Scientology has received recognition, but not respect
|
Version 0 of 1. The UK supreme court's decision that two Scientologists may marry in their own chapel because Scientology qualifies as a religion raises difficult questions. In particular, should the state have any view on whether religions are true? The question looks simple and I imagine most people would nowadays confidently reply "no". Of course this often implies that the state does have a view on their truth – which is that they are all false. If the British constitution were itself a coherent body of doctrine, the answer would have to be that in some sense the state does believe that Anglican Christianity is true. Why else have a coronation? But the British constitution is only slightly more coherent at the moment than the idea of Britishness itself. So it's not surprising that the law – in its own search for consistency – pulls away from tradition. There are several obvious objections to Scientology, compared with more conventional religions. Its doctrine contains palpable falsehoods which have to be concealed from the non-paying public: it is not in fact true that we are the spiritual survivors of an ancient alien race. It has a well documented history of cult-like and manipulative behaviour. Critics are harassed in shameful ways. It is treated in many countries like an elaborate pyramid selling scheme and the reasons for this are obvious. But it is only the financial aspects that really cut it off from respectability. A comparison with Mormonism is illuminating here. No one disputes that Mormonism is a religion, yet their scriptures are clearly made up – semi-literate biblical fanfic – and the early history of the Mormon church is not a morally edifying story. Mormons tithe, too, which makes it an expensive commitment; and they keep secret the interior of their temples. The vital difference of principle is that Mormons are quite open about their doctrines. They do not charge for their enlightenments – in fact, some people would pay to be rid of them. Mormonism, after nearly 200 years, has settled into a broadly benevolent, or at least not actively malevolent form of social organisation. Scientology not so much. There are few people outside the organisation who would regard it as benevolent or trustworthy. But that is not the question the supreme court was called to answer. The judgment hinged on the question of whether what goes on in a Scientologists' chapel is worship. Here Lord Toulson said it must be. Scientology, he claimed, must be a religion because it was "a belief system which goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by the application of science. "Such a belief system may or may not involve belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is more to be understood about mankind's nature and relationship to the universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula." I don't actually believe this is an accurate description of Scientology's claims – there is a reason it has "science" in the name and the "technology" it uses is supposed to be scientifically validated. Historically the decision to make it a religion was only taken as a way to escape pressure from the US government and the description as a religion was originally fiercely resisted: Scientology and dianetics were supposed to replace religion with objective truth. But that is by the by. The question is what follows from the court's decision. The main thing, I think, is the separation of worship from any condition of moral benefit. Satanists clearly qualify as a religion under Toulson's rules. But this, in turn, means that a religion is not automatically a charity. As I understand it, that's also the legal position. Whether you qualify as a religion for marital purposes is independent of whether you qualify as one for charitable purposes and thus gain various tax advantages. This has been blurred by the bandwagon-jumping comments of Brandon Lewis, the local government minister, who wants to blame the whole thing on the Labour party. But in fact this legal and conceptual distinction is very important. We may not want the state to judge the truth of myths. We certainly still need it to have an opinion on their effects. Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |