| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Scientologists face Paris ban
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1836000/1836812.stm
>
> Interesting article. For me the most salient part was:
> "The trial, the first to be heard under tough new anti-cult legislation, was
> brought by three former Scientology members who accuse the organisation of
> harassing them after they had left."
>
> It seems to me that having "anti-cult" legislation doesn't really protect
> freedom of religion or individual beliefs very well -- but I guess the
> French should do as pleases them best. I can't imagine why the matter
> cannot be pursued utilizing only criminal laws concerning harassment -- that
> should be sufficient for keeping overzealous Scientologists from going
> overboard on people. I don't see the need for legislation that deprives
> others of their freedoms.
Yeah, I've wondered about this issue as well. For me, much can be made of
the fact that the "religion" in question [allegedly] goes to great lengths
to restrict its member's freedoms, such as freedom to choose a different
religion, so there may be some justification for restricting The Church's
actions in that regard. As you point out, anti-harassment legislation
already on the books would seem appropriate to handle that sort of thing. I
agree that there's no reason to ban a particular religion, but certain
practices of various religions are certainly appropriate to regulate or
restrict.
I've read recently of a few cases in the Catholic Church in the US
regarding child abuse as well as libel and slander. In an odd number of
these cases it seems that the Church has been granted special "freedom of
religion" status that put it outside the jurisdiction of secular authority,
even when the alleged crime was secular in nature! I know for an absolute,
black-and-white on paper fact that The Church of Scientology requires
certain of its members to waive the right to pursue secular legislation
against the body or members of the Church; perhaps France objects to such
super-legal contracts or the Church's attempts to enforce them.
I don't know how France handles the taxation of religious organizations,
but perhaps France wishes not to extend tax-free status to a group that it
considers simply a profit-making scheme. Regardless of how one comes down
on the overall issue of taxation, it doesn't seem to me that any group
should automatically be afforded special tax exemption simply because it
wants to declare itself a religion.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Urantia?
|
| (...) "The trial, the first to be heard under tough new anti-cult legislation, was brought by three former Scientology members who accuse the organisation of harassing them after they had left." It seems to me that having "anti-cult" legislation (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
