Of course, you'll have a hard time finding that quote in Scientology books these days, since they've long been altered to reflect the new truth. 1984 much? Let me repeat that. Scientology is not a religion, it is a hardcore criminal organisation.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    18. Re:Hmm by GapingHeadwound · · Score: 1

      ...the presupposition here being that scientology is a religion...

    19. Re:Hmm by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      For centuries the bible was not allowed to translated from Latin to limit translation semantic creep

      There, fixed that for you. Many Nobles new Latin, not just the Priests. Latin was the educated-man's common language.

    20. Re:Hmm by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think it is pretty likely that religion has its roots in the stories told by medicine men and big men, and I bet they often bent those stories in ways that benefited themselves.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Hmm by oleop · · Score: 1

      yeah, but he conducted criminal activities (at least as local laws saw it)

    22. Re:Hmm by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Heck, if nothing else think of it as insurance: what if there is a God?

      "Just In Case" doesn't sound like much of a principle to base your life on.

    23. Re:Hmm by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that the Bible mostly wasn't written in Latin to start with, it was written in a whole cocktail of different languages including Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, so semantic creep would have already occurred. Given the lengths the Church was prepared to go to to subjugate its congregation and prevent splinter groups eroding its financial base, I would be inclined to agree with the parent poster's contention that the use of Latin was an attempt to limit access.

      Sure, some members of the wealthier or privileged classes had access to education, but thousands more didn't, and money and power require a more or less quiescent rabble to keep the money rolling in.

      Having said that, of course, I can't help being reminded of that quote from the Governor of Texas (circa 1920):

      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

    24. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are not required to give the LDS church any money, time or effort to be a member. You can attend church service for years without even being a member of the church.

      I think using the term mandated service is pretty inaccurate as well. As a member of the church, you will be asked to serve but you have no obligation to accept and can simply turn it down. Most of the time this is something along the lines of leading a Boy Scout troop or teaching Sunday school.

      Mormons give a lot to our church, for us its a lifestyle. I can understand why people on the outside would see similarities for that reason. But I can promise you that they are only superficial. But don't take my word for it, attend a Sunday service and see for yourself.

    25. Re:Hmm by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      But you can buy the Book of Mormon on amazon.com. Heck, they even have it for the Kindle. That's a big difference right there. If you search for scientology on amazon, a good number of the books returned are works critical of scientology, but you won't find the materials that they charge thousands of dollars up for sale there.

      Another is that you can be a Mormon and not be a member of the official Mormon church. The Church of Scientology has sued groups who practice Scientology outside of the official channels. (The non-CoS Scientologists, by the way, are collectively called Free Zoners.)

      Scientology is a cult and a scam. There's no two ways about it. They use and abuse copyright laws to protect their "religious" materials, which no other mainstream religion does. They have a pattern of harassment and antagonism towards critics, including attempting to frame them for criminal acts. Look up Operation Freakout on wikipedia, or Operation Snow White for a look at their attempted infiltration of, among other things, the IRS.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    26. Re:Hmm by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      Yep, and that was wrong. I can think of about 100 things that were deeply wrong about the way religion was practiced in that era. Perhaps someone should nail them to the door of the Religious Technology Center so that they can catch up.

    27. Re:Hmm by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ didn't found any churches.

      "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" Matt 16:18

    28. Re:Hmm by zx75 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    29. Re:Hmm by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Well, in Germany there is a kind of compulsory Church tax (that you must pay after you register in the city), I am not sure if it is for all religions.

      Germany is the only country where I am aware they have church tax. Even in religious countries like USA, people do not have to pay the the government for their faith.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    30. Re:Hmm by Golddess · · Score: 1

      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

      But.. it.. it.. but... *head asplodes*

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    31. Re:Hmm by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh? Have you looked at the history of the Catholic Church? Or of the priesthoods of Greece, Rome, or Israel before the modern age? Or the Church of England? Church leadership has occurred by many means.

      The difficulties with Scientology are many: the fraudulent claims for fiscal and physical benefit are one, the high pressure pyramid scheme sales tactics are another, and the deceit about the inner beliefs which are concealed from new members are another. But let's not presume that cults and religions have been immune to the power of money to attain leadership or to be redeemed.

      Also note: the "most famous case" of Scientology censorship is probably the book "The Scandal of Scientology", which led to Mary Sue Hubbard and some of the leadership of Scientology's "Guardian Office" being convicted for planting fake bomb threats, infiltrating the IRS, and lots of other abuses. Look at the history over at www.xenu.net and www.facnet.org, it's fascinating material and also described in numerous books.

      The non-profit status is a big help to them. By drawing the Constitutional cloak of "Freedom of Religion" over what they used to sell, fraudulently, as mental and physical self-help technologies, they avoided the FDA ban against making health claims for their techniques and avoided a lot of IRS difficulties for their fiscal abuse of their own members, especially staff.

    32. Re:Hmm by Temujin_12 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.

      Can you read the Book of Mormon and/or information about it without joining the church.? AFAIK you can.

      Yes you can.

      It's also important to note that the Mormon Church has no paid clergy. So member donations go to the organization/religion itself rather than to its leaders.

      --
      Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    33. Re:Hmm by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Try telling that abortion is a good thing, to a woman that just had one, and I bet you won't get an unambiguously positive reaction.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    34. Re:Hmm by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      It's just a pity when religions get in the way of our society (abortion, contraceptives and gay rights are good things) and when people take them too far (terrorism).

      1) There are lots of non-religious people that are pro-life because they see it as murder. You're killing a human child, breathing or not, when you have an abortion, a very selfish act without thinking about your potential child (unless, of course, the mother would die from having childbirth; that's reasonable).

      2) Contraceptives, from what I hear, are terrible to use. A lot of people I know won't even consider them because of the risks involved.

      3) I'm fine with gay partnerships, but is gay marriage really needed? Marriage has always been a religious thing even since ancient times. What could possibly come from gay marriage that a gay partnership won't bring?

      4) Hitler/communism/etc. did more damage than religious terrorism ever did. All of them were non-religious.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    35. Re:Hmm by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      FWIW the modern Baptist movement is derived from the Anabaptist tradition, so (in theory) Baptist churches don't admit menbers to the church until they're adults and are baptised. Now, in *practice*, Baptists raise kids in the church, have dedication ceremonies when they're born, and generally treat them as members. I was raised in an American Baptist church, which is nearly as liberal as Unitarians (Southern Baptists hate us) and we had a lot of Mennonites who came to our church sometimes and vice versa.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    36. Re:Hmm by Zymophideth · · Score: 1

      The LDS church doesn't require or mandate anything. They might tell your in order to get into the top heaven (they believe in three) you need to do this or that but that's different than mandating something. You can get ex-communicated if you commit an sacrilegious sin, like desecrating a church or cheating on your wife. Yes, they have yearly "tithing settlements" where you talk to your local Bishop about your tithing for the year. And here is how one of those sessions go: Bishop: "Did you tithe 10% of your income this year?" You: "No" Bishop: "Why not?" You: "Because times are tough and I can barely afford my mortgage." Bishop: "If you pay your 10% first before your bills God will help you find a way." You: "Thanks! i'll take that to heart." Bishop: "See ya next year."

    37. Re:Hmm by Golddess · · Score: 1

      While that is certainly true, you forgot to mention that everyone who isn't lacking religion is also either dead or will shortly die.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    38. Re:Hmm by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1
      Okay, I like Mormons and I think Scientology is a bunch of screwed-up whackjobs. But once we have that out of the way, I don't really see that much difference. The LDS church implies that they're pretty much just Christians, and that their church is basically in line with mainstream Christian churches except for the not drinking coffee thing. Many members of the LDS church don't know that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Moroni by sticking his head in his hat, where he kept a special stone that told him what to write -- because the church doesn't talk about that. They don't talk about Brigham Young's quote, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269, 1866) because that sort of talk isn't acceptable to mainstream American values. The only reason "anyone can find out exactly what the Mormon's [sic] believe" is because of the Internet: the LDS seminaries are instructed to answer questions tactfully and truthfully, but they don't tell people about stuff: you have to ask. If you don't know anything about Mormon seer stones they're not about to educate you and you won't know to ask.

      The Mormons don't try to suck your bank accounts dry before telling you The Truth, and they don't go out of their way to quash early documents that show them in a bad light (they do buy them up, but they also release the contents, like the Salamander Letter hoax) so they're not anywhere nearly as control-freak as Scientologists, and they don't track down church critics and harass them like Scientologists do, but those are differences of degree, not kind.

      As I said, I like Mormons. The religion has grown up and gotten past massacres of nonbelievers and has become respectable, just like most other mainstream religions. (The Mormons are complete saints (so to speak) compared to the background of the Christian or Muslim churches, which have killed thousands of times as many people.) But they have plenty of stuff in their background that they don't want people to talk about.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    39. Re:Hmm by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      Most religions don't copyright their message...

      I know of NO other religion where the texts of that religion are copy righted and/or not freely distributed. That in itself should cause the label of religion to be stripped from these jokers.

      And, if there should be another such scam as Scumintology out there, then they too should give up their status.

      I still can't believe that such a crappy writer was able to invent a religion that smucks would follow. All for a bet. And to the extent that it has spread. Maybe he was a better writer than I thought and perhaps I should read some of his books again. What was his bet book?

    40. Re:Hmm by Digz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Latin Vulgate is named such because it was translated into the vulgar (aka common) language spoken at the time. Churches had copies of the Vulgate available to the public. And yes, they may have been chained to a pedestal - but this was due to their value, not to limit access. Before the printing press it took a scribe a year to make a copy of the Bible.

      Literacy was also abysmally low in the common people during this time, and did not see an uptake until around the 12th century. When literacy began rebounding there came to be more glosses and translations available in the common tongue. This happened in Old English, Middle English and more modern versions. In fact, the Douay-Rheims translation was published BEFORE the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

      What were condemned were heretical translations that purposefully worded the Bible to make it seem to absolutely refute beliefs. This has not gone by the wayside. In fact, you can still see its prevalence in modern translations such as the NIV, which translate 'paradosis' as 'tradition' when it's something that is spoken against but 'teaching' when it's regarding something to be affirmed.

      --
      SYS 64738
    41. Re:Hmm by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Cause little things like, ohhhh, the INTERNET haven't changed the human condition since those deep and ancient texts were written, right?

    42. Re:Hmm by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Guess what? That system kept Europe in the dark ages for centuries.

      Anybody who's interested in progress, in knowledge and enlightenment (it's a loaded word, but bear with me) through knowledge will denounce such practices.

      And those who resist progress will be left behind.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    43. Re:Hmm by vnaughtdeltat · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, there's The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormom.

    44. Re:Hmm by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There, fixed that for you.

      Changing a correct statement into an incorrect one isn't a "fix". Or should I just say:

      There, broke that for you.

      There, I fixed that for you.

      Latin wasn't the original language of the Bible. To keep semantic creep, they should have directly translated it into the vernacular, rather than leaving it in Latin and having services in languages people didn't speak, or have individual people spread around give personal translations that weren't necessarily consistent. Yeah, that will keep the confusion down, compared with an official Book everyone can read along with?

      Nope, it was 100% about control of the people, not preserving the original (which they weren't using anyway).

    45. Re:Hmm by hmar · · Score: 1

      Heck, if nothing else think of it as insurance: what if there is a God?

      The problem I have with forcing baptism on a child (not that I see any harm in it) because "what if" is this: You baptize a baby because that child might die before making becoming old enough to make that choice for themselves and would thus be sent straight to Hell. Why in the hell would you teach children to worship a being so petty and malicious that he would send a child to hell for the sin of not being baptized?

    46. Re:Hmm by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      I don't know that "but they're just like the Catholic Church in the middle ages, so they must be an acceptable form of religion worthy of tax-exempt status" is really a good argument, if that's what you're going for. Remember that we (in the historical sense of my ancestors) responded to corruption in the Catholic church largely by leaving and then setting its remaining followers on fire and shooting them, in varying orders. I don't think the midaeval form of Catholocism would get any better a popular reception than Scientology... probably worse, honestly.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    47. Re:Hmm by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What were condemned were heretical translations that purposefully worded the Bible to make it seem to absolutely refute beliefs. This has not gone by the wayside. In fact, you can still see its prevalence in modern translations such as the NIV, which translate 'paradosis' as 'tradition' when it's something that is spoken against but 'teaching' when it's regarding something to be affirmed.

      I hadn't paid too much attention. In fact, other than the fact it's copyrighted and thus more expensive, I much prefer reading the NIV to the KJV. So I looked up what you spoke about and found a site http://lasvegasorthodox.com/library/Orthodox_doctrine/Tradition_1.htm which discussed the issue. Aparrently, it wasn't that they switched back and forth with the translation, but that there was one and only one spot where they didn't translate it as "tradition."

      Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (KJV).
      So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter (NIV).

      However, when I read these, I see that they mean the same to me. "A tradtion taught" is "a teaching passed on" at least in my opinion. A good translator knows that you don't translate words literally. You translate the meaning, tone, and such. That there's one instance where the word probably appeared cumbersome, and the meaning is the same either way, at least to someone like me, so it seems a better translation to not use the literal word (when you translate, you don't transpose like music with a 1:1 translation, if you did it would become meaningless).

      But really, even after reading a page about why it's a problem, I still don't even understand what the complaint is. The closest I got is when that page asserted that it was closer to the Protestant beliefs. But I don't understand what that means, how that word choice favors the Protestants, and what issues such a distinction would make to the non-Protestants that are apparently the ones complaining.

    48. Re:Hmm by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Latin wasn't the original language of the Bible. To keep semantic creep, they should have directly translated it into the vernacular.

      Okay, *Further* semantic creep. Latin was the vernacular where and when the Roman Catholic Church formed, and remained a common trade language (and educated language) for long after. Original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts were translated into this Common language. Since the only means of copying prior to printing presses was Monk factories, keeping semantic creep to a minimum was a huge deal, and since a lot of people knew Latin at the time, Latin was the best vehicle for keeping the writings static. From the point of view of the Vatican, enforced Latin was great since everyone had access to someone who could read Latin (even if by three degrees to a noble or a priest). That Northern European Nobles used this to their advantage by being the "sole" reader of the Bible in the vicinity (again, sans priests), speaks nothing to OP's claims that "keeping people in the dark" was part of the religion.

      everyone can read along with

      Pretty much anyone who could read back then could read Latin. Uneducated people couldn't read their own language, and Latin was part of every formal education.

    49. Re:Hmm by Haxamanish · · Score: 1

      On that scale: what is being believed changes a lot in time, what seems to be less changing are the rituals. The meaning of the rituals change, but the form/practice stays the same a lot longer - that is, if Frits Staal is right about this. He even claims that rituals are pre-human and the origin of language.

    50. Re:Hmm by dropbearsrus · · Score: 1

      Taking this further - why does government have anything to do with religion at all?

      Why are there tax breaks for religions?
      How does that fit in to capitalism and open markets? e.g. the Sanitarium food company in Australia, owned by the Seventh Day Adventist church. Their advertisements on TV do not advertise the fact that they are owned by the church or operate as a charity (if you're a charity why not advertise the fact!), and while as a charitable company I'm sure most of the profits go back to the community, you can certainly argue that this is state-sponsored evangelism due to the tax breaks they receive.

      Why does the state have anything to do with marriage - gay or hetero? Rather than debate about whether the government should allow or ban gay marriages, I suggest the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is about belief systems, this is personal and different people have different views. It shouldn't be legislated any more than what pants I decide to wear or what music I like to listen to - or what church I choose to belong to (if any). The government and courts should have a minimal role regarding living arrangements and tax arrangements, but only to protect people financially in case of relationship breakdowns, or to resolve custody issues.
      Apart from this let people decide who they want to live with, and when, and if they are a member of a church and want to get married that's between their church, their god, and themselves.

    51. Re:Hmm by mahadiga · · Score: 1

      "Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." -- Mark Twain

      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
    52. Re:Hmm by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Let's say I am a christian (which I am not but bah).

      Then let's say I go to my Rathaus to register, they give me the registration card and in there I have to state what religion do I have.

      If, I say the truth (say that I am a christian), I can expect to be charged the "church tax" when I start working.

      If I lie (which is against my religion) and say I have no religion then I won't be charged.

      Although I am not directly affected (because I am agnostic) I do not think it is fair (of course I also don't lie TV-tax and Radio-tax)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    53. Re:Hmm by MorkaisChosen · · Score: 1

      That's definitely true, and admittedly you have to go through a fair bit of education to become a priest even now- but in modern Christianity, the most important thing is the basic message, as summed up by Bill and Ted (no, I'm not taking the piss, this is genuinely my personal view)- "Be excellent to each other." Most religions get misinterpreted by idiots, but the difference with Scientology is that they want to be misinterpreted by idiots, because that's the only way they can get given money.

  9. L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by columbiatch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else shocked that a failed entrepreneur discovers a religion that requires significant capital outlay from it's followers? Hm....me either. Just google "e-meter"

  10. Cause and effect? by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    So does the CoS have to call for Net censorship in Belgium before Australia can convict them of fraud?

    1. Re:Cause and effect? by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, but if you eat kippers on Tuesday it will not rain.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    2. Re:Cause and effect? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      You need to watch your language! This is the Internet, not a Serious Screenplay.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  11. A grasp of the obvious? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's fairly rare among politicians. Congratuations, Austraila!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  12. Related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Related? by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 4, Informative

      He seems to support topics of this kind, like anti-gambling. Things that a lot of people in the community would want, but big guys - like corporations - wouldn't.

    2. Re:Related? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      That specific minority needs to be picked on more...

    3. Re:Related? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice Godwin, but get this, Scientology is a criminal organization. When a senator acts to protect his constituents from being harmed by a criminal organization it is a good thing. His speaking out about this is the exact opposite of your intended slur. If he had stayed silent about these crimes then you could accuse him, but instead he bravely spoke out.

      First the Scientologists came for the critics, but I was not a critic so I said nothing...

    4. Re:Related? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't know, 'the people' in my state are vaguely anti-casino, but they would shit their pants if you took away the state lottery.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  13. So ... by msp0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Would that make Xenophon a Xenuphobe? ... to be fair, I got that line from Dominic Knight's Twitter feed :)

  14. Should they get off tax-free? by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't like Scientology either but I value my freedom to associate.

    Should all associations be given tax-free status? If not, then what conditions deserve tax-free status, and should that status be irrevocable once obtained?

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by shentino · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My opinion is that tax or no tax should be determined for churches the same way it is for everything else.

      Profit? Tax it
      Non-profit? Don't tax it.

    2. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

    3. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be easy to test too. Religions that are not willing to publish their teachings on the web and give away free books are non profit, ones that sue people to take those teachings down are for profit and get to pay tax. Actually religions that try to stop other people talking about them should at the very least lose their tax free status and should probably be sued too.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by asamad · · Score: 5, Informative

      for example weet-bix, produce by sanitarium.

      Run by seventh day Adventist, given tax free status..... bet you didn't know that! How to other business compete with tax free status - it very hard.

    5. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by wisty · · Score: 1

      How about opening a New Church of Scientology, and seeing it?

    6. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      I grew up near the weet bix factory. You could smell it everytime the wind blew our way. I could never eat those things after breathing in the smell so often.

    7. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by EdIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Should all associations be given tax-free status? If not, then what conditions deserve tax-free status, and should that status be irrevocable once obtained?

      I don't think *any* organization, association, or person should ever have tax-free status period.

      The way taxes are done now is an invasive active system that is just abused as an information tool for intelligence agencies, and a barcode for every citizen to be forcible tattooed with at birth. Guilty before proven innocent and basically no real way to fight them even when they are wrong. Prove they are wrong and they don't even have to pay interest on your money that they stole due to an incompetent power mad government employee.

      I know it's a big argument but I wholly support a passive (as far as the citizen is concerned) tax system that is entirely based on consumption. Whether it is you or that non-profit that goes to buy the hammer is irrelevant. You pay taxes the moment you buy the hammer. The government gets its taxes but has no way of knowing who bought the hammer and why. Additionally, the government has NO EXCUSE to pry into people's private finances anymore. I would like to see it go back to a court order to get a single bank record instead of them just using the IRS as a tool to collect information. Information, that goes far beyond just income, but also to expenditures.

      Non-profits would pay taxes just like everyone else for their purchases and I don't see a reason for them to not pay taxes this way. Cost of doing business, plain and simple. They need more money, then people have to donate more money to them. I would think the administrative costs of just keeping the books for the government disappearing would mitigate that significantly.

      Tax exempt just bugs me. Especially when it is delivered to people who believe in some magic man in the sky. Form an organization of people around that idea, and you don't get to pay taxes?? really?

    8. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia.

      Campaigning?! I'm calling bullshit on that one mate. (Though I'm open to change my mind if you can provide some evidence to back that claim up.) True he sat on the court that decided the "Scientology Case" but his wasn't even the leading judgment. I think a little quote from his Honour will serve to enlighten as to his attitude towards religion and towards its tax exempt status. Responding to the argument that the "commercial nature" of Scientology showed it wasn't "religious" in nature, he wrote:

      Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying.

      If anything Murphy J was "campaigning" to get rid of the tax exempt status for religions.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims. To me it looks like a system that can be abused easily by entities like the COS and within the government its self. People should be free to associate with no advantage given to any association through law.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    10. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that instead of making a sweeping law that states that all Christian churches pay tax, instead it would be better to treat these things on a case by case basis.

      For example, hillsong and COS should be taxed into the dirt and then some - they're just commercial entities. But, the church down the road from me is completely different, they make no money to speak of (enough to give to charities and cover liability costs on public worship - and perhaps support a minister).

      Too often society swings from one extreme to the other.

    11. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said it wasn't government's job to determine which religious beliefs are worthy of recognition and which are not.

      Of course it is. The government is responsible for levying taxes. They are the ones who decide who gets taxed and who doesn't. It's certainly not the religion's job to determine if it should be recognized.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Tacticus.v1 · · Score: 1

      Taxes on consumption are regressive taxes
      Why do you wish to tax the poorest people more than the richest?

    13. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by XanC · · Score: 1

      The currently proposed FairTax taxes necessities, as defined based on the poverty line, at 0% via a rebate. It is the most poor-friendly tax ever. Bleeding hearts should be eating it up.

      After necessities, why should the poor pay a lower percentage of tax on the items they buy than anyone else?

    14. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Caity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they make no money to speak of and give most of that to (tax deductable) charities then spend the rest on (tax deductable) running costs then I doubt that their tax bill is going to be very high. The admin for it would increase running costs though (tax deductably). If they have an accountant in their flock they should be able to get it gratis, surely :)

    15. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by BluBrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what's the problem with taxing all religions as if they were businesses? Tax them a certain proportion of their profits - no profits, no tax. I'd expect that the Cult of Scientology would be among the first to get wholly reamed via the new taxation regimen.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    16. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not really, the tax status of religion is irrelevant to this discussion even if some loony for hire like Senator Feilding brings it up.
      Lionel Murphy's statement fails the standard of the bloody obvious even if he made it to prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future. Scientology is no more a religeon than "Jedi" with the same defence against this stupidity that we've seen it come out as fiction within living memory.
      There is a vast pile of evidence that is is a scam so there is no point pretending that it is a religion just so we don't offend those liars that say it is.

    17. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims.

      Well maybe where you live. Here in Australia we have this funny custom we call "Law." The law gives ordinary citizens, along with extra-ordinary "religious" bodies, the right to appeal decisions made by administrative officers which affect them. In fact this association generally known as the Church of Scientology appealed the decision of the Federal Commisioner of Taxation in the leading case defining the legal basis for recognition as a religion for the purposes of taxation. Hint: it's not based on the government's "whim." (Unless you regard the legislature's enactment of legislation - which would seem the easiest way to overturn that decision -as mere "whim").

      People should be free to associate with no advantage given to any association through law.

      The problem with banning corporations is the very reason they were created by the legislature in the first place, namely "natural" (ie. joint-stock) companies, were simply unable to raise sufficient capital to undertake the large projects which we would regard as essential to modern life. Now unless you are proposing something like a socialist system, it will always be necessary to give legal advantage at least to incorporated companies. Having done so, it would not seem entirely fair to restrict legal advantages to this form of association alone.

      As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption. Or to Opera companies, scientists of note etc etc. Personally my decision would be not to grant it to religions, but that's just me.

      similarly

      However, the situation we have in Australia, where business ventures owned by religious bodies are in turn tax exempt, constitutes, in my view, and intolerable injustice towards competitors. Take the above mentioned example of Sanitarium(tm) owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. How can it be considered fair to other companies in the food market, to compete with a company that pays not tax?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    18. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Lionel Murphy's statement fails the standard of the bloody obvious even if he made it to prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future.

      By Lionel Murphy's statement, do you mean what Lionel Murphy actually wrote, or the words OP put into his mouth? Have you even read Murphy's judgment in that case? How can you reconcile your reading of his judgment with your contention that he wanted to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future"?!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Religions that are not willing to publish their teachings on the web and give away free books are non profit

      Typo, or am I missing what you're saying here? (Not a flame. It's late and my parser is on power-save)

    20. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The currently proposed FairTax taxes necessities, as defined based on the poverty line, at 0% via a rebate. It is the most poor-friendly tax ever. Bleeding hearts should be eating it up.

      "With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be [.. ] be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income) [...] this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class"

      After necessities, why should the poor pay a lower percentage of tax on the items they buy than anyone else?

      1) If you're poor, EVERYTHING you spend is on necessities.
      2) The poor can least afford it.

      Taxing those who earn 10K as much as we tax those who earn millions, puts the burden to pay for services (many of which they aren't benefiting from) on the poor. If you're rich, you have a workforce, and you're benefiting from all social programs, and disproportionately from many of them.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    21. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Do not attempt to read between the lines and make up extra meaning that is not there. The case was perverted to the point where they were considered a religious group before he even started so that's what it was about. By considering them in that context it failed the standard of the bloody obvious but high court judgements get used as precendents in related cases so he had to be careful.
      It's a very nasty but effective trick played by this group of organised criminals to pretend that they are being persecuted by those that simply want to limit their sociopathic and outright criminal behaviour.

    22. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that churches own a large amount of extremely valuable property, which means huge property taxes. A lot of churches can't afford the property tax (dwindling congregation numbers, . Now before you say "Well if the church owns this valuable property, it SHOULD pay taxes!" - keep in mind that

      1. The churches rarely have plans to move - the market value of the property is of little consequence or benefit to them, and would only come up if the church closed down
      2. The reason the property is so valuable in the first place is largely to do with the churches (which meant subsequent congregations, which begot infrastructure, which meant value) - it's not that the churches snapped up valuable land*, it's that whatever land they touched turned to gold.

      Besides, if we tax religion, it's one step closer to some scumbag opens a charity for his own benefit (possibly the Scientologists could funnel their "profit" into a charity), and then we have to ask whether to tax charities (which often temporarily hold onto profits for investment/large charitable projects) as businesses.

      * Although the land many churches own is inherently valuable because it did things like claim the tops of hills and built in naturally nice areas, the nominal value of those features is only a tiny fraction of the value of the land - the development the churches inspired is the major component.

    23. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by jellyfrog · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I wish I could smell religion...

    24. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by name*censored* · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    25. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Loki_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh dear.... you do know with the way our economies and politics are setup there is now way everyone can be rich? There always has to be the poor in our societies, otherwise the economy as it is setup wouldn't work. The peons must exist to do the grunt jobs... and at the end of the day, not everyone has the right qualities to be a manager/CEO/Lawyer/etc... but they can be hard working determined individuals.

      It will take a paradigm shift in our culture before we get to the stage where we can propose a workable solution (eg: not communism) which enables a vast majority of the population to be at least relatively well off.

      This is a long way off i feel. I don't have a solution (do you?), but i feel the only possible solution is technology, whereby it reaches the point where technology makes the need for workers redundant and therefore no need for companies to pay salaries (maintenance costs and engineer salaries of course still needed etc).

      I would love to see articles such as:
      Unenployment reaches 80%
      Today the government was praised for its work that saw unemployment reach 80%. Now more people than ever have been freed from the need to labour. As usual, we offer our heartfelt thanks to those who must remain employed and hope the added benefits of being a working class person at least make your 10 year term of employment bearable until you can join the unemployed.

      Perhaps the books that really spring to mind are the Dancers at the end of Time by Michael Moorcock. A truly decadent society (and not one i would like to see occur) whose technology was so advanced it was like magic. They never had to work, they just followed their fashions and desires.

    26. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

      LOL... this is a joke?

      First off why should religion get special treatment? If it makes money and can pay taxes then why not? Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money? You mention that they wouldn't be able to afford to pay their property taxes because of reduced congregations.... perhaps time to move to smaller churches then? What i do know is in my city at least two new massive churches are being built by the Orthodox Christians so they can't exactly be poor or suffering from falling congregations.

    27. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, FairTax is not the most poor-friendly tax ever. The problem with sales taxes
      is that they are regressive - poor people have to spend a far larger share of
      their income on consumption than rich people, often all they have. "Fixing"
      this regressiveness with a tax rebate is adding insult to injury to those people
      so poor they won't even get the whole benefit of the rebate.

      I propose a high, flat income tax with a sizable demogrant (like a tax
      rebate, but you can get back more than you put in) to make it progressive.
      There, now you've heard about a more fair proposal than FairTax.

      Income taxes, especially flat ones, are easier to administrate than sales taxes.
      Sales taxes need to be (and are) refundable for businesses that buy things to
      produce other things. Otherwise, productivity really suffers, especially for
      businesses far down the value-adding chain. But when sales taxes are refundable,
      small business owners will buy blu-ray players and take them home as "necessary
      business expenditures", and it will be horribly difficult and expensive to catch
      them at it. That's sales tax fraud, one of the big headaches of countries with a
      high sales tax.

      Sales tax does have some advantages. It discourages unnecessary consumption, and
      thus has environmental benefits, but since consumption varies so widely in its
      environmental impact, this is a very crude tool to reduce our footprint. For the
      environment, it's better to slap a tax on pollution directly, and ideally plow
      it back in the demogrant. That way above-average polluters compensate
      below-average polluters for their impact, and that's as it should be.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    28. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      "The rich person did not have to spend all of their money just to survive, and was able to reinvest some it, or god forbid, even donate some to charities."

      So, you're basically saying he should rely on trickle-down working - again?

      Yours is a very revealing piece. You agree that the rich will be taxed less, and argue that they deserve it, and that is best for everyone anyway.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    29. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by digitig · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?

      Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22). They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    30. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by DangerFace · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?

      Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22). They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.

      Dude, seriously? You think I should ring up the IRS and tell them that I don't need to pay tax because I help out at the local homeless shelter? If someone works out a way of profiting from Matthew 25:35 or Luke 18:22, then it should be taxed. You don't appear to have read any of the posts above your own - no one is saying that churches should be taxed period, they're saying that any profits a church makes should be taxed.

    31. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Er, yeah

      I meant to say

      Religions that are not not unwilling to publish their teachings on the web and give away free books are not not not non profit

      When writing sentences like this, this script might come in handy

      cat con | sed "s/not not//g" | sed "s/not non profit/for profit/g" | sed "s/not unwilling/willing/g"

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    32. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by DangerFace · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    33. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?

      Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22). They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.

      Dude, seriously? You think I should ring up the IRS and tell them that I don't need to pay tax because I help out at the local homeless shelter? [snip] You don't appear to have read any of the posts above your own

      You don't seem to have read my post. Where did I say anything about who should be taxed? I only responded to "Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?"

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    34. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by srussia · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Overall, religions should have to pay their own way.

      You have the wrong way around. Governments should pay their own way. Religions get voluntary contributions, while governments resort to force for their income.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    35. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what's the problem with taxing all religions as if they were businesses? Tax them a certain proportion of their profits - no profits, no tax. I'd expect that the Cult of Scientology would be among the first to get wholly reamed via the new taxation regimen.

      Because I'm absolutely certain that the CoS, with all the money it has accumulated over the years, would have a terrible time finding a suitably creative team of accountants to bring their tax bill right down.

    36. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do not attempt to read between the lines and make up extra meaning that is not there.

      Don't you presume to tell me how to read a case, especially one you've apparently never set eyes on. You are clearly out of your depth if you think the jurisprudence of Lionel Murphy can be approached without "reading between the lines."

      In the event I'm not actually asking you to read between the lines, I'm simply asking you to read them. Since you are too lazy to look the case up and read it, I'll quote you a few lines.

      First of all in fairness to OP, the idea he was paraphrasing in Murphy's own words:

      Religious freedom is a fundamental theme of our society. That freedom has been asserted by men and women throughout history by resisting the attempts of government, through its legislative, executive or judicial branches, to define or impose beliefs or practices of religion. Whenever the legislature prescribes what religion is, or permits or requires the executive or the judiciary to determine what religion is, this poses a threat to religious freedom. Religious discrimination by officials or by courts is unacceptable in a free society. The truth or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or the courts. If each purported religion had to show that its doctrines were true, then all might fail. ... In the eyes of the law, religions are equal. (at para 7)

      Now if you really find anything in that statement "perverted" (and remember Murphy J has yet to hold the Scientology is a religion, this is merely setting up the legal context), then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own. But let's go on to examine some of the reasons Murphy J went on to find the Scientology was indeed a religion (actually if you read his judgment he merely demolishes the objections of Vic Sup Crt).

      In the older religions propagation occurred in various ways ... Indoctrination or "brainwashing' [sic] is typical of many religions. Often this takes place during an intense period of initiation. Adherence and conversion are also achieved in most religions by regular meetings, ceremonies and rituals. ... Scientology appears to conform to this general pattern of propagation. (at 37)

      And then just to show what a great fan of religion he is, a little later,

      Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of god, love and peace. (at 43)

      Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet? No? Well here is the paragraph I already quoted where he deals with the SupCrt's contention that Scientology isn't a religion because of it's commercial nature.

      Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying. (at 45)

      Now I know you have a diminished capacity to "read between the lines," so that may have flashed past you without you noticing it. So here it is again. [R]eligious tax exemption has led to ...

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    37. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by countach · · Score: 1

      And what is a profit? If you and I and our friends throw $50 each in the hat to hold a party, have we just made a "profit"? That's what a non-profit organisation is.

    38. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by countach · · Score: 1

      Hillsong and and "the church down the road" are probably exactly the same. The members throw money in the hat, and it pays the wages and rent and activities of the group. Hillsong have a lot more people on the payroll and rent, but no real difference. Anyway, since all the money goes on wages, more or less, at the end of the day, there is no "profit" because there are no shareholders. Sooner or later all money is dispersed. If it is on wages, then the person getting the money is taxed.

    39. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by countach · · Score: 1

      "I don't think *any* organization, association, or person should ever have tax-free status period."

      Ok, when you bring money into your organisation that you call a "family" let's tax it one more time. When you give your kids pocket money, lets tax it again. Exactly the same principle you are asking for. Money that goes into clubs and organisations has already been taxed. A tax free organisation is a group of people communally spending their post-tax dollars.

    40. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I really don't see why mentioning charitable activities of religion is "offtopic" in a discussion of the tax status of religion. But hey, this is /. so maybe it's just that my post didn't follow the kneejerk "all religion is evil" line.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    41. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by stiggle · · Score: 1

      But who decides what is profit?
      A little creative accounting and suddenly they're supporting unprofitable parts of the organisation, increasing contributions into the pension scheme, etc.

      A decent accountant can make any profitable company appear to post a loss. Most don't because the shareholders want to see profits.

    42. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Overall, religions should have to pay their own way.

      Amen to that! Seriously though, the laws providing tax-exempt status to some religions and not to others are clearly unconstitutional in the USA; there is no functional difference between a law which favors one or some religion[s], and a law which disfavors one or some. If churches cannot collect sufficient operating funds from their members, they do not need to exist. They are entitled to receive the benefits of those taxes, they need to pay them or be denied all the benefits of those taxes, expected to keep up with them themselves. (e.g. if they fly to and from the church and don't expect police protection, they may be exempt from property taxes. As long as they use police and roads &c, they need to be expected to pay like everyone else.) I don't recognize their right to private property if they don't pay their taxes, nor should anyone else; feel free to hang out, camp, et cetera on church property. It's not trespassing until you're told to leave, at least in my state :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they make no money to speak of (enough to give to charities and cover liability costs on public worship - and perhaps support a minister).

      So because someone's job is to teach people about a being of questionable existence, he should be exempt from taxes? If they want to be a charity, register as a charity. If you want to be a religion, you should get taxed. Teaching people about beings of questionable existence (you say only god X exists? Man down the road says only god Y exists. Clearly there is question to which one, if either, exists) isn't something society should be forced to burden.

    44. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what is a profit? If you and I and our friends throw $50 each in the hat to hold a party, have we just made a "profit"? That's what a non-profit organisation is.

      Look at the growth of the ledgers as time progresses. You may have turned a profit on that particular party, but you're likely to either redistribute the left-over among the contributors or hang on to the money so it can be applied to the next party, either of which would make it a non-profit venture.

      If they're really operating as a non-profit, then their year-over-year balance shouldn't really be increasing that much. Look at the other churches in the world... the Vatican is actually quite cash poor. So is the Church of England. Most Muslim mosques don't have millions of dollars sitting in the bank. Most Buddhist monasteries and temples are quite poor. Why? Because anything that these organizations take in that goes beyond their budget to maintain operations usually gets disbursed out among the community as charity.

      So if you want to establish if the CoS is actually a non-profit venture, or if they're operating at a profit, take a look at the ledgers. Confirm that the leadership is being paid a salary that's commensurate with what other people of similar position in other churches are being paid, and if the year-over-year numbers show a significant profit, then it's not a non-profit organization. Seems pretty simple to me.

    45. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      A decent accountant can make any profitable company appear to post a loss.

      Then they get to go down that road. Then we as a society get to question the value in having a tax system so difficult to navigate and so easily abused that any "decent accountant" can do so. Perhaps we'll get a better tax system. Perhaps not. But teaching about beings of questionable existence shouldn't exempt anyone from paying taxes.

    46. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Of course it is. The government is responsible for levying taxes. They are the ones who decide who gets taxed and who doesn't. It's certainly not the religion's job to determine if it should be recognized.

      His point was that if the government has set forth guidelines and a definition of the minimum requirement in order to be recognized as a religious organization and granted tax exempt status, then the government cannot say to an organization that has met those requirements "sorry, we think you're kooks, so you don't qualify".

      The CoS met the requirements set out in the law. So regardless of what you personally think of them, the government simply can't say that their beliefs are a little too out there to qualify as a religion. In order for the government to have any legitimacy at all, it needs to treat all citizens equally, and perhaps most importantly, it needs to apply the law equally to all citizens.

    47. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      By considering them in that context it failed the standard of the bloody obvious but high court judgements get used as precendents in related cases so he had to be careful.

      There is no "standard of the bloody obvious" in court. In the court of law, all that matters is what is written in the law. You can interpret it when it is not clear, or when a case comes up that challenges what's actually in the law*, but when something meets a definition that is set out in law, you cannot simply ignore the law because you personally disagree. If you feel that the law is wrong, you can lobby to have the law changed, but until it is changed, you still have to abide by what's written.

      * - As an example of a case where the law needed to be interpreted, you can look at the Constitution Act of 1982 in Canada. Section 1 of the Constitution Act, better known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paragraph 15 of the Charter reads:

      (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

      Affirmative action programs

      (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

      http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

      While not specifically named in the Act, subsection (1) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada to include sexual orientation (homosexuality) and sexual identity (transgenderism), both as subsets of "sex" which is specifically mentionned. But note that this is in keeping with the spirit of the law, which is to guarantee all citizens equal rights and protections under the law.

    48. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's true that not everyone can be rich.

      It's also true that not everyone is equal.

      That said, money begets money so if you have a lot of it's a hell of a lot easier to get more. Education is expensive for your kids, social connections make getting a job a lot easier, and if you've got a hundred grand you can afford to lose it's a lot easier to make a killing on the stock market or get in on the ground floor of some major new product.

      Not everyone who is rich deserves to be, and a lot of the people who are poor are there because despite hard work, they never had the opportunities a lot of the wealthy had. Yes there are always people who manage to pull themselves up by their bootstraps from extreme poverty to extreme wealth, but they are few and far between. I would suggest that nearly everyone on slashdot is not capable of doing so, including myself. I do pretty well for myself, but while I wasn't rich by any means I had a lot of opportunities. I never had to try focus on my education in a school rife with violence or find a part time job in an area where the only real economic activity is drug distribution and crime. I got to grow up lower middle class, go to a good school, get a university education and never get shot at.

      While not everyone has to be rich, we don't need to have people who do not earn enough to survive. We do not have to have people living in slums. We do not have to have kids who have no access to adequate health care, food, or education. None of those things are necessary for even our current economic model to work.

      The vast majority of the population doesn't necessarily have to be relatively well off, they just need to have access to the basic necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, education, health care, safe streets, all the things most of us took for granted growing up and still do. Even guaranteeing those things to children who can't control who their parents are would be a start. Anyone who can argue that some 6 year old shouldn't be allowed adequate nutrition because their parents are losers is an asshole and should go die in a fire.

      Some rich people work hard and contribute to society. Some of them build companies which provide jobs or improve the standards of living of everyone. Some of them just run companies into the ground or siphon off funds to make themselves rich. You could argue that perhaps the one deserves some relief from taxes since they provide so much other value to society, but far far far too much of that richest 1% are in the other category, and most of the good ones end up in the upper middle classes working hard at a small business.

    49. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Rich paying taxes is not unfair, but paying a higher percentage simply because they're more successful is unfair. If I am smarter, or work harder, or whatever, why should I pay 40% income tax when others who aren't as smart or motivated only pay 20%? Where is the motivation to improve when more of what I produce is being taken away from me?

      Also, your idea of having tax rebates to make things more "fair" will end up changing nothing at all. It will evolve into a complex mess of laws and regulations and loopholes, just like we have now.

      Either you have a fair and level playing field for everyone by holding everyone up to the same standards, or you don't.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    50. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I propose a high, flat income tax with a sizable demogrant (like a tax
      rebate, but you can get back more than you put in) to make it progressive.
      There, now you've heard about a more fair proposal than FairTax.

      I'd rather see a flat sales tax that exempts certain classes of goods. Housing/heating, unprepared foods, utilities like electricity/water, and a land-line telephone (but not extras like call answer and call display), a regular fare bus pass, and probably a few other things that we'd consider necessities, but continues to tax items that we'd consider a "luxury" like high speed internet/cable TV, ordering takeout/eating in a restaurant, alcohol/tobacco, and owning/operating a car. Couple it with a 0% income tax, and you'll find that it does a pretty good job of not shifting the burden on the poor.

      The problem with a rebate is that you still have to file your taxes at the end of the year to get it, and it's still a delayed reaction. Besides which, income tax is usually deducted from each paycheque so that you're paying it over the course of the year... if it's a flat income tax dollar value for each citizen, then that's a significantly larger portion of your paycheque for the poor than it is for the rich.

    51. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Or they could simply reduce the degree of tax-exemption severely, like for example make them exempt only to property taxes, and even then only to property taxes on land used primarily for religious services/worship. Or something similar. More or less to say that if you want tax-free land as a religion then you'd best be putting some kind of church/temple/mosque/whatever on it, and it had best be used for your services/worship more than anything else.

    52. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm still wrapping my head around the concept that a private club may have to be Taxed on the profits generated by, "...abuse, false imprisonment, and forced abortion..." I'm not familiar with the laws of the "Land Down Under", but it sounds a little kinky, if you understand my drift...

    53. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.

      Not true. I know of a school of Buddhism (a 'sect' - not an actual school) here in the UK which has charitable status. Definitely not mono- or anything-else-theistic.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    54. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scientology is no more a religeon than "Jedi"

      I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    55. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.

      So Christianity isn't tax-exempt in the UK?

      I mean, ok, you could argue about the three-gods-in-one thing not necessarily making them polytheistic, but when they've got thousands of Saints who are really the equivalent of the lower Greek Gods it kinda kills the idea of Christianity being a monotheistic religion.

    56. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ooh, I wish I could smell religion...

      Just find the closest farm, and go for a walk through the fields ...

    57. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22).

      So you're saying Bill Gates doesn't make money?

      They tend to be the ones you've not heard of unless you're in their neighbourhood and in need.

      Right, can you name a few, then?

    58. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase this: your country's tax system along with mine is broken. It grants hundreds, even thousands of exemptions that only serve to enrich special interests like the COS. They all need to go away. The government should not be in the business of picking who gets special treatment under the law. Not religions, not corporations no one.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    59. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There always has to be the poor in our societies, otherwise the economy as it is setup wouldn't work.

      No, it has nothing to do with "our societies", it has to do with the fact that "poor" is a relative measurement.

      It's the same as saying "There always have to be shitty baseball players for our system of baseball to work". Well, in a strict sense it's true, but only because "shitty" is a measurement of quality compared to the average. No matter how much all players improve, some of them will always be shitty in comparison to the rest.

      Same goes for poverty. Our "poor" today live better than the vast majority of our ancestors who were considered well-off. Yet we still classify these people as "poor" because their standard of living is lower than the mean. 200 years from now when every person has free healthcare, food, water, shelter, education, internet access, a private means of transportation, unlimited fuel, and they all live to be 120+ years old, the "poor" will be the ones who ONLY live to 121 and can't afford to take an annual trip to Mars. And there will still be people like you claiming that we could somehow "eliminate poverty" if we'd only discover a "paradigm shift".

    60. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption.

      That's simply a tyranny of the majority. You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days, to criminalizing things which a religion opposes (eg. abortion, stem cell research), to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia). We should strive for a higher standard than just organize mob-rule.

    61. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      Facts? You are aware of the topic right... religion?

    62. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Those that feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide shelter for the homeless (cf. Matt. 25:35) and that sell their posessions to give to the poor (cf. Luke 18:22).

      So you're saying Bill Gates doesn't make money?

      Not out of those activities.

      Right, can you name a few, then?

      You won't have heard of them. Well, maybe try the Taize Community in France, which is fairly well known because of its religious music. Less well known (though no secret) is that all donations they receive are given away to the poor, and they only keep enough of the proceeds of their work to live on.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    63. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Christianity, especially Catholocism, is only monotheistic in the sense that they claim there's only one god.

      There are a host of other divine spirits (Angels, the trinity if you're hearing about it for the first time and weren't raised with this nonsense, Catholics do pray to the saints for reasons that have been explained to me but STILL don't make any sense) - that certainly make Christianity qualify as "Many gods, with one dude on top who's the best." Rather than "Just one god."

      Basically they're all crazy.

    64. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Yours is a very revealing piece. You agree that the rich will be taxed less, and argue that they deserve it, and that is best for everyone anyway.

      Not even remotely. That is misreading and twisting my statement to an insane degree.

      The rich will be taxed at the same rate as the poor. We ALL deserve to be taxed at the same rate. That IS best for everyone, BECAUSE IT IS FAIR.

      Also, the rich will end up paying MORE TOTAL TAXES than the poor and middle class. Forgot about that didn't you? A rich person, in order to enjoy the benefits of being rich, will consume more, which in turn, will provide more consumption based taxes to the government than that poor person could have ever provided that year. A $50 million dollar luxury jet would provide more consumption taxes than that poor person could have provided in their lifetime, btw.

      Of course, everyone forgets about my plan to not tax groceries and the bare necessities, thereby reducing the amount of consumption taxes paid by the poor to nearly zero.

      Additionally, there will not be anymore of this crap about what is, and what is not, deductible. In my system there is no ability for the rich to recoup those consumption taxes in any way, shape, or form. Once the item or service is purchased, it is final.

    65. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by hanabal · · Score: 1

      heres a question. If no one prays to god or believes in him/her. do they still exist?

    66. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Not out of those activities.

      That's irrelevant. The statement you were responding to was:

      Whoever heard of a religion that didn't make money?

      Therefore your response to him was unrelated at best, and a clear lie at worst.

      Well, maybe try the Taize Community in France, which is fairly well known because of its religious music.

      They're Christian, and we've already established that Christianity makes money in spades. Once again, the original comment was regarding religion, not small subsets within a religion.

    67. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by digitig · · Score: 1

      They're Christian, and we've already established that Christianity makes money in spades. Once again, the original comment was regarding religion, not small subsets within a religion.

      Religion is infamously hard to define, and boundaries between religions more so. Even if "Christianity" were a single religion (I don't believe it is), the fact that it makes money in spades would be irrelevant to Taize. The original thread was about the tax status of the Church of Scientology, which has a single administrative structure. Taize doesn't have a shared administrative structure with any other organisation, so it's a meaningful comparison.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    68. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socz · · Score: 1

      Ok so, one of the biggest differences between "Christians" & "Roman Catholics" are the "Saints." While Christians don't have saints and catholics do, they don't worship saints - they ask for their help!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    69. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by black3d · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing how you believe there's some sort of correlatin between intelligence and income. Third generation whores make more than I do, and I'm no spring chicken. Being smart and hard working will improve your chances of getting a better income, but it certainly doesn't guarantee it. Certainly, very few people get "rich" with hard work. It's simply not a factor in most wealth distribution.

      If you're talking about solely in the commercial workplace then your argument might have merit, however - there is no such thing as a "level playing field".

      My girlfriend is an actress. She's working successfully now, but has previously been passed over for roles she should have had and was in training for, simply because "successful candidate" was a daughter of a friend of director, etc. This is why "social networking" is so important these days. Income is only partially a reflection of talent, intelliegence or work ethic. I'm sure we all know plenty of people who earn a lot of money, don't really do the job well, and get there because they're in the right "circle of friends".

      So - why should people who earn more be taxed more? Because it has less impact on them. If you take Joe, earning $20,000 a year and tax him 20 percent, that leaves him with $16000, and has a severe impact on his quality of life. Then, take Bob, who's earning $180k a year, and tax him 40 percent, that leaves him with $108k. Your quality of life between these two points is hardly going to change. Only how much crap you don't need that you can by.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    70. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I guess there'll be a sudden demand for Hollywood accountants.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    71. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It works both ways. Governments also waste a good deal of taxpayer funds, and corruption in the government makes taxation that much more difficult to justify.

      Taxes are supposed to be for the good of the people, to do the things that normal people can't do, but a government can't, for the well being of society. I think if that's all the government did, people wouldn't have an issue with taxation.

      But government is not only corrupt at all levels (special interest lobbyists at the most visible, "lobbyists" at the least visible), it's also slow and inefficient when it isn't corrupt. You can say the inefficiencies are a product of corruption, which it is, but inefficiencies will always be there when there's as much red tape as governments have to deal with.

      People lose faith in their government to properly spend their money, and want their money back. It's therefore not unjustified necessarily, to call it stealing, when you're pretty sure 75% of your tax money isn't actually being used for the betterment of society.

      Now, to say that the government "punishes" by taxation, I would agree with your views on the matter. People who make money do so usually at the expense of government-built or otherwise government-provided infrastructure and services. In fact, the more money you make, the more you're probably using government-provided benefits, even if you don't know it. Heck, anybody who makes money online, or even uses the internet at work is using something created via DARPA funding. But instead of charging a maintenance fee for every service and every little thing the government does, it's more efficient to just take the money up front and automatically. And, for the people who can't manage money well, it's better that the government takes a cut before it gets spent and the person is stuck in their house jobless because they can't walk out onto the sidewalk or drive out of their driveway.

      I haven't even started about natural resources and the use of thereof. Taxes is payment to the government to be able to use those resources, to own land, etc. And well, we're a capitalist society, and I'll bet GP's pretty big on capitalism if he doesn't like taxes, so figure out what it means from there.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    72. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by modecx · · Score: 1

      1) If you're poor, EVERYTHING you spend is on necessities.

      LOL. Yeah, that is the conventionally held wisdom I suppose.

      However, every welfare baby I know had nice TVs (usually in every bedroom where applicable), cable service, a host of things I didn't have as a lower middle class kid--and more recently, every goddamned family had cell phones for both the adults and their progeny, and believe me they're on them yapping it up constantly. Back when I used to do superintendent work, all of the section 8 renters/welfare/food stamp recipients had a more 'wealthy' lifestyle than I did at the time or any time prior...

      I fought for every nickel and dime, worked two jobs at times, and generally busted my ass. These folks, however, had no intention at all of moving up in life because they were perfectly content keeping a part time minimum wage job at Walmart, sucking off the government tit and living it up in the process. They clearly didn't have a hard time paying the sales taxes on all their goodies.

      The real poor, the homeless, the disabled and the good people who refuse to go on the welfare roles are the ones who will suffer under a sales/use tax system. Seems like they're a minority though. If we weened the multitudes of healthy individuals off Uncle Sams' back and forced them to be less useless, there would be a hell of a lot more money to spend on people who really need it, and undoubtedly a large tax surplus beyond that.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    73. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

      I thought in general god was supposed to provide.... (apparently only if it's tax free ;-))

    74. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      All Christians are Catholic, Roman Catholics are those that have the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) as head of their Church. They revere Saints, as do some other 'Non' Roman Catholics. Strict Protestants such as Calvinists are still Christians and therefore Catholics, but abhor the notion of Saints as they see them as 'False' gods.

      --
      You never catch me alive
    75. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Hillsong makes a veritable books-of-congress butt-load off their bands and other various musical acts.

    76. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      If they want to be a charity, register as a charity. If you want to be a religion, you should get taxed.

      You're trying to separate two very integral parts of a good church's existence. The two go hand in hand in a good church. But, you're going to be hard pressed to find a good church who, for the love of money, decides to register as a charity instead. It misrepresents their goal putting them in a box.

    77. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My point was only about reading between the lines of my own words and adding meaning that does not exist such as your response "then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own" which cropped up in this one. You know NOTHING about my "ideas of relgious freedom" and are using a nasty little trick everyone outside the low tax states of the USA is supposed to have beaten out of them in the first few years of school. I don't see Scientology as any sort of religeon anyway, because just like the Jedi stuff we have seen it grow out of fiction over a fairly short period of time - plus a variety of other things that books like "Bare Faced Messiah" go into which simply make it look like organised crime with a front.
      Apart from that you are far more informed about that case than I will ever be and I was merely responding to others based on what I've read in the newspapers.
      You've made a lot of good points but you've mistaken my meaning. I never said Murphy was a fan of religeon, and yes, careful is in hindsight a poor choice of word :)

    78. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it is bloody obvious that Scientology is not a religeon so such laws do not apply - that is all I meant. You are correct that it would have to be tested though, and unfortunately if governments get to decide about worship it is not a good thing. That is what these fraudsters depend upon.

    79. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And you know what Murphy J is correct. Scientology actually is a religion. It's based on unprovable and often counterfactual premises. It conditions people into believing them.

      So do many confidence tricks so I do not agree that it is a religion.
      That is where I disagree.
      The short history and the behaviour of this group also strongly influence me into thinking that it is just a scam.
      He has good points about religious tax exemption but that is not what I'm discussing - I'm discussing this group hiding behind a respectable front to create legal difficulties such as this.

    80. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by black3d · · Score: 1

      Bob should be taxed at the same rate as Joe, because according the American ideals, we were all created equal.

      Right, and I'll agree with everything else in your post working, as soon as you eliminate: Racism, sexism, age discrimination, social discrimination, appearance discimination, religious discrimination - just, all discrimination.

      Then, when everyone is equal, having a chance to an equal education, equal opportunities for equal effort after completing education, pay equality, and peference in advancement only to those best suited to the job rather than ANY discriminatory factors such as friendship or being part of the "old boys club" or sex, and I'll agree - everyone should be taxed equally because they're earning relative to the effort they put in.

      However, this is not the case. Not even close. It's completely the opposite in fact. Frequently, the people making the *most* money are those who selfishly screwed over everyone else they could, while disguising their actions from those above them.

      I'll admit, there *are* Bob's who worked hard to get where they are. And they do suffer in a means-assessed tax system. And no - means-assessed tax systems are not "Communism". Not even close. You can still make $40 million a year if you want to. It just means that you get taxed more than others do, but you don't get taxed down to $20k a year.

      Complaining about things being "unfair" in a blatantly unfair world is splitting hairs. We're simply trying to decide where to best apply the unfairness. If we can raise the minimum standard of living in the process - is that not a better thing?

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    81. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by black3d · · Score: 1

      Addendum: In relation to your bit at the end there about consumption rather than income based tax and other user-pays systems, that's something we could possibly agree on. However, realise that in my post I was merely answering someone else's question - and that was comparing a "tax everyone equally" system to a "means-assessed tax system". I wasn't out to debate or argue against any other possible tax systems, or even wether means-assessed is the best way to go.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    82. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Seventh Day Adventist
      Mormon
      Latter Day Saint
      Baptist
      Protestant ...

    83. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Complaining about things being "unfair" in a blatantly unfair world is splitting hairs. We're simply trying to decide where to best apply the unfairness. If we can raise the minimum standard of living in the process - is that not a better thing?

      No. It is absolutely NOT a better thing. Applying the Unfairness in the most equitable way is just mind-blowingly offensive. It's a cop out and paramount to just laying down on the floor and giving up on our ideals.

      It. Must. Be. Fair. Everything else gets built upon that foundation. Without it, you are essentially mistreating a group of people justified by stereotypes and assumptions, which is dangerous, incorrect, immoral, and offensive. The ends do not justify the means.

      As for raising the standard of living, I have no problems making all foodstuffs, basic necessities, whatever, tax free. That WILL raise the standard of living considerably. When Joe no longer get's taxed on his income at all and he can keep all of that money, that ALSO raises the standard of Joe's living even HIGHER. Moreover, Joe no longer has to spend any effort, time, or money on preparing his taxes anymore. More money left in his pocket. IMO, Joe no longer has to fight to survive in a tax system that he is ill equipped to navigate and win. More fairness.

      Both Joe and Bob pay no taxes for food. Still fair.

      Now when you eliminate property taxes, and any other taxes that are assessed simply because you occupy space, then Joe can stay on his plot of land (probably with a house) and never be bothered about any of his income ever again. He can't lose his land and home one day just because he got old and can't afford the property taxes. Perhaps, Joe might even grow some vegetables in his backyard and become even more self-sufficient while reducing his footprint on the planet. So Joe can be assured that his land and home will never be taken away from him, he never has to report income to the government anymore, and the basics of living will always be tax free, and ostensibly, more affordable.

      In the end Joe will benefit from this system far more than Bob does. In fact, Bob get's fucking screwed compared to what he is doing right now. All of the sudden Bob can't get his money back that he paid in income tax and when he buys anything considered taxable, the money is out of Bob's hands.

      If anything, Bob's standard of living goes down, and Joe's goes up. However, that is bringing us towards being fair, not away from it......

      I support social programs too. So if Joe cannot make it on his income, even without it being taxed, and then still can't afford food, even without it being taxed, I WILL HELP HIM. It's a better alternative to a starved Joe going crazy up in a McDonald's to get some food. The Food Stamp program is a good thing and I would, and currently do, support giving Joe help to get food and the bare necessities.

      All I ask for is fairness and a taxation system that treats us all equally while at the same time being passive and increasing our privacy. The system I support not only makes it fair, but also makes it easier on the poor Joe's of the world. We don't need to distribute the unfairness. We can tax everybody the same and just use the money for social programs that can target those in need more effectively, while still being fair to the rest of us. I don't need Food Stamps, but they would be available to me if I needed them.

      Fairness. It does not require us to compromise our ideals.

    84. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socz · · Score: 1

      I don't agree that "all christians are catholics," because the opposite is true (all catholics are christians). Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Main_grouping_of_Christianity

      Another major difference between catholics and christians is that catholics have a set hierarchy in that they follow 1 set of beliefs established at the top, and christians do not have a similar structure. For example, catholics have the Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests etc etc. Some christians only have reverends and no head to their organization (outside of their 'church') where they all share common ideas/beliefs/morals. Also you work your way up in the catholic structure, yet anyone can be a reverend (you can sign up online to become an ordained minister!).

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    85. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Hillsong ain't exactly money-in-the-hat church - they've had number 1 albums, after all. I don't think your down-the-road church has the ability to record, produce and distribute music on quite that scale.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    86. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So, really, not only is Christianity not monotheistic, but it's not even a single religion :)

      Seriously, this is why I have to laugh when someone tells me that there are 1.2 billion Christians on this planet. With the number of denominations and subdivisions there are, you'd be lucky if you could find 10 or 15 who agree on what they believe.

    87. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socz · · Score: 1

      So, really, not only is Christianity not monotheistic, but it's not even a single religion :)

      I don't know where you get that from. All christians believe in One God. There are different ways of i guess, you could say, 'worshiping' that One God. As opposed to the greeks and romans who had many gods (regardless of major, minor or mixed).

      I was just talking about this with my gf on our way home. Although catholics believe in the 'holy trinity,' they don't worship jesus nor the holy spirit as 'God,' because there is only 'One God.' This brings me to a very good convo Socrates had with Meno, in which he asked 'what makes something holy? is it holy so then god adores it? or does god adoring it make it holy?' That's very difficult to answer (if you believe in such things). But the saints are not worshiped as 'god(s)' as there is only 'One God.'

      But I think anyone who takes the time to think about how most people are (and need to be) can answer that question; people are like little pieces of metal that want to align themselves to a magnets field. Sometimes, you'll have a few that just don't quite fit - so they find a different field. Most people have this innate need to belong to something. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that you'd be lucky to find 10 or 15 people who agree... how many people speak english, and how many of those share common ideas? What about political beliefs? Look at the #2 most spoken language in the world and see how diverse they can be. This is a great example of a syllogism, all people who are Christians believe in One God, but not all who believe in One God are Christians. But for the most part, almost all catholics share the same point of view, that's why there are a lot less forks under Catholicism than there is Christianity.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    88. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      My point was only about reading between the lines of my own words and adding meaning that does not exist

      OK, I took that the wrong way and then got fairly annoyed. So I should commence by apologising for being a prick. Sorry.

      That being said I certainly was not reading between the lines of your words and adding meaning. I simply asked the question, when you write "Lionel Murphy's statement" do you mean the out-of-context paraphrase given by OP, or what Murphy actually wrote. If the latter, how do you move from what he actually wrote to the statement that he may have written it to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future." Far from reading between your lines I was asking you what you were talking about, and in fact, alerting you to the possibilty that "Murphy's statement" (as paraphrase) might differ substantially from what Murphy stated.

      ... such as your response "then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own" which cropped up in this one. You know NOTHING about my "ideas of relgious freedom"

      Indeed I don't, which is why it is expressed as a conditional IF you find the doctrine of religious freedom, as expressed by Murphy J, "perverse". I don't presume you do find it perverse, if anything I would hope the opposite, namely that you share my disapproval at the Chinese adminstration's making Falun Gong a criminal organisation.

      I don't see Scientology as any sort of religeon anyway, because just like the Jedi stuff we have seen it grow out of fiction over a fairly short period of time.

      That is one of the objections Murphy J covers in that case. He points out that all religions had to start somewhere and he looks at examples such as Mormonism and Christian Science. If you truly believe your own sect to be the one true one it is probably easier to pronounce new religions to be based on fiction. Murphy, on the other hand, was a survivor of the Catholic educations system and was not afraid to point to the clay feet of his own background

      The short history and the behaviour of this group also strongly influence me into thinking that it is just a scam. He has good points about religious tax exemption but that is not what I'm discussing - I'm discussing this group hiding behind a respectable front to create legal difficulties such as this. [From your next point]

      Again I must apologise. I really overreached (also misrepresented Murphy J) when I implied these were the defining characteristics of a religion. The point he was making, and I agree, is that far fetched nature of its doctrine, its use of psychological indoctrination techniques and unscrupulous money making methods, don't disqualify it as a religion, the are commonly observed in a variety of religions. Not invariably, as I may have implied.

      I think it is a religion, just because so many people, and probably even those on the top of the church actually sincerely believe in it. (Or do you think eg. T Cruise is in it for the money alone?). You most certainly correct in describing it as a "scam." It's just that 'regligion' and 'scam' are not mutually exclusive.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    89. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 1

      In most common-law countries, education is defined as a charitable purpose. So the *school* is a charity, not necessarily the sect that runs it.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    90. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      No you misunderstand - not an educational establishment - that's what I mean by 'sect not an actual school': as in the Zen school of Buddhism or Pure Land school - 'school' meaning sect or branch.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    91. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assertion that it is a religion, once again with the argument that we know these are simply fairy stories this time in addition to the pyramid scam nature of the organisation. It's not a piece of the true cross sort of scam capitalising on belief on the perifery of a religion, as I see it the entire purpose of the organisation is to make money and control.
      As I see it they frame disputes against them as religious persecution so the pentacostals and others will come in to bat for them in fear of a blunt instrument (eg. as in China) gets applied. I see it as a tactic along the same line as medieval bandits pretending to be clergy so that they would go before different courts and get different treatment.
      You've made many good points, we just disagree whether it is a religion or not, and my opinion doesn't really matter there but I've given the reasons as to why I have it.
      The important thing is to ensure that there is no sort of "get out of jail free" card for this group on criminal matters as distinct from tax evasion. I hope it gets considered on each case of fraud, rape, manslaughter or whatever else is claimed instead of becoming a general legal fight about state control of religion which would get a lot of others on the side of this group.
      As for Tom Cruise, he's surrounded by members of this group that treat him as something to worship - there's a lot of things written about how that organisation operates by emotional manipulation. You and I saw 9/11 as a tragedy, the Scientologists were out in force that day using it as a recruiting opportunity.

    92. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The myth of the welfare abuser is just that. You won't find 1% of welfare recipients on the program for more than a year. Of course it's possible you happened across the exceptions (and didn't bother to report them, so they can go on their merry way), but it's equally possible you're making bad assumptions from too little information, or just greatly exaggerating what little you've seen.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    93. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      The two go hand in hand in a good church.

      Then a good church gets to register as a charity.

      But, you're going to be hard pressed to find a good church who, for the love of money, decides to register as a charity instead.

      Well boo fucking who. Separation of church and state bitches. Your religion is in my law far too much as it is.

    94. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      That's simply a tyranny of the majority.

      Implicit in what I wrote were two propositions:
      A. Some laws, even if they displease men personally, are justly enacted on behalf of the majority of citizens by the elected representatives. In the present case the use of tax exemptions to encourage the survival of social institutions generally perceived as being of social value.
      B. Some laws, even if they reflect the views of the majority involve a discrimination against particular individuals which is so unjust that it ought never to be countenanced. In the present case, the preferential treatment of church operated businesses as against all others in the same market.

      I'll admit that in does look like simple majoritarianism after you quoted A while ignoring B. It is far from that though. Moreover, I'll admit that many of the examples you apparently find unacceptable don't strike me as particularly troubling. At least in terms of these twin propositions.

      You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days ...

      Sure what's the problem with that? Providing always that the kinds of businesses which are restrained from operating are restrained on the basis of the nature of the business and the market they operate in rather than upon a criterion unjustly oppressive to particular individuals qua individuals.

      ... to criminalizing things which a religion opposes (eg. abortion, stem cell research) ...

      That a religion happens to oppose these things seems impertinent. If a society feels these are things to criminalise, all other things being equal, is there any basic injustice in criminalising them? That being said, personally I would think it a terrible mistake to do so, and the society that makes that choice deserves the eventual outcome. A society might similarly choose to criminalise private heroin consumption, which some might argue has a positive outcome.

      to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia).

      If by this you mean a separate religious law which applies only to a subsection of the community then, no. That would clearly be discriminatory.

      We should strive for a higher standard than just organize [sic] mob-rule.

      Oh absolutely. The question is how do you propose to do so?

      Generally in our theory of democracy that balance is struck by allowing, on the one hand, the majority to elect legislators who make law of general application (which is why ad hominem legislation is such an unspeakable evil).

      On the other hand we have courts to apply these laws in individual cases to ensure they are fairly applied and not as the "mob" (ie. Telegraph readers), might chose to apply them to unpopular individuals. And this is why calls for making Judges "more responsive to community values" (not to mention the idiocy of electing judges), is such nonesense. It is the duty of a judge to stand up to "community values."

      Of course this is the theory. In NSW we do it a little differently, while the majority elect the legislators, they in turn pass laws at the behest of News Ltd. When it comes to the rights fo the individual we again prefer the rule of Holt Street to the rule of law (as the residential arrangements of a certain excon, even after he served his sentence, demonstrates), but I digress.

      In positing that there are, even in laws of apparently general application, injustices to individuals which ought not be tolerated, even if they reflect the majority opinion, I'm actually going somewhat further than this traditional balance. Legally this kind of thinking is not enforceable without the existence of something like a constitutional bill of rights, which Australians have historically rejected. Unfortunately.

      But yeah, ultimately democracy sucks! After all, I'm always right, and the majority almost always disagree with me. It's just that I'm not sure that there's an alternative system that would reflect my wisdom any better ;).

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    95. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. I think they're a cult, and incredibly destructive to most of the people they dupe into joining. And I think that the main reason that we're not hearing more about it is their history of litigating to ensure peoples' silence. The "church" of Scientology has definitely lost the PR war with all present.

      The problem is that while we can agree that it's obvious that they're gaming the system and taking advantage of laws that were not designed to help people like them, there's nothing we can do about it short of changing the laws to close the loophole. If we start picking and choosing who laws will apply to, we lose our legitimacy and moral authority to impose those laws in the first place.

      For some of us, removing the laws wouldn't really cause a problem: I freely admit that, for the most part, I ignore laws. I don't bother them, they don't bother me. I do what I think is right, and sometimes it's legal, sometimes it's illegal. As long as I'm not hurting people, I don't see the problem. (the very definition of the NG alignment in D&D). While I know full well that some of what I do is illegal, the police usually don't enforce the laws unless you're causing a problem... it boils down to the fundamental tenet in most religions: do no harm. If you're doing no harm, then they have more important things to worry about. (and yes, I recognize the logical inconsistency between this paragraph and the last; that's why I don't get myself into a position where it's my job to impose or enforce laws)

      The bitch of it is, though, that there's people out there who wouldn't "do the right thing" if given the choice. There's people out there who only care about themselves, and don't give a damn how their actions affect others. Those people are the reason that laws exist.

      So if somebody's following the letter of the law, but not the spirit, then you need to change the letter of the law to better reflect the spirit. :) Sadly, we just can't get rid of the laws.

    96. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      My opinion is that tax or no tax should be determined for churches the same way it is for everything else.

      Profit? Tax it

      Non-profit? Don't tax it.

      I think you should tax non-profit making organisations more, so that they try harder in future.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    97. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Religions that are not not unwilling to publish their teachings on the web and give away free books are not not not non profit

      That's easy for you to say.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    98. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      the Vatican is actually quite cash poor

      Citation needed.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    99. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by TechOgre · · Score: 1

      An alternative would be to have a flat income tax rate after a certain base income. So, for example, if the base rate is $10,000, and the tax rate is 10%, then for every dollar above that base rate, you pay 10%. If you make $10,000, you pay no tax. If you make $10,001, you pay $0.10 in tax. In addition, no taxes on unprepared foods, utilities (water, hydro, gas, phone(?)). I think a simpler system with fewer/no loopholes would fix a lot of things. It would be harder to cheat, easier to calculate, just, better over all.

      --
      We may, indeed, share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, but then, we share 47% with cabbages.
    100. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man under Socialism" proposes a very similar argument, namely that you can't have a leisured, cultured elite without slaves, but that these slaves should be machines, not people.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    101. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      That's because our founding fathers chose it to be in our law. It is our official religion after all. But hey, most people don't realise that these days.

    102. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1
      When I used the word "campaigning" I was quoting from Jenny Hockings "Lional Murphy: a political biography". She said: "He had conducted a long campaign for the recognition" of the COS. She also adds that they held a "special service of thanks" for him in 1973. (pages156-157 - link to the pages below).

      The person sitting next to me at work - who knows a lot more about this than me - tells me that Jenny Hockings was wrong. He agrees with you.

      Anyway, here's the link:

      http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lV-swA4Y1zMC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=lionel+murphy+scientology&source=bl&ots=vg2Vn-hh3z&sig=X65f0qH2JDdsL11HSomu9bCr8n4&hl=en&ei=yNEFS_7iBIz0sQOBo5DBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lionel%20murphy%20scientology&f=false

    103. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by sorak · · Score: 1

      So are you suggesting that your government arbitrarily pick and choose which groups pay taxes?

    104. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet?

      Yeah. It seems he wanted Scientology to be a religion as an insult to the other religions, and not because of its own merit. He explained how religions were spread hundreds of years ago, through means that would be illegal now, and then says that Scientology is just following in the great tradition of evil religion. Seems he's hoping that including unethical commercial businesses as religions will harm the status of all religions. But to do that, had to legitimize the evil one first. Apparenly, he thinks the ends justify the means. I just see a nut that's willing to financially help an organization he hates in a manner directly against his principals because he thinks it will hurt an unrelated organization at some future time.

    105. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      A tax free organisation is a group of people communally spending their post-tax dollars.

      Every dollar has been taxed before you get it. All organizations, including Microsoft, are a group of people spending post-tax dollars. That doesn't make Microsoft a tax-free organization.

      A tax free company is a business which was elected to follow slightly different rules for handling profits in exchange for a financial benefit. The original theory was that the exchange benefited the people by only allowing organizations with beneficial goals to work under such rules. But we all know that if you make a financially beneficial rule, those that shouldn't will try to take advantage of it.

    106. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The currently proposed FairTax taxes necessities, as defined based on the poverty line, at 0% via a rebate.

      The taxes on the items are the same. Thus, if someone making poverty level were to not spend money on a home, but instead live homeless and buy computer games, then those games would be "tax free" and if he decided to spend additional money he gets on food, then the food would be taxed.

      It is the most poor-friendly tax ever. Bleeding hearts should be eating it up.

      They aren't. And the Fair Tax people complain they aren't, but then never look at why they aren't. Why is that? Why are the Fair Tax people treating Fair Tax like a religion, rather than a plan that would need large scale support? I've talked to two people that work for Fair Tax, and both insulted me and refused to talk to me for asking questions. Obviously they were abusive questions like "Why was poverty level chosen as the rebate level?" And "Why can't there be exceptions to the tax for things such as food and housing?" Or "Why did you pick the lowest of all poverty measures for the poverty line used, and thus state (though the definition of poverty used) that health care expenses are not necessary to basic living?"

      Try it some time. Ask a couple simple questions about how and why the choices were made and you'll get "because that's what they are" if they don't just ignore you. If you can find someone that works for them that will actually answer questions and talk about the plan and some issues that are reasons the bleeding hearts aren't eating it up, rather than them just claiming it's an infallible plan and anyone that doesn't believe in their plan is stupid, then feel free to let me know the answers, and I'll give you more questions I have about the plan.

    107. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Rich paying taxes is not unfair, but paying a higher percentage simply because they're more successful is unfair.

      It's perfectly fair. What benefit does a homeless destitute person get from a standing military? How would his life be better or worse if someone invated and nationalizes all corporations? Now, what happens to Bill Gate's money if someone invades and nationalizes Microsoft?

      The poor gain nothing from a military. The middle class gain stability, but not any financial gain, and the rich gain the most, by far. Many of the services provide a benefit that's correlated with wealth (not income), and so it makes sense that those that benefit most pay the most (and since wealth is very easily hidden, we go after income and pretend there's a tight correlation).

      Also, your idea of having tax rebates to make things more "fair" will end up changing nothing at all. It will evolve into a complex mess of laws and regulations and loopholes, just like we have now.

      This I greatly agree with. Just exempt $20k from taxable income, and charge 23% above that as an income tax, and you have roughly the same results as the Fair Tax and zero changes to anything other than burning the IRS code and replacing it with one sheet of paper. No more deductions for anything, charitible contributions, education, health care, and such.

    108. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I would love to see articles such as: Unenployment reaches 80%

      Unemployment means those who want to work but can't, not those that are capable of working but don't. No one looks at what you are talking about because the numbers would scare the regular person. But what's that number at now? 30%, more? It's hard to know what 80% (or whatever) means when it simply isn't tracked now.

    109. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The rich will be taxed at the same rate as the poor. We ALL deserve to be taxed at the same rate. That IS best for everyone, BECAUSE IT IS FAIR.

      Those who have the most should be taxed the most because they receive the most benefit from an orderly society. Those without children should be taxed the most because they aren't contributing to the preservation of society. Those with children should be taxed the most because they need to pay for the schools and such that children consume.

      Fair isn't fair because you assert it so. Fair could mean different thing to different people, and that you pretend to be the sole authority on it isn't fair.

    110. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Call crap all you like, you are an uninformed AC idiot. Unemployment measures the number of people registered with the government as actively looking for work divided by (the number of people in that group plus the number of people working). Someone that isn't looking for work is not unemployed by the governemnt's numbers.

    111. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      You want the rich to be taxed less than today which is what matters. I'm perfectly aware the rich will still pay more total taxes than the poor, but that is an extremely low bar for a tax system. Dropping a progressive scheme for a regressive one? No thanks.

      You do not adress the deductibles problem at all.
      There's a reason countries with a high sales tax (like here, 25%) apply it to the final sale only. It's not because they want to be nice.

      To make all businesses in a value-adding chain pay the full tax will be the same as pouring tar into the economy. But if you don't, then you get the billion-dollar problem of deductibles fraud. Which is why sales tax sucks.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    112. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You want the rich to be taxed less than today which is what matters

      WRONG. I want them to be taxed fairly. The same rate as the poor. As far as total taxes, they would actually pay MORE. However, I suspect you may just want to ignore that....

      But if you don't, then you get the billion-dollar problem of deductibles fraud.

      It's funny you mention that. This is why you are so damned wrong about the rich paying more taxes. The rich use the tax law, which they practically write themselves, to get back all of their money. If they even paid it in the first place. Sorry, I know first hand the vast majority of the rich end up with "zero tax liability" or close to that. Let's not even talk about corporations, where the average American company is not even in America anymore.

      The rich pay less taxes than the poor. By and Large that is the unvarnished truth.

      Consumption tax would change that on day one. No more of the tax games played by the rich. Make groceries, food, basic essentials, etc. tax free and your poor are far better off and in a system in which the rich are actually paying more and the same rate they do.

      Fairness. What a concept.

      To make all businesses in a value-adding chain pay the full tax will be the same as pouring tar into the economy.

      I never actually said that at all.

      There are ways to construct such a system and make it work. You don't even want to consider it because of that word "regressive" and your inability to see past "the rich will be pay less! those bastards". It's sad you can't see that is not even true, but the opposite.

      I want a system that is fair for everyone being taxed. We can take of the poor with social programs like Food Stamps afterwards, and basic essentials being tax free. We can audit companies to make sure the taxes are being assessed correctly, just like we are auditing individual people now. We can also put people's asses in jail when they get caught performing fraud with their companies.

      You don't even want to try that do you? You just want to argue, there will be huge amounts of fraud! While completely ignoring the fact, that there is huge amounts of fraud in the system now.... and the poor are already getting the shaft. Let's stick with the poor getting screwed. Why not.

      P.S - I hope you at least see we both want a sense of fairness, and for the poor to be taken care. We disagree on exactly what is happening, and how we should do it, but we both seem to be fighting for fairness and the poor. I don't like it when people attack me and say I am against the poor. Not accusing you of that, of course.

    113. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      When I used the word "campaigning" I was quoting from Jenny Hockings "Lional Murphy: a political biography".

      Cheers, thanks for the reference (sorry didn't see earlier that you had responded). Reading the statement he made as AG, which she quotes, there's a sentence which seems particularly topical. My emphasis.

      If certain citizens choose to found their own church, then provided they observe the law, they are entitled they are entitled to equal treatment with other churches ...

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    114. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      I'm gathering that he thought that all religions were equally silly.

    115. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      Curious to know what explanation you were given for praying to the saints. 12 years in Catholic school and I came out with the concept that praying to the saints is like asking your boss to present your idea to the Big Boss -- you're more likely to get a positive result than if you presented it yourself, since presumably your boss is already in good with the Big Boss.

      (General note: don't assume anything about my own beliefs one way or another from this message. I've just always been interested in perceptions and misperceptions and like to know what others have heard.)

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
    116. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      I was given pretty much the same explanation (they're praying to saints to pray on their behalf) - It's just that it comes off as pretty nonsensical to me. It doesn't jive with the rest of the doctrine (why would an omniscient and all-knowing god need middle-management?) - and can only really be explained as a way to throw the polytheistic beliefs into a supposedly monotheistic religion.

    117. Re:Should they get off tax-free? by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that it's more likely a concession to human nature... far, far easier to talk to someone who's like you rather than the Big Guy. Also far easier to believe that the secretary of people with disease X is going to be more likely to listen to you than the president and CEO of the hospital. On that thought, though, it'd be interesting to find out if the existence/importance of the saints were more of a popular movement or a top-down sort of thing -- I can't claim to know enough about it to even guess.

      But I don't want to sound too much like I'm arguing for the Church's POV, I just find this stuff fun to think about sometimes.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
  15. So - how's he gonna end up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We all know how Scientology works. If you don't, look it up.

    What method of assassination will Scientology take?

    1) Physical Assassination
    2) Assassination of Character and Reputation
    3) Assassination of Assets
    4) Assassination of Family Members
    5) Something Else
    6) All of the Above

    Really, don't expect this guy to be around much longer.

    1. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Although I dont support Murder, Assassination of people or other criminal acts and I dont support the Church of Scientology, if the CoS were to do something that got Xenophon out of the Parliament, I wouldn't shed a tear (with any luck his replacement would be less likely to be pushing for all the evangelical conservative christian crap like net censorship and making support for that a condition of passing all sorts of bills the government wants passed)

    2. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by vandy1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stephen Fielding is the one you're talking about - Xenophon is anti-pokies, and seems to me to be relatively deliberative on other matters, and generally reasonable. Stephen Fielding is a climate change skeptic; Nick Xenophon is not.

      Cheers.

    3. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fielding is the Christian conservative rabid about censorship. Xenophon did initially support the net censorship proposal as a way to ban gambling sites, but switched views and opposes it.

    4. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by makomk · · Score: 1

      Nah - from what I've heard, Scientology hasn't been doing too well in Australia recently. Some of the more influential members concluded that the whole affair was a sham and left, and it kinda fell apart a bit after that.

    5. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      If it ever goes to court then we'll see character assassination. Otherwise, I expect they'll wait it out to see how far he's willing to stick his neck out with these accusations.

      CoS recognised that their blatant abuse of their public enemies was only cornering themselves for future destruction by the law, thus their tactics have become more subtle. More like a government actually - on good advice from lawyers I imagine.

      I believe they have become more 'savvy' concerning skirting the law in an effective manner. While still being able to do this previously, it cost a lot and it was bad PR which in turn was setting the public against them - which in turn would have lead to their demise ( once people got sick of it enough).

      I for one would be glad to see the CoS closed - but that isn't going to happen any time soon. I do feel sorry (but proud) for those in power who stand up to this bunch.

    6. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by socceroos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The following is a summary of my theory, I'd like to think its mostly based on logic and fact given both party's past history (CoS in particular):

      Hmm, I just read the article. It definitely looks like the CoS contacted ABC to have this article published as their first counter movement. You'll notice the first steps they take are to point out that they're shocked by the allegations and that they've already tried to 'talk' to Senator Xenophon regarding an earlier assault on public television. They attempt to position themselves as a startled innocent party in this whole thing - alleging that they have pro-actively sought resolution with Senator Xenophon to explain their innocence. What where they going to explain? Re-read the article - particularly, the following quote sums it up:

      she is shocked to hear Senator Xenophon's claims, as no-one within the church seems disgruntled.

      Where is their denial of all the claims? They weren't going to meet with the senator to prove them wrong - that's for sure. They were going to meet with the senator to corner him. This guy's got a good brain on his shoulders. By not allowing them to disguise their blackmail in a 'friendly' meeting, he has forced them to switch play. They certainly cant start bullying him now - because he's gone public he's protected himself from that. At least, he's slowing their movements down.

      I think CoS has a number of options here, and I think their plan would be to employ more than one of these options at once to fortify themselves. Firstly, they're going to acquire the specifics of the accusations in question - they want names. From here they can formulate a plan, unique to each individual, that allows them to either bribe or scare them into silence - or even to publicly support the church. This will most definitely involve money and baseball bats - so to speak.

      Secondly, another front of assault is the senator himself. Their assassination tactics on public enemies are well documented to say the least, but is this the approach they'll take? We've noticed CoS go 'quiet' lately, at least on the surface. I'm convinced this is due to a wall of lawyers instructing them on the smartest move. But, having said that, if the senator can corner them enough (this will require getting to the victims first) then he can force them to resort to their 'fair game' tactics. This would be beneficial to the senator. Don't be surprised if we receive a nice visit from a big-wig soon - I'm thinking someone like Tom Cruise, but possibly not so publicly famous. If not a visit then definitely some choice phone calls to the senator and other people in power. Nothing that proves their guilt, but just a little "hey, I'm here, I'm powerful, don't get me wrong - I like you, but...." kind of stuff.

      Its up to the senator to hold his ground. He needs to cash in on his chips before its too late. This involves the victims and his friends in power - he's got to build his own fort, and jolly quick too. I certainly hope his 'evidence' holds up. But I'm not going to be surprised if the 'police' find that all the witnesses are 'found to be unreliable'.

    7. Re:So - how's he gonna end up? by simplexion · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Xenophon isn't generally reasonable. He is brilliant. Stephen Fielding is an idiot

  16. Scat-entology - A free replacement by xC0000005 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Have friends who are into scientology? Get them hooked on Scat-entology instead. I formed it from the words "Shit" and "To sell as a religion". The difference is I accidentally set the buy it now price at $0 and so it's free. I'll get it right next time.

    --
    www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
  17. Xenophon and Socrates by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty OT here but with people making Xenu gags because of the name its worth point out that Xenophon's Conversations with Socrates is one of the few sources for views of the great Greek philosopher and orator.

    CoS are of course a shill, its not even a very clever shill, their "e-meters" are almost as dumb as the bullet proof pants that the Mormons try and pedal.

    Why should any religion get tax status? They aren't a charity, the money is primarily there to support their own organisation. They are selling a product called "salvation" and people are paying money in the belief they are getting something back.

    Socrates wasn't the biggest fan of religion either... question everything.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by novium · · Score: 1

      Why should any religion get tax status? They aren't a charity, the money is primarily there to support their own organisation. They are selling a product called "salvation" and people are paying money in the belief they are getting something back.

      Socrates wasn't the biggest fan of religion either... question everything.

      It depends on the organization, but I imagine you'll find that that is true for any non-profit organization, more or less. In any case, you can step away from the religious argument entirely and make a pretty good case that scientology's status as a nonprofit is suspect.

    2. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty OT here

      No, you've got it all wrong. This is OT.

    3. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

      There's pretty good reasons for not taxing charities.

    4. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's definately this.

    5. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by SouperMike · · Score: 1

      almost as dumb as the bullet proof pants that the Mormons try and pedal.

      True, but if you pedal them really hard, eventually you can get them going pretty fast!

    6. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by Zymophideth · · Score: 1

      CoS are of course a shill, its not even a very clever shill, their "e-meters" are almost as dumb as the bullet proof pants that the Mormons try and pedal.

      They don't pedal bullet proof "pants". They're sacred garments to remind oneself of their commitment to God. Being committed to God has its advantages in that occasionally he might perform a miracle and deflect some bullets (think pulp fiction), but nobody in the LDS church is claiming those garments will protect you from bodily harm. Sure some LDS members might claim their garment saved them in some way or another but what the really mean is God saved them and by no means are these stories the reasons people wear them. Honestly, i think the main reason they have them is in case you get intimate once the clothes start coming and you see the special underwear you're reminded of your commitments and priorities.

    7. Re:Xenophon and Socrates by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Does that include the richer ones that buy up as much property as they can, knowing they won't pay taxes on it and can hold it as an investment and running up other's property taxes. Then, they rent out the property, violating the rules of what is tax-free and when caught, they claim religious persecution until the authorities decide to not enforce the law against the church that's hording land as an investment unrelated to any charitable activities?

  18. we are anonymous by TakeoffZebra · · Score: 2, Funny

    An "anonymous" reader. Hm, ironic?

    1. Re:we are anonymous by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      you don't know the half of it, once i forgot to login and he took over my post, it said he had posted it. That thief !!! :[

  19. A word on Xenophon by RichPowers · · Score: 5, Informative

    Xenophon, for those unfamiliar, was an ancient Greek general best known for writing The Anabasis -- an account of the trials and adventures of The Ten Thousand, a group of Greek mercenaries hired by Cyrus the Younger. After he's killed in battle, the Greeks have to march back to Greece from deep within enemy territory. It's quite a thrilling tale with plenty of action and treachery. Surprised they haven't made a movie out of it a la 300.

    If I was Mr. Xenophon, I'd rather go up against the Persians than the Scientologists :D In any event, he has an awesome last name.

    1. Re:A word on Xenophon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Cyrus the younger" you say. This morning the spokesman and vice president of COS Australia was defending his religious organisation on the radio and other media. His name was... Cyrus, Cyrus Brooks. One day Senator Xenophon may give an account of the "trials and adventures of The Ten Thousand"s of scientologists in Australia. :)

    2. Re:A word on Xenophon by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Well they did make a movie, kinda. Its called "The Warriors" and its based on the comic, which was based on the original story of the 10000. I admits its not the same thing of course.

      You can expect it will get produced at some point - and be about as historically accurate as that piece of shit 300. No one has any interest in producing actually historical films these days, I presume because the audience is too stupid and or ignorant to be thrilled at seeing a famous event and famous people portrayed. Plus of course Hollywood doesn't want to risk not getting the audience with the right special effects. I wonder how many current fans of 300 there would be if they realized the Spartans evidently encouraged their men to be homosexual? Not that theres anything wrong with that if it suits your tastes, but I bet many are ignorant of that.

      Sorry you pushed my 300 button :) I really despise that piece of utter shit.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    3. Re:A word on Xenophon by giorgist · · Score: 1

      Well then his first name is also Greek and it is short for Nickolas in English or Nickolaos in Greek.

      It is a compund of "Nike" as in victory and "laos" as people.

      In other words ... for the victory of the people

      G

    4. Re:A word on Xenophon by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude. Relax. It's not a documentary. The movie was based on a freaking comic book. It was an awesome movie, the kind that you're supposed to watch with a bigscreen and bad-ass sound system. They didn't portray the helots either.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:A word on Xenophon by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      One of the greatest guy movies ever made. That was back when Walter Hill could do no wrong (his follow-up films were "The Long Riders," "48 Hours," and "Southern Comfort"). You could get extra chest hair just from hearing someone DESCRIBE one of that dude's movies.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:A word on Xenophon by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Especially in the light of what he goes against. If my greek is not completely rusty, doesn't that name mean essentially "voice of the alien"?

      Xenu strikes back!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:A word on Xenophon by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most of the errors of the movie 300 were also in the graphic novel. And while it doesn't portray homosexuality, probably the biggest inaccuracy in the film is the line "Athenian boy-lovers."

      I think the question here is whether it would be a better movie if they actually expressed (or displayed) that pederasty. But I can appreciate it as a work of fiction, and I think it works well.

      Then again, I wasn't really sure until I saw Firefly that hard science fiction would be as fun to watch. No sound in space, but it uses that silence well.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  20. Vibes add value by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 1

    The new ones cost less that the used one ...

    1. Re:Vibes add value by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Heh, true that but the second one's been tested.

  21. Read The Full Article by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Informative

    Following on from the informative comment from Onetus, The Age also has a full transcript of Xenophons speech to the Senate. He makes it clear that he is tabling letters in the Senate with names removed to protect informants and innocents and has left the names in the copies sent to the Australian Federal Police.

    The point of his speech is to open dialogue in the Senate with a view to holding an inquiry into the CoS tax exemption. The purpose of sending the letters to the police with original names is for the police to investigate any criminality. Kind of a pincer movement really, good on him.

    From the speech:

    These allegations are serious, and many names have been removed from the letters I have tabled in the Senate tonight, but those names have not been removed from copies I am providing to the police. This organisation must be investigated. These victims of Scientology have spoken out at considerable personal risk, and I commend them for that. And I would encourage other victims of Scientology to come forward, contact the police or contact my office -- but, most importantly, speak out.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Read The Full Article by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well as usual we hope that the police police police are effective in policing the police police's policing of the police.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  22. Celebrity backlash, awesome! by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can only hope this means no more promotional tours from John Travolta and Tom Cruise. That's a protest I can live with and love. Also, Jenna Elfman.

  23. legal precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Can we use this as a precedent to get rid of other religious organizations too? ;P

  24. On wikipedia right now... by Zarniwoop · · Score: 5, Funny

    "In November 2009, Xenophon labelled the Church of Scientology as a criminal organisation in a speech to the Senate. [42] This is clear evidence that he has very large testicles."

    I'm not in favor of vandalism, but LOL!

    --
    Still not dead.
    1. Re:On wikipedia right now... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should have linked to that particular revision:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Xenophon&oldid=326486984#As_federal_senator

      That way the rest of us can enjoy the joke as well :)

  25. PM is "concerned" too by dakameleon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, has said he's concerned too, and wants to see the material before calling a full inquiry.

    It's a sudden outbreak of common sense in the House in the Hill, that's for sure.

    --
    Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    1. Re:PM is "concerned" too by the_womble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      May be they can apply that to internet censorship and treating refugees as criminals as well!

  26. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by daveime · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm amazed that this pyramid scheme has been allowed to continue unabated (and with tax-free status) for nigh on 40 years !

    It's no more a religion than Amway, Avon or Tupperware is ... although you'd need a firemans vice to separate my mother-in-law from her overpriced plastic boxes.

  27. Xenophon? Sounds Foreign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Xenophon? Sounds Foreign

  28. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by ThePengwin · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  29. Makes me GLAD by MoeDumb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... glad for Austrailians. Personally I wish we had a stand up politician like him in America.

    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    1. Re:Makes me GLAD by SanguineV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am sure there are plenty. The difference is in Australia these politicians are occasionally voted into office.

  30. I used to be a Scientologist by leereyno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .....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)

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The sad thing about that? People want to be taken advantage of, they want to be cheated and they want to be abused. Scientology is merely another organisation focused on getting the best out of people, i.e. their money.

      "[insert government or bank of choice] 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."

      It's a pretty versatile quote.

    2. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by mpe · · Score: 1

      Scientology has gotten away with innumerable crimes

      Including various acts of terrorism. Indeed what they call "fair game" is a euphemism for "terrorism".

    3. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by MoralHazard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      My girlfriend recently graduated from college with degrees in communications and marketing. She was almost immediately contacted with a job offer, from a company that said they were public relations consultants. She went into the interview and there were ten other people there, also waiting. The person running the interview sat everyone down and gave them a form to fill out and sign before they started the interview process. One of the items on the form was a non-disclosure clause for everything in the interview, and another was a statement that L. Ron Hubbard's words were infallible. To which she had to agree in writing before she could get an interview. At which point she realized that she was being recruited to be a Scientologist recruiter. She walked out. But just so you know, that's one way Scientology gets new members: they hire people with degrees being convincing to go get more people.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:I used to be a Scientologist by sorak · · Score: 1

      I have never met a scientologist in person (or been made aware, if I did), but I am curious about how to convince someone that their religion is taking advantage of them, without making it sound like prejudice, or a personal attack against them. So, what was it that got you started asking questions? (I know about clambake, but I suspect that if you give a scientologist a URL, he will not use it, or will believe it is just bigoted anti-CoS propaganda).

  31. Re:Xenophon? Sounds Foreign by Caity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe you should have gone with "sounds alien" - might have clicked a few more gears into place for some.

  32. Mr X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    South Australia Premier Mike Rann hates Senator Nick Xenophon because he could upstage him in state politics with clever and cheeky media stunts and is more popular.

    South Australia Deputy Premier and Treasurer Kevin Foley doesn't like him either, as evidenced by Nick calling him a fucking cunt. (Which he is.)

    Consequently, the Labor party hates Nick Xenophon.

    Don't always agree with Nick, but he definitely isn't afraid to call out bullshit when he sees it and you have to respect that. Apparently a huge number of fellow South Australians also think the same, which is why he polled enough primary votes to win 1 of 6 senate seats in the last federal election.

    The world would be a better place with more people like Nick Xenophon in parliament.

  33. What a difference 2000 years makes! by Beelzebud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From an outsiders perspective (atheist), scientology isn't any more corrupt or evil than any other organized religion in the world. It always amuses me when people of other faiths unload on scientology, while ignoring the crap their own religions promote.

    Give it a couple of thousand years, and they'll be able to join the club of Established Religion.

    Scary thought? Not really. It's no different than the bronze age fairy tales that millions of people believe in today...

  34. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by PsyQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You haven't really researched this a lot, otherwise you wouldn't say that. Check out Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net). Usually, religions aren't all about money and mind control. Scientology is:

    "The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends." (cited from xenu.net)

  35. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Religions aren't about money and mind control? Really? That's an incredibly naive statement.

    I see Operation Clambake and raise you the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...

  36. Nooooo! by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nooooo! Somebody please stop the Australians before the Americans wake up, or else Tom Cruise is going to jump up and down on the sofa again!

    1. Re:Nooooo! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      He's gotta come out of the closet first.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  37. Re:86 the Scientology crap by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scientologists went after Slashdot with lawyers some time ago and forced the only deliberate comment removal from this site. That is why it is on topic here.

  38. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    All of the things on that list are really politics anyway with the possible exception of the Salem Witch trials. The authority of the Church at the time of Galileo was based upon education and they saw him as undermining that authority and reducing their political power. Just about every scammer in danger of being shut down by authority or laughed at by academia rolls out the Galileo example so it's just about a Godwin in this sort of discussion.
    While it is possible to compare any organised criminal organisation with the worst aspects of any large religeous organisation it's not really relevant here and is playing into the hands of scammers such as Scientologists, fraud based on fake miracles, snake oil salesmen and people that set up Naturopath "universities" to fleece hopeful students. The weird outlying stuff that the Mormons officially abandoned over a century ago blurred the line in the USA and scammers like the Scientologists took full advantage of that uncertainty. The frenzied export of Pentacostalism added furthur confusion and the rest of the world is uncertain as to what religeon means in the US context and often consider that anything goes. Personally I think if it is truly obvious bullshit with documented growth within living memory then that is what it should be treated as and the perpetrators subjected to the full force of the law where required. If they do something a private citizen would be jailed for they should not be able to play a get out of free card simply because of what club they are in.

  39. Re:86 the Scientology crap by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot... News for Nerds... Stuff that Matters.

    Nobody cares about Scientology. Lets keep this a tech site. We'll leave the Scientology stuff to 4chan (not that they want it either).

    Slashdot doing articles about Scientology predates 4chan's existence.

    Scientology has been known for calling up on censorship and claiming copyright theft since the 90s. They got articles pulled from usenet servers by issuing false cancel messages on insecure nodes, DDoSed servers to prevent information from being spread, threaten internet anonymity etc.

    Seems like something "nerds" would rage on to me and certain articles seem relevant to Slashdot in my opinion.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  40. You do have a politician with huge balls by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alan Grayson

    Republicans attempt to cut off Rep Grayson's speech

    His Youtube channel: RepAlanGrayson

    Note, that he has balls and he is on a war against the republicans in congress, this means he is going against lobbyists and their underlying corporate masters, this is like going against 10000 CoSs at once.

    1. Re:You do have a politician with huge balls by MoeDumb · · Score: 1

      But not him nor any other US pol will speak out against the 'Church [sic] of Scientology' like that stand-up Australian dude did. That was the point. Grayson? Meh.

      --
      Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
    2. Re:You do have a politician with huge balls by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      He did better than that.

      Reading lists of 'the dead' from regions represented by the republican congressman who oppose the US health care reform and mainly the introduction of the public option, which means he is attacking the pharma companies, the insurance companies, the banks backing these and the politicians. AFAIC this is more gutsy and more important anyway.

  41. Re:Now by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Interesting

    we need to get rid of the rest of the religions and we might just save humanity.

    I'm not sure its religion, as such, thats the problem. I think its monotheism.

    Monotheism creates a kind of mono-mania in people where they can only perceive one very specific way of looking at the world as being 'correct'.

    Take Hinduism as a contrast. Hinduism contains within itself as much variation as you'd find between, say Christianity and Taoism.

    And then look at the behaviors of these entities that Christians, Jews and Moslems call 'God'.

    Judging these so-called 'Gods' by their behaviors as documented in their *own* 'holy' scriptures, I'd have to characterize Christianity, Islam and Judaism as devil-worship.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  42. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm amazed that this pyramid scheme has been allowed to continue unabated (and with tax-free status) for nigh on 40 years !

    Thank the Hollywood stars who keep funding it.

  43. It should even have been dissolved here in France by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  44. Zen Buddhism/Hebrew prophets by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That would include the Zen masters that told people that the secret of the good life is to overcome your training, experience things for yourself and "just be natural"? Or the Hebrew prophets who told anyone who would listen that God was not interested in temples, altars and sacrifices, but wanted people to live ethically and at peace with their neighbours?

    The sad truth is that religions become centres of power, and centres of power attract criminals. It's interesting to see how even the green movement is being plagued with criminals selling people massively uneconomic wind and solar systems, because people's desire to do good often exceeds their ability to see through bullshit. But some religions - Zen, Quakers, Reform Judaism, the liberal wing of the Episcopalian Church - have proven very resistant to criminal infiltration. That's possibly because they attract mainly very educated people. To be blunt, one reason Scientology is so successful might be because it has targeted the rich and gullible.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Zen Buddhism/Hebrew prophets by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Chen/Zen Buddhism takes a person's desire for power, and turns it inward. When people want power, they usually want it over others.

      Chen Buddhism tries to reflect that inward, to change the focus so that instead of power over others, it's power over oneself. The purpose of all of its teachings is to eventually acquire power over one's own actions, state of mind, and ultimately over one's existence.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Zen Buddhism/Hebrew prophets by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      To be blunt, one reason Scientology is so successful might be because it has targeted the rich and gullible.

      As opposed to most religions, where you don't need to be rich?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  45. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Angostura · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From an outsider's perspective (atheist) it is a mistake to think that scientology isn't any more corrupt or evil than any other organized religion in the world. Not all religions have specific tenets requiring you to part with large amounts of money to simply read their 'scriptures'. Not all religions specifically attempt to stop members from contacting their families who are non-believers. Not all religions embark on well funded, well organised and effective smear campaigns against ex members. Not all religions have private internment camps for members who are being wayward.

    To think that Scientology is on a par with the average world religion is a relativist mistake.

  46. What a refreshing change by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 1, Redundant

    As an Australian I have had to endure years and years of idiot Senators embarrassing me in front the world's nerds here on Slashdot. Finally we have a half-smart one.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  47. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    Arranged marriages in Islam.

    If a woman doesn't marry someone deemed suitable for her (heaven forbid it's a non-muslim), her whole family can turn against her. They don't do a "well funded smear campaign". They kill her and her partner, often torturing beforehand.

    Not to mention there are countries where converting to a religion from Islam is a crime.

    Then there's the child abuse in Catholicism that the church went all out to hush up, the caste system in Hinduism etc.

  48. Strictly speaking.. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    That would make him a Xenuphile.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  49. Church of Kellogs by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Start your own 12th Day eventist, Saturn Nights Church, Church of Nerdology - all computer parts are tax free weeeeee

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  50. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    referring to the CoS as a criminal organization is belittling of the Mafia (Italian, Russian, Serbian, etc), the Yakuza, drug cartels, and all the various other gangs.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  51. Re:86 the Scientology crap by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    They also got the text of OT3 removed from slashdot after an AC posted it. Only other time that has happened I recall is when some windows source got pulled. Confirming MS and Scientology lawyers are worth the hefty fee.

  52. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...

    Galileo: arrested because he insulted the then-Pope by basing the "idiot" in his dialogues on him - political, not religious reasons - at the time, the Church was on the verge of accepting the heliocentric view of the universe. It was Galileo's jibes (and the Pope's unreasonable overreaction) that prevented this, not any religious dogma.

    Crusades: Bang to rights. Of course, they were relatively normal for wars of the period in terms of atrocities committed. And in fact, on some occasions, the religious justification for them was used to temper the worst excesses.

    9/11: The acts of a very few madmen, atypical and unrepresentative of their religion, or of religion as a whole.

    Salem Witch Trials: Like most witch trials, conducted by a secular authority at the behest of people beset by local concerns looking for scapegoats. A dozen local ministers published a plea for "spectral" (ie, imagined) evidence NOT to be allowed.

    I am not religious myself. But I am sick and tired of seeing the same lazy, thought-free accusations being thrown out at "religion", as if it were some monolithic entity. Religion was until recently, virtually universal in humanity, so it should be no real surprise that you can find examples of people at their worst, with religion being offered as some vague rationale.

    Most religions have high ideals and aspirations at their core. A universal or long-lived religion means that it is inevitable that there will be periods where those ideals are taken more or less seriously by its practitioners. Does that say something about religion, or about human nature?

    By all means, say that religious thinking can be irrational and demonstrate why, but don't become irrational yourself and lump all religion into one.

  53. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by daveime · · Score: 1

    Yes, unfortunately the idiom "A fool and his money are soon parted" doesn't apply when you have more money than you know what to do with.

  54. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's the fundamental difference between Scientology (and a lot of dangerous cults) and real religions (established or otherwise): Walk up to a member of the clergy or lay leader, and ask them the fundamental tenants of what they believe. Any real religion will rattle off a few tenants, point you to some literature and/or holy books, explain the nature of their rituals and public services, and so forth. The point is to spread the ideas as much as possible, and they'll welcome the opportunity to do so. This is true whether you're talking to a Christian minister, a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim imam, a Voudoun priest, a Wiccan priestess, or Ivan Stang of the Church of the SubGenius.

    With a cult, if you walk up to the clergy and lay leader, they'll change the discussion from an evaluation of their faith to an evaluation of you. For Scientologists, that's what the initial auditing process is about. Instead of giving you the information you need to decide whether the faith is worthy of your support, they collect information to decide whether you are worthy of the faith. And since people don't like to see themselves as failures (as a general rule), many folks will react to this by trying to prove themselves worthy. And in the often complex process of proving themselves worthy, they will commit themselves more and more fully to the cult, without really knowing what they're getting into.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  55. Re:Now by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    As a polytheist myself, I have to say that does give you a fair amount of freedom that monotheism doesn't.

    First off, when different polytheistic cultures met up with each other, they frequently exchanged religious ideas, even if they were fighting each other. They recognized that it was quite possible that different cultures were either worshipping the same gods in a different way, or maybe had encountered different gods. The conversation might involve a Greek guy explaining Hermes to a Roman, and the Roman saying "Oh, we know about that god, but we call him Mercury". Julius Caesar tried to describe the faith of the Gauls as well, despite trying to kill them. The fighting was almost invariably for political ends rather than religious.

    Secondly, polytheism allows for interests to compete with each other without one of them being evil. For instance, let's say one faction wants a city to focus on creating a better irrigation system so the harvest can be larger, while another faction wants to focus on building strong defenses in case a neighboring city attacks. Which side is evil? Probably neither. In a polytheistic environment, an agricultural god is motivating the first group, and a warfare god is motivating the second group, and they're competing interests, but both motivated by decent people. In a monotheistic environment, what's more likely to happen is that the chief priest of the city will say "God says to work on building strong defenses" and all of a sudden that becomes dogma for the faith, and anyone who doesn't agree with it is evil and subject to being repressed or at the very least looked down upon.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  56. /clap Senator Xenophon by realsilly · · Score: 1

    /standingovation

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  57. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by makomk · · Score: 1

    Not really. Scientology is quite impressive - even the IRS are scared by them (to the point of granting hugely valuable tax breaks that are entirely illegal).

  58. Exactly what Parliamentary Privilege is for by chris-chittleborough · · Score: 1

    Senator X used Parliamentary Privilege in exactly the way it is meant to be used: to start a discussion about something that the regular institutions may not be handling properly. Note the word "start". Things a parliamentarian says under privilege are not authoritative -- in fact, they're usually trite, and often wrong -- but sometimes they initiate very useful public debates.

  59. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Angostura · · Score: 1

    So you don't like some aspects of extreme Islam as practiced by its more extreme exponents. Fine, neither do I.. But Scientology is an entire "religion" that is predicated on one thing - to make money, and to pursue that goal ruthlessly.

  60. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    It's the new casting couch, and it's just as psychologically damaging... but you can't get therapy to cope afterward.

  61. Re:Now by maxume · · Score: 1

    Imagine a world where people motivated themselves with reason.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  62. There's difference between CoS and other religions by Loosifur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whenever there's something about CoS it seems like there's a crowd of people who chime in with, "But ALL religions are corrupt, criminal, and commercial." Which inevitably leads to the conclusion that, if you happen to not have a problem with religion in general, you must accept anything which calls itself a religion, or become an atheist.

    Here's the problem. We'll put aside my Pollyanna-esque belief that most of the time religions really are about a genuine and sincere effort to understand the metaphysical aspects of existence. Yes, the Catholic church is responsible for suppression of science and learning, set up the "indulgence" system, and a host of other sins. Keep in mind, however, that the Catholic church was the last vestige of Roman-style socio-political organization after the fall of the empire. While the West dissolved, the Catholic church was the closest thing to a stable government that was able to provide legitimacy to regional and local rulers, preserve some measure of learning, and mitigate internal conflict. Not until the Treaty of Westphalia does the modern concept of the state enter into Western thinking, and that was well after the Inquisition's height. So, yes, the Catholic church has done some nasty things, but compare it to any other nation-state if you want an appropriate ethical comparison.

    CoS, on the other hand, actively seeks to defraud individuals through a deliberate pyramid-scheme. It is felonious by any legal standards, and does no charitable work to speak of. Churches, synagogues, and mosques routinely collect money from followers as a sign of devotion and as a means of maintaining themselves (literally, as in a "building fund").

    Some Slashdotters appear to be confused as to the concept of nonprofit. A nonprofit organization is allowed to raise money through sales and donations in order to pay it's employees and maintain itself; it only has to show that, at the end of the day, it doesn't have any money.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  63. Re:Xenophon? Sounds Foreign by Sajarak · · Score: 1

    Maybe they're just xenophobic.

  64. Re:Now by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    You're talking about God(s) as if you were choosing a fabric softer...
    As a complete Atheist with no links to any groups, I can say safely say that
    older religious groups have gone through the same growing pains as the Scientology
    nuts, but over time have gotten beaten back into the mainstream.

    Most new "Religions" seem more aggressive and are devoid of any Faith Based Morality.

    So let people believe what they want unless it does harm, then shut it down...
    We need Religions as a guiding influence on those who cannot find or create their
    own meaning in life, but that doesn't mean we have to let these people walk all
    over the rest of us.

    As for Scientology, yeah, they're getting their hands in too many pockets and
    creating economic ripples and ruining the lives of many poor unfortunates...
    time to shine a light on that...

    --
    End of Line.
  65. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see Operation Clambake and raise you the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...

    house arrest of Galileo... Maybe, but it had less to do with the Religion of Christianity, and more to do with personal insults to the Pope.
    the crusades... No. The crusades had nothing to do with religion. Entirely political on both sides. After they were under way, they were retconned into a "religious" movement to garner support.
    9/11... Which religion says "Kill people indiscriminately, whether believers or not" (there had to have been Muslims working in the towers)? I think you're mistaking criminally insane with religious. Given your bias, that's understandable, but unfortunate.
    Salem Witch Trials... Again, Christianity doesn't say "burn witches and sorcerers" In the Bible only example of sorcerers that the apostles meet are either accepted into the Way (and their books/scrolls burned), or denounced and otherwise left alone. The Salem Witch trials came about because stupid people - who happened to be extremely religious and thus invoked God in everything including criminal trials - were afraid of their own neighbors.
    etc, etc, etc, etc... Hmm, you may have something there. etc did have the people of etc doing etc for the religion of etc. I suppose etc may have to be lumped in with Scifientology.

  66. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I attend a church that regularly meets with other churches (of different beliefs, islamic, jewish, etc) to discuss how to best focus thier efforts to improve the community around them. They offer aid to needy families, the just released the parish budget last week showing how our money was used to give over 154,000 dollars to the local community in money alone. I would hazard that over 50,000 hours of time are devoted each year to the local community by our parish alone, not including the mosques and temples whose members also donate their own time. Friends of the night people, GoodWill, Catholic Charities, Shalom House, The Family Development Center. They have open discussions on the ideas of women priests and gay rights. The church is "in charge" if you believe it in, in keep you safe, in advising you in all aspects of your life. They don't want to discriminate, but they also don't want to simply give the "go ahead" over traditional beliefs. It's a slow changing organization, and that is their biggest failing, but it is not the ignorant body of mindless followers you describe.

    You seem to be stuck on the idea that if a religion has ever done anything wrong, than it can never be right. You are equating the minds and education of people in the 1000 AD with people in 2000 AD. These people believed that gassy food from your stomach would rise through your body and cause blindness (John Milton). They thought that the body consisted of four humors and there was no proper education to aid them.

    The fact that you equate a time when most of the church was uneducated and fearful to today is simply ignorant of our own history. If scientology existed in 1000 AD and was pulling this stuff, then fine. I agree, while I don't believe their view, they are no different. But it is not 10 AD, it's not even 1500, 1700, or 1800. The Catholic church supports evolution, the big bang, and has officially adopted all the most modern scientific positions. They have dedicated and inspired millions of people to work harder at a better world. If the church starts a new crusade you can bet I'll be out in a heartbeat, but they won't. They have grown smarter as our people have, and we will continue to work on making sure we are not adhering to meaningless tradition while putting real help into the world.

    I cannot defend the actions of religious leaders over 1000 years ago, and I shouldn't have to. If the church of Scientology stops suing people and starts helping I'll gladly back off of them. Likewise if the bible ever become a "for pay" book, I'll be banging on my church door for change.

    The Catholic Church, and many other churches, do a myriad of good in the world today. Whatever their individual beliefs, they help atheists and non-believers a like because it is their duty. They may be wrong sometimes, in fact there are things in the church I don't agree with (gay rights is one of them) but the true churches are not hunting down "the gays" they welcome them to talk, to understand, and to try and figure out who needs to change.

    The moment I see a group of atheists give this kind of consideration to their fellow man, the day they offer over millions of dollars and man hours to the welfare of man kind, the moment they come together and actually practice the "humanity without religion" they so often preach, the moment they a start viewing mankind as a being with dignity and not a lump of flesh to be abused, well sir, then I will eat my hat.

  67. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

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

    Yeah, but you got to admit, it IS kind of kewl to do both.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  68. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    To be more accurate, the Church of Scientology (California) was granted tax-exempt status in 1954, and obtained tax-exempt status nationwide in 1957.

    In 1967, the Church of Scientology was stripped of it's tax-exempt status by the IRS, asserting that its activities were commercial (and not charitable or religious) and benefited L. Ron Hubbard. It did not regain tax-exempt status until 1993, which it has had since.

    So, as far as it matters in the U.S., the CoS as a national organization, has had tax-exempt status (as a 501(c) organization) for 26 years out of the period spanning 1957 to 2009.

    That being said, they should lose their tax-exempt status on any careful examination of their books.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  69. Why the censorship icon? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scientology is a criminal organization with a history of stalking and harassment, as well allegations of burglary, intimidation, kidnapping, bribery, attacks on the U.S. government (specifically the FBI), and murder both direct and through neglect.

    Scientology's own documents show they believe in terrorizing and murdering anyone who opposed them.

    It should be perfectly legal to use Scientology's own "auditing process R2-45" on every single member.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  70. Having cash doesn't disqualify non-profit status by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    If they're really operating as a non-profit, then their year-over-year balance shouldn't really be increasing that much.

    Speaking as a certified accountant, non-profit status has NOTHING inherently to do with the amount of cash they hold. A non-profit organization simply does not distribute its surplus assets to owners or shareholders and instead uses them to further the goals of the organization. If holding a lot of cash would further the goals of the organization they can do that. The IRS might review their status if they are holding a lot of cash for no obvious purpose but by itself it means nothing. Foundations typically have large amounts of cash and moderately liquid investments. Non-profit organization can have a significant rise in assets and that is fine. Many hospitals and hospital systems are non-profit but they have large amounts of cash and other assets and frequently grow significantly.

    Personally I question the idea that being non-profit should mean tax exempt (especially for religions with vast assets) unless it is an organization with a clear charitable charter but I didn't write the rules.

  71. impressive post by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    Impressive post you just made, with quotes within quotes, bulleted lists, bold fonts .. wow. I'd rate it insightful on the layout alone!

  72. Re:It should even have been dissolved here in Fran by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    No, the law will be reverted. A dissolution would have been a lot more profitable to France and justice is (still) enough independent from the political power to prevent such a good synchronization. It really sound as a last resort measure.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  73. Re:Xenophon? Sounds Foreign by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Greece isn't foreign?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  74. We NEED those sky gods by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Hey, if it can be used to keep some idiot from holding up a liquor store and shooting someone, I'm all for it. Sure, said individual SHOULD not shoot anyone because he has an individual sense of morality and because he recognizes that to advance as a society we must have a social contract in which we all show each other basic respect and courtesy. But, let's face it, most people are way too stupid to appreciate that level of social abstraction. So if we need to tell them that a sky god will come and kick their ass if they don't behave, then so be it. The only real danger comes when a group of them (i.e. Crusaders or Jihadists) get it into their head that the sky god wants them to kill. But in the modern world that's (thankfully) a relatively rare thing.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:We NEED those sky gods by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I said *relatively* rare. Yes, there are still a few nutball Al-quaida/Taliban/Abortion-clinic-bomber types out there, but compared to the overall population, they are a joke. Their attacks may be high profile, but even in their backwater home countries they are small minorities.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:We NEED those sky gods by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hey, if it can be used to keep some idiot from holding up a liquor store and shooting someone, I'm all for it.

      This is the famous "we all know it's a load of bollocks but it keeps the plebs in order" argument first made by some Greek proto-fascist two and a half thousand years ago.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  75. Not precisely by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    This is what is technically termed a gross oversimplification. Just like today, until the end of the nineteenth century education was a very expensive habit and only the rich could afford it. (Even so the universities did try to widen the base, which is how a relatively poor boy like Isaac Newton managed to get to Trinity.) It's true that youngest sons might get safely parked in a monastery in case the others got killed in a battle, but competition between monasteries and universities meant that, just like Cambridge and Harvard today, they were on the lookout for talent that could expand their reputation. A rich abbot was no use if people laughed at his ignorance.

    The Bible being translated in Latin was called the Vulgate - meaning "ordinary language", equivalent to being translated into English today. And there was much internal competition over doctrine, with the Dominicans (for instance) upholding the secular power and property of the Church and the Franciscans supporting holy poverty and the rights of the poor. The gap between Dominicans and Franciscans was much, much bigger than that between Republicans and Democrats. If you want a period when debate is suppressed by the media and public opinion is limited to a very narrow discourse, the first decade of the 21st century in the US of A trumps the Middle Ages, almost every time.

    Scientology is a child of its time, not the past.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  76. Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    With any other religion I know you first of all get to hear the message and get flooded with how awesome it is and what the great lord/saviour/guru/whatever had to teach you, then you get asked for money. A business wants to see money before you get any information. One wants to spread its word and asks for donations in return, the other sells you info.

    It's up to the reader to decide where CoS fits in here.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  77. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Salem Witch trials came about because stupid people - who happened to be extremely religious and thus invoked God in everything including criminal trials - were afraid of their own neighbors.

    There is a certain amount of evidence that the Witch Trials were largely about acquiring some valuable land without going through the conventional process of paying for it. So including it as a "religious" issue is perhaps unwarranted.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  78. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Arranged marriages in Islam.

    If a woman doesn't marry someone deemed suitable for her (heaven forbid it's a non-muslim), her whole family can turn against her. They don't do a "well funded smear campaign". They kill her and her partner, often torturing beforehand.

    This is not specific to Islam, sorry. It was typical of the culture that existed pre-Islam in the parts of the world where Islam began.

    Note, by the way, that "arranged marriages" were the norm throughout most of history. It's only in recent centuries that we've become wealthy enough to allow ourselves the luxury of marrying whomever we will.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  79. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    The only other world religion I can think of which is guilty of all of those things is the Catholic Church, and perhaps the Jesuit one.

    I might have thought you were making sense up to the point where you labeled the Jesuits a different religion than the Catholics....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  80. Re:There's difference between CoS and other religi by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yes, the Catholic church is responsible for suppression of science and learning,

    Oddly enough, the Catholic Church funded most of the scientists of the day. Including Copernicus and Kepler....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  81. Re:Now by molo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You make it sound like hindu fundamentalism doesn't exist. They make up a large bloq in Indian politics and social structure.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  82. Hey Kids!!! by BancBoy · · Score: 1

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

    Leave Kool Aid alone!

    You mean Flavor Aid, don't you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid#Jonestown_suicide

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  83. End US Tax Exemption for All Religions by okmijnuhb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously.

  84. Re:Now by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    hehehe, I like this guy, he's funny!

    --
    +1 Disagree
  85. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    You can also argue that the focus on getting as much money as possible through fair means or foul to the detriment of others is typical of the culture of the countries that Scientology is most popular in.

  86. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    "I attend a church that regularly meets with other churches"

    I guess they are faith to faith meetings then!

  87. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Bottoms · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm into those religions that have those special healing crystals that you rub all over your body.

  88. Re:Interesting name side note by flyneye · · Score: 1

    On a side note, I have never voted to elect an official to "play politics" I vote in hopes they will actually represent me, the voter, and get things done rather than making a safe path for a career.
          Politics should have much stricter limits on duration in office. Limit this to one office held in a lifetime for a short time. Things will change for the better.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  89. Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Christianity doesn't say "burn witches and sorcerers" In the Bible only example of sorcerers that the apostles meet are either accepted into the Way (and their books/scrolls burned), or denounced and otherwise left alone.

    From 1 Kings 18, King James
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+18&version=KJV

    30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.
    .
    .
    .
    39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

    40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

    I get what you're saying, but notice that Elijah was completely B.C. (and thus not an Apostle of Christ), so mercy and grace weren't big on his todo list. Also, priests of Baal weren't quite in the same mix as sorcerers; it was believed back then that sorcerers had power (via spirits or [fallen]angels), but Baal was supposed to be a god, and worship of other gods was the biggest no-no for the Hebrews. Yes, the Salem townsfolk might have decided to go old-testament, but that's not Christianity. It's not really Judaism either. It was Salem's secular laws built around a pseudo-religious framework.

  90. If people have issues with the Gestapo why haven't by Kodack · · Score: 1

    You got to love their stance "If people had problems with the church why didn't they take it up with church officials? We have a dedicated department...."

    It's like an SS officer saying "If people have problems with the Gestapo why haven't they taken them up with us? We have a dedicated group of individuals that deal with people like them. And by deal I mean assassinate"

    Like anybody who's suffered torture is going to complain to their torturers.....

    disingenuous