« AnteriorContinuar »
church by endorsing over to it the check from the IRS representing the return on his personal income tax. Is there not a possibility that the IRS could hold that this was a primary or secondary government
benefit and proceed against that church?
I am equally concerned about the question of whether or not
unintentional racial or sexual discrimination should trigger the
possibilty of private law suits against private entrepreneurs who
never intended their actions to be discriminatory. Of course, this
raises a question of whether the new law would regulate intentional
discrimination or use the so-called "effects test."
I plead with this Committee to have all of these questions answered clearly and without equivocation before this Bw reaches the
floor of the Senate.
Of course, this question is also complicated by
the coverage of the Bil for indirect aid as well as direct assistance.
All of these things create the possibility of an insurmountable mountain
of litigation which, in and of itself, threatens the very exdstence of
many institutions in this country.
Maybe I should conclude by quoting something which has been
quoted a number of times already, the statement by Harvard Law
School Professor Charles Fried in his testimony on May 30 before
Senator Hatch's Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution in which
Professor Fried said of S. 2568:
This Bill represents our legislative
Members of this Committee, I could talk for hours from
experience that the American people are just about fed-up with
over-taxation, over-regulation, and the legal plunder that is
represented with this kind of legislation.
I respectfully suggest to you that if most of the kinds of
legislation which have been passed in the name of Civil Rights, except
that which is aimed at specific acts of intentional discrimination, were
put to the American people in the form of a referendum, the over
whelming majority of Americans would vote to repeal much of this
In conclusion, I simply ask you to consider:
is the means as
laudable as the end?
I hope you believe as I do, and as do most
Americans, that the end does not justify the means.
TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN D. STANARD III DIRECTOR, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, NATIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE
before SEN. ORRIN HATCH AND THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
I am Rev. John D. Stanard III and the Director of the newly formed Church of Scientology, National Public Affairs Office located here in Washington, D.C. I thank you for this opportunity to compent on the important topic of religious liberty and I offer what I believe is a unique perspective which my Church has on these matters.
Religious Liberty brings back vivid images of the Children of Isreal driven into the desert for forty year's seeking a promised land and suffering privations of magnitude in order to obtain that promised land.
Religious Liberty brings to mind the fight that Christ had bringing his wisdom to earth when he had but 12 followers, one of whom betrayed all of the rest. The State assisted in his crucifixion.
In America one can find the attacks on the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who were ordered exterminated by Governor Boggs. Their founder Joseph Smith was slain by assassins bullets and the State sanctioned the action. A people were driven from their homes that they had salvaged from swampland and made fertile and they were driven out and went to the land of Deseret in Utah.
In the 1950's our religious beliefs and practices came upon the forefront of American thought. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Scientology religion, published his first work on the mind and spirit of man, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The book offered a new approach to many of the ills and aggravations of man based on the mind and spirit. Almost immediately Hubbard
and the newly formed Church of Scientology came under vicious attacks from the Medical/Mental Health establishment, namely the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and other such groups.
It quickly became apparent that our new religion had run afoul of men actually opposed to religion and spiritual thought. Institutional Psychiatry, formed in such groups as the World Federation of Mental Health, had actually articulated anti-religious plans many years prior to the formation of our Church. In the 1940's Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, a former President of the WFMH and a leading spokesman for the Institutional Psychiatric movement, stated that the primary goals of psychiatry were the elimination of morality, including such harmful concepts as 'right' and 'wrong', and the "infiltration" of the religious, legal and educational professions. Dr. Chisholm called the teachings at Sunday schools and given by Miristers "poisonous certainties".
As an alternative to religious teaching and morality, Dr. Chisholm offered electro-shock, psycho-surgery (lobotomy), chemical shock, hypno and narco analysis and other gruesome "therapies". The Church of Scientology was, and to this day is, one of the most outspoken critics of these dangerous and morally repugnant practices. Unfortunately for us, the proponents of this lucrative trade have friends in governments around the world whom they have been able to manipulate to serve their own ends.
Thus began a long saga of confrontations for survival between my Church and the sometimes hidden forces of Institutional Psychiatry. Thus began a psychiatric disinformation campaign of magnitude which, continuing to this day, has included the creation of large dossiers of false and misleading information within many federal agencies. One for one these dossiers contain misleading, irrelevant and false information about the Church, its beliefs and practices. This information is freely passed between the agencies and often transmitted outside the country to foreign governments - usually with disastrous results.
* In 1963, spurred on by vested interest of the
Mental Health establishment, the Food and Drug
Administration in Washington, D.C. raided the Founding Church of Scientology seizing confessional aids used on Scientology spiritual counselling as well as all written materials used by Scientologists in the practice of their faith. Counselling sessions were broken up by Deputy Marshalls and the entire Church building was ransacked.
The FDA based the raid on the false assumption that our Church promoted medical cures from our spiritual counselling. This false information was supplied by certain psychiatrists antagonistic to Scientology and our spiritual counselling methods.
It took 10 years of hard fought and expensive litigation to win back the right to use our confessional aids and religious materials.
* In the late 1960's, false and misleading information
in the FDA files was sent to Mental Health authorities in Australia, again at the urging of certain U.S. psychiatrists. This information was used to actually outlaw the practice of Scientology in two Australian States.
Although the law was rescinded in 1973, and formal apology made to the Church by the Premier of Western Australia, much damage was done.
* In 1977 two of our U.S. Churches were raided. One
of the instructions given the raiding agents was to look for and seize any files containing material about the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. While a few overzealous staff, weary of the long years of harassments, did violate the law in their attempts to uncover the false dossiers maintained by many agencies, the raid itself as executed was needlessly brutal. 135 agents conducted what many have called the largest raid in FBI history.
* One of our organizations located in Guatemala