Russian Christians boosted by Pussy Riot law spank 'sinful' Apple logo Apple has been criticised before - but never for promoting original sin. Seemingly emboldened by upcoming national legislation on blasphemy, Russian Orthodox Christians have defaced the logos on Apple products because they consider the bitten Apple to be anti-Christian, says Russian news agency Interfax (in Russian). The …
Those wacky God-botherers , what will they get up to next.
Whinging about Spongebob Squarepants apparently!
From what I remember, in medieval English "apple" didn't refer to apples as we know them today, instead it was a word that applied as a generic term to fruit. It was only later when this generic term for various fruit was applied to a single type and became the apple we know and love.
"I seem to recall it was originally a fig tree anyway."
It would be appropriate. God Hates Figs, etc.
This post has been deleted by its author
Many organisations change their logo or name to avoid causing offence in certain cultures. The Red Cross is the Red Crescent in some countries, and, in the UK, Robertson's jam dropped the gollywog (am I allowed to use that word without traumatising delicate El Reg readers?) some years back to avoid offending shoppers.
Cuddly toys are offensive in the UK. Crosses are offensive in Islamic countries. Bitten apples might be offensive in Russia. Get over it. Just adapt to people whose values are different from your own.
> Just adapt to people whose values are different from your own.
I have no intention to adapt to people whose value is being professionally offended in the name of $DEITY and who go out of their way to tell me about it in no uncertain terms. I would rather use a daisy cutter on them.
"... I would rather use a daisy cutter on them."
And there we go. Each side is as bad as the other.
You know you could just say you don't agree or put forward as rational reason why it should be different.
Or of course we could all go back to just flinging faeces around the cage and civilisation be damned.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes, I had one as a child in the 70s. The racist, sexist, homophobic 70s - just look at some of the TV sit-coms that can't be shown anymore and wonder if this time is to be held up as a paragon of virtue where everything was right and proper.
Golliwogs are grossly offensive you'll be hard pushed to find anyone - particularly anyone who isn't white, generally anti PC, male and commenting on the internet - who will defend them.
> Golliwogs are grossly offensive you'll be hard pushed to find anyone - particularly anyone who isn't white, generally anti PC, male and commenting on the internet - who will defend them.
A shop near me had them for sale quite recently. There was a huge fuss made by the council (any prizes for guessing we're in Lib Dem land here?) and by the shopping centre and by various local mouthpieces who all wanted them banned from sale.
The local rag got involved, went out and quizzed a whole ton of black (coloured,negro,african,whatever pick your own damn word) people as they went past the shop. Nearly all of them couldn't give a shit that it was for sale and supported the shop keepers right to sell them. They, like most of us, had grown up and moved on. It's no more offensive than a Barbie doll is to a thin, blonde white woman.
@Valerion - Go and look how golliwogs have been used in literature - Enid Blyton in particular. If you are not offended and think that it's all great, that's fine however a lot of people are seriously offended.
There was a Richard Herring's Objective on Radio 4 about the golliwog, I suggest you look it up. The program deals with the situation with humor, trying to rescue things which have been lost to us, or that are deemed offensive. The only one in two series that they have not been able to "rescue" was the golliwog, it just carried too much baggage.
I'll defend them because a doll can't hurt anyone. Freedom of expression and art doesn't just apply to what some people like. Many people find violent video games to be obscene and offensive. Should we ban those? I guess frankie boyle should be hung for making a career out of being offensive.
Btw, you can still find them for sale. Usually in rubbish areas. I saw them at great Yarmouth and ironically one of the shops selling them was operated by someone with brown skin. I think most people realise it's a relic from the past and don't really care about them. Especially if they can earn cash from it.
If you think that a caricature can't hurt anyone, why do you suppose that they're used so often in propaganda?
It may not be a case of seeing a golliwog and presuming that all the people represented by them are some silly comical stereotype, it's more subtle and pernicious than that. It's part of a slow drip, drip, drip eroding decent opinions and portraying "others" as not the same and not worth as much as "us". Were it to be an outright racist slogan, I would probably have less of a problem with it, you can see this and react against it, giving a child a toy which degrades others is much more damaging in the long run.
