Foley and Izzard: Funny but unfair

In quick succession I came upon a series of unconnected posts in which atheist comedians have a go at God and religion. I don’t mind in principle—there is plenty in religious spheres to critique and to poke fun at—but two of the bits that I saw most recently claim as a weakness things that are actually among the greatest strengths of Christianity.

Dave Foley: Faith is like belief in Santa Claus

Foley on atheism and religion. Click pic to watch

Foley and comedy jacket on atheism and religion. Click pic to watch.

Dave Foley is perhaps best known for playing a lead role in the vastly underrated 90s sitcom News Radio. His stand-up seems not to have hit News Radio heights, and in this mostly awkward sketch (among other things) he describes people of faith as ‘creepy’, and compares believers to grown people who believe in Santa—adding that we’d be treated as lunatics if there weren’t so many of us.

I’m not sure why this analogy is so widely thought to be valid. Perhaps it is due to the common mistake that atheists make of conflating all religions together as though Jesus and Jim Jones and Juno are all basically the same. The example that Foley gives of religious craziness is that of transubstantiation in Catholicism: the bread and wine actually (not figuratively) become Jesus’ body and blood (though not in any way that affects taste or form). But this was the kind of thing that the Western world fought a fairly well-known war over in the 1500s. The Protestant world told the pope that we’re tired of this nonsense about 500 years ago.

The comparison with Santa is a false one for several reasons, but the most important one being historicity. Even if Saint Nick was a real person, Santa mythology about the North Pole and the world’s worst commute on Christmas Eve has no basis in reality. Believing it would be an act of willful self-delusion. And perhaps most religious beliefs are of the same order. The point is that the Bible has always differentiated itself from ‘the gods of the nations’ because of God’s acts in history. The old prophets repeatedly mocked people who cut down a tree and used part of it for the fire and part for furniture and part to make a god to worship. And the whole argument of Christianity from the minute it left Jerusalem was that Jesus rose from the dead and brought forgiveness, as he said he would—something has happened in history.

Disbelieve it if you like, but unlike Santa, the existence of God is not a priori an irrational idea, and unlike Santa, Jesus’ resurrection is an historical claim for which there is evidence to be weighed. I know it is annoying to have to carefully dismiss evidence that you have no interest in believing, but in much the same way as the argument ‘Evolution is stupid because just look at the human eye!’ is really annoying, atheists should stop doing a discredit to themselves by trying to make the Jesus-Santa link stick.

Eddie Izzard: God’s plan


Eddie Izzard is a brilliant comedian, and as much as I wanted to hate ‘Glorious’, his deeply irreverent take on history and the Bible from the 90s, it is undeniably funny. His famous quote about God’s plan is doing the rounds again, and while I can imagine it being hilarious when he says it, it surely doesn’t take too long to realise that this is actually a rather foolish critique.

The main reason why it doesn’t work is that the ability to understand a plan demands several things that Eddie Izzard does not apprehend. One needs firstly to understand the problem that the plan addresses. In the case of the biblical storyline, the issues are human rebellion, consequent disruption of divine-human relationship, and the problem of evil and death that result from that. Eddie doesn’t say what he thinks the problem is, but I would put money on it not being the one that God’s book identifies. I suspect what people such as Izzard usually think the goal should be is total human happiness and otherwise being left alone, which ironically cuts against what God is trying to do quite severely.

Secondly, understanding a plan requires a grasp of the ‘rules of the game’. Complaints about the problem of evil usually demand that God should intervene in history in order to stop bad things from happening. However, these complaints rarely get specific about how God should go about doing this. Seeing as most of the world’s evils are human evils, God would  seem to me to have two major paths open to Him to stop human evil. He could kill the wrong-doer without delay, which would mean the death of Adam & Eve and (however literally you take that story) the eradication of humankind. This would mean the failure of His goal to restore divine-human relationship. So delay then.

The second route is to miraculously intervene every time someone is about to do something bad so as to prevent the crime (a bit like Minority report). But then it doesn’t take too much thinking before one realises that this would need to be carried out on the level of speech, and probably even on the level of thought (because most evil actions begin there). So God would have to remove the consequences of our evil impulses either by miraculously staying our hands and tongues, or by eradicating the freedom of will altogether. Again, this would be failure of the goal, because it replaces relationship with slavery. So a cure then.

If it’s to be a cure, then that’s what Christianity has always said He’s always been doing. You may protest that He’s taking awfully long about it, but again as has long been said, if God is taking His time at least it means you have the opportunity to take part in the cure.

The final thing that one needs in order to understand a plan is a grasp of the strategy by which the goal is being pursued. This is the part that Izzard clearly has an issue with, but is there any surprise in that? Does Izzard expect that his casual glance at the facile number of things that he or any of us understands about human history should yield clear apprehension of what is being done and should be done?

If one takes chess as an example, there are very limited parameters and relatively few variables, but great players are still able to think so far into the possible futures of each game that they can come up with strategies that catch their opponents by surprise. In the ‘Game of the Century’, for instance, Bobby Fischer faced world-champion Donald Byrne, and chose to sacrifice his queen. To chess imbeciles such as myself, allowing the capture of your most powerful piece would represent a mistake, but Fischer ensured that the cost of her capture was so high that the game would be his anyway. His strategy was so far beyond what other people expected (including his opponent) that it made certain individual actions seem nonsensical.

When one extends the number of variables to human history, the ability to map possible futures is surely out of our grasp—even that of Eddie Izzard. Funnily enough, this is exactly the point of one of the oldest extant discussions of the problem of evil, known as The Book of Job. In the story, Job suffers a crushing series of unjustified evils, and his friends all tell him that God is just and so it must be punishment for something that Job has done. Job protests that he is innocent. When the verdict comes, Job is proven correct, but the rebuke for all parties is that they are all passing judgement on matters about which they know nothing.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know!” (Job 38:1-5)

There is a plan—and we know more of it post Jesus than Job did—but don’t expect that all of it should be obvious to you, me or Eddie Izzard.

It is the business of comedians to take cheap shots, I suppose, but surely (having claimed the intellectual high-ground as their own) atheism can make arguments to match. It seems to be everyone’s loss when we stop discussing and start playing to the crowd.

Exodus: Of Gods and Kings

I have yet to see Ridley Scott’s film, so I’m not commenting except to say that you should not fail to read the review from my friend George Athas over here:

He manages to set aside the inevitable griping about its accuracy and to judge it for what it is actually trying to say. The review helped me to understand why Scott made the movie and why he did so with so little concern for preservation of the biblical account. Good read.

Good blasphemy?

One movie that I liked well enough to add to my small collection is a slightly odd mockumentary called Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999). It satirises beauty pageants and the abuses related to that industry.

One particular scene has always stuck in my mind, mostly because as a Christian, I am sensitive about blasphemy and this pushes it a bit far. Watch it here:


In the clip, we see the ‘talent show’ part of the beauty pageant competition, in which the beauty queen finalists all have to show off some sort of talent to prove that they are more than just a pretty face. The woman introducing the next contestant (Gladys) is the organiser and judge of the competition, as well as the mother of the next contestant, who is called Becky. Both of them are dishonest, evil characters who will stop at nothing to win. Gladys introduces her daughter as follows:

“Now, it’s with overwhelming pride that I introduce contestant number six, who is also the president of her class – two years running – an honor roll student and the new President of the Lutheran Sisterhood Gun Club – Ladies and Gentlemen, Rebecca Ann Leeman!”

Becky sits on stage with the spotlight on her and says,

“You know what? The rumours are true. I do have a special fella in my life. And if nobody minds, I’d like to sing a little song, just for him.”

She proceeds to sing ‘I Can’t Take My Eyes Off You’, and as the chorus begins and the ‘special fella’ emerges from the wings to do the dance routine, we discover that this ‘fella’ is a ridiculous Jesus mannequin pinned to a cross on wheels. Becky takes his outstretched arms and begins an up-tempo dance with him.

Now this is clearly meant to be blasphemous and therefore to offend the Christian audience. If the movie were any bigger or happened to appear at any more momentous an occasion than its setting in 1999, I imagine that it could have precipitated the proverbial dung storm (in the parlance of our times).

Nevertheless, I decided to use this clip for a lesson on satire at GWC, the Bible college at which I teach. While it’s not normally the sort of place in which blasphemy is appreciated, it was a calculated risk that I thought important. Why? Because Christian leaders are particularly bad at responding to media in general, and to public acts of blasphemy in particular. How does this movie scene help? Well, consider what satire is for.

If you’ll pardon the source, Wikipedia’s article called ‘Satire’ (accessed 8 Oct 2013) says:

Satire is a genre of literature [etc.]… in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—”in satire, irony is militant”… This “militant” irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack. (Emphasis mine)

Wiki adds that exaggeration is a common technique in satire.

In short, satire is a form of criticism that aims at shaming people into changing their bad behaviour. We expect it to mimic that bad behaviour in ironic and exaggerated ways so that the wrongness of the behaviour is both clear and embarrassing. When the recipient fully feels this embarrassment, the hope is that it will provoke change. Often the offence is all that is felt, and this is why satire is subject to more misunderstanding, criticism, and controversy than perhaps any other genre.

Even though Drop Dead Gorgeous is surely being blasphemous, consider how this scene fulfils each of the requirements of satire:

  1. Exaggeration:  Dancing with a crucifix is clearly preposterous, but most of the crowd more-or-less laps it up.
  2. Seems to approve of the bad behaviour: Although the film-maker seems to be blaspheming in this scene, the ‘straight character’ (Ellen Barkin), who represents the film-maker’s opinion of the clear thinker on this matter, reacts to this dance with shock and ridicule. The film-maker knows that it is unacceptable.
  3. Uses shock to shame the abuser: This is the key issue. Who or what is this ‘bad behaviour’ supposed to be shaming?

If you can take a step back from the offence of this scene and consider its purpose, you should notice a few things. Firstly, the scene in no way is criticising Christianity, or saying anything good or bad about Jesus’ death on the cross. Jesus is not really there—he’s a mannequin—and he is consequently passive in the scene. He is acted upon, and not an active participant. Rather, the criticism is being directed primarily against people who use Christ’s name as a tool of audience manipulation. When the popular vote is needed, Jesus is trundled out to be paraded in front of the unthinking Christian audience. It doesn’t matter how wicked some people are behind the scenes, as long as they pay lip-service to Christianity, they have public trust.

Now think about what the Bible says about blasphemy. The Bible obviously acknowledges that unbelievers are blasphemers in their own way, but the strongest criticisms for blasphemy are actually levelled against those who are supposedly God’s people. Take for example St Paul’s summary reading of the Old Testament material on this subject:

Romans 2:23-24
23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’

[See also Isaiah 52:4-5, Ezekiel 20:27-28, and Ezekiel 36:16-23 for more examples.]

The main sort of blasphemy that God prohibits is not the sort perpetuated by His enemies, but the sullying of His reputation at the hands of His own supposed representatives. This film clip seems to me to be making a similar point: those who claim to be representing Christ are often doing so only for appearance’ sake, whereas they actually blaspheme Jesus by their lifestyle and by their hypocritical public use of his name.

So while I would not usually condone blasphemy, satire is a medium that fights fire with fire. We get offended by a movie character dancing with a crucifix, but we don’t get offended when politicians stab one another in the back and dedicate the knife to Jesus? Perhaps we are the bigger blasphemers.

