Slashdot Mirror
Scientology On Trial In Belgium
dgharmon sends this news from the Atlantic Wire:
"After a years-long legal battle, federal prosecutors in Belgium now believe their investigation is complete enough to charge the Church of Scientology and its leaders as a criminal organization on charges of extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine. ... Multiple reports and the group's legal history point to one key factor here: The Belgian government won't charge Scientology for being a cult — authorities are focusing on prosecuting it as a criminal organization. Which is a new twist, as most of the group's many court battles over the years have focused on establishing its legitimacy as a religion. ... The Church of Scientology houses its European headquarters in Brussels, so a ban in Belgium could be crippling to the group — and authorities there seem to know it."
The underwear.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
about time this happened. It should be banned EU-wide.
But seriously, is there all that much difference between any of them? Just because we can trace these two churches back to their wacko founders, doesn't mean the other older churches weren't founded by wackos too.
But seriously, is there all that much difference between Scientology and the Mormon Church?
Is there really much difference between "insert religion" and "insert religion", except for when the scam started? They seem to be going after them in LIFO order to build up precedence.
I think that the Belgian authorities should also try to organise this in a European context (L'union fait la force!).
Another idea I had: how should crowdsourcing be organised to damage scientology (I refuse them a capital)?
i don't know alot of mormonism, but scientology has been known to harass, abuse, threaten ex-members, people who disagree with them etc. etc. also check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
I don't know of very many similarities between scientology, a con game started by a science fiction writer, and the Church of Latter Day Saints, a significant religious denomination whose members perform millions of hours of community service and give generously to communities around the globe. That's like asking "what's the diference between the Red Cross and the mafia?"
Operation Snow White was the Church of Scientology's name for a conspiracy during the 1970s to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder L. Ron Hubbard. This project included a series of infiltrations and thefts from 136 government agencies, foreign embassies and consulates, as well as private organizations critical of Scientology, carried out by Church members, in more than 30 countries;[1] the single largest infiltration of the United States government in history with up to 5,000 covert agents. This was also the operation that exposed 'Operation Freakout', because this was the case that initiated the US government investigation of the Church.
Under this program, Scientology operatives committed infiltration, wiretapping, and theft of documents in government offices, most notably those of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Eleven highly-placed Church executives, including Mary Sue Hubbard (wife of founder L. Ron Hubbard and second-in-command of the organization), pleaded guilty or were convicted in federal court of obstructing justice, burglary of government offices, and theft of documents and government property. The case was United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F.Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1979).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
Sent from my ENIAC
Why(except perhaps for tax purposes) would a group being recognized as a religion or not so recognized be relevant? Both religious and secular organizations are capable of being criminal organizations, or not, and both are capable of using the sort of ethically problematic coercive tactics most commonly associated with cults.
Certainly, being a well established and respected religion can be very convenient indeed(see also, decades-if-not-more of kiddie rape with near-total impunity); but if you have to fight for recognition as "Well, I guess you technically meet the standards of a 'religion', so we can't legally deny you." you don't automatically acquire the establishment and respect, which are what really count.
How many other churches have, in the modern era, tried to infiltrate the government and destroy evidence against them (Operation Snow White)?
France has already convicted several senior officials a few years back for crimes such as embezzlement, and contribution to suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_France
Sure. Maybe you should include the Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains. Unless you only mean Abrahamic religions, in which case you should say so and not ALL.
Mormon here. When someone disagrees with us, we do worse: we send missionaries after them.
In terms of beliefs? That's for you to decide. In terms of actions and the things that really matter? Not even close. When the Mormon church has been implicated in things like Operation Freakout or Operation Snow White, or any of the other crazy things the CoS has done to people that you can learn of after 5 seconds on Google, then your false equivalence of comparing the CoS to other religious bodies might have a point. The modern Mormon church is, as far as I know, generally decent and full of okay folks. I don't know if I can say the same of the CoS, judging by all the stuff they've done, and that's the issue here.
