Tom Cruise Says Baby Will Be a Scientologist

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:58 am

gmc wrote: I don't like the rise of religious fanaticism of all types that seems to be on the rise with religious groups feeling they have the right to demand respect from those that don't believe as they do and start interfering with the way people lead their lives. We need to start treating all religons with disrespect and laugh at them out loud.

GMC,

You asked me to find a post.

GMC? Why would you want everyone to treat them with disrespect? It sounds like you have a motive for doing this.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:10 am

Sorry, Snooze. I did it to you again. I'm much too impetuous. Post what's in my head. Then sometimes think better of it. For all I know some of the FGers are in fact scientologists and I'm here to relax, not be confrontational (unless I really feel I have no option)... grin. My workaday life provides quite enough opportunities to engage in mortal combat.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am

It says in todays papers he's going to eat the placenta :yh_sick

Rather him than me.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:40 am

abbey wrote: It says in todays papers he's going to eat the placenta :yh_sick

Rather him than me.EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:49 am

[quote=Diuretic}

I wonder if South Park will do an episode on placenta-eating?god, let's hope so.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:59 am

DesignerGal wrote: GMC,

You asked me to find a post.

GMC? Why would you want everyone to treat them with disrespect? It sounds like you have a motive for doing this.

You're right I'm not making myself terribly clear. I'm not advocating suppressing religon but I don't want to end up in a culture where people are afraid to criticise religon or make fun of it in any way or even just express disbelief for fear of giving offence or being pilloried. I will respect someone's right to believe to the same extent they respect mine not to.

If you look at British press you will often see cartoons featuring the pope, Archbishop of canterbury, wee frees, Tom cruise and just about any other religious denomination you care to mention, it's a healthy part of our largely secular culture. Satire is an essential part of a free society imo.

Now we have the PC crowd trying to pass laws to curb incitement to hatred-of Muslims in particular that are so badly drafted even a joke can be illegal. Issues like the cartoons in the danish paper highlight the dangers. If it was a joke featuring the pope most probably wouldn't have noticed and if anybody had objected the response would have been to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously. Yet we are expected to change the way we act to humour (no pun intended) a bunch of religious nutters that threaten violence and so as not to offend their sensibilities.

If we had the same kind of religious right here that you seem to have in the states they would have a field day with it.

You can respect someone's right to believe what they choose but at the same time completely disrespect their belief that they have a god given right to tell people how to live and what to believe and what should and should not be allowed to be published, watched in the cinemas and on TV.

Scientology is no worse than any other religious group. If they choose not to use psychiatric drugs or believe depression is not a real illness for instance then good luck to them. If on the other hand they try and get the law changed to make them illegal then i would oppose it. Same with contraception, if catholics choose not to allow them they can choose not to do so. If on the other hand they try and change the law to make the supply of them illegal then I would object because they are imposing a religious belief on me as a non believer.

The best defence against any kind of religon inspired narrow mindedness is the freedom to laugh about it-disrespect it if you will. If someone who believes it really does have faith then what others think won't shake their belief. I tend to suspect religious groups that want to control what their followers see and hear are just manipulative cults frightened their followers might think for themselves.

I don't have any particular motive-I'm just expressing an opinion as is my god given right to do so :sneaky:

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:51 am

gmc wrote: You're right I'm not making myself terribly clear. I'm not advocating suppressing religon but I don't want to end up in a culture where people are afraid to criticise religon or make fun of it in any way or even just express disbelief for fear of giving offence or being pilloried. I will respect someone's right to believe to the same extent they respect mine not to.

If you look at British press you will often see cartoons featuring the pope, Archbishop of canterbury, wee frees, Tom cruise and just about any other religious denomination you care to mention, it's a healthy part of our largely secular culture. Satire is an essential part of a free society imo.

Now we have the PC crowd trying to pass laws to curb incitement to hatred-of Muslims in particular that are so badly drafted even a joke can be illegal. Issues like the cartoons in the danish paper highlight the dangers. If it was a joke featuring the pope most probably wouldn't have noticed and if anybody had objected the response would have been to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously. Yet we are expected to change the way we act to humour (no pun intended) a bunch of religious nutters that threaten violence and so as not to offend their sensibilities.

If we had the same kind of religious right here that you seem to have in the states they would have a field day with it.

You can respect someone's right to believe what they choose but at the same time completely disrespect their belief that they have a god given right to tell people how to live and what to believe and what should and should not be allowed to be published, watched in the cinemas and on TV.

Scientology is no worse than any other religious group. If they choose not to use psychiatric drugs or believe depression is not a real illness for instance then good luck to them. If on the other hand they try and get the law changed to make them illegal then i would oppose it. Same with contraception, if catholics choose not to allow them they can choose not to do so. If on the other hand they try and change the law to make the supply of them illegal then I would object because they are imposing a religious belief on me as a non believer.

The best defence against any kind of religon inspired narrow mindedness is the freedom to laugh about it-disrespect it if you will. If someone who believes it really does have faith then what others think won't shake their belief. I tend to suspect religious groups that want to control what their followers see and hear are just manipulative cults frightened their followers might think for themselves.

I don't have any particular motive-I'm just expressing an opinion as is my god given right to do so :sneaky:

You should check out the story in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution about the woman who wants Harry Potter pulled out of the library because its against her religous beliefs because it has "demonic activity" in it. Im a Christian, and I think she is a nut. Not all of us are crazy fanatics that cram our beliefs down people's throat. But I have to say I dont laugh at others that dont believe what I do, ok, except my scientology, or those other kool aid, waiting on rocket ship people. Sorry.

Mis Unserstood · Post by **Mis Unserstood** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:59 am

Gosh, I used to love T.C.........But everyone I know including myself just thinks he has gone absolutly nuts. No telling how many millions he has forked over to this cult. Can you say BRAINWASHED!!!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:26 am

DesignerGal wrote: You should check out the story in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution about the woman who wants Harry Potter pulled out of the library because its against her religous beliefs because it has "demonic activity" in it. Im a Christian, and I think she is a nut. Not all of us are crazy fanatics that cram our beliefs down people's throat. But I have to say I dont laugh at others that dont believe what I do, ok, except my scientology, or those other kool aid, waiting on rocket ship people. Sorry.

I'm not putting this very well at all. I wouldn't laugh at her beliefs per se but you must admit thinking harry potter is about demons is pretty funny. Bet she hasn't even seen it. To let her succeed would be taking her and those who think like that far too seriously.

I wouldn't laugh at her christian belief but if you don't laugh at this kind of stupidity you lend credence to it.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:23 pm

gmc:-6

Agreed.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:35 am

sixyearsleft wrote: Katie Holmes has agreed not to talk to her new arrival, for at least seven days after she has entered the world, in accordance with fiance Tom Cruise's Scientology beliefs.

Katie, has already promised Tom she will deliver the child in complete silence, and she will also have very little contact afterwards.

new born babies must not hear their mother speak for a week so they will not associate their voice with the trauma of birth.

FREE Suri
Holy f*cking sh!t. Are you serious??!?!??! :yh_ooooo

And I thought the JW's were bad, this is simply insane. I'm speechless.:-3

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:44 am

Invented by a male. And sickening.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:49 am

AussiePam wrote: Invented by a male.
Oh, gee, what an amazing shock that is.... :yh_eyerol

AussiePam wrote: And sickening.
Revolting. Nauseating. Disgusting. Inhuman. F*cked up.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:54 am

Well put, BR !!! All I can say is this little girlie must really love TC... which is a bit hard to fathom. But each to her own, I guess. Poor baby, though!!!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:58 am

AussiePam wrote: Well put, BR !!! All I can say is this little girlie must really love TC... which is a bit hard to fathom. But each to her own, I guess. Poor baby, though!!!
How can you not speak to your newborn baby for a week??? It's cruel. It's heartless. I can't find enough ways to express my revulsion. And she has to go through delivery in silence??? WTF kind of archaic bullsh!t is that??? What's the f*cking point???

I hereby reiterate my VOW to never support one single thing Tom "The Nut-job" Cruise does for the rest of his career.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:59 am

sixyearsleft wrote: It's freaky, and thats only the stuff we know about:(

god know's what else these ppl get up to...
I don't think I want to know...I'd want desperately to go all "vigilante" on their asses!!!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:12 am

sixyearsleft wrote: I'm sure a Free Suri campaign will soon start, another sick thing for me is how these PR freaks arrange the birth date around the release of a new film or viceversa, nothing better than getting married or haveing a baby to promote these dumb claptrap Hollywood movies, life is cheap to these ****wits, its all just a game....
So true, and so incredibly sad. And it's a game they are playing with a baby's life. This should be criminal.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:58 am

well if i'm still around in 20 years, i expect to hear how this kid is a shoplifter. or shoots up the post office.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:03 am

Nar, I have a lot of faith in kids!! This kid is going to have a sorry start in life, but so did lots of us. Inspite of nature and nurture - he or she may turn out amazingly fine!

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:37 pm

now

gahahahaha[/FONT]

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:06 pm

lady cop wrote: well if i'm still around in 20 years, i expect to hear how this kid is a shoplifter. or shoots up the post office.
Oh yeah, I wonder what a palm reader would make of the sniper rifle and water tower she'd see in his future? :yh_eyebro

I am still totally shocked over this. How can a mother bond with her child if they can't have contact for a week after birth? I've learned they also don't allow breast feeding, but feed the baby honey and wheat germ. I don't think a baby can digest honey, can they? Or am I getting something mixed up from my parenting class from 17 years ago?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:14 pm

BabyRider:-6

I think the problem with honey is a fear of some bacterial infection such as salmonella or some such thing.

We didn't feed it to our children just that me being an ice cream connoseur I saw that they got brought up right, early. LOL Grandchildren as well.

I also taught them to play in mud puddles early. When it came to the grandchildren my daughter had a fit at the mud but they did have fun. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:17 pm

Ted wrote: BabyRider:-6

I think the problem with honey is a fear of some bacterial infection such as salmonella or some such thing.
That sounds about right, Ted, but I'm having trouble retreiving the actual facts from my memory from 17 years ago.

Any new mommies....can you confirm??

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:19 pm

BabyRider:-6

My wife who is out at the moment has a good memory. I will check with her when she gets home.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:27 pm

BabyRider:-6

My wife has in her memory that it may be botulism. There can be something toxic to babies in hony.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:29 pm

I see weeder here, maybe she knows....

I'm going to pop over to ask.com and see what I can find.

Edit to add: I just went to ask.com, and entered "Is honey toxic to newborn babies?" I got what looked like a good site, about the 4th one down, but when I click on the link it says "Cannot find server..." Maybe someone else could give it a shot?

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:45 pm

I am having trouble participating tonite because the letters are so small.. I cant see them. The problem with honey is botulism. I found out from the pediatrician 25 years ago when I was putting it on Johns pacifier.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:54 pm

I thought it was the possibility of allergy.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:23 pm

No honey under 2 years, no peanut butter under I think it's 5 years,

believe it or not. Little kids tummies don't have the "good" bacteria

to be able to digest stuff in either of those, peanuts have aflatoxin that

adults can handle but babiews can't.

You can give your kids (skin OR fur) probiotics... cultured yogurt and such.

:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:23 pm

As far as scientology is concerned I still think it is diuretics and not dianetics. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6