Will Smith, Reprogrammed

Over the holidays, an interview Will Smith gave to a Scottish newspaper became the scandal of the week - specifically, this passage:

Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.

"Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today'," said Will. "I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good'. Stuff like that just needs reprogramming."

You'll note that Smith didn't actually say that everyone (Hitler included) is "basically good"; the reporter interpolated it. But even that interpolation was enough to bring the Jewish Defense League down around his head, complete with a ridiculous statement that Smith had "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought (and sometimes died) to save the world from the intentions of Adolf Hitler."

Seriously: They really said this.

Still, I remember thinking at the time that there was something creepy about Smith's comments - not the totally banal speculation about Hitler's psychology, but the line about how "stuff like that just needs reprogramming." And now comes news that Smith may be a recent convert to his great pal Tom Cruise's Church of Scientology. So it all makes sense. (Though of course, as Noah Feldman would no doubt be quick to point out, I only find Scientology so creepy because it was founded relatively recently.)

Meanwhile, in related news, I'm really looking forward to that new unauthorized Cruise biography, assuming Scientology's legal team lets it see the light of day ...

Comments

Yikes.

Actually, though it will make Mormons howl in protest, the cosmology of Scientology is actually remarkably similar to that of Mormonism--the emphasis on pre-mortal existence, the finite nature of the godhead, the confidence in human spiritual growth beyond our creaturely natures. It's all there. It just goes to show that the same old views keep popping up over and over and over in human history. There is very little new under the sun.

Posted by Brent | January 10, 2008 11:06 AM

The first part of Smith's statement is true. People don't think to themselves, "I'm doing evil." They think they're doing good. If they admit they're doing a bad thing, they usually think it's excusable or in the service of larger good.

The "reprogramming" line is false and creepy.

I think Feldman would say that the recent vintage of Fictiontology contributes to its perceived weirdness. I doubt that he would argue that 1500s Spanish Catholicism and Aztec religious practices have the exact same level of plausibility and goodness as today's American Mainline Protestantism.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 10, 2008 11:10 AM

Um, the last sentence of my above comment, about the Aztecs and whatnot, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

My point is that recently launched religions are more subject to hostile fact-checking than are older ones, but that isn't the only factor in the world by which a person might evaluate a religion's claims.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 10, 2008 11:15 AM

Ross - I'm guessing you know this, but just in case you don't: the Jewish Defense League isn't exactly a mainstream group. They're nuts, actually. The fringe-iest people on the fringe. Go check out the section of their website devoted to true Jewish heroes. There, among others, you'll find Meir Kahane listed among the "great Jewish heroes of the twentieth century." Which only goes to prove that you shouldn't rely upon the entertainment press for accurate reporting on the anti-semitism beat. And you should know better.

Posted by AdamT | January 10, 2008 11:45 AM

Ross - I'm guessing you know this, but just in case you don't: the Jewish Defense League isn't exactly a mainstream group. It's not - as you and others might be mistaking it - the respectable Anti-Defamation League. The JDL, they're nuts, actually. The fringe-iest people on the fringe. Go check out the section of their website devoted to true Jewish heroes. There, among others, you'll find mass murderer Meir Kahane listed among the "great Jewish heroes of the twentieth century." Which only goes to prove that you shouldn't rely upon the entertainment press for accurate reporting on the anti-semitism beat. And you should know better.

Posted by AdamT | January 10, 2008 11:47 AM

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with Will Smith (although I'm not sure about L. Ron Hubbard.) All human actions are aimed at achieving a good, but right reason is required to evaluate and prioritize goods. "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 1.

The trouble is, achieving right reason is a lot tougher than having your engrams audited or whatever.

Posted by MarkC | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM

What Elvis said. It's rarely a good idea to bring up Hitler in polite conversation, but Smith's first point is perfectly reasonable. There is far more evil committed in the service of a perceived "greater good" than as a result of the cartoonish machinations of Dr. Evil characters. That's a theological lesson that some of our political leaders could stand to learn.

It's the "reprogramming" bit that's creepy.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 10, 2008 12:40 PM

Ross, I am going to take the position you make fun of. Of course you find scientology incredible because it is recent. It is easy to identify falsities, improbabilities, cult-like behavior, compulsion, and all sorts of other things in a religion that is just 50 years old.

Let me give you this hint, Ross, Christianity prospered and expanded for centuries not because of the transforming power of Jesus' message but because of an alliance between church leaders and governments, and the state-sanctioned persecution of nonbelievers. But that happened hundreds of years ago, so it isn't in front of our noses the way the actions of the Church of Scientology are.

But in terms of which religion ACTUALLY has engaged in more improper, compulsory, cult-like behavior over its history, it is Christianity and it isn't even close.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 2:20 PM

This from the guy who knows so little about medieval history that he actually thought that Jews were burned for 'heresy'.
It will take a long time to live that down, Dilan.

Posted by Hector | January 10, 2008 2:37 PM

Dilan,

Do you think that the alliance between church leaders and governments was a bad thing? Do you think they should have had sepearation of church and state, or one of your 18th century panaceas like that? Of course the church used their power badly, at times. But the proper role of religion and government is to work in concert. A perfect State and a perfect Church would work in concert and unison. The State exists to encourage men to love their neighbor, and the Church exists to encourage them to love God. the only thing worse than religious government, to use the old aphorism, is irreligious government.

Posted by Hector | January 10, 2008 2:41 PM

This from the guy who knows so little about medieval history that he actually thought that Jews were burned for 'heresy'.
It will take a long time to live that down, Dilan.

Only among people who take my statements out of context as you just did, Hector.

Do you think that the alliance between church leaders and governments was a bad thing? Do you think they should have had sepearation of church and state, or one of your 18th century panaceas like that? Of course the church used their power badly, at times. But the proper role of religion and government is to work in concert. A perfect State and a perfect Church would work in concert and unison. The State exists to encourage men to love their neighbor, and the Church exists to encourage them to love God. the only thing worse than religious government, to use the old aphorism, is irreligious government.

Hector, I guess the first thing to say about that view is that it is emphatically rejected in Scripture. (See Matthew 22:21.) Church leaders who wanted power and the ability to force people to accept Jesus ignored the dictates of the man who founded their religion and whom they allegedly worshipped.

Beyond that, though, you are simply dead wrong. Because a lot of people think that your alleged "God" is a imaginary hallucination, the use of state power to compel obediance to God is completely illegitimate.

And I might add, Hector it wasn't just "using their power badly". It was a power they shouldn't have had. It was simply a gravely evil act for, for instance, the Spaniards to threaten a painful execution of Atahualpa if he did not convert to Chirstianity. Because Atahualpa's religious beliefs were entitled to equal respect and Atahualpa was entitled to be free from state compulsion. The fact that the Incas, in turn, didn't recognize religious freedom either doesn't make the Spaniards' position right.

The separation of church and state is one of the singular human advances in the history of civilization. It allows religions to flourish without the state compelling belief. You want to throw that all away, in favor of a Hobbesian past.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 2:56 PM

Christianity prospered and expanded for centuries not because of the transforming power of Jesus' message but because of an alliance between church leaders and governments, and the state-sanctioned persecution of nonbelievers

Well, I don't think that's true of the early history, which had to be pretty successful for it to get to the point of having that alliance, no? I mean, the early spread of Christianity had something to do with the power of Jesus' message, I think just about everyone would recognize who isn't, well, dumb.

It was simply a gravely evil act for, for instance, the Spaniards to threaten a painful execution of Atahualpa if he did not convert to Chirstianity.

I agree. I don't think Hector would disagree -- I'm not sure exactly what Hector's model is, but I don't think it's _quite_ temporal persecution of nonbelievers.

I would say that I don't think the state compelling Atahualpa to _not proclaim his beliefs in public_ would be gravely evil. A bad idea now, and contrary to the spirit of liberalism (which I have no use for, as spirits go -- give me a good whiskey any day), but in principle, in some times and places a very reasonable course of action. Heretics can, depending on context, legitimately be shut up -- but they shouldn't be compelled to change their minds

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Well, I don't think that's true of the early history, which had to be pretty successful for it to get to the point of having that alliance, no? I mean, the early spread of Christianity had something to do with the power of Jesus' message, I think just about everyone would recognize who isn't, well, dumb.

Well, how "successful" do you mean? There were a bunch of competing and sometimes contradictory sets of beliefs all running around purporting to be the word of Jesus. As the religion gradually gained more and more power, it also gradually settled on an orthodoxy and cast out heretics. But let's say that at the time Constantine conversted there were 1,000,000 Christians, which is probably an overestimate. How do you get from there to half a billion? The vast growth and territorial expansion of Christianity occurred through state power, conquest, and coerced conversion. Compared to that, the Church Scientology are pikers.

I would say that I don't think the state compelling Atahualpa to _not proclaim his beliefs in public_ would be gravely evil. A bad idea now, and contrary to the spirit of liberalism (which I have no use for, as spirits go -- give me a good whiskey any day), but in principle, in some times and places a very reasonable course of action. Heretics can, depending on context, legitimately be shut up -- but they shouldn't be compelled to change their minds.

No way. I suppose there can be situations where, for reasons for politeness, one could say that one shouldn't be proclaiming their religious beliefs. Indeed, one of my problems with modern evangelicals is that many of them don't seem to get that it is rude to nonbelievers and believers of other faiths to be pushing Christianity at football games. But in terms of state power, it is always a terrible act to prohibit people from expressing their religious beliefs. If Jesus' message is really the way, the truth, and the life, let it compete with other religious beliefs and win on the strength of its ideas and its message, not because it has the power to shut other religions out of the public discourse.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 4:14 PM

As to my earlier point: "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture."— George W. Bush

Of course, by US law and treaties we've signed, George Bush does condone and order torture.

But "torture" is something only bad people do. So therefore, we don't "torture," we use "Verschärfte Vernehmung" (German for "enhanced interrogation"). And we only do it to people who are really, really bad. And only to keep Americans safe.

So it turns out we're doing good after all!

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 10, 2008 4:16 PM

But in terms of state power, it is always a terrible act to prohibit people from expressing their religious beliefs.

If that belief endorses, say, the violent overthrow of the state, or the murder of non-believers, and is likely to be gaining popularity in a fragile order (like those of much of human history), with a good chance of leading to widespread bloodshed and murder? I think it's a reasonable act of self-defense to shut the barn door before the horse is stolen, really. That is not, even with the more radical strains of Islam, our current state, so it's not really reasonable, but it's foolish to pretend all of history has access to the state powers and the stability of the modern West.

Heck, even the modern West may not have it fifty years from now.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabasc | January 10, 2008 4:33 PM

If that belief endorses, say, the violent overthrow of the state, or the murder of non-believers, and is likely to be gaining popularity in a fragile order (like those of much of human history), with a good chance of leading to widespread bloodshed and murder? I think it's a reasonable act of self-defense to shut the barn door before the horse is stolen, really. That is not, even with the more radical strains of Islam, our current state, so it's not really reasonable, but it's foolish to pretend all of history has access to the state powers and the stability of the modern West.

I can certainly see a state suppressing some forms of sedition (though watch out! this has to be very narrow or it ends up criminalizing the opposition to the government!) on the grounds that it is seditious.

But not on the ground that it is religiously-based sedition.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 5:09 PM

Dilan,

Yeah. I just would go a bit further and muse that I really don't see the fundamental philosophical objection, given confidence in the truth of, say, Christianity, for not politely and kindly silencing dissidents outside certain parameters.

This does, yes, mark me as completely outside the liberal consensus, or even the conservative version thereof, and is not in line with the US Constitution's approach. I don't think NOT silencing is necessarily a bad idea, I just don't think I have any first principles that make it axiomatically bad.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 10, 2008 5:30 PM

"The vast growth and territorial expansion of Christianity occurred through state power, conquest, and coerced conversion. Compared to that, the Church Scientology are pikers."

You might want to get your history from sources other than "The Da Vinci Code."

True state power, etc played a major role. However this is not the sole role. As far as I know none of these things were involved in the conversion of Ireland. Christianity is fairly vibrant in South Korea, but they've always been ruled by Buddhists or Confucians. The only Christians that may have ruled part of Korea was Russia and Russian Orthodoxy isn't exactly the Christianity common there.

In addition to that it's still too soon to tell if Scientology is a "piker" in comparison. At fifty years old Christianity wasn't doing any of the things you mention. Read up on the first century of Christianity and compare it to the first fifty years of Scientology. If after that you still think Scientology comes out the same or better than I guess that's your opinion, but right now you're clearly basing things on ignorance.

Posted by Thomas R | January 10, 2008 5:41 PM

Marquis,

No, I certainly don't think that the Spanish and Portuguese occupation of the New World was a good thing, and I think that it is a travesty and shame that the Church blessed it. (Though to be fair, the English Dutch were even more brutal in their colonial adventures, which weren't blessed by the Church).

I did say "a perfect Church and perfect State." Given the realities that we never have had a perfect state or a perfect church, I acknowledge that _as things stand_ it's better to have the religious authority, in general, separate from the temporal authority. That doesn't mean that religious _values_ ought not to influence politics and society. And it doesn't mean that, in certain times and certain places, individual clerics did not make good leaders. I don't think that Savonarola and Archbishop Makarios were any worse leaders for being clerics. In that time and in that place, Florence and Cyprus needed a good dose of old time religion.

I suppose my ideal is something like a 'Republic of the Saints'. I'm sure that as a Catholic, you have bad memories of that phrase- I'm not supporting what the Republic of the Saints did, just that the abstract idea seems compelling to me.

Posted by Hector | January 10, 2008 6:07 PM

True state power, etc played a major role. However this is not the sole role.

Where did I say "sole"?

In addition to that it's still too soon to tell if Scientology is a "piker" in comparison. At fifty years old Christianity wasn't doing any of the things you mention. Read up on the first century of Christianity and compare it to the first fifty years of Scientology.

Actually, Christian believers express way too much security in their knowledge of what happened in the early years of Christianity. Simple things that are accepted truths to believing Christians-- such as that St. Peter made it to Rome and was a moving force in the organization of an organization in Rome that became the embryonic Catholic Church-- are supported by little or no evidence. The actual authorship of the books of the New Testament doesn't seem to at match the claimed historical authors. Even the existence of Jesus isn't exactly a historically-established fact.

What we do know is that there were a number of people running around proclaiming themselves to be followers of Jesus, and preaching very different messages, very different belief systems and theologies (as well as NONtheological beliefs), different scriptures and testaments, etc. At some point, order was imposed, and state power was used to drive deviations from the orthodoxy underground. That's why, for instance, gnostic gospels were hidden away and found buried centuries later.

That is, of course, somewhat different than the history of Scientology. But not in a way that inspires any more confidence that the Christian orthodoxy that was eventually settled upon 300 years or so out-- and which itself has changed and been disputed many times since then-- was in any particular ways congruent to Jesus' actual teachings.

But what you have to see is that coercion was instrumental to the far-flung spread of Christianity. It became the dominant religion in Europe during a historical era when Europe was the dominant power and cultural center of the world, and it got there through state coercion. Scientologists may seem creepy and cult-like and may exercise some coercive methods of obtaining and keeping members, but they have a lot of catching up to do.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 10, 2008 6:22 PM

If people don't want to believe that we are not born evil but rather can become evil (Which i think is all Will was saying), then they are contributing to the same prejudice that caused the Nazi logic.

Posted by Jolie | January 10, 2008 9:41 PM

I think there's more reason for mild confidence about certain aspects of early Christian history than Dilan grants. See, for example, Pelikan on the subject.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 11, 2008 3:04 PM

I think there's more reason for mild confidence about certain aspects of early Christian history than Dilan grants. See, for example, Pelikan on the subject.

Marquis, if you ask Christian historians like Jaroslav Pelikan, of course they will bend the rules to make a case that we know a ton about early Christianity.

But you might want to look at some of the more critical scholarship. As I said, there really isn't any proof of the EXISTENCE of Jesus, let alone a bunch of the other stuff that believers believe about the early church.

But more broadly, I think you need to back way up about what we are going to know about ANY nascent religion 1,900 years ago. And the answer is "not a whole lot", because they didn't have newspapers or any form of mass media, and that history that was recorded was generally either recorded by people who didn't care to chronicle the early Christians or who were fabricating a founding legend (i.e., whoever wrote the various gospels).

The fact is, Christians who walk around sure of what the faith was like in its early years are Christians who haven't really engaged the problem. And reading historians who are Christians and are trying to "prove the faith true" is not an antidote to that.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 12, 2008 12:13 AM

I wasn't talking "orthodoxy" or orthodoxy alone. Although I think you're exaggerating the level of variation, but it's true some things are uncertain.

I'm sure I can find many secular historians of early Christianity who'd also agree that in its first two centuries it didn't do anything like what Scientology did in its first decades. Granted there are gaps so you can imagine a "creepy early Christianity of the gaps" argument, but it's not really proof of anything. Although I think a proof could be shown indirectly. If Christianity circa 50 or even 90 AD had been involved in efforts to purge negative information on them from Roman governor's files, as Operation Snow White tried to do for Scientologists in the US, the Roman persecutions would most likely have been earlier and much more thoroughly reported. The earliest persecutions by Romans don't really mention anything like sedition or harassment in the way of Scientologists. They were mostly accusations of atheism and improper values. If an analogy is to be used from early Christianity to a new-religion you could say they were more in a position like the Raelians. (Remember that UFO group that claimed to clone a baby)

Granted another factor that shift that is that both Scientology and Raelians are based in a kind of pseudoscience. They aren't simply making unverifiable theories about life or meaning. They both claim to have a kind of "science" to them. These claims about the brain or biology can be proven or disproven. In many cases they have in fact been disproven. Hence they're both less credible than Christianity, Buddhism, or even newer faiths like Baha'i.

Posted by Thomas R | January 12, 2008 5:18 AM

The JDL is a fringe group that in no way speaks for the mainstream of Jewish American opinion. They thrive, of course, off their ability to get into the news by making more and more outlandish quotes. I believe that the representatives of mainstream Jewish organizations (the ADL, the AJC, and so on), when asked about the Will Smith interview, made the obvious point that Smith said nothing hurtful or insensitive and that there was no reason to gin up controversy over the issue.

Posted by observer | January 12, 2008 12:47 PM

I don't understand how the part about "reprogramming" is creepy to some of you. I think that what he means by that is that Hitler's thinking was backwards and twisted, as he said himself, and that a reprogramming of the way he thinks, whether it's through therapy or some other kind of treatment which was not available to him at that time, or rather he chose not to do so, would "reprogram" him to think normally.

Posted by C. | January 12, 2008 3:13 PM

"Reprogramming" is an odd word-choice because usually that's the kind of term you use for computers or VCRs. In my case though I'm not sure it bothered me at all. It's not much different than the Catholic idea a person can have a warped conscience that needs retrained. Or the notion in therapy of behavior modifications to do with phobias or OCD.

Posted by Thomas R | January 12, 2008 9:56 PM

Isn't the Jewish Defense League listed as a terrorist group by the State Department? Weren't they the group that did drive-bies against young brown children in Brooklyn because they might have been Muslims or Arabs? Wasn't their founder deported to Israel?

It is kind of weird, but strangely understandable (in the cause and effect sense, not in the "if you were in their shoes" sense) how the people who do the most damage - psycho dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. - tend to think they are right and yet the handful of serial killers and child molesters who actually do know they are evil tend to hurt fewer people.

The re-programming comment is kind of creepy, but then again, if there was a person who needed some sort of re-programming (but not exactly being hooked up to a fake machine to test you for thetan levels) would be Hitler.

Posted by Reality Man | January 13, 2008 8:42 AM

Reality Man,

Actually, there are substantial grounds for doubt whether Stalin, for one, was acting out of ideological fanaticism or 'believed he was right'. The idea that he was an ideological fanatic acting out the consequences of his ideology is pleasing to conservatives, but that's no reason why you or I need to accept it. The fact that Stalin was capable of changing his ideology on a dime, that he showed very little tolerance to rival factions which ideologically were fairly similar to him, and that he helped crush some far-left revolutionary movements in places like Spain, South America and elsewhere, indicate that he was less concerned about ideology than about power. Hell, there is even a letter (of dubious provenance) indicating that he was an informer for the Czarist secret police at one time. Stalin was simply interested in his own power, and Marxist ideology was a vehicle to that goal. If he had lived in America, he would have become a ultra-capitalist Mafia don or something like that. Unfortunately, he became the leader of a country instead.

Mao, you're right, was probably actuated by ideology, but it seems absurd to me that Marxism corrupted Stalin rather than the other way around.

And that's also an inane comparison. Child molesters and psychopaths who 'know' they are acting simply out of lust or bloodthirstiness tend not to become able to rise to the top of political hierarchies, and get into a position to kill millions of people.

Posted by Hector | January 13, 2008 11:39 AM

Well, even granted that Stalin was a non-ideologue whose only goals were (a) his "mob" (in this universe, the USSR) be as powerful as possible, and (b) that within his "mob", he himself be as powerful as posible...

... you still get Exhibit Bs - I'm thinking Mao, the Kims and Pol Polt - who seemed perfectly willing to frak up their own countries in a Procrustean attempt to make messy reality fit through their own ideological filters. Mao could have been emperor of an even bigger world superpower had he followed the pragmatic path of Deng, Hu and other successors.

Posted by Rod Blaine | January 14, 2008 3:02 PM

And Hitler, who (unlike the Prussian jingoists of WWI) could not stomach the idea of allowing Jews to serve the German military, and so sent FDR a large number of brilliant Jewish refugee scientists. "You want an A-bomb to use on that SOB Hitler, Mr President? We're on it."

Posted by Rod Blaine | January 14, 2008 3:07 PM

actually, scientology is creepy because it began as a pyramid scheme, and scams more than a few impressionable low income people by charging them for ridiculous 'classes' that advance them within the church. Not be because it's a 'new religion'

Posted by edie | January 14, 2008 8:56 PM

I don't see the problem with anything Smith is reported to have said. The effort to have your children believe what you believe is "programming." You only pretend that it is not because you think that YOUR particular "good and evil" is the right one, while others who disagree with you are wrong. The fact remains that you try to indoctrinate your kids before they are old enough to reason things for themselves.

Smith is just pointing out that Hitler had gone off in a twisted direction that doesn't support the health of the human race as a whole. It was "dead wrong" by what most of us believe deeply, and it was "dead wrong" by good science as well.

The only problem with "reprogramming" is that thus far, we haven't had much luck in making it happen. If we had, we wouldn't need prisons.

In any case, I'll maintain that Scientology is no more ridiculous than any other religious belief. Someone else commented some blather about the perfect Church and state alliance... but if we were just able to "be good," we wouldn't need a God, and we certainly wouldn't need a Church. The only reason for either one is that we find we have differing ideas of what is "good," so we develop organized religion to provide some force behind our efforts to install one "good" over others.

Good luck with that, Scientology. The better you do, the more diversity we'll actually have, and the less of a freakish hold Christianity will have on all our lives.

Posted by bekbek | January 16, 2008 7:24 PM