Scientology video channel’s credibility in question

Posted: March 28, 2008 in Daily Rant

pinocchio2.jpgMuddy waters of fact and fiction meet as mysterious “dignitaries” and out-of-context quoting bring video channel’s legitimacy into question.

The Church of Scientology has refuted claims by an independent French news Web site, the Anonymous Group and the Enturbulation that a video posted to the church’s new Video Channel includes bogus or misleading footage of non-existent dignitaries singing the praises of the controversial religion’s youth humanitarian efforts.

The video in question – Human Rights, In Support of Human Rights – featured on the Scientology Video Channel includes more than 20 unnamed dignitaries from various political, cultural and educational occupations promoting the Youth for Human Rights campaign; a movement in which the Church of Scientology is only one of over 30 sponsors. Only the speakers distinguished job titles are offered to the viewers as a means for judging the credibility of the speaker’s statements.

Enturbulation, a source for information on activism against the Church of Scientology, features a thread posted by users that claims to have identified more speakers in the Scientology video whose identities or job titles are either false, fabricated or embellished.

So much for the “quest for truth.” If you buy into the “If it’s true for you…” system of Scientology reality, that has to include the closely held beliefs of every other person on the planet (and if numbers mean anything, that puts Scientologists WAY down near the bottom of the list, because what’s true for everyone else is NOT Scientology). “True for you” by virtue of its own definition leads to conflicting beliefs (Your truth is not MY truth). If Scientologists were seekers of truth, then they would be open to dialogue and a free exchange of ideas. As it is, they are NOT. Scilons view all criticism as an event that, according to their own “theology,” needs to be “handled”. They derail discussions by characterizing all criticism as religious bigotry, a distraction of their anti-psychologist agenda, or through comparison to other, larger religions (always with the assumption that the critic has no problem with these either). This is not truth-seeking. This is merely an attempt to cling to a belief system that is hopelessly unable to bear up under the slightest scrutiny.

KSW … Keep Spreading Whoppers!

  1. Bubbly says:

    “Scientology video channel’s credibility in question”?

    Um, duh.

    Could this credibility problem be due to all the ridiculous claims of huge membership numbers by CoS?
    Or, maybe, that it has FRAMED people for bomb threats?
    Or, maybe that it promises people superpowers and increased IQ?
    Or, maybe that it has a vested interest ($$$) in trying to whitewash the truth to appear like a nice, tolerant little religion?

    Along the same lines as “Scientology… credibility in question,” I’d also like to note that:
    The sun is wicked, wicked hot.
    Water is wet.
    Grass is generally green.

    What’s true for me is that I already have a religion, and don’t want any Scientology, tankyaverramuch. Am I an SP now?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s