An anonymous reader notes that following our discussion this week about the 15-year-old who was under threat of prosecution for calling Scientology a cult in a recent demonstration, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is no case to answer. They have issued new guidance to the City of London police clarifying when they can use their public order powers. Quoting: "A [CPS] spokesman said: 'In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting. Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression.' A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: 'The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behavior at a demonstration might be considered to be "threatening, abusive or insulting." The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.'"
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday May 23 2008, @08:49AM (#23516578)
Dear Swampash:
It has come to our attention that you have made an unauthorized use of our copyrighted work entitled Cult of Scientology (the "Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. We have reserved all rights in the Work. Your post entitled 'Watch out, City of London cops...' illegally utilizes our Work. By using the name Cult of Scientology you have violated our copyrighted work.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the our name as the basis for 'Watch out, City of London cops...' nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed our rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to us, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by April 1, 2009 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.
Now, I'm an athiest, but I can't stand the misuse of terminology, even if it feels clever to do so.
Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.
To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.
Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.
Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.
Since the Church of Scientology is a hierarchal organization, it can be classified as a cult, but there are practitioners of Scientology beliefs in the 'Freezone' which do not answer to the CoS command and are not cultlike.
If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.
And if you really believe that it is impossible to distinguish between the level of coercion leveled on a member of say the UK Church of England and say Scientology hen I suspect that you have not been subjected to a cult firsthand.
Wow if that's the standard by which you judge religions, and presumably the actions that must be taken to stop them, you must be advocating for nuking mecca.
Because by the standard of amounts of violence and death used to keep the cult/religion together, islam certainly spans the crown by a margin of at least a few hundred million deaths :
About 100 million people died, and that's counting only 1/3rd of the eastward expansion of islam, in about 400 years, and that's the low death toll estimate.
The inquisition is less than a grain of sand with it's estimated death toll of about 2000 (lowest) to about 50000 (highest).
So in comparison : the largest ever problematic section of Christian history caused 1/2000 th the amount of deaths as ONE muslim religious expansion war. And that's using the highest death toll estimate on the christian side and a low one of the muslim side (otherwise it'd be 2000 versus 300 million).
At the westward side of expansion there were a lot of cultures in the way of the muslims. Hardly a trace remains : Egyptians, Tunisians, Carthage, the Berbers, tons of Jewish kingdoms, twice as many small Christian kingdoms (and we're hardly 1/6th of the distance westward, one can only imagine the amount of culture lost)
If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion.
Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?
Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
I would say Christianity and any other religion falls in line with this. It doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation, but that's generally how its used.
And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter.
I blanche at using the Webster's dictionary to solve the debate...as you can see they have 5 definitions.
Perhaps my goal is to sensibly define the radical difference between the Church Scientology and say, the Epsicopal Church.
Saying they are both cults waters down the human rights abuses of the CoS. If you haven't studied how the CoS operates, I recommend it. It is a fantastic look at merciless authoritarian control.
Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.
And in the real world, the boundaries are not always easy to define. There is no binary difference. All we can say is that on the extreme end, very strong cults have obvious and serious differences from very relaxed religions. But inbetween, they mingle and mix.
Remember, for example, that the catholic church only accepted freedom of religion in the early 60s. Before that, leaving christianity behind was as unthinkable according to the official church doctrine, as leaving Scientology is today.
Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.
Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
Maybe he meant these passages:
Luke 14:26
"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."
Mark 10:17-31 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday May 23 2008, @09:29AM (#23517148)
Both of these are easily explained if you understand previous langauges and translations. Instead of me explaining the first passage in Luke 14:26, I'll give you a link http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm [biblicalhebrew.com].
As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.
Old Testament! Fun. I can do that too. Take a gander at this OT family "value" that you'll never hear preached on or read in your church:
Abraham married his sister and god blessed the marriage: Gen ch. 17 and 20
Abe had many slave sluts Gen. 25:6
Jacob "has" both sisters Gen 29
god kills Er, Judah tells Onan to rape Er's wife but Onan at least has the decensy to not ejaculate in her which makes god mad that he didn't ejaculate in her so god kills him Gen. 38. This wonderful story you'll never hear in Sunday school yet it is the basis for church teachings against masturbation and birth control.
