6/6/05
In entertainment news, everyone - including his publicist - is concerned that Tom Cruise's cheese has slipped off his cracker, as he gambols about the country, behaving untowardly on Oprah, and setting up tents in Germany to convert onlookers to Scientology. First off, I don't think it's possible to have the kind of life Tom Cruise has had since 1982 and come away unscathed - and secondly, why all the harshing on Scientology?
Sure Scientologists have an eerie sheen to them, and I've heard the stories about how they've held some people hostage to their darkest secrets, and yes, when we used to live near the Celebrity Center on Franklin Street in Hollywood, the dark grounds and obfuscated flowers would give one the heebie-jeebies. But why is so much scorn heaped on a religion that doesn't seem any more far-fetched than what "normal" Americans believe every day?
From the small bits I've managed to pick up, Scientology basically believes that an alien life force (or volcanoes, I can't remember) deposited an energy on Earth that still exists to this day. They believe you have to pick up on this energy (through "audits" and "e-meters" and the like) in order to reach your perfect self. Or something like that. There have been lots of Scientologists that you probably didn't know were members. Like Beck, for instance.
Now compare this with transubstantiation in any run-of-the-mill Catholic church, where followers believe that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ during the blessing. Keep in mind these things are happening on an average street on any given Sunday in suburban Ohio.
While we're at it, let's talk about Christ for a second. Christians believe he was the divine made mortal, the son of God, who showed up on Earth, performed miracles, was crucified, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. This particular blog entry is not intended to slag Christianity, but if you weren't so used to the story, it would seem fairly weird, no?
So Scientologists proselytize on national television. So does our goddamn President. So Scientologists are pushy, always trying convert everybody. No worse, certainly, than the Mormons, or even the Catholics, who went into Africa and baptized every "savage" they could get their hands on.
Scientology preaches against using Prozac-like drugs, but so does every redneck American who thinks if you don't take life on the chin, you're a fucking pussy. Not only that, but Scientology also does a pretty good job of getting people off drugs, something most churches barely pay lip service to. Sure, you have to be a Scientologist after you kick heroin, but at least you're not going to smash into a school bus on Sunset Drive.
The only reason to make fun of - or despise - Scientology is because it isn't old enough to take seriously. L. Ron Hubbard made up his bizarre stories in the 1950s - as opposed to 45 A.D., which puts him distinctly behind the curve. Age of story is a huge deal to people of faith; the Mormons are only just beginning to get a place at the table, and they've been around since the 1850s. It's 2005, and 61% of Americans still believe in some sort of Creationism.
If you pick on Scientology at the exclusion of all other religions, you're just like those asinine girls in college who only liked movies made before 1970, as if age trumped all flaws. It all comes down to a matter of faith, and to me, believing in an alien dust fairy makes just as much sense as trusting in Lazarus.
Posted by Ian Williams at June 6, 2005 10:04 PMI love, love, love Tom Cruise! Always have, always will. His Scientology is fine with me -- live and let live! So, he does not agree with modern psychiatry -- that is his opinion. While I am not sure what the appeal is of Katie Holmes, other than being young, cute, and malleable, I am glad that he is happy. At least he is not dating a no-talent like Lindsay Lohan or Ashlee Simpson! I don't understand the argument that Tom is dating Katie for publicity. Tom Cruise does not need publicity!
Thanks for giving me a little entertainment world buzz this morning. Back to work.
Scientology has been a very dangerous group for many years now. There are many well-documented cases of mistreatments, deaths, and illegal dealings associated with the cult. They have grown in power in almost every nation in the World and flex their muscle with police and governmental powers. There is no way for me to relay all I have learned of the cult in this comment but I do highly reccommend you read through the thousands of documents at http://www.clambake.org and keep in mind that it took the Norweigan government to protect the man who runs the website from the cult's many and various actions.
This is something I have followed since my friend's computer was confiscated by the cult in Boulder because he had posted the 'secrets' of the cult on a newsgroup. Those secrets are exactly what you refer to about aliens, by the way. This is not a religion, this is a cult but don't call the cult hotline if you or someone you love has fallen into it, Scientology took over all the cult help networks years ago.
A couple other points (because it really disturbs me that you come off so light on the cult). If you don't believe a website which you don't know or understand they do host an old Time magazine article that is well worth reading: http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html - the author of the article has been through hell after writing it by the way.
And a note on Tom Cruise. The "Church" of Scientology set up celebrity centers to take care of and recruit celebrities into the cult. Celebrities are not subject to the secrets, the required work, or even the money that normal members are. The "church" understands the power of celebrity marketing and takes great pains to accomodate them.
you can walk into my church, or any episcopal church, or most any other christian denominational church in the world and know what it is we believe, why, who comes to worship with us and why, or anything else you would like to know. the leadership of the church is not privvy to any information about the religion or its beliefs that is not also available to everyone else.
our members are free to believe some, part, or none of what we believe. they are free to challenge the leadership on anything they find objectionable, and they often do (that's why there are so many denominations) they are free to associate with whomeever they please, whether they believe the same things we do or not. our members are free to leave at any time without reprisal.
scientologists, and other members of cults, do not follow all of these premises, and this is a very key difference, no matter what you make of the core beliefs of any of us.
Scientologists make people pay cash to learn their doctrines, and even threaten and sue people for telling their "divine secrets" to the general public. No real religion would do that, and most encourage spreading the Holy Word around as much as possible.
Sadly, the story of Beck's religion is a little complicated. If Dylan's slow train could turn around, maybe Beck's can too.
"complicated" was supposed to be a link to this
http://www.jewsrock.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=quiz.blurb&typeid=C94DFA4E-AE2E-4B88-96251A696E8883DD&this=8&vote=yes,yes,no,no,yes,no,no,yes
which I'll also put in the URL box above
I get the whole "the claims of Christianity would sound absurd if they were set today instead of 2000 years ago" and I also get that there have been unspeakable crimes committed in the name of God and Christ, but I'd add a couple of counter points in the spirit of the via media.1) Go to some of the sources above, especially clambake.org, and I believe your benign impression of Scientology may change.
2) There are at least two recent movements that you have expressed great enthusiasm for, the Civil Rights movement and the UNC basketball program, that have had a strong Christian influence. MLK was an an ordained minister and Dean Smith is an active member of a liberal Baptist church in Chapel Hill, and long listed reading theology as one of his hobbied in the media guide.
Oh geez, this is too funny. To hear uneducated liberal anti-christian bigots talking about religion. The libs must discount religion at all costs, since debasing religion means they can then get away with their immoral acts such as abortion and gay marriage. Most people can see beyond the smoke and mirrors that Ian tries to set up, they can see what his real agenda is. With libs like this and Dean running the party of intolerant anti-christian bigots, these clowns never have a chance of winning again.
But no matter how much liberals bash religion and the church, the liberals will always still show up at the black churches the week before the election to try and milk some more free votes, hoping the blacks will be sheep for them.
Also, because that girl missing in Aruba is white and the suspects are black, you won't see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton arriving in Aruba to steal all the camera time, they won't report that on NPR or on the rag New York Times, and Ian won't mention it either, doesn't help his agenda.
What a good laugh I got today, listening to uneducated libs discussing religions LOL
I've always been relatively ambivalent towards Tom Cruise. His movies, with few exceptions, haven't really done it for me, and his religious beliefs haven't caused him to show up on my radar as a fanatic in particular. I've largely ignored him. And as you point out, there have certainly been bigger extremists out there trying to push their beliefs onto the public in ways that I personally find more threatening (i.e. Judge Roy Moore in Alabama who felt that he could disobey the law if it conflicted with his duty to God as he saw it).
That is.. until this string of talk show appearances. His attacks on Brooke Shields in particular strike me as downright mean - but more importantly, as a scientist, I find his public campaign against modern psychiatry to be medically irresponsible ("just use vitamins!"). Tom can believe whatever he wants, but I have a serious problem with him going on national television and trying to "educate" the public about absolute nonsense - as in, his assertion that there are no such things as "chemical imbalances" in the brain although, in the case of Brooke Shields, he says there can be "hormonal problems." Gee, Tom... we at Harvard Neurobiology would love for you to teach us what the difference is between neurochemicals and hormones.
Our country is full of people who suffer from debilitating mental illnesses, many of whom fail to seek proper medical treatment because of the stigma historically attached to psychiatry. People like Tom Cruise are contributing to that stigma, and that just means that more people who need help might not get it. Those of us who have devoted our lives to the study of the brain do not believe for a minute that all of life's problems can immediately be solved by simply taking a pill. But the fact is... the brain, like all other organs in the body, is made up of circuits, composed of cells, filled with proteins... and, like every other bodily function, our ability to see and hear, to think and reason about the things we see and hear, all depend on those circuits working properly. In many people, they just don't. And no amount of meditation or exercise or faith or even psychotherapy alone is going to change that.
Are there problems with our current arsenal of psychiatric meds? Of course there are, just like with every other disease. That's the ongoing challenge of modern drug discovery. But that hardly means that people suffering from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or major depression should just sit back and do nothing, other than having faith and taking Vitamin C as Tom Cruise would seem to suggest.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Great blog, Ian.
To those who believe "normal" relgions aren't cults: Seriously?
Cult is defined as: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
How does this not hold true for Christianity? You may not agree, but personally I think believing you'll go to hell for masturbating is *somewhat* extreme. Not to mention the abortion clinic bombers, the frighteningly-apparent majority attempting to infuse one and only one religion into our schools and laws, or the religion's history that boasts massacres like the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Perhaps Christianity (and I could very well be speaking about any other major religion) is not "generally" considered to be false, but I don't put much stock in our societal collective. Slavery was once "generally" considered to be the way to go. Too many scientific minds have concurred that the stories of the Bible are simply stories. And you can't trust those minds to develop cancer treatments and predict hurricanes but not when it comes to evolution. Blind faith is a whole other issue, but in terms of the religion being "false" (as in the opposite of true), Scientology has as much proven truth as Christianity.
Dave writes: "Scientology has been a very dangerous group for many years now. There are many well-documented cases of mistreatments, deaths, and illegal dealings associated with the cult."
And this doesn't hold true for Christianity? Tell that to the boys who were and are being abused by their priests. Tell that to the thousands of gay couples shunned from their houses of worship and refused their right to the sacrament of marriage. How about the "Patriot Pastors" in Ohio, run by none other than Secretary of State (and Bush campaign manager) Blackwell: http://ohiorestorationproject.com/plan.php
Not technically illegal, but totally shady. (This link is more for yesterday's eloquent comment about liberals pandering to "black churches".)Cathie: You may belong to a fabulous, progressive church. They can be found, especially in big cities. But they are in the minority. Most churches will expressly NOT allow you believe/practice part or none of the dogma. Just look at your "authoritarian, charismatic leader". It's all or nothing with the Pope. You either do or you don't; you're in or you're out.
Sorry for ranting and raving, but religion, imho, is the root of all evil. You can extract some of the lovely things religion preaches and simply be "a good person", without all the dogma, segregation and hatred.
Piglet: You don't think money isn't an integral part of Christianity? I'm not sure, but are tithes still a practice? I have a friend, a devout Catholic, who had received all of her sacraments thus far at the church she grew up at. In adulthood she'd moved to a different neighborhood and attended another church. When she got engaged she wanted nothing more than to be married in the church she was baptised, received communion and confirmation in. But they refused. Why? Because she wasn't an "active" parishioner. Translation: she hadn't been contributing financially. It totally sucked.
Corruption, all tied up in politics and money, runs rampant throughout Christianity.
Cris: I agree with you. But I think the salient point of Ian's blog is that Scientology is no weirder, and thus, no less valid a religion than Christianity. I totally hear you about Cruise being a role model and having influence when he speaks, thereby potentially causing harm by espousing his medical theories. However, what about Dr. Hagar the Horrible over at the FDA, telling women they can cure PMS with prayer?
Hmmmm. As a fairly liberal christian tolerant person, I think what's worse than a liberal anti-christian bigot is a conservative "christian" bigot. These hypocrites would have bored me already if they weren't so dangerous. If we only spent more time focusing on alleviating poverty, healthcare, and education concerns that affect everyone instead of barking about abortion and gay marriage, so much more could actually be accomplished. Regardless of viewpoints, I think one thing you can't call Ian and most posters on this site is "uneducated."
Anyway, Cathie is right on.
I gave Katie Holmes some benefit of the doubt since I liked Pieces of April. But then I read her quote, "I'm more and more in love every day. It's like, 'Wow.'" AND "I miss him right now," she said, "and it's been like one hour." This is just Tiger Beat continued into her 20's. Though,
in my opinion, Tom Cruise is still Hot.
Deb: You're right, I did sort of go off on a different tangent within the whole Tom Cruise media spectacle. You're also right that he's certainly not the first, and unfortunately not the last, one to irresponsibly espouse crackpot medical theories to the public. Personally, I had even bigger problems with the "scientists" who claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. But I digress again. In Tom Cruise's case, it's just frustrating because his celebrity is so out of control huge that he ends up commanding such an enormous audience. That bothers me.
Boy, I guess I really gave up my "lurker" status today.
As long as I'm posting, I have to say... Ian, the pics of Lucy just get cuter and cuter.
Cris
I am Catholic! I am on Lexapro! I still think Tom Cruise is HOT!
That made me laugh out loud.
Laurie: your post cracked me up. Yeah, crazy freak though he may be, he's still totally hot. And the irony for me is, now that he actually does something that makes me want to boycott his films, he goes and puts out a movie I actually *want* to see this summer. Figures!
And continuing with my tendency to post off-topic tangents today: Ian, not only are the pics of Lucy cuter and cuter, but I LOVED the post on Chopes!!! The last time I saw him, he was a puppy and Tessa had just gotten him. I was learning the G minor ballade at the time and thought she couldn't have given him a better name. That was more years ago than I care to admit. Glad to see he's alive and kicking.
OK, I really need to stop blogging and get some work done.....
Well, now that there's a good pile on, I'll go ahead and opine that I think you've staked yourself out a ridiculous piece of turf. Scientology is an institution and not only a religion. Christianity is a diverse bunch of institutions, as well as a diverse bunch of denominations. Yes, some Christian denominations and derivatives try to recruit people to their religion with creepy and coercive techniques. But this doesn't make Scientologists equivalent with Lutherans. The problem with Scientology isn't its nutty ideas but it's institutional culture. By your reasoning we might as well adopt an attitude toward political parties as if their all the Nazis or treat all sickness as if it was appendicitis. I don't think you're going to burn in Hell for this one (in fact I don't think you or anybody else has a soul to burn, even if there were a Hell) but certainly I sneeze in your general direction.
apologies for the misplaced apostrophes (it's) and homonyms (their). I was just giddy with the atheistic spirit.
As "Joel" learned and taught us in "Risky Business," sometimes you just gotta say "What the Fuck".
OK Tom -- WTF, mate?
Tom Cruise was cute in Risky Business but he got hotter as he got older and then he looked best in Mission Impossible all buff and with that cool buzz-cut look but he also looked hot all salt-and-peppery in that movie with Jamie Foxx where he was a killer, and he has great teeth and a good sense of humor and he really should have stayed with Nic, and the only thing I don't get is why he keeps dating taller women because he totally would look better with a short woman like myself.
I don't know much about Scientology so I think I will Google it but I mean, it is not like he is an Evangelical Snake Handler or a Moonie. All religions require a certain stretch of the imagination and a suspension of reality, don't they?
Like, I am totally going to rearrange my Netflix queue right now so this is the Week of Tom at my house. My husband will be thrilled!
Oliver: I don't think anyone's equating Scientology with Christianity. As Ian pointed out, if Scientology stays around for thousands of years, it too may have break-away sects and off-shoots. The point is, people are so easily inclined to write Scientology off as a cult, when in fact their very own religions are, by definition, at least cult-like. I guess it's simply a matter of glass houses/stones.
Laurie, my fave Tom Cruise of adolescence was from TAPS (with Timothy Hutton, Sean Penn), except for when he went all crazy and starting shooting at people. And if Week of Tom keeps you as excited as you seem right now in your posts, then your husband will be especially thrilled.
Check out the site Belief.net for info on most religious groups; it serves kind of like a cliff's notes.
The interest provoked by your comments today suggests to me that you have the makings of a new movement.
You have a band of devoted followers spread across the country. From what I can tell, the primary thing we have in common is that we read your words first thing in the morning. We are starving for you.
You have a secluded compound, apparently at the end of a rainbow, where you periodically gather many of your flock. You have successfully hypnotized many of us with the imagery of your holy family (wife, dog, and daughter).
“The only reason to make fun of - or despise - Scientology is because it isn't old enough to take seriously.”
Well, I don’t think that’s a valid way to judge the truth of a religion - time being an illusion an all - but I guess a lot of people do. A Scientologist has as much right to claim religiosity, if they are sincere, as the next supernatural nutcase.
If there is an assumption made that how long a religion has been around somehow increases its validity, then as a Psychedelian - while recognizing that there have been a “diverse bunch of institutions, as well as a diverse bunch of denominations” (including supernatural nutcases), throughout the ages – the stoned guy would pretty much be sitting at the head of the table.
I'm not this blog's official spokesperson (that would be Ian), but to rebut the resident haunting stooge , lemme say that I doubt many, if any, of this discussion's denizens are uneducated, anti-Christian or bigots. Those that are liberal are likely proud of it and I don't think Ian (or his special propagandizing agency) has an underlying political agenda when engaging the populace in water-cooler talk about WTF is going on with Tom Mo-Fo'ing Cruise.
