If $cientology is a religion and their buildings are churches, then we should examine the definitions of these two terms to see how they apply in Co$'s case and by extension to other things of like nature.
Merriam-Webster online defines "religion" as :
(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
(3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
(4) archaic; scrupulous conformity; conscientiousness
(5) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
A "church" is defined as:
(1) a building for public and especially Christian worship
(2) the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
(3) the clerical profession; a body or organization of religious believers: denomination; congregation
(4) a public divine worship
Using the above as a guide Co$ claims its status because only they only really fail on Item 1 because the practice does not acknowledge the presence of the divine or the supernatural in the common convention of those terms, but for most of us that is the prime definition of religion. If we accept that they are committed anddevoted to an observance, that involvesscrupulous conformity to a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith then they fit the definition of a religion.
As for being a church Co$ certainly has the structure of a church. It has masses of staff filling vast properties worldwide. It funds a wide variety of sub-organizations that on the surface appear to fulfill the usual "good works" we expect of religion. The failing point is the word public. Since every level of Co$ involves the payment of cold cash, those of the public who have no money are excluded from full inclusion in the faith. Only the wealthy shall be saved if we believe in the philosophy of $cientology.
Then again I think we can make the argument that sex is the truly universal religion. First off, every form of life on the planet practices sex on some level and have done so throughout time, making the archaic argument valid. Sex certainly has the passion and adherence of any faith, and people have always had certain rituals and rules about sex, including when, where, how, and with whom.
There is history about sex used as a religious practice in ancient fertility faiths. Couples would go into the fields and forests at the start of planting season to make certain that all of nature knew what to do by showing them how we do it. For those who doubt the religious aspect of such encounters you only have to listen to those at climax, yelling "God, oh god! Yes, yes, yes! God!" No wonder they believed that their deities were moved to make the fields fertile with everyone yelling up to them.
What about churches for sex? The public houses of worship have been made illegal -- a clear violation of the brothels First Amendment rights. That they charge money for sex should not be an issue. Co$ has churches and charges oodles of boodle. Why should a brothel be treated differently?
Most of those practicing the religion of sex are confined to our home chapels, usually in the bedroom, but some prefer to "pray" in the living room on the fur rug in front of a romantic fire.
So if sex, like $cientology, is a religion, then can I apply to the IRS for tax free status for my house and all my sexy underwear (read: religious vestments) ?
