UK Supreme Court rules that Scientology is a religion

Originally Posted by Osem

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

Oh very much so.

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ridiculous answer. Who decides then?

Who decided Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etal are religions?

As Chris has said, Parliament should decide. Certainly the followers of a organisation they consider a religion shouldn't decide. I think a organisation which charges for it's basic purpose should not be considered a religion worthy of tax exemptions.

[Russ]

Regardless of the contempt some people have for it, a "religion" is a legal term. Just because someone wants to call an organisation a religion does not make it so.

Regardless of what the Vatican says, Christianity does not order you to keep paying set amounts to gain 'knowledge'. If someone wants to live as a Scientologist then that's their right but it should never be referred to as an actual 'religion'.

[richard s]

I always thought that if you are religious you have to believe in a supreme being/s.

Do scientologists believe in a supreme being.

[Pierre]

I love a bit of religious snobbery.

I think it's hilarious.

I think the judge interpreted it just fine, you can't have double standards as were applied in the 1970's on the same question

Lord Denning in Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, 707 acknowledged that Buddhist temples were “properly described as places of meeting for religious worship” but he referred to them as “exceptional cases” without offering any further explanation. The need to make an exception for Buddhism (which has also been applied to Jainism and Theosophy), and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for it, are powerful indications that there is something unsound in the supposed general rule.

also the Act from the 1855 has now been superseded by European and our own equality acts.

Individuals have a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under article 9 of the European Convention. They enjoy the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of religion or belief under EU Council Directive 2000/78/EC

In regards to funding, a church needs to be funded. Should we discriminate against a new religion just because they haven't been around for a millenia to rape the land and acquire a massive property portfolio to fund themselves.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

Originally Posted by richard s

I always thought that if you are religious you have to believe in a supreme being/s.

Do scientologists believe in a supreme being.

Yes they do, the believe that man needs to believe in a supreme being.

I don't believe they name any particular being, or beings.

In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ

Regardless of the contempt some people have for it, a "religion" is a legal term. Just because someone wants to call an organisation a religion does not make it so.

Regardless of what the Vatican says, Christianity does not order you to keep paying set amounts to gain 'knowledge'. If someone wants to live as a Scientologist then that's their right but it should never be referred to as an actual 'religion'.

In fairness, the Supreme Court are not just "someone". They are a group of people who, while they may not be in a position to change laws, they can change how laws are interpreted. So, they are in a position to decide whether Scientology fits the legal definition of a religion.

[Russ]

That's what I mean - The Supreme Court makes these decisions, not your average forum arm-chair expert.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

That's what I mean - The Supreme Court makes these decisions, not your average forum arm-chair expert.

Great. Well they've made their decision.

It is a religion.

So we can all accept it and move on.

[Russ]

Not the point I was making but never mind.

[Pierre]

I fail to see any other conclusion that could be taken from your statement?

It's a cult masquerading as a religion.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It's a cult masquerading as a religion.

What was the term used earlier?

Arm chair expert?

Comfy chair and slippers expert eh?

Originally Posted by Pierre

What was the term used earlier?

Arm chair expert?

Comfy chair and slippers expert eh?

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.


However you seem to be very hot under the collar about this..Why?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I fail to see any other conclusion that could be taken from your statement?

To you, any group of people worshipping any sort of deity is a religion. Opinion does not make a fact . In this case the Supreme Court made a ruling but I'm pretty certain your mind was already made up, incorrect as it was.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

To you, any group of people worshipping any sort of deity is a religion.

Seems legit.

[Russ]

But in the eyes of the law?