Sounds like CENSORSHIP to me
 

LAMB OF GOD is being forced to step aside from one of their arena concerts on the upcoming Subliminal Verses Tour with SLIPKNOT, because of their name Lamb Of God and former moniker BURN THE PRIEST.

The venue, The Forum in Los Angeles, is owned by The Faithful Central Bible Church who decided to impose a ruling to ban Lamb Of God's performance at their venue.

Lamb of God have come off of several extremely successful headline runs through L.A. in the last year, so this move comes completely unexpected for the band and the tour as a whole. Los Angeles is and has always been a huge market for the band, building steadily with each one of their releases and tours as well as and exploding with the bands current CD, Ashes Of The Wake.

In deciding to ban Lamb Of God's performance, The Faithful Central Bible Church are imposing on the publics freedom of speech, choice and assembly; the bands art along with the bands ability to conduct commerce.

Drummer Chris Adler clearly states, "The "situation" in L.A. can only be described as ridiculous. It's already been a huge waste of energy trying to turn this around. The powers that be aren't interested budging - or doing their research apparently - and we've never been a band to placate anyone to get our way, smooth things over or make anyone feel better. They have made it clear that they don't want us because of our name, our show and our crowd - because of that ignorance, Lamb Of God is not being permitted to appear on the Subliminal Verses Concert in L.A. It's truly a shame for the show overall, especially for our friends and fans in L.A. that are being forced to miss our part of the show. Trust that this was not our decision, we'd love to kick some ass in L.A., but apparently the word from the powers that be is that Lamb Of God is not the wholesome family fun that the good people of Los Angeles deserve."

As previously reported, Lamb Of God’s official website (www.lamb-of-god.com) was recently updated with more West Coast and Midwest US dates for their upcoming tour. Most dates also feature SLIPKNOT, SHADOWS FALL and support.

But since it is owned by them, isn't it THEIR right to decide who gets to play there? They aren't taking away their freedom to say what they want to in their music or their right to perform...they can do all that...but they do get a right to say WHO can play in their own venu? no?

How does a Bible Church have enough money to own a venue and why do they own a venue? Technically I think they can say who plays in their venue but then it gets scary because right wing rich wackos can just buy up venues and ban acts? Of course no one in this administration will do anything to support this band. I'm so effing pissed right now. Just give me another reason. Dammmittttt!!!!!!!!!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :confused: :shocked: :distress: :(

Update the situation
 

Updating the situation, the Mercury News (www.mercurynews.com) has issued the following report from the Associated Press:

INGLEWOOD, Calif. - Call it silence of the Lamb.

The church-owned Great Western Forum has canceled an April 9 concert appearance by the heavy metal band Lamb of God because church leaders were offended by the group's previous name, Burn the Priest.

"We do owe something to our congregants. A band formerly known as Burn the Priest caused us pause. We have to draw the line somewhere," said Marc Little, general counsel for the Faithful Central Bible Church, which owns the Forum, the former home of the Los Angeles Lakers.

The band was set to appear with Grammy-nominated Slipknot as part of the Subliminal Verses Tour. In a statement on the band's Web site, drummer Chris Adler called the church's decision "a bit ridiculous."

"If they had taken the time to look into what we do and who we are as a band, I don't think they would have made the same decision," he told The Associated Press.

"They have made it clear that they do not want us because of our name, our show and our crowd," Adler said. "The word from the powers that be is that Lamb of God is not the wholesome family fun that the good people of Los Angeles deserve."

The Richmond, Va., based band took the name Lamb of God in 2000 after performing under the name Burn the Priest from 1994 to 1999. The band dumped the earlier name because it "put us into a corner we didn't want to be in," Adler said.

"So we went with something just as strange but, I guess, in the other way. So to have this kind of backlash is strange," he added.

The band has had people show up at their concerts to protest the band name. But Adler said the band has never been banned from a venue.

But in light of recent events, including the nightclub shooting of guitarist Darryl "Dimebag" Abbott, Adler said he wasn't too surprised by the action.

"I really can't believe it. But maybe it's a new day in what we are finding out will be allowed and what will be censored," he said.

Lamb of God was excited about the Forum date because metal bands do not typically play such large venues.

The band's major label debut, New American Gospel, was released in 2000. Their 2004 release, Ashes of the Wake, garnered critical buzz for its political content. The album's instrumental title track contains a sound bite of a soldier talking about the killings in Iraq.

The band intends to perform in Los Angeles and is fielding other offers.

"There are plenty of venues that will welcome us," he said. "We're looking forward to back out there and playing for the fans."

Faithful Central, which bought the Forum in 2000, is among a small but growing number of churches using sports and entertainment facilities as houses of worship.

Slipknot and other acts in the tour are still scheduled to perform.

Whether or not it will get them anywhere this band should file a lawsuit on principal. Or, could fans file a suit, like fans in LA who won't get to see the band because of this illegal censorship? It should be done. Even fights that appear futile need to be faught. EFFFFFEEERRRRSSSSS.....:mad:

HOW IS THIS censorship? If you owned a venue and Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak there and then you say...NO...WAIT. I own this building and I say, NO I will not allow it. Would that be censorship then?

The church that owns this venue are not calling for people to go out and smash CD's...they are simply saying that they don't agree with their message in their music, so therefore we don't want them playing in OUR venue. This band is free to play ANYWHERE else they would like...so HOW is that censorship?

Let's stretch that first ammendment until it bursts right?

Um, I would say "cha ching" and take the money from the jackasses who actually paid to see her and laugh my ass off all the way to the bank. :laugh:

Again, WHY DOES A CHURCH OWN A VENUE? This seems to be the real issue to me.

Several years ago a Marilyn Manson concert was cancled in my town - it was a total act of censorship...the local government just didn't like Marilyn Manson....well it totally f**ked up the venue - no other good band would touch them for YEARS because of that.....

A church can't own a venu? Why not?

Hmmm...well first off if you consider Marilyn Manson good music then... :laugh:

If I owned a venue...
 

I would ALLOW ALL...Coulter, Hillbilly Clinton, etc., WITHOUT BEING CENSORED!

I just find it hypocritical that LOB gets yanked whereas Slipknot will play, When IMHO (As a metalhead) there's no difference in the bands sound just lyrically LOB is more politically charged & based.

I live DEEP IN THE HEART of the BIBLE-BELT and not one show has EVER been censored to my knowledge in my 34+ year lifetime, Not even shows by bands/artists/etc. who are openly Satanists! Hell, ORU (Oral Roberts University) in my former home of Tulsa allows rock concert's at the Maybee Center on their campus (Frank Sinatra SOLD OUT his performance their years ago...And ol' "Blue Eyes" is not exactly considered 'correct' to those who are considered religious.)

i thought jerry buss still owned the forum?
maybe when when i sued their ass i put em out of business? :]

Good, then this will likely happen to these idiots too. Let karma get them.

Well there's the thing. You havent seen censorship before, and you aren't seeing it now. Just the owners of the building decided..."I'm not to comfy with you guys playing at OUR venue."

I mean don't get me wrong you have every right to be angry because the band isn't going to play there. But I don't understand how its a censorship issue, that's all? They can still play at a different venue in the city...no?

reply
 

The Church needs to quit its crying.