Tom Cruise promotes Scientology

From Today Show Interview (June 2005)

Categories:

Run time: 6:17

Clip Description: This interview shows how civil liberties function in practice in the United States: Tom Cruise openly expresses controversial views on psychiatry without fear of government punishment, illustrating strong protections for freedom of speech. At the same time, he is able to publicly explain and defend Scientology—even when challenged—demonstrating robust freedom of religion, including the right to hold beliefs others reject. Finally, Matt Lauer’s persistent questioning and public disagreement highlight a society where open debate is protected rather than suppressed, reinforcing the broader framework of American civil liberties.

American Politics Concepts Discussed/Connected To: This clip can be used in discussions about religious freedom and civil liberties in general.

Possible Uses in Classroom: This clip can discuss religious freedoms and how civil liberties are important especially within the government.

Discussion Questions

The First Amendment restrains the government. No government appears anywhere in this interview: the pressure on Cruise comes from a network, a host, and an audience. So what work is the Constitution actually doing here, and what work are people assuming it does? Draw the line between speech that is protected and speech that carries no consequences, and say why those are not the same line.
American law has long treated religious belief as absolutely protected and religious conduct as a separate question — you may believe anything, but a neutral law that applies to everyone can still reach what you do. Cruise is defending a belief about psychiatry. Push it into conduct: in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) the Court wrote that parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but are not free to make martyrs of their children. Where should the line sit between an adult refusing treatment for himself on religious grounds and a parent refusing it for a child?
Most people watching this think Cruise is wrong. Notice what you want to happen next — that he be argued with, ignored, corrected on air, or not booked again. Sort your own reactions into the ones the Constitution has an opinion about and the ones that are just your preferences about how a country should behave. Be specific; the sorting is the exercise.

For AP Students

AP U.S. Government and Politics
Unit 3: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Topics: 3.2 First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
Skill: SCOTUS Application (2.B)
Anchors: Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972); Engel v. Vitale (1962); the free exercise and establishment clauses

A celebrity defends his religion on live television and is challenged on it in front of a large audience. It is the only clip in the library that puts free exercise in front of students as something a person practices and argues for, rather than as something a court describes afterward. At 6:17 it is long for a class period, and a start-and-stop timestamp would help.

Discussion questions

The First Amendment contains two religion clauses. Explain the difference between free exercise and establishment, and say which of the two is at issue here.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court allowed Amish families to stop schooling their children after eighth grade on free exercise grounds. Name what the state would have had to show in order to win, and explain what that test is protecting.
Free exercise protects belief absolutely and conduct only conditionally. Name one religious practice you think government may restrict and one it may not, then explain the line you just drew.

Short activity

Draw the line three times (15 minutes). Three scenarios. A religious group seeks an exemption from a vaccination requirement; from a zoning rule; from an anti-discrimination requirement in hiring. For each, one sentence on whether the exemption should be granted and one naming the government interest on the other side. Then a final sentence identifying which was hardest and why. Students who answer all three the same way are applying a rule; students who do not are exercising judgment, and it is worth making them say which they were doing.

Clip hosted on Critical Commons.