Latest:

19:52 Gunners keep pace at the top
19:32 England retain Calcutta Cup
19:02 Gillick disqualified in Doha
18:22 Bulls maintain 100% start
17:22 Blues battle back to draw
17:22 Wolves claim three-point haul
17:22 Villa held in Stoke stalemate
17:22 Chelsea go top after Hammers triumph

Humanist poster stirs up religious storm

By Lesley-Anne Henry
Thursday, 19 November 2009

A passer-by walks past the giant humanist poster in Belfast city centre yesterday

enlarge

Bookmark & Share

What are these?

The war of words between atheists and religious believers has entered a new chapter with the launch of Northern Ireland’s first ever humanist advertising campaign.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) yesterday unveiled a billboard with the slogan “Please Don't Label Me. Let Me Grow Up And Choose For Myself” on one Belfast’s busiest routes.

It’s a follow-up to its atheist buses campaign that ran earlier this year in parts of the UK.

The giant poster, at the junction of Great Victoria Street and Bruce Street, shows a photograph of a young girl against the backdrop of “shadowy” descriptions such as Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh.

Organisers said the descriptions were mixed in with other labels that people would “never apply” to young children like Marxist, anarchist, socialist, libertarian or humanist. They argue that children should be given the freedom to decide for themselves which, if any, ideology they follow.

However, religious leaders across Northern Ireland have hit out at the BHA, accusing the organisation of arrogance and hypocrisy.

Reverend David McIlveen from the Free Presbyterian Church said: “It is none of their business how people bring up their children. It is the height of arrogance that the BHA would even assume to tell people not to instruct their children in the religion.

“I would totally reject the advertisement. It is reprehensible and so typical of the hypocrisy of the British Humanist Association today. They have a defeatist attitude and are just trying to draw attention to themselves. I think it is totally arrogant, presumptuous and sparks of total hypocrisy. I believe this doesn’t deserve a counter campaign. I will be expressing my public position on it in my own church on Sunday. I will be saying that this advert is another attack on the Biblical position of the family and will be totally rejecting it.

“It is a wasted campaign that will have no impact on family life in Northern Ireland.”

Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.”

The BHA said the billboards were being unveiled to coincide with Universal Children's Day on Friday.

Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins, BHA vice president, said: “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a “Marxist child”, an “anarchist child” or a “post-modernist child”.

“Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions and our adverts will help to do that.”

Dean of Belfast Dr Houston McElvey said the humanist poster would have little impact on Christian believers.

“I am glad to live in a society where people have the right to express their point of view on a God in which I believe doesn’t need defending,” he said.

Fr Gary Donegan, from Holy Cross in north Belfast, said he hoped the campaign would open up debate on religious issues.

“One positive thing that could come from this is if it opens a debate on faith. I am not offended by it, but perhaps the money used for it could have been channelled better into a humanitarian cause.”

Comments

First |
Previous
1
2
3
4
5
Next
| Last

96 Comments

Belfast Humanist: If you think sectarianism is THE issue then I'm afraid you simply don't understand your history. Religious denomination is merely a hook, like names, ethnicity, allegiances, language (whether you say aitch or haitch in our instance), what team you support, what area you live in (whether you live at the top or bottom of the Falls Rd or Shankill as well as whether you are from the West or North) to hang our differences upon. There were no riots about transubstantiation, the number of books in the bible or how you numbered the commandments. It's all a bit more complex.

Posted by Shug | 28.11.09, 13:39 GMT

What is even more important than the 'labelling' is letting the child decide for him or herself which, if any, faith they wish to adopt. As it is, one's religion is about 99% an accident of birth: if one is born into a Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian family, then in almost all cases that's how one will be brought up, and therefore in most cases what one will grow up as. That's not fair on the child - they should get NO religious instruction, but when they are old enough they can learn about all religions, and the non-faith based alternatives such as humanism.

Posted by Glengormley Humanist | 27.11.09, 21:30 GMT

It is not surprising that the more extreme the views, the more anatagonistic the response is. Very recent events, such as the latest report on child abuse, show exactly why there should not be faith schools- the faith and the hierarchy come first, the children last.

Posted by david s oldfield | 27.11.09, 15:39 GMT

The BHA poster is particularly relevant to NI as it represents an appeal to people not to label children, which is exactly what they do when they insist on religiously segregated schools. Why must our children be segregated into different schools throughout their formative years? It is no better than racial segregation and it perpetuates sectarian tribal antagonism.

N Ireland is divided on sectarian lines. That tribal mindset has cost many people their lives and has left a legacy of bitterness. Our best hope for recovery is to end segregation in schools and try to foster good relations from the start. The old tribal ways, as led by SF and DUP, will only lead us back into the mire.

Posted by Belfast Humanist | 27.11.09, 11:19 GMT

In The Name Of The Fada: 'I'm beginning to think you havent read a single Humanist/Atheist account from any of the celebrated new atheists if that's all you can muster' All three examples are from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion but I have heard the same things and many more from Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Meyers, Gerry Coyne et al. After reading the God Delusion I was actually scundered for Dawkins; his thinking and knowledge about religion hadn't progressed further than the sixth form.

Posted by Shug | 26.11.09, 09:45 GMT

I can't speak for other parents, but my children receive plenty of religious instruction in school as per the Northern Ireland curriculum. So in answer to Colin, it is untrue to say 'religion is deprived from the child'. Although it is true to say, thanks to the short-sighted curriculum, that only Christianity is taught in our primary schools, unlike England where other faiths are discussed at an early age.

My children are just children - Too young to decide about religion, too young to decide who their best friend is, or even their favourite colour or TV programme.

Let our children grow up. By all means tell them your beliefs, but at least expose them to other faiths and beliefs and please let them make their own minds up.

Posted by Steve | 25.11.09, 21:10 GMT

Oh by the way. Well done Colin. What an astounding logic you possess. Proud of you.

Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 16:57 GMT

No Shug that doesnt speak volumes about my anti religious bias, it's just that people on faceless comment forums tend to be economical with the truth and as I didn't know and it wasnt mentioned in this particular article it is not out of order to ask where you got your informatgion from. Those 3 examples of 'facts' are highly laughable Shug, I'm beginning to think you havent read a single Humanist/Atheist account from any of the celebrated new atheists if that's all you can muster (I do realise you are being facetious in your examples) perhaps you should engage your brain and think for yourself, even though you are an adult it is not too late rather than dismiss what they have to say without even reading it. Have you read their reading Shug?
You have a some cheek Shug to accuse anyone of being a little confused dont you think?

Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 16:49 GMT

By giving a child instruction in religion, gives them the choice to adhere to what they have been taught or to reject what they have been taught when they grow up.

If they are not given religious instruction, their parents have made their choice already for them.

Do atheists let their children decide if they want to go to school or not? - No!

Do they give their child the responsibility of deciding if they want sweets or the family meal for dinner? - No!

Do they let their children decide if they want to go to Church or not on Sunday? - this is not an option as religion is deprived from the child and the label of "atheist child" is branded on them by the parent.

Posted by Colin | 25.11.09, 15:44 GMT

‘People advertise for products and campaigns they dont necessarily believe in all the time.’ That would be adults. I thought your concern was to allow children to grow up and make up their own minds? Or does the fact that they were paid cancel out their right to grow up and make up their own mind? You seem a little confused on the issue.
I fail to see how those parents have sacrificed their Christian beliefs not that that has any relevence to the discussion.

Posted by Shug | 25.11.09, 14:31 GMT

That the children were of parents who are devout Pentecostal Christians was widely reported. Check Times Online or the Telegraph. It is interesting that your first reaction seemed to suggest that you thought I was making it up. I think that speaks very loudly of your apparent anti religious bias. ‘They present the facts about religion…’ is quite frankly a laughable assertion. Do you mean ‘facts’ like, ‘Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews’, ‘The Catholic Church tortured Galileo’ or the classic, ‘The Troubles were caused by religion’.

Posted by Shug | 25.11.09, 14:28 GMT

Also Shug, if the children in the campaign are indeed the children of 'devout Pentecostal Christians' (it's amazing how you found this out) and their parents are those who obviously sign the consent forms would that not make these devout Christians hypocrites of the highest order for accepting monetary gain while sacrificing their devout Christian beliefs? And you call the BHA hypocritical! Fantastic

Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 09:54 GMT

Can you provide a source to your revelation about the faith of these children and their parents Shug? Because without that source your statement sounds very much like 'straw manning'. I am aware of the writings of a lot of the 'new atheists' (a term that is used by the religious types to discredit rational thought) and their writings on the whole show religion for what it is. They present the facts about religion and it is up to people who read these facts to take them on board and decide what their stance is in regard to religion, that is the whole point, they encourage people to think for themselves, something that religion isnt known for. Also if the Children are professional models for ad campaigns and getting paid then what is the problem? People advertise for products and campaigns they dont necessarily believe in all the time. Straw clutching at its finest Shug. Well done

Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 25.11.09, 09:50 GMT

Reverend David McIlveen sounds like a priest frightened that his flock might wake up to find out they've been had.

Posted by Graham | 24.11.09, 16:46 GMT

In The Name OF The Fada - As it turns out the children's images were from a model agency, and wouldn't you know it they happen to be the children of devout Pentecostal Christians. The point, which you seem to have missed, was that the BHA at no time sought the consent of the children; they didn't allow them to 'Grow Up And Choose For Myself' whether they wanted to be associated with their campaign.
“It seems you are attempting to paint the picture that those nasty atheists have photographed them in a nasty underhanded way.” A poor attempt at straw manning my argument. I was merely highlighting the ineptitude/hypocrisy of the BHA and to point out that this is merely a further (veiled) attack upon the rights of religious parents to bring up their children as they see fit. If one is aware of the writings, lectures, articles, videos etc of the main players of the new atheists then the conclusion that they want to rid the world of religion is inescapable, and their tactics become clear

Posted by Shug | 24.11.09, 16:04 GMT

Shug I think you'll find that the children in this campaign are likely to be child models who through an agency will be the subjects for many different campaigns, all above board with parental conscent and no doubt if the children didnt want to take part they wouldnt have. It seems you are attempting to paint the picture that those nasty atheists have photographed them in a nasty underhanded way. As per, folks like you have missed the point of the campaign: to quote "
it is about removing or restricting the rights of parents, specifically religious parents". Nonsense! The actual ad reads “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, with background watermarks saying “Catholic child,” “Protestant child,” and “Atheist child”. As you see it includes atheism, so the message of the ad is to let a child think for itself and not to indoctrinate it into anything INCLUDING atheism. Somewhere in that rant you have missed the point. Not entirely surprising I have to admit

Posted by In The Name OF The Fada | 24.11.09, 14:36 GMT

I wonder did the children used in this advertisement give their free and informed consent for their images to be used in the promotion of an atheist agenda. And isn't it somewhat ironic to use an advertising campaign to promote free thought? This campaign represents the naive idealism of the sixth form coupled with the insidious motivation of 'new atheism'. Despite the protestations of Dawkins and others that this is simply about removing labels (labels which almost no one uses in everyday life) it is about removing or restricting the rights of parents, specifically religious parents, to bring their children up with the beliefs and values that they hold dear. One only has to pay attention to the writings and pronouncements of the leading lights of the new atheist movement, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Hitchins, PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne, Peter Singer et al to recognise that the only free thought they are interested in is materialist, reductionist atheism.

Posted by Shug | 24.11.09, 12:22 GMT

Lesley-Anne. It's not giant, it's large

Posted by Blootered | 22.11.09, 13:48 GMT

"Funny, I thought the USSR, like Nazi Germany, was heavily in to its "youth groups". But then, what happened to the humanist USSR?
"

It collapsed because, like religion, it was simple-minded enough to teach children WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.

Posted by shaun | 22.11.09, 00:12 GMT

school RE lessons were unimaginative and ultimately christianity at school has been substandard rote or suspension of disbelief. However any advertising by the BHA is dangerous. What hope or message do these people convey? None what so ever. They just want to play devil's advocate. All form of imagery and advertising is just propaganda. Remember that. Switch off your TV, don't believe policitians and you will soon realise the fog that is "modern" society is just a soup of confusion.

Posted by Greg | 21.11.09, 19:44 GMT