Logo of the Year

April 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm by David Farrar

logo

This is not a hoax, but the above logo was the official logo for the 1973 Catholic Church’s Archdiocesan Youth Commission.

I need to stop laughing before I actually damage something.

Hat Tip: Dim-Post

Tags:

36 Responses to “Logo of the Year”

  1. Ruth (178 comments) says:

    Somewhat related – you may be interested in this David – http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/embryonic_stem_cells_could_cur.php

    Stem cell research could cure blindness and macular degeneration. This is wonderful news, especially since MD is hereditary in my family. Of course the Catholic Church are opposed – as they have been opposed to scientific development for centuries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    maybe they were being ironic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mara (752 comments) says:

    OTOH, blind folk would be spared seeing this spectacularly, heroically ill advised logo. What were they thinking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Komata (1,142 comments) says:

    So that was in 1973, when things were ‘simpler’ (no, don’t go there please) – and in 2009 the logo looks like . . . ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. psw1959 (11 comments) says:

    May be its signaling theory at work. Back in 1973 they may have been tiring to tells us something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    is that kid giving the priest a blowie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Think this may have been originated in the Boston, MAS Diocese.

    Anyway, looks like all the marketing worked very well for those Priests.

    So all in all a highly successful campaign, with a long tail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    Similar to the Office of Government Commerce logo:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1901656/OGC-unveils-new-logo-to-red-faces.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. JakeQuinn (15 comments) says:

    oh god, that OGC one is classic!! :) thanks for sharing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    If was a betting man I’d put my money on “that this is a hoax” and you have sucked in because of your anti catholic bigotry.

    But we will see how this plays out shall we.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    Heh but I don’t imagine the OGC one is a hoax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. andrei (2,532 comments) says:

    Well I was wrong it looks like it is genuine – Designed for the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 1974 by Jerry Kano design

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bharmer (686 comments) says:

    andrei (113) Vote: 1 2 Says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
    “If was a betting man I’d put my money on “that this is a hoax” and you have sucked in because of your anti catholic bigotry.
    But we will see how this plays out shall we.”

    Andrei got at least the first part wrong and has admitted it. Given your own sensitivity to anti-semitic material David, I share his disappointment, at your readiness to join this bandwagon.

    At one level I can see the flaws in the ambiguity of the graphics, but my guess is that the white elements at the bottom part of the design are intended to be symbolic of both young people, and the chalice and host which are a recurring theme in this kind of symbology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    They should have put smiley faces on them, no wait!…not on the priest!!, on the kid so we know which way the non gender specific child is facing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gladstone (38 comments) says:

    S.Barunda – you would prefer that the child had his back to the priest? Not necessarily an improvement, I’d have thought!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. gladstone (38 comments) says:

    bharmer said “Given your own sensitivity to anti-semitic material David, I share his disappointment, at your readiness to join this bandwagon”

    That’s true David. Ask yourself, “Would Bill English laugh?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Don the Kiwi (1,649 comments) says:

    Ruth.
    The Catholic Church is not – repeat NOT opposed to Stem Cell Research, and in fact is one of its strongest supporters.
    The Catholic Church is opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell Research, because it involves the destruction of fertilised ovum – human life at its inception, and therefore morally unacceptible.
    Embryonic Stem Cell research has achieved nothing to date, whereas adult Stem Cells have produced over 70 medical advances and counting.
    A tecnique has been developed with normal stem cells which provide the benefits that the medical fraternity is hoping to achieve with embryonic stem cells, which now makes embryonic stem cell research redundant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rebel Heart (249 comments) says:

    # andrei (113) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 4 Says:
    April 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    If was a betting man I’d put my money on “that this is a hoax” and you have sucked in because of your anti catholic bigotry.

    If I was a betting man I’d put my money on “you only thought that this was a hoax because you’re religious” because of your anti-anti-Catholic bigotry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Shunda barunda (2,966 comments) says:

    “S.Barunda – you would prefer that the child had his back to the priest? Not necessarily an improvement, I’d have thought!”

    Great wobbling waazoobees!!! I’ve made a grievious error!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. The Stig (34 comments) says:

    You clearly haven’t seen the logo of London’s 2012 Olympics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics#Logo

    Just think of Lisa Simpson…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    Now I have been primed by all your comments I think the Olympic logo is very suggestive, though I can see how clever the idea of turning 2012into a logo is, very neat … but sadly suggestive :-) It could be rotated 90 degrees left too…. or maybe 90 right depending on your inclinations .. get the pun?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    Ruth, donthekiwi is correct. The Catholic Church is opposed to embryonic stem cell research – that is research using the bodies of aborted fetuses. Actually, there is really no need for this research, as our own Kiwi scientists have shown that the same can be done using stem cells from a patients own nose; less chance of rejection and the scientist spoken to is confident that spinal injury patients will walk again using the technique –

    The procedure involves extracting nerve tissue from a volunteer’s nose and inserting this into the injured area of the spinal cord.Ms Vallis said the procedure offered no controversy over the source of cells because it involved a transfer of the patient’s own cells.

    “It’s similar to a skin graft, so there is no need for complex anti-rejection drugs,” she said.

    “While doctors in other countries have actually made a start with these procedures, we have made use of the delays here, to continue studying the behaviour of human cells in our lab,” she said.”We are probably ahead of other countries in this knowledge.”

    “I now believe it will be in my lifetime that people will go into hospital with a spinal injury and walk out a few months later just as though they’d experienced a broken leg,”‘ Spinal Cord Society chairwoman Noela Vallis said tonight.

    As I posted over at NZ Conservative, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with science as long as it doesn’t override moral laws. The below from the Catholic Catechism –

    “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    ps, our country/world really is in a sad state when there are no male role models/teachers in schools. I remember hearing a priest tell a story about going to visit a school that he often went to visit. He had a great rapport with the kids and was much beloved. Anyway, this particular day he only had time to pop in and out, so he snuck in, and dropped something off and was leaving when the kids spotted him. He made the mistake of trying to outrun them and they thought it was a game and ran after him. They ended up catching him and when the teachers went to ‘save’ him, he was out in the courtyard with his arms out like a scarecrow with kids hanging all off him.

    It’s an indictment on our society when a male teacher can’t put his hand on a kids shoulder or show any kind of gesture of support like that, but I guess that’s the world we now live in.

    Kids are the worse off for it though: there are not nearly enough male teachers. I guess they’ve all been scared off.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Komata (1,142 comments) says:

    Fletch

    No, not scared – villified by the radical femininsta’s who have been operating the New Zealand education system for the last nine or so years. You know the ones – the Labour Party supporters and acivists in place at the Department of Education, who have convinced themselves Men = Bad, Women (sorry, Wimmen) = good, and have subtly pushed the socialist anti-family, anti-male agenda in schools, making bad good, and good bad (aka ‘Animal Farm).

    They have of course be willingly and actively aided and abetted by the ‘sweet young things’ who have graduated from this country’s universities, during this period, and who, because of the aforesaid ‘man bad, wimmen good’ philosophy drummed into them at these institutions, see every male teacher as a potential threat.

    This state is exacerbated when on becoming mothers, they go into super-protective mode and decide unilateraterly that ALL males in education are bad – especially at the pre-school and primary level, and reach such a state of hysteria that we have cases like the Christchurch Civic Creche.

    Meanwhile the Education Department lesbian man-haters quietly stoke the anti-male fires (they’re very good at it), then sit and watch as things self-destruct, and another perfectly good male teacher is destroyed.

    Remember: Mean = Bad, Wimmen = good (and Deviance even better, but that is for another time and place)

    It is, at base, all about destroying the place of the male in society, minimising his God-given authority (no, don’t go there – its all been done before) and, ultimately, undermining the family-unit by doing so. The usual, and very intentional, socialist agenda.

    Fifth-columnists come in all shades and are in all sorts of locations – frequently high ones.

    On this basis is it any wonder that male teachers are thin on the ground – what male would want to teach in such a hate-filled, totally destructive and mistrustful atmosphere, although if you are GAY that is totally acceptable. For some strange reason, ‘Males’ of this persauasion are actively ‘courted’ and have absolutely no problems!

    Funny that . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. fishe (144 comments) says:

    In comparison with other religious organisations I’m sometimes impressed with the Catholic church’s ability to at least confront issues of science and religion. They have an astronomer for example, and generally accept parts of evolutionary theory. But of course, that is in comparison with other religious organisations. In comparison with scientific progress or any other sort of external measure, the church has a horrible track record.

    But then again I don’t believe religion in the sense of the catholic church and science are compatible at all and will be cherish the day the influence of the chuch is no longer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. fishe (144 comments) says:

    Feltch, the problem however is that the church’s artificial moral laws do get in the way of science and hence the church does have a problem with science. The pope’s recent condom/AIDS fiasco is a case in point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Don the Kiwi (1,649 comments) says:

    fishe.

    The pope’s recent condom/AIDS fisco is a case in point.

    I assume that you disagree with what the pope said by the tenor of your comment.
    The pope is in fact, correct, so its not a fiasco, but fact. Just check the data.

    Even the scientists agree with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    I actually didn’t get the joke until the bloggers above explained it. I guess it depends on your mindset really. It looks to me like a Catholic priest looking after a child. But maybe things were more innocent in 1973 and we didn’t have quite the anti-Catholic mindset that is so prevalent today?

    Regarding science and faith I actually think that theology is more important than science. We need to understand God and then we can understand the natural world, which after all is God’s creation anyway. Theology helps us to understand that the universe is rational, we can discover laws because there is a law giver, and we can have confidence in scientific enquiry because the universe is the product of a rational mind.

    The absolute importance of Christian theology to the rise of modern science has been well documented. Theology tells us that God and his creation are separate. Therefore we can experiment on God’s creation without experimenting on God. If you are a pantheist for example you can’t do that. That tree is God and God is in the everything and God is everything.

    If you are an atheist then how can you confidently suppose that the universe is rational? Why is it not random? If we believe in a random universe then modern science is impossible.

    I actually think, as opposed to Fishe, that the trend is in the opposite direction. People are understanding now that science is not the answer to everything. There are more Christians in the world then there had ever been. In Western countries, where Christian faith is admittedly at a historical low level, the population is not reproducing and we have population decline (Italy and Russia are two examples of this). The countries that have a high population growth, such as Africa, are becoming more religious and more Christian rather than less so.

    So the prediction that eventually we will all become secular, put science on a pedestal, and think like sociology professors is not being borne out by the evidence. I suspect over time that evolution will be shown to be the failed 19th-century theory that it really is. And science can resume being theistic again, and scientists can rediscover design and purpose in the universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. fishe (144 comments) says:

    Don…come on…”fact”…”check the data”…”even scientists agree with him.” All complete pseudo-authoritative argument stoppers. And utter rubbish. I’m surprised you didn’t throw a “studies have shown” in there!

    The pope said HIV/Aids was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”.

    This is not a case of facts particularly…the pope didn’t come out and say “condoms don’t work 65% of the time”. It’s a case of dangerously misleading statements on a complex and serious issue, from someone who people listen to.

    The most salient piece is at the end…condoms increasing the problem. First, if you want to bring in facts, consistent condom use is associated with a reduction in the incidence of HIV infection of approximately 80%. The problem is the pope is arguing from a strongly “moral” POV that endorsing condoms endorses sex and hence HIV. This is a problem b/c it doesn’t stack up in the literature which shows the efficacy of condom-oriented programmes.

    It would be great if you could point me in the direction of an HIV/AIDS medical researcher (who doesn’t have an obvious bias preferably) who supports the Pope’s statements. The Lancet’s editorial, as supported by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, asking for the pope to retract his comments is fairly strong evidence of the views of many scientists: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/144397.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. fishe (144 comments) says:

    Scott, disagree with 85% of what you wrote but no time to discuss sorry.

    But specifically in regard to your comments about my inference that the world will become secular…I’m actually more with you on this one. While it’s a nice dream, I don’t see it being a reality with our current human cognitive processes.

    It would take a significant evolutionary change of our brains to put us in a state where belief in religion etc. was not so “appealing” to the masses. (I don’t mean that in a negative ‘unwashed masses’ kind of way either!) The way our brains function at the moment seems to be rather susceptible to superstitious belief – by-products of adapted cognitive processes.

    (and no, this is no way lends any weight to an argument of god by design or anything similar!) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (6,148 comments) says:

    fishe – if you don’t believe us, then how about the director of an AIDS clinic in Africa?
    http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25480

    –snip–

    The director of an African AIDS care center is supporting Benedict XVI’s words about the ineffectiveness of condoms in the struggle against the spread of the disease.

    Rose Busingye, who directs Meeting Point Kampala, a center in Kampala for those suffering from AIDS, and cares for about 4,000 people a day, responded to the Pope’s words and the public criticism he received.

    In an interview published online March 20 by Il Sussidario, Busingye said that “those who contribute to the polemics over the Pope’s statements must in reality understand that the true problem in the spread of AIDS in Africa is not condoms; talking about this would be to stop at the consequences and never go to the origin of the problem.”

    “At the root of the spread of HIV,” she explained, “there is a behavior, there is a way of being.” She added, “And then let’s not forget that the great emergency is to take care of the people who have already contracted the disease and for whom condoms are useless.”

    [...]

    She said that in the current situation in Africa the use of condoms “can seem a bit ridiculous” since before using them one must first wash their hands, keep all dust away and store them at a certain temperature — all things which Busingye said are rather difficult for the women she cares for to do.

    Thus, she asserted, many who talk about using condoms in Africa do so without the slightest knowledge of the problem and the conditions of the continent.

    Because of this, she observed, the Pope’s statements caused little controversy in Africa itself.

    “The Pope,” Busingye emphasized, “is doing nothing else but defending and supporting precisely that which will be useful for helping these people: affirming the meaning of life and the dignity of the human being.”

    She continued: “Those who attack him have interests to defend, but the Pope has no such interests: he is concerned about us, and he is concerned about Africa.

    “He is not the one, who is bringing mines to blow up our children, our children who become soldiers, who become amputees, without ears, without mouths, unable to swallow saliva: and what should we give them, condoms?

    “When a few years ago there was genocide in Rwanda, everyone stood by and watched. Nearby there is a tiny town, which could have been protected, and no one did anything.

    “My relatives were there, and they all died in an inhumane way. No one cared, and now they are coming here with condoms.”

    Pointing out that malaria kills more people than AIDS, Busingye asked: “Why don’t they bring us aspirin and anti-malaria medicine?”

    She stated that there is a method that works and that caused a reduction in the spread of AIDS in Uganda from 18% of the population to 3% and “it is to do it in a way that makes the people feel cared for.” She concluded, “We see it here at Meeting Point: when the people come here, they don’t want to leave.”

    –snip–

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Thanks for your reply fishe. I am intrigued by your comment –
    “It would take a significant evolutionary change of our brains to put us in a state where belief in religion etc. was not so “appealing” to the masses. (I don’t mean that in a negative ‘unwashed masses’ kind of way either!) The way our brains function at the moment seems to be rather susceptible to superstitious belief – by-products of adapted cognitive processes.”

    This to me is one of the problems of evolutionary thinking. If what we think is a product of our brain function, how can we possibly know that our thoughts are reliable? Presumably there is a chemical in your brain that makes you believe in evolution? Presumably there is a chemical in my brain that makes me think evolution is false and we were created by God?

    You see the problem? Rationality becomes impossible if all we are and all we think is the product of chemical processes? It just doesn’t make sense.

    On the other hand if we assume that we are created by God, with a rational mind, then we can understand the universe. God has a rational mind, he created the universe and we who are created in his image have the rational faculties to be able to understand it. So modern science is examining God’s creation and in a sense “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. Now that makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Don the Kiwi (1,649 comments) says:

    fishe.

    Your 11.21 a.m comment.

    You sound like a liberal outraged bigotted academic feminist. ;-)

    Here’s what Edward C. Green, the senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health in the USA, and Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project there, had to say. Green is a liberal, who supports the use of condoms as a back-up strategy.

    Recently, Green said,”The Pope is correct; or, to put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the Pope’s comments.”
    Green goes on to say, “Our best studies show a consistent association between greater availability and use of condoms, and higher – not lower – HIV infection rates.”

    The point is, that condoms will never stop HIV/AIDS.

    Human behavioural change in their sexual practices will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,066 comments) says:

    if we assume that we are created by God, with a rational mind . . .

    I guess you don’t get outside too much, or read the newspapers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    “Fletch

    No, not scared – villified by the radical femininsta’s who have been operating the New Zealand education system for the last nine or so years. You know the ones – the Labour Party supporters and acivists in place at the Department of Education, who have convinced themselves Men = Bad, Women (sorry, Wimmen) = good, and have subtly pushed the socialist anti-family, anti-male agenda in schools, making bad good, and good bad (aka ‘Animal Farm).

    They have of course be willingly and actively aided and abetted by the ’sweet young things’ who have graduated from this country’s universities, during this period, and who, because of the aforesaid ‘man bad, wimmen good’ philosophy drummed into them at these institutions, see every male teacher as a potential threat.

    This state is exacerbated when on becoming mothers, they go into super-protective mode and decide unilateraterly that ALL males in education are bad – especially at the pre-school and primary level, and reach such a state of hysteria that we have cases like the Christchurch Civic Creche.

    Meanwhile the Education Department lesbian man-haters quietly stoke the anti-male fires (they’re very good at it), then sit and watch as things self-destruct, and another perfectly good male teacher is destroyed.

    Remember: Mean = Bad, Wimmen = good (and Deviance even better, but that is for another time and place)

    It is, at base, all about destroying the place of the male in society, minimising his God-given authority (no, don’t go there – its all been done before) and, ultimately, undermining the family-unit by doing so. The usual, and very intentional, socialist agenda.

    Fifth-columnists come in all shades and are in all sorts of locations – frequently high ones.

    On this basis is it any wonder that male teachers are thin on the ground – what male would want to teach in such a hate-filled, totally destructive and mistrustful atmosphere, although if you are GAY that is totally acceptable. For some strange reason, ‘Males’ of this persauasion are actively ‘courted’ and have absolutely no problems!

    Funny that . . .”

    OR (and try to follow me here) many males dont consider teaching due to the huge workload and low pay………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. fishe (144 comments) says:

    Scott…

    ———–
    This to me is one of the problems of evolutionary thinking. If what we think is a product of our brain function, how can we possibly know that our thoughts are reliable? Presumably there is a chemical in your brain that makes you believe in evolution? Presumably there is a chemical in my brain that makes me think evolution is false and we were created by God?
    ———-

    What I was saying doesn’t necessarily rest on any evolutionary ideas. Such ideas would just support it. First yes, I see “what we think” as a product of our brain function – that is relatively self-evident. But the question of if our thoughts are reliable? What does reliable mean for a thought? That could only be a subjective judgement in a context…thoughts are not inherently reliable/not reliable.

    Second, it isn’t really correct to say “there is a chemical in your brain that makes you believe in X”. I realise you probably don’t mean this literally, but this type of thinking is misleading. Sorry I don’t mean any offence but it’s impossible for me to really discuss this further with you without spending hours going through neuroscience research. And you’re probably not going to see this post anyway since kiwiblog has moved on :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.