Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea that Scientology is more absurd or corrupt than any other religion, even if I agree, is not something I want a government deciding. I don't want government deciding a particular religion is more logical or more corrupt, outside of declaring all of them to be unworthy of tax exemption.
Nope, it can't work that way. There MUST be parameters - established by the government - that define what a religion must be in order to qualify as one. Without the government making those decisions, every tax evader in America could invent their own crazy beliefs on the fly and apply for tax exempt status - and get it.
Sure, it can be scary, perhaps even a bit dangerous for the government to draw those lines regarding religious belief ... but it HAS to be done.
I have to agree with those who desire to strip scientology of its tax exempt status.
When I first moved to North Carolina and was looking for work in Raleigh, I went on an interview for what I thought was a perfume company. Turned out, it was a corporate cult, a sort of quasi-pyramid scheme with a mysterious pyramid apex known as "Uncle Walt" who lived in a mansion on Oahu. As an atheist, the alarm bells going off inside my head were deafening so I declined a second interview - and lo and behold, the internet has several forums dedicated to warning people away from that "company."
It was very religious and cultish by nature with "Uncle Walt" serving as the object of reverence and obedience. You were expected to sacrifice everything in order to panhandle illegal perfume knockoffs to people on the street - and your hard-earned money went up the pyramid until even "Uncle Walt" got his share and you were left holding pennies. Failing to meet a quota of sales prompted disciplinary action up to and including the horrible prospect of being banished from the cult. Those forums are replete with sad stories of parents losing their kids, wives and husbands breaking up, people committing suicide, etc.
Now, the reason why I bring this up is because ... should an organization like this also receive tax exempt status simply because they structured their business like a religious group? Isn't that precisely what scientology has done?
I don't think we should be in the business of rewarding cults and encouraging businesses to duck their taxes simply by masquerading as a religious entity. The line has to be drawn somewhere - and I think scientology is on the other side of the line.
Nope, it can't work that way. There MUST be parameters - established by the government - that define what a religion must be in order to qualify as one. Without the government making those decisions, every tax evader in America could invent their own crazy beliefs on the fly and apply for tax exempt status - and get it.
Sure, it can be scary, perhaps even a bit dangerous for the government to draw those lines regarding religious belief ... but it HAS to be done.
I think you're making a great case for why no religions should be tax exempt, based upon simply "being" a religion. And I'm completely with this argument. But picking & choosing "bad" religion from "good" religion is not nearly as straightforward once you get past the Uncle Walt's of the world (and there may be defensibility to that entity as well...under our corrupt tax laws).
The problem with finding distinction with scientology is that, the crux of the argument against it is that it behaves like a business entity. Is this unique to scientology? And who exactly is "representative" of scientology as a religion (legally)? I could proclaim it my own religion...and you should not have the authority to tell me I can't build a church of scientology when I am breaking no other laws. Want to ban scientology from tax exemption? Fine, I'll create a Church of Psudoscientology and do the same things until you catch on to my shenanigans again.
The laws (tax or otherwise) being broken by "members" of scientology should be handled through the legal system. And I'd gladly accept removal of tax exemption from all religions, on the basis of no demonstrable societal benefit (among others) that cannot be otherwise achieved (i.e. you can still apply for "charity" status...you just aren't allowed to be tax exempt without "proof" of your charitable work & finances).
But the idea of government picking & choosing winners means...ultimately those with the largest lobbying base will ultimately "win" out after they are able to manipulate & concentrate the definition of religion to mean what they want it to mean.
While I understand that each is entitled to his own view, if waiting for idealist solutions rather than practical or even piecemeal ones, is preferable than I'd be inclined to say that is opting for the status quo, at least for a long, long time.
Because I can't support discrimination between religions. The reasons why and how Scientology obtained religious status is irrelevant The rights and privileges for a religion - once recognized - cannot be revoked for one and not the other. If that were so the Church of the FSM and the rights accorded to the atheist viewpoint on religious claims would all become vulnerable to legally - endorsed discrimination.
The campaign to erect holiday poles, have public prayers to Polynesian gods, circulate atheist tracts, put up statues to Baphomet, are all meant to knock down attempts to get particular privileges for a particular religion. Targeting scientology would (perhaps unintentionally) crack the principle of equal rights for all religious views.
The basis for scientology being turned down for tax exemption in the first place is that it's highly questionable that it is a religion in the way that others are or that they earn the exemption through charitable works in the same way as others. It is a money making scam with enforcers. I suppose you could argue that all religions are, that the navy-like uniforms of their elite are their clerical garb, that tales of invisible beings infesting your body is their version of demons, etc. Even Hubbard making all that up as he went is no different than how Christianity was concocted other than being more proximate in time and better documented. Still, the IRS denied them the exemption properly IMO in the first place and should rescind its wrong decision for that reason.
The basis of the original IRS denial was not quibbling about the religious trappings qualifying as religion; it was that the $$ were going to the leader's personal bank accounts and then the leaders themselves were not paying taxes, most prominently Hubbard who lived most of his final couple of decades or more as essentially a fugitive, either on a boat in international waters or in hiding on land.
The IRS wasn't picking on Scientology in its original denial and would not be picking on it by returning to that. Scientology is a money-laundering scheme for a bunch of bullies who are cynically vacuuming the money out of the pockets of vulnerable people and doing nothing for them in return other than asking for more and abusing them if they get out of line. Up to and including imprisoning them or making them disappear.
If you haven't done so I suggest watching Going Clear. It is an eye-opener.
Believe me I know about scientology and it is not the only one. I agree it perhaps should never have been allowed to claim religious status in the first place and the way it did was bury the opposition that tried to collect tax.
I don't know whether there is some method of declaring the religious recognition process invalid and stripping Scientology of religion status, but because it is a nasty, exploitative, secretive and abusive cult does not in itself, in my view, make it a special case for defrocking . Bear in mind, the idea is not to obliterate it, but to allow the government to milk some of its profits. Maybe that's what you call small steps.
I think you're making a great case for why no religions should be tax exempt, based upon simply "being" a religion. And I'm completely with this argument. But picking & choosing "bad" religion from "good" religion is not nearly as straightforward once you get past the Uncle Walt's of the world (and there may be defensibility to that entity as well...under our corrupt tax laws).
The problem with finding distinction with scientology is that, the crux of the argument against it is that it behaves like a business entity. Is this unique to scientology? And who exactly is "representative" of scientology as a religion (legally)? I could proclaim it my own religion...and you should not have the authority to tell me I can't build a church of scientology when I am breaking no other laws. Want to ban scientology from tax exemption? Fine, I'll create a Church of Psudoscientology and do the same things until you catch on to my shenanigans again.
The laws (tax or otherwise) being broken by "members" of scientology should be handled through the legal system. And I'd gladly accept removal of tax exemption from all religions, on the basis of no demonstrable societal benefit (among others) that cannot be otherwise achieved (i.e. you can still apply for "charity" status...you just aren't allowed to be tax exempt without "proof" of your charitable work & finances).
But the idea of government picking & choosing winners means...ultimately those with the largest lobbying base will ultimately "win" out after they are able to manipulate & concentrate the definition of religion to mean what they want it to mean.
Quite true, though that is more of an idealist solution rather than a realistic one. However, I wouldn't be too upset if all religions lost their tax exempt status. Perhaps the biggest reason of all is that the government could really use the extra income. The holdings of the Catholic Church alone could probably chip away a nice chunk of the national debt every year - or better still, bolster the coffers of social security and disability. I would MUCH rather see their money going toward government programs than spent on charity given that government programs can do MUCH more for people than church charities and government programs are far less biased (church charities are extremely biased toward children).
Maybe taxation would stop churches like the Mormons spending $47 million on anti-gay propaganda (even using photos and videos of children without parental consent) instead of using that money to help people in need. I'd rather see $47 million of Mormon money go to the government than to serve as a warchest to promote bigotry, hatred, homophobia, prejudice, oppression, and inequity.
The ONLY issue I would have with removing their tax exempt status is because most churches are liable to say, "Well, if we're paying taxes, that should give us the right to enter the political arena free and clear with both barrels blazing." Right now, their tax exempt status is dependent upon those churches staying out of politics, and while the bigger churches still lobby congress and cross the line, opening the door completely to religion mixing with politics could be a monumental disaster for free-thinking people everywhere in America.
I am not sure that would wash. I think that constitiution has separation of Church and state, not separation of tax exempt organizations and state. And a lot of organizations pay tax and don't have a say in politics.
Or maybe they do, or at least as much as the churches have influence. so the churches might as well pay their whack.
I still can't figure out how Religion status can be assigned to a "Business Model". Once more..Many Political entities apply for tax relief since they are using their incomes to HELP/Assist those in need ( AKA~Charity)..but has been shown it's mainly used for funnelling huge$$ to Political Candidates of their liking..I don't care what party..It shouldn't be allowed.
As for Scientology..Is nothing but a belief system not based on religion so much but from attempting to use Science to explain away religion as something irrelevant or impossible. In fact, It actually represents to me that their rhetoric is "Anti-Religious" ??? Am I missing their agenda???
I still can't figure out how Religion status can be assigned to a "Business Model". Once more..Many Political entities apply for tax relief since they are using their incomes to HELP/Assist those in need ( AKA~Charity)..but has been shown it's mainly used for funnelling huge$$ to Political Candidates of their liking..I don't care what party..It shouldn't be allowed.
As for Scientology..Is nothing but a belief system not based on religion so much but from attempting to use Science to explain away religion as something irrelevant or impossible. In fact, It actually represents to me that their rhetoric is "Anti-Religious" ??? Am I missing their agenda???
In my view they are a money laundering scheme that funnels money to their elites and maintains thinly veiled front organizations as counseling services that are really just recruitment machines. They are not even remotely transparent either.
I am not usually one to defend the IRS, which is famously tone-deaf and ham-fisted. I was well acquainted with someone who was essentially a codefendant in a tax fraud case. They demonstrated conclusively that they had no knowledge of what the other person was doing and were totally exonerated in an administrative decision handed down at fairly high levels. Nevertheless for years after, periodically some bureaucrat looking to make brownie points on their collection prowess and who was either unaware of the decision or didn't care about it, would surface to torment this former defendant with threats and demands. Attorneys had to be hired and paid to send them cease and desist letters; credible threats to sue for harassment had to be made. The letters were effective and things eventually died down but it was a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars as well as an abuse of power, that this even happened.
So when I suggest that the IRS was wrong to lay off a person or organization, I don't do it lightly. I would prefer to err on the side of not encouraging them to be bigger D-B's than they already are. But Scientology somehow managed to out-douche the IRS and they are NOT a routine case of a religion seeking tax exempt status. They are dishonest, obtuse, untransparent and shamelessly exploitive, as well as incredibly brazen and aggressive with their "never defend, always attack" mindset. A line has to be drawn somewhere and if it's not here I don't know where it is.
As for Scientology..Is nothing but a belief system not based on religion so much but from attempting to use Science to explain away religion as something irrelevant or impossible. In fact, It actually represents to me that their rhetoric is "Anti-Religious" ??? Am I missing their agenda???
There is nothing "science" about Scientology. You should look into it more if you want to understand it but suffice to say, its more of a cult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Bear in mind, the idea is not to obliterate it, but to allow the government to milk some of its profits. Maybe that's what you call small steps. 
