Rollingstone refuses to run ad for Bible - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-20-2005, 10:13 PM   #46
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoocoustic


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.
__________________

__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:16 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 01:59 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:20 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:59 PM
They can refuse to run the ad, just as easily as I can refuse to buy their magazines.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:36 AM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila
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?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:41 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 03:59 PM
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.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:52 AM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-21-2005, 10:55 AM   #52
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 11:27 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 12:18 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


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.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 12:21 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 12:24 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 12:26 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 12:53 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-21-2005, 01:17 PM   #59
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2005, 01:43 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2


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.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com