Skip to content

Churches force FHM magazine off racks

Sat 2012-Mar-3 @ +08 16:39:51 pm

Singapore men’s lifestyle magazine FHM is being taken off the racks after heavy criticism from churches about two tongue-in-cheek articles in this month’s issue, entitled "Which of These Celebs Might Secretly be Jesus?" and "Jesus 2.0: What can we expect?".


Singapore’s churches described the articles as deplorable, because they "make fun of the Lord Jesus Christ" and were published in the holy season of Lent, when Christians remember the sufferings and sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

"They cause serious offence and hurt the sensitivities of the Christian community," said the National Council of Churches of Singapore, representing more than 150 churches of all denominations.

The magazine’s senior editor, David Fuhrmann-Lim, apologised on Friday for any offence caused, and said that "while the article was written with a tongue-in-cheek humour, we do realise now it was not done in the best taste or judgment. An apology was also posted on the magazine’s Facebook page.

Singapore’s media regulator, the Media Development Authority, said it is investigating the magazine "for possible breach of content guidelines".

Council president Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and three vice-presidents signed the statement, which noted that it had become "fashionable" to depict religions in the media in ways that are offensive to religious communities. The council urged that "society must be on guard against such trends".

FHM Singapore is a title produced by MediaCorp Publishing, which also publishes the Today newspaper. The company is part of the MediaCorp corporate group that grew out of Radio & Television Singapore, and operates nine television channels, 13 radio stations, a stable of 12 fashion, entertainment and lifestyle magazines, and other media businesses.

via Today online, AsiaOne

 

Advertisements
15 Comments
  1. Prem Das permalink
    Sat 2012-Mar-3 @ +08 17:05:50 pm 17:05

    Let the church that has not sinned cast the first stone.

    Let’s have a one minute’s silence for all those thousands of children abused by the paedophiles masquerading as men of the cloth.

    • Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 02:16:30 am 02:16

      Were Singaporean churches responsible for the abuse? Do the failings of clergy in one church then condemn all adherents of that faith? Must all denominations worldwide then stop defending their faith for the failings of some clergy in one denomination? Are there no abuses in other faiths? Are there no rapes or other sex crimes or abuses by Hindu or Buddhist priests or Muslim clergy? Casting the first stone is a universal principle. It applies to all. Bigotry is also universal, found in people of all faiths.

    • Prem Das permalink
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 09:23:31 am 09:23

      It is not always easy to come out with interesting ideas and articles that would engage the readers and advance the sale of a magazine or newapaper. If you offend the sensibilities of some readers and generate a lot of feedback it is often good publicity.

      But in this instance, it would seem that the religious types whose very existance is based on the generousity of the lay people of an order seem to have got their knickers all in a twist. They probably feel some judicious application of religous dismay is called for.

      In the real story, the Lord Jesus Christ, wasn’t just ridiculed. He was first humiliated, abused and tortured by making him carry his own cross on the way to Golgotha and then He was crucified. The final words He uttered were “Forgive them God for they know not what they do”. Obviously Council of Churches know what they are doing.

      On that fateful day on his way to his crucifiction, no Christian came to his aid when He collapsed even though the Bible tells us St Peter was in the crowd nearby. Only Simon of Cyrene sprang forward to help the Lord. The funny part is the Bible takes pain to point out that Simon was in fact a Non – Christian. I often wonder why that piece of information was considered relevant to be included in the Holy Book. It may probably have something to do with the fact that man the church may probably categorise as pagan has lived up to the highest aspirations of the Holy Book. The man’s name Mohandas Gandhi.

    • uppercaise permalink*
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 10:00:53 am 10:00

      Gandhi was no saint and not an object of worship. Your weird and crooked logic is quite telling, and your prejudices quite revealing.

    • Prem Das permalink
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 17:52:23 pm 17:52

      Did you proof read what you wrote ? You saying ‘Gandhi is not a saint’ is the be all and end all on the subject ? The world has to accept that as the gospel truth and make the necessary adjustments ?

      Do you happen to live in Woodbridge in S’pore by any chance ? If so let us agree to disagree and never contact each other again. Hell, lets not contact each other period.

      Prejudice indeed.

    • Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 19:38:24 pm 19:38

      Oh boy, you are totally weird.

    • Prem Das permalink
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 20:03:36 pm 20:03

      “Oh boy, you are totally weird.”

      You have billions of brain cells at your command and thats all you can come up with ?

      When you have to resort to name calling and insults, you have effectively given me the advantage or is that too much for you to comprehend?

    • Prem Das permalink
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 20:33:49 pm 20:33

      To all and sundry,
      I have been uneasy about how I have been behaving in this forum and I undertook a review and have to come to the conclusion I have been boorish, rude and arrogant. My abject apologies. I have abused the privilege of you all allowing me take part in this forum by behaving badly.

      Sorry guys.

    • uppercaise permalink*
      Fri 2012-Mar-9 @ +08 11:46:49 am 11:46

      Someone’s been having fun with cut and paste commentary, looks like.

  2. Lynn Cheang permalink
    Sat 2012-Mar-3 @ +08 22:13:09 pm 22:13

    I second that, Prem Das

  3. Sally Yeo permalink
    Wed 2012-Mar-7 @ +08 16:59:57 pm 16:59

    Many also second the cowhead foot stamping that caused major uproar amongst innocent communities who revered the Cow
    How do you feel prem das?
    Do you still wish to talk abt stone throwing?

    • Prem Das permalink
      Wed 2012-Mar-7 @ +08 20:48:42 pm 20:48

      Where did you get ‘major uproar’ ? That incident passed off with hardly a peep from the community concerned which had the wisdom and maturity to not associate it with anything they hold sacred.

      Since you asked, I do not feel anything. And importantly, I did not throw any stones.

      I do not know what your beef is. To not apportion blame or practise hypocracy is an important exhortation in your OWN Bible or do you reject or dispute the ‘revealed knowledge’ the basis of your entire belief system. The same system that mantains that Heaven is the private preserve of persons of your ilk, meaning Christains and the rest are bound for Hell. There is a word in the Dicionary that describes this philosophy exactly. It is bigotry.

      If these things were said about you, about not being worthy of God’s Grace, what would you feel? Do we remontrate or condemn you. We do not. Therein lies the difference.

  4. Wed 2012-Mar-7 @ +08 23:43:42 pm 23:43

    lm sorry Prem, coz lm not a christian as you have wrongly assumed. l dont believe in religion
    However l believe that we should not have cynical sarcastic gestures towards people of other faith or for that matter, belittling other religion.
    So you have ppl doing foot stamping cowhead just to proof a point
    Why must religion be used as a source of hatred or distrust?

    • Prem Das permalink
      Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 09:40:24 am 09:40

      In this world, nothing matters but self interest and in that pursuit nothing is allowed to stand in the way.

      It’s dog eat dog world where fair mindedness, honesty and truth fall by the wayside. Those who do not have the killer instinct will not succeed.

  5. Prem Das permalink
    Thu 2012-Mar-8 @ +08 20:13:13 pm 20:13

    The honorific “Saint” is not an instrinsic quality of a man like an arm or a leg but something that is bestowed upon by consensus by the his peers.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: