Talk:Scientology and democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology and democracy article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Expansion

  • This article needs some expansion with more citations. Smee 10:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Purpose?

Since the relationship between Scientology and democracy is more important, than the relationship between psychiatry and Scientology, I found it quite necessary to have this article. Remember: Just like some people avoid certain doctors of medicine (lets say: orthopedists) and prefer other methods (like lets say: chiropractic) some people might say, that they avoid psychiatrists and use a health insurance that pays scientology/dianetics -- this would be nearly impossible in re democracy, because: Virtually all countries use this or worse government principles. --Homer Landskirty 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please specify, is this meant to be more historical? To describe Scientology's response to external democratic systems, or the description or lack thereof of an internal democratic structure? I am confused. Smee 11:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Internally is not so important here, because: That would be hardly of importance for most people (I mean: If basic legal requirements r met, every Scientologist would have at least the choice to leave the organisation, which is democratic enough, I would say...). --Homer Landskirty 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In that case it would seem we most certainly need more citations that refer to this, in order to explain it better for the potential reader... Smee 11:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
        • OK... Due to my mental/neurological disability I cannot work at this today... Maybe I try tomorrow to find some other sources... I would be a little bit sad, if this article is deleted, just because it does not grow fast enough... Do u doubt the relevance? --Homer Landskirty 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I do not, but others may. That is why you should find some more citations... Smee 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not a speedy candidate.

  • This information is of interest to the reader, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. Perhaps AFD, for further process and discussion, but not speedy. Smee 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
    • I think so, too... I have not found so many sources, but Scientology's relation to democracy is more important and notable, than its relation to psychiatry. I could even say, that Scientology's relation to democracy is the only interesting feature, because: Many groups have an impact on individuals and it is most misleading to mention just a few of those groups (e.g.: I feel influenced by certain unknown people, who made blood-like stains on the door to my apartment -- and I am quite sure, that they were neither Scientologists nor Christians nor Psychiatrists nor police officers *giggle*). Maybe we should delete all Scientology articles on Wikipedia or maybe we should at least link to an article on "Staying sane, while surrounded by other people"... --Homer Landskirty 15:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Evidently we have different standards of what constitutes even the most basic encyclopedic writing. I can't even begin to take seriously an article whose stated premise is "Scientology and democracy are in conflict" regarding various subjects. wikipediatrix 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless, not a speedy, and worthy of the process. Citations are given to reputable sourced material. Smee 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
        • I am not a native speaker... What is wrong about the phrase "A and B are in conflict"? With Yahoo!Search I found these occurences: [1] --Homer Landskirty 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the citation for the article's specific claim - and fundamental premise - that Scientology and democracy are in conflict with one another? wikipediatrix 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I will have to leave that one to the editor that created the article. Smee 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
The conflict arises, when Dianetics/Scientology say, that democracy wrongfully allows and funds and protects severe human rights crimes committed by psychiatrists (this is IIRC the initial claim of Hubbard; this is not so much criticism against psychiatry but more criticism against democracy, which is obviously unable to get rid of this stain (in F.Rep.GERM the government even considered to put a court order before every ECT event -- but this never became a valid law -- furthermore an anti-psychiatric union was against it for reasons that r not quite clear to me))... --Homer Landskirty 15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and Original Research. And since it's the fundamental premise of the article, this article is fundamentally flawed. wikipediatrix 15:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What do u refer to with "that"? Define "conflict". A severe conflict with criminal law (and publishing, that psychiatry's human rights crimes remain unchecked by national police, is undoubtedly such a conflict) is without any research (= without much thinking) a conflict with democracy (if somebody thinks, it should be allowed to steal from bank safes, he automatically complains about legislative process (christian bible, democracy, or whatever applies best in his/her environment))... --Homer Landskirty 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've said all I need to say. Read WP:OR and find sources for your claim that Scientology and democracy are in conflict. wikipediatrix 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said: The conflict is most obvious and decades old. And the article is sourced by the other articles... Somehow the article "scientology and democracy" is the "root" article, that is founded on the other articles. --Homer Landskirty 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, that there is a secondary source (a federal bureau of F.Rep.GERM, which is a quite young and constructed and supervised democracy), that cites a Scientology-procedure, and concludes, that Scientology is opposed to democracy. This point of view has been found not only by me, but by the U.S. Department of State, too. --Homer Landskirty 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ or Abraham Lincoln said it, you can't just make the article say it. It needs to say WHO said it and not have Wikipedia's omniscient narrator saying these words or basing the premise of an article around it. wikipediatrix 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is why he has the 2 citations there. Smee 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
I see no citations attached to the introductory statement that contains the claim, which is obviously what I'm talking about. wikipediatrix 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... It is mentioned in that german report, too... So I will insert a named reference there. (aa) psychiatry (see that other wikipedia article, that is linked there); (bb) criminal justice (can be derived directly); (cc) elections (see below). --Homer Landskirty 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That is why I used that <ref>...</ref> feature... Btw.: That is how the article "scientology and psychiatry" does it, too... --Homer Landskirty 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am astonished a little bit, that the U.S government isnt more alarmed about a group, that says, that it does not like democracy... --Homer Landskirty 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are financial issues to consider as well.... Smee 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Speedy tag was removed

  • Result was: "rm speedy tag, use WP:AFD to delete." Smee 16:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Original research tag added

The opening statement: "Scientology and democracy are in conflict regarding several central governmental tasks." does not seem to be backed up by any evidence. The quotes cited seem to be about the internal affairs of the Scientologists themselves. I don't know of any religious organization that elects its leaders, but they are not said to be in conflict with democracy. Steve Dufour 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think the tag is necessary, but rather [original research?] tags via {{or}} would be better instead individually. Please do so. However, I agree that more information to expand the article from reputable secondary sourced citations would be appreciated. Smee 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm sorry, but I think the whole article is original research. Steve Dufour 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
As stated above by the user that created the article, and as plainly seen from the reputable citations, this is not the case. Please use [original research?] tags to tag particular sentences that you feel are blatant OR. However, please do not push WP:POINT, and simply tag for the purpose of tagging. Smee 05:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
The first sentence, which I mentioned above, is the worst example. Steve Dufour 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is duly noted. I have requested some input from a neutral source in the matter. Smee 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

The first sentence is backed up by the following unordered list (three points). As u can see, the criticism of scientology goes beyond its internal affairs (World War cannot be internal to Scientology, but it affects almost the whole world, which Scientology is a part of; criminal justice and psychiatry and political elections all interfere with Scientology, because Scientologists have to carry responsibility for such areas, even if they r opposed to them, and even if they do not elect, which comes directly from the democracy-idea (not a king or emperor is responsible but the people); another example: Even a uprising Scientologist, if he is in an official position, would be required to be a subject of a grievance, if somebody wants it, which is a clear conflict to Scientology's regulations, which is expressively mentioned in that German official report -- on the other hand it might be quite useless to sue the president of the US, while this is virtually possible).

I am so sorry, that my idea to create this article causes so much misunderstanding, and that my idea cannot be backed up so good by sources in English language. Maybe we should remove any traces of this article (including dead links) and put it somewhere on a to do list? But I still think, that Scientology's relation to democracy is more important than its relation to a private group (psychiatrists), that has strong influence on democratic systems (e. g. forensic psychiatry is surely not an idea of the jurists).

--Homer Landskirty 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Your points are duly noted on a talk page, but to add further to the article, and indeed to back up the current form of the article itself - it would be preferable if you could provide more information from additional reputable citations: media/government/books/scholarly journals, etc. Smee 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Somehow I just find this German report. No other reputable party wants to assess the intentions of CoS in order to provide a prospective about the threat to democracy... Just this: [2] (but I hardly dare to put this link here, because it is a not so reputable source). Here I found an universitary URL: [3] (CMU.EDU; it says, that Hubbard "did not favour democratic values"; this site seems to be operated by a private person (possibly a computer scientist) and not on behalf of the university -- Should I ask him for a reputable source on his claim?) --Homer Landskirty 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good idea. The first link, however, is a source of some reputable citations... Smee 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Do u have access to those HCOPL papers? If not: Shouldnt we refer to that xenu.net resource? If yes: R primary sources ok without universitary/neutral/external assessment? This contact email address of that CS.CMU.EDU site is invalid... I will see, if I can get in touch via the university's postmaster or so... --Homer Landskirty 13:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I think these issues should be discussed. However, I don't think you can make the leap from a couple of sentences in some government reports to the statement that Scientology and democracy are in conflict. I'm sure you could find government reports expressing all kinds of opinions on lots of things. Steve Dufour 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... What do u mean with "A and B are in conflict." then? Maybe u want to describe some examples, where A and B are and are not in conflict... --Homer Landskirty 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't just state in the intro that Scientology and Democracy are fundamentally in conflict. You have to state in that sentence WHO says this, where they said it, and that they are saying it. Otherwise it is OR. wikipediatrix 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... And in the scientology and psychiatry article it is allowed? Or did u just give up ur tries to change it? I feel a little discriminated now... Who can just state that (obviously I cant in ur opinion but others can)? --Homer Landskirty 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this whole article could be made into one section in the criticism section of the Scientology article. Steve Dufour 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? I still think, that democracy related conflicts r more important, than psychiatry related conflicts, and that the picture, that insinuates Hitler is a puppet of psychiatry, fits much better to this article here, because Nazi-Germany from 1933 to 1945 raised from a constructed democracy (not from a psychiatry)... We see here, that scientology mainly is against democracy (the form where every adult with human genome is allowed to vote (and the candidates r not chosen by religion but by their political effort, they show from their early years))... Btw.: I already mentioned the german opinion there in the CoS article, IIRC, ... --Homer Landskirty 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this should be an article on its own because it is really just some people's opinions. These opinions could, and should I think, be mentioned in other articles. Steve Dufour 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Some people...? Was Hubbard among them? Or do u think all those orders are not written by Hubbard... But why does this german _federal_ office publish them and their conclusions every year again? Now I am too tired for today... Maybe I can contribute some more truth tomorrow... --Homer Landskirty 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not questioning the accuracy of the statements. But that is what they are, statements. They should be mentioned in other articles. They do not constitute an article in themselves. Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the opening sentence with an [original research?] tag: "Scientology and democracy are in conflict regarding several central governmental tasks, including the regulation of psychiatry[1], criminal justice[1], and elections[1]" As I said above, these are people's opinions. To present them as fact is original research. Thanks. Steve Dufour 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These "people" r not just "some people" but they r experts for western democracies... Their claims r not disputed (e. g.: Up to today CoS accuses western democracies (and other governments) to commit human rights crimes covered up as medical treatment...). But the US Dept of State states, that the germ "people" have not found any prove for any attempt by CoS to circumvent the german constitution since 1997, while they do not say a word, that CoS complies to democratic rules, or that the germ. people use false source (HCOPL looks suspicious to me, because nobody knows where it comes from, since it is surely no book with an ISBN)... --Homer Landskirty 08:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Experts for western democracies" are still people, and they can make mistakes. Steve Dufour 14:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK... They r still people... and possibly mentally partially incapacitated... BUT: Do u know anybody who disputes, what they say/write, _and_ who can call himself an expert for western democracy (e.g. a professor for social science or for iustice or for politics)? --Homer Landskirty 14:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Court

Just chiming in here to provide you all with another source. A Dutch court has deemed Scientology as an "organisation that does not shun from denouncing democratic values". See here for the original text. One could verify the content disputed as OR by citing this court case. A longer, more literal translation is below. This sacrifices some readability for accuracy, and preserves some of the Dutch constructions. Note that the Dutch construction I translated with "From [...] it is clear" is not used for opinions, but rather for logical deduction. Also, the "texts previously mentioned under 8.3" include, among other things OT III. This case was national news in the Netherlands.

“

Uit de hiervoor onder 8.3 vermelde teksten blijkt dat Scientology c.s. met hun leer en organisatie de verwerping van democratische waarden niet schuwen Uit die teksten volgt tevens dat met de geheimhouding van OT II en OT III mede wordt beoogd macht uit te oefenen over leden van de Scientology-organisatie en discussie over de leer en praktijken van de Scientology-organisatie te verhinderen.

From texts previously mentioned under 8.3 it is clear that Scientology c.s. with their teachings and organisation do not shun the denouncing of democratic values. From those texts it is also clear that the goal of keeping OT II and OT III secret is, among other things, to exert power over the members of the Scientology-organisation and to obstruct discussion on the teachings and practices of the Scientology-organisation.

 ”

--User:Krator (t c) 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Can you provide a formatted citation for this? Smee 14:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Difficult. I'm not sure what to translate and what not, but I'll try:
Scientology c.s. versus DATAWEB B.V. et. al. § 8.4. Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage (The Hague Higher Court). LJN: AI5638. (in Dutch)
:Scientology c.s. versus DATAWEB B.V. et. al. § 8.4. Gerechtshof 's-Gravenhage ([[The Hague]] [[Civil procedure code of the Netherlands|Higher Court]]). '''[http://www.rechtspraak.nl/ljn.asp?ljn=AI5638 LJN: AI5638]'''. '''(in [[Dutch]])'''
--User:Krator (t c) 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not insert my translation above into the article as it is now. Instead, summarize it and use the above as a source. --User:Krator (t c) 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] primary source added for better neutrality

I just added an answer from a FAQ from faq.scientology.org for better neutrality (in analogy to scientology and psychiatry)... --Homer Landskirty 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Steve Dufour 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've (re-)added the POV tag. This is just one of the many examples in the article. How exactly is the opinion of the Scientology organization neutral in an article on Scientology? Ohdeebee 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The tag stays until there is some mention of critical material regarding the Scientology organization.Ohdeebee 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] opening sentence

I'm going to write a more neutral opening sentence and take off the tag. I hope people will agree with that. Steve Dufour 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the 1950s Hubbard said, that the current political system supports human rights crimes (drugs, unnecessary medical treatment (for psychosomatic stuff), electro shocks). The CoS claims it up to today (at least regarding electro shocks). So I dont see, why we should write "sometimes"... Do u expect a change in the next few hours? --Homer Landskirty 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In the United States Scientology seems to get along with democracy. Steve Dufour 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And I say, CoS conflicts with US democracy most... [hear-say warning sound on]The US government even published a statement, that described "psychiatric electro shock" as a "mild" electrical current[hear-say warning sound off], while Scientology strenuously accused the US government to support (legally, physically, financially, ...) doctors of madicine, who torture... This article is about the conflict and not about still being there in spite of democracy (btw.: Scientology predicts cataclysmic consequences for society due to psychiatric torture...)... --Homer Landskirty 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In the United States we have found that people of all different opinions can still be a part of a democratic society. In the past communists, for example, were persecuted here but now they are tolerated and our democracy has not been harmed. Steve Dufour 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Democracy means, that all the persons, who may vote, have to carry responsibility for government and its authorities; consequently it is a trivial fact, that all persons, who r allowed to vote, r part of that democrazy. -- Consequently I do not understand, what u want to say (do u mean "Just Scientologists r allowed to take part in an official election" is the same harm like "Just adults r allowed to take part in an official election"?)... --Homer Landskirty 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Scientologists should not have any special rights, just the same as everyone else. What I was trying to say is that a democracy can still work even if everyone doesn't have the same opinions, and even if some people have undemocratic opinions. Steve Dufour 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I never doubted, that SCN cannot stop a democratic government... :) --Homer Landskirty 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Steve Dufour 05:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transparently misleading

This is supposed to be an article about "Scientology and democracy", but the article has a very transparent agenda. Here's the structure of the article as it stands right now:

A. Opens with contentious statement that already casts aspersions on Scientology from the getgo: "Scientology and democracy have sometimes been in agreement and sometimes in disagreement".

B. Follows with pro-Democracy statements from the CoS, although written in a very unencyclopedic way ("Asked on their opinion about democracy the Church of Scientology would answer today...") and includes a photograph of Hitler, with a nutty and unsourced caption claiming that Scientologists blame the democratic process for Hitler's rise to power.

C. Follow with Hubbard statements mostly about democracy in small groups, even though the introduction made it sound like what we were talking about is democracy in government. Hubbard's assertion that small groups should be run by a leader and not have their decisions put up to a popular vote is a commonly held view and, I daresay, the way things generally work in the real world.

D. The article deliberately blurs this distinction by leaping from Hubbard's statement about democratic processes in small groups to Democracy as a form of government. And the only opinions given about how Scientology feels about democracy in government come from Germany, which is, of course, the poisoned well that any editor goes to when they want to bring home bucketsful of official anti-Scientology statements.

The German info seems to be the tail that is wagging this dog. This article seems purposefully sculpted to legitimize the German government's insanity (yes, their anti-Scientology zeal makes them every bit as insane as Scientology's own anti-psychiatry zeal, IMHO) by giving it an elaborate intro that tries to say "well, Hubbard did make a few anti-democratic statements in the span of his four decades of written works, so the Germans' concerns must be well-founded". wikipediatrix 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

in re A: Do u have any reputable source, that denies, that SCN is in permanent conflict with democracy ever since? I have a reputable and not contested source, that says, that SCN is in permanent and inherent conflict with democracy. The first sentence is wrong in so far, that I cannot remember a period of time, in which SCN was not in conflict with democracy.
in re B: Do it better, if u want to... It is taken from a FAQ... so my phrase is quite near to the source...
in re C: What is a "small group"? 10 Millions? 80? 100? 1 billion? Read the definition of "democracy"... It is by definition a trick to burden a group with the responsibility of the decisions of that group's leaders... Where does LRH say "small group"? The 1950 experiment is extrapolated... - but who cares? There is nothing wrong with those citations and paraphrases...
in re D: Anyone who contests the "german", "dutch" and "british" findings? I dont think so... "anti-scientology"? So u want to say, that u and SCN like a democratic government, that allows severe torture? A conflict is nothing bad per se... Being against democracy is nothing bad, too, because it has been shown in a big group in 1933, that the candidates in elections have to be chosen very carefully, which is already anti-democratic (that is why the GERM government sometimes considers, if a certain party should be "un-votable" and illegal)...
I dont understand u... --Homer Landskirty 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Another important point: Everytime the Scientologists/Hubbardists say, that psychiatry "kills" or "is torture", they implicitely say at the same time "democracy is rubbish", because all western democracis officially say, that they do not torture (the U.S.A seem to be an exception, although they still do not admit the full extent of their torture programme - psychiatry is explicitely excluded from their torture related confessions - furthermore I do not feel like an extralegal combatant or so...). Just my two pennies: It has been seen again and again, that the voters felt like the democratic government cheated and lied, which shows, that they voted for the wrong guy, which makes LRH's opinion very plausible for me... --Homer Landskirty 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in what you just typed served to counter anything I stated about the article's faulty and misleading structure. I couldn't care less whether Scientology really is or is not in opposition to democracy, I'm only interested in the article having even the slightest pretense of fairness and accuracy. wikipediatrix 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think, the reason is, that u do not want to see the truth... U r free to describe SCN's relation to democrazy in the article... I will not hinder u... <-- my last word... :-) --Homer Landskirty 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P:IoD image

