Censorship or Righteous Upholding of Freedom?

Headhuunter

What does everyone think of this? Is it censorship? On the one hand, Stonewall is able to plaster its view across the side of a bus and on the other a christian group of some kins is not.

Apparently the christian groups ad suggests that homosexuality is an illness and can be cured. Personally I do not believe this (obviously!) and do not believe "cure" is a vey healthy direction to head in, however should the christian group be able to express their views in a free society?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/tran ... 42779.html

rick_chasey

Isn't the issue that they're on buses?

They can put them on their own vehicles if they really care that much.

It's a pretty awful thing they're advertising though.

asprilla

Ewelyn Beatrice Hall was right.

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the issue that they're on buses?

They can put them on their own vehicles if they really care that much.

It's a pretty awful thing they're advertising though.

But couldn't they just as easily say that Stonewall should put their message on their own vehicles too?

Ben6899

The Stonewall message is one of tolerance and acceptance whereas the Christian group's message is one of quite the opposite.

That's the key as far as I am concerned.

cyclingprop

Isn't the difference that Stonewall's message is positive of an often discriminated part of society, whereas the other likens the same society to a disease, something that can be "cured"?

rjsterry

Wondered if this might get picked up. Apparently they were produced in direct response to some Stonewall bus adverts - they use a similar design and slogan ("Some people are gay - get over it" IIRC) to the Stonewall posters.

From what I've read, the evidence that such "therapy" works at all is extremely shaky. Even the report quoted by the christian group only shows a slight change in the sexual preferences of the subjects; those undergoing the study were rated on a scale of 0 (straight) to 6 (gay) for their preferences, and I think some reported a small shift down the scale. The methodology for the study has holes you could drive a (Stonewall advertising) bus through. So, the advertising is pretty misleading even within its own context. Even if you (were daft enough to) accept that homosexuality is an illness, the therapy hasn't been shown to be effective at anything like the standard that, say, the NHS would require. That's before you get to the negative effect of describing a significant section of society as "ill". The Stonewall posters, in contrast, give a positive message of acceptance, regardless of one's personal beliefs: you don't have to like it, just accept that some people, at the very least, believe themselves to be gay*.

*in as much as any of us can categorically prove our sexual orientation either way.

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Isn't the issue that they're on buses?

They can put them on their own vehicles if they really care that much.

It's a pretty awful thing they're advertising though.

But couldn't they just as easily say that Stonewall should put their message on their own vehicles too?

Yeah but theirs is an inclusive message on public transport (which, by definition, is inclusive).

I read the comment article in the guardian about it (quelle surprise) which argues that the campaign took their cue from the stonewall campaign.

Makes sense - I'm not sure what the stonewall campaign achieves.

Ultimately, you can't have a message on one of the iconic symbols of London, run by TfL that is homophobic.

That's the short of it.

veronese68

Ben6899 wrote:

The Stonewall message is one of tolerance and acceptance whereas the Christian group's message is one of quite the opposite.

That's the key as far as I am concerned.

This and all the other similar posts have got it. I support preaching tolerance, I don't support preaching intolerance.

Santa cruzing

We all seem on the same side of this one.....shame Boardmanslippygrip666 isn't here any more to give his view...

Headhuunter

Yeah that seems tio be the key then, you can express any view as long at expresses tolerance rather than segregation...

Who's Boardmanslippygrip666? Don't think I've ever come across him and I've been visiting these pages since late 2008!

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

Yeah that seems tio be the key then, you can express any view as long at expresses tolerance rather than segregation...

Who's Boardmanslippygrip666? Don't think I've ever come across him and I've been visiting these pages since late 2008!

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12846099&start=60

Pay attention - it's even on the first page .



I think, personally, you can say whatever you want - just not necessarily on the back of public transport.

roger_merriman

TFL probably took the view that a lot of people would not like the adverts, are a company, took the view that it wasn't worth it. much like I suspect they don't take BNP adverts etc.

Drfabulous0

More religious groups preaching hatred, I'm glad they don't allow this sort of thing on buses and I'm not sure that it is acceptable to advertise such beliefs anywhere.

rjsterry

Interesting critique of Stonewall's original campaign here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/13/anti-gay-christian-adverstising

Paul E

The two adverts might look similar but that's where it ends, as has been said before, one simply states a fact, that fact is not going to go away so it's asking for more people to accept that some people are born differently.

The other promotes hate in the form of preaching that being gay is an illness/disease that can be "cured". That's only one step away from the cr@p the nazi's were practising when they were in power.

I am glad they were prevented by tfl from having them on their buses.

notsoblue

Paul E wrote:

The two adverts might look similar but that's where it ends, as has been said before, one simply states a fact, that fact is not going to go away so it's asking for more people to accept that some people are born differently.

The other promotes hate in the form of preaching that being gay is an illness/disease that can be "cured". That's only one step away from the cr@p the nazi's were practising when they were in power.

I am glad they were prevented by tfl from having them on their buses.

+1, I think this is a clear cut case. Not allowing the campaign is the obvious thing to do.

The problem with the christians behind the anti-gay ad is that they think god is on their side.

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

The problem with the christians behind the anti-gay ad is that they think god is on their side.

It's lamentable, isn't it?

rjsterry

Paul E wrote:

The two adverts might look similar but that's where it ends, as has been said before, one simply states a fact, that fact is not going to go away so it's asking for more people to accept that some people are born differently.

The other promotes hate in the form of preaching that being gay is an illness/disease that can be "cured". That's only one step away from the cr@p the nazi's were practising when they were in power.

I am glad they were prevented by tfl from having them on their buses.

Well, that's just it. They don't believe it is a fact. And unfortunately, whilst I and many others disagree with them and accept it as fact, I'm not sure what proof 'we' have.

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yeah that seems tio be the key then, you can express any view as long at expresses tolerance rather than segregation...

Who's Boardmanslippygrip666? Don't think I've ever come across him and I've been visiting these pages since late 2008!

viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12846099&start=60

Pay attention - it's even on the first page .



I think, personally, you can say whatever you want - just not necessarily on the back of public transport.

Wow I missed that! TBH whoever he is/was he just seems like some teen messing around on the net...

singleton

As a christian myself - a proper, full-on, bible believing, 6 day creation type of christian - I didn't like the slogan myself and I don't think it does anything to encourage people to seek after the God who loves them.

Ben6899

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

<facepalm> You can't leave this one alone can you?

shouldbeinbed

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

maybe they were the ones God selected to go to paradise early and the act of raising a Tsunami actually got them there more easily than 1:1 intervention would have done?

I'm happily atheist and think that the whole religion/all seeing God thing was just a clever way of the landed elite introducing CCTV to control the masses thousands of years before it arrived through technological means.


as for the OP. agree with the sentiment that this appears to be way more pejorative and denigrating peoples innate nature than the Stonewall campaign of basically saying live and let live.

bunter

Singleton wrote:

As a christian myself - a proper, full-on, bible believing, 6 day creation type of christian - I didn't like the slogan myself and I don't think it does anything to encourage people to seek after the God who loves them.

Bible believing? But which bit is correct?

The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness - Gal 5:22 - The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury - Judg 15:14- 1 Sam 18:10,11

No man is without sin - 1 Kings 8:46-Prov 20:9- Eccl 7:20- Rom 3:10 -Christians are sinless - 1 John 3: 9,6,8

God is just and impartial - Ps 92:15- Gen 18:25- Deut 32:4- Rom 2:11- Ezek 18:25 - God is unjust and partial - Gen 9:25-Ex 20:5- Rom 9:11-13- Matt 13:12

God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things - Prov 15:3- Ps 139:7-10- Job 34:22,21 - God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all - things - Gen 11:5- Gen 18:20,21- Gen 3:8

Christ laid down his life for his friends -John 15:13- John 10:11 - Christ laid down his life for his enemies - Rom 5:10

God dwells in light - Tim 6:16 - God dwells in darkness - 1 Kings 8:12- Ps 18:11- Ps 97:2

Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world - Prov 11:31 - Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world - Rev 20:12- Matt 16:27- 2 Cor 5:10

Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing - Mark 10:29,30- Ps 37:25- Ps 112:1,3- Job 22:23,24- - Prov 15:6 - Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward - Luke 6:20,24- Matt 6:19,21-Luke 16:22- Matt 19:24- - Luke 6:24

Children are punished for the sins of the parents - Ex 20:5 - Children are not punished for the sins of the parents -Ezek 18:20

Moses was a very meek man - Num 12:3 - Moses was a very cruel man -Num 31:15,17

God is to be found by those who seek him - Matt 7:8- Prov 8:17 - God is not to be found by those who seek him - Prov 1:28

A man may marry his brother's widow -Deut 25:5 - A man may not marry his brother's widow - Lev 20:21

God's anger is fierce and endures long -Num 32:13- Num 25:4- Jer 17:4 - God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute - Ps 103:8- Ps 30:5

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

This is an old argument. In fact, I believe it was the 1755 tsunami/earthquake in Portugal which originally triggered a kind of re-assessment of God, and led to the "deity" view of God - as one who behaves like a clock-maker - rather than the full on micro-manager - the kind of view most of us recognise today. It's considered one of THE moments that changed spiritual thinking, along with the holocaust. There's a slightly rubbish Wikipedia entry on it.

Paul E

The bible is a nice collection of stories and hearsay and that's it, created in 6 days, what a load of total rubbish (I would use stronger words but this forum is almost as controlling as most religions)

So it says the earth and it's contents were created in 6 days, well science has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the earth (and entire universe) is a lot lot older than the bible says and that evolution took place over millions of years and that we did not spring from two people but evolved gradually from apes (I know shocking isn't it), nice story but not true in the slightest. How anyone in the modern world can still beleive that is staggering.

Flame me if you want but the facts stand up for themselves and I don't want to hear the good old "oh you can't prove he doesn't exist cr@p"

Rant over, sorry.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

<facepalm> You can't leave this one alone can you?

It's the first time in ages, mate. I'm entitled to ask questions.

In all fairness, I don't think it warrants a <facepalm>.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This god who loves everyone... is this the same god who killed all the Japanese folk, with the tsunami, last year?

This is an old argument. In fact, I believe it was the 1755 tsunami/earthquake in Portugal which originally triggered a kind of re-assessment of God, and led to the "deity" view of God - as one who behaves like a clock-maker - rather than the full on micro-manager - the kind of view most of us recognise today. It's considered one of THE moments that changed spiritual thinking, along with the holocaust. There's a slightly rubbish Wikipedia entry on it.

Rick. Take your pick of any natural disaster that developed into tragedy and massive loss of life and I think there's perfectly sound reasoning for questioning just how much "he" loves us all down here on his little hobby planet.

He has a better hit-rate than Bush, Bin Laden and Hussein put together.

cyclingprop

Ben6899 wrote:

Take your pick of any natural disaster that developed into tragedy and I think there's perfectly sound reasoning for questioning just how much "he" loves us all down here on his little hobby planet.

Steps reforming. That's a tragedy.

BillyMansell

The religionist's case isn't helped by this sort of utter rubbish by George Carey;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/14/christians-persecuted-archbishop-canterbury-carey

In the four employment cases cited, two relate to clear discrimination and all four relate to breaches of employment contract. No case was brought in the grounds of the people's religions and to claim so just shows their sheer level of ignorance to their behaviour and intolerance to people who are different from, yet equal to, themselves.