UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion

[Russ]

Would it make any difference to your stance seeing as you appear to already have written it off as 'religious snobbery'?

[Mr Angry]

Thank you, that itself speaks volumes.

[Russ]

If you're a fan of generalisations and basing on your opinion on presumptions then I'd have to agree.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

If you're a fan of generalisations and basing on your opinion on presumptions then I'd have to agree.

If you won't state the actual reasons for your objection to the ruling then all anyone can do is work on assumptions. Clearly it's not me who is trying to stifle debate, it's you.

Once again I'll ask you Russ. What exactly are the reasons for your objection to this ruling?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If you won't state the actual reasons for your objection to the ruling then all anyone can do is work on assumptions. Clearly it's not me who is trying to stifle debate, it's you.

No.

Re-read your posts. As in the past you'd already made up your mind that my 'objections' were based on what you decided was 'religious snobbery'. Then you asked me what my objections were. I can show you the posts in order if you like.

That's you being prejudice and narrow-minded in the way that many atheists accuse religious people of being. But hypocrisy aside for a moment.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Once again I'll ask you Russ. What exactly are the reasons for your objection to this ruling?

Disliking something and objecting to it (to the point of wanting something repealed/banned) are two different things to me. They may be identical to yourself but I don't work that way - the world is bigger than me and just because I may not be comfortable with something does not mean I demand it be changed.

From what I have seen of Scientology (and its effects on members AND non-members) it comes across as damaging and destructive. Now I'm sure you'll be only too happy to show some random and out-of-context biblical passage that suggests Christianity is the same however I've not seen anything in scriptures that is directly damaging in that way. For example if you or I publicly criticise Scientology then any and all methods are deemed acceptable to ruin our reputations. That's just an example of how I'm very uncomfortable with Scientology. Do I want it banned? I'm not sure I've said that. Do I think people should not follow it as a faith? Nope not said that either.

Do I consider Scientology a threat to my own faith? That's perhaps the most laughable thing you have ever alluded to on CF.

The answer's no by the way.

[Gary L]

I personally think that the militant Christians do see it as a threat.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I personally think that the militant Christians do see it as a threat.

Then they're being quite silly (whoever they are). Scientology is a niche hobby for people with money to spend. It's a self-improvement fad, like so many others. The fact that it has a price tag for advancement means it's never going to threaten any of the established world religions.

[Gary L]

Will it have to be on the Census forms now that it's a legal religion?

will I have to put scientology or scientologist in other if it's not?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

No.

Re-read your posts. As in the past you'd already made up your mind that my 'objections' were based on what you decided was 'religious snobbery'. Then you asked me what my objections were. I can show you the posts in order if you like.

I'd invite you to re read my posts. Perhaps you can point out where I identified you or anyone else on CF as individuals practicing religious snobbery?

Originally Posted by Russ

That's you being prejudice and narrow-minded in the way that many atheists accuse religious people of being. But hypocrisy aside for a moment..

I think you'll find, in light of the above, it's you who is prejudiced and narrowminded. I have repeatedly stated that I have no issue whatsoever about people holding religious beliefs and practising / adhering to a belief subset. That they choose to do so is a matter for them and them alone. You are trying to deflect from the point at hand by feigning some sort of offence to mask your inability and unwillingness to state precisely why you object to this ruling and the reasons behind that objection.

Originally Posted by Russ

Disliking something and objecting to it (to the point of wanting something repealed/banned) are two different things to me. They may be identical to yourself but I don't work that way - the world is bigger than me and just because I may not be comfortable with something does not mean I demand it be changed.

You're on record as previously having stated that where you disagree with older laws you expect them to be changed to suit you. I'm quite clear on the difference between simply disliking something and wanting something repealed / banned. What I'm not clear about is your apparent issue with this ruling.

Originally Posted by Russ

From what I have seen of Scientology (and its effects on members AND non-members) it comes across as damaging and destructive. Now I'm sure you'll be only too happy to show some random and out-of-context biblical passage that suggests Christianity is the same however I've not seen anything in scriptures that is directly damaging in that way. For example if you or I publicly criticise Scientology then any and all methods are deemed acceptable to ruin our reputations. That's just an example of how I'm very uncomfortable with Scientology. Do I want it banned? I'm not sure I've said that. Do I think people should not follow it as a faith? Nope not said that either.

Do I consider Scientology a threat to my own faith? That's perhaps the most laughable thing you have ever alluded to on CF.

The answer's no by the way.

Ok, so now we've established your opinion on scientology and you've stated what you dislike about it, that you have no wish for it to be banned and that you've no issue with people following it as a faith can we now get back to the real issue?

What is your exact issue with this ruling?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ok, so now we've established your opinion on scientology and you've stated what you dislike about it, that you have no wish for it to be banned and that you've no issue with people following it as a faith can we now get back to the real issue?

What is your exact issue with this ruling?

That with the concerns over scientology that have been stated they'll be granted tax breaks and more laws with which to protect themselves from criticism. Additionally it suggests that the only requirement for this status is that some of your members/followers deem it as a religion.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

That with the concerns over scientology that have been stated they'll be granted tax breaks and more laws with which to protect themselves from criticism.

Thanks for that Damien. The question was directed at Russ and I'd hope to hear back from him with his own reasons.

On your reply. Given that scientology is now recognised as a religion why in your opinion ought it not be afforded the inducements and protections in line with any other religion which is affoded same?

EDIT:

Is it the case that "only some" members / followers of scientology consider it a religion?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

On your reply. Given that scientology is now recognised as a religion why in your opinion ought it not be afforded the inducements and protections in line with any other religion which is affoded same?

Being allowed to call yourself a religion and being given religious status by the state are different things. The latter should not be granted because it's deemed a religion by it's followers. In Scientology's case there is a lot to be concerned about it:

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

Operation Freakout, also known as Operation PC Freakout, was a Church of Scientology covert plan intended to have the US author and journalist Paulette Cooper imprisoned or committed to a mental institution. The plan, undertaken in 1976 following years of Church-initiated lawsuits and covert harassment, was meant to eliminate the perceived threat that Cooper posed to the Church and obtain revenge for her publication in 1971 of a highly-critical book, The Scandal of Scientology. The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered documentary evidence of the plot and the preceding campaign of harassment during an investigation into the Church of Scientology in 1977, eventually leading to the Church compensating Cooper in an out-of-court settlement.

This is one of many similar cases. We're going to be granted them laws that could see the police knock on people's door....

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

Being allowed to call yourself a religion and being given religious status by the state are different things. The latter should not be granted because it's deemed a religion by it's followers. In Scientology's case there is a lot to be concerned about it:

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



This is one of many similar cases. We're going to be granted them laws that could see the police knock on people's door....

Wikipedia and hearsay / evidence of past behaviours (not unique to scientology) aside.

Given that scientology is now recognised as a religion why in your opinion ought it not be afforded the inducements and protections in line with any other religion which is affoded same?

As others have posited. There are no religions which are blameless as far as past behavious are concerned so why make an exception / difference as far as scientology is concerned? Why not remove the tax saving and protections from all and any religions and thereby generate more money for the treasury / greater good of everyone. After all, one might reasonably question the need, for example, for churches. Wasn't it Jesus who supposedly said according to Matthew 18:20 "Where two or three are gathered in my name..."

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Wikipedia and hearsay / evidence of past behaviours (not unique to scientology) aside.

It's not 'hearsay'. There is plenty of evidence and testimony from former members about the organisation.

Given that scientology is now recognised as a religion why in your opinion ought it not be afforded the inducements and protections in line with any other religion which is affoded same?

I can't keep answering the same question and having you pretend I haven't. Russ cannot do either. I have said why time and time again including the post you've quoted.

[Osem]

and they wonder why 'religion' starts wars....