…and this is a 
John Dixon is a councillor in Wales who, a year ago, and one day he wrote this on twitter:
I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.
Oh, deary me. What a blistering attack, what an in-your-face, vicious, horrible, bloody, nasty bit of savagery that was. Surely it fully warrants the Church of Scientology making an official complaint and trying to get him fired? The church claims that being called "stupid" "impinges on the right to religious freedom".
No, it doesn't. Everyone has a right to believe in stupid things, and everyone has a right to call them stupid.
If you're on Twitter, practice your right to free speech and join in the fun: use the tag "#stupidscientology". It's Streisand effect time!
(Uh-oh. I'm being a dick again, aren't I?)
(via Jack of Kent)
Comments
Posted by: Zifnab
|
July 20, 2010 9:54 AM
Oh god. We've finally found a way to harness the raw power of banal stupidity. Creationism - defeated by it's own blade. How ironic.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 20, 2010 9:55 AM
The church claims that being called "stupid" "impinges on the right to religious freedom".
I'm so confused at this 'logic'. Religious people are fucking babies.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 20, 2010 9:56 AM
PZ, if anybody else calls you a dick again, you should sue them for impinging on your right to religious freedom!
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 20, 2010 9:59 AM
That tweet is brilliant. I would vote for the guy if he was a councilman in my town. I walk past the Church of Scientology regularly, and I just want to poke my head in the door and ask them if they know they're following the teachings of a mentally ill, drug addicted science fiction writer who applied his profession to the creation of a fake religion in order to bilk people out of money. Don't suppose they'd take that too well. One day I saw a woman arguing with her kids in front, one kid as saying he didn't have any money, the mother told him to just give a quarter or some such. I was hoping they wouldn't walk into the Scientology building. They did. Poor kid, forced to give his last quarter to a scam instead of buying a gumball.
Posted by: omnipasje
|
July 20, 2010 10:01 AM
I don't use twitter often. I only live tweeted the election results in the netherlands.
Congratulations, you made me tweet again ;)
Posted by: raven
|
July 20, 2010 10:01 AM
Oh, for Cthulhu's sake.
The right ad is now some flash ad for scientology.org.
Which took forever to load. The noncoincidence is amusing. Seed MG really needs to target their ads better than that if they want anyone to click on them.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
July 20, 2010 10:02 AM
If any religion deserves dickishness, it's Scientology. I'm willing to let religion alone if they let others alone, but not when they interfere with people getting proper medical treatment. Scientology kills. And Phil is as least as much a dick to anti-vaxxers, and rightly so. Anybody costing lives through dispensing fraudulent medical advice deserves the full compliment of dickish behavior.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
July 20, 2010 10:02 AM
Twitter is over capacity.
Oh noes--you broke Twitter!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 20, 2010 10:13 AM
That's a stupid thing to say.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 20, 2010 10:21 AM
The poor little things. How are they going to practice their religion freely and safely when there are people calling it stupid on Twitter. This is serious stuff.
Posted by: ralphgentile3
|
July 20, 2010 10:25 AM
And what's up with Wales? Are all public servants under the thumbs of the Language Police?
Posted by: MrJonno
|
July 20, 2010 10:25 AM
Church of Scientology does not even have 'religion' status in the UK, its legally a business. Not that there is much difference between say the Catholic church at a moral level but there is at a legal
Posted by: Mumon
|
July 20, 2010 10:26 AM
It's done. I can't wait to see us on "Religious Freedom Watch."
Right up there w/ Anderson Cooper.
Posted by: Whore of All the Earth
|
July 20, 2010 10:28 AM
Now I'm sorry I closed my Twitter account.
Posted by: RayM
|
July 20, 2010 10:28 AM
The really sad part, if you read the linked article, is that he has now been officially reprimanded for this "crime".
That is simply ludicrous.
Posted by: lexgreeno
|
July 20, 2010 10:31 AM
I've actually been into the Tottenham Court branch. It was bloody weird. First they take you upstairs to watch some weird movie about a college football (American) player who is paralysed until he reads the Dianetics book, which instantly heals him.
Then downstairs they give you an IQ test, which seemed legitimate based on my previous experience with IQ tests. But they also give you an EQ test, which is just bizarre. Some of the questions asked just don't make any sense. And then with the answers you provide they give you a little graph showing how hard you work, if you're depressed, your optimism etc. Invariably everybody is depressed on the graph.
Finally after that begin the questions. You go off to a little booth and are grilled by some cult nutter. The kind of questions they ask are extremely personal and it can be very uncomfortable. I can understand how someone who was mentally fragile at the time could be affected by it.
It's a thoroughly horrible blight on an otherwise quite nice road.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 20, 2010 10:33 AM
I really wish more people would take this to heart. Freedom of speech isn't really free if it shuts down the minute someone whines.
Also, following you on Twitter now. Not that I'm on Twitter much.
Posted by: Squiddhartha
|
July 20, 2010 10:42 AM
To quote Sam the Eagle, "I've always had the greatest respect for other people's crackpot beliefs."
Posted by: kaddath
|
July 20, 2010 10:44 AM
The douchebags waited for Torchwood to be decimated to whine... where's Dr. Who when you need him in Cardiff...
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 20, 2010 10:45 AM
There's a problem here of distinguishing private & official capacity.
As a representative of the state, no one should call a religion "stupid" or "smart" -- a secular state has no opinion on religion matters unless it directly impinges on the rights of others.
Of course, as a private individual someone employed as a representative of the state should have the same free speech rights as anyone else, including calling one's idiot neighbors cretins.
The difficulty is that with new technology, there's no consensus on when one is "on the job" and "off". Before, it was easy -- where you in your office or at a bar? At an official function or talking with your neighbors? There were clear boundaries.
But when you're twittering? Who knows whether you are twittering on the job or off? How do you distinguish official business from private life?
It's a general problem of blurred boundaries. PZ wouldn't call Christianity in general moronic in a developmental biology course -- it would be inappropriate in his role as a biology lecturer to be discussing theology (except as it directly relates to developmental biology). Here, he's "off the job" and speaking as a private citizen.
Many folks are no longer ever considered off the job -- they are owned by their employers. They have to carry a cell phone at all times, even though their job might be simply some midlevel manager or programmer, for example. We need to recreate boundaries if we don't want our few freedoms to get eaten up by tyrannies of employment, whether public or private.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
July 20, 2010 10:52 AM
The first part of that complaint is incredibly stupid, but (and I can't believe I'm defending Scientologists in any way) the last part of that strikes me as legitimate. If that Twitter account is his official one as a councillor, he should be avoiding comments such as that. I know I'd go ballistic if any of my city councillors said anything disparaging on their official Twitter accounts, no matter how great a comment that I agree with. Save it for their personal accounts.Posted by: Scorpy1
|
July 20, 2010 10:54 AM
From one of the tweets:
If we allow phonetics, I'd humbly offer: "litygeos con"
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 20, 2010 10:55 AM
Shala wrote:
I am compelled to observe that Catholic priests represent only a small minority of the religious population.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
July 20, 2010 11:04 AM
That's easy. Ask "is it an official position account (twitter account for the --- office of ---- city) or is it a personal account like the account for person who happens have the ---- of the city?"
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 20, 2010 11:23 AM
Don't fight your nature, Myers. Your dickishness is warranted here, so keep it up, so to speak.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 20, 2010 11:25 AM
Using one stupidity (twitter) to counteract another (scientology).
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmLpdSGnvU0JWU_T_YI1-59BmbF6i7xlx8
|
July 20, 2010 11:26 AM
Don't be mean to Scientologists. I mean at least they aren't the dicks in the Muslim world who want to kill you it you look at them wrong.
Posted by: titmouse
|
July 20, 2010 11:32 AM
Just double-checking if I'm spam-trapped...
I'm really sick of the knee jerk dig-for-dirt-spin-a-story-get-'em-fired fair game "tech." The "most ethical people on the planet" sure aren't the most creative.
