What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[Shaker]

The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.

A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.

Can you give some examples? The only one that leapt out at me was religious (i.e. abysmally cruel and miserable) slaughter of animals, a religious 'tradition' I would gladly see eradicated.

[BashfulAnthony]

The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.

A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.

Can you give some examples? The only one that leapt out at me was religious (i.e. abysmally cruel and miserable) slaughter of animals, a religious 'tradition' I would gladly see eradicated.

Agree:  but some years ago I lived near a fella who worked in a slaughter house, and the tales he would regale people with about what went on, beggars belief.  The whole business of slaughter is foul and ridden with abuse and neglect.

[Shaker]

I know 

I remember hearing the manager of a slaughterhouse saying years ago that that's why you can only get utterly brain-dead morons to do the job in the first place.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there are lots of programmes that invite non religious comment of current affairs.

Which also ban comments from religious people and do not provide any mechanism for those views to be challenged or debated? Really? News to me - examples please.

I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not.

[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.

Perhaps the BBC feel the today programme contains enough balance where the non religious POV is put across and discussed ( in as much as it doesn't involve religion at all)

I don't think so, or else the BBC wouldn't use the loophole of 'pretending' that TFTD isn't part of the Today programme to get around its obligations on impartiality.

[BashfulAnthony]

I know 

I remember hearing the manager of a slaughterhouse saying years ago that that's why you can only get utterly brain-dead morons to do the job in the first place.

There is no doubt that neglect of the rules and regulations goes on excessively, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is not more public outrage.   There is ridiculous attention to such trivia as what the Duchess of Cambridge is wearing today, but not to the suffering, daily, of these poor creatures.

[ProfessorDavey]

A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions

As far as I can see pretty well all of the NSS campaigns are entirely focussed on issues where religion and the state bump up against each other, which of course is entirely consistent with its secular remit.

Do they want to abolish faith schools - no, they only want state funded faith schools abolished. Do they want to outlaw admission to faith schools being on the basis of faith - nope, only when the school is funded by the state.

Do they want to stop private organisations choosing to hold prayers at their meetings - nope - they only want to outlaw prayers as part of official meetings of public bodies, e.g. councils.

Do they want hospital chaplains abolished - nope they just think that they should be funded by the religious organisation, not the state.

In fact the only campaigns I can see which aren't directly about religion and the state are where there is abuse or cruelty - e.g. religions slaughter, abuse in churches and FGM.

and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.

What are you talking about then?

[ProfessorDavey]

I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.

I like it because it is a bit religious.

Normally I avoid religious programmes but T4TD I like. You can listen to past recordings.

I've no doubt in time the NSS will destroy it and fill it with their own  politically correct garbage.

Perhaps the reason the BBC don't want to give in,  is because they know enough people like it as it is.

It's sad, but religion has become politically incorrect nowadays.

 

Guess what you just might learn to love the TFTD contributions of Jonathon Glover when he is finally allowed to contribute as a non religious person.

You've probably never heard of him, but he is an academic ethicist, a lovely guy and a fantastic and 'warm' speaker who be engaging, challenging and charming in equal measures. He'd be great - would knock the Daily Mail-ish rantings of Anne Atkins into a cocked hat.

[BashfulAnthony]

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Secret-halal-slaughterhouse-film-reveals-horrific- animal-abuse.html‎

www.theguardian.com/world/video/2010/oct/07/animal-welfare-abuse-slaughterhouse

I hope these two can be accessed okay, but they are appalling.  Anyone who looks at these and is not moved to tears, is heartless.  Enjoy your sausages!!

There are many more examples.

[Nearly Sane]

So so far non religious people like depths, are like Alf Garnett and speak garbage. Feel the push for equality.

[ProfessorDavey]

I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.

It's symbolic and important to challenge discrimination and privilege where it is found.

And you can turn it on its head - how about the various campaigning christian groups spending their members money on issues about a cake!?!?

And actually the point isn't to destroy TFTD but to make it better and more relevant. Given that probably 80-90% of the listeners to the Today programme have no active involvement in any religion TFTD speaks to a very narrow audience. To open it up would get far fewer people rushing to the radio to turn it off when it comes on, as happens now.

[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

The NSS represents a very prejudiced version of secularism.

A lot of the campaigns on its web pages are bent on destroying religious traditions and I'm not talking about the House of Lords here.

No it doesn't want to destroy religious traditions, it clearly points this out.

The main thing that seems to be upsetting religious people is where the NSS is pointing out where the religious have their very cosy comfortable long held privileges underlined and they/you think we should let these privileges continue unchallenged.

Why do you think the NSS shouldn't disturb these long held cosy comfortable privileges the religious organisations have for the express reason of creating a level playing field for all people of all beliefs or none?

The HOL bishops privileges are outrageous but that's only one of many privileges when you add them all together they amount to an enormous outrage of unwarranted privilege, no small wonder the NSS is very busy on this front when you add them all up. 

Like I said and I haven't seen anything to change my mind: you really don't understand what it is secularism is all about but don't worry too much unfortunately you are far from being on your own in this area.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Secret-halal-slaughterhouse-film-reveals-horrific- animal-abuse.html‎

www.theguardian.com/world/video/2010/oct/07/animal-welfare-abuse-slaughterhouse

I hope these two can be accessed okay, but they are appalling.  Anyone who looks at these and is not moved to tears, is heartless.  Enjoy your sausages!!

There are many more examples.

I think you raise a really valid point, but I think it's better on another thread because it will get hidden here. I know Gonzo asked on the recipes thread today but again not sure it is suitable there either. I think this needs a thread of its own, possibly a pinned one since, as with other subjects it arises regularly.

[Nearly Sane]

So so far non religious people like depths, are like Alf Garnett and speak garbage. Feel the push for equality.

Equality doesn't mean we are all the same or want the same things.

Therefore some programmes are not equal because they are targeted at different groups with different requirements.

There  are still a lot of religious people in this country of various sorts and programmes need to reflect that as well.

A three minute slot for those with an interest in a religious viewpoint, not just the religious, is not a problem IMO.

There are plenty of programmes that don't involve religion at all.

Science programmes for example.

Which do not exclude religious people from taking part. And I see you haven't begun to address that you have taken the position  that non religious people are worthless Alf Garnetts that talk garbage when it comes to ethics and morality.

[ippy]

I think there are lots of programmes that invite non religious comment of current affairs.

Which also ban comments from religious people and do not provide any mechanism for those views to be challenged or debated? Really? News to me - examples please.

I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not.

"I am not aware of any programme on the BBC or other major broadcaster that allows non religious people only to provide a moral perspective on current issues without challenge or come-back. Are you? Hmm, thought not".

This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.

ippy

[Shaker]

And actually the point isn't to destroy TFTD but to make it better and more relevant. Given that probably 80-90% of the listeners to the Today programme have no active involvement in any religion TFTD speaks to a very narrow audience. To open it up would get far fewer people rushing to the radio to turn it off when it comes on, as happens now.

I'm amazed that there could be any active resistance to the idea of making something more inclusive - religious and non-religious contributors - rather than exclusive (non-religious contributors not allowed).

It's almost as though some people support inequality and discrimination ... oh wait: some of them do.

This isn't the most important issue in the world. I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. On the other hand, as the Prof. says, it's important to stand up and be counted whenever unfairness and inequality manifest themselves regardless of the size of the issue in relative terms.

[ProfessorDavey]

As long as each group has an equal say separately

But that's the whole point - they don't.

For non religious people to have an equal say separately there would need to be a 'balancing' programme to TFTD - one which allows non religious people to discuss issues of the day within their non religious moral framework, and which allows non religious contributors, but bans religious ones.

But that programme does not exist. So TFTD allows religious contributors but bans non religious ones, while other related programmes (Moral Maze being a good example) allow both religious and non religious.

There is, clearly, no equal say separately.

[Aruntraveller]

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

Way to prejudiced.

And Ann Atkins isn't?

You fill me with incredulity!

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Way to prejudiced.

And Ann Atkins isn't?

You fill me with incredulity!

Indeed.

[ippy]

I just find it so silly that the NSS are prepared to spend their members money fighting over a 3 minute slot on the BBC because it's called "thought for the day " and is a religious snippet on current affairs.

I like it because it is a bit religious.

Normally I avoid religious programmes but T4TD I like. You can listen to past recordings.

I've no doubt in time the NSS will destroy it and fill it with their own  politically correct garbage.

Perhaps the reason the BBC don't want to give in,  is because they know enough people like it as it is.

It's sad, but religion has become politically incorrect nowadays.

 

It's the principle that's wrong, however much time it's on air has nothing to do with it.

You've got that problem a lot of religionists have with secularism, you really don't get it,
stand it on it's head; T4TD where only non-religious people can contribute, how would you like that?

ippy

[jeremyp]

Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative.  You are as full of invective as any, but less strident;  settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal."  You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language.   What's more, you can't mind your own business.  Other than all that, you're okay.

Your previous effort was better.  I think you've shot your load.

[BashfulAnthony]

Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative.  You are as full of invective as any, but less strident;  settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal."  You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language.   What's more, you can't mind your own business.  Other than all that, you're okay.

Your previous effort was better.  I think you've shot your load.

I have plsnty left;  but there are the Mods to take into account.   

[jeremyp]

So what are you looking for?

Different inspirational thoughts on life from a variety of basically religious viewpoints.

I like hearing about lines of Jewish thought or what Guru Nanak taught about aspects of life and the news

Three minutes is just enough to be interesting without being preachy.

I like it as it is.

 

I don't understand why you can't have the occasional humanist on.  What are you afraid of?

[jeremyp]

Sometimes by widening the audience you are no longer catering for the original audience the programme was aimed at.

The audience is already everybody who listens to the Today programme between 7.30 and 8 am.  At the moment, the slot completely ignores a large proportion of them.

What it does is give those individuals an interesting depth to their opinions, which would be lacking without the religious background.

Frankly I find quite a lot of what is said in Thought for the Day to be pretty shallow.  I don't think depth or shallowness is anything to do with being a theist or not.

[jeremyp]

I heard a TftD by a Jedi-ist some months back.

Really?  I'd like to see some evidence to back that one up.