Humorous Australian Show Gets Ad Agencies to Promote Banning of Religion

What does it say about religion that they were all terrified of displeasing it?

I’d narrowly vote for #1, although I think the second one highlighting the violence done in the name of religion is important.  However, my own non-belief is more tied to the lunacy of clinging to primitive belief systems, which the first ad captured.

The reason I support 2 is that the add was about banning religion. If you are going
to ban something you have to show the harm it does.  Astrology for example is
totally obsolete but that is not an argument for banning it.  The second add
speaks of the harm caused by religion which is a better reason to ban something
than just the fact that it is not true. 

The Gruen Transfer is the best show on TV here in Australia. The basic format is ad creators discussing how various products are sold, leavened by a typically robust Aussie humour. As such, it is an excellent promoter of critical thinking. This is from (I think) season 4, and I am honestly bewildered by the fact that it has never been picked up in other reasons as it is very popular and must cost buttons to make.

The title is interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruen_transfer

We* want to make religion an irrelevant** pastime, like Civil War re-enactment or badminton. No one is out there trying to ban knitting.

*Obviously, I speak only for myself, though I think most Gnus would agree.
**Irrelevant to the public at large and to government and public policy. We don’t care how relevant it is to individuals (except maybe when it comes to forcing children to participate…).

@twitter-24143444:disqus – “atheist” describes anyone who does not subscribe to any organized religion’s idea of God.
Atheists can be rational or not, scientifically minded or not, and can be varying degrees of passiveness or assertiveness in their non-belief.
Hemant is a “friendly atheist” – he is active, but he picks his battles and takes the approach that we’re not getting anywhere if our representatives come off as confrontational assholes. Believe me, there are plenty of confrontational asshole atheists and for them I apologize, but understand that most atheists become active or confrontational or assholic at the same point you would – when they feel someone else’s religion encroach on their lives.
Personally, I think any faith based thinking is dangerous. To accept anything on faith is to deny every other possibility. Someone asking you to accept something without evidence is trying to sell you something. The current Republican stance that science is a liberal opinion that should be rejected by right thinking Americans is downright terrifying. A world without superstition would go a long way to solve a lot of the world’s other problems.
Despite all that, I am absolutely 100% AGAINST banning religion. No one changes beliefs because of duress, indeed, that usually strengthens it as many religions have found when trying to ban other religions. Free thought is why I love this country and the attacks that certain religions make against free thought are a big part of why I have issues with religion. People should be free to worship as they like but understand where their faith ends and science begins; and that religious belief cannot be taught as science nor used to base medical policy on.

“No one had a problem when we wanted to bring back child labor, invade New Zealand, or euthanize everyone over eighty, but this idea scared people.”  This right here speaks volumes.    I liked number one best, but thought they were both well done.  I’m with rlrose328- how can we get these on the air??

You make a very compelling argument for the #2 ad.  Thinking about it that way, it is the better of the 2.

You can’t. Last year one ad agency did a really great ad about climate change, but it wasn’t allowed to be broadcast other than in the show because the ad itself became property of the broadcaster, which is itself government funded.

Indeed! It’s always frustrated me that someone religious can get special treatment under various countries’ job codes. Someone who declares themselves as Christian for example can guarantee themselves Sundays off, even over someone who has more senority than them. Anything declared as religious clothing by an established religion pretty much HAS to be allowed, even if it means the employee can’t wear the uniform or meet the dress code that everyone else is subject to.

These are not anti-discrimination laws. They’re special, preferential treatment. :

Why ban religion? Why not simply relegate it to the  same kettle of fish as ‘believing that elvis is still alive’ and ‘believing ufo/alien abductions really happen’ … you know, the kind of thing that normal people snicker at openly and give people that ‘OMG your a lunatic” look when they profess belief in gods.

teen 1: Why is your sister so weird?
teen 2: it’s nothing, just that … she believes in god

comic: My wife is crazy. No, I mean really crazy. She believes in god crazy badumpba

coworker 1: That guy in accounting is so creepy
coworker 2: Yeah, I know, he believes in god

Define miracle: An act or event that was destined to happen but is blamed as the result of the actions of an invisible friend. In short order, miracles will be the things that get little johnny spanked when mom gets home.

I think that scripture from the holy texts should be advertised in bold signs. You know, some of those passages about slavery over a picture of a basketball game, or stoning unruly children over the picture of a hospital delivery room, or stoning adulterers over a picture of a couple at a restaurant. Perhaps even a passage or two where god orders genocide written over a picture of Rwandan violence, or maybe the passage about those who eat shellfish over a picture of sea food.

The holy books all have crap like this in them and should be enough to make everyone think. Having to vehemently defend your holy text will put you off of believing in it. Most people won’t do things if they are too difficult.

How about a big sign that says
‘God is love’ – Leviticus 25:44-46

There are  literally hundreds more…

This right here speaks volumes.

I’m a regular watcher of this brilliant show, and it’s interesting to see how different agencies interpret the Pitch.

Most of the Pitches are flatly ridiculous, like invading New Zealand, and the agencies treat it with all the seriousness the idea deserves. It’s rare for an agency to take the Pitch seriously. When it does, it’s often brilliant.

This Pitch was slightly different, because neither campaign was clearly tongue-in-cheek, or clearly highlighting a serious issue. It definitely wasn’t up to the usual standard, and I suspect it couldn’t have been. The more experienced agencies who refused probably spotted the problem a mile away: you couldn’t make a joke out of the brief, and you couldn’t take it seriously either.

And, I should add – the ABC is much beloved by Australians and seen as having (for the most part) a very high standard of journalism. TGT is a bloody good show!

I want religion to go the way of the dinosaur.  I want humanity to move beyond belief in gods or mystical forces that shape our fate.  I think it’s past time we grew up and took some responsibility for our actions instead of looking to a god or gods to fix things.

I would wholeheartedly support a campaign of education and enlightenment whose aim was to rid the world of religion.  I would not support one that sought to restrict people’s freedom to practice things that I consider anachronistic and foolish.

Getting rid of religion and allowing people the freedom to practice their religions are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Hi, I’m from Loud and Clear, the agency in Melbourne that created the first ad in the segment.  It’s been interesting reading all the comment and discussion (good and bad) – it was definitely a challenging brief.

More than anything, the segment is about advertising technique, and it’s amazing how even the most way-out ideas can somehow seem almost reasonable when you present them with nice looking visuals, bouncy music and a trustworthy sounding voiceover.  That’s really what the show is about.

Thanks again for all the feedback.  http://www.loudclear.com.au

Even if they wanted to, I’m not sure that atheists could get rid of religion.  Even in anti-religious communist countries, there were (are) people who held onto their religious beliefs.  In China and Cuba, there are thousands of Christians.  You cannot ban religion — although you can ban religious activities.

That is both untrue and a false analogy even if it were true.

The ban was NOT specifically targeting Muslims – as I said in the original post. It was specifically targeting people wearing face coverings. The ban was made for security and societal reasons – it is being banned for the same reasons that balaclavas are banned in the same situations. 

Facial masks are not being banned because some coverings are Islamic, the Islamic (and other religious) face coverings are being banned because they are facial masks.

It strikes me that because Muslims made the biggest outcry against it you have automatically assumed that it was done to spite Muslims, which is – of course – utterly illogical. It is also worth pointing out that even if this was inspired by the terrorist attacks done by a group of Muslims, it would still not be specifically targeting Muslims: if it had been a non-Muslim group wearing another form of mask, then the law would be exactly the same, and therefore this cannot (by definition) be a prejudiced law against Muslims. What any Muslim who protests against the law is doing, is demanding religious privilege.

As for the analogy, well, a better one would be anti-gay people claiming that banning all marriage isn’t discriminatory because no-one would then be allowed to marry anybody.

And in that case, the hypothetical anti-gay people would actually be spot on. (Of course, no anti-gay person would ever say that…)

If you don’t see why your analogy is so flawed: in your analogy, ‘marriage’ has to take the place of ‘face coverings’. In the French ban against masks, all masks are outlawed. In your analogy, not all marriages are outlawed.

If other groups were allowed to wear facial masks, and Muslims weren’t – then (and only then) would the analogy be valid.

You will pry my needles out of my cold, dead hands!

… 

…

Okay, I’ll bite.First you’d have to show that these adverts were being done by people who were anti-religious for it to be an own goal. (If you watched the clip, then you’d know it wasn’t…) 

Then you’d have to show that people with anti-religious views must actually want to ban religion for it to be an own goal. (Just to help you, I’m arguably anti-religious, and I don’t want to ban it…)

Then you’d have to get past the fact that you’ve just committed a fallacy of the guilt by association variety.

Apart from all that… you’re completely correct!

I’d be just happy with religious organizations losing their tax exempt status so they get to be on the same level as fortune tellers.

.. and so they can openly endorse political candidates. 

So what you are essentially saying is that because it is considered an unsellable idea, everything about it must necessarily be bad?

I’m sure trying to ban paedophilia in the Catholic Church (not that they are the only church to indulge in it…) would be unsellable to most of the priests, too

…

Sorry, that was probably a low blow.

The point is, though, that even though in a certain climate of people something can’t be sold, it still says nothing about that idea’s worth. Trying to persuade people that the world was round, and orbiting the sun would have been an unsellable idea in the long distance past.

It’s still a fallacy of Guilt by Association you’re committing, btw.