Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Celebrity Gossip!
The BUST Lounge > Forums > Media Whores
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83
lilacwine13
I've seen pictures of Britney's performance and if she has a gut, then I must be morbidly obese.

At this point, all I can feel is sorry for her. From a very early time in her life she was told that all she had going for her were her looks and her performing and now, I think Britney has no idea who she is or what to do with herself, all she knows is that she wants attention because I think she's afraid of what will happen when it dries up. Unfortunately, the media is more than willing to play along, even though she is fucking up her life so much. I'm willing to bet being called "fat" by a bunch of idiotic bloggers isn't helping matters either. She does need to get the hell out of the spotlight, spend some time figuring out what to do with her life, then maybe make a comeback, and get treatment for whatever mental illnesses or addictions she has.

I like Amy Winehouse and honestly think there have been a lot of male artists that have acted as fucked up as she has (even more so), yet it doesn't seem to hurt their reputations too much. If anything, they're seen as "dangerous," "rebellious," and "cool." It seems like a double standard, IMHO.
dusty
Hee. I remember when Material Girl came out, every time the X saw it, he would say, "She doesn't know how to sing". Then a year or two later, he commented that she must have taken singing lessons.
Divala
I finally got to see Britney's performance, and I can only feel sorry for the girl. She clearly isn't ready to make her big comeback yet. The synching was bad and her moves lacked any kind of energy. We all know she's capable of so much more, at least the dancing part. The bikini was unfortunate, but I think it would have been on anyone. But no way is the girl fat. Sure, she may not be uber-defined like she was before, but like you guys said, she's had 2 kids, and she still looks fine. I think the poor girl needs to hide out for awhile longer and get her shit together before she plans her comeback.

I'm sick of Madonna and her fake accent and her stupid red string.
zoya
I'd also like to add re: Britney - everyone is comparing her to when she was in her teens thru like 20 years old. There is a big difference in ANYONE between their teens and mid-twenties (she's 25 now) Even if she hadn't had kids, there's no way she's going to look like she did 5 years ago. And I think that she looks great for having had two kids and not having performed in 4 years. To me the whole lackluster performance was just a trainwreck. But the body? I wish people would lay off already.
Jezebel
Now there's a rumor that Britney is going to show up at the Emmys to apologize for her VMA performance. And that would accomplish...what, exactly? Besides giving bloggers the chance to call her fat for a few more days, that is. rolleyes.gif
CharliNye
God I want to round up ever single writer/blogger/moron who made references to Brit's weight in the last few days and hang them by their toes and pluck the hairs out of their head one by one.

No I'm not usually this violent but damn does this weight obsessed country make me sick. I can't open a frickin magazine or paper these days without someone printing something about how fat we all are, and blah blah. And yet this is the same country that hawks self help books like they're going out of style.

How the hell is a person supposed to feel good about themselves at ALL if this is the kind of crap that's thrown at us daily. I mean shit, she had two kids in two years and body wise still looks pretty damn good to me. I had a kid 14 mos ago and to look like her I'd have to take up smoking again, rarely eat and work out three hours a day every day.

uh huh, with two kids, a chronic illness and no time. Ok.

Sorry for the rant, but I"m just sick of people. I go on Perez just now and see a photo of Kelly Osbourne looking smashing, and there's all these comments from people talking about what a fat pig she still is and how she still needs to lose 40-50 lbs. The girl can't be more then a size 6 right now!!!! 40-50 lbs and she'd be anorexic and near death. Hell if I lost 50 lbs I'd be a size 0. People are nuts. And I HATE Perez now. He's such a wishy washy asshole. One minute he thinks Beth Ditto is hot and the next he's calling Britney and others fat pigs( Beth is fine as she is as long as she's happy with herself). I mean please, make up your fucking mind.

Oh and as for Amy's finger- Can someone say Staph Infection?? Holy shit, something like that can lead to a fucking heart attack. No joke.

