It matters not for the strawmen you built and knocked down but because the school is *denying* that Study Tech is effectively Scientology. And while you, a Scientologist, may be able to parse slight differences, the public certainly deserves to know that, at the least, elements of Study Tech are cribbed directly from HCO Bulletins (which, as you know, form the Green Volumes, which are considered sacred inside Scientology).

For example, compare:

(a)
"Simple Words," HCO Bulletin of 4 September 1971 Issue III

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood.
This is NOT the case.
On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT Dianetics and Scientology words which prevented understanding.

&

(b)
"Understanding Words," chapter 3 of Basic Study Manual, p. 79

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood.
This is NOT the case.
On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT technical words which prevented understanding.

--

There are other examples of this and they can be found here. And if you don't believe the source, check them yourself.

While Study Tech obviously doesn't cover the aspects of Scientology that you, as a Scientologist, intuitively think of as religious, such as engrams, thetans, and the like, it doesn't really matter. None of Hubbard's theories were independently tested--on either the tech or admin side--and therefore require the same act of faith--religious faith--to accept them.

First of all, why did you edit my comment and respond instead of simply publishing my comment in its entirety? That's a rather dishonest way of debating the topic, don't you think? If I'd emailed you my comment, perhaps selectively replying would be more fair, but I didn't email you, I commented on your otherwise publicly-available-to-everyone blog. You say you welcome comments but you don't have the courage of your convictions to let those comments stand on their own.

Regardless, I'll concede your point that nothing in the Hubbard HCOB 'seems' religious, so long as your definition of 'religious' is sufficiently narrow. But much of the nuts and bolts of Scientology would not seem religious to most people, yet is still regarded as religious by Scientology.

With that in mind, and in response to your first point, do the following concepts seem religious to you (each read for its specific ‘Scientological’ connotations)?

Mass
Reelingness
Blow
Doingness
Reality Factor
Senior Data

They don't seem "religious" to me, either, but they happen to be terms which, as applied, are used explicitly by Scientology--some aren't even real words, but were rather invented by Hubbard and have no application outside of a Scientology context.

These terms are also found in the Basic Study Manual, the principle source for Study Tech.

Whether or not a particular concept is regarded as "religious" under a generalized definition shared by a majority of the public is irrelevant if the terms and concepts are significant only to the Scientology religion, and have no application whatsoever.

As for your second point--your claim that Study Tech has been independently tested--the link you provide fails to provide a single independent source, but plenty of reports from interested parties, such as Applied Scholastics, which is affiliated with Scientology.

As for the links to papers by 'Educators' Sandra Chapman, David Kaup, George Ann Gregory, Rubik Atamian, Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Lady Hort, nowhere on the page does ASI disclose that EACH of those persons are Scientologists. While I'm not disputing that they're also educators, the fact that they're also Scientologists means that they're not independent, and ASI is dishonest for failing to mention this (and if you were aware of this fact). I can provide links to demonstrate that each of those persons are indeed Scientologists, if you like.

Your third point looks strangely familiar... where have I seen that before? Oh right: Scientology’s website.

You say Scientology techniques work, but how can I be sure?

Really the only way is to find out for yourself.

When you read a Scientology book, such as Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, look at your own life and see if what you have read applies to it. See if you can use the information. Try it out.

Also from the Scientology website:

Mr. Hubbard ran into this very problem when trying to train professional Scientology auditors, and this led him to researching the subject of study itself. He discovered an actual technology of study, and this is taught at Scientology churches.

Perhaps you don’t see the irony in the fact that your response to those skeptical of Study Tech’s claims of secularity is basically the same as the stock response Scientology provides in its FAQ on the Scientology religion?