The organization that represents Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s works has petitioned the U.S. government to restrict the right to repair a religious artifact called an E-Meter. This device is core to Scientology practices but the group argues exemptions allowing device hacking should not apply to equipment restricted to trained users. Experts believe the E-Meter is the targeted device, which the Church says requires specific Scientologist operation. Documentation shows the E-Meter updater software mandates registration, including a membership number, suggesting repair restrictions. The language used in the petition matches stipulations Scientology requires for E-Meter use and purchase agreements. In short, the Church appears to be attempting to prevent independent E-Meter repair or experimentation through copyright exemption restrictions.
I think this is a more subtle question than it appears on the surface, especially if you don’t think of it as a one-off.
Whether or not Scientology deserves to be called a “religion,” it’s a safe bet there will be new religions with varying levels of legitimacy popping up in the future. And chances are some of them will have core beliefs that are related to the technology of the day, because it would be weird if that weren’t the case. “Swords” and “plowshares” are technological artifacts, after all.
Leaving aside the specific case of Scientology, the question becomes, how do laws that apply to classes of technology interact with laws that treat religious practices as highly protected activities? We’ve seen this kind of question come up in the context of otherwise illegal drugs that are used in traditional rituals. But religious-tech questions seem like they could have a bunch of unique wrinkles.
You make a good point in general, but this particular case is about preventing non-scientologists from treating the ‘religious object’ devices how they will, not about the scientologists being at all restricted in their own handling of the objects (as would be comparable to illegal drugs or animal sacrifice used in religious rituals).
This case in particular is comparable to requesting that the government outlaw the modification or destruction of the Bible or Qoran, even by people who own their own copy of a religious text. It would require non-adherants to a religion to treat that religion’s objects as sacred and to do so in the specific manner prescribed by that religion. This is contrary to precedent and law established by cases against people who’ve burnt their own personal copies of the bible, or created derivative works making fun of the bible, and so on.