The Church of Scientology is to be tried for fraud in France.The government alleges that the church has committed financial fraud. I know other countries, Germany comes to mind, have had conflicts with this church. Any thoughts?

The aliens made them do it.

religions are fraudulent.

Sad to say, but I believe you are correct.

This religion is worse than the Jehovah Witnesses!
I have seen alot of documentation on the people who are no longer apart of this cult....The one thing that amazes me is the amount of money they have. Most of the complaints from Ex- Scietologists is the way they make you work 24/7 and they take your kids away from you...not the finacial part (?????)

Dont be sad .... Stand up and shout it from the roof.
Religion is a con!

I will quite happily say it.

The Church of England (which is not a large church) has incomings of £3.94BILLION!!!

Thats about $7Billion

Where did it get all that from? From the parishoners of course!!

Its yearly outgoings are £900million, ($1.8billion) making a yearly profit of £3Billion!

... and they dont pay tax.

The church is a bunch of thieving, robbing fraudsters and people are happy to buy into it!

Now how many people in the US? How much does the Catholic church make out of the US?
Does the church pay tax?

I hate it! The poor get robbed and the church gets richer!

Dont be sad .... Stand up and shout it from the roof.
Religion is a con!

I will quite happily say it.

The Church of England (which is not a large church) has incomings of £3.94BILLION!!!

Thats about $7Billion

Where did it get all that from? From the parishoners of course!!

Its yearly outgoings are £900million, ($1.8billion) making a yearly profit of £3Billion!

... and they dont pay tax.

The church is a bunch of thieving, robbing fraudsters and people are happy to buy into it!

Now how many people in the US? How much does the Catholic church make out of the US?
Does the church pay tax?

I hate it! The poor get robbed and the church gets richer!


I just meant it's sad that these are organizations whose sole purpose is to help bring people together, to give them something to believe in, to help those in need. Yet, sad to say, they don't do nearly what they should. And most people (if they are brought up religiously) are brought up to believe that their church/religion cannot be wrong. Therefore, they become blind to the reality. Not saying they are all like this, of course, I'm sure there are some who really do the right thing, but I think they are becoming more and more rare.

"...whose sole purpose is to help bring people together, to give them something to believe in, to help those in need."


You assume that is the sole purpose? I doubt it. For newer cults like Eckankar, and Scientology, created by con men who learned their skill from the present religions in power, that was not their sole purpose.

Their sole purpose was to make money. With money comes power. With people behind the movement, comes power. Power and control could be the sole purpose.

That is why THERE ARE LAWS and why churches have to be incorporated as non-profit to be tax exempt, and that is why there are laws in place that insist that the said church actually do have some programs that help their community and that they contribute.

So even a church that is in it for the money has to, by law help people. I suspect that is one of the only reasons they do help people.... they are required to by law.

Then of course they help themselves as well.

JB

Hmm, perhaps I should have phrased what I said better. But, no matter what, I think what you said can apply to any organized religion. Perhaps they weren't founded on money but that's sure as heck where they've ended up

It is perfectly valid to draw conclusions based on your own observations. However, basing a conclusion about an entire group, with millions of members, on the one-sided, sensationalistic criticism of a handful of non-members is, by definition, prejudicial. (Example: Saying of the Catholic Church “They’re a bunch of pedophiles” based on the sensationalized reports about a few priests.)

As to the French allegations: There have been similar allegations made here in the U.S., none of which, to my knowledge, have ever been upheld in a court of law. Unfortunately, most other countries do not have the religious freedom that we here in the U.S. enjoy, so they are more susceptible to the “legal” religious persecutions that have plagued mankind since time immemorial.

As to Scientology being a “cult”: That word (or others like it) has, at one time or another, been applied to virtually every set of beliefs ever conceived by man. Over time its meaning has evolved such that nowadays, it is used almost exclusively as a prejudicial pejorative that refers to any belief system that is different from that which is held by the speaker. But even so, the Church of Scientology does not fit any of the definitions given in my dictionary (American Heritage College – Fourth Edition). Note that the word “cult” shares the same Latin root with “culture” and “cultivate”. That root – “cultus” – means simply “worship”. So, even the Latin derivation cannot be applied to Scientology because there is no “worship” of any kind involved.

As to “they make you work 24/7 and they take your kids away from you”: That statement is so inflammatory and “spin doctored” as to be fantastically absurd. Similar to saying “Catholicism makes you into a sinner and doesn’t let you eat fish.

As to “the amount of money they have”: If you compare the total worth of the church against the number of members who “work full-time” for the church, I think you will find that the Church of Scientology has a much lower “per capita worth” than any of the “One True God” religions.

I seriously doubt if any law suit against Scientology would be successful in America. I suspect those people have all their ducks in a row and cover their asses well with contracts etc. It is my impression they would love a court battle and would probably crush the opponent. But that is just my impression, I could be wrong.

JB

P.S. I would love to watch such a trial.

Actually, like pretty much any group, I'm pretty sure that they would much rather put their resources into working toward their own goals than into defending against outside attacks.

I don't know every detail of their entire legal history, but as far as I know, no lawsuit has ever been successful against them.

Money Money Money...that's what most religious institutions are about.

I guess that's why I thought this bit of news was interesting.

It sort of connects to the whole tax and church issue.

The last time I said anything about taxing religious organizations in the political threads on this forum...well let's just say it didn't go over well.

I think it is an excellent idea.

It is a business. Robbing the rich and the poor, and ..... keeping it!!

Standard rate of business tax.
Property tax
All the clergy should be forced to pay income tax.
Capitol Gains tax!

It should all be levied against the respective religions

They are already robbing the non-believers, so why not make them pay what is rightly due.

Everyone should have their body thetans purged For free

Paying $3000 dollars to the Church of Scientology to have my body thetans purged was the best investment I ever made.

1) I think the only reasonable way to measure the "wealth" of ANY organization is to take the total assets of the organization and divide it by the number of members. (Similar to how it's done with per-share stock prices for publicly owned for-profit organizations.) I don't have any figures to quote, but I'll bet that the result would be that religions are actually the poorest organizations on the planet.

2) The logical extension of denying tax-exempt status to religions is to deny tax-exempt status to ALL non-profit organizations. (Essentially removing the concept of "tax-exempt" entirely.) Which is fine if one's political views lean that way. I'm just pointing out that "taxing religion" is a political issue, not a religious one. And that political issue is addressed in the very first phrase in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Just some thoughts.

Fair thoughts, however when a small church like the church of England can take £3billion in revenue a year, with outgoings of £900million, I think the money to member ratio is going to be very high.

Even if all of the people in the UK were involved in the church (58million) this would still be £2.1 billion divided by 58 million = phenomenal amounts of money.

So then if you looked at the US catholic church?

As I am a Brit, you will have to forgive me if I dont know the first phrase of the 1st Amendment.

I just think that religious organisations are a drain on the resources of the country, and therefore should be made to make a legal contribution.

I think if other companies and if people have to pay taxes I think the Churches should to. But since I don't like taxes at all in the first place, I think everyone should get ordained, start their own ministry and become tax exempt.

JB

My bad. Here it is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.


£36.2 (2.1billion/58million) does not seem like a “phenomenal amount of money” to me. But I realize that those numbers cannot possibly be accurate. But even assuming a membership of only 1,000,000, £2,100 (2.1billion/1million) does not seem like a "phenomenal amount of money" either. (And I imagine that the true membership is significantly more than 1.000,000.) As to the US Catholic church, I imagine the numbers would be similar. So if we use those numbers, we’ll assume that the per-capita wealth of the Catholic church is something around $3,000. Now that is less than half the price of the cheapest new car you can buy in the US. So based on those numbers, the “per-capita wealth” of the US Catholic church is less than half that of the individual wealth of any person who bought a new car here in the US. Now of course, other than those you gave concerning the Church of England, all the numbers are completely fanciful. I’m just trying to illustrate that the supposed wealth of religion has very little basis in fact when compared to other groups.


I think the exact opposite. Taxing religion would simply mean that the money would go to “government” instead of “religion”. In terms of “actual valuable contribution to society”, I think “government” is MUCH more of a drain on the resources of a country than “religion”. But that’s just my opinion.