Not to offend anyone (or, sorry that I WILL) basically every organized religion is wacky. Since they're all based on things that have to be taken on faith, the only difference is how much disbelief the adherents are willing to suspend. Granted, to THIS observer, Scientology (and Mormonism, close behind) are at the far end of the spectrum, but it's a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. Now, practically, the Scientologists appear to present an ongoing danger to society; the Mormons no longer appear harmful.
Steven Fishman attested in court that he was assigned by the Church of Scientology to to murder his psychologist, Dr. Uwe Geertz, and then commit suicide.
The Fishman Affidavit is a set of court documents submitted Steven in 1993 in the federal case, Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and Geertz (Case No. CV 91-6426 (HLH (Tx) U.S. District Court for the Central District of California).
The Affidavit contained criticisms of the Church of Scientology and substantial portions of the Operating Thetan course materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishman_Affidavit
Sent from my ENIAC
i don't know alot of mormonism, but scientology has been known to harass, abuse, threaten ex-members, people who disagree with them etc. etc
This is true. Mormonism seems to run the same way as other churches. Scientology seems to operate like the US government.
Catholic church's Vatican bank has been slapped with fines for money laundering, more than once, IIRC, never mind the whole sex abuse thing. I'm pretty sure any religion you'd look at, with exception maybe of pastafarians (yum noodly appendages!) would have huge recent skeletons in their closets :(
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
In particular, having stupid theology isn't a crime in Belgium. The Scientologists here are being charged with a bunch of "regular" criminal conduct, which doesn't really depend on whether they're a real religion or not (you can be prosecuted for that even if you're a very well established religion, as some Catholic dioceses have discovered).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
so you are saying "scientology blackmails, threatens, harasses ex-member and people who point out what scientology really is because the catholic church set a low bar of moral expectations". and "catholic priests are pedophiles, therefore scientology is innocent". the well known as "you too" argument. do yourself a favor and educate yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuJlZ_f1594
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_game_(Scientology)
p.s. not a catholic, not religious at all.
How many other churches have, in the modern era, tried to infiltrate the government and destroy evidence against them (Operation Snow White)?
The Scientologists are bumbling amateurs in this area. The serious religions effectively take over the state. In some cases, the takeover of state by religion was accomplished so long ago that the religion is even considered a state itself. Once a state is under the control of a monomaniacal cult, all shenanigans committed therein simply don't exist.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I'd just love see them bite the dust.
Pastafarians have pirate skeletons in their closets(because pirate skeletons are cool!)
Actually, the European headquarters of Scientology is in Copenhagen (according to this US report), while the Brussels office is merely a lobbying firm for Scientology to the EU.
Clicked pie.
You mean the Moron Church?
Magic underwear? Same loony bin, different floor.
Unless it's a certain group in Mexico. Those guys are already past that point and have begun to actively fight the drug cartels.
But seriously, is there all that much difference between any of them? Just because we can trace these two churches back to their wacko founders, doesn't mean the other older churches weren't founded by wackos too.
I believe that there are severe differences from them... Take these two:
In contrast, some of the other religions (Judaism, Christendom, Hinduim, Buddhism) seem to have started out as attempts to understand the world and fill out holes of their knowledge... and then it grew from there. Sure, many sects and leaders have used these to the same ends as the two religions listed above, but at least they don't seem to be started by someone with a clear motive to gain from it.
That said, that the core of the religions is imagination doesn't prevent many of them from being rich treasure troves of culture and knowledge of what it is, and has been, to be human - created by humans.
The Mormons have their problems too, namely how poorly those who leave the religion are treated, but that doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with the Church at all, just their society in general. It's much like how, here in the rest of America, back in the 50s when most people were Protestant, if someone came out as an atheist, they'd be shunned by their coworkers, family, friends, probably employers as well. This shunning wasn't directed by any church or preacher, it's just how the closed-minded people of the time acted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-45
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Because this is strictly a criminal investigation against an organisation, not a religious tribunal. If you find enough material for a criminal conduct of other religious organisations which are really those of the organisation and are systematic to that organisation and not of individuals which are members of the organisation, be my guest.
Think again.
Maybe not recently, but mass sacrifices, blood rituals and canibalism has all been part of various pagan traditions.
I'm not clear on just how a religion that teaches that God doesn't really desire you to sacrefice your first born, is a bad thing. Yes, saying that you should be willing to do things you find morally abhorent, if your God requires them of you, is a rather primative moral code, a bad thing, and all that. However if you take the account as factual, God stopped Abraham before he went through with it. Abraham was living in a place where other religions did practice infant sacrefice (if that part of the OT is also factual - and note that most modern archaeologists and historians don't dispute that part regardless of their own religious affiliations). If it wasn't Yahway telling him to do it, Abraham would have had the example of other religions suggesting it was the right thing to do - and if Abraham or others had been inspired just by those examples, the various Bels and Marduks and such of the region, what would have stopped them from following it all the way through? The old testament version of God at least says, in effect "Yeah, I'm expecting obedience just like every other single god you've even remotely heard of, but now I'm gonna show you I'm more worthy of that obedience than those gods, because there are things I won't ever ask you to do, because I care about you and yours too much to ask them of you". The parable of Abraham is about a supposed deity saying He's not just expecting BLIND obedience, He's willing to give some sign of why He should actually deserve obedience. Yes, (some) more modern versions of religions have gotten to a lot better moral theory than that, but it was still a small step in the right direction.
While were at it, criticising Islam or at least its founder, sort of depends on the situation. There's a certain difference if the prophet created teachings to justify his taking a child bride, or if that was the way things still worked in the region, at that time, and he just didn't behave to a higher standard than the secular society immediately pre-islam. Most of the people throwing out the pedo-prophet charge have no idea if the actions of Mohammed were any worse than typical for the parent culture, or about average, or even a bit better, and it may be that the worst claim to be leveled against Islam is it didn't make the people who joined behave to a higher standard than they would have otherwise.
The modern Roman Catholic church has failed dramatically, becoming one of the safest places for child molesters to hide. Unlike the 9th century, the current church is operating against a background of secular cultures who overwhelmingly have clear laws specifying a minimum age of consent, and just about all of those cultures
set that age at at least 14 for any sexually related activity and 16 or higher for some forms. It's actually less explicable than the ancient examples.
Who is John Cabal?
Pat Robertson and the entire religious right say hi. Zionist Jews also send their greetings.
And the Mormons are known to kill those people, and non-believers. But then I am sure Scientology would of been doing that as well if it was a few decades older.
Really? I'm not a mormon but that sounds like bullshit to me. Do you get off on making up shit?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The Catholic Church is responsible for the greatest genocide in human history - that of wiping out an estimated 120 million people in Central and South America, destroying countless cultures and plundering all of their wealth. The residential schools that decimated the cultural heritage of North American First Nations peoples were also run by Catholics. Even if you ignore the millions of acts of rape and pedophelia carried out by clergy in the modern era, the Catholic Church has been engaged in the most depraved, genocidal, racist, sexist evil deeds that humanity has ever committed for over 1,000 years.
I hope some day that 'freedom of religion' is replaced with 'freedom from religion' as a fundamental human right.
Judaism - typical tribal religion that succeeded more than others
Christendom - around that time, Jews were sure that second coming is going to be very soon. This made easy for one self-proclaimed messiah after another to gain some followers, preach about overthrowing roman rule and promptly get slaughtered by local garrison. Jesus was probably a wacko, but at least clever enough to not challenge the empire
How about pedophilia and money laundering?
You've never heard of the Danites? There was even a Sherlock Holmes story about them.
Seriously, the EU might be thinking about considering the Church of Scientology a criminal organization, but historically there was armed conflict between the Mormons and their neighbors, and the US federal government very nearly went to war with Utah.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Scientology in Belgium is interesting to say the least
* A lot of extreme right wing politicians has something to do with Scientology.
- Johan Demol - ex-member of a extreme right wing organisation "Front de la Jeunesse" , also ex-cop and ex-politician.
