...but that's a nervous laugh, because right as this story posted, we got a big spike traffic from somewhere that's slowing the site down.

(is 3fingerspointback)

I think it's because people think it's possible that Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. really were spiritual people who honestly believed they were telling the truth about God. Because they are more contemporary, we know a lot more detail about the lives of people like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, and we know for certain that they were opportunistic charlatans.

It's the whole notion of "your right to throw a punch ends where my face begins". I don't give a damn about Scientology in the abstract, but I do care when the CoS tramples on other citizens free speech rights, gains unfair tax exemptions, does illegal things to its members, and so on. I'm an equal opportunity hater when it comes to this stuff - I'm just as bothered with Catholics or Mormons or Jews or Muslims or whoever uses the same tactics. The biggest difference between those groups and the CoS is that generally most of the time mainstream organized religions are divided about these tactics. Some Catholics think blasphemy should be illegal, most don't. Some Muslims think infidels should convert or die, most don't. ALL CoS members, on the other hand, are forced to walk in absolute lockstep over all their "church's" policies.

Finally, there's the simple absurdity of it all. The tenets of the religion are all right out of science fiction, and, surprise surprise, the founder was a science fiction writer. I guess most people just wonder how anyone could possibly believe that crap? Sure, there's a certain level of hypocrisy there (since most Scientology critics aren't atheists), but it's easier to understand how people could believe in mainstream religions, which are often as much cultural artifacts as anything, that it is to understand how someone could actively convert to being in the CoS. Beck aside, not that many people grow up as Scientologists, so they don't have the same excuses most believers have.

Actually my previous comment at least partially addresses that question, but I can state my answer more explicitly.  While all religions are too some extent parasitical, in that they consume people's time and money for the propitiation of imaginary deities, and for other imaginary goals that serve only to deceive the faithful (as I have said previously on this site, no real problem has ever been solved in the real world by prayer) some religions are more predatory than others.  For most members, Scientology will wind up consuming their entire lives, and will leave them with nothing, if they do not escape soon enough (Tom Cruise is an exception, which is explained in my previous comment).  Scientology is a very predatory religion, indeed, it could more accurately be described as a con game disguised as a religion - although all religions partake to some extent of the nature of a con game.  Some are worse than others, and Scientology is the worst.

I read somewhere a comment by a professor of religion who said he considers Scientology a multi-national corporation, not a religion.

Of course, the problem with this multi-national corporation is that it makes its profits with cult methods such as encouraging their inductees to cut off all ties with anyone who is not encouraging of Scientology. And all the while, they get the joy of non-profit tax-free status.

In regards to Tom Cruise and other Scientology celebrities, they supposedly get treated like royalty unlike the rest of the normal Scientology members.

Tom Cruise has already stated in a published interview "Fuck you if you don't like my religion" so obviously, he will not be receptive to my criticism (not that he reads treesandthings anyway).  The more fool he.

Don't be so sure of that. It wouldn't be the first time that a person whose idea or product is under debate has randomly shown up on TnT to defend himself.

It is odd how this place works. Stories in the subQ that look exciting get like 7 posts, while other ones you would not expect get a ton. It's kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. Or something.

On topic: Did anybody here have their hometown host Anonymous sponsored protests? Mine did. Apparently we are the regional Mecca for Scientologists, which explains why they hang around downtown and accost people.

I don't really have much to say to or about Scientologists. I did have this encounter once with a young pairing. The guy spoke while the girl stood by demurely:

Obvious Scientology Guy: Would you like to take a survey?

Me (never stopping from moving in the direction I was walking): What's it for?

OSG (Trying to come up with a way not to say Scientology): It's for a class I'm taking.

Me (Feigning genuine interest knowing full well where this is going): Oh yeah? What's the class on?

OSG (Trying to come up with yet another way not to say Scientology): It's about improving your life and better understanding the world.

Me: Really? How do you do that?

OSG (now absolutely seething): Thru Scientology.

Me (politely but moving away very quickly): No, thanks.

OSG (walking away angrily but still cursing under his breath to me): Godfuckingdammit.

Their world headquarters and mini village is about 5 blocks from my house. I try not to drive that direction so I didn't notice any protests today. In general, I encourage my friends not to tempt fate by bating them--every time there's an outdoor fair here, the Scientologists offer their free stress tests and my friends ALWAYS want to screw with them. I am, however, very tempted to visit their restaurant. The review offers this Know Before You Go:

While the restaurant is located in the Scientology Center, the wait staff is very good not to press you about the religion.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It strikes me that monotheism was a reaction to the age of empires.  It reflected the larger political trend of feudalism, where each local leader had a higher leader he was subject to.

A modern religion would reflect the distributed networks of power that are typical of modern political systems.  The idea that God is a collective of all intelligence would fit that model.

If you couldn't tell, I started post #19 with "That said..." because it was initially part of post #18 but I thought it needed its own thread, just forgot to make the fix.

I was also going to say something about judaism, christianity and islam being more "organic" in that they rose more out of a very primitive understanding of their surroundings and what controlled the lives of the people who created them. We feel like we exert much more control over our world today so why not over our belief systems?

At the end of the day, any religion more indicative of what its followers fail to understand, than what they succeed at understanding. I think they are, in the end, a tool of progress designed (intelligently?;-) to make themselves obsolete as understanding is reached.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Scientology and Raelism both try to incorporate modern science into their doctrines, but unfortunately their tenets are both too easily falsifiable to be appealing.

Scientologists have their e-meters, which measure...thetan mind control?  Really?  This has already been exposed as bullshit.  If you want ritual and heirarchy, it sounds like you can save money by going Catholic.

As for Raelism, it's only a matter of time before more evidence turns up that the flying saucer story is bullshit, and even if it doesn't, who knows when we'll start hearing from the real aliens, who want to know who the (slang for excretion of waste brain fluid product) the Elohim are supposed to be.

I give Buddhism more of a chance, since it doesn't put as much stress on changing local rituals as they do on acknowledging a few universal truths.  Maybe Mormonism too, if they decide on a reformation that takes them in a similar route.

(is 3fingerspointback)