The British Humanist Association has angered religious groups by running the posters on the Tube and 800 buses throughout Britain.
The Labour MPs Jim Dobbin and David Drew, the Independent Bob Spink and the Democratic Unionist Gregory Campbell have tabled two Commons motions attacking the "religiously offensive and morally unhelpful advertisements".
The Government is expected to leave a decision to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has received a formal complaint from the Christian Voice group.
Stephen Green, its national director, said: "I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."
Comments
if the ASA decides to ban this campaign they should also ban campaigns that promote religion, the Alpha Course anyone?
It's a free world- if Christians can advertise then why not atheists? Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins then see what you think. I personally like the adverts and think it's a positive message.
If Christians can promote the message of God, why can athiests not promote their own beliefs?
Do NOT make me come down there.
I'm calling for a ban on all MPs
Sadly there only appears to be a trickle left of what was once [a long long time ago] known as freedom of speech. And "morally unhelpful"? Just because you're being encouraged to "enjoy your life" doesn't mean you'll automatically run off and do something bad / naughty/ immoral... narrow minded fools.
Interestingly, this might have been illegal up until 2006 under the repealled blasphemy laws. However, I don't think there is a cats chance in hell that the ASA will ban this one, as it doesn't break the law, or any of the current advertising rules...
Banning will only lead to more uproar.
How are the adverts either an exaggeration or inaccurate? Isn't all religion founded on belief, not fact? I'd love to see that fool Stephen Green prove there is a God.
Also, he clearly doesn't have a lot of faith if he's so offended by these ads.
BTW, can't belief Barack Obama AND God Almighty have posted comments on this......after reading a substancial number of American newspapers I thought they were the same person!
Interesting points on the BHA web site, in particular - 'The Christian ads to which the Atheist Bus Campaign is a response linked to a website that promised non-Christians an eternity of torment in a lake of fire. Pretty worrying. Our ads offer a dissenting view from this and are positive messages, urging that we enjoy our lives.'
http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign
Why why why?
They surely surely know by now that trying to ban it means it will appear everywhere and treble their exposure? Are they that uninformed as to think protesting will help an ad that hardly anyone is likely to have paid attention to?
I agree Rob. What happened to turning the other cheek?
I find the atheist response as pathetic as the original "eternal torment in a lake of fire." It's a "Black Swan Theory" situation \(http://tinyurl.com/2ngwkw) and it's a shame neither side seems unable to be open to possiblities.
What happened to freedom of speech? Or is that kind of freedom only available in the US? It's a different point of view and I agree with Rupert, why does enjoying your life have to be related to something immoral / naughty.
I like the ad, aside from the religious arguements. In a world populated by so much negative press and news having someone come along and tell us to 'Enjoy Your Life' is a pleasant relief.
Remember; Life is short, enjoy it whilst you can, you could be run over by a bus tomorrow!
previously on 24, ---- there seemed to be specific issues of law affecting this one, such as the atheists promoting themselves as agnostics by using the word "probably", which may be a mis-representation, and apparently there is no statistical information to support any probability in either direction, so once again the use of the word "probably" is probably the achilles heel of this campaign - so perhaps the lesson is that it was spineless of atheists to go after the agnostic vote.
So atheists and their messages are immoral because they question the possibility of god and tell regular folks to enjoy their lives, but fiddler priests and religious wars are bang-on OK because their vileness is expedited in the name of the lord?
Well praise be!
Reckon the scientologists must be loving this - Tom and his barmy army of space-dwarfs are not looking so 'out there and detached from reality' after all.
I forget who said the clash of ideas is the sound of a free society but it's important - not only morally, but also for the discovery of truth. As a Christian I believe in freedom of speech - it's vital for a health democracy. It shouldn't be against the law to offend other people - let alone suggest beliefs which are offensive to others. We have to be mature enough to debate like adults.
Those ads are great. They always make me smile - if you can advertise religion then the other side should be allowed to express their views too.
