From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!globe.indirect.com!news-out.internetmci.com!internetMCI!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews Tue Oct 31 10:53:52 1995
From: email@example.com (Neal Hamel)
Subject: Re: Help with COS history?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:15:35 GMT
Organization: Serious Cybernetics Corporation
References: <025303Z26101995@anon.penet.fi> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 29 7:22:22 AM PST 1995
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
:email@example.com (Paper Tiger) wrote:
:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
:Best I can remember Scientology was incorporated in California as "The Church of
:Scientology of California" in 1954. The most common (and ineffectual)
:attack CofS critics have made over the years is that the religion aspect was a
:tax dodge. The reason this was ineffectual is that all religions and most
:*well-meaning* organizations also incorporate as tax-exempt. The public has
:snoozed collectively for 40 years over this non-issue. All the while Hubbard and
:his proteges smirked. They knew the real reason for becoming a religion. Taxes
:were just a side benefit, it was the freedom to audit without practitioners
:needing medical or Psychiatric training that was the issue. CofS got a scare in the
:70's when the IRS came calling. The word went out that all auditors had to become
:ministers - and quick! What used to be the Franchise Network became the Mission Network
:and after 20 years of freedom from dog-collars, auditors had to begin acting like
:preachers. Heber looks good in his outfit, don't you agree?
Actually your history shows one more aspect of the hypocracy
I was in the GO and you were at ASHO. Even after the events
of the FDA raid, the GO, who was entrusted with keeping
scientology *looking* like a religion, had a hell of a time
keeping places like ASHO looking religious.
Given a month or so, all physical manifestations of
religious character tended to be neglected in scientology
organizations. This meant the religious symbols (crosses
etc), were set aside and the 'ministers' stopped wearing
The hypocracy of scientology is they (the GO then and OSA
now) had to force the 'ministers' to wear collars and the
organizations to put up religious symbols in the first
place. Can you imagine the same sort of problem in the
Catholic church? Do you think the Catholic church would
forget about Christ on the cross and if no one was watching,
just toss the cross into a closet because it was in the way?
This is what scientology organizations did with its
religious symbols unless someone told them not to.
Wearing a minister's collar and putting up religious symbols
had nothing to do with scientology. It was all show to
prove the the outside world that scientology was indeed
religious. The twist was that this display of religious
symbols was the only religious aspect to scientology.
You would not walk into an 'org' look around and say,
"Ahhhh, this is a religion". You would never know it was a
religion unless the *symbols* were there.
Scientology never did develop its own religious symbols. (I
maintain there was a good reason that scientology never did
develop its own religious symbols.) Instead, the Hubbards
(Ron and Mary Sue) ordered the appropriation of symbols from
exant religious organizations so as to look the part.
Looking the part was what was important.
Getting back to your point, of course the reason Hubbard
incorporated scientology as a religion was to not pay taxes.
He said so at the time. The fact that scientology didn't and
doesnt act religious, bears this out.