The Guardian: Christians respond to the ‘atheist bus’

5 February 2009

Three separate christian groups have responded to the British Humanist Association’s ‘atheist bus’ campaign of “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” advertisements by taken out advertisements of their own on buses in London:

The new campaign is organsied by the Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. Their pro-God campaigns will run on 175 buses for two weeks from Monday.

In a somewhat cheeky move, the Rev George Hargreaves of the Christian Party has created a bus advert which proclaims: “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.” It will run on 50 bendy buses in central London, east London and the West End.

Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church has booked 25 supersize bus advertisements, backed by a sponsorship deal with Russian Hour TV, using the line “There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don’t worry and enjoy your life.”

The Trinitarian Bible Society has taken a less temperate approach, using a line from the bible to scold nonbelievers: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God,” runs the advertisement’s slogan, taken from Psalm 53.1. The church’s campaign, which like the others was booked through outdoor advertising company CBS Outdoor, runs on 100 buses.

Each of the three advertisements makes a factual claim: the first two that a god exists (and they claim this because they claim to know that it can be and has been discovered), and the third that

As far as I can tell from these quotes and without seeing the advertisements myself, they’re likely to break the following CAP codes:

There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.

Â§2.1, Â§2.2, Â§3.1, Â§3.3, Â§3.4, Â§6.1, Â§7.1, Â§7.2, Â§8.1, Â§9.1, Â§9.3, Â§10.1, Â§11.1, Â§12.1

There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don’t worry and enjoy your life.

Â§2.1, Â§2.2, Â§3.1, Â§3.3, Â§3.4, Â§6.1, Â§7.1, Â§7.2, Â§8.1, Â§9.1, Â§9.2, Â§9,3, Â§10.1, Â§11.1

These two above may also be subject to the imitation clause in Â§21.1 if they closely resemble the BHA adverts (which I suspect they’re likely to).

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

Â§2.1, Â§2.2, Â§3.1, Â§3.3, Â§3.4, Â§5.1, Â§5.2, Â§6.1, Â§7.1, Â§7.2, Â§8.1, Â§9.1, Â§9.2, Â§9.3, Â§11.1, Â§14.1, Â§14.3, Â§14.4

Personally I find the Christian Party adverts particularly heinous because they’re an active political party (albeit a shrill and limp one) seeking to impose their narrow dogma on us all, but I also find the Trinitarian Bible Society one to be a direct personal affront to myself and the millions of other non-christian believers in the UK. The advert by the Russian Orthodox Church is just a weak, unsubstantiated claim.

But should we let these stand? The theists have made it perfectly plain that they’re not only willing to make noises about advertising that wasn’t even addressed to them but have taken it upon themselves to try to convince me that I’m wrong and that there is a price to pay for being wrong, so I feel that it’s not only my right, but my duty to respond to advertising that is directly addressed to me.

Now, when these adverts hit the streets, should I:
a) be magnanimous and ignore them as the obvious trolling that they are; or
b) take a leaf from Stephen “Birdshit” Green’s playbook and write to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and making complaints about each of these advertisements, and quoting the relevant CAP Code?

At this moment, I have a mind to lodge formal complaints.

Edit: I misread Â§12.1: I thought it said “was not exempt”. Why on earth would advertising by political parties be exempt from the CAP code?!

Second edit: I misinterpreted Â§12.1: I didn’t read the conditions of exemption properly.

The relevant CAP code is below.

Principles

2.1 All marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

2.2 All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.

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. The full name and geographical business address of marketers should be provided without delay if requested by the ASA or CAP.

3.3 Claims for the content of non-fiction books, tapes, videos and the like that have not been independently substantiated should not exaggerate the value, accuracy, scientific validity or practical usefulness of the product.

3.4 Obvious untruths or exaggerations that are unlikely to mislead and incidental minor errors and unorthodox spellings are all allowed provided they do not affect the accuracy or perception of the marketing communication in any material way.

Decency (ie avoiding serious or widespread offence)

5.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability. Compliance with the Code will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards of decency.

5.2 Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with 5.1 above. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.

Honesty

6.1 Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers.

Truthfulness

7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

7.2 Marketing communications must not omit, hide or provide in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner material information if that omission or presentation is likely to affect consumersâ€™ decisions about whether and how to buy the advertised product, unless the information is obvious from the context. If the advertisement is limited by time or space, the ASA will take into account steps that the advertiser has taken to make that information available to consumers by other means.

Matters of opinion

8.1 Marketers may give a view about any matter, including the qualities or desirability of their products, provided it is clear that they are expressing their own opinion rather than stating a fact. Assertions that go beyond subjective opinions are subject to 3.1 above (also see 12.1 below).

Fear and distress

9.1 No marketing communication should cause fear or distress without good reason. Marketers should not use shocking claims or images merely to attract attention.

9.2 Marketers may use an appeal to fear to encourage prudent behaviour or to discourage dangerous or ill-advised actions; the fear likely to be aroused should not be disproportionate to the risk.

9.3 Marketers should not mislead about the nature or extent of the risk to the personal security of consumers or their families if consumers do not buy the advertised product.

Safety

10.1 Marketing communications should not condone or encourage unsafe practices. Particular care should be taken with marketing communications addressed to or depicting children (see section 47).

Violence and anti-social behaviour

11.1 Marketing communications should contain nothing that condones or is likely to provoke violence or anti-social behaviour.

Political advertising

12.1 Any advertisement or direct marketing communication, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in local, regional, national or international elections or referendums is exempt from the Code.

Testimonials and endorsements

14.1 Marketers should hold signed and dated proof, including a contact address, for any testimonial they use. Unless they are genuine opinions taken from a published source, testimonials should be used only with the written permission of those giving them.

14.3 Testimonials alone do not constitute substantiation and the opinions expressed in them must be supported, where necessary, with independent evidence of their accuracy. Any claims based on a testimonial must conform with the Code.

14.4 Fictitious testimonials should not be presented as though they are genuine.

Imitation

21.1 No marketing communication should so closely resemble any other that it misleads, is likely to mislead or causes confusion.

Possibly related posts:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: advertising, Arkell v. Pressdram, atheist bus, bigotry, British Humanist Association, christianity, news, scripture, special treatment/religious privilege, The Guardian, The Stupid It Burns, UK

Comments

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

111011 Responses2009-02-05+11%3A13%3A35nullifidian to “The Guardian: Christians respond to the ‘atheist bus’”

OzAtheist on February 5th, 2009 12:27 pm

In some ways this is a tough question. Complaining makes us look as small minded as the hypocritical christians. On the other hand I think something needs to be done to make a point that their outlandish claims are completely unsubstantiated.
nullifidian on February 5th, 2009 12:37 pm

I agree with both evaluations. However, at the moment, I am more inclined to respond and give them a metaphoric bloody nose for their damnable arrogance.

Can we (as a society) afford to worry about being considered "small minded" by dogmatists (I don't give a flying fuck what they think of me personally as long as they can back up their claims, which they never can) when they're busy undermining science and making the lives of women, homosexuals and others a misery?

I say "no".
Higginbottom on February 5th, 2009 1:23 pm

Let these ads run. We don't have the right to not be offended. But just imagine the fun we can have if they DO run. We have nothing to be afraid of here. In an open dialog we cannot fail to win. You know stuff like quotes from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus etc. And stuff like "The fool hath said in his heart that crackers turn into Jesus chunks." We'll have a field day if this actually results in the taboos around religious debate being lifted. It's time to see the big picture. Let's not get offended, let's get even.
nullifidian on February 5th, 2009 1:33 pm

I agree with you regarding §5 ("Decency (ie avoiding serious or widespread offence)") and I can happily let that one slide, but I can't agree that unsubstantiated claims can go unchallenged. This would give the impression to Mr, Mrs or Ms J Q Public that, by default, the claims can be substantiated, and therefore that they then have the right to do what they will based on these claims (call homosexuals immoral, denigrate science, etc.).

In fact, asking for an adjudication on these adverts would, IMO, do more good to destroying the taboo of criticising theistic claims and opening them up to consideration as they would then be in the same realm as any other reality-based claim: show us the evidence or shut up.
Daniel Carabellese on February 5th, 2009 1:40 pm

"14.4 Fictitious testimonials should not be presented as though they are genuine."

Well then, they'll have some trouble there.

Personally, I'm all for submitting a complaint to the authority. The fact is, they're clearly breaking the code and, given the fact that they tried so hard to prove that Atheists were doing so, we have no reason to ignore their actions.

It seems perfectly reasonable to challenge them. BHA made deliberate effort to avoid breaking the code, it is clear that these Christian organizations have not done so. "There definitely is a…" makes this clear.

Your thoroughness on the topic is very impressive. Have you considered contacting Richard Dawkins and his representatives with this information?

[Forgive me if I've underestimated your personal clout, also, your website is new to me thus far.]
Higginbottom on February 5th, 2009 2:03 pm

Yep. That's a good point. But if we stomp on these 'rebuttals' at this point it doesn't allow us to rebut the rebuttals in any meaningful way. Nobody is going to notice if these Christian ads don't run. But if they do run then we have an established precedent that allows us to be a little more forthright than "There's _probably_ no God" in the future. It seems to me that the further the boundaries of what the ASA will tolerate are pushed, the greater our chance of success. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I'll confess, I'm also in two minds as to the best approach here.
Higginbottom on February 5th, 2009 2:03 pm

Yep. That's a good point. But if we stomp on these 'rebuttals' at this point it doesn't allow us to rebut the rebuttals in any meaningful way. Nobody is going to notice if these Christian ads don't run. But if they do run then we have an established precedent that allows us to be a little more forthright than "There's _probably_ no God" in the future. It seems to me that the further the boundaries of what the ASA will tolerate are pushed, the greater our chance of success. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I'll confess, I'm also in two minds as to the best approach here.
Meeee on February 5th, 2009 3:59 pm

I think there's a much stronger claim against these adverts than there were against the atheist ones, especially if you attack them in the same way (the way Stephen Green did).

However, I very much doubt that the ASA would risk banning any form of religious advertising right after the fuss created over the atheist ones, even if there is a legitimate claim. I just can't see it happening. The public response wouldn't be "these religious adverts have been banned because they violate the same guidelines that they accused the atheist adverts of violating", it'd be "omg anti-religious censorship blah blah blah".

On the other hand, I think complaints *should* be sent in, just to prove the point if nothing else. They *are* making a solid claim that they *can't* back up, at all. And it would be very interesting to see the ASA rule that no one has the right to definitively claim that god exists (although like I said, I doubt they would).
nullifidian on February 5th, 2009 5:22 pm

IIRC no complaint can be made prior to an advertisement being published/broadcast. I'm under the impression that any complaints have to be made after the fact.

Also, the fact that this was on the front page of <cite>The Guardian</cite> as well as many other (at least online) news sources means that they have already had public exposure, and as we know their public plans we are at liberty to comment/take the piss as appropriate.
nullifidian on February 5th, 2009 5:25 pm

No, I don't know Dawkins nor his reps personally or by association, and AFAIK I have absolutely no clout with either him nor his organisation.

I'm sure there are others that he knows that have similar opinions to me.
nullifidian on February 5th, 2009 5:31 pm

I agree, I doubt that the ASA would rule in favour and for precisely the reasons you outline, and I can definitely see the fundies making the claim that you describe (they've made it before, they'll make it again).

As you also noted, that doesn't preclude the appropriateness of making a "good-faith" complaint.

However, if the ASA, as they did with the BHA's adverts, reduce this to an "opinion" ruling, this would open the floodgates to any old bollocks claim as "opinion" and basically turn the section on "substantiation" into a red herring.

I'll still wait for the adverts to actually appear before making my complaint though. I don't like to say anything about something I've not experienced.