Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Love don't cost a thing?
Word has it Warner Bros. has dropped giddy Cruise fiancee Katie Homes from the next Batman. Seems her googly-goo romance with the so-not-gay superstar overshadowed the film's opening, and the studio bosses didn't like that. Worse, the scuttle is that they didn't even feel she was key to the film -- Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were, apparently, and all three will be back (along with a new Joker... you know, they should get the guy who plays Bo Duke in the upcoming 'Hazzard movie to play the Joker ... he kind of resembles him...) Anyway, all's not so well that ends well for Katie, who was already the subject of an intervention attempt designed to free her from her May-December Scientology zen master...

And speaking of Scientology, Mens News Daily writer Cliff Kincaid makes a valid point about the media's near-complete lack of scrutiny of the chic-yet-wierd religion, in sharp contrast to their ubiquitous dissection of Christians and Christianity. Since the 2004 "values election," we've been subjected to ad nauseum analyses of conservative Catholicism (also fueled by Mel Gibson's "Passion" success and the ascention of a new pope), and a steady stream of MSM articles pitting apparently ureconstructed Christians against gay rights groups (with the former always portrayed as near-nuts, or at least pathetically old-fashioned and intolerant), school boards, courthouses and more. True, part of this is the conservative Christian politiical movement's own fault -- it is drawing attention to itself on purpose, as part of a bid to advance a specific agenda. But Scientology has an agenda too, and it's high profile followers have the money, and the access (via Hollywood rather than Fox News and the Free Republic) to put that agenda forward.

So why no scrutiny of a religion that has been described as a cult (or even a scam) by its critics and which springs in part from a belief in aliens? What gives? Could it be that in some respects, the religious right is actually right about the mainstream press and its bias against traditional religion? At the very least, it seems clear that the MSM believes that certain moral questions are objectively settled (gay marriage, abortion, sem cell research, etc.,) and that it is religious people who need to catch up. But for many thoughtful, intelligent people, those questions are far from settled, and people turn to varying philosophies to find answers for themselves (including Scientology). So it seems that if you're going to scrutinize some, you should scrutinize them all.

After all, is Mel Gibson really any weirder than Tom Cruise?
posted by JReid @ 11:54 PM  
ReidBlog: The Obama Interview
Listen now:


Site Feed

Email Me

**NEW** Follow me on Twitter!

My Open Salon Blog

My TPM Blog

My FaceBook Page

My MySpace


Blogroll Me!

Syndicated by:

Blog RSS/Atom Feed Aggregator and Syndicate


Add to Technorati Favorites

Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Thanks to all who voted!

About Reidblog

Previous Posts
"I am for enhanced interrogation. I don't believe waterboarding is torture... I'll do it. I'll do it for charity." -- Sean Hannity
Templates by
Free Blogger Templates