What the hell are you talking about? How is CSICOP a religion?
In that, despite their insistence on being 'skeptics' and 'rationalists', they act like just as fanatically as those they are trying to debunk. They do not merely dispute extraordinary claims on the basis of the facts; they often blithely dismiss out of hand the actual facts of the cases, and assume
the cases they try to prove in their own arguments. Their convictions are just as seteadfast, and often as just irrational, as those of any fire and brimstone preacher, and even if (unlikely though it is) they were faced with rock solid evidence of some mysterious phenomenon - not necessarily supernatural, mind you, merely unexplained - it seems likely that they would dismiss it as a fraud, rather than sincerely investigate it. Both of the schisms that occurred within the group happened because the leadership of the organization refused to support the experiments that would test the validity of phenomena they 'knew' were bogus.
Furthermore, they repeatedly try to use 'science' as a bludgeon against topics which are outside the purvue of the scientific method - religion and the like. I have no problem with some one being an atheist, but trying to support any
theological position on the basis of scientific inquiry is to misunderstand science itself. Agnosticism, scepticism, and materialism cannot be proven scientifically because they are axioms of the system; to debate them at all, you must step outside the structure of scientific method entirely.
Their greatest mistake, however, is asserting that all knowledge is amenable to scientific inquiry. As I said earlier, it is one of the defining qualities of science - the one which really seperates it from religion more than any other, and the really revolutionary part of science - is that it explicitly denies the possibility of it's own perfection; it acknowledges its limits, and indeed goes to great lengths to determine just where those limits lie.