Friday, December 21, 2007

Christmas is Offensive (it's Official!)

Apparently the BACC (the body that passes TV adverts as fit for airing) is in a quandary over the song, "I Saw Three Ships". Its new policy is that in ads, festive soundtracks are not to feature any tunes which refer to the birth of Christ, (ie Carols) but only secular ditties like "Jingle Bells". "Three Ships" causes a dilemma in that it does reference Christ (and his mother) but no-one remembers that, so no offence caused!1

The underlying assumption is of course that Christian content (and note this - only in the tune, not even in sung lyrics) is so offensive that the public must be protected from it! But to whom (apart from the unelected apparatchiks of the BACC) is the Christmas story offensive? Presumably the answer is that it is offensive to atheists and adherents of other faiths.

But wait just a moment - this is what other faith communities are saying today:
  • "Hindus celebrate Christmas too. It's a great holiday for everyone living in Britain," said Anil Bhanot, general secretary of the UK Hindu Council. Sikh spokesman Indarjit Singh said: "Every year I am asked 'Do I object to the celebration of Christmas?' It's an absurd question. As ever, my family and I will send out our Christmas cards to our Christian friends and others." Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Shayk Ibrahim Mogra said: "To suggest celebrating Christmas and having decorations offends Muslims is absurd. Why can't we have more nativity scenes in Britain?"2.

So is it the voices of increasingly militant atheists who are demanding the banishing of Christmas Carols from public life? Apparently not so, as this year even dear old Richard Dawkins (Oxford Professor for the Public Misunderstanding of Faith) will be singing along, joining in the traditions - the content of which he so despises.

What is more baffling in the debate though is this. When Christians are offended by anything from porn to blasphemy, the media's standard response is, "if it offends you -turn it off, no-one is forcing you to watch it!". Why then does the same standard not apply when it is Christianity which is deemed to be the offence!? Perhaps on this occasion the free-market has something to say. Surely if the public at large are so offended by the tune of 'Silent Night' that it will make people switch off their TV's in outrage, tarring the brand in question with negative connotations so damaging that advertisers themselves will switch to 'Jingle Bells'! If not, then who are the BACC to protect us from our own traditions and tastes?!

There is, of course, a good side to this controversy. The advertising industry is one of consistently questionable ethics; not just in the obvious matter of dubious claims and small print, nor even in the way in which so many seek to bolster their brand by appealing to at least one of the so-called "7 Deadly Sins";3 but more in the deceit of selling 'product' on the basis of 'image' when there is no link between the two. Perhaps Christians should be grateful that the story of the coming of Christ into the world, of the love and mercy of God in sending us His Son, is not being drawn into this miry world of image construction, spin, deceit and flogging tat. There is, after all an inherent contradiction between the "gotta-have-it" worldview of the advert, and the one who told us that it is "better to give than to receive".4

So, are we better off with the BACC's anti-Christian agenda, and the further driving of our Christian heritage from public space; or should we be grateful for the fact that Christ is not being used as a tool for selling tinsel? There is no obvious answer to that dilemma, but here is a radical suggestion. Perhaps the BACC should spend its time and money seeking to reform the culture of advertising, rather than doggedly pursuing its private ideological agenda. Perhaps if they did that, they might be able to pass adverts as fit-to-air, which have the transparent integrity fitting to be backed by a song about Christ.
Happy Winterval!
1. Ad Nauseum, Private Eye, No 1120, 11 Jan 2008, p11
3. As a Radio4 documentry last year demonstrated.
4. Acts 20:35



Any body that rejects Vaughan Williams but accepts Slade is clearly more than discriminating against you Christians, but is demonstrably ignorant.

Orchid said...

i've heard this before..was it last year, i forget...the united states declared it politically incorrect to wish people "merry Christmas" instead everywhere (at work, in the stores etc) you would hear people saying "happy holidays" !?!?!
thank god, it's back to merry christmas again and oh, I am a hindu but my christmas tree is up and my christmas cards are out!
Merry Christmas THM!

A. L. Scot said...

Someone should send the BACC a complimentary copy of the American Classic, "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!". However, I rather doubt they'd get the point...

Steg said...,,2230954,00.html

Link for you to a Polly Toynbee article about 'The banning of Christmas' She claims that a lot of the stories - including the renaming of Christmas 'Winterval' are urban myths.

As for the BACC - I'm interested - have you heard a reason for their decision? Personally I think using someone's sacred music to sell something is potentially quite offensive so if I were in charge of advertising OK OK unlikely I know) I'd probably make a similar decision.

And I'm not averse to the odd Christmas Carol.

Mike Jones said...

'Winterval' - was used in Birmingham in 1998.

'A council spokeswoman defended the name. "Birmingham City Council wants people to celebrate Christmas. Christmas is the very heart of Winterval," she said'

BBC website:

Steg said...

Winterval was used in Birmingham to describe a winter festival going on longer than just Christmas. It always gets held up as an example of people trying to rename Christmas, whereas it was actually intended to refer to something different.

Anonymous said...

Hi, this is not so related to your page, but it is the site you asked me 1 month ago about the abs diet. I tried it, worked well. Well here is the site