You can't help thinking if Christian Voice are against it then it must be a good thing.
"religiously offensive”
Utter tosh. I'm am indifferent to the campaign but being atheist or agnostic is not offensive! Freedom of speech should be the overriding issue is assessing this advertising.
“morally unhelpful advertisements"
meaningless! Advertising does not need to be morally helpful.
A fairly unanimous response there. Interestingly, I saw a front page headline on one of the newspapers the other day that read "UK public losing faith in the Economy". Perhaps we should create a campaign with the line, "There's probably no Economy. Now stop worrying and enjoy what little cash you have left." Or would that be "morally unhelpful" too?
depends what you were going to enjoy spending your cash on - with my last pennies, I'm going to aim for something with questionable legality that is entirely bereft of any moral substance - so, deep fried mars it is then!
'There is probably no God' is perhaps one of the least exaggerated straplines ever. Probably.
Not suprised that those in power are trying to supress this.
A quote from Seneca, in 59 "AD"
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca.
To which particular religion is it offensive? Can't imagine many buddhists being offended, for a start. Hinduism doesn't hold a single deity at the centre of belief, as far as I know. Personally, I think ads that state that "there is no salvation except through Jesus" are more lilkely to offend ALL non-Christians than these ads.
Incidentally, if Christian Voice are to put up their proof that there IS a god, can they please ensure that they explain WHICH particular version of the monotheistic deities it is? Did he incarnate in Jerusalem about 2,000 years ago? Or not. Did his messengers inspire the prophets? And if so, did they stop around 2,000 years ago, or did they continue until some 622 years later? I look forward to Mr Green's evidence on this matter with interest, as I suspect the REAL limits of "religiously offensive" will be tested then!
By way of (an as yet unrepresented) challenge to some poorly thought out responses to this: the strap line is banal at best and pretty insensitive / patronising at worst. God not existing gives no reason whatsoever to stop worrying or enjoy life less. Christians are also not worrying more or enjoying their lives less than anyone else - precisely the reverse in my experience. I agree that banning it is fairly pointless - the ad itself is also fairly pointless. What I don't understand is why this is suddenly an opportunity for all of adland to vent their spleens by making a series of baseless accusations against a religion they know little about and against people who they've never met. In anticipation of all the 'telling people they're going to hell isn't very nice' type responses, everybody dies - but Jesus offers hope in the face of death. If it's true, it's the best news ever. Don't believe it? Read a gospel. I read the Blind Watchmaker and have sat through a university education on evolutionary theory - so it's not like I don't know what Dawkins et al are banging on about.
i very much agree with josh bailey, and think the ad is pointless and a lot of people who have commented above have all said how much of a great ad it is .is it just me or it is just a pink print on a white background. the ad might not attack a specific religion however it is definately provoking many religous groups as it is claiming God probably doesnt exist, however it might be worthwhile to think what if he does exist? then what, i think the ad lack of confidence in it own message not only makes the ad poor but proves how Dwakins has gathered a few pionts together to make a controvesial and attention seeking message and advertisement
I think the last two commentators have missed the point a little bit. Only one person above said that the ad was 'great'. I think it is difficult to argue that it is any great shakes aesthetically. The reason that people are getting so worked up is because many atheists and democrats are offended by what is clearly an attack on free speech.
Can we try and remember it's the BHA who funded the ad, not Dawkins. He is not the spokesperson for any atheist movement, he is merely a scientist providing facts he has ascertained through his own research/evidence..he still refers to most of his work as 'theory' not fact. Another fallacy of religious opposal is confusing atheism with anti-theism, which are certainly not collaborative.
Anyway, it's obviously not 'pointless' because of the storm it's gathering.
Before someone pipes up - I am well aware that Dawkins contributed a significant amount.
Nice point Levitates.
Also, just checking the BHA site - Dawkins is Vice President. Good for him.
"Nice point Levitates?" Levitates' point is as daft as his assumed name - who specifically "in power" - in REAL power - is trying to supress it? Just an excuse to misappropriate Seneca.
Anyway, I don't give a stuff whether it runs or not and I'm completely relaxed about the existence or not of god but I'd echo Josh Bailey's question; I don't understand the point of the ad. Why does assuming there is no god allow you greater enjoyment than believing in his existence? One thing that irritates me as much as Dawkins' smugness is the evident radiant happiness of all those "born agains". They don't seem that miserable. But then, just like Dawkins, they have the crutch of their fundamentalism. Same cloth, same certainty.
This ad doesn't seem to know who it's targeting - its slogan implies it's aimed at agnostics asking, "Hmm, does He exist, or does He not exist?"... "Ah ha - this ad tells me he \(guess I can drop that upper case 'H) probably doesn't. Excellent, I can get on with my life." Anyone suspect this ad is designed purely to put the willies up the Christian right?
Agree Andrew Cracknell and Josh Bailey.
Surely if there's 'probably no god' that means theres more reason to worry. Why would you think oh phew theres no god, thats alright then.. I don't get it.
As far as I understand the original idea was as a reaction to the adverts we all see on the buses / tubes from Christian organisations. One of these adverts had a link to a site stating that non christians would burn in hell or something nice like that.
In some ways that's not really the issue with this ad. They're created to draw attention or sell something.
This ad is being debated. It's in the news, therefore it's working. To what degree though? Whether it communicates a clear message and does so effectively to a specific audience is another matter - but if nothing else it has raised awareness of the BHA.
It isn't working because I've only just seen what the advert is for. Ive seen the ad loads and didn't know who or what BHA was or that it was even for the BHA.
Before the ASA investigate the Christian Voice group’s formal complaint, I suggest the ASA look at their track record on causing distress and inflicting their own beliefs on others. On a recent visit to The London Zoo on ‘Gay Day’ I was verbally attacked when I refused a leaflet proclaiming that gays benefit from discounts and VIP treatment at the Zoo. I was branded by Stephen Green as dirty and told I would go to hell, my response was “see you there”. Hardly seems worth the £1.45 discount on my ticket, VIP it was not. How could a fellow Christian say these things and be allowed to get away with it?
The Christian Voice package their hate crimes against Gays and many other groups in society through leaflets and marketing material that wreak of hatred. Perhaps I’ll forward examples to the ASA and to the Police. The Christian Voice group should live by their own Gods words; “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Religion isn’t above the law. The Athiest ad doesn't break any law.
Conclusion - any orthodox religion such as Christianity or Atheism is evil. People should have there own quiet beliefs without forcing it on other people. By all means spread the message of goodwill and kindness etc. but not things like whether god exists or doesnt exist.
Who better than the ASA to finally decide whether god exists or not? I imagine the use of 'probably' in there might help the humanists out. It's certainly less definitive than some of the Christian based advertising I've seen and I'm sure advertising standards would have been brought into conversation at the creative consultations on this. I actually think the wording is quite tempered in nature but whatever the result Dawkins & Co will be delighthed with the campaign.
Well I believe we live in a democracy? I am personally a PASSIONATE agnostic and find endless messages of the power of 'good' .sic, and the deliverance of damnation quite intrusive and upsetting! Shall I make a complaint? And where exactly should I deliver it to?
Comments
Andrew Cox - 15/01/2009
if the ASA decides to ban this campaign they should also ban campaigns that promote religion, the Alpha Course anyone?
Lauren Griffin - 15/01/2009
It's a free world- if Christians can advertise then why not atheists? Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins then see what you think. I personally like the adverts and think it's a positive message.
Andy Collins - 15/01/2009
If Christians can promote the message of God, why can athiests not promote their own beliefs?
God Almighty - 15/01/2009
Do NOT make me come down there.
