Talk:Scientology as a state-recognized religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Single-sourced refs in the intro

All the references in the intro, except two CESNUR ones, are directly sourced to Church of Scientology web sites. One of the CESNUR ones is text of a letter from a South African official to P Sondergaard of the Church of Scientology, so Scientology is part of that chain. The other CESNUR one has serious problems because of the large differences between their English version[1] and the Le Monde text in French[2]. The fact that many of these claimed recognitions seem to be close to Hubbard's March 13 birthday (a favourite for slipping empty "L. Ron Hubbard Day" proclamations past city mayor staffs) only deepens my unease at how reliable and verifiable the sources are. AndroidCat 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while Church of Scientology sites are WP:RS for the subject of the Church of Scientology, they are not RS for the recognition status by various countries. I found one RS for New Zealand, but the rest need one. The clock is ticking. AndroidCat 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
See above, from July. (Before anyone says that I've never pointed out the problem with the refs.) AndroidCat 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem reference

[[Taiwan]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.menschenrechtsbuero.de/pics/cna-taiwan.gif |title = Taiwanese Central News Agency |date = [[2003-03-12]] |accessdate = 2007-07-21 |publisher = Church of Scientology}}</ref>

Here's an image on a Church of Scientology site that's supposed to be an article from the "Taiwan Central News Agency". The Central News Agency (Republic of China) doesn't call themselves that. So what is this gif file supposed to be? AndroidCat 19:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, find out then. I read "Central News Agendcy", Taiwan, here. Misou 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The first text after the logo reads "Taiwan Central News Agency", which I've explained is a problem since they don't call themselves that. I challenge this reference and will continue to remove it. Find something better, hopefully published on a 3rd party site. AndroidCat 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology

This source info should be mentioned in the article. Cirt 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

I think it might be wise to wait until something further comes of this. A german official stating they want a ban on Scientology is not really news. Some German official or another usually says this every 6 months or so. The only reason this one was news was because it was a slow news day. If something official comes out of this like hearings or something then I'd say we should add that info. Elhector 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply: -- "I think it might be wise to wait until something further comes of this." Something further has come of this. See second cite, added above. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
See third source, separate news service, Reuters. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC).
Took a look at the 3rd reference. Looks like this is heating up and has become more than notable now so I went ahead added it to the article. Elhector (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide View

This article gives too much weight and text to the United States as opposed to other countries and places in the world, such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, etc. These other areas should all be expanded upon with sources. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't know if that tag is correct or if the article fits Category:Articles with limited geographic scope. While the article is heavy on the US view (for a primarily US-based organization), that is all contained within the US section. I think that tag is more for articles that, as a whole, reflect a particular local view. AndroidCat (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Suffice it to say that the article is deficient in the areas mentioned above. The sections on the areas other than the United States should be expanded. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Map is inaccurate

The map at the beginning of this article shows Great Britain as recognising the Church of Scientology as a relgion.

This is not the case as of Feb 08. Can we fix this without too much trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This falls into the problem of what exactly is government recognition? In the UK (keeping in mind that England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different rules), the organization isn't a charity (although it gets around that by operating as an Australian charity via reciprocal agreements), but gets a break on some taxes. It might perform marriages, but that's usually a formality on top of the civil process. Likewise in Canada, there's no simple Religion or Not meterstick. This is part of the reason that the map was removed from the main Scientology article. AndroidCat (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with AndroidCAT now. ): I supported this map strongly in past but it will always remain inaccurate and disputed due to its generalizing nature. I'll remove it. -- Stan talk 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology

Interfax (April 18, 2008). Ulyanovsk police search local branch office of Church of Scientology. Interfax-Religion. www.interfax-religion.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-18.

Potential source to use in this article, the building searched was the Narconon Center of Promoting Healthy Lifestyle, in Dimitrovgrad. Cirt (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status in Canada

I'm sorry, but that source is completely incorrect. CoS applied for religious charity status and was turned down in 1999, afterwards their authorization to perform marriages was revoked in all Canadian provices. I'll dig up more references of their current status, but I'd rather see the entry for Canada removed rather than the current whitewash entry. As well, the R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto case, resulting in two criminal convictions against the organization is extremely relevant. If Jayen466 continues to exclude it, then perhaps the article needs a name change. AndroidCat (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The book cited is from 1997, so material on more recent developments would be useful; I was unable to unearth anything up to now. No mention in the US SD Religious Freedom Reports, for one, which would tend to indicate that status in Canada is normalised. The Toronto case you mention dates back to 1982 according to one of the articles cited; there was no mention of it in the 1997 work I cited, so its relevance to state recognition needs to be demonstrated. For your reference, Boyle, one of the authors of the book, is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex. (The co-author is also from the University of Essex.) Jayen466 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Normalized would be OR on your part. Regardless of the author, the book is obsolete. AndroidCat (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Then let's try and find more recent sources. But I don't understand how referring to a 1982 court case makes the article less obsolete, it was fifteen years prior to the book's publication date. Jayen466 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As to Davis, his profile is on http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/profile-prof-dr-derek-h-davis.htm and says:

Derek H. Davis, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is a graduate of Baylor University and Baylor Law School and holds a Master of Arts in Church-State Studies from Baylor University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Church-State Studies, conducts research and publishes books on church-state relations and religious liberty in national and international contexts, maintains the largest research library in the world pertaining to religious liberty and church-state relations, and sponsors conferences and lectureships on various church-state themes.
In addition to serving as editor of the award-winning Journal of Church and State, Dr. Davis is a fellow and director of the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, serves on the advisory council of the Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation, is on the advisory board of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a member of the Religious Liberty Council of the National Council of Churches U.S.A., is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in the World, and presently serves as Special Counsel to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. In 2000, he was awarded the Human Rights Achievement Award by Freedom magazine. He is also a former Baylor football captain and all-conference receiver.
He is the author of Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist & the Course of American Church-State Relations (1991 by Prometheus Books), and Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent (2000 by Oxford University Press). He is the editor, coeditor, or coauthor of twelve additional books, including The Role of Religion in the Making of Public Policy (1991), Legal Deskbook for Administrators of Independent Colleges and Universities (1993), Problems and Conflicts Between Law and Morality in a Free Society (1993), Genesis and the Millennium: An Essay on Religious Pluralism in the Twenty-first Century by Bill Moyers (2000), Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations (1999), and Religious Liberty in Northern Europe in the Twenty-first Century (2000). He has also published more than eighty articles in various law reviews, academic journals, magazines, and other periodicals.
His frequent magazine, radio, and television interviews have included those for Time Magazine, First Things, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, the Fox News Network, CBS News, and ABC News. In recent years he has been called upon by the U.S. Congress, the Texas legislature, and United Nations emissaries for testimony relating to legal measures needed to protect religious liberty in national and international settings. He has lectured extensively before academic, public, and religious audiences on a wide range of topics including religious liberty (national and international), church-state relations (ancient, medieval, and modern), human rights, ethnic cleansing, the political role of Christianity and other religions, civil religion, nontraditional religions, religious dimensions of the American founding, law and morality, law and religion, and religion and education.

So I don't think he is a Scientologist, as claimed by an IP earlier today. Jayen466 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a case that began in 1992, not 1982, and I believe that all the various appeals from this and Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto weren't concluded until after their charity application was rejected. AndroidCat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

References: The Church of Scientology applied for religious charity status:

Gregg Hagglund, who posted on ARS, was an intervenor in the application, however the ARS post isn't required to show that it failed:

The Church of Scientology is not currently listed on the government's list of charities:

News article mentioning their status:

Failure to receive charity status in Canada tripped off a cascade in the provinces, which require charity status for recognition as a denomination (able to perform marriages, etc). Ontario for example:

6. A certified copy of the incorporation papers for your denomination is required. This will reflect the date and place of incorporation or founding of the religious body. A copy of your registration as a charity with Revenue Canada is also required.

I will try to dig up references that tie these together, but it's quite clear that Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report is completely out of date for Canada, with every statement in the Canada section now incorrect. AndroidCat (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the refs later – just in the middle of something – but why was the first sentence of the version you reinstated earlier "In Canada, the Church of Scientology is considered a religious non-profit organization" (no source given)? Jayen466 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a more recent (2007) source confirming its status as a religious non-profit organization and its right to perform marriages, and I've added a sentence about the failure to achieve charity status – while I haven't found anything citable, there is enough evidence on the web to show that an attempt was made to register as a charity, and after all you've said above I am satisfied that that effort was unsuccessful, justifying the wording "has failed to win" rather than plain "does not have". I hope that addresses your concerns; let me know if it doesn't. Cheers, Jayen466 12:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look around, and I can't find any evidence that Scientologist ministers have lost the right to perform marriages in Canada. On their own websites, they state that the right is intact, including in Ontario (e.g. here). I suggest that if we can't find sources contradicting what we have we'll have to go with that. Jayen466 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that there is a November 2001 Ontario Legislative Assembly debate here referring to the right of Scientology ministers to perform marriages. (The debate concerned a proposed lowering of the qualifications required to perform marriages in the province of Ontario.) Jayen466 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You know and we all know, we're all aware, that the Church of Scientology spent years obtaining the right to have their clergy, for lack of a better word, perform marriages for people who belong to that particular movement. Again, I'm trying to choose words very carefully so as not to offend anybody. There's a whole lot of debate about that. But at the end of the day it seems to have worked out quite well.

– Peter Kormos, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO DEBATE, Thursday 1 November 2001

Jayen466 17:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Scientology web sites are non-RS for their recognition status. I'm trying to find some information on their current corporate status, but I'm a little busy right now. AndroidCat (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Scientology web sites are non-RS for their recognition status:: Obviously, and I'm not suggesting citing them for this. Yet the Ontario Legislative debate establishes that Scientologist ministers' right to perform marriages was intact in Ontario in late 2001, agreeing to that extent with the primary sources, and the secondary 1997–2007 sources cited in the article. Jayen466 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Androidcat, have you found anything further on the status in Canada, or do you expect to still find anything that adds to or contradicts the sources cited? Otherwise, I'd take the Disputed marker out again; the section is sourced, after all. Cheers, Jayen466 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Boyle reference has been out of date since 1999, and I'm not sure that it cites any primary sources for those claims that can be verified. (Do you have access to a print version that lists sources?) I am continuing to try to find more recent sources, but this is hampered by the reluctance of any of the parties involved to go on record.
  • The Canada Revenue Agency (federal) doesn't release any information on charity status applications or failures—even that there was an application.
  • The provincial authorities over authorization to perform marriages may or may not publish lists of allowed groups (I'm checking), but they've all passed the headache of defining religions to the Canada Revenue Agency by requiring charity status, which Scientology doesn't have.
  • The Church of Scientology doesn't issue press releases when they lose status.
  • Without sources, the press doesn't touch the subject.
  • Even the religious non-profit corporations that used to be listed on Canadian government web sites aren't currently showing up.
The Varsity article is quite good for a university paper, but since it glosses over that there is no unified Canadian authourization for being able to perform marriages (10 individual provinces and three territories for that), I'd need to see a better source. AndroidCat (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, AndroidCat. I checked the Boyle in amazon Search Inside, but couldn't find a list of primary sources. And I scoured the Internet at the time -- including the USSD religious freedom reports, UN – nothing one way or the other about status in Canada. We have the 2001 Ontario statement from above, but that's not much. Hope you can turn up more; until then let's go with how you've left the article. Cheers, Jayen466 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Androidcat, do we need the citation tag for the status as a "religious non-profit organization" in Canada, given that this status is mentioned in the Varsity article? Not sure now whether you were aware that it said that there or not. --Jayen466 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does mention that. (And I have the suspicion that this very article was the source for that.) Scientology's incorporation used to show up in a federal search as religious non-profit, but now there's nothing under Scientology at all! Since it's very hard to prove a negative, that'll have to do until I can find out just what the heck they're now operating as and its status. ("Welcome to the Church of 4356871 Canada Inc"?) AndroidCat (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Department of State's claims about Germany

This article claims:

"The U.S. Department of State has repeatedly claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology."