Ughhh...I hate the celebrity world and media right now.
dusty
And if they're not going on about how fat people are, its how skinny people are.
crazyoldcatlady
QUOTE(CharliNye @ Sep 14 2007, 03:02 PM) *
And I HATE Perez now. He's such a wishy washy asshole. One minute he thinks Beth Ditto is hot and the next he's calling Britney and others fat pigs( Beth is fine as she is as long as she's happy with herself). I mean please, make up your fucking mind.


i was thinking the EXACT same thing, charli. he's all up in beth ditto's shit but is the first to plaster pics of brit and cheetos.
and he's skinny? i mean really.
jemisoutrageous
"I'm sick of Madonna and her fake accent and her stupid red string. "

AHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAH!!!! me, too!!!
Jezebel
I know that I need a break from watching bad celebreality shows, because while reading all of this Britney nonsense I actually had the thought "hey, maybe this means that a few years from now Britney can do a reality series where she moves in with Christina Aguilera and her husband and wacky hijinks ensue, like The Two Coreys". I'm going to go watch the history channel now and detox myself rolleyes.gif
pagangrrl
Has anyone heard anything along the lines of Henry Rollins and Janeane Garofalo dating? I'm really hoping it is true.
pollystyrene
are there still rumors that Janeane became a scientologist floating around? Was it ever confirmed? that would be so disappointing, and if she and Henry are dating, I hope he's not becoming one. I didn't think she'd ever become one, but last I heard, there was quite a bit of evidence.
kittenb
I really don't understand what the big deal is about a celebrity being a Scientologist. It affects me in no way what beliefs an actor has. I mean, I understand why Tom Cruise seems crazy, but there are so many reasons for that. But I am still going to love My Name Is Earl (or in this case The Truth aAbout Cats & Dogs) even if the stars suddenly started to worship the Great Goddess Green Cheese.
greenbean
I think its disapointing when celebrattys subscribe to a religion or political view I don't like because they are big influences on society. Sure, they are free to have their beliefs but it would change my opinion of them.

Note on Scientology: I recently got suckered into a scientology thing and I didnt know it. The whole time I thought, "Something is really off and wrong here." When I found out later they were scientologists I felt scammed or something. It just felt icky.
mouse
oh, thank GOD!

re: scientology--i think that it's far more annoying and disappointing to find out that someone believes in scientology as opposed to any other religion because a: IT IS A FAKE RELIGION INVENTED BY A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER TO SEE IF HE COULD DO IT PLUS IT IS ABOUT ALIENS SERIOUSLY GUYS and b: it seems (because no one actually knows 100% of what goes on inside the sanctum sanctorum of scientology) that it is mostly about lots and lots of money. oh, and tricking people.
pollystyrene
Scientology takes advantage of vulnerable, unstable people- I've read stories about how they target young people who look like they might have problems and they bring them into one of their "counseling centers" and start the process of brainwashing them...I think a girl I knew in high school who ended up having some serious mental issues got sucked into them. At least she lists "Scientology" as her religion on her myspace page without any irony and no one I know has talked to her in a long time, which makes me seriously suspect she's gotten sucked into their vortex.

I don't give a shit what religion celebrities are either, but like greenbean said, it's more about being disturbed about how much influence those wack-a-loons have in Hollywood.
thenewrussia
It seems that everyones on BRITTNEY's case. Now imagine if she weren't a pop star idol worth millions (or billions), and she was actually viewed as a normal human being who went through a little trouble in her mid twenties, would everyone in her city be such critics? I'd think not, it is only because she is in the public's eye that everyone feels that they should and can judge her. I happen to know many women who are single mothers who go through many of the things brittney does...although she should have practiced a little more for the VMAs. Its not like she's never performed for a big audience before. biggrin.gif
dusty
I think Scientology is considered a cult rather than a religion.

Ok, so I saw a photograph of Britney on the cover of one of the tabloids doing her trainwreck thing, and I practically ended up talking to myself in the checkout line in the supermarket, as in:"Fat? FAT? That's FAT????????????"
raisingirl
SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A RELIGION! It is a cult. Haven't we discussed this before?

Yeah, Polly, I've seen them try to hook people with innocent-seeming personality quizzes.

So...uh... is J.Lo pregnant or not? *feigns interest*
chachaheels
Technically, cults and religions are the exact same thing, if you're talking about them as institutions. Hard to find any difference between Scientology and Roman Catholicism, for example, in terms of how they operate and what their purposes are.

Except for domination over the film industry....Catholicism's actually had that kind of "spectacle" producing power for centuries (and that is why it became so wealthy and so powerful; but of course, film didn't exist...books, images, stories, plays, myths, these all existed and still do and still push forward a religious agenda). Scientology's doing that now in Hollywood and soon in other parts of the world, and film is a far more powerful medium than any of the old "spectacles" ever were. It can even reach far more people. Scientology is very powerful, wealthy, and influential in that industry now. I think we're seeing so many "conversions", as well as the huge push for conversion, because it's a means to be on the "in" group who has access to work and pay in that industry.

It's also been very interesting to see how the other factions who want to limit Scientology's influence have reacted, as well. Such as the rise in the production of Catholic Fundamentalist movies (ALL of Mel Gibson's latest movies reflect and promote his fundamentalism) and Christian Fundamentalist (their organized, massive "protesting" of Disney's connection to Scientology's films, their push for better "family films"...very well funded and very well organized politically).

So, yeah, other people's beliefs don't make any difference to anyone else as individuals, but we are definitely talking about influence, power, and control here, and not about personal spiritual choices, or enabling artistic expression through film media.
mouse
i'm not one to champion the validity of any religion (except maybe quakerism, HA HA) but i think that there is definitely a difference between something that's been around for nearly two thousand years, and something that has been around for about sixty. as many problems as there are with catholicism, i don't think it's at all accurate to blithely throw it into the same category as scientology...
roseviolet
According to the US Internal Revenue Service, Scientology is a religion. They get all of the tax breaks that other religions get.

But yeah, I think of it as more of a cult than anything.
chachaheels
I'm not really being blythe about it, the words are synonyms. We've just been led to understand "cult" as something with a negative connotation, when in reality it's simply another word for the same thing.

Before we started to be told that cults were all bad, the word was just used to describe a particular group of followers to any kind of religion, and sometimes to smaller factions within a larger religion.

For example: Roman Catholicism had a "cult of Mary" about 700 years or so after it became "established" as an institutionalized religion with lots of power. It was so large it almost did the church in. In a response, the Virgin Mary story and iconography became adopted into the dogma of the church. After all, you can't erase millions of years of human beings worshipping female deities just by saying God's A Big Old Man and That's That and expect all that collective human history and knowledge to just go away quietly and be forgotten. Actually, all of paganism had to be adopted and incorporated into Catholicism (check out the church's hagiography and you'll know a lot of those "saints" are just renamed old gods and goddesses) in order for the church to get people to literally "buy in" and continue to give their money, labour, and children to the church. We'd have lost so much of our human theological history if Catholicism had succeeded in eliminating paganism all together...but it survives because the church had to adopt it all or die.

There are still huge cults within the RC church as well: Mel Gibson, just to use an example again, is a member of quite a diverse and expanding cult within the church known as Catholic Fundamentalists. The previous and current Popes are also adherents to the Fundamentalist Catholics, so this particular cult within the church is getting a lot of attention lately.

But, largely, "cults" as we know them, do exactly the same things as all established religious institutions do: collect money from their followers, use the labour and resources of their followers to increase their revenue and worth, put their finances into the creation of wealth by making investments, usually in real estate; consolidate their financial power with political power to protect their interests, and further their aims by promoting their perspective and beliefs through the use of media. Catholicism grew this way: Scientology is at work doing the exact same thing. After all, if you want your endeavor to be successful, you follow a successful model. In our culture, in the last 6000 years, the template set up by the major world religions is a pretty good one to follow to the letter if you want to build a religion that will profit and last.

I think L. Ron Hubbard knew that well.

That's all I'm saying on it because people can get so upset if you don't just focus on Britney Spears and her missing undies.
anoushh
"We've been led" by who?

It's sloppy use of language at the very least to say that "cult" and "religion" are synonyms.

The fact that genuine religions develop cults within them doesn't change that.

And it does matter to me a great deal if someone is a Scientologist, just like it matters to me that Chris Langham is a pedophile. (I realize that's an obscure reference to most US readers, Langham being famous in the UK, but it's pertinent.) Scientology is pernicious, harmful, and abusive to say the least. If that doesn't bother you, well, I don't think I can enjoy your work (though I'm hard pressed to think of any Scientologists whose work I liked anyway.)
humanist77
aw, but what about Beck? he's really the only one i like though~
culturehandy
the worlds major religion developed as cults. From an anthropological perspective it's part of the process of religious evolution.
faerietails2
I love Beck. He can't help himself. He's a second-generation scientologist. tongue.gif
chachaheels
QUOTE
"We've been led" by who?


In one word: Media.

In my lifetime, I have seen massive "news" report time, money, and effort expended to "alert parents to the dangers of....", "make people aware of....", "open people's eyes to....", and make people terrified with "cults". From segments on hourly news broadcasts (everything from Nightline to 20/20 to 60 Minutes has done them) "exposing" the Moonies, the Hare Krishnas...and yes, even Scientology (but only back in the 1970's). There were even dozens and dozens of intended-to-be-terrifying made for TV films featuring children lost to cults and their pain-wracked parents trying to kidnap them back so they could be deprogrammed. These were such a big deal when I was a kid (in the 70's...I would say right on up and into the 80's). I even remember being given pamphlets at school which warned us to beware of Hare Krishnas, who would "invite us to a meal" where they would only serve us "low-protein foods" and repeat everything to us several times because they were trying to "hypnotize" us (they have a very large temple here in Toronto, and own much of the Dupont/Avenue Road area of the city....extremely expensive properties in the downtown area. At the time, they Krishna temple was one of the ONLY vegetarian food places here. People feared the Krishnas were, among other things, luring vegetarians in and forcing them to join up). Maybe this wasn't a big media fear all over the world, but here in North America where religion has always held way too much sway, many were very threatened by cults and tried to make others feel as threatened by them as well. I remember one film that came out around the time the original Star Wars did, called Inchon, which was fully funded by the Moonies. The film was universally panned and every reviewer mentioned, with a kind of terror, that the movie cost millions and was completely funded by that cult (but they never actually bothered talking about the movie further than that). Lots of hysteria surrounding cults back then.

It's quite interesting how silent the media has become, in comparison, now that Scientology is so powerful and so wealthy in Hollywood. And it is guilty of all the same abuses of all other cults and religions, including the major religions.

QUOTE
It's sloppy use of language at the very least to say that "cult" and "religion" are synonyms.
The fact that genuine religions develop cults within them doesn't change that.


From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
cult
Pronunciation:
\ˈkəlt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate
Date:
1617

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
— cul·tic
— cult·ish
— cult·ish·ly
— cult·ish·ness
— cult·ism
— cult·ist
— cult·like

"Cult" and "Religion" are synonyms.

Funny: when you look up the etymology of "religion", it comes from the root word "religio", which means constraint, bond (in the sense of being bound, restricted). While the root word for "cult" comes from "cultivare"... the root of English words like cultivate or cull....a word which implies a much more voluntary wish to develop religious or spiritual adherence. Ironic that we've come to "adopt" the belief that religions have voluntary members, while cults have only the hoodwinked kind.
zoya
I think that the biggest issue I have with Scientology vs other religions / cults / whatever is that in order to move 'up' to higher levels in the church, members have to spend huge amounts of money. I don't know a ton about scientology, but I lived in LA long enough to get the gist - and you can look it up anywhere on the web - there are different levels of conciousness, or whatever, that members strive to reach - and to reach each level, they have to do certain things. and it costs phenomenal amounts of money for each level as you go up.

True, other religions ask people to tithe 10% of their income, but I don't know any churches that REQUIRE people to if they want to get closer to whatever goal that religion has (enlightenment, salvation, etc) whereas Scientology does.

To me that seems like more of a scam than a religion.
faerietails2
QUOTE(zoya @ Sep 25 2007, 08:29 AM) *
To me that seems like more of a scam than a religion.


Definitely. I remember around the time Crazy Tom got married, one of the networks did this huge expose on his best man, the head of the "church." It was downright creepy. Plus they interviewed several people whose lives had been ruined by Scientology; these people were being hounded and stalked because they'd left the "church," but were still expected to pay up. It was really screwed up.
kittenb
I feel like I started this conversation so I'll weigh back in.
It just seems to me that people choose to be a Scientologist. At this point, there is enough information about the belief system that people know what they are getting into (or can learn if they do a quick internet search) and choose it anyway. That affects me in no way. So I don't worry about who is or is not a Scientologist. It's not my money and it is not my stupidity.
chachaheels
Zoya, all the major religions demand donations of money, land, resources, children, human work, etc. etc.
The catholic church built its empire on the sale of indulgences, particularly on selling indulgences to aristocratic families, who would often give huge gifts of property and children to the church. For centuries the Popes were all from the Italian and French aristocratic families exclusively. Indulgences were the way you bought your way into spiritual salvation...the more you bought, the more likely you and your family members would make their way into heaven (or the Church's own hierarchy).

Once again, parallel to what Scientology and every other religion in the world does.

There are those who willingly join, fully appraised of costs and benefits.
What I object to is the promulgation of the church's beliefs on a wide scale, with a great deal of media power.

Divala
Sorry to butt in, but I have to disagree that churches "demand" payments to be a member. Maybe it's because the more legitimate (read: non-Scientologist and other whackadoo cults) and have grown to a point where they no longer need to be so vigilant about it, but if a person wants to attend a mass, they aren't made to pay anything for it. Not that I'm in any way pro-church, but my experience with the Catholic church was that it asked, but never demanded.

I just don't understand how a bunch of morons who can't think for themselves would get sucked into a crock like Scientology. It's based on a science fiction novel about aliens and clams, fer chrissakes. And didn't Mr. L Ron even admit that it's all false and he wanted to see if he could get any followers (sorry, that was poorly paraphrased, but I thought it was something along those lines). They're like the Branch Davidians or those idiots who drank that Kool-Aid. At least you can prove that Jesus Christ actually walked the face of the earth at one point.
faerietails2
It's not demanded, but you're definitely conditioned to do it. I remember when I was a little kid going to CCD, part of the lessons were that you gave 10% (or whatever you could, but they definitely stressed the 10% thing) of your earnings to the church.

But speaking of having the life and all common sense sucked out of you...Katie's lookin' really aged and anorexic these days... *shudder*
raisingirl
Egads @ that Katie picture -- physical evidence that Posh's influence is rubbing off on her.

The church I was raised in (a form of Christianity, but not Catholic) didn't demand a tithe or any form of membership payments, either.

More info about the rumored Meg White sex tape here.

anoushh
You seem to be implying that any notion of cults is nonsense. There are cults out there. Yes, of course like so many other things it was hyped in a "movie of the week" kind of way.
That doesn't mean there was no truth in it.

I've worked with people who were in cults such as "Children of God." I don't have any connection to any religion--I'm a devout atheist myself, but in the mental health system there are significant numbers of people who are there as a result of their upbringing in these groups. It's pretty awful stuff.

In spite of their flaws, failings, etc, even the catholic church doesn't preach that children should have sex with the pope, nor does judiasm suggest you must have sex with the head rabbi, (including if you are a child), nor anglicans with the archbishop of canturbury, etc. It's a regular feature of many cults. And mind control techniques do exist, and cults use them.

And I'm well aware of what the dictionary says. A dictionary's function is to include every single meaning of a word, including the most obscure and outmoded. That doesn't mean it's preferred or clear usage. Cult and religion are related words, but not synonyms.

Cults routinely deceive people about their true purpose/aims/intentions.
Cults often use sleep deprivation and other techniques to influence and alter people's thinking.
Cults will insist you limit or end any involvement with family, friends, or anyone who isn't a member of the cult.
Cults insist on unquestioning obedience of their leader (who often claims special powers not available to others). (Religions may espouse a particular doctrine, but they don't forbid discussion of theology, etc.)
Cults encourage dependency and will control eating, sleeping, and patterns of living.

Yes, there are christian cults, catholic cults, etc, etc.

