Christianity banned from cinemas

[Rhiannon]

And for all they say offence might be taken, I'm not seeing anyone here offended by the advert's actual content.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

And for all they say offence might be taken, I'm not seeing anyone here offended by the advert's actual content.

But their policy isn't about that ad specifically - rather their blanket refusal to accept any religious (or political) ads means they avoid having to make value judgments in future on a case-by-case basis - "C of E fine, Scientologists not fine" etc.

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

But their policy isn't about that ad specifically - rather their blanket refusal to accept any religious (or political) ads means they avoid having to make value judgments in future on a case-by-case basis - "C of E fine, Scientologists not fine" etc.

Yeah, I get that, but that's led to the comment about it being wet to object to a bit of prayer. And that's not what is objectionable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Yeah, I get that, but that's led to the comment about it being wet to object to a bit of prayer. And that's not what is objectionable.

Actually some of us would find it to be "objectionable" in any case, but being offended by something is the worst argument of all for banning something I think. You're right though - accept one and you have no basis on which to refuse any other (provided it's legal) and that's why they've turned down the C of E's business (though not of course "banned" anything). 

[Outrider]

For an intelligent man, you make some pretty lame arguments sometimes!

For a lame argument you conspicuously avoid actually countering it in any way.

O.

[Outrider]

Personally I dont understand why DCM have made the decision to ban the advert, (not christians as is stated in the OP,) from their cinemas on the grounds that  "some advertisements - unintentionally or otherwise - could cause offence to those of differing political persuasions, as well as to those of differing faiths and indeed of no faith".

Did anybody at DCM actually watch the advert?

There is nothing in it that should cause offence, in fact anyone who gets all offended by it must be the kind of permanently offended attention seeker who pisses pretty much everyone off with their unwarranted whinging on subjects they are plainly ignorant of.

Below is a link to the ad. Feel free to be offended by it, or not as is your want.

https://youtu.be/dx1ud-3fXC8

Its basically an advert promoting the "Just Prey" website. How is that offensive?

I get that some may object to children being forced to recite the lords prayer at state run schools etc. I know I do, but the actually advert doesn't force anyone to actually say the Lord's Prayer, so I have no objection to it at all.

It hasn't been rejected because it is offensive. It's been rejected because DCM received the request and immediately saw that this could be the first of many: religion is a hot topic, and whilst this is relatively innoffensive, others might not be.

Normally that would a 'slippery slope' argument, I'd agree, they can review each advert on its own merits, but the law places strict limits on their capacity to make independent judgments between various religions.

Understanding that, and in light of the backlash from their experience with Scottish independence campaign adverts, they opted for a policy where they aren't going to be showing religious or political adverts.

That's not 'a ban', it's a commercial decision. No-one is stopping anyone else saying anything, a company is choosing not to say it themselves.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

Damn!! Here's me thinking, singing, music, the voice raised in full glory to God, what finer gift could God bestow, nah sex, it all boils down to sex, no wonder creationists don't like evolution, it's all about sex ( not to keen on it myself, I much prefer mad passionate love making, madder the better ).

 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/david-attenborough---why-humans-sing/3101418#transcript

It's tempting to think that human beings very early in their history used music in a similar way. And there can be little question that a male with a good singing voice in our own society today is still a source of sexual attraction and excitement. What else is a serenade? Watch a pop concert! And just as among the great reed warblers, quality counts. Females have been selecting males with a versatile larynx since way back in our ancestry.

Today young men sing together to generate camaraderie, and religious people use song to generate the deepest and most profound emotions among themselves and their listeners. But the prime function of song is something else. Shakespeare wondered if music was the food of love. Well, vocally at least, it certainly was. And what is more, it still is.

No wonder that Elvis was such a hit with the ladies, he had it all, brilliant voice, all the right moves and spectacular plumage.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear Wonderful World,

What a wonderful argument, atheists enjoying religious music, an argument within an argument, but this is not the first discussion we have ever had on the subject.

What do atheist feel when they listen to religious music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Y_ztEW1NE

Are you lifted, does your soul rejoice.

That's God creation can make something so beautiful.

Atheism a closed book to me, but I am getting there.

Sorry! the music does carry me away, I digress, we had this discussion or one similar many moons ago, a very talented and highly regarded composer ( atheist )  of religious music ( documentary on the telly regarding Christian music ) stated, to compose religious music I need to moved by the Spirit, or words to that effect.

What do atheists feel when they listen to this.

I can hazard a guess at what you feel, God.

Dear ippy,

Your family enjoy singing Gospel music, brilliant, honestly I think that is wonderful.

What about,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxMEsTcw_pk

God and sinners reconciled.

The Devil has all the best tunes, not by a long chalk.

Gonnagle.

Gospel singing, the music is fantastic, so what if the words are praising something imaginary, very few things in life are perfect.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

so what if the words are praising something imaginary

Love songs to your imaginary friend, who loves ya baby

Dear theists,

I ask, nay I demand!! a group hug for all our atheist posters

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Yes it is: 'Easter' is just the spring/vernal equinox festival onto which Christians have incorporated some of their religious dogma

No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.

The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.

The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.

Fun etymological factoid of the day: from "Easter" we also get "oestrus", "oestrogen" etc.

[jeremyp]

Incidentally, one of the hypotheses as to why Christians moved their weekly devotional day from the Sabbath (or Saturn's Day as we call it) to The Sun's Day was because many of their neighbours celebrated Sol Invictus on that day. Incidentally, the same religion had a festival on 25th December called "Birth of the Sun".  Coincidence? You decide.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it isn't. Easter is a Christian festival based on the Jewish Pesach. It has nothing to do with the Vernal equinox, based, as it is on a lunar calendar.

The point about Easter is that the name (in English) derives from the name of an ancient Saxon month named after an ancient Saxon deity and therefore makes a mockery of the Christian argument, expressed several times here, that they own Christmas just because of the name.

I agree on your second paragraph, but I'm not sure the first can be justified as the name is extremely important.

Were Christians in the UK to call Christmas, 'Yule' instead of Christmas I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that 'Yule' is a Christian festival based on the nativity. Rather we would conclude that the Christian nativity festival had 'co-opted' an earlier pagan festival associated with mid winter and added their religious elements while retaining the name of that older festival.

While the origins of terms and the presence of festival in ancient times can be rather obscure, I think there is ample evidence of a spring (or dawn) goddess across germanic northern europe and even beyond with variant names being Ēostre, Ēastre, Ostara, Austrō etc.

Bede (who remember was writing at a time when anglo-saxon England was just transitioning from pagan to christian beliefs (when he was born there was still a pagan King in England) and undoubtedly there would have still been significant pagan religious worship ongoing is clear that there were festivals to Eostre at that time.

'Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.'

Interesting to note that Bede also refers to the Christianisation of the time of year to 'Paschal month' and elsewhere refers to the Christian festival as Paschal, which is of course its correct title in Christian terms - translated into English as Passion. But although virtually every other language describes the Christian festival as Paschal (or derivatives) for some reason in English the older pagan name of Easter stuck.

[BashfulAnthony]

For a lame argument you conspicuously avoid actually countering it in any way.


Lame, yes, and as such not worth the effort to rebut.

[BashfulAnthony]

If it is so important to you as a Christian why is Easter named after a pagan goddess of the spring.

The name has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Why not call it something that relates to Christianity as is the case in most other languages. If Christmas has to be Christian because of the etymology of its name, then Easter has to be pagan for the same reason - claiming anything else is hypocrisy BA.

Sometimes you talk the most abominable tosh: so irrelevant!

[BashfulAnthony]

Sure it is. Many of us here have taken considerable pains to tell you that Christmas is a privatised and malleable affair; people make of it whatever they want to, seeing it how they want to see it and creating their own traditions. Many Australians spend Christmas morning on the beach in blazing sunshine, complete with Santa. Personally I can't imagine anything worse, but that's another way of doing Christmas that suits a lot of people.
Nothing remotely inappropriate about it. They're still not magic and nobody owns these songs; the best ones are so ancient and of such obscure origin that more often than not they can only be credited to our old friends Mr. Trad. and Mr. Anon. I find it hard to believe that many people give much if any thought to the words in any case; the words are simply a vehicle for a cracking good melody which is a delight to sing for those who can do so, rather than vice versa.

Try and spin it as hard as you like:  you are a massive hypocrite!

[ProfessorDavey]

Sometimes you talk the most abominable tosh: so irrelevant!

So why is it relevant then in your world if non Christians celebrate Christmas in a non religious manner. You can't have it both ways BA. If the etymology of Christmas is so critical that it must only be celebrated as a Christian festival (which seems to be your line) then it is just as relevant for Easter, which if you are being consistent must only be celebrated as a pagan spring festival.

Now I believe neither of those things - I'm completely comfortable with people celebrating on 25th Dec as a mid winter festival without considering it to be a religious festival to them, and to call it Christmas. Likewise I have no problem with people celebrating the purported resurrection of Jesus in late March/early April without considering it to be a pagan spring festival and calling it Easter.

It is you who seem to be majoring on the double standards here.

[Dicky Underpants]

... but then of course there's the reams of "religious" music he wrote. "There's no reason why an atheist can't write a good Mass," he said, and he was of course quite right - his example (the Mass in G minor) being amazingly lovely:

https://youtu.be/lGCCRN0o9Lo

As regards Flos Campi, the work was of course inspired by the Song of Solomon, which is in the Old Testament, so our dear old friend probably wouldn't have minded so much (not that he'd have picked up on this detail in the first place, of course).

It's a pity that Berlioz, Brahms, Verdi and quite a number of other composers couldn't be around to be instructed that they were being 'insincere' when they wrote some of their most famous works. "Hey, Berlioz - lay off that "L'enfance du Christ" you intend writing - we know you don't believe all that about the adoration of the shepherds etc".
What's going to happen to some of our most famous British choirs - I'm sure they would rapidly disappear if only the  believing Christians among them were allowed to sing the Christian music in their repertoires? I think we should inform Sir John Eliot Gardiner (non-believer). I think he'd be up for giving somebody a damn good punch on the nose.

[BashfulAnthony]

So why is it relevant then in your world if non Christians celebrate Christmas in a non religious manner. You can't have it both ways BA. If the etymology of Christmas is so critical that it must only be celebrated as a Christian festival (which seems to be your line) then it is just as relevant for Easter, which if you are being consistent must only be celebrated as a pagan spring festival.

Now I believe neither of those things - I'm completely comfortable with people celebrating on 25th Dec as a mid winter festival without considering it to be a religious festival to them, and to call it Christmas. Likewise I have no problem with people celebrating the purported resurrection of Jesus in late March/early April without considering it to be a pagan spring festival and calling it Easter.

It is you who see...

Nonsense!  I have the same take on atheists and their participation in either Christmas or Easter celebrations.. It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival:  that is not my point.  It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Easter and Christmas.  Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone  -  just for once!

[Outrider]

Nonsense!  I have the same take on atheists and their participation in either Christmas or Easter celebrations.. It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival:  that is not my point.  It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Ester and Christmas.  Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone  -  just for once!

We are celebrating our own thing - we do it in the depths of winter, and it's called 'Christmas', because that's the name for it that we inherited. We keep some of the traditions - Santa, stockings, reindeer, decorated trees, traditional songs (by Trad., Anon. and, particularly, Holder) and we just take some time out, spend some of our hard-earned money on gifts for ourselves and our loved ones, indulge in a little more rich food than we need to...

Easter, by contrast, I tend to leave alone as it's just an excuse for chocolate companies to try to blitz children, but that's my take, there are probably others.

O.

[Gordon]

It matters not a jot whether you say that Easter is a Pagan festival:  that is not my point.  It is also a Christian festival, and atheists need to butt out of Ester and Christmas.  Celebrate your own festival, if you have one, and leave Christianity alone  -  just for once!

They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.

If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Try and spin it as hard as you like:  you are a massive hypocrite!

Dammit man, I'm trying my best not to be but still await your instruction as God's inquisitor/enforcer in chief - see Replies 384 & 385.

Did I mention that it was urgent?

[BashfulAnthony]

They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.

If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.

Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours.  Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings.  Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.

I can't recollect ever seeing cards or music or any references to Pagan celebrations at this time of the year.  I'm sure there are some;  so stick to those, and leave Christian traditions to Christians.

[ProfessorDavey]

They aren't 'yours' BA: so you do your thing and we'll do ours.

If we use the commonly used names for these festivals it means not a jot: they are just names and there is no requirement for anyone to be precious about them.

Indeed - to paraphrase. It doesn't matter a jot whether you say Christmas is a Christian festival: it is also a mid winter festival (celebrated by atheists as well as believers, because guess what mid winter is a fact, it requires no belief).

You have no more claim of monopoly on the 'meaning of Christmas' than pagans do on the 'meaning of Easter'.

Stop being so hypocritical - either accept that non Christians can celebrate Christmas as a non Christian festival or accept that you can't celebrate Easter as a Christian festival.

[ProfessorDavey]

Christmas and Easter certainly aren't yours.  Dates and claims to such dates are red herrings.  Leave Christmas and Easter to Christians, and just do your own thing, whatever that is.

You have a claim over Christmas.

You have no claim over Easter - it's named after a pagan spring goddess for crying out loud.