How Would You Change Religious Protections

[Geoff]

As for Scientology, our treatment of it as a religion is far more advanced than yours because it recognizes the grave danger of allowing government to determine the legitimacy of religious belief and practice. In the UK, you have a state religion, the Church of England, which for hundreds of years suppressed Catholicism and other religions, often quite brutally.

We've never had that in the US, nor can we, because our Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in religion.

Your country's treatment of it is primarily because of "Operation Snow White" and subsequent events.

In a nutshell, your IRS folded (in defiance of a US court ruling the previous year), rather than defend hundreds of lawsuits.

You fought Scientology, for 25 years. And you lost.

No, Scientology fought for its religious rights against the IRS and won.

Breaking your own laws, repeatedly, to do so...and infiltrating your government far more successfully than the USSR ever did.

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

(if you don't like Wikipedia, there are plenty of other sources all saying the same things, and the criminal convictions are a matter of record)

How about TIME magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,951938,00.html

The mounting troubles of the church were dramatized on Jan. 7 when Hubbard's attractive third wife Mary Sue, 51, was sentenced to four years in prison by a federal judge in Washington. Once the church's second most powerful official, Mrs. Hubbard was the last of eleven Scientology members who were convicted for their roles in bugging and burglarizing the Washington offices of the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Justice, Treasury and Labor departments. These break-ins were part of a vast spying operation, created by Hubbard and directed by his wife, to gather information on "enemies" of the church. One Scientology document so identifies 136 governmental agencies at home and abroad. At its height, the espionage system, called "Operation Snow White" by Hubbard, included up to 5,000 covert agents who were placed in government offices, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as in private organizations critical of Scientology. Hubbard even assembled a dossier on President Richard Nixon and individuals ranging from U.S. Senators to members of the Rockefeller family.

[MrJonno]

The crimes of the church of scientology can hardly be compared to that of the catholic church. The pope should be facing genocide and crimes against humanity charges all the scientologists have done is screw up a few individuals and rob people

[Seth]

The crimes of the church of scientology can hardly be compared to that of the catholic church. The pope should be facing genocide and crimes against humanity charges all the scientologists have done is screw up a few individuals and rob people

Why? Because his recommendations for educational programs that teach abstinence, chastity and monogamy in Uganda, combined with government efforts to supply condoms has resulted in a massive decline in HIV/AIDS infection rates in Uganda, whereas condom-only programs in other African nations has resulted in skyrocketing HIV/AIDS infection rates?

[camoguard]

I foed Seth.

For anybody else who wants to continue:

I think Scientology represents a clear example of a religion that is objectively bad. The techniques the system uses to inculcate kids and the way it drains its members seems predatory. I even know of a woman who got involved in Scientology while mourning her dead recently married husband. After his life insurance money ran out, she was basically kicked to the curb and forgotten. The treatment of kids is abysmal. I've got an opinion against it that I hold much more strongly than my slight wish to end Christianity in general. I've seen more benign-ish things in Christianity.

Religions that are simply groups of volunteers are kind of fine in spirit. Religions like Mormonism and Scientology based on my understanding cultivate an us versus them approach which means I have a stronger wish to end their protections. What god they believe in and what rituals they perform is on them. But cutting off non-Mormon relatives and so forth is part of the anti-social institution based behavior that comes with those packages and it's what I flag. Catholicism seems more easy going. Lots of Catholics have non Catholic friends. Unitarians don't even bat an eye because half of their spouses claim atheism. Those and Buddhist religions strike me as benign.

As I've mentioned if your beliefs institutionalize homophobia or sexism or racism or provide an alternative to science in regards to things we know, those points should be held against institutions. Good faith charities deserve their deductions. Charities can be conducted by people of faith in my view but charities should not be seen as the work of a faith group but rather the faith group should try to provide help to needy people without unreasonably requiring beneficiaries to do things that are faith related. Reasonably would be defined by a jury or something.

Lastly, I'm wondering if we can come up with a better vocabulary term than religion for religious protections. I think individuals should be afforded all of the freedoms that society can afford to lend. People need the ability to act on conscience to the point that they will whether you legislate it or not. But what we legally protect and how we protect it should allow people to get a reliable education and their own personally grown code of ethics. I'd like to take out religion's access to science debates and as mentioned I strongly disagree that religion is the basis of morality and I'm willing to discuss consequences of that.

[Seth]

I foed Seth.

Netwits usually aren't up to the task of rational argumentation, so I'm not surprised.

For anybody else who wants to continue:

I think Scientology represents a clear example of a religion that is objectively bad.

Is there such a thing as "objectively bad?" You sound almost religious in that belief. Anyway, many thousands of people seem to do quite well with Scientology, like, oh, I don't know....Tom Cruise and John Travolta, among many others. So it can't be "objectively bad" if ANYONE is doing well.

The techniques the system uses to inculcate kids and the way it drains its members seems predatory.

Insofar as kids, you may be right, but so far the organization hasn't been charged or convicted of child abuse. Now, the PARENTS of children who abuse them and happen to be Scientologists is a different matter, and they can, and have been prosecuted.

As for "draining" its members, it's all voluntary. If I want to give away all my goods and enter a Catholic monastery, am I being "drained" or am I giving up my worldly goods for a spiritual life? And how is that "objectively bad?"

I even know of a woman who got involved in Scientology while mourning her dead recently married husband. After his life insurance money ran out, she was basically kicked to the curb and forgotten.

Hm. Do you suppose she learned something from that...like "don't be gullible?" If so, she received an important benefit from Scientology that will serve her well in her future, because she will not be gullible when it comes to religion. Sounds like a voluntary commercial transaction to me.

The treatment of kids is abysmal.

Then report it to Child Protective Services.

I've got an opinion against it that I hold much more strongly than my slight wish to end Christianity in general. I've seen more benign-ish things in Christianity.

My guess is that your opinion is based in ignorance as abysmal as those who are part of the cult.

Religions that are simply groups of volunteers are kind of fine in spirit. Religions like Mormonism and Scientology based on my understanding cultivate an us versus them approach which means I have a stronger wish to end their protections.

Why? Because you have a strong desire for proletarian similitude and unwavering obedience to your particular religious dogma? Why should anyone want to associate with people like you? What's wrong with separating yourself, and your group, from others whom you find morally and ethically corrupt?

What god they believe in and what rituals they perform is on them. But cutting off non-Mormon relatives and so forth is part of the anti-social institution based behavior that comes with those packages and it's what I flag.

Why is a person obliged to associate with relatives who may be hostile to their faith? Relatives are a chance relationship, religion, and religious association is something you choose voluntarily. I've got relatives I've long ago cut off because they were ignorant, prejudiced, bigoted, self-righteous Atheists. Why should I be required to associate with them and not with the devotedly religious Catholics who are my family by choice, who are far more loving, tolerant, understanding, humble, caring people than any member of my family ever was? Hell, my daddy turned into a raging, evil drunken SOB who threatened to blow up or burn down my house and kill me. I cut him off.

Nothing wrong with cutting off relatives who aren't part of your religion, and your friends in religion are often better ones than bad family.

Catholicism seems more easy going. Lots of Catholics have non Catholic friends. Unitarians don't even bat an eye because half of their spouses claim atheism. Those and Buddhist religions strike me as benign.

Who put you in charge of assessing the benignity of other people's religion. What gives you the qualifications to render judgment on other people's beliefs and practices? Only an arrogant ass or an out of control federal bureaucrat would presume to do so.

As I've mentioned if your beliefs institutionalize homophobia or sexism or racism or provide an alternative to science in regards to things we know, those points should be held against institutions.

Here comes the Thought Police. Calling Winston Smith, please report to the Ministry of Love, where Camogard will supervise your reintegration...

You can't change people's beliefs by oppressing their religion, all that does is make them more determined and entrenched in their bigotries.

Good faith charities deserve their deductions. Charities can be conducted by people of faith in my view but charities should not be seen as the work of a faith group but rather the faith group should try to provide help to needy people without unreasonably requiring beneficiaries to do things that are faith related. Reasonably would be defined by a jury or something.

Selected by Atheists like you, presumably.

Lastly, I'm wondering if we can come up with a better vocabulary term than religion for religious protections.

How about "religious rights?"

I think individuals should be afforded all of the freedoms that society can afford to lend.

Except those you disapprove of, like freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, of course.

People need the ability to act on conscience to the point that they will whether you legislate it or not.

And they will. What's more, they will conform THEIR society to suit THEIR needs, and since "THEY" are in the majority, you're just so screwed.

But what we legally protect and how we protect it should allow people to get a reliable education and their own personally grown code of ethics.

Unless, of course, it includes elements of religion that you happen to find offensive...

I'd like to take out religion's access to science debates

What do you mean "access to science debates?" Are you proposing a religious test before anyone is allowed to debate science or something? If science is so strong and true, what does it have to fear from religion, which is just a delusion? Why does science need protection from religion? Clue: it doesn't. It stands or falls on the strengths of its claims and the accuracy of its conclusions.

and as mentioned I strongly disagree that religion is the basis of morality and I'm willing to discuss consequences of that.

Well, you can try historical revisionism, but it's not going to get you very far. Philosophers have been arguing about objective morality for about 5000 years now. Do you have any new insights that might shed light on that debate?

[MrFungus420]

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

Never let facts get in the way while some US citizens are quite generous the % of GDP that is spent on foreign aid is quite simply one of the lowest in the world

And yet the absolute amount exceeds that given by any other country, and pretty much by all other countries combined. That's all that counts, how many actual dollars go to actual people to prevent actual starvation and death, and in that regard, we rule, and we have ruled for a long, long time.

Fuck your "percentage of GDP" trash. That's just socialist redistributionist blather. Americans are the most generous people on the face of the earth, and have been for nearly 200 years, so I don't want to hear any carping from the selfish twats elsewhere until they step up to the plate.

A millionaire giving $1000 is a meaningless amount to them, it is little more than "chump-change". A minimum wage worker giving $50 is far more impressive and generous.

That more can be accomplished with the $1000 does not change the fact that the $50 is far more generous.

[MrFungus420]

It's not about whether Scientology or any other religion is a "good idea." It, like all religion, deserves tax exemptions because it's not up to the IRS or any other government bureaucrat to examine and judge religious belief before granting religious tax exemptions. You should have figured that out. In fact, you should KNOW this if you have any understanding of the First Amendment. Our Constitution PROHIBITS government from assessing the claims or validity or utility of ANY religion, period. It has no authority to say either "this is not a proper religion" or "this is a proper religion." It must remain strictly neutral and may not either advance or inhibit any religious practice or belief.

But that is exactly what the tax exemption does. If there is even one religion that the government has decided to not allow the tax-exemption, then the government is saying what is a proper and improper religion. Much simpler would be to remove it from the table and tax them all equally.

The government does inhibit religious practices. There are religions in which the use of various drugs is a religious sacrament, a way to get closer to, and commune with, a god. The government prohibits those religious practices. There are people whose religious beliefs include polygamy...the government prohibits that religious practice as well.

Take off the blinders.

[MrFungus420]

I foed Seth.

Netwits usually aren't up to the task of rational argumentation, so I'm not surprised.

And a cheap ad hom demonstrates that lack even more.

[Seth]

I foed Seth.

Netwits usually aren't up to the task of rational argumentation, so I'm not surprised.

And a cheap ad hom demonstrates that lack even more.

Nah. Just poking those who like sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't HEAR you..."

All in good fun. Besides, I was referring to "Netwits," not any specific Netwit.

[Seth]

It's not about whether Scientology or any other religion is a "good idea." It, like all religion, deserves tax exemptions because it's not up to the IRS or any other government bureaucrat to examine and judge religious belief before granting religious tax exemptions. You should have figured that out. In fact, you should KNOW this if you have any understanding of the First Amendment. Our Constitution PROHIBITS government from assessing the claims or validity or utility of ANY religion, period. It has no authority to say either "this is not a proper religion" or "this is a proper religion." It must remain strictly neutral and may not either advance or inhibit any religious practice or belief.

But that is exactly what the tax exemption does. If there is even one religion that the government has decided to not allow the tax-exemption, then the government is saying what is a proper and improper religion. Much simpler would be to remove it from the table and tax them all equally.

