No More Pigs!

  • Thread starter Thread starter davy39
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

davy39

Guest
Glenn Beck reported today (11/15) on his radio show that banks in Britain will no longer be allowed to use pigs (piggy banks) in their advertising for saving money with them, because it is offensive to Muslims. Wow! It doesn’t take much to offend them, does it?
 
40.png
davy39:
Glenn Beck reported today (11/15) on his radio show that banks in Britain will no longer be allowed to use pigs (piggy banks) in their advertising for saving money with them, because it is offensive to Muslims. Wow! It doesn’t take much to offend them, does it?
An art work showing a crucifix in a glass of urine was offensive to Catholics. It doesn’t take much to offend them either. Might we avoid backhanded remarks about various religious groups?

Muslims don’t eat pork, but a piggy bank isn’t offensive. It is my supposition that some bank official thought it would be offensive and he did so out of his own PC concerns.
 
Was this action taken because of a Muslim outcry against piggy banks or because some overly politically correct non Muslim thought that it would be more sensitve toward followers of Islam?
 
40.png
davy39:
Glenn Beck reported today (11/15) on his radio show that banks in Britain will no longer be allowed to use pigs (piggy banks) in their advertising for saving money with them, because it is offensive to Muslims. Wow! It doesn’t take much to offend them, does it?
This story ran in all the reactionary tabloids a few weeks ago, and has since been exposed as a non-story. The banks in question haven’t been using piggy banks for a while, they would certainly be ‘allowed’ to if they still wished.

It is basically a non-story:

abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1494636.htm
This “political correctness” piggy tale was too good to be true - so not surprisingly it turned out to be hogwash.

Mike
 
The issue with Wal Mart recently offended us Catholic’s
as well. There are alot of offensive things to different
beliefs, but the piggy bank thing was pretty much going
overboard.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
This story ran in all the reactionary tabloids a few weeks ago, and has since been exposed as a non-story. The banks in question haven’t been using piggy banks for a while, they would certainly be ‘allowed’ to if they still wished.

It is basically a non-story:

abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1494636.htm
This “political correctness” piggy tale was too good to be true - so not surprisingly it turned out to be hogwash.

Mike
It did seem a little odd to me.
 
40.png
davy39:
Glenn Beck reported today (11/15) on his radio show that banks in Britain will no longer be allowed to use pigs (piggy banks) in their advertising for saving money with them, because it is offensive to Muslims. Wow! It doesn’t take much to offend them, does it?
Oh please! Since when was Britain a Muslim country?!
 
40.png
m134e5:
Oh please! Since when was Britain a Muslim country?!
I wasn’t trying to be in-sensitive to any other religion, I was just telling what was reported. It seemed a little far fetched to me at the time, but the way the PC world is nowadays, who knows? It was followed by a story about Michael Newdow who is trying to get “In God We Trust” removed from U.S. currency, but I’d heard that one before. Anyway, there are large numbers of Muslims in Britain and France.
 
Arba Sicula:
An art work showing a crucifix in a glass of urine was offensive to Catholics. It doesn’t take much to offend them either. Might we avoid backhanded remarks about various religious groups?

.
Saying this is not much is unbelievable, it’s a mockery if it’s true, it would offend any right thinking person.
 
40.png
Eireann:
Saying this is not much is unbelievable, it’s a mockery if it’s true, it would offend any right thinking person.
It is true. The “artistic” piece was called “Piss Christ” and depicted a small plastic crucifix partially submerged in a glass filled with the artist’s urine. It did not offend as many people as you might think. When it was displayed in 1987 (at the Brooklyn Museum, I believe), it was kept on exhibit by “popular demand” in the face of much opposition by Christians and Jews.
 
If the Koran was dipped in urine then I would be offended for Muslims. I did find France’s denial of school girls’ the right to wear religious head scarves to be deplorable.

I try and extend the same consideration to other religions and their practices that I would like for others to give to me.
 
40.png
deb1:
If the Koran was dipped in urine then I would be offended for Muslims. I did find France’s denial of school girls’ the right to wear religious head scarves to be deplorable.
Me, too on both points. Did you know that Turkey as well forbids Moslem schoolgirls from wearing their religious head scarves at school?
I try and extend the same consideration to other religions and their practices that I would like for others to give to me.
Thumbs up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top