Offensive "Virgin Mary" crisps withdrawn in the UK

[Garbarsardar]

Virgin Mary is a non-alcoholic cocktail, based on the ubiquitous Bloody Mary.

This cocktail has been tolerated thus far, maybe because it is confined in the seedy abodes of pubs, super-markets, University cafeterias and similar unsavoury establishments.

However the appearance of a crisp (which is a chip for other people) themed on the well known beverage, stretched the tolerance of a number of people including Catholic groups.

The result was that the offending crisp shall be withdrawn.

The company will donate the existing crisps to the homeless, which, it turns out, are not that easily offended.

[Micromoron]

I ask myself what happened, if that Shop released a crisp that is supposedly offending other religious groups than catholic christians.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Oh look, religious groups forcing people to confine themselves to their beliefs, how unoriginal. How dare people offend thee.

[Micromoron]

Psalm 119:165 KJV Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

Seems legit.

[ComnenusTheOne]

I am not even amused anymore.

Somehow, i have faith (oh the irony), that in the near future, the Star Trek lore will be revealed to us true, and that Klingons will decide that we are too dumb to exist, and they will send their starfleet and destroy us for good.

[Biggieboy]

Always good to see them engaged in such important activities.

edit: as a funny sidenote: a virgin mary in Australia is called a bloody shame

[Valden]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

No it isn't. One chooses their religion, and religion is completely unjustified superstition in a world where unjustified superstition is a bad thing. Nothing like homosexuality or race, which aren't chosen and aren't bad things.

[ComnenusTheOne]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

Except religion is a choice. Race and sexuality are not. Genetic deficiencies (down's syndrome for instance, or simply being born without fingers for some obscure reason) is not a choice. You choose your religion (or lack of it) so prepared to be mocked for it. Because its irrational. Because religions and faiths are hoaxes. Because there is no "greater power", "god", "intelligent design" and the rest of the , they been feeding you for millennia. So if you follow one of these idiocies about "how the world was made", not only you will be mocked, you will deserve it as well.

[Himster]

Wait, crisps based on a cocktail offend religious people?
Doesn't the cocktail offend religious people?
It's not like religious people are being forced to eat these crisps or drink these cocktails, don't drink or eat them, problem solved, and unless you're a middle-aged woman in a fur coat I suggest that no-one should drink this cocktail. I think it's designed for menopause.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

Then don't buy the chips. I don't see people complaining about the "Hail Mary" football play.

[Valden]

Except religion is a choice. Race and sexuality are not.

Intellectually, it is certainly a choice whether or not one adheres to the philosophical position of theism. But if one has had an existential experience then whether or not it is a mere dispassionate choice to disbelieve it becomes far more murky. Speaking for myself, I believe because I have felt something greater. It is just as unjust as mocking someone for being an atheist. One could say, well you chose to be an atheist, therefore I can mock you for it all I want. The atheist would rightly reply that, given my interpretation of my surroundings I cannot reach any other opinion. You reduce 'choice' to something as mundane as choosing which flavour ice cream to buy. Whereas in this context it is a fundamental and properly basic belief, something we accept as the essence of our being.

You choose your religion (or lack of it) so prepared to be mocked for it. Because its irrational. Because religions and faiths are hoaxes.

Would you care to offer some arguments in support of these bare faced assertions? 'Religions and faiths are hoaxes' sounds like the title of a doctoral thesis; you will need to offer a compelling case and reply to objections rather than simply assert it.

So if you follow one of these idiocies about "how the world was made", not only you will be mocked, you will deserve it as well.

This is quite a frightening claim. Do you actually think religious people deserve to be mocked? That is some intolerance you possess there. I mean, not that I accept this claim, but some atheists call religious people deluded. Now, let us assume the atheist is correct and theists really are psychologically deluded. This means that you believe mocking the mentally ill is morally permissible. It ceases to be about the truth of theism, but about the (im)morality of some atheists.

Of course, I reject the claim that theists are deluded, and I also reject your monstrous idea that theists deserve to be mocked. Whether or not there is a transcendent meaning behind the universe is the most poignant question anyone can ask, one that is deep and far reaching, and rational opinion among our greatest thinkers is divided on the subject. I think atheists are mistaken, but I do not claim they deserve mockery anymore than I think the man next door to me deserves to be mocked for the way he lives.

[ComnenusTheOne]

Intellectually, it is certainly a choice whether or not one adheres to the philosophical position of theism. But if one has had an existential experience then whether or not it is a mere dispassionate choice to disbelieve it becomes far more murky. Speaking for myself, I believe because I have felt something greater.

Irrelevant, you still believe into something totally nonexistant.

It is just as unjust as mocking someone for being an atheist. One could say, well you chose to be an atheist, therefore I can mock you for it all I want.

You could try. Not recommendable.

The atheist would rightly reply that, given my interpretation of my surroundings I cannot reach any other opinion. You reduce 'choice' to something as mundane as choosing which flavour ice cream to buy. Whereas in this context it is a fundamental and properly basic belief, something we accept as the essence of our being.

. Choosing an ice cream flavor is more important. Ice cream exists. God doesnt.

Would you care to offer some arguments in support of these bare faced assertions? 'Religions and faiths are hoaxes' sounds like the title of a doctoral thesis; you will need to offer a compelling case and reply to objections rather than simply assert it.

Do you have objective, undisputable and scientific evidence that your faith is real and the diety in which you believe exists? If not, its a hoax. Goodbye.

This is quite a frightening claim. Do you actually think religious people deserve to be mocked?

Yes.

That is some intolerance you possess there. I mean, not that I accept this claim, but some atheists call religious people deluded. Now, let us assume the atheist is correct and theists really are psychologically deluded. This means that you believe mocking the mentally ill is morally permissible. It ceases to be about the truth of theism, but about the (im)morality of some atheists.

There is no mental illness, you are all perfectly sane otherwise. A few psycho exams would proove that. Therefore you are masters of your choices, thus responsible for them, thus deserve to be mocked. If i do something stupid, people would at least laugh at me, its the same for theists.

Of course, I reject the claim that theists are deluded, and I also reject your monstrous idea that theists deserve to be mocked.

Your problem then....

Whether or not there is a transcendent meaning behind the universe is the most poignant question anyone can ask, one that is deep and far reaching, and rational opinion among our greatest thinkers is divided on the subject. I think atheists are mistaken, but I do not claim they deserve mockery anymore than I think the man next door to me deserves to be mocked for the way he lives.

You can THINK whatever you want. The thing is simple. No proof = no existance. Until you proove your fallacies, you deserve your mockery. Intolerant? Maybe. Could care less though. Apparently neither you "god" nor you can stop me.

[Garbarsardar]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

So were Christians abused by these violent crisps? Were they tied to a fence and stoned to death by fried potatoes? Intimidated? Were the crisps threatening their very existence?

And why were they not insulted by the Virgin Mary cocktail all these years? Were the crisp the hair that broke the oh-so-sensitive, christian back?

What exactly constitutes mockery? And how endangering to their creed the crisp is?

Or you believe that there is a bee-line of intolerance that ends to crucified faithful and starts with a crisp?

And where exactly do we go from there? Ban "Adam Smith" energy drink because it mocked the free market? Ban "Stalin" sanitary towels because they mocked communism? Why one can offend any ideology but should stay clear of the ones that are invested with the mantle of faith?

And all that assuming that the existence of a snack based off a known cocktail targets christians? Why? because they have copyrighted Virgins?Because they are content to believe that no one ever ed the mother of a particular child?

[Elfdude]

Religious belief is a part of someone's identity. Mockery of religion is therefore no less serious than racial or homophobic abuse.

Wait a minute, did you just try to equivocate a hate crime with mockery?



Mockery believe it or not is a good thing to a certain extent. It's important that we realize that the objects, icons and traditions around us are still ultimately less important than the person in front of you. Now there's a bit of room for a balancing act with mockery where it crosses the line admittedly but to eliminate it entirely would be a grave loss to society. Woe is the day when a stupid man lives without knowing his stupidity.

Worse though you're talking about being hateful of something which makes someone different that they limited or no control over. You choose what to believe even if you don't believe you have a choice in it, you choose that too. If someone chooses to be a fat slob then they should be rightfully be called so. Furthermore mockery of even things like homosexuality and race which are not driven by hate should not be an issue either. Racial jokes are funny. Sexual jokes are funny. Wrongness is funny. It must be a miserable life for those who don't see that.

Intellectually, it is certainly a choice whether or not one adheres to the philosophical position of theism.

Yes it is a choice, moving on.

But if one has had an existential experience then whether or not it is a mere dispassionate choice to disbelieve it becomes far more murky.

No it doesn't. If a religious person were mentally ill I would agree with you. If you want to equivocate religion to a disease like schizophrenia then sure, your belief in talking to god is due to an error in your head and you can't change that. There's no humor to be had in this situation, only malevolence. If a religious person however has full control of their mental faculties then I must wonder why they might suppose to believe an existential experience is special at all.

Speaking for myself, I believe because I have felt something greater.

That's great. Believe what you will. Take offense at what you will. But realize it's your choice, both to believe what you do and to take offense at mockery of it.

It is just as unjust as mocking someone for being an atheist.

Is it unjust to mock someone for being an atheist? I mean it's definitely hard to do, HAHA YOU BELIEVE IN LOGIC... ERR I MEAN YOU HAVE NO MORALS... ERR I MEAN YOU HAVE NO PURPOSE... ERR etc. Personally I don't find it unjust, I mock many different atheists in their behaviors.

One could say, well you chose to be an atheist, therefore I can mock you for it all I want.

You can. I did.

The atheist would rightly reply that, given my interpretation of my surroundings I cannot reach any other opinion.

Again mock atheists as much as you'd like. Personally your mockery of what you term atheism to me has no bearing on what I think about atheism. I have no worry in my mind that when any theist says atheism blah blah blah they honestly know anything about being an atheist. The only rational reason to feel insulted by the words of others is to fear their truth. I do not fear your truth. I know the theist's truth inside and out. I just outgrew it as an acceptable explanation while I was a child.

You reduce 'choice' to something as mundane as choosing which flavour ice cream to buy. Whereas in this context it is a fundamental and properly basic belief, something we accept as the essence of our being.

I agree, it's disrespectful. However I don't agree it should be stopped. Religion doesn't deserve respect in my mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying it's power, it's granduer, glory or history. I simply denying that it is worthy of being respected. Similarly I have no real doubt that if a god does exist hes either A. Completely neutral or B. Agrees with me 100%.

Would you care to offer some arguments in support of these bare faced assertions? 'Religions and faiths are hoaxes' sounds like the title of a doctoral thesis; you will need to offer a compelling case and reply to objections rather than simply assert it.

This is always an entertaining distraction. You've been on this forum long enough to know exactly the arguments that would be presented. So I'm not particularly sure this is anything other than a counter-attack. It's rather empty but I can understand your predicament. He's making fun of your belief, and making fun of his is harder so making fun of him is the next step. Or as you've been arguing perhaps to you attacking the belief and the man is the same thing.

This is quite a frightening claim. Do you actually think religious people deserve to be mocked?

Yes. There perhaps is a time for it and it certainly isn't conducive to all situations, but yes I would agree religious people do deserve to be mocked.

That is some intolerance you possess there.

Mockery != hate crime or intollerance. In fact mockery tends to be a sign of the opposite.

I mean, not that I accept this claim, but some atheists call religious people deluded. Now, let us assume the atheist is correct and theists really are psychologically deluded. This means that you believe mocking the mentally ill is morally permissible.

Last I checked deluding yourself into believing a fairy tail is not in the DSM. Do I think theists are mentally ill? Some perhaps but in most cases no. What do I blame the existence of theism on? Simply the tradition of society. I would be more concerned if theism was growing but luckily it's been steadily dwindling over the last few centuries. At the current rate with our next generation the US may actually be a majority atheist state. Yay! The war is being won by atheists for a very good reason.

It ceases to be about the truth of theism, but about the (im)morality of some atheists.

Mockery alone isn't immoral. Malevolently inflicting pain upon someone is immoral. Mockery may cross that line but most often it does not. It's even more frustrating when someone rightfully mocks you, you have no reply and they don't cross the line because you're wrong if you try to do anything about it.

Of course, I reject the claim that theists are deluded, and I also reject your monstrous idea that theists deserve to be mocked. Whether or not there is a transcendent meaning behind the universe is the most poignant question anyone can ask, one that is deep and far reaching, and rational opinion among our greatest thinkers is divided on the subject. I think atheists are mistaken, but I do not claim they deserve mockery anymore than I think the man next door to me deserves to be mocked for the way he lives.

I must disagree with you here. You've attempted to morph a simple, unassuming religious satire into a diagnosed hate crime to make your point. I mean I very much expect this sort of black and white judgement from theists but I can't help but face-palm every time I see it.

[Logios]

Being an Asathru (Norse Polytheism) believer, I am quite used to seeing my religious beliefs being utilized as product brands. Having grown up with this might have desentitized me from finding that offensive, and even in the case of highly inferior products, I would not even send an angry mail to the manufacturer.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I therefore have a hard time understanding why certain christian groups take so much offence from seeing parts from their beliefs being used in a different context than the intended. It is not like you get a patent on the mythology just by adhering to it.
I remember another case 10 years ago when a Danish supermarket tried selling "Jesus-sandals", and the argument put forth was that putting a body part widely considered unclean (the footsole) right on the face of Christ (or Mary) was offensive. The sandals were recalled, and the few sold are today a bit of a collectors item.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Virgin Mary crisps however take its name as a reference to another product, one which even promotes abstinence for alcohol while retaining the social aspect of having drinks together. It seems to me that those complaining finds a pleasure in taking offense, and that this cannot be argued from a religious perspective. We are a far cry from forgiving those that know not what they do, giving the emperor what belongs to him and such.
I wonder how those groups will react to the cheesus toaster:
http://www.grilledcheesus.com/

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

so a bunch of retired people had nothing better to do than to bash at brand names

You might as well blame all Orthodox Christians for the Westboro-baptist church

[Elfdude]

Well without orthodox christianity the westboro baptist church ceases to have any relevance and fades into obscurity. You've got to have a lot of moderates to legitimize the crazies. The more moderates you have, the more crazy your crazies can be.

[╬Ritterbruder╬]

Well without orthodox christianity the westboro baptist church ceases to have any relevance and fades into obscurity. You've got to have a lot of moderates to legitimize the crazies. The more moderates you have, the more crazy your crazies can be.

doesn't that apply to nearly every statistical analysis?
so is this thread about all Christians, or just the group that also falls into the category 'people that rant about useless things'
if it's the latter, I'll leave this thread cause those people are not my concern

[ComnenusTheOne]

Being an Asathru (Norse Polytheism) believer, I am quite used to seeing my religious beliefs being utilized as product brands. Having grown up with this might have desentitized me from finding that offensive, and even in the case of highly inferior products, I would not even send an angry mail to the manufacturer.

Scuz' me sir, but if i was religious and i had a beer named after my god, you goddamn right i would guzzle that down anytime possible. Its not even disrespect, they do it for marketing, but when something has a divine name, we should put the name to the test.

And drink it.