Humanities desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 5[edit]

Morals, ethics, and values in the Church of Scientology[edit]

What are the Church of Scientology's views on morals and ethics, and how to treat others? As far as I know, traditional religions have a penchant of expressing their beliefs creatively in stories, oral or written, and poetry. Traditional religion is not just about faith, but also about cultural identity. Traditional religions also seem to be more collectivist, while the Church of Scientology seems to be so individualistic and materialistic by my judgment of their videos. How does this religion express its beliefs - by telling people or by showing to people through art and folklore? Can a person become a "cultural Scientologist" - meaning not necessarily adhering to the beliefs but identifying with the culture? What's up with the proselytizing? Traditional religions typically have a non-commercial, moral reason to proselytize, but the Church of Scientology seems to divorce proselytism from morality. It seems to me that this church also performs marriages and special ceremonies, but how exactly do they fit within the Scientologist cosmology? Why do they perform wedding ceremonies in the first place? How do they perform wedding ceremonies? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Scientology parlance, "ethics" basically means internal church discipline. I have the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics by L. Ron Hubbard, ISBN 1-57318-132-3 (which I paid only $1 for), and it has chapters on "Scientology Justice Codes and their Application", "Scientology Justice Procedures", "Conduct of Justice and Forms of Redress" etc. The term for "cultural Scientologist" in the sense of someone who adopts part of the Scientology system without accepting the leadership of the official hierarchy is "squirrel" (highly derogatory among official Scientologists); they prefer to call themselves the "Free Zone". AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound very fun. There is no story? No humor? No drama? No rhyme and rhythm? No song? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Scientology uses its members for slave labor, orchestrated the biggest infiltration of the US government in its history, conspired to have a critic confined to a mental institution after years of lawsuits and harassment, and installs malware to "protect" their own members from sites critical of Scientology. Its method of "treating" mental patients included locking the patient in a cockroach-infested room for 17 days and denying her food and water, at the end of which she had 100 insect bites on her skin.

Does that sound very fun to you? The Church of Scientology is nothing more than a criminal organization, and only exists because religion is generally accepted as an excuse for nonsense among the general public. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That sounds like a cult. If only the general public is more aware of the distinction between cult and religion. The most important distinction is that the cult focuses on the power of the leader while abusing its own members, whereas a religion would not coerce or bully a person into doing something that they don't want to do. Sure, there may be some religious people who may exercise spiritual abuse, but the abuse is mostly caused by the perpetrator, not by the actual religion. The ethical teachings of religions may be taught in schools and can be extraordinarily alike. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope for a neutral, referenced answer or are we just going to post a bunch of links strung together with polemical commentary about them? --Jayron32 05:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to tell us that scientologists have horns and/or stripes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While my answer was not neutral, it does provide information about the morals, values, and ethics of the Church of Scientology. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral does not mean denying reality. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well 140.180, your answer provided your opinion as to the morals, ethics, values, etc. of the Church of Scientology, that is you gave us how you feel about actions of some Scientologists, rather than providing those behaviors without commentary. The first answer by AnonMoos, which provided sources to Scientology's own internal documents, is closer in line to what we do here, rather than merely express our own feelings about things, which is essentially all you did. Cherry picking specific incidents involving scientologists and then tell us what you think about those incidents isn't a means of providing someone with references to answer their questions. That isn't what we do here. --Jayron32 12:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While providing a link to Scientology's website might be useful, the website is by no means a reliable source. Would you trust what North Korea writes about itself? Is linking to the Korean Central News Agency a good way to answer a question about North Korea's intentions? If you think my examples were cherry picked, you should read our article on Scientology, especially the last paragraph of its intro. Legal harassment and fraud are typical, not exceptional. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then provide references to reliable sources about Scientology from outside then, but you don't have to tell us how we're all supposed to feel about it. That's where the line gets crossed. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyway...it's possible to be a "cultural Scientologist", and the first one that comes to mind is Beck Hansen. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he highlighted the Narconon success rate as a good thing about Scientology. Which I'd agree with if it was true - I'd prefer people following some peculiar cult than taking drugs - but the evidence I've looked at indicates it is no better than any other treatment, it may be a bit better but it also is altogether possible it is worse and I certainly can't recommend something that isn't properly checked compared to tried and trusted ones. As to the previous answer saying providing references to internal documents was more in line with standards here, that is not true. The best standards here are to provide reliable secondary sources rather than just repeat what a primary source says about itself. For myself I think both are required for a question like this one - their documents say what they say about themselves and the other says how it actually works in practice. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "no better than any other treatment"; in actuality, it's substantially worse. Our article says "this hypothesis is contradicted by experimental evidence, and is not accepted by mainstream medicine or education.[7][27][28][29][30][31] Narconon's claimed 80% success rate has been described by drug experts as 'simply untrue'" and "Hubbard's theory (that niacin promotes the release of fat into the body) has been shown to be invalid; niacin in fact has the opposite effect: it binds to and stimulates a G-protein-coupled receptor, GPR109A, which inhibits fat breakdown in the human body's fat cells." Also according to our article, multiple deaths have been caused by the Narconon program, mostly due to medical conditions that can easily and effectively be treated by mainstream medicine. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this propaganda technique[edit]

