• Full Story

'Blasphemous' billboard ruled not offensive

Email
Print

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:01a.m.

"Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."

"Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."

An Auckland church billboard which sparked complaints for alluding to the sexual activities of the parents of Jesus Christ has been ruled not offensive by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The repeatedly vandalised billboard outside St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican Church featured pictures of a sombre Mary and Joseph in bed, with the caption "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".

After four attacks on the billboard, the church took it down.

The ASA received a number of complaints, saying the billboard was offensive, insensitive, blasphemous, ridiculed the beliefs of Christians, perverse, and distorted children's perceptions of Christmas.

However, it chose not to uphold the complaints and sided with the church, saying the billboard may have been controversial, but it wasn't obscene.

It had no naked people on it, depicted no sexual acts and "had been prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society", the ASA said.

NZPA
 
More on this story:
 
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

02 Apr 2010 12:22p.m.

Annie wrote:

Hmmm, in my bible it never says that Mary and Joseph did not have sex after the birth of Jesus. Of course they did, where else did Jesus's brothers come from??

31 Mar 2010 03:31p.m.

Nope wrote:

It is odd that this came from a Christian church. Especially given the fact that Mary was a virgin and never has sex. You would think a Christian church might be aware of that little fact.

30 Mar 2010 08:46a.m.

DTJW wrote:

re: ster, Kirch, Millar etc.: I don't quite follow your logic. The Islamofascists are too fanatical to allow similar depictions of their religious figures... so Christians should learn to be as fanatical, humourless, and illiberal as they are? Seems to me that episodes like these simply serve as further evidence of the superiority of enlightened Western civilization... despite the best efforts of Christian religious zealots, of course.

30 Mar 2010 07:48a.m.

Mitch wrote:

Who cares if Christians are offended? Do they care about offending me by calling me immoral since I don't believe in there God? Do they care that they offend me by saying I deserve to burn for all time? Do they care that I am offended because they push Broze Age mythology on people and insult the evidence of Science?

No, they do not care about offending non-believers. So why should non-believers care if they are offended?

30 Mar 2010 06:59a.m.

phantomspots wrote:

I'm Christian and don't find it offensive. I think it's hilarious. They were married, there's nothing perverse and you can't tell me Joseph didn't consider this a time or two. I mean, Jesus hung out with a rougher crowd, you think he never heard a bawdy joke? I don't care what religion you are, why do people have to be so gosh dern uptight?

30 Mar 2010 06:09a.m.

Karen wrote:

A CHRISTIAN church put the billboard up. How is this "picking on Christians"?

30 Mar 2010 05:49a.m.

Bob Millar wrote:

I'm amazed. If this was Mohammed in bed with his 9 year old wife you'd be dodging bombs now. Good thing christians are tolerant, eh?

30 Mar 2010 04:25a.m.

Richard wrote:

Who care if it is offensive or blasphemous? When you subscribe to an immoral and fabricate belief system (all monotheisms) you open yourself up to this kind of thing. Religion is the problem, not that which religious people consider "offensive".

30 Mar 2010 04:13a.m.

ster wrote:

As always, pick on Christians...

I bet they would NEVER make a billboard with Muhommad on it... never in a million years.

30 Mar 2010 03:01a.m.

JA wrote:

They WERE married