$cientology a bona fide religion ?By tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr)Mon, 12 Jun 1995 21:33:05 GMT In the mind of Lie-sa Goodman, yes: <a href="http://www.theta.com/goodman/bona.htm">http://www.theta.com/goodman/bona.htm</a> If you thought that the main falsehood at that site would be LRH's life, you are wrong. It starts: : Scientology is recognized around the world as a bona fide religion. Not bad. A document that starts with a lie. : Court decisions in Germany dealing with taxes, dissemination : practices and other issues have all found that Scientology is a religion. Even Americans know that scientology is *partly* (I am very careful, there is still a lot going one) not recognised as a religion in Germany, because AP reported one of the decisions. - Hamburg org has to register as a business (decision final !!) - Hamburg has to litigate labor disputes before ordinary courts (decision by federal labor court) - TRO against Labor minister Bluem was denied. He has called co$ "a criminal, money-laundering organisation". The main case is pending. BTW, donations to co$ were never tax-exempt in Germany. There is of course more at that site that is "missing": - Danemark decision not to allow alien scientologists into the country (correct me if I get this wrong) - Paris org in receivership - Not a religion in UK Lie-sa: : On January 30, 1985, in In Re Karl-Friedrich Munz, the : Stuttgart District Court ruled: "[The Church of Scientology's] : purpose in this world is considered to help man in his striving : for spiritual freedom and to completely free him from problems : and burdens to reach total freedom in order to recognize himself : as a spiritual being and experience the existence of a Supreme : Being...." Some may remember that this case was posted with a bogus reference number, that was in fact a FAX number from Stuttgart. I have asked publicly for that number, and did not get it. Another point of mine was that such language part of the sentence, it is part of the "presentation of the litigation parties". Lie-sa later presents the Christofferson-Titschbourne case, and forgets that this decision was 1. not final 2. of no value, because they settled in 86. Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX] biz: tilman@sietec.de <a href="http://www.sietec.de/">http://www.sietec.de/</a>(company page) home: tilman@berlin.snafu.de <a href="http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/">http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/</a> | |||