French court convicts Scientology of fraud

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10 ... index.html

French court convicts Church of Scientology of fraud
October 27, 2009 9:40 a.m. EDT

Paris, France (CNN) -- A French court on Tuesday convicted the Church of Scientology and six of its members of organized fraud, but stopped short of banning the church.

The court also fined the members as much as 400,000 euros ($595,000) each.

The decision follows a three-week trial in May and June, during which two plaintiffs said they were defrauded by the organization, which is classified as a sect in France.

The Church of Scientology has about 45,000 followers in France, and some of them were in court Tuesday.

The church had said before the verdict that it would appeal any judgment against it.

The judge at the Correctional Court in Paris said the church may continue its activities in France, but he said those activities must remain "on the correct side of the law."

As part of the penalties, the church was ordered to publish the results of the verdict in several national and international magazines to warn people, the judge said, about what Scientology offers and what was discovered at trial.

The plaintiffs focused their complaints on the use of a device that Scientologists say measures spiritual well-being. Members used the electropsychometer, or E-Meter, to "locate areas of spiritual duress or travail so they can be addressed and handled," according to Scientology's Web site.

The plaintiffs said that, after using the device, they were encouraged to pay for vitamins and books. They said that amounted to fraud.

Prosecutors had asked for the dissolution of the church and its Paris bookstore.

On the one hand, this is hilarious. On the other hand, Christians are equally guilty of fraud. The scientific evidence against their creation story, for example, is overwhelming. Why aren't they ever charged with fraud?

[Thanas]

Probably because they do not charge that much and a lot of money goes to charity?

[Mr Bean]

On the one hand, this is hilarious. On the other hand, Christians are equally guilty of fraud. The scientific evidence against their creation story, for example, is overwhelming. Why aren't they ever charged with fraud?

Divine right of kings and all that. They can't go back on that now! It would make France seem silly!

In all seriousness it's because unlike Christianity they were not raised with the whole Xenu/Earth Volcano ploy but the talking snake has been with them from childhood.
Also because Scientology still has all the marks of a cult including the abandon your family and avoid outside contact. The modern church in France has gotten down to just "Show up on Sunday and give us money today, and could you see your way to giving your money to the church after you die?" not "Shut yourself all from all outside influences and give us your life savings now".


Speaking of that first scenario we are going through that right now in my family. Which is majority Catholic and even my Grandmother who spends 1/3 of her time volunteering at the church is pissed that her brother left his worldly goods to the church when he died instead of to the family because I have one rather religious aunt who my grand uncle picked to be the executor of his will. Lets me honest because most of the family was hoping to pick up some part of his estate after he was gone(Having done quite well for himself he lived simply and left a few million in assets).

He knew us well enough that if he picked anyone else in the family to execute his will the Catholic church would not being seeing 98% of his goods going to the church.

[Serafina]

Propably because they (the christian churches) don't employ brainwash techniques and don't force their members to pay money?

Any while one could argue that the christian churches employ some kind of brainwashing right from childhood, it is nowhere near as extreme as the one from sects and cults such as Scientology.
Most churches have a "show up whenever you feel like it" policy, and the same goes for money.

Either way, a good decision - let's hope it has the desired effect, or that it does not remain the only one.

[Darth Wong]

Probably because they do not charge that much and a lot of money goes to charity?

Total red-herring.

Fraud is fraud, regardless of whether you can say irrelevant positive things about the person doing it. And I take objection to the "do not charge that much" claim. Christian churches in fact routinely demand enormous sums of money from people. The only difference is that they've built up enough revenue base over the centuries to make it voluntary rather than mandatory. I've known people who "tithed" 10% of their income to the Church.

[Thanas]

Probably because they do not charge that much and a lot of money goes to charity?

Total red-herring.

Fraud is fraud, regardless of whether you can say irrelevant positive things about the person doing it. And I take objection to the "do not charge that much" claim. Christian churches in fact routinely demand enormous sums of money from people. The only difference is that they've built up enough revenue base over the centuries to make it voluntary rather than mandatory. I've known people who "tithed" 10% of their income to the Church.

Actually, there is an enormous difference of scale here. Even using the 10% of income as an example, that is nothing compared to the practices Scientology uses and the sums of money they extract. A priest asking for money for project X is not like a scientology audit.

There also is in my mind a clear difference from telling people to fork over money for project x or the maintenance of old architecture (which where in Germany the vast majority of the money goes to, look at the huge cathedrals for example) and taking the money for...whatever purposes.

[Darth Wong]

Oh for fuck's sake, you've got to be kidding. First, you've completely ignored the fact that the scale of revenue collection is completely irrelevant to the definition of fraud: the key point which I made and which you made zero effort to address or even acknowledge. Second, the Scientologist is not actually forced to give this money; it's collected in return for promising some vague spiritual bullshit. That bullshit may be fraudulent, but no more so than the idea that you will assure yourself a place in Heaven by helping the Church build some ridiculously expensive cathedral. Third, as a historian you should know perfectly well that those "huge cathedrals" you consider such a worthy project were themselves utterly obscene appropriations of wealth by the medieval Church, and imposed a horrendous burden upon the people and nations who built them: far worse than anything the Scientologists could ever hope to accomplish.

[Thanas]

Oh for fuck's sake, you've got to be kidding. First, you've completely ignored the fact that the scale of revenue collection is completely irrelevant to the definition of fraud: the key point which I made and which you made zero effort to address or even acknowledge.

Because it is not what I am arguing at all. I provided an explanation for why the state does not go after the church.

Second, the Scientologist is not actually forced to give this money; it's collected in return for promising some vague spiritual bullshit. That bullshit may be fraudulent, but no more so than the idea that you will assure yourself a place in Heaven by helping the Church build some ridiculously expensive cathedral.

Well, considering the tactics scientology uses, that does not really matter that much. And for all the times I have been to church (which is very little) the priest never tried the "buy yourself a place in heaven" angle. Usually it was "this is what we are doing, here is what we need, who is willing to help?"

Third, as a historian you should know perfectly well that those "huge cathedrals" you consider such a worthy project were themselves utterly obscene appropriations of wealth by the medieval Church, and imposed a horrendous burden upon the people and nations who built them: far worse than anything the Scientologists could ever hope to accomplish.

Which has what to do with their current value as tourist attractions and parts of the culture? Are you now arguing that they should not be maintained? I seriously don't get your point here.

[Darth Wong]

Oh for fuck's sake, you've got to be kidding. First, you've completely ignored the fact that the scale of revenue collection is completely irrelevant to the definition of fraud: the key point which I made and which you made zero effort to address or even acknowledge.

Because it is not what I am arguing at all. I provided an explanation for why the state does not go after the church.

And I pointed out that it is not a valid reason because fraud is still fraud. Mafiosos who donate to charity are still mafiosos, and fraudsters who give food to the poor are still fraudsters. Doubly so when they have elderly people so brainwashed that they donate their entire estates to the church upon their deaths.

Second, the Scientologist is not actually forced to give this money; it's collected in return for promising some vague spiritual bullshit. That bullshit may be fraudulent, but no more so than the idea that you will assure yourself a place in Heaven by helping the Church build some ridiculously expensive cathedral.

Well, considering the tactics scientology uses, that does not really matter that much. And for all the times I have been to church (which is very little) the priest never tried the "buy yourself a place in heaven" angle. Usually it was "this is what we are doing, here is what we need, who is willing to help?"

Oh bullshit. You know perfectly well that while they don't actually come right out and say "Buy yourself a place in Heaven", they make a point of regularly reminding you of key passages in the Bible where Jesus tells you to give till it hurts. Moreover, I specifically mentioned creationists; why aren't people who sell "creation science" books being prosecuted for fraud? Why aren't faith healers routinely prosecuted for fraud? These people are openly charging for fraudulent goods and services.

Third, as a historian you should know perfectly well that those "huge cathedrals" you consider such a worthy project were themselves utterly obscene appropriations of wealth by the medieval Church, and imposed a horrendous burden upon the people and nations who built them: far worse than anything the Scientologists could ever hope to accomplish.

Which has what to do with their current value as tourist attractions and parts of the culture? Are you now arguing that they should not be maintained? I seriously don't get your point here.

If they're actually vital to some sort of tourist economy, someone else could maintain them if the church didn't. The church maintains them "for the glory of God" or some other such bullshit, and you know it.

[The Guid]

If we're talking about the past then I think the fraud is the same.

For my part however I think there is a difference between the promise of specific rewards for what essentially is a purchase and a contribution to a charitable cause, which is what I did at my Church. If there is selling of indulgences still going then well I've got no corner.

[Darth Wong]

That difference is relevant only to your personal emotional reaction. As pointed out several times with no real response, it has no relevance whatsoever to the definition of fraud. Nowhere in the definition of fraud does it state that you need to be specific about exactly how much imaginary reward you will get for your contribution. The point is only that it's imaginary.

[Solauren]

Why doesn't a government go after the Christian Church(s) for fraud?

Because it would create a political and legal shit storm across the entire country, and more then likely, result in those bringing the Church to court in losing their careers. Either because they were voted out, or someone was voting in that proimsed to fire the non-elected officials that were involved in the process.

Simply put, it would result in the kind of arguging and stupidity we see in some school boards about evolution vs creationism. But it would be on a national scale.

And no self-serving politiion, lawyer, or judge, want's to be involved with that. They like their comfy careers.

They'll drag smaller religious organizations into court (like Scientology), because that would affect a statistically insignificant portion of their support base, not potientally piss them all off. You get a court conviction against Scientology, you piss off Tom Cruise. You get a conviction against a Christian faith, and you piss off the people that you need to keep your job.

In short, it's because no politition wants to open that proverbal can of worms. Especially when the fall-out from that could be social, economically, and politically devestating.

[Zwinmar]

Churches are nothing but a bunch of frauds, they brainwash from childhood so that people feel obligated to give their lazy asses money.

People are used to it though so they think nothing of it, unlike Scientology.

[Darth Wong]

Well frankly, if they're going to cut the Christian churches that kind of slack, they should do the same for other bullshit churches.

[PeZook]

That difference is relevant only to your personal emotional reaction. As pointed out several times with no real response, it has no relevance whatsoever to the definition of fraud. Nowhere in the definition of fraud does it state that you need to be specific about exactly how much imaginary reward you will get for your contribution. The point is only that it's imaginary.

You asked "Why doesn't the state go after the Church". The answer is pretty obvious, to be honest: because a lot of people in France are Catholic and they would object pretty harshly to such proceedings. As would most of Europe, because they delude themselves into thinking their particular religion is not fraud at all.

Combined with the fact that it doesn't really hurt the state to let the Church do its thing, and it's not really worth it to attack the Church like that, especially since they do some charity work as well. Some things just can't be done, regardless of what they are and if they'd be good or bad.

[salm]

Propably because they (the christian churches) don't employ brainwash techniques and don't force their members to pay money?

Of course they force their members to pay money. It´s called church tax. The government even helps the chruches by collecting the money for them. Not sure about France but here in Germany and a whole bunch of other countries you have to pay church taxes if you belong to certain religions.

[Serafina]

Propably because they (the christian churches) don't employ brainwash techniques and don't force their members to pay money?

Of course they force their members to pay money. It´s called church tax. The government even helps the chruches by collecting the money for them. Not sure about France but here in Germany and a whole bunch of other countries you have to pay church taxes if you belong to certain religions.

Church tax is pretty unique to germany. And you are not forced to pay it- you can always quit the church without any reprimand.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Church tax is pretty unique to germany. And you are not forced to pay it- you can always quit the church without any reprimand.

Not that unique, since it's also collected in most Nordic countries. In Finland you have to pay if you're a member of the Lutheran or Orthodox Churches. Here are the gory details, which I know are correct for Finland and Sweden; can't vouch for the rest, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

I was surprised to see that Norway does not have a Church tax despite common cultural and religious heritage with other Nordic countries. Do we have any Norwegians who could confirm that?

[salm]

Propably because they (the christian churches) don't employ brainwash techniques and don't force their members to pay money?

Of course they force their members to pay money. It´s called church tax. The government even helps the chruches by collecting the money for them. Not sure about France but here in Germany and a whole bunch of other countries you have to pay church taxes if you belong to certain religions.

Church tax is pretty unique to germany. And you are not forced to pay it- you can always quit the church without any reprimand.

And if you quit you´re no longer a member. Therfore members are forced to pay chruch taxes.

According to this Link a lot of countries have chruch taxes. France is not among them, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer

Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium (in a way)
Spain
Italy
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Norway (Church is a state chruch and is financed by the country)
Island

All of these countries have different kinds, some of them can not really be called taxes, but they´re all at least heavily financed by tax payers money even in countries where it´s not a direct tax. Which i find even worse because in cases like that even people who are not officially church members have to pay.

[Thanas]

And I pointed out that it is not a valid reason because fraud is still fraud. Mafiosos who donate to charity are still mafiosos, and fraudsters who give food to the poor are still fraudsters. Doubly so when they have elderly people so brainwashed that they donate their entire estates to the church upon their deaths.

How is asking for money (which is usually done at the end of the church service iirc) by a priest any different than any other charity organization who prints a niece pamphlet and is saying this will make you a better person?

Well, considering the tactics scientology uses, that does not really matter that much. And for all the times I have been to church (which is very little) the priest never tried the "buy yourself a place in heaven" angle. Usually it was "this is what we are doing, here is what we need, who is willing to help?"

Oh bullshit. You know perfectly well that while they don't actually come right out and say "Buy yourself a place in Heaven", they make a point of regularly reminding you of key passages in the Bible where Jesus tells you to give till it hurts.

Funny. All I had preached to me during my two years of churchgoing was to give to the poor and help people in need, something that is taught during every ethics class as well.

Also, nice dodge regarding the differences in tactics. Scientology uses psychoterror to achieve their results. Now, you may argue that the church does use psychological arguments as well, but the difference is in scale. Unlike Scientology, the church does not sent people after you if you do not pay up.

Moreover, I specifically mentioned creationists; why aren't people who sell "creation science" books being prosecuted for fraud? Why aren't faith healers routinely prosecuted for fraud? These people are openly charging for fraudulent goods and services.

In Germany, both can and are legally prosecuted once someone wants the police to go after them because they swindled him out of money.

If they're actually vital to some sort of tourist economy, someone else could maintain them if the church didn't.

Not while they are property of the church, because the church does not want people doing something with their property. However, in many cases the state and the church do take care of them - but even then a lot of the money comes in via donations. One example of that is the Cologne Cathedral.

The church maintains them "for the glory of God" or some other such bullshit, and you know it.

That is one reason, but not the sole reason. For example, the Speyer Cathedral houses numerous historical artifacts. Large parts of the church are not used for services anymore as they would damage the artifacts etc. So it is not just bullshit. In fact, I wager that the more costly and ancient a church, the less likely it is going to be used by the church for the glory of god. Also, one of the reasons why the church gets somewhat special treatment is because they do take care of the old buildings. Maintenance of them is very costly and the state does not want to afford it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

All of these countries have different kinds, some of them can not really be called taxes, but they´re all at least heavily financed by tax payers money even in countries where it´s not a direct tax. Which i find even worse because in cases like that even people who are not officially church members have to pay.

A funny detail about leaving the State sponsored Churches in Finland: since Church tax is collected on a yearly basis, it is entirely possible and legal to leave the Church on 31st December and join again on 1st of January next year, enjoy all the Church services and never pay a cent of Church tax Even the local Freethinkers say that it's unfair to the Church(es) and do not recommend it, but there is currently no law to prevent it (although I suspect there will be if it becomes a common practice). You can do both on the Internet...

Which reminds me; this is the Finnish Web site for leaving the Church:

http://www.eroakirkosta.fi/media/english

It is worthwhile to take a look at the other pages as well, since the Watchtoweresque pictures are hilarious. Happy non-believers leading happy lives

[TheLostVikings]

According to this Link a lot of countries have chruch taxes. France is not among them, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer

Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium (in a way)
Spain
Italy
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Norway (Church is a state chruch and is financed by the country)
Island

All of these countries have different kinds, some of them can not really be called taxes, but they´re all at least heavily financed by tax payers money even in countries where it´s not a direct tax. Which i find even worse because in cases like that even people who are not officially church members have to pay.

SInce this topic is all about fraud Norway is a particularly good example, as everyone is automatically entered into the state church at birth without a chance to opt out. And since most people is completely unaware of this, especially immigrants, the church receives a lot more money then it's actually entitled to. (how much money religious organizations receive is based on the number of members) It's pretty much open fraud since you specifically have to go out of your way to send a letter to your local church district in order to get removed, and they have a well known history of "accidentally" reenter people back in, not on purpose of course... no, not at all.

This is acerbated by the fact that a single citizen can only count once, and if you are entered twice, such as say: a member of The Norwegian Humanist Association and the state church, the humanist association does NOT receive any grants at all.

Anecdote: my dad has asked to be removed about 15 times now, but every few year when there is a church election or something he keeps getting spam letters that obviously shows that he is still a member, and when he calls them they always furiously proclaim that this is all total "accident"... 15 times

The Humanist Association has actually sued them over this, but afaik nothing came out of it since it was not orignised fraud, but rather an "unrelated string of accidents"... or some such BS reason

[Darth Wong]

How is asking for money (which is usually done at the end of the church service iirc) by a priest any different than any other charity organization who prints a niece pamphlet and is saying this will make you a better person?

Because they tell you that you will go to Hell if you are not generous, and then they (conveniently) remind you of who you should be donating to.

Funny. All I had preached to me during my two years of churchgoing was to give to the poor and help people in need, something that is taught during every ethics class as well.

Oh really? And not one word about how the Church is the best way to do that?

Also, nice dodge regarding the differences in tactics. Scientology uses psychoterror to achieve their results. Now, you may argue that the church does use psychological arguments as well, but the difference is in scale. Unlike Scientology, the church does not sent people after you if you do not pay up.

You're so goddamned full of shit. What the fuck is "you will burn in eternal hellfire forever and suffer for all eternity" if not "psychoterror"? And what's this about hunting people down if they don't want to go to the next level?

Moreover, I specifically mentioned creationists; why aren't people who sell "creation science" books being prosecuted for fraud? Why aren't faith healers routinely prosecuted for fraud? These people are openly charging for fraudulent goods and services.

In Germany, both can and are legally prosecuted once someone wants the police to go after them because they swindled him out of money.

So people can go after "creation science" book sellers in Germany?

If they're actually vital to some sort of tourist economy, someone else could maintain them if the church didn't.

Not while they are property of the church, because the church does not want people doing something with their property. However, in many cases the state and the church do take care of them - but even then a lot of the money comes in via donations. One example of that is the Cologne Cathedral.

Oh no, the Church is awash in incredibly valuable real estate! And this means they need more revenue ... how? Couldn't they downsize at will?

The church maintains them "for the glory of God" or some other such bullshit, and you know it.

That is one reason, but not the sole reason. For example, the Speyer Cathedral houses numerous historical artifacts. Large parts of the church are not used for services anymore as they would damage the artifacts etc. So it is not just bullshit. In fact, I wager that the more costly and ancient a church, the less likely it is going to be used by the church for the glory of god. Also, one of the reasons why the church gets somewhat special treatment is because they do take care of the old buildings. Maintenance of them is very costly and the state does not want to afford it.

That doesn't change the fact that when you donate to the Church, a lot of your money goes toward the upkeep of the Church's extensive real estate properties, which is not "helping the poor" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I think they can get Scientology with the fact the make claims if you pay for X you will get result Y. An charge massive prices.

Where as the Church asks for donations and don't really guarrente anything but say if it's God's will result Y might happen. The latter is a bit harder to justify. Also there are second offerings that are exactly what they say on the tin. Give us X amount of money and we will use it for this. Where is the fraud?

[Tolya]

Because they tell you that you will go to Hell if you are not generous, and then they (conveniently) remind you of who you should be donating to.

I was consistently turning down all donation requests when I was a catholic (because I was young and I didn't have any money) and
as an atheist I still do (for different reasons). And I never heard a word about me going to hell for it. For my sins, yes. But no church member (be it a priest or just a follower) threatened me with eternal damnation because I refused to donate money.

I guess Europe is much different than US, where religion is much more commercialized. And I think it's different experiences that make you and Thanas disagree.