Should we ban religion?

Submitted by Robert Martin on Fri Sep 9th, 10.08am

I saw a video of a segment from the ABC TV show 'The Gruen Transfer' earlier this week. In 'The Pitch' they ask advertising agencies to try and sell the un-sellable, things like, 'child labour', 'invading New Zealand' and 'euthanasing all people over 80'. This week they touched on a particularly sensitive topic, this week their pitch was to 'ban all religion'. The video link can be seen here.

This was an interesting topic and the two agencies tried different approaches, the first was more scientific, 'Let's make religion history' and the second more emotional, 'Lose religion and find each other'.

What I find fascinating is that neither ad agency fulfilled it's brief. The brief was to 'ban' religion, not, 'advocate an alternative perspective' or 'raise awareness for what atheism believes'. The ad brief was to 'ban all religion'. From this perspective, I'd suggest neither agency 'won'.

I also didn't think that either of the approaches were particularly humorous. I'd suggest there could be plenty of ways of making an entertaining and lighthearted dig at 'religion', but both seemed to be sincere and serious and I felt that this missed the point of the segment in trying to 'sell the un-sellable', i.e. respond to hyperbole with hyperbole.

Some agencies refused to pitch for this (the first time for any on the Gruen Transfer). Some people have criticised these agencies for not pitching, but then again, would these same people be criticsing the ad agencies if they refused to pitch for, 'Bash all gay people', or 'Bring back apartheid'? I think some agencies rightly viewed this 'pitch' as a sensitive topic.

Yet the most unfortunate thing about the ads in my view were that they perpetuated myths, prejudices and distortions about religion, i.e. that Jesus is a fairy tale (Let's make religion history) and that religion is the number one cause of war (Lose religion and find each other). I felt they did little to promote a healthy discussion on these most important questions. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, do you think the ads promoted a healthy attitude of discussion on these topics? Did the agencies fail in their brief? Have I missed the humour?

Would love your thoughts.

Comments

"This week they touched on a

Submitted by Emily Sue (not verified) on Fri Sep 9th, 11.04am

"This week they touched on a particularly sensitive topic"

Sorry, you don't think 'child labour' and 'euthanising all people over 80' are sensitive topics??

The brief was not to 'ban religion'. The brief was to make an ad that would convince people that banning religion is the way to go - in that sense they probably fulfilled their brief, in that all advertising aims to manipulate emotion in order to convince people to buy a product or an idea. The first ad aimed at pride/intellect (ie, you're stupid if you still believe in this outdated thing, therefore smart people will want to get rid of it) and the second aimed at fear (banning religion - and notably not just Christianity - will keep your kids safe). I think they were both pretty effective in terms of pitching ads at where the public is most likely to respond.

You're right in saying the ads did little to promote a healthy discussion, but really... did you expect that they would? The earlier ads for euthanising everyone over 80 didn't promote discussion about aged care, either. I'm more than happy to defend my faith when it's being seriously attacked or when people are simply ignorant about it, but I'm not worried about this. This segment of the show is meant to be controversial and shocking, and they ALWAYS play on myths, prejudices and scaremongering for the fake ads. It wasn't exclusive to the 'banning religion' ads, by any means. And in any case they openly say that the segment is where they try to "sell the unsellable"... isn't that a statement that banning religion is NOT 'sellable'; not something the world will ever be able to do?

For the record, I didn't find that segment funny either, but it's not because I'm a Christian; I just thought it wasn't particularly funny or clever.

Thanks for your post

Submitted by Loud&Clear (not verified) on Fri Sep 9th, 11.07pm

Hi Robert,

I'm from Loud&Clear, one of the agencies who took part in the pitch this past week (we produced the first ad). We came across your post on Twitter and thought we'd briefly share our thoughts in response.

The first thing to note is that the other agencies didn't refuse the pitch on grounds of faith or principle. They didn't take part purely for commercial reasons, and the risk that some of their clients might take offense to their participation. Of course, we also discussed this question at Loud&Clear, and decided that it was a good opportunity to demonstrate our agency's ability to advertise challenging topics. Advertising is not just about selling chocolate and breakfast cereal after all - sometimes there are broader ideas to communicate.

We knew the topic would attract some controversy, however first and foremost our ad (and the entire segment) is intended to be insightful and entertaining. It's a segment about selling the unsellable, and is a chance for agencies to demonstrate some of the techniques we use every day -- the insight comes from the application of those common advertising techniques to scenarios that are obviously absurd. In our case, we used a style that you often see used for things like health insurance or home loans. It wasn't meant to be funny, although there is of course a latent humour in seeing such a ludicrous idea advertised with such conviction.

I think drawing parallels between religion (which 64% of Australians think is a good idea) and gay-bashing/apartheid (which virtually no-one endorses) is of dubious value. People of faith aren't a persecuted minority in this country - if anything, religion is an institutionalised majority. And if there was ever a serious attempt in Australia to try to ban religion, you would expect that most rational people, regardless of what they believed, would be opposed to it.

We've read lots of posts about the ad -- both from the people who want to pay to put it on air for real, and from people like yourself who feel compelled to add their rebuttal. To me, the ad is simply a piece of nonsense, in which a very long bow is drawn in 35 seconds, complete with the Titanic sailing backwards into an iceberg. What's interesting to me is how making such an absurd topic look visually wonderful, adding bouncy music and a non-threatening voiceover somehow makes it all more meaningful, more real, and worthy of engaging with. And that, I guess, is the point of advertising, and of course, precisely why The Pitch is so interesting each week.

Thanks for your post, it was a really interesting perspective.

Cheers, Ben

Thanks for your clarification

Submitted by Robert Martin on Mon Sep 12th, 9.08am

Ben,

Many thanks for your comments, clarifications and reflections on your ad. Your contribution is most welcome.

Thanks for clarifying the reasons for other agencies participating in the contest and I certainly respect your decision to demonstrate Loud and Clear as able to communicate challenging topics. I did think both ads were visually appealing, professional and creative.

Thanks for explaining your rationale for the tone of the ad. I understand your rationale a little better now. I can see you weren't trying to get belly laughs, whereas my concept of selling religion using hyperbole, may have been funny, but would not have demonstrated the techniques used every day in advertising.

Yet, I think you've also nailed one of the areas which I'm still wrestling with and (and Emily Sue also picked up in her correct criticism of my post). It's to do with the topic. I recognise that there would be very few people in our society who would advocate child labour, or bashing gays or invading New Zealand. Yet my concern is how enthusiastically how some groups, notably the Atheist Foundation of Australia (where I stumbled across the ad in the first place) have endorsed the ads and telling everyone to 'share share share, make this go viral'. It seems as though these groups in society really do want to move people in a direction of 'banning' religion. They don't seem to be opposed to the brief originally given. I don't see too many groups advocating child labour saying, 'share share share, make this go viral'. I was wondering if you had any further reflections on that?

Do you also have any further reflections on my criticisms of whether you failed to fulfil the brief? I suggested that both agencies failed, and I still maintain this. If, for example, the brief was to 'ban live animal exports', I don't imagine we'd end up with ads like the ones produced for the 'ban religion' (maybe I'm wrong on this?). I would assume an ad advocating live animal exports would place a little more urgency on the dangers of live animal exports and then a big stamp at the end saying something like, 'Let's ban it', 'or 'ban it now, before more cows die'. I would have suggested this type of ad would be more in keeping with the genre of 'Let's ban it'. Just wondering what you think?

Finally, I wonder if you'd consider thinking of ways to 'pitch' our organisation, 'City Bible Forum', to a broader audience? Some may also consider this trying to sell the unsellable! We would be very grateful for any thoughts you might have!! ;-)

Many thanks again for your contribution and clarification, it is very valuable.

Robert

Get some perspective, Rob.

Submitted by Mike K. (not verified) on Tue Sep 13th, 5.51am

I'm a Kiwi. I get the point of 'The Pitch', and I can say while the ads advocating invading New Zealand were stupid and patronising, given that the situation of selling the un-sellable is nonsense, I can laugh.

Like you with these atheist ads, I saw the invade ads shared and plastered out of that context which was a bit annoying but I understand why it happened. To Australians, that ad is funny.

This tells me you don't understand that fact:
-----"notably the Atheist Foundation of Australia (where I stumbled across the ad in the first place) have endorsed the ads and telling everyone to 'share share share, make this go viral'."

And:
-----"It seems as though these groups in society really do want to move people in a direction of 'banning' religion."

