Neil Gaiman

[avevale_intelligencer]

O flist, live for ever, I am in sore confusion of mind, and I hope you can enlighten me.

I've been reading some extraordinary outpourings of vitriol against the aforementioned Neil about his alleged ties to the Church of Scientology. Now I've known about Neil for years now, as I've embarrassingly confessed in these pages and elsewhere, and I've never known there was any connection at all (so if he is one, he's doing a pretty poor job of spreading the good word), but apparently his parents became Scientologists when they moved to East Grinstead (as you do) so he was brought up in the faith, as it were. His sister still is one, his former wife is one, he's donated money to them in the past and apparently he's still involved in business ventures with his ex-wife and This Proves It, because (so I'm informed) no Scientologist can be involved in a business venture with anyone who is not also a Scientologist. So sayeth Facebook.

Now Neil is part of a Kickstarter campaign for a movie to be made, entitled Blood Kiss and written by Michael Reaves. (Link is here, if you're interested. Looks like fun.) He's apparently going to be acting in it (!). I would say that counted as a business venture if anything does. So the question becomes, if no Scientologist can et cetera et cetera, does this mean Michael Reaves is a Scientologist? (Quote from his blog: "It's hard to think of any religion that rivals Scientology in risibility...") How about Amber Benson, Neil's co-star? She worked with Joss Whedon; does that mean he's one? Neil has written for nuWho; what does that say about the BBC? How about Lenny Henry? Terry Pratchett?

And conversely, if that rule is not simply made up by those looking for a stick to beat him with because he's popular and successful, is there any reason for supposing that Neil Gaiman has, as of 2013, any connection to the Cult of Elron? Not that it matters to me; I have no beef with anyone's religion as long as they are decent human beings themselves, and I believe Neil is exactly that. I'd just like to know, and I don't know him well enough to ask him myself.

Comments

[delennara.livejournal.com]

I think,
(And that is where belief can fail)
That logic does not apply to religion.
So your logic chain is invalid.
Not because- no cause needed.

Not that I think you were wrong, I just think your reasoning does not matter when someone beliefs something. And thinking bad about sucessfull people is something that makes loosers feel better.

OTOH I hold some unreasonal beliefs dear myself. (Like meeting my dead loved ones one day in heaven) If you attack those with logic, I might hate you.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

I don't understand your reasoning here. AFAICT, Zander isn't trying to apply logic to religion. He's just trying to figure out something about people's possible membership in an organization, based on

• some things observed or conjectured about them --
1. Neil is part of a Kickstarter campaign.
2. The goal of the campaign is to make a movie written by Michael Reaves.
3. Reaves is [apparently] scornful of Scientology.
4. Neil
  a) was raised as a Scientologist,
and
  b) [according to some] still is one.

• or said about the organization's rules --
5. [Rumor (aka Facebook) hath it that] Scientology forbids its members to be involved in business ventures with non-Scientologists.

• or inferred about the application of those rules --
6. [Most probably] the Kickstarter campaign counts as a business venture.

Now. #1, 2, and 4a are not in question. If 3, 4b, 5, and 6 are correct, Z. deduces that either
A. Neil is not a Scientologist.
or
B. Reaves is one.
and he wonders about some other people.

If this is analysis is accurate, as I think it as, you could replace Scientology with Rotary International or the (U.S.) Republican Party or any other organization (and imagine that 3 and 4a were still true), and it would be equally valid.

So what does any of that have to do with religion being logical or not?

[delennara.livejournal.com]

The belief that every member of Scientology does....whatever, is a belief. People belief their religion or notreligion is better than scientology.

[delennara.livejournal.com]

Notreligion can mean:
My soocerclub is better than yours
I am better if I work out and eat 5 a day
Everyone is deluded exept independent thinkers
Cannabis rocks!!
Making cookies over real wood fire is the only real way!
Weeds in the garden of my neighbours, such sluts!

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'll never attack your beliefs, with logic or anything else.

[delennara.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about the Church of Scientology and their rules. However, I would point out that just because a religion has a rule does not mean that an individual member obeys that rule (or indeed that the majority of members do so).

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

A very good point. It does rather militate against the notion that the C of S is an evil mind control cult that brainwashes its victims into mindless obedience, but I've never believed that anyway, :)

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Thank you for not saying "mitigate against"!

:-)

Dr. Whom: Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

IIIII know the difference between "mitigate" and "militate." One is a political scandal about a guy named Walter who can't concentrate, and the other is the standard unit of measurement for modern art.

[batyatoon]

... Nyrond, you are my favorite. :D

[coth.livejournal.com]

I think I saw something recently that said in the UK only 3% of Christians pay any attention to the rules laid down by their church when deciding what to think and do. Can't find it, but it would illustrate this point nicely.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Probably true, but then that probably includes as "Christian" the people who for some reason regard that as the "default", also regard "conventional" as a good thing rather than a as synonym for "loser", have no religious beliefs (or disbeliefs) at all, would never dream of going to church except for weddings and funerals, and have no idea what any of those rules actually are.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's a synonym for loser, mostly because I don't believe in the existence of losers.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's a belief I can get behind.

[howeird]

I have no idea, nor do I care, what The Neil's religious beliefs are. However, the assertion that a Scientologist can only venture into business with other(s) of that religion can be laid to rest on the evidence of all the ventures America's Favorite Scientologist Tom Cruise has embarked on with non-co-religionists.

[hurdle1gal.livejournal.com]

Totally agree with howeird's entire comment.

[themis1.livejournal.com]

What does all this conjecture make Mrs Gaimon?

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

My conjecture is:

1) Neil probably has mixed, but mostly negative, feelings about scientology. There are a lot of hugely objectionable things about it, and he objects to them. But at the same time, lots of people he likes are scientologists, he has probably seen the better side of it too. Plus he knows that friends and family members will face pressure to disown him should he publicly say bad things about scientology.

2) Therefore he doesn't publicly say bad things about scientology. He doesn't say anything about scientology.

3) People who have good reasons to hate scientology are cross about that, because they think as a powerful ex-scientologist, who understands the bad stuff about it, he has a duty to speak out. They perhaps misunderstand his silent as more supportive of scientology than it is.

What I think about that is:

1) Neil has a right not to speak about scientology.

2) Other people have a right to criticise him for not taking a stand against what is a really quite unpleasant cultish organisation.

[ladymondegreen.livejournal.com]

As far as I know from statements Neil Gaiman has made in public he is Jewish and was raised Jewish. I've never heard of him being a Scientologist, though I expect it's possible from some vector, including possibly the conjecture about his ex-wife.

That being said, I know at least one person who has been in his home at regular intervals for longish periods of time and this person is not a Scientologist, nor have they ever mentioned Scientology in connection with him.