Rolling Stone Magazine Refuses to Run Ad for Bible

[WillyT]

<snip>

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) - Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest Bible publisher said Wednesday.

Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, bought space in the magazine months ago as part of an ad campaign for Today's New International Version, said Doug Lockhart, Zondervan's executive vice president of marketing.

And...

Lockhart said the ad features the face of a contemplative-looking young man and includes this copy: "In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV - Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times - and it makes more sense than ever."

Link: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB3G2O964E.html

Man... talk about your 1st Amendment issues!!! This should be interesting.

:shrug:

[ContraBass Black]

1. What exactly is "today's" language?

I hope it's clear and accurate.

[WillyT]

4. Hip Hop ???

Now THAT would be an interesting version of the Bible, no???

:shrug:

[ContraBass Black]

15. Then it would have to be regionally based.

I doubt it would be accurate.

[SKKY]

23. "Yo J! That ho Mary is bangin' dog! You gonna hit that?"

[WCGreen]

33. Yo, Jesu, my man...

What up wid dad pridigal son, I mean, word, I wouldn't take his sorry ass back,,, Bitch.....

[lies and propaganda]

73. this post made me scream! n/t

[newscott]

68. Well, when I was a kid they changed the name to...

The "Good News" Bible. That's probably what they have in mind. Instead of using the word Gospels, they call it "Good News".

[mountainvue]

2. They don't have to accept advertising from anyone.

It's their magazine.

[Bono71]

94. Correct. n/t

[President Jesus]

104. not exactly true

Media companies can refuse categories of advertisements, but they can't refuse specific customers, unless they know them to be engaged in fraudulant activity. For example, you can't accept advertising from GM but refuse Ford. It's illegal.

In this case, RS may be fine if they have a policy of refusing all advertisements for religious literature. But they are indeed violating Zondervan's 1st ammendment rights if they have been accepting advertising from other religious publishers.

The gray area is whether this bible product is considered its own category, or if it can be lumped in with all book publishing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. The RW media does it all the time with liberal ads

Therefore, a ruling in favor of the Bible ad might be very interesting. IF they take legal action, of course.

[mutus_frutex]

78. I would love to see a Hustler add in

the focus on the family magazine.. :-)

[jdj]

96. Or in this new version of the bible.

That would be interesting.

Actually, the bible IS nothing but marketing. So why should someone run an ad for another ad? Shouldn't the ad be strong enough to stand on it's own?

[Liberal Veteran]

5. As I said earlier: Who are these imaginary people.....

...who read Rolling Stone but never heard of Christianity?

[Fridays Child]

6. I think I'll subscribe.

eom

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

9. Me too

[Q3JR4]

90. Ditto. n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

7. For the last twenty-five years or so, RS has been

the most hated magazine of music nerds.....but lately, they've been stepping up their political stance, so I half-heartedly gotta say, "yay" to the Stone.

However, this will not play well....look for O'Really, Hannity, et al. to make a mountain out of this particular molehill.

[Bono71]

95. My problem with RS is the album reviews...but I guess that

is all about opinion...

It seems that established bands like REM (who haven't put out a good album in 15 years) get 4 star reviews no matter what they release.

[jdj]

99. somebody in marketing at the 'Stone had a brainstorm!

we can run their ad, or we can piss off all the conservative windbags and get all kinds of prime-time advertising FREE!.


Hell, everything the conservatrons touch turns to gold for the opposing party...they gave Michael Moore the largest grossing documentary of all time, not to mention all his bestsellers, they gave the Dixie Chicks the new record for first day ticket sales and a sold-out concert tour and album sales that beat the sales of their two pre-controversy albums COMBINED.

I'm sure the marketeers were like "let's see if they can spread that magic touch over in our direction."

[rocktivity]

8. Maybe it's a truth in advertising issue

The "only" source of "real" truth that's "reliable"? Surely that's a matter of faith, if not opinion. I wouldn't mind if the ad had stopped at saying it was a new version translated for today's generation--those are facts.

:headbang:
rocknation

[quiet.american]

60. Exactly. n/t

[meisje]

10. Page 1: "Yo Yo Yo This Bible Is The Shiznit"

[Whoa_Nelly]

17. Be sure to read the chapter

Jesus in the 'hood

[Rapcw]

21. LOL

[LeftyMom]

11. There's good precedent for rejecting ads for nearly any reason

For example, Mothering magazine doesn't take infant formula advertisements, because it's contrary to thier mission of promoting breastfeeding.

The only way Rolling Stone might be in trouble is if they don't have a written policy that discribes what thier criteria are or if they don't warn potential advertisers that they may refuse thier ad for any reason.

[Kimber Scott]

18. This is a free country and it's their magazine. Are they publically

funded? Why do we always worry about "getting in trouble?" It's a FREE COUNTRY! .......isn't it?

[AuntiBush]

29. Yes!

That's the point. Freedom! We sure are forgetting that one these days, but can anyone blame us.

[Sivafae]

47. I'm with you chica

I really don't care one way or the other. And if they do "get in trouble" for it. F this country.

[LeftyMom]

52. I mean legal trouble related to the business transaction

If they contracted to run the ad before determining that it doesn't meet thier standards, one would hope that there's something in thier contract saying they reserve the right to refuse an advertisement they find offensive and refund any payment already recieved.

[Charlie Brown]

89. That's between RS and the Bible publishers

If a contract's been violated, then the publishers can sue for damages. I'm guessing RS reserves the right to pull ads for any number of reasons, though.

[pokercat999]

105. Well yes it may be. Corporations have many if not

all of the same rights as persons (a 1896 SCOTUS ruling ?). IMHO this was a huge mistake and has lead to many of our current problems. I'm very much for nearly unlimited personal rights but a strong advocate of keeping corporations under the "public" thumb. I believe corporations are the biggest threat to our national security now and growing worse in the future. Wal-mart would love to replace any and all flags with their own or at the very least have a seat on the UN Security Counsel.

[HawkerHurricane]

12. Nope, can't support Rolling Stones on this one.

If the add isn't offensive, they shouldn't cut it. Admit that they're wrong, show the add, and hammer the next media outlet that refuses to run a leftie add. Besides, the Bible is not left nor right, or at least it shouldn't be.

[BrotherBuzz]

13. How come nobody hammered CBS and NBC on the UCC ad?

I agree, the sword should cuts both ways, but the flap with the UCC ad didn't raise much of a stink in the MSM and with the Bush*bot base.
.....

The CBS and NBC television networks are refusd to run a 30-second television ad from the United Church of Christ because its all-inclusive welcome has been deemed "too controversial."

The ad, part of the denomination's new, broad identity campaign set to begin airing nationwide on Dec. 1, states that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.

According to a written explanation from CBS, the United Church of Christ is being denied network access because its ad implies acceptance of gay and lesbian couples -- among other minority constituencies --and is, therefore, too "controversial."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the CBS and UPN networks."

[Kurovski]

27. I would reject the ad based on this statement

in the ad: "In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth."

The Bible is not a source of current events, and implies that the truth of what politicians and governments are up to is impossible to know. ( I mean, aside from false prophet George's plan for Armeggedon. }

The statement in the ad is itself political spin. It even manages to insult Rolling Stone , which is of course, a media outlet.

[HawkerHurricane]

38. You're right...

the Bushbot base and the media spin machine didn't give a good gawdamn when the United Church of Christ had thier add rejected... but they will throw screaming fits about Rolling Stone... so they're hypocrits, but I'm not.

[Kurovski]

43. Yes , but

we own the airwaves, and Rolling Stone is completely privately owned.

We lease the airwaves to private companies, which gives us all more of a say.

It's also why lack of a fairness doctrine on radio and on the TEEVEE is such a travesty.

[Strabo]

19. afraid I'm going to have to disagree with posters 12 and 13...

Rolling Stone is a privately owned, operated, and distributed magazine. They should not be required to run any add or story they do not wish to run.

Broadcast TV is another matter. They are NOT a privately distributed medium. The airwaves are owned by the citizens of the United States (at least in the U.S.), our government, via the FCC, LICENSES access to broadcasting over a PUBLICLY owned medium. THAT is why broadcasters should be required to sublet air time to any qualified customer.

[HawkerHurricane]

39. S'okay with me.

I see your point, but still think... well, if a private organization can decide who they allow to advertise, what else can they decide? Slippery slope.

[yardwork]

50. What? Every private organization gets to decide their ads

That's how "freedom" works for the private organizations.

Would we demand that Jerry Falwell's newsletter accept advertising from NOW?

[thinkingwoman]

103. slippery slope?

Uh, no. Just 1st amendment freedom.

Publications that are privately owned are the ONLY business that the founding fathers thought should be guaranteed freedom by the constitution. They did not make that decision lightly.

Publishers have absolute freedom to decide what does and does not appear on the pages of their publication. Period.

If we want to start telling private publications what they can and cannot include, let's just change our country's name to USSR right now and get it over with.



edited for bad typing.

[Kurovski]

44. Welcome to DU, Strabo!

I stole your thunder in my post above, but it's a point that bears repeating in this discussion.

:hi:

[BrotherBuzz]

46. Well, why did CBS and NBC reject the add...

while it was accepted by a number of networks, including ABC Family, AMC, BET, Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, History, Nick at Nite, TBS, TNT, Travel and TV Land, among others.

[sendero]

58. Thank you...

... people forget, the airwaves are OURS.

A second point I'd like to make is that I hope the echo machine starts ragging on Rolling Stone. They'll get the kind of publicity you just cannot buy at any price, and new readers as a result.

[civil discourse]

107. What you said.

Having an ad that says the Bible is the real truth may have scared them off, but I agree with you.

[rawtribe]

14. The Bible

is bullshit and should be rejected! Go RS!

[maveric]

20. Amen Brother!

But watch out the mods will remove your post for stating as such.

I agree with you 100%.

[rawtribe]

24. Solidarity Brother...

n/t

[leesa]

16. Good. Let's end this madness. If the bible condones what Bush does, it

is evil. Period!

[JohnLocke]

36. What an idiotic post (nt).

[Bake]

22. But that's persecution! They're PERSECUTING US!! Waaaaahhhhhh!

Try being crucified upside down, if you want to know what real persecution is.

See my thread in G.D.

Bake

[CAG]

26. What if...

it were a Koran ad, or one of those classifieds in the back for some new age crap, would us libs be spouting things such as "well its a private magazine, they can do what they want"?

Whether they can do it or not isn't really the question, whether its the right or wrong decision to practice this "censorship by exclusion" is the most appropriate question. The Nation magazine readily accepts ads from the right, and I applaud them for this, even though looking at the stuff makes me want to puke.

Since when is the right the only side expected to question a mag like the Rolling Stone in their decision to ban an ad about the freakin bible?

[Mizmoon]

57. "Us libs"?

:eyes:

[oldcoot]

82. It would make no difference if it was the Koran

Rolling Stone is a privately owned magazine and its editors have a right to accept or reject advertisers. People who find this policy offensive have the right not to buy this magazine. It is that simple.

When I buy a magazine, I do not expect the magazine to give me all sides of an issue. For example, I would not buy the latest issue of People to learn about all the issues surrounding tax policy nor would I buy Rolling Stone to learn about religion.

[not systems]

25. They have no obligation to promote hate speech.

Go Rolling Stone.

[mrbassman03]

30. self deleted.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

51. oooh. Tight and to the point. And I have to agree. "Cosmic Saddam Hussein"

Christian fundamentalism is as oppressive and unloving as the Taliban ever were. The Bible has very little that one would want to teach your children in it.

www.infidels.org/library/historical/ clarence_darrow/bible_absurdities.html

Supposedly 'God' approves of slavery and has some rules about it.
Um..yeah. Is this the 'Robert E. Lee' version of the Bible?
Not a good book to run a modern democracy with. Merely historical interest.

Much of the Bible, unfortunately, is hateful and contradictory with such things as infanticide, child abuse, woman abuse, scorched-earth genocide, slavery, incest and other atrocities against the innocent that make Abu Ghraib look tame, all being sanctioned by an imaginary Lord who resembles, in the words of a famous atheist who recently 'got religion,' a "sort of cosmic Saddam Hussein."

Which is exactly why the Republican neo-cons are pushing the Bible as an anaesthetic for our brains. "Don't judge the White House. Just have faith that they know best and will do the right thing." Yeah right, in Gitmo Bay or elsewhere in the dungeons of the New Spanish Inquisition.
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/


Putting the nurturing love and care for the needy that is preached by Jesus and other liberals back into the public arena to combat the rightously hate-fueled wrathful smiting practiced by the Republicans and Dominionists is, IMHO, the best way to address this uniquely American form of fascism while we still can.

The propaganda-based 'friendly fascism' in this country works by stoking fear, causing confusion, and then justifying dictatorship as a security blanket.

The authoritarian personality that is intentionally bred by mating TV with religion makes sheep who blindly follow The Lord, Big Brother, mein Fuhrer, the King. All of these are the same dangerous guy.
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

The Authoritarian personality was quantified by researchers after WWII when fascism was studied to see why so many people could embrace the horrors of Hitler and Mussolini. They found out it was based on a fear of complexity, a tendency towards groupthink, and a need to target people who are different as scapegoats for all that is wrong in their world.
http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html
(The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism)

The Master Race and the Chosen Few are fueled by the same psychosis.

This is exactly antithetical to an informed electorate controlling their own government, or democracy.

Rolling Stone apparently does not wish to turn the social clock back over two thousand years and that is a damned good thing, pun intended.

[mutus_frutex]

81. I'm rasing my glass at you and taking off my (imaginary) hat.. nt.. :-)

[UL_Approved]

28. What do we know about the ad?

This should be allowed to get canned by Rolling Stone. If networks can throw out ads promoting diversity, Rolling Stone can throw out ads that promote self-righteousness. This is an issue of freedom to publish. But, this is also a larger issue, namely that of what content should be put forth. Rolling Stone has not given a reason as to why the ad was pulled anyway. This needs more investigation.

[mrbassman03]

32. I don't think so..

If it were not a privately owned business, there may be some problems. But that's not the case. It is exactly like the signs saying: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

[UL_Approved]

35. Umm, that is what I said

Maybe I worded it poorly.

Rolling Stone should be able to say no. Even if this was on a public network, it still shouldn't be run. I'll bet that the company that got a deal with Rolling Stone promised one thing, then delivered another.

[mrbassman03]

31. So what?

Rolling Stone is a private magazine, they can run whatever the hell they want. Would there be a big deal if ads for hookers were turned down by Bon Appetit???

[Hardrada]

34. That's exactly right.

Why are they running ads for Bibles anyway? I thought they left them for free in motel rooms.

[VegasWolf]

80. These are the "new and improved" bibles, they cost more than the

freebies in cheap motel rooms.

[Democat]

37. Rolling Stone is one of the old school voices of the left

They don't fuck around or run scared of Bush or the right wing fascists.

[Journeyman]

40. It's the "World's Most Dangerous Book" . . .

The World's Most Dangerous Book

Opinion by Alan W. Watts

For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to translating the Holy Scriptures into the "vulgar tongue." To this day, you can still get rid of a Bible salesman by saying, "But we are Catholics and, of course, don't read the Bible." The Catholic hierarchy included subtle theologians and scholars who knew very well that such a difficult and diverse collection of ancient writings, taken as the literal Word of God, would be wildly and dangerously interpreted if put into the hands of ignorant and uneducated peasants. Likewise, when a missionary boasted to George Bernard Shaw of the numerous converts he had made, Shaw asked, " Can these people use rifles?" "Oh, indeed, yes," said the missionary. "Some of them are very good shots." Whereupon Shaw scolded him for putting us all in peril in the day when those converts waged holy war against us for not following the Bible in the literal sense they gave to it. For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might." But today, especially in the United States, there is a taboo against admitting that there are enormous numbers of stupid and ignorant people, in the bookish and literal sense of these words. They may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.

This may sound snobbish, for there is an assumption that, in the Bible, God gave His message in plain words for plain people. Once, when I had given a radio broadcast in Canada, the announcer took me aside and said, "Don't you think that if there is a truly loving God, He would given us a plain and specific guide as to how to live our lives?"

"On the contrary," I replied, "a truly loving God would not stultify our minds. He would encourage us to think for ourselves." I tried, then, to show him that his belief in the divine authority of the Bible rested on nothing more than his own personal opinion, to which, of course, he was entitled. This is basic. The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or of any spiritual or political leader, is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers' judgment that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than there own. This is, obviously, a paradox, for only the wise can recognize wisdom. Thus, Catholics criticize Protestants for following their own opinions in understanding the Bible, as distinct from the interpretations of the Church, which originally issued and authorized the Bible. But Catholics seldom realize that the authority of the Church rests, likewise, on the opinion of its individual members that the Papacy and the councils of the Church are authoritative. The same is true of the state, for, as a French statesman said, people get the government they deserve.

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Usually because one's "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is to go along with the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books , who periodically get together and shout, "We all say so, so it must be true!" Having been a grandfather for a number of years, I am not particularly impressed with patriarchal authority. I am of an age with my own formerly impressive grandfathers (one of whom was a fervent fundamentalist, or literal believer in the Bible) and I realize that my opinions are as fallible as theirs.


Read the entire article by one of the foremost religious experts of the latter 20th century, best known for his interpretation of Asian philosophies for a Western audience, as he tackled what he termed, The World's Most Dangerous Book:

http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t9909.html

[MyUncle]

41. Let's call a crock a crock

They accept cigarette ads, liquor ads, condom ads, sexual aids ads, bad TV and movie ads, ugly clothes ads. Anyone who reads the magazine can or can not decide to buy something. This is a stupid business decision and and smacks of hypocrisy. Find something better to support.

This is a crock and does not pass the sniff test.

[not systems]

48. Then quit sniffing it...

I think a private business can exercise editorial control
of its content.

Particularly when they do not use the public airwaves or
other shared resources.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

53. See my post #51 above. They are rejecting the preaching of atrocity.

If you actually read the Bible, much of it reads like 'Mein Kampf' because it was written by men who thought 'God' told them to kill and destroy so those must be good things to do.

Sound familiar? Why, yes. War criminals, torturers, and psychopaths make the same irrational and Orwellian claim: "We had to destroy to save."

Spanish Inquisition anyone? Fundamentalists (those who take the Bible literally)see what they want to see in the Bible and ignore the rest. This world is suffering because of exactly this schizophrenic denial of a coherent and accountable narrative to live by called The Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is found in secular humanist documents like the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, international treaties, bills and regulations passed in Congress.

Those are what American democracy uses as guides to ethical behavior and morality.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. Advertising condoms is bad? (nt)

[Chovexani]

86. Yes

Remember sex is dirty and evil. Procreation, not recreation. :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. Oh, of course! I forgot! Thanks for bringing me back to JEEBUS!

:crazy: :freak:

[oldcoot]

84. Why is it hypocritical?

None of the advertisers you listed are religious organizations. If Rolling Stone has a policy of not running religious ads, the editors are not being hypocritical in refusing to run an ad for the Bible.

[NNN0LHI]

42. Could a magazine for vegetarians be forced to run ads for McDonald's?

It would kind of defeat the purpose of having a magazine for vegetarians. Wouldn't it?

Don

[Spider Jerusalem]

45. First Amendment issue my arse.

They can reject advertising if they want; the publisher can go and find another magazine that will run it.

Kind of sad that so many people have a distorted view of where the First Amendment is applicable...

[daleo]

49. I agree that they have the right of refusal.

But they should have just taken the money and run the ad.

[Dr Fate]

54. The govt. has to be involved for there to be a 1st Amend violation.

Or so I've always assumed.

[LostinVA]

55. Good for RS for NOT taking the money

I think the wording of the ad is kinda offensive -- even if you're a Christian, this bible isn't going to be the "real truth" for most of them.

Also, I think the slippery slope would have been if Rolling Stone HAD accepted the ad. Then, the LDS could have a legitimate gripe for an ad not being accepted for The Book of Mormon, etc. I worked for a magazine once, and you had to be very careful about allowing ads from one category of products to run, and not another.

Also, I was a book buyer for many years, and Zondervan may have been the issue, not the bible translation per se. They publish alot of anti-evolution, end times stuff, as well as alot of Christian parenting and sexuality books. On the face of it, not bad, but I've looked through quite a few of them in my time, and their mindset seems to be set in about 1952 Mid America.

So, good for Rolling Stone. I let my subscription lapse a long time ago, but I'll renew it today. God, I HATE Martha's stuff, but our household buys her magazine now.

[hollowdweller]

56. Too bad. Bush would be in trouble if more folks actually READ the bible

Instead of letting some Jack Leg preacher tell them what it says

[noonwitch]

59. So, it's like a slang translations?

I hate those types of translations, like The Living Bible. They take way too many liberties with the language when translating.

I prefer the KJV as an adult. I was given a Revised Standard Version in Sunday School, and it is a good one, too. I think there's a newer version of that.

Some things just sound better in the KJV language. It's the "Elizabethan" language that Shakespeare wrote in. I don't have one of those issues like Jack Chick does, where I think other translations are of Satan, but I do like the language.

[Guns Aximbo]

61. GOOD! I'm resubscribing

That is the kind of behavior that REQUIRES praise.

[happyslug]

63. You sure Rolling Stone rejected this ad for the reason you claim?

This is a NEW Translation of the Bible. The Right wing HATES new translations for such translations often undermine what the Right Wing believes the Bible says. The Right Wing prefers the King James version of the Bible for it was written around 1610 with intentions t uphold the ruling monarch of that time. Subsequent it was used by the Puritans to overthrow (and execute) that Monarch's son and the English language changed to make the King James version of the bible to reflect both events. Notice I said the English language CHANGED not the King James Version of the Bible nor what is in th Bible (For example ye, thees and the whole informal text of the English language disappeared except in the King James Version of the Bible).

These changes in the ENGLISH language has made the King James version of the Bible "Non-biblical" in places. It was these problems with the changes in language is why the Catholics disliked the use of regular language instead of Latin for the bible. Use of Words change over time and such changes can lead to complete change in the meanings of a passage. Using Latin and Greek minimized that effect.

On the other hand the Right Wing use many of these passages to support their own Right Wing Agenda and HATE it when a New Translation undermine their Right Wing Agenda. Thus they are many magazines and Newspapers who will not take in Ads for New versions of the Bible SO TO KEEP THE RIGHT WING HAPPY THAT THE ONLY "REAL" BIBLE IS THE KING JAMES VERSION. It is this later rationale that I believe is the reason for the Rolling Stone's refusal to take in this Ad, NOT that the Rolling Stones oppose the Bible or religion, but the Rolling Stones does not want to offend the Right Wing in offering a new Version (a Non-King James Version) of the Bible.

[brentspeak]

66. Conservative evangelicals especially hate the NRSV

The gender-neutral language, and the (correct) translation of Isaiah 7:14 had them burning the book en masse when it was first published in the 1950s.

[pelagius]

71. Slight correction

<pedantry>

The _RSV_ first corrected that passage in Isaiah to read "A young woman shall conceive" rather than "A virgin shall conceive". That was in 1952 and, given the tenor of the times, the RSV was considered part of a Communist plot to sap our precious bodily fluids -- er, deplete our nation's religious strength.

The more recently released _NRSV_ has the gender inclusive language, which is considered part of some plot to make women think God had something to say to them. It's quite silly, actually, where the text is specifically about or address to actual "men" or "women", it uses the gender-specific terms. When the text uses the male-normative to mean "everyone", it uses gender-inclusive language. For example, where the text says something like "Hear this, brothers" the NRSV says "Hear this, brothers and sisters."

</pedantry>

[getting old in mke]

74. Curious Coincidence

Today is the 80th anniversary of the inauguration of Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, the first female Texas Governor.

The same one attributed with declaring "If the King James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

No doubt apocrophal, but amusing anyway.

The base translation for the TNIV is the NIV (New International Version), which is a favorite of many evangelicals if they can get past the King James thing.

[pelagius]

76. The New International Version is a good translation...

...with serious scholarship behind it. The editors chose to follow the most traditional or conservative (from an evangelical Christian perspective) way to translate "problem passages" (and there are literally thousands of them in the Bible). The NRSV editors were a more broadly-based coalition of scholars, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, and Jews.

[Chovexani]

Are you for real?

Have you ever actually read Rolling Stone?

They have never, ever given a flying fuck about what the Reich Wing thinks. Ever. It's one of the few liberal media outlets we have. They are old school lefties and wouldn't kow-tow to the fundies.

[happyslug]

100. Yes I have, but sometime you just want to avoid a fight

No matter how good is the subject. Furthermore you sure this is not an advertising stunt i.e. reject the ad so that the ad gets more attention? Been done before sometime with the full cooperation of the magazine "Rejecting" the ad. In my experience most magazine will take almost any ad as long as it is paid for and the ad will NOT clearly make the magazine subject to liability. Thus why was this ad rejected? I can NOT see it because of the "Liberal bias" of the Rolling Stone. Something else is going on here.

[brentspeak]

64. Not a 1st amend. issue, but stupid, regardless

It smacks of Rolling Stone acting as if IT is the one who's "holier than thou", like "we're too good for your stupid new Bible."

Then again, this is the same magazine that had the publisher himself, Jann Wenner, close personal friend of Mick Jagger, pen a fawning five-star review to Jagger's lame latest solo effort. Right up there with "Beggar's Banquet", "Sgt.Pepper", and "Born To Run", right Jann?

[RainDog]

65. Rolling Stone knows their target audience

where I live, the local indie bookstore SOLD OUT of the latest issue of Rolling Stone with the article by Krugman days ago.

they get lots of copies, it hits their newstand on Friday, so I think that tells you something about RS's audience.

no matter how the religious right tries to spin it, anyone who isn't an imbecile knows they're all about politics and not at all about god anyway.

[gollygee]

67. I have mixed feelings

I don't like the wording of the ad. "real truth"

They have the right to accept or reject any ads. They are certainly within their rights to reject the ad.

But if I were the decision-maker, I probably would have accepted it. I don't think there is a really good reason to reject it. They can, but why did they?

Someone said a magazine for vegetarians wouldn't have an ad for meat - well that's not the same thing. Rolling Stone isn't a magazine for athiests. It's a magazine for people who like music.

[freedom_to_read]

69. Ummm why is this news at all?

Magazines can choose to print, or not to print, whatever ads they want. RS is a music magazine, not a religious magazine. They figured that this ad would turn their audience off; I'm sure it was a business decision and not a political one.

If, say Columbia records tried to buy advertising space in Christianity Today to advertise the latest Snoop Doggy Dogg album, would anyone make a big deal if the publishers refused to run it?

[pelagius]

72. Most sensible post in this thread. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

70. I thought they meant this Bible, but

it's a different publisher

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1903816734/qid=1090260807/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6973446-1107163?v=glance&s=books

[DrWeird]

75. Who's being offended.

Young people, who feel they may be mocked? Or conservative christians, who are upset that Biblical characters are being portrayed as those "degenerate black thugs."

[Chovexani]

88. My guess

The few billion people on planet Earth that would take issue with the statement that the Bible is the only source of "real truth". (self included)

[Hobarticus]

77. This is a non-issue. RS is privately-owned, and can refuse advertisers

Any right-wing mag can refuse ads, just the same.

Just another case of RWs trying to whip up a fire.

[Endangered Specie]

79. And Jesus was like: "Like, oh my god, like whatever."...

:scared: :evilgrin: IS that what they meant by "todays youth language"?

[VegasWolf]

83. Another RW persecution du jour. I f they can't find someone to

persecute them, they have a really bad day. This, oh poor me
shit get's old.

[DulceDecorum]

85. Top Bible refuses to run ad for Rolling Stone.

Hah.

[Roland99]

87. How is this a 1st Amendment issue?

They can pick and choose whatever ads they want.

[progressivebydesign]

91. Just as Clear Channel can refuse to sell billboards to Dems..

.. then this should be just the same. Private company, and no doubt they have a long standing policy of accepting relgious ads. The NBC affiliate where I worked had a company policy of NOT running any PSA sent in by religious groups. That kind of bummed me out, though I was not religious, becase the LDS always produced the coolest PSAs on a variety of issues.

[katinmn]

92. Zondervan is a big seller on Wal-Mart's online store

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/search-ng.gsp?search_constraint=COMBINED_AUTHOR%3A3920&search_query=Zondervan+Bible+Publishers

[bobbyboucher]

93. Another translation? How many is that?

We are already so far from the original the whole thing is suspect.

[Hardrada]

101. They used to translate the Bible into Native American languages

but then they'd wipe out the tribes like in King Philip's War so that project was kind of moot. I wonder if the new translations now are slanted rightwingward. I wish they would translate the Bible into Bushspeak so then maybe that tribe would vanish too.

[geniph]

97. It's not a First Amendment issue

no one is barring the company from placing their ads elsewhere, but no privately-owned publication can be required to run ads they don't wish to run. As an example, many family magazines will not run ads featuring boner pills or hemorrhoid creams, things like that. Catholic magazines don't run ads featuring birth control pills or condoms. This is their right as privately-owned publication. First Amendment would only arise if a GOVERNMENT entity tried to suppress their right to advertise their product.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

98. Explain, Rolling Stone.

I'm wondering why they refused it. Do they have a problem with the Bible?

[hedgehog]

106. I agree - what is Rolling Stone afraid of?

It's their right to publish the ad or not, but what's the big deal? Are they afraid their readers will be swept away?

[Moe Levine]

108. dumb

1) sure you can reject such an AD

2) why?

Life teaches that if you stick a point stick in someone's eye, odds are they will do it to you, mostly likely at a time of their choosing