In which this statement can be found: "Don't immediately assume that he is ruining himself," said Allan Mayer, managing director of Los Angeles-based Sitrick and Co., which regularly handles celebrities' PR crises. "He himself has said he doesn't care, and who are we to say he's made a mistake? . . . What's the point of being a hugely successful and powerful movie star if you can't talk about the things that matter to you? We may think it's silly and bizarre, but it's obviously important to him."
I'm not a believer in Scientology, nor do follow or advocate any religion specifically, however, there are many people with numerous causes and beliefs who are extremely outspoken about them, who sometimes get their facts wrong, and who are also in the public eye. Most of these people are not branded with the label "weird" just because of those beliefs. Tom Cruise is more visible than many celebrities because of his huge box office draw and his world-wide fame. He's the ability to make his views heard in ways others don't. The article portrays Cruise as something that he may not be - out of control. He is a primary spokesman for Scientology, if not the primary and premier spokesman. It's his job to get people interested in the scheme, and he may even believe what he says. But is that any more weird than the way other proselytize? He carries his views to the extreme ... so do many others. Wikipedia is bullshit .... Shel > [Original Message] > From: E.R.N. Reed > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >I just asked Marnie in what way she thought Tom Cruise is weird. > > > Well, I don't know for certain what provoked Marnie to say it, but I > agreed with her in large part because of the incident referred to here: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401 866_pf.html > > The Wikipedia (spelling?) entry on him is kind of, um, interesting as well. > > Incidentally, to clarify in advance -- I just found that Washington Post > item for the first time, but since it provides the story, I didn't > continue searching for my original source of information about the > episode. I didn't base my opinion on the WP article, which appears to be > an opinion piece, but on news reports of the same interview (and its > fallout.)
