Slashdot Mirror
Scientology's Fraud Conviction Upheld In France
schwit1 writes "France's top appeals court has upheld a fraud conviction and fines totaling hundreds of thousands of euros against the Church of Scientology, for taking advantage of vulnerable followers. France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion, and had prosecuted individual Scientologists before, but the 2009 trial marked the first time the organization as a whole had been convicted. 'The head of a parliamentary group on religious cults in France, lawmaker Georges Fenech, hailed the ruling. 'Far from being a violation of freedom of religion, as this American organization contends, this decision lifts the veil on the illegal and highly detrimental practices' of the group, said Fenech. The court case followed a complaint by two women, one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an "electrometer" to measure mental energy. A second woman claimed she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enrol in courses, also in 1998. When she refused she was fired.'"
i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?
Scientology is the truth! Both Tom Cruise _and_ John Travolta are scientologists. Do you believe me now?
those cult freaks swarm through the streets here, scuttling between the many local 'church' buildings... used to be that they would station young kids (many teenagers) at local flea markets to offer free massages and 'stress tests' to do recruiting...
lately, that approach has switched to the cult using immigrant and non-English speakers to entice other adherents...
CoS is a sickening, freakish cult that obfuscates real-estate and business ownerships, such as drug-rehab centers...
"one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an "electrometer" to measure mental energy"
she obviously wanted a refund because the meter reading was zero.
To be rid of these silly cults once and for all
But they don't behead unbelievers or crash airliners into buildings. Of course, that's probably why the French feel it's safe to fine Scientology.
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
Damn Frenchies have more sense.
And a few thousand more religions to go.
Why is Snark Required?
It's not the religion that's the problem, it's the crime. If the scientologits just got fleeced and only hurt themselves, that's their own business. It's the child abuse, murder, slander, and so on that makes them an issue.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
20k €? Not that much, considering the sums they manage to snatch off the (albeit more gullible) american cultists.
Yes they can, and usually are. :p
The difference between a cult and a religion is that in a cult the founder is still alive. Since LRH is definitely dead er, has abandoned his meat body, that puts Scientology pretty much on par with the other groups that believe in sky wizards.
Scientology is a cult, it's entire story is based off a science fiction novel written by man who wanted to make a religion! All of that would be fine but then to charge your members fees to read from books is kind of messed up, that would be like the library charging you based on every book you took out. I don't see how any logical adult can honestly see Scientology as anything but a joke, it's only slightly more a joke then the Mormon based religion, both of which have near 0 evidence for what they take as fact.
Freedom of religion is an issue here though, inasmuch that the disinclination to interfere with religious practices has broadened into a more general lack of oversight of the organisation. If it was a particular township or family that had a long history of abuse, it would be investigated very extensively. However the social obligation not to tread on Scientology's religious practices - such as handing over thousands and thousands of dollars - is trumping the social obligation to prosecute it.
That's a thorny patch because every step you take towards prosecuting them has non-obvious knock-on effects in weakening the protections of the religious freedom of other groups who are acting in good faith.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
is the number of followers...
Nothing about regarding, it is a fact. Scientology IS a cult.
How could anyone possible think otherwise considering what the founder said?
"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard
4th paragraph:
As if being convicted in a court of law for organised fraud is just an opinion of an unspecified number of critics...
How about this get added in the 2nd paragraph:
but I ran out of money.
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Proof that freedom of Religion isn't always a good thing...
As always you need to judge people and organisations by their actions and not their words.
20 minutes into the future
The Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense
Oh, piss off. If you're too stupid to differentiate between the religion and the extremist interpretation of the religion, then I really pity you. I'm also shocked that this has been modded *UP* rather than down as "troll" or "flamebait".
Scientology is, as has already been pointed out, a cult started by a Sci-Fi author who wanted to make a lot of money. Islam is a religion, and there are millions of truly faithful Muslims out there who are every bit as peaceful in their daily life as the millions of truly faithful Christians (or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or followers of x y or z other faiths).
Just in the same way most Irish weren't involved in blowing up each other / the British during the height of the Troubles (note this was a war about the difference between the two main groups of Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) and about occupation/independence, and *nobody* was saying shit back then about "all Christians are terrorists".
Those who blow themselves and other people up while claiming they're doing it in the name of Islam are idiots, and are delusional. The average suicide bomber has been brainwashed into it by the sorts of horrific people (i.e. Osama Bin Laden / Al Qaeda and other like-minded organizations) who recognize the power of religious belief and exploit that to their own ends - i.e. money and power. That's what it comes down to, not religion. If they can recruit young and impressionable enough people, and present themselves to these people as priests and clerics, and preach to them that God will reward them if they commit these acts, then it's far more likely to succeed then just placing a wanted ad for soldiers.
TL:DR version - I think you're an idiot - "terrorist" and "muslim" are not interchangeable terms.
