Talk:Scientology/Archive 1

Writer Beware
As in entries on like organizations such as The Local Church of Witness Lee and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of Scientology. Try it.

What darkness fears most is the bright light of day.

Hello 4.21.3.3, glad to see you dive right in.

However, in doing so, you've made a few boo-boos. First of all, you deleted a whole chunk of information. Perhaps you were considering moving it to another page? Not a bad idea, although in this case it would have helped to leave in a small synopsis. The secret teachings of Scientology appear to form an important part of this religion, and should at least be mentioned on its main article. Since the teachings of Scientology are said to be secret to its members, it helps to prepend a warning 'Wikipedia contains spoilers'.

Also, you replaced a couple of internal links with external ones. Generaly a different type of link is used for this: Like this. Also, since you link to biased sites, it would help if you mentioned the fact that those sites are biased, 'like so (pro-Scientology)'.

Third, you included information from a biased source. Although it cannot be helped that a source is biased, you should try and attribute the statement to its source. So rather than stating 'Scientology has grown in countries X, Y and Z', you could state 'Scientology claims to have grown in countries X, Y and Z in the 1990s'.

I'm sorry I have to criticize all you contributions so far, but I am sure you'll learn quickly and start making some great contributions shortly. I realise this must all seem like nitpicking, but please realise that the Church of Scientology, and anything related to it, is an extremely controversial subject, so it helps to be careful. Thanks for your help! branko

Wouldn't it be better to have separate entries for Scientology (the teachings and philosophy) and for the Chrurch of Scientology (the organization which claims ownership of all Scientology teachings)? There are many who value the teachings of Scientology, while being highly critical of what they call the "CofS". Using the word Scientology to refer to the Church of Scientology is just as inaccuate as using Christianity to refer to the Roman Catholic Church would be. Mkweise 03:21 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the organization of Scientology tries to claim a copyright on the word "Scientology" and keep anyone else from using it. That's why the ones who claim that there's actually something beneficial in Dianetics and Scientology call themselves the "Free Zone." Furthermore, many people don't believe that Scientology is a "church" anyways. It may call itself a church, but it sure doesn't act like one.

It´s unbelievable that in the USA Scientology is a respectable institution. Imagine if your encyclopedia said that "mafia" was the term for "economic enterprises with strong informal components". Must we copy the official point of view, can´t we deliver our own opinion? Most people here are convinced that Scientology is a crime organisation, so why not express this within the first or second paragraph? --Grasso


 * Grasso, read neutral point of view again. If you have relevant facts that are missing from the article, add them.  If there are common or otherwise noteworthy views on Scientology that haven't been mentioned, mention and attribute them.  Our *own* opinion on the Scientologists is *not* relevant.  For the record, I do regard them as just another nasty cult, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of writing this article.

As to your Mafia analogy, the point is that no-one disputes the Mafia is an organisation that makes profits from crime. Scientologists dispute strongly that they are members of a money-grabbing cult. --Robert Merkel


 * I do not know any members of the Mafia, perhaps they too claim to be legitimate. I reworded the first sentence of the article to reflect the fact that most of the civilized world does not see Scientology as a religion.


 * I hope you understand that just stating that Scientology is a religion would not be very NPOV either. I realise that my wording may be too controversial, but I hope somebody will rephrase it in a manner that is more factual than it was before or is now.--branko

Crime Two key issues seem to have been omitted. First was that Hubbard had on several occassions admitted to starting the "church" as a joke / tax write off system.


 * Several claims along those lines appear in the article - if you can provide more specifics why don't you do so? --Robert Merkel

Second is that to this day recruitment is by means of screening likely candidates and then indoctrination in controled physical environments (temp, thrist, peer presure) designed to sway these people into switching their identity for that of the 'church'.


 * If you've got specifics, this *needs* to go in the article.  --Robert Merkel

Instead the article does appear to be mostly a Scientology pamphlet.


 * Personally, I think Scientology is one big con. However, a neutral point of view here means that we can't just rag on them because we think their particular set of beliefs is nonsense (because there's no more or less direct evidence of their correctness or otherwise than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and so on).  Pointing out that, their founder and leaders don't seem to believe in it themselves, b) they are ridiculously secretive about their practices, c) they use the legal system to attack their critics, d) they use dubious techniques to gain adherants, and e) church leaders seem to be more interested in enriching themselves than anything else, is entirely appropriate and if you think these points haven't been adequately covered (or you have more criticisms that I haven't mentioned here) them IMHO go right ahead. --Robert Merkel
 * I agree in general but must disagree that "there's no more or less direct evidence of their correctness" than other religions. If you can find anyone who disagrees with Scientology but who has not committed a crime against the laws of the land, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs.  If you find a single person who opposes Narconon's dangerous use of vitamin overdoses to treat drug abuse but who also opposes drug abuse, you have disproved Scientology's beliefs. --Antaeus Feldspar

I moved the page to a free link style page, but the page seems very one-sided, more like a Scientology pamphlet than an encyclopedia entry.

If you read any of the entries on any of the religions mentioned here, hare krishna, christianity, tao teh ching, buddhism, you will not find any effort to do more than recite what the adherents hold as being the parts of their faith. It is not our place to praise or bash beliefs here, nor to seek out and repeat controversial utterances by others about a given faith or practice. In Catholicism we could repeat polemics by Martin Luther, in Lutheranism we could rave on about how Luther's own writings in some cases depict him as a psycho drunk and woman-hating womanizer, decry the snake-handling practices of some Pentecostals.

If we are not going to do it to everyone, let's don't do it to anyone.

In general, see neutral point of view. The principle I crusade for is that controversial views be attributed to someone--or that it be obvious (as in Scientology it is) that the views and practices in questions are attributed to someone. Beyond that, as long as competing theories are portrayed sympathetically, the sky's the limit. So, there's absolutely nothing wrong (IMO) with adding some mainstream criticisms of Scientology, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.--but really, if the criticisms deserve to be in an encyclopedia article, they must either be really quite common criticisms (and identified/attributed as such; e.g., "One common criticism...") or else credited to the person who originated it. I can imagine a separate page, Scientology/Criticisms and replies as well as Scientology/Public perception, in which what seems to be the cult-like nature of Scientology is described--and attributed to, well, someone or other. --LMS

Thank you, Larry. You put it much better than I could. I just thought the last paragraph rather glossed over the endless arguments and controversy about Scientology over the last several decades. And since there has been so much controversy, it seems reasonable to have some account with summaries of the two sides - at least report that group A says X, group B says Y. (for comparison, there's a nice entry for the Book of Mormon that summarises Mormon doctrine, and reports other theories of the origins of the book)

And all I originally set out to do was remove a couple of CapitaliseDLinKs...

I have re-written the last paragraph from a Scientology-positive point of view to a Scientology-negative one in neutralised wording. I hope this alleviates the problems mentioned above. -- Andre Engels

As a researcher of religions and a lover of a good spy story (being a PI myself) I once read 'way too much about Scientolgy controversy from both sides. I added bunches of material in that vein. I'm afraid there is now more about the controversy than the beliefs, but if that's where people's attention is... -

I (Jimbo Wales) have a problem with this paragraph:

Those who oppose Scientology style themselves "critics." These range from press with critical statments to make, having had no contact with the church themselves; to apostates who may have left the church following disagreements or who may have been expelled on moral grounds; to avowed enemies of the church who planned to infiltrate it, plant documents, and foment fraudulently based criminal prosecutions. Other critics speak from the point of view that the beliefs and practices of Scientology are in one manner or another antipathetic to their own religious convictions, and therefore deserving of censure. 

A few points I'd like to make about this:

1. The use of the scare quores around the word "critics" suggests that these opponents aren't _really_ critics, but something else, perhaps something less than true critics.

2. The list of types of people who are critical of the church reads like the church's own version of the story. Only 4 types are mentioned (a) members of the press with no actual contact themselves (b) apostates (c) avowed enemies who would gladly resort to fraud and criminality and (d) advocates of other religions, who oppose it on those grounds, exhibiting one supposes religious intolerance.

This list makes it sound like the good church of Scientology is just being harassed. My own reading of the criticisms, though, is quite different. I am by no means a Scientology-basher, but when I got interested in this issue a few years ago, I thought that the critics (and they are real critics) had quite a good case.

Our write-up need not end up supporting the critics or the church, but the current writeup (this paragraph anyway) is decidedly pro-scientology.

The "good" church? I think convictions for stealing gov't docs surely puts the question to that...

As to "critics," what suggestion would you make? I was similarly disposed to you when I first undertook to do my own bit of investigating. My reading, however, did not turn up any independent critics without their own agenda. One such who held herself out as a completely objective academic expert (notwisthstanding that she published at least one book accusing all "cults" of brainwashing or something, which her peers pretty roundly criticized) turned out to be making a major portion of her income testifying against Scientology and other groups in court. I have read probably thirty to fifty independent appraisals, some quite detailed, from academics, psychologists, clerics, investigative reporters and the like and they were neutral, not critical. The persons listed in the paragraph do style themselves "critics." And I have noted that's what opponents of Scientology do, publicly. They don't say "I hate this church and want to close it." They say - "I have criticisms." One guy in particular, whom I saw a news video on (taken without his knowledge) is sitting there with a reporter whom he believes to be an FBI agent or something, plotting to destroy the church from inside. He calls himself a "critic" and says the church does not like him because he "criticizes" it. In contrast, those reporting on the subject who do not refer to themselves as critics also, it seems a) have no agenda and b) are neutral, not critical.

If you don't mind, could you refer me to an otherwise unbiased critic? If you will do so, I will immediately include his class of people in paragraph. I just don't want people misled by the idea that the othwise neutral term "critic" means that the person so styled speaks without a predisposing agenda. Until I actually see someone who does not oppose Scientology and yet who is critical of it, I'm not sure how that paragraph should read...


 * I'm sorry, but even if you were able to name some specifics for all this anecdotal evidence (i.e., tell us who this 'academic expert' was and who were the 'peers' that 'roundly criticized' it and on what grounds; tell us who this 'one guy in particular' was and what 'news video' showed him plotting to 'destroy the church from inside'), it still wouldn't change the fact that it is anecdotal evidence. You're demanding that someone else prove wrong the impression you got from anecdotal evidence (which just happens to match what Source insisted every Scientologist must believe as a matter of dogma):  that everyone out there who opposes Scientology (a 'critic' by the CoS's definition) must have some hidden malign agenda.  That is, of course, not the way burden of proof works.  To declare "All those who oppose Scientology fall into one of these untrustworthy categories" is unworthy of being declared as if it was fact, whether you believe it because of your anecdotal evidence or because Source said so.

O.k., I think I can help with this. Of course in some sense, all people who are critical of X must oppose X to some extent, right? So pointing out that all the critics of Scientology are opposed to Scientology is either redundant or (as in this case) it sounds like a way of dismissing the critics, i.e. to say that no objective person actually opposes Scientology.

So, let me be your hypothetical critic. My own views do not belong in Wikipedia, of course, but consider what my view is. I am critical of Scientology. I think it is total bunk as a theory about the world. It's just as much bunk as Christianity or Marxism as a theory about the world. It's untested or, where tested, provably false in important ways.

Yet, I can hardly be seen as someone who is "opposed to" Scientology, unless any criticism at all is to be discounted because it is criticism. I don't suppose that I've ever written publicly about it until just now. Not that I can recall, anyway. I'm an objective outsider, with no particular emotional investment in the question, and it seems quite clear to me that the critics have many valid points. Check out the XENU documents, for example. Nutso stuff.

I would object equally to a paragraph in an essay on Christianity that suggested that everyone opposed to Christianity is either a heretic, uninformed, biased, etc.

Court records make great credible sources. I've cleaned the text up a bit and removed the most blatant pro-CoS bias, and added some factual material about their history (Though I would personally prefer to be much harder on them).

One wonders why you would prefer this. Have they done something to you?

Yes, they've done something to all of us: they are solely responsible for shutting down the "penet" anonymous Usenet posting service, and have done much to further the cause of internet censorship. They've also caused a lot of harm (possibly including murder) to many good people, including my friend Keith Henson. They are truly an evil organization, and will stop at nothing to silence critics. That, of course, is a personal opinion not worthy to put in an article here, but I stand by it nonetheless.

One also wonders why you changed the first line "...science fiction author L. Ron..." to "...author L. Ron...", while marking your change as a "minor edit" so it wouldn't show up in the recent changes list. At that time, that's exactly what L. Ron was, a science fiction author, which is an interesting bit of background information (though admittedly not necessarily relevant to the religion itself).

Well, I am pleased to see you own up to the nature and the source of your position. If more people were as honest, then more truth would come to the whole picture. Unfortunately, the world is full of people disguising personal hatreds as "impartial analysis."

In my travels, I have quite literally lived and conversed with Moonies, Hare Krishna, Buddhists, Pentacostals, Scientologists, astrologers, numerololgists, followers of the I Ching, a palmist, World Messaianists, Mormons (one of my daughters was baptised in that faith), Baptists, Born-agains, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Tarot readers, General Semanticists, Theosophists, Wiccans, Jehovah's Witnesses (in cities 400 mi. distant from each other, some of the kindest and most generous neighbors I ever had), Seventh Day Adventists and others. As to each of the above I have found the decided majority of adherents to each given school of thought to be good people, concerned about their community and their world, and trying to do and be the best they could for themselves and others.

Here is what I learned: Return good for good. Return good for evil. Judge none. Be no man's enemy. Such evil as you seek to punish will taint you. Life is too short to hate.

''I would never disagree. I have nothing against any rank-and-file Scientologist; they are victims of the organization, not perpetrators. It is the organization itself that I consider a criminal conspiracy. I happen to think that it is a moral duty to point out evil and work to eliminate it. If you call that "hate", well then we'll just have to disagree about that.''

I'm quite touched with your wholehearted attempt to save humanity from the evil of this world. However, you seem to have never experienced the full power of scientology to destroy your family.

No, WojPob, I have not. And neither, I believe you would find, have most of the people who write and talk about it.

LDC - The church of JC of LDS was also officially regarded as a criminal conspiracy by the US gov't in early days, and the army was dispatched to do away with it. In a hundred years, we will see whether the C of S more closely paralled the Mafia or the Mormons (I do so love a good alliteration). One things puzzles me, however. In a criminal conspiracy, one will uniformly find the members (of the conspiracy) seeking to realize a personal benefit from the fruits of the crime - hopefully fruit which justifies the scope of the crime and effort undertaken to plan and commit it. Arguably, Hubbard (dead at the moment) was the primary criminal master mind. Who would that be now, and how are they benefitting from it?


 * Hell, let's throw some nitro-glycerine and liquid-ox on the fire, shall we? I agree with you that the comparison to Mormonism is apropriate, but you probably won't like why. I'm a native Utahn and former Mormon, and I'll tell you, that curch is very much like a criminal conspriacy. The Morman church literally owns that state. Where else in the US would a major city sell a block of downtown main street to a church to rip up and make a park out of it? We're talking right in the heart of the stinking city. Public transit is shut down on Sundays, understandable if there's a lack of demand. They fire the system up, however, if the Church is having a conference in town that week. The Morman Church has also persecuted internet sites that were critical of it, IIRC for copyright violation. You also have the fact that the CoJCoLDS listed as a fortune 500 company. They don't have classes like the scientologists, but you can't get a temple recommend if you don't pay tith (note: temple recommends are like Mormon membership plus, i.e. the only way to be "sealed" to your spouse for all eternity, you need to get a temple marriage, etc).


 * But then I dislike organized religion in general. Every time someone says, "trust me," my instinct is to find out why that person would think I shouldn't trust them/their views. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of the people I know are Mormans (including my parents), I've found them to be about average as far as people go. My beef is with churches as organizations, especially when they ask for money or demand sacrifices to them (as opposed to for the community, one's family, et al.).--BlackGriffen

I just noticed this above, and had not responded to it:

"One also wonders why you changed the first line "...science fiction author L. Ron..." to "...author L. Ron...", while marking your change as a "minor edit" so it wouldn't show up in the recent changes list. At that time, that's exactly what L. Ron was, a science fiction author, which is an interesting bit of background information (though admittedly not necessarily relevant to the religion itself)."

