Talk:Church of Scientology

Religion

Scientology wasn't even granted tax-exempt church status until the 80s or 90s; I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it was started as a "religion" but rather it has apparently become one since. --Robert W King 10:53, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Controversy

I don't think the controversy is covered well enough. There is a lot of information out there and no one here is fully researching the controversy. Fortunately, the forums at http://www.enturbulation.com/ have compiled a nice information packet. This includes information from Alt.Religion.Scientology, Mark Bunker, Tory Magoo, Arnie Lerma, Kendra Wiseman, and Anonymous... all of them have been involved in the research of the controversy of scientology at these forums.

I'm just an avid reader. It's better than any sports on TV. Really.

Here's the packet:

http://rapidshare.com/files/103822534/Info_Packet_GOLD.zip.html

(they are apparently still finding grammar and spelling problems.)

Mark Anthony Collins 19:22, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Combine pages

Please be sure to combine this with Talk:Scientology (doctrine). --Larry Sanger 10:56, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Done below. Stephen Ewen 11:36, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Church of Scientology

Church of Scientology — just placing this link here so others know it exists. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:26, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Draft in talk

I recommend that the article be redrafted in the talk space before appearing on the main article space.--Robert W King 10:29, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

I would agree with that. That practice works well when we're dealing with topics that are prone to a lot of controversy. --Larry Sanger 10:49, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Gentlemen, I have today set aside to work intensively on this project, and have hit a snag—someone has edited what I did while I am working on it, and now I have to merge his/her comments, but can find no such option in any of the buttons. I am happy to work on the draft somewhere else than where it is going to be edited while I am working on it, but my understanding of working in "talk space" is that this is the talk space....where we discuss the article rather than create the article. So where do I go? Would it perhaps be easier to create the whole thing off line and then post for discussion? This is a huge subject, and I find that I am travelling around the world on business almost non-stop, so my time has been somewhat thin for this project. However, I am onto it again and would like to post the next section and receive comments, so I can fine-tune future efforts. I was not aware that someone had edited my earlier post, even though I had listed it to be watched...maybe I have not done it correctly...but I must say, whoever worked on it I thought did a very good job and I am very comfortable working with whomsoever it was. Steven Ferry 11:02, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

For contentious articles the Talk space is perfectly suitable.--Robert W King 11:08, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

In that case, perhaps if I post one section at a time. I do not see how an article with this many sections and subsections, which is not properly formatted in this talk section, will be easy to manage. Am I on the right track? Steven Ferry 11:14, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure! However you would like to work on it... --Robert W King 11:21, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Steven, there is unfortunately no way to merge changes automatically (not yet, anyway). You unfortunately must do it "by hand." If the edit conflict window is still open, however, that should be of great help, because it shows the difference between the text you have added and the text the other person has added.

Do bear in mind that this is a wiki, and everyone has the authority to work on any article at any time, with a few exceptions perhaps.

I think posting one section at a time for comments is a reasonable idea as well. But I do have one request, and that is that we remove the article outline to this talk page, or else your user space, Steven--detailed but unfilled-in outlines don't look good from the end user's perspective, and they tend to inhibit work done by others, in our experience. It serves as a way for one person, the outliner, to "stake a claim" to an article, which Citizens may not do. --Larry Sanger 11:23, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

I am somewhat confused. I just responded to Robert and it did not post, but instead your post came through, Larry. To address your ideas, I am happy to remove the outline, but have you alread done this, because I don't see it on this page? .... I wonder, however, how a structured article can be presented without an outline. I shall certainly try to follow one, but always open to better ideas for presenting the information. In the meantime, I am posting the next section for review. Steven Ferry 11:41, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I see the Talk secton is properly formatted...excellent! Steven Ferry 11:43, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Revision Comments

Not sure what some of this means and possibly they could be revised

“He founded the Church of Scientology to teach his doctrines, many of which are very tightly guarded from the general public by church officials.”

Guarded as in dogma set in stone and irrefutable to the believers or guarded as in secret and not known to any but a few?

“Scientology does not descend from any of the major world religions.”

Descend as in not derived or influenced or descend as a completely original concept with absolutely nothing in common with any other religion? --Thomas Simmons 17:46, 13 December 2007 (CST)

good questions. Guarded = both senses. The Church files lawsuits like crazy against any publication or unauthorized use of Hubbad's works, and claims to keep 500,000 pages of them inviolate. Members have to pay $$$ to get to read them. The Church seems to have no origins or ties to any known religion--it most resembles in my opinion Christian Science, but that is probably a coincidence. Richard Jensen 18:23, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Wrong, Scientology is nothing like Christian Science. --Robert W King 18:37, 13 December 2007 (CST)

'"Scientology as science, philosophy, and religion"'

The difficulty with describing Scientology is that, in investigating and pronouncing upon life itself, Scientology crosses into many areas of human knowledge: answering the question, “What is Scientology?” is analogous to summarizing the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

This difficulty is compounded by the new territories charted by Scientology which, while launching from the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of thinking men, found one discovery predicting and leading to another, with the result that anyone attempting to define the mental and spiritual dimensions of life in terms of the language and perceptions of those immersed in the material world, is hard put to bring about recognition in the reader. This problem is solved partially and in broad terms by defining Scientology as “an applied religious philosophy,” but as it is the first such, amplification is required.

Scientology is a philosophy that examines, and claims to advance the understanding of, the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Scientology was declared a religion and the Church founded in 1953 at the suggestion of some Californians involved in early Scientology, who recognized that the research path had led them into recognition of the spiritual dimension of man, thereby moving the subject beyond the purview of studies of the mind and into those of religion.

Scientology is an applied religious philosophy because it is not something to be merely discussed and thought about. Thousands of techniques requiring precise application have been spawned and are applied daily by Scientologists around the globe to improve conditions—whether of a personal nature, organizational, societal, or any of a wide range of human endeavors, such as the arts and sports.

Central to the new perspectives Scientology brings to the fields of religion and philosophy, is the rigorous research undertaken that resulted in a body of knowledge which, when applied precisely, is reported to achieve precise and invariable results. This body of knowledge, like any other science, is based upon an epistemology and axioms. The same discipline and expectations of the various sciences existing today, had not been applied, until the advent of Scientology (and Dianetics, its precursor in the field of the mind) to the fields of the mind and the spirit.

