Religious advertising - is it deceptive?

[tsig]

As I have said before, "Prove god exists!" is a fantastic way to derail and shut down any conversation about any aspect of religion. If that's your goal, this is a perfect way to achieve it.

It only shuts down the discussion if you have no evidence of gods' existence.

I will agree that once you realize that gods are merely constructs of the human imagination then discussing gods' attributes makes as much sense as discussing the attributes of Star Trek characters. Fun but meaningless.

 

[dejudge]

Your arguments on "the lord's" existence are exactly the same as you repeat (and repeat for pages on top of pages) in two other threads in this sub-forum. It is blatantly off-topic in this thread.

Your statement makes no sense.

This thread is about the LORD'S Prayer.

The Lord is a fiction character who never and could not have actually prayed.

The claim that that the Lord prayed is open deception.

It is completely reasonable to remove deceptive ads from every place in the world.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your statement makes no sense.

This thread is about the LORD'S Prayer.

The Lord is a fiction character who never and could not have actually prayed.

The claim that that the Lord prayed is open deception.

It is completely reasonable to remove deceptive ads from every place in the world.

I assume you were furious about the spuds Mackenzie ads!

hey, let's call it the pater noster, and then we are totally solid!

Amen.

 

[Leumas]

It only shuts down the discussion if you have no evidence of gods' existence.

I will agree that once you realize that gods are merely constructs of the human imagination then discussing gods' attributes makes as much sense as discussing the attributes of Star Trek characters. Fun but meaningless.

The Jewish sky daddy and his ill begotten son Jesus have been sitting on their butts for the last two thousand years doing absolutely nothing that I am inclined to imagine them as having become much like Jabba the Hutt by now.

[imgw=300]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Jabba_the_Hutt.png[/imgw]

 

[SusanB-M1]

#3 dejudge

Well said - and of course no god and no heaven!!

 

[Leumas]

False claims are the issue.

Asking people to pray to a fictional character for food, remission of sins and to prevent criminal activity is blatant deception.

There is zero evidence that any actual person called the Lord said such a prayer or asked people to repeat it at anytime.

Examine the Lord's Prayer.



The Lord's prayer is known deception.

1. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" have given or can give anyone "daily bread".

2. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" has forgiven or could ever forgive the sins of anyone.

3. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" has actually prevented anyone from being tempted or delivered anyone from evil.

Religious ads with known unproven claims as found in the Lord's Prayer are completely unacceptable in the 21st century.

Well said!!

 

[The Greater Fool]

Your statement makes no sense.

This thread is about the LORD'S Prayer.

No, it is about the "Lord's Prayer in ADVERTISING" or more generally "Religious Advertising"

Everyone here knows what the Lords Prayer is, and everyone here knows it's proximate origin.

On what rational basis can Religions be prohibited from advertising as long as they stay within the bounds of allowable advertising? Why shouldn't religions be able to advertise their wares?

Specifically, the Lord's Prayer:

1. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" have given or can give anyone "daily bread".

Again: No promise to provide bread is made.

2. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" has forgiven or could ever forgive the sins of anyone.

Again: No promise to forgive sins is made.

3. There is no evidence and never have been any evidence that the "Lord in heaven" has actually prevented anyone from being tempted or delivered anyone from evil.

Again: No promises are made.

The Lord is a fiction. Santa Claus is a fiction. The 'most interesting man in he world' is a fiction. Most characters in advertising are fictions.

 

[dejudge]

No, it is about the "Lord's Prayer in ADVERTISING" or more generally "Religious Advertising"

Everyone here knows what the Lords Prayer is, and everyone here knows it's proximate origin.

Your claim is ESTABLISHED fiction. You don't know the origin of the Lord's Prayer.

Yoy don't know that the Lord did pray what is written in the NT.


It is also deceptive to state in the Lord's Prayer "Our Father which art in heaven" when there is no evidence of such a place.

Religious ads with the Lord's Prayer and other known false claims are deceptive.

There is zero evidence and NEVER EVER have been any evidence of any person in HEAVEN that can help people on earth [except in fiction/myth fables]

 

[The Greater Fool]

Your claim is ESTABLISHED fiction.

My claim is fiction, or the lords prayer is fiction. My claim is accurate, while it is accepted the lords prayer is fiction.

I don't know that the Lord did pray what is written in the NT.

This is not at issue. The source of the Lords Prayer is generally known (the Bible). The Bible is a fiction, so what?

It is also deceptive to statein the Lord's Prayer "Our Father which art in heaven" when there is no evidence of such a place.

So? Fictional places are used in advertising all the time.

Religious ads with the Lord's Prayer and other known false claims are deceptive.

Again, you repeat this claim. Again, the Lord's Prayer makes no claims, no promises. If it made FALSE claims, it would not be permitted.

There is zero evidence and NEVER EVER have been any evidence of any person in HEAVEN that can help people on earth [except in fiction/myth fables]

Again, this is not at issue. Who Cares? There are fictional characters used throughout advertising.

 

[JayUtah]

Your claim is ESTABLISHED fiction. You don't know the origin of the Lord's Prayer.

It is not necessary to know the origin of something in order simply to recite it without deceptive intent or effect.

You don't know that the Lord did pray what is written in the NT.

The ad doesn't represent that he did. It simply recites the text to which some others have attached that title.

It is also deceptive to state in the Lord's Prayer "Our Father which art in heaven" when there is no evidence of such a place.

Is it not therefore also equally deceptive to depict Santa Claus as a fat old man clad in red and white fur (an image we know to have come largely from Thomas Nast's imagination) at his North Pole workshop supervising a team of toy-building elves? There is no evidence of such a person or place or situation. Why should one be allowed but the other not?

The question is not whether the subject matter alluded to in the ad is true. The question is whether it's deceptive in any meaningful way, in its context. Your argument is a string of non sequiturs that simply iterates the well-known unproven nature of religious belief.

Religious ads with the Lord's Prayer and other known false claims are deceptive.

Asked and answered. An ad that simply depicts a recitation of the Lord's prayer is not deceptive in a way that legally constitutes false advertising. I have explained why. If you'd care to address those reasons, then maybe you'd have a case.

There is zero evidence and NEVER EVER have been any evidence of any person in HEAVEN that can help people on earth [except in fiction/myth fables]

That is a true statement. However, it does not give rise to claim of false advertising because a reasonable person would already be well aware that there is no proof for the existence of heaven. A theatrical recitation that presupposes their existence by allusion is not likely to compel a listener to engage in commercial activity that he would otherwise not likely consider. Deceptive advertising is not just whatever you think it is.

 

[Senex]

I believe it's deceptive by definition.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That is a true statement. However, it does not give rise to claim of false advertising because a reasonable person would already be well aware that there is no proof for the existence of heaven.

Reason and religion don't mix.

As for advertising, it promises (by implication at a minimum) that a person will receive a reward in the next life for doing something. The advertisers cannot support that claim.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Reason and religion don't mix.

As for advertising, it promises (by implication at a minimum) that a person will receive a reward in the next life for doing something. The advertisers cannot support that claim.

I'm not seeing such a promise, please point it out:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

 

[Apathia]

Pardon me, where's the advertising? When I clicked on the link, I didn't see any ads. Is it my Firefox ad block?

 

[Leumas]

I'm not seeing such a promise, please point it out:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
...
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
...
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.

It is in the words "Our Father, which art in heaven"...

The Sky Daddy whose will be done and who has the power and glory for ever and ever of course by the fact that he is a Sky DADDY will do what good DADDIES are supposed to do when their children supplicate and beg them for things.

Unless of course he is a deadbeat sky daddy and will send his child to be tortured and killed as a human blood sacrifice to himself to appease himself and forgive a festering grudge against human kind.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's quickly clear up one thing. The title of the thread was chosen by the moderator who split it. The thread discusses a specific ad, which I don't believe to be deceptive. If we expand the discussion to the general case suggested by the (ironically misleading) title, then yes I would agree that some religious advertising is deceptive.

The question of whether religion is deceptive in general (I believe much of it is) is different enough from the legal question of deceptive advertising that there's room for discussion and dissent.

Advertising to which this definition of deception applies is an invitation to a commercial transaction. Deception in that context has to be meaningful deception, meaning that the buyer is persuaded to agree to transact business on the basis of a claim that is knowingly or recklessly false, and whose veracity the prospective buyer would be unlikely to know or ascertain on his own. The common-sense principles of caveat emptor still apply.

"Come attend our church, and God will give you eternal life," is indeed a claim and promise they can't support with evidence. But because it's inherently a supernatural claim, it's not necessarily knowingly or recklessly false. Caveat emptor. Further, it doesn't propose a transaction. While there may be incidental hardships or lifestyle choices that pertain to church attendance, free speech weighs heavier in this case on the side of the speaker rather than on legal consumer protection.

"Pay $1,000 to my church and God will bless you," is another matter. And as commentator John Oliver has noted, this type of advertising is widely allowed in the United States and is fairly deplorable in my opinion. It's in the murky gray area of "voluntary donations," for which no legally actionable promise generally attaches. But I certainly think it's in the spirit of deceptive advertising.

Reason and religion don't mix, which is why reasonable people generally aren't attracted to religion. But the "reasonable person" standard is how we determine whether something has a deceptive effect. A good example of deceptive religious advertisement might be the billboards in California during the Proposition 8 campaign. Claims were made, for example, that homosexuals accounted for more cases of child molestation or other deplorable social ills than their heterosexual counterparts. These claims were at least recklessly false, as was later shown in court. An ordinary reasonable trier of fact would not be expected to know the science or demographic statistics, and but for the deception would not likely vote from animus.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It is in the words "Our Father, which art in heaven"...

The Sky Daddy whose will be done and who has the power and glory for ever and ever of course by the fact that he is a Sky DADDY will do what good DADDIES are supposed to do when their children supplicate and beg them for things.

Unless of course he is a deadbeat sky daddy and will send his child to be tortured and killed as a human blood sacrifice to himself to appease himself and forgive a festering grudge against human kind.

This interpretation is, of course, based on your baggage.

Stick with the text, not your creations.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not seeing such a promise, please point it out:

Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

Seriously? The sky daddy promises all kind of things on a planet that is his "kingdom" and you don't even see an implication? You're either trying too hard or not at all.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Seriously? The sky daddy promises all kind of things on a planet that is his "kingdom" and you don't even see an implication? You're either trying too hard or not at all.

So, not in the text. Gotcha. Only in implications based on outside personal experience.

As I've already said, religion is evil, the world would be a better place without it.

But, in ADVERTISING, don't hold religion to standards you don't hold other advertisers.

 

[JayUtah]

You're either trying too hard or not at all.

That's kind of the point. You aren't deceived by any of that. Deceptive advertising requires the claim to be credible to a reasonable person.