God adverts on busses - how to complain

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:57 am

thejamppa wrote:But still: Extremist is extremist, wether religious, atheist or in the between. Extremist cannot compromise, that is why they are wrong 99,9% of the time.

But also taking an extream public opposition to them is just as bad, which is what andyb has done here. I'm pretty sure this falls within your 99.9% of the time.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:07 pm

How is anyone forcing anything here? So your point is because there are less non-religious fanatics that it makes your fanatical response more justified? Your no better than the religious fanatics you complain about.

But also taking an extream public opposition to them is just as bad, which is what andyb has done here. I'm pretty sure this falls within your 99.9% of the time.

This entire quote of mine pretty much says my feelings, including pointing out that many people wont understand my feelings on the subject, and it basically comes down to "one rule for religious people, another rule for everyone else", they are allowed to complain so vocally about everything that is anti-pickareligion, but everyone else has to keep their mouth shut, we dont, this is a chance for people to say "hey, you religious people, you already have more rights to free speech than us, and more protection from free-speech than us, and you are still pushing the boundaries, - stop it".

Quote:
I don't see the point in complaining about this kind of thing. It just encourages the existing persecution complex that a lot of religious people seem to have.

Thats not quite my viewpoint, I am not complaining about it a great deal, I just want to see the ASA ban the advert simply because those bunch of nutcases tried (and failed) to get the previous "Athiest" adverts banned.

I certainly dont want to take this further and try to get the billboards on church property banned, or to stop them ringing their bells, I simply want to have millions of people mock them for their ridiculous narrow minded beliefs that are simply black and white, you or them. They think that they are allowed to get away with anything they like in the name of their religion, and they usually do. But since the ASA ruled that the athiest bus adverts are legitimate, I saw my opportunity, throw it back in their face, give them a taste of their own medicine - poison. Yes this is a ridiculous game to some, but I believe in the right to free speech, they dont, and if their adverts are banned it will cost them thousands of pounds, and with any luck this will be the beginning of the end of militant christians in the UK - ha ha I hear you say - worth 2 minutes of your time to fill in an online form is'nt it.?

Andy

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:36 am

andyb wrote: "one rule for religious people, another rule for everyone else", they are allowed to complain so vocally about everything that is anti-pickareligion, but everyone else has to keep their mouth shut,

nothin wrong with staying quiet. live and let live. its a free country let them do what they want, their not forcing you to do anything. its called religious tolerance.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:58 am

Aris wrote:
andyb wrote: "one rule for religious people, another rule for everyone else", they are allowed to complain so vocally about everything that is anti-pickareligion, but everyone else has to keep their mouth shut,
nothin wrong with staying quiet. live and let live. its a free country let them do what they want, their not forcing you to do anything. its called religious tolerance.

Would people in the US tolerate oh, I don't know, muslim clerics preaching on street corners?

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:45 am

blackworx wrote:Would people in the US tolerate oh, I don't know, muslim clerics preaching on street corners?

Depends on what their message is. There's plenty of radical muslims preaching hate and killing the kafir (unbelievers), or preaching that it's ok to lie to non-Muslims or treat them unfairly, and so on. The fact that they can find scripture to justify mass-murder of "infidels" tells me there's something not right with their teachings. I don't think Buddhists are correct, but I don't see any Buddhist teachings about killing everyone who disagrees with you.

There's an almost never-ending supply of people who say they are Christian and preach hate. Everybody knows about the "God hates fags" group that kept trying to make headlines, but when you measure up their activity against the actual teachings of Christ, you find their actions are in conflict with Christ's own teachings.

The New Testament isn't exactly something you are going to sit down and read in a single evening, but if you're truly interested I'm sure you could get through it in a week or two of genuine study. What you'll find is that His message was one of being known for love - not even just love for other believers, but He even said to love your enemy so that by receiving your love, they may come to believe. Jesus knew that making threats doesn't work - showing love does.

Jesus is described as the bridegroom and humanity is the bride. Well guess what? You don't court someone and convince them to voluntarily marry you by making threats. No, you must first love them, and continue to love them and treat them as even more important than yourself if you expect them to love you back. Well guess what? That's exactly Christ's message. To be a Christian is to show His ways, which means to show His love.

There's obviously a big difference between preaching love and inclusion and preaching hate and separation. Even atheists hold this as one of their core beliefs that love is greater than hate. It's just how we were designed to feel.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:27 am

AZBrandon wrote:
blackworx wrote:Would people in the US tolerate oh, I don't know, muslim clerics preaching on street corners?
Depends on what their message is. There's plenty of radical muslims preaching hate and killing the kafir (unbelievers), or preaching that it's ok to lie to non-Muslims or treat them unfairly, and so on. The fact that they can find scripture to justify mass-murder of "infidels" tells me there's something not right with their teachings. I don't think Buddhists are correct, but I don't see any Buddhist teachings about killing everyone who disagrees with you.

There's an almost never-ending supply of people who say they are Christian and preach hate. Everybody knows about the "God hates fags" group that kept trying to make headlines, but when you measure up their activity against the actual teachings of Christ, you find their actions are in conflict with Christ's own teachings.

The New Testament isn't exactly something you are going to sit down and read in a single evening, but if you're truly interested I'm sure you could get through it in a week or two of genuine study. What you'll find is that His message was one of being known for love - not even just love for other believers, but He even said to love your enemy so that by receiving your love, they may come to believe. Jesus knew that making threats doesn't work - showing love does.

Jesus is described as the bridegroom and humanity is the bride. Well guess what? You don't court someone and convince them to voluntarily marry you by making threats. No, you must first love them, and continue to love them and treat them as even more important than yourself if you expect them to love you back. Well guess what? That's exactly Christ's message. To be a Christian is to show His ways, which means to show His love.

There's obviously a big difference between preaching love and inclusion and preaching hate and separation. Even atheists hold this as one of their core beliefs that love is greater than hate. It's just how we were designed to feel.

Well said Brandon.

As for the second to last paragraph though, ever heard of a shotgun wedding?

More common in the deep south, along with the hatred-spewing "Christian" preachers who give everyone such a bad name.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 am

AZBrandon wrote:Depends on what their message is. There's plenty of radical muslims preaching hate and killing the kafir (unbelievers), or preaching that it's ok to lie to non-Muslims or treat them unfairly, and so on. The fact that they can find scripture to justify mass-murder of "infidels" tells me there's something not right with their teachings. I don't think Buddhists are correct, but I don't see any Buddhist teachings about killing everyone who disagrees with you.

There's an almost never-ending supply of people who say they are Christian and preach hate. Everybody knows about the "God hates fags" group that kept trying to make headlines, but when you measure up their activity against the actual teachings of Christ, you find their actions are in conflict with Christ's own teachings.

The New Testament isn't exactly something you are going to sit down and read in a single evening, but if you're truly interested I'm sure you could get through it in a week or two of genuine study. What you'll find is that His message was one of being known for love - not even just love for other believers, but He even said to love your enemy so that by receiving your love, they may come to believe. Jesus knew that making threats doesn't work - showing love does.

Jesus is described as the bridegroom and humanity is the bride. Well guess what? You don't court someone and convince them to voluntarily marry you by making threats. No, you must first love them, and continue to love them and treat them as even more important than yourself if you expect them to love you back. Well guess what? That's exactly Christ's message. To be a Christian is to show His ways, which means to show His love.

There's obviously a big difference between preaching love and inclusion and preaching hate and separation. Even atheists hold this as one of their core beliefs that love is greater than hate. It's just how we were designed to feel.

Since you chose to answer but dodged my point, I will clarify: my hypothetical street-corner preacher is a moderate clergyman, one of the silenced majority. In fact I'll go one further and make him sufi. He is as about as far from the angry lay-preacher or stereotypical "firebrand" cleric as it is possible to get. How long would his preaching be tolerated on an average street corner in an average US town? I would dearly love to be wrong on this, but my assumption is that in most instances it would not be long before someone had to take him away for his own safety. Whilst it would be nice to think that the "someone" in question might be a concerned and loving christian, I guess it is more likely to be the police officer who is dispatched to deal with the disturbance.

Aris wrote:let them do what they want, their not forcing you to do anything. its called religious tolerance

Anyway, my intention was not to turn this into an "islam vs christianity" debate, I was simply pointing out that it's not really atheists we need to be telling to be tolerant. The level of tolerance atheists must constantly show to a world full of religious bickering and hatred is monumental, and that a complaint from an atheist about unwanted religious intrusion should be held up as "intolerant" is faintly absurd.

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but after six years of spending two hours a week studying religion at high school, the vast majority of which was dedicated to christianity (and in particular the new testament - the only book which was a required text for all six years of my secondary education) I find that in general I'm not really in need of help in differentiating the trinity of core message, scripture and reality

but thank you all the same.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:57 am

Anyway, my intention was not to turn this into an "islam vs christianity" debate, I was simply pointing out that it's not really atheists we need to be telling to be tolerant. The level of tolerance atheists must constantly show to a world full of religious bickering and hatred is monumental, and that a complaint from an atheist about unwanted religious intrusion should be held up as "intolerant" is faintly absurd.

Well said - this is why I thought I should try something - get these unfounded claims banned from the busses, its advertising, but their claim is unfounded and unprovable, thus it is false advertising.

I find preachers as annoying as companies who phone you up at home to try to sell you something you dont want, the only difference is how people try to sell stuff to you, the people on the phone disturb you at a time and a place that they should not, preachers disturb you with a holier-than-thou approach usually mixed with guilt and the mention of heaven and hell - either way I am not interested.

Selling religion on busses is a new low, but claiming that "god" really does exist is about as ridiculous as me saying "I am the re-incarnation of Christ, I am your new leader", and as I will mention again. "Religious intolerance"as it is known is basically a crime, but "Athiest intolerance" is perfectly acceptable when the people being intolerant are "religious".

Andy

edh · Post by **edh** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:14 pm

andyb wrote: am the re-incarnation of Christ, I am your new leader

He is the messiah! [Cue Life of Brain style chase]

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:39 pm

nothin wrong with staying quiet. live and let live. its a free country let them do what they want, their not forcing you to do anything. its called religious tolerance.

I agree, they should stay quiet, then we wouldnt be having this discussion about their athiest intolerance, and us getting pissed off about it having put up with it for decades without saying a word outside of my friends and relatives up until now.

He is the messiah! [Cue Life of Brain style chase]

Now you have said that I want to watch it again

Andy

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:56 pm

andyb wrote:
He is the messiah! [Cue Life of Brain style chase]
Now you have said that I want to watch it again

Whenever hanging wallpaper I always make a point of painting "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS" on the wall beforehand. Should give someone a laugh sometime, or better yet confuse future archaeologists - I've managed it in four separate cities so far.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:06 am

This is "Off Off Topic", but I found it rather ironic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ ... 21.stm?lss

"The founder of a US Muslim TV network has been charged over the beheading of his wife, media reports say."

"Both Mr Hassan and his wife worked at Bridges TV, a station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims."

So lets get this straight, they both worked to counter stereotypes of muslims beheading people , so he beheaded his wife - thats going to backfire in a big way. Does this actually mean that the stereotype of muslims beheading people is actually spot on.?

Andy

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:19 am

andyb wrote:"The founder of a US Muslim TV network has been charged over the beheading of his wife, media reports say."

I'm confused.

Muzzammil Hassan, 44, is accused of second degree murder of Aasiya Hassan, whose body was found last week at the TV station in New York state.

What do you have to do to be accused of first degree murder?

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:39 pm

First degree implies premeditation.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:06 am

"Yes, your honour, the red mist descended and the next thing I knew there was my wife's head rolling around at my feet."

Talk about getting out of bed on the wrong side

... Can you imagine what his production meetings must have be like? Everyone sitting round a meeting table wearing steel neck braces and scared expressions...

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:25 am

I just had a shock from the following article, it goes some way to explain why there are so many messed up Catholics - "Pride" is a Sin. I couldnt believe it, so I asked a couple of RC's and they said "yes it is".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7897034.stm

What do parents do when their kids do well at school, just say, "he did OK", otherwise they would be proud would they not.?

Andy

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:46 am

I have got a letter from the ASA that was totally surprising to me - here it is word for word (skipping the uninteresting/irellevant parts).

------

Your complaint about The Christian Party

Thank you for your recent complaint.

It turns out that the The Christian Party is a political party so I'm sorry to tell you that we're unable to deal with the specific issues you raise: we're unable to investigate complaints about advertising which aims to influence voters in elections or referendums. To do so would be to interfere with the democratic process. (The relevant clauses in our Code are 12.1 and 12.2 and you can find the Code at www.cap.org.uk).

The ASA Council has seen the ad and confirmed that because its primary purpose is to promote The Christian Party, it is electioneering material and therefore exempt from our Code.

------

Well bugger me. "The Christian Party" are actually a political party, vs just the scum I thought they were and judging by the wording from the ASA, they were surprised as well. What this means in reality though, is that a political party in the UK, can say whatever they like without it being true, accurate or defendable and can get away with it. Presumably, racism, sexism, and religiousism are all OK on the basis that it is what the political party are campaigning for. And there I was believing that the ASA had everything covered - how wrong am I. I am surprised the major political parties have not joined in, and just started calling each other liars on the backs of busses - they are allowed to.

Andy