What's new

Tom Cruise's daughter, Suri, was the product of L Ron Hubbard's frozen SPERM -

Leland

Crusader
So it's still for at-risk situations.

So citing the fact that Katie had minders would not suffice.

Well.....perhaps that Tom Cruise had Cult of Hubbard "minders" would?

I don't know if he does or not.....but imagine some of his staff must be associated with the Cult of Hubbard.... Therefore the Cult of Hubbard deems that Tom Cruise needs "supervision".....:biggrin:
 

Hypatia

Pagan
He should, at the very least, explain why he hasn't seen her in almost two years. And that may well be enough reason for some sorts of restrictions to be placed on him (TC) and his visits with Suri.
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
Agreed.

Suri is only 9 years old.

Tom Cruise apparently has not seen her in 600 days.....

Something is way off there.....

IMO, From Suri's point of view.....this guy is not a "Father Figure" to her, at this point.

I don't care if he was "off shooting a movie"

Big Celebs like that could hop on a jet ANYTIME....and fly anywhere in the world in a day......and see someone....if they wanted to....SO, that excuse just doesn't hold water.

STORY:

I had a girl friend that was a production manager for high end TV commercials. One time shooting a TV ad in Hawaii.....the Director .....a Veigan....wanted some special sort of brown rice....and they sent a private jet to LA to get some....

Presumably the lack of contact is because Tom doesn't want it, rather than Katie refusing to let Suri see her dad. There is the possibility that they are in the middle of a custody battle and have been ordered by the court to maintain confidentiality, but in the past Katie has been very slick at handling media with a series of leaks.
 

Leland

Crusader
It is an interesting Legal and First Amendment point.

Tom Cruise...... IS Cult of Hubbard adherent.

Katie Holmes Cruise......IS NOT a Cult of Hubbard adherent....


Disregarding all other aspects about rights or reasons to require or not require Court "supervised visitation"........it would seem that going either way....would violate one of the parties Civil Rights....

I wonder what Suri thinks about it all?
 

Leland

Crusader
As mentioned above.....I dated a woman in LA for several years, that had a 12 year old daughter.

That daughter had been cast and doing TV Commercials for several years.....and according to the Mother....already had $280 Thousand dollars in the bank....

The Father supported himself....."as her Manager".... ( as far as I know....) Anyway....a screwy situation.

I am just bringing this up because....What does Suri want to do?

Does she want to go to a Boarding School in Switzerland?

Does she want to "get into the business" and start going out on casting calls....and perhaps land some paying gigs....?

Does she want to give up her "regular" life....and join the Cult of Hubbard's Cadet Org....and be a Sea Organization Cadet....?

Does she just want to hang out....and go to Beverly Hills High School....in a few years...then decide what to do....?

Is she studying very hard now.....to get into Stanford in the future...and become ??????

I am sure she (Suri ) will be consulted by any Judge on who's Docket this Case will eventually arrive.... (If Tom Cruise forces any issue Katie is not happy with.....)
 

Leland

Crusader
It is an interesting Legal and First Amendment point.

Tom Cruise...... IS Cult of Hubbard adherent.

Katie Holmes Cruise......IS NOT a Cult of Hubbard adherent....


Disregarding all other aspects about rights or reasons to require or not require Court "supervised visitation"........it would seem that going either way....would violate one of the parties Civil Rights....

I wonder what Suri thinks about it all?

:megaphone:Calling Smurf.

Legal interpretation / insight needed....
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
It is an interesting Legal and First Amendment point.

Tom Cruise...... IS Cult of Hubbard adherent.

Katie Holmes Cruise......IS NOT a Cult of Hubbard adherent....


Disregarding all other aspects about rights or reasons to require or not require Court "supervised visitation"........it would seem that going either way....would violate one of the parties Civil Rights....

I wonder what Suri thinks about it all?

Family law, or child law is what's in the best interests of the child rather than the ego, or rights of the parents. For the most part, a child benefits from having contact with the non resident parent, which statistically is almost always the father, but can be a mother. The time when a court, 'orders' contact is when the parties can't agree on time/place or when a resident parent refuses to let a child have contact. The court order is made to the resident parent to make a child available.

Whether it's at a contact centre depends on a range of factors and there are varying degrees, such as full supervised contact where a social worker will physically be in the room, to supported contact where the parents won't have to meet but contact is in a neutral place, often with other families, but with trained staff in attendance.

Taking Tom Cruise out of the equation, if a resident parent felt that there was a high probability that a child would be exposed to something physically or mentally damaging during a contact visit, then they would be absolutely within their rights to ask for that activity to be excluded by court order.
 

Leland

Crusader
It seems to me that parents have the right to raise their children up, in the religion of their choice.

But what happens if the parents split....and one is of one religion.....and the other is not.

It would seem to me that Tom Cruise and ANY Scientology parent GIVING their children to the Cult of Hubbard at a young age.....and those children joining the Sea Org.....PRIOR to age 18....and an education.....would IMO be an abrogation of their Parental Duties....( I would prefer age 21 )

Anyway.....lots of interesting points to look at in this situation...in the above posts...


IMO...the Cult of Hubbard "likes em young" (or with lots of money....)

Edited:

As far as I know.....Tom Cruise already has a track record of letting the Sea Organization have one on his children.....if not both....
 
Last edited:

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
It seems to me that parents have the right to raise their children up, in the religion of their choice. <snip>

I'm afraid I have to take issue with you on that point Lee. As far as I'm concerned the parents have no right whatsoever to bring their child up in the religion of their choice. The child should decide, when he/she is old enough to understand, what religion it wants, or does not want, to follow.
 

Leland

Crusader
I'm afraid I have to take issue with you on that point Lee. As far as I'm concerned the parents have no right whatsoever to bring their child up in the religion of their choice. The child should decide, when he/she is old enough to understand, what religion it wants, or does not want, to follow.

Yes, Strat, in a perfect world, that would be best.

Seeing videos of little children that look to be 6 years old......being taught how to use guns....by ISIS...as just one example.....is atrocious.

But....I'd pretty much have to say, that despite your thoughts about it.....that the world over....parents do raise their Children in the religion of their choice...

The only places these days that might not allow that....are North Korea...and I suppose China...and a handful of others....

Perhaps there is a bit of drifting away from a "strict" religious upbringing for some here in the States......But I do believe that religion does play a major role here for many......still...in how folks raise their Children.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, Strat, in a perfect world, that would be best.

Seeing videos of little children that look to be 6 years old......being taught how to use guns....by ISIS...as just one example.....is atrocious.

But....I'd pretty much have to say, that despite your thoughts about it.....that the world over....parents do raise their Children in the religion of their choice...

The only places these days that might not allow that....are North Korea...and I suppose China...and a handful of others....

In some countries though, religions are persecuted. You aren't even allowed to bring Bibles into Saudi Arabia, because Christianity is illegal there. (Some people still manage it but they're very brave IMO). So there isn't really any 'choice' as such.

France probably goes the furthest in the direction Stratty's talking about, because although they allow freedom of religion at home they work very hard to keep church and state separate.
 

Leland

Crusader
In some countries though, religions are persecuted. You aren't even allowed to bring Bibles into Saudi Arabia, because Christianity is illegal there. (Some people still manage it but they're very brave IMO). So there isn't really any 'choice' as such.

France probably goes the furthest in the direction Stratty's talking about, because although they allow freedom of religion at home they work very hard to keep church and state separate.

Well, sure. Saudi Arabia could be called a Religious State...( Country.) I'd say most Middle Eastern Countries...are a majority Islamic...and have Islamic Law....like Iran.

ISIS and other Islamic extremist do want to combine Religion and Government.....to the maximum. I suppose then, those people living in those type of countries would have no choice in how to raise their children......they would all be raised under the Religion of Islam....as interpreted by whom ever was in charge....

Edited: Of course in many of these Islamic States.....Christians and Jews are persecuted and killed....
 
Last edited:

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Yes, Strat, in a perfect world, that would be best.

Seeing videos of little children that look to be 6 years old......being taught how to use guns....by ISIS...as just one example.....is atrocious.
I agree, that's terrible.

But....I'd pretty much have to say, that despite your thoughts about it.....that the world over....parents do raise their Children in the religion of their choice...
Yes, unfortunately that is the case.

Perhaps there is a bit of drifting away from a "strict" religious upbringing for some here in the States......But I do believe that religion does play a major role here for many......still...in how folks raise their Children.
Nobody ever mistook me for an academic or scholar, but wasn't the point about the United States the separation of church and state? Here in England we grow more and more secular every day as church attendance plummets, yet you guys have the so-called 'Bible-Belt', and even on my 1923 silver dollar (which you and I have discussed previously) (and your current banknotes of course) it says 'In God We Trust!
 
Last edited:

Leland

Crusader
Nobody ever mistook me for an academic or scholar, but wasn't the point about the United States the separation of church and state? Here in England we grow more and more secular every day as church attendance plummets, yet you guys have the so-called 'Bible-Belt', and even on my 1923 silver dollar (which you and I have discussed previously) it says 'In God We Trust!

Yes, you are correct.

But I'd say ALL of the Western World...and specifically the U.S. were formed and are based upon Christian / Judaic principles....

People did leave England and come to the U.S.....at the beginning to escape religious persecution.

But they didn't come to the U.S.....so they could be Hindus or Muslims......they came to evade religious persecution to their particular sect or schism of Christianity.....in England and the Continent... ( Lutherans from Germany are another example...)

I believe it was the Puritans and Quakers that showed up first.....

I don't know much of the religious time line in England....Don't know when the Church of England was formed.....as that Country turned away from the Vatican....

To answer your question....I think there is a great deal of Separation of Church and State here in the U.S. but.......this Country was still founded upon Christian and Jewish traditions.....

I think that the Constitution's words about "Separation of Church and State" are now and have been "re-interpreted" to have a much broader meaning.....than originally intended.

It seem to me these "new" interpretations of "separation of Church and State" and "freedom of religion" are what groups like the Cult of Hubbard have been exploiting.....to maneuver themselves into power and growth....

And even with these Laws of the Land....the Cult of Hubbard still had to do criminal, crazy, and hidden operations....to "get along."
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, you are correct.

But I'd say ALL of the Western World...and specifically the U.S. were formed and are based upon Christian / Judaic principles....

People did leave England and come to the U.S.....at the beginning to escape religious persecution.

But they didn't come to the U.S.....so they could be Hindus or Muslims......they came to evade religious persecution to their particular sect or schism of Christianity.....in England and the Continent... ( Lutherans from Germany are another example...)

I believe it was the Puritans and Quakers that showed up first.....

I don't know much of the religious time line in England....Don't know when the Church of England was formed.....as that Country turned away from the Vatican....

To answer your question....I think there is a great deal of Separation of Church and State here in the U.S. but.......this Country was still founded upon Christian and Jewish traditions.....

I think that the Constitution's words about "Separation of Church and State" are now and have been "re-interpreted" to have a much broader meaning.....than originally intended.

It seem to me these "new" interpretations of "separation of Church and State" and "freedom of religion" are what groups like the Cult of Hubbard have been exploiting.....to maneuver themselves into power and growth....

And even with these Laws of the Land....the Cult of Hubbard still had to do criminal, crazy, and hidden operations....to "get along."

Good posts from you both.

Stratty may disagree here, but I don't think the majority of Brits see the lack of separation of church and state in the UK as much of a problem although on paper it's pretty hard to justify it.

We keep, I believe, 26 seats in the House of Lords (our upper legislative chamber) for the exclusive use of Church of England bishops - no other religion is represented in that way there - and the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church of England.

I think most British people go along with it because the CofE just isn't very scarey and hasn't been for a long time now.

(BTW, the CofE was created in the mid-1530s because Henry VIII wanted to get divorced).
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Good posts from you both.

Stratty may disagree here, but I don't think the majority of Brits see the lack of separation of church and state in the UK as much of a problem although on paper it's pretty hard to justify it.
I won't argue with you on that point Cat's, church and state are pretty well intertwined in theory here, but in practice it's not really a problem as far as I'm concerned, although the sooner the Royal family and the House of Lords is abolished the better.

I think most British people go along with it because the CofE just isn't very scarey and hasn't been for a long time now.
Exactly!

(BTW, the CofE was created in the mid-1530s because Henry VIII wanted to get divorced).
Isn't ESMB great? We get educated here as well as entertained. :)
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I won't argue with you on that point Cat's, church and state are pretty well intertwined in theory here, but in practice it's not really a problem as far as I'm concerned, although the sooner the Royal family and the House of Lords is abolished the better.


Exactly!


Isn't ESMB great? We get educated here as well as entertained. :)

According to wikipedia there's more to the story than I thought, and the truth less certain;

"Henry is generally credited with initiating the English Reformation – the process of transforming England from a Catholic country to a Protestant one – though his progress at the elite and mass levels is disputed,[182] and the precise narrative not widely agreed.[59]

Certainly, in 1527, Henry, until then an observant and well-informed Catholic, appealed to the Pope for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine.[59] No annulment was immediately forthcoming, the result in part of Charles V's control of the Papacy.[183] The traditional narrative gives this refusal as the trigger for Henry's rejection of papal supremacy (which he had previously defended), though as historian A. F. Pollard has argued, even if Henry had not needed a divorce, Henry may have come to reject papal control over the governance of England purely for political reasons.[184]"
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
The tabloids have been posting this crap since Katie had Suri.. the premise was either Cruise is a closet homo who's never had sex with Katie or to Cruise admitting he was sterile, which is why he & Nicole adopted 2 children.

My first thought was "They are really going out on a limb. They don't think Tom would sue the for libel?"

I'm guessing that the tabloid is betting that Tom won't sue, because he would then have to participate in discovery proceedings, and there is something there that Tom really doesn't want coming up.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Well, sure. Saudi Arabia could be called a Religious State...( Country.) I'd say most Middle Eastern Countries...are a majority Islamic...and have Islamic Law....like Iran.

ISIS and other Islamic extremist do want to combine Religion and Government.....to the maximum. I suppose then, those people living in those type of countries would have no choice in how to raise their children......they would all be raised under the Religion of Islam....as interpreted by whom ever was in charge....

Edited: [highlight] Of course in many of these Islamic States.....Christians and Jews are persecuted and killed....[/highlight]

Oh, Saudi Arabia, the religious state that Britain sells millions of dollars worth of military hardware to every year? Which they pass on to their friends in ISIS to kill Christians in Syria and Iraq with. How fucked-up is that?
 
Last edited:

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
It seems to me that parents have the right to raise their children up, in the religion of their choice.

But what happens if the parents split....and one is of one religion.....and the other is not.

It would seem to me that Tom Cruise and ANY Scientology parent GIVING their children to the Cult of Hubbard at a young age.....and those children joining the Sea Org.....PRIOR to age 18....and an education.....would IMO be an abrogation of their Parental Duties....( I would prefer age 21 )

Anyway.....lots of interesting points to look at in this situation...in the above posts...


IMO...the Cult of Hubbard "likes em young" (or with lots of money....)

Edited:

As far as I know.....Tom Cruise already has a track record of letting the Sea Organization have one on his children.....if not both....

At least in the UK, if parents split, one can apply for a, 'Specific Issue Order,' which asks the court to decide about issues in regards to the child when the parents can't agree, or a, 'prohibited steps order,' which is what a parent cannot do without the permission of the other parent, for argument sake, taking a child to a scientology org for training, or joining the Sea Org.

It's fairly common for religion to be an area of dispute. I know of several families where religion wasn't a problem when the parents were married, but suddenly when they divorced, it became a huge controlling point. Most other issues such as finances are fairly finite and it's simply a matter of dividing what's in the communal pot. But religion can be such an emotive minefield.

What isn't entirely clear in Katie's divorce from Tom Cruise, specifically the custody arrangements, is the possibility that there was the specific order that Suri could not participate in scientology. On one hand, can't see how Tom would agree to this, but on the other, he was completely blind sided by the whole thing.
 
Top