Didn't the Scientologists declare Tom Cruise to be the Christ figure of their religion? Does that mean we get to crucify him?? :biggrin1:
He's already been baptized with the water pistol. Let's do it!
Define "religion." What makes one "real" and how does one tell?
(this is not a challenge except for the sake of discussion and personal insight :smile
:biggrin1:
Used this site, and removed their comments:
IRS Church Guidlines - UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH SEMINARY
Buddhism isn't a religion, then. Animism isn't a religion, then. Any college-level course on comparative religions will dispell the notion that a religion need invoke a 'diety' or the supernatual.
Here's a useful link, though:
DEFINING RELIGION IN AMERICAN LAW
That was quite the read. I hadn't realized the IRS criteria was so flawed.
After reading that I have to agree with the author and the viewpoint of Durkheim in defining religion.
"An eminently reasonable definition of religious belief originates in the writings of the renowned French sociologist of religion, Emile Durkheim. Durkheim saw men experiencing two facets of life, the "sacred" and the "profane."
The profane referred to the experience in everyday life, of which work and the workaday world was its most central and significant type case. The sacred was residual to, and other than, this workaday sphere. It lay somehow outside the profane sphere and evoked an attitude of awe and reverence. Religion was the attitude characteristic of this kind of experience . . . .
Believers hold the world of the sacred to be more deeply real and meaningful than the everyday worlds of the profane. The concept of the sacred and the profane may provide a more flexible definitional approach, which would embrace all known religions yet exclude concepts such as communism, facism, and socialism which, while capable of encompassing comprehensive and deeply held beliefs, do not invoke a transcendent reality the sacred. Systems of belief that are grounded in the profane, that is, in "observable facts, about which evidence can be gathered, experts consulted, empirical conclusions drawn, and policies made, fall squarely within the realm of traditional governmental decision-making." Because belief in the sacred or transcendent is, by definition, not knowable or verifiable in the physical world, government cannot dictate to or deny such beliefs or experiences and must refrain from regulating their expression.
The essence of any workable criteria that the courts and the IRS must use in determining whether an organization is a religion must be comprised of two elements: (1) a sincerely held belief in a sacred or transcendent reality and (2) an organization whose purpose and practice is to express that belief. This approach has the advantage of constitutionally required neutrality. The inclusion of the "sincerity," "purpose" and "practice" criteria would enable the courts to eliminate shams claiming to have a religious character. Any test can be applied in a biased fashion, but the proposed test stresses equal treatment of all organizations claiming to be religions, which is the key problem with the courts treatment of the mail-order ministries. It is less complex and would tend to include a greater variety of religions than would the IRS cumbersome fourteen criteria. Shams could be excluded by examining indicia of sincerity, practice reflecting belief, and related purpose. Sincerity is a legitimate inquiry."