Latest post of the previous page:
Nice one, Alan! How about this:"Catholicism is just a load of Papal Bull."
Too specific, of course, so how about....
"Dogma is not for Life, just for Christians."
Latest post of the previous page:
Nice one, Alan! How about this:********************************************************************************
Christian Aid's humanist-sounding slogan :: Alex Singleton
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_singl ... ing_slogan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder what George Duffield, the 19th century minister who wrote the hymn "Stand up, stand up for Jesus", would make of Christian Aid?
Just how Christian is Christian Aid's banner?
The British development organisation, despite its Christian-sounding name, has chosen to fly a humanist-sounding banner outside its London headquarters that says: "We stand up for humanity". Not sure it fits with the brand name, chaps.
[Retrieved: Wed Jan 21 2009 12:57:33 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]
###################
********************************************************************************
Atheist bus ad campaign not in breach of advertising code
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/news/news/200 ... g+code.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Atheist bus ad campaign is not in breach of the Advertising Code
21 January 2009
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has concluded that the “There’s probably no God” bus ad campaign by the British Humanist Association is not in breach of the advertising code. The ASA will therefore not launch an investigation and the case is now closed.
The ASA carefully assessed the 326 complaints it received. Some complained that the ad was offensive and denigratory to people of faith. Others challenged whether the ad was misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God “probably” does not exist.
The ASA Council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser’s opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.
[Retrieved: Wed Jan 21 2009 17:35:15 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]
###################
Not like you Alan! That's my area of expertise.Damn! I was wrong!
This means that anyone expressing an opinion about someting that is not capable of objective substantiation can get away with any old nonsense. But, if they make any statements that are capable of objective substantiation, such as claims about scientific issues, then they might be fair game.The ASA Council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser’s opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.
Not sure if this is just being pedantic or raising an important semantic point (Jaywhat to advise!), but a proposition saying "We believe there is no god" makes our position faith based (we believe that there is no god) and thus it puts the onus on us to prove it if challenged, whereas if we say that "We do not believe in a god" our position is not faith-based (we lack belief in a god) and thus the onus of proof remains with those who do believe.frogbox wrote:...couldn't the next slogan be more direct. "We believe there's no god" rather than "probably".
I like the way you think!Alan C. wrote:The religious like to use bible quotes in their ads, I don't think they can be challenged legally because they are quoting the bible, so why not play them at their own game? I'd like to see some of these plastered on buses.
Hate your mother and your father. Luke 14:26.
It will make you happy to dash your little ones against a stone. Psalm 137:9.
Eat the flesh of your sons and daughters. Leviticus 26:29.
Kill anyone who tells a lie, Deuteronomy 19:18/19.
Kill anyone who works on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
Kill all mediums by stoning. Leviticus 20:27. (I like this one)
Kill a rebelious son by stoning. Deuteronomy 21:18/21.
Kill anyone who utters a curse by stoning. Leviticus 24:14/16.
The Christian right wouldn't be able to complain about bible quotes, would they?
********************************************************************************
British Humanist Association welcomes “common-sense” decision on atheist bus adverts
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/206
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
British Humanist Association welcomes “common-sense” decision on atheist bus adverts
The British Humanist Association (BHA) today welcomes the decision by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) not to launch an investigation into the atheist bus adverts.
Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘The ASA has accepted that the adverts are not offensive to most people and has made the common-sense decision not to attempt to decide whether gods exist or not.’
She continued, ‘The adverts were never intended to offend anyone, but we have become concerned about suggestions from a number of people that the non-religious should not be allowed to advertise their beliefs in this way. We were successful in our campaign to abolish the blasphemy laws last year but it is clear that we must still keep fighting for the fundamental right to freedom of expression, while there are those who would wish to have us gagged.’
[Retrieved: Fri Jan 23 2009 12:40:12 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]
###################
********************************************************************************
Christian Voice: Press Release
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press122.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ASA SAYS 'NO GOD' BUS CLAIM CAN'T BE PROVED
Dated 21st January 2009
The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that the humanists behind the newly-launched bus advertisement which claims there is 'probably no God' can't substantiate their claims.
The ad, the brainchild of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, says: 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.
But Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, and 325 others, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority. Many complaints said the ads were offensive. Stephen Green and others said the advertisements broke the ASA's codes on substantiation and truthfulness.
The ASA website says: 'Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers. This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their products or services before an ad appears.'
But in a ruling today, the ASA says the claim that there is probably no God is 'not capable of objective substantiation'. It says further that the complaints were not 'serious' or 'widespread' enough.
Stephen Green said today:
'If the ASA had thought the humanists could provide evidence for their claim, they would have asked them for it. As they know there is no evidence for the proposition that 'there is probably no God', they have let their secularist friends off the hook. 'I debated this issue secularists five times in recent days, and despite repeated challenges, they could not once come up with anything to back up their claim that there is 'probably no God'.
'The ASA have finessed Code 7.1, which says a ad should not mislead or be likely to mislead, ruling it would not be likely to mislead, so avoiding the thornier question of whether it actually does mislead. Which it does.
'On 'taste and decency', the ASA have simply taken a subjective decision to dismiss the complaints of offensiveness. On planet ASA, complaints from people of faith are not given the same weight as those from secularists. But what do you expect when the ASA Council is appointed and run by a campaigning homosexual, Chris, Lord, Smith of Finsbury?'
Last year the ASA ruled against Sandown Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster when the church published an advertisement 'The Word of God against Sodomy' against Belfast Gay Pride. That ad, decided the ASA, breached its code on decency (offensiveness) after receiving just 4 complaints. But they allowed that the ad was a legitimate expression of opinion when dismissing another part of the complaint.
Last week, it ruled against an advertorial Christian Voice placed in the New Statesman, after just one solitary complaint that a prediction that every Government initiative on teenage sexuality would increase teenage infertility could not be substantiated.
Stephen Green commented: 'The ASA upholds or breaks its rules as it goes along. It all depends on who is being complained about. They get 326 complaints and decide the bus ads were not causing serious or widespread offence. They get a mere 4, and say Sandown's ad was. They allow Sandown to express an opinion, but not Christian Voice. They excuse the secularists from the need to provide evidence for a categorical statement, claiming it is impossible to do, but they say Christian Voice needs hard evidence for a future prediction, which really is impossible.
'We always knew the ASA was just another tool of the politically-correct secularist establishment, but here's the proof. Their ruling is a good example of how the deck is stacked against Christians today, and the Church needs to wake up to the anti-Christian agenda right now. The good news is we now know that when the secularists decided to say: "There is probably no God", they had no reason for making that absurd claim, and time has not helped them come up with one. The bad news is that if Christians don't start standing up for their Faith and their Saviour soon, we shall see religious liberties trampled on, and the secularists will take us further down the road to their hell on earth.'
NOTES for Editors:
The CAP Code, which the ASA administers, says:
'SUBSTANTIATION
'3.1 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
'Relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP. The adequacy of evidence will be judged on whether it supports both the detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication.'
DECENCY
'5.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. ...'
'TRUTHFULNESS
'7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.'
[Retrieved: Sat Jan 24 2009 12:49:02 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]
###################