On Monday, the French court, after a years long legal battle, finally convicted the French branch of the Church of Scientology of fraud, fining the organization the equivalent of nearly $900,000, but some are calling for more.The church was originally sued by a group of former members who had requested reparations or refunds upon their exit from the church. One woman in particular claimed to have been pressured into buying $30,000 worth of tests, programs and other paraphernalia before her request to leave the church. While supporters of the church are beginning the appeal process, its opponents are calling for a full out ban on the Scientology, citing it as a glorified pyramid scheme.
I am no fan of the Church of Scientology. In my opinion, any religion that sounds like it comes from the pages of a science fiction writer, and - surprise surprise - was actually 'prophesied' by a science fiction writer seems suspect to me. And when you add to it a surprisingly steep series of fees to remain a member or advance in the ranks, I begin to feel that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a prophet, just a very shrewd businessman. However, despite my feelings about Scientology, or any religion for that matter, I don't believe that any group of people should be able to decide what others can believe and what makes a religion. Or rather, I don't think that anyone should be able to say what doesn't make a religion. People always have, and always will, believed anything they wanted to believe, and if their belief required monetary donations, so be it. No major movements have been made to shut down the Catholic church, even though donations and tithes from its many adherents have lead what might the most powerful charitable organization in the world to simply being the richest private institution in the world. Challenging the Church of Scientology in such a manner challenges the very foundation that religion is based upon - faith. When it comes down to it, a religion is made when any group of people get together and decide to adopt a certain set of beliefs, and no government should have the right to control faith. A church spokeswoman called the conviction "an Inquisition for the modern times", and though I acknowledge the exaggeration, I agree with the sentiment that a movement for banning a religion that does not directly harm those who do not adhere to its beliefs seems somewhat backwards.
In order to avoid hypocrisy, I must leave the questions open to you. Should France, which legally does have the right to do so, ban Scientology? Should the ex-members of Scientology even have won the lawsuit, considering that they were agreeing to the terms of the religion at the time said payments were made? And finally, what characterizes religious legitimacy? I have made my feelings clear, but I won't tell you what to believe.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-scientology_28int.ART.State.Edition1.4c27596.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps what is suspect is not the religious beliefs of scientologists. What makes their beliefs so different from other, more popular religions? They, like most others, have unique ideas regarding the origin of life and earth, and they, like others, believe that certain events are to transpire in the future. Indeed, there are commonalities in the basic tenets of many religions and it seems unfair to just shrug off this one because it sounds like science fiction. Don’t Christianity, Judaism, or Islam sound like fantasy? Indeed, what makes a religion valid is that people come together in a circle of faith, and to decry that Scientology is bogus because it sounds like science fiction is just not fair. What is truly a tragedy is how selfish people have manipulated the system of Scientology, in some cases, to make profit. It is fair, I’d say, for a religious organization to ask for donations or tithe; but to pressure people into paying exorbitant amounts of money to partake in a religious group is absurd. Scientologists, like all others, are fallible people; there can be corruption anywhere. What would be necessary is to weed out the corruption and let those who subscribe to this religion practice it freely, without fear of being swindled.
Here are several points.
First, I agree that religious freedom is one of the fundamental rights. However, I think it also matters what the religion requires its followers to do. Some so-called religions aim to accumulate wealth by "persuading" people to "donate" their properties. If the motive behind a religion is money, then I think we should call it a cult. Therefore, the first thing we need to ask ourselves is whether the Scientology is a religion or a cult.
Secondly, is the Court really "banning" the church? Or is it saying that the church should give the money back? Even though the whole issue about religion is very provocative and creates a lot of tension, we need to think: What is this case about? From what I have read from the blog, I would say it is very similar to a civil law suit, arguing whether my neighbor should give me the money back. And the court's decision should be based on whether the members gave the money voluntarily or they were forced to do so.
The case certainly have some impact on the issue regarding religious freedom, but not that much.
Post a Comment