Say I have to write a short piece of anti-capitalist propaganda. Now I write, "Capitalism is the worst form of economic system. Here, on one hand abject poverty, on the other hand obscene display of wealth, on one hand people spending million of dollars for leisure, on the other hand people unable to afford medical treatment for thousand dollar, on on hand people decorating homes with million-dollar furniture, on the other people living in streets." Note I have emphasized contrast. I know their is a name of this propaganda style. It is definitely not rhetoric, but there is a name, I can't remember it. What is the name of this propaganda technique where contrast is emphasized to make a point? --Yoglti (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the answer at "Outline of public relations".—Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No the answer is not there, it is a particular propaganda technique with a term. --Yoglti (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be called Card stacking? --Yoglti (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. It's a type of appeal to emotion, whatever else it is. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are terms like rhetoric, cliché etc. Can anyone name similar terms used as persuasion techniques? May be one of them applies here. --Yoglti (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Emphasising contrast in order to make a point" is antithesis - is that the sort of thing you mean? Tevildo (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also say it's a form of exergasia, since really the paragraph is restating a single idea (contrast between rich and poor) in a number of different ways. It might be an example of loosely associated statements in that all of the examples are being used as a condemnation of Capitalism, but none (within the context of the paragraph) are demonstrated to be the result of Capitalism. I think it's also a form of false dilemma, because the paragraph is implying that the results of Capitalism are either A) million-dollar furniture, or B) sleeping the streets, without touching the spectrum of possibilities in between. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking is also involved, since it only mentions the extremes, not the majority that is in the middle.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish states[edit]

Can someone give a list of all the Jewish states prior to the modern state of Israel and not including the obvious opines like Ancient Israel, the Northern Kingdom and Judah? Jewish state as a ruling entity with sovereignty distinct from another nation; it doesn't matter if the populace weren't completely Jewish only that there was a Jewish presence and a Jewish ruler or ruling class. Like Khazaria or the Kingdom of Semien to name two that I know.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Himyarite Kingdom, briefly (king converted and forced everyone else to as well). 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites might help as well? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adiabene is another. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar Khanate is one. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a subnational state created out of Russia to serve as a Jewish homeland, though I don't know that it serves that purpose anymore. --Jayron32 00:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the answers given to the same question a few weeks back? Use the search function at the top of the page. And what is so important about Jews anyway? μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have many sovereign states. It's neat. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was asked before here. And yes a Jewish ruled state is a rare phenomenon in hsitory.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "try the search function, it's been asked before" is confusing? You are not a newbie, Spy. Did you think I was lying? The same question was asked in March. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, only one answer was given for that question, along with several of the RD's usual pointless digressions. In fact we've already surpassed the number of answers here. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey? Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]