http://www.newsobserver.com/2188/story/1290787.html
“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” This is the new slogan for an advertisement by The American Humanist Association. The group recently announced that the organization will be running forty-thousand dollars worth of this ad in the D.C. area. The ad will also contain a link to a website where people from that area can connect or get in touch with each other.
A representative for the organization, Fred Edwords commented on the purpose of the ad when he said, “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.” He then went on to say that “The purpose isn’t to argue that God doesn’t exist or change minds about a diety, although “we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.”
This slogan and comments from the representative could be considered controversial for several reasons. First, the ad will appear on public buses during Christmas. Christmas is considered by many people to be a religious holiday. Some people may see this ad as directly mocking their religious beliefs. Others may want to know why the group chose lyrics from “Santa Clause is Coming to Town.”
Another controversy for The American Humanist Association is that a British group recently ran a similar advertisement. This ad stated, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Regardless of the group’s slogans, the D.C. transit authority stated that there was “no debate over whether to take the ad.”
I think this is a really interesting situation for a number of reasons. I find it highly incongruous that the representative of the group said that the purpose of the ad was “not to argue God’s existence, but to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.” That statement alone to me says that people who believe in God aren’t rational and that they aren’t critical thinkers. I simply don’t agree with that statement whatsoever and find it highly ironic that another similar British group had a slogan that stated “There’s probably no God...” Come on...really? Doesn’t this tell you what the group thinks about the existence of God?
I personally think these ads are done in bad taste for several reasons. First, these ads are deliberately shown during the Christmas holiday, which is considered to be a religious time for many people. These ads are mocking many people who are religious and are insulting to their beliefs. The amount of money spent on these ads is also in my opinion ridiculous. It’s true that many people during the Christmas month spend considerable amounts of money on gifts for their loved ones. However, spending forty thousand dollars specifically on ads that irritate, mock and insult religious people is just absurd. Not to mention all the people around the world who celebrate this holiday.
I do agree with the transit authority’s decision to allow the ads. Our country cherishes and prides itself on the right to free speech. It is one of the things that makes this country so great. Even though I don’t agree with the message on the advertisement, I believe the organization has the right to say it. Nonetheless, I feel that the timing of the organization’s message, and the slogan itself was done in bad taste.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I agree that the ads are done in poor taste. To me, this seems like more of a bitter insult than way to bring together those who don't believe in a God. Just because you do not celebrate the holidays in a religious way does not mean that you have to ruin it for those who do, HOW RUDE!!! And running the ad with no questions ask certainly does speak to our right to free speech, but would questions arise from an ad of religious text being put up in the same way? "Merry CHRISTmas, remember the Christ this Christmas". Would that be offensive to some and possibly even questioned or turned away by many? Also, all of that money being spent on such negative ads, how sad, the holidays should be a time of giving, there are so many less fortunate than many of us, why not put that money to good use?
I don't necessarily think these should be considered negative ads. I'm sure it is true that some people who do not believe in God do feel alone during the holidays. There is nothing wrong with making them realize there are other people like them.
Also, it doesn't seem appropriate to compare this ad to the ad in Britain. First of all, we have to acknowledge that there are significant cultural differences between the way religion is discussed here and in Britain. But, even without that, the slogans have very different meanings. The British slogan seems to say that, since there is no God, stop worrying about consequences so much, and just have fun. Whereas the American slogan is telling people just to be good, for the sake of being good. That's a very positive message. Even Christians should be good just to be good, because being good just to impress God is not the right idea. Or in the case of Santa Claus is coming to town, the song the group parodied, the message is to behave so you'll get presents. Which message is better?
The comments of the group's leader are maybe slightly unfortunate, but really why is there need to be offended by them? Who doesn't sometimes have doubts about their religious beliefs? When you do you think critically about them and come to a conclusion. So what if this group thinks the conclusion should be that there is no God?
Anyone who lets an ad like this ruin their Christmas must be looking for something to ruin Christmas. It seems pretty easy to ignore. But, better yet, it would be good to think about, and consider why other people feel differently about the holidays.
I am divided on this topic because I can relate with both sides. I understand the concerns Christians have with The American Humanist Association, because the group launches a clear attack on Christian beliefs. However, it seems reasonable that Christmas has become more secularized in our society, meaning people who aren’t religious celebrate it in some way; they are probably offended by all the religious excitement, therefore feeling alone and left out. I feel that I have to chose my words carefully, but if someone feels alone during the holiday season because of their religious/nonreligious beliefs, is that not something they have to deal with personally? I am not sure if that is something that needs to be dealt with on the public level. I agree that they have the right to free speech; however, I would not have made the claim, “Why believe in God…” I think that creates hostility between the groups. Personally, I agree with the quote the humanist group is asserting, however it is not beneficial for the time being. If I were a member of that group I would have preferred the sign to read “Just be good for goodness sake” and that is all. Needless to say, it’s understandable how both groups can feel offended during the holiday season.
I’ll preface this comment by saying that I think it is legally permissible to run such an ad. Because I support the rights of religious groups to publish ads advancing their religion, I certainly must support the rights of this secular group to bash religion, since that’s apparently what they see fit to do. If they want to spend $40 K trying to take the “Christ” out of “Christmas,” then I say we go ahead and let me them blow their money, because at least then we religious folk have a foot to stand on when we want to publish positive ads that are actually meant to reach out and unite/help people.
That being said, I think Mr. Fred Edwords is both a coward and a liar based upon his justification for his group’s ad. On the one hand, he says that the ad is meant to bring atheists and other non-believers together during the holidays, which might be a noble cause if it were true. On the other hand, Edwords completely contradicts his previous statement by asserting that the ad is supposed to “plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking.” This quite clearly implies that Christians, in particular, are not capable of rational thought. Edwords is cowardly hiding behind the façade of trying to bring people together, rather than just coming out and saying that the purpose of the ad is to try and discredit the Christian faith. Even the ad itself quite clearly pits the concept of “goodness” up against “God,” by asserting that one ought to serve goodness and not God. This implication is once again meant to discredit Christians by saying that they aren’t really “good,” they’re just acting good to “try and impress God,” as James so eloquently put it. If Mr. Edwords has a beef with Christianity, that’s fine, he should go ahead and say it. But I think it’s both cowardly and deceitful to publicly pretend that the ad is not meant to discredit Christianity when it’s quite clear that that is the ad’s chief purpose.
I agree with Marion that the American Humanist Association has the right to use this ad. However, the debate is really about should they? I personally feel that this ad will be counterproductive. The whole idea is to find common ground among different beliefs. "Just be good for goodness sake" with the American Humanist Association logo underneath the slogan would suffice. There is no need to be confrontational about it by including "Why believe in god?". I am skeptical of Fred Edwords who argues that the purpose of the ad is to "try to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds". I think he gives rational people little credit to connect the dots for themselves. Furthermore, he neglects to acknowledge that these people have and will continue to question their belief in a god without the need of a slogan.
I think that if he wants to "plant a seed [of reason]" he should start by planting the seed in a receptive environment which clearly would not be the case if the slogan is advertised as is.
While I agree that the bus company was justified in accepting the ad, I wonder what the reaction would be if a Christian organization decided to spend the same amount of money on ads saying “Accept Christ…It’s not enough to be good for goodness’ sake” throughout the DC bus system. I’m sure there would be a huge outcry. It seems to me that the AHA feels the need to announce its presence and has chosen to do so in a way guaranteed to make people annoyed. With actions like these, it is no wonder that atheism is looked upon very negatively in the United States. The winter holidays are times when many people reconnect with their religious community, even if they are not especially devout the rest of the year. I highly doubt that this ad will affect people’s faith, but it does nothing to promote the feeling of “goodwill towards men” that these holidays are intended to inspire. It is unfortunate that the AHA appears to have missed that part of the Christmas message.
To me, these ads are particularly powerful because, for many, Christmas fails to hold the same religious significance it once enjoyed. Take a look at the ever-earlier start of the holiday shopping season, for example, and try to tell me that Christmas hasn't suffered pretty extensively from commercialization. In addition, and it is pretty clear that many of you will disagree, the holidays have transcended Christianity in American society; I do think, however, that it is a bit ridiculous to assume that most haven't figured that out on their own.
Clearly, the inclusion of "Why believe in a god?" seems to be a decision of poor taste. It unnecessarily has riled some people up, as evidenced by comments here, and I do not believe that was the intention. I don't believe this will convert the religious into humanists, so it seems foolish to take these ads too seriously. In fact, I would think that only good could come from this ad, but it relies on the religious opposition to this ad to remain levelheaded. Religious individuals do not need advertising to realize the spirit of Christmas; would you rather the remainder of folks resemble Scrooge?
Humanism could very well be seen as a religion in itself. Whether WMATA, which receives federal funding, should allow such ad content, is an interesting issue. At the end of the day, these ads are just ads that bring in vital funding for the transportation system; WMATA can't afford to reject everyone's ads. Maybe sometimes they should, though; a couple months ago, for a post-apocalyptic video game called "Fallout 3," ads appeared in the system that showed the Capitol building and the Washington Monument in ruins. Not exactly what I want to see on public transportation in DC. Of course, maybe these humanistic ads aren't what most would like to see every morning during the Christmas season, either.
I think that this particular ad is good. Not because I agree with it, but it has many rhetorical aspects to analyze. In her book, Toward a Civil Discourse, Sharon Crowley discusses the importance of engaging the religious right in terms they can understand. We cannot simply dismiss their views as "unrational" because their views are emodied within a certain ideology. However, as an attention getter to start a conversation these signs do wonders. Deluca and Peeples discuss the importance of media spectacles to gain attention. Because our media outlets are so limited, those without access to the public sphere have resorted to sensational claims. If you are a Christian, it doesn't make you a bad person to question God, we simply might look to the bible to do that. We need to be cautious in judging someone elses views as radical and examine the motives for such an argument. I think evidence is clear, but what the more important issue at hand is this groups ability to have the conversation; I think its a right they have.
There are so many issues raised by this post and the comments that followed. I think it is certainly absurd to imply that religious people are not rationale. While you may disagree with their thinking, I beg someone to read Aquinas, Augustine, Wesley, or a host of other Christian thinkers, and tell me they are not intellectuals of the highest degree.
I could take issue with the claim that its problematic that some non-Christians feel "left out" around the Christmas season. For heavens sake, it is a Christian holiday! Alternatively, I could press the claim above that Christians should act "good" regardless of their belief in God. For most Christians root their sense of good in the nature of God. Good without God makes little sense. Or, some of the comments above implicitly take as a given the assumption that unity and focus on shared beliefs between different groups is something to strive for. This could certainly be challenged. Our differences, our diversity, make the world such an interesting place.
Yet, I think the most interesting discussion is Drew's point above about whether the WMATA should ever turn down ads. This is a very touchy subject. Certain, obscene ads, most certainly should be rejected as distasteful and offensive. Yet where can they draw the line to preserve free speech and while not showing bias to a certain belief system?
I agree with Van and some of the other bloggers that Mr. Edwords actual intent is probably not to make agnostics and atheists feel less alone. However, his intent doesn't really concern me very much. The bus should be able to run this ad, just like they should for any religion. Something in Erin's point I take issue with is that choosing lyrics from "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" is somehow controversial. I feel it is not controversial because no Christians view Santa Clause as a religious figure. Some Christians might even view Santa Clause as being in direct conflict with what Christmas should be about. I think the usage of lyrics from "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" is less controversial than if they used lyrics from "Silent Night" or something along those lines because that would be seen as more offensive.
I'll attempt to answer the question posed by Andrew C, the state can not strip an individual of his or her First Amendment rights if they do not have a compelling state interest to do so and the regulation that does this must be content and view-point neutral. While the ads may be in bad taste and while they may at times border on the inane, organizations absolutely have the right to have access to fora that allow them to say these things.
These individuals can not be denied access to a public forum merely based on view-point discrimination. While the debate over the historical understanding of the religion clauses has been somewhat muddled it is generally understood that the state can not prohibit speech merely on the basis that it does not agree with that speech. You are right to note that obscene ads are not protected speech, but simply because you do not agree with an ad or find it distasteful does not mean that it constitutes obscene speech. This is one of the reasons I agree with Van's comment on this subject, free speech cuts both ways you can not allow for one view-point and not the other.
I agree that it should be legally permissible to run the ads; though you may feel they are in poor taste, that does not mean that they should be taken away. As someone who is not religious, I find myself sympathetic to the Humanist group's ideas, though I agree that their statements were poorly articulated and offensive. I find it hard to believe that these ads would "ruin Christmas" for someone who is religious; don't we all see ads for things/ideas/beliefs every day that we may not support (think of religious content on billboards, for example)? How much impact do they really have?
Post a Comment