'No God' campaign draws complaint

Thankfully, we haven't had problems like this with the Freedom From Religion Foundation's (FFRF's) similar campaign in the United States. Well, there was one case of censorship in a town in California, and there was a lot of public outrage over the censorship. Now the case is going to court and the good town of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. is in for a major shellacking, methinks.

Nice that we have that whole freedom of speech clause in our Constitution - it even works for atheists :)
 
quixotecoyote said:
Do you suppose it will be a problem for the FFRF that nowhere in their complaint do they spell out what the town specifically did?
Click to expand...

If it becomes a problem, it certainly won't be a major one. The complaint seems reasonable but they should have been more specific on what "defendant's actions" were.

Worst case scenario, the court asks the FRFF to reword the complaint. No big deal.
 
Last edited:
Christian Voice = Stephen Green (as far as I can see)

He creates a controversy, so the media love him. However, they never report his views on gay people, because, you know, that might lead people to believe he is a crank and there is really no controversy at all.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
So you really, really are a Real British Lawyer then? It will be the End of the World as We Know it? :scared:
Click to expand...

LOL I wish, however given the Queens full title

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith

And technically all judges are appointed in her name....What hope has an athiest in such a court
 
I doubt it will go anywhere simple because how will they show that the “false advertising” did any harm.
Perhaps things are different in jolly ole England but if you don’t falsely get money from someone via the false advertising then it’s only a free speech issue.
If I put up a billboard that says I’m the worlds best looking man it’s just free speech and me being an anus.
If I said send me 19.95 that would be false.
 
kedo1981 said:
I doubt it will go anywhere simple because how will they show that the “false advertising” did any harm.
Perhaps things are different in jolly ole England but if you don’t falsely get money from someone via the false advertising then it’s only a free speech issue.
If I put up a billboard that says I’m the worlds best looking man it’s just free speech and me being an anus.
If I said send me 19.95 that would be false.
Click to expand...

Actually, even then it wouldn't. "Best looking" is inherently subjective and thus a matter of opinion. You'd have to claim something like "the world's tallest man, available for personal appearances for a fee."
 
MG1962 said:
Because the British government already offically acknowledges the existence of God through the existence of the State religion, Church Of England. The Queen is the head of both the British government and the titular leader of the faith.

For the court to rule against the existence of God, is to rule itself out of existence
Click to expand...
Why does the courtroom scene from _Miracle on 34th Street_ come to mind?

:popcorn1

CT
 
MG1962 said:
LOL I wish, however given the Queens full title

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith

And technically all judges are appointed in her name....What hope has an athiest in such a court
Click to expand...

Well, I, for one have always been treated fairly. No. Wait. I can only claim that as an atheist I was treated fairly. :rolleyes:
 
Stephen Green and Hanne Stimpson were answering some phone-in questions on BBC Radio FiveLive last night around 23:30. It wasn't long enough really, but Hanne did not try to say too much. Stephen Green must have made those people who sort of support his views wince; he certainly made me cringe, but I did not turn the radio off because I wanted to hear what listeners, and of course Hanne, said.

From what I have heard, the slogan is being talked of world-wide. The Christian view (I think it was on BBC MBs) seemed to be that they thought it should have been more definitive, but I think they have struck just the right note - neither agressive nor dogmatic, but fairly laid back and casually cool.

The many (Radio 4) programmes about Charles Darwin will have added to the widening discussions on Humanism, non-belief etc. Well, I really hope so anyway.
 
MG1962 said:
Yes and pay legal fees to lawyers for a case you ARE going to loose
Click to expand...

you seem awfully confused about what the ASA is and what the regulatory framework is.

You also seem awfully confused about the status of atheist and theist philosophies in the British legal systems.
 
The ultimate irony is the total fecklessness of the atheist ad campaign.

Probably no God.

It's like they stuck in probably to satisfy agnostics and nitpickers. Rather than project confidence.

Because no one is going to be lured away from religion by being told to "enjoy life".

Think about it.
 
It's ironic that God will go easier on the atheists than He will on this guy because he's in the wrong Christian sect.


Ah, well.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
The ultimate irony is the total fecklessness of the atheist ad campaign.

Probably no God.

It's like they stuck in probably to satisfy agnostics and nitpickers. Rather than project confidence.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're missing some of the context. Firstly, by using 'probably' it means that they are not going to have to prove the absolute absence of god; ads in the UK have to be "Legal, decent, honest and truthful". Secondly, it refers to a very well known ad campaign, in the UK, for Carlsberg lager which has the tag line, "Probably the best lager in the world". This has been running since 1973, and was voiced originally by Orson Welles, and the adverts have a generally humorous flavour. It is part of British culture; just about everyone recognises it, and I suspect the word "probably" was very deliberately chosen in the atheist ads. If Carlsberg can imply they are the best lager without having to justify it by use of "probably" for 35 years, it should be easy to uphold its use in a case when there is little or no evidence to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom