Scientology Debate Down Under

Senator Nick Xenophon demanded an investigation of the Church of Scientology. He asserted: "I also believe the activities of this organisation should be scrutinised by parliament because Australian taxpayers are, in effect, supporting Scientology through its tax-exempt status. I say to all Australians: as you fill in your tax return next July or August, ask yourself how you feel knowing that you are paying tax and yet this criminal organisation is not.
"Do you want Australian tax exemptions to be supporting an organisation that coerces its followers into having abortions? Do you want to be supporting an organisation that defrauds, that blackmails, that falsely imprisons? Because, on the balance of evidence provided by victims of Scientology, you probably are."

There are two articles that summarize the issues available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-take-up-scientology-complaints/story-e6frg6nf-1225799494770
and
http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26378104-5014047,00.html.

I am not a supporter of Scientology, but the debate raises important questions in the modern world. Can, or should, the government define what is a legitimate religious organization? If so, what criteria do they use? If not, can any organization lay claim to the specific rights of a religious group? Should religious groups be granted tax-exempt status? If so, can any religious group be denied such status? Can, or should, the government forbid particular practices of a religion? If so, what standards should be used? If not, would this open the door to an "anything goes" on the religious front?

Why Go To Church?

In a column at EthicsDaily.com, Barry Howard shares what Teddy Roosevelt said on the subject in a 1917 article in Ladies Home Journal. According to Howard, here are President Rooselvelt's reasons:

1. In the actual world a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid downgrade.

2. Church work and church attendance mean the cultivation of the habit of feeling some responsibility for others and the sense of braced moral strength, which prevents a relaxation of one's own moral fiber.

3. There are enough holidays for most of us that can quite properly be devoted to pure holiday making. Sundays differ from other holidays, among other ways, in the fact that there are 52 of them every year. On Sunday, go to church.

4. Yes, I know all the excuses. I know that one can worship the Creator and dedicate oneself to good living in a grove of trees, or by a running brook, or in one's own house, just as well as in church. But I also know as a matter of cold fact the average man does not thus worship or thus dedicate himself. If he strays away from church, he does not spend his time in good works or lofty meditation. He looks over the colored supplement of the newspaper.

5. He may not hear a good sermon at church. But unless he is very unfortunate, he will hear a sermon by a good man who, with his good wife, is engaged all the week long in a series of wearing, humdrum and important tasks for making hard lives a little easier.

6. He will listen to and take part in reading some beautiful passages from the Bible. And if he is not familiar with the Bible, he has suffered a loss.

7. He will probably take part in singing some good hymns.

8. He will meet and nod to, or speak to, good quiet neighbors. He will come away feeling a little more charitably toward all the world, even toward those excessively foolish young men who regard churchgoing as rather a soft performance.

9. I advocate a man's joining in church works for the sake of showing his faith by his works.

10. The man who does not in some way, active or not, connect himself with some active, working church misses many opportunities for helping his neighbors, and therefore, incidentally, for helping himself.

This is not as snappy as one of Letterman's lists, but do you think any of the reasons are still valid?

The Devil Made Me Properous

In the BostonGlobe is an article [found at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/?page=full] linking religious belief and, most particularly, a belief in hell to developing economies. Quoting from the article by Michael Fitzgerald,
Among the most provocative findings have come from Robert Barro, a renowned economist at Harvard, and his wife, Rachel McCleary, a researcher at Harvard’s Taubman Center. McCleary, the daughter of a Methodist missionary, felt that she had seen religion change people’s economic behavior, and wondered why economists didn’t look at it as a potential factor in economic development. Barro found the idea intriguing.

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.

There is, of course, a classic book by Max Weber entitled The Prostestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in which he relates the work ethic of Calvinistic influenced Protestant Christianity on the work ethic of the people. Simplistically speaking, it was the "work harder to win favor argument."

So, do you think that being a follower of Calvin, or a believer in God, or a fearer of hellfire and damnation makes any difference in economic success?