" 
 ::::::::Your inline comments made the text confusing. I have attempted to reformat it so that I can follow it. I hope you do not mind. I have numbered them too.     

 :#Why don't you look at the edits? 
 :#Look at this: ""Former members, journalists, courts, and authorities in multiple countries have described Scientology as a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise. Critics claim that the organization has a history of harassing its critics and abusing the trust of its members. Time Magazine describes Scientology as ""a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner.""  
 :#The lead under Wikipedia rules is suposed to be ambigious but here is a direct quote attacking Scientology. The lead already states that some journalist view scientology negatively, why then this is stated again and again with a direct quote to drive a POV further: ""Time Magazine describes Scientology as ""a hugely profitable global racket that survives by intimidating members and critics in a Mafia-like manner.""  
 :#Even editors that are not in Scientology like Jaden are screaming foul. The issue here is that Wikipedia is being used to do a direct attack on a religion. This is the real issue here, everything else is just to cover up this fact. 
 :   
 ::#I will be looking over everyones edits in great detail in due time. I am merely at the Q&A; phase of my case giving everyone the benefit of the doubt rather than raining accusations after another. If anything I am trying to be fair to everyone involved regardless of their affiliation. 
 ::#RFARs aren't designed to solve content disputes. Arbitrators will not have any say over the content issues. Arbcom will look over the conduct of individual editors. Arbcom does not have the authority to decide on what content should stay and what content should go. Thats strictly and editorial decision. By saying all this I am merely trying to explain you the rfar process. 
 ::#In general lead should not be controversial. However this still is a content issue. 
 ::#Again this isn't the place to discuss the content. 
 :   "