![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Now, fairly old news now is that British Humanist Organisation paid for several advertisements on busses saying "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
"Big deal" all sensible people say. After all, religious advertising (and atheism is a religious POSITION even if it isn't a religious belief) is depressingly common. I wonder sometimes if all the money that was spent on yelling "GOD!!!!" from banners actually found its way to actual chartiable concerns (errr, that is actually HELPING people and not spending vast sums of cash on the latest persecution du jour, since it's depressing how much "charitable" money is spent on that particular project) what the benefit would be.
Anyway, Christian Voice (aka The Crazy People - I mean, the name alone says it. You have to be pretty damn arrogant to use the Christian Voice? All you need is a slogan "We Speak for God.") stomped their little feet and is launching an official complaint with the ASA (Advertising Stanards thingy)
On the grounds that advertising claims have to be substantiated. I.e. you can't say something in an advert you can't prove is true. Now this isn't going to go anywhere, apart from anything else the "probably" will protect it and, besides, the ASA isn't that dumb.
Because they'd have to be very very very very dumb to touch this. I mean, seriously? Ruling that religious advertising has to PROVE its claims? Do you want to put your hands into that viper's nest? THEY don't!
Because what thecrazy loonies nice people at Christian Voice don't seem to realise is that they're setting themselves up for a lose/lose situation.
1) If they win, they set a precedent that religious advertising needs to substantiate its claims. And there are a WHOLE LOT MORE Christian ads out there than there are atheist/agnostic ones. The ASA deciding one way for Atheists and one way for Christians is going to rain all kind of shit down in the form of discrimination suits and judicial review. If they win, they risk all Christian advertising as well
2) If they lose then they've just spent lots of cash and made loud noises for no other reason to draw attention to the campaign. I mean, seriously, I haven't seen these buses. They're not running anywhere near me. But I've heard of them because Christian Voice has kicked up a fuss. Well done there guys. Really clear thinking.
3) If they lose AND the ASA says "yes you have the substantiate religious advertising" then that's just a treble kick in the teeth isn't it? Yes you have to prove it (hard on Christian adverts), yes you've drawn attention to a rather small ad campaign (ad execs can't buy this kind of exposure!) and you've even got the ASA to say "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is substantially true!
So, what did they hope to achieve here? Because I'm not seeing any plusses.
But to add to the fail we now have the less-than-sensible bus driver refusing to drive one of said busses because it is offensive. My response to him:
1) Offensive? This is offensive enough for you not to work? Wow what a sheltered life you lead!
2) Well done! You managed to take an obscure advertising campaign and keep it in the news cycle for TWO weeks not just one! Did the ad exec pay you to do this?
3) Is this another precedent we want to set? Really? People can refuse to work if the ADVERTISING around them is objectionable to them? Or because their employer displays adverts they find objectionable? Because that's a whole can a worms you don't want to open. I mean, the buses in my city alone have advertised horror films, sex education websites, STD clinics, religious groups, army recruitment - you see where I'm going with this? Adverts saturate EVERYTHING these days - if people get to pick and choose where and when and how they work based on the ADVERTISING they're exposed to or have to carry? Weeeeeelllll that's messy. That's very very messy.
I will watch this growing saga with increasing amusement. For it is very very silly.
"Big deal" all sensible people say. After all, religious advertising (and atheism is a religious POSITION even if it isn't a religious belief) is depressingly common. I wonder sometimes if all the money that was spent on yelling "GOD!!!!" from banners actually found its way to actual chartiable concerns (errr, that is actually HELPING people and not spending vast sums of cash on the latest persecution du jour, since it's depressing how much "charitable" money is spent on that particular project) what the benefit would be.
Anyway, Christian Voice (aka The Crazy People - I mean, the name alone says it. You have to be pretty damn arrogant to use the Christian Voice? All you need is a slogan "We Speak for God.") stomped their little feet and is launching an official complaint with the ASA (Advertising Stanards thingy)
On the grounds that advertising claims have to be substantiated. I.e. you can't say something in an advert you can't prove is true. Now this isn't going to go anywhere, apart from anything else the "probably" will protect it and, besides, the ASA isn't that dumb.
Because they'd have to be very very very very dumb to touch this. I mean, seriously? Ruling that religious advertising has to PROVE its claims? Do you want to put your hands into that viper's nest? THEY don't!
Because what the
1) If they win, they set a precedent that religious advertising needs to substantiate its claims. And there are a WHOLE LOT MORE Christian ads out there than there are atheist/agnostic ones. The ASA deciding one way for Atheists and one way for Christians is going to rain all kind of shit down in the form of discrimination suits and judicial review. If they win, they risk all Christian advertising as well
2) If they lose then they've just spent lots of cash and made loud noises for no other reason to draw attention to the campaign. I mean, seriously, I haven't seen these buses. They're not running anywhere near me. But I've heard of them because Christian Voice has kicked up a fuss. Well done there guys. Really clear thinking.
3) If they lose AND the ASA says "yes you have the substantiate religious advertising" then that's just a treble kick in the teeth isn't it? Yes you have to prove it (hard on Christian adverts), yes you've drawn attention to a rather small ad campaign (ad execs can't buy this kind of exposure!) and you've even got the ASA to say "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is substantially true!
So, what did they hope to achieve here? Because I'm not seeing any plusses.
But to add to the fail we now have the less-than-sensible bus driver refusing to drive one of said busses because it is offensive. My response to him:
1) Offensive? This is offensive enough for you not to work? Wow what a sheltered life you lead!
2) Well done! You managed to take an obscure advertising campaign and keep it in the news cycle for TWO weeks not just one! Did the ad exec pay you to do this?
3) Is this another precedent we want to set? Really? People can refuse to work if the ADVERTISING around them is objectionable to them? Or because their employer displays adverts they find objectionable? Because that's a whole can a worms you don't want to open. I mean, the buses in my city alone have advertised horror films, sex education websites, STD clinics, religious groups, army recruitment - you see where I'm going with this? Adverts saturate EVERYTHING these days - if people get to pick and choose where and when and how they work based on the ADVERTISING they're exposed to or have to carry? Weeeeeelllll that's messy. That's very very messy.
I will watch this growing saga with increasing amusement. For it is very very silly.