Scientology given 'credibilty' by British court
bianchimoon
Posts: 3,942
Today, British courts classed scientology as a religion. Could this be a clever move by the judicial system to undermine religion as a whole. To any rational person it's nonsense, so why did the judge class them as a religion unless it's to undermine religion as a whole by showing how easy it is for one person to 'design' a religion and potentially get the associated tax benefits that come with it?
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
0
Comments
-
As a Jedi, I can only say that this is a good step.bianchimoon wrote:Today, British courts classed scientology as a religion. Could this be a clever move by the judicial system to undermine religion as a whole. To any rational person it's nonsense, so why did the judge class them as a religion unless it's to undermine religion as a whole by showing how easy it is for one person to 'design' a religion and potentially get the associated tax benefits that come with it?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
bianchimoon wrote:Today, British courts classed scientology as a religion. Could this be a clever move by the judicial system to undermine religion as a whole. To any rational person it's nonsense, so why did the judge class them as a religion unless it's to undermine religion as a whole by showing how easy it is for one person to 'design' a religion and potentially get the associated tax benefits that come with it?
He might just be a massive top gun fan0 -
Set of stories that adherents are required to believe? Check.
Stories are the most unbelievable cr@p? Check.
Set of rules/guidelines to follow? Check.
Rules/guidelines are bizarre, pointless or impractical? Check.
No proof or evidence offered for any of the above? Check.
Large number of believers? Check.
Yep, it's a religion.Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
XM-057 rigid 29er0 -
If Scientology was a real religion there would be some fundamentalists prepared to kill for it. A religion is only a religion when it has been used to motivate the 'masses' to kill other masses that believe something slightly different.0
-
... Or to male a significant difference to peoples lives regardless of whether they believe something slightly different0
-
It would have more credibility as a religion if they published some sort of creed that non-believers could look at and make a decision over.
As it is, it's only accessible to those who have paid over money up front, I can't see that the ruling will stick unless that aspect is altered. The 'charitable' status will be the problem.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Ah, but that's the difference bwtween religion and faith. I can imagine that, individually, Scientologists might believe that there is something in their lives that they can't understand and develop a back-story to explain it. They have faith in their story. Faith is good (though sometimes misplaced).Mikey23 wrote:... Or to male a significant difference to peoples lives regardless of whether they believe something slightly different
Then there's the religious aspect. Somebody from the CoS produced a book of 'accepted beliefs' which are taught as though they are facts and members believe them because they are told that it is a truth, despite them being so outrageously bizarre that they must be made up by a science fiction writer. Same with the Mormons, except that was a book (or books) that were discovered in a cave, or something similar, in the States.
Followers of religions can then be manipulated into into doing what they are told. This is why revolutions usually ban religions (especially 'foreign' ones) and then allow a state-endorsed version to appear later. Govts aren't happy with the population having loyalties elsewhere so they ban them, create a vacuum, then fill the vacuum with Govereligion.0 -
Wasn't L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer before he became a deity? Quite a career advancement there then. I've always regarded scientologists, Mormons, JWs etc as cults and I'm surprised at the decision of the court. Which opens the way to charitable status and avoidance of corporation tax and a degree of public acceptance that they don't deserve
@gm your points are valid. Many wars have been fought quite wrongly in the name of religion by massaging of public opinion by people in power for their own self interest. I think the beeb is doing this in many ways right now. I thought that the tired old comfy cliches were coming out again. I'm pleased they are not because the issues are much more complex. You won't hear about the good things that happen in the name of religion because they ain't newsworthy and people of faith generally don't boast about them0 -
@bm... Don't think there is a judicial conspiracy to undermine religion. Just a well argued case by smart and well paid lawyers. Seems to fit in well with the laissez faire moral relativistic society we have decided to build for ourselves. A creator god would be a little bit above and beyond the designs of man methinks...0
-
I'm just wondering why those on here who feel the need to slag it off are actually concerned. It makes no difference to me so let them get on with it.0
-
Your taxes will go up to compensate if they get off tax free.Keith1983 wrote:I'm just wondering why those on here who feel the need to slag it off are actually concerned. It makes no difference to me so let them get on with it.
It does affect you directly. Assuming you pay tax.
Edit:- And while they are at it, they should abolish all religions tax exemption. Profit is profit.
If they use their money for good, then it will be written off. If they retain it, it should be taxed.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Your taxes will go up to compensate if they get off tax free.Keith1983 wrote:I'm just wondering why those on here who feel the need to slag it off are actually concerned. It makes no difference to me so let them get on with it.
It does affect you directly. Assuming you pay tax.
Good point. After all that's gone on in recent years both with individuals and big business, I doubt if Joe Public has much of an appetite for further forms of tax-dodging.
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
A code of belief formulated with the intent of concentrating power and/or money into the hands of an elite few....forgive me but isn't that the definition of a religion? It's difficult to think of a criticism of Scientology that you couldn't level at any religion except for the flavour that you happen to believe in (if any).
I was skeptical about this when I read it, but then I saw how happy the couple were on the TV and though 'why not?'. Marriage is fundamentally a legal framework that recognises a promise that you make to your future spouse, and it's not necessarily religious in the first place - so where's the harm?0 -
rhext wrote:A code of belief formulated with the intent of concentrating power and/or money into the hands of an elite few....forgive me but isn't that the definition of a religion? It's difficult to think of a criticism of Scientology that you couldn't level at any religion except for the flavour that you happen to believe in (if any).
I was skeptical about this when I read it, but then I saw how happy the couple were on the TV and though 'why not?'. Marriage is fundamentally a legal framework that recognises a promise that you make to your future spouse, and it's not necessarily religious in the first place - so where's the harm?
I doubt anyone has a problem with the wedding itself.
"Five Supreme Court judges ruled the church was a "place of meeting for religious worship"."
That's the part for concern.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
^ This.Giraffoto wrote:Set of stories that adherents are required to believe? Check.
Stories are the most unbelievable cr@p? Check.
Set of rules/guidelines to follow? Check.
Rules/guidelines are bizarre, pointless or impractical? Check.
No proof or evidence offered for any of the above? Check.
Large number of believers? Check.
Yep, it's a religion.
It makes me laugh when I hear people from mainstream religions slagging off Scientology when the stories behnd their own beliefs are only marginally less ridiculous
. (I've married into a familty of Catholics so I get this drivel first hand. Doesn't help being a big fan of Father Ted and Monty Python). "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Giraffoto wrote:Set of stories that adherents are required to believe? Check.
Stories are the most unbelievable cr@p? Check.
Set of rules/guidelines to follow? Check.
Rules/guidelines are bizarre, pointless or impractical? Check.
No proof or evidence offered for any of the above? Check.
Large number of believers? Check.
Yep, it's a religion.
Based on that checklist, is the British tabloid press a religion? I'm not certain point number 4 on the list will improve in the post-Leveson climate.
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
Keith1983 wrote:I'm just wondering why those on here who feel the need to slag it off are actually concerned. It makes no difference to me so let them get on with it.
You obviously haven't read up on the behaviour of this scientology cult to past members to say, "so let them get on with it" Give 'em credibility... what next can they lobby to have to it taught in schools.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
daviesee wrote:rhext wrote:A code of belief formulated with the intent of concentrating power and/or money into the hands of an elite few....forgive me but isn't that the definition of a religion? It's difficult to think of a criticism of Scientology that you couldn't level at any religion except for the flavour that you happen to believe in (if any).
I was skeptical about this when I read it, but then I saw how happy the couple were on the TV and though 'why not?'. Marriage is fundamentally a legal framework that recognises a promise that you make to your future spouse, and it's not necessarily religious in the first place - so where's the harm?
I doubt anyone has a problem with the wedding itself.
"Five Supreme Court judges ruled the church was a "place of meeting for religious worship"."
That's the part for concern.
But it is religious worship, isn't it? To state otherwise would imply that there's some sort of fundamental truth behind the others which makes them different from Scientology. And since the only belief that most of the 'mainstream' religions have in common is that the others are wrong, it puts a minimum of all but one of them in exactly the same category as Scientology. The remaining one is the one that really has managed to identify the fundamental truth. If you happen to know which one that is, there are a lot of people who would be interested.0 -
I think that woman is the daughter of someone fairly important who's a scientologist and politician.
This is all part of a targeted campaign to gain charity status for the Scientology racket. It is more a cult-cum-pyramid scheme rather than a religion. It should be banned for the abuses and harassment it has been proved to commit.
And of course, this is no "ordinary Scientologist wants to get married" story.
She is the daughter of Peter Hodkin, Solicitor, of East Grinstead - Scientologist, responsible for sending out hundreds of threatening letters to anti-Scientology protesters under instruction of the cult, He's also Scientology's official lawyer in the UK, and "copyright holder/enforcer" for Scientology texts in the UK.0 -
Fair point. I happen to think that they are all nonsense.rhext wrote:But it is religious worship, isn't it? To state otherwise would imply that there's some sort of fundamental truth behind the others which makes them different from Scientology. And since the only belief that most of the 'mainstream' religions have in common is that the others are wrong, it puts a minimum of all but one of them in exactly the same category as Scientology. The remaining one is the one that really has managed to identify the fundamental truth. If you happen to know which one that is, there are a lot of people who would be interested.
IMHO, The difference with this one is that while it is obviously as loopy as the others (if not more so), it is new and as such could be nipped in the bud. The others have too many established fundamentalists for that. Which is a shame.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
DavidBelcher wrote:Based on that checklist, is the British tabloid press a religion?
No, I'm pretty sure that most of the religions have something about hope, salvation and better times ahead.0 -
Also a fair point.daviesee wrote:
Fair point. I happen to think that they are all nonsense.rhext wrote:But it is religious worship, isn't it? To state otherwise would imply that there's some sort of fundamental truth behind the others which makes them different from Scientology. And since the only belief that most of the 'mainstream' religions have in common is that the others are wrong, it puts a minimum of all but one of them in exactly the same category as Scientology. The remaining one is the one that really has managed to identify the fundamental truth. If you happen to know which one that is, there are a lot of people who would be interested.
IMHO, The difference with this one is that while it is obviously as loopy as the others (if not more so), it is new and as such could be nipped in the bud. The others have too many established fundamentalists for that. Which is a shame.
I could further observe that another thing that makes this one different is that the manipulating, greedy leeches who invented it in the first place are still largely alive and milking it.
I'd still let them marry their followers, however. I'd just make sure they continued paying their tax as well.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... k-religion
Bit of a rant here but it gives the basic idea and tries to explain why Scientology might be considered a cult and not a religion. Seems like they won their battle in the US in 1993 and are in the process of winning it here now and have invested a large amount of time and money in doing so0 -
Organised religions get tax breaks on account of their benefit to wider society.
Is Scientology planning charitable works?0 -
They would probably argue that they do but it seems to most benefit the hierarchy and the organisation0
-
bloody designer religions, what next the church of 'posh'n'becks'All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
0
-
That xenu 75 sounds like one cool deity... Sounds much more exciting than Methodism ...0
