atheist blunder - doh!

[Lord Kangana]

Theres nothing wrong with the inward looking morals of religion, its the "look at them, they're different, we're special, persecute, kill, kill" indoctrination I dislike.

[a1]

Bill Maher had the right idea.

We need to kick the religious types into touch, before they blow the rest of us up, due to their ridiculous notions that there is a 'god'.

bill maher doesnt believe in vaccinations. his sort'll die before it gets proper nasty.

:/

[Puskas]

This campaign isn't saying anything other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision. Anyone disagree?

Well, yes ... actually. If you are responsible for bringing kids up but then leave them to their own devices they'lll be dead in weeks and you'll be jailed. I know that isn't what you intended, but that's the principle you suggest if you take to its illogical conclusion.

So parents have a great number of obligations. In excercising these they cannot but influence their thinking. That's a fact. It's fair that they are allowed to develop and to learn to think independently.

I don't think anyone is suggesting religious types should deliberately hide that from their kids, it just says they shouldn't indoctrinate their kids and tell them from an early age they are a. b. or c.

To rephrase my point to get past your bizarre deliberate misunderstanding of it; this campaign isn't saying anyhting other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision regarding faith, religion or lacktherof. Anyone disagree?

It's not just that parents shouldn't do that - whilst they shouldn't, it's hard to stop them.

It's that society as a whole shouldn't accept the labelling of children as believers in a particular flavour of superstition and encourage this.

So make churches adults only things, ban religious schools, and so on. Don't start calling children Christians/Muslims/Satanists/whatever until they understand what they're buying into.

[thebish]

I don't see why.

Its like when you have posters of Kelly Brook advertising Sky Plus, or Jamie Oliver advertising Sainsburys, but then find out that (hypothetically I've no idea) Brook doesn't use Sky and Oliver shops in Waitrose.

I don't see why it matters. Is anyone going to see the ad and think "I best check whether those really are athiest children or not"?

Perhaps its more the message that offends some? I don't know.

IMO all organised religion should be banned full stop. Let people do and believe in whatever they want. Why there is the need for institutions to do this is beyond me.

the message doesn't offend - I agree with it. I just think it's a bit of a boob is all! (no big deal - just mildly amusing!)

My kids were NOT baptised for this very reason - though I have lost count of the number of atheist parents who asked me to baptise theirs....

[thebish]

I don't think anyone is suggesting religious types should deliberately hide that from their kids, it just says they shouldn't indoctrinate their kids and tell them from an early age they are a. b. or c.

To rephrase my point to get past your bizarre deliberate misunderstanding of it; this campaign isn't saying anyhting other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision regarding faith, religion or lacktherof. Anyone disagree?

I don't disagree.

(except I think the advert is subtly implying that happy kids - hence the picture - are not the ones brought up in faith household - the unspoken charge of indoctrination lies behind it - or maybe I am more cynical then you... Their faded background words include Mormon.. Muslim... Christian - but not Atheist... so they do not seem to think the message - noble as it is - applies to them.)

[Apathy]

One point that hasn't been mentioned about this campaign is that it was launched in Northen Ireland. A place where parents often label their children as either Catholic or Protestant. They are kept apart from an early age, and then sent to schools where further brainwashing takes place to hammer home the idea that they are different. In the end some of these childern grow up hating people from the other faction, and we all know where that has lead to.

This is now happening more and more in mainland Britain as we seperate children at an early eage and give them a Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc education. I can't see anything other than problems arising from this in the future. All these people who advocate faith schools say that it will bring about community cohesion, but I just can't see how seperating children and telling them that they are different and better than other children because their belief is the correct one helps.

[Prufrock]

I don't think anyone is suggesting religious types should deliberately hide that from their kids, it just says they shouldn't indoctrinate their kids and tell them from an early age they are a. b. or c.

To rephrase my point to get past your bizarre deliberate misunderstanding of it; this campaign isn't saying anyhting other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision regarding faith, religion or lacktherof. Anyone disagree?

I don't disagree.

(except I think the advert is subtly implying that happy kids - hence the picture - are not the ones brought up in faith household - the unspoken charge of indoctrination lies behind it - or maybe I am more cynical then you... Their faded background words include Mormon.. Muslim... Christian - but not Atheist... so they do not seem to think the message - noble as it is - applies to them.)

Whilst I agree the lack of 'Atheist Child' seems odd, and if I were them I would have put it in there, I don't share your view that they are saying happy kids are ones not brought up in faith schools. You use the picture as an example. What's the alternative? Sad looking kids- implying kids that come from faith families are sad. I think your view of this is loaded as if it is somehow an attack. Whilst there is no 'Atheist Child', there is 'Agnostic child' so I'm not sure this is an attack at 'faith'. Whenever these sort of campaigns come up, from either 'side' the other often comes out and claims to be being attacked. Already in this thread we have seen, from either side, 'yeah but if we did that then.....'. All this advert to me says is let the kids make their own minds up, and don't put external pressure (Puskas is right to point out from any source, not just parents) onto them.

I don't think the lack of 'Atheist' is evidence they don't think it applies to them, more a naive arrogance in their convictions, that there are no militant Atheists who hate religion so much they themselves would indoctrinate their children against religion. I am not sure I'd agree with them. All in all it is a fine line to tread. RE teaching in schools is often poor. Everyone I know who did it to GCSE level said their teachers were fervent Christians who marked things in a pro Christianity way. Perhaps it isn't like that everywhere, but that is in three out of three schools. For me RE should be about awareness of all beliefs, including Atheism.

I realise you posted this as a light hearted 'blunder' but I have to say I think the point about the kids background re-inforces the point, not makes it funny.

[bobo the clown]

This campaign isn't saying anything other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision. Anyone disagree?

Well, yes ... actually. If you are responsible for bringing kids up but then leave them to their own devices they'lll be dead in weeks and you'll be jailed. I know that isn't what you intended, but that's the principle you suggest if you take to its illogical conclusion.

So parents have a great number of obligations. In excercising these they cannot but influence their thinking. That's a fact. It's fair that they are allowed to develop and to learn to think independently.

I don't think anyone is suggesting religious types should deliberately hide that from their kids, it just says they shouldn't indoctrinate their kids and tell them from an early age they are a. b. or c.

To rephrase my point to get past your bizarre deliberate misunderstanding of it; this campaign isn't saying anyhting other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision regarding faith, religion or lacktherof. Anyone disagree?

Firstly it is not a misunderstanding and I state that I know that's not what you mean. It is, however, a logical end point from your simplistic thinking.

Secondly, if you have children it is inevitable that you influence them. That will cover a vast array of elements. You'll influence their taste, their politics, their philosophy. Their liking for certain foods, drinks, people types, sports, music, geography will be affected. Take another logical end point ... you bring up your children in England, talking English to them, weith English TV & radio and English friends and guess what .... they speak English !!

Any person who is commited to a religion (or non-religion) will influence their childs position in this too ... how could they not ? Indeed, unless religion is banned, WHY shouold they not ?

This cuts both ways. How many children of committed athiests will turn out to be heavily religious ?

The very best you can do s allow your child to grow and have the capacity to make their own judgements, I think that's what the campaign & yourself are saying. I agree to that extent, but I believe the influence TOWARD religion isn't any different than an influence AWAY from it. Pro religion people are no worse than positively anti rligious thinkers. They tend to a "holier than thou" (pun intended) attitude in this stuff and that irritates me. That their bigotry is positive and open minded, wheras what they decry is negative & evil. Both are closed minded and both are dangerous.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

[William the White]

I guess one implication of this - and i would certainly like it to develop into an open campaign - is opposition to 'faith' schools. I include all christian schools in this, and Jewish, Muslim and others. These have increased in number significantly during the reign of Blair the Pious, and we have got to the ludicrous point where we have a North East school, masssively subsidised by the state (us) teaching creationism alongside evolution as an explanation of history.

This is outrageous - like medical schools teaching witchcraft alongside anatomy...

I'm not illiberal enough to want to ban faith schools, but i advocate not a penny of public subsidy for any of them.

I also advocate that all schools be secular institutions, where religion should certainly be studied, but as an interesting social phenomenon, and, probably as an option subject.

If parents are anxious about their children following their own faith (and most will be) let them take full responsibility for it, with the aid and assistance of fellow followers of their beliefs.

[Prufrock]

This campaign isn't saying anything other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision. Anyone disagree?

Well, yes ... actually. If you are responsible for bringing kids up but then leave them to their own devices they'lll be dead in weeks and you'll be jailed. I know that isn't what you intended, but that's the principle you suggest if you take to its illogical conclusion.

So parents have a great number of obligations. In excercising these they cannot but influence their thinking. That's a fact. It's fair that they are allowed to develop and to learn to think independently.

I don't think anyone is suggesting religious types should deliberately hide that from their kids, it just says they shouldn't indoctrinate their kids and tell them from an early age they are a. b. or c.

To rephrase my point to get past your bizarre deliberate misunderstanding of it; this campaign isn't saying anyhting other than kids should be left alone to make their own decision regarding faith, religion or lacktherof. Anyone disagree?

Firstly it is not a misunderstanding and I state that I know that's not what you mean. It is, however, a logical end point from your simplistic thinking.

Secondly, if you have children it is inevitable that you influence them. That will cover a vast array of elements. You'll influence their taste, their politics, their philosophy. Their liking for certain foods, drinks, people types, sports, music, geography will be affected. Take another logical end point ... you bring up your children in England, talking English to them, weith English TV & radio and English friends and guess what .... they speak English !!

Any person who is commited to a religion (or non-religion) will influence their childs position in this too ... how could they not ? Indeed, unless religion is banned, WHY shouold they not ?

This cuts both ways. How many children of committed athiests will turn out to be heavily religious ?

The very best you can do s allow your child to grow and have the capacity to make their own judgements, I think that's what the campaign & yourself are saying. I agree to that extent, but I believe the influence TOWARD religion isn't any different than an influence AWAY from it. Pro religion people are no worse than positively anti rligious thinkers. They tend to a "holier than thou" (pun intended) attitude in this stuff and that irritates me. That their bigotry is positive and open minded, wheras what they decry is negative & evil. Both are closed minded and both are dangerous.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

I think it is a tad harsh to take one quote, out of context, and call it simplistic thinking. Sure, if I hadn't said all the other stuff I did say, and I didn't expect a certain level of inference then it might be. I'm not sure how a logical conclusion to my suggestion that parents allow kids to make up their own minds with regards to religion (which clearly, in context, was my suggestion, not as you 'logically' imply that they should be left to their own devices in every matter) ammounts some sort of modern day exposure.

As for the rest of what you say, you are completely correct, this does cut both ways. I'm an atheist myself, but I'm not on an atheist 'side', nor do I beleive this is some sort of competition each side has to win. There are people who do feel like this, religious AND atheist.

[Prufrock]

I guess one implication of this - and i would certainly like it to develop into an open campaign - is opposition to 'faith' schools. I include all christian schools in this, and Jewish, Muslim and others. These have increased in number significantly during the reign of Blair the Pious, and we have got to the ludicrous point where we have a North East school, masssively subsidised by the state (us) teaching creationism alongside evolution as an explanation of history.

This is outrageous - like medical schools teaching witchcraft alongside anatomy...

I'm not illiberal enough to want to ban faith schools, but i advocate not a penny of public subsidy for any of them.

I also advocate that all schools be secular institutions, where religion should certainly be studied, but as an interesting social phenomenon, and, probably as an option subject.

If parents are anxious about their children following their own faith (and most will be) let them take full responsibility for it, with the aid and assistance of fellow followers of their beliefs.

Agreed RE:faith schools. As for R.E. at school, I think schools should be secular, but I do think we have a responsibility to make sure kids are aware of different cultures and backgorunds. I'd have religion taught as part of a compulsory cultural education subject in years 7 and 8. My own experience was secondary school was the first time many kids were really exposed to a lot of diversity. Some kids from small villages, some from inner towns, and a calming hand of, yes you are all different, here is why, and here is why it isnt a terrible thing would be helpful at that age I think.

[TANGODANCER]

This isn't a religious thing, but a principle for me.

This is all drifting into personal opinionism again. I can stand that, but it's all one way traffic with people who don't believe in God howling logic etc at those who do. Firstly, the advert is adult thinking, using pictures of kids, ie putting words into their mouths, to emphasise their own opinions. Like it or no, it's a message to grown ups, from grown ups, using kids who have no opinion on it whatsoever. That comes later from growing up. It's what happened to us all.

No one on here, of any denomination, was born thinking the way they do now. It's a natural process of growing up. This isn't an Amish world, it's a free and open one composed of all types of people. This ad is just one faction of society looking to further impress their views as being better than anothers. If it isn't that, then what is it? LK's example of being approached by various religious entities has no real bearing. He's a grown up and can deal with it. So will kids when they grow up. This isn't, as the advert tries to make us think, kids making an appeal, it's grown ups using them to promote their own views. Why, I know not.

Every half-intelligent kid on the planet will ask their own questions sometime. They'll also answer them. Adverts on the side of buses won't make the slightest difference nor will religious promoters. "God lives" on the sides of buses would promote a storm of dispproval, why is this any different? Tell me this isn't saying he doesn't when its issued by Atheists. It's an attempt to influence public thinking whichever fancy way they choose to wrap it. It wouldn't be allowed in reverse.

[Lord Kangana]

F8ck it, I think we should teach compulsory religious zealotry with Kalashnikov lessons at school. Kids hate being told what to do and always rebel, so we'll have a chance at us all getting along.

[BWFC_Insane]

This isn't a religious thing, but a principle for me.

This is all drifting into personal opinionism again. I can stand that, but it's all one way traffic with people who don't believe in God howling logic etc at those who do. Firstly, the advert is adult thinking, using pictures of kids, ie putting words into their mouths, to emphasise their own opinions. Like it or no, it's a message to grown ups, from grown ups, using kids who have no opinion on it whatsoever. That comes later from growing up. It's what happened to us all.

No one on here, of any denomination, was born thinking the way they do now. It's a natural process of growing up. This isn't an Amish world, it's a free and open one composed of all types of people. This ad is just one faction of society looking to further impress their views as being better than anothers. If it isn't that, then what is it? LK's example of being approached by various religious entities has no real bearing. He's a grown up and can deal with it. So will kids when they grow up. This isn't, as the advert tries to make us think, kids making an appeal, it's grown ups using them to promote their own views. Why, I know not.

Every half-intelligent kid on the planet will ask their own questions sometime. They'll also answer them. Adverts on the side of buses won't make the slightest difference nor will religious promoters. "God lives" on the sides of buses would promote a storm of dispproval, why is this any different? Tell me this isn't saying he doesn't when its issued by Atheists. It's an attempt to influence public thinking whichever fancy way they choose to wrap it. It wouldn't be allowed in reverse.

On that basis we should ban every nativity play, children from singing hymns or any songs of a religious connotation, children from saying prayers etc.

In fact I'm in favour of that TD. I assume you are too!

[Prufrock]

This isn't a religious thing, but a principle for me.

This is all drifting into personal opinionism again. I can stand that, but it's all one way traffic with people who don't believe in God howling logic etc at those who do. Firstly, the advert is adult thinking, using pictures of kids, ie putting words into their mouths, to emphasise their own opinions. Like it or no, it's a message to grown ups, from grown ups, using kids who have no opinion on it whatsoever. That comes later from growing up. It's what happened to us all.

No one on here, of any denomination, was born thinking the way they do now. It's a natural process of growing up. This isn't an Amish world, it's a free and open one composed of all types of people. This ad is just one faction of society looking to further impress their views as being better than anothers. If it isn't that, then what is it? LK's example of being approached by various religious entities has no real bearing. He's a grown up and can deal with it. So will kids when they grow up. This isn't, as the advert tries to make us think, kids making an appeal, it's grown ups using them to promote their own views. Why, I know not.

Every half-intelligent kid on the planet will ask their own questions sometime. They'll also answer them. Adverts on the side of buses won't make the slightest difference nor will religious promoters. "God lives" on the sides of buses would promote a storm of dispproval, why is this any different? Tell me this isn't saying he doesn't when its issued by Atheists. It's an attempt to influence public thinking whichever fancy way they choose to wrap it. It wouldn't be allowed in reverse.

Case proven. It's never one way traffic. Both 'sides' are as bad as each other. I've heard atheists say exactly what you have just said, but the other way around. 'They get away with blue murder' 'WE wouldnt get away with that'. It's not a sodding competition. Beleive what you will re:religion , just don't drum it into your kids, no matter what it is.

