Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Clearly not - but there are now. And the ruling gives any organisation that wishes to call itself a religion the opportunity to claim them, denying money to the exchequer. IIRC it's business rates on premises that they are exempt from, which is money that is supposed to be shared out to local councils.

Previously there was a universally understood and accepted definition of what constituted a religion for all practical purposes. Now there isn't.

Emotional pressure has been used to a greater or lesser degree in different times and places, but the passing round of a collection plate is in no way the same as charging a fee for an auditing session just as you would be charged for a massage or an hour with a trendy psychiatrist. Scientology is by no means unique in its money spinning practices, but that doesn't make it any less pernicious.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/12/12.png

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

You can be poor and attend church. You're not charged for attending a service and the collection plate is voluntary and it's donations wouldn't come near to paying the upkeep of the church you're in. The Catholic Church is pretty wealthy, I am actually not too sure when their wealth comes from, but I do know that it doesn't come from charging people for the basic purpose it provides. Which is why the Catholic Church is followed by some of the poorest people in the world and why Scientology appeals to rich Hollywood celebrities.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

The Catholic church's wealth is ancient. A lot of it comes from the donations of wealthy nobles who paid the church to pray for their souls to speed them through purgatory and into heaven, or who paid for 'indulgences' - i.e. they paid the Pope to get him to forgive their sins. They also own a lot of land, which brings further income.

There is no doubt that the Roman church has had a thoroughly indecent attitude to money throughout a great deal of its history, however like the NHS it has always been free at the point of use. You could attend mass or confession without stumping up. The same is widely agreed not to be the case in Scientology.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Even if the Scientologists do charge their followers.

Their followers are still following them freely, and by their own choice.

I still don't see how it is any less a religion than any other.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Hmmm... I used to find those little old ladies with the collection plates really intimidating... :D

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

I follow Arsenal, it isn't a religion.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Not really an answer is it, if you can't think of a intelligent response, don't bother.

Do you go to a church to follow Arsenal?

Does Arsenal offer you a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one’s true spiritual nature and one’s relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being?

Do Arsenal addresses the spirit—not the body or mind—and believes that Man is far more than a product of his environment, or his genes?

Do Arsenal comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths.

Do Arsenal believe Man is an immortal spiritual being and that His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime, and that His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Do Arsenal further hold Man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself, his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe?

Is Arsenal not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to accept anything on faith alone. On the contrary, one discovers for oneself that the principles of Scientology are true by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results?

Is the ultimate goal of Arsenal true spiritual enlightenment and freedom for all?

Or, is it as I suspect, that Arsenal are a football team?

Also, how about answering by initial question, why isn't it a religion?

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

I can't see what other choice the judge had. He couldn't use logic so had be fair and unbiased.

If someone wants to believe in fairies, gods, aliens or jedi knights, then I can't see what separate the differences.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Pretty uncalled for. The point is that followers don't decide if something is a religion or not.

No. I go to a stadium. Scientologists don't go to a conventional church they tend to be buildings. As do a lot of Mormons and JWs.

You can get into a rabbit hole of philosophical debate here. People seek answers and a sense of order from religion but also from art, books, films and music. That people follow something or derive meaning from it doesn't mean it's a religion.

Anyway I don't care if followers decide it's a religion or not. People can call things what they want. What we're talking about is the state recognising it as a religion and therefore granting them the tax and legal advantages of a religion.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Football or any object/person of attention can have all the hallmarks of a religion. You attend places of "worship" with others of a like mind. You give money, time, attention. In some cases not following or declaring loyalty can lead to persecution. Some can see followers of others as being lesser, misguided, deceived or worse.

---

One of the points of the reformation was to remove the idea of buying indulgences so allowing those "giving" to the church to lessen or even bypass punishment. Grace alone. When we take offering at church it's made clear that the intention is that it's for regular attenders who don't give by other means to contribute to the running of the church not for visitors. And there is no preference to those who give more.

---
There is a worry that scientology can now claim tax breaks and the like as I can just see it being used as a means to eventually remove such status from other church groups. I know there are those even here who think that it should already be so but we can use the money to help run soup kitchens, food banks and the like as part of the normal function of the church.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

I don't see the problem with defining Scientology as a religion any more than defining Buddism as a religion.As for the tax free status in the UK this may afford Scientology ,it is already exempt from VAT

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Wenger's not a 'god' then?... ;)

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Not until they win a trophy... he ain't.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

Ridiculous answer. Who decides then?

Who decided Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etal are religions?

"conventional" define conventional. Does a church have to have a spire or a tower, or stained glass windows? Are you suggesting that Scientologists need to conform the Christianity stylelised version of a church.

A church is just a building.

I've been to a Hindu Temple in yorkshire that's in an old Terraced House. Does that not count as a temple?

A church is just a gathering place it can be anything and anywhere.

And the supreme court have ruled it is a religion.

Re: UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion
 

But in the context of this discussion it is not a philosophical question, it is a legal one. Which organisations should be entitled to the privileges Parliament has set aside for religious groups? As for who should decide, well Parliament should. The supreme court should only be interpreting law, not making it, and it is arguable that this particular law did not need interpreting, or certainly not re-interpreting, given that there has been a perfectly workable interpretation in use for about 40 years at least.

If times have changed, it is a matter for parliament, not judges.