Things just get better!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is more the case of some people feeling offended by relative trivia (be it Tesco adverts or the sale of chocolate eggs) - when there are better reasons to feel offended than these.

Gordon
 
For me this is a complaint about crassness and ignorance in society.

Why should it just be you who is free to promote it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christians don't have a finite store of it that runs out once they've finished reading the Daily Telegraph.

Caricaturing Christians?

[Rhiannon]

The only thing to fear here is the tyranny of a secular humanist majority given to casual bullying because you can bet your bottom dollar not every minority can expect this sort of thing.

Also this post denies the view that we still live in a religious society or that Christianity has power. The prime culture is secular and humanist and memories of our religious heritage have been accurately discouraged by Humanist.

That gives lie to the claim that people convert to Christianity because of their culture.

In any case that would mean that people are culturally and perhaps nominally atheist i.e not as fanatical as people who post on here.

Of course we are culturally Christian. Why do you think most people have a day off today? It is a part of our Christian heritage, our culture. Aside from the utter shit talked about paganism in popular culture, other minority faiths don't come in for 'this sort of thing' because all that is happening is the treatment of Christianity as a part of the cultural fabric of our lives rather than something to be revered.

[Rhiannon]

Caricaturing Christians?

Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.

You said Christians were Daily Telegraph readers did you not.

[Nearly Sane]

Well the good thing is that this has directed me to Richard Coles' Twitter feed, which is actually quite entertaining.

Just to say, it is possible to get offended by this and the rape clause, and the massacre of the Copts, and the fact that Trump exists. Christians don't have a finite store of it that runs out once they've finished reading the Daily Telegraph.

No, creating equivalence on this exactly reduces the outrage. That's why having the PM mouth off about the non missing Easter as regards chocolate eggs that so are symbolic of the meaning of Easter while selling arms to kill people in a country where you can be killed for expressing your views is so offensive. Treat everything the same, and nothing is then important.

[Nearly Sane]

Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.

No, he doesn't. He just thinks that are better things to be outraged by.

[Rhiannon]

You said Christians were Daily Telegraph readers did you not.

Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.

[Rhiannon]

No, he doesn't. He just thinks that are better things to be outraged by.

And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.

[Nearly Sane]

Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.

This isn't suffering. Tesco's being crass , it isn't suffering. Don't belittle suffering by this pish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.

But given what you said before about the decline in society, that middle class who miss etc, are likely to be secularist, humanist, atheist, materialist etc.

[Rhiannon]

This isn't suffering. Tesco's being crass , it isn't suffering. Don't belittle suffering by this pish

Of course it isn't suffering. It's true I haven't been awake long but is what I'm saying really that unclear? FFS.

[Gordon]

Gordon
 
For me this is a complaint about crassness and ignorance in society.

Why should it just be you who is free to promote it?

I'm not promoting it. If anything I'm indifferent to the Tesco/chocolate eggs stuff but perplexed that some take offence so easily rather than just ignoring it.

[Nearly Sane]

And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.

have we downgraded 'outraged' to being 'pissed off'? Again the while 'oh dear, let's be pissed off about chocolate eggs' pish exactly let the vicar's daughter avoid any questions about selling arms to the Saudis.

[Rhiannon]

But given what you said before about the decline in society, that middle class who miss etc, are likely to be secularist, humanist, atheist, materialist etc.

Oooh look, a caricature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.

Agreed.

[Rhiannon]

have we downgraded 'outraged' to being 'pissed off'? Again the while 'oh dear, let's be pissed off about chocolate eggs' pish exactly let the vicar's daughter avoid any questions about selling arms to the Saudis.

Have you asked Vlad what his view on selling arms is? Im not sure all Christians are such disgusting hypocrites as our Prime Minister.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not promoting it. If anything I'm indifferent to the Tesco/chocolate eggs stuff but perplexed that some take offence so easily rather than just ignoring it.

But would you feel so indifferent if they had had a promotion. ''This Hogmanay live like a Scotsman with a special on Irn Bru and DFM....Hoots mon''?

[Robbie]

With a glass of Buckie on the side!

I get what Rhianna is saying and where she's coming from.

[Nearly Sane]

Have you asked Vlad what his view on selling arms is? Im not sure all Christians are such disgusting hypocrites as our Prime Minister.

And once more something i didn't say. But wgat did happen was May's vicar's daughter schtick distracted people. It made the equivalence between the non banning of Easter as regards chocolate eggs and suffering. Puffing up this story does the same.

[Bubbles]

TBH without it appearing on here, i'd have missed it totally.

Thing is, no one is stopping Christians from giving up food and alcohol and looking miserable, if that's what it means to them. No one forces them to drink beer or cider.

But they can't expect everyone else  to be prepared to accept it with the same gravity.

Good Friday, the whole weekend, is now just a longer break from work for some people. For them Good Friday is Good because it's the first day of that break. So chances are those that feel TGIF ( thank God it's Friday) just go and buy some cans in to celebrate the free time.

Therefore Tesco's advert for those people is spot on.

It's them it's aimed at, not your miserable looking Christians who want to control others. No one is stopping them doing what they do to mark easter in their own way.

I'm afraid my view is that Christians need to stop expecting the rest of the world to conform to their religious beliefs.

Easter can also be a celebration of the return of light evenings, flowers, green returning to the trees and warmth.  This can also involve drinking beer and cider if someone so wishes.

Perhaps some Christians need to respect what it means to others, with its eggs and bunnies and chicks and a time for a short holiday from work.

No one has to see public holidays in a religious setting, in some ways it might be better to have Easter 🐣 as a fixed public holiday separate from the Christian one which moves each year. Why not just have the public holiday in April every year while the Christian one can move as it usually does?

Then perhaps everyone will be happy.
But then some Christians will be offended because it won't involve us all learning about their religion.

I would like to see the public holiday fixed to a set time  and separate from the religious one, you get a better chance of nice weather in April. 
Eggs, bunnies, chicks don't have much to do with Christianity either.

We could just leave Christianity to do it's own thing.

Whatever that is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

TBH without it appearing on here, i'd have missed it totally.

Thing is, no one is stopping Christians from giving up food and alcohol and looking miserable, if that's what it means to them. No one forces them to drink beer or cider.

But they can't expect everyone else  to be prepared to accept it with the same gravity.

Good Friday, the whole weekend, is now just a longer break from work for some people. For them Good Friday is Good because it's the first day of that break. So chances are those that feel TGIF ( thank God it's Friday) just go and buy some cans in to celebrate the free time.

Therefore Tesco's advert for those people is spot on.

It's them it's aimed at, not your miserable looking Christians who want to control others. No one is stopping them doing what they do to mark easter in their own way.

I'm afraid my view is that Christians need to stop expecting the rest of the world to conform to their religious beliefs.

Easter can also be a celebration of the return of light evenings, flowers, green returning to the trees and warmth.  This can also involve drinking beer and cider if someone so wishes.

Perhaps some Christians need to respect what it means to others, with its eggs and bunnies and chicks and a time for a short holiday from work.

No one has to see public holidays in a religious setting, in some ways it might be better to have Easter 🐣 as a fixed public holiday separate from the Christian one which moves each year. Why not just have the public holiday in April every year while the Christian one can move as it usually does?

Then perhaps everyone will be happy.
But then some Christians will be offended because it won't involve us all learning about their religion.

I would like to see the public holiday fixed to a set time  and separate from the religious one, you get a better chance of nice weather in April. 
Eggs, bunnies, chicks don't have much to do with Christianity either.

We could just leave Christianity to do it's own thing.

Whatever that is.

But look at what were saying here.
Good Friday is now just a day which is a break from the grind....a day we can be thankful to our economic masters. Has life come to just being ''working and not working'' or ''working and drinking''.....
.......and how long will it be until it isn't a holiday, which must already be true for many. This is a strange and terrible world which is being promoted here. Of course the truth is that God is being replaced by mammon for which only some get to be in the priesthood.

You can just imagine having an April holiday then it being dropped because it was just ''originally a religious festival'' after all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

While I agree with NS that there are more urgent matters that should cause “outrage”, I’m not sure that they are necessarily more important than protecting the right to offend.

