Poster campaign in 110 bus shelters launched

Arcus Arrow

<H2 style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; COLOR: #333; FONT-SIZE: 18px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal">Iona launches 'religion is good for you' campaign

A new advertising campaign, the first of its kind, has been launched to promote the fact that religion is good for you. The campaign, launched by the Iona Institute, will run on 110 bus shelters all over Dublin with the message: "Here's a little science. The practice of religion is good for you."
</H2>

(I don't know why that keeps coming up in bold)

Yes folks, in other countries Humanist groups are putting ads on buses but in Ireland it's the Catholic front men.

Dades

The HAI ran a poster campaign last year.

See thread here.

philologos

Fair play to the IONA Institute. From what I have understood, the IONA Institute are doing this as a display of the benefits of religious practice in general based on psychological research.

Here's Patricia Casey's paper.

Rev Hellfire

If you dislike their message put your hand in your pocket and get an alternative one displayed.

iUseVi

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If you dislike their message put your hand in your pocket and get an alternative one displayed.

Yeah...thats practical. An average individual can afford to fund a poster campaign on bus stops, one of the more expensive spots...right.

seanybiker

Big swinging dicky. Who cares? Leave em do what they want.

philologos

I don't see what the issue is if it is actually true.

Arcus Arrow

Dades wrote: »

The HAI ran a poster campaign last year.

See thread here.

I know Dades, I'm a member. That's what happens when things are decided by committees. They sit down to design their own racehorse and they end up with a two humped camel.

When you have a budget of two million and ads running for different issues every month then you have one about judges taking the oath. When there is not one case of a prospective judge about to face the issue you don't feck away half the funds of the organisaion telling people about the problem especially when they don't give a crap.

Whao....it's Friday........beer time!

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what the issue is if it is actually true.

I can just see you there with a big grin on your face as you write this. Do you have your popcorn prepared? I know I do.

philologos

If you think about it iUseVi, the claim isn't saying that Christianity is true, rather it is about the impact that such faith has in an adherent. This could be still a delusion of grandeur. As your atheism could be.

What really matters is whether or not Christianity is true, and the central claim is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That has nothing to do with benefits, although interesting to find out about.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

If you think about it iUseVi, the claim isn't saying that Christianity is true, rather it is about the impact that such faith has in an adherent. This could be still a delusion of grandeur. As your atheism could be.

What really matters is whether or not Christianity is true, and the central claim is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. That has nothing to do with benefits, although interesting to find out about.

(Just to clarify the ad has nothing to do with Christianity. Its sponsored by IONA which also defends Muslims and other religious people etc too. This is about religion in general.)

I don't want to get into a big argument about how religions are a bad effect on the world. I just don't have the time. But yes, I think this is entirely different to saying for example "Here's a little science. The practice of cricket is good for you."

I think religion is almost entirely bad for the world. But I'm not going to argue about this. I was just making a small joke.

PeterIanStaker

Let them at it. I'll pay no more attention to it than I'd pay to an ad for shaving foam or something. I also think you'll find the Iona crowd are conservative Catholics, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6888989.ece,

The Iona institute and its reactionary homophobic mouthpiece David Quinn must be stuck for ideas if their resorting to this.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see what the issue is if it is actually true.

I don't think it was good for 3000 New Yorkers some 9 years ago or an awful lot of children

Herbal Deity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Casey

No bias there at all.

Also:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0330/1224267344763.html

Iona Institute director David Quinn said that “nothing like it has ever taken place in Ireland, or anywhere else that we know of. Its aim is to present a positive image of religion”.

He added: “Religion has a very negative image at present. The campaign was first conceived four years ago when books like The God Delusion were best-sellers. We wanted to counter this negativity by pointing to the evidence that, on the whole, religious practice is beneficial both for individuals and for society.”

So essentially, the Iona institute commissioned a report with the aim of presenting evidence for religion being beneficial.

This is incredibly bad science.

Undergod

Just add a poster of your own over it: "But it doesn't make it true."

PeterIanStaker

We wanted to counter this negativity by pointing to the evidence that, on the whole, religious practice is beneficial both for individuals and for society.”

hmmm. . . what about, I dunno, all them, like, wars and sh!t?

iUseVi

Undergod wrote: »

Just add a poster of your own over it: "But it doesn't make it true."

OR: "Here's a little science. Sex is good for you."

PeterIanStaker

iUseVi wrote: »

OR: "Here's a little science. Sex is good for you."

The Iona shower probably never get laid. It's all starting to make sense. If they got their end away now and again, they wouldnt be such whiners?

Slugs

Patricia Casey - A practising Roman Catholic and Psychiatrist. Wasn't April Fools day yesterday? o.O

PeterIanStaker

Agreed, she'd be right at home in the Deep South.

philologos

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The Iona institute and its reactionary homophobic mouthpiece David Quinn must be stuck for ideas if their resorting to this.

This is an unwarranted and unfair jump.

Regarding homosexual acts as immoral != homophobic.
Indeed, one can do this and not have an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair play to the IONA Institute. From what I have understood, the IONA Institute are doing this as a display of the benefits of religious practice in general based on psychological research. Here's Patricia Casey's paper.

That's not a scientific paper, that's a rather silly propaganda piece -- quite apart from frightfully one-sided presentation of the psychological literature, genuine scientists don't spend so much money on (some rather elegant) graphic design. More on that from last year.

bleg

Here's some science.

Drinking on Good Friday is good for you.

PeterIanStaker

Jakkass wrote: »

This is an unwarranted and unfair jump.

Regarding homosexual acts as immoral != homophobic.
Indeed, one can do this and not have an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals.

Being obsessed with what consenting adults get up to in private, but covering up centuries of child abuse = moral or immoral?

philologos

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Being obsessed with what consenting adults get up to in private, but covering up centuries of child abuse = moral or immoral?

Are you accusing Quinn of covering up child abuse?

You accused Quinn of being homophobic, for having moral disagreement with homosexual acts.

In reality, this isn't homophobic, in the same way that just because someone dislikes another smoking isn't any form of hatred or fear against smokers.

PeterIanStaker

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you accusing Quinn of covering up child abuse?

You accused Quinn of being homophobic, for not having moral disagreement with homosexual acts.

In reality, this isn't homophobic, in the same way that just because someone dislikes another smoking isn't any form of hatred or fear against smokers.

I'm accusing the RCC of covering it up which they did. Quinn is merely one of their propagandists. Being morally opposed to homosexuality is one of the hallmarks of conservative right - wing christians.

philologos

We were discussing Quinn, not the RCC. I still think it's way too far a leap to call him 'homophobic' though without abusing the term. Moral opposition to homosexual acts is a feature of mainstream Christianity which argues that the place of sexuality is within marriage. On the Christianity forum there is a discussion about it at the minute.

PeterIanStaker

I wouldn't waste my bandwith on the christianity forum. Now, I'm getting a beer and watching King Kong.
Slán

livingtargets

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you accusing Quinn of covering up child abuse?

You accused Quinn of being homophobic, for not having moral disagreement with homosexual acts.

In reality, this isn't homophobic, in the same way that just because someone dislikes another smoking isn't any form of hatred or fear against smokers.

Yeah,because people choose to be gay.:rolleyes:

So if Quinn can`t be classed as "homophobic",should I just go right ahead and call him a "bigoted jesus-freak who`s part of a rotting stone-age paedophile ring whos days are(thankfully)near an end"?

Him and his type are nothing more than jihadists and the sooner the final nail is put into their coffin,the better.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you accusing Quinn of covering up child abuse?

Is that seriously how you read that or were you just being obtuse?

Dades

@ livingtargets - less of the vitriol.

That's an official request.

aidan24326

Herbal Deity wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Casey

No bias there at all.

Also:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0330/1224267344763.html


So essentially, the Iona institute commissioned a report with the aim of presenting evidence for religion being beneficial.

This is incredibly bad science.

Comissioning Patricia Casey (a right-wing conservative catholic) to produce that report was like asking Benjamin Netanyahu to produce a report on whether the lands of Israel should be handed over to the muslims. There was only going to be one outcome.

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

We were discussing Quinn, not the RCC. I still think it's way too far a leap to call him 'homophobic' though without abusing the term.

I disagree, every second article he writes for the Indo seems to be bashing the gays and anyone else who doesn't fit into his incredibly narrow conservative Catholic worldview.

I was quite amused actually that the Iona Institute poster on one of the 10 stops near Baggot Street is on a rotation with a Bank of Ireland ad for the Leinster rugby team... I know which religion I'd go for :pac:

Karl Hungus

Jakkass wrote: »

Regarding homosexual acts as immoral != homophobic.
Indeed, one can do this and not have an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals.

I'd argue that regarding homosexuality as immoral is homophobic. To hold the belief that the sexuality of a homosexual person is somehow morally reprehensible is that such a person is doing something wrong by virtue of being themselves. Stealing is an immoral act, murder and rape are also immoral, and to believe homosexuality is wrong is to lump it with other such immoral acts. To consider what two consenting adults do to express their sexuality as wrong, a crime, or immoral, is a pretty big indication of homophobia in my book.

I think a person could no more believe homosexuality is immoral and not be homophobic, than a person could hold the belief that other races are somehow inferior without being racist. The belief that someone is doing something wrong, or being wrong, by virtue of simply being themselves, something that they have no choice over (their sexuality, or their skin colour) is exactly what gives rise to hatred and bigotry. Cut it any way you like, argue that the Christian standpoint is that sexuality belongs solely within marriage, or put whatever other spin you'd like on it, the belief that homosexuality is immoral is a bigoted one as far as I'm concerned.

ChocolateSauce

I wouldn't be surprised at all if her findings are true- isn't it reasonable to assume that someone on opium would have fewer worries than a sober person?

Furthermore, belonging to a sometimes hated and usually misunderstood minority like atheists could understandably lead to some members of that minority being secluded, marginalised and discriminated against, which would have a negative impact on their happiness and mental health. Studies have shown homosexuals suffer these problems for exactly those reasons, so it's realistic that atheists on average aren't as happy as theists for similar ones (I'd be willing to bet a lot that atheists in majority atheist countries like France and The Czech Republic aren't less happy).

philologos

Karl Hungus: Do you not think it is possible to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them?

Or even a disagreement in general. For example, if disagreement was a legitimate grounds for hatred, surely all Christians could be said to "hate" atheists because they disagree with their position, and vice versa.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Karl Hungus: Do you not think it is possible to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them?

Or even a disagreement in general. For example, if disagreement was a legitimate grounds for hatred, surely all Christians could be said to "hate" atheists because they disagree with their position, and vice versa.

Of course it is possible/permissable to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them.

But the crucial difference is where one side makes the other's moral beliefs illegal and punishable by law. That is where the 'hate', or at least 'intolerance' comes in. And that is where it becomes unacceptable.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Of course it is possible/permissable to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them.

Thank you for your honesty.

drkpower wrote: »

But the crucial difference is where one side makes the other's moral beliefs illegal and punishable by law. That is where the 'hate', or at least 'intolerance' comes in. And that is where it becomes unacceptable.

Indeed, but who is calling for homosexuality to be illegal by law?

Morality, and law are two different things. Many things which can be considered immoral, aren't punishable by law.

Antbert

Argh ffs Jakkass. You start with a post I kind of agree with (I don't think there's anything more wrong with the advertising campaign than the one for some anti-aging cream that claims to use "gene technology". I disagree with both. I disagree that this cream actually alters your DNA, and the claim annoys me. Likewise I disagree that religion is good for you, and it annoys me. But I won't make any more of a fuss over this one than the age one) then you go and ruin it all with the homophobic thing.

But, before the homophobia part, they can claim whatever they want. It's no different to atheists having that "there's probably no god so stop worrying" slogan. Freedom of speech etc.

The content however... Urgh.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

Karl Hungus: Do you not think it is possible to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them?

Or even a disagreement in general. For example, if disagreement was a legitimate grounds for hatred, surely all Christians could be said to "hate" atheists because they disagree with their position, and vice versa.

"You're a homosexual. As a Christian, I love you despite your immoral acts and unclean thoughts, and I have pity for you, and hope you will see the light"

"You're black. As a white man, I will do you courtesy, despite your natural inferiority, and I have pity for you, and hope that in heaven god will not do you the disservice of keeping you black".

Neither said with hate, both disgusting.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

"You're a homosexual. As a Christian, I love you despite your immoral acts and unclean thoughts, and I have pity for you, and hope you will see the light"

Interesting. How do you think I maintain friendship with people who are of LGBT orientation?

I hope that all people I see and meet with will eventually come to know God. How do you think I do this out of hatred? I genuinely want people I come to know to live the very best lives that they can, and I genuinely want my friends to be saved. Is that hatred?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

"You're black. As a white man, I will do you courtesy, despite your natural inferiority, and I have pity for you, and hope that in heaven god will not do you the disservice of keeping you black".

This is a strawman, and it also makes assumptions concerning how sexuality is determined that we cannot currently make scientifically.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Karl Hungus: Do you not think it is possible to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them?

Or even a disagreement in general. For example, if disagreement was a legitimate grounds for hatred, surely all Christians could be said to "hate" atheists because they disagree with their position, and vice versa.

Well you see there's a problem because atheistic morality and Christian morality are fundamentally different. Christian morality largely derives from scripture and can be open to interpretation leading to academic disagreements. Atheist morality is not derived from divine scripture and therefore has to be based upon the physical world. Atheistic systems of ethics such as humanism tend to be focussed on harm prevention and therefore anyone who carries out immoral acts by extension is causing harm to another person. Anyone who wilfully causes harm to another individual is not somebody I can respect.

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting. How do you think I maintain friendship with people who are of LGBT orientation?

Pity? How nice of you.

I hope that all people I see and meet with will eventually come to know God. How do you think I do this out of hatred? I genuinely want people I come to know to live the very best lives that they can, and I genuinely want my friends to be saved. Is that hatred?

As he said before, a statement can be unpleasant and not be hate-filled.

This is a strawman, and it also makes assumptions concerning how sexuality is determined that we cannot currently make scientifically.

It is not a strawman. It's a perfectly valid analogy. Of course, it only isn't if you insist that being gay is a choice.

Karl Hungus

Jakkass wrote: »

Karl Hungus: Do you not think it is possible to have a moral disagreement with someone without hating, despising or fearing them?

Or even a disagreement in general. For example, if disagreement was a legitimate grounds for hatred, surely all Christians could be said to "hate" atheists because they disagree with their position, and vice versa.

Having a moral disagreement with someone and believing someone is immoral simply for who they are, are totally and completely different things entirely. The belief that homosexuality is an abomination as the bible says is a basis of hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals. You cannot dress that up as a "moral disagreement" and expect me to take such a question seriously, it's completely side-stepping my point.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, but who is calling for homosexuality to be illegal by law?.

There are many, as I am sure you know!

And calling for homosexuality to be a reason for unequal treatment by law (ie. refusal of certain rights to homosexual couples) is, in essence, the same thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

Morality, and law are two different things. Many things which can be considered immoral, aren't punishable by law.

Of course; and to the average homosexual who is non-Catholic/a non-believer, they will hopefully ignore the views of those who consider homosexuality immoral. But if a homosexual is a Catholic, the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is immoral and will result in eternal damnation (or whatever other punishment) is akin to it being illegal; at least in the eyes of their Church, which presumably to some, is extremely important. That has real effects on their lives. And that is equally reprehensible.

philologos

Antbert wrote: »

Pity? How nice of you.

Why would I pity anyone for this? I don't believe I am superior to anyone else. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say this about me without really knowing me Antbert

Antbert wrote: »

As he said before, a statement can be unpleasant and not be hate-filled.

I don't see what is unpleasant about holding a disagreement with someone. I don't regard someone's disagreement with Christianity as "unpleasant", despite it's importance to me. Likewise, I hope you wouldn't regard someone's disagreement with atheism as "unpleasant".

It's life, people disagree with each other on a variety of issues.

Antbert wrote: »

It is not a strawman. It's a perfectly valid analogy. Of course, it only isn't if you insist that being gay is a choice.

It also includes an assumption. I don't insist on anything, personally. I don't know about whether or not sexuality is determined.

Antbert

Anyway Jakkass, wouldn't you prefer that homosexuality was illegal? That way it would act as a deterrant to all those naughty people choosing to be gay, and then they mightn't be dammed to hell? You'd only be acting in their own interest.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Of course; and to the average homosexual who is non-Catholic/a non-believer, they will hopefully ignore the views of those who consider homosexuality immoral. But if a homosexual is a Catholic, the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is immoral and will result in eternal damnation (or whatever other punishment) is akin to it being illegal; at least in the eyes of their Church, which presumably to some, is extremely important. That has real effects on their lives. And that is equally reprehensible.

I wouldn't regard salvation as being dependant on works. I can sympathise with that situation, and I do admit that people can have inappropriate intentions when sharing their beliefs with other people. However, this doesn't change the moral status of certain actions.

People need to learn to be more compassionate and respectful of other peoples circumstances rather than forcing their viewpoint on other people. Naturally, people need to think about Christianity for themselves.

Antbert: No, I wouldn't prefer it. I'd rather that people accepted Christianity based on their own free choice rather than being coerced into doing so. I'd prefer if Christianity informed society, rather than controlled it.

Antbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would I pity anyone for this? I don't believe I am superior to anyone else. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say this about me without really knowing me Antbert

Well you asked how we thought you could maintain friendships with GLB people. I was suggesting it as a reason. Although I think (and hope) it's more likely that you just don't let it interfere. In the same way that I'm friends with people who are religious, even though I don't like religion.

I don't see what is unpleasant about holding a disagreement with someone. I don't regard someone's disagreement with Christianity as "unpleasant", despite it's importance to me. Likewise, I hope you wouldn't regard someone's disagreement with atheism as "unpleasant".

I don't find disagreement unpleasant necessarily. I do however find your attitude to homosexuals unpleasant, in the same way as the analogy to black people alluded.

It also includes an assumption. I don't insist on anything, personally. I don't know about whether or not sexuality is determined.

OK, so you don't assume that it's a choice. If you don't know that it's a choice, how can you see it as immoral?

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't regard salvation as being dependant on works. I can sympathise with that situation, and I do admit that people can have inappropriate intentions when sharing their beliefs with other people. However, this doesn't change the moral status of certain actions.

Are you suggesting that Church teaching is that homosexuals (who perform homosexual acts) will not sufffer some kind of divine punishment if they do not mend their ways?

PeterIanStaker

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd prefer if Christianity informed society, rather than controlled it.

Unfortunately, it has been the other way around, for far far too long now.