Ad data retrieval

Saturday, February 12, 2011

What's Your Take?

 When L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology, he set out to make money, and make money he did. The founder of Scientology was worth hundreds of millions of dollars when he died of a stroke. Scientology has had casualties, people who have perished or suffered because the organization prohibits use of many common drugs. A class of drugs demonized by the church is psychiatric drugs, which Mr. Hubbard himself was taking at the time of his death. The self-styled intellectual flunked out of George Washington University yet claimed Scientology could cure everything from epilepsy to radiation burns. (See: Dianetics)

  One of the great appeals of Scientology is a sense of community, and offer a cure for psychological and social ills. Scientologists count amongst my readers and I have family members involved with the organization. One most peculiar trait of Scientology is its active courting of celebrities, one of whom director and screenwriter Paul Haggis. 

  Mr. Haggis joined the group over 30 years ago and left only recently due to the Church's support of Prop 8. It should be noted that Hubbard claimed to be able to cure homosexuality through Scientology, but efforts to do so are no longer politically correct.The movie man stated many of the same things that many others had about Scientology, including human trafficking and slavery in the Sea Orgs.

 Mr. Haggis' brave departure from the group has sparked a sea of other former members coming forward with tales of everything from forced isolation to outright torture. Exposes of being forced to work for little to no pay to serve famous adherents are coming out, like this one, where Scientologists worked for Tom Cruise for $50.00 a week. The church is currently being sued by numerous former members and is now under FBI investigation for illegal practices including slavery, money laundering, and human trafficking. Naturally, the Church has shot back, denying any wrongdoing.

  In his own words, L. Ron Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology as a money-making operation ( "MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972) and then started believing the legends he produced. In Germany, the Church of Scientology is considered a cult whose goals are counter-constitutional. However, on our side of the pond, the Church enjoys the same privileged tax status as any other religion.

  So my question to you is: is the Church of Scientology any more or less dangerous than any other belief system? And should it deserve tax-favourable status? And if not, is it because it is a newer belief system or the content of the system? And also, do any religious institutions that demand submission deserve tax-protected status?

1 comment:

  1. The tax exemption in the United States is granted under the same rules that grants exemption to any non-profit organization. The only difference is that recognized churches do not have to apply for that status, it is recognized in advance.

    The rules are below, but you'll not see any requirement that the organization does not demand submission. An organization can demand whatever it wants -- it's the steps Scientology may have taken to get submission that might be its downfall (see the last rule).

    ■ The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,

    ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,

    ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,

    ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and

    ■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy

    People should be able to work for whatever rates they want to work for and they can do that as independent contractors. If a guy accepts a contract to build a house, but underbid, it might cost him money or he might make very little to do the work... it's his problem. I agreed to work for what was the equivalent of $3.25/hr for 40 hours per week for several months, recently.

    The Salvation Army in my city requires people staying at their homeless shelter to work in their store, sorting donations, etc., for no pay. If they don't work, they don't have a place to sleep or food to eat (at least from the Salvation Army). But, is this slave labor??

    I'm shocked that Tom Cruise would worry much about whether he pays $50 or $290 per week for a handful of workers.

    Hey, Gordon Gekko: How many yachts can you water-ski behind?


Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think