Speaking of Scientology: Their book "Dianetics" was one of the only three books I ever dumped right after reading (and I own about 950 books and have read maybe three times as much in my entire life) - the other ones were A. Crowley's "Book of the Law" and the "Necronomicon". These three books were given to me between 1990 and 1991 by some "friends" of mine who knew that I was on my "quest"

L. Ron Hubbard IMO was a much better sci-fi author than cult creator. His book "Battlefield Earth" is an excellent read, though of course it was butchered into a movie...

Well, but founding a church makes one richer than writing books (except your name is Stephen King)

.....or Dean Koontz....lol

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Enigma posted in part:

Battlefield Earth and the Mission Earth series were not bad...

I've wanted to read the Mission Earth series but I never find all the books in the series for sale at the same time at bookstores. If I'm going to read a series, I want to go from first book to last book instead of a period of days or months in between books. Admittedly, I don't have the willpower to just buy a book here and there until I collect them all and then read them.

I off tracked the thread somewhat. IMHO I do believe that the larger the church, the more likely it will stray from it's "path", because it gets mired in "worldly" business. Religion for money is so true in some cases.

I have read the Mission Earth series at least three times. I love that bunch of books....lol

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Keeping Christmas controversies in perspective

By Glenn C. Smith; a constitutional law professor at California Western School of Law.

December 20, 2006

Respecting the religious traditions of an increasingly diverse America while avoiding government-favored orthodoxy is always a tall order. Ironically, during the Christmas season, which millions hope will be a time of “peace on earth, goodwill toward men,” it can be especially difficult to keep perspective, civility, and nuance in play.

In part, this is because the holidays seem to become the “silly season” for some public officials. Faced with a constitutional duty to avoid governmental endorsement of particular religious points of view, some officials (including some lower-court judges) needlessly over-correct. A much-publicized recent example was the initial decision of Seattle's airport officials to remove holiday Christmas trees, rather than think seriously about how they could also display a Hanukkah menorah.

The search for Christmas common sense becomes even more difficult when prominent public advocates and media commentators stoke these fires of controversy. Recent commentaries have too often combined alarmist warnings about a “war on Christmas” with misrepresentations of relevant legal principles and simplistic all-or-nothing positions.

San Diegans wishing to avoid the extremism of some public officials and pundits would do well to keep three basic points in mind.

First, any discussion of the constitutionality of Christmas displays and observances must begin with an appreciation of the sophisticated balancing act required by the Constitution's First Amendment. One of its clauses obligates governments to respect religious free exercise, which would prevent government from “banning Christmas,” as some advocates worry. Another (anti-establishment) clause, however, prohibits governments from using public money and authority to support particular religious institutions and beliefs.

These constitutional cross-currents can be successfully navigated if one owns up to the nature of the voyage. Thus, the oft-repeated statement by some commentators that the Constitution does not guarantee “freedom from religion” is inaccurate on its face and oversimplifies the relevant questions.

An important implication flows from these basic constitutional principles: Ultimately, it does not matter that the vast majority of Americans are Christians who celebrate Christmas. The framers intended all of the Bill of Rights protections, including the religion clauses of the First Amendment, to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution gives no more power to majorities than to minorities to have government place its stamp of approval on their religious beliefs and rituals.

A second key point to remember is that, although honoring constitutional commands about religion takes sensitive judgment, decades of judicial line-drawing offer generally useful and common-sensical guideposts. Especially important to Christians is the substantial room offered by current legal rules for “keeping Christ in Christmas.”

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the Constitution permits historically important religious works, traditions and symbols (including Christian paintings and texts) to be included in the nation's museums, libraries and artistic venues. Indeed, this year's Postal Service holiday stamp offerings include a “Christmas” stamp reprinting a painting of Mary and Jesus.

Current legal doctrines, properly understood, also allow room for Christmas carols and traditions in the nation's public schools. Celebrations of Jesus' birth can be studied in various courses for their cultural significance and included at school assemblies and music events as long as the context does not imply an official approval of the Christian message.

Even in classic public forums, such as city halls and parks, guiding precedents permit nativity scenes and other Christian depictions to be included in broader holiday displays (especially when the seasonal symbols of other religions are included).

Thus, although gray areas inevitably remain, relevant decisions generally stake out a discernible boundary between unconstitutional endorsements of Christian teachings and valid accommodations of Christmas falling short of such endorsement.

A third core point is increasingly worthy of emphasis as controversies grow about how private entities deal with Christmas. For example, whether retailers should replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” is now the subject of rhetorical battles and customer boycotts.

The “Happy Holidays” usage seems preferable for situations in which message senders do not know the religious beliefs of recipients. It appears to be a courteous and inclusive way to respect varying cultures and religions. Still, many would no doubt disagree. The important point, however, is that the United States Constitution has nothing directly to say about such controversies (although one side can claim a greater loyalty to the advisory spirit of the document). The Constitution restricts how governmental bodies interact with Christmas displays and traditions; it does not regulate the holiday practices of private entities such as Wal-Mart. The issue gets confused, and passions get needlessly inflamed, when the public and private handling of Christmas get lumped together.

As Christmas controversies continue, I hope that my fellow Christian readers will keep the above points in mind, thereby receiving an extra Christmas present this season – the gift of peace of mind and perspective.

---

me@rescam.org

Even if a church gets involved in "worldly" business, it depends on their leaders (not the "simple members") how the achieved money is handled then. It's a huge difference if 100% of the achieved money are spent for church stuff and re-investments - or if 50% go right to the private accounts of those church leaders and the 50% are spent for re-investments and salaries, and church sites and media stuff (in this order), and they have to collect offerings for the charity stuff...

It is not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when' it is just a function of size.

If I remember right, I read that (for example) the Mormon Church had an own bank in their early days with very-low-rate credits to make sure that the members could settle and start a new existence without having to pay back twice as much due to the interests... But when the church needed money themselves, because their corporal income was not enough to maintain the buildings and to print books etc, they had to sell their own bank to another, more seculary one, to become "liquid" again... After that their intern and extern financial rules were revised and reformed, and now they are growing well and wealthy again...

Sounds like the business of religion to me. This is not a new thing and has been happening pretty much from day dot. Me thinks there is motive behind all this that has nothing to do with god and or your belief.

Even if a church gets involved in "worldly" business, it depends on their leaders (not the "simple members") how the achieved money is handled then. It's a huge difference if 100% of the achieved money are spent for church stuff and re-investments - or if 50% go right to the private accounts of those church leaders and the 50% are spent for re-investments and salaries, and church sites and media stuff (in this order), and they have to collect offerings for the charity stuff...

It is not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when' it is just a function of size.

If I remember right, I read that (for example) the Mormon Church had an own bank in their early days with very-low-rate credits to make sure that the members could settle and start a new existence without having to pay back twice as much due to the interests... But when the church needed money themselves, because their corporal income was not enough to maintain the buildings and to print books etc, they had to sell their own bank to another, more seculary one, to become "liquid" again... After that their intern and extern financial rules were revised and reformed, and now they are growing well and wealthy again...

Sounds like the business of religion to me. This is not a new thing and has been happening pretty much from day dot. Me thinks there is motive behind all this that has nothing to do with god and or your belief.

Ah, heck with it.
Mod me.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Just spent the last hour reading the below post. Got alot to say on the subject but judging from some of the post, well, just lost my motivation. Anyone who blindly professes a religion based on "faith" without any facts to back up that "faith"... well, its just frustrating talking to those people.. The religious thread at Calm Choas is a bit more insightful. :)
Cheers

---

Mrs. Miggins: The Scarlet Pimpernel, Mr. Blackadder! He's so exciting, don't you think?
Blackadder: Actually, I think he's the most over-rated human being since Judas Iscariot won the AD31 Best Disciple Competition.

Just spent the last hour reading the below post. Got alot to say on the subject but judging from some of the post, well, just lost my motivation. Anyone who blindly professes a religion based on "faith" without any facts to back up that "faith"... well, its just frustrating talking to those people.. The religious thread at Calm Choas is a bit more insightful. :)
Cheers

What post? Mod'd!?

Hi Sarge, its frustrating.. Been over on the other thread. I believe agnostic is a good place to be. I have for many years stated that I am an Atheist but with the absence of proof that there isn't an existence of a higher power, I can not realistically make that claim. Its as frustrating for the religious types to profess their "faith" in something that also can't be proven. Although with some logic based in science it would seem a good bet that there is no god but its just as hard to prove that something doesn't exist. What's not there now, may be discovered to be there in the future. Its like "Dark matter", there seems to be something to it, but 10 years ago scientist would have said "Huh?" Your daft man!"
Oh well, just my 2 cents worth.
(listening to Trans-Siberian Orchestra Carol of the Bells while writing this..cool)
:-)

---

Mrs. Miggins: The Scarlet Pimpernel, Mr. Blackadder! He's so exciting, don't you think?
Blackadder: Actually, I think he's the most over-rated human being since Judas Iscariot won the AD31 Best Disciple Competition.

Even if a church gets involved in "worldly" business, it depends on their leaders (not the "simple members") how the achieved money is handled then. It's a huge difference if 100% of the achieved money are spent for church stuff and re-investments - or if 50% go right to the private accounts of those church leaders and the 50% are spent for re-investments and salaries, and church sites and media stuff (in this order), and they have to collect offerings for the charity stuff...

It is not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when' it is just a function of size.

If I remember right, I read that (for example) the Mormon Church had an own bank in their early days with very-low-rate credits to make sure that the members could settle and start a new existence without having to pay back twice as much due to the interests... But when the church needed money themselves, because their corporal income was not enough to maintain the buildings and to print books etc, they had to sell their own bank to another, more seculary one, to become "liquid" again... After that their intern and extern financial rules were revised and reformed, and now they are growing well and wealthy again...

Sounds like the business of religion to me. This is not a new thing and has been happening pretty much from day dot. Me thinks there is motive behind all this that has nothing to do with god and or your belief.

Do you remember in the old days they taught us that all religions were equal ? Any religion that sends its people to heaven if they kill ME ain't equal !

---

Lester wrote:

Any religion that sends its people to heaven if they kill ME ain't equal !

You're alluding to Islam, don't you? That's really a strange thing with that. No-where in the Qur'an is written to kill the non-believers only because they don't believe in Allah. Also the word Jihad doesn't mean just war according to the Qur'an: it's rather meaning to strive or struggle in the way of God.

wikipedia wrote:

there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):
* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al. It is one weapon in the jihadi arsenal.
* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, espionage, and the penetration of Western universities by salafi Islamic ideology, in numerous Middle East Studies departments funded by Saudi Arabia.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But in the meaning of holy war, there are strict rules in the Qur'an.
wikipedia wrote:

People who want to remain neutral in war should be left alone and not be troubled in any way. As in Qur'an:
"Or those who approach you such that they neither have the courage to fight you nor their own people [and are such that] had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not give you permission to take any action against them."
—Qur'an, 4:90

So each Muslim who kills people who are not involved in any fight against their countries, is actually breaking the rules of the Holy Book of the Islam, the Qur'an, even though they're told to do so by their Imams and other preachers.

But: There are things - here we can write texts and post comics free as the duck takes the water, even totally respectless, there they expect, even demand respect to everything they feel to be sacred. A muslim rather betrayes his wife than his God. And even the first one is close to impossible. So insulting their religion is worse then insulting themselves, and they get blind-raged. IMHO one of the biggest disadvantages of globalism: we western people expect everyone in the world to accept our freedom of speech and our even respectless humour. But this is impossible. There are other cultures than ours, and always will be, and our media - and politicians - must have to respect that.

---

Account frozen...

Lester wrote:

Any religion that sends its people to heaven if they kill ME ain't equal !

You're alluding to Islam, don't you? That's really a strange thing with that. No-where in the Qur'an is written to kill the non-believers only because they don't believe in Allah. Also the word Jihad doesn't mean just war according to the Qur'an: it's rather meaning to strive or struggle in the way of God.

wikipedia wrote:

there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):
* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.
* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al. It is one weapon in the jihadi arsenal.
* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).
* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, espionage, and the penetration of Western universities by salafi Islamic ideology, in numerous Middle East Studies departments funded by Saudi Arabia.
* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But in the meaning of holy war, there are strict rules in the Qur'an.
wikipedia wrote:

People who want to remain neutral in war should be left alone and not be troubled in any way. As in Qur'an:
"Or those who approach you such that they neither have the courage to fight you nor their own people [and are such that] had Allah willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not give you permission to take any action against them."
—Qur'an, 4:90

So each Muslim who kills people who are not involved in any fight against their countries, is actually breaking the rules of the Holy Book of the Islam, the Qur'an, even though they're told to do so by their Imams and other preachers.

But: There are things - here we can write texts and post comics free as the duck takes the water, even totally respectless, there they expect, even demand respect to everything they feel to be sacred. A muslim rather betrayes his wife than his God. And even the first one is close to impossible. So insulting their religion is worse then insulting themselves, and they get blind-raged. IMHO one of the biggest disadvantages of globalism: we western people expect everyone in the world to accept our freedom of speech and our even respectless humour. But this is impossible. There are other cultures than ours, and always will be, and our media - and politicians - must have to respect that.

Is questioning a religion disrespecting it ? If the Koran doesn't promise heaven upon my death, why do they say so ? Don't they read the book ? All religions have gone through this phase-burning witches, inquisiton, crusades etc. But they didn't have nuke's.

---

Lester wrote:

Is questioning a religion disrespecting it ?

You can question a religion despite respecting it - see my example, I try to see both sides, and state my opinion - sometimes it's accepting, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes I have my problems with that. But - as I always use to add, I put it that way that (for I am a human making mistakes) that I may have misunderstood several things. So it's up to them to explain me those things better. I don't say they talk BS, because I don't want to insult people. I rather say, "sorry I don't understand why you teaching this stuff - I can't find it in the Scriptures". It's an entire different statement than "Hey you teach things different to your own books!"

All religions have gone through this phase - burning witches, inquisiton, crusades etc. But they didn't have nuke's.

Well, Lester, it's not the religion who own those nukes - it's the countries led by people who hide their lust for power behind "slightly" changed religious teachings, who hide their lust for power even behind the religion itself.

If the Koran doesn't promise heaven upon my death, why do they say so ? Don't they read the book ?

Here in Germany I met Muslims whom I experienced to be the nice person next door, and even when I was in the States back in the '90s I met some nice muslims there. Normally these people do not teach that violence, it's them who fall into wrong teachings. And wrong teachings can be taught in each religion. And who of them who attend a service meeting do actually take the scriptures afterwards and read them to cross-check the preachings they heard? Who even makes notes to think about what they heard later? I'd say only a few. Most of them who go to church (or mosque or synagoge etc) bank on their preachers to tell them the truth, and sometimes they are taught subjective things which incite them to do things... evil things.
Like back in the 30's in Germany the NSDAP and their youth organization, or that experiment "The Third Wave" in 1968 in Palo Alto - people who obey their authorities willingly can be manipulated very easily. Too easily. And they even don't realize to be manipulated until it's too late. Sometimes they even don't realize it even then...

---

Account frozen...

I'm just watching a movie titled "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith" on BYU Television Online - it was send today, at 12:00am MST, but can still be seen on this viewer anyway.
It gives an insight into the life of the founder of the Mormon church and the founding of this church, and the struggles and the persecutions it had to go through. If this is no pure propaganda (and it seems not to be, because I read similar things about this topic from both sides, Mormons and anti-Mormons) then this church seems to be one of those which are not corrupt.

---

Account frozen...

Lester wrote:

Is questioning a religion disrespecting it ?

You can question a religion despite respecting it - see my example, I try to see both sides, and state my opinion - sometimes it's accepting, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes I have my problems with that. But - as I always use to add, I put it that way that (for I am a human making mistakes) that I may have misunderstood several things. So it's up to them to explain me those things better. I don't say they talk BS, because I don't want to insult people. I rather say, "sorry I don't understand why you teaching this stuff - I can't find it in the Scriptures". It's an entire different statement than "Hey you teach things different to your own books!"

All religions have gone through this phase - burning witches, inquisiton, crusades etc. But they didn't have nuke's.

Well, Lester, it's not the religion who own those nukes - it's the countries led by people who hide their lust for power behind "slightly" changed religious teachings, who hide their lust for power even behind the religion itself.

If the Koran doesn't promise heaven upon my death, why do they say so ? Don't they read the book ?

Here in Germany I met Muslims whom I experienced to be the nice person next door, and even when I was in the States back in the '90s I met some nice muslims there. Normally these people do not teach that violence, it's them who fall into wrong teachings. And wrong teachings can be taught in each religion. And who of them who attend a service meeting do actually take the scriptures afterwards and read them to cross-check the preachings they heard? Who even makes notes to think about what they heard later? I'd say only a few. Most of them who go to church (or mosque or synagoge etc) bank on their preachers to tell them the truth, and sometimes they are taught subjective things which incite them to do things... evil things.
Like back in the 30's in Germany the NSDAP and their youth organization, or that experiment "The Third Wave" in 1968 in Palo Alto - people who obey their authorities willingly can be manipulated very easily. Too easily. And they even don't realize to be manipulated until it's too late. Sometimes they even don't realize it even then...

Yeah, I know. Had Iranian friends all through college, nice guys. Now they are my enemy, what happened ? Just got back from Egypt. We had to go in a 30 bus convoy with armed guards to get from the port to the pyamids. Wasnt worth it. Turkey is cool, enjoyed it. Same religion, all cool, if the pope would just shut up !

---

I'm just watching a movie titled "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith" on BYU Television Online - it was send today, at 12:00am MST, but can still be seen on this viewer anyway.
It gives an insight into the life of the founder of the Mormon church and the founding of this church, and the struggles and the persecutions it had to go through. If this is no pure propaganda (and it seems not to be, because I read similar things about this topic from both sides, Mormons and anti-Mormons) then this church seems to be one of those which are not corrupt.

