Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...UK: Anti-Gay ad violated standards
12.03.2008 4:47pm EST
(London) Britain’s advertising watchdog has banned the re-publication of an ad that condemns homosexuality.
The Advertising Standards Authority said the ad violated its industry standards by vilifying gays.The ad had been placed in the daily New Letter, a Belfast publication, and bore the headline: “The Word Of God Against Sodomy.”
The ad was sponsored by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church and appeared days before Belfast’s Gay Pride parade.
Below the headline, the ad stated: “The act of sodomy is a grave offence to every Bible believer who, in accepting the pure message of God’s precious word, express the mind of God by declaring it to be an abomination.”
In a response to an investigation by the ASA the church said that it could not be held responsible “if readers were offended by the message of the Bible.”
The News Letter told the ASA that it was aware the ad was likely to be controversial but agreed to publish it on the basis of free speech.
In its ruling, the ASA said that the ad went too far and many readers were likely to find it unacceptable. The ASA ruled that the ad should not appear again in its current form.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church pastor Rev David McIlveen, however, is not repenting.
McIlveen said the ruling was “setting a very dangerous precedent.”
“By determining that portions of the Bible have breached advertising standards on decency the ASA is taking the view that the printing and publishing of certain biblical texts is indecent,” he said in a reply to the ASA.
“This is an offence to every Bible believer.”
McIlveen also rejected an ASA recommendation that it seek regulatory approval before publishing future ads.
Regardless of whether you think that they should be able to publish that ad, you’re buying into the church’s propaganda and view of the events if you think the issue was just the Bible verses. I’d be willing to wager that the ASA’s decision had more to do with the other content in the ad, or at least the combination, rather than that the ad published certain Bible verses.
I mean note how they describe their views as representing “all Bible believers” – clearly this is a more extreme church.
Probably I would support their right to publish this ad – but don’t buy their BS that the ASA is banning Bible verses. We don’t know the exact content of the ad, so at least withhold judgment on that.
No, their ad is an offense before God because all the millions of gay Christians already have it hard. However, at least in America, the Religious Right can publish what they want. But they have to be willing to suffer the vilification of those who differ with them and they don’t need to even holler. Remember the demonstrations after the Prop 8 brainwashing that caused human rights to flounder in California, at least temporarily. They have a right to be wrong.
On another note, no one is stopping them from making their own fliers and saying whatever they want–as long as it does not end up on my doorstep, in the form of a public newspaper, so my child can see such hate when he innocently picks it up. It would take many months to undo the damage. As a free person, I have a right to expect my government to take logical steps to prevent that. I would similarly object to pornographic images or violent imagery (in words) that my child can read appearing in a paper box on the corner…
censoredagain, that tired argument about left ideology=blah blah is based on logical fallacy and I’d love to hear you try and logically defend this attempt by the right to, on one hand, villify the left’s use of thought/logic, and on the other, condemn it by the ol’ “what you say is what you are” juvenile bull. Intolerance for intimidation and reactionary explosions of incendiary dismissal of respect for others. Basically the right (and you) are trying to say accuse the left of “intolerance for intolerance.” I (laughably) think that is straight out of Gulliver’s Travels…
Let’s put it this way: if an extreme Muslim group had advertised in favor of honour killing, and then gave its number for “advice” (i.e., who to call if you need it done to your daughter), would we question its inappropriateness?
censoredagain and neil comment about freedom of speech, but the problems with this ad are related to a law akin to hate-speech, which is similar to not screaming fire in a theatre. It is also simply I violation in the same manner that they also do not allow pornographic writing in a widely accessible publication. If the church had published the part of the Bible about stoning your daughter, this would have been also viewed as dangerous and “against the law.’ And it would have been more “obvious” to everybody, including homophobes. Only the misogynists would have complained then.
I think we should put together an ad and have it published in a national paper, listing all the hate found in the bible. I say we just list all of the passages that tell us to kill our family members for adultery, lying, stealing, etc. To make it even better we can make a tally of the number of times the bible directs us to kill for each offense and see where being gay comes up against the rest. I think it would end up something like dozens for each offense, and 2 or 3 against gays. Maybe then people will see the hatred of the church for what it really is. I truly do think this would be a great ad.