Not everyone, it seems, shared hecklerspray's reaction to the recent Tom Cruise Scientology video (which happened to be a mixture of hilarity and genuine fear, particularly when he burst into the sort of laughter you'd expect from a Lord Of The Rings baddie. Or maybe Xenu himself).
A lot of Hollywood-types are getting mightily annoyed that the media has been poking fun at a pompous, overpaid millionaire with Christ-like delusions of grandeur and eyes so scary they should have their own Japanese horror franchise.
Major US magazine People has rounded up a bunch of celebrities who want to let the whole world – or just soccer moms thumbing through a copy at the checkout – just how goshdarn annoyed they are.
Among those branding this charade a 'sickening backlash' are Adam Sandler, Dustin Hoffman, Ben Stiller, Bruce Willis, Jim Carrey and Demi Moore. We're sure Katie Holmes would love to have chipped in too, but apparently she was too busy being shipped off to Hubbard Camp for yet more re-education.
Sorry. We meant to say 'shopping'. She was busy 'shopping'.
It hasn't just been the aforementioned video that's been irritating the Cruiser of late. Biographer Andrew Morton has released a controversial new book about Tommy-boy, which makes all sorts of sensational allegations, the most shocking of which states that – yes – he actually did think Days Of Thunder was a film worth making.
Professional gurner Adam Sandler yakked that:
"To see anyone's private life invaded and mocked like this is sickening. It's especially gross when it happens to a guy like Cruise, who's a great dad, a great husband and a great friend."
Dustin Hoffman, meanwhile, reckons that:
"Tom Cruise is an American and has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
And Ben Stiller really doesn't like those rumours about Katie Holmes being knocked up by an old cult leader:
"Imagine
having a baby and people talking about it the way they did. People lose
sight of the fact that Tom Cruise is actually a person. I feel for him."
The most baffling thing about all of this, however, is that no-one has used the really obvious defence: wouldn't you be a little mixed-up if your soul had been trapped in a volcano millions of years ago?
Honestly, from the way some people are talking, you'd start to think that Tom Cruise was some emotionally needy, none-too-bright narcissist who'd latched onto a con-job fake religion in order to deal with a number of troubling personal issues.
Which is obviously untrue.
Read More:
ADAM SANDLER – STARS DEFEND 'GREAT DAD' CRUISE – Contactmusic
gir says
I’m going to take issue with Mr. Stiller’s obvious problem with the facts in this case: Tom Cruise is NOT a person. He’s a cyborg created by Scientology Scienticians in order to spread Scientology’s message of DESTROY ALL HUMANS DESTROY ALL HUMANS
mel says
You should re-name this article: List of celebrities who are terrified of Scientologists!
Emily says
Dustin Hoffman — here’s the thing. I am also an American with those same rights and freedoms, and if I want to express them by calling Tom Cruise a pompous jackass, I will.
Lilian says
I am glad these celebs are not as idiotic as an average blogger. Then again, they are neither and angry at any one who seems better than them.
anonymust says
Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology
by Kevin Victor Anderson, Q.C.
Published 1965 by the State of Victoria, Australia
Scientology offers a ready refuge for those who are uncertain of their future and who are afraid to face reality and cope with the problems of life.
They use well recognized means which acknowledge that the abilities which are being developed are innate to, and involve the development in, the individuals concerned of an awareness of their potential powers and a justifiable confidence in
themselves. In the personal efficiency course, something of this nature is dabbled in, not, however, as the end, but as the means of deliberately trapping people for further processing and training.
Scientology techniques begin with a preclear who is well aware that he is to be “processed”, and the circumstance that he does not know that the process, which is called by a non-hypnotic name, is in reality a hypnotic process is quite immaterial. The name has no significance to the preclear, but the process remains hypnotic by whatever name it is called.
The preclear then, expecting to be “processed”, finds that his processing commences, as Hubbard directs it shall commence, with solemn and strict ritual. After some standard preliminary questions such as, “Is it alright if I audit you in this room?” and “Is it alright if we start the session now?” an auditing session in scientology processing starts with an unvarying routine. When the assent of the preclear has been received to these preliminary questions, the auditor then commences the session with a loudly uttered, “Start of session.” In the demonstration auditing sessions which the Board witnessed, the statement, “Start of session”, was spoken in a loud sharp tone, quite at variance with the rest of the speech of the auditor and was evidently designed to impress upon the preclear that now he and the auditor had embarked on the really serious part of the business.
Such a dramatic and startling procedure conditions the already expectant preclear for the exercises or events which follow and is incontrovertibly that of authoritative hypnosis. The preclear is expecting to be “taken in hand”, to use a neutral expression, and that is just what the auditor does, and that is what a hypnotist practising authoritative hypnosis would likewise do. The Board heard expert psychiatric evidence to the effect that a person who is so expectant is a very ready subject for hypnosis; it was said that a hypnotic condition could be induced in some patients merely by telling them to lie on the couch on which they had lain on a previous occasion when under hypnosis, and that even the entry into a room in which previously they had been under. hypnosis may be sufficient to return some people to hypnosis. In scientology, where processing goes on day after day, the return to the same auditor and to the same place and to the same ritual would readily predispose the expectant preclear to submission to scientology’s hypnotic techniques and to a return to the hypnotic state which these circumstances commemorate.