Interesting how these are pretty much the characteristics of an abusive partner, too.

You seem to make up your mind to something and that's it, chacha, so I'm not going to spend any more time on this nor will I derail the thread any more.

I'll just close by saying anyone who thinks Scientology isn't harmful doesn't know much about it. Either than or is a scientologist.

raisingirl
Speaking of mind control techniques, does anyone else remember hearing about a period of time, like several days, where Katie Holmes was supposedly unaccounted for and NOT A SINGLE PERSON could find her? The rumor was that she was being programmed (or deprogrammed) by the Scientologists... what ever came of that?

ETA: Oooooh. Fox News. blink.gif
zoya
demanding payment and suggesting a donation are two very different things, and it's been a long time since the catholic church demanded monetary (or equivalent in property, etc) payment to cancel sins. As an outcome of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V decreed that it was forbidden to attach any monetary value or receipt to an indulgence. After that, prayer, good works, etc. became the 'payment' of indulgence. So if someone confessed a sin to a priest, he might say 'say 10 hail marys and work a day in a soup kitchen' That kind of thing.

I'm talking modern times. I can't think of one major religion or for that matter, smaller groups in the US (such as the Hare Krishnas) that demands payment to be a part of the church or to 'forgive' sins, or buy salvation, or to become a higher-up member of that church. Yes, it's pretty well ingrained that one should donate 10% of their earnings, but it's voluntary, and it's to help the church fund itself and help the community. (in theory, of course there are some church members - Jim Baker, anyone? - who put money to their own use. But in general, I would venture to say most churches are on the up and up.) ...And if a member doesn't or can't give their 10% of income, they're not going to be seen as a lesser person.

However, it's very well documented that in order to achieve movement up the levels of Scientology, the member has to pay for 'training' on each level, and each level is more expensive. There is not another way to move up in Scientology. This is Scientology straight up telling people they have to pay.

that is not parallel with what every other religion in the world does. Unless you're talking pre-protestant reformation.

I know I'm de-railing, sorry. I always try to stay out of these discussions, but having studied world religion in school for 4 years, it's enticing (it did make me pretty well versed in what I choose NOT to be a part of, though! (ie: organized religion) )
dusty
*I* remember being lured into that Hare Krishna temple back in 1976...
bunnyb
Whatever happened to poor little Joey Potter?

I'm interested, raisin; it may not be Britney's knickers but it's pointless celeb gossip and conspiracy theories at its finest.
anoushh
I'm sorry kitten, but this is really bothering me.

Scientologists, like other cults, are not upfront with who they are or what they are doing. That's the nature of a cult. It's not until you are sucked in that they start to come "clean"--sort of, at least.

So people don't necessarily know what they are doing. And believe it or not, not everyone has easy access to a computer.

Also, they prey on vulnerable people. That's not ok. Not everyone has the same capacity and strength to resist, educate themselves, etc. Women in particular are trained to be "good" and obedient, which makes them more vulnerable to cults often.

It also affects you personally in no way if Michael Vick is abusing dogs by fighting them, but doesn't that bother you?
And yes, scientologists are hurting more than themselves. If you want to use the internet for a bit of research yourself (since that's the answer) you can find out some of their history and the violence and abuse they have perpetrated. Tom Cruise's and Becks, and the Presleys' money and promulgation all facilitates that abuse. So it does matter to me.


Also, what is a cult?
http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

Ok, I SWEAR I won't post on this again. I really promise.


QUOTE(kittenb @ Sep 25 2007, 02:06 PM) *
I feel like I started this conversation so I'll weigh back in.
It just seems to me that people choose to be a Scientologist. At this point, there is enough information about the belief system that people know what they are getting into (or can learn if they do a quick internet search) and choose it anyway. That affects me in no way. So I don't worry about who is or is not a Scientologist. It's not my money and it is not my stupidity.
chachaheels
Zora, what you say is correct but I must stress that once the church established power and wealth and built an empire, so much of what made it so powerful was no longer needed. Instead, it continues to make its fortunes through real estate, lobbying municipal, state, and federal governments for political power (and tons and tons of money goes back and forth there, just as other lobbying groups take and give cash) and a great deal of the equivalent of slavery still takes place to support the Catholic Church. Not picking on it particularly, just using it as an example to show that, like all other major religions, it is guilty of exactly what we accuse "cults" of doing.

As for the idea of paying to advance spiritually, ever try talking to a priest about getting married in the Catholic church of your choice lately? Or having your child baptized, given communion, or confirmation? Better believe it will not get done without a sizeable, demanded donation, from you to the church in question, and the size of the "donation" is specified not just for the service but in your weekly donations to the church, which are now documented by the church's accountant. Not suggested, demanded. Happens all over the province where I live. This is the equivalent to what you describe, since these are in fact sacraments of the church and undergoing each of them is the equivalent to spiritual advancement for an adherent.

Lots of this stuff still going on in the church, without even getting into the massive economic exploitation the church conducts on the women who work with the church, people whose lands and resources have been plundered by the church (and continue to be plundered) and abuses such as the Magdalen Laundries (and many so-called "orphanages" which involved taking children away from native families so that they could be educated as Catholics). It's never really stopped, people will submit to the demands of the church because they'd prefer not to feel like they're breaking some moral code, and the church profits by telling them they are somehow fulfilling God's will.

Anoushh, feel free to conclude whatever you like about me and my closed mindset, and to interpret what the dictionary says as simply invalid and sloppy use of the language regarding word definitions. You're entertaining, and no one wants that to stop.

No more for me on this topic. I just read in Popbitch that someone has suggested Britney Spears go into the deep south and hide away with Dolly Parton to re emerge after some time with big hair and country music records. I like this idea so much better than my Britney Go To France idea, so I'm repeating here in hopes that it will catch on.
bunnyb
*Ahem* chachaheels, you mean zoya, not zora.
chachaheels
You're right, bunnyb, I do mean Zoya, and not Zora. My apologies, Zoya.
zoya
and somewhat on the scientology / conspiracy tip:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7021079.stm

(still celebrity gossip related, tho)
kittenb
Eww, eww, eww! This story just makes my skin crawl:

Is Pamela Anderson ready to marry again?

Mon Oct 1, 4:49 AM ET

Wedding bells might not be far off for Pamela Anderson. The former 'Baywatch' star and Rick Salomon applied for — and were granted — a marriage license late Saturday in Las Vegas, according to the Clark County's Marriage License Bureau.

The license means the couple can get married any time during the next year.

Anderson, 40, has been previously married to singer Kid Rock and Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee.

Salomon, 38, is best-known for making a sex videotape with his then-girlfriend Paris Hilton and was previously married to actress Shannen Doherty.

Anderson's publicist, Cindy Guagenti, did not immediately return a call for comment Sunday.

Earlier this month, Anderson appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and said that she was dating a "mystery man" who was a professional poker player, but would not give any further details.

I have no particular problem with Pam Anderson, but is she capable of being with a man who doesn't radiate slime?
kari
kitten, I saw that this morning, too. What is wrong with that woman?? Seriously.

lananans
Pam Anderson is seriously messed up. Too many drugs will do that to a person.

What are other people's thoughts on Britney Spears? It's like a train wreck that I can't help but be fascinated with. She just lost custody of her kids for driving in California without a valid drivers license (among other things) while her kids were in the car. I just have trouble believing that someone could be as stupid as she is. It's absolutely ridiculous. And her performance on MTV was tragic. I want to say Poor Britney, but I can't really. Like Pam, I think its the drugs.
roseviolet
Just heard the news about Britney losing custody of her kids. Sigh. Was she always this stupid and we just didn't know it because her handlers managed to keep it from the public?

As for Pam Anderson, I've never been a fan. Too me she is just as oily and nasty as the men she dates.
lananans
I never thought of that, maybe she really was always this stupid, like you said, and now that she's fired all of the sensical people around her and distanced herself from her parents the true, white trash girl is coming out. And I was hoping for a comeback.

In other news, the Spice Girls reunion concert for London sold out in 38 seconds! Craziness! I really want to go to their concert in Toronto but I know it will be impossible to get tickets and it will probably conflict with exams. le sigh.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.