Features
10.1.14: a rebel alliance of quality content
our facebook page our twitter page intrepid media feature page rss feed
FEATURES  :  GALLERYhover for drop down menu  :  STUDIOhover for drop down menu  :  ABOUThover for drop down menu sign in

blinding me with scient
tom's foolery
by mike julianelle
6.13.05
pop culture


Years ago, I ran into John Travolta on the streets of Boston. He was exiting his trailer outside Fenway Park in preparation for a scene in A Civil Action. Being a movie buff and enthusiastic follower of the hilarious cult of Scientology, I shoved a USA Today in the star’s face and asked him to sign it “To a Fellow Scientologist.” I was unaware of the effect that such an admission, however facetious, would have on the world’s most annoying dancing movie star. His eyes went buggy with fervor and he gurgled an ecstatic “You are?!” in my general direction. I took back my newly signed paper and ran like the wind, my underpants filling with my own urine.

After years of smoking pot (I have a prescription!) and burning copies of Dianetics, I have finally begun to wrest my brain free from the terror of Travolta’s fanaticism. I have reached the point where I can relax about his, or anyone's, devotion to a “religion” that was manufactured by a science fiction writer who claimed to have cured blindness with his mind (I'd rather know how to cause blindness, because I never want to see Battlefield Earth again.)

Unfortunately for easily swayed star-worshippers and self-help enthusiasts, Travolta is neither the most outspoken nor even the most famous Scientologist around. And just when I thought it was safe to go to the movies, the biggest movie star in the world started getting vocal.

Having apparently lost his mind to love, Tom Cruise has abandoned the typical m.o. of celebrity Scientologists, who prefer to make vague statements about its benefits without getting into the freaky-deaky, totally ridiculous specifics. Cruise is suddenly taking it to the streets, noisily attacking psychiatrists, new mothers, and Oprah all in the name of his two passions: Scientology and starlets 20 years his junior.

I used to like Tom Cruise. Check out his resume: Risky Business is something of a classic. His drunk scene in A Few Good Men is intergalactically awesome. He put forth a truly fantastic performance in Magnolia and God knows he’s made some tremendously successful popcorn flicks: the music video that is Top Gun; the phenomenally absurd laugh riot that is Cocktail; the two-hour ode to his gorgeous feathered hair that is Days of Thunder; the tutorial on how to get paid millions for taking a shit that is Mission: Impossible 2.

We’ve seen a lot of him over the past two decades. We’ve seen him wearing fangs, in his undies, rescuing unicorns, even sharing the screen with Jonathan Lipnicki. But never before had we seen him mentally implode. Until “Oprah.”

Hey, I can’t begrudge the gay -- I mean guy -- a little happiness. Hell, if Katie Holmes talked to me, I’d be jumping around on couches too. But the whole thing reeks, and not just of convenient promotion for War of the Worlds. Who knows? Maybe he really is in love with a 13-year-old. Maybe he finally does have a reason to stop living in divided mansions with women he only touches in public. And maybe love has fried his brain to the point of no return. But whether or not he’s gay or in love or wearing braces is of little concern to me, or to Hollywood; what’s making us both nervous is his religious affiliation.

Somewhere, the ghost of L. Ron Hubbard flipped a switch and activated Tom. The star now seems to feel that every situation is the perfect situation for Scientology talk whether it's while promoting his new movie to showing off his new prop.

In an exclusive interview on “Access Hollywood,” Cruise spoke up about his Scientology-sponsored belief that psychiatry has no basis in science and that people are medicating themselves to their own detriment (they should be taking vitamins! - apparently my father is a Scientologist too, he's always pushing One-A-Days on me). People like the down-on-her-luck Brooke Shields, the same star in whose Endless Love Cruise made his first film appearance. Shields has apparently been taking medication while coping with post-partum depression, a problem Cruise feels is totally manageable by popping some Flintstones Chewables. “Look at how she lives her life…where has her career gone,” the asshole told hard-hitting celebrity interviewer Billy Bush. The star elaborates in Entertainment Weekly.

He's right though, I also equate psyciatry with genocide. Hitler was my therapist. And why listen to medical advice about mental illnesses when you can take pointers from a coddled millionaire movie star who may or may not be denying his own sexuality out of fear of losing his box office clout and is a member of a dangerous, money-grubbing pseudo-religion that believes humans beings are afflicted by the spirits of thetans, an alien race who were banished to earth by the intergalactic ruler Xenu? Brooke Shields should be ashamed of herself! (I’m serious. “Suddenly Susan?” Come on.)

He’s already coaching Holmes on her career, steering her away from a role as a pill-popping member of Andy Warhol’s circle, because Scientology is anti-drugs (how novel!) and even just pretending to be a user is the road to damnation. It was good advice though; we all know that addict roles never get acclaim. Hey Katie, maybe being a pawn in Scientology's plan to take over the world isn't such a great idea.

Scientology is evil. They buy their own books in bulk, just to make the best seller’s list. Juliette Lewis and Giovanni Ribisi are members, and they made that atrocious move about retarded people. When attacked, the cult's primary weapons of defense are crying “persecution!” and then suing the shit out of their attackers (a not dissimilar tactic to Tom’s habit of suing anyone who floats a rumor that he is gay).

Allow me to revisit my favorite anti-Scientology anecdote:

Once upon a time there was an organization called the Cult Awareness Network. The Cult Awareness Network did not like Scientology. They aggressively marketed against the “religion” and assailed it as a cult in an attempt to warn and protect unwitting dupes. As a result, Scientology sued them and sued them and sued them again until they went bankrupt. The end, right? No. In 1997, Scientology subsequently bought the Cult Awareness Network lock, stock and barrel. They bought the help line, the mailing address and the logo and immediately began printing pro-Scientology materials under the CAN name. They're diabolical! And dangerous. And armed with the blinding smile and bipolar personality of the world's most well-known matinee idol.

Luckily, I'm not the only one who's a little nervous. Cruise’s affiliation with Scientology is at odds with his role as a movie star and it’s not making the studios happy. They don't like the fact that he demands Scientology tents on all his sets, even if they DO have cappacino makers installed!

Fresh on the heels of Cruise’s big “Oprah” and “Access Hollywood” appearances, the New York Times ran an article in which some studio executives expressed dismay that their golden boy might be generating the wrong kind of publicity for his upcoming film. His unhinged, increasingly odd behavior, paired with the escalation of his pro-Scientology rantings, has made Hollywood a bit skittish. And it doesn’t look like he’s going to stop anytime soon; with rumors of Holmes joining the cult (Tom: "She digs it!") and perhaps even marrying Cruise, we may have a new Hollywood power couple to contend with, a Scientology-backed couple with the power to bring the entertainment world to its knees. We're gonna need a lot more than angry journalists and crusading attorneys to protect us.

Somebody'd better call Xenu.


ABOUT MIKE JULIANELLE

Let's get real here. You don't want to know about me. You want to know about "me".

more about mike julianelle

IF YOU LIKED THIS COLUMN...

the season of the watch
my nightmare before christmas
by mike julianelle
topic: pop culture
published: 12.7.09


pop goes the culture
taking the offensive
by mike julianelle
topic: pop culture
published: 10.11.06





COMMENTS

juli mccarthy
6.13.05 @ 12:18a

I wonder if the rumor of Scientology's origins has any basis in fact (said rumor being that Hubbard had a bet on with Robert Heinlein.)

robert melos
6.13.05 @ 3:10a

Science fiction offers up many different possible religions to link into, L. Ron Hubbard just happened to get luck and have his catch on.

Check out the Babylon 5 religions. They have a better perspective on man and the universe.

As a Pagan, I find Scientology interesting, just as I do all religions. I wouldn't turn my back on any of their followers for a minute. Don't discount something just because it seems to be a lot of hogwash. It might be hogwash, but don't discount it.

Now if Tom can do for Katie what he did for Nicole (drive her away and turn her into a bigger star than him), she has hope of a promising career.

brian anderson
6.13.05 @ 8:03a

because Scientology is anti-drugs (how novel!) and even just pretending to be a user is the road to damnation. It was good advice though; we all know that addict roles never get acclaim.

Didn't Cruise show a substance dependence in "Minority Report"? Or are fictional SF drugs fine?

mike julianelle
6.13.05 @ 9:02a

Yes he did, good call. I actually edited out a paragraph that mentioned Born on the 4th as evidence of movies in which his character did drugs. I think that's the definition of hypocrite.

sandra thompson
6.13.05 @ 9:23a

As much as I love Tom's work, I just have to say that religion --- any frigging religion --- is the opiate of the people. That's the only think Marx got right, IMFO.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Steven Weinberg, PhD



tracey kelley
6.13.05 @ 9:53a

Is Nicole Kidman a Scientologist?

If not, that would explain a lot.

mike julianelle
6.13.05 @ 10:00a

I was wondering that too as I wrote this, and no, I don't think she is.

russ carr
6.13.05 @ 10:21a

She's a devout Catholic.

heather millen
6.13.05 @ 11:10a

Religious differences were among the culprits listed in their divorce.

Lucky lady, breaking free from that, if you ask me.

mike julianelle
6.13.05 @ 11:11a

Seriously, this guy is a lunatic these days. It's bizarre.

mike julianelle
6.13.05 @ 2:36p

It's happening!

The takeover begins!

russ carr
6.13.05 @ 2:38p

Argh. You beat me to it.

The former Catholic and star of television's "Dawson's Creek" grew up with a poster of Cruise on her bedroom wall and has said she grew up wanting to marry him.

"We all keep dreaming, and luckily, dreams come true," Holmes said.

Wow. Guess by that logic, I should see if Cheryl Tiegs, Catherine Bach or Lynda Carter is on the market.

mike julianelle
6.13.05 @ 2:40p

I was just thinking the same thing! What hubris! "Luckily, dreams come true."

NO THEY DON'T, you spoiled bitch!

dan gonzalez
6.13.05 @ 8:23p

Apparantly Madonna is building a Kaballah hotel.

I'm looking for all-out sectarian, loony-cult jihad between these two!

The scientologists seem stronger, but Madge would own Tommy boy.

lisa r
6.13.05 @ 8:25p

Cruise has gone 'round the bend. I would have been interested in seeing War of the Worlds if he wasn't starring in it. Casting Cruise cost the studio his salary and my 8 or 9 bucks. Casting religious fanatics is never a good idea. They rub too many people the wrong way.

Besides, how can a Cruise movie top Orson Welles' radio broadcast?

robert melos
6.13.05 @ 11:22p

I would still see his films, just like I would still listen to Michael Jackson music (if I even liked his music) because of the art/genre, not because of the person. There's nothing wrong with his finding fullfillment in his religion, what is wrong with any belief is the need to convert the masses. Acceptance of everyone as they are is the only path to real happiness. It ain't gonna happen in our world.

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 8:09a

They rub too many people the wrong way.


When these actors get so unbelievably wealthy, all kinds of things magically happen to them. They think their opinions mean something and they think that by visiting Africa that the HIV problem will be helped.





[edited]

mike julianelle
6.14.05 @ 8:59a

Melos, a few things. A) Scientology isn't a religion, it's a scam. Sure, lots if not all religions are scams, but some at least have the benefit (dubious tho it may be) of having been around for thousands of years. Plus, they actually do some stuff that might be considered humanitarian or beneficial. Scientology started as a business ("The fastest way to make a millio dollars is to start your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard) but thrives on intimidation. Tom is entitled to believe whatever he wants, but don't legitimize a cult b calling it a religion; the only reason they are a "church" is so they get tax exemptions.

jael mchenry
6.14.05 @ 9:33a

They think their opinions mean something and they think that by visiting Africa that the HIV problem will be helped.

Well, what's wrong with that? Not that a Pitt visit alone will solve the crisis, but if it brings more attention to a problem most Americans probably weren't thinking about before, isn't there a chance that could help?

juli mccarthy
6.14.05 @ 9:52a

There's a very fine line between a celebrity who uses his fame to advance his cause; and a celebrity who uses a cause to advance his fame. I tend to give them all the benefit of the doubt.

stacy smith
6.14.05 @ 9:56a

They think their opinions mean something and they think that by visiting Africa that the HIV problem will be helped.

Well, what's wrong with that? Not that a Pitt visit alone will solve the crisis, but if it brings more attention to a problem most Americans probably weren't thinking about before, isn't there a chance that could help?

Tell that to the 2 million Ethiopian's that were slaughted after the last Farm Aid. Millions of dollars were raised and the only people that saw the cash was the goverment.

Then they want to do it again? Nothing like wanting a Fat Cat Communist alittle fatter.

One problem with celebs is people treat them like Gods. Hence they get all cocky and think they can say anything they want and everybody will suck it up as fact. While this may be true in many cases, some of us do reserve the right to think beyond the TV or movie screen.

I love Mel Gibson, but I think he needs a really hard slap to the head. He carried on for months about how all his movies prior to The Passion didn't have any meaning and were crap. It wasn't a year later and he had another "Shoot'em Up" movie coming out. WTF??

mike julianelle
6.14.05 @ 10:37a

Someone read my post above and got angry enough to email me, having read between the lines and decided that I think all religions/cults except Scientology are fantastic, innocent institutions that do nothing but good. This person has obviously not read any of my other columns.

I am of the opinion that religion is probably the most dangerous concept on the planet, as Sandra's quote from Dr. Weinberg above illustrates. But it's not often that we get to live through the inception of a religion, watch it gain strength and in some ways credibility (through funding and litigation and intimidation, sure, but they have money), and witness it progress, perhaps to become a major force in the future. And I think we have a responsibility to try and call such organizations out.

Just because Scientology hasn't organized some kind of mass-suicide doesn't mean they aren't dangerous; it is insidious, and the last thing we need is another "religion" with its own destructive agenda gaining a foothold in the world.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 11:32a

I agree with Stacy. Poverty/AIDS type of problems in the third world cannot be solved via wealth redistribution as long as the governments involved are totally screwed up. That's just media/celebrity inspired guilt that makes people think that, and it's futile.

Religion is dangerous, but the scary fact is that almost everybody is, in fact, religious, whether they know it or not, and whether they go to a house of worship/ritual or not. I'm always less scared of people who know they are religious and admit it. People who skin out by saying they are not religious, but are innocuous supporters of secular, social engineering programs to further the common good are way more dangerous, and I can cite 30 Million Chinese, 25 Million Russians, and at least 5 Million SE Asians who were exterminated because they opposed communism to support it.

eva suzuki
6.14.05 @ 11:39a

Questions for Mike:

1. Why did you pee your pants? (I've heard that Travolta is the nicest guy in the world.)

2. I haven't read the NY Times article. Who were the executives that were named?

3. Where did you read that L Ron Hubbard said he could cure blindness with his mind.

Thanks!

Eva Suzuki

jael mchenry
6.14.05 @ 11:50a

Poverty/AIDS type of problems in the third world cannot be solved via wealth redistribution as long as the governments involved are totally screwed up. That's just media/celebrity inspired guilt that makes people think that, and it's futile.

But what are we supposed to do? Change the governments ourselves? Did everyone sit around after the tsunami and say "You know, most of this stuff probably won't make it to the people who really need it, so screw it, I'll just blow this cash on whores?"

