NitrateVille.com

Over here in Blighty there is a storm brewing owing to the Odeon, Cineworld and Vue chains refusing to show a one-minute film produced by / through the Church of England. Journalists and clerics are up in arms because the film is being 'banned' in cinemas due to show the latest 'Star Wars' entry. The film reportedly depicts various folk reciting the Lord's Prayer, among them the Archbishop of Canterbury. One wonders how much was spent on it.

Of course the film is not 'banned', and can apparently be viewed at http://WWW.MAILONSUNDAY.CO.UK/LORDSPRAYER" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank by anyone with internet access. Rightly or wrongly, the cinema chains have chosen not to show a piece of religious propaganda, but this does not prevent others from watching it. In fact the audience is now wider as one does not have to pootle along to see the new film in order to watch the Archbishop's epic.

Ironically, it was Rank's Odeon chain which showed a series of religious shorts featuring Stewart Rome as 'Dr Goodfellow' called A SUNDAY THOUGHT FOR THE COMING WEEK or such title in the 1940s. Folk who recall these being inflicted on cinemagoers (think it was Sunday only) recall the physical and verbal abuse hurled at the well-meaning medic.

No...NO!! Why would one show that thing????!!!! It might be a slight cure for insanity, might improve morality, might give one a basis for life. Why would you want to do that? No...NO!! It's much better to be able instead to take an assault rifle which no citizen needs and... Good God, what kind of madness am I living in??????

R Michael Pyle wrote:No...NO!! Why would one show that thing????!!!! It might be a slight cure for insanity, might improve morality, might give one a basis for life. Why would you want to do that? No...NO!! It's much better to be able instead to take an assault rifle which no citizen needs and... Good God, what kind of madness am I living in??????

But the thing IS being shown. And religious belief (or claiming it) is no guarantee of morality in the same way that one can be non-religious and still have morals / principles. And the last time I handled a rifle (to the best of my memory) was at school, where Christianity was inflicted upon us whether we wanted it or not. So much for 'religious freedom'!

I'm sure J. Arthur Rank would not be pleased

Bob

If they alternate the screening of the film with showings of L. Ron Hubbard's Finding Your Inner Xenu, Anton LaVey's A Good Night Sleep in Satan's Sheets, or Sun Myung Moon's A Flower For Your Lapel, I'm good with it.

Still, it seems a bit presumptuous to think you can just go in and have your film screened anywhere you'd like. Don't know if the CofE still has that sort of clout in the UK.

oldposterho wrote:If they alternate the screening of the film with showings of L. Ron Hubbard's Finding Your Inner Xenu, Anton LaVey's A Good Night Sleep in Satan's Sheets, or Sun Myung Moon's A Flower For Your Lapel, I'm good with it.

Still, it seems a bit presumptuous to think you can just go in and have your film screened anywhere you'd like. Don't know if the CofE still has that sort of clout in the UK.

According to the article in today's 'The Mail on Sunday' the showing was originally agreed, indeed encouraged by some or all of the 'executives' involved, with an additional 55% discount to the C of E, but changed their minds afterwards. I expect the Church will be reimbursed for any unnecessary expense, and as I mentioned earlier, the film is free to watch online. I wonder how much it cost to make, not forgetting the fees for showing it.

I'm wondering what all the fuss is about? The last time I went to the pictures (admittedly some time back now), there was no programme as such. What we got was just a whole load of advertisements and previews before he main film. The main film incidentally just started after all this rubbish and if it didn't have the MGM lion, the lady with the torch or a man hitting a gong at the beginning - one would be hard-pressed to actually know it was the main film starting. I presume therefore that the Church film would have merely been bundled up with the usual advertisements and been totally ignored by the audience as usual.

A lot of this is to do with articles in the press concerning controversies on religious freedom, although these instances are quoted so often in argument that one wonders how widespread they actually are. Examples include prohibitions against display of crosses / wearing of crucifixes, a couple running a guest-house refusing to let rooms to gay couples sleeping together, a bakery declining an order for a gay marriage message to be put on a cake, a family being persecuted because the parents [I wouldn't count the children] converted from Muslim to Christianity, a serious assault on a Muslim shopkeeper after the Paris killings last week' etc, etc. Even Our Glorious Leader has joined the fray, as well as Richard Dawkins, et al...

In this instance one wonders what the fuss is about as the Cinema chains are businesses in a capitalist country and are presumably entitled to show or not show as they wish. Admittedly, if they had agreed beforehand to show the film there should be some restitution. And of course the film can be viewed online and [predictably] is now on YT, so arguably it is now more accessible as one doesn't have to traipse along and fork out umpteen quid to watch the new 'Star Wars' in order to see it..

Religious freedom has been a one-way street for a long time as an infant has no choice (or awareness, for that matter) when being baptised [I have no quarrel with people being baptised when they know what they're doing], and indoctrination is still rife in schools under the name of 'education'

p.s. just watched it - twice - on YT. A very bland minute's worth, although comments include 'Wonderful' and 'Very powerful'. The kind of thing which the converted will approve of but I can't imagine it making any headway with the rest of us.

Note: I was amused today, in what is still claimed to be a 'Christian' country, that a contestant in a quiz show ('The Chase') guessed that John Bunyan wrote 'Brokeback Mountain'!

With great trepedition, treading into this topic.
It seems these days, and for a while now, atheists have been very influential.
It seems they often have the power to move things the way they want them,
as you can see in this case.
Doesn't seem to be having a great beneficial effect, except maybe for atheists,
but I even doubt that. Even a lot of agnostics and secular-minded folk see
the positive effect of religion on most people. The great sociologist Sorokin
as well as dozens of other important theorsts/scholars have also taken this side.

any tap dancing?

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:a family being persecuted because the parents [I wouldn't count the children] converted from Muslim to Christianity

A capital crime in every Muslim country, except Turkey, where the converts would only have to worry about homicidal mob vengeance.

Note: I was amused today, in what is still claimed to be a 'Christian' country, that a contestant in a quiz show ('The Chase') guessed that John Bunyan wrote 'Brokeback Mountain'!

But actually, in this case, the contestant's ignorance is somewhat admirable: he has heard of Bunyan, which is something, and he hasn't heard of Brokeback Mountain, which is nothing. Hope his wrong answer didn't send him into the Slough of Despond.

drednm wrote:any tap dancing?

Or any tap-dancing cats?

(Other than Frederica's...)

Jim

Sort of a sidenote--a big flap here recently (New York), where a mall decided that Santa's backdrop would be just fine with a stark,stylized glacier. No twinkly trees, nothing. Cue social media uproar and the mall immediately set up a veritable forest of Christmas trees, lights, ribbons, the works! Gee, just like Christmas! Sorry, glacier.

westegg wrote:Sort of a sidenote--a big flap here recently (New York), where a mall decided that Santa's backdrop would be just fine with a stark,stylized glacier. No twinkly trees, nothing. Cue social media uproar and the mall immediately set up a veritable forest of Christmas trees, lights, ribbons, the works! Gee, just like Christmas! Sorry, glacier.

Well, c'mon, since when did Santa live in a glacier?

Jim

As I have been saying for many years - political correctness is going to insane lengths at times.

Why can't we just go back to having fun and having a bit of a laugh - and possibly doing what we want to do instead of having behaviour dictated upon us?

I don't have the "Holidays", I have Christmas - then I can say bah and humbug to it!

Donald Binks wrote:As I have been saying for many years - political correctness is going to insane lengths at times.

Why can't we just go back to having fun and having a bit of a laugh - and possibly doing what we want to do instead of having behaviour dictated upon us?

I don't have the "Holidays", I have Christmas - then I can say bah and humbug to it!

I have holidays. Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas, Solstice, Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, I do all of 'em. Bring me pie.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

earlytalkiebuffRob wrote:a family being persecuted because the parents [I wouldn't count the children] converted from Muslim to Christianity

A capital crime in every Muslim country, except Turkey, where the converts would only have to worry about homicidal mob vengeance.

Note: I was amused today, in what is still claimed to be a 'Christian' country, that a contestant in a quiz show ('The Chase') guessed that John Bunyan wrote 'Brokeback Mountain'!

But actually, in this case, the contestant's ignorance is somewhat admirable: he has heard of Bunyan, which is something, and he hasn't heard of Brokeback Mountain, which is nothing. Hope his wrong answer didn't send him into the Slough of Despond.

Sorry to shatter the illusion, but the question was about Bunyan, and the contestant's answer was 'Brokeback Mountain'...

I don't think this is anything to do with political correctness, but simple common sense. It would open the floodgates, and with the way the UK is divided on many issues right now, that's not what we need. If they gave way to the CofE, how many of the right wing newspapers would then give headlines to the fact that an advert from another religion DID get shown at a later date. Ban one, ban all is a sensible way forward. The same rule applies to political parties and adverts in cinemas.

What's more, there is a moral issue here as I see it. The CofE made the advert with a view to showing prior to Star Wars specifically, and so not trying to influence adults as much as kids. There's something mighty wrong with that from a moral viewpoint. If we are going to ban adverts for fast food being shown during times when kids are watching because the food is bad for them, then an advert promoting religions - which kills many more people than fast food - should also be banned. I'd also suggest that if the CofE have enough money lying around to make an advert of a good enough quality to be shown in cinemas, then perhaps they should give it to the people who need it instead.

Ban one, ban all is a sensible way forward. The same rule applies to political parties and adverts in cinemas.

Quite right old thing! Ban ALL advertising at cinemas! Bring us back a proper programme featuring the orchestra, the organ, shorts and newsreels! For the life of me I just cannot understand why audiences started to put up with advertising at cinemas in the first place! There should have been a stampede to the Manager's office! Shows just how complacent people are.

As to politicians. There should be a law passed that allowed them to only appear for 5 minutes on television once a month - and even that is generous!

silentmovies742 wrote:I don't think this is anything to do with political correctness, but simple common sense. It would open the floodgates, and with the way the UK is divided on many issues right now, that's not what we need. If they gave way to the CofE, how many of the right wing newspapers would then give headlines to the fact that an advert from another religion DID get shown at a later date. Ban one, ban all is a sensible way forward. The same rule applies to political parties and adverts in cinemas.

What's more, there is a moral issue here as I see it. The CofE made the advert with a view to showing prior to Star Wars specifically, and so not trying to influence adults as much as kids. There's something mighty wrong with that from a moral viewpoint. If we are going to ban adverts for fast food being shown during times when kids are watching because the food is bad for them, then an advert promoting religions - which kills many more people than fast food - should also be banned. I'd also suggest that if the CofE have enough money lying around to make an advert of a good enough quality to be shown in cinemas, then perhaps they should give it to the people who need it instead.

The advert wasn't by a long chalk of 'good quality', although the fee originally negotiated (they were offered a 55% discount, according to 'The Mail on Sunday') would have presumably been considerable. I certainly agree it could have been better spent. And of course the film isn't 'banned' - the cinema company has declined to show it. A film which was 'banned' would not be available to watch at the click of a mouse!

silentmovies742 wrote:...an advert promoting religions - which kills many more people than fast food...

If you're referring to the religion of the Great Mahound, that's indisputably true, but it certainly doesn't apply to Christians & Jews, who (in the Middle East) are the killed, not the killers.

If you're referring to the religion of the Great Mahound, that's indisputably true, but it certainly doesn't apply to Christians & Jews, who (in the Middle East) are the killed, not the killers.

Well it doesn't now, but it certainly did during the time of the Crusades! I suppose all these religions take it in turns to cause widespread murder and mayhem.

Donald Binks wrote:

If you're referring to the religion of the Great Mahound, that's indisputably true, but it certainly doesn't apply to Christians & Jews, who (in the Middle East) are the killed, not the killers.

Well it doesn't now, but it certainly did during the time of the Crusades!...

Haven't we moved beyond the 12th Century?

Anyway, what were the Crusaders attempting to do? Recover control of formerly Christian lands invaded & conquered by Arab/Muslim armies. Nor did Muslim aggression end in the Middle Ages: the final effort of the Ottomans to conquer a Christian nation, Austria, took place in 1683!

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Donald Binks wrote:

If you're referring to the religion of the Great Mahound, that's indisputably true, but it certainly doesn't apply to Christians & Jews, who (in the Middle East) are the killed, not the killers.

Well it doesn't now, but it certainly did during the time of the Crusades!...

Haven't we moved beyond the 12th Century?

Anyway, what were the Crusaders attempting to do? Recover control of formerly Christian lands invaded & conquered by Arab/Muslim armies. Nor did Muslim aggression end in the Middle Ages: the final effort of the Ottomans to conquer a Christian nation, Austria, took place in 1683!

I don't wish to be involved in what may be termed by some as a controversial tete a tete and not really a discussion applicable to this board so I will end by merely pointing out that there was some degree of one-sidedness in your argument if I may put it that way. Surely too, in a "world without end", a matter of a few centuries is not even a millisecond upon the scale?

(Luckily I was able to throw off the yoke of mumbo-jumboism some time ago and feel sorry for those who wish to involve themselves in organised religion. But, that is purely my own opinion and I have no problem if people wish to "believe" so long as they can do so privately. The trouble of course is that everybody involved with a "faith" tries to push it on everyone else in one form or another. As I said, my point of view is usually private and I make no attempt here to foist it on anyone else.)

It's sad too isn't it, that a Church has to resort to advertising to try and get a few bums on seats?

Perhaps more bizarre than the decision for the CoE to advertise is the website the end of the advert leads you to. It is literally a page of prayers displayed in boxes, and you can tick "I've Prayed" after you have read one - presumably in case you forget you have done so. But that's not all, there are also prayers featured from instragram and Vine - including a teenage boy showing us his belly and praying to God to help him lose it, a girl singing three lines of Hallelujah, a picture of Sean Bean with the words "One does not spend thanksgiving eve sober," and a picture of a rather poor statue of Jesus in a supermarket with the words "I met the Lord at Dairy Queen" underneath. The advert is intended to bring prayer into the digital age, apparently. Sadly, the people behind the website haven't quite got there yet.

>Luckily I was able to throw off the yoke of mumbo-jumboism some time ago and feel sorry for those who wish to involve themselves in organised religion.<

Donald, that statement is profoundly insulting on its face. If you expect your beliefs - or lack of same - to be respected, that street should run both ways.

-Craig

wich2 wrote:>Luckily I was able to throw off the yoke of mumbo-jumboism some time ago and feel sorry for those who wish to involve themselves in organised religion.<

Donald, that statement is profoundly insulting on its face. If you expect your beliefs - or lack of same - to be respected, that street should run both ways.

-Craig

You should have read further - where I stated it was just my opinion.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Donald Binks wrote:

If you're referring to the religion of the Great Mahound, that's indisputably true, but it certainly doesn't apply to Christians & Jews, who (in the Middle East) are the killed, not the killers.

Well it doesn't now, but it certainly did during the time of the Crusades!...

Haven't we moved beyond the 12th Century?

Right -- Islam is a 13th century religion.

Jim

Donald Binks wrote:

wich2 wrote:>Luckily I was able to throw off the yoke of mumbo-jumboism some time ago and feel sorry for those who wish to involve themselves in organised religion.<

Donald, that statement is profoundly insulting on its face. If you expect your beliefs - or lack of same - to be respected, that street should run both ways.

-Craig

You should have read further - where I stated it was just my opinion.

I read it all. The fact that you chose to couch your opinion in a pointed denigration of that of others, is the problem.

-Craig

Gentlemen! Ladies! Please! This should be a reasoned, civilised and sensible discussion. Of course we all believe our opinions to be correct. If not, we would hold different opinions, which we would still believe to be correct. [I'll work that one out later...]

Brother Donald (oh dear, this is starting to sound like a Masons' meeting) is simply stating his views in his way, but without getting personal. And of course the original discussion is flying off at several tangents...

It's not so much whether religion(s) is / are nonsense or vice versa, rather the freedom not to be lectured to. As a shopkeeper, I have been pestered by folk trying to foist their religion on me, and I have even had these individuals do the same to customers, which is even worse, let alone the chance of some poor victim fleeing purchase-less from the shop. Having said that, this storm in a tea-cup actually led to my (and thousands more) watching the video, which would not have happened if it had merely preceded whatever the new 'Star Wars' film is called.