I don’t suppose the Tesco act was a deliberate act of offence-causing, but the apology was a deliberate act in the other direction and I don’t think Tesco should have done it – or indeed pulled the ad at all. And I don’t think certain Christians should have asked for or welcomed the apology either. Just the opposite I'd have thought.

Why? Because we pay special regard to not offending the religious – any religious – at our peril. If people want to be part of private members’ clubs with sets of beliefs and practices, that’s up to them and I’d defend roundly their rights to do so. I also though think that they overreach when they expect others to respect those beliefs and practices. If we do that, how should we decide which faiths deserve this privileged treatment and which do not? And even if we could decide that, how should we decide which parts of one exceptional faith are fine to ridicule or not? Most would I agree I think that prohibiting blood transfusions for dying children is loopy and wrong – would it be so bad then if the blood transfusion service ran an ad along the lines of, “Don’t let the Jehovah’s Witnesses kill children: donate blood”?

See, that’s the thing with protecting some religious beliefs from offence. Offence is taken, not given and once the principle is established that it’s the other way around then there’s no knowing where it will end. That’s why to many killing cartoonists for drawing Mohammed seemed just fine and dandy. Free speech – whether polemical argument or ads for booze – is far more important than protecting anyone’s right not to feel offended.

And why should Christians support the right to run the ad? Because it’s the exact same freedom of speech that protects their right to say and do as they please too. I happen to find a lot of things said by Christians to be offensive, and for that matter I find walking my children past buildings with models of a man nailed to a cross in the front garden pretty offensive too. Should I ask for these things to be prohibited or withdrawn, maybe with an apology to follow?

Never in a million years. If I’m offended, that’s my problem. As Stephen Fry memorably said in reply to the complaint, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it”…

…”So fucking what?”

(See what I did there with an offensive word?)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While I agree with NS that there are more urgent matters that should cause “outrage”, I’m not sure that they are necessarily more important than protecting the right to offend.

I don’t suppose the Tesco act was a deliberate act of offence-causing, but the apology was a deliberate act in the other direction and I don’t think Tesco should have done it – or indeed pulled the ad at all. And I don’t think certain Christians should have asked for or called for or welcomed the apology either. Just the opposite I'd have thought.

Why? Because we pay special regard to not offending the religious – any religious – at our peril. If people want to be part of private members’ clubs with sets of beliefs and practices, that’s up to them and I’d defend roundly their rights to do so. I also though think that they overreach when they expect others to respect those beliefs and practices. If we do that, how should we decide which faiths deserve this privileged treatment and which do not? And even if we could decide that, how should we decide which parts of one exceptional faith are fine to ridicule or not? Most would I agree I think that prohibiting blood transfusions for dying children is loopy and wrong – would it be so bad then if the blood transfusion service ran an ad along the lines of, “Don’t let the Jehovah’s Witnesses kill children: donate blood”?

See, that’s the thing with protecting some religious beliefs from offence. Offence is taken, not given and once the principle is established that it’s the other way around then there’s no knowing where it will end. That’s why to many killing cartoonists for drawing Mohammed seemed just fine and dandy. Free speech – whether polemical argument or ads for booze – is far more important than protecting anyone’s right not to feel offended.

And why should Christians support the right to run the ad? Because it’s the exact same freedom of speech that protects their right to say and do as they please too. I happen to find a lot of things said by Christians to be offensive, and for that matter I find walking my children past buildings with models of a man nailed to a cross in the front garden pretty offensive too. Should I ask for these things to be prohibited or withdrawn, maybe with an apology to follow?

Never in a million years. If I’m offended, that’s my problem. As Stephen Fry memorably said in reply to the complaint, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it”…

…”So fucking what?”

(See what I did there with an offensive word?)

Non sequitur to what Tesco's did or didn't do.

By offence we should be offending with the truth....Not clever turdpolishing.....not by celebrity..........not with '' professional comedians.''

[SusanDoris]

Rose#45 and bluehillside #47

Very strongly agree.