Rolling Stone Magazine Bans Ad for the Bible - How Intolerant?

[Richbee]

The Rolling Stone Magazine has rejected an ad for a New Bible translation, although the ad is not overtly preachy, and doesn't mention God.

Is this another example of Atheistic hypocrisy in America? They preach Freedom of the Press, but what are they practicing here? Anti-Christian bigotry?

Ad for a Bible doesn't fit

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

The nation's largest Bible publisher, rolling out its biggest marketing campaign ever to promote a new translation aimed at "spiritually intrigued 18- to 34-year-olds," has stumbled over a little rock: Rolling Stone.

The magazine rejected Zondervan's Bible ad just weeks before its scheduled run date, citing an unwritten policy against accepting ads containing religious messages.

Zondervan executives say the entertainment magazine was key in its $1 million campaign to reach young adults who have rarely, if ever, seen Bible ads before. Surveys show that 53% of this age group read the Bible less than once a year or never, although they are huge buyers of books on spiritual and religious themes.

USA Today - Click Here - More

[technomage]

I don't know that it would qualify as hypocritical, unless the RS has been involved with some form of religious indoctrination. And I don't know that the folks at RS would qualify as "atheists"--frankly, I don't know what church they attend, if any.

The RS is a private corporation, and as such may do business with whom they choose. Frankly, if they don't choose to accept the ad revenue from Zondervan, that's their loss.

Justin

[Richbee]

I don't know that it would qualify as hypocritical, unless the RS has been involved with some form of religious indoctrination. And I don't know that the folks at RS would qualify as "atheists"--frankly, I don't know what church they attend, if any.

The RS is a private corporation, and as such may do business with whom they choose. Frankly, if they don't choose to accept the ad revenue from Zondervan, that's their loss.

Justin

But, their very commerce is based on: Freedom of the Press

Yes, they are private and legally they can reject an advertiser, but this appears hypocritical IMO.

I thought "liberals" were open minded by defintion!?

Ah, Liberalism is closed or narrow-minded!

[technomage]

"Freedom of the press" means that the government cannot interfere with the press: it does not mean that one private company can force another private company to print its advertisment.

And who are you calling a "liberal," bunkie? [Southern drawl]Them's fightin' words where I hail from[/drawl] Seriously, I'm quite conservative politically--a Strict Constructionist when it comes to Constitutional matters.

Justin

[Minnesota]

Is this another example of Atheistic hypocrisy in America? They preach Freedom of the Press, but what are they practicing here? Anti-Christian bigotry?

And richbee thinks freedom of the press means that everyone has the right to advertise in any publication they choose. No wonder so little of the secular world makes sense to him.

Here's a free clue RB. Freedom of the press refers to the right (within reason) to publish OR not publish what one wants. And THAT decision is up to the publisher, NOT prospective advertisers. Good grief this is so rich!!! Want to be sure to run Bible ads? Then publish your own magazine.

{passage of a couple of minutes, during which richbee makes another post}

Oops, looks a the dawn has broken a bit over richbee's gray matter. Someone evidently has gotten to him and explained what freedom of the press is about. BUT, he still doesn't like it. Why? because it allows people to discriminate against his causes. smiley violin

Yes, they are private and legally they can reject an advertiser, but this appears hypocritical IMO.

"Appears hypocritical" smiley exclamination mark

But at least he sees the dichotomy implicit in the notion that

I thought "liberals" were open minded by defintion!?

means that conservatives must be, by definition, closed minded. Thought I'd never see him admit it.

Liberals = Open mind

Conservatives = Closed mind

smiley totally correct

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

But, their very commerce is based on: Freedom of the Press

I won't say anything about this. Both Justin and Minn touched quite nicely on what Freedom of the Press is really supposed to be about.

Yes, they are private and legally they can reject an advertiser, but this appears hypocritical IMO.

Hypocritical? Hypocritical means they say one thing and do another. Have they published ads with religious messages for other groups and are only singling out Christian ads? If not, then where's the hypocrisy? It's not hypocrisy to reject an ad. It would be hypocrisy to reject an ad on the grounds that it contains elements that the magazine has supported in other instances. I imagine they probably would reject ads for "The Anarchist's Cookbook," too. Would that be hypocritical?

I thought "liberals" were open minded by defintion!?

Ah, Liberalism is closed or narrow-minded!

What does this have to do with "liberals" or liberalism? Y'know, if you guys continue to cry, "Liberals!" each and every time someone says no to a Christian, it's only going to make it increasingly harder to take you all seriously (not that it's easy to do so now).

[Richbee]

"Freedom of the press" means that the government cannot interfere with the press: it does not mean that one private company can force another private company to print its advertisment.

I agree, and I said that legally they are within their rights to refuse ads.

Note, the ad doesn't mention God or Jesus, just the new translation of the Bible.

[Richbee]

And richbee thinks freedom of the press means that everyone has the right to advertise in any publication they choose. No wonder so little of the secular world makes sense to him.

Ooops, actually I did post, that legally they are within their rights.

The ad is hip and cool for the young "Rock N'Roll" generation, so where is the offense if there is no preachy message, and no mention of Jesus or God?

The Rolling Stone mag' is all about Hedonism, and certainly with freedom of Religion, anyone can follow this "path", but I guess any contrary messages are Verboten!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Note, the ad doesn't mention God or Jesus, just the new translation of the Bible.

Doesn't matter. The implied message in any ad is "it is a good idea to [buy, drink, eat, read ...] this product." Now, unless you wish to argue that most people don't unquestionably recognize the Bible as a book that teaches a religion ...

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

The ad is hip and cool for the young "Rock N'Roll" generation, so where is the offense if there is no preachy message, and no mention of Jesus or God?

It doesn't matter if it is offensive or not. It matters only that the magazine has a policy against running ads with religious messages (endorsing an ad for an unquestionably religious text would be tantamount to endorsing a religious message) and whether or not the magazine is evenhanded in inforcing that policy. If the magazine ran ads for Islamic or Jewish religious texts, but refused one for a Christian text, would it be fair and evenhanded? No. If they rejected ads for Islamic or Jewish texts, but permitted one for a Christian text, would it be fair and evenhanded? No.

[Richbee]

It doesn't matter if it is offensive or not. It matters only that the magazine has a policy against running ads with religious messages (endorsing an ad for an unquestionably religious text would be tantamount to endorsing a religious message) and whether or not the magazine is evenhanded in inforcing that policy. If the magazine ran ads for Islamic or Jewish religious texts, but refused one for a Christian text, would it be fair and evenhanded? No. If they rejected ads for Islamic or Jewish texts, but permitted one for a Christian text, would it be fair and evenhanded? No.

True enough, so this "rejection" might be the best ADVERTISING that money could have bought.

Hey, what about this "new" New Testament?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

True enough, so this "rejection" might be the best ADVERTISING that money could have bought.

Very possibly, if they make enough stink about it.

Hey, what about this "new" New Testament?

I'm kind of curious to see the Klingon translation of the Bible. I heard about it a few years ago, that some Ivy League professor working in conjunction with some eastern US Christian college faculty was attempting to translate the Bible into Klingon, but I never heard if they completed it or not.

[nomad]

yeah, i don't see why this is newsworthy. (though apparently USA Today thought so...) they don't even have to be 'fair and evenhanded', afaik, though the bigger the corporation the more likely 'extreme' elements will have been ironed out..

The Rolling Stone mag' is all about Hedonism, and certainly with freedom of Religion, anyone can follow this "path", but I guess any contrary messages are Verboten!

i think you answered your own question. though i'm sure there are some christians that read rolling stone; maybe they are the ones they were trying to get to buy the new bible? i'm not sure i understand exactly what this marketing campaign is trying to do. i mean, is eireann suddenly going to buy a bible just because he sees an ad in the rush fan club circular?

but they're there to sell magazines, and their magazine is pretty much hedonism like you said, not comparative religion and philosophy. if they don't feel like it fits into their format, then so be it. it's their magazine, their money, and their decision. i mean, there are lots of christians who would be shocked if they opened up christianity today and found condom ads*, even if tastefully done. they cater to their audience, and that means they would probably be somewhat selective in their ads as well. it's not a religious tolerance issue. rolling stone probably has a vocal minority who would be offended and complain about 'religion' in a rock n roll mag, and it probably wasn't worth the money for all the backlash they might have gotten. too bad for zondervan (and I do wonder why they took it at first and then backed out; did they not know who zondervan was?), but that's life.

*yeah, i know, christians do use condoms and other means of birth control. but still, probably a small minority of people would be offended though and complain, maybe even quit their subscriptions. just like some rolling stone readers probably also read their bible, but there is probably a vocal minority....

[clayrains]

I imagine they probably would reject ads for "The Anarchist's Cookbook," too. Would that be hypocritical?

Anarchist's Cookbook: Interesting publication! That would be a separate thread/debate in and of itself!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Anarchist's Cookbook: Interesting publication! That would be a separate thread/debate in and of itself!

Yeah, you could dedicate a whole website to that thing (which has probably been done)!