What's wrong with that?
"gave the impression that [Phones4u] were mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs"
Phones4u has managed to offend Christians with a cartoon Jesus offering a thumbs up, apparently endorsing its range of Samsung handsets rather than the more-traditionally messianic iPhone. The advert drew 98 complaints, more than enough to trigger an investigation into the ad which appeared in the national press just before …
A cartoon of Richard Dawkins saying "These phone offers are obviously the best you can get and if you disagree you must be some kind of retard or primitive barbarian"
If you want to be rude and offensive then Prof. Dawkins is usually the man for the job.
NB:I'm an atheist but I don't like his attitude.
I missed the recent advert portraying Mohammed sporting the new HTC ChaCha just before Ramadan..... What? There wasn't one?
Who'd have thunk it.
Not even an advert with Moses showing off his latest shatter-proof tablet!
Anyway, Phones4U strike me as being the most dodgy-car-dealer-esque of all the mobile phone peddlers out there; I speak from experience.
I'd just like to give "mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs" and "causing serious offence, particularly to Christians" the winking thumbs-up jesus stamp of approval. In fact can we make this a standard approval logo, and get a new forum icon featuring it?
In other news, 98 people seriously need to find something significant to get upset about.
If your life is so easy that you have no problems to sort out besides complaining about a stylized cartoon of a famous dead guy - then I'm very jealous of you all.
If I'd spent my life uttering profundities and my image was still used 2000 years after my death, I'd be very chuffed indeed.
I expect Jesus feels the same and is now cursing those who got him removed from the Phones4U ad campaign.
Just out of curiosity how would I recognise a depiction of Allah if I saw one? Does he look like Jesus?
Come to that why does everyone expect Jesus to be white and with long hair (and more so for the big G as well!)?
Also why is it that any form of discussion regarding religion also has to tread carefully to avoid offending anyone?
If religious people actually believed what they said they believed then anyone saying anything against their religion would be laughed at and mocked rather than attacked.
Ok - enough trolling for now
Well actualy the mobile phone network I use is able to get capacity for 100 people and do some magic changing it into capacity that they can sell to 10000 people. Now I've checked the water wine thing and as volume goes this mobile phone company does more. Also changing water into wine is easy, it's getting an export liscence for said wine afterwards that the real magic.
The central tenet of Christianity is a belief in grace/ mercy.
That story was a good illustration; after shaming the mob into sparing the woman, he then refused to judge her and showed mercy/ compassion instead. I wish I could be that strong willed.
In any case, judging/ moralising should be a totally alien concept to a christian.
Alas, humans are judgemental, and a thin veneer of religion doesn't seem to improve your mark 1 human, it merely gives them another thing to judge with.
The whole 'God is on my side' is a terrible thing to argue against.
Time for a drink.
"Also why is it that any form of discussion regarding religion also has to tread carefully to avoid offending anyone?"
The problem is that some people consider religion to be the most important aspect of their life. As such, they do take it very personally when you question them about their religion, even if it is a genuine question and not an attempt to criticise the religion dressed up as question (and I know several people who will happily do that).
Personally, I don't believe in any religion, and if anyone disagrees with me, that's their business, I don't get offended, even if they tell me I am wrong.
Some atheists can be very touchy about it as well. I used to work with such bloke. Now me, I'm atheist but by and large I just ignore the issue. I pretty much regard it as just another club that some people happen to be members of. But this chap could get really worked up over religion and nearly foam at the mouth attacking it.
"even if it is a genuine question and not an attempt to criticise the religion dressed up as question"
Even if it *is* a criticism dressed up as a question, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be allowed to criticize religious beliefs as we would with anything else? I get incredibly annoyed when people come out with the "you can't criticize that, it's what I believe" argument, which seems to be getting more popular. Just because you believe something and that belief is important to you, doesn't make you right, and doesn't make you above being criticized. In the interests of civility there are ways of doing things, but the act of criticizing something shouldn't be dismissed just because it's criticism.
"If religious people actually believed what they said they believed then anyone saying anything against their religion would be laughed at and mocked rather than attacked."
Very good point. Religion is the only thing that automatically assumes immunity from any kind of criticism or analysis, obviously because their 'arguments' are so easy to refute. I'm sick and tired of a secular society having to tippy-toe around these godbotherers, for fear of saying or doing something that they deem "offensive".
Kudos to Phones4U for running this though. However, I think that using religion to sell anything would, as an atheist, put me off. Shouldn't we Free Thinkers be more offended?
