ABC on BBC Breakfast
4.12.08 | Ariane |
Adverts, Atheist Bus Campaign, BBC Breakfast, Bill Turnbull, Bus Shelter, Churches Advertising Network, Francis Goodwin, Nativity, Sian Williams
I was asked on to talk about the new Churches Advertising Network nativity adverts. Apologies – I meant to say “more apathy” rather than “less apathy” (that’s a 5.40am start for you) – but on the plus side, I know all about cathode ray tubes!
December 4th, 2008 at 18:59
Congratulations Ariane!
You came across as so positive and likeable. Just what the ad campaign needs.
And you didn’t let the nonsensical remarks about ‘evidence’ get to you!
Brilliant.
December 4th, 2008 at 19:42
Agreed. You put your points across articulately, logically and charmingly, and allowed him to hang his own argument with those closing remarks on evidence. After seeing that interview, I believe television works too.
Nicely done.
December 4th, 2008 at 20:10
Kudos, Ariane! I think we finally have an atheist TV star!
December 4th, 2008 at 21:49
Well done, and my two teenage daughters thought you were great too.
I think many viewers will have been pleasantly surprised that not all atheists have to wear jackets with leather elbows, pince-nez, and have a taste for pipe-weed.
December 5th, 2008 at 0:19
Ariane, well done! Marvelous stuff! There’s something very persuasive about letting the opposition speak and having your say quietly and with a smile. But the presenter was right…. 4 minutes just isn’t enough is it?
This is unrelated but I wrote a song about atheism early in the year… although it’s VERY subtly stated so as not to offend the Christian guitar player in my band!! It’s at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwDYBrV7XY — just thought I’d spread a bit of godless joy.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:17
Not aggressive enough for my taste, but probably just right for the audience. And the time frame really was too small, so well done and cheers!
December 5th, 2008 at 10:50
Thank you so much – you’re all very kind, and I hope I can represent us a bit better in the future.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:36
Ariane,
Would it be better to talk about a “free society” rather than a “secular society”?
Something like, “We are moving away from being a religious society to being a free society in which people are allowed to think for themselves.”
This is an ad campaign after all, and I suspect ‘secular’ has negative connotations for many people, while everyone wants to be free!
Just a thought.
December 5th, 2008 at 14:46
Hi Bill,
That’s an interesting point. I’m not certain “secular” has negative connotations (otherwise I’m sure the NSS would change its name!) but it’s definitely true that many people don’t know what it means. As for “free”, while I personally like the term a lot, I worry that it might confuse the average viewer who wouldn’t equate religion with a lack of freedom in practical terms. The term “non-religious” might be better?
Ariane
December 5th, 2008 at 15:00
I don’t like “non-religious” or any other flavour of “non-whatever”, because there is an explicit negation of something else. We need a term which is positive in its own right. Secular is technically correct but perhaps not widely understood. I must confess to a time in my life when I confused secular and sectarian! I agree with your reservations about “free”, so how about “rational”?
December 5th, 2008 at 15:22
Simon: Great idea – I’ll use “rational” in future.
Tom: I’m a little pressed for time today but look forward to listening to your song soon!
December 5th, 2008 at 15:29
Simon B: I think you have a very good point about the non-whatever, but the problem is if we describe ourselves (correctly) as “free” or “rational” we start sounding like those annoying people who write letters to The Times claiming to be”right-minded people…”. And we don’t want to be annoying uncommitted viewers.
Like you, I only found out the difference between “secular” and sectarian” comparatively recently. One lady I spoke to recently thought a “secular” was a gynaecological instrument!
All things considered, I would go for “non-religious” until maybe a less negative alternative can be found.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:39
Richard: Nice post. You’ve caused me to change my mind about this. I’m now backing “non-religious” instead of “rational”.
I like your Times reader analogy. We certainly don’t want to sound as if we are preaching from a position of intellectual superiority, raising hackles in the process. My original worry was that “non-whatever” would be misinterpreted as “anti-whatever” (another hackle raiser), but I now think this concern was baseless.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:27
Simon: Thanks for the post.
