Why exactly are we paying for this cult?
|
Scientology tends to attract derision and mockery rather than investigation, which is unfortunate. Apart from anything else, its belief system involving evil aliens, volcanoes and DC-8s is no more bizarre than most monotheistic religions. What Scientologists believe is irrelevant and not the business of the state or, really, anyone else. It is what they do that is of concern — what they do to those who refuse to comply with the cult’s internal rules, and what they do to those who reveal the abuse that goes on within the cult. There is widespread evidence — sworn evidence, by victims and perpetrators alike — of systemic abuses within the cult in the United States. Last November, Senator Nick Xenophon revealed evidence that similar abuses had occurred here in Australia. As is apparently standard Scientology practice, the evidence was met with a blanket denial by the cult, and attacks on those who had shown the courage to speak out against it. The Government Leader in the Senate, Chris Evans — who has yet to respond to Crikey’s request for information on what follow the Government has undertaken in response to Senator Xenophon’s material — has told advocates on a Senate inquiry into Scientology that the Government does not support one. “The Rudd Government’s view is that a Senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology is not justified on the basis of our view of the Parliament’s function. It is inappropriate to conduct an inquiry into a private and, in this case, religious organisation.” Putting aside that most days the Senate appears ready to order inquiries into the drop of a hat if it suits someone’s political purposes, Evans is completely wrong. The cult receives generous assistance from Australian taxpayers, via its tax-free status as a religion. An inquiry into what our tax dollars are supporting is entirely consistent with Parliament’s function. At the very least, the basis on which tax-free status is provided for religions must be urgently reviewed. Taxpayer support for any “religion” that may systematically harm its adherents makes the state complicit in that harm. |
|
|
|
21 Comments
Isn’t it amazing. If I told people I heard someone speaking to me nobody could see or hear, and they were telling me to do things, I’d get medication and a counsellor.
If that someone suddenly became ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’, I’d get tax free status and a political party ala Family First.
At least they’re consistent. They also refused several requests for an inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren, despite much more evidence of direct political interference, and at least as much personal suffering.
The British are light years ahead of us in this. In determining whether or not an organisation provides a public benefit, they take into account, among other things, the harm caused by the organisation and how it is balanced against the benefit to the public. Also, people in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit. Scientologists will say that poor people can join the staff and get their scientology for free. That’s an unreasonable restriction on the availability of the “benefit” to the public.
Taxpayer support for ALL religions should end!
Is there any religion that has not done physical or psychological harm to its followers or the broader community? Priests molesting children, Muslim Clerics blaming sexual assault victims for being ‘uncovered meat’ , religous funded organisations harrassing women seeking abortions, exclusive bretheren routinely engaging in political interference - despite being exempt from voting for religious reasons….. the list goes on.
The fact that religions do still enjoy tax exempt status - even for profit making activities - shows how much power and influence they wield over our politicians and therefore public policy.
Abortion and voluntary euthanasia are classic examples. Both have overwhelming public support yet abortion is still in the crimes acts of various states (Qld legal case shows these laws are not benign) and voluntary euthanasia is illegal throughout the country - not only that but even TALKING to someone about methods is illegal!
On the basis that systematic harm to a Religions’s adherents should cause a review of its tax free status, I think that there would be few who would survive this test.
These organisations have been around a lot longer than most of us (Scientology perhaps excepted) and have had plenty of time to treat adherents in ways that we would now find abhorrent.
The treatment of child migrants and stolen generation children here should be enough to cause the ATO to start their engines and take a close look at “established religion” of every shade.
The big-endian / little-endian mutual massacres including burnings etc etc. carried out by Catholics and Protestants in Europe went on for hundreds of years and set a neat precedent for present day religious intolerance worldwide.
However, to follow ABARKER, if you alone hear the voices you will almost certainly be seen as a loony if you can get a critical mass of middle age men to sign up then and only then will you be able to claim religious tax exemption.
To the contrary, in my opinion, most religions would easily show that any detriment caused by their organisations is greatly outweighed by the public benefit they provide. But the assessment should be done.
Well I’d like to see them at least be asked to prove they did something beneficial
“The Rudd Government’s view is that a Senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology is not justified on the basis of our view of the Parliament’s function. It is inappropriate to conduct an inquiry into a private and, in this case, religious organisation.”
Pathetic. A green light for a criminal cult.
You start looking into abuses by one religion, and, hey, where would it end?
Well, this just reinforces an idea I’ve been increasingly warming to!
No religion of any sort should have any tax-exempt/tax-reduced status, but their charitable arms could be considered under the ‘mainstream’ charity classifications.
You wanna claim you provide a community benefit? Fine, but that’s the only part of your organisation that gets a free ride.
OK! So, this is my third attempt to post a message that is acceptable to the Crikey mod! Seems like freedom of opinion has a qualifying factor here — comments are okay as long as you don’t disagree with Crikey management!
Let me try to be more simple and see if I can be acceptable. The “belief system” you describe (in order to disapprove of it) is NOT the belief system of Scientology — it is the “belief system” of sterotyped urban legend perpetuated by “critics” who know very well these are not Scientology “beliefs.” It is just like saying the “belief system” of Jews is all about dominating world banking. Or the “belief system” of the Church of England is based on beheading of unwanted wives. Whether or not Scientologists generally believe that life may exist elsewhere in the universe is not the same as saying this is the center of our “belief system.”
But the real problem is that you PRETEND to agree that “What Scientologists believe is irrelevant and not the business of the state,” because it sounds politically correct to say that. But you only throw that out in the hope of making your follow up more convincing; i.e., that, “It is what they do that is of concern….”
Whatever individual Scientologists do, and whatever the Church of Scientology does, those things should be treated in exactly the same way any other Australian individual or group is treated — THAT is what democracy and freedom is all about.
It’s justifiable to wish to know the basic beliefs of Scientology, since if one is going to buy into the system, one might wish to see what the pot of gold is all about at the end of the rainbow! Scientology is a “soul” therapy religion. It’s a one on one, one person asking the questions (therapy like questions about one’s life and past lives), and one person delving down their imagination, making up their past lives, and eventually believing it is all real. Scientology’s beliefs are logical so long as you believe in the soul. If you think you are a soul, then you can buy into past lives and future lives. If you can buy into past lives, you can buy into the imaginative science fiction advanced space civilizations that might exist and might have existed in the past, elsewhere in the universe, and here on earth. If you believe in the soul, then you could buy into the Scientology promise of someday rising to pure super soul ability, like the floating pure soul in the “Star Man” movie, starring Jeff Bridges, the first couple scenes showing the pure glowing floating ball of pure soul entity floating around before that soul took the human hair and recreated a full live body. Scientology thinks someday Scientologists will get to that high high state of not needing bodies any longer.
The Xenu space alien character is just Scientology’s bad guy. Xenu mass murdered so many humanoids 75 million years ago, and had the souls of those dead humanoids “implanted” with 36 and 1/2 days worth of non stop false information to confuse those souls, and then Xenu had these souls trapped here on earth, and these surplus souls infest ALL humans today, so that each of us, supposedly have tens of thousands or more of these surplus souls. Scientology has taboos on saying the words “Xenu” and “body thetans”. But all Xenu means is the bad guy who ordered this mass murder and the implanting and who caused this soul surplus. And “body thetans” is the confidential phrase Scientology doesn’t want spread around, since Scientology thinks that telling this story will cause confusion in the Scientology therapy procedures of the lower level Scientologists who aren’t told about the “body thetans” problems they have, not until they get way up to the “upper levels” of Scientology. But anyone just needs to look around enough on the interet, and hopefully some scholar will do a simpler summary of the soul beliefs of Scientology. In a nutshell, it’s a soul therapy religion.
And most of the criticism written about it is true. Anyone seeking simple answers should use the internet, since unfortunately official Scientologists are obligated to NOT explain the Xenu story nor explain what “body thetans” are, to the public. And those things ARE relevant to know since Scientologists on the “upper levels” spend easily 2-5 years doing the Scientology spiritual exorcism therapy to get rid of their tens of thousands of “body thetans.” Scientology is essentially ultimately a space alien exorcism therapy religion. MOST of the years of spiritual therapy will be focused on “body thetan” (dead alien soul) removal. Chuck Beatty, ex Scientology lifetime staffer (Sea Org), 1975-2003, Pittsburgh, USA
Thank you Crikey for posting my comment! Now, will I succeed with part 2?
Here we go:
After everything I said above, what now, if readers believe what my old friend Chuck Beatty presented next as his rendition of Scientology?
Hopefully, the answer is, “Who cares?” Personally, I think Chuck himself has some confusions over the subject of “belief,” but no sweat, good luck to him, and here’s hoping he’s a happy man these days. And more importantly, as Crikey said, “What Scientologists believe is irrelevant and not the business of the state or, really, anyone else.”
As we seem to agree, it is what people DO that is important.
Which brings me to the allegations raised by Senator Xenophon. There is no doubt that the claims he presented SOUND serious. But let’s face it, apart from being a politician, he is a lawyer. He is a professional pontificator in both fields. His whole life depends on his ability to persuade mobs of people (voters or jurors) to believe in him. Some people believe in global warming! And some don’t!
POSSIBLY Xenophon even believes the things he has been told about Scientology and is acting out of sincere concern. But I don’t think so. For this reason: As said above, he is a lawyer. He knows his witnesses’ claims would never stand the scrutiny of cross examination in a court of law. And he knows his gratuitous commentary and embellishments were libelous. Which is exactly why he spoke under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
There is a difference between “widespread evidence” and widespread gossip. And your insistence in repeating over and over the pejorative term “cult” adds to the “gossip” flavor of your writing, not the evidence. If you (or Xenophon, or any of his “witnesses”) had any actual evidence of serious wrongdoing, that evidence should be able to stand on its own merits in the light of day. You only have to throw in pejorative terms like “cult” when you want to persuade people but you have no facts.
One last thing: Are the people complaining to Xenophon all just blatantly lying? I have heard people say they can’t ALL be lying. And we have all heard that “where there is smoke, there is fire.” Well here is another thing to consider: How much fire does it take to make a lot of smoke? Find one little cinder, throw on a bunch of green leaves and all sit in a circle and blow and you can get a lot of smoke going.
But when you blow away all the smoke, what have you got? One person says she was told to get an abortion. And she refused and went off and had her baby! (Even IF you believe what she claims she was told, she doesn’t seem to have had much trouble saying, no thank you.) Then the loudest complainer says he was told not to have sex before marriage! Okay, now we are getting serious. Sorry mate. I see your point. And then there is the guy who tragically lost two daughters. An indisputable tragedy. To maintain some respect, I will not go into the details, but they are publicly available. Yes, two tragedies. But review the FACTS and then ask yourself who is to blame. And on it goes. A lot of smoke from a small bunch of people who, for one reason or another, abandoned their faith. And I don’t mean to dis them. They obviously have some reason for being bitter. But don’t go asking the government to cause a lot of hassle to everyone else who is happy with their church just because you changed your mind. THAT is not the business of government. If you have “widespread evidence,” turn it in to the police. If not, get on with your life and good luck to you.
“What Scientologists believe is irrelevant and not the business of the state or, really, anyone else.”
True*, but why should our taxes fund a “religion” that was set up as the result of a bet between Hubbard and Alesteir Crowley, as a joke; that ripped its ideas and technology off other people (People who denounced Hubbard as a fake and a thief, scroogle Volney Matheson for example); that practices fair gaming and manipulates the US “justice” system to harass and intimidate its critics. (scroogle Keith Henson if you haven’t heard of him, he’s the most obvious example.)
I wonder how Christians feel about a “religion” that claims Jesus was a homosexual and pedophile, and that its leader will return/reincarnate as the antichrist? (OT 8 apparently.) Not that its any of their business.
Hubbard was a practicing “black” magician , and US Naval Intel Officer at the time he invented (or was that stole?) his religion and it actually has nothing in common with the beliefs and practices he used in his “magickal workings”. (Mostly Jacking off and chanting.)
Its hard to believe he took his religion seriously given his actual history at the time.
Its also “clear” to any outside observer that Scientology’s status as a tax free “religion” needs reassessment immediately.
* If Scientologists believe fair gaming is a reasonable response to criticism then that is a matter for all of us. Especially if it drives people to suicide, as some people claim. (Scroogle Jeremy Blake and Teresa Duncan, to find about a young couple claiming to suffer harassment from Scientologists that may have contributed to their suicide.)
Scientology status as a religion for tax reasons in Australia has been confirmed by the High Court, so no point arguing about that, and there is no political party about to remove tax-free status of all religion and face the wrath of the christian churches.
Maroubraman is correct - abuses are a police matter.
These days anything is a “religion”.
The tax free status of all religions only exists because the voters put up with the govt for not revoking it. Oh..yeah some voters are religious. But how high is the percentage???
Gods etc. are figment of human fantasies.
Fantasies lead to confusion in human minds.
A confused human is not a full quid.
If you are not a full quid you should not be allowed to vote.
Problem solved.
Yo Peach1: That’s a pretty limp troll.
But it does kind of follow on from Jules, above, who seems to share your view that religions should not be “tax exempt.”
Jules — as already discussed by others before me (and even conceded by Crikey), all of your funny assertions about Scientology beliefs are irrelevant (even if we stipulate that you are welcome to believe that those are Scientology beliefs/origins if it makes you happy to think that). It is all res judicata as far as this discussion is concerned, and certainly res judicata as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
But both you and Peach1 (and others) ask the rhetorical question, “why should our taxes fund a religion … ?” Well, that is an interesting question. Although, first of all, it is a bit of a twist to say your taxes “fund” religion. But let’s not nit-pick. The truth is that religions are afforded certain privileges and special status in most enlightened societies. I could tell you why I believe that is the case, but I think it would be interesting for you to ask yourself why this is, and see if you can come up with an answer.
Regardless of whether religions should be tax exempt, (although I think they shouldn’t - demonstrably non profit charities should be however, religious or not), I would like to know by what criteria under the current system an organisation is determined to be religious, and what investigation is done into the veracity of their claims?
A business owner who’s a friend of mine claims a former employee of his who is now a wholesaler is sending out invoices claiming he is entitled tax free status because his company is a “religion”. This bloke has no prior religious belief that anyone close to him was previously aware of, and has cetainly never been involved with administering a “religion” so how can he claim such a status?
Only anecdotal admittedly, but I’d like to know the process all the same…..
@ Alena V: “In my opinion, most religions would easily show that any detriment caused by their organisations is greatly outweighed by the public benefit they provide. But the assessment should be done.”
Can anyone name one single benefit provided by religious groups which is not also provided by other groups which don’t add supernatural mumbo-jumbo & brainwashing to the mix?
Tax exempt status based on benefit to society is perfectly justifiable and beneficial to society.
Tax exempt status based on supernatural belief alone is ludicrous, and highly discriminatory.
L Ron Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
To find some food for his pigeon:
When he came there
The cupboard was bare
So ‘twas time to invent a religion.
And he did.
And was thereafter able to feed more than his pigeon.
Scientology was invented by a science fiction writer with a vivid imagination. Here was a man whose words were constantly getting away from him and with a reported typing speed of 150 words a minute with an annual output of a million or more this was a frequent and ongoing issue as he and his Scientology desciples deucked and weaved by land, sea and air all over the world. On last night’s 6:30 report on channel 7 a reporter was allowed into the inner sanctum although the official spokespersons were largely ignorant of what went on in the chuirch or even its core philosophy. I notice that the Scientology Org often puts sweet faced ladies on TV in order to serve up a passably palatable image that is grossly misleading and is essentially a cover for what senator Xenaophon called a criminel organisation. with respect to Scientology be afraid, be very afraid.