Home » Forums » General Stuff

Should this site be secular (re: religious advertising)?

NickN's picture
Wed, 07/08/2009 - 17:05
Submitted by NickN

Dear Betty and Carlin,

While reading some of the forum topics, I noticed that the right-hand column had an advertisement for Scientology in it; a simple square, the width of the column with the Scientology web address centred in it. I expect that it was an automated ad of some kind because it only appeared on one page (it was not a pop-up, it looked like a fully embedded ad) but it was upsetting nonetheless.

While I very strongly support the concept of freedom to practice one’s religion, it seems to me that it would be helpful if your site remained secular. I have no objection to anyone being a Scientologist (other than my personal objection to that particular religion), it is their right; but I personally don’t want to have to have anything to do with Scientology.

Scientologist follow the teachings of the late L Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer turned religious leader famed for his racist writing. A typical piece being:

“You shouldn't be scrubbing the floor on your hands and knees. Get yourself a nigger; that's what they're born for.”

Many other ghastly and offensive Hubbard quotes have been gathered together by anti-racist activists that can be found at:

www.solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm

and it makes very, very disturbing reading. Of course, some deals with net advertising agencies don’t allow one to pick and choose which ads appear on your pages but many do offer some kind of control. I’d be interested to know what others think but I’m pretty clear that I’m not in favour of any religious advertising in spaces that should be a place for free, ethical and rational discourse.

Best wishes for secular spaces,

Chu

‹ Farewell! calling all g-spot orgasmers ›

An interesting set of responses

NickN's picture
Tue, 07/14/2009 - 23:38
NickN

Dear All,

thank you for your responses. 

Newbiehere, I'm not sure I fully understand your point in terms of users of the site (in this case, me) commenting upon some of the advertising content. It is, legitimate, in my view, to be discerning and politically aware and to notify site operators (in this case Betty and Carlin) of materials placed by advertisiers that might contravene the ethical and moral framework within which the site operates. From my experiences of the site, and of my reading of Betty and Carlin's shared poltical and ethical preferences thus far, I guessed (correctly as it turned out) that Betty and Carlin would like to know if such ads appeared and the extent to which they (and others) might object to the advertising in question. I thus see no cause for your concern. Furthermore, my opposition to racism and racist organisations is an anti discriminatory measure and thus supportive of free speech and free association. Your desire not to become a transgendered person really has no bearing on the issues at all. I'm glad you are not upset by transgendered people contributing but saddened that you are not upset by racism.

Cuntlicker, censorship at the nation-state level, within some boundaries that are open to political discussion and can thus be decided at the ballot box, is, I agree, something that is generally unwelcomed by all who believe in free speech. However, it is perfectly valid, in my view, to make one's own views known through the free press and other media such as this site. In this case, my opposition to racism and to racist organisations is part and parcel of my ethical and political position. So while I agree that the transfer of money from Scientology to this site might be a good thing financially, it puts this site in an invidious moral position; that of benefitting financially from an organisation to which it is opposed while promoting values which would ultimately do harm to the site and to many of the site's users. So it is tempting to agree with you concerning the transfer of funds but, in my opinion, ethically unacceptable.

Eleni, I too think that kindness is important. Having just read this page after a gap of several days, I'm uncertain as to Cherrybomb's comments, (have they been deleted?) Perhaps you might drop me a line and let me know what was said.

Carlin, I'm delighted to hear you'll be dropping the google ads system next month.

All, I'm also delighted to see that ethics has triumphed over money and that Carlin and Betty continue to hone this site to ensure that that education, equality and diversity are treated as seriously as they should be; there are so few sites on the net (concerning sexuality) with such high standards and I, for one, am hugely appreciative.

Best wishes for free speech,

Chu   

Cherrybomb was the old name

Wed, 07/15/2009 - 03:10
cuntlicker

Cherrybomb was the old name for Carlin's website. It got changed after she teamed up with Betty and they essentially redid the whole site.

Abstinence makes The Church grow fondlers.

kindness

Sat, 07/11/2009 - 12:46
eleni (not verified)

One of the things that I've always enjoyed about this site and the old one, Cherrybomb, is that people are normally very kind to each other and tend to refrain from name calling. Let's try to keep it that one, ok?
Eleni223

then don't click

newbiehere's picture
Thu, 07/09/2009 - 01:55
newbiehere

(this coming from an Atheist)

if you don't want to personally have anything to do with Scientology, then DONT CLICK ON THE AD. I find it ridiculous that you are UPSET by an ad? How immature is that? Stop whining and just don't click on it, or how about ignoring it?  There are plenty of advertisements from billboards to television commercials that everyone might not like or agree with - and most people just IGNORE IT or don't go out and investigate the product or buy the product.

I certainly have no desire to be a trans-gendered individual, but am I writing to Carlin and Betty complaining about the ad on the side of the gallery claiming there are 3 male to female trans-gendered contributors in the gallery and complaining how UPSET i am about it?

WAA. GROW UP.

You can find me at:

http://dodsonandross.com/art/cowrie-shell

I look at it this way...

Fri, 07/10/2009 - 05:00
cuntlicker

I look at it this way... every time I see one of those ads for something I disagree with or even am violently opposed to, it costs the sponsor of that ad money, and gives some to the site I'm browsing. And newbie has a point. The only censor that can really decide what you should or should not be exposed to is you. I can't think of a single person in this world that I would trust with the authority and power to decide what I can or cannot watch, read, hear, etc.

Abstinence makes The Church grow fondlers.

Phew!

NickN's picture
Wed, 07/08/2009 - 17:46
NickN

Dear Carlin,

thanks for the super-fast reply. I thought as much but it was lovely to hear you say it. I wonder if Google can block certain kinds of advertising on your behalf?

Best

Chu

Hey! the ad's here again on this very page (on my screen anyway)

Fucking google ads!  The

Wed, 07/08/2009 - 17:17
Carlin Ross

Fucking google ads!  The way it works you have to remove any objectionable ad as they're served up in their competitive filter.  I'm dropping the google ads by the end of the month. 

sorry for the confusion.  You couldn't find two bigger atheists than Betty and me.

"most people are fools, most authority is malignant, God does not exist, and everything is wrong" Ted Nelson