Ad using religious iconography banned in Britian

Posted by Greg Laden on September 14, 2010
(4)
More »

Do you remember the controversy over nuns painting a naked guy as part of an advertising campaign? (Click here, not work safe if anyone is looking and they’re a prude.) Well, apparently one thing led to another and one of the nuns got pregnant!

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope’s visit.

Antonio Federici’s advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line “immaculately conceived”.

Brilliant!!! Details here at the BBC

(4)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Elipson
    September 15, 2010

    That was funny as hell! Well done that man!

  2. #2 Stephen Moore
    September 15, 2010

    The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs,

    and

    The ASA said in its ruling: “We considered the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

    I contend the ASA mocks the beliefs of Roman Catholics by presuming to declare what is likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics by not even understanding what immaculate conception is.

    A woman, nun or not, does not become pregnant through immaculate conception. It’s conception by normal, every day means. The only difference is that Original Sin is not passed on. Or is it removed? Either way, it ain’t there in foetus.

    And I’m fairly certain that the ASA (with the complainants) thinks the bub in the nun is the Christ. Nope. It’s the mother of the Christ. A common misunderstanding, but if you’re going to take it upon yourself to protect the sensibilities of religious folk, then understand their damn theology!

  3. #3 MadScientist
    September 15, 2010

    I’m waiting for trials of priests who rape members of the congregation. I’m wondering when the “Immaculate Conception” defense will be .. uh .. mounted. “Your honor, god did it to Mary, why shouldn’t we priests be allowed to do the same?”

  4. #4 Greg Laden
    September 15, 2010

    Stephen, yes and no. Catholics/Christians conflate the “immaculate conception” and the “virgin birth.” Mary was not born without a genetic/biological father. Here parents did it. Jesus was, in fact, born without a father, conceived by Mary and an Angle using special mechanisms.

    The only confusion is in the use of the term “immaculate conception” and how it applies. “Immaculate conception” does not mean virgin birth, but rather, refers to a post hoc cleansing of Mary’s status so that she did not posses original sin. This clensing was applied at the moment the sperm of her father wiggled into the ovum of her mother, according to the Ineffabilis Deus of December 8th, 1854.

    The Virgin Birth, on the other hand, is the birth of Jesus despite Mary’s not having had any sex with Joseph or any other human man. Or at least having not conceived Jesus as a result of such sex. The word “birth” in this term is a metaphor or codeword for “conception.” In this case, Jesus was “incarnate” and specifically, incarnate of Mary herself (which is why she needed to be immaculate) and the Holy Spirit.

    The process appears to have been facilitaed by angels.

    It is all described in various religious texts, but the best way to find out how this stuff works is here.