To understand better how Dianetics segued into Scientology, it is instructive to know that Hubbard’s twelve years of research into the mind were recorded and published in Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health on May 9, 1950, at the end of which book, Mr. Hubbard stated that he needed to conduct “further research into life force”x [[^x DMSMH, p 481, 2007 edition]] as an apparent but undefined element influencing the mind. Within a year, he had “identified an animating force within every living thing." This he called Theta" and "distinguished it as energy existing separate and distinct from the physical universe.” He subsequently developed a highly sensitive galvanometer in Wichita in late 1951 and after additional tests in Phoenix, Arizona in 1952, became the first to claim to isolate and identify scientifically the human spirit.x Dianetics in the 21st Century, DMSMH, p 503-5, 2007 edition

While many prefer to err with Galen in denying that Scientology has scientific basis, it does fit the definition of a science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”...with the singular exception that the language of the definition reflects Western man’s focus on the material and lack of scientific research or precedent in the humanities.

If science is defined as a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject, based on axioms and laws, which predicts and confirms phenomena and which, when it’s techniques are applied, achieves invariable results, then Dianetics and Scientology can be defined as sciences of the mind and spirit, even if no such sciences have ever before existed.

“There is something new... called Dianetics. A new science which [sic] works with the invariability of physical science in the field of the human mind. From all indications it will prove to be as revolutionary for humanity as the first caveman’s discovery and utilization of fire.”

Walter Winchell, New York Daily Mirror, 31 January 1950.

As a non-denominational Church, Scientology has no dogmas but provides information and thereby insights that each individual is expected to achieve on his or her own determinism concerning man’s spiritual nature, whatever religion he may belong to, and ultimately, whatever god(s) he may believe in.

As might be expected of a Church, Scientology runs social programs around the world that address the various issues of suffering or difficulty mankind faces, such as immorality, drug abuse, psychiatric abuses, education failures, criminality, human rights abuses, religious intolerance, and disaster relief. The technology applied in these programs, as well as those designed for businesses and organizations, is based on Mr. Hubbard’s work and is designed to achieve the aims of Scientology as expressed by him:

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.” He went on to say, “Nonpolitical in nature, Scientology welcomes any individual of any creed, race, or nation. We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for society.

The Aims of Scientology, September 1965, Technical Volume #7, p 663 or http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/presentation/pg014.html

Dianetics—the breakthrough that led to Scientology

Dianetics, from Greek dia (through) and nous (soul), means “what the soul is doing to the body.”

Hubbard’s mainline research into the mind began in 1932 while at George Washington University, where he was studying mathematics and engineering. Positing that subatomic particles might shed light on the human thought process, he had enrolled in one of the first nuclear physics courses taught in the United States. One day, he visited the psychology department to consult on his research:

I made the horrifying discovery that nobody had the mind taped. It was very obvious that I was dealing with and living in a culture that knew less about the mind than the lowest primitive tribe I had ever come in contact with. Knowing also that people in the East were not able to reach as deeply and predictably into the riddles of the mind as I had been led to expect, I knew I would have to do a lot of research.

L. Ron Hubbard, xxxxxxxx

By 1938, his research was focused on determining how cells functioned. Following an elaborate series of experiments, he determined the common denominator and fundamental, primary goal for all life forms apeared to be infinite survival (for mankind, this does not mean merely having an existence, but includes ideals, love, and art among other vital aspects). The better an individual is able to manage his life and increase his level of survival, the greater his pleasure, abundance, and satisfaction.

Research was interrupted during World War II but intensified after 1945, when Hubbard used his enforced convalescence from his war-time injuries to study endocrinology at Oak Knoll Naval hospital. Hundreds of fellow patients, liberated from Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, were not responding uniformly to testosterone being administered by Navy physicians (under great stress, men may lose their virility and have difficulty eating or breaking down food if deficient in this hormone).

All I was trying to establish was whether or not the mind regulated the body or the body regulated the mind. Therefore, if on some of these patients hormones did not work and on some of them they did, there might be a mental reason. If those patients on whom it did not work had a severe mental block, then it was obvious that regardless of the amount of hormone or medical treatment the person received, he would not get well. If the mind were capable of putting this much restraint upon the physical body then obviously the fact that was commonly held to be true, that structure monitors function, would be false. I set out to prove this.

L. Ron Hubbard, xxx

In case after case, Mr. Hubbard used techniques he had developed to find and remove mental blocks such that the previously unresponsive patients reportedly were able, as predicted, to make the expected improvements immediately with their medical treatments. “Thought is boss,” was Mr. Hubbard’s conclusion, a finding at variance with conventional wisdom.

In the years between his discharge from Oak Knoll and the release of Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, Hubbard worked two hundred and seventy three cases of all types, including many in mental institutions in Savannah, Georgia and Washington, DC.

The fundamental discoveries of Dianetics included:

Isolating that which undermines the basic mandate to survive, causing pain, negative emotions, irrational thoughts and self-doubts, the disappointment of unhappy relationships and the underlying reason for the failure to meet goals set: a part of the mind, operating below the level of consciousness and therefore as a hidden influence, which brings about all psychosomatic illnesses, unwanted sensations, inexplicable and inappropriate emotions (anger, hatred, fear, resentment, apathy, etc.), and irrational ideas and conduct that have all conspired to make life less than pleasurable. Mr. Hubbard called this part of the mind the reactive mind because it causes people to react instead of address their environment analytically and with an open heart.

Techniques that could be applied by layman to remove these negative elements from their minds and therefore their lives within a reasonably short time frame, thereby reputedly increasing their intelligence, health, and general well-being.

Specifically:

The mind records what an individual perceives continuously as three-dimensional mental images that contain all these perceptics, including color, sound and smell, as well as the individual’s conclusions and speculations. Without Dianetics therapy, these pictures cannot always be seen, heard, or otherwise sensed well, being nullified by the pain and negative emotions stored.

The analytical part of the mind observes, stores and remembers information, and uses it to compute and make rational decisions that promote survival.

In moments of intense physical pain and unconsciousness or moments of severe loss or threat of loss (emotional pain), the analytical mind overloads and the reactive mind takes over in the same way that a fuse takes delicate equipment such as a computer off line. This rugged reactive mind records everything that occurs on a cellular level in its own banks, unavailable to the individual's conscious recall and not under his control. The reactive mind has the power to react obsessively upon the individual at a later time when conditions approximate those existing at the original time of injury or upset, forcing irrational “solutions” on the individual by bringing about the same pain as suffered at the time (should the individual resist this mind’s warnings about the “dangers” it adjudicates the organism is once again facing).

The reactive mind thinks only in identities: every perceptic recorded has the same value and meaning as every other. For example, the voice of his mother = the voice of his father = the pain in his head = the smell of camphor = whatever else is recorded at that time—what Dianeticists refer to as “A=A=A” or irrationality (aberration, meaning an inability to think clearly, to make mistakes or operate on fixed ideas that are untrue). Rational thought, conversely, is based upon the ability to differentiate widely and narrowly.

In simple survival terms, the smell of damp woods and the sound of bone being crunched would prompt a cave man to rapidly depart a location on “instinct,” milliseconds before a carnivore took a swipe at him—his “instinct” being based on the last time he had heard and smelled such when his mate’s head was being severely compromised by a saber-tooth tiger.

This one-time survival mechanism had value in man’s early tooth-and-claw existence, but became a distinct liability with the advent of speech. When, during an attempted abortion, mother says “I can’t see anything” as she pokes a hole in the embryo’s heart with an orangewood stick (normally used to manicure her nails), then the hapless embryo records this faithfully and later on, the adult finds himself with sharp pains in his heart and wearing spectacles. He will, of course, see lots of opticians and heart specialists over the years, none of who can do anything about his conditions, being psychosomatic in origin. These commands, stored in the reactive mind, impinge upon not only the individual’s thought processes and emotions, but also the systems and organs of the body.

With Dianetics counseling, all the moments of unconsciousness and physical and emotional pain can be located in the reactive mind and examined until they lose their power and are simply re-filed in the analytical banks as memory, under the control of the individual.

A person who no longer has this reactive mind is called a Clear (in the way that one “clears” earlier computations from a calculator so as to be able to reach correct conclusions). This state is completely new in the human experience and includes
- Freedom from active or potential psychosomatic illness or aberration;
- Self-determinism rather than being determined by a hidden part of the mind;
- Vigor and persistent in life, unrepressed;
- Able to perceive, recall, imagine, create and compute at a level high—a raised IQ and swift reasoning ability;
- Mental stability;
- Free with emotions and able to enjoy life;
- Few accidents and fast reaction times, good health generally.

In essence, the Clear is better able to enjoy life; being more logical and dynamic, he is better able to face up to situations and to succeed at whatever he decides to do. He also thinks better of others and seeks to assist their survival.

Dianetics has had various ramifications in society, one of which is the injunction to maintain silence around an injured/unconscious person, including during operations and childbirth (for reasons given above).

Another area of public interest is the question of past lives. Hubbard ran into these with his patients in late 1950 and found that where a patient was encouraged to ignore such incidents when he encountered them in therapy, his case would not improve. When the patient was allowed to view these incidents, they would discharge and re-file in the analytical banks, resulting in improvement for the individual. The board of the first Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation in Camden, New Jersey, tried to ban any mention of past lives for fear they would result in public ridicule, but Mr. Hubbard persisted. Addressing past lives is commonplace in Dianetics and Scientology counseling.

With over 20 million copies sold in over 50 languages and 150 countries, the original book, Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health has remained popular (it has been on over 200 best seller lists, including over 100 weeks on the New York Times best seller list—both in 1950 and its 50th anniversary in 2000). Proponents ascribe this success to the book and subject representing a much needed breakthough in the subject of the mind which is sorely needed by a world well advanced in the physical sciences yet sorely lacking a science of the mind to manage the powerful technological advances of the past century.

An early success:

A few months ago, Mrs. Martha Dildian of Suffield, Conn., contacted John B. Skupen, Boston auditor [link], and agreed to a limited amount of processing … All her life … she’d had a semi-paralyzed left arm, shorter and bent and a ‘humpback’ shoulder two inches higher than the left. After 14 hours processing, her shoulder dropped, her left arm straightened out and lengthened, and she suddenly found herself able to do things with her left arm which previously had been impossible …”

Journal of Scientology, Issue 1-G, date xx?

The question might be asked, why has it taken man so long to discover this hidden part of the mind? Freud was the first to talk of the unconscious mind, but made no progress in identifying it, nor how and why it worked, nor developing a technology to erase it. The reasons the reactive mind was so hard to identify were identified by Mr. Hubbard: any time one approached a past painful incident, one would go unconscious as the unconsciousness in it would stir up; a person tends to shy away from pain or unpleasant emotions; the utter irrationality of the ideas expressed in the incidents; the difficulty in connecting the dots between the original incident and the first time it is reactivated, which could be decades later; and the fact that when an incident is restimulated thereafter, it generally takes about four days for the dictated pains and illnesses to manifest.[[^x]] DMSMH, Mechanisms and Aspects of Therapy, p 454, 2007 edition

Steven Ferry 11:41, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

I am holding off on a) more writing and b) posting the above, until I have had confirmation that it be on track/edits made. I will be traveling, so incommunicado for several days. Re-reading your last comment, Larry, I realize that you may be referring to the posted page in suggesting the removal of the outline, so I have obliged. For my part, I shall seek to follow it, as an outline has an obvious function in any written work, whether writtenby an individual or a groupSteven Ferry 09:11, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

Steven Ferry 19:30, 10 December 2007 (CST)The Three Parts of Man, a Fundamental Tenet of Scientology

In the autumn of 1951, Hubbard determined that Man was neither body nor mind, but a spiritual being, the source of all that distinguishes man from the animal kingdom. Hubbard used the word “thetan” to refer to this spiritual element of man that is aware of being aware: the identity that is the individual, you, the reader. Further research confirmed that the thetan could move out of the body in what Hubbard called “exteriorization”—being exterior from the body—and exist independent of the body. A being is able to see, hear, and feel without using the body’s eyes, ears, and hands. This simple ability, once experienced, results in great certainty that one is, in fact, a spiritual being, or thetan.

Hubbard delineated the three parts of Man:

The body as the physical component;

The mind, essentially comprised of pictures;

The thetan, which has no physical substance, but is rather the creator of things.

In Scientology, the thetan is considered the most important element in the game of life and the target for improvement through counseling, for without the thetan there would be no mind or animation of the body, while without a body or a mind there is still animation and life in the thetan.

In contrast to the ideas promulgated by psychology and psychiatry over the past 150 years, Scientology does not consider the mind to be the brain—which is a palpable part of the physical body, much like the hardware of a computer, specifically the keyboard or busbar, for the brain is simply a conduit that carries messages. The thetan uses the body (including the brain) as a communication center, something from or through which to derive sensations, and to identity himself to self and others.

In this analogy, the mind would be the software and the thetan, the end user at work on his computer. Like a database, the mind accumulates recordings of thoughts, conclusions, decisions, observations, and perceptions of the thetan throughout his existence. The thetan uses his mind in managing or controlling his body, the activity of living, and the physical universe.

