Why is it so hard for governments to crack down on the Church of Scientology?

[RSS Feed]

There is a new post up at the Underground Bunker

Why is it so hard for governments to crack down on the Church of Scientology?

[Scientology mobilizing against a 1986 court case in Los Angeles]

Yesterday, historian Chris Owen reminded us of a government raid on Scientology that has largely been forgotten. Today, he discusses the lessons to be learned when, after that raid, Scientology once again beat the rap. (Also, make sure you didn’t miss our second story[.......]

Continue reading...

 

[Enthetan]

Why is it hard?

1) Government bureaucracies like going after easy targets. They have stats too, namely convictions, plus a finite budget.

2) Scientology has money for lots of lawyers, making them not an easy target.

3) Scientology has money for lots of PIs and intelligence people to go look into the personal lives of any government bureaucrats who decide to try to prosecute Scientology.

Or at least Scientology USED TO have money for all that...

 

[pineapple]

Why is it hard?

1) Government bureaucracies like going after easy targets. They have stats too, namely convictions, plus a finite budget.

2) Scientology has money for lots of lawyers, making them not an easy target.

3) Scientology has money for lots of PIs and intelligence people to go look into the personal lives of any government bureaucrats who decide to try to prosecute Scientology.

Or at least Scientology USED TO have money for all that...

And

4) In the US, religion is traditionally a sacred cow. Though the constitution only forbids "the establishment of religion" (i.e. a state religion, like the Church of England), government generally tries to maintain a hands-off attitude to the subject, and people feel uneasy about anything that seems to mess with someone's "freedom of religion," even if they think that religion is a bunch of baloney.

 

[guanoloco]

And

4) In the US, religion is traditionally a sacred cow. Though the constitution only forbids "the establishment of religion" (i.e. a state religion, like the Church of England), government generally tries to maintain a hands-off attitude to the subject, and people feel uneasy about anything that seems to mess with someone's "freedom of religion," even if they think that religion is a bunch of baloney.

Actually...it's:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you read earlier versions it's broader than just forbidding establishing a State religion.

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[WhatWall]

And

4) In the US, religion is traditionally a sacred cow. Though the constitution only forbids "the establishment of religion" (i.e. a state religion, like the Church of England), government generally tries to maintain a hands-off attitude to the subject, and people feel uneasy about anything that seems to mess with someone's "freedom of religion," even if they think that religion is a bunch of baloney.

The Waco incident, during which many women & children were killed in an attempt to protect them from a religious zealot, is a good example of why the federal government's power over religion is so restricted by the Constitution.

Although religion has often been used as the motivation for war and persecution, the acts of war & persecution are usually implemented or encouraged by a government. As you pointed out, the Church of England was created and used by the English king & his gov't to attack Catholics. America was in part settled by religious immigrants who sought escape from gov't/religious persecution.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution sought to protect American citizens from the force of government, not the other way around.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

And regardless of various forms of bad conduct by CoS, scientology is very well established as a legitimate religion.

The gummint is merely acting to ensure CoS remains off policy and ineffective as when it is done well it is a very serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry $500B per annum etc, etc,

 

[Type4_PTS]

And regardless of various forms of bad conduct by CoS, scientology is very well established as a legitimate religion.

The gummint is merely acting to ensure CoS remains off policy and ineffective as when it is done well it is a very serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry $500B per annum etc, etc,

Commander, are you trying to break the Guinness Book of World Records for the amount of horseshit you can stuff into two sentences?

I'm thinking that you need to study exactly the methods that the CoS (Crimewave of Scientology) used to obtain its religious status. And please use lots of clay!

Once the general public becomes aware of how the GO and OSA utilize religious cloaking as well as the method used of convincing the IRS to grant tax exemption back in '93, the perception of Scientology as a "legitimate religion" can change pretty quickly.

And while I am not a big fan of some pharmaceutical industry practices, how can you say that CoS is a serious threat? The David vs. Goliath analogy wouldn't properly describe this battle. More like Godzilla vs an ant. If you think Big Pharma considers Scn a "very serious threat" then you must be smoking some pretty potent weed these days.

 

[Churchill]

Because it’s been difficult in the past does not necessarily mean it will be difficult in the present or future.

Scientology is KNOWN to be a TOXIC.

Nowadays it hides behind its “front groups” and you need a magnifying glass to find the word, “Scientology.”

Soon...very soon...


PS. Birdwell is a sick, soulless troll.

 

[WhatWall]

And regardless of various forms of bad conduct by CoS, scientology is very well established as a legitimate religion.

The gummint is merely acting to ensure CoS remains off policy and ineffective as when it is done well it is a very serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry $500B per annum etc, etc,

In the U.S. all that's required to establish a religion is the claim of being one. Legitimacy is according to public opinion and that of its members.

It's a common misconception that the IRS certifies/validates religions whereas it actually just grants tax exemptions to charitable organizations, some of which are religious in nature, as explained by J. Swift (Jeffrey Augustine) in some detail in his post on page 10 of this thread: Karen de la Carriere YouTube Channel Part 2

The IRS recognition of a charitable religious organization as tax exempt is widely and erroneously interpreted as gov't recognition/validation of a religion.