You're indulging in the usual mistake made by the more recent wave of atheism - that anybody and everybody who is religious is automatically a brain-dead fundamentalist who takes every word of the Bible literally. Here's why that's in error:

1) Not every religious person is a Christian. I would've thought that would be obvious, but apparently you must be told that there are millions upon millions of religious people in the world who aren't.

2) The phenomenon of fundamentalism is not the whole of religion. Far from it. It's a relatively modern invention, having its roots in early-20th century rural Christianity. Literalism is not endemic to religion at all. Most of the scholars, writers, practitioners of Christianity during its history before the early 1900's would've found fundamentalist beliefs bizarre in the extreme.

3) It's perfectly possible to be religious without believing anything in the Bible literally. See, there's this thing called metaphor, also another called symbolism, and this other thing (this one's kind of weird) called poetry. All of these are at the root of religious thought going back centuries.

I would suggest you read Aquinas, Merton, Fox, and other theologians for good examples of people who've been teaching the real Christianity for a long time, but you're clearly not interested in the reality but in your own idea of what the religion is. As it is, I don't expect you to be interested in anything that could knock your cemented ideas for a loop. I've noticed that the sort of atheist you seem to be is usually much too invested in his image of what others believe; perhaps you should find some other way of validating your own worldview, seeing as how the one you're showing here is based on a completely mistaken vision.

P.S. Just so you know, I'm not a Christian; raised a Catholic, I left it over 30 years ago and have been a happy pagan ever since. But I do happen to know what I'm talking about, unlike some people.

and the Nightline report, one thing strikes me. Isn't it interesting that at no time does Davis ever actually deny believing all that weird crap? He very skillfully dances around, turning the questions back ("doesn't that sound weird to you?"), deflecting them ("what we really should be talking about is...") and otherwise playing tricks, but always avoiding a denial or really, an actual answer. That alone would be enough to set off any reasoning person's bullshit detector, even if one knew nothing at all about this so-called "religion".

You're misinterpreting luana1980's comment. She DOES know what she's talking about - that's why she denies it all in such a condescending manner. Can't you tell a Scientology member when you see one?

The snide tone says it all. She's a plant, here to wave her arms and deny everything. This is not a new thing - there's always one around here whenever an article about Scientology is post on Salon. I can also guarantee that you'll find at least one at every website that posts about Lord L.Ron's huckster scam. They come out every time.

Happy to hear about this. I've lived most of my life within walking distance of the Scientology headquarters here in L.A., a building which has always reminded me of nothing so much as the Overlook Hotel from Stephen King's The Shining. It's both old-fashioned and (to use a word I rarely use) creepy as hell. It is constantly surrounded with an army of its minions, dressed in their tacky pseudo-Navy uniforms (Hubbard was ex-Navy and idolized it). One cannot even walk on the streets around that building without being challenged by belligerent guards, even though they are public streets, not private roadways. (Really. I'm not making that up.) They've bought up all the businesses nearby and handed them over to their members - New York George, a great little restaurant that had been there since the 50's, folded because its owners would not sell the business.

I also worked for a Scientologist couple who have a business in Hollywood, and got to see close up just what it does to people. They were duplicitous, unpleasant people, unwilling to be criticized or even just questioned in any way, and thus absolutely typical of Scientology. It's an ugly, power-mad cult, intent on sucking away its members' individuality, not to mention their assets. Even the movie stars don't get to keep their own lives (as we've seen with the sadly gone-bugfuck state of Tom Cruise), so imagine what the lives of the rank-and-file must be like. If it goes the way of all flesh, I for one could not be happier. There's enough bullshit in the world to have to put up with "religions" (I don't for a minute believe Hubbard's hodgepodge to be one) designed specifically to fleece the gullible and line the pockets of its founder and top brass.

Feh.

But what else is new for Broadsheet?

"Mothering" has been around as a word for quite a long time. "Fathering", on the other hand, has not. There's your answer.

I can explain it. Watch:

Some laws are wrong, unsupported by either science or reason.

See? Easy.