Rollingstone refuses to run ad for Bible

[nbcrusader]

Oh so now the Republicans own the Bible.

How did you get this conclusion?

 

[Do Miss America]

It is an ad for God in the same way that my DVR's instruction manual is an ad for Pioneer Electronics.

Actually that's a pretty weak analogy. When you have the DVR instuction book that means you already pocess the DVR. That's not necessarily the case with the Bible. Many have read the Bible for years and still don't even know God.

 

[Do Miss America]

How did you get this conclusion?

Um read the quote I was responding to;

...I mean, I've NEVER seen anything even remotely pro-conservative or pro-republican in this magazine.

Sounds like this person is assuming the only people who read or know the Bible are Republicans, and they couldn't be anymore wrong.

Now if you read it some other way I'd like to hear your interpretation of his statement.

 

[cardosino]

Actually that's a pretty weak analogy. When you have the DVR instuction book that means you already pocess the DVR. That's not necessarily the case with the Bible. Many have read the Bible for years and still don't even know God.

Not really.

We're talking about the publication in question is considered an "ad" for that product., not whether that publication helps you to better understand the topic.

The bible is the word of God, it is not an ad for God.

Perhaps a biography, is a better analogy. Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs (which I just read, hence fresh in my mind) are not an ad for the Singapore Tourist Board, they are just a collection of facts, recollections, thoughts, etc.

 

[beli]

Um read the quote I was responding to;



Sounds like this person is assuming the only people who read or know the Bible are Republicans, and they couldn't be anymore wrong.

Now if you read it some other way I'd like to hear your interpretation of his statement.

Actually, that quote reads like the person is assuming only people who read or know the Bible are republicans which is a completely bizarre statement as most monarchies are church based.

But I'm guessing that was a typo and the person was actually referring to the USA political party........ which still doesn't make sense.

 

[nbcrusader]

Sounds like this person is assuming the only people who read or know the Bible are Republicans, and they couldn't be anymore wrong.

Now if you read it some other way I'd like to hear your interpretation of his statement.

Actually, the statement suggests that Rolling Stone rejects things that are "conservative" and that, in the mind of Rolling Stone, the Bible is one of those "conservative things" (i.e., considered bad).

It was a poor snipe painting RS as a left-leaning publication.

 

[Do Miss America]

Actually, the statement suggests that Rolling Stone rejects things that are "conservative" and that, in the mind of Rolling Stone, the Bible is one of those "conservative things" (i.e., considered bad).

It was a poor snipe painting RS as a left-leaning publication.

Well I've seen RS do pieces on religious oriented subjects and didn't have the anti-Christian bias expected by the person who made the statement.

It was a very poor snipe.

 

[deep]

I think 2nd hand smoke kills a lot more people than second hand bibles do.......

american indians survived tobacco

much better

 

[verte76]

I stopped getting RS myself eons ago. The only time I fool with it these days is if there is an article about U2 in it. Otherwise it can get fd.

 

[Kieran McConville]

So basically the problem is that Rolling Stone magazine is insufficiently rightwing. Well what did you expect?

How long till the burnings begin?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I've never burned a mag in my life, but I've thrown plenty away when I realized they have no value to me anymore.

I honestly think this is good publicity for the publishers of this reformed bible. Sure, I bet they were a little upset that RS first screwed them over, but if this generates plenty of press, they will sell more. Then I would think that they wouldn't be too let down after that.

Oh well, overall it just goes to show me once again that RS wants nothing to do with God, even if it's a measly ad that they would get paid for putting in their magazine. As a consumer, I'll be sure to keep this story in mind.

 

[namkcuR]

Good. There are certain things that don't need to be advertised because everyone alive already knows about them. Coke(a-Cola, thank you very much). Gasoline. Condoms. The Bible. Anyone that needs an advertisement to remind them about the bible isn't going to buy the bible anyway, so the advertisement would be utterly pointless.

I don't subscribe to RS, I never have, even when it was a great magazine, but if I did I wouldn't want to see an advertisement for this. I don't need a Bible company telling me where the 'truth' is and what makes 'sense' or not. I don't go in their house and tell them what to believe.

 

[nbcrusader]

Good. There are certain things that don't need to be advertised because everyone alive already knows about them. Coke(a-Cola, thank you very much). Gasoline. Condoms. The Bible. Anyone that needs an advertisement to remind them about the bible isn't going to buy the bible anyway, so the advertisement would be utterly pointless.

I don't subscribe to RS, I never have, even when it was a great magazine, but if I did I wouldn't want to see an advertisement for this. I don't need a Bible company telling me where the 'truth' is and what makes 'sense' or not. I don't go in their house and tell them what to believe.

Zondervan isn't selling theology. They are selling a different translation. If you didn't read the ad, you may think that the KJV is the only version (or whatever gets put in hotels by the Gideons).

If the ad was pointless, Zondervan wouldn't spend the money.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Just to bring another point up, why do you think McDonald's advertises? We all know they're out there, but why do you think they advertise? Maybe, to continue to excite customers (esp kids), remind the public of the brand, and to create awareness, especially on a new product.

This newly interpreted bible is a new product. The bible has been available to the general public in English for hundreds of years, but this new version happens to be a new product. I'm sure the publishers chose Rolling Stone magazine as one of their allies in order to reach out to a secular audience, and within that audience, it might possibly have people who are curious about God, and need a smidgen of a reminder to check out a bible. They are simply (in this case, attempting of) putting their message out not for the sake of cash from Christian consumers, but for those who could most use what they have to offer.

If you don't like it, wonderful. It's just like me seeing an ad for condoms, tampons, viagra, whatever it is. I see no use in these things, but they aren't going to make me throw a pissy fit.

 

[Zoocoustic]

Oh so now the Republicans own the Bible.

Yeah. That's what I said isn't it.

Cram a few more words down my throat won't you - there's a bit of room left in there...

 

[Do Miss America]

Yeah. That's what I said isn't it.

Cram a few more words down my throat won't you - there's a bit of room left in there...

Well then please explain.

 

[Jamila]

Back to the original post.

Good for Rolling Stone - this country is still technically a democracy and it can either run or refuse to run an ad for any product that it wants in its magazine.

I am a Christian, but the way the Bible is being thrown around in an attempt to try to show support for every politically conservative agenda there is, I am glad that Rolling Stone is standing up against this sort of bible-bullying!

God is Love and Forgiveness, God is Patience and Kindness - God is NOT self-centeredness and self-righteousness. God is NOT condemnation and judgment. Or at least the Christian God I learned about in the New Testament.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

They can refuse to run the ad, just as easily as I can refuse to buy their magazines.

 

[nbcrusader]

I am a Christian, but the way the Bible is being thrown around in an attempt to try to show support for every politically conservative agenda there is, I am glad that Rolling Stone is standing up against this sort of bible-bullying!

So, this was a political move against conservatives?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I see where she is coming from, we tend to think of The Bible as The Conservative Bible, when we aren't considerate of those who share our basic theological principles, but not our political leanings.

Again, I'm not being a cheerleader for Rolling Stone, they do have the freedom to decide which ads they will use, but I have the personal freedom to reject their magazine, and the freedom to believe that they are a slanted bunch of folks that are targeting against at my ideals and beliefs.

 

[Irvine511]

So, this was a political move against conservatives?

it might have been a move against the political exploitation of the bible by many conservatives.

i.e., the hugely erroneous and hugely bigoted pamphleting that went on in WV (and paid for by the RNC) that said something to the effect of, "The Bible: BANNED under Kerry; Homosexual "marriage": PROMOTED under Kerry."

what i think has happened is that now, in the Bush era, the Bible has been turned into a conservative document in american political lexicon.

i don't think it necessarily is a conservative document, in real life, but that is how it is wielded by politically active Christians who are, for the large part (though *not* all ... looking in Cardosino's direction, also at Coemgon) very conservative and very pro-Bush.

RS's decision probably is in some way a reaction to this.

 

[starsforu2]

Back to the original post.

Good for Rolling Stone - this country is still technically a democracy and it can either run or refuse to run an ad for any product that it wants in its magazine.

I am a Christian, but the way the Bible is being thrown around in an attempt to try to show support for every politically conservative agenda there is, I am glad that Rolling Stone is standing up against this sort of bible-bullying!

God is Love and Forgiveness, God is Patience and Kindness - God is NOT self-centeredness and self-righteousness. God is NOT condemnation and judgment. Or at least the Christian God I learned about in the New Testament.

There is nothing in the ad that denoted a right or left wing interpretation of the bible. So why would you say that this is an attempt to try to show support for every politically conservative agenda there is? What's bullying about running an ad for buying bibles?

People run ads for me to wear condoms, and I'm not even married Are they not bullying me to have sex by promoting a solution to what they perceive my problem to be? According to your logic, they are.

RS has a right to refuse any advertising, and I support that, but it is instructive that they refused this one.

 

[nbcrusader]

it might have been a move against the political exploitation of the bible by many conservatives.

i.e., the hugely erroneous and hugely bigoted pamphleting that went on in WV (and paid for by the RNC) that said something to the effect of, "The Bible: BANNED under Kerry; Homosexual "marriage": PROMOTED under Kerry."

what i think has happened is that now, in the Bush era, the Bible has been turned into a conservative document in american political lexicon.

i don't think it necessarily is a conservative document, in real life, but that is how it is wielded by politically active Christians who are, for the large part (though *not* all ... looking in Cardosino's direction, also at Coemgon) very conservative and very pro-Bush.

RS's decision probably is in some way a reaction to this.

Does Rolling Stone's action counter the perception that the GOP has co-opted the Bible, or does it further the divide?

 

[joyfulgirl]

what i think has happened is that now, in the Bush era, the Bible has been turned into a conservative document in american political lexicon.

Exactly. I started a post yesterday about it but didn't have the energy at the time for this debate. But I do think conservatives have tried to put a monopoly on God and Christianity in this country, specifically during the Bush administration, and now they're whining because a left-leaning magazine chooses not to identify itself with the symbol the right is attempting to own.

 

[nbcrusader]

Exactly. I started a post yesterday about it but didn't have the energy at the time for this debate. But I do think conservatives have tried to put a monopoly on God and Christianity in this country, specifically during the Bush administration, and now they're whining because a left-leaning magazine chooses not to identify itself with the symbol the right is attempting to own.

So reject the symbol that the left claims is "owned" by both sides and play the victim? It is a silly move by RS.

 

[joyfulgirl]

So reject the symbol that the left claims is "owned" by both sides and play the victim? It is a silly move by RS.

I don't think so. The symbol may be "owned" by both sides, but publicly the right has done everything it can to own it. An ad for the Bible would be silly in RS magazine. Simply the wrong audience and the wrong image for a left-leaning rag.

 

[nbcrusader]

An ad for the Bible would be silly in RS magazine. Simply the wrong audience and the wrong image for a left-leaning rag.

That should be Zondervan's decision, not RS.

In essense, you are suggesting that the left-leaning audience is not interested in the Bible.

 

[Irvine511]

That should be Zondervan's decision, not RS.

In essense, you are suggesting that the left-leaning audience is not interested in the Bible.

or that the Right has effectively isolated and alienated a huge portion of the country from The Bible by claiming it as it's own.

i certainly feel that way, though my intellect knows better.

 

[starsforu2]

or that the Right has effectively isolated and alienated a huge portion of the country from The Bible by claiming it as it's own.

i certainly feel that way, though my intellect knows better.

If the right has isolated and alienated a huge portion of the country from the Bible by claiming it as it's own, what better way to wrest control of it than by advertising it in Rolling Stone?

Basically, you blame the right for taking the Bible away from the Left and then you support the boycott of the Bible by the left thus further solidying the point that the right is trying to make?

Seems to me that it would be better for the left to take the issue away from the right, not unlike Bill Clinton co-opting welfare reform and making it a huge policy victory for his legacy and his party.

 

[Irvine511]

If the right has isolated and alienated a huge portion of the country from the Bible by claiming it as it's own, what better way to wrest control of it than by advertising it in Rolling Stone?

Basically, you blame the right for taking the Bible away from the Left and then you support the boycott of the Bible by the left thus further solidying the point that the right is trying to make?

Seems to me that it would be better for the left to take the issue away from the right, not unlike Bill Clinton co-opting welfare reform and making it a huge policy victory for his legacy and his party.

probably because Rolling Stone has other concerns -- the Bible isn't one of them. you're right in that the Left needs to reclaim the bible from the Right, and in many FYM discussions, we've heard many Christians volunteer to do just that and they point to the work of Jim Wallis. i wish them the best of luck. the triangulation strategy is probably how democrats will go about faith, and the man who speaks faith fluently is Obama -- this isn't Rolling Stone's territory, and the way it stands now, the Bible *is* a viewed by some in the right-wing as a how-to manuel for governing. and that's why so many of us are so scared right now.

um, i've also never supported the boycott of the Bible by the left. where did you get that statement?

i really don't care much about the Bible, until people use it as some sort of tool of discrimination. i'm sure there's lots of wisdom in the Bible, and it's certainly of incomparable historical importance, but i also think _hamlet_ and _gravity's rainbow_ have loads of wisdom too.