More fun at Scientologists' expense
The rumor is Tom Cruise blackmailed Viacom into not re-airing South Park's hilarious Scientology episode, though his spokesperson denies it. Matt and Trey reminded me why they're my heros with this response:
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"
I defy you to read that without giggling.
Ordinarily I don't think it's fair to single out any religion's mythology for mockery unless you're going to do them all. So Scientology wouldn't get a second glance from me but for these hilarious protestations. It's like making fun of Canadians; half the point is how angry they get. They don't realize we don't care. The more self righteous they get the funnier it is to mock them.
It doesn't help Scientology's case any that their version of the creation myth is a little more bizarre than the major religions'.
posted by RWBB @ 3/17/2006 05:54:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I'm not sure why, but I feel a lot more comfortable making fun of religions that the sources are directly known. This mainly involves the ones created in the last century like jehovah witnesses, wicca, and scientologists.
Don't forget the Mormons. It's easier to ridicule a newly formed religion, but the fundamentals between them all are pretty much the same.
good point on the mormons. They are older than a century, but they still believe the rantings of one guy about ancient native american society that has no archiological evidence.
at least people think the main guy of my religion existed, and there were multiple sources, and the history around the time is verifiable. It's certainly a better start anyway, even if none of the religious stuff itself is provable.
To be fair though, the history is disputed. There's the Vatican's version and the historians' verison, like The Da Vinci Code, etc. Which, if you don't know, argues that the "Holy Grail" is really the bloodline of Jesus/Mary Magdalen that was buried by the church.
I'm not taking a position, just saying it's in dispute. The bloodline proponents have an interesting case, but all I've seen is the History Channel version of The Da Vinci Code.
The History Channel doesn't help its credibility much by putting on shows about crop circles with "experts" swearing the only explanation for them is alien spaceships when they have proof you can make them with a stick and some rope.
Still, The Da Vinci Code is a book I would love to read.
I'm not trying to claim that the gospels according to mark, luke, john, and matthew are completely historically verified. Heck, my understanding is that the 4 gospels were written from 2 different sources at best 40 years after Christ's death.
I'm just saying that I'm better than those fucking mormons.
Post a Comment
<< Home