1. Comment #433665 by God fearing Atheist on November 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Was that deliberate, naughty, naughty BHA/RD?

A few thousand quid for 4 billboards, and yet more column inches for free.

What is the leverage we get in advertising - 1:5, 1:10?

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

2. Comment #433666 by cherryteresa on November 21, 2009 at 12:10 pm

They're obviously still missing the point. They aren't evangelical children. They are the children of evangelical parents.

Other Comments by cherryteresa

3. Comment #433669 by Tritovore on November 21, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Their parents and people from the church are all scurrying to label them as 'evangelical' - but I wonder how the children would describe themselves?

Other Comments by Tritovore

4. Comment #433670 by mmurray on November 21, 2009 at 12:22 pm

It's not Richard Dawkins' attack of course.

More responses to the billboards are here

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/401

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

5. Comment #433671 by Jos Gibbons on November 21, 2009 at 12:29 pm

How stupid can an argument get? These children have Christian parents, therefore they're only happy because of that background, therefore it's OK to label children automatically with the religion of their parents, therefore Richard Dawkins sucks? (Even though, like everything else out there, this wasn't his idea. RD is just a shorthand for every non-religious person who isn't getting trodden on any more.) I would have thought the fact that the children of arbitrary parents are eligible for consciousness-raising photos was the whole point. I guess there are some people too thick to reach.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

6. Comment #433673 by Max of Earlobes on November 21, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Jos Gibbons is absolutely right.

Other Comments by Max of Earlobes

7. Comment #433674 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2009 at 12:44 pm

These aren't children - they are babies. I would suggest they look happy because they haven't yet started to understand the fear and guilt and dread that can come from religion.

I assumed that the idea of the poster was to present unformed minds, which had not yet been influenced by dogma. It succeeds.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #433675 by Stonyground on November 21, 2009 at 12:48 pm

It was a rather fortunate thing to have happened I think. As a result, those in the Christian camp has rushed to advertise their utter block-headed stupidity. Many have demonstrated how they don't get it by passing comments that have missed the point, but the dopy Ruth Gledhill manages to miss the point in a sort of precision targeted kind of way. She actually makes the point with her comments but seems to be too dim to realise it.

Other Comments by Stonyground

9. Comment #433677 by FSM? on November 21, 2009 at 12:53 pm

The title of this article makes our point exactly. These children should not be labeled evangelical children.

The article considers the fact that these kids are being brought up in a religious household a blunder on the part of the 'Don't label me' Campaign. Quite the opposite in fact. Very surprised that this was not obvious to the author of the article.

Other Comments by FSM?

10. Comment #433679 by Koreman on November 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm

.. as like 'devote communist children'? Sounds like oldskool USSR.

Other Comments by Koreman

11. Comment #433680 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 21, 2009 at 1:03 pm

The implicit suggestion behind this self-satisfied critisism is that the BHA should have chosen "atheist" or "humanist" children.

This only shows how they have missed the point or are incapable of taking it on board.

Such stupidity is nothing to be self-satisfied about. Unless you are religious. Then you can glory in it.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

12. Comment #433681 by JemyM on November 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm

That might be one of the greatest blunders I have seen for awhile... They thought they had a point, and they ended up proving the value of the message...

Other Comments by JemyM

13. Comment #433682 by weavehole on November 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Other Comments by weavehole

14. Comment #433683 by black wolf on November 21, 2009 at 1:12 pm

I suggest the fact that Christian adults are rushing to confirm the labelling illustrates their desperation, and it also reflects the ideology they adhere to.
They live every day of their lives with the thought 'will person X go to heaven, what happens if he's run over by a bus, or if she has a stroke right now? Are they saved?'. Evangelicals of the born-again stripe raise this to ludicrous levels by insisting that anyone who ever left Christian faith behind was therefore never a Christian to begin with, but only religious, a False Convert. They use the label religious to distinguish those who are just 'going through the motions' and don't have 'a relationship with Christ'.

According to even mainstream Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong), there is a consensus that after our body dies, our soul travels away to meet judgment. After the moment of death, repentance is futile, as Christian ideology insists that we must repent as long as we're alive. This makes no sense whatsoever in light of the claim of a loving and forgiving God, who knows everything including our deepest feelings, and yet regards it as improper to extend forgiveness after our physical life ends. It only makes sense in light of the cultish desire to incorporate as many people while they live - a direct claim to earthly influence, demographic pressure on politics, wealth and possessions.

It's sad that so many submit unthinkingly to emotional blackmail and drag their children along, afraid to confront their own motives, the fear of death and the fear of being alone, the delusion that an ideology grounded in supernatural absolutism will provide a failsafe morality for our species.

Other Comments by black wolf

15. Comment #433685 by Shane McKee on November 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm

People, it's a beautiful thing. Do not despair; there are stacks of evangelicals haemorrhaging from belief to rationality every day. Since I "came out", I have spoken to very very many people who don't believe - but none of the people in their church know about it.

The kids in the ad are lovely cute bambinos, and I'm sure they're a credit to their parents; the argument is not going to be made in a few posters, but the seeds will be sown, and Ruth Gledhill is helping spread them. Be happy. This could not have turned out better if we had tried :-) Well done, BHA.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

16. Comment #433688 by Davechoc on November 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm

I try and avoid reading comments at the bottom of articles such as this: I know the inanity of the arguments and self-righteousness of them will only irritate me, especially because there isn't really an effective way to deal with all the wrong-headed ideas, they're just left hanging there, undemolished.

The article itself was breathtaking as an example of complete point-missing, from the very headline onwards. Other commenters here have pointed much of this out, but I was particularly amused by:

'He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.”'

What exactly is different about their faces?! That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. The BHA and Dawkins have never said that the children of religious parents won't be happy - a child brought up in an extremely closed community of Jehovah's Witnesses would probably be much loved and cared for, and therefore very happy, but that's not to say it is right that he/she has had a very narrow brand of religious thinking subtly forced upon them from birth, to the exclusion of other points of view and unbiased information about the world.

It's the same as when apologists say if everyone were Christian the world would be a better place: this says nothing of substance, only that if everyone believed the same thing there would be no conflict, which could apply if everyone were Muslim or Hindu - it wouldn't make those beliefs true, or indeed fair.

I had a very happy childhood brought up by liberal Catholic parents. If you'd asked me at 7 or 8 what I believed I would have happily said I was a Catholic and believed in all the relevant elements of doctrine, insofar as I understood them at the time. I experienced a gradual and very happy slide to atheism as an adult, which made me realise how it's not true to say I really believed when I was 7 or 8; I just went along with a generally benign system which I was too young to care much about challenging.

That doesn't mean I don't resent the religious elements of my childhood. They were unnecessary (I wish I'd been introduced to philosophy sooner, though that probably would've made me think too much about my parents' religion), but the key point is I don't resent them because they were mentally abusive, as they weren't - it is the fact that I was sheltered from other information and points of view (and this from pretty liberal parents), purely in order to maintain a system of dubious factual merit. It is this dubious nature of religion which is the nexus of difference between those who advocate for religious upbringing, and those who don't. It is not inculcating values in children which is the problem: it is that for atheists religions are very unlikely to be true (though taught as though they are), they inhibit children's critical faculties, and the values they offer are unthinkingly ancient at best and dangerous and divisive at worst. Apologists will disagree with such an assessment of course, and therein lies the central point of the disagreement.

Other Comments by Davechoc

17. Comment #433689 by MrPickwick on November 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm

I'm beginning to think that this campaing has been a mistake. It assumes religious people do have a functioning brain and are able to use it in a basic way. Something that is clearly not the case, beginning with Ruth Gledhill...

Other Comments by MrPickwick

18. Comment #433690 by scottishgeologist on November 21, 2009 at 1:59 pm

According to the article

"Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families"

WTF is that supposed to mean? "Most devout" Like they get up at 6 am for 2 hours of fervent prayer, eat cold porridge then sing "Shine Jesus Shine" until lunchtime when they get "beaten with the rod to save their souls from hell" for not eating more cold porridge. Followed by a whole afternoon of fervent prayer and bible study ... and so on

Preusmably the father has a beard and a cutaway body acoustic guitar (they all do, ever noticed this?) And the mother is a homeskooling baby machine who presumably has 22 more pregnancies to look forward to "she will be saved in childbearing"

"Most devout" ? What a load of utter pish

Just means that they have the God Delusion in terabytes, or whatever "units of delusion" come in.... sigh.....

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

19. Comment #433692 by Bluff_King_Hal on November 21, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Major fail by the faith-heads,not that they know it. Children of Evangelicals are exactly the *right* kind of children one would pick to emphasize that children should not be labelled by the religion of their parents. ...and how should they be photographed, looking miserable??

They wont be looking so happy "through Christianity! if they turn out to be gay with their fundie parents and all that homophobia they'll have been brainwashed with...

Other Comments by Bluff_King_Hal

20. Comment #433693 by Kubrick on November 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Painful. Just painful. How is it that the author of this article keeps referring to the children at Christians? Did she not bother to read the goddamn ad?

Other Comments by Kubrick

21. Comment #433694 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 2:25 pm

And what is the point of this meaningless article, Ruth? Advertising uses stock photos of all sorts all the time. Furthermore, there's a program out there now called Photoshop which can do all sorts of miraculous things with photos just in case the stock photos don't quite have enough fantasy appeal. Good grief. Oh, and I almost forgot, FYI ... Did you know that advertisers and movie makers also use body-doubles at times. So, you see, these children might actually be the children of happy Satanists or atheists and you'd never know it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

22. Comment #433696 by Mr Blue Sky on November 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I just hope they look as happy in 10-20 years time!

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

23. Comment #433697 by Border Collie on November 21, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Steve, you left out shame, angst and paranoia.

Scottish, good reply, after reading the article I was going back to bed and have depressed dreams. Now I'm laughing my ass off.

Other Comments by Border Collie

24. Comment #433700 by JammyB on November 21, 2009 at 2:51 pm

That's it, I'm so sick of this shitty celeb-obsessed tabloid masquerading as a serious paper. It's overwhelmingly obvious to anyone who has read her before that Ruth Gledhill has the same critical thinking skills as a squashed plum, but it beggars belief that this kind of reporting can get past the editor, filed under "news" and go to press.

Just had a word with the family now and we're cancelling our Times subscription.

Other Comments by JammyB

25. Comment #433702 by Friend Giskard on November 21, 2009 at 2:55 pm

This Ruth Gledhill is obviously retarded. Way to miss the point, Ruth.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

26. Comment #433704 by DeusExNihilum on November 21, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Surely these levels of Irony would be toxic to any human being? Was the author of this article not satisfied with shooting herself in the foot? That she had to stab it, bomb it, and pour acid in the wounds as well? Does she hate her feet?

Non-sequiturs aside, It's a ridiculous Article. She's criticizing a campaign for people to stop labelling children (such as Christian children) by Labelling the Children as Christians.

Ruth Gledhill must have a Degree in missing the point.

Other Comments by DeusExNihilum

27. Comment #433705 by Orangutan on November 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm

One does not expect much from Ruth Geldhill but this is truly an appalling piece of news journalism.

Firstly, the headline brazenly and controversially commits the very error to which objection is being made. As a news item, the headline should be neutral - at the very least the word "evangelicals" should have been placed in inverted commas. (As I see it, the preventable problem is precisely the unthinking religious labelling of children by third parties, especially journalists; parents who are religious will not doubt do what they do anyway). Secondly, the campaign is not Richard Dawkin's but that of the British Humanist Association (albeit supported by, amongst others,Professsor Dawkins). Thirdly, Professor Dawkins' work is not an "assault on God" - what a tired old chestnut! He argues that on the basis of the presently available evidence and arguments, there is no adequate reason to believe in the existence of any deity. Saying that there is no good reason to believe that X exists is not an "assault on X". This sort of talk side steps the issue of existence, as if everyone already agrees that Gledhill's deity exists, and it presumably warms the hearts of religious believers by using a negative word about Richard Dawkins; but it is very bad journalism because it crucially misrepresents the views of the person being written about.

Such intellectual slipperiness might be just about forgivable in a polemical comment or editorial piece, but Ruth Gledhill's column masquerades as news. The editor should not allow her to introduce her prejudices into a news item. She does it time and time again - as if being a reporter about religious affairs exempts her from ordinary journalistic standards. Only the other day she said in an article on the alleged "Cardinal Newman miracle" that "Miracles still occur" and stated categorically that many miracles had occured at Lourdes. I suspect that a lot of educated and professional readers of the Times, of the type that that Mr Murdoch presumably wishes to attract, will be increasingly alienated by such low intellectuual standards.

Other Comments by Orangutan

28. Comment #433711 by lordpasternack on November 21, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Just made this comment on the site, pending a Times moderator viewing and publishing it:

How is it ironic? Is it not especially PERTINENT that these children, children from a strongly Christian family, should not to be labelled, and should be to be allowed to grow up and formulate their own opinions on the matter, rather than having it assumed that they'll follow suit with their parents? Isn't that the point?

Would it also be 'ironic' if they had been the children of proclaimed Marxists, Post-modernists, racists, Socialists or conservatives - or any of the other labels on the billboard? Would this article proclaim "children on billboard are Marxists"?

Other Comments by lordpasternack

29. Comment #433715 by Aztek on November 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm

This article made my irony meter go "Spoing"!

Absolutely ridiculous! How is it possible that this Ruth Gledhill wrote this without realizing how much she is missing the point?? The headline is "Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals" and right after that there is the sign with "Please don't label me". How can you miss the contradiction?

And what was this: "It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic." Uh, no. That's not irony. The fact that you find pictures of smiling kids (not that difficult) who just happen to have parents with religious beliefs is called coincidence.

Other Comments by Aztek

30. Comment #433718 by MRA on November 21, 2009 at 4:39 pm

How sad that people are going to the lengths of ascertaining the religious beliefs of parents of child models to make a 'na, na, na-na-na' point at Richard Dawkins. Get a life - or get the point! Anyway, all publicity is good publicity.

Other Comments by MRA

31. Comment #433719 by quisquose on November 21, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Putting aside the obvious irony, that has been pointed out thus far, that the author of the article does exactly what the BHA is politely requesting people not to do, I am also concerned by something else.

How can these ads possibly be labelled atheist?

Other Comments by quisquose

32. Comment #433721 by zengardener on November 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Lovely, they are making our point.

Too bad they can't see it themselves.

Oh, and the righteousness, You can see that those children are just a little bit happier. Must be because they know they won't burn in Hell like everyone else.

Other Comments by zengardener

33. Comment #433722 by MRA on November 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm

quisquose wrote: "How can these ads possibly be labelled atheist?"

Exactly, the ads are just against labeling children, not promoting atheism - how can any reasonable person object to that? I suspect that if Prof RD had been involved in putting out any advert, for example one that said "don't punch people in the face", some people would criticize him, no matter what the message.

Other Comments by MRA

34. Comment #433725 by DoctorE on November 21, 2009 at 5:14 pm

hahahah Christians FAIL again... ohh and also there are no christian scientists :)

Other Comments by DoctorE

35. Comment #433726 by MarcCountry on November 21, 2009 at 5:16 pm

Jesus christ, talk about missing the point!

The Times editors are obviously morons, for their subhead which labels eight- and seven-year olds as "evangelicals". What a breathtaking lack of awareness.

As bad, is Brad Mason, who thinks it's "funny", and Gerald Coates, who thinks it's "hilarious". These people are clearly mentally deficient.

The whole point of the ads is OBVIOUSLY NOT to supposedly show pictures of how happy atheist kids are. The point is to point to an image of a happy child, and to STOP LABELLING them! The kids in the ads ARE NOT 'EVANGELICALS', dummies, their parents are!

What total fuckwits.

Other Comments by MarcCountry

36. Comment #433727 by mbannonb on November 21, 2009 at 5:21 pm

I can't help but think a Public Relations point was lost for the atheists on this one.

You have to get the irony of atheists using children raised in a Christian household as being representative of a kind of "good".

Other Comments by mbannonb

37. Comment #433731 by George Lennan on November 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm

I've seen this kind of thing before - the actress who played a little girl with a bad ear in Labour's 1992 election broadcast who in real life had private treatment, or was a tory child, or didnt have a bad ear, or whatever. There have been others recently too.

It's ok advertising coca cola with moslem or atheist children, but it's not ok to advertise temperance with alcoholic children, or bacon with jewish children, because the other side will jump on it and score a point.

You GOTTA be careful if you're promoting a manifesto not to fall into this kind of trap. It should be a part of the agency's responsibility not to let it happen.

Other Comments by George Lennan

38. Comment #433733 by Demotruk on November 21, 2009 at 5:34 pm

I don't think she "missed the point". Instead it's an attempt to be 'defiant'.

Regardless, it exposes her childishness and her lack of an argument. It's always a strong signal that you're winning when your opponent needs to change your argument into something else in order to criticize it(as is visible in the link in the fourth comment).

I had a small argument with a family member about this, and she said that it was a conflict of rights between the parent and the child, and argued as if we were saying that parents should be forced to raise their children in a certain way. Nobody is saying that teaching your kids your religion, or even labeling kids by a religion or ideology should be illegal. We are saying there is something wrong with it, and simply arguing against the act (some people seem to have a problem with the idea that arguing something is bad does not mean you are attempting to ban it with legal force).

Besides, while the parent may have a right to raise a child without interference from the state, that doesn't mean that it's morally right to raise your child in any way you choose. There is a clear problem with labeling a child before they have made up their own beliefs. It is an (unknowing) attempt to use human nature as a reinforcer of your beliefs. People don't tend to rebel against their identity. Tying beliefs into your childhood identity, makes it harder to rebel against or abandon those beliefs. Hence you are deciding what they will believe, or at least pretend to believe, for the rest of their lives (for most people).

Other Comments by Demotruk

39. Comment #433736 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 5:53 pm

14. Comment #433683 by black wolf

"...the delusion that an ideology grounded in supernatural absolutism will provide a failsafe morality for our species."

----

I always have a problem with this.
For me, I think that in the past, this may have been one of the most useful, positive effects of religion.

It is sort of like a communally agreed social contract pre-dating Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau.

I cannot accept that people like Francis Collins 'Lie for Jesus' based on delusion.

Neither a base form of 'God Delusion' or a considered Utilitarian delusion that "an ideology grounded in supernatural absolutism will provide a failsafe morality for our species."

God knows exactly what reasoning Collins uses, but I consider that it is reasoned.

It could be grounded in a lack of faith in Humans being capable of governing themselves.
Given that we are now totally pwned by the 'too big to fails' and other Robber Barons beyond our jurisdiction, such as OPEC, that could be right.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

40. Comment #433739 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 6:19 pm

36. Comment #433727 by mbannonb on November 21

"I can't help but think a Public Relations point was lost for the atheists on this one.

You have to get the irony of atheists using children raised in a Christian household as being representative of a kind of "good"."

There is as you say a sort of Irony to be appreciated here.

But the Irony would be truly awful if the BHA had made some kind of endeavour to vet for 'Atheist/Humanist/nonreligious children' for the ad.

Incidentally, I really do not like the use of children in any kind of propaganda, but especially visual, whether positive or negative.

That really is the true blunder here!

But that is a really difficult one to handle from our side, since we all know the Jesuit saying.

I don't know what PR point you think was lost though, please explain.

-----

Off topic,
Just seen a bloke from the 'think tank' theos on bbc news saying statistics show 80% of Earth's population will subscribe to one of the four main faiths in 2030.
Subject was archbish meeting pope to negotiate surrender terms.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

41. Comment #433741 by SaintStephen on November 21, 2009 at 6:21 pm

The images of the children were sourced from istockphoto.com, on which photographers [like Christian drummer Brad Mason] upload images for sale to designers, in return receiving a portion of each download fee.

So, Christian happy dad Brad Mason pimps his own children online. Is he sure the porn industry hasn't already purchased the photos? What would Brad say then:

“It is quite funny, because obviously they the pornographers were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists producers of Rocco's Rumper Room obviously did not know the background of these children.”

I'm not sure I made a point here, but it sounded good when I started it.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

42. Comment #433744 by Enlightenme.. on November 21, 2009 at 6:41 pm

37. Comment #433731 by George Lennan

"It's ok advertising coca cola with moslem or atheist children"

Say what?
DOH!
Sorry, but you asked for that.

Feel free to DOH! me back.
;)

"You GOTTA be careful if you're promoting a manifesto not to fall into this kind of trap. It should be a part of the agency's responsibility not to let it happen."
See post 11 by Ivanthenotsobad

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

43. Comment #433746 by dhudson0001 on November 21, 2009 at 6:51 pm

This kind of idiocy makes me want to cry. Something I only do at movies...

Other Comments by dhudson0001

44. Comment #433748 by fossil-fish on November 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm

I notice that one of the posters in the comments section has adopted that well worn evangelical tactic of simply repeating idiotic nonsensical mantras over and over again.

Really makes it's own point.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

45. Comment #433752 by Follow Peter Egan on November 21, 2009 at 7:04 pm

I can only echo what others have said. Totally missing the point.

The only disappointment is it's from the Times. This article feels like "Daily Mail" fodder through and through.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

46. Comment #433754 by carbonman on November 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Yep, the theists are missing the point by several miles, reinforcing the message of the campaign with delicious irony, but in doing so they're also raising a basket of other salient issues thus saving us the trouble. I've posted some semi-relevant drivel on CarbonBlog so won't bore everyone with it here.

Other Comments by carbonman

47. Comment #433755 by Sally Luxmoore on November 21, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Be fair...

The words 'don't', 'label' and 'me' are obviously a bit of a challenge to the hard of thinking....

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

48. Comment #433758 by Pilot22A on November 21, 2009 at 7:31 pm

The article was one thing, the posts below are another. It never fails to amaze me how threatened theists are by a little confrontation.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

49. Comment #433761 by Stafford Gordon on November 21, 2009 at 7:51 pm

The youngster's father, the photographer, created images that could be sold to any promotion that wanted to show happy looking children, and he can doubtless supply images of sad looking youngsters for campaigns mounted by organizations such as Save the Children or Barnardos.

They are photos of happy looking children that's all; had the campaign requested pictures of sad looking ones he would probably have been able supplied them.

The argument is not that the children of religious families are unhappy, it is simply that they should not be labelled with any religion.

The article thus completely misses the point; quite bizarre.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

50. Comment #433763 by George Lennan on November 21, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Comment 43 by Enlighten me. You are truly a master of irony and contextual criticism. You must have been a post-modernist child.

I read the comments previously thanks and I stand by my point, precisely because the 'other side' won't hestitate to profit from this kind of error, and the 'undecided' will swallow the said.

My point applies equally to all ad agencies - it's ok to use a stock photo of Professor Dawkins to advertise Sunsilk silky-hair-o-man shampoo, but would be profoundly daft to use the same photo to advertise the Discovery Institute.

See?

Several other contributors have been trying to minimise or justify the fact that 'they' don't get it. PRECISELY!!! 'They' are stupid, stupid! Which is why stupid errors like this should be avoided at all costs. Its a simple, stupid, blatant public relations disaster. End of.

Other Comments by George Lennan