Scientology

[technodad]

So, the Supreme Court have said that Scientology is a real religion and you can legally get married in a church.

uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE9BA0CQ20131211?irpc=932

So, what do people think about this?

Absolutely. You solve the problem one of two ways

(A) you have a perfect and watertight definition of a religion- nope, can't do it
(B) you make being a religion or not irrelevant. The problem you then have is religious observance and people claiming unfair treatment because of it.

I would remove all privileges in public life and make faith entirely private. But there are some grey areas around behaviour at work and discrimination. I wouldn't want to remove all protection to practice faith freely. The problem is you then need a definition of faith.

I think so, hettie. Thes certainly no difference between religion and Scientology. As I said, I'm glad this case came up, as it ought to force religious people to confront some uncomfortable truths about their own faith.

you make being a religion or not irrelevant

Precisely. And I think it has to be irrelevant, because there's no possible way of determining, on the basis of beliefs alone, which is more credible - basically because none of them are.

The problem you then have is religious observance and people claiming unfair treatment because of it

Yes, exactly. And I think it's a fair point.

I'm thinking about situations in schools. I absolutely think faith schools should be abolished - but that's not to say that some children who identify with certain beliefs shouldn't be able to have access to private times of prayer or Bible study within school.

This works in the case of Christians & Muslims now because theirs are recognised religions - but if we abandon any legal definition, then what's to stop anyone inventing the religion of The Holy Water Pistol and demanding water pistol fights every break time?

"But it's my religion, Sir!"

What then?

I dunno, actually :)

It's tricky.

The only way I think is to have a rule than can work if you are religious but is also the same for everyone else.

At work for instance, you can accommodate time for prayer by saying that people have to put the extra time back. And then you don't care if they are praying to an established faith, praying to a non recognised faith, or having a fag break. But everyone has to put the time back, including those having a fag break. Holidays - we allow people to swap if they want to, as the office is generally shut over Christmas, but there is some call for staff then. And then they get priority for other faith holidays. But then you have to make this fair with however you treat parents wanting time off in school holidays. And so on.

At school, we don't allow Muslim girls to sit in a different room from boys, but we do let all the kids pick who they sit with, unless they are disruptive, so a girl who prefers to sit with girls (most of them, Muslim or not...) can do that.

Antisocial religious requirements, such as water pistols, are like saying that your faith requires you t be homophobic. There's a basic principle that one law can never give you the right to break another law. So you are not allowed t discriminate at work on the basis of sexual orientation, whatever the teaching of your faith. Nor can you wear a visible cross in the operating theatre if you are a surgeon.

Creating a definition is interesting in itself and instructive, but I do think the only way is for the government to have no laws about religion at all. To not admit its existence in a legal sense

Yes. I think this is spot on. There's no other workable solution.

And I think perhaps religion should be kept out of schools, full stop.

If the religions are also charities, that's the bit that should interest us.

You'd have to revisit charity law though, because one charitable purpose is religion. It was taken as obvious back in the day that spreading the faith was up there with alleviating poverty and suffering.

because one charitable purpose is religion

Yes, but this isn't the same as saying that all religions are charities.

Their purpose could certainly be religious - they can have whatever purpose they like. The proof is in the pudding - are they charities under the legal definition or are they not?

Have no idea what the current legal definition & requirement of a charity actually is, though. So not sure if this works in practice.

Hettie, that's what I meant.

A charity is, by law, something registered with the Charities Commission. They register you if you have a charitable purpose. Religion is a charitable purpose in itself.

"Charitable purpose" is a technical, legal term, meant to add. You have t have one, to be a charity. There's a list.

www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/charitable-purposes-and-public-benefit/guidance-on-charitable-purposes/

The advancement of religion is one of them. It counts all by itself.

You could deal with charity as a separate issue once you've established that just being a religion doesn't make you a charity.

However, I'd be tempted to dispense with that too. It's another definition problem because if you can have a charity whose purpose is educating young people on say contraception then why not one advising them to trust in god.

If we're effectively subsidising organisations out of taxpayers money it would probably be better to let the taxpayers keep that money. They can then choose to donate more if they wish to.

So, we come full circle, then Beast.

If we allow people to define for themselves whether they are religions or not, then we're effectively allowing them to decide they are charities too? That's the bottom line.

Since there's no appreciable way to determine a cult from a religion - then the word religion should be struck from the legal record (other than in matters of discrimination & hate speech etc).

There is no automatic privilege for being a religion - if you're an organisation seeking charitable status then you must meet the same criteria that ALL charities must.

Whatever the rule that prevents me from setting up a charity to tell teenagers that the Great Pink Jellyfish at the bottom of the sea wants them to exercise abstinence - that's the one that should be used to stop Catholics doing the same in the name of Yahweh.

I am probably being a bit black and white, though.

It's very difficult, isn't it?

It is. The courts have been holding a line, but if Scientology gets through then we are going to see the Flying Spaghetti Monster next (bless his noodly appendages)