From: pearnhar@nyx.cs.du.edu (Philip A. Earnhardt)
Subject: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:52:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.065335.1987@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>>Are you saying there is a distinction [between SCN and other "applied
>>>>religious technologies"] or not? If so, what is the distinction?  I'm
>>>>asking for your personal opinion on this.
>>>Yes, *I* (not Scn) would make this distinction.  The distinction *I* would
>>>make would be: ease of application of Scn, potential understanding of Scn in
>>>order to apply it, the potential effect of Scn application being greater and
>>>more useful, etc.
>>This is a broad and sweeping statement. Do you care to defend it, or should
>>we just file it away in the Assertive but Unsubstantiated Claims file? I
>>should warn you that that folder is already pretty full...
>It's my personal opinion.  It's based on various observations I have made
>about some other religions.  No intricate research was done.  This is merely
>my opinion (you asked for it).

I'm asking for the *thought* that went into your opinion. What religions you
examined and what you found missing in them. Critical thought about the
matter....if you are interested in having people look at Scientology, this
would be one of the more useful things for you to be doing here.

>>I'm not sure what your message is here, Jonathon. You say that you can't
>>represent Scn on these questions, but you *have* read all the books you're
>>asking me to read. Yet, when I ask you some fundamental questions about this
>>"applied religious technology," you can't give me anything at all that
>>indicates that *you* are clear about the issue.
>
>I have a very good understanding of this topic.  However, either you aren't
>asking the right questions or are not understanding my replies.

My issue is that you're littering your replies with disclaimers. You've
said absolutely nothing about how Scientology, as an organization, views its
relationship to other religions. If the answer isn't in those books, then
I won't waste my time reading even one of them.

>>I am not willing to read those books and *still* not be clear about how
>>Scientology represents itself in the world.
>
>Read the books.  Find out for yourself.

Again, this sounds pretty fishy. The TV Ad for Dianetics tells us the *exact*
pages that the answers to fundamental questions of humanity are. Is there 
some reason that you're not able to just quote us the passages?

Tell you what. Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the official
Scientology policy about other religions. I will go to my local B. Daltons
and read *that*. I am willing to read up to 10 pages of material.

Here's the point: if your efforts to expose people to Scientology all
eventually fall into the "Read the book(s)" (how many?) bucket, then a
Usenet News group is an outstandingly poor medium for that message. No
matter what it's called, A "FAQ" composed of propoganda will go over
poorly here, too.

To be effective here, you need to give straight answers to people's
questions.

--phil