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).
* * item2.1
# # item2.1
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.