A teenager in the UK faced prosecution recently for holding a sign up in the street with words on it.
The words? “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”
He’s wrong of course. It’s both. Other cults like Christianity and Islam have just been around for longer, so they get to be called Religions.
The teen was arrested by a City of London police officer; the same police force that was found to have members accepting “gifts” from the Church of Scientology.
He was arrested on 10 May at a demonstration outside the headquarters of the Church of Scientology in London, under section 5 of the Public Order Act, which states, “A person is guilty of an offence if he … displays any writing … which is … insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
This seems like a stupid law but it also goes onto say that the accused has a defence if their “conduct was reasonable.” I don’t know what this means exactly but it certainly seems reasonable to criticise religion and accuse it of being dangerous. Why should religion get a free ride?
Justice Latey of London appears to have agreed. In a 1984 ruling in London he said, “Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious … it is corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based on lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for Mr. Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top.”
You could say the same about most religions so I can see why some people who aren’t members of a particular religion might want to protect others from religious criticism. Once you accept criticism of the Church of Scientology, for being a childish superstition for instance, you open your own religion up to the same criticism.
It would be interesting to know if the officer who made the arrest is religious, or, for that matter, if she has had any involvement or contact with the Church of Scientology.