Talk:Secret society

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)

I'm not sure that, even if its belief system has secret elements and secretive practices, Scientology counts as a secret society. More generally, do secretive cults count as secret societies? If so, then perhaps Scientology should; but I am not sure that secretive cults are properly called "secret societies." (I mean, you tell me: how is the phrase actually used by the people who research what they call "secret societies"?)

My understanding is that the Church will sell a vast amount of information, but not to just anyone, but only to initiates. The fact that they sell the information by itself hardly means it isn't also secret. --Larry Sanger 19:39, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Anyone can walk into any Church or Mission of Scientology 7000 locations. There will be some kind of introduction they can examine at their leisure in most locations, and some kind of bookstore. They may examine or purchase any (or all) of the (estimated) 40 million words of the subject. Often public libraries have such books, amazon.com will sell them new or used or they can be purchased from the Church's publication house There is no secret to any of that. Nor could the aims of Scientology be achieved within a secret environment: "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology." Terry E. Olsen 11:09, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Simply on the strength of the fact that other secretive societies described as "religious" are listed here, it follows straightforwardly that Scientology should be listed as well, because Scientology is quite secretive about information available at the higher levels. Terry, as it appears you are a Scientologist, let me ask you this: do Scientologists actually deny that they are secretive? Also, can I purchase all the Scientology material and descriptions of Scientology practices without being a high-level Scientologist? Isn't there quite a bit of higher-level stuff that is members-only? --Larry Sanger 19:51, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, consider myself to be a Scientologist. My best estimate is that less than 1% of Mr. Hubbard's writings and lectures are not published and not sold to anyone, ever. Here is my longer explanation. There is a small amount of material the Church holds confidential. It is not sold to anyone and is not, therefore, published material. The Church makes no comment about how much material that I can find. However, Laurie Hamilton is a minister of the Church of long experience, but is not an official representative of the Church of Scientology and can, therefore, answer any question she likes in any manner she chooses. She has done much of (but not all of) Scientology's Bridge (levels), has been involved as a staff member of the Church and her father knew Mr. Hubbard personally. She answers any questions she wishes to here. She answered this question by saying (in part): "All this junk that is getting ELECTRIFYING play on the web is related to less than 1% of the material on Scientology, but nevermind if all the rest is totally valid, THIS can be made fun of, so to heck with the subject in general!" (appears on the lower third of the page). She writes some information about her experience of the higher levels here. The preceeding responds about the levels and isn't just my opinion alone. In addition to unpublished information about the levels, the Church has a small quantity (very small I think) of unpublished administrative information about running the organization. It is of limited distribution, you or I could not purchase copies of it. She writes about that here. The issue as I see it is this: Mr. Hubbard entrusted the Church with all of his writings and lectures. The Church publishes 99% of his work but holds 1% (or less) confidential. Is this appropriate Church behaviour? Well, it makes sense to me that Scientology does not "owe" the public access to every single word that Hubbard wrote. Terry E. Olsen 11:09, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

The point is that Scientology remains quite secretive--to a degree unknown to you ("The Church makes no comment about how much material that I can find") though you say it is "small." But, evidently, not being a Scientology higher-up, you presumably don't know even that. Besides, it doesn't matter what percentage of material, published or unpublished, is secret; if there are indeed important organizational activities and documents that are held in secret, to that extent it at least resembles a secret society.

I still wonder, however, whether all secretive cults really count as "secret societies." --Larry Sanger 11:34, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

I have attempted to let you know that there is nothing secretive about the organization. The Church does hold some material confidential and doesn't publish it. I addressed that ratio. I have not seen that material and so, don't know exactly. I am able to infer from my knowledge of what is published (much of which I own) and from my knowledge of auditing. These together, combined with the amount of time a practitioner spends with a level, tell me the approximate quantity of confidential information is less than one percent. Ninety-nine percent published (anyone can buy it) and being a "secret society" are different kettles of fish. The Church says why it won't publish what it doesn't publish, their reasoning seems valid to me, a pracitioner. But even Ford Motor Company has procedure for promoting people that is not completely in public view. Would some examples from the documentation the Volunteer Ministers be helpful in understanding this? Or some documentation about detox or about NARCONON or CIMINON or be helpful? Terry E. Olsen 12:30, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

The specifics of unpublished administrative information is published in What is Scientology (hardbound), spelled out by date and title of lecture. The unpublished technical information is revealed to a practitioner as they do an OT Level, and the Levels and abilities rehabilitated are published. And Scientology isn't belief. You read the information on the page, you decided whether it is valid or not and you assimilate it or you don't. It is purely up to the individual. No particular idea makes a person a Scientologist or otherwise. There is no singular idea by which I could say, "if you believe this, then you are a scientologist." In short, there are no beliefs to it. another Scientologist's opinion -Terry E. Olsen 12:48, 22 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)

The wording is open to interpretation. I first read it as meaning - people outside the secret society often associate it with conspiracy theories but not that the society was really conspiring. E.g. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code associates Opus Dei with a conspiracy. Association by outsides with, and actual involvement in, a conspiracy are different things. Derek Harkness 21:36, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Freemasonary

Early in the article Freemasonary is used as an example; for example, such an accusation has frequently made against perhaps the best-known "secret society," the Freemasons. The article goes on to say;

• "Freemasons describe themselves as a religious organization."

Any reader of our encyclopedia is likely to go to freemasonry.org. At the very top of that website they would find:

• "Although of a religious nature, Freemasonry is not a religion."
  

So then, what is Freemasonary if it is not a religion? The same website gives us that answer, saying;

• "Freemasonry is the oldest and largest world wide fraternity dedicated to the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being. It urges its members . . to be faithful and devoted to their own religious beliefs."
  

May we, therefore, make some changes to the article content ? Terry E. Olsen 13:45, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Actually, that was a typo describing the Freemasons as a "religious" organization, so the change was made. In my original draft, I had Templars in place of Freemasons! Sorry! On other points, please feel free to make changes. I was simply trying to start the ball rolling....

--Mark Mirabello 20:55, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

How is this article maintainable?

I see no clear, agreed upon definition among a consensus of scholars as to what defines and delimits what is and is not a "secret society". Hence, I might be justified in including a great number of religious groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc), corporations (any whose board meetings are not public, perhaps--and why not?), the Central Intelligence Agency, and all sorts of groups. I am going to suggest that unless there is an agreed upon definition among a consensus of scholars that offers clear criteria beyond "organized associations working more or less in secret", and the criteria is placed into the article, that an editor assert that this article is simply not maintainable and have it deleted. ---Stephen Ewen 13:11, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Delete sounds good to me. No definition - no article. But it might be possible to start from a widely known, historically secret sort of society; example - the USA's Underground Railroad during the Civil War. Given a historical context a workable definition might be created. Terry E. Olsen 14:17, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Definition Provided

Hmmm. The debate is more learned, but the passions rival those at wikipedia.

It is interesting that my quick stub has already drawn the attention of the founder of citizendium and a constable!

Before someone deletes, however, I have tried a quick fix by providing a non-controversial definition. Perhaps next the definition can be expanded and we can debate which groups belong to the category.

--Mark Mirabello 16:03, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

I am acting here as an author not a constable. Constables cannot delete articles on their own recognizance for non-maintainability. Now, I still do not think the definition you added is such that it provides a set of criteria that is generally agreed upon by scholars. You are quoting one person. Under the definition, I might be justified in including a great number of religious groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.--and why not if not?), corporations (any whose board meetings are not public, perhaps--and why not if not?), the Central Intelligence Agency--and why not if not?, and all sorts of groups, as I said before. Unless there is a clear set of criteria held among a consensus of scholars to include and exclude what is and is not categorized as a "secret society", I think this article will wind up being more trouble than it is worth. Stephen Ewen 16:20, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

You have provided an individual's statement of definition. What is lacking is the chapter of the publication it is contained in, or an attribution where a person could find that gentleman has stated that definition. Myself, I don't believe a "secret society" need have an exclusive membership. The Underground Railroad, for example, did not. Nor does Scientology have the least bit of exclusiveness. Quite the opposite in fact. The Church welcomes all persons of any race, creed, religion or haircut. In that case, becoming a member does not even create a "scientologist" because that is a self declare and not a purchased membership. One can become a "member of the association of scientologists international" and not consider one's self to be a scientologist at all. And the opposite situation can exist, too. Terry E. Olsen 16:31, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

As an Editor, though not in this field (not sure what field such societies might go in), I would like to see the content of this aricle improved and maintained, rather than deleted. I think part of the problem is that apples and oranages (and the odd kumquat) are all tossed in together. I would suggest splitting this article into two or more entries with more clearly defined limits:

1) Fraternal Organizations (nonsectarian). Here one could list the more common of these, including the Masons, the Shriners, the Elks, the Odd Fellows, etc., among which there are a good many commonalities.

2) Religious Organizations -- the Knights of Columbus, and others which are sectarian.

3) Student societies, such as Skull & bones.

And so on. This might be manageable -- might not -- the third possibility would be just to have Secret Society as a disambiguation page, with the above sort of categories referenced. Russell Potter 16:37, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

All of that still begs the maintainability question, Russell. Divided into subsections are not, what exact criteria is to be used to determine what is and is not classified as a "secret society"? We could say that any association not wide open to the public is one. Every entity has its own rituals and criteria for membership that necessarily is exclusionist toward at least some "ousiders". Lacking a clear set of criteria, we could also do some pretty silly revisionist stuff and classify things like the Underground Railroad in the U.S. as a "secret society", rather than a political resistance movement. Well, wait, maybe all political resistance movement are "secret societies". Sounds like the George Noory crowd, to me, who might see all sorts of things through their very reaching conspiratorial worldview. You see, this can get really non-maintainable real fast, unless very clear criteria are included, and not just what we contrive or one person or another came up with, but what the consensus of scholars already is--if such a thing exists, that is, and I do not know. Stephen Ewen 18:05, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, I agree, the entry as currently conceived is non-maintainable. But I think the underlying content is content we should have in some form; the question is what form? Russell Potter 19:07, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think Joe makes good points below. Perhaps what is most unmaintainable is this whole notion of creating lists of who's in and who's out under the "secret society" category. Stephen Ewen 19:29, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

The confusion here, I think, is the fundamental distinction between "secret societies" and "societies with secrets." If this distinction is properly made, I think this article is very maintainable.

For a definition of "secret society," one might do best by looking to Georg Simmel (sociologist) who wrote a fantastic article on the subject in 1906. If you have access to jstor, you can read it here. To write this article without using Simmel would be a real shame. For a more recent piece, one might see what Victor Turner (anthropologist) has to say about the subject. --Joe Quick (Talk) 18:30, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Do we want original reaseach articles by authors, or are we going to stay with what has already been published, as Joe mentions ? Put another way, should a consensus of editors decide what organizations should be listed ? Terry E. Olsen 21:26, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

I doubt there would be such a consensus, but we need to follow the CZ Article Standards anyway, so no original research. The job of an encyclopedia is to summarize the extant body of work on a subject. --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:34, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

The fact that no good definition has been given in this article (if true) hardly means that the concept itself is not reasonably clear to people who study it (even if they can't articulate it to our satisfaction), and that there should not be an article about the topic. By this reasoning, we should delete all articles such that, according to the definitions they open with, we could not maintain the information they should contain.

So I think we should give Mark Mirabello a chance to explain the field rather better, since I suspect he knows it quite a bit better than any of the rest of us. --Larry Sanger 00:54, 23 April 2007 (CDT)