Rollingstone refuses to run ad for Bible

[strannix]

I think some perspective is necessary here. It's just Rolling Stone denying an ad. I don't think it's really indicative of any national trend or another battle in the culture wars or anything else. It's a pop culture magazine. The Bible is not pop culture. So it goes.

And please, people, stop trying to peg RS as some kind of pillar of the American left. It's degrading (to the American left, that is).

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think some perspective is necessary here. It's just Rolling Stone denying an ad. I don't think it's really indicative of any national trend or another battle in the culture wars or anything else. It's a pop culture magazine. The Bible is not pop culture. So it goes.

Yeah, maybe we've over-analyzed the whole thing. Maybe their original statement--"we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages"--is all there is to it.

 

[pax]

I don't even know what to say, except that strannix is probably right... (most recent post) ...but I must say, I'm a bit surprised by how many people seem so very offended and vexed by an advertisement for a Bible targeted to young people in a magazine targeted to young people.

I mean, we may have some small quarrels with the Bible and maybe some people use it badly, but can't we agree that the Bible is basically not a bad thing?

Also, would we be as up in arms--or more so--if Rolling Stone had turned down an ad for a Qu'ran or a Bhagavad-Gita?

 

[Irvine511]

I mean, we may have some small quarrels with the Bible and maybe some people use it badly, but can't we agree that the Bible is basically not a bad thing?

not so sure about that ... it's not about what the bible says, but about how people use what they think the bible says.

 

[Klink]

I think any business has to worry about the long term effects of running bible adds. What does it say? The bible is a denominational book that appeals to one faith. A denominational add, even while appealing to the religious majority, still excludes a lot of people. Rolling Stone's agenda is to appeal to the most people possible through music and non-denominational commercialism, not by associating itself with religious texts. In fact excluding other incidents I would say this is the best way to stay politically neutral. Religion has become a political issue these days and has been much associated with the right. The arts/entertainment business is largely a left-oriented one. I would have made the same decision. By not running the add, they are staying neutral, regardless of their position.

We criticize Rolling Stone for not being more balanced, but how balanced is the bible?

Jon

 

[cardosino]

We criticize Rolling Stone for not being more balanced, but how balanced is the bible?

Jon

Very.

It is all-inclusive.

 

[financeguy]

Dead right too! The Bible is full of contradictions. It's about time someone stood up for truth.

 

[verte76]

I really don't think the Bible is political. As a Catholic, I'm familiar with an Old Testament that has seven books that the Protestants don't use. We have the Bible at work, along with texts from other faiths, including the Koran and works by Jews, Buddhists and many others. Some people are manipulating the Bible for their own political purposes. I don't think these people particularly own the Bible, if I want to use it, no one is telling me I can't because of who I voted for in the last election.

 

[foray]

I stopped reading Rolling Stone because they keep RECYCLING THEIR WRITEUPS. Yucks.

foray

 

[nbcrusader]

Dead right too! The Bible is full of contradictions. It's about time someone stood up for truth.

Oh please. I guess we should look to you for the truth.

 

[Irvine511]

Oh please. I guess we should look to you for the truth.

i know my truth. what does the bible know about me?

 

[u2bonogirl]

considering that mag is like 90 fucking percent ads nowdays anyway it surprises me that they would choose not to advertize anything
I really do wish they would stop shoving their views down the readers throats too.
but whatever
Theres always other music magazines to read. I think after my subscription runs out theyre being replaced by a better one.
like oprah or something

 

[indra]

Oh please. I guess we should look to you for the truth.

You think the bible is "The Truth", but why?It was written by people with and agenda and that automatically makes it suspect. I think looking for "The Truth" in any one place (One Stop Truth Shopping!) is foolish.

As for The Rolling Stone refusing the ad...they can choose what to accept for advertising, and they did. Big deal.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You think the bible is "The Truth", but why?It was written by people with and agenda and that automatically makes it suspect. I think looking for "The Truth" in any one place (One Stop Truth Shopping!) is foolish.

As for The Rolling Stone refusing the ad...they can choose what to accept for advertising, and they did. Big deal.

The "agenda" was the beginning of the Jewish establishment, as well as the beginning of the Christian establishment. The New Testament is a brilliant departure from the Old. The Old Testament was about symbolizing what would become the New T. It's interesting stuff. Great moral teachings.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The Bible ad would have been a refreshing change from all the mostly-naked pictures of young, stupid women they publish.

Your contempt aside, this would have been a better statement without the stupid label. This kind of inclination to reach such conclusions is more vexing to me than some stupid as all fuck argument over an ad for a book which will find the audience it deserves through other avenues. This mob wanting to do the ad, luckily for them, dont have to rely on RS. I dont see why this is even being debated. After all who the hell reads ads anyway?

 

[Klink]

It's less the hundreds of outright contradictions than WHAT they'd be advertising. This is not about faith or truth, but about business. Like it or not, religion is a political issue and as much as some might like to think Christianity is all inclusive, it's not. Not everybody is christian and therefore advertising that favours christianity is political partisan marketing. Rolling stone would want adds that appeal to the most number of people possible without associating itself with political partisanship and alienating customers. Sorry, I'd still have nixed it, too.

Jon

 

[nbcrusader]

It's less the hundreds of outright contradictions than WHAT they'd be advertising. This is not about faith or truth, but about business. Like it or not, religion is a political issue and as much as some might like to think Christianity is all inclusive, it's not. Not everybody is christian and therefore advertising that favours christianity is political partisan marketing. Rolling stone would want adds that appeal to the most number of people possible without associating itself with political partisanship and alienating customers. Sorry, I'd still have nixed it, too.

Jon

Contradictions come from lack of study or understanding.

The Truth of the Bible is not some simple sound bite we have become accustom to. Perhaps it does not belong in RS.

 

[datatyme]

Dead right too! The Bible is full of contradictions. It's about time someone stood up for truth.

There are no contradictions or falsehoods in the Bible, that's just God's twisted way of keeping your mind sharp.

I'm sure Rolling Stone rejects many thousands of ads a year, although knowing it was because it was a religious ad is sure to hurt some religious people's feelings. And if they no longer want to buy the magazine, that's completely understandable, and that's exactly what they should do if they so choose.

Overall, this worked out pretty good for the publisher, Zondervan. They didn't have to pay for an expensive ad, and they are sure to get rich off of all this free advertising they've been getting everywhere else. Rolling Stone actually did them a huge favor.

I for one am interested in reading more of this TNIV translation, especially the Old Testament.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Overall, this worked out pretty good for the publisher, Zondervan. They didn't have to pay for an expensive ad, and they are sure to get rich off of all this free advertising they've been getting everywhere else. Rolling Stone actually did them a huge favor.

I actually agree with this. While it may not have been their intention to get rich, they are getting the benefits of free publicity.