Print
Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry
by Guardian
Thanks to John Turner for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/12/asa.advertising
Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry
Mark Sweney
A TV ad campaign featuring lingerie-clad women praying for beautiful hair has been banned by the advertising watchdog because it might offend Christians.
The series of three TV ads, created by ad agency TBWA Manchester for beauty firm ghd, had an overall religious theme using the strapline "Ghd. A new religion for hair".
Ghd's ads showed scantily-clad women in various positions, such as lying on a bed, while looking upwards with their hands clasped as if in prayer. Some had objects that looked like votive candles and rosary beads.
Viewers could hear the thoughts of each of the women, in various languages including English, which centred on having great hair.
One woman was thinking "May my new curls make her feel choked with jealousy", while another was saying to herself "May my flirty flicks puncture the heart of every man I see". At the end of each ad an endline ran: "Thy will be done".
The Advertising Standards Authority received a total of 23 complaints, including one from the Archdeacon of Liverpool, objecting that the ads were offensive to the Christian faith.
The complaints particularly highlighted the use of the phrase from the Lord's Prayer and the depiction of the letter "t" as a cross in "thy".
The ASA said that while previous ghd campaigns did not "mock" faith or belief, the new ads went further with the women appearing to be praying while being erotic.
The ad watchdog decided to ban the ad because the eroticised images in conjunction with religious symbols and the phrase "Thy will be done", as well as the letter "t" as the cross of Jesus, were likely to cause serious offence, particularly to Christians.
Martin Penny, the managing director of ghd, said that the ban was perplexing, adding that the company had used the phrase "a new religion for hair" for seven years with little problem.
"We have a loyal following of women and the ads were, in fact, produced by an all-female creative team," he said. "It has nothing to do with religion really, if it was more people would have complained.
"There are far more erotic things in Nuts or on Page 3 if that's what people like. It is a fashion ad which is tasteful and sensitive. The ASA seem to be frightened of their own shadow."
· To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/12/asa.advertising
Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry
Mark Sweney
A TV ad campaign featuring lingerie-clad women praying for beautiful hair has been banned by the advertising watchdog because it might offend Christians.
The series of three TV ads, created by ad agency TBWA Manchester for beauty firm ghd, had an overall religious theme using the strapline "Ghd. A new religion for hair".
Ghd's ads showed scantily-clad women in various positions, such as lying on a bed, while looking upwards with their hands clasped as if in prayer. Some had objects that looked like votive candles and rosary beads.
Viewers could hear the thoughts of each of the women, in various languages including English, which centred on having great hair.
One woman was thinking "May my new curls make her feel choked with jealousy", while another was saying to herself "May my flirty flicks puncture the heart of every man I see". At the end of each ad an endline ran: "Thy will be done".
The Advertising Standards Authority received a total of 23 complaints, including one from the Archdeacon of Liverpool, objecting that the ads were offensive to the Christian faith.
The complaints particularly highlighted the use of the phrase from the Lord's Prayer and the depiction of the letter "t" as a cross in "thy".
The ASA said that while previous ghd campaigns did not "mock" faith or belief, the new ads went further with the women appearing to be praying while being erotic.
The ad watchdog decided to ban the ad because the eroticised images in conjunction with religious symbols and the phrase "Thy will be done", as well as the letter "t" as the cross of Jesus, were likely to cause serious offence, particularly to Christians.
Martin Penny, the managing director of ghd, said that the ban was perplexing, adding that the company had used the phrase "a new religion for hair" for seven years with little problem.
"We have a loyal following of women and the ads were, in fact, produced by an all-female creative team," he said. "It has nothing to do with religion really, if it was more people would have complained.
"There are far more erotic things in Nuts or on Page 3 if that's what people like. It is a fashion ad which is tasteful and sensitive. The ASA seem to be frightened of their own shadow."
· To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 65 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #142367 by Quetzalcoatl on March 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm
For the love of Satan. 23 complaints. 23. That's all. The ASA really is scared of its own shadow.
Personally, I didn't find the adverts at all offensive, in fact, I rather liked them. ;)
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
3. Comment #142369 by DavidJGrossman on March 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Step 1: Create controversial ad
Step 2: Wait for cries of persecution from xians
Step 3: Free publicity!
Can you say "Barbara Streisand Effect"? I knew you could.
- Dave
Other Comments by DavidJGrossman
4. Comment #142374 by DamnDirtyApe on March 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Ahem, blasphemy laws abolished... how the heck does this stand? Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
5. Comment #142377 by epeeist on March 12, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Comment #142369 by DavidJGrossmanStep 1: Create controversial ad
Step 2: Wait for cries of persecution from xians
Step 3: Free publicity!
Obligatory slashdot addition:
4. Profit!
Other Comments by epeeist
6. Comment #142378 by steve8282 on March 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm
During "erotic things" is the only time I like to hear the Mrs. talk about god.Other Comments by steve8282
7. Comment #142383 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think the ads should be banned: they're clearly trying to insinuate that prayer has some effect. Other Comments by Geoff
8. Comment #142386 by Gustaf Sjoblom on March 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I'm going to stick out quite a bit here and say that the ASA probably did the right thing. :OThe sole reason for this would be the t turned into a cross. It directly references a specific religion. If they simply changed it to a normal t I see no trouble with the ad.
The reasoning here is that a company should not use a specific religion (or another company, or a person) in any way in its ads. Not draw from its goodwill or gain points for bashing it or anything.
Use of the cross is a bit like using the logo of another company. The cross isn't copyrighted, so it isn't illegal, but it is the kind of thing that a self regulating body such as the ASA should move against.
All other pretexts given by the ASA is obviously complete nonsense. And it makes them look silly while doing the right thing and is therefor completely counterproductive.
Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom
9. Comment #142391 by epeeist on March 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Comment #142386 by Gustaf Sjoblom So what you are saying is that the use of the cross is crass.
The sole reason for this would be the t turned into a cross. It directly references a specific religion. If they simply changed it to a normal t I see no trouble with the ad.
Other Comments by epeeist
10. Comment #142395 by Logicel on March 12, 2008 at 12:45 pm
...including one from the Archdeacon of Liverpool, objecting that the ads were offensive to the Christian faith._______
And his point is?
Other Comments by Logicel
11. Comment #142400 by DrShell on March 12, 2008 at 12:50 pm
ARRRRGH! Are they serious? THAT's their reason for finding this offensive? The problem here is the systematic denial of women's needs and internal lives, this idea that our only concerns involve (and should involve) stupid superficial nonsense like our hair curls and whether we're winning the eternal beauty contest and making other women despise us enough. I hate this shit so much.Oh, I'm so angry now. These jerks clutching their pearls all "gasp, my sacred religion associated with women and sexuality" but never "gasp, women portrayed as foolish halfwits who can't even do something as stupid as Christianity right."
Other Comments by DrShell
12. Comment #142401 by schwie on March 12, 2008 at 12:50 pm
What's wrong with the ad? Check it out here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyZDD0yccQI&NR=1
Other Comments by schwie
13. Comment #142416 by Matt7895 on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Can I ban 'Songs of Praise'? I find it offensive. Thanks. Other Comments by Matt7895
14. Comment #142421 by Shaden on March 12, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Well, they got the music right at least; can't go wrong with Yann Tiersen. Other Comments by Shaden
15. Comment #142422 by bluebird on March 12, 2008 at 1:03 pm
schwie, thanks, I was hoping to view the ad. I think it's rather clever, and I like it.
Must be uncomfortable for the religious to always have their bloomers in a bunch.
Other Comments by bluebird
16. Comment #142425 by Gustaf Sjoblom on March 12, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Comment #142391 by epeeistSo what you are saying is that the use of the cross is crass.
Yep.
Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom
17. Comment #142451 by MrPickwick on March 12, 2008 at 2:05 pm
All these comments are great but you all seem to miss the point... What we should find out is whether the praying thing worked or not? (and, now that I think of it, if it does work, what's the use of whatever the ghd firm is selling?) It's so confusing... Other Comments by MrPickwick
18. Comment #142457 by V'Ger on March 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Just watched the ad - and can't believe that anybody can be offended by that! But then, by the sounds of it, hardly anyone actually complained.
Have we reached the point now - when 60 million people have to be carefull not to offend 25?
Other Comments by V'Ger
19. Comment #142460 by Fiesoduck on March 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm
If 23 nobodies can have such an effect, then something is very wrong with a country. Other Comments by Fiesoduck
20. Comment #142461 by V'Ger on March 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Sorry... couldn't help pushing this clip from... I love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRFbNFf6Ig8&feature=related
Other Comments by V'Ger
21. Comment #142463 by phatbat on March 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Does anybody remember 'This Morning With Richard But Not Judy'? If not - check for clips on youtube.
That was full of sketches that openly poked fun at the Christian faith, and went out every Sunday morning for weeks. Did that one pass them by?
Yeah i remember - absolutely hilarious - they're all on youtube see these ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IAwHTzrHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtrlZn_H5g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBzavvUIAR4
We have Stuart Lee to thank for them (of Jerry springer the opera fame)
He's a bloody good stand up comedian too
Other Comments by phatbat
22. Comment #142464 by V'Ger on March 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Stewart Lee rules.
Saw a recording of a gig he did in Scotland - which was awesome.
Other Comments by V'Ger
23. Comment #142468 by IanLowe on March 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I'm willing to forgive the ASA this time - they have been a potent force for sorting out christian "healing" services. Check out the archive of their previous decisions, and look at how many times they have told some bunch of religious wackos "put up the proof, are shut up".
despite the odd one or two dropped balls, the ASA are the good guys.
Other Comments by IanLowe
24. Comment #142477 by notsobad on March 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sure they were outraged.It showed how superficial and full of wishful thinking religion is.
Other Comments by notsobad
25. Comment #142483 by mattmason75 on March 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Seems to me that religious people are now determined to out victim each other. This competitive streak must stop... Other Comments by mattmason75
26. Comment #142518 by tieInterceptor on March 12, 2008 at 3:38 pm
we should start a group or mail list so we can organize complaints, we only need a few dozen by the looks of it...works for the Christians on tv, and works for the Muslims to get videos out of youtube... we should just apply that technique too.
apparently if you don't cry, you don't suckle
(this Spanish saying translates a bit weird)
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
27. Comment #142521 by Richard Morgan on March 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I'm going to complain about all the ads that have no references to religion,as they could offend atheists. Other Comments by Richard Morgan
28. Comment #142538 by justdust on March 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm
OK the ASA have heard from the monkeys - will they hear from the Supreme Organ Grinder? I think not.Other Comments by justdust
29. Comment #142540 by liberalartist on March 12, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I didn't find the ad offensive. Have they even looked at Bernini's "Ecstasy of St. Teresa"? Now that's erotic! Other Comments by liberalartist
30. Comment #142543 by phasmagigas on March 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm
During "erotic things" is the only time I like to hear the Mrs. talk about god.
hahah, quite true, im sure we've all heard 'oh jesus' 'oh christ' 'oh god' during intimate sessions and that applies to both men and women (and they are the polite words!)
Other Comments by phasmagigas
31. Comment #142558 by annabanana on March 12, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It sounds like 23 people need to gain a sense of humor. Other Comments by annabanana
32. Comment #142593 by Russell Blackford on March 12, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Why should there be anything wrong with mocking faith or belief? Surely this is a good thing. I realise that that's a matter of opinion, but in a liberal society advertisers should be free to decide whether they want to mock religion, or a particular religion, or not. The only constraint on them should be an economic one: the risk that they will put off, rather than attract, potential customers.This is just another example of religionists showing their inherent tendency to totalitarianism. They want to impose their standards of acceptable conduct on the rest of us, and in this instance they've succeeded.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
33. Comment #142607 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 8:37 pm
It is cruel and offensive to ugly people! Oops, I mean beauty challenged people, I am sorry for the slip,Other Comments by Bonzai
34. Comment #142645 by Roy_H on March 12, 2008 at 11:43 pm
During "erotic things" is the only time I like to hear the Mrs. talk about god.That reminds me about Kenny Everett when he first went out on the "Radio Caroline" pirate radio ship he was terribly seasick. He said how the others on board used to remark "Oh I can hear Ken calling god on the great white telephone again" i.e. in the toilet, bringing up his breakfast while shouting "Oh god!!"
Other Comments by Roy_H
35. Comment #142651 by Richard Morgan on March 13, 2008 at 12:44 am
During "erotic things" is the only time I like to hear the Mrs. talk about god.I presume you are talking about doing "erotic things" with the Mrs?
And you actually like to hear her talking about God?
As in "87 Theological Positions" or "Phallacious Arguments"?
When I'm being intimate with my partner, occasionally she appeals to God, but opening a theological discussion...?
That's a new one on me.
I'd like to try however.
Any reading suggestions?
I tried Googling "theological discussions sex" and found this:
"Theology of the Body" refers to a series of 129 lectures given by Pope John Paul II during his Wednesday audiences in the Pope Paul VI Hall between September 1979 and November 1984but I suppose this is not the kind of thing you are talking about.
And this
Hajduk, David (2006). God's Plan for You: Life, Love, Marriage, SexLove, marriage and sex?
But I've only got one wife, not three!
No, I'm afraid I'm all confused now.
Must be time for another coffee.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
36. Comment #142655 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 1:02 am
Comment #142593 by Russell BlackfordWhy should there be anything wrong with mocking faith or belief? Surely this is a good thing.
I think it is a matter of context. I think it is fine to mock a belief while having a discussion about beliefs, or, say, in the context of a comedy performance where there are no holds barred.
On the other hand... well, I am a fan of Take That (sorry, but I am). How would I feel if there was an advert that mocked the idea of being a fan of boybands...
Oh dear. I see what you mean now. I give in.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
37. Comment #142678 by Tyler Durden on March 13, 2008 at 2:23 am
Martin Penny, the managing director of ghd, said that the ban was perplexing, adding that the company had used the phrase "a new religion for hair" for seven years with little problem.Ah yes, but once you introduce sex to the equation, those Christians just have to complain as Christians don't do sex. Er, wait, Christians don't like sex. No, wait, Christians can't handle sex. Oh, forget it :)
Idiots!
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
38. Comment #142690 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 2:57 am
I can see why an 'old school' feminist might take exception to this advert (although I think there would be many more ads out there that she would find much more offensive) and I can see why some Christians might also be offended by it. But why is it that everyone seems to think they have the right to insist upon living in a world where nothing ever offends them? I remember hearing Terry Gilliam speak on this topic once. He said something along the lines of "offensive is good; it's where the real stuff happens" (Mr Gilliam is rather fond of the word 'stuff'). This is obviously a rhetorical question but...Is the offence taken at this advert proportionate? I mean, surely there are more serious things to get worked up about. No one is inciting harm or prejudice in the ad. No one would be stupid enough (I hope) to think that any self-respecting woman would really act in such a stupid way as depicted here. If you think it's stupid or offensive you've got many outlets in which to express these views, but we don't really need protecting from this sort of crap. We can just say, "Well, that's a load of crap" and leave it at that. Maybe those 23 complainers ought to focus their attention on something that actually matters. This is just so trivial. If you're offended by this then I wonder how you manage to get by in the world at all. And you've no right to insist that the rest of us need to be wrapped up in cotton wool in order that you can avoid having your over-sensitive feelings hurt. I've heard of the 'tyranny of the majority'; this the pettiness of an insignificant minority. Other Comments by mixmastergaz
39. Comment #142707 by Ygern on March 13, 2008 at 3:24 am
You know what I find offensive?Not this pretty daft ad - it's that 23 uptight Christians have in effect censored the media.
Isn't this what is called the TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY ?
Other Comments by Ygern
40. Comment #142729 by Aileen on March 13, 2008 at 3:51 am
Advertising these days is very slick, alot of money and reserch gone into its effectivness in influncing us. I dont believe for a second that ghd were unaware of the reaction this add would cause, free publicity.Having said that maybe they should have waited til 2300 complaints went in for max effect. Then the flakes would flood from the woodwork,
Other Comments by Aileen
41. Comment #142755 by irate_atheist on March 13, 2008 at 4:43 am
I'm strongly offended by the 'Alpha Course' banners plaster over local What the are the ASA going to do about it? Fuck all, I suspect.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
42. Comment #142762 by Mitchell Gilks on March 13, 2008 at 4:53 am
I'm offended by insults to my intellect. Please remove all stupid ideas from the face of the earth.
I am also offended by the colour yellow, and the number 56. They must be vanquished!
You know what I'm oddly not offended by? Attractive, scantily clad women, making light of religious nonsense. Go figure.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
43. Comment #142764 by irate_atheist on March 13, 2008 at 4:55 am
44. Comment #142762 by Mitchell Gilks -
Ditto.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
44. Comment #142766 by black wolf on March 13, 2008 at 4:58 am
Once you've centered your life around something that has no impact on reality and does not work outside of your own mind, the only way left to interact with reality is to get offended. Other Comments by black wolf
45. Comment #142772 by Tyler Durden on March 13, 2008 at 5:04 am
irate,
In Ireland, as in most countries, the
Not only that, they can take out billboards in Dublin city centre with "I tell you, except ye repent, ye shall all perish." Luke 13:5
Am I offended? Sure am!
Can I complain? Fuck no!
The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland
"Scope and Application"
1.5 The Code does NOT apply to:
marketing communications whose principal purpose is to express the advertiser's position on a political, religious, industrial relations, social or aesthetic matter or on an issue of public interest or concern
And yet, the hypocricy continues:
Section 2 : General Rules "Decency and Propriety"WTF??
2.16
"Marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community."
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
46. Comment #142836 by BigBanger on March 13, 2008 at 6:10 am
I was about to add something to the debate there but Mitchell Gilk's avatar has given me a boner.. again.. must go! Other Comments by BigBanger
47. Comment #142857 by Johnny O on March 13, 2008 at 6:37 am
The ASA said that while previous ghd campaigns did not "mock" faith or belief, the new ads went further with the women appearing to be praying while being erotic.I hope they don't try an ban shouting, "OH, MY GOD" everytime someone reaches sexual climax???
Can I ban 'Songs of Praise'? I find it offensive. Thanks.
Matt7895, that is a brilliant idea. I wonder what would happen if enough secularists complained?
Other Comments by Johnny O
48. Comment #142862 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 6:43 am
35. Comment #142607 by Bonzai"ugsome"?
Other Comments by Geoff
49. Comment #142874 by jshuey on March 13, 2008 at 6:59 am
23 touchy christians?
And you Brits make all kinds of snide remarks about the influence of religion in the U.S.?
Ha! We're more tastless than you are!
Other Comments by jshuey
50. Comment #142878 by Ape on March 13, 2008 at 7:04 am
I just registered so I can post a link to the ASA adjudication:http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44122.htm
The specific advertising rule that was found to be broken was 6.1:
Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards, or offend against public feeling
(It's worth noting that these rules only apply to advertising, so speech and expression are much more free in other situations. Unfortunately they don't apply to Songs of Praise, Thought for the Day, or reality TV.)
The notes for this rule give the following:
(1) Although no list can be exhaustive, and values evolve over time, society has shared standards in areas such as:
(a) the portrayal of death, injury, violence (particularly sexual violence), cruelty or misfortune
(b) respect for the interests and dignity of minorities
(c) respect for spiritual beliefs, rites, sacred images etc
(d) sex and nudity, and the use of offensive language. {snip}
So the rules specifically mention "spiritual beliefs, rites, sacred images" as a examples of things that should be respected, that may cause offence and hence must only be contained in adverts in a respectful way.
Note that the ASA don't make the rules, that is apparently the job of the Committee of Advertising Practice. Also, as I understand it, the number of complaints is theoretically not supposed to have any bearing on the ruling, it is just a sign that the ASA needs to investigate whether the advert follows the rules.
It seems that the ASA's decision could be regarded as the correct with respect to the rules. In essence they are saying that "eroticised images of ... women" associated with a specific religion that has hang-ups about sex, will cause offence to followers of that faith. It seems clear what advertisers should do - religious women should not be portrayed as attractive, and only non-religious women should be portrayed as desirable.
Perhaps more subtly, the adjudication was that the adverts were "likely to cause serious offence" (my emphasis). There was no mention of the "widespread" offence that the rules mention. This is perhaps a good sign, acknowledging that, in the UK, active Christianity is a minority hobby.
I'm going to be contacting the CAP and the ASA, but not about this specific ruling. Looking at the rules, there's an asymmetry in advertising since you're allowed a big poster saying "God loves you", but you're not allowed one saying "God does not exist". The above note (c) should be removed from the advertising rules because its presence as an example pretty much forces the ASA to rule against any atheist advertising if anyone complains.
Personally, I'm fed up with people playing the "I'm offended" card. It's clearly a tactic to censor and to close down debate. If people are that sensitive then they need help, not respect. And it doesn't sound like they're getting much comfort from their credulity, which I thought was supposed to be its selling point.
Other Comments by Ape
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Flowers and elephants are 'for' the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading Duplicate Me programs written in DNA language. Flowers are for spreading copies of instructions for making more flowers. Elephants are for spreading copies of instructions for making more elephants."
Richard Dawkins
"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Richard Dawkins
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain
"Leon Lederman, the physicist and Nobel laureate, once half-jokingly remarked that the real goal of physics was to come up with an equation that could explain the universe but still be small enough to fit on a T-shirt. In that spirit, Dawkins offered up his own T-shirt slogan for the ongoing evolution revolution:
Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #142363 by Raigen on March 12, 2008 at 11:52 am
Other Comments by Raigen