There is a Christian marketing campaign going on in the UK asking whether God exists:
A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested. Here is his email to the authorities:
On Friday 18th September 2009 at 3.45pm I was confronted with a questionnaire which I understand was lawfully pinned to the wall on London Bridge railway station, platforms 1 and 2, inviting members of the public to participate by ticking the appropriate box.
The question, “Does God Exist”, was very straight forward, and “No” was obviously the correct answer. I was particularly concerned that vulnerable people exposed to the alternative answers of “Yes” and “Probably” were at risk of exploitation by individuals who might attach a set of rules and obligations to those who hope that some super-being will take responsibility for their lives, or intervene in some other way.
I felt the offered answer “Probably”, to be particularly sinister. It was for this reason I chose to engage with the questionnaire and ensure that the correct answer was ticked. As a result of responding to this questionnaire I was arrested by a plain clothes police officer. Two other plain clothes police officers were in attendance. I was informed that I had been seen ticking the correct answer on CCTV.
As I sat caged in the back of the police van I counted 6 police officers who were attending this incident, which was presented to me as being criminal damage. My tick was entirely within the specified “No” box, and the questionnaire was not damaged in any way. Interestingly the arresting police officer spent much of his time ticking similar multiple choice boxes on a questionnaire of his own. I understand that I am required to pay an £80 penalty notice fine, or attend court. I am left with little choice but to ask that this matter be dealt with by the court.
If you’d like to take the quiz without being arrested, you can do so on their website.
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
Mark D: Let Ed sell his plane and give the money to the Red Cross 
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
78 Comments
There’s a “probably” option, but not a “probably not” or “not sure”. Those poll makers might be pushing an agenda there…. Maybe…..
Maybe would be a better alternative.
I’d take Probably Not.
Has anyone seen what their most frequent resonse is?
^__________________________^
82% have responded “No.”
Think it backfired a little?
68% NO when I clicked.
heh its trended up to 70% now.
I’m kind of impressed that it wasn’t a fake poll. i.e. when clicking on no it didn’t inform you that your choice was clearly wrong because there was in fact a God, and that you could read about him in the Bible.
It’s 78% now.
Well, no was up to 70% when I clicked, so you’re sending a lot of no’s their way.
This story really pisses me off. Yes, it’s a leading question. Yes it’s manipulating people. It’s a fracking advert. That’s what they do. If you seriously can’t tell the difference between an advert illustrating a questionnaire, encouraging you to internally consider your opinions, and a questionnaire that is inviting you to fill it in on the wall, you need psychiatric help.
You want express your displeasure through vandalism? Be my guest, but don’t get all smug and self righteous about it when the police enforce the law. They’d do the same if you were sharpie-ing fangs on an advert for Beyoncé Knowles new album.
Show me evidence that the police would turn a blind eye to equivalent vandalism of one of the “There Is Probably No God” signs, sure, then I’ll get pissed off for you. But for the love of Pete, don’t try and tell me that you’re somehow being oppressed. The reason there’s six police officers around you has more to do with the fact that you’re an easy target making a pointlessly illegal protest which has no practical upshot except to let the entire world know that you’re a moron. If anything it shows that they’re shirking the ten more productive things they should be doing, but it sure as hell doesn’t somehow make you the victim of some kind of conspiracy to repress free speech. I seriously hope that you take this case to court, and hope you get stung for at least four figures for wasting everybody’s time.
Confused
Yes you obviously are …
Care to elaborate?
“I seriously hope that you take this case to court, and hope you get stung for at least four figures for wasting everybody’s time.”
I thin the “you” was the plural, general form, not “you” as in “Daniel Florien”.
Okay … yes that all makes perfect sense now ;-)
Hmm. I thought it was pretty obvious every single “you” in that post was aimed at the guy who did the grafitti. Given both you and El didn’t get that, I guess I should have been more clear.
The marvels of communication via the internet …
He can’t hear you.
That only makes sense if he were one of the people with whom you were directly communicating with the comment.
Speak up at the back there …
Agreed. It’s an ad on a wall, not an actual survey, making this guy’s e-mail completely disingenuous.
See the pic in PZ’s post about it: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/some_polls_arent_meant_to_be_a.php
From the article from above link:
“You know what they’re doing. Answer any question with reason, or an expectation of evidence, anything but blind affirmation, and they will lock you up. It’s how religion works.”
I have to agree with jtradke and Confused. There is a difference between arrested based on beliefs and being arrested based on vandalism. All though hilarious that someone actually did that, being locked up for it is NOT how religion works, it’s how the laws of society work.
The reason there’s six police officers around you has more to do with the fact that you’re an easy target making a pointlessly illegal protest which has no practical upshot except to let the entire world know that you’re a moron.
Heh, well-said. :)
A sign like that at a bus station with an X written in sharpie by the No is pretty funny, though.
You should probably change the headline to “Vandalize advertisement, get arrested.”
It’s up to 73% now! Woo hoo!
I agree with Confused.
My answer would have been no, but it doesn’t matter: this was still vandalism and I, for one, don’t condone it. For one thing, he wasn’t checking the box on the poster, he was writing on the city-owned poster cabinet.
Perhaps if he used a grease pencil, he could have simply asked the officers if he could have wiped it off.
As a moral relativist, I don’t think vandalism is inherently wrong in every circumstance. There’s a difference between, for example, bashing out someone’s car windows with a baseball bat, and marking an answer on an advertisement that asks a rhetorical question.
However, police officers don’t get paid to think. In fact, unthinking obedience is seen as a virtue among police and the military. I’m not surprised or upset to find out about this arrest.
I would say that neither the vandal nor the police did any wrong in this situation – both sides simply did what they felt was necessary.
As a moral relativist, I don’t think vandalism is inherently wrong in every circumstance.
I fully agree, although evidently my list of acts of vandalism that rank as “not inherently wrong” is somewhat smaller than yours.
There’s a difference between, for example, bashing out someone’s car windows with a baseball bat, and marking an answer on an advertisement that asks a rhetorical question.
There is. I suspect he would have been fined a great deal more than £60 for the former.
I would say that neither the vandal nor the police did any wrong in this situation – both sides simply did what they felt was necessary.
This is where we part ways. The vandal did do something wrong. It was an advert that had been paid for by an organisation – an organisation that evidently he and I both regard with some distaste, but that’s neither here nor there. By defacing it he was effectively destroying their property.
Now, I agree that civil disobedience is morally justified in some circumstances. If it was a BNP poster advocating (even implicitly) racial intolerance, I’ll be first in line with the sharpie. But I’m also aware that that crosses a legal line. Smugly pretending that because the ad was somehow “asking to be defaced” is legal justification for going ahead and doing it is utterly moronic.
Just for fun, let’s change it a bit. If there was an ad that had a big circle in it that said, “draw a funny face here” would it be wrong to vandlize it? they wouldn’t REALLY want you to do it, but why the hell would they say that then?
I don’t think the guy should have done it. But the ad also shouldn’t have asked a question with checkboxes for someone to fill out — that’s stupid. Someone is going to do what they ask.
You have to ask what they expected with this advertisment — people not to fill it in. The good thing is that the ones I have seen filled in are always NO, with at least one multiple times.
No the guy shouldn’t have done it, even though it’s funny, but if acting like a bit of idiot is a crime then I’m not sure how many people will get past 21 without being criminals.
78% no
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but if a Christian had defaced an Atheist advertisement, gotten arrested, and then complained about religious persecution, the Atheist blogosphere would have erupted into a firestorm. The simple fact is: this man broke the law. While I probably would have checked “NO” on the poster as well, I wouldn’t have complained about bigotry when I got caught either. I would have paid the fine/done the time and moved on.
Actually no. Atheists would probably joke about it that a religious person had no clue that this was an ad! .
And they will surely joke about the fact that both the atheist and the religious person got arrested by 6 policemen!
I can’t think other than this was begging to happen. Vandalism is (probably) wrong, but as those being paid to allow advertising in their stations, they might want to be more careful with what they allow. Your average person may be able to abstain from marking the box of their choice, but there’s a multiple choice question and a space for the answer. You could skip it, and you might think that means you have better social skills than others, or know better than to answer rhetorical questions. This is not rhetorical. It invites vandalism. It didn’t have to be this guy, but anyone else. It would be filled in sooner than later. It’s not like drawing a mustache or devil horns on a model in some other ad.
Sorry, but this is just attention-whoring. We all know you’re trying to be humorous about this, but vandalism is vandalism. Take it like a man and not a sissy. As others have pointed out: Had it been an atheist sponsored advertisement, you’d be quite annoyed if someone defaced it.
Buddy, you’re a shame to any non-believer, at least to me.
Here’s a little thing for you:
Now up to 79%
I’m actually suprised they havn’t altered the numbers or at least taken the poll down…seems detrimental to their cause.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3454662743009947826#
The title of this article is misleading. Good job David I’m proud you’re above the Christians….. Oh wait.
Attention-whoring on both sides.
and without the inconvenience of other points of view.
There. Fixed.
I agree Metro, but I’ve stopped to assume that evangelicals have any sense of dignity, and perhaps wrongfully require atheists to attend to a higher standard of integrity, simply because
1) We can, not limited by silly, misanthropic dogma.
2) To rub it in the face of loony evangelicals
Atheists don’t have to be held to any standrards, they just have to not believe in any god(s).
I’m just pointing out what happened and citing the guy’s letter. I didn’t say that was the right thing to do. I find it funny, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone do this, I think vandalism is wrong, even when your ad is asking to be vandalized.
I’m not criticising you for finding vandalism funny, or worthy of blogging. We’ve got a huge building-sized poster just across from my work, and I can’t say I wasn’t tempted to go along with a paintbrush myself. If you’d just posted a picture of the vandalism on flickr or something, I’d have giggled and moved along.
What pisses me off is this guy making out like he’s being persecuted by the theocratic police, when he blatently hasn’t. That and supposedly skeptical bloggers who repost it without a single critical word.
Actually, I’m more annoyed at PZ Myers (who commented on it more than you did, but didn’t seem to have applied a critical thought to it at all) than at you. Straw that broke the camels back and all that. ;)
And again, this, the message the guy sent was to the wrong people. He did write on glass that belonged to the property, and not the church who bought the advertisement.
I do have plans to vandalize an ad I’ve seen on my bus. Maybe I am too lazy to get around to doing it right. The difference is, the ad is a poster that is inserted in a metal frame. The bus will not have been damaged, and if I do it right, nobody will notice for weeks. Requires a print-out matching the color and font to change the word “it” to “he” on adhesive paper. I’m probably too lazy to get around to it.
Seekers of truth can find it in the contiguous dimensional worlds, hunorously described by Edwin Abbott in ‘Flatland’. Science determines truth by checking phenomena against the over-all theory. If that theory explains the phenomena then we can firmly hold it. ‘Techie Worlds’ (available at Amazon.com) examines Trinity, resurrection, judgment, soul, and finds Christian teaching logical and rational in Abbott’s context.
Unlike Christians, materialists believe that only this world exists. Science can only experiment with this material world, whereas mankind is quite unable to manipulate the higher worlds.. Yet humans report on miracles, on events such as the dance of the sun at Fatima. Pagans believe in many gods (with good reason) and the possessed levitate, all evidence that spirit worlds do exist. Both positions resolve to ‘acts of faith’, but the Christian (in the Flatland context) is simple, consistent, and most rewarding for human improvement. Open your minds with ‘Techie Worlds’ logical explanations.
GeorgeRic
Give verifiable evidence for you claims or pack it up troll.
This is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Have they disabled the poll because most were saying ‘no’? :)
That’s what I was wondering.
Not so far. I’ve voted about 6 or 7 times already. (It doesn’t display increments in # of votes, so I’m not sure they count). But I just went to the site and voted again. 81% NO so far.
The title of this post is more than a bit misleading. The title implies intentional discrimination by police. That’s not what happened at all, as others have spelled out clearly.
A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested. Here is his email to the authorities:
Boy who cried wolf anyone?
He checked the box, and he got arrested. How is it implying the police did something wrong? They arrested a guy for vandalism; that’s their job. The guy checked a box that was asking to be checked; that was his decision.
Headlines are meant to grab attention, not give the full story.
I don’t understand some of you. Daniel posted a piece of news. It was humorous and relevant. Nowhere did he say that it was the right thing to do. He did not say that he felt oppressed. In fact, not even the vandal said he’s oppressed. So what’s up with all the hating?
I for one appreciate the guy’s vandalism.
Civil disobedience is a time honoured form of social and political activism. The sooner society accepts that religious beliefs do NOT deserve the respect and honour they are currently afforded, the better off the world will be.
I’d donate towards his court costs.
I think an appropriate application of The Lulz Defense should save him!
But seriously, everybody here needs to lighten up, If you can’t tell that the letter was satire, you should work on your critical interpretation.The guy checked the box because he thought it was funny, was astonished when he was promptly arrested, and was probably somewhat angry he had to pay such a large fine. But I’m not here to argue over the amount he was fined, the point is he was making a joke, and this doesn’t need to be a serious topic of discussion.
83% as of my click.
as for this man’s arrest – is this REALLY the most crucial thing for police in that particular region to be spending their time on? what a waste of time and resources.
Why not just place in “X” in the two other boxes to cancel each other out? :D
83% so far!
Keep it going! :D
The Alpha Course is an extremely sinister little number that masks biblical “values” with modern language. It can’t hide the sexism and homophobia, though.
Oh, and: 11% said yes, 84% said no, 6% said maybe. How long before they take it down, do you think?
I’ve just realised that the Alpha Course’s website’s figures add up to 101%….
That may happen when you round numbers
I mean, 10,6 ; 83,6; 5,8
To the managing editor of The Guardian:
“Good morning,
Can I ask you to please make your legal team aware of the following website:
http://uk.alpha.org/
This is a site advertising the Alpha Course (a Christian course about why we should all believe in God).
I bring this to your attention because the site (without any explanation) uses the logos of both The Guardian and The Times.
Having read some of the Alpha Course and knowing the politics of The Guardian, I sincerely doubt that this is done with permission of the paper.
Thanks for your time,
Mike ******”
Ain’t I a stinker?
Polly Toynbee would be proud of you …. !
WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
This is TOO funny:
http://uk.alpha.org/academia
“I believe that Alpha may well be God’s instrument for Salvation for many in this generation, just as Billy Graham was for so many in the previous one.
I. Howard Marshall
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Aberdeen, UK”
I haven’t read all the comments, sorry if someone has said the same before…
1.- Public adds are an “agression” against me, specially when they don’t interest me. I’m forced to see them and both, the announcer and the owner of the space get an economic reward for it, while I only get “spam”. And we get a lot of spam everyday
1.1 Of course, I’m not saying that those adverts should be forbidden. What I’m saying is that, if you are publicizing yourself in a public space and I have to see it, you can expect from me a reaction (and that’s what those adverts are designed for) and that reaction has not to be a good one.
1.2 In fact, that reaction can be that I want to express myself too
2.- So I understand the reaction of the guy who wanted to express his own opinion on the add.
3.- I understand also that the enterprise who own this space want -and has the right- to defend it, or the announcers may not contract it. I understand that their rights are legally protected, and I think that a “little” fine is not an over-reaction from the government -given that police have been involved.
Maybe the over reaction is to have so many policemen involved
Oh for chrissakes! You guys arguing over the morality of “vandalism” are such pooosies.
What if this guy was after some theater, a sort of civil disobedience? Then getting arrested and going to court was part of the plan!
Good on ‘im! Pretty clear he’s stirred up the masses, which is the point!
No is 84% (See?)
There was sometime ago an ad made entirely with chocolate, which was displayed on a street. The ad lasted some ten minutes, as people passing by stopped to take bites off it.
Should their actions be considered vandalism also? If not, why is this case different than ticking off a box on this ad?
The site’s down – I’ll bet £1000 right here and right now that the poll is either down, replaced or re-set when it comes back up. Christians: Hating the truth since 0001.
LOLOLOLOL…
It’s 84% to 11% against, as of my vote with 5% undecided. I think their poll has backfired on them. Noticed their prominent use of that freak Bear Grylls. He’s an embarrassment to survival experts around the world. Anyone with any survival training watches him and cringes at his stupidity. Now that I know he has a supernatural worldview, everything about his behavior makes perfect sense.
1. Yes/No ratio may be just the ratio of `faith` people reading the Net not in general population.
2. Question is incorrect. Define “exist”. “Science [as an object] does not _exist_”. “Number _two_ does not exist”.
3. Define “believe”… (”I _believe_ in science”. “Scientists _believe_ that speed of light is limited in our universe”)
4. Define “God”…
:)
Actually, Leo, the fact that this is a Christian website and campaign allow us to infer #2, #3 and #4. The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is, what constitutes his existence and what belief in him requires. There’s no need to go into semantics.
“The Christian scriptures are (fairly) clear on what God is”
Are you sure?
So… what is God made of? Where does He live, or where is He? What created him/How did He become into existence?
Is He against war or in favour, or it depends on the enemies? Did He created Satan and badness on conscience, or it was just an error?
I don’t think you understood what I was saying. The answer to your second, third and fourth questions are irrelevant because we’re not talking about a philosophical concept of a small-”g” god. We’re talking about the Christian big-”G” God. In any case, your second question poses God as a concept, not a percept. Since concepts are generic intellectual constructs, that would lead us to answer the question “no.” Your third question reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between faith and belief. Belief can be based on evidence, or not. Faith is the form of belief based on a lack of evidence, or the rejection of evidence. Therefore, your confusion of “belief” with “faith” negates the question. Your third question I’ve already addressed. We’re talking about the God described in the Old and New Testaments and possibly the Apocrypha (depending on which version of the Bible this organization uses). The questions of God’s composure, living quarters and source are irrelevant, because those questions are not answered in the Christian scripture, and we are discussing a Christian god.
I know the rules and laws are different in GB but, if the ad itself doesn’t clearly state that it is either an ad or that the question is not meant to be answered, you have to agree that there is going to be some idiot out there that will take it literally and do exactly what this guy did. He is only guilty of answering the question in a manner that was not intended but not explicitly forbidden.
I think what the guy is going to get in trouble for is not the defacing of the ad but the defacing of the plastic that was protecting it, which I imagine is owned by the city or someone else, not the company that owns the ad.
Sarcasm is very difficult to communicate by writing.
One Trackback
[...] Shared Check the Box, Get Arrested [...]