Scientology's Credibility Questioned Over Video Channel

stonyandcher writes to share that the Church of Scientology has come under fire for some items on their recently launched video channel. Most notably, claims have been leveled that dignitaries in one of their videos were faked and at least one of the people featured in the video is claiming their statements were taken out of context.

Comments

Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[FatSean]

Religious groups are well known for twisting the words of non-members to support the wacky claims. Some nut-case Christer fundies produced a movie that twisted the words of several well known Atheists.

What do you expect from groups that require that members first suspend disbelief and accept claims of 'eternal life'?

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Idiomatick]

Uh "they are a scam ... which promotes itself as a religion." What's your definition of a religion?

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious groups are well known for twisting the words of non-members to support the wacky claims. Some nut-case Christer fundies produced a movie that twisted the words of several well known Atheists.

Impressive. Two posts into the thread and someone's already trying to turn it into a debate over all religions. I'm not accusing you of being a Scilon - merely pointing out that it's a tactic the Scilons try to cultivate, because it turns the entire discussion into a debate about theology, effectively distracting everyone from the main issue.

Were this a thread about religion, for instance, it'd be fine, but the Co$ debate isn't about theology.

Organizations that use barratry ("The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass") and violence (consider the similarities between the mysterious fates of Judge Swearinger's dog in 1998, and the fate of an outed anonymous protester's cat earlier this week) as a matter of policy are not religions.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Opportunist]

A scam that's been running for a few centuries at least. Anything less (i.e. some of the people still knowing the religion's founder) is just a cult.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[wattrlz]

The whole point of a religion is that whatever's at the top isn't a person.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Neon Aardvark]

Religions are just successful cults, and money/power drives all cults.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[MightyMartian]

Something the person at the top when looking into themselves honestly believes.

Why should that be important. Hell, the Anglican Church had an Archbishop of Canterbury who doubted the divinity of Christ. Does that mean the entire Episcopalian movement no longer qualifies as a religion?

The chief difference seems to be that a successful religion is a sect or cult that manages to get near-universal acceptance as a religion within the societies that it exists. Scientology is seen by most of society as a crazy-ass money-hungry cult with a pack of swirly-eyed true believers who pay their money and believe any and all nonsense that Hubbard and his heirs shove down their throats.

Mormons were in the same boat for decades. They were seen as sexually deviant heretics. Fortunately for them, in those days a cult could basically seize control of a large, unpopulated area and grow relatively undisturbed for decades, and by the time the greater society finally met them head on again, they're numbers were sufficient that they had to be dealt with as a religion.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Naughty Bob]

If not, the whole thing is a scam.

And if so?

It'll still be a scam, just a conventional, accepted and well-integrated one.

Scientologists are loons for sure, but let's not differentiate their own brand of crazy from all the others.

As Douglas Adams said- 'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'.

Re:Won't be the first time a religion did this.

[Deanalator]

When I was down protesting on the 10th of February, I realized something disturbing. I had always thought of Scientology as something of a cult that suckers dumb people into believing that they are sick, and need to pay money to get better.

To some extent it is that, but there is a much creepier aspect. From what I have seen, Scientology seems to be more of a social club for wealthy people who are interested in learning how to use aggressive psychological attacks such as hypnotism.

I started reading Dianetics, and it really does seem like a manual for using psychological attacks. A thetan is like a soul, but also like an influence. Non scientologists are infected with alien thetans, and once you are "clear" of them, you can become an "operating thetan". Then you can begin infecting the minds of others. Before it had always confused me that non scientologists have to rid themselves of thetans, but scientologists refer to eachother as thetans.

It was pretty sickening to realize that so many scientologists know exactly what it is all about. They develop new psychological attacks. Then they train their followers. The followers then use those attacks to manipulate those around them so they can become more successful in their careers, and increase the size of the church. This money is then reinvested in developing new psychological attack methods.

Someone please correct me if any part of this is inaccurate.

Since when

[Nimey]

did Scientology have credibility?

Besides among the easily duped?

Tell me about it

[Weaselmancer]

I'd be more surprised if the site launched and everyone found out it was entirely on the up-and-up.

Re:The last frantic grapsing of a desperate group

[JavaRob]

No.

You forget: there's a sucker born every minute. And those suckers will continue to buy penis enlargement products from poorly written emails, and give their remaining money to Scientology.

A lot of these people also feel that the criticism and "attacks" on Scientology only *validate* it. How do you argue with that?

Scientology is the quintessential religion

[mlwmohawk]

Seriously, if there is *anyone* here criticizing Scientology, but believing the quaran or the bible, you are hypocrites.

Scientology is no more ridiculous than christianity, islam, or judaism. OK, spaceships that look like DC3s, OK, that's weird, but no more so than virgin births, 5000 year old flat earth, talking snakes, noah's ark, or killing your first born.

Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion

[eclectic4]

True:

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.

etc... etc... etc... Jesus was just a guy that had Pagan mythological stories thrown on his name decades after his death to start a religion. Nothing more.

Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion

[IorDMUX]

Seriously, if there is *anyone* here criticizing Scientology, but believing the quaran or the bible, you are hypocrites.
You make it sound as though I have a problem with their beliefs. But I've got to tell you, I don't give a flying DC3 what they believe. I could care less.
 
Yes, I consider myself religious, but (unless he tells me that he wants to sit down and have an intelligent discussion about it) what the next guy chooses to believe is up to him, and whether it's deism, humanism, theism, or FSMism, that's fine by me. I have a problem when he (and yes, this includes members of my own religion) uses coercion or threats or violence or elitism etc. to force his views... and hence my beef with Scientology.

Re:Scientology is the quintessential religion

[AioKits]

Scientology is just a little more direct than the catholic church, but the motives are the same.
Indulgences and penances (which I assume you're referring to) is asking forgiveness for screwing up. You're not paying the church for permission to read the next book in the Bible.
I think that is the best part of their belief system, it restricts the followers to a select group of quantifiable gullible.
I'm fairly certain that as long as you have money, you're qualified. While those who make more cash than I can hope to in a life time aren't affected by throwing several thousand to get the latest and greatest from the CoS, those whom are less well off are hit pretty hard with the fee to learn more. This is where I have issue. They're not restricting their set of gullible to the rich, they're set is anyone with money, rich or not. I'm not saying it would be okay if it were just the rich falling victim (wary of using that phrase) to this. There are people who believe in Scientology enough they're willing to sell essentials, like their car to get to work, just to be viewed as holier than thou who didn't want to sell their car.
Now, I'm told there are a few people who will give away or resell (wasn't there a story here a while back about the CoS restricting EBay sales of their beloved E-meter?) their old tools to those interested. Oddly, the CoS frowns muchly upon this practice because they don't make a dime off it.

Re:Credibility???

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they have plenty of credit with the financial institutions that they work with.

Re:Credibility???

[Loether]

In other news... Professional wrestling found to be Fake!

Re:The main issue is lying liars.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Most christian churches do not charge their members thousands of dollars on compulsive seminaries. Tithing is voluntary, last time I looked.

Answer honestly. If the CoS suddenly decided to go donation only would you agree they are now a religion or would you move the goalposts?

Re:Yea, and some well know atheists..

[PitaBred]

"Written historical account". Given that pagan by definition means "of the country.", and in those times most people were illiterate, does it really surprise you that there was little written record to contradict what the Christians wrote? It's not like they have ever burned books or anything, either.

As a more direct rebuttal specifically to the Osiris resurrection thing, that was written in hieroglyphs. How else would we have known about it? It's not like there have been any native Egyptian speakers for a long, long time, so we had to learn about ancient Egypt through other methods.

But hey, why let the facts stand in the way of your chosen God, right? He's infallible, and if anyone that believes in him says anything about him, it must be true!

Re:It is a cult/organized crime

[radl33t]

Other religions have the benefit of time to hide their terrible deeds.

Re:Credibility???

[asterix404]

How can a religion have credibility when the entire faith is surrounded around a bad sci-fi writer from the late 1800's? Doesn't the very idea that souls came from aliens that were dumped into a volcano and sent to the neo-people of about 10,000 bc which created all of humanity. Whats not to love?

Re:who gives a shit?

[Chris Burke]

I lol'd a Jonestown, Waco, and all the others.

Well all those cults like to hole up in their little compound off out of our way.

This cult likes to convert celebrities and use them to evangelize their cult, spread itself across the country, and litigate anyone who tries to slow their acquisition of money.

Basically, Scientology has a much greater chance of affecting me or someone I know than any of those other cults. Mainly because those other cults were actually "cults" run by some crazy messiah-delusion leader, while Scientology is a deliberate scheme for accruing vast amounts of wealth and power in the guise of a cult.

Re:Credibility???

[Gat0r30y]

How can a religion have credibility Good point!

Doctrines of real religions are not secret

[walterbyrd]

I have never heard of a real religion that gets upset when anybody exposes the beliefs of that religion.

Re:Credibility???

[EdIII]

LOL! Yes. YES IT IS! :)

That was my WHOLE point.

Your faith in me being Satan is perfectly "OKAY", and by that you probably mean "All right", which also means correct.

All faiths are EQUALLY correct. Correct means:

Free from error or fault; true or accurate.

In order for something to be correct you must base that on logical proof, material evidence, etc. This means that all "Faith" is equally based on nothing tangible in this world. It does not matter how many people share it, or if is only a faith of one person. They all have the same foundation! :)

Now to ACT upon your faith is a whole different story altogether........

Re:Credibility???

[lessthan]

Just because a religion is old, doesn't make it right. Just because thousands of people say "this is so!" doesn't make it right. Scientology has 55,000 followers and was invented in 1952. Benny Hinn, the faith healer, has only been preaching for maybe 20 years, yet he sways thousands. They are right? No.

You have some old records of a man who claimed he was God. That doesn't make "He was God." a fact. The only thing that those papers prove is that there once was a man who said he was God. You could go to an insane asylum and hear much the same.