Each Team Member Should Use This Form To Solicit Donations: Fill & Download for Free

The so-called Rospigliosi Cup, a "masterpiece of the Renaissance jeweler's art" attributed to Benvenuto Cellini and kept at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was actually created by German goldsmith Reinhold Vasters sometime between 1853 and 1890 (11 Masterful Art Forgeries That Completely Duped the Art World).Some analysts believe that 90% of all artifacts and coins sold on internet auctions as genuine are nothing but fakes.[1][1][1][1] A recent report found that only 83 of 2,000—or just over four percent—of the San Franscisco museum's pre-Columbian artifacts could be authenticated and certified as “museum-quality” by an independent team of museum curators who came from Mexico City to conduct the test.[2][2][2][2] The remaining 1,917 items are considered “decorative,” and will likely be given to schools or smaller museums ahead of the museum’s 2019 move from a temporary site in Fort Mason to a permanent home in a tower under construction near SFMOMA.Forgery is far from a modern phenomenon; examples of objects deliberately created to be passed off as a much earlier, and often very valuable, original can be traced back to antiquity. The Apollo of Piombino is a Roman forgery of a much earlier Greek work, complete with a fake inscription. An inscribed cruciform stone from the temple of Shamash, in Sippar, claims to be from somewhere between 2276 to 2261 BCE. Its context, however, dates it from the 7th to 6th century BCE.[3][3][3][3]While fakes and looted artifacts have been a problem on the internet for a long time, two recent factors have combined to increase the problem. First, the proliferation of social media and retail platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, eBay, Amazon, WhatsApp and many others has made it simple for looters to solicit potential buyers directly, often sending messages to members of antiquities groups on Facebook and other sites.Second, ISIS has systematically looted the archaeological sites it has taken over in the last half decade, producing an almost unlimited stream of antiquities that it sells directly over social media.[4][4][4][4] The combination has flooded the internet with questionable antiquities.Neil Brodie, senior research fellow in Endangered Archaeology at the University of Oxford, states there are at least 100,000 antiquities valued at $10 million or more for sale on the internet. Up to 80 percent of those items are estimated to be either looted or fake.[5][5][5][5]Typically, one often thinks of forgeries as paintings, but anything that is collectible and expensive is an attractive item to forge. For example, in recent years researchers at the MFA have tested numerous pieces of simple Neolithic Chinese pottery from the 3rd millennium BC, which have become popular with collectors and have been forged with some success.[6][6][6][6] Often forgers go to great lengths to reproduce the materials and processes, or the appearance, of the appropriate historical period.A Dead Sea Scrolls Forgery Casts Doubt on the Museum of the BibleNot all incorrectly attributed items are intentional forgeries. In the same way that a museum shop might sell a print of a painting or a replica of a vase, copies of statues, paintings and other precious artifacts have been popular through the ages. Some may be easy to spot, but others, perhaps even made in the same studio as the original, are much more difficult.The reasons for perpetrating hoaxes and forgeries range as widely as the kinds of fakes. Common motives for making bogus artifacts include publicity and self-promotion, monetary gain, practical jokes and revenge, but some fakers have had the goal of supporting their own theories about the human past.[7][7][7][7] Fakes have often been inspired by nationalism, with patriotic perpetrators boosting their country through spurious links to past civilizations.[8][8][8][8]People are taken in by hoaxes and fakes for many reasons. Successful bogus artifacts often match expectations or preconceived ideas of antiquities. Spectacular fakes have worked because those who buy them are blinded by their own pride of ownership--and the higher the price tag, the harder it is to make an embarrassing admission that it's a fake.Problematic artifacts are possible only when the importance of regulated, documented excavation is ignored. Acquiring artifacts lacking a reliably documented find spot not only fuels the looting of archaeological sites, but also opens the door wide for the introduction of fakes. Archaeology depends on controlled excavation and meticulous study. By ignoring the due process of research, individuals and institutions have exposed themselves to deceit and, at times, ridicule.The artifact you’re looking at might have been the subject of an intensive scientific study, employing half a dozen different characterization and analysis techniques to determine the date, composition, and method of manufacture. Large databases may have been trawled to find results from similar studies of comparable artifacts from around the world. The combined expertise of art historians, conservators, materials scientists, and museum curators might have been pooled to come to the conclusion that the information on the label is overwhelmingly convincing. Or it might just be that this artifact has evaded attention and is a forgery waiting to be discovered.Small figure from Texcoco, central Mexico, catalogued as the head of a hippopotamus, green serpentine, National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh (Genuine or fake?)There are three kinds of objects in the world of archaeological artefacts.Relics: This is the true original object that has survived in whole or in part from some time in the ancient past. It is an item of interest because it is an object made by or altered by ancient humans in the context of their daily lives.[9][9][9][9]Replicas: This is a reproduction of the original relic in order to duplicate it for open and honest purposes. It is always named as a reproduction, replica, or duplicate. Such duplicates are made where the original is very rare and replacement is impossible. Reproductions of an ancient relic permit it to be displayed at more than one location or to be handled by the public.[10][10][10][10]Fakes: Often referred to as an artefake, it is a replica of an original artefact made with the sole purpose of deceiving others into believing it to be an original relic.[11][11][11][11] Fake artefacts usually have elaborate aging techniques performed on them to make them very difficult to detect.Owning and collecting the artefacts of history has been a strong yearning for many people. The relative rarity of genuine relics makes the temptation of owning one even greater. Authentic items are scarce and very expensive. Forgers have taken advantage of the worldwide hunger for genuine artefacts by recreating them in every way as much like the original as possible so as to dupe buyers and make grand profits.When a museum acquires a large collection of donated antiquities it is not unusual for curators to find that at least a few of them are fake. While the forgery of artifacts is commonplace there are some forgeries that have become extremely famous, often because their authenticity would have had history-changing results. What follows is a brief discussion of several forgeries and frauds that turned archaeology, fine arts and antiquitiy commnities upside down.The mask in its current location (Mask of Agamemnon - Wikipedia).Heinrick Schliemann is charged with manufacturing the famed golden Mask of Agamemnon.[12][12][12][12] This mask is superior in quality to others found and has a peculiar nineteenth century looking moustache on what should be a four thousand year old relic.[13][13][13][13]Getty Kouros (Getty kouros - Wikipedia).In early 1990s, curators and archaeologists from the Getty Museum, began to acknowledge that something was not quite right about several highly publisized and costly statues, artifacts and painting. The authenticity of the kouros (a freestanding Greek sculpture of a naked youth) has been debated since the Getty acquired the object in the mid-1980s for around $9 million. Despite the controversy, the work remained on view at the Los Angeles museum, next to a plaque reading “Greek, about 530 B.C. or modern forgery,”.[14][14][14][14]Following a renovation of the Getty Villa, the sculpture was moved to storage where it will be on view by appointment only. “It’s fake, so it’s not helpful to show it along with authentic material,” said Getty director Timothy Pott. [15][15][15][15] The removal is the final chapter in a decades-long saga that began when the Getty museum performed a battery of scientific tests on the piece to confirm its authenticity prior to purchase, only to buy the work and watch the faith in its authenticity slowly erode over time, the Times reported in 1991.[16][16][16][16] A chemical process that occured on the exterior of the sculpture led scientists to believe the work must have been centuries old, but such a reaction was actually shown to be replicable in a lab. The additional investigation came after an indisputably fake torso similar to that of the Getty Kouros was discovered, causing some experts to reverse their position on the authenticity of the piece. Further investigation revealed that the curator who presented the kouros to the Getty for purchase forged the accompanying provenance documents.[17][17][17][17]A sophisticated forgery ring out of Israel, included respected collectors and registered antiques dealers, made and sold hundreds of ‘ancient’ artefacts over the last twenty years that were not antiquities at all.[18][18][18][18]The bone box, or ossuary, allegedly bearing the Aramaic inscription "Yaakov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua" ("James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") (Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.comThey used refined methods to age items and convinced scholars, museums, and scientists across the world that their discoveries were genuine. Some of the forgeries included an ivory pomegranate said to be the only relic of the Solomonic era, a burial ossuary believed to have held the bones of James the brother of Jesus,[19][19][19][19] and stone tablets that describe how the temple was to be maintained.Believers and scientists alike were shocked by the accusations that not only was the James ossuary a fake but so were two other rare objects of biblical significance: an inscribed pomegranate and the gold-flecked Jehoash tablet, which both supposedly came from Solomon's Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians in the 6th century B.C..[20][20][20][20] Those two relics are linked to Golan's workshop, say police. The debate over the authenticity of these sacred items pitted scientists against believers. She writes, "The faithful — those who believe in a higher, supernatural power that leaves a material record of itself for man to literally hold and behold — must also confront and grapple with the painful presence of doubt."[21][21][21][21]This 1915 painting by John Cooke depicts scientists comparing Piltdown Man's remains to other species. Charles Dawson and Sir Arthur Smith Woodward stand next to each other toward the upper right.(Study reveals culprit behind Piltdown Man, one of science’s most famous hoaxes).In 1912 Arthur Smith Woodward, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, and Charles Dawson, an amateur antiquarian, reported the discovery of a new species of early human at Piltdown in England. They believed the early human, which was named Eoanthropus dawsoni, could date back 1 million years. It was believed to be the missing link that would support the then-current theories about the origin of humanity.At the time it was uncertain if early humans lived in Britain 1 million years ago and this discovery would have provided proof of it. The scientific establishment welcomed Piltdown Man into the family tree of our species, and it took forty years to uncover the hoax and to start correcting the textbooks. The responsible party never confessed and remains unknown, although everyone seems to have a pet theory.The findings drew skepticism, and in time, Eoanthropus dawsoni was revealed to be nothing more than a mix of orangutan and modern human bones. The discovery drew a great amount of publicity. The question of who did it and why is still uncertain; a new investigation by Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum and colleagues is now underway to try to find answers.Ironically modern-day archaeologists have found evidence of early humans in Britain. When it was that the first humans walked the British Isles is still uncertain, but it could well have been more than 1 million years ago.Kensington Rune Stone - Case ClosedIn 1898, a farmer named Olof Ohman uncovered a stone engraved with runes near the town of Kensington in Minnesota. Over the past century a number of scholars and amateurs have analyzed the stone, some believing the Kensington Runestone (shown here) was carved by a band of 14th-century Vikings on a journey into Minnesota.[22][22][22][22] Although the Vikings did establish colonies in Greenland and a short-lived 11th-century settlement at L'Anse Aux Meadows in Newfoundland, this stone would be the only evidence that the Vikings ever traveled to Minnesota.Today, most scholars believe the stone was created in the 19th century, noting that the runes on the stone do not match runes from the 14th century or other medieval time periods[23][23][23][23] In fact, they seem to resemble a type of runic code used by travelers in 19th-century Sweden, wrote Henrik Williams, a professor at Uppsala University, in an article published in 2012 in the Swedish-AmericanHistorical Quarterly.[24][24][24][24] Williams cautions that care should be taken in determining who wrote it and what their motivations were. The intention of the stone's inscribers may not have been to deceive people into believing that the Vikings reached Minnesota.Eberhard Zangger, a geoarchaeologist from Switzerland, and colleague of James Mellaart (a lecturer at Istanbul University and the University of London who made incredible, often reputable, discoveries in Near Eastern Archaeology), has been investigating Mellaart’s archaeological career.Çatalhöyük - WikipediaZangger found that Mellaart had drafts of writings, murals and carvings in his apartment when he died, indicating that Mellaart was actually the creator of the “discoveries” he had attributed to ancient peoples.[25][25][25][25] Mellaart had asked colleagues to publish his work after his death; instead, one colleague found more evidence of Mellaart’s hoaxes.His first public brush with controversy, known as 'The Dorak Affair,” involved his discovery of treasure in Turkey.[26][26][26][26] In 1964, he was accused of inadvertently aiding smugglers trying to sell stolen artifacts and was barred from excavating in Turkey.[27][27][27][27] Some accused him of having illegally dug up the treasure elsewhere and smuggling it out of the country.La misteriosa civilización de Çatal HüyükThat incident would turn out to be only one debacle in a career studded with possible fabrications. Mellaart also claimed to have discovered murals at Çatalhöyük, an ancient settlement in Turkey from approximately 9,000 years ago. He claimed that they crumbled to dust before he could photograph or remove them. Mellaart painted pictures of the murals that he claimed existed, but there’s no other evidence that they were there. To this day, Mellaart and his supposed discoveries remain controversial in the archaeology world.Zangger suspects that, after the first controversy, Mellaart decided he could execute more and more archaeological deceptions. The multitude of fakes indicated that Mellaart dedicated much of his career to tearing down archaeological knowledge rather than improving it, despite the fact that he was a well-connected and intelligent archaeologist.This is only a sampling of the thousands of artifacts, documents and paintings that have come under intense scrutiny in the past few decades. In addition to millions upon millions of dollars lost acquiring these fakes, reputations have been cast under suspicion and many museums and private collectors are at a loss as to what happens after an item has been conclusively deemed a forgery.The Kelsey Museum of Archeology in Michigan has put together a nice collection of fake phæronic antiquities in an on-line exhibit called The Art of the Fake [28][28][28][28] and The Fakebusters[29][29][29][29] to show you how it’s done.Take the Waddesdon Bequest at the British Museum, a collection of almost 300 objects which, like the Friedsam collection at Brooklyn, were left to the Museum upon the death of the collection’s owner – in this case, by Baron Ferdinand Rothschild.[30][30][30][30] The collection was donated in 1898 and consists of important medieval and Renaissance pieces, as well as a number of 19th century fakes.Circumcision knifeOne such forgery is a gold- and agate-handled circumcision knife, right, originally attributed to a ‘Dutch workshop, early 17th century’. It was more probably made in the mid-19th century and has been associated with the workshop of Reinhold Vasters, a notorious forger.In the British Museum’s Waddesdon Bequest Gallery, designed to display this important collection, these fakes are included alongside genuine artifacts. They’re kept on display because, although not genuine, they are still educational. The purpose of museums is to teach us about the past, about ways of living, dying and interacting with the world around us back through history. These fakes are a window into the fascinations and demands of the 19th century, when this collection was originally being curated. There was a significant demand for ‘Judaica’ – objects associated with the Jewish faith – for collectors; forgeries such as the circumcision knife were created and sold to this collector’s market. It’s in this way that the value of the Waddesdon bequest—and other collections like it—is above the mere beauty, value and insight of the individual pieces, whether genuine or fake.Footnotes[1] Don't Buy Ancient Artifacts You See Online—Most Are Looted or Fake[1] Don't Buy Ancient Artifacts You See Online—Most Are Looted or Fake[1] Don't Buy Ancient Artifacts You See Online—Most Are Looted or Fake[1] Don't Buy Ancient Artifacts You See Online—Most Are Looted or Fake[2] 11 Masterful Art Forgeries That Completely Duped the Art World[2] 11 Masterful Art Forgeries That Completely Duped the Art World[2] 11 Masterful Art Forgeries That Completely Duped the Art World[2] 11 Masterful Art Forgeries That Completely Duped the Art World[3] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[3] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[3] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[3] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[4] Suspected Traders of Ancient Art Linked to Islamic State Are Detained[4] Suspected Traders of Ancient Art Linked to Islamic State Are Detained[4] Suspected Traders of Ancient Art Linked to Islamic State Are Detained[4] Suspected Traders of Ancient Art Linked to Islamic State Are Detained[5] Most Antiquities Sold Online Are Fake or Illegal[5] Most Antiquities Sold Online Are Fake or Illegal[5] Most Antiquities Sold Online Are Fake or Illegal[5] Most Antiquities Sold Online Are Fake or Illegal[6] How to spot a fake[6] How to spot a fake[6] How to spot a fake[6] How to spot a fake[7] Why do archaeological fraudsters work so hard to deceive us? – Ted Scheinman | Aeon Essays[7] Why do archaeological fraudsters work so hard to deceive us? – Ted Scheinman | Aeon Essays[7] Why do archaeological fraudsters work so hard to deceive us? – Ted Scheinman | Aeon Essays[7] Why do archaeological fraudsters work so hard to deceive us? – Ted Scheinman | Aeon Essays[8] Archaeology Magazine - Hoaxes, Fakes, and Strange Sites - Bogus! An Introduction to Dubious Discoveries - Archaeology Magazine Archive[8] Archaeology Magazine - Hoaxes, Fakes, and Strange Sites - Bogus! An Introduction to Dubious Discoveries - Archaeology Magazine Archive[8] Archaeology Magazine - Hoaxes, Fakes, and Strange Sites - Bogus! An Introduction to Dubious Discoveries - Archaeology Magazine Archive[8] Archaeology Magazine - Hoaxes, Fakes, and Strange Sites - Bogus! An Introduction to Dubious Discoveries - Archaeology Magazine Archive[9] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[9] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[9] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[9] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[10] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[10] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[10] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[10] Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice[11] The Factory of Fakes[11] The Factory of Fakes[11] The Factory of Fakes[11] The Factory of Fakes[12] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4352102&ved=2ahUKEwjDq9OXx_HiAhVHIqwKHRmBAPoQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw06BL8XbjVPaYdEYfxWU2Hc[12] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4352102&ved=2ahUKEwjDq9OXx_HiAhVHIqwKHRmBAPoQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw06BL8XbjVPaYdEYfxWU2Hc[12] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4352102&ved=2ahUKEwjDq9OXx_HiAhVHIqwKHRmBAPoQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw06BL8XbjVPaYdEYfxWU2Hc[12] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4352102&ved=2ahUKEwjDq9OXx_HiAhVHIqwKHRmBAPoQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw06BL8XbjVPaYdEYfxWU2Hc[13] Is the Mask a Hoax?[13] Is the Mask a Hoax?[13] Is the Mask a Hoax?[13] Is the Mask a Hoax?[14] PROOF?: THE CASE OF THE GETTY KOUROS[14] PROOF?: THE CASE OF THE GETTY KOUROS[14] PROOF?: THE CASE OF THE GETTY KOUROS[14] PROOF?: THE CASE OF THE GETTY KOUROS[15] The “Getty Kouros” Was Officially Deemed a Forgery[15] The “Getty Kouros” Was Officially Deemed a Forgery[15] The “Getty Kouros” Was Officially Deemed a Forgery[15] The “Getty Kouros” Was Officially Deemed a Forgery[16] ART; Absolutely Real? Absolutely Fake?[16] ART; Absolutely Real? Absolutely Fake?[16] ART; Absolutely Real? Absolutely Fake?[16] ART; Absolutely Real? Absolutely Fake?[17] A Crisis of Fakes: The Getty Forgeries[17] A Crisis of Fakes: The Getty Forgeries[17] A Crisis of Fakes: The Getty Forgeries[17] A Crisis of Fakes: The Getty Forgeries[18] Being Aware of Fake Archaeological Artefacts[18] Being Aware of Fake Archaeological Artefacts[18] Being Aware of Fake Archaeological Artefacts[18] Being Aware of Fake Archaeological Artefacts[19] What’s What Regarding the Controversial James Ossuary?[19] What’s What Regarding the Controversial James Ossuary?[19] What’s What Regarding the Controversial James Ossuary?[19] What’s What Regarding the Controversial James Ossuary?[20] Oded Golan is not guilty of forgery. So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?[20] Oded Golan is not guilty of forgery. So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?[20] Oded Golan is not guilty of forgery. So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?[20] Oded Golan is not guilty of forgery. So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?[21] Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com[21] Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com[21] Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com[21] Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com[22] Fierce Fighters: 7 Secrets of Viking Seamen[22] Fierce Fighters: 7 Secrets of Viking Seamen[22] Fierce Fighters: 7 Secrets of Viking Seamen[22] Fierce Fighters: 7 Secrets of Viking Seamen[23] Kensington Rune Stone - Case Closed[23] Kensington Rune Stone - Case Closed[23] Kensington Rune Stone - Case Closed[23] Kensington Rune Stone - Case Closed[24] The Kensington Runestone: Fact and Fiction :: Swedish-American Historical Quarterly (North Park University)[24] The Kensington Runestone: Fact and Fiction :: Swedish-American Historical Quarterly (North Park University)[24] The Kensington Runestone: Fact and Fiction :: Swedish-American Historical Quarterly (North Park University)[24] The Kensington Runestone: Fact and Fiction :: Swedish-American Historical Quarterly (North Park University)[25] Controversial archaeologist faked discoveries, colleague claims[25] Controversial archaeologist faked discoveries, colleague claims[25] Controversial archaeologist faked discoveries, colleague claims[25] Controversial archaeologist faked discoveries, colleague claims[26] James Mellaart[26] James Mellaart[26] James Mellaart[26] James Mellaart[27] Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement[27] Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement[27] Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement[27] Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement[28] Page on ipl.org[28] Page on ipl.org[28] Page on ipl.org[28] Page on ipl.org[29] The FakeBusters -forgeries and fakes of Egyptian antiquities-[29] The FakeBusters -forgeries and fakes of Egyptian antiquities-[29] The FakeBusters -forgeries and fakes of Egyptian antiquities-[29] The FakeBusters -forgeries and fakes of Egyptian antiquities-[30] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[30] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[30] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books[30] Faking It: What do Museums do with Forged Artifacts? - Oxbow Books

wikiHow to Start a Community CenterFour Parts:Mapping Out Your Community CenterRaising MoneyGathering Support From Your CommunityEstablishing Your CenterCommunity Q&ACommunity centers are typically non-profit organizations that provide communities with a safe place to assemble and address their needs. Starting a community center can be a long process that involves years of planning, fundraising, and advertising. With a little determination, however, you can create a safe space where your community can gather for years to come.Part1Mapping Out Your Community Center1Write down your goals. It is helpful to create a list of concrete and realistic goals. You may even want to draft a mission statement for your organization. Make a list of ten goals for your community center. If your community center is targeting a certain population (such as the local LGBT community or single mothers), you should include that information in your goals. Some examples of goals include:Create a safe space for the community to gather while providing a venue for the improvement of the community.Provide support and resources to unemployed members of the community through classes, workshops, and job fairs.Give legal aid to the local immigrant community.2Determine your community’s needs. A community center should help fulfill certain needs and and demands of the community. To do this, you will first need to identify what those needs are. Create a list of areas that need improvement in your local area.[1]Some common problems that communities face include:High unemploymentPollutionObesityLack of green spaceSafety issuesLow literacy ratesHigh rates of alcoholism or drug abuse3Identify your community’s strengths. Even if your community suffers from certain prevalent problems, it undoubtedly has certain strengths as well. For your community center to be successful, you should try to determine what those strengths are so that you can build upon them.[2] You might consider:How well does your community rally around a common cause?Does your community have certain traditions that bring them together?What kinds of networks exist in your community? This includes religious groups, sports teams, businesses, non-profit organizations, and clubs.What types of skills do the members of your community have? Who can you rely upon during the process of starting your community center?4Decide what services you want to offer. You will need to decide what specific services you want to offer your community. These services should appeal to both the goals you have set for your center as well as the needs and strengths of the community. Some types of services you might consider include:Adult education classesLegal aidExercise programsCommunity events such as movie screenings, festivals, or dancesSupport groups5Think about location and other practical matters. While you do not need to decide on a specific location yet, you should begin brainstorming sites where you might potentially operate your community center. You will also want to think about what kind of facilities or positions you will need. Some questions you should consider:Will the community center require staff? If so, what positions might be required?What kind of building will it need? Will it need an outdoor area for a garden or sports?What kind of equipment will it need?How will the center support itself financially? Will it depend solely on donations? Will it charge for classes and events?Part2Raising Money1Create a budget. You will need to have a rough estimate of how much the community center will cost. This includes start-up costs, building costs, the cost of services (such as classes), and running costs. To form your budget, contact other non-profits in your area to ask about how much their services cost per month. Compare that with what you want to offer to the community. Consider:What is the average property cost in your area? How much will it cost to buy or rent a building?How much will it cost to offer certain services, such as classes, to the public?How much will it cost to fundraise? This includes the cost of events, mailing campaigns, and advertising fees.What kind of equipment will you need? Is there any special type of technology that you will need to invest in?2Meet with potential donors. Early in your planning process, you should identify who in your community might be willing to donate money.[3] Call these groups on the phone, and ask if someone would be willing to meet to discuss your community center. You can contact:Local businessesSports leaguesCorporate foundationsReligious groupsCharitiesMedia organizationsProfessional networksPhilanthropists[4]3Apply for government funding. You may be eligible for funding from the government. Typically, you will have to prove that you are providing an essential service to the community. You can search for funding opportunities on your government's website. You may also contact your local government to ask them about what kinds of resources might be available to besser-rasieren.de : Rasierhobel von MULCUTO und Rasieröl von shave up the US, you can search for funding on the Catalog for Federal Domestic Assistance.[5] If you are offering services to a certain population, you may qualify for different types of funding.The USDA offers loans to help rural areas develop community facilities under their Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program.[6]In the UK, you should contact your local council for information on community funding schemes. Welcome to GOV.UK offers a tool to help you locate nearby resources.[7]In Australia, your community center may qualify for government funding under the Community Development Grants Programme.[8]The Canadian government offers a listing of funding options on their website.[9]4Try direct marketing. You can get donations from the public by sending out mass solicitations that ask for small amounts from each donor. This will help you rally public support while building a strong financial base. There are many ways that you can do this. They include:Mailing solicitations for donationsTelephone campaignsMedia coverage on the news, radio, or in newspapersDoor to door fundraising[10]5Hold a fundraising event. A good way to get larger donations is to host an event where people pay to enter. The profit would go towards your community center. Fundraisers should be budgeted very carefully to make sure that you are earning money from the venture. Form a committee for this event. You might even want to find a corporate sponsor to help defray the costs.[11] Some ideas for events include:Gala dinner where participants pay by the plateMusic event with ticket sales benefiting the community centerOutdoor movie screeningWine or beer tasting eventPart3Gathering Support From Your Community1Gain signatures from supporters. You should have your supporters sign a petition supporting your community center. On this petition, they should include their names and email addresses. You can present this petition to potential donors and politicians to demonstrate the interest in your project. You can also use it to form a mailing list to inform members about your progress.You can have volunteers stand outside of shopping centers to ask pedestrians to sign.You can also take names and email addresses from any mailing campaigns that you might have started.You may be able to pass around a petition at a community meeting, such as a town hall meeting, PTA meeting, or a local society meeting.2Meet with politicians. You should try to gather some support from your local government. Contact local city councilors, managers, and the mayor. Let them know about your plans to start a new community center, and ask them if they could provide any support. They might be able to designate some funding to help with your center, or they might be able to help you advertise the center to the community at large.