Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scientology"

Revision as of 20:43, March 19, 2007 (view source) Terryeo (Talk | contribs) (Edit war) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 03:40, October 30, 2012 (view source) Poiuytrewq (Talk | contribs) (→‎I never thought I'd say this...: new section)
(279 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	I'm new here but know some of the scientology philosophy.  The article used to read:	+	{{Wikiproject Religion}}
−	* 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".<br />  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. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Archives ==
		+
		+	[[Talk:Scientology/Archive1|Archive 1]] [[Talk:Scientology/Archive2|Archive2]]
−	== 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 ?	+	== Typos ==
−	: 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: [http://www.dianetics.org 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 ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	== History of the word ==	+	This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)
		+	:Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)
−	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 ?[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Hackers? ==
		+	C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a "hacking group" and I had no reason to call them anything else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::::Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.
		+	::::The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.
		+	::::Could simply refer to them as "a group" instead of "a hacking group." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::::Well if anyone is confused, they can see [[hacker]], which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::::::Alright. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)
		+	I've removed the reference to hackers.  Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to [[hacker]] should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it.  The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers.  Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas.  Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply "group", though, because it's more than just a group of ''people'', right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	::::Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::::I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do ''more'' than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than "group of people". What's so wrong with using descriptive language? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)
		+	:::::: "Hackers" is a bit like "Fundamentalists".  The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.
		+	:::::: As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks.  The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack.  In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one.  Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.
		+	:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)
−	==Significant changes to the article==	+	== A chance? ==
		+	This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.
		+	: Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition?  Whose opinion is it?  The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news).  If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious.  Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible.  Whose opinion is that? [[User:TerryO|TerryO]] 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
		+	Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the "you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist" notion. Is the revelation one you spend  200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu.  {{unsigned|Craan}}
−	Several of us have changed the article quiet a bit, the most controversial of these changes will involve the criticism section and the use of xenu.net, also perhaps what calling L. Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer, which he is, and maybe the use of the term religion. I also assume there are other issues that will need to be discussed so lets bring them here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Meow ==
−	If you prefer, Tmtoulouse.  At [[Conservapedia_Talk#Standards_of_Sources]] there has been discussion about what sources of information are appropriate to a conservapedia. The discussion is ongoing.  I have proposed that Wikipedia's use of personal website as a source of information is inappropriate to a conservative wiki.  A good deal of the difficulty at Wikipedia revolves around  inappropriate use of reference.  I hope our threshold of inclusion here is higher than Wikipedia's.  The personal website referenced by recent edits is [http://xenu.net xenu.net / clambake.org].  That personal website says on its front page,	+	Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
−	'''DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.'''  So, you see, those references are to a single individual's presentation of his personal opinion.  His personal opinions are not peer reviewed, indeed, they might be no better than a notice on a lamp post.  He might be a bright critic, he might be a criminal, but one thing, he is individual.  I am saying, let us remove any reference, anywhere, to personal website.  If the information is good information, it will appear at other sources of information.  It cheapens a document to rely upon one man's personal opinion, particularly when that one man (as Andreas Heldal-Lund has), has spent time in jail.	+
−	On March 18th, [[User:Conservative]] (sysop), [[User:Tmtoulouse]] (I am here but I am not,  background in psychology and neuroscience), and [[User:Bturpin]], made 18 edits to the article. Conservative and Tmtoulouse seem to have spontaneously found this article as a common target.  Yet no talk about this article appears on any of the three user pages.  The Bturpin account was recently created, that individual has engaged in only one discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ColinR&diff=prev&oldid=32185]. How did this seeming unity of mind spontaneously come about ?  The collaberation changed the article from	+	==Cat problem==
−	[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46097] (a brief, 13 sentence, two reference links to offical sites), to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46216], (a 16 sentence article with 7 referenced links and 2 exterior links). The exterior links (frightening links from years ago that tell how bad scientology is) are presented first so the reader knows what he is getting into and can escape if he wants to.  The 7 referencing links point to 3 official sites for the religion (just in case anyone wanted to know anything about the religion). The 4 remaining references are to:	+	Scientology is a religion, not a science. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)
−	* A CBS story titled "The Sinking of Islam" (but misreprestened by the link element to substantiate, "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread".	+	: Agreed. The category should be changed to "Religion." Funny, whoever put "Pseudoscience," but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)
−	* A link proposing there might be some question that Scientology is:	+
−	** Christian in disguise (no Scientology site would ever suggest that, many Scientology links specifially address that and say no).	+
−	** A cult -- this issue is worth discussing because it is an opinion.  But the reason for the link is to substantiate (again) "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread" which that link does a very poor job of because it introduces the brand new tidbit of information "Scientology might be Christian". Why introduce that tidbit when Scientology itself says "NO, we're not Christian" and any scholar you are likely to find says "No, Scientology is not Christian"	+
−	* A link to a personal website, xenu.net to substantiate and reference that Scientology has been accused (by whom a reader might wonder).	+
−	* Another link to the same personal website, xenu.net, to substantiate and reference a myth about alien souls.	+
−	: I would like this article to present what Conservapedia proposes every article within it present.  That is, a clear and easy to understand, brief introduction.  Let us not indoctrinate our readers with our own personal points of view, nor hammer them with personal opinion from personal websites.  Let us give our readers a foundation they can be certain of.  In such a wise our readers can drop a subject, or not, confident they know something about it. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	:It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)
−	::The reason it was a common target is because there are very few edits really on this site, so when an edit occurs those of us that patrol the recent changes all collapse on it. No conspiracy or anything, just a function of the current conditions of this site. What information in the current article specifically do you want to see changed? Lets start there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	*For purposes of this encyclopedia, "Scientology" (''no matter what our personal opinions are'') is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States. CP is an American wiki.  End of discussion. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)
−	::: Thank you for the reply.  Rather that say a particular information, could we instead address the issue of attribution?  Because, if we address attribution the question of "what information" becomes moot, becomes nil and unimportant.  The two attributions to xenu.net present information.  Rather than say, "hey, what sense does that make", I stated that xenu.net is a personal website, a personal opinion by of one person.  Rather than say "let's talk about this information", can we instead get good, substantial attributions ?  The reason I say this is because if we do then we will have good information. And if we don't, we'll have personal opinion (one person on a planet of 6.5 billion). I believe what will happen is the "bad" information will be gone if personal websites are not used to support "bad" information. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Missing Parenthesis ==
−	::::Okay, no more xenu.net so all is copasetic? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 22:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - "Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.''')''' [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
−	::::: If information is attributed and referenced, and if those attributions do not point to personal websites, then why would I object?  My intention is toward presenting good information in those areas that I know about.  By "good", I mean information that a person can have confidence in.  [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	K. Spaink, too, [http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/ot3.html] is a personal website.  The thing is, an individual person has no responsibility for good information. They might post, "the moon is made of green cheese". In that link Spaink explains her point of view and combines it with other opinion and what do we have?  Good information, or very biased personal opinion ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Fair Game ==
		+	Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are "fair game" for being "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." -[[User:Birry|Birry]] 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)
		+	:I second the motion to include.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:09, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
		+	::I support this as well. We need to show the facts about Scientology. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:29, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
		+	:::I agree with them. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 21:33, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
−	:Quotes directly from primary sources and other secondary sources. Seems perfectly reliable to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)	+	*Editors can post their suggestions to change here, but I do not support any changes to what we have here, as it opens up Pandora's Box once again.  Scientology is a very minor "religion", and without its celebrity members, would never be noticed by anyone. The fact that two socks of previously blocked instigators made accounts to support revisiting this doesn't exactly inspire confidence. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:20, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
−	:: I removed the link to that personal website and the information it referenced to.  One personal website link might be of slightly better quality than another personal website link, One posting on a light pole slightly better than a second posting on a light pole.  But neither are much good.  Why do you argue for conservapedia and present yourself in one way on Wikipedia, but add in "evil" here on your userpage, and take issue with personal websites here, Tmtoulouse? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 01:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	:::None of the issues related to me matter at all. I see nothing wrong with the source, as things stand its an acceptable source for conservapedia. Your welcome to ask for admin comment on this. Until then the sourced claim should stay. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	General points to be made:	+	==Hate to say it==
−	*Scientology is a religion. It may be a cult, but it is certainly classified as a religion, in that they believe in the supernatural (Thetans, for example)	+
−	*It would be hypocritical not to use xenu.com as some sort of reference. We use CSM, and all sorts of Christian websites when referring to Christianity. It may not be appropriate in some places, but in others, it can reveal the Dogma, the "Kosher" view of Scientology, if you will. As we know, the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (though ideally it is truthful, though Scientology isn't the true religion according to most contributors).	+
−	*Whats great about Scientology is, it hasn't splintered off into different branches (like Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Easern Orthodox, etc.). So if you find a source, chances are it represents the view of ''all'' the Scientologists.	+
−	Just some general stuff. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	I attempted to merge some of terryeo's edits into the article. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	...but Scientology is no religion! Hubbard made many many comments to the effect of "the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion." This is a proven fact! Religions like Christianity and Judaism have a history of faith capital, if you will. People have died for these beliefs, struggled for them, lived ascetic lifestyles to prove their faith. Scientology, as far as I've ever read of it, is just a religion for famous people like Kabbalah. A majority of them tend to have what my dad calls "Hollywood views", too. [[User:AliceCurtis|AliceCurtis]] 10:28, 4 July 2009 (EDT)
−	: We seem to have arrived at a reasonable first and second paragraphs.  It has taken some effort :)  It is my understanding, however, that Karin Splink's (I write therefore I am) site should not be linked to for the reason that her site presents stolen documents.  I don't know all there is to know about the situation, but I have read the documents can not be posted anywhere BUT The Netherland where her site is hosted.  In fact, that is the reason her Netherland site carries them.  We might be getting ourselves into a legal situation (again, I don't know all there is to know about it) if we link to her site in that manner. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	== Beliefs ==
−	::I don't see how linking can be a copy right violation, all the information in the article is derived from information that is pretty much with in the public commons. Xenu is probably the most recognized element of the Church of Scientology's teachings. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	Something should be stated concerning their beliefs, the following is an example.
		+	Scientologists believe that they have thetans, which are comparable to a soul, on or iside them (sometimes they have more than one according to scientology). When they die their souls are taken to Venus where they are brainwashed about their past life, then are loaded into capsules (they are first given new bodies). They are the dropped into the ocean somewhere off of the coast of california. There they either drown or make it to land, Where they have a chance to start a new life in of californias big cities.
		+	Although this story is ridiculous it is affirmed by scientlogist doctrine, you ca look elsewhere to affirm this. I just hope  people can see how ridiculous this religion is (all i said about their beliefs is true!). Semper Vigilo ([[User:Baronvonbob|Baronvonbob]] 19:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT))
−	::: I'm not able to say what public opinion is.  I can say that of the thousands of Scientologists and many staff members I have talked with, we have never thought of talking about that.  And, I can say that I have never met that "teaching" in any Scientology Church or Mission I have entered.  And I can safely say that it is not present in any of the published (to the public) works I own. (I searched) And I own about 95 % of the millions of words the Church has published.  But, online, everyone screams bloody murder about it.  While, in real life, no scientologist has heard about it. When did that myth supposedly happen?  75 years ago?  75 hundred thousand years ago?  75 '''MILLION''' years ago?  [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	==Controversy==
		+	Why the hands off? An article on an organization that has so often manifested itself as a religious mafia (Operation_Snow_White, etc.) should at least have section that provides more detail, or sources thereto, about the controversy (to put it mildly) that Scientology has stirred. Even though CP would face intimidation for it. Such an org with does not further the cause of truth, honestly, and righteousness, and is in fact anti-Christ.
−	::::Its undeniably part of the church's doctrine, the church has said so in various lawsuits. It maybe not an important part anymore but it is certainly linked very closely in the public's mind with Scientology. Have you ever hung around one of Scientology's recruiting tents at a college university? About 1/5 of the people that show up for their "free stress test" will make a snickering remark about Xenu. Its often yelled out by passing pedestrians. I have seen this phenomenon in multiple locations. So I think it meets any criteria we can set for inclusion in the article. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	"Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965
−	:::::From what I recall during my days over to a-r-s Xenu was OT-III material, revealed only after the mark has (donated) spent thousands of dollars. It was in evidence during a trial of one guy named "Fischmann". Sometime between the occurrence of the trial and CoS's attorneys asking the documents be sealed, an enterprising person copied them and distributed them far and wide. Once the order to seal was set ALL these copies were illegal but somehow they managed to get onto the internet. The upshot is that though Xenu is widely known the actual documents are still copyrighted and not allowed to be seen in toto. But, as Groucho Marx pointed out "inside a dog, it's too dar to read. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 11:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
−	== Fox News ==	+	"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs
−	Father Jonathan of Fox News has written for Fox News about Scientology. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253401,00.html here].  He then posted some of the comments he received [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254198,00.html here].  There are at least two points that can be observed:	+	"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that
−	* A clean, easily read article is widely read.	+	he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955
−	* Readers will remind you of controversy even if you don't include it.<br />	+
−	Let us err on the side of conservatism rather on the side of rumor-mongering. If our article is viewed with respect as Father Jonathan's seems to be, instead of the reactions to groupthink found at Wikipedia, we will have accomplished a great deal. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	== Good article ==	+	Federal Indictment against Scientology for Conspiracy against the Federal Government of the United States:
−	Gotta say the article as it currently stands is one of the better ones here. ''13:33, 19 March 2007 [[User:Palmd001]] (Good article)''	+	“The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes.” –Federal prosecutor’s memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges
−	: Palmd001 refers, I think, to this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=48122] and I agree.  I would prefer the article not be further modified without good reason. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
−	==Source for "applied spirituality"==	+	Here is more on them:
		+	[http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm]
		+	[http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm]
		+	[http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607]
		+	[http://www.clambake.org]
		+	[http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/cooper/sos.html]
		+	[http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7]
		+	[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoASMyv9Cek]
		+	[http://www.xenutv.com]
		+	[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5694888509800082473&ei=fmJpSe-EIY6cqALgzqndBw&q=scientology+video&hl=en]
		+	[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:36, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
−	We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	::: I could help you add this information to the main text, just write it edited. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
−	: I am willing to do a good deal.  I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce.  I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more.  But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so.  For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy".  An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up.  Where does the problem lie?  Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations	+	In lieu of a more comprehensive entry, may the below suffice for now.
−	for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes?  If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	::Show me a source for the phrase "applied spiritual philosophy" google comes up with nothing. [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22applied+spiritual+philosophy%22+scientology&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	==Controversy and criticism==
−	::: That link shows 31 returns.  The one I like best is [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zCzJ71Zbbh4J:en.allexperts.com/e/s/sc/scientology_beliefs_and_practices.htm+%22applied+spiritual+philosophy%22+scientology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca]but of course everyone has their own tastes.  Did you seek additional links then ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	Both the status of Scientology as a religion<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm</ref> and its beliefs as well as its practices and manner of operation have been a subject of condemnation by both religious and secular sources.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm]</ref><ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref><ref>http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7</ref>
−	::: At position #5, this link to an official Church site [http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/directory/religion-spirituality/philosophy/scientology/scientology-religion/index.html] presents Scientology as an "applied spiritual philosphy". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	<ref>http://www.clambake.org</ref>
−	::::So then its just as I had written, it is the church/adherents that refer to it as such. Others refer to it as a body of teachings, others a cult, others far worse things. What wrong with saying that this particular definition is what the Church says? Makes sense to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	Christian apologist Craig Branch of Watchman Fellowship begins a documented examination of Scientology by stating,
		+	<blockquote> Controversy continues to rage around Scientology, due mostly to the totalitarian and abusive nature of its practices. The evolution and history of Scientology raises serious and fundamental questions about freedoms and protections of religion and even what or who defines a religion. Scientology is an anomaly on even a diverse religious landscape. It does, in fact, involve religious belief (in what most outsiders would regard as science fiction). But that belief appears to have been built chiefly as a cover for exploitive commercial operations...Scientology's history of terror and abuse appears to be the result of its founder's delusion and paranoia. <ref>http://www.watchman.org/Sci/scientologymafia.htm</ref></blockquote>
−	::::: The official link I provided use the exact words, "applied spiritual philosophy", just I stated.  "Applied religious philosophy" is more commonly seen and, in fact, an entire book has been written and published, extant for some years, revolving around the second definition. Who else WOULD say it?  Scientology was created by Hubbard, Scientology was entrusted to the Church of Scientology by Hubbard, who would say what it is BUT the Church and their publications?  No one else is expert in the area, where is the difficulty. Now let us say that as simply as possible, okay ? Why say, "the experts in neurology say that neurology is about ....." Why not say, "neurology is about ....."and (reference) ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+	Such charges are due in part to the tendency of Scientology to engage in intimidation and unethical or unlawful practices against those who have criticized or publicly opposed it, from former members, to national publications, to the [[United States]] government. This has resulted in Scientology being termed a "religious mafia", and "a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s04.html</ref><ref>cf. Scientology: the Sickness Spreads," Reader's Digest, September, l981, reprint, p.2</ref> In response to journalist Paulette Cooper's 1972 book, ''The Scandal of Scientology'',<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref> Scientology launched filed 19 lawsuits against her,<ref>http://www.paulettecooper.com/scandal.htm</ref> contrived a false bomb threat made in her name, and planned and implemented various other attempts over the course of almost 15 years. A strategy called ''Operation Freakout'' sought "To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks."<ref>http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/docs/pcof1.html</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/pc/freako.htm</ref>
−	::::::I would have no problem with "experts in neurology define neurology as...." if there were other different definitions. There are many other ways to define Scientology as has been done by many people. It needs to be qualified. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
−	== Edit war ==	+	This plan was prevented from full implementation when a 1977 FBI raid on Scientology headquarters revealed the Scientology plot, among  48,000 documents detailing strategies against critics of the church. Comprehensive evidence revealed the theft of government documents by Scientology, spies planted in the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, and the planting of listening devices, as part of ''Operation Snow White''.
−	* Tmtoulouse: Scientology is described as an applied religious philosophy by its adherents. [http://info.scientology.org/ What is Scientology]	+	The raid finally resulted in the conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of the Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and 10 more Scientologists. All received prison terms, though all are now free.<ref>Robert W. Welkos and Joel Sappell, 'Burglaries and Lies Paved a Path to Prison'' The Los Angeles Times, June 24, 1990</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-scientologysidec062490,0,111873,print.story</ref><ref>The Watchman Expositor (Vol. 14, No. 5)</ref>
−	* Terryeo: Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. [http://info.scientology.org/ What is Scientology]<br />	+
−	This is the edit war we are talking about?  Tmtoulouse implies, "I refuse to allow any person to consider there is any authority, anywhere, about scientology". I state, "Scientology was created and entrusted to an organization, that organization is the authority about itself".<br />	+	The original objective of Operation Snow White was to expose and expunge "all false and secret files of the nations of operating areas", and included plans to use blackmail, and to infiltrate and steal potentially damaging classified files on Scientology activities in various countries, from [[Algeria]] to the United States.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732.htm</ref> These ranged from  ''Operation Project DIG (AUDITION)'' in Australia, which called for giving compromising information on Conservative politicians to the Australian Labor Party so that the latter "could give the Federal Labor something to smear Victorian Conservatives with", to ''Project GRUMPY'' in Germany, which upheld obtaining files "by any means" from police, Interpol and immigration authorities.<ref>http://xenu.net/archive/go/ops/go732/go732p.htm</ref>
−	Does that about sum it up ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)	+
		+	In 1991 Time magazine wrote a major exposé of Scientology, describing it as ''The Cult of Greed'', being    <blockquote>
		+	a hugely profitable, global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen.
		+	<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html  Time, ''The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power''  pp. 32-33]</ref></blockquote>
		+
		+	Scientology unsuccessfully sued Time magazine  over the revelatory story.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm</ref>
		+
		+	Numerous other authors and publication have been additional targets of Scientology retaliation.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/index.html</ref> In 1995, ''The American Jurist'' Magazine published, ''Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics'', which notes, <blockquote>
		+	It is typical of the Church of Scientology to use lawsuits -- very many of which are dismissed as frivolous -- to intimidate, harass and quell its critics and defectors into silence. This scheme is even written into the church's doctrine.<ref>[http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/amjurist1195.html The American Jurist, November 1995]</ref> </blockquote>
		+
		+	Many other authorities have voiced concurring opinions,<ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/crtquot.htm</ref> and or provided documented examples.<ref>http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/criminal.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp944.htm ''Church of Scientology probes Herald reporter - Investigation follows pattern of harassment''. The Boston Herald, March 19, 1998</ref><ref>http://www.scientology-lies.com</ref>
		+
		+	In 1996, the popular ''Cult Awareness Network'', abbreviated as ''CAN'', a primary Scientology critic, was forced into bankruptcy by Scientology. An undercover Scientologist had infiltrated CAN, then 50 Scientologists filed suit against it, many containing almost identical language, after having sought to join the organization almost simultaneously and being denied. CAN's link to cult deprogramming enabled Scientology to file a lawsuit which resulted in a massive fine which added to CAN's legal debt, forcing bankruptcy. Legal maneuvering resulted in Scientology having control of the name and equipment, etc. and files of the old CAN, through Scientology associates. The files were then turned over to the ''Foundation for Religious Freedom'',<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c19.html</ref> one of many which serve as a "front" group for Scientology, or which are inordinately favorable to  them.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f00.html#ffrf</ref><ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/#VIII</ref><ref>http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/cult-front-groups-latest.htm</ref>
		+
		+	An addition source of controversy has been the death of 36 year old Lisa McPherson at Scientology's Clearwater headquarters, which she was undergoing "care".<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/mcpherson.htm</ref>
		+
		+	Doctrinally Scientology is non-Christian (Hubbard even denied there was a Christ<ref>http://www.lermanet2.com/cos/nochrist.html</ref>), and is seen to be manifesting a form of [[New Age]] belief.<ref>http://www.watchman.org/sci/hubrel03.htm</ref> One researcher concludes that it is "an oversimplified form of regular psychotherapy mixed with hypnosis."<ref>Russell Miller,''Bare Faced Messiah'', Chapter 9</ref>
		+
		+	It is also pointed out that Satanist Aleister Crowley, was Hubbard's mentor and he lived with Crowley protege John Parsons, engaging in sex magic at their black magic mansion hospice (Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1990, p. A1).<ref>http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm</ref>
		+	<ref>http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html</ref>
		+
		+	Liberal religious cult apologist<ref>http://www.rickross.com/apologist.html</ref> J. Gordon Melton dismisses the charge that Scientology is a cult, as he does in regard to certain other dangerous groups.<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m06.html</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c31.html</ref>
		+
		+	===Negative quotes===
		+	Quotes from Scientology and other material<ref>http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html</ref> <ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/shortquotes.htm</ref><ref>http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/sciequot.htm</ref> are often published in support of the critical position.
		+
		+	<blockquote>
		+	If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs
		+	</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. - L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the dissemination of material.
		+	</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, Manual of justice, 1959
		+	</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
		+	</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill… (Scientology is) the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental  therapy.” – Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia</blockquote>
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members."
		+	- Cynthia Kisser, the network's Chicago-based executive director, as quoted in Time, 5/6/91
		+	</blockquote>
		+
		+
		+	==This article needs a warning==
		+
		+	Having dealt personally with these people, I can assure everyone that this is a very dangerous and manipulative cult.  Given that there are so many young people who read this site, I wonder if a warning at the top advising people to stay away from these guys would be appropriate.  What do people think? --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:04, 14 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Further reading==
		+	*[http://www.watchman.org/sci/index.htm Various Christian doctrinal and historical articles on Scientology]
		+	*[http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=607 An exhaustive information source on Scientology]
		+	*[http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm Scientology as a "Religion"]
		+	*[http://www.clambake.org Extensive information critical of Scientology from secular source]
		+	*[http://www.waltermartin.com/scient.html Christian apologist Walter Martin on Scientology, audio and text]
		+	*[http://www.xenutv.com Video source, including report by ABC’s Nightline]
		+
		+	== References ==
		+
		+	{{reflist|2}}
		+
		+	== I never thought I'd say this... ==
		+
		+	but this is actually pretty close to encyclopedia quality, unlike  the psuedo-scientific hate speech, and yes, some of it is hate speech, that I've seen on here in the past. Now, if only I didn't need to create an account. [[User:Poiuytrewq|Poiuy]][[User talk:Poiuytrewq|trewq]] 23:40, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

---

Latest revision as of 03:40, October 30, 2012

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive2

---

Typos

This article has a couple typos in the first paragraph. "Psychology" should not be capitalized the first time, and the second time it is misspelled and again inappropriately capitalized. HelpJazz 13:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks HelpJazz 13:33, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Hackers?

C'mon now, must we call them hackers? And if we must, can we possibly say "Hackers on steroids", add a reference to "Secret Websites", and possibly put in a few pictures of an exploding yellow van? Barikada 16:49, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Do you have anything serious to add, or just obscure jokes? If you want to improve the wording please be my guest; I'm only as good as my sources. HelpJazz 16:55, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It's not a joke. Hacker carries some unnessecarily dark connotations. The quotes above are from a video from Fox News on this very subject. I can find it for you, if you wish. Barikada 17:02, 24 January 2008 (EST)

A link's not necessary, but a straightforward response is always appreciated. What's wrong with the word hacker, what's a better word, and why can't you just change it yourself? The article called them a "hacking group" and I had no reason to call them anything else. HelpJazz 17:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Because pretty much any time I try to change something that might be even slightly controversial, I get banned.

The word hacker, thanks to the MSM, brings up images of people sabotaging networks/stealing information from the government/what have you. Where I come from, at least.

Could simply refer to them as "a group" instead of "a hacking group." Barikada 18:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well if anyone is confused, they can see hacker, which is wikilinked within the article, and which doesn't bring up images of people sabotaging networks or stealing information. HelpJazz 19:39, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Alright. Barikada 19:41, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I've removed the reference to hackers. Barikada's complaint was legitimate, and although the link to hacker should mitigate that if it was necessary to mention it, I couldn't see that there was any real need to mention it. The YouTube video doesn't refer to them as hackers, nor even mention anything to do with computers. Their tactics, just going by the video, seem to lie in other areas. Yes, the other link does refer to hackers, so in that sense the use of the term was justifiable, but it still wasn't necessary. Philip J. Rayment 04:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I've never understood people's deal with the word hacker, but I also didn't watch many movies in the late 80's ;-) Is there a better word than simply "group", though, because it's more than just a group of people, right? It's people who are highly skilled in a certain area (namely using computers to illegally and skillfully disrupt other people's computers) and I don't know what word covers that. HelpJazz 10:00, 25 January 2008 (EST)

No need to specify computers, given that many Anons are handing out flyers in reality. Barikada 15:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Err... but flyers don't perfom DoS attacks. HelpJazz 22:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed. Which is why I attempted to imply that not all of the activities perpetrated by Anonymous are internet-based. Barikada 22:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I'll say again, I'm only as good as my sources. I found a source that says they are hackers (and I still don't see why it's inaccurate), and it said nothing about handing out flyers. At any rate, just because they do more than computer-based attacks doesn't change their core purpose or definition. Nobody's been able to come up with any better word than "group of people". What's so wrong with using descriptive language? HelpJazz 22:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)

"Hackers" is a bit like "Fundamentalists". The origin of the word is good, but it's been appropriated by the media to mean someone bad.

As far as the legitimacy of its use in this article is concerned, the primary evidence, the video, made no reference to hackers and no reference to computer attacks. The secondary reference, quoting a third source, referred to them as hackers and said that the group had already launched denial of service attacks, but apart from that being their only documented tactic so far, there's no evidence that computer-based tactics are going to be their main mode of attack. In other words, they could be planning on using several approaches, and the denial of service attack just happens to be the first one. Actually, the video seemed to be indicating that a tactic would be infiltration.

Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 26 January 2008 (EST)

A chance?

This might be a chance worth making use of. Christianity and Scientology are certinly in opposition, and Scientology has a known way of destroying families by ordering new converts to sever all contact. They will be in the headlines for a time now, and they have a lot of skeletons in their cupboard which until now have been consigned to websites hardly ever seen. Why waste such a chance to spread the truth around, discredit the church, slow its growth, and score one for the real true religion. Im not entirely sure what that is, but its certinly not Scientology looniness. - Suricou Raven, Jan 24th.

Is it your opinion that Christianity and Scientology are in opposition? Whose opinion is it? The reason I ask is, opposition is not widely stated by Christian Churches. A few even use Scientology methods (it has been in the news). If it is certain, it certainly isn't obvious. Also, the Scientology website claims it is compatible. Whose opinion is that? TerryO 00:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Scientology is incompatible with virtually evrey religion in existence in the $cientology book the history of man L Ron states that man evolved from lower life forms. (gasp!) but how they evolved has absolutely no basis in either science or religion. according to Hubbard humans evolved form clams (the sources of our jaw pain and the now disproved Piltdown man. Also im many of his lectures and books he makes his disdain for Jesus Christianity and just about every other major religion. The final blow to the "you can be a Cristian and a $cientoligist" notion. Is the revelation one you spend 200000$ to get to 0t3 is that the memory of Jesus and all the old religions were implanted into the dead alien souls that now inhabit your body by The evil Galactic Lord Xenu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craan (talk)

Meow

Needs a cat. Can a sysop add one? -Foxtrot 13:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Cat problem

Scientology is a religion, not a science. JY23 17:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. The category should be changed to "Religion." Funny, whoever put "Pseudoscience," but completely inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource. -Ilikecake 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

It's not a religion - it's an evil cult that destroys lives, and we should say so. Marcdaniels 16:34, 2 February 2009 (EST)

• For purposes of this encyclopedia, "Scientology" (no matter what our personal opinions are) is categorized by most major governments as a religion, including the Government of the United States. CP is an American wiki. End of discussion. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 17:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Missing Parenthesis

There is a missing parenthesis, and I have bolded where I believe it was meant to be in the following - "Later Hubbard refined his ideas and moved toward a structured system of belief involving the human soul, or "thetan" (each person's spiritual self, and the origins of life and the universe.) Luminite2 12:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Fair Game

Can this article include information on Scientology's Fair Game policy, stating that enemies of the church are "fair game" for being "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." -Birry 07:78, 14 May 2009 (EST)

I second the motion to include.--Jpatt 20:09, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

I support this as well. We need to show the facts about Scientology. TheRealMattJohnson 21:29, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree with them. JY23 21:33, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

• Editors can post their suggestions to change here, but I do not support any changes to what we have here, as it opens up Pandora's Box once again. Scientology is a very minor "religion", and without its celebrity members, would never be noticed by anyone. The fact that two socks of previously blocked instigators made accounts to support revisiting this doesn't exactly inspire confidence. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:20, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Hate to say it

...but Scientology is no religion! Hubbard made many many comments to the effect of "the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion." This is a proven fact! Religions like Christianity and Judaism have a history of faith capital, if you will. People have died for these beliefs, struggled for them, lived ascetic lifestyles to prove their faith. Scientology, as far as I've ever read of it, is just a religion for famous people like Kabbalah. A majority of them tend to have what my dad calls "Hollywood views", too. AliceCurtis 10:28, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Beliefs

Something should be stated concerning their beliefs, the following is an example. Scientologists believe that they have thetans, which are comparable to a soul, on or iside them (sometimes they have more than one according to scientology). When they die their souls are taken to Venus where they are brainwashed about their past life, then are loaded into capsules (they are first given new bodies). They are the dropped into the ocean somewhere off of the coast of california. There they either drown or make it to land, Where they have a chance to start a new life in of californias big cities. Although this story is ridiculous it is affirmed by scientlogist doctrine, you ca look elsewhere to affirm this. I just hope people can see how ridiculous this religion is (all i said about their beliefs is true!). Semper Vigilo (Baronvonbob 19:00, 3 October 2009 (EDT))

Controversy

Why the hands off? An article on an organization that has so often manifested itself as a religious mafia (Operation_Snow_White, etc.) should at least have section that provides more detail, or sources thereto, about the controversy (to put it mildly) that Scientology has stirred. Even though CP would face intimidation for it. Such an org with does not further the cause of truth, honestly, and righteousness, and is in fact anti-Christ.

"Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955

Federal Indictment against Scientology for Conspiracy against the Federal Government of the United States:

“The crime committed by these defendants is of a breadth and scope previously unheard of. No building, office, desk, or file was safe from their snooping and prying. No individual or organization was free from their despicable conspiratorial minds. The tools of their trade were miniature transmitters, lock picks, secret codes, forged credentials and any other device they found necessary to carry out their conspiratorial schemes.” –Federal prosecutor’s memorandum to the judge urging stiff jail sentences for 9 top leaders of Scientology who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges

The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Here is more on them: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Daniel1212 00:36, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

I could help you add this information to the main text, just write it edited. --Joaquín Martínez 08:30, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

In lieu of a more comprehensive entry, may the below suffice for now.

Controversy and criticism

Both the status of Scientology as a religion^[1] and its beliefs as well as its practices and manner of operation have been a subject of condemnation by both religious and secular sources.^{[2][3][4][5] [6]}

Christian apologist Craig Branch of Watchman Fellowship begins a documented examination of Scientology by stating,

Controversy continues to rage around Scientology, due mostly to the totalitarian and abusive nature of its practices. The evolution and history of Scientology raises serious and fundamental questions about freedoms and protections of religion and even what or who defines a religion. Scientology is an anomaly on even a diverse religious landscape. It does, in fact, involve religious belief (in what most outsiders would regard as science fiction). But that belief appears to have been built chiefly as a cover for exploitive commercial operations...Scientology's history of terror and abuse appears to be the result of its founder's delusion and paranoia. ^[7]

Such charges are due in part to the tendency of Scientology to engage in intimidation and unethical or unlawful practices against those who have criticized or publicly opposed it, from former members, to national publications, to the United States government. This has resulted in Scientology being termed a "religious mafia", and "a commercial enterprise that masquerades as a religion."^[8][9] In response to journalist Paulette Cooper's 1972 book, The Scandal of Scientology,^[10] Scientology launched filed 19 lawsuits against her,^[11] contrived a false bomb threat made in her name, and planned and implemented various other attempts over the course of almost 15 years. A strategy called Operation Freakout sought "To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks."^[12][13]

This plan was prevented from full implementation when a 1977 FBI raid on Scientology headquarters revealed the Scientology plot, among 48,000 documents detailing strategies against critics of the church. Comprehensive evidence revealed the theft of government documents by Scientology, spies planted in the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, and the planting of listening devices, as part of Operation Snow White.

The raid finally resulted in the conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of the Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, and 10 more Scientologists. All received prison terms, though all are now free.^[14][15][16]

The original objective of Operation Snow White was to expose and expunge "all false and secret files of the nations of operating areas", and included plans to use blackmail, and to infiltrate and steal potentially damaging classified files on Scientology activities in various countries, from Algeria to the United States.^[17] These ranged from Operation Project DIG (AUDITION) in Australia, which called for giving compromising information on Conservative politicians to the Australian Labor Party so that the latter "could give the Federal Labor something to smear Victorian Conservatives with", to Project GRUMPY in Germany, which upheld obtaining files "by any means" from police, Interpol and immigration authorities.^[18]

In 1991 Time magazine wrote a major exposé of Scientology, describing it as The Cult of Greed, being

a hugely profitable, global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner. Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious, and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen.

^[19]

Scientology unsuccessfully sued Time magazine over the revelatory story.^[20]

Numerous other authors and publication have been additional targets of Scientology retaliation.^[21] In 1995, The American Jurist Magazine published, Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics, which notes,

It is typical of the Church of Scientology to use lawsuits -- very many of which are dismissed as frivolous -- to intimidate, harass and quell its critics and defectors into silence. This scheme is even written into the church's doctrine.^[22]

Many other authorities have voiced concurring opinions,^[23] and or provided documented examples.^[24][25][26]

In 1996, the popular Cult Awareness Network, abbreviated as CAN, a primary Scientology critic, was forced into bankruptcy by Scientology. An undercover Scientologist had infiltrated CAN, then 50 Scientologists filed suit against it, many containing almost identical language, after having sought to join the organization almost simultaneously and being denied. CAN's link to cult deprogramming enabled Scientology to file a lawsuit which resulted in a massive fine which added to CAN's legal debt, forcing bankruptcy. Legal maneuvering resulted in Scientology having control of the name and equipment, etc. and files of the old CAN, through Scientology associates. The files were then turned over to the Foundation for Religious Freedom,^[27] one of many which serve as a "front" group for Scientology, or which are inordinately favorable to them.^[28][29][30]

An addition source of controversy has been the death of 36 year old Lisa McPherson at Scientology's Clearwater headquarters, which she was undergoing "care".^[31]

Doctrinally Scientology is non-Christian (Hubbard even denied there was a Christ^[32]), and is seen to be manifesting a form of New Age belief.^[33] One researcher concludes that it is "an oversimplified form of regular psychotherapy mixed with hypnosis."^[34]

It is also pointed out that Satanist Aleister Crowley, was Hubbard's mentor and he lived with Crowley protege John Parsons, engaging in sex magic at their black magic mansion hospice (Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1990, p. A1).^{[35] [36]}

Liberal religious cult apologist^[37] J. Gordon Melton dismisses the charge that Scientology is a cult, as he does in regard to certain other dangerous groups.^[38][39]

Negative quotes

Quotes from Scientology and other material^{[40] [41][42]} are often published in support of the critical position.

If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. - L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the dissemination of material.

So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, Manual of justice, 1959

A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists

[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories… and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect…. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard.” – Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill… (Scientology is) the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” – Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia

Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members." - Cynthia Kisser, the network's Chicago-based executive director, as quoted in Time, 5/6/91

This article needs a warning

Having dealt personally with these people, I can assure everyone that this is a very dangerous and manipulative cult. Given that there are so many young people who read this site, I wonder if a warning at the top advising people to stay away from these guys would be appropriate. What do people think? --DamianJohn 17:04, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Further reading

• Various Christian doctrinal and historical articles on Scientology
• An exhaustive information source on Scientology
• Scientology as a "Religion"
• Extensive information critical of Scientology from secular source
• Christian apologist Walter Martin on Scientology, audio and text
• Video source, including report by ABC’s Nightline

References

I never thought I'd say this...

but this is actually pretty close to encyclopedia quality, unlike the psuedo-scientific hate speech, and yes, some of it is hate speech, that I've seen on here in the past. Now, if only I didn't need to create an account. Poiuytrewq 23:40, 29 October 2012 (EDT)