"For God's sake" is not offensive.

In the ongoing campaign by various groups about the invasive nature of, and pointlessness that is the UK Census being held this year, one group - the British Humanist Association[1] came up with three posters addressing what is the only voluntary question on the whole census - the religion question. One is shown below; all three can be seen here.

Not Religious?

In the 2011 Census Tick "No Religion"

"I put 'Jedi' in the last census. But I'll tick 'No religion this time.

I'm not religious and I don't want Bishops and the government saying this is a religious country.

That's just an excuse to keep religion in politics."

If you're not religious for God's sake say so.

cencus-campaign.org.uk

The intention was to buy advertising space at railway stations to display the posters

CBS Outdoor, the advertisers that own the space, had other ideas.

Two reasons were given by owners of the space: they were concerned that the use of the phrase ‘for God’s sake’ would cause widespread and serious offence and they also did not wish to take adverts relating to religion.

As the BHA allude to, only the professionally offended could take "widespread and serious offence,"

But what the BHA didn't point out (at least in their PR) is that the second reason is also spurious. Lots of religious groups are quite capable, and able, to advertise on the self-same spots. Those listed (though probably not exhaustive) include the Alpha course, the Christian Party[1] and the Trinitarian Bible Society.

It's not as if there isn't a history of religious advertising on public transport.

Vaguely related, I was somewhat amused by His Grace's "Mind your own *%$#@!! business" campaign but I think I'll be ticking the No Religion box.




[1] The BHA were responsible for the "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" bus adverts that generated ASA complaints. In reply the Christian Party came up with "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" which became the most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever.

Not so happy down on the farm...

MotherCare are selling (but currently out of stock) the Early Learning Centre Happyland Goosefeather Farm [current] for £30. In the product description:

• All the fun of the Happy Land Goosefeather Farm with Farmer Shepherd and his wife
• Includes a barn, tractor and trailer, sheep pen, pig sty, and six animals
• Your little ones will love playing with the farmyard animals, while learning the different sounds they make with the help of the animal sound effects

Brilliant, eh? But what's this? If you want to buy it direct from the Early Learning Center [current] it's only £25. What do you think might be the difference? Their product description:

• Bring all the fun of the farm to HappyLand with this lovely set.
• Farmer Shepherd wakes up early in the morning to tend the fields. Mrs. Shepherd makes sure all the animals on the farm are well fed and happy.
• Set includes barn, tractor, trailer, pen, 3 fences, gate, Farmer Shepherd, Mrs. Shepherd, horse, cow, sheep, sheepdog and chicken. 
• Press the buttons on the roof to hear five animal sounds.

Can you spot the difference?

Bit difficult?

Ok - here's the promotional photo from Mothercare:

And the promotional photo for ELC:

Spot the difference yet?

How about a hint - here's the mother care one again:

Yes - for a reduction of £5, you can get the new version of Goosefeather Farm without pigs.

"New Version" I hear you ask?

Yup - the ELC have slaughtered all the pigs on Goosefeather Farm for fear of offending Jews and Muslims.

Really. But don't worry - the pigs are still there in spirit. Ghostly pigs can still be heard haunting Goosefeather Farm, because the button that produces the Oink sounds proved a little more difficult to remove than the pig.

Oh - what's this? ELC have done a U-turn due to bad publicity? Colour me surprised.

I believe in women's rights...

... So did Muhammad [current].

I believe in women's rights. So did Muhammad. Sultana Tafadar - Barrister.

This would be the same Muhammad/Mohammad/Muhammed... (the alternative spellings go on and on,) who('s followers) espouse such great rights for other groups such as homosexuals[1], members of other religions[2], and those who wish to leave Islam altogether[3] would it? I'm assuming so, since Sultana says in her speil:

Working as a barrister at a leading human rights firm, I often get asked the question:  how are you able to reconcile your choice of profession with Islam’s views regarding the role of women?  The question usually stems from the false presumption that Islam sees women as unequal to men. This could not be further from the truth. (see [6] below) My answer is that there is no conflict to reconcile.

Oh, and lets not forget women's rights [4] [5] [6] [7].

This advertising (Cranmer's photo appears to be in an underground station judging from the curved wall) is either absolute bollocks and is trying to gloss over the darker side of Islam, or Muhammad has a lot of followers who didn't bother listening to him and/or are willfully misinterpreted his teachings.



[1] "Both the Qur'an and the hadith have been generally interpreted as condemning sexual relations between persons of the same sex."
[2] "However, Jews and Christians have not been completely responsible with their revelation and should still be called to the Muslim faith."
[3] "But is the death penalty for apostasy really “good” for Islam and Muslims? Does it prevent apostasy? The death penalty may indeed discourage some from apostasy, but it would also encourage hypocrisy. And is it really better to have a lot of hypocrites among Muslims than to have a lot of apostates?"
[4] "The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce."
[5] "In India a 2001 ''acid attack on four young Muslim women in Srinagar ... by an unknown militant outfit, [was followed by] swift compliance by women of all ages on the issue of wearing the chadar  (head-dress) in public.'' "
[6] "They have fewer rights than men in family matters; their freedom of movement is restricted; and their economic opportunities and rights are limited. Frequently, women’s actions and choices hinges on the permission or wishes of their mahram (i.e. husband or closest male family relative)."
[7] "Women in Saudi Arabia should give their breast milk to male colleagues and acquaintances in order to avoid breaking strict Islamic law forbidding mixing between the sexes, two powerful Saudi clerics have said."