The video of his Parlimentary speech is in two parts, and many thanks to E for alerting me to how important this is.
WA Today: Independent senator Nick Xenophon has accused the Church of Scientology of being a criminal organisation.
The South Australian parliamentarian said he had been contacted by a number of former Scientologists, after he questioned the organisation’s tax exempt status in a recent television interview.
World News Australia SBS reports how the Australian Prime Minister Rudd is ‘concerned’:
Asked about the senator’s claims, Mr Rudd described them as “grave allegations”. “Many people in Australia have real concerns about Scientology,” Mr Rudd told reporters at Bungendore in NSW on Wednesday. “I share some of those concerns. Let us proceed carefully and look carefully at the material he has provided before we make a decision on further parliamentary action.”
The full transcript of Xenophon’s speech is here, thanks to the Courier Mail:
Do we really want to be funding an organisation that turns supporters into victims in its pursuit of power and wealth? That is why I am calling for a Senate inquiry into this organisation and its tax-exempt status. In the past Scientology has claimed that those who question their organisation are attacking the group’s religious freedom. It is twisted logic, to say the least. Religious freedom did not mean the Catholic or Anglican Churches were not held accountable for crimes and abuses committed by their priests, nuns and officials — albeit belatedly. Ultimately, this is not about religious freedom.
In Australia there are no limits on what you can believe. But there are limits on how you can behave. It is called the law, and no-one is above it.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
You might like this response:
“Xenophon didn’t go far enough: no religion should be tax free”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/18/xenophon-didnt-go-far-enough-no-religion-should-be-tax-free/
I hope the decision to deregister Scientology as a religion is an out come of all of this, but at the centre there is a deeper question – what constitutes a religion in the first place, and why are they automatically assumed to be charitable, generous, altruistic, benign, or a benefit to humanity?
Non religious organisations have to fight tooth and nail to gain tax free status, and then find themselves constantly justifying themselves to the authorities. Religious organisations on the other hand are given a free pass, tax exempt status, and are allowed to go on their merry way.
I would not mind so much, but in almost every case they hinder the progress of science and impose outdated, bronze age mythologies to modern technology and moral and ethical issues. As a society we gain nothing by believing souls enter the zygote at the moment of conception, or Jesus walked on water, or Thor throws lightning bolt from above the clouds, of the FSM spends his days tricking us all by manipulating matter invisibly with his noodly appendages.
Here’s a radical idea – all organisations must be able to demonstrate how they advance the morality, technology, and knowledge of the human species before they are dismissed from the tax payers table. Either that, or no one gets a free ride. I would be happy either way.
The distinction between a “cult” and a “religion” is a difficult one. My rule of thumb is that if the organization separates its members from society then it is a cult. ..Scientology isolates people from society for “purification” (brainwashing??) which puts it firmly in the cult category for me.
Andrew brings up a good point, that is the current set of laws assume religion to be benign. Parts of Europe are struggling with this lack of oversight and restriction as religions less interested in peace and harmony gain traction.
Fantastic discussions, I’m hoping these sorts of things are taken into consideration – the current situation in Europe where Scientology is challenged may tip the balance here in Australia… regardless, thanks commentators!
Much appreciated! 
I think the reason we should be cautious about all this is that if you label an organisation because of the activities of a few – no matter how high up they may be – you open a huge can of worms.
If Scientology is a criminal organisation, then it would be equally valid to apply the same label to the Catholic Church – which has committed far more institutional crimes than any organisation in the history of the world. I am no lover of religion (the sooner they all go the way of the dinosaurs the better), but what do you think would be the political fallout of something like that?
More importantly, is the whole issue of labelling an organisation ‘criminal’. We have just been through the whole nausea of ‘criminal’ bikie gangs in South Australia, something that Senator Xenophobe would be only too aware of. Do we really want to label people as criminal or otherwise because of their associations?
Orion,
Interesting point on the labelling of groups as criminal. Not how I feel about it at the moment – needs more rumination.
You must log in to post a comment.