Xref: pa.dec.com alt.religion.scientology:530 misc.misc:15401 misc.legal:35162 talk.politics.misc:95701
From: kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.misc,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: IRS Court Case
Message-ID: <1991Oct15.020238.34524@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 91 02:02:37 CDT
References: <1991Oct12.192357.55462@cs.cmu.edu> <1991Oct12.183500.34438@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1991Oct13.172100.7188@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 71

In article <1991Oct13.172100.7188@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del Vecchio) writes:
> kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>> 
>>The U.S.A.'s two most powerful and rich organizations pitted head to head 
>>in a direct conflict!  If the IRS wins, things go on as before.  But if the 
>>IRS loses, aside of the fact that your tax dollars will go to support
>>Scientology, I can only see doom for whatever shred of fair government 
>>exists to combat the "cult of the rich".
>> 
>>For once in your life, hope that the IRS wins a lawsuit, cause the 
>>consequences if it loses are too horrible to imagine (besides the fact that 
>>your tax dollars will support Scientology, against your wishes!).
> 
>    I don't understand how "our tax dollars will go to support Scientology".
> Are they going to get grants, like Robert Maplethorp did?
> 

No; by winning a lawsuit against the IRS, the IRS will of course pay with the
tax dollars you already don't get too much of a say in spending, for a
"religious movement" that is (a) rich enough already, and (b) unlikely to be
supported by you or anyone unless they are already being brainwashed by
Scientology into making $3000 "donations" for 1 hour of treatment...

>    I think you just mean that they won't get shaken down by the IRS, like
> you and I do.   If that's what you mean, then your posting is motivated
> by envy, rather than reason.
> 

Envy?  Heck, no!  If they win their lawsuit, they get "church non-profit
status".  This means, of course, that not only does the government pay to
support a religious movement, they cannot tax that money either!

>    Someone not getting shaken down by the IRS !=3D "our tax dollars going 
> to support" that someone.

Not getting "shaken down"?  Heck, its high time Scientology really *did* get
shaken down by the IRS.  Only they won't, 'cause if the IRS loses, the IRS
loses the chance to tax this cult which has no business claiming "non-profit"
status, what with all the cash they suck from normal people claiming the normal
people need curing from some internal disease.  Think of it as being an
extremely expensive and much, much longer ("you won't get cured unless you pay
an additional $8000 above the $50,000 you've paid so far just to become a
convert.") version of the engram curing done by Spock's half-brother in Star
Trek V.  Scientology is a crackpot movement out to beat the records of all the
televangelists, all the Moonies, even the DEA's Federal Drug Forfeiture Fund,
and they above all else deserve all the taxation they can get.  Only they won't
get taxed, like every ultra-rich person before them, 'cause rich people can pay
or sue to pay much less than anyone else, and Scientology has no end of suckers
ready to pay to let Scientology keep on getting richer.

>  Along the same lines, someone else being 
> able to walk through a park without being robbed, does not mean that
> you (who does often get robbed) are less safe, and will have more taken
> from you because of the first party's safety.
> 

Analogy fails, BEEEP!  Scientology is like a man walking through a park with a
very large gun, and enough cash in the bank to pay off any court charges of
manslaughter without having to go to prison.  I'm envious, to be sure, but it
ain't the same as some average guy doing the same stuff...

> Only by the logic of envy are you elevated when someone else is hurt.
> 

In Scientology's case, that's B.S.

> 			Jim Del Vecchio

Leo Mauler
kudwarf@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu