Scientology A Proper Religion Now Apparently

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25331754

And here I was, thinking that Scientology was just a cult for daft, credulous Americans with more money than sense. But according to a British Supreme Court ruling, Scientology should now be accorded the same status as Christianity, etc.

You couldn't make it up if you tried !

[FredPuli43]

Take care. We don't have the judgments of the Supreme Court. It appears from press reports that the Court disliked the 1970s test of a religion for this purpose , which definition included the condition that there should be worship of a deity (or deities). Yet Buddhism is a religion, on any view, and does not have that component.

The Court was being asked whether a Scientology building, termed a chapel, was a place of worship and thus qualified as a place where marriage could be celebrated, without the need for a special licence such as a hotel would require. It is quite possible to declare that it is a place of worship without declaring, on a wider question, that Scientology is a religion for all, or any other, purposes.

[LazyGun]

@Fred I do hope you are right, and I take your point about the finer points of the judgement.

I notice though that some of the media reports were suggesting that this judgement might be used as a precedent for granting Scientology charitable status, so it is not only me worrying :)

[FredPuli43]

Yes, LG, but journalists aren't lawyers. The case is what lawyers call 'distinguishable'. Sometimes a case is 'distinguishable on its own facts', that is that it is decided on certain facts without which it could not be so decided and your facts are different, sometimes it is 'distinguishable in law', most commonly because the key question, the fundamental one upon which the Court is being asked to decide, is one narrow one or one only, and confined in itself. Anything the Court says about anything beyond that question is 'obiter dicta', things said which may be helpful when they concern some other question but which are not binding on any court when that court has to decide that question. So far as we can tell, there are not any obiter dicta on the wider question of the status of Scientology as a religion for other purposes, so even that doesn't justify speculation about what any court or this one would hold.

[LazyGun]

Then my fears are assuaged, Fred :)

[RATTER15]

Perhaps the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" will be recognised next, I dare say their book of facts would read quiet similarly along with the Bible.

http://www.venganza.org/ and you can become a minister for $20!

[mikey4444]

Fred...as always, the voice of experience and reason !

I have been watching some Scientology stuff on YouTube and found one where Tom Cruise tries to explain this nonsense ::



Cruise, not being a terribly tall actr, brings to mind Noel Coward's thoughts on short men ..." Never trust a man with short legs..brains far too near his bottom"

[Kromovaracun]

Scientology really isn't all that different from more 'mainstream' religions. It's not a great deal more mad than talking snakes or Mohammed splitting the moon in half.

[jno]

if Eton College can be a charity, I suppsoe Scientology can be. The definition is rather wide.

[FredPuli43]

It's about time it was held that Eton College is not charitable. The reason it is, is that charity was defined by the Statutes of Elizabeth, hundreds of years ago. The definition included education. At that time, education was charitable for the great mass of people; rich men employed private tutors, but the children of the rest got their education through schools which were provided by the Church or by the generosity of some local benefactor or benefactors. It would be hard to argue that education provided out of taxes or exclusively out of the pockets of the rich is charitable now.

[Cannedgranny]

jomifl, I know that JW's do not do blood transfusions but please enlighten me as to which religion spreads aids.

[mikey4444]

The Catholic Church still frowns on the use of condoms. Condoms are in the forefront of the fight against sexually-transmitted diseases and Aids is the worst of the lot.

[Cannedgranny]

Thankyou Mikey4444, that does make sense.

[Bazile]

bibblebub - i've been traversing Ferengi space looking for you .

I've got a consignment of goods , you'll be intetrested in .

There's PROFIT in it .

[Cannedgranny]

Mikey4444, on second thought I believe that a person is responsible for his own actions.If they are aware that they have Aids then they should refrain from having sex, or as you point out, use a condom but I do not believe anyone can put the blame on the Catholic Church. Know this has got nothing to do with Scientology but just responding the jomifl's thread. The Catholic Church believe in one partner only for life and that goes back a long way before Aids came to the fore. It's the promiscuous ones that are spreading Aids. By the way, I am not a RC.

[Hypognosis]

"Tax the Churches."
"Tax the businesses owned by the Churches"
F. Zappa


(towards the end, if you don't have 4 mins to spare)

[ludwig]

// Never trust a man with short legs..brains far too near his bottom" //

That doesn't make sense. He'd have to have a short torso for it to be true. Leg length is irrelevant to the brain/bottom distance.

[jomifl]

Canned granny, The catholic church promotes the spread of aids by condemming the use of condoms.

[Cannedgranny]

jomifl, as I have already said, it's up to the individual who knows that they have Aids to abstain. Besides, I am sure there are many catholics out there who use condoms for birth control whether the church agrees or not (who's to know).

[jomifl]

Cg, you are deliberately missing the point.

[ludwig]

It's been said that the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of the congregation.
If you think about the major organised religions, they are just weird cults that have managed to recruit massive numbers of followers.