Richard Dawkins Opposes UK Cinemas Censoring Church's Advert Before Star Wars (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom following the decision of the three theatre chains that control 80% of the movie screens in the country to refuse to show an advertisement for the Anglican church. The 60 second advertisement is for a new Church of England website, JustPray.uk, the purpose of which is to encourage people to pray. The Odeon, Cineworld and Vue chains refused to allow it to be shown due to a policy not allowing political or religious advertising. Richard Dawkins supported the Church on free speech grounds, stating, "I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might 'offend' people. If anybody is 'offended' by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended." Dawkins was joined by fellow atheist, Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston in backing the right of the Church to show the advertisement, stating "As a gentle atheist, I'm not offended by Church screening gentle cinema adverts; we shouldn't reject our deep cultural roots in Christianity." The assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain said he was "flabbergasted" by the decision to refuse to show it. The National Secular Society found it a "perfectly reasonable decision." The Anglican church had wanted to show the advert prior to the screening of the upcoming Star Wars movie given the expected large, multi-generational audiences.

Comments

If it's really a policy

[dskoll]

If the cinemas really had a policy not to allow religious or political advertising in place before they were asked to run the ads, and if they've applied that policy consistently, then I don't think they should run the ads.

I wouldn't particularly be bothered by such an ad even though I'm a Dawkins-esque strong atheist. But if you're going to have a policy it has to be applied uniformly.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm mildly curious whether a literal reading of their policy would apply to Star Wars adverts as well, given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country. I'm quite certain they wouldn't actually ban those.

Re:If it's really a policy

[ChunderDownunder]

Haha, yes.

I've had this discussion with a militant atheist friend who sees no irony in banning these ads before a SW movie.

Him: "Ban the ads. When I go to the cinema I shouldn't have to pay to have my kids brainwashed by a cult."
Me: "But youÂre quite happy to brainwash your 7yo kids for 2 1/2 hours on the ways of the Jedi?"
Him: "But Star Wars is make-believe, no one takes it seriously as a religion."
Me: "Tell that to the thousands of people who put Jedi as their religion on the census."
Him: "Mate, it's science *fiction*, none of it is real."
Me: "At one point neither were the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, yet Scientology exists."
Him: "You're not seriously suggesting it is appropriate to show ads before a movie from a religion claiming to be the way, the truth and the light?"
Me: "Well maybe not but in your rabid attack on religion in general I'm asking you to respect the rights and beliefs of those who follow the Jedi faith."
Him: "Seriously? It's *not* real."
Me: "Again, tell that to the thousands of believers who put Jedi on their census as a way of giving the middle finger to Richard Dawkins' atheist zealotry."

Re:If it's really a policy

[godel_56]

They have had the policy in place for some time and they do apply it consistently. The Church is employing a very clever advertising campaign which has resulted in them being plastered across the world. They literally could not have paid for better advertising than they've received off the back of this very clever campaign.

In a TV story on this they said that the church had discussed the campaign with the advertising agents in the middle of the year and the agents had no problem with it then, so just when was this policy introduced?

If the policy was in place when the church first approached the theaters and the church wasn't warned, then I think they have a right to ask for their production costs back

Re:he should know better

[Nemyst]

"Free speech" in a legal sense is indeed only about governmental intrusion, and the definition is largely specific to the US, so mentioning it for a UK matter is already not particularly relevant. It's not like Dawkins is claiming that what they are doing is illegal either.

What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. That is applicable to anything and anyone, anywhere. You can most certainly decry a lack of free speech in any situation, even when concerning private corporations.

Re: Humn.... That one is hard.

[SuiteSisterMary]

Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!