[12]3Hold a town meeting. Once you have found a few supporters, you can bring your idea to the town. Host a public meeting in a central space where community members can come and listen to your pitch. You may invite donors, policymakers, and the local media to attend. During this meeting, you should present your mission. At the end, allow members of the audience to provide their own ideas and suggestions.[13]Good places to hold meetings include schools, houses of worship, or a government building such as the town hall. Call ahead to reserve a http://room.At the beginning of the meeting, clearly outline your goals for the evening. Have multiple speakers present the different aspects of the community center, such as financial backing, potential services to the public, and government support.You can use this meeting to solicit donations from the public.Part4Establishing Your Center1Write bylaws. Your community center needs a set of bylaws that will list the rules and procedures of your organization. These bylaws must follow state and federal laws regarding nonprofit organizations. The bylaws should clarify how your organization’s internal structure will operate.[14] Your charter of bylaws should be broken up into different articles that include:Name: What name is your organization known as legally?Purpose: What does your center do? What is its aim? What types of services does it provide? This is where you should list your center’s tax status.Board of Directors: Who runs the community center? What powers does the board of directors have? How are directors elected or appointed to their position? How can directors be removed from their position?Finances: How do you manage the finances of your community center? Who has access to its funds?You may also want to include policies on how the center will share information with the public, how records are stored and kept, and how meetings will be conducted.[15]2Find a location. You will need a physical location to house your community center. This should be in a place that is easily accessible to the community members that you want to reach.[16] While you can buy your own building, it may be cheaper to rent a place while you get off the ground.If you are providing one on one support to your community members, you may want a building with smaller offices where consultants can meet privately with people.If you are looking to host events, you will need at least one large room to hold people.3Register the center as a non-profit. You can gain tax-exempt status if your community center is a non-profit organization that fulfills a local community need. Depending on the services you offer, you might be classified as either a private foundation or public charity. You should consult a tax attorney for help throughout this process.If you are in the United States, you will need to submit Form 1023 to the IRS.[17]You should request an Employer Identification Number for your center through Form SS-4.[18] As a non-profit, you will be obligated to disclose your tax records to the public if http://requested.In the UK, you must register with the Charity Commission and with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). You can register with the HMRC online.[19]In Australia, you should register with the Australian Tax Office, where you will need to apply for a Australian Business Number (ABN). You may need to pay certain taxes such as the goods and services tax or the fringe benefits tax.[20]4Advertise your services to the community. Once you have started your community center, you just need to make sure that people come. You may even decide to have an opening event, such as a big dinner, to welcome members of the community to their new home. You can advertise by:Posting an announcement in a newspaperContacting the local TV stationPutting up flyersMailing announcements

This question has persisted without agreement within Scientology criticdom for years, largely because it's impossible to answer without defining religion either so amorphously as to strip the word of all meaning, or so exclusively as to omit many widely recognized religions. Still, the question matters if for no other reason than the fact that it keeps getting asked, usually in the context of the more interesting question about why Scientology is considered a tax exempt entity.Briefly to that end, it's important to realize that the two entities with seemingly the most interest in determining whether Scientology is a religion--the US courts and the IRS--are constrained by the establishment clause to define religion so expansively as to avoid implicitly endorsing religion X over religion Y.In a country as religiously pluralistic as the US, the courts must hew to a broad and inclusive definition of religion.Early court decisions attempting to define religion predictably chose monotheistic terms--"The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator[.]" Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890). "[T]he essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation." US v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 633-34 (1931) (Hughes, C.J., dissenting).Soon after, in 1944, God disappears from the definition: "[F]reedom of religious belief ... embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths." Ballard v. US, 322 U.S. 78 (1944).In U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), the Supreme Court interpreted legislation exempting conscientious objectors from war (here, the Vietnam War) as including beliefs which even the plaintiff had not initially described as religious. The statute defined religion as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code." The court read this to include "all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent."The Supreme Court has thus kept pace with modern theological trends by stretching the definition of religion to essentially mean any structured belief system which sincerely based on "ultimate concerns." US v. Seeger, referencing progressive theologian Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (1957) (defining faith as "the state of being ultimately concerned"). See also Welsh v. U.S., 398 U.S. 333 (1970).Which brings us to Scientology, which is also unconcerned with any Supreme Being but instead, similar to inward-looking Eastern religions, views the soul, or what Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard called the “thetan,” as an immortal being. Per Hubbard, an adherent’s spiritual growth is wholly tied to gaining an increased understanding of one’s thetan, which is accomplished through a series of exercises and courses, often in tandem with another Scientologist called an “auditor” and often with the aid of an electropsychometer (“e-meter”), a sort of lie detector employed by the auditor in these courses.By the Supreme Court’s increasingly generous definition of religion, broadened to keep pace with a growing pluralistic populace and to comport with the first amendment, it’s difficult to argue that Scientology, as I describe it above, is not a religion.That said, the relevant question the IRS asks in determining an entity's tax exempt status isn't whether the entity is a "religion" but rather whether it's organized and operated for a “religious purpose.” This distinction is not merely semantic. Though it rarely happens, the IRS can both recognize an entity as a religion and yet still deny it tax exempt status. See Bob Jones University v. U.S., 416 U.S. 725 (1974) (Court revoked exempt status of religious university which denied admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or dating).Despite that its tenets easily qualify as "religious" per the US constitution, there are nevertheless countless arguments why Scientology and its myriad corporate fronts should be denied tax exempt status because it is not organized and maintained for a "religious purpose." 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).Religious groups risk losing their tax exempt status in a number of ways, such as if its net earnings inure to an individual; if it provides a substantial benefit to a private interest; if it devotes a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation; if it participates or intervenes in any political campaign on behalf or in opposition to a candidate for public office; or if its purposes and activities are illegal or "violate fundamental public policy." IRS Guidelines, Activities that are Illegal or Contrary to Public Policy, at Page on IRS.An easier way to understand this is that the government cannot regulate belief, which is why it must define religion so broadly, but it can regulate activity, i.e., determine the existence of a "religious purpose."The most common reason a religion is denied or loses its tax exempt status is where its funding inures to an individual or individuals as opposed to the organization. This was the basis, in fact, upon which Scientology was first denied exempt status, when it emerged in the course of a trial that L Ron Hubbard was personally enriched by the organization. Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 188 Ct. Cl. 490 (Ct. Cl. 1969) (Court found impermissible a personal compensation scheme whereby the Church of Scientology had personally compensated L Ron Hubbard and his family at least 10% of its gross income).By 1986, when L Ron Hubbard died, his religion was still not recognized by the IRS as exempt. Seven years later (1993) Hubbard's successor, David Miscavige, negotiated a deal with the IRS granting it exempt status in exchange for Scientology dropping hundreds of lawsuits it had filed against the organization. Its terms remain officially secret to this day (the most recent unsuccessful attempt to crack it came in Sklars ) but were nevertheless leaked to the Wall Street Journal in 1997.The IRS originally held the view that Scientology was not organized for a "religious purpose" but then reversed itself without explanation. What changed? By most accounts, the organization has only gotten more sinister under Miscavige, who is widely reported to violently beat subordinates, and live in unmatched luxury while staff members can make as little as $50/week.But let's break down why Scientology in its present incarnation isn't "organized for a religious purpose," and why, accordingly, it should have it exempt status rescinded: (1) Scientology has an explicitly commercial, non-charitable nature; (2) its revenues inure to a single individual; (3) it forces many of its members to disconnect from their families; (4) it grossly mistreats many of its members; and (5) it harasses and attacks ex-members and critics.Taking these in turn then…(1)Regardless of Scientology's thetan-concerned religious content, it seems significant that Scientology charges exorbitant amounts to become progressively enlightened. The functional practice more closely resembles psychotherapy, where one pays as one goes, than the community-oriented tithing and donation structure found with most other religions. Scientology attempts to dance around this by labeling all quid pro quo course payments as "donations." From a business perspective, Scientology is profoundly profitable--staff members are paid a fraction of the federal minimum wage, while parishioners pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of being audited.Scientology routinely resorts to high-pressure sales tactics to sell courses and solicit donations to various projects, often resulting in the financial ruin of its members. It even exhorts its members to pressure other members if they’re deemed to not be going "up the bridge" quickly enough. Though many religious groups can be financially demanding of their parishioners, among tax exempt religions I have yet to see any group comparable to Scientology. It routinely bankrupts members and declares them suppressive (excommunicates them) if and when they protest.One high-ranking ex-Scientology official, Debbie Cook, recently estimated that Scientology has $1 billion dollars in reserve. Of that, virtually none goes to any form of social betterment or benefits local communities in any way. Scientology maintains a handful of social betterment groups (Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, and The Way to Happiness), each which are either run for-profit ventures or exist solely to “safepoint” (create generally good public relations) for L Ron Hubbard and/or Scientology. Narconon (a drug rehabilitation organization utilizing L Ron Hubbard’s scientifically disproven theories regarding toxins) is not only expensive, but is implicated in a trail of ‘patient’ deaths. Narconon Georgia is under state investigation for a massive insurance fraud scheme.In short, parishioners pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become Scientologists, money which benefits those parishioners directly; Scientology benefits by not having to pay taxes on those profits; and the general community benefits in no way whatsoever.