Now, I question Scientology's assetion that they are a "religion", even
though they hold the existence of the soul to be true, and perhaps it is
for tax purposes, something which they've been very active getting
exemption from and somehting they succeeded at in 10/95 (I believe).

The existence of a soul is one which Hubbard did not mention once in his
original book, which for some reason is still being printed as the text for
"beginners".  But in his second important book on the subject, Hubbard had
a footnote on the question of past lives:

The subject of past deaths and lives is so full of tension that as early as
last July (1950- ed.) the board of trustees of the Foundation sought to
pass a resolution banning the entire subject.  And I have many times
requested to omit any reference to these in the present work or in public
for fear that a general impression would get out that Dianetics had
something to do with spiritualism.  Further, the view has been many times
expressed that in view of the fact that prenatals [prebirth incidents,
memories- me] are so "controversial" the introduction of past lives and
past deaths into Dianetics, even as an experimental investigation, would
permit old schools of therapy to persist in their delusion that all is
delusion.  This would hardly be a scientific way of handling a science... A
famous writer told me, a short time ago, a story about Thomas Carlyle, who
upon hearing that an American writer named Margaret Fuller had said, "I
accept the universe," said only, "By God! she'd better!"... There are
evidently three kinds of these experiences: (1) those which are dub-in and
which occur only in cases which dub in in the present life; (2) fantasies
built upon reading and imagination, but without somatics; and (3) what seem
to be valid and real experiences.

In any case, the reason I continue to read Hubbard's writing while I not
being a practicing Scientologist is because what he has to say seems so
applicable to real life.

As a man of the world I have seen few examples of someone so fair and
someone so critical.  A book he wrote in 1936, Buckskin Brigades, concerned
the Blackfeet of the early 1800s and unremittingly, even cruelly, portrayed
the whites for what they were and what they did in that time.  On the other
hand he will speak of the "contempt for truth" expressed by the Africans.
His basic contention (that man is basically good) is one sadly lacking
nowadays.

(continued... if you can bear it)

I truly hate to be an annoyance, but I believe these things are worth
saying, you see.