We don't have officially recognized religions, as the government isn't made up of theologians competent to make such a judgement. So the only partial measure is filing as a religion ( 501(c)3 ) with the IRS, under the guidelines laid out here. http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html Meanwhile in Katie Holmes news, she's reported to have felt like she was in "Rosemary's Baby", a 1968 movie about a woman who gives birth to a baby for a Satanic Cult. With headline grabbing press like that, it's going to be harder and harder for Scientology to find young, unsuspecting actors to recruit.
I'm not actually sure Neil Gaiman is a Scientologist, although he grew up in the CoS. What's your source?
And THAT's why I miss 'Boston Legal'. I'm a big SF nerd, but to believe stuff like that... wow, just wow...I can hear Sheldon Cooper saying, "Hey, that's a bit over the top."
Of course Scientology is horrible and crazy. But don't kid yourselves that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are any less horrible and crazy. Singling out Scientology has the effect of covering for them.
Actually that's very not true. The dangerous thing about Scientology is not their beliefs, it's their practices; it's how they put immense pressure on their followers to donate more and more and more money, far beyond their means; it's how they de-facto enslave many of their followers; it's what they spend their money for - intimidating, persecuting dissidents and opponents; it's the church's corruption; their leader's violent streak; it's how they split up families with "disconnect" policies, etc. While there are certainly groups of Christians, Muslims, and Jews who do similar things, the mainstream does not. It's not about Xenu and all that crap, and not even their homophobia and pseudo-scientific quackery, it's about what they do.
Well, I'm an atheist, so I'm not "covering" for anyone, but I'm pretty sure the religions you mention above were at least founded by true believers based on ancient beliefs/practices and not the spiritual equivalent of the ShamWow guy who flat out said he was using his scifi writing background to make money with a fabricated religion that's younger than my dad. Slight difference.
What makes a "true believer" better suited to start a religion, his delusions? Actually I think most religions started exactly that way, some guy found a way to use preexisting superstitions and used them for his benefit. Give Scientology a few thousand years and we'll see. (Not defending them by any means though, nasty bunch.) The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of it's followers.
Well, that's all a lot of speculation about the motives of ancient people obviously as opposed to Scientology where we have documented proof of what Hubbard said in the 50s. What some judge to be delusions now were just a natural part of life in ancient times, and used to explain what was then inexplicable. Taking people to task for things they were ignorant of due to the limitations of scientific understanding in their time doesn't make much sense, and certainly doesn't compare to the actions of a man thousands of years later who knew better. Sure, they could have used preexisting ancient beliefs for their benefit and most definitely did it to exert influence (for selfish or benevolent reasons or possibly both), but my point was that at the beginning they probably believed the supernatural prophecies and events they were describing were at least real or possible, whereas Hubbard was fully aware his stuff was a completely fabricated scifi story created solely for the purpose of personal gain. That makes a difference to me in terms of granting a religion legitimacy as an institution (though it doesn't make me any more likely to believe in their dogma).
Isn't it odd that conventional religions grew organically and some survived and prospered - almost Darwinian, whereas others were deliberately constructed - intelligent design ?
^ That is one of the most original and insightful observations I've come across in some time. Kudos, sir!
In the case of the three monotheistic religions this is factually wrong. At least during the emergence all of these religions were concerned with social and not personal stuff. Just read some random parts of the bible, the myths of the ancient Israelites are concerned with regulating social life. God becomes the absolute, the law or however you wanna call it. In the Gospels, or rather mainly in the Pauline interpretation of them, the main idea is to create a society which transcends the boundaries of Judaism and in Islam there is the same idea, end the rivalry among Arab tribes and unite them. Of course during actual religious practice these ideas soon vanished. Ironically the very universality of Christianity and Islam caused this as it led to a rapid increase of believers which led to a power structures and an abuse of this power. Judaism is a tribal religion and lacks these universal ideas yet precisely because of this it never became strong enough in numbers to do the nasty shit the folks of its two descendant religions have done. There is a wonderful book called "Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?". One of its main conclusions is that the ancient Greeks did not believe that all the mythical creatures still roam the Earth but that they once did or that their ancestors believed in that kind of stuff. "I believe" is a modern notion, it has been far more usual during human history to not believe subjectively but socially or via a third person. My grandmother regular went to the church but when she died she did not really expect an afterlife. Belief for her was more of a social thing. When I was still a Christian I never really believed in an afterlife either, at least subconsciously I was always aware that this is just a story which we tell ourselves to endure mortality. Or take Santa Claus. you wanna give some sweets to the kids and do not believe in him and at a certain age the kids realize that he ain't for real but still pretend to believe in order to satisfy their parents and get the sweets. So nobody subjectively believes in Santa Claus but the game still runs.
Granting a free pass to some religions because you imagine the creators to be sincere is naive about how religions begin; a type of genetic fallacy; implies sincerity justifies religion but only questions the sincerity of the founders instead of the living believers (if their sincerity is irrelevant, so is the sincerity of the founders.!) Looking down on some religions because they're nouveaux riche is an unhappy combination of snobbery and gullibility. Happily for mankind, most people live their lives as practical atheists. Otherwise we would indeed live in a hell of four billion horrible and crazy people. However, far too many believers in Judaism, Islam and Christianity, although they do not conduct their personal lives according to the specific lights of their filthy creeds, do learn bigotry and crazy from them. For an example of the former, consider the way that Protestant religious schools are refuges from black people threatening to overspread their supposedly God-given boundaries. But if that isn't horrifying enough, consider whether people wouldn't at least wonder how bombing a Muslim country could possibly be a way of helping them, except that their Christian prejudices against Islam have destroyed their moral judgment? Christian prejudices against homosexuality have actually led to bloodshed and other forms of oppression. The Scientologists don't have blood on their hands yet. For an example of the crazy, of course, we need only consider the Christian insistence on denyng evolution. The Christians of course are working hard towards enforcing their crazy creed by state indoctrination of children. Now, if you have managed to convince yourself that denying evolution is somehow not crazy, or is even significantly less crazy than Xenu, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.
This hurts me, deeply. I've got no problem with the people themselves believing whatever they wish so long as they don't harm others (which is a problem with some people and groups in almost every religion), but that doesn't mean I'm going to personally give every new religious organization serious consideration and equal weight with ones with millenia of tradition behind them.
^^^If you really feel hurt, sorry. All I wanted is for people to think about why being old somehow gives it a free pass. By that standard, isn't astrology classier than spiritualism? Indeed by that standard, monarchy is more acceptable than democracy! Religion is not an attribute of a person like race, sex, sexual preference, nationality. Religion is a social institution, and religious belief is more like membership in a political party. Except that religion is a kind of party that insists its members believe in the supernatural and reject reason as the final authority. Religions are like armies, they support the status quo (unless they are shattered, which means you are in a revolution.) As such, they defend the social prejudices of the order they support, i.e., they preach bigotry. This is not an accident of temperament in the individual believer, it is their social function, their role. This is why religions so often take the form of a state church. Condemning the institution is not bigotry. The charge is bogus. Unfortunately, the notion that somehow one's religion (which overwhelmingly is the one either born into or married) really is an essential part of one's identity really is close to religious bigotry. After all, if it is bigotry to reject religion, you must respect those who reject false religion. But if false religion really is somehow who those wrong believers truly are, then they too must be rejected. The only path out of the madness is to reject religion as an institution. This does not require telling lies, as in pretending that anyone whose religion tells them to reject simple facts like evolution is (in a loose sense of the word) crazy.
Completely agree and I think that should be the one standard everyone and every religion should held to. Millenia of tradition... eh, a whole lot of it was hating and killing. When I think about it, weighing religions against each other or holding them to a standard is kinda dumb, the actions of individuals are all that counts in the end. If you want to believe in human sacrifice, go on, be my guest, as long as you don't go out and do that kinda shit, fine.
For me, religion is a little bit silly. Kinda like believin' the tooth fairy exists - but hey if you wanna believe and find faith/support/love in that way - as long as its not harming anyone else....go ahead. The more open a religion the better - i think as scientologists are so closed it gives people the willies.