Yesterday’s New York Times reported that Tom Cruise has been “raising eyebrows” with his recent behavior — said behavior including his active promotion of Scientology. Supposedly, movie studio executives had to endure a four-hour promotion of Scientology in order to be able to talk contracts with the star. And Cruise was allowed to have a tent promoting Scientology on the set of his most recent movie, “War of the Worlds,” even though no one else was allowed to promote their religions on the set.
But the Times missed the juiciest bit about Cruise’s recent promotion of Scientology, a new religious movement founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. The Times noted that Cruise has publicly criticized actress Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants to help her with post-partum depression. But we had to turn to yesterday’s Chicago Tribune for the direct quotes, and Ms. Shields’s response.
In a conversation with Access Hollywood, Cruise said Shields was “irresponsible” for taking meds to help with her depression, saying, “When someone says it has helped them, it is to cope. It didn’t cure anything. There is no science. There is nothing that can cure them whatsoever.” No, says Cruise (who must believe he’s some kind of expert on the subject), women should use exercise and vitamins to cure postpartum depression — and presumably, though this was left unsaid, he was hinting that Shields would have been best to join a local Church of Scientology.
The Tribune quotes Shield’s response from a recent issue of People magazine: “Tom should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women who are experiencing postpartum depression decide what treatment options are best for them.”
Ms. Shields was perhaps snarkier than she needed to be. I’d put it this way. Good manners dictates that Cruise may try to convince other people in private to give up modern medical science in favor of his religious alternative, but he may not go around making snide remarks in public about people who choose to follow other paths. Religious tolerance in our society depends on such good manners. I hope Tom Cruise learns some good manners, and learns that religious tolerance requires each of us to maintain good manners in public at all times.
Comments transferred from old blog
Cruise is voicing a widlely held belief about many illinesses (“It’s the patient’s fault.”) and it’s a belief not unique to him or Scientology.
Celebrities tend to abuse their priveleged station to spout of on Politics, or Religion, or in this case Medicine and thankfully most folks have the good sense to ignore them entirely.
Comment from bill67998 – 6/4/05 9:34 AM
UUs should be more welcoming for Scientologists. I mean, there must be thousands of liberal Hubbardians who have never heard of Unitarian Universalism and its inclusive message of freedom and diversity before. After all, all truth is relative, right? It all depends on your individual quest for truth and meaning, and this is a church that does not ask what you believe, but rather how we can help you keep growing in your personal religious journey. If we accept and celebrate cauldrons and spells, why not auditing tests?
Comment from jaummrc – 6/4/05 9:43 AM
juanmrc — My main point was about how to manage religious tolerance across denominational boundaries. I maintain that Cruise behaved badly in making his comments about Brooke Shields. Religious tolerance, and a tolerant society, depend on us learning good manners.
Beyond that, when we’re talking about who gets to be in Unitarian Universalist congregations, we’re not talking about “truth,” but about theological boundaries. Neo-pagans have become an integral part of UU congregations because they overlap with a feminist theology that’s widely held by nearly all other UU’s today. I see no such theological overlap with Scientology (which I tend to see as a species of non-Christian fundamentalism).
Comment from danlharp – 6/4/05 10:53 PM
Sure you are right in your comments about Cruise, but my post was about UU boundaries and how we rather unconsciously tend to put them in some places and be very tolerant and understanding in others.
Neopaganism, like Scientology, is just a New Religious Movement. It is less than 60 years old. Why was it then selectively accepted, whereas other NRMs were, and are still, rejected as silly, superficial, or downright fanatical? What tells us that invoking some ancient god or goddess of ancient times and dress as if you’re about to play a live Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game, is better than baptizing your ancestors or channeling some wise superguy calling from Sirius to teach us poor earthlings how to behave?
I agree that radical feminism of the 70’s played a part in its entrance into the UU fold, as well as some good flower power memories, and maybe a chance to upset conservative Christians in a way that Humanism was not able to do anymore.
OTOH Neopaganism has no copyright on feminist religion, as anyone who reads books or attends other churches can check for themselves.
Finally, if UUism wants to be back in the religious mainstream and stop its decades-long process of marginalization, some thought needs to be done about what mainstream society want for themselves, for their families, and for their children. But if UUism feels great being a marginal church for extreme religious outsiders, so be it. Then don’t complain about numbers.
Comment from jaummrc – 6/5/05 6:41 AM