Ice cream ad banned as "offensive" to Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConstantineTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ElizabethPH said:
What strikes me is their misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception. And as with protestants and others thinking it has to with the birth of Jesus. Anyway I’m glad someone came forward to protest them.
Click to expand...
LOL
Sadly even Catholics confuse the Immaculate Conception from the Virginal Conception.
 
livnlern said:
This from a Belgium newspaper at the reaction of Muslims to the Danish cartoon of Mohammad:
“Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the paper’s offices and kill the cartoonists.”
brusselsjournal.com/node/382
To my knowledge, Catholics don’t go around bombing ice cream companies.
Click to expand...
Can we just clamour for their crucifixion? 😃
 
livnlern said:
To my knowledge, Catholics don’t go around bombing ice cream companies.
Click to expand...
Oy vey, no, no, no! L&L, I’m sorry there was a misunderstanding: in no way was I trying to insinuate violence on the part of Catholics. :eek: I was merely meaning that too often, we take ourselves too seriously when it comes to religion. As one writer put it
Laughter and religion are uneasy bedfellows at the best of times, but many spiritual thinkers would say it has a vital role to play in serving to deflate the ego, and is the best antidote to intolerance, puritanism and pomposity. Humour serves to deflate the ego. It cuts a person down to size. Humour is the first step to humility.
Click to expand...
 
penury said:
Oy vey, no, no, no! L&L, I’m sorry there was a misunderstanding: in no way was I trying to insinuate violence on the part of Catholics. :eek: I was merely meaning that too often, we take ourselves too seriously when it comes to religion. As one writer put it
Click to expand...
Well I believe we don’t take our faith seriously enough. I would venture to say most Catholics have an appropriate sense of humor but not at the expense of their faith. And I’ve heard plenty of nun jokes that make me laugh…this one doesn’t.
 
penury said:
I was merely meaning that too often, we take ourselves too seriously when it comes to religion.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you just get a sense of when someone is being lighthearted, and when they are being insulting. Given what the company itself said about its goals (quoted above), I think that those of us who got the impression that it was meant to be insulting have some support for that view.

I laughed when I showed up at a halloween party and two 6-foot guys I knew had come as nuns (one pregnant with a bouncing–literally–baby basketball, which later escaped and nearly broke a lamp, which for some reason, possibly related to beer but possibly not, was hilarious). The ad, OTOH, isn’t funny to me.

It’s like the old quote, “Some people can be funny without being vulgar. Some people can be both funny and vulgar. I recommend you to be either one or the other.” (That’s aimed at the ice cream company, not at you!) 😃

Plus it’s just stupid because, as others have pointed out, the Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary’s condition at her own birth, not the method by which she conceived Jesus Christ.

–Jen
 
The ad is offensive to me as a Catholic and I’m pleased it was banned.
 
penury said:
Oy vey, no, no, no! L&L, I’m sorry there was a misunderstanding: in no way was I trying to insinuate violence on the part of Catholics. :eek: I was merely meaning that too often, we take ourselves too seriously when it comes to religion. As one writer put it
Click to expand...
I don’t think Catholics are the ones lacking in a sense of humor. Remember this reaction to a South Park episode?

“Then, on Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com, a radical Islamic website, reportedly posted an item about the South Park episode referencing Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was killed by a Muslim extremist for his 2004 short documentary Submission, about women, violence, and Islam. “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show,” said the post. “This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.” The site then featured a graphic photo of the mutilated filmmaker, and published the addresses of Comedy Central New York offices and the South Park production company in Los Angeles. Finally, it embedded a video of a radical Muslim preacher calling for the assassination of anyone who has “defamed” Muhammad which included photos of Parker, Stone, and van Gogh.”
popwatch.ew.com/2010/04/21/south-park-creators-muhammad/
 
I didn’t realize that people in the UK have a right to not be offended. That seems really strange to me.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
I didn’t realize that people in the UK have a right to not be offended. That seems really strange to me.
Click to expand...
This is the essence of political correctness; stopping people being offended. But the trouble is that people are getting more and more easily offended these days.
 
They insist the Church respect their gays and lesbians, but they do not offer the same courtesy to what the Church holds sacred…
 
From the article:
A spokeswoman for the company said the new image intended to “defy” the ban from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
She added: “We are in the process of securing a series of billboards close to and along the planned route of the Pope’s cavalcade around Westminster Cathedral”.
Click to expand...
This belies their statement that the ads were not meant to offend and were just about ice cream. Some person or persons in this company has some deep animosity toward Catholicism.
 
While I find the ads distasteful, I find it very disturbing that a quasi governmental organization, the ASA, could, and would, ban something just because it might offend someone.

Perhaps Dean Steacy, an investigator for the Canadian Human Right Commision was correct when he said “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Appearently they do not give the concept of freedom of speech any value in the UK either. Unfortunatly we seem to be moving in the same direction here in the USA as well
 
Servus_Domini said:
While I find the ads distasteful, I find it very disturbing that a quasi governmental organization, the ASA, could, and would, ban something just because it might offend someone.
Click to expand...
Yes, to my American sensibilities, this disturbed me as well. However, the US is unusual in the high degree of latitude it gives to freedom of speech or expression. I don’t think anyone would argue that the right to free speech is an absolute (for example, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.) So the question is at what point is that right legitimately curtailed? In the US, we have decided its okay for Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods and KKK to burn crosses. Other countries might decide those things are unacceptably chilling to a free society.

Television broadcasters in the US used to employ censors who would delete material which did not meet the standards drawn up by their trade organization. I’m not sure if that is still true (the success of HBO did a lot to challenge network television standards), but we still see the Federal Communications Commission doling out fines to networks for violating decency standards. Is the decision of the ASA within British standards of acceptability? I suspect it is, although since I do not live there, I am not sure if the decision is generating much protest.
Servus_Domini said:
Perhaps Dean Steacy, an investigator for the Canadian Human Right Commision was correct when he said “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Appearently they do not give the concept of freedom of speech any value in the UK either. Unfortunatly we seem to be moving in the same direction here in the USA as well
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t make too much out of unprepared statement, taken out of context, by a person of little authority. I suspect Mr. Steacy would not defend that sentence as quoted, because as the article notes, freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter.

As for the UK, what they consider as meeting the standards of their society and culture is for them to decide. Here in the US, we have been exploring the limits of the right of free speech for a couple hundred years. I am sure we will continue to do so - such is the nature of our court system.
 
This whole episode highlights the intellect of those who would censor what other grown-ups see and hear. In banning something which would have been seen by a few hundred thousand or a few million, they ensured that it will be seen by a billion or more worldwide. It also now has the mark of respectability which always comes with banned ideas or images. The censors gave these images a currency and exposure which no billionaire could have bought.
 
Servus_Domini said:
While I find the ads distasteful, I find it very disturbing that a quasi governmental organization, the ASA, could, and would, ban something just because it might offend someone.
Click to expand...
I too agree. Let them run the ad and loose customers rather than limit speech that is offensive.
 
You think making good ice cream would be the focus of a creamary. I won’t buy Ben and Jerry’s because of their political shennanigans. Of course, I live in the middle of Blue Bell country, also know as Ice Cream Heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top