Cover reproduced with commentary here:

http://starlarvae.blogspot.com/2007/07/it-takes-village-to-raise-dead.html

I wonder if a unilateral “avoid ads with religious connotations” pacifies both sides satisfactorily–although it would have definitely prevented these kinds of ads (and the consequent offense) from airing.

Like the recent cease and desist order from the ASC could be misconstrued as restricting creative expression. Objectively though, the reference to prayer (i.e. “Give us this day”) can be pinned, but the liking of Pacquiao kneeling to Christ on the cross can be a bit of stretch. And there have been people that pointed out that Rooney’s ad was a spin on the British Union Jack and not Christ as well. This difference of opinion is what led me to study pareidolia later.

But I agree with your statement on respect. It really is a fine line between religious freedom and freedom of expression sometimes–and I think both are deserving of our respect on equal levels.

Agnostics and atheists are entitled to their own beliefs (or non-belief) and that is perfectly fine with me. I am entitled to my religious beliefs and I would take offense if a prayer and the cross that both have strong personal meanings to Christians and to me personally are used for something bordering on sacrilege.

On the aspect of local context, would Nike put a similar ad in Muslim Saudi Arabia that would allude to the Koran or Mohammed, for example? The “overly-zealous” (as called by aratron) populace there will immediately impose a death sentence on the infidels for insulting their religion. Is their response correct? Maybe not from a non-Muslim point of view. Do they have the right to feel offended? This non-Muslim thinks so.

To quote the related article that MTM last posted: “Context is the important factor to consider when facing similar cases of pareidolia–although the cause of the phenomenon is still debatable amongst researchers. In the case of the aforementioned Nike ad–pareidolia tendencies merge with intentional marketing to create the impact and arguably this is proving to be a very effective strategy although evidently some Christians do not enjoy the effect.”

The Wayne Rooney ad is gross for its shock effect. The Pacquiao ad is not gross but can be offensive to some Christians, regardless of whether there was intent or not from Nike.

Again, respect and sensitivity are the foundations of tolerance. And this applies to everyone – believers or agnostics.

Offense is the prerogative of the viewer, but jump from taking offense to taking ownership is quite a leap of faith don’t you think?

As you have mentioned, the impact (in your case: offense) of the act is dependent on the prevalance of Catholicism here in the Philippines. Does a localized context imply ownership?

What you should be probably asking: did Nike intend to offend you or Catholics by running the ad?

it is also widely known and that includes even the filipino art director who is most likely a catholic (given that 80% are in the country), that christ on the cross is central to the catholic faith.