Bart Simpson Scientologist
Posted by Brett Singer at 7:15 AM on February 3, 2009
Telemarketing is annoying. Robocalls, telemarketing via robot, even more so. But a robocall that promotes a cult using the voice of a cartoon character popular with kids?
Very very bad.
Nancy Cartwright is the voice of Bart Simpson. She is also a Scientologist who reportedly gave more than $US10 million to the religion/cult in 2007. (Wow. Voice acting pays better than I thought.) If she wants to give her money to an organisation that promises to rid her body of aliens (or whatever it is that Scientologists believe), that’s her right.
Nancy, however, wants more people to realise the benefits of Dianetics and giving your money away. Listen to this:
First I have to say that I have no idea what the hell she is talking about (man). “I’m now auditing on new OT VII.” “OT” doesn’t mean “occupation therapy”; it stands for “Operating Thetan.” Which is “a spiritual state above Clear.” Which means… you know what? I’m going to stop there because I don’t even want to know. This stuff makes my brain hurt.
Why even write about this? Because it annoys me that Cartwright is using a character that kids might identify with to promote this nonsense. Personally, I think Scientology is a cult. But even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and call it a religion, it’s still wrong. Obviously she thinks that using Bart’s voice on the call is the equivalent of a kid running for student council president putting “Free Beer! Now That I Have Your Attention…” on her posters. (Which I think was something Homer did in a Simpsons episode.) Who is likely to be intrigued by hearing that voice? A kid who likes The Simpsons, right? “Hey dad! I just heard that the lady who does Bart Simpson’s voice is going to be appearing someplace. Something about aliens. Sounds cool. Can we go?”
Is this line of thinking overwrought? Maybe. But Fox disavowed the call, so they clearly saw something wrong with it. I don’t know if they can do anything to Cartwright; she didn’t release a video with Bart’s image or something else that was obviously a copyright violation. I hope that somebody sits Nancy down and explains to her that she’s entitled to believe whatever she wants, but when she starts using Bart’s voice to convince other people to believe in the same thing, she may find out that there are a lot of actors who can do a damn fine Bart Simpson impression.(For lots of reasons why people think Scientology is not only creepy but dangerous, check out this site.)
Source: Gawker , Village Voice
Image: The Sun
I don’t care what their beliefs are, but scientologists are liars. They pretend they’re a religion when it suits them, then say they are not a religion if that will help them. People pay thousands of dollars to them before they learn it’s all based on space aliens. SHAME ON YOU, SCIENTOLOGISTS!
Scientologists Vicki Dunstan and Kate Ceberano, and Scientology management, all seem certain to demand huge damages payouts, and an apology, after an Australian television network reported that they are liars.
Dunstan, Ceberano and the Church have repeatedly denied that Scientology’s upper levels teach that the world’s problems are caused by people being infested with “body-thetans” – the harmful spirits implanted by the actions of the ancient galactic warlord “Xenu”.
Channel Seven, on their Today Tonight program, reported that those denials are lies, because the “body-thetans” teachings are a component of upper-level Scientology. Channel Seven backed up their claims with documents, the accounts of ex-scientologists, and the recorded words of Scientology founder, L Ron Hubbard.
Calling someone a liar, as Channel Seven did, is defamatory.
The only reason possible reasons that Dunstan, Ceberano or Scientology could possibly fail in defamation suits are these:
(a) Dunstan, Ceberano and Scientology’s reputations are so low that nothing anyone could say about them could lower their reputations further
or
(b) Dunstan, Ceberano and the Church of Scientology management really ARE liars.
The Church of Scientology has a rock-solid policy of litigating to recover damages. Obviously, Scientology will sue and demand huge damages for this seeming defamation. It would be unethical for the Church to miss out on the huge damages payout they are entitled to, especially with membership drying up in Australia. It would be unethical to allow this defamation to go un-vindicated as it might turn people off the path to Salvation offered by Scientology.
Keep watching.
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5300692/none/world-exclusive-scientology-alien-secret-exposed