I Don't normally Get Angry at Advertisements

I have been trying advertising on social media and it is an interesting exercise. It is an advert for a Christian conference about cults and new religious movements in September. Someone helpfully pointed out I might like to think about my strategy given the hostile emojis and unhelpful comments I have received. Of course, I rely on Facebook to choose my audience according to the declared purpose of my page and its regular content. Perhaps they're not doing such a good job, maybe there is something I can do to manage that, but...

It's a Christian ministry page and my personal FB account carries a fair amount of Christian/religious content, as you might imagine. That being the case, I get all kinds of 'suggested' post, emails to my ministry email account, things I regard as not interesting, or not 'appropriate.' From ads for success-building advertising funnels to invitations to New Age conferences, past regression therapy, even a ride on a spaceship to meet my forefathers from another galaxy.

I pass on without comment, I delete as I see necessary. I don't throw a hissyfit, or hurl insults at those people posting, because I don't get angry at an advertisement. When I get leaflets, adverts, menus, etc. through my door they all go in the recycling. I don't call up every organisation and complain, 'What are these leaflets doing coming through my door?! I am offended! Where is my safe space?'

It seems, however, there is a population on social media that is determined to take offence where none is offered, and I find that curiously interesting.

Is this a mental health problem? Have we raised a whole generation convinced they have a right to not be offended, to not see or hear anything that might bruise their tender little hearts? Is the current generation imprisoned in a continuous state of peripubescence, of teen angst, capable of expressing itself only in terms of shallow petulance, and spite?

Is this a specific expression of neo-atheism? I know Richard Dawkins has, for many years, encouraged his acolytes to mock religion at every opportunity. Can we do anything to help these poor people who seem incapable of seeing something they don't like, are not interested in engaging, and just walking on?

I can't help but think about the sleepless nights they must endure as they turn over in their minds 'what has offended me today?' Indeed, it seems amazing to me they manage to fulfil their work and family commitments given their demanding commitment to complaining. Do they laugh as they point mockingly at someone on the street that has caught their attention?

Are there regular, real world gatherings outside the homes and businesses of folk unfortunate enough to unwittingly look, think, or speak in a way that has offended the mob? Or is that too much reality for them?

Actually, this behaviour has spilled over into the real world. From Christian bakers to street preachers, from those holding traditional family values to those regarding human life as sacred, from farmers and their traditional practices to meat eaters and their personal tastes, all have provoked the ire of the determinedly offended, always ready to put the rest of us right. How did we ever manage to live before they came along?

What is social media making of us? It has brought together people who would otherwise have never known each other, who have gone on to create a complaining critical mass of the traditionally isolated, historically localised, Marxist ‘we know best’ brigade.

It’s a jungle out there, predation the every day experience of anyone with a faith, an opinion, strong convictions, or a ham sandwich. Time was you simply walked away and got on with things. We have to find a new way of dealing with the know-it-alls in this wacky new world where your next word or thought might find you socially mugged.

The mob is the mother of tyrants - Diogenes

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog