[Warning: opinions ahead] I'm feeling a bit annoyed with the press this week over their use of loaded language by the press when discussing Scientology. While I've obviously got nothing against legitimate criticism of an organization, a lot of the language being used is almost propagandistic in tone. Why is it that they were able to discuss Mel Gibson's involvement with a breakaway "Catholic" sect in glowing terms (most never bothered to report that Mel's faith was a non-Vatican approved variety), but can't discuss Tom Cruise's involvement with Scientology without veiled references to brainwashing?

Recent comments about Cruise and his friends and co-Scientologists are replete with references to the group's "hold" on him, to his friends in the groups as "minders" or "handlers." It's offensive. When Richard Gere's Buddhist friends drop by, the press doesn't chatter excitedly about "minders." Nor do they speculate about Madonna's sanity for associating with people who claim bottled water cures cancer. So what gives?

Folks, people do not get "brainwashed." People choose to associate with these groups, choose to believe what they believe. Sometimes they choose to believe odd things (That's hardly outside the norm, either- something like half of Americans reject evolution in favor of various religious oriented creation beliefs), and they're entitled to. Even famous actors can be attracted to unusual beliefs, and some might get excited by them, no secret occult control systems necessary. (and for all the squawking about "Xenu," is that really so much stranger than a girl impregnated by a spirit? Global flood, anyone?)

An interesting comparison of Scientology doctrine and gnostic theology.
(And a related peeve: can any reporter resist a mention of Aleister Crowley without the attendent phrase "Wickedest Man in the World?"