[Note: typos preserved.]
The Australian, 28 Oct 1983
Scientology is a religious institution and exempt from State payroll tax, the High Court ruled unanimously yesterday.
It was the first time that the court came head on with the question "What is religion?". All the judges rejected the view that belief in a supreme being was essential to religion.
Justices Mason and Brennan, in a joint judgment, stressed the importance of the case in determining fundamental questions of religious freedom in Australia and the extent to which an individual is free to believe and act without legal restraint.
Mr Justice Murphy stressed the need to treat all religions equally, but indicated his distaste for religious tax exemptions by saying, "The crushing burden of taxation is heavier because of exemptions in favour of religious institutions, many of which have enormous and increasing wealth."
Justices Wilson and Deane stressed the need to match the evidence of the beliefs in question with the five or six main characteristics of the world's major religions.
All the judges said it was immaterial that the adherents might be misguided, illogical or gullible or that the leaders of the claimed religion had ultieroir purposes of power or commerce.
The case began when the Victorian Commissioner for Payroll Tax assessed the Church of the New Faith (the Scientologists) for $70 in payroll tax.
The Scientologists objected saying they were exempt under a clause referring to "religious institutions". Mr Justice Crockett in the Victorian Supreme Court and later three judges of the Full Supreme Court ruled against the Scientologists.
As a result of yesterday's ruling, those judgments were overturned and the commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of all three proceedings.
Justices Mason and Brennan said, "Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint."
The definition affected the operation of the religious-freedom guarantee under the Constitution and many other laws granting religions special benefits.
The question of religion had received little judicial attention in Australia; it was time to grapple with it.
Religious freedom in Australia would be subverted if freedom of religion excluded minority religions which needed special protection.
"Protection is accorded to preserve the dignity and freedom of each man so that he may adhere to any religion of his choosing or to none," they said. "The freedom of religion being equally conferred on all, the variety of religious beliefs which are within the area of legal immunity is not restricted."
The judges stressed the importance of the actions of the adherents rather than the dogma itself.
"The question whether Scientology is a religion cannot be answered," they said. The question which could be answered was whether the beliefs, practices and observances as established by evidence as being accepted by Scientologists were properly described as a religion.
The criteria of religion, for the purposes of the law were twofold: "first belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion," such as the Mormon attitude to polygamy or the Jehovah's Witnesses pacifist ideals in time of legal prohibition against subverting the war effort.
They found parts of the writings of Scientology's founder, Mr Ron Hubbard, "impenetrably obscure", but Mr Hubbard's position was not critical. What mattered was "that the general group of adherents practise 'auditing' and accept other practices and observances of Scientology because, in doing what Mr Hubbard bids or advises them to do, they perceive themselves to be giving effect to their supernatural beliefs."
They referred to the commercial aspect of Scientology and the fact adherents had to pay for training but said, "Whatever be intentions of Mr Hubbard and whatever be the motivation of the [Church] corporation, the state of the evidence in this case requires a finding that the general group of adherents have a religion."
Mr Justice Murphy said, "The truth or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or the courts. If each purported religion had to show that its doctrines were true, then all might fail."
Administrators and judges must not discount groups because their practices seemed absurd, fraudulent, evil or novel.
"In the eyes of the law, religions are equal," he said. "The policy of the law is 'one in, all in'."
There was no single acceptable criterion of what was a religion. It was better to isolate sufficient conditions rather than necessary conditions.
He gave a very wide view as to what might be a religion.
"Any body which claims to be religious, and offers a way to find meaning and purpose to life, is religious," he said. "The list is not exhaustive; the categories of religion are not closed."
Justices Wilson and Deane isolated several characteristics: belief in supernatural, ideas on man's nature and place in the universe, codes of conduct, adherents being an identifiable group and adherents seeing their group as a religion. Most of these were satisfied by most of the world's main religions. The more of these that were satisfied, the more likely it was a religion. This was the case with Scientology.
It was important to treat it as a question of arid characterisation without looking at the utility, worth or quality of the ideas.