• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • HOME
  • ABOUT CHINA
    • NEWS
    • TESTIMONIES
    • OP-EDS
    • FEATURED
    • GLOSSARY
    • CHINA PERSECUTION MAP
  • FROM THE WORLD
    • NEWS GLOBAL
    • TESTIMONIES GLOBAL
    • OP-EDS GLOBAL
    • FEATURED GLOBAL
  • INTERVIEWS
  • DOCUMENTS AND TRANSLATIONS
    • DOCUMENTS
    • THE TAI JI MEN CASE
    • TRANSLATIONS
    • EVENTS
  • ABOUT
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • TOPICS

Bitter Winter

A magazine on religious liberty and human rights

three friends of winter
Home / From the World / Featured Global

Scientology, Secular Courts, and Disconnection/Fair Game Policies. 5. Are Scientology Policies “Illegal”?

11/15/2022Massimo Introvigne |

None of the ethics policies of the Church of Scientology can be regarded as being against the laws of a democratic country.

by Massimo Introvigne

Article 5 of 5. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4.

Scientology’s Youth for Human Rights March Against Discrimination. Source: Scientology Newsroom.
Scientology’s Youth for Human Rights March Against Discrimination. Source: Scientology Newsroom.

This series has examined three crucial aspects of the ethics of Scientology: the distinction between its internal ecclesiastical courts and its relationship with secular justice; the fair game policy; and the policy asking Scientologists to “disconnect” from those non-Scientologists who have been declared “suppressive persons.”

In conclusion, I would argue that nothing in these three sets of practices can be regarded as illegal under the laws of any democratic country respectful of the principle of freedom of religion or belief. What can be illegal may be the behavior of individual Scientologists who breach the laws of their countries. However, they do so not in furtherance of, but against what they have been taught by Scientology. The Church of Scientology is a large group, and no human organization is composed of saints only. As it happens in all other religions, there are those who disregard the official teachings and commit crimes. Of these crimes, however, the religions are not responsible.

In a democratic country, the state or secular courts have no business in interfering with the internal judicial system of a religion, be it Catholic Canon Law or the ethics system of Scientology. Interference is prohibited by international principles of freedom of religion or belief, as courts in several countries have consistently affirmed. The religious liberty of those Scientology parishioners who do not like how the judicial committees of their religion function is not violated, as they remain free to leave Scientology, join another religion, or establish a new church.

As for the relationships between Scientologists and secular courts, there are texts by Hubbard criticizing those non-Scientologists who denounce Scientologists with the devious aim of destroying Scientology. They are included among the suppressive persons. What these texts do not say, however, is that Scientologists should not report crimes committed by co-religionists when such reports are mandated by the law. Hubbard was always careful to punctuate all statements on ethics with the caveat that the laws of the land should always be respected. Again, if some individual Scientologists did not respect the laws on mandatory reports of crimes they did so against their church’s teachings.

The “fair game policy” was introduced by Hubbard in 1965 and cancelled in 1968. Critics continue to call “fair game” any activity by Scientology in response to hostility and harassment, because “fair game” immediately suggests something sinister and illegal. However, not only the policy has not been in force in Scientology in the last 54 years, but in its 1965 formulation it stated that those who had tried to destroy Scientology and had been abused by Scientologists in retaliation cannot find redress from Scientology’s internal Ethical Committees. It did not say that illegal actions should not be punished by secular courts, and all Scientology documents that mentioned fair game insisted that Scientologists should respect the law of the land in all cases.

An image of L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960s. Source: lronhubbard.org.
An image of L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960s. Source: lronhubbard.org.

The non-Scientologists (who may be ex-Scientologists) who try to destroy Scientology are declared “suppressive persons.” Those Scientologists who continue to associate with their friends and relatives who have been declared “suppressive persons” are called “potential trouble sources.” After a process in which the policy was introduced, cancelled, then introduced again, Hubbard concluded that Scientology could not function properly if the potential trouble sources continued to be in touch and be influenced by the suppressive person. The policy of disconnection mandates that Scientologists in good standing should “disconnect,” i.e., cease to associate with their friends or relatives who have been identified as suppressive persons.

Is this illegal? Happily, there is a vast corpus of court decisions in several jurisdictions, including the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts, and courts in Italy, Belgium, Germany and other countries on a similar but not identical policy, the so-called shunning or ostracism practiced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The latter teach that members in good standing should cease any association with those who have been expelled (disfellowshipped) or have formally left the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with the sole exception of cohabiting relatives. This policy has a larger scope than disconnection in Scientology. Jehovah’s Witnesses should cease their association with all those who have formally left the faith (as opposite to simply becoming inactive) or have been disfellowshipped, which happens because of serious transgressions, even if these ex-members are not exhibiting any hostility towards their former religion. Scientologists are requested to disconnect only from those who have been declared suppressive, i.e., those who are militantly hostile to Scientology and “try to destroy” it.

Anti-cultists attack shunning as practiced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses with arguments similar to those they use against disconnection in Scientology. But they have lost dozens of court cases. From Facebook.
Anti-cultists attack shunning as practiced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses with arguments similar to those they use against disconnection in Scientology. But they have lost dozens of court cases. From Facebook.

