This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Advertising standards & religion

Advertising standards & religion - Comments

GOD?'s Avatar Comment 1 by GOD?

Link not working...

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:46:03 UTC | #868172

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 2 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

And I thought we got rid of blasphemy laws in the UK.

What about those of us who find it offensive to human decency to see people celebrating the fact that a man was crucified and regularly eating and drinking his flesh and blood?

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:08:39 UTC | #868183

TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 3 by TheRationalizer

Here is an article by BBC news but they have censored the image :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14815616

Here is another report that includes the image

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23984431-winking-jesus-advert-banned-for-being-disrespectful.do

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:30:39 UTC | #868202

TheRationalizer's Avatar Comment 4 by TheRationalizer

Is there not some clause in the ASA guidelines which states that any claims must be substantiated? If that is the case why does the billboard at my local train station say "Yes, there is a God and this is his Earth" - can this claim be backed up by hard evidence? I sincerely hope so :)

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:32:28 UTC | #868204

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 5 by aquilacane

Should have been banned for plagiarism. That winking Jesus is the work of someone else, I've seen it several times before.

Rip-offs like this can slip under the radar without any trouble when they are by an individual who hasn’t the talent to create an image that conveys their idea/message (assuming the idea is for a personal, not for profit reason). It is surely a crime when it is done for profit by a professional organization. Fuck the religious, the victim here is an artist.

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 13:47:45 UTC | #868232

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 6 by Alan4discussion

How did they manage the ID. Was it someone else. How could the image be identified when it is uncertain if such a person existed? All portraits are made up by the artists!

In NE England we have a winking bridge! That has to be better!

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:19:55 UTC | #868243

davedotcom's Avatar Comment 7 by davedotcom

Is there anything that they won't take offence to?

I find it offensive that I have to walk past places of religious worship and be subjected to signs such as 'god welcomes all', 'jesus loves you' 'he is risen' etc. Firstly, it's surely false advertising. Secondly, it breaches my right to freedom from religious crap. If I complain, will they take it down and issue an apology? Oh no, because it's one rule for them, another for the rest.

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:30:18 UTC | #868247

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 8 by SaganTheCat

Should have been banned for plagiarism. That winking Jesus is the work of someone else, I've seen it several times before

absolutely

from the movie "Dogma" where the catholic church tried to change their image with the new "Buddy Christ"

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2011/04/buddy-christ.jpeg

if there are to be blasphemy laws they should include taking the work of Kevin Smith in vain

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:43:05 UTC | #868254

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 9 by Stevehill

The ad featured an illustration of Jesus Christ grinning broadly and winking with an image of the Sacred Heart on his chest, alongside the headline, "Miraculous deals on Samsung Galaxy Android phones". It was created by Adam & Eve.

Yeah, right. Along with everybody else, I suppose....

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:43:25 UTC | #868255

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 10 by SaganTheCat

it should be pointed out though that a "miracle" involves getting better after a routine spinal operation (having made a wish to a dead pope), a statistical probibility following a natural disaster or a dribbly statue, it does not include phone deals that might be in some way useful to humanity

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:46:25 UTC | #868256

/Mike's Avatar Comment 11 by /Mike

Link in the discussion now updated. It looked to be formatted correctly and should have been working but when I clicked it, it wouldn't redirect correctly. Updated and checked.

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:00:00 UTC | #868263

Jason72's Avatar Comment 12 by Jason72

Surely they should be done for copyright breach as it's a blatant rip off of Kevin Smith's Buddy Christ from his film Dogma as previously stated!

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:52:56 UTC | #868294

The Plc's Avatar Comment 13 by The Plc

I wonder how much effort those Christians who complained (and forced compliance from the ASA) put into complaining about those countless adverts that feature the sexual objectification of men and women. Surely that's more antithetical to their values than a picture of their messiah smiling and winking, the supposed offensiveness of which is never fully explained. Surely Jesus did smile and wink sometimes like any other person right? What's the problem?

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:17:07 UTC | #868319

paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 14 by paulmcuk

I'd have thought there was a rtaher stronger case for banning it on the grounds that it seems to claim endorsement by Jebus.

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:22:22 UTC | #868320

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 15 by Bobwundaye

It's a pretty weak add. With Jesus they could do so much more than the vague reference to miracles:

  • multiplying airtime minutes
  • healing for phones that have problems
  • free resurrection of dead phones, guaranteed within 3 days
  • you can be heard from anywhere (reception everywhere)
  • Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:33:50 UTC | #868325

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 16 by Alan4discussion

    The watchdog said the ad was disrespectful to the Christian faith and likely to cause serious offence and as a result has banned the phone company from running the campaign again.

    So it won't be rising from the dead!!

    Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:41:13 UTC | #868326

    AsylumWarden's Avatar Comment 17 by AsylumWarden

    I just have the same thought every time I see something like this. Next time a church/christian puts up their advert, give them a taste of their own medicine and complain en masse to the ASA.

    Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:17:56 UTC | #868366

    Bloom's Avatar Comment 18 by Bloom

    Looks like the 'Buddy Christ' from the film Dogma. Worth seeing for George Carlin's portrayal of a bishop.

    Edit Already mentioned

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:22:02 UTC | #868421

    Osiris's Avatar Comment 19 by Osiris

    How very British and wimpish that all the 98 offended christians did was to complain.

    Where is the flag burning, why has no one made an effigy of the CEO of Phones4U to dangle from a noose ?...where is our equivalent of angry boy ?.

    Boring twerps.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 07:46:51 UTC | #868498

    skeelo's Avatar Comment 20 by skeelo

    Jesus is the wrong guy to advertise mobile phones - he needs a mobile like he needs another hole in his side. According to Joan Osborne, he gets hardly any calls and the ones he does get, he answers while at home in heaven:

    Back up to heaven all alone

    Nobody calling on the phone

    'cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:44:48 UTC | #868564

    skeelo's Avatar Comment 21 by skeelo

    It's Clause 4.1 of the Advertising Code that this ad has fallen foul of:

    Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.

    Why on earth should 'particular care' be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of religion?

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:04:37 UTC | #868568

    Graxan's Avatar Comment 22 by Graxan

    Ok, I just took a look at the advert. The people who decided to ban this are either morons, politically correct cowards or both. Absolutely pathetic.

    It's a vaguely Jesus-like cartoon man winking - so what??

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:16:02 UTC | #868572

    Geoff 21's Avatar Comment 23 by Geoff 21

    Comment 4 by TheRationalizer

    Is there not some clause in the ASA guidelines which states that any claims must be substantiated? If that is the case why does the billboard at my local train station say "Yes, there is a God and this is his Earth" - can this claim be backed up by hard evidence? I sincerely hope so :)

    Comment 17 by AsylumWarden

    I just have the same thought every time I see something like this. Next time a church/christian puts up their advert, give them a taste of their own medicine and complain en masse to the ASA.

    Yes to both.

    If the agency had simply said "The picture is not of Jesus" what could the objectors have done?

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:14:06 UTC | #868592

    Dave H's Avatar Comment 24 by Dave H

    Yeah, to get out of trouble they could've said it's not Jesus, it's Mohammed. That would fix it.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:34:52 UTC | #868599

    Charonomicrobium's Avatar Comment 25 by Charonomicrobium

    This 'misoreligiophobia' by ad companies is becoming ridiculous. You've no doubt read about another example that has surfaced recently: the refusal to erect a sign that promotes the positive side of atheism, and which reads "You don’t need God — to hope, to care, to love, to live". ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/28/why-was-this-atheist-billboard-rejected-by-emc-outdoor-in-knoxville/ )

    Although the sign successfully went up near Grand Rapids, it has been refused in Knoxville, where I currently live, on the grouds that it is "too controversial". I wonder, are ads that throw a positive spin on atheism more controversial or than some anti-abortion signs that use photos of aborted fetuses to drive home their message but that are typically used by the same religious right that opposes pro-atheist signs? ( http://o3.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/19a65c1373ac841e3a8c7fae583d1eb4 )

    (I can just see the conversation beginning: "Mommy, where did that baby come from?"..."Uh-oh.")

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:46:46 UTC | #868606

    Geoff 21's Avatar Comment 26 by Geoff 21

    Comment 24 by Dave H

    Yeah, to get out of trouble they could've said it's not Jesus, it's Mohammed. That would fix it.

    The point is not to avoid trouble but to put the burden of proof where it belongs. To demand that they prove their positive ID.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:13:14 UTC | #868613

    Muldanian's Avatar Comment 27 by Muldanian

    We either have the right to freedom of speech, or we don't. Increasingly though, it seems such freedom stops at religion. Say what you like about politics or philosophy, but religion seems to be protected from anything which its followers find offensive. It is time that there was a real public debate, as to whether there is freedom of expression in the UK or not, and if not, then it is time to fight for it. Why a winking Jesus is offensive, I've no idea. I have seen pictures, owned by Roman Catholics, of Jesus, which change from him having his eyes open to having them closed, depending on which direction the picture is moved.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:39:29 UTC | #868637

    Vicar of Art on Earth's Avatar Comment 28 by Vicar of Art on Earth

    Better dump the corn chips made with sacred corn or as a Native American said to me, you see advertizing using non Christian symbols but you will never see saltine craker advertment saying the divine flavor the taste like Jesus.

    Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:30:03 UTC | #868763

    Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 29 by Alan4discussion

    Comment 23 by Geoff 21

    If the agency had simply said "The picture is not of Jesus" what could the objectors have done?

    ...Or got one of its salesmen to grow his hair and beard and then argue the case! Wink! Wink!

    Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:36:12 UTC | #868887

    Roedy's Avatar Comment 30 by Roedy

    What about the plastic bobble head Jesus statues Christians put in their cars, the kitsch they lard their homes with every Christmas... This ad is pretty tame in comparison.

    What should people refrain from poking fun at error?

    Christians call for gays to be murdered, then whine when someone puts one of their characters in an ad. Get stuffed! Why should they be able to dump on everyone else, but expect only exaggerated respect in return?

    Next all those Noah's ark toys boats for kids will have to be recalled.

    Buddhists accept this sort of treatment without complaint.

    Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:03:28 UTC | #869278