As much as I would love to jump on the bandwagon in this thread of being critical of Scientology, we are inching ourselves closer to evaluations of what is faith ("belief") and what is a "public welfare institution" in government terminology. That could be a real problem down the road.
We can talk all day about taxation and any system of faith, and if we took a poll on if systems of faith should be taxed I would say yes. However, what I would not agree to is the government deciding which systems of faith are taxed and which are exempt based on a standards from government. They either are all taxed, or all are not.
I understand we are talking about a Dutch Court here, and in the Netherlands there is a little something added to their freedom of religion. "Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law." Religion or belief, and belief ends up looked at as "philosophy of life." Because that was stated as such, the collision is then philosophy of life against public welfare institution for tax exempt status. Or, a manufactured way for the government to grant tax exempt status on their terms irregardless of Constitutionality.
I will agree with some of the others in this thread that losing tax exempt status does not necessarily mean freedom of religion is impacted. Scientology can still exist in the Netherlands, and they can still have their existing operations. They just now have a tax bill.
My issue is the government deciding by a standard what is and is not public welfare institution. If that thinking carries over into the US, we are talking about a massive evaluation of various organizations out there besides just Scientology. I think we are back to the same problem, tax them all or tax none of them. Taxing some and not others tells me inequality under the Constitution / Law is around the corner and potentially also corruption in ensuring tax exempt status.
Are we sure we want any government deciding something as monumental as standards for systems of belief and public welfare?