Religion
Related: About this forumArchbishop of Canterbury praises article accusing BBC of sneering attitude to religion
From the article:
Justin Welby said a column calling on the BBC to stop sneering and keep the faith was excellent.
It comes after John Humphrys, the Radio 4 presenter, claimed that the daily slot on the Today programme was deeply, deeply boring......
To the overpaid panjandrums of the BBC, religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible, he added.
To read more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/31/archbishop-canterbury-endorses-column-accusing-bbc-sneering/
"religion is for....the stupid and the gullible".
msongs
(67,417 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)To the overpaid panjandrums of the BBC, religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible, he added.
The archbishop was speaking of the higher ups at the BBC, not (as your comment seems to infer) to religious believers.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Did the BBC say that?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)The way you posted that quote made it unclear, and implied the BBC had done so. Honesty and clarity are good things, don't you agree?
You might also want to more closely read the article you posted, as you are clearly confusing what the homophobic bigot Justin Welby said, and what Giles Fraser (who wrote the piece that actually used those words) said.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I posted it as it was written, so your quarrel is with the original author. But no, I do not personally feel that the article was unclear.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's everyone else, definitely not you.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear, and you're the only one who consistently has this problem? Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Almost a refrain of some sort for the choir.
So in counterpoint, simply reread my answers for the other times you have brought this up.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Pressed on why he could not answer, the archbishop said: Because I dont do blanket condemnation and I havent got a good answer to the question. Ill be really honest about that. I know I havent got a good answer to the question. Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships.
But he has a sad because someone isn't being respectful enough of his religion.
Aww.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or what do you feel he meant?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Did you perhaps notice what part of an adult relationship he left out of that sentence?
Hint: it's the part that he was specifically asked about. The part that he wouldn't answer.
He's a homophobic bigot, but you want us to care that he thinks his religion isn't being given enough respect.
Tell you what, when he respects ALL people and their full, loving relationships, I'll consider respecting his religion. Until then, he can fuck right off, as can ALL bigots like him.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The archbishop has said that he knew nothing of the abuse until 2013, when the police were informed about it, and he apologized in February for not having done more to investigate the claims further.
But now the grown men who were victims of the abuse as boys are coming forward to challenge the archbishops version of events, casting doubt on his claims of ignorance.
But guys, someone on the telly didn't speak glowingly enough of his religion. That's the real tragedy, you know.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Interesting how the agnostic news reader's comments are ignored by some here.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)You appeared to think you had scored a hit with " As opposed to intelligent nonsense?" and now, predictably, you are trying to tack away from yet another blunder.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Congratulations on making your point, whatever it was.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)1. Me: Idiotic nonsense not being given proper respect.
2. You: As opposed to intelligent nonsense?
3. Me: for example: Jabberwocky by Lewis Carrol
4. You: A clergyman wrote it. eom
So far we have my original snark, in reply to your op. (1)
You then attempt to claim that "intelligent nonsense" is an oxymoron. (2)
I point out that the category exists. (3)
You then counter with a non-sequitur (4).
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My only possible reply can be:
No true knight would persist in this attack when he has been as severely wounded as you have been.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I did post the article, so there is that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I thought that it was appropriate, in light of the theme.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You don't even know whom you quoted.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But the sentiment is still appropriate to the piece. And the context of the piece is intolerance for religion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)robbing it of the reader knowing it was a description OF the state of the BBC by a partisan, not a statement by the BBC itself.
Your attention to detail shines a bright light on the entire sub-thread above with Voltaire2
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some here have previously admitted to only reading the title prior to responding. So I would suggest that any who respond might want to read the entire piece.
And Voltaire2 obviously completely misread one reply of mine already, and claimed I said something that I did not actually say. So what does that say about attention to detail on that posters part?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You made a mistake here. I humbly suggest you re-read as you made a similar mistake there.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Mariana
(14,858 posts)Saying that one particular daily religious propaganda program is boring and probably shouldn't be on public radio is not an example of intolerance for religion. For the record, here is a link to some shows available under the BBC's category Religion and Ethics, which includes both radio and television shows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/religionandethics/player/episodes
Do you think it's a proper role of publicly funded television and radio to broadcast religious propaganda? Why or why not?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)(a link in it to the complete article interviewing all five directs me to iTunes, so it seems they want you to pay for that)
Fraser's claim that the BBC attitude is "religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible" seems out of line. For instance, Humphrys does not just blindly dismiss religion; he did some programmes a few years ago on why he's agnostic, in conversation with religious leaders - see eg http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/745/in-search-of-god-with-john-humphrys .
Mariana
(14,858 posts)because Humphrys said Fraser's daily propaganda bit is deeply, deeply boring. Fraser's reaction resembles a temper tantrum.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Jesus told his followers, in Matthew 5 : 11-12 (NIV), Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
So, why are Fraser and Welby whining and complaining? Why aren't they rejoicing and being glad?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Is this not a good thing?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)By mislabeling it as such, they (and you) are seeking special treatment for religious opinions.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I had no idea.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)A sneering attitude is not intolerance. Etc.
Different words generally have different definitions, Gil, because they mean different things. The BBC runs loads of religious programming. One guy criticized this writer's daily radio bit of religious propaganda. BFD. That is not intolerance.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because religion is special and must be protected from foul atheists who simply will not keep quiet.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So thanks for proving my point, g-man!