BTW, they're advertising for Stapler stock boys here at my local Staples SuperStore, so if it'll kindly forward me its stapler stats and stuff, I'll be happy to write Swingline a hearty recommendation to lurk erstwhile, I mean elsewhere. Sorry, I am under-re-educated.
We just had a scientology group try to set up a drug rehab facility in Jasper. After a fairly large "uproar" in the newspapers, they decided not to come. I only learned two things about scientology in those weeks. 1. They own and operate drug rehab centers that aggressively recruit for scientology and these centers dishonestly deny that they are associated with scientology. 2. They have a history (though I only have one first hand account) of spending large amounts of money to "destroy" anyone who attempts to leave their group or organise opposition to their group.
Fraudulent and vengefull is enough for me to know they are not my style.
Despite having reservations about Scientology, I would like to thank Tom Cruise for getting Rebecca De Mornay naked.
Well, I think there's no single answer to whether anyone's "anti-Christian," because among the many people who identify as Christian there seems to be a diversity of views about what merits the label "anti-Christian." I enjoy friendly relations with people who self-identify as Christians and I wouldn't say either testament of the Christian Bible is entirely devoid of good ideas or nice stories, but I do think of Christianity, as I think of other conventional religions, as like a powerful and dangerous psychiatric drug, which has unavoidable negative intellectual side effects and which I'd like to see off the market. That said, I don't know what to do about those who have already developed a dependency, so to speak. Some of them are clearly so dangerous to the rest of us that I think they need corralling or else to be aggressively weaned off the stuff. Others I think we ought to abide, to the extent we don't have to pretend to believe anything we don't or exclude health information or scholarship from public discourse simply because it offends "Christian" sensibilities--and we certainly shouldn't allow proselytization or the teaching of fiction as science to kids in school. Given all that, I'm sure lots of people would consider me anti-Christian, if not savor the thought of me suffering eternal torment by fire. But I'd describe myself as "somewhat sympathetic to Christianity." Note I'm not a spokesperson for this blog either.
Actually the drug metaphor doesn't quite work because drugs get metabolized and don't persist very long, while religion does. It's more like an infectious condition that provides benefits to the host ("virus" has such negative connotations).
Who exactly is harshing on Scientology? I missed it. Unlike the comments here, I haven't seen a single critical word about Scientology in the media reports about Cruise's recent behavior. The media are questioning whether his current romance is real or simply cynical PR. Fair question. They report that Cruise gratutiously insulted Brooke Shields about a medical issue. True. The media, however, are not questioning whether Scientology's belief system is wrong or bad. They are going after Cruise on a more general level because he has raised issues of his creed or religion in public and he has *behaved* wrongly and badly. They would do the same thing if he was Christian and criticized someone publicly because they did someting that, in his opinion, was not Christian. Like Ian in today's post, the media aren't making qualitative distinctions among religious beliefs, because the underlying belief is that they are all stupid. It is just another little controversy to provide some content and get people arguing.
Quality prose or rhetoric can never substitute for the knowlege that allows one to write intelligently about a subject.
During the Catholic Mass, in preparation for Holy Communion, the priest says (chants), "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" and in response the congregation says (chants), "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will Come Again." Not only are Catholics well aware that the our faith is derived from "fairly weird" events but a key aspect of our religion is to *proclaim* and *celebrate* that mystery at every Mass.
To those who understand Christianity through knowledge and experience, much of what is written above is from non-Christians who do not know or understand the religion. They don't get it because they have not learned about it, and yet they mistakenly believe they know all they need to know about it. It is simply prejudice.
How about a post about particle physics or some advanced mathematical theories? We won't know whether you are totally wrong or not. We'll simply pretend we know what you are talking about and then we will pretend that we know what we are talking about. What fun!
Just about all of our fundamental values in the West (peace, love, human rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of self-determination) were introduced to human society by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ and spread by Christian societies throughout much of the globe in fits and starts over the past 2,000 years. Without Christianity, what would Europe and the Americas look like? My guess: Picture them 1,000 years ago. What will be the impact of Scientology on the world 1,000 years from now? My guess: zip.
Well said Chris M.
The "Mystery of Faith". If you ain't got it that's something I can't help you with. As Chris M. said:
".....yet they mistakenly believe they know all they need to know about it. It is simply prejudice."Ian, I don't know how many Christian "friends" you have but you have insulted them...You tend a nice garden, love your wife & baby and your photos are inspired; can't see anything else? Work out your own "agnosticism"; don't shit on those that have faith....
When I read some of the posts above I can't believe how silly most of 'em sound.
I make my living in cold hard facts based on science but I am one fortunate dude to have "faith".
B2