Gollywogs (soft toys based loosely on exaggerated African stereotypes) were found in every child's bedroom in Britain 50 years ago but are now widely regarded as grossly offensive to the point where a broadcaster and daughter of a former prime minister recently lost her job for comparing an interviewee to one.
I think it was always the comparison that was considered grossly offensive. The dolls just got caught in the cross-fire. That is, it was easier to remove all the dolls from society than remove all people who were wont to make offensive comparisons. (Perhaps the latter approach would probably have been better in the long term.)
The difference here is that people from Africa actually exist, and it can be demonstrated that the soft toys you mention are an offensive racial stereotype, whereas the offensive nature of the bitten apple only exists inside the heads of a few people who chose to find the image offensive, and as such has no basis in reality.
There's a apple in my fruit bowl right now. Better not take a bite out of it in case a christian is walking passed my window and see it.
Cultural Sensitivity? Bollox - These people make a profession out of being offended.
If we adapt to everyone whose values are different then where does it end? Personally I'm offended by women having to walk down the street dressed as ninjas in case I can't control myself and jump them, I don't see Islam bending over to not offend me?
This is not Russian cultural sensitivity, this is a small sub-culture of Russia.
In all cultures, UK and Russia included, you'll find some bunch of loons who'll invent something to be offended by any logo you wish to use. Part of what binds these sub-cultures together is the idea that the rest of society is on a secret mission to annoy and persecute them. So they're often eager to find "evidence" of this.
Fortunately for the rest of society we are allowed to ignore them. Pandering to their disillusion only encourages them to up the stakes on the next "offence".
There's a world of difference between respecting cultural norms, and kowtowing to a bunch of loudmouth looney fanatics because they have sand in their manjinas over a symbolic representation of a piece of fruit.
If religious people would only grow the hell up I might not hold them in such contempt.
I hate to be on the side of Apple, and I may be wrong (I am an atheist) but I seem to remember being taught that there was no mention of an apple being the fruit, and that there are various theories about what the fruit was (fig, olive, grape, pomegranate...) but nothing conclusive.
I guess early Christians were just rather unimaginative, picking apples of all things, and that has compounded over the years to produce these mental Russian ones.
"I'm sure someone will take Comfort in that comment. :)"
Maybe that someone is this guy: Ray Comfort AKA Banana man.
D'oh icon because, well, watch the video and you'll see why.
Looking at the state of religion in the USA, fundamentalism is the religion of the Free Market - i.e. in the FM, one idea is as good as another until more people invest more money in it. Science is the exact opposite - if a few tens of people agree with the theory of Evolution and a few millions don't, the free market says Evolution is bunk, and Science asks who has the best evidence.
The amazing thing about Paul Broun is how few people are demanding his recall, not how many.
> Implying that the USA or Russia have a "free market"
> Implying that the end result of capitalism is Saudi Arabia
> Implying that "Science" is pure and unadulterated and a grounding force. Lyssenko or Nazi doctors may want to chat with you.
> Implying that anyone even knows who Paul Broun is or that people are bothered by the crud they elect.
Really now.
Someone once said with a bit too much flourish:
"Capitalism demands the best of every man — his rationality — and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity. ....
In this complex pattern of human co-operation, two key figures act as the twin-motors of progress, the integrators of the entire system, the transmission belts that carry the achievements of the best minds to every level of society: the intellectual and the businessman. ....
It is on this fundamental division of labor and of responsibility that the intellectual has defaulted. His twin brother, the businessman, has done a superlative job and has brought men to an unprecedented material prosperity. But the intellectual has sold him out, has betrayed their common source, has failed in his own job and has brought men to spiritual bankruptcy. The businessman has raised men’s standard of living—but the intellectual has dropped men’s standard of thought to the level of an impotent savage."
Anyone who has to quote Ayn Rand as evidence of anything has already lost the argument. For the invalidity of the quote, you just have to look around you and then tell me where in the world " men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another"
The "Free Market" is as big a fairytale as "true Communism" or "real Christianity". It's an ideology used as a fig leaf for very nasty goings on. As was discovered by Ayn Rand when it dumped her to survive on the Government handouts she railed against.
Read the Bible. Basically that's how it works: the Scribes and the Pharisees were just different breeds of lawyers and Jesus was dispatched "judicially".
I think Terry Pratchett has a joke somewhere that gods can't really aim lightning very well, so when someone gets hit they just announce "See what happened to the sinner!"
This post has been deleted by its author
>>> It's a warning about the abuse of state power (in an unsustainable empire) against people who advocate sharing, being nice, and other "socialist" ideas.
Is it? Are you sure? Because I don't think that's the answer you'll get from any Christian, unless it's a liberal priest playing word games.
It is a symbol of Christ's sacrifice, which brought about the redemption of mankind. Of course a thoroughly repellant and immoral concept: the idea that vicarious redemption by way of the brutal torture and murder of a 3rd party is somehow an ethical precept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg
No, we can see it for the primitive and dark reminder of human sacrifice that the Christians themselves confirm it to be.
Either that, or it's a reminder not to trust them damn dirty Christ killing Jews, one of the two.
It's worth pointing out that the blasphemy law in Russia is a lot more complicated than what it, on the surface, appears to be. The Putin government (regime?) have looked to manipulate the church as a means of gaining control which was lost when communism fell. The whole Pussy Riot thing sums it up in a nutshell, from the outside a fairly poor band break into a church and protest. From the inside, they protest in one of the most sensitive churches and against a still popular a controlling leader.
Anyway, as a Christian, I'd just like to say: Apple logo, offensive? WTF?
Bullshit. The Church is being manipulated by the Kremlin? You must be joking. How about they're both in it up their eyeballs, a symbiotic relationship of Church and State if there was ever one. Don't apologize for the appalling actions of your fellow faithful sheep. The Russian Orthodoxy has been aching for a chance to get back on the horse, and now - it's true with the full and mutual support of Putin and his cronies - they see their opportunity.
If Russia passes the anti-blasphemy law they're talking about, it shall have to be said that the country is properly fucked and will be for rather longer than the post-Soviet Glasnost had given hope for. It could already easily be said on the evidence of the appalling judicial result of the Pussy Riot case.
@Badmonkey - You could go away and learn even the tiniest bit of Russian history before joining in, you know...
I'm not apologising for the actions, I find them offensive, but it's not by a long shot every Christian in Russia and it's not as simple as is portrayed, there is a lot more going on here.
Maybe you could go away and come to the realization, in your own time of course, that holding religious faith in the face of the opportunities of modern education is really a rather inexcusable failure of intellect for anyone that's not completely stupid these days.
And that doing so, despite all evidence and reasoning that confronts you, is likely to lead to apologist bullshit in support of the usual suspects operating in the shadows of the churches in times and places they feel they can get away with it. Like the UK of old and, it would seem, Putinist Russia.
"Maybe you could go away and come to the realization, in your own time of course, that holding religious faith in the face of the opportunities of modern education is really a rather inexcusable failure of intellect for anyone that's not completely stupid these days."
I'd like to see the TV programme where badmonkey dukes it out with Julia Neuberger, Rowan Williams, Jo Bell-Burnell, and the Dalai Lama. It's a pity Edward Said is dead, he'd have made a good addition.
There's religion and religion. And the problem with blanket absolutist statements is that they just tend to demonstrate that the person making them doesn't know as much about the world has he thinks he does.
Where do I sign up?
>>> There's religion and religion.
That's true. And my rhetoric is absolutist it's also true. I am attacking our friendly AC Christian's sneaky attempts to blame the Putinist thugs and their politics, trying to cleverly shift the responsibility away from his or her godly colleagues in the east where it properly lies in an entangled mess of hypocrisy, corruption, ignorance and superstition, and a continually unfortunate apathy on the part of the Russian people.
Is that the best you can do? A pathetic ad-hominim attack that runs along the lines of "You're not that smart, you could have been educated, but you're not, that's why you're a Christian."
Pathetic and ironic that you can't argue better, what with your claimed position of superior education.
I had always assumed the logo was deliberately chosen to resonate with the image of acquiring forbidden knowledge in Genesis. It would be something of a leap to view it as anti-Christian, although some will consider the use of religious symbology by anyone other than themselves 'blasphemy'.
As for those protesting about the use of a crucifix, you're coming off just like the very people you object to.
For my part, I'd always assumed that it was just a picture of an apple. Y'know, having just called his company Apple Computer Co, for want of a unique name, he then chooses a picture of an apple as the logo because, well what else is he going to use? Taking a bite out of it was as far as his imagination went in that department. Frankly he had more important areas in which to direct his creative energy.
An apple with a bite out of it looks more striking than an unbitten one; it's a great logo. Apple's first logo was a picture of Isaac Newton sitting under the tree, but it was rather too elaborate.
I doubt they had any offense at western religion in mind. Steve Jobs was Buddhist, after all, not one to think much about Genesis.
I'm depressed but not surprised to be the only poster who thinks that respecting other cultures is a good starting point. How would we in the sophisticated West respond to a company that used a Swastika as a logo? Or one that reinvented an ancient fertility symbol of an erect human member engaging with a bull? Or one that put a picture of a naked child on its products.
Any of these images would be very likely to breach the law in the UK, but have been regarded as completely acceptable by other people in different places at different times. But I don't hear outraged voices accusing our government of outrageous censorship.
Oh, wait... I forgot. Our culture is the Only True Way. All other cultures are primitive and deserve nothing but mockery, contempt and, possibly, description by a bemused anthropologist,
>>> How would we in the sophisticated West respond to a company that used a Swastika as a logo
If you mean the Nazi version, then, ummn, I suppose most would react in a way that would be appropriate for the use of a symbol of the Third Reich National Socialists and their associated crimes, the history of which is well known and still well remembered by some.
As opposed to a bite out of an apple which may or may not refer to a superstitious creation myth, which involves an unspecified type of fruit in a fantasy book written 2500 years ago by disparate and contradicting authors the content of which which has no basis in reality, you mean?
@aahjnnot: you're not the only one, it just gets to be rather trying here when you attempt to hold a position based on respect of others' culture. For all the protestations of being liberal (small l) and tolerant that commenters make here, it's depressing how often you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between reg and daily mail comments. Often I just don't bother.
It seems to me that the apple image serves as a warning of original sin (in the same way as skull images in cemetaries as momento mori).
To apply it to technological shinies should warn the faithful of the risks associated with following one heart's desire.
"How would we in the sophisticated West respond to a company that used a Swastika as a logo? Or one that reinvented an ancient fertility symbol of an erect human member engaging with a bull? Or one that put a picture of a naked child on its products."
Hmm. The 'swastika', albeit the other way round, is a centuries-old Bhuddist symbol for peace. Some folks, ignorant of history, take exception to it. As for ancient fertility symbols, reinvented or otherwise, how could anyone be offended? Unless, of course, they're ignorant of history. And the manufacturers of nappies routinely feature naked (well, apart from a proprietary nappy) children on their product packs and adverts.
Amazing what some people can get needlessly riled up about. Me, I'm shocked and offended by all those nudes in art galleries. I demand that they be turned to the wall. Think of the children, please!
Are you seriously suggesting that people should not remember the Nazis when they see a swastika? Really?
Most people know it's a centuries old peace symbol, but Hitler did rather ruin that for everyone and the association with extermination camps and a truly terrible world war does rather stick in the mind.
A new law currently working its way through the Russian Parliament in the wake of the case of the Pussy Riot punk rock group would make it illegal to insult religion in the country
In the space of 20 years, it's amazing how Russia went from being secular/communist to a country where speaking out against organised religion gets you time in chokey...
Bible bashers of all persuasions can burn in their respective hells.
They weren't protesting against organised religion, they were protesting about the re-election of Putin.
And your last line... why? What have I done to offend you?
Let me go at that again. First the Reg said: A new law currently working its way through the Russian Parliament in the wake of the case of the Pussy Riot punk rock group would make it illegal to insult religion in the country
So then I said: In the space of 20 years, it's amazing how Russia went from being secular/communist to a country where speaking out against organised religion gets you time in chokey...
So it can be clearly seen that I didn't mention Pussy Riot, the Reg did.
To be perfectly bloody honest I'm offended by people proclaiming to be offended because someone slagged off their God/multi-armed elephant/Allah/whatever.
I wish someone would invent a law to spare my feelings from you lot.
Not everyone shares your views - get over it.
"The band's members ... insisted that their protest was political rather than religious in its nature."
Since when is religion not political? This law and its application is certainly not about religious beliefs, per se, only the creation of another tool for use by those in power to maintain that power.
So yeah, The Bible never even mentions an apple but even if it did - how can something that is IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE (ie the idea/story of Original Sin) be insulting to the Christian faith?? They're basically saying that The Bible is insulting - I mean, I happen to agree about that, but I think these people have not thought their argument through.
If we were talking about Bible-belt America, I'd believe it. But I'd expect orthodox christians to be not only a little more smarter, a little more nuanced... I wouldn't expect them to get caught up in trivialities - especially those that don't actually feature in biblical semiotics.
I suspect that this is an anti-orthodox campaign made to look like it's the orthodox church doing it whilst invoking Poe's law. Could be protestors, rival mobile makers, Apple marketing strategy, anti-theist activists or just trolls.
To convey how ludicrous it sounds to an actual Christian; imagine Apple suing Samsung for copying the iPhone's ability to load a custom rom - it just doesn't make sense and is technically not supported by an facts.
I'm at a loss to understand why folk base all their beliefs on a book of legends, translated from different languages multiple times. In the Bible it states that those without beards should be put to death and that your children can be sold as slaves. You'd be hard put to find a Christian who supports those views but the bit about men not 'lying' with other men has to be adhered to without question. It's all hypocritical bullshit, all of it.
I'm of the opinion that religion has done nothing to benefit the world at all, it has stunted our development as a species, been responsible for millions of deaths and even today is the cause of more conflict than any border dispute or sabre rattling. It's used as an excuse across the world to bring death and despair, the repression of women and persecution of minorities. I'm heartily sick of it, this apple bitten bollocks is just another example of why we're going backwards not forwards.
If we are born with original sin then we cannot choose to have or not to have it. We cannot commit more original sin, nor can we commit less of it.
Therefore the concept of "promotion" of it is meaningless as there is no decision to be made.
I would push it a little further and say that if there is something we have no control over like this then god is being a bit churlish if we wind up getting punished for it.
It seems some people go out of their way to find things that offend them, or don't adhere to their view of the world. If you feel offended by something, as yourself this: is your faith or belief so weak that it is so easily threatened by such things? if so I suggest either you grow a pair and accept we all need a thick skin in life, such that we can coexist, or give up the religion you clearly have so little faith in that you need a government to defend your position.
All i've ever asked of people who hold strong beliefs is acceptance and tolerance of those whose views of the world differ from yours, If your faith is strong this will be easy for you, if it is weak you will feel the need to attack those who don't agree with you.
Wtf is wrong with these stupid people?
And why worship a deity who has promised to fuck us all up good n proper come the last chapter of his `training manual`?
Anyone who see`s the bible as anything other than a set of parables and rules to keep a primative society`s ignorant populace in check is rather deluded.
It was (is) also handy for giving believers an excuse to murder, rob and subjigate anyone they didnt like without any comeback or guilt.
"A new law currently working its way through the Russian Parliament in the wake of the case of the Pussy Riot punk rock group would make it illegal to insult religion in the country"
Fantastic! I could invent a new religion and get anything I wanted banned!
I might start by banning sobriety.
"Seemingly emboldened by upcoming national legislation on blasphemy, Russian Orthodox Christians have defaced the logos on Apple products"
I don't see the connection between those two events ..
"Pussy Riot band .. members staged an anti-Kremlin protest in Moscow's main cathedral"
Why didn't they protest in the Kremlin, what has chicken molestation got to do with politics? Now if she had tried to insert the chicken into Putin, that would have been something to see ...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