I considered the change a minor edit. My understanding, from a couple of Hubbard biographies (one unauthorized) is that science fiction was less than half of his writing (see the Dianetics entry). I personally first read anything by the man in like '67 or so, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek little novel called "Buckskin Brigades" if I recall. At the time I thought of him as a minor sort of Zane Gray. So to call him a science fiction writer would probably be like introducing Thomas Jefferson as a farmer. Sure, he was one - but that was not his chief, or even secondary avocation. Then, too, each time I have seen him introduced that way, it has been the lead-in to a Scientology hit piece. So, I thot why not drop it?

BTW - I did not notice who put in the Fishman thing. When I looked him up a minute ago, this was the #1 item on the hit list: / Jehovah's site. I thot at first - nah, different guy. A couple of paragraphs in, it's like - oh. Same guy.

Yeah, Fishman's a flake, which I why I didn't quote him or offer him as an example of anything. I only mentioned the court case to verify the source of the OT documents.

The comparison with Mormons is interesting but flawed. The Mormons were primarily persecuted because of the practice of bigamy, which they eventually gave up (at least officially) in order to better get along with the neighbors. I personally think that laws against consensual polygamy are stupid and opressive, and that they had every right to fight back. But once they abandoned that practice, their critics fell back to saying nasty things about them instead of having them jailed, and the Mormons let them. The CoS on the other hand unleashes the might of its legal team against those who merely /speak/ against them (including, admittedly, some who speak falsely). I believe quite strongly that the only legitimate response to speech--even false speech--is more speech, and if the CoS had only done that I would consider them harmless crackpots like Moonies or Krishnas. But when you use the force of government to supress your critics, you are in effect taking up arms to supress /their/ ideas, and it is /you/ who bears responsibility for escalating the conflict beyond words.

...by which I presume you would deny access to courts for things like libel, slander, copyright infringements. Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it...

So, for kicks, I went to some of the source material (historical documents written contemporaneously with the events) on the Mormon expulsion from Illinois, the Missouri Extermination Order by Governor Boggs, etc.

In brief - the Mormons did not sit still for utterances against them, but fired back in their own newspapers, in the absence of legal protection agains libel and slander on the American frontier in those days. The accusations against them at the time appear mostly to have been petit larceny, sharp business practice, unsightly buildings, over-agressive acquisition of land, and open derision of others' beliefs. I was unable, in about four hours of looking, to find anything on polygamy in connection with these events, though it was key in holding up the application for statehood by Utah, and the subject of treaty talks between the Mormon forces and the U.S. Army around that time.

Interestingly, the Mormons as the local militia went under arms on at least two occasions under a duly constituted non-mormon general to quell mob violence against them - ie they could be seen to "...use the force of government to suppress (their) critics..."

Absent the context of Wild West shooting and violence, it would appear the parallel between their and the Scientologists' response to threat is fairly apropos.

I was reading from my The Essential Koran (Thomas Cleary - 1993, selected readings in which its easier to find some quotes I like) last night. Some of my earlier passion for defending those of faith and good will was rekindled. I think I will be a thorn in everyone's side on this and related issues, as the self-appointed defender of faith. All faith.

I think it will be best if we conscientiously avoid baiting anyone of any faith in these pages. So, as it seems that the mention of specific words from the purportedly quoted "Operating Thetan" materials in the main article is, to Scientologists, like waving a red flag in front of a bull while stinging it with a cattle prod, I replaced it with a non-quote reference to the same material.

''You don't seem to have replaced any quote in particular, merely the name of the evil galactic overlord with his title. Out of curiosity, why is that an important difference?''

If you've been around the net on this subject, you already know the answer to that question. Scientologists did not start getting freaked about supposed leaks of this "Operating Thetan" material unless certain specific terms were used. If you leave out the actual names and terms, they don't seem to mind.

I have this old book (1952, I think) called Scientology, a History of Man that has almost all the same stuff in it (and more - talk about a science fiction scenario!) as the "Operating Thetan" materials on the web, but without specific names and certain terms. If they are willing to sell this book to the public and put it in libraries, as I have seen, then it's not the general subject matter of the materials they don't want bandied about. It's things like names and exact events - I think. So - in deference to tender feelings, I deleted the name. Anyone is free to correct me if this understanding is wrong, but that's why I did it.

Question from a non-native speaker: Does 'criticize' mean that you speak bad about something or that you evaluate something? The existence of :Film critics points to the latter. --Yooden
 * Yooden, both are legitimate AND common usages in English. In fact, I'd guess that in popular speech 'criticize' more commonly means 'speak bad about' and that in university speech it is more likely to mean 'evaluate.'--MichaelTinkler

OK, that sounds familiar. Hereabouts though, 'criticize' (well, the translation) is certainly of a better quality than 'speak bad about' (as I so eloquently called it) aka 'bitch'. It involves reasoning and evidence. Thus, any criticism is inherently a Good Thing, as anyone on Wikipedia should acknowledge.

There seems to ba a mixup of 'Scientology == CoS' and 'Scientology != CoS'. Could someone clear this up? --Yooden

I was given to understand that the policy of "fair game" was not officially revoked, rather that Hubbard ordered his followers to refrain from using that term. Has the policy officially been revoked by the CoS? -D

-
 * The current church practice is pointed to; that of requiring members who have significant turmoil in their lives stemming from the antagonisms of family and friends to cease participation in church services and not resume them until differences with those close to them have been ironed out.

How does the writer of this sentence know this to be the case? If it's just a policy proclamatation, what value is that? At the risk of an inflammatory analogy, Catholic Church policy was firmly against buggering orphans under their care, but it sure happened a lot, and the church hierachy of the time preferred to pretend it wasn't happening rather than deal with the problem. --Robert Merkel

My first contact with anything relating to Scientology was when I had a night job at a US Postal Service mail sorting facility. One of the bags had come open and a mailing obviously intended for those who "train" what the church calls "clears" had fallen out. During a break I read some of the articles. They were uniformly concerned with how best to convince "stalled clears" to part with more of their money in payment for additional "training." Intrigued, I searched out as much as I could find on the church.

To say that I was shocked that an orgnization such as Scientology could style itself as a "church" would be a classic understatement. I can say without equivocation that Scientology qualifies as a cult under any reasonable definition of the term. Harrassment and intimidation of critics (legitimate, un-self-serving ones, I might add), extortion, bribery of public officials, violence against those attempting to leave the church, brain-washing of initiates to rival that experienced during the Korean conflict, use of adherents as virtual slave laborers...all were alleged (and in my humble opinion proven) time and time again. Under the adadge that "where there's smoke, there's fire," Scientology has a very, very bad track record.

I agree with the concept of NPOV, but surely there is some point at which we have to call a spade a damned shovel! Scientology is a cult. F. Lee Horn

The attributes you mention aren't really attributes of a cult, though: they're the attributes of a criminal organization, like the Mafia. Cults are more often totally irrational, based around a single person who acts on whim, not calculated greed. Unfortunately, I don't think we should come out and simply define them as a criminal organization since our government seems to have some tolerance for the goons, even though some foreign governments (like Greece, which the "church" tried to take over the government of) have more sense. I'd also personally prefer that any information on the net about them be much more critical, and frankly, I hope the bastards all go to jail where they belong, but until they actuall are all put in jail, I think we have little choice but to simply report the facts we have and trust readers to draw their own conclusions. --LDC


 * Our government? Foreign government? I thought this encyclopedia was an international effort?--branko

LOL! I suppose I must agree, albiet with extreme reluctance. :) F. Lee Horn

I added some structure to the document by cutting up overly long paragraphs (at hopefully sensible points) and by adding headings.

This will hopefully achieve the following:


 * better readability of the entry
 * better readability of diffs

(I was reading the last 'minor edit' and had a hard time discovering where the edit was made.)

At one point I had to change a paragraph a little, so that a back reference would not be left dangling in the air: "The aim is" became "The aim of auditing is".

At another point I moved a paragraph to a more logical position: the paragraph starting with 'In addition to free Sunday services' now follows the original begining of the previous overly long paragraph that I chopped into more easily legible bits.

Probably the text could even be structured better, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader. :-) --branko

=
I would be concerned when the simple fact that Scientology has misused copyright law as a basis for suits against its detractors becomes reason enough to not present those views. My first question would be: "Were those suits successful?" IMHO when a group misuses the threat of law to crush less affluent opposition, there is a very serious threat to the concept of free speech. The litigator no longer needs to have right on his side, he only needs to be powerful. Eclecticology

The brainwashing isn't explained, as if the charge came out of the clear blue sky! What needs to be explained is that the entire purpose of "auditing" is precisely to brainwash people. I read somewhere that the "preclear" are "audited" for hours at a time. If people understand that this is basically an hours long session of psychoanalysis, then any claim that it's not brainwashing (by "leaders" in psychology or not) will be risible. Normal therapy sessions with psychologists who aren't trying to brainwash you can turn very bad. How much worse must it be to be in that chair for hours upon hours at a time with someone who is trying to brainwash you? -- Ark

The first sentence states that Scientology is recognized as a religion, but fails to specify who did the recognizing. To my knowledge there is no board of certification for religions.

Should this article be edited to indicate simply that Scientology claims itself to be a religion? David 12:28 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

Interesting question. What's meant by "recognition" of a religious organization in the USA is usually that it is considered a religious nonprofit organization under the tax code, as administered by the Internal Revenue Service. There isn't any registry of religions (that is to say, belief systems) as such. As far as I know, the IRS's recognition is not imposed on the courts or other branches of government as a precedent, though controversial organizations like to point to their tax-exempt status as if it were a government accreditation of their authenticity. --Fubar Obfusco


 * In an earlier version of the article I had written exactly that, 'claims to be a religion', which got edited out, which in turn I had expected, more or less even asked for. I tried to exagerate on purpose, because the previous version (from before the conversion) stated bluntly 'is a religion'.


 * The problem I had with the 'is a religion' is that people clearly distinguish (disambiguate) between cults (in its negative connotation) and religions, even if the former are technically speaking a subset of the latter. I feel that in what commonly are referred to as churches and cults, Scientology is the latter, and the article should somehow reflect that distinction.


 * Religion is a vague term. The religion entry in WP says: "What constitutes a religion is subject to much dispute in the field of theology and among ordinary people. We might begin by defining religion as a system of beliefs based on humanity's attempt to explain the universe and natural phenomena, often involving one or more deities or other supernatural forces." According to this definition, the only thing we can vaguely say about religion is that it is a system of beliefs held by more than one person. (Yet, if more than one person believes a set of common urban legends, or in say scientific 'truths', we don't call that a religion&mdash;perhaps sacredness should be in that definition somewhere, if that term itself could be redefined without any references to religion or the supernatural.)


 * Hm, I wanted to say something, but I am getting confused now.--User:Branko

I think you said some interesting things. I, too, have thought about "religion". But perhaps it would be better to continue that discussion at /Talk:Religion. David 14:47 Aug 17, 2002 (PDT)

One point - I notice the specific mention of Australia as a place where scientology is frowned upon. Whilst, like many other countries, most people not involved with it regard it as a rather wacky cult, there is no systematic official attempts to discourage it as there is in Germany. Hence I removed the specific reference. --Robert Merkel 01:40 Sep 15, 2002 (UTC)

Discussing Scientology from a NPOV is, perhaps, even harder than discussing Nazism from the same NPOV: The crimes of the Nazis are well-documented, the main themes of genocide and extreme nationalism are beyond dispute, and the leaders are recognized by nearly everyone to have been dangerous madmen. In Scientology, however, the crimes are less documented, the main themes of greed and powerlust are tough to state without someone belittling them by ragging on another religion (oh, Scientology's moneylust is nothing compared to the Catholic greed), and people still try to dress it up as a 'religion' and attack critics with claims of bigotry and intolerance.

The last point is particularly vexing, and reflects typical Scientologist practice of twisting the meanings of words (ref: ethics vs. 'ethics'). There is enough looniness in the tracts for one to think that it must be a religion, but the cynicism of the payment plan (Only one more payment and you'll be Clear!) and the leadership (Furiously attacking all criticism with legal bulldogs trained to recite copyright law, for God's sake!) gives the lie to any claim of being a religion the Corporation of Scientology may try to make.

It's like being glowered at and slapped down when you try to say the Emperor is buck naked.

As the entry currently exists (July 6th 2003, 12:49PM PDT), it is extremely well done. I am very knowledgable about Scientology and Scientology Inc., having studied the commercial enterprise since 1995. It is not an easy task to write from a "neutral point of view," considering the nature of the topic. Scientology ruins lives and families, with the chief victims being Scientologists. Human rights activists are also targeted by Scientology Inc. for destruction because we work to defend Scientologists (and non-Scientologists) from Scientology Inc.'s abuses.

The sinister business claims that us human rights activsist are "bigots" and that we attack the "church" out of "hatred," and "ignorance." The truth of the matter, which anyone and everyone can see, is that critics of Scientology and Scientology Inc. engage in criticism out of compassion for Scientologists and the victims of Scientology and Scientology Inc.: if we "hated" them, we wouldn't object to Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses!

Concerning demarcating between Scientology and Scientology Inc., many observers think that the two are the same Scientology Inc. would agree. However, there are "Free Zoners" who dissagree. I tend to demarcate between the two when I write about Scientology and/or Scientology Inc., to be fair to the Free Zoners.

Scientology is not, never has been, and probably never will be a religion. As a former Scientologist recently wrote in alt.religion.scientology, he spent nine years as a full-time, dedicated Scientologist who didn't know Scientology was a "religion" until after he came to his senses and fleg the organization. L. Ron Hummabr wrote about "the religion angle" as being only a "matter for accountants" and the IRS. He made Scientology a "religion" and Scientology Inc. a "church" *ONLY* to gain tax-exemption status, and to gain certain protections againsty prosecution for various crimes. Religions in the USA are pretty much exempt from prosecution for prtacticing medicine without a license: a fact Hubbard was quick to take advantage of.

Desertphile

Oh, this is damned irritating.

Dysprosia, could you possibly not reverse edits while I'm literally in the middle of editing a page? I'll post a notice to this page when I'm done. Then it might be a good idea to discuss which specific bits you don't like. And thank you for the pointers, but I do know what I'm doing, and I can honestly claim to know a thing or two about the subject.

-- ChrisO 01:32 UTC 09 Nov 03


 * You removed a whole heap of content without real explanation, which isn't a good thing. If you plan to do somethign better with it, or you believe you have good reason to remove it, raise the issue here before you do. It's not good form to remove content without explaining why. Dysprosia 01:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That's why waiting until the edit is actually finished might be a good idea. If I'm dovetailing, moving or clarifying content section by section (note - not removing it), the overall effect won't be obvious until it's done. Let's then discuss what specific changes you don't like, without first removing a whole heap of edits without real explanation (to borrow a phrase).


 * -- ChrisO 02:04 UTC 09 Nov 03


 * Please use the Edit summary feature to make this absolutely clear in future. Without a clear comment there, we don't know your intentions in changing the page, whether you're moving it, or going to put the content elsewhere, or whatever. I'm sorry if I was a bit short with your editing before. Dysprosia 02:29, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, the changes have been made. Key points:


 * The status of Scientology from the first paragraph has been moved down to the bit about the Church of Scientology. There is no controversy that I'm aware of about the status of Scientology groups outside the Church itself.


 * Para 2 has been reworked a bit and expanded to make clear the difference between Scientology and Dianetics. I've deliberately omitted the Dianetics book list, as that is more appropriate to the Dianetics article (to which I will add it).


 * New para added on origins of the word "Scientology".


 * New para added on how Scientology's doctrines are codified.


 * Para on Church of Scientology's status reworked to note Scientology's constitutionally protected status in the US and contrast with the situation elsewhere; the reference to the German tax exemption is not appropriate to such a brief overview and should be moved to the Church of Scientology page (which I'll do).


 * Minor tweaks to "Controversy and Criticism" para - no point mentioning the 19th century if Scientology started in 1952!


 * "Scientology-related deaths" amended to "Deaths of Scientologists". Scientology would dispute that the deaths in question are "related" and I don't think that phrasing is really consistent with a NPoV.

If anyone has any comments on any of this, please say so (and explain why!). Thanks. :-)

-- ChrisO 02:45 UTC 09 Nov 03

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)