Lib Dem party president Tim Farron has caused something of a storm within the party by co-signing a letter in his capacity as Vice Chair of the ‘Christians in Parliament’ group urging the Advertising Standards Authority to withdraw their ruling “that the Healing On The Streets ministry in Bath are no longer able to claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions.” The controversy is easy to understand, as it pits two tenets of liberalism against each other: free speech and rational scepticism.
Personally, I am very happy to defend Tim Farron’s stance. Here’s three reasons why:
Free speech
First, and most important, Tim has the absolute right to stand up for his deeply-held beliefs. He is a committed Christian, and believes in the healing power of prayer, a belief shared with millions of others who have a religious faith. Whether you agree with Tim or not is irrelevant to the right to express his views, regardless of the position he holds as party president. The advert itself does not advocate relying solely on faith, does not suggest those who are ill should not seek medical help: in their response to the ASA, Healing on the Streets noted that all ‘volunteers underwent detailed training before taking part in their activities,including instruction that everyone who received prayer must be given a letter which included the statements “if you are on medication STAY on it. Under NO circumstances should you stop doing anything a medical professional or counsellor has advised.”‘
You cannot prove or disprove faith
Faith, by its very nature, cannot be proven or disproven. The ASA has ruled that the claim ‘God can heal’ is incapable of scientific justification, which is an understandable position for a neutral regulator to adopt. But there is an important relativist point to be made here, which I can make even if the ASA cannot — there is simply no comparison between (for example) a cosmetics company’s claims and those of a faith-based organisation. If L’Oreal claims it’s wrinkle-creams are scientifically proven to work, I as a consumer want to know if that statement can be justified: the credibility of its product rests solely on the basis of whether it can assure me of smoother skin. Religious faith is a beliefs-system: ‘consumers’ will choose to believe (or not) on wholly different, and personal, criteria.
Regulation-creep
The ASA exists to ensure consumers are not misled by dodgy claims, especially pseudo-scientific ones which cause the public to spend money on products that over-claim their effect (or may even have a harmful effect). Preventing harm to the public is the right and proper duty of regulation. But I would argue no harm to the individual will be caused by the Bath ministry’s claim that ‘God can heal’. And I trust in the individual to make their own choice where they place their trust and faith. This comment by Stuart Wheatcroft on the Vote Clegg, Get Clegg webpage sums it up very well:
The key question is not whether something is true but whether broadcasting it causes harm to others. As part of that, we need to consider how an individual might reasonably react. In matters of faith, people are well aware that views are contested, which distinguishes this from, say, pharmaceutical advertising. Thus, it is reasonable to expect them to display a greater amount of awareness of the issues, and thus an advert which states “prayer can heal” can be expected to be understood in its proper context as a claim, not as an empirically determined fact. We can’t completely eliminate the risk that any comment will lead someone to do something stupid, but in the interests of free speech we have to draw the line somewhere, and in this case the greater level of awareness allows us to be less strict in the way we formulate the law.
You can read the full text of the ASA’s ruling here.
PS: many thanks for the vigorous debate in the comments! I’ve posted a postscript responding to the thread at my blog here: A P.S. to my defence of Tim Farron (and in support of freedom)
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Grotto of the Dancing Deer", by Clifford D Simak
Prescription Ordering Direct (POD) struggling due to staff shortages - there are alternatives
Tony Devine RIP
Council should stand by its decision on Joe Anderson's fees
An 'infantile brand of tyranny'
London's Lost Railways: Staines to West Drayton
We are failing the Afghan people
Getting things done - Union Place #dundeewestend
David Raw
Peter Martin
Joe Bourke
Brad Barrows
85 Comments
To be honest, having a quasi-regulated body trying to say what is and what is not acceptable speech gives me the liberal jeebies in any case.
I agree Stephen – HEAR HEAR!
“Faith, by its very nature, cannot be proven or disproven. The ASA has ruled that the claim ‘God can heal’ is incapable of scientific justification”
There actually has been an extensive trial spanning a decade of whether prayer can help to heal. The results were no better than placebo and in fact in some cases there was evidence that it made things worse, when those who were being prayed for knew about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
I disagree, Stephen, on pretty much all points.
Point 1 – Tim of course is entitled to express his views, but that’s about as far as “free speech” goes in this example. The fact is that we restrict speech in all sorts of ways in our society both legally and through social pressure and some of those restrictions are good things. One of the restrictions that we generally all take to be a good thing is “advertisers making unproven or unprovable claims about what they are selling”, because we can’t all research the veracity of everything and so there is a net social good in generally keeping advertising within sniffing distance of truthfulness. See also: spending caps on political campaigning, restrictions on monopoly ownerships in the media, etc.
Point 2 – If you explicitly claim “God heals” then yes, the onus is on you to prove that; it doesn’t matter if it’s the Neutrilium or His Noodly Appendage doing the healing.
Point 3 – your first line says it all: “The ASA exists to ensure consumers are not misled by dodgy claims, especially pseudo-scientific ones which cause the public to spend money on products that over-claim their effect (or may even have a harmful effect). ” <- does this remind you of any religions at all? It does me.
Personally I think it is sickening and has thoroughly dampened my opinion of a man who I had previously deeply respected (and indeed viewed as the future of the party). I am a liberal but truth is more important than liberalism for the sake of liberalism.
As a scientist I can confirm to you that prayer does not improve clinical outcomes more than placebo and that there have been many studies on this topic. Therefore, regardless of religious freedom, to state that prayer improves clinical outcomes is factually wrong. Presumably God, if He exists, doesn’t intervene day-to-day, which really shouldn’t be news to anyone given how many bad things happen in the world.
So in this context, prayer is just another form of alternative medicine, proven to not be effective. Now, it’s relatively benign as far as it goes – it does no active harm, there aren’t any snake-oil salesman making a profit off it and as far as I know no-one is suing scientists when they say that prayer doesn’t affect clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to advertise claiming it works when it doesn’t – it is basically false advertisement.
And it is entirely right that false advertisement should not be legal. Think of the dangers in a wider context if it was! So, to conclude, Tim was very wrong on this matter and should have never signed that piece of paper.
I was writing my response, but I would like to second what Mark Thompson and sanbikinoraion have stated.
As one of the most ardent free speech advocates you’ll find, I have to disagree.
This simply *isn’t* a speech issue. The Advertising Standards Authority have not said that these people cannot express their belief that God can heal people. They have simply said that they cannot *advertise* by making a medical assertion without the requisite evidence supporting it. We demand this standard of all goods and services in other spheres, and proselytism should be no exception. Just as the Electoral Commission stops Phil Woolas from lying about Lib Dem adversaries in his campaign literature so too the ASA is right to prohibit assertions as to facts made in publicly disseminated religious leaflets which are made without evidence and which are capable of manipulating the behaviour of others, especially the vulnerable.
And this is just the point: those who are most vulnerable and likely to be influenced by this sort of language are the ignorant, the immature and the ill. The ignorant, because they don’t have the information to challenge or exhibit effective scepticism. The immature because they lack the critical faculties to challenge claims made by those in positions of institutional authority. The ill because they are mentally weakened by their illness and will often latch onto anything they perceive will make things better, without sight for the externalities.
Even if these groups advise the ill not to abandon their medication (as has happened recently with HIV sufferers in the UK with Ugandan-pastors) using people’s illness as a means to bring people under a religious fold, or as a gateway to other beliefs is institutionally coercive in the very soft paternalist way that we liberals are so critical of when the state does it.
In short, what is at stake here is not the right to free speech, but the religious freedom and wider liberty of those these leaflets are targeted at. The right to manifest one’s religion is not absolute (we don’t let jihadists opt out of murder laws or allow Leviticus literalists stone shell-fish eaters). Liberal Democrats recognise this in our own constitution. We say that people are not to be enslaved by ignorance or conformity. Religious institutions, if unchecked through mechanisms like the ASA, behave in exactly the tyrannical way that we see the state sometimes acts in coercing individuals based on their knowledge and compliance with cultural norms. And it’s precisely because religions have institutional power that they are able to do this. we must protect people from being subjugated to the religion of others.
The issue I have with Tim Farron is actually substantially separate. Firstly, his letter says that the ASA should not prohibit this advertising unless there is “indisputable scientific evidence” to prove that God and/or prayer does not heal people.
Firstly, as a presumed member of the rational sceptic community of which liberalism is a part, he must surely understand that “indisputable” scientific evidence is an oxymoron. The whole premise of the scientific method is that we know very little (if anything) and that anything we think we know is challengeable and should be subjected to the scrutiny of evidence and logic. We may establish a paradigm or a consensus having subjected a hypothesis to extensive testing, but such paradigms may shift and such consensuses may break where new evidence comes to light.
My second objection is that he is imposing double-standards. The burden of proof in pretty much any sphere of public life lies on those making the positive claim. That’s why a criminal prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime. That’s why the ASA insists that a pharmaceutical or a sports drink company proves that its pill has more than a placebo effect on the patient or actually has the rehydrating qualities it asserts. It’s not for the ASA to prove that these claims are wrong. That’s simply absurd. They are specific assertions of objective truth. Not a subjective platitude like “God loves us” or “Best Burger in Jordanhill”. If we do not subject religious advertising to the same standards as anything else in public life, we embrace an exceptionalism that is deeply damaging and which is anathema to the liberal tradition. This is frankly a cop-out by those of faith thinking that everyone else should be subjected to the rigours of reason but not them “because that’s what faith is about”.
Now to be clear here, I am not attacking the notion that Tim Farron is a Christian, or indeed the right of anyone else to hold any faith. As a “son of the manse” I have nothing against Christians. I used to be one. But all I ask is that they be held to the same standards as everyone else and not be allowed to hide behind freedom of expression to conceal what are essentially forms of institutional coercion that we wouldn’t accept in other spheres.
I agree with sanbikinoraion.
I disagree with Stuart’s quote in the article. I’m not sure you can determine that there will be greater awareness when it comes to faith healing. People may be aware of different religious viewpoints but I am also aware of different pharmaceutical companies all saying their product can do whatever it is, they are suggesting it can do.
The job of ASA is to make sure consumers are not misled by dodgy claims, whether religious or not.
Can I ask have any of you emailed him – instead of saying he’s gone down in my estimation etc etc why not ask for him to comment or reply??
@Adam This is not about free speech. It’s about the rules of false advertising applying to all equally.
Why should religion be able to make unproven (or largely disproven) claims in their advertising? If a pharmaceutical company tried to do the same thing would you think it acceptable?
And make no mistake, if the ASA roll over on this you will get every snake-oil salesperson in the land citing it as precedent and demanding the right to make their unrpoven (or largely disproven) claims in their adverts too.
I think people are vastly underestimating the slippery slope the ASA ruling puts us on. Once you decide that it is wrong to advertise these views the next step is to say people should not be alowed to say them as all. if someone can’t put in an advert that people can be healed through prayer then why should they be allowed to sell a book with it in? And if they can’t sell a book should they be allowed to say it at all?
“Free speech” This is a HUMAN right – it does not apply to advertising by organisations, who are not humans.