[TANGODANCER]

On that basis we should ban every nativity play, children from singing hymns or any songs of a religious connotation, children from saying prayers etc.

In fact I'm in favour of that TD. I assume you are too!

Gee, BWFCI, we've gone a fair way to doing just that already. First thing every December was the Nativity scene lit up on the Town Hall Square. Where is it now? No religious themes (even though Christmas is a religious festival) on stamps etc. Like I said, this isn't a religious debate for me, it's just not necessary to use kids to promote views they don't have. And that's exactly what this bus advert is about. When did you last see a Christian ad anywhere outside Church grounds (or some guy on a soapbox who everybody ignores anyway? Jehovas Witnesses knocking on doors every two months? Who takes any notice anyway. At least they don't use three year old kids to promote themselves and they're never aggressive. I don't really care what views anyone else holds, they're entitled to them, but at least let them be their own and formed as adults.

Merry Christmas.

[William the White]

On that basis we should ban every nativity play, children from singing hymns or any songs of a religious connotation, children from saying prayers etc.

In fact I'm in favour of that TD. I assume you are too!

Gee, BWFCI, we've gone a fair way to doing just that already. First thing every December was the Nativity scene lit up on the Town Hall Square. Where is it now? No religious themes (even though Christmas is a religious festival) on stamps etc. Like I said, this isn't a religious debate for me, it's just not necessary to use kids to promote views they don't have. And that's exactly what this bus advert is about. When did you last see a Christian ad anywhere outside Church grounds (or some guy on a soapbox who everybody ignores anyway? Jehovas Witnesses knocking on doors every two months? Who takes any notice anyway. At least they don't use three year old kids to promote themselves and they're never aggressive. I don't really care what views anyone else holds, they're entitled to them, but at least let them be their own and formed as adults.

Merry Christmas.

I see christian ads quite a lot, Tango. It may be because you are familiar with them that you don't notice them. For instance there was a recent bus campaign (in the last six months) for the 'alpha course' - check it out? Also, two or three months ago on Tong Moor Rd - which i travel down pretty much daily - lucky me - there was a large billboard campaign for people whop felt something missing in their lives...

It 'wouldn't be allowed' is ludicrously misplaced.

And this isn't seeking to 'use kids' - but asking people to respect and love them - to stop indoctrinating them when they are young and innocent, to allow them to make up their own minds when they have true independent minds to make up...

This is idealistic of me to imagine that might be possible...

I do try to practice what i believe, though doubtless fail. My daughter, who grew up in a household without 'god' as much as poss - expressed the wish, aged 12, to go to church... We supported her in that... she also got an A* in GCSE in RE and came very close to studying it at A level. we supported her in that also...

religion is a massively important phenomenon, and everyone should be aware of it, and try to understand it, as much as possible... But don't make young, vulnerable people go through it as 'truth'...

[davroduk]

the new atheist bus campaign featuring two children - happy and smiling (presumably) because they are safe from the horrid "labelling" faith people and have "chosen for themselves"...

the kids were picked from stock photos - and are (actually) the children of a committed evangelical christian family....

And who gives a Flying Feckl.
Two pages of posts about something that %90 of us dont Fecking care about.
Yes its a bit of a boo boo, but, feckin hell, it dont matter.
I dont believe in God etc, so I dont give a t0ss whos kids are in the photo.
Please discuss something of interest.

[TANGODANCER]

And who gives a Flying Feckl.
Two pages of posts about something that %90 of us dont Fecking care about.
Yes its a bit of a boo boo, but, feckin hell, it dont matter.
I dont believe in God etc, so I dont give a t0ss whos kids are in the photo.
Please discuss something of interest.

You mean you've got something 90% of us on here would be interested in? Get it up.

[Wandering Willy]

And who gives a Flying Feckl.
Two pages of posts about something that %90 of us dont Fecking care about.
Yes its a bit of a boo boo, but, feckin hell, it dont matter.
I dont believe in God etc, so I dont give a t0ss whos kids are in the photo.
Please discuss something of interest.

You mean you've got something 90% of us on here would be interested in? Get it up.

Oh - you're asking for it there TD. I'll wager it'll end in "out".