Quick Question; Does This Offened You?

Whatfor wrote: »

Just logged on and read with interest all points of view. As an open minded person who (in my late forties) has no objections to anything that appears in print as long as it is up to the individual to purchase or view it. Be it porn or violence and as long as it does not include anything that is forced on anyone.
However if say that album cover was placed on a billoard then I would completely understand people being offended.
The beauty of living a free country is that we as individuals can choose what we want to do and see, but nobody should be forced to view or take part in anything that offends or could damage any part of the person either physiall or mentally.

Great ... can we get those offensive posters about Easter prayers and Christ being risen off the busses, DART's and billboards?

Nailz wrote: »

A. That's not the ground, it's a sea of blood.
B. He does have legs, how do think he is standing in the sea of blood???
C. Violence is when destruction and confrontation occurs (are you blind or did you just not bother reading my definition in my previous post?), like I said then you can only see aftermath.
D. It's well painted, the colours are perfect for the gloomy atmosphere they wanted to create in the artwork, also seeing as you thought that was supposed to be red grass (or something) you shouldn't be the one judging the colour on it. :rolleyes: Well detailed too.
E. We wouldn't wanted those poor innocent grannies looking through all the Metal albums in HMV (or whatever your equivolent is in Canada) to have a heart attack now would we???

Edit: Poor artists??? Fine you can go off and listen to your Petra or whoever the fùck listen ta'!

I don't find the album cover offensive at all, but I don't particularly like it.

You on the other hand I find wholly offensive. Although, judging by your immature posts, you're probably just a stupid kid. Grow up you tool.

Acacia wrote: »

The same people who get offended about the album cover aren't necessarily the same ''whackos...forcing their beliefs down our throats''. I suspect they are just people who don't like seeing their religion insulted.
Likewise, they are not the same people who carried out atrocities in the name of God /Christianity.

They have every right to be offended by the cover, as you have the right to be offended by the calls to prayer or Angelus bells. And by your own logic, you could simply choose to ignore these things, as you suggest the offended religious people here to ignore the Slayer cover.

The OP asked if anybody was offended by the cover, a few people said yes, they were, and they are being attacked for it. Why were their opinions asked for in the first place so?

For the record, I'm not religious, I have no problem with the cover and don't think it should be banned.

I think a little bit of 'live and let live' would go a long way on this thread.

If I could "just ignore" the Good Friday drinking rules I would have been able to get a lot more drunk than I did last Easter.

Bells and prayer calls are a lot harder to ignore than a CD cover by virtue of them being active and intrusive. A CD cover is a passive device which is non-persistant, i.e. it is not following you around where ever you go in the shop. The CD cover is not spread across massive billboards in the City or down the sides of busses or on posters on the DART unlike some tactics we could mention either, and while these to are technically passiove they are much more intrusive at A1 or A0 size than at 5"X5".

As for people opinions being attacked thats a little limp too. No one forced anyone to give their opinion, they did so out of their own free will and must accept the consequences of such. If you want your opinions to remain unchallenged and unquestions then you should keep them to yourself, putting them out in the public arena invites criticism and it invites contrary opinions. I know I sound harsh with that statement but it's true.

Yes, people have the right to be offended by anything they want to be offended by. It does not automatically mean that something should be banned. Its a double standard. The weak and over-sensitive are cuddled and protected by the censorious however the trappings of religious worship which may be offensive to the non-religious or to other, perhaps hostile, religions are not subject to the same criteria for censorship. "The Passion of The Christ" for example. Some people found it to be a spiritual awakening (fine) others found it to be little more than a pseudo-snuff flick with overt anti-semetic over tones ... it grosses as one of the most sucessful movies ever made and appear witout censorship because it is "religious". "The Life of Brian" on the other hand isnt even blasphemous and it was banned and censored in Ireland until the 1990's.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

If I could "just ignore" the Good Friday drinking rules I would have been able to get a lot more drunk than I did last Easter

I'm aware of the 'Catholic' mindset still prevalent in Ireland, but as Ireland becomes increasingly more secular, though I'm sure most of these laws will go out the window eventually. Such laws are to be expected in a country that was heavily influenced by the Church up until very recently. I don't agree with them personally myself.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Bells and prayer calls are a lot harder to ignore than a CD cover by virtue of them being active and intrusive. A CD cover is a passive device which is non-persistant, i.e. it is not following you around where ever you go in the shop. The CD cover is not spread across massive billboards in the City or down the sides of busses or on posters on the DART unlike some tactics we could mention either, and while these to are technically passiove they are much more intrusive at A1 or A0 size than at 5"X5".

I see your point however-

Personally, I don't link calls to prayers/ bells without having the religion 'shoved down my throat'. As an non-religious person, I find it pretty easy to ignore such things, either by , for example, switching channels when the Angelus comes on, or by not reading the posters and bill boards on public transport.

I support the religious groups right to promote their message however way they want. Likewise, I support the atheists' message being promoted on London buses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3229106/Prof-Richard-Dawkins-drives-support-for-Londons-first-atheist-bus-advert.html

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As for people opinions being attacked thats a little limp too. No one forced anyone to give their opinion, they did so out of their own free willand must accept the consequences of such. If you want your opinions to remain unchallenged and unquestions then you should keep them to yourself, putting them out in the public arena invites criticism and it invites contrary opinions. I know I sound harsh with that statement but it's true.

My problem wasn't so much the responses to those that expressed their offense at the album cover but rather the way in which this was done. The following examples beg the question ''Why ask in the first place if you don't like the answer?"

Nailz wrote: »

A. That's not the ground, it's a sea of blood.
B. He does have legs, how do think he is standing in the sea of blood???
C. Violence is when destruction and confrontation occurs (are you blind or did you just not bother reading my definition in my previous post?), like I said then you can only see aftermath.
D. It's well painted, the colours are perfect for the gloomy atmosphere they wanted to create in the artwork, also seeing as you thought that was supposed to be red grass (or something) you shouldn't be the one judging the colour on it. :rolleyes: Well detailed too.
E. We wouldn't wanted those poor innocent grannies looking through all the Metal albums in HMV (or whatever your equivolent is in Canada) to have a heart attack now would we???

Edit: Poor artists??? Fine you can go off and listen to your Petra or whoever the fùck listen ta'!

Nailz wrote: »

Don't be a condecending (blank), just because you're a staunch (blank) that only see's your own opinion doesn't mean you have to treat him worse. By the looks of things he's more open minded and less tight-arsed than you!

Nailz wrote: »

Now if that's the sort of bullshìt you're talking then I'm too fùcking right you shouldn't judge how it's painted. If you wanna look at art, then you should stare at the Last Supper!! Were it so happens he accidently made a dude look like a chick!!!

I don't think it's to clever to make up your own meaning of violent either.

Edit:

Well my father finds it funny how easily you people are offened.

And I felt your own post generalized religious people somewhat-

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You can always stop looking at the image that upsets you. Considering the rest of us (non-puritanicals, you know, the kind of people theists condemn as heathens and like to threaten with stories of fire and brimstone) are stuck listening to your church bells, calls to prayer, evangelists on national television and religions whackos in politics forcing their beliefs down our throats and forcing us to live by their standards its not much to ask is it?

I suppose you would prefer if Slayer didnt exist but since they do, how about suggesting a different cover art?

So, I have no problem with people expressing and challenging the opinions views, I just feel this could have been done in a more civilized and respectful manner.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Yes, people have the right to be offended by anything they want to be offended by. It does not automatically mean that something should be banned. Its a double standard. The weak and over-sensitive are cuddled and protected by the censorious however the trappings of religious worship which may be offensive to the non-religious or to other, perhaps hostile, religions are not subject to the same criteria for censorship. "The Passion of The Christ" for example. Some people found it to be a spiritual awakening (fine) others found it to be little more than a pseudo-snuff flick with overt anti-semetic over tones ... it grosses as one of the most sucessful movies ever made and appear witout censorship because it is "religious". "The Life of Brian" on the other hand isnt even blasphemous and it was banned and censored in Ireland until the 1990's.

I also agree that the cover should not be banned. However, I also believe that a tolerant society should allow freedom of expression for all beliefs whether Chritian, Atheist, Muslim, etc, etc.

That also means accepting that people have different opinions and they have a right to express them.

Therefore, if you want the album cover, for example, to not be banned then you should also accept the right of religious groups to put posters on buses.

For me personally, they are both matters of freedom of speech.

Also, religious expression is not tolerated everywhere in the world- this is an article about the persecution of Christians in China-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

So it is not entirely correct to say that ''The weak and over-sensitive are cuddled and protected by the censorious however the trappings of religious worship which may be offensive to the non-religious or to other, perhaps hostile, religions are not subject to the same criteria for censorship.'', when this certainly does not apply everywhere.

Thanks, nice response.

Acacia wrote: »

I'm aware of the 'Catholic' mindset still prevalent in Ireland, but as Ireland becomes increasingly more secular, though I'm sure most of these laws will go out the window eventually. Such laws are to be expected in a country that was heavily influenced by the Church up until very recently. I don't agree with them personally myself.

While I accept that as a reason I do not accept it as a justification.

It appears we are roughly agreed on this though so I'll move on.

Acacia wrote: »

Personally, I don't link calls to prayers/ bells without having the religion 'shoved down my throat'. As an non-religious person, I find it pretty easy to ignore such things, either by , for example, switching channels when the Angelus comes on, or by not reading the posters and bill boards on public transport.

The "active" elements of this such as the bells, the laws etc are much more difficult to ignore when they interfere with you whether you choose to ignore them or not. If you can hear you can't stop hearing the bells short of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. It permeates your reality. The laws are inescapable. It is illegal for a shop or pub to sell you alcohol on Good Friday (and I think christmas day as well), while this law may be on its way out it is still an active interference in your life.

So from my perspective (and this is with other people in mind) it is not the same thing as saying "you can just switch over". You cant switch reality when you dont like the sound of the bells nor can you decide to ignore the laws of the land without consequences.

Acacia wrote: »

I support the religious groups right to promote their message however way they want. Likewise, I support the atheists' message being promoted on London buses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3229106/Prof-Richard-Dawkins-drives-support-for-Londons-first-atheist-bus-advert.html

For what its worth, as much as I like the idea of the posters on the busses I dont think that any state body should have any theological, political or philosophical propaganda daubed on it.

Acacia wrote: »

My problem wasn't so much the responses to those that expressed their offense at the album cover but rather the way in which this was done. The following examples beg the question ''Why ask in the first place if you don't like the answer?"

And I felt your own post generalized religious people somewhat-

It was intended to.

Acacia wrote: »

So, I have no problem with people expressing and challenging the opinions views, I just feel this could have been done in a more civilized and respectful manner.

I appreciate that you feel things could have been said in a different or more palleteable manner but it flies a little in the face of freedom of expression since the right to say what we want how we want is what is being discussed. I tend to run my mouth a little and to add colour to my prose, some find it too blunt (some have even found it offensive and I've received infractions and bans) but in my opinion that is people being too picky and looking for something to get riled about.

I realise that the bells could be construed as being a form of freedom of speech but it could also be construed as noise pollution.

Acacia wrote: »

I also agree that the cover should not be banned. However, I also believe that a tolerant society should allow freedom of expression for all beliefs whether Chritian, Atheist, Muslim, etc, etc.

Thats fine, so long as those religions dont try to force their values on other people = a behaior I doubt is likely from the major religions such as Christianity or Islam.

Acacia wrote: »

That also means accepting that people have different opinions and they have a right to express them.

the right to express opinion is fundamental I wont argue. Nor will I argue that the rightto express opinion even if it is religious is fundamental. But the right to respond is also fundamental and it is the right to call a duck a duck, and a loony raving about angels a loony raving about angels.

Acacia wrote: »

Therefore, if you want the album cover, for example, to not be banned then you should also accept the right of religious groups to put posters on buses.

Not quite the same thing. The busses are far more overt. However, if they were 100% privately owned then its not quite such a big deal. any government cash goes into it though and theur should be no question of their being permitted.

Acacia wrote: »

Also, religious expression is not tolerated everywhere in the world- this is an article about the persecution of Christians in China-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

So it is not entirely correct to say that ''The weak and over-sensitive are cuddled and protected by the censorious however the trappings of religious worship which may be offensive to the non-religious or to other, perhaps hostile, religions are not subject to the same criteria for censorship.'', when this certainly does not apply everywhere.

I never said it applied universally, it was meant as a general comment regarding western culture, values and Ireland. Besides, China is communist (ostensibly) and they tend to treat the party as a substitute for religion.