“You cannot prove or disprove faith” therefore a letter requesting that the ASA do so is idiotic.
“Regulation-creep” This is garbage – existing regulations were applied. Anyone who seeks a faith healer instead of a medical professional on the basis of ads like these will most likely be harmed by the decision.
You don’t mean your second point Stephen, because firstly, there is evidence that prayer doesn’t work, and secondly, by your logic you would have to reject any evidence that proved a religion to be true, or the existence of a deity/ god!
I am not a Labour supporter, but if he was a Labour MP most people here would not be standing up for him but rather putting the boot in. Not to imply that I at all agree with his action or opinions. To begin with Tim Farron in his capacity as a Lib Dem MP and (I think ?) liberal party leader should not have got politically involved in trying to challenge or overturn the ruling of this regulator. That is in addition to his stance being pretty much objectively wrong as far as any disinterested rational minded is concerned.
My issue is this, if the ASA cannot rule on “belief” and “faith” then it may as well give up now because how can it rule on any claim? Homeopathy is harmless, in that drinking copious amounts of it’s magic water will lead only to need to pee more often, so should it be allowed to claim it can cure AIDS, or cancer? Many well-meaning, kind-hearted people out there believe it can.
If we are to say it cannot rule on matters of belief and faith then there really is no point in having the ASA. I’d have a lot more respect for someone putting forth that argument than I do for special pleading (“our faith is religious and thus is far more important than any other sort of belief”)
As long as the ASA allows blatently false advertising by Red Bull to continue I shall be forced to submit a complaint. .
I have been drinking their beverage for years and I have not gained even the slighest vestige of a pair of wings. I demand scientiofic proof that it does or they should take their drink and their Formula 1 cars off our screens.
I’d have thought the crucial question would be “What constitutes an advertisement?” Surely not everything written on a website should automatically be treated as an advertisement. That really would be a cause for concern.
Disappointingly, I can’t see any discussion of that point in the ASA’s adjudication:
http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/2/Healing-on-the-Streets_Bath/SHP_ADJ_158433.aspx
@Mark Thompson
Actually, it really is about free speech. The ASA covers ‘ideas and causes’ too. If it had been something like, “God will help prevent climate change” on a leaflet advocating that you don’t take any action on climate change, it would have been covered. Much as I would think such a sentiment stupid, I do think people should be able to express it.
What the letter asks for is for a specific exemption from the advertising regulations , which everyone else making medical claims have to follow, for Christians.
If you want to argue that their should be no advertising regulations then that’s one thing.
But to argue that there should be regulations but that Christians should be given a special exemption from them it utterly disgusting and goes against the entire principle of the separation of church and state – not to mention the principle of non-discrimination!
I’ve seen Tim’s tweets about this: there has yet to be any real attempt to justify his signature other than “faith should be treated differently”.
As such he has definitely gone down in my estimation.
And I should point out that no one is denying religious groups the right to advertise – it’s just requiring claims in said adverts to be proven to the same standard as every other claim made by every group ranging from aspirin manufacturers to quack snake oil salesmen to yoghurt makers.
@Simon McGrath
“I think people are vastly underestimating the slippery slope the ASA ruling puts us on. Once you decide that it is wrong to advertise these views the next step is to say people should not be alowed to say them as all. if someone can’t put in an advert that people can be healed through prayer then why should they be allowed to sell a book with it in? And if they can’t sell a book should they be allowed to say it at all?”
Frankly I think that opinion is a little bit barmy. Firstly: do you object to there being advertising regulations with regards to food, drugs, cosmetics etc? I would hope so… but if not at least you will probably admit that you would not be locked up or fined merely for making comments of dubious merit or rationality in relation to these things in a personal capacity (assuming you are not trying to flog some snake oil)? These laws have long been in place and the ‘slippery slope’ argument has no merits here, the advertising regulations are clearly delimited, and ‘quelle suprise’ pertain only to the advertising of products.
@George
“But to argue that there should be regulations but that Christians should be given a special exemption from them it utterly disgusting and goes against the entire principle of the separation of church and state – not to mention the principle of non-discrimination!”
I agree with most of what you have written George, especially with regards to Tim Farron apparently wanting a special exemption for the religious (a group to which, in fact, I belong), but I have to stop you there with regards to the separation of church and state, since our church and state are not separated (although perhaps it might be one of the goal’s of the Liberal party, on that I am not sure).
Great article Stephen.
Our party has always found support amongst both ardent athiests and evangelical Christians. Long may that continue!
I fully support Tim’s right to co-sign that letter. It makes no difference whatsoever to his role as party president. As a Christian I believe that God can, and does, heal people. Anyone wanting to understand more of the theology might like to read Jesus’s words in St John’s gospel – as well as the sceptical and disbelieving questions of the people around him!
I would be totally opposed to any church group attempting to use prayer as a substitute for medical treatment, or to try and extract money in return for prayer. However my understanding is that this group, and many, many others like them, offer prayer freely and openly to anyone who wishes to receive it. As liberals we should respect their right to do that, and the right of people to be prayed for.
For me the key question is this; what harm is this ASA regulation seeking to prevent? I question why liberals are so keen to support a ban on something which does not advocate something which will harm the individual.
Maybe the ASA should not be able to ban advertising (thus satisfying libertarian leaning and religiously leaning liberals) but should be able to enforce a limited addition to adverts without evidence to back up claims? (Thus satisfying those of us who disagree with Stephen on point 3 in particular – adverts can cause harm if they make unfounded claims of medical healing cf: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cancer-death-puts-homeopathy-in-dock/story-e6frg6nf-1225877659069 )
I think the church should state what is provable, that prayer can be make the person making the prayer, and the person receiving it (if they are aware of it) feel better. That’s a benefit. And that they believe that God can heal – which is an assertation – kind of like an endorsement. That’s an article of faith and should be presented as such.
Having seen first hand in Africa the dangers of people relying on God over doctors, forgoeing proper medical care – I think we need to be careful in this area. The liberalism point is a good one and worth taking on board – are we being too “nanny state” in thinking people can’t make up their own mind? But equally, I don’t think the church should be subject to different rules from everyone else, so George Potter makes a good point.
@Rob
Fair enough – though for most intents and purposes they are separate.
The only way in which religion is linked with government nowadays is the CofE Bishops in the Lords – and they have very little impact. In pretty much everything else we have a secular government.
Still, point taken.
If there ASA is willing to rule on this, a matter of religious belief, why would it not rule on the lies peddled by the No2AV campaign?
@Stephen Hall
Um, bogus medical claims, especially religious ones, most definitely cause harm:
http://www.skepdic.com/faithhealing.html
@Alex
Because the referendum campaigns weren’t subject to ASA regulation. They were counted as political adverts and therefore exempt. Only the electoral commission wasn’t allowed to regulate them either.
So the AV adverts all fell into something of a loophole in the regulatory framework.
@ George Potter
I don’t doubt it. But the ASA don’t say that Healing On The Streets made bogus claims.
Stephen, they say that the claims ASA can’t be proven. Therefore they do not match the standard required to be presented as fact in an advert.
Medical claims you can’t prove = bogus claims. Simple.
“It’s about the rules of false advertising applying to all equally.”
If that’s the case then we need better regulation for political parties too.
Philosophical concepts like ‘God’, like manifesto promises, are not commodities which exist to be traded and therefore should not be considered or treated as other ideals and objectives are.
Science, like government, has it’s limits.
It is also worth reiterating that freedom of speech cannot be understood separately from freedom of conscience – without the right to dissent from prevailing orthodoxies practical politics will wither and die, and society will stop improving and go backwards.
How about ‘We believe God can heal you from medical conditions.’
Surely that’s more appropriate on all counts?
I’ll say this for Tim Farron. The overwhelmingly critical response to his views (in both this posting and the one earlier this morning by Mark Valladares) has restored my faith in the Liberal Democrats!
The party can still muster plenty of articulate, reasonable and well-informed people. I can only assume that God is moving in a particularly mysterious way.
Stephen,
I don’t think you’ve defended Tim at all here. What you’ve done is raise some valid but completely separate objections to the ASA’s ruling. This isn’t about the rights and wrongs of the ruling per se, but about the specific content of the letter Tim put his name to.
Stephen,
There is evidence here that prayer for the sick can make things worse for the person being prayed for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Also what about this BBC news report that showed that 3 people died because they were advised by pastors to stop taking their medication because God would heal them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14406818
I agree that Farron has the right to say what he likes as long as he doesn’t do it as a representative of the party membership, as President, though.
“It is also worth reiterating that freedom of speech cannot be understood separately from freedom of conscience – without the right to dissent from prevailing orthodoxies practical politics will wither and die, and society will stop improving and go backwards.”
I think that is a little melodramatic. We are not talking about the very right to say what you think or feel here, we are talking about an objective claim in an advertisement that can actually be measured quantitatively. I am myself a believer, and of course concepts such as God on their own are vague and ambiguous and mean different things from one person to the next, but they assume some sort of meaning when put into a context. In this case the meaning is made obvious by the context: a group of spiritual healers are claiming in an advert for their services (whether they charge or not is irrelevant in this specific dispute) that God can heal you. They are claiming, in fact, that they can heal medical conditions through the power of God- that is what it is reasonable to assume an advert for spiritual healers is driving at.
Now that can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis and tested. The scientific evidence shows that there is no factual basis for believing that these healers can cure medical conditions. Suggesting to (in the nicest possible use of the word) ignorant people that they can will make it more likely that they will eschew genuine, evidence-based, medical assistance in favour of spiritual healing. The spiritual healers are making a factual claim here, not a philosophical or mystical one, which has no evidence to support it and has the potential to mislead and cause harm to people.
Not exactly, but legislation hits reality here. The purpose of the regulation is to stop people from advertising medical treatments which don’t work, and hence cause harm to people by conning them into spending money on things which are ineffective or dangerous, or worse, not using medical treatments which do work.
However, if we had regulations where claims had to be disproved then the situation would be economically unworkable: it is cheap and easy to invent a false claim, but can require vast amounts of time and money to prove it false. Hence, such a system would give us an endless stream of false advertising, many of which would in time be proven false, but would be immediately replaced by a new lie.
To prevent this from happening, we instead place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. Hence, our system is that those who wish to make medical claims in advertising must first spend their own time and money on proving those claims. This system has proven to be effective in getting rid of the worst abuses without really impairing the ability for genuine treatments to be advertised.
@Oranjepan
And just to make it clear, we are talking about advertisements here, not freedom of conscience or speech in general. How exactly does being prohibited from advertising something in a few forms of media impinge upon one’s freedom of conscience or freedom of speech in general?
Does freedom of speech extend to allowing snake-oil salesmen and mountebanks to make unsubstantiated claims? How, exactly, does the advertisement which Tim has defended differ from those?
“deeply-held beliefs”
“believes in the healing power of prayer”
“belief shared with millions of others”
Do you see the connection? None of the above imply “fact” – simply “belief”.
I imagine many scientists have faith their medical experiments will work. But you don’t pills released on the basis of these faiths – we wait until they’re proven to work. Otherwise – and this is the kicker – you’re putting people’s lives in danger.
