Why did Rolling Stone magazine decide, at the last moment, to not run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible? One can only guess and such guessing would probably be irresponsible.
But if the magazine has decided that they simply won't take advertising dollars from anyone with a religious message, I hope that this policy will be clearly enunciated and adhered to consistently. As the article linked above points out, at least one religiously-based ad appears in the most recent issue of the magazine.
2 comments:
Mark -- It's a fascinating decision on the mag's part. Given the sorts of things that such mags *will* advertise, it's very telling. It reminds us of how dangerous and threatening a force religion is -- people will talk freely about almost anything else, but not that.
Best,
Rob A.
I'm trying to figure how this is similar or different from the TV networks refusing to show that UCC ad a few weeks ago....
Perhaps in both situations, the rational is that the content is too 'controversial'. .... I think this is why I'm so strongly against censorship - you never know when it's going to stop.
(Hey, I'm a Buckeye, too!) :)
Post a Comment