Well, if we are going to regard OTL growth of Scientology as Christianity's, then to have Scientology have the growth of Islam would require L. Ron Hubbard to conquer America.
Well, if we are going to regard OTL growth of Scientology as Christianity's, then to have Scientology have the growth of Islam would require L. Ron Hubbard to conquer America.
I dislike Scientology as well, but it is in fact a religion. There's such a thing as bad religions.
Wasn't there a leftwing Catholic ideology (not official, think it was in South America?) of fighting for the poor in the 60's/70's?
Yeah, this. Not having the current scheme where you have to pay more to get more into the religion would definitely help.
Getting rid of some of the cult-like elements, like the stalking/harassing of ex-members, would be really helpful.
Perhaps you could have independent Scientologists (which exist) form some sort of rival, non-cultish church. It might take a while, but eventually this new Scientologist church could put a nicer face on the faith, and overshadow the "official" church, survival of inevitable legal challenges permitting.
Well, weird cult and the like we could have they develop a "the world will end, we'll inherit it" thing like Brahma Kumaris. (L. Ron could have contact with them somehow? I am not sure if they had centers in the U.S. at the time already.) Or he just thinks such a thing on his own.
Then he could develop this into a "supply hoarding" thing like "when the time comes we must be ready to rule the world".
So, by the time of a nuclear war, that scientology HQ could have bunkers, food supplies, guns and whatnot for surviving in a wasteland. Other "churches" could have supplies too. Then they'd rule (parts) of America-that-was. Still America though.
(Nah, probably it'd be Gold Base and bits of the surrounding area)
The problem is... How would the government act on this "supply gathering" stuff? My guess is that they wouldn't be very keen on it, and we could have something like the Waco siege.
And frankly even as a lapsed catholic the comparison between the catholic church and Scientology is just offensive.
Wasn't there a leftwing Catholic ideology (not official, think it was in South America?) of fighting for the poor in the 60's/70's?
The problem with that is, the question what separates a proper New Religious Movement from a Cult. It's usually taken to be a mix of dysfunctional practices, including shady recruiting practices, enforced social isolation of adherents, and well, violence towards apostates. Scientology frankly is the posterchild for a good number of those practices.The deciding point on whether something is a religion or not is that its followers believe it to be, not what outsiders consider appropriate or not; you either accept freedom of religion or you don't.
You'd literally have to start over from a clean sheet. Heinlein could do it, but everything that Hubbard created generally contradicts the sort of things that you'd need to make for a functional group that could grow quickly and wasn't reliant on blackmail and legal action to "defend" itself from critics.Which brings us back to the problem presented by the original post: make Church of Scientology at least as successful as the Church or Latter-Day Saints; at which point various AH.com members with over inflated opinions of their own importance would be more reluctant to try derailing the thread.
And the early Christian Church and Islam aren't? You either need to reassess you list or look at the history of those religions more closely.It's usually taken to be a mix of dysfunctional practices, including shady recruiting practices, enforced social isolation of adherents, and well, violence towards apostates. Scientology frankly is the posterchild for a good number of those practices.
And the early Christian Church and Islam aren't? You either need to reassess you list or look at the history of those religions more closely.
Usually those sorts actually believe in their predictions. All indications are that LRH didn't believe his own BS.