First of all, I love your third poll option. Brilliant!
As for the question, what are your criteria for determining whether something is mainstream or not? Do you lump all forms of Christianity together? That is the way that they do it to claim that Christianity is the most popular religion, but there is so much division between the various forms of it that it seems to be a trivial grouping; it is just all of those religions (Christian religions) say that Jesus is special in some way or other.
I know little about Scientology, but from what I have heard of it, its ideas are more or less equally idiotic as the beliefs of a mainstream Christian (as I define the expression). Once one reaches total batshit crazy, one cannot get more crazy.
As for the damage that is caused, we would have to look at individual sects in Christianity separately, as there is a world of difference between a Quaker and, say, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The level of "mind-control" and damage is probably greater in some forms of Christianity than in Scientology, but in others, it is less. Probably the worst thing about the Quakers is that they promote having prejudice (also known as "faith") and make Christianity look more benign than it generally is.
If we look at the Catholic church, we can say that they do damage now, but far less than when they had more power. So they are a pretty evil organization, but they are presently unable to fully exercise their evil as they have in the past. To put this another way, historically, we have seen what happens when the Catholics are in charge, and it isn't pretty.
I suppose that the answer to your question depends on what, exactly, you are asking. Are you asking how Scientology compares with, say, Catholicism, in terms of the idiocy of their beliefs? If so, then they are probably more or less equal.
Are you asking how much damage they do to their followers? Then the answer is likely to be that it depends on which followers in particular we are looking at.
Are you asking how much damage they do to society at large? Then the answer is, the one with the most power and influence.
The way you, Alex K, have worded your opening post makes me think you have in mind the practical aspects, the damage done, and the way you have worded it suggests further that you are interested in the damage done to the believers, rather than society at large. My guess is that you are thinking about some nominal Catholics (and other Christians who take their religions in a half-assed way), and see that it does not completely ruin every aspect of their lives. But if you looked at the ones who take all of the doctrine seriously, you would have, for example, people who would refuse to use birth control, and have all sorts of other aspects of their lives completely controlled. I would imagine that someone, who takes Scientology in a less than fully serious way, would likely have as little inconvenience from his or her foolish beliefs as a Catholic, who takes Catholicism in a less than fully serious way.
As for the question, what are your criteria for determining whether something is mainstream or not? Do you lump all forms of Christianity together? That is the way that they do it to claim that Christianity is the most popular religion, but there is so much division between the various forms of it that it seems to be a trivial grouping; it is just all of those religions (Christian religions) say that Jesus is special in some way or other.
I know little about Scientology, but from what I have heard of it, its ideas are more or less equally idiotic as the beliefs of a mainstream Christian (as I define the expression). Once one reaches total batshit crazy, one cannot get more crazy.
As for the damage that is caused, we would have to look at individual sects in Christianity separately, as there is a world of difference between a Quaker and, say, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The level of "mind-control" and damage is probably greater in some forms of Christianity than in Scientology, but in others, it is less. Probably the worst thing about the Quakers is that they promote having prejudice (also known as "faith") and make Christianity look more benign than it generally is.
If we look at the Catholic church, we can say that they do damage now, but far less than when they had more power. So they are a pretty evil organization, but they are presently unable to fully exercise their evil as they have in the past. To put this another way, historically, we have seen what happens when the Catholics are in charge, and it isn't pretty.
I suppose that the answer to your question depends on what, exactly, you are asking. Are you asking how Scientology compares with, say, Catholicism, in terms of the idiocy of their beliefs? If so, then they are probably more or less equal.
Are you asking how much damage they do to their followers? Then the answer is likely to be that it depends on which followers in particular we are looking at.
Are you asking how much damage they do to society at large? Then the answer is, the one with the most power and influence.
The way you, Alex K, have worded your opening post makes me think you have in mind the practical aspects, the damage done, and the way you have worded it suggests further that you are interested in the damage done to the believers, rather than society at large. My guess is that you are thinking about some nominal Catholics (and other Christians who take their religions in a half-assed way), and see that it does not completely ruin every aspect of their lives. But if you looked at the ones who take all of the doctrine seriously, you would have, for example, people who would refuse to use birth control, and have all sorts of other aspects of their lives completely controlled. I would imagine that someone, who takes Scientology in a less than fully serious way, would likely have as little inconvenience from his or her foolish beliefs as a Catholic, who takes Catholicism in a less than fully serious way.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