(2)In Foundation Church, supra, the court found that Scientology revenues directly benefited L Ron Hubbard and that the IRS was therefore justified in denying Scientology tax exempt status for failing to organize and maintain a religious purpose. Hubbard’s successor, David Miscavige, has been, if anything, worse in this regard, his personal possessions are a laundry list of obscene wealth: $5,000 tailored suits, $500 Egyptian cotton shirts, the finest Italian leather shoes, personal use of a private jet, a $50,000 Acura RL, a $25,000 Mazda Miata, an $80,000 Range Rover, an $150,000 bulletproof GMC Van, a $25,000 custom-made motorcycle, a $110,000 BMW M6, a $45,000 Acura to use when he’s in Clearwater, Florida, a personal chef, a personal stylist, and so on. Even on Miscavige’s self-granted six-figure salary, the aforementioned perks could not be accounted for without assuming that he’s personally benefiting from Scientology revenues.The inurement question gets even more lurid when considering how Miscavige’s best friend, Tom Cruise, also has personally benefited from labor performed by Scientology staff members. For example, Cruise’s elaborate wedding to Nicole Kidman was staffed by Scientology members at no cost to Cruise. Miscavige’s wedding gift to the couple was to arrange for a team of twenty Sea Org disciples to dig, hoe, and plant wheat grass and wildflower seed near the Cruises’ bungalow (on Scientology grounds) after Miscavige had learned of the couple’s fantasy of running through a meadow of wildflowers together. Miscavige threw a birthday party for Cruise aboard its cruise ship The Freewinds, estimated to cost $300,000. And Miscavige bestowed countless gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on Cruise, often necessitating cheap, uncompensated Sea Org/staff labor. Cruise, through his lawyers, has issued a blanket denial but such denials are outweighed by numerous corroborated accounts. See generally Andrew Morton, Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (St. Martin’s Press, 2008).Inurement is probably the most common basis upon which religious entities lose their tax exempt status. If the IRS cared to look, they’d have little trouble spotting Miscavige and Cruise personally benefiting from Scientology revenues in ways which have no discernible religious connection whatsoever.(3)The term “cult,” like “religion,” is, on the one hand, a useful demarcation line for how most people approach the question of whether Scientology is a religion. Religions are good and cults are bad, but why that’s the case is a somewhat subjective matter, similar to how the question of what is and isn’t a religion is difficult because of how everyone perceives religion personally, first, rather than dryly and objectively. My religion is a religion because I’m “good” and cults are “bad,” semantically speaking.Nevertheless, one commonality of cults and continued evidence of their malignancy is that they tend to break up families, which most agree is an effect detrimental to communities in general. Scientology has alternately denied and defended (and indeed even claimed it as a human right) its well-documented practice of “disconnection,” whereby a member is forced by the organization to disengage from all communication with anyone critical of Scientology (inevitably the most skeptical family member). Scientology even designates a term for these pests: Suppressive Persons (or “SPs”), and a member risks his/her own standing within Scientology if they are “PTS” (Potential Trouble Source) to an SP.Family represents an important value in America, but so does the principle of autonomy, and there is friction between the two. There is no recognized legal right or obligation for of-age family members to communicate with each other. Nor do we want to set precedents whereby churches' institutional and its individuals' autonomy is threatened by government policies. Scientology would argue that to rescind its tax exempt status because its practices break up families would threaten its autonomy. There's some merit to this argument. The more powerful counterargument is simply that taxpayers should not be forced to effectively subsidize the destruction of families.(4) & (5)Scientology routinely mistreats its members, and especially its staff members. Ex-Sea Org members have filed lawsuits for labor law violations, forced imprisonment, human trafficking, and forced abortions. These damning accounts are largely corroborated, yet Scientology manages to escape prosecution and liability because the ex-members in question were either deemed to have consented or were deemed "ministers" and thus fell under the "ministerial exception," which allows religious groups to be exempt from ordinary labor laws. Even if we concede that Sea Org members, after expressing their informed consent, thus waiving most claims they might later bring, it remains true that minors cannot waive such rights. Yet Scientology continues to employ children as Sea Org members (L Ron Hubbard viewed, and thus Scientology views children as undeveloped adults) and continues to abuse them without repercussion.Scientology also infamously mistreats ex-members who dare criticize it, a group that includes not only former Scientologists but journalists and non-ex-member critics. The Internet is replete with endless stories of Scientology's aggressive handling of individuals it deems threats, so I won't bother detailing them here. But to the extent Scientology's harassment engine is kept afloat and churning by a boundless tax-exempt repository (specifically, the International Association of Scientologists, or "IAS"), yet another basis exists to rescind Scientology's tax-exempt status for failing to maintain a religious purpose.--In sum, in the United States the question of Scientology's religiosity is a useless academic exercise because the first amendment has constrained courts (and thus the IRS) to define religion so broadly inclusive as to be meaningless. By the broadest definition, Scientology's core beliefs easily qualify as religious. However, by the IRS's more stringent requirement that tax-exempt entities be organized and maintained for a religious purpose, Scientology fails because its revenues inure to a single individual, leader David Miscavige, its operation is indistinguishable from a for-profit business enterprise, and its practices--disconnection, the abuse of members, and the ruthless handling of critics--violate public policy.