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

he should know better

[aepervius]

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.

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

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.

Though I completely support the idea in principal

[dotancohen]

...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.

Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people.

[narcc]

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...

Church of England

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:If it's really a policy

[dskoll]

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.