Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Scientology vs. the Internet, part XVII

Mathew Ingram, January 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM EST

By now, anyone who is even remotely interested in Tom Cruise (arguably a fairly large group) and specifically his interest in Scientology has probably seen the video clip of the popular Hollywood actor talking about his beliefs -- how the religion developed by failed science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard is the answer to most (if not all) of the world's problems, how Scientologists are "experts on the human mind" and so on. If you haven't seen the video yet, you can watch a version of it here -- at least until the church has it removed (as they have most of the YouTube versions). If that link doesn't work, you can try this one, or this one, or this one.

One of the fascinating things about the video is that Cruise is so earnest and talks so passionately, with his piercing gaze and chiseled features, as though he was playing a role -- but he's not. When he says that he believes he's the only one who really needs to stop at a car accident, because he's the only one who can really help, he's not acting. He's completely serious. More than one person has compared Cruise in the video to the character he played in the movie Magnolia, a twisted and yet extremely charismatic motivational speaker.

But almost as interesting is watching the church try to remove the video from the Internet. It's another small skirmish in a war that Scientology has been waging for almost 15 years, since the early days of newsgroups such as alt.religion.scientology, which posted internal church documents in 1994. Lawsuits have been filed, mailing lists have been shut down, homes of discussion group participants have been raided and their computers seized -- an all-out war.

When it comes to the Cruise video, it's easy enough to get YouTube to take the clip down, because the company is already extra-sensitive to claims of copyright infringement (Scientology says the video is copyrighted content meant for internal church use) as a result of being sued for $1-billion by Viacom, and so it essentially pulls videos down as soon as it gets a letter from someone who looks like a lawyer. Other websites aren't so easily cowed, however.

Gawker Media, a blog network run by former Financial Times journalist Nick Denton, has sworn to keep the video up no matter what happens. Doing so seems to be a freedom of speech issue in part, but Gawker is also likely motivated by the millions of eyeballs the video has brought to the site: at last count, the post with the video clip embedded in it had gotten almost 1.5-million views (most Gawker posts get anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand views).

The bottom line is that Cruise and the church seem to be suffering from something known as "The Streisand Effect," a kind of Catch-22 in which, by trying to keep certain information from becoming public, you wind up making that information even more public. The name refers to an incident in which singer Barbra Streisand sued a photographer to have a photo of her house removed from a collection of photos of the California coast -- but the publicity about the lawsuit caused more people to search out and look at the photo than ever would have seen it otherwise.

So far, it's the Internet: 1, Scientology: 0. But it's a long game.

  1. Douglas Cress from NYC, United States writes: The Gawker post bothers me - especially their reference to a "bizarre twentieth century religion".

    If you were to switch out any reference to 'Scientology' and replace it with 'Catholicism' or 'Christianity' you might end up with an equally bizarre clip.

    Many proponents of a religion sect will voice their beliefs with equal fervor.

    For anyone that believes in organized religion, calling Cruise crazy is like calling the kettle black. (my opinion only, of course)
  2. CD W from Canada writes: Just read and post the defamation lawsuit in Ontario regarding scientology, it will tell you all that you need to know. But I would like to meet my thetan, we could play cribbage.
  3. Chris Cranston from Toronto, Canada writes: Scientology goes to great pains to create a public image of a group that can help people get off drugs and help them get on with their lives. When you scratch the surface a bit you find out about the high fees, the claim that you can attain super-powers for these high fees, the megomaniacal founder, and a cosmology that sounds a lot like Star Wars. You also find out that even their claims for getting people off drugs are completely unsubstantiated. In the Cruise video we get a tiny glimpse at what really goes on behind the curtain. Cruise seems almost incoherent except for when he is spouting nonsense. For "Douglas in the United States", I find Christianity and Judiasm to be quite bizarre too. But you find out about Jesus' resurrection and Moses and the burning bush as soon as you walk into their houses of worship. In Scientology they don't tell you about Xenu until after you have paid tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. They used to tell their adherents that if the uninitiated even heard the word Xenu they would die from pneumonia. They may still tell their adherents this. And up here in Canada we don't HAVE to compare Scientology to recognized churches. It is not classified as a church here. It is not even a charity. The same is true for England, France, and most other Western nations. In Belgium there is currently an attempt to prosecute it into oblivion. In Germany there is an attempt to outlaw it. Your Supreme Court said that it is not a church. Your TAX OFFICE says that it is. And really, you can think about substituting Christianity for Scientology in the Cruise video but you can also substitute Satanism, the Raelians, Jim Jones' People's Temple or the Heaven's Gate suicide cult. There is room for some discrimination without being called a "bigot". If it was a church we would have to add that it is the only criminally convicted church in the history of this country.
  4. Some Guy from Ottawa, Canada writes: On the internet it is impossible to convey that look that says "I'm not going to say anything" and by not saying anything we know exactly what that person is thinking. By not saying anything I simply would not have a post, which mitigates the effect of my skeptical eye and furrowed brow.

    So, in short. The organized religion of Scientology is alarming (as many other extreme religions are). It exercises and encourages an unwavering and intense concentration on a doctrine of ambiguity, unqualifiable (or exaggeration of the perception of known facts or theories) and causes alarm to all bystanders. It is a community of wealthy individuals who in their pursuit of balance have found the opposite and in order to salvage whatever they can of their image and the image of their religion they take legal action to preserve what they can. The war on eliminating content from the internet is a lost cause. They face the same challenge other religions do. How does the internet affect us and our religion and what can we do about it?
  5. Chuck the Canuk from east, Canada writes: How can anyone even comment on these freaks and weirdos and keep a straight face while doing it??? LOL. Tom Cruise, go fly around the world with your extravagant buddy Travolta, in his super polluting private jet, with it's gold fixtures and toilet. Disgusting people, they are, with swollen heads.
  6. Chris Cranston from Toronto, Canada writes: For Ingrid:

    "They laugh at the wild imaginings of non-members as to what Scientologists believe. I think they can be trusted better than the internet, media or spiteful ex-employees. "

    Just to keep things on the up-and-up, that's a WE not a THEY.
  7. Liz Welch from Beaumont, United States writes: Find out more about the facts on Scientology by typing in Operation Clambake into you search engine. You'll find out things written by former scientologists who let you in on what this organization is, what it's for, what it's like, it's dangers and origins. You'll find out things about L. Ron Hubbard and his view on his "religion" and much more that will scare the pants right off of you.
  8. Anonymous Anonymous from United States writes: This is a matter of survival some might say. Having been physically attacked by "Church" members on one occasion, been followed by others and lost friends to dangerous cults who learned their tactics from Scientology, I think it's the internet's way of saying "we've had enough."

    And if you think this is just a skirmish in a war against these people, I'd suggest you look at the high stakes. People on either sides are playing for keeps.

    In a democratic forum like the internet, all should have the right to speak, but the CoS doesn't seem to think so. See ChillingEffects.org for the cease and desist letters. With only one side presented to potentially interested users (only the church's many sites are listed), users don't see that there is a whole vast network of people who have very important and very damning things to say about the "Church of Scientology." Instead, they see a harmless actor and at best, a silly pseudo-religion. They don't see the scare tactics CoS members use on psych patients and around hospitals, they don't see the fair and balanced discussions like we would see regarding Catholicism or Bhuddism. Instead, the response from any search engine would make it look like all is calm in the front.

    The truth is, Scientology has killed, (see: lisa mcphereson) committed numerous acts of treason leading to the indictment of the 11 top church officials in "Operation Snow White" (attempted infiltration of justice, revenue and labor) and even practicing medicine without a license. (see: e-meters.) The truth is, these people are dangerous.

    Now the truth of the church and the sheer vast quantity of discontent in it's practices is making headlines.
  9. Mary Canterbury from South Georgia, United States writes: This is anecdotal only, but it sure stuck with me... at least 30-35 years ago, my company sold and installed some communication equipment to CoS, who at that time were setting up a facility in Atlanta. Our service tech reported back that he asked the CoS representative what the church was all about. The rep had been drinking, although it was early in the afternoon, and his tongue was loose. He told Claude "it was a kind of religion based on L. Ron Hubbard's writings." Then he went on to say that personally, he'd be glad when they got "fully established and could quit claiming all this g-d God crap." Claude was a devout man who fully accepted other churches, and this upset him so badly, he refused to make any more service calls to them.
  10. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: This is why I never watch any Tom Cruise movies. If I'm channel surfing and one is on, I immidiately turn the channel. I have never seen any of the M.I. movies and I never will even though I never missed the TV program as a child.
  11. Dog Curtains from Canada writes: $cientology doesn't win this, Matt. Speaking as an insider, these guys are all riled up. They want to do nothing more than create chaos. They don't care what happens, if the CoS tries to fight back, if they just let their website die, Anonymous doesn't care. I can tell you this, though, they're gonna see this through to the end.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top