Tom Cruise is the what now?

[Maria]

This is an awful lot of picking on someone because of their religion.

[Alatar]

Touché Maria.

[Primula Baggins]

No one's picking on any other Scientologists that I can see. . . .

Cruise could believe anything or nothing, and I would still have the same opinion of his acting and the way he presents himself publicly.

[Griffon64]

Him jumping on Oprah's couch was rather goofy independent of his religion, and some of his assertions, for instance that there's no such things as chemical imbalances ( a la Brooke Shields and postpartum depression, and yes, he did apologize later which was good ) would have lifted my eyebrow if they came from anybody. Shields probably said it well enough when she called the remarks "irresponsible and dangerous".

His handling of the Matt Lauer interview did not endear him to me irrespective of his religion - such a high-handed handling of a fellow human being does not sit well with me no matter the religion they belong to.

If I think about it, I'd say I would probably be as irritated with Cruise if he had belonged to some other religion, and exhibited the same behaviour as he did while belonging to Scientology, as mentioned above. So by and large I pick on his behaviour, not his religion

EDIT: I started typing this before Prim's post. Yeah, what Prim said

[Alatar]

A good argument, but a quick re-read of the thread would show a pretty strong disdain for his beliefs, which stem from his religion. Witness the outrage that he could be considered the Messiah for his church as an implied slander or insult on the Messiah of Christians.

[Primula Baggins]

Cruise can be the Scientology Messiah if he wants to be, and he's welcome to it. What disgusted me was not that claim, which I see as meaningless, but the comparison of his "sufferings" to those of Jesus. (I would have been equally offended by a comparison to Gandhi.)

Cruise, of course, didn't make that claim himself. But his odd behavior as noted by Griffy makes it hard for me to admire him in any way. (I claim the right to judge his behavior because he presented it in a public forum while looking for public attention.)

[Alatar]

Actually, Prim, the original article made no such claim.

TOM Cruise is the new “Christ” of Scientology, according to leaders of the cult-like religion.

The Mission: Impossible star has been told he has been “chosen” to spread the word of his faith throughout the world.

And leader David Miscavige believes that in future, Cruise, 44, will be worshipped like Jesus for his work to raise awareness of the religion.

A source close to the actor, who has risen to one of the church’s top levels, said: “Tom has been told he is Scientology’s Christ-like figure.

“Like Christ, he’s been criticised for his views. But future generations will realise he was right.”

Cruise joined the Church of Scientology in the ’80s. Leader L Ron Hubbard claimed humans bear traces of an ancient alien civilisation.

It was you yourself who introduced the "suffering" aspect, in this post:

It's still extremely tasteless, even if it is also bizarre, to seriously compare a human being to a person whom hundreds of millions of people view as God incarnate.

I guess I don't boggle when someone in a novel or film is referred to as a "Christ figure," because that's an archetype of sorts. But to compare the sufferings of Tom Cruise to those of Christ . . . that's where I get off.

And your first line in that post would certainly lead one to believe that you objected to him being even the Scientologist Messiah, since that was somehow offensive to those who believe in Jesus Christ.

[Primula Baggins]

Miscavige is described as saying that Cruise will be worshiped like Jesus, and explicitly compares the criticisms of Cruise's views to the criticisms of Christ's views. Christ's critics went rather far beyond writing snarky items for gossip columns.

As I said more than once, I would be equally offended if they'd compared him to Gandhi or any other widely respected moral leader. My remarks about "hundreds of millions of people" was just amazement that they picked the leader they did.

I could not care less who claims to be the Messiah of Scientology. In my view it's much like declaring oneself Emperor of Upstate New York.

[Maria]

I could not care less who claims to be the Messiah of Scientology. In my view it's much like declaring oneself Emperor of Upstate New York.

Much as I hate to point out the flaws in someone's argument... I have to say that

A. Cruise has not proclaimed himself as a messiah and
B. IF he had, it would not be equivalent to an imaginary political office with no authority and no members. Scientology IS a religion and DOES have followers, no matter how silly their beliefs may seem to most of the rest of the world.

All religions look at least 85% silly to me. Scientology is no worse or better than the others.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I could not care less who claims to be the Messiah of Scientology. In my view it's much like declaring oneself Emperor of Upstate New York.

Did someone lob a scimitar at Tom Cruise again? I hate it when that happens.

[Primula Baggins]

You might find this Wikipedia article interesting, Maria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

And I did say in an earlier post that Cruise himself is not making this claim. (Nor has he repudiated it, as a matter of fact, as far as I can tell from Google News.)

