Is 'Earl' Scientologist?

Not long after I recommended My Name is Earl, the NBC sitcom starring Jason Lee, I learned that the show has some Scientologist connections. Last year James Donaghy reported for the Guardian:

The Scientology-Earl connection begins with Earl himself - actor Jason Lee is a Scientologist, as is show creator Greg Garcia and Ethan Suplee who plays Earl's slow-reader brother Randy. ...[T]here has also been a guest appearance from Juliette Lewis, Suplee's sister-in-law and a practising Scientologist. Also down with the Church is Giovanni Ribisi, who plays recurring character Ralph Mariano. ...

Then there's the concept of the "overt-motivator sequence". Crudely, this is what happens when a person does something bad then subconsciously causes something bad to happen to themself. It all sounds eerily like "Do bad things and it will come back to haunt you", Earl's karmic mantra.

Does this bug me? Well, a lot of good art is produced by people with some kooky beliefs. I enjoyed Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, and I like John Travolta generally. Travolta starred in Phenomenon, which I enjoyed despite its Scientologist overtones. Scientology does have some vicious streaks relative to other mainsteam U.S. religions (such as its sue-happy lawyers), yet other religions offer similarly silly teachings. I've enjoyed the work of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and others.

Besides, the idea of self-sabotage is hardly unique to Scientology. No religion is complete nonsense, or nobody would believe it. (Maybe I overestimate some people.) Dostoevsky wrote of self-sabotage, for instance. I don't think any psychologist would deny it. But Earl is about a lot more than self-sabotage; it is partly about the simple fact that if you treat people like crap, they're likely to treat you like crap right back. If you commit crimes, you're likely headed for jail. If you build a good reputation, good people will respect you. These are good moral themes that transcend religion.

Aside from all that, a major television show is the result of a large group of writers and producers. I suppose that only a few of the participants are Scientologists.

In a special feature, the creator explains his inspiration: his own father decided to get his life together. That's a good story, even if told through the lens of a Scientologist.

Scientology Deserves Free Speech

As I have made clear, I believe that Scientology is a cult that deserves nothing but censure and ridicule. That is, Scientology deserves nothing else except to enjoy the basic rights due to every group and individual. Free speech means nothing unless we defend the right to speak by groups we detest.

I was therefore disturbed to read the following story in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Hackers declare Scientology D-day
Leo Shanahan
February 7, 2008 - 11:27AM

Anonymous internet users who have previously crashed Church of Scientology websites have named February 10 as a worldwide day of protest in a bid to "destroy" the controversial religion.

The group - called Anonymous - which includes skilled computer hackers, has posted a message on YouTube declaring war on Scientology, accusing it of trying to censor the internet and conducting "campaigns of misinformation".

The apparent catalyst for the attack was YouTube's decision to remove a video of Hollywood star Tom Cruise - one of Scientology's most high-profile recruits - espousing the religion's virtues after the church asked that it be pulled.

"Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed, for the good of your followers, for the good of mankind, and for our own enjoyment," the statement says. ...

Last week several major Scientology websites crashed in the United States and Britain. The FBI was asked to investigate after envelopes of white powder were sent to 19 Scientology churches in the Los Angeles area. ...

I do not know the full details of the Cruise video. However, one page that continues to host the video speculates:

Yesterday, for a few hours, the clip of Tom Cruise discussing his beliefs as a Scientologist appeared on Youtube, and was republished by Radar and Defamer. That video is no longer available, most likely after the Church of Scientology sent in a copyright infringement notice.

I do not know if the Church of Scientology in fact holds the copyright to the video. Assuming that it does, for the sake of argument, censorship does not mean enforcing copyright. However, obviously Scientology cares nothing about the profitability of the video; the church is rightly worried that the video makes the church look ridiculous. As the cited poster of the video adds, "Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it." This is a complicated matter of copyright law, then, but, offhand (and I may change my opinion about this) I'd say that Scientology is within its rights to ask that the video be removed and Gawker is within its rights to host the video anyway. Hosting the Cruise video is not comparable to (for example) hosting a film that is elsewhere for sale.

Scientology can more plausibly be accused of censorship in its use of vindictive litigation to silence critics. Scientology seems little interested in respecting the rights of free speech of others. However, the solution to this problem is to reform the litigation process to curb abuses. Two wrongs do not make a right, and silencing Scientology is not the appropriate remedy for Scientology's abuse of its critics. Scientology should be required to respect the rights of others, but beyond that the only legitimate way to counteract the organization is to criticize it in open debate.

People have the right to be Scientologists and to promote the ideology of the religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand that Scientologists be protected from those who would attempt to silence the religion. "First they came for the Scientologists..."

Cruise Control

Tom Cruise is an amazing man, according to his own self-evaluation. Roger Friedman has written up an account of the recently released videos in which Cruise attempts to promote Scientology (but just comes off looking weird.) Here's one of Cruise's statements, as recorded at Diana Hsieh's blog: "We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions. We can rehabilitate criminals, we can bring peace and unite cultures."

Because who needs drugs when you can have Scientology?

Regarding the other claims, color me a skeptic.

I read somewhere that the church came out with a statement condemning the new "unauthorized biography" of Cruise, calling the book bigoted. However, reasoned criticism is not bigotry. I could not find the statement at Scientology.org. However, I did find the following statement:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized — and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

This is basically pop Platonism. In terms of its basic metaphysical views, the doctrines of Scientology are hardly stranger than those of Christianity. Beyond that, Scientology's specific programs, such as "auditing techniques for erasing engrams and creating Clears," constitute silly mumbo-jumbo. If you get taken in by Scientology, you deserve to be.

All that said, I've really enjoyed some of Tom Cruise's movies. Even people with quite peculiar and even horrid ideas can show great talent in certain fields. (To take another example, Bobby Fischer, who recently died, was great at chess but crazy in his evaluations of Jews and the United States. You don't need Scientology to sound like a nut.) I have no intention of reading the "unauthorized biography" of Tom Cruise. He's an actor; that's it. If he's headed for Michael Jackson Land, I could care less. And I think plenty of critiques of Scientology are out there.