Will Smith says NO to Scientology.

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']But why would I care? He's just an actor. All I care about is if he's good in movies.[/QUOTE]

Well then, I'm totally with you. I still like Mel Gibson's movies and Roman Polanski has some good stuff out as well. Though if I were Jewish, or had my child been abused I may feel like I shoudn't be supporting them.

It's a tough line to cross at times, that's all. More about supporting the craft, not the person.

Edited to thank Joe2187
 
He's FRIENDS with Tom Cruise?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I still don't get whats wrong with scientology. Its a religion like any other. Sure it sounds crazy, but most religions probably sound crazy if we had never been exposed to it before.
 
I boycott Tom Cruise because of what he said about anti-depressants and the people that are on them. It's his beliefs that made him say what he said and it OFFENDED ME. I am one of those people that takes those meds. Its not a religion. It's a cult.
 
[quote name='Strell']
There's also the nasty aspect of several people turning up dead after they speak out against Scientology, during which law enforcement always passes it off as a suicide.[/quote]
Careful Strell, don't say too much on these forums.....Scientology has powerful friends...

xboxtowel.jpg
 
If it's anyone's personal policy to "boycott" movies featuring any actor (or director, producer, etc) who has an opinion/belief/whatever that they disagree with or find offensive, well then you're probably not going to be able to see many movies. I'm sure that, if you look a little, that you'll find that on practically any movie you can name, there is at least one cast or crew member who has an opinion/belief/whatever that you strongly disagree with or find offensive.

The fact that Tom Cruise's "offensive" beliefs are just particularly well publicized shouldn't make such a huge difference.
 
CheapyD isn't advancing in Scientology at all. He's waiting for B2G1 deals, and those are very rare.

Lord Xenu puts Gamestop to shame.
 
How many posts will CoffeeEdge make before he convinces us all how little he cares? :lol:

[quote name='BluesCluesMama']I boycott Tom Cruise because of what he said about anti-depressants and the people that are on them. It's his beliefs that made him say what he said and it OFFENDED ME. I am one of those people that takes those meds. Its not a religion. It's a cult.[/QUOTE]

More or less. Scientology has disdain for psychology/psychiatric practice and the AMA because they wouldn't stand behind a program and technique as empirically unverifiable as dianetic therapy. Hubbard was mad that his views weren't legitimized in medial science, so he declared opposition to them. Much like he declared war against Paulette Cooper and the CIA in the form of Operation Freakout and Operation Snow White.

I resent Scientology for the lack of openness it offers as a religion. I don't admire much Christianity, but at least you know the basic plot (Jesus died for our sins) before you join the club. Scientology is a series of incremental revelations that are contingent upon providing enough money (or volunteer services) to the CoS in order to get to Operating Thetan Level III where you learn about Xenu and the origins of the planet according to the faith. Not only are you prohibited from learning it prior to 'graduating' to that level, if you inquire about it to an OTIII or higher, they are supposed to lie to you, to deny the Xenu story and its basis in the doctrine. Are other religions that secretive about their origin stories?

I resent its tax exempt status, but for different reasons that I resent the tax exempt status of religion in general. In the case of religions, its because they should be taxed; in the case of Scientology, it's a Ponzi scheme with a dogma behind it, so it is a business operating as a 'religion' in order to avoid scrutiny/taxation.

I resent the communication means that Scientologists learn that emphasize attacking instead of debate, but not as much as I resent how easily opponents of Scientology fall for such a simple matter.

Jon Atack's "A Piece of Blue Sky" is a fantastic book that discusses the origins of L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics, the Church of Scientology, the scandals of the 1970's and 80's, and the transition of power and reorganization centered around David Miscavige.

There's many, many things to dislike about the CoS, and while in hundreds of indirect ways, I'm sure money I've spent has gone to the CoS in the form of a paycheck to someone - I won't see a movie with Cruise in it; I won't buy a Beck album; I won't watch Greta Van Susteren. None of these things are hard for me at all, and I don't think of myself as being particularly principled and taking a righteous stand. I simply don't like Scientology in the slightest, I believe it to be beyond false, and very dangerous. As a result, I not only don't like to give money to a known Scientologist, but would be very averse to giving it to someone who is a public Scientologist, who promotes their belief system very publicly.

It's just something I don't do. I'm not so dense as to be solely concerned with only the entertainment value of a product. At the same time, what am I missing out on? Battlefield Earth? Mission Impossible? That's not exactly making me into a martyr. Even if I didn't make the decision to not see this or that based on the participants, it's likely that due to circumstance I wouldn't see these movies or give my money to these people.
 
That was kinda my point. I *do* technically go out of my way to avoid supporting public Scientologists, but I've never really felt any pangs of regret over that. Like a sort of "awww, man, I really wanted to watch that one show with that one guy" feeling.
 
When I was living in Chicago, I remember reading about a government organization there which monitors Cult activity in the US. The agency lists the Church of Scientology as a (non-dangerous)cult because you have to pay money to go up the ranks of enlightenment (There is a separate category for dangerous cults)

The person who runs the organization was the subject of the article. She mentioned that many 'Stealth' Scientologist member tried to apply for a job in that office- Perhaps these people want to sabotage some of the records in the office.

Now this was several years ago I read this article so I don't know if this government agency still exists.



EDIT: Here is something interesting!!

Apparently it was called the CAN (Cult Awareness Network).

The CAN filed for bankruptcy and the Scientologist took over the organzation (that is if this Wikipedia entry is valid)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network

Here is the entry for the CAN when I rememebered it:

The CAN predecessor, CFF, was founded in the wake of the 1978 Jonestown mass suicides, and was run for a time by Patricia Ryan, the daughter of US Congressman Leo J. Ryan (D-Millbrae, California), who died from gunfire while investigating conditions at the Jonestown cult compound in Guyana. CAN evolved out of the Citizens Freedom Foundation, of which Ted Patrick was "the prime force in organizing."[5] The organization was originally headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The "Old CAN" collected information on many controversial organizations and religious movements. Actor Mike Farrell was one of the members of the board of advisors of the "Old CAN", and Dr. Edward Lottick served as president.[6][7] In 1990, the Cult Awareness Network established the "John Gordon Clark Fund", in honor of psychiatrist John G. Clark, who had given testimony about Scientology and other groups.[8][9] The fund was established to assist former members of destructive cults.[9] By 1991, the Cult Awareness Network had twenty-three chapters dedicated to monitoring two hundred groups that it referred to as: "mind control cults."[10]
The "Old CAN" also became the subject of controversy. Galen Kelly and Donald Moore, both of whom were convicted in the course of carrying out 'deprogramming', are linked to the "Old CAN" by detractors Anson Shupe and Susan E. Darnell.[11] Opponents of the "Old CAN" charge that it deliberately provided a distorted picture of the groups it tracked. They claimed it was "a Chicago-based national anticult organization claiming to be purely a tax-exempt informational clearinghouse on new religions."[11] In 1991, Time magazine quoted then CAN director Cynthia Kisser in its article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power." Kisser stated: "Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members."[10] This quote has since been referenced verbatim in other secondary sources discussing Scientology.[12][13]

After that, Apparently Scientology took over the organization
 
As i understand it, churches aren't taxed because of the separation of church and state. To tax churches would link them to the government.
 
[quote name='AngellicLulu']I totally respect Will Smith more. I have the same beliefs on religion. My religion is my own and my beliefs are my own. They may overlap here and there with certain religions but I don't fall into some category.[/quote]

Same here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']More or less. Scientology has disdain for psychology/psychiatric practice and the AMA because they wouldn't stand behind a program and technique as empirically unverifiable as dianetic therapy. Hubbard was mad that his views weren't legitimized in medial science, so he declared opposition to them.[/quote]

Some history too - early on Hubbard was involved in the foundation of a chapter of Alistair Crowley's Thelemic chapter (basically occult) in the US (Crowley eventually discredited their chapter) and Hubbard stole the money, boat and gf of his co-founder. Crowley had a legit beef with psychiatry of the day as christians often threw ppl with non-mainstream beliefs in the slammer with little justification (eg Ida Craddock in her 19th century witch trial). Hubbard always maintained he was Crowley's successor (not true, like many of his lies) and being the paranoid psychizophrenic he was, he declared eternal war against psychiatry (even though the science has become much more progressive since that time)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How many posts will CoffeeEdge make before he convinces us all how little he cares? :lol:[/QUOTE]
Uh, what?

I wasn't trying to prove how little I care. I made a statement about that, and it was all counter-points and vaguely related discussion past that. What I was most recently saying is that anyone boycotting Tom Cruise movies because they find his beliefs offensive would probably, if they looked, find offensive beliefs from at least one cast or crew member of every movie ever made. Those are entirely different things.

Damn, dude, I just can't be level-headed and on-topic enough for you, can I?
 
[quote name='dastly75']Same goes for Tom Cruise; he may have a crazy life if you follow up on celebrity media stalkers but he's still a respectable actor .[/quote]

His last few movies have been terrible.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']His last few movies have been terrible.[/quote]

Which ones are you talking about? I liked Collateral, MI:3, and War of the Worlds (I would agree that Last Samurai was terrible)
 
[quote name='dastly75']Same goes for Tom Cruise; he may have a crazy life if you follow up on celebrity media stalkers but he's still a respectable actor .[/quote]

Respectable? Sure. Good? That's debatable. :whistle2:#
 
[quote name='camoor']Which ones are you talking about? I liked Collateral, MI:3, and War of the Worlds (I would agree that Last Samurai was terrible)[/quote]

You named two of them: War of the Worlds and MI:3.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Yall should Google "Operation Freakout" and "Operation Snow White."

Tons of fun.[/QUOTE]

That's how they know where their enemies are.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']You named two of them: War of the Worlds and MI:3.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he named three. Collateral was outstanding, if you ask me.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']You named two of them: War of the Worlds and MI:3.[/quote]

Never saw Lions for Lambs or The Last Samurai but I thought the other recent ones were good to great(Collateral). I really enjoyed his performance in Magnolia.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Actually, he named three. Collateral was outstanding, if you ask me.[/quote]

All Michael Mann movies are outstanding, or at least vastly superior to the average action movie (in reference to plot, not explosions).
 
I could give a shit whether an actor is a Scientologist or not; if I enjoy their acting then that's what I'm concerned about.
 
bread's done
Back
Top