I had tried to think through how us using the word “rational” might rebound on us in an interview situation, and this was another worry: If we said “rational” means “secular”, then we could be accused of saying that the secular administration of, for instance, Pol-Pot was “rational”… which might have led to some rather negative headlines in the Daily Mail et al.
Anyway, non-drip paint sales are still going strong, so maybe non- can have a positive impact!
PS Regards to MT
December 6th, 2008 at 13:48
How about “non-religious, rational society where people base their beliefs on reason and evidence”? It would then be inaccurate to liken any secular totalitarian regime to this description.
December 6th, 2008 at 13:58
Excellent!
December 6th, 2008 at 14:07
Yep, very good; could even become our Mission Statement!
But to replace the word “secular”, “non-religious” would seem to be the most widely-understood and appropriate option. And less of a mouthful – rememer how little time you get to speak in these interviews!
December 6th, 2008 at 17:06
I thought you came across well. I can’t imagine why anyone would see the word “secular”as especially negative, though maybe some very religious people do, because it means standing up for a society where religions interfere less and have less unjustified influence and power. I am surprised to hear it should be seen as not understood by a lot of people too, but it is often a mistake to over-estimate people’s amount of education… and if you are trying to put a message across perhaps it is best to use words everyone is sure to understand. I agree “non-religious” is fine.
December 6th, 2008 at 17:39
I fully support the new mission statement!
December 6th, 2008 at 22:27
I listened to the tape again.
Is it REALLY true that kids aren’t taught about Christmas? After all, Christmas, and what it means to different people, is in every key-stage of the National Curriculum. Children ARE taught about Christmas! Over and over again!
Then I listened again to what he actually said:
“Only one in eight people have a clear understanding of the Christmas story.”
What he’s really saying is “Only one in eight people have MY understanding of the Christmas story” !
I hope I’m not out of order by posting this comment here.
December 6th, 2008 at 23:16
“Non-religious, rational society where people base their beliefs on reason and evidence.” Brilliant! I’ll vote for that.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:31
Bill, if you want my opinion, that is precisely the kind of comments I like to read. Aahhh!, the beautiful combination of pseudo-statistics and religion.
Ariane, I read in the “RD.net” forum that the campaign launching cannot be announced in advance due to security reasons, is it really so?! What a pity… How do we expect somebody to go then?.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:36
Glad you all like the “mission statement”!
iparrajorge: We are going to be inviting people, just not announcing the launch publicly. Apologies. Please could you post the link to that thread on RD.net? I haven’t read it yet. Many thanks.
December 7th, 2008 at 13:27
Bill: This link to John Wilson’s very informative blog seems to explain the quote “only 1 in 8 people have a clear understanding of the Christmas story”. It seems that the survey by Theos had a hidden agenda to show that the country had become Godless!
http://armchairdissident.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/the-real-nativity/
And I think you’re quite right to discuss this here; Francis Goodwin did try to justify the bus-stop nativity advert by using the above ’statistic’.
December 7th, 2008 at 15:24
@ariane: Great job!
“How about “non-religious, rational society where people base their beliefs on reason and evidence”? It would then be inaccurate to liken any secular totalitarian regime to this description.”
I think that sounds pretty good.
If it were me I’d skip the ‘non-religious’ part. I think it should be clear that opposing religion is not a starting point, but rather a consequence of an underlying, positive, commitment. I’d aim for something like this (but shorter!):
“We want to move towards being a society which recognises that critical thought and evidence-based reason are the best ways we have of forming true beliefs about the world; a society which understands that authority and tradition are not legitimate foundations for belief.
We reject the amazing claims of religion because the evidence for them is too weak to warrant belief.
We oppose religion because it legitimizes the uncritical adoption of belief.”
December 7th, 2008 at 16:25
Richard, John: You’re right, and it’s odd – you’d think they would want to show that people were showing more of an interest in Christianity, not less!
Bitbutter: Thanks for your comment. I think it’s spot-on, but the chances of my remembering it are more slender than Woolworths’ chance at rehabilitation! I like the idea of focusing on the positive aspects of atheism – the fact that it’s the best (and indeed, the only) way of making sense of the world. (By the way, I very much enjoy your website!)
December 7th, 2008 at 16:59
We strive toward a society recognising critical thought and evidence-based reason as the best ways of dealing with our problems and interacting with the world; a society rejecting unquestioning authority and tradition as legitimate foundations.
We reject the amazing and conflicting claims of the various religions because the evidence for them is too weak to withstand scrutiny. We oppose religion because it legitimizes the uncritical adoption of unwarranted and intransigent attitudes, helping foment undue discord.
_____
December 7th, 2008 at 17:13
Blimey Adam – that’s extremely incisive but I’d love to have seen Sian Williams’ face if I’d come out with that!
December 7th, 2008 at 18:40
Adam: Beautifully phrased, but maybe a little too highbrow for many in our target audience. Whatever is said should be widely understood … even by Blackadder’s Baldrick.
December 7th, 2008 at 19:13
How about: Piss-off papist!
_____
December 7th, 2008 at 19:28
Adam: Great, now we’ve got ourselves a motto to go with Ariane’s mission statement!
So, when’s the rugby shirt (XL) coming out for the launch – it’ll be too cold for T-shirts!
Ariane: Agree on bitbutter; crowth.net also worth a look – it has a great take on Scientology!
December 10th, 2008 at 5:23
You did a good job! I was also impressed that Francis welcomed the bus ads and the debate.
Most short TV interviews in the U.S. between similar people’s such as yourselves would have featured a right wing Christian claiming atheists are attacking and being hateful.
All rubbish of course.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:41
I see the Christian resorts to “It’s Political Correctness!”
Christianity is everywhere in society. If people don’t care about Christianity, it’s not becauase they are offended, it’s because they think it’s a load of rubbish.
In my experience, Christians are far more likely to be offended over atheism, than the other way around.
He criticises ignorance of people not knowing about the nativity – yet he’s happy to brag about his ignorance of how televisions work, in support of the idea that it’s okay to act without reason and evidence!
December 15th, 2008 at 18:18
I thought that was a great segment. You were both cordial and likable and you put forth our position well. It’s a stark contrast to such segments here in the US.
Keep up the great work!
December 16th, 2008 at 20:43
I never realised how hot Ariane was…
December 17th, 2008 at 0:05
rich! You’ll be getting us all a bad name!
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:21
I have to say I groaned a little when she was saying that we should know about all religions and then struggled to name three. I was half hoping you’d take the opportunity to bring up Zoroastrianism.
December 24th, 2008 at 5:07
Great job Ariane! Your attitude in that piece sums up for me how I believe atheists should present themselves in public debate and everyday life.
People switch off when they see an aggressive confrontational debate, rather than truly listening to the merits of each side. They identify on which side they’re supposed to stand and then root for that side while watching.
Aggressive atheists to me are akin to the Catholic missionaries of old. The information is there if people want it, we don’t need brimstone!
The other guys welcoming of the debate was a refreshing response which I’ve never seen before and great to see.
Finally, nice website – just found it!
December 24th, 2008 at 11:56
@Turner, @John: Many thanks – you’re both very kind!
September 18th, 2009 at 18:51
I’d just like to draw your attention to this:
“The Atheist’s Guide To Christmas” is the UK’s first atheist charity book, featuring contributions from Richard Dawkins, Derren Brown, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Claire Rayner, David Baddiel, Charlie Brooker and many more. It’s been edited by Ariane Sherine, the creator of the hugely successful Atheist Bus Campaign. It’s out on Oct 1st and all royalties are going to the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust. Please pre-order now:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atheists-Guide-Christmas-Ariane-Sherine/dp/0007322615/
The Atheist’s Guide is a mix of humorous and poignant contributions from over 40 various prominent atheists. It’ll make an ideal Christmas gift for your atheist friends. Your religious friends will love it too, or, even better, it’ll put them in a foul mood for Xmas! So a win-win situation! More info on the Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128903634833
Your support will not only maintain the profile of atheism in the UK, it will also help raise funds for the very worthy THT charity. Please note that the contributors, and Ms Sherine, have waived payment for their considerable input into the “Guide”.
Thank you, and please pass this message on to everyone you know!!
[My apologies if you already know about the Guide!]