It's unfortunate, but there's no better solution that I see, other than ignoring the world's problems.

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 11:51a

You know, most of this stuff probably won't make it to the people who really need it, so screw it, I'll just blow this cash on whores?"

You know, Jael, your ideas make some great sense at times!! :)

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 1:21p

Beautiful, if all the Sudanese rape victims were paid prostitutes, everything would be fine. We must all travel there and donate to the cause!

But no, there is a difference between solving economic catastrophe from a disaster with money versus trying to cure personal/political behavioral problems with money, particularly when the latter involves creating bureaucracies which are unproductive cost centers. The problem being, it don't work. And it hasn't work. I'm for some debt relief, and helping them arate their land or otherwise become productive, but charity is a collection of short-term bandaids that are gonna be largely wasted, long-term, they'll still be screwed.

That is, screwed until they get 'clear' and properly battle the Thetans that are spiritually ravaging Africa. Keep Pitt at home, send them Cruise!

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 2:07p

I'm with Gonzalez. We need to help them help themselves, not just give blind charity.

Trying to cure AIDS in Africa won't be done by Bono talking about it. Sorry, folks. We can't even afford to pay for HIV medication for the people living in the USA! How can we do anything for Africa?

jael mchenry
6.14.05 @ 2:14p

Right, but paying for HIV meds in the US and paying for HIV meds in Africa have nothing to do with each other bureaucratically, only philosophically.

I'm not saying we should just ship a crate of gold bars off to Ghana or Rwanda or Zimbabwe without asking questions. I'm talking about supporting programs, such as AIDS education or the Peace Corps. If talking about AIDS in Africa makes some lady in Utah find the name of an AIDS education organization and send them $5, well, that's $5 they wouldn't have seen but for Bono or Brad Pitt.

I'd much rather see actors out there doing this rather than building statues of themselves or just partying until they vomit on Lindsay Lohan's shoes.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 2:49p

What do AIDS meds do, though? Do they cure it and stop it from spreading? No. I think they let people who have it live longer while costing a lot of money is about it.

jael mchenry
6.14.05 @ 2:51p

AIDS education, dude, I said it twice. Teach a man to catch a fish, or how not to catch it, as the case may be.

dathan wood
6.14.05 @ 3:05p

You just brought this back to a religious issue. Since the old pope kept telling them condoms were the devil, there was no not catching HIV in Africa. That’s a pretty good example of religion as evil. Or at least fucking clueless.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 3:09p

I'm with you on that, dudette, but how much does it cost to teach people to wrap their rascals and quit using smack? A lot less than medicine and hospitalization costs for the consequences of not doing that, but if they don't listen, and they're obviously not, you're stuck with the latter. That's why it doesn't work here, where we have around 1 Million people infected now, much less in the third world. We're approaching 20 years of dealing with AIDS, and people STILL don't fucking get it.

mike julianelle
6.14.05 @ 3:14p

The new pope is saying the same things about condoms. GENIUS.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 3:16p

there was no not catching HIV in Africa.

Oh come on, about 17% of Africans are Catholic. Whose responsible for duping the other 83%?

dathan wood
6.14.05 @ 3:25p

The Mormons?

drew wright
6.14.05 @ 3:31p

I believe that the world with religion is no more dangerous than the world would be without it. However, this is what I believe, not what I think other people should or will believe. If we didn't find ways to hate people based on religious differences, we would find ways to hate them on racial, cultural and geographical differences.

It could be argued that many wars, killing millions of people have been attributed to religious differences. However, could it also be argued that the same number of people might have been killed if we did not possess the moral principles that are based on religious teachings.

Couldn't the seven deadly sins be considered more of a ploy to incite moral behavior than to illicit 10% of our yearly incomes. Eventually, I believe that the corruption of man destroys all religion, however, most religions seem to have been created to provide a moral foundation for the cultures of those times. Just one mans opinion.

