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."

51 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 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.

  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 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
    2. 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;
    3. 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 ----
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

  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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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?

    6. 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."
    7. 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.
    8. 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. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.

    ...?

  8. 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 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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!
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

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

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

  20. 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.

  21. 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 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
    3. 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.

  22. 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.