AU Senator Calls Scientology a "Criminal Organization" 511
An anonymous reader passes along news that an Australian senator, Nick Xenophon, has denounced the Church of Scientology as "a criminal organization" from the floor of Parliament. "Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment, and forced abortion. He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status." It wasn't that long ago that the CoS was calling for Net censorship in Australia; a month later the organization was convicted of fraud in France.
Interesting name. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting name. (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, he just rode in with his 10,000 followers and is trying to crush the opposition ;^)
Re:Interesting name. (Score:4, Insightful)
A government should be doing what is best for the country, not what is seen to be most politically correct - at least Nick is working on getting that to happen.
Even if he is a filthy South Australian.
Re:Interesting name. (Score:5, Funny)
Here's one! [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"
I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a religion not a charity.
Re:Interesting name. (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Someone get me an e-meter, quick!"
>I'm afraid sir you'll have to buy your own. This is a business not a religion.
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Xenophon? Sounds Foreign (Score:5, Funny)
Xenophon? Sounds Foreign
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nah, it's cool. If he knows about Xenu without being properly audited his R6 implant is exploding his head at this very moment.
Senator Xenophon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
nope, just an evangelical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, that's the other independant senator Steve Fielding from the Family First evangelicals.
Nick Xenophon is from the 'No Pokies' party, and doesn't interfere his religion with his politics.
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Good
tax shelter (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but wonder if the COS would even exist without its tax exempt status. Sure the people up top would be doing well like any pyramid scheme but would there be such an incentive for new members to join without the tax exemption?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Never underestimate the stupidity of rich 'n greedy white people!
Re:tax shelter (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you've never heard of the Socratic Method [wikipedia.org]?
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Religions come and go, their Gods are offered gold, placed upon altars and have great building and churches erected in their names - and yet, people die of violence, starvation, and famine. Their Gods grow weak and frail, their subjects grow old and a new religion eventually emerges and takes its place as the new "true" religion. A sad cycle indeed.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Religions give followers a sense of belonging and an answer to questions like who made the universe and what happens when I die. They also give a group of people a sense of belonging.
It's just a pity when religions get in the way of our society (abortion, contraceptives and gay rights are good things) and when people take them too far (terrorism). Also when they exist solely for monetary gain.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand the role that religion plays in some people's lives, and being agnostic or an atheist is not for everyone. It's just religion is usually imposed upon people at a young age where they don't have a choice or can't mount a logical defense against what they're being told so they take it as truth. I wish people were baptized at the age of 20 or so, and I bet we'd have a lot less followers.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
There are religions that don't accept members (through baptism) until they reach adulthood. They are called Anabaptists (many sects began during the Reformation because they believed that Martin Luther didn't address all their grievances with the Catholic Church).
One of the more widespread of the Anabaptist sects are the Mennonites (of which I am one). I was baptized at the age of 26, because prior to then I didn't have a reason or desire to attend church. But, things happen, and I found a reason and a need in my life to be part of the church. It hasn't changed my belief structure (I still am agnostic/athiest) but that does not preclude the need for the belonging and philosophy of church. I may not believe there is a god, but a small hope that it might be true can give strength in trying times.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Most religions don't copyright their message and charge large sums to move up the hierarchy. Most religions attempt to spead their message to as many as possible. The COS has gone as far to copyright the message and sue those who infringe. The most famous case of this happened right here on Slashdot.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.
I think you'll have trouble enshrining any law which will target one and not the other. I'm sure the CoS will open up their texts if substantial money is on the line.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
At the height of its power the easiest way to get someone into a position of power within the various Christian churches in Europe was to cough up cash and the higher you wanted to go the bigger the donation. Rich families often did just that for their non first-born male children. For centuries the bible was not allowed to translated from Latin to limit who had access to it and keep the interpretations in the hands of the priests. Virtually the same thing as Scientology.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Latin Vulgate is named such because it was translated into the vulgar (aka common) language spoken at the time. Churches had copies of the Vulgate available to the public. And yes, they may have been chained to a pedestal - but this was due to their value, not to limit access. Before the printing press it took a scribe a year to make a copy of the Bible.
Literacy was also abysmally low in the common people during this time, and did not see an uptake until around the 12th century. When literacy began rebo
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but you know that before you join.
Anyone can find out exactly what the Mormon's believe, and they would be quite happy to explain it more fully if you are interested.
The CoS wants you to pay first, before you decide whether what they believe is credible. Given what they belive there is a good reason for that....
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.
Can you read the Book of Mormon and/or information about it without joining the church.? AFAIK you can.
Yes you can [lds.org].
It's also important to note that the Mormon Church has no paid clergy. So member donations go to the organization/religion itself rather than to its leaders.
Zen Buddhism/Hebrew prophets (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad truth is that religions become centres of power, and centres of power attract criminals. It's interesting to see how even the green movement is being plagued with criminals selling people massively uneconomic wind and solar systems, because people's desire to do good often exceeds their ability to see through bullshit. But some religions - Zen, Quakers, Reform Judaism, the liberal wing of the Episcopalian Church - have proven very resistant to criminal infiltration. That's possibly because they attract mainly very educated people. To be blunt, one reason Scientology is so successful might be because it has targeted the rich and gullible.
L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm amazed that this pyramid scheme has been allowed to continue unabated (and with tax-free status) for nigh on 40 years !
It's no more a religion than Amway, Avon or Tupperware is ... although you'd need a firemans vice to separate my mother-in-law from her overpriced plastic boxes.
Re:L Ron was a failed entreprenuer? Not anymore... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cause and effect? (Score:4, Funny)
It wasn't that long ago that the CoS was calling for Net censorship in Australia; a month later the organization was convicted of fraud in France.
So does the CoS have to call for Net censorship in Belgium before Australia can convict them of fraud?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Related? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nick Xenophon is the only independenr of the Australian Senate. I wonder if that is related, as he doesnt have to please his party?
Re:Related? (Score:4, Informative)
He seems to support topics of this kind, like anti-gambling. Things that a lot of people in the community would want, but big guys - like corporations - wouldn't.
Re:Related? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice Godwin, but get this, Scientology is a criminal organization. When a senator acts to protect his constituents from being harmed by a criminal organization it is a good thing. His speaking out about this is the exact opposite of your intended slur. If he had stayed silent about these crimes then you could accuse him, but instead he bravely spoke out.
First the Scientologists came for the critics, but I was not a critic so I said nothing...
So ... (Score:2, Funny)
So - how's he gonna end up? (Score:3, Interesting)
We all know how Scientology works. If you don't, look it up.
What method of assassination will Scientology take?
1) Physical Assassination
2) Assassination of Character and Reputation
3) Assassination of Assets
4) Assassination of Family Members
5) Something Else
6) All of the Above
Really, don't expect this guy to be around much longer.
Re:So - how's he gonna end up? (Score:5, Informative)
Stephen Fielding is the one you're talking about - Xenophon is anti-pokies, and seems to me to be relatively deliberative on other matters, and generally reasonable. Stephen Fielding is a climate change skeptic; Nick Xenophon is not.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fielding is the Christian conservative rabid about censorship. Xenophon did initially support the net censorship proposal as a way to ban gambling sites, but switched views and opposes it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, I just read the article. It definitely looks like the CoS contacted ABC to have this article published as their first counter movement. You'll notice the first steps they take are to point out that they're shocked by the allegations and that they've already tried to 'talk' to Senator Xenophon regarding an earlier assault on public television. They attempt
Scat-entology - A free replacement (Score:2, Funny)
Xenophon and Socrates (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty OT here but with people making Xenu gags because of the name its worth point out that Xenophon's Conversations with Socrates [amazon.com] is one of the few sources for views of the great Greek philosopher and orator.
CoS are of course a shill, its not even a very clever shill, their "e-meters" are almost as dumb as the bullet proof pants that the Mormons try and pedal.
Why should any religion get tax status? They aren't a charity, the money is primarily there to support their own organisation. They are selling a product called "salvation" and people are paying money in the belief they are getting something back.
Socrates wasn't the biggest fan of religion either... question everything.
Re:Xenophon and Socrates (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty OT here
No, you've got it all wrong. This is OT [anti-scientologie.ch].
A word on Xenophon (Score:5, Informative)
Xenophon, for those unfamiliar, was an ancient Greek general best known for writing The Anabasis -- an account of the trials and adventures of The Ten Thousand, a group of Greek mercenaries hired by Cyrus the Younger. After he's killed in battle, the Greeks have to march back to Greece from deep within enemy territory. It's quite a thrilling tale with plenty of action and treachery. Surprised they haven't made a movie out of it a la 300.
If I was Mr. Xenophon, I'd rather go up against the Persians than the Scientologists :D In any event, he has an awesome last name.
Re:A word on Xenophon (Score:4, Funny)
"Cyrus the younger" you say. This morning the spokesman and vice president of COS Australia was defending his religious organisation on the radio and other media. His name was... Cyrus, Cyrus Brooks. One day Senator Xenophon may give an account of the "trials and adventures of The Ten Thousand"s of scientologists in Australia. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Celebrity backlash, awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
On wikipedia right now... (Score:5, Funny)
"In November 2009, Xenophon labelled the Church of Scientology as a criminal organisation in a speech to the Senate. [42] This is clear evidence that he has very large testicles."
I'm not in favor of vandalism, but LOL!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should have linked to that particular revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Xenophon&oldid=326486984#As_federal_senator [wikipedia.org]
That way the rest of us can enjoy the joke as well :)
PM is "concerned" too (Score:5, Informative)
Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, has said he's concerned too, and wants to see the material before calling a full inquiry. [smh.com.au]
It's a sudden outbreak of common sense in the House in the Hill, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
May be they can apply that to internet censorship and treating refugees as criminals as well!
I used to be a Scientologist (Score:5, Interesting)
.....and I can tell you from personal experience that it really is pure concentrated evil.
Scientology has gotten away with innumerable crimes over the years in part because the average person is incapable of imagining that anything can be so completely malign in its goals. The organization is completely sociopathic.
They kicked me out because I wouldn't drink the koolaide.
If you want to know more, I recommend you check out operation clambake (www.xenu.net)
Re:I used to be a Scientologist (Score:5, Interesting)
How did you get involved, originally? My first guess (having known a few scientologists) is that your parents were/are members and you were raised in it. Second guess: One of the substance abuse programs. Third guess: One of their entrepreneurial outreach programs.
Any hits? Just curious--I'm always happy to see somebody leave the CoS. it's a terrible, hurtful thing, and I've seen it ruin peoples' lives while making them feel it's their own fault.
Also, out of curiosity, have you ever been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, or at least seen the symptoms in yourself?
Personally, I think there's substantial co-morbidity between substance abuse problems and scientology for a very specific reason: Undiagnosed (or untreated) ADHD, mostly the "inattentive" kind (which is pretty substantially under-diagnosed, since the kids aren't unruly or acting out). It tends to breed feelings of worthlessness in afflicted adults, and opens up a lot of psychological vulnerabilities. Many suffers either self-medicate (hence the substance abuse issues), and/or get attracted to cults that promise direction, motivation, and self-improvement. Scientology, in particular, has substance-abuse outreach and treatment programs, which makes a handy recruiting strategy for the larger cult.
Of all the scientologists I've met (~2 dozen), almost all of them seem like classic ADHD cases. That is partly based on observing behavior, and partly on what people have said about their life histories, and partly on what they say about their relatives (ADHD is highly inheritable). I've also met a lot (~100s) of 12-steppers (mostly AA)--the proportion of them showing ADHD symptoms or personal/family histories isn't quite as high, but it's still enormous, far more than the normal population.
(Interesting side-note: According to my psychiatrist uncle (who performed a lot of criminal insanity consultations, and is borderline ADHD, himself), American prison populations also show substantial ADD/ADHD over-representation, possibly as high as 70-80% of all prison inmates. As an adult with ADHD, I have to suppress a chuckle at that little trifecta: Prison, addiction, or scientology--take your pick, kids, so many ways to ruin your life.)
For the general Slashdot audience: If you or your family have symptoms of ADHD or inattentive (no-H) ADHD, I'd recommend reading Nancy and John Ratey's books, and then going to see a psychiatrist, in that order. Even if you decide not to try the drugs (which can be helpful, but aren't a magic cure by themselves), there is a LOT you can do to improve your life. It's cheaper than a cult, too.
Re:I used to be a Scientologist (Score:5, Informative)
How did you get involved, originally? My first guess (having known a few scientologists) is that your parents were/are members and you were raised in it. Second guess: One of the substance abuse programs. Third guess: One of their entrepreneurial outreach programs.
My girlfriend recently graduated from college with degrees in communications and marketing. She was almost immediately contacted with a job offer, from a company that said they were public relations consultants. She went into the interview and there were ten other people there, also waiting. The person running the interview sat everyone down and gave them a form to fill out and sign before they started the interview process. One of the items on the form was a non-disclosure clause for everything in the interview, and another was a statement that L. Ron Hubbard's words were infallible. To which she had to agree in writing before she could get an interview. At which point she realized that she was being recruited to be a Scientologist recruiter. She walked out. But just so you know, that's one way Scientology gets new members: they hire people with degrees being convincing to go get more people.
Nooooo! (Score:5, Funny)
It should even have been dissolved here in France (Score:5, Interesting)
They are loosing adepts, but they still have people in the higher spheres...
There's difference between CoS and other religions (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever there's something about CoS it seems like there's a crowd of people who chime in with, "But ALL religions are corrupt, criminal, and commercial." Which inevitably leads to the conclusion that, if you happen to not have a problem with religion in general, you must accept anything which calls itself a religion, or become an atheist.
Here's the problem. We'll put aside my Pollyanna-esque belief that most of the time religions really are about a genuine and sincere effort to understand the metaphysical aspects of existence. Yes, the Catholic church is responsible for suppression of science and learning, set up the "indulgence" system, and a host of other sins. Keep in mind, however, that the Catholic church was the last vestige of Roman-style socio-political organization after the fall of the empire. While the West dissolved, the Catholic church was the closest thing to a stable government that was able to provide legitimacy to regional and local rulers, preserve some measure of learning, and mitigate internal conflict. Not until the Treaty of Westphalia does the modern concept of the state enter into Western thinking, and that was well after the Inquisition's height. So, yes, the Catholic church has done some nasty things, but compare it to any other nation-state if you want an appropriate ethical comparison.
CoS, on the other hand, actively seeks to defraud individuals through a deliberate pyramid-scheme. It is felonious by any legal standards, and does no charitable work to speak of. Churches, synagogues, and mosques routinely collect money from followers as a sign of devotion and as a means of maintaining themselves (literally, as in a "building fund").
Some Slashdotters appear to be confused as to the concept of nonprofit. A nonprofit organization is allowed to raise money through sales and donations in order to pay it's employees and maintain itself; it only has to show that, at the end of the day, it doesn't have any money.
Why the censorship icon? (Score:3, Informative)
Scientology is a criminal organization with a history of stalking and harassment, as well allegations of burglary, intimidation, kidnapping, bribery, attacks on the U.S. government (specifically the FBI), and murder both direct and through neglect.
Scientology's own documents show they believe in terrorizing and murdering anyone who opposed them.
It should be perfectly legal to use Scientology's own "auditing process R2-45" on every single member.
End US Tax Exemption for All Religions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you read what he said? Oh that's right, this is /.
All he is saying is that we should question the tax free status of Scientology. He then gave some examples of what the cult does.
Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like Scientology either but I value my freedom to associate.
Should all associations be given tax-free status? If not, then what conditions deserve tax-free status, and should that status be irrevocable once obtained?
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia. He said it wasn't government's job to determine which religious beliefs are worthy of recognition and which are not.
Overall, religions should have to pay their own way.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Informative)
for example weet-bix, produce by sanitarium.
Run by seventh day Adventist, given tax free status..... bet you didn't know that! How to other business compete with tax free status - it very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ooh, I wish I could smell religion...
Just find the closest farm, and go for a walk through the fields ...
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Informative)
Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia.
Campaigning?! I'm calling bullshit on that one mate. (Though I'm open to change my mind if you can provide some evidence to back that claim up.) True he sat on the court that decided the "Scientology Case" [austlii.edu.au] but his wasn't even the leading judgment. I think a little quote from his Honour will serve to enlighten as to his attitude towards religion and towards its tax exempt status. Responding to the argument that the "commercial nature" of Scientology showed it wasn't "religious" in nature, he wrote:
Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying.
If anything Murphy J was "campaigning" to get rid of the tax exempt status for religions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it is. The government is responsible for levying taxes. They are the ones who decide who gets taxed and who doesn't. It's certainly not the religion's job to determine if it should be recognized.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they make no money to speak of and give most of that to (tax deductable) charities then spend the rest on (tax deductable) running costs then I doubt that their tax bill is going to be very high. The admin for it would increase running costs though (tax deductably). If they have an accountant in their flock they should be able to get it gratis, surely :)
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's the problem with taxing all religions as if they were businesses? Tax them a certain proportion of their profits - no profits, no tax. I'd expect that the Cult of Scientology would be among the first to get wholly reamed via the new taxation regimen.
Because I'm absolutely certain that the CoS, with all the money it has accumulated over the years, would have a terrible time finding a suitably creative team of accountants to bring their tax bill right down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they make no money to speak of (enough to give to charities and cover liability costs on public worship - and perhaps support a minister).
So because someone's job is to teach people about a being of questionable existence, he should be exempt from taxes? If they want to be a charity, register as a charity. If you want to be a religion, you should get taxed. Teaching people about beings of questionable existence (you say only god X exists? Man down the road says only god Y exists. Clearly there is question to which one, if either, exists) isn't something society should be forced to burden.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be easy to test too. Religions that are not willing to publish their teachings on the web and give away free books are non profit, ones that sue people to take those teachings down are for profit and get to pay tax [wikipedia.org]. Actually religions that try to stop other people talking about them should at the very least lose their tax free status and should probably be sued too.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic. Richard Dawkins has a big thing about trying to persuade a Hindu temple to go to court for charity status, since they are legally a polytheistic, and thus heathen, religion, but actually all the gods are avatars of the one God, or something. Anyway, profit should be taxed, whether you dance around chicken innards or sell chocolate.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:4, Interesting)
>Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.
Not true. I know of a school of Buddhism (a 'sect' - not an actual school) here in the UK which has charitable status. Definitely not mono- or anything-else-theistic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in the UK there is a fascinating point of law - religions only get tax-exempt status if they are monotheistic.
So Christianity isn't tax-exempt in the UK?
I mean, ok, you could argue about the three-gods-in-one thing not necessarily making them polytheistic, but when they've got thousands of Saints who are really the equivalent of the lower Greek Gods it kinda kills the idea of Christianity being a monotheistic religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the growth of the ledgers as time progresses. You may have turned a profit on that particular party, but you're likely to either redistribute the left-over among the contributors or hang on to the money so it can be applied to the next party, either of which would make it a non-profit venture.
If they're really operating as a non-profit,
Having cash doesn't disqualify non-profit status (Score:4, Informative)
If they're really operating as a non-profit, then their year-over-year balance shouldn't really be increasing that much.
Speaking as a certified accountant, non-profit status has NOTHING inherently to do with the amount of cash they hold. A non-profit organization simply does not distribute its surplus assets to owners or shareholders and instead uses them to further the goals of the organization. If holding a lot of cash would further the goals of the organization they can do that. The IRS might review their status if they are holding a lot of cash for no obvious purpose but by itself it means nothing. Foundations typically have large amounts of cash and moderately liquid investments. Non-profit organization can have a significant rise in assets and that is fine. Many hospitals and hospital systems are non-profit but they have large amounts of cash and other assets and frequently grow significantly.
Personally I question the idea that being non-profit should mean tax exempt (especially for religions with vast assets) unless it is an organization with a clear charitable charter but I didn't write the rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims.
Well maybe where you live. Here in Australia we have this funny custom we call "Law." The law gives ordinary citizens, along with extra-ordinary "religious" bodies, the right to appeal decisions made by administrative officers which affect them. In fact this association generally known as the Church of Scientology appe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be [.. ] be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income) [...] this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class"
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:4, Informative)
No, FairTax is not the most poor-friendly tax ever. The problem with sales taxes
is that they are regressive - poor people have to spend a far larger share of
their income on consumption than rich people, often all they have. "Fixing"
this regressiveness with a tax rebate is adding insult to injury to those people
so poor they won't even get the whole benefit of the rebate.
I propose a high, flat income tax with a sizable demogrant (like a tax
rebate, but you can get back more than you put in) to make it progressive.
There, now you've heard about a more fair proposal than FairTax.
Income taxes, especially flat ones, are easier to administrate than sales taxes.
Sales taxes need to be (and are) refundable for businesses that buy things to
produce other things. Otherwise, productivity really suffers, especially for
businesses far down the value-adding chain. But when sales taxes are refundable,
small business owners will buy blu-ray players and take them home as "necessary
business expenditures", and it will be horribly difficult and expensive to catch
them at it. That's sales tax fraud, one of the big headaches of countries with a
high sales tax.
Sales tax does have some advantages. It discourages unnecessary consumption, and
thus has environmental benefits, but since consumption varies so widely in its
environmental impact, this is a very crude tool to reduce our footprint. For the
environment, it's better to slap a tax on pollution directly, and ideally plow
it back in the demogrant. That way above-average polluters compensate
below-average polluters for their impact, and that's as it should be.
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not GP, but this really bugs me:
So, you've basically said
Really, this kind of black-and-white "not A therefore B" extremism (which is really a large family of bad arguments) is perhaps the biggest generator of problems in our democratic/capitalistic (ie, the masses decide) society. To wit:
Tax is not a "punishment". (In theory) tax should be "We (the government) need money for services that are (arguably) untenable in or unsuited to private enterprise, how are we going to get it?". It's not "Hey, I don't like that guy, let's rob him! *cackle maniacally*". You are again making the "NOT A THEREFORE B" mistake by conflating "tax" with "punishment", because they both fit into the broader category "authorised arbitrated unpleasantness based on behaviour". But just as a motorbike is not an automobile (despite their many similarities), TAX IS NOT A PUNISHMENT, IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE NECESSITY.
Not every poor person is a lazy bum, and not every rich person is a hard worker. Now whilst I have no specific moral objections to tax in and of itself (I don't like it, but don't find it immoral), you regard it as a "punishment", and therefore imagine that you're "punishing" people simply for being poor - and conversely, rewarding people for being rich. Which would be fine if everyone who was poor deserved it - but for the third time, NOTHING IS THAT BLACK AND WHITE (even you admit there's not 100% correlation). Is it that you have no ethical quarrel with "punishing" people for probably being lazy (in which case, you are a frighteningly heartless person), or do you simply ignore corner cases (ie, another incarnation of the black-and-white mistake)?
As for the actual point you were trying to make about tax reform, I'm not going to enter into that. I'm merely going to point out that
means a MUCH smaller tax revenue (unless you plan to simply make the figures your tax proposal extremely high, which will probably create a black market and public outcry). Although many here might support reducing tax and reducing services (and this is an argument I *DEFINITELY* don't want to enter into), no government would never agree to it, in the same way that no employee would ever agree to take a massive pay cut just to make a moral stand (especially when morals are highly subjective - an argument I don't want to enter into because anyone who argues for universal morality is a damned moron, and I have better things to do than argue with morons).
Re:Should they get off tax-free? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true that not everyone can be rich.
It's also true that not everyone is equal.
That said, money begets money so if you have a lot of it's a hell of a lot easier to get more. Education is expensive for your kids, social connections make getting a job a lot easier, and if you've got a hundred grand you can afford to lose it's a lot easier to make a killing on the stock market or get in on the ground floor of some major new product.
Not everyone who is rich deserves to be, and a lot of the people who are poor are there because despite hard work, they never had the opportunities a lot of the wealthy had. Yes there are always people who manage to pull themselves up by their bootstraps from extreme poverty to extreme wealth, but they are few and far between. I would suggest that nearly everyone on slashdot is not capable of doing so, including myself. I do pretty well for myself, but while I wasn't rich by any means I had a lot of opportunities. I never had to try focus on my education in a school rife with violence or find a part time job in an area where the only real economic activity is drug distribution and crime. I got to grow up lower middle class, go to a good school, get a university education and never get shot at.
While not everyone has to be rich, we don't need to have people who do not earn enough to survive. We do not have to have people living in slums. We do not have to have kids who have no access to adequate health care, food, or education. None of those things are necessary for even our current economic model to work.
The vast majority of the population doesn't necessarily have to be relatively well off, they just need to have access to the basic necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, education, health care, safe streets, all the things most of us took for granted growing up and still do. Even guaranteeing those things to children who can't control who their parents are would be a start. Anyone who can argue that some 6 year old shouldn't be allowed adequate nutrition because their parents are losers is an asshole and should go die in a fire.
Some rich people work hard and contribute to society. Some of them build companies which provide jobs or improve the standards of living of everyone. Some of them just run companies into the ground or siphon off funds to make themselves rich. You could argue that perhaps the one deserves some relief from taxes since they provide so much other value to society, but far far far too much of that richest 1% are in the other category, and most of the good ones end up in the upper middle classes working hard at a small business.
Re:Makes me sick (Score:5, Insightful)
For those unfamiliar with the australian parliment - the definition of what "Parliamentary Privilege" is: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/briefs/brief11.htm#1 [aph.gov.au]
I think you miss understand the purpose of "parliamentary privilege", my fellow australian. Our elected representitives can discuss such issues as the authenticity of Scientology, without fear of slander/libel suits or gag orders or general legal hoop-la to silence their criticisms. It is their role to raise issues of their consitutents in such as manner, so that members of the public can come forth/organise/e.t.c to provide the necessary PROOF that the laws are being broken. Then the appropriate law enforcement agency can be engaged.
Sorry mate - I don't want to live in your world where if no-one talks about a problem it doesn't exist - that's just plain foolish.
But regardless, by READING THE FIRETRUCKING ARTICLE, you would have encountered the first two paragraphs stating:
"Senator Xenophon used a speech in Parliament last night to raise allegations of widespread criminal conduct within the church, saying he had received letters from former followers detailing claims of abuse, false imprisonment and forced abortion.
He says he has passed on the letters to the police and is calling for a Senate inquiry into the religion and its tax-exempt status."
First sentence of your post: "If you think a person has broken the law then call the cops" ... Check - he's passed on the letters to the police. ... Unless you're a scientologist too...
As for the rest - I can't believe you're trying to align criticism of Scientology with an attack on your freedom to associate
Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have ... YFMV? (Your Freedom May Vary)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure there are plenty. The difference is in Australia these politicians are occasionally voted into office.
You do have a politician with huge balls (Score:3, Interesting)
Alan Grayson [wikipedia.org]
Republicans attempt to cut off Rep Grayson's speech [youtube.com]
His Youtube channel: RepAlanGrayson [youtube.com]
Note, that he has balls and he is on a war against the republicans in congress, this means he is going against lobbyists and their underlying corporate masters, this is like going against 10000 CoSs at once.
Read The Full Article (Score:5, Informative)
Following on from the informative comment [slashdot.org] from Onetus, The Age also has a full transcript [theage.com.au] of Xenophons speech to the Senate. He makes it clear that he is tabling letters in the Senate with names removed to protect informants and innocents and has left the names in the copies sent to the Australian Federal Police.
The point of his speech is to open dialogue in the Senate with a view to holding an inquiry into the CoS tax exemption. The purpose of sending the letters to the police with original names is for the police to investigate any criminality. Kind of a pincer movement really, good on him.
From the speech:
Re:Read The Full Article (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't really researched this a lot, otherwise you wouldn't say that. Check out Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net). Usually, religions aren't all about money and mind control. Scientology is:
"The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have an
Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I see Operation Clambake and raise you the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see Operation Clambake and raise you the house arrest of Galileo, the crusades, 9/11, Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is pretty long...
house arrest of Galileo... Maybe, but it had less to do with the Religion of Christianity, and more to do with personal insults to the Pope.
the crusades... No. The crusades had nothing to do with religion. Entirely political on both sides. After they were under way, they were retconned into a "religious" movement to garner support.
9/11... Which religion says "Kill people indiscriminately, whether believers or not" (there had to have been Muslims working in the towers)? I think you're mistaking crimina
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a certain amount of evidence that the Witch Trials were largely about acquiring some valuable land without going through the conventional process of paying for it. So including it as a "religious" issue is perhaps unwarranted.
Re:What a difference 2000 years makes! (Score:4, Insightful)
From an outsider's perspective (atheist) it is a mistake to think that scientology isn't any more corrupt or evil than any other organized religion in the world. Not all religions have specific tenets requiring you to part with large amounts of money to simply read their 'scriptures'. Not all religions specifically attempt to stop members from contacting their families who are non-believers. Not all religions embark on well funded, well organised and effective smear campaigns against ex members. Not all religions have private internment camps for members who are being wayward.
To think that Scientology is on a par with the average world religion is a relativist mistake.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not specific to Islam, sorry. It was typical of the culture that existed pre-Islam in the parts of the world where Islam began.
Note, by the way, that "arranged marriages" were the norm throughout most of history. It's only in recent cen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the fundamental difference between Scientology (and a lot of dangerous cults) and real religions (established or otherwise): Walk up to a member of the clergy or lay leader, and ask them the fundamental tenants of what they believe. Any real religion will rattle off a few tenants, point you to some literature and/or holy books, explain the nature of their rituals and public services, and so forth. The point is to spread the ideas as much as possible, and they'll welcome the opportunity to do so. This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I attend a church that regularly meets with other churches (of different beliefs, islamic, jewish, etc) to discuss how to best focus thier efforts to improve the community around them. They offer aid to needy families, the just released the parish budget last week showing how our money was used to give over 154,000 dollars to the local community in money alone. I would hazard that over 50,000 hours of time are devoted each year to the local community by our parish alone, not including the mosques and temp
Re:86 the Scientology crap (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
we need to get rid of the rest of the religions and we might just save humanity.
I'm not sure its religion, as such, thats the problem. I think its monotheism.
Monotheism creates a kind of mono-mania in people where they can only perceive one very specific way of looking at the world as being 'correct'.
Take Hinduism as a contrast. Hinduism contains within itself as much variation as you'd find between, say Christianity and Taoism.
And then look at the behaviors of these entities that Christians, Jews and Moslems call 'God'.
Judging these so-called 'Gods' by their behaviors as documented in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make it sound like hindu fundamentalism doesn't exist. They make up a large bloq in Indian politics and social structure.
-molo