« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | Senate Confirmation Hearings »

No God

A controversial ad campaign by the Toronto-based Freethought Association of Canada has been approved by the TTC to appear on buses and inside subway cars



What would have been the reaction if the next ad says:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."


"There is No god but God and that Muhammad is his Messenger"

Yes - I'm not too sure about this. I rather there be no advertising with any kind of God (no God or pro God) in it.

I love how the discussion is framed by, "Are you offended?"

Go out on the highway by the "Jesus died for you." sign and ask people how many people are offended.

I would sooo love to respond to that query, along with the other religion-inspired signs regarding choice, what I do on Sundays, yadda yadda yadda. Makes me miss charm city, where those things were rare.

Just as a note Citytv is the journalistic equivalent of herpes. They're the only people who're saying these ads are controversial. And they SO want people to get upset about it. They're just aching for it.

That's so awesome. I donated to the atheist bus campaign when they first suggested it in England, thinking that's a great idea, they should do that everywhere in the world. I'm happy it's going to my native land. Now if they'd run it over here in Korea where I'm living I could see it for myself.

As someone born and raised in Toronto (but not currently living there), there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, City TV is a bit of a tabloid news network; some interesting programs, but not serious journalism. Take any poll they conduct with a big grain of salt.

Second, in a city that is bombarded with shameless advertisments; on the streets, public transit, bars and restaurants (even above urinals and in stalls), etc., this should not be deemed on the same level as if it was placed in a one-horse town. From this perspective, it's one of many messages floating around, and by no means the most offensive.

When a media outfit such as City TV is asking this question to people on the street, they are trying to be provocative, and likely frame the question in such a way that it forces people to defend a position they may not necessarily take if unprovoked. In other words, when you pluck out a particular advertisement and place it beneath someone's nose for scrutiny (especially when it's framed as a "controversy"), some are going to react more strongly than they would if they saw it among 100 adds on a crowded subway.

For me, the important question to ask is whether or not such an approach is effective; harmful or hurtful to the cause? Is it cheapening an atheist point of view to be advertising in such a way or is it attempting to normalize a perspective that doesn't get a lot of play? To be sure, the effects are always mixed, though I would hope that any campaign from a society that calls itself the "Free Thinkers" would maintain a commitment to provoking critical thought and inquiry rather than play the evangelical game of simply trying to win converts over to their side. Always a fine line to walk!

well said. all of it. like, the whole thing.

Once again, someone gets it wrong. The TTC spokesman says that Ontario Human Rights Commission says Atheism is 'defined as a creed or religion'.

As my favorite radio personality Lionel says 'If Atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby'.

Damn, I have to erase "Andy O., Aphilatelist" from all my business cards then?

Or abstinence being a form of sex.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives