Centerfield

While I disagree with those Christian groups that might be upset about such a film or reference to evolution, I have a hard time with the term "censorship". This is IMAX making a business decision; not a governmental agency preventing the film's showing. Agree or disagree with the ideas behind the "protest" but don't call it "censorship" anymore than a movie ridiculing a gay couple would not likely be played in certain markets due to local "concern" and poor viewership.

I agree with c3 here. This is a business opperating to make a profit, and it is no secret that there is a higher (much higher) precentage of creationists in the South. Unless you hold IMAX theaters to some moral standard that says they have a duty to show all movies that come their way no matter who it offends, then maybe this will be a problem. But good luck with that.

Are we all agreeing on a subject? LOL.

While I wish everyone would be more tolerant of others views, I can't find where any free speech issues are truly involved in this case. I get concerned when any group tries to squelch another's rights to make their opinions known, but in the case of IMAX, they are making a decision based on what is profitable for their business. If there is truly a market for the other films, there is no legislation on the books preventing someone else from stepping up to the plate and grabbing that market share.

If a branch of the government was involved here I'd be concerned. As the case appears; however, it just doesn't bother me.

I agree wholeheartedly that "censorship" is not the right term here. However, that doesn't answer the question of what should be done about whatever you call it that is happening.

Yes, the distribution company is making a business decision. But I think it's the wrong business decision, and it is a decision which risks helping create a vicious circle. If IMAX (and others) stop running science-based programming because of the religious beliefs of even a majority of a local community, then the message of the religious will become increasingly predominant, and the waverers and doubters will hear less and less which supports their own views. Over time, this could lead to a community where the religious beliefs take over our generally secular culture.

I think it entirely permissible for us to express our own disagreement with their business decisions by making business decisions of our own about whether to go see IMAX movies, or by writing (polite) letters of protest to them, or otherwise encouraging them to become a force for education, which will in the long run better serve their business, anyway.

I myself have a strong faith and belief in God and Christ, and I support people of faith. But I confess I have little patience for those who preach rigid adherence to bits and pieces of the Old Testament on the grounds that the Bible is the unalterable word of God, yet still eat pork and walk around with short hair. Somebody should really come along and release us from the strictures of those old laws. Oh, wait! Somebody did.

This action of failing to show great movies like "Volcano" is a slap in the face to mainstream Christians everywhere. Fort Worth, for example, is the home of Texas Christian University, a Disciples of Christ-affiliated school where evolution is taught in biology, and where archeaologists and paleontologists have made world-wide reputations in the past.

Sad times. In 1957 the right wing accused "godless communists" with hamstringing our science education and achievement. Now the right wing are doing it.

Ed;
Then those Christians need to speak IN THEIR CHURCHES. I know I don't do that enough. I wish more churches followed the rule of "agree on 'essentials'; ok to disagree on 'non-essentials'". IMHO, this is one of the non-essentials,

PatHMV,

What an awesome post! I left a denomination that shall remain nameless...heck, I'll name it. I left the Southern Baptist denomination for the Episcopal for a number of reasons. At the top of that list was the selective adherance to Old Testament law. I guess I got intolerant of the intolerance...lol.

AH,

Thanks! Every now and then I manage to think of the clever way to say something.

I think it's important for all of us to look for some middle ground in the culture battles (political, legal, and social). A friend of mine had an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal last week about a recent court ruling here forbidding an area school board from opening its meetings with a prayer. Normally, I'm against such rulings; I think the ACLU tends to make much ado about nothing. But my friend used the case to illustrate the old legal adage that "bad cases make bad law."

The prayer was not just your usual, non-denominational prayer that you might hear at the opening of many public bodies. It referred several times to "your darling son Jesus Christ," and apparently went on for quite some time. As my friend noted, ideally this situation should be resolved with compromise on both sides. The public body should tone down the opening prayer, and occasionally have the ceremony opened by a Rabbi, or a Priest, or even an Imam, while the ACLU should not bring suits claiming an "establishment of religion" simply because some profession of faith is made by public officials who are, after all, also citizens with the right to speak and worship freely.

When the ACLU tries to remove historically accurate Catholic missions from the seal of a city, Los Angeles, founded thanks to such missions, that push causes a reaction, causes the right to push back. When the ACLU tries to prohibit any public mention of religion at all, the other side fights back. And nobody every fights back with moderation. So the reaction is for the faithful to decide that there is little need for restraint, if the left doesn't appreciate restraint. The result is prayers like my friend wrote about. Which, of course, causes the ACLU to push back harder against all religious displays. Which causes...

It can become a vicious cycle, unless calmness and moderation can take hold on both sides.

Just one last thought... There's a thought buried in the article which suggests that some in the industry wonder if there is a "kind of tacit overcaution, overprotectedness of the audience" by theater operators. The operators all talked about a fear of protests, not that any protests had been made. In one of the lead instances discussed, a small number of people in a focus group said they considered the film blasphemous. But that's a far stretch from all. This overly cautious self-censorship is particularly insidious, because there's nobody really available to debate the issue. If you start picking on local preachers, then they can legitimately say "what did I do?". And then they'll be ticked off that you blamed them for something they didn't do and start fighting back, starting the vicious cycle I discussend in my previous post.

European Comment:

Call it what you want. I call it sad.
It shows that fundamentalistic religious forces are terrorising a significant part of the US.
It's really hard to appreciate all the great scientific research your country is doing when this kind of medeaval news keeps popping up.
PatHMV said:
"It can become a vicious cycle, unless calmness and moderation can take hold on both sides."
: A dangerous one; Please wake up ?

Oh my...I do believe we had theaters doing the same thing to Mel Gibson's Passion...It's a two-way street folks...get a grip and get over it

It is censorship. The decision was based on religious content. It was not motivated by protests or controversey but an internal decision to prevent people from seeing subject matter deemed inappropriate by a religious "elite." Business decision? Bull.