No, your outline is brilliant, and this is an epic project.
FWIW - a little backstory on how it came together... When the "Scientology and the Bible" publication first got the anony christfag dander up, the obvious choice of making the most damning comparisons of scientology scriptures/teachings was the Advance! Magazine "Spiritual History of Man" articles where you dont even need to explain 'whats wrong with this picture' because the articles speak for themselves.
and in many cases, the twisted & perverse nature of those articles is so outrageously bad or plain old stupid - they tend to inspire extremely strong feelings in those with strong faiths.
So exploitation factor was too high to resist, and thats what i drove my macro and micro level organization of materials off of... which advance mag feature articles were readily available or could i easily get my hands on. Then i back tracked from those topics, to other materials & structured the topical outline from there.
May I ask- Who is the target audience?
1. The massive waves of world religions 101 & 102 college students that flood the social networks at the start of each semester looking for information for doing a term paper on scientology and grumble about the lack of good citations needed to do the topic justice in that vein.
2. People w/ strong inclinations in traditional faiths that read Hugh Urban's book expecting to find answers to the question "is scientology a religion" only to find he challenges them to explore the subject further and judge it for themselves, yet their is no easy path to do that because of past inclination to be too scared to tackle the "r" word in regards to scientology.
3. Other religous scholars and theologians who might be inclined to pick up where Hugh left off, if they can easily find the materials they need to explore the subject further.
4. The established interest base stemming from Catholic, Baptist and Southern Baptist minor media outlets that jump on every controversial scientology story with even the slightest religion/church angle and take full advantage of getting their flavor of bible thumpers fired up about it.
5. The existing backchannel network of priests, reverends and ministers that have reached out to their local protesters and taken the time to educate themselves on the controversies and are always looking for a deeper level understanding of actual doctrines/scriptures that isnt readily available at this time.
6. The religious right evangelists that are seemingly hell bent on getting into bed with politicians and erasing the American history of holding the separation of church & state sacred, and are in dire need of a reality check that what they aim to achieve will empower the subversive religions like scientology to a greater extent than they already are.
7. The predominant faiths who have a tendency to form national/regional/local intrafaith & interfaith counsels and community networks that need to be aware that scientology representatives dont deserve a seat at the table.
8. Every other bible thumping fire & brimstone preacher who hasnt caught on to the fact that there is an inherent evil in scientology that they should care about at least a little if their dedicated to the cause of saving souls.
Plus a few other angles for supporting ongoing sekrit harpooning efforts that desperately needed /b/ackup dox, which I wont mention publicly until the time is right because its stuff way more influential than most of what's on the above list of blatantly obvious answers to your question.
My advice is to keep this in mind and gear it more towards "bad religion" than "not a religion", because it may be too late for "not a religion".
If everybody is too chickenshit to go there, then it is too late. And the tendency for people to even lean towards "oh its probably too late to go there" is indicative of how long overdue & badly needed something like this project is.
Just because a void in information currently exists, doesnt mean it should stay that way for the sake of preserving a politically correct cop out. (especially when its a cop out the cult not only takes for granted, but goes absolutely apeshit insane over when you even get close to it let alone tackle it head on. and when it is tackled head on, their reactions always bring out the unholy & inhuman nature of their beliefs to the point of it being a parade of utterly degraded morality such that lulz of watching it unfold is of epic proportions.)
And my publication series is merely presenting examples for people to examine and decide for themselves if its what they personally consider a religion.
Being geared towards "bad religion" is your slanted interpretation of what you seem to think we aim to do without actually looking thru all the materials closely. The reality is we only aim to empower a better understanding that cuts thru the cult's propaganda and gets down to the nitty gritty.
What conclusion people who study this series might come too on good vs. bad is irrelevant to our primary goal of just providing something substantial for people who are academically inclined to seriously dig into if they feel so inspired.
Modern religious studies have redefined religion to include a wide and diverse field of religious groups and NRMs.
Hugh Urban's book has already covered that angle quite well. And what he doesnt get into, the apologists have already covered ad naseum in that vein of thinking.
Also - NRM advocates arent the ones in congregations holding open community events, nor lobbying politicians, nor showing up enmasse when there is a natural disaster to help out the red cross & other aide efforts, nor doing other forms of community outreach thru chairty-based homeless shelters/soup kitchens/free-clinics. IOW - they typically dont form far reaching relationships that extend beyond the confines of their belief system like the traditional faiths do.
Erego, NRM advocates hold little to no large scale social influence, as a group, to represent any kind of advantage that could be easily leveraged for spreading a message to a new audience to be concerned with. So the apologists are more than welcome to cater to those wishy washy folks that wont be inspired to speak out no matter what you say to them nor show them.
Note the lack of mention of God, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Hope.
Thank you for making my point - no stone left unturned, and what is lacking needs filled in so that different strokes for different folks is satisfied on ALL sides.
Also seems you havent looked thru the materials outline that shows the initial game plan of 9 volumes to be included in this series. This has now grown to atleast 10, probably more like 11 or 12 until I'm done due to massive outpouring of responses I have gotten from Volume I offering up additional Advance Mags to be included in my efforts.
So there will be something for everybody, traditional and modern, by the time its done. And its organized by themes that allow people to pick & choose which types of comparative religion angles they wish to study further. So protip for ya meant with all do respect - if traditional faiths & bible study dont float your boat, you should probably wait until i get to the more modern new age religion-friendly stuff later on in the series so you can offer advice on what you know best.
And altho your advice is appreciated & welcome, its pretty much moot when you look at the full scope of what we aim to do. But you gotta have an open enough mind to get past the your immediate knee jerk reaction at words such as "Heaven, Hell, etc" that obviously doesnt resonate with your personal beliefs like it does with somebody actively involved in a traditional faith in order to appreciate the lack-of-info problems this series is attempting to solve.
Maybe your target audience is not America. If not, then perhaps none of this applies.
I havent even considered ramifications abroad. yet. Maybe you haven't seriously considered the impact American bible belt residents and traditional bible thumpers in general have on the communities where their congregations are the strongest.