An anonymous reader writes "A 15-year-old in the UK is facing prosecution for using the word 'cult' to describe the Church of Scientology at an anti-Scientology demonstration in London earlier this month. According to the City of London police at the scene, the teen was violating the Public Order Act, which 'prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.' There's a video of the teen receiving the summons from the City of London police at the demonstration (starting about 1 minute in), and now he's asking for advice on how to handle the court case."
If you help get the Metagovernment [metagovernment.org] established, then it will be up to the people to decide how the people are governed. Weird concept, I know.
Indymedia has a good article about this [indymedia.org.uk]. The protester, ironically, was objecting to "Fair Play", which is essentially harassment of any and all perceived foes. The citation identifies him and now he faces the same retaliation he objected to.
Quoth Wiki: Dramatic (or tragic) irony is a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.
And I avoid to call them "Church", just "Scientology" is sufficient.
Calling them "Cult" will also lend them credibility for something they aren't.
And by the way, isn't "Church" a Christian designation? But Scientology is a completely different thing, and has really not much to do with Christianity.
And by the way - My opinion is that you should be able to have a religion, or copyright, but never both.
Anyway - one person's view can be "Religion", another "Cult" and a third it can be "Lifestyle".
Once again, what would seem a basic 'right' is being brutally oppressed by an organization under the cloak of 'religion'. I wonder just how much longer this will continue? Until we are all 'clears' or cleared out of our money from the lawsuits?
Apart from Articles 10 and 11 of European Convention on Human Rights? Part of Human Rights Act.
Try and remember that first section of US constitution is based on English Bill or Rights (1689) and Scottish Claim of Right, which itself carries on a tradition of defining the limits of state power and citizens rights dating back to Magna Carta (which predates Columbus by 200 years).
Worth thinking about every time americans get all misty eyed about their own history.
That's not to say the UK is a perfect democracy, but neither is the US.
The government responded to this by advising the police and CPS to use existing legal powers to stop people inciting violence at demonstrations. They also decided to amend the Public Order Act 1986.
Now in this case, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, it seems like the original act was too strict.
However, this guy has to go in front of a jury. A jury is likely to be more sympathetic to him than the "Behead those who insult Islam" types. You can think of the British system pre Human Rights Act as follows
1) Bad things happen like the Sloan Square demonstration. 2) The Media covers them and whips up a firestorm of panic 3) The government gets legal advice as to whether existing legal powers are enough to stop Bad Things happening again. 4) They introduce new legislation and/or brief the police/CPS to use their powers more aggressively. The police arrest people and the CPS decides whether there is a case for them to answer in court. 5) New legislation might cause false positives like this case where harmless people are prosectuted 6) Hopefully the government will advise the police/CPS not to do this in future and possibly amend legislation 7) The people prosecuted should be found not guilty because the jury is briefed, or maybe the judge will throw the case out. Or maybe they will get busted in which case the media will stir up a firestorm and force the government to legislate.
It's kind of funky but the system does have checks an balances. Of course the Human Rights Act allows people prosecuted in step 7 to appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights or judges to strike down legislation which breaks the HRA. Which is not really a good thing if you believe in the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty", but there you are.
And before Americans sneer that this is adhoc, you're right. But this system has led to a stable society where individual freedoms have either increased or stayed constant for hundreds of years, far longer than the US system has existed.
Yea, I hear about this cult who worship a 2000 year old zombie Jew and believe they can turn bread and wine into his flesh and blood that then then devour in a cannibalistic ritual. Nutters eh?
More bizarre and/or insane than what? FFS man, talking telepathically to an imaginary friend who is solely responsible for all that happens in the universe (including putting dinosaur bones in place as is to fool us) compares to evil galactic rulers and volcanoes in a better light in exactly what way?
I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.
Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.
Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
How does bizarreness matter? The cult of scientology believes that evil space aliens murdered billions of other aliens by stuffing them into DC-10 like spaceships and blowing them up in earth's volcanoes with Hydrogen bombs. The cult of christianity believes that you can telepathically communicate with a dead god-fragment and tell him you love him and that he will accept you into his kingdom and cleanse you of a taint that was placed in all humanity by a rib-woman being tricked by a talking snake.
Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.
Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.
A religious cult, to the best of my understanding, shows the following features:
1) Is widely accepted to be a cult by those not involved. [like Scientology]
2) Is secretive regarding the beliefs of its members. [like Scientology]
3) Is secretive regarding the hierarchical organization of its members. [like Scientology]
To me, #3 is most concerning, and the best way to be labeled as a religious cult. Notice that almost all 'mainstream' religions are not guilty of #3 (e.g., the Catholic buck stops at the Pope), and rarely guilty of #2 (e.g., Muslims can point to the Koran), and also rarely guilty of #1.
4) In order to easier manipulate them, it will try to weaken the members by severing their ties with their families and friends.
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" [...] do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God... Deuteronomy 13:6-10
More like "wildly inaccurate." At least on the Mormon front.
a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder.
The Mormon church not only allows people to leave, there is an established process for removing your name from the records. You *will* be hassled about this if you opt to try it -- most leaders will make you ask a few times, they'll ask you if you're sure, they'll try to talk you out of it -- but in the end, they will drop you.
There's also the easier option, which consists of simply not going anymore and avoiding the people who periodically come by to try to reactivate you. I've heard a few outlandish tales of machinations in member's lives, but for the most part, the only tool the Mormon church has is outright preaching and a bit of peer pressure. It is remarkably easy to do whatever the hell you want, especially if you have even the smallest idea of when to keep your mouth shut.
an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.
I'd be interested to hear how you came by this the idea that everyday purchases are affected by religious affiliation with any real frequency in Utah, because it's complete bullshit.
There are a variety of problems I think someone who publicly leaves/denounces the Mormon church in Utah is likely to encounter, but with a few exceptions, they're pretty much all going to be directly related to coloring of social interactions with former peers inside of the church. But not only is there a significant enough non-Mormon presence inside of Utah that this wouldn't matter from an economic perspective, I don't believe I've met the Mormon that would actually refuse to sell to an ex-member.
I agree wholeheartedly. Christianity, and especially Islam would be seen as completely psychotic if they were not several thousand years of tradition surrounding these religions, and countless reforms to make them remain relevant in our technologically advanced world. Christianity has changed especially in its nature drastically over the last century alone. It just seems normal to us.
That doesn't make it any less a cult. Its still hurting us collectively.
1. There is no year 0. The year before year 1 was 1 BC.
2. They didn't know it was year 1 at the time. That whole thing was worked out many, many years later. It turns out that the guy that worked it out was wrong. The best guess is that the fellow you're talking about was born in 4 BC, but given the state of record keeping at the time (particularly given that fellow's official status at the time of his life and death), that has to be taken with a "Lot's wife" sized grain of salt.
Well, definitions vary wildly. In the course of my (philosophy) degree, I did quite a bit of study into religion, and generally speaking the following are considered good indicators of a "cult", though there is no single universal set of definitive criteria.
So, in general, a "cult":
Typically follows one or more highly charismatic leaders, whose word is taken to be unquestionable.
Clearly divides the world into "us" and "them".
Believes that the world outside the "us" group is fundamentally bad/evil.
As a result, believes that interaction with the outside world is dangerous to members of the "us" group and is to be avoided when possible, or carefully supervised.
As a result, tends to form more or less isolated enclaves to minimize contact with outsiders, or mediate such contact through trusted group members in positions of authority.
As a result, believes that untrained persons interacting with the outside world are tainted and need to be carefully reassimilated to the group.
Typically holds beliefs radically different from what is considered mainstream or acceptable for the immediately-surrounding society.
As a result of the above, typically experiences a high degree of tension with the outside world, which can create a feedback loop (above tendencies lead to tension, which aggravates above tendencies, which leads to more tension...).
Of course, many groups show one or more of these tendencies, but aren't widely considered (and really shouldn't be considered) "cults". And some groups that are "cults" show none of these tendencies. And this status can evolve over time; for example, many early Protestant movements were, by these criteria, "cults" at the time of their founding, but -- as Protestantism gained wider acceptance -- became closer to the mainstream and so lost many of the above tendencies.
Last time when someone critical of Scientology turned up dead [tbo.com], police was happy to believe he committed suicide, even though he had given no prior signs (nor had any reason to) kill himself.
You know that Scientology has infiltrated the police in the US in some cities?
"The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."
That's comforting. I wonder how many American cops, politicians, etc. the cult has on its payroll? Might as well disband the FBI and enlist Scientology as our intelligence service -- they seem to be much more effective at getting away with domestic espionage and dirty tricks.
I tried to post this a month and a half ago on Slashdot but it was rejected: Atlanta police arrest a peaceful protester at the March 15th worldwide protest [youtube.com]. Note the numerous police decked out in full riot gear, even though Anonymous had posed no threat to them or Scientology, and was very clear that this was a peaceful protest.
They then started issuing tickets to any cars that honked as they drove by. Second half of that video I linked, I shit you not.
From what I've read they were much better at the April and May protests, but it does show that the police's allegiances in some areas shift like crazy.
Much more effective than you can imagine. Check out this fascinating article about conspiracies that actually happened [cracked.com]. One of the entries is about Scientology's fairly successful effort at stealing back documents that made them look bad. From the government.
From the article:
Anyway, somewhere around 5,000 of Scientology's crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.
Can someone explain to me how this works. Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech. From this side of the pond, Britain clearly needs to get it's priorities straight before the movie "Brazil" because a reality.
He may have been better off advocating the death of all Scientologists because the FSM needs their blood to build the greatest pirate ship of all time.
The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
This action hereby has the Duke Nukem seal of approval.
I want to add to what cynicsreport said earlier in this topic. The word "cult" has commonly accepted definitions, and if Scientology fits that definition, then the sign was a statement of fact.
In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.
It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.
Why the heck is this tagged censorship? There's a law against insulting signs.
Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.
Would this still be tagged censorship if it were the Conservative Party instead of Scientology?
Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.
You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)
"Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."
Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.
For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are:
cult
a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.
Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)
Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.
Germany even put them under surveillance by the "Verfassungsschutz". Usually, something like this is reserved for groups that threaten the state's integrity, safety or the state itself.
So calling the CoS a "cult" seems rather tame by comparison.
The first problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
The next thing London will do is put up posters saying that you are secure beneath the watchful eyes [samizdata.net].
Perhaps they thought Orwell was writing an instruction manual?
Open source governance (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why we need open source governance [wikipedia.org].
If you help get the Metagovernment [metagovernment.org] established, then it will be up to the people to decide how the people are governed. Weird concept, I know.
Parent
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Interesting)
Indymedia has a good article about this [indymedia.org.uk]. The protester, ironically, was objecting to "Fair Play", which is essentially harassment of any and all perceived foes. The citation identifies him and now he faces the same retaliation he objected to.
Parent
Re:Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like irony to me.
Parent
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Informative)
After all the church has spent a considerable amount of money on wooing that particular police department.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomofinformation.religion [guardian.co.uk]
It is the "All animals are equal, some are more equal than the other" bit of Orwell.
Parent
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling them "Cult" will also lend them credibility for something they aren't.
And by the way, isn't "Church" a Christian designation? But Scientology is a completely different thing, and has really not much to do with Christianity.
And by the way - My opinion is that you should be able to have a religion, or copyright, but never both.
Anyway - one person's view can be "Religion", another "Cult" and a third it can be "Lifestyle".
Parent
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Funny)
IT'S A TRPA!
Parent
Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
For reference, see SCO, RIAA...
Parent
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
Try and remember that first section of US constitution is based on English Bill or Rights (1689) and Scottish Claim of Right, which itself carries on a tradition of defining the limits of state power and citizens rights dating back to Magna Carta (which predates Columbus by 200 years).
Worth thinking about every time americans get all misty eyed about their own history.
That's not to say the UK is a perfect democracy, but neither is the US.
Parent
Re:Once again (Score:5, Interesting)
E.g. post the "Behead those who insult Islam" demonstration there was much hostile media coverage.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=6403 [speroforum.com]
The government responded to this by advising the police and CPS to use existing legal powers to stop people inciting violence at demonstrations. They also decided to amend the Public Order Act 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 [wikipedia.org]
Now in this case, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, it seems like the original act was too strict.
However, this guy has to go in front of a jury. A jury is likely to be more sympathetic to him than the "Behead those who insult Islam" types. You can think of the British system pre Human Rights Act as follows
1) Bad things happen like the Sloan Square demonstration.
2) The Media covers them and whips up a firestorm of panic
3) The government gets legal advice as to whether existing legal powers are enough to stop Bad Things happening again.
4) They introduce new legislation and/or brief the police/CPS to use their powers more aggressively. The police arrest people and the CPS decides whether there is a case for them to answer in court.
5) New legislation might cause false positives like this case where harmless people are prosectuted
6) Hopefully the government will advise the police/CPS not to do this in future and possibly amend legislation
7) The people prosecuted should be found not guilty because the jury is briefed, or maybe the judge will throw the case out. Or maybe they will get busted in which case the media will stir up a firestorm and force the government to legislate.
It's kind of funky but the system does have checks an balances. Of course the Human Rights Act allows people prosecuted in step 7 to appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights or judges to strike down legislation which breaks the HRA. Which is not really a good thing if you believe in the concept of "parliamentary sovereignty", but there you are.
And before Americans sneer that this is adhoc, you're right. But this system has led to a stable society where individual freedoms have either increased or stayed constant for hundreds of years, far longer than the US system has existed.
Parent
Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
~S
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
Is everyone clear now?
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Funny)
Animate Dead is a 3rd level spell.
Raise Dead is a 5th level spell.
Resurrection is a 7th level spell.
And true res is a 9th level spell
Don't be insulting God by calling him a low level spellcaster, pls. K? Thx.
Parent
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Insightful)
I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.
Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.
Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.
I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.
Parent
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
A religious cult, to the best of my understanding, shows the following features:
1) Is widely accepted to be a cult by those not involved. [like Scientology]
2) Is secretive regarding the beliefs of its members. [like Scientology]
3) Is secretive regarding the hierarchical organization of its members. [like Scientology]
To me, #3 is most concerning, and the best way to be labeled as a religious cult. Notice that almost all 'mainstream' religions are not guilty of #3 (e.g., the Catholic buck stops at the Pope), and rarely guilty of #2 (e.g., Muslims can point to the Koran), and also rarely guilty of #1.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
4) In order to easier manipulate them, it will try to weaken the members by severing their ties with their families and friends.
is extremely important, for the devastating consequences it has.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" [...] do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God
Parent
Wildly un-PC? Try wildly inaccurate. (Score:5, Insightful)
More like "wildly inaccurate." At least on the Mormon front.
a short list of religions that fit this description would include not only Scientology, but Mormonism and Islam. All three of these fundamentally disallow their members from choosing not to be members, up to and including outright murder.
The Mormon church not only allows people to leave, there is an established process for removing your name from the records. You *will* be hassled about this if you opt to try it -- most leaders will make you ask a few times, they'll ask you if you're sure, they'll try to talk you out of it -- but in the end, they will drop you.
There's also the easier option, which consists of simply not going anymore and avoiding the people who periodically come by to try to reactivate you. I've heard a few outlandish tales of machinations in member's lives, but for the most part, the only tool the Mormon church has is outright preaching and a bit of peer pressure. It is remarkably easy to do whatever the hell you want, especially if you have even the smallest idea of when to keep your mouth shut.
an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.
I'd be interested to hear how you came by this the idea that everyday purchases are affected by religious affiliation with any real frequency in Utah, because it's complete bullshit.
There are a variety of problems I think someone who publicly leaves/denounces the Mormon church in Utah is likely to encounter, but with a few exceptions, they're pretty much all going to be directly related to coloring of social interactions with former peers inside of the church. But not only is there a significant enough non-Mormon presence inside of Utah that this wouldn't matter from an economic perspective, I don't believe I've met the Mormon that would actually refuse to sell to an ex-member.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't make it any less a cult. Its still hurting us collectively.
You should watch this video on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ [youtube.com]
And there are a series of videos on Youtube by a guy called Thunderf00t that is very intelligent about this topic.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
2. They didn't know it was year 1 at the time. That whole thing was worked out many, many years later. It turns out that the guy that worked it out was wrong. The best guess is that the fellow you're talking about was born in 4 BC, but given the state of record keeping at the time (particularly given that fellow's official status at the time of his life and death), that has to be taken with a "Lot's wife" sized grain of salt.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, definitions vary wildly. In the course of my (philosophy) degree, I did quite a bit of study into religion, and generally speaking the following are considered good indicators of a "cult", though there is no single universal set of definitive criteria.
So, in general, a "cult":
Of course, many groups show one or more of these tendencies, but aren't widely considered (and really shouldn't be considered) "cults". And some groups that are "cults" show none of these tendencies. And this status can evolve over time; for example, many early Protestant movements were, by these criteria, "cults" at the time of their founding, but -- as Protestantism gained wider acceptance -- became closer to the mainstream and so lost many of the above tendencies.
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
- religion. >= x believers
- cult. < x and >= 2 believers
- nutcase. 1 believer
- mythology. 0 believers (but was >x at some point)
- fantasy or science fiction. 0 believers (if rises above 0, see above)
x is obviously subjective.Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
This could be just what we needed (Score:5, Interesting)
I predict: Score 1 for the good guys.
The only way this could be worse for Scientology is if the boy turns up dead anytime soon.
Re:This could be just what we needed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This could be just what we needed (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that Scientology has infiltrated the police in the US in some cities?
Parent
That was Version 2.0 of The Sign (Score:5, Funny)
I think he was quite well-spoken, really.
Oh, Great. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's comforting. I wonder how many American cops, politicians, etc. the cult has on its payroll? Might as well disband the FBI and enlist Scientology as our intelligence service -- they seem to be much more effective at getting away with domestic espionage and dirty tricks.
Re:Oh, Great. (Score:5, Informative)
They then started issuing tickets to any cars that honked as they drove by. Second half of that video I linked, I shit you not.
From what I've read they were much better at the April and May protests, but it does show that the police's allegiances in some areas shift like crazy.
Parent
Re:Oh, Great. (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
Parent
Challenge the law in the European Court (Score:5, Interesting)
This court actually works and has authority to rule in these cases. Might have to exhaust the legal avenues in the UK first though.
What he needs is... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
He may have been better off advocating the death of all Scientologists because the FSM needs their blood to build the greatest pirate ship of all time.
Balls of steel (Score:5, Insightful)
statements of fact can be prosecuted? (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.
It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.
Re:Thats right (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Thats right (Score:5, Funny)
Scientologists have copies of the movie Battlefield Earth.
My money's on the Thetan-freaks...
Parent
Re:Not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck is this tagged censorship?
Exhibit B:
There's a law against insulting signs.
Parent
Re:Not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.
Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.
You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)
"Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."
Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.
Parent
Re:Easy win - bring a dictionary (Score:5, Interesting)
- a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
- a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
- something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
Wave that dictionary page in front of the judge and "I Rest My Case". All of those three descriptives apply specifically and directly to Scientology.Now if the Judge/prosecution want to base an arrest on "when you say that scientology is a cult, you mean it as an insult" it is near-impossible to prove intent in a court of law. (at least, until they work our how to read my mind from a distance in a scientifically verifiable manner)
Anyhow, any defence lawyer would simply declare this "law" irrelevant and illegal - how can it possibly be legal to declare that writing a statement of fact on a sign and waving it around in public is illegal.
Parent
Re:move to germany (Score:5, Informative)
So calling the CoS a "cult" seems rather tame by comparison.
Parent