To the perspective of atheists, the ads were funny and for 30 seconds of content quite clever. It's no secret that atheist organisations what to see a societal shift towards secularism, you have to have your head buried in the sand to think atheists honestly want to ban religion.

Firstly, atheist organisations are unanimously "CIVIL LIBERTIES FIRST", and think the idea of banning belief or thought to be egregious. Secondly, if you wanted to get rid of religion, banning would be the stupidest way to do it. What worse way to deflate religion by validating its delusional belief that its oppressed.

---They don't seem to be opposed to the brief originally given.
The brief is ridiculous. We needn't point that out.

---I don't see too many groups advocating child labour saying, 'share share share, make this go viral'. I was wondering if you had any further reflections on that?
How many child labour groups are over there in Australia.

From an outsiders perspective of this post, you just seem to be whining to me.

Persepctive

Submitted by Robert Martin on Tue Sep 13th, 9.27am

Mike,

Thanks for your response. Gaining perspective on this topic is something I've been wrestling with over the last few days since I saw the segment. At one level I see that this designed to be humorous and not to be taken seriously. But at the same time I see a number of atheist groups taking it very seriously, particularly with the call to 'share share share, make it go viral'.

I agree with you that atheist organisations want to see a societal shift towards atheism, but this was not the brief given to the 'Pitch'. This was the end result of the ads which were made, but my point was that they failed in their brief. The brief was 'religion be banned'. Part of my reflection on this has been that the original brief was unsellable, but the ad companies ended up trying to sell something that is indeed sellable (and it seems many are buying!).

I'd also be careful before advocating the unanimity of atheist organisations advocating 'Civil Liberties First', this has patently not been the case in many communist countries (Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam etc). Many Christians have lost their lives here at the hands of atheistic regimes.

I apologise if my post sounded like whining. I'm trying to bring some reflections on modern trends in our culture.

Couple of things.

Submitted by Mike K. (not verified) on Wed Sep 14th, 4.25am

--- "But at the same time I see a number of atheist groups taking it very seriously, particularly with the call to 'share share share, make it go viral'."

It's no different to how suddenly one day, there was copies of the 'Invade New Zealand' ads, and I don't for a second think Australians actually want to, or are endorsing that message. It's just fun. To the atheist perspective the 'Ban Religion' ads, which were mocked up for a comedy show, aren't to be taken seriously. Like I said, we would not achieve our secular goals by banning religion. To us, such a ban is un-secular, because thought crime is a staple of fascistic dictatorships, and no one wants that.

--- "The brief was 'religion be banned'."
No, the brief, as always on that segment, is to sell the un-sellable. The aim was to make the idea of banning religion, in this absurdity, appealing - an impossible task.

--- "I'd also be careful before advocating the unanimity of atheist organisations advocating 'Civil Liberties First', this has patently not been the case in many communist countries"
I didn't say communist countries, I said atheist organisations, and meant, I thought obviously, those advocacy groups in our secular, first world countries.

Also, North Korea isn't atheist. The "Dear Leader" is worshipped as a godking and the reincarnation of his dead father. Besides I'm pretty sure we've discussed that what was wrong with these communist countries is not their atheism, but they're too much like religion, from hero worship to the equivalent to death for blasphemy. I dear say we wouldn't be worried about a wild outbreak of secularism to cut down millions in it's path.

--- "I apologise if my post sounded like whining. I'm trying to bring some reflections on modern trends in our culture."
This doesn't have anything to do with modern trends in our culture, it was an ever-deliberate controversial segment of a comedy show. If your post was about how South Park does to many anti-religious episodes, you might have a claim to make but these were just ads made deliberately difficult to achieve their goals.

Also since when has Vietnam

Submitted by Mike K. (not verified) on Wed Sep 14th, 4.46am

Also since when has Vietnam been atheist?
And when was China last officially atheist? I think that was around the 50's wasn't it?
And have you ever actually read about the atheisticness of the old Soviet Union? Russia has freedom of religion, as does China and Vietnam, the only one of the four that doesn't is North Korea which has an institutionalised religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union#Policy_toward_...

Thanks for your comments

Submitted by Robert Martin on Wed Sep 21st, 11.32am

Mike,

Thanks for your comments. I apologise it's taken a while to get back to you, but I've been unwell for the past week. You raise many interesting questions about the relationship between atheism and communism. We haven't got time or space to properly discuss these issues here, though I think this is useful fodder for future blog posts.

An interesting read on this issue is Peter Hitchens' recent book, "The Rage against God". I'd be interested in hearing your reactions to that book.

Thanks again,

Robert

Rage against God

Submitted by Mike K. (not verified) on Sun Sep 25th, 11.07pm

Have you seen the debate between Peter and Christopher? I've heard the premise of Peter's book and it's not impressive. That Christianity is what granted the west it's philosophy of rights and freedoms, tolerance and value of education, and so forth. It sounds a lot like he's completely over looking the enlightenment.

--------"You raise many interesting questions about the relationship between atheism and communism. We haven't got time or space to properly discuss these issues here, though I think this is useful fodder for future blog posts."

What would you say?

"Communists are atheists. Communism is bad, therefore atheism is (indirectly) bad."

That tends to be how religious people view communism but I mean look at me employing the same logic:

"Theocratic rulers are theists. Theocracy is bad, therefore theists are (indirectly) bad."

That's of course ignoring the fact that the world has never actually seen real communism, rather it saw tyranny in the form of Stalinism. But really, atheism does not and can not motivate people towards communism or any other political cause, it's just an answer to a yes/no question. Rather it's the philosophy an atheist adopts regarding how people should interact that can motivate one towards communism or any other political cause.

You'll be hard pressed to find atheists in New Zealand and Australia who don't hold humanistic philosophy. So I think your fear of atheistic communism is a bit unfounded.

Communism and atheism

Submitted by Robert Martin on Wed Oct 5th, 10.15am

Mike,

Thanks again for your comments and whilst we haven't the time to go into these details now, I'd suggest that your reflections on communism and atheism are overly simplistic.

I would suggest that atheism is at the heart of a communist worldview i.e. rejection of God and the suggestion that humanity can somehow form a 'utopia' on earth. I think this overly values the 'goodness' of humanity. Related to this I'm interested in how you separate the 'tyranny' from Stalin from 'communism'? How do you neatly separate the two? I'm not sure this can be so easily done. Militant atheism was at the heart of Stalin's regime. This particular manifestation of communism found in Eastern Europe (and to a lesser extent in China, North Korea, Vietnam etc today) actively opposed 'God' (this is the Rage against God Hitchens describes in his book). Atheism wasn't incidental to these regimes, but at the heart of it.

I'd be careful again before suggesting that a fear of atheistic communism is unfounded.

Thanks again (and sorry it took a while to get back to you, but I've been away at a training course).

Talk soon,

Robert

--I would suggest that

Submitted by Mike K (not verified) on Thu Nov 3rd, 5.06am

--I would suggest that atheism is at the heart of a communist worldview i.e. rejection of God and the suggestion that humanity can somehow form a 'utopia' on earth.

It's got a lot more to do with the latter. If you read Marx or Lenin, virtually all they talked about was society and how it needed to be, basically, regulated. What they did not do, page after page, was carry on about the existence of god.

---I think this overly values the 'goodness' of humanity.

Possibly. I'm no advocate of communism, but then again the distant alternative, grovelling to a cosmic tyrant and giving all sense over to theologians is worse.

---Related to this I'm interested in how you separate the 'tyranny' from Stalin from 'communism'? How do you neatly separate the two?

Given that communism is about sharing wealth and resources, I don't think anyone can say Stalin did a good job at instating communism considering how much his government bled the country. Stalinism was more that the common man share his wealth and resources, not with his fellow but with Stalin.

---Militant atheism was at the heart of Stalin's regime.

Atheist militancy is an oxymoron. You're not motivated by negative or lack of beliefs, you're motivated by positive beliefs. You might be able to make the case that anti-theism can be militant, but not atheism.

---and to a lesser extent in China, North Korea, Vietnam etc today

You really don't know what it's like over there today then do you?

---Atheism wasn't incidental to these regimes, but at the heart of it.

Even if that were the case, it still doesn't mean anything. Atheism is not a position that will take you to communism. It can't take you anywhere because it is absent of any inherent values or attitudes. It cannot inform humanitarian actions any more than murders.

By the way, North Korea has

Submitted by Mike K (not verified) on Thu Nov 3rd, 6.03am

By the way, North Korea has an enforced religion, belief in Kim Jong Ill being the reincarnation of his father and that he is infallible.

That's not atheism, that's straight up religious sectarianism.