Talk:Scientology

I'm new here but know some of the scientology philosophy. The article used to read:

• Scientology is a controversial religion founded by science fiction writer Lafayette Ron Hubbard, based upon his self-help program of Dianetics. Its basic teaching is that all humans suffering comes from repressed traumatic memories, sometimes dating back to previous lifetimes, and that these memories of Xenu can be 'cleared' through a lengthy (and expensive) form of church therapy. Human souls are known as "Thetans".
  I removed the "all" of "all human suffering" because a person might knowingly wish to temporarily suffer, to some degree, in a situation toward a greater good. An example of that would be a minister living in primitive conditions, for example. So "all" human suffering could not be the result of past memories. The article also said something which implied all suffering came from a particular, long past memory which isn't at all what scientology proposes. I removed that word. Also, there are several ways a person can go about the Church's "therapy" and not all of them are expensive. But buying professional auditing can be expensive. Another method is co-auditing with a partner, it is significantly less expensive. A third method is to work within the Church, in which situation auditing is often given as a bonus. Terryeo 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Biasing a solid article

User:Vossy has edited the article to produce that Scientology is not a religion, but a cult (as the page reads). There might be rooom to discuss the topic, but there is a good deal of scholarly opinion stating that the Church of Scientology is a religion. Could we have some discussion, please, rather than boldly presenting unattributed opinion ?

Vossy also edited to produce that Dianetics is psychotherapy, i.e. based on his psychotherapy program, Dianetics. May we keep the article simple and neutral, rather than biased ? If Dianetics is to be called psychotherapy, may that be done in the aritle, Dianetics and that article doesn't exist at this moment. So can't we simply say, "Dianetics" without introducing the bias word "psychotherapy"? I'm quite sure the organization which promotes Dianetics does not present it as psychotherapy see: dianetics.org.

Vossy also created, "Dianetics was later expanded to appear more like a religion in order to gain tax benefits". This statement it is not attributed in the article. The Dianetics website does not support such a statement. In general, the statement is more a critical personal opinion than a statement of fact. I don't believe anyone could find any presentation BY Dianetics that ever said it was a religion, nor "religious - like".

Finally, Vossy modified the article to produce, "Scientology has successfully converted a number of celebrities". But both Tom Cruise and John Travolta had been active in Scientology for some long while before making public statements about Scientology. Not to hammer a point home here, but "I am a Scientologist" is a self-declare, not a decree by the Church. It is not a statement of membership nor does it declare a faith, but says, "I find Scientology to be useful in my life". Can we discuss please ? Terryeo 02:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

History of the word

In 1952 Ron Hubbard gave a one hour, public lecture entitled, Scientology: Milestone One. In it, he defined the word, he spelled out why he used that particular word, where he was going with the idea and defined the basis of using that word. A google map search yields 6000 + Scientology locations. None of them are connected with the use of the word prior to the Church of Scientology. So why mention the word history in a brief article? Any websearch gives millions of results, almost all are about the Church of Scientology. Any news search gives hundreds (or more) results, all of them about the Church of Scientology. So why a word history study in a brief article ?Terryeo 02:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)