Ad To Ban Religion - Australia
Posted on: September 7, 2011 - 5:24pm
Offline
Ad To Ban Religion - Australia
Hey Aussies,
Is The Gruen Transfer a well known program there? I cannot imagine even suggesting such a thing in the US, much less air it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nhAKzYr4-wg
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
The first ad was good, because it actually used rational thinking.
In fact I wouldn't mind if the first one was broadcasted, if it's to get rid of religion, not to ban it.
The second one threw out rational thinking in favour of emotions [...kinda like religion], but then again what ad doesn't?
Yep! It's fairly well known with a good following, it airs on the ABC our public broadcaster. This is the first time it has tackled religion, I'd love to see more!
Guess how much it's feasible in my country, with a theocracy inside(TM)...
The Gruen Transfer is a show that takes a satirical look at the advertising industry. It has been running for the last 4 or 5 years, and has a solid following on the respected, government-funded television channel ABC. The host Wil Anderson is a stand-up comic who has gradually moved more and more into television. He has a huge following, and is probably one of the main reasons that the show is so popular.
Not only is the Gruen Transfer a well known show - it is actually quite popular. The clip above relates to a section of the show called 'The Pitch', where an idea suggested by facebook and twitter fans in the week before the show is 'pitched' to two advertising companies. The idea - like selling ice to eskimos - is to 'sell the unsellable'. In this case, they actually promoted the idea that this 'pitch' was controversial, and revealed that this was the first time that an advertising company had actually refused the challenge.
For what it's worth, I much preferred the first ad too. It argued facts, rather than emotions. I also follow the show on facebook, and judging by the comments from other fans after the show, there are certainly plenty of atheists who enjoyed them too.
If I saw those clips correctly, NEITHER suggests a government ban on religion even if the guests are jokingly or seriously suggesting a ban.
In either case, If all the add suggests is that humanity give up on religion, I am fine with that. But it is absurd and fascist(or will be seen that way by religious) to suggest that government ban religion. I will never advocate the squash of religion via government. Forced submission does not sway anyone anymore than government forcing you to submit to Allah will really make you a Muslim if you are not.
An add that says "Give up on bad ideas and bad claims and lets move forward" I am fine with. Buit "ban" will never work and force never sways opposition to your side.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The second one is the one that would be most persuasive. The first is great, but the second one would work more.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
The problem isn't "religion", it's irrational human nature. People will find an excuse to do stupid things regardless of whether they "believe in a god" or not. Look at fanatical sports fans - they don't need a "religion" to find an excuse to beat up fans of the opposing team or destroy stuff.
Instead of focusing on the dangers of "religion", they should focus on improving critical thought all around the board, and one of the consequences of learning how to think critically is that people will naturally stray away from myths and blind faith. Religious fanaticism is more of a symptom of the problem, than the problem itself.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
To an extent I agree with you, however religion leaves a much larger footprint than being a sports fan (excepting things like say the Packer-Bear Rivalry
). Religion claims to give moral blueprints, guides to life, etc. I doubt too many people would be motivated enough to murder or plant bombs for a sports team but plenty of people are happy to do so from a religious context. Religion also places much deeper roots into people, plenty of science denialism comes from people who oppose things like evolution, even heliocentricity, on entirely religious grounds. It also produces situations where social changes are slowed because people are afraid of angering their particular magic man. I don't deny that the problem also stands with those who are unstable, but even if these people are standing at the edge religion tends to give very strong pushes. I'm opposed to banning religion wholesale, but we need to stop acting like a persons religion should be immune to question or criticism when they make it a part of the public forum.
Yes excellent broadcasting.
I was also most pleased with the audiences applause. And both films were as good as each other.
Be fully aware, religion is on the way out. I've seen the demise in my own life time; ie Your parents or grand parents were likely church goers, they certainly had their 'church of England' or whatever denomination they were from. These days we are not attending church for midnight mass at Easter time (usually its a mad rush back to the shops! To squeeze in a church gathering is just not practical anymore)
The concern brought up about 'banning' is not a bad idea too.
Yes 'religious' people always take a strong hold on this type of area, ie Jesus was banned.
But the children who watch these films are at last given reason to stop going towards religion (sorry religion is banned, I can't go) And for that reason anything that stops a child from being corrupted is good in my mind.
Generally 'children' do require these limitations imposed on them, ie They are too young to decide for themselves. And who here would allow religion to be taught to an innocent child? If so, then I say a banning is definitely in order here and to the rest of the world.
I too, ban all religion, and I'm overly happy to state it to anyone. If I can help one child then it will be worth it.
But the problem is, if we ban something, we're not really teaching them critical thinking are we?
Capn,
true, banning religion doesn't, of itself, teach critical thinking, but if it reduces the pervasiveness of organization dedicated to teaching very uncritical thinking, it may help.
I actually agree that simply banning it may not be the best approach, but that is something that could be scientifcally studied. It may be that some legal constraints on religious proselytising, or even banning it and other aspects of religion, in conjunction with other measures, such as positive boosts to teaching critical thinking, and the history of religions, to set the whole thing in context, would be the way to go.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The point was that banning it would set a bad example. If I were to ban 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'm just telling you they're wrong, not WHY they're wrong, that's not teaching critical thinking, that's teaching it's ok to just ban things you don't like. There's no discussion.
But they'd fail anyway, seeing as in order to ban something you'd have to PROVE your claims scientifically, and seeing as the evidence the atheist movement presents is laughable on their blogs, I don't see it getting through court. Or if we allow it, than we'd have to allow that type of evidence on other things to ban, which in theory I could ban anything I want.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Well Bob, I have considered that idea myself. In the US, it would be a knotty problem because of the first amendment. Our courts tend to take the establishment clause as one thing and the free speech clause as another thing. Still, I think that a properly crafted argument could hold some ground.
Basically, free speech is nearly never blocked. Literally, if you attend a federally funded university, they cannot make you take off a t shirt even if is has vile language on it. I believe that the case that SCOTUS took involved a shirt that said “club faggots, not seals”.
On the religion side, one of the worst things that you can do is open a primary school graduation with a public prayer. I am sure that it still happens but unless the community is fully behind you, you do it at the risk of a messy law suit.
Perhaps if we could merge the two ideas, we could keep proselytizing out of colleges, homeless shelters and other government funded places. Then, at least, we would be protecting the more vulnerable people.
In all honesty, if people kept the religion to themselves, I would not see a huge problem with it. I suppose that one could debate the merits but being quietly religious is probably on par with being a smoker, a fat person or a drinker as far as damage to society goes.
=
Capn,
in most countries, certainly in the US, you don't have to provide scientific justification for legal actions, in general. That would mainly apply to banning ineffective or harmful medical treatments or drugs. Even that is often far from rigorously based on science.
Addictive drugs are banned despite much scientific evidence that they are not inevitably any more harmful than many legal substances, and that the whole drugs policy causes more harm in the form of crime and massive numbers in the prisons, and other issues.
I already conceded that there are problems with simply banning stuff, so the rest of your points I broadly agree with. If you banned religious teaching, you would need to make sure it was understood why the action was being taken, and be able to demonstrate the harm that it could lead to, of course. I was not thinking of banning religious ideas, that would be impractical and amount to making it a thought crime.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That shoe if fucking genuis.
=
That was fucking great. The first one wins. We, the US, need that bail out and we need it fucking now
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Hi Brian,
the idea is not to seriously advertise something but to test how advertisers would go about doing it, like advertising selling your grandparents to science for frequent flyer rewards. It is interesting that the pitch was supposed to be an ad for advocating banning religion. In this respect both ads fails their client's expectations as banning was definitely not posited. On the other hand both ads met with acclaim in the Oz community for arguing that its about time to get rid of the silly rubbish. Everyone seems to have given them full marks for providing a better message than the one the client asked for.