Slashdot Mirror


UK Teen Cited For Calling Scientology a "Cult"

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."

130 of 995 comments (clear)

  1. The first problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    naming an act the "Public Order Act."

    The next thing London will do is put up posters saying that you are secure beneath the watchful eyes.

    Perhaps they thought Orwell was writing an instruction manual?

    1. Re:The first problem is by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep. Though probably you are thinking of the wrong Orwell

      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

      It is the "All animals are equal, some are more equal than the other" bit of Orwell.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:The first problem is by WobindWonderdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree. I was totally going to say:

      IT'S A TRPA!

    3. Re:The first problem is by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And I avoid to call them "Church", just "Scientology" is sufficient.

      Calling them "Cult" will also lend them credibility for something they aren't.

      And by the way, isn't "Church" a Christian designation? But Scientology is a completely different thing, and has really not much to do with Christianity.

      And by the way - My opinion is that you should be able to have a religion, or copyright, but never both.

      Anyway - one person's view can be "Religion", another "Cult" and a third it can be "Lifestyle".

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:The first problem is by Stellian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cult:

      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. The Scientologysts themselves always claimed to be 2. & 3. The whole point is that they are not, they are a profit-seeking corporation.
      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.
    5. Re:The first problem is by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
      To nitpick: This was City of London police. City of London != London.

      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.

    6. Re:The first problem is by morari · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone knows that Cthulhu would simply devour the Flying Spaghetti Monster, god and savior or not!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    7. Re:The first problem is by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it doesn't. It may have copyright to a particular translation, but not to all (the KJV is UK Crown Copyright, for instance) and certainly not to the original documents which are public domain (no matter what the religious may say about the Author not being dead).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:The first problem is by Jester998 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyway - one person's view can be "Religion", another "Cult" and a third it can be "Lifestyle".
      Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
      Religion: A large, popular cult.

    9. Re:The first problem is by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cult: A small, unpopular religion.

      Religion: A large, popular cult.

      rj

  2. Once again by Ekhymosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again, what would seem a basic 'right' is being brutally oppressed by an organization under the cloak of 'religion'. I wonder just how much longer this will continue? Until we are all 'clears' or cleared out of our money from the lawsuits?

    --
    Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
    1. Re:Once again by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, when an organsation's income through its usual venues start to dry up, they turn for the courts to milk unwilling and/or casual bystanders.

      For reference, see SCO, RIAA...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Once again by aristolochene · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apart from Articles 10 and 11 of European Convention on Human Rights? Part of Human Rights Act.

      Try and remember that first section of US constitution is based on English Bill or Rights (1689) and Scottish Claim of Right, which itself carries on a tradition of defining the limits of state power and citizens rights dating back to Magna Carta (which predates Columbus by 200 years).

      Worth thinking about every time americans get all misty eyed about their own history.

      That's not to say the UK is a perfect democracy, but neither is the US.

      --
      echo $SIGNATURE
    3. Re:Once again by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, I would certainly bring up the Human Rights act in any court case.

    4. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, scientology spends quite a bit of money in the courtsystem fighting cases they cannot win. This will put a burden on whoever they sue this time, whilst having a chilling effect on other critics.

    5. Re:Once again by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In addition to the Human Rights Act, Britain has subtle legal system which is full of checks and balances.

      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

      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

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Once again by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >I couldn't say that about George W Bush without being arrested.

      Yes you can. If we could not, 80% of the country would be in prison right now.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Once again by Anspen · · Score: 4, 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.

    8. Re:Once again by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, right, Article 10 and 11.

      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

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Once again by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I can stand on a public street corner and say "George W. Bush sucks big hairy donkey dicks!" all I want..."

      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.

    10. Re:Once again by aristolochene · · Score: 5, Informative

      the set of amendments to the constitution which form the bill of rights in the US closely match - and indeed were derived from the English/Scottish bills/claims of right from 1689. This is, I'm afraid, fact - phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" come from English bill of rights. The UK doesn't have a single written constitution (for complex historical reasons), but there are plenty of documents (for example Margna Carta) which were developed in the UK and limit state power. It's absurd to suggest that the UK does not have systems in place to limit the power of the state. The US system of politics /government didn't develop in a vacuum. Many of the ideas of the US constitution were based on UK law (hardly a surprise) and modified to suit the particular ideology/politics/beliefs of early US politicians. It's probably fair to say that some aspects of the US model have been a success, and some less so. it is easy to pick holes in both US and UK systems of government, and neither represents a perfect democracy, but it is difficult to argue that they don't both share a common root.

      --
      echo $SIGNATURE
    11. Re:Once again by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, this guy has to go in front of a jury.


      If it gets that far. IANAUKL, but I would assume you have some sort of commital proceedings prior to a jury trial? Looking at the text of the legisation (though admittedly without any familiarity with relevant curial authority) this case looks so completely without merit that no prosecutor could ethically proceed and no magistrate would allow it to proceed. Methinks justice would best be served by publically horsewhipping (at least verbally) the arresting officer.

      That really is a classic piece of slashdot bullshit. You're not a UK lawyer but you use a lot of legal terminology to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

      This guy has been arrested. He's 'facing prosecution'. I think that means he has been arrested but the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether to prosecute him. He was arrested under this -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment%2C_Alarm_or_Distress#Provisions_of_the_law
      The Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 states:
      (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
      (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
      (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
      within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


      What makes you so sure the case is without legal merit, other than (like you) me you sympathize with the protestors and dislike Scientology and thus don't want it to have merit?
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Once again by salesgeek · · 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).
      --
      -- $G
    13. Re:Once again by dintech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please, if everyone who said something bad about GWB was arrested, they would have to turn half the country into prison.
      Now that's irony.
    14. Re:Once again by Nuskrad · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Human Rights Act is flimsy at best though. The First Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't include a list of exceptions longer than the amendment itself, whereas the HRA states that freedom of expression may be curtailed "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary". The fact it includes 'morals', which are entirely subjective, demonstrates just how flimsy it is.

    15. Re:Once again by vidarh · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What makes him (and me) so sure it's without legal merit is that even if a judge were to consider calling Scientology a cult, despite the fact that they've been called so by the judiciary in the UK before, "insulting", restricting him from putting it on a sign is almost certainly inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, and British judges have a history of not being afraid to strike down bad legislation (and if they don't, the European Court of Justice seems to have striking down bad UK laws as something of a hobby, to the point where parliament sometimes seem to find it acceptable to vote for bad laws to satisfy their electorate safe in the knowledge they'll never pass a legal test).

      And GP is right that this can be brought before a magistrate prior to, or instead of, a jury trial.

    16. Re:Once again by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is off topic. We are talking about cults here. So would you be arrested for obscenity for shouting "George Bush is a cult"? Or would you be arrested for poor spelling?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    17. Re:Once again by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Further proof to support your point: the US Declaration of Independence sites as one the grievances against George III that he tried to deny the colonists their rights as "Englishmen". So obviously those rights must have been previously recognized in England, for the colonists to have assumed they had them.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:Once again by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2) "George Bush should be shot". Not constitutionally protected speech. Expect the Party Van.

      Actually, you're mistaken. For speech not to be protected it has to advocate criminal violence, not just state an opinion about it. For example, writing that "G. Bush deserves to be shot" is legal, whereas writing "I want you to all go shoot G. Bush" is not legal (at least in most context). You'll also note, in the previous poster's blog, he claimed G. Bush should be impeached, convicted of treason, and shot. That is not illegal violence any more than saying a convicted murderer in Texas should be executed.

      It's a sign of a degraded and tribal approach to politics that you are unable to criticise the policies of the Bush administration without stepping over the incitement line by calling for Bush to be killed.

      I disagree. It is a perfectly valid opinion to think Bush is both a traitor and should be convicted and punished with death. I'd like to see a lot more politicians convicted as traitors and executed, particularly when they sell out the American people by taking lobbying dollars from foreign governments. I think it would be a step in the right direction for cleaning up or dreadfully corrupt political system.

      I'm sure once President Obama or Clinton is in office you'll complain that the other tribe keep crossing the line in their attacks too.

      You're assuming an awful lot. Not everyone blindly buys into the democrat vs. republican nonsense.

  3. Whats the difference? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.

    1. Re:Whats the difference? by Soporific · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The number of people following them is all.

      ~S

    2. Re:Whats the difference? by cynicsreport · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.

      A religious cult, to the best of my understanding, shows the following features:
      1) Is widely accepted to be a cult by those not involved. [like Scientology]
      2) Is secretive regarding the beliefs of its members. [like Scientology]
      3) Is secretive regarding the hierarchical organization of its members. [like Scientology]

      To me, #3 is most concerning, and the best way to be labeled as a religious cult. Notice that almost all 'mainstream' religions are not guilty of #3 (e.g., the Catholic buck stops at the Pope), and rarely guilty of #2 (e.g., Muslims can point to the Koran), and also rarely guilty of #1.
      --
      - Demosthenes
      cynicsreport.com
    3. Re:Whats the difference? by iNaya · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, as I worship the flying spaghetti monster, I consider anything else to be a cult. The Christian cult, the Atheist cult, the Agnostic cult, Hindu's, Buddhists. Damn cults. I have to do battle every day.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    4. Re:Whats the difference? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.

      If you have any of the following, you are a cult:

      * Funny underwear
      * Funny hat/cap worn in open
      * Weird spiritual machines
      * Don't allow your kids to go to "secular" doctors even if dying

      (Oh wait, I think Emacs zealots qualify :-)

    5. Re:Whats the difference? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree wholeheartedly. Christianity, and especially Islam would be seen as completely psychotic if they were not several thousand years of tradition surrounding these religions, and countless reforms to make them remain relevant in our technologically advanced world. Christianity has changed especially in its nature drastically over the last century alone. It just seems normal to us.

      That doesn't make it any less a cult. Its still hurting us collectively.

      You should watch this video on Youtube.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ

      And there are a series of videos on Youtube by a guy called Thunderf00t that is very intelligent about this topic.

    6. Re:Whats the difference? by dotgain · · Score: 3, Informative
      Speaking as a man who had a pretty hefty dose of having to learn about Cult Mind Control while I did my damndest to save my wife from the Jehovah's Witnesses, I would say this this is pretty accurate, but would add:

      4) Works to create tension and mistrust between the new-guy and his unbelieving / skeptical family and friends. [like Scientology]
      5) Often attempts to exhaust the person physically during the induction, 2AM knocks on the door etc. to defeat their mental defences

    7. Re:Whats the difference? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this characteristic:

      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.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:Whats the difference? by chartreuse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Christianity, and especially Islam would be seen as completely psychotic if they were not several thousand years of tradition surrounding these religions, and countless reforms to make them remain relevant in our technologically advanced world. "Several" thousand years would seem to overstate the matter. Muhammad was born around 570, and we apparently date the Gregorian calendar beginning with some guy in year 0 or something, around 2008 years ago.

      A world-spanning religion based on ancient Egyptian religion, now that would be millennia.
    9. Re:Whats the difference? by nsayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. There is no year 0. The year before year 1 was 1 BC.

      2. They didn't know it was year 1 at the time. That whole thing was worked out many, many years later. It turns out that the guy that worked it out was wrong. The best guess is that the fellow you're talking about was born in 4 BC, but given the state of record keeping at the time (particularly given that fellow's official status at the time of his life and death), that has to be taken with a "Lot's wife" sized grain of salt.

    10. Re:Whats the difference? by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 3, 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)

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    11. Re:Whats the difference? by nsayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A fundamental difference I see between a cult and a true religion is that members of a cult are not "allowed" to leave. So Islam is a cult, then?



    12. Re:Whats the difference? by Shuntros · · Score: 5, Funny

      A religion is a large, popular cult.

      A cult is a small, unpopular religion.

      Is everyone clear now?

    13. Re:Whats the difference? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      It makes it easier to deify the guy who thought it's neat to be god. I'm pretty sure that it IS neat to be a god.
      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:Whats the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      1. There is no year 0. The year before year 1 was 1 BC.
      Not according to Microsoft OOXML, and that's ISO approved so you know that means quality ;)
    15. Re:Whats the difference? by adona1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Christianity also takes a large chunk of Judaism to make the Old Testament, which does go back several thousand years.

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    16. Re:Whats the difference? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just don't say that on the streets in London. :)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    17. Re:Whats the difference? by ubernostrum · · Score: 4, 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":

      • Typically follows one or more highly charismatic leaders, whose word is taken to be unquestionable.
      • Clearly divides the world into "us" and "them".
      • Believes that the world outside the "us" group is fundamentally bad/evil.
      • As a result, believes that interaction with the outside world is dangerous to members of the "us" group and is to be avoided when possible, or carefully supervised.
      • As a result, tends to form more or less isolated enclaves to minimize contact with outsiders, or mediate such contact through trusted group members in positions of authority.
      • As a result, believes that untrained persons interacting with the outside world are tainted and need to be carefully reassimilated to the group.
      • Typically holds beliefs radically different from what is considered mainstream or acceptable for the immediately-surrounding society.
      • As a result of the above, typically experiences a high degree of tension with the outside world, which can create a feedback loop (above tendencies lead to tension, which aggravates above tendencies, which leads to more tension...).

      Of course, many groups show one or more of these tendencies, but aren't widely considered (and really shouldn't be considered) "cults". And some groups that are "cults" show none of these tendencies. And this status can evolve over time; for example, many early Protestant movements were, by these criteria, "cults" at the time of their founding, but -- as Protestantism gained wider acceptance -- became closer to the mainstream and so lost many of the above tendencies.

    18. Re:Whats the difference? by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4) In order to easier manipulate them, it will try to weaken the members by severing their ties with their families and friends. If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

      If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" [...] do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God ... Deuteronomy 13:6-10
      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    19. Re:Whats the difference? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's all about the numbers:
      • 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.
    20. Re:Whats the difference? by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wasn't voluntary when I was a kid.

    21. Re:Whats the difference? by Dasher42 · · Score: 3, 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.

      Having been subjected to an exorcism and been hit with versus like:

      "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew then again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." ...I assure you there are some extremely cultish groups within the bounds of christianity that do shun friends and family who don't believe as they do.

      Cultishness is cultishness, no matter what label, and it's ugly.

    22. Re:Whats the difference? by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats the thing many people like to forget, middle-east born religions are all about code reuse.

      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".

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    23. Re:Whats the difference? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, a man called Steve Hassan wrote some good guidelines for the destructive behavior of cults, at http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/faq/. One key is the control over thoughts on members, insisting that they not only behave but that they think in certain ways. Scientology has this one down pat with their lie-detectors and 'auditing'. Another key factor is the pyramid scheme: Each level reports only to the upper levels, all data is centralized in thehands of a few, and any attempt to question leaders or shift dogma is met with harsh controls and even destruction of the questioning person.

      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.

    24. Re:Whats the difference? by knutkracker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, many groups show one or more of these tendencies Indeed...
      • Typically follows one or more highly charismatic politicians, whose word is taken to be unquestionable.
      • Clearly divides the world into "US" and "terrorists".
      • Believes that the world outside the "US" group is fundamentally bad/evil.
      • As a result, believes that interaction with liberals/foreigners/muslims is dangerous to members of the "US" group and is to be avoided when possible, or carefully supervised.
      • As a result, tends to form more or less isolated enclaves to minimize contact with outsiders, or mediate such contact through trusted group members in positions of military authority.
      • As a result, believes that untrained persons interacting with the outside world are unpatriotic and need to be carefully reassimilated to the group.
      • Typically holds beliefs radically different from what is considered mainstream or acceptable for the immediately-surrounding global society.
      • As a result of the above, typically experiences a high degree of political conflict with the outside world, which can create a feedback loop (above tendencies lead to political conflict, which aggravates above tendencies, which leads to military action...).
    25. Re:Whats the difference? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is everyone clear now?
      No, but if you take this $20.000 course I can help you become clear. ;)
      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    26. Re:Whats the difference? by DMoylan · · Score: 5, Funny

      best described by emo phillips

      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

  4. This could be just what we needed by rastoboy29 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The boy will surely be let off, but not before the whole world hears--and SEES--the story.  All that will do is draw attention to the protest.

    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.

    1. Re:This could be just what we needed by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Informative

      If anyone's interested in knowing about the "Church" and its abuses, Anonymous, or the protests in general, Anonymous has a great page on Why We Protest.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:This could be just what we needed by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last time when someone critical of Scientology turned up dead, police was happy to believe he committed suicide, even though he had given no prior signs (nor had any reason to) kill himself.

      You know that Scientology has infiltrated the police in the US in some cities?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  5. That was Version 2.0 of The Sign by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Funny

    UK Teen Cited For Calling Scientology a "Cult" You should have seen the original version of The Sign - there was a N but no L.

    I think he was quite well-spoken, really.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  6. Oh, Great. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From TFA:

    "The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology."
    That's comforting. I wonder how many American cops, politicians, etc. the cult has on its payroll? Might as well disband the FBI and enlist Scientology as our intelligence service -- they seem to be much more effective at getting away with domestic espionage and dirty tricks.
    1. Re:Oh, Great. by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Informative

      I tried to post this a month and a half ago on Slashdot but it was rejected: Atlanta police arrest a peaceful protester at the March 15th worldwide protest. Note the numerous police decked out in full riot gear, even though Anonymous had posed no threat to them or Scientology, and was very clear that this was a peaceful protest.

      They then started issuing tickets to any cars that honked as they drove by. Second half of that video I linked, I shit you not.

      From what I've read they were much better at the April and May protests, but it does show that the police's allegiances in some areas shift like crazy.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Oh, Great. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Informative
      Much more effective than you can imagine. Check out this fascinating article about conspiracies that actually happened. One of the entries is about Scientology's fairly successful effort at stealing back documents that made them look bad. From the government.

      From the article:

      Anyway, somewhere around 5,000 of Scientology's crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.
      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  7. Challenge the law in the European Court by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..of Human Rights.. I'm pretty sure the law is in violation of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights..

    This court actually works and has authority to rule in these cases. Might have to exhaust the legal avenues in the UK first though.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  8. 1st amendment by Robert1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gotta love it! It is disheartening that it seems every European country, and Canada too, seems to have some kind of idiotic anti-speech law(s).

    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.

    1. Re:1st amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I first heard about our anti-hate crime laws (I'm Canadian), in my last year of University. I was arguing with a professor about why neo-nazi games should be allowed to exist (the topic was a game that had you manage a concentration camp I believe)

      I of course argued that speech should be free, and it would be a violation of those moron's right to free speech.

      His response was rather simple, and silenced me. To this day, I'm still not sure if I agree or not. In some cases, infringing upon one person's right to free speech is creating freedom to enjoy life for another, which is another freedom granted by our bill of rights. (I think the exact terminology is something akin to the right to enjoy your property)... but the point was well taken.

      I would agree that someone has the right to not be constantly harassed. And that is what the law strives to protect. And I have to agree that giving up a small part of one freedom in exchange for a much bigger freedom, might not be such a bad idea.

  9. What he needs is... by YahoKa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not legal advice, not a lawyer, but an audit.

  10. If shoe fits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scientology is a cult created by a second-rate sci-fi author on a bet. El-Ron can suck my sweaty ballsack.

    The kid should move to Germany, they recognize $cientology as the dangerous cult it is.

  11. I don't understand by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can someone explain to me how this works. Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech. From this side of the pond, Britain clearly needs to get it's priorities straight before the movie "Brazil" because a reality.

    He may have been better off advocating the death of all Scientologists because the FSM needs their blood to build the greatest pirate ship of all time.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:I don't understand by terrymr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a ticket, cops love to write tickets ... here in the USA a group of local kids were arrested, shackled and prosecuted for carrying signs in a public park in protest of police brutality - there's irony for you. The cops even recorded themselves on video joking about taking off their badges and starting a fight.

  12. Re:Thats right by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just spread the word that Scientologists believe Allah is a pig-fucker.

  13. Move out of the UK by BigAssRat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously they are headed entirely too much in the wrong direction. I wish I could say you should move to the U.S., but I am not sure we are not headed down that path as well...at least here you can call Christians anything you want with impunity. We just cant say bad about Muslims or the "Church of Global Warming" or Environmentalism. Not sure about the Scientologists, they may not be a protected class yet.

  14. Re:Not censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exhibit A:

    Why the heck is this tagged censorship?

    Exhibit B:

    There's a law against insulting signs.

    ...?

  15. Open source governance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is why we need open source governance.

    If you help get the Metagovernment established, then it will be up to the people to decide how the people are governed. Weird concept, I know.

    1. Re:Open source governance by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Weird concept, I know. Yeah, keep your cult-ish ideas to yourself!
      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Open source governance by ThePromenader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not weird at all, actually. That's actually what a democracy is supposed to be.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    3. Re:Open source governance by pmbasehore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, keep your cult-ish ideas to yourself!
      Cult? Cult! I take offense to that, you insensitive clod!

      Prepare for your court summons!
      --
      $> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
    4. Re:Open source governance by coyote_oww · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, POTUS is limited to 10 years, technically. You can be elected twice and do two years of someone else's term.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html

    5. Re:Open source governance by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't honestly know that I want the people to decide how the people are governed in a broad sort of way. In general, people as groups tend to panic. Things like the Constitution and UK Common Law may be fragile protection, but they are protection. If you'd actually asked them, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a majority of Americans would have favored an even more knee jerk reaction to 9/11 than actually occurred.

      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.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    6. Re:Open source governance by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you want to get really technical, one could serve as POTUS indefinitely by continuing to be elected to the office of Vice President and bumping off the latest President-elect before inauguration day.

      It's not a very practical loophole...voters might get suspicious after this happened a few times.

    7. Re:Open source governance by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because that is how Scientology works - say something they don't like, and they will harass you with everything they can, quasi-legally. It is their entire strategy for defending themselves - attack their attackers.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:Open source governance by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty hard to pull off though. How can you accurately represent EVERYONE?


      And do you really want to? Is mob rule really something you want?

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    9. Re:Open source governance by the+phantom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seriously want the people to vote on every single bill that is signed into law? Nothing would ever get done. The entire budget would be spent on elections. And no one has time to read through every bill that goes before congress and understand it. That is why congressmen have huge staffs -- to help them wade through the legislation that they have to deal with. I'm sorry, but your system is completely impractical.

  16. Protester now faces harrasment. by westbake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Indymedia has a good article about this. 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.

    --
    I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
    1. Re:Protester now faces harrasment. by DJMajah · · Score: 5, Informative

      that's not what "ironic" means. Quoth Wiki: Dramatic (or tragic) irony is a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.

      Sounds like irony to me.
    2. Re:Protester now faces harrasment. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean Fair Game. Fair Play is Apple's ironic term for its DRM scheme.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Protester now faces harrasment. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dear Irony Nazi,

      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 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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Protester now faces harrasment. by Z34107 · · Score: 3, Funny

      you obviously never even bothered to research the issue (beyond hearing your high school English teacher get all pissy about the issue once)

      Oh, the humanities?!

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
  17. The law in question by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not a resident of the UK. However this info has been shared

    YT video/a> of an officer explaining the new rule

    Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1)

    I'm not in agreement, but this is the law being sited and enforced.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  18. Re:Easy win - bring a dictionary by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For authoritative British usage, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English definitions of "cult" and "sect" are: cult
    1. a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.
    2. a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
    3. 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.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  19. Re:move to germany by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    Germany even put them under surveillance by the "Verfassungsschutz". Usually, something like this is reserved for groups that threaten the state's integrity, safety or the state itself.

    So calling the CoS a "cult" seems rather tame by comparison.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Balls of steel by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:

    The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
    This action hereby has the Duke Nukem seal of approval.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  21. Re:Bizarreness matters too by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eating placenta is a ritual in some cultures. And it is par for the course among many mammals.

  22. Re:Would it be dangerous... by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's utter nonsense. David Miscavige could never do that. Everyone knows he only gets an erection when he kills a puppy.

  23. Be careful what you say... by Ux64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I have to stop calling Linux users a cult before I get prosecuted.

  24. Re:Not censorship by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the heck is this tagged censorship? There's a law against insulting signs.

    Because a law against "insulting" signs IS censorship, just as a law against "insulting" books or "insulting" speech would be.

    Would this still be tagged censorship if it were the Conservative Party instead of Scientology?

    Yes. Of course it would. It saddens me that you have to even ask this.

    You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!" for any values of X and Y. Any values at all. (Dictatorial governments may, of course, not recognize that right; it exists nonetheless.)

    "Scientology is a cult". "The Conservative Party is a cult." "The City of London police are a bunch of mindless jerks." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is better than Jesus." "Tom Swiss is a dweeb."

    Anyone who attempts to forcibly stop you from saying any of these things is engaging in censorship.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  25. Re:Thats right by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny
    Islamofascists have guns, suicide bombers, countries and billions of dollars.

    Scientologists have copies of the movie Battlefield Earth.

    My money's on the Thetan-freaks...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  26. Obvious advice by Goonie · · Score: 3, Funny

    The kid should consult a solicitor (Brit-speak for a lawyer) with a background in human rights issues. Liberty should be able to point him in the right direction.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  27. To be precise... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scientology is a Criminal nut-cult.

    Although all cults are nuts, not all cults are criminal.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  28. Re:in other news by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those people were prosecuted

    http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003342.html
    In all, only four people were brought to face charges on Friday June 26 as a result of the Sloane Square demonstration. These included Mizanur Rahman, as well as 26-year old Umran Javed of Birmingham, who denied one charge of soliciting to murder American or Danish nationals and one charge of using threatening words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred. 31 year old Abdul Rahman Saleem (aka Abu Yahya) denied one count of using words likely to stir up racial hatred. 23 year old Abdul Muhid was charged with two counts of soliciting murder to those who insulted Islam.

    All those charged except Abdul Muhid were granted bail. Muhid, who had tried to flee the country on May 4 with Anjem Choudary, was denied bail and was kept in custody in Winchester Prison.

    Muhid, Abdul Rahman Saleem (aka Abu Yahya) and Umran Javed are still awaiting their trials.


    Actually the incitement to religious hatred law that this guy got busted under was partly inspired by that demonstration.

    It's silly really. Incitement should be illegal and that's it. Then the "Behead those who insult Islam" types would get arrested and this guy wouldn't. Which seems fair enough to me.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  29. Plead not guilty by vorlich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    engage a pro bono and use your time in the witness box to introduce every single piece of evidence you or anyone else can think of to prove the case, subpoena the entire board of directors and introduce the public to their Naval Division. I should imagine the tabloids will devour this case.
    M'lud I would like to submit exhibit a) as evidence for the defense - The McLibel Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mclibel
    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?

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
  30. statements of fact can be prosecuted? by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I want to add to what cynicsreport said earlier in this topic. The word "cult" has commonly accepted definitions, and if Scientology fits that definition, then the sign was a statement of fact.

    In particular, part of my liberal arts studies at Westmont college included multiple classes on cults (it is/was a religious school, so knowing about many flavors of cults was mandatory). We had a lengthy course on the difference between cults & religion. The main difference was secrecy, not legitimacy. A religion -- whether you believed it to be true or fake -- was an institution that had open processes. You could gain access to the teachings freely, and likely audit the finances, too. This means the institutions of Catholics, Christians, Jews, and a handful of others were "religions." Then there were other institutions like Scientology, Moonies, and lots of others that had closed processes. You couldn't audit the finances, you couldn't freely gain access to the teachings, etc. Those were cults.

    It's entirely possible that you could feel a particular cult held the truth while all religions of the world were shams. The word "cult" was not intended to imply who was right. If calling something a cult was an insult, it wasn't because the cult was crappy or false; it was because of secrecy, potential for deception regarding finances, and so on. And not surprisingly, when you fall back on the dispassionate definition, it gets really hard to refute it even if you DO take it as an insult. If someone says you're holding documents in secrecy and you say "That's an insult" well... ARE you holding documents in secrecy? If so, you're feeling insulted by the truth. In such a case, I don't really feel that a state should compel people to lie.

  31. I know this is a lot to ask... by gowen · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know this is a lot to ask, but please get the facts right.

    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.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  32. Re:Bizarreness matters too by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yea, I hear about this cult who worship a 2000 year old zombie Jew and believe they can turn bread and wine into his flesh and blood that then then devour in a cannibalistic ritual. Nutters eh?

  33. Re:Bizarreness matters too by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More bizarre and/or insane than what? FFS man, talking telepathically to an imaginary friend who is solely responsible for all that happens in the universe (including putting dinosaur bones in place as is to fool us) compares to evil galactic rulers and volcanoes in a better light in exactly what way?

    I have often spoke when I shouldn't have, but I have to say that there are far too many people who 'know' about religion, or think they do when in fact they know about some parts of ONE religion.

    Yes, the CoS is a cult, so is the CoE, by technical definition all religions are cults. That is what makes the entire censorship here totally ridiculous. It's rather like saying that there are dangerous humans at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, or 10 Downing street.

    Drinking blood and eating flesh? Is that bizarre enough for you? How about sacrificing your own children? Incest? Genocide? The Christian Bible is full of examples of things that would just not work in today's society.

    I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.

  34. Re:Bizarreness matters too by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How does bizarreness matter? The cult of scientology believes that evil space aliens murdered billions of other aliens by stuffing them into DC-10 like spaceships and blowing them up in earth's volcanoes with Hydrogen bombs. The cult of christianity believes that you can telepathically communicate with a dead god-fragment and tell him you love him and that he will accept you into his kingdom and cleanse you of a taint that was placed in all humanity by a rib-woman being tricked by a talking snake.
    Scientology is insane, but so are pretty much all other religions.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  35. Must have been using ISO 8601 Dates by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

    ISO 8601 has a year 0 (or 0000), corresponding to the Gregorian 1BC. It then goes -0001, -0002 etc for prior years.

  36. Re:Bizarreness matters too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You obviously have never played D&D.

    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.

  37. Wildly un-PC? Try wildly inaccurate. by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At the risk of being wildly un-PC

    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.

  38. Re:Bizarreness matters too by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Funny

    true res? well he only lasted 40 days, so that's not really very impressive.

  39. The same act that prosecutes im can defend him. by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 paragraph 3(c) he can defend his action, by saying it was reasonable. There is evidence to back him up: in a 1984 ruling, a UK High court JUDGE called Scientology a "cult" that was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous". Then in May 6th 1991 Time Magazine called Scientology the "Cult of Greed and Power". It is not like he is the first person to call Scientology a cult.

    The prosecution could go further to the UK Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. However it can easily be argued having a sign that uses the word cult to describe Scientology is simply criticism, which is specifically protected under the Section 26J of the act. I think the prosecution is going have a hard time bringing this to court.

  40. Re:Bizarreness matters too by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see how CoS is any more bizarre than Christianity.

    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.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  41. No, Correct by Morosoph · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Prior to Alanis Morrissette's album, this is precisely how the word "irony" was used. In overcorrecting for "rain on your wedding day", which is simply bad news, it seems that people have turned to their dictionaries for the original literary menaing. Being geeks, the honest, popular yet informed meaning of "irony" is being dropped for an acedemic definition sepcific to the English department.

    Besides, in terms of prediction, what matters is whether the 15-year-old kid would have predicted the outcome. If you'd done the same thing, it wouldn't have been irony, but rather would have been civil disobedience.

    1. Re:No, Correct by Adlopa · · Score: 5, Funny

      So "irony" isn't a synonym of "metallic", then? Hm.

    2. Re:No, Correct by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless you're marrying a Weatherman.

    3. Re:No, Correct by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Irony is the thingy your mommy uses to make your shirtys flat.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:No, Correct by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which therefore means the song is actually extremely ironic, and she is a genius.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  42. Re:Bizarreness matters too by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At a protest outside a Scientology building, I saw a rather appropriate sign:
    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.

  43. Re:Bizarreness matters too by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For all they do wrong, at least Christians believe in something that was always meant to be a religion, while Scientology believes in a science fiction novel.

    Not meaning to be disrespectful, but how do you know the bible wasn't supposed to be a sci-fi novel? :)

  44. Your so called"buddy's" conviction was thrown out by hassanchop · · Score: 5, Informative

    I knew a guy who was charged for shouting an obscene comment to a buddy while they were kayaking near a swimming area...


    http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992

    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.

  45. Britain 1, USA 0 by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I saw this headline in iGoogle this morning (yes, slashdot is the most prominent site I have there) of course my reaction was WTF???

    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 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 puts no derogatory meaning at all to the word "cult".

    1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
    2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
    3. the object of such devotion.
    4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
    5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
    6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
    7. the members of such a religion or sect.
    8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

    -adjective
    9. of or pertaining to a cult.
    10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
    The only one of the eight definitions posted that can in any way be considered derogatory is fittingly #6, 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 two years ago,

    But our own freedom to speak carries such heavy limitations that to think we are better than the Chinese is laughable. You can be arrested for "hate speech." If you badmouth the wrong corporation (and face it, the corporations are the government here, the politicians only being figureheads who do the corporations' bidding) you will be slapped down with a S.L.A.P.P. suit. You won't go to jail, but you will be financially ruined.

    2600.org wasn't allowed to link to an algorithm (DeCSS). The courts have held that you have no freedom of speech when writing in a computer language.

    Our freedom of speech is illusory.

    Religion? Again there's China, and Cuba. However, I don't think that Christianity or Hinduism are illegal in Saudia Arabia.

    On the other hand, children have been suspended and even expelled from school for evangelizing. They're being punished both for their speech and their religion.

    As to freedom of assembly, that's been gone for quite some time. You want to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" by protesting en masse in front of the statehouse? You're going to go to jail for not having a permit- in short, you must have permission to petition the government by peaceful assembly. Having to ask permission doesn't seem too free to me.
    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.
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Britain 1, USA 0 by pnewhook · · 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.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:Britain 1, USA 0 by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. You know, had you read the article, you'd have seen the last line:

      We did not advise on this specific case prior to the summons being issued - which the police can do without reference to us - but if we receive a file we will review it in the normal way according to the code for crown prosecutors. He hasn't been prosecuted. His file hadn't even reached the Crown Prosecutors' (British equivalent of the DA) desks at press time. It is entirely possible that the whole thing will be laughed at and ignored. Hopefully he'll sue the London PD in that case. So far this is only an example of a police officer overreaching her authority. Unfortunate, but it happens. Should prosecution proceed, that would be something to make me worry about the future of free speech rights in Britain.
      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:Britain 1, USA 0 by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It is fairly clear that the article is in fact pointing out far more sinister overtones "the City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology".

      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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Britain 1, USA 0 by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, but there are objective definitions.

      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.

  46. I forget... by tooyoung · · Score: 3, Funny

    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,

    But our own freedom to speak carries such heavy limitations that to think we are better than the Chinese is laughable. You can be arrested for "hate speech." If you badmouth the wrong corporation (and face it, the corporations are the government here, the politicians only being figureheads who do the corporations' bidding) you will be slapped down with a S.L.A.P.P. suit. You won't go to jail, but you will be financially ruined.
    How do you mod someone Bushy-bearded nut job on the street corner?
    1. Re:I forget... by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you mod someone Bushy-bearded nut job on the street corner?

      In today's world? +1, Insightful.
  47. corruption of public officials by garyrich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This was my first thought when I heard this story. Their de facto ownership of the Clearwater PD seems to have worked well enough that the program is being expanded globally. I assume, true to style, that most/all of the Co$' "private" security for this demonstration were off duty constables? Lovely legal way to buy the hearts and minds of the cops. If the cops are recruited to the cult they can even count on getting their money back from them.

    --
    -- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
  48. Professionals by azzuth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it is interesting to me how adept the Scientologists are at all of this. Despite the number of critics and the widespread information about the strange beliefs of the religion, not to mention that it was started by a Sci-Fi author, and a whole laundry list of questionable practices, the church has a large following and tons of money at its disposal.

    It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out over the course of the next 100 years... Would be a shame to see it emerge as a new world wide religion.

  49. Rise of the hive mind by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "Open Source" government may be closer than you think.

    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!

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.