ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Religion Black and White

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Queenmab321, Jul 31, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I actually view all those phrases as thought stopping & action stopping, as those words phrases disable critical thinking, and thus keep a person confined to scientology.

    I mean if one scientologist says to another "you're being entheta", why that stops the conversation. There is no more argument or debating. One either has to stop debating and if one continues, the other runs away and writes a KR. And if severe enough, gets called into ethics.
     
  2. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    1. I joined staff for a few reasons. I thought I could go up the bridge and get "cleared" and at the same time I would be helping an organization that is also "clearing" others. This is what I read in the Policy Letters that was supposed to happen. Hubbard promised these two things in his Policy Letters. I didn't join staff for some religious experience, that was never in my thoughts.

    2. Of course I thought it was important to raise money for the organization. The organization was set-up that way. It was set-up so that staff would be paid a wage to survive on, all based on how many people are sold into doing services of auditing and training. This is no different then any business. I would have not gone on staff as a free working volunteer.

    Korzybski said "the map is not the territory". How true that is with scientology.

    The map for being on staff is all the policy letters written by hubbard, these are called the OEC's. And for all of scientology it is called the OEC/FEBC's. Those are the maps on how to run a scientology organization.

    Now, I can tell you the territory is completely different from the map. But, you'll never know as you where never on staff to experience it.

    But there is one way for you to experience it. All these Policy Letters have been implemented for 30 years now, and now go out and look at the scientology organizations, and you will find they are in the same set of confusions as from 30 years ago. In other words, no expansion, just false stats and lies about expansion.

     
  3. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    ...







    Again, you entirely sidestep the point and try to discuss something else. That's why I snipped out your instructional guide to what a religion is.

    By your absurd theory, someone could set up a ponzi scheme that uses a marketing component designed to trick people into believing that God wants them to steal, rob and murder non-believers because their Church needs money to save mankind. And in your theoretical construct, as long as the thieves and murderers thought they were doing God's work, that would be a "religion".

    Equally bizarre is that you characterize all the murderers (other than the Founder) as "those one intended to exploit" rather than label them as murderers so they could be properly arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned.

    How about Nazis, KKK and Al-Qaeda, all of whom profess deeply held religious beliefs? Are they "religions" too? Were the Scientologists who tried to imprison and kill Paulette Cooper exercising their freedom of "religion" or were they criminal thugs deserving of long prison sentences? Were the Scientology ministers who gave spiritual "help" to Lisa McPherson practicing a "religion" or were they criminal charlatans guilty of reckless manslaughter?

    I am looking forward to your next entertaining WordClown theory of how terrorist thugs who carry out "Fair Game" scripture for Scientology are really part of a "religion".
     
  4. lost

    lost Patron with Honors

    6385]
    :yes:
    Quote from ItoldyouIWasTrouble:

    Exactly, and we (staff) all knew we were bit players in a pantomime ... (pretending it was a religion) and when the 'theatre curtain' went down again it was straight back to 'normal' life which was far, far worse than the Sunday acting we were all ordered to attend, which was quite pleasant and relaxing if you let yourself pretend it was genuine.
    [/QUOTE]

    ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

    And we also heard the execs and GO talking about their ongoing campaign to get religuous recognition and
    why it was important. Not because it was what we really were, not because hubbard was a religious leader, not because hubbard had written anywhere that we were actually a religion or religious, but that it would protect us against legal attacks....and there would be huge tax benifits. The protection part was most important, remembering
    government enquiries in NZ, Australia, the UK, Hubbard being kicked out of Rhodesia, all the trouble with officialdom
    in France, Germany, the Problem with Spain, much of all this is ongoing, so the pushing of the religious cloak is ongoing. Some of us (myself included) actually helped the GO (now OSA) with the lying drill where OSA are taught
    how to lie convincingly to anyone asking awkward quesions. To be used with media and in court rooms etc. HOWEFFING RELIGIOUSISTHAT?
     
  5. Alle G

    Alle G Patron with Honors



    Your questions are bigger than this thread.

    Atrocities and wars caused by religions is a subject for discussion. Points of views which I have seen are:
    - religion causes wars
    - religion is invented to justify war
    - wars are caused by the nature of man, religion is used as an excuse
    - and other opinions

    Lots of atrocities were committed in the name of religion through centuries. Who is judging who and who should be absolved or not absolved? It is not for me to answer, if there is an answer. Religion does not absolve crimes, IMHO.

    Lisa Macpherson I suppose is a rhetorical question.

    However the question I would like to know is the following: Stephen Hassan has a theory about cult identity. He gives an example of John-John and John-cultist. While in the cult identity, the person is flat and robotic and does wrong things which were impossible before, like lying or stealing. That is human norms and values, which are of course not universal but accepted in a larger society, are replaced by a different set of values promoted by the cult. I wonder if it has relevance to Lisa‘s handlers, that is did they really operate through the cult identity or was it something else. Or whether his theory is correct in the first place?


    This question of values has not been discussed in this thread. For example what are professed values and what are real values in scientology? Like ‘greatest good for greatest number of dynamics’?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  6. Alle G

    Alle G Patron with Honors

    http://tonyortega.org/2013/08/19/ho...really-work-historian-jon-atack-has-a-theory/


    Jon Atack from Tony Ortega

    And the only insight in Scientology is “Ron was right.” You can never be his equal (you would be squirreling, if you tried to think for yourself, especially if your thought did not conform to the Scientology agreement). He is not simply the OT, but the OT-maker. The god-maker, who will likely transform within the next few decades into an immortal being, worshiped by Scientologists.


    How Does Scientology’s Cosmology Really Work? Historian Jon Atack Has a Theory
     
  7. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Excellent post.

    ANSWER: The real values in Scientology are what they do. The professed values are what they say. The Creed of the Church is what they say. Fair Game is what they do.

    Talk is cheap. Scientology is not.




    WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE

    That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
    That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.
    That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.
    That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
    That the souls of men have the rights of men.
    That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.
    And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.


     
  8. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader



    Or, as Hubbard might say, there is PR and then there is Product. The PR is what you are told, and the product is what you observe in reality as behavior. In the running of his own organization, on internal lines. Hubbard orders that all staff and executives must NEVER base decisions on PR, and to base decisions only upon observations of actual results and behavior. Yet, on EXTERNAL lines it is the reverse. On external lines they function almost entirely on PR (lies, deceit, misdirection, misrepresentation, exaggerations, etc.). Though also, in terms of indoctrinating all staff and public, they are expected to ONLY accept the claims and statements of Hubbard and NOT base decisions upon careful thought and examination of facts.

    To bring up just another of many contradictions, take Hubbard's policy called "Look Don't Listen". This policy contains the excellent advice to always LOOK and observe real life activities, products and behaviors instead of relying on listening to the claims, statements, assertions and PR of others. Yet, if you question any statement by Hubbard or INT management you are sent to Qual or Ethics for "handling".

    In Scientology one is prevented from looking at a great deal of facts about Scientology, and one is expected to listen to ONLY the claims, assertions and statements of Hubbard and INT Management.

    This can be viewed in another way. This comes down to REALITY versus APPEARANCES. The reality is what is really going on and what some person or group actually DOES in real life. The appearances involve all the careful planned PR, shifty fabrication of perceptions and contrived scenarios to bring about an agreement in some person or group.

    At a basic level this comes down to truth versus lies. As is obvious by any careful study of Hubbard's works, he is rarely concerned with truth and instead almost entirely focuses on gaining agreement to claims, statements, and assertions. Remember as stated above, that these claims, statements, and assertions are all WORDS - they are what one should NOT "listen to", and instead to establish truth, one should LOOK at actual behavior in the physical universe.

    This policy on LOOK DON'T LISTEN is a double-edged sword for Scientology. They use it to ascertain the truth about others, but they expect all others to ignore it and to instead LISTEN to their endless PR statements and claims.

    Just another of the many endless contradictions inherent to Scientology.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  9. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Good points. If the medical examiner hadn't been forced to change her statements by OSA shenanigans, on the McPherson case, there is a good chance that some folks in Scientology might have been found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter. Personally, I doubt a charge of murder or manslaughter could have ever been able to stick.

    Now contrast this fairly rare example of Scientology with Medieval Christianity. Christianity is considered as a religion by just about everybody. Yet, it has a long history of control, deception, lying, and even worse, extreme inhumane behaviors.

    It would be bad enough if there had been a few atrocities committed in its name and within its walls, but instead there were many thousands of people abused, tortured, and murdered. They were systematically detected and arrested following exact Church procedures, and then judged before kangaroo court type tribunals - as heretics.

    If one honestly examines the depth and degree of harm committed, sorry, it makes Scientology look like kindergarten. That doesn't mean that the Church of Scientology isn't nasty and doesn't need to be erased from the face of this planet. It does. I have "suffered" from the effects of having my own children disconnect from me through forced disconnection. It is horrible, but it is not anywhere near as bad as having them arrested, physically tortured for hours and days, and then set on fire in front of a cheering live audience! :no:

    Yet, Christianity is still a RELIGION.

    Is the fellow who bombs an abortion clinic, out of his religious convictions, somehow now not "religious" because he commit an atrocity? Is the Muslim fanatic who detonates a suicide bomb on a bus of young school children somehow now not "religious" because he committed such an atrocity.

    Good and bad behaviors are a separate issue from what is or is not a "religion".

    The criteria for a religion is NOT how nasty, bad or manipulative it might be. Queenmab discussed this all earlier in a post, and I agree with him completely.

    Scientology, in some regards IS a religion. But also, it is a business in many other regards, and it uses this religious label to gain unfair advantages in the legal and commercial playing field.

    The idea of discussing and judging what is a "real religion" is somewhat goofy. That involves words and significances. In the end, different people have different opinions, and from each of their perspectives they are correct. As Hoaxster so correctly pointed out, and as I further elaborated upon above, ANY group, regardless of what label you might want to attach to them should be judged solely on WHAT THEY DO IN THE REAL WORLD. They should be judged and understood in terms of what they DO, and not upon the PR and claims of WORDS and significances.

    It is still very important to discuss and make it clear to as many people as possible how Scientology used, manipulated and parlayed this "religious label" into great unfair advantages used to create an unlevel playing field for them - in their favor. They used and continue to use tricks, deceit and PR to create appearances about them that are basically an illusion.

    The point really is NOT whether they can be viewed as a religion in some regard. Because, truthfully, they can. The point, as Veda continuously points out, is the fact that they USE this label to manipulate realities in their favor. By manipulating appearances they gain unfair advantages, for example which allow them to run an RPF, pay absurdly low wages, pay no property taxes, enforce disconnection, and so forth.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  10. Veda

    Veda Sponsor


    "They (Scientology Inc.) can be viewed as a religion." "Viewed?" Of course they can, and Scientology Inc. has worked very hard to be "viewed" as a religion - except in places where that's not to their advantage. Then they work to be viewed as secular and non-religious.

    Scientology Inc. can not, truthfully, be viewed as a religion, because such a viewing is dependent upon deception.

    The entire purpose of the op of this thread is to lead others down a path to where they agree with the assertion, "Scientology is a religion."

    With ample doubletalk and verbal shenanigans by its originator, it has never veered from that objective.

    It's rather peculiar watching it play out.
     
  11. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I am talking about the SUBJECT and IDEAS found within Scientology. The subject of Scientology does not EQUAL the Church of Scientology (despite all Hubbard's efforts to make it appear that way).

    You have this view that the poster of the OP has an "objective" to convince or present some case that Scientology is a valid religion. Personally, I think you see a boogie man where none exists. THAT is MY view.

    "Lead others down a path"? :hysterical:

    Here on ESMB? As if it matters at all what a few people accept and believe here on ESMB?

    I find it peculiar that YOU find it peculiar . . . . . :confused2:

    You know, yes, there are conspiracies when it comes to Scientology. I just don't see that any posters here on this thread are part of one. I could be wrong.
     
  12. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    The subject of Scientology comes pretty close to equaling the "Church of Scientology," complete with deceptive compartmentalization and layering.

    There's no boogie man. There is someone with a purpose. Which is fairly obvious.

    That's a way of saying "being influenced."

    Everything is meaningless in a greater context. On a galactic scale, Earth is meaningless.

    You're the one using the word conspiracy, not I.
     
  13. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I think that those people using Scientology concepts and practices, in any form, outside the corporate Church of Scientology would very much disagree.
     
  14. Queenmab321

    Queenmab321 Patron Meritorious


    Yes. I don't understand religion to be inherently good or bad in itself, but I do believe it can be very bad. I think a passing glance at human history will show this belief to be warranted. Something very like what you describe occurred in Japan in the mid 90's. Aum Shinrikyo did not cease to be a religion when it began to engage in acts of terror. It's legal status as a religion was, however, revoked because under Japanese law groups that are tied to terrorism lose that privilege. This is also true in the U.S.


    I don't recall mention of murder in your hypothetical, but I certainly never intended to suggest that those who commit crimes for religious reasons should be immune to prosecution. It is well established in the U.S. that in the absence of a statute explicitly granting an exception for a specific activity such as, for example, the possession and consumption of peyote, members of religious organizations are not exempt from prosecution under the law for violations of the criminal or civil code. Polygamy is not legal in the state of Utah. See
    Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890). Nor have I suggested that religious motivation on the part of those whose behavior is immoral should be thought of as abridging or minimizing their moral culpability.


    In an earlier post I pointed out that there are pronounced similarities between extreme political organizations and religious movements. The comparison I drew was that of Al-Qaeda to the Symbionese Liberation Army. In determining whether or not a particular organization may reasonably be defined as a religion I would employ a test like the one I offered in my previous post. In any event, as I just pointed out, deeply held religious beliefs do not provide a legal defense for those who commit crimes.

    So, what does the free exercise clause protect? Along with the implicit right of free association understood to be protected by the 1st amendment, the free exercise clause protects the right of individuals to voluntarily give up their own rights and interests as they see fit and to submit to the rule of a religious institution. A novitiate may take a vow of poverty and submit himself to the rules of a monastic order. He may not, however, be held against his will. In a free society the law is all about consent. When courts use words like "coercion" and "duress," these words are very narrowly defined. So far as I'm aware, mind control and brainwashing are not recognized as coercion under the law. A great deal of controversy exists on this point within socialological circles. However, the free exercise clause does not protect any actions that encroach upon the rights of other people.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013
  15. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    The assertion has been, throughout this thread, that Scientology Inc. is a religion.

    Some fraction of the publicized/not publicized/compartmentalized/secretive doctrine of Scientology - used by individuals outside of Scientology Inc. - is another subject.
     
  16. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    How can Scientology Inc be a religion? THAT (part of it) is a "corporation". The concept of a corporation and the concept of a religion are VERY different.

    For example, isn't it true that the Catholic Church owns a great many properties and corporations, and just as with Scientology, USES its accepted label as a "religion" to gain UNFAIR economic and tax advantages for its entire "corporate structure"?

    The problem here is that established BIG religions influenced governments MANY years ago, and continued to all throughout history, to grant "religion" a special status, making them immune to various financial and legal restrictions. In fact, Scientology has carefully taken advantage of the same loop holes.

    There should be separation of Church and State, but there really isn't. Now when the State gives special advantages to certain religions. I see no reason why religions should not have to compete on the SAME economic playing field as anyone else. I do feel that true humanitarian ventures that aim to help the poor, suffering and disadvantaged should qualify for tax exempt status, but THAT has nothing to do with Scientology.

    The real question isn't whether or not Scientology is a "religion", but whether ANY religion should be able to gain unfair economic advantages in the commercial arena of life. As long as laws and precedents exist allowing such unfair advantages, then there will be those who will do all they can to appear as a religion to benefit by the label.

    I am sure that there are many Protestant ministers who live in homes that are owned by the affiliated religious corporations, and for which they pay NO property taxes at all.

    The problem is the legal system, lawyers and the various legal precedents that have been set over the years. In the legal arena the game is all about convincing others through arguments, and THAT comes down to a game Hubbard was very good at - manipulating appearances and gaining agreement.

    Hubbard took great care to cloud the difference between the various aspects of Scientology. In all the materials given to the general public and staff, there is never a mention of the word "corporation". Hubbard never makes any differentiation between the various spiritual or religious beliefs and the organizational structure. He simply calls every part of it "Scientology". In fact when I was involved, I got blasted a few times by the CO OSA CW for suggesting that there actually were different aspects to it all; he immediately attacked me with "THAT IS ENEMY LINE". I commented on how the organizational part is VERY different than the part having to do with auditing and self-help. Again, OSA had strict orders to catch and blast any examples of such an idea.

    There is no doubt Hubbard was a grand deceiver and that his staff follow in his footsteps.

    The game was won by Scientology in the legal arena, and that is where they will have to finally lose.

    I am curious, does anyone know, what sequence of actions would have to occur to argue against and take away the Church of Scientology's tax-exempt status? WHO has the power to do that? Would this occur with a law suit? Who would get sued? Congress, the Supreme Court? Could the IRS be sued?

    As I see it, THAT is the ONLY way this will ever get "fixed". They need to LOSE what they deceptively gained in the first place (their much-coveted tax-exempt status). Do understand that ALL of the other major religions that benefit by these unfair tax advantages will fight tooth and nail to prevent any general changing of the rules. Sadly, religion (in its various guises) still has a very powerful influence over the minds of humankind.

    Sort of off the subject, but take a coven of witches or a group of pagans out celebrating the Summer Solstice. In fact, they also qualify as a religion. Most don't concern themselves with being "recognized as such". because they don't care about getting any unfair commercial advantage. Many members of modern New Age groups believe in fairies, elves, angels, advanced Masters, and even alien grand-parents who genetically engineered our race, but again they for the most part haven't organized together trying to gain some religious label, and they rarely vie for the coveted tax-exempt status. But ALL of these mentioned above ARE actually of the nature of "religion" (whether they call themselves that or not).

    In the end this all about playing games with words and meanings. I don't mean Hoaxster's idea of a "word clown", but I mean the playing of games that is done by LAWYERS in COURT ROOMS. The Church of Scientology uses the same gimmickry and corporate deceptions as does the Catholic Church. I don't say that in any way that makes any of this okay. But, I do see that the basic problem is in the system itself that currently grants unfair economic advantages to whatever can be agreed upon to be a "religion".

    There has been a great confusion and clouding intentionally brought about by the MAJOR RELIGIONS between the concepts "religion" and "corporation". The Church of Scientology has very adeptly jumped on the same bandwagon.
     
  17. lost

    lost Patron with Honors

    Whatever people are getting out of the thread, it is a troll thread so the op can get some sort of jollies.
    Our hands are all moist and slippery with all the assistance we have given.
     
  18. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    :overanalyser:

    This is the person who runs Scientology Inc.

    [​IMG]

    Scientology Inc. claims to be a "religious institution."


    ___________​




    RELIGIOUS CLOAKING

    7. Based on years of work in the senior most legal bodies of organized scientology as covered above I have dealt with directly or supervised the handling of hundreds of legal matters involving the organizations of scientology which directly or indirectly had to do with using religious cloaking...

    8. It was determined that the only way to handle many of the legal matters in front of us and still apply Hubbard’s policies that had to do with staff, ethics, sales of services, money, delivery of services and the like was to develop and use a religious cloaking saying scientology was a religion, its services religious, its staff members of religious orders and the like. I can state without doubt that the overwhelming main reason that organized scientology developed and pushed its religious cloaking was to avoid a myriad of real or potential legal problems that would exist by following Hubbard’s policies if it were not considered a religion. By developing this religious cloaking for organized scientology it was hoped to avoid legal requirements around the world that might otherwise have to be followed that would make it impossible to follow Hubbard’s policies. In developing the religious cloaking for organized scientology, the following were considered a few of the “benefits” so that Hubbard policies could be applied. There are countless examples but the below are listed simply as a few of them:

    (i) minimum wages would not have to be paid;

    (ii) staff could be sent to different parts of the world and be able to stay locally as religious workers;

    (iii) standard employee rights, such as those found in laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, could be discarded and thus Hubbard policies involving such things as ethics conditions, the Rehabilitation Project Force and the like could be applied without outside interference;

    (iv) less scrutiny would be allowed on the controls of the funds of scientology and the intermingling of funds between the corporations and other legal fictions of organized scientology;

    (v) it was hoped that the treatment of public scientologists and the use of their funds would be considered outside the purview of governmental bodies;

    (vi) couching the demand for and flow of monies within organized scientology using “religious” terms (such as by saying that clear cut mandatory payments for services were “fixed donations” and were mandated by the scripture of “exchange”) was hoped to cut off attempts by governments and others to look into them further...


    11. Two of the things that organized scientology felt were of the most importance in order to avoid compliance with many laws that were contrary to Hubbard policy were the religious cloaking as covered above and a corporate restructuring to make it very difficult if not impossible for outsiders to ever get to the main assets of organized scientology and to ensure that the real leaders of organized scientology could be insulated from legal liability by hiding their real controls behind a myriad of corporate and other legal veils. It was considered both a defensive and offensive strategy to have such cloaking (religious and corporate) in place.

    Defensively it makes it very difficult for individuals or even governments to force legal compliance of the many types of laws as covered above. It also makes it almost impossible to hold those that really control organized scientology responsible legally or to get to the financial assets of organized scientology spread out around the world. Offensively, it gives organized scientology a “safe base” from which to attack critics and/or anyone it feels is its enemy. Hiding behind religious cloaking and corporate veils it can act as a victim when people point out its crimes and injustices calling them “religious bigots” and even scaring governments, many of whom are not supposed to get involved with “religious matters”. By calling policies by Hubbard or Miscavige that are otherwise abusive or contrary to law “religious scripture” it was hoped to avoid legal scrutiny of same.

     
  19. lost

    lost Patron with Honors

    There are only so many thousand turns on the hamster wheel before our little paws are nothing but bloody stumps,
    and still we go round and round and round and round, earnestly. What a lovely thing.
     
  20. Queenmab321

    Queenmab321 Patron Meritorious

    I can assure you that the justices sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States do not view their responsibility to interpret the constitution as a game. Under the establishment clause the government is specifically prohibited from picking and choosing which religions should enjoy special treatment. If a group calls itself a religion, the burden is on the government to demonstrate why it believes that group is something else. The government is strictly forbidden from providing tax exemption for the Presbyterian Church and refraining to do so for COS, unless it can show why the latter is not a religion or that COS is, in some other respect, violating the provisions of the statute, i.e., diverting donations, etc.

    I think the rationale for religious tax exemption is based on the idea that, on the whole, religions are good for society. They typically encourage virtue and benefit their surrounding communities. And, as long as religious organizations are not diverting donations to enrich private parties and not engaging in activities that are against public policy (and specific provisions of the law are designed to ensure they aren't), these donations are viewed as a kind of "tax" already, taking place within the private sector. I think it's easy to attack the legal system, but if there's a problem here, it's not, in my opinion, with lawyers playing games; the problem, if it exists, is with the law itself. And, that law exists as it does by virtue of the discretion of democratically elected lawmakers.

    As I've mentioned in earlier posts, tax exemption also provides government with leverage to curtail political activism on the part of religious groups. A condition of tax exemption is virtual withdrawal from the political sphere. Some religious groups here in the South refrain from applying for tax exemption precisely because they feel it would entail an abridgment of what they see as their sacred duty to call the government, and specifically government officials, to account for actions they deem to be evil. One can imagine the effect such legislation might have had on abolitionist congregations in the years leading up to the Civil War.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013