Christianity banned from cinemas

[Hope]

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.

The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?

[Hope]

There should be no political or religious advertising in cinemas.

They are the wrong things to put in a cinema.

And why are adverts for mobile phones, clothes, status symbols, etc., etc. any better?

[Shaker]

The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?

You could always remind them that they're committing the negative proof fallacy, of course.

[SusanDoris]

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

That's what I was thinking, although I'm no good at being witty!! :d

[Hope]

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.

OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s.  Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc.  Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.

I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.

[Hope]

You could always remind them that they're committing the negative proof fallacy, of course.

But I don't think that the ASA can make decisions based on that concept.   

[Hope]

It's a bit weird.

If it was a film depicting a religious figure like Jesus, I'd at least understand it ( but not agree with it).

If, as Shaker has pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts are based in Buddhism and Taoism, then why not attach a 'religiously' themed advert to its showing?

[ippy]

By Stalinist means so it seems.

You still are unable to get it Vlad, I like any other Secular Humanist am happy to be treated in the same way as religionists and would also be quite happy to support religionists if the ban was for religionists only and they then allowed secular humanist advertising.

I do wonder what part of secular humanism it is you're not getting, only up till now you're making it look as though you can't understand any of it?

There isn't any connection between Joe Starlin and secular humanism that I know of?

ippy

[floo]

If I had my way ALL ads would be banned, I detest them!

[Maeght]

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.

Yes - see my earlier post.

[Shaker]

OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s.

So you say.

Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc.

So you say.

Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.

So you say.

I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.

... which is a perfect get-out for somebody trying to claim that something exists but doesn't want to admit to the utter dearth of evidence for it.

There's always an excuse of one sort or another.

[Shaker]

If, as Shaker has pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of Jediism and associated concepts are based in Buddhism and Taoism, then why not attach a 'religiously' themed advert to its showing?

Because whether Buddhism and Taoism are religions at all doesn't admit of a definitive and objective answer. A great many people - adherents and non-adherents alike - regard them as philosophical traditions.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I should think so too, religion and politics should definitely not be advertised on TV  or in the cinema, imo.

What about Party Political Broadcasts?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still are unable to get it Vlad, I like any other Secular Humanist am happy to be treated in the same way as religionists and would also be quite happy to support religionists if the ban was for religionists only and they then allowed secular humanist advertising.

I do wonder what part of secular humanism it is you're not getting, only up till now you're making it look as though you can't understand any of it?

There isn't any connection between Joe Starlin and secular humanism that I know of?

ippy

You just can't see that this has been a secular humanist society for decades so what you and others propose is a secular humanist society where only they are allowed expression.

If you think we haven't notice your reasonable side ''level playing field'' and your knuckle dragging side. ''You are on your way out''. Then I suspect you don't give a shit what people think of your views.

On the other hand if this is yours and other people's reaction to God then there must be something in this God business

[floo]

What about Party Political Broadcasts?

I would ban them too as they are not usually truthful.

[Outrider]

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'.

And would they have made that decision without any input from their major partners? Ok, so DCM as representatives of the cinema chains rather than the cinema chains themselves.

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.

If it were going to interest people they'd be happy to do it. If it were going to interest more people than it upset they'd do it. It's only going to upset a handful of rabble-rousers, which means the people it's going to interest are only a handful, too. That makes the rest - the overwhelming majority - completely disinterested.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

The inevitable has happened and Christians are banned from being shown advertising in cinemas in the UK.

No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.

I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.

Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them

Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's just see if NSS and BHS get the cameras rolling eh?

[floo]

Dear Vlad,

No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.

I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.

Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them

Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible

Gonnagle.

I saw it featured on the lunchtime news, it was ghastly and would put people off I reckon!

[ippy]

That's what I was thinking, although I'm no good at being witty!! :d

I wasn't trying to be witty and I didn't think I was.

I just wrote out my thoughts exactly as they were from inside my head at that moment.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

No such thing as bad publicity, no doubt questions will be asked at the highest level.

I watched the advert, not the most inspiring and I much prefer Our Lords advice on Prayer.

Anyway on the subject of movies with religious connotations, hundreds of them

Biblical stories, the film industry loves them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_the_Bible

Gonnagle.

The irony here is that not only were the big blockbusters biblical epics. J. Arthur Rank started of by making Methodist themed films and started Odeon cinemas which is one of the circuits which won't be showing the adverts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I saw it featured on the lunchtime news, it was ghastly and would put people off I reckon!

That probably means more people will end up seeing it than would have if they had just shown it in the flicks.

[Outrider]

The issue is, though, that the ASA would have nothing to argue against the claim with. If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?

The ASA don't start by asking people to disprove the claims, they first ask the claimant to back their claim. When the faith healers went 'But God!' they'd reject the advert.

O.

[floo]

That probably means more people will end up seeing it than would have if they had just shown it in the flicks.

True. I certainly would never have seen it at the cinema as I dislike them, and have only been about 10 times in the whole of my 65 years.

[Outrider]

OK, for one thing, I have read articles explaining why such journals don't run them. If I remember the best one was in the BMJ from back in the 80s.  Secondly, I know of several cases where the 'anecdotal' wassupported by scientific evidence such as X-rays, test results, etc.  Furthermore, the "requests for traceable details" were provided by the patients, but not verified by the medics involved - in some cases on the orders of their employers.

Yeah, they're keeping the details in a folder with the info on aliens and who really killed Kennedy's body-double!!!

Good grief. No-one is denying that some people recover, or at least improve, when the prevailing medical opinion is that they won't, that's the nature of attempting to predict complex systems like human health. To claim, though, that the medical profession's known rates of accuracy are due to the effects of prayer rather than the lack of complete knowledge on behalf of the medical profession is a) the god of the gaps nonsense, b) in defiance of the well-documented evidence that prayer doesn't work and c) ignoring the fact that these incidents do not occur any more or less often in patients receiving 'alternative care' than they do in those not recieving it.

I'm sorry to highlight your confirmation bias, Shaker, but these refusals to release details, often under the guise of doctor/patient confidentiality have taken place on a number of occasions and in a variety of circumstances - including circumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with healings of any kind.

If the details haven't been released because of doctor/patient confidentiality, how can you claim to know that they show Shaker is suffering from confirmation bias and isn't just, you know.... right?

O.