Where religions have talked of and championed the soul or spirit through the ages, Hubbard not only made the fact of one’s spiritual nature self evident to any who honestly looked, but also developed techniques to increase the perceptions, intelligence, and abilities of those beings; the first being the recognition that a thetan is immortal and the freedom that connotes.Steven Ferry 19:30, 10 December 2007 (CST)

Historians

Historians of religion are accustomed to dealing with many curious bodies of belief and behavior, and therefore treat them at a distance. I tried to do that with this article. Richard Jensen 20:26, 10 December 2007 (CST)

auditing and engrams

It has been many years since I read Dianetics, but I believe that "auditing" and "engrams" are essential topics to be included in this article. David E. Volk 08:41, 11 December 2007 (CST)

View of federal German minister

Schäuble: Scientology will Macht in Deutschland

09/12/2007 09h13

©DDP/AFP - Uwe Meinhold

Hamburg (AFP) - Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) hat in dramatischen Worten vor der Scientology-Organisation gewarnt. "Scientology arbeitet auch in Deutschland daran, politische Macht und Einfluss zu erringen", sagte Schäuble der "Bild am Sonntag". Die Organisation sei als verfassungsfeindlich einzustufen, bekräftigte der Innenminister. [...]

Die Innenministerkonferenz hatte am Freitag die Prüfung eines Verbots von Scientology in Auftrag gegeben. Nach einem Bericht des "Spiegels" sehen die Verfassungsschutzbehörden der Länder derzeit aber keine Chancen für ein Verbot der umstrittenen Organisation. Auch Politiker von CDU, SPD, FDP, Grünen und Linken äußerten Bedenken gegen ein Verbotsverfahren.

Translation:

Schäuble: Scientology wants power in Germany

December 9, 2007

©DDP/AFP - Uwe Meinhold

The federal minister of internal affairs, Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), has warned in dramatic words for the Scientology Organisation. "Also in Germany, Scientology is working towards obtaining political power and influence", said Schäuble to the "Bild am Sonntag" (a German newspaper). The organization must be categorized as hostile to the constitution, emphasized the minister. [...]

Article goes on: Minister wants to forbid Scientology, but the guardians of the constitutions of the different German states do not see a possibility for a prohibition of the controversial organization. Politicians of CDU, SPD, FDP, Grünen and Linken stated objections to a prohibition procedure.

Reading this, it seems to me that getting a reasonably balanced CZ article will be a hell of a job. Fortunately this subject is completely out of my league and no concern of mine.--Paul Wormer 09:39, 11 December 2007 (CST)

PS. I qualify my latter statement. If the draft above were to become an article, I would say goodbye to CZ, so it is after all a concern of mine.--Paul Wormer 09:58, 11 December 2007 (CST)

This is possibly one of the hardest articles to write. --Robert W King 15:08, 11 December 2007 (CST)

take a look at tthe current article and please comment. Richard Jensen 15:55, 11 December 2007 (CST)

I moved the text to the Church of Scientology article. There's not much point in having a separate article on doctrines. Richard Jensen 16:49, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Well one article should be about the belief, and the other should be about the church itself; I think there's enough valid considerations to have two seperate articles. --Robert W King 20:31, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Perhaps. I'd like to see the whole lot moved to Scientology and then separate articles can develop as needed. Stephen Ewen 21:35, 11 December 2007 (CST)

the problem is that we don't know much about the beliefs. they're secret after all. Richard Jensen 22:10, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Not really true. We are given a quite full scaffolding, inclusive of commentary by ex-memebers. Stephen Ewen 03:30, 12 December 2007 (CST)

pretty dubious sources on both sides, which produces very poor analysis (as above). Scientology theology is not worth more that a paragraph in my opinion. We do need a little perspective here on the mission of an encyclopedia to cover more than fringe groups. In this case scientology theology has attracted very little attention from theologians, and we should follow suit and not exaggeratet he importance of this group.Richard Jensen 04:10, 12 December 2007 (CST)

I think part of the problem is that to know about scientology and to reveal what is unknown about it particularly as it relates to their beliefs and practices, you practically have to be an ex-member. When you become one, in some respects, it makes you a biased source. Otherwise, if you are attempting to inform the public about Scientology as a current and active scientologist, there will be bias and contention (and secrecy of course) because that's the way of the church. --Robert W King 10:47, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Currently this article is listed under the Religion workgroup. An editor would be appreciated here. --D. Matt Innis 20:38, 12 December 2007 (CST)

And now I see Politics has joined in.. how about Psychology? Or Healing arts? --D. Matt Innis 22:00, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Politics is added because it's a political issue in Germany of some importance. Otherwise "religion" does the job just fine. Hubbard thought of himself as a philosopher! Richard Jensen 22:05, 12 December 2007 (CST)

I removed the workgroup. See here for why. Richard, I tend to think you'll agree. Stephen Ewen 22:12, 12 December 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure if it shouldn't be in a political group; there have been individuals who came out a few years ago (it was on 20/20, multiple (one in 1998 "Scientology Unmasked"; and there was another on ABC news but I don't know the year.) who admitted that they worked as (more or less) spies for the Church against members who spoke against them (either because they are ex-members or work with those who try to break free of the church) in order to do things as destroy their public reputation, damage their credit etc. That sounds kinda political. --Robert W King 22:20, 12 December 2007 (CST)

I put the workgroup back in. The fact that the German government has made it a political issue is very well known--headline news last summer when a movie got censored. There is no controversy about the fact it's a political issue; indeed the US government got involved too. Richard Jensen 22:28, 12 December 2007 (CST)

Maybe the way to work these controversial ones is to add a new workgroup "Controversial" (or something like that) and let Gareth Leng practice his new role as arbitrator/neutrality editor (if that is part of our vision for his role). --D. Matt Innis 22:30, 12 December 2007 (CST)

That's a snazzy idea! --Robert W King 22:33, 12 December 2007 (CST)

the list of noncontroversial political topics is rather short. I don't think there is much controversial about this article. Richard Jensen 22:39, 12 December 2007 (CST)

As I have always have told my students, everything is political. My thesis adviser e.g., [review of one of his books here, specialized in religion and politics.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) That's just needlessly inflammatory and I'd like to try to keep things cool here, yes, be political in an appropriate way to facilitate the best possible articles while reducing needless conflict. Additionally, his insertion of the recent material on Germany is ill-advised at this point. This is because it takes up an undue weight in the article which tabulates to bias. I understand the need to draft things as they come, however, so I am arguing that this article needs to be drafted in draft space and not article space. Stephen Ewen 00:32, 13 December 2007 (CST)

The article has minimal bias one way or the other. The fact is the German (and Belgian) governments have made the Church a political issue (and the US State Department opposes those governments on this issue). The issue is alive right now in late 2007--and the article is based on linked AP news reports and State Department reports. Stephen wants to introduce new criteria in CZ about inflammability. So far no one has burst into flames. Richard Jensen 01:30, 13 December 2007 (CST)

My comments weren't really directed at you, Richard. With all due respect, I can't recall any instance where you've conceded a point to another, either on CZ or WP,

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.). Stephen Ewen 04:10, 13 December 2007 (CST)

I think the point Stephen is making (and I somewhat agree with him here) is that to focus on the politically controversial actions of the CoS is highly premature at this point because it will draw attention mostly to the politics surrounding the CoS, and thus destroy the "consider all angles" rule of thumb that we try to strive for.

I think we should consider ignoring the political aspect for now and stop "building a case" in that department. --Robert W King 17:31, 13 December 2007 (CST)

the idea of suppressing correct, important, timely well-sourced information so as to keep readers ignorant does not seem to be a mission for CZ. People get the same info in snippets from the media and can expect to get a solid, unbiased treatment in an encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 18:38, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) I'm am not proposing that we censor material. My point is that the political issues shouldn't be the focus of the article, as you seem to be making them. --Robert W King 18:47, 13 December 2007 (CST)

watch the language, please. If anyone wants to add fresh information on theology, say, please go right ahead. I already added a bibliography and material on the sociology of the church. Richard Jensen 18:55, 13 December 2007 (CST)

Revamp of the article direction

Gentlemen,

My apologies for not stepping in earlier to offer some input, but for some reason I was not notified of the ongoing discussion, or of the premature postings to the article page. My revision is a quick effort to put some overview statement upon which we can build.

While one person felt anyone in Scientology could not write an article on Scientology, I fail to see how anyone who knows nothing about it, or only what can be gleaned from the media, or people's theories gleaned from other people's ideas, gleaned from other people's opinions, could do a better job.

I have four decades of experience in Scientology and have been through the ropes on it, even being thrown out of the Church for 5-6 years. The subject is so vast that even I have trouble trying to communicate succinctly what it is to an enquiring yet open mind. The original approach to this apparently contentious subject, and which I felt would be workable, was for me to provide a basic description of Scientology and the church, and then have other writers and editors play devil's advocate and input the side that I might not see or feel comfortable about discussing. In this way, as a team of professionals, we could achieve the desired result. However, if one is to talk of Scientology, one has to say what its axioms and philosophy and techniques state, otherwise one is pontificating into a vacuum that gives the readership no data of comparable magnitude, no reference point upon which to evaluate the data offered concerning Scientology in society.

In the article that I just edited, there was a strange focus on misquoted Bavarian officials expressing dislike of the Church. This is not the first time German authorities have so made their opinions known in the last century.

If someone has a dim opinion about Scientology, they can certainly express it, but Citizendium is not the forum. I wonder why an article that is meant to explain what Scientology is to an open mind, begins with various inaccurate statements and then dives straight away and almost exclusively into a recent political issue? If they really wanted to review the current German pronunciamentos, then why not also consider the history of suppression of Scientology in Germany, which the US State Department has denounced several years in a row. Why not also mention the fact that in all its years of intrusive and unconstitutional investigations, wiretapping, intimidation and Human Rights abuses of Scientologists, the German government has failed to find any illegal activities or wrong-doing. Why not mention that the IRS did exactly the same and found no wrong doing for decades on end, and in 1994, finally ended its harassment and acknowledged the Church to be a bona fide church and religion (something numerous religious scholars have pronounced upon, by the way). Why not also mention the recent acceptance of Scientology as a religion by Spain and England (and I think South Africa)? Why not, for that matter, trace back the governmental suppression around the world that began in the office of the AMA editor in May 1950, following a classic Black PR campaign against Dianetics that grew into a worldwide effort to suppress it. That would actually be a quest for the facts that leads us back to the misreported statements by the German authorities and puts these trivial statements into perspective. And why not include the tangible assistance the Church has provided the UN, for instance, in forwarding its Declaration of Human Rights? Focusing on a couple of recent spats in an effort to show how bad Scientology is, will not provide a reader with any kind of an understanding of Scientology, but merely perpetuate prejudice and misconceptions. I had thought this was the problem with Wikopaedia that Citizendium was established to reform.

The same goes for the reference to a sociological study that is not based on actual study of the parishioners and which betrays no understanding of the actual philosophy, techniques, and results attainable with them; yet the reference provides pejorative monikers (cult) and frankly unhelpful attitudes and opinions.

The direction this article was taking can be compared to Citizendium offering a text on the Roman Catholic Church that says it is "a religion that is under attack for pedophilia and being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars." What about the Catholic Church's history? Its triumphs? Its tenets? Its social programs? Etc etc etc. What a sad epitaph that would be for two millennia of dedicated, passionate, thinking men and women.

So, please, it is hard to write about something of which one knows little, or has pejorative ideas or leanings. May we revert to my providing the basic material which is then whittled down and built up into an overall accurate statement so that the readership can be well served?

I had posted an outline to give direction to the article, which I took down as I was told it would seem that I was hijacking the article. While I enjoy the freedom and creativity of writing without an outline, I know that in matters of fact versus fiction, especially in a subject as vast as is Scientology, that an outline gives foundation and structure upon which one can build. I would like to propose that I post this outline again, and that we make the first point of business, agreeing on the outline. Then we will have a collaborative effort in progress, instead of a Hydra that will take a Herculean effort to put to rest.

I apologize, I realize I forget to add my signature to the recent edits in the article .Steven Ferry 22:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I have reasserted my edits over Aaron Schultz' removal of those edits and reinstatement of the earlier version, for the reasons given in my comments on the discussion page. Perhaps if he reads these before removing my edits. Thanks Steven Ferry 22:36, 8 January 2008 (CST)

If I'm not mistaken, Steven Ferry has replaced the existing article with one of his own; there's very little common text. Let me inform you, Mr. Ferry, that this is not permitted on CZ, not without a lot of advance discussion and agreement; probably, it would require an editor's decision. If you persist in simply replacing the article, a constable may ban you on grounds explained at CZ:Constabulary Blocking Procedures. (See "Offenses which will result in a warning first, then a ban": "Deleting significant amounts of content (50 words or more) without explanation; or deleting Citizendium-sourced content in order to start a new article, without first fully discussing the matter and getting broad agreement, or a positive decision from appropriate editorial staff." --Larry Sanger 23:18, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Reversions

Hi all, generally, we don't revert editing at Citizendium, except in rare instances. If there is text that is not to your satisfaction, please bring it here to the talk page and discuss it with those that are concerned. Do keep you discussion professional. Remember this is a collaborative effort with the Religion and Politics workgroups. If there are any disputes, please bring it to those workgroup editors. At this point I would consider this article in its infancy and expect it will make several transformations over time, so take your time and give everyone a chance to digest your edits. --D. Matt Innis/Constable 23:00, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