The second contribution of this scene is the attack on offensive Christian sentimentality. Becky addresses Jesus in terms associated with a boyfriend. In the original script, a dance move was supposed to cause Jesus’ loin cloth to slip, and in order to prevent it falling off, Becky was supposed to be left holding Jesus by the crotch. Even the film-makers seem to have decided that this would be going too far, and so there is no such scene in the film itself. Nevertheless, it does aim a slap at the incongruity of using ‘in-love’ language of Jesus (and other superficially romantic ways of speaking about faith). However much you might be able to drum up butterflies in the tummy about your relationship with Jesus, the Bible actively promotes the idea that our relationship now is partial and in a waiting period, not complete and immediate. For example:

1Corinthians 13:9-12

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears… 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (See also 2Corinthians 5:6-7)

So by all means be excited about being forgiven, and being adopted into the family and the very being of God. Just don’t be fake and sentimental and showy about it. As Drop Dead Gorgeous points out, overdoing how close you claim to feel to Jesus can just come off as obscene. A bit more realism and a lot more sincerity would probably do the public face of Christianity a lot of good.

Satire Side-bar!

Satire is a very ancient genre and may well have found its way into scripture. Sections of Daniel, for example, seem to be ridiculing the Babylonian emperors who had taken Daniel and his compatriots into exile. The book of Jonah also casts the prophet in an exceptionally bad light: for the whole book he represents an attitude of unforgiveness towards Gentiles and disregard for their lives that stands in direct contrast to the attitude of God that the book teaches. This too might be intended as a satire of Jerusalem’s ‘pious’ people who have none of the love and mercy that their God does.

FakeBook and Friends

Perfect idea for fake birthdays: fake hamburger cup cakes.

I’m currently in the middle of my first fake birthday. It’s like my real birthday in that I don’t care about it, and my email inbox is full of FaceBook greetings; but it’s unlike my real birthday in the sense that my wife didn’t fall for it, and so I got no presents.

Today I’m running the sort of experiment that idle-minded procrastinators do on a whim. I changed my FaceBook birthday to a random day to see who would notice. I intended to do it every week or two to see how long it took for the greetings to dry up or be replaced with abuse, but FaceBook is obviously tired of fake birthdays, and so limits the number of birthday changes one is allowed to make.

It’s not a clever joke, and the results are not surprising. Predictably, I have received about 30 birthday messages, and only 3 non-family-members have noticed that it’s not actually my birthday. My favourite messages have wished me ‘many more’. (I’m trying, people, but FaceBook won’t let me.)

In no way is this meant to be an accusation or an indictment on anyone who believed the lie. I would have. I don’t expect you to remember my birthday, and you can be certain that I don’t know yours, unless you belong to my immediate family. I’m useless. I don’t know my grandparents’ birthdays, my in-laws, my nephews and nieces; no one. So I’m grateful that FaceBook tells me these things.

But I do think that there is a reminder in this. We allow things like FaceBook to take over the details of our relationships so that we don’t have to make the effort to remember the important dates and numbers connected to the people that we really care about. It’s nice to know that my FaceBook friends care enough to wish me happy birthday, but it’s not a lot of care. For how many people would you actually pick up the phone and speak to them on their birthday? When last did you write someone a letter, as opposed to emailing a funny cat picture to a group? You can’t automate relationships; time and effort are unfortunately key ingredients.

For this same reason, the greetings that we send each other also tend to lose their meaning. Because I know very well that the FaceBook message that I get on my real birthday is as prompted and generic as the one I get on my fake birthday, it tends not to mean very much. I have 300 or 4oo friends, and about 10% responded to the prompt and wished me happy birthday. Only 1% were aware that it is not actually my birthday. The same will be true in January when the messages come in again. How touched should I be?

So, keep those messages coming. Maybe even throw in a FarmVille gift or something. But I certainly need reminders often enough that real friendships require proper cultivation and commitment, and we’re not exactly set up these days to go much beyond the fakery of FaceBook. Figure out who your real-life friends are, and invest deeply in those people.

Freethought and Bullying

There is a popular website called Freethought Blogs — a meeting point for secular thinkers — that is currently embroiled in a bullying row.

The mudslinging seems to have arisen out of a post or two about sexism within the atheist movement, which in turn prompted certain commentators to disagree that the specific problem was as broad or as bad as key figures on the site made out. This led such commentators to be villified, insulted, expelled, even seriously threatened. Respected secularist figures such as PZ Myers became involved, incurring criticism for abusive language, pulling rank, being arrogant, choosing sides, being irrational, and so on. It seems to be that for some time, popular writers on the site have constructed a status quo, and dissenters from it have been shouted down. This bullying behaviour is now being outed. You can google the subject for more information.

I know I shouldn’t find it funny, but I do.

Firstly, it’s obviously amusingly ironic when a place that names itself ‘Freethought Blogs’ decends into virtual riots over what people are allowed to think or say, and how ‘lesser thinkers’ should be treated. Such a title was always asking for trouble, I suppose.

In any event, I think this all demonstrates that no-one’s thinking (no-one worth listening to anyway) is ever really free; you can be free from one set of norms and restrictions, but you merely adopt another. We think in obedience to different masters. It’s an open question whether your master is better than mine.

Secondly, atheists (rightly) catalogue the hypocrisies of the religious when they behave badly towards unbelievers, so much so that I think they may have started to believe that atheism is a step of evolution beyond ‘less enlightened’ religious folk. It’s nice to see occasional demonstrations that even greats such as PZ Myers can be just as idiotic as the rest of us.

Finally, the truth is probably that both sides have a point, and both sides have reason to claim the moral high-ground when it comes to the the thing that they’re defending (whether anti-sexism or anti-bullying). But it is wonderful to watch the world’s cleverest people injuring themselves in an attempt to learn the principle, ‘The ends don’t justify the means.’


EDIT: Perhaps worth pointing out that I have no idea who is ultimately right, whether or not PZ Myers, for example, is the good guy or the bad guy, whether he is justifiably harsh, whether party x or y is lying or not. But clearly even clever people can have wisdom failure, being nasty tends to make things worse, and apologising is hard.

EDIT 2: Spelled Myers as Meyers before. Sorry. I think Austin Powers 2&3 broke the part of my brain that likes to spell that surname that way.

Peter Bruce fumbles Zuma Spear

Yesterday I posted an article that laments poor analysis of art. This morning’s Business Day includes yet another literalistic interpretation of ‘Spear of the Nation’ that shows little capacity for visual communication. Editor Peter Bruce says,

But I cannot for the life of me understand what he has done to deserve to be immortalised in a painting with his genitals hanging out of his trousers. Too many wives? It’s legal in SA. Rape? He was acquitted. A womaniser? So what, as long as his sex is with consenting adults. What then? Having your genitals depicted in public is a hell of a price to pay for being a rotten political leader, for being weak on economics or beholden to too many political interests. Brett Murray is, of course, free to do as he pleases in this democracy and you could just bet on the ANC to make matters worse by kicking up such a fuss.

But the sad fact is stuff like this only works in a Victorian society like ours. The artist went out of his way to shock and it proved depressingly easy, whatever side of the “debate” you are on. There’s no artistic thought here, merely the prudish notion that you can hurt somebody you disapprove of by pulling his pants down in public and giggling as you run away, this time crying “artistic freedom” as you go. (Business Day)

This again demonstrates confusion about what the painting is and what it means.

Firstly, Jacob Zuma hasn’t has his genitals displayed anywhere public; it’s someone’s drawing of a penis on someone’s drawing of JZ. Similarly, no one pulled JZ’s pants down; they remain firmly around his waist. Both of those are massively important distinctions when it comes to supposed abuse of his dignity. It’s a painting, an idea, not a sexual assault.

Secondly, why the assuption that the painting means what this author thinks it does? Everyone is interpreting it clumsily with zero appreciation of symbolism and the way that protest art communicates. The painting could mean a myriad of things other than ‘JZ’s penis is out too much’. It’s an overly-literal analysis, decrying a field that the author seems not to understand.

Even if this painting is so crass as to be merely taking a shot at Zuma’s embarrassing sexual exploits, why is it so unbelievably hurtful to raise such issues by means of visual protest, but acceptable to tell the entire nation in newspapers like Bruce’s that he impregnated his friend’s daughter? I’d rather someone drew fictional naked pictures of me than made my actual private transgressions into international news. Whose hypocritical ethical yardstick are we being forced to use here?

The Failure of Successful Complaints

Easter is near and that seems to mean that certain Christians assume the Meerkat position, scanning the horizon for anyone who dares to give the Way a hint of disrespect during this the most holy of holy seasons. As usual, they could care less whether damage to the faith accrues as a net result of their actions, as long as no one gets the idea that it’s OK to mess with us. Or — a defence I’ve actually heard Christians make — as long as the Muslims don’t outstrip us in zeal. That’s the height of our ambitions. Sigh.

Red Bull ‘Jesus’ Ad

The ad has been removed from YouTube, so I’ve not seen it, but Gateway News gives a thorough description. The ad suggests that Jesus’ water-walking miracle was a matter of walking on stepping stones, which is not really funny, but given the usual level of humour employed by Red Bull, it’s at least recognisable as comedy.

Following this, the Jesus character stumbles and exclaims, ‘Jesus!’. I would agree that this is actually offensive and not nearly clever enough to warrant the risk. Red Bull claims they never meant to hurt any feelings and regret offence caused, but that’s hard to believe. Ads go through multiple levels of review and approval before reaching TV; there is zero doubt that its offence level was well discussed. Red Bull merely gambled on it being funny enough to outweigh any upset. I’m amazed that 90% of Red Bull ads weren’t sent back to the drawing board for being utterly rubbish, and Red Bull should apologise for that too, but they should not pretend to regret anything.

Having said all that, Christian response has been typically ridiculous, displaying utter inability to bear the slightest offence. For example:

  • Errol Naidoo of the Family Policy Institute says: “Red Bull wouldn’t dream of mocking religious figures of other religions [the ‘why aren’t we as scary as the Muslims?’ argument again]… FPI is launching a nationwide boycott of Red Bull products in response to this blasphemous attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.” [Source]
  • Cardinal Wilfred Napier of the SA Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) said, “While the Red Bull adverts are characterised by their cleverness [obviously he hasn’t watched TV in a while]… we suggest that the marketing team and their advertising and public relations companies make a serious effort to attend sensitivity training… [After advocating that Catholics should abstain from Red Bull until Easter] Red Bull SA will understand that the idea that there is ‘no such thing as bad publicity’ is dangerous territory when it comes to mocking religious symbols.” [Source]
  • The African Christian Democratic Party says that the ad undermines the Christian faith, with Kenneth Moshoe saying that it denies “the miracle of Jesus walking on water” [although undermining the Christian faith through pettiness or stupidity seems not to count]. [Source]

All of the above also called for the immediate banning of the ad. This was duly done after the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against the ad, which included these among its reasons:

  • The commercial is offensive as it makes a mockery of Jesus Christ by portraying Him in a blasphemous manner. Peripheral arguments to the allegation of offence relate to the fact that the commercial implies that the miracle of Jesus walking on water was all a sham.
  • Christians believe that Jesus Christ is alive and sitting at the right hand of God and as such His express permission should have been obtained before being featured in the commercial.
  • The advertiser should apologise publicly and should be fined as well to indicate the level of offence caused.
  • Creates a bad example for children.
  • Its misleading as it creates an impression that the product existed during the time that Jesus Christ lived. [Source]

(Assuming that the source is reliable) seriously, advertisers need Jesus’ ‘express permission’ before he is referenced in an ad? And people might think that Red Bull was available in 1st Century Palestine (wait a minute! I thought it was a product from the time of Icarus, because of that other ad of theirs; I’m so confused)? Was this application a joke? An attempt to make Christians look like morons? My ASA application would have read:

  • Using ‘Jesus’ as an expletive is offensive to Christians. This should be cut from the ad.
  • It’s yet another unfunny entry in Red Bull’s 20-year-long one-note campaign. The account manager should be publicly executed.

You know, reasonable requests. Why was it necessary to pad out the list with other manufactured and intellectually insulting reasons?

Hot Cross Buns

Having cut ‘Joy’ magazine from its shelves, Woolworths agreed last year to restock the rag due to outcry from Christian sectors (who obviously hadn’t been buying enough for Woolies to bother stocking it, but who liked the idea of it being there). This season, Woolworths has received complaints — and even warnings that God might shut them down — because their hot cross bun packaging has Halaal certification printed on it.

Jacques Rousseau has written pointing out that this has been the case for years, and is in any case stupid because Easter and Christianity has no monopoly on cinnamon fruit buns (or even crosses, for that matter). You can read his post here.

I began writing this post because I am concerned that Christian oversensitivity is wearing out any goodwill that society has (but is under no obligation to have) towards us. My brief digging around provided instant confirmation of this. Here’s a quote from a blogger:

However, for me, it’s just another nail in the coffin as far as christian credibility is concerned. And to be honest, we’re running out of space on the lid now. When members of a religion (or any other group) display such stupid, irrational (shock) and intolerant behaviour, there comes a point when society will simply stop listening. (

As I have pointed out before, such Christians seem not to realise that society owes us nothing, and constant ridiculous bleating from our corner about how pained we all are is not going to have the outcome they they subliminally imagine (society realises how respect-worthy Christianity is and bow in hushed reverence / abandon pluralism / spontaneously convert and usher in the Kingdom). Rather there are two much more likely extremes towards which policy makers are going to be pushed.

  • They will tire of listening to the Christian voice because of how uniformly annoying it is when attention is paid to it (much as suggests), which will leave us with no voice on issues that matter; or
  • They will try to minimise offence by making it illegal to display or promote religious content altogether, making religion completely private. Now if you want to approach the Day of Judgement with the defence, ‘I stopped everyone doing the Great Commission, because it was more important for me not to be offended,’ be my guest.

Axe Excite Deodorant ‘Angels’ Ad

Finally, going back a few months now, there was another case of Christians having an ad banned from TV; this time Axe Deodorant was compelled to remove its ‘Angels’ ad. You can see various versions on YouTube, so look it up if you want, but all of them have beautiful women with wings and halos dropping from the sky and eventually surrendering their angelness because of some guy wearing deodorant.

Cape Times of October 28, 2011 reports the extremely tongue-in-cheek apology rendered by Axe South Africa, who again, remarkably, were not apologising for the quality of the ad but the religious content:

We have… made sure the seriousness of the matter is understood by our angels… From now on [the angels will] try their very best to resist the seductive powers of the Axe effect. Those who are continuing to use Axe Excite in the hope of seducing angels, please note — whilst there is no individual danger of disciplinary action from the ASA, the angels have been known to come in at quite a speed, and the use of Axe Excite is completely at your own risk.

The report adds that the company apologises to offended viewers (i.e. ‘You’re idiots, but sorry’). Their statement above (to their credit, in my opinion) is not an apology, it is an exercise in polite mockery:

  • the promise to communicate with the angels, keeping up the pretence that the angels are real, is an ironic reminder that the ad is communicating on the level of fairytale
  • the reassurance that users are not liable for disciplinary action highlights the absurdity of the action that was taken

It is absolutely true that angels are not exclusively Judeo-Christian beings. They may or may not have originated there, but for some time now they have been part of mythology in general. For one, biblical angels are not female; and it is not as if every Hallmark Valentines card featuring Cupid is an attack on the Faith, or that there is an outcry every time a cartoon character dies and becomes an angel. There are no religious grounds therefore for Christians to be offended, let alone to file an official complaint. And so the over-sensitivity and thoughtlessness of the complaint justifiably meets with Axe’s sarcasm-doused ‘apology’. Score another victory for the embattled reputation of Christ.