Chris, PUBLIC benefits would be measured by ACTUAL benefits to the public. Soup kitchens, community works, et al. NOT stuff like chasing away imaginary “BTs” so as to make the community “less enturbulated”.

If something CANNOT be proven to benefit the community, it obviously doesn’t count.

Yes, sensible comment eclectus.

Religion exists in the realm of belief and is a political tool and public benefits are anecdotal. A “charity” on the other hand can be evaluated as you day. Any attempt to suppress religion becomes bigotry in the eyes of the devotees. It is in my opinion painted into a legal corner.

Great answer, Mike.

Thanks for your honesty.

We’ve all been there.

Alanzo

Funny you should ask Alanzo.

I told him I thought it was a mistake to attack scientology’s religiosity. That it was a losing position that would open him to allegations of bigotry. I suggested he focus on the abuses and target those things that generate harm – like disconnection and fraudulent fundraising.

We didn’t discuss a public benefit test at that time.

I found him to be an intelligent and compassionate guy who embarked on his scientology activities because he was approached by constituents who asked for his help.

The public benefit test was at issue during the 2010 senate hearings on Scientology in Australia, Mike.

You traveled to Australia as an independent Scientologist and met with Senator Xenophon at that time.

What did you talk to him about?

Alanzo

Exactly, M.R.! You should be free to practice your religion. But should taxpayers bear that cost? Believe whatever you choose, but don’t make the rest of us pay for it.

As I said, the problem is anyone making a determination about what is or what isn’t a religion. The CORRECT test should be whether it confers a public benefit.

The problem is not whether or not it is a religion. It is whether taxpayers should subsidize clearly non-public benefit activities.

Completely agree Fred. But it ain’t gonna happen for the reasons I laid out below.