Christianity banned from cinemas

[ippy]

Sounds like didums religionists didn't get their own way and its made them cry.

It's not fair we religionists have always had these privileges whenever, we've only had to ask previously, somebody turned us down this time, I'm going to tell my mum, so there.

I would think the message is, get used to it, you're on the way out here in the UK.

ippy

[john]

Perhaps "religions" ought to be allowed to advertise; in cinemas, etc.

Claims they make could then be open to scrutiny by The Advertising Standards People.

This would be really interesting ie

Hopey pays for an ad which says faith can cure illnesses, praise the lord and be cured.

ASA declares the ad untruthful and bans it.

Oh what fun

 

[Hope]

The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK. No doubt the Stalinist Secular Humanists here will be cock a hoop now that our children can watch violence without being assailed for thirty seconds by people saying the Lords prayer.

Your OP and your thread title do not match, OS.  Christianity has NOT been banned from cinemas.  As for the NSS's viewpoint; their spokesman, speaking on this morning's BBC breakfast show, said that whilst they would have no problem with the advert being shown, the situation is that after the debacle (his word) of showing pro- and anti-Scottish Independence adverts in cinemas, the Digital Cinema Media agency decided that thy would no longer show political or religious adverts for fear of offending people who held opposing views.

Now, I think that that was a poor decision, and probably shows DCM to be weak, but that was their decision.  I suspect that the CofE's advert has been in the pipeline for many months of planning so has been caught up in this decision (I'm not sure when the decision was taken by DCM)

This then opens the whole debate over whether we have the right to be offended, and therefore people have to act to defend us from being offended.  That is a whole new debate (which I seem to remember we've alreadsy had in the past, but it may be worth reopening - since there are plenty of adverts that offend me, such as those that degrade both men and women; promote alcohol, tobacco and gambling; encourage buying for buying sake; etc.

[trippymonkey]

If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......

[Hope]

Just wondering what you mean by an atheist cinema campaign. Also what was the intended purpose of showing the Lords Prayer?

An atheist advertising campaign would be something along the lines of that campaign that the BHA (?) ran on the side of buses a couple of years back.

[Shaker]

If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......

Better only in a very abstract, technical sense - the fact that the advert contains the Lord's Prayer does amount to promoting/privileging one particular religion over all others ... something that would never fly in the USA, for example.

I don't think that the decision shows DCM to be weak; if anything the opposite. In rejecting political and religious adverts they're clearly trying to uphold the disinterestedness that secularism proper demands.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

George Lucas is on record as having said that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this.

Yes but that just adds to the mystery as to why certain Secular Humanists are shit scared of 30 seconds of the Lord's prayer but feel safe with 3 hours of Taoism or Buddhism.

[Shaker]

Yes but that just adds to the mystery as to why certain Secular Humanists are shit scared of 30 seconds of the Lord's prayer but feel safe with 3 hours of Taoism or Buddhism.

Firstly they're not scared; they just don't want religion force-fed to them on a night out at the pictures. People already have all the opportunities in the world to pursue religion if they want to. Do they? Do they buggery.

Secondly, a Star Wars film isn't "three hours of Taoism or Buddhism." It's soft science fiction. Not real. Madey-uppy, Vlad. You should be more than familiar with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like didums religionists didn't get their own way and its made them cry.

It's not fair we religionists have always had these privileges whenever, we've only had to ask previously, somebody turned us down this time, I'm going to tell my mum, so there.

I would think the message is, get used to it, you're on the way out here in the UK.

ippy

By Stalinist means so it seems.

[Shaker]

Stalinism: just one more of the many words Vlad doesn't know the meaning of.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your OP and your thread title do not match, OS.  Christianity has NOT been banned from cinemas.  As for the NSS's viewpoint; their spokesman, speaking on this morning's BBC breakfast show, said that whilst they would have no problem with the advert being shown, the situation is that after the debacle (his word) of showing pro- and anti-Scottish Independence adverts in cinemas, the Digital Cinema Media agency decided that thy would no longer show political or religious adverts for fear of offending people who held opposing views.

Now, I think that that was a poor decision, and probably shows DCM to be weak, but that was their decision.  I suspect that the CofE's advert has been in the pipeline for many months of planning so has been caught up in this decision (I'm not sure when the decision was taken by DCM)

This then opens the whole debate over whether we have the right to be offended, and therefore people have to act to defend us from being offended.  That is a whole new debate (which I seem to remember we've alreadsy had in the past, but it may be worth reopening - since there are plenty of adverts that offend me, such as those that degrade both men and women; promote alcohol, tobacco and gambling; encourage buying for buying sake; etc.

It shows that antitheists reserve their own right to offend.....and their own right not to be ''offended''.

[Nearly Sane]

By Stalinist means so it seems.

Your bandying about the term Stalinist here pisses on the graves of those who died under a disgusting regime. As you spunked that pathetic little message, and gave yourself a little squeeze of delight at using Stalinist in a post, you showed yourself as a shameless user of suffering for a cheap and entirely meaningless point.

[Hope]

Perhaps "religions" ought to be allowed to advertise; in cinemas, etc.

Claims they make could then be open to scrutiny by The Advertising Standards People.

This would be really interesting ie

Hopey pays for an ad which says faith can cure illnesses, praise the lord and be cured.

ASA declares the ad untruthful and bans it.

Oh what fun

That could be interesting, john.  After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.

Let's envisage such an ad.  Scene 1 introduces a person who has been told that there is no medical cure for their condition and they have only weeks to live and shows an X-ray of the tumour or whatever that is threatening to kill them.

Scene 2, the same person several months or years later talking about how, following prayer, their survival expectancy has increased dramatically and/or their symptoms (eg tumour or whatever) has disappeared completely, again showing an x-ray of the same part of the body.

I realise that some, as some here do, will claim that prayer had nothing to do with the healing, choosing instead to wheel out that famous scientific treatment - spontaneous healing.  I'm not convinced that trying to replace 'unscientific claims' by equally 'unscientific claims' really works!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your bandying about the term Stalinist here pisses on the graves of those who died under a disgusting regime. As you spunked that pathetic little message, and gave yourself a little squeeze of delight at using Stalinist in a post, you showed yourself as a shameless user of suffering for a cheap and entirely meaningless point.

As I have said before. A few years ago the atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a programme called the Christians where he reflected upon the Stalinist policy of keeping all religion behind closed doors and out of the public forum. He understood the significance of this policy. Modern secular Humanists fail to.

I am just echoing Bamber's sentiments and speaking to those who do not heed the lessons of history. Not one bit of Stalinist policy should be acceptable.

[Outrider]

It shows that antitheists reserve their own right to offend.....and their own right not to be ''offended''.

What makes you think the business decision makers at DCM are atheists, let alone anti-theists? What makes you think the decision makers at the cinema chains are atheists or anti-theists? Who is it that you think they are offending when they decline to show inappropriate advertising for a particular audience to that audience?

Or are you just offended because someone didn't immediately comply with the Church of England?

O.

[Outrider]

That could be interesting, john.  After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.

Let's envisage such an ad.  Scene 1 introduces a person who has been told that there is no medical cure for their condition and they have only weeks to live and shows an X-ray of the tumour or whatever that is threatening to kill them.

Scene 2, the same person several months or years later talking about how, following prayer, their survival expectancy has increased dramatically and/or their symptoms (eg tumour or whatever) has disappeared completely, again showing an x-ray of the same part of the body.

I realise that some, as some here do, will claim that prayer had nothing to do with the healing, choosing instead to wheel out that famous scientific treatment - spontaneous healing.  I'm not convinced that trying to replace 'unscientific claims' by equally 'unscientific claims' really works!!

The problem is, though, that even when it comes to 'spontaneous healing', the praying/attending churches/buying vials of water from Lourdes doesn't have an effect. Whilst you could quite justifiably advertise the fact that spontaneous healing occurs, and we don't know why, what would you sell with that? Nothing can be shown to link to it.

O.

[Hope]

Secondly, a Star Wars film isn't "three hours of Taoism or Buddhism." It's soft science fiction. Not real. Madey-uppy, Vlad. You should be more than familiar with that.

Well, if Lucas did say what you have claimed him to have said - " ... that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this", then the 'soft science fiction' claim is stretching the definition of that phrase quite a lot.

[Shaker]

That could be interesting, john.  After all, one reason why medical journals are not keen to run articles about faith-healings is that the concept runs counter to the narrative that such journals want to put over - that medical science can, or at least will be able to cure all our ills.

How do you know that that's a reason? Seems to me vastly more likely that medical journals are not keen to run such stories for a variety of far, far more plausible reasons:

     - such stories tend to be wholly anecdotal, with vague, hand-waving pseudo-details and no evidence whatever offered for their veracity, with all requests for traceable details - names, people, places, dates - given the Hope treatment (i.e. completely ignored). There have been examples of this on this very forum;

     - such stories tend to fall down badly on scientific rigour, being untestable and unrepeatable.

[Outrider]

As I have said before. A few years ago the atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a programme called the Christians where he reflected upon the Stalinist policy of keeping all religion behind closed doors and out of the public forum. He understood the significance of this policy. Modern secular Humanists fail to.

We all understand the significance of it, but some of us don't see any real problem with Christianity withering away, in exactly the same way that we've not noticed a considerable cultural damage from the absence of Zeus worship.

I am just echoing Bamber's sentiments and speaking to those who do not heed the lessons of history. Not one bit of Stalinist policy should be acceptable.

You can echo them - we still aren't that bothered by the idea of religion withering away. To suggest that it's akin to the Stalinist slaying of religious figures, destruction of their infrastructure and official banning of the organisations and arrangements thought is just dipshittery of the highest order. It's not like you to resort to ridiculous hyperbole to mask the fact that you're making no point at all.

O.

[Shaker]

Well, if Lucas did say what you have claimed him to have said - " ... that Jediism was cut pretty much wholesale from Buddhism and especially Taoism - there are whole books devoted to this", then the 'soft science fiction' claim is stretching the definition of that phrase quite a lot.

No it isn't.

Not when you know what it actually means, anyway.

[Hope]

So, in fact, it wasn't a ban at all, it was a commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message as a precursor their completely secular film showing. If it were being suggested as an advert for a run of, say, 'Noah', it might have been more successful.

This isn't a ban, it's a sign of overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment. It's the same reason ITV has very little religious programming - commercially, in this country, it's just not viable.

O.

O, no it wasn't a "commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message".  It was a commercial decision by a media rights agency - NOT the cinemas chains themselves - that they would not accept any political or religous advertising.  The reason given was 'for fear of offence being taken by one or more of their customers'. 

As for your second paragraph, there is nothing in the decision to indicate "overwhelming disinterest from purveyor's of public entertainment".  As you have said, it's a commercial decision.

[Hope]

No it isn't.

Not when you know what it actually means, anyway.

And you know for sure that your interpretation of Lucas' comment is the correct one?  I've heard the claim you referred to before, and the commentator at the time (not a religious person to my knowledge, and not within a religious context) suggested that this means that there is an element of religious thinking within the films.

[Shaker]

And you know for sure that your interpretation of Lucas' comment is the correct one?

I've read what Lucas has said, if that's what you mean. It's not my interpretation, it's his scattered comments on the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts (like the Force).

I've heard the claim you referred to before, and the commentator at the time (not a religious person to my knowledge, and not within a religious context) suggested that this means that there is an element of religious thinking within the films.

Depends if you consider Buddhism and Taoism to be religions. Many do not.

[Hope]

If the'd made it with MANY religions' prayers in then THAT would've been better but.......

... it would probably still have fallen foul of DCM's comercial decision.

[Shaker]

... it would probably still have fallen foul of DCM's comercial decision.

Ten minutes ago you said it wasn't one:

O, no it wasn't a "commercial decision by cinema chains who didn't want to run the risk of alienating some of their patrons by putting out a specifically Christian message".