| Author | Topic | | AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts |  Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 16:17:08 
| Reading though the news and I came across this:
quote:
Mar 15, 8:47 AM (ET)
MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Britain's television advertising regulator has agreed to review a ban on an Australian tourism campaign centered on the slightly risqué phrase "bloody hell," officials said on Wednesday.
"It's a bloody good result," Australian Tourism Minister Fran Bailey said after she flew to London to save the campaign.
Britain's Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Center had banned the ads from British television because of concerns over the campaign's use of the word "bloody" and ordered censored ads run in their place.
Bailey said the center had now agreed to review the ban.
The ads begin with characters saying: "We've poured you a beer and we've had the camels shampooed, we've saved you a spot on the beach ... and we've got the sharks out of the pool."
They end with a bikini-clad woman on a beach asking "so where the bloody hell are you?"
So concerned were Australian tourism officials by the British decision that Bailey was sent to London to lobby broadcasters and regulators, along with the woman in the bikini, Sydney model Laura Bingle.
"My faith in British justice and humor has been restored and I am now hopeful that common sense will prevail," Bailey said in a statement issued by her Canberra office.
Bailey had argued that the word "bloody," a very mild profanity commonly used in Australia and Britain, was not generally considered offensive and had been used in other British advertising campaigns.
The A$180 million ($133 million) campaign is already running in the United States, New Zealand and in British cinemas and newspapers, and will also target China, Japan, India and Germany.
The full advertisement can be seen at www.wherethebloodyhellareyou.com.
I would have thought that they would have been more concerned with the "hell" part of "bloody hell".... oh well. Just thought I'd entertain those out there. |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 13:54:06
| I can't help but wonder about the total non-issue that this may really be. I am certainly NOT a proponent of profane language, and our culture here in the States seems to be inundated with it, yet I can't help but wonder why certain words are considered profane (or "dirty"). Scripturally, almost none of these 7 famously filthy words are even given mention.And for those that are mentioned, they are never considerd "dirty" (such as the word "Ass."). Admittedly, I would not allow my children to use such language (even the aforementioned "ass"), nor do I use such language, but the real question is "why"? You can't say "because the Bible says so," because the Scripture doesn't mention what words are not to be used. The Bible only tells us not to put aside "filthy language from your lips." (Colossians 3:8)And, of course, one of the Ten Commandments forbids us from using the Lord's name in vain.But the Scripture is not any more specific than that. Does the writer's of the Holy Scripture assume that we would know what ,specifically, they would be referring to?
This leads me to conclude that a lot of our assumptions about profanity may very well be cultural, and not Scriptural.Having said that, I do not think it appropriate for Christians to use such language or to allow it to become a part of thier everyday lexicon.But we probably ought to examine this issue a little more closely, because when does this issue become more about personal responsibility in our speech, and less about freedom of expression in a society that cherishes freedom over repression. I realize that "freedom" can be abused, and many people use the words of freedom to eclipse thier irresponsible behaviors. But I am not sure that the alternative to irresponsibility should be totalitarian control, either.Even, and especially, if that control comes from well meaning religious folk.
The Scripture tells us, in Galatians 5:22, that one of the fruits of the Spirit is "self-control." As a matter of fact, the very end of that verse declares that "against such things, there is NO law." Perhaps we may be putting the cart before the horse in our priorities about what is deemed "profane" and what is really profane.
Now before anyone begins to throw stones at me, allow me to make myself clear. I DO NOT support the use of what is culturally considered filthy language in the speech of a believer.Nor do I want to hear that kind of verbal garbage bombarding my family. However, when others use profanity around me, it really doesn't bother me.It's kind of like watching a dog lick himself. It might be really disgusting, but that's what dogs do.You cannot expect a dog to act like a human do you? He's a dog, and he does what dogs do.Thats' his instict, that's his nature, and that's his understanding.You kind of expect it.If you don't pay attention to it, you really won't even consider it.
Is it really that much different for those who have not come to the saving knowledge of Christ? Humans are going to do what humans are going to do.It is their nature, it is thier instinct, and it is their understanding.People who are not born again cannot be expected to act in conformity to the born again lifestyle, for they have not experienced that transformation yet.Profanity is only a symptom of a deeper issue, and I wonder if it is really more important than the issue of profanity.
Or maybe I'm just screwed up in the head. You decide!
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
Edited by - AXEMAN2415 on 19 Mar 2006 13:58:28 |  |
| AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts | Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 22:28:00
| quote:
Originally posted by AXEMAN2415
Or maybe I'm just screwed up in the head. You decide!
Don't think that hasn't crossed my mind... 
In the context of your reply I find my own comment to be rather enlightening. Here I am wondering more about the use of "Hell" than I am "Bloody" ... yet in that culture what is deemed "filthy language" is different than here in the states.
Now lets make this an even thornier issue. Supposed I take a trip to England (one day) and I go around saying "bloody well" in a self-amusing sort of way. Since this a semi-contrived example, let's assume that I don't know the full import of the word in that culture. Have I sinned? Am I now not "putting away filthy language"? Or does this come under the heading of "you should have understood the culture you were entering before you got there"? And lastly, what about if I did that and did understand the full import?
Fun thoughts for the wee hours...  |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 20 Mar 2006 : 15:19:51
| | Or even better (or worse); what if you went around telling folks in the British Empire that you were a Christian, and still used the terms "bloody well"? Would you then be considered a "carnal" Christian (an oxymoron if I ever heard one)? I am wondering if it is our focus on such matters is out of calibration here. Are we more concerned with what people think (even, and especially, Christian people) or are we concerned with what God thinks? |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| | | Topic | |
 |
Media
