Talk:Secret society: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>Larry Sanger
Line 6: Line 6:
== Interesting start ==
== Interesting start ==


The article is quite interesting, but itself takes a somewhat "conspiratorial" stance toward its subject, rather than a neutral one, it seems to me.  For example, the article says:
The article is quite interesting--and thanks very much for it, Mark--but itself takes a somewhat "conspiratorial" stance toward its subject, rather than a neutral one, it seems to me.  For example, the article says:


:Secret societies are often associated with conspiracy theories that involve global domination and the introduction a New World Order. These groups are most often characterized in having a hierarchical structure with an ascending series of Degrees.  
:Secret societies are often associated with conspiracy theories that involve global domination and the introduction a New World Order. These groups are most often characterized in having a hierarchical structure with an ascending series of Degrees.  
Line 12: Line 12:
"These groups"--which?  Who so characterizes them?  The claim is so vague as to be difficult to verify.  Moreover, the result seems calculated to raise alarm, but comes off looking biased and perhaps a little silly ("What are we going to do today, Brain?").  Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to ''believe'' that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination."
"These groups"--which?  Who so characterizes them?  The claim is so vague as to be difficult to verify.  Moreover, the result seems calculated to raise alarm, but comes off looking biased and perhaps a little silly ("What are we going to do today, Brain?").  Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to ''believe'' that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination."


The current definition would include ''Al Qaeda.''  Should that, and other terrorist and criminal organizations, be considered secret societies?  If not, the definition should be modified so as to exclude them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
The current definition would include ''Al Qaeda.''  Should that and other terrorist and criminal organizations be considered secret societies?  If not, the definition should be modified so as to exclude them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 08:01, 21 April 2007

Secret religions

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled on a case between the Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia. Russia lost and is required to pay EUR 10,000 non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 costs and expenses. No mention of secrecy is found in the court's ruling [1]. The court did comment; "It was not disputed that the applicant had submitted a book detailing the theological premises and practices of Scientology." The court did comment; "the Court considers that the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of religion and association was not justified."

The Russian government's treatment of Scientology echos what happened earlier in the United States. The U.S. government's tax agency investigated the Church of Scientology more throughly than any organization they had ever investigated. But at last the tax agency (the IRS) granted that the Church was a charitable organization and should be exempt from taxes on its services. After dealing with that, the Church requested opinions from a number of professional people, such as Michael A. Sivertsev, expert advisor on international matters to the Committee of the Russian Federation. Those opinions may be viewed at [2]. I don't believe you will find any of them present that the Church of Scientology, or the Scientology philosophy, is secretive. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Church will happily sell to anyone a vast amount of information, it stacks up much higher than a person can reach. It is said to be in the neighborhood of 40 millions words. For these reasons, and others, I would submit that the article should not list Scientology as "secret religion". Terry E. Olsen 05:07, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Interesting start

The article is quite interesting--and thanks very much for it, Mark--but itself takes a somewhat "conspiratorial" stance toward its subject, rather than a neutral one, it seems to me. For example, the article says:

Secret societies are often associated with conspiracy theories that involve global domination and the introduction a New World Order. These groups are most often characterized in having a hierarchical structure with an ascending series of Degrees.

"These groups"--which? Who so characterizes them? The claim is so vague as to be difficult to verify. Moreover, the result seems calculated to raise alarm, but comes off looking biased and perhaps a little silly ("What are we going to do today, Brain?"). Surely we aren't asking the average CZ reader to believe that any serious "secret society" is engaged in pursuing "global domination."

The current definition would include Al Qaeda. Should that and other terrorist and criminal organizations be considered secret societies? If not, the definition should be modified so as to exclude them. --Larry Sanger 08:59, 21 April 2007 (CDT)