God murders children Gen. 12
God decides girl babies are dirtier than boy babies Gen 12
Kids who yell at their parents should be killed Gen. 20
If your son is stubborn and rebellious don't use Dr. Dobson's "Tough Love" - just stone them Deut. 21.
many more wonderful "family values" can be quickly found then verified at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html [skepticsan...dbible.com]
and yes, I read all those long before I ever even discovered that handy Concordance.
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven.
No... He said that to one person. A guy who asked him, "What must I do?" A guy who's particular hang-up seems to have been attachment to his riches. He did not say that to any random person. (He also didn't say, sell it all and give it to me.)
You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
No, you can't. He didn't say that. You added a piece: "only love God".
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 [gnpcb.org])
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples [gnpcb.org] of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
I am in the UK, and had thought that Scientology had been legally deemed 'not a religion' in this country (they wanted to be a religion for e.g. tax purposes). I could be somewhat out-of-date, though.
i would say amongst the slashdot community it certainly is, but in wider society, its a simple descriptor of a small religion. you may happily supply the negative connotations of calling something a cult, but as these judges wisely ruled, the negative connotations are not automatically implied
if the student held up a sign saying "bill gates is a geek", amongst the 13 year old male jock contingent, this is a horrible slander. but with the rise of the internet, its almost a compliment, especially as "geek" implies new wealth nowadays
The CPS isn't made up of judges, it's the Crown Prosecution Service; they're solicitors. They decide whether there's a case to charge someone with a crime or not. In this case they decided, rightly, that there wasn't. It didn't even get in front of a judge.
In Latin there is no difference between "Cult" and "Religion" -- its the one word. The State Religion was "Cultus Deorum" -- cult of the gods. At a very basic, technical level, there is nothing wrong with the term.
On the other hand, in the age of middle east mega-religions, it's pretty much taken on the meaning of "unpopular, wrong, pseudo-religious scam," which Scientology also clearly is.
Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too.
but the point is, Scientology is only out there confuse reality and roll you for your wallet -- same as every other religion.
By your broad definition, any community is a small religion, and that's not true. There is a common bond, but Slashdot users are more like what Kurt Vonnegut called a grandfaloon, which is a gathering of individuals with no overt tying bond, like the Order of Elks. While Elks are a philanthropic group and that's their bond (as in fraternal), the ties here are topics of nerdish/computing bonds. But even though the LinuxOphiles, MacFanBois/girlz, WindowsDefenderz, and the hackers bond, slashdot is not a small
The bigger problem is addressing the effective infiltration by $cientologi$t$ of various police farces and justice departments.
It shall be remembered that 20 years ago, the cult of $scientology was deemed a criminal organization in Ontario after it infiltrated the Ontario Ministry of Justice and proceed to trash their evidence file. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recently ruled so.
Which letter do you change to make "cult" into "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing organisation pretending to be a religion for entirely self serving purposes"?
Actually, I would bet that this is exactly what those Scientology nuts wanted to happen. Thanks to the Fair Game [wikipedia.org] policy, identified critics of the Scientology get harassed or may even "disappear". These things are happening right now. This is why you see people wearing masks at the Scientology protests.
Now this guy has been clearly identified. They now know his name and where he lives. Getting in trouble for some kind of "hate crime" thing is way better than having the cult of Scientology harassing you the rest of your life. Having the case thrown out isn't much of a victory at all.
I saw that Ontario is passing (or passed, maybe) new hate crime legislation that's limited to offenses against a "vulnerable minority". If the law is going to be applied selectively to defend only groups the prosecutors care about, it seems preferable to just state it up front like they're doing.
So using the word "cult" is not insulting or offensive, so he gets away... well, good for him, but that's the wrong principle. Freedom of speech is serious business, damnit! Everyone must have the right to insult and offend and wipe the butt clean on the holy books of every damn religion out there.