He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
for really morbid laugh search up buddhist deathsquads.
wackos are in every religion or rather wackos use every religion to further their agenda. that doesn't make every religion totally harmful.
scientology on the other hand is just about taking your money and selling you bullshit.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
A Dutch oven opens: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/scientology_wins_dutch_tax_exe.php
"I have just as much authority as the Pope, but fewer people believe it."
George Carlin
They're free to believe whatever they want, but what they're not allowed to do is harm others. If they harm people (scam them, physically harm them, cause them to die by giving them nonsensical advice on how to cure a disease or illness, etc.), they can be prosecuted for it. It has little to do with freedom of religion.
I HOPE this is a slippery slope that exposes all religions as cults. Scientology is just one or the more ridiculous and exploitive ones. Any organization that uses unprovable assertions without any reasonable scientific framework to exploit its gullible members should be shut down.
comment not available.
Well, exactly. The issue is that well-meaning efforts to protect religious freedom also shelter such harmful acts.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Tolerance means refraining from using coercion to stop people from doing things that piss you off. An enlightened society tolerates religious differences, but not crime.
Scientology pisses me off, but I am prepared to tolerate its existence. I will speak out against it but I do not want the government (French or my own) to forcibly shut it down or punish people just for following it. What I am not prepared to tolerate is criminal behavior by individual Scientologists. If they defrauded people, lock 'em up like Bernie Madoff. I am not ashamed to be intolerant of fraud.
So I don't think freedom of religion is a bad thing. The fraud is not a result of religious freedom, it's a result of immoral choices by members of a religious organization.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
99% of their scam is to pretend to be a religion to make it more difficult to stop their scam. They are no more a religion than My Little Pony fandom is. It's not as if we don't have dozens of clues that it's a scam.
Freedom of Religion is irrelevant in this case since we only have the word of the obvious scammers themselves that it's a "Religion", while we also have their word that it's a good way to dodge tax and that they took up the "Religion" angle late in the game after "Dianetics".
No, it's the smokescreen. They bring up the "freedom of religion" thing just to try to get fringe pentacostals or similar that see themselves under threat onto their side.
I think that's just shorthand for "we can see what the guy is up to and it's most definitely a scam". That doesn't stop just because the initial perpetrator is dead.
France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion
A second woman claimed she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enroll in courses, also in 1998. When she refused she was fired.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a cult or a religion; if someone got fired for not undergoing religious courses and testing, that should be treated the same way by the law.
And if the leadership is nothing but frauds and criminals, and there are no "true believers" in control?
99% of their scam is to pretend to be a religion to make it more difficult to stop their scam. They are no more a religion than My Little Pony fandom is. It's not as if we don't have dozens of clues that it's a scam.
Freedom of Religion is irrelevant in this case since we only have the word of the obvious scammers themselves that it's a "Religion", while we also have their word that it's a good way to dodge tax and that they took up the "Religion" angle late in the game after "Dianetics".
No, using the word "religion" is precisely what makes Freedom of Religion relevant - doesn't matter who says it, doesn't matter who believes it.
What is wrong, and what is not in the Constitution, is that any religions are tax exempt. They are all in business - might be the business of saving souls, but the only outward sign is that they're in the business of drinking wine, lighting candles and ringing bells for fun and entertainment. They all should be taxed just like any other nightclub.
Give nobody any perverse incentives to create one, and we'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.
John
And I should know, I've followed a few.
The same reason why alcohol is legally permissible while some less harmless drugs are illegal - cultural entrenchment.
The substantial difference I can see is in how Scientology is more up-front about charging for its services than some of the more established religions. Most mainstream Christian churches I've seen are more about optional donations (with obvious peer pressure) than offering a price-list. I'd give Scientology the benefit of the doubt if the services they offer to paying customers would be available at no cost to everyone - with no need to sign-up for a billion years of servitude in exchange for the services.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
It is possible that the corruption of the leadership goes so far that the whole institution is basically an organized crime ring. (In fact, I think that is likely true.) In that case, it might be necessary to dismantle the current institution in order to protect society. Nothing, however, should prevent a non-criminal splinter group or successor that preaches Scientologist beliefs from forming and operating.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
There are people in the Netherlands, who sink old fishing nets with attached bits to the bottom of the Oosterschelde estuary (it's a natural reserve, so it doesn't bother boats). Then they wait a few year, put on their diving suits, and go looking at those old fishing nets underwater.
You may wonder why people have this as a hobby.
They do it, because they fully expect that the extremely elusive and rare (in NL) Sepia squids have found those fishing nets as a useful habitat, and found a mate in those murky waters, and have begun a family.
In a similar vein, your question seems really stupid and weird.
But I wonder what you get, if you create a habitat for extremely paranoid people, who like to sit in Captain Picard's chair, swim the murky waters of the Internet all day, unobserved by anyone else, give them the opportunity to meet and work with like-minded individuals, and take pride in manufacturing lies targetted for effect in the broader population. What would happen if you left such a habitat abandoned to the ebb & flow of the normal HR process of a large and rich organization for, say, 20 years. What kind of fascinating creatures would come floating to the top of the food chain?
Who knows. You're not allowed to find out. You'll never find out.
What do the french say about Mormonism?
If by that you mean freedom to have different values and priorities than you do, then yes, that does seem pretty important. It's fine by me if you disapprove of faith, but do you seriously think people should not be free to have it?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
No, it's the smokescreen. They bring up the "freedom of religion" thing just to try to get fringe pentacostals or similar that see themselves under threat onto their side.
Freedom of religion is often used as a smokescreen. Indeed, these days, it is most commonly used as such. How often are people's actual religious rights threatened, especially in the USA? It's not like we burned down the complex in Waco because of their religious beliefs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the church is a vessel for criminal misdeed then it must be terminated.
I feel the same way about the Catholics.
If they can't self-police then they're doing more harm than good. That's their responsibility. If they can't meet it, they clearly don't have a mandate from $DEITY
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fleecing morons. If I could do it, I probably would.
Religion is bad but scientology is even worse.
The right to give people nonsensical advice is what freedom of religion is about. I think people who believe you can pray away germs are dead wrong. I also think their opinions deserve 100% legal protections.
The USA has a rather terrific record on Freedom of Religion. That's one tradition we haven't screwed up yet. France is another story, they have a truly dreadful record. This article is about France.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxation by its very nature requires a degree of oversight which perforce requires the government to have effective regulatory capacity.
So they aren't a business. They have strict limitations on what they can do with their money that don't apply to businesses. And those limitations don't require the kinds of oversight required for businesses.
I can see how the woman bilked out of money could file a case against the church but how in the hell does the lady who was fired have a case? Shouldn't that be a suit between her and her former employer?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
All of religion is fraud:
I'm not Catholic, but where I live the Catholic Church does a lot of good works. In the mid-80s the Catholic-run hospital was the only one where the nuns were taking in AIDs patients. When interviewed, they stated that that's what Jesus said to do. The United church runs a lot of good programs to feed the hungry and get runaways off the streets... And on and on - All because of Jesus's teachings.
I'm not aware of a single 'good work' our local "Church" of Scientology does.
There wouldn't be as many AIDS patients if the church hadn't condemned condoms as an unnatural perversion of God's law.
between a legitimate religion and a tax shelter? We can't use the old "They interfere in politics" because pastors of all the major churches do all the time...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Religious freedom does not imply or require that religious institutions be exempt from fraud and racketeering laws. What you're suggesting is not religious freedom -- it's blanket criminal immunity.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
The first time I drove down Franklin Avenue in Los Angeles and saw the sign in front of their building that says "Church Of Scientology Celebrity Centre International" I was pretty sure this wasn't really a religion.
Apparently, in France the government has the authority to distinguish between a cult and a religion. The U.S. government (and its states) would be expressly prohibited from having this authority by the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. I think the U.S. Constitution is correct in this regard. Government shouldn't have the authority to declare whether any religion is legitimate or not.
In France, the difference between a cult and a religion is whether they preach being open to the rest of society, versus hiding what you're doing from others.
From a society standpoint, this is the only important criteria.
By that definition, CoS is a cult.
Please explain to me why your particular skyfairy is more credible than the next guy's, without resorting to authority, antiquity, or cultural predominance, which are all invalid forms of evidence. I've yet to see anyone pull this off. That's why nearly every modern religion has a "There is no god but [X]" rule. Those universalists which don't do so generally claim something like "All gods are effectively the same, we just know better than the guy down the street what He wants". Go on, pile it deeper.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
And, if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. Any more strawman arguments to be shot down?
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Because they should all be held liable for the actions of a few miscreants. That's how we do things, right? So, let's talk about the atheist Josef Stalin...
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Yeah, because there was no religion until the federal government of the US stopped taxing them. Totally true.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I don't see any straw man. To qualify as a strawman argument, I would need to misrepresent an opponent's argument, then attack that misrepresentation. All I did was point out that while the Catholic church can do good, that doesn't mean it cannot also do harm.
France has only had it intermittently and has not developed a strong culture of tolerance.
I think the French are more proud of their culture and heritage than a lot of people give them credit for. When people
from the outside come in and try to change things that's when you get into trouble. That gives them that certain je ne sais quoi that makes others respect and others hate them. If I could, I'd probably move to France but then again their a bunch of socialist pinko commie bastards anyway but they do have nice museums.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Of course it implies that. As institutions they aren't subject to the state. Fraud implies the state has the right to evaluate the truth of their claims, under religious freedom they do not. Racketeering implies the state can find the religious institution and not just individuals guilty of crime, the state does not have that right. So you understand the implications perfectly well, that's what religious freedom means.
All states give religions they like to operate that's not religious freedom.
Big difference: Christianity has pretty much grown up. The number of recent incidents of people killing in the name of Christianity are rather few, and of small scale.
Islam is where Christianity was several hundred years ago, with a rather large amount of religious violence associated, and a shockingly large percentage of adherents agreeing with intolerance towards other religions. A majority of Muslims in many Muslim countries still call for the death penalty for apostates, and in Britain that's still one third among younger Muslims. Further statistics involving implementation of Sharia (and enforcing it on the non-Muslim population) and others are scary.
What's worse is Muslims lying to themselves. Take Pakistan, where three quarters of Muslims think those of other religions are very free to practice their faith, but Pakistan is one of the worst countries for non-Muslim religious freedom. They don't see their own oppression. They don't even see the death penalty for leaving Islam as being a violation of religious freedom.
... we could prosecute the fraudsters raking in big bucks in America posing as faith healers and mediums.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
It's not about credibility but adherence to the law. I expect France has dozens if not hundreds of religions, sects and possibly even cults operating within its borders in a completely lawful fashion. Scientology clearly wasn't and had the book thrown at it.
Who said I had a skyfairy at all?
I get fed up of all the idiots crawling out of the woodwork and talking crap. I strongly suspect the troll I replied to has never been out of his/her home country, to anywhere there is a different culture, meeting people, or seeing how anyone else but them lives. I've been through the Middle East (can't claim to have visited the UAE or Kuwait, but have been through the airports in both countries) and have spent a combined period of several months visiting Indonesia, not the tourist areas, or staying in hotels, but living in normal folks' houses as a guest and spending time with them.
Anyone is entitled to believe in any God (or pantheon of Gods) they want. They can believe their religion is the only true religion if they want; religion is about faith, after all. I'm just sick of people who put down other people based on their ill-informed, prejudiced view of things. You want to write about someone's culture/religion in a critical manner, you'd better actually see how those people live or practise their religions first.
He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
The government has complete power over corporations like an OS over apps. Our problem is the root kits and privilege escalation... and our "I.T. people" are morons or corrupt.
Scientology exploits corporate powers AND religious powers together; both which go too far. The government HAD the power to define corporations and all their limitations. A religion which incorporates (non-profit or for-profit) has no special rights; if they want religious freedom, they can have it-- WITHOUT incorporating. Just as they can have schools that teach the world is flat and receive 0 tax dollars.
You can fix the problem without touching religious freedom (unless your religion is corporatism... arguably, a major religion in the USA today.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The CoS is concerned with a profit not the Prophet.
Terrific \Ter*rif"ic\, a. [L. terrificus; fr. terrere to
frighten + facere to make. See Terror, and Fact.]
Causing terror; adapted to excite great fear or dread;
terrible; as, a terrific form; a terrific sight.
[1913 Webster]
I would tend to agree. If you disagree, please read up on Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Mormon Extermination Order.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I didn't say perfect I said, terrific or if you want excellent. The Mormon order was an unfortunate incident involving a group that had been involved in multiple violent confrontations having to do with land. It could have and should have been handled better. It is very bad policy and Missouri has apologized for it. But it wasn't pure religious discrimination it was an overreaction to a criminal organization of a religious character. The Mormon discrimination a few decades later having to do with polygamy is a far better example of pure religious discrimination.
That being said, I'll stand by what I said. Every country has problems in its history. But the ones in the USA, like that are very rare.
In that case, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the matter. To call that an excellent record (and this is only getting into the Mormons) is incorrect. There are of course other examples out there unrelated to the Mormons, and far more current. Those were just among the more egrigious ones I could think of off the top of my head.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I think you have unrealistic expectations for a government. As Joe Biden likes to say, "don't compare me to the all-mighty, compare me to the alternative".
I insist upon unrealistic expectations for my govenrment. Giving them a pass when they slip up doesn't do anything but make it easier for them to do it again.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Holding people to unrealistic expectations makes them stop trying.
I don't believe in people staying in politics or government long enough to reach that point. If a person wants to be in government, I consider that a disqualifier. I seek men with the reluctance of George Washington, and the same man's humility in admitting that he felt that the tasks given him exceeded his abilities. The arrogance of modern politicians disgusts me.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I imagine lots of things about George Washington would have been disqualifiers if you knew him. You are asking for the impossible. People have to run for office, which means they have to want the office. That's our system. There are one of 3 reasons they want the office:
for love of power
to get experience for other office
for money i.e. they intend to help their friends via. the public trust
There are no angels that are going to run for office. Politics is about humans ruling humans.
I'm quite confident our philosophies are irreconcilable.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!