A TRIAL is set to begin in France next week that could result in the Church of Scientology being shut down in the country.
The case against the cult has been brought by barrister Olivier Morice on behalf of a 43-year-old housewife who claims to have been duped into spending 25,000 euros on medicines, tapes, books and other useless bits of Scientologist crap.
Said Morice:
She was humiliated and defrauded.
Although cases have been brought against individual Scientologists in France in the past, this is the first time that the cult itself is being put on trial. If Morice wins the case, its entire operation could be in jeopardy in France.
In an interview with Channel 4 news, Danielle Gounard, a representative of the “church”, said allegations that that Scientology exists only to “target vulnerable people in order to take money from them” was “bullshit”.
You can see the full Channel 4 report here.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
There are two kinds of Scientologists. There are the confidence swindlers who run the cult, whose role models are Benito Mussolini, Al Capone, Pope Pius IX, P. T. Barnum, Hans Christian Anderson, Jules Verne, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and their new hero, Bernard Madoff. And there are the cabbage-brained suckers whom the hierarchs fleece, whose current poster boy is Tom Cruise but by all logic should be Neville Chamberlain.
My guess is that the Catholic Church will do everything in its power to prevent Scientology from being convicted. For if using science fiction fairy tales to fleece the intellectually challenged is criminalized, it will remind Catholics that their church's own glass house is not shatterproof.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:36 am
While it would be great if France was targeting Scientology because it "targets vulnerable people in order to take money from them" (although the assertion that it's only because of this is dubious; I have no doubt that there are plenty of sincere Scientologists who just want to spread the word), I think it may be less about protecting people and more about protecting the interests of another religion-which-shall-not-be-named that also "targets vulnerable people in order to take money from them".
May 24th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Yes, I think it is duplicitous (not defending scientology, mind) to name one church in this way and not all of them. Of course there is one that pretty much controls France.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
“target vulnerable people in order to take money from them” was “bullshit”. Er….. wasn't it Hubbard himself who said something like "the best way to make money was to start your own religion".
May 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Surely all 'religions' are mind control cults?
May 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
The implications for the longer established religions are obvious if the French decide to sanction Scientology in any way. However it is interesting to consider how well the Catholic Church has set itself up to be almost invulnerable to legal action by pretending that Vatican City is a separate country. The recent report on child abuse in Ireland highlights just how well the Vatican has stitched up the system so that the perpetrators are beyond the reach of the law.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Absolutely – and hymns, prayers, sermons, meditation, etc, are the means they use to effect this control! It`s all brainwashing and self-hypnosis, but no one will admit it, as with the Emperor`s New Clothes!! ALL religions start out as a "cult", so the only distinction is in numbers of adherents – when your sect becomes big enough you become a "religion" – bingo!!!
May 24th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
You make the mistake of accepting the pretence that Scientology is a religion. Scientology is no more a religion than Marxism, psychoanalysis and UFOlogy are religions. Certainly Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and J. Allen Hynek employed the trappings of religion in perpetrating their mind-crippling hoaxes. But they did not pretend that they were conduits for a metaphysical higher power — and neither did L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard did claim to have communicated with intelligent aliens, and that made him the same kind of liar as Ellen White, Charles Russell, Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith. But all of those humbugs claimed to be speaking for entities that cannot exist because their abilities to violate the laws of biophysics cannot exist. Hubbard's aliens are as nonexistent as gods, angels or ghosts, but they do not constitute the "[s]he who must be obeyed" that is the definitive requirement of a religion. Catholicism and Scientology are confidence swindles, and anyone who does not know which is the greater evil has been living on another planet. But Catholicism conforms to the definition of a religion. Scientology does not.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Since when is it a crime to “target vulnerable people in order to take money from them”, and how does this not apply to pretty much every business enterprise in existence?
May 25th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Our surname is Hubbard. We live in a big city with many roads. One such road, where we live, also contains a Scientology outpost. For what it's worth, we got there first!
One day a stranger phoned my husband. She was unhappy, insecure and vulnerable, and had the notion that Scientology might be able to help her, but misdirected herself to our phone number instead of theirs. He took a deep breath … and when he'd finished, she thanked him for explaining about Scientologists and helping her to avoid them.
Let's chalk up a minor success …
May 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
If you are right Dr. Harwood, that sort of pulls the rug from under my comment about longer established religions below. But I'm not convinced that religion can be that clearly defined. Doesn't Buddhism qualify as a religion despite not recognising a higher power? In fact I would define Buddhism as more of a philosophy similar to Confusionism were it not for the beleif in unsubstantiated nonsense such as reincarnation which to me makes it a religion. On the other hand it is fairly obvious that Scientology is cynically posing as a religion rather than actually being one.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Uzza, normal legitimate business practice is usually that you pay your money and get something useful in return. How much you pay and what you get for your money is usually known up front. Businesses that don't abide by this rule generally have a limited shelf life as word gets around that they are dishonest and not good people to do business with. I don't think any of this applies to Scientology's racket.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Stonyground: your point being …?
May 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
The point being that comparing Scientology with a legitamate business is nonsensical.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
According to this article, the woman paid money and got in return books, tapes, and medicine. Now she is experiencing buyer's remorse. Scientology's racket is well-known, and although I didn't watch the video, there is nothing in the article indicating other than a normal legitimate business practice. The court case is about fraud and illegal practice of pharmacy, neither of which the article even mentions.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Scientology is an evil money making, brain taking, CULT!! Jesus blood was tested!!!
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/videos.htm
June 8th, 2009 at 12:52 am
no it doesn't because you choose to buy the product perhaps. In the catholic church they kinda force(and advertisement isn't forcing you to buy it,it just lets you know that product exists) it on you like they did to my generation. Thankfully My parents raised me to be an individual thinker