Short response, JT: Yes, Brooke Shields can be criticized. for her acting, whatever. However what Cruise said about her (that she should not have used drugs in treating her depression) was seriously out-of-line. Nutjobs who believe in scientology have no place diagnosing people with mental illnesses.
:dubious: That’s just one review. You can probably find a negative review for every movie ever released. The reviews were, in general, pretty good.
Brooke Shields originally wrote a book about it, making it a public issue herself, and therefore should have expected commentary that would include countering opinions. The source (Tom Cruise) is surprising, but the fact that somebody said “yes, but…” shouldn’t be.
They do advertise. I see a “Dianetics” infomercial on late night TV fairly frequently. Recently they’ve had a commercial on the Rachal Maddow Show. Oh, of course it’s not for the “Church of Scientology”. They know that isn’t selling too well any more. This one was billed as “The Way to Happiness”. It was a very slick ad, and unless you actually checked who owned the site (LHR Publications) you’d never connect it to the Co$.
The Co$ has literally hundreds of front organizations. What legitimate religion hides their identity via front groups? Do you hire a group of business consultants only to find them wanting to circumcise your employees or having them praying in the direction of Mecca five times a day?
Again, JohnT, the point I was trying to make: criticize Ms. Shields’ book, or her writing style, fine. Criticize her decision to take antidepressants - not so fine. Telling her she could have treated her condition with vitamins or some such - ridiculous.
and with that I’m out of this discussion. I think it’s too personal for me.
Huh? Have you looked into this organization using anything other than anti-Co$ websites? Every single book and program put out by $cientology makes it absolutely clear that it was authored or designed by LRH.
I checked the owner of the domain and found the name servers are at LRH.org. Which is, of course owned by the Co$. I didn’t look at any anti-COS sites before verifying this information, because the commercial, though very slick, looked like their spiel.
Sorry, but they have a ton of stuff that hides any connection to the CoS, Dianetics, or L. Ron Hubbard. Eventually they reveal it, but they hope they have you hooked by that time (sort of the way the Narnia books soft-peddled the Christianity).
I spend almost no time thinking about Tom Cruise. I don’t rate him that highly as an actor and I find his religions beliefs to be laughable.
That said, there seems to be a tremendous amount of vitirol for the man yet someone like Roman Pulanski’s works aren’t boycotted. Pulanski after all just raped a girl and absconded from justice. He continues to flaut American law by refusing to return to the US. Still, he gets nominated for an oscar and that’s ok?
Sorry, Cruise is a twit but I wouldn’t spend much effort boycotting him. Now Pulanski, he’s a #$*@4 degenerate whose movies I will never watch.
So you have to wait until Cruise harms his child with Co$ medical malpractice to make the call? He wanted his wife to deliver the child without medication and in silence. The guy is giving money and support to this cult. He is harming more children then Pulanski ever will.
Sounds like something out of Minority Report 
I’m a fan. And I think some of what he thinks about drugs is sensible. Many people too readily pop to cure. Of course, I also believe that some illnesses need drugs, that drugs can help, and that things such as post-natal depression are very real. Putting yourself in a happy place just doesn’t cut the biscuit.
All in all I don’t like any religion, old or new. What I do like to do is to think for myself. I enjoy Tom Cruise movies, and therefore I’d like to call cite on those claiming my theatre/DVD money ends up in the hands of the heads of Scientology.
That didn’t take me long! http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/nov/02/news4
Roman Polanski, Michael Jackson, Tyson, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, they’re all messed up dudes privately. I pity them, but I don’t pit their output. Maybe I should…?
I doubt that. We know that Pulanski raped a child. Cruise may be an idiot but I think it would make more sense to get worked up about Pulanski than Cruise. If anything, the further exposure Cruise gets the more ridiculous he becomes.
Is there actually any direct evidence of this?
And shit, “natural” childbirth - childbirth without medication - is all the rage. I think it’s insane too, but singling out Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes seems a little strange.
Y’all are talking about the film director Roman POlanski, right?
Just making sure.
Thanks
Quasi
Yep, Polanski.
I just got done watching South Park rip Co$ a new one. I can see why Isacc Hays left the show. when he left they turned his character into a possessed child molestor and then killed him off. When they kill off a character they don’t mess around.
Cruise must have a new PR person. He made the rounds at the Today show and joked around about his previous stint there. Now he just wants to talk about his movies, not Scientology.
The Undertaker doesn’t do his own stunts?
Anyone have that clip where Tom gets sprayed with water during a red carpet event and totally lectures the pranker? It’s priceless.
I think he’s a jerk in real life, and he’s not a good enough actor to convince me he’s not the man he is in real life. Hence, I can’t enjoy Tom Cruise’s movies.
For me, it’s not a boycott, it’s just that every time he walks on screen I think “Oh, it’s that jerk again.”
Cruise isn’t just a Scientologist, he’s a spokesman and a major figure in the cult.