Only the small minded, PC obsessed, and vindictive bigots of the ASA could possibly think such a thing! Well done for replicating Cranny's advert. Personally, and with about at least 510,000 others, we find it delightful, truly gay in the only sense of that word, and entirely wholesome.
I think Cranny should ignore the ASA's "summons" and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
You don't alter the nature of Marriage by acceding to the request for Same-Sex monogamous, faithful, life-long relationships - only the people you allow to enjoy it. Merely allowing Gays to marry won't do anything towards the disintegration of heterosexual Marriage - it just happens, all by itself.
The facts are well known in New Zealand and can be easily ascertained from newspaper websites. The Rev Jonathan Kirkpatrick was the English-born vicar of St Michael's and All Angels, Christchurch, known as a leading Anglo-Catholic church then. He came to NZ with his then-partner from Lewisham, Tim Barnett, an agnostic who became a Labour MP and a vigorous proponent of gay causes. Mark B., W. Kent
For the Attention of Mr M Lockwood - Director of Complaints.
Dear Mr Lockwood. 'Archbishop Cranmer's Blog Advert Complaints
I understand from the published information found on the above blog of Abp. Cranmer that complaints have been received by the ASA in respect of the blog's replication of an advert produced by the Coalition for Marriage campaign. The advert is deemed by 24 "anonymous complainants" and another named complainant to be "homophobic and offensive." As a result of such complaints I also understand that you have approached the author of the blog formally requesting him to justify the advert and that consequently the ASA intends "to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council."
You may or may not be aware that the many readers of this blog have reacted with complete astonishment at the ASA's decision to pursue formal action in relation to the advert. I have read the ASA website's code concerning the criteria for adverts, namely that these should not "mislead, harm or offend", and further that they should be "legal, honest, and truthful" Having examined the advert in question I fail entirely to see that these criteria have been contravened in any way. Furthermore, that there is no justification at all for labelling the content as remotely offensive or "homophobic" . (I must point out that there is no offence under British law of expressing an opinion indictable as "homophobic") It must be obvious to all but the maliciously motivated, that the advert is wholesome, inoffensive, and positively charming. Also, as Apb. Cranmer himself points out, it upholds support for normal marriage as defined, and an institution which remains the current law of the land as recognised by the Established church and recognised for many centuries. This being the case I believe that there is not the slightest justification for complainants to approach the ASA about this advert. Numerically 24 or so complainants are infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant when placed alongside the support for normal marriage as currently over 510,000 as recorded on the CforM petition. It would appear therefore that the author of Apb. Cranmer's blog has no case to answer. I therefore strongly object to the ASA's decision to be involved at all in this matter, and wish to formally register my complaint against this course of action by the ASA on the grounds that the complaints received are vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant to the content of the advert. The issue at stake here is that of the right to freedom of speech and expression, not the content of the advert. Please confrim receipt of my complaint and that it will be dealt with accordingly. Thank-you Mr Graham Wood (name and address can be supplied) grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk
From the wisdom of Andrew Reid (see: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/towards-biblical-theology-of-wisdom.html#comment-form): ‘Jesus fulfilled the OT law, but did not overthrow the civil system of law. His kingdom was not of this world. He encouraged his followers to submit to injustice and forgive their oppressors, rather than insist on their legal rights, because that is how his kingdom would advance. So, we still should have just and righteous laws, but put the values of God's kingdom as greater than our legal rights.’
The prophetic nature of suffering and testing, matched by the forbearance, forgiveness and humility of early Christians was ‘evangelistic’ in the sacramental sense of the word (i.e. manifesting in time and space something of the Kingdom).
The petty point scoring, whining and whinging about the cheek of the secular world to call into question some of the more dubious statements from a certain flavour of Christian does little only to reveal a desire at self-magnification and self-importance on the part of the latter. It is certainly far removed from many of Jesus’ injunctions concerning dealing with civil authorities nor how Christians should act when confronted by an enemy (or perceived enemy – there IS a difference). It is ironic, in the rather tedious debate concerning SSM that the Bible is held up as the authority to which secular law should be bound. Yet the Bible – esp. the N.T. - says much about how Christians should behave in the face of persecution or challenge. Odd these injunctions of Jesus – likewise found in the Bible – are happily ignored in the baser desire for notoriety, celebrity and the inverted pride of victimhood.
The ASA is responding to a complaint – get over it; the data provided by Catholic Voices does need to be questioned; just as the data provided by Proctor and Gamble needs to be questioned concerning its products. The claim of homophobia seems spurious to me – tho’ many of the pronouncements of C4M on the impact of legalised SSM are at best hyperbole and often appear groundless scaremongering – with the odd dash of homophobia flavoured with self-righteousness. As the failure rate of marriages among Christians is equal to that of wider society, I think it is a case of ‘physician heal thyself’ rather than pronouncing on the civil laws of this country!
Let the ASA do its job rather than delighting in an imagined persecution. The Christian media DOESN’T have a right to say what it likes without challenge. An awkward fact for those who follow a man who commanded his followers to be the servants of all, whereas many think it is their right to be society’s masters. But one you’ll just have to live with that for the time being.
(And personally since I have seen a commenter refer to Sikhs as ‘Rag Heads’ on Cranmer’s blog, without comment or censure from the webmaster, I find it ironic that he gets so huffy when he perceives Christianity (or his version) suffers a slight (actual or perceived)! Talk about kettle and pot!).
Peter. You say: let the ASA do its job. What ! This consists we are told of 24 or so "anonymous complainants" - that is, they do not have the courage of their conviction sufficient to place a name to their complaint. There is simply no case to answer on the part of Cranmer - the advert simply and tastefully support the concept of traditional marriage - without any reference to homosexuality. The issue is about the right to free speech.
I have complained to the ASA on the following grounds: THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY.
For the Attention of Mr M Lockwood - Director of Complaints.
Dear Mr Lockwood.
I understand from the published information found on the above blog of Abp. Cranmer that complaints have been received by the ASA in respect of the blog's replication of an advert produced by the Coalition for Marriage campaign. The advert is deemed by 24 "anonymous complainants" and another named complainant to be "homophobic and offensive." As a result of such complaints I also understand that you have approached the author of the blog formally requesting him to justify the advert and that consequently the ASA intends "to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council."
You may or may not be aware that the many readers of this blog have reacted with complete astonishment at the ASA's decision to pursue formal action in relation to the advert. I have read the ASA website's code concerning the criteria for adverts, namely that these should not "mislead, harm or offend", and further that they should be "legal, honest, and truthful" Having examined the advert in question I fail entirely to see that these criteria have been contravened in any way. Furthermore, that there is no justification at all for labelling the content as remotely offensive or "homophobic" . (I must point out that there is no offence under British law of expressing an opinion indictable as "homophobic") It must be obvious to all but the maliciously motivated, that the advert is wholesome, inoffensive, and positively charming. Also, as Apb. Cranmer himself points out, it upholds support for normal marriage as defined, and an institution which remains the current law of the land as recognised by the Established church and recognised for many centuries. This being the case I believe that there is not the slightest justification for complainants to approach the ASA about this advert. Numerically 24 or so complainants are infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant when placed alongside the support for normal marriage as currently over 510,000 as recorded on the CforM petition. It would appear therefore that the author of Apb. Cranmer's blog has no case to answer. I therefore strongly object to the ASA's decision to be involved at all in this matter, and wish to formally register my complaint against this course of action by the ASA on the grounds that the complaints received are vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant to the content of the advert. The issue at stake here is that of the right to freedom of speech and expression, not the content of the advert. Mr Graham Wood
Mark, what I was really looking for was a full name, which, under the circumstances is right.
The policy of this blog is stated at the end of each post: "Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted."
peter, for me this is not at about 'Christians being persectued' but basic liberties being threatened - that includes the liberty to speak and act in ways that may offend others.
As a ps to peter denshaw, Martin Luther, who was great one for the way of the cross, nevertheless said we should step up when others are threatened. Christians do not, as a class, have to accept all abuses coming their way. But in any case, I think this is a citizenship issue, not a Christianity issue, if I can put it that way.
@Graham (&Revd John) - I must confess I share the sentiment that 24 complaints is hardly a cause for a full onslaught of the dark powers of Quango mania. I don't think investigations should take place until 1,000 or so complaints have been made (the same goes for TV complaints).
As with you, Revd John, I don't really think this is a Christian issue - it is unfortunate tho' that many Christians of a certain hue, will paint it as an issue of Christian persecution; which was really the point of my comment.
Peter. As in my post above I fully agree with your opening comment and also your sensible suggestion that the ASA should not take action until a substantial number of complainants voice concern. You mention "dark powers". Indeed so, and it makes me wonder whether large numbers of Christians are either extremely naive concerning the "gay" agenda world-wide, or just ignorant of just how fanatical are their intentions. These are to eradicate entirely, and at almost any cost, a Christian or 'traditional' view of marriage in their drive for what they wrongly describe as "marriage equality". The Apb Cranmer blog carrying the C4 M ad is a case in point, for by no stretch of the imagination could it be called offensive. Clearly, something else is at work here, and that is they wish to suppress every element of free speech on this issue and immediately damn every expression of this with the opprobium of "hate speech", or "homophobia" (both largely meaningless) Furthermore these powers are indeed "dark", for their objective is to prohibit, and then eradicate, or even criminalise, all public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality. Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists upholding heterosexual marriage are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced. In the USA this fanatical campaign is just marginally ahead of the "gay" lobby here in the UK, and Obama's disgraceful endorsement of "gay marriage" will only add fuel to the flames. That I suggest, may be an element behind the absurd charge being levelled against "Cranmer" by the ASA on the part of the paltry few 'complainants'
Only the small minded, PC obsessed, and vindictive bigots of the ASA could possibly think such a thing!
ReplyDeleteWell done for replicating Cranny's advert.
Personally, and with about at least 510,000 others, we find it delightful, truly gay in the only sense of that word, and entirely wholesome.
I think Cranny should ignore the ASA's "summons" and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
You don't alter the nature of Marriage by acceding to the request for Same-Sex monogamous, faithful, life-long relationships - only the people you allow to enjoy it. Merely allowing Gays to marry won't do anything towards the disintegration of heterosexual Marriage - it just happens, all by itself.
ReplyDeleteFr Ron,
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ. By re-defining what qualifies as a "marriage", you alter the understanding of all marriages.
John Tongue
Australia
Fr Ron, you're rather missing the point here, which is about the response to the advert.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, John, for posting this ad. Every Christian blogger should post it, and then report themselves to the ASA.
ReplyDeleteIt took me a while to figure out the mechanics of posting it, but if anyone wants the instructions I'll gladly explain.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo the deleted commenter (you'll know who you are) I'm afraid that although you're a regular poster, I've taken down your last comment as:
ReplyDelete(a) it's rather off topic
(b) it makes allegations about a situation elsewhere and
(c) in the light of (b), you don't give us your full name.
In the past, I've let (c) go, but given the seriousness of the allegations, I think you must give us more than in this instance.
I hope you'll understand.
The facts are well known in New Zealand and can be easily ascertained from newspaper websites.
ReplyDeleteThe Rev Jonathan Kirkpatrick was the English-born vicar of St Michael's and All Angels, Christchurch, known as a leading Anglo-Catholic church then. He came to NZ with his then-partner from Lewisham, Tim Barnett, an agnostic who became a Labour MP and a vigorous proponent of gay causes.
Mark B., W. Kent
Sent to the ASA and copied to Cranmer:
ReplyDeleteTHE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY.
For the Attention of Mr M Lockwood - Director of Complaints.
Dear Mr Lockwood.
'Archbishop Cranmer's Blog Advert Complaints
I understand from the published information found on the above blog of Abp. Cranmer that complaints have been received by the ASA in respect of the blog's replication of an advert produced by the Coalition for Marriage campaign. The advert is deemed by 24 "anonymous complainants" and another named complainant to be "homophobic and offensive."
As a result of such complaints I also understand that you have approached the author of the blog formally requesting him to justify the advert and that consequently the ASA intends "to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council."
You may or may not be aware that the many readers of this blog have reacted with complete astonishment at the ASA's decision to pursue formal action in relation to the advert. I have read the ASA website's code concerning the criteria for adverts, namely that these should not "mislead, harm or offend", and further that they should be "legal, honest, and truthful"
Having examined the advert in question I fail entirely to see that these criteria have been contravened in any way. Furthermore, that there is no justification at all for labelling the content as remotely offensive or "homophobic" . (I must point out that there is no offence under British law of expressing an opinion indictable as "homophobic")
It must be obvious to all but the maliciously motivated, that the advert is wholesome, inoffensive, and positively charming. Also, as Apb. Cranmer himself points out, it upholds support for normal marriage as defined, and an institution which remains the current law of the land as recognised by the Established church and recognised for many centuries.
This being the case I believe that there is not the slightest justification for complainants to approach the ASA about this advert. Numerically 24 or so complainants are infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant when placed alongside the support for normal marriage as currently over 510,000 as recorded on the CforM petition.
It would appear therefore that the author of Apb. Cranmer's blog has no case to answer.
I therefore strongly object to the ASA's decision to be involved at all in this matter, and wish to formally register my complaint against this course of action by the ASA on the grounds that the complaints received are vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant to the content of the advert. The issue at stake here is that of the right to freedom of speech and expression, not the content of the advert.
Please confrim receipt of my complaint and that it will be dealt with accordingly. Thank-you
Mr Graham Wood (name and address can be supplied)
grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk
From the wisdom of Andrew Reid (see: http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/towards-biblical-theology-of-wisdom.html#comment-form): ‘Jesus fulfilled the OT law, but did not overthrow the civil system of law. His kingdom was not of this world. He encouraged his followers to submit to injustice and forgive their oppressors, rather than insist on their legal rights, because that is how his kingdom would advance. So, we still should have just and righteous laws, but put the values of God's kingdom as greater than our legal rights.’
ReplyDeleteThe prophetic nature of suffering and testing, matched by the forbearance, forgiveness and humility of early Christians was ‘evangelistic’ in the sacramental sense of the word (i.e. manifesting in time and space something of the Kingdom).
The petty point scoring, whining and whinging about the cheek of the secular world to call into question some of the more dubious statements from a certain flavour of Christian does little only to reveal a desire at self-magnification and self-importance on the part of the latter. It is certainly far removed from many of Jesus’ injunctions concerning dealing with civil authorities nor how Christians should act when confronted by an enemy (or perceived enemy – there IS a difference). It is ironic, in the rather tedious debate concerning SSM that the Bible is held up as the authority to which secular law should be bound. Yet the Bible – esp. the N.T. - says much about how Christians should behave in the face of persecution or challenge. Odd these injunctions of Jesus – likewise found in the Bible – are happily ignored in the baser desire for notoriety, celebrity and the inverted pride of victimhood.
The ASA is responding to a complaint – get over it; the data provided by Catholic Voices does need to be questioned; just as the data provided by Proctor and Gamble needs to be questioned concerning its products. The claim of homophobia seems spurious to me – tho’ many of the pronouncements of C4M on the impact of legalised SSM are at best hyperbole and often appear groundless scaremongering – with the odd dash of homophobia flavoured with self-righteousness. As the failure rate of marriages among Christians is equal to that of wider society, I think it is a case of ‘physician heal thyself’ rather than pronouncing on the civil laws of this country!
Let the ASA do its job rather than delighting in an imagined persecution. The Christian media DOESN’T have a right to say what it likes without challenge. An awkward fact for those who follow a man who commanded his followers to be the servants of all, whereas many think it is their right to be society’s masters. But one you’ll just have to live with that for the time being.
(And personally since I have seen a commenter refer to Sikhs as ‘Rag Heads’ on Cranmer’s blog, without comment or censure from the webmaster, I find it ironic that he gets so huffy when he perceives Christianity (or his version) suffers a slight (actual or perceived)! Talk about kettle and pot!).
Peter. You say: let the ASA do its job. What ! This consists we are told of 24 or so "anonymous complainants" - that is, they do not have the courage of their conviction sufficient to place a name to their complaint.
ReplyDeleteThere is simply no case to answer on the part of Cranmer - the advert simply and tastefully support the concept of traditional marriage - without any reference to homosexuality. The issue is about the right to free speech.
I have complained to the ASA on the following grounds:
THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY.
For the Attention of Mr M Lockwood - Director of Complaints.
Dear Mr Lockwood.
I understand from the published information found on the above blog of Abp. Cranmer that complaints have been received by the ASA in respect of the blog's replication of an advert produced by the Coalition for Marriage campaign. The advert is deemed by 24 "anonymous complainants" and another named complainant to be "homophobic and offensive."
As a result of such complaints I also understand that you have approached the author of the blog formally requesting him to justify the advert and that consequently the ASA intends "to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council."
You may or may not be aware that the many readers of this blog have reacted with complete astonishment at the ASA's decision to pursue formal action in relation to the advert. I have read the ASA website's code concerning the criteria for adverts, namely that these should not "mislead, harm or offend", and further that they should be "legal, honest, and truthful"
Having examined the advert in question I fail entirely to see that these criteria have been contravened in any way. Furthermore, that there is no justification at all for labelling the content as remotely offensive or "homophobic" . (I must point out that there is no offence under British law of expressing an opinion indictable as "homophobic")
It must be obvious to all but the maliciously motivated, that the advert is wholesome, inoffensive, and positively charming. Also, as Apb. Cranmer himself points out, it upholds support for normal marriage as defined, and an institution which remains the current law of the land as recognised by the Established church and recognised for many centuries.
This being the case I believe that there is not the slightest justification for complainants to approach the ASA about this advert. Numerically 24 or so complainants are infinitesimally small and statistically insignificant when placed alongside the support for normal marriage as currently over 510,000 as recorded on the CforM petition.
It would appear therefore that the author of Apb. Cranmer's blog has no case to answer.
I therefore strongly object to the ASA's decision to be involved at all in this matter, and wish to formally register my complaint against this course of action by the ASA on the grounds that the complaints received are vexatious, frivolous, and irrelevant to the content of the advert. The issue at stake here is that of the right to freedom of speech and expression, not the content of the advert.
Mr Graham Wood
Mark, what I was really looking for was a full name, which, under the circumstances is right.
ReplyDeleteThe policy of this blog is stated at the end of each post:
"Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted."
peter, for me this is not at about 'Christians being persectued' but basic liberties being threatened - that includes the liberty to speak and act in ways that may offend others.
ReplyDeleteAs a ps to peter denshaw, Martin Luther, who was great one for the way of the cross, nevertheless said we should step up when others are threatened. Christians do not, as a class, have to accept all abuses coming their way. But in any case, I think this is a citizenship issue, not a Christianity issue, if I can put it that way.
ReplyDelete@Graham (&Revd John) - I must confess I share the sentiment that 24 complaints is hardly a cause for a full onslaught of the dark powers of Quango mania. I don't think investigations should take place until 1,000 or so complaints have been made (the same goes for TV complaints).
ReplyDeleteAs with you, Revd John, I don't really think this is a Christian issue - it is unfortunate tho' that many Christians of a certain hue, will paint it as an issue of Christian persecution; which was really the point of my comment.
P.D.
Peter. As in my post above I fully agree with your opening comment and also your sensible suggestion that the ASA should not take action until a substantial number of complainants voice concern.
ReplyDeleteYou mention "dark powers". Indeed so, and it makes me wonder whether large numbers of Christians are either extremely naive concerning the "gay" agenda world-wide, or just ignorant of just how fanatical are their intentions. These are to eradicate entirely, and at almost any cost, a Christian or 'traditional' view of marriage in their drive for what they wrongly describe as "marriage equality".
The Apb Cranmer blog carrying the C4 M ad is a case in point, for by no stretch of the imagination could it be called offensive. Clearly, something else is at work here, and that is they wish to suppress every element of free speech on this issue and immediately damn every expression of this with the opprobium of "hate speech", or "homophobia" (both largely meaningless)
Furthermore these powers are indeed "dark", for their objective is to prohibit, and then eradicate, or even criminalise, all public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality. Their campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists upholding heterosexual marriage are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced. In the USA this fanatical campaign is just marginally ahead of the "gay" lobby here in the UK, and Obama's disgraceful endorsement of "gay marriage" will only add fuel to the flames.
That I suggest, may be an element behind the absurd charge being levelled against "Cranmer" by the ASA on the part of the paltry few 'complainants'