We've got the Inquiry!!!

[Div6]

Disagree. The problem is the failed assumption that 'religions' are exempt from secular law.

Zinj

Wow....are you sure you really want to open that can of worms?

Historically this is a very hot button.

I would say that to be productive, the discussion should be around the rights of the governed to choose and monitor the governors, and the transparency of the governing processes thereof, whether secular or otherwise.

But to get this thread back on topic, since it is obvious that the "Church's" internal justice mechanisms are broken, society SHOULD offer a chance for justice to be served.

 

[alex]

Disagree. The problem is the failed assumption that 'religions' are exempt from secular law.

Zinj

So you got my back on the scientology is a religion assertion Zing?

I make no claim that "religions" should be exempt from secular law, only that governments should not place itself in the role of determining the value of the benefit derived. Its possibly a uniquely American idea that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This country was founded by religious refugees to a large degree, (and slavers.... )

My point is that the benefit test is a sham. Religion and charity are two different things. One is the pursuit of spiritual knowledge, the other a more secular attempt at good deeds.

The muslims are probably one of the most charitable religions, isnt charity one of the pillars of islam? Yet they do the charity in secular organizations not out of the mosque. Would they pass the test, as their only value in intangible? And who is deciding the value of intangibles....today one side, tomorrow maybe some religious extremest.

I am not against charity, or the CoS being kicked into some semblance of reform...but this roundabout way has too many flaws and plays into the hands of the person most responsible for the abuse that has occured.

Is scientology a religion Zing???

 

[alex]

Wow....are you sure you really want to open that can of worms?

Historically this is a very hot button.

I would say that to be productive, the discussion should be around the rights of the governed to choose and monitor the governors, and the transparency of the governing processes thereof, whether secular or otherwise.

But to get this thread back on topic, since it is obvious that the "Church's" internal justice mechanisms are broken, society SHOULD offer a chance for justice to be served.

Agreed!

Now in this inquiry, supposedly about all religions and charitys, but wink wink really to "get" scientology...how transparent is that?

Deleted. Post quoted was previously deleted by poster

I see...acceptable means, (shore story), ends justify the means, and subtrafuge. Not the sort of governing I would want.

I would suggest Sen X change the inquiry into why the Aussie judiciary and law enforcement have failed to find and deal with all the crimes. That makes sense. That is at least honest. And wont ally all religions and charities in OZ with the CoS.

 

[Rae]

Yahoo! Wonderful news.

Thanks to all of you who worked and are working so hard to see this through.

Rae

 

[Div6]

......Not the sort of governing I would want.

...........

Are you an Aussie Alex? If not, then you have a right to your opinion, but have no standing to suggest any changes, short of becoming an Aussie.

I just hope they don't use this as a side show to back door some of the more odious legislation through, like the Great Kangaroo Firewall of Oz.....

But that is the price of freedom, eh?

 

[Zinjifar]

So you got my back on the scientology is a religion assertion Zing?

I make no claim that "religions" should be exempt from secular law, only that governments should not place itself in the role of determining the value of the benefit derived. Its possibly a uniquely American idea that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This country was founded by religious refugees to a large degree, (and slavers.... )

My point is that the benefit test is a sham. Religion and charity are two different things. One is the pursuit of spiritual knowledge, the other a more secular attempt at good deeds.

The muslims are probably one of the most charitable religions, isnt charity one of the pillars of islam? Yet they do the charity in secular organizations not out of the mosque. Would they pass the test, as their only value in intangible? And who is deciding the value of intangibles....today one side, tomorrow maybe some religious extremest.

I am not against charity, or the CoS being kicked into some semblance of reform...but this roundabout way has too many flaws and plays into the hands of the person most responsible for the abuse that has occured.

Is scientology a religion Zing???

I've never made any secret of my position. As far as I'm concerned, Scientology *is* a 'religion', depending on how you define it. My definition is ' an organized practice of a belief system'. Scientology *is* that.

The problem with the term 'religion' is that everybody's got a different definition and there is an unwarranted 'positive' connotation to it.

However, there can easily be corrupt and malicious and insidious and deplorable and destructive 'religions'.

Scientology is all of that.

Zinj

 

[nozeno]

Yes my comments are not wanted. I understand that. Sadly that is the cost of free speech, ideas that you don't want to hear being said.
IMO

Alex, Alex, Alex.

I think you are wrong about that. I believe your comments are very much wanted here. It is one of the things I misunderstood about this forum when I first landed. I 'm pretty sure it was Zinj who gently guided me to the realization that we want you to spew the nonsense so that ALL can see it for what it is.

Continue spewing.

Thank you.

 

[Emma]

Alex is like a barometer. The more pissy he is, the bigger the win against the CoS. Enjoy it

 

[Doom]

Alex is like a barometer. The more pissy he is, the bigger the win against the CoS. Enjoy it

I sooooo am Emma, lol.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Wow....are you sure you really want to open that can of worms?

This is one of those admittedly rare times when I am in complete agreement with Z.

With a nod to our Ozzie Buds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=EYtytxc-m-4&feature=fvw


Or for a shorter segue: http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=UQTHz2OZqBU&feature=related

Yet another take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhC67K9rWuE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4kC9oiyi4k


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=aK5W_nAGoCU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=FLX_jhclxSE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=bDzkR8f7pig&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=IOaWK47cJSQ&feature=related

Historically this is a very hot button.

Which is a pretty damn good clue right there that it is not a matter which is generally accorded the rationality required to come to a sound consensus.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. Cool Tune. Great Cuts. Just in case you miss the reference, check out Hubbard's definition of "power".

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Government has no place judging the validity (benefit) of religion.

IMO

Government is NOT judging the validity of religion. Government is judging the validity of extending TAX EXEMPT STATUS based on a soi dissant "religious" institution's claim of serving the public good.

Your argument presumes that somehow any soi dissant "religious" institution is ENTITLED to tax exempt status. That is not a valid assumption. Even institutions from "traditional" religions have to make application and observe relevant laws in order to be granted tax exempt status.


By all means make the blighters PROVE IT and make them prove it REPEATEDLY. You never know when the shifty bastards will turn on you.

Freedom to practice your religion does not mean freedom from taxation because you claim a religious status. Bugger that.


Mark A. Baker

 

[nozeno]

I sooooo am Emma, lol.

Doom you are starting to look a little like Emma and I think you both need a shave.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Alex is like a barometer. The more pissy he is, the bigger the win against the CoS. Enjoy it

OK, Alex? I retract all that stuff directed at you earlier.

 

[freethinker]

There seem to be those on this board who don't think the CO$ can be stopped.

There are those that think the CO$ is so clever that it will find it's way around anything.

I'll go on record that not only can it be stopped, it will be stopped and the inquiry is only the begining.

The CO$ has never done anything to benefit anyone. It is based on complete lies and sugar coated poison.

 

[alex]

Government is NOT judging the validity of religion. Government is judging the validity of extending TAX EXEMPT STATUS based on a soi dissant "religious" institution's claim of serving the public good.

Your argument presumes that somehow any soi dissant "religious" institution is ENTITLED to tax exempt status. That is not a valid assumption. Even institutions from "traditional" religions have to make application and observe relevant laws in order to be granted tax exempt status.


By all means make the blighters PROVE IT and make them prove it REPEATEDLY. You never know when the shifty bastards will turn on you.

Freedom to practice your religion does not mean freedom from taxation because you claim a religious status. Bugger that.


Mark A. Baker

I am a staunch libertarian. The only impediment is that I realize that sufficient personal responsibility does not exist to live in that ideal and free state.

I understand the desire for paternal government, and the handing off of personal responsibility and worry....

But I have not seen it work.

Government is determining the validity of religion by the act of deciding what is and is not religion.

Religion should be free from any interference from government, including taxing the money that flows into it for its support. If it were for profit, yes I would agree to tax it, but in theory it is not. Of course in many instances, especially in the US in small denominations, it is a business for the benefit of the congregations leaders....but that corruption is the price of the overall freedom.

I believe that in the US a religion does not have to apply to be a religion or tax free but simply assert that it is and not participate in the taxation that would occur if it were for profit.

In Australia it is different. Less free.

I dont assume that religion is tax free but assert that it rightfully should be. Tax exemption should not be granted, but assumed.

 

[alex]

Alex is like a barometer. The more pissy he is, the bigger the win against the CoS. Enjoy it

Watch it girl. I might just mock up a big ol ser fac and stop posting here, and prove you wrong!

I can.

You know it.

 

[nozeno]

Take taht Alex!

​

 

[AlphOhm]

I dont assume that religion is tax free but assert that it rightfully should be. Tax exemption should not be granted, but assumed.

Great--so I start the "Church of the Holy Rehabilitation Project Force" to circumvent basic human rights--and therefore I should automatically be granted tax exemption?

You have a few more thinks a comin', Alex.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
I dont assume that religion is tax free but assert that it rightfully should be. Tax exemption should not be granted, but assumed.

So who or what defines a Church as a vehicle for religion, as opposed to a vehicle for a criminal organization using religious cloaking to operate above the law? Ya don't reckon that there should be any criteria to determine this?

That aside, I think it sucks that any Church has the right or freedom to operate above the law, and in this country they have been permitted to......The powers that be have been too wary about opening a can of worms and have avoided it for too long. The mere fact that it is being looked at is a good thing. The fact that the CofS's activity will be looked at and addressed at the same time, is a very good thing.

 

[alex]

Great--so I start the "Church of the Holy Rehabilitation Project Force" to circumvent basic human rights--and therefore I should automatically be granted tax exemption?

Sure. But if you harm anyone you should be arrested and ajudictaed.

You have a few more thinks a comin', Alex.

So what religious beliefs would you ban? And what beliefs are yours? Please defend them. No, wait don't bother, I think they are absurd and should be sanctioned. I see no tangible benefit to society from them. Your minority view doesnt matter.