Wikipedia bans Scientologist edits

[Euryphaessa]

The Wikicourt ruled today that all IPs from Scientologist organizations are now banned (http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/35683442.html#cutid1) from editing.

Because I'm prejudiced against Scientology, my immediate gut reaction was "Awesome!". The church's efforts to remove all material on the internet that paints it in a negative light is just wrong to me, so this seems like a step in the right direction. But is it right to enact a sweeping ban like this? These IPs aren't barred from editing just Scientology related articles, they can't edit any articles at all. Anyway, discuss.

[Elyanna]

Oh, my. There's a Wikipedia Supreme Court?

Well, it sounds like the IPs were doing exactly what you're not supposed to do on Wikipedia. It is not a propaganda vehicle. I don't have much sympathy for the Scientologists.

[ulfhjorr]

Anyone affiliated with scientology is a retard anyway, so it's not like they'd have anything positive to contribute.

ETA: Of course, by that logic, the Vatican should be next on the list for lock-down...

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Wikipedia can do whatever they want to whoever they want.

Is it church policy to 'sanitise' Wiki articles? Or is it just crazy cultists doing as they do? Either way, Wiki doesn't have to put up with that bullshit. And they won't any more (until they figure out a way around it, of course, which they will in due time).

[Moon Dog]

Since not all countries are stupid enough to give them the status of church I'd say this is more like Wiki stopping any other business from trying to remove bad publicity from their site or use it to promote themselves.

Don't you wish life was more like the internet sometimes and you could just ban Scientologist organisations outright ?

Do we have any scientologists here ? Speak up. Please. :D

[SmartAleq]

I'm fine with it--Scientologists are fucking crazy and the fact that they, indeed the fact that ANY religions have tax exempt status drives me right up the fucking wall. They all need to lockstep into the nearest volcano.

[BJMoose]

Wikipedia can do whatever they want to whoever they want.

Is it church policy to 'sanitise' Wiki articles? Or is it just crazy cultists doing as they do? Either way, Wiki doesn't have to put up with that bullshit. And they won't any more (until they figure out a way around it, of course, which they will in due time).

There's already a work-around. Since they have barred edits just from known Scientology IP's, all they have to do is edit from home, or the local library, or Aunt Bertha's Commodore 64, whatever.


Handling controversial articles is a big problem. In this case, I would suggest Wiki have whatever article on Scientology it wants to have, but include within it an "official response" from the Hubbardarians. Seems fair to me.

[Moon Dog]

I'm fine with it--Scientologists are fucking crazy and the fact that they, indeed the fact that ANY religions have tax exempt status drives me right up the fucking wall. They all need to lockstep into the nearest volcano.

Strapped to atomic bombs. Xenu didn't fuck around.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

There's already a work-around. Since they have barred edits just from known Scientology IP's, all they have to do is edit from home, or the local library, or Aunt Bertha's Commodore 64, whatever.

I know that -- the article seems to be suggesting that Sci-HQ is set-up for fairly extreme sock-puppetry. Individual home-users are not really a big deal unless you make it a policy that everyone go and white-wash Wikipedia.

[WednesdayAddams]

I'm fine with it--Scientologists are fucking crazy and the fact that they, indeed the fact that ANY religions have tax exempt status drives me right up the fucking wall. They all need to lockstep into the nearest volcano.

I look at it as a kind of protection. Taxation implies government representation. So long as churches are not paying taxes, they don't get a say in the way my country is run. I'm happy to make that concession.

As an aside: IIRC, Scientology had its tax exempt status yanked at one time.

[Moon Dog]

I look at it as a kind of protection. Taxation implies government representation. So long as churches are not paying taxes, they don't get a say in the way my country is run. I'm happy to make that concession.

In theory I agree this is ideal. But in practice.....
Churches still do manage to meddle in politics and do manage to wield some control by using their congregations. Even in Aus. I often hear the term "We are a Christian nation." Fuck I hate that.
Personally I believe Religion is nothing more than just another political tool to manipulate the masses. But that is possibly another thread.

[SmartAleq]

I look at it as a kind of protection. Taxation implies government representation. So long as churches are not paying taxes, they don't get a say in the way my country is run. I'm happy to make that concession.

As an aside: IIRC, Scientology had its tax exempt status yanked at one time.

After the Prop H8 fiasco I think it's time we enforce that part of the 503(c)3 charter that states a non-profit can't muck about in politics. They all do it, they're all in violation of the law, they all need their tax exemption yanked. Fuck 'em!

[Turing Complete]

After the Prop H8 fiasco I think it's time we enforce that part of the 503(c)3 charter that states a non-profit can't muck about in politics. They all do it, they're all in violation of the law, they all need their tax exemption yanked. Fuck 'em!

Sorry, you're incorrect here. Churches are allowed to lobby so long as they do not devote a "substantial part"* of their activities to attempting to influence legislation. They are not allowed to participate in campaign activity for or against a particular candidate.

Now I'm not saying that every church that participated in Prop 8 did so correctly. I'm just saying that your statement that "a non-profit can't muck about in politics" is incorrect. Any large church is going to be very careful that they only do what is allowed by law because having their non-profit status revoked would be devastating.

*Yes, the IRS has tests to determine exactly what a "substantial part" means.

[SmartAleq]

Sorry, you're incorrect here. Churches are allowed to lobby so long as they do not devote a "substantial part"* of their activities to attempting to influence legislation. They are not allowed to participate in campaign activity for or against a particular candidate.

Now I'm not saying that every church that participated in Prop 8 did so correctly. I'm just saying that your statement that "a non-profit can't muck about in politics" is incorrect. Any large church is going to be very careful that they only do what is allowed by law because having their non-profit status revoked would be devastating.

*Yes, the IRS has tests to determine exactly what a "substantial part" means.

I'd say a more accurate statement is that "Any large church is going to be very careful that they only APPEAR to be doing what's allowed by law" and I'm aware that losing tax exempt status would be devastating, which is why I'd like to see it happen. There's no good reason to allow them to duck out on their taxes, they aren't accomplishing so much good work that there's a social benefit to them remaining operational, they exist only to serve themselves and most of them make obscene amounts of money--so much so that they feel compelled to spend it making their moral agendas the law of the land. Fuck 'em in the neck, they can pay their fucking taxes and maybe the rest of us will finally see some benefit from them.

[Turing Complete]

I'd say a more accurate statement is that "Any large church is going to be very careful that they only APPEAR to be doing what's allowed by law"

I'm confused by this statement. Are you asserting that there are large churches acting illegally (according to the law as it stands) and taking pains to appear legal? If you have any evidence, I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who would be willing to try to have their non-profit status yanked. Or are you just assuming that they must be acting illegally because you don't like what they're doing and what they're doing doesn't fit with your interpretation of the law?

[WednesdayAddams]

It does happen and it is devastating. I've seen it happen here in Texas more than once, where that whole superiority the other thread in this forum talks about is the standard not the exception. Advocating legislation or endorsement of a political candidate from the pulpit was slapped down hard a few years back. The problem comes when the IRS does nothing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/us/politics/26churches.html?_r=1), especially when it has been reported in the MSM for months.

ETA: Turing, that's not an interpretation of the law. That is several Anglican churches intentionally breaking the law.

[Turing Complete]

The problem comes when the IRS does nothing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/us/politics/26churches.html?_r=1), especially when it has been reported in the MSM for months.

ETA: Turing, that's not an interpretation of the law. That is several Anglican churches intentionally breaking the law.

I'm with you here. I think the law is a pretty reasonable compromise as it stands. I hope the IRS slaps these guys down -- for the sake of organized religion. If the rule is not enforced it opens up the opportunity for political or other organizations to masquerade as churches.

[SmartAleq]

I'm confused by this statement. Are you asserting that there are large churches acting illegally (according to the law as it stands) and taking pains to appear legal? If you have any evidence, I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who would be willing to try to have their non-profit status yanked. Or are you just assuming that they must be acting illegally because you don't like what they're doing and what they're doing doesn't fit with your interpretation of the law?

The Mormon church only reported about $20,000 in direct contributions to the Prop H8 campaign. After the fact, however, they've admitted to about ten times that in commercial production costs subsidy, donation of time and supplies, then there are all those small contributions from Mormons that can't be proved or disproved to have been either directly supplied by or coerced by Mormon church officials. Yes, churches as well as corporations are quite adept at hiding their political funding activities. As for lawyers all chomping at the bit to go get 'em--who would that be, and who in hell has the damned resources to tackle the Mormons? Those fuckers have more money than God Himself, and the will to do whatever it takes to get their agenda across.

[Turing Complete]

The Mormon church only reported about $20,000 in direct contributions to the Prop H8 campaign. After the fact, however, they've admitted to about ten times that in commercial production costs subsidy, donation of time and supplies, then there are all those small contributions from Mormons that can't be proved or disproved to have been either directly supplied by or coerced by Mormon church officials. Yes, churches as well as corporations are quite adept at hiding their political funding activities. As for lawyers all chomping at the bit to go get 'em--who would that be, and who in hell has the damned resources to tackle the Mormons? Those fuckers have more money than God Himself, and the will to do whatever it takes to get their agenda across.

So, $20,000 in direct contributions and about $200,000 in in-kind donations. Do you think that reaches the threshold of a "substantial part" of the Mormon church's operations?

I would be interested to see evidence that Mormon church officials directly supplied funds to be donated. I'm also curious about what "coerced" means in your post. Do you think that Mormon church officials effectively forced members to contribute against their will?

Anyway, I don't have any evidence that there are lawyers "chomping at the bit to go get them," however I assume that there are some gay lawyers in California offended by the Mormon church's contributions to Prop 8 and their stance on gay marriage that would love the opportunity to take them down. I'll tell you what, if you can show any actual evidence that the Mormon church acted illegally, I will help you look for an attorney to take the case. Fair enough?

[Radical Edward]

Waitaminute there, I've always been told that "Contrary to popular belief, churches are NOT tax exempt." At four different jobs, I've been told that. When we do big orders for churches, we charge them sales tax. Some of them pitch a fit but are unable to produce a tax exempt ID number, so they either pay it anyway or don't get their food. Maybe it's just property or business tax they are exempt from? Maybe it's different in each state? Maybe my bosses are crazy? Anybody?

[Turing Complete]

I am not an expert, but here is my understanding:
Donations made to the church count as charitable donations for the donor.
The church does not pay income tax on donations.
Churches may be exempt from sales taxes (varies by state)
Churches may be exempt from property taxes (varies by state)

Anyone more qualified, please correct me or expand on these points.

[takowasakun]

Not more qualified, but I know that my church in Ohio was exempt from sales and property taxes. I have firsthand experience with the sales tax exemption as I was more than once sent on errands to buy office supplies and the like from Staples, for which I was always given the necessary documents to prove tax exemption.

[Anacanapuna]

As a devoted member of the little local Episcopal church, I'd be perfectly fine with our little church paying property taxes and revenue taxes if it meant not hearing any more self-righteous pomposity about how much political influence churches have but shouldn't have. While we're at it, I'd like to see the Elks Lodges, Freemasons, Odd Fellows and every other duly constituted organization have to pay at least property taxes (in my hometown alone that would amount to hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year) and then everyone could say whatever they wanted, publicly, in church or in meetings, and maybe then we'd start realizing the true spirit of the First Amendment.

[KidVermicious]

Not more qualified, but I know that my church in Ohio was exempt from sales and property taxes. I have firsthand experience with the sales tax exemption as I was more than once sent on errands to buy office supplies and the like from Staples, for which I was always given the necessary documents to prove tax exemption.

You were exempted on site? I would have thought the church would have needed to save the receipts and claim a refund at tax time.

[Turing Complete]

You were exempted on site? I would have thought the church would have needed to save the receipts and claim a refund at tax time.

I've seen it work both ways.

[Radical Edward]

Schools around here are exempted on site. They give us their tax exempt ID number or card and we ring them up "manually" i.e., without the cash register (because the register automatically adds tax and has no tax exempt function). We calculate their total without tax on paper, put the money in the till with the ID number or card, and file the exemption at closing time with the nightly paperwork. They get a receipt with the manager's signature on it.

[WednesdayAddams]

As a devoted member of the little local Episcopal church, I'd be perfectly fine with our little church paying property taxes and revenue taxes if it meant not hearing any more self-righteous pomposity about how much political influence churches have but shouldn't have. While we're at it, I'd like to see the Elks Lodges, Freemasons, Odd Fellows and every other duly constituted organization have to pay at least property taxes (in my hometown alone that would amount to hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every year) and then everyone could say whatever they wanted, publicly, in church or in meetings, and maybe then we'd start realizing the true spirit of the First Amendment.

Is this the "spirit of the first amendment" which was intended by its writer (a wall of separation between church and state), or the spirit of the first amendment to which us pompous self righteous non-Christians are subjected whenever a local government decides to allow all religious end of year displays instead of just one?

Churches are tax exempt and are so for good reasons. In return, they have no influence in government, and more importantly the government has no influence over them.

We can fling insults back and forth, or we can both accept that there has to be compromise somewhere along the road, and that compromise usually means accepting that the law doesn't necessarily mean what we want it to mean.

What those Anglican churches were doing in the story I linked was not free speech. Nor is endorsing or decrying political candidates from the pulpit. Free speech addresses a very specific category of speech: a private citizen on public property. And then, the only speech protected is political speech. Free speech under the first amendment does not apply to what is said by a minister to his congregation in church. However, the freedom of religion clause does apply, not only because of what the first clause of the first amendment states but also because of the tax laws cited by Turing Complete earlier.

[Anacanapuna]

Free speech addresses a very specific category of speech: a private citizen on public property. And then, the only speech protected is political speech. Free speech under the first amendment does not apply to what is said by a minister to his congregation in church. However, the freedom of religion clause does apply, not only because of what the first clause of the first amendment states but also because of the tax laws cited by Turing Complete earlier.The IRS injunction is weak, at best, and has been first rejected, then upheld grudgingly by a conservative court (see Johnson's article (http://www.giraffeboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=85301).) As for fears of of undue political influence by clerics, Johnson's citation clearly shows such a fear is unfounded. Mostly, it's a liberal straw horse and flies in the face of logic that says those who attend churches ministered by ultra-conservative pastors doso because they are ultra-conservative themselves. In other words, the preacher's preachin' to the choir, and everybody agrees with the choir.

My assertion that churches and large "fraternal" organizations should pay property and revenue taxes is, admittedly, a case of vox clamantis in deserto (I know, that's rough use of Dartmouth's motto, but the idea is the same.) I make it, in all seriousness, because those who believe in the rightness of tax exemption for churches can never be allowed to assume that it is intrinsically right. It has to be right for a reason, and that means the argument over it can never be accepted as settled. And lest you believe that this is trolling or whooshing or whatever other cute term there is for being the devil's advocate, consider this: Is it really right that a "church" that takes in millions of dollars in revenue from its theme park escapes paying property tax on the park? Successfully make that argument with a straight face, and my little hometown Episcopal church is safe for another court term.

[takowasakun]

You were exempted on site? I would have thought the church would have needed to save the receipts and claim a refund at tax time.

Yep, and later, when I worked for an office supply chain, I would be on the other end of that transaction. Our POS machines even had a system for handling tax exempt sales.

[WednesdayAddams]

The IRS injunction is weak, at best, and has been first rejected, then upheld grudgingly by a conservative court (see Johnson's article (http://www.giraffeboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=85301).) As for fears of of undue political influence by clerics, Johnson's citation clearly shows such a fear is unfounded. Mostly, it's a liberal straw horse and flies in the face of logic that says those who attend churches ministered by ultra-conservative pastors doso because they are ultra-conservative themselves. In other words, the preacher's preachin' to the choir, and everybody agrees with the choir.

Your cite is your post? Your link takes me to a giraffeboard reply to thread window.

