I wasn’t only referring to Scientology, and they’re probably one of the most questionable religious groups you could name.

So, let me explain the idea I was trying to express in the last sentence. I was responding to the practice of defining religion such that some groups are included and some aren’t, when the reality of any such category is that it is more fluid and becomes less definite as more scrutiny is leveled at any groups on the boundary of that definition. Defining religion on those terms is absurd, and grants favorable treatment to those lucky enough to be in the club.

You mention favorable tax status, and the post mentioned that Europe has been less forgiving to Scientology. Germany, for example, taxes religious groups as if they were organizations, and this is a far more equitable system in my opinion than the pedestal onto which religious groups are placed in the U.S. If an organization is generating profit, there should be some sort of check on that. For all of Scientology’s corruption (and there’s a lot of it), I’m sure that small-time Christian churches have been laundering or embezzling money for longer than Scientology’s existence.

Your lack of interest in any religion and their lack of care for your thoughts is irrelevant, I agree. The definition is relevant (though the question is probably more philosophical than legal)–allowing people to practice whatever they choose to believe (with reasonable limits) is a fundamental right, I would argue. Making some forms of belief illegitimate in the eyes of a constricting definition of religion curtails that right, I would argue. Branding groups as “cults” based on personal judgment (“I know it when I see it”) is a step toward persecution.

Again, I’m not defending Scientology. What they do is sketchy at best and unethical at worst. Why are they unworthy of being included in the definition of “religion” while Catholicism, with its explicit and widespread abuses with regard to child abuse, is included in the definition?

This question runs a lot deeper than the discussion here, and I’m trying to reflect some of that.

Whose human experience? That of the Scientologists? They don’t care what I think, as long as they’re granted favorable tax status. And my definition of religion has about as little to do with the government’s as yours does.

Does it “neuter” the diversity of my human experience? How would it do that, when Scientology, religion or not, is something I have no interest in studying or practicing?

How do you “neuter the diversity of human experience” anyway? By rendering it incapable of reproduction? Or by robbing it of its gender identity?

Because the term “religion” exists doesn’t mean that the pheonemona described by the term exist. J.Z. Smith’s Map Is Not Territory makes that point much more academically and eloquently, along the way addressing the notion of “religion” as a Western conceit that’s only really existed in the post-Enlightenment era. Before that, religion was one of many ways of understanding the world, and, more than that, it was the way of life, with little options outside of it. When the Enlightenment brought about the notion of secularism and the separation of church and state, the contemporary concept of “religion” was born, only to distinguish it from other matters. The notion of “religion” as being thought of as the territory instead of the map grew from that distinction.

The category exists now, of course, so the task is really to define what “religion” is as opposed to evaluating groups on some cavalier notion of what practices are valid or not. (For the record, I think Scientology’s practices are not. For those reading this comment: if you’re waiting to tag me as a “cult apologist,” [and I've already written on the term "cult"] you’re missing the point.)

I argue that the best definitions of what constitutes religion are broad. My favorite two definitions come from very different sources. The first from anthropologist Clifford Geertz makes reference to one’s organization of the world, breaking the notion into five parts: “[Religion is] (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” Rather than define how a given group would look or act, Geertz describes a system which acts a specific way in relation to individuals. The other is from theologian Paul Tillich, describing “faith” as “the state of being ultimately concerned.” The definition is short, and has many detractors (and its weaknesses, for that matter) but it deals with religion in a broad sense. I interpret “ultimate concern” as dealing with how one’s identity is perceived by the self. For example, if one’s “ultimate concern” involves being hyper-patriotic (a simplified example, for the sake of space), that describes the notion of civil religion–not a “traditional religion,” and probably a concept that would slip by the “I know it when I see it” rubric.

Bestowing the term “religion” on a particular phenomenon or social group isn’t an honor, it’s merely a constructed category to help people organize the world a little better. The term itself includes all manner of expressions of good, bad, dishonest and pious. To limit the term “religion” to only those groups which seem legitimate to you, based on whatever criteria you would base that judgment, is to neuter the diversity of the human experience.

Thanks to all the comments – which show up in my gmail – my gmail ads are now things like “UFOs – Explained, http://www.theuniversesolved.com – An alternative explanation for UFOs (and everything else).”

Wow. Gmail thinks I’m insanse.

It’s one thing to say that your religion alone is correct and that all others err. It’s another entirely to say that all other religions never existed.

One cannot create an exclusionary definition of religion without considering the implications (especially since religions are given special protections). Words have specific meanings, and changing them to suit our needs suggests a certain motive. What is ours?

Let me quote wikipedia: “Hubbard claimed that Islam was the result of an extraterrestrial memory implant.”

Alien brainwashing is one thing. But pay attention to what I’m saying.

The alien brainwashing is said to have been the SOURCE OF all evidence of other religions in human history. Old sacred tablets, manuscripts, holy sites – all delusions wrought by that central act of deception. Do you see how sweeping that is?

This is like the claim that dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by humans, but put on steroids. Scientology attempts to subvert documented portions of human history, far above and beyond its story of how humans got to earth (which every religion has something to say about.)

If you don’t like Christian “fundamentalism,” you should really be upset by Scientology.