Censoring the Bible...

[Scuba Pete]

Apparently the Bible is just too Avant Garde' for the Rolling Stones magazine;

http://www.thejacksonchannel.com/money/4110550/detail.html

 

[michel]

Hey Net Doc;
Quote[USA Today quoted a Rolling Stone executive as saying it's not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages. While Rolling Stone won't advertise the new Bible, MTV.com will.]

That's democracy & freedom of speech for you; drugs, sex, O.K religion NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:jiggy::jiggy:

 

[No*s]

I may invite a firestorm...but that's not entirely censorship of the type we should be up and arms about. It's a privately owned magazine. They decide what's printed in it, and it shouldn't be too much a surprise either.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Apparently the Bible is just too Avant Garde' for the Rolling Stones magazine; ...

They probably didn't want to **** off the KJV-only crowd.

[Edited to add: I wonder how many of the CNA newspapers would advertize the Rolling Stones magazine?]

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't see why they would have to advertise the Bible either... I just thought it funny!

 

[t3gah]

Apparently the Bible is just too Avant Garde' for the Rolling Stones magazine;

http://www.thejacksonchannel.com/money/4110550/detail.html

Note how the link and page here is MONEY.

"You cannot slave for riches and God..."

Which means they have chosen their God, Money.

Sex sells.
Drugs incapacitate.
Rock n Roll mesmorizes.

A winning combination to them.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My first reaction was to agree with you, No*s, but then I thought: what if Rolling Stone magazine refused to sell adspace to a gay rights organization or something? People would be up in arms about prejudice and discrimination and whatnot.

What reasons did Rolling Stone give for refusing to sell adspace to this Christian group?

 

[Scuba Pete]

NOK

(Not Our Kind)

 

[kreeden]

I thought it was rather amazing myself , but you make a good point Mr. Spinkles .

 

[No*s]

My first reaction was to agree with you, No*s, but then I thought: what if Rolling Stone magazine refused to sell adspace to a gay rights organization or something? People would be up in arms about prejudice and discrimination and whatnot.

What reasons did Rolling Stone give for refusing to sell adspace to this Christian group?

That is an excellent point Spinks, but I'd say even then that the magazine was within its rights to refuse an ad for anybody. It's a private organization. I usually tell people that if they don't like something, vote with their wallet; it speaks volumes .

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

If the bible folks paid for advertising space and the RS magazine didn't honor it, then they owe someone some money. If the people that wanted an advertisement for the bible doubled the ammount (which they shouldn't have to pay more for advertising space than anyone else) I am sure that the Rolling Stone would find bible advertisement perfectly acceptable- it's a decision up to the publishers but I am sure they would cave to greed if the offer came up, besides, I am sure a "new" Bible aimed at anyone would probably be a watered down version so as to not "condemn" too many people, thus driving them away.

I disagree with the Fundamentalists social and religious views but I respect them a hell of a lot more than the people that waterdown their core beliefs to fit their "modern" situation, strange but true.