[Merged] Religion topic Bishop Eamon reaffirms Catholic teaching & Cinemas refusing to show ad featu

[Hardy]

The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

[Hardy]

We are ridiculed (just read this thread), our very faith is taboo (symbols,prayers not allowed in any public place) and opposed at every end.

Why should your beliefs, or anyone's, be above ridicule? You want privilege, not equality.

Or, in other words (as someone sensible said) he seems to be confusing not having his own way with a war on his religion.

[muppet]

The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

Brilliant.

Homeopathy also springs to mind.

[Hardy]

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban?

I think Religion will disappear in the next 2/300 years. Its getting diluted more and more as each generation passes.

Having said that the general idea of treating others as you wish to be treated will prevail and the world will still be just fine... Peace and love everyone!!

That's the most depressing thought I've contemplated today.

[J70]

Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Not getting anything out of that link, but I think I get the jist of your argument from your other posts.

I just don't have any sympathy for it. Technically, there may be discrimination in that a religious ad is being singled out while car ads are not, but so what? To me, the key is that no one religion is being singled out, therefore equality reigns and Tony's complaints are baseless. I think the cinema chains are underestimating the tolerance of the public, but then all it takes is one or two ultrasensitive busy bodies with too much time on their hands to make a complaint and people are running scared, whether its this or Janet Jackson's nipple being exposed for a split second or whatever. They probably got stung before and just couldn't be arsed dealing with it.

[omaghjoe]

If there is any discrimination then its against faith/spiritualism and not christianity.

Isnt Christianity faith/spiritualism?

Christianity is spiritualist but does not represent the totallity of spiritualism. The policy of the cinema company was to ban political and religious ads - not to ban christian adds per se

So if its part of spirituality and its being discriminated against then would logical deduction not mean that its being discriminated against?

You have made that point well. For clarity maybe we should list all the individual spiritualist humans that are possibly being discriminated against?

If you want..... Personally while I think the focus on the individual these days is good in some ways its getting out of hand in others, and we need to work together a bit more.

[omaghjoe]

The cinema/advertising chain has claimed, whether correctly or not, (as a few subsequent actions look dubious), that it has a clear policy of not allowing any political or religious advertising. If anything, it's the opposite of discrimination as they're treating this group like they would any other religious group.

I'm still waiting to hear what rights Tony thinks have been trampled on.

I think there is some confusion here between 2 levels of discrimination which is being exploited (or missed) by those with a religious agenda.

The particular act of banning this advert is not discriminatory vis-a-vis the wider policy of a ban on all religious and political advertising (with the proviso of course that that policy is fairly applied). The broad policy on the other hand is discriminatory - it treats religious and political adverts differently from other adverts. This discrimination, imo, is justified, whereas a ban on this particular advert without a wider ban on all religious/political adverts would not have been justified.

I don't think we need to look any further than the advertising standards legislation for the justification of a ban on religious advertising. I think the regulations require that any claim made for the efficacy of the product or service advertised has to be supported by evidence. It's as unacceptable in terms of legal advertising to say prayer works as it would be to say cigarettes will cure asthma.

1. Whats the ad selling?
2. What does religion sell?
3. Smoking would likely make asthma worse

[omaghjoe]

Lets keep it on point lads...

J70... I think you are well aware your analogy is false. Prehaps we could discuss the point and not have us wading through the fallacies of an irrelevant analogy.

No, I'm not seeing the falsity Joe.

You will have to explain it.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Not getting anything out of that link, but I think I get the jist of your argument from your other posts.

I just don't have any sympathy for it. Technically, there may be discrimination in that a religious ad is being singled out while car ads are not, but so what? To me, the key is that no one religion is being singled out, therefore equality reigns and Tony's complaints are baseless. I think the cinema chains are underestimating the tolerance of the public, but then all it takes is one or two ultrasensitive busy bodies with too much time on their hands to make a complaint and people are running scared, whether its this or Janet Jackson's nipple being exposed for a split second or whatever. They probably got stung before and just couldn't be arsed dealing with it.

Stop being disingenuous J70 ye know fine well I was bein a smart arse

Anyway fair enough I've laid out my case, you get my point but you dont agree, we will leave it at that, cos the only thing left is the customary character assassination.

I'll leave that till the summer when more important things are happening

[omaghjoe]

Are you suggesting that refusing to air a religious ad is a step in the direction towards sharia law??

I've no problem with the Angelus either, but I'm not the one whining because MY religion is not being recognized.

What would your attitude be if it WAS a Dawkins atheist ad that was or wasn't allowed to air?

I've no problem with either. I've seen men holding hands. It hasn't turned me. I've seen an Orange parade. It hasn't turned me. I've watched the odd show about Dawkins, but  it hasn't turned me. So I would not complain about other religions advertising.

The banning of the advert is the thin end of the wedge. Eventually the absence of christian principles will create a vacuum into which Sharii law will step in. And once in power, the Taliban wont bow to the pathetic whims of atheists.

So people will swap a fairly mild Anglican consensus with religion kept private for the f**king Taliban?

I think Religion will disappear in the next 2/300 years. Its getting diluted more and more as each generation passes.

Having said that the general idea of treating others as you wish to be treated will prevail and the world will still be just fine... Peace and love everyone!!

That's the most depressing thought I've contemplated today.

Dont worry Hardy its only what one man thinks, and if it cheers you up... I think it will still be alive and kicking.

[T Fearon]

The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

[omaghjoe]

The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

J. H. Christ Tony! 

[Milltown Row2]

The ad is not "selling" religion,just reminding or drawing people's attention to arguably the best known Christian prayer.Explain to me why refusing to ice a message on a wedding cake in support of gay marriage is legally discriminatory,while refusing to simply broadcast a well known Christian prayer is not?

I'm sorry but the conspicuous attempts to remove all religion from everyday life, is a form of persecution and a blatant attempt to marginalise (while the buzzwords for everything else are equality and inclusivity) it's practitioners

But as long as you know who your god is and his prayer why do you feel the need for ads in cinemas?? In fact you don't need to worship him in church or for that matter pay money every Sunday towards him.... Live your christian values without the trappings..... Think what the Vatican could do with their wealth in helping world poverty if they did like Jesus and gave their money to the poor

[Applesisapples]

Why isn't there one thread on religion for this poster to put all his religious themed threads into. It always ends up in the same argument.

Better still Tony should have a thread all to himself so that we can dip in and out when we want to see his rants and half truths. Oh and downright bigoted insults.

[T Fearon]

The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence? That being the case,ads for alcohol potentially offend teetotallers

[muppet]

The ad has been banned on the grounds that it may have caused offence? That being the case,ads for alcohol potentially offend teetotallers

Alcohol offers temporary innebriation, which has been observed to be true.

Religion offers eternal salvation, which hasn't.