General News The Lord's Prayer in UK Cinemas Debate

£8.50, where do you go? Its £10+ round here, and in London I hear it is even worse.

Now that would be a dampener, a Tory broadcast with Cameron's face in full IMAX glory. No thank you. Arguably religion is in a pretty close category, so if banning this advert prevents political ads then I thoroughly support it!

 

It's £7-10 here.. if you go to somewhere like The Vue. Otherwise you can go to the Everyman Cinema where it's more like £13. I've been to the latter and it's worth the extra money.. totally different experience. No need to mingle with the commoners or obnoxious secondary school kids.

 

Wow, for us (Odeon, Vue, Cineworld) you will typically pay £11 for 2D and £13.50 for 3D.

It only seems to have shot up in recent years though funnily enough (I disctinctly remember going "whaaaaaaaat?!" in the ticket foyer), I swear less than five years ago you could see a 2D anywhere for £7.

 

Last time I went to the cinema was for The Simpsons Movie. £10 each and we had to sit with commoners including a group of kids who were oblivious to the jokes and references aimed at them, but insisted on explaining the Grand Theft Auto reference to their parents as loudly as possible.

Cinema is just a terrible experience unless you're going to see something that's 3D and has people willing to behave like actual adults.

 

We have about 15 mins of ads here before a movie which costs $10.50. Small popcorn and drink costs almost $14. Ads are for things like Toyota, Telus, Rogers, Scotia Bank, service announcements... you name it, but no Christian ads because Christians in Canada are supposed to be walking ads. In other words, our lives should be shining with Christ's love.

That being said, I think it's sad when people no longer know the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm or some hymns which have given people through the ages great comfort and strength in times of crisis and when near death. This source of help is being lost. The result... in my opinion, and remember it's my opinion... is a tremendous increase in mental illness, consumption of pills, break-up of a sense of community, isolation and instability.

I also think it's sad that the majority of people on this forum generally think of the far right conservative fundamentalists when they hear the word Christian. I keep reminding myself that's exactly what gays have had to put up with in the past when most Christians just assumed all gays were living a lifestyle of sexual debauchery and couldn't form true love relationships. So it's best not to gripe.

 

I fail to see how a private business, such as a cinema, refusing to show an advert is "limiting free speech".

 

A private business can show whatever the heck it pleases. It has no obligation to run Christian ads.

 

I've no problems with people (adults or children) learning the Lord's prayer, just as I have no problems with Bible study. I think in places the Bible has beautiful messages, and in other parts just beautiful literature.

But I do think there is definitely a time and a place, and before a paid-for film where visitors have no choice but to watch it? Nope, that is "preachy". It would be very different if this was a TV advert (as people would have the option to change channels, mute the TV, go make a cup of tea, or just angrily tut if they wanted). But in a cinema there is the sense of it feeling too "forced" and "deliberate". "You will watch this".

Plus with the Lord's prayer you do have the whole Catholic/Protestant issue (one has an extra verse? Roman Catholic?). In some areas (i.e. Northern Ireland) that could be contentious or dangerous. Whilst this was a CoE broadcast in England, it would set a dangerous precedent which could cause competing broadcasts in NI, or even all religions trying to "outdo" the others across the UK. Soon the whole pre-film would be a battle of the religious ads!

Religion is not a fancy phone or a bag of Revels, it is a lot deeper and more contentious than that.

 

So, just to be clear, you would be completely fine with atheists, satanists, and others advertising before movies as well?

...and before you respond with some type of response like, 'well so long as it's not [fill in the blank]...' I want to point out that I find the ad disturbing. Not for the content in the ad, but the intended purpose behind it. The intended purpose behind the ad is to lull people into believing that the Church is some safe, loving, and welcoming place so that they can recruit people. This entire purpose behind the ad is to recruit for the cult.

To juxtapose this ad with another, here is one that was put out by Scientology, who were the ones behind all the "way to happiness" ads:

[YOUTUBE]SHJDa2hPwFk[/YOUTUBE]

What is the purpose behind this ad? Was it to promote the message: "Be Worthy of Trust"? No. It was to emotionally manipulate people into visiting the website, and hopefully through the website recruit people into the cult.

I don't want my niece and nephews being exposed to this type of propaganda. So, unless you're okay with allowing the Church of Satan and Atheists also put out propaganda videos aimed at emotionally manipulating and targeting other people (particularly children and young adults), then this is a ridiculous double standard.

 

Aldrick, I think you missed this comment I made just prior to yours:

"A private business can show whatever the heck it pleases. It has no obligation to run Christian ads."

Sheesh! You are attributing all sorts of comments to me I never made. I just said I was sad people don't know the Lords Prayer anymore because it has been a great comfort to many through the ages. Did I say it should be taught in the theatre? If it is allowed, of course other religions' ads should be allowed. It's up to the private theatre which ads it runs.

 

Except in the UK it is not, because they are not allowed to show religious or political advertisements. There is no reason to be angry here - everyone is given the same treatment.

 

I wasn't attributing any comments to you at all. I was asking you a question.

There was no malice or ill intent. There was just me stating the obvious: the ad is propaganda to promote their cult. The goal of the ad is to recruit for the cult, the same as the Scientology ad that I posted as an example of another religious cult doing it. The only difference between the cults is that the one in question here happens to have a considerable amount of members, public good will, and also happens to unfortunately be a state sponsored religion.

 

That's fine. You can believe Christianity is a cult if you wish to.
However, by definition Christianity is not a cult and prayer is practised
by literally billions of people of different religions around the world.
To call prayer a tool of propaganda sounds like an overreaction to me.

In Canada we have a "live and let live" attitude, not an "us vs. them" mentality, so I don't see the same cultural war and hostility here between gays and religious groups. I really
don't. Why make a big issue over every little thing? This goes to both sides.
Respect each other and stop insulting each other, and you'll have a lot less conflict
and be a lot happier.

 

Please be respectful of other religions and religious beliefs. Otherwise you'll be breaking the policy outlined here

 

I don't understand the word "banned" in this context. It didn't sound like the government or any authority really censored this commercial. The company that runs the movie theater just decided it didn't want political or religious advertisements. Sounds pretty reasonable. But "banned" sounds bad. Should this commercial be banned in cinemas? Nope. It's acceptable. Should cinema companies have a choice on what they display in their advertisements? Of course. So no it shouldn't be banned but cinema companies can decide what they want to show -- if they want to avoid potentially alienating many of their customers to prevent harm to their business, again, seems quite reasonable.

 

I didn't deny that there were billions of Christians in the world. Of course, we were talking about the Church of England specifically here, and so I said this: "The only difference between the cults is that the one in question here happens to have a considerable amount of members, public good will, and also happens to unfortunately be a state sponsored religion." ...all of which is true about the Church of England.

As for the meaning of the word cult, well, I'd refer you to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Those are the first two full formal definitions given by the dictionary. As you can see, the Church of England, and yes--indeed, ALL religious worship and belief--falls under the definition of cult. Having huge numbers of adherents does not magically remove its cult status and grant it legitimacy. It only gains social and cultural legitimacy, which can (thankfully) over time be lost.

As for the word propaganda, we once again turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

As you can see, once again, the word is properly used. The intent of the ad is to spread their beliefs/ideas to further their institution and cause.

You are not denying anything that I've written. You've only disagreed with the words that I've used, which I've now shown to be accurate according to the dictionary.

You are free to report my post if you'd like. However, as anyone can see nowhere did I attack anyone. I simply stated the facts and my opinion. I assume that you took objection to the fact that I used the word cult. As you can see in my response to Open Arms, the use of the word is legitimate.

What I find offensive here, is that no one would take issue with calling Scientology a dangerous cult. In fact, virtually everyone here would agree with that statement of opinion. Yet, somehow stating the same exact opinion about another cult, is... offensive? It's called a double standard.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply stating my opinion. People can choose to engage or not.

My opinion on this situation is, once again, that what the Church of England is doing here is no different than what Scientology was doing with the "Way to Happiness" ads that they were running. It is intended as feel good advertisements in the hopes of recruiting new members to their cult or bringing back lapsed members to their cult.

Absolutely no one has disagreed with me on this point, because it is obviously just the factual truth.

Here is the rejected Church of England ad:
[YOUTUBE]bxgwWzh0h-w[/YOUTUBE]

Here is the Scientology ad that I posted earlier:
[YOUTUBE]SHJDa2hPwFk[/YOUTUBE]

Both ads try to have an uplifting pull-at-your-heart-strings message (though I think the Scientology ad is much better at this), and both ads conclude with trying to direct you to a website that is designed to pull you into their cult. It's a bit like fishing. The ad is the bait, the viewers are the fish, and they're looking for a nibble on the line--people going to the website--if they get that then they try and reel them in.

Is that an unflattering portrayal of what they're doing? Yes. However, it is also an honest portrayal. There is no deception in my words. It is just an honest statement of what they're attempting to do. In fact, that is why they wanted it to play before the new Star Wars movie, because they knew lots of eyes would be on it.

Now, you may find my opinion offensive, and that's fine. However, you should ask yourself why you didn't also find Open Arms opinion offensive where she states that people NOT knowing the Lord's Prayer is what is leading to: "a tremendous increase in mental illness, consumption of pills, break-up of a sense of community, isolation and instability." Which basically means that my niece and nephews, and any future children I have of my own, are somehow magically being put at risk by my actions. Are you saying that can't be seen as offensive?

To be clear, I don't really care one way or another. She is entitled to her opinion, and I have no desire to silence her on that matter. That doesn't mean that it isn't insulting or disturbing to me, basically accusing me of being a poor parent and uncle for purposefully going out of my way to block their access to religious indoctrination. ...which is precisely why I am so passionate about this issue. Because it is an attempt by a church to evade such barriers, and get to the vulnerable and impressionable children. It is very difficult for them to understand WHY something is bad when the majority of their friends are Christians.

My point of view is simple. Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out and start waving it around in public, and please don't try and shove it down my or any children's throats.

 

In other words, you're going out of your way to impose your opinions and values on your children as well, just like some Christians! As much as I dislike religion, this is quite a double standard.

Like the part comparing religions to penises though.

 

Actually no. I'm not imposing my opinions on them, because over all I'm not really sharing them. I am simply sheltering them from opposing opinions until they are old enough to understand mine, at which point they'll be old enough to make a choice about what to think and believe on their own.

What they know is that I'm an atheist (and that it means that I don't believe in God), that some people are theists (meaning that they believe in one or more Gods), and that they will have the opportunity to make up their mind once they're older. In the meantime, it's okay to be friends with Christians, and it's important to be respectful. However, they shouldn't agree to attend their Churches or any other events, as those are attempts to recruit them into their religion. That is what they know as children.

When they get older and we can have a more mature discussion, we'll talk about what I believe, and why I believe what I believe. We will also talk about why I believe certain things (such as original sin) are immoral belief systems that they should reject. However, ultimately it will be their decision. Though, it should be made much easier for them to accept my point of view, because they have not already been indoctrinated into the religion. This is always the barrier faced. Being a Christian can become a fundamental part of a persons identity, and so asking them to leave their religion behind is asking them to leave part of their identity behind. It is one of the reasons debates over religion go no where. That is why sheltering the children from this type of stuff is important to me, because if they are indoctrinated at a young age, it becomes part of their identity.

 

It wasn't because it was unrelated to films, it was because it was advertising a particular religion. The company in question apparently has a policy against showing any religious or political adverts.

 

Five pound at central Bristol odeon :icon_cool

I wouldn't want to watch religious ads before a film and I'm sure plenty of other people wouldn't either, so cinemas make a business decision to not show it. It's only at all controversial because it fits the victim narrative.. sort of