Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the viewer-discretion-is-advised dept.

The Church of England has said it is "disappointed and bewildered" by the refusal of leading UK cinemas to show an advert featuring the Lord's Prayer.

[...] the Digital Cinema Media (DCM) agency, which handles British film advertising for the major cinema chains, Odeon, Cineworld and Vue, refused to show the advert because it believed it would risk upsetting or offending audiences.

Which makes me wonder if we can get those anti-piracy ads pulled for offending audiences. Offensive to those who paid for the movie, and to those with the Kopimism religion: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16424659


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:01PM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:01PM (#267467) Homepage Journal

    Well, they can show whatever they want and don't have to show what they don't want, for whatever reason. Any other conclusion would render the movie theater owners into slaves, and I can't condone slavery. Of course, the Church of England can be disappointed and bewildered if they want. Maybe the Church of England or its members should start their own movie theaters.

    I'm sure many would express the sentiment that "our society" has gotten "too sensitive" and that people ought to be able to handle an expression of a sentiment with which they disagree, but I'm equally sure many people would feel that if they paid for the movie they don't want to be bothered with something they didn't come to see.

    I do occasionally recite the Lord's prayer - can't think of any time I've especially done it in public. I'll be curious to see what this ad was for.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:04PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:04PM (#267518)

      The precise term for this idea is bullshit. You are either knowingly bearing false witness or really ignorant. Everybody paying attention knows the theater owners ARE slaves. They just don't serve the CoE. If you can't think of at least a dozen groups that those chains would not dare refuse ad space to you are just being disingenuous. No, again we see that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:16PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:16PM (#267524) Homepage Journal

        Everybody paying attention knows the theater owners ARE slaves

        I would have to agree with that, but writing to prove that they weren't slaves was not my intent. I simply believe that they should not be.

        No, again we see that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

        Well, I certainly agree with you, but I don't think I deserve your hostility for this post.

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:40PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:40PM (#267536)

          Well, I certainly agree with you, but I don't think I deserve your hostility for this post.

          If you were writing without the irony tag then ok, otherwise I was reacting to the NewSpeak nature of it. The whole flipping between "They are free to refuse anything, they are of course private businesses" and "How dare they! Get em!" depending on the politics of the moment is tiresome. It basically boils down to "Of course you are free to agree with us. Or else."

          I agree that in a sane world nothing you wrote is objectionable but we are long past the point where we can still pretend to live in one of those. To selectively uphold (classical) liberal values is objectively fascist now in exactly the same way Orwell warned that pacifism was. Now the only play is to shine a light on the intolerance and bigotry in their selective acceptance of -advertising-. How amazing is that the religion of the British Crown is now so 'offensive' that it can't be displayed in public... in England. The mind reels.

          • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:09PM

            by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:09PM (#267590) Homepage Journal

            The whole flipping between "They are free to refuse anything, they are of course private businesses" and "How dare they! Get em!" depending on the politics of the moment is tiresome.

            I don't get it - when did I say "How dare they! Get 'em!"? How and when was I selective. Are you writing about what I wrote, or somebody else?

            How amazing is that the religion of the British Crown is now so 'offensive' that it can't be displayed in public... in England. The mind reels.

            I'd be all for displaying that in public, and I expressed that in my original post.

            --
            ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:29PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:29PM (#267650) Journal

            If you were writing without the irony tag then ok, otherwise I was reacting to the NewSpeak nature of it. The whole flipping between "They are free to refuse anything, they are of course private businesses" and "How dare they! Get em!" depending on the politics of the moment is tiresome.
             
              Says the guy who is willing to deport people based solely on their religion... [soylentnews.org]
             

            • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:30PM

              by DECbot (832) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:30PM (#267703) Journal

              If I were to condone deportation, I'd rather it be because of their culture, but I see people often confuse the two. Worship what you want, but don't interfere with the culture of your host country (e.g. When in Rome, do as the Romans do).

              --
              cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:13PM

                by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:13PM (#267717)

                I'd rather it be because of their culture, but I see people often confuse the two

                In Muslim countries, there is no line between culture and religion.

                Worship what you want, but don't interfere with the culture of your host country

                But that's absurd. Being free essentially means you don't have to conform. Want to wear a scarf on your head? That's not conforming to western culture... but it's certainly allowed, because we're not fascists.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:43AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:43AM (#267783)

                  But that's absurd. Being free essentially means you don't have to conform. Want to wear a scarf on your head? That's not conforming to western culture... but it's certainly allowed, because we're not fascists.

                  That's adorable! Do you believe in Santa too?

                  • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday November 25 2015, @02:29PM

                    by Wootery (2341) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @02:29PM (#267999)

                    Yes yes, you're so cool and wise and cynical.

      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:08PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:08PM (#268056) Homepage Journal

        jmorris, I really didn't know much about you yesterday when you posted, and it's clear you didn't know much about me. Your post is over the top angry and hostile and I didn't deserve it.

        I gather from other things posted by you and posted by others about you that you are a church member, a pretty conservative member of British society, and unhappy with the way your culture is going. Maybe I have some of the details wrong, but that's the impression I get. I'm an American Christian and I would think under the circumstances we would have some sort of cooperation together, or at least a lack of hostility.

        I am very much reminded of James 1:26 which says that if anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.

        I may have the details wrong above; regardless, I very much did not deserve the hostile angry verbal beating you administered in these posts. And if you are contending on behalf of the Church and the faith of Christ, certainly you need to live out this principle from the faith of Christ if you want to have any hope of convincing anybody.

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:40PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:40PM (#267537) Journal

      One reason given on UK TV for this decision is that, although they actually have no problem showing the Church of England advert, they do not want to set a precedent which would leave them open to litigation should they subsequently refuse to show material promoting any other religion or, more specifically, a sect or quasi-religious organisation. It is simpler to avoid showing any material relating to religion or politics - which is precisely what their code of practice states is their position.

      Perhaps they should have remembered this point when they began discussions with the CofE rather than wait until the advert had been made and the money spent. Nevertheless, it is in accordance with their code of practice.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:35PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:35PM (#267654) Journal

        One reason given on UK TV for this decision is that, although they actually have no problem showing the Church of England advert, they do not want to set a precedent which would leave them open to litigation should they subsequently refuse to show material promoting any other religion
         
        Exactly. Guys like jmorris would be singing a whole different tune if this was an Islamic prayer.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:24PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:24PM (#267725) Journal

        A very good point. Going to the theaters already sucks for numerous reasons, but having to sit through the sermons of whatever religious groups are rich enough to buy air time would take the experience way beyond intolerable.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:43PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:43PM (#267640) Journal

      Well, they can show whatever they want and don't have to show what they don't want, for whatever reason

      While I'd normally agree, there are some things so obscene it's worthy of a debate ;) Like this [youtube.com]

      I'll be curious to see what this ad was for

      Guilt people who used to go to church to go back there for christmas. They're running out of customers [blogspot.com], and as such having to Shut up shop [telegraph.co.uk]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:04PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:04PM (#267469)
    I'm offended at the fact that I paid for the fucking ticket, and I'm still being forced to sit through ads.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:09PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:09PM (#267473) Journal

      especially after paying $2000.00 for popcorn and a drink!

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Webweasel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:30PM

        by Webweasel (567) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:30PM (#267495) Homepage Journal

        Cineworld (UK) will allow any snacks and drinks into the cinema, the ushers will not comment.

        Shame they changed it to fixed seats (i.e. seat row and number) so you cannot choose to sit away from the idiots with mobile phones or who talk through movies.

        Want to get me back in the cinema? Get your staff into the theater for the movie and CHUCK OUT people who use their phones and talk through movies.

        I won't be attending again until you deal with those people who make the experience not worth the time.

        --
        Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:30PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:30PM (#267494) Homepage

      I thought they took the arm clamps and eyelid-retractors out of cinemas after the negative feedback.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:41PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:41PM (#267502) Journal

      Rarely go to the movies except on dates. Haven't been to a theater in well over a year. Went the other week to see that new James Bond flick (skip it) and I felt as if I was watching TV. The same shitty commercials you see on TV are now played in the theater. What the fuck. I was actually flabbergasted. No wonder people are pirating movies. It used to be you sat through some crappy trivia, adverts for theater snacks and then right to the previews.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:29PM

        by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:29PM (#267678) Journal

        I was impressed when I went to see Bond last month. There were a couple of adverts yes (one was actually good), and everyone loves trailers (certainly more than the 3 minutes of studio logos at the start of films [youtube.com]).

        The previous time I went (for guardians of the galaxy) they had some triva slides telling people to get their phones out, turn them on, and play along with the screen! Fortunately that's gone now.

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:27PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:27PM (#267700) Journal

          I thought it was too slow. They could have made it 45 min shorter too. The girl I was with actually fell asleep. That tells you something right there. The opening scene in Mexico City with the helicopter fight was great. After that it was a mix of slow and action scenes, some better than others. The big disappointment was the anemic car chase through the empty streets of London at night culminating in the signature Aston Martin Bond car being ditched in the river once bond runs out of road. Very anti climatic. Boo. The part that also stuck out like a sore thumb was when Bond and the girl are on the train and she demonstrates to him that she can hold her own. Then in the following scene when the big villain surprises them at dinner she makes this pitiful attempt to knock him out and gets knocked unconscious. I was half expecting her to suddenly become Xena warrior princess but instead she's just knocked out in the dumbest way possible. Made no sense. They built her up for no reason.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:49PM

            by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:49PM (#267735) Journal

            I was referring to the experience not being as dire as before, but yes I thought this was the second best Craig bond film.

            It was the streets of Rome - in fact it was an international car chase as it went through the vatican too (and past my Rome office)

            Could have been 15 minutes shorter, probably not 45 though, but I like a bit of slowness.

            The train scene was obviously trying to evoke From Russia with Love, but it made no sense. Why try to kill Bond, then invite him to dinner at the end of the trip?

            Unlike many I liked the reference to things like the car with the special abilities and the exploding watch. It's the type of stuff I want from bond. Not silly stuff like invisible cars and parasurfing tidalwaves. They only come out ever 3 years, and I demand the gadgets, girls and one-liners.

            The opening scene was a marvel of cinematography. I think I counted one cut in the first 10 minutes!

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:11PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:11PM (#267521) Journal

      I'm offended at the fact that I paid for the fucking ticket, and I'm still being forced to sit through ads.

      Irrelevant and, as such, inconsequential.

