Let me try this again.
My point, that being that if Baughman is a scientologist then his opinion is rightfully suspect, is based on what I know of scientology, NOT Dr. Baughman.
He could be a rocket scientist for all I know, and frankly, I don't care what his credentials are. My point remains, regardless if we're talking about an accredited neurologist or Tom Cruise.
IF (I don't know and I don't care to search to find out) the good dr is a scientologist, he loses credibility based on the utter lack of such in a religion that believes that housed in and around each one of us are alien souls that were stashed around volcanos and blown up with hydrogen bombs by some intergalactic ruler named Xenu 75 million years ago, a religion that is rumoured to have been created out of whole cloth based on a bet between a science fiction author and his occultist friend, a religion that by many accounts effectively fleeces its followers out of countless millions each year.
Again, to reiterate, my point is based on what I know of scientology, not Dr. Baughman. If the man has no direct association or membership in the COS, his opinions carry just a bit more weight than otherwise.
Then you and I differ immensely.
If you can’t distinguish the message from the messenger, if facts do not stand alone from their delivery mechanism, you close your mind to anything outside your comfort zone and facts become just a belief to you, then that’s called situational relativism and is no way to discover truth of a fact or not.
If the messenger makes you ignore any further information proving the facts, then you are no better than a willing follower for anyone who can convince you by words and not by facts.
You don’t know what this man credentials are or what his research affiliations are; but you are willing to accept blindly someone’s assertions that he’s a Scientologist and dismiss everything he says or writes accordingly.
And no, FWIW, he is not a Scientologist but he has been affiliated with CCHR, http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/5258, an organization started by Scientology but joined by many non-Scientology types.
What does that association mean ? That they, Baughman and Scientology, share a desire to propagate these truths, and no more.
Why should that invalidate anything he says ?
From the CCHR website:
Mental health can be created, but only through:
* Effective mental healing delivered in a calm atmosphere characterized by tolerance, safety, security and respect for people’s rights
* By restoring individuals to personal strength, ability, competence, confidence, stability, responsibility and spiritual well-being
* Using highly trained, ethical practitioners who are committed primarily to their patient’s and patient family’s well being
This description bears no resemblance to mental treatment under psychiatry today. Psychiatry does not produce mental health, but rather mental ill health and millions of ruined lives.
At CCHR we work to help bring about an environment for mental healing that is based upon human dignity and decency. As a result of our work, millions have avoided the ravages of psychiatric treatment.
Gak, those are really scary beliefs, aren’t they ?
Baughman’s work has been picked up by many other oranizations, as reported here:
http://christianmind.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Oh gosh, they are Christians! Does that mean he has no credibility to a Jew ?