Didn't they have killers that attacked other wagon trains ? I forgot, I'll watch it. And the FBI is dominated by the Mormons. You gotta be one to get promoted. To many power religions in this world. What would you do if a UFO landed and an alien walked out holding "the one true religion of the universe"? I would shoot him and burn the book. we already have enough "one true religions"

---

Lester wrote:

we already have enough "one true religions"

Oh that's only too right :-(
It would be sooo simple to gather them together, and make them meet in the things they have in common.But no, they insist on their differences instead...

Didn't they have killers that attacked other wagon trains ?

AFAK there was a kind of militia revenging on those who persecuted the church until the trecks started in the mid 1840's - but never were backed by the church leaders.

---

Account frozen...

I'm just watching a movie titled "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith" on BYU Television Online - it was send today, at 12:00am MST, but can still be seen on this viewer anyway.
It gives an insight into the life of the founder of the Mormon church and the founding of this church, and the struggles and the persecutions it had to go through. If this is no pure propaganda (and it seems not to be, because I read similar things about this topic from both sides, Mormons and anti-Mormons) then this church seems to be one of those which are not corrupt.

Didn't they have killers that attacked other wagon trains ? I forgot, I'll watch it. And the FBI is dominated by the Mormons. You gotta be one to get promoted. To many power religions in this world. What would you do if a UFO landed and an alien walked out holding "the one true religion of the universe"? I would shoot him and burn the book. we already have enough "one true religions"

OK, you seem like a reasonable guy. Obviously a nonprofessional religious outlook. Here is your assignment. We are going to new planets, which "book" do we take ? Every planet a different religion, same problems. Or merge all religions into one space book ? Dunno

---

I'm just watching a movie titled "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith" on BYU Television Online - it was send today, at 12:00am MST, but can still be seen on this viewer anyway.
It gives an insight into the life of the founder of the Mormon church and the founding of this church, and the struggles and the persecutions it had to go through. If this is no pure propaganda (and it seems not to be, because I read similar things about this topic from both sides, Mormons and anti-Mormons) then this church seems to be one of those which are not corrupt.

Didn't they have killers that attacked other wagon trains ? I forgot, I'll watch it. And the FBI is dominated by the Mormons. You gotta be one to get promoted. To many power religions in this world. What would you do if a UFO landed and an alien walked out holding "the one true religion of the universe"? I would shoot him and burn the book. we already have enough "one true religions"

OK, you seem like a reasonable guy. Obviously a nonprofessional religious outlook. Here is your assignment. We are going to new planets, which "book" do we take ? Every planet a different religion, same problems. Or merge all religions into one space book ? Dunno

Neither do I. Since you can't say that there is one human culture (like in the SF stories) you also can't say that there is one human religion. Heck, you even can't say that there is one Christian or one Islamic religion! Even when you take the "main religions" (like Christianity, Islam, etc.) there are a few dozens of them, and when you have a look of them as single denominations, there are several thousands of them on this planet.
So if you talk about informing other intelligent beings after a possible contact about what we humans believe in, a short excerpt about these "main religions" would be helpful. But if you talk about settling on other planets, the "books to take" should be in the responsibility of those among the settlers who believe in these books.

---

Account frozen...

I'm just watching a movie titled "American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith" on BYU Television Online - it was send today, at 12:00am MST, but can still be seen on this viewer anyway.
It gives an insight into the life of the founder of the Mormon church and the founding of this church, and the struggles and the persecutions it had to go through. If this is no pure propaganda (and it seems not to be, because I read similar things about this topic from both sides, Mormons and anti-Mormons) then this church seems to be one of those which are not corrupt.

Didn't they have killers that attacked other wagon trains ? I forgot, I'll watch it. And the FBI is dominated by the Mormons. You gotta be one to get promoted. To many power religions in this world. What would you do if a UFO landed and an alien walked out holding "the one true religion of the universe"? I would shoot him and burn the book. we already have enough "one true religions"

OK, you seem like a reasonable guy. Obviously a nonprofessional religious outlook. Here is your assignment. We are going to new planets, which "book" do we take ? Every planet a different religion, same problems. Or merge all religions into one space book ? Dunno

Neither do I. Since you can't say that there is one human culture (like in the SF stories) you also can't say that there is one human religion. Heck, you even can't say that there is one Christian or one Islamic religion! Even when you take the "main religions" (like Christianity, Islam, etc.) there are a few dozens of them, and when you have a look of them as single denominations, there are several thousands of them on this planet.
So if you talk about informing other intelligent beings after a possible contact about what we humans believe in, a short excerpt about these "main religions" would be helpful. But if you talk about settling on other planets, the "books to take" should be in the responsibility of those among the settlers who believe in these books.

oh boy, it's easy
ya take a mills & boone