UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

But in the eyes of the law?

Yes, generally.

[alferret]

I know very little about Scientology apart from it was started back in the 50's iirc by Hubbard.
Apparently people have the ability to make informed decisions about they way they conduct their life.
So if the supreme court rules that its a religion who are we to say cult?
Much like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindus and all the others that I may have omitted they all have to start somewhere and fund themselves in ways that "others" may object to.
The world is a big place with 7 billion souls! Surely there is room for everyone?
In the free world we dont dictate what religion you HAVE to follow and as they are practicing in the free part, let them have at it without criticism.
I was brought up RC, done the church thing, was confirmed, went to catholic school, realised that it was all a scam/sham at 13 and never looked back. Some people need to follow something and some dont, isnt it about time we showed how intelligent we like to think of ourselves are and let ________________ (insert whatever wannabe religion's name you want) become whatever they are destined to be.

---------- Post added at 06:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No just someone who has observed cult after cult for the last 50 years use and abuse their 'congregations' for all sorts of purposes from fraud, child abuse to murder..all in the guise of religion and with charitable status.

LOL Christianity/Islam, its leaders, the ones who front the said organisations under the guise of religion have been doing this for 2000+ years, so 50 years is nothing in the great timeline, its just narrowmindedness. Turning a blind eye to what your religion does and has done and then casting aspersions on others.
Why am I not surprised!!!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, generally.

So we're agreed that just because someone calls something a religion does not makes it so? Glad to have you on-board with that one.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

So we're agreed that just because someone calls something a religion does not makes it so? Glad to have you on-board with that one.

No, I don't believe I've said that Russ. My understanding is that anyone can start a religion. What the law or anyone else might think of their doing so is largely irrelevant until they break the law.

[Russ]

But you agree that for a religion to be legally classed as such then it needs to be recognised by the law, as opposed to an armchair-expert? As in the example of 'Jedi-ism' which has no legal status as a religion?

Originally Posted by alferret

I know very little about Scientology apart from it was started back in the 50's iirc by Hubbard.
Apparently people have the ability to make informed decisions about they way they conduct their life.
So if the supreme court rules that its a religion who are we to say cult?
Much like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindus and all the others that I may have omitted they all have to start somewhere and fund themselves in ways that "others" may object to.
The world is a big place with 7 billion souls! Surely there is room for everyone?
In the free world we dont dictate what religion you HAVE to follow and as they are practicing in the free part, let them have at it without criticism.
I was brought up RC, done the church thing, was confirmed, went to catholic school, realised that it was all a scam/sham at 13 and never looked back. Some people need to follow something and some dont, isnt it about time we showed how intelligent we like to think of ourselves are and let ________________ (insert whatever wannabe religion's name you want) become whatever they are destined to be.

---------- Post added at 06:03 ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 ----------


LOL Christianity/Islam, its leaders, the ones who front the said organisations under the guise of religion have been doing this for 2000+ years, so 50 years is nothing in the great timeline, its just narrowmindedness. Turning a blind eye to what your religion does and has done and then casting aspersions on others.
Why am I not surprised!!!

I'm an atheist. Not throwing stones just making a point about cults being able to use charitable status to leach money out of their congregation to get rich and to hell with the charity. Moonies are one example.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

But you agree that for a religion to be legally classed as such then it needs to be recognised by the law, as opposed to an armchair-expert? As in the example of 'Jedi-ism' which has no legal status as a religion?

For anything to be "legally classed" it ought to be assessed from a legal perspective - this is not a pre requisite unique to religion.

If someone comes up with and adheres to a faith based doctrine which they consider to be and define as a religion and which functions within the parameters of the law and if participants in that practice see some personal well-being benefit in same then good luck to them.

In the greater scheme of things if there is indeed a god I'm pretty sure he / she / it isn't too worried about the legal opinion of us mere mortals.

To my mind it's somewhat nonsensical to argue the finer points of religious / commercial law in an attempt to determine whether or not someones belief sets meet a benchmark comparable to ones own in order to justify calling those beliefs a religion.

I think Pierre hit it on the head when he mentioned religious snobbery.

[Russ]

That's all very well but in previous "Let's ban religion!!" diatribe threads on here in the past I've asked people what their definition of 'religion' is, since it could be argued that football teams, actors, singers, bands etc could be considered deities when you think of how they are worshipped.

So my point was if you ban religion then you have to ban these pastimes too as they follow the same path as say 'Christianity' in how they are adhered to.

That apparently was not good enough. I think it was more a case of militant atheists using any excuse to have a pop at (what they consider to be) religion so I'm going on the legal definition as they refuse to reveal their own perimeters for it.

[Mr Angry]

"football teams, actors, singers, bands" are all tangible entities. Anyone who could consider them to be deities needs their head looked at.

This thread isn't about militant athiests or their perception of religion(s), it's about scientology being recognised by the Supreme Court as a religion. Clearly certain people will take this as an affront to their perception of what their own religion represents and means to them. It appears to me that some people think scientology as a religion threatens their very faith.

Personally speaking I really don't get what the big issue is. All organised religions are equally ridiculous in my eyes, that is of course my own personal opinion. Whilst I find the notion of a supreme being ridiculous I do respect everyones right to practice a religion or faith should they wish to do so. If people feel value in doing so then, again, that's fine by me and good luck to them but nobody can have a monopoly on religion and the belief of supreme beings.

To seek to deny others the right to practice a religion different to (some may say in competition with) ones own based on some human interpretaion of semantics is beyond laughable.

Again, as Pierre said, it's religious snobbery at its finest.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

To seek to deny others the right to practice a religion different to (some may say in competition with) ones own based on some human interpretaion of semantics is beyond laughable.

Again, as Pierre said, it's religious snobbery at its finest.

But that's a continual misrepresentation of what the argument is. People should be able to practise whatever religion or abstract notion they want but where there is conflict is when the state recognises it as a religion and therefore grants them the special status that comes with it. The tax breaks and the protective laws. This status should not be granted by the mere fact a group identifies as a religion.

Scientology is one of the few 'faiths' that charges it's members for it's basic function. The fact that a more traditional church doesn't is part of the reason why they have such tax breaks. When you're paying the vicar and the upkeep of the church whilst relying largely on charitable donations then tax breaks make a lot of sense.

Religion snobbery? Detractors of Scientology have far more reasons to be cynical of the 'religion' than mere snobbery. The complaints are many. Just look at the 'Fair Game' technique they are alleged to have employed against their critics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_game_(scientology)

There are many other examples of that around. It's also disingenuous to claim that this about mere snobbery.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

...It's also disingenuous to claim that this about mere snobbery.

That's exactly what it's about Damien, people fighting over some supposed superiority of faith and an associated right to claim tax breaks.

As I said, everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Scientologly has been acknowledged as a religion and people need to get over the fact.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That's exactly what it's about Damien, people fighting over some supposed superiority of faith and an associated right to claim tax breaks.

As I said, everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Scientologly has been acknowledged as a religion and people need to get over the fact.

Good grief. Reading between the lines a bit there aren't we?

Damien has -repeatedly - made the case that legal status is the concern here, due to the way religious organisations are treated under law. In his argument it has absolutely nothing to do with which religion is superior to another. If you are in any way familiar with Damian's posts on this forum over a great many years, you ought to be quite content that he has no agenda of favouring one region over another.

His argument, and mine, is that changing the way the law decides what is a religion has consequences far beyond Scientology. Such changes, therefore, ought to be debated in Parliament and then legislated for, and should not be subject to the opinions of a few judges, no matter how esteemed they are.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Good grief. Reading between the lines a bit there aren't we?

Damien has -repeatedly - made the case that legal status is the concern here, due to the way religious organisations are treated under law. In his argument it has absolutely nothing to do with which religion is superior to another. If you are in any way familiar with Damian's posts on this forum over a great many years, you ought to be quite content that he has no agenda of favouring one region over another.

His argument, and mine, is that changing the way the law decides what is a religion has consequences far beyond Scientology. Such changes, therefore, ought to be debated in Parliament and then legislated for, and should not be subject to the opinions of a few judges, no matter how esteemed they are.

Chris, with all due respect, it is you who is reading between the lines.

Nowhere have I said or suggested that I thought Damien had an "agenda of favouring one religion over another". If you are in any way familiar with my posts on this forum over a great many years, you ought to be quite content that if I wanted to say I thought he had an agenda I'd come right out and say it.

Quite clearly this whole scientology being recognised as a religion issue is a matter which vexes those who are of a faith based bent. They are entitled to their opinion however I doubt, very strongly, that tax breaks and legal standing are the primary concerns. After all if somone felt that strongly about such matters then one might reasonably ask why they are not campaigning for or advocating the removal of tax and rate reliefs afforded to the current religions that avail of them. To not do so is to clearly differentiate (on some basis) as to the bonafides of one religion over another (religious snobbery).

We've seen in debates regarding same sex marriage how legislation making provision for same in the legislature and law is dismissed / discounted when it suits so, clearly, legislation will never be an answer for all.

Personally I don't think this issue merits a theological debate at this level. Nor do I think that scientology represents a threat to anyone other than those predisposed to placing belief in a faith.

Ultimately I think that legislating about faith is about as useful and relevant as dancing about architecture.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"football teams, actors, singers, bands" are all tangible entities. Anyone who could consider them to be deities needs their head looked at.

That's not what I call being respectful of someone's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This thread isn't about militant athiests or their perception of religion(s), it's about scientology being recognised by the Supreme Court as a religion.

People are responding to the Supreme Court's decision - it's really not like you to try to stifle debate.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Clearly certain people will take this as an affront to their perception of what their own religion represents and means to them. It appears to me that some people think scientology as a religion threatens their very faith.

I'm pretty sure you're alone (or at least in a minority) with that assertion.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Personally speaking I really don't get what the big issue is. All organised religions are equally ridiculous in my eyes, that is of course my own personal opinion. Whilst I find the notion of a supreme being ridiculous I do respect everyones right to practice a religion or faith should they wish to do so. If people feel value in doing so then, again, that's fine by me and good luck to them but nobody can have a monopoly on religion and the belief of supreme beings.

OK I confess to being initially taken aback by that as I was always under the impression you were an Irish Roman Catholic. It appears we are very similar in how we view very opposing points - I consider the notion of militant atheism to be quite ridiculous too however just as you would for religious types, I respect (and would fight for) their right to have any principles or beliefs in their lives that they deem fit, just as long as they avoid me with them.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

To seek to deny others the right to practice a religion different to (some may say in competition with) ones own based on some human interpretaion of semantics is beyond laughable.

Agreed (something many militant atheists would do well to pay heed to) although I can't quite see anyone trying to deny anybody anything.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Again, as Pierre said, it's religious snobbery at its finest.

It's only religious snobbery if the observer has been too lazy to ascertain the reason for someone's objection to a belief system being legally labelled a 'religion'.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

It's only religious snobbery if the observer has been too lazy to ascertain the reason for someone's objection to a belief system being legally labelled a 'religion'.

Help me out here Russ, what is your actual objection to this particular ruling?