Scientology and Wiki
 

Complete Story Here

So Wiki's decide to stop allowing the Church of Scientology to change entries. Are they going to stop other churches from making changes too? Whats to stop members from changing entries from non-church owned computers?

Seems like a silly move to me.

I guess it's just a statement. I think it's silly too. It's like I was to tell you your not supposed to breathe the air to the right side of your house. Really The Internet (TM) is huge like that. There's no stopping it.

But the other question I have is why are the church of Scientology changing material over and over again to warrant such a move?

Eh. I'm on the fence.
I don't think it's wrong or right. Simply a choice.
I'm glad it has been publicized, either way. At least those who look at Wiki for information on Scientology will know the bias.

I'm going to bring a bit from after the jump that I feel is relevant, for those who don't click through:

This doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy to me.

Wikipedia is not a wild west where people can post whatever they want. There are rules and guidelines for editing articles, where and how information can be sourced, and things of that nature. It sounds like neither side of the discussion has been playing by the rules, and so the rules have been tightened with regard to this specific issue.

Wikipedia aspires to be a reliable and trusted source of information. Whether they can actually achieve that is questionable, but within that context taking measures to increase accountability in controversial discussions seems like a completely sane and practical move.

It's part of their public relations...if people knew the truth about them, it would be harder to sucker people into joining. Unlike actual religions, obfuscation of their actual goals and methods and direct exchanges of large somes of money for 'secret' information are a key part of their business strategy.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

That's not how Wikipedia works--The reason they are doing this is largley BECAUSE of the massive NPOV violations on the part of scientology. They were removed for deleting anything negative from all of their articles.

What makes them less of a religion then any other?

The exact statement that I made seperates them, primarily: They seperate themselves by blatantly being a business and engaging in deceptive practices for the purposes of financial gain. No other 'church' has the tiered mandatory high-dollar lesson buy-in structure of scientology. In every other church, if you sit down with one of its leaders, they will tell you what it is based upon and let you make a decision. Scientologists aren't supposed to find out about Xenu, thetans, and the magic DC-8 until they have paid tens (up to hundreds) of thousands of dollars and spent several years to acheive the 'OT3' level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7133867.stm

Anyways, if you actually want to check out the arbitration first-hand rather than read an article about it, do so, it's all public record:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every church survives on separating their followers from their cash, don't they? So with Scientology it's the methods they use to gather capital and the fact they're less then up front with potential followers from the beginning?

I'd say they are way more than 'less than up front'...they have an active litigation arm to systematically attempt to enforce bogus copyright claims over the core of their religious beiefs. From a purely academic standpoint, I supposed you could call it a religion, in the sense that it is a set of beliefs. That is a rather narrow rule of thumb, however, and applies to sham religious cults just as easily.

From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/S...tack/bs4-5.htm which footnotes the claim to a book, Management Series 1970-1974 written by Hubbard himself.

If I started an organization founded on the principle that I was the supreme Banker God of the universe, and that the only way to secure your wealth in the afterlife was to give it to me in this one, and I would deposit it for you in your Celestial Account, would you be defending my organization as a religion?

Obviously any church will naturally require funds to sustain its existence... with the exception of Scientology, I've only ever known churches getting funds through charity and fundraising from the community. Oh yeah sure, I guess the Roman Catholic Church benefited a bunch in the crusades, but come on, just read into any one of the dozens of Scientology linked extortion and acts of malice... they're the only ones I see out there prying cash away from their followers.

You honestly don't see any difference between a)passing around a bucket/plate/donation receptacle and b) a "pay to play" scheme? In scenario A, Johnny Nomoney gets imparted the "wisdom" whether he contributes or not. In scenario B Johnny Nomoney is out on his ass. That's like saying there is no difference between Donationware and retail software, or there is no difference between TFP and WOW.

Their methods are literally brainwashing and they have killed members and detractors, and engaged in organized campaigns to ruin the lives of those who brought public attention to their abuses. I have no problem with people believing ridiculous shit, and there are alternatives like Freezone Scientology, but the Church of Scientology is a criminal organization whose existence and activities should be illegal and their leaders prosecuted.

To my knowledge, the LDS church (Mormon church) requires a 10% tithe of every member's income (I don't know if it's gross or net). While members can attend services without paying tithe, one can not go to an LDS temple without being a full tithe payer, and you can't get to the celestial kingdom (heaven) without going to temple. Family members are barred from attending loved one's wedding ceremonies because they aren't "temple worthy" aka, are deliquent in their tithe payments. Members meet with their bishop once a year to make sure all of their tithe has been paid and are lectured if they are behind. Please feel free to correct this if needed - I am not LDS but have lived in Utah most of my life and have some knowledge of church goings-on. The point is, the church of Scientology is not the only church doing this.

As for the OP...if the church of Scientology is altering wiki entries because they just don't like what's being written, then good on Wikipedia for barring them.

Wow, I totally agree with your comparison and yet that information brings me to an apparently totally different conclusion.

Let me slightly restate: I have little tolerance for cult-like religions that are built on the recent-history 'revalations' of known crackpot criminals, core beliefs of which can be easily disproved by rudimentary science, which have a huge controlling influence over its members, driving forced rifts into families with some non-members or people who have deconverted, who have secret ceremonies they try to sue to protect, and who require mandatory cash donations.

Interesting. I don't know anything about the killing and ruining of peoples lives. Not saying it's not true, don't know. But almost every religion has blood on it's hands, doesn't it? I mean why were the witches in Salem Mass. killed? The Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. How about the Mountain Meadows massacre? Hell there are Muslims killing each other in the middle east right now because ones in one sect of the Muslim faith and other's in another. Aren't Protestants and Catholics getting started all over again in Ireland? How long have they been killing each other? I had no doubt I could go to Ireland and find a person who'd happily tell me one or the other religion isn't a real religion. These are all real religions, right?

As for passing the plate- do you think that's where most churches get their income? It may well be. I honestly don't know. I do know I had a friend who was in a church (not naming the church here purposefully) his mother was ill and he slacked off on his monthly 10% for a few months. Was called and asked what the problem was, why the payments had stopped. According to him it wasn't a pleasant conversation. From the way he told it it sounded like a call from a credit collection agency. I know my ex's mom gave a tithing, well, religiously all her life. When we finally had to put her in a home she was concerned that those payments not stop. She was fearful that if she didn't keep it up she wouldn't go to heaven. Now where would she get an idea like that? Pay up or go to hell. Really that's it when you boil it down to the basics, isn't it?

OK so the good folks at Scientology like to sell trinkets. In their case they're high priced "M" or "E" meters, I can't remember what they call them. But lot's churches spend hours a day on the TV convinces people to send them cash. They're not even send out meters to their followers to tell them how well their doing. Probably taking in just as much cash.

They don't sell emeters...they sell sessions with them, for a couple thousand dollars a pop on up. It really is like world of warcraft, in that you keep having to do 'training' to advance up levels, except every level has an arbitrarily larger dollar figure on it. And that's the only way to succeed in ridding their bodies of thetans.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, cuz it sounds like "hey, theyre not so bad, they're just like the Methodist church down the road!"

Let me say again: Scientology operates NOTHING like what people think of when they think of religion. If you picture a pay by the minute 'consult a psychic' pyramid scheme, you'll be closer to the truth. The internet is completely full of accurate and verified information about their horrible practicies (which I haven't even gotten into as they'd sound off topic), if you are really curious about it, go do some rudimentary research and I think you will change your mind.

I also ask again, since you did not respond to it:

If I started an organization founded on the principle that I was the supreme Banker God of the universe, and that the only way to secure your wealth in the afterlife was to give it to me in this one, and I would deposit it for you in your Celestial Account, would you be defending my organization as a religion?

I'd just like to chime in on the side against scientology. I'm all for religious freedom. Scientology is...different. I don't believe it's a religion either. Tully, if you don't know about some of the darker things with Scientology, feel free to go look them up. The difference to me between Scientology and the ugly side of other religions is A: Scientology is built around these atrocities (it's perpetrated by the entire core of the religion, only the fringe lower levels are uninvolved), and it's happening today. If I were to suddenly be teleported back to the crusades, yes I'd have a moral problem with Christianity at the time. So as it stands, I have a moral problem with Scientology today. If they stopped their death threads / other forms of coercion on nonbelievers/exbelievers/opponents today, I would be much more understanding in my view of them.

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000...3617.strip.gif

Anytime your scheme sounds like something Dogbert would do, it's probably a bad idea.

The "Donationware vs. Retail Software" comparison is a good one. You get to see what things are all about and decide whether you feel your money will be going to a worthy cause, versus having to pay first and not having any recourse if you don't like the result. Unless the product is defective, which is it's OWN comparison right there :D

I thought they sold them. The fact they rent them makes it worse somehow?

I'm not really arguing anything here. Just trying understand what makes one group a religion and another a cult. I mean Scientology charges people for sessions with "E" meters. The Catholic church serves up some wine and a little wafer and tells people it's the blood and body of their savior. Both sound pretty goofy to me. I'd say cult like even.


Well I've done a lot of reading today and I must say no, they operate just about like every other religion I've read up on. They just happen to be at a younger age. The fact that other churches did awful things in the 12th, 14th, 15th or even early 19th century to force their beliefs on people doesn't change they way seemingly all religions get their followers. Who knows maybe in a 100 or 200 years they'll be the fastest growing church in the world? Each religion I've looked into hooks a generation then depends on spreading through children. Scientology just happens to be working on this generation.


I'm sorry, I missed this question completely. But no I'm not giving anyone any cash to provide me with a better life after I'm dead. If there is an after life I'm placing my chips on getting in by living the best life now that I can. My feelings on the whole subject is I'm not in position to say whether or not their is a God. I feel a spiritual connection at times but look at religions and they way they operate and really don't understand at all.

They don't rent them, they pay for auditing sessions with auditors who use them.

The reason I phrased the question the way I did was not to try to get you to join the cult of the Banker God...it was to ask you, if that entity existed, would you classify it as a religion? I feel like Banker Godism is just slightly farther down the path that Scientology is on, and I thought that distilling it would clarify my (your?) thoughts.

Ok, again my bad.

Does that make it worse or better somehow?




I have a problem distinguishing cult from nearly all religions, mainstream or not.

I went to college a little later then most people. I did the Navy thing then went to school. So most of the other people in my classes were about 4 years younger then me. One day in Biology 101 a young lady asked "so if what you're saying is true then why do women have one less rib then men?" I was kind of taken aback. I really never thought about it. Honestly seemed like a good question based on what my childhood taught me. I mean in high school I never paid much attention and this kind of thing wasn't in any of the Navy manuals I had to read. The instructor replied "I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but men and women usually have the same number of ribs." The class erupted in laughter. I kind of shrugged and thought "did not know that, why don't I know that? Maybe I'm in over my head here?" The next week I saw that girl and the instructor arguing. It basically amounted to "I talked to my priest and he said you're full of it! I don't care what you say women have one less rib then men. It's how God made women, duh!" "Umm, I can show you X-Rays if you'd like. I'm telling you the results are in and your priest is wrong here." She dropped the course and stopped school completely.

This lady wasn't in some goof ball religion. She was in a standard main street church, you know every town USA type church. I'd call her reaction and response brainwashing. How is it that different then what the Scientology folks are doing?

I agree that both are terribad.

The difference to me is I've encountered sane Christians.

The bolding done by me in your quote is the major distinction that you are either missing, or choosing to ignore. I think most people that are ant-Scientology could care less what version of the spaghetti monster they chose to worship.

Since my earlier examples were disregarded, I will try and demonstrate it based soley on your quote.

Any Catholic can receive communion, without a checkbook or credit card. The same can not be said for Scientology.

Most religions are interested in saving everyone from hell/evil/darkness, whereas Scientology is only interested in "saving" those who can afford it.

Sorry I missed this as well as your previous post. Got caught up in drama elsewhere and wasn't getting e-mail updates for this thread. Not trying to make excuses, just letting you know what happened.

Ok, I'll say this again. My view on how Scientology raises funds is that it's not that different then what other churches did in their early years. Do I think it makes sense and would I pay for a session with an "E" meter? Hell no, sounds fucking goofy to me. But would I continue to follow a church that was selling the position of Pope and at times had more then one Pope due to this fact? Ummm, no. Sure the Catholic church no longer does this, but they did. Now they have property. Now they have long standing financial investments that go back centuries. The sale of Bishops and Popes is no longer necessary. Shaking down noblemen and royals who want divorces isn't as popular these days either. Would I stay with a church that told me I couldn't access the temple I needed to to be allowed entry to the best place in the afterlife if I didn't give it 10% of my earnings? Ummm, no. But every church needs money in it's infancy, just like Scientology does now. I don't see a huge difference in the process just the time line.

Here's the place to start when it comes to anti-Church-of-Scientology information.
Operation Clambake - The Inner Secrets Of Scientology
This is the core belief of the Church of Scientology. You are exposed to this at the tenth level of Scientology, known as Operating Thetan III:
Scientology is a religion, the Church of Scientology claims that the religion and all of tis texts and procedures are their intellectual property. If people want to believe that ridiculous shit, they should have a choice of doing it for free.
I was discussing with willravel on AIM this when the Anonymous protests against the CoS started last year. I sent him a link to auditing procedures, and after a few minutes, his first response was something like "Wow. That's brainwashing 101."

When you do their "personality test," it all goes into their file on you. Anything you tell them will be used to defame you if you decide to speak out against them.

Fair Game Policy: Fair Game (Scientology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The official policy, from Hubbard himself, on how to deal with enemies of Sceintology:
"ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be 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."

A campaign to ruin the life of a journalist who criticized Scientology by having her either institutionalized or arrested. Operation Freakout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Snow White, which infiltrated multiple governments and involved thousands of undercover agents, to purge records unfavorable to the Church
Operation Snow White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lisa Mcpherson, the most well-known case of someone who died in the care of the Church of Scientology of non-life-threatening injuries due to their medical practices.

So is there never a distinction between a cult and a religion?

It something a religion merely because it claims to be?

If I open a strip joint and call it "The Church of Bodies in Motion", should I be treated as any other religion?

If COS is strictly a business, should they be treated any differently than any other business that has a presence on Wikipedia?

I think some of my posts haven't clearly stated my position on Scientology. I'm in no way defending them. I in fact do think they're engaged in brainwashing. They do, I believe, engage in back door, often illegal BS including attempts to control the press, former members and anyone who disagrees with them publicly.

I'm simply trying to wrap my head around how is that different then all other religions. I mean what do you think burning heretics at the stake was? Happy fun time down at the fiefdom? I think if I were a fief who saw a disbeliever burned alive I'd be more convinced to believe and believe damn, opps! sorry darn hard, I meant darn hard. Also probably make sure what ever my tithing was it was paid in full... always. In the 13th (??) century Pope Gregory IX started the Inquisitional Courts which authorized the arrest, trial and execution of heretics... as well as the seizure of any property the heretic owned. A few years later Pope Innocent III authorized the use of torture at these trials. Not surprisingly the convection rate increased dramatically. As did the churches holdings. Why do you think Galileo Galilei spent the vast majority of his final years of life at home? He disagreed with the church and it's teachings. They absolutely didn't want his teachings polluting the populace. In short, they didn't like what he said and they sent him to his room. Which was a lot nicer then burning him at the stake.

And this is different then the Scientology people how? Time? Head to the Vatican today and start handing our pamphlets detailing the history of the Catholic church or simply any church teachings you disagree with and see what happens. Or do the same thing in Salt Lake City, just remember to replace Catholic with LDS. Or if it's closer to you head over to the Watchtower Buildings in Brooklyn, New York and see what happens if you engage in any behavior the good folk of Kingdom Hall don't like.

I don't think the reaction you'll receive will be that much different then what the Scientology people are doing. I absolutely believe the reaction from Scientology will be more severe. Their younger, they simply can't afford any dissent. I think an honest look at the history of most churches will reveal a time when they couldn't afford such dissent either. The younger the church the less likely they are to allow dissent.

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

I honestly have struggled with this most of my adult life and do not have an answer for you. It's one of those things I know I don't know.

I assume you mean "is" not "it."

Well yes, isn't it? Look at the time line for the history of any religion. Near as I can tell each began when someone claimed they either talked to God, God talked to them or in some cases that they in fact were a God.

I mean Jews look at Christians and have to believe that they're wrong, right? That Christ was not the son of God, no way no how. Christians have to look at Muslims and think they're wrong. No way Allah was a prophet or a messenger of God. All three main branches of these religions have to look at the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses and think Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith are just nuts, right?

That's not even getting into any of the eastern religion such as Buddhism or Hinduism.

Each religion has to believe the other are all wrong, right? Each has to engage in a "yeah, but we're right" philosophy.

I think the laws of the US allow you (and whomever you can convince) to believe whatever you want. Why shouldn't you be able to start any church you want? The TV's full of people who have in fact started their own church. Most have based theirs on the bible. You want to base you're on the human body, something the bible refers to as a temple, who's to stop you?

What church doesn't have a business office?

The US Government, for one. Being a religion has a wide variety of extremely tangible tax benefits, and they fairly narrowly define what is and isn't a religion for that purpose. Church of Scientology falls outside of the strict interpretation of those requirements, but they have enough lobbying money to keep themselves 'religified' so to speak, as it's probably worth millions of dollars to them to not have to pay taxes.

I'm not familiar with the US tax laws regarding what can be considered a church and what can not. But does their standing with the tax man change their status as a church?

And lot's of churches have used power and money for political sway, yes?

It wasn't Scientology as compared to other churches, it was Scientology as compared to other businesses in relation to Wikipedia.

In other words, should all businesses be banned from editing their own Wikipedia entries because naturally they will try to spin themselves in a positive light.

Tully, I really don't understand your position here. Are you saying that other churches have committed misdeeds in the past, so it's normal and/or acceptable for the Church of Scientology to do the same? Or are you saying that they all ought to be outlawed? I don't understand what your point is.

Within the context of the original discussion, if the Catholic Church were trying to edit out any mention of the crusades I'd expect similar action to be taken. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, which means that no entity should be able to get away with the kind of biased edits the Church of Scientology was trying to manage. They misbehaved, and now they get supervised. It seems like a fair restriction.

Aren't all churches a business? Don't they have to have an income to survive?

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------


I don't really have a point other then to say I'm not sure I see a huge difference between Scientology and other churches, other then time line and age.

And I think it's silly to think the Scientology folks won't simply put people out en mass to edit from non church own systems and servers to continue doing what they been doing all along.

Also isn't Wiki a user based information system? As I understand it experts on subjects or knowledgeable persons post articles, right? So wouldn't the experts on the Catholic church mainly be the Catholic church? I haven't looked at it at all. But do you know for a fact the Catholic church or the LDS church or any other church isn't doing exactly what the Scientology folks have been doing?

Tully,

Beating your wife was deemed acceptable,
Banning blacks was deemed acceptable
Sacrificing Christians to lions was deemed entertainment.


And all that simply on a different timeline... Should we accept if it happened again today?
Like Martian, even after this post, I don't quite get what you're trying to say.


If you want info on what constitutes a cult and what a religion, a cult by definition is a new religion movement started usually by a charismatic leader.
So most religions started out as a cult.

The problem with Scientology isn't so much that it's a cult, as that it's a dangerous cult, that actively works against the current society. The whole idea of stealing money not withstanding, they actively try to disrepute people that leave their group, especially when these people try to speak out about what they have seen "inside". And they try to bring more people to them very aggresively as well.

In a way you could probably compare them to a tumor on society.

Umm, did these things have anything to do with a church?


I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand. Just wondering what makes a cult a cult and a religion a religion.

So by that definition Scientology is a religion, just a new one. Right?

People have made the argument regarding a lot of religions. Joesph Smith was tar and feathered and eventually killed because his views actively works against the current society of the time.

So when does a cult become a religion?

They don't have anything to do with religion.

You just keep bringing up other things from the past that were done as if to invalidate other religions.
I did the same, outside of religion.



Scientology could become a religion, provided several conditions, but as it stands, it's a cult, and a dangerous one at that. That's what I said earlier when I stated that most religions start out as a cult.

Why is it a cult and not a religion? For one, it feeds on society, but gives nothing back. Second, it does nothing to further personal growth of the individual. Third, it actually harms the individual that wants to go back outside their influence.



Scientology is a cult that is trying very hard to fight for its continued existence be it scheme or something religious, at the cost of the individual. It's that fact that people find reprehensible.

I'm not trying to invalidate other religions. Just trying to figure out why people see Scientology so different then all other mainstream religions.


As for-

What do you think shunning does to people? I know of several churches that engage in this practice. Leave them and lose all your friends and family. Sounds harmful to me.

And...

How do you know what people get out of their experiences with Scientology? Lot's of well know people swear it's helped them to archive great success in their field. How can any other person know what someone else does or does not get out of anything? I've known people who saw counselors for years I'd swear the longer they saw them the worse they got. According to them they were making great progress.

Lastly...

This is the one point I can't find any disagreement with. I can't find anything about what the Scientology church is doing that gives anything to communities they operate in, or any where else for that matter. Every other church I can think of operates some kind of out reach, food bank, feed the poor type program. Near as I can tell the Scientology church is batting a big fat zero on this account.

As for...

What condition or conditions would meet your requirements to make them a church and not a cult?

Actually, for me those *are* the conditions.

You need to work a positive influence in your people.

You need to be open to society

You need to be a positive influence through your people IN that society.




as for the shunning -- I'd personally leave any church that did that. However, I can't say I ever noticed this around here. Then again, Belgium isn't known for it's diversity in faiths, especially when you go more rural.

As for what they get out of it: Anything where you advance by throwing money at it, does not speak well for how serious they take the "advancement".

There a things that separate a cult from a religion. Even if you think all religions are deluded, cults have their own harmful traits:

*Not all the information is available to new members. You have to be in the highest circles to learn all their core teachings. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all let you read all of the material. They may even give you copies for free. There aren't hidden texts that are part of the religions.

*They try to get new members to sever ties with people outside the movement, even family. Not in a "we should live like this" way, but breaking all contact, not associating, etc. They don't want people to be talked out of it by people who care about them.

*Heavy pressure and attacks against people who leave. Not just not associating with those people, but actively making statements or threats against them. In religions, you might not hang out with church families as much if you leave, but it's your decision. In very few cases will you be labeled as evil.

*Taking advantage of members, and using them to gain money. No, not just asking for donations or general sacrifice for God or whatever, but required contributions to the movement. Churches need money to survive, but they don't fleece the members for all they're got. It's voluntary and it's still good if you give money to feed the homeless instead of the building fund.

In the case of Scientology, they rely on secrecy and heavy litigation to protect themselves. They come down hard on anyone who opposes them, rather than trying to show why they are the right way to go. Using all these definitions, a lot of other movements could be cults, like Mormons, Christian Science (the "no medicine" people,) radical Islam, etc. but that's a whole other can of worms.

That's actually pretty widespread.

Tully, would you prefer it if I stated my position as such?

I am heavily opposed to Scientology and don't deem it a real religion.

If I were back in the day of the crusades/other religious atrocities, I would be heavily opposed to them and wouldn't deem them real religions.

It's an open discussion so yes, I'd prefer you speak your mind. State your position. I have no dog in this fight. I belong to none of the mentioned organizations nor could I ever see a time where I would.