Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does Lalo Schifrin Know They're Using His Music For This?
Friday fun link: the best Tom Cruise movie ever.
Here comes The Bishop. But it |1.18.08 @ 9:04AM|#
Insert something about churches and their treatment under tax code immediately below.
|1.18.08 @ 9:12AM|#
All those words! No matter how hard you listen, though, the fact remains that he said nothing at all.
Dave Krueger|1.18.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Most of the people I see kicking Tom Cruise around for his goofy religious beliefs have religious beliefs that are just as goofy. And just like Tom, they think their goofy beliefs are perfectly rational.
|1.18.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Most of the people I see kicking Tom Cruise around for
his goofy religious beliefs have religious beliefs that are just as
goofy. And just like Tom, they think their goofy beliefs are
perfectly rational.
Exactly.
|1.18.08 @ 9:27AM|#
"we have no time for spectatorism"
says the guy that gets 25 million dollars per shitty movie
expecting us to pay to be spectators?
Carlin was wrong. He should be prayin to Tom the Most Holy.
stephen the goldberger|1.18.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Most of the people I see kicking Tom Cruise around for his
goofy religious beliefs have religious beliefs that are just as
goofy. And just like Tom, they think their goofy beliefs are
perfectly rational.
Is any of the morality scientology teaches as crazy as the idea
that you cannot use birth control as in the catholic church?
The issue I have with scientology is not so much what they believe,
but the way their religion structually is set up. You are either in
or you are out. And if you try to get out you will be harassed and
vilified. You will be threatened. That combined with their intense
secrecy makes them a little scarier than most religions which
enable the free flow of human beings in and out.
|1.18.08 @ 9:52AM|#
No, Goldberger, it makes them a lot scarier than most religions. It makes them a cult.
Tom Walls|1.18.08 @ 9:53AM|#
I've downloaded a lot of cool soundtracks (Schifrin, Morricone,
Umiliani and many others - good Brazilian stuff too) from this
site:
http://itscomingoutofyourspeaker.blogspot.com/
Just go back through their archives.
Sorry, jackanapenestrians, this isn't for you.
Tom
|1.18.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Does Lalo Schifrin Know They're Using His Music For
This?
You probably weren't serious about that question, but from a
Metafilter thread about this same clip:
Just to clarify, that's not the Mission Impossible theme,
written by my distant cousin, Lalo Schifrin. That's the "We didn't
want to pay for the Mission Impossible Theme, and therefore are
going to play an identical piece of music that changes a few notes
to avoid copyright infringement" theme.
Dave Krueger|1.18.08 @ 10:19AM|#
After reviewing every detail of my entire life, I have
determined that cults have had comparartively little influence
compared to the control wielded by the mainstream religions. That
doesn't make cults better, but it does make them less scary.
Hell, I thought all religions started life as a cult. In fact, I
thought mainstream religions invented the word "cult" as a means to
disparage the competition in it's infancy, before it becomes a real
threat...
drawnasunder|1.18.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Multi-level marketing.
All the jargon, up-with-people-ism, numbers-touting, and emphasis
on outreach is classic pyramid scheme boosterism: the bottom will
fall out eventually and the organization will flounder. More of
this stuff coming out will definitely coincide with its collapse.
Not saying its happening now, in this round, but this is how it
will start. They can't bear the scrutiny, which is why they are so
secretive.
And, the more they rely on a single, living figurehead (especially
a whacko like Cruise), the more fragile their organization is.
drawnasunder|1.18.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Founder, not flounder. (Though it could flounder too, but more likely sole or perch.)
Brian Sorgatz|1.18.08 @ 10:52AM|#
I happen to like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, but the Scientology thing is still creepy.
shecky|1.18.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Founder, not flounder. (Though it could flounder too, but
more likely sole or perch.)
Interestingly, founder and flounder offer very similar, even
interchangeable, meanings when used as a verb. I've wondered if
misuse of one led to common accepted use, or if they've "always"
been that way.
|1.18.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Hell, I thought all religions started life as a
cult.
David Milch
once said, "The difference between a cult and faith is time."
(The link is to his most recent lectures on writing.)
On a lark, my darling visited the Church of $cientology in DC many
years ago, just to see what kind of craziness they had going on.
After an initial greeting, he was taken into an office for the hard
sell, and at some point they got wise to his bs. It wasn't long
before two very large uniformed security officers (for lack of a
better term) came in and escorted him (roughly) right the fuck
out.
Wild and woolly, man!
|1.18.08 @ 11:38AM|#
No, Goldberger, it makes them a lot scarier than most
religions. It makes them a cult.
In the '70s an immature young man, lacking social skills and self
confidence worked for me. I watched in silence as he was
indoctrinated by Scientology. That was so difficult to do, but I
was legally and morally obligated to avoid confronting him on the
subject. I don't know if it's standard indoctrination procedure for
these cultists to use sleep deprivation as a tool, but they did in
this case.
Some of you may have been faced with this dilemma, I was at a loss
and to this day don't know if I did the right thing (watch, cringe
and shake my head). After all, I hold the first amendment as the
most important words ever written. I had to write extremely
derogatory performance evaluations on the man but was unable to
mention the reason he was such an incompetent worker, a drag on the
the whole division, a social outcast.
Scientology was [expletive deleted]ing this mans life and mind up,
and I got to witness the processes progression daily.
In summary, based on personal experience, the cult of scientology
is a cannibalistic group of brainwashers, they prey on the young,
the mentally weak, and socially inept. Sue me, you whackjob,
idiotic, pretentious fools, who have contributed less than nothing
to human society or happiness.
|1.18.08 @ 11:39AM|#
After reviewing every detail of my entire life, I have
determined that cults have had comparartively little influence
compared to the control wielded by the mainstream religions. That
doesn't make cults better, but it does make them less
scary.
I take you don't live in Utah. ;-)
Christopher Monnier|1.18.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Is all this Tom Cruise/Scientology stuff like a big viral promotion for some movie that makes fun of Scientology? Ironically, that video reminded me of the unconventional promotions Cruise shot for the movie Magnolia.
dhex|1.18.08 @ 12:10PM|#
having done the tour of the times square headquarters a few
years back, and endured a really boring videotape as well as a
somewhat creepy (i guess, if you're a dork) lady doing the whole
"SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK AAAABOUT" routine (with the staring
and whatnot) i find a lot of the ZOMG scary scientology talk
absolutely absurd.
if you have no spine, maybe, sure. and expensive, no doubt.
on the other hand, i don't see why this would keep anyone from
laughing at tom and his creepy laugh.
|1.18.08 @ 12:45PM|#
"I canceled them from my area".
Man, I would love to see that become the "Where's the beef?" of
2008.
|1.18.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Also, I would like to thank Tom for giving me an excuse not to pull over and help people who have had an accident. "Sorry, I would love to stop and help you, but I am not a 'Clear' and so am not able to help you"
|1.18.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Being an active member of the LDS faith (mormon), these kinds of
videos are always weird for me. I went on a church proselyting
mission to Canada and met all manner of people with all manner of
objections to the LDS message, and many who consider my faith to be
a cult orders of magnitude more terrible than anything on the
planet.
I found that many of them had gotten their information from folks
whose only intent was to damage and destroy the church by any means
possible. Most often the means amounted to absurd distortions of
apocryphal information. Other times they were total fabrications. A
few actually had theological objections, but even they tended to
lean on the fabricated stuff.
Because of that experience, I'm always wary of 'anti' material for
any group. I prefer to go to the group's own documentation, as I
often encouraged people to do concerning my own faith.
So when it came to Scientology, I tried to ignore the outcry from
former, possibly angry members. But I was curious, so I went to the
source and obtained as many official documents as I could.
I read those documents, and they're all pretty consistent, and they
all point to the same conclusion: Scientology is totally, savagely
insane.
This is coming from a guy who is an active and faithful mormon.
Yes, I'm quite aware of how absurd some of my own beliefs appear to
others. I'm okay with that, and I don't assert any moral,
theological or intellectual superiority because of my beliefs. They
are mine, and they are personal. Even on my mission I only invited
people to listen (I was not a pushy missionary, though many sadly
are), and respected them if they weren't interested. I would never
entertain the idea of suing or otherwise harassing someone
antagonistic to my beliefs (although they have certainly harassed
us).
But that is exactly what Scientology does, and why it is far more
vilified in media than your traditional mainstream groups.
Oppressive as they may be, they are rarely (in modern times)
coercive. Like stephen the goldberger pointed out, the Catholic
church forbids birth control, but it's pretty obvious that only the
most devout Catholics care about this and nobody gets severely
censured for disregarding the injunction. Besides, excommunication
from any of the major western faiths is quite innocuous compared to
being labeled an "SP" in Scientology.
When you leave Scientology under heated circumstances, they put you
on their hate list. I don't know of any other group that does
that.
BTW, I'm a mormon, a libertarian, and it'll be a cold day in hell
before I vote for Romney.
And Utah isn't too bad...just don't drink the kool-aid. ;-)
|1.18.08 @ 1:36PM|#
David Milch once said, "The difference between a cult and
faith is time."
There isn't a difference. "Cult" is just a pejorative way of
describing someone else's "faith". Tom Cruise's faith/cult leads to
this scary intensity that he's channeled into a productive use as
an actor.
I have some real problems with the coercive aspects of Scientology,
especially how they abuse people who try to leave, but OTOH more
mainstream faith/cults like Protestantism/Catholicism/Mormonism
threaten apostates with excommunication -- a threat to spend
eternity in Hell, which I assume is like a hotter version of our
state legislature's committee hearings -- so the difference lies in
physical versus psychological threats.
|1.18.08 @ 1:45PM|#
prolefeed - the threat to spend eternity in hell renders itself pretty ineffective if the 'ex'd' no longer believes in that institutions version of hell (which they usually don't). I think for most excommunicated persons the psychological threat is temporary at worst.
Franklin Harris|1.18.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Tom Cruise should have a reality tv show.
My favorite part of the video is when Cruise says Scientologists
create their own reality. You know, just like the Bush
administration.
|1.18.08 @ 2:02PM|#
And Utah isn't too bad...just don't drink the kool-aid.
;-)
I have relatives in Utah. I quite like the place, but that may just
be because I don't have to live there.
The libertarian party tends to get a pretty decent number of votes
in Utah relative to other states. Are those votes protest votes?
That has always been my impression. The people I know who live
there have always been open to considering all sorts of different
candidates as they always knew that the person who would carry the
state would be someone they abhorred.
Knowing for certain that your vote will not count really opens up
one's options.
|1.18.08 @ 2:04PM|#
JNR -- As an active, unfaithful Mormon, I was curious about what
you mean by "don't drink the Kool-Aid" -- are you referring to the
unlibertarian aspects of the LDS church, or were you being
wry?
And how do you square being "active" and "faithful" and
"libertarian"? It seems that you can only do at most 2 out 3 of
those without willfully turning a blind eye.
But maybe that's just me.
Still trying to figure out how to teach lesson #2 from the
teachings of Joseph Smith this Sunday in Elder's Quorum, given the
injunction in the introduction "If the discussion ... becomes
speculative or contentious, redirect the discussion". Heck, that's
my goal -- to get the class members to think critically and
independently.
|1.18.08 @ 2:26PM|#
mk -- the Rocky Mountain states are all pretty libertarian relative to the rest of the country, though Utah might have an anti-LDS-authoritarianism backlash on top of that.
|1.18.08 @ 3:05PM|#
I was mostly being wry about the Kool-aid comment, but I
definitely object to the non-libertarian views perpetuated by some
members of the LDS community.
prolefeed--
And how do you square being "active" and "faithful" and
"libertarian"? It seems that you can only do at most 2 out 3 of
those without willfully turning a blind eye.
But maybe that's just me.
Maybe so, and maybe I'm a freak in my own community, but my
libertarian ideals are a natural extension of my beliefs. I'm
libertarian because of what I believe, religiously speaking.
I am curious, to what should I be turning a blind eye?
Still trying to figure out how to teach lesson #2 from the
teachings of Joseph Smith this Sunday in Elder's Quorum, given the
injunction in the introduction "If the discussion ... becomes
speculative or contentious, redirect the discussion". Heck, that's
my goal -- to get the class members to think critically and
independently.
I don't think that's an injunction against critical, independent
discussion at all. In fact, I think that's probably a reference to
the crazy guy in the back who likes to say stuff like 'Yoda is like
God' or whatever just to rile people up.
But then again, I teach the ten-year olds.
|1.18.08 @ 3:51PM|#
I am curious, to what should I be turning a blind
eye?
You shouldn't be turning a blind eye to anything -- especially the
admonitions of General Authorities to blindly follow whatever
advice you're given by Church authorities without asking if what
they're saying squares with your perception of reality or
scripture.
Elder Bednar's General Conference talk about a year ago, "Quick to
Observe" in particular stuck in my craw.
My point is that being utterly faithful and libertarian appears to
be mutually contradictory. Perhaps I'm misguided, and you could
point out the fallacy therein.
|1.18.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Elder Bednar's General Conference talk about a year ago,
"Quick to Observe" in particular stuck in my craw.
I remember that one. I just re-read it again so I can understand
where you're coming from. It was a very bold talk. Since I don't
know Elder Bednar personally, I can only assume that he wanted to
speak as plainly as possible about the principle of obedience. I
agree that some of his plain speech lends itself to some
uncomfortable interpretations, but I don't think it was intention.
Without debating the finer points of the principle of obedience, I
don't see anything in Elder Bednar's talk that says you can't
question or be concerned about counsel you receive.
Maybe this is just me again, but I really believe that all the
church doctrine supports, even demands careful consideration of
every counsel. I don't believe that being 'quick to observe'
precludes me from acquiring personal confirmation on any
matter.
My point is that being utterly faithful and libertarian appears
to be mutually contradictory. Perhaps I'm misguided, and you could
point out the fallacy therein.
I think we just have different definitions of faith. If I
understand correctly, your definition of faith is an unquestioning,
blind faith. I used the term merely to denote that I believe in the
principles of the church doctrine, but I also don't believe
everything I hear/read at first gasp.
For me, my faith is a constant process, and I am constantly
re-evaluating it, because the one thing I am sure of is that I can
not be possibly be sure of everything.
....well I think we've succesfully derailed the comment thread.
Prolefeed, if you wish to continue our discussion, you're more than
welcome to email me. (check the email in my username)
|1.18.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I wonder how many Scientologist know L. Ron Hubbard was a sci fi
writer. I heard rumors that he bet Asimov that he could write a
book that would start a religion. Anyone know if that's been
debunked?
L. Ron Hoover, and the first church of Appliantology.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.18.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Soooo, LDS, created by a dude that read special tablets in the
dark that no one else could read? k.
----------
Matt Welch is a vile racist.
|1.18.08 @ 6:48PM|#
JNR -- Thanks for your helpful comments. I think you answered my
questions. I can't figure out how to get email addresses from the
red handles above posts -- when I click on one of them, I get this
error message: "Could not perform this operation because the
default mail client is not properly installed."
If you want to chat more about the LDS Church v. libertarianism,
I'm at jhenshaw@hawaii.rr.com.
Aloha, and my apologies to everyone else for cluttering up the
thread with OT comments.
|1.18.08 @ 11:37PM|#
But seriously - how much credence can you give a religion that thinks it's a good idea having Kirstie Alley in the fold...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245