Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question"
You've been discussing Thought for the Day on the blog. The controller of Radio 4, Mark Damazer defends Thought for the Day in the statement below:
"I regard this as a genuinely difficult question. There may be a case for widening the pool of contributors on Thought for The Day by having someone with an avowedly non-religious perspective. However on balance the BBC's position is that it is reasonable to sustain the slot with believers. Let me now set out the reasoning.
Thought for the Day is a unique slot in which speakers from a wide range of religious faiths reflect on an issue of the day from their faith perspective. In the midst of the three hour Today programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns - national and international news and features, searching interviews etc - the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection. We believe that broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot.
Within Thought for the Day a careful balance is maintained of voices from different Christian denominations and other religions with significant membership in the UK. We are broadcasting to the general Radio 4 audience which regularly engages with the comments and ideas expressed by our contributors from the world's major faiths - whether they are believers or not.
Outside Thought for the Day the BBC's religious output contains both religious and non-religious voices in programmes such as Sunday, Beyond Belief, Moral Maze. In these programmes atheists, humanists and secularists are regularly heard, the religious world is scrutinised, its leaders and proponents are questioned.
Non-religious voices are also heard extensively across the general output in news, current affairs, documentaries, talks, science, history. These programmes approach the world from perspectives which are not religious. As, of course, do the other 2 hours 57 minutes of Today."
Do you agree? Catch up with the previous discussion here.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Well done Mark Damazer in defending Thought for the Day. This small slot enables and challenges people to look at 'genuinely difficult questions' from a different perspective. We all tend to be greedy and self-centred but one of the purposes of many religions is to consider others. Someone 2000 years ago said "Love your neighbour". It of course still applies regardless of how much or little material wealth you may have.
Complain about this comment
With this response Mr Damazer insults the great number of intelligent listeners who are currently e-mailing The Today Programme due to my pledge:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
He is simply reiterating his previous "arguments". It seems obvious that he has not even looked at any of the hundreds of e-mails that are now coming in which contain carefully considered and very well articulated counter-arguments against the presence of TFTD in its current form.
If Mr Damazer thinks this response will stem the tide of objection to TFTD, he may have to think again.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the day has no place in a news programme, none whatsoever.
Rod Liddle, during his time, tried to get rid of the witless tripe, and failed.
It is clear that the religious block will somehow keep it on board, so the best thing is to go and brush your teeth while the patronizing nonsense is on.
brendan (mostly Atlanta)
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer appears to be confusing having a spiritual dimension in one's life with having being open to the propaganda of various organised religions. You can be spiritual but not religious in the same way that many are religious but not spiritual. People who are able to believe in religion will make their own time for reflection and communication with their god and the rest can get on with our lives
Complain about this comment
If Today needs religious comment to balance its secular content, then shouldn't all the other secular programmes on radio get a few minutes of religion too? Injury time at the end of the first half on the footie, for example, could be given over to Rabbi Lionel Blue.
It makes as much sense as this ridiculous justification of religious force-feeding.
Complain about this comment
Over the years Thought for the Day has given me an insight into a variety of faiths and differing points of view on the moral and social implications of daily events. Yet, much of the what is said in the programme illustrates strongly what we have in common. I think it is a valuable contribution to mutual understanding in the diverse society we have today.
Complain about this comment
I have felt very strongly for some years that Thought for the Day was completely wrong not to include a proportionate number of non-religious, atheist, and agnostic speakers. It is entirely wrong that such a tiny minority gets representation to speak. And I would like to make it clear that I am not talking about the occasional humanist having this slot, but instead having mostly rational people, with the occasional god botherer. Otherwise it should be removed.
Complain about this comment
Damazar's 'defence' misses the mark in a number of ways. Firstly he postulates that Today is a programme devoted to 'secular concerns'. Funny, I thought it was a news programme without an agenda of its own, least of all a theological one. Next he imagines that a balance of voices from an unbalanced field of representation is as valid as an all encompassing balance. The rest of his argument is also logically flawed and unsound; how can the non-religious 2 hours 57minutes of today possibly be used as a justification for 3 minutes of bias? If this is the best argument available I think I can look forward to the demise of TFTD in the very near future.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day impresses me when it is a thought for the day rather than a mini-sermon.
Complain about this comment
There was an item about this on PM just now (Weds evening). It was followed immediately by something about Cricket.
I have no problem with Thought for the Day, it is often stimulating. But I do wish you would keep Sport out of News programmes.
Complain about this comment
" In the midst of the three hour Today programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns"
What's secular about the reporting of Shina muslims killing Sunni muslims in Iraq?
Or the ongoing naval-gazing soul-searching within the Anglican church as it tries to come to terms with women and gays .
Or maybe the reporting of the pope who thinks that people should stop doing this or start doing that.
Why should religion have a platform to preach to the unconverted without a counter contributors who think that religion is not the answer but all too often the problem.
Complain about this comment
I find Thought for the Day offensive. If the BBC feels it is necessary to broadcast such programs, then let it provide a separate channel, which can also accommodate astrology, numerology, witchcraft and all the other speculative vestigial belief systems whose devotees wish to saddle the rest of society with.
Complain about this comment
Fully agree with the comments from Mark.
Widening the contributions is fine.
I know they do not always hit home, however the challenge of a news- relevant, interesting reflection is a tough call.
John Bell is always challenging and appreciated.
Thanks to all the "thinkers".
Complain about this comment
This statement is welcome because it gives us a chance to examine the reasons for the current status quo on Today. The problem I have is that I also have belief - