Supreme Court Rules Scientology is a Religion

[Stavros]

In the Supreme Court, the final court of Appeal in the judicial system in England, a judgement has been made that will allow a marriage ceremony to take place in a 'Chapel' of the 'Church of Scientology' in London. A previous attempt to do so had been denied because at the time Scientology was not considered a religion.

The judgement, a condensed summary of which is linked below, acknowledges that there is no universal definition of religion in English law, and so claims it was wrong for the earlier judgement (in 1970) to deny Scientology the status as a religion because it does not worship a 'supreme being' as this would rule out of court other recognised religions, such as Buddhism which also does not revere or worship a 'supreme being'.

What puzzles me is why the Court allowed this to happen on the basis of such a perverse, and narrow line of reasoning. The issue for me, is not whether Scientology worships a supreme being, L. Ron Hubbard or whether or not Scientologists get together to discuss a 'philosophy of life' much as other religious (and non-religious) people do.

What to me is crucial is that it is not possible to 'become' a Scientologist without spending money on 'courses' of whatever they are called which act as -allegedly- training courses which will enhance consciousness until one is 'clear' -and so on. If Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so on want to give all their money to local or international institutions in their chosen faith that is their choice, but in Scientology it is not a matter of choice at all -'enlightenment' can only be purchased with money, and to me this disqualifies Scientology as a religion: it is, in fact, a business; a commercial enterprise.

Unfortunately this now means that Scientology can apply to receive tax-breaks and make even more money than it is doing now, at tax-payer's expense.

The condensed summary of the judgement is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...essSummary.pdf

[trish]

As long as government is in the business of deciding what is and what isn't a church or a religion, there is no separation between church and state. Government should tax the properties held by all religious groups as they tax other properties.

[Stavros]

The problem, Trish, is that the United Kingdom is not only officially a Christian realm the head of state must belong to the Church of England and when being crowned, must swear to maintain the Protestant religion with the rider for Scotland that he/she will "maintain the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church Government" -even though the Presbyterian Church of Scotland does not recognise the Monarch as being anyone other than another person and is not head of the Church, although certain privileges are provided to the monarch as the head of state.

A purist might argue that a member of the Church of Scotland cannot either marry an heir to the throne or become King/Queen, this is seen as a technical problem much as the likelihood of, say Prince Harry seeking to marry a Jew or a Muslim -but if he did he would have to renounce his right to the throne and may even have to give up being a Prince.

On their part, Bishops of the Church of England must swear: "I accept your majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal power".

So you see, in the UK, this is a significant issue. That this ruling gives any smidgeon of respectability to Scientology is an additional nuisance, and one that we can do without.

[trish]

Does the Prime Minister and do others, not in the Monarchy, who hold office also have to be protestant? Is this why Tony Blair waited until after he left office to convert to Catholicism?

[Stavros]

It is a bit complicated, but because the Act of Settlement of 1701 established 'the rules' of succession, and took the progeny of Electress Sophia of Hanover as the source of legitimate primogeniture, it has been calculated that there are currently 5,754 heirs to the British throne -excluding those who have become or who have married Roman Catholics- of which 15 are direct descendants of the current Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.

Technically, the British Prime Minister could become, temporarily, Head of State if all of the immediate legitimate heirs suddenly died, and if the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leading Bishops of the Church of England also died and until a 'suitable Royal' was found -so while it is wrong for some people to argue the PM must be a member of the Church of England -David Lloyd-George, born in Wales and raised in the 'Stone-Campbell' sect and had links to 'Baptists', but later became an agnostic- it is not permitted for the PM to be a formal member of the Roman Catholic church. In fact, the PM could be a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, -now, apparently, a Scientologist!- but NOT a Roman Catholic, because of the long and bitter history stretching back to Henry Tudor and the fact that the Roman Catholic church assumes not only that the Pope will be recognised as the supreme authority in matters spiritual, but a Catholic I believe on being admitted must -or used to have to- swear that their former religion was a heresy, if they had one. It is hard to see how a British PM could deny that the Monarch he must serve is the supreme head of the church as long as the State and the Church are united as they are; even less likely that the PM will declare the Monarch to be a heretic!

Tony Blair was not formally admitted into the Catholic Church until he left office, although he regularly took communion and his wife Cherie is Roman Catholic by birth and their children have been raised as Catholics. Because he was not formally recognised -there is an elaborate set of rituals one has to go through to 'convert' to Catholicism- Blair got away with it, but if one wanted to be a purist, one could argue there was a case for Blair being denied the right to become PM.

The office of PM is a convention whereby the Queen asks the House of Commons to select a leader -it could be anyone elected to the House but it has become standard practice for it to be the leader of the largest party. He (or she) then goes to the Palace to 'kiss hands' with the Monarch before being allowed to take office. But whoever it is, they cannot be Roman Catholic.

An additional problem is that the PM appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, the first priest of the Church of England -it would be most odd if a Roman Catholic were to have this responsibility -even if in practice the decision is made by a committee- and even odder if the PM was a Jew or a Muslim- it would be easier for an atheist as the PM could claim to be neutral on the matter.

Just to prove that there are people out there with nothing better to do with their lives, the full list of succession from 2011, therefore excluding Prince George (b2013) who is now 3rd in line to the throne, is here:
http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html

[robertlouis]

So, in short, Tom Cruise could become Queen, right?

[trish]

Sounds to me like you have a more serious problem than simply the recognition of Scientology as a religion. The whole relationship between Catholicism, State and Monarchy seems a bit fucked up. But that's just the perspective of someone who hasn't grown up in that system.

In the US it's understood no atheist can ever be president or hold a seat in Congress. There no law to that effect, but it is a political fact. Consequently I feel somewhat disenfranchised and underrepresented. But in Great Britain, it seems the law itself presents an obstacle to non-protestants holding public office. No wonder Great Britain is the home of one of the more antagonistic atheists on the planet (referring to Richard Dawkins).

[Stavros]

Sounds to me like you have a more serious problem than simply the recognition of Scientology as a religion. The whole relationship between Catholicism, State and Monarchy seems a bit fucked up. But that's just the perspective of someone who hasn't grown up in that system.

In the US it's understood no atheist can ever be president or hold a seat in Congress. There no law to that effect, but it is a political fact. Consequently I feel somewhat disenfranchised and underrepresented. But in Great Britain, it seems the law itself presents an obstacle to non-protestants holding public office. No wonder Great Britain is the home of one of the more antagonistic atheists on the planet (referring to Richard Dawkins).

Trish -non-protestants can hold the office of PM, Roman Catholics can not. It is an anti-Catholic provision that is the key to understanding this situation. Attempts over the last 40 years to separate church and state have failed. I think that with the prospect of Scottish independence (although I think the Scots will vote no to it), and with the hysteria over immigration, the 'sense of being British' or English seems to work in favour of the monarchy and the status quo, it sort of 'defines us' -or them depending on your point of view, and probably class.

[Stavros]

So, in short, Tom Cruise could become Queen, right?

Come come, Robert...also there isn't much evidence Cruise is gay though he does seem to be a control freak. Before selecting his current wife he was provided with a candidate called Nazanin Boniadi, the Iranian-British actress who plays Fara Sherazi in Homeland -she has now left Scientiology for various reasons one of which is that she became a 'degraded being' when asking David Miscavige to repeat himself -she couldn't understand his accent. However, John Travolta is quite something else...

Nazanin Boniadi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[danthepoetman]

Stavros, what is the general feeling of the population in the UK about Scientology, and why is there so much hostility in Germany compared to other European countries? Do you have an idea?
What seems to be the worst for me, is how the Church of Scientology exercise constraint and pressures not only on its members but also on those who are no longer members. It's pretty scary. But on the other hand, I'm affraid we could say the same of other faith, of most of the Christian sects at one point or another, etc. The Church of Scientology might just be raising the question of the status of religion in society indeed, as you and Trish were discussing, and of the lenght of rights that should socially by granted to religions. Here in Quebec, catholicism was a huge social force still in the 60's, something I can remember vividly. No doubt in my mind that a potential majority of practicing Catholics would once again prompt the Church to exercise suffocating powers over the ordinary life of people. It wouldn't have any more scrupuls than it did 50 years and more ago...