Given this larger scope of the shunning policy among the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the legal decisions declaring that the policy is not illegal and is protected by the principle of freedom of religion are relevant precedents also for disconnection as practiced by Scientology. The scope of the two policies is different, but the rationale for protecting them is the same.

Basically, the courts that have declared Jehovah’s Witnesses’s shunning not illegal have relied on three arguments. First, shunning is a religious practice based on theological principles that the Jehovah’s Witnesses regard as essential. Freedom of religion or belief prevents secular courts from second-guessing or reinterpreting the Jehovah’s Witnesses theology, or interfere with their religious practices.

Second, those who are disfellowshipped or subject to shunning often complain to secular courts that their religious liberty to continue to be part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has been violated. Courts have consistently answered that there is no right to be part of a religious organization whose doctrines one no longer agrees with. The religious liberty of the disfellowshipped or shunned members is not denied, as nothing prevents them to join or establish a separate religion with different practices.

Third, courts have observed that they do not have the power to compel citizens to associate with certain persons they no longer want to see. Ex-spouses and their closest friends or relatives often “shun” their former husbands or wives. Courts of law cannot compel them to behave otherwise, nor can secular judges compel Jehovah’s Witnesses to continue their associations with relatives or friends who have left the faith.

Obviously, all the three arguments also apply to disconnection as practiced by the Church of Scientology. Hubbard’s statement that citizens of a free country have both the right to communicate and not to communicate has been vindicated in dozen of court cases about the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ policy of shunning.

Tagged With: Church of Scientology

Massimo Introvigne
Massimo Introvigne

Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio.  From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.

www.cesnur.org/

Related articles

  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 1. The Aesthetic Mind

    L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 1. The Aesthetic Mind

  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 5. Professionals vs. Amateurs

    L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 5. Professionals vs. Amateurs

  • L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication

    L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and the Visual Arts. 3. Art as Communication

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 1. La mente estetica

    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 1. La mente estetica

Keep Reading

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 7. Artisti Scientologist
    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 7. Artisti Scientologist

    Tramite i suoi Centri delle Celebrità, Scientology coltiva consapevolmente il rapporto con gli artisti, che si tratti di superstar dell’arte o di pittori “commerciali”.

  • Scientology, tribunales laicos y políticas de desconexión/caza no vedada. 5. ¿Son “ilegales” las políticas de Scientology?
    Scientology, tribunales laicos y políticas de desconexión/caza no vedada. 5. ¿Son “ilegales” las políticas de Scientology?

    Ninguna de las políticas de la Iglesia de Scientology pueden considerarse que están en contra de las leyes de un país democrático.

  • Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 5. Sind Scientology-Richtlinien „illegal“?
    Scientology, weltliche Gerichte und Trennungs-/Fair-Game-Richtlinie. 5. Sind Scientology-Richtlinien „illegal“?

    Keine der Ethikrichtlinien der Scientology Kirche kann als gegen die Gesetze eines demokratischen Landes verstoßend angesehen werden.

  • Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 3. L’arte come comunicazione
    Hubbard, Scientology e le arti figurative. 3. L’arte come comunicazione

    Per il fondatore di Scientology, se la tecnica mette in pericolo la trasmissione del messaggio, l’artista dovrebbe cambiare la tecnica piuttosto che il messaggio.

Primary Sidebar

Support Bitter Winter

Learn More

Follow us

Newsletter

Most Read

  • Blaming the Victims: The Hamburg Shooting and the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Massimo Introvigne
  • More Uyghur Criticism of Donnie Yen: Wasn’t He More Guilty than Will Smith? by Kok Bayraq
  • The Suicide of the Pink-Haired Girl: How the CCP Exploited a Tragedy by Zhou Kexin
  • Censorship Frenzy: Do Not Search for “2952” in China or You Will Get Into Trouble  by Tan Liwei
  • Russia: Pastor Moskvitin Sentenced to 1.5 Years in Penal Colony for “Brainwashing” by Massimo Introvigne
  • Empowering the Next Generation of Uyghurs to Challenge China’s Genocide by Marco Respinti
  • China’s New Crackdown Targets “Self-Media” by Zhou Kexin

CHINA PERSECUTION MAP -SEARCH NEWS BY REGION

clickable geographical map of china, with regions

Footer

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

MASSIMO INTROVIGNE

Director-in-Charge

MARCO RESPINTI

ADDRESS

CESNUR

Via Confienza 19,

10121 Turin, Italy,

Phone: 39-011-541950

E-MAIL

We welcome submission of unpublished contributions, news, and photographs. Each submission implies the authorization for us to edit and publish texts and photographs. We reserve the right to decide which submissions are suitable for publication. Please, write to INFO@BITTERWINTER.ORG Thank you.

Newsletter

LINKS

orlir-logo hrwf-logo cesnur-logo

Copyright © 2023 · Bitter Winter · PRIVACY POLICY· COOKIE POLICY