UK Teen Cited For Calling Scientology a "Cult" 995
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."
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.
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Funny)
Britain 1, USA 0 (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that English speaking countries are in a race to see who can become "Oceania" first. Britain is winning, but then again Eric Arthur Blair [wikipedia.org] was British. I'm starting to believe some of the wags at slashdot who say he was an optimist (I think someone's sig says it too).
The thing is, the fact that this kid was prosecuted says to me that any British subject can be thrown in jail at any time at all for saying anything at all. The dictionary [reference.com] puts no derogatory meaning at all to the word "cult".The only one of the eight definitions posted that can in any way be considered derogatory is fittingly #6 [wikipedia.org], and Scientology is certainly unorthodox and extremist. Then again, so are Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and Judism (not to mention Atheism) in Britain (afaik), and Christianity is unorthodox and extremist in Muslim countries.
It is now illegal to discuss religion in Britain. If you are British and you post a comment in this thread, your government can throw you in jail.
But we in the US don't have a lot of room to talk. As I wrote [kuro5hin.org] two years ago,As I argued in the linked story, the US bill of rights in "our" Constitution has become meaningless in the last two centuries.
Welcome to Oceana, formerly called "Earth", number six.
Re:Britain 1, USA 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Every religion in the world can be considered a cult by other religions because their beliefs are not mainstream in the other society.
Even within a religion you can have cult references. American Christian Fundamentalists are certainly considered a cult by most Catholics and Anglicans that I know.
Re:Britain 1, USA 0 (Score:5, Informative)
First, on matters of adherence to biblical doctrine, St. Francis said this: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity". This means that difference of opinion over worship style, dress, etc. should be unimportant, and shouldn't get in the way of focusing on the essentials of learning to follow God, and those differences don't define cults.
When defining a cult, Dr. Walter Martin (RIP) wrote the definitive work in the 1970's called "The Kingdom of the Cults". It is an exhaustive, massive reference book that simply points out where each and every religious group in the world differs from Biblical doctrine.
You know when you're in a cult when:
1) The group is led by a charismatic leader who demands obedience to his word above any others.
2) The leader insists on doing your thinking for you, i.e. arranged marriages, etc.
3) The group grants teachings that are not the Bible equal or greater standing than the Bible.
4) The leader teaches that all other churches/groups/whatever are missing it, and only HIS way is really hearing God.
5) The leader doesn't even attempt to live by his own principles.
Sounds like Scientology fits the definition to me.
I'm definitely crossing the U.K. off my travel list. They've gone completely 'round the bend.
Re:I forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
In today's world? +1, Insightful.
Re:Britain 1, USA 0 (Score:5, Interesting)
It would appear that an independent investigation by another regulatory authority needs to be carried out to investigate possibly corrupt links between the scientology cult and the London police force.
The cult has a history of being willing to traitorously infiltrate government legal authorities to serve it's own subversive and criminal purposes. Perhaps this flagrant abuse of the law will justly trigger that investigation. I am sure a lot of other countries will be taking a very close look at what happens in this case and whether the cult intends to or already has extended this pattern of behaviour into other countries.
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, I'm not sure how it would help in this case. Even if "the people" were making the laws there would still be a need for enforcement therefore still something resembling police. This, so far, is not a case of "government overreaching", but rather "police overreaching". The police are part of the government, but ultimately they are individuals. It becomes a case of "government overreaching" if and only if the young man is prosecuted and found guilty. I wouldn't be half surprised if the the Crown Prosecutors drop this like a hot potato.
Rise of the hive mind (Score:5, Interesting)
The phenomenon of anonymous, whatever you may personally think of their current "war" on Scientology, is something rather unique in human history. We have a relatively well coordinated, well mannered, peaceful "organization" having no membership, no particular leaders, no apparent fund-raising mechanism, and no organizational structure. Rather than being coordinated by a chain of command with structured communication channels, it seems to be organized chaotically by "memes" - ideas that become something like a cliche.
Despite all these properties which, in times past, would have been severe limitations, anonymous has now coordinated an international protest at dozens of cities around the world involving many thousands of people. This is simply incredible!
I believe thisto be an artifact of the Internet age, and a sign of things to come. While anonymous "members" appears to mostly consist of the younger college age, remember that the college kids of today are the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global telecommunications. Just like hippie movement of the 1960's was the first generation to grow up with ubiquitous global communications in the form of television, so does the current new generation of anonymous represent the first generation to grow up with the Internet.
As a self-proclaimed Internet addict, I've watched anonymous with interest - the "memes" that provide so much power within anonymous apparently comprise nothing more than an idea posed by someone that others enjoyed and repeated. Anybody can throw up an idea, and the classic value of "reputation" seems to be lost, here. Ideas are presented by anyone, and when repeated by others who like the idea, they become memes. And memes are, as much, a way of doing or presenting information as it is the information itself. For example, there's a common theme in Digg articles of repeating adjectives. EG: "The lame article is lame". Of course, there's Rick-rolling, variations of "LOL", and a few others.
Could this meme-based anonymous evolve into a world government? In a sense, it already has, because this structure of memes is already coordinating the behavior of thousands! Why couldn't this evolve into a new way of governing? My guess is that anonymous evolves into a sort of meta-government. Rather than directly become a government agency, it becomes a sort of unstructured political party that exerts considerable power at the voting booth, and is able to reinforce its power through real-life protests and events, much like those going on against Scientology today.
Fascinating times! Watch and see!
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Insightful)
And do you really want to? Is mob rule really something you want?
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html [cornell.edu]
Re:Open source governance (Score:5, Funny)
It's not a very practical loophole...voters might get suspicious after this happened a few times.
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.
Re:Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like irony to me.
Re:No, Correct (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, Correct (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Protester now faces harrasment. (Score:5, Funny)
You are receiving this reply because you responded to a /. or usenet post with the pedantic "That's not the proper use of irony" reply, or some variant. *This* reply is to point out that, in your anal retentive zeal to show the world how smart you are, you obviously never even bothered to research the issue (beyond hearing your high school English teacher get all pissy about the issue once). Had you researched the issue, you would know that there is an academic disagreement [wikipedia.org] within the field of modern linguistics between "descriptive linguistics" and "prescriptive linguistics," over this very sort of issue.
To put this in clear and simple terms (for your benefit): There is no "the" definition of irony. It depends on what source you consult.
To put it in even CLEARER terms: Sit down and shut the fuck up, you ignorant smug twat.
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.
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".
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
I think the teen can use meaning 1. without qualifying as "threatening, abusive or insulting". This was, after all, an anti-Scientology demonstration. There's nothing insulting or abusive in calling your religion false, most form of orgnised religion claim that every other religion is wrong.
Otherwise, it should be illegal to use any kind of signs of religious nature: if I have a poster declaring Cthulhu the only God and savior, that would imply you belief in The Spaghetti Monster as the only God and savior is wrong, thereby insulting or abusive.
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion: A large, popular cult.
rj
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Interesting)
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Informative)
City of London is just one of 30 boroughs of the city named London. Confusing, I know. To make matters more confusing, City of London have it's police force (the rest of London's policing is done by the Metropolitan Police as pointed out in the article) and City of London has it's own Lord Mayor not to be confused with the Mayor of London.
City of London is the "original" London, where most of the settlements dating back to Roman times can be found. Now it's mainly a financial centre, and not many people live there.
Generally City is under tighter control than the rest of London, and it doesn't surprise me that it was City of London police that acted like idiots.
Re:The first problem is (Score:5, Funny)
IT'S A TRPA!
Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
For reference, see SCO, RIAA...
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.
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.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Interesting)
And GP is right that this can be brought before a magistrate prior to, or instead of, a jury trial.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
Really worked for this guy, right?
> Try and remember that first section of US
> constitution is based on English Bill or Rights
Nope. Sorry. Not even close.
The first section (Article 1) of the constitution deals with the structure of government.
Refresher course on line here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html [usconstitution.net]
In fact, ratification of the Constitution was in doubt due to the observation of the people that there were no protections of individual rights in the document. Promises of amendments to correct this issue were finally agreed to by states in order to get the constitution passed.
Only then were people's rights enshrined in in the first 10 amendments, the most important of which and the least observed being Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In fact, that single amendment would have sufficed and we would be better off with just that single amendment. Too many people believe the constitution enumerates our rights. This is totally backward. The constitution Limits Government. Something sadly lacking in Britain.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Once again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you can. If we could not, 80% of the country would be in prison right now.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, I can say "Gordon Brown is a noxious prick" without any legal repercussions.If I was in the US, I couldn't say that about George W Bush without being arrested.
I've lived in the US my whole life. Saying that any politician is a prick, fruad, cheat, liar, bastard, @#$#head or worse is constitutionally protected political speech. People can, and do voice their opinion on our leaders with bumper stickers, rants on national television, signs, t-shirts and more. Bush is more often the target than not. We have the absolute right to criticize our politicians. We have no thought police, despite peoples best attempts to imagine them!
What we are struggling with here is the right to peacefully assemble to voice these opinions where, say George Bush is going to give a speech at a graduation. The haters want to disrupt the event (which would fall out of bounds of our right to *peacefully* assemble), and Bush just wants to deliver his speech (and believe me, he doesn't want distractions).
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Remind me what "Free Speech Zones" are again? And how many people have been arrested for having anti-Bush/war T-shirts or placards during rallies and refusing to leave?
No, they generally weren't convincted of anything, but I'd hardly call being arrested and spending time in jail "a right to free speech.
Ultimately the existence of constitutional protection is only as strong as the enforcement mechanism.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, no you can't. There are still obscenity laws, and they are enforced when complaints are made, especially if minors are within earshot.
I knew a guy who was charged for shouting an obscene comment to a buddy while they were kayaking near a swimming area. The Christian youth group that was having an outing on the shore apparently called the police who were waiting when my friend came ashore. He ended up with ten hours of community service or some such nonsense, probably because the church members showed up at the court en masse as some sort of statement.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Funny)
Your so called"buddy's" conviction was thrown out (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992 [freedomforum.org]
I think you should have said "I read a story about a guy..." because we read it too. And that way when you find out that his conviction was overturned on appeal, you won't look so silly.
"TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- The Michigan Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a 105-year-old law against using vulgar language in front of women and children, throwing out the conviction of a canoeist who let loose a stream of curses after falling into the water.
A three-judge panel ruled in favor of Timothy Joseph Boomer. An Arenac County jury had found him guilty in 1999 of swearing after tumbling into the Rifle River."
If you knew the guy like you implied, you'd know that too.
And the obscenity laws you talk about have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional when challenged.
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
~S
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
Is everyone clear now?
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at factnet.org for some history of this cult, and take a look at Susan Meister's case and her book, 'Scandal of Scientology', or hte old Time magazine article. They claim they shut down the internal security group that harassed Susan, but they seem to have simply transferred the leading personnel to other groups, and some of them are still active. This includes Kendrick Moxon, the attorney who successfully destroyed Cult Awareness Network.
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Insightful)
At a 'technical' level you are right, the bible is no less crackpot than the scientology 'technology'.
One difference is that a lot of the various testaments have a good historical basis. For Instance I have no doubt about the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc.. they really existed! - Whether they were the son of god/prophet of god/being of divine light/etc is another question.. I believe they were just charismatic good people who others naturally followed. None of them seem particularly evil; that comes from those who followed them and wanted to assume that power over others for their own.
The difference is in attitude, reputable religions want to spread the word. eg. I have a bible, a translation of the qur'an, and other texts; all of which were given to me for free by believers who genuinely believe that by reading the words I'll become converted.
Compare and Contrast that to how Scientology spreads it's word...
Even the nastiest promoters of mainstream religion (the religious right, jihadists, etc.) are very open about their beliefs. Unfortunately their methods are often similar in terms of infiltrating institutions and crushing dissent.
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask a Christian about the Bible, and he'll tell you.
Ask a Jew about the Torah and he'll tell you.
Ask a Muslim about the Koran and he'll tell you.
Ask a Scientologist about HIS holy books and he'll tell you... after your check clears.
Say what you will about Christianity and other modern religions, (and I will) they're not, at their core, pyramid schemes for making profits. Scientology is.
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Insightful)
Not meaning to be disrespectful, but how do you know the bible wasn't supposed to be a sci-fi novel?
Re:Bizarreness matters too (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.
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.
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.
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
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
A fundamental difference I see between a cult and a true religion is that members of a cult are not "allowed" to leave. A Christian might decide he no longer is one, but his Christian friends will not (generally) shun him, refuse to associate with him, actively try to harm him, or just plain hold him prisoner somewhere. A cult on the other hand fundamentally is a game of mind control, and some people are too strong to be controlled, either right up front (as in a child growing up) or as a result of new information or other change. Cults can only maintain their internal consistency if people who learn otherwise are treated as "sick" or a "traitor", and dealt with accordingly.
Situations like this case are a direct side-effect of the fact that cults cannot take any kind of scrutiny or disagreement, even from outside their ranks. Scientology is really good at silencing any kind of debate.
At the risk of being wildly un-PC, 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. Islam in the US may be more "tolerant", but that's only (IMO) a side-effect of being forced to work within a western set of laws. In the Middle East, a convert away from Islam tends not to live very long, unless they immigrate away as fast as they can, thereby losing their entire family, etc. As well, an ex-Mormon in Salt Lake City is going to have a very hard time buying anything, anywhere.
(disclaimer: I'm Baptist, and mostly on the Democrat side of things with Libertarian leanings)
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
A world-spanning religion based on ancient Egyptian religion, now that would be millennia.
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.
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Islam extends Christianity extends Judaism extends Zoroastrianism
Then theres the fork of what some would call the Edge Christianity such as jehovas witnesses, mormons, etc.
but somehow they all see themselves as "us", and the others as "them".
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips
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.
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.Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whats the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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?
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.
Re:Oh, Great. (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
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.
1st amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
The scientology thing just serves to unmask this rather gigantic lapse in liberty. I think a better question than whether the kid is guilty or not is why you Brits have such laws. Further why aren't you outraged that such laws exist and why you aren't actively trying to overturn them? This isn't a flame but a serious question, since when the slightest bit of censorship rears its head in America we tend to jump all over it - as evidenced by the Youtube article still on the frontpage.
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.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Interesting)
The law in question (Score:4, Informative)
YT video/a> of an officer explaining the new rule [youtube.com]
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) [statutelaw.gov.uk]
I'm not in agreement, but this is the law being sited and enforced.
Balls of steel (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful what you say... (Score:4, Funny)
Obvious advice (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Plead not guilty (Score:4, Interesting)
M'lud I would like to submit exhibit a) as evidence for the defense - The McLibel Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel [wikipedia.org]
I would hazard an ejimacated guess, however, that it will never go to trial. The again, perhaps the present government is in need of a circus to distract everyone from their present poor standings. What could be better than a cult of goats?
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.
I know this is a lot to ask... (Score:4, Informative)
He hasn't received a summons.
He's not being taken to court.
He was warned, by a somewhat overzealous police officer, that he might have been in breach of the law, and he had his sign confiscated.
The Crown Prosecution Service, who are the people who decide whether a prosecution will take place, have been told that these events happened. And will decide whether to proceed. If anyone wants to bet $10 to say they will, I'll gladly take your money here and now.
That's it.
Re:Thats right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats right (Score:5, Funny)
Scientologists have copies of the movie Battlefield Earth.
My money's on the Thetan-freaks...
Re:Not censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck is this tagged censorship?
Exhibit B:
There's a law against insulting signs.
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.
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.
Re:move to germany (Score:5, Informative)
So calling the CoS a "cult" seems rather tame by comparison.
Re:Would it be dangerous... (Score:4, Funny)