At this point, I know I shouldn’t be surprised. But every time it happens, I am.
Someone degrades my religion for clickbait.
In this case, an actress off the D-list tried to use it for attention. It worked, because people are curious about Scientology.
What can I say? It IS interesting. Very. That’s why it gets news and documentaries and shows and snippets and sound bites—accurate or not.
It’s why glorified extras use the name of my religion as a stepping stone to their 15 minutes of fame.
People are curious about Scientology.
Her tweet started out like this: “In 2013, I interviewed with an (unbeknownst to me at the time) Scientologist family to be their nanny.”
Now imagine if her tweet said this: “In 2013, I interviewed with an (unbeknownst to me at the time) Jewish family to be their nanny.”
Why did she think it was acceptable in one context, but not the other?
Because Scientology is new? Because if you use the word “Scientology” your post will quickly gain interest and shares?
Because it captures attention?
Or because my religion is regularly attacked by people who are full of hatred and bigotry?
I’d say all of the above.
So Hollis Andrews can post whatever she wants, so long as she knows what she’s doing: making a statement about her true nature.
Racists, anti-Semites, white supremacists, Islamophobes, homophobes, anti-Scientologists—they’re all the same. Bigots are bigots.
And hate is hate.