Taltarzac725
11-26-2013, 10:16 AM
Matt Lauer on "Glib" Tom Cruise Interview: There Was a Cold War Period - Us Weekly (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/matt-lauer-on-infamous-tom-cruise-interview-there-was-a-cold-war-period-after-that-2013216)
What do you think about the opposing ideas and philosophies of these two men?
Not sure if I can do justice to the positions of each on psychiatric drugs and their use. It sounded like Matt Lauer was arguing for a common sense approach to their use. If they are needed, they you take them with a physician's guidance. Tom Cruise seemed to be taking the Scientologist position that psychiatric drugs are rarely needed and that you can use spiritual healing as a way to offset these.
I certainly have been depressed enough at times to use some kind of pick me up but also see that a spiritual approach can be just as beneficial to certain problems than drugs.
There have also been times in my life when it has seemed that the forces I have been fighting since January of 1991 or so to get practical materials for survivors of crimes into libraries of all sorts have used the image of my mental health as a way to attack my credibility. If you cannot attack the idea, attack the person. One of the ways used over the past two hundred years around the world with great effect by those with incredible power to silence critics has been to label someone with valid ideas as a paranoid schizophrenic and/or a nutcase, crazy, neurotic, or whatever the current terms.
Of course, a real paranoid schizophrenic would need to be on medications of all kinds. Maybe not on the philosophy of some Scientologists except that I doubt that all scientologists see psychiatric medicines as being harmful. Some probably do, some do not.
When I was e-mailing people all over the world about my fight (using the references 224 and 613) for respect for survivors of crimes and their access to practical materials back around 2004 or so, I did get a call from the Scientologist magazine. I decided not to go down that road even though I had contacted them along with tens of thousands of others in my work to help survivors of crimes. http://www.freedommag.org/
Would like to know how you come down on these two positions? Both seem to have some worth. The support of a church based system seems to be a central part of the Alcoholics Anonymous creed. (Step 3) You give yourself up to a higher power in order to keep off of drugs and/or alcohol. http://www.barefootsworld.net/aaworkstep3.html
I would hope though that many people who need psychiatric drugs would take these whatever their religion might dictate.
What do you think about the opposing ideas and philosophies of these two men?
Not sure if I can do justice to the positions of each on psychiatric drugs and their use. It sounded like Matt Lauer was arguing for a common sense approach to their use. If they are needed, they you take them with a physician's guidance. Tom Cruise seemed to be taking the Scientologist position that psychiatric drugs are rarely needed and that you can use spiritual healing as a way to offset these.
I certainly have been depressed enough at times to use some kind of pick me up but also see that a spiritual approach can be just as beneficial to certain problems than drugs.
There have also been times in my life when it has seemed that the forces I have been fighting since January of 1991 or so to get practical materials for survivors of crimes into libraries of all sorts have used the image of my mental health as a way to attack my credibility. If you cannot attack the idea, attack the person. One of the ways used over the past two hundred years around the world with great effect by those with incredible power to silence critics has been to label someone with valid ideas as a paranoid schizophrenic and/or a nutcase, crazy, neurotic, or whatever the current terms.
Of course, a real paranoid schizophrenic would need to be on medications of all kinds. Maybe not on the philosophy of some Scientologists except that I doubt that all scientologists see psychiatric medicines as being harmful. Some probably do, some do not.
When I was e-mailing people all over the world about my fight (using the references 224 and 613) for respect for survivors of crimes and their access to practical materials back around 2004 or so, I did get a call from the Scientologist magazine. I decided not to go down that road even though I had contacted them along with tens of thousands of others in my work to help survivors of crimes. http://www.freedommag.org/
Would like to know how you come down on these two positions? Both seem to have some worth. The support of a church based system seems to be a central part of the Alcoholics Anonymous creed. (Step 3) You give yourself up to a higher power in order to keep off of drugs and/or alcohol. http://www.barefootsworld.net/aaworkstep3.html
I would hope though that many people who need psychiatric drugs would take these whatever their religion might dictate.