The British Humanist association’s posters urging people to put “no religion” on the census have been banned by the advertising agency that owns the hoardings at railway stations. And why is this?
The posters, bearing the slogan “If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so”, have been refused by the companies that own the advertising space, which say they are likely to cause offence.
Cause offence? To whom? Are we really so thin skinned that we cannot cope with a poster that uses the phrase “for God’s sake”? It would appear so.
The ban followed advice from the Advertising Standards Authority’s committee of advertising practice that the advert had the potential to cause widespread and serious offence.
Oh, for God’s sake!
How does that work then? Only last week we were told by a judge that a person’s or family’s religiousness is of lesser regard than another’s sexuality.
So Christians are allowed to be offended by the printed word, but not allowed to foster children because they may taint impressionable yound minds regarding man-love?
The slight forehead shaped indentation on my desk gets deeper by the day.
Maybe they are concerned that atheists will be offended?
Oh come on, I’m not particularly religious (I only go to Church for the usual mandatory family/friend events) but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how someone who does believe would be offended by this – don’t take the Lord’s name in vain etc. This is especially so, since the phrase is obviously being used to take a dig at them, ie. is meant to be offensive, or at least, provocative, which I’m sure the advertising company considered. What I don’t get about aethiests is, that if they are so sure of their ground, why do they have to attack those who don’t agree with them? Can’t they bring people over to their side on the merits? Oh, hang on, there’s no obvious benefits compared to the 72 virgins etc. promises of the God crowd of course. Hmm.
I completely agree with your position on thin skins and taking offence but there’s loads better examples than this.
Personally, I saw it as mildly amusing. If people are offended, so what? There is no right not to be offended. Also, the phrase “for God’s sake” is part of the parlance, whether we are believers or not.
As for you final point, most of us don’t give a hoot what you beleive and have no interest in bringing you over to our side. We don’t have a side to bring you over to.
It might be amusing for you but I don’t get a kick out of giving offence (not that I was offended in this case at all but the intended targets would be). It’s not about rights, it’s just not polite. What’s admirable about going around upsetting people? Of course that language is in common use but they used it in a calculated way and that was obvious. As you say, at best mildly amusing for the rest of us.
As to my last point, I was talking about them not you but you may feel that you want to join their cause. They clearly have a side. There’s no question the Humanist Society is one of those organisations that want to ‘nudge’ us into thinking or doing as they wish – what’s the difference between them and the Gov. etc. you so rightly criticise, other than the cause?
I’m sorry, but if anyone is seriously offended by the comment planned for the poster, they deserve ridicule for having such thin skins, frankly. It was clearly intended to be a mild mickey-take with a more serious underlying point. Not that I particularly agree with the campaign’s point as I believe that our religious belief is none of the government’s business.
Being polite or not is an individual matter. The poster as planned was not impolite and a generation ago it wouldn’t have caused a batted eyelid. The phrase being one we all use – even we atheists.
The difference between the humanists and the government is that the latter make laws and can force us into compliance. With the best will in the world, the humanists cannot. There is no comparison, therefore. Don’t like their message? Ignore it.
I agree with your (and others) stands against the modern curse of taking offence. I just can’t agree this is a good example. We aren’t talking about some risqué stand-up comedian here, or free thinker with a contentious opinion but an organisation with an agenda to promote.
How is politness not an individual matter? Clearly it’s all about individual behaviour, even if part of a group. Also, surely your comment about this being less offensive a generation ago is wrong, it could even have brought prosecution, since religion was both more mainstream as regards the public and protected from criticism by the State.
As to the difference between the Humanists and the Government on ‘nudges’, there isn’t any, as the whole point of the ‘nudging’ is not to use the law.
At the bottom of this, is the present day need of aetheists to attack organised religion and their believers, which now has mainstream ‘elite’ acceptance, if not outright support. See the recent reaction to the Pope’s visit for an excelllent example of this. I read a good book recently; In Defence of the Enlightenment by Tzvetan Todorov, which convincingly discusses how horrified the original enlightenment thinkers would be about our present day attitude to religion and the ever increasing calls to crush it, often by the use of the State and its laws (and definitely not nudging). Not something I can support, including when it is presented as innocuous (mickey-taking as you call it) like this, even if I do have a laundy list of criticisms of organised religion of my own.
Given the ubiquitous nature of the statement “for God’s sake” I’d say this was a perfect example of offence taking for the sake of it. You have to be pretty precious to take offence, which was where I came in.
The nudge agenda from government comes with the none too subtle threat of law if we do not comply. They have been open enough to make their point that voluntary will become compulsory should people not comply. The Humanist Association can do no such thing. Therefore, you simply cannot use that as a comparison. They are a pressure group with no more authority than the church. You are free to laugh in their faces and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.
I think you’ve misread my statement there. Reread it 😉
Sorry, but no one a generation ago would have been prosecuted for putting up a poster using the phrase “for God’s sake”.
So what? Who cares? Religionists are perfectly free to engage. After all, we have recently had church leaders attacking what they call aggressive secularism. What’s good for the goose and all that. In a liberal democracy, we can attack each other’s ideas. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
I thought the advertising company decided not to take the ads. because they thought it might cause offence. So no one took offence and complained (as far as we know), they were just mindful of causing unecessary offence given all the circumstances. Quite reasonable in my opinion as I have explained. Surely a company is free to do that, or are they not entitled to make a free choice?
At present, the Humanists and the Government are doing exactly the same thing, and I find them both annoying bastards for that reason. Of course I agree the government can later send us all to the gas chambers for our religion, whereas the Humanists might struggle with that (but I sure it’s crossed some of their minds)…
You are right that I misunderstood your politeness comment but I still can’t agree. Are you saying that somehow or other the statement would have been better received a generation ago? Bollocks.
I’m all for a healthy debate on religion, or the absence of it, I’m not taking sides as you obviously are here. My point is that the Humanists want to do a ‘Climate Change’ on religion and shut it down all together. I can’t support that and I know you wouldn’t either. To use your words from elsewhere – I’m calling them on it.
Anyway, my view remains this is a piss poor example of the taking offence plague that we are suffering, especially as behind the campaign is a desire to limit our freedoms in some way, not to debate them, and certainly not to promote them, which I can never support.
Keep up the good work.
Of course the advertising company can do as it pleases – although it took advice from the ASA as I understand it. And I can criticise them for their stupidity in pandering to the offence taking brigade. Some upper lips are in serious need of starch.
Actually, I’m not. You are assuming that I am. My irritation is with people taking offence when they either shouldn’t or should grow a pair and get over it. My position would be exactly the same if it was a religious group making a similar remark about atheists. I don’t take offence when they do as I’m all grown up now.
I’m saying that previous generations wouldn’t have wet their knickers over something so petty.
No. The campaign is to have the non religious part of the population more accurately represented in the census. I can understand why they want to do that and if they are successful it in no way impinges on anyone’s liberty. Personally, I would prefer everyone left it blank as such things are no business of government.
I don’t think the company was short of a stiff upper lip, or at least, it wasn’t their main motivation, they made a commercial decision to protect their businees – one of the main reasons why I say it isn’t a good example for you to use.
I accept you say you are not taking sides but I think your comments have clearly shown your opinion on the larger issue.
A previous generation wouldn’t have wet their nickers, they would have taken action, the end result would have been the same.
I understand what the Humanist Society want out of this Census is to boost the number of people stating they are aetheist but that isn’t what they want in the longer term – read their own literature. Their actions have to be considered in this light and not on some narrow interpretation that favours your view on this single matter.
We can both agree it’s not the business of government at all. Shame the Humanists weren’t putting that view forward but then…
That would be?
Last time I put Jedi … this time Heavy Metal. I can’t understand why anyone would take offence at the poster.