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 3:41p

That's why it doesn't work here, where we have around 1 Million people infected now, much less in the third world. We're approaching 20 years of dealing with AIDS, and people STILL don't fucking get it.

People are still having "bareback parties" with anonymous people they met online. We have people who are actively TRYING to get HIV (bug chasers).

People don't see people dying of AIDS anymore like they did 15-20 years ago. People aren't scared. The rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia are still rising. But, we can make a difference in educating Africa. Right. In places, they don't have any FOOD, but we should remind them about using condoms.

dathan wood
6.14.05 @ 3:45p

Without condoms you get MORE people without food.

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 4:44p

I'm not saying we shouldn't at least try to educate. It's just that the message won't be heard well, especially if we can't get it to be heard here.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 5:02p

I also am not saying to not educate or give out rubbers, I'm just saying to quit thinking it's the end all be all and that everything would be fine if people like the Pope or other paternal white male Christians weren't oppressing everyone.

In order for people to live within their means, they must have their own means and not charity. The US already gives a ton of our tax money in foreign aid, but nothing changes except where people use it to take responsibility for themselves, as opposed to just using it up to pay for their continued irresponsibility.

jael mchenry
6.14.05 @ 5:03p

I think in a lot of places it is being heard here. Yes, there are still people who behave irresponsibly, especially now that the issue isn't on the front page all the time. But how much worse COULD the problem be? A lot. So, we should keep educating.

I read a great article a couple months back about a program in San Francisco, maybe in the New Yorker? The guy acknowledged how hard it is now that a lot of people are seeing that it's possible to live with HIV/AIDS for quite a while. And he said the popularity of crystal meth is contributing to tons of risky behavior.

robert melos
6.14.05 @ 6:07p

Without condoms you also get more sexually transmitted diseases.

So what exactly do Scientologists worship? Money? If it's called worshipping, then it is a religion. I acknowledge all religions, even the ones I am at direct opposites with, such as Muslim.

And the Mormons have only been a recognized religion for somewhere around 130 years or so, so why not have a religion based on becoming a millionaire? Most organized religions are all about the money anyway.

dan gonzalez
6.14.05 @ 6:09p

I agree it could be a little worse, but not a lot, and it seems to me that it could actually be better if whoever were getting the handouts were routinely examined for obvious signs of unsafe sex and drug use instead of just throwing money at everyone and praying that there's less assholes than there are, which is what we're doing now. The alternative seems to be to reward people who are basically saying "I can live a long time with AIDS on free money, so screw society."

I know it's harsh, but there's no help or hope for people like that, no happy endings. No one wants to turn their back on someone who has hope, but how many people are a waste of space on this theoretical lifeboat, how many don't care about anything, much less themselves, and why do they deserve to be saved at the expense of others?

david damsker
6.14.05 @ 8:42p

There is some unpublished data from here in NC that 80% of the HIV cases that were picked up in a recent outbreak were spread by people who already knew they were HIV positive but didn't tell their partners. We are now dealing with people who not only aren't using condoms, but who KNOWINGLY have HIV and still aren't using them. They should be shot.

stacy smith
6.14.05 @ 10:24p

But what are we supposed to do? Change the governments ourselves? Did everyone sit around after the tsunami and say "You know, most of this stuff probably won't make it to the people who really need it, so screw it, I'll just blow this cash on whores?"

It's unfortunate, but there's no better solution that I see, other than ignoring the world's problems.


Nobody is ignoring anything and comparing a natural disaster to a communist country is like comparing a German Tank to a Ford Escort.

My point was that just because somebody is a "star" doesn't make them a genius.

Ever really listen to some of the nonsense that comes out of these people's mouths? It's just scary.

What is even more scary is when you have a society that thinks these people have all the answers to everybodies problems.

How is one that is told what to say and how to "act" all day long supposed to teach Africans about HIV or AIDS? Sure they can go and talk about it as if they are some kind of expert as the people there won't know any different. But that doesn't fix the actual problem. It's just some big mouth trying to make themselves look good here in the States and in another country.

