Perennial whinger, Rajan Zed has got easily offended by doormats being sold at Amazon.com. He wrote:
Upset Hindus have urged world's largest online retailer Amazon.com for the immediate withdrawal of doormats carrying the images of various Hindu deities-temples-saint and sold on its website, calling it highly inappropriate.
He said that it was shocking to visualize that Amazon.com, for its mercantile greed, apparently persuading the world to scrub/wipe the soles of their shoes before entering a building on the faces of gods which Hindus worshipped.
Images of Hindu gods depicted on the doormats sold at Amazon.com website, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Ganesha, Venkateswara, Saraswati, Murugan, Durga-Hanuman, Padmanabha, were highly revered in Hinduism and were meant to be worshipped in temples or home
shrines; and not for absorbing water and dirt from shoes or for sweeping on for cleaning or for drying wet feet and grabbing dirt, dust and grime . Inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts for commercial or other agenda was not okay
as it hurt the devotees, Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, noted.
Rajan Zed also urged Amazon.com and its President Jeffrey P. Bezos to offer a formal apology, besides withdrawing about 67 objectionable doormats.
Rajan Zed further said that such trivialization of Hindu deities, temples and saint was disturbing to the Hindus world over. Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more ...BUT... faith was
something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers, Zed added.
Zed reported that Amazon had heeded his calls and removed the doormats as requested.
A painting set to be unveiled at the Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art in Virginia Beach is upsetting the Catholic church. Bill Donohue from the Catholic League sent the following letter to the museum's executive director:
Opening next week at the Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art is an exhibition that features a painting by Mark Ryden, Rosie's Tea Party . It depicts a young girl in her First Communion dress, wearing a crucifix around her neck, cutting a
piece of ham with the words Corpus Christi (Body of Christ) inscribed on it. There is a bottle of wine on the table with a picture of Jesus in it; nearby, there is a rabbit pouring a teapot with blood coming out of it. When one of the
commissioners on the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission objected to this work, you defended it, saying, Art is intended to be controversial. Ryden defended his painting by saying, I am really not poking fun at religion, adding
that Someone ought to poke fun at those Christians, though.
I have a suggestion. Why not substitute a young Muslim girl in a hijab, wearing a machete around her neck, cutting a piece of ham with the words, Allahu Akbar inscribed on it. In place of Jesus in the wine bottle, display a picture of Muhammad.
And yes, please keep the blood. When Muslims complain, tell them that Art is intended to be controversial, and Someone ought to poke fun at those Muslims anyway. Please be sure to let me know the outcome.
The artworks were embroiled in a censorship attempt on another front. in response to teh catholic 'outrage', Brian Kirwin, a member of the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission said to a local journalist that he would consider cutting
the funding for the museum.
Svetlana Mintcheva, director of programs with National Coalition Against Censorship in New York, responded to the censorship attempt in a letter:
The government cannot suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, nor can it suppress works of art said to be offensive, sacrilegious, morally improper or dangerous. Contrary to what you appear to believe, government officials
are also barred from using the power of the purse to discriminate against art based on the viewpoint expressed in it.
?Anybody is entitled to criticize art in an exhibition, but First Amendment principles bar government officials from discriminating against controversial viewpoints. MOCA cannot and should not tailor its programming to promote the views of certain
interest groups while suppressing those of others. Taxpayer funds go to maintain a vibrant and diverse cultural sphere that serves all Americans not just Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. We may differ on cultural or social issues and
argue about these issues in the press, in public spaces, in galleries and performance spaces, but government officials cannot use financial leverage as a threat to silence those with whom they disagree,
For some reason that is not immediately obvious, a US christian websites has decided to have a rant about the BBFC not taking religious 'profanities, eg 'Jesus!' and 'Goddam' seriously enough. The websites asks:
When is a religious profanity no longer profane ?
Sixty years ago, religious profanities typically were forbidden in Hollywood movies, as the Protestant and Catholic film offices held sway on issues of acceptability in the Golden Age of film.
Today, however, in one Western nation [UK], such profanities fail to register even the slightest concern with the primary movie-rating agency [BBFC], which rarely mentions such expletives in its warning nor takes them into account when determining
In a recent response to a WND reader, a representative of the BBFC, whose tagline is Age ratings you trust, explained the policy:
While we recognize that such terms [profanities] may be offensive to those who hold religious beliefs, our public consultation has found that most respondents found these terms acceptable at 'U' [the rating described as 'suitable for all'].
The focus of the whinge seems to be the 12A rating for Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Concern arose over the BBFC evaluation of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. It included this language warning: There is occasional use of mild bad language, including 'son of a bitch,' 'shit' and 'piss.'
There was no mention, however, of religious profanities in the film, like those cited in the MovieGuide review. Based in Hollywood, MovieGuide reviews films from a Christian perspective. Its analysis of Batman v. Superman warned of five strong
profanities (using Goddam or Jesus) and two light profanities.
The BBFC rated the Batman film 12A, for moderate violence and threat. In the U.S., it is rated PG-13.
WND end with a delightfully ludicrous sound bite with a few choice words about the BBFC:
MovieGuide founder Ted Baehr has followed the BBFC for decades. He told WND the organization is much more anti-Christian than the nation at large:
Added Baehr: The British Board of Film Classifications has often established itself as a pseudo elitist body that ignores the reality of families and the human condition. At least, the BBFC should consist mainly of mothers with children. Better still, as
I argued before the U.K. Parliament years ago, they need to establish standards that prevent the sociological, psychological and religious dangers of movies and entertainment that destroy susceptible youth, as many of the Oxford studies show.
Christians are 'shocked' that American frequent porn users neither feel guilty or are uncomfortable about their porn use.
A study, entitled, The Porn Phenomenon was commissioned by evangelist Josh McDowell. It found that 89% of daily pornography users are comfortable with their use of porn. This is compared to 77% of weekly users and 70% of once-or-twice-a-month
users who said the same.
Only 3% of daily users said they wished they no longer used pornography, while just 7% of monthly users and 12% of once-or-twice-a-month users concurred.
Practicing Christians, on the other hand, were found to be nearly half as likely to be comfortable with their pornography consumption than non-Christians. Only 39% said they were comfortable with their level of porn consumption, while 73% of
non-Christians said the same. Sixty-one% of practicing Christians said they wished they used less porn -- or none at all -- compared to just 27% of all others.
The comprehensive study, which was conducted by The Barna Group, was conducted through four online surveys that were designed to represent the general American population. Nearly 3,000 people participated in the study.