Famecrawler
10 Celebrity Scientologists Who Won’t Be Working With Paul Haggis Anytime Soon!
Paul Haggis won’t be invited to any Scientology events anytime soon. And there are doubts that any of these stars will appear in any of his upcoming movies. The writer and director (Crash) talked to the New Yorker about the Church of Scientology and the strong celebrity following there is in Hollywood.
So what celebrities are (or have in the past) been Scientologists? Here are ten and some might surprise you!
Tom Cruise – He’s one of the most famous and most ardent defenders of the Church of Scientology.
John Travolta – Besides Tom Cruise, John Travolta is one of the most famous Scientologist out there.
Jason Lee – He doesn’t really come off as a Scientologist but this My Name Is Earl star has been a followers for years.
Danny Masterson – He was on That 70′s Show. He once said, “I have always been in Scientology my entire life. Each service in Scientology is something I have added to my toolbox of data for living.
Jenna Elfman – The actress and mom of two has done her fair share of support of Scientology causes.
Leah Remini – Known for her role on King of Queens, the comic actress has been vocal in her support of practices of Scientology.
Nancy Cartwright aka Bart Simpson. Yup, the voice of Bart Simpson is a card carrying Scientologist. Ay Charumba!
Jerry Seinfeld – He once said of Scientology – “I took a couple courses a number of years ago that I thought were fabulous. I learned a lot and I had a good experience with it.”
Beck: The man behind “I’m a Loser Baby” finds Scientology winning! He is a second generation Scientologist but didn’t open up about it until 2005.
Greta Van Susteren: The Fox News anchor doesn’t report on Scientology but she lives it.
Go Back To Famecrawler
2 Comments
Louanne commented on Feb 08 11 at 3:53 pmThe New Yorker turned tabloid now, actually worse. They started spreading outright lies, something that can be often noted when observing anti-scientology rants. One example: The New Yorker press release and Lawrence Wright’s profile on Paul Haggis, “Paul Haggis vs. the Church of Scientology,” released Monday, reported on an alleged federal investigation. The New Yorker was well aware the Church knew nothing of the investigation but had refuted the same claims based on a case already thrown out by a Federal Court Judge. Nonetheless, The New Yorker irresponsibly used the same sources who were discredited in the dismissed case to claim an “investigation” so as to garner headlines for an otherwise stale article containing nothing but rehashed unfounded allegations.
Allan Lengel, a former Washington Post reporter who writes for AOL News on federal law enforcement matters, filed this late today in a breaking story on Wright’s allegations: “The author cites two sources in the FBI who ‘assured me that the case remains open.’ However, a federal law enforcement source told AOL News the investigation has fallen short and no criminal charges are expected to be filed.” Click here for the article: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/.
Obviously, this contradicts what Wright wrote in The New Yorker. If you published Wright’s account, this contradiction should be made known to your viewers and/or readers.
osa handlers commented on Feb 10 11 at 4:26 pmLouanne is a Scientology Office of Special Affairs internet patroller and she has copy-pasted the exact same comment on every site that mentions this story.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Christopher Rogers 
Shana Aborn 
Joanna Mazewski 
Sunny Chanel 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
2