Christianity banned from cinemas

[Shaker]

Well, you might well contend that not to take any political or religious advertising is  in fact censorship.

You would be incredibly silly to do so.

[BashfulAnthony]

You would be incredibly silly to do so.

Really?  Why?

[Shaker]

Really?  Why?

Because it's either paranoia or simple I-didn't-get-my-way whining to interpret commercial decisions by a large corporation as a calculated attempt to suppress/silence a particular voice or point of view, which is what censorship is.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah - so it's only your opinion, then.  Predominantly ordinary people who made small donations (but in large numbers   ).

But then, originally, Dawkins agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of ｣5,500.          

Very generous!    But then he will have recouped the money from  sales of his silly book  (GD), which so many naive people were daft enough to buy.                   

[BashfulAnthony]

Because it's either paranoia or simple I-didn't-get-my-way whining to interpret commercial decisions by a large corporation as a calculated attempt to suppress/silence a particular voice or point of view, which is what censorship is.

What a truly ridiculous answer!

[Rhiannon]

What a truly ridiculous answer!

No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.

Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.

[BashfulAnthony]

No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.

Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.

I think banning anything is some sort of censorship, actually!

[floo]

No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.

Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.

Exactly.

[BashfulAnthony]

No it isn't, it's accurate. Adverts featuring religion and politics aren't good for business. It's not censorship.

Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.

We all know where to go and what to do if we want to buy coca cola, but it's still advertised freely, even though it is now considered harmful to health because of the sugar content. 

[Shaker]

Why does the church need to advertise itself in this way? We all know what it does and where to go if we want to join.

I made the same point earlier. There isn't a square inch of English soil without a C of E parish church to serve its inhabitants, and let's not forget all the other churches and chapels belonging to the other Christian denominations, added to which the synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, Jain temples, Sikh gurdwaras and all the rest.

People are not denied opportunities to seek out religion(s) if they want to.

[Shaker]

We all know where to go and what to do if we want to buy coca cola, but it's still advertised freely, even though it is now considered harmful to health because of the sugar content.

The occasional can is harmful to nobody's health. If you drink a lot of it that's your own fault, not that of the Coca Cola corporation. It's called personal responsibility, or used to be anyway.

[BashfulAnthony]

The occasional can is harmful to nobody's health. If you drink a lot of it that's your own fault, not that of the Coca Cola corporation. It's called personal responsibility, or used to be anyway.

Then why are smoking advertisements banned?  The occasional smoke is harmful to nobody's health.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

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

Thank you ( and yes ippy was right, I was looking for a wind up ) but your link is a bit of an eye opener, all started from religious beginnings.

In 1878, the Society established the Church of Humanity under Congreve's direction. There they introduced sacraments of the Religion of Humanity and published a co-operative translation of Comte's Positive Polity. When Congreve repudiated their Paris co-religionists in 1878, Beesly, Harrison, Bridges, and others formed their own positivist society, with Beesly as president, and opened a rival centre, Newton Hall, in a courtyard off Fleet Street.

The New York City version of the church was established by English immigrant Henry Edger. The American version of the "Church of Humanity." was largely modeled on the English church. Like the English version it wasn't atheistic and had sermons and sacramental rites.[13] At times the services included readings from conventional religious works like the Book of Isaiah.[14] It was not as significant as the church in England, but did include several educated people.[15]

Ethical movement[edit]

Felix Adler, founder of the ethical movement.
Another important precursor was the ethical movement of the 19th century. The South Place Ethical Society was founded in 1793 as the South Place Chapel on Finsbury Square, on the edge of the City of London,[16] and in the early nineteenth century was known as "a radical gathering-place.[17] At that point it was a Unitarian chapel, and that movement, like Quakers, supported female equality.[18] Under the leadership of Reverend William Johnson Fox,[19] it lent its pulpit to activists such as Anna Wheeler, one of the first women to campaign for feminism at public meetings in England, who spoke in 1829 on "Rights of Women." In later decades, the chapel changed its name to the South Place Ethical Society, now the Conway Hall Ethical Society. Today Conway Hall explicitly identifies itself as a humanist organisation, albeit one primarily focused on concerts, events, and the maintenance of its humanist library and archives. It bills itself as "The landmark of London痴 independent intellectual, political and cultural life."

