Eric Hill of Commonwealth Times wrote an article, titled “Scientology Redux”, concerning the conviction of the Church of Scientology for fraud in France. Here is an excerpt:

I will not attack Scientology in particular because a “cult” only remains a “cult” until it becomes popular (Christianity was once a cult, as was Islam).

I posted a comment, and for whatever reason, it was not accepted for publication. Here is my answer to him:

I don’t understand your point.

Scientology wasn’t convicted because it was a “cult,” it was convicted because of its conduct, that is, engaging in fraud (admittedly a common occurrence in cults.)

It’s not just France courts that think religion is not a valid defense against unlawful conduct, the U.S. Supreme Court said so also in 1988 (Ref.: “Church Can Be Sued on Recruiting – Beliefs Protected but Not Conduct, Justices Rule”)

Why would you characterize a fraud conviction as an “attack”? Are you of the opinion that the U.S “attacked” Bernard Madoff by convicting him?

My comment wasn’t accepted for publication, hence I publish it here myself.

While at it, I will comment further. Farther in his article, he states:

An individual cannot be critical of another person’s fiction while clutching to their own without being a hypocrite; simply because one fiction may seem more plausible or desirable.

I find this part rather puzzling, since in his original article, “Too dumb to defraud: Why Scientology should not be persecuted as a cult”, he implies that Scientology followers are “dumb,” “fool”:

Honestly though, after having been read by the e-meter myself, it’s my opinion that you are fool if you think a low level voltmeter indicates your spiritual health.

In short, Eric Hill, of the Commonwealth Times, says that Scientology followers are “dumb,” “fool,” and later he lectures people that they shouldn’t be critical of someone else’s fiction. Did he just end up tagging himself as “hypocrite” here?