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.'"

Comments

Watch out, City of London cops...

[Swampash]

...the Cult of Scientology is about to ask for its money back.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[LockeOnLogic]

Nah, they'll just take away some of their thetan points.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Swampash:

It has come to our attention that you have made an unauthorized use of our copyrighted work entitled Cult of Scientology (the "Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. We have reserved all rights in the Work. Your post entitled 'Watch out, City of London cops...' illegally utilizes our Work. By using the name Cult of Scientology you have violated our copyrighted work.

As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the our name as the basis for 'Watch out, City of London cops...' nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed our rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.

I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to us, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by April 1, 2009 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.

Very truly yours,
Terryeo

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[Chris Burke]

Ah man, but they were just about to level up to OT II!

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[Sique]

So only the final monster to slay^W^W^W audit to pay for full points? For some reasons the Scientology ideology reminds me of a lifelong session of Giana Sisters or Super Mario Bros.

What happens if you get to the final level? Are there any cheats or secret chambers to collect additional Thetan points?

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[Oktober Sunset]

Back to the forest killing boars for you.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[JebusIsLord]

PM me. I need a biopsy of your brain for science. If it's alright, i'd like to remove the entire prefrontal lobe.

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[hobbit]

Eric Jon Phelps? Is that you?

Re:Watch out, City of London cops...

[JAlexoi]

Hey.. You at least could have quoted UK laws no US ones! Man its in the HEADER! Not like you even HAVE to RTFA to know it's in UK.

Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Corporate Troll]

Every religion is a cult, just a popular one. Scientology isn't popular in any definition of the world and as such "cult" is very appropriate.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[phunctor]

A cult is a religion whose founder has not been dead long enough.
--
phunctor

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[mdwh2]

Every religion is a cult, just a popular one.

Indeed, there is an argument that we shouldn't have to distinguish between cult and religion - it's a shame that saying "Scientology is a dangerous religion" isn't enough.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[AndyTheSayer]

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.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Robocoastie]

so true but the use of the word in the vernacular has rendered the meaning of the word useless. We live in a state of "feelings" now instead of rationality thus the "politically incorrect" movement which seeks to gag freedom of speech in the US. Although it seems obvious now that Britain still doesn't have freedom of speech so perhaps my point is moot.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[mgblst]

I know that happened in Germany (why are they the more sensible government all of a sudden), but not in the UK.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[biquet]

Heh, I think you meant "Branch Davidians." Camp David is a retreat for the POTUS.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Corporate Troll]

Ah, but atheism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy. To be a religion you need something to worship. Kinda hard when you don't worship anything.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Wymsey]

I'm much more worried about the City of London Police.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[frisket]

Was "cult" really the word used?

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Dan541]

At the end of the day does it matter what is and isn't appropriate?

I thought free speech would allow the word "cult" anyway.

is the word "cult" insulting?

[circletimessquare]

i would say amongst the slashdot community it certainly is, but in wider society, its a simple descriptor of a small religion. you may happily supply the negative connotations of calling something a cult, but as these judges wisely ruled, the negative connotations are not automatically implied

if the student held up a sign saying "bill gates is a geek", amongst the 13 year old male jock contingent, this is a horrible slander. but with the rise of the internet, its almost a compliment, especially as "geek" implies new wealth nowadays

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[_Shad0w_]

The CPS isn't made up of judges, it's the Crown Prosecution Service; they're solicitors. They decide whether there's a case to charge someone with a crime or not. In this case they decided, rightly, that there wasn't. It didn't even get in front of a judge.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[_Shad0w_]

(That's actually a bit of generalization; it's also responsible for actually prosecution people if they do decide there is a case.)

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Joe the Lesser]

It is insulting(it implies brainwashing and other unethical behaviors), but it is correct when applied to CoS.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[maxume]

The other way of looking at it is that at least two people get to judge the merits of a case before it gets to someone that is actually called a judge.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[bsDaemon]

In Latin there is no difference between "Cult" and "Religion" -- its the one word. The State Religion was "Cultus Deorum" -- cult of the gods. At a very basic, technical level, there is nothing wrong with the term.

On the other hand, in the age of middle east mega-religions, it's pretty much taken on the meaning of "unpopular, wrong, pseudo-religious scam," which Scientology also clearly is.

Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too.

but the point is, Scientology is only out there confuse reality and roll you for your wallet -- same as every other religion.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[esocid]

Bill Gates bites the heads off chickens in a carnival.
There, that's what I meant by geek.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Kirth Gersen]

When I lived in Cambodia I was amused to see the sign for a Ministry of Cults, but after a while I realized they'd taken the usage from French, where "culte" is non-pejorative, meaning any religion.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[bsDaemon]

Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too. Oh, sorry -- this is what happens when you post to slashdot in the middle of also writing for work. That should have read: "Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) has become confused because of Christianity, too."

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Just Some Guy]

i would say amongst the slashdot community it certainly is, but in wider society, its a simple descriptor of a small religion.

...in much the same way that "negro" is a simple descriptor of a dark-skinned person.

Yes, "cult" is highly offensive to many (most?) religious people, with connotations of "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate" and other scary groups of brainwashed zombies.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[ChromeAeonium]

Same as every other religion? I beg to differ. I've seen missionaries give up almost everything they own for their religion; at my local church there are people who work with teens/elderly folks who honestly care and devote a good bit of time and money to helping them. The head of this church (it's an independent) goes out and does what everyone else does. If any of them are after money, they sure are going about it the wrong way.
I'm not saying every religious group is genuine, there are a lot that are just over glorified pyramid scams, but you can't say every religious group is in it for the money. I personally think that's the key difference between a religion and a cult (cult in the sense of a religion with a negative connotation). Religious groups want to help, cults want to help themselves.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[bsDaemon]

Suicide bombers give up their lives for their religion. Those who would help others would have done it anyway.

Why are the altars of Catholic churches in Latin America covered in gold while their congregations are poor to varying degrees?

I don't believe in God and I don't like organized religion because "the church" is now and always has been a means of social control. Religion is just that.

Read Cicero's The Nature of the Gods which is done as a Socratic dialogue. One of the key points is the difference between "religion," ie the public cerimonies, holidays and things, and superstition - ie, what happens to your soul sort of things. Religion is nothing more than social control and superstition is pretty baseless.

Eastern "philosophies" may be different (and in fact seem to generally match up with the laws of physics, biology and chemistry) but Judaism, Christianity and Islam are money-making, top-down schemes based on fairy tales used to guilt kids into believing that God is watching them and that they need to give money to the church to pay for their sins, and that money will be used to spread the word to people in other parts of the world who haven't yet been informed that they're fundamentally bad and evil and need to feel guilty for having sex or having fun.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, "cult" is highly offensive to many (most?) religious people, with connotations of "Jim Jones" and "Heaven's Gate" and other scary groups of brainwashed zombies.

I read this as "many (most?) religious people aren't smart enough to pick up a dictionary and find out what the word cult means."

One might say it's about their reactionary existence and not a lack of intelligence; I say one is caused by the other.

Religion is a way to fill a hole. No lack? No hole, no need for religion.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Just Some Guy]

I read this as "many (most?) religious people aren't smart enough to pick up a dictionary and find out what the word cult means."

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for "cult":

"Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups. For this reason, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label."

This would tend to indicate that a significant number of people feel that "religious cult" is a negative phrase, regardless of its dictionary definition.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Just Some Guy]

I gather from the way you are using this word that you think that 'negro' is a generally insulting word, similar to 'nigger'.

Deferring to Wikipedia again:

"Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur [...]"

I can't speak for all of America, but I've lived in quite a few places. In each of them, the word "negro" would have been ignorant at best, and often at least mildly offensive.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[rrohbeck]

Can't be.
The cult of Jobs and the cult of FOSS are strong here.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[Scrameustache]

In Latin there is no difference between "Cult" and "Religion" -- its the one word. There's no difference between "year" and "anus" either.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[bsDaemon]

Well, other than the fact that there are two 'n' -- but the word also means circuit that is repeated after time. In 'pagan' religions, time is thought to be circular, as opposed to abrahamic religions where it is teleologically.

it is used to describe the year because the year is cyclical. it is used to describe the rectum because its circular.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[JesterXXV]

Look, I'm an atheist too, but it's radically disingenuous to say or imply that all religions are a means of social control. It may very well be the case that some or many or most of them are, but even if you had said that (and hopefully backed it up with some sort of evidence), it would be non-sequitur in the context of ChromeAeonium's comments. He/she was discussing his/her own personal church community as a counter-example to your assertion that all religions are out for money. Come back to you, and you're talking about suicide bombers (shifting the goalposts), the Catholic Church (may be true, but one example does not an argument make), Socrates (appeal to authority), back to Abrahamic religions (still doesn't address the counterexample), and then some diatribe about puritanism - which, again, is entirely unrelated to your claims about money-driven religious institutions.

It's people like you, bsDaemon, who help to justify theists' frequent claims that atheism is just another religion. You've done nothing but lump emotional criticisms upon religion when there's plenty of logical, rational criticisms that go over much better, and which are fundamentally more convincing. Not to mention that the money or power-driven aspects of some religions are not universal to all religions - they're very common, but the root cause of it is superstition, which you barely touched on! Superstition is the true enemy here, not religion. Without superstition, you are still left with socialization, community, altruism, social welfare, philosophy, etc. - which are all neutral at worst.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[bsDaemon]

I mean to imply that good actors would be good actors, whether they did it "because of" religion or not.

Folk religions are not means of social control, directly. They are means to explain the world. Transplanted, "universal" religions are, in fact, used as means of social control.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off rabid about it, but I'm stuck in this office with people who don't believe in gravity (apparently angels grab your feet and fix you to the ground) and who want to try and "witness" to me all the time, complain about unions, etc.

I can't wait to get out of here, and every experience I've ever had with "Christians" or whateverelsehaveyou has been one fraught with hypocrisy and idiocy - like the aforementioned explanation of gravity.

"without god or religion, how do you know what is right and wrong?" they ask me. why does it bloody well matter? If I fuck people over, I'm likely to get fucked, too - and not in a pleasant way. "Altruism" is merely a front for self-interest based around the "golden rule." /His/ Church may not be out to scam people for cash, but I'm sure they ask for it to some degree, just like everyone from the Anglicans to Pat Robertson.

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[postbigbang]

Silly AC, you equate religions with fearmongering and fanboi-ism.

Oh, wait......

Re:is the word "cult" insulting?

[JeanPaulBob]

"Altruism" is merely a front for self-interest based around the "golden rule."

Ah, so everyone who does something nice/caring is doing it to get something out of the person they're doing it for?

And the Golden Rule is about getting other people to treat you nicer, not about the hypocrisy and immorality of not treating other people the way you would want to be treated?

/His/ Church may not be out to scam people for cash, but I'm sure they ask for it to some degree, just like everyone from the Anglicans to Pat Robertson.

Yes, it's always terrible to ask for money.

Seriously, what conclusion are you drawing from the (probable) fact that they take an offering? Wouldn't it be rather hypocritical for me to join a church community without supporting what they do?

Thank goodness that is settled

[0xdeadbeef]

But has replacing an 'S' with a dollar sign ever been tested in court? It is a powerfully clever insult, but that makes it all the more likely to be noticed. I am afraid of taking on both Microsoft and Scientology united.

Re:Thank goodness that is settled

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In Soviet America, Dollar Sign replaces You!

The bigger porblem

[Pig Hogger]

The bigger problem is addressing the effective infiltration by $cientologi$t$ of various police farces and justice departments.

It shall be remembered that 20 years ago, the cult of $scientology was deemed a criminal organization in Ontario after it infiltrated the Ontario Ministry of Justice and proceed to trash their evidence file. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recently ruled so.

Holy cow (pun intended)

[gx5000]

ZOMG !
We won one ?!
I can't just believe that sanity has won out over
religious sensitivities...and in the UK too !

Grats to the young gent for holding his ground.

There just might be some hope left for this generation.

Re:Holy cow (pun intended)

[Notquitecajun]

Well, had it been something even moderately insulting to Islam, there's no telling what would have happened.

I'd have thrown the book at him

[pmsbony]

he should be thrown in jail.His description of scientology as a cult was sadly one letter out.

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[91degrees]

Which letter do you change to make "cult" into "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing organisation pretending to be a religion for entirely self serving purposes"?

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[Hyppy]

Change that to "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing individual pretending to be loyal for entirely self serving purposes" and you will soon understand.

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[styryx]

l ---> n
You're welcome.

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[Builder]

2 letters surely...

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[cparker15]

Watch what you say about Scientology. Wouldn't want to rub 'em the wrong way, you know.

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[brainiac ghost1991]

woosh...

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[Hyppy]

Whoooooooosh!

Re:I'd have thrown the book at him

[msheekhah]

CULT: he means -L +N.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[jrumney]

If you read the article, what the CPS said is that to be considered "abusive or insulting" under the law, it would have to be offensive (as seen from a neutral bystander's point of view, not the CoS). So it is a higher standard than what you might think of as the colloquial meaning of "insulting".

Would be nice to know more details.

[91degrees]

Unfortunately the account is of a reporters understanding of a 16 year old's understanding of the law. Was he arrested, or charged, or was his name just taken down? Since he was involved with the police, the kid may have thought he was in more trouble than he actually was.

Re:Would be nice to know more details.

[sherpajohn]

He was read the "Section 5 Public Order Act of 1986", told to remove the sign, and a short time later had the sign removed by police who then issued him a summons. Clear enough for you?

Re:Would be nice to know more details.

[FreedomToThink]

There is an excellent video of exactly what happened on the day. Both his initial warning and his response, which have been featured on youtube before, and also the police catching up with him in an underpass after they'd consulted the CPS and obtained a summons, which is new footage.

The video is currently available on http://www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies/index.html#cf

look for 'Cult Friction' and the 'click here to download link' (70mb mpeg)

Re:Would be nice to know more details.

[91degrees]

It's the "summons" bit that I don't understand. I think the newspaper got it wrong.

My understanding is that issuing a summons that was the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution service, usually a few days after the offence. So either I'm wrong, or he was issued with a fixed penalty notice (which seems unlikely because reporters know what they are and would have said), or the kid is mistaken. That and the only photo of any piece of paper he received appeared to be a written warning rather than anything indicating intention to prosecute.

Re:Would be nice to know more details.

[gowen]

The kid was mistaken.
There never was a summons.
The kid was given a warning, and a file was sent to the CPS. The CPS told the police to get a grip.

Cult != Religion

[Joe the Lesser]

Now, I'm an athiest, but I can't stand the misuse of terminology, even if it feels clever to do so.

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.

Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.

Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.

Since the Church of Scientology is a hierarchal organization, it can be classified as a cult, but there are practitioners of Scientology beliefs in the 'Freezone' which do not answer to the CoS command and are not cultlike.

Re:Cult != Religion

[jedidiah]

> Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles.

If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.

When contemplating "religion as cult" you also have to consider those that are in a poor position
to fend of against "mere persuasion".

Also, the term cult itself is something that has become demonized and not used in it's original
context. It's meaning has already been twisted.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Justin Hopewell]

From Merriam-Webster:

cult

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

I would say Christianity and any other religion falls in line with this. It doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation, but that's generally how its used.

And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter.

Agnostically yours,
Justin Hopewell

Re:Cult != Religion

[y86]

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not. How does a set of "guiding spiritual principles" of an accepted religion differ from the "guiding dogma" of any other belief system?

Just because it's mainstream doesn't make it right.

It's all the same crap, it's a HUMAN-CONTROL-CLASS, with subclasses of Christianity and Scientology.

Religions all have the same effect, they control the weak and bend them to the will of those in power.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not. Well, don't "religions" engage in serious mind control? Advocating creationism, and preaching that homosexuality is immoral don't qualify as serious mind control?

Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion. What about monastic orders? What about the fact that higher-ups in the "religion" priesthood are required not to have a family? What about all those supposed saints that left their families or removed themselves from society, for some vague spiritual ascension?

Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion. Really? Are islam, christianity, judaism and so on anti-authoritarian modular decentralised organisation? Have I been living in another planet?

Re:Cult != Religion

[Amouth]

also the gp mentions cult = some mind control.. my question is if he has ever bothered to read up on Scientology - from every text of theirs i have ever seen.. mind coltrol and reality/perception distortion to their members seems to be their first objective

Re:Cult != Religion

[mdwh2]

Religions are just a set of spiritual principles.

Whilst I agree that there can be considered a difference between "cult" and "religion", often organised religions are a lot more than simply "just a set of spiritual principles".

The point is that it shouldn't matter if they're a religion or not. It's their behaviour that they should be judged by - the problem is that faith is seen as a virtue, and religion is seen as being above criticism and needing special protection, which leads people who don't know much about Scientology to defend it as a religion.

Re:Cult != Religion

[The MAZZTer]

Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)

You mean like this?

Re:Cult != Religion

[stoofa]

How on earth is advocating a belief 'serious mind control'?

Everyone advocates beliefs of one sort or another. If you are forced to believe something against your own free will... that is mind control.

From the way you are speaking, you must rush out to the shops in an excited panic after every commercial ad break.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Jason Levine]

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

Exactly. If you lump religions in with actual cults just because you don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, then you might as well call any group of people with similar beliefs and values a cult. Vegetarians? Cult! Athiests? Cult! Republicans? Cult! Democrats? Cult!

Of course, this is totally ridiculous and reduces the meaning of the word "cult" to the point that actual cults seem fine. Here's a little test. Join a church/temple/whatever. Attend services for a few months. Then try to leave. If the spiritual leader (priest, rabbi, etc) says that he's sad to see you go, wishes you would stay, but ultimately it is your decision, then the group isn't a cult. If the leader tells you that you'll roast in hell if you ever entertain notions of leaving their sacred community ever again and you should immediately repent, well then you're in a cult.

And while you're listening to the sermons during your time there, don't be confused. Of course the rabbi/priest/etc will be speaking along the lines of the congregation's beliefs. That doesn't in and of itself mean it's a cult. (Imagine if a priest in a Catholic church started a sermon about how the Pope was an idiot and Jesus wasn't the son of God. He'd be out of a job in an instant simply because his beliefs don't mesh with those of the church congregation.) If, however, other avenues of fact/opinion (e.g. the Internet, TV, radio, newspapers) are banned and you are *only* allowed to listen to the leader's sermon's, then you just might be in a cult. (It doesn't count if the religious leader himself doesn't use the Internet/TV/etc. He's free to do as he pleases. It only counts if he imposes that restriction on the followers.)

To give an example, I'm Jewish and once belonged to an Orthodox synagogue. I didn't like the rabbi there and only went because I was living with my parents at the time and they were founding members. The rabbi was very strict religious-wise. He wouldn't do certain things (like watch TV) simply because he felt they were a bad influence. However, he never told us to get rid of the TV from our houses. (If he had, my father would have laughed at him.) He was also very anti-evolution. I stayed silent during his sermons about how the world was created 6,000 years ago and scientists don't know anything, but only because I knew that 1) that wasn't the time or place to argue with him and 2) I could have the most informed arguments in the world and he wouldn't budge in his opinion. After all, it said right there in the Torah that God created the Heavens and the Earth.

My wife is fond of calling that synagogue a cult. However, it wasn't even close to a true cult. Yes, the rabbi tried to get the congregation to see the Jewish religion as he did and follow it as he did, but that's just normal. (If you think something is the "right" way of doing something, it's natural to try to get others to follow that way.) However, he never threatened people into following him. He just laid out what he believed and why he believed it. I disagreed with him and didn't follow his lead. My parents agreed with him on some things and disagreed on others. People left the synagogue with no trouble. When I left for college, I wasn't told to stay. Nor was I given any special "orders" to follow. (Not that I would have obeyed any orders that he gave.)

That group was a religious organization. One with views slightly out of sync with mainstream society, yes, but not a cult.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Tom]

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not. And in the real world, the boundaries are not always easy to define. There is no binary difference. All we can say is that on the extreme end, very strong cults have obvious and serious differences from very relaxed religions. But inbetween, they mingle and mix.

Remember, for example, that the catholic church only accepted freedom of religion in the early 60s. Before that, leaving christianity behind was as unthinkable according to the official church doctrine, as leaving Scientology is today.

Re:Cult != Religion

[zmooc]

Your description is rather subjective; each religion involves at least at bit of "convincing". When convincing becomes brainwashing depends is hard to tell. I do think you're right in your distinction between cults and religions, but it should be noted that this distinction is made on purely subjective criteria. One important aspect that should be noted, is that in the case of scientology this brainwashing is often performed on adults, which makes it rather visible. In most other religions, new members are brainwashed as of their birth and usually this type of brainwashing is called "bringing up". But a lot of those religions keep their members silenced by blackmailing them "if you leave us, ...".

I personally think all religions and cults manage to get people to believe things for which there is no rational or logical foundation. How they get those people to believe is rather (but not entirely;-)) irrelevant; that some religions manage to brainwash using a method that appears more friendly than others, doesn't really change the result.

Re:Cult != Religion

[mpe]

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.

Re:Cult != Religion

[xous]

The dictionary definitions of the word seem to differ from yours.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[15]

        1. Formal religious veneration
        2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
        3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
        4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;
        5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's eight definitions of "cult" are:

        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;
        3. The object of such devotion;
        4. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;
        5. 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.

See Wikipedia for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Re:Cult != Religion

[Angostura]

If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.

And if you really believe that it is impossible to distinguish between the level of coercion leveled on a member of say the UK Church of England and say Scientology hen I suspect that you have not been subjected to a cult firsthand.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

Exactly what I had in mind, and considering that the verse the AC cites is in the new testament versus the one cited by "The MAZZTer" which is in the old testament, it takes precedence according to the Christians.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Karl0Erik]

No, like this.

Re:Cult != Religion

[CowTipperGore]

Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that) You mean like this? Actually, I believe he was going for something more like this.

Re:Cult != Religion

[BytePusher]

Maybe he meant these passages:
Luke 14:26
"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."

Mark 10:17-31
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven.

No... He said that to one person. A guy who asked him, "What must I do?" A guy who's particular hang-up seems to have been attachment to his riches. He did not say that to any random person. (He also didn't say, sell it all and give it to me.)

You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)

No, you can't. He didn't say that. You added a piece: "only love God".

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?

Re:Cult != Religion

[Das Modell]

No, the GP is right. The word cult (as it is commonly understood) has been hijacked by edgy hipster atheists.

Re:Cult != Religion

[D Ninja]

Hmmm...the way I see those two passages...

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 /.ers argue, the Bible should not be taken completely literally. I tend to agree.

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.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Both of these are easily explained if you understand previous langauges and translations. Instead of me explaining the first passage in Luke 14:26, I'll give you a link http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm.

As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

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.

Absolutely not. I pretty much grep up Catholic. We pretty much only got the nicer parts to hear like "love thy neighbour", etc... I got confronted with the fundamentalist nuts on the Internet and that pretty much turned me into an Atheist.

The problem is not that you can't tone down those verses. As you said, I could interpret that those sayings were just for one person. For what they were recorded is a mystery to me then, as they are not important to anyone except that long dead dude. The problem is that fundamentalists *do* interpret the Bible literally.

However, logically, the Bible is a big pile of inconsistent crap written by goat herders 2000 years ago. Really not worth my time and a shame that so many people model their life after it. I have never(*), and will never, study the Bible.

(*) Oddly enough, I don't think I ever studied the Bible. Mostly my Catholicism teacher told the story and we got the interpretation for free. No need to think about it. I can't call that "study".

Re:Cult != Religion

[pjt33]

That's a technical usage which you don't tend to find outside academic study of religions. It's a synonym of cultus. An example would be the cult of Second Temple Judaism, which would relate to the system of temple worship and synagogues. It wouldn't include the emerging rabbinic tradition, because while that is an important aspect of Second Temple Judaism it's not part of the system of worship. So cult in this usage is not equivalent to religion but a strict subset thereof.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Ed Avis]

He said 'Jesus' not 'the Old Testament'.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Robocoastie]

Well it depends on how the word is used. In general I agree with your assessment of the word but in broader academic sense it applies to any religion but the difference between cult and religion is something more subtle - secrecy and mystery. It is when one considers secrecy that even groups like the Mormons fall into the category. Granted, their secrets are actually out due to those who escaped it but the Mormons, like the Scientologists do their best to discredit them and damage control the "secrets" they spill. In contrast, we can go to a public library to find out the full doctrines of the Catholics, Lutherans, and various evangelicals. Granted we can do that for Scientology and Mormonism too but the difference is they discredit or condone only those they "approve." In other words they don't allow independent inquiry and full disclosure.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Absolutely not. I pretty much grep up Catholic. We pretty much only got the nicer parts to hear like "love thy neighbour", etc... I got confronted with the fundamentalist nuts on the Internet and that pretty much turned me into an Atheist.

Interesting. "There are idiots in the world" implies "There is no God"? That sounds like a novel version of the problem of evil. :)

(*) Oddly enough, I don't think I ever studied the Bible. Mostly my Catholicism teacher told the story and we got the interpretation for free. No need to think about it. I can't call that "study".

Ah, I agree. That was not study.

The problem is not that you can't tone down those verses.

It's not about "toning them down". It's about reading them with a minimum level of attempt to pay attention to what the person who said them actually meant. It's about realizing that people do use hyperbole, and there are ways of figuring it out with some measure of objectivity. (That is, there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones. There are reasonable ways to figure out what someone meant, and unreasonable ways. Reading verses without paying attention to context is simply inexcusable.)

As you said, I could interpret that those sayings were just for one person.

"Those sayings"? I said that one saying was for one person. Not because I'm trying to find some way to avoid that command--because it was an answer to a particular person's question, and because Jesus never gave that answer to other people when teaching about the kingdom of heaven. I conclude he didn't teach that as a general command, because he never said it addressed generally!

You were simply mistaken when you said that he taught that we have to do that.

For what they were recorded is a mystery to me then, as they are not important to anyone except that long dead dude.

Really? So when God told Abraham to leave his home and travel to a new land, it was pointless to record that because it was only relevant to him? When God told him to sacrifice Isaac, there was no point in recording it? When a prophet told David to repent of his adultery and murder, there was no point in recording it?

A statement doesn't have to be directed at me for me to learn from it.

The reason that you don't understand is that, as you have said, you've never studied the Bible.

The problem is that fundamentalists *do* interpret the Bible literally.

Yes, that is the problem. That is their error. So why are you content to engage in their foolishness? Why repeat nonsense like "Jesus taught people to hate their families an love only God", when he didn't?

However, logically, the Bible is a big pile of inconsistent crap written by goat herders 2000 years ago. Really not worth my time and a shame that so many people model their life after it. I have never(*), and will never, study the Bible.

My goodness. Do you have any idea what you just said? Read those two sentences together, and find the inconsistency. You've never studied it, but you somehow magically possess the sure knowledge that it is a pile of inconsistent crap? You've never studied it, but you are willing to make claims about what it teaches? You rejected it out of ignorance of it?

Re:Cult != Religion

[georgeb]

Cult - Dictionary definition

Please let me know how the statement "Every religion is a cult" contradicts, in any way, the last definition of the word "cult" as found in the above link.

I see no misuse of terms.

Re:Cult != Religion

[drinkypoo]

Now, I'm an athiest, but I can't stand the misuse of terminology, even if it feels clever to do so.

Helpful hint: install Firefox 2 or later, which provides realtime spelling correction.

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

Haven't been near a dictionary lately, have you?

The majority of the meanings in the American Heritage Dictionary for "cult" all apply equally well to Scientology or, for example, Christianity - or for that matter, any other offshoot of Judaism. To wit:

• 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. The world's leading religion is Hindu, with 13% of the population. Therefore, the majority of the world obviously believes every faith to be false. Every religion passes this test. Catholicism passes both parts of this test, because they have a single human figure to whom all members must pay obeisance (the pope.)
• Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. There is nothing especially faddish about it at this point - once a cult becomes successful we start calling it a religion, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cult. Christian faiths venerate the holy trinity, which is person, principle, and thing. (If you don't believe in the holy trinity, you are a heretic.)
• A system or community of religious worship and ritual. Check.
• The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. Check.
• A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. Aside from so-called "Christian Scientists" in general there is a pervasive belief in faith-based healing, especially in the Catholic church with its belief in fetishes (e.g. bones of saints, pieces of the true cross, the shroud or turin, or other artifacts believed to have mystical powers) and daily miracles.

In other words, every religion is a cult. Period, end of story, take that one home with you. If you had consulted your dictionary, you would know this.

Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.

Whether it's justified or not, all religion is brainwashing - you tell people that a thing is true when it is not provable and expect them to believe you, and you tell them lots of other unverifiable things to make them believe it as well. What's worst, you start in childhood when your subjects are most malleable. Lying to children is especially foul.

To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.

Except, you know, the dictionary. Since that's where you can find out that you don't know what "cult" means.

Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.

Of course you say that! You've been brainwashed. Just because the way they go about it is different doesn't mean their goals aren't the same.

Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.

While the degree to which these things are pressed

Re:Cult != Religion

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Worthless_Comments]

I've never studied biology, but I'm an expert at it's intricacies.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

My goodness. Do you have any idea what you just said?

Yes, I have a very good idea. I know that much smarter people than me actually did study the Bible and did come to that conclusion. I have more respect for those "Skeptics" than for any "Theologist". You see, I'd rather take the word of someone who stands skeptical to a certain issue and approaches it scientifically than someone who is already convinced of the truth of the Bible and only "needs to explain it". I mean, accepting what a theologist say about the bible, is the same as accepting what a used car salesman tells you about a used car. I'd rather have the information of an independent source, thank you very much.

I really don't see the worth of studying the Bible. What I saw, were a bunch of fairy tales and some pretty freaky hippy guy that did some miracles and as such putting it in the "fairy tale" category too. If for anything, you could study the bible as literature, but that's where it stops. Except for that, it really doesn't have any value.

Re:Cult != Religion

[schon]

Not sure what point you're trying to make - your post is a perfect example of the difference between a cult an a religion.

"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This is an example of a religion. If it was a cult, it would read something like this:

"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

Except biology is scientifically verifiable. Try that with the Bible. There is no real way to study the Bible, except to guess "what is really meant". Your guess is as good as mine, because it's, ehm, "guessing".

Re:Cult != Religion

[domatic]

If using "cult" negatively, I'd say the best two criteria are these:

1. The group is the member's sole source of support and validation. Any other form of emotional or intellectual support especially from skeptical family members is strongly discouraged and/or punished.

2. The group demands unreasonable amounts of the member's time and/or money. "Unreasonable" being defined as an amount that makes it very difficult to fulfill obligations outside the group like paying bills, attending family functions, or even being able to afford decent food.

Clearly, one can belong to a religious group without demands of that magnitude being regularly expected.

Re:Cult != Religion

[cparker15]

You obviously don't know the definition of the word "cult". Instead of copying/pasting and repeating others, I'll just direct you to a sibling comment: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=562170&cid=23516326

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

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.

Re:Cult != Religion

[frishack]

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.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Worthless_Comments]

Now I admit I have not studied the bible either(though I also don't try to explain it), but do you honestly believe that your opinion is as valid as someone who actually studied the book you're discussing?

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

There is no real way to study the Bible, except to guess "what is really meant". Your guess is as good as mine, because it's, ehm, "guessing".

When I read your words, I "guess" that you are giving me a recipe for making apple strudel.

As I said, there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones. Sometimes a passage is genuinely ambiguous, and you can't form an objective conclusion. Sometimes you can.

You don't get to wave your hand and say "it's all just your interpretation", or "it's all just guessing". The world doesn't work that way. Reading a text is subject to rules; words have meanings. Don't relativize everything.

I know it's an easy way to excuse disbelief, but try to resist the temptation. I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Minwee]

The Church of England? Also known as the Psychotic Bastard Religion?

So yeah, and the Romans went Christian and then we had Christianity for about 1500 years. You know, Catholicism, we believed in the teachings of Cathol, and everything it stood for... Then Henry VIII came along. Henry VIII, a big, hairy king, and he said to the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church:

"Mr. Pope! I'm going to marry my first wife, and then I'm going to divorce her. Now, I know what you're going to say but stick with me, my story gets better. I'm going to marry my second wife and then I'm gong to kill her, cut her head off! Ah, not expecting that, are ya? Third wife, gonna shoot her. Fourth wife, put her into a bag. Fifth wife, into outer space. Sixth wife, on a Rotissimat. Seventh wife, made out of jam. Eighth wife..." ( makes sound similar to putting babies on spikes )

And the Pope's going "You crazy bugger! You can't do all this! What are you, a Mormon? You can't marry all these people! It's illegal! You can't do all this! I am the Pope, I am the head of the Church, I have to keep up... ciao! I have to keep up standards. What have you been reading, the gospel according to St. Bastard?"

So Henry VIII, who was Sean Connery for this film, said:

"Well then, I will set up a new religion in this country. I will set up the Psychotic Bastard religion."

And an advisor said,

"Why not call it Church of England, Sire?"

"Church of England, actually. Much better... Even though I'm Scottish myself."

So they did! That's the birth of Church of England, the birth of the Anglican Church! Disgusting, eh? That's no basis to start a religion on! Nothing to do with the Protestant church,I mean,Henry just shagged and killed a lot of women and then stole all the money off the monasteries. You know, rape and pillage, that is!

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

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.

Sure, but their (the skeptics) arguments are sure much stonger and must more based in reality and science than anything the other side has to offer. Considering that I'm a scientist by trade, my side is already chosen.

Essentially, in #3 you say that nobody can study the Bible: nobody is objective to it. The believers will believe and will match the Bible to what they think is good. The skeptics on the contrary will study it to discredit it and say it's humbug. Essentially, you are now providing me with a lose-lose situation. Either side of the story simply is wrong.

All in all, considering the above logic, studying the Bible is a loss of time, because in neither case I will be able to distill any truths nor verifiable facts. It simply is a collection of freely interpretable stories, that's it.... See, I even removed the "fairy tales" part. We can settle on "stories", because that's what they are.

Personally, from me you can believe any humbug in any book there is, as long as I have the freedom to say it's bullshit.

As for #2.... When I read those contradictions, I couldn't believe it and, I actually dug out my Bible to check them. They were there, I at least looked them up. That still isn't study, but I checked the facts. (As any true scientist would do). The phrases were there, there is no denying.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

P.S. More on #3.

I realize that the relative objectivity of the two groups is arguable. I don't think it's absurd to conclude that skeptics are more objective. I do disagree, for the reasons I said, but I don't think it's absurd. I do think it's absurd simply to assume that one side is objective and the other isn't.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Robocoastie]

Old Testament! Fun. I can do that too. Take a gander at this OT family "value" that you'll never hear preached on or read in your church: Abraham married his sister and god blessed the marriage: Gen ch. 17 and 20 Abe had many slave sluts Gen. 25:6 Jacob "has" both sisters Gen 29 god kills Er, Judah tells Onan to rape Er's wife but Onan at least has the decensy to not ejaculate in her which makes god mad that he didn't ejaculate in her so god kills him Gen. 38. This wonderful story you'll never hear in Sunday school yet it is the basis for church teachings against masturbation and birth control. God murders children Gen. 12 God decides girl babies are dirtier than boy babies Gen 12 Kids who yell at their parents should be killed Gen. 20 If your son is stubborn and rebellious don't use Dr. Dobson's "Tough Love" - just stone them Deut. 21. many more wonderful "family values" can be quickly found then verified at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html and yes, I read all those long before I ever even discovered that handy Concordance.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Minwee]

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Actually, that was misheard. What he actually said was "Bull, your work is not done. Give me some more, I'll shout when it measures eleven." The rest was just twenty two minutes of misunderstanding, only to be cleared up moments before the final credits.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Robocoastie]

whoops a couple Gen. verses should be Exodus actually, my bad. See the link then crack open your Bible to get the full disgusting contexts.

Re:Cult != Religion

[FreeUser]

Hmm...Jeremiah Wright espouses racism and anti-american hatred from the pulpit. John Hagee espouses anti-semetism, say's hitler was sent to us by God to punish the Jews and send them back to their homeland (in preparation to be destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon), refers to the catholic church as "the great Whore", and espouses hatred from the pulpit. Pope John Paul II refers to Buddhism as a stupid religion and puts the current pope in charge of shuffling pedophiles one-step ahead of the law (anyone else, in just about any jurisdiction, would be serving time for perverting the course of justice) and preaches that homosexuals are evil.

Oh yeah, "goodwill and love thy neighbor" alright.

If a cult is defined as an organization that manages to suppress all critical thought and subvert all reason, such that the cult becomes the center of it's follower's lives to the exclusion of all else, then Mormonism (LDS, FLDS, et. al.), $cientology, most forms of Islam, the Moonies, etc. certainly qualify, and what is more telling, every religion that isn't a cult aspires to become a cult.

Indeed, one might argue that religions are failed cults, and cults merely successful religions.

Anyone who has ever meditated knows that religion is hardly a prerequisite for spirituality. If there were a God, a deeper meaning to the universe, or a spiritual dimension to reality we as human beings could connect to, it is difficult if not impossible to find any organized religion, of any genre, that isn't a barrier to people establishing such a connection, as they all insist on placing themselves as the middle-man or broker of any such relationship, claiming that they (and they alone) can bring you closer to that (god|deeper meaning|spiritual connection), but of course, only if you are sufficiently obedient to whatever they say.

Which once again reinforces the point, cults are the logical culmination of religion.

Re:Cult != Religion

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Now, now. If you're going to quote Eddie Izzard so extensively, you should at cite him.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Joe the Lesser]

I study Scientology, and I believe they are a cult.

If you thought I was saying they weren't then you misunderstood my post.

What I was saying was that calling every religion a cult waters down the word's real meaning, which is abusive mind control.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

Well, that entirely depends... How can you justify studying the Bible? As a work of literature? If so, I will humbly say that any person that studied it as a work of literature is more qualified to have an opinion on it than I am. Especially in the context of literature.

However, in the context of religion, it becomes guesswork. Which verse is more important than which, even if they contradict. How is this and that miracle to be interpreted. At that point, my guess is as good as yours. Like the verse above, that says "sell everything, or you won't be allowed into heaven". You can interpret it differently: JeanPaulBob gave a nice interpretation to it. What Jesus said is for that man only and illustrates that you should let go the most important thing in your life and embrace God. Fair enough. An Heremit might see it literally, sell everything and go live in a cave. Which interpretation is right? JeanPaulBob will of course say his interpretation is right, our Hermit will think JeanPaulBob is a heretic.

You see, interpretation of any text is pretty much guesswork. Unverifiable guesswork. Haven't you ever gotten a bad grade because you had to write an essay about a poem interpreting it and you got an F, because your interpretation didn't match the teachers interpretation? I most certainly did. However, in the case of my teacher giving me a bad grade, she probably had a good reason, namely she knew that the poet writing the poem was suicidal because it was recorded in history that shortly after that poem he committed suicide. Of course, I didn't have that piece of information (probably because I slept in class, literature wasn't my favourite subject). However, such contextual information is going to be very very hard with the Bible. A Bible scholar, should as such read the Bible, find independent sources to veryify the Bible and then draw conclusions. I will respect such a Bible scholar. Just taking bible and interpreting it on itself, is guesswork. However, this is what most theologists do.

So, yes, a theologist may know more verses and thump me into the ground with his Bible, but his opinion isn't worth more than mine.

Re:Cult != Religion

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.

Which group ? The whole ? Certainly islam as practiced in Indonesia and Pakistan is practiced as a cult. You know with the violence against those outside, the murder of those who leave the cult, intolerance of criticism, absolute obedience to a leader (both countries have a religious hierarchy with a single individual ...) etc. That's somewhere between 70 and 85% of all muslims worldwide, depending on whose figures you believe. So the large majority of muslims worldwide are part of a cult (let's say for the sake of the argument that most are victims of that cult, and unable to leave, but still members)

So where do you delineate the group ? Does the whole religion get stamped with the "cult" epithet ? Is an american muslim thus a cultist ? Certainly more than a few are, but that aside, are they all ?

Re:Cult != Religion

[operagost]

Matthew 10:37-38 clarifies the point that one is not necessarily to hate one's family, but not to place them above God. "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Also, if you understand Matthew 5:29, you will understand his response to the rich man. "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Obviously, Jesus doesn't really want people to maim themselves; but this is serious business. A Bible passage familiar to most people warns that "love of mammon is the root of all evil," and this rich man had fallen right into that trap.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

On #3: First, see the P.S. I just posted.

Essentially, in #3 you say that nobody can study the Bible: nobody is objective to it.

Not quite. I was saying that you can't assume one side is objective and the other isn't. From there, we have to speak carefully about what we mean by "objective".

I am also saying that no one is purely objective. Everyone has biases. Former believers have psychological motivations to justify their unbelief; current believers have motivations to justify their belief. Everyone is prone to confirmation bias.

That does not mean we're hopelessly lost in a sea of subjectivity. A reasonable, intellectually honest approach involves doing your best to distance yourself from your background & your biases. It involves examining yourself and your reasoning process. It involves testing your conclusions wherever possible. It involves taking out your presuppositions and doing your best to evaluate them. (Sometimes you can do that by finding support for them specifically--like having one theorem serve as a premise of another argument. And sometimes they're more like axioms--you can't test it directly, but you can examine the self-consistency of the worldview that results from them.) A good, true skeptic must think this way.

The worst, however, are people who don't believe they have biases. If you know you have a blindspot, you can try to work around it, and have some measure of success. If you don't know that it's there--if you're irrationally persuaded of your own objectivity--then you'll be stuck with its blinding influence. That kind of person will see themselves as a "skeptic", but is really just a denier. (Skepticism doesn't mean that you disbelieve; it refers to your approach. A Christian can be a skeptic--and if that thought seems inherently laughable to you, then I suspect you're in this "blind" category.)

The phrases were there, there is no denying.

It's not the existence of the phrases that is questionable--it's the spin you placed on them. You may not have come from a fundamentalist background, but you default into that approach--an approach that you probably wouldn't use when reading any other book. People use hyperbole & figures of speech--and figuring out when they are doing so is not pure "guessing". (Even if you conclude that I'm wrong about these passages, if you approach it in the way you have been, then you have no basis for your conclusions.)

Re:Cult != Religion

[Joe the Lesser]

I blanche at using the Webster's dictionary to solve the debate...as you can see they have 5 definitions.

Perhaps my goal is to sensibly define the radical difference between the Church Scientology and say, the Epsicopal Church.

Saying they are both cults waters down the human rights abuses of the CoS. If you haven't studied how the CoS operates, I recommend it. It is a fantastic look at merciless authoritarian control.

Re:Cult != Religion

[operagost]

However, logically, the Bible is a big pile of inconsistent crap written by goat herders 2000 years ago. Really not worth my time and a shame that so many people model their life after it. I have never(*), and will never, study the Bible.

That's too bad, because even if you only looked at it from a purely historical viewpint, you'd realize that it wasn't written by goat herders; nor was it all written a mere 2000 years ago. The New testament was (approximately), but the OT is clearly much older. Just the extant manuscripts go back to ~250 BC, and there are citations from other texts going back much further.

(*) Oddly enough, I don't think I ever studied the Bible. Mostly my Catholicism teacher told the story and we got the interpretation for free. No need to think about it. I can't call that "study".

Not a very good excuse.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Joe the Lesser]

My point revolves around how strongly the central power of the 'religion' attempts to enforce that dogma.

Taoism is a religion, but has no central authority, and thus is not a cult.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Joe the Lesser]

I agree, and I like the idea that a cult can be defined by a strong central authority that attempts to control it's members. Some religions do this, like the old catholic church, and some have never really been based on authority, like taosim.

But saying all religions are cults removes meaning from the word, and I think it is important to accept that some religions to do attempt to control their members(anymore).

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

there are reasonable interpretations, and unreasonable ones.

[...]

Reading a text is subject to rules; words have meanings.

True, true.... Yet who gets to chose what is reasonable and what is not? Let's get back to "Sell your stuff". I liked your explanation. It sounded very reasonable. They guy was rich and it was the only thing that counted for him and in order to find peace and God he had to part with it. Similarly, Jesus might ask me to part from my family if I had been at that point talking with him.

Now, you and I find your explanation very reasonable. However, what about an Hermit? He might have taken it literally and we are the ones being unreasonable.

There is *no* way to say which way is "right". How can you thus use such a book as guidance. It's pretty much as asking someone "Do I have to turn right of left to get to Rome" and get the reply "All ways lead to Rome". True, but not very helpful.

The problem is and stays interpretation. Because considering what is reasonable or unreasonable is *part* of the interpretation.

I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.

You're trying to tell me something there, right?

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

You see, interpretation of any text is pretty much guesswork. Unverifiable guesswork.

Why on earth would you insult my mother like that? She doesn't even have red hair!

However, this is what most theologists do.

How on earth do you know that? Where do you get your demographics? [1]

More importantly, why do you assume that when you're talking to me, I haven't approached it in exactly the kind of objective manner you're proposing?

Do you have any idea how much time I've spent thinking and learning about how to interpret the Bible well? Do you have any idea what kind of resources I try to use, so that my conclusions will not be pure guesswork? To look into cultural background? To compare the various things a particular author said, so that I'm doing justice to context and not just stripping out verses one-by-one and thinking I can know what they mean? Do you know how hard I try to recognize when a passage is ambiguous, and when it's not?

I'm living like these things are the words of God. I care very much about their reliability, and determining what they actually mean.


[1] BTW, I actually agree that most people--Christian and non-Christian--don't try very hard to study the Bible well. Many people have little basis for their conclusions. I see it often. I also see careful research & study. And yes, if I've done that and you haven't, my opinion is worth more than yours.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

There is *no* way to say which way is "right".

There is no way to achieve perfect certainty--in any area of life, in any field of study. There are ways to have strong confidence in your conclusions.

The particular spin that I offered--riches were that man's hang-up--is somewhat guesswork. If I just had that proposal, my conclusion wouldn't be solid.

But in this case, it's not very hard: If we know that Jesus taught a lot about the kingdom of heaven and how to get in, and if we know that he talked to a lot of people, and if he didn't tell everyone to sell their possessions--then we can be extremely confident that it wasn't a general command. If he never addressed such a command to a general audience, why would we even start to think that it was intended as a general command?

I know intelligent atheists who don't have to go there.

You're trying to tell me something there, right?

Not that I think you're unintelligent. I have no basis to judge--and it would be pretty ugly of me if I went around thinking that way. (I hope I don't do that.)

But that you've got an irrational approach? Yes, I'm trying to tell you that. I have respect for the approach of some people who disagree with me; I do not have respect for the approach that I perceive you to be using.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

You may not have come from a fundamentalist background, but you default into that approach--an approach that you probably wouldn't use when reading any other book.

Nah, I only default to it on the Internet to enrage the religious.

A Christian can be a skeptic--and if that thought seems inherently laughable to you, then I suspect you're in this "blind" category.

Evidently they can, because a Skeptic is pretty much someone who applies the scientific method. However, a Christian Skeptic is someone who has not yet confronted his religion with reason. I'm not even talking evolution vs. creation and all that crap. I'm talking about free will versus the omniscience of God. I'm talking about the omnipotence of God, yet if he can act on our world he is bound to the laws of physics (or else we should detect forces that are unexplainable to physics), but being bound to physics implies he's not omnipotent. I'm not even talking about the Bible here.

So, yes, there are Christian skeptics and Christian scientists. I'm sure they do their work right and are very good scientists, but they accept a bit irrationality in their lives because of religion. As said before, I have no problem with that. They can believe anything they want, but they are not being consequent in being skeptics and being scientists.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Obviously, Jesus doesn't really want people to maim themselves; but this is serious business.

A caution for you, brother: Don't be too quick to say that. Any statement that begins with "obviously" is suspect. If you can't flesh out the reasons, then you don't have a good basis for you conclusion--and people will be right to accuse you of picking and choosing.

Re:Cult != Religion

[BytePusher]

Actually, I felt that the message Jesus preaches here is self evident if read honestly and thus didn't really need my commentary. My attempt was simply to provide the context to the somewhat inflammatory grand parent post. As is the case with many knee jerk reactions, it looks a little silly once the whole context is considered.

It is possible to make anyone look crazy or evil if you stitch together tiny pieces of what they've said. To me it seems this is most frequently done in political and religious discussions. So, again, my attempt was merely to provide a more robust context.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

And yes, if I've done that and you haven't, my opinion is worth more than yours.

You still haven't told me what the point is of studying the Bible. The only reason being that it's "The Words of God" (quoting you there)? Who told you that, and why do you think it's true? That is simply not convincing to me.

Why is studying the Bible so much more worth than, say, studying the plays of Shakespeare?

Heck, why is the Qu'ran or the Greek Mythologies not the word of God? They have equal claims and equal arguments.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Corporate Troll]

But that you've got an irrational approach? Yes, I'm trying to tell you that.

Irrational in what way? Because I prefer science and verifiable facts over interpretation?

I didn't even start off as an atheist. Back in my early teen years I was very religious. All that started to wane off, once I got a good science education (physics, chemistry, biology), I started to see that my questions could be explained by something else than "magic". At that point I pretty much became agnostic. Later on, seeing the insanity of fundies on the Internet, I turned atheist. I do not think I have been irrational. I pretty much went the way from religious to atheist in over 15 years, finding answers along the way.

I now, indeed, have a hard time with people that refer to a book and say "it's the word of God and it has all answers". Is that irrational? Is my growth from a devout christian to an atheist irrational? I hope not, but if it is, I will gladly be on top of your "not intelligent" list.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Nah, I only default to it on the Internet to enrage the religious.

OK, so that's tongue-in-cheek--but I doubt you realize how much that kind of thing dilutes any argument against Christianity. It's flippant, cursory analysis--which doesn't speak well to the quality of your Rational Skepticism. You said that part of what influenced your rejection of theism was being "confronted with the fundamentalist nuts on the Internet and that pretty much turned me into an Atheist." It works the other way around, too.

However, a Christian Skeptic is someone who has not yet confronted his religion with reason.

You're welcome to believe that, but I find the examples you raise rather sophomoric. Free will and omniscience? Are you even familiar with the various definitions of free will--libertarian, compatibilistic, etc? In what sense do you think it's free? And if there is a conflict between omniscience and your definition of free will, why not say "Our will is not free in that sense of the word 'free'"? (I've recently been talking about this with some friends. I think "free will" is a terrible term--it's ambiguous, and means different things to different people. And the Bible doesn't even talk about free will--so conflict between free will & omniscience does nothing to show internal inconsistency.)

How much philosophy did you read before you decided that there's no intellectually respectable way to reconcile the two? Can you expound on Augustinian and Pelagian views of the will? Semi-Pelagian views? Martin Luther's extensive debates with Erasmus on the nature of the will? Do you know anything about Jonathan Edwards' The Freedom of the Will?

if he can act on our world he is bound to the laws of physics (or else we should detect forces that are unexplainable to physics)

Now that's just silly.

When and where he is acting, we should detect forces unexplainable to physics. Not, "if he can".

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Irrational in what way?

Seriously? You've been reading all of my comments, and you don't know in what way I've been saying that your approach is irrational?

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

I will gladly be on top of your "not intelligent" list.

Did you not pay attention? I said that I have no opinion about your intelligence; intelligent people are often irrational.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Right, I haven't gotten into that topic. I haven't defended why it's important. I didn't attempt to convince you on it.

I said that if I have studied it and you haven't, my opinions about what it says are worth more than yours. Is it really that hard for you? Worthless_Comments saw the same thing.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Mister Whirly]

Hardly? How could he not be Scottish when he was born in Edinburgh?? And the fact that he has a tattoo that says "Scotland Forever" on his arm doesn't really help your case either...

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

P.S. I'm going to have to let you have the last word. I really need to get back to work. You're welcome to contact me if you have any desire to do so.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Schadrach]

Good point there. I've wondered why people who use the "cults brainwash people, religions don't" line of argument don't consider it. Essentially, you have a growth pattern where you go from a "founding" state to a "self-sustaining" state. In the "founding" state, the bulk of your members are adult converts, as you lack a sufficient base of believers to maintain your numbers otherwise. Values are well apart from mainstream and thus need to be deeply impressed on members, with a persistent state of guilt "you are all sinners and always will be sinners and will be punished eternally unless you do X" being one of the more common routes to both impress the values of the group on the members and make the members stay adherent. Eventually, such an organization get enough members that it will be in continued growth with only current members + their children. At this point, most groups relax their rules somewhat to make it easier to keep numbers up, but most also become "softer" on converts, that is that there is less hellfire involved with the concept of leaving, techniques used to gain and hold converts are softened and so on, and it becomes what most everyone here will accept as a "religion" as opposed to a "cult". There also tends to be, after enough time passes, a disconnect between the "founding" beliefs and the current beliefs sufficient that apologetics become necessary to explain why the rules as written either are inconsistent or don't apply in practice.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Amouth]

ok then i did missread your post..

i agree that using "cult" for any and all religion is watering down the meaning - although i will agree with corporate troll that all religion has roots in cult or sects with cult styles.

some far worse than others - and with the modern demonization of "cult" i think we should save it for the worst ...

Re:Cult != Religion

[Twanfox]

Depending on the values of the person demanding, power over another is far greater than any power bestowed by having a few shiny baubles.

Re:Cult != Religion

[rrohbeck]

And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter. Or a daily Pledge of Allegiance.

Re:Cult != Religion

[GSwarthout]

This strikes me as ignorant. What secrets does the Mormon church try to keep?

Re:Cult != Religion

[Copid]

Everyone advocates beliefs of one sort or another. If you are forced to believe something against your own free will... that is mind control.

What if it's suggested that lack of belief will result in an eternity of vividly-described torture?

Re:Cult != Religion

[Brother Phil]

Missed a little bit there - Tamar (Er's wife) had the right to a child (fathered by his brother or other close relative), to inherit Er's estate. Onan tried to deny her that, and God killed him for it. Tamar later conned Judah into being the sperm donor.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Technopaladin]

Really? You see alot of camels passing through needles where you live?

Re:Cult != Religion

[JebusIsLord]

THE Church of England? The one that executed more than a few Catholics back in the day for refusing to convert? I'd call the threat of death a form of coersion...

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

However, as many /.ers argue, the Bible should not be taken completely literally. I tend to agree.

Incidentally... Virtually no one believes the Bible should be taken "literally". Even people who use that phrase mean something a little different--because no one[1] thinks that "I am the door" means Jesus thought he was a wooden slab on hinges. "At face value" is more accurate--it allows for figures of speech, hyperbole, etc.


[1] OK, there could be some weirdo somewhere at some point in the last 2000 years who thought that. But I think I would actually be surprised if there was a single one.

Re:Cult != Religion

[CrazedWalrus]

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.

Re:Cult != Religion

[TrekkieGod]

I find this entire discussion fascinating. I completely agree with your interpretation of those passages, and at the same time I can't understand how that makes them acceptable.

No...He said that to one person...

Right. The idea being, "are you willing to give up whatever you find most important in order to be accepted into the kingdom of God?"

Why should anyone have to be willing to give up what's important to them? Just because I'm not willing to give up my riches, or a host of other things I'm supposed to get punished for eternity? That's not a loving god. You wouldn't tell your child, "give up that which you are most attached to or I'll disown you."

Now, if the lesson had included a reason for giving up his riches, such as, "if you had a choice between keeping your wealth or letting an innocent die, you must be willing to give up your wealth to enter the kingdom of God," that would be different. But that wasn't about morality, that's "I'll reward you with eternal life in heaven or punish you with eternity in hell. Which you get depends on whether or not you will obey me, regardless of the cost to you. Fuck...that.

...using "hated" for "love less"

This is the same deal. He wants them to love Him more than their family, more then their own life. Actually, that IS rather cultish. Your family isn't as important as your newfound religion. Again, no. That type of love loyalty is earned, not given. I'm not going to love some god I've never seen, never talked to me, and gives ample room for me to even wonder if he exists or not more than the family that took care of me since I was born. Show up, demonstrate that you are a loving, caring, and good god, and you'll earn my love and trust.

Personally, I'm agnostic, and I believe that if God exists, than most of the stuff in the bible are just horrible interpretations by flawed humans. If there's a loving god out there, all I should do to earn my reward is to lead an honest life and not intentionally hurt anyone in the process. If anything more is being asked, and there's an all-powerful deity out there that really is that selfish, we're all fucked either way, so it won't change how I act.

Re:Cult != Religion

[natedubbya]

You wouldn't tell your child, "give up that which you are most attached to or I'll disown you."

I'm not so sure disown is the right word. Clearly you have a long life with many chances before he disowns you. I would think if your child was really attached to drugs and knives, you would try to get him to stop that too. The only difference is that you've chosen your own value system, and have rejected the possibility that greed and money could be bad to you. Your entire post is a classic "I've decided what is valuable, and God should then agree that it is valuable" argument. It's flawed because you're kind of missing the point as to what and who a GOD actually is and means.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Wymsey]

Actually, consulting my dictionary I find that none of the 6 meanings of the word allow one to distinguish between, for instance, the Quakers or Scientology. I know which group I'm at home with and it ain't no loonies believing in some extra-terrestrial master race rubbish. My soul may be lost but not that lost.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Concerned Onlooker]

It's odd that you should mention psychotherapy. Do you have an axe to grind with it? It would have been just as informative to say rock bands, books and movies can be the basis for a cult.

Re:Cult != Religion

[JeanPaulBob]

Why should anyone have to be willing to give up what's important to them?

Everyone is always willing to give up what's important to them, for the sake of something that's more important to them. The premise of Jesus' comments is that God--the creator, redeemer, etc.--should be more important to you than anything else. That was background to his comments, not the subject of them.

Just because I'm not willing to give up my riches, or a host of other things I'm supposed to get punished for eternity? That's not a loving god.

And that's not the situation. You're working from a wrong assumption.

The subject wasn't "do this or I'll punish you." It was, "You already deserve punishment; where do we go from here?"

But that wasn't about morality, that's "I'll reward you with eternal life in heaven or punish you with eternity in hell.

As I said, I really think you're mistaken in that.

Show up, demonstrate that you are a loving, caring, and good god, and you'll earn my love and trust.

Again, what was the context of Jesus' words? God showing up, healing, and getting ready to suffer death for the sake of people who don't deserve it, in an act of supreme humility and love.

If there's a loving god out there, all I should do to earn my reward is to lead an honest life and not intentionally hurt anyone in the process.

Again, it's not about "What do I need to do to get a reward", it's about "I already deserve punishment; what happens now?"

Re:Cult != Religion

[TrekkieGod]

I would think if your child was really attached to drugs and knives, you would try to get him to stop that too...The only difference is that you've chosen your own value system...have rejected the possibility that greed and money could be bad for you.

The difference is that I will sit down with my children and explain to them how their habits might be self-destructing, instead of just telling them, "do it because I'm telling you to, or you will be punished." If God explains the reasons certain actions are bad for me other than that He will punish me for them because he doesn't like it, that's a completely different story. That would be a loving god that is trying to guide you.

I'm sure that my children will make many choices I will not agree with. When I think they're doing something that is a mistake I will not simply prohibit it, but I will explain to them why what they're doing is a mistake. When it's simply a matter of preference (like different politics, or different religions), I might disagree, but I won't punish them for making a different choice.

Your entire post is a classic "I've decided what is valuable, and God should then agree that it is valuable" argument. It's flawed because you're kind of missing the point as to what and who a GOD actually is and means.

I do kind of miss the point of who a God actually is. Is it just someone that's more powerful and more knowledgeable? Satan fits that description, and we're not worshiping him, right? The reason we're not is because the God we do worship is a God we believe is just and looking out for us. I have indeed decided what is valuable and what is not, because if there is indeed a God, he has left it up as a guessing game. He doesn't directly talk to us. He may or may not have talked to some people who wrote some stuff down, but what guarantee do I have that he has, and they weren't just crazy people? We have people today that claim God told them to go kill someone, but we don't believe that. Why should I believe some book about things I've never witnessed. Maybe they did happen, maybe they didn't, I'm not sure either way.

Re:Cult != Religion

[TrekkieGod]

The premise of Jesus' comments is that God--the creator, redeemer, etc.--should be more important to you than anything else.

Well, I missed the part where it was explained why God should be more important. That was the point of my comment. God hasn't directly communicated with me to earn that kind of loyalty and love.

"You already deserve punishment; where do we go from here?"

For doing what? For not being willing to give up his possessions for a being he he has never met? Like I said, you'll have to explain to me why that's deserving of punishment.

God showing up, healing, and getting ready to suffer death for the sake of people who don't deserve it, in an act of supreme humility and love.

I do understand that. And if I witnessed God personally healing and helping people, I would certainly agree that he's good. If some guy tells you that he's met somebody who claimed to be the son of God and he performed some miracles, you're not likely to believe it, though. But we're expected to believe what's written in the bible. I haven't personally witnessed God, He hasn't personally talked to me.

Once you personally experience that love and protection, they you would find God more important than your own life. I would give my life to protect my parents, most parents would do the same to their children. This type of love naturally grows in humans when they're in a loving relationship, it's not something that's given to you as a command, "you should love me more than your own life!"

it's about "I already deserve punishment; what happens now?"

Again, what has he done to deserve punishment?

Re:Cult != Religion

[mattack2]

All dictionaries have multiple definitions for words when appropriate. The first one is the most common definition, and so on.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Oktober Sunset]

umm, it says sell and give to the poor dumbass, reading is not hard, you look at each word one at a time from right to left till you get to the end of hte line, you don't read a few, skip some, then make some up.

Re:Cult != Religion

[mattack2]

Just google "contradictions in the bible" and you can find tons of them.

One site in the first list of results is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions

That page mentions contradictions in Genesis 1 & 2. I thought that there are also multiple contradictory Adam & Eve stories, but I may be mistaken.

Re:Cult != Religion

[coren2000]

"You already deserve punishment; where do we go from here?"

For doing what?

For touching yourself...

no seriously, you do bad things all the time, you get angry, you feel lust, you eat too much... those sinful things that make us human are what you should be punished for.... Now whether the punishment fits the crime is another matter altogether.

Re:Cult != Religion

[TrekkieGod]

For touching yourself...

Nah, God kills kittens when I do that. The kittens are the ones who are punished, not me.

no seriously, you do bad things all the time, you get angry, you feel lust, you eat too much...

Not a single thing in your list is a "bad" thing by itself. They can lead to bad things (although they can also lead to good things). What action do I take when I'm angry, or when I feel lust? Why is doing something I enjoy, but that doesn't hurt anyone else (like eating too much or even "touching myself") a bad thing? I can be held responsible for my actions, not for my feelings.

those sinful things that make us human are what you should be punished for

Why would anyone consider a god who thinks we should be punished for just being who we are "just"? How could he love us if he hates the very things that, in your own words, make us who we are?

The entire concept of "good" and "bad" is one that needs justification. Assuming that God has is giving us the good and bad guidelines because he wants to help us, that is. If he just wants us to coerce us into doing what he wants, then might is right, and we can't do jack shit about it. Assuming he doesn't just want to coerce us into doing something, there's only one logical method for putting things in one category or the other. First, we assume all humans are created equal. Then you should refrain from doing anything to anybody else that you would object to if you were in their shoes. If it's not in that category, it's not bad. I can't kill someone because I'd object to somebody killing me. I can't steal because I would object to somebody stealing my property. I can't commit adultery because I would object to my wife sleeping with another man. I can't declare other people's sexual habits evil because I'd object to them declaring my sexual habits evil.

And if we're not all created equal, and some people are allowed to have rights that others can't have, then we're back to the unjust god thing again.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Minwee]

Or perhaps provide a direct link to the source, containing not only his name and likeness but also precise details of the show that was from and where to order it.

You know, like I did.

Re:Cult != Religion

[Cederic]

Just because the overt business bases and demonstrable abuse of the cult of scientology is more apparent than that of other religions doesn't make them any better.

Religion is wrong.

Everyone!

[grub]

"Thank you, Thought Police!"

Nice to see

[CapitalC]

that there is somewhere in the world where the system works rationally and figures itself out.

Re:Nice to see

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was working the boy would never have been approached.

Re:Nice to see

[Clover_Kicker]

1) a few asshole cops overstep their bounds
2) the prosecutors refuse to take the issue to court, and clarify to the cops what is or isn't allowed

Sounds like a workable system to me.

Re:Nice to see

[lysse]

Kind of. Sometimes the perception arises that it's tougher to get cases accepted by the CPS than it is to get a guilty verdict out of a jury, though, so I never for a second believed this one would go the distance. What's nice is to hear them basically demolish the idea that there might have been a case and dress down the City of London police, rather than saying that prosecution would "not be in the public interest" or something equivalent.

Re:Nice to see

[skeeto]

Actually, I would bet that this is exactly what those Scientology nuts wanted to happen. Thanks to the Fair Game policy, identified critics of the Scientology get harassed or may even "disappear". These things are happening right now. This is why you see people wearing masks at the Scientology protests.

Now this guy has been clearly identified. They now know his name and where he lives. Getting in trouble for some kind of "hate crime" thing is way better than having the cult of Scientology harassing you the rest of your life. Having the case thrown out isn't much of a victory at all.

Re:Nice to see

[ponchietto]

Except for the part where the cop pays for the legal fees... or at least present his excuses to the boy.

Re:Nice to see

[JohhnyTHM]

You missed the first step out:
1) City of London police receive thousands of pounds worth of gifts from $cientology
...
...

Re:Nice to see

[Clover_Kicker]

If that's true, the system still works- the prosecutors did their job and threw out this bullshit charge.

Re:Nice to see

[Clover_Kicker]

I don't think it got anywhere near a court, legal fees should be minimal.

Re:Nice to see

[jd]

You're probably right. On the other hand, it could be argued that this case wasted police time and was a direct consequence of anti-social behavour on the part of the scientologists. There are also reports of illegal influence by the branch on London's police service. As such, ASBOs could be issued against the entire branch, as could the barring of any individual from public office who secretly holds membership with it (as per Freemasonry restrictions already in place). Britain has amongst the best civil liberties of any country in the world, but also some of the best ways of abusing those liberties. Harassment by MI5 (who classified members of CND as "Potential Subversives" in the 80s) is entirely legal. Britain's health services are not required to treat self-inflicted conditions which reduce the chances of long-term survival. The list isn't endless, but creative British governments of the past have used existing legislation to cripple and/or destroy organizations they didn't like. Exiling all members of the church to Rockall could be fun, especially as the European Court of Human Rights is only empowered to deal with the rights of humans, not Thetans, allowing the British to completely ignore any EU ruling curtailing action.

You know...

[Otter]

I saw that Ontario is passing (or passed, maybe) new hate crime legislation that's limited to offenses against a "vulnerable minority". If the law is going to be applied selectively to defend only groups the prosecutors care about, it seems preferable to just state it up front like they're doing.

If it walks like a duck...

[sherpajohn]

...a rose by any other name is still a cult. Good news!

Right for the wrong reason

[Stormwatch]

So using the word "cult" is not insulting or offensive, so he gets away... well, good for him, but that's the wrong principle. Freedom of speech is serious business, damnit! Everyone must have the right to insult and offend and wipe the butt clean on the holy books of every damn religion out there.

Re:Right for the wrong reason

[techpawn]

Everyone must have the right to insult and offend and wipe the butt clean on the holy books of every damn religion out there.

If you're defense of your religion is in the courts when you are offended by someone then both your religion and your faith in it is weak. Perhaps you should take another look at your faith and where it is placed.
I may not like you bashing my faith but won't it do more good to debate you about the merits of my faith than to threaten legal action against you? Who knows I may get you to see things the way I do.

Then again, I don't like people who try to get people to see the world like they do by force either...

Re:Right for the wrong reason

[CmdrGravy]

Well broadly I agree with you but there are various laws in the UK which do restrict what you can say publically that have recently been used to lock up muslims for saying things like "Death To Non Muslims".

I happen to think that on balance this is a good thing and it's nice to see that the legislation doesn't appear to be being used irresponsibly so innocent things like what this lad has done do not get people in trouble.

The big win of course is that any future protests in this area and throughout the country are free to call the COS a cult as much as they like and everyone is clear there is nothing which should be done about it.

Re:Right for the wrong reason

[Hatta]

there are various laws in the UK which do restrict what you can say publically that have recently been used to lock up muslims for saying things like "Death To Non Muslims".

I happen to think that on balance this is a good thing

I don't. It just validates their persecution complex, and encourages them to go underground. Let them say what they want, and everyone will know who the crazies are and avoid them.

Like it or not, advocating Sharia law is political speech. If they can silence their political speech, they can silence yours.

Oblig. Simpsons

[HungSoLow]

Bart: Church, cult, cult, church. So we'll get bored someplace else every Sunday. Does this really change our everyday lives?

An Anonymous reader

[ilikejam]

How appropriate.

Pope's cult?

[Baavgai]

While I don't disagree, I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if the statement was "The Anglican church is a dangerous cult." The wording of the ruling basically says this is criticism and is fine. It will be interesting to see this tested.

All negative connotations aside, the only functional difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance and usually membership size.

Re:Pope's cult?

[slim]

While I don't disagree, I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if the statement was "The Anglican church is a dangerous cult." You'd get ignored as a harmless loony.

Anonymous get noticed because they're right.

Re:Pope's cult?

[One Childish N00b]

And if you dare say "Islam is a dangerous cult", you'll probably go to prison.

Re:Pope's cult?

[john83]

Just on the title of your post, "Pope's cult", the Anglican Church doesn't recognise the authority of il Papa, having been set up by Henry VIII when a former holder of that office refused to annul a marriage for him so he could marry the latest.

Re:Pope's cult?

[mdmkolbe]

While I don't disagree, I can't help but wonder how things would have gone if the statement was "The Anglican church is a dangerous cult."

The police probably wouldn't have even bothered if that was what was said considering how popular it is to bash the major western religions.

Re:Pope's cult?

[Baavgai]

LOL, the title and the one liner weren't meant to be connected. I'm aware of the history, but "Cult of the UK's National Protestant Faith" just didn't have the same ring. Various other options are easily dismissed by most Westerners as cults. Assuming a Eurocentric bend, it only makes sense to invoke variants that involve the dead guy on a stick.

And in other news....

[jeiler]

Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service will no longer accept cases for calling the sky blue or the grass green.

Tom, come out of the closet

[elrous0]

You're not fooling anyone, buddy.

See ?

[Yvanhoe]

The scientology planned on loosing this one...

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=559324&cid=23489324

The harassment has just begun

[eulernet]

Sadly, the young fellow will probably be harassed by the Scientology group from now on.

Re:The harassment has just begun

[91degrees]

Hopefully they'll consider doing so with no clear aim a waste of resources.

If they do though, I'd love to see them charged under section 5 of the public order act as a result:)

what I was really impressed with was

[advocate_one]

that the policewoman doing the summonsing didn't request him to remove his mask...

Re:Jesus also says

[JeanPaulBob]

"that there's no need to love god as long as you live right."

Eh? What verse do you have in mind?

What do they call themselves in scotland?

[magpie]

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)

Re:What do they call themselves in scotland?

[Scrameustache]

If they are not a religion and can't call themselves that what do they characterize them selves as? A charitable organization?

Re:What do they call themselves in scotland?

[mdmkolbe]

Of course Scientology isn't a religion. Didn't you know, Scientology is actually a Science based on the principals of Dianetics. [/sarcasm]

Re:Relativism

[Macthorpe]

This is weird. Calling Scientology a cult is a no go .

Holding a sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam" is all well and good Sorry, you're a news story too late. This one says that calling Scientology a cult is A-OK.

It's the law - don't expect police to know it

[QX-Mat]

This isn't a major liberties issue.

There have been several major changes to British liberties recently - the Terrorism Act is the beast behind almost all of them. Those changes - such as the outright ban on demonstrating near parliament and the requirement of express permission in order to do so nearby - are completely distinct from what has happened here.

Also, don't confuse the recent legal order curtailing legitimate demonstrations to a specified area either (Brian Haw has been protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament for 6 years!)

What has happened here is quite simple: an irate Scientologist who doesn't know the Public Order Act as much as the officer involved, persuaded a PC to halt the demonstration because of the wording on the sign.

This was a mistake by the officer based upon the facts and wording of the sign which, as the CPS said, cannot be deemed to be threatening, insulting or abusive (Public Order Act).

The "cult" description of Scientology is now a matter of fact within UK (there's an EU opinion too) born from the obiter of Justice Latey from a 1984 high court ruling which the sign incongruously quoted.

The officer should have better exercised his office of constable, chosen to read what written, and make up his own mind (in the UK a police officer is responsible for his own actions, he cannot be commanded by those senior to do anything he does not believe is lawful - he is personally liable for what he does and does not, save for contractual/employment obligations). Here the PC showed he was inadequately aware of the Public Order Act which permits the 15 year old's protest.

The CPS was right. They did the lawful thing. It would never have gone to court from the get go. It is an utterly laughable mistake by the PC that even Lionel Hutz would have recognised!

I hope the London constabulary involved is property briefed on their public order duties. I personally feel this was entirely avoidable - especially since R(Laporte).

Matt

Re:It's the law - don't expect police to know it

[jareth-0205]

Don't let them off so easily! It is a *serious* issue when policemen are taking money from an organisation and then appearing to act in that organisation's interests. If an officer is not sure of the law then he damn well shouldn't be acting on it.

This boy was an exceptional 15 year old, who knew how to defend himself and knew how to get publicity. How many others who are less sure of themselves, have been spoken to by police and just capitulated?

Re:It's the law - don't expect police to know it

[QX-Mat]

Damn.

I don't want to believe they're that incompetant in the first place :(

Matt

Re:Jesus also says

[Corporate Troll]

the bible is a collection of short stories, hacked together into one book. And so its inconsistencies are irrelevant to the people who are religious.

Why? It is supposed to be the word of God and a such infallible.

I'm an atheist too, but if we walk down the road of villification, we're no better than those that say without God in your life

Okay, but I only pointed out something in their holy book, which they are supposed to believe and to follow. Why is pick 'n choose allowed?

I wonder about "homosexual behavior is sinful".

[JeanPaulBob]

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?

Scientology Tactic

[EnvyRAM]

Scientology doesn't really care about winning these cases. One of their tactics to cause fear and control people is by prosecuting and harassing them. This is nothing new!

What a bunch of cults

[benwiggy]

That spelling error on his sign turned out to be fortuitous. "Scientologists are complete cults."

Sony? Try Scientology!

[darthflo]

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 :/

How funny there's...

[EddyPearson]

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?

The defininitions for you

[Thaelon]

Religion: A large, popular cult.
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Thinking for yourself: Awesome.

Re:The defininitions for you

[Chris Burke]

Religion: A large, popular cult.
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Thinking for yourself: Awesome.

Hey man, I'm not going to think for myself, just because you tell me to!

New Signage Ideas

[thegermanpolice]

That means we can hold up signs in 144 point fonts. F*&!ING* CULT

and in 12 point. * "FOOLING"

Re:New Signage Ideas

[zakezuke]

That means we can hold up signs in 144 point fonts. F*&!ING* CULT Well, at least that would be less confusing than

F*&!ING C*&T

For all I know they could be censoring Falling cilt(sp).

So what was the Inquisition then?

[Viol8]

If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[mackil]

So what was the Inquisition then? If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion. The Inquisition happened several hundred years ago, while Scientology and their practices are alive and well today. That is quite a large difference in relevance.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Wow if that's the standard by which you judge religions, and presumably the actions that must be taken to stop them, you must be advocating for nuking mecca.

Because by the standard of amounts of violence and death used to keep the cult/religion together, islam certainly spans the crown by a margin of at least a few hundred million deaths :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2342790/Hindu-Indian-History-Islamic-Invasion

About 100 million people died, and that's counting only 1/3rd of the eastward expansion of islam, in about 400 years, and that's the low death toll estimate.

The inquisition is less than a grain of sand with it's estimated death toll of about 2000 (lowest) to about 50000 (highest).

So in comparison : the largest ever problematic section of Christian history caused 1/2000 th the amount of deaths as ONE muslim religious expansion war. And that's using the highest death toll estimate on the christian side and a low one of the muslim side (otherwise it'd be 2000 versus 300 million).

At the westward side of expansion there were a lot of cultures in the way of the muslims. Hardly a trace remains : Egyptians, Tunisians, Carthage, the Berbers, tons of Jewish kingdoms, twice as many small Christian kingdoms (and we're hardly 1/6th of the distance westward, one can only imagine the amount of culture lost)

So tell me, what do you think ?

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Chris Burke]

If thats not coercian of the worst kind I don't know what is. And it was a part of the roman catholic church - a supposed religion.

Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?

Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

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.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Scrameustache]

I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain? First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader.
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

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Sique]

The Inquisition was something very else than "coercion of the worst kind". It was more or less created to regulate and moderate the "coercion of the worst kind" that was happening anyway. Burning a witch on a stake was happening everywhere in the late Middle Age Europe, and to avoid this going out of hand the Inquisition was created to actually look into the matters before handing down a verdict.

Even Bernard Gui of "the Name of the Rose" fame was not the sinistre hunter of witches and heretics as portrayed in the movie and the novel. Of the more than 100 inquisitions he made during his career, about 40% of them ended with acquittal, another 30% with little penalties (for middle age ideas of "just punishment") like paying a fee or a whipping. About 30% were actually found guilty of heresy and thus sentenced to death.

Given that he was prosecutor and judge in one person this is a pretty gentle record.

Differently than that countries without the Roman Inquisition had a much worse record. There were german towns in the 17. century which lost half of their population due to witchhunts and neighbours blaming each other of practising Dark Arts and heresy and the local authorities handing out death sentences fast and before they were accused of heresy themselves.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Sique]

The british invasion in Ireland led by Oliver Cromwell was puritan-evangelical motivated and has cost the life of an estimated 300,000 of irish people (among them 12,000 catholic priests). So the Inquisition, which lasted at least 400 years, was pretty tame compared with that.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Chris Burke]

First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.

The state was officially atheist. If "cults of personality" count, then plenty of alleged atheists are really religious, which given your explosion of anger in the next sentence I think you would take issue with.

Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed

Marshal as much deliberately stupid and useless pedantry in an effort to fail to understand as you want. The fact is, atheists murdered millions of Christians due to their beliefs.

And if you weren't being deliberately stupid, maybe you would have gotten the point which is that of course the "lumping" of all atheists with Soviet totalitarians is invalid, just as lumping in all Christians with the Inquisitors is invalid. In fact, the Soviets had more in common with the Inquisition than Soviets do with Atheists or the Inquisition with Christianity in the present.

Like the word "practicing" changes that.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[couchslug]

"Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?"

That's a deliberate conflation of Communism with a-theism. Being theism-free does not imply ANY other ideology or spirituality at all.

Communists wanted power, saw theism correctly as a competitor for power (The Tsars and church were what ruled and ruined Russia to the point that Communism looked like a good solution), and used ANTI-theist Communist ideology to justify destroying their opponents. Communism only takes hold when its predecessors fail, so one might rightly blame the Tsarist state and the church for bringing on the deluge.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[JebusIsLord]

So during the inquisition, you'd say that the Catholic Church could be classified as a cult? I bet you wouldn't...

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[zakezuke]

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. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's public humiliation. They don't shout it on the PAs "Bob can't take communion". It's more private humiliation, on the edge of public humiliation, which one can argue is worse. This presumes one finds divorce humiliating.

I don't know the ins and outs of it, I think technically to get the Jesus Wafer after divorce, you have to get the marriage annulled. I also doubt that all priests pay attention since about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Wymsey]

I will have a word with John Cleese maybe he can camp up Scientology!

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Oktober Sunset]

aha! Nobody expects the Sea Org!

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Oktober Sunset]

Difference, Christians in the inquisition killed because they had a book that tells them to kill, Christians still have the same book today, and they still believe in it. You claim to believe in a book that orders the death sentence for adulterers, gay men, those who tolerate other religion, sabbath breakers, blasphemers, and all manner of people. We know christians have acted on this book before, isn't it legitimate to fear that they might act on it again, after all, the things to book says are the same, and they still say they believe in it absolutely.

on the other hand
Stalin being atheist is no more relevant than Hitler being a vegetarian, he killed because he believed people were enemies of the revolution, that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs or lack of, Atheists don't get their ideas from the same book as Stalin, there's no book of atheism that has instruction to kill anyone who disagrees with our beliefs that we have in common with him.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

... "over a period of 400 years". So were talking not about a worldwide population of 250 to 350 million, the killings occured over several generations.

They occured over a period of 400 years when life expectancy was (let's be generous) 40 years. So we're talking 10 times that amount of people, so between 2,5 and 3,5 billion people was alive.

If it all occured in a 100th of a nanosecond, you'd be right. However, wars used to last tens, if not hundreds of years. The muslims kept killing for over 400 years, thus giving plenty of time for new victims to be born. They also didn't stop because "the war ended" just the intensity of the killings went down. In reality in Kashmir (both in Pakistan's and Indian Kashmir) they're still at it.

Also it wasn't nearly as trivial as it is today to locate your opponent. This sounds like a stupid problem but let's take reality as is. TODAY, we're talking about 1200 years after the start of the muslim extermination campaign into india, there are STILL several buddhist and hindu villages on the edges of India in those days : on the border between pakistan and Iran. Even inside Saudi Arabia there are still (a few) non-muslim berber communities (don't tell them). Why ? Because by sheer luck they never encountered the muslim extermination armies.

Today they have a simple policy : they kill anyone that approaches their village immediately, and without exception (just like the Druze, another tiny people that resisted the muslim onslaught for a thousand+ years, do in Syria, in fact they're having a hard time kicking that particular habit in Lebanon as well). That's probably why they're still alive.

Wars, a 1000 years ago were
-> utterly slow ... the fastest army could move ... oh say 40-50 km a day. WITHOUT fighting obviously. With fighting the average was maybe 2-3 km/day. So covering even a trivial area took ages.
-> stupid ... the only way to know where your enemy was located was either a map (if he didn't move) or asking. Asking people who lived 50-100 km away from what direction the enemy "mostly" came. So you can imagine just how accurate the movements were. Lets take the start of the first crusade as an example. A call for reinforcements was made in a Christian Jerusalem. 2 months later the western world received said plea. 12 years later reinforcements arrived. 12 years. During which the muslims "stood knee-deep in blood in the streets of Jerusalem". Can you imagine that this was even possible ?
-> generally massive numbers of people never even knew there was a fight. At poitiers, you could live 10 km from the battlefield, and you'd hardly know anything was happening. At 50 km from the fighting it became probable that you never even knew.
-> it wasn't possible, at all, to protect a border. Even today protecting even tiny borders is basically impossible. You just don't have the manpower. The wall of China was the largest ever border protecting structure, with massive numbers of soldiers assigned to it, construction costs of 5-10 times the GDP of China of those days and ... it failed it's second attack.
-> An extermination campagin was VERY successful if you had 2% of the people dead or enslaved. Successes like that are basically unheard of, due to the logistical limitations.
-> they involved very few people. The general population rarely had any idea a war was on in the first place, never mind that they knew how it was going.
-> what we call "native" inhabitants were constantly involved in exactly what darwin predicted. Resource wars. Constant resource wars for thousands of years. Wars that were not about domination, treasure or anything, but wars that were about survival and were fought to, or near to extermination. E.g. indians did this. Wars, fought to extermination over hunting grounds.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[brabo_sd]

the inquisition is just a part of the machine the catholic church used to be. they took care of internal problems. but the catholic church also waged wars. how many died during the crusades? i bet ya it will be just a little more than what the inquisition did. just my 2 cents ;-)

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Despite my previous post actually containing the truth you repeat this lie ... why ?

The first Crusade on wikipedia

Here is the reason for the first crusade :

By the early 8th century, the Umayyad Caliphate had rapidly captured North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Spain from a predominantly Christian Byzantine Empire. During the 12th century, the Reconquista picked up an ideological potency that is considered to be the first example of a concerted "Christian" effort to recapture territory lost to Muslims, as part of the expansion efforts of the Christian kingdoms along the Bay of Biscay. Spanish kingdoms, knightly orders and mercenaries began ...

The crusades, certainly the first three, were defensive in nature on the Christian side. The muslims were (as has been nearly always been true in their history) the agressors.

It gets worse. After a while a sort of peace was reached, a sort of balance, with some 5 christian kingdoms in Israel. They were the source of food for the muslims.

The muslims KNEW that attacking their only source of food would both cause a famine, and preclude any chance they might have had to defend themselves from the mongols. They attacked, 30 million muslims starved, and the mongols (also muslims) committed started the massacre that would later turn into the massacre of the Indians.

They also started the black slave trade, a practice that would continue to be organised by the muslims until 1923, when British forces defeated the last caliph (the muslim pope).

A Turkish homosexual (who is a hero in my book) proceeded to create the modern state of Turkey. You've probably heard of him : Atatuk. Just in case any Turks read this : I mean no disrespect (rather the reverse : it is truly amazing what he accomplished, given his situation) to Ataturk by this.

His unofficial "successor", Ay amin al Husseini is called "hitler's mufti" for a reason :

The last muslim "pope"

He was personally responsible to give the order to one of the two muslim regiments of the SS to execute 5000 children younger than 3 year, explicitly going against hitler's orders and risking his skin, because they were jews.

There are a few VERY low points in muslim history. And if you look up what sort of atrocities their prophet comitted, you become truly disgusted. But don't just accept what I say about that, rather, read it for yourself :

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3371

And what is the goal of the muslims ? Don't let me keep that from you.

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

In other words : muslim wars can never cease until there are only muslims left. This position is shared by all islamic schools, EVEN the sufi one.

I'm not saying every muslim wants to do this. However, it is what their religion says. If they follow it, this is what they'll do. Most muslims do indeed not follow it.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Stumpeh]

I know it's de rigueur to stick it to the dirty towel heads these days and all but I think it's important to point out that you're talking utter bollocks here. 100 million dead? The paper you site goes so far as to state that they "easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million [Jews] of the Holocaust", but no further. And that's "over 13 centuries". If we're looking back that far I'd say the Christians rack up a decent showing what with the damage they did to Muslim numbers during the Crusades, and they certainly net an own goal for the 30 years war which manages 11th place on Wikipedia's list of wars and disasters by death toll. This is, I believe, the greatest number of deaths caused by an individual religious dust up. So much for the inquisition...

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[brabo_sd]

first: I was not aware that the first crusades were actually defensive in nature. All I was trying to make clear is this: every religion can be (mis)used to gain power. Islam as well as Christianity. Which in my eyes history has proven well. IMHO, religion as such is a good thing. If you choose to believe, fine by me. It's only when some potentate uses the religion to his own ends that things go wrong.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Can you please stop equating every ideology with every other. After all if you say that then you are evil too, since whatever ideology you have, it is evil by this standard.

Sure, anyone can LIE about his intentions and use any religion to achieve personal ends. Sure. But there is also the truth. There are facts one can look up.

Obviously nobody vouches for the behavior of EVERY last man (or woman) who claims to follow some ideology. However for most ideologies one can easily assemble facts. A trivial example might be that any true socialist is to take the bus, and not to have his own car. If not, one is obviously not a principled socialist. That just about every socialist politician have multiple personal cars does not mean socialism allows for everyone to have a personal car, it is vehemenently opposed to it. Likewise, Al Gore isn't in favor of lowering HIS OWN co2 output, and thus isn't really concerned about the environment, at least not in principle. He's a career politician who will switch sides if he deems it wise. Does that mean that environmentalism doesn't have a message ? Does it mean that environmentalism wants to give everyone a personal private jet ? Obviously not. It exists, and it's message is quite clear, despite the fact that it's main proponent is such a big "environmental sinner". Real socialist exist (e.g. in Israel, the settler movement), and real enviromentalists exist.

The same can be said about a "true" Christian and a "true" muslim. They exist. Not merely someone who claims to be Christian or muslim, but one who truly is, and looks to the bible (or quran) for guidance. Those are books, who haven't been changed for X years (bible : 1900 years, quran : about 60 years now), and are considered constant. Their contents do not change, and cannot be turned into just anything. There may be some room for interpretation, but certainly not as much as you claim there is. The ten commandments are VERY clear, and their meaning, even if they are currently poorly translated, is a known constant for nearly 4000 years now.

Therefore "Christianity" (meaning Christians who follow the bible) will not use violence to achieve world domination in a honest interpretation (and by definition, people like that are honest). Islam will. Jesus did not attempt to conquer, nor did he kill people who doubted him. Muhammad DID, and those acts are accepted as sacred acts in the islamic faith.

Killing people for criticizing islam is the normal case in islam, not the exception. Google for "Asma bint marwan", and you will read that the islamic prophet sent out assasins in the night. Therefore, that is not an unacceptable act in islam, just like anything Jesus did is per definition not unacceptable (including insulting a woman (and her husband btw) for getting divorced, however everyone knows the story about the stoning, and utterly shaming a woman in public for "sleeping around", is perfectly acceptable Christian behavior, and this will never change, violence against a woman for that is unacceptable, and that too, will never change).

Well here is the islamic version of the stoning story :

(same story as in the bible until the judgement is made, and continues) Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah b. 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.

If you criticize this action, muslims are to try to kill you (which is specified in another hadith, see again the Asma Bint Marwan story). Needless to say, this law is still applied in many muslim countries, including Iran and a few others.

Note also that Christians (and ... "mostly" Jews, which today means nearly all of them) try to respect what they call God's law THEMSELVES.

Re:So what was the Inquisition then?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>that is the action of each individual priest who participated.

one of which is now the pope, so yeah I think it's important.

Co$ and City of London Police bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that don't understand the parent post, read about the Cult of $cientology bribing the cops.

I wonder how much would City of London Police go for on eBay? Pretty cheap probably.

Re:Co$ and City of London Police bribes

[jd]

Several senior members of the London police service are also said to be members or heavily aligned with it, in addition to any bribes or handouts. This won't reach the scandalous proportions of West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (the entire squad was itself investigated for carying out serious crimes) but frankly I'd regard it as being on a similar level. A corrupt and degenerate police force cannot - and should not - be tolerated in any western nation.

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.

Re:Co$ and City of London Police bribes

[augustw]

Can I point out, again, for the benefit of non-Brits, that the police in this instance were the City of London Police - which is a very small constabulary which only covers the City of London - essentially the "Square Mile" financial area - and not the Metropolitan Police, who cover the other 600 square miles of London. The Met are rather more measured that the CoLP, who are the ones with dodgy links to the Cult of ElRon.

City of London Police - 900 officers.
Metropoliltan Police - 32,000 officers.

Breaking news

[Kingston]

The head of the crown prosecution service has just been arrested by the chief operating thetan of the city of London police and charged with being a suppressive person.

Obligatory...

[torgis]

Religion: A large, popular cult
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.

-torgis

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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.

Being insulting is a crime?

[sherriw]

It's a crime to insult someone?

I thought that hate speech, inciting a crime, or defamation are the only types of speech that are illegal?

So what does freedom of speech mean then if you can't insult anyone or any organization? It's negative criticism generally insulting?

Re:Being insulting is a crime?

[FurtiveGlancer]

It's a crime to insult someone?

Not in the US. That's what we seem to refer to as entertainment.~

Defamation, libel, slander and villification may be punishable offenses. Also, if one uses profanity to insult, that may be punishable under certain circumstances. For instance, using profanity in the presence of a minor is an offense in several states and municipalities.

Many people believe that freedom of speech is the right to express your opinion in civil discourse without threatening or unfairly abusing others. It should not be interpreted as the right to blurt out whatever crosses one's mind at any moment in time, as the old standard of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater demonstrates. Nor should it give one license to browbeat those with differing opinions. That would cease to be *civil* discourse.

I believe they covered this in kindergarten: "Play nice."

Re:The police action, however ..

[91degrees]

Does it really need a COURT judgment to decide that this was A Very, Very Stupid Idea?

No. It wasn't a court decision. The Crown Prosecution service is just the organisation that brings the prosecution on behalf of the government.

Re:Allah akbar

[antek9]

While I fear that _anything_ being posted below this rather abusive first post will get modded Troll, I have to say that wasn't all that offtopic in the first place.

Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.

In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

Who gets to decide?

That would be "a judge". Please attend English Jurisprudence 101.

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.

Actually, that's not a legal principle at all, let alone a requirement. You might argue it should be, but to suggest that its a commonly held principle of jurisprudence is simply not the case.

Have a look....

[BigBadBus]

http://www.enturbulation.org/

Theres apparently going to be a big protest on June 14th 'At A City Near You'.

Re:Allah akbar

[Oktober Sunset]

Actually no, those Islamist protesters were prosecuted for inciting religious and racial hatred and found guilty. They are now in jail.

Re:Allah akbar

[Hal_Porter]

Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). That's not true.

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.

Re:Allah akbar

[antek9]

Thanks, and guess what: in this case, I'm perfectly happy to stand corrected.

Not so sure about the BNP guy, anyway. If those guys were opposed to Islam and similar cults only, that would be ok, but seeing that they are openly xenophobic against all non-whites (and some white folks as well, I figure), they would make bad allies for the case of defending civilization. The German neo-fascists are openly embracing Islamists, by the way, and are trying to join forces against Israel and the US.

taking life vs. giving life

[catbertscousin]

Suicide bombers give up their lives for their religion. True. But their goal is to kill as many others as possible. Have you ever heard of a martyred missionary who was trying to kill the people around them in the process?

Re:taking life vs. giving life

[bsDaemon]

I'm sure there were plenty of "martyred" missionaries during the conquest of Latin America by the Spanish.

However, the point of that was sacrifice for one's religion. giving up all you own isn't as impressive as giving your life, now, is it?

Re:taking life vs. giving life

[JeanPaulBob]

If by "impressive" you're only looking at level of commitment, no, it's not. But why would anyone be using such a silly standard?

Voice of Bart

[AioKits]

Isn't the guy who does the voice of Bart Simpson a Scientologist?

Re:Voice of Bart

[li99sh79]

yes, i've heard she is.

Re:Voice of Bart

[AioKits]

Bart's voice is a she?

Re:Voice of Bart

[OldManAndTheC]

Her name is Nancy Cartwright

Re:Voice of Bart

[TrekkieGod]

Isn't the guy who does the voice of Bart Simpson a Scientologist?

The woman who does the voice of Bart Simpson is indeed a Scientologist.

Proper interpretation of the passage is...

[mario_grgic]

If you love any of those things more than you do God you can not call yourself the disciple of God, since you "serve" something else.

Nothing new really, Jesus said the same thing on many other occasions and in different terms (you can't love both god and money, you can't serve two masters for you will love one and despise the other etc).

Now if you try to use these passages to "prove" that Jesus was inciting hate in his followers, then you don't have a point. For Jesus also said he did not come to abolish "the law" (i.e. old testament) and the commandment to love your parents is in there too.

Christianity is a Cult, by basic definitions...

[tyrione]

of a Cult.

cult: â"noun
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.

What protects Christianity from being a "Cult" is that many consider it NOT TO BE FALSE.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

Actually, that's not a legal principle at all, let alone a requirement. You might argue it should be, but to suggest that its a commonly held principle of jurisprudence is simply not the case. And this is why criminal law in the many countries based on British common law ia fundamentally broken. It's part of the system that you can't tell ahead of time whether any given action is legal, placing all power in the hands of the government.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

placing all power in the hands of the government.

Well, no. Placing power in the hands of the judiciary. And in most places, the judiciary are well separated from the government. The US Supreme Court being a fairly massive exception to that rule.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It's about context.

Meaning it's about whatever the government thinks is important.

If you did the same via megaphone during a service at a Mosque, you'd be in trouble.

Then why are these cartoons causing so much uproar ? Nobody broadcasted them into a mosque.

So just don't claim that there's a fair standard here. You'll just make a fool of yourself. "Piss christ" isn't offensive. A guy with a knife and a turban is. Something is going VERY wrong.

Re:Allah akbar

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the stupid inflammatory propaganda is modded up, while the simple truth is ignored.

I know you all like to have a big circle jerk over how Europe is being taken over by the Muslims, who get away with anything, but it simply isn't true.

The protesters who were caught by police chanting those slogans were arrested, and they were prosecuted and some of them are now in jail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904622.stm

I'd hardly call 6 years in jail is hardly unnoticed.

Muslims are not being allowed to get away with hate speech any more tan anyone else, Abu Hamza (the crazy hook handed guy for those who don't know him) is in jail for inciting racial hatrid, and soliciting murder, so have other muslim preachers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7354397.stm

Muslims are held accountable just the same as everyone else. I'm afraid your apocalyptic fantasy of a Muslim takeover is just that a fantasy.

Re:Allah akbar

[crotherm]

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. I am in the camp that believes that as long as only words are used, don't prosecute. Their words will be beacon illuminating the fact that the person speaking those words are a complete loon!

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

The judiciary is a *branch* of the government. Anyone who gets to tell you what's legal and not is the government. While it's nice to have a balance of power between various ranches of the government, in hopes that fighting one antother will distract them from abusing citizens, a powerful judiciary can lead to tyranny as surely as a powerful executive.

Re:Allah akbar

[Hal_Porter]

Thanks, and guess what: in this case, I'm perfectly happy to stand corrected.

Not so sure about the BNP guy, anyway. If those guys were opposed to Islam and similar cults only, that would be ok, but seeing that they are openly xenophobic against all non-whites (and some white folks as well, I figure), they would make bad allies for the case of defending civilization. The German neo-fascists are openly embracing Islamists, by the way, and are trying to join forces against Israel and the US. Well they aren't allies - the English interned fascists in World War II, and would do so again if the BNP became too powerful.

But Nick Griffen manages to avoid incitement, at least in public. So he's not going to get locked up.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

Anyone who gets to tell you what's legal and not is the government.

So, your point is that the power to make laws should not be concentrated in the hands of the government. And that anyone who makes laws is, by definition, the government.

You're aware that that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Re:Allah akbar

[Hal_Porter]

I am in the camp that believes that as long as only words are used, don't prosecute. Their words will be beacon illuminating the fact that the person speaking those words are a complete loon! Don't you think there's a difference between criticising an ideology and calling on people to kill members of a group? I'd say the first is OK and the second is not.

If incitement were legal the BNP and the Muslims will both get their followers to attack each other and there will be chaos.

I think it's the same in the US. The first amendment prevents the government from using prior restraint. But if KKK members make a speech telling people to lynch blacks they could still be prosecuted.

Re:Allah akbar

[meringuoid]

Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.

Well, you got your +5 Insightful from mods who are convinced that Europe is well on its way to sharia submission, but you might like to know that the people to whom you refer were sent to prison for four years. Don't let that get in the way of a good rant, though.

Re:Jesus also says

[CrazedWalrus]

No one said that you can't be a moral person without God in your life. You can live morally and still make mistakes, bad decisions, get pissed off and do the wrong thing. That doesn't make you immoral at your core, but the sin itself does distance you from God.

The idea of Jesus was not that you can then do whatever you want and get into Heaven anyway. It's that he takes the blame for all those screw-ups that you regret so that you, a basically moral person, can get into heaven.

There won't be any people in heaven who are "immoral" at their core, because people like that don't know how to truly apologize when they do bad things, and would never put any effort into their salvation, because they don't "regret" anything. I'm talking here about people who truly have no conscience.

The entire point was to bridge that final gap, where "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". It means that even good people screw up and come up short in the end. Obviously, if you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, then you don't need Jesus. You can still live by the rules of society, try to help people out, and be a "good" person as defined by your society. The trouble comes in if Heaven and Hell really do exist, and you find that you really do come up short. If that's a gamble you want to take, that's up to you. Unlike a cult, no one is going to force you to believe anything.

Re:Allah akbar

[Wymsey]

But Nick Griffen manages to avoid incitement, at least in public. So he's not going to get locked up. We can but hope!

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

No, I'm saying that the power to make, enforce, and interpret the laws is, by definition, the government, and we should have as little of that as we can possibly get away with, regardless of which part of the government it is.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

Well, that might be the point you want to make now, but it really wasn't the point you were trying to make originally. Your original point was specific to legal systems based on British Common Law.

try to stay on topic, bub

[Scrameustache]

First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.

The state was officially atheist. We were talking about religion, not gods.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

Indeed: specifically that the "late binding" of the legal system gives too much power over our lievs to the judicial part of the government, as creatively interpreting narrow laws and selectively enforcing broad laws are both proven tools of tyranical government. A better system would allow one to know (in a binding way) ahead of time whether an action was required, allowed, or forbidden.

Re:(here on slashdot anyway)

[magpie]

Yes, but you have to see the West minister Parliament is only slightly aware that the scots legal system is different. Well if it happens out side the M25 they don't care.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

creatively interpreting narrow laws and selectively enforcing broad laws are both proven tools of tyranical government

So removing power forom the judiciary and keeping it all for the legislature is a well known bar against tyranny. That'll be because tyrannical governments are reknowned for their legislative restraint, presumably.

Look, separation of powers makes tyranny harder -- but by no means impossible. An independent judiciary can block tyrannical legislation, but tyrants have a tendency to remake the judiciary in their own image (see Mugabe, Robert).

Tyrants use every branch of state and government as a tool to impose their will -- look how the Taliban imposed their corrupt fundamentalism at every level of education, for example. But the fact it can be misused by tyrants is not a rational argument against state education -- unless you're an arch-Randian libertarian, in each case the concept of rational argument isn't much use anyway.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

Your reply seems to have nothing to do with my post. What does "remove power from the judiciary" have to do with "determine ahead of time whether an action is legal"?

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

Because demanding the legislature "determine ahead of time whether an action is legal" removes the power to interpret law from the judiciary.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

Ahhh, I see - you assume it would be the legislature that did that. You can't write unambiguous laws (or unambiguous anything in English), so I don't think it could be made to work that way. There's no way to avoid needing a group of career specialists in interpreting laws, it's just of question of what kinds of service they'd offer for their pay.

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[gowen]

you assume it would be the legislature that did that.

Well, who else is going to do it?

Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive

[lgw]

The judiciary, of course. Our tradition is to only rule on actual events in the past, based on a complicated web of binding and non-binding precedent. There's no system to get a ruling on a set of specific hypothetical events, binding or otherwise. And, while it's easy to imagine cases where such a thing would be quite complicated, there are many other cases where it's straightforward.

It's very common in tax law for no one to really know what a new law means until it's been clarified in court, often leaving many in the position of retroactively having been breaking the law based on that interpretation. Similarly, clearly unconstitutional laws require someone courageous enough to defy them to create a test case. Mostly, though, it would be nice to make local governments responsible for clarifying ambiguous local laws, such as requirements for building/work permits, instead of leaving it up to the size of the bribe you give the inspector.

Re:Not just "cult" - dangerous cult

[tyrione]

Even Red Dwarf fans could be called a cult. The sign said Dangerous Cult. Plus when talking about mind control cults we should be using cult expert methodology rather than broad dictionary terms. But yes, Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. There's no question about that. The problem is that Jehova's Witnesses, Scientologists etc. are used to saying "we're no more a cult than Christianity is". So don't fall for it. I'm Agnostic.

Hmmm... Are there COS operatives on the force?

[FazzMunkle]

Been thinking about this ever since the story broke. Unless there's something in COS rules forbidding the joining of any other group...

Re:Allah akbar

[crotherm]

Yes, there is a difference. But where is the line? And who gets to draw the line? There can be too much abuse with line maintenance.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson