Scientologists convicted of fraud

Flamed Diving

Scientologists convicted of fraud

A French court has convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud, but stopped short of banning the group from operating in France.
Two branches of the group's operations and several of its leaders in France have been fined.
The case came after complaints from two women, one of whom said she was manipulated into paying more than 20,000 euros (£18,100) in the 1990s.
France regards Scientology as a sect, not a religion.
Prosecutors had asked for the group's French operations to be dissolved and more heavily fined, but a legal loophole prevented any ban.
Instead, a judge ordered the Church's Celebrity Centre and a bookshop to pay a 600,000 euro fine.
Alain Rosenberg, the group's head in France, was handed a two-year suspended jail sentence and fined 30,000 euros.
Three other leading members of the group were also fined.
Ban 'still possible' Unlike the US, France has always refused to recognise Scientology as a religion, arguing that it is a purely commercial operation designed to make as much money as it can at the expense of often vulnerable victims, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby reports from Paris.

“ Religious freedom is in danger in this country ”
Eric Roux French Celebrity Centre spokesman

Over the past 10 years, France has taken several individual members of the group to court on charges of fraud and misleading publicity, but this is the first time the organisation itself has been charged, she says.
In the case leading up to Tuesday's ruling, a woman said she was sold expensive life-improvement courses, vitamins and other products after taking a personality test.
A second woman alleges she was fired by her Scientologist boss after refusing to undergo testing and sign up to courses.
The Church denied that any mental manipulation took place.
The court was unable to impose a ban because of a legal amendment that was passed just before the trial began, preventing the banning of a organisation convicted of fraud.
However, that amendment has now been changed.
"It is very regrettable that the law quietly changed before the trial," Georges Fenech, the head of the Inter-ministerial Unit to Monitor and Fight Cults, told French TV.
"The system has now been put in place by parliament and it is certain that in the future, if new offences are committed, a ban could eventually be pronounced," he said.
A lawyer defending Scientology's operations in France said there would be an appeal.
Eric Roux, a spokesman for the Celebrity Centre, urged France to recognise Scientology's "legality".
"Religious freedom is in danger in this country," he said. The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 by the late science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard, and includes Hollywood stars such as John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8327569.stm

Published: 2009/10/27 12:29:27 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Print Sponsor
Advertisement

So, infringement on freedom of religion? Sensible legislation to protect the vunerable? Should such cases be brought against traditional religions?

Galvasean

I know Scientology is one of the more 'wacky' religions, but to me this does look to be a case of them being punished for something which happens quite regularly among other religions.

MrPudding

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, infringement on freedom of religion? Sensible legislation to protect the vunerable? Should such cases be brought against traditional religions?

Tricky one. The old freedom of religious expression is a bit of a stumbling block. It would be interesting in know how they make the distinction between a cult and a religion.

I think that as long as something, however silly certain people might find it, is considered to be a religion it is going to be afforded protection in law.

To use an old cliché, I use to be of the belief that whilst I may not believe the rubbish that some people do they should be allowed to have those beliefs and their right to do so should be protected. Now, to be honest, I am not so sure.

MrP

Dades

No, yes and no.

Good on the Frenchies though.

pts

A bad weekend for Scientology. Baby Xenu must be crying:
Hollywood director Paul Haggis quits Church of Scientology over ‘anti-gay’ stance
Former Scientologists Level Accusations

I think Scientology is interesting because it takes the "tricks" used by other religions and but take them that one (or 25) steps further, thus exposing the trick for everyone to see.

It was the examination of Scientology that made me examine my own faith moving me from lapsed Catholic towards atheism.

ShooterSF

For those supporters of freedom of religion I hope you are truly disgusted at this regardless of your chosen (or lack of) faith. When is freedom of religion not freedom of religion? When you can only pick from a pre-selected list of religions decided by your state!

Flamed Diving

*grabs popcorn*

Dades

ShooterSF wrote: »

When is freedom of religion not freedom of religion?

When it's clearly not a religion.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

When it's clearly not a religion.

I would suggest it's as much a religion as any other. Do the people not believe in a creator and follow set rules etc.? Do they not rely on the teachings of their church and have faith in what they are taught?

I should point out I don't like scientology personally. I am an atheist in case anyone is mistaken and I don't support the premise of freedom of religion but to me it is a religion unless something I said in the paragraph above is mistaken.

eoin5

ShooterSF wrote: »

I would suggest it's as much a religion as any other. Do the people not believe in a creator and follow set rules etc.? Do they not rely on the teachings of their church and have faith in what they are taught?

I should point out I don't like scientology personally. I am an atheist in case anyone is mistaken and I don't support the premise of freedom of religion but to me it is a religion unless something I said in the paragraph above is mistaken.

The difference is time and membership levels.

ShooterSF

eoin5 wrote: »

The difference is time and membership levels.

That's my point

Religion should not be defined by timespan or membership if you are a proponent of freedom of religion unless in an effort to circumvent restricting "freedom" you restrict the meaning of "religion" instead. Does the same job but looks fairer :rolleyes:

Dades

Scientology is too new and too crackers to be given any credence by the State. The cynical way it operates means it's obvious that the main agenda is to separate people from their cash. I'm not saying all religions don't do the same to a degree - but not so blatantly.

Whereas you and me would agree the concepts behind "established" religions also to be crackers - they have the weight of history and a healthy following to legitimise them.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

Scientology is too new and too crackers to be given any credence by the State. The cynical way it operates means it's obvious that the main agenda is to separate people from their cash. I'm not saying all religions don't do the same to a degree - but not so blatantly.

Whereas you and me would agree the concepts behind "established" religions also to be crackers - they have the weight of history and a healthy following to legitimise them.

I agree. But would you call yourself a supporter of "freedom of religion"? And does the state imposing which religion based on the above criteria not oppose the true belief of "freedom of religion"?

Mark Hamill

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree. But would you call yourself a supporter of "freedom of religion"? And does the state imposing which religion based on the above criteria not oppose the true belief of "freedom of religion"?

The only "freedom of religion" I believe in is the freedom for religions to be treated like any other personal opinion someone has. If someone is a biggot, I dont get why they should get special treatment because they say its their religion.

Dades

"Freedom of Religion" doesn't have to encompass "Freedom to Have Your Religion Recognised by the State and Given Tax Exemption"...

Scientology can still operate, people can still believe it, attend services, hand over cash. The only difference is that it cannot hide criminal activities behind the curtain of religion.

The only thing the State is imposing is the laws against ripping people off. That the organisation doing it claims to be a religion is moot.

Goduznt Xzst

ShooterSF wrote: »

does the state imposing which religion based on the above criteria not oppose the true belief of "freedom of religion"?

Yeah but nobody likes Scientologists so it's okay.

brickmaster

As far as i can remember there are 4 or 5 differences between a cult and a religion.

Off the top of my head:

Firslty, a religion is open about its central beliefs.
Secondly, a religion does not charge its members money to increase in 'rank'
Thirdly, a religion gives away, or charges very little, for its core texts (Bible/Koran).
Fourthly, A religion doesn't encourage its members to break links with family /friends

There are more but I'cant use google at work.

Scientology fails all of the above which makes it a cult and not a religion

Teferi

To be fair any religion who was started by a person who is quoted as saying "You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" is quite obviously barmy.

The objective of religion is to help a person to define his/her life which is admirable. The objective of Scientology is to shaft as many people as possible. Good on the French.

ShooterSF

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The only "freedom of religion" I believe in is the freedom for religions to be treated like any other personal opinion someone has. If someone is a biggot, I dont get why they should get special treatment because they say its their religion.

I'd agree with that.

Dades wrote: »

"Freedom of Religion" doesn't have to encompass "Freedom to Have Your Religion Recognised by the State and Given Tax Exemption"...

Scientology can still operate, people can still believe it, attend services, hand over cash. The only difference is that it cannot hide criminal activities behind the curtain of religion.

The only thing the State is imposing is the laws against ripping people off. That the organisation doing it claims to be a religion is moot.

Criminal activities such as restricting jobs by gender?

What I was trying to get at is people who think religion deserve special protections yet do not want the same applied to scientology.

As far as i can remember there are 4 or 5 differences between a cult and a religion.

Off the top of my head:

Firslty, a religion is open about its central beliefs.
Secondly, a religion does not charge its members money to increase in 'rank'
Thirdly, a religion gives away, or charges very little, for its core texts (Bible/Koran).
Fourthly, A religion doesn't encourage its members to break links with family /friends

There are more but I'cant use google at work.

