What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[jeremyp]

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.

But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book. 

[jeremyp]

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.

I'm actually fine with that, but let's call it what it is "Religious Thought for the Day"

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

Science programmes for example.

The last Christmas special of The Infinite Monkey Cage (science programme) had the Reverend Richard Coles on it.  There is no bar to scientists who believe in a religion appearing on any BBC science programme.  Why are you frightened of atheists when the arch-atheist himself - Brian Cox - is prepared to invite a priest onto his science programme? 

[jeremyp]

I have plsnty left

Is that some sort of a disease?

[BashfulAnthony]

I have plsnty left

Is that some sort of a disease?

No, and it certainly isn't cash!   

[Shaker]

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!

I had to look her up because I haven't happened to have come across her thoughts for the day.

"In September 2008, Atkins prompted complaints after offending the people of Norfolk on BBC Radio 4. In a Thought for the Day broadcast about compensation culture, she said: "No more chestnut trees lining the streets of Norwich, in case the conkers fall on your head - as if that would make a difference, in Norfolk"

Do you come from Norfolk?

When I listen I usually listen from here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5bxBSyCZvhXMzJtsZg5lSsP/regular-contributors

She's the intellectual heavyweight who was hauled over the coals for claiming that a gay man is seventeen times more likely to be a paedophile.

[ProfessorDavey]

Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.

That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.

[Shaker]

I once read a comment, when equal marriage was being discussed, from somebody who thought that it was "extreme."

I like to think that my response - "Extreme equality? How does that work then?" - put the point across.

[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

Omg conspiracy theories now!

Have a listen, tell me if I'm wrong.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.

That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.

Not really.

But you can have to much equality to the point it can be a bad thing.

It's when people don't recognise individuality and are obsessed with everyone being the same.

Equality is equality is equality!

[ippy]

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?

The particular non religionists that are kicking up a stink because they think they "ought" to be on it, are the last people I would want to see on it.

I don't like evangelism at the best of times and being dictated to by a bunch of strident atheists with an agenda does not appeal.

Richard Dawkins feeble attempt at a mock T4TD doesn't fill me with confidence that this wouldn't happen.

The thought for the days I have listened to have been not preachy at all and are just reflections on aspects of life from a variety of religious viewpoints which I don't necessarily share.

To allow Richard Dawkins and the NSS crew to put forward their agenda on there in the aggressive way the do, would spoil it and make it preachy and not at all reflective at all.

For a start Richard Dawkings has been banging on about His idea of Science being better than Religion for years, we have all heard it before, It's about time he came up with a new thought, because another one must be due by now.


If you let the non religious people who are wanting to go on it, on it, it will become more political and more about point scoring than about reflection.

I'm sure there are non religious people who could inspire and make people reflect without religion but they are not the strident ones clamouring to make the changes and forward their own agenda.

I'm afraid that those strident and bossy atheists are going to drown out all the interesting people I want to listen to.

Not necessarily believe, but listen to.

For some reason they want to either shut them up, or force their own beliefs on me in equal measure.

I choose to listen to Rabbi Sachs, but it looks like I might be forced to have Richard Dawkins, and his POV.

It's not even that I believe what different religions believe in, or even that I disagree with what Richard Dawkins believes.

It's the nature of the way they get the message across.

They are strident, aggressive, pushy, bossy, and preachy.

No I don't want them, a lot of Christianity stopped doing that in the UK and certain atheists need to learn not to do it either.


It wasn't acceptable then and it isn't acceptable now , except now the problem is these strident Atheists who have so many hang ups about religion it's annoying.

I don't like RD or the NSS or the BHA because they dictate in the same way religion did 50 years ago. The BHA is very discriminating on who can be called a humanist for example.

I know what secularism is, but I don't feel the need to tear off parts of my countries history because of it.

They do!

In this country established Christianity largely grew up, and stopped dictating to other people who wanted to think differently,  now there are some atheists who need to grow up as well, and stop telling religious people and everyone else what they should be thinking and calling them "muddled" if they don't agree.

I react to evangelical and pushy Atheists in exactly the same way as I react to evangelical and pushy Christians .

Seriously, they are so much alike in many ways.

They just make me feel Secularism is a bit like socialism, there are benefits and good points but taken to an extreme it becomes communism , it's  uncomfortable and I don't want to be there.

Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.

Not such a sweet little Rose; I note you still either don't want to understand secularism, or are unable to do so.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Too much of anything can be a bad thing, including Secularism.

That's a bit like saying that too much equality is a bad thing. Or too much fairness.

Not really.

But you can have to much equality to the point it can be a bad thing.

It's when people don't recognise individuality and are obsessed with everyone being the same.

Blimey, not only do you not understand secularism, but it appears you don't understand equality.

The whole point of equality is to support diversity (hence loads of departments in companies etc are called Equality and Diversity).

Equality means that people are treated equally and do not suffer discrimination regardless of their diverse characteristics where those characteristics aren't relevant to a job, receiving a service etc etc. So equality ensures that people can develop their diverse individuality safe in the knowledge that they won't suffer discrimination because of it.

[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

There are plenty of non religious slots on the media where any form of religion would be considered inappropriate and I have found that religious people are being excluded in real life based on the fact they are religious.

Along the lines of " oh! We don't want them!" ( based on the fact they wear a dog collar not that they are preachy)

So it works both ways.

The £10,000,000 a year budget to run on, BBC religion and ethics department runs all of the religious and ethical content of the Beeb, as per it's title, the head of department is always someone very high up in religious circles if it's not one of the bishops or another.

So there's no bias there then Rose is that what you're hinting at?

ippy

[jeremyp]

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.

But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book.

Do they have hang ups about atheism?

Do you think it's unjustified for me to suggest that all theists who speak on TftD have hang ups about atheism?  If so, don't you think that is a bit hypocritical since you made exactly the analogous accusation with respect to any atheists that might get to speak on TftD?

And more importantly do they express them on T4TD, in the fashion of Richard Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins did that once in a special one off slot and what he said was, at least, true.  There is no reason to suspect that this would happen every time an atheist does TftD.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But it's fine to have a platform for people with hangups about atheism in your book.

Do they have hang ups about atheism?

Do you think it's unjustified for me to suggest that all theists who speak on TftD have hang ups about atheism?  If so, don't you think that is a bit hypocritical since you made exactly the analogous accusation with respect to any atheists that might get to speak on TftD?

And more importantly do they express them on T4TD, in the fashion of Richard Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins did that once in a special one off slot and what he said was, at least, true.  There is no reason to suspect that this would happen every time an atheist does TftD.

I don't really think that campaigning secularists are necessarily the most appropriate contributors to a broadened TFTD. I would have thought the more natural contributors would be atheists who are engaged in philosophy and ethics. These would be the kind of people most likely to provide great contributions, providing an personal ethical perspective on current affairs in an interesting and thought provoking manner. Much like many of the current religious contributors I'd image many would not be household names but for their contributions to TFTD.

[jeremyp]

The particular non religionists that are kicking up a stink because they think they "ought" to be on it, are the last people I would want to see on it.

I'm kicking up a stink about it with you right now, but I certainly don't think I ought to be on it.  Who are these people that are kicking up a stink but do want to be on it?

I don't like evangelism at the best of times and being dictated to by a bunch of strident atheists with an agenda does not appeal.

Richard Dawkins feeble attempt at a mock T4TD doesn't fill me with confidence that this wouldn't happen.

How many times does it have to be said before this penetrates your skull?  Having atheists on TftD is no more likely to result in stridency than having the current crop of theists on.  And how do you know Richard Dawkins would even be one of the contributors? 

And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do.  Vlad is getting jealous.

[ProfessorDavey]

And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do.  Vlad is getting jealous.

Exactly - there are perhaps 15 million atheists in the UK, why do the theists obsess on just one.

[jeremyp]

I don't really think that campaigning secularists are necessarily the most appropriate contributors to a broadened TFTD. I would have thought the more natural contributors would be atheists who are engaged in philosophy and ethics. These would be the kind of people most likely to provide great contributions, providing an personal ethical perspective on current affairs in an interesting and thought provoking manner. Much like many of the current religious contributors I'd image many would not be household names but for their contributions to TFTD.

I totally agree with you.  You might have one or two big names occasionally (similar to them sometimes using Jonathan Sachs or the Arch Bish of C), Rose's obsession with Richard Dawkins is a straw man. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And stop going on about what you think Richard Dawkins would or would not do.  Vlad is getting jealous.

Exactly - there are perhaps 15 million atheists in the UK, why do the theists obsess on just one.

I take it you Meldrews will stop going on about the Pope then.

[Shaker]

This Meldrew won't.

Given what the organisation of which he's the head has been responsible for, not a bleeding chance, chummy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This Meldrew won't.

Given what the organisation of which he's the head has been responsible for, not a bleeding chance, chummy.

I'm not your Chum.

[Shaker]

But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts, so it seems apposite

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts

I am not your Pal either.

[Gordon]

But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts

I am not your Pal either.

Pedigree Chum, perhaps?

[Nearly Sane]

But you don't half make a dog's dinner of your posts

I am not your Pal either.

Pedigree Chum, perhaps?

this thread won't win a lot over to the board

[Leonard James]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.