Scientology

[doc]

Scientology's hero strikes again!

NEW YORK - Tom Cruise has made an unusual purchase for his fiancee Katie Holmes — one that will let them see the development of their baby.

“I bought a sonogram machine,” Cruise says on ABC’s “Barbara Walters Presents: The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2005,” to air Nov. 29 (10 p.m. ET). Excerpts of the interview are published in the latest issue of People magazine, on newsstands Friday.

The 43-year-old actor said the couple will do their own sonograms, which show fetus development with ultrasound waves. Cruise said he will donate the machine to a hospital after the baby is born. Sonogram machines range in cost from $25,000 to $200,000.

From MSNBC

Maybe, while he's not using it on Katie, he could put it on his head and see if there's anything inside.

[Steve]

Tom, Katie, Britney, Christina, Jessica and Nick, MJ all SUCK.

Entertainment news has been really weird lately, “Angelina Jolie visits quake-ravaged Pakistan”, “Britney Spears has a baby”, ”Christina Aguilera gets married”, “Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears Friends Again?”, “Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey split up”, Michael Jackson says, “Jews are like leeches” and Tom Cruise has bought a ultrasound machine for his pregnant actress fiancé Katie Holmes. WHY the hell do we or should we care about the lives of these fricken people?? They make too much money for what they really do. Being some sort of star gives them a bizarre power to think that what they do in their lives effects everyone else. I really don’t care that Tom bought a ultrasound machine, but MJ making comments about Jews, he can keep his freakish ass in Dubai, UAE.

[Firbolg]

MJ making comments about Jews, he can keep his freakish ass in Dubai, UAE.

He'll be popular there now.. until he breaks some islamic law and they chop his hands off or something.

[doc]

Considering his tendencies and his past actions, it will be his bleached dick that gets the axe.

[doc]

LOS ANGELES - Tom Cruise may have survived a Martian attack in last year’s remake of “War of the Worlds,” but he has failed to elude Hollywood’s movie police.The actor was among the contenders announced Monday for the annual Razzie Awards, which “honor” the worst achievements in film.
Cruise will compete for the year’s worst actor award with Will Ferrell (“Bewitched,” “Kicking & Screaming”), Jamie Kennedy (”Son of the Mask”), Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (”Doom”) and Rob Schneider (”Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo”). MSNBC

Well, at least he's in good company.

[doc]

GO SOUTH PARK!

Tom Cruise has a new “Mission” coming out soon, but right now, he's also get a new controversy on his hands.

The question at hand is, did Tom threaten to derail his own movie in order to have a Scientology spoof taken off the air?

Sparking the controversy — an old episode of the Comedy Central cartoon “South Park,” which pokes fun at Scientology and targets Cruise.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement
Click Here!

It's no secret that Tom has long been Scientology's most outspoken member.

“What Scientology is, is it addresses man as a spiritual being,” Cruise said.

The episode first aired in November and was scheduled to re-air on Wednesday night, March 15. But Comedy Central (which is owned by Viacom), abruptly pulled a repeat of the episode.

But why?

Reportedly, because Tom objected, threatening not to promote the Paramount film “Mission: Impossible III” if the episode wasn't pulled.

The connection between the two? Paramount is owned by Viacom.

However, a spokesperson for Cruise denies that Tom made the threat saying, “He never said nay such thing about ‘Mission: Impossible III.’”

In true “South Park” form, show creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker issued the following statement:

“So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies.”

But Tom doesn't seem to be letting the controversy bother him. He and pregnant wife Katie Holmes (who is due next month) enjoyed themselves, hugging and kissing, as they watched the USA take on Mexico in the World Baseball Classic in Southern California.

Cruise got married to that whacky bitch?? When did that happen?

[onesp1ng]

What's with the cheering? Pompoms?


But I just read that and don't understand a word. Media is a bitch!!

[doc]

It gets better. These idiot Hollywood types. How entertaining.

The guy that plays chef on South Park, Isaac Hayes, just quit. His big complaint after all those years of singing "My chocolate salty balls" on South Park (and getting big bucks for doing so) was along the lines of not agreeing with the show's "religious intolerance".

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends, and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," Mr Hayes said in a statement. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

He wasn't complaining about the fun that the show makes of Christianity (or some of the other religions that SP has satirized), something that has been popular with South Park over the past nine or so years. It had to do with an episode where Stan in South Park was hailed as the mock successor to L. Ron Hubbard, who started the cult in 1952.

Isaac Hayes is a devout Scientologist.

Talk about hypocrisy.

[Steve]

It's all about money.

I think the real reason he quit South Park was not over religious conflicts, he wanted more money and they did not want to give it to him.

[dogchow108]

Absolutely amazing. just two days ago i got on here and started a thread about my visit that day to the scientology building here in Austin. I decided not to write it because even though it occurred over a relatively short amount of time, so much happened that it would have been boring to read.


Needless to say, i was removed from the building. Which is fine because 10 minutes later i strolled right back in toargue more ^^

Those guys are N U T Z

[blooming tianshi lotus]

I don't usually talk to you but biased or otherwise, u sure u don't want to tell us what happened in there??

[onesp1ng]

feed the fire feed the fire feed the fire feed the fire feed the fire....oops...

[doc]

DC, enquiring minds want to know man. Hope you're doing well.

[dogchow108]

Well, i guess ite been long enough since ive ranted here so what the hell...

It wasn’t really anything unexpected. I went in there with questions. They answered with salesmanship. I let them know I want actual answers, they made things up. I let them know I know theyre making things up, they got upset and asked me to leave. I’ll tell you what I can think off the top of my head but its really, really shortened.

Here are some memorable quotes, to give you an idea:

“In scientology, if you believe it then its true”

“Everyone should interpret [the book] exactly the same”

“Yes, it’s a religion”

“I never said it was a religion”

“Ok, now just shut up”

“No, then you’re an idiot”

Here’s my interpretation of the experience,

The guy we talked to the first time repeatedly tried to tell us that if we want to learn about the religion, we need to go to the source: a book on dianetics they had for sale. Which begs the question: what is the source of the book? I think that the best way of getting at least some bit of information about an institutionalized religion would be to go to the institution. I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Hubbard said, just like I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Abraham, Mohammad or any other religious figure said. I am interested in finding out about the religion in practice: what the followers do and believe.

I asked the guy if he had read the book. Yes. Did he understand the book? Yes. Could he explain, then, in his own words what the book teaches, or just some thing about scientology. Well, Dogchow, I would but im afraid ill misquote or use the wrong word and give you the wrong idea.

In other words: no.

Alright, lets pretend that the ability to put what you learn in your own words is NOT fundamental to showing you know what you are talking about and move on.

When the conversation had see-sawed enough and the guy got angry enough to kick us out, I realized I had not really gotten a damn thing from them. Afew minutes later, my brother and I headed back. We talked to someone else, since the guy we had talked to earlier had decided that insults were more important than honesty.

Though the lady we talked to this time was a lot nicer, a lot about both the interview and what she said just made no sense, even creeped me out. Lets start with a simple concept: aggreeing with someone as opposed to believing them.

I asked this lady as well, is Scientology a religion. This time, I got an unambiguous “yes” which this person, to her credit, did not go back on. Ok, so it’s a religious belief. Gotcha. Then why is it called Scientology?

This is pretty much what I gathered:

Scios: knowledge
Logos: the knowledge or study of

Scientology: knowing how to know, or, the study of knowing.

Here’s the problem: though religions around the world claim to know what they preach, and tend to preach different things or different versions of the same thing, they all have one thing in common: they don’t know shit. In every religion out there, the most basic and fundamental things that define them are faith-based tenets:

God and the Jews have a covenant

Jesus is the Messiah

Mohammed is God’s prophet

Enlightenment will end suffering/break samsara

Killing your own people is ok in Hinduism

These are faith-based tenets. If you tell me these things, the very best you can expect is for me to believe you. Agreement is different. Here’s the example I gave the nice young lady who we talked to when we came back:

“Take a look at the plant behind you. If I told you that plant has big green leaves, what would you say?”

“I’d believe you”

“No. You would agree with me. You don’t need to take my word that the leaves are big and green, putting aside that big is a relative term. Do you follow?”

“Yes”

Good. We seemed to be getting somewhere. I mean, the nature of agreement is such that if she had seen the plant earleir and I told her hey that plant is red and white polka-dotted, it wouldn’t matter whether she believed me or not- she’d know better and could say no sir, you’re full of shit, I disagree. She has a way to verify on grounds neither of us can deny.

“Ok, now, suppose I told you that behind you is a pink fuzzy monster that will disappear as soon as you turn around to look at it. What would you say?”

“I probably wouldn’t believe you”

“Alright, but what is important here is that it is a matter of belief. Earlier, you didn’t need to take my word for it; you can go see for yourself and at that point agree or disagree. In the case of the pink fuzzy monster, if you cant find a way to see the monster yourself, you will simply have to take my word for it. Do you follow?”

Yes, this is a quote:

“I’m not sure I get what you mean. It’s a little too deep for me.”

Why is this important? Think about this. How can you claim that your religion is the practice of knowing how to know, yet not know the difference between knowledge and speculation?

