Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

[boyfriday]

I see your logic, however, some of the tenets, beliefs and practices associated with religions are so utterly absurd and ludicrous that they deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

It wasn't those practices that I was referring to Suffy, as I said at the beginning, it's the gratuitous nature of offence that Im really addressing here, if there's a reason for mocking something then clearly the moral imperative swings in favour of the 'offender'. For instance, I'd happily ridicule religions stance on homosexuality, abortion, and specifically the Catholic churches stance on contraception, or JW's and blood transfusions-just a couple of examples, I'm sure there are many more.

 

The Catholic Church has a totally outdated, repressive and unhealthy attitude towards sex, even within the sanctity of marriage, yet behind closed doors a significant number of its clergy is not practising what it preaches, whether it's clandestine liaisons, both gay and straight or child sex abuse. Religion does not deserve nor warrant 'special treatment'.

I agree, the thread was provoked by seeing the nun advert, but it wasn't intended to turn into one defending the sanctity of religion.

 

I think m j scuba paraphrased things better than I did in an earlier post.

[boyfriday]

Ok, where did my post go? The one that I spent 45 mins typing up?

 

I thought it was my best comment on the subject. Clearly my time is wasted. Goodbye everyone.

 

God must have struck it out

[boyfriday]

Why don't the god botherers on this thread

 

I dont think any 'god botherers' have contributed to the thread, I wish they had though.

[boyfriday]

But if that was the case we'd be in such a litigious and precious society that no-one could say anything about anyone ever. Some people take offence much easily than others, some people take offence but brush it off with a shrug, some people are thick skinned and confident enough never to feel offended.

I've no problem with offending/ridiculing people, or being offended myself, when there's a substantive reason for it, I'm warned often enough on here for doing it! But it's surprising when you're on the receiving end of an insult and there's no apparent reason for it, you then ask yourself why the insult was necessary.

 

The ice cream advert is a case in point, and it seems the offence is being caused simply to derive a pecuniary benefit by targeting the few days when the Pope is visiting the UK-that's what made it crass in my opinion.

 

Yes, it would be great if Catholics could shrug it off, many probably will, but that isn't the issue, I'm sure if someone walked into the advertising agency and started making disparaging remarks to the creative director about their partner/children/personal hygiene, he/she would be mortified.

[sccsux]

Incidentally, Life Of Brian was banned in Sussex

 

It was banned in Aberystwyth too (and has only recently been withdrawn - the ban, that is) and only after one of the "stars" became mayor of said town.

 

Details...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/7514423.stm

[Suffragette1]

It wasn't those practices that I was referring to Suffy, as I said at the beginning, it's the gratuitous nature of offence that Im really addressing here, if there's a reason for mocking something then clearly the moral imperative swings in favour of the 'offender'. For instance, I'd happily ridicule religions stance on homosexuality, abortion, and specifically the Catholic churches stance on contraception, or JW's and blood transfusions-just a couple of examples, I'm sure there are many more.

 

I agree, the thread was provoked by seeing the nun advert, but it wasn't intended to turn into one defending the sanctity of religion.

 

I think m j scuba paraphrased things better than I did in an earlier post.

I don't see how you can divorce the two. I don't see it as gratuitous, it's clever and rather amusing and the campaign's creative team must be delighted with the publicity that it's generated. The holier than thou attitide of some religions and piety of its leaders which as we know may be the public face which belies the hypocrisy and abuses that are practised within, make them ever more of a target.

[boyfriday]

I don't see how you can divorce the two. I don't see it as gratuitous, it's clever and rather amusing and the campaign's creative team must be delighted with the publicity that it's generated.

I'm sure they are delighted, but it's gratuitous since there are a million other methods they could have used to sell ice cream, without potentially offending anyone. If they were highlighting a problem of nuns having secret relationships with men then their reasons would have had credibility

 

I understand the irresistible relationship between controversy and publicity, but being tempted by potentially offensive material isn't clever, it's playing to the cheap seats.

 

The holier than thou attitide of some religions and piety of its leaders which as we know may be the public face which belies the hypocrisy and abuses that are practised within, make them ever more of a target.

I see your point, but the believers in a particular religion aren't just its leaders, in any event the agency aren't making a social statement, they're selling ice cream!

[mj.scuba]

Boyfriday - fully understand where you're coming from on this....but....we live in a world where almost anything could cause offence to one minority or another.

 

Generally I think faith groups are becoming marginalised by secular society, and as they become more marginalised, the more things like this will appear and people of faith will become more sensitive to it as it will be seen as an attack on their particular faith. Personally, I don't think any of it justifies a ban though.

[Phanerothyme]

Clever move, getting it banned. I bet the advertising firm made sure there were plenty of complaints. The religious righteous indignation dollar is big on both sides I'm sure.

[Phanerothyme]

Also, nuns have sex and get pregnant all the time. And have done so at least since the renaissance.