John Dick - 15/01/2009
I'm calling for a ban on all MPs
Rupert Cheswright - 15/01/2009
Sadly there only appears to be a trickle left of what was once [a long long time ago] known as freedom of speech. And "morally unhelpful"? Just because you're being encouraged to "enjoy your life" doesn't mean you'll automatically run off and do something bad / naughty/ immoral... narrow minded fools.
Barack Obama - 15/01/2009
Interestingly, this might have been illegal up until 2006 under the repealled blasphemy laws. However, I don't think there is a cats chance in hell that the ASA will ban this one, as it doesn't break the law, or any of the current advertising rules... Banning will only lead to more uproar.
Jonathan Harris - 15/01/2009
How are the adverts either an exaggeration or inaccurate? Isn't all religion founded on belief, not fact? I'd love to see that fool Stephen Green prove there is a God. Also, he clearly doesn't have a lot of faith if he's so offended by these ads.
Jonathan Harris - 15/01/2009
BTW, can't belief Barack Obama AND God Almighty have posted comments on this......after reading a substancial number of American newspapers I thought they were the same person!
Rupert Cheswright - 15/01/2009
Interesting points on the BHA web site, in particular - 'The Christian ads to which the Atheist Bus Campaign is a response linked to a website that promised non-Christians an eternity of torment in a lake of fire. Pretty worrying. Our ads offer a dissenting view from this and are positive messages, urging that we enjoy our lives.' http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign
Rob Mortimer - 15/01/2009
Why why why? They surely surely know by now that trying to ban it means it will appear everywhere and treble their exposure? Are they that uninformed as to think protesting will help an ad that hardly anyone is likely to have paid attention to?
Barack Obama - 15/01/2009
I agree Rob. What happened to turning the other cheek?
Bob Harvey - 15/01/2009
I find the atheist response as pathetic as the original "eternal torment in a lake of fire." It's a "Black Swan Theory" situation \(http://tinyurl.com/2ngwkw) and it's a shame neither side seems unable to be open to possiblities.
Vaishali Patel - 15/01/2009
What happened to freedom of speech? Or is that kind of freedom only available in the US? It's a different point of view and I agree with Rupert, why does enjoying your life have to be related to something immoral / naughty.
Charlie Guthrie - 15/01/2009
I like the ad, aside from the religious arguements. In a world populated by so much negative press and news having someone come along and tell us to 'Enjoy Your Life' is a pleasant relief. Remember; Life is short, enjoy it whilst you can, you could be run over by a bus tomorrow!
robin caller - 15/01/2009
previously on 24, ---- there seemed to be specific issues of law affecting this one, such as the atheists promoting themselves as agnostics by using the word "probably", which may be a mis-representation, and apparently there is no statistical information to support any probability in either direction, so once again the use of the word "probably" is probably the achilles heel of this campaign - so perhaps the lesson is that it was spineless of atheists to go after the agnostic vote.
gotnoteef - 15/01/2009
So atheists and their messages are immoral because they question the possibility of god and tell regular folks to enjoy their lives, but fiddler priests and religious wars are bang-on OK because their vileness is expedited in the name of the lord? Well praise be! Reckon the scientologists must be loving this - Tom and his barmy army of space-dwarfs are not looking so 'out there and detached from reality' after all.
Amanda Goodchild - 15/01/2009
I forget who said the clash of ideas is the sound of a free society but it's important - not only morally, but also for the discovery of truth. As a Christian I believe in freedom of speech - it's vital for a health democracy. It shouldn't be against the law to offend other people - let alone suggest beliefs which are offensive to others. We have to be mature enough to debate like adults.
James Dalziel - 15/01/2009
Those ads are great. They always make me smile - if you can advertise religion then the other side should be allowed to express their views too.
CHRIS BARRACLOUGH - 15/01/2009
You can't help thinking if Christian Voice are against it then it must be a good thing.
james thackray - 15/01/2009
"religiously offensive” Utter tosh. I'm am indifferent to the campaign but being atheist or agnostic is not offensive! Freedom of speech should be the overriding issue is assessing this advertising. “morally unhelpful advertisements" meaningless! Advertising does not need to be morally helpful.
