The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[tonea2003]

And again: that's a nonsense. They are not discriminating on grounds of religion if they treat all religions the same. It's all sound and fury: they've got way more publicity from this contrivance than they ever would have from the advert.

can't see there being a mass influx to the pews though, can you?

 

[Matty]

I'd like them to be given to the local councils for usage as outreach centres, meeting places or generally things that befit their historical role in the community. Turning them into scummy dive bars or shite flats for the terminally pretentious just doesn't seem right to me

The diocese are at pains to make ends meet, and cost cut where they can. Whilst it's more "Christian" to hand the buildings over to councils etc to help the community it's more financially astute to sell them off to construction companies to either demolish and build on or renovate. There's strong rumours my mum's parish is going to be merged with another local one and the church and it's land sold off for development. It'll earn Salford diocese a decent wedge as the church and lands are fairly large and on the edge of a sort after area where house prices are comparatively high.

 

[George Hannah]

And again: that's a nonsense. They are not discriminating on grounds of religion if they treat all religions the same. It's all sound and fury: they've got way more publicity from this contrivance than they ever would have from the advert.

I sincerely hope we get the opportunity to see whether your verdict is endorsed by the courts. Merely repeating the word 'nonsense' may not be a sufficient defence of DCM's widely condemned action. I see even Dawkins wants to be called as a witness for the prosecution.

 

[tonea2003]

The diocese are at pains to make ends meet, and cost cut where they can. Whilst it's more "Christian" to hand the buildings over to councils etc to help the community it's more financially astute to sell them off to construction companies to either demolish and build on or renovate. There's strong rumours my mum's parish is going to be merged with another local one and the church and it's land sold off for development. It'll earn Salford diocese a decent wedge as the church and lands are fairly large and on the edge of a sort after area where house prices are comparatively high.

sounds like the thin end of the wedge, with more and more "local churches" going this way and such being spread far and wide, i can see those that currently go not making the effort

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

 

[Chris in London]

It seems that DCM had no written policy in place until very recently and a legal challenge may be made on the grounds indicated in the OP. 'In a letter to DCM, the Church’s legal chief Stephen Slack alleges its decision “not to screen the proposed advertisement would involve unlawful discrimination” because DCM would be “directly discriminating against the Archbishops’ Council” by failing to provide a service to them on grounds of religion or belief.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-dont-like-religion-Church-tells-cinemas.html

I'm not sure how many times I can say the same thing before the mods ban me, but the reason why the service provider won't provide the relevant service is nothing to do with the religious views of the service requester, its entirely to do with the product itself. Any other person asking for the same commercial to be shown would get the same answer. That's why there is no discrimination. Moreover if the CofE asked the cinemas to screen anything else on the same commercial basis (e.g. a short film highlighting the plight of the homeless during the winter, or about humanitarian work in Africa) they would not be refused on the basis of the CofE's religion. It is the PRODUCT that they deem to be outside their policy, not the people who provide that product.

They wouldn't show a commercial for dildoes either. Even if it featured the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[M18CTID]

A few extracts from an excellent article on the situation:

No one 'banned' the Church of England ad – they're making it up
........
Here's what happened: A commercial agency decided a Church of England ad might upset paying customers going to the cinema so it decided not to take it. They did so, rather predictably given they are a commercial agency, for commercial reasons. Then the Church of England played an absolute blinder of a press strategy and got themselves on the front of the Mail, the Times and all over the BBC. Fair do's to them. If you're in PR, watch what Arun Arora, director of communications for the Church of England, is doing and learn it. It's a great way of getting far more free advertising than you would ever have been able to pay for by putting your ad in a cinema.

...........
But regardless of my opinion of the policy, or anyone else's, that ad did not get banned. It fell foul of a policy, just as a non-religious ad would have done.

........
The establishment church is not some silenced minority. It has plenty of ways to get its message out, including through it's state-protected schools, it's state-protected peers in the Lords, it's state-protected position during moments of public ceremony, or even Thought for the Day. Religion is still given a pride of place in society which is completely at odds with the level of support it enjoys.
..........

Full article here: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...the-church-of-england-ad-they-re-making-it-up

Well somebody's lying then. The bishop that was involved in the making of the ad has been on Vine's show on Radio 2 this afternoon and categorically stated that the agency originally agreed to take the ad before it was even produced and not only that, also offered the C of E a discount.

 

[bluetev]

As a completely non-religious person who wasn't even Christian to begin with, this is utter rubbish.

What's the big deal if a religion does advertise? There is a scientology site that distributes leaflets, and I see preachers on high streets.just ignore. If anything Christianity in its current form in the UK is non-offensive and harmless. The comment on the first page may have been facetious but bang on - if I had kids burger or soda ads would be what I would ban first, they are far more harmless.

Incidentally I would be interested to see if the anti-religion brigade here would be as keen to ban the "multi-faith" prayer room that are increasingly springing up, and invariably used predominantly by one of the faiths. You lot are pretty cowardly when it comes to picking battles, you know.

 

[George Hannah]

I'm not sure how many times I can say the same thing before the mods ban me, but the reason why the service provider won't provide the relevant service is nothing to do with the religious views of the service requester, its entirely to do with the product itself. Any other person asking for the same commercial to be shown would get the same answer. That's why there is no discrimination. Moreover if the CofE asked the cinemas to screen anything else on the same commercial basis (e.g. a short film highlighting the plight of the homeless during the winter, or about humanitarian work in Africa) they would not be refused on the basis of the CofE's religion. It is the PRODUCT that they deem to be outside their policy, not the people who provide that product.

They wouldn't show a commercial for dildoes either. Even if it featured the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Please be assured I do understand your point and appreciate your continuing efforts to say the same thing in as many different ways as you can (although not necessarily your choice of examples.) The mods joyfully seized upon the opportunity to threaten me with a ban when I argued in similar vein about the question of the home-grown status of Nastasic. I was proved wrong about that by the way and steel myself for a similar outcome if this is tested in law.
Nevertheless at the moment I'm still backing the Church's legal team, seemingly against the odds.

 

[George Hannah]

Well somebody's lying then. The bishop that was involved in the making of the ad has been on Vine's show on Radio 2 this afternoon and categorically stated that the agency originally agreed to take the ad before it was even produced and not only that, also offered the C of E a discount.

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration - sounds like a contract to me!