For about the first time, I agree with Nick (not Clegg). Maintaining truth in advertising is a worthwhile project for a society. Giving people who make religious claims a special exemption isn’t something we should be supporting.
@Rob
yes, and implicit in the issue is a question about the value of evidence.
My starting point is that not all evidence is of equal value – for the simple reason that equality is not uniform.
The claims to ‘trust me, I’m a priest’ are on a par with ‘trust me, I’m a politician’ and ‘trust me, I’m a doctor’ in their reliability because of the way evidence can so easily be distorted in each sphere.
Textbook medicine may proselytise fact, but practical treatments depend upon opinions – this is exactly the same as with politics and religion. There is a gap between theory and practise …and that is where humans come into the equation to complicate things!
Does prayer heal? I don’t think anyone here could disagree that meditation or self-composition has measurable benefits in concentrating the mind and allowing individuals to better organise their lives and thoughts.
I have a notebook in which I write most nights before I go to sleep, other people keep a diary or journal – the difference between this and prayer is that prayer developed during a non-literate age when the majority of people couldn’t read or write. And in the digital age blogging is a common habit.
As for the ‘evidence’ against the effectiveness of prayer, cited by Caron and Mark, well, the simple flaw in their proposition is that a criticism of the process of transmutation rules all value of the act meaningless. It is a generalisation.
Equally, Tim was unwise (irrespective of his actual beliefs) in allowing himself to be associated with words which could be so easily misinterpreted by those with an axe to grind.
So, if we’re expecting regulatory bodies to treat all claims of ‘advertising’ the same, then this requires we use the broadest possible definition of ‘advertising’, which is an argument for state censorship and changes the relationship between the state and the individual in ways which we have consistently fought against.
Our argument must therefore be for greater differentiation in the law. And this is how I can reconcile my support for Tim – I support his reasons, even if I don’t support his action in this case. It is the gap between theory and practise.
Commercial or public advertising should be accountable to the law; lawmakers must be accountable to the public; those of faith and reason are accountable to their own conscience.
@Rob “And just to make it clear, we are talking about advertisements here, not freedom of conscience or speech in general. How exactly does being prohibited from advertising something in a few forms of media impinge upon one’s freedom of conscience or freedom of speech in general?”
Because the definition of advertisements in the ASA code covers leaflets, posters, websites, and many other ways of expressing opinion.
@Everyone comparing this group with dodgy salesmen:
In this case, the group were offering their service (prayer) for free. They said God can heal, not God will hear you. And, as the ASA explicitly concede in their judgement, the group tell people under no cirumstances to stop taking their medication.
It may be that the ASA only intend to apply this restriction in a very narrow way, and maybe that’s not a problem. But I too am uneasy that a quasi-judical body have so much power to restrict freedom of speech.
For me, this issue is nothing to do with giving the religious a special exception, but being sure that there are clear and valid principles being consistently applied here in determining what is a legitimate restriction of freedom of speech.
I might have problems with the specific wording of the letter that Tim signed, but if he’s prompted us to have a serious debate about the powers of the ASA, that’s a good thing.
As a liberal, reading these comments has for the most part been deeply depressing. I simply cannot understand why fellow liberals seem to think that state regulated liberalism is not an oxymoron.
I agree 100% with Tim Farron and Stephen in his article. As a christian myself I feel very very strongly about this. The anti christian rhetoric being banded about over this should make some liberals hang their heads in shame.
Faith is faith and cannot be measured by medical standards.
“Because the definition of advertisements in the ASA code covers leaflets, posters, websites, and many other ways of expressing opinion.”
Actually, looking at the code itself, a statement on a website has to be “directly connected with the supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities and gifts, or … consist of direct solicitations of donations as part of their own fund-raising activities”:
http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/CAP-Code/CAP-Code-Item.aspx?q=CAP+Code+new_Scope+of+the+Code
On that basis, a simple expression of opinion on a website would clearly not fall within the scope of the code.
@ Lisa Harding
You might just as well say ‘faith is faith and cannot be criticised’ or @faith is faith and cannot be subjected to reasoned argument’.
“As a liberal, reading these comments has for the most part been deeply depressing. I simply cannot understand why fellow liberals seem to think that state regulated liberalism is not an oxymoron.”
So you presumably don’t think there should be any body with the remit to uphold any law then? So you don’t believe the state should have the remit to protect people’s property rights or persons either? Or is you objection to the perfectly logical idea of state enforced liberalism merely one that arises when it comes to enforcing things you personally disagree with?
What you seem to be suggesting is that the state should not have the power to uphold the law, but if it didn’t have such power the whole concept of liberalism would be meaningless to begin with. The belief that there shouldn’t be a state is properly called anarchism, not liberalism;.
“The ASA exists to ensure consumers are not misled by dodgy claims, especially pseudo-scientific ones” What is this christian claim if it doesn’t fall slap-bang into the above category? Christian propaganda should be approached with the same scrutiny as everything else if these people choose to enter the world of advertising and not keep their fairy tales to themselves. No-one has special exemption because there’s a presumption that everyone knows that it’s all about faith and it doesn’t need to ‘prove’ itself.
Wow – I am astounded that Tim Farron suggested this and ‘liberals’ defend the right of the religious to make unsubstantiated claims.
As a scientist I must say I find this worrying and it also seems that the proponents of religious exclusivity are also those who support the right-wing drift of the party. I bet Evan Harris is glad he got beaten at the last election if this is typical of the party he is a member of.
