UK Prosecutors Say 'Cult' Acceptable 357
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.'"
Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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
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.
Nice to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
--
phunctor
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cult != Religion (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.
Right for the wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, there is an argument that we shouldn't have to distinguish between cult and religion - it's a shame that saying "Scientology is a dangerous religion" isn't enough.
Re:Nice to see (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:1, Insightful)
Just because it's mainstream doesn't make it right.
It's all the same crap, it's a HUMAN-CONTROL-CLASS, with subclasses of Christianity and Scientology.
Religions all have the same effect, they control the weak and bend them to the will of those in power.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Right for the wrong reason (Score:3, Insightful)
I may not like you bashing my faith but won't it do more good to debate you about the merits of my faith than to threaten legal action against you? Who knows I may get you to see things the way I do.
Then again, I don't like people who try to get people to see the world like they do by force either...
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone advocates beliefs of one sort or another. If you are forced to believe something against your own free will... that is mind control.
From the way you are speaking, you must rush out to the shops in an excited panic after every commercial ad break.
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.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.
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.
Re:Nice to see (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientology Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:3, Insightful)
You were simply mistaken when you said that he taught that we have to do that. Really? So when God told Abraham to leave his home and travel to a new land, it was pointless to record that because it was only relevant to him? When God told him to sacrifice Isaac, there was no point in recording it? When a prophet told David to repent of his adultery and murder, there was no point in recording it?
A statement doesn't have to be directed at me for me to learn from it.
The reason that you don't understand is that, as you have said, you've never studied the Bible. Yes, that is the problem. That is their error. So why are you content to engage in their foolishness? Why repeat nonsense like "Jesus taught people to hate their families an love only God", when he didn't? My goodness. Do you have any idea what you just said? Read those two sentences together, and find the inconsistency. You've never studied it, but you somehow magically possess the sure knowledge that it is a pile of inconsistent crap? You've never studied it, but you are willing to make claims about what it teaches? You rejected it out of ignorance of it?
So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The group is the member's sole source of support and validation. Any other form of emotional or intellectual support especially from skeptical family members is strongly discouraged and/or punished.
2. The group demands unreasonable amounts of the member's time and/or money. "Unreasonable" being defined as an amount that makes it very difficult to fulfill obligations outside the group like paying bills, attending family functions, or even being able to afford decent food.
Clearly, one can belong to a religious group without demands of that magnitude being regularly expected.
Being insulting is a crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that hate speech, inciting a crime, or defamation are the only types of speech that are illegal?
So what does freedom of speech mean then if you can't insult anyone or any organization? It's negative criticism generally insulting?
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 ?
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...
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.
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:3, Insightful)
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. If "cults of personality" count, then plenty of alleged atheists are really religious, which given your explosion of anger in the next sentence I think you would take issue with.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed
Marshal as much deliberately stupid and useless pedantry in an effort to fail to understand as you want. The fact is, atheists murdered millions of Christians due to their beliefs.
And if you weren't being deliberately stupid, maybe you would have gotten the point which is that of course the "lumping" of all atheists with Soviet totalitarians is invalid, just as lumping in all Christians with the Inquisitors is invalid. In fact, the Soviets had more in common with the Inquisition than Soviets do with Atheists or the Inquisition with Christianity in the present.
Like the word "practicing" changes that.
Re:is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm an atheist too, but it's radically disingenuous to say or imply that all religions are a means of social control. It may very well be the case that some or many or most of them are, but even if you had said that (and hopefully backed it up with some sort of evidence), it would be non-sequitur in the context of ChromeAeonium's comments. He/she was discussing his/her own personal church community as a counter-example to your assertion that all religions are out for money. Come back to you, and you're talking about suicide bombers (shifting the goalposts), the Catholic Church (may be true, but one example does not an argument make), Socrates (appeal to authority), back to Abrahamic religions (still doesn't address the counterexample), and then some diatribe about puritanism - which, again, is entirely unrelated to your claims about money-driven religious institutions.
It's people like you, bsDaemon, who help to justify theists' frequent claims that atheism is just another religion. You've done nothing but lump emotional criticisms upon religion when there's plenty of logical, rational criticisms that go over much better, and which are fundamentally more convincing. Not to mention that the money or power-driven aspects of some religions are not universal to all religions - they're very common, but the root cause of it is superstition, which you barely touched on! Superstition is the true enemy here, not religion. Without superstition, you are still left with socialization, community, altruism, social welfare, philosophy, etc. - which are all neutral at worst.
Re:Allah akbar (Score:3, Insightful)