THE happy expressions on the faces of the two children chosen to front the British Humanist Association’s latest poster campaign were put there by Jesus. Apparently.
Writing in The Times yesterday, religious correspondent Ruth Gledhill fancied she dropped a bombshell when she revealed that :
Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.
Their father, Brad Mason, then does precisely what the BHA exhorts people NOT to do: he brands the two kids “Christians”.
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. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.
He said that the children’s “Christianity” 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.
S’trewth!
Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, added:
I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.
Fundies may have been happier if the BHA had chosen grumpy kids to support their poster campaign
The British Humanist Association said that the children’s background was of no consequence. Andrew Copson, the association’s education director explained:
That’s one of the points of our campaign. People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.
The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.
The images of the children were sourced from istockphoto.com, on which photographers upload images for sale to designers, in return receiving a portion of each download fee.
The kids’ dad is a web designer and photographer, Â who has been supplementing his income for years by providing photographs to agencies who sell them on to newspapers and advertising campaigns.
Those who have welcomed the campaign include the magician and illusionist Derren Brown and the author Philip Pullman, who said:
It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
Well said. Ruth Gledhill can be a bit hit and miss but this time she really missed.
Better still is this quote from the Belfast Telegraph article about the religious upset the poster has caused in the religiously harmonious city of Belfast:
Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.â€
(second attempt to post a comment – first seemed to go AWOL!)
Robert
Big mistake – playing right into their hands again!
I don’t think it plays into their hands, it just proves that they label their poor children.
It also shows Brad Mason’s delusion in such comments as ‘Obviously there is something in their faces which is different’ I bought my children up in a religion free zone and have many beautiful happy photos of them.
Religion tortures children in many many countries.
Ruth Gledhill really gets on my tits!
I bought my children up in a religion free zone and have many beautiful happy photos of them.
Happy?
How can you label them happy?
You should let them grow up and decide for themselves!
That has probably gone down well with The Times owner, Rupert Murdoch who is a boring again christian!
It comes as no surprise that both Brad Mason and The Times’ Ruth Gledhill have completely missed the point. When I quickly scanned the story in today’s paper I almost did the same thing, but then I came onto this site and all was clarified. It goes without saying that Brad Mason is a bit of a twit and his children’s ‘Christianity’ is an imposition.
Ruth Gledhill and The Times: this is about as petty and daft as you can get. Demonstrates how desperate this woman must be.
Just in case it doesn’t make it past the moderator, I posted a comment on the Gledhill piece to the effect that her ‘revelation’ only proves that Christians label kids too young to argue, and that as I’ve long known Pentecostalists will sell their own grannies to the highest bidder, and even knew one who rented his daughter out for sex, the rest doesn’t suprise me either.
I wish the ad had a multimedia version. Ruth Gledhill would then have heard the children’s joyous “Hoorah!” for freedom from religious labeling, loud and clear:)
What if those kids grow up to become happy well-adjusted atheists?
Lucky Jean.
Impossible! In the christian world view an atheist cannot be well adjusted. Contradiction in terms: atheists must be maladjust.
What dipshits. The children are smiling because they were told to for the photos, not because they’re “Christians”. But try and tell that to a religious nut. They’re sure their sky fairy has taken up residence in the heart of the child before birth and is working in them every day–except when they’re naughty which means they’re listening to Satan.
I just love the way Ruth Gledhill seems to be able to hammer the nail on the head and totally miss it at the same time. The whole point of the poster is about not labelling children and the only way that she can counter that is by making a cheap shot in pointing out that the pictures are of children that have been labelled Christian.
What do the kids think? If they can be used for commercial ends by their loving dad, why can’t they give a press interview? Interesting that the question never occurred to Ruth Gledhill to even ask this question.
I also love the phrase ‘one of the most devout Christian families’. Have they developed a Christian version of Hubbard’s E-Meter; a Devoutometer?
Why is it deemed “ironic” that the BHA’s “don’t label children” ad used pictures of children who have been labelled? Surely “fitting” is the appropriate term for this coincidence.
And what do the father and pastor mean when they describe these kids (who may be 8 and 7 now, but look more like 5 and 4 when the photo was taken) as Christian? That they were born miserable sinners, deserving of eternal torture unless they accept that the supernatural being which created them assumed human form 2000 years ago in order to be tortured to death, thus satisfying its own sense of justice and saving them from damnation? Because that is what Christians such as Mason believe – if they don’t, they’re not Christians.
If they have filled the kids’ heads with this crap, then they are child abusers of sorts. If not, then they might begin to see the folly of labelling children so young. But then that would mean they would have got the point, which is highly unlikely.