Don’t you know my donation was ironic?
This is my favourite argument ever:
Some religious, and specifically Christian, commentators are indignant that the money from the Atheist bus campaign has been rolled over to support another poster drive which raises questions about the religious identity of children in the context of faith schools.
Why should they care how Humanists spend their money? Usually it’s the other way around. Humanists are deeply unhappy that Christians get their proselytism funded through tax relief on charitable donations.
The reason is that when the original poster campaign was launched, some Christians thought it would be a clever move to make a very public donation to the campaign. Reminiscent of the story Jesus told (the 'widow's mite') about the arrogant religious leaders who made gifts for all to see, they then tipped off the media about what they had done.
Let no one be under any illusions about what was behind the move. The main aim was to take the wind out of Humanist sails. The donations were made in order to try and score a goal in the Match of the Day between religion and atheism.
See, you might be thinking: 'this argument can't possibly be going where I think it's going, can it?'. And you'd be wrong:
Whether Humanists are right to use money, given by Christians for point-scoring reasons, for a poster campaign that highlights [problems with faith schools] is certainly debatable.
That's inspired.
The other message of the article is a lot more humanist-friendly, and asks whether Jesus would have approved of faith schools discriminating against other faiths (or non-faiths). Which is a good point, from a religious perspective, although still misses the message of the posters: they're about the problems of labelling children, and aren't anti faith-school. The BHA's anti faith-school campaign is being run in conjunction, but they're not the same thing.
See if you can spot where the logic goes wrong
BHA: Here is a billboard with pictures of some children. Its message is: there's no such thing as a Christian child; or a Muslim child; or an atheist child. They're all just children, and should be allowed to grow up and choose for themselves.
Times and Telegraph: HAHAHAHAHA those children are Christians! lol you lose.
BHA: ...
The Atheist Billboard Campaign
The Atheist Billboard Campaign launched today. It's the second phase of the Atheist Bus Campaign, and sees large billboards in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. Here's the London one:
Isn't it cool? The message will be familiar to anyone familiar with Richard Dawkins' writings: it's wrong to label children with concepts beyond their understanding. The labels shown in the background - 'Catholic child', 'Muslim child', 'Atheist child', 'Post-modernist child' etc. - should all stick in the throat, as there are no such things (the BHA's campaign page goes into more detail on the divisive and coercive nature of labelling children in this way). Like the original bus campaign, it's about consciousness-raising - as Ariane Sherine says in her Comment is Free launch article:
We hope the advert's message will encourage the government, media and general public to see children as individuals, free to make their own choices as soon as they are old enough to fully understand what these choices mean, and that they will think twice before describing children in terms of their parents' religion in the future.
I played a very small role in the planning of this campaign, and I'm proud to be associated.
There have been many negative comments, of course. So far the complaints seem to be:
- "It won't do any good." - The aim is consciousness-raising - to get this idea more into the public domain. Anecdotal evidence suggests the bus campaign was tremendously successful at affecting public discourse around the world, and I don't see why this shouldn't be similarly capable.
- "Who are you to tell me how to raise my children?" - Firstly, if you don't want to listen, don't listen - nobody's forcing you to do anything. Secondly, what's wrong with expressing an opinion on how to raise children? Thirdly, they're not 'your' children in the sense of ownership - you're their guardians, not their owners, and they have rights as people that trump your rights as parents.
- "You're smug and arrogant." - Ad hominem attacks are pretty desperate.
Given the quality of the complaints so far, I think it's going well.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
