Entry 697, on 2008-02-14 at 22:32:35 (Rating 3, News)
I saw in the news today that a Singapore company has withdrawn several products which used Christian imagery in the packaging. The products included a lip balm called "Virtuous Vanilla" and a body cream called "Get Tight with Christ". The packaging included a picture of Christ (or a popular rendition of what Christ might have looked like, assuming he existed at all) flanked by two adoring women.
Apparently some Catholics complained the that cosmetics were disrespectful, full of sexual innuendo and trivialised Christianity. Well I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but why make such a big deal out of it? The way Muslims got upset about the Mohammed cartoons was ridiculed so what's the difference here? Yes, the Christians haven't threatened violence I admit, but that might be just because they have enough influence to change things without resorting to violence.
I don't want to suggest that I think Catholics are just as bad as extreme Muslims over this sort of issue, because death threats (even when not carried out) are unacceptable in any situation. And I do think that overall, Islam is a more negative religion than Christianity, but that is no doubt significantly affected by the political situation adherents to the two religions find themselves in.
I still think Catholics should have just had a bit of a laugh about this and moved on. Whether the products exist or not isn't going to change people's attitudes to their beliefs. There will still be groups who really dislike Catholics, some who think its a great religion, and some who just don't care.
In a related (really?) issue I read yesterday that the famous statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil was struck by lightning. There is an amazing photo of this on the web and it looks genuine although I was wondering how someone just happened to take such a great photo at exactly the right time.
Of course, I don't genuinely believe that Christ being struck by lightning means anything but it is quite humorous - almost as funny as a lip balm called Lookin' Good for Jesus!
Comment 1 (1168) by Jim on 2008-02-19 at 17:36:35:
That really is a childish blog entry and not up to your usual standards at all. What is the big deal about a product which is disrespectful of religion? We expect better!
Comment 2 (1170) by OJB on 2008-02-19 at 20:05:59:
My usual standard eh? Thanks for saying that my standards are usually high at least. Anyway, you are sort of right because this was intended to be a rather frivolous entry.
Comment 3 (1197) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 01:11:50:
Frivolous it is not!
OJB - when there is a tasteful joke on the church, usually it is the Catholics laughing the loudest. In fact you will find plenty of Catholic jokes in Catholic publications.
However, when it becomes gratuitous, said purely for impact, exposure or profiteering, or simply disrespectful then I support those who stand up for themselves and lawfully complain. Catholics have been shat on for centuries, for many reasons, most which boil down to hate.
Even you agreed that the products from the Singaporean company was disrespectful (I give you a little bit of credit for this!). Was a big deal made? Never heard of it until now (sure did hear about the Danish cartoons though). Good on them for complaining. Unfair influence? this is just another figment of your paranoid imagination. Like I said Catholics have been the butt of much abuse since the dawn of time (figure of speech, specifically the beginning of the Church!).
Think about your own life - if you are genuinely offended, do you just roll over and take it, or do you speak up? Maybe you speak up in your blog. Speaking up is all the Catholics did here, and you going to the point of comparing them with extreme Muslims only highlights your own detest for Catholics. A bit of a reality-check, please!
Comment 4 (1208) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 12:15:01:
The test I usually apply to these things is to ask how offended we would be if a similar "joke" had been targeted at a non-religious organisation. For example, how many people would be offended if some sort of product made humorous references to Einstein? I don't think there would be many. So why are religious figures so special? After all, at least Einstein really existed!
Catholics have been the butt of abuse? Really? I wonder what the Jews and Muslims during the inquisition thought about that!
Comment 5 (1212) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 21:01:01:
OJB - terrible comparison. Your test fails on so many levels. Being offended is subjective, up to the individual. Hence I said "think about your own life - if you are genuinely offended...". You cannot determine if someone else should be offended or not, but you can determine if you yourself has taken offense. Please don't presume what others should take offense or not, but respect others' feelings. If you feel genuinely offended about something, but it has no impact on me, I will respect your decision to speak out because the offender has gone too far in their comments/actions. Good taste extends across many of society's divisions.
Yes they have. Pick up a newspaper. Of course other religions have also had their fair share of ridicule and unwarranted abuse. Never said they didn't.
Comment 6 (1216) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 22:15:37:
OK, I both agree and disagree...
You say its a terrible comparison but don't say why, so I disagree with that. I agree that offense is subjective and that anyone who is offended by something has the right to object - fair enough. I object to members of privileged groups using their influence to censor anything they disagree with. For example the "Bloody Mary" South Park episode (an excellent example of satire). Of course they didn't stop it being shown, they just ensured many more people watched it because of all the fuss they made!
Maybe you can give me a few references to Catholics being abused because I don't see anything in my paper.
Comment 7 (1246) by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 02:05:45:
Catholics have been the butt of abuse since the beginning of the Church. Are you so naive? Need I give Google links? I agree that people that call themselves Catholics have been at the other end and been the perpetrators. Like I said the Church is made up of sinners. And the Church has admitted past wrongs. Moving forward would be a good idea.
You couldn't help but bring up the 'Bloody Mary' saga, could you? Your view is similar to may commentators like Kerre Woodham. Of course what you folk fail to realise is that is is NOT about reducing viewing numbers. Like that matters, it's C4 for goodness sake! It as about standing up for principle and I respect that. It is about making a point about what you believe is right and wrong. Gratuitous offending crosses the boundary in any society, and I am disappointed that you take glee in this. I am not so judgmental to think that the non-religious don't have decency and tolerance, but you have let me down here.
Comment 8 (1253) by OJB on 2008-03-10 at 10:13:26:
On balance, compared with other groups, and taking the balance of give and take into account, I don't think Catholics are a very "abused" group. This seems to be something that Christians really need. They need to feel like the victims, when the opposite is more often the case. So assume I am naive and show me abuse. I want the big picture, not just isolated instances.
I actually believe the Bloody Mary episode was genuine satire, and not just gratuitous offending. Satire is a fair and important part of political criticism and a genuine literary form. And its often "edgy" and in bad taste. But that's just part of its effectiveness. How would you feel if the Labour party tried to have a political satire stopped because they found it offensive, or is the church just a special case?
Comment 9 (1264) by SBFL on 2008-03-16 at 22:08:03:
Northern Ireland big enough for you? Or common attitudes highlighted by John Hagee, Westboro Baptist Church? Or the guy who handed me anti-Catholic leaflets as I entered Lancaster Park as an 10 year old to see the Pope on his visit to Chch in 1986.
Re Southpark - well you would. You fail to grasp the concept of "gratuitous offense", but if occurs in political satire, then it also crosses the boundary of decency. I'm not referring to jibes, mocks or where someone disagrees with the church. I'm referring to "gratuitous offense" where the intention is to deliberately incite conflict, hurt. It's senseless anti-social behaviour.
What is most disappointing here is you advocating this. I respect your views differ from mine, but it appears you will go to no end to illustrate your 'despisement' (not a word but felt 'hatred' was to strong) of religion. I would have thought to have seen a more reasonable approach from you. Shame.
Comment 10 (1269) by SBFL on 2008-03-16 at 23:55:34:
Comment 11 (1273) by OJB on 2008-03-17 at 19:49:03:
Northern Ireland is abuse of Catholics? I sort of thought it was a conflict which the Catholics were one side of, hardly innocent victims. Some raving lunatic making a few insulting comments? Again, I'm not too impressed. Anti-Catholic leaflets, oh boo hoo, how sad!
I seem to remember you didn't actually watch the Southpark episode. Could you confirm this? I could be wrong on this memory.
None of these "abuses" of Catholics is very spectacular compared with the evil perpetrated by the church over the years, is it? Toughen up and stop pretending to be the victim.
Comment 12 (1279) by SBFL on 2008-03-19 at 01:27:08:
Like I said, they were just examples. Re Northern Ireland - obviously you don't know how it feels to be treated as a second class citizen in your own country. Learn it up.
I did not see the whole offending episode, correct. What difference does this make though? As a male in his early 20's I watched many episodes of Southpark in its early years (mid 90's). Found it pretty funny...but that was before Southpark got desperate for a laugh. Shame they have to resort to "gratuitous offense" now, pretty weak, eh? Let's be reasonable.
People who say they represent the "Church" have done evil in the past. I do not disagree. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. There are sinners in the flock and I have not denied this (Inquisition, go play). But let's not focus on that bits that suit, but rather the overall message - Jesus's message, and that is what the Catholic Church is about - it ain't perfect (in its interpretation maybe, humans play their part...hmmm I recall Shakespeare now, "every player has a stage' and all that...) - but it is that which it must excel to.
So anyway, not pretending to be a victim, we are just calling it as we see it.
Comment 13 (1282) by OJB on 2008-03-19 at 18:01:33:
I'm not pretending to be an expert on Northern Ireland but the sources I have referred to seem to make it look more like a civil war rather than one group suppressing another.
So you are criticising a program you haven't seen. Not a good look, is it? Maybe you should watch it instead of just believing what someone else told you. Then you might appreciate the clever satire in the program. Its only gratuitous offense because you don't like it. Try to look at it objectively. I mean, how does a humorous program, even if it is offensive, actually harm you? Anyway, if it got too bad wouldn't god smite them? He used to do that sort of thing, why not now?
Well if the church was about "ripping people off and spreading its sick philosophy as widely as possible" (not saying it is) it would hardly advertise itself that way. Like all big organisations it would market itself in more positive terms: Jesus' message... whatever that is.
I hear this victim mentality a lot from religious people. I honestly don't see Catholics as any more or less victimised than anyone else.
Comment 14 (1291) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 00:30:16:
Fair enough. Read some more though. Find out why the uprisings occurred in 1969.
On the contrary, I have been upfront that I haven't seen the episode. but don't run with "just believing what someone else told you.". In case you hadn't noticed it was a major current affairs issue at the time. Even the PM commented on it. Are you an eyewitness on everything you comment on? Do you have to be? As I said I have watched many an episode in the past so I am well aware of the satire aspect. What do you mean by harm? Physical harm? Do you understand what 'offensive' means? Obviously I'm in no position to determine what God thinks of this. Trey Parker admits to somewhat regretting making this episode so maybe God is in a forgiving mood....!!
Don't follow your 3rd paragraph sorry.
Your view. I have given some quick examples.
Comment 15 (1310) by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 11:10:14:
I guess both of these issues (the extent to which Catholics are victimised, and how far satire should go before it becomes insulting rather than clever or amusing) exist on a continuum. There is no easy way to say where conflict becomes victimisation or where satire becomes offense.
As far as the satire is concerned, as long as a program doesn't incite violence or abuse against a group I think its OK. If you don't like it just don't watch it. I thought it was really clever because it showed how silly the "miracles" Catholics dream up really are.
Comment 16 (1320) by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 22:32:37:
You have a good point in the first paragraph. But obviously what one finds offense often doesn't have the same affect on another. There are boundaries of responsibility that society should follow, and this will usually eliminate gratuitous offense. Hence the hot debate that followed on this issue.
"..doesn't incite violence or abuse..." - well you take me back to the 'gratuitous offense' and 'bad taste' argument. We're starting to go in circles.
"If you don't like it just don't watch it" I didn't but it's a bit hard to avoid if you don't know it's going to happen! And I'm not just thinking about myself - what if my kids were watching it and I wasn't? Children don't have the judgment to know when to switch off. And to make matters worse, the programme is in cartoon format, so it's actually a plausible possibility!
"I thought it [images of a statue of the Virgin Mary that begins to bleed—out of its anus] was really clever". - Real classy.
Comment 17 (1331) by OJB on 2008-03-22 at 20:28:54:
After your comparison of the program with an insult to a family member (in the entry "Its War!") I begin to see where you are coming from on this. I suppose the question is whether its reasonable to treat a religious figure with such devotion, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised: you are a Catholic after all!
I am definitely less certain that I'm right on this topic now, so you have made your point well. At least you did in the other blog entry, because I don't accept the points above.
To me I still think it was a clever way to point out how ridiculous the reports of bleeding statues and other miracles are, but for someone who actually takes the Christian stories seriously I guess it would be hard to take.
Comment 18 (1345) by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 22:03:48:
Yes, as covered in "It's War!". Tolerance and respecting other people is my main point here. I don't have any belief in Hinduism for example, but I would not go out of my way to offend Hindu people at all, let alone in such a way as South Park. But hey, Christian bashing has been in vogue for a long time now, and some people take a certain amount of glee in that. Sad reflection of our society in my view.
Comment 19 (1366) by OJB on 2008-04-01 at 11:42:50:
I don't know if its so much Christian bashing, more "people with silly ideas which deserve to be ridiculed" bashing. I mean, I think its Ok to ridicule the belief in these miraculous statues and other nonsense. Maybe South Park went too far - I'm not sure - but the act of bashing the idea is OK in principle.
Also, because the Catholic Church is the biggest and most powerful in the world it is seen as a reasonable target to bash. That isn't really fair but its common for criticism of big, powerful majorities to be OK, but smaller groups to not be OK. For example, no one would say a thing if I criticised Microsoft but many would take offense at criticism of a local computer shop. Same with race, gender, etc based criticisms.
Comment 20 (1374) by SBFL on 2008-04-01 at 21:48:47:
Is that 'people deserve to be ridiculed', or 'silly ideas deserve to be ridiculed'...? There is a very clear distinction here. We must be careful not to get them confused.
Agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. Antisemitism is a classic example of this.
Comment 21 (1383) by OJB on 2008-04-02 at 12:00:28:
Its not always possible to ridicule and idea without ridiculing the believers in the idea as well. The South Park episode was satirising the reports of miraculous statues which believers claim bleed real blood. OK, so it made the Pope look a bit silly as well, and the statue was of a prominent character in Christian mythology, but I don't think the overall theme was critical of people as much as beliefs.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE