Smartaleck: Good question. Part of the answer of what constitutes a successful religion lies in numbers, surely. Islam, along with Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and to some extent Judaism, Sikhism and perhaps a few others that I'm missing, not only have very large numbers of adherants from a large number of different backgrounds, but have also been around for very large numbers of years. That kind of mass appeal and lasting power requires the convergence of a lot of different historical, economic and political conditions, in many places, over long periods of time. It's beyond the capabilities of one man (or woman) to arrange something that big and complex, and to keep it going for centuries. Also, these large religions are all multitextual, i.e., they function on the basis of multiple texts and traditions, which clearly have different authors from different time periods, different interpretations, and different advocates WITHIN the religion. Again, more than one man's invention, although there may very well be leaders and even "founders." But whatever the mythical status of the founder may be, s/he is only one piece of a complex historical puzzle.

Scientology clearly does not fall in the same bracket as Islam, Christianity or Hinduism - not that many followers, hardly any followers outside a small white/American elite, barely a few decades old, and only one text with a single, easily identifiable author. It's almost a classic cult. This is not to say that a cult cannot become a successful religion, but that takes time, luck, and input from more than one individual. If, say, five hundred years later, the Scientologists have (say) a billion adherents, then we would obviously consider it a successful religion, but for it to reach that level of success, it would need many texts, internal debates, schisms, negotiations, flexibility - in other words, all the processes that we find in the larger religions. At that point, L. Ron Hubbard would be only one of the authors of the religion, although his mythic status as "inventor" might persist. Mormons are a bit different. They're already more "successful," not only in the sense that they've been around and constitute a substantial and complex society, but also in the sense that they're an offshoot of Christianity. You can't really credit their "invention" to Joseph Smith; he built upon the entire history of the Christianity and Judaism. And the success of the religion has been ensured by the various twists and turns of American history over which Smith had no control. A believing Mormon might say that Smith invented the LDS, but a historian would not.

Another problem with using the word "invention" in this context is that it hints strongly that the "inventor" - Muhammad, or Jesus, or whoever - was cynically out to fool people, and that people were in fact fooled. I don't think we can assume that. While accepting that all politicians employ spin (and religious leaders are also politicians, of course), the history of religion indicates that the charismatic leaders people regard as prophets genuinely believed that they were under divine inspiration. The outright frauds are not all that hard to identify. There's some truth to the saying about not being able to fool all the people all the time.

My, we've digressed from Bill Maher...

The Raed Jarrar case is especially troubling because it makes so little sense. Not only did the security people assume that Jarrar was dangerous because of his shirt, they also assumed that making him remove the shirt would do away with the danger. When he finally agreed to change the shirt, they let him board the aircraft. In other words, the shirt was not considered a sign of some hidden threat; it was considered dangerous in and of itself.

The only possible logic here is that the security Einsteins wanted to reassure other passengers on the flight. In that case, those other passengers were effectively given veto power over what kind of shirt a co-traveler might wear, regardless of whether that person is actually dangerous. There needs to be a simple rule that once a passenger has cleared security, and is not being disorderly by reasonable standards, then that person gets to fly. If other passengers have a problem with his shirt, or language, or skin color, then THEY can wait for the next flight or take a bus. If airlines or the TSA made that clear, then much of this nonsense would cease.

Please don't bait him. He'll actually rise to it, and he's tiresome enough already. This is not the only thread he's tried to hijack. By the way, if you do have him over to your house, invite some Muslims too, and then discreetly leave the room.

But what would you do if the Muslims at the party tried to convert you, or behead you, or force you to pay the jizya? You might be forced to defend yourself by boring them to death with your "fact" or your "argument." I presume you've practiced on those co-workers of yours... I bet they wish they were in Guantanamo instead!

Obviously, the guy was a closet Muslim, cleverly disguised in US Army fatigues. And jujitsu patches! Closet Asian.

Good stuff by GK as always, except for the apparent endorsement of racial profiling of people who don't look like Midwestern soybean farmers or their wives.

A baggage handler or TSA agent could put snakes into a bag. If they were Muslim, I mean.

Having to choose between bubbly and edgy women is like having to choose between U2 and REM. There's a time for Rachel Ray, just as there's one for Maureen Dowd.