Even if she said she agreed with me that there is a pink fuzzy monster behind her that would be a problem. Because then how do I know she actually knows theres a pink fuzzy monster and isnt just saying it? I would know that im just fucing with her, and she would have no way on confirming the existance of said monster. The botton line is that the truth is not subjective. Either you know something or you don’t. And here’s the kicker. Everyone ready? It might hurt:

Without first-hand experience, you don’t know if you’re right or not.

Whoa, what a mind-boggler. Wait, Dogchow, dosent that mean there is no such thing as proof?? No! I won’t have it!

Ladies and gentlemen, the very word “proof” indicates that the person is out to confirm a belief. The ONLY fields I have ever seen the word “proof” used is in math and religion- wanna take a shot at which one uses the word more cautiously?

At any rate, I personally think she understood juuuust well. I know a person who is terrified by something they just learned but cant allow themselves to admit it when I see one. I’ve caused and experienced this sensation so many times in my life that it almost bores me. Almost.

During this second interview, some creepy things were going on. Not the least of which was the sketchy looking guy who kept interrupting us. Our prior ejection from the building drew considerable attention. The guy we first talked to ended up insulting us, which caused a series of volume-amplifying events- not the least of which was me making sure everying within hearing distance knew who Lisa McPherson was and how she was murdered.
Needless to say, by the time we had left the building for the first time, everyone knew exactly who we were. A couple of minutes after that, we saw a bunch of the beople from the building walking down the street. I tried to approach them with more questions and they blew me off. What is important to note here is that these guys were out for lunch.

A little after that is when I went back and talked to the lady I mentioned above. And this is what was weird. During the time I talked to her, this creepy-looking dude who had seen us come in and out the first time, and in the second time, kept comeing and checking on us. What I thought was funy was not only the timing he had, which conveniently cut in exactly when it seeme dthat I was about to get answers, but that at some point he started asking her to “wrap it up” because she was expected at a meeting.

Hmm. Meeting. Unless she was expected to make sure the walls don’t move, I would imagine that the van-load of people who were still out at lunch would have to be there too, no? Especially if the “meeting” was about the recent incident in the lobby. Each time the guy came to interrupt, he seemed a little more agitated. And every time he came by, she seemed less and less comfortable interviewing us. At some point she had to end the conversation. And that’s pretty much where it ended.

BUT there is one more thing. I did manage to talk to her about Lisa McPherson. At first, she claimed she did not know who Lisa was. then, a bit into it, she somehow knew that the case had been dropped. I’d say this surprized me but after the first guy, but it really didn’t. Anyway, what really disturbed me about it was that she didn’t seem to care.

My brother even told her “you don’t really seem to be bothered by the fact that Scientology killed this woman”. She said she wasn’t.

This was her reasoning. Scientology has helped her, so she didn’t really care. Not only that, she was skeptical about the whole thing because she had friends who had gone to flag (the location in Florida where McPherson was murdered) and come back fine. This is brainwashing at its very worst. It didn’t bother her one bit that scientology can legally detain and isolate you against your will, and that if you are killed in this process, they cannot be held accountable. It didn’t bother her that there is a growing list of dead people as a result of this practice. What mattered to her is that scientology has helped her. And that she’s seen people go into a murder scene and come out alive.

Nice.

Whats the point of all this? It just goes to show how easily people will gobble up even the most absurd garbage they are handed if it is spiced well enough. I had asked the second interviewer to give me one example of a practice in scientology that is supposed to help you. She said that they have a method of detoxification- sitting in a sauna. Nice. Apparently, according to scientology, toxins are stored in your fatty tissue and sitting in a sauna will detoxify you. Right. Guys, your kidneys and liver are just there for decoration. If you’re worried about toxins in your body, look at your fat cuz that’s where its at.

But, apparently this concept was explained to her in juuust the right way for her to be content with it. Cults, and religions in general, rely on people’s acceptance of mediocrity in order to assimilate and control them. Scientology is a good example of this. Everything I encountered in terms of explanations: detoxification, knowledge vs faith, the reactive mind, engrams (now THAT’s some bullshit) all that garbage is designed for lay people to buy into because the rhetoric is disguised as authority. Ethos in persuasive language goes a long way.

So much bullshit, so little time. I've also had my eyes on Shaolin-Do for some time now. I wanna know how Xingyi and Yang style Taiji are "Shaolin".

[doc]

doc is proud. As usual.

I had asked the second interviewer to give me one example of a practice in scientology that is supposed to help you. She said that they have a method of detoxification- sitting in a sauna.

Another very dangerous practice. Sauna's, in safe doses, are safe, and beneficial. But, one could easily see how these people could over use this activity....