Give Us This Day
December 9th, 2008 by cocoyFor a Catholic nation, apparently we don’t understand our Religion and Faith, at all. Take this campaign made by the awesome folks at Ogilvy Philippines:
Ogilvy was not allowed to use the tag “Give Us This Day” on public billboards and has been asked to cease the campaign. The reason? It was Blasphemous.
Seriously?
MLQ3 recently praised this ad campaign in his post The Right Fight, The Wrong Time. He said:
“No one has pointed out what a remarkable image, and what a remarkable campaign, this was…”
he goes on to say:
“Here in one image, all the the things that people think matters to people (including themselves):
1. Faith and Hope
2. Perseverance of the Underdog
3. The will to win of the Champion
4. Community & Solidarity
5. Material Success & its Manifestations
People were given the option of adding their personal “prayers, wishes or dedications” for Pacquiao. In one fell swoop, popular instincts were marshaled and put on display:
1. The Community Spirit
2. Patriotic Feeling (versus Nationalist Chauvinism)
3. Racial Vindication
4. Individual Empowerment
5. Religion’s Role in Everyday Life”
Now, for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why the tag “Give us this day” could be blasphemous. The Lord’s Prayer is etched in people’s minds so strongly that it is part of everyday life. And why shouldn’t it be, in this predominantly Catholic nation?
A quick google points us to this BBC post on religion and ethics. And it talks about the Lord’s Prayer:
Rivers of ink have been spilt over the exact meaning of “give us this day our daily bread”, because the word that’s used in the Greek is a very, very strange one that you hardly find anywhere else.
It probably means daily, it probably means the stuff we need to survive, but at least come people in the early church understood it to mean the bread we want for tomorrow or even the bread of tomorrow; “give us today tomorrow’s bread”.
And they thought that might mean “give us now a taste of the bread we shall eat in the Kingdom of God”: give us a foretaste of that great banquet and celebration where the universe is drawn together by Christ in the presence of God the Father.
And so that connects for a lot of Christians with Holy Communion. Of course, because Holy Communion is, at one level, bread for today, it’s very much our daily bread – the food we need to keep going – but it’s also a foretaste of the bread of heaven, a foretaste of enjoying the presence of Jesus in heaven at his table at his banquet, as the gospels put it.
So lots of meanings there, lots of layers. But I don’t think there’s one meaning that we just have to settle down with. The simple meaning keep us going, give us what we need is all we really need to go on. And yet as soon as we start unpicking that, we ask: well, what do we really need?
We don’t “live by bread alone” says Jesus himself, “but by every word coming from God’s mouth”.
We don’t live just by having our material needs fulfilled, we need something more: and one of the things more that we need is hope, hope for tomorrow.
And so perhaps that ghost of an idea, that shadow of an idea that this is also bread for tomorrow and tomorrow’s bread, can come in somewhere.
Now if the ad campaign had Anne Curtis in a seductive pose wearing only her birthday suit with the tag, “give us this day”, then it would neither be fit for an ad campaign nor public viewing and definitely not appropriate for the tag.
Not that any warm blooded male would mind such image.
There is nothing on this ad campaign that says it was blasphemous. In fact, it shows Pacquiao— and by extension, Filipinos’ religious devotion and how prayer and God is part of just about any Filipino endeavor, even prayer in public schools. It shows that we don’t live just by having our material needs fulfilled. We need something more.
As awesome as this campaign by Ogilvy is, apparently it will not qualify for a local creative award because of the cease order. It is vexing to waste such campaign. If I had to choose an ad campaign that depict the Filipino in all his fault and all his glory, at this particular junction in time, this would be it. For a Catholic nation, we ought to be proud of this rare and intelligent ad campaign. This campaign does not fall under the category of what should be censored. To think such image blasphemous is not only un-Filipino but only shows how myopic some people’s perspective is. The Filipino is far smarter than that, why do people insist on dumbing him down?
December 10, 2008 at 10:53 am
ding, i enjoy watching pacquiao fight, even if the last one was quite lopsided. a win is a win and in this case win or lose, he made a lot of money. i don’t like his politics or the idea of him joining politics. if he continues to box, great. if he chooses to retire right now and enjoy his life, i wouldn’t mind either.
i think whatever we think of pacquiao, we can suspend everything to see a fellow Filipino make something of himself. that itself is worth celebrating. i hope pacquiao never enters politics. it will be his undoing.
December 10, 2008 at 10:55 am
cocoy: Left to self regulation this nation becomes a conservative fundamentalist state that refuses to see beyond its provincial attitude. it refuses to challenge itself, to think, to explore, and more importantly to fail. This Philippine society refuses to discern and let freedom of expression stand and fall on its own merit.
Are you advocating that the government regulates us, cocoy? That government has a say in what an ad should or should not contain? If a private organization like the Ad Standards whatever cannot regulate its own members, who else is left but the government?
December 10, 2008 at 11:26 am
jeg,
quite the opposite. “yes”, to as little regulation.
this:
sounds too much like a law. how do you determine where the line is? Is it like that Pepsi suicide Ad that made such wave online just a week ago?
or how about this Rejoice Ad on YouTube:
which i’m certain will NOT stand in the Philippines. it is quite funny— but would you let minors see that?
or how about scantly clad men and women on edsa? is that crossing a line?
how about a catholic shooting a muslim? or vice versa? is that out of taste? is that crass?
let’s give people the chance to have a brain. to look at something and say, “this sucks”.
December 10, 2008 at 11:26 am
“This Philippine society refuses to discern and let freedom of expression stand and fall on its own merit.”
What expression? An expression contains value for the community and value to Manny’s skill and experience. The ad doesn’t contain any of these values: Mental Health, Spiritual Health, Physical Health and even Emotional Health. There’s nothing to express if the ad provided the opposite. Why even bother ? But I do like Manny’s muscular definition on his back. It looks hot :)
December 10, 2008 at 11:33 am
the strongest form of censorship is self-censorship, the kind of censorship the censorious like to promote.
but cocoy, the power of an image is its wham bang effect. and the wham bang effect of the image is: manny p. is our messiah.
December 10, 2008 at 11:33 am
So self-regulation it is, cocoy. I was just surprised to read your comment saying that we can’t regulate ourselves. How many products would an ad move if it featured something that potential buyers would find offensive? Or that would result in a backlash that would put the product in a bad light?
“Advertisements must respect religious beliefs, and be sensitive to the diverse religions, mores, culture, traditions, characteristics, historical background and identity of the various Filipino communities and uphold traditional Filipino family and social values.” sounds like a law, but it isnt. It’s the by-laws of a private club, so to speak. Let them regulate themselves.
December 10, 2008 at 11:34 am
and the wham bang effect of the image is: manny p. is our messiah.
I didnt get that at all, MLQ3. All I got was a guy praying, and an ad asking the potential Catholic buyers of Nike to pray with him.
December 10, 2008 at 11:39 am
in a democracy— we’re bound to run across people who believe quite the opposite of what we do. we’re going to ruffle feathers with our weird thinking.
zero regulation is also evil. think: having to protect minors from seeing racist, overtly sexual or gory images.
how about mature, crude jokes? i’m sure we can all agree that there should be some limitation imposed.
but tighten it all up too much— and you get zealotry and fundamentalist thinking. bottle up freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to make mistakes— and you get a nation of people who are down right mechanical and boring. bottle it all up and pretty soon everyone is thinking the same old thing.
too much regulation— as in this case i think is damaging.
December 10, 2008 at 11:42 am
LOL. see! nothing malicious about the ad!
December 10, 2008 at 11:43 am
mlq3,
thanks for the links.
17 lives were lost, including 3 civilians, (the number of civilians casualties may increase in numbers, who knows?) while others were bandits who used to belong to an elite police force.
The incident should have created a shock wave in the consciousness of our populace, but nobody in this blog has weighed in on the subject. We are more interested about a blasphemous ad, syntax errors in our textbooks and Pacquiao’s homecoming. We are a lost race.
December 10, 2008 at 11:45 am
leytenian,
i’d prefer anne curtis in her birthday suit. but hey, to each his/her own, right?
December 10, 2008 at 11:53 am
@riven. Yes.
Like I said, move his arms slightly inward, then it looks like he’s praying. As it is now, his pose (arms stretched, feet together, head slightly down) is channeling the image of the Big JC’s greatest act just a tad bit.
And yes, even a kindergarten can easily associate the phrase “Give Us This Day” to the Lord’s Prayer, you know, the only prayer with His approval.
December 10, 2008 at 11:54 am
i’d prefer anne curtis in her birthday suit. but hey, to each his/her own, right?
On a giant billboard along EDSA? Haha.
If an ad agency did that, their clients’ product would suffer a backlash. And so they won’t. That’s self-regulation. ;-)
December 10, 2008 at 12:24 pm
really? blasphemous.
seriously.
i look at this ad and see the following
1. surrender to god. pacqiuao kneelign. sign of surrender to god, dependence on god to bring him the victory and not by his own stregth but by god’s will. very christian message there.
2. hands outstretched. posed like christ stretched on the cross. sign of suffering for god’s glory. an imitation on christ. ready to be hurt in a battle for god’s win (with reference to god giving the win)
3. faith, trust. “the biggest fight of his life” and what do you see the man does to prepare for his battle, he falls on and depends on… a prayer, “give us this day”
totally too christian to be in an ad :) i see it banned for being too religious. not for being blasphemous.
December 10, 2008 at 12:25 pm
look, we’re in a country where the sloganeering of the church vs. reproductive health is “DEATHS” and where, only 10 or so years ago schindler’s list was almost banned in the theaters and i don’t know if you recall the fuss over the banning of “belle epoque.”
the semiotics of the poster’s clear. whether intended or not the image puts forward pacquiao as the brown messiah, the national redeemer, and invokes a national prayer for victory. awesome advertising, wrapping shoes in faith and flag.
and that gave someone somewhere in some sort of ad-regulating body the … well, scared the bejeezus out of them.
December 10, 2008 at 1:09 pm
63 response and probably more…the ads worked!
December 10, 2008 at 1:10 pm
and that gave someone somewhere in some sort of ad-regulating body the … well, scared the bejeezus out of them.
That someone was prolly an Adidas exec. :-D
December 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm
63 response and probably more…the ads worked!
Ogilvy himself measured an ad’s success if it actually moves products. He wanted the reaction not to be ‘What a great ad!’ but ‘Holy crap, where do I buy this?’
December 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Ogilvy himself measured an ad’s success if it actually moves products.
… by how many products it moves, I meant.
December 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“the strongest form of censorship is self-censorship, the kind of censorship the censorious like to promote.”
Yahahaha. But our entire literary community practices this, don’t you think? Self censorship should include “etiquette,” the demand for “polite behavior,” and stuff that goes under “it’s just not done.”
December 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm
kam1ya,
You use God’s name in vain… in a Nike ad… it’s blasphemous.
I think the ad is insensitive, and it’s the worst pandering I have seen in an ad.
December 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Parodies of the Lord’s Prayer abound. Marcelo H del Pilar wrote one.
BTW “give us this day our daily bread” according to ex-Jesuit seminarian Garry Wills has to be read in the timeless or aorist sense. He suggests that it really reads as
“the meal to come, give us this day”
This is closer to the Catholic belief on the Eucharist where Eucharistic sacrifice is not a repeat of the one on Calvary but it was as if that moment was beyond time.
December 10, 2008 at 9:07 pm
this is still being tame mlq3. the really blasphemous connotation from the image which was further reinforced by “give us this day” is that Manny Pacquiao = Jesus Christ. God incarnate. All-powerful. (Not all-knowing though.) that’s what scared the bejeezus out of them.
to those who are unable to see that connotation blessed be your innocent minds.
December 10, 2008 at 9:22 pm
December 10, 2008 at 9:32 pm
December 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm
The Ca t,
i am quite aware that there is ASC and that is why the ad was pulled because it “violated” their rules. i knew that before i wrote the blog. if you’ve read some of the posts above, you’d see that the particular section of what was violated was firmly discussed.
we’re here talking about it because i and a lot of people think that it doesn’t cross that line.
If i have to spell it out: Taliban = religious fundamentalism. in this case, by pulling this ban, it seems to me that we’re no better than the Taliban. where do you draw the line between censorship and not to censor?
i raised some examples in my comment above. they’re all existing. Kingdom Come for example has been published without complaint for 10 years. the book of revelation is quoted countlessly in that book. they even used the phrase “second coming” in relation to superman’s return. who else do we know that is expected for a “second coming”?
i don’t think the ad is such a big deal as the ASC and people like you believe it to be. my responses to jeg’s comments and his comments i suppose cover everything else.
December 10, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“What expression? An expression contains value for the community and value to Manny’s skill and experience. The ad doesn’t contain any of these values”
The freedom of expression may or may not contain value for the community. I am free to voice to out my dumb opinion anywhere and you have freedom to ignore it and voice your wiser opinion against it. If you voiced yours already and still found that I have no ounce of intelligence to grasp whatever you may have to say.
You have the freedom to vent out your frustration here. You have seen the ad, and right now you have the freedom to express your opinion that the ad is “CHEAP” here or anywhere else. So, will you give anyone the right to take that freedom away from you?
That is freedom of expression. This rather dumb expression of freedom to express has in all probability may not contribute value to the community but I have the freedom nonetheless.
Let a community or on a bigger scope – a country – suffer for its dumbness.
And if anyone thinks that most Filipinos in the Philippines are really dumb enough for the ad. *I dare you to examine genocide*. Cleanse this country of the lack of intelligence that is bringing a nation down.
December 11, 2008 at 12:37 am
Dumbfounded,
LOL, give me a break…
“to express your opinion that the ad is “CHEAP” here or anywhere else. So, will you give anyone the right to take that freedom away from you?”
CHEAP means , it has no VALUE. What freedom of speech? I’m not a writer or a journalist that make a living out of making an opinion. I could care less.
December 11, 2008 at 1:37 am
the use of the “taliban” in this debate is obviously calculated to arouse passion, not reason. it’s too bad the taliban still practices unenlightened brand of “fundamentalism”. indeed, its old, outdated ways of imposing traditional beliefs (which is usually marked by extreme ruthlessness, cruelty, violence and barbarism) makes analogizing with “taliban” a convenient strawman argument for this discourse.
the Christian/Catholic faith is way past such dubious practices of present-day taliban since the era of the crusades and the inquisitions. this is not saying, however, that the faith no longer treats certain words, acts and depictions blasphemous or sacrilegious.
the big difference is that with the taliban, you could commit sacrilege or blasphemy (according to their point of view) and suffer torture or death. not so with the Christians who will probably meekly ask you to stop and confess your sin to be forgiven.
December 11, 2008 at 3:04 am
@ cocoy on December 10th, 2008 9:49 pm
i think its was CAT who first revealed the mechanism why the ad was pulled (violation of ASC rules).
anyways, i totally feel for the trade-off in advertising standards. There must be a decision a consuming society must make :will there be standards? if yes then who will impose them?
i think u also said that SOME FORM of censorship is needed. the question is how much.
also, any system will make decisions at times that others may not agree with. Systems are not perfect. The question is whether the system is better than others, and whether on average it makes calls that many people agree with.
do you think that advertising is a function of development or background? There is a famous snickers commercial at last year’s superbowl, about manly men who are willing to do anything coz of snickers (be homosexual). This was pulled out. The US has standards too. Standards stricter than other european countries, which can be more explicit about sex in ads.
i think that we should be as radical as society allows in terms of ads, and we should try to push the boundaries a little each time.
some societies are squeamish about violence. some religion, others sex. As long as the industry is trying to expand our comfort space as a society, then thats as good an outcome as any. [you mentioned this too, when u argued self-regulation can be bad. true -- it can be, but industry self-regulation can be good coz industry players at least have an incentive to push the creative envelope whereas govt censorship has no interest in these things]
December 11, 2008 at 4:24 am
I do not think you know how standards are set and maintained among advertising companies which join professional organizations which give them the credibility they want and not just a fly-by-night promo and pr entities.
Because if you do, you will not be asking why.
The ASC serves as the member’s watchdog. All complaints about advertisements are coursed thru the council.
If the members do not want to be censured, all they have to do is to get out as member.
They drafted the Code like Code of ethics of other organizations to guide them , so why do you give deal about it as if it is again the workings of the government or the church.
It isn’t discussed in the commens because other commenters are also not clear why.
And i was the only one who posted the ASC Code of standards.
So if they violate that standards they set for themselves, does that mean there is already curtailing of freedom of expression?
You know,you should watch those advertisements that were banned all over the world shown once a year and you will get to see that it is NOT ONLY In the PILIPINS where ad censorship is strictly imposed. And ASC is not a local organization. It is an international organization. Our ad and marketing organizations must just be affiliate.
December 11, 2008 at 4:33 am
It is not an advertisement. The difference between the comics and the advertisement is that the latter’s end consumers are the public.
the comic targets only a segment of the consumer market. influence is not that high.
If you will understand the order, it is preventing the ad company to use the NIKE ad in billboards and public places.
Do these comics advertised in billboards.
Do you know how many millions can see the billboards as compared to those a few comic enthusiasts who will buy the comics.
Do you know the difference between an advertisement and the comics as to their goals, end consumers and impact?
December 11, 2008 at 6:09 am
bencard,
obviously, i disagree. the recent debate on RH Bill comes to mind. instead of good arguments, the Church raised Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. One such fundamentalist thinking is that article that came out of UST’s Varistian, labeling the bill, “Stalinist”. I blogged on it on that post “The One About the Defense of Every Life”
the local church has been successful in removing Marcos. It has also been instrumental in installing PGMA. they are powerful, even today.
December 11, 2008 at 6:24 am
i don’t disagree that industry self regulation is bad. i even think that government regulation will be far worst. i’m saying that in this case, the industry watchdog is wrong that they are not in fact, pushing the creative envelope.
if it was anne curtis in her birthday suit and it was strategically placed in edsa would the tag “give us this day”, i’m sure HEADS would turn and many would say it is too liberal. i might even agree depending on how it was done of course— because kids will see it and raises some question. and i’m sure all hell will be raised against that. i don’t think entirely it would be a bad thing either.
i apologize for that bit of segue. my point simply is that in this case— asc is wrong. there is nothing blasphemous about the ad. people didn’t even noticed it was blasphemous until it was mentioned. Saying it was blasphemous calls their judgement into question and it borders on being fundamentalist.
December 11, 2008 at 6:28 am
cocoy, you probably know something i don’t but, to be sure, i haven’t heard of any incidence of killing or torture perpetrated by the church in connection with the rh bill controversy. labeling the bill “stalinist” is probably as hyperbolic as calling a Christian’s sense of outrage over a blasphemy “fundamentalist” (with barbaric connotation).
whether or not the church is politically influential or powerful is irrelevant to this discussion.
December 11, 2008 at 6:36 am
The self-serving politics of FEAR that people play.
People say the Catholic Church must be bad because it incites fear in its pronouncements or admonitions.
But hey, fear is part and parcel of human nature. One can’t live without it.
Early on we are taught about fear and our fears. Fear of God. Fear of death or harm when we do reckless things. Etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Politicians play up on fears all the time. You do not vote for me, the country will come crashing to hell in a hand basket. Or, my opponent is the devil incarnate, vote for him and you ride with him to hell. Etc. Nothing wrong with that.
What counts is what you do with your fears, how you take and manage them, how you turn them to your advantage and welfare.
So the Church is not bad because it plays up on people’s fears. And definitely, cannot be compared to the Taliban where fears expressed actually translate to actual physical harm.
December 11, 2008 at 6:37 am
both are consumed by the public. everything is.
wonder who buys comic books. oh right, people with money and who likes to read. who buys Nike shoes, oh right, people with money too. same economic base.
that’s generally where people put ads, yes.
yes. though not in the philippines.
total comic book publication is in the order of several million comics a month. Batman alone sells about 200k copies a month worldwide. batman family of comics alone more or less sells about a million.
—
yes.
anyway, i apologize for that bit of segue. it was a poor choice to compare literature with advertising. my bad.
my point simply, as i’ve mentioned in my response to bencard is that in this case— asc is wrong. there is nothing blasphemous about the ad. people didn’t even noticed it was blasphemous until it was mentioned. Saying it was blasphemous calls their judgement into question and it borders on being fundamentalist.
December 11, 2008 at 6:54 am
This goes to the heart of the irony that is the Church. In the broader scheme of things it along with most organised religions turned what were once natural biological processes into dirty four-letter words. And once it succeeded in doing this, proceeded to turn this artificially-induced stigma into POWER.
When you are able to hypnotise an entire civilisation into loathing its own sexuality among others, and then claim to hold the key to redemption from this loathing, guess what: you’ve just hit on the most lucrative business venture on the planet.
December 11, 2008 at 7:36 am
benigno, the church did not coin the word “fuck”. recall our long discussions about free-will. far from what you are implying, again, that it’s all the church’s fault that mankind has developed over time a conscience and sense of right and wrong, the truth is that mankind has a choice (if he wanted to) to loath himself, and then to redeem himself through Jesus Christ(independent of any other outside entity).
December 11, 2008 at 8:11 am
“i haven’t heard of any incidence of killing or torture perpetrated by the church in connection with the rh bill controversy. ”
It’s because of the gains of the age of enlightenment that the christian churches can no longer get away with murder. But back in the dark ages, they killed and maimed and tortured…..the sad bit is while Christian fundamentalism is on the wane (at least outside redneck USA but who wants to live there?), Islamification is on the ascendancy..(religious people breed too fast and too many..)
We must ensure that religion does not dominate the common sphere again and we must continue the good fight.
And blasphemy? So fricking what? Let them weep and find offense in all things. For as long as we are a democratic republic, the freedom of expression should be protected.
December 23, 2008 at 4:30 am
blasphemy? i dont think so…. you know how religious Manny is.. whenever he wins fight the first thing he does is to he give glory and honor to our Lord Jesus Christ … He is the only boxer or endorser who prioritize God first..