While I'm sure that one opinion is important, I do wonder if it's sufficient to disprove centuries of proven historical fact: religious influence in government has been shown over and over to be a dangerous combination. That has been shown as recently as Terri Schaivo. Hard to call that left wing propaganda; the religious right did itself no favors with that case.

My assertion that churches and large "fraternal" organizations should pay property and revenue taxes is, admittedly, a case of vox clamantis in deserto (I know, that's rough use of Dartmouth's motto, but the idea is the same.) I make it, in all seriousness, because those who believe in the rightness of tax exemption for churches can never be allowed to assume that it is intrinsically right. It has to be right for a reason, and that means the argument over it can never be accepted as settled. And lest you believe that this is trolling or whooshing or whatever other cute term there is for being the devil's advocate, consider this: Is it really right that a "church" that takes in millions of dollars in revenue from its theme park escapes paying property tax on the park? Successfully make that argument with a straight face, and my little hometown Episcopal church is safe for another court term.

First, I don't believe something is 'intrinsically' anything with very few exceptions. I wish people would stop throwing around terms like intrinsically and fundamentally when they don't really mean them, or try to fit them in my mouth when I don't claim any such thing. As for whether or not something is "right"? What I personally think is right or wrong is not at issue. What is covered under the law is what matters. I think there shouldn't be any such thing as religion, but that's my opinion. It has no bearing on the law. The law provides a tax exemption for churches. As a tax paying citizen who is well aware that taxation gives me a voice in my local state and federal government, I am relieved that religious establishments have that exemption regardless of whether they're a 'little neighborhood Episcopal church' with a sanctimonious congregation or a great big massive mega church like the one five miles from my home, and I will continue to support that tax exemption so long as it keeps churches from deciding public policy. I'm well aware there are those who think that isn't "right." But what the religious right fails to realize is that right and wrong are subjective and constantly changing. Morals are not set in stone. I'd be very interested in having a philosophical discussion with you along those lines, but in a different thread as I fear we've hijacked this one all to hell and gone.

[Anacanapuna]

Your cite is your post? Your link takes me to a giraffeboard reply to thread window. (snip)

First, I don't believe something is 'intrinsically' anything with very few exceptions. I wish people would stop throwing around terms like intrinsically and fundamentally when they don't really mean them, or try to fit them in my mouth when I don't claim any such thing. .

First, my apologies for linking incorrectly. The link I tried to make is as follows:http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/42_4/05_TXT.htm

As for the use of the word "intrinsically," I believe that since I own a masters degree in English, am a 25-year veteran of newspaper and magazine reporting, writing, and editing, and have taught the fundamentals of English composition to college freshmen and sophomores for more than five years, I know what the word means, and I used it exactly as it is supposed to be used. If you think people are trying to shove words into your mouth, well, there is a way to prevent that.:evil:

[WednesdayAddams]

Ah, thank you for the corrected link. I'll read it and get back to you.

Yes, there is a way to prevent it. Stop inferring what I didn't imply. Your qualifications notwithstanding, I don't use the word "intrinsically" to describe concepts because it is my opinion it so rarely applies, especially to ethical concepts. I didn't say you don't know what it means. I said it isn't what I meant, and it isn't what my statement meant. I believe that since you own a masters degree in English, are a 25 year veteran of newspaper reporting, writing and editig, and have taught the fundamentals of English composition to college freshmen and sophomores for more than five years, you are used to being right, even when you aren't. Allow for the possibility you may have misread a statement.

Also: Are we now discussing semantics because you concede the point of my post, or because you can't support your position? (see? I can play the misrepresentation game, too.)

[Lucifer]

I lived in Tampa for a while in another life, and I still remember the horror of being surrounded by Scientologists as the spewed forth from their headquarters out into the city traffic to witness and whatnot. Truely frightening.

[Brunhilda]

I'm fine with it--Scientologists are fucking crazy and the fact that they, indeed the fact that ANY religions have tax exempt status drives me right up the fucking wall. They all need to lockstep into the nearest volcano.

According to the early supreme court case, McCullough v. Maryland, the power to tax is equivalent to the power to destroy. Destruction of a religious entity would be a first amendment violation. The US Government cannot legally go there.