Church of Scientology convicted of fraud in France

[meex]

I'm kind of conflicted on how I feel about something like this. Basically, someone saying they didn't achieve their religious/spiritual goal and asking for their money back once leaving the church. What happens if someone is a member of another church (Methodist, Catholic, etc.) and decides to leave the congregation and wants all of their donations back?

Granted, I understand the idea of the case was more than getting a refund, and that it addressed the "bigger" issue of "Churches" taking advantage of people, but where is the line drawn? Should somebody that belongs to any other church, organization, or community, even one like this forum, be entitled to compensation for either money or time spent once they decide to change their mind, leaving the place they left to be labeled as a fraudulent entity?

They promised a service they didn't perform. It's a bait-and-switch operation from square one. That's actionable in the US.

Yes, in specific terms where the results, expectations, and terms are clear cut. Results and treatments of a religious/spiritual nature are not even close to clearly defined. Again, religious groups promise forgiveness, a better life, and numerous other things in return for faith, service, sometimes even money (in the form of giving or contributions to said establishment) every single day all over the world, and people comply over and over again. Those very groups face no repercussions because it is understood that those things can't be governed or guaranteed the same way something like monetary transactions and commercial processes are.

The CoS tells you exactly what will happen if you buy their books and follow their training. No hedging there. It's bait-and-switch.

Yes, that is true, but results of spiritual and religious processes/treatments by their very nature can't be clearly defined, regardless of what they say, yet it is done by them and other religious institutions daily. That is why I mentioned personal responsibility and the fact that I am conflicted about this situation. I believe someone that has been taken advantage of and lied to is certainly within their rights to expect compensation for their money and time they dedicated to something that was fraudulent, but it starts there with religion, then extends to science, and so on (I guess the slippery slope situation). These court cases set precedent for the judicial system to build upon in the future, and that is where it begins.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, that is true, but results of spiritual and religious processes/treatments by their very nature can't be clearly defined, regardless of what they say, yet it is done by them and other religious institutes daily. That is why I mentioned personal responsibility and the fact that I am conflicted about this situation. I believe someone that has been taken advantage of and lied to is certainly within their rights to expect compensation for their money and time they dedicated to something that was fraudulent, but it starts there with religion, then extends to science, and so on (I guess the slippery slope situation). These court cases set precedent for the judicial system to build upon in the future, and that is where it begins.

My point is that CoS DOES clearly define what will be achieved when they get the money.

[Feck]

I have some experience with cults ....the law of the land should be stretched in order to shut them down ,I maybe a little irrational on this subject but without apology .By ANY means necessary as far as I'm concerned .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have some experience with cults ....the law of the land should be stretched in order to shut them down ,I maybe a little irrational on this subject but without apology .By ANY means necessary as far as I'm concerned .

"Kill 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out."

[meex]

Yes, that is true, but results of spiritual and religious processes/treatments by their very nature can't be clearly defined, regardless of what they say, yet it is done by them and other religious institutes daily. That is why I mentioned personal responsibility and the fact that I am conflicted about this situation. I believe someone that has been taken advantage of and lied to is certainly within their rights to expect compensation for their money and time they dedicated to something that was fraudulent, but it starts there with religion, then extends to science, and so on (I guess the slippery slope situation). These court cases set precedent for the judicial system to build upon in the future, and that is where it begins.

My point is that CoS DOES clearly define what will be achieved when they get the money.

I understand that. Which goes back to my question about where personal responsibility comes in. This type of situation can be applied to so many different aspects of life, religion, business, etc. We don't see Geico being sued because they advertise a talking gecko when one doesn't really exist. The reason being is that we don't truly expect one to exist and if someone did, that is their own issue to deal with. We don't sue other religious institutes when we find out something they claim as fact doesn't end up being true, because it is inherent is what they are, systems of beliefs, thoughts, traditions, etc. which by their nature can't be clearly defined or held to deliver results that as a whole are not measurable or verifiable. Not being able to measure or verify those processes and results removes that expectation of something to be verifiable and applicable in every manner and situation that can arise, regardless of how many people may claim it does.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, that is true, but results of spiritual and religious processes/treatments by their very nature can't be clearly defined, regardless of what they say, yet it is done by them and other religious institutes daily. That is why I mentioned personal responsibility and the fact that I am conflicted about this situation. I believe someone that has been taken advantage of and lied to is certainly within their rights to expect compensation for their money and time they dedicated to something that was fraudulent, but it starts there with religion, then extends to science, and so on (I guess the slippery slope situation). These court cases set precedent for the judicial system to build upon in the future, and that is where it begins.

My point is that CoS DOES clearly define what will be achieved when they get the money.

I understand that. Which goes back to my question about where personal responsibility comes in. This type of situation can be applied to so many different aspects of life, religion, business, etc. We don't see Geico being sued because they advertise a talking gecko when one doesn't really exist. The reason being is that we don't truly expect one to exist and if someone did, that is their own issue to deal with. We don't sue other religious institutes when we find out something they claim as fact doesn't end up being true, because it is inherent is what they are, systems of beliefs, thoughts, traditions, etc. which by their nature can't be clearly defined or held to deliver results that as a whole are not measurable or verifiable. Not being able to measure or verify those processes and results removes that expectation of something to be verifiable and applicable in every manner and situation that can arise, regardless of how many people may claim it does.

Fraud laws in the US don't take into account to any great extent the gullibility of the victim. Personal responsibility would be "don't cheat the other person".

[meex]

Yes, that is true, but results of spiritual and religious processes/treatments by their very nature can't be clearly defined, regardless of what they say, yet it is done by them and other religious institutes daily. That is why I mentioned personal responsibility and the fact that I am conflicted about this situation. I believe someone that has been taken advantage of and lied to is certainly within their rights to expect compensation for their money and time they dedicated to something that was fraudulent, but it starts there with religion, then extends to science, and so on (I guess the slippery slope situation). These court cases set precedent for the judicial system to build upon in the future, and that is where it begins.

My point is that CoS DOES clearly define what will be achieved when they get the money.

I understand that. Which goes back to my question about where personal responsibility comes in. This type of situation can be applied to so many different aspects of life, religion, business, etc. We don't see Geico being sued because they advertise a talking gecko when one doesn't really exist. The reason being is that we don't truly expect one to exist and if someone did, that is their own issue to deal with. We don't sue other religious institutes when we find out something they claim as fact doesn't end up being true, because it is inherent is what they are, systems of beliefs, thoughts, traditions, etc. which by their nature can't be clearly defined or held to deliver results that as a whole are not measurable or verifiable. Not being able to measure or verify those processes and results removes that expectation of something to be verifiable and applicable in every manner and situation that can arise, regardless of how many people may claim it does.

Fraud laws in the US don't take into account to any great extent the gullibility of the victim. Personal responsibility would be "don't cheat the other person".

That is certainly true, but in cases of religion there can't be clear expectations, it is impossible, which is why the claims this group makes, much like the claims other religions make and claim as truth, can't be actionable in court. Claims based on verifiable facts and numbers like money, investments, etc. are governed every day and the claims people make have to be backed up with evidence and results must be shown in specifics so that people who are in fact gullible aren't taken advantage of. It is impossible to do that with religious beliefs or promises.

[Feck]

Meex I see your point and to a certain extent i agree but laws ARE set up to protect the vulnerable . After all Crack and Heroin dealers don't have to push their product but the public expect that the state steps in to "save" them from that evil menace .

[meex]

Meex I see your point and to a certain extent i agree but laws ARE set up to protect the vulnerable . After all Crack and Heroin dealers don't have to push their product but the public expect that the state steps in to "save" them from that evil menace .

There is no doubt about why rules like this are in place, and I am glad that individuals are protected against people that want to prey on the ignorance of others.

I guess what it comes down to with me is government involvement in something like religion and being able to say who/what is or isn't fraudulent. Simply because I may not agree with some of the things that some religions teach, doesn't mean I want them to be limited by politicians, judges, and attorneys. Just as I wouldn't want government dictating religious beliefs to me, it seems to be an issue to have them determining what is or isn't true of the claims or beliefs that a religion holds. That is exactly what I see that case setting up, is the ability for someone down the road to make a case against another belief (or non-belief) system.

[Feck]

Quite but the state is complicit in religion in most of the "old world" i do not suggest that the state prosecutes the anglicans or for that matter makes tarot cards
illegal but maybe a line CAN be drawn when it comes to money grabbing manipulative cults with a history of gross physical and mental abuse .

Personally I wish more cases were brought against the established churches as well but hey nobody died and made me in charge .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That is certainly true, but in cases of religion there can't be clear expectations, it is impossible, which is why the claims this group makes, much like the claims other religions make and claim as truth, can't be actionable in court. Claims based on verifiable facts and numbers like money, investments, etc. are governed every day and the claims people make have to be backed up with evidence and results must be shown in specifics so that people who are in fact gullible aren't taken advantage of. It is impossible to do that with religious beliefs or promises.

Meex, you're saying they can't, I'm saying they did. That's why it actionable.

[meex]

That is certainly true, but in cases of religion there can't be clear expectations, it is impossible, which is why the claims this group makes, much like the claims other religions make and claim as truth, can't be actionable in court. Claims based on verifiable facts and numbers like money, investments, etc. are governed every day and the claims people make have to be backed up with evidence and results must be shown in specifics so that people who are in fact gullible aren't taken advantage of. It is impossible to do that with religious beliefs or promises.

Meex, you're saying they can't, I'm saying they did. That's why it actionable.

No doubt. When I say can't, what I mean is, even though they used the words that made the claims and took all of the appropriate action to make someone believe them, it is impossible to verify it is a certain fact for everyone. They can state their beliefs as facts and they may even believe themselves, but it is impossible to verify it. Not being able to verify it in any way, shape or form, no one can say they were right or wrong (or in this case fraudulent or not fraudulent).

That is what I was referring to when saying they can't say it is a fact (even though they tried lololol).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That is certainly true, but in cases of religion there can't be clear expectations, it is impossible, which is why the claims this group makes, much like the claims other religions make and claim as truth, can't be actionable in court. Claims based on verifiable facts and numbers like money, investments, etc. are governed every day and the claims people make have to be backed up with evidence and results must be shown in specifics so that people who are in fact gullible aren't taken advantage of. It is impossible to do that with religious beliefs or promises.

Meex, you're saying they can't, I'm saying they did. That's why it actionable.

No doubt. When I say can't, what I mean is, even though they used the words that made the claims and took all of the appropriate action to make someone believe them, it is impossible to verify it is a certain fact for everyone. They can state their beliefs as facts and they may even believe themselves, but it is impossible to verify it. Not being able to verify it in any way, shape or form, no one can say they were right or wrong (or in this case fraudulent or not fraudulent).

That is what I was referring to when saying they can't say it is a fact (even though they tried lololol).

They're charging people to receive knowledge like it's a fact, and that where they'll burn if the case goes right. If I tell you I can teach you to walk on water like Jesus for a price I have to deliver or refund your money. The CoS just says you need more lessons, for more money, of course. That's their con.

Whatever happens, CoS policies and practices are going to be scrutinized in court if we're lucky. I hope it's Dover all over again.