Endless Thoughts

me too! hmm, i gotta read magazines about them - theyre everywhere in the market!

I got to disagree. If Cruise was adamant on sharing his philosophy of Catholicism or Christanity, would it bother you? It bothers me, regardless of what philosophy he is ranting about... he's a movie star, stick with it. The only thing movie stars should rant adn rave about is educated related, charity related, poverty related... not politics (michael moore has my special permission)... Did you know that those who are in Tom Cruise's fabulous scientology philosophy are usually all rich? Yep, you could be a part of it, truly be a part, as long as you got pocketful of money. he's not doing it for us, he's doing it for himself, like any religious fanatics. SOOOOO- I say to Tom Cruise, "stuff it in your mouth!" As for Katie Holmes, I couldn't care less, if he's in love, so be it just keep your damn religious freak opinions to urself!

He may not bother me if it was about Christianity because I'd ignore it but not if he said something about Deaf culture or something I agree with.

It is sad that the world will listen to the celebrities, just like hearies would listen to hearies about the Deaf...

It's not Tom himself that I'm raving about. It's the audience that I'm just telling to chill out. He's just happy where he is. He's just sharing his feelings about his love for Katie.

I don't know about the riches and all that but one of the the things that lays in his philosophy is as I see it, the way to make one feel better without having to depend on medicine. It's been in my philosophy long before I know his. It just happens that we agree on one of the things.

Part of his philosophy also encourages people to just think about themselves, not in a way one would say self-centered but to think what one wants to do, what one wants to believe in and to do whatever that makes one feel good about themselves. Basically, it's about believing in themselves.

I don't know if we should tell the movie stars what they should just talk about. Education, charity and poverty related is much preferred... but they can talk about other things, though.

It's up to people to filter what they want to hear and what they don't want to hear.

I was supposed to sleep ... but the thought about this discussion didn't rest in my head.

I want to say a few things here... I agree that people should watch what they say but if they are asked to share what they think, they can share on. But if people come knocking at our door or stand in front of the stores and publicize, that's extreme. They should bug off and worry about themselves.

I don't think Tom has been publicizing too hard on what he believes in. The sofa incident expanded the whole thing and then the media has exposed too much about him making it sound like he is preaching us about his philosophy. I've read that he said he'd like people to know what his philosophy is but that doesnt mean he is forcing us to hear it out. Tom has had this philosophy for a long time. Just happened to be majorily EXPOSED now because of the sofa incident.

Michael Moore worked hard to publicize about politics. I know he does it for the good reasons but I think he's a bit too extreme. Still, he did what he wanted to do.

I was thinking in my so-called sleep that.. though I like Bush only of a particular reason, John Kerry of a particular reason, I like Michael Moore of a particular reason. Basicially I like people that people don't like for a particular reason... I then realized what I was doing.. it's not all about what they do or say, but a little of this or that (that I like) I decided to take and reform my own perspective about life and general things and carry on.

Bush as a president, Michael Moore as an anti-republican protester and documentary movie director and Tom as a movie star -- all are more than what they are. They're people like us and happen to be in spotlight to share their views.

I think I'm saying more than enough here.

okay... i dunno if you have read news about Tom Cruise. I was not limiting myself to the Oprah thing, I actually thought he was cute-- but did you know that he has been preaching about this "philosophy: all over where he goes? At France interviews, he mocked Brooke Sheilds and condemned her for taking depression pills, saying that only if she went over to his "side" she wouldnt have takent hem and that she was a weak person for taking depression pills. She was so depressed and almost killed herself because of the post parum, that is, having the baby and messing up her hormones, something that stupid Cruise would never experience, you know, he's a male-- unable to get pregnant.

Secondly, at another interview, he insulted the interviewer when it came to philosophy and the interviewer said he didn't want to interview about THAT, he wanted to talk about his movies... but Tom started barking up the wrong tree, even so far that Steven Spielberg was upset with Tom (he directed War of the Worlds, the interview was supposed to be about that movie...) because Tom talked about the philosophy, not the movie-- with Steve next to him. the interviewer then decided to bash back and asked Steve, "is it true that tom refused to sign the contract with you to do the movie unless you set up a tent in the studio... the tent was for him to practice his Scientology"

Steve was embarassed anad admitted that yes, he HAD to put up a tent at his studio so Tom could practice his Scientology but not only practice, he actually HOUNDED on the film crews to go to the TENT AND BE LIKE HIM.

See. Read more news, not only see what he did at Oprah, he has DONE more... The articles I've read were from IMDB and NyTimes...

Finally, tom's agent is considering dropping him because of his "fanatic" behavior and his "insistence" that there be a tent of Scientology at every site. It's like a person asking for the Church to be set up aqt every stuido. More and more movies/scripts are dropping Tom like a dead fly because of him going "overboard".

I don't think we should limit whatever the stars say but they should keep religious out, its like church separate state, stars separate church. They have so much infleunce in our lives that many people would DO anything they say, without questioning.

Now, I bet you this, all the Cruise fans probably think Brooke is so WEAK, something that I really resent.

grr. All the rants here definately makes my comment look childlish. *sheepish grin*

even worse, it's the first thing I see!

anyhoo, I enjoy reading them (along w/ a cup of chai tea)

Oy, I’ve been attacked. If I omitted the term ‘his philosophy’ in my original post, then this wouldn’t have happened, would it? But I’m glad I did mention it. This is mind-stimulating for me. Lore, I’d like your cup of chai for this one! I’ll get one when I visit Rochester this week.

Anyway, debate time.

In response to Clare’s recent post:

I feel as if I’ve been interpreted as I am supporting Tom Cruise for what he did regarding to his philosophy. There are people who support such things, such as Deaf issues that I agree with but am not fond of how they do it. Tom Cruise’s philosophy is just something I agree with. Yeah I did root him just because he was so expressive of his love… and then I added that I rooted for his philosophy but not for how he did it if all is true about what he did.

I’ve read an article about Tom Cruise and Brooke Sheilds. Although he said how great Brooke is as a person and said she would have been better off without medication, he could have said it better and not use Brooke’s name since she has a reputation.

I still stick to my philosophy that there are ways to deal with personal problems without going on medications. Like Tom, I never experience being pregnant and I know it’s not my place yet to say anything about pregnant people but in general, I think that there are still ways to deal with personal problems. As I see it, medication is an easy way out… If I have a problem of mine, I would rather spend time in rehab (even if that means long-term or expensive ) than being intoxicated with man-made chemical pills. It’s for the best in the long run, as I see it.

I’ve seen somewhere that Tom had his ‘scientology’ tent set up by the movie set but haven’t seen the part about how he refused to sign the contract and such things. Surely, that is where I find it extreme. So if that’s true, then he’s like those Christians or JW who knock at the door… Still, that doesn’t change my perspective about the philosophy itself.

Lastly, whatever Tom said about Brooke—despite that I agree with his philosophy, didn’t make me think Brooke is weak. I know a lot of people who are under medication control (that I am mad about... not at them but at how the society allows it to continue). The society is just being poisoned. Everyone is. For those Cruise fans who think Brooke is weak, they’re weak themselves for not being considerate of what she went through.

Now onto my reply to JK’s post:

Yes, I believed without having to do research that Tom Cruise has a huge role in Scientology. Media shows it all. However your research is incredible and I’m sure people would find that fascinating to know.

Tom Cruise getting personal? With love, yes. With scientology, he is. It’s part of his beliefs. To get personal with other people regarding to scientology, that’s extreme.

If I have the advantage to publicize about my beliefs, I probably would depending on the circumstances but I would have said it in a more neutral way as to say “that’s how I believe, and I’m not saying you have to see what I mean to believe it. It’s just how I see it” without having to impose anyone to get into it. However Tom did, that is if he takes advantage to publicize because he’s a movie star, he was clever for doing that. Not that I am praising him about it.

I didn’t say Michael Moore was extreme because of the facts he shared were so hard to believe. I knew he did it for the good reasons. What I meant for him being extreme... well, I forgot what segments in the documentary video I found to be extreme but like how I do, I chose to filter that out and ignore. I only chose to remember why he did it. Frankly, I don’t believe all he had to say. I don’t believe all Bush had to say, either. I don’t believe all I read or heard. I don’t believe all what media had to say about Tom Cruise, too.

Yea, Scientology first came to mind when Matthew was reading “Battlefield Earth” when that book came out. It’s how Hubbard wrote that didn’t succeed. Matthew didn’t enjoy his book and I forget why but when I heard about Scientology, I wanted to know what it is and did a research on it. I found them fascinating… without the knowledge of celebrities being a part of this. Now that it’s a fad where many celebrities are a part of this, not that I can say much about it. By the way, I disliked the movie of John Travolta in it. It is stupid. Just how it is.

(off the point- how you used “God” as someone who isn’t on his side, why not use the term ‘people’? It was people who made it happen. I know ‘God’ doesn’t mean God but it’s the religious talking that made me think this way)

Interesting history about religion in your last paragraph – I’ve learned a bit about this when learning about sports history—how some sports were invented based on spiritual beliefs and then converted into nonsecular activities. Anyway, I didn’t grasp your application between the history you explained with the statistics about Tom Cruise in Oprah’s show. I couldn't connect them two.

A lot of things evolved, anyway. Scientology, Christians, Catholics – they have been evolved and they will evolve.

I like your quote “He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow.” One of things that the quote applies to me is - The more I know about Deaf education here in Ontario, the more I’m so disappointed. I talked about that quote with Amber about going into for PhD, would we want that because it adds a lot of time and knowledge and less time for appreciation with the simplicity of life. It’s not true for all. Just a thought.

Yay, I made it through without chai (well, I cheated with a cola).

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

yea.. the article about tom refusing to sign the contract and more comments he made abt brooke were in the nytimes article and that's the one u have to pay for to get that article. the one called raises eyebrow, remmy? :) that article was deeeee best.

wheee.

I dont know why you're telling me about the NY times. More sources are good but that's not my point here the whole time.

okay i know it wasn't ur point but u mentioned that you didn't see any comments about refusing to sign unless tent... well, I surely did not want to look like an idiot who posted points and gave false infos :) so I simply mentioned (or clarified) the nytimes article so any reader will know that I didn't make up those "accusations" :)

Ah, I didnt mean to imply that you're putting up false infos. Just saying that if it's that what the media said, I will still question whether if it's true or not.

Anyway, you guys told me (in person) about LIVE interview on TV, so that's about direct and accurate.