While I don't disagree, I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if the statement was "The Anglican church is a dangerous cult." The wording of the ruling basically says this is criticism and is fine. It will be interesting to see this tested.
All negative connotations aside, the only functional difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance and usually membership size.
There have been several major changes to British liberties recently - the Terrorism Act is the beast behind almost all of them. Those changes - such as the outright ban on demonstrating near parliament and the requirement of express permission in order to do so nearby - are completely distinct from what has happened here.
Also, don't confuse the recent legal order curtailing legitimate demonstrations to a specified area either (Brian Haw [parliament-square.org.uk] has been protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament for 6 years!)
What has happened here is quite simple: an irate Scientologist who doesn't know the Public Order Act as much as the officer involved, persuaded a PC to halt the demonstration because of the wording on the sign.
This was a mistake by the officer based upon the facts and wording of the sign which, as the CPS said, cannot be deemed to be threatening, insulting or abusive (Public Order Act).
The "cult" description of Scientology is now a matter of fact within UK (there's an EU opinion too) born from the obiter of Justice Latey from a 1984 high court ruling which the sign incongruously quoted.
The officer should have better exercised his office of constable, chosen to read what written, and make up his own mind (in the UK a police officer is responsible for his own actions, he cannot be commanded by those senior to do anything he does not believe is lawful - he is personally liable for what he does and does not, save for contractual/employment obligations). Here the PC showed he was inadequately aware of the Public Order Act which permits the 15 year old's protest.
The CPS was right. They did the lawful thing. It would never have gone to court from the get go. It is an utterly laughable mistake by the PC that even Lionel Hutz would have recognised!
I hope the London constabulary involved is property briefed on their public order duties. I personally feel this was entirely avoidable - especially since R(Laporte) [fairfordco...ion.org.uk].
Scientology doesn't really care about winning these cases. One of their tactics to cause fear and control people is by prosecuting and harassing them. This is nothing new!
No mention of what's going to happen to the police who have have abused their power. Probably the same thing that happened to the chaps who shot that poor Charles de Menezes eight times in the head without provocation, nothing.
What ever happened to the days of the local Bobby? Friend to all law abiding citizens, there to help and not hinder. Nowdays when you REPORT a crime they're rude to you.
If you read the article, what the CPS said is that to be considered "abusive or insulting" under the law, it would have to be offensive (as seen from a neutral bystander's point of view, not the CoS). So it is a higher standard than what you might think of as the colloquial meaning of "insulting".
He was read the "Section 5 Public Order Act of 1986", told to remove the sign, and a short time later had the sign removed by police who then issued him a summons. Clear enough for you?
While I fear that _anything_ being posted below this rather abusive first post will get modded Troll, I have to say that wasn't all that offtopic in the first place.
Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.
In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.
Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans).
That's not true.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-im-glad-nick-griffin-was-acquitted-235.html [libdemvoice.org] Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".
Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn't be enough to land you in jail.
Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam."
Although he apologises now, Rahman's remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn't be enough to get you convicted.
I'm a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.
So the "Behead those who insult Islam" guy was jailed, the scientology protester and the guy that called Islam a "wicked vicious faith" were not. Seems fair enough to me. Rahman clearly stepped over the incitement line and Griffin didn't (or more likely didn't step over it in public).
Rahman got six years in prison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizanur_Rahman [wikipedia.org] He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them." [3] On November 9, 2006, he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred[4]. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of inciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.[5] At his retrial in 2007 he was additionally convicted on the solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison.
The government must really hate you if they keep trying you until they get the right result. And everyone else must hate you too if no one questions this dubious piece of gamesmanship.
Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.
I'd say France's suburbs have already fallen to the Islamists. And Malmo in Sweden is pretty close to doing so. But the British state has centuries of experience ruling all sorts of people. The people at that demonstration are a tiny, unpopular minority on state benefits and the rules can be rewritten to make life very unpleasant for them.
In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.
I agree it would have been laughable if this 15 year old Anonymous guy had been prosecuted. I'd throw the book at Rahman though. And rewrite it and throw it again if the first time didn't do the trick.
Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
It has come to our attention that you have made an unauthorized use of our copyrighted work entitled Cult of Scientology (the "Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. We have reserved all rights in the Work. Your post entitled 'Watch out, City of London cops...' illegally utilizes our Work. By using the name Cult of Scientology you have violated our copyrighted work.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the our name as the basis for 'Watch out, City of London cops...' nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed our rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to us, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by April 1, 2009 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
Terryeo
Parent
Co$ and City of London Police bribes (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how much would City of London Police go for on eBay? Pretty cheap probably.
Parent
Sudden outbreak of common sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every religion is a cult, just a popular one. Scientology isn't popular in any definition of the world and as such "cult" is very appropriate.
Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.
To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.
Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.
Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.
Since the Church of Scientology is a hierarchal organization, it can be classified as a cult, but there are practitioners of Scientology beliefs in the 'Freezone' which do not answer to the CoS command and are not cultlike.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.
When contemplating "religion as cult" you also have to consider those that are in a poor position
to fend of against "mere persuasion".
Also, the term cult itself is something that has become demonized and not used in it's original
context. It's meaning has already been twisted.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really believe that it is impossible to distinguish between the level of coercion leveled on a member of say the UK Church of England and say Scientology hen I suspect that you have not been subjected to a cult firsthand.
Parent
So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because by the standard of amounts of violence and death used to keep the cult/religion together, islam certainly spans the crown by a margin of at least a few hundred million deaths :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2342790/Hindu-Indian-History-Islamic-Invasion [scribd.com]
About 100 million people died, and that's counting only 1/3rd of the eastward expansion of islam, in about 400 years, and that's the low death toll estimate.
The inquisition is less than a grain of sand with it's estimated death toll of about 2000 (lowest) to about 50000 (highest).
So in comparison : the largest ever problematic section of Christian history caused 1/2000 th the amount of deaths as ONE muslim religious expansion war. And that's using the highest death toll estimate on the christian side and a low one of the muslim side (otherwise it'd be 2000 versus 300 million).
At the westward side of expansion there were a lot of cultures in the way of the muslims. Hardly a trace remains : Egyptians, Tunisians, Carthage, the Berbers, tons of Jewish kingdoms, twice as many small Christian kingdoms (and we're hardly 1/6th of the distance westward, one can only imagine the amount of culture lost)
So tell me, what do you think ?
Parent
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?
Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
cult
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
I would say Christianity and any other religion falls in line with this. It doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation, but that's generally how its used.
And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter.
Agnostically yours,
Justin Hopewell
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps my goal is to sensibly define the radical difference between the Church Scientology and say, the Epsicopal Church.
Saying they are both cults waters down the human rights abuses of the CoS. If you haven't studied how the CoS operates, I recommend it. It is a fantastic look at merciless authoritarian control.
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, for example, that the catholic church only accepted freedom of religion in the early 60s. Before that, leaving christianity behind was as unthinkable according to the official church doctrine, as leaving Scientology is today.
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Luke 14:26
"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."
Mark 10:17-31
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 [gnpcb.org])
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples [gnpcb.org] of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
Parent
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
phunctor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:3, Insightful)
if the student held up a sign saying "bill gates is a geek", amongst the 13 year old male jock contingent, this is a horrible slander. but with the rise of the internet, its almost a compliment, especially as "geek" implies new wealth nowadays
Re:is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:5, Informative)
The CPS isn't made up of judges, it's the Crown Prosecution Service; they're solicitors. They decide whether there's a case to charge someone with a crime or not. In this case they decided, rightly, that there wasn't. It didn't even get in front of a judge.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(That's actually a bit of generalization; it's also responsible for actually prosecution people if they do decide there is a case.)
Re:is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, in the age of middle east mega-religions, it's pretty much taken on the meaning of "unpopular, wrong, pseudo-religious scam," which Scientology also clearly is.
Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too.
but the point is, Scientology is only out there confuse reality and roll you for your wallet -- same as every other religion.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The bigger porblem (Score:5, Informative)
It shall be remembered that 20 years ago, the cult of $scientology was deemed a criminal organization in Ontario after it infiltrated the Ontario Ministry of Justice and proceed to trash their evidence file. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recently ruled so.
I'd have thrown the book at him (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd have thrown the book at him (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Nice to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I would bet that this is exactly what those Scientology nuts wanted to happen. Thanks to the Fair Game [wikipedia.org] policy, identified critics of the Scientology get harassed or may even "disappear". These things are happening right now. This is why you see people wearing masks at the Scientology protests.
Now this guy has been clearly identified. They now know his name and where he lives. Getting in trouble for some kind of "hate crime" thing is way better than having the cult of Scientology harassing you the rest of your life. Having the case thrown out isn't much of a victory at all.
Parent
Re:Nice to see (Score:4, Informative)
2) the prosecutors refuse to take the issue to court, and clarify to the cops what is or isn't allowed
Sounds like a workable system to me.
Parent
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it walks like a duck... (Score:3, Funny)
Right for the wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Oblig. Simpsons (Score:4, Funny)
An Anonymous reader (Score:4, Funny)
Pope's cult? (Score:3, Insightful)
All negative connotations aside, the only functional difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance and usually membership size.
Tom, come out of the closet (Score:5, Funny)
It's the law - don't expect police to know it (Score:5, Informative)
There have been several major changes to British liberties recently - the Terrorism Act is the beast behind almost all of them. Those changes - such as the outright ban on demonstrating near parliament and the requirement of express permission in order to do so nearby - are completely distinct from what has happened here.
Also, don't confuse the recent legal order curtailing legitimate demonstrations to a specified area either (Brian Haw [parliament-square.org.uk] has been protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament for 6 years!)
What has happened here is quite simple: an irate Scientologist who doesn't know the Public Order Act as much as the officer involved, persuaded a PC to halt the demonstration because of the wording on the sign.
This was a mistake by the officer based upon the facts and wording of the sign which, as the CPS said, cannot be deemed to be threatening, insulting or abusive (Public Order Act).
The "cult" description of Scientology is now a matter of fact within UK (there's an EU opinion too) born from the obiter of Justice Latey from a 1984 high court ruling which the sign incongruously quoted.
The officer should have better exercised his office of constable, chosen to read what written, and make up his own mind (in the UK a police officer is responsible for his own actions, he cannot be commanded by those senior to do anything he does not believe is lawful - he is personally liable for what he does and does not, save for contractual/employment obligations). Here the PC showed he was inadequately aware of the Public Order Act which permits the 15 year old's protest.
The CPS was right. They did the lawful thing. It would never have gone to court from the get go. It is an utterly laughable mistake by the PC that even Lionel Hutz would have recognised!
I hope the London constabulary involved is property briefed on their public order duties. I personally feel this was entirely avoidable - especially since R(Laporte) [fairfordco...ion.org.uk].
Matt
Scientology Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
How funny there's... (Score:5, Interesting)
What ever happened to the days of the local Bobby? Friend to all law abiding citizens, there to help and not hinder. Nowdays when you REPORT a crime they're rude to you.
What the fuck happened?
Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Would be nice to know more details. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Allah akbar (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.
In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.
Parent
Re:Allah akbar (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-im-glad-nick-griffin-was-acquitted-235.html [libdemvoice.org]
Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".
Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn't be enough to land you in jail.
Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam."
Although he apologises now, Rahman's remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn't be enough to get you convicted.
I'm a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.
So the "Behead those who insult Islam" guy was jailed, the scientology protester and the guy that called Islam a "wicked vicious faith" were not. Seems fair enough to me. Rahman clearly stepped over the incitement line and Griffin didn't (or more likely didn't step over it in public).
Rahman got six years in prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizanur_Rahman [wikipedia.org]
He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them." [3] On November 9, 2006, he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred[4]. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of inciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.[5] At his retrial in 2007 he was additionally convicted on the solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison.
The government must really hate you if they keep trying you until they get the right result. And everyone else must hate you too if no one questions this dubious piece of gamesmanship.
Parent