- When there is something in the news about Scientology in most cases you will see Hugo coveliers being interviewed as their laywer (who also have made some appearances in Scientology videos) spouting the same "religion prosecution" bullshit.
* Scientology tries to infiltrate into our government and organisations
- The secret service suddenly stopped working with the communication firm Nextel because of the fact that is has close ties with Scientology. What incident happened is a mystery.
- In the Flemish parlement there was a partner company (Ideas) of Hewlett Packerd that provided certain services that was a Scientology company. There was a lot of uproar because it came out that Scientology companies provided services to the Ministry of Defense, Local affairs and Social Services. Those departments that have very sensitive data... . Also because there are documented cases where in the nineties they also tried to infiltrate the French and German government departments.
* They over-flooded Belgian libraries with free (propaganda) material and books written by hubert.
Scientology is an extremely dangerous organisation. If it was me I would already put out International Arrest Warrant for the leaders of this dangerous cult.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176747/Buddhist-monk-repeatedly-raped-teen-years-impregnated-her.html
Buddhist monk 'repeatedly raped teen for two years until he impregnated her'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135116/Britains-senior-Buddhist-monk-accused-raping-girls-10-temples-shrine-room.html
Britain's most senior Buddhist monk accused of raping two girls under 10 (one in his temple's shrine room)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087416/Buddhist-monk-arrested-rape-British-tourist-mountain-shrine.html
Buddhist monk arrested for rape of British tourist at mountain-top shrine
http://english.srilankamirror.com/2012/06/young-buddhist-monk-rapes-pregnant-woman/
A young Buddhist monk has been arrested for allegedly raping a pregnant woman, aged 23 years, in Walasmulla.
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/buddhist-monk-charged-with-raping-australian/story-e6frfkp9-1111112934035
A SENIOR Thai Buddhist monk has been charged with raping a Vietnamese Australian teenager during a ritual he claimed would protect her from bad luck, police said today.
I can continue if you'd like.
However when priests have sexually abuse young children the Catholic church has in many cases protected those priests, not reporting them to legal authorities and transferring them to other locations to protect them. This was even done by the current pope, while still Cardinal Ratzinger. So I'd say the church has to accept some of the blame since they send a pretty strong message that it's OK to do it.
Because the others will tell you all about pretty much all aspects of the religion, and you will gladly be given, or given access to the 'holy' books/teachings of those churches. You don't have to be a member, you can just stop by and ask, and if anyone has time, they'll tell you pretty much whatever you want to ask about the actual religion itself (but probably not about administrative scandles about pedophelia, etc), or give or loan you their holy books.
With Scientology, you won't get access to the 'real' teachings, until you've paid tens, or more likely,hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm an agnostic/atheist and have no love for any churches, but Scientology is an out and out scam. The pretense of being a church is purely for the tax benifits and as a way to get new suckers to join in.
Well regular christians have done all that stuff for centuries, why shouldn't a newly spawned branch of christianity be any less disreputable? Yes, Mormons are Christians. So are Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, and so many others.
No, I'm not a Mormon, but I probably know a lot more than many of the posters here today. Sad, isn't it.
Part of the Protestant Reformation was making the Bible available to the laity, which the Roman Catholic Church opposed.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It's easier to track the history of frauds when they're recent. Scientology is all too obvious. Mormon's founder was established as a fraudster early on.
On the other hand, "Church of Christ, Scientist" appears to have a self-deluded founder, rather than a malicious one. That doesn't undo the damage she's done, but they aren't noteworthy for illegal behavior like the other two.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If you're living in a predominately Mormon area, and you're not one of them, you're a lot less likely to be part of their circle, do business with them, marry their children and so forth.
This as told to me by various Mormon and non-Mormon friends from SLC.
I suppose this isn't a lot different from other religious groups. But it's worth pointing out.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
With the invention of the printing press, and therefore cheaper ways of circulating information, the world neatly divided into those who wanted information to be free, and those who didn't.
Funny how things move in cycles.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
Re: In some cases, the takeover of state by religion was accomplished so long ago that the religion is even considered a state itself. [bold emphasis mine]
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
.
Whilst the Popesters and catholics may want you to think and believe that Vatican City always is and always has been considered a state, it was not considered at state unto itself until 1929 by the Lateran Treaty .
:>)
Religions, being mythology, likes to build even more grandiose mythologies about their own origin along with their standard domain of mythologies about the origin of this world.
And who has the trademark on Christianity? The Roman Catholic Church? Sure, Mormonism is identifiably different from other brands, but I figure if they claim Jesus Christ was the most-holiest-person-EVER they're Christians if they want to call themselves Christians and if they don't want to call themselves Christian, they don't have to whatever they believe. Why split hairs?
Christianity isn't a specific set of beliefs and practies, it's a category of religions. Before the 4th century, there was a LOT more diversity of belief among people who called themselves Christians, e.g. Gnostics, Manicheans, Arians, etc as opposed to almost all other modern Christians who accept the Nicene christology and soteriology. Most the Roman Empire chose to promote the Nicene view I don't know, but that's the historical reason why most Christians today believe pretty much the same thing about Jesus.
Actually, they haven't done that in over a century as far as I know, but it is documented fact that Mormons did kill some non-believers. They also kidnapped daughters of other non-believers and forced them to "marry" their captors.
The reasons the Mormons were forced out of the different states they lived in before they went to Utah had more to do with them being gigantic assholes and less to do with their wacky religious beliefs.
Yeah, UnitedStatesofAmericans did that to Native Americans, too. Start pointing fingers about that and you'll run out of fingers pretty quick.
And wasn't this thread about Scientologists in Belgium?
For a start, religions don't demand you pay up to read the texts and consider them trade secrets.
Which makes it ever more surprising that this commercial operation should have received tax exempt status. It's basically a company, run like an an alarmingly expensive MMO. Scientologists pay a fortune to reach level whatever in Scientology. The company ups the level cap and releases new content when it realises that these mugs still have money remaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Thetan#Unreleased_levels
Another option is to sign-up for indentured servitude, where hard work is rewarded with content and meagre pocket money. In that sense, the teachings can be free, albeit with some pretty serious strings attached. People opting out of the billion year contract they sign (seriously), will be retroactively billed for the religious instruction they received.
No organisation should be able to claim tax exempt status when its core function is to sell its teachings at a premium. By IRS logic, I could open a restaurant, with tax exempt status because I feed homeless people. The IRS doesn't seem to mind that destitute diners are either going to have to sell themselves in to slavery for food, or pay $150 per sitting.
It would indeed be a good day if Belgium can do some serious harm to this company.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I believe this approach to dealing with the organization is exactly appropriate. The practice of any religion can be run by an organization that turns out into a cult. The attacks that we see on "Scientology" should not really be directed at the subject of Scientology nor used to label the subject as a cult. It is the corrupt management by David Miscavige that really is to blame. And, yes, he IS criminal. He abuses staff, torments former members who try to practice outside his control, harasses members for donations relentlessly and, of course, he trashes freedom of speech to keep people from knowing of his crimes. Mark Rathbun is the former number 2 in charge of the Co$. He's out and posting on a blog on WordPress everything he knows. Check out his blog for a viewpoint you won't hear from anyone else.
We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
Why does a religion that sings 'father, son and holy ghost' when worshiping get away with calling itself monotheistic? How is praying to patron saints monotheistic? It looks like deification from over here.
Maybe this is just me, but making fun of Mormon underwear seems to me just as dumb as making fun of the hijab, yarmulke, Sikh turban, or pocket protector.
OK, I've never worn a pocket protector, but you get my point I hope.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
That doesn't sound any different from a Democratic voter living in a predominantly "red state" area, these days.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
1. patron saints are not God
2. patron saints are Catholic doctrine, not Christian doctrine
3. the son and the holy ghost report to the Father
4. and anyway, when Cthulhu returns it'll all be moot
That sounds like bull to me... I grew up in a small Utah town. There were 100 people in my senior class, and I was the only non-LDS among them. Besides making me feel a little isolated, it did not effect me that much. No one excluded me from anything that wasn't an actual church even and they certainly did not treat my family badly, effect my parents and my own ability to hold a job.
