It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religious advertising BANNED?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
We've all seen the guy at every football game holding up the "John 3:16" sign. Somehow he alway manages to get himself in front of a camera at some point during every game of the year. A group of Christians wanted to encourage people to actually find out what that meant but FOX refused to run their ad.


FOX Rejects “John 3:16” Super Bowl Ad

As FOX Network puts the finishing touches on its advertisement lineup for the February 6th Super Bowl — arguably as popular a part of the evening as the game itself — one thing is certain: just about any thing will be permissible in the way of sex, sleaze, and crude humor. Apparently, however, one type of ad will not be permitted: those promoting positive values and faith in God.

Following last year’s media furor over a Focus on the Family-sponsored pro-life spot during the Super Bowl featuring Christian football phenomenon Tim Tebow (left) and his mother, FOX has put the kibosh on wholesome advocacy ads with the potential of offending any viewer with an opposing viewpoint.

But after Fixed Point had worked for months to shoot the spot and raise the millions needed to air it, FOX pulled the plug, explaining in a prepared statement: “As a matter of company policy, Fox Broadcasting Company does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices. The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review. Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected.”

Taunton commented on FOX’s decision, noting that “it seems one can advertise just about anything else. Few movie trailers are deemed too violent or beer commercials too sexual for primetime. But religious messages, particularly Christian ones, well, that’s just too controversial.”

The New American



Here's the ad that was too controversial for the network that showed Janet Jackson's bare breast during a halftime show:




In a society like ours today, it is OK to run ads selling anything you could imagine but, when it comes to advocating a belief system, they close the door in your face? Would they treat a group of atheists asking people to embrace reason the same, or how about a Muslim group, would they be afraid to Not run their ad?

I know they are a private company and are free to do whatever they wish but, isn't this going overboard?

I wonder if this is really about the fact that the ad is NOT seeking money. Do they have a policy that says that advertising is only allowed if its used to sell something? Maybe they believe that commercials should only deal in commerce and with no profits involved, the advertisement can't possibly be for real.




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It could be because many "christian" religions are staring to erase their tracks. The "trinity" concept is changing in many churches now. It is falling apart. And esp. John 3:16 which declares Jesus as the only begotten son. Some xtian churches are now beginning to admit that the concept was incorrectly influenced by Augustine. Go figure.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
If they paid for the spot, what's the problem? as long as the slot is paid for who cares what is aired. I can find lots of things on other commercials that I can say offend me. I'm sure, Atheists , and non christans are not gonna lose a night of sleep simply because they saw that.

I'm not very religious myself, and to be honest, if something like that is going to emotionally bother someone then those someones have some serious problems.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


What do you expect from evil satanists who worship only money?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
...the network... showed Janet Jackson's bare breast during a halftime show:


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there. This is ATS.

We all want proof this happened! Pics, video, links!

edit on 3-2-2011 by Chakotay because: Rock Like An Egyptian...



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Here's the ad that was too controversial for the network that showed Janet Jackson's bare breast during a halftime show:


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there. This is ATS.

We all want proof this happened! Pics, video, links!



Sorry, posting links to stuff like that is against ATS T&C.


I'm sure you could find it though if you do a quick internet search. Me, I was out of the room getting a soda when it happened so I had to take the word of the news media that the incident happened.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I know. here is the Jesus Hates Obama ad that "they" refuse to run!



I can't believe they are hiding this "religious" message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Originally posted by FortAnthem


We've all seen the guy at every football game holding up the "John 3:16" sign. Somehow he alway manages to get himself in front of a camera at some point during every game of the year. A group of Christians wanted to encourage people to actually find out what that meant but FOX refused to run their ad.


FOX Rejects “John 3:16” Super Bowl Ad

Can you believe they won't run this Christian and religious message?!!!!!


I kinda wish I could be outraged.

Gg

As FOX Network puts the finishing touches on its advertisement lineup for the February 6th Super Bowl — arguably as popular a part of the evening as the game itself — one thing is certain: just about any thing will be permissible in the way of sex, sleaze, and crude humor. Apparently, however, one type of ad will not be permitted: those promoting positive values and faith in God.

Following last year’s media furor over a Focus on the Family-sponsored pro-life spot during the Super Bowl featuring Christian football phenomenon Tim Tebow (left) and his mother, FOX has put the kibosh on wholesome advocacy ads with the potential of offending any viewer with an opposing viewpoint.

But after Fixed Point had worked for months to shoot the spot and raise the millions needed to air it, FOX pulled the plug, explaining in a prepared statement: “As a matter of company policy, Fox Broadcasting Company does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices. The Fixed Point Foundation was provided with our guidelines prior to their submission of storyboards for our review. Upon examination, the advertising submitted clearly delivers a religious message and as a result has been rejected.”

Taunton commented on FOX’s decision, noting that “it seems one can advertise just about anything else. Few movie trailers are deemed too violent or beer commercials too sexual for primetime. But religious messages, particularly Christian ones, well, that’s just too controversial.”

The New American



Here's the ad that was too controversial for the network that showed Janet Jackson's bare breast during a halftime show:




In a society like ours today, it is OK to run ads selling anything you could imagine but, when it comes to advocating a belief system, they close the door in your face? Would they treat a group of atheists asking people to embrace reason the same, or how about a Muslim group, would they be afraid to Not run their ad?

I know they are a private company and are free to do whatever they wish but, isn't this going overboard?

I wonder if this is really about the fact that the ad is NOT seeking money. Do they have a policy that says that advertising is only allowed if its used to sell something? Maybe they believe that commercials should only deal in commerce and with no profits involved, the advertisement can't possibly be for real.

edit on 3-2-2011 by GrisGris because: Touch screen interference

edit on 3-2-2011 by GrisGris because: Ergh touch screen and autocorrect



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


It could be because many "christian" religions are staring to erase their tracks. The "trinity" concept is changing in many churches now. It is falling apart. And esp. John 3:16 which declares Jesus as the only begotten son. Some xtian churches are now beginning to admit that the concept was incorrectly influenced by Augustine. Go figure.


Do you have proof of these claims?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
At least their local FOX affiliate isn't infected with the same PC insanity as the national FOX broadcasters and this group will at least be able to get their message out locally.


While the Alabama-based group won’t be able to air the ad nationally, it is planning to run it locally on Birmingham’s Alabama’s FOX affiliate, during the time the network reserves for local advertising. “We believe that Super Bowl XLV is an opportunity to encourage football fans to look up John 3:16,” Fixed Point said on its website. “After all, John 3:16 is part of the culture of football,” referring to the number of football players, such as Tim Tebow, who have taken to wearing the scripture reference on their eye black, as well as the longtime tradition of fans in the seats holding large signs bearing the phrase “John 3:16.”

Said Taunton, “We want to generate a conversation about what this verse means and does it offer authentic hope — which I think it does.”

The New American


Although, if the MSM picks up on this story, they might get even more attention than if they HAD run the Super Bowl ad. Then again, who wants to bet the MSM ignores this one completely and it only gets attention on Christian and conservative web sites?

I'd be willing to bet FOX won't bother to cover this one, seing as how it casts them in a negative light. Even the reliable FOX bashers may choose to let this one be so as not to further any religious agendas.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I can't believe I never posted a link to the website they were advertising so you can judge for yourself how subversive this evil commercial is:


Is there any hope?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus Christ assured us that we can live in a world that fulfills our deepest longings. For he taught that God loves this world he has created, even though it has veered off its intended path. More than that, he said that God has always planned to set this world back on course.

So how will God do it? It should be obvious that solving this problem must involve justice. God is good. So if people wrong others, they will have to answer for that. But then, that means all of us will be brought to justice in some degree, since we have all wronged others. Worse still, we have all wronged God.

But is ultimate justice a good thing? Yes. For there would be no real hope without it. Justice is as essential to a real hope for this world as laws and judges are to the peace of a city. Imagine the Super Bowl being played without sidelines or referees. Our wrongs are not like a fistful of balloons that a child releases into the air and never sees again. We will have to answer for them. And this is a good thing. For if our thoughts and actions don’t matter in the end, then we don’t matter.


Read more: lookup316.com


Good God, we can't have people exposed to that kinda stuff in our modern society!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Refusing this as is their right, I guess, but it sure does seem hypocritical, particularly for the alleged reasons stated.

You have to wonder about an organization, though, that would willingly choose to spend millions on a commercial over feeding hungry kids.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

You have to wonder about an organization, though, that would willingly choose to spend millions on a commercial over feeding hungry kids.



I'm guessing that they believe that, if people were to embrace Christianity, they would become more charitable and more likely to give assistance to the needy. By getting their message out to the largest possible audience, they are increasing the possibility that more people will embrace Christian principals and help their fellow man.


I've always found that argument (why not use the money to feed the hungry?) to be a non-sequitur. Who are you to judge how someone else spends their money? Why is it always necessary to provide false alternatives in order to argue against something?

For all you know, this organization may give plenty of money to the poor and the investment in the Super Bowl commercial may be just a small part of their assets. You should also keep in mind that Christians view the salvation of souls to be their primary mission as the soul is immortal and its salvation has eternal consequences. Feeding the poor only has temporal effects and tomorrow, the poor will be hungry again.

Life is only a temporary condition and, when all is said and done, the level of comfort we had in this life may seem inconsequential once we pass on and have to answer for the way we lived our lives for all eternity. A soul burning in hell won't stop to think "hey, at least I wasn't hungry while I lived", it will only regret that it hadn't lived a better life in order to have avoided its current predicament.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This is not a non-seq at all unless you're attempting to defend it when it does not even need defending. That they choose advertising to prosthelytize rather than to be charitable is clearly and entirely up to them. That goes without saying. That I choose to find this perverse is entirely my opinion based on my own values. I find flagrant displays of religion offensive, provocative, and inflammatory and believe that they backfire more often than do any real good. The money would be better spent elsewhere. This is akin to throwing it away.
edit on 2/5/2011 by ~Lucidity because: forgot to hit Reply



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure that FOX would refuse to run an ad promoting atheism, or an ad encouraging to "look up the contradictory parts of the bible" instead of "John 3:16", as all the poor Christians would be offended. It just makes sense that a religious ad gets the same treatment.
edit on 5-2-2011 by Whipfather because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


By your logic: Why advertise for Viagra when they can use that money to feed the poor? Or why the beer ads or worse yet; those disgusting political ads
when the money could be used for the needy.

We can always find a better use for someone else's money. IMO, the best use it to give it me, I promise to spend it wisely
. I also have a bridge in Brooklyn if anyone is interested...

I too am often turned off by a lot of religious advertising. Much of it is WAY to preachy and I can see why people would find it annoying. This ad comes off as much more subtle than most and I think it is well done. It invites people to satisfy their curiosity and doesn't demand compliance or threaten fire and brimstone for those who reject its message.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


By your logic: Why advertise for Viagra when they can use that money to feed the poor? Or why the beer ads or worse yet; those disgusting political ads
when the money could be used for the needy.


Well, the difference is that Viagra doesn't pretend to base their actions on Luke 18:22:
"Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Maybe it was rejected because it wasn't funny?!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

By my logic? We expect nothing more and nothing less of product advertisers who are in it for financial gain. Religion is a whole other story...at least to me. And I spend plenty of my own money and time feeding people , helping them get healthcare or a place to live. Some people apparently just have too much money. Bet those millions were somehow tax deductible too.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 




Apparently, however, one type of ad will not be permitted: those promoting positive values and faith in God.


I literally LOL'd at that one. "Positive values"??!? Have you read the Bible lately?



Following last year’s media furor over a Focus on the Family-sponsored pro-life spot during the Super Bowl featuring Christian football phenomenon Tim Tebow (left) and his mother, FOX has put the kibosh on wholesome advocacy ads with the potential of offending any viewer with an opposing viewpoint.


Oh now I understand.... "Focus on the Family" oh all right I get it.




In a society like ours today, it is OK to run ads selling anything you could imagine but, when it comes to advocating a belief system, they close the door in your face?


Advocating a belief system like jailing or killing certain people (or just a hatred for a certain group of people)?



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 

I too am often turned off by a lot of religious advertising. Much of it is WAY to preachy and I can see why people would find it annoying. This ad comes off as much more subtle than most and I think it is well done. It invites people to satisfy their curiosity and doesn't demand compliance or threaten fire and brimstone for those who reject its message.


It is against longstanding policy to advertise religion during the national spots of the Superbowl.

Here is a list of other 2011 banned ads

If you think it's more subtle than most it, but just opens the door to the Jesus hates Obama ad would be running.

edit on 6-2-2011 by GrisGris because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by GrisGris because: Urgh. I'm on touchscreen and can't scroll. Abby. Autocorrect!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join