So, you respond to what you think is intellectual lazinesss with your own laziness.
It seems you’re confusing the subject of my comment with the subject of the original post. (They aren’t the same.)
Most critics would never profess to describe and/or define every aspect scientology
Of course not, but they can still choose what sources (if any) to use.
For example, in their appleal on the Wollersheim v. Scientology case they tried to claim that their “Fair Game” policy was a core practice…. like a religious rite.
I hadn’t heard of the Fair Game policy, so I read a little on Wikipedia about it. It sounds like Hubbard used some strong language that was misunderstood and later clarified. I didn’t read anything that indicated the need for further government intervention. (Or were there people breaking the law and not being punished somewhere?)
Today in the newsmedia you will read reports of scientology trying to stop a the showing of German drama film based on a true story of a scientologist (who approves of the film), claiming that the film attacks their “religious beliefs”. They do this almost everytime and it is wearing thinner and thinner each time they do it.
I don’t see the problem. Whether or not I agree with them (and I probably wouldn’t), the government doesn’t need to get involved unless they’re breaking the law.
At worst it is laundering and at best it is tax avoidance.
So why aren’t they in trouble for these crimes?
they enjoy even less government scrutiny and oversight
Just so you know, I think government scrutiny and oversight are rarely a good idea.
It’s called the law and no one is above it.
Agreed (at least in the way you meant it).
I hadn’t heard of the Fair Game policy, so I read a little on Wikipedia about it. It sounds like Hubbard used some strong language that was misunderstood and later clarified.
I suggest you re-read the policies on what constitutes Fair Game. There is no misunderstanding. Scientology has a long history of harassing its critics into silence.
As a starting point, I would suggest looking at one of the best publicised cases, that of US author and journalist Paulette Cooper .
See also the cases of Lawrence Wollersheim, Jakob Anderson, Gerald Armstrong and Jon Atack.
The above are extreme examples of Fair Game, but many members of Anonymous have also been on the receiving end of the “Churches” policy to greater or lesser degrees.
To suggest that the Fair Game policy has somehow been misunderstood is laughable when you consider that in several trials, Scientology, even as recently as 2000 have argued that the practice is a protected religious doctrine (which was laughed out of court on multiple occasions).
As to why they haven’t been taken to court over this and other things. It wasn’t until very recently that anyone in either law enforcement or the media would go near Scientology for the very real fear of being litigated into bankruptcy. Earlier this year the CoS was found guilty of institutional fraud in France. They also have several large and potentially devastating lawsuits ongoing regarding human rights violations as well as labour laws.
Brandon, how long have you been a Scientologist?
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.