Ever wondered just what Scientology is? Like a poorly written script, this person did:

When asked what she thought of Scientology, Ashley Ferrell, a junior in criminology and sociology said, "What is that? It almost sounds like some sort of religion."

Yes, Virginia--I mean, Ashley--, there is a Xenu.

But you'll have to shell out thousands of dollars and become 'clear' before you learn about him. In the meantime OSU's student paper, the Lantern, has a simpler answer to your question. Let's read it together.

In this fluffy piece of filler 'journalism' promoting the Church of Scientology, Alan Woods makes the following claim:

Taken from Greek and Latin roots, the word Scientology literally means "the study of truth." And according to John Baker, executive director of the Church of Scientology in Columbus, Scientology is a religion.

Scientology is a classic case of a mixed neo-classical compound like homosexual or television (telescope had already been taken). If scientology means anything it means the study of science or knowledge (L. scientia). If you want the study of truth you've got alethiology, which is Greek in both its parts.

But this strikes me as the grade school essay technique: 'Webster's Dictionary defines happiness as ....' The rest of the piece follows. An expert is quoted to the effect that a religion must answer these questions three: the whence, and why, and whither we be:

J. Gordon Melton, managing director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion in Santa Barbara, Calif., said there are certain criteria that a belief system must adhere to in order to qualify as a religion.

Melton said a religion must answer three questions: Where we come from, why are we here and where are we going?

Scientology has these three questions covered.

Interestingly enough, by these criteria most corporate 'mission statements' would qualify as religions.

But if that's not enough to convince you, people actually believe in it! In fairness, though, many people believe that Michael Bay is a good director. That doesn't make it true.

But they've also got a code of behavior, which Melton also requires of true religions. Among this code are such revolutionary ideas as the following, excerpted in the piece as the only example:

Melton said all religions must have a behavioral code. Scientology follows several moral codes that Baker outlined, including not supporting the enslavement of any person or injustice against innate human rights. Baker uses Melton's criteria to legitimize Scientology as an official religion.

Finally! A religion for my generation! One that discourages slavery and injustice!

The hard-hitting journalist informs us that "Lafayette Ronald Hubbard formed the religious philosophy of Scientology in 1951. However before this, he was an accomplished writer."

You can't argue with credentials like that. But ignoring the kind of hardly-literary tripe generated by Hubbard (the sort of stuff that yielded John Travolta's magnum opus Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000), I would direct your attention to S.I. Hayakawa's 1951 review of Dianetics. I'll excerpt one bit that I particularly like, but I urge you to read the whole thing, which has an almost Housmanian acerbity (Housman qua scholar, not poet):

Before going into a discussion of the rest of the chaff in dianetics, let me state my position at once: there is no wheat. Even if dianetic 'processing' produces, as Hubbard predicts, cures or apparent cures of neuroses, ulcers, falling hair, or diabetes, such results do not 'prove' a single item of dianetics doctrine. I do not say this in the spirit of the ecclesiastics who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, although I have no doubt such an accusation will be made. I say this on the basis of a simple distinction, familiar in general semantics literature, between kinds of predictions. If I predict that two cannonballs of different sizes dropped from a tower will hit the ground at the same time, my prediction cannot be overheard by the cannonballs, and hence cannot affect the outcome of the experiment. If, however, I hand you a mysterious bottle and predict that it will cure you of the loss of sexual vigor of which you have been complaining, and you believe me, you will drink the bottle and go to bed that night with changed expectations. Your improved performance of that night will prove nothing about the efficacy of the contents of the bottle; it will merely prove something very sad about your capacity for belief - in other words, about your system of semantic reactions.

But all this is secondary. The real question is why a 'newspaper' would run a fluffy publicity piece for any organization. We end with a statement of how the church of Scientology 'changes conditions' through community service. Now I truly feel informed.

I imagine the outcry would be deafening if a student paper at a public university published a similar piece on a Christian denomination. 'Hey gang, ever wondered just what the Methodist Church is? It's got all the answers.'

That just wouldn't fly as news.