This seems to me a bit more strongly worded than either of the citations given for this claim where the strongest wording by the State Department with regard to Scientology seems to be:

"The U.S. government expressed its concerns over infringement of individual rights because of religious affiliation with respect to Scientology and other minority religious groups."

"expressed its concerns" vs. "claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination". This article seems to be making a claim that the state department is not making. Namely directly accusing the German government of discrimination. Does anyone else think the wording of the article should be changed to more accurately reflect the cited material?

Pahool (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think more strongly worded assertions by the US S.D. might be found, but until we have found them, I think it would be a good idea to change the wording to match the sources cited at present. Jayen466 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a US Government source that uses the word discrimination in relation to Scientology in Germany: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/us1999.html The wording is probably correct; I think the thing to do is to do some source research and add these sources, preferably sourced to the state.gov site directly. If you can help, that would be great. Cheers, Jayen466 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It uses the word "discrimination" in three places with respect to Scientology:

Scientologists continued to report discrimination, alleging both government-condoned and societal harassment because of their church affiliation.

Scientologists assert that business firms whose owners or executives are Scientologists, as well as artists who are church members, faced boycotts and discrimination, sometimes with state and local government approval.

Scientologists continued to report instances of societal discrimination.

All three of these are instances of Scientology claiming discrimination, not the U.S. department of state claiming that "Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology."
Pahool (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You need to search the 1999 text for "discriminat", some of the occurrences are the verb or adjective, e.g.

"Sect-filters," statements by individuals and companies that they are not affiliated with Scientology, are used by some state and federal agencies, businesses (including major international corporations), and other organizations to discriminate against Scientologists in business and social dealings.

From the final section of the 1999 report:

Section III. U.S. Government Policy
U.S. government officials have discussed with state and federal authorities U.S. concerns about the violation of individual rights posed by sect filters. U.S. officials made the point that the use of a sect filter to prevent persons from practicing their professions, solely based their beliefs, is an abuse of their rights, as well as a discriminatory domestic business practice. U.S. officials made this point clear at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Conference in Warsaw in 1998, during numerous meetings between U.S. embassy staff and federal and state officials, and during a visit to Germany in March 1999 by individuals from the State Department's Office of the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the Congressional Helsinki Commission, and the U.S. Institute for Peace.

--Jayen466 13:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the 2005 RF report; this was there previously and I deleted it a while ago when I inserted the new 2007 report. I now realise I shouldn't have done so, since the 2005 report sources the discrimination claim. I believe wording is now covered by sources (again). Jayen466 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the 2005 report is almost no different from the 2006 and 2007 report. It still does not include any wording where the U.S. department of state claims that "Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups, within which it includes Scientology." I am changing the wording of the article to reflect the wording of the sources. Please feel free to edit to improve accuracy.
Pahool (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put in some of the actual wording of the final paragraph of the 2005 report, and added the 1999 one. The US have certainly stated that in their (not just the Scientologists' opinion) there is discrimination based on religious affiliation in Germany; the "sect filter" in particular was criticised. There have also been a few diplomatic exchanges on all of this; I'll see if I can dig up some more sources. Cheers, --Jayen466 13:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct I hope I wasn't too hasty in making changes to the page. I definitely agree with your assessment and with the current wording. The sect filter comments definitely constitute an explicit claim by the U.S. State Department of discriminatory practices. I appreciate your examples.
Pahool (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's alright Pahool, no prob. Cheers, --Jayen466 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)