If you want to nominate the article for deletion, wikipediatrix, you have my vote. Although I think Homer is very sincere in his concerns. I also think the picture of Hitler makes a good point. I have often heard him used as an example of why a constitutional monarchy like the UK is better than a pure democracy. Keep up the good work here. Steve Dufour 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the image again, because it is common knowledge, that Hitler was elected in a democratic election and that he got quite many votes. Furthermore I saw myself a sign in german TV, that said (in german language) "If u wonder, why u have to get ur water at a truck, say to urself, that comes from voting for Hitler!". Sometimes u people want to say, that Hitler is a result of silly voters, and sometimes u say, that he was never elected democratically. I am really puzzled now and dont know what to believe, so that I stick to the traditional teachings... The point of this article is: If children r not allowed to vote in political elections, why r "adults", who suffer physically and mentally... --Homer Landskirty 08:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" isn't good enough. The article says the exhibit at the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, a Scientology-run museum in Los Angeles, portrays Nazism and the Holocaust as possible consequences of democracy. You need a find a source that says that this is what they're saying. Not a source about Hitler and voting in general, but a source that specifically says what the article says the museum display says. wikipediatrix 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The exhibition states (according the wikipedia article Psychiatry: An Industry of Death), that psychiatry used democracy (citation: "Psychiatrists follow a long-standing «master plan» for world domination, in which Adolf Hitler was centrally involved."), by allowing politically immature people to vote for somebody they "like" (this is the official opinion, that is published up to today in the press). <-- my last word... --Homer Landskirty 14:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: you need a source as per WP:RS and WP:V in order to insert this information into the article. What you say is "official opinion" is meaningless without a source. wikipediatrix 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
*mumble* :-) fmmlmmemmsmmrmmumm hmmcmmrmmammemmsmm ommgmm... Hitler: The Rise of Evil, List of democratically elected governments --Homer Landskirty 15:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is "democracy"?

At least for the purposes of this extremely confused article, anyway. Democracy in general is not the same thing as Democracy as a specific form of a country's government, and yet this article mixes the two terms interchangably. Not surprisingly, it does so at any chance it can to present Scientology/Hubbard in the worst possible light. (This isn't hard to do, mind you, so there's no need to overstate the case!)

The article makes a misleading claim from its very first sentence ("Scientology and democracy have sometimes been in agreement and sometimes in disagreement") - without defining what we mean by "democracy", the entire statement is meaningless and serves no purpose but to cast doubt and aspersion. One could, by the same shady tactics of spin, state "Michael Jackson and American social mores about children have sometimes been in agreement and sometimes in disagreement".

It quickly follows with a quote about a Dutch court's opinion, and this has no purpose in the intro unless one is really trying hard to set up a negative pretense from the getgo.

I'm removing the hearsay, gossip, undue weight, unsourced spin and original research and setting the record straighter on Hubbard's position re: Democracy and democracy. Fortunately for the anti-Scn folks, his actual position is even weirder than previously stated here, so everyone should be happy. wikipediatrix 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for overhauling this article. I want to add that "democracy" in the general sense is a political system and not comparable to private groups like the Church of Scientology or - let's say - Amnesty International. Such non-governmental groups are not governing countries and don't intent to. It is not possible to say that the structure for Churches of Scientology would not be "democratic" as this compares the Church of Scientology to a country's government which is a completely different category. "Democracy" in the sense of member participation in decisions and the forwarding of the group's goals the Church however is very much "democratic" as it let's every member play a role and participate (within the structure as transparently laid out by L. Ron Hubbard). COFS 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Colloquially, being 'democratic' is also a simple "majority rules" precept that can be found among any gathering of people. Thus, it was necessary to sort out LRH's statements about Democracy as a form of Government from democracy as a way of simply getting things done among any group of people. Most generic forms of Christianity are indeed democratic and autonomous - I could buy some cheap Bibles and open my own "Christian Church" and put whatever peculiar personal spin I wanted to on the religion. Not so with Scientology - there is a very specific hierarchy, as plotted out on the Org Board. And I also felt it necessary to revert your last edit because its language muddied and diffused the bigger point about autonomy from governments on this planet - total "Freedom from politics", as the HCOPL is called. wikipediatrix 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COFS knee-jerk reversions

COFS, you were too impatient - you reverted again before I could type my "see talk page" response. In your edit summary, you said "Scientologists cannot be "declared" something by LRH, they are free to choose whatever". That's just not so. The HCOPL of 10 Jan 1968 clearly says: "Scientologists may be members of any political group on this planet without restraint only so long as these individuals of that group do not attempt to seize Scientology for their own warlike ends..." So you see, they are NOT entirely "free to choose whatever", because this freedom is clearly conditional and there are all kinds of political groups that the CoS could invoke this HCOPL to deem a threat to Scn. It's such a minor point I don't see why you're edit warring over it. You can't really argue with what LRH is saying in black and white. (Scuse me, green and white. heh.) wikipediatrix 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject my opinion, I'd say either edit in personal autonomy works fine. Maybe I'm missing a finer point, but it almost seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other. As for "Democracy within the Church", based on my own experience, I'd say COFS's edit is the more accurate of the two. However, I could see a possible synthesis of the two edits working as well.HubcapD 22:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a very minor squabble indeed, but it is one that goes to the heart of the democracy/autonomy issue: I don't think I'm bad-mouthing the CoS by simply stating the fact that you have to observe their hierarchy if you want to play their game. You can't open a Scientology church without going through the SMI, and then once you do, you have to kick a percentage upward to the RTC and report to several other comm lines in between. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just the way it is. I can't buy this "Scientologists are free to do whatever" bit because we all know there are all sorts of things Scientologists are not allowed to do if they wish to remain in good standing. wikipediatrix 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Being a staff member at a mission that opened up recently, I know exactly what you're talking about. Though at the mission level, you only report to one entity. And I don't think you're bad-mouthing at all. That's why I think a synthesis of yours and COFS' edits would work fine. And you're right to a degree on the "free to do whatever". It would be absurd for a Scientologist to support a political party that calls for the eradication of Scientology. Barring that restriction, we are free to belong to any party we desire. Indeed, I have actually switched party affiliations during the time I've been a Scientologist.HubcapD 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I was about to write something similar. I think you are mixing up "Scientology", "Scientology staff" and "Scientology members" and hope I could make this more clear in my recent edit. COFS 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

This article is all original research, starting with the first sentence saying that the topic "can be examined." Any topic can be examined. Steve Dufour 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed that... What is the next in the current version? Maybe i could fix that, too... --Homer Landskirty 09:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements of L. Ron Hubbard

Why does this section keep being deleted? Everything is properly sourced, and in fact, all of it comes from LRH's own words in books published under his name.(RookZERO 03:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Try asking the person who removed it. You might actually get an answer.HubcapD 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It is possible that it was removed for being original research. Steve Dufour 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see on what basis. The statements are all well cited and without commentary.(RookZERO 03:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
Perhaps the section would be all right if the quotes were by themselves without comment. I think it may be the comments themselves that constitute original research. Again, ask the person who deleted them in the first place.HubcapD 03:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The act of picking out quotes from primary sources and putting them in an article to prove a point would also be original research. Steve Dufour 04:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how. The statement of any proportedly religious group founder on the beliefs of his/her group would be relevant and I fail to see how it would constitute origional research.(RookZERO 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

The OR comes from the comments made by the person who wrote that section. This sentence is a prime example: "This seems to derive from a distrust of both non-Scientologist politicians and non-Scientologist voters." Look at these diffs to see the reasoning behind the deletions [5] [6]. Now, once you've done that, go talk to the editor who did that and work it out!HubcapD 00:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example. Say I was going to write an article on "Christianity and dogs" (I really did write the section on dogs in religion in the article Dog). I could go to the Bible and find that Jesus said a couple of things about dogs that were unfavorable. It would be original research for me to then say that Christianity is anti-dog based on these quotes, unless someone else said the same thing in print before me. Steve Dufour 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO, you have failed to try and work this out in the manner prescribed and gone back to your old tricks. Revert one more time, and it's another trip to the 3RR notice board!HubcapD 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Federal Constitution Protection Office

I have edited this section of the article for a number of reasons: It is biased towards the Scientology organisation. It stated for example that there were no "findings of Scientological activities against the constitution since 1997". The reference, a report issued by the United States Department of State, however does not support this claim - in fact, it only quotes another report by said "German office" which contains statements about criminal activities of Scientology within German borders or directed against the German constitutional order. w Also, the official (English) name for the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz is "Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution" which is in fact a German federal intelligence agency under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of the Interior. It's main purpose is to observe organizations threatening to undermine the democratic constitutional order. Among these are left- and right-wing extremists as well as islamic terrorist organizations and also - explicitly - the Scientology organization. The reasons for this are cleary laid out in the annual reports (see references). I would also like to direct your attention to a reference which links to the website of the German ambassador to the United States who has made a detailed statement describing the German (and European) standpoint towards the organization.

I would also like to urge some of the authors of this article (with an obvious Scientology background) not to use acronyms like HCOP without proper (unbiased) explanation. Also please do not assert statements made by Scientology as facts. Scientology is a political movement and that must be obvious to those who think of Scientology as a religion (how can religion be not political?) and also to those who think it is just the opposite of that. Ohdeebee 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the way the article is now gives undue weight to the opinions of this German government office. It takes up about half of the article. It should be mentioned of course, but consider that Germany is only one country out of the 200 or so on the earth and has only about 5,000 Scientologists. Steve Dufour 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. Let them go write Scientology in Germany, which I'm sure one of them will sooner or later. wikipediatrix 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Before my edit however, the section read like there was some very secret and clandestine government agency harassing all the good and upstanding Scientologists in Germany while everyone else was looking the other way. Perhaps this section should be expanded to include the view of the governments of other nations. In any case I think there's much more to say on the article's topic than what it currently contains - so it would probably be better to expand the other sections than cut this one down (although I'm of course open to criticism as to what is irrelevant or non-neutral). Ohdeebee 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I just cut it down, but tried to leave the most important information. Steve Dufour 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Come one. Now we have three references to Scientology material plus one source written in Dutch. I will assume this was not intentional.Ohdeebee 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to restore the references to the German part. Steve Dufour 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I put all three references back. I have to say that if I lived in Germany I would be more concerned over the possible threat to democracy by the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution than by Scientology. Steve Dufour 16:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't read any of the documents. If you did, you probably would have flanked this bold statement by some kind of argument that could actually initiate a discussion. I have to say that if I lived in the US I would be concerned that there is some multi-million dollar corporation out there that bugs domestic federal agencies, harasses government employees and brainwashes its ... well ... members and all it gets for this is a ... tax exemption. Ohdeebee 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
We have about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and so far they have not overthrown our democratic system. Steve Dufour 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they can or that we'll have a United States of Scientology in 10 years. Still, it is their intention to alter governmental and societal structures and the IRS case proves they successfully did that in the United States. About your remark on Germany: It has been German policy since WWII to do something about any extremist organization with an intent to undermine democracy before they rise to power. That is the very reason for the existance of the BfV. This e.g. also means that political parties which intend to abolish the democratic order (e.g. communists, national socialists etc.) cannot participate in the political process and that is why Scientology is being monitored (and that is something that requires political debate beforehand).Ohdeebee 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I think that is worth mentioning in the article. Steve Dufour 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohdeebee, although I agree with much of what you're saying, I think the German response is clearly greater extremism than Scientology's in this case, and I'm not sure that what you describe really makes Scientology an "extremist organization with an intent to undermine democracy". Most Christian TV evangelists in America have stated, at one time or another or in one way or another, that "God's law" (or their notion of it) supercedes man's laws like the U.S. Constitution. I see you put the disputed tag on this article and I'm curious just what you're disputing. wikipediatrix 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most Christian TV evangelists in America" - yeah but Germans only have Catholics and main-line Lutherans - but the thing is that from a German POV the consequence of Nazi regime is to keep down extremist before they become powerful (and can't be stop anymore like nazis in early 1930s - cause back in the 20s the nazi were a small unimportant group too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.228.64 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany Seeks to Ban Scientology

The above cites and related information should be added to this article. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC).