News

CBS rejects Ron Reagan’s atheist ad

CBS rejects Ron Reagan’s atheist ad

A Freedom From Religion Foundation ad featuring Ron Reagan, son of the former US President, has been rejected for airing by CBS.

A statement issued this week by the FFRF said the ad – featuring “unabashed atheist” Ron Reagan – was was rejected “for words and tone”.

In this video, Reagan says:

Hi, I’m Ron Reagan, an unabashed atheist, and I’m alarmed by the intrusion of religion into our secular government. That’s why I’m asking you to support the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest and most effective association of atheists and agnostics, working to keep state and church separate, just like our Founding Fathers intended.

Please support the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell.

The rejection came as a shock, since FFRF aired a 30-second spot on national CBS in 2012, rebutting Rick Santorum’s remarks dissing candidate John F Kennedy’s pro-state/church separation speech before Houston ministers in 1960. That ad was accepted to run on “The CBS Evening News” as well as “CBS Sunday Morning”.

Said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

It appears that if a public figure makes a simple declarative statement in support of state/church separation, FFRF and atheism, it’s too hot to handle for CBS.

Added Dan Barker, who co-directs FFRF:

It seems that excess gas, erectile dysfunction and other intimate bodily functions, not to mention ads wherein political candidates viciously attack each other, are acceptable. But the plain-spoken, witty and slightly irreverent remarks of a well-known figure identifying as atheist are too much for the delicate sensibilities of CBS’ censors.

Gaylor asked:

Why are atheism and freethought still treated as socially unacceptable, even though fully a fifth of the population has no religion today? If anything should be socially unacceptable, it ought to be blind deference to religion.

Reagan is an FFRF honorary director who received the Emperor Has No Clothes Award from FFRF in 2004 and gave an acceptance speech at the 2009 national convention in Seattle.

As liberal as his famous father was conservative, Reagan stopped going to church when he was 12 and has publicly stated he’s an atheist numerous times.

The New York Times asked him in 2004, in an interview that ran three weeks after his father died, if he’d like to be president.He replied:

I would be unelectable. I’m an atheist. As we all know, that is something people won’t accept.

23 responses to “CBS rejects Ron Reagan’s atheist ad”

  1. Norman Paterson says:

    You have to wonder which words and tone specifically were objectionable.

    And it’s OT but it’s interesting that Ron Jr has the same half-squashed face as his dad.

  2. L.Long says:

    It is PURE PROFIT!! They don’t want to piss off the bigger Xtian/religious bigots.

  3. Lon says:

    I am an unabashed mother fucking atheist too. My words and tone have never offended anyone, but then, i’m not famous. Peace and love, peace and love.

  4. Matt Westwood says:

    If you’re not offending some stupid bunch of fascist pricks, you’re not doing it right.

  5. Paul Cook says:

    If Ron and his followers got this video out [more] onto the internet the result can be huge.

    How can nearly half the population of the planet watch a video of that korean horse dancing idiot and or justin biber?

  6. Newspaniard says:

    Does the BBC and the CBS have an agreement to suppress all mention of atheism? I bet this item won’t be on the UK news.

  7. AgentCormac says:

    Censorship pure and simple. Just shows how afraid these bastards are of the truth.

  8. Broga says:

    Newspaniard: The BBC censor atheism. They did so blatantly and without discussion when the NSS put forward a detailed and well argued case for a spot on the dire Thought for the Day.

    There is an interesting piece in the current Private Eye about the vast salaries the BBC bosses pay to themselves while wrecking what was once a respected broadcasting organisation.

  9. Stephen Mynett says:

    In the days before everything was dumbed down and the BBC regularly produced good/high quality science programmes I was a staunch supporter and argued against anyone who tried to say the licence fee was a rip off. It has been a long time since I tried to defend the BBC, especially as they now do not even bother to respond to some complaints, and I am edging further towards the abolish the licence fee camp. I find it hard to justify forcing to people to pay for a biased organisation that produces less and less quality material.

  10. barriejohn says:

    I’ve long thought (since first meeting up with a Brethren family where THREE generations of men shared the same first name) that there’s something quite odd about men who want to name ther firstborn sons after themselves. Has anyone ever come across a WOMAN who gave her daughter her own name? Any thoughts?

  11. barriejohn says:

    Re The Big Bucks Corporation: I still don’t understand how, while Choir of the Year is now a biennial event since withdrawal of sponsorship by Sainsburys, School Choir of the Year is held annually as a part of Songs of Praise. Why should children be forced to sing religious songs in order to compete in this event? Does no one else find this strange?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006ttc5

    (Just look at that lineup of creeps. Would YOU want to watch that?)

  12. Paul Cook says:

    Stephen Mynett

    I just listened to the world service. The world news radio prog. They have just played signing inside a cafflink church in Ghana. WHY? why do that? who gives a fig!

    I wonder if the BBC are not open to free speech.

    When Ratzinnazi resigned or whatever he did, I was listening to radio Five Live for a sport game. On sports five live they had news over and over of ratzinnazi’s resignation – I complained and they =said there was nothing wrong with that being looped over and over onto a sports programme as it was very important news!
    Important to who? Not me. And not to the other non-cafflicks on this planet. So i wrote back and told them to I wasnt a cafflink, I didn’t care, it was a sports radio and religion was not relevant, and they should f——g well not do that. I got banned from making comments after that. I guess ‘cos I said I wasn’t religious!

  13. Broga says:

    The BBC is now a shambles and a disgrace. That people, often poor, should have the licence fee extracted from them on pain of imprisonment is extortion. The organisation, still living on a reputation from the past, is not to be trusted. It has a Religious Correspondent, well paid I assume, to produce religious propaganda. The same goes for the Royal Correspondent.

    Like Stephen Mynett I was a long time supporter. The BBC treatment of the NSS submission on Thought for the Day extinguished my residue of support. A thoughtful and temperate case dismissed arrogantly with the comment that TfTD would continue without change. They appoint RCs to senior positions and these people drool of Ratzi and his ilk and give them free propaganda spots.

  14. Laura Roberts says:

    As an American expat in the UK, I appreciate the BBC, especially for the Proms but also for documentary shows such as BBC Horizons, even when it’s not accurate. For me, the BBC today is a bit like PBS back in the 1970’s, before our government eviscerated its funding. Today PBS has commercial advertising and highly questionable “documentaries”. Generally its best fare is imports from the BBC.

  15. Stephen Mynett says:

    ARD and ZDF in Germany produce decent quality stuff, although they do produce a lot of dross as well. In general their news coverage is nowhere near as biased as the BBC and their regional stations plus stations run in co-operation with other broadcasters offer a much better choice than the BBC’s channels. The licence fee is slightly more expensive, although anyone on welfare payments is exempt and they bring in part of their revenue with advertising. However, the adverts are shown in blocks, giving ample time to make tea or however you avoid adverts and they do not intrude in the middle of shows.

    Of course, the BBC would be too arrogant to consider a bunch of foreigners could do a better job than them.

    It is also noteworthy that ARD and ZDF are happy for speakers to use their native language and while they rarely sub-title do have German voice-overs for any interviews. They also conduct interviews in the language of the person being interviewed, something the BBC do not always do. I remember seeing a very jumped up and embarrassing BBC journalist having a go at Guido Westerwelle just after an election. Westerwelle was about to become vice-chancellor and was lambasted by the BBC for refusing to take questions in English. Obviously the fact they were covering a German election in Germany and talking to someone who, by his own admission, had very poor English was not relevant to them. The BBC hack seemed to think all foreigners should speak his language.

  16. A Confused Atheist says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” ~ First Amendment, United States Constitution

    The First Amendment says that no law can be made by Congress to establish a religion, yet it seems that Congress has been breaking this rule for years. If you look at this, along with the references to ‘God’ in their motto and currency – “In God We Trust” being splattered all across Federal material. Even the quote “God Bless America” could not be left out either.

    There may be no law establishing or prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, but it seems that the United States Government is doing what they do best to do so: just do it anyway, and metaphorically trample on anyone who questions.

    CBS has a duty to allow this Atheist ad to run out on their network, along with ads of other religions.

    So much for ‘The Land of the Free’…

  17. eddy says:

    The First Amendment, are you aware that the courts order people to 12 step programs and there have been a number of lawsuits challenging that decision.

    http://www.care2.com/causes/can-a-court-sentence-people-to-religious-12-step-program.html
    Barry Hazel won his case and he won the right to sue for damages for such a decision.
    Courts violate the first amendment clause on a daily basis.

    If you have followed Ken Ragges page on morerevealed,com all the lawsuits are listed there.

    I follow a blog called Leaving AA and there is documentary being made and another to be aired on 48 hours on the Karla Brady Mendes murder where the perp had been court ordered to AA 55 times since 1991.
    I mean this is faith based and in case after case the higher courts have ruled it is a violation of the amendment yet it does not stop the lower courts from sentencing sex offenders, violent criminals to a faith based organization hoping to get a different outcome.

  18. barriejohn says:

    Eddy: Very interesting, We have discussed AA and the Twelve Steps here before, and other blatantly religious “programs” employed, especially in prisons, with the connivance of the courts:

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/06/06/living-without-god-and-alcohol-row-erupts-among-recovering-alcoholics-in-toronto/

  19. Matt Westwood says:

    Punishing people for taking drugs is nothing but fascism anyway. If a person wants to take drugs it is no business of anybody else. And I offer violent and prolonged condemnation of any such fascist impinging upon my freedom.

  20. Vanity Unfair says:

    To barriejohn:
    Well, my mother and Queen Victoria spring to mind.

  21. don marsh says:

    If you’re agenda and money driven watch CBS! Talk about censorship being the rule rather than the exception. CBS: Christianity & BS!

  22. Bruce Allen says:

    Right on,Ron.