I've found this link here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion) which gives precise details of the campaign which sparked the counter-campaign, if that makes sense.
I have to say, I share the fury of the original writer about the first set of ads, but I can't see the logical connection between the fury and the response; surely she must have realised that many people who were offended were offended by the fact of advertising about closely held and personal matters of belief, as though they were comparative forms of soap powder, not the content of the advertisements?
FWIW I detest the notion of the Dawkins bus ads for more-or-less the same reasons as you state - offensive, so reductive of complex attitudes and beliefs as to be virtually meaningless and, essentially, stupid.
no subject
I've found this link here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion) which gives precise details of the campaign which sparked the counter-campaign, if that makes sense.
I have to say, I share the fury of the original writer about the first set of ads, but I can't see the logical connection between the fury and the response; surely she must have realised that many people who were offended were offended by the fact of advertising about closely held and personal matters of belief, as though they were comparative forms of soap powder, not the content of the advertisements?
FWIW I detest the notion of the Dawkins bus ads for more-or-less the same reasons as you state - offensive, so reductive of complex attitudes and beliefs as to be virtually meaningless and, essentially, stupid.