John Dixon, anti-Scientology "don't let the stupid rub off" S Wales councillor

[Jimmy]

I think that many here will have followed the story about the Lib Dem Councillor from S Wales who was forced to face an ethics committee because he posted a tweet about hurrying quickly past the Scientology place on Tottenham Ct Rd before the stupid rubbed off.

7 weeks later, one of his self righteous colleagues reported him and he has just faced an ethics committee hearing.

Every sceptical blog seeemed to be full of it. The Scientologist stooges were out in force posting. It was big news for a while. I just counted 11 articles in the mainstream press when I googled "John Dixon Scientology" about the original story.

Well: he faced his ethics committee and they saw sense - he got off about a week ago.

Strangely only the Guardian has reported it that I can find: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cardiff/20...entology-tweet

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cardiff/20...entology-tweet

Otherwise though I can find not a single mention anywhere other than a few fairly obscure blogs and New Humanist.

The only reasons I can find for this silence are conspiracy theories, which I try to reject as a matter of course.

Anyone know why this story is not being reported? It appears to be pretty important in it's implications...never mind giving sceptics a warm, fuzzy feeling because the Xenu idiots got one in the eye...

Cheers,

Jim

[brianp]

Well: he faced his ethics committee and they saw sense - he got off about a week ago.

"He got off" implies that he was guilty but escaped punishment, and that certainly isn't the case. In John Dixon's own words on his Twitter account:

"Standards and Ethics Cttee have decided 7:1 no evidence of failure to comply with code of conduct over#stupidscientology. It's all over!"

In other words, the committee decided that he hadn't done anything wrong.

[Pebble]

A missed opportunity. If they held the hearing and agreed there was no breach of the rules since sceintology is stupid, then we would have had a sensible outcome.

[Jimmy]

Fine - but why is there so little media coverage? It was a big story before...what's going on?

[Pebble]

Fine - but why is there so little media coverage? It was a big story before...what's going on?

Councillor behaved appropriately shock! While that should be news it is not.

[John Revolting]

Fine - but why is there so little media coverage? It was a big story before...what's going on?

The organisational centres of the scientology movement are famously trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits and clever manipulations of legal loopholes.

If anyone remembers Jon Sweeney's famous argument with them on the BBC, they will have also observed the way in which scientologists managed to shut down certain youtube videos amazingly quickly in the angry aftermath. They no doubt contacted the website's legal teams citing religious hatred or some other nonsense and waving potential lawsuits.

They are an infuriating organisation because they manipulate the legal system to protect their mythical glowing reputation and also to conduct vicious revenge attacks on people they don't like. They are impossibly smug about everything.

The media are well aware of this. I suspect that certain stories are not pursued because of the possible legal implications - It could cost an awful lot of money.

Moreover, scientologists are not good people to have as enemies. They have demonstrated this through Sweeney's programme and public wrangles with the makers of South Park amongst many other things. Their actions border on harrassment and they will bully people into submission.

Another angle could be, that certain journalists have better things to do than document a bunch of of silly religious nutters. This is sad not least because of the destruction that is administered to many families and innocent victims on a daily basis through brainwashing and general bigotry. It should be given the same amount of publicity as anti-smoking campaigns, if not more.

I have no truck with the followers of these religious cults (I am actually very concerned for them). However, the people at the top are almost always completely loathsome and motivated by money. Sadly, my own family were victimised by a religious cult. We escaped, although it has taken many years to fully recover.

[Jimmy]

Thanks John for a sensible, considered response.

I am trying not to think that the British press are just ignoring this story because they don't want to the hassle of Carter Ruck threatening them. That would be utterly depressing.

I too was brought up in a cult - and therefore feel very strongly about this disgusting organisation. Doesn't always make me very balanced though!

Cheers,

Jim

[John Revolting]

Thanks John for a sensible, considered response.

I am trying not to think that the British press are just ignoring this story because they don't want to the hassle of Carter Ruck threatening them. That would be utterly depressing.

I too was brought up in a cult - and therefore feel very strongly about this disgusting organisation. Doesn't always make me very balanced though!

Cheers,

Jim

I find the 'balanced' thing improves with age. I get less angry the older I get.

You have to remember that religous fanatics have existed for as long as mankind itself. They are sadly a constant feature in the cultural landscape (anyone remember witch burnings?).

The idea is not to wipe out these organisations because as soon as one of them loses face, another appears. This has happened since the dawn of humanity. Instead I attempt to help those who have been victimised by cults. Often this involves simply taking them away from things for a few days and showing them that life doesn't have to be opppressive and irrational.

Sometimes, as in cases such as the mormon church, you have to show people all the ridiculous beliefs at the extremist core of their 'church' (masonic underwear, god comes from another planet, occasional racism etc, etc...). I actually persuaded two people to leave the mormons using that method! Having said that, they were recent members and very naive.

Sadly, in cases such as the Jehova's Witnesses, you often end up helping someone after their life has been destroyed and that is far more about showing humility and compassion for another human being. Religion doesn't even come into it.

I have yet to meet anyone from the horrid Children of God movement. As they are an organisation that has actively promoted child abuse in the past, maybe it's a good thing they haven't crossed paths with me yet.

I find I have to remain quite focussed in certain situations with victimised believers. Often you have to walk away, resolved that nothing can be done. It's heartbreaking but sometimes people really are brainwashed beyond all reach. You just have to sit back and hope that they get better at some point.

I class myself as an agnostic.

[Jimmy]

Hi John,

Well - I'm hoping I become a little less angry with time. It took me to my 30's to drop my Catholicism and I raging mad about the bulshit I was indoctrinated with!

Compassion and humility are two characteristics which can really help. I struggle a bt with both, like many humans perhaps, but I know that they are absolutely the goal.

I'm interested in the agnostic comment. I suppose that I am an atheist-agnostic myself: I don't know what happens. But I'm bloody certain it's not what is represented by those wicked old wankers who push religion! I am utterly wedded to the need for evidence. If it becomes available, I wil be there like a shot.

The cult thing is tragic. The fact that so many of us have wasted so much believing such crap, has to tell us some big things about the human condition. Why are we so gullible? As you point out, destroy one cult - and sure as eggs are eggs - there will be another one there tomorrow taking it's place. Some people will do anything to belong to a group. In fact - that's most of us. The tragedy is when that group is so manifestly nasty as, say, the scientologists...

Cheers,


Jim

[John Revolting]

Hi John,

Well - I'm hoping I become a little less angry with time. It took me to my 30's to drop my Catholicism and I raging mad about the bulshit I was indoctrinated with!

Compassion and humility are two characteristics which can really help. I struggle a bt with both, like many humans perhaps, but I know that they are absolutely the goal.

I'm interested in the agnostic comment. I suppose that I am an atheist-agnostic myself: I don't know what happens. But I'm bloody certain it's not what is represented by those wicked old wankers who push religion! I am utterly wedded to the need for evidence. If it becomes available, I wil be there like a shot.

The cult thing is tragic. The fact that so many of us have wasted so much believing such crap, has to tell us some big things about the human condition. Why are we so gullible? As you point out, destroy one cult - and sure as eggs are eggs - there will be another one there tomorrow taking it's place. Some people will do anything to belong to a group. In fact - that's most of us. The tragedy is when that group is so manifestly nasty as, say, the scientologists...

Cheers,


Jim

However, you would not be so logical at present, if you hadn't believed all the crap in the beginning. I find that my ability to spot nonsense is ten times more potent than many who were not indoctrinated into some merry band of weirdos and that is a nice feeling. I often find many atheists to be just as rooted in a stubborn belief system as their religious opposites.

The reason I am agnostic is because I simply do not know, and if they were honest, neither does anyone else. The issue of what happens to my conscious self when I die has never been adequately explained to me by any living human being, or demonstrated through life's experiences.

I will find out when I die (or not as the case may be). Until then, the whole argument is pointless. If I get bored waiting, some nice people on earth have provided jigsaw puzzles, beer and so forth to keep me busy.

The whole 'does god exist?' argument drives me nuts.

[Croydon Bob]

I get less angry the older I get.

Wow! You must have been a right bastard ten years ago then?

[Pebble]

I often find many atheists to be just as rooted in a stubborn belief system as their religious opposites.

The whole 'does god exist?' argument drives me nuts.

