eChurch Blog

Irrespective of your views as to the offensiveness or otherwise of the Pret A Manger sandwich chain branding their new crisps as ‘Virgin Mary’, something must be noted relating to the potential power and influence of blogging.

Deacon Nick Donelly first highlighted this on his popular blog Protect the Pope back on the 30th January:

The Pret A Manger sandwich chain have decided to insult their Catholic customers by naming their new Worcestershire Sauce flavoured crisps, ‘Virgin Mary Crisps’

A reader of Protect the Pope wrote to Pret A Manger to complain, making the point that Pret A Manger would not dare to mock the Muslim or Jewish faiths so why have they seen fit to mock Christianity. Why they should make such an appalling, tasteless and offensive lapse of judgement.’

This is the reply from their CEO:

‘It happens that I am a Catholic. I have examined my conscience about the naming of our crisps. The term Virgin Mary is widely used in the market today to describe a well known cocktail: a tomato juice with Worcester sauce and without vodka. I have consulted a lot of people in our office about this and that is what they all think of when they see our crisps packet. Please, please don’t take offence. None is intended.’

Protect the Pope comment: The Pret A Manger’s CEO should know better than to use the name of Our Lady, the Mother of God, to sell a snack food. It’s cheap, demeans the name of the Virgin Mary, and offends Catholics who hold Our Lady in the highest regard.  It’s irrelevant what the CEO’s employees tell him in the office about the appropriateness of the name, it’s what Catholics think that counts.  What will practicing Catholics first think of when they see the name ‘Virgin Mary crisps’? Not a well known cocktail for sure.

It appears that as a result of this blog post, readers were motivated to complain.

The upshot of this is taken from a Protect the Pope blog post today:

Pret A Manger has contacted Protect the Pope to inform us that following yesterday’s post on their Virgin Mary brand of crisps and readers of our site contacting them to express their concern Pret A Manger’s CEO Clive Schlee has decided to remove this brand immediately from their outlets.  Pret A Manger has apologised for any unintentional offence they have caused and have indicted that they will give any unsold crisps to the homeless. Clive Schlee has admitted to a reader of Protect the Pope that taking this brand of crisps off their shelves will cost them quite a bit of money but ‘good businesses listen and react quickly’.

Deacon Nick Donelly comments:

Clive Schlee and Pret A Manger deserve our unreserved thanks for listening to our concerns as Catholics and for acting so quickly to remove the brand of crisps. It seems fitting that Pret A Manger are planning to give any unsold crisps to the homeless. Thanks also to the readers of Protect the Pope for contacting Pret A Manger to express their concerns. God bless you all for your passion and desire to stand up for our Catholic faith.  I’d like to express my special thanks to the reader of Protect the Pope who first brought this news to our attention, but wants to remain anonymous.  One of the things we need to go away and think about is what this incident tells us about how we defend our faith in the future. We’ve been passive for too long in the face of mockery of our faith and discrimination against us as Catholics. We can change things!

This incident has now hit the BBC and the story is currently rated as the second ‘Most Read’ story on the BBC website.

As I said earlier, irrespective of your view on the issue at the heart of the matter, this is a dramatic example of a Catholic /Christian blogger exerting tremendous influence even over a powerful chain of shops.

This is surely noteworthy in itself.

I’m having trouble embedding the audio file here and as I have limited patience this morning I shall guide you to Peter’s blog to listen to a conversation that took place between Peter Ould and Steve Chalke, hosted by Justin Brierley at Christ Church Woking:

I’m still in the process of listening to this myself as we have a ‘snow day’; schools are shut and noise abounds.

Let me know your thoughts, or of course, comment on Peter’s blog.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

Get Religion – Anti-gay marriage protests prompt ire of the BBC

The Mental Elf – Clinicians should consider referring depressed patients to Internet Support Groups, according to new RCT

iMonk – “Getting Better”

Opinionated Vicar - The National Lottery: pet parasite of the nation

Oxford Human Rights Hub – R (Hodkin): A Signal to Rethink Religious Worship

Society for Christian Psychology – Redemption and Restoration

Dr Robert Cargill – Is the Internet bringing about the end of organized religion?

PsychCentral – Lance Armstrong: Narcissist or “Optimist”?

Believer’s Brain – 4 Things Not To Say to a Depressed Christian

Normblog – Telling stories to win an argument

Patheos: Science and Religion – Do you believe in magic? Seriously.

The Emotionally Sensitive Person – Sunsets and Math Problems: Appreciating the Difference

The 2013 ‘State of the Nation’ study has just been released and can be found here in PDF format.

Interestingly, only 7% cited “Being Christian” as important for being British. This finding flies in the face of the argument that the 59% of Brits who self-identified as Christian for the census, did so for cultural British identity reasons.

Respect for people’s right to free speech, even if you don’t agree with them 50%
Respect for the law 46%
Speaking English 41%
Treating men and women equally 38%
Respect for all ethnic backgrounds 29%
Respect for all faiths 26%
Being born here 26%
Voting in elections 21%
Being Christian 7%
Being white 6%
Other 1%
Nothing 3%
Don’t know 5%

Worryingly, it would appear that the media portrayal of ‘benefit scrounging scum’ is taking root in the British psyche, as 47% believe tension between tax payers and welfare claimants causes the most division in British society as a whole today:

Tension between immigrants and people born in Britain 57%
Tension between tax payers and welfare claimants 47%
Tension between rich and poor 35%
Tension between different ethnicities 33%
Tension between tax payers and tax avoiders 32%
Tension between different religions 26%
Tension between different political views 15%
Tension between different regions such as north and south 12%
Tension between old and young 7%
Tension between men and women 3%
Other 2%

Tensions in ‘local area’ threw up similar results.

There’s a mine of information but it’s interesting to note that the NHS is the number one reason for pride in being British and a whopping 72% agreed with the statement:

The NHS is a symbol of what is great about Britain and we must do everything we can to maintain it

Of all the anniversaries, the NHS 65th makes folk proudest to be British.

46% feel Britain is on ‘the wrong track’ which was the top response.

I’ll let you hop over for more and a big hat-tip to BRIN.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

UK Human Rights Blog - High Court rejects Humanist Association’s challenge to faith school proposals in Richmond

Law and Religion UK - Charitable status, public benefit and “closed” congregations: an update on Preston Down

Protect the Pope - French government orders surveillance of Catholic pro-marriage groups it suspects of ‘religious pathology’

Pink News - UK: Primary school writes to parents to explain that their child’s teacher will be changing gender

Francis Sedgemore - RIP Intellectual Property UK

Islamophobia Watch – Advertising Islamophobia hits London railways

Martin Webber’s Blog - Blogging: An essential research engagement and dissemination tool?

Accepting Abundance - Eyna, Are You More Than A Body?

No more wriggling out of writing - On the darker side of the sparkle

I’m sure most of you are aware of the Australian radio station prank telephone call, in which presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian posed as the Queen and Prince Charles to obtain medical information from The King Edward VII hospital, relating to the condition of the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge.

There has been a global response to this as nurse Jacintha Saldanha who took the prank call and transferred it through to a duty nurse, was found unconscious and pronounced dead on Friday.

The reaction in the media and on social networks has been unequivocal;  Saldanha killed herself as a direct result of the prank and the radio presenters have blood on their hands.

For me personally, there is no single human act sadder and more distressing than suicide.

Also, I’ve never been a fan of pranks, I don’t find them funny or clever, someone always gets humiliated and hurt.

There isn’t a single reasonable person not gutted and distressed for Saldanha and especially for her two young children and family.

This said, I have been disturbed by the reaction to the radio presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian. They have been on the receiving end of terrifying online death threats; have been moved into hiding, and are both receiving medical support, even to the point of being on suicide watch themselves.

The media are circling like vultures, the same media that these radio presenters are part of, the same media that revels in these pranks, the same media that would be hounding these two nurses were Saldanha alive today.

And what of the reporting of the suicide? We know the police are dealing with the death as ‘not suspicious’, but that’s all we know. Mental health agencies have urged not to speculate on the reasons behind the death.

Consider this from the Sydney Morning Herald:

leading psychiatrist and former Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry called for calm, saying suicide was a complex issue that was unlikely to be caused by one individual factor.

“I feel sorry for them because they obviously had no intention of causing any harm. Blame is hardly ever useful,” Professor McGorry said.

“Most people are in a state of mental ill health leading up to when they kill themselves and it would have needed more than just that trigger to actually bring that about.

“You could say that a stressful life event like this was a contributory cause – and maybe she wouldn’t have killed herself at this point in time without that having happened – but it was likely that there were some other factors going on too.”

Frank Quinlan, chief executive of the Mental Health Council of Australia, said there was a risk of compounding the tragedy by targeting the radio presenters.

“It’s hard to imagine that the vitriol and hatred and anger that we’re seeing in this case is going to result in anything positive,” he said.

“What this case shows is we need to be having a conversation about suicide and about mental health in general and how we can better support people who may be vulnerable – that’s really the only prospect we have of getting anything positive out of this. The message to all of us needs to be to take a moment to pause before we jump to accusations that could have a lasting effect.”

Jeff Kennett, chairman of the national depression agency beyondblue, expressed his concern for the radio DJs, saying the call was meant as a “harmless prank” that was never intended to hurt anyone, and he hoped the Australian community would be understanding.

“This is going to have terrible ramifications in terms of the impact on people’s lives and I hope that both Mel and Michael are strong … We’ve got to be careful we don’t become so politically correct that we deny ourselves the opportunity like now to extend to these two all the support we can to ensure that they come through this as strongly as possible.”

Jaelea Skehan, acting director of the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, said it was too early to know all the facts in the case and caution was needed.

“We don’t know whether the radio prank played into this woman’s death because we don’t know anything about her the circumstances of her life,” she said.

“While it’s obviously tragic for everyone concerned, her family, her colleagues and all who knew her, it’s also tragic for the two people who have been named and shamed in association with it.”

Ms Skehan has led the Mindframe committee on media guidelines on reporting suicide and mental health for the last decade.

“The kind of behaviour that people have been criticising the radio hosts for, they’re now doing very similar types of behaviour back towards them with vitriol,” she said.

“If people are arguing that public humiliation has been related to the death of this women then must one must also reflect that public humiliation directed towards those two people on the radio is not going to be helpful either.”

There will be an inquest into this tragedy, but in the meantime, the media have a two-fold responsibility in this case. The first is the ethical considerations of pranks, and the second is in the responsible reporting of suicides. The Samaritans provide media guidelines for the reporting of suicides.

What the radio presenters did was irresponsible and potentially illegal, but they are a product of the very industry that would hound them to the brink.

I hope those of us on social media will think twice before jumping on the condemnation bandwagon, whilst keeping Jacintha Saldanha and her family in our prayers.

Seriously:

David Patterson has been a Vicar in the Church of England for forty years, yet throughout that time he has never believed in the existence of God or in an afterlife. David wants Christians to learn from Atheists to reject the idea of a supernatural deity beyond our universe, and instead focus on living the best lives we can in the here and now.

You can watch his pearls of wisdom here.

Can’t really say it better than these Tweets:

What a knob! He’s a vicar in C of E but is an atheist? #4ThoughtTV

— Carrie(@IthinkIamCarrie) November 22, 2012

Sorry but this is not on don’t claim to speak for a group if you disagree with their fundamental believes Atheist vicar 4thought.tv/themes/what-ca…

— Jennifer Parnham (@JenniferParnham) November 22, 2012

I wouldnt join an atheist society + get a position to speak to groups and then do so with the assumption God exists – wheres the integrety?

— Jennifer Parnham (@JenniferParnham) November 22, 2012

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

First up two posts on Prisons Week: GodandPolitics and Opinionated Vicar

Accepting Abundance - Explaining Reason: Atheism or Christianity?

Everyday Theology - Inflatable People: The Holy Spirit and Creation

Terry Mattingly – Commandments for believers who blog

ReligionDispatches - Denzel’s Profane Preaching: A Religious Movie for the Rest of Us

Beyond Blue - What Doesn’t Kill You … Well, It Still Really Sucks

What’s Wrong With The World - Drunk with reverence

A hearty congratulations to Mental Health Cop

A story appeared in the Daily Mail with the rather alarming heading:

Now Brussels takes aim at the Famous Five! Books portraying ‘traditional’ families could be barred.

And began with a flourish of doom:

Books which portray ‘traditional’ images of mothers caring for their children or fathers going out to work could be barred from schools under proposals from Brussels.

An EU report claims that ‘gender stereotyping’ in schools influences the perception of the way boys and girls should behave and damages women’s career opportunities in the future.

Critics said the proposals for ‘study materials’ to be amended so that men and women are no longer depicted in their traditional roles would mean the withdrawal of children’s classics, such as Enid Blyton’s The Famous Five series, Paddington Bear or Peter Pan.

This was dutifully replicated on a couple of Christian websites.

The irony is that not only is this all bunkum, but actually states as much in the conclusion of the article:

A spokesman for the London office of the European Commission said: ‘This is nonsense. “Brussels” has no legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools, it is a matter for the UK and for schools.

‘The European Parliament committee report – which anyway represents just the committee’s view – does not suggest banning books.

‘And even in areas where it does call for EU level action and where that is legally possible, that can only be done if the Commission makes a proposal – it hasn’t – and if the European Parliament as a whole and a large majority of member states then adopt it.’

Anyway, Mary Honeyball MEP, decided to take the Daily Mail to task with a letter they decided not to publish:

The article by James Chapman (Mail 7/11/2012) claiming that the EU could be planning to ban books portraying stereo typical family values is misleading in the extreme. It was incorrect to suggest that such books could be barred from schools.

Brussels does not have legal powers to intervene in which books are available in UK schools; it is a matter for the UK government.

The European Parliament committee report to which your article refers does not suggest banning books- and in any case this is certainly not something which would be legally binding.

Even in areas where the report does call for EU level action and where such action would be legislatively possible, it could only be done if the European Commission makes a formal proposal. In addition, the European Parliament as a whole and also a large majority of Member States must then adopt it.

I hope this important point clarifies the inaccuracies I refer to in your report.

Yours Sincerely

Mary Honeyball MEP

It’s worth hopping over to see the pathetic response to this letter, and the equally pathetic justification for not publishing.

Sleep easy tonight folks, Julian, Dick, Anne, Georgina and Timothy, are safe in our schools……

I hope that Bishop Nick Baines will forgive me for pilfering a large chunk of his blog post, but he makes some salient points that need to be pondered and digested.

My main point was to encourage greater confidence by religious people – Christians in particular – in occupying the space they have… and not to react to everything ‘offensive’ in victim mode. Ruth Gledhill articulately explained the role of journalists and editors, castigated religious people for not getting ‘good news’ stories into the press, and told them to use the clout they already have for raising concerns about issues of religious freedom. I concurred, noting that Christians need to look first in the mirror when moaning about failures to tell our stories – asking ourselves who is to blame for this. (Earlier Os Guinness had noted that the primary casualty of religious bad news was the failure of Christians to love one another in public.)

Of course, the other media angle is simply that religious groups often simply want to ‘get their message over’ – which is hopeless in the new world of social media in which ‘interconnectivity’ and ‘interactivity’ are the key features of discourse. We now engage in a conversation and not in a monologue. The message emerges from the conversation and its mode.

It is always a little difficult to deal briefly and concisely with complicated issues. However, I did describe the contemporary conflict of ‘freedoms’ as a ‘crisis of liberalism’: that once we claim equality and equal validity of any opinion (including the right to be offended, etc.), it becomes hard to deal with conflicts in rights/freedoms. We are left with having to establish hierarchies of value or rights, and this is problematic. In other words, if my freedom compromises your freedom, who judges which is to have priority – and against which criteria?

….read all