When it is supposedly a core tenet of the religion in questions, I think it should probably cover not making an official complaint over something so petty.
Or maybe it should be, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, except for when we feel like a good bitch and moan"?
As a footnote, I find it sad that so many people are still ready and willing to believe things that they are told to be true, despite there being no evidence for them*, by those with questionable motives. It's almost as if the Enlightenment never happened.
*Books written several centuries after the 'fact' by people who by definition couldn't have been there, and which were compiled, translated, and heavily edited by authoritarian religious organisations over a period of centuries in order to suit the political motives of dictators in the middle ages don't count.
Just because someone has been forgiven something, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an element of punishment or penitence involved.
Complaining about something (as opposed to banging on constantly) is fine. Bringing up something again and again after the fact is not.
However from the tone of your comment, I don't expect you to agree, as you've obviously fairly little understanding of religion and what you have seems to only exist to help you oppose and mock it.
I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired but you should check your dates. There are in existence gospels dating back to within 30 years or jebus's end and those are likely transcriptions or versions of oral history. The other books in the New Testey are things like correspondence between early churches and treatese on church doctrine and of course the mindf**k that is the book of revelations. A book I enjoyed that you might as well is "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman.
Things like this are better described as "innapropriate" rather then "offensive". The trouble is the ad sends mixed messages and could appear to be saying almost anything - maybe encouraging contempt for a UK minority, maybe just being funny as the wonk suggested, or maybe spitting on the faith of billions worldwide. Basically, it's all best avoided if we all want to live in harmony.
"Depictions of Allah aren't allowed, as any depiction can offend Muslims, depictions of Jesus are generally OK as long as he's not winking, holding a heart, or endorsing any mobile phone that didn't come from Apple."
That actually depends on how "Low Church" the particular se(c)t of Godbotherers is. A number of the very fundamentalist protestant sects take a *very* dim view of *any* depiction on the grounds that it borders on worshipping idols or graven images and the like.
Most of the more sensible versions go for "false idols", stress on the false.
That way they can ensure the faithful only worship what they're told to, while also making a bit of cash flogging gen-u-ine endorsed-by-some-bloke-in-a-dress idols, pictures, icons, relics, novelty statuettes, bobble-heads, bumper stickers, ashtrays and the like.
CW simply need to ask for forgiveness, problem sorted!
I find it offensive that you religious types consider me so thick that I cannot decide right from wrong without your fairy stories from your precious book! My parents cared enough about me to instill a moral compass without dogma!
I find it offensive that my precious Saturday and Sunday mornings get interupted by J's Witnesses banging on about why they consider I have no faith! I have faith, I have faith that the loony with the quad-bike up the road will come down the path and flatten you cretins!
I find it offensive that my kids are being brainwashed by a 2,000 year old cult of cretins who believe that their God, who turns people into salt, kills all life on earth and saves his mates in a boat, is a worthy entity to be praised and admired!
Now bugger off the lot of you!
Any I find such intolerant people as yourself offensive.
I don't think anyone suggests that you can't tell right from wrong without religion, it's just that most religions provide a moral framework to help this.
You say that religion (by which I presume you mean Christianity) is a 2000 year old cult, then pick out a couple of stories from the old testament to illustrate your point. Nice one.
Your kids are not being brainwashed, unless you allow them to be.
You don't get JWs coming round on a Sunday, in fact most JWs don't come round at all any more.
Oh and asking for forgivness when you're not sorry, is hardly likely to obtain it.
I'm in the UK, and religion is not an issue, so whilst literally 'atheist' it's simply not a term I use.
HOWEVER, I have many friends in the USA who have to drive past big billboards telling them that they must worship god or go to hell. They get persecuted, and have to hide their atheism from neighbours and employers.
You can understand how in this environment of militant christianity, they get more worked up.
"I don't think anyone suggests that you can't tell right from wrong without religion, it's just that most religions provide a moral framework to help this."
I've been told differently by many various christian types of varying fervour from the fairly easy going ones to the gibbering rabid fundamentalists. YMMV is obviously the case.
The basic taboo is that creating images for prophets may lead to a tendency to worship that image rather than Allah (just look at Catholicism's many minor gods - sorry saints) which is why there's a lot of geometric patterns in Islamic art.
Not sure how you'd depict the more abstract concept of Allah vis a vis the "beardy bloke" image that has been used for Yahweh in the Christian branch of Abrahamic cults but it's probably be just as offensive.
Although It's in pretty poor taste to use religious figures for advertising, I'm not offended.
At the Greenbelt festival (Christian based, arts festival) for the last few years, the beer tent has been called "The Jesus Arms" and has a similar pub sign outside it, noone seemed to be offended there.
Subject: looks like Buddy Christ from Dogma
Obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Christ
There, that ought to do it.
As for "mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs", surely those are things like love thy neighbour, sleepeth not with another man's wife, do not worship false idols, and things like that. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I didn't realise that the physical figure of Jesus was an actual "core belief", rather than just a representation of their god.
"Don't science, logic and common sense also belittle core Christian beliefs"
No. Some Christians believe science and logic belittle Christian belief. It's not the same thing.
Despite rumours held dear by many trolls evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.
The belief scientific research was completed 2,000 years ago by a bunch fishermen in a desert and a Roman council seeking political power over tribes however, is at odds with evolution.
I didn't complain but if I had been aware of this at the time I would have.
Using Jesus in advertisements around Easter is just about the most insenstitive thing imaginable. It's like using the holocaust to advertise Hanukkah, or drawing a picture of Mohammed.
If you still don't get it then imagine if instead of Jesus there was a picture of Richard Dawkins giving a thumbs up. Then the complaints would no doubt come rolling in.
If you've read the Bible you'd know the real Jesus wouldn't be seen dead selling phones or advertising products in general. Well one thing is for sure now - there'll be phone4u stores in Hell.
In future I recommend phones4u and other so-called "businesses" use dead celebrities to advertise their products, not dead messiahs. That is if they don't want another stoning of complaints. Also bear in mind Jesus will be back one day and he'll sue your ass for defamation.
As an athiest secularist, I find the hypocrisy of modern attitudes to the question of religion depressing, and such hypocrisy is evident in some of these replies.
During my miss-spent youth I was briefly a school teacher at a multicultural school in London. The school had a 'discover each others' beliefs' week; one day of the week was dedicated to one of the major religions, and a teacher of that religion delivered a talk at morning assembly... a fine scheme. Of course the PC teachers loved it, and applauded each talker warmly, except for when a perfectly inoffensive Christian teacher had his turn. Then several of them made a point of walking out before he'd even started. This alerted me to the total crapulance of the PC dogma of those who are delighted to display their trendy anti-Christian attitudes while treating other religious with reverence (either to enhance their PC credentials or to avoid repercussions from religions who definitely don't "turn the other cheek.")
As someone with an education in the Jewish faith & culture in the US, we were taught in temple that Jesus might have existed but was not the messiah. We were taught that Christians are perpetuating a long held mistaken belief. We were taught to tolerate them anyway and not to judge because no one is perfect and it's God's job to judge.
I can also say not all Jews believe Jesus was even a historical person. So, the relationship between Jews & Jesus is ... non-existent to actual Jews. The Bible alleges things that Jews might have done to a guy who might not have actually lived. Doesn't make it true. I've since left the Jewish faith, and I don't take the Torah or any other human written text as the Unalterable Holy Word of Truth.
Although it appears like you are trolling, in the outside chance that someone reads your post and believes it to be a realistic view I feel the need to offer a rebuttal to your well thought out and intelligently phrased points:
"Using Jesus in advertisements around Easter is just about the most insenstitive thing imaginable"
Isn't Easter when Jesus gloriously rose from the dead to ascend to heaven after dying for our sins so that we can all have the chance at redemption?
"It's like using the holocaust to advertise Hanukkah"
Is it? Is it really? Either you are monumentally stupid or you don't know what either Hannukah or
the holocaust mean.
"In future I recommend phones4u and other so-called "businesses" use dead celebrities to advertise their products, not dead messiahs. "
(1) Jesus was also a celebrity so Phones4U are doing what you want
(2) He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
(3) Sorry about 2, I couldn't help myself.
>>"Using Jesus in advertisements around Easter is just about the most insenstitive thing imaginable. It's like using the holocaust to advertise..."
If that's what you think, I pity your imagination or education.
>>"If you still don't get it then imagine if instead of Jesus there was a picture of Richard Dawkins giving a thumbs up. Then the complaints would no doubt come rolling in."
One might come from Mr Dawkins.
But then He actually exists, and has some legal/moral rights over what gets done with His image.
That's rather different from a character in a religious tale whose real-world basis, to the extent there is one, is likely to be hugely different from what many people who believe stories written and edited long after the person died think it is.
There are people who complain about all kinds of things, like characters in soap operas getting a raw deal, but that just demonstrates something about people.
I'm reminded of Stewart Lee's comment on the protesters about the Jerry Springer opera - "Whether you think of the people behind me as hysterical bigots or well intentioned fools, they are, nonetheless, divs."
No he would think it was funny.. maybe with a slogan "the real deal nothing fake here!"
You know atheists may be a bit insensitive to you.
but at least they do not tell others they will burn in hell for not believing.
You see this behaviour of your like-minded fellows is the most offensive and
gives you no basis for complaint.
With the possible, highly dodgy, exception of the Turin shroud, there are no pictures of Jesus. So how do the offended Christians and the ASA know it's meant to be their imaginary Jewish friend?
If you conclude that an offensive image looks just like Jesus, then you're the one who's insulting him by saying he looks like an offensive image, since you have no idea at all what he really looked like.
Bit annoying this advert. I didn't notice it, or complain, there are far more sinful things to correct advertisers on.
You think Christian's should just blend in and never voice God's guidance? You mean like Him and the disciples and early believers did? They turned the world upside down, and showed up "Religion". powerless, loveless rules that just highlight our predicament.
Jesus loves you.
are a work in progress and not Jesus. They can be utterly stupid and insanely hypocritical. Oh wait... so can everyone else on the planet.
As usual... people need to get over themselves. I laughed good when I saw that advert just now. I would also consider myself a good Christian. If I had the opportunity to purchase a product/service from this company I would probably shy away due to reviews that are readily available on the net and not because of some goofball advert that made a small group of loudmouths pissy. If you try not to offend anyone, you'll never succeed because there's always someone out there who's too pissy to be happy about anything and would rather scream and yell about rights and offenses and their self centered pissy life than take a piss and enjoy the day.
I do believe that these "high and mighty" Christians need a good taste of 3rd world countries so they can be grateful for what they have instead of bitching about random stuff that they take offense to just for the sake of farting their own horn.
Bah... and I say Bah again.
"Using Jesus in advertisements around Easter is just about the most insenstitive thing imaginable. It's like using the holocaust to advertise Hanukkah"
No it's not.
The possibly fictitious story about the exectution of one man by the authorities in first century AD Palestine is in no way analogous to the very factual murder of 6.5 million people by the Nazis.
I'm a Christian. I believe in the core tenets of the Nicene Creed. I attend a charismatic church and try to live a life that imitates Christ in principle. On a personal level I try to exemplify Christ, but often fail and need forgiveness daily.
My Aunt would call herself a "Christian" because she was born in the UK. She believes in God, aliens and that certain living and deceased celebrities (such as Michael Jackson) are aliens. She probably hasn't heard of the Nicene Creed, if she has she wouldn't understand it and her blend of philosophy and theology is closer to Buddhism than Christianity. She only very recently started attending a CoE parish church (in order to bolster her social status). On a personal I find her an overbearing, nosey and arrogant woman.
I rate the advert harmless, failed attempt at humour. Personally nonplussed.
My Aunt would be the type to complain if she had/has seen it.
One of us is Christian, the other is "Christian".
Ok, but are most religions not offending "science" and it's "evidence"? Water into wine? A loaf of bread to feed so mayn thousand? Walking on water (and we're not talking non newtonian fluid here)? The earth being created 5000 years ago or something? Really?!
Also, would it have helped if they'd depicted him in a colour more suitable to the region of his birth?
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman (made from a man's rib) was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
...any more than science is to blame for the deaths of those killed at Hiroshima.
Perhaps those of you who are so ready to condemn religion without (as far as most of the posts suggest here) having spent more than 4 seconds thinking about it, might benefit from considering some of the positive messages contained in the New Testament.
Many religious people are unduly sensitive and precious about their religion but to condemn all religious people because of the actions of a small minority is no better than being a racist because your brother's girlfriend's uncle was mugged by a black man 15 years ago.
Eve didn't eat from the "special" tree, she persuaded Adam to do so. Clearly that is why her punishment (and the period / childbirth punishment passed down to all women because of it) was much worse than the punishment handed to Adam and men (having to live with PMS afflicted / Pregnant women - although truly God is merciful for he gave women chocolate and men the pub in recompense).
Or something like that.
Very much like a lot of people here and the believe that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is all made up in a giant conspiracy - it's not science, but they believe it.
As someone who I can't remember said: It's not the when people stop believing in God that they believe in nothing, it's that they will believe in anything.
A very Roman Catholic looking Jesus what with the `sacred heart` and all but really the ASA should Butt out, they already got their butts kicked in court when they tried to ban the Free Presbyterian Church from publishing passages of scripture in adverts for protests against Belfast Pride...deeming the passages of scripture deeply offensive.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019