Hello,
I see the atheists are creaming themselves over their pathetic adverts attracting a complaint. Ah there's nothing like playing the daring radical in your safe European home. Honestly all we need now is for some inadequate to send Dawkins a death threat and they'll enter a state of irreligious ecstasy. We can draw some comfort from the complainant having less personal credibility than the Hamiltons but it would have been better if no one had risen to it. Still the way the atheists have jumped all over this absurd complaint shows what a hollow attention seeking enterprise their little campaign is.
It's a curious thing but I've lived in Scotland my whole life and whilst I can recall being irritated by religion on occasion I can honestly say I've never felt remotely oppressed or harassed by it. Even when our evangelical chums turn up at your door at odd hours it takes less than a minute to send them on their way. I'm rather fond of the hellfire and brimstone types that preach in the town of a weekend in Glasgow with their dramatic tales of God rescuing them from a life in jail. They seem like well meaning if slightly intense eggs. In any case they clearly believe that religion has helped them in their lives surely the decent thing to do in the circumstances is to spread the word.
There is nothing whatsoever radical or daring about stating you don't believe in God in the UK but plenty obscene and self indulgent about the conduct of the atheists involved. When I was an atheist I used to say it to Christians and Muslims all the time and all I got in return was a calm statement of their beliefs. I think the worst thing that happened to me as a young atheist was getting smirked at by a teacher in school and told that I had rather too much to say for myself. I know we are a nation that has become prone to ludicrous overreaction to things or in other words spoiled beyond belief but surely the atheist community can live with the odd snide comment.
Of course there is a perfectly valid debate about what role religion should play in society. Personally I support the separation of church and state and the withdrawal of state funding for faith schools and I'd have been happy to support a campaign on those issues. On the other hand I'm perfectly happy for public holidays to be based around Christian festivals given Britain's Christian heritage. I'll take a day off whoever suggests it.
I would also have been delighted to see the money raised from the pointless bus campaign used to oppose genuine religious oppression. In my previous job I used to have a very pleasant chap calling into my office from time to time who had made the unfortunate error of being overheard telling a joke about a local imam and has the horrific scars to prove it. I also used to have a lovely woman call in who only escaped her death sentence for adultery because she was lucky enough to have friends and family with enough cash to pay bribes and buy her a plane ticket. Or if you want a less obscure example what about Meena Keshwar Kamal? All victims of religious oppression and not atypical yet the most pressing matter for British atheists is whether or not some punter on the bus believes in God or not.
Where is the money to help victims of religious torture? Where are the donations to campaign against oppressive theocracy? Languishing in the lack of media attention pile for being insufficiently sexy? Why is some London professional being irked by seeing a Christian advert on a bus more pressing than these issues? I have no doubt at all that Ariane Sherine regards herself and her beliefs as the centre of the universe but that doesn't make so.
Whilst we should be happy that we live in country where the worst thing that's happened to some folk is being 'made' upon pain of being shouted at to sing Onward Christian Soldiers at school assembly, I think it reasonable to be angered by their spoilt child posturing. Of course just in case you thought they were merely a petty bunch of badly dressed Marie Antionettes there is the 'compassionate side' to this campaign. I'm not kidding apparently they wet their pants at some Christian advert containing a link to a website quoting the usual biblical stuff about non-believers roasting on the hob of hell and got worried about folk who might be worried by this. Well God or wanky sixth former forbid that anyone should be worried!
Clearly the atheists are people so unsure of their own convictions that they need to band together for reassurance but does that mean that everyone else is so mentally weak? Who exactly are these Christian adverts worrying? I might be inclined to glance at the website and enjoy a bit of the Bible (one of my favourite reads) but anyone worried by it is likely to be a believer and hardly likely to be swayed by another bit of advertising.
If it wasn't be an obscene waste of valuable resources I'd suggest a bus campaign bearing the slogan ' British Atheists are probably just a bunch of self indulgent milksops with no stomach for a real fight so stop worrying and believe what you like'. Instead I urge anyone whatever their beliefs who is against religious oppression to make a donation to RAWA.
Cheerio
14 comments:
"Some atheists may be creaming themselves. The vast majority of us couldn't care less either way.
This is an argument seen in many forms, eg:
1)Why are you women moaning about minute discriminations in 2008 when Saudi Arabaian women are blah blah
2)Why are you bothering to send telescopes to examine the universe when there's people starving in africa or needing medical treatment in the bronx?? (the whitey on the moon argument)
Essentially, why does it matter if a bunch of ignorant and superstitious foreigners are still stuck in the dark ages? Does that mean that a minority of strangely messianic atheists should hang their head in shame for creating some bus adverts that hoenstly seem to have a perfectly good sentiment and statement? And why shouldn't they? You will see plenty of campaigns putting the opposite point of view - even see the whole idiocy the other day with the hokey cokey banning suggestions - but as soon as an atheist has an opinion they are evil messianic loonies!
It is pretty strange really. I can't say I care much for dawkins & so on, but simply, they are correct in their views, and they have every right to say so - and the fact that they can say it without getting their head chopped off doesn't somehow mean they should be ashamed for then saying it. And even if it does seem to get up some people's noses - as evidenced by the endless commentary of people saying how stupid it is or how much they don't care, I would say they have been successful in getting their views known.
More power to them, what the fuck ever.
Bring back Hume.
Longrider,
Fair point.
Vavatch,
Why are you women moaning about minute discriminations in 2008 when Saudi Arabaian women are blah blah
2)Why are you bothering to send telescopes to examine the universe when there's people starving in africa or needing medical treatment in the bronx?? (the whitey on the moon argument)
Essentially, why does it matter if a bunch of ignorant and superstitious foreigners are still stuck in the dark ages? Does that mean that a minority of strangely messianic atheists should hang their head in shame for creating some bus adverts that hoenstly seem to have a perfectly good sentiment and statement? And why shouldn't they? You will see plenty of campaigns putting the opposite point of view - even see the whole idiocy the other day with the hokey cokey banning suggestions - but as soon as an atheist has an opinion they are evil messianic loonies!
It is pretty strange really. I can't say I care much for dawkins & so on, but simply, they are correct in their views, and they have every right to say so - and the fact that they can say it without getting their head chopped off doesn't somehow mean they should be ashamed for then saying it. And even if it does seem to get up some people's noses - as evidenced by the endless commentary of people saying how stupid it is or how much they don't care, I would say they have been successful in getting their views known.
More power to them, what the fuck ever.
Bring back Hume.
Why are you women moaning about minute discriminations in 2008 when Saudi Arabaian women are blah blah
Well I wouldn’t argue that British women shouldn’t complain about the discrimination they encounter but if they’re claiming to be feminists shouldn’t they be concerned about all women? In which case the problems of Saudi women would be more important than moaning that a glance a Vogue makes you feel fat.
2)Why are you bothering to send telescopes to examine the universe when there's people starving in africa or needing medical treatment in the bronx?? (the whitey on the moon argument)
I don’t see that the two things have anything to do with each other unless it is being claimed that the telescopes examining the universe are intended to end starvation in Africa or provide medical treatment in the Bronx.
‘Essentially, why does it matter if a bunch of ignorant and superstitious foreigners are still stuck in the dark ages?’
Well I should think it matters a great deal to the foreigners on the receiving end of a bit of dark ages ‘justice’. If you are going to go on to argue that we should have no interest in what happens to foreigners I would point out that it has a tangible effect in this country by fuelling terrorism and causing people to leave their country of origin to seek asylum.
‘Does that mean that a minority of strangely messianic atheists should hang their head in shame for creating some bus adverts that hoenstly seem to have a perfectly good sentiment and statement?’
No what it means is that they’ve wasted a valuable opportunity to oppose religious oppression by indulging in petty posturing. In any case even if they wished to confine their attentions to the UK they could have campaigned against faith schools, in particular those run by the more extreme elements of Christianity. They’re like children ’oooh the Christians have got an advert we want one too.’
‘You will see plenty of campaigns putting the opposite point of view - even see the whole idiocy the other day with the hokey cokey banning suggestions - but as soon as an atheist has an opinion they are evil messianic loonies!’
I don’t regard atheists as evil -I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. As far as I’m aware the whole ‘hokey cokey’ debacle was a bit of mischief making by the Scotsman following comments on a Rangers supporters forum which was taken up by a rather foolish MSP. I don’t recall a serious campaign being mounted to ban it. To be honest I’m not sure I get the point you’re trying to make here. No one is arguing that atheists don’t have the right to express an opinion. Quite the opposite as far as I’m aware they’re free to do so in this country which makes their excitement at advertising agnostic beliefs on buses all the more baffling.
‘It is pretty strange really. I can't say I care much for dawkins & so on, but simply, they are correct in their views, and they have every right to say so - and the fact that they can say it without getting their head chopped off doesn't somehow mean they should be ashamed for then saying it. And even if it does seem to get up some people's noses - as evidenced by the endless commentary of people saying how stupid it is or how much they don't care, I would say they have been successful in getting their views known.’
Who exactly is disputing that they have a right to express their own beliefs. I certainly haven’t. All I’ve questioned is why they’re making such a song and dance about something people are free to say every day in this country. Was atheism unknown before the bus campaign? What they’re saying doesn’t upset me in the least as an agnostic I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment. It’s blowing a fortune making a completely uncontroversial statement then acting like they’ve done something daring that gets on my wick. You seem to judge the advert a success because people on blogs and in the press are talking about it. For me all that highlights is what a waste the whole thing has been. It hasn’t sparked a debate about free speech in relation to religion, the role religion should play in society, the problems of religious extremism or even whether or not God exists at all. Rather more important issues than flogging a few extra copies of the freely available, reasonably priced and uncensored ‘God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins. It’s attention seeking and posturing. A totally wasted opportunity they might as well have blown the cash bribing someone at Endemol to put Richard Dawkins in the Big Brother house which might at least have been funny if nothing else. All the adverts have done is generate few articles and blog posts saying it's a great/ terrible/ stupid/ OK idea.
A few questions then. Where do you get the impression that spending some cash on a bus campaign is necessarily a vast sum of money? Especially in proportion to the reaction it has had. How do you know that nobody, anywhere has not thought of the actual sentiment embodied in the advert - stop worrying about god and enjoy your life - as a result? Why attack the atheists if the press and some daft bloggers then react by ranting about a bunch of stuff unrelated to the campaign? Usually along the lines of "haw haw the atheists are just as messianic and obsessed with spreading their particular cult as religious people! Atheism is really a form of religion! Look at me I'm so damned clever."
Anyway, I oppose the notion that it is pointless to think about or spend money on something in the UK as long as something worse exists somewhere else. The "whitey on the moon" argument is the same - why spend money on xyz when there's people starving in africa? Well, uh, why not? Why shouldn't atheists be concerned about the society they actually live in? Why shouldn't they desire to put their view across in it? I realise you don't oppose atheists doing those things when it is put baldly in that fashion - you don't oppose their right to do it, you just oppose them actually doing it - but on the grounds that they should be exclusively worried about people thousands of miles away, where it is impossible to promote atheism in any case.
What would happen if atheists decided to promote atheism in Iran? The same as what would have happened to atheists here 300 years ago: they'd be executed in short order, or at least thrown in the clink. So how exactly are they to promote atheism in Iran, Saudi Arabia and similar?
Tending to people scarred by religious zealots after the fact isn't actually combatting superstition, it is mopping up the consequences after the fact. And it isn't a concern of an organisation that promotes atheism - it is the concern of everyone! And particularly humanitarian organisations who are better off dealing with it than atheism-promoters.
In any case, launching a bus campaign - which seems to be to be quite amusing to be honest especially thanks to the weird outraged reactions - is fun and amusing (or "self indulgent" if you are being tabloid-style uncharitable), and it certainly has got people talking and thinking and arguing about atheism I would say, so good for them.
For the hokey cokey - I was thinking in particular of our glorious cardinal's comments on the matter, along the lines of, "this song takes the piss out of catholics" - then everyone debates whether it does. But really, what is wrong with a song taking the piss out of catholics or any other religion? Yes, it should be illegal to sing it at a latin mass and incite one and all, but I gets the feelign that the good cardinal would like the arm of the law used to stamp out songs pointing out how stupid and absurd catholocism is. Oh and then demand we all spend money on the stupid segregated school system.
It would be nice - if there actually were a bunch of committed atheist campaigners in SW scotland - for them to oppose such things, but right now, with the tiny numbers of people who are atheists or "atheist but I don't want to associate myself with dawkins & co AKA agnostic" and also so obsessed with it that they actually wanna campaign, well, a solitary bus advert with huge and weird resulting controversy is probably a good initial allocation of resources for them. And remember, they money was raised specifically for the bus capaign, online. Would they have got nearly as much cash for mopping up operations abroad? I doubt it.
btw richard dawkins in the big brother house would be brilliant, I think he woulg end up allied with Tommy - another sort of binaqry thinking idealogue for whom everything is black and white, right and wrong, true or false.
Where do you get the impression that spending some cash on a bus campaign is necessarily a vast sum of money? Especially in proportion to the reaction it has had.
Well £140,000 is a lot of money to me. I don’t think the advert has had much of a reaction. The odd newspaper article and few blog posts is all I’ve heard about it. I haven’t heard anyone mention it out with the internet/media at all.
How do you know that nobody, anywhere has not thought of the actual sentiment embodied in the advert - stop worrying about god and enjoy your life - as a result?
I don’t know what influence it’s had on individuals who’ve seen it as no one has come forward to declare they’ve changed their mind as a direct result. Similarly we don’t know if religious folk who’ve seen it have been annoyed and become more strident and less tolerant in their faith as a result. I think it is unlikely to have any deep influence on anyone, it is only an advert after all.
Why attack the atheists if the press and some daft bloggers then react by ranting about a bunch of stuff unrelated to the campaign? Usually along the lines of "haw haw the atheists are just as messianic and obsessed with spreading their particular cult as religious people! Atheism is really a form of religion! Look at me I'm so damned clever."
The atheists have made a public statement with the aim of getting a reaction. I’ve given them one as have others if that’s the aim of the campaign shouldn’t they be happy? If they were only after a positive reaction then they’re being a little naive. I haven’t said that I’m clever or stated that atheism is a form of religion. I suppose that would depend on how you define what constitutes a religion. It could be argued that there is a bit of a leap of faith involved in making any statement that goes further than saying the existence of God is unlikely but I’m not sure that would constitute a religion. The intolerant attitudes of a minority of commentators on the Guardian site certainly mirror some of the more extreme religious elements but again I’m not convinced that is enough to make atheism a religion.
‘What would happen if atheists decided to promote atheism in Iran? The same as what would have happened to atheists here 300 years ago: they'd be executed in short order, or at least thrown in the clink. So how exactly are they to promote atheism in Iran, Saudi Arabia and similar?’
Well no oppressive regime ever backed down because no-one opposed it. I think it unlikely that the bus campaign would even be able to go ahead in these countries or that it would be particularly helpful. Instead I was thinking of funding other means of promoting secularism rather similar to the ways in which people used to get information into repressive communist regimes and the like. Perhaps something along the lines of the underground university movement in communist Prague.
As I’ve already said if they wished to keep their focus solely on the UK there are more important issues than a few folk who might be ’worried’ by an advert for Alpha Courses. State funding for Religious Schools in particular those teaching creationism as a science rather than a religious belief is far more important and a good campaign that would get people talking about these issues and providing a coherent, united opposition to them would not only be something I’d welcome but would happily contribute to.
I am not arguing the money should not be spent in the UK because other parts of the world are a mess. The reason I mentioned foreign examples was that these are the most extreme and serious examples of religious intolerance and the excessive power of religion to govern individuals lives. I was of the impression that the atheists had a problem with all religion (a worldwide issue) rather than only religion in the UK. Therefore I felt that a campaign against religion would prioritise the most serious problems first. I would point out that many supporters of the campaign are adding to this confusion by citing the situation in Gaza in support of their arguments. Similarly their support for the American atheist campaign suggests an interest in world affairs.
Had I been aware of the nationalist stance of the campaign I would have focussed solely on the UK, though I must say I’m surprised by it. Are they saying that it’s fine to believe in God outside the UK but not within it? Do they wish religion to be a factor in determining immigration policy? I wonder why they are keeping so quiet about it. I think they’re being naïve if they think they can confine this solely to the UK given the ease of travel and accessible worldwide communication channels.
‘Tending to people scarred by religious zealots after the fact isn't actually combatting superstition, it is mopping up the consequences after the fact. And it isn't a concern of an organisation that promotes atheism - it is the concern of everyone! And particularly humanitarian organisations who are better off dealing with it than atheism-promoters.’
Something like funding a humanitarian charity worker to assist victims of religious oppression for a couple years would have been a great gesture. Leaving aside the obvious benefit to the people requiring help. It would have attracted valuable publicity to a major problem caused by religion and challenged the belief that religion is required to make a person behave in a moral, compassionate fashion. In other words it would have furthered their cause.
‘In any case, launching a bus campaign - which seems to be to be quite amusing to be honest especially thanks to the weird outraged reactions - is fun and amusing (or "self indulgent" if you are being tabloid-style uncharitable), and it certainly has got people talking and thinking and arguing about atheism I would say, so good for them.’
I don’t see that it has. The debate seems to be about whether or not the campaign was a good idea or not. I’m sorry but I can’t see the point of this and cannot view it as a substitute for a proper discussion on atheism and religion.
For the hokey cokey - I was thinking in particular of our glorious cardinal's comments on the matter, along the lines of, "this song takes the piss out of catholics" - then everyone debates whether it does. But really, what is wrong with a song taking the piss out of catholics or any other religion? Yes, it should be illegal to sing it at a latin mass and incite one and all, but I gets the feelign that the good cardinal would like the arm of the law used to stamp out songs pointing out how stupid and absurd catholocism is. Oh and then demand we all spend money on the stupid segregated school system.
The cardinals spokesperson received a telephone call asking him what he thought of Rangers fans singing the hokey cokey to wind up Catholic Celtic fans. Personally I wouldn’t have dignified such a bloody stupid question with a response though I find little to be annoyed about in his fairly unremarkable answer -
‘This song does have quite disturbing origins. It was devised as an attack on, and a parody of, the Catholic mass. If there are moves to restore its more malevolent meaning then consideration should perhaps be given to its wider use.’
There is nothing wrong with taking the piss out of Catholics however in the context of the Old Firm there are times when public order issues may be raised and need dealing with accordingly. You don’t honestly imagine the Rangers fans were making any kind of theological point do you? It looked to me like a petulant protest at people’s objection to them singing their usual incitements to violence.
I strongly disagree that it should be illegal to sing the hokey cokey at a Latin Mass, though the Catholic Church as owners of the premises would have every right to remove the person singing it and request assistance from the police if the person refused to leave. The problem is the person disrupting the mass not what they are singing. Surely this could be dealt with as a breach of the peace or similar rather than requiring restrictions being placed on free speech. Legally it’s no different from removing an obnoxious drunk from a nightclub. Do you really believe we need to legislate on this? Aren’t existing laws adequate to deal with it? What would such a person be charged with that they can’t be at present?
However I’m still at a loss as to why this has to do with the atheist bus campaign. The Catholic Church have merely expressed an opinion as they have every right to do. There has been no call for a ban by the Catholic Church. I can't see that they've overstepped the mark on this occasion.
I do not describe myself as agnostic to disassociate myself from Richard Dawkins I say it because I am. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at how many people in Scotland are against state funding for religious schooling. Unfortunately it’s not something that’s reflected in the media or by the major political parties. A campaign would be a great focus and would show just how many people including a few religious folk support secular education. I am aware that the money was raised for a bus campaign in response to the awful problem of seeing Christian adverts on buses. I find that petty and even ignoring the rest of the world is the least of our worries when it comes to religion.
I’m sorry but I just can’t see this as anything more than childish posturing and a wasted opportunity.
Just because you're atheist doesn't mean you have to be rational.
What about the Trekkies? Don't they get an advert?
Nah it will be those tossers that put Jedi as their religion on the census next.
next census, I intend to put myself down as a 'Jehovah's Bystander'.
Thank you for this entry - it made me grin and nod to myself!
The atheist message on the buses was uplifting and positive. Why shouldn't they have the same right to advertise their beliefs as any other group? Or are you saying that all advertising promoting beliefs is an "obscene waste"?
As for stereotyping atheists as "self indulgent milksops"... listen to yourself! You sound like the ontolerant bigots you normally prefer to criticise. Face it, Clairwil, you're wrong.
Who exactly was 'the message' uplifting to? Let's face it you're a wank my boy. Who mentioned rights? If it was down to me racists, bigots, random nutters, terrorists and my mum would be able to advertise anywhere.
Most advertising is a waste, atheists had the chance to strike a real blow for secular morality but they blew it on piss weak adverts. Why? Because they want attention, not change or justice.
As for your 'ontolerant bigots' insult. It isn't me who wishes to ban religious advertising. Far from being a bigot I'm pretty laid back about religion or lack of.
I'm not wrong. You are and no wonder you're ashamed to put a name to your remarks. Cocksucker
ha ha ..and don't assume I'm a boy thanks very much.
anonymous? yes, but I don't imagine you're really called Madame de Clairwil so let's just say we are both anonymous but I haven't bothered to adopt a literary pseudonym.
Of course, I could continue to discuss the atheist advert issue. But you're still wrong and you proved it when you abandoned rational argument and resorted to obscenities.
I won't be bothering to check if you reply by the way, so feel free to have another swear.
Well you argue like a child so I can be forgiven for assuming you were a boy. I did hope you weren't of my gender but alas another stupid woman that feels the need to whine in a pack invades my space. More rape fodder for the pervs. Ho Hum.
There is a big difference between opting for pseudonym and anonymity. Anything I blog is attributed to my pseudonym. You can contradict yourself, troll, make spoiled baby remarks until your heart is content and deny any responsibility. I can't. Had you wanted a debate you wouldn't have adopted the tone you did. I merely got down to your level and outclassed you because I'm better at insults and let's face it a more worthwhile human being.
I put the obscenity in to get the response you gave. The presence of rude words does not render an arguement invalid as anyone with even half a brain will tell you. Here's a demonstration;
God does not exist.
Fuck off! There is no God!
Do you see what I mean moron? Prefacing the arguement with fuck off does not mean that God exists. Though I suppose in your subnormal mind it does. Is your family tree a stump? Or did you just spring from an unwashed petri dish? Either way you reek of weak sperm to me.
You will check if I reply. In fact a quick look at IP addresses confirms you have several times already today. What you won't do is reply to my comment because you are far too thick to debate with me. It's tragic really because I'm not all that bright. Still it's a lesson for you- stick to sniffing your own farts and whining. We all have our intellectual level and you're a bottom feeder I suggest you either embrace that, kill yourself or keep your legs open and your mouth shut as I cannot see any other purpose for you.
Now waddle off back to Bebo and let the adults get on with what they were doing dear.
Post a Comment