It's all about agenda's and money. I don't see Tom Cruise jumping on a plane,flying over to Iraq to preach Scientology there. If he thinks he's all that, let him deal with a snipers. Let's see just how much of his preaching "warms" the hearts of hostile Iraqies. He might live to talk about it.

The only thing newspapers and magazines are good for these days is lining my bird's cages with. I don't have the luxury of allowing my birds to poop on all the Tom Cruise's faces as the ink that is used is toxic.

Let Tom go on his little bender. When he starts losing fans and contracts, he'll get over it and find some other bandwagon to jump on, just like the rest of them.

[edited]

robert melos
6.14.05 @ 10:36p

While some famous people may be idiots, having a star name attached to a charity can greatly increase the amount of money that charity raises. Cruise may be a fanatic about his religion/cult/belief system, but his name recognition can be used for other things if he chooses.

Speaking of star power, as I post this I'm reading the crawl at the bottom of CNN and I see Sean Penn will be covering the Iranian elections for a California paper.

lisa r
6.15.05 @ 8:18a

AIDS education, dude, I said it twice. Teach a man to catch a fish, or how not to catch it, as the case may be.

There's a catch to that, no pun intended. A big part of the problem with well-intended education programs on birth control and disease control is that many of the people doing the education suffer from an inability to really connect with their audience.

There was a case where some "westerners" went in to one of the poorer African countries and tried to teach men to use condoms to help control birth rates. The problem was, they used a banana to demonstrate how to put the condom on. Someone went back later and discovered no change in birth rates--because the men were still putting condoms on bananas instead of using them as intended.

Modelling condom use with a banana is great if the people in the audience understand that the banana is a model--but in many cases the concept of modelling as a teaching tool goes over someone's head if they've never had exposure to such a teaching technique. I think people who put together these programs mean well, they just don't do their homework beforehand to learn how to connect with the people they're trying to help.

On that note, I'd suggest that it's inaccurate to tar all celebrity do-gooders with the same brush. Audrey Hepburn did truly meaningful work for UNICEF for many years. Angelina Jolie seems to be headed in that same direction.

As for religion being dangerous---religion is like a weapon. It all depends on who's wielding it as to whether or not it's dangerous. L. Ron Hubbard is just the 20th-21st century's P. T. Barnum. Except Hubbard has figured out how to sucker the Hollywood glitterati into doing his marketing for him.


dan gonzalez
6.15.05 @ 10:57a

The looming question is, what did they do with the bananas after the condoms were on them? They must have thought "This sucks, the West is insane!" ala The Gods Must Be Crazy.. So I refer to the hookers above. Time to bring in the pro's and show them how it's done.

As for religion, I think Lisa and Drew up above made good points. Religion has done a lot of good in the world, and it is certain types of individual, like those that become terrorists, or abortion clinic bombers, or Israeli vigilantes, or KKKers or whatever, that make it dangerous by commiting heinous acts in the name of it.

david damsker
6.15.05 @ 1:05p

Someone went back later and discovered no change in birth rates--because the men were still putting condoms on bananas instead of using them as intended.

No wonder my wife is pregnant! I put that condom on the penis model exactly like they said evey time we did it.

stacy smith
6.15.05 @ 4:47p

No wonder my wife is pregnant! I put that condom on the penis model exactly like they said evey time we did it.

LMAO!


mike julianelle
6.17.05 @ 8:53a

Cruise popped the question!

How is this news? And yeah, alerting the world when you propose really makes it seem LESS like a publicity stunt and more like the real thing.

dan gonzalez
6.18.05 @ 9:50a

Can't we just be happy for them? He's in love with her and so fired up about it that he can't contain himself and has to launch himself off furniture on Oprah. I think it's cute.

lisa r
6.19.05 @ 11:03a

Can't we just be happy for them? He's in love with her and so fired up about it that he can't contain himself and has to launch himself off furniture on Oprah. I think it's cute.

