# French prosecutor recommends "Dissolution" of Scientology in France **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 15, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887 "2009-06-15T23:04:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/201 "2009-06-17T18:59:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because they’re asking for tax emempt status. If a government is going to say that religions don’t have to pay taxes, then it needs to establish some kind of criterion for what counts as religion. > > Personally, I think we should do away with giving them tax exemptions completely. Altogether too many churches are just profiteering rackets. They should all be taxed through the nose, less whatever they actually spend on charitable works. Can they claim business expenses like the operation of a church against their charitable purposes like any other non-profit would or would you single them out? After all churches serve as meeting places to advance charitable causes and the collection plate is passed around and some of that money goes to charity. Considering the vast majority of churches are barely making ends meet, the idea that they are profiteering rackets is pretty ludicrous on its face. For someone who touts himself as the forum’s expert on religion, you say a lot of abject bullshit about it. It’s a tiny minority of churches that makes a profit off of the business model. Most churches rely on getting breaks from contractors who are amongst the congregation to fix leaky roofs. Churches as profiteering rackets. It’s amazing how many otherwise smart people actually say this as though it has validity. Particularly when they are making arguments that would put restrictions on religious non-profits that secular non-profits don’t have to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/202 "2009-06-17T19:05:02Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Tax exemptions, as far as I know. And while it’s tempting to say ‘do away with tax empetions for religions,’ that leads to an intertwining of government and religion that, personally, I’m not comfortable with. Seems like it would be more of an untwining than an intertwining. Why give them tax breaks at all? ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/203 "2009-06-17T19:13:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Tax exemptions, as far as I know. And while it’s tempting to say ‘do away with tax empetions for religions,’ that leads to an intertwining of government and religion that, personally, I’m not comfortable with. It surely is tempting. I don’t see the problem with having churches pay taxes like everybody else, but maybe somebody can explain. What intertwining does that entail? That the government takes money from religions and can thus be influenced? What is the actual problem? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/204 "2009-06-17T19:33:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Can they claim business expenses like the operation of a church against their charitable purposes like any other non-profit would or would you single them out? After all churches serve as meeting places to advance charitable causes and the collection plate is passed around and some of that money goes to charity. Whatever money doesn’t go directly to charitable purposes should be taxable. > [@](#): > > Considering the vast majority of churches are barely making ends meet, the idea that they are profiteering rackets is pretty ludicrous on its face. I didn’t say they _all_ are, I said _too many_ of them are. The megachurches, for instance, and the televangelism rackets. If some of them are having trouble making ends meet, that’s too bad for them. It shouldn’t be the government’s problem. Why should I be any more concerned with the ability of a struggling church to pay its taxes than a struggling strip joint? That’s capitalism. Sink or swim, and give the state its cut. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/205 "2009-06-17T19:34:48Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > What intertwining does that entail? That the government takes money from religions and can thus be influenced? Yes. People in this country already complain that the government does too much to support religion. Imagine the Catholic Church pulling the “my taxes pay your salary” card with legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/206 "2009-06-17T19:46:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes. People in this country already complain that the government does too much to support religion. Imagine the Catholic Church pulling the “my taxes pay your salary” card with legislators. So making them pay taxes is giving them \*more \*support? This makes no sense. How would religion be any different from any other tax paying special interest group? And, more importantly, what is the justification for giving them tax breaks in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/207 "2009-06-17T19:58:07Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So making them pay taxes is giving them \*more \*support? Fair enough, that was imprecise wording. Put it this way: the government already supports religion in a variety of ways ranging from the Pledge of Allegiance to voucher for private schools to faith-based initiatives. If the government accepts tax money from religions, it’s then directly accountable to religions the same way it is accountable to large groups of donors and other lobbying organizations. Currently, religions are not allowed to engage in some kinds of direct political activity, although I know they skirt the lines of what’s allowed. But that’ll go away if the government taxes them. Think of the NRA’s influence on the government, but much bigger. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/208 "2009-06-17T20:24:42Z")
Taxes aren’t campaign contributions, and churches, through surrogates, _already_ lobby legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/209 "2009-06-17T20:30:51Z")
> [@Dead\_Badger](#): > > This I find troubling, to be honest. Vague laws make for inequitable application, and while for most Scientology is certainly at the skeevy end of such organisationsfnord, that JWs have been bundled in with them is rather disturbing. There’s a large “because we say so” feel to it, which doesn’t sit well, and the asymmetric treatment of local JW associations and their national organisation seems completely capricious. Obviously protecting the vulnerable is a necessity, but the reasons given for denying the JWs religious tax exemption seem to place the operation of the state in clear primacy to individual freedom: Well, that’s a general problem with the way our country works. We tend to give lots of power to our State, because we trust it to do the right thing (or trust we can force it to), and when it does we want it to not have its hands overly tied. Which does lead to abuses of power sometimes. We think it’s worth it, I suppose. As for the JW in particular, I won’t deny that there seems to be a bit of pettiness to it - the JW sued the State (and public organizations tied to it) a lot back in the 80s, thus the State declined to throw them a bone. There’s also injustice, in the sense that they were most probably singled out less for what they really did, but because letting them in the cultual club would have opened the door to any number of shadier operations. But even so, it’s a far cry from persecution or restriction of individual freedom IMO. Again, they weren’t hunted down in the streets - they were only asked to pay their damn taxes like the rest of us. Render unto Caesar… > [@](#): > > Never mind the circularity (“they’re a cult because our commission on cults says so”), what on earth does the tax regime have to do with discouraging pacifism or forcing people to “take part in public life”? What does taking part in public life even mean? As a rationale for yoinking almost two thirds of an organisation’s donations, it doesn’t seem entirely sound. First, let me say I was wrong before : the JWs \*did \*recently get their coveted cultual status. Which torpedoes **Kimmy** ’s argument 😉 But it’s true that the State fucked with them for 20 years, sometimes on shaky ethical ground, _pour décourager les autres_. So, let me try to answer to that anyway. No circularity : the commission report on sects & cults has no legal value. It’s just that : a report on religious organizations which had weird, possibly criminal practices that should be followed more closely. It cannot, and has not been used as a reason for pulling the plug on tax breaks or any legal action for that matter. Besides, since it’s a 1995 report, and the beginning of the JW wrangling harks back to 1985… It wasn’t about pacifism per se, but organized obstruction to State policy. I’ve yet to hear of a country which _promoted_ draft dodging and conscientious objection - AFAIK, no matter where you hail from, it always entails running through an insane amount of philosophical and legal hoops. I should know, I would have filed for conscientious objection myself, had compulsory military service not been discontinued around the time I turned 18. As for the “taking part in public life” item, Not sure. Could be just a vague notion that “they keep to themselves”, could be that the JWs don’t want to take their kids to public school… no idea, really - I was 4 at the time, so I didn’t follow that particular kerfluffle ;), and I don’t know much about the JW way of life besides the annoying door-to-door thing. However, from what I read on the subject, I do think both that and conscientious objection bit were thrown in “for weight” in the 1985 jurisprudence (the one that denied them “cultual association” status), the major point of contention between State and JWs was always that they’d rather let themselves (and their children) die than accept a blood transfusion, and sued hospitals whenever they gave a member an emergency BT without first checking whether or not the guy was a JW. The consensus deemed those practices disruptive (and tantamount to child abuse). I tend to agree, but then I have a problem with litigious, ungrateful dicks in general :p. But do note that your concerns (not precisely defining the contention, and singling out the JWs) were raised back then, too, as well as during the long legal back-and-forth that followed. Flash forward to 2002 : refusing a blood transfusion has just been recognized as a fundamental patient right and doesn’t qualify as “disruption of public order” anymore ; and since by then compulsory military service had long been discontinued, JW associations regain the cultual association status, and the privileges it entails (no land tax on churches and offices, donations non-taxable, tax deductible and not requiring notification to the local prefect). All is well, and the individual is free to mail all of his possessions to Bethel if he so wishes. Praise the Lawd, hallelujah. > [@](#): > > Without wanting to put words in **Kimmy\_Gibbler** ’s mouth, I feel he’s been quite plain that it is the differential treatment _among_ religions to which he objects. I’m happy to be corrected on this, but at no point have I seen him argue the necessity of giving religions any privileges at all; merely that if some are granted them, all should be. Well, I (and the French gov, obviously) disagree - we grandfathered religious exceptions and privileges established religions had (in my own, unsubstantiated opinion, most probably because the RCC would have thrown one heck of a hissy fit if we hadn’t). And that does create something of a schyzophrenic legal envirronment. But I don’t see a problem with not handing out free money to any yokel who claims his pyramidal scheme is a religion, especially when the pyramidal scheme involves disrupting society or (in the case of scientology) outright crime and attempts to infiltrate the government. @RedFury : thanks ! But I’m afraid I’m way, way less knowledgeable of French politics, laws and current events than \*\*clairobscur \*\*is. French I am, well-educated… not so much 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/210 "2009-06-17T21:13:47Z")
As far as CA’s budget and the size of the scientology “church” in WeHo, the property taxes alone would put a dent in the bankruptcy. If we taxed all churches (especially the mega-churches **DtC** mentioned), bailout? What bailout? (Well, it’d be a start.) “I haaaaave a dreeeeeeeam…” (sung) ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/211 "2009-06-17T21:15:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Whatever money doesn’t go directly to charitable purposes should be taxable. > > I didn’t say they _all_ are, I said _too many_ of them are. The megachurches, for instance, and the televangelism rackets. > > If some of them are having trouble making ends meet, that’s too bad for them. It shouldn’t be the government’s problem. Why should I be any more concerned with the ability of a struggling church to pay its taxes than a struggling strip joint? That’s capitalism. Sink or swim, and give the state its cut. It’s not the government’s problem. Lack of taxation =/= subsidy. They will sink or swim on their own, but as they provide support for communities we have deemed them as a social benefit. As for megachurches, I’d be all for systematically auditing them to see if they are running as for-profit entities and changing the status of those who violate their sanction, but I don’t see why this requires any change in the law as it currently exists at all. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/212 "2009-06-17T21:34:52Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > Considering TSD’s popularity, they almost certainly would have assigned a group to work the message board. Kimmy’s one of them, and we should feel important, since he has permission to utter the word Xenu that means he’s a top dog. > > . . . > > So, basically, yes, they would plant people here for the long term. I think I know who they are too (besides Kimmy). _waves_ Wow. Just wow. You have just been nominated for the annual “Get A Load Of This Fucking Moron” awards, presented by the CIA in conjunction with our Zionist Overlords, Coca-Cola, the Freemasons, and the D.A.R. At first, I thought “brilliant parody”. But as you kept going it became apparent that _you_ are the scientologist. Yes, your posts talking about the ridiculous extents scientology will go to in order to subvert the masses are there just to make _us_ all associate secret sleeper scientologist theories with conspiracy-theory nutcases in tinfoil hats. Bravo, Scientologist Agent 00Xenu. The only thing you forgot was that we, the Knights Templar, are aware of your activities. Please remain where you are, for your own safety. A reprogramming crew will be along shortly. Do not resist or you will be blackboxed. SD POSTERS: BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING: QUESTIONING THE BOARD STATUS QUO UNDERMINING CONSENSUS GODWINIZING HOLDING CONSERVATIVE VALUES BEING A TAX ATTORNEY SHUT THE FUCK UP ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/213 "2009-06-18T04:19:11Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > …yes, that’s called an empty protest. (Sometimes “whining” or “bitching.”) I don’t see any legitimate way to describe refusing to vote or serve in the military as a disruption of the public order. I’m not saying there is one, but I’m not in charge of what France does, and if they want to set the laws without exemptions for conscientious objection, it’s not my place to tell they they can’t. ETA: _L’etat, c’est_ those guys, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/214 "2009-06-18T05:55:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Currently, religions are not allowed to engage in some kinds of direct political activity, although I know they skirt the lines of what’s allowed. But that’ll go away if the government taxes them. Doesn’t the current situation give religions the choice? If they decided that they would benefit more from direct political activity than getting away tax-free, couldn’t they simply start engaging in said activity and laugh off the “penalty” of having to pay the same taxes as everyone else? If the government let _you_ get away with not paying taxes at the expense of refraining from direct political activity, with the option of violating that rule and receiving a penalty that makes you no worse off than if you hadn’t accepted at all, would you be complaining? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/215 "2009-06-18T11:12:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Taxes aren’t campaign contributions, and churches, through surrogates, _already_ lobby legislators. As I said, they skirt the rules, but there are restrictions on what a 501(c)(3) tax exempt group can do. If religions are taxed they won’t be subject to that. Remember the fuss about the Mormon Church funding proposition 8 in California? I think this leads to outcomes that people who strongly support the separation of church and state would not like. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/216 "2009-06-18T14:52:00Z")
Churches can’t keep their tax exempt status if they endorse candidates or tell their congregations who to vote for. I think that’s acually more of an entanglement than just removing the exemptions and letting them say whatever they want (which they do anyway) would be. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/217 "2009-06-18T14:59:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > As I said, they skirt the rules, but there are restrictions on what a 501(c)(3) tax exempt group can do. If religions are taxed they won’t be subject to that. Remember the fuss about the Mormon Church funding proposition 8 in California? I think this leads to outcomes that people who strongly support the separation of church and state would not like. I am not so sure about this. If the 501(c)(3) restrictions were removed, it would be much easier to create institutional counteweights to oppose church-driven agendas. I am not entirely sure that the political equilibrium would be all that different than what we have now. ---
**Author:** ![TheFaerie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TheFaerie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFaerie)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/218 "2009-06-18T16:21:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I’m not kidding. But check under your bed, they may have operatives in there. Oogy boogy boogy! > > Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t vote, **Dead Badger**. That’s probably what the “taking part in public life” thing means. As an aside, my father is a JW, and not only does he vote, he volunteers at his polling place. Do you mean “JW’s don’t believe in passing judgement,” which means they don’t particapate in jury selections? JW’s belive that only God can judge man. Perhaps he just belongs to a progressive Fellowship. I really don’t know that much about it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/219 "2009-06-18T16:28:00Z")
> [@TheFaerie](#): > > Do you mean “JW’s don’t believe in passing judgement,” which means they don’t particapate in jury selections? No, I mean that some of them [believe they should not vote.](http://www.slate.com/id/2194321/) I don’t know how that applies to juries. ---
**Author:** ![TheFaerie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TheFaerie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFaerie)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887/220 "2009-06-18T16:35:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I mean that some of them [believe they should not vote.](http://www.slate.com/id/2194321/) I don’t know how that applies to juries. Thanks for the info, Marley. I have been enjoying your arguements in this thread. Carry on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-prosecutor-recommends-dissolution-of-scientology-in-france/499887.md?page=12)