Tom Cruise on Postpartum depression

[LizzyL&DRN]

Can you believe the comments Tom Cruise made on the Today show about Brooke Sheilds and her PPD, and her use of medication to treat it?!:angryfire What the heck does he know about it? I say if a woman is suicidal and visualizing her infant hitting a wall, she needs medication and counseling. I think it was very irresponsible for him to go on national television and criticize women who use medication to help them out in such a difficult time in their lives. I've never experienced PPD, only the regular "Baby Blues" and I must say during that time I wasn't able to control my emotions (esp the tears:crying2: ) and i've never been that way before. Shame on Tom...... and Kudos to Brooke for getting help.

[doggiedaddy]

then you can define many if not all organized religions as "cults", based on what you are saying.

you obviously aren't reading anything i posted. or do you just not understand it?

the established definition of cults, as posited by the academics and professionals who study them, does not in any way allow organized religions, major or minor, to be classified as cults. unless you wish to be completely irresponsible and ignore the vast body of academic literature.

I dont' buy it.

that's fine, because I ain't sellin' it.

Have you read L. Ron Hubbard's books? Do you KNOW anyone who practices scientology?

yes I've read his books. I've studied this cult to some extent. I've read the primary source material, including his prolific and bizarre rants to the FBI. His FBI record is publically available.

yes, I know scientologists firsthand. i have direct contact with them on a daily basis. I have been required to read scientology material, and been required to sign legal non-disclosure agreements. I am directly involved with the Church of Scientology in a manner that I am not at liberty to the disclose specifics of in a public forum.

Like I said, you can paint Jehovah's Witnesses and Amish as "cultists" based on your judgements here. I would rather not. You, nor I, alone, get to define what is legitimate or not based on "wacko" religion websites or other references, just because "we choose to".

"Like YOU said"... not me. Amish are not cultists by any stretch. the are a sect of the Anabaptists, a historically recognized and legitimate group of protestants that trace their origins to the Protestant Reformation.

Please read the definition I gave of cults, since you obviously haven't yet done so. this is not my definition. this is the academic definition.

If you know anything about the Amish, then you know that they dont have a single point in common with any of the thematic elements of a cult.

Scientology, on the other hand, have every single element of an academically defined cult. Some countries (e.g., the United Kingom) have declared them to be a cult and have made their fundraising and recruitment activites illegal. The CoS lost it's status as a religion in the United States for almost 20 years, before recently regaining 501(b) status. They have continually been the subject of federal investigation for a number of criminal activities.

Oh and the site I refer to? If you wanted to go beyond "religion 101" as you put it, you need to check out the NUMEROUS references, books, sites and other materials to which they refer. It's like anything else, you have to do a bit of work to learn more. Anyone can go to a website that supports his or her beliefs and proclaim it as gospel, but that does not make it so!

I've studied more religion at the university level than I care to recount. I've studied the Masoretic Texts of the Hebrew Scriptures and I've studied the extant New Testament morificecripts and Ante-Nicean Fathers in Greek. I do not study religion on Teh IntarWeb. But i realize most people here do not have access to a Divinity School's library. I only point to representative links here, to make it convenient for others.

Sorry.

I accept your apology. :chuckle

[SmilingBluEyes]

you obviously aren't reading anything i posted. or do you just not understand it?

the established definition of cults, as posited by the academics and professionals who study them, does not in any way allow organized religions, major or minor, to be classified as cults. unless you wish to be completely irresponsible and ignore the vast body of academic literature.

that's fine, because I ain't sellin' it.

yes I've read his books. I've studied this cult to some extent. I've read the primary source material, including his prolific and bizarre rants to the FBI. His FBI record is publically available.

yes, I know scientologists firsthand. i have direct contact with them on a daily basis. I have been required to read scientology material, and been required to sign legal non-disclosure agreements. I am directly involved with the Church of Scientology in a manner that I am not at liberty to the disclose specifics of in a public forum.

"Like YOU said"... not me. Amish are not cultists by any stretch. the are a sect of the Anabaptists, a historically recognized and legitimate group of protestants that trace their origins to the Protestant Reformation.

Please read the definition I gave of cults, since you obviously haven't yet done so. this is not my definition. this is the academic definition.

If you know anything about the Amish, then you know that they dont have a single point in common with any of the thematic elements of a cult.

Scientology, on the other hand, have every single element of an academically defined cult. Some countries (e.g., the United Kingom) have declared them to be a cult and have made their fundraising and recruitment activites illegal. The CoS lost it's status as a religion in the United States for almost 20 years, before recently regaining 501(b) status. They have continually been the subject of federal investigation for a number of criminal activities.

I've studied more religion at the university level than I care to recount. I've studied the Masoretic Texts of the Hebrew Scriptures and I've studied the extant New Testament morificecripts and Ante-Nicean Fathers in Greek. I do not study religion on Teh IntarWeb. But i realize most people here do not have access to a Divinity School's library. I only point to representative links here, to make it convenient for others.

I accept your apology. :chuckle

I am not apologizing for anything I said, and I will not retract at this point..... :rotfl:

And I am sorry, I may have missed some things in your other post. It was hard to get past the rude tone in which it was worded and try to understand you..

You and I are clearly at an impasse here and a point where we disagree. I agree to disagree. How about you?

This and the other thread regarding Ms. Shields and Tom Cruise were not started as religious debates and at least I think, should not go that direction. I would rather take a religious debate to a site more appropriate to that in forum and design than this venue.

By the way, I don't "study religion" on the WWW, either. I have read quite a few books and studied for years, many religious beliefs/systems. Obviously, I don't claim to "know it all". Neither do you. It is rather convenient you "know things you cannot disclose" and use that to bolster your argument. I don't see that as making any difference in our discussion, but I do digress......

We disagree. That is what it comes down to. I disagree politely and respectfully, can you?

I also have gotten to know people from all walks of life and from many backgrounds in my military and nursing careers. I enjoy listening to them talk about their belief systems and how dearly they hold them.

Like you, I only point to other "representative links", to give others another "look" at the same issues, perhaps from another standpoint or POV. That is the beauty of it being a free country (cliche but true)----- and having so many resources for us to access for our information. We all have the freedom, if not the time, to pursue to the maximum, our understanding of others' belief systems, and perhaps, look for what we have in COMMON, versus what drives us apart. It's all a matter of attitude and point of view. I am glad your studies are so extensive, and duly impressed. However, we can still disagree.

[SmilingBluEyes]

Ooops one more thing: I definately would not trust everything I read on an FBI site, either. Just me I know. Very dubious.

[SmilingBluEyes]

sorry for the hijacking folks.

Back to Tom Cruise and Brooke Shields, (I think?)

Doggie, if you have further words for me, I would be glad to take it PM. But I won't go tit-for-tat or entertain insults there, either. Til then, I leave this back to the Original Topic.

[doggiedaddy]

It was hard to get past the rude tone in which it was worded and try to understand you..

sorry if i was rude. truly, i didn't mean to be. but i think it's important that people call things by what they are.

It is rather convenient you "know things you cannot disclose" and use that to bolster your argument. I don't see that as making any difference in our discussion, but I do digress......

actually its quite inconvenient. have you ever had all of your email correspondence monitored? or had every phone conversation recorded? I do, every day that I am at work. I've done some network sniffing on my home computer and I'm reasonbly confident that my home computer is not being monitored. but I'm never fully sure. The legal NDA's i have signed make me very susceptible to legal action.

We disagree. That is what it comes down to. I disagree politely and respectfully, can you?

it'll be hard, but i'll try.

I also have gotten to know people from all walks of life and from many backgrounds in my military and nursing careers. I enjoy listening to them talk about their belief systems and how dearly they hold them. ... We all have the freedom, if not the time, to pursue to the maximum, our understanding of others' belief systems, and perhaps, look for what we have in COMMON, versus what drives us apart. It's all a matter of attitude and point of view.

i agree with you in principle on everything that you just said, above.

but i can't in good conscience agree that Scientology is "just another belief system" in that it is comparable to any other religion. It truly is a destructive cult, and I would warn anyone who was considering it as a valid spiritual path to beware.

It is exceedingly difficult to get out of this organization once you get in. they are absolutely BRUTAL in their techniques to suppress dissent. They literally have armies of members who are highly trained lawyers. They have destroyed people's lives who turn against them. they will go after your family and friends in public smear campaigns. they are by far the most litigious organization in american history.

If anyone needs to understand one thing about this organization it is this: this organization exists solely to make money, and the profits are funneled directly to the core elite leadership. and they make a LOT of money.

Just to reach the third level in rank (of which there are at least 8 or 9 total, maybe more) -- Called OT III (Operating Thetan, 3rd level), which is the minimum socially acceptable level members are expected to achieve -- will cost a person over $300,000 (US). people take out second mortgages. sell their posessions. if they cant cover it in cash, they work it off in trade as a form of indentured servitude. and this cost increases exponentially for each level thereafter. Tom Cruise, I am told, is an OT VI.

Ive read excerpts of the texts that comprise the "training" for OT III . and yes, it is absolutely bizarre, but i'm not going to go into it here, because what they profess to believe is immaterial. it is not the substance of beleif that makes a cult. any religion has their peculiar beliefs that may seem ridiculous to someone not in that religion.

it is the manner by which they organize that makes a cult. for this, please refer back to the 8 highlighted points (elements) that describe a cult, which I posted earlier. this is the litmus test of a cult. and Scientology passes every single one.

However, we can still disagree.

i wish we didn't. but if we have to, then sure, I'll try to be respectful.

Now, I've said my piece. If anyone wishes to continue to maintain a soft focus, and suspend judgement on this, and give Scientology the "benefit of the doubt" and allow them equal status with world religions, that is of course your perogative.

But in my opinion, based on experience and research, this couldn't be further from the truth.

[RNnL&D]

we all would do well to ask ourselves this one question, I think.

Especially considering the recent threads re: Britney Spears, and Homebirth midwives.

[RNnL&D]

What Cruise has said is very wrong---not because he is scientologist.

Actually, yes, it is because he is a Scientologist. Scientologists believe that psychiatry is a fraud.

Now, if we all had our own e meters and could audit our engrams, none of us would need drugs. :chuckle

[rambisisking]

Wow, doggydaddy...Hard to believe it but I agree with you. I do very much believe that this is in a different catagory than organized religion. But then you know, I kinda think that any organized religion that professes to be the only true way has a "cultish" attitude about it. That's why I choose to take those things that I find true on all levels to be the truth. And it comes from influences of many religions I have explored. I also agree with blue eyes...Man you really come on strong, you must have always been a debator. I'm not saying that's bad, it just doesn't always work everywhere, and it would be good to take the edge off. You had me going on a few previous topics, but then I find that healthy. I used to be more like that when I was young and had energy. And before I knew about Zoloft.It's a good balancer,I think Tom would benifit from it ...Aww heck, I think it should be in the drinking water.

All that being said, The thing that bothered me most was that he spoke it as if he were an authority on the subject, and that he had somehow the right to judge what anyone else did to help them self. I know for a fact that God never ever once came to me and said,"Listen, I'm taking a break for a while, will you take over", and I'm betting it never happened to Tom either...except for in his mind.

[CrunchRN, ADN, RN]

I just don't take medical advice from actors!

[JaneyW]

We were discussing this at work yesterday and many of us came to the conclusion that Tom is off his rocker. I would also like to point out that Andrea Yates was beyond PPD and well into psychosis. I don't know the case well, but maybe she had propblems with this before her pregnancies? I'm sure the sleep deprivation and all the hormonal changes and inability to take many meds with all of her many pregnancies didn't help her much.

I used to work in psych and have seen PP psychosis up close and personal--been attacked by a patient with it who was hallucinating that helicopters were landing on the roof and the government was coming to take her away. This woman had no other history of psychosis. Luckily, that is very rare.

[SmilingBluEyes]

wow so now we are diagnosing Tom Cruise with mental illness. IS this not somehow as bad as what he is doing?

Just a thought......

[z's playa]

I know this wasn't directed at myself but I don't think he has a mental illness...I'm in no position to judge...but he is acting like he's the only person in the world "getting some". :chuckle

Z