Academics who ignore defectors as ‘apostates’ will never see Scientology for what it is

Karen#1

Well-known member
Excerpt:

The Underground Bunker asked former Sea Org official Chris Shelton to dig into a new academic paperback about Scientology, which is the latest issue of a journal called Implicit Religion. We think you’ll find Chris’s take in this first piece, which he comes at admitting his own personal biases, fascinating.
In my limited experience with the “Cult Wars” that have been waged for a few decades now in the world of academia, I’ve perceived that there are three groups of scholars from varying disciplines feuding over the idea of coercive control, what new religious groups are and aren’t, and whether or not a group can actually be “destructive” or not.~~~ READ MORE

 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Great post from Chris on the response of academics to Scientology. Some of them clearly have been co-opted IMO by OSA to have such a stupid ignorant approach as they do. If they are not on OSA's payroll they should be.
 

onceuponatime

Well-known member
Great post from Chris on the response of academics to Scientology. Some of them clearly have been co-opted IMO by OSA to have such a stupid ignorant approach as they do. If they are not on OSA's payroll they should be.
Doesn't scientology already have a documented history of paying off religious professors/scholars?

I completely agree with you. Some of the academic takes on scientology are really dumb and show complete ignorance of what actually goes on.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Doesn't scientology already have a documented history of paying off religious professors/scholars?

I completely agree with you. Some of the academic takes on scientology are really dumb and show complete ignorance of what actually goes on.
Laurence Brennan wrote about it in an affidavit back in 2006. I qued this video to the point where it is being mentioned. Better to listen to the whole thing for anyone who's never heard it before. He explains the real reason Scientology used religious cloaking and he was in a position to know.




Also, Mike Rinder wrote about his involvement in the program to recruit and use religious scholars. And yes, they were paid.

 

Veda

Well-known member
Re-post providing a look at the casual weaselly depravity of cult apologists...

Re. "apostates":

Scientology Inc. has had a program - called the Scholar Program - since the 1970s. It's purpose is to corrupt academia to Scientology Inc.'s advantage.

The term "NRM" was coined by paid Scientology Inc. apologist J. Gordon Melton, to be used as a substitute for "cult," with those who use the word "cult" to be denounced as "anti-religious bigots."

"NRM" is a niche created by J. Gordon Melton and other corrupt "scholars."

Melton has been used as an expert witness in Scientology Inc.'s favor, and was exposed on this message board a while back (LINK) by his friend (long story) who inadvertently stated that Melton had lied under oath while testifying as an expert witness. This, apparently, is behavior that is regarded by professional "religious scholars" as routine.

This academic niche stinks of corruption.

Scientology Inc.'s most important enabling fraudulent assertion is that it's not a discredited system of psychology and a political (power-seeking, private intelligence/blackmail collecting) operation, but, rather, an authentic religious institution.

*
A glimpse at decades of "expert" testimony on behalf of cults:


Dr. Melton: When you are investigating groups such as this,
you never rely on the unverified testimony of ex-members.

Mr. Morgan: Why?

Dr. Melton: To put it bluntly, hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth.
They invariably blow out of proportion minor incidents
and turn them into major incidents...

 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Also, Mike Rinder wrote about his involvement in the program to recruit and use religious scholars. And yes, they were paid.
Paid to give their opinions in legal actions - same as a number of name critic "experts".

Not paid for academic publications.
 
Top