      Digital Cinema Media and the cinema theatre chains are private enterprises. As such, their only care is to keep the profit coming; if they manage to do it (the profit, I mean) they aren't bound to be self-consistent with their former statement. Thus, expecting them to act based on you (an individual) being offended is just naive, not going to happen

      I can see two ways in which your offended feeling will make a difference:

      1. either you find enough others equally offended to vote-with-your-wallet and make them aware you aren't going to pay that crap anymore; and/or
      2. become a radicalized Kopimist and blow yourself up (and the others around) while shouting something like "Information wanna be free, long live Barbossa".
        This way, you'll modify possible the impact of the risk of Kopimist extremists; maybe you'll just tip the

        probability x impact

        value of the risk just enough to cause them to think twice before screening Kopimism offensive ads (the same as, I suspect, they assessed the risks of other religion extremists "strongly objecting" to the "Lord's prayer" ad)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:08PM

        by Freeman (732) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:08PM (#267556) Journal

        Suggesting someone blow themselves up for a cause is bad form. Blowing oneself up in a terrorist act isn't going to help things. Either you forgot your sarcasm tag or you're really screwed up.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:46PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:46PM (#267578) Journal

          Blowing oneself up in a terrorist act isn't going to help things.

          Post Charlie Hebdo, that is the very reason I suspect they suddenly became so sensitive to religious sensibilities of their consumers.
          Is it wrong? Tell them not me.

          Either you forgot your sarcasm tag or you're really screwed up.

          "Long live Barbossa"</sarcasm>

          There, now it should be explicit even for your fine-attuned discerning power

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:51PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:51PM (#267690)

          c0lo never posts anything that *isn't* sarcastic.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:28PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:28PM (#267635) Journal

      Feel free to take your money elsewhere (Legally).

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Webweasel on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:27PM

    by Webweasel (567) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:27PM (#267489) Homepage Journal

    It's time to start eliminating religion from society.

    Stopping stuff like this is just what I would like to see.

    The shame of it, is it is for the wrong reason.

    Its been pulled not to offend other religions.

    However, its time to accept that ALL religion is offensive and should be removed from society.

    --
    Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:43PM (#267504)

      I agree, let's begin with those pesky Jews. Maybe we could think of some train-based system to get them outta here.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:58PM (#267517)

        There was this awesome dude who had these kick ass colleagues that implemented the very same idea! Unfortunately, the rest of the dumb world didn't like the idea and stopped them before it was completed. Booooo world. Boo.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:44PM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:44PM (#267539) Journal

        Are you trying to invoke Goodwins law? Bad attempt. First of all, Hitler rounded up "the jews" based on ancestors, not based on religion. Second, thread-started talked about getting rid of religion, not getting rid of current believers. I managed to get rid of my religion quite well without getting rid of me.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:57PM (#267549)

          getting rid of religion, not getting rid of current believers.

          It's the same thing. You can't get rid of a religion without getting rid of its believers.

          I managed to get rid of my religion quite well without getting rid of me.

          Nice strawman. Getting rid of religion in general and you 'getting rid of' (rather, stopped adhering to) your religion are two different things entirely.

          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:37PM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:37PM (#267574) Journal

            not getting rid of current believers.

            It's the same thing. You can't get rid of a religion without getting rid of its believers

            How? If education, science and maybe some medication against paranoia helps people to rid themselves of their imaginary friends, how is that the same as getting rid of the people?

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:15PM (#267595)

              "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." -- Werner Heisenberg

              Time for your lithium shot, Mr. Heisenberg.

              • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:16PM

                by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:16PM (#267646) Journal

                I'd take it with a grain of salt. Heisenberg was born 1901. At that time, being at least slightly religious was for many people a social necessity. On the other hand I can also imagine that he really started to believe in god again. However, most scientists believing in god will not follow any specific institutionalized religion blindly.

                I think religion and institutionalized belief have a strong evolutionary background and were therefore per se a healthy thing. Not only individuals evolve, societies did as well. Stronger societies destroyed weaker ones. Religion and a common belief can help to get the soldiers more determined, to enforce rules and to create a community-feeling.
                Nowadays the situation changed. Many of the religious statements seem more and more unlikely (Earth is flat, Sun circles around earth, Earth is centre of universe, witches do evil magic, earth is 6000 years old, humans were created directly by good, and so on, and so on.) Science, on the other hand, has an ever stronger impact, to the good as well as to the bad. Science can achieve a sense of common achievement and community. To me, this looks like the next logical evolutionary step.

                I do believe that a tendency towards religious belief is part of what we are. It can even be amplified by magnetic fields applied to the brain :-). Science cannot disprove gods existence any more than prove it, because religions are always careful enough to specify god so vaguely as to make this impossible. I don't have any strong problems with people believing in god, I could settle for considering myself an agnostic. The problem is that institutionalized religions try to protect their position, and they still form strong communities. It's these institutionalized religions, not personal believes, that I don't like, consider obsolete and would wish to vanish.

                --
                Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
                • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:11PM

                  by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:11PM (#267666)

                  Indeed. I'd also venture a guess that most scientists mean something very different when they refer to "God" than most "faithful". Not unlike most theologians in fact.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:12PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:12PM (#267645) Journal

            It's the same thing. You can't get rid of a religion without getting rid of its believers.

            Thanks for letting me know that I'm dead. I was completely unaware of that fact...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:00PM (#267552)

          By the by, it's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law.

          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:32PM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:32PM (#267572) Journal

            By the by, it's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law.

            Ok, I didn't doubt you are more familiar with it ;-)

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:59PM

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:59PM (#267586) Journal

          Indeed, Mao and Stalin make much better examples.

          • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:26PM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:26PM (#267699) Journal

            Can't argue with that, although I seriously doubt the thread-starter intended to vote for a violent solution. (And neither do I.)

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by rts008 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:47PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:47PM (#267508)

      Hear! Hear!
      I fervently second the motion.
      The various religions practiced seem to have a common goal: facilitate the 'us vs. them' attitude. This attitude fosters many crimes against humanity, and should be denounced as the terrorist propaganda it actually is.
      (I'm serious, no sarcasm intended)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:50PM (#267511)

        *tips fedora*

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:57PM (#267516)

        The various religions practiced seem to have a common goal: facilitate the 'us vs. them' attitude

        You realize your attitude is EXACTLY that? Do you see your faults in others? Perhaps that is a failing on your part. You may be better off in life with a bit of tolerance instead of an attitude of intolerance to people who do not share your ideals?

        This guy sums it up better than I do. http://adam4d.com/intolerant/ [adam4d.com]

        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:43PM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:43PM (#267575) Journal

          Believe and science are fundamentally different. Scientific knowledge is subject to experiment, constant scrutiny and can be verified / falsified. Religious knowledge, on the other hand, can never be falsified or verified by its very nature.

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 5, Touché) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:14PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:14PM (#267591) Homepage Journal

        The various religions practiced seem to have a common goal: facilitate the 'us vs. them' attitude.

        You are replying to and cheering an "us vs. them" post.

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:37PM (#267730)

          so, should I mark you as on the "them" side of the theatre aisle?

        • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:52PM

          by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:52PM (#267737)

          You must be one of those folk who says, "Science is basically religion, too!"

          As always, the difference is that "our side" is supported by evidence. How many fundamentalist scientists and/or atheists do you have on-record who have committed terrorist acts on comparable scales to ISIS? The objective truth is there to see: People without religion do not morally justify genocide, because personal self-control and critical thinking is emphasised in the teachings of "The Great Science," not offloading personal responsibility in appeals to ambiguous and non-existant authorities.

          Context is everything. If I shove a person in anger, it is "wrong," if I shove a person to push them out of the way of an oncoming train, it is "good." Ending a violent practice to protect the human race is very similar in that regard.

          "You are replying to and cheering an 'us vs. them' post."

          No, it is *not* the same thing.

          • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:52PM

            by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:52PM (#267758) Homepage Journal

            You must be one of those folk who says, "Science is basically religion, too!"

            No. I'm one of those folk who says everybody should leave each other the hell alone and that anybody who justifies otherwise is wrong whether they are religious or not.

            --
            ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
          • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:02AM

            by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:02AM (#267766) Homepage Journal

            Ending a violent practice to protect the human race is very similar in that regard.

            I am religious and non-violent. If you want to end my practice, you will need to exercise violence yourself. Go ahead and put your new program into practice. I will not resist you. But I will continue to practice my religion until you and your people stop me by force.

            --
            ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
          • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:56PM

            by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:56PM (#268051) Homepage Journal

            People without religion do not morally justify genocide

            That is manifestly untrue.

            --
            ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
            • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:57PM

              by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday November 26 2015, @01:57PM (#268311)

              My comment stands corrected. What I should have said is that people without religious mindsets do not morally justify genocide.

              Religion just brings those types of people together in one place where they can do more serious damage.

              It cultivates and multiples those gaps in reason over the generations by stating and propagating bad data, polluting minds philosophically, then socially wreaks havoc by encouraging reproduction within the sect and thinning the number of people in society willing to correct its errors based on "tradition." It's not just belief in an unaccountable higher power, but the religious level of mental gymnastics necessary to believing such an idea in the first place, that are needed to justify not just genocide, but other oppressive social beliefs such as honor killings.

              When a group of people of homogenous thought gather together in a single room, they are almost begging for some tyrant to come along and take hold of their reins as we have seen time and time again. As with animals whose immune systems are identical and therefore lethally vulnerable to the same infection, those of religious mind are largely vulnerable to the same influence when it comes along - that of a single powerful person or organization whom they believe to have all the answers, not unlike "god," because that is what most of them want - a master to do their thinking for them, and a culture to tell them that what they're doing is "right" even if it's unjust. A circlejerk. They don't like to hangout online on sites that don't have "Safe space" policies or in physical places that respect their religious beliefs exclusively. Religious people in the US bitch about not taking "In God we trust" off of our money, for Christ's sake; they are constantly looking for reasons to be upset, e.g."Oh, that person I've never met is having sex with someone I don't want them having sex with!" much like the "safe space" milennial generation.

              I would not say people who are hard-line democrats or republicans are any different - willing to support any ridiculous policy in the name of "party unity." It's ridiculous the amount of damage that way of thinking does to the world.

              • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday November 26 2015, @10:33PM

                by jdavidb (5690) on Thursday November 26 2015, @10:33PM (#268446) Homepage Journal

                They don't like to hangout online on sites that don't have "Safe space" policies or in physical places that respect their religious beliefs exclusively

                And yet I'm here...

                Religious people in the US bitch about not taking "In God we trust" off of our money, for Christ's sake; they are constantly looking for reasons to be upset, e.g."Oh, that person I've never met is having sex with someone I don't want them having sex with!" much like the "safe space" milennial generation.

                Sadly I can't disagree with you there. I'll do my best to keep reminding the religious people I know of all the passages in our religious text that tell us to mind our own business [biblehub.com].

                --
                ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:14PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:14PM (#267523)

      However, its time to accept that ALL religion is offensive and should be removed from society.

      Except of course for whatever half baked mismash of Marxism and Scientism you happen to believe, which is of course the one true worldview. You see, that is exactly the nub of the problem. You go down that road and your revolution eats itself as you purge more and more narrowly defined groups of heretics. Look at a university campus for a vivid current example or Stalin and his purges or the French Revolution for more bloody historical ones.

      Or you do what people a heck of a lot smarter than either of us did and establish a nice simple rule. Congress shall make no law...

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:28PM

        by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:28PM (#267632) Journal

        Congress shall make no law...

        Which is then ignored by your government all the time.

        And the first amendment does not say "Congress shall make no law, and private companies shall make no policy".

        Unlike what the spinners would like you to think, this decision rests solely in the hands of the movie theatres. Want them to show this advert? Then pass a law saying they must, but that's a slippery slope towards fascism (which is effectively the merger of corporations and the army)

    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:20PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:20PM (#267526) Homepage Journal
      I disagree with the idea that things should be pulled from society just because they offend people. If you are using force and coercion against people, if you are violating their rights to life, liberty, or property, or threatening to, then yes, that needs to be eliminated. But there is no right to not be offended. That would be a right that would have to come at the expense of other people's right to liberty.
      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:36PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:36PM (#267534)

      It's time to start eliminating religion from society.

      No it isn't. And the primary reason that would be a terrible idea is that in order to do that, you have to eliminate free thought, and the level of oppression required to do that makes the damage religion causes seem like a picnic by comparison. Josef Stalin tried, and failed with a staggeringly high body count. Some people want to believe in religion, there's basically no stopping them, and a lot of religious belief is basically harmless.

      What absolutely needs to be kept under control, though, is the sort of religion that demands control over those who don't believe the same thing that the believers do. There are all sorts of religious rules that affect only believers and followers of that religion, and most of them are actually pretty good ideas: "Thou shalt not kill", "At least 2.5% of your income must go to charity for the poor", and so forth. But some rules that are fine if people apply them to themselves are very very bad if they try to impose them on other people: "Thou shalt make no graven images", for example, doesn't affect, say, cartoonists in Paris if everyone understands that as "I'm Jewish/Christian/Muslim, so I cannot make any idols", but does if everyone understands that as "If anybody depicts my religions' holy figures in art, we have to kill them". And that's the problem whether it's Christians trying to massacre gay people in Uganda, Muslims shooting up rock concerts because they think they're against the teachings of the prophet, or Jews trying to make the borders of Israel identical to what was described in the book of Exodus at the expense of everybody who's already living there.

      And in the case of the Lord's Prayer, there wouldn't be a problem with it at all if only Christians followed Jesus' very clear instructions on how to say it! Matthew 6:5-6: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:52PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:52PM (#267547)

        Well there's kind of a middle ground here. Unlike in the USA, in the UK the Church of England is quite literally their government's church.

        The queen is the theoretical leader, the prime minister appoints bishops in her name (sorta, everything about the UK is complicated and "sorta") and the UK equivalent of their Congress writes their religious laws.

        Its having a HUGE crisis, partially due to atheism and partially due to the invasion, only about a tenth of the population are baptized, only about 1% of the population attends services any given sunday. Although on long term average counting holidays and life events about a third of the population sets foot in a CoE church per year.

        On the other hand although its about as intimately tied to the government as can be, it doesn't accept tax $$$ at least directly. I'm a little unclear on what if any tax breaks they get vs other churches vs any random $8B sovereign wealth fund.

        The church comes up in debates about royal family wealth a lot. In theory the Queen is the ruler of the church at the top, and the Church has eight billion brit-bucks under its control to invest and fund itself. The queen is super hands off. So is she, or is she not, in charge of eight billion brit-bucks and thousands of religious professionals?

        In the long run the church seems to be dying out and most people without a financial interest in it, think that's a great thing.

        This also makes refusal to show their recruitment commercial kinda weird, like a movie theater refusing to show the FBI warning. Remember, this isn't just any random church, this is Her Royal Majesty's Church, and as much as the population doesn't care about attending her church, she is ridiculously popular. At least ridiculously popular compared to the USA serf's opinion about USA's congress, for example. In that context I'm not sure what would be a good analogy for the USA. Telling George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to F off, I guess.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:52PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:52PM (#267582)

          partially due to the invasion

          What invasion? The last time a foreign force landed troops in Britain was 1797. Sure, there are immigrants to the UK from a lot of different places, but those don't constitute an "invasion" any more than Ashkenazim moving to New York City a century ago.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:29PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:29PM (#267602)

            About 3 million of the 5 million in London are foreign born, so unlikely to follow their parents into CoE services. London certainly isn't English anymore, in the sense of being part of England. Therefore English culture, such as their official govt church, is no longer relevant in London, bringing it back on topic.

            On the other hand in rural areas people pretty much attend the church their parents attended, or at least are nominal members on paper.

            Of the several definitions, "entrance as to take possession" certainly fits.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:51PM (#267707)

              Well, if Briton has been invaded by all these foreign born, I would suggest that they just get busy and kick out all the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes for good measure. And sending the Danes home would be a good thing. And the Normans. And then they could get rid of the Catholics. Maybe Christianity in general, since it is a foreign religion, and bring back the Druids, I say.

              • (Score: 1) by snufu on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:56PM

                by snufu (5855) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:56PM (#267760)

                "and bring back the Druids"

                "Where the banshees live, and they do live well."

        • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:48PM

          by arulatas (3600) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:48PM (#267617)

          I wouldn't want to tell Lincoln to F off... I saw he destroy a whole bunch of vampires once in a documentary about his life.

          --
          ----- 10 turns around
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stormreaver on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:55PM

        by stormreaver (5101) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:55PM (#267659)

        No it isn't [time to start eliminating religion from society]. And the primary reason that would be a terrible idea is that in order to do that, you have to eliminate free thought, and the level of oppression required to do that makes the damage religion causes seem like a picnic by comparison.

        Only if you try to do it by force, which history shows is doomed to failure. There is an inverse relationship between education and religious belief. Eliminating religion from society is a natural function of greater understanding of the universe around us.

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:03PM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:03PM (#267692) Journal

        No it isn't. And the primary reason that would be a terrible idea is that in order to do that, you have to eliminate free thought,

        I think what was meant wasn't some kind of totalitarian purge and brain-washing, but rather than automatic deference to the religious and their religion and the special treatment that they often belligerently expect and demand, gently poking fun at them and questioning their motives.

        When I was younger and much more timid and "respectful" of others, I'd always keep my personal world outlook to myself and try very hard to accommodate the beliefs of others, no matter how silly and simplistic they were (to me) or their motivations for believing them. I've often seen little boorish "Well I'm a Christian" foot-stampings and tantrums, other folks bravely ridiculing the religions of others behind their backs, and all sorts of other nonsense. I've patiently listened to the Jehovah's Witnesses on several occasions as they've tried to re-educate me as to the origins of the universe, read their leaflets, read Muslim leaflets that used a line of reasoning almost identical to the Jehovah's Witnesses, tried to be coerced into nudity and sexual activity by a "wiccan" (on more than one occasion), heard how Judaism is better than Hinduism because there's only one god, and been berated for having long hair by followers of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

        Nowadays, the next person who proudly and forcefully declares their religious orientation to me unsolicited will receive a loud and clear, "Why?" in return. I will not give up until they've thought about it.

        Pointing at the sky and saying, "Because there must be Something Out There" is not a valid response.

        The exception will be if they look like they are wearing a suicide vest, or might know someone looking for an excuse to use one...

      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:11PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:11PM (#267715) Homepage Journal
        Awesome post. I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I agree 100%.
        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:43PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:43PM (#267538) Journal

      Its been pulled not to offend other religions.

      Wrong. Just in case you missed some of the events of this year, it's been pulled because some members of other religion were shown themselves willing to react literally explosive when offended - some people from a certain hebdo would testify if they could do it from their grave.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:21PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:21PM (#267565)

      In the SN debating society as in tech at large, its generally seen as a binary world where we either have to have authoritarian christian taliban or stalins godless society and no other choices are possible.

      The reality probably looks a hell of a lot like my wife, who somehow simultaneously feels both parts of the phrase Irish-Catholic are based on genetic inheritance and the church is for family events and socializing with friends, but she pretty much disagrees with most of the doctrine out of Rome and frankly they could replace the church leadership with buddhists for all she cares WRT doctrine. Doctrine is sort of a signalling passcode to prove you sat thru CCD classes as a kid, rather than a coherent set of beliefs to base your life on.

      So ... yeah. To some extent you can argue society is already mostly de-religioned, its just we still have buildings where special people sign state issued marriage licenses and the like, and the true believers have some place to go and believe at, although almost no one does other than telling everyone else they do to signal group membership to each other.

      For a long time after no one believes anymore, we're still going to have some mythic architecture buildings where people hang out and gossip on a weekend sometimes and have parties for babies, newly permanent couples, and recently dead people. And they'll occasionally stump each other with historical religious trivia no one believes in anymore but only certain people know (kind of a mysteries school aspect). Arguably a huge fraction of the population, nearly all of it, is there today. And there's not necessarily all that much wrong with that.

    • (Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:52PM

      by Username (4557) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:52PM (#267583)

      So then we can have Blue Atheists offending Red Atheists?

    • (Score: 2) by Tramii on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:07PM

      by Tramii (920) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:07PM (#267622)

      ... religion is offensive and should be removed from society.

      How do you propose to do this without becoming the very thing you abhor?

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:18PM

      by Bot (3902) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:18PM (#267672) Journal

      > ALL religion is offensive

      I am not offended by one instance of one religion, therefore your strong assertion is kinda proven to be logically wrong.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:58AM (#267932)

        ALL religion is offensive

        I am not offended by one instance of one religion, therefore your strong assertion is kinda proven to be logically wrong.

        I am offended by your lack of offence! Silly Bots, always thinking they are relying on Logic, when in fact they are running on programming, which while sequential, is not necessarily logical. And now you see, at last, at the end, that I am factually offended, and there is nothing logic can do about that. Ergo, all religion is offensive, as well as all logically mechanical defense of religion, ipso facto. QED.

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:39PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:39PM (#267500) Homepage

    Lord's Prayer Cinema Ad Not Screened for Offensiveness

    That sounds like the story could be about an ad that was inadvertently shown in cinemas after a failure to "screen" (check) it for offensiveness.

    Or it could be that it was shown ("screened"), but claims that it was done so "for offensiveness" are inaccurate.

    And it wasn't rejected because the company found it to be offensive, but because they believed some of their customers might find it so, which is slightly different.

    I'd have gone with "Cinemas refuse to show Lord's Prayer ad" and left the other details to the summary where that can be more clearly explained.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:45PM (#267507)

      SoylentNews Headlines Not Screened for Ambiguity

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:45PM (#267541)

      > That sounds like the story could be about

      You could have read the damn article and found out in less time than it took you to share your inane hypotheses.

      In a statement, DCM said it had a policy of not accepting political or religious advertising content in its cinemas.

      It said 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," and that "in this regard, DCM treats all political or religious beliefs equally".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:03PM (#267553)

        Anonymous Coward Gets Butthurt About Request for Non-Ambiguous Headlines

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @04:10PM (#267557)

          Its his schtick. He always finds a way to inject ambiguity. His posts aren't actually about asking for less ambiguous headlines -- you'll note he doesn't actually ask for anything - its about his narcissism. He's just adding noise.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:36PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:36PM (#267535) Journal

    Truth is I think I'd be fairly offended if I saw a load of superstitious self-righteous mumbo-jumbo broadcast in my face while I was waiting to watch a film that I'd paid good money to see, especially if I had my kids with me. If it was persistent enough it might be enough to turn me away from certain cinemas, or from cinemas altogether.

    That said, I don't think it should be banned, just because it's a bit offensive to some people. Free speech, people, it's there for a reason. Besides, we allow advertising to throw all kinds of other harmful memes at us on a regular basis, what;s one more?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:49PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:49PM (#267544) Journal

      Free speech, people, it's there for a reason.

      In for-profit organizations, the profit beats free-speech.
      Want another example beside this case? Non-disclosure agreements.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @03:50PM (#267546)

      The irony (or hypocrisy) is that the the people who complain that their speech is being denied are usually the strongest advocates for denying other's their speech, whether they be SJWs or evangelical nutjobs.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:24PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:24PM (#267630) Journal

      It's not been banned. The big three movie theatre chains have made a decision to not show the advert in case it "might be enough to turn me away from certain cinemas, or from cinemas altogether". This is what a free market allows to happen. Freedom yeay!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:37PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @10:37PM (#267731) Journal

      Free speech, people, it's there for a reason.

      That's what YouTube is for. They are free to publish it and people are free to watch it if they want. But forcing it on a captive audience simply because they are rich enough to sets a bad precedent -- before long you'd be sitting through an hour of sermons by every rich religion just so you can watch a stupid movie.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:36PM (#267608)

    Sounds a little bit like Cameron's robust liberalism testing it's fangs. I'm sure we'd all be just fine if this was a Muslim prayer. I agree, put that shit in the church or mosque... however peaceful it sounds, it's only 1/2 a page away from calls to kill the unfaithful etc. Bye bye.

    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:22PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @06:22PM (#267629) Journal

      This is capitalism at is best, private companies deciding to do something (or not do something) based on financial reasons.

      Fortunately invisible hands will solve this problem, yeay!

      In the meantime I'll be buying my ticket and popcorn at a nice comfy Odeon at the trafford centre, rather than my local independent cinema that hasn't heard of the concept of "leg room".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:57PM (#267661)
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:18PM

      by isostatic (365) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:18PM (#267673) Journal

      This is the free market talking, nothing to do with legally or illegally limiting speech.

  • (Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:35PM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @08:35PM (#267685)

    So an organization that revolves around weaponizing the subjective feeling of being offended suddenly finds out what it's like when they're the ones deemed offensive.

    If it wasn't for all the collateral damage whenever a so-called holy man gets offended, I'd be giddy.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @09:19PM (#267697)

    What about us atheists? Why should we have to listen to that sectarian turmoil?
    Bleeding C-of-E. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here waving bells at us!
    We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom!
    Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall!
    The Shintuists don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans...

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:04PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:04PM (#267739)

    ...by submitting an ad that they knew broke long-standing tradition[1] would be controversial and getting masses of free publicity courtesy of the moronic media.
    Hell, they've even got excerpts from their advert and a youtube link on the BBC News website which doesn't take ads[2] at any price.

    For those outside the UK: religious and political ads are banned on broadcast TV [bbc.co.uk] and, although not banned in cinemas, it just doesn't happen. This isn't 21st "Political Correctness Gonne Madde" - its an unwritten 'no politics or religion' policy that's been in place for decades.

    Let's be clear: religious programmes aren't banned, in fact the BBC is obliged to produce a small quota of religious programming and there's at least one 'Christian' channel on digital. We're talking ads here, not scheduled programmes that you tune in to if you want to see them - just like the CofE are at perfect liberty to make a feature film about the Life of Christ [youtube.com] and have people choose to watch it. Freedom of speech is important - but so is freedom of listening - and only in the USA does advertising have anything to do with freedom of speech. If this was about religious films then CofE might have a case, especially after that campaigned to get "Jedi" recognised as a religion in the last census.

    No, this seems like a return to the school of advertising practiced by Benneton (what happened to them?) in the 90s: why pay millions for a prime-time TV slot when you can pt up a couple of cheap posters showing the Queen in blackface (I think that was one of theirs) and get your brand mentioned on the main evening news.

    [1] If you can't make a blatent "appeal to tradition" when talking about the Church then what is the world coming to?

    [2] at least, not when you access it from the UK. The US version has ads (of course)

  • (Score: 1) by eravnrekaree on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:07AM

    by eravnrekaree (555) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:07AM (#267768)

    This is more free speech stifling censorship, whilst we attack and try to remove christianity from any aspect of society, there is a very odd and peculiar tendancy for these same people to kiss the feet of the Muslims. It really does look like there is a concerted effort to erase christianity from Western countries and replace it with Islam. Its all very peculiar. The fact is western cultures are Christian nations and if people dont like that then they need to get the hell out. Do you think that a Muslim country would do this to themselves, would kow tow to a alien invaders who demand every reference to the indigenous religion being removed from everything so as they are not offended. This you cant offend anyone crap is also an effort to shut down free expression which goes hand in hand with the Muslim feet kissing.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:02AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:02AM (#267794) Homepage Journal

      If the invisible sky daddy worshippers (of any stripe) want to push their demonstrably false belief systems on others, they should be discouraged from doing so.

      That said, just because someone has a belief in stuff that is false or just doesn't exist (e.g., Christianity, Islam, etc.), it doesn't mean we get to tell them to shut up.

      As for getting offended by *anything* that is speech, your remedy is more speech, not censorship.

      In the case of a movie theater, if you don't like what they're showing you, don't spend your money there. This is a tempest in a teapot, with deluded adherents to incoherent belief systems as players.

      Move along, nothing to see here.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Wednesday November 25 2015, @07:02AM

      by ledow (5567) on Wednesday November 25 2015, @07:02AM (#267912) Homepage

      a) There is no such thing as free speech. You are not entitled to say what you like without their being consequences. Never have been able to, probably never will be able to. It doesn't matter how "free" your country might be, it's just not true. What's not illegal, in any free-thinking society, is some discussion of personal opinion in a reasonable manner. That you think people should be beaten to death because they're doing something not of your religion is not reasonable. Your freedom only extends to the boundary where it impinges on other's freedom to ignore your bullshit and live your life without threat or danger. That's about as close as you can get, and actually even given that, we're still quite free. There are books discussing the thoughts and feelings of paedophiles, why terrorists think how they do, etc. Some of Donald Trump's outbursts of late would actually see police complaints in other first-world countries, and the possibility of prosecution.

      b) Don't know if you realise this, but in the UK especially, a lot of the Bible is actually descriptions of illegal acts and condoning of illegal acts. They may not have been illegal at the time, but they are now in lots of places. Starting with discriminating against homosexuals, through to stoning women, right up to telling people bollocks about the way the planet formed. It's actually ILLEGAL to teach some of that shit in UK classrooms other than for religious study itself, and the rest is actually illegal to even express such an opinion.

      That's not the result of some band of miscreants trolling religious people, or some slip of a pen on a legal document. That's the result of public opinion and enacted law about what's best for the common good of society.

      The reason the churches are slowly making themselves irrelevant is nothing to do with this, however. Religion is an opinion, and literary religion (e.g. bibles, etc.) is about opinion of interpretation. But because much of what the churches still teach is verifiably bollocks, actually illegal in any modern society, or so out-of-touch with modern society it's quite literally laughable. Take gay marriage - the second it was made legal in one place, it suddenly spread extremely quickly. It was legal thousands of years ago (or at least not illegal, in some countries it was positively the norm to have a "boy" for purely sexual purposes, as well as a wife, for instance), the church came along and banned it, but now the church does not dictate the law or public opinion.

      Things like legalisation of gay marriage happened not because everyone realised that their God wasn't going to strike them down, but basically because it was so long overdue, so obvious, and so sensible and civilised that it was a no-brainer once a precedent was set that received public backing.

      You can say what you like. But you can't incite hatred or violence.
      You can think what you like. But you can't necessarily say it, or do it, or tell others to do it, or imply that others should do it.
      You can believe what you like. But not without the possibility of others disagreeing, and wanting to believe the exact opposite.

      It's got nothing to do with "offence". Nobody reasonable is offended by people celebrating Christmas (even if they aren't Christian!), or having to go off in the middle of the day to pray, or having a discussion about why they believe what they believe. But civilisation itself is offended by telling people their beliefs will see them burn in hell, or inciting violence or hatred against others.

      For me, religion is the very antithesis of itself. Love thy neighbour. But not if he lives with a man. Don't kill. Unless they are infidels. Each will come to recognise the one, True god. But only if you never fucking look at any other god ever (quite literally the main interpretation of one of the ten commandments, for instance!). Never make statues of god, or say his name, or write it, but worship in places full of the damn things, and hold others to that same rule even if they aren't bound by your rules. You must never eat these animals, ever, ever, ever. But if you do, we'll just forgive it and ignore it.

      If you don't read religious texts and instantly see a marketing scam, a scare tactic, a line included purely to hurt enemies of the person saying it, etc. and how these lines would have affected, say, a desert people under oppression thousands of years ago, then I wonder if you've ever read them at all. Today? They're just prima facie terrorist material, inciting hatred and violence against others.

      "Freedom of speech" doesn't, hasn't, and probably never will exist. But what freedom there is, is precisely the reason that people can say they're offended by your verbal ejaculations.

      What you do about that is neither here nor there. I offend people every fucking day. I guarantee it. It's actually not all that bad, and there are very, very, very few consequences. Because you being offended requires your co-operation.