What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[BashfulAnthony]

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists ...

Is that what it was? I thought it was just more sloppy typing 

I'm in a hurry to take Meg out.  But, hey, sloppy typing is better than having to read so many sloppy posts from the sainted atheists on here.   

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.

So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?

Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.

Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...

Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here  -  as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.

Please note the corrections above; made before you posted.  Thank you.

't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?

[BashfulAnthony]

The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.

So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?

Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.

Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...

Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here  -  as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.

Please note the corrections above; made before you posted.  Thank you.

't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?

Of course, you never make mistakes.  When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.

So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?

Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.

Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...

Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here  -  as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.

Please note the corrections above; made before you posted.  Thank you.

't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?

Of course, you never  mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.

We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?

[King Oberon]

Good grief I came from page on of this thread where BA was blabbing his gums endless then skip to page 6 and find the same thing!!! 

Oh well I'm sure there is a thread where he isn't arguing black is white .... then again!

[ProfessorDavey]

This is so wide of the mark that I can't see that it can be anything but a conscious and wilful misrepresentation.

Not sure how it can be a misrepresentation of the various types of TftD's I've heard over the years.  I've heard Tftd's based around sports events, political events, social events - as well as ones based around Biblical, Qu'ranic, Bhavad Gita-ic and other religious ideas.

But never involving a non religious person.

This is actually part of the problem for me. Were all the contributors 'professional' theists, e.g. bishops, priests, rabbis etc then perhaps it would be less 'clunky'. But they aren't.

So, for example, Rhidian Brook has been a contributor for years, yet he isn't a professional theist at all. He's a novelist and screenwriter. He gets a platform because he is also religious even if he gives a TFTD which barely mentions religion. So why should he be permitted this platform, but another novelist and screenwriter is banned because he isn't religious.

Nothing against Rhidian Brook per se, merely pointing out the non-sense of the situation.

Likewise there are a couple of contributors who's day job is leading a think tank - why are they allowed merely because they are religious but someone from another think tank banned because they aren't.

[ippy]

What you find with the BBC is they consistently put programmes on for the religious listeners which, although they're not my cup of tea, it's quite correct that they should be represented and I have no quarrel with it. 

What you do find are lots of programmes similar to "An Island Parish", I only mention this programme as an example, now if you look or listen to these programmes they are unchallenged religious propaganda, again I have no objection to them individually.

There are a number of these religious programmes that go out on a regular basis BBC radio 4 seems to have the most of the BBC's religious content and once more that's OK why shouldn't religious people have their programming, there's no objections coming from my quarter.

T4TD is on six days a week an exclusively religious slot, then on BBC radio 2 five days a week Pause for thought another exclusively religious slot, the daily service BBC radio 4 (LW) Prayer For the Day seven days a week BBC radio 4, another one. 
 
All of these programmes I have mentioned are presented by the religious for the religious there's no input from non-religious people, there are also a number of discussion programmes and debates about various aspects of religion and other philosophies, these are the only places where you hear or see non-religious people represented and something like 90% of these programmes the religious outnumber the non-religious people, plus they are debates or a discussion type of programme.

They did recently put on some unchallenged non-religious programming on radio 3 late night a couple of months back I doubt many noticed, I wonder why they put that kind of programme there on 3, the radio station nobody listens to, and late at night, it wouldn't be so that if anyone complained, "Well we did put a few programmes covering non religious subjects on the other night"; nothing new there they strategically placed for a reason of course.

The result is that on the main BBC TV channels and their main radio stations, they, the BBC, manage to inhibit non-religious voices to as a minimal part of any of their broadcasting time they think they can get away with, so it doesn't surprise me when they declare using the logic of the mad house that they wont allow non-religious voices on T4TD.

How much more does the £10 million a year BBC Religion and Ethics department want shut down non-religious representation and for how long do they think they can keep getting away with it.

Having non-religious voices on T4TD would be a very minor concession when compared to the large amount of unfettered religious representation they put out.

ippy

     

[Nearly Sane]

T4TD isn't  really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.

If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home 

All NoN religious people  equal Alf Garnett - can I suggest you stop digging'?

[ippy]

T4TD isn't  really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.

If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home 

The ban of non-religious voices on T4TD must be the most irrational thing the BBC has ever done.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

T4TD isn't  really just aimed at a religious audience, it's just three minutes of life as seen from one of the various members of a faith.

If you changed it to just be the man on the street it would be like Alf Garnett @ home 

No it wouldn't. The contributors would still be selected for their ability to provide a short three minute piece on the issues of the day within the context of their own philosophic or moral standpoint, just as they are currently. The only difference being that some of the contributors would be religious (and may or may not talk about their religious perspectives) others would be non religious.

There is no suggestion that a opened up TFTD would simply become a platform for random contributors. It would still be based on regular contributors, and that is quite important as three minutes is a very short time, so you end up understanding the person over time as they contribute many three minute pieces.

To be honest Anne Atkins makes me want to throw something at the radio already - she is more Alf Garnett-like than many non religious contributors I could suggest.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm

What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.

She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.

The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.

Blimey - an article from 2002 - hold the front page.

[ippy]

I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm

What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.

She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.

The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.

"The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on".

Well you would be aghast Rose, when you obviously are unable to understand what secularism represents.

ippy

[Shaker]

Rose: with regard to the extension of marriage to couples of the same sex, did or do you agree with the move, disagree with it or not sure?

(Sounds random, I know, but I have an ulterior motive for asking    ).

[Aruntraveller]

I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm

What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.

She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.

The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.

Well the more I see of your posts on this topic the more aghast I am at the way you view others.

[Shaker]

Wouldn't it be better to rename it to 'Religious Thought for the Day' since that's only what you think it can be?

You're demonstrating Bashful Anthony Syndrome - pathological hypersensitivity to actual or merely perceived criticism - if a two-and-a-half minute slot saying that science explains things properly where religion never has (stating the bleeding obvious as far as I'm concerned) should arouse such an irrational response.

That you should zero in on the supposed 'hang ups' of others is about the best example of unintentional irony I've seen in a long time.

[Nearly Sane]

This is what the remit is for thought for the day

 "Thought for the Day provides an opportunity to reflect on current affairs from a perspective of religious faith."

Richard Dawkins failed see my post above. He couldn't comment on current affairs from a perspective of someone without a religious faith.

This is why I don't want it widened, because I don't see why it should be used as yet another platform for people with hang ups about religion.

Yep because no theists have any  of those.  Your opposition to free speech and equality is not in line with your idea that the non theists are opposed to equalityn

[Shaker]

TftD is supposed to look at current affairs from a religious perspective.

Dawkins didn't stick to that remit because he didn't appear on TftD because he's not allowed to. He appeared on a separate, alternative programme like TftD but not TftD - a bit like the Alternative Queen's Speech that Channel 4 puts on every Christmas Day.

You know ... separate but equal 

[BashfulAnthony]

The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.

So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?

Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.

Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...

Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here  -  as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.

Please note the corrections above; made before you posted.  Thank you.

't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?

Of course, you never  mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.

We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?

You call me hypocritical, whilst admitting you do the very things you pointed out to me, "tons of them."*  If that is not turning logic on its head, what is?   I do not misrepresent you; in fact I haven't a clue what you are on about most of the time, your English is so inadequate.  As to why I am on her: because I have a religious belief, and I choose to defend it against the resident numpties, who have absolutely no explanation as to why they spend years on here, ranting, as often as not, using guttersnipe language.    Spend a little more time checking your English before posting;  and a lot more time checking what you've written.

*Five errors on your last post on this thread  -  sloppy!

[ippy]

Keep people like Richard Dawkins off T4TD

Why because it no longer becomes anything to do with thoughts at all,  but more of the usual crap he throws at religion.

He had his chance here, and blew it, because he had nothing interesting to say, other than put others down.

"Professor Richard Dawkins
Prof Dawkins became the first atheist to deliver a Thought for the Day
A BBC spokesman said he could not comment on the contents of Ms Smoker's lawyers' letter as it was private correspondence.

Speaking about the dispute, he said: "Thought for the Day provides an opportunity to reflect on current affairs from a perspective of religious faith.

"As such it is inappropriate to include non-religious contributions."

In August, Oxford University scientist Professor Richard Dawkins became the first atheist to deliver an alternative, unofficial Thought for the Day.

In his two-and-a-half minute slot, Professor Dawkins argued that science gave a better explanation of life than religion."


Xxxxxxxxx

If people like that want to be included in things like T4TD then they need to show some of these inspiring thoughts which don't involve putting other people down.

Rrichard Dawkins failed dismally to show he was capable of making relevant and inspiring comments of his own without putting down others or reverting to the same old stuff he writes books about.

The bloke hasn't got an original thought in his head that doesn't involve his particular "hang up"

No I don't want the likes of him on thought for the day otherwise

It's going to have to be renamed as " hang up of the day" instead.

I note my post 154 on this thread still stands.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with calling it "religious thought for today" is it is to heavy a term for what is actually a very light three minutes.

So it doesn't need the 'interesting depths' that you think can only be provided by the religious?

Yes, it needs the religious context while remaining fairly light.

Because you think religious people have interesting depths that the rest of us don't, but of course you are all for equality...

Not surprisingly, the batheists on here seem to listen to anything connected with t=religion, plus spending huge amoub=nts of time on here  -  as I've so often said, "OBSESSIVE."

The problem with the witticism attempted here is that the combination of bathos and atheists, also applies to bathos and theists. Worse it seems to have made the poster so excited that their ability to edit their post sensibly has disappeared.

Please note the corrections above; made before you posted.  Thank you.

't=religion'? 'amoub=nts'?

Of course, you never  mistakes.. When I get back I'll sort out a few, just to establish your hypocrisy.

We've done this before and I happily admitted I make tons of them. I even wrote yesterday that one of my posts was a pile of pish. I don' t really think it matters that much but you do and you frequently make a big thing about it. Therefore you are the one being hypocritical and, in misrepresenting my position, lying again, just as you were lying about Shaker's statementsin the last few days. Why do you find the need to lie so frequently on here?

You call me hypocritical, whilst admitting you do the very things you pointed out to me, "tons of them."*  If that is not turning logic on its head, what is?   I do not misrepresent you; in fact I haven't a clue what you are on about most of the time, your English is so inadequate.  As to why I am on her: because I have a religious belief, and I choose to defend it against the resident numpties, who have absolutely no explanation as to why they spend years on here, ranting, as often as not, using guttersnipe language.    Spend a little more time checking your English before posting;  and a lot more time checking what you've written.

*Five errors on your last post on this thread  -  sloppy!

Why do you feel the need to lie on here so frequently?

[Shaker]

Rose: with regard to the extension of marriage to couples of the same sex, did or do you agree with the move, disagree with it or not sure?

(Sounds random, I know, but I have an ulterior motive for asking    ).

It doesn't bother me.

I'd only object if I thought it was being forced on a church that didn't want to perform a religious marriage ceremony but was being forced to by law.

What has this got to do with T4TD? Or secularism?

Glad you asked.

The argument most often advanced by supporters of equal marriage was the fairness (or unfairness) argument; namely that it was manifestly unfair that only heterosexual couples could get married and that same-sex couples were forbidden from doing so. There's absolutely nothing whatever intrinsic to marriage as a concept to state that it can only ever be between two people of opposite sexes. A majority of the public saw it that way, and in due course we had legislation put into place which removed that silly and backward bit of discrimination from society. A bit of unfairness was remedied, in other words.

Many people see the situation with TftD as analagous. Because it's called 'Thought for the Day' and not 'Religious Thought for the Day' or 'The God Slot' or 'The Bible Bit' or 'Quran Qorner' or what have you, there's nothing inherently religious about it, and there's no justification for excluding non-religious contributors, for preventing them from giving their thoughts. Deliberately and explicitly cutting out non-religious voices is discriminatory in almost anybody's book.

[ippy]

I don't want it hijacked by this old silly moo! As Alf Garnett would say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2579879.stm

What a drama queen, she thinks three minutes of T4tD breaches her human rights.

She has no idea, someone wants to take her by the hand and show her some real breaches of human rights, where people are suffering.

The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on.

"The more I see of the membership of the NSS the more i am aghast at how they carry on".

Well you would be aghast Rose, when you obviously are unable to understand what secularism represents.

ippy

Oh I do!

I just don't agree the NSS is a very good example.

Way to prejudiced.

Your posts don't line up with what it is you are saying about the NSS.

Secularism is what it is no more or any less, fine you don't have to like it, liking it or not doesn't make its ideals wrong.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Wouldn't it be better to rename it to 'Religious Thought for the Day' since that's only what you think it can be?

You're demonstrating Bashful Anthony Syndrome - pathological hypersensitivity to actual or merely perceived criticism - if a two-and-a-half minute slot saying that science explains things properly where religion never has (stating the bleeding obvious as far as I'm concerned) should arouse such an irrational response.

Its not irrational, the two minute slot isn't about criticising the beliefs of others.

It's about looking at current affairs from a religious viewpoint.

Richard Dawkins with his two minutes of knocking religion proved beyond doubt that he can't do it.

He can't talk for two minutes about current affairs using his own philosophy of life, without knocking religion.

A rabbi has to get up there and talk about current affairs, throwing in a bit of his own religious perspective without criticising other religions etc how come Richard Dawkins can't do that?

Because he can't.

You put Richard Dawkins up there and all he can do is come out with the same old stuff.

Oh the obsession of theists with Dawkins - does it ever stop.

Lets get a couple of things straight. First Dawkins has never appeared on TFTD - he once had something similar, but not actually a slot on the programme itself.

Secondly I wouldn't be in favour of selecting non religious people to contribute to a broadened TFTD who would be likely to use the 3 minutes to criticise religion - that isn't the point, although secularists and non believers are quite regularly criticised overtly or covertly on the current TFTD format.

Thirdly despite your obsession I don't think that Dawkins, nor some of the more high profile non religious campaigners would be the type of people to become contributors on a revised TFTD. Actually if you look at the regulars currently many are actually very low profile outside of their TFTD contribution - they may be professional theologians or otherwise involved in think tanks, as academics or in other careers but with a strong moral opinions. There are loads of non religious people who would fit into the latter categories (obviously not the professional theologians of course). So you would get Dawkins, Grayling etc, but you might get Jonathon Glover, or John Harris (both academic ethicists), maybe even Richard Curtis.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's just a title, just like "match of the day" only features one sport.

But other sports programmes featuring different sports (and only those sports) are available. There is no such equivalent where non religious people are given an unfettered 3 minutes to give their views on issues throughout their own moral viewpoint where there aren't any religious voices allowed.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's just a title, just like "match of the day" only features one sport.

And the other point is that MOTD isn't included as a core component of a flagship news programme that has a requirement to demonstrate impartiality.

If you wanted a real analogy it would be if the sports section on the Today programme only ever reported football and banned any other sports and got round the claim of partiality by suggesting that the 3 minute sports section was somehow a separate programme not part of, nor governed by, the rules of impartiality that apply to the Today programme.