Lord's Prayer cinema ad snub 'bewilders' Church of England

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34891928





What are your thoughts? Would you be offended if this came up? Do you think the DCM's actions were correct? Would it be more acceptable as a routine TV advert?
Is this a reflection of UK's secular nature?

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. After all aren't we all for free speech?


Please dont make this into a discussion about the validity of religion.

I'm an atheist so I think anything to do with religion offends me. well, I don't really care for it - I don't really get offended. How long before they replace the advert with one for Islam? lol

Take religion out of the equation and you enjoy the film. Especially if it is a violent film which contravenes most of the bible and the Quran lol.
 
Leviticus 20 describes punishments that could quite easily be interpreted in a similarly extreme way, it's just that Christians aren't into that sort of thing nowadays.

Edit: I'm to be cut from my people apparently :(
 
Last edited:
Leviticus 20 describes punishments that could quite easily be interpreted in a similarly extreme way, it's just that Christians aren't into that sort of thing nowadays.

Edit: I'm to be cut from my people apparently :(

Wrong religion. That's ot. You want nt.
 
Does the advertising agency allow adverts for Coca Cola with Santa Claus and other Christmassy stuff? If not then fine, otherwise what's the issue with a Christian message at Christmas? This country has roots that I am not offended by.

Won't be long before everyone believes it's just a massive consumerist festival. We used to be encouraged to say that prayer at school although I always thought it was a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
At the last census there were roughly 70x the number of Jedi as scientologists.
And the number of "Jedi" at that census, the 2011 one, was less than half those at the 2001 census.

People put Jedi on the census for a variety of reasons, including me at the 2001 census. My reason was that in 2001 the question was mandatory and my attitude was that my religious beliefs, if any, are between me and my god(s) and none of the government's damned business. Hence, "Jedi" was a form of administrative flipping the bird at government. By 2011 census, the question was optional and 7% declined to answer, including me, because it's still none of the government's business.

I suspect that at both 2001 and 2011, "Jedi" was more of either a joke or protest, or both, than anything else. Government clearly got the message, because the question was reclassified in 2011 as optional.
 
Does the advertising agency allow adverts for Coca Cola with Santa Claus and other Christmassy stuff? If not then fine, otherwise what's the issue with a Christian message at Christmas? This country has roots that I am not offended by.

I've emphasised the important difference there for you ;)

That's ignoring the fact that "christmas" is a christian festival in name only, and was celebrated by various cultures for centuries before being adopted by christianity.
 
Advertisement spots before films are for product brands and upcoming releases. People who go to the cinema are every race and religion under the sun.

For one religion to have an advert thrown in peoples faces like that on a big screen, some could deem as offensive. Personally it wouldn't bother me, although I'd rather pay no attention to another car advert that have to listen to a prayer.
 
Does the advertising agency allow adverts for Coca Cola with Santa Claus and other Christmassy stuff? If not then fine, otherwise what's the issue with a Christian message at Christmas? This country has roots that I am not offended by.

Won't be long before everyone believes it's just a massive consumerist festival. We used to be encouraged to say that prayer at school although I always thought it was a waste of time.

Coca Cola is advertising a product and trying to get people to purchase it, I don't think that's the same for the Church of England message.


They might be absolutely serious or they might be just taking the spoof that little bit further than most - however they're only likely to be a fractionally small number of the people who recorded their religion as Jedi. It's also worth pointing out that neither Scientology or Jediism are officially recognised religions.
 
Does the advertising agency allow adverts for Coca Cola with Santa Claus and other Christmassy stuff? If not then fine, otherwise what's the issue with a Christian message at Christmas? This country has roots that I am not offended by.

Won't be long before everyone believes it's just a massive consumerist festival. We used to be encouraged to say that prayer at school although I always thought it was a waste of time.

Christmas is a mishmash of all sort of celebrations. I like how you highlighted Christ to emphasis its a celebration of his birthday... which is actually estimated to be September (if at all) and was celebrated at different times prior to being celebrated on December 25th.

There is a big difference between promoting ideals and promoting a product, you could say the difference is like the difference between a business (like coca cola) and a religion. I don't see why CoE should be treated the same as Cocacola as they are completely different, the state also recognises the difference as shown by tax exemptions on everything donated to the church and on any renovations or building the church previously did (basically all expenses and income of the church).

Also i hate to break it to you, but it is a big festival promoted for almost the sole reason of making cash. Also, Santa isn't real.
 
Nice to see that the GCSE religious studies has to also teach non-belief by law.

Seems funny that the organised religions are attempting to get that removed from the syllabus when it's as justified as their own belief.
 
Seems funny that the organised religions are attempting to get that removed from the syllabus when it's as justified as their own belief.

Not really - just consider putting yourself in their shoes.

For example - consider the following, written by JRR Tolkien (a Roman Catholic):

The materialists have imprisoned us in a world of mere matter, a world of physical facts divorced from, and devoid of, metaphysical truth. Well I say that they are lying; that their world doesn’t exist; that it is merely a figment of their imagination. The problem is that they have made us believe that it is real. They have made us think that this is all there is. Three dimensions. Five senses. Four walls. But this is not all there is. The four walls of materialism are the four walls of a prison. And the materialists are our jailers. They don’t want us to see what’s beyond the walls.

For such people (and I sort of lean in that direction myself, withou fully endorsing all of Tolkiens views) there is simply no neutral ground. To them secularism should promote neutrality - and atheism isn't neural - it's just one of many belife systems that happens not to include God.

However - I think teaching atheism in RE lessons can be justified on the basis of numbers. It's a major belief system in terms of numbers. And of course atheism isn't non-belief as such. It's a positive view of there being no God.

So why would you teach non-belief in RE other than mentioning it exists? Makes about as much sense as teaching non-science in science lessons.
 
Last edited:
Atheism is simply a single position on a single claim. It's not a belief system.

You could argue the same thing about unitarianism. Or theism.

I consider agnosticsm to be kind of neural. But then you have the kind of agnostics who remain so becasue of being unconvinced of particular claims and those agnostics that simply don't care. I don't see the point in teaching the latter in RE.
 
Last edited:
Not realy. If you can argue that atheism is a single postion on a single issue then you can say the same thing about theisim, monotheism or polytheism.

Atheism can come with baggage if you want it to (and frequently does).
 
I consider agnosticsm to be kind of neural. But then you have the kind of agnostics who remain so becasue of being unconvinced of particular claims and those agnostics that simply don't care. I don't see the point in teaching the latter in RE.

Agnostics are actually atheists. This is because they have not accepted the theistic claims. As belief in a god is a binary proposition, not accepting the theistic claim automatically makes you an atheist.
 
Back
Top Bottom