Cruising für ein Bruising

Needless to say, THE SCRAPBOOK is devoted to the First Amendment, and our heritage of freedom of speech. And while we might not always agree with what people are saying, we will defend to the death, etc., etc.

All right, now that we've said all that, THE SCRAPBOOK is emboldened to express its disappointment at the decision of the German government to allow Tom Cruise to film scenes for his new movie at German military installations. (They had tentatively refused permission, but changed their mind.) The movie, entitled Valkyrie, is about the July 20, 1944, plot against Hitler by anti-Nazi German officers. Cruise is playing Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, the wounded aristocrat who planted a bomb-laden briefcase under the briefing table at Hitler's headquarters in East Prussia. As nearly everybody knows, Stauffenberg left the headquarters to catch a plane for the capital, and the bomb went off; but Hitler was injured, not killed--and Stauffenberg was executed later that evening in Berlin.

As it happens, the Germans had no quarrel with the movie itself but with Tom Cruise, and not because of his strange ideas about psychiatry or last year's bouncing episode on Oprah's sofa. No, it's because (in the words of a Defense Ministry spokesman with the delightfully Teutonic name Harald Kammerbauer) "Tom Cruise . . . has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult."

Well! Tom Cruise has not just "publicly professed" to being a member of the Scientology cult; he publicly revels in his devotion to the Scientology cult. And here we must explain that while Germany is a liberal democracy, like ours, German law--for historic reasons we need not detail here--takes a dim view of the public expression of certain sentiments (admiration for the Führer, Holocaust denial, etc.), as well as sinister cults dressed in the guise of religion (the Church of Scientology, etc.).

So while we, as good Americans, may not share the German attitude toward limitations on speech, we appreciate the reasoning behind such limitations.

And while we're on the subject, here is THE SCRAPBOOK's official view of the matter, as it now stands. Frankly, we don't much care if Tom Cruise (and other Hollywood illuminati such as John Travolta, Priscilla Presley, etc.) are Scientologists or not; we enjoy a good laugh as much as the next moviegoer. What offends us is the idea of a buffoon like Cruise playing a tragic hero of modern history. What's next? Steven Seagal as Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Jenny McCarthy as Anne Frank? Gott in Himmel!

Gray Lady Gospel

THE SCRAPBOOK will yield to no one in defending the New York Times's right to reveal its antireligious biases. The latest revelation is the Times's June 26, 2007, editorial attacking "John Roberts's new conservative majority" for its five-to-four decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.:

Moreover, the professed devotion to the First Amendment did not extend to allowing taxpayers to challenge White House aid to faith-based organizations as a violation of church-state separation. The controlling opinion . . . permits the White House to escape accountability when it improperly spends tax money for religious purposes.

The Hein named in the suit is Jay Hein, who directs the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). The suit was waged by a tax-exempt Wisconsin group for self-described atheists, agnostics, and "freethinkers." The Court ruled that they had no legal standing to sue.

Contrary to the Times's assertion, the OFBCI has not given a penny in "aid to faith-based organizations" or spent any "tax money for religious purposes." Rather, both at conferences on federal grant-making and on its website, it has instructed religious nonprofit organizations that federal law strictly forbids using tax dollars to proselytize or for other sectarian purposes.

For decades, national religious mega-charities have received federal grants. The effort to broaden federal outreach to urban and other grassroots religious groups that supply social services dates back to the Clinton years.

Journalistically speaking, the Times's fact-free preaching against faith-based organizations is a sin.

The Horror! The Horror!

We were recently reminded of Andrew Ferguson's essay in these pages, "Puritans in Hollywood" (May 21, 2007), when we came across the Washington Post's FamilyFilmgoer review of Hostel Part II. (If you recall, Ferguson reported on the possible R ratings for films that feature smoking: " Now, Voyager, the 1942 movie in which Paul Henreid lights two Camels and passes one to Bette Davis, would today earn an NC-17, along with the revulsion of the motion picture community.")

Revulsion would also be the appropriate reaction to Hostel Part II. According to the FamilyFilmgoer, "three American students . . . are lured to a 'spa' in Slovakia and become prey for the killing 'factory.'" Still not sure if you want to take your child to see this movie? Thankfully the FamilyFilmgoer lists some of the gruesome activities taking place: "Bloodletting done with saws, blades, axes, dogs; film shows entrails, severed heads, headless corpses; a boy is shot dead; sexualized killing. . . . " But wait, it gets a lot worse: "strong profanity; drug use; drinking; smoking."

Although the squeamish may want to close their eyes during those scenes of dismemberment, the very sight of actors smoking cigarettes on screen may have the audience heading for the exits.

Hugh Newton 1930-2007

A few years ago THE SCRAPBOOK referred to Hugh Newton, longtime public relations counsel at the Heritage Foundation, as a "PR king" in Washington. Indeed, he was; but he was more than that. As a tireless and cheerful advocate for conservative ideas during four decades--and a friend and drinking companion of McGovern Democrats, neoconservatives, Cold War liberals, and Rockefeller Republicans alike--Hugh was a unique and invigorating presence among the politico-journalistic set, and a genuine happy warrior. He will be missed.

Subscriber Alert

We have become aware that an agency calling itself "Media Unlimited" is mailing renewal notices to subscribers--without our authorization. Media Unlimited has no relationship of any kind with THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Please ignore any renewal notice from Media Unlimited. We are making every effort to stop these solicitations.

If you receive a renewal notice and are unsure of its authenticity, please call customer service at 1-800-274-7293 and place your renewal order with one of our representatives. Or you can renew your subscription online at weeklystandard.com.

Help Wanted

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has a full-time position available for a staff assistant. This is a clerical position working with the editors. Duties will include answering phones and emails, updating our website, research, and record-keeping. Candidates should address a cover letter and résumé to hr@weeklystandard.com.