An intriguing assertion. Given that there is no more evidence for god than there is for pixies, faries or unicorns do you remain agnostic on these subjects as well?

Is there any concept on which you are not agnostic?

The atheistic position is generally that the abrahamic god is an offence to rational thought and that all other gods make no more sense, therefore there is not good reason to believe in any god. While stronger than an agnostic position, it is not a statement of a 'belief in no god'.

The reason that the difference between agnosticism and (agnostic) atheism is important is that we (atheists) commit to a position that organised religion is fundamentally flawed, and hence can strive for a world freed of superstition. Truly agnostic positions do not provide a functional alternative to religion.

[John Revolting]

An intriguing assertion. Given that there is no more evidence for god than there is for pixies, faries or unicorns do you remain agnostic on these subjects as well?

Is there any concept on which you are not agnostic?

The atheistic position is generally that the abrahamic god is an offence to rational thought and that all other gods make no more sense, therefore there is not good reason to believe in any god. While stronger than an agnostic position, it is not a statement of a 'belief in no god'.

The reason that the difference between agnosticism and (agnostic) atheism is important is that we (atheists) commit to a position that organised religion is fundamentally flawed, and hence can strive for a world freed of superstition. Truly agnostic positions do not provide a functional alternative to religion.

There are plenty of concepts on which I am certain, but the existence of an 'afterlife' is not one of them. I don't like the term 'afterlife', but it is the only way I can describe the moments following death. What the hell happens? Does anything happen? How can you prove it?

People find all sorts of things to believe in these days. From Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance to David Icke's claim that reality is some sort of hologram, to the catholic church's rather bizarre concept of someone who looks like father christmas sitting on a fluffy white cloud ignoring the conflict in Iraq.

All these assumptions are hinged on an ethereal neverland - a place which exists outside of our known reality. That could mean an afterlife, a spiritual headspace or another dimension. However they remain theoretical. Essentially they just waste enormous amounts of time when you could be at the beach.

I can choose to agree or disagree with the abrahamic 'god'. In that particular case, I do not believe and I consider the majority of suggested alter-realities to be ridiculous also, To coin a phrase they are 'away with the fairies'.

However, when I consider the issue of what happens to our conscious selves at the point of death, I am presented with a dilemma. The atheists seem to be fairly positive that when you die your conscious self simply ceases to be, but I do not quite understand how that can be proven.

We also have the notion that reality may indeed not be as we consider. I can only perceive things from inside my own mind, using my senses to experience the world. I cannot jump into someone else's mind. I can describe my sensations - people may identify with them, but I have no way of knowing if they feel the same as me.

I used to have these debates with philosophy students all the time - Does life purely exist in the conscious mind? Are we currently in a coma, making reality up as we go along? Will I wake up and find that I am actually triangular in shape? Moreover - why bother contemplating these unanswerable questions?

A philosophy student once said to me 'you can cut open a million people, but you won't find one human soul'. Immediate response from across the room - If the soul is not a physical entity, how can you prove there is no soul? Philosophy is just an endless annoying argument.

But I have to be honest here. Try as I might, I cannot physically comprehend absolute nothingness. It just feels weird. If I cease, everything around me also ceases - I think most people would agree, that is a really heavy concept. Surely that can't be right can it? Everything gone in the blink of an eye. Can this be proven?

These are the philosophical questions and debates that people spend years and years throwing backwards and forwards. As I say - I usually go to the beach instead, although it's getting a bit cold right now. I'll probably go to the pub instead.

[John Revolting]

Wow! You must have been a right bastard ten years ago then?

I'd never looked at it that way.

I think you may have a point there.

[John Revolting]

The reason that the difference between agnosticism and (agnostic) atheism is important is that we (atheists) commit to a position that organised religion is fundamentally flawed, and hence can strive for a world freed of superstition. Truly agnostic positions do not provide a functional alternative to religion.

I see your point, but there is the issue of personal freedom.

I have good reason to actively hate organised religion, but I would not take away someone's basic right to believe in unicorns. I may think they are nuts and argue with them on internet forums, but who are they actually hurting?

Organised religion could more easily be brought down by proper legislation and acknowledgement of the damage it does to mental health and family relations.

But it is a good point.