[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

What movie was it that was being shown?

Star Wars ...the irony

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Star Wars ...the irony

Really? all this because of Star Wars?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Star Wars ...the irony

Wasn't the ad first starting to be shown during a screening of Star Wars?

I doubt it was made for Star Wars viewings only.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, I'm aware. I didn't need the recap.

I also don't have a problem with posting smilies. That's not what I said. Context is everything.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm shrugging either. Something about this off topic discussion is boring me I think.

You did insist I explain.
On topic the 10pm news glossed over it a little I thought.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

I'd have asked for my money back and simply gone to another theatre that were not showing it. Problem solved.

You'd have gone to the trouble of leaving the screen, getting a refund and travelling to a new theatre because of one advert that is over before you even have a chance to stand up?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Wasn't the ad first starting to be shown during a screening of Star Wars?

I doubt it was made for Star Wars viewings only.

Well yes that is what i meant

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You'd have gone to the trouble of leaving the screen, getting a refund and travelling to a new theatre because of one advert that is over before you even have a chance to stand up?

Yes i would have. I didn't pay to see that. Simple choice. Go somewhere else.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

Yes i would have. I didn't pay to see that. Simple choice. Go somewhere else.

I'm sure you didn't pay specifically to see any of the adverts that hit the screen before a movie begins.

But, oh no, a priest and the word "God" OH MY.

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I'm sure you didn't pay specifically to see any of the adverts that hit the screen before a movie begins.

But, oh no, a priest and the word "God" OH MY.

The topic is specifically about that movie advert being played in the cinema. Usually other adverts are showing new movies to checkout.
No Athiests don't even do the.. Oh No thing when the word (god) pops up. It's impossible for athiest to do that because they don't believe in any religion/gods at all. To me they don't exist so we don't even have hate towards something that to us simply does not exsist. So it's not something that i want to see on my movie screen before the main film after having paid good money to see that specific film. So no.

[Kizzy]

I don't mind it as such, but yet if everyone had to sit through several religious/political infomercials and it's not the first time a decision has been made like this...

Cinemas in Scotland are to stop showing adverts from both sides of the referendum campaign following complaints from customers.
Both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns have been running high-profile adverts in cinemas over the past month.
Vue cinemas said it had decided to drop the ads from 5 June onwards following "customer feedback".
Other major cinema chains, including Odeon and Cineworld, will follow suit.
The independent Glasgow Film Theatre (GFT) has already stopped running referendum adverts, after film fans told cinema managers they wanted to "retreat from the real world"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-27602601

[Kizzy]

'Forget the glitzy PR campaigns, how about some action?
A rabbi and an imam walk into a kitchen and each picks up a knife. It sounds the like the start of a bad standup routine. In fact, it was leaders of British Jews and Muslims joining forces to help prepare a meal for the homeless and hungry as part of a nationwide day of social action on Sunday.

Up to 40,000 people took part in Mitzvah Day, organised by the Jewish community in hundreds of synagogues and schools around the country, and involving volunteers from neighbouring mosques and churches. Mitzvah literally means commandment, but is generally interpreted as good deed.

The chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, and imam Ibrahim Mogra, assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, peeled and chopped vegetables in the chaotic kitchen of Edgware United synagogue in north-west London. Amid vats of potatoes, piles of apple skin and eggshells, dozens of volunteers – including the Labour MP Luciana Berger – worked to create a three-course meal for the nearby Barnet Winter Shelter.'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...eaders-kitchen

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Johnnyuk123

[/B]

The topic is specifically about that movie advert being played in the cinema. Usually other adverts are showing new movies to checkout.
No Athiests don't even do the.. Oh No thing when the word (god) pops up. It's impossible for athiest to do that because they don't believe in any religion/gods at all. To me they don't exist so we don't even have hate towards something that to us simply does not exsist. So it's not something that i want to see on my movie screen before the main film after having paid good money to see that specific film. So no.

So you go to the trouble over leaving a screening of a movie, demanding a refund and going to another cinema over a 50 second advert because you are indifferent towards it? Ok.

I never said atheists do or don't say anything in regards to "Oh my god" or any other phrase.

Adverts shown before a movie in a cinema include a batch of trailers for other movies AND a bunch of product/service adverts. So, if adverts not relating to movies is a problem you have then it's a wonder you don't walk out before every film you go to see at the cinema.

[Kizzy]

'The Church of England has received unlikely backing from the biologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins after the UK’s three leading cinema chains refused to screen its advert featuring the Lord’s Prayer.

The 60-second advert was due to be shown before Star Wars: the Force Awakens, released on 18 December, which would have guaranteed it a huge cinema audience in the run-up to Christmas.

But the Odeon Cineworld and Vue chains, which control 80% of screens around the country, have refused to allow it because of a policy not to allow political or religious advertising.

The decision prompted an angry response from the church, which warned of a chilling effect on free speech. Many expressed support for its position including Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist best known for excoriating religions.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-lords-prayer

[Mitchell]

Religion should be something that people themselves can have their own say on in their own time when they're older (I personally don't believe in allocating a child a religion, I feel it should be up to the child in later life what they identify with rather than it being shoved down their throats), anyway, shouldn't the Church of England use their funds for something more worthwhile than trying to hire out ad space during Star Wars?

[Johnnyuk123]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So you go to the trouble over leaving a screening of a movie, demanding a refund and going to another cinema over a 50 second advert because you are indifferent towards it? Ok.

I never said atheists do or don't say anything in regards to "Oh my god" or any other phrase.

Adverts shown before a movie in a cinema include a batch of trailers for other movies AND a bunch of product/service adverts. So, if adverts not relating to movies is a problem you have then it's a wonder you don't walk out before every film you go to see at the cinema.

It's no trouble at all.

[lostalex]

The theaters are right. The lord's prayer is not appropriate to a secular audience.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You're using the fact I'm a Labour supporter as a stick to beat me with, a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple.

NO - YOU were using the fact that the Church spent money on this advertising when it could have used it to help the poor and needy as a 'stick' to beat those of us who are Christians with.

You constantly use a number of unfair methods to 'beat' people who you do not agree with, then ALWAYS use the same tactics of trying to be the 'victim' when you are out debated or out argued as a result.

But, anyway:

NO - I was using the fact that you are a Labour supporter to try to illustrate how utterly ridiculous and hypocritical your loaded rhetorical question was. Here is your post again:

"I wonder how much the production and ad time that message cost...
It begs the question with all the social inequality,suffering and need both in the UK and worldwide how is this spend justified?"


Now, to anyone with a brain, you are criticising the Church for spending money on advertising when that money could be better spent on alleviating the plight of some of the suffering and needy - in the UK and abroad.

Now, all I was doing is pointing out to you:

1) That the political party which you so fervently support - Labour - spends hundreds of times more money on advertising than does the Church.

2) And because Labour is supposedly THE party which represents the causes of 'the poor, the suffering and the needy' - isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to pose your question, when all those tens of millions which your party spends on advertising could ALSO then be better spent on helping those causes instead.

In addition, the Church DOES spend huge sums of money feeding the poor and on charitable causes both here and abroad, but I have yet to see a 'Labour Party' Soup Kitchen or witness specific Labour charity aid missions - here or abroad.

As for your contention that: "a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple" -- well, this is a frankly ridiculous statement and not 'that simple' at all.

a) Both are organisations which have distinct ideologies.
b) Both have supporters who BELIEVE in those ideologies.
c) Both rely on donations from supporters to function.
d) Both need to allocate a portion of those collected funds to promote themselves.
e) Both need to be seen to put the interests of those whom they purport to serve, first.
f) Both often fail in their intentions.
g) The Labour Party - now, more than any other time in its recent history, is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
h) The Christian Church - now, more than at any time in its recent history is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
i) Both have faithful supporters who would be devastated by the demise of either.

Anyway, my point IS, that you cannot afford to be sniping at the Church for using allocated money from their funds to promote itsef and its message, when it DOES also use huge amounts of its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden, when you find no problem with the Labour Party using MUCH huger sums of money from its funds to promote itself and its message, when it does not use ZILCH from its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden -- the VERY class of society which it purports to champion and represent.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

Religion should be something that people themselves can have their own say on in their own time when they're older (I personally don't believe in allocating a child a religion, I feel it should be up to the child in later life what they identify with rather than it being shoved down their throats), anyway, shouldn't the Church of England use their funds for something more worthwhile than trying to hire out ad space during Star Wars?

I take it that you have not read all the preceding posts Mitchell?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So you go to the trouble over leaving a screening of a movie, demanding a refund and going to another cinema over a 50 second advert because you are indifferent towards it? Ok.

I never said atheists do or don't say anything in regards to "Oh my god" or any other phrase.

Adverts shown before a movie in a cinema include a batch of trailers for other movies AND a bunch of product/service adverts. So, if adverts not relating to movies is a problem you have then it's a wonder you don't walk out before every film you go to see at the cinema.

Well I'm pretty sure it's not a movie trailer so, by deduction, religious indoctrination now falls under the heading of "product/service advertisement"? I suppose that's accurate... In a way...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

NO - YOU were using the fact that the Church spent money on this advertising when it could have used it to help the poor and needy as a 'stick' to beat those of us who are Christians with.

You constantly use a number of unfair methods to 'beat' people who you do not agree with, then ALWAYS use the same tactics of trying to be the 'victim' when you are out debated or out argued as a result.

But, anyway:

NO - I was using the fact that you are a Labour supporter to try to illustrate how utterly ridiculous and hypocritical your loaded rhetorical question was. Here is your post again:

"I wonder how much the production and ad time that message cost...
It begs the question with all the social inequality,suffering and need both in the UK and worldwide how is this spend justified?"


Now, to anyone with a brain, you are criticising the Church for spending money on advertising when that money could be better spent on alleviating the plight of some of the suffering and needy - in the UK and abroad.

