Really Sciency

Visit my other blog 'Really Sciency' looking at Climate Science and its portrayal, misrepresentation and denial in the media.

Thursday, 27 January 2011

An alliance of Christians ...

... breaks rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness.

I think all advertising should be banned unless they can prove what they say is true.  This of course means religious advertising too. If they mention salvation, everlasting life, happiness etc. then plainly it would be against normal advertising standards.

This particular ad that fell foul of the ASA is purely propaganda aimed against a minority. How Christian is that?

My only reassurance is that many Christians would not agree with these tactics either (I hope) but as the comments in a previous post shows, some have little sympathy when minority groups are discriminated against if those groups do not share their views.

38 comments:

  1. A two year old story.

    How topical.

    Of course I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in this advert.

    But, there again, I don't go making bigoted jokes about people online like some people do.
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apologies, it's nearly three years old.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh and the CCTV, the "alliance of Christians" referred to, no longer exists.


    What exactly WAS the point of this blog entry again?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What exactly WAS the point of this blog entry again?"

    An alliance of Christians broke rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3 years ago.

    A group that has subsequently been disbanded.


    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Christians have a statute of limitations on misdeeds? Is it because you think they have all repented and can be forgiven? Does this work for actual crimes or just 'sins'?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why are you so concerned about an old news story regarding an organisation that no longer exists?

    What is the relevance?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The people still exist. Why are you so unconcerned about of them breaking rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The people still exist. Why are you so unconcerned about of them breaking rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness?"

    While I don't agree with the statement made by the CCTV regarding homosexuals I am not unduly concerned about them "breaking rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness" because:

    a) as has been demonstrated by this story the ASA will hold them to account for their actions

    but more importantly:

    b) the CCTV no longer exists.



    So I'll ask again:
    "Why are you so concerned about an old news story regarding an organisation that no longer exists?

    What is the relevance? "

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll repeat again for the hard of reading;

    An alliance of Christians broke rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness.

    The Christian faith claim to have moral standards that is wholly unrepresented in this case. It matters not if I'm talking about Christians who used to belong to an organisation that doesn't exist - I could just as easily used Christian Voice an an example of their intolerance but I choose one where a clear ruling was applied.

    Why if you now say you are against the statement made by the CCTV regarding homosexuals it took you six posts to express anything about it? You seem to hold criticising the age of my example far above the discrimination and injustice done by these Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Why if you now say you are against the statement made by the CCTV regarding homosexuals it took you six posts to express anything about it?"

    For the "hard of reading":
    "Of course I do not agree with the sentiments expressed in this advert."
    (From my first reponse to this blog entry).







    Doh!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The Christian faith claim to have moral standards that is wholly unrepresented in this case."

    Well it's harly surprising that the opinions of a defunct "Christian alliance" that consists of a small number of noisy malcontents fail to represent the Christian faith as practised by billions worldwide.


    Or are you suggesting that the Christian Congress for Traditional Values represented the true opinions of the majority of Christians globally when they said in their advert "Gay aim: abolish the family"?

    Do you believe that the majority view among Christians is that homosexuals want to "abolish the family"?

    If not, what was the purpose of repeating this three year old story about a defunct group who made a claim in an advert that was subsequently, and in my opinion rightly, pulled by the ASA?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Abolish the family? No probably not although I have never seen any specific statements from the many Christian denomination on what they believe any Gay agenda might be.

    However I do believe that the sentiments that homosexuality wrong, sinful etc is the true opinions of the majority of Christians globally.

    ReplyDelete
  14. But you accept that the specific statement that was made by the now defunct CCTV that was the subject of this ruling by the ASA is not a sentiment necessarily shared by the majority of Christians.

    So what was the purpose of repeating this three year old story about a defunct group who made a claim in an advert that was subsequently, and in my opinion rightly, pulled by the ASA?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'll repeat again for the hard of reading;

    An alliance of Christians broke rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness.

    There is no statute of limitations. A sizeable proportion, if not a majority, of people calling themselves Christian are also intolerant of homosexuality.

    Here is an example of how that intolerance came to be expressed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So why didn't you just write "a lot of Christians are intolerant of homosexuality"?

    Then we could have all said "Big whup, a lot of people in general are intolerant of homosexuality, tell us something we didn't know already".




    By the way, you're yet to apologise for or even acknowledge this mistake (I presume that it was a mistake and not a deliberate lie):
    "Why if you now say you are against the statement made by the CCTV regarding homosexuals it took you six posts to express anything about it?"
    that you made in this reply:
    http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/alliance-of-christians.html?showComment=1296219582417#c5616749702074012328

    ReplyDelete
  17. So why didn't you just write "a lot of Christians are intolerant of homosexuality"?

    Because that statement isn't supported by any examples.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Big whup, a lot of people in general are intolerant of homosexuality, tell us something we didn't know already".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course there are a lot of people who are bigoted toward gays but only the religious claim that an almighty deity has told them this is a moral way to behave.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Of course there are a lot of people who are bigoted toward gays but only the religious claim that an almighty deity has told them this is a moral way to behave."

    So what? The end result is the same. Homosexuals being discriminated against.

    ReplyDelete
  21. BTW: Since you have failed to acknowledge that you made a factually incorrect statement about me here: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/alliance-of-christians.html?showComment=1296219582417#c5616749702074012328
    "Why if you now say you are against the statement made by the CCTV regarding homosexuals it took you six posts to express anything about it?"

    despite the fact that I have pointed it out twice to you now, I shall consider it to have been a deliberate lie rather than an honest mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Since you have failed to acknowledge that you made a factually incorrect statement about me"

    I did not realise you required an acknowledgement. You can even have an apology for my poor memory if you think you require one as well.

    "So what? The end result is the same. Homosexuals being discriminated against."

    This could only be said by you if you are the type of person who would say; 'Why go to the trouble of criticising people in Islamic terrorist organisations? In the end people are still killed by other terrorists'.

    Or; 'Why pick on people in racist organisations like the BNP or KKK? In the end other people also racially discriminate.

    I'm not one of these people, are you?

    I suspect you are not, but are trying to water down criticism for a group of people whose religious views puts you broadly within the same group as them.

    Why else would you use the old deflection tactic of pointing out other people do it too?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You can even have an apology for my poor memory if you think you require one as well."

    Poor memory? It's there in black and white on the screen in front of you.

    (Was that supposed to be an apology because it read like you were offering to apologise without actually apologising).


    "'Why go to the trouble of criticising people in Islamic terrorist organisations? In the end people are still killed by other terrorists'."

    Quite so. Criticise terrorists for being terrorists, not for being a particular brand of terrorist. Criticise bigots for being bigots, not for being a particular brand of bigot. Criticise homophobes for being homophobes, not for being a particular brand of homophobe.

    By emphasising their "brand" you give the impression of someone who is trying to tar everyone of the brand with the same brush.


    "I'm not one of these people, are you?"
    No, you're just the sort of person who propogates racist jokes on the internet: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html
    not as bad as the BNP or the KKK, just someone who helps maintain an acceptance in society of casual racism.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No it wasn't an apology. Do you require one for my poor memory? My screen isn't big enough to view all comments and there were several days between them.

    "Criticise terrorists for being terrorists, not for being a particular brand of terrorist. Criticise bigots for being bigots, not for being a particular brand of bigot. Criticise homophobes for being homophobes, not for being a particular brand of homophobe."

    I entirely disagree with this wishy washing thinking. So you wouldn't criticise the BNP, KKK or al-Qaeda? The very organisations that create terrorists g, homophobes and bigots by indoctrination and training. What an ass.

    You also seem incapable of understanding the difference between a joke about stereotypes and being racist.

    Telling a joke isn't being racist, even if you think it is a racist or inappropriate joke, it does not make the person telling it racist. Only being racist can do that.

    I wonder if you think telling Irish jokes as racist? Mother-in-law jokes as sexist? And every third man in a bar, what are those jokes? Chumpist?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "So you wouldn't criticise the BNP, KKK or al-Qaeda?"

    Sorry, but is there some part of "Criticise terrorists for being terrorists, not for being a particular brand of terrorist. Criticise bigots for being bigots, not for being a particular brand of bigot. Criticise homophobes for being homophobes, not for being a particular brand of homophobe" that you're having particular difficulty understanding?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "You also seem incapable of understanding the difference between a joke about stereotypes and being racist."

    Yes. I am having difficulty understanding the nuanced difference between "being racist" and typing racist things on an internet blog.



    "I wonder if you think telling Irish jokes as racist?"

    Yes I do. They pander to people's prejudices about the Irish through the use of stereotype.


    "Mother-in-law jokes as sexist?"

    Yes I do. They pander to people's prejudices about women through the use of stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "No it wasn't an apology. Do you require one for my poor memory?"

    Don't blame your "poor memory" for not checking your facts before making untrue allegations.

    An apology for accusing me of something that wasn't true would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I do humbly apologise for not rereading all the previous comments made by you and forgetting about where you plainly said you did not agree with this Christian groups advert.

    But on the second matter;

    "jokes based on national stereotyping were part of British national humour."

    "the comments may have been "rude" and "mischievous," but there was no "vindictiveness" behind them."

    "Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised,"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12361790

    I suspect you must be one of the complainers since I never said anything nearly as severe about Mexicans as Top Gear.

    I'm also worried that my posts are not as edgy as I hoped if I'm so easily outdone by the Politically Correct riddled BBC.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I do humbly apologise for not rereading all the previous comments made by you and forgetting about where you plainly said you did not agree with this Christian groups advert."

    But do you apologise for saying something about me that was clearly untrue?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I suspect you must be one of the complainers"

    No. I didn't see that episode of Top Gear.

    ReplyDelete
  31. By the way, you still haven't explained the nuanced difference between "being racist" and typing racist things on an internet blog.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have apologised for my error but you don't seem very forgiving.

    Do you think I deliberately questioned your opinion when it is expressed in your first post for all to see?

    Top Gear is available on BBC iPlayer so you can watch it to feel indignant, morally superior and self righteous.

    There is nothing nuanced about it. I have not typed anything racist and I never will.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I have apologised for my error but you don't seem very forgiving."

    Youe've apologised for "not rereading" previous comments and for "forgetting" that I had already stated my disagreement with the comments of this group but not actually apologised for alleging something about me that wasn't true.


    "Do you think I deliberately questioned your opinion when it is expressed in your first post for all to see?"

    Perhaps you should take more care to get your facts straight before reaching for the typewriter in future.


    "Top Gear is available on BBC iPlayer so you can watch it to feel indignant, morally superior and self righteous."

    I don't watch television programmes for that reason.


    "There is nothing nuanced about it. I have not typed anything racist and I never will."

    You mean apart from the racist joke that you told here: http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-moses-got-10-commandments.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Perhaps you should take more care to get your facts straight before reaching for the typewriter in future."

    Perhaps I should as I'm only human and make mistakes - unlike you it seems.

    "I don't watch television programmes for that reason."

    Just blogs then?

    "You mean apart from the racist joke that you told here"

    It wasn't a racist joke - jokes can't be racist only the intend behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Perhaps I should as I'm only human and make mistakes - unlike you it seems."

    I do make mistakes. If the mistake calls into question a person's integrity then I apologise for making the mistake - unlike you it seems, who only offers mealy-mouthed excuses about "not remembering".



    "Just blogs then?"

    I don't read blogs for that reason either. However, if I see something offensive, such as the racist humour that you posted in your blog, I'm not afraid to point it out.


    "It wasn't a racist joke"

    Yes, it was. The joke relied on racist stereotypes of black people, jews, arabs, mexicans, the french. It couldn't have been more racist if it tried.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No it wasn't.

    "jokes based on national stereotyping were part of British national humour."

    "the comments may have been "rude" and "mischievous," but there was no "vindictiveness" behind them."

    "Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised,"

    Please grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "No it wasn't."

    Oh yes it was!

    It's behind you! etc.



    "Please grow up."

    Please stop telling racist jokes on the internet.




    BTW - those quotes were supposed to demonstrate what exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Very grown up. I do not tell racist jokes as you can see from the thread where you accused me of such rubbish.

    ReplyDelete