14th April 2010
“An [advertising] campaign cannot be considered to be generally offensive just because individual religious people may feel it is.”
Paula Paloranta
“An [advertising] campaign cannot be considered to be generally offensive just because individual religious people may feel it is.”
Paula Paloranta
April 14th, 2010 at 5:22
Why can’t it be considered offensive if it provokes or send a negative message or image to religion?
April 14th, 2010 at 6:03
Religious sensibilities deserve no more respect than political sensibilities. For example, Jesus was the bastard son of an unfaithful Jewish tart that was handy with a quick lie to keep from being stoned to death and Muhammad was a pedophile. At least Jesus wouldn’t be arrested on sight, as Muhammad surely would.
April 14th, 2010 at 7:27
You have no proofs on your rants.How many girls, not wifes have Mohammad slept with?NONE.Youre the son & sons of a whole generation of Bastards!
April 14th, 2010 at 8:09
Yep i’d say being wedded to a child would qualify him as a pedophile but Mohammed was also an illiterate peasant which makes it hard to understand why any sane god would pick him to transcribe the revealed Koranic texts. BTW if you believe the Koran Mohammed was certainly a horny bastard but having fathered numerous children he didn’t bother to let anyone know what his succcession plans were which has led to an ongoing schism i.e. Sunni and Shia’s and also created the very man made situation whereby the caliphs claimed to be themselves holy but in fact were just power hungry dictators. Given all that i’d suggest that it would be pretty hard to generate a more negative image of Islam than already exists
April 14th, 2010 at 8:11
BTW Solly my man a 5 line response does not qualify as a rant. Neither does this.
April 14th, 2010 at 10:48
The problem is that religious people can be easily offended. If we really cared that people were going to be offended on religious grounds we’d be prevented from displaying and saying lots of things that are in reality innocuous. Even the atheist bus ads attracted criticism. Apparently it offends some people even to say “there probably isn’t a God”.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:13
Captian Zero, Satan must be proud of you. Solomon,take your foot out of your mouth now, and I don’t mean to change feet.
April 14th, 2010 at 14:50
Religious people, it appears are for the most part on shaky ground anyway having to do with belief. I believe no one wants to be played the fool. And when the religious see that what they’ve been told is a lie, the collection plate’s proceeds gets a bit less. And then, it’s also the control thing the preacher has lost. I have noticed that the church parking lots have a few more openings lately, however.
April 14th, 2010 at 15:53
solomon, ur so retarded. i dont think anyone should be ousted or punished because opf an opiniion.
April 14th, 2010 at 15:55
I would have claimed #1 and #2, but for once – and only in the first of his posts – Sollie actually formulated a coherent question: “Why can’t it be considered offensive if it provokes or send a negative message or image to religion?”
Well, Sollie, it is because you should not be sensitive about myth. Religion is myth. It is fabricated. Made up. Imaginary. Because lots of people believe the myth does not make it true, and certainly should not keep it sacrosanct from discussion.
Which is why you should not take offense at Captain’s suggestion that Mo was a pedophile. We don’t know that he was, but the koran explains him to be someone who sexually exploited a child. It is a myth, just like the rest of the koran, so don’t get bent out of shape about it.
Tech, if Satan presents himself, we can ask; but since he or she does not exist there is not much of a threat. So, Tech, what does Dr. Scholl’s taste like anyway?
And as far as being offensive goes, the term ‘bastard’ is derogatory towards an innocent baby. How much sense does that make?
April 14th, 2010 at 16:06
While I would agree about religions being myths, I don’t think this of itself is the reason why it should not be beyond criticism or even the butt of humour.
In a free society any idea or belief whether religious or secular must be open to debate a criticism. To insult Islam or Cristianity is to insult an idea, a particular world view which whether true or not is essentiall a matter of opinion.
April 14th, 2010 at 17:24
This quote appears to be aimed at television, or radio commercials. The problem is that everyone has a different measuring stick for what is acceptable and what is not. I am left-handed. Should I get offended if a company makes a humorous, or off-color commercial about lefties? Probably not because I’m very thick-skinned, however I can see where other people may not share my view.
I think religion should be given the same leeway as every other topic. If collectively, they want to rally and put pressure on the offending company, more power to them. I draw the line when the government gets involved.
April 14th, 2010 at 18:05
HSmokes, just to clarify a bit – religion should get the same leeway as any other ‘belief’, while reality-based subjects deserve a bit more respect. In other words, if it is real – like electricity , or the current child-rape issues with the catholic church, I am much more likely to not mock it.
If it is crackers, it is crackers. (Thanks, PZ.)
As far as the state getting involved, I agree wholeheartedly.
April 14th, 2010 at 18:37
Tech – Satan doesn’t exist. Invoking the imaginary isn’t scary to grown ups.
April 14th, 2010 at 18:48
Holy – my best friend is a ‘lefty’. I’ve always gotten a good laugh at pointing out his ‘mild retardation’. Good thing he’s got a sense of humor.
But seriously, there have been many broadly held beliefs that are viewed in hindsight with pity or derision. Religion will eventually be as well. There doesn’t exist a right not to be offended, despite relatively recent Islamic attempts in the U.K. to create one.
April 14th, 2010 at 19:27
Another thought on this one… …although we have all seen offensive advertising, if it truly offends that many people it would likely not serve its primary purpose.
In that sense it would be self limiting.
Bottom line is that religion should not have a special status.
April 14th, 2010 at 19:34
Ah! Now it makes more sense. The author was likely referring to ‘Achmed the Dead Terrorist’, a puppet character by US comedian Jeff Dunham. The offended consumer was possibly upset because it appeared about the same time as the Kauhajoki school shooting.
Let me think about this one. A puppet that yells “Silence! I kill you!” or a Troll that tells us all we are going to hell…
…I think I am seeing a trend.
April 14th, 2010 at 21:00
steve,
I dunno. It seems to me that most of the people who believe in a god, genuinely think they are correct. Although a uniform lack of evidence makes people like us think they are foolish, the bottom line is that they take their thoughts as seriously as you and I. I think equality amongst all topics should be the prevailing thought regarding advertising. I agree with you that a negative ad would likely be fail it’s mission, consequently creating one is self defeating. Of course, people have been know to create them in bad taste and regret it later.
I get the impression that you are certain that the god thing is definitely a myth. I’m a bit more reserved in that area. Although I am reasonably certain that it’s a bunch of foolishness, I don’t think it should be dismissed outright. Science has not come nearly close enough to answering the great mysteries like, “how did we get here?” or “just where in the hell did all this matter making the cosmos come from” or”how long has the universe, including the pre-big bang, been around?
Hell, who knows …maybe there is some unexplained power at work, although it could be little green men. The trick is to continue looking for valid data. I’m not talking about dumbass things like bronze age writings from barely literate people who believed in magic, but rather valid science. Although the burden of evidence is placed upon the believers, we must keep in mind that we also have no hard evidence to contrary. I advocate removing that, piss-poor excuse for evidence word, “faith” and replacing it with “evidence.”
April 14th, 2010 at 21:12
id have to agree Holysmokes. im never going to be 100% sure about the existence of a god, but i will say im 99% sure there isnt. there could be an inexplicable force behind all we can comprehend, but it so far it lacks any concrete evidence. in regard to one of your questions however, we can answer why we are here. im sure you know that i am referring to our evolution. if you’re looking for a deeper meaning to our existence then that would beg a different response. my opinion on that is you make your own reason for the life you have. i see it as rather foolish to think that just because we are a highly intelligent species that there is something special about our existence. any living thing around today is very fortunate to be here.maybe you were talking about something else, i dont know.
April 14th, 2010 at 21:20
Hsmokes, it would be great to find information about any force that shapes our destiny.
But like you said, it could just as easily be little green men as gods. There is no evidence for either – so far.
Therefore, I allot as much validity to religion as I do to little green men.
Not sayin’ either couldn’t possibly happen, just saying there is no evidence, and the likelihood is remote, at best. Which is why I often dismiss the extremely remote possibility in favor of anything with a rational basis.
And of course, keep looking. We should always do so.
And so that I do not get in trouble with the admin for straying off the AQOTD, I must add that individual people’s religious ‘feelings’ are not a rational basis.
April 14th, 2010 at 21:30
Alavi Hossain – I would distinguish one point. We are special in our existence to this end: we are aware of own existence in the universe, and we have the ability to understand the how and why of our presence – beyond a single generation or two. That is unique, as far as we know.
The fact that we have empirically put so many of the pieces of the puzzle together is something to be proud of. That we all have access to this information is both a weighty responsibility and duty. That we all do not do so to the best of our abilities is a tragedy.
Let’s all make use of the time we have!
April 14th, 2010 at 23:42
steve- for sure. i guess i didnt make that clear enough. i was trying to say that just because we have been able to do so many incredible things, it doesnt mean we were a “chosen” species. and yes, by all means lets move forward with optimism and the zeal to understand the mysterious without succumbing to the irrational. we’re all just tiny specks in time, it’s a must that we take advantage of that short moment.
April 15th, 2010 at 0:02
Alavi – no disrespect intended. I only wanted to amplify and distinguish what you said. We agree that we are not ‘chosen’, but also that we are damned lucky!
I am glad you are commenting here – feel free to dissect and comment on my blurbs as you see fit. What I think I said and what gets written down are not always synonymous.
Besides, this whole thing is about an advertising campaign. How seriously should anyone take it?
April 15th, 2010 at 3:18
it’s all good dude. and yeah, i really dont see what the problem unless it uses fighting words or incites violence. and by that i mean, makes threats, not cause muslim loonies to attempt an assassination on an author. i see signs up everyday saying “jesus saves” and “the only way is through christ”. why the hell should i not take offense to that? i do in a way, but im not about to protest for its removal.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:37
Dear tech,
I’de rather swallow the whole of my foot for the sake of truth no matter how silly it may sounds to unbelievers.Ones you have the faith & confidence, nothing can change that.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:02
Dear CaptainZero1969,
Can you confirm SATAN does’nt exist? Lets see what’s your comment on this.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:12
Dear Holysmokes,
Youre beginning to get a little to your senses.Join the club.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:18
Dear Holysmokes,steve,Alavi,
Read the QORAN. The answer is all in it ie. to find information about any force that shapes our destiny.
April 15th, 2010 at 5:26
The simple fake concept of evolution just can’t proove the complexity of creations.How can things exists by chance.Chance have a very narrow probability.Now were talking about large quantities,multiple and complex processes,countless systems governing life, and that is only one part of other countless events,happenings or phenomenons.Can that all be sum up into one little created word by evolutionists?
April 15th, 2010 at 8:10
If life happens to exist by chance, the probability of your nose being located where they are now is almost nil.Chances won’t happen much often, creation yes (mass production).
April 15th, 2010 at 16:38
To conceive of evolution as nothing more than blind chance and randomness is the most serious conceptual mistake one can make. Evolution does contain a component of chance, but there is far more to the process than that, and it is precisely the existence of the non-chance components that allows evolution to work. The process of evolution is driven by the engine of natural selection, a filter that extracts order out of chaos according to a fixed and non-random set of rules. It is for this reason that many of the most common creationist caricatures of evolution fail. Evolution is not like an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary, a tornado in a junkyard producing a 747, or DNA in a blender producing a human being, because all of these lack a component of non-random selection. Due to mutation, organisms undergo random changes, some of which are beneficial, while others are not. The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population. This is natural selection in a nutshell. It is clear to see that natural selection, which is not chance but the opposite of chance, is what makes evolution work. If there were no selection, change in living things would follow a pattern called a “random walk” – sometimes the changes would be beneficial, sometimes not, and the population as a whole would wander back and forth across the fitness “landscape” but, on average, never get anywhere. That would be an example of random change, and it is absolutely correct to say that such a process could never produce all the intricate diversity and marvelous adaptations that living things possess.
April 16th, 2010 at 3:55
Even if evolution contains billions of components of chance its just not enough.Life processes consists of multiples or countless interelated complex processes that have to be carefully planned and executed.Can one shut their eyes and comfortably walk away with some self interpretation of natural selection process.What propagates the natural selection engine if you say so?Theres a lot more explaination to be brought forth.As for now & forever the concept of creation by God is the most logical, probable & the simplest unrefuted concepts that can be accepted by the human mind. Not other intepreted guess or bluffing game introduced by Atheists.
April 16th, 2010 at 4:20
rofl-copter, solomon. rofl-copter. what creationist website are copying and pasting from? gene mutations are random no doubt, but survival is most definitely not. nobody plans for these genes to mutate. natural selection is the driving force. why does there have to be a fairy behind the curtains as the propagator? even if there was, that wouldn’t take away from the fact of evolution through natural selection. and god is not a logical answer at all. to postulate god himself requires a whole lot more than everyone assumes. this god would have to be very complex and abide by the laws of nature and physics, and that clearly has not been demonstrated in the koran or any other holy texts. quite the contrary actually. it is just not that simple. and that is very improbable and hard to accept for the rational mind especially when you can just say that he was always there. think about how we have understood the world. why was it that the smartest men throughout history have been atheists/agnostics? albert einstein, stephen hawking, bertrand russell, carl sagan, charles darwin, james watson, stephen jay gould, galileo…the list is endless. these are the people who have advanced our understanding of the natural world. not moses or muhammad.
April 16th, 2010 at 4:50
We don’t fully recognise smartest men or geniuses like albert einstein, stephen hawking, bertrand russell, carl sagan, charles darwin, james watson, stephen jay gould or galileo.
They are genius only on their one main stream.Don’t forget there are far more great genius of the genius mind up there who shaped everything…EVERYTHING! Einstein or the others just posess a fragment of Gods knowledge which have been borrowed to them for a while.
What are you ranting about …a god that have to abide abide by the laws of nature and physics. Its He who shaped not only the laws of nature or physics but every other complex laws.
Moses & MOhammad are Gods messengers who tells humans what they have not yet know.They have seen Gods signs & they know its the truth.Why the hell they sacrifice their life & time to accomplish all that without any reward on earth.And the Qoran just contain all the informations ones need to find faith.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:44
exactly. he would have to put those laws into effect, which is not simple at all. sure, religions have advanced social culture, but not our understanding of cosmology, biology, chemistry, or an other science for that matter. these sciences are the reason we know what we do today. and that is simply an opinion that “Einstein or the others just posess a fragment of Gods knowledge which have been borrowed to them for a while”. These men were great thinkers, and ‘main stream’ is what is needed for our understanding of the natural world to advance. nobody needs faith, some people just think they do. and why wouldnt you sacrifice your time for your family and humanity regardless of whether you believe in a god or not? “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” r u saying the only reason you care for your family is because god commanded you to do so? the only reason you lend a helping hand is because you fear the fires of hell? that’s such a shame, solomon. i think anyone would agree, if this is true, that you are a terrible human being.
April 18th, 2010 at 19:25
We don’t fully recognise smartest men or geniuses like albert einstein, stephen hawking, bertrand russell, carl sagan, charles darwin, james watson, stephen jay gould or galileo.
They are genius only on their one main stream.Don’t forget there are far more great genius of the genius mind up there who shaped everything…EVERYTHING! Einstein or the others just posess a fragment of Gods knowledge which have been borrowed to them for a while.
What are you ranting about …a god that have to abide abide by the laws of nature and physics. Its He who shaped not only the laws of nature or physics but every other complex laws.
Moses & MOhammad are Gods messengers who tells humans what they have not yet know.They have seen Gods signs & they know its the truth.Why the hell they sacrifice their life & time to accomplish all that without any reward on earth.And the Qoran just contain all the informations ones need to find faith.