I don't know where you get your information, but it is false.
A sometimes more useful way to contrast religions is to look at where they each look for authority.
Christianity and Islam both place a lot of Authority in the written word. Some sects more than others, but all sects to some degree.
Judaism places authority in the spoken word (the written texts must be read aloud to be understood, because it is the spoken word that has Authority; the written stuff is merely a mnemonic aid). This is a significant difference: the Authority is there only as the words are spoken; there is no absolute "This was once written therefore it shall forever be this way" dictatorial attitude about it. It is more a "Tell me again, right now," thing, with the inherent recognition that even though I may have heard this a thousand times before, maybe this time I will more clearly understand some meaning that I never really heard before.
Zen, Tao, and Buddhism state that the Authority has nothing to do with words, that it is found through wordless states like meditation. Zennist practice goes so far as to use koans to so twist up the language that the usefulness of words is momentarily broken, which provides an opportunity for the trained seeker to experience the wordless authority. The core written teaching about the Tao is: "The Tao that you read about is not the Tao".
In contemporary neopagan practice, authority is sought through directed visualizations augmented by chanting, drumming, dance, and ritual.
And so on. Something that is interesting here is that the religions that rely on the written word for their authority are historically the least tolerant and most war-like. They definitely score highest on the "holier-than-thou" scale.
I know nothing about the internals of Scientology. But what little I know of it suggests that it wants it adherents to put more faith into its written words than any other religion has ever done.
Will
For those who want to know more about that: http://www.vice.com/vice-news/the-mexican-mormon-war-part-1
Whilst the Popesters and catholics may want you to think and believe that Vatican City always is and always has been considered a state, it was not considered at state unto itself until 1929 by the Lateran Treaty [wikipedia.org].
True, but it always did go out of its way to act like one, even when it wasn't one. The TV show "The Borgias" show an example of it. Then there's the Holy Roman Empire.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
With Mormons it's just an allegation that it's all a scam, but with Scientologists we can call up a huge pile of living witnesses and track the scam back to the beginning. The camoflage as a form of worship is just part of the con, and you've fallen into their trap by comparing them with established forms of worship.
Early Mormon history may be very interesting but a better comparison would probably be with the gangs of New York or Chicago mobsters. Scientology is a racket IMHO.
You seem to give an awful lot of credit to established religion. Almost like most of them don't encourage poor treatment of women, persecution of gays, owning of slaves, and so on. Intended to stifle sociopathic behavior, my ass.
I agree that human nature is the root here, but Hitler was not a "secularist", and Nazi Germany was explicitly Christian (notwithstanding any "no true scotsman" arguments to the contrary).
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
That's irrelevant, and that's how they con people into thinking maybe their bit of fraud is valid because others made wild claims first.
In other words, an obvious con is a con and whether accepted forms of worship are a con on not doesn't make the obvious con any more valid. They want to hide it in a crowd to get more suckers and to hide behind televangelists when things get legally sticky.
Why does a religion that sings 'father, son and holy ghost' when worshiping get away with calling itself monotheistic? How is praying to patron saints monotheistic? It looks like deification from over here.
Ask the Hindus; they have millions of gods, all of which can be considered aspects of the one God, if you wish.
But there is nothing wrong or inferior about polytheism. In fact, I would tend to think that recognising many gods makes people more tolerant towards those who follow a different religion, simply because you aren't tied into the idea that "There Is Only One God".
One godhead, three "faces". As originally construed, Jewish monotheism was never intended to analyze the internal character of God, but to say that you should not worship any God other than YHWH. Interesting thing is that, for a very long time, nobody had a really terrible time with the trinity. It's based on a Platonic philosophical view, and doesn't make sense if you're not a Platonist.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Yeah, and what about that guy that turned his staff into a snake, and parted the red sea, and got tablets written by the hand of deity. What a scam.
"There can be little doubt that union activities lead to continuous and progressive inflation." F. A. Hayek