Hi spockis53,

So much for the truth in advertizing test eh?

I mean wouldn't you have to read what the statement is to be able to test it first?  You appear to think that nothing that is a religious statement could ever be proven.

For example, I post a religious statement that reads as follows:

What is the truth that I am supposed to prove here?

Am I supposed to prove that this is what "We" (the we in this case is the United Church) believe or am I supposed to prove that this belief is fact?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I dislike censorship except that which  censors material that may be harmful to people such as pornography can do to children.  If those of some religious faith can advertise why should those of no faith be  banned?

Shalom

Mate

revJohn

Absolutely.  Right on.  Good point.

Shalom

Mate

If you display it to the general public, outside of a church for example, you are making an unsubstantiated claim. And that's a breach of the social contract that allows everyone to be protected, at the cost of your freedom to say anything you want.

For those who choose to enter the church, they've made a personal decision to consider the text. It's okay in that situation.

Ironically, the atheist bus at is fundamentally 'true' and yet it's being denied. It's just plain stupid that a public entity would do something like that. But I do hope it spins out the discussion, because the repercussions for religious billboards would be very, very interesting.

You're assuming that public religous adverts do not harm children. For an atheist family, that is a very poor assumption.

Now the bias rolls in.

What is good for one is good for the other.  Since neither can be proven perhaps they should all be banned.

Shalom

Mate

Evidence, Mate.... any evidence at all will do.

spock

Yes and that works both ways.  Neither side is provable.

As to some advertising being offensive I find most ads on TV offensive.

Shalom

Mate

I believe that those who own the billboards have the right to determine what and what doesn't go there.

(in at least one Transit Authority, they have a history of not even putting religious ads up. And I think with enough looking, you could find out other Transit Authorities would be doing the same thing. But not all, perhaps. Sombunall)

I'm hoping to see, in Canada, something that I have seen in the US -- personal billboards, where someone with enough money can put their own messages there. I think we still live in an age of Naive Realism, where the words we see are thought of as being only outside ourselves. Reality is something that happens *to* us instead of *with* us. A very passive way of living.

I hope it doesn't degenerate into what Ray Bradbury was always harping against: the control of people's thoughts and expression, wether by suprarational or suprairrational means.

Hmm, isn't that an essentialism? An 'atheist' family?

(Is our goal not to cause harm at all? What of the 'harm' caused by women's ads? Where does that come from, if at all? Whose responsibility is it?)

Could it be like pornography? Which doesn't really 'exist'? Well, until we develop a pornography-detector :3

Eating golden apples,

Inannawhimsey

Keep on eating them Goldens, Inanna. They will not diminish because we grow them here in the Okanagan.

_______________________________________

Truth in advertising?

"What is truth?" his pupils asked Master Socrates.

"Only the ignorant dare to answer," said Socrates.

Society, through its elected representatives, has to decide which advertising is potentially harmful to society, and ban it. These pro- ar anti-God ads aren't harmful, just silly. Ads that fuel consumerism (and most ads do) are more harmful than these.

Should religious adverts be banned?  Only if secular based, non-religious, etc. adverts are banned, too.  That's what you call equal opportunity censorship!

So I can put up a sign on my farm, facing the highway saying, "homosexuals will burn in hell" ??

If I believe it and I own the sign, what's stopping me?

If I advertise to provide a service or a product I need to fulfill the obligation. I need to have a history of being honest in my transactions. I just can't make a promise and bugger off.

 At least McDonalds delivers the beef (er, I think it's mostly beef).

LL&P

Spock

Sure I'd be all for it if your truth in advertising social contract applied to all advertising and anything thats not proven with substantial evidence gets banned.   Prove with evidence that this perfume or lipstick is going to make me a lady or a man killer, that if I drink this or wear that dress people will think I'm cool and love me.  Are diamonds really my best friend?  Will Red Bull really give me wings?  Zoom Zoom.  Man I need that car so I can be successful and have freedom at my fingertips and gas pedal but where's the proof? 

 Sounds great to me.

At least, they are all real things, Jadespring. The evidence is that they are tangible.

*chuckle*

Trust.

I believe in a society where I trust people enough so that they should be allowed to express themselves. The government is there, essentially, to protect us from each other as we express ourselves :3

I believe that hate crime legislation is the wrong way to go -- it is akin to political correctness, as it takes away responsibility from people and tells people what to think.

There are laws right now that I think work quite well in regards to advertising. Not all those Transit Authorities who are saying 'no' to the "There is probably no g_d" ads e are doing it because they are going 'EEEVVIL ATHEIST!' but for more prosaic and practical reasons that have little to do with free speech.

The real deal here is to be rational aboot this and not go off into some ideological or marxist 'culture war' rampage. I find life to be, generally, quite prosaic and practical.

As I've written before, my ideal would be for these ads to encourage people to put up their own ads, expressing their imagination, steering clear of the wikipedia digital maoist way of thinking.

King David slept with guys durrrrrrr,
Inannawhimsey

So  I  CAN put up my sign saying "All homosexuals will burn in hell" !

Fred Phelps and his ilk post that all the time.  He even has a web site to go along with it.

Shalom

Mate

Hi spockis53,

I'll assume that you are talking to me.

Again, if the truth in advertising regimen is to be applied what do I have to prove is truth in the religious statement that I supplied.

That this is indeed what we believe

Or,

That what we belive is factual?

We aren't making a claim that what we believe is provable.  We are simply claiming that this what we believe.

What part of that claim fails the standard that you are appealing to?

That appears to be appealing to different criteria than what you started out with at the beginning of the thread.

And why is it being denied and by whom?

Perhaps.  Perhaps they already have existing regulations and those responsible have interpretted that the billboards violate those regulations. 

If that is the case then I would hope that the regulations and interpretations thereof are applied in an even-handed fashion.

Provided of course that the criterion for disallowing the atheist bill-boards also disallows or even allows religious advertizing.

If it is a truth in advertising regime then the claims made have to be provable.  If they are provable they should be allowed.

Unless of course you are beginning with a bias in the first place and you decide not to actually address the claims of the advertising and simply reject it because of a preexisting bias against the perspective or worldview held by those wishing to place the bill-board.

Grace and peace to you.

John

 Yes they're real physical things but basic marketing 101, you aren't selling a "thing", you're selling the intangible 'thing' that comes with that physical "thing".... the reason why people need to get that particular thing over similar things...it will make you better, happier, prettier, healthier,  sexier, attract the opposite sex,  more successful, cooler, hipper, on the cutting edge, give you freedom yadda yadda.  Advertising is all about branding and image and creating perception and conceptual thought process to go with that 'thing'.  The actual things have very little to do with it.

 Sure you can. You might run up against hate speech laws though. 

So what is the tangible "thing" inherent in any religious claim posted and promoted? Can you give me one example?

 I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to be obtuse here or just not understanding what I'm trying to say in reference to your suggestion about truth in advertising leading to banning of anything that can't be proven to be true. 

  I don't see the guy who has the sign on his property telling to me to "Repent or Perish" everytime I drive by as selling anything less tangible to the big billboard selling me the message that if I buy this particular brand of perfume or lacy underwear that I will be a sex goddess as much different in the intangible dept in terms of "proving" that will happen.   In fact I pretty much know that that underwear sexy ad is a bunch of BS and I'd be an idiot to buy into the 'truth' of what is actually being sold to me. That underwear isn't selling me a bra, it's selling me the image and message that comes with that bra. 

 I really don't care one way or another about religious signs or at least not anymore then I care about the thousands of other messages that ads bombard us everywhere we go. There's tons of BS out there when it comes to ads and the illusions they sell.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to say that any advertising 'message' needs some sort of proof and evidence of the truth of that message,  as a way to possibly ban relgious signs that it should apply to all advertising and the messages that they're selling. 

Seriously, Jadespring,

The underwear ads sell underwear. If they didn't deliver the goods, the entire campaign would be senseless.  I spent 17 years in marketing, so I understand the 'sizzle' concept. But at the end of the day, there is a warehouse full of goods, or a professional service and these things must be delivered.

I'm still trying to figure out, what is the thing that is delivered when a church puts its sign on the front lawn?

Experience, which most advertising is all about because it's the experience of what they're selling is the message. A tangible thing doesn't just sit there, you have to do something with it.   So come to this church, listen to what we're saying her and you will find comfort, happiness, eternal life or save your soul yadda yadda. 

 Not much different then a tourism ad for Ireland or Disneyworld that's selling  experience of whatever they're advertising.

 Buy this and you'll have a good time or you'll experience having more time with your family because you don't have to slave over a hot stove for hours.  Go eat at this restaurant and have fun while eating and experiencing our awesome food.   Get this underwear and your life will be better, your man will love it.  You might even experience getting laid.  Spray Axe all over your body and you'll experience the awesomeness of having women be attracted to you and experience smelling great.  Listen to this radio station and you'll experience cool and hip music. Go to this movie and experience being scared, experience the best action flick this year or cry at this poignant life story.   Sit in this Lazy Boy chair and experience the ultimate in comfort and relaxation.

Churches sell salvation! Which, of course, is a nebulous concept that people no longer buy.

Now, if churches were to deliver creativity (which they should. After all, they worship the ultimate creator), and liberated the creator within everyone, and became centers for human creativity, then they'd have something very valuable to sell, and would be full to overflowing.

But they seem to sell imitativeness instead: the very opposite of creativeness!

Imitativeness is not a desired commodity in our Creative Age, eh, spockis?

Nice twist, Aminius. I agree. If higher education could nurture independent creativity alongside the information spooned out in the lecturehall, it'd be quite the new 'church'.

Yup, okay. Religion sells the experience.  But that's not the typical message I see on the religious billboards. But I understand your position, JS.

 Well yes, a lot of relgious billboards I see, especially the "Repent or Perish" type ones are selling a message geared at not experiencing something or about avoiding something negative.  I'd say they're similar to negative ads.  Like ads that run during an election time.  "Vote this way or Canada will perish with those people at the helm"  sort of stuff.  

I think that by banning the atheist bus ads there is gonna be a backlash, and a lot of religious groups are gonna be up in arms over people fighting their ads.    Then it is gonna be a tit for tat fight going on.

Ads running on buses in Madison, Wis. for the next two months. These are quite elaborate.

http://ffrf.org/news/2009/madison_buscampaign.php
 

FFRF Debuts New Freethought Bus Sign Campaign

Stardust...  those ads atre awesome! 

Yeah, I particularly like the one by Mark Twain!

Interestingly, the president and founder of Bus Stop Bible studies (they place Bible adds and quotes in buses) actually supports the atheist adds. Here is part of and article from The Ottawa Citizen:

By Jennifer Green, The Ottawa Citizen February 17, 2009 10:15 AM

OTTAWA — The chairman of Ottawa’s transit committee will demand that city staff explain why they refused to allow atheism ads on city buses, even though ads quoting the Bible have been approved by the city and could appear on buses at any time.

Councillor Alex Cullen said Monday that council had no opportunity to discuss the decision to reject the ads from an atheist organization — which is now considering legal advice.

The atheism ads, which say "There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," began in Britain and have spread around the world. In Canada they’ve been on buses in London, Calgary, and Toronto, but were rejected by city staff in Halifax and Ottawa. Justin Trottier, president of the Freethought Association of Canada, the ads’ sponsor, said his group might ask a lawyer if their right to freedom of speech has been breached.

Mr. Cullen hopes it won’t get that far. "Presumably cooler heads will prevail.

"This is a free country. We have religious ads extolling family virtues, we have Salvation Army ads. Why wouldn’t we have these ads?" "We could certainly do with the money," he sighed.

In 2007, OC Transpo approved ads for Bus Stop Bible Studies, a campaign on panels inside buses quoting scripture and asking life’s big questions. Roughly 2,400 ads have run in Calgary, Burlington and Toronto, but the sponsor has not yet raised enough money to place the ads on Ottawa buses.

Though the group hasn’t yet run the Bible-quoting ads in Ottawa, its founder is puzzled city staff’s rejection of the atheists’ ads.

"I don’t follow the logic," said Bus Stop Bible Studies founder David Harrison. "Why would they approve ours and not theirs? If we don’t stand up for (the atheists’) rights, ours will be trampled too."

 Emphasis mine.

Stardust. Dawkins looks particularly daper in his add.  For me, he is the atheistic equivalent of Joel Osteen.

I think that all religions (or non religions) should be able to advertise. That way nobody can be freakin' cry babies.

"Oh boo hoo. The Christians can advertise and us atheists can't"

"Oh boo hoo. The atheists can advertise and we Christians can't"

"Oh boo hoo. We Muslims can't advertise but us Hindus can't"

Get your diapers changed then go get some arrowroot cookies, Barney is almost on. 

Hey Stardust, those ads are AWESOME :3 See what those original ads have sparked? Such CREATIVITY!

I wish there was a way to put some of Will Vinton's "The Adventures of Mark Twain" on a billboard. That. Would. Be. Most. Excellent.

Here is a taste. It is the "Mysterious Stranger" part (which delightfully tweaks a lot of my buttons):

Allah and Ganesha, in a mud pit,

Inannawhimsey

Hi Spockis,

I can't disagree more with the message proposed for OC Transpo that there's probably no God.

But I can't agree more or support more fervently the right they have to post the message.

For me, the game will alway end with:

Freedom of speech 1

Censorship no score.

Now, as for questionable messages, that's where our hate laws and community standards come into play.  Hate laws should be employed and enforced regardless of the source, be it secular or religious.  Community standards are far more nebulous and maybe deserve a thread of their own.

God bless, 

Yes folks! If you're gonna do something you may as well do it up right. Why not?

I like good old Emily Dickinson; I  have a book of her poems somewhere.

Perhaps its just me but I'm not hearing any controversy in the media about the Toronto bus ads. I watch the News and read the Toronto Star. I haven't seen the ads but I assume they are running since Feb. 15th. as planned. There's a bus trip planned to go to the waterfront on the bus forum.

I don't know! Maybe we're so bombarded with ads that we don't even see them anymore. I don't suppose the average person in Toronto cares if someone made an ad out of dog poop...lol. You don't have to be crazy to live here but it helps.

This atheist  bus forum is pretty quiet and mild. I think there's another forum that may have more steam.

CF

Joel Osteen!  Indeed, I must put him on again to spruce up the WC

Oh yes. That smile could charm the money right out of Benny Hinn's pockets.

wow...  I think Dawkins would be spitting piss and vinegar hearing that one! 

That's hilarious!

As others point out this is a statement of very personal bias - it would be wrong of  me to say the presence of the no god ads harm my children - when in fact they don't for they create conversation.

The basic point is if we advertise and permit it, then the ad no god ought to be accepted, just as religious ads - the ads that promote hate or call for violence against others should  be rejected - it is the old argument of the limit of free speech is not to yell fire when there is not one... now the hate issue is more difficult if one follows John Stuart Mill on liberty -  Should even mean spirited comments be allowed if they in the light of day are shown for what they are?

The funny thing is a lot of religious groups are supporting the atheist ads, and ConsumingFire evern pointed an evangelical minister is in support of them too. 

Yep. i believe that if Christians can have free speach like this, so can anybody else, including atheists.

Does the right to free speech end when the message that is publicly displayed makes a statement that cannot be proven to be true?

I know we discussed this a while back. Jadespring mentioned the church is selling an "experience" and it delivers on that (more or less). Revjohn mentioned all he has to prove is that he "believes" what he saying to be true.

But there are religious highway signs which make statements without the the qualifier of  "I believe" or the invitation for an "experience". They simply state something for which there is absolutely no evidence or example or tangible deliverable.

As someone else said on this thread, you simply can't shout "fire" where there is no fire.

Just an aside:

Spockis53 wrote: "As someone else said on this thread, you simply can't shout "fire" where there is no fire."

What Pan wrote there came from the late, great grognard of activism and free speech, Abbie Hoffman. It said,  free speech is not yelling fire in a crowded theatre. In other words, be responsible for what you do and what you say, know your audience, know the laws of the land :3

Stepping back into the movie screen,

Inannawhimsey

and I'whimsey,

Are churches responsible for what they say or 'shout out loud' in the public domain?

Do they shout the equivalent of "fire" where there is none?  A major question for Justin Trottier and his court case, I think. It should be interesting!

"Does the right to free speech end when the message that is publicly displayed makes a statement that cannot be proven to be true?"

The problem with some speech is it cannot be proven untrue - some, like, this bread is good for you is only a half truth from a one use of the word true.  It has some efficacious import but the claim is overstated. 

With religious claims there is a possibity that it is some thrut to the claim and to claim it is untrue is hard to do - but one can show the claim is an overstatement or claims too much and also can be silly. 

If it can be shown to completely false then we can raise questions about the claim and in fact the claim by being tested in the public sphere will be found wanting-  This still raises the issue of banning - John Sturat Mill would argue it should not be banned for the public debate will test its 'truthiness'

Did the people who use emily dickinson ever read her poetry or her own musings on spirituality -  a nice use of a quote out of context - what about truth here?