Scientology fails all of the above which makes it a cult and not a religion

1. I thought scientology was pretty open about it's beliefs maybe I'm mistaken. I don't know that much about their practices
2. Didn't the Christian church allow people to spend less time in purgatory through donations of land and money upon death?
3. Does Hinduism have a core text out of curiosity?
4. I know there are Christian churches in America that require the same. Is it any worse than Muslims who are hunted down for leaving their religion?

Dades

ShooterSF wrote: »

What I was trying to get at is people who think religion deserve special protections yet do not want the same applied to scientology.

I thought you were talking about freedom of religion?

While people should be "free" to believe what the heck they want I don't think any religion should get special protection. There's a big difference.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

I thought you were talking about freedom of religion?

While people should be "free" to believe what the heck they want I don't think any religion should get special protection. There's a big difference.

Ah, misuderstanding

You mean freedom (to believe in the teachings) of religion.

Where as I meant Freedom of religion ('s to act as their rules dictate such as the gender issue I mentioned above)

Nevermind so

Morbert

[edit]-oops, should have read the entire thread

eoin5

brickmaster wrote: »

As far as i can remember there are 4 or 5 differences between a cult and a religion.

Off the top of my head:

Firslty, a religion is open about its central beliefs.
Secondly, a religion does not charge its members money to increase in 'rank'
Thirdly, a religion gives away, or charges very little, for its core texts (Bible/Koran).
Fourthly, A religion doesn't encourage its members to break links with family /friends

There are more but I'cant use google at work.

Scientology fails all of the above which makes it a cult and not a religion

I agree that those things can be used to give some quantization to religions and cults however I can think of plenty of examples from both sides that contradict those. Really the only difference is that one has a big following and has been around long enough.

Dades

ShooterSF wrote: »

You mean freedom (to believe in the teachings) of religion.

Where as I meant Freedom of religion ('s to act as their rules dictate such as the gender issue I mentioned above)

You won't see too much support for that in here!!

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

You won't see too much support for that in here!!

I know! I wasn't expecting such a reaction to my post initially. However I can see I worded it poorly.

pts

Paddy Power are now giving odds on who will defect next: http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_event&category=SPECIALS&ev_class_id=91&ev_type_id=12473&ev_id=1639207&force_racing_css=&ev_desc=First%20celebrity%20to%20leave%20the%20Church%20of%20Scientology

First celebrity to leave Scientology
Singles Only.
Applies to the first of the below to announce after Oct 28th 2009 that they are no longer a suportingmember of the Church of Scientology.
Must happen by 2010 or bets void. PP decision is final on settlement of this market.

John Travolta 9/4
Priscilla Presley 8/1
Beck 18/1
Katie Holmes 3/1
Chaka Khan 10/1
Kirstie Alley 25/1
Lisa Marie Presley 4/1
Nancy Cartwright 12/1
Tom Cruise 50/1
Jason Lee 6/1
Brandy 14/1

I reckon the smart money is on Katie.

Nodin

Very large newish article, in numerous sections, detailing beatings and punishments used by current head of the organisation, the policy of chasing and spying on ex-members and intimidation.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

pts

An article from the Guardian, reflecting on how the Internet may cause not only Scientology to struggle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/30/scientology-religion-france-alien-fraud

komodosp

The action by the French doesn't contravene freedom of religious expression! All it counteracts is the ability to rip other people off!

They aren't forbidding people from praying to Tom Cruise or whatever scientologists do to maintain their souls. People aren't going to be jailed simply for being a member of scientology. Freedom of religion in personal cases is fine, it's when you start scamming other people that it becomes a matter for the law.

If a religion advocated human sacrifices, I can't see too much protesting over the jailing of people who performed the sacrifices. (even if it was consentual)

ShooterSF

Nodin wrote: »

Very large newish article, in numerous sections, detailing beatings and punishments used by current head of the organisation, the policy of chasing and spying on ex-members and intimidation.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

Not shocking. Again some other religions (at least in their early days) utilised similar methods. Just look at Muslims today who still suffer the same problems.It just seems scientology has "modernised" the tactics.

axer

I find it hilarious when religious friends of mine give out about Scientology and their crazy beliefs. Sometimes you just cannot hold laughter in!