20 ICSA TODAY
Mormons did) into the 0.8% system. This is a peculiar Italian
system wherein each taxpayer should devote 0.8% of his
taxes either to a religious body or to the national public-
charity system by selecting the preferred institution’s box on
the tax form. Unlike in Germany, taxpayers who fail to mark a
choice do not keep the money instead, it is divided between
the different bodies according to their national percentage
scores unless they have explicitly declared that they want
to keep only the 0.8% of those who select their name. For
example, if one does not select any option and the Catholic
Church option is chosen by 90% of those who do mark an
option, and the Baptist Church is chosen by 2%, then 90%
of the 0.8% of taxes paid by the nonchooser will go to the
Catholic Church, 2% of the 0.8% will go to the Baptist Church,
and so on. Most churches advertise through TV and other
campaigns to capture the 0.8%. Only a minority selects the
state charities, which are often plagued by scandals.
Before 2012, churches with Intese included Waldensians (the
oldest Italian Protestant community) and Methodists (1984),
Seventh-day Adventists (1986), Assemblies of God (1986), the
Jewish Communities (1987), Baptists (1993), and Lutherans
(1993). In 2012, Apostolic Pentecostals and Greek Orthodox
were also included. The Catholic Church has a Concordat,
something more than the Intese, with a constitutional status
that protects it from interferences by the Italian judiciary,
and it gets a large majority of the 0.8% tax money. Jehovah’s
Witnesses are next in line for a final approval of their Intesa,
although in their case opposition also exists. The fact that
the system of the Intese in 2012 was extended to include
Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists was presented by the
Observatory as quite significant, and as an example of how
traditions that are not indigenous to a certain country may
be accommodated and even regarded as valuable partners
by the governments.
In my view, another positive feature of the Italian system is
the fact that the Constitution, by not defining the notion
of religion, allows for a broader and evolving recognition
of what groups the community of scholars may recognize
as inherently religious over the course of time. I am aware
that every mention of Scientology may open a floodgate of
controversies. But it is also true that in this field the landmark
case in Italy is the Supreme Court (i.e., the Corte di Cassazione,
in fact the Supreme Court in Italy in matters of law, while the
Constitutional Court is the Supreme Court in interpreting the
Constitution) decision of October 8, 1997, which annulled
for the second time a Milan appeal decision that regarded
Scientology as not religious. This 1997 decision led to a third
Milan decision, which on October 7, 2000, finally declared
Scientology a religion. What is important here, in my opinion,
is not whether the judges had their facts about Scientology
right. Some may doubt that this was the case, and the debate
does not belong to the subject matter of this presentation.
Rather, what is relevant is the judges’ general comments
about the advantages of broader definitions of religion.
The Supreme Court regarded the theistic definition of
religion used by the Milan courts against Scientology, which
defines religion as the organization of a relationship between
human beings and a personal God, as “unacceptable” and
“a mistake” because it was “based only on the paradigm
of Biblical religions.” As such, the Supreme Court noted,
the definition would exclude inter alia Buddhism, which
“certainly does not affirm the existence of a Supreme Being
and, as a consequence, does not propose a direct relation
of the human being with Him.” Yet, few in Italy would doubt
that Buddhism is a religion.
It is true, the Supreme Court observed, that “the self-
definition of a group as religious is not enough in order to
recognize it as a genuine religion.” But although self-definition
may not be crucial, neither is the prevailing opinion among
the general population or in the media. The appeal to the
“common opinion” in order to decide whether or not a group
is a religion, a criterion used in the past by the Supreme
Court itself, should be, according to the 1997 decision,
qualified. The relevant common opinion, according to the
Supreme Court, is “the opinion of the scholars” rather than
the “public opinion.” Media, in particular, were regarded as
not particularly relevant. The public opinion, the Court said,
is normally hostile to religious minorities additionally, it is
quite difficult to ascertain, while the opinion prevailing in the
community of scholars is at least easier to know. And most
scholars, according to the Supreme Court, seem to prefer a
definition of religion broad enough to include Scientology.
This definition recognizes as a religion any group organized
in order to spread and ritually celebrate answers to the
fundamental questions about the nature of human life and
death, answers that are not purely scientific but involve
nondemonstrable beliefs about some sort of supernatural
agency.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court addressed the objection
that texts by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), the founder
of Scientology, and by some early Italian leaders seem to
imply that Scientology’s basic aim is to make money. Such
These risks are the
price to pay for the
benefit of living in a free
society, which recognizes
religious liberty as the
cornerstone of most
other liberties.
Mormons did) into the 0.8% system. This is a peculiar Italian
system wherein each taxpayer should devote 0.8% of his
taxes either to a religious body or to the national public-
charity system by selecting the preferred institution’s box on
the tax form. Unlike in Germany, taxpayers who fail to mark a
choice do not keep the money instead, it is divided between
the different bodies according to their national percentage
scores unless they have explicitly declared that they want
to keep only the 0.8% of those who select their name. For
example, if one does not select any option and the Catholic
Church option is chosen by 90% of those who do mark an
option, and the Baptist Church is chosen by 2%, then 90%
of the 0.8% of taxes paid by the nonchooser will go to the
Catholic Church, 2% of the 0.8% will go to the Baptist Church,
and so on. Most churches advertise through TV and other
campaigns to capture the 0.8%. Only a minority selects the
state charities, which are often plagued by scandals.
Before 2012, churches with Intese included Waldensians (the
oldest Italian Protestant community) and Methodists (1984),
Seventh-day Adventists (1986), Assemblies of God (1986), the
Jewish Communities (1987), Baptists (1993), and Lutherans
(1993). In 2012, Apostolic Pentecostals and Greek Orthodox
were also included. The Catholic Church has a Concordat,
something more than the Intese, with a constitutional status
that protects it from interferences by the Italian judiciary,
and it gets a large majority of the 0.8% tax money. Jehovah’s
Witnesses are next in line for a final approval of their Intesa,
although in their case opposition also exists. The fact that
the system of the Intese in 2012 was extended to include
Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists was presented by the
Observatory as quite significant, and as an example of how
traditions that are not indigenous to a certain country may
be accommodated and even regarded as valuable partners
by the governments.
In my view, another positive feature of the Italian system is
the fact that the Constitution, by not defining the notion
of religion, allows for a broader and evolving recognition
of what groups the community of scholars may recognize
as inherently religious over the course of time. I am aware
that every mention of Scientology may open a floodgate of
controversies. But it is also true that in this field the landmark
case in Italy is the Supreme Court (i.e., the Corte di Cassazione,
in fact the Supreme Court in Italy in matters of law, while the
Constitutional Court is the Supreme Court in interpreting the
Constitution) decision of October 8, 1997, which annulled
for the second time a Milan appeal decision that regarded
Scientology as not religious. This 1997 decision led to a third
Milan decision, which on October 7, 2000, finally declared
Scientology a religion. What is important here, in my opinion,
is not whether the judges had their facts about Scientology
right. Some may doubt that this was the case, and the debate
does not belong to the subject matter of this presentation.
Rather, what is relevant is the judges’ general comments
about the advantages of broader definitions of religion.
The Supreme Court regarded the theistic definition of
religion used by the Milan courts against Scientology, which
defines religion as the organization of a relationship between
human beings and a personal God, as “unacceptable” and
“a mistake” because it was “based only on the paradigm
of Biblical religions.” As such, the Supreme Court noted,
the definition would exclude inter alia Buddhism, which
“certainly does not affirm the existence of a Supreme Being
and, as a consequence, does not propose a direct relation
of the human being with Him.” Yet, few in Italy would doubt
that Buddhism is a religion.
It is true, the Supreme Court observed, that “the self-
definition of a group as religious is not enough in order to
recognize it as a genuine religion.” But although self-definition
may not be crucial, neither is the prevailing opinion among
the general population or in the media. The appeal to the
“common opinion” in order to decide whether or not a group
is a religion, a criterion used in the past by the Supreme
Court itself, should be, according to the 1997 decision,
qualified. The relevant common opinion, according to the
Supreme Court, is “the opinion of the scholars” rather than
the “public opinion.” Media, in particular, were regarded as
not particularly relevant. The public opinion, the Court said,
is normally hostile to religious minorities additionally, it is
quite difficult to ascertain, while the opinion prevailing in the
community of scholars is at least easier to know. And most
scholars, according to the Supreme Court, seem to prefer a
definition of religion broad enough to include Scientology.
This definition recognizes as a religion any group organized
in order to spread and ritually celebrate answers to the
fundamental questions about the nature of human life and
death, answers that are not purely scientific but involve
nondemonstrable beliefs about some sort of supernatural
agency.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court addressed the objection
that texts by L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), the founder
of Scientology, and by some early Italian leaders seem to
imply that Scientology’s basic aim is to make money. Such
These risks are the
price to pay for the
benefit of living in a free
society, which recognizes
religious liberty as the
cornerstone of most
other liberties.
