Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on October 31, 2017, 11:34:53 PM
-
Giles Fraser on the spirituality of the rusty tromboners of Conservatism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/thought-for-the-day-faith-bbc-religion-radio-4-today
-
"Like what I like" complains ignored broadcaster - exclusive, pages 4, 5 and 6.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/07/the-bbc-is-overdoing-religion
-
Enki
thank you for posting the link. A welcome breath of clarity after some of the religious nonsense I have just been reading - and challenging!! - on GH.
-
GH?
-
The Graham Hancock forum.
It was the first forum I found when new to the internet. After thatt I found and joined BBC and JREF and have remained with them all ever since. A poster, The Atheisst, in JREF, liked what I posted and suggestedI joined Ship of Fools, so that makes up the four I visit. All quite different in character.
-
Ah, thank you.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/07/the-bbc-is-overdoing-religion
I'm really surprised the National Secular Society thinks there is too much religion on the BBC.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/07/the-bbc-is-overdoing-religion
A quick ballpark calculation based on airtime available over 2 TVs networks.....I discounted BBC 4 since it's only on from 7 pm......and 7 national radio networks.
Religion in terms of airtime thus takes up 0.0073 % of the BBC airtime.
How are the BBC overdoing religion?
-
Giles Fraser on the spirituality of the rusty tromboners of Conservatism.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/31/thought-for-the-day-faith-bbc-religion-radio-4-today
So a guy who is given the opportunity, completely unchallenged, to promulgate his views for 3 minutes smack in the middle of BBC radio's flagship news programme, while others with differing views are completely banned supports a slot where only religious people can promulgate their views for 3 minutes at peak radio prime-time unchallenged while non religious people are banned.
Do bears defecate near trees.
Much more interesting, of course, are the views of Justin Webb and John Humphries - particularly Justin Webb who hits the nail on the head that the unchallenged approach leads to completely vacuous and deeply disingenuous 'let's all be nice to each other ... cos my god says so' platitudes day after day (only the god changes), while all around religions practice huge intolerance that legitimises discrimination and violence - and in many cases violence is practice directly in the name of religion.
If an organisation doesn't practice what it preaches its views are frankly worthless - and lets not forget the virtually all contributors to TFTD are directly representing religious organisations - they aren't merely giving their own personal views while also being a person of faith. Giles Fraser wouldn't be on TFTD were he not a CofE priest.
-
So a guy who is given the opportunity, completely unchallenged, to promulgate his views for 3 minutes smack in the middle of BBC radio's flagship news programme, while others with differing views are completely banned supports a slot where only religious people can promulgate their views for 3 minutes at peak radio prime-time unchallenged while non religious people are banned.
Do bears defecate near trees.
Much more interesting, of course, are the views of Justin Webb and John Humphries - particularly Justin Webb who hits the nail on the head that the unchallenged approach leads to completely vacuous and deeply disingenuous 'let's all be nice to each other ... cos my god says so' platitudes day after day (only the god changes), while all around religions practice huge intolerance that legitimises discrimination and violence - and in many cases violence is practice directly in the name of religion.
If an organisation doesn't practice what it preach its views are frankly worthless - and lets not forget the virtually all contributors to TFTD are directly representing religious organisations - they are merely giving their own personal views while also being a person of faith. Giles Fraser wouldn't be on TFTD were he not a CofE priest.
Given that religious coverage is a minute fraction of the BBC don't you think you are being unrealistic over privilege and more than a tad imperialistic?
-
Given that religious coverage is a minute fraction of the BBC don't you think you are being unrealistic over privilege and more than a tad imperialistic?
Impartiality is impartiality regardless of the length of the opinion piece. And actually its length, and most specifically its position smack in the middle of the BBC's flagship radio news programme is a large part of the problem. Were is a 30 minute slot at 9pm it wouldn't be anything like so much of an issue - people would simply turn off. As it is short and sandwiched into the Today programme (with variable start time) I'm sure loads of people who otherwise would vote with their feet end up being, in effect 'forced' to listen, as they don't want to miss the next item.
Bottom line - if it is such a great format - why not open it up to non religious philosophical 'thoughts' delivered by people who aren't religious too.
-
So a guy who is given the opportunity, completely unchallenged, to promulgate his views for 3 minutes smack in the middle of BBC radio's flagship news programme, while others with differing views are completely banned supports a slot where only religious people can promulgate their views for 3 minutes at peak radio prime-time unchallenged while non religious people are banned.
Do bears defecate near trees.
Much more interesting, of course, are the views of Justin Webb and John Humphries - particularly Justin Webb who hits the nail on the head that the unchallenged approach leads to completely vacuous and deeply disingenuous 'let's all be nice to each other ... cos my god says so' platitudes day after day (only the god changes), while all around religions practice huge intolerance that legitimises discrimination and violence - and in many cases violence is practice directly in the name of religion.
If an organisation doesn't practice what it preaches its views are frankly worthless - and lets not forget the virtually all contributors to TFTD are directly representing religious organisations - they aren't merely giving their own personal views while also being a person of faith. Giles Fraser wouldn't be on TFTD were he not a CofE priest.
Imho Justin Webb and co are fine ones to talk about the Unchallenged.
They never stop giving opinion when interviewing the political opposition.
When it's the other party all I hear from the "team" is the gentle application of shoe shine apparatus.
I almost half expect Robinson to ask a minister once the interview if he needs anything for the weekend, sir?
-
Impartiality is impartiality regardless of the length of the opinion piece. And actually its length, and most specifically its position smack in the middle of the BBC's flagship radio news programme is a large part of the problem. Were is a 30 minute slot at 9pm it wouldn't be anything like so much of an issue - people would simply turn off. As it is short and sandwiched into the Today programme (with variable start time) I'm sure loads of people who otherwise would vote with their feet end up being, in effect 'forced' to listen, as they don't want to miss the next item.
Bottom line - if it is such a great format - why not open it up to non religious philosophical 'thoughts' delivered by people who aren't religious too.
You can hardly call the overwhelming secularity of the BBC,s output partial towards religion.
Any inclusion of a secular organisation marginalises religion even further.
You are being unreasonable.
-
I want TFTD to be opened up to all faiths and none. Have they had s pagan speaker yet?
That aside, GF is generally a good egg.
-
I want TFTD to be opened up to all faiths and none. Have they had s pagan speaker yet?
That aside, GF is generally a good egg.
Yes Pagans should be there too. But having seen the figures secularism gets a phenomenal share of airtime.
-
The Graham Hancock forum.
It was the first forum I found when new to the internet. After thatt I found and joined BBC and JREF and have remained with them all ever since. A poster, The Atheisst, in JREF, liked what I posted and suggestedI joined Ship of Fools, so that makes up the four I visit. All quite different in character.
I've been banned twice from "Ship of Fools", a fact of which I'm quite proud - I found it thoroughly unpleasant and cynical.
-
Yes Pagans should be there too. But having seen the figures secularism gets a phenomenal share of airtime.
Just to note reporting sport, or politics, or programmes about baking etc etc is not secularism
-
Just to note reporting sport, or politics, or programmes about baking etc etc is not secularism
Surely the freedom from religion counts as secular? Or are you saying there is more to secularism?
-
Surely the freedom from religion counts as secular? Or are you saying there is more to secularism?
You talked of secularism which is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. This has nothing to do with the Great British Bake Off.
-
Surely the freedom from religion counts as secular? Or are you saying there is more to secularism?
Is everyone who participates in all of those programs non-religious?
-
Is everyone who participates in all of those programs non-religious?
So you think Richard Coles appearance on Strictly represents religious output then.
Richard Dawkins appearance on Dr Who was five minutes coverage of stealth religion new atheism?
I think you can see where this is going.
-
You talked of secularism which is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. This has nothing to do with the Great British Bake Off.
I think you hold the narrow view there.
-
I think you hold the narrow view there.
It's what secularism is. Man Utd vs Wheeltappers and Shunters Select XI isn't.
-
'andles for forks has been allowed an inordinately long time to express his views on this message board.
A review into this should be undertaken immediately .
-
'andles for forks has been allowed an inordinately long time to express his views on this message board.
A review into this should be undertaken immediately .
Hopefully that will include the size of my fee.
-
Hopefully that will include the size of my fee.
at first I misread that . I thought you said ''feet'' :o
-
With a non-religious majority of the population, how much longer can Platitude for the Day hold out as Specifically and Exclusively Religious Platitude of the Day? Especially coming a couple of hours after Prayer for the Day as it does.
A god-slot crowbarred into a flagship news and current affairs programme is a very odd thing. It's like finding a screwdriver in your tuna mayo baguette - what the hell is that doing there.
-
I think you can see where this is going.
No.
-
at first I misread that . I thought you said ''feet'' :o
You're thinking of our colleague, Sebastian Toe.
-
With a non-religious majority of the population, how much longer can Platitude for the Day hold out as Specifically and Exclusively Religious Platitude of the Day? Especially coming a couple of hours after Prayer for the Day as it does.
A god-slot crowbarred into a flagship news and current affairs programme is a very odd thing. It's like finding a screwdriver in your tuna mayo baguette - what the hell is that doing there.
Don't you think ''news and current affairs'' is a bit generous for ''The Establishment Opinion Show'' Presented by the Headmasters Conference alumni 1962-1990?
-
Don't you think ''news and current affairs'' is a bit generous for ''The Establishment Opinion Show'' Presented by the Headmasters Conference alumni 1962-1990?
Thought for the Day contributions from religious people since its inception - about 16,000
Thought for the Day contributions from non-religious people since its inception - zero
All you need to know really about its lack of impartiality.
-
Thought for the Day contributions from religious people since its inception - about 16,000
Thought for the Day contributions from non-religious people since its inception - zero
All you need to know really about its lack of impartiality.
Silly since it implies you want every piece of religious output challenged in someway like the Nicky Campbell Sunday TV show thus reducing further the miniscule amount of airtime given to religion.
I also firmly believe that the National Secular Society's claim that it is just here to end religious privilege be judged on it's use of figures in wanting the amount of airtime reduced from the paltry sub half a percent.
-
Silly since it implies you want every piece of religious output challenged in someway like the Nicky Campbell Sunday TV show thus reducing further the miniscule amount of airtime given to religion.
I also firmly believe that the National Secular Society's claim that it is just here to end religious privilege be judged on it's use of figures in wanting the amount of airtime reduced from the paltry sub half a percent.
As opposed to you lying about Eastenders being secularist?
-
As opposed to you lying about Eastenders being secularist?
It depends how religion has been represented in that programme and the intent of the writers.
What is certain is that religious output of the BBC using figures from Terry and Keith's site is miniscule and they want it reduced because they think it extravagant......Fucking amazing.
-
... like the Nicky Campbell Sunday TV show ...
Does the Nicky Campbell show ban contributions from people who aren't religious. Nope. In fact his 'Big Questions' show (I guess that's the one you are talking about) often has rather lively debate from people both with religious faith and those without.
Actually his show is more of an ethical debate rather than religious programming - sometimes one of the topics may have a overtly religious element to it but most don't.
-
Does the Nicky Campbell show ban contributions from people who aren't religious. Nope. In fact his 'Big Questions' show (I guess that's the one you are talking about) often has rather lively debate from people both with religious faith and those without.
Actually his show is more of an ethical debate rather than religious programming - sometimes one of the topics may have a overtly religious element to it but most don't.
BTW, Nicky Campbell has as much control over that show as trying to push cooked spaghetti up a cats arse.
-
It depends how religion has been represented in that programme and the intent of the writers.
What is certain is that religious output of the BBC using figures from Terry and Keith's site is miniscule and they want it reduced because they think it extravagant......Fucking amazing.
No , what's clear is that you have been misrepresenting what is secularist.
-
No , what's clear is that you have been misrepresenting what is secularist.
No Terry and Keith are talking utter shit when they go on about BBC coverage. Enmity should have known better than to have fished that article out of the toilet bowl.
If you are a supporter then I don't wish to share a platform with you thank you.
-
No Terry and Keith are talking utter shit when they go on about BBC coverage. Enmity should have known better than to have fished that article out of the toilet bowl.
If you are a supporter then I don't wish to share a platform with you thank you.
And I don't want to support you lying that Robot Wars is secularist.
-
BTW, Nicky Campbell has as much control over that show as trying to push cooked spaghetti up a cats arse.
What strange pastimes you have.
-
And I don't want to support you lying that Robot Wars is secularist.
Oh and I suppose there is a Bishop who blesses each Robot is there?
-
Oh and I suppose there is a Bishop who blesses each Robot is there?
Strawman, and further misrepresentation of secularism. News night isn't secularist either. Nor is Flog It, Doctor Who or Gunpowder.
-
I don't suppose the BBC's £10 million a year Religion & Ethics department always headed by a religiousoso of one kind or another would be something that could be seen as a slight bias.(I think it's an Islamic head of department at the mo, look it up).
ippy
-
I don't suppose the BBC's £10 million a year Religion & Ethics department always headed by a religiousoso of one kind or another would be something that could be seen as a slight bias.(I think it's an Islamic head of department at the mo, look it up).
ippy
Indeed - given that it is supposed to be the Department of Religion and Ethics why should it not be headed up by a non religious ethicist - there are plenty of them about.
-
And I don't want to support you lying that Robot Wars is secularist.
Robot Wars is a religion in and of itself.
All bow before Razer.
-
I don't suppose the BBC's £10 million a year Religion & Ethics department always headed by a religiousoso of one kind or another would be something that could be seen as a slight bias.
ippy
My response is £10 million pounds for what? 550 hours of programming a year over 10 national radio and TV networks. That is a well below half a per cent of the output.
That the NSS thinks that is extravagant amount of airtime tells us all we need to know about their intent.
How do you think a hard atheist appointment eliminate bias. Or is this a case of Good Bias and bad Bias.
-
My response is £10 million pounds for what? 550 hours of programming a year over 10 national radio and TV networks. That is a well below half a per cent of the output.
That the NSS thinks that is extravagant amount of airtime tells us all we need to know about their intent.
How do you think a hard atheist appointment eliminate bias. Or is this a case of Good Bias and bad Bias.
I have no problem with the BBC broadcasting programmes about religion - indeed this is surely a part of its remit. However the BBC is required to be impartial and therefore it must not allow itself to appear to sign itself up to one type (or range of opinions) when alternative opinions exist. Hence the problem with TFDT - this allows in a completely unchallenged manner religious views to be promulgated in prime time (for radio) in a manner that is clearly not impartial, as non religious views are not permitted within the same time slot/format.
To get you away from your blinkered thinking Vlad let's translate this topological views. TFTD is the equivalent of allowing a politician a 3 minute opinion slot, completely unchallenged, akin to a party political broadcast. Now that would be OK if the slot were open to all political opinions - but taking the TFTD analogy this would be a slot only allowed for (for example) left wing political views while right wing political views were banned. It wouldn't matter if right wing political opinion (and left wing) were permitted elsewhere on the BBC, this would still not be impartial as the format gives a peculiarly powerful opportunity to promulgate views (as it is unchallenged) and unless the same format, at the same time, were allowed for other opinions then the BBC would not be being impartial, just as it clearly isn't on TFTD.
There is also another way to look at this - the only real justification for retaining TFTD is sims because it already exists - an argument from tradition and 'inertia'. Imagine a situation where TFTD didn't exist - never in a million years would the BBC contemplate creating a 3 minute slots for religious people to promulgate their views unchallenged while banning non religious people.
