Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the no-match-for-a-good-blaster dept.

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.

45 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. If it's really a policy by dskoll · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:If it's really a policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:If it's really a policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:If it's really a policy by dskoll · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think Star Wars ads promote prayer or the Jedi religion, though.

      But even though as I said I'm a hard-core atheist, I'd pray all day if I thought it would stop George Lucas from ever making another fucking movie.

    4. Re:If it's really a policy by Beck_Neard · · Score: 2

      That's another thing about Dawkins that I find kind of unsettling and in conflict with his atheist message. He says that he likes the CofE because it's part of tradition and history, and is a tolerant establishment. That's all well and good. I prefer the CofE to, say, Catholicism or Southern Baptism, for precisely the same reason. But I think you should apply that kind of reasoning consistently. He's said that “I don’t buy the feeling that because we have Christian faith schools we therefore have to have Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu faith schools as well.” My question is: Why not? There are Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu schools of thought that are just as tolerant as the CofE is, and if one refuses to acknowledge that, one simply professes their ignorance. There are many temples and mosques and synagogues you can go in without being a person of that faith, and people will welcome you and talk to you and be nice to you and so on. Plus all of those religions are important to history - some directly to European history, others part of our shared human history. So why single out Anglicanism?

      More and more people are becoming atheist every day because religions have outdated, nonsense beliefs and have outlived their useful purpose. So there's really no reason to defend one or another.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    5. Re:If it's really a policy by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

      But the very concept of the FSM is an abomination and I find the idea absolutely offensive!

      Long live the IPU!

    6. Re:If it's really a policy by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

    7. Re:If it's really a policy by godel_56 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    8. Re:If it's really a policy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country.

      No it isn't.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:If it's really a policy by youngone · · Score: 2

      "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

      I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.

    10. Re:If it's really a policy by KeensMustard · · Score: 2

      I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.

      If so, it's poorly aimed. I think the Church would be aware of the fact that there are people who hold to a different set of beliefs the contradict with theirs. Lot's of Christians die every week because of the simple fact that there are people who disagree with them.

      From their perspective Jedism is just another crazy, discredited belief. Just like you, and the supposed Jedi's, Christians think that all such beliefs are wrong - expect their own. Why is Jedism an insult to Christianity but not yours? Because yours are right?

    11. Re:If it's really a policy by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I know it's a long shot, but is it possible that the advertising agents lied slightly?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:If it's really a policy by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Funny

      and will continue to be so for as long as I live

      I think you mean "until I become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". The force is weak in you, young padawan.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    13. Re:If it's really a policy by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find you quite offensive, should Slashdot ban you so as not to offend anyone?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. he should know better by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Free speech is only about governmental intrusion and obstacle to speech. This is not about private person (cinema) telling the church , "no we do not want your advertising". It is incredible how many people bring "free speech!" up in conversation where it is not warranted.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:he should know better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's incredible how many people confuse the universal principle of freedom of speech with the 1st amendment.

    2. Re:he should know better by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is incredible how many people bring "free speech!" up in conversation where it is not warranted.

      It's actually more incredible how many people think that freedom of speech is only a concept in relation to governmental restrictions on communication.

      Obviously private party restrictions on speech aren't a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it should be more than obvious that freedom of speech can be threatened by private restrictions on speech by refusing access to media, venues or physical places which are commonly accepted as public spaces.

    3. Re:he should know better by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously private party restrictions on speech aren't a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it should be more than obvious that freedom of speech can be threatened by private restrictions on speech by refusing access to media, venues or physical places which are commonly accepted as public spaces.

      Well it can be, but it seems to me that this is a pretty poor case to try and apply this principle. The Church of England tried their luck, probably suspecting that they would get rejected, got rejected, uploaded their ad to YouTube instead, got their story in the newspapers, on television, and even on Slashdot now, and likely got a far larger audience than they would have had they not got rejected in the first place.

      The principle of freedom of speech is certainly a good thing but it is not the only right in the mix. Companies controlling their platforms also have the right to not be compelled into carrying speech they disagree with. This is why it's important that there be numerous platforms, so anyone rejected from one can just go to another and find someone willing to broadcast what they want to say. That way both rights can be upheld and everyone should be happy. That's exactly what has happened in this case so I'm shedding no tears for anyone. The system is working, I see no reason for anyone to be complaining.

    4. Re:he should know better by Kjella · · Score: 2

      If you made some kind of public statement and your employer/landlord/bank called you up and said it's not compatible with being an employee/tenant/customer of ours anymore I think most people would call it a free speech issue. Granted, we're not really being consistent because half the time we want to protect dissenting opinions from the wrath of the majority and the other half we want obnoxious and offensive speech to have consequences. Like when Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla, was that right or wrong? Some think it was right, that the LGBT community had a right to cause a shit storm. Others think they blatantly silenced an opposing voice by harassing his employer. But the government wasn't involved, so there was no free speech issue right?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:he should know better by dskoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, no. The government can force businesses not to discriminate against customers in certain protected cases (age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.)

      But they cannot force a business to provide a platform for someone's point of view. That's very different.

    6. Re:he should know better by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.

    7. Re:he should know better by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      So you should have the right to have whites only stores. Put personal pressure on all your friends to only have whites only stores. And make sure you don't sell your house to a non-white person. Because all that worked out so well before.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:he should know better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm... The 1st amendment is about free speech

      The US first amendment enforces free speech in a specific, limited context. The concept of free speech itself is much broader, not to mention older.

    9. Re:he should know better by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2

      It is incredible how many people bring "free speech!" up in conversation where it is not warranted.

      It's actually more incredible how many people think that freedom of speech is only a concept in relation to governmental restrictions on communication.

      Obviously private party restrictions on speech aren't a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it should be more than obvious that freedom of speech can be threatened by private restrictions on speech by refusing access to media, venues or physical places which are commonly accepted as public spaces.

      uh, what? what does the first amendment to the US constitution have to do with a group of british theater owners deciding what can and can't be seen on their theater screens, which are located in Britain, and not in the US?

    10. Re:he should know better by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they already provide the platform. This cinema is just choosing to discriminate on who they let up on the platform based on religion. It is like a Baker choosing not to cater Catholic weddings.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    11. Re:he should know better by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      Well, no. The government can force businesses not to discriminate against customers in certain protected cases (age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.)

      Governments can do anything in principle. The question is what a particular government can do, and what that means for the kind of society it creates. European governments can interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of association with near impunity; while European constitutions pay lip service to these principles, they are so riddled with exceptions that pretty much any restrictions can be justified even on constitutional grounds. In the US, both freedom of speech and freedom of association are protected by the US Constitution, although that still doesn't always stop the US government from interfering with them; viz, non-discrimination laws.

  3. It's all or nothing! by narcc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not content with being reviled near-universally, Dawkins seeks the ire of the few crazy extremists who still take him seriously.

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
  4. Though I completely support the idea in principal by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...what really will happen is that in a few years the advertisements will be full of religious propaganda and proselytizing. Allowing _one_ advertisement is fine, but it opens the door to a whole slew of continually-worsening ads. And being "protected religious speech" they will contain other messages, such as anti-Israel, pro-Sharia, neo-Nazi, and anti-Muslim messages. The competition will be fierce!

    Of course, the same could be said about any type of advertising. But by experience the religious nutcases' ads will be far worse than the for-profit corporations' ads.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    so what? we already have paid religious ads on TV, radio, newspapers in the USA. it doesn't matter

  6. Freedom by phorm · · Score: 2

    And even that doesn't mean that *I* (or any other entity) need to retransmit your speech. It's just a guess, but if this were an Islamic or Jewish religious message I'd bet Mr Dawkins wouldn't have much to say about it being blocked.

    NO religious or political messages is a reasonable policy so long as they don't start picking and choosing.

    Personally of rather see no f***ing ads at all. In a theatre where I paid money to see a show, 10-15m of ads is disgusting.

    1. Re:Freedom by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      That's not a practical solution -- good luck getting *good* seats then. That said, this only works once the movie has been out for 2 weeks and you go during the day when the place is mostly empty.

  7. Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    The difference is that you can change the channel on the TV, change the radio station or read a different article in the newspaper. In a movie theatre there is no option to turn the advertisement off. The audience is captive.

  8. Opinions by szymon · · Score: 2

    According to the post, we have the opinions of the Anglican church, Richard Dawkins, Sarah Wollaston, the Muslim Council of Britain and even the National Secular Society...but has anyone asked the Jedi?

  9. Sounds like a commercial decision, not ideological by Smigh · · Score: 2

    If the net is cast that wide and applies to religious and political potential ads, then I don't see Dawkins problem. It doesn't sound like they're taking a stance against that church, it sounds like they want to provide a certain experience to their costumers, and that ad didn't meet those requisites. There's nothing to agree or disagree with here other than whether their criteria for ads are beneficial for their bottom line or not.

  10. you people are all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's the Star Wars movie. They're just asking you to pray that it'll be better than the last three.

    I'm a strong atheist, and I'd do that shit.

  11. Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.

    So ... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?

    It must be difficult for you...

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
  12. Re: Humn.... That one is hard. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  13. Church of England by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can one possibly be opposed to a church that was founded by someone that wanted to divorce and murder his wives? The church of England shows the true value of religion.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  14. It's to prevent idiots from fighting by rhazz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you gather a bunch of strangers in an enclosed space and you want everyone to sit quietly and enjoy the show, you don't throw out the suggestion that they start talking about a hot-button issue like religion or politics. People get defensive about that stuff, and it's common enough for people to talk about the ad that just played. I doubt many people would be offended by the ad itself, but it's easy enough to imagine some person in the audience seeing the ad, and in the quiet moment after the ad muttering something about religion X, or politician Y, when they didn't realize the guy sitting next to them is a die-hard X-worshipping Y-supporter.

    1. Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      By that logic, advertisements for sports should be banned as well. I suspect that mentioning Arsenal is about 10x more likely to generate an actual fight than mentioning the Church of England.

    2. Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting by rhazz · · Score: 2

      If it was actually likely to cause a problem then maybe it should. The only ads I can recall seeing at the theatre are either for retail (cars usually), other movies, or travel destinations. Pretty safe material, though I suppose a BMW commercial might infuriate some folks these days!

    3. Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting by rhazz · · Score: 2

      Well for starters, I go to the movie with friends and yeah, I do talk to them. Try it some time. Since most ads are pretty lame they are indeed usually ignored, but I occasionally do see an M. Night Shyamalan trailer that requires me to express disgust - nobody ever disagrees with that though. Do you really think a political ad featuring Trump would go by in a movie theatre without anyone saying anything?

  15. Pay to be selectively annoyed, no thanks. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

    While I appreciate Richard's rational observations, about this matter of principle I'd rather not have to put up with any form of annoyance if I have to pay for it.

    Then again perhaps religious advertising before a movie would help you suspend your sense of disbelief thereby making the cinematic fiction more immersive.

  16. Unexpected, this was by wassomeyob · · Score: 2

    Obligatory.

  17. The controversy is the the theater's fautlt. by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing offensive about any of this, is that they show any ads at all. I paid to see the movie, not your ads. Now, if you want to show ads at the beginning and that lets me in for free, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, bugger off.