Personlly I hold my religous beliefs because of questioning, not because of my desire to live in a safe little bubble. Some people cling to religion like a blanket, but then again, some people do the same with scince- the idea that we live in a worked out rational universe where nothing that contradicts scintific logic, and nothing more than the material exists, comforts some people. Conversly such people tend to be frightended by the idea of things that contradict their cosy little world view.

Right, I know where Scientology comes from. What annoyed me with them, I suppose, was not the fact that they were opposing Scientology its self (I agree that it's probably not accurate), but the fact that they found themselves blatantly capable of putting down an entire religion.

Or, how about we ridicule Scientology into the ground because it's inventor, Mr. Hubbard, spent his life using extreme amounts of drugs, having sex with women young enough to land him in prison in most developed countries, and that Mr. Hubbard admitted that he invented Scientology in order to make money.

Further more, to compare Christianity's talking snakes, ect with Scientology's aliens, ect is disingenuous. Except for fundamentalist Christians, the story of Jonah in the whale, for example, is not taught as a literal, historic fact. Meanwhile, Scientology holds their stories to be literal, historic fact.

Folks, no religion is inherently better than any other. Buddhism is not better than Christianity, Judaism is no better than Islam, ect. But Scientology is not a religion. Scientology is a business, founded by a money grubbing mad man.

I don't see the relevance. The question is about the religious beliefs people hold, not the guises under which they are taught. Many American Christians believe the Bible to be literally true, and I'm sure this is true of other countries and other religions. This is not the issue, unless you are claiming that the Scientologist mentioned in the OP believed his story to be literal, historic fact while the Christians mentioned did not, which is a claim not justified by the facts presented. Perhaps weidersenmeier can give us more insight into the nature of the argument to establish this, but he seems to be telling us that it is the stupidity of the Scientology stories that were the issue.

Again, in the realm of organised religion, I concur, but the question is of people's personal faith. One might believe Hubbard was a fraud while holding that his teachings were on to something. WS Burroughs, for instance, believed Scientology had something going for it while recognising that Hubbard was a fraud, and despising him. Of course, Burroughs was probably on an interesting mixture of drugs at the time, and not of sound mind even when sober... Everyone has their reasons, I guess.

Such a person would have to believe that racism is good teaching, then. Hubbard's Scientology teaches racism. I pity such a person, with respect to that issue of personal faith.

In the same respect, Christianity teaches hatred toward homosexuality. Would you consider one's pity toward the entire Christian faith justifiable based on that fact alone?

Now, it is true that adherents of Scientology believe Hubbard's tales to be literally, historically true while many Christians understand that aspects of Christian scripture are fictional, didactic narrative often using metaphor and allegory.

This is a crucial difference between the reasonableness of Scientology and the reasonableness of Christianity: Scientology is not reasonable no matter how you take it, while Christianity can be a most reasonable religion when well understood.

Such a person would have to believe that racism is good teaching, then. Hubbard's Scientology teaches racism. I pity such a person, with respect to that issue of personal faith.

I'm sorry, but this is unfounded. You can't dismiss an entire religion on the grounds that you say they understand it a certain way. I have, for instance, already offered at least one former Scientologist who never believed the stories and never believed in Hubbard, yet maintained belief in Scientology itself. You can't just state no such person exists as a justification for your argument, at least in any seriousness.

Okay, that's at least debatable. Let's say, for instance, I take Scientology as a method: I adhere to it because I think it provides the right way to live, and take all of the sci-fi elements as nothing more than allegory, metaphor and inspiring illustration. This seems as reasonable a Scientologist to me as a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible is literally true. Where's the crucial difference?

Hmmm. Should have said some teachings. That said, I've never seen a Scientologist on the street waving a banner proclaiming that South Africans will be left behind when the mothership comes. I have seen Christians on the street holding banners proclaiming that all fags are going to hell. And like I said, it's a matter of personal belief... I don't imagine any Scientologists are in any danger of winning the coveted 'Most bigoted believer' award any time soon, do you?

I tell you the past is full of hatred and bigotry, why would we want to go back?