Posted by: mattheath
|
July 20, 2010 11:40 AM
You distinguish like this. Also tweeting that you are on a street in London and not in an office in Cardiff helps to clarify.Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
July 20, 2010 11:50 AM
Not as much, no... But they are a mite twitchy with their lawyer finger.
(/Stay back! This plane is taking me to
CubaClearwater, or I'm having this guy right here sue you for somethin' at random!)Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 20, 2010 11:52 AM
#27
Oh sure, they don't want to KILL you. Directly.
They just want to destroy modern medicine because it doesn't jive with their insane beliefs, and thus kill you INDIRECTLY.
Posted by: JohnLDixon
|
July 20, 2010 11:54 AM
Hi - thanks for the mention. I'm pretty awestruck by the response this has generated.
Just to reply briefly to frog, Inc. and Tabby Lavalamp - I think how you view the post depends on context as well. The tweet immediately before was one about my being in London and buying mine and my wife-to-be's wedding rings. The ones immediately after were about meeting my sister and going to see a musical with her family. I'd think you'd be hard pressed to believe that those were pronouncements in any official capacity. Besides which, anything official always comes out through the Council's press office.
My view is that you'd have to wilfully interpret my Tweet (which was intended as something quite whimsical) as official, but to save myself the trouble of potential litigation in future, I've now set up an account with no title (JohnLDixon) for all my posts, while CllrJohnDixon is now just a subset of these posts with anything that's not completely related to my elected role filtered out.
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
July 20, 2010 12:08 PM
Ughh. The parade of directed ads from AdSense continues.
Now we have to deal with scientology.org.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 20, 2010 12:12 PM
Dixon: My view is that you'd have to wilfully interpret my Tweet (which was intended as something quite whimsical) as official, but to save myself the trouble of potential litigation in future, I've now set up an account with no title (JohnLDixon) for all my posts, while CllrJohnDixon is now just a subset of these posts with anything that's not completely related to my elected role filtered out.
It's good to start setting a cultural consensus on these things. Having clearly distinct accounts with clearly distinct names is probably a good standard.
We've seen the same issue with email accounts -- and then folks cheating to avoid oversight rules. It will probably take a while for the standards to become accepted and well-known.
People will willfully misunderstand things if it's at all arguable. That's inevitable, and why standards that don't allow such "misunderstandings" are useful. Maybe folks in the UK are more reasonable, but from an American point of view, one never depends on "reason" as a legal strategy!
Posted by: btthegeek
|
July 20, 2010 12:15 PM
Good luck, Mr. Dixon.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 20, 2010 12:18 PM
Don't be mean to Scientologists. I mean at least they aren't the dicks in the Muslim world who want to kill you it you look at them wrong.
I don't live in the "Muslim world". But I have lived down the street from Scientology Vatican.
Therefore, one has priority over the other. I wouldn't expect Iranians to agitate over Scientological abuses -- and they have, as a matter of fact, killed their own followers by abusive practices on top of attacking and destroying their "enemies".
If you want to go with a perspectiveless greater evil game, we can spend all day arguing whether Muslim religious intolerance or American economic dominance have actually killed more people.
But that would be very, very stupid.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnf8cYeBKhLNQwG0TxPcbTfoWVKA8Z6I_k
|
July 20, 2010 12:35 PM
Don't forget this poor teenager who is being prosecuted for having a sign saying "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
July 20, 2010 12:54 PM
Mr. Dixon, I do believe strongly that context is important, but the contexts of those tweets fall within the context of the account for Councillor Dixon which is why I can see that as a cause for concern.
What you've now done with the two accounts is definitely the way to go. If I were a Cardiffian (Cardiffer? Cardiffornian?) you'd have my vote based on this sensible approach as well as having the guts as a public figure to call Scientology stupid.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 20, 2010 12:57 PM
So, by simply calling their religion "stupid", one forces their followers to either drop out or no longer practice publically? This could be a good thing. Less of the odious influence of Scientology in the world, and we don't even have to hurt anyone or even say anything to their faces.
So here goes: Hey, any Scientologists reading this? Your religion is stupid!
I hope that made a dent.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 20, 2010 1:00 PM
Googlemess at #37:
That news story is over two years old. Any updates on that, perhaps?
Posted by: kev_s
|
July 20, 2010 1:31 PM
@Forbidden Snowflake
No worries ... the teenager won. See "Schoolboy avoids prosecution for branding Scientology a 'cult'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/23/religion
"... 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. No action will be taken against the individual."
The teenager's mother said the decision was "a victory for free speech".
"We're all incredibly proud of him. We advised him to take the placard down when we realised what was happening but he said 'No, it's my opinion and I have a right to express it'," she said.
Posted by: AdamK
|
July 20, 2010 1:57 PM
I believe the term is "Cardashian."
Posted by: Blondin
|
July 20, 2010 2:50 PM
Cardiff... Isn't the home of the Stoned Giant?
Wrong Cardiff? I know, I know. I joke.
Posted by: circleh
|
July 20, 2010 4:30 PM
I've been calling Scientology "stupidtology" for years. Even its name is fraudulant. There is no science in it!
Posted by: Numad
|
July 20, 2010 4:47 PM
"The church claims that being called 'stupid' 'impinges on the right to religious freedom.'"
See, if you lessen their ability to practice their religion while keeping a straight face, they won't be able to bilk people as effectively.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 20, 2010 5:29 PM
But this time being a dick is warranted!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 20, 2010 7:22 PM
Well, to be perfectly accurate, that sentence is kind of misleading - oh, not because it refers to Scientology as a dangerous cult (because, duh, it totally is), but because it implies that religions can't also be dangerous cults.
Maybe the litigious Scientologists are offended by that inaccuracy. Is pedantry against their beliefs?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 20, 2010 7:40 PM
Ben Goren #23: Ooooh! Scathing! I hope you didn't copyright that because that one was classic.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x1CsKko.p.keyee5Rk.DLZd7ts9OdS.ilqZgGw--#2a28e
|
July 20, 2010 7:41 PM
Is a resident of Cardiff a Cardigan?
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 20, 2010 7:53 PM
I believe it was John Cleese who observed that "Nobody has the right to not be offended."
Posted by: gregvalcourt
|
July 20, 2010 8:52 PM
#20
As an IT person, I don't think there is much of a problem determining whether speech is done in official capacity or as a private citizen. With email it's pretty simple: did you use your work account (myname@mycompany.com) or your gmail account? With twitter, for most people I would consider it communication as a private citizen, unless external communication was a job function (public relations, politician ...).
Also, I tweeted this blog entry as #stupidscientology .
Posted by: cogent46
|
July 20, 2010 9:16 PM
I don't think people have the right to believe stupid things.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought..." and
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion ... this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference"
but I can find no specific protection for believing stupid things.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2010 9:23 PM
cogent46:
After what you quoted!?
How are you distinguishing between opinions and beliefs?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne
|
July 20, 2010 9:36 PM
pz.... get me out of here!
I know, I sound like a commercial.
but,
Seriously, PZ, get us out of here. Release your minions. Please do not twitter us.
SEED... i was a sucker once but not a fool twice.
Posted by: cogent46
|
July 20, 2010 10:20 PM
Morales:
The declaration does not explicitly mention "stupid things" nor does it say *all* thought or *all* opinion (of which "stupid things" would be a subset). Instead it just says "thought" and "opinion" leading to the possible interpretation that it does not apply absolutely to all thoughts and opinions -- just as the US Constitution's right to bear arms does not give citizens the right to bear nuclear arms, and its right to free speech does not give people the right to slander.
So I stand by my original statement that I see no specific protection for believing stupid things. And I would appreciate it if PZ would enlighten me on why he seems to believe that "Everyone has a right to believe in stupid things". I come across that sentiment now and then, but question its underlying validity.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 20, 2010 10:52 PM
cogent46:
I believe you.
You don't need PZ for that.
It is his stated opinion, and you've conspicuously elided the corollary which was its complement.
Everyone has a right to believe in stupid things, and everyone has a right to call them stupid.
It is not a logical necessity, no, but it well represents what liberal free-speech advocates believe.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 20, 2010 10:54 PM
To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem.
Posted by: marc.k.mielke
|
July 21, 2010 3:23 AM
@16: An EQ Test? How does someone test Emotional Quotient? A suppose a Voight-Kampff would work, but that's not what it's for.
I think most Scientologists would fail a VK test, BTW. They're not very good at pretending to be human.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkSutnAbHpj9Y9bEPX0IPnB0bogNyC9uNs
|
July 21, 2010 6:32 AM
Sorry to hear about the strike; hope it gets resolved soon.
In the meantime, The Daily Mash reports on a similar case.
Posted by: Dakuan
|
July 21, 2010 6:44 AM
Can't seem to find the Jack of Kent post? Did he get 'fair gamed' or something?
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 21, 2010 8:43 AM
kev_S @ 41
I used to think that free speech meant there is no right not to be insulted but apparently I am wrong under section 5 of the Public Order Act
cue: every pearl clutching, fainting couch religiotard with an agenda to shut people up.
The police invoked this against the teen age boy protesting Scientology as a "religiously aggravated crime". Just because the CPS decided not to prosecute doesn't mean that the threat of and actual arrest doesn't chill the fuck out of free speech.
The T-shirt I am planning to wear durning the Mr. Ratzinger's visit is definitely going to get me arrested.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 21, 2010 9:37 AM
He's not being prosecuted. The charges were dropped on a judge's order.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 21, 2010 9:42 AM
Besides the fact that "freedom of thought" obviously includes stupid thoughts, we don't get our rights from a declaration. When it comes to thoughts, it is physically impossible to force someone to stop believing something. So your legalistic quibbling is irrelevant - we have a right to believe stupid things because there is no way for anybody to stop us.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 21, 2010 10:04 AM
truthspeaker @62
you are right but see my point at 61. Even if a judge sides with you in the end, being shut up by a police officer, arrested then summoned to court is one hell of a disincentive to free speech.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 21, 2010 1:55 PM
Oh, for sure. And I remember now (that you posted it) that the CPS declined to prosecute, and explained why - that the kid's sign wasn't illegal. But this is a case of a police officer being stupid about the law, which happens all the time, not a problem with the law itself.
I also remember hearing that there is a cozy relationship between the City of London police and the Church of $cientology.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 21, 2010 3:53 PM
marc.k.mielke @ "suppose a Voight-Kampff would work, but that's not what it's for"
LOL, it was years since I last viewed "Blade Runner". Have you seen the Director's Cut?
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
July 21, 2010 4:14 PM
I have the Blu-Ray Director's Cut. It looks so amazing in HD. It was the first Blu-ray DVD I bought. You can see Sean Young blush in one seen. Had never been able to see that before.
Posted by: monado
|
July 22, 2010 10:25 PM
You broke Twitter again! "Over capacity" complete with cute graphic of birds trying to lift a whale.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 22, 2010 10:39 PM
How do you go about firing a democratically elected official?
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 24, 2010 9:02 AM
Heh. Jesus and Mo have noticed...
(=^.^=)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/gAQszTk3rPuB06GNDSitqCCyzHELQuV7PM7j#08143
|
June 29, 2011 3:17 AM
LOL I love it HAHAHA
"If you're on Twitter, practice your right to free speech and join in the fun: use the tag "#stupidscientology". It's Streisand effect time!"
The bad thing about it, most people do not know or understand what Scientologists believe in.
If more people knew and understood what it is they believe and worship there would be more of use out there calling them stupid LOL
Im actually on twitter and facebook all the time. I help people promote their pages and build followers and will also allow them to buy facebook fans. I wish I would of found this sooner... I would of been on the bandwagon with ya :P