UK cinemas refuse to play Lord's Prayer ad in front of Star Wars

Liamario

Apparently they're infringing upon freedom of speech by not showing it..

Cabaal

Liamario wrote: »

Apparently they're infringing upon freedom of speech by not showing it..

Perfectly sensible decision, it's there cinemas they can show what they want.

If they want people to see the advert then stick it on TV or YouTube.

Absolam

If, as they say, their policy is not to accept political or religious advertising content in their cinemas (and I can't recall ever seeing such ads in the cinema) then I can't see how anyone can complain. Nor do I see how anyone has a right to free speech in someone else's cinema.

simdan

Seriously, what percentage of people want or expect to watch prayers when they go to the cinema? Probably zero point something..

Religion should not be allowed to be advertised at all.

Zamboni

They're probably not showing Daesh promotional adverts either in fairness.

frostyjacks

A little rich, considering the Christian themes running through the franchise.

Links234

frostyjacks wrote: »

A little rich, considering the Christian themes running through the franchise.

I... What?

There's certainly a lot of Buddhist themes running through it, and lets not forget that Star Wars was heavily inspired by old samurai movies, namely Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, but Christian themes? This is another one of those religious narcissism moments, the demand to see your faith reflected back at you in everything, especially when it's not there.

The Randy Riverbeast

People confuse freedom of speech with you must give me an audience quite a lot.

frostyjacks wrote: »

A little rich, considering the Christian themes running through the franchise.

The last vestiges of an evil empire who is trying to claw back some of the control it had? I suppose it has some stuff in common with certain groups.

The Randy Riverbeast

Links234 wrote: »

I... What?

There's certainly a lot of Buddhist themes running through it, and lets not forget that Star Wars was heavily inspired by old samurai movies, namely Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, but Christian themes? This is another one of those religious narcissism moments, the demand to see your faith reflected back at you in everything, especially when it's not there.

Theres a virgin birth in there but I'm sure anyone with a slight knowledge into religions would know that the idea has existed for a lot longer than Christianity but that is assuming a slight knowledge is had.

Eugene Norman

frostyjacks wrote: »

A little rich, considering the Christian themes running through the franchise.

I don't really see that (although it's in the matrix).

Cinemas are private property. No censorship here.

GLaDOS

Links234 wrote: »

I... What?

There's certainly a lot of Buddhist themes running through it, and lets not forget that Star Wars was heavily inspired by old samurai movies, namely Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, but Christian themes? This is another one of those religious narcissism moments, the demand to see your faith reflected back at you in everything, especially when it's not there.

And Dune of course, don't forget Dune

Links234

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Theres a virgin birth in there but I'm sure anyone with a slight knowledge into religions would know that the idea has existed for a lot longer than Christianity but that is assuming a slight knowledge is had.

Oh yeah, I forgot that. But then again, that is from the prequels.

JohnnyChimpo

Zamboni wrote: »

They're probably not showing Daesh promotional adverts either in fairness.

Those mad ads the British Army used to do could probably double as IS recruitment videos though

The Randy Riverbeast

Links234 wrote: »

Oh yeah, I forgot that. But then again, that is from the prequels.

We've all tried to forget the prequels.

seamus

Tbh all of the major religions cross-pollinate so much that you could interpret the movies as being analogues for most religions.

magicbastarder

Links234 wrote: »

I... What?

eh, how about men in robes walking around spouting nonsense about supernatural forces?

Links234

magicbastarder wrote: »

eh, how about men in robes walking around spouting nonsense about supernatural forces?

That could be any religion!

Links234

Frostyjacks, you never answered, what do you want to get for Christmas?

Also, have you seen The Hidden Fortress? I'd really like to know.

expectationlost

do they allow such ads on british tv, then put it on tv people can switch it off if they want


whhat gets more eyes then a banned ad

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

That could be any religion!

Think I read somewhere they were going to introduce a gay character/characters, so that'll narrow the spectrum somewhat. Unless they're a bad guy.

Osgoodisgood

The Most Reverend Justin Welby said he found the decision "extraordinary".
"This advert is about as offensive as a carol service or church service on Christmas Day," he said.
"Let the public judge for themselves rather than be censored or dictated to."


Welby and his peers from the other clubs just don't get it. People choose to go to a church service and do so knowing that they're going to be subjected to religious hocus pocus, in fact people would rightly expect nothing else and good luck to them. The "public" have made no such choice when going to the movies and the owners of the cinemas have every right to decide what they show their customers.

What is really offensive is the staggering conceit of the church that they believe their entitlement extends to a legal right to peddle their wares wherever and whenever they choose.

frostyjacks

Links234 wrote: »

Frostyjacks, you never answered, what do you want to get for Christmas?

Also, have you seen The Hidden Fortress? I'd really like to know.

I haven't seen Hidden Fortress, although it sounds decent. Ashamed to say I've only seen one Kurosawa film, the Seven Samurai. It was around the time of the Murphy's ad, I was curious to see what it was paying homage to.

For Christmas, I'd fancy one of those coffee machines that use the pods. I have a filter machine at the minute, but I'm thinking these new machines give a better brew.

Turtwig

It's very simple, their policy is not to allow to religious content. If they allow one they'll have to allow others. While this advertisement may indeed just be about a light Christmas advert, what if the next one is by a controversial fundamentalist group who'd they love to refuse but may get smacked with religious discrimination if they do? The approach they have taken is a pretty reasonable one.

Links234

frostyjacks wrote: »

I haven't seen Hidden Fortress, although it sounds decent. Ashamed to say I've only seen one Kurosawa film, the Seven Samurai. It was around the time of the Murphy's ad, I was curious to see what it was paying homage to.

For Christmas, I'd fancy one of those coffee machines that use the pods. I have a filter machine at the minute, but I'm thinking these new machines give a better brew.

Those Murphy's ads were the business, they even had an anime one that was made by the people behind Ghost in the Shell. You ever see that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5I_UGnnr1Y

And the Hidden Fortress is well worth a look, I'd recommend it.

Hope you get your coffee machine for Christmas

vibe666

no surprise that a priest doesn't understand what freedom of religion and freedom of speech actually are.

he and his organisation are free to practice and preach their religion, but that freedom does not extend to forcing businesses to do their preaching for them, or forcing paying customers of a public business to sit through their proselytising 'adverts'.

i'm sure a lot of the people complaining about this would be the same people complaining if the shoe was on the other foot and there was a muslim prayer in a cinema.

Peregrinus

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

So it seems it's not just priests who have a hazy grasp of what freedom of speech entails.

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

A little rich, considering the Christian themes running through the franchise.

magicbastarder

frostyjacks wrote: »

I haven't seen Hidden Fortress, although it sounds decent. Ashamed to say I've only seen one Kurosawa film, the Seven Samurai. It was around the time of the Murphy's ad, I was curious to see what it was paying homage to.

'ran' is one of my all time favourites.

robindch

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

The Most Reverend Justin Welby said he found the decision "extraordinary".

I'll accept it's "extraordinary" when religious leaders allow cinemas to show what they want within church buildings.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

So it seems it's not just priests who have a hazy grasp of what freedom of speech entails.

Why are you picking another country to make a comparison?

Lets stick with the UK shall we?...In the same country that this cinema story actually relates to we know that Atheist groups have no problem advertising that "There's probably no God" on buses,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/06/atheist-bus-campaign-nationwide

Why you decided to pick another country with a different government and different laws for your comparison is rather odd I must admit, it must be just to suit your agenda

Now if you do want to look at other countrys then we know Christians get upset about Atheists advertising as we only need to look at Spain

buses in Barcelona bearing a Spanish translation of the British slogan will hit the streets, to the consternation of the city's Catholic hierarchy.

So its clear Christians have an issue with something they claim they should have freedom of speech on...funny that

In addition in Canada Christians also got upset with this advert



Now from a Muslim standard the advert is 100% accurate...but offensive to Christians, should Muslims do a cinema advert like this advert? Would all Christians be so ok with that do you think?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

So it seems it's not just priests who have a hazy grasp of what freedom of speech entails.

Out of curiosity did said company take adverts from churches. If it was a level playing field I can't see that they would have had a case either

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

Have you got any more info on this?

All the info I can find is that the bus company(s) accepted the ads, then reversed their decision. A human rights lawyer agreed it was discriminatory and would represent the group with the human rights review tribunal, but then the trail goes dark. I can't find any indication that it ever went to the tribunal or what decisions were made.

From the data available it looks more like they decided to save their money and spend it on billboards rather than lawyers. But a link or two would be much appreciated.

Akrasia

robindch wrote: »

I'll accept it's "extraordinary" when religious leaders allow cinemas to show what they want within church buildings.

The church didn't seem so opposed to censorship when they were campaigning to get the Life of Brian and The Meaning of Life banned

frostyjacks

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

magicbastarder

a cinema is not a truly public realm, though; it is a building you pay to get into, and which discriminates against a major part of the population (i.e. those under 18), so that analogy isn't very useful.
that said, i don't have a major ideological issue with being exposed to the lord's prayer in such a way (with the caveat that my toes may still not have uncurled by the time the movie was over), but i fully understand the cinema's stance; there would have been major complaints if they'd broadcast other forms of prayer, so they choose not to entertain religious ads.

ScumLord

I'm sure someone in the church thought this was going to be a great way of saving some poor souls from the evil corruption of the force turning innocent children into heretic jedi.

What's supposed to be the point of religious advertising? It's not like the ad will introduce anyone to religion. It's not like the ad is going to convert a Muslim, Jew or Atheist. Is it just a pat on the back, a wink and a nod to Christians? Is it to try and make someone who's about to watch a film feel guilty because the film is an affront to religious dogma?

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

Well then you must have serious flaws in your argument.

a) A cinema is not a public space. It's a business and the proprietors of the business do not have to provide a platform for religious speech

b) It is not an attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, but rather to treat all religions and secularism equally by not featuring any pro or anti religious adverts

c) Free religious speech has limits, as does all free speech. The cinema has the right to choose what adverts are displayed as some adverts may potentially lose them customers.

d) There is also freedom from religion, which means people should not be forced to sit through prayer in a place where prayer would not be expected, such as, oh, I don't know, a cinema perhaps.

frostyjacks

Penn wrote: »

Well then you must have serious flaws in your argument.

a) A cinema is not a public space. It's a business and the proprietors of the business do not have to provide a platform for religious speech

b) It is not an attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, but rather to treat all religions and secularism equally by not featuring any pro or anti religious adverts

c) Free religious speech has limits, as does all free speech. The cinema has the right to choose what adverts are displayed as some adverts may potentially lose them customers.

d) There is also freedom from religion, which means people should not be forced to sit through prayer in a place where prayer would not be expected, such as, oh, I don't know, a cinema perhaps.

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

Daith

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

A ban on religious advertising would include a relgious advert yes!

Good thing they got publicity! Hadn't heard of them before now. New thing is it?

robindch

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

So my dinner table is a "public space" too because "members of the public are gathered" there?

:rolleyes:

Bristolscale7

Frosty, if you make the cinema show the turbo-christian advert then the homophobes have to sell their cakes to the gays.....

Penn

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space. If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

It's not a religious service that was to be shown, just a 60 second advert. They got plenty of free publicity now anyway.

No, a public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. (Source: Wikipedia)

A cinema is a privately owned business which provides a service to members of the public by permitting them entry to their private facility for said service. While members of the public are there in large numbers, it is not a public space, as the owners have the right to refuse admission or remove you from the premises (except on the grounds of discrimination, obviously).

And I agree they get plenty of free publicity now. Almost as if they knew that if their advert was denied they could complain to the media and get it plenty of free publicity.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course a cinema is a public space.

err, no its not.
Try go into a cinema with a DSLR and take photos. The owners of the cinema are within their right to tell you to get the hell out and if you refuse they can all the police.

Now try to take photos on a public street with a DSLR, its perfectly legal. No business owner can stop you.

If members of the public are gathered somewhere, whether paying or not, it is by definition a public space.

Utterly clueless nonsense, you could not be more wrong.

A cinema requires payment for entry into the screens, it is by no stretch of the imagination a public space. It is also private property, as such the owner can restrict or close the space as they see fit and its 100% legal for them to do so.

frostyjacks

Penn wrote: »

No, a public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space. (Source: Wikipedia)

A cinema is a privately owned business which provides a service to members of the public by permitting them entry to their private facility for said service. While members of the public are there in large numbers, it is not a public space, as the owners have the right to refuse admission or remove you from the premises (except on the grounds of discrimination, obviously).

And I agree they get plenty of free publicity now. Almost as if they knew that if their advert was denied they could complain to the media and get it plenty of free publicity.

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0003.html#sec3

I'd rather watch the banned advert than a trailer for a new Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler movie.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0003.html#sec3

I'd rather watch the banned advert than a trailer for a new Ben Stiller or Adam Sandler movie.

Which is it exactly?

You've claimed a cinema is a public SPACE, but the act you refer is about a public PLACE...not public spaces.

You appear to be very confused about the two, they are VERY different things.

Public Space:

A public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space.

Public Place:

(o) any open place to which the public whether upon or without payment for admittance have or are permitted to have access

A cinema can never be a public space because its private property...unless the state own it and declare it a public space of course or the owner declares it a public space at which point they'd loose some legal rights to it.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

This guy articulates it better than I can.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/banning-lords-prayer-cinema-star-wars-christianity

"The bigger point, though, is that in a free society peaceful religious speech should not be banned from public spaces. And here it is worth distinguishing between two very different forms of secularism – that which seeks the separation of church and state at an institutional level (bishops out of the House of Lords, for example), which I agree with; and the attempt to eradicate religious discourse from the public realm, which is anti-free expression and important to resist. Indeed, traditionally, free religious speech is the canary in the cage of a free society."

You're against the idea of a free society remember?

Stealthfins

Fck it they can post their advert on my Facebook page if they like...

As long as the money is right....

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Which is it exactly?

You've claimed a cinema is a public SPACE, but the act you refer is about a public PLACE...not public spaces.

You appear to be very confused about the two, they are VERY different things.

Public Space:


Public Place:


A cinema can never be a public space because its private property...unless the state own it and declare it a public space of course or the owner declares it a public space at which point they'd loose some legal rights to it.

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

the_syco

frostyjacks wrote: »

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

They're not banning it, they've just chosen to not display it.

frostyjacks

the_syco wrote: »

They're not banning it, they've just chosen to not display it.

It's a ban. That's how all the media are reporting it, unless they're all wrong and you're right.

David Cameron and Stephen Fry have criticised the move. Even Dawkins, Mr.Atheist himself. has criticised the ban,

"I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”

I think a bit of humble pie-flavoured popcorn will be eaten soon (at the usual exorbitant price).

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

In either case, it's members of the public paying money in the knowledge that they'll be exposed to a barrage of adverts. I don't see how an advert should be banned unless it's actually offensive, instead of what persons unknown may find offensive (at least give them the chance to see it first).

A) it hasn't been banned and It's their cinema; they get to decide what adverts to show and since they have a blanket 'no religion, no politics' policy and this is a religious ad...