I just can’t bear to refer to this organization as “The Church of Scientology,” for it doesn’t deserve even that monicker, despite the U.S. government having ruled that this odious organization is indeed a church, entitled to tax exemption and all other privileges of churchiness. But unlike the U.S., France has seen Scientology for what it is: an immense pyramid scheme in which people are lured into the organization, bilked of their money in worthless classes and “auditing sessions,” and sometimes punished in brutal ways—while church officials live high on the hog, touting their connection with celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
And, after paying thousands of dollars to finally learn the secrets of church “theology”, you find it’s a bunch of science fiction pablum based on the imagination of L. Ron Hubbard, involving a space dictator Xenu, bodies stored in volcanoes, and escaping spirits (thetans) that cause us trouble by invading our bodies, removable only by paying big bucks to the church.
For some reason it’s easier for Europeans than Americans to see through this scam. Scientology, for instance, has a checkered history in France, beginning with the 1978 fraud conviction of founder L. Ron Hubbard and the head of his French organization. Several members of the “church” have committed suicide after other fraud convictions or unfavorable results from audits.
Now compare (from Wikipedia) the treatment of this cult in France versus the U.S.:
Since 1995, France has classified the Church of Scientology as a “secte” as seen in the report of the National Assembly of France. On this basis, a hostile stance is generally taken against the organization. A 1999 government inquiry committee reporting on the financial aspect of cults recommended dissolving the Church of Scientology because of swindling, complicity of swindling, abuse of trust, and other nefarious activities. A government report in 2000 categorized the church as an “absolute cult” and recommended that all its activities be prohibited..The keeping of files containing personal information on all its members (and other practices), are seen to qualify the Church as a totalitarian cult, moreover “extremely dangerous”. The report rejected U.S. criticism of the French government’s hostility towards Scientology, saying that Washington’s protection of cults was “exorbitant”. [JAC: indeed!]
In 2005 the municipal government of Paris passed an official resolution so that unlike in Marseille, celebrity Scientologist Tom Cruise would never be made an honorary citizen, specifically because of his affiliation with Scientology.
Since 1978 the “church” has been convicted several times for fraud, and of course they cry “persecution.” Yesterday, as The Raw Story and The Local (an English site about France) report, a four year-old conviction of Scientology for fraud was upheld by the country’s highest court. Sadly, the court fined the organization the paltry sum of €600,000 euros—chump change for the “church.”
From The Local:
France’s highest court on Wednesday upheld several convictions for “organized fraud” against the Church of Scientology. A representative from the Church told The Local the ruling was tantamount to “religious persecution” by France.
The Cour de Cassation in Paris, France’s highest appeals court, on Wednesday rejected an appeal by the Church of Scientology against several convictions for “organized fraud”.
The Church had argued in a September 4th hearing that the verdicts constituted a violation of their religious liberty, but the court on Wednesday rejected that claim.
In 2009, convictions and fines of €400,000 and €200,000 ($812,000 in total) were handed down to the Church’s Celebrity Centre and a Scientology bookshop in the French capital.
Scientology leader in Paris, Alain Rosenburg and the Celebrity Centre’s former president Sabine Jacquart were also found guilty of taking financial advantage of elderly members of the Church and sentenced to two-year suspended prison sentences as well as being handed €30,000 fines for organized fraud.
This trial started in 2009, and the high court’s decision marks its end—for now. As The Raw Story reports:
The head of a parliamentary group on religious cults in France, lawmaker Georges Fenech, hailed the ruling.
“Far from being a violation of freedom of religion, as this American organisation contends, this decision lifts the veil on the illegal and highly detrimental practices” of the group, said Fenech.
The court case followed a complaint by two women, one of whom said she was manipulated into handing over 20,000 euros in 1998 for Scientology products including an “electrometer” to measure mental energy.
A second woman claimed she was forced by her Scientologist employer to undergo testing and enrol in courses, also in 1998. When she refused she was fired.
Of course the “church” is crying foul:
French scientologist minister Eric Roux on Wednesday told The Local the ruling was an example of France’s “religious persecution” of the Church.
“France is really the most backwards country in Europe in terms of religious tolerance,” he said. “We’re being judged for our beliefs, not our behaviour. How can the Cours de Cassation decide that our beliefs are untrue or fraudulent, but not say the same thing about Protestants or Catholics?”
No, they’re being judged because they bilk their members. The “church” has a point that there’s no difference between the falsity of Scientology’s theological claims and those of established churches, but Scientology differs because it demands huge payments for courses and for “therapy” that has no effects. It’s quackery. You don’t have to pay thousands of euros to confess in a Catholic church, or join a Protestant one. In fact, I don’t understand how educated people, and all those celebrities, can see the church as anything other than a scam. Do they really believe that palaver about Xenu and thetans?
The “Church” of Scientology is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.
Is it not a fundamental belief of Scientology that relieving people of their money is a virtue? 😉
/@
To be fair to the French, they are generally pretty switched on when it comes to treating religion with the contempt it deserves. The Revolution had a strong anti-clerical element and they have mostly kept that.
IMHO it is no coincidence that France has generally been the most successful of the catholic countries.
People really do not like the idea that we are only fleshy creatures of no particular significance & are not the paragons of creation.
Get over it!
Not “people”, it seems, but “poorly educated Americans”.
bravo France…. now take a look at the mormons…. their bicycle bums pedal all across your nation spreading their brand of hocus pocus to your youth and feeble elderly. wish we here in the states had the nuts to go after religous fraud instead of bowing down to it and giving it a tax break.
Dont they hide away the really batshit stuff until you have already invested a lot of time and money? The lower level courses include self improvement courses which do work for some people. So get them hooked with that and work from there.
Hence why they tried to keep the thetans and other stuff secret although failed badly.
Tony Ortega is always worth a read for scientology. Been a thorn in their side for a long time.
Some of the batshit stuff is out in the open. Just for giggles I checked out of the library a DVD on Scientology (made by scientologists to promote their stuff). It was chock-full of nonsense. My favorite phrase was “install the canceller” which was apparently what you would do before each “audit session.” It’s basically the scientology equivalent of a S&M “safe word”…if you have installed the canceller you can proclaim to the auditor that the session must stop.
There was a whole bunch of other stuff in the video such a hilarious actor-portrayed “real-life” situations like parents getting in an argument over dinner…then the narrator would say things like “let’s rewind this situation and use mind technology to disambiguate the emotional tone scale.” I’m paraphrasing but you get the idea…vapid nonsense.
”Let’s rewind this situation and use mind technology to disambiguate the emotional tone scale.”? Good grief! Are scientologists responsible for all of the management-speak that we are subjected to?
I loath Scientology more than I do any other religious cult. A few years ago, one of closest friends was drawn in to its grasp. He was well aware of my general intolerance of religion, and I had thought that his feelings were broadly identical. However, as soon as these vile people got their claws into him, he tried to persuade me to attend their meetings. He failed in that respect, and, while I have no proof, I suspect that when it became apparent that I was not even remotely interested, he was instructed to disown me, and a lot of other friends. Sadly, I have not seen him for a few years.
The canceller appears to be a standard post-hypnotic suggestion that no other suggestions linger past the auditing session. Hubbard and Scientology are quite adamant that Dianetics and Scientology aren’t hypnotism. Alrighty then, why do they need that canceller?
I’ve wondered why in Europe people “see through” Scientology more easily. I think it does not have to do so much with intelligence or education. At least in Germany, my impression is the following: since “Church” here is firmly in the hands of two mostly centralized institutions with century old legacy, *anything* outside this binary protestant/lutheran – catholic system is automatically suspicious. Atheist or not, we are taught to perceive anything outside this framework of official churche organizations as highly suspicious or even dangerous.
This is of course in stark contrast to how organized religion is approached in the United States.
Probably true.
That’s probably complicated.
Europe’s not quite the secular haven that people make it out to be, there are plenty of churches of various flavors around, many of them with privileges that are quite frankly outrageous – a lot of countries here have had a state religion for centuries and others actually collect taxes for distribution to the churches.
What is different is that religions have not traditionally had to compete for their members. Any new interloper into the system is likely to raise suspicion (and complaints) from the existing main churches.
The unintended knock-on effect of this is that for most people, religion has become part of the wallpaper of their lives: it’s there in the background and very few pay any real attention to it.
The other difference is that people are not used to being proselytized to over here. Public displays of faith or religiosity at best make your audience uncomfortable and probably pitying of your emotional stability.
Newer religions that are looking for new converts tend to stand out like a sore thumb because the conversion process typically involves all the sorts of things that set off alarm bells both among people and the establishment religions.
So in short: there’s no popular support for it and public inquiries soon follow.
“and others actually collect taxes for distribution to the churches”
Yes, though as far as I know these do not have to be paid if one is not a member of one of the churches for which taxes are collected. Yes, it’s still bad, and Norway and Sweden have recently scaled back the participation of the state in church affairs, but I don’t think anyone who isn’t a member of a church has to pay such taxes.
A worse problem is that in Germany the church gets money from normal taxes, not just the church taxes. Sometimes, this is in return for providing things like child care which is really the state’s responsibility; other times, it is a result of some agreement where the state pays the bishops’s salary in return for having confiscated some church lands centuries ago.
In Norway all people who are not members of a different faith pay tax to the state church…In addition all religious gruoås gets a sertain amount based on how high their membership is. The state chuch has been caught at least 2 times cheating with members numbers, but they never get prosecuted…
Europe’s not quite the secular haven that people make it out to be
Yes and no. Yes, formal church membership is not that low (though lower than in the USA). On the other hand, many church members are of the “hatched, matched and dispatched” variety, if that, and many, if not most, are members out of tradition and not because of any real faith.
True. I once knew a Born Again missionary in Romania who would regularly log on to his computer in the evening in order to get into debates with us atheists hanging out in IRC chatrooms. He eventually admitted that he found our interest and enthusiasm refreshing … and even admirable.
All day long he was dealing with mostly Greek Orthodox people who were deeply connected to their religion as an integral part of their tradition and culture. They had virtually no interest in analyzing or questioning anything they believed, nor did they care to defend it or deal with him and his ideas at all. Iirc he complained that they treated him with amusement, as if he was a little mad to even bring religion up, and always tried to change the topic.
The missionary informed us that we atheists were more pleasing to God and less likely to be damned than the poor Orthodox Romanians.
Yes, that is pretty much what I think as well. I just wanted to stress that not only are the churches suspicious of their potential competition, but that this suspicion is shared by the population. And yes, the fact that most of these “new” churches prosyletize will make a big contribution to this general feeling of unease towards them.
Concerning the churches fearing their competition: the large churches are running “cult information centers” and I always have to cringe when they are regularly consulted by the media and politicians when it comes to fringe groups. There’s a bitter irony in that for me.
The traditional churches in Europe are kind of like a Virus well-adjusted to their host – it’s not doing too much fatal damage and is well-integrated into peoples lifes.
The USA is infamously aberrant in the developed world, in its level of adherence to religious bunk. Surely this is just another manifestation – just one more loony-tunes delusion for the intellectually-challenged to cling to? Europeans are less religious overall, not just in Scientology.
I thought it was interesting that Fenech made sure to call Scientology an AMERICAN organization. I would think that would be a strike against it in Europe, especially France, which might make it an easier target there than here.
Part of it is xenophobic, and part of it is probably somewhat more reasonable suspicion of the out-sized boot prints of American culture, (fast food, Hollywood, etc.)
On the other hand, American bigots like the KKK have made much of the “foreign taint” of Catholicism and Judaism. I’m not a fan of religion in general, but there is a wrong way to be against something, even if that something merits opposition.
And the “wrong way” is… ?
If you’re doing it based on racism, no? Or am I not reading Latverian correctly?
Dunno. That’s why I was wondering.
> “it doesn’t deserve even that monicker”
Fraud, dishonesty, fantasy, systematic abuse of people. Walks like a church, quacks like a church.
I’d say the only meaningful difference from most other churches is that in this case, we still have the birth certificate of the main fabricator.
I think the fact that it isn’t hung off the old established frauds of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is what really sets it apart and makes it obvious to all but the very credulous that it’s nonsense. Mormonism is every bit as ludicrous as Scientology, but being derived from Christianity it gets a free pass for much of its ravings, and an aura of respectability that it has no right to.
Yeah, taking money from members and advocating fraudulent cures is almost part of the definition of a church. I’m inclined to think that the difference between the Church of Scientology and mainstream churches is one of degree and not of kind.
I first learned about the beliefs of Scientologists from an episode of South Park. They were so ludicrous I honestly thought they were just a joke made up by the show’s writers. Incroyable!
My roommate in college wouldn’t believe that that’s what Scientologists actually believe!
The story of how Scientology achieved their tax exempt status is an incredible story in its own right, involving much skullduggery–the upshot of which is that the IRS was worn down by the constant litigation by Scientologists. I believe this also involved some bribery. In any case, more about this fascinatingly horrifying situation is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_legal_system
Scientology’s canon is no loonier than any other religion’s; it’s just newer.
Right. Yes, criticize it, but don’t say that it is any worse than many other religions.
It’s not about the wacky beliefs, but about their awful behavior.
“Religious freedom did not mean the Catholic or Anglican churches were not held accountable for crimes and abuses committed by their priests, nuns and officials, albeit belatedly. Ultimately, this is not about religious freedom. In Australia there are no limits on what you can believe. But there are limits on how you can behave. It is called the law, and no one is above it.”
– Nick Xenophon.
an immense pyramid scheme in which people are lured into the organization, bilked of their money in worthless classes and “auditing sessions,” and sometimes punished in brutal ways—while church officials live high on the hog, touting their connection with celebrities
Sounds like most other churches to me.
It is. The differences are largely matters of degree. Matters of degree are important in the real world.
I agree. A “cult” is usually marked by extremism. It’s religion on crack.
1)Totalism (us against them) 2) Environmental control (very strong and minute) 3) Loading the language (jargon encouraging isolation and cloning) 4) Demand for purity (absolute, and anything acceptable in its pursuit) 5) Mystical Leadership (unquestioned obedience.)
Most churches are not insular. For example, the children are allowed to play with children from different religions, and members routinely do business with and form friendships outside the church. You can listen to the radio and watch television.
The system may be the basic problem, sur — but degree counts.
Note that the more secularized a church is, the more reasonable and the less like a cult it becomes. This ought to tell them something.
I think my analogy from above is apt – the traditional churches are more like a well-adjusted virus: whatever they do, it is evolved or designed to *both* survive and still allow the members to lead a functional life with job and relationships. What is usually called cults or sects have not reached or do not want to reach this level of compatibility. The doctrines are equally silly in both.
I think it’s not so much that the one is more or less benign than the other as that the host has grown more or less accustomed to the parasite.
The Catholic Church, for example, is running an international child rape racket for its own leadership, and they’re waging an all-out war against Africans with AIDS as the weapon of choice. Scientology is nasty, yes, but they’re tyros compared with the Catholics.
Another aspect is that Scientology is muscling in on the turf of the Christians, and that the Christians are doing their worst to people nobody in power much cares about.
And then there’re the Muslims…just look at what the Taleban have done to the world over the past couple decades….
b&
They burn a lot fewer heretics than they used to, the pope has neither or an army nor much territory, and they hired an astronomer.
The Catholic church is still a horrible institution, but it’s not like they haven’t made adjustments/concessions.
Isn’t that kinda like comparing Adolf Hitler with Idi Amin?
b&
Agreed. It is very much like “regular” churches. The only sensible resolution is to remove special treatment for all religious organizations (tax protection, etc.) and charge them with crimes when they are committed, be it running a pyramid racket or managing a pedophilia protection scheme.
Fight has been endless. Several times, complicities within the tribunal helped scientology to escape the wrath of justice by stealing documents at the last instant.
Most people I know here in Paris, atheists, muslims, christians, usually tolerant to other beliefs, cannot understand how scientology can recruit anyone not 100% in despair. (The few intolerants neither, but that’s more standard). All those people can understand buddhists, new age, whatever. But not scientology. We seem to have a collective psychological block that prevents us from taking scientology seriously.
Not a bad thing, I guess.
Reblogged this on The Road.
The task is to prosecute for the action of violating rights without, at the same time, prosecuting for the ideas people hold. Just holding stupid ideas doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. The law should not get involved with thought control.
Just the fact that someone is a high level scientologist, Tom Cruise and John Travolta I’m thinking of you, is enough to identify them as dangerously deluded, and or dangerously unethical, and or dangerously sociopathic.
Good on France for seeing this odious establishment for what it is!
//
I have to give another shout-out to Tony Ortega. His site, The Underground Bunker continues the excellent coverage of $cientology he was doing at the The Village Voice, and plots the day by day death spiral of the organization. The commenters include lots of exes, which makes for very informed discussions.
In case you’ve not seen it, a state funded “free” moslem school has just been suspended here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-24548690
This is/was a school where girls had to sit at the back of the class and all female teachers, including non-Muslims, had to wear the hijab. It’s part of the “Free School” movement in UK. Islamists have taken advantage of it to promote their anti-West, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti- you name it agenda.
“Islamists have tried to take
nadvantage …” FIFYWhen they do, they get smacked down, as here.
/@
Well, for one thing, you’ve violated one of the unstated but cardinal rules of religions which hope to survive in a modern, secular society: don’t say anything clear enough to be testable. And if you do, for gawd’s sakes don’t let it involve taking money.
That draws attention from outsiders and can even startle members of the flock.
Religions today have gotten very good at being able to blather on and on and never make explicit claims which can be demonstrably wrong. Instead they adopt a kind of bafflegab of deepities which can slip in and out of coherence and metaphor at will, thus keeping their members soothed and satisfied whenever there are doubts. Any money requests are at least loosely associated with the concept of charity.
The Scientologists apparently love that the word “science” is included in their name and forgot that no no, all your claims have to be pretty damn vague.
Possibly. All they have to do is believe that they believe it — and it works out the same.
I think it comes down to the general deference granted to “faith” and the ubiquitous p.r. campaign which equates it with moral virtue. I once saw a British TV show where comedians had set up a table outside a Scientology building and they were asking people passing by to take a kind of “Belief Test,” to see what they were capable of believing. They then read out statements of Scientology doctrine which became more and more bizarre (though true): “Well, could you believe ….this?”
The interesting thing to me was that people taking the ‘test’ didn’t seem to be approaching the tenets as if they were evaluating them, but as if they were being asked how far and easily they could carry a weight. They seemed almost apologetic when they admitted that no, the statement about Thetans was just a bit too hard for them to believe. They could try, but it’s probably too much.
“The Scientologists apparently love that the word “science” is included in their name ”
I suspect Christian Scientists like that too.
I first heard of Scientology back in the 1970s. In the college town where I lived, in front of a typical rundown old house in the student ghetto was parked a beat-up old hippie bus with huge, crude lettering painted on it that said something like
Church of Scientology [Scientology crossed out and Scatology written in its place]
The visual impact was great; it stuck in my head all these years (and caused me to look up a few words).
Your ‘bafflegab of deepities’ – brilliant
“France is really the most backwards country in Europe in terms of religious tolerance”
They seem the most forward-thinking to me!
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands:
Dutch court rules Scientology tax-exempt
Perhaps organized religion ought to be viewed as part of a many faceted “hope industry” selling ritual panaceas for the problems people encounter in their lives. So, instead of consulting with friends or therapists to confront their problems they may have been brainwashed (from childhood or otherwise) to believe that churches have access to “higher powers” to provide relief. The churches may exact membership fees for the “hope” they are selling. So just as therapists pay taxes on their earnings, so should churches do the same.
> The “church” has a point that there’s no difference between the
> falsity of Scientology’s theological claims and those of established
> churches, but Scientology differs because it demands huge payments
> for courses and for “therapy” that has no effects. It’s quackery.
All Religions… are elaborate scams.
All Religious leaders… are charlatans.
Education… thwarts nefarious plans.
imo
Scientology is rediculous but not any worse than most other religions. Religions prey upon ignorant, gullible, needy people. Religions cause much harm but do serve a purpose occasionally for those not able to get their lives under control.
I wrote an unpublished near future novel in which a version of the scientologists were the main bad guys.
The treatment that some members endure is horrific. Luckily, the “cult” is dying off, they have been losing members like crazy while the insane leader keeps begging for more money to build more buildings, which then sit empty.
I read, back during the cold war, that the Soviet Union, which condemned religion, had a higher percentage of churchgoers than West Germany, with two state churches, or England with one.
So far as I know, L. Ron Hubbard introduced Scientology back in the 1950s, I think, in a series of editorials in Astounding Science Fiction. I remember reading some, thinking what a bunch of bull, and moving on.
It is common knowledge among most sci-fi fans that L. Ron Hubbard conceived the idea of his “church” during a drinking bout with several other writers at a Science Fiction convention. He stated that the best way to make any ‘real’ money was to start your own church/religion. He proved it not long after. I would say that his success, and that of several others (like Joseph Smith, who was visited by the angel Moroni while imprisoned for fraud) just shows how stupid and gullible people can be.
And then you’ve got your Jim Joneses and your David Koreshes…
Reminds me of this superb Bill Maher video on France. Much recommended.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