Why would a gentle and uncontentious message from The Pope cause anyone any concern or offence?
The BBC surely does feature plenty of atheist / agnostic viewpoints across its broadcasts, doesn't it? In fact, on the same programme as The Pope's brief Thought, there was an extended appearance by the geezer from The National Secular Society.
There are millions of people of faith in Britain so why should The BBC not feature something like Thought For The Day for them and for, no doubt, the millions of others who perhaps do not have a religion who nonetheless enjoy the content of TFTD? Why do some people wish to force their own religion of atheism or agnosticism onto the whole of The BBC's output? Shouldn't The BBC be there to provide an outlet for all kinds of views, experiences, opinions, beliefs and faiths? And, if there is to be a feature along the lines of Thought For The Day, it surely cannot be argued that The Pope is not a reasonable guest to feature on it?!
What's the problem here? How has such a short and gentle piece of radio managed to cause offence and consternation to anyone?
It's certainly true that during the Christmas season Radio 4 does a lot of things that are "a bit different" and designed to kill the two birds with one stone ie (a) there's less news around and (b) it's an opportunity to pick up new listeners who might normally be at work.
And yes, it's a tremendous coup to get the Pope on TFTD - whatever you make of his politics.
I'd agree with your point that trying something different - and making sure it gets publicity - can sometimes be a good thing.
However, anyone who thinks this was a carefully crafted way of only chasing ratings is chasing a wild goose. The very same people would probably also see it as another example of the BBC being "desperate" or "obsessed with personality".
I don't subscribe to that mindset.
Of course you dont'. Perish the thought that anyone should ever criticise the BBC or it's motivations.
Who would have ever considered that when the BBC comissioned " Tumbledown" that anyone in the BBC might have thought that it would be controversial, or that someone might complain about it. It is not what the BBC does, is it?.
Why would a gentle and uncontentious message from The Pope cause anyone any concern or offence?
The BBC surely does feature plenty of atheist / agnostic viewpoints across its broadcasts, doesn't it? In fact, on the same programme as The Pope's brief Thought, there was an extended appearance by the geezer from The National Secular Society.
There are millions of people of faith in Britain so why should The BBC not feature something like Thought For The Day for them and for, no doubt, the millions of others who perhaps do not have a religion who nonetheless enjoy the content of TFTD? Why do some people wish to force their own religion of atheism or agnosticism onto the whole of The BBC's output? Shouldn't The BBC be there to provide an outlet for all kinds of views, experiences, opinions, beliefs and faiths? And, if there is to be a feature along the lines of Thought For The Day, it surely cannot be argued that The Pope is not a reasonable guest to feature on it?!
What's the problem here? How has such a short and gentle piece of radio managed to cause offence and consternation to anyone?
Good post.
In answer to your question there are very very few atheists who are in favour of free speech and who are tolerant of any other belief system other than their own. Witness the atrocities carried out in the name of athieism and how it has tried to obliterate free speech and all forms of belief other than their own - Stalin, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxa, Caecescu, Mao, Hitler just to name a few famous athieists of the very recent past. The other belief system that they all subscribed to was of course socialism be it communistic or nationalistic. That is why you will find that most athieists are socialist to boot.
In answer to your question there are very very few atheists who are in favour of free speech and who are tolerant of any other belief system other than their own. Witness the atrocities carried out in the name of athieism and how it has tried to obliterate free speech and all forms of belief other than their own - Stalin, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxa, Caecescu, Mao, Hitler just to name a few famous athieists of the very recent past. The other belief system that they all subscribed to was of course socialism be it communistic or nationalistic. That is why you will find that most athieists are socialist to boot.
That sounds a gross over-simplification, I doubt whether there is any evidence the majority of atheists are not in favour of free speech.
Pol Pot was educated at a Roman Catholic school by the way!
I believe quite a number of top Nazis were Christians of various types which would fit with their hatred of the Jews.
I have my doubts about the majority of atheists being socialist also, probably as much a mixture of politics as in any other group. There is a tradition of socialism and non-conformists in England.
It is easy to quote numbers from atrocities but dangerous grounds because the RC church has a very poor record when you look at what they did historically in South America and even in Europe.
In answer to your question there are very very few atheists who are in favour of free speech and who are tolerant of any other belief system other than their own. Witness the atrocities carried out in the name of athieism and how it has tried to obliterate free speech and all forms of belief other than their own - Stalin, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxa, Caecescu, Mao, Hitler just to name a few famous athieists of the very recent past. The other belief system that they all subscribed to was of course socialism be it communistic or nationalistic. That is why you will find that most athieists are socialist to boot.
Oh per-leeeze! This is not the place for an extended argument about religion, but I cannot let such a piece of propaganda pass without comment. If we are going to play the game of "who's commited the most atrocities - athiests or religionists?" I have absolutely no doubt which pile would be the largest.
Atrocities have been committed through the ages by men of all religions and of none. Man's corruption, power lust, greed and vengeance has been with us since The Fall and continues to devastate lives in ways that, thank God, are unimaginable to many of us living in Britain for the last few decades.
Jesus did not talk about politics or political ideology. Christians, just like atheists, have differing political views.
I am not Catholic and I do not believe that The Bible, which is the word of God, supports an institution or a power structure such as The Catholic Church and certainly not an infallible Pope. It is open to such corruption, temptation, pride and greed that appalling sins such as war, persecution, abuse of power, abuse of children are inevitable.
Jesus came to save us from religion, religious oppression and religious judgement. He came to set us free and to show us the way. It is still very easy to take the easy way through the wide gate of temptation, pride, greed, power and lust. But, Jesus' way is the hard way, through the narrow gate. The sins, temptations and structures of man and of this world are difficult to eschew. In the end though, if we want to avoid the destruction of Hell we must choose truth over lies, no matter how deceptively sweet Satan makes those lies sound...
OK Jesus, we get the point! Back on topic, do you think the BBC was doing this to chase ratings?
I don't think they were bothered about ratings but thought it was just good for them to be able to say that they had an exclusive with the pope even if he did not say any significant or risk being interviewed.
I don't think they were bothered about ratings but thought it was just good for them to be able to say that they had an exclusive with the pope even if he did not say any significant or risk being interviewed.
Everything that anyone in the media does has an eye on ratings.and if it is controversial and gets people talking about it, so much the better. Complaints just add to the mix.
Another wonderful gross exaggeration. Yes of course, everyone and anything in the media is related to ratings. Presumably that would include the programmes on Radio 3 that get tiny audiences, or the whole of S4C - which barely survived the axe this year?
OK Jesus, we get the point! Back on topic, do you think the BBC was doing this to chase ratings?
Possibly. Although it was probably more important to them to get a 'scoop'. Any effect on ratings would no doubt be a very positive consequence, as far as The BBC is concerned. Anyway, it's just semantics really, isn't it? You could say they were "chasing ratings", or you could say they were "providing interesting programming that lots of people like to listen to".
Whatever the calculations that were being made by The BBC, there's no reason why anybody should have been offended or disgruntled by what was broadcast. Thought For The Day is a perfectly legitimate thing for The BBC to broadcast. And, whatever anybody's views on 'religion', Christianity or Catholicism, it cannot be argued convincingly that The Pope is an unsuitable person to present such a segment.
If that's the case, he'd better come back and try again, because he plainly failed.
Back on topic, I think the state, and by extension the BBC, should be completely separate from any church or religion. So the TFTD should be dropped.
No, He didn't. Those who follow The Holy Spirit WILL be saved...
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' "
(Matthew 7:21-23)
Those who enact callousness and judgement in the name of religion are not following Jesus' way.
And, yes, Jesus WILL be coming back and bringing peace on Earth. But that will only be happening at The End of the world. That will be up to God's timing, not our own. In the meantime, it's up to each of us here to be God's body and hands on Earth and to use our lives to work for His will.
The BBC IS separate from "any church or religion". Thought For The Day gives a voice to many spiritual perspectives, not just to one religion or one institution. People of these faiths pay their licence fee too and many others also enjoy listening. The BBC also represents atheist and agnostic viewpoints. So, what's the problem??!!
Oh no, not another religious thread from the resident evangelists, aaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh .......
Maybe he should also have a cameo in The Archers, then it wd briefly be a "pope Soap".
.... or maybe in Eastenders? "Leave it, Your Holiness ......".
(shame there's no more "all creatures great and small". I've got this really tempting mental picture of His Holiness - in white robes - with his arm thrust deeply into a cow's .........).
Oh no, not another religious thread from the resident evangelists, aaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh .......
Yep, another thread where followers of the atheism religion, and their Pope Richard Dawkins, are upset that followers of other faiths have a three minute radio programme...
Yep, another thread where followers of the atheism religion, and their Pope Richard Dawkins, are upset that followers of other faiths have a three minute radio programme...
I would think that if Richard Dawkins did the spot on the Today programme then he would be there in person and interviewed by one of the Today team afterwards though of course I don't think there is anything to suggest that he has been involved in covering up illegal behaviour by any of his subordinates.
I was not asking either. I was asking whether Radio 3 and S4C welsh programmes were a mandatory requirement of the charter.
You are a tad touchy MR.
The BBC does not do everything correctly, it is extremely fallible. You might be more at ease with yourself if you recognised this.
That is MY "Thought for the day"
Nope, still not getting it. This thread is about the Pope on Thought for the Day. You said it about rating, I said it wasn't. You then said everything done by the media was done with rating in mind. I said I disagreed, illustrating that with programmes or channels that are anything but about the ratings. Then - for some reason - you mentioned the Charter. Bizarre.
I don't think I've ever said the BBC in infallable. But it's certainly easier to defend it against critics with half baked arguments.
Nope, still not getting it. This thread is about the Pope on Thought for the Day. You said it about rating, I said it wasn't. You then said everything done by the media was done with rating in mind. I said I disagreed, illustrating that with programmes or channels that are anything but about the ratings. Then - for some reason - you mentioned the Charter. Bizarre.
I don't think I've ever said the BBC in infallable. But it's certainly easier to defend it against critics with half baked arguments.
You may have never said it, but that what I pereceive as your inner thinking, hence your stalwart defence of the BBC at almost every possible turn.
You still have not answered my question about the requirements of the BBC Charter....
Perish the thought that your replies were ever half baked, I have noticed that it tends to be the case when you try to defend something on somewhat spurious grounds.
I would think that if Richard Dawkins did the spot on the Today programme then he would be there in person and interviewed by one of the Today team afterwards though of course I don't think there is anything to suggest that he has been involved in covering up illegal behaviour by any of his subordinates.
There's been plenty of coverage of The Catholic Church's failings, criminality and abominations on The BBC and elsewhere. And there was a debate between a Catholic bishop and the bloke from The National Secular Society on the same programme as The Pope appeared.
Thought For The Day is a brief segment of Today that does not include interviews. It never has, it's purpose is different to other parts of the programme. It is a very short interlude where a speaker gives his or her thoughts, from a perspective of faith in God. That what it is, that's what it does. What's the problem??!!
Comments
My first post on here.
Why would a gentle and uncontentious message from The Pope cause anyone any concern or offence?
The BBC surely does feature plenty of atheist / agnostic viewpoints across its broadcasts, doesn't it? In fact, on the same programme as The Pope's brief Thought, there was an extended appearance by the geezer from The National Secular Society.
There are millions of people of faith in Britain so why should The BBC not feature something like Thought For The Day for them and for, no doubt, the millions of others who perhaps do not have a religion who nonetheless enjoy the content of TFTD? Why do some people wish to force their own religion of atheism or agnosticism onto the whole of The BBC's output? Shouldn't The BBC be there to provide an outlet for all kinds of views, experiences, opinions, beliefs and faiths? And, if there is to be a feature along the lines of Thought For The Day, it surely cannot be argued that The Pope is not a reasonable guest to feature on it?!
What's the problem here? How has such a short and gentle piece of radio managed to cause offence and consternation to anyone?
Of course you dont'. Perish the thought that anyone should ever criticise the BBC or it's motivations.
Who would have ever considered that when the BBC comissioned " Tumbledown" that anyone in the BBC might have thought that it would be controversial, or that someone might complain about it. It is not what the BBC does, is it?.
Good post.
In answer to your question there are very very few atheists who are in favour of free speech and who are tolerant of any other belief system other than their own. Witness the atrocities carried out in the name of athieism and how it has tried to obliterate free speech and all forms of belief other than their own - Stalin, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxa, Caecescu, Mao, Hitler just to name a few famous athieists of the very recent past. The other belief system that they all subscribed to was of course socialism be it communistic or nationalistic. That is why you will find that most athieists are socialist to boot.
That sounds a gross over-simplification, I doubt whether there is any evidence the majority of atheists are not in favour of free speech.
Pol Pot was educated at a Roman Catholic school by the way!
I believe quite a number of top Nazis were Christians of various types which would fit with their hatred of the Jews.
I have my doubts about the majority of atheists being socialist also, probably as much a mixture of politics as in any other group. There is a tradition of socialism and non-conformists in England.
It is easy to quote numbers from atrocities but dangerous grounds because the RC church has a very poor record when you look at what they did historically in South America and even in Europe.
Oh per-leeeze! This is not the place for an extended argument about religion, but I cannot let such a piece of propaganda pass without comment. If we are going to play the game of "who's commited the most atrocities - athiests or religionists?" I have absolutely no doubt which pile would be the largest.
And, incidentally, Hitler was not an athiest.
Jesus did not talk about politics or political ideology. Christians, just like atheists, have differing political views.
I am not Catholic and I do not believe that The Bible, which is the word of God, supports an institution or a power structure such as The Catholic Church and certainly not an infallible Pope. It is open to such corruption, temptation, pride and greed that appalling sins such as war, persecution, abuse of power, abuse of children are inevitable.
Jesus came to save us from religion, religious oppression and religious judgement. He came to set us free and to show us the way. It is still very easy to take the easy way through the wide gate of temptation, pride, greed, power and lust. But, Jesus' way is the hard way, through the narrow gate. The sins, temptations and structures of man and of this world are difficult to eschew. In the end though, if we want to avoid the destruction of Hell we must choose truth over lies, no matter how deceptively sweet Satan makes those lies sound...
I don't think they were bothered about ratings but thought it was just good for them to be able to say that they had an exclusive with the pope even if he did not say any significant or risk being interviewed.
Everything that anyone in the media does has an eye on ratings.and if it is controversial and gets people talking about it, so much the better. Complaints just add to the mix.
Talking about gross exaggerations!!!
Indeed, and of the examples quoted I wonder if both are covered by the BBC Charter?
I am sure MR will know.
Possibly. Although it was probably more important to them to get a 'scoop'. Any effect on ratings would no doubt be a very positive consequence, as far as The BBC is concerned. Anyway, it's just semantics really, isn't it? You could say they were "chasing ratings", or you could say they were "providing interesting programming that lots of people like to listen to".
Whatever the calculations that were being made by The BBC, there's no reason why anybody should have been offended or disgruntled by what was broadcast. Thought For The Day is a perfectly legitimate thing for The BBC to broadcast. And, whatever anybody's views on 'religion', Christianity or Catholicism, it cannot be argued convincingly that The Pope is an unsuitable person to present such a segment.
If that's the case, he'd better come back and try again, because he plainly failed.
Back on topic, I think the state, and by extension the BBC, should be completely separate from any church or religion. So the TFTD should be dropped.
No, He didn't. Those who follow The Holy Spirit WILL be saved...
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' "
(Matthew 7:21-23)
Those who enact callousness and judgement in the name of religion are not following Jesus' way.
And, yes, Jesus WILL be coming back and bringing peace on Earth. But that will only be happening at The End of the world. That will be up to God's timing, not our own. In the meantime, it's up to each of us here to be God's body and hands on Earth and to use our lives to work for His will.
The BBC IS separate from "any church or religion". Thought For The Day gives a voice to many spiritual perspectives, not just to one religion or one institution. People of these faiths pay their licence fee too and many others also enjoy listening. The BBC also represents atheist and agnostic viewpoints. So, what's the problem??!!
Is that your thought for the day?
It is
Maybe he should also have a cameo in The Archers, then it wd briefly be a "pope Soap".
.... or maybe in Eastenders? "Leave it, Your Holiness ......".
(shame there's no more "all creatures great and small". I've got this really tempting mental picture of His Holiness - in white robes - with his arm thrust deeply into a cow's .........).
Yep, another thread where followers of the atheism religion, and their Pope Richard Dawkins, are upset that followers of other faiths have a three minute radio programme...
What relevance does the Charter have to this thread?
If you're asking "does the BBC Charter allow Thought for the Day to be broadcast", no it doesn't. That would be the Service Licence.
If you're asking "does the BBC Charter demand that the Corporation broadcasts programming segments for anything other than ratings", yes it does.
I was not asking either. I was asking whether Radio 3 and S4C welsh programmes were a mandatory requirement of the charter.
You are a tad touchy MR.
The BBC does not do everything correctly, it is extremely fallible. You might be more at ease with yourself if you recognised this.
That is MY "Thought for the day"
I would think that if Richard Dawkins did the spot on the Today programme then he would be there in person and interviewed by one of the Today team afterwards though of course I don't think there is anything to suggest that he has been involved in covering up illegal behaviour by any of his subordinates.
Nope, still not getting it. This thread is about the Pope on Thought for the Day. You said it about rating, I said it wasn't. You then said everything done by the media was done with rating in mind. I said I disagreed, illustrating that with programmes or channels that are anything but about the ratings. Then - for some reason - you mentioned the Charter. Bizarre.
I don't think I've ever said the BBC in infallable. But it's certainly easier to defend it against critics with half baked arguments.
You may have never said it, but that what I pereceive as your inner thinking, hence your stalwart defence of the BBC at almost every possible turn.
You still have not answered my question about the requirements of the BBC Charter....
Perish the thought that your replies were ever half baked, I have noticed that it tends to be the case when you try to defend something on somewhat spurious grounds.
Anyway, the charter.....
There's been plenty of coverage of The Catholic Church's failings, criminality and abominations on The BBC and elsewhere. And there was a debate between a Catholic bishop and the bloke from The National Secular Society on the same programme as The Pope appeared.
Thought For The Day is a brief segment of Today that does not include interviews. It never has, it's purpose is different to other parts of the programme. It is a very short interlude where a speaker gives his or her thoughts, from a perspective of faith in God. That what it is, that's what it does. What's the problem??!!