Actually, I'd argue that Scientology -- like Wicca -- is a fad that will peak, then die, just like spirit channeling and every other psuedo-religious hoax of the last two hundred years.

I'd heard that Scientology was the result of a bet between Elron and his sci-fi editior John Campbell, in whether or not it was possible to manufacture a sustainable religion. So far, Elron is winning.

It'll be interesting to see how Paglia reacts when she gets threatened and/or sued by Scientology. I hope she publicizes it and redoubles her attacks. They've gotten away with censorship-via-lawsuit for far too long.

Where does it say some religions were not

covered by the First Amendment.



You're a Yankee lawyer. You should go back

and read Judge Sewall's apology.

The real measure of Scientology's claims to validity as a religious faith, I think, can be taken by the fact that it's the _only_ religious sect I know of that engages in apologetics for its doctrines by putting said doctrines under the protection of intellectual-property law (copyright and trademark) and suing anyone who dares to cite those doctrines in the course of debate for infringment of intellectual property rights.

Harry:



Declaring yourself a religion does not make you one. The Declaration contemplates only a few religions which are able to express faith in the Creator. Absent that grounding the Republic doesn't function and a "religion" is not worthwhile.

OJ -



But surely, we want to cast the net too wide on this one. Scientology may be a scam, but do we really want the some government bureaucrat deciding which doctrines are acceptable and which aren't?

Hubbard may have claimed Crowley inspired Scientology, but I find it hard to imagine Crowley appreciating Scientology much - partly because Crowley had a deep fondness for something like a rigorous approach to the occult (insofar as one could apply scientific rigor to ritual magic), where Scientology's methods and practices were given ex cathedra by Hubbard, and partly because I doubt Crowley would have found the competition acceptable.



The situation (had Crowley lived to see Scientology take off) would have been analogous to Crowley's relationship to Blavatsky and the Theosophists - hostile at best.



Sure, Scientology (like all but one religion) is false - but the whole point of America is to let people pick their heresy. The idea that there are only a few acceptable religions that should have the protection of the 1st Amendment is very European, and should be repellent to all Americans. Can you propose a test of some sort to filter out the acceptable religions from the others? Would you demand monotheism, for example?



I just can't imagine how getting government into questions of doctrine (as this must necessarily devolve to) can possibly be a good thing.

E-Meters and the "clearing" therapy offered at scientology sites as well as a large cataloguge of publications for sale to the type of poorly grounded souls

represented by the entertainment industry reminds me of the truism that a fool and his money are soon parted. To call a belief system "religion" doesn't make it so. Discrimination has taken on a negative connotation. The inability or even the refusal to discriminate between competing ideas in the interest of being non-judgemental is, I believe, one of the challenges presented by contemporary society.

I didn't say anything about the Declaration. Where does the Constitution makes distinctions? Article VI is unequivocal.



I thought you were a strict constructionist.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment..." One interpretation concerns established religious insitutions being the concern of the people through local and state governments. The VI amendment is unequivicol regarding the power of congress and established religious institutions.The genuis of the original American idea prevails once again.

Sorry, amendment I .

Harry:



The Constitution's intent is not to provide "freedom", religious or otherwise, but merely to provide a framework within which we can achieve: "a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".



Nothing requires us to descend into the patent absurdity of calling every quackish belief a religion. Those religions which recognize the Creator and therefore make possible our freedoms deserve protection--no others necessarily do.

That's an opinion that would exclude Buddhists, which would not be welcomed where I live; not even by the Christians.



It would also exclude Shinto and, one supposes, Unitarians, though I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about Unitarianism.

Harry:



Don't forget Mormons. Since they weren't even a gleam in Joseph Smith's eye until well after the Declaration and Consitution, Mormonism can't possibley be what the framers had in mind when they were deciding what constituted a valid religion.



Presuming, of course, they had that in mind in the first place.



By the way, just what
distinguishes a valid religion from the rest? Is their only one, if so, which is it? And if it is more than one, well, how can that be?



BTW, Article VI of the Consitution prohibits religious tests for holding an office of public trust. I don't remember the word "valid" anywhere in there.



Regards,

You, at least, picked up on the key point, Jeff.



Everybody thinks the Constitution mentions religion only in the Bill of Rights. Article VI is unequivocal, and, like the prohibition against entail (bet not many people know that's in there) has great implications.



One is, of course, that the Framers did intend to create a wall of separation between church (any and all of them) and state.