Farron et al are threatening to make this a Parliamentary issue unless the ASA do what you admit they cannot: disprove a faith claim (when it’s not their place to offer the proof either way in the first place). This is a hugely misconceived action, and Farron ought to spend his time fighting for things the Lib Dem grassroots membership is rightly concerned about: the NHS reforms, the Welfare Bill, and many other matters that threaten society far more than a pretty sensible ruling by a responsible regulator.
Bazzasc…
The idea that this is supported by those who advocate a “rightward drift” of the party is absurd. As someone who is very much of the Orange Book tendency on matters economic I have been as critical as any of Tim for this (and let’s remember Tim is hardly an economic rightey). Meanwhile Tim has received support from self-professed social democrats like Lisa. As a scientist you shouldn’t make sweeping claims when the evidence doesn’t support your assertion. A lesson rather appropriate given the subject matter!
Graeme Cowie
I did use the word ‘seems’ based on a small data set, hardly ‘sweeping claims’ – don’t be so pompous as it was made flippantly. You do not have to educate me on being a scientist thanks.
Perhaps you can use the same criticism for the dodgy data used to support George’s 50p tax abandonment last week.
By the way I thought your post earlier was good
If you can advertise homeopathy you should be able to advertise prayer.
@ Prue Bray,
You can advertise both. But be very careful what claims you make for them.
Many thanks for the vigorous debate — I’ve posted a postscript responding to the thread at my blog here: A P.S. to my defence of Tim Farron (and in support of freedom)
@Nick (not Clegg) I can say exactly that. The point is right in that you cannot judge faith the same way that you judge medical issues. The two are completely different and not governed in the same way.
Faith is a set of ideological beliefs whereas the other is medical face based on science. One cannot measure the other. This is censorship of political freedom and I am astounded that Liberal Democrats are all for it in places.
Lisa Harding
This is nothing to do with religious freedom it has everything to do with false advertising
Why do you think that we should have different rules for religion.
You are wrong on one thing, science cannot examine faith as that is up to the person, what it can do is examine specific claims such as ‘faith healing’ or that the ‘earth is the centre of the universe’ or ‘the earth is 5000 years old’. These are all measurable using the same techniques as used to measure and hypothesis. Unfortunately for your argument, they have all been found wanting.
This ruling from the ASA does is not related to faith but rather to ‘faith healing’ – two different things
As a Christian I don’t think churches should be promising that which they cannot deliver. Since I believe in freedom of speech, I respect Tim’s right to complain, but I would be disappointed if ASA change their position.
bazzasc… on the 50p rate I’m more interested in the manipulation of the data Gordon Brown entertained in when he tried to justify introducing said rate instead of the 45p rate that HMRC’s standard metrics suggested would maximise revenue. Economic decisions based on assumptions that the richest percentile are less economically mobile than they were in the 80s isn’t my idea of evidence based policy.
@Simon Oliver “Free speech” This is a HUMAN right – it does not apply to advertising by organisations, who are not humans.”
If those leaflets were from an individual, rather than an organisation, it would make absolutely no difference. The ASA code would be applied in exactly the same way.
And, are you saying that free speech should only apply to individuals? That if a state allowed individuals to say what they like, but as soon as they organised into groups of more than one, they could be forced to be silent? Surely, you can’t mean that.
Tim Farron’s letter agitates humanists, secularist and rationalists, but a good number of religious Lib Dems won’t have welcomed or feel comfortable with his letter either. I am starting to feel a little sorry for him; he felt he was doing the right thing, but has made himself look completely irrational. I think he needs to iron out his faith; is he a Liberal before he is a Christian? I am not sure that he is, and I don’t think someone can lead the Party in this era with such a hierarchy of priorities.
@Paul Pettinger “is he a Liberal before he is a Christian?”
Before you ask that question, you have to find a definition of Liberal that everyone in the party will agree on. Good luck with that 😉
Nitpick: not his letter, he just countersigned it.
@ Lisa Harding
I agree with bazzasc. By the way, are you using the term “ideological” in the Marxian sense of that word: i.e a false view of the world?
@Andrew Suffield
He was one of three co-signatories – so it’s a fair bet they all had a hand in drafting and approving the letter.
Fascinating debate! Firstly, I think we should distinguish between two things – whether it is right for the ASA to take the decision they did – and whether Tim has a right to express a view that may differ from others in the context, as expressed by Paul P, that his liberalism should trump his faith. On the first, I am quite happy that the ASA has to consider whether claims are true and can be proven – though on that basis I wonder that we are still campaigning to stop airbrushing in adverts for “beauty” products since that is the cleary an untrue claim that continues to be allowed on our screens.
On the second – as George points out – defining a “liberal” is your first problem! And as a former member of the SDP I do have to remind Paul that some of us do not define ourselves merely as liberal – would we throw any one out of the party who did not define themselves as “social and liberal democrats”? That is a dangerous road you go down and many in the party would object to your illiberal desire to ask people to put their political beliefs before their faith. That is not in your gift. As someone whose interest and engagement in politics sprung from my faith I think it is deeply troubling to suggest that there is some sort of hierarchy of belief, and only pure, atheistic liberals can join the party, or those who put faith second. Heavens, our political beliefs are held in just as much faith as any religious belief!
So in my view, whether I agree with Tim on this or not is totally beside the point – his right to express a view rooted in both his faith and political beliefs has to be accepted. The alternative is a deeply illiberal, uniform definition of our collective political faith, the kind of thing we find totally objectionable when expressed in faith communities.
This debate is interesting beyond ‘free speech’. As a Christian Scientist I am even keener to ensure that when guarding our freedoms in expressing our fundamental beliefs about life, we do not slip, through lazy and superficial reasoning, into questioning or curtailing our freedoms in action as independent moral agents. From time to time some of our Parlamentarians and health experts/regulator have wanted to go down this road. If I choose a scientifically spiritual prayer as a means of healing, I do not wish the legislator to inhibit that choice, or the ‘public opinion’ to intimidate those who do. In terms of ‘give us proof’, I’d invite Jennie Rigg and others of doubting persuasion to examine our healing record as Christian Scientists. Over 100 years we have relied solely on a scientifically defined method of spiritual healing to improve our and our fellow-man’s health and wellbeing, and beyond the physical we employ scientific prayer to bring harmony and peace to individuals, families, communities and the world. The results are on public record in the form of properly verified testimonies published in Christian Science Journal. Why not have a look on http://www.spirituality.com and you may be surprised to note that there is an altogether different view of man active in our (liberal) society. And Tim, let’s not fret about this. I’ve just retired, after 40 years in advertising, and have witnessed the kind of ‘proof’ that ASA works on. Like one famous chap once said, I’d say ‘suffer it be so now’.
You are quite right to bring me up on using the word Liberal Linda, when people give a range of labels to their political beliefs, so sorry about that. However, I genuinely think it is questionable whether that anyone who places their religious and non-religious worldview ahead of their commitment to their politics, and who advocates policies in direct recourse to their worldview, can be Leader. Otherwise how can those who don’t share the worldview of the Leader engage with them, know that their own worldview will be respected, and that the leader won’t try and seek privilege for theirs? I am a humanist, but am a (social) liberal a long way before I am a humanist. However, if I placed my humanism ahead of my broader political principles, how could you engage with me if I advocated something in direct recourse to my atheism? In short, you wouldn’t be able to. This is not about trying to police people’s opinions or strong convictions (which the non-religious can have too!), but about how we get along with each other. I think Tim has crossed that line, as there is no way that as a humanist I can properly engage with what he is suggesting, as he has placed his reasoning in direct recourse to his faith, which I don’t share. That is not a liberal way to do politics, and not a particularly liberal manifestation of his religious belief.
@George Kendall – I meant no more than I said, so no, I do not mean your reductio ad absurdam conclusion.
@Jaska Alanko
If what you are saying about there being proof of the healing power of the scientific prayer you refer to you really should consider applying for the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) $1million prize. It sounds like your organisation has actual verifiable proof of the sort of claims that they have pledged to pay out for. All you have to be able to do is reproduce the effect in a scientifically measurable way. So far nobody has successfully claimed this prize (in almost 50 years) but you may be the first to prove a supernatural event as you appear to be describing: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
And whilst you and/or the Christian Science movement may not particularly want the money I am sure you could donate it to a good cause and ensure it is put to good use. After all, it’s got to better working that way than sitting in Mr Randi’s bank account.
@Linda Jack
Tim is right to express his opinions.
He is wrong to sign a letter which uses his position as an MP to bully the ASA and threaten it simply because the ASA enforced the regulations set by parliament.
Mark,
what is the difference between blogging and prayer?
You are a blogger, you post your thoughts into the infinite digital unknown, and you feel validated by the responses you receive.
So, what evidence can you provide that your blogging efforts have provided a quantifiable difference to society?
Your biggest single contribution is probably a statistical analysis showing a correlation between safe seats and corruption, yet one might argue that the negative result in the AV referendum is proof that even your strongest and most logically-robust argument was ineffective, and therefore conclude even that your prayers couldn’t be answered.
The incoherence and illogic of your reasoning must be pointed out – on the one hand you say prayer is a waste of time and mock those who defend it, yet on the other you engage in a technologically advanced version of it and you expect different results.
Everybody here will agree that verification is absolutely vital to the processes of policy-formation and delivery, in order that political accountability and legitmacy are retained, but this does not validate any inference of the inefficacy of other, unverifiable habits and traits.
Frankly, I think you are using language in a very illiberal and authoritarian way, and this is the base cause of the confusion. ‘Healing’ can be interpreted accurately in many different ways beyond the physical definition unilaterally applied by medical practioners – it is unwise and simply incorrect to assume the universal applicability of this form.
To aid the language-nazis among us and heal this thread (using definitions #1-3) here’s what one standard authorised dictionary says:
To heal; verb (used with object)
1.to make healthy, whole, or sound; restore to health; free from ailment.
2.to bring to an end or conclusion, as conflicts between people or groups, usually with the strong implication of restoring former amity; settle; reconcile: They tried to heal the rift between them and were successful.
3.to free from evil; cleanse; purify: to heal the spirit.
verb (used without object)
4.to effect a cure.
5.(of a wound, broken bone, etc.) to become whole or sound; mend; get well (often followed by up or over ).
And as evidence I’ll cite the ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ hearings in SAfrica, which failed to effect any measurable justice in the huge majority of cases, but is credited with doing an inordinate, unquantifiable amount to heal the wounds of apartheid.
We may argue over the actual value of a process, but to do so is to confirm its wider relevance – and it is therefore essential that we debate the value of specific evidence as the foundation for reasons.
And here I’ll ask if has everyone forgotten their Seneca?
A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials.
Can I just point our that these people are not doing this for free. The street healers may be, but the person behind them is making a lot of money out of this.
A couple of excerpts from their website :
FROM HOW TO BECOME A PARTNER:
“Thank you so much for the interest of your church to partner with us. It will be great to partner with you! The next step in becoming a partner is to transfer fees. Once you have agreed to pay (please see the details below) we will be happy to support you as described in the partnership brochure. And of course, depending on where you are at in the process, we continue to guide you with starting or continue to support you in running your ministry.
As mentioned before, the partnership license fee is £400 for up to 5 churches. Your annual partnership will start on the day you agree to the partnership and will last for 1 calendar year.
The preferred payment option is to send a cheque to our church offices, made payable to ‘Causeway Coast Vineyard’.”
FROM THEIR TEAM MEMBER’S EXPERIENCES:
“When you see miracles taking place in front of your eyes, you want to jump up and down and tell everyone. To see legs growing, twisted fingers being straightened, fibromyalgia disappearing, being told of cancerous growths vanishing from scans and x-rays, and doctors left scratching their heads, you know that God is merciful.
They say they have 7000 churches on their books, that’s over £200,000 a year.
They are charlatans, and the ASA are right to ban their advert. This has nothing to do with religion.
It’s a free speech issue plain and simple.
Christian healing is presumed to take place on an individual level, not as a universal general phenomenon. God can and does choose to heal one individual but not another on a specific individual basis that is not open to our scrutiny as a free choice, not following some formulaic universal rule. As such it is not a phenomenon that anyone would expect to turn up on a scientific trial nor is it a general claim of effectiveness in the same way that claiming a drug or material medical treatment can help certain people. Anyone with 5 seconds awareness of Christian theology should be aware of that and the ASA should have availed themselves of that information before making such a ridiculous ruling.
If the group were claiming that people definitely would definitely be healed, or that people should heal themselves through prayer as a replacement to medicine then that would be a claim that the ASA would be right to ban. If not, then the ASA should take their illiberal nonsense elsewhere. This is not so much the start of a slippery slope as just straight up wrong. The ASA has confused the claim that something can happen with the claim that something will happen.
As it stands the ASA are just engaged harassing a minority. They have totally overstepped their bounds and need reining in. God can and does heal people, I have seen and I know people whose lives have been changed. I don’t know why he doesn’t do it much more often, and I desperately wish he would. But those are the facts. I await the knock on the door from the ASA or the police or whatever other ludicrous government body plans to crack on me as a danger to society.
Stephen W
Dear dear dear!
I love you using the term ‘illiberal’ – made me chuckle a bit. Religion is not renowned for its liberalism
‘Thou shalt have no other God but ME’
God is deliberately trying to fool rational investigation, arbitrarily cures people of ills that it created in the first place, and you know this because you have witnessed it you self, but can’t (as yet) provide us of any evidence of this other than through your personal testimony. 1. Do you by any chance need my bank details to help you transfer over millions of dollars from Nigeria? 2. If there isn’t a God, or if there is it does not actively interfere with the world, what outcome might you also expect to see from scientific investigation into the power of prayer?
Surely this isn’t the ASA treating Christians and Scientists differently. They are trying to treat Christians and Aethiests equally http://bit.ly/GYHnp8
I’m not religious, but I’m very relaxed about Tim’s letter. I don’t agree with what he says, but I’m proud to have a leader who stands up for what he believes in.
There are people in our society who are very gullible and trusting. Many of them lead desperate lives that lead them to seek any comfort that they can. If some of those people see printed adverts telling them that prayers can cure their illnesses, then some of these desperate, gullible people will stop taking their prescribed medicines and will try to rely on the power of prayer to cure themselves. Some of them may stop giving medicines to their children or people they look after. Some of them will not seek medical help when they are ill. There are many such people in our society. They are unaware that there is debate around religion or the power of prayer. Such people need protection by the state and the ASA has done a good job in trying to protect these vulnerable people.
Even as someone who has a strong belief in what some deem as a faith, Buddhism, I remain deeply concerned about the direct influence of ANY faith on a political party, and specifically on the State as a whole.
I feel that the sooner that we can separate the Church from the State, the better for as we are hearing at this moment, people are attempting to maintain inequalities in society with regard to who may, or may not be married, by selective interpretation of their faith.
I am certainly not trying to criticise Christians alone, for the reality is that wherever injustice exists, there will be people who will use their interpretation of a ‘faith’ to support prolonging the suffering that others are experiencing.
Most religions actualy agree on, what many non-religious societies deem as universal truths, such as not being supportive of killing other humans and theft, etc, but we do not hear politicians using their religious beliefs to stop the war in Afghanistan, where countless people are needlessly being killed, or to resolve poverty, poor housing, health, education inequalities, etc, that all play a party in the causes of crime?
Faith is a deeply personal issue, and I feel should not be worn as a ‘Scout Badge’ as if one has achieved a higher status because one has it. Our actions ultimately are what we are judged by, and not the religion, faith or belief that may have played a part in influencing such actions.
So let me get this straight. Folk are running experiments to test for a person who is, by hypothesis, immaterial, omniscient, and omnipotent. And they get null results.
Are we meant to be surprised? It is about the most meaningless test you could devise. Imagine you were God, and someone ran an experiment on you. Would you give them
a) evidence of your existence,
b) a null result, or
c) a dashed good smiting?
Precisely.
Would we be quite so in favour of the president’s rights to free speech if we were in a David Icke – style situation?
@Phillip – yes, but there are other methods of doing the research besides experimentation. For example I have never seen research saying that Christians live longer than atheists controlling for other lifestyle factors.
I’m afraid he has done nothing more than make himself look rather silly, and like many other here, has gone down in my estimation.
The RCT may not be perfect, but it is the gold standard to which we should aspire when seeking the truth of whether or not a treatment works. I can believe all I like, but it will only make me feel better, it will not cure me. We need to reflect not on those who are confirmed in their faith, but those who are not but who are uncertain, and who would be ruthlessly exploited if faith were allowed to be inserted into the medical model.