Scientology - Yet Again

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Maybe this url says it all:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...s-to-deal-with-difficult-members-1403815.html

But then:

Most people have walked past high street shops outside which smiling youngsters offer free 'personality tests'. Russell Miller, in his biography of Hubbard, showed that Scientology is a monumental con and that its founder was a charlatan. Almost everything Hubbard said was palpably untrue - he claimed to have been awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in action, which was false; he claimed he was crippled and blinded at the end of the Second World War, also false. Despite these fabrications, dedicated loyalists believe Hubbard was a genius, the designer of a new path that could l

 

[marplots]

You really need to catch up on your reading if you are only up to 1994.

The tip off for me was the line about recently getting tax exempt status in the US. Recently? Then I checked the date on the article.

Then again, has much changed in the last 20 years?

 

[Bikewer]

Yeah, the Time cover article, "A Thriving Cult Of Greed...." was in '91.

 

[Weak Kitten]

The problem for the USA is that they cannot deny a religion tax exempt status as long as it follows the rather loose laws in order to retain that status. Many European countries try to avoid this sort of thing by having anti-cult laws but the USA is obsessive about their freedom of religion.

 

[hgc]

The problem for the USA is that they cannot deny a religion tax exempt status as long as it follows the rather loose laws in order to retain that status. Many European countries try to avoid this sort of thing by having anti-cult laws but the USA is obsessive about their freedom of religion.

The Church of Scientology is a big (though shrinking) business -- something of a combination self-help huckster outfit and mafia family. How they got the special deal they got from the IRS in the early 90's is still a mystery. They had been seeking it for decades prior.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You really need to catch up on your reading if you are only up to 1994.

The tip off for me was the line about recently getting tax exempt status in the US. Recently? Then I checked the date on the article.

Then again, has much changed in the last 20 years?

Woopsie. I just pulled the article from a couple of clicks into Google News. Nice to know that the Internet's memory lasts forever.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Russell Miller, in his biography of Hubbard, showed that Scientology is a monumental con and that its founder was a charlatan.

Interestingly, pretty much the exact same thing can be said for Mormonism.

 

[Brian-M]

The problem for the USA is that they cannot deny a religion tax exempt status as long as it follows the rather loose laws in order to retain that status. Many European countries try to avoid this sort of thing by having anti-cult laws but the USA is obsessive about their freedom of religion.

Any country that really cares about freedom of religion should eliminate any special tax-exempt status specific to religions, and let religious organizations enjoy the freedom of being treated the same as any other NPO.

Otherwise it's the government ends up getting to decide where to place the arbitrary division between what organizations are recognized as valid religions and what organizations are not (at least for taxation purposes).

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Any country that really cares about freedom of religion should eliminate any special tax-exempt status specific to religions, and let religious organizations enjoy the freedom of being treated the same as any other NPO.

Well said. It should be about equality, not about who recieves special treatment from the government.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

The Church of Scientology is a big (though shrinking) business -- something of a combination self-help huckster outfit and mafia family. How they got the special deal they got from the IRS in the early 90's is still a mystery. They had been seeking it for decades prior.

Surely they either recruited some high-ups in the IRS or got a member promoted to a high enough level to swing it.

 

[ddt]

Surely they either recruited some high-ups in the IRS or got a member promoted to a high enough level to swing it.

No. First they tried the blackmail and extortion route. After that failed, they harassed the IRS through the courts until it caved in.

 

[Beady]

Many European countries try to avoid this sort of thing by having anti-cult laws but the USA is obsessive about their freedom of religion.

Yes. It's one of the things I, and thousands of others, have fought for.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Woopsie. I just pulled the article from a couple of clicks into Google News. Nice to know that the Internet's memory lasts forever.

Just when you think we're making progress, something like THIS comes up two decades ago!

 

[hgc]

Surely they either recruited some high-ups in the IRS or got a member promoted to a high enough level to swing it.

If by "recruited," you mean blackmailed, then I'm with you.

ETA: Just saw ddt's follow-up. Yes, the lawsuit campaign. Did ever the US government buckle under such pathetic pressure before? This may be the 2nd biggest failure of the Clinton administration, after Rwanda.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Any country that really cares about freedom of religion should eliminate any special tax-exempt status specific to religions, and let religious organizations enjoy the freedom of being treated the same as any other NPO.

Otherwise it's the government ends up getting to decide where to place the arbitrary division between what organizations are recognized as valid religions and what organizations are not (at least for taxation purposes).

Absolutely. Very well said.

 

[desertgal]

Interestingly, pretty much the exact same thing can be said for Mormonism.

Name the religion that isn't based on a con.

 

[CORed]

Name the religion that isn't based on a con.

I strongly suspect that Joseph Smith an L. Ron Hubbard differ from Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, et. al primarily in that the first two lived recently enough that we know a lot more about them.

 

[desertgal]

I strongly suspect that Joseph Smith an L. Ron Hubbard differ from Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, et. al primarily in that the first two lived recently enough that we know a lot more about them.

I agree. Still, what religion isn't, looked at honestly, based on a con? I know it's a cynical point, but I don't think it's inaccurate.

ETA: That's not to say that Christ, et al, were confidence men on the order of Hubbard and Smith. I don't know if they were. I don't think anyone does. But, certainly, there's an element of a confidence game in the concept of "Christianity" established by the First Council of Nicaea, and in the modern Bible, etc.

 

[Cuddles]

I strongly suspect that Joseph Smith an L. Ron Hubbard differ from Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, et. al primarily in that the first two lived recently enough that we know a lot more about them.

Probably important, but I don't think it's the only difference. Another important difference is competition. If you want to be the next big thing, you need to have something to distinguish you from the crowd. Newer religions have to be even sillier than existing ones, because all the less silly things already have people believing in them.

 

[tsig]

Probably important, but I don't think it's the only difference. Another important difference is competition. If you want to be the next big thing, you need to have something to distinguish you from the crowd. Newer religions have to be even sillier than existing ones, because all the less silly things already have people believing in them.

I suspect they only seem less silly because we're used to them. A virgin birth, dead men returning to life and floating off to heaven on a cloud are actually crazier than finding a gold bible or learning the secrets of the universe from a SF writer.