Scientificologically Speaking
Published 19 years, 5 months pastAnd I know that– psychiatry is– is a pseudo science.
— Tom Cruise
Considering that deeply informed opinion was delivered by an adherent to a pseudo religion, I think that we as a species need to take it very seriously indeed.
But I still want to see his new star vehicle.
Comments (37)
Just out of curiousity, I Googled Scientology after this, knowing there are a lot of critiques of this “religion.” It’s amazing that their “scientific” claims have never been proven once, but yet the benefits of psychology and psychiatry are proven time and again. I won’t even go into the “infestation by alien spirits” that we supposedly all have.
My uncle, Alan Adler, invented their e-meeter (I think that’s what it is called) for which he was never paid. Both my mother and grandmother were involved in Scientology. My mom even has a picture of here and L. Ron Hubbard at his ranch. My uncle was never involved in Scientology and my mother and grandmother left them. It seems to me that you have to pay a lot of money to achieve what ever it is that you’re supposed to achieve.
Back in the early career days of Tom Cruise I suspected he was simply a pretty face with little substance behind it.
Too bad Mr. Cruise decided to confirm it to the whole world. He could have simply sent me a private letter/email and I would have kept my mouth shut.
Honest!
It’s sad to see someone who’s so sure and full of himself, yet who’s so completely and utterly wrong.
Oh, and by the way, in case anyone was paying attention, he’s an actor! Sure, he’s played the roles of skilled and educated people, but come on people, let’s not get carried away. And besides, lots of money does not always mean lots of depth, or brains for that matter.
“nuff said
Personally, I despise Scientology, but there are more informed opinions against psychiatry.
Either Mr. Cruise is completely off his rocker or he’s brilliant, wants to get out of scientology and thinks that presenting himself as an outspoken eccentric is the way to do it. Either way, it’s kind of lacking in entertainment value.
I think Tom Cruise is an underrated actor who’s been in some very good films lately (perhaps just my opinion)…and he seems like a nice enough guy. I think his remarks were maybe a bit zealous. I’ve only read about what happened and haven’t seen any film footage of it.
As for his dismissing psychiatry as a psuedo science; well that’s unfortunate because it is frequently observed as an actual science equal to any of the scientific disciplines. As much as I’ve read of his remarks on the NBC show, Tom didn’t go into the specifics of ‘why’ psychiatry is a psuedo science (maybe his personal reasons for his views are not solely based on his belief in Scientology at all?)
Yes Eric – I’m still going to see ‘War of the Worlds’ too! :)
The only thing that worries me about psychiatry is the way some folks use it as a crutch. Ignore their children to the point of neglect and then get them diagnosed with ADHD and on ritalin. It’s just a feel-good band-aid solution.
Not to say that ADHD isn’t a legitimate disorder; it’s simply that it’s over-diagnosed. It’s not hard to see how someone could gain a certain skepticism after seeing how psychiatry is practiced ‘on the street.’
I think Tom Cruise is a bit of a pseudo-actor. Not a lot of characterisation in his performances, reely.
Pseudo-religion? I find it hard to see why Scientology is more ridiculous than any other religion. By the way, I’m glad Cruise has fought back after people keep picking at him. If you started questioning a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Muslim about their religion on national television, they’d probably get a little testy, too.
I’d agree with Trent, objectively speaking. The tenets of Scientology are no more or less provable than those of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. It makes you wonder if we lend more credibility to the latter ones simply because they’ve been around longer.
Tangentially, I wonder if he accepted this role because the idea of belligerent aliens fits into his worldview. [snap]
Actually Trent and Logan are not fully informed as none of the other religions charge you to study the tenets of those religions. The Church of Scientology (COS) makes its members pay to join the church and take the courses that lead to becoming “clear” and and “Operating Thetan” at a high level. Mr. Cruise however pays little or nothing to be a member of the church and is probably kept within the Celebrity Centre in LA most of the time. He is used, as are many celebrities, to bring notoriety to the church as a legitimate religion and something to aspire to.
Founder, L.Ron Hubbard, was a paranoid, failed science fiction writer and a mediocre military man who developed a “system” for life called Dianetics and converted it into a “religion” or a “church” in order to achieve tax exemption status from world governments. Historically he had attempted to headquarter the COS at sea and then in St. Hill, UK.
I have known real COS members and some have gained from the church in their own lives and feel that it is good for them and not for others but some COS members, like in other religions, are just lost puppies looking for the life path to be laid out. Where the COS and the other religions differ is that Scientologists will pay $10,000 USD to 200,000 USD to climb the OT levels of the church, paying $1000’s for books and study materials, hotel stays at the centres in Florida and LA, lost time at employment etc.
I thought Tom was an OK actor (excellent in “Born on the Fourth of July”, “Magnolia” and not bad in “Jerry McGuire”) but he has put me of his film not because of his religion but his attitude and the preaching. Stephen Spielberg has lots of money so I might get it on DVD when it comes out.
-Jay
It’s funny how the dumbass originator of this thread says Scientology is a psuedo-religion, yet it’s for some reason enough of a religion to be recognized by the U.S. government. And just what makes something a psuedo-religion? Is it the fact that you don’t agree with it? That’s a big statement and I have never heard anything to back up that claim. I could say other recognized religions are psuedo-religions because they charge you money and don’t give what they promise. For example, in most Christian churches, you’re expected to tithe AT LEAST 10% of your income, and they promise to make it so you can walk with Jesus in Heaven. How do we know that’s true?
Also, Chris K. claims Scientology has scientific claims with their results. That’s not true. I’ve looked at some of these success stories and they’re just personal gains people have had that they’re sharing. As far as the Church claiming this they are simply relaying this same thing. You can’t call a religion a science, moron. Another smart one we have here.
And also, what’s the deal with this alien talk? That’s only given on anti-Scientology sites, and even if that’s true, what’s wrong with that? If it’s crazy, so what? I could go on for days poking holes in all the other religions claims of human creation or whatever. Like, a talking snake??? I won’t even touch that.
But as far as Tom goes, isn’t it funny how all these people are suddenly piping up after seeing all his movies, now that it’s the in thing to make fun of him?
Oh, I just noticed Jay’s comment. He must have written this right after he watched his Tivo’ed reality show and downloaded all his illegal, pirated music and movies.
Well, once again, another misinformed idiot, or maybe even a straight-up liar making false claims. You don’t have to pay to study the materials; Church members can read the books and listen to the tapes and watch the videos outside the Church on their own time. The only time they are charged is when they are actually studying in the Church where staff members have to oversee them to make sure they are understanding the materials correctly.
Also, Tom Cruise paying little to nothing for Church services? Where the hell did he get that from??? According to Scientology’s own website, all parishioners are charged the same despite wealth or social status.
Another sign Jay has researched “little to nothing” is the fact that he can’t even distinguish the difference between Dianetics and Scientology. See, unlike you guys, I use the internet for more than downloading porn and illegal, pirated music and movies. See, Dianetics and Scientology are not the same; Scientology is an extension of Dianetics and includes more doctrines and training/auditing to be done. In fact, you can very easily, even on the critics’ websites, find the definition of “Dianetics” and “Scientology” and see the difference from that alone. Good studying, Jay! You certainly DIDN’T make an ass of yourself!
Oh, and let’s not kid ourselves with what he said in his last paragraph–when he says he will get the movie when it comes out on DVD, what he REALLY means is he will download it off the internet for free, and most likely will let some friends file share. And what does Steven Spieldberg’s wealth have to do with “buying”–a.k.a. downlading illegally? But, also, which is worse, he contradicts himself: he says Tom [sic] “has put me of his film not because of his religion but his attitude and the preaching”, which I think we can interpret as “put me off”. He says Tom has made him not want to see the movie or at least not wanna watch him in it, but yet he will get it out whene it comes on DVD, or at least on an illegal copy on the web. How does that make sense? Tom made him not want to watch the movie while it’s in theatres so instead he will just wait till it comes out on DVD. Wow, you sure “burned” Tom there, Jay!
But . . . but . . . Scientology has the word “science” right in its name! It must be real, right? Right?
Ok… Puck you’re saved and sacred – you will probably end up just next to a lot of celeb in Scientology-heaven eventually (even though that is not how the religion – pseudo or not – was intended). Try to google “polite” next time your on the internet…
I have been appalled at the carelessness with which T. Cruise has made his remarks. Having had experience with depression all of my life, and unfortunately the meds not as effective in my case as with others, I can surmise Cruise has been fortunate enough not to have had the need. That would change if he ever experienced depression or bipolar or a variety of many mental illnesses as many others have. It is troublesome that there are some out there that will take his word for fact and may stop meds and end up a victim of suicide.
Where in the world does Cruise get the idea we are interested in what a celebrity has to say? There is an excellent online article, his last, by Ben Stein that really tells it like it is. Where we need to place the emphasis and get real. T. Cruise, please stop the damage!
Ok, I think you would have to look long and hard to find many people that think psychology/psychiatry is not highly abused and hyped-up. Conversely, you could throw a rock out the window and have a good chance of hitting someone who does not view Scientology as a legitimate religion. I have experienced the positive effects of presrciption psychiatric medication. There is no doubt in my mind that there is something of value there, when used “properly”.
Nobody has condemned Reverend Cruise for his religious views. You can believe in the Pet Rock as your saviour and still be considered a productive, respectable member of society. That is the great part about our country. Just because I disagree with Scientology at is most basic level does not mean I hold any grudges against it’s practitioners. I don’t think many others do either. It is just not proper to go on national television, falsely proclaim yourself an “expert”, and begin condemning medical science or anothers belief system. I have been friends with many practioners of Wicca. Some to this very day. They are good people. I disagree with the tenets of their beliefs, but that has no effect on our relationship as people. Neither of us condemn the others views, nor do we try to persuade the other to follow us in our form of worship.
To put it in laymans terms, I don’t believe in Scientology as a path to salvation. I hold nothing against anyone who does. But to tell me my beliefs in God and the power of healing he has given us through the medical fields is wrong (ESPECIALLY with no background to back it up!)??? If it weren’t Tom freakin’ Cruise he probably would be nursing a wired jaw right about now.
And by the way Puck, no offense, but the U.S. Government recognizes Wicca as a legitimate “religion” also. They make up their religion as they go along! (No offense to my Wiccan buds!) So tell me how that gives any credence to the gov’t recognizing Scientology?
Another side note after reviewing your post…there is NO WHERE that Christian salvation is gauranteed for “tithing”. There are Christian-LIKE religions that believe that, but the Bible does NOT say that. Please take this opportunity to catch up on your study of The Word…
Why is it when defending Scientology, Scientologists almost always compare it to other religions, instead of actually defending Scientology? And to Trent, while all religions are rediculous, Scientology is even more rediculous based on the circumstances of its founder, and inception.
Religion = Faith = Ignorance = Bliss, for the weak minded. I sure wish I was weak minded, life would be a whole lot easier.
Why is it that people attack something without ever actually studying it?
For example, Scientology is a religious philosophy. Attacking *any* religion is a pointless exercise, because *none* of them have a logical defense. They are all belief systems. If a particular belief system works for you, great. If not, find another one.
And sure, you could describe Scientology as a cult, but then so is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and everything else. Look up “cult” in the dictionary.
Also — it doesn’t cost any money if you join the church. It only costs money if you want to take the courses without joining (well, technically, if you join the church (and thus work for the church), you can take the training for free. If you then leave the church, you have to pay back what you haven’t yet worked off). This is reasonable, considering there are training costs involved. Any school costs money.
Some people are happy with their experiences in Scientology. Others are not. It’s a personal thing.
Imagine attacking Jews like the way Scientologists get attacked. You’d be labelled an anti-semite immediately. By the way, why is there a special word for people who speak against Jews, and nothing else? (If you speak out against christianity, are you an Anti-christ?)
In the recent interview with Matt Lauer this is the point that Tom Cruise didn”t make.
Do you know how much prescription drugs are worth to Big Pharma? On a world wide basis about a trillion + dollars. How far do you think they would go to protect this income? How much do you suppose the pharmaceutical companies spend advertising drugs on TV, Radio, Magazines and News media? How much do they spend lobbying Congress to look the other way? How much do they pay (Grants) universities such as Harvard and Columbia to agree that drugging children is scientifically valid? Right now Ritalin is being dispensed in schools under the guise of treating over active children(ADD and so many disorders that it could fit anyone of us). Ritalin is a form of amphetamine and of course as time goes by and it doesn”t “work” the school psychologist then prescribes a higher dosage and higher dosage and the end product is the teenager becomes a drug addict and a lifetime client. Please don”t believe me but take the time to research it, Google is a great tool for this. Keywords are Prozac, Ritalin, School shootings, Suicide, and“Chemical Imbalance”. Regards Michael Hammond
Hehehe, this Mark Hammond guy, I’ve seen him before! He goes around with the ol’ copy and paste and tags all (well, at least a lot of) the websites regarding this issue of Tom Cruise and his eyebrow-raising comments on “The Today Show”. Spread the word, Mark!
To Kell Larson: I am glad to hear you think I will end up in Heaven with celebrities. I can’t say you will go to the same place. Google “polite” next time? I fail to see how that relates to what we’re talking about. (pause) Oh, wait, now I get it! That was supposed to be a joke, indirectly saying I’m rude! Well, next time why don’t you Google the issue here instead of making some pointless little remark that barely made sense.
Pat, who is interested in what celebrities have to say? Well, apparently everyone judging by the millions of interviews and (sh*tty) reality shows there out there ([cough] “Newlyweds”!), not to mention the host with the terrible haircut, who was the one who ASKED Tom about his views. You seem to have answered your own question by mentioning the article by Ben Stein. He’s a celebrity and you were interested in hearing what he had to say.
Are you sure you’re not also suffering from retardation in addition to Depression?
Aaron, I love that little formula you made up. Let me show you one I made, but mine’s shorter:
You = Idiot
Pretty simple, huh? I mean, you can’t even spell “ridiculous”.
Apparently Aaron thinks people who have a religion(s) are all weak-minded idiots in ignorant bliss. Man, that’s a lot of people you’re talking about there! I’m sure you have a very good understand of all the religions out there though, judging by the way you talk.
I could understand that you don’t agree with religion, or at least some specifically, but who are you to say they don’t actually do some good for people? You know, science can’t proove everything.
