The Christian protests

by Editor · April 11, 2012

Over the past few weeks Catholics, and Christians in general, have found cause to stand up against what they perceive to be insults to their faith with mixed results. First energy drink Red Bull flighted a TV commercial that made light of the story from the gospels of Matthew and Mark of Jesus walking on the water.

The advertisers likely intended no insult. We must believe their protestation that they meant to be playful, and some Christians might well have understood the ad in that way (nonetheless flinching at the profanity at the end).

And yet, Red Bull crossed a line in two ways. Firstly, it used Christ to gain a commercial advantage, which in itself can be seen as a profanity. Secondly, it satirised the gospels, which Christians hold sacred. Consumers, at whom the commercial was aimed, have a right to object when they feel that their religion is being ridiculed in an advertisement.

In the event, broadcaster e.tv agreed with that view by pulling the ad, and Red Bull did likewise by discontinuing it.

The furor over the Red Bull commercial had barely settled when 5FM presenter Gareth Cliff responded to a news report on the arrests of human rights campaigners in Cuba by describing Pope Benedict as a sleazy old man for visiting the island nation, apparently because a papal visit is seen as an endorsement of its political system.

Of course Mr Cliff is free to hold unfavourable opinions of Pope Benedict, but he did not explain in which way visiting Cuba is more sleazy than visiting other human rights-offending countries, such as China or Pakistan, as many world leaders have done. It seemed evident that the comment was founded on a particular antipathy towards the pope, as Mr Cliff’s response to The Southern Cross (published in the March 28 edition) seems to bear out.

When listeners feel that a presenter on public radio and as an SABC station, 5FM is supported by our licence fees unfairly abuses their religious sensibilities, then they have a right to have their

objections heard.

While Christians had cause to be offended by the Red Bull commercial, and Catholics by Mr Cliff’s slur on the pope, some Christians have distorted their faith by voicing their indignation at a retailer which labelled hot cross buns halaal, thereby marking it as suitable for consumption by Muslims.

According to the protesters, the hot cross bun is not merely a baked confectionery produced for commercial transaction, but a Christian symbol which presumably is profaned when it is prayed over by a Muslim cleric.

The objection has the flavour of anti-Muslim bigotry. The retailer, Woolworths, has announced that next year it will sell non-halaal hot cross buns and halaal spicy buns. It is a compromise which should not be welcomed by fair-minded Christians.

Fr Chris Townsend, nformation officer of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference, rightly dismissed the sentiments of outrage voiced by what he termed, with just the right measure of wit, hot cross Christians. The hot cross bun is a Lenten tradition, but it is not in any way sanctified (indeed, some theories ascribe to it pagan origins). It is good, and not objectionable, to share our traditions with those of other faiths or none.

It is a profoundly dismal reflection on Christianity in South Africa that Fr Townsend has received hate mail for rejecting, correctly, the intolerance that was intrinsic to the bun protests. Indeed, the act of sending hate mail should cause decent Christians much greater offence than an ill-considered cartoon ad, the inexpert commentary of radio DJs, or halaal stickers on buns.

It is right that Catholics should make known their objections to that what they feel is offensive. But that licence is subject to responsibilities.

Firstly, the offence taken must be reasonable and defined with clarity and charity; secondly, a campaign of protest must be fair and take into account the rights of others.

The lines between fair and unreasonable objection can be very narrow. When this is so, it is better to err on the side of caution.