More Christian persecution?

It seems that there is a growing tide of Christians complaining about being oppressed. This oppression is claimed to be coming from the state. We have recently seen the courts rule against Christians in a number of cases; the B&B who turned away same sex couples, the nurse and BA worker who each wanted to wear an outward symbol of their faith and the banning of prayers as part of official council business.

In addition to the courts, the Advertising Standards Authority have also incurred the wrath of Christians. I previously blogged about the Bristol group who falsely claimed prayer would cure Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction ... Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness.

The latest ASA investigation to rile the Christian community concerns an advert by the Coalition for Marriage which appeared on the blog of right wing Christian Archbishop Cranmer. The advert consists of a series of wedding pictures followed by the words "I do" then "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" followed by an appeal to sign the coalition's petition.

Cranmer blogged about the investigation calling it persecution. Comments by supporters refer to it being harassment. Many suggest he tells the ASA to f*ck off. Others in solidarity have hosted the same advert on their own blogs and websites.

Is this investigation justified? At first glance there doesn't appear to be anything which would trouble the ASA. However, looking deeper it does appear that there is a case to answer. Cranmer helpfully lays out what rules may have been broken 'CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 4.1 (Harm and offence)’. The full text can be found here but the following extracts give the idea.

3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.

3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information.

3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation.

4.1 Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.

You may still be wondering how the advert might have broken the above rules. A clue is the in the small print to the "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" image. It says "Source ComRes poll for Catholic Voices". You can download that poll here.

The question, which got a 70% approval rating in the poll was "Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman"

My first issue is that marriage is not defined a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman. It is not life long. Married people can get divorced and if they choose may marry again. It is  not exclusive either. People who have affairs are still considered married.

The second issue is that the question covered only one definition. There could be others. Just because most people would agree 2+2= 4. It does not mean that they don't think 1+3=4 as well.

In stating that "70% of people say keep marriage as it is" the advert is relying on the answer to a question that did not give the correct definition of marriage and which did not ask whether marriage should be extended to same sex couples. I suspect there is a good reason why the obvious question was not asked. Other polls show a much higher support for same sex marriage than the 22% disagreeing with the Catholic Voices statement.


Seems to me that there is a case that the advert is misleading. I am not sure that 70% of people (or even 70% of those polled) do support the conclusion drawn. We will have to see whether it is misleading enough for the ASA to take action.

The Blue Square Bet Conference approach to influencing polititians

Ok, let's assume you're not in the Premier League with £250,000 to spend on a candle lit dinner with a top Tory - so how else can you get MPs to push your point of view?

It might be best illustrated by working though a hypothetical example.

Imagine you are a lobby group, let's pick one at random - how about CARE the Christian organisation who have a goal to get more people praying?  


What you could do is set up a program which pays bursaries to graduates, allowing them to offer their services to an MP for four days a week, for free.  So again, to show how it could work, let us select a random MP.

Then let's say an issue comes up that falls within your area of interest. How about the ASA banning an advert, which had irresponsible, misleading and unsubstantiated claims over the efficacy of prayer?

Perhaps your paid intern's MP could sign a letter which protests the decision to the chairman of the ASA and includes a threat to raise the issue in parliament.

Of course, someone could suggest something undemocratic is  happening, but you could point to the line on your website which says something like "Programme members are at no time asked to lobby on behalf of CARE" and pretend it is just a coincidence.


Please note, that the examples above are included for illustration purposes only. Any connection between the above and decent, moral, democratic behaviour is purely unintentional.

Perhaps I should finish this blog post with a warning.  This approach can on occasion have a downside and can lead to your MP being ridiculed and called hapless in a national paper and may lead to bloggers and tweeters mocking your beliefs.