It was apparent that several of the witnesses who claimed to have received benefits from scientology were looking forward to further processing to sustain the illusion of well-being. Repeated bouts of processing were necessary to maintain the attitude of blindness to reality which preclears appeared to have. They were sustained in their elated condition by the acceptance of the theories which Hubbard taught as to thetans, past lives, implants, immortal destiny and the ultimate goals of being clear and OT. They were as uncritical of the unreality of these things as they were of the weird and fanciful world in which scientology allowed them to move. Indeed, they are the tragic figures of scientology, these unfortunate creatures whose apparent happiness and confidence are resting on such uncertain props, for when the props go, as eventually they must, the realization of the extent and nature of their deception will be quite shattering.
At the beginning of the Inquiry, the HASI hailed the appointment of the Board with great jubilation, proclaiming that the Inquiry would completely vindicate scientology and dianetics. In fact, Hubbard went so far as to declare that the Board had been appointed in response to scientology’s demands. The HASI appeared to co-operate in the Inquiry by being represented
before the Board and by complying with requests by the Board for literature and the like. It readily provided facilities for counsel assisting the Board, the Board secretary and an audit officer to examine its records. It presented a number of demonstration sessions of scientology auditing for the instruction of the Board and also provided facilities for the playing of a selection of Hubbard’s taped lectures.
It was, however, noticeable that, as the inquiry proceeded, the general attitude of the scientology interests, while appearing to be helpful and informative, tended sometimes to cloud and confuse issues by too great attention to non-essentials and extremely lengthy expositions of certain aspects of scientology. Later reflection suggests the probability that this approach was deliberate and was really designed, notwithstanding the apparent readiness to co-operate, to so exhaust the patience of the Board or so overwhelm it with minute detail that it would be persuaded against prolonging the Inquiry until the conclusion of all relevant evidence.
The HASI sought to present scientology as a benign regimen, broadcasting health, happiness and sanity in the most pleasant of ways, kindly, helpful, simple, easy, noble. It was none of these. The evidence the Board heard and the files it examined give the lie to such claims. The attempt to play down scientology became more apparent as the Inquiry proceeded, efforts being made to disguise or modify the various features and effects of processes, which were shown by expert psychiatric evidence to be detrimental to mental health. The Board was told that various procedures were not now used, that others were not as long or as intense as had earlier appeared, that exteriorization was not now an objective, that past lives were not of importance, even that the demonstration sessions which had been conducted at the beginning of the Inquiry were not now as fully representative as they had been because the emphasis was now more on “overt withholds” than on “straight wire ARC”.
The Board was not deceived by these attempts to present a “watered down” picture of scientology. Just around the corner are more of Hubbard’s “breakthroughs”, and more techniques and theories. The bulletins and other written material of 1963 and 1964 abound in details of engram running, goals-problems-mass and a multitude of other past life matters. The Board voiced the view during the Inquiry, as it does now, that once this Inquiry is finished there will be a resurgence of all the pernicious activity which marked the progress of scientology up to the appointment of this Board, if only it can find sufficient victims to exploit.
The likelihood is that scientology is planning to extend, if it has not already done so, to new areas. It is important, in the Board’s view, that the public be repeatedly warned of the dangers to mental health of psychological techniques practised by unqualified persons.
Many of the theories and teachings of scientology are so fanciful that the reaction of the normal individual on hearing them is generally one of amusement and incredulity. On this account, the impression may exist in the community that scientology is just harmless nonsense and its followers merely queer people? that its theories are foolish but funny and that not much harm is being done by allowing silly people to have their silly beliefs and carry on their silly practices. Such an attitude is welcomed by the scientologists, for it serves to obscure the real nature of scientology. A tolerant “live and let live” attitude is what scientologists fervently desire, for it is on the inertia of the community, generated by tolerance and polite disinterest, that scientology thrives.
Hubbard is well aware of the value to him and his organization of good-natured tolerance and incredulity, and he trades on it. In HCO Bull. of the 29th July, 1963, he writes,
“Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single asset. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble. There’s actual terror in the breast of a guilty person at the thought of OT, and without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now its too late to be stopped. This protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed. Remember that next time the ignorant scoff.”
Tolerance of the beliefs of another, however silly they may seem to be, is one thing. Inaction, when the practice of those beliefs is positively harmful to others and may be permanently damaging, is quite another thing. The damage done and likely to be done by the practice of scientology is alarming and if this Report fails to make clear the great danger to the mental health of the community which scientology has been and is, the appointment of the Board will have been in vain.
Lilian says
Anonymust, stop finding excuses for your bigotry. Those are the smae things mormons preach and Jehovas witnesses refuse to give blood and people die. Let Tom Cruise be.
gina says
Good to see people with hearts.
Dreamwalker says
Dustin Hoffman, meanwhile, reckons that:
“Tom Cruise is an American and has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
Yeah, and so does everyone else have the right to freedom of speech, etc. It’s a two way street. Anyway Scientology is not a religion – it’s a cult. And I have a right to that opinion, and to express it.
Jill says
It is DISGUSTING the way bloggers, internet, media, etc have attacked Tom Cruise when he is at his most vulnerable. What happened to common decency? It that understood by the H community?? Or are they so bent on claiming one as their “own” they completely lose all decorum, manners and decency and discretion!! For shame!! BTW: I am NOT a scientologist, have no relation to Tom Cruise, etc. But the glaring lack of human DECENCY is truly appalling and depressing. BACK THE F OFF!