In America, the ethical movement was propounded by Felix Adler, who established the New York Society for Ethical Culture in 1877.[20] By 1886, similar societies had sprouted up in Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis.[21]

Church of Humanity, book of Isaiah, modelled on the CoE.

Makes me wonder where the influence of religion actually starts and ends.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Given what churches claim - this advert focuses on prayer - the only way they could fairly advertise would be to do what spiritualist mediums have to do by law and advertise as 'for entertainment purposes only', even though theirs is a faith path every bit as legitimate as any other.

[Shaker]

Then why are smoking advertisements banned:  "The occasional smoke is harmful to nobody's health."

It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.

[BashfulAnthony]

It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.

I'm sure there are all manner of ways people imbibe either.

[Shaker]

I'm sure there are all manner of ways people imbibe either.

Absolutely - people do what they want to do.

[Outrider]

Well, you might well contend that not to take any political or religious advertising is  in fact censorship.

If the government enacted a law to prevent you saying that if you wanted, that would be censorship. No-one is being stopped from saying anything if they want. The Church of England can say the Lord's Prayer if they want.

Some cinema chains, through their marketing agency, have opted not to take money to say it on someone's behalf.

That's not censorship, that's the exact opposite, that's freedom of speech - part of freedom of speech is the freedom not to have to toe a particular line.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

 

But then he will have recouped the money from  sales of his silly book  (GD), which so many naive people were daft enough to buy. 

Hey!! in my defence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, actually I enjoyed that book, I still have my old battered copy of it, the margins full of me writing, oh you bloody well think so

Gonnagle. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Bashers,

 

Hey!! in my defence, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, actually I enjoyed that book, I still have my old battered copy of it, the margins full of me writing, oh you bloody well think so

Gonnagle.

Have you actually learned anything from it, Gonners?

[Rhiannon]

It probably isn't, actually; but I don't know of too many people who have a single cigarette once in a while. I don't doubt that they exist, and would say that they're not doing themselves any measurable harm. A fairer comparison would be between 20 cigarettes a day (over a long period - years) and 20 cans of Coke a day, likewise.

Given the recent campaigns of the risks of relatively minor exposure to other's cigarette smoke I think it's a given that one cigarette occasionally causes harm. And I think it likely that we will see limits on advertising imposed on high sugar foods in the future.

But the point surely is that coke advertises fizzy drink, which is what it sells and the customer buys. What is it that an advert about the Lords Prayer is selling, and how can I be sure it will deliver?

[Enki]

It was no more than a silly, childish, waste of time and money  -  wonder who paid...     

I think it started as a response to seeing this on the side of two London buses:

"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )" with a web address shown.

I'm sure you'll think that this was "silly, childish, waste of time and money" too, all in the interests of fairness, of course.

What is worse is that if you visited the web address, you were accosted with the following:

"You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)."

So perhaps the London Bus campaign was all about delivering the much more re-assuring message:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Not that anyone has to believe either of those messages, of course.

It was funded originally by private donations, was then supported by the BHA(with Richard Dawkins agreeing to match donations up to ｣5500). Actually over ｣150,000 was raised through private donations(enough to support buses over the whole of the UK) and the campaign spread all over the world.

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!

[Shaker]

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!

Bashers's definition is: "People saying stuff I don't like."

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

Have you actually learned anything from it, Gonners?

Yes, just how wrong can one man be.

Actually the book is like one very long Floo post, God is an evil sod

Gonnagle.

[BashfulAnthony]

I think it started as a response to seeing this on the side of two London buses:

"When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8 )" with a web address shown.

I'm sure you'll think that this was "silly, childish, waste of time and money" too, all in the interests of fairness, of course.

What is worse is that if you visited the web address, you were accosted with the following:

"You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)" (Matthew 25:41)."

So perhaps the London Bus campaign was all about delivering the much more re-assuring message:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Not that anyone has to believe either of those messages, of course.

It was funded originally by private donations, was then supported by the BHA(with Richard Dawkins agreeing to match donations up to ｣5500). Actually over ｣150,000 was raised through private donations(enough to support buses over the whole of the UK) and the campaign spread all over the world.

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of a 'fiasco' is!

Fiasco: a complete failure, especially a ludicrous or humiliating one.

So I guess it was one!