Comments on: What if Kingston…

By: Ian Pinchin

Ian Pinchin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:32:06 +0000

This campaign which originally spawned in London England and has rapidly spread across the globe faces the same confrontation wherever it goes. The famous atheist and Evolutionary Biology professor at Oxford, RIchard Dawkins, was one of the primary benefactors to this campaign, paying for half of the advertising costs for the first month in London. Despite his support he was perturbed by the fact that the advertisement had to include “probably” and if he had it his way there would be no ambiguity about the existence of God. This objection by the city of London I feel is a reasonable compromise, although I would like to see genuine free speech, municipal transport is controlled by the government and some censorship is almost inevitable. Kingston rejecting the censored version of this ad seems absurd to me. Kingston is home to three post-secondary institutions, one of them is amongst the most prestigious in the world. As a result this city has an extremely high number of people with educations and a very high PHD per capita ratio. For such an educated community to allow the infringement on free speech, is ridiculous. In the words of the famous philosopher (and moderate atheist) Daniel C. Dennett: “Religious allegiance has ramifications too important to be out of bounds to rational inquiry.” This I feel is true and the ad that rationally provokes people to inquire about religion is perfectly acceptable (regardless of the money that it would bring in)

By: Rhiannon

Rhiannon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:55:59 +0000

Im not debating the prescence of Religion in the media or elsewhere, I know the wonderful catholic guilt that exisits from an upbringing in the Catholic school system. One could go on for days about the way the non religious are forced to be exposed to religious opinion and vice versa. I was just responding to the idea that we might as a whole be tolerant enough a city for such an ad campaign, and I really dont think so.

I guess being someone who prefers to keep my own religious views and experience exactly that my own; I dont see the need or even logic behind a pro or anti religious ad campagin. All Im saying is to me it seems a little contradictory to blast one sides existence in the media but completely support the opposites sides prescence. You cant have it both ways, and I just dont think the 2 sides could agree on advertising ground rules, that everyone would be ‘tolerant’ of. It seems a little too unrealistic.

But Ive been wrong about stranger things. I guess we wont know how our city would react until it happened.

By: Treebot

Treebot — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:58:43 +0000

While I agree with Rhiannon that having one’s kid come home talking about the Jesus ad on the bus, I have to think that this doesn’t fall into the religious category, as atheists are distinctly NON religious, empirical people. The whole “probably no god” idea is an anti religious statement, not a pro one. As a child, I had to put up with the lord’s prayer in public school, then was yelled at for not standing still at attention when a bhuddist prayer was read over the morning announcements in high school. Churches dominate our landscape everywhere we go, and the Catholic School Board, completely separate and totally religious, is funded by our government! After having gone through enormous guilt as a child, thinking that not praying would send me to hell, and having christian views shoved in my face for most of my life, I find it rather annoying and ironic that such a fervour is stirred up when a humanistic rational view is promoted. Are you telling me that while I can turn on the tv any given sunday and see tv evangelists foaming at the mouth, I don’t have a right to see any opposing views on a bus? Preposterous. The fact is, christian and religious propaganda is everywhere, and for us to limit something on a bus while jesus confronts us in almost every other medium is hypocritical and insulting. It’s a bus people…if you don’t like it you don’t have to look at it. I’d rather have something that encourages critical thinking than just another weight loss ad or cialis. Are you telling me that those things aren’t propaganda for a certain lifestyle??
But that’s a whole other kettle of fish right there.

By: Danielle Lennon

Danielle Lennon — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:50:01 +0000

So…who’s in charge of that giant “everyone should love Jesus” billboard at Portsmouth and Princess? anyone know? it makes me mad every time I see it. but then, I guess the atheist bus ads would do the same for religious people…I think the same rules need to be applied across the city. if we’re going to limit people’s freedom of expression, lets do it consistently!

By: Harvey Kirkpatrick

Harvey Kirkpatrick — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:33:41 +0000

I agree that nobody really knows what’s on the other end of life, however I think the language used in the campaign reflects that. It says “…probably no god” rather than “…no god”. So in that respect, the statement is in no way, shape of form absolute. If the language was absolute, it would have an entirely different/negative meaning, and that might not be an appropriate message.

By: Rhiannon

Rhiannon — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:17:30 +0000

Political I can see. But religious??? Athiest groups will be all for it until their kid comes home and tells them Jesus loves them because a bus said so; Anyone who beleives in God would flip at the advertisment above. I don’t care who you are, or what you beleive. Nobody knows until the day we bite the big one whether there is a higher power, or not. Leave religion to the religious, we scream about keeping it out of politics, I think the same has to apply for advertising.

Politics on the other hand… different story. It might be a great way to promote policies and ideas to a part of the population that might not normally make the effort to inform themselves. With a 59% voter turn out, I think any steps that can raise awareness and public involvement can only be beneficial.