I’m sure you’ve never wondered stuff like, why are we here, what is the meaning of life, what happens to us after we die, is there a soul, etc. You have all the answers you need to get by in life.
But you just stay content in your materialistic world with your (shit) reality shows, iPod and gay internet porn!
Oh, Jordan Bradford, if memory serves me well the word “Scientology” is defined and the origin of the word is explained as well. Is Scientology real? Yes, there are many churches and members around the world. (pause) Oh, you mean real as in true? Well, that’s up to the individual. But thank you for that intellectually stimulating–not to mention homoerotic–question.
And lastly to Nex: when did Tom say someone’s belief in God never helped them? Oh, that’s right, you put words in his mouth.
Pet Rock? Who said anything about a rock?
You say there is no medical backing to his claims? Well, you can read Michael Hammond’s comment for starters. But also, there is plenty of data you can read on the internet to back Tom up. Hell, on the TV ad for one of those anti-depressants (Zoloft I think) it says depression “MAY” be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. I thought the doctors had hammered this out by now. Oh, and to top that all off, there was a (gasp) sort of follow-up interview by Katie Couric with a Harbard professor (I think of psychiatry) who backed Tom up. But you obviously didn’t see that. My guess is you were catching up on your gay reality shows (like “Big Brother” or “The Newlyweds”) or looking through your old gay dungeon porn video collection again.
Also, I never thought of Wicca as not being a religion. You apparently don’t because you use it as a comparison to Scientology being technically considered a religion with your tone showing a bit of a disagreement on that issue. But you obviously need to research on what makes a religion a religion. Some of you other blowhard chodes could research as well on what makes a cult a cult and the difference between a cult and a religion.
But my point on the government recognizing Scientology as an official religion is that after years of doing battle with the semi-evil government of this country Scientology met the criteria to be called a religion. Is the government wrong in this point? Another reason I bring this up is because a lot of “haters” here refer to it as a cult (see last sentence in above paragraph).
I said Christian salvation was guaranteed for tithing. There is no guarantees that you will be “saved” in Scientology either. Please read the “can” and “has” part of their claims. I will say, however, that any religious service done regularly by a religious leader, big or small, requires money, whether they tell you to or not. A person’s gotta eat you know.
You say you don’t hold anything against Scientologists, yet your words suggest you hold some contempt, like you look at them slightly less for their choice of religion.
Your disagreement with Tom is understandable, but perhaps you might have actually looked a little into what he was talking about (like the follow-up interview with Katie) before you condemned him for speaking out against something which frankly has barely done sh*t for this society (gotta love the medication they give to kids even though the school system just keeps getting dumber).
So, Nex, why don’t you catch up on your study of the facts?
By the way, what’s this with Tom’s jawed being wired?
Might I say before I take my leave, it is sad that we are so quick to condemn an actor such as Tom Cruise and his choice of religion yet on the other hand consider contestants from “American Idol” legitimate musicians. That’s a bit hyporcritical and contradictory to me.
Edit: I referred to the guy above me as Mark Hammond (as in the “Star Wars” actor). I should have referred to him as Michael Hammond. My mistake.
In regard to Michael Hammond’s comments:
Yes, pharmacology and psychopharmacology are major industries with a lot of money invested in research, development, and marketing. Many people’s lives are significantly enhanced and improved by medications targeting many conditions. On the flip side, people need to realize that there is no “silver bullet” that will eradicate all of their problems and make them happy and satisfied. That is a complex interaction of many variables. Exercise, diet, and sleep regimens cannot be emphasized enough. Also, finding work and outlets for expression that you love. And, helping others and strengthening the relationships with people in your life. I also need to correct a comment. Mr. Hammond mentioned that over time, Ritalin loses effectiveness, and “school psychologists” keep upping the dosages. As a school psychologist, I need to tell Mr. Hammond that we are not medical doctors (as are psychiatrists) and we are not able to prescribe medication. We function in the educational environment and do assessments and interventions to help children with special learning needs to achieve their potential. We cannot even diagnose ADHD; that is left to a medical doctor, neurologist, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist. True, there is probably some over-identification of the disorder, but as someone who has worked extensively with children with special needs for almost 16 years, I can tell you that this disorder exists and you know it when you see it. If children are left untreated (and medication is usually prescribed after other interventions are attempted), they are at much higher risk for ongoing learning problems, dropping out of school, and depression. There are also new medications for ADHD that are not stimulants (ie, Strattera) and that appear to work well for many. Regarding the whole issue of Tom Cruise, I could care less if he is a scientologist, although from what I’ve read about it, it definitely seems to have cultish aspects (and it is very disturbing when someone who has been involved turns against it and is labeled a “repressive” person). Also, some of the people who’ve left Scientology have openly talked about how children are mistreated. One man stressed how guilty he felt after his 9 year old daughter received some indoctrination and was never able to laugh again. What upsets me about the whole Tom Cruise thing is how he has been going on all these interviews and shooting his mouth off as if he’s the Uber-Mind of the universe, prattling off all kinds of misinformation. To attack Brooke Shields for taking medication to help her with postpartum depression is absolutely wrong, and sends a terrible message to mothers who are struggling with this. Remember Paula Yates? She had gone off of her medication when she drowned her children. What would Tom have prescribed? Oh, I know, getting hooked up to an e-meter or whatever the hell it is. To presume to admonish and tell others how to live their lives is a tricky business. I have over the years enjoyed Tom Cruise in movies but after this last debacle (and I won’t even go into his manic posturing for the cameras to demonstrate his love for Katie Holmes) I don’t feel much like paying to see him in a movie ever again. Especially since he can’t seem to hide his disdain for my profession, which I love and look forward every day to helping kids feel good about themselves and learn as much as they can so they can become productive members of society.
Ah, fresh meat in the name of Rochelle Haas.
Actually, Rochelle Haas’ comment wasn’t so bad. It was actually pretty logical. However, like many others here, there are a few flaws….
First off, Michael Hammond didn’t stress one point, and that is the whole point of drugs. I won’t go into how much of this is the case, but drugs are a commodity. You can’t sell a cure like “get plenty of rest, fluids and vitamins”. You CAN, however, sell a pill. So it is no small wonder why we have so many drugs out there, often when there is a cure that does not require medication. The pharmaceutical companies know this and are taking full advantage of this at your expense.
Ritalin does often lose its effectiveness and so the dosage is raised. This is proven. Don’t argue it.
Despite what your title may be, Rochelle Haas, there are school psychiatrists and doctors, and they do do all this diagnosing, prescription-filling and dosage increasing. They are more often than not lazy scumbags guised as healers and a disgrace to their profession.
I have not personally heard of a caes of ADHD that requires medication, except MAYBE for hormones. Causes for this condition include diet, homone imbalance, boredom (from the kid) and the kid just not understanding what he is studying. You’ll notice this type of problem did not become a problem until the introduction of this condition as well as the medication that’s supposed to help the condition.
Now to your remarks on Tom Cruise. Uber-mind of the universe? Uh, I think someone’s exagerrating something to get their point across.
And this is something that I take issue with with other people, not just you. He doesn’t go shooting his mouth off, expressing his views and pretending to be a know-it-all. First off, I don’t know about the “Entertainment Tonight” comment came up, but on “The Today Show” the host with the terrible haircut, a.k.a. Matt Lauer, directly ASKED him about his views. Matt further argued with Tom despite the fact ist was supposed to be a light interview and an opportunity for Tom to promote his movie. Tom merely argued Matt’s point and said he’s done more study on the subject than Matt.
You say Tom is telling people how to live their lives? All I heard was that he disagreed with psychiatry and its medications. Where did you get the part where he told people how to live their lives? Oh, the thing about vitamins, is that it? He mentioned other ways of curing the condition Brooke had, but even that doesn’t sound like he’s telling people how to live their lives. Yet more words put in Tom’s mouth.
Oh, and Andrea Yates went psycho on her poor, innocent kids because she was experiencing withdrawal from her medication, and psychosis and mania are side effects of withdrawals. She was not weaned off the medication under the care of a doctor like she should have been. This is another issue that is not touched on by the drug companies, nor the doctors that push them.
I find it odd though that you are considered a psychologist yet not considered a medical doctor. First off, I assume you are A doctor? A doctor in psychology? And also, aren’t psychologists medical doctors even if they aren’t trained in presciption-filling? Technically, the brain is part of the body and you are treating it. That’s just how I understood it.
The rest of you people are still idiots (you know who you are).
In response to Puck:
Glad that you considered at least some of my post “logical.” I again need to clarify…school psychologists are not “psychiatrists.” School psychologists go through university training programs in which they are granted Master’s and PhD’s in school psychology. Most school psychologists have Master’s degrees and some go on to pursue PhD’s, either in school psychology or clinical psychology. Training for school psychologists is primarily educationally-based with study in child development and psychology, counseling, and psychoeducational assessment and intervention. We work with students, teachers, counselors and parents to identify students with special learning needs and to ensure that those students get the accommodations and services they need (specially designed instruction and materials, testing accommodations, tutoring, speech, physical, or occupational therapies, etc.). We do not have medical training. There are no “school psychiatrists” that I know of. So no, psychologists are not medical doctors. Most clinical psychologists in private practice do counseling and cognitive-behavioral therapies. They may consult with medical doctors and make referrals when they feel that an individual would benefit from medication. There are medical doctors, psychiatrists (who complete medical training just like other physicians), neurologists, etc. who function in private settings who are able to prescribe medication for various disorders. They are held to rigorous medical standards and if they are unethical or guilty of malpractice can have their licenses revoked. As in any other field, some of these practitioners are better than others. In this world we live in, many people at one time or another experience some form of mental illness or distress. This is often in response to traumatic events and loss. This can also be brought on by hormonal and biochemical changes. Or also can be influenced by genetic factors. Try talking to someone going through menopause, or dealing with the stress of an aging, sick relative. Or raising a child with severe disabilities. Or dealing with their own chronic illness. I do not presume to tell anyone how to live their lives…we are each responsible for the choices we make and for the most part I believe that we are all trying to do the best we can. If you read the ongoing research regarding brain chemistry you can see that we are beginning to understand some of the complex underpinnings as to why and how we react the way we do. Again, as I’d mentioned earlier – my main point is a holistic one. How we function on a daily basis is a result of the complex interactions between:
our general physical wellbeing and health, nutrition, exercise, sleep, mental outlook (positive vs. negative), sense of control over one’s life, environmental factors, relationships with others, genetic makeup, interests and work habits. I suppose that I would have to say that this whole “Cruise” debate is probably a good thing. I personally like to be grounded in factual anaylsis. If someone benefits from the pursuit of scientology, that is their call. As long as they aren’t hurting someone else in the process. Rational debate is a good thing. My concern is about the celebrity culture phenomenon. Celebrities have their own baggage they have to deal with, but in dealing with it they probably tend to insulate themselves more from certain authentic aspects of life. They have a tremendous power to communicate and influence others. That should be carefully considered and weighed prior to making pronouncements.
Sorry I haven’t gotten back in so long. I was just–doing other stuff….
Well, Rochelle, when I said your post was “logical” I just meant that it actually showed you had some knowledge on something instead of the other idiots who were just running their mouths about stuff they know little to nothing about.
Though I’m no expert, I am aware of a school pscyhologist’s training: general psychology, child development, brain functions, child behavior and behavior disorders, etc. I’m not sure why you went so into this and then not answer the points I made eaerlier however….
But honestly, there are worse things being communicated in one form or another by other celebrities which are far more dangerous. Let’s take MTV. They promote poor music, materialism, not having to actually work for your money, slutty, TASTELESS fashion for girls and just a general false portrayal of life. I could go on but it’s these things that bother me. Tom Cruise expressed something he says he did some research over and actually says it with conviction.
Yes, celebrities should be careful with what they say and we shouldn’t believe a celebrity just because they’re a celebrity. However, Tom hasn’t told anyone what to do in regards to their mental health or lifestyle. All he said is psychiatry is a psuedo-science, there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance, psychiatric drugs are bad and Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer were promoting something irresponsibly, as well as Brooke could have handled her condition without turning to drugs. It’s obvious by the radicalness of his claims that he wanted people to look into this for themselves.
I’d rather listen to celebrities talk about real issues in their craft, the arts and life in general than about B.S. such as how you can get rich and look cool by being interesting in some reality show and what have you.
But my other points still stand. Drugs are not only over-prescribed but they are prescribed without knowing what is causing the very thing they are trying to mask. There is at the very least conflicting research on the existence and proof of a chemical imbalance in the brain as the cause of mental illness. These are all available on the web.
But even more obvious is that despite all the training you and others in your field have had kids simply aren’t getting any smarter in school. Yes, they have some success here and there but the average intelligence of kids in the public school system has been on the decline for DECADES now. Plus, there are more and more school shootings as well as general violence. And this all happens despite the increase in funding for school psychologists and their various programs, not the mention the increased public awareness in all this.
But it would be nice for you to respond to my earlier comments.
Religion = Faith = Ignorance = Bliss, for the weak minded. I sure wish I was weak minded, life would be a whole lot easier
Scientology is not an intellectually open organization, but rather it is totalitarian. It does not tolerate criticism from anyone. It demands strict acceptance of L. Ron Hubbard’s dogma by all members. To question anything, anything at all when one is in Scientology, is a crime. This is not explicitly stated from the beginning, but it is in fact so. Scientology’s system is designed to manipulate the beliefs and minds of its adherents using various methods of ‘thought control’. Members are made to ‘disconnect’ from anyone who doesn’t like Scientology. Beliefs are reinforced by carefully staged events in which everyone is expected to rise and clap and cheer for L. Ron Hubbard. After every class, members are required to give a ‘testimonial’, stating how wonderful the class is and how much they have learned. In theory, testimonials are optional. In practice they are mandatory. If someone begins to question what they are learning, or starts discussing the effectiveness of Scientology with others, in any way that is not 110% pro-Scientology, they are sent to the “Ethics Department” to be “Handled”. If this doesn’t work, they are booted out of the church, and no current members are allowed to even speak to them again. There is no freedom to discuss ANY doubts they may have about Scientology. If an ex-member decries what is going on in the church, he can and will be harassed, threatened, slandered, sued, physically harmed, or even killed. It has happened before.
In the words of Tom Cruise: “Some people, well, if they don’t like Scientology, well, then, fuck you. Fuck you. Period.”
This is the mentality which members are gradually taught to accept.
The methods of ‘spiritual advancement’ in Scientology are based on fraud. They specifically promise something that their creator knew full well does not exist. It was designed this way. The chief con is the e-meter, which appears to offer therapeutic release, but really relies on a current of electricity stimulating the body. This electricity induces endorphans to be released in the body, creating a sense of euphoria. Scientology auditing becomes addictive in the same way that heroin does, except this e-meter is protected as a ‘religious device’. Members pay OUT THE ASS, sometimes as much as $1,000 per hour for auditing. There are no results. There are no spiritual powers. There is no clearing of the ‘reactive mind’. There is only delusion. Hubbard closely studied hypnotism, psychoanalysis, and how to maintain a group mentality. He did this for GREED and POWER, and for no other reasons. All of this is reflected in the way Scientology operates. It is Orwellian.
Anyone who thinks Scientology is just another cute alternative religion doesn’t know what they are talking about. The people who criticize Scientology are not ignorant bigots. In fact, most of Scientology’s critics are EX-MEMBERS, who have seen the con for what it is and know the elaborate way in which your mind can be influenced to part with money. I tried out Scientology for a period of about six months. Then I realized that it is not a religion, but is in fact an organized criminal conspiracy based on fraud.
Above, i meant to say most of their most OUT-SPOKEN critics.
What i mean is, the people who most hate christianity are not ex-christians. The people who most hate jews were never jews themselves.
The people who most hate Scientology were once part of it, once believed in it, and were then victimized by it. Think about that before you call it a religion.
Wow, this Alvin guy is full of shit.
Alright, first off, the e-meter does not emit that much electricity to cause the body to create endorphins. You can read easily that the e-meter only puts 1 volt of electricty through the body, an amount which you wouldn’t be able to even feel, to measure the body’s electrical charge. It in itself does nothing. It is only a measuring tool used as a guide by the auditor.
Then this guy says only the outspoken critics are ex-Scientologists. And how did he come to this conclusion? Has he been around the internet? Most of the outspoken critics AREN’T ex-members. Yes, there are some but a lot of these hardcore critics have never done anything in Scientology. Have you ever heard of Robert Minton? This banked critics in their efforts to attack Scientology, all out of his own pocket totalling in the millions. Was he an ex-member? No.
Maybe Tom said that if-you-don’t-like-it-fuck-you thing because he was tired of people talking shit about him.
“There are no spiritual powers. There is no clearing of the “reactive mind”. There is only delusion.” Isn’t that up to the person themselves? I don’t see how you could say there is no help or cure. Maybe you couldn’t handle it when you were involved in it. Maybe they said, “This guy’s too much of a lying piece of shit to be able to help.” Anyway, thanks for the glaring errors.
Puck, the more you write, the more ignorant and uninformed you sound. Anyone that doesn’t agree with you gets completely lambasted, and the only sources for your “informed” opinion seem to come from the internet. In case anyone hasn’t let you in on this little fact, a very large amount of “information” found on the internet is written by complete idiots, and you seem to enjoy just lapping it up. Your claim that most of the sites that present a view against Scientology are written by people that were never part of the group proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. How do you know they weren’t part of the group at one point? Did you call up every single one of them and personally ask them? And your attack on Rochelle was nothing short of pathetic. She is obviously far more educated than you are, and yet you still attack her views, simply because they don’t agree with yours. Alvin also had correct information in his posting, and the response he got from you was being called a name. You spend your time insulting people and calling them names, and when you don’t have anything valid to add to the conversation, you nitpick their spelling. You must think very highly of yourself. You and Tom Cruise have a lot in common in that respect. And everyone is entitled to their own individual opinion, even if it is misled. So you just keep telling yourself that everyone and everything in this thread is ignorant, and that you’re the only one that knows anything. I hope it makes you feel better. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you post ridiculous rants like the ones you posted on this thread – nobody will.
Actually I do think A LITTLE highly of myself. Not that much though.
coastalgirl, if what you say about things on the internet in large part are written by idiots, then that would mean all those anti-Scientology sites should not be taken seriously. That would also mean 95% of Alvin’s sources are crap, as that’s obviously where he gets his information.
Obviously there are former members that are speaking out against Scientology, but those don’t make up the bulk of the critics. Alvin said ONLY the most outspoken critics are ex-members. This is not true so why are you saying everything he said is correct?
Then there’s the bit about the e-meter. Once again, not accurate. This little machine outputs hardly any electricity at all so it would be ineffective in creating an electrically induced euphoria as he claims.
No, coastalgirl, Alvin’s information is NOT 100% correct. He didn’t even get the basic function of the e-meter right.
Yeah, I sit here and call people names but it’s not like they’re not doing the same! I can pick on people’s spelling when they make about a hundred typos. Why should anyone take the word on someone who is so uneducated that they can’t distinguish the difference between “your” and “you’re”? That’s disgraceful.
And what the h*ll are you talking about with Rochelle? I didn’t even say anything bad about her! Go ahead, show where I “attacked” her! I only disagreed with the effectiveness she claimed these school psychologists have when the test scores are continually falling.
I don’t know Tom Cruise that much so I don’t know how much in common I have with him. I myself wouldn’t come off so strong on TV, I can tell you that. I would also tell those stupid screaming female fans to shut up.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if it’s mislead? Bullsh*t. No one is entitled to a mislead opinion. In case you haven’t noticed, opinions MATTER. They determine what laws we will follow, who will be elected to office, what kinds of products and organizations we will support, etc. This isn’t just, “I don’t like Scientology.” This is, “Scientology should not be allowed to be in practice.” That sound like an opinion that should be allowed if mislead?
No one will take your post seriously since you got pretty much 90% of what you said dead wrong. Try again.
Actually, mean IQs as measured through normative testing have tended to go up over time, Puck.
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml#intro
Puck.. You seem to suffer from an inferiority complex, and should probably be on some meds, and counseling. Just because you get picked on in the real world, doesn”t mean you have to go attack everyone in cyber-world to get revenge. Go pop a Midol, and relieve yourself of your cramps.
Wow! So much fire and passion about this subject. I think it is fascinating that a VERY tiny group called Scientology generates millions and millions of words on the internet, thousands of minutes on TV, and untold amounts of emotion. Undoubtedly, there are lost souls who need a group to give them identity, and undoubtedly a semi-military church structure has potential for abuse, and some of the folks did have a bad time in that group. Still, you can’t convince me that people like Travolta, who pilots 747 jets, or Beck the brilliant musician, or Chick Corea the great jazzman, or Kirstie Alley the comedienne, or the guy who started Earthlink, or the engineers and wealthy businessmen who participate in this church are stupid, weak-minded little fools. That just doesn’t make rational sense.
Why do you suppose such a small group stirs the soup to such a large degree? The people who don’t like it or who had a bad experience with it hate it with fury. It seems to me that if “mind control” is a big issue then Scientology has really captured the minds of some of the people who oppose it, far more than the people who like it. These folks have angry emotion triggered every time the word Scientology is mentioned, and that seems to me to be a startling example of having your mind controlled by something. Some of these men and women have been mad at this group for years and years and apparently can’t get over it. I had the same disgust for the military when I was in the service forty years ago, but I got over it in about a month once I finally finished my tour. Sheesh! I’m glad I don’t start steaming every time someone says “Marine Corps”.
As for Psychiatry: this is another tiny group. There are only a small percentage of doctors who are also psychiatrists. It is more than a little fishy that Psychiatry has “discovered” that millions upon millions of kids are mentally ill, and billions of dollars should be spent altering their brains. Common sense would tell you to be careful with your kid’s brains, but some people just assume that Doctor knows best. It is true that Psychiatry has a dubious history, and Tom Cruise is correct about that. He would get more people to listen and less people to reject him if he was less preachy and scolding about it. But still, the facts are facts: Earlier breakthrough “cures” include lobotomies, shock treatments, sterilization, wet sheet bondage, ice baths, isolation, loss of liberty for years because you were “odd” but not necessarily dangerous, and on and on. I don’t think Psychiatry is evil incarnate like Mr. Cruise perhaps does, but I sure would give it a wide berth, given their track record.
At any rate, I don’t really care one way or the other about the subject, but I do find it completely fascinating that some people carry on for years about an unpleasant experience, and other people rant and rave about a church they’ve never even attended. Also fascinating is that even the most devoted parents can blithely put chemicals in their kid’s brains without so much as ten minutes personal research on the internet about the long-term consequences. C’est la vie!
Psychiatry, psychology, scientology are all false religions, but if I have to be on any side I would take the side of scientology seeing as psychiatry and psychology have no reliable and valid scientific evidence and no proof and are simply and purposefully misleading people when they say that they do.
I am not a scientologist even though I do anti-psychiatry writing. So actually all of these points are null and void.
Labels are the stigma that change the way that people look at one another, treat one another, stigmatize one another, and stereotype one another and that is all they are.
I have never known any good results from psychiatry and psychology, I have seen a lot of drug abusers and abuse, a lot of deaths from it, and a lot of hurt and pain caused by it even though that is what they say they are there to fix.
It is a sad shame that so many people have it coerced and forced on them which makes it look as though it is all voluntary when so very much of it isn’t, and it does not work.
Some of the things that they have gotten under their wings should be available to all people without them having to get addicted to mind altering non helpful dangerous drugs or other treatments, it is sad the way that they are doing things.