Slashdot Mirror


'We the People' Petition To Revoke Scientology's Tax Exempt Status

An anonymous reader writes: There has been a lot of interest in the activities of the Church of Scientology recently, especially since the release of Alex Gibney's documentary Going Clear. A petition against tax-exempt status for Scientology has been started on the U.S. White House petition website. If it receives more than 100,000 signatures, it will qualify for an official White House response. Even Slashdot has had its own run-ins with Scientology in the past — one of many internet sites to face legal threats from the Church. Has the time come for Scientology go "clear?"

40 of 700 comments (clear)

  1. A first: We should follow Germany's lead by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, they got the Nazi thing wrong. But they definitely got the Scientology thing RIGHT.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by netbuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure this was an actual instance of Godwin's Law in action, since the comment does not *compare* anyone or anything to Hitler or Nazism, but merely makes reference to Nazism. I am not a lawyer, however.

    2. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No Germany didn't get this right. Scientology has engaged in some very questionable behavior. As has Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism and all the associated sects. State sanctioned attacks on religions because the state doesn't like some of their acts are potentially very very bad things. Any kind of governmental abuse starts by picking an unpopular victim and then using that as a precedent for the real target.

      Officials associated with The Church of Scientology have committed crimes. They deserved to be punished for those crimes. The Church of Scientology in so far as it has institutionally cooperated with those crimes deserves to lose lawsuits and pay damages.

      That's vastly different than giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with.

    3. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.

    4. Re: A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What the fuck are you smoking?? They are not attacking any religion. It's just that Scientology doesn't for their legal definition of religion, and it falls in the category of for-profit enterprise (which it is). Are you fucking stupid?? Or are you a Scientology apologist?? Asshole!

    5. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's vastly different than giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with.

      Honestly, Scientology is a religion founded by a science fiction writer who famously said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

      They use some unscientific piece of equipment to measure people and tell them about the concentration of aliens or somesuch, and then charge them to fix the issue -- and apparently keep charging them. I'm also fairly certain the medical community doesn't recognize Dianetics as being anything other than gibberish.

      Sorry, but it's awfully hard to take it seriously as a religion ... it has about as much credibility as being a Jedi or a Pastafarian.

      So, what exactly is our threshold for saying "sure, your wacky religion can have tax exempt status"? Because my "Church of the Big Titties" could definitely use some tax free status if we're just handing it out like that, that way we can have more "Sacraments of the Holy Wet T-Shirt" while imbibing "The Blessed Beer".

      You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.

      Can I just make up any old crap and call it a religion? Or are there rules about it? Clearly logical consistency or proof aren't required.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a totally different issue. I think its a very bad idea. The government has the ability through taxes and subsidies to either encourage or destroy them. People won't die for businesses. Subject religions to the same regulations as businesses and religions tied to the state can use the state to persecute rival sects and religions. Which creates religions which are underground and hostile to the state.

      And for what? How much revenue do you think you'll get? The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?

    7. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then lets avoid picking on Scientology and revoke tax exempt status for all churches.

      Leaving aside the problems this would likely pose under American law, in the United States it's generally the case that non-profit corporations are not taxed at any level of government. At the local level they're exempt from property taxes. At the state level they're exempt from sales and income taxes. At the federal level they're exempt from income taxes.

      Doing what you wish would require a wholesale revision of the tax code at every level of Government. It would be fought tooth and nail by countless different organizations, religious and secular. In short, it's a political non-starter.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?

      Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're kvetching about giving the state the authority to destroy religions it disagrees with, I have yet to see why we should acknowledge it as actually being a religion.

      You're preaching to the choir condemning Scientology, I doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees with you there. I certainly don't. That said, can you at least acknowledge the frightening potential for abuse if we empower some Government bureaucrat to determine what is and is not a legitimate religion? How do you draw the line? There's no objective test. You can't go by age, that shuts out LDS, UUism, Wiccans, and a bunch of others. There's a lot of people that would welcome them being shut out, but I'm sure that's not what you're advocating for.

      The only fair way to do it would be to treat all non-profit corporations (which is how all churches are incorporated in the US) the same. Leave religion out of it. If you want to tighten the rules for non-profit corporations you might find more support, there's plenty of abuse there, mostly in the secular world, but it's still a tough needle to thread.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point of giving tax breaks IN THE FIRST PLACE, is to encourage charitable work in the community. If they are not doing that, then why are we giving them a pass?

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The obvious solution is to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions altogether. It's not just Scientology taking advantage of this, it's so-called megachurches and televangelists too. If they want to have a charitable division, fine, but a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.

      "Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

    12. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Holi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which they do with impunity any way.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    13. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Holi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then I guess you should remove it from all non-profits too. Churches are tax-exempt not because of religion but because of their non-profit status.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    14. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by MitchDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ALL Religions should have tax exempt status revoked. They're all cults.

    15. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USA system has worked well for centuries why mess it up?

      Because there's a significant number of people here that are hostile towards religion in any shape or form. The mere fact that it exists drives them insane.

      As an atheist, I can safely say that my view of religion is essentially the same as towards people who believe in astrology, fairies or alien abductions, i.e. it's your problem

      The difference is that religions think they have the right to make it my problem too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re: A first: We should follow Germany's lead by HappyDrgn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Could I [...] start my own religion [...], and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule"

      Yes.

    17. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Churches are tax exempt because they're churches. If they satisfy the requirements of a tax exempt non-profit or charity, that's great. If not, pay your taxes. Scientology, for example, would likely fail quite badly as a non-profit.

    18. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good for you. There are plenty of Atheists that feel the need to condemn people of faith; you walk up to that line yourself by equating their belief with a belief in astrology, fairies, and alien abductions. More militant atheists feel the need to preach their lack of faith to the masses in a manner that's every bit as obnoxious as a born again southern baptist, with a healthy dose of smug superiority added for good measure.

      Personally, I'm Agnostic, because anybody (militant theist or atheist) that thinks they have all the answers scares the shit out of me. True believers in anything, religion, atheism, a political party, whatever, they are the people that frighten me the most.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by blackanvil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a church wants non-profit status, they should need to separate the religious elements from the charity. Oh, your small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations he moves between has nothing to worry about, but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.

    20. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but if a megachurch can afford a huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos, nope, that's a for-profit enterprise, even if you cook the books so there's no money left over at the end of the day.

      I'm not disagreeing with you, because I think that stuff is disgusting. But. As a programmer, how would you write a function that returns a boolean value: "is this church a legitimate non-profit?" Because that's ultimately what you're asking, and I'm having a hard time formulating such a thing.

      Test cases:

      * A small-town church with a pastor who has four different congregations: True
      * A huge all-glass cathedral, $ multi-million salaries for the charismatic preacher begging for more donations, and toys like private jets and limos: False
      * A small local all-volunteer charity that feeds the homeless: True
      * A small, all-volunteer, poorly run charity who means well but sucks at their mission: True
      * A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who effectively uses their resources to do amazing things: True
      * A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who isn't very effective, but everyone agrees means well: True?
      * A large national charity with a well-paid CEO who doesn't effectively uses their resources: Um...

      Step one: agree on the test cases. Step two: specific the input parameters that lets you distinguish between outcomes. Step three: non-profit?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    21. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are confusing two different issues here. Atheism vs Theism is about Belief, Gnosticism vs Agnosticism is about Knowledge. My wife and I are both agnostic atheists. Neither one of use Know whether or not there is a god, but neither of us belive that one exists based on the available evidence and rational marshaled as justification for his/her/its existence. It is possible to be a Gnostic Atheist (Knowing and Believing in the absence of a deity), as well as an Agnostic Theist (believing in god without actually knowing). From my perspective, the truly scary to me are the Gnostic Theists who claim to know for certain that god exists, not because of any empirical evidence, but simply because... Their counterparts, the Gnostic Atheists at least have a view that is consistent with observable phenomenon and are generally willing to be convinced of their error with sufficient evidence. I've had Gnostic Theists on the other hand tell me flat out that there is no evidence they would accept of god's nonexistence to even open up the possibility that they might be wrong. That kind of absolutism is truly dangerous.

      Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion and therefore a "true believer" in atheism is an oxymoron. It's like if you ask someone what there favorite cola is. The majority will say Coke, a close second will be Pepsi, some percentage will name far less popular colas, and some will say they don't like cola at all. That last group is the functional equivalent of an atheist. To say that their favorite cola is "None" is not really correct because it presumes that they like cola at all, which is not the case.

      That being said, there are assholes in any group, and one should not confuse the views and actions of the asshole as representative or indicative of the group. And in defense of some atheists I've seen accused of being militant (my wife being one), what believers often perceive as being militant is actually being unapologetic. My wife's family has on several occasions attempted to engage my wife in religious discussions only to get frustrated when she turns there attempts at conversion (which no matter what they claim, was the true purpose of these conversations) into a dialog where she explains her beliefs and tries to make them understand her view. They view her attempts to turn the tables as being disrespectful and rude because they start from the assumption that god exists and any discussion of the possibility that he might not be real is inherently wrong and disrespectful to god. As the previous poster pointed out, there are lots of things people believing for which there is no credible evidence. Just because someone believes in something does NOT mean I have to show respect for that belief. However, lack of respect for the belief does not grant me permission to show disrespect to the believer. The religious in this world enjoy a privileged status in most society and many view that privilege as their right, instead of as an artifact of previous intolerance of different religions or the non-religious. Therefore they have a hard time not seeing my lack of respect for their belief as a lack of respect for them as a person.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  2. What? Why discriminate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is scientology any less of a religion than christianity or islam or mormons or any other belief system? If its ok for christians, it should be ok for scientologists, or it should be not ok for anyone to have tax exempt status.

    1. Re:What? Why discriminate? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would be ok with removing all tax exempt statuses from churches as long as charity work was deductible for them. We could then see which churches really do put their money where their mouth is in charitable work and donations. It would also encourage any religions which don't put much effort in helping the poor to change that behavior rather quickly.

    2. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Show me another religion that hides their religious texts behind the concept of "trade secrets".

      I mean, I can go to pretty much any church and read a Bible. Heck, I can buy a copy at practically any bookstore. Same with the Qur'an. Or the Torah.

      I can have religious discussions with Christians (of varying denominations) or Muslims or Jews and find out pretty much anything I want to know about their religion and it doesn't cost me anything other than time.

      You want to officially learn about Scientology? Start forking over the cash. (Yes, officially. According to the Church of Scientology, practicing Scientology outside of the auspices of the CoS is bad, mmkay? Not even the Pope tries to insist that you can't be a real Christian unless you're Catholic.)

      A lot of that stuff that we know about the Church of Scientology... like Xenu, and the Galactic Confederation, and all that (from the OT III docs)? We're not supposed to know that. We only know about it because of civil trials involving the CoS, and they tried to suppress that stuff under the concept of it being trade secrets.

      So yeah, show me another religion that has trade secrets. Where's that other major religion that you don't learn the 'true faith' until and unless you've invested a substantial whack of cash?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:What? Why discriminate? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam.

      False dichotomy. Why can't it be both? All belief organizations are financial scams, at least to unbelievers. All financial scams require some degree of faith from their victims.

    4. Re:What? Why discriminate? by RDW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam.

      Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of all major religions: free online, or $10 for the paperback. Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.

      Cost of reading the most sacred beliefs of CoS: $380,000 (2006 pricing: http://www.xenu.net/archive/pr... ). Discounts available by signing a billion year contract and working full time in return for food.

    5. Re:What? Why discriminate? by JackieBrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the N.F.L., N.H.L., P.G.A. and L.G.P.A are tax exempt
      http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...

    6. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should charity be deductible, for churches or anyone?

      Because the point of government is to support the general welfare of the population, and that's what taxes are supposed to be for. If you're doing your share of social support directly, it's rather unfair to also require you to contribute the full amount to the government pool.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was agreeing with the thread until this point.

      Here's the problem with your statement:

      "prime real estate" got that way over a very long time. In the downtown parts of pretty much every major city, those churches were built long ago, when the land was essentially considered unsuitable for anything else (for commerce, farming, industry etc). Many of these places have, over time, become part church, part museum, part heritage - for both its congregation *and* the city it sits in.

      Bringing down crushing property taxes on such places would eventually force any religion out of a downtown area, as it almost does for private residents now. It's bad enough that most downtown areas have pushed out anything except for ultra-wealthy corporate and private interests... if it weren't for tax exemption, the museums, churches, libraries, and most other public edifices would have been driven out of the city long ago. Now you want to start eroding that? Sure, you may say it would stop there, but fact is, it won't... someone else will find another reason to start relocating museums out to the 'burbs in order to free up uber-profitable land, then someone else entirely will start whining that big-assed libraries full of paper books on "prime real estate" are totally unnecessary in this digital age, so maybe we should just, you know...

      For every "palatial manor" your proposal would dismantle, at least 2-3 small rectory houses, convents/monasteries, strip-mall-churches, *schools*, etc would be forced on the auction block, or funds would be diverted from actual charitable efforts just to pay the property tax bill (money is fungible that way). Note that I haven't even come near bringing up all the religious-run hospitals in the nation and the impact on them (there's a whole lot more than you think - enough that their absence would cripple healthcare rather harshly nation-wide.)

      TL;DR - This thing is a bit more complex than you might realize, given the blanket statement. Find a better way

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. All religions are cults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not just Scientologism. Shouldn't we be reexamining all tax exempt organizations that promote a religious belief as their sole claim to tax exempt? Run a soup kitchen, great, soup kitchen is tax exempt. Run an empire with a soup kitchen, the empire should not be tax exempt- true for scientologists and Christians.

  4. No. by NReitzel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First off, whether or not anyone thinks they are whacky or not, they are in fact a Religion, by all the criteria that count.

    Second, elminating their tax exempt status will set loose unbridled lobbying efforts. Look at the history of what happened when the NRA was denied tax exempt status. An otherwise annoying bunch of gun nuts suddenly became a major political player.

    Don't play with fire.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they are in fact a Religion, by all the criteria that count.

      Some might observe that they're also a criminal organization, by all criteria that count.

  5. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a lot of experience with the We the People petitions. Specifically, how they don't work like people think they do.

    How people think it works: You gather enough signatures and then somehow, you introduce bills to congress with your stated goal
    How it actually works: A white house rep sends you a generically worded statement about how in this case, the IRS is the agency in control of determining tax exempt status of the church.

    There have been dozens of petitions for Westburough baptist church and Scientology and they always get the same response. "I have no control over this".

  6. FWIW by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a Christian, and I would prefer that there is no such thing as a 'religious' exemption from taxation. To me, that's contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state and is an example of the state's recognition of religion (if not the establishment of an official religion, of course).

    No, simply churches should have to file as non-profits, and hew to the rules (including auditing, etc) therefor. If they do, great. If they don't, too bad.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except, churches aren't busy doing business and earning profits. They survive off the voluntary contributions of members, who have already had this salary taxed. Why should the government tax it twice? Clearly (from an accounting perspective) it wouldn't be double-taxed if church members just individually bought things for the church they attend.

      Money contributed to the church is money pooled in aggregate for the benefit of the contributors, and really no different. Churches do pay tax on income from rental properties and the like.

      I work for a corporation that already paid taxes. Why should the government tax it twice.
      I paid income taxes. When I go buy something why should the government tax it twice.

    2. Re:FWIW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      have you seen some of these big churches lately? they're more business and less charity than you think.... and they make big bucks, too.

  7. What are your definitions? by mothlos · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have many problems with the Scientologists and how they have conducted themselves, but there are many religious organizations from the Catholic church to televangalists to numerous unaffiliated organizations which have done horrible things to their communities and congregations at various times. Scientologists aren't even the only ones who have or currently put a price tag on better spiritual outcomes (e.g. tithing).

    Scientology's religious status should not be in question. Just because it is new and it is based on a set of beliefs which you think are goofy doesn't make their spiritual or philisophical claims any less legally legitimate.

    If the leadership of Scientology are involved in things which we generally find morally reprehensible we should certainly question why this state of affairs has been allowed to continue and seek reforms to address it. If they are in violation of our definitions of being a religious non-profit organization, that should also be pursued. To simply ask that an unpopular religious movement be stripped of legal recognition due to the misconduct of some of its leadership, however, is a political discrimination which we should be wary of. Americans' right to organize based on their shared belief regardless of what other people think of that belief is a protection we have traditionally valued and to erode it by selectively favouring some beliefs over others without clear, fair reasons is a dangerous precedent to adopt.

  8. Re:Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This just goes to show the dangers of relying on your own perception when it comes to issues like this. You can download a list of entities which lost their tax exempt status from the IRS themselves, which I am doing now, and (for those who automatically lose their status) it's a 20MB ZIP file containing text, so you can imagine how many records it contains. If their servers weren't so slow from over here I'd give you a precise number.

    Don't trust that you know everything - double check you've not fooled yourself or been fooled by someone else. That has two benefits: You learn, and you decrease the chances of looking foolish.

  9. Try doing it right next time by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be nice to see a petition that instead makes a cogent, fact-based, reasoned argument against the COS's legal eligibility for tax-exempt status, rather than a rant consisting of a bunch of unproven allegations, unspecified accusations of government corruption that sound like they come from conspiracy nuts, some borderline libel, with a couple facts thrown in. It wouldn't be that difficult to do, and it might actually make it awkward for the White House to dismiss, rather than making it easy by inviting them to defend their tax status as an example of how the U.S. defends "oppressed" religions.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/