Johnny Watters - 15/01/2009
A fairly unanimous response there. Interestingly, I saw a front page headline on one of the newspapers the other day that read "UK public losing faith in the Economy". Perhaps we should create a campaign with the line, "There's probably no Economy. Now stop worrying and enjoy what little cash you have left." Or would that be "morally unhelpful" too?
gotnoteef - 15/01/2009
depends what you were going to enjoy spending your cash on - with my last pennies, I'm going to aim for something with questionable legality that is entirely bereft of any moral substance - so, deep fried mars it is then!
Eddie Stalwart - 15/01/2009
'There is probably no God' is perhaps one of the least exaggerated straplines ever. Probably.
Levitates - 15/01/2009
Not suprised that those in power are trying to supress this. A quote from Seneca, in 59 "AD" “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca.
Andrew Freeman - 15/01/2009
To which particular religion is it offensive? Can't imagine many buddhists being offended, for a start. Hinduism doesn't hold a single deity at the centre of belief, as far as I know. Personally, I think ads that state that "there is no salvation except through Jesus" are more lilkely to offend ALL non-Christians than these ads. Incidentally, if Christian Voice are to put up their proof that there IS a god, can they please ensure that they explain WHICH particular version of the monotheistic deities it is? Did he incarnate in Jerusalem about 2,000 years ago? Or not. Did his messengers inspire the prophets? And if so, did they stop around 2,000 years ago, or did they continue until some 622 years later? I look forward to Mr Green's evidence on this matter with interest, as I suspect the REAL limits of "religiously offensive" will be tested then!
Josh Bailey - 15/01/2009
By way of (an as yet unrepresented) challenge to some poorly thought out responses to this: the strap line is banal at best and pretty insensitive / patronising at worst. God not existing gives no reason whatsoever to stop worrying or enjoy life less. Christians are also not worrying more or enjoying their lives less than anyone else - precisely the reverse in my experience. I agree that banning it is fairly pointless - the ad itself is also fairly pointless. What I don't understand is why this is suddenly an opportunity for all of adland to vent their spleens by making a series of baseless accusations against a religion they know little about and against people who they've never met. In anticipation of all the 'telling people they're going to hell isn't very nice' type responses, everybody dies - but Jesus offers hope in the face of death. If it's true, it's the best news ever. Don't believe it? Read a gospel. I read the Blind Watchmaker and have sat through a university education on evolutionary theory - so it's not like I don't know what Dawkins et al are banging on about.
zivai anesu - 15/01/2009
i very much agree with josh bailey, and think the ad is pointless and a lot of people who have commented above have all said how much of a great ad it is .is it just me or it is just a pink print on a white background. the ad might not attack a specific religion however it is definately provoking many religous groups as it is claiming God probably doesnt exist, however it might be worthwhile to think what if he does exist? then what, i think the ad lack of confidence in it own message not only makes the ad poor but proves how Dwakins has gathered a few pionts together to make a controvesial and attention seeking message and advertisement
Barack Obama - 15/01/2009
I think the last two commentators have missed the point a little bit. Only one person above said that the ad was 'great'. I think it is difficult to argue that it is any great shakes aesthetically. The reason that people are getting so worked up is because many atheists and democrats are offended by what is clearly an attack on free speech.
Eddie Stalwart - 15/01/2009
Can we try and remember it's the BHA who funded the ad, not Dawkins. He is not the spokesperson for any atheist movement, he is merely a scientist providing facts he has ascertained through his own research/evidence..he still refers to most of his work as 'theory' not fact. Another fallacy of religious opposal is confusing atheism with anti-theism, which are certainly not collaborative. Anyway, it's obviously not 'pointless' because of the storm it's gathering.
Eddie Stalwart - 15/01/2009
Before someone pipes up - I am well aware that Dawkins contributed a significant amount.
Rupert Cheswright - 15/01/2009
Nice point Levitates. Also, just checking the BHA site - Dawkins is Vice President. Good for him.
Andrew Cracknell - 16/01/2009
"Nice point Levitates?" Levitates' point is as daft as his assumed name - who specifically "in power" - in REAL power - is trying to supress it? Just an excuse to misappropriate Seneca. Anyway, I don't give a stuff whether it runs or not and I'm completely relaxed about the existence or not of god but I'd echo Josh Bailey's question; I don't understand the point of the ad. Why does assuming there is no god allow you greater enjoyment than believing in his existence? One thing that irritates me as much as Dawkins' smugness is the evident radiant happiness of all those "born agains". They don't seem that miserable. But then, just like Dawkins, they have the crutch of their fundamentalism. Same cloth, same certainty.
Archie Strang - 16/01/2009
This ad doesn't seem to know who it's targeting - its slogan implies it's aimed at agnostics asking, "Hmm, does He exist, or does He not exist?"... "Ah ha - this ad tells me he \(guess I can drop that upper case 'H) probably doesn't. Excellent, I can get on with my life." Anyone suspect this ad is designed purely to put the willies up the Christian right?
Nicola Lucas - 16/01/2009
Agree Andrew Cracknell and Josh Bailey. Surely if there's 'probably no god' that means theres more reason to worry. Why would you think oh phew theres no god, thats alright then.. I don't get it.
Rupert Cheswright - 16/01/2009
As far as I understand the original idea was as a reaction to the adverts we all see on the buses / tubes from Christian organisations. One of these adverts had a link to a site stating that non christians would burn in hell or something nice like that. In some ways that's not really the issue with this ad. They're created to draw attention or sell something. This ad is being debated. It's in the news, therefore it's working. To what degree though? Whether it communicates a clear message and does so effectively to a specific audience is another matter - but if nothing else it has raised awareness of the BHA.
Nicola Lucas - 16/01/2009
It isn't working because I've only just seen what the advert is for. Ive seen the ad loads and didn't know who or what BHA was or that it was even for the BHA.
Simon Johnson - 16/01/2009
Before the ASA investigate the Christian Voice group’s formal complaint, I suggest the ASA look at their track record on causing distress and inflicting their own beliefs on others. On a recent visit to The London Zoo on ‘Gay Day’ I was verbally attacked when I refused a leaflet proclaiming that gays benefit from discounts and VIP treatment at the Zoo. I was branded by Stephen Green as dirty and told I would go to hell, my response was “see you there”. Hardly seems worth the £1.45 discount on my ticket, VIP it was not. How could a fellow Christian say these things and be allowed to get away with it? The Christian Voice package their hate crimes against Gays and many other groups in society through leaflets and marketing material that wreak of hatred. Perhaps I’ll forward examples to the ASA and to the Police. The Christian Voice group should live by their own Gods words; “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Religion isn’t above the law. The Athiest ad doesn't break any law.
Nicola Lucas - 16/01/2009
Conclusion - any orthodox religion such as Christianity or Atheism is evil. People should have there own quiet beliefs without forcing it on other people. By all means spread the message of goodwill and kindness etc. but not things like whether god exists or doesnt exist.
Ross Bloomfield - 20/01/2009
Who better than the ASA to finally decide whether god exists or not? I imagine the use of 'probably' in there might help the humanists out. It's certainly less definitive than some of the Christian based advertising I've seen and I'm sure advertising standards would have been brought into conversation at the creative consultations on this. I actually think the wording is quite tempered in nature but whatever the result Dawkins & Co will be delighthed with the campaign.
Blair Jarvis - 20/01/2009
Well I believe we live in a democracy? I am personally a PASSIONATE agnostic and find endless messages of the power of 'good' .sic, and the deliverance of damnation quite intrusive and upsetting! Shall I make a complaint? And where exactly should I deliver it to?