I applaud Gentle Dove's remarks distinguishing between Nazi culture and CS thought control.  There are differences in degree, but there are also similarities, in trying to keep the common culture and individual thought "pure" and protected.  One difference, though, is that most of the thought control in National Socialism was externally applied, and people rebelled quietly, secratively, and publically at their peril.  (TMC's "COP" being nothig more than a sophisticated PR organ, pales in comparison.)  In religous cults (again, there are variious types & degrees) this is done individually and is not "thought control," but rather thought reform.  And the tragic irony is that the cultist becomes an increasingly self-motivated participate in his own psychic/psychological  enslavement.

But you're right, GentleDove--the use of the word Nazi, like cult is emotionally loaded and should be used carefully and sparingly.  Same with fascist.  George Orwell pointed out, circa 1952, that fascist had come to mean little more than "something I really, really, really dislike."

I say pleased, as well as surprised, because the one whose hope is anchored in Christian Science idealism cannot allow debate on the fundamental principles of an immaterial existence. Say for instance, I have a website dedicated to the idea of gun control- I can invite respectful debate, present a solid argument, & conceivably win over converts to my stance. Or I may be opposed to debate, expressing only anger to those with opposing points of view.        

But in the world of Christian Science, giving any credence, any respect, to the idea that sin, disease, & death are real is completely counterproductive to the stated goal of mentally denying said (un)realities. For the most part, I don't think they refuse debate in animosity to opposing ideas; more so, they see giving space to them undercutting their personal belief in the "Divine Idea". The practice of denial is intensely challenging as it is, with their own senses constantly affirming the material existence. That is why Christian Science in general is so opposed to open discussion, why they generally have only pre-screened voices authorized to speak at so many of their functions- to invite discussion is to leave the door open to error. And their biggest problem is almost everybody & everything around them fits their definition of error- so they must withdraw to the secret place. I've seen this played out time & time again in my own family. My CS mom rarely admits to any physical or emotional pain, but it's obvious to me when something is wrong because the testimony tapes are on 24/7.       

We think they should be easy to convince, given their lack of Scriptural underpinnings as well as their legacy of unnecessary suffering & death, but the tightness of their clique & the self-mesmerism they practice are the causes of their nut being so tough to crack.       

I think the only reason my comment was allowed was that it did not directly assail their illusions of their own incorporeal nature; although, the idea that Jesus was uniquely both God & man for those 33 years does in fact strongly infer a divide between God & man that can only be repaired through the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.

zoarean