Talk:Scientology and religious groups

ugh

Uh... this POV-fork of an article is ill-advised, ill-conceived, ill-executed, and just plain ill. What's next - Baseballs and other balls? Fudge Stripes and other cookies? Shrubs and other green things?? (I'm assuming here the title "Scientology and other religion" (singular) is a typo.) I don't think there was any kind of a consensus at Talk:Scientology to split this material off. wikipediatrix 01:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you comment when it was discussed on Scientology talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan En (talk • contribs) 01:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

there are multiple other similar articles, see Judaism and Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Relations between Catholicism and Judaism, Mormonism and Judaism, Islam and other religions, Christianity and Islam, Islam and Jainism, Islam and Sikhism, Hinduism and other religions, Hinduism and Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism, Hellenism and Hinduism, Hinduism and Sikhism, Ayyavazhi and Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism, Jainism and Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, etc, etc. --Krsont 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

structure

So far the structure of this article consists of nothing but a series of vignettes in which a certain religion is said to have criticized Scientology. In other words, this is turning into List of religions that have criticized Scientology at time or another and that's not good enough for an article. Further, the Roman Catholic section is pure synthesis, and the Fishman bit at the end makes no logical sense being here. wikipediatrix 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Bruce

The bit about Scientology forbidding prayer has been dragged here from the Scientology article, where it was already disputed. (See here.) According to User:Stan En, he obtained this info from a non-Scn book by Steve Bruce called "Cathedrals to cults" and the HCOPL he cites frowns on meditation which is obviously not the same thing as prayer. (Even atheists can meditate, you know.) Out it goes. wikipediatrix 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

read the source first. I cited the paragraph and not just meditation with it.-- Stan _talk 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my concerns. My question is specifically where did this "prayer" business come from, and exactly what quotations from this Bruce guy and this HCOPL back it up? wikipediatrix 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1) It is not my burdon to explain you this and you shouldn't go to editwar only because you "don't believe". 2) There is a Bulletin wich explicit prohibits praying but I can't name it but I already introduced a lot of primary sources and its only a primary source anyway 3) Steve Bruce states that the monetheistic religions and Scientology are all absolutistic and also analyses Scientology with the conclusion that it is not compatible and that other religious practices are not allowed in Scientology and vice versa(he refers espescially to monetheistic religions and the praying stuff). I know it sounds odd because Scientology promotes the opposite but that is only a PR strategy without any truth.4) You obviously can't assume good faith with me! I don't have the book here but if you insist I will go to my library to copy down the quotations even if its not my burdon but yours. 4) You didn't name one source wich contradicts my sourced contribution. -- Stan _talk 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you "can't name it", then why are you sticking it back in the article? No sources, no info. If you want it to be in the article, yes, it IS your burden (note spelling) to provide proper sources for it. You've also just admitted that you don't actually have the Bruce book and yet you're edit-warring over it and you're 100% positive that it says what you say it says. We need much more than his opinion regarding such fundamental matters anyway. wikipediatrix 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stay fair ! I said I can't name the actual Scientology Bulletin wich prohibites praying word for word even if I know it exists! But I already named some primary sources wich support my claim and the source I actually inserted is a reliable secondary source wich I did already name. I didn't stick anything back in the article wich was sourced inappropriatly! -- Stan _talk 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I don't have to own the Bruce book. It is good enough that I read it in the library and I already offered you to go back to bring up exact quotations. -- Stan _talk 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, I was wrong about the term praying. I wanted to state that other religious "praying practices" are not allowed in Scientology and used it exclusivly for monotheistic religions without stating that I meant them. I apologize!-- Stan _talk 04:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another frictional account

• Cartledge, James (2004-04-24). "Church anger at 'cult' space". Evening Mail. Retrieved 2007-08-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Griffin, Jon (2005-07-21). "Church of stars set for city". Evening Mail. Retrieved 2007-08-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Dropping off a couple refs for later when the article is cleaned up and organized. AndroidCat 19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO's edit summaries

User:RookZERO, it took much yelling at you to get you to even leave edit summaries at all, and now you're continually making extremely misleading edit summaries such as this one and this one. They're total reverts and removal of all tags despite the false summaries. wikipediatrix 02:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing wouldn't exist if it were a pure revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Scientology_and_other_religions&diff=154298617&oldid=154284137. In fact, the edit summary is quite accurate.(RookZERO 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Student Guide to Acceptable Behavior

First paragraph says: "Members are not allowed to engage in other religious activities, such as non-Scientology meditation or prayer, or ceremonies." and References [1] and [2]. The book [1] isn’t online. but probably uses [2] which is mis-referenced but is HCO Policy Letter 15 December 1965R Issue I revised 25 July 1987, STUDENT'S GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR". The policy spells out an an exception to religious practice. Guideline "#14. Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, or any similar religious treatment or mental therapy while on course without the express permission of the Director of Training." (emphasis added) If a student doubts whether his religious activity is a treatment or mental therapy, he should ask. John Fitzgerald Smith 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry

It would be interesting if we could find scholarly comparisons between Freemasonry and Scientology. There are definitely comparable elements in the two, such as secretive rituals and elite membership. From a Roman Catholic perspective, I would argue that the long list of ecclesiastical prohibitions against Freemasonry would also apply to Scientology. ADM (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wicca

While the person above has requested scholarly comparsions between Freemasonry and Scientology, I would be very interested in learning Scientology's relationship with Wicca.--Splashen (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Scientology and other religions → Scientology and Christianity – Without dealing with the quality of the article's content, I believe this page should be renamed. This article is not dealing with "other religions", but rather with specific criticisms of Scientology by Christian denominations only - the "Religious compatibility" section, which would seem to address the issue, seems very much misplaced and irrelevant (most of it is Scientology's position and what Hubbard said, neither of which address the criticisms in the article). Therefore, there are no non-Christian viewpoints represented, and a quick search seems to show "other religions" do not appear to have weighed in on the matter (hence their lack of inclusion). The title is therefore masquerading as an NPOV all-encompassing title, but does not reflect the article's content. Precedent seems to indicate that "<X> and Christianity" is a common title scheme on WP (Judaism and Christianity, Islam and Christianity, etc.) as is the convention "<Religion A> and <Religion B>" where <Religion A> is the primary religion under discussion and <Religion B> is the comparative. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this necessary? Christianity may dominate the discussion here for now, but will it remain so in the future? It seems to me, just intuitively, that if someone were to write something about, say, the Hindu view on Scientology in the future, they would insert it here. But if the title is restricted to "Scientology and Christianity" alone, they'd have to construct an entire new article. I'm wondering if that's expedient. Walrasiad (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change of name proposal

This relates not to the content of the article (as the previous "Requested Move" topic did) but rather to the ambiguity of the title. In several countries, Scientology is not a recognised religion, yet this title can be easily read as indicating that the topic of the page in question is a discussion of religions in general, with the "religion known as Scientology" as the crux, main focus or jumping-off point---in other words, it posits Scientology as an undisputed member of the category, "Religions". This is not the case---not where I live, nor in several other countries. The first topic on this Talk page makes it abundantly clear that this kind of mistaken understanding is possible, because wikipediatrix erroneously compares the title to, "Baseballs and other balls" (ie. one type of ball as a jumping-off point for a discussion of balls in general), when in fact a more apt comparison would be, "Asterix and the Big Fight" (ie. an examination or study of one subject as it confronts another). In order not to support the claim that Scientology is a religion where it is not, in fact, the case, I strongly urge the title be changed.

I'm not sure how easy it will be to do this, however, because what you have here is a comparison of one subject with another where there are those who claim they are directly related, and there are those who claim they are not---it's like having a discussion on chalk and cheese where one party believes chalk is a type of cheese, and the other party disagrees. The only reason to discuss these two objects together is because they presumably have some kind of relationship or common attribute. In this case, the relationship or common attribute is controversial.

On reflection I believe there are two choices: either fold the information contained within this article into another; or, make it clear somehow that the article relates to a discussion of Scientology with other religions in countries where Scientology is recognised as such---for example, a separate article for "Scientology and other American religious organisations," and so forth.

Either way, the title cannot be left to stand as-is. Personally, I feel the first of the two options is best, simply because the second would more than likely result in the creation of several very short articles all about one single event or utterance. Edrarsoric (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I've added the Neutrality warning template until this issue is decided. Edrarsoric (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scientology and other religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216050903/http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/ to http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216050903/http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/ to http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170216050903/http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/ to http://www.observatoire-religion.com/2016/12/scientology-in-a-scholarly-perspective/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)