Talk:Scientology/Archive 3

message: I have trying to understand the concept of Scientology.  As a practicing Christian I have many questions about this "religion".  I understand the concept of the mind and body.  If Scientology claims to be a religion I was wondering what happens when you die?  If anyone could answer this I would appreciate it.
:That's pretty well covered in Scientology beliefs and practices, but in short: According to Scientology nothing much changes, except that you no longer have a body to lug around with you. However, most people reincarnate immediately after death due to a cumpulsive belief that they need a body. Mkweise 09:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life after Death 

message: Wikipedia itself lists the Church of Scientology under its list of active cults, yet various editors on Wikipedia refuse to allow the term CULT to be added in the discription of the organization. The term cult is ALLOWED on ALL OTHER organizations listed under Wikipedia as cults except this one. I will be able to provide the links to those wishing to see them. It makes me wonder if the motivation of these editors is based on being members of the cult themselves.
*Actually it is listed under List of purported cults which is somewhat different. You, 62.204.200, pasted the phrase cult onto over two dozen pages , in many places distorting word order. Your edits were clearly POV, many admins would have blocked before warning you given the speed at which you worked. BTW, I'm a non-denominational Christian raised in a Full Gospel church, attending a Southern Baptist School, sorry to disappoint you. -JCarriker June 30, 2005 08:40 (UTC)
:It makes sense that the cultic definition would not be allowed, but personally I don't define an exclusively favourable description of something as genuinely neutral. I apologise for my earlier rant on this page, but it looks as though it has since been removed anyway. My main issue was raised by references in the article to certain Scientology centres being described as "looking nice." That might sound insane, but in my mind describing Scientology centres as visually appealing (or really implying that Scientology is a legitimate religion at all) has around the same level of moral responsibility as advocating that a lion should be part of a petting zoo. It's like saying that Charles Manson "wasn't really so bad."
:I can understand how people here might think that it is unprofessional to be overtly critical of the group, and I can also only speculate as to the amount of pressure being applied by the Church (sic) itself to maintain a purely positive image of it here. However, I am hoping that those people here who take the mission of this site seriously are able to remain focused on what Scientology's initial, core founding purpose was:- to destroy people's lives, and make money, and to perform these two functions exclusively, despite pretentions implying otherwise. Hubbard is well documented as having been a thoroughly sociopathic, criminal, and generally abhorrent human being, who dedicated the majority of his life to enriching himself at the detriment of others.
:The historical record is very clear as to the amount of harm that this organisation has done; indeed, it is a testament to such that it is with a certain amount of personal fear of offline retribution in some form that I write these words. I remind myself however that the only ultimate means of thwarting such groups is for individuals to be willing to speak the truth about them, and I also draw confidence from the fact that Scientology has had to try and silence a very large number of people online, and has ultimately been unsuccessful. Truth has a way of resisting attempts at its' burial.
:This, then, is what I urge Wikipedians to remember; that although they may feel they are doing the right thing in portraying the organisation in a kinder, gentler manner, such is not necessarily the historically accurate way of doing so. It is also worth remembering that even if this site, as a member of the minority, continues to portray this group favourably, such a portrayal is not what will remain in the long term historical record, or in human memory, and is therefore at odds with Jim Wales' stated intention for this site. History at large will remember Scientology as exactly what it is:- the prototypical destructive cult.
Petrus4 05:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult?

message: WikiProject Scientology - Dive in - David Gerard 19:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology|WikiProject Scientology]]

message: On the Scientology page, specifically the area about celebrities who are Scientologists, it says Katie Holmes is a recent convert. Does anyone have any sources to back that up? As far as I've seen she's only expressed interest in learning about it, and prior to her relationship with Tom Cruise she stated she was a devout Catholic. Granted, I don't exactly follow every article about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, but as far as I know she's not a Scientologist.
:There's a List of Scientologists, but it seems to be out of date. Or maybe it just needs to have a section for "former members". Among others, I've heard that Mary Bono is no longer part of the CoS. There are several "ex" members clearly identified as such. -Willmcw 01:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
:She's stated she has been studying it, I'll see what i can turn up in the way of refs - David Gerard 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie Holmes 

message: I just cleaned up the grammar and sentance flow of the second part of the Auditing section, but tried to leave the tone of the information intact.  However, it seems to me that this section stands out from the rest of the article, including the first half of that section, as NPOV.  The statements that formerly audited persons have compared auditing to "torture" may be correct, but by the same token, these very similar techniques are used by law enforcement during interrogation; this type of questioning is very common when the person being questioned is reluctant to talk.  Also, it would be nice to have some references to (1) such statements from former Scientologists, and (2) CoS (mis)use of confidential information (I assume we're talking about blackmail here and that there is supporting evidence of these actions.) 66.193.169.29 18:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that paragraph doesn't fit the section.  I cut it.  See below.  BTfromLA 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auditing Section too inflammatory? 

message: There have been some recent edits that in my view add little to the article, and frequently derail it with needless repitition, POV, and poor writing.  I've cut the following from the intro to the "Beliefs and practices section--perhaps something here can be used, but please consider the overall shape of the article (e.g., whether this info is presented elsewhere_ before resoring or adding material.  --BTfromLA 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored all but the last sentence.  (Which was clearly just a snipe at the process.)  The rest of it is neutral information.  (Unless you contend that the information does not become porpoerty of the church.) - Tεxτurε 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the second-to-last sentence should go too for the same reason. - Tεxτurε 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "The process of raising one of the ARC levels is accomplished through the teaching of courses from Scientology's curriculum.  These courses provide the primary source of income for the Church of Scientology, and many of them are extremely expensive.  If a member fails to acheive the desired goal, this is taken as failure on the part of the aspirant, who must then purchase the course again.  Critics point out that this provides little financial incentive for the Church to properly teach aspirants, as failure to "pass" the course simply means repeat income for the Church.  Prior to beginning any of these courses, the aspirant must sign a contact with the Church acknowledging the possible failure, and absolving the Chuch of responsibility for any resulting outcome."  -- BTfromLA 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to a line that says that raising the ARC levels is a goal of scientology courses, though isn't that already implied, given that raising the ARC level is a stated goal of Scientology?  BTfromLA 22:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some dubious recent additions 

message: The bit about the Tone Scale is currently a mess.  Somone who is familiar with how the Tone Scale is treated within scientology, please copy edit that part.  BTfromLA 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone scale section