As Matt says, Ferry's edits should go through this page first. An encyclopedia is an "outsider-looking-in" resource and has to be acceptable to enemies of the Church as well as members, according to our standard [2] policy, which says is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views.Richard Jensen 23:42, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Steven Ferry, as a constable, what I am seeing is an editor from the Politics workgroup asking you to bring your edits here to the talk page first, before editing the article. He has the right to ask that according to our policy. I would suggest that you start slow and allow others to comment as well and when we are all finished we should have a neutral and thorough article. Though I do not expect this to happen overnight, it should be possible. --D. Matt Innis 23:58, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I think some of Mr. Ferry's issues are to be listened to. "I wonder why an article that is meant to explain what Scientology is ~~to an open mind~~ [should be: "in neutral terms"] begins with various inaccurate statements and then dives straight away and almost exclusively into a recent political issue?", which is an issue I've felt was not neutral to place into the article until it became more developed, and stated so, and predicted it would produce problems later,[3] as has happened, but was overulled[4] by an editor who added himself as an authority here against my protests.[5][6] Steven has stated in his edits, which I assume are intended to correct current inaccuracies in the article, that Scientology is not foremost a religion as the article currently states it is, but a "religious philosophy" and that it "was declared a religion and the Church founded in 1953 (rather than the current "1950s") at the suggestion of some Californians involved in early Scientology". Maybe he's right, I don't know. Other of his edits just were not neutral.[7] I hope Mr. Ferry might read up on the fact that we are trying to write neutral encyclopedia articles here, and I hope that we all realize that we very much need a Scientologist or two who can get a good handle on writing neutrally (which some of us here also need to get a better handle on!), to help make this article acceptable to all, or as Larry recently said, at least makes us all pretty equally angry. :-) Stephen Ewen 02:00, 9 January 2008 (CST)

politics

We cover the politics (in Germany, Belgium, US) because church-state issues are main topics in politics. Most of the info comes from a mildly pro-CofS source (the US State department official report), and from standard press services. An encyclopedia has to be able to cover a big topic like Confucianism, or the Papacy, say, in a few thousand words. A much smaller religious group with less than 1% of the membership and less than 1% as much history will not get equal space, even though it means everything to its adherents.Richard Jensen 23:56, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Just to clarify: It is incorrect to say that this article is limited to just "a few thousand words," of course. CZ has no such policy, and editors cannot make up such policies themselves. We can and should have plenty of information about the Church of Scientology in this article, far more than there is now. The fact that there is a lot of information about the politics of Scientology in the article at present does not mean that we cannot (or should not) augment that information significantly. We definitely should, I think, as the Steves above maintain. In fact, I'm quite sure that Richard is not saying that we should make this article only about the politics of Scientology. (That would be, of course, completely absurd.)

Therefore, the way to proceed is to assume that we all want to article to be expanded and improved--just not replaced wholesale. --Larry Sanger 08:32, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Thank you gentlemen. I appreciate the voices of reason.

I would like to point out that I had an awful lot of text on the discussion board for comment and received none for several months. I still did not post it on the articles page, hoping for some feedback, and yet, without any discussion or alert to me, flagrantly political and one-sided and actually incorrect information was posted on the article page instead. So I posted my original words finally in place of those.

I am not insisting that my text be in the article page,of course, but why is someone insisting the existing text about Germany etc.be in the article page when it has not been discussed and agreed upon as the definitive statement?

I agree that we need to have the text discussed and ironed out and agreed upon before posting, so can we please hold to this, starting with a blank page right now?

And can we please, as mentioned earlier, as a first point of business, agree upon an outline, so that we can ensure all desired angles will be covered? I am happy to provide the first iteration for us to consider.

Steven Ferry 09:02, 9 January 2008 (CST)

-Voluntary redaction made (poor judgement on my part).--Robert W King 10:41, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Any editorial judgement on approving this article must involve the questions of whether its content is accurate and fair; to judge the first needs sources; unsourced material that is potentially unreliable must at some stage be deleted. Conversely any content that is well sourced, accurate and interesting deserves inclusion somewhere on Citizendium. If it relates to Scientology; one place is here or it might be better moved to a specialist article in the interests of balancing the article as a whole, but fine judgements can be left till later. I'd suggest you start with an inclusionist outline to begin with, and decide on balance at the end.Gareth Leng 10:50, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Thank you for expressing your views, Mr. King, I am glad we are honing in on the considerations being held concerning this article.

There are 25 million of Mr. Hubbard’s words available for public viewing and hundreds of hours of counseling available on different topics to experience the technology in action. There is any number of Scientologists willing to answer questions and countless books and studies on the bona fides of Scientology as a religion. If 1% of the Church’s teachings are for release to individuals as part of a spiritual journey when they are ready for it (in the same way that one saves postgraduate materials for postgraduate-level students), there are 99% of the materials available for public scrutiny and discussion. To focus in on the 1% and claim that this then means one cannot describe Scientology is a wee bit of a stretch. How much could one write about the US government, then, or a current administration, with the screeds of records sealed from public scrutiny?

If one expose oneself to the fairly numerous diatribes on the Internet of what is a very small percentage of apostates, one then derives a highly inflammatory and in most cases inaccurate idea of Scientology. There is the old adage, “never try to reason with an angry man.” This is not to say that apostates do not have some valid points, but believing the relative few’s skewed concepts and views, one then falls into the misconception that Scientology be a controversy instead of a serious and voluminous body of work. One starts to call it a cult, in contravention to the published findings of numerous religious scholars; one buys into the idea that Scientology is a closed, secretive and vindictive group bent on world conquest, separating families, etc. etc. etc, the same tired lines that were originally, actually, put out by the CIA during its campaign of misinformation during the 60s. I, for instance, being a Brit, had my parents visited secretly in 1974 by MI5 (or was it MI6?) and warned against my being in this secretive cult that split up families. I say this only to illustrate my point, not because I thought it was anything other than amusing.

Anyway, to respond to other comments by other authors, I will write what I know of Scientology as factual, and I am looking to others to take the edge off what they may consider partisanship. This will come off as a team effort so that we can all be equally angry! As someone else pointed out, if we stick to the facts and let the opinions look after themselves, it will work. Steven Ferry 12:31, 9 January 2008 (CST)

TOC proposal

Thank you, Mr. Leng, for agreeing that we need an agreed-upon outline. I offer the below as a starting point for comment and editing.

I also request that the current inaccurate and biased posting on the article page be removed, so we can start with a blank slate that can be filled with content following agreement on the outline.

1 Overview of the different components of Scientology

Philosophy
Religion
Science
Church

2 Overview of the tenets

Theta-MEST theory
- The Three Parts of Man
  - Spirit
  - Mind: Analytical, Reactive, and Somatic
  - Body and the Genetic Entity
- Other...

3 Dianetics—the breakthrough that led to Scientology

Description of the Path to Discovery
Description of the Basic Principles, including
- Past Lives
- Silence during Injury, Birth, etc.

4 Research leading to Scientology the Philosophy and Religion

Fundamental Tenets
- Supreme Being
Religious Practices
Religious Ceremonies

5 Epistemology, Logic, and Scientific Method

Axioms
Factors

6 Some of the Basic Components of the Doctrine and its attendant Technology

ARC
Emotional Tone Scale and Predicting Human Behaviour
KRC Triangle
The Dynamics
Auditing
- Use of Electronic Technology, including the E-Meter
The Bridge
Ethics
Training
- Emphasis on Maintaining Standard Procedures
Materials of the Church

7 Application of Scientology Knowledge and technology to Social Issues and Living (describing in each subject the technology, the organization promulgating it, metrics and results of application, endorsements, and any opposition).

Education
Drug Prevention and Rehabilitation
Criminal Rehabilitation
Morality
Human Rights
Disaster Response and Succor to Those in Need
Mental Stress and Irrational Thought or Action
Economics and Business
Psychiatric and Pharmaceutical Influence in Society

8 L. Ron Hubbard

Overview of his life as an individual
Hubbard’s Influence in Developing Scientology as a subject
Hubbard’s Influence in Developing Scientology as a Church.
Author Services Inc.

9 The Church and It’s Parishioners

History of the Church
Structure
- International Association of Scientologists
- Management
- Churches, missions, groups
- Social Program organizations

10 Controversy

Psychiatric Community and Dianetics
- Basic Issues with Dianetics and then Scientology
- History and scope of the Conflict
Apostates
- Basic Reasons for, according to the Scientology Technology
- Basic Issues for the Apostates

11 References

12 External Links

Steven Ferry 12:43, 9 January 2008 (CST)

we will not be removing the politics and sociology material on the page. It is thoroughly sourced and highly relevant. If Mr Ferry thinks a particular sentence is mistaken he should identify it. Richard Jensen 19:45, 10 January 2008 (CST)

The major problem I see with this TOC is the presentation of Scientology/Dianetics as science. The only research of merit on this subject strongly opposes them as being scientific, and yes, there are sources to back that up. --Richard Pettitt 12:24, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Agreed. I think CofS uses "science" in its own theological fashion. (similar to "Christian Science" of Mary Baker Eddy). Richard Jensen 12:46, 4 February 2008 (CST)

To reiterate

I am sorry, Mr. Jensen, did I miss something? Who are you speaking for when you say "we" are not removing the "solidly sourced social and political" one-sided information? I am part of this process and I do not agree with leaving it in (not putting it in in the first place) for the reasons I have given above and which have not seen addressed yet by you. Mr. King covered one of the reasons, as I quote below:

"I think the point Stephen is making (and I somewhat agree with him here) is that to focus on the politically controversial actions of the CoS is highly premature at this point because it will draw attention mostly to the politics surrounding the CoS, and thus destroy the "consider all angles" rule of thumb that we try to strive for. I think we should consider ignoring the political aspect for now and stop "building a case" in that department. --Robert W King 17:31, 13 December 2007 (CST)"

DO NOT quote me out of context. That was when the article was solely about the politics behind the CoS and not about anything else. (Circa mid-December). --Robert W King 08:40, 11 January 2008 (CST)

The other key reason is that I am proposing (as above, and agreed to in principle by Mr. Leng), a TOC so we can approach this whole article in an organized fashion, from the top down, rather than randomly thrown-in pieces of highly selective and unevaluated snippets of information taken from newspapers. Does one believe everything one reads in newspapers? I certainly do not. Does one believe something and consider it true just because it has been published? It's certainly a risky proposition.

You earlier in this discussion stated: "the idea of suppressing correct, important, timely well-sourced information so as to keep readers ignorant does not seem to be a mission for CZ. People get the same info in snippets from the media and can expect to get a solid, unbiased treatment in an encyclopedia. Richard Jensen 18:38, 13 December 2007 (CST)" Well, the information provided (Germany) is not correct, how well sourced it is is open to debate, given that the report was immediately corrected the next day. And if we are to talk about "keeping readers ignorant," then exactly what effect does the current page re Germany and Belgium have when it omits the timely and relevant religious acceptance of Scientology in England and Spain? If you want to leave in the political and social information, then how about publishing some of the numerous studies by religious scholars in the most prestigious of institutions, showing that Scientology is a religion? And informaton that shows the social programs of Scientology? And if so, why make these the first point of business if people don't even know what Scientology is? I agree with you that we need "solid, unbiased treatment" and suggest we will achieve this noble end by being unbiased and balanced. It is not a question, therefore, of identifying specific statements that are incorrect, even though I could do it, but of providing balanced and fair coverage of the political and social events. And more importantly, not altering the importance of the article by focusing on negative minutiae at the expense of the big picture.

So, I don't know what your position is, but I am asking that someone who does not have a specific existing view on the subject of Scientology, take over monitoring or editing this piece so that we can move ahead in creating a balanced article with the purpose of educating the readership on what Scientology really is, not what someone wants to make them think it is or is not. To this end, I look forward also to some enlightened discussion on the draft TOC. Steven Ferry 23:05, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Steve, I'm a politics editor at CZ and made a policy decision according to CZ procedures to include important information about the Church, which is a major issue in Germany and other countries. Major issues like that have to be covered, as well as the sociology of the membership. If you spot a statement you think is incorrect, please point it out and provide a suitable reference to a good source. If you make a good case we will change the text. Let me stress the need to provide good sources (via footnotes) for all your statements. I was brought in by the editor in chief because I have written widely on religion and politics. Personally, I do not in fact have any position whatever on the Church of Scientology. ...said Richard Jensen (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Referee statement

The Citizendium Executive is discussing proposals for a Dispute Resolution process. These are not yet finalised but will involve a system of “referees” for disputes.

A referee will be an uninvolved member of the project who will play no significant active part in a disputed article, but will be empowered to make certain types of decisions about a disputed article that will be provisionally binding on contributors to that article. The purpose of such decisions will be to call a ::halt to disputes with a decision that enables article development to continue. The decisions will be on the basis, where appropriate, of Citizendium policy, and there will be an appeal mechanism if decisions are thought to be in breach of this. The referee will not make judgments on matters of expert knowledge that lie outside their expertise, but may make judgments on style, tone, balance, neutrality etc. The referee will attempt to make a swift decision that is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the Citizendium project; swiftness means that decisions will be imperfect, but authors will be expected to abide by them rather than extend a dispute. The referee has no disciplinary powers, a flagrant breach of his or her guidance will be a matter for the Constabulary.

As this article is the subject of apparently heated dispute, Larry as Editor-in-Chief has asked me to act as referee here as part of a trial of the process.

At present I intend to stand well back here. If there is any specific issue that needs my attention, please state it in a message on my Talk page.Gareth Leng 08:31, 11 January 2008 (CST)

One piece of information that appears somewhat in contention, is a ratio. The quantity of Church published information, says the Church, is in the area of 35 or 40 million words. But critics say, in addition, there is "secret" information, revealed only to the advanced. The quantity of "secrets" that critics present is much less than 1/100th of the Church's publicly available information. Therefore, introducing Scientology as an organization based on secret teachings doesn't stand up to examination. Terry E. Olsen 22:45, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Terry Olsen seems to say that every word is of equal importance and therefore the half-million words of secret texts are under 1% in terms of importance. Surely he does not believe that. In other churches, and organizations, the highly protected secrets are rather important. (99% of the US Army's materials are public--the 1% that are secret are probably kept so for a reason.) Richard Jensen 17:32, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Sorry I wasn't clear. My comment is about the quantity of the two kinds of information. 40 million published words (anyone can purchase) 1% (just a guess) of unpublished words. Frankly I don't know the actual ratio, but judging from online, critical webpages, it is much less than 1%. I meant to address quantities. Commenting on 'importance' would be more difficult because almost all of the Church's organizations are dedicated to the published information. Only the Advanced Organizations (there might be 6 of them ?) use unpublished, confidential information. Terry E. Olsen 02:40, 8 March 2008 (CST)

If nobody actually knows (except high-ranking church members) what percent is unpublished then how can we possibly say how many actually are without knowing? I think this whole debate is assuming too much. Terry doesn't even know; after all he's guessing. And neither I, nor Richard knows either. Given this, it's impossible to even estimate the "importance" of the information either. --Robert W King 07:23, 8 March 2008 (CST)

it's not the %. Five thousand words is enough to be extremely critical and central to the religion. Does Terry know? if he does he's sworn to secrecy. Richard Jensen 10:37, 8 March 2008 (CST)

It's not even the number. My argument is that this whole point is moot since there is no real significance to the amount of information that is kept secret--only that there is information that is secret. --Robert W King 10:42, 8 March 2008 (CST)

New Yorker

Article in New Yorker --Paul Wormer 04:09, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Recent undoing of the sentence and its source that I had added

I just posted a sentence or two concerning the definition of Scientology, together with a reference it was based upon. This was removed in its entirety an hour or two later without explanation. Please explain upon what basis this was removed. Thank you. Thanks, --Steven Ferry 15:03, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

Because the sentence is promotional and relies on a source within scientology for its validation; thus making it improper and biased. --Robert W King 15:08, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

Hmm, can't say I agree with this stance, Robert. If we cannot rely upon words from the person who originated a subject to define the subject, then what basis do we have for making any accurate statements? Why does some third party, who has no familiarity with a subject, become an authority on that subject? Something skewed in the logic here, no?--Steven Ferry 15:25, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

It's a question of removing what sounds like a true-believer's faith in a religion. that's fine for church pamphlets but CZ' article has to be neutral regarding CS's validity.Richard Jensen 16:09, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

Agreed, thanks. I believe what is there is phrased in a way that aligns with this required neutrality, because the statement is expressed as what Hubbard says Scientology is.--Steven Ferry 00:15, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

good point. The solution is perhaps to say that "Hubbard taught X" or "Scientology teaches Y" Richard Jensen 02:11, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

I concur; in addition I would make the point that our Scientology article cannot say, in its intro paragraph, only what its proponents want to say of it - any more than we would let, say, members of the Christian religion only write the intro to the Christianity article). So the intro para might say something like 'Scientology is an X which its founder, EH, says "<mumble>"; others maintain that is a "<moremumbleage>".' J. Noel Chiappa 09:32, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

Scio vs scientia

Please stop reverting it. It's been changed multiple times to its correct root. --Robert W King 15:56, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Cult

Also, Stephen, whether you like it or not, many people do brand it as a "cult". You should be aware of this; declaring it as having opposition is just not satisfactory to what the truth is. --Robert W King 16:03, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for that, Robert. Steven Ferry's edits seem to be heavily biased in a pro-Scientology direction. This article needs a heavy rewrite to be the quality I have seen in articles like DNA. I'd almost suggest we delete it and start with the one on Wikipedia. --Tom Morris 16:09, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

I deleted the cult reference because it was already covered in a section further down. Why say the same thing twice with no supporting information in either mention? What is the truth, by the way? I see apostates in opposition to Scientology. They call it a cult and many other things. I would not call the article in Wikopaedia a quality article if it is meant to give a fair and balanced view of the subject of Scientology. Scientology is a definite subject that only a Scientologist can provide information on accurately. Those who are anti Scientology are best qualified to give their own view on what is wrong with it. And those with no real views, would really have to study both camps to be able to comment on either. Maybe there should be two articles: one, the unbiased and definitive statement of Scientology, the other the opposite point of view. If the subject be so controversial, maybe it is better to let each side create its own page without let or hindrance from the other side, but moderated by completely independent editors? at the moment, the reader really has no idea what Scientology is because we are all caught up in the politics of the subject.--Steven Ferry 16:30, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

'Cult' is merely a pejorative word for 'religion', implying that it's a bit on the small side compared with the longer-established cults. That is the current status of scientology, and this should be mentioned in the introduction. As for having two articles, that'd be against the spirit of the Citizendium, the point of which is to find words both sides can live with. Ro Thorpe 17:18, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Talk:Church of Scientology

Contents

Religion

Controversy

Combine pages

Church of Scientology

Draft in talk

Revision Comments

'"Scientology as science, philosophy, and religion"'

Dianetics—the breakthrough that led to Scientology

Historians

auditing and engrams

View of federal German minister

Revamp of the article direction

Reversions

politics

TOC proposal

To reiterate

Referee statement

New Yorker

Recent undoing of the sentence and its source that I had added

Scio vs scientia

Cult

Navigation menu

Talk:Church of Scientology

Religion

Controversy

Combine pages

Church of Scientology

Draft in talk

Revision Comments

'"Scientology as science, philosophy, and religion"'

Dianetics—the breakthrough that led to Scientology

Historians

auditing and engrams

View of federal German minister

Revamp of the article direction

Reversions

politics

TOC proposal

To reiterate

Referee statement

New Yorker

Recent undoing of the sentence and its source that I had added

Scio vs scientia

Cult

Navigation menu

Search