Well, the government doesn't really "decide" in most cases. You fill out the paperwork, send it in, and the exemptions flow for so long as you keep the paperwork in order. Occasionally, as in the case of Scientology, the IRS will challenge 501(c)(3) status when it's pretty obvious that it's a tax evasion scam, but they have to tread very, very carefully, and ultimately the courts will rule on whether the organization is a religion or not a religion.

That's a significant distinction. They don't rule on the beliefs or the practices of the group, they don't make a value judgment about whether it's a "good" religion or an "inherently bad" religion as Camogard suggests is appropriate. At worst, they look at the sincerity of the claimants, whether they abide by their own tenets and beliefs, and whether those beliefs and practices fall within the definition of "religion" that the courts use. If the court finds that the beliefs are sincere, and that they hold an analogous place in the claimant's life that religion holds in the lives of others...like being matters of ethics or conscience held devotedly, then the inquiry is over and the claimant wins, and the IRS loses.

While the courts can determine if a belief-practice set is one that is held or observed "religiously" and may justifiably be deemed a religion for tax purposes, the court CANNOT render value judgments as to the content of the beliefs or practices (except where those practices might contravene other laws, like human sacrifice or drug use) because the Establishment Clause forbids such inquiries.

The government does inhibit religious practices. There are religions in which the use of various drugs is a religious sacrament, a way to get closer to, and commune with, a god. The government prohibits those religious practices.

Actually, it doesn't prohibit, it regulates, and the metric is whether the "sacrament" is a legitimate religious observance. Peyote, for example, is a sacrament to certain Indian tribes, and they are allowed to use that illegal substance where others are not because they have proven a legitimate religious connection that long precedes the existence of the United States.

The legal principle involved is that a law of general applicability, such as a zoning law or regulation of a controlled substance, is equally applicable to all, and as such it does not specifically burden religious practice to any greater degree than it burdens any other use.

The test by which such general laws are examined is called the "Lemon Test," after the case "Lemon v. Kurtzman."

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Does the banning of peyote have a secular legislative purpose? Answer: Yes, it does. Regulation of the use of intoxicating drugs has long been ruled to be a legitimate role of government.

Does the ban have the PRIMARY effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion? Answer: No, in most cases it does not because its effect on religious practice is incidental to it's primary purpose. However, in some cases, like the Apache Indians, the historical record of use of peyote as a sacrament essential to their religious practice indicates that a ban, as applied to those persons, does create a substantial burden on their freedom of religious practice, so the Supreme Court has ruled that as applied to those tribes, the ban is unconstitutional.

Does the ban result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion? Answer: No. Generally this prong is aimed at situations where government money is involved with religion, such as where block grants for social services flow to religious organizations for distribution or programs. This is acceptable only if the federal money is used for strictly secular programs and is not diverted or applied to religious programs in any way. Thus, a government grant to Catholic Charities to fund non-denominational, secular soup kitchens is lawful, notwithstanding that it is an overtly religious organization that is administering the program. The thinking on this is that it is unnecessary and wastefully duplicative for government to create parallel social service programs in areas where religious charities are largely serving the needs, and it's wiser to simply give money to those groups for those aspects and programs that are secular in nature.

There are people whose religious beliefs include polygamy...the government prohibits that religious practice as well.

The ban on polygamy is highly suspect, and has been upheld in the past based on supposedly legitimate government concerns about the structure of the family and what is best for society, in a secular sense, by way of regulation the family relation in the interests of a strong society and protection of children. The courts have upheld polygamy bans based on this logic for a long time based on the presumption that regulating marriage and the family relation is a legitimate goal of government.

This view is dying out rather quickly, however, and the whole gay marriage issue is going to sink anti-polygamy laws as well in the near future. Once society acknowledges a right to privacy in intimate domestic relationships and family life, as is just and proper, there is no legitimate reason for government to ban polygamy any more than there is to ban gay marriage.

Take off the blinders.

Do some research and become educated on the issues and provide some substantive argument instead of posting knee-jerk, ill-informed and legally ignorant opinions. That's what I've done. Your turn.

[Seth]

This is complete mendacious and ignorant horseshit. The Catholic church alone is one of the top providers of charitable assistance to people worldwide, right up there with the United States.

Never let facts get in the way while some US citizens are quite generous the % of GDP that is spent on foreign aid is quite simply one of the lowest in the world

And yet the absolute amount exceeds that given by any other country, and pretty much by all other countries combined. That's all that counts, how many actual dollars go to actual people to prevent actual starvation and death, and in that regard, we rule, and we have ruled for a long, long time.

Fuck your "percentage of GDP" trash. That's just socialist redistributionist blather. Americans are the most generous people on the face of the earth, and have been for nearly 200 years, so I don't want to hear any carping from the selfish twats elsewhere until they step up to the plate.

A millionaire giving $1000 is a meaningless amount to them, it is little more than "chump-change". A minimum wage worker giving $50 is far more impressive and generous.

So what? It's all charity, and it's up to the individual how charitable they choose to be. Your implication is that the rich man should be somehow required to be more charitable than the poor man just because it offends your sense of "fairness" that the economic impact of charity is not the same for one as it is the other. That's just a manifestation of socialist class envy.

That more can be accomplished with the $1000 does not change the fact that the $50 is far more generous.

Depends. If you're the recipient of the money, $1000 is far more generous than $50. Since you're not likely to inquire (or even be able to inquire) as to the financial status of the donor, you're going to view $1000 as far more generous than $50. And in the end, all that counts to the needy is how much money they receive, not who they get it from or how "generous" you deem them to be.

That's why America's generosity at nearly twice the rate of almost every other country in the world is far more generous, and effective.

[MrJonno]

So what? It's all charity, and it's up to the individual how charitable they choose to be. Your implication is that the rich man should be somehow required to be more charitable than the poor man just because it offends your sense of "fairness" that the economic impact of charity is not the same for one as it is the other. That's just a manifestation of socialist class envy.

And pay more taxes as well the basis of any modern civilization

[Hermit]

Scientology absolutely DOES enjoy religious tax exemption.

Not here in the UK it doesn't, and not in most European countries.

Seth is one of those citizens for whom nothing outside his nation's borders matters unless it affects him. 'Nough said?

Wrong. Nothing outside my nation's borders changes how I may exercise my liberties and freedoms within my country.

As for Scientology, our treatment of it as a religion is far more advanced than yours because it recognizes the grave danger of allowing government to determine the legitimacy of religious belief and practice. In the UK, you have a state religion, the Church of England, which for hundreds of years suppressed Catholicism and other religions, often quite brutally.

We've never had that in the US, nor can we, because our Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in religion.

I don't live in the UK, and never have. I was born in Germany, and raised there for not quite 16 years. Since then (41 years now) I live in Australia. By the way, the German government does not recognize scientology as a religion. It views it as an abusive business masquerading as a religion, but the jury, as they say, is still out on that one. In Australia scientology is recognised as a religion, although three of its states disagreed with that several decades ago and banned a range of its activities between 1965 and 1973. For the legal status of scientology in other countries look here. Just saying, in case you become interested in what happens outside the USA one day.

[MrFungus420]

First, very nice reply.

But in my mind, this makes it worse. Specifically, the peyote example.

Now we have the government stepping in and saying that this group is allowed to do "x" as a free religious exercise, but a different group is not allowed to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason. So now that has the government not only deciding what is a "proper" religion, but who can belong to it...who has the right to believe in that religion.

How is that not interfering with the free expression of religion?

There is no secular reason to allow one person to practice a particular religion and not another person. There is no secular reason to grant one religion a specific exemption to a law and not grant a different religion the exact same exemption. It is purely sectarian.

[MrFungus420]

So what? It's all charity, and it's up to the individual how charitable they choose to be.

Absolutely no argument.

Your implication is that the rich man should be somehow required to be more charitable than the poor man [/quote]

No. I have no implied that in any way.

The only thing that I was talking about was the level of generosity and that it is disingenuous to dismiss the point about it.

just because it offends your sense of "fairness" that the economic impact of charity is not the same for one as it is the other. That's just a manifestation of socialist class envy.

And your opinion is just a manifestation of your jingoism.

That's why America's generosity at nearly twice the rate of almost every other country in the world is far more generous, and effective.

More effective, certainly. More generous, not by a long shot.