Christian advert declaring “there definitely is a God” is most complained about ad in 2009
I found this quite surprising, however, personally I found the bus adverts war between some Christians and Humanists rather silly anyway.
An advertisement campaign run by the Christian Party, declaring “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life”, has not only topped the Advertising Standards Authority’s Top 10 of most complained about adverts in 2009, it is one of the most complained about non-broadcast adverts ever. The adverts were on the sides of buses, deliberately mirroring the British Humanist Association’s high-profile “Atheist Bus Campaign” from earlier in the same year.
Ekklesia have picked up on this also and they conclude:
The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia suggested last year that while encouraging people to think about their convictions concerning the meaning and purpose of life was a good thing, pro-god and anti-god propagandists might be better spending their money on benefiting people and planet, and on finding ways of working together across boundaries of faith and belief for human good.
Indeed….
Tags: Media, Religion Society
May 27th, 2010 at 10:29 am
What a pointless “own goal”. Did the people who thought this was a good idea really not understand at all what the BHA poster was about. To quote Andrew Copson further on in the passage from which you take the above quote Webmaster:
‘Our adverts were a light-hearted response to exactly the kind of dogma that says people must be told what to believe and how to live, often accompanied by the threat of punishment in another world. It is with some satisfaction that the public chose to complain about an advert that did not want them to decide for themselves about the existence of god, rather than encouraging them to make their own minds up as ours did.’
I didn’t see the “definitely is” poster, but if I had I would not have thought it worth complaining. I would have just been incredulous that apparently intelligent people should have thought such a poster would achieve something positive. Oh dear.
May 27th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@Jim,
“It is with some satisfaction that the public chose to complain about an advert that did not want them to decide for themselves … ”
So you support censorship?
May 27th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
@ Goy
Those were not my words, but the reported words of Andrew Copson.
Do I support censorship? A seemingly simple question but hard to answer satisfactorily with a simple yes/no response.
Let’s assume we define censorship as a policy of controlling or suppressing the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds. Here’s my personal subjective view, which I realise is a bit messy:
I would love to live in a World where we would not need to have this discussion. Each individual would be sufficiently intelligent, logical, insightful and empathic to self-censor.
But this is not the World in which I live. Some humans, for a variety of reasons, make a habit of saying or doing things that are specifically designed to hurt or cause deep offense to other people. Should we stand by and watch this happen, or should we try to stop these people, who are not willing or able to self-censor?
A person should surely be allowed to say “I don’t believe in God”, but that person might instead say: “Anyone who believes in God is a worthless waste of oxygen.” Most of us would find the second statement offensive, even non-believers, because is specifically calculated to hurt, and is wholly unhelpful. Should it be allowed? Probably – it can readily be seen as very silly, and just demeans the speaker in the eyes of the believer – but it depends on context and effect.
But who is to be the arbiter of what is offensive and what is not? Few will regret the abolition of blasphemy laws, but surely we need some way to restrain the behaviour of some extremely unpleasant people.
I think in the end it’s probably down to helping people from an early age to understand the value of self censorship, and to value more highly the ability to argue reasonably for their views.
So, yes, I do think that we cannot dispense entirely with the concept of censorship, but it should be administeredwith great care and insight.
Messy, like I said. Anyone got a better idea?
May 27th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
@Jim,
“but surely we need some way to restrain the behaviour of some extremely unpleasant people.”
This position is not messy it is supporting censorship and self-censorship and advocating the arbitrary crimnalisation of the “extremely unpleasant person” for making a statement.
Needless to say will not be seeing you on the barricades fighting for free speech other than for your own.
May 27th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
@ Jim: As you say, a pointless “own goal”. And of course the message isn’t very effective. The Christian Party’s slogan was “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life”
Hang on a minute. As we know from their policies the message should read “join the Christian Party and enjoy your life unless of course you’re gay, or a feminist, or seeking an abortion, or indeed anyone who wants to fight poverty, sexism and abuse.”
I resent this group hijacking the word Christian. They may be a Party but their policies only represent a very conservative slice of Christianity. Ekklesia has a good article on the subject. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12072
May 27th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@Sophie,
“I resent this group hijacking the word Christian.”
Some may think you are hijacking and subverting the word Christian.
May 27th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
@ Goy: Indeed they might. But this political group makes claims to ownership of the name that I do not. Calling themselves “the Christian Party” suggests that all Christians agree with their policies which is very far from the truth. “A Christian Party” would be more accurate.
May 27th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
@ Goy
Why must you so often make inferences which are just not justified, and turn everything into a “you’re either for us, or against us” argument?
From what part of my post did you get the idea that I advocated “arbitrary criminalisation”? I did not.
I was trying to express my honest feelings about a difficult subject. It’s really not helpful to just resort to attacking me. I’m more than able to defend myself. I just don’t think it makes for a very interesting discussion.
Yes, it would be so simple to say “I believe in Freedom of Speech” (and I do) and leave it at that. Boring but safe.
But I have had to deal with some extremely (and I do mean extremely) nasty people in my time, with whom it was impossible to reason. I have found myself defending people less able to protect themsleves from these peoples’ extremely unpleasant and unjsutified words, and violent actions.
Do we have an obligation to protect those in our society less able to defend themselves? Yes, I think we do. If that implies curbing some individuals’ ability to behave in what most people would find a totally unacceptable and cruel way, well by all means brand me a censor. Rather that than the consequences of standing by and letting innocent people suffer, who I could have protected.
Life is not black and white. I repeat – this is not a simple question.
And self-censorship is something we should all practice. Your clubbing
that and censorship is inappropriate.
May 27th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
@ Jim: Julian Baggini, a British philosopher, is with you on this one, as am I. He rejects the “sticks and stones” idea, and writes:
Words can incite hatred, inspire violence and create fear. When people use words in this way, it is facile to protest that they are merely expressing opinions. Their words cause real harm as well as offence.
This is why we rightly limit the freedom of people to utter hate speech. Racist words can make people live in fear. Homophobic rantings can legitimise discrimination. Sexist words can buttress sexist practice. It is not “political correctness” to stop people using words to harm others, it is simply fairness and justice.
I’ve noticed that when anyone in a liberal democracy starts agitating about limitations on free speech it’s usually because they want to feel free to be absolutely vile to other people with impunity. Ring any bells, BNP fans?
May 27th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Just so. Thank you Sophie. Mr Baggini makes the point more eloquently than I, but I think we mean the same thing.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
@Jim,
“But I have had to deal with some extremely (and I do mean extremely) nasty people in my time, with whom it was impossible to reason.”
In what context and what does this have to do with free speech?
@Sophie,
Julian Baggini lol
May 27th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Please just read the Baggini quote Goy.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
@ Jim,
Please give UK examples of hate, race hate, homophobic hate, sexist hate speech practitioners who you would like to prosecute and also presumably you would also have to ban books maybe you would like to name them so there is an understanding of what you want to prohibit.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
@ Goy: If you bothered to read the Baggini quote as Jim suggests you wouldn’t need to ask such stupid questions.
On second thoughts, I’m not sure anything would stop you asking stupid questions. Not short of surgery, anyway.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
No Goy. I’m not playing your little game.
Here’s a straight question for you: Do you agree with the Baggini quote, and why do you feel the way you do?
May 27th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
@Jim,
@Sophie,
Advocating the suppression of free speech and the liberty to hear those words as you both do is no game, Baggini’s words are the words of a totalitarian, so tell me what do all three of you not want me to hear.
The three censorship monkeys “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.
May 28th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
@ Goy: We don’t want you not to hear anything. Indeed, why would we need to? You do an astonishing job of ignoring facts on a daily basis. All by yourself.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
@Sophie,
“British philosopher, is with you on this one, as am I. He rejects the “sticks and stones”
Your the one the one advocating the suppression of free speech or are you going to ask readers to ignore YOUR statements on this board.
Have drawn out your desire for dictatorship those who point the finger and all that … what do you say Sophie lost your appitite for free speech?
May 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
@ Goy: You remind me of my cat. When she leaps from the stairs to the laundry basket she often misses her footing, landing in an ungainly heap on the floor.
Every time this happens she immediately leaps up, fluffs herself, and tries terribly hard to look as though her fall was exactly what she expected. Cats hate making fools of themselves. And you’re just the same. Doesn’t matter how much of a plonker you’ve made of yourself, you act as if it was deliberate and hope no one has noticed.
Trouble is, we do. And you’re nowhere near as cute as my cat.
May 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
(=^;^=)