In all sincerity, how are you defining the phrase “not unique”?
It would not have changed the implications at all. The meaning would have been the same, but the wording would have been redundant and ugly: “Hubbard was not unique among some religious leaders.” That sentence doesn’t specify who is being excluded and who is included, so anyone who was of a mind to be offended still would have been offended. I wrote exactly what I meant to write. Hubbard is not the only religious leader who was a liar and a criminal and screwed over his own family. That doesn’t mean they all did it - I don’t need to make such a broad statement and it’s too easy to disprove a statement of that type - but Hubbard is not the only one who did. I already mentioned a couple of others. I am not sure why you are reading something into the post that is not there, but you’re asking for an unnecessary exception.
To answer the original question: I’d say “no”. I don’t think religions are bad. I think ORGANIZED religions can be. There are a lot of good lessons to be learned in various religous teachings… but when people start to accumulate wealth and/or power by the organization of that religion, then it becomes corrupt. If Scientologist want to preach what they believe on the sidewalks, I say let them. If they want to control the actions (and wallets) of those within the church on without, then I’d start to ask myself why that might be. I’d say the same about any religion. The best antidote to corruption is sunlight… forget who said that, but I agree. You don’t have to actually attack something to disempower it, you just need to expose it. I never knew what Scientologest believed until that episode of Southpark gave a rundown of the “mysteries” revealed (once you paid enough money) to church members. Now I think it is pretty rediculous. Don’t have to attack them… just laugh at them.
You seem to expect everyone to take your statement on faith.
A brief tangent on secular humanism has been split off from this thread. The posts are now over here.
To finish my thought, sir. I am very confused. The subject was scientology Der Trihs responds with a blanket statement that, in his opinion, all religions are bogus, and that is somehow still ON topic. But my response that I find HIS stated philosophy, which in many corners HAS indeed taken on the trappings of a psuedo-faith, is depressing, is not?..and therefore should never have been posted this thread? please elucidate. Is it because he’s a long time member? Is it because this board gives preference nihilism, atheism, and humanism? I’d like an honest answer.
Der Trihs’ posts did not mention secular humanism and I’ve never seen him say that secular humanism is his faith. I don’t think he’s a secular humanist and I find it difficult to imagine him describing anything as his faith. You’re welcome to your view that secular humanism is depressing and boring, but I don’t think it’s related to Scientology or to what’s been said in this thread. Please continue that discussion in the new thread. This is the last time I’ll say it. If you continue posting about it I’ll have to warn you for ignoring staff instructions.