As for the "Emperor of Upstate New York" analogy, I was replying to Alatar, who said

And your first line in that post would certainly lead one to believe that you objected to him being even the Scientologist Messiah, since that was somehow offensive to those who believe in Jesus Christ.

I was speaking as a Christian, and attempting to explain that I'm not, in fact, offended by anyone's belief that anyone is the Messiah of another faith. To me, as a Christian, it is simply irrelevant.



Edit: Reworded for clarity

[axordil]

Maria--

Assuming for the moment that all religions are roughly as silly as all other religions (which is a different discussion), one can still judge them by what they do for the world, good or ill. All historical baggage aside, what are they doing NOW?

Scientology isn't a real winner by that standard.

[yovargas]

Religion is a personal thing. Religions have no obligation to do anything to be legitimate.

[Maria]

I read most of the article, Prim, but I got bored after a while and stopped. Knowing more of the details doesn't change my opinion: 85% silly, kinda corrupt -- like most religions. Unique in that it was started by a sci fi author- but really- what religion doesn't have an element of fantasy to it?

[Primula Baggins]

I would certainly dispute "85% silly and kinda corrupt" for the major world religions I know anything about—not just my own. Nor do their followers consider them to be based on fantasy. :|

I can tell you didn't get as far as Xenu, by the way. . . .

[Griffon64]

As far as "85% silly, kinda corrupt" goes, some religions ( my own, from my viewpoint, for instance ) contains aspects that would be "kinda corrupt" in relative small splinter groups from the main branch. Painting the whole religion with the same brush based on the behaviour of small groups within it is probably not painting an accurate picture.

For instance, the South African "NG Kerk", which is a Protestant church, certainly leaned towards "kinda corrupt" in some of its power structures during Apartheid, when a part of those power structures handed the government of the time a mandate approving Apartheid. This doesn't mean the whole "NG Kerk" was kind of corrupt though, because it wasn't, or that the whole Protestant aspect of Christianity is, because it isn't either.

Every barrel has its bad apples, that doesn't make the whole barrel bad.

The majority of the practioners of most religions, major or not, will probably get riled at accusations that their religion is silly or corrupt in some non-absolute fashion.

As far as being corrupt goes, I'd say that is because the majority of the practioners of those religions are not corrupt. The bulk of practioners are usually quietly devoted, in the sense that they adhere to the core principles of their religions. After all, it is the core principles ( like the Christian principles of brotherly love, humbleness, etc etc ) that attract these followers and gives them the spiritual nourishment they need. Then you get the "loud" ones who tend to become the face of the religion to many of those who haven't had in depth exposure to it. If those loud ones also happen to have some sort of power issues, they can easily be a bit corrupted too. Usually not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the power issues and the use of the religion as a tool.

As far as being silly goes - one person's silly is another person's truth. For instance somewhere in this world there will be some Christians thinking that meditation, self-hypnosis, positive thinking, any number of methods that are being applied by some other people somewhere in the world is "silly". And there'd be some people somewhere in the world, practicing some form of meditation perhaps, for argument's sake, who thinks that praying to God is "silly". There'd be some other set of people, well, let's say they practice ancestral worshipping, who considers the deities of the Dharmic religions "silly". And so on and so forth. It is an unfortunate default for human behaviour to want to dismiss those who differ from them as "silly". Lots of strive have been caused in this world by that, I'd bet.

What religion doesn't have an element of fantasy to it? It depends on the viewpoint. And "religion" is probably too narrow a term. What viewpoint doesn't have an element of fantasy to it? Or rather, methodology for living? ( my vocabulary is dropping me big time, here! ) Methods like the ones I mentioned above are viewed by many of those not practicing them to have elements of fantasy to them. Likewise for religions. It is perspective.

I think

[axordil]

Religion is a personal thing. Religions have no obligation to do anything to be legitimate.

However, existing solely to separate the unwary from their money does tend to lend an air of illegitimacy to any religion. While one could make an argument that other religions do or have done so, at least they tend to do things like feed the poor and build hospitals on the side.

Religion may be a personal thing for an individual believer. But it is also a cultural, societal, and political thing in terms of its impact beyond its believer base.

[vison]

Tom Cruise might not think he's the messiah.

But I think Mel Gibson does.

[Impenitent]

No, he's just a naughty little boy.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, trying to please his long-dead Daddy.