Scientology is a religion, rules Supreme Court (UK)

[cbayer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10510301/Scientology-is-a-religion-rules-Supreme-Court.html

Wednesday 11 December 2013

A woman who wants to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel has won a battle in the UK's highest court


Alessandro Calcioli with his fiance Louisa Hodkin Photo: P
A
By Alice Philipson and agencies

Scientology is a religion, the UK's highest court has ruled, after a woman won a battle to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel.

Scientologist Louisa Hodkin took her fight to the Supreme Court after a High Court judge ruled last year that services run by Scientologists were not "acts of worship".

But five Supreme Court justices ruled in her favour on Wednesday, announcing that the Scientology church was a "place of meeting for religious worship".

Miss Hodkin wants to marry fiancé Alessandro Calcioli in a Church of Scientology chapel in central London.

more at link

[Goblinmonger]

1. Of course.

I don't see why this is even an issue.

Sure it's a shame created by a moderately shitty sci-fi writer. But we just know that because we are here for the beginnings of it.

[BlueStreak]

4. This chart

http://www.fbcpp.org/media/docs/Scientology_comparison_chart.pdf

I think this chart is supposed to show how Scientology is a fake religion whereas Christianity is a "real" religion. However, I see very little difference between the two. To me it all looks like "head trash" that cult members brainwash each other to believe. There is exactly the same amount of proof for Scientology as there is for Christianity, which is to say none.

It is just that Scientology is a bit more modern and sci-fy in their approach to it.

As the Brits say: courses for horses. If you want to belong to a traditional cult, Christianity is worth a look. If you prefer a more comic book super-hero style of cult, then have a go with Scientology.

[cbayer]

8. So over-simplified and incomplete.

The differences, which are clear to most people, have to do more with the definition of cults. If you consider christianity a cult, I doubt there is little anyone could do to change your view.

At any rate, I don't care whether people consider scientology a religion or not. My concern is in granting them the legal status generally reserved for 501( c)3 groups (or the equivalent in the UK), as they are pretty clearly never charitable or non-profit.

[BlueStreak]

9. What is the basis for denying them the same tax exempt status of other religious cults?

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

What is the fundamental thing that makes them invalid, different from the things you consider valid religions?

Is is that there is no evidence? No, that's true of all religions.

Is it that their stories are absolutely fantastic? No, the other religions are full of myths and legends that no reasonable person could take literally.

Is it that that Scientology was created out of whole cloth by an author? No, that's exactly what the early Catholics did, as well as LDS, which I assume passes your test of a "real" religion.

Is it that Scientology believes in space travel? No, many other religions believe in heaven as a tangible place, which is a form of space-and-time travel.

So what is it that makes Scientology invalid while the others are valid?

[cbayer]

10. They are neither charitable nor non-profit.

The US IRS granted them the status once it became clear that their legal resources and deep pockets made further fights fruitless.

Religion doesn't require evidence, it requires faith. It's not a science.

IMHO, Scientology is a cult, not a religion.

http://www.cultclinic.org/qa3.html

Of course the argument can be made that some religious organizations have cult like qualities, but there are many that do not. If you want to equate the two, go for it. Fortunately, most people can see the difference pretty clearly.

[trotsky]

11. Of course.

Most people simply see any religion that's TOO different from their own as a cult.

Just like you are doing here.

On edit - FYI, here are various defintions of "cult":

Dictionary.com:
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

OxfordDictionaries.com:
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object

Merriam-Webster.com:
a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

You seem to prefer the third definition above (which has its own issues about the judgment of the observer), but there is no reason anyone must accept it over the other definitions, which clearly encompass mainstream religions too.

[BlueStreak]

12. I know lots of Christian churches that are neither charitable nor non-profit

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not saying they are all that way, but I have personal knowledge of dozens of them in my area that do virtually nothing charitable and run their enterprise for the business of it. Of course their accountant says they aren't "profitable".

Are you in favor of taking away the tax status from those Christian churches?

[cbayer]

13. I am indeed in strong support of removing the tax exempt status

from any group that does not meet the criteria for an IRS 501( c)3 not for profit organization, including any church.

And I know that they are out there. The IRS has been lax, if not outright negligent, in enforcing their own rules in this area. In doing that, they place the legitimate churches and other non-profits at risk.

If the accountant is "cooking the books" then they are placing themselves in serious jeopardy should the IRS ever do what it is supposed to do.

[pinto]

14. Agree. That's the key. IRS neglects due diligence in 501(c)3 oversight.

Not sure why that is. Or what their priorities are.

[cbayer]

16. My suspicion is that it is low on their priority list and that they fear

backlash.

They took a licking from the Scientologists.

But without enforcement, the charlatans have free reign.



Just went to a timeshare hard sell in order to get two free passes for this killer golf course. I generally avoid ever doing anything like that, but it was worth the couple of hours. And needless to say, we ain't buying nothing.

[BlueStreak]

15. It isn't cooking the books

You just pay everything out in salaries to the insiders, or keep some of the money as "excess revenues".

Hoe do you think all those "non profit" charter schools operate?

But the problem is who gets to decide which churches are "religious enough" and which are not?

I say eliminate the tax benefit for all of them. If the enterprise makes a profit, it should pay taxes. If an enterprise is worth supporting, you shouldn't need the government giving you an extra bonus.

[cbayer]

17. Are you arguing for the elimination of tax breaks for

all charitable/non-profits, religious or not? That would put a huge burden on those who are most marginalized and most in need in this country.

The religious exemption applies to parsonage/property tax. Honestly, I am more and more in favor of eliminating that. I think that most organizations could absorb that piece and it would eliminate the gross misuse of that particular exemption in some cases. It is the IRS who determines that in this country, and after their loss to the scientologists, they appear to have just given up.

[BlueStreak]

18. I'm OK with that

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Personally I will give to the charities I think are doing a good job, whether or not I get a deduction.

If society sees a compelling national interest in the Red Cross, the Cancer Society, or whatever, then we can certainly have programs that offer matching grants.

I also think it is bad policy to subsidize home purchases through the tax code. If it is in the national interest to help veterans buy homes, or help low income people buy their first home, or help urban renewal with home buying assistance, we can have targeted, limited, temporary grants for those purposes. Giving everybody a big tax break for all their interest makes no economic sense to me.

[cbayer]

20. Reasonable position.

I do think the ideal is for the government to provide the services that many of these organizations currently supply. I would just object to pulling the rug out from under them before that occurs and, honestly, I don't think it ever well.

The big organizations like United Way aren't really going to have a problem. It would be the small ones - those that support soup kitchens, food pantries, halfway houses, safe havens for victims of spousal abuse and various programs for the very young and the very old.

The issue of home purchase subsidies is one I'm not really familiar with, but the mortgage interest deduction has always seemed to questionable to me, as it seems that it primarily benefits the rich.

[pinto]

19. I support a separation approach. If a religious organization has a profit making component,

that should be taxed under state and federal law. And the organization's accounting should be held transparent for IRS purposes. Say a church buys up land to be resold to parishioners or the public at large. Tax that. Say a church invests in a business to accrue funds from their commercial activity. Tax that. Those are secular commercial actions unrelated to their stated mission, imo.

That would be a start.

Complicated I guess but limits on 501(c)3 are in place for a purpose. I worked in the non-profit sector for a number of years. We were adamant about the guidelines. Small organizations. An IRS case would have meant bankruptcy if we crossed over the legal line. As noted above, big organizations have the funds, the tools and the legal expertise to run around IRS intervention.

[arcane1]

2. Interesting. The government controls where you can have a wedding?

I'm glad we don't have that here!

[cbayer]

3. I didn't know that either.

Hoping MurielVolestrangler will give us some more info.

This is bad news in terms of their quest to get a different tax status.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Precisely - the important thing here is the Scientology business is going to try to get tax breaks

because they will use this to say they ought to get the tax breaks that religions that don't have compulsory fees get.

As for where you can get married: anywhere can apply to have a licence for people to get married there (eg hotels), but if that happens, the legal part of the marriage is performed by a state official (the registrar) who turns up, and gets a fee. Licences are given to anywhere that is held to be appropriate for a solemn occasion (eg a strip bar isn't going to get one), and the ceremony is not allowed to be religious. There are other conditions, such as food and drink not being for sale in the room used for an hour before or after the ceremony (to stop it just being held in part of a bar that is open to the public, for instance).

See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/3168/schedule/2/made

Rather than accept their 'non-religious' status, and use the 20th or 21st century laws to do with non-religious places to get married, the Hubbardistas applied under the 1855 Places of Worship Registration Act. Because they don't give a toss about this woman - they want her money, of course, but more importantly they want the tax breaks for places of worship, despite being a multinational con, designed to fleece gullible people.

[cbayer]

6. Thanks so much for that. I knew you would be on top of this.

What an amazingly convoluted set of rules.

Seems like a major win for the Scientologists, unfortunately.

[Shrike47]

7. They don't look crazy, but it's so hard to tell sometimes.

It is a major win for Scientology, however.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I love threads where advocates for one set of goofball beliefs denounce

Another set of goofball beliefs as goofball beliefs.

The word for today is "tithe".

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Footnote: Louisa Hodkin's father is the solicitor for the Scientologists - ka-ching!

http://www.hodkin.org/about.htm

Peter Hodkin, senior partner at Hodkin & Co, the Church of Scientology's lawyers, based in East Grinstead, Sussex, says: "The distribution was about 40 copies - not very much. I am happy with this decision."

http://www.thelawyer.com/ao-defeats-scientologists/88289.article

http://tonyortega.org/2013/07/21/neil-gaimans-nephew-fights-for-scientology-marriage-rights-in-the-uk/

Well, that'll be a prosperous New Year for her father, as he lines up the court cases.

[cbayer]

23. Lol. Who would have guessed that there might be some

significant secondary gain here?