Slashdot Mirror
UK Prosecutors Say 'Cult' Acceptable
An anonymous reader notes that following our discussion this week about the 15-year-old who was under threat of prosecution for calling Scientology a cult in a recent demonstration, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is no case to answer. They have issued new guidance to the City of London police clarifying when they can use their public order powers. Quoting: "A [CPS] spokesman said: 'In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting. Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression.' A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: 'The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behavior at a demonstration might be considered to be "threatening, abusive or insulting." The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.'"
By your broad definition, any community is a small religion, and that's not true. There is a common bond, but Slashdot users are more like what Kurt Vonnegut called a grandfaloon, which is a gathering of individuals with no overt tying bond, like the Order of Elks. While Elks are a philanthropic group and that's their bond (as in fraternal), the ties here are topics of nerdish/computing bonds. But even though the LinuxOphiles, MacFanBois/girlz, WindowsDefenderz, and the hackers bond, slashdot is not a small religion.
We agree the that the judges showed wisdom, but the taint of definition is still ambiguous and the stanch of free speech is still onerous.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I am in the UK, and had thought that Scientology had been legally deemed 'not a religion' in this country (they wanted to be a religion for e.g. tax purposes). I could be somewhat out-of-date, though.
I was just rummaging about and I discovered and interesting tit bit it appears in Scotland they are not allowed to call themselves a religion. If they are not a religion and can't call themselves that what do they characterize them selves as? (I really should look into that, as I live there...hmm might be able to get them into trouble)
I agree that this decision is a good one. But I wonder...How would they rule on someone holding up a sign that says, "homosexual behavior is sinful"? Would that be seen as "threatening, abusive, or insulting"?
Should it be? If so, why?
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
Hmmm...the way I see those two passages...
/.ers argue, the Bible should not be taken completely literally. I tend to agree.
1. You must honor your mother and father - respect, show deference to, obey, etc. I doubt there are many people out there who are going to argue that this is a bad principle. So, I'll just leave that one as it is. (And, yes, I realize some parents really need their head examined, but that's an argument for another day.)
2. The second is an interesting passage...basically it sounds like it is contradicting the first passage AND saying that you need to give up everything in your life in order to make an entrance into heaven. And, taken literally, that's absolutely true.
However, as many
So, in this passage, I tend to see it as Jesus pointing out the fact that, if you are going to follow Him, then you must let go of everything else in your life. Nothing can take precedence over following Christ. As a result, we should not put our full trust in people (including our families and friends), things (meh...that'd be just plain stupid as things have a tendency to disappear or break), or in ourselves (as much as I like to think I'm perfect, I know I'm not). That's not to say we cannot trust people or that we can't be successful, happy, etc. But, the idea is to realize where those things come from - and that is from God.
If a Christian puts anything else before God, then he is, in effect, contradicting him or herself by saying that thing is more important than the being he or she calls God.
Strangely enough, $(cent)i(euro)nt(currency)£(currency)g¥ is the only word I could think of containing all of c, e, l, o, s and y. An interesting connection, really. :/
Also, neither cent, euro or generic currency symbols are supported with or without JS in the new discussion system, making this post way less funnier
No mention of what's going to happen to the police who have have abused their power. Probably the same thing that happened to the chaps who shot that poor Charles de Menezes eight times in the head without provocation, nothing.
What ever happened to the days of the local Bobby? Friend to all law abiding citizens, there to help and not hinder. Nowdays when you REPORT a crime they're rude to you.
What the fuck happened?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Actually, the way I read it, Jesus knew he couldn't save that guy, and he was cruelly using him as an object lesson for his disciples.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Three things:
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
Yes, lets quote with no attempt at understanding. The bible is not the most read book in the world through the centuries because it is simple minded. You have to study it to understand it. To the first point, read this: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html To the second point: Jesus read the man like a book, and noted that HIS greatest issue was that HE loved money above everything else, and so gave HIM a challenge which he knew would be most difficult for HIM to overcome. This is not a prescription or command for everyone. The thing for everyone to take out of this, is that you need to place nothing above God. His observation was that rich people often place their money as their highest priority. He said it is 'hard' for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, not impossible.
Who exactly is a "neutral" bystander ?
...
Say I call islam a death cult, is that offensive ? To whom ? Who gets to decide ? Obviously no muslim is a "neutral bystander". Nor am I.
Guess it's the same as always : the politicians in charge
The essence of the law is that it's (supposed to be) predictable. Ie you know in advance whether a certain action might land you in jail or not. This does not satisfy that requirement.
The RCC *is* guilty of coercion in this decade. Children raped by priests were told that speaking to anyone about what had happened to them they would be violating the sanctity of confession and land them in hell for all eternity.
If that's not coercion, what is? Bear in mind, that just because many people have the intelligence to know the RCC is full of shit when it threatens burning in the fires of hell for all eternity, doesn't mean children are able to see things that way, least of all raped children.
Also, the RCC still uses public humiliation as a tool for control e.g. get a divorce and you can't take part in communion - you are deliberately singled out of the community as being less deserving than everyone else.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed
You can't take the sky from me...
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-im-glad-nick-griffin-was-acquitted-235.html
Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".
Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn't be enough to land you in jail.
Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam."
Although he apologises now, Rahman's remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn't be enough to get you convicted.
I'm a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.
So the "Behead those who insult Islam" guy was jailed, the scientology protester and the guy that called Islam a "wicked vicious faith" were not. Seems fair enough to me. Rahman clearly stepped over the incitement line and Griffin didn't (or more likely didn't step over it in public).
Rahman got six years in prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizanur_Rahman
He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them." [3] On November 9, 2006, he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred[4]. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of inciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.[5] At his retrial in 2007 he was additionally convicted on the solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison.
The government must really hate you if they keep trying you until they get the right result. And everyone else must hate you too if no one questions this dubious piece of gamesmanship. Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists. I'd say France's suburbs have already fallen to the Islamists. And Malmo in Sweden is pretty close to doing so. But the British state has centuries of experience ruling all sorts of people. The people at that demonstration are a tiny, unpopular minority on state benefits and the rules can be rewritten to make life very unpleasant for them. In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution. I agree it would have been laughable if this 15 year old Anonymous guy had been prosecuted. I'd throw the book at Rahman though. And rewrite it and throw it again if the first time didn't do the trick.
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;
Interestingly, if any action were to take place, it would be because of other secret organizations (Mark Masons, for example) that are within the police. Their influence will have been diluted, and much of the freemason rights to remain secret have been lost over time because of blatant, exposed corruption from other organizations. It would seem in their interests, then, to crush Scientology in London as far as possible. To quote a certain movie, in the end there can be only one. And the older, more reputable organizations would be insane to have that one be a bunch of crazies.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Admittedly, everything one reads is filtered through their previous experience and the resulting world view. That said, you seem to be coming at that from an overly cynical point of view.
If you read the Bible, you'll find that *everything* was an object lesson to Jesus. The simple act of eating and drinking, family, death, sickness, birds and flowers, life itself -- he never missed an opportunity to explain his thoughts. He was, after all, acting as a teacher figure.
To single this particular event out and say he was being cruel to that guy is really spinning it all wrong. He was giving that guy an opportunity to do what all of his disciples had already done. They'd left their families and all their possessions to follow him around the countryside. Why could they do it and he couldn't? Because he had much more to lose? Maybe. Maybe it was because he didn't have enough faith that Jesus really *was* more than a wise man and prophet, and so to throw away everything based on the word of some guy who may or may not be someone special -- that's tough.
Now, as a family man myself, I understand this guy's conundrum. It's easy to make a decision for yourself, but can you imagine coming home and telling your wife and kids that they're now homeless because you're giving all your stuff to the poor..... eh... not an easy thing to do.
Anyway, don't be so hard on Jesus. He was really forcing this guy to realize what was important in his own life, and where his priorities were. Honestly, if you're not doing that to yourself once in a while, you really stand to get pretty far off-track in your life. You can look back over your life and realize that you haven't done anything you've wanted to do -- the big things, I mean -- or that you've become someone very different than you'd hoped. Everyone needs those course corrections sometimes, whether they're self-imposed, spouse or friend-imposed, or Jesus-imposed.