-
I have no problem with the BBC broadcasting programmes about religion - indeed this is surely a part of its remit. However the BBC is required to be impartial and therefore it must not allow itself to appear to sign itself up to one type (or range of opinions) when alternative opinions exist. Hence the problem with TFDT - this allows in a completely unchallenged manner religious views to be promulgated in prime time (for radio) in a manner that is clearly not impartial, as non religious views are not permitted within the same time slot/format.
To get you away from your blinkered thinking Vlad let's translate this topological views. TFTD is the equivalent of allowing a politician a 3 minute opinion slot, completely unchallenged, akin to a party political broadcast. Now that would be OK if the slot were open to all political opinions - but taking the TFTD analogy this would be a slot only allowed for (for example) left wing political views while right wing political views were banned. It wouldn't matter if right wing political opinion (and left wing) were permitted elsewhere on the BBC, this would still not be impartial as the format gives a peculiarly powerful opportunity to promulgate views (as it is unchallenged) and unless the same format, at the same time, were allowed for other opinions then the BBC would not be being impartial, just as it clearly isn't on TFTD.
There is also another way to look at this - the only real justification for retaining TFTD is sims because it already exists - an argument from tradition and 'inertia'. Imagine a situation where TFTD didn't exist - never in a million years would the BBC contemplate creating a 3 minute slots for religious people to promulgate their views unchallenged while banning non religious people.
TFTD is part of the BBC religious output what part then does the non religious have to play in it? The Non religious is certainly well enough represented and any introduction of it in TFTD will reduce an already miniscule amount of broadcasting time.
I'm wondering how would an atheist response to each of several religious viewpoints represent non bias toward atheism.
How would an atheist weekly wrap up of religion.....a Friday ''Don't worry about what you've heard over the past few days, There probably isn't a God so enjoy your weekend'' not come across as atheist bias?
On the other hand since atheism can be summed up in a sentence would you propose a kind of Jingle or something.
-
TFTD is part of the BBC religious output what part then does the non religious have to play in it?
No it isn't - it is part of the BBC's Religion and Ethics output.
-
How would an atheist weekly wrap up of religion.....a Friday ''Don't worry about what you've heard over the past few days, There probably isn't a God so enjoy your weekend'' not come across as atheist bias?
Why on earth would a non religious (or even atheist) ethicist mention religion as part of TFTD - likely they would do exactly the same as the current contributors - in other words provide an ethical dimension (aligning with their own ethical views) on a topic of current newsworthiness.
And even if that were the approach - why would that be bias - day after day, week after week, TFTD contributor after TFTD contributors bases their opinion piece on a presumption of the existence of god. When you provide an unchallenged slot for a 3 minute opinion piece, it will necessarily be biased towards the opinion of that contributor. Balance is provided by ensuring that the contributors represent the full spectrum of opinion - which, in this case would include religious people from a range of religions and a range of non religious contributors. To have some contributions that do not so presume the existence of god would presented greater impartiality not bias.
-
No it isn't - it is part of the BBC's Religion and Ethics output.
So, You just want the religious output cut because you don't like hearing a view alternative to your own. That's fine. Just stop dressing it up as privilege in airtime for religion when that is clearly taking the piss given the grotesque miniscule amount of airtime broadcast by a public service broadcaster.
-
So, You just want the religious output cut because you don't like hearing a view alternative to your own. That's fine. Just stop dressing it up as privilege in airtime for religion when that is clearly taking the piss given the grotesque miniscule amount of airtime broadcast by a public service broadcaster.
Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.
I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.
What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces from people who represent only a part of the spectrum of opinion in one area. I must ensure that those unchallenged opinion piece slots are available to all the relevant opinion, or to none. Only to allow religious people to proffer their opinions, unchallenged on prime time radio while banning non religious opinion on the same topics (effectively ethical opinion on current affairs) is not demonstrating impartiality.
-
Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.
I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.
What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces from people who represent only a part of the spectrum of opinion in one area. I must ensure that those unchallenged opinion piece slots are available to all the relevant opinion, or to none. Only to allow religious people to proffer their opinions, unchallenged on prime time radio while banning non religious opinion on the same topics (effectively ethical opinion on current affairs) is not demonstrating impartiality.
If you want someone coming on challenging the other religions which are not after all challenging each others positions that is not non religion but antireligion. That certainly isn't Thought for the Day as is.
The Hindi gives the Hindu position, The Sikh gives the sikh position etc. What position can the Antireligious give?
-
Blimey that's one giant leap from my comment that TFTD was not part of the BBC's Religious output, but part of its Religion and Ethics output.
I think I also stated very clearly that the BBC should be producing and broadcasting programmes about religion - see reply47. I haven't proffered an opinion on whether there is too much or too little of this.
What the BBC should not be doing (as it has a requirement to be impartial) is to allow unchallenged opinion pieces
Unchallenged opinion pieces is what the Today programme is!....and that's just the 'Team's opinions.
Being aware of how miniscule the amount of religious programming there is diluting it even more seems unjustifiable tyranny of the majority.
Challenged religion is covered on the Nicky Campbell TV show.
Regarding TFTD the chief Rabbi gives the Jewish position, The sikh gives the sikh position and so on, They do not challenge other religions. What can an antireligious speaker then do for thought for the day? What would be achieved? The cultural primacy of anti religionists or irreligionists? How simperingly and unfeasibly sentimental secular humanism is?(That might be case for go ahead)
-
TFTD is part of the BBC religious output what part then does the non religious have to play in it?
The slot is called Thought for the Day.
Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.
If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.
The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.
Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.
-
The slot is called Thought for the Day.
Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.
If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.
The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.
Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.
So what's that 6 minutes 7 days per week in the air time of 10 national radio and TV networks.
Someone else wanting to make miniscule airtime given sound like a lavish epic?
-
Unchallenged opinion pieces is what the Today programme is!....and that's just the 'Team's opinions.
No it isn't - the contributors are robustly challenged by the presenters in circumstances where they contribute alone. And in many other cases there are two contributors each with differing views, who in effect debate with each other with the presenters acting as a sort of chair.
The only time I can ever remember the Today programme allowing unchallenged opinion pieces (not sure if this was even during the Today programme slot) was from memory, on Saturdays when they rotated opinion pieces between Will Self (to provide a left wing perspective) and Frederick Forsyth (a right wing perspective).
-
So what's that 6 minutes 7 days per week in the air time of 10 national radio and TV networks.
Someone else wanting to make miniscule airtime given sound like a lavish epic.
You could say the same about political broadcasts.
Would you be happy if for 3 minutes on prime time radio on the BBC a politician was allowed an unchallenged slot to proffer their political view - but with a bias such that only right wing views were allowed - so they'd rotate between contributors representing the Tories, UKIP, BNP and other wing organisation - but with anyone with a view towards the other end of the spectrum (i.e. left wing) banned.
Frankly it wouldn't matter if it was only 10 seconds - it would still be non impartial and not right.
-
You could say the same about political broadcasts.
Would you be happy if for 3 minutes on prime time radio on the BBC a politician was allowed an unchallenged slot to proffer their political view - but with a bias such that only right wing views were allowed - so they'd rotate between contributors representing the Tories, UKIP, BNP and other wing organisation - but with anyone with a view towards the other end of the spectrum (i.e. left wing) banned.
Frankly it wouldn't matter if it was only 10 seconds - it would still be non impartial and not right.
Politics cannot be helped Davey. If you let someone on saying all politics should be stopped that is a political statement. Not so with religion.
You keep using the word challenge which i'm afraid in the hands of atheists who wish to publicise atheism is all atheism is.
TFTD is not that kind of programme. Religions talk about their content without setting out to challenge. Secular Humanism 'might' just be able to do that but since it is now so caught up in antireligion what can be said.
That aside wanting to reduce the amount of religious programming to accommodate non or antireligion is just intellectual totalitarianism.
-
You keep using the word challenge which i'm afraid in the hands of atheists who wish to publicise atheism is all atheism is.
TFTD is not that kind of programme. Religions talk about their content without setting out to challenge. Secular Humanism 'might' just be able to do that but since it is now so caught up in antireligion what can be said.
You are misunderstanding the use of the word 'challenged' - in this context what it means is that the TFTD format allows a single individual to give their views on a topic for three minutes without anyone questioning or 'challenging' that view. That isn't what happens in the rest of the today programme where opinions will be questioned or 'challenged' either by the presenters or other contributors.
Now I am not saying that the notion of an unchallenged opinion piece on the BBC is wrong fundamentally - but in the interests of impartiality if that type of format is offered to people holding a sub-set of views represented in the country (in this case the religious) it needs to be offered additionally to those holding differing views (in this case the non religious) - not to do se sends out the clearest of messages that the BBC values the views and ethical reflections of religious people on the matters of the day more than those of non religious people - in other words bias.
And you keep talking about anti religion - which shows that you too have a bias. Were TFTD to be opened up to non religious people then I would be surprised if John Harris or Jonathan Glover (to name but two non religious ethicists who would probably be excellent) would mention religion at all - no they would reflect on the issues of the day from their own non religious ethical viewpoint. To think that a non religious contributor would somehow spend their time attacking religion on TFTD is as bonkers as thinking that a Hindu contributor would spend their time on TFTD attacking Christianity - they don't - they reflect on their Hindu perspectives and how they see them contributing to the issues of the day.
-
The slot is called Thought for the Day.
Not Religious Thought for the Day; just Thought for the Day.
If the title was accurate it would consist of thoughts of all hues of the spectrum of opinion - religious, certainly, but non-religious too.
The fact that this isn't the case means that the slot is failing its remit. Its title doesn't match its actual content.
Especially given the fact that - quite apart from all the other religious output - TFtD comes about two hours after another explicitly religious slot in the form of Prayer for the Day broadcast (I think) at 5:45am six days a week.
Don't forget the other one "Pause for Thought ", BBC radio two during the morning Ken Bruce program.
It's a little and often policy, of theirs.
ippy
-
And you keep talking about anti religion - which shows that you too have a bias.
It's much more than a bias. It's a full blown paranoia!
-
Don't forget the other one "Pause for Thought ", BBC radio two during the morning Ken Bruce program.
It's a little and often policy, of theirs.
ippy
Crikey. That's a 33% increase on religion time mentioned bringing it up to a wildly extravagant and resource draining 9 minutes of religious ''for the day'' broadcasting over 10 networks.
Religious output based on those quoted by the National Secular Society is around 550 hours in around 95,000 hours of broadcasting over 10 national networks. That's little but hardly often.
-
Crikey. That's a 33% increase on religion time mentioned bringing it up to a wildly extravagant and resource draining 9 minutes of religious ''for the day'' broadcasting over 10 networks.
Religious output based on those quoted by the National Secular Society is around 550 hours in around 95,000 hours of broadcasting over 10 national networks. That's little but hardly often.
It's now far less of the population here in the U K that wants to listen to any specifically religious programmes, the BBC fawns over religion and grossly overdoes the amount of religious broadcasting wanted or needed.
Couldn't help noticing Vlad, you still haven't managed to get your head around what it is secularism is trying to achieve, maybe one day?
Give you a clue Vlad, as a secularist, if any group was setting out to prevent you practising your religious belief I'd be with you on your side and fight for this freedom alongside you, probably with a load of other secularists all doing the same.
Regards ippy.
-
It's now far less of the population here in the U K that wants to listen to any specifically religious programmes, the BBC fawns over religion and grossly overdoes the amount of religious broadcasting wanted or needed.
There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.
Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.
-
There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.
Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.
although I understand you have the freedom to worship whoever you want when ever you want , I simply wish you didn't , I am embarrassed for you.
-
There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.
Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.
So what's the correlation between non religious people and the amount given over to secularism.
-
There seems to be no correlation between the number of religious people and the amount of airtime given over to religion.
Nor the amount of fawning and grossly overdoing.
Yes I've got that Vlad, but you haven't commented on my helpful note trying to assist you on your way to begin having an understanding of secularism?
Regards ippy