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?"

47 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 arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Godwin in the first post. I'm proud, /.

    2. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who don't haven't heard the story:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion, a position that has more-or-less lead to an all-out war by Scientology against the whole country. In fact, one of the most bizarre revelations of the Scooter Libby scandal was that Tom Cruise had been actively lobbying Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, and the Bush administration to actually PUT U.S. SANCTIONS on Germany for it (you can't make this shit up).

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

      One step at a time. First you do the churches no one likes. Then you do the churches very few like. Then you wait a couple of generations and you can do blanket associations across all churches.

      Your way leads to revolt. My way takes 2-3 generations but is done peacefully.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cult of Scientology is a criminal organization. Churches don't harass people who leave, so we can be confident that Scientology is a cult, rather than a church. You seem to either be a member of the cult, or to be a very stupid person. I'd be fine with removing tax exempt status from all these fantasy-based groups, but especially that of toxic, blackmailing cults.

    7. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Basically, Germany has refused to recognize Scientology as a religion,

      To clarify: Nobody in Germany claims officially that Scientology isn't a religion, but it isn't a "religious organisation" that gives it any legal or tax advantages.

      You can declare anything you want to be a religion. But for tax advantages, you need more. You need an organisation that tries to be beneficial to society. And that is where Scientology fails quite badly. A religion that said "I believe X, Y and Z and don't give a shit about anybody" wouldn't be a religious organisation the way German laws require it. And a religion that says "I believe X, Y and Z, I exploit people where I can, and I do what I can to hurt my perceived enemies" has no chance.

    8. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ah.. The Nazis' way...

    9. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by jbolden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Churches don't harass people who leave

      Harassing people who are not members is illegal.

      However, not only do churches do this but the right to church discipline was one of the reasons the America was a land of religious freedom. Mennonite churches (think the Amish), most certainly do harass those who quit. And that Baptist tradition was all during the 19th century quite common. The LDS church, Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of the stricter Protestant faiths do this. And of course Islam does this. So no what you are saying is just false.

    10. 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.
    11. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make the religious institutions choose - tax exemption or copyright on their texts. You can't have both, you have to pick one.

      I think that would solve most problems.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. 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.
    13. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ckatko · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you've completely missed the important facts.

      Scientology is still a religion in Germany, but they don't qualify to be state recognized religious organization because they don't do anything to benefit he community. You can be believe Jimmy Buffet is your only ticket to paradise, but he's not gonna get a tax break unless he tells you to give back to the community.

      Likewise, you can call whatever you want "a company" but it's not going to be a company--and entitled to the benefits therein--unless it gets a business license.

      You can call yourself a cop all you want, but unless you pass the requirements to become a LEO, you're not a cop.

      That's the difference.

      Meanwhile, the other major religions you listed are all giving back to the community in great numbers. So they do qualify to be a state approved religion. So this is an entirely apples to oranges, reasonable contrast between major religions and Scientology. If Scientology wants to get tax breaks all they have to do (GASP) is start giving a shit about people and trying to help them. If that burden is too high for you to become a religion, I don't think I want you anywhere near a legislative job.

    14. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who appointed you the Godwin Nazi?

      lol. Is that a first?

    15. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a comparison of judgment. I'll allow it.

    16. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Umm... In 2-3 generations the Czech Republic will have a significantly lower percent of Atheists than it does today. You think the atheists are going to win a multi-generational war of ideology when they pop out kids below replacement level vs. an adversary which discourages birth control and consequently has average birthrates that double their population every couple of decades?

      If Stalin was trying to purge religion from the world 200 years later he did a shit job of it. Why do you think moral conservatives are opposed to education spending? Religious zealotry and birthrate decline with education attained(inverse relationship) such that a college educated public threatens the revenue streams of the churches.

      Church is a protection racket with Satan as the enforcer. Access to information and dissenting perspectives via the internet and a more connected society is what is causing a temporary dip in religious participation by the general public, but when the dystopia hits "peak misery" the church will be waiting with open arms to sell various alternative forms of euphoria like sexual repression "edging" and fasting. Nothing like a fairy tale's promise to escape accountability for your own victimization via economic castes, hedonism, and bad decision making.

    17. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Funny

      League Rules would side on the OP for sure.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    18. 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
    19. 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.

    20. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, pretty funny story.

      A local church that has been hosting naked paint parties and slumber-party Sundays with the "sexiest ladies on the beach" will now have to pay taxes on the property as officers investigate the church's practices, authorities said Tuesday. [...] Sheriff Frank McKeithen said it is a "blatant slap in the face" to taxpayers and law enforcement. "They're trying to get around the laws, and they're using the church to get there," McKeithen said.

      On the plus side, if that's enough justification to strip this church of its tax-exempt status, maybe it'll work on the scienos, too.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    21. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Informative
      He is referring to the famous quotation attributed to Niemöller

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    22. 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
    23. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well in many ways, Scientology is like Nazism.

      There, NOW we have gone full godwin.

    24. 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.

    25. 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.

    26. 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?
    27. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by xevioso · · Score: 4, Funny

      You've Godwinned the Godwin reference. I am now officially out of mein kampfort zone on this thread.

    28. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not American, but your IRS site says that to qualify under section 501c you must be an organization that is "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, [or] preventing cruelty to children or animals."

      Therefore, churches are tax exempt because they are religious organizations. That exemption category seems to be problematic because somebody has to decide what is a religious organization, so just eliminate it and let regular churches be tax free under the charitable organization exemption, or one of the others.

    29. 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
    30. Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead by multimediavt · · Score: 4, Informative

      That makes no sense. The 501(c)3 tax code doesn't mention churches or religion at all.

      Umm, yes it does:

      The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

      If only I had mod points...

  2. See Tony Ortega's take on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tonyortega.org/2015/04/13/if-you-want-the-irs-to-reexamine-scientologys-tax-exempt-status-its-time-to-get-real/

  3. 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.

  4. Tax exempt? No we don't revoke that by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Has the government - beyond just the white house - been inclined to revoke any tax exempt statuses in memory? I don't recall a single one. Just because Scientology has only a slightly higher public approval rate than ebola doesn't mean the government is likely to take a stand against them.

    Besides, even if it was revoked, they would likely just find a really good accountant / lawyer team and end up paying the same amount (or less) in taxes. Last year Prudential insurance paid no corporate income tax and received a $106 million rebate. Time Warner cable paid no taxes on $4.3B in profit, CBS no taxes on $1.8B. Scientology could probably do better on their taxes by registering as a corporation anyways.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  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. Re:What? Why discriminate? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam. Whether the followers have a belief or not is not something we can or should question, but we can certainly question the CoS.

    Anyhow, I am all for all religious organizations losing their tax free status. It's built on a religious statement from the bible, that one should give god what belongs to god and the emperor what belongs to the emperor. Being that the law is religious based, it breaches the separation of state and church, and should be found unconstitutional.

  7. 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
  8. What is or is not a religion? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My question here would be, how are we deciding what is or is not a religion? You have a bunch of people with a belief system organized together... I don't know how you distinguish between a social club, a cult, and a religion other than going by what they claim for themselves. However, whatever the legal method of determining the answer to that, it should be applied consistently.

    The process here should not be, "We think that Scientology is crazy and therefore not a valid religion, so we will revoke their legal protection on that basis." If there's no legal criteria to refer to, then you're setting a precedent for revoking the legal protections for any religion that you don't like. Go by the law. If the law is inadequate, then revise the law, but make sure you're comfortable with the revised law being applied consistently to all groups, including the group you belong to.

  9. Re:What? Why discriminate? by zarthrag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This. I tend to cringe at these megachurches that collect (metric) tons of money from poor people with the (false) promise of "health, wealth, and prosperity" - only to turn-around and spend hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to buy a fancy plane, property for a bigger parking-lot (I've personally seen that same church humiliate a poor, homeless person - by putting a suit jacket on them for service, then refuse to provide any kind of real material help.

    The bible's position on it is pretty simple, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." - "USA" is printed on the dollar, churches ought to pay taxes. Even money that falls out of the sky counts as income.

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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/
  14. 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?
  15. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

    The difference is, when you've been a faithful Catholic for 20 years, and tithed the whole time and whatever else, they don't take you aside one day and say "Hey, here's the super-duper secret Bible that almost no one gets to look at. You're going to love the chapter where after Jesus' resurrection, grey aliens from Proxima 9 took him on a 2-millienium mission to the stars."

    Scientology does just that. If you have no idea, going in, about what thetans are, or where they come from, you don't find out about them until you're so invested in Scientology that it's very difficult to break away from it. "It has to be true, look how much time and money I've invested in it."

    And that's another thing.

    Let's say, for whatever reason, that I want to study up on Christianity. Well, one option that a lot of churches have are discussion groups/classes on it, especially for people who are converting to that church.

    A lot of those classes are pretty cheap, if not outright free, and here's the important bit. You don't actually have to take them. I could, right now, walk into practically any church in the country and join, for free.

    In Scientology, if you want to learn more (or are peer-pressured to do so), every class costs money. The higher you go, the pricier the classes. Oh, but you can get around some of the costs by signing a billion-year contract.

    Yeah, that's all completely normal and above board.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  16. Re:What? Why discriminate? by Cito · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always tithe, but God doesn't want it.

    end of each month I take my money and throw it in air, whatever God wants he can take, whatever lands on ground I keep.

    so far he's never wanted any.

  17. Re:Horrible arguments. by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's it to you if the religious text is a trade secret, you have to fork over cash to read their texts, and as far as civil trials are concerned they are operating withing the law.

    The only people who are "victimized" by Scientology are Scientologists. It's not my problem nor yours.

    Every organization sued or otherwise attacked by Scientology is also "victimized" by them. Are you interested in warning people against joining Scientology by telling them what it's really about? Prepare to be sued for releasing their Trade Secrets. Scientology's victims are hardly limited to their membership.

    Now, if they break the law and really hurt someone - like institutionalizing the molesting small children - then that's for the cops to handle and they SHOULD be punished.

    If Tom Cruise and other movie stars want to spend millions supporting the Scientolgists, that's their problem, not mine. The only problem I have with Tom Cruise is I wish he'd make more kick-ass science fiction movies.

    But if we're gonna pick on kooky religions, I think we should start with the Mormons first. They actually have a history of murdering people.

    In 1978 11 high ranking Scientology leaders were convicted in one of the largest counts of internal espionage of the IRS and federal attorney's offices.
    In 1978 France convicted, in absentia, L Ron Hubbard of fraud.
    In 1988 in Spain the Spanish head of Scientology and ten others were arrested on charges of fraud, coercion and labour law violations.
    In 2009, a Paris court found the French Church of Scientology guilty of organized fraud and imposed a fine of nearly US$900,000.

    Noah Lottick, died 1990
    Lisa McPherson, died 1995