Now, all I was doing is pointing out to you:

1) That the political party which you so fervently support - Labour - spends hundreds of times more money on advertising than does the Church.

2) And because Labour is supposedly THE party which represents the causes of 'the poor, the suffering and the needy' - isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to pose your question, when all those tens of millions which your party spends on advertising could ALSO then be better spent on helping those causes instead.

In addition, the Church DOES spend huge sums of money feeding the poor and on charitable causes both here and abroad, but I have yet to see a 'Labour Party' Soup Kitchen or witness specific Labour charity aid missions - here or abroad.

As for your contention that: "a political party can't be compared to a religion, it's really that simple" -- well, this is a frankly ridiculous statement and not 'that simple' at all.

a) Both are organisations which have distinct ideologies.
b) Both have supporters who BELIEVE in those ideologies.
c) Both rely on donations from supporters to function.
d) Both need to allocate a portion of those collected funds to promote themselves.
e) Both need to be seen to put the interests of those whom they purport to serve, first.
f) Both often fail in their intentions.
g) The Labour Party - now, more than any other time in its recent history, is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
h) The Christian Church - now, more than at any time in its recent history is under attack and needs ALL the promotion it can get.
i) Both have faithful supporters who would be devastated by the demise of either.

Anyway, my point IS, that you cannot afford to be sniping at the Church for using allocated money from their funds to promote itsef and its message, when it DOES also use huge amounts of its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden, when you find no problem with the Labour Party using MUCH huger sums of money from its funds to promote itself and its message, when it does not use ZILCH from its funds on good causes to alleviate the plight of the poor, the needy, the homeless and downtrodden -- the VERY class of society which it purports to champion and represent.

My post was directed at the two religious bodies responsible for the ad only, it was not personal, you have chosen to take offence as per. Again religious and political organisations are not comparable, therefore I feel my questioning the church and their methods here are a valid and a fair point. I'm not responding to the rest of your monologue.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'The Church of England has received unlikely backing from the biologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins after the UK’s three leading cinema chains refused to screen its advert featuring the Lord’s Prayer.

The 60-second advert was due to be shown before Star Wars: the Force Awakens, released on 18 December, which would have guaranteed it a huge cinema audience in the run-up to Christmas.

But the Odeon Cineworld and Vue chains, which control 80% of screens around the country, have refused to allow it because of a policy not to allow political or religious advertising.

The decision prompted an angry response from the church, which warned of a chilling effect on free speech. Many expressed support for its position including Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist best known for excoriating religions.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-lords-prayer

It's utter nonsense, Cinema chains are private enterprise and they can show or refuse to show whatever they want to show based on what they think is best for their business. They want to take a payment to only advertise Pepsi and never Coke? That's fine. They refuse to show nescafe adverts because they think Nestlé is evil? Also their business.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "free speech". It is not a public space, not by any description.

[Kizzy]

True and to say the organisation were paying for said space it is admirable they are listening to their patrons and keeping all social, political and religious messages out of their cinemas.

* flashes a vote Corbyn subliminal message *

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

My post was directed at the two religious bodies responsible for the ad only, it was not personal, you have chosen to take offence as per. Again religious and political organisations are not comparable, therefore I feel my questioning the church and their methods here are a valid and a fair point. I'm not responding to the rest of your monologue.

My 'MONOLOGUES' are written with far more clarity, and with a far greater command of the English Language, and with a far greater knowledge of the subject matter, and with far greater fairness and objectivity than any skewed far left confused propaganda written by you.

YOU posed a question - ridiculous as it was - now you are being personally insulting and ignorant because the responses expose the flaws in your views.

Again, you stick to your - glaringly wrong - contentions no matter how many times they are SHOWN to be wrong, but that is par for the course with you.

Now I will put you on permanent ignore because you do not seek debate, you seek a platform where all other views are none forthcoming because by guile and stealth and deviousness, you have frightened away all other posters who do not agree with your ridiculous views lest they be infracted and banned.

YOU get personal AND offensive and falsely accuse, but then how are us lesser Tibb members to answer your continual rubbish accusations and defend ourselves and our viewpoint if we are to be continually blamed and infracted for doing so?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's utter nonsense, Cinema chains are private enterprise and they can show or refuse to show whatever they want to show based on what they think is best for their business. They want to take a payment to only advertise Pepsi and never Coke? That's fine. They refuse to show nescafe adverts because they think Nestlé is evil? Also their business.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "free speech". It is not a public space, not by any description.

T.S - if you look back at this thread, you will see that I do not give a Rat's Ass wether this ad is shown in Cinemas or not -- my arguments are against the other anti-Religious views aired.

I actually agree with what you are saying above, but it is motive for the ban which I question.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's utter nonsense, Cinema chains are private enterprise and they can show or refuse to show whatever they want to show based on what they think is best for their business. They want to take a payment to only advertise Pepsi and never Coke? That's fine. They refuse to show nescafe adverts because they think Nestlé is evil? Also their business.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "free speech". It is not a public space, not by any description.

Bang On Right TS