Is the website and blog “neutral”?

# Comment by John S on February 16, 2008 9:11 pm

Why don’t you tell people that you are a Scientology and that the information is not fact, but your opinion?

My second question, again in relation to the quote above, is: If your goal is to answer questions neutrally, why do you not link to other sites with neutral information on the topic?


A comment on my “neutrality”, if something like this exists at all. As a Scientologist I have experience with Scientology and can talk about it, find out things and know where to look for answers if I don’t have them right there. If it’s an opinion I say “In my opinion”. If it’s a newspaper article I say “In the article of …”. And for a court document I say “In the decision by the blah court..”. There are plenty of sites about Scientology on the internet. If you want to find negative, one-sided information, well, that’s easy. Go to Clambake and get all confused, if you want. Go to Wikipedia which is swarmed by the same guys who put up negative websites and just a remote outlet for them and add some “reference” in there, if you like. Freedom of Speech! But I got some Freedom of Speech too, like anyone else. And I say, post, put online what I find out and what I think. And if I put my opinion you can see that it is my opinion, it’s not falsely declared as a “fact” or “everybody knows” type of statement. Test me.

I am a Scientologist. That has never been a secret. The facts are marked facts and opinion is marked opinion. Most if not all websites about Scientology on the internet represent the ideas and purposes of their creators. The official Scientology websites want to inform you about how the Church works and what Scientology is. If that is done well or not has nothing to do with it. All anti-Scientology websites are set up by one person, usually with an axe to grind against Scientology. None of them is strictly neutral. It is the beauty of the internet that you can find everything, fanatic data sources, moderate data sources, sources of vicious and false data, balanced data sources, it’s all there. And now it is your responsibility to inform yourself thoroughly and make up your own mind. I can only give you a new side of the story and be as open as possible. You decide and you eat it if your decision was wrong.

– Lou



  1. @Comment by anmn on February 22, 2008 9:21 pm

    See, the downside of this blog is that I can put documentation on here. This is what the website is for and I have neglected it a bit in the past weeks. Thanks to your an many other critical questions I can concentrate on the most urgent questions and actually get the site improved with documentation. A lot of things I say are based on documents and personal experiences (in actual fact I have not one church press release at hand but I get your point). I am closing a couple of comments to gain time to actually work on the site. you will see that I am not backing off any question, sure not where your “rebuttals” (I guess you would call it that way, too) have substance enough to warrant a deeper look.

    Stay with me and we all will learn something.

    – Lu

  2. I would like to thank you for setting up this site and blog. It’s rare to find a Scientologist willing to openly talk about their organization. You definitely present a point of view I haven’t seen before on several topics.

    However, I would dispute your practice of labeling press releases from the Church of Scientology as fact. I work for a tech company, and every press release proclaims our new product to be the greatest thing since gravity started pulling down. I wouldn’t dare present that as fact in a discussion of the product.

  3. “If this blog is neutral, why do you not mention…?”

    I do, you just need to read it. Let me know if you can’t find something.

    The rest of your statement is pure propaganda, but not a question.

    – Lu

  4. “If this blog is neutral, why do you not mention…?”

    I do, you just need to read it. Let me know if you can’t find something.

    The rest of your statement if pure propaganda, but not a question.

    – Lu

  5. If this blog is neutral, why do you not mention any of its darker side, like the RPF program, operation snow white, operation freakout, or how Lisa died?
    Or, how the church has bought back millions of copies of LRH’s books to artificially inflate it into the best sellers list, only to recycle them back to the bookstores, or how any enemy of Scientology is labled an SP and open to being lied to, harassed, beaten, maimed, or even murdered,and how all of this was supposedly supposed to stop years ago but has not?’

    Why not show the true side? are you hiding it from the public, or are you trying to hide it from yourself? You know the difference between right and wrong. And I know you can’t look at the actions of the church and say it is 100% for the people.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed