Christianity banned from cinemas

[Shaker]

Surely the expectation comes largely from the fact that the C of E is still deemed by somebody or other - certainly itself - to deserve a voice in any discussion on any "moral" issue. If there's any panel/discussion-type show on abortion or assisted suicide or anything similar, chances are there'll be someone in a dog collar taking part.

Whether a particular denomination is held to a higher standard is open to debate. Than the world of advertising, very likely; but I'd have said that recent events have shown that people seem to want to hold clergy to fairly ordinary, normal, everyday standards such as not raping small children, for example.

[Outrider]

there appears to be a strong feeling that the CofE should be held to a higher moral standard those organisations typically found advertising stuff, and that says something both about our attitude to religion but also to advertising, I think.

I think, rather, that the sanctimonious history of the CofE means that when they don't act to the standards they've set it's tempting to point it out.

It looks like, from this thread, that there a feeling that non-Christians want to see the CofE behaving in a moral way.

No, I think generally we just want them to leave us alone.

And that we care enough to be upset when we find that it doesn't match that expectation.

Hypocrisy bothers us, yes.

At the very least it shows that many of us see the CofE (or religion in general parhaps) as having some definable roll in society, even if the details are hazy.

Not really. It shows that we're aware the CofE thinks it should have some role in society, and that we're all frankly fed up with the attention it gets which far, far outweighs its relevance.

O.

[Rhiannon]

Although I couldn't honestly care less about this advert I do think its interesting how it highlights our attitude towards religion ad the CofE specifically in this case.

there appears to be a strong feeling that the CofE should be held to a higher moral standard those organisations typically found advertising stuff, and that says something both about our attitude to religion but also to advertising, I think.

It looks like, from this thread, that there a feeling that non-Christians want to see the CofE behaving in a moral way. And that we care enough to be upset when we find that it doesn't match that expectation. Whether it is right to have that expectation is another discussion, but that fact that it exists at all is interesting. At the very least it shows that many of us see the CofE (or religion in general parhaps) as having some definable roll in society, even if the details are hazy.

hmmmm......

Actually it's because I see the CofE as an immoral organisation, for all the good it does, that I find this objectionable. And I formed that picture from the inside. Make no mistake: this advert is about saving the CofE, not individual cinema-goers.

[Samuel]

fair enough... its got us talking about the CofE though hasn't it? So I guess on that score the advert did its job

[Shaker]

fair enough... its got us talking about the CofE though hasn't it? So I guess on that score the advert did its job

But is for people to talk about the C of E, often in uncomplimentary and unflattering ways, really all that the C of E wants?

[Nearly Sane]

'The only thing worse than being talked about.....'

[Rhiannon]

Yes, we're discussing the CofE, not prayer, let alone God. So the purpose of the advert was..?

[BashfulAnthony]

Has there ever been any evidence that films - or video games, or books - encourage people to commit violent acts? I've yet to see any, I've seen numerous studies which suggest that the data don't support a link...

On the other hand, I think I could probably find a link between the people who commit suicide bombings and people who pray...

O.

There are some studies which show a link:  By Joe Tidy, Sky News Reporter

A comprehensive study of studies claims to have found definitive evidence that playing violent video games leads to aggression.

The report from the American Psychological Association (APA) reviewed more than 300 violent video game papers published between 2005 and 2013.

Players were tested in a variety of ways over a variety of time periods from the short term to the longer term - and researchers concluded that violent video game use has an effect on aggression.

"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," the report concludes."

[ippy]

Surely the expectation comes largely from the fact that the C of E is still deemed by somebody or other - certainly itself - to deserve a voice in any discussion on any "moral" issue. If there's any panel/discussion-type show on abortion or assisted suicide or anything similar, chances are there'll be someone in a dog collar taking part.

Whether a particular denomination is held to a higher standard is open to debate. Than the world of advertising, very likely; but I'd have said that recent events have shown that people seem to want to hold clergy to fairly ordinary, normal, everyday standards such as not raping small children, for example.

Have you ever noticed the BBC keeps a person of one religious persuasion or another in a small cabinet so that if any event happens that involves moral or ethical events needing a comment, they can break the glass and instantly let them out and present a religionists, any religionists, point of view.

The above is daft I know, but if they did do the above would there be much of a difference in how they present the news for example?

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Have you ever noticed the BBC keeps a person of one religious persuasion or another in a small cabinet so that if any event happens that involves moral or ethical events needing a comment, they can break the glass and instantly let them out and present a religionists, any religionists, point of view.

The above is daft I know, but if they did do the above would there be much of a difference in how they present the news for example?

ippy

A touch fanciful, even for you!    So, they have to wheel a religionist out, eh?  That implies there are none none immediately to hand:  so all the contributors must otherwise be atheists then.  Seems fair!

[Outrider]

There are some studies which show a link:  By Joe Tidy, Sky News Reporter

A comprehensive study of studies claims to have found definitive evidence that playing violent video games leads to aggression.

The report from the American Psychological Association (APA) reviewed more than 300 violent video game papers published between 2005 and 2013.

Players were tested in a variety of ways over a variety of time periods from the short term to the longer term - and researchers concluded that violent video game use has an effect on aggression.

"The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in pro-social behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression," the report concludes."

His take on it is... subjective. There is a link, but the paper's take is that it's likely the players who are naturally more aggressive choose the more violent games, not that the games cause the aggression.

The exception to that was particularly young children, which is part of the justification for age categories on games (which are typically ignored, unfortunately), though even there the data weren't conclusive.

That reported aggression was almost entirely short-term - minutes, not even hours - and the two papers that reported longer-term effects were both on extremely small cohorts where statistical deviations are quite likely.

The conclusion from the authors of the paper is significantly more neutral than Tidy's reporting: they acknowledge a degree of correlation, but not causation, between violent video game use and aggression in the short term, no reliable evidence of long term links and - most importantly - no evidence of sufficient effect to imply it's a significant factor in actual violent events.

This is entirely in keeping with the findings of the effects of violent films and the much less studied effects of depictions of violence in books and comics - that it has a short term effect of viewers/players, but should be kept away from impressionable children.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

A touch fanciful, even for you!    So, they have to wheel a religionist out, eh?  That implies there are none none immediately to hand:...

Oh there are plenty immediately to hand. The contentious issue though is why the media seems to think their thoughts should be listened to and broadcast.

...so all the contributors must otherwise be atheists then.  Seems fair!

That's a false opposition - the people who should be consulted and have their views reported on issues of morality are those who have either some expertise in the subject or at least a mandate to be listened to: professors of moral philosophy for example who have studied the issue at hand and had their published findings critiqued, or those who have been elected to office and so at least have a mandate to represent the views of their constituents.

Whether those people also happen to be theists or atheists is neither here nor there. Just assuming however that someone's thoughts should be reported because he is a Bishop or similar seems to me to be a skewing of news values.

Incidentally, I feel the same way when Prince Charles is given a privileged right of audience at some official or governmental institution but that's another conversation I guess.         

 

[Nearly Sane]

BA,

Oh there are plenty immediately to hand. The contentious issue though is why the media seems to think their thoughts should be listened to.

That's a false opposition - the people who should be consulted and have their views reported on issues of morality are those who have either some expertise in the subject or at least a mandate to be listened to: professors of moral philosophy for example who have studied the issue at hand and had their published findings critiqued, or those who have been elected to office and so at least have a mandate to represent the views of their constituents.

Whether those people also happen to be theists or atheists is neither here nor there. Just assuming however that someone's thoughts should be reported because he is a Bishop or similar seems to be to be a skewing of news values.

Incidentally, I feel the same way when Prince Charles is given a privileged right of audience at some official or governmental institution but that's another conversation I guess.       

I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
 Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.

Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
 Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.

Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here.

It's not so much the possession of a certificate by the professors but rather that their arguments have been set out, critiqued, refined etc and so can be examined and considered on their merits. By contrast, "My faith tells me X" etc is the beginning and end of it, and is about as much use to discussions of morality as it is to the design of aeroplane wings.   

[Outrider]

I think having professors of moral philosophy on talking about it is marginally more relevant than professors of theology, but only by a very small margin
 Having a qualification might enable to express more coherently some thoughts, though far from in all cases of professors, but it really doesn't make anyone more of an expert in the world of what we should do in the practical.

Again as with a number of recent posts we are tending to an argumentum ad certificatem, rather than the arguments themselves. There are subjects where listening to experts is sensible, say a general.in how to fight a war, but when it comes to should you fight the war that is a wider question than their expertise. Same is true of moral philosophy profs here.

You can't guarantee that you're going to get useful input from them, but you do increase your chances of an informed opinion if you consult someone whose field of study is involved - of course, academics don't always make the best communicators. If you're hosting a TV debate and you want people who will have something to contribute, picking people qualified in the area is a reasonable measure to increase your chances.

At the other end, I'm not sure that become a Bishop isn't, in its way, a testament to achievement - I'm just not sure that it's an achievement in any sort of rational view of morality.

I would definitely agree that the CofE is over-represented and over-emphasised in these kinds of debates given the portion of the populace that it actually represents and the limited scope of its expertise.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It's not so much the possession of a certificate by the professors but rather that their arguments have been set out, critiqued, refined etc and so can be examined and considered on their merits. By contrast, "My faith tells me X" etc is the beginning and end of it, and is about as much use to discussions of morality as it is to the design of aeroplane wings.   

Except they aren't criticised in a real world fashion, it's an academic process about the consistency of positions, about the development of ideas and how we examine moral questions. It is not about being an expert in actual should. The church representatives are at least that, representatives of a group, just like politicians.

[BashfulAnthony]

His take on it is... subjective. There is a link, but the paper's take is that it's likely the players who are naturally more aggressive choose the more violent games, not that the games cause the aggression.

The exception to that was particularly young children, which is part of the justification for age categories on games (which are typically ignored, unfortunately), though even there the data weren't conclusive.

That reported aggression was almost entirely short-term - minutes, not even hours - and the two papers that reported longer-term effects were both on extremely small cohorts where statistical deviations are quite likely.

The conclusion from the authors of the paper is significantly more neutral than Tidy's reporting: they acknowledge a degree of correlation, but not causation, between violent video game use and aggression in the short term, no reliable evidence of long term links and - most importantly - no evidence of sufficient effect to imply it's a significant factor in actual violent events.

This is entirely in keeping with the findings of the effects of violent films and the much less studied effects of depictions of violence in books and comics - that it has a short term effect of viewers/players, but should be kept away from impressionable children.

O.

I didn't expect you to accept the link:  I doubt you would accept any link I provide.  You said you weren't aware of any, and I quoted one.  However, it is not I you need to deny it to, but the authors:  tell them , in your expert opinion, they have it wrong!

[Hope]

The festival would exist just under a different name.

Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.  Other festivals might very well occur, but not one celebrating the birth of the single most influential person in human history.

[Hope]

Why anyone thinks atheists are the ones the cinema chain was worried about offending is beyond me!  In the latest terrorist massacre it was fundamentalist Muslims who murdered anyone who believed in the wrong sort of religion!

Maybe you think a gang of atheists might run into their cinemas spraying bullets at everyone!

And the Muslims I know would regard this post as highly offensive - probably more so than their sitting through an advert featuring the Lord's Prayer, jj.

[Shaker]

Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.

Indeed; it would be the sort of midwinter festival of light and colour and merriment based on perennial human desires and preferences - even human physiology - rather than transient religious myths.

Oh wait: we've already got that.

[BashfulAnthony]

Indeed; it would be the sort of midwinter festival of light and colour and merriment based on perennial human desires and preferences - even human physiology - rather than transient religious myths.

Oh wait: we've already got that.

And, no doubt, in your usual hypocritical manner, you will participate.  Happy Christmas.

[Outrider]

I didn't expect you to accept the link:  I doubt you would accept any link I provide.

I'll happily review pretty much any link on any subject, I don't promise to accept your take (or that of a Sky News journalist), but I like to think that I'll review it and explain why I feel as I do.

You said you weren't aware of any, and I quoted one.

I'm afraid you didn't. You cited a news article which backed your view, referring to a paper that didn't.

However, it is not I you need to deny it to, but the authors:  tell them , in your expert opinion, they have it wrong!

I said I wasn't aware of any links that backed your claim - the one you cited, as I pointed out, didn't do that. I explained why, and you're more than welcome to look at the original report - as I have done - rather than rely on the Sky News reporter's take on it without any sort of critical assessment of Sky News' market and the spin they would put on it.

I don't need to tell the authors of the report what I think, I reported their take from their paper. I needed to tell you, who had instead believed the journalist's slant on it. I don't really need to tell the journalist - I suspect he'd either fail to appreciate the difference of nuance, or he knows exactly what he's doing and would suggest that it's good journalism to give the story 'an angle'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except they aren't criticised in a real world fashion, it's an academic process about the consistency of positions, about the development of ideas and how we examine moral questions. It is not about being an expert in actual should. The church representatives are at least that, representatives of a group, just like politicians.

To an extent, but the fact remains that academics will generally set out their reasoning: "because X, therefore Y" etc that the rest of us can address with reasoning of our own. The result is either, "you're wrong because of a flaw in your thinking as follows so I disagree with your conclusion", or, "I cannot find a flaw on your reasoning so I must agree with your conclusion".

Contrast that with, "my faith tells me X" and how else can someone respond except with a, "so what"?

As for the constituencies of Bishops, I guess to an extent footfall in churches on a Sunday is a kind of mandate but a more tenuous one I'd say than that of someone elected on the basis of a manifesto. 

[Shaker]

And, no doubt, in your usual hypocritical manner, you will participate.  Happy Christmas.

You use the names of the days of the week and months of the year, don't you?

Or do you favour the Quaker system - first day/month, second day/month, third day/month, etc?

[Outrider]

Not really, BR; without Christ one wouldn't have a festival celebrating his birth.

That's not what my celebration is, so no difference.

Other festivals might very well occur, but not one celebrating the birth of the single most influential person in human history.

Is he the most influential person? Or is it the person that made up the stories about it him that turned form a well-meaning wandering philosopher into a magic-wielding avatar? Or is it the person that adopted the cult based on that story as the official religion of the Roman Empire?

O.