WHAT WOULD XENU DO?
Scientologists aren't just bleatin' about thetans today. Their most visible, and visibly embarrassing spokesman, Tom Cruise, has threatened to refrain from promoting his newest movie, Mission Impossible 3, should Comedy Central (owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount, distributor of MI3), air re-runs of the infamous (and hilarious) episode of "Trapped in the Closet," which quite satisfyingly mocked Tom Cruise and his so-called religion. Mr. Tough Guy knows he has no chance of actually prevailing upon a defamation lawsuit premised upon the claim that the show libeled him or invaded his privacy, so he has chosen to resort to the method of the gutternsnipe, to declare that either there shall be no criticism of his movie, or that the American public will not be honoured with his presence as he shills for his latest movie.
As the English say, "Whatever happened to letting an umbrella be your smile?" Cruise's attempt to shut up Comedy Central (an attempt which was all too successfull; Comedy Central should be ashamed) has merely brought more attention to the episode and brought him into that much more ridicule. Cruise, like would-be censors everywhere, though, would destroy his "reputation" and his "religion" to "save" it.
And this is a religion that is the definition of "not worth saving," one which has only not been able to supplant Catholicism as, in Christopher Hitchens' words, "the biggest retardant of human and social development in the past 1,000 years" because it has only been around for a few decades and because its so-called doctrines make Catholic Church orthodoxy sound like Voltaire. (Of course, Scientologists can dispute all of these criticisms by making more about their "religion" available, but they refuse to do this. This "religion" is the only major religion where not only memership is privileged; you have to BE a member (read: pay by the hour) to find out what membership entails. As a favorite Star Trek friend once said, "Knowledge should be free to all." Cf."Nothing disinfects like sunshine," but the sun of information of Scientology will not shine upon the uwaashed masses unless they open their wallets).
Those courts unlucky enough to hear claims involving the "Church," as a litigant - to hear these claims spouted by Scientology litigators - must, by the end of the experience, feel like they've undergone the mental equivalent of being molested of a Catholic priest. One such court (a federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia), in 1995, held that Scientology had no right to an order enjoining the publication of documents describing the religion that a former member had given to the press. The Court offered this observation, among other choice observations:
"A second related argument regards the alleged spiritual harm claimed by the Scientology that will befall Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike from reading the documents. Scientology claims that premature exposure of the documents to non-Scientologists (and even to Scientologists who have not reached the requisite OT level) will result in "devastating, cataclysmic spiritual harm." According to the church's dogma, founder L. Ron Hubbard (a man with a documented history of committing fraud against the government) taught that disclosure of these documents to anyone who had not progressed through the necessary spiritual prerequisites could cause profound spiritual harm to the person prematurely exposed." Non-Scientologists will also be harmed because premature exposure will interfere with their "personal spiritual progress." Id. p. 11.
This argument has no merit. We reside in a country which allows individuals and organizations to confront the risk of harm, spiritual or otherwise, in the face of protected speech. The First Amendment represents a conscious and explicit trade-off which the Founding Fathers made between paternalistic protection from "harmful" thoughts and free access to information. Where statutorily and constitutionally protected speech is concerned, our system permits an individual's fate to be sealed by the individual's choices rather than governmental monitoring."
Read what the judge said. President Bush, who probably mocks Scientology, actually has a lot in common with the Scientologists: both claim that they are unfairly portrayed as stupid, brainwashed, empty-vessel zombies highly susceptible to being duped or misled by charlatans. The portrayal is accurate in each case. More to the point, though, the degree to which both believe that WE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are stupid, brainwashed empty vessel zombies far exceeds the degree to which both believe that they are perceived as such.
As the English say, "Whatever happened to letting an umbrella be your smile?" Cruise's attempt to shut up Comedy Central (an attempt which was all too successfull; Comedy Central should be ashamed) has merely brought more attention to the episode and brought him into that much more ridicule. Cruise, like would-be censors everywhere, though, would destroy his "reputation" and his "religion" to "save" it.
And this is a religion that is the definition of "not worth saving," one which has only not been able to supplant Catholicism as, in Christopher Hitchens' words, "the biggest retardant of human and social development in the past 1,000 years" because it has only been around for a few decades and because its so-called doctrines make Catholic Church orthodoxy sound like Voltaire. (Of course, Scientologists can dispute all of these criticisms by making more about their "religion" available, but they refuse to do this. This "religion" is the only major religion where not only memership is privileged; you have to BE a member (read: pay by the hour) to find out what membership entails. As a favorite Star Trek friend once said, "Knowledge should be free to all." Cf."Nothing disinfects like sunshine," but the sun of information of Scientology will not shine upon the uwaashed masses unless they open their wallets).
Those courts unlucky enough to hear claims involving the "Church," as a litigant - to hear these claims spouted by Scientology litigators - must, by the end of the experience, feel like they've undergone the mental equivalent of being molested of a Catholic priest. One such court (a federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia), in 1995, held that Scientology had no right to an order enjoining the publication of documents describing the religion that a former member had given to the press. The Court offered this observation, among other choice observations:
"A second related argument regards the alleged spiritual harm claimed by the Scientology that will befall Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike from reading the documents. Scientology claims that premature exposure of the documents to non-Scientologists (and even to Scientologists who have not reached the requisite OT level) will result in "devastating, cataclysmic spiritual harm." According to the church's dogma, founder L. Ron Hubbard (a man with a documented history of committing fraud against the government) taught that disclosure of these documents to anyone who had not progressed through the necessary spiritual prerequisites could cause profound spiritual harm to the person prematurely exposed." Non-Scientologists will also be harmed because premature exposure will interfere with their "personal spiritual progress." Id. p. 11.
This argument has no merit. We reside in a country which allows individuals and organizations to confront the risk of harm, spiritual or otherwise, in the face of protected speech. The First Amendment represents a conscious and explicit trade-off which the Founding Fathers made between paternalistic protection from "harmful" thoughts and free access to information. Where statutorily and constitutionally protected speech is concerned, our system permits an individual's fate to be sealed by the individual's choices rather than governmental monitoring."
Read what the judge said. President Bush, who probably mocks Scientology, actually has a lot in common with the Scientologists: both claim that they are unfairly portrayed as stupid, brainwashed, empty-vessel zombies highly susceptible to being duped or misled by charlatans. The portrayal is accurate in each case. More to the point, though, the degree to which both believe that WE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are stupid, brainwashed empty vessel zombies far exceeds the degree to which both believe that they are perceived as such.
posted by EnterCenter at 7:02 PM
2 Comments:
Well said. Here are a few parallels between the Super Adventure Club and that convoluted nightmare of a cult that is Scientology. I’m sure there are more, but this is a good start:
http://morsicle.livejournal.com/1957.html
Great, great post.
I am crying now at how much I both love and admire you.
Post a Comment
<< Home