Chris Shelton on Social Science
…”They quote new religious movement academics as though they have any idea what they’re talking about. I did a whole series here on this channel of what I call the deconstructing Scientology series and that was a chapter by chapter breakdown of an academic work on the Church of Scientology and its beliefs in practices that was not put out by the Church of Scientology.’
“It was it was an academic work. It was a compendium of papers that had been written by academics from all over the world basically in support of the Church of Scientology. There were a couple articles or essays or papers that were in the book that were somewhat, you know, acknowledge some of the controversy or acknowledged some of the problems with the belief system but not one of the articles or essays took up any of the physical abuses or torture or you know wrongful imprisonment or psychological abuse. I mean all of that was just whitewashed and sort of ignored.’
“And basically the work might as well have been produced by Scientology because most of the academics in an extreme display of laziness simply took Scientology’s promotional materials and use that as though it was the you know God’s given truth and wrote academic papers academic grade papers touting Scientology’s beliefs and tenets and as a good thing.’
“And so I call these guys an are a more new religious movement academics because that’s they refer to the Church of Scientology as a new religious movement. And that and other destructive cults are given a whole lot of air cover by these academics speaking from their ivory towers from their university positions.‘
“They don’t know really much of anything about Scientology. They don’t go do any Scientology. One one of these academics actually tried to go get an auditing session and this I talked about that but other than that these people really have no idea what they’re talking about.
“And they simply forward the church’s propaganda so to quote such academics is the height of intellectual dishonesty and yes pretty much all I will say about that although you can refer to my entire series I did hours of videos breaking down their arguments and showing why it is that each and every one of these academics was paid off, I don’t know was somehow cajoled coerced, whatever, or they simply are delusional in the first place.‘
“And so they you know sort of put these papers together about all this and I broke all that down and I’ll put a I’ll
put a link to the playlist of all of those videos in the show notes here for this episode.”
Chris Shelton read one book published by the Oxford University Press in 2009, contributed to by 8 social scientists, who wrote papers on the beliefs and practices of the Church of Scientology. And these are the sweeping generalizations that Chris Shelton makes about everyone who engages in the social scientific study of religion.
Chris Shelton never went to college, has never taken a course in sociology, anthropology or any other course in social science.
He has simply adopted the belief system of the AntiCult Movement, and this is what informs his rant about all of the social scientific study of religion here.
As with most of the hysterical screechers in the AntiCult Movement, no governmental agency, or any other law enforcement or policy maker will take any of this seriously. And that’s a good thing.
Chris’ generalizations, his lack of citing any one specific claim, his sweeping conspiracy theories of all those who engage in the social scientific study of religion as having “been paid off” or “coerced by Scientology” or “delusional” is just…not serious.
But this is the level of thought that is acceptable by those who believe in the AntiCult Movement’s ideology about minority religions.
This is not critical thinking – it’s the sociological equivalent of an AntiVaxer rant.
Any Ex must rise above this type of hyperbolic raving from people like Chris Shelton and Tony Ortega and freaking Leah Remini, for God’s sake, to get the ideational framework necessary to understand their own minority religious involvement.
It’s what social science is for.