Hmmm..let's see.

1)Impressionable man brainwashed by pseudoreligious leader.

2)Impressionable man makes very public criticism of fellow actor for taking anti-depressants for a condition which he himself will never experience.

3)Impressionable man meets impressionable young woman on set of movie and proceeds to romance her.

4) Impressionable man brainswashes impressionable girl into believing in same pseudoreligion he believes in.

5)Impressionable man and woman get engaged in a very public manner on the Eiffel Tower after very short relationship.

6)Impressionable man and woman make sure very public engagement announced during same time both individuals have new movies released.

Nope.

[edited]

tracey kelley
6.22.05 @ 11:17a

"Nope" sez Lisa.

Heh.

mike julianelle
6.24.05 @ 1:20p

This guy is NUTS!

Check out this transcript of his latest appearance on TV:

Gotta hand it to Lauer! Way to fight back!

tracey kelley
6.24.05 @ 1:41p

Wow - that's actually kind of sad. On one hand, I agree with Cruise in that many people over-medicate themselves and some drugs are harmful, even "prescribed" ones, but jeeeeeez, this Scientology thing is getting out of control.

russ carr
6.24.05 @ 2:05p

I just read the Lauer interview, rushed here to post it. SNAP! So, this is what you do in your down time, eh, Maverick? Study the history of psychology and medical tests of pharmaceuticals? What a renaissance man. Did you invent the Internet, too?

Mister, you just hung an invisible "Whack Job" sign around your neck.

mike julianelle
6.24.05 @ 2:34p

Seriously. "You don't know what you're talking about. I do."

What an ass! But I still think War of the Worlds looks AWESOME.

drew wright
6.24.05 @ 8:01p

I was reading an article about scientology and ritalin today. It was written pre-Cruise ramblings. Of coarse the article was a little biased, but it does make some really good points about how scientology has almost single handedly caused the controversy about over medication. That almost all lawsuits fought over Ritalin overuse have been prosecuted by Scientology members. Also that one of the lead groups in trying to ban Ritalin usage is a L. Ron Hubbard founded institution back in the 60's.

It also says some great stuff about how scientologists believe the link between ritalin prescribing and pychologists can help completely discredit the profession. It also had a quote by L. Ron Hubbard saying that, (loose quote)"If phsychologist had the ability to kill people, they would take it" Not in the exact words cause I could not find the column, but the general gist of his statement.

lisa r
6.26.05 @ 11:27a

Are they saying psychologists are prescribing ritalin? Psychologists DON'T prescribe ritalin. They aren't MDs and legally can't. Only people with medical licenses can prescribe medicine by law.

As for Cruise reading scientific articles and pronouncing judgment--what a joke. No educational background in science, no educational background in experimental design, no educational background in statistics--yet he deems himself qualified to determine whether the science is sound? Oh boy, would my colleagues and I have a field day in a round table discussion with him.

Unfortunately, NBC probably won't bother to bring anyone who is TRULY qualified to discuss the science on to refute him. Better yet, put him on one of these news interview shows with a group of scientists and show how foolish he really is. However, that would make too much sense, and as we know, television journalism is about ratings, not education.


[edited]

russ carr
6.26.05 @ 1:33p

Ah, to the contrary, Lisa. I think having a panel of psychiatrists (who can prescribe drugs) and psychologists (who can't) and clinicians vs. Tom Cruise would make for blockbuster television.

lisa r
6.26.05 @ 4:18p

Yes, but you are an intelligent, rational being. Booking agents for news shows are not.

mike julianelle
6.27.05 @ 12:50p

Defamer has some snark about all this, and it looks like Salon is running a series that deals with the premise of my column , re: Cruise's suddenly vocal stance on Scientology.

The defamer link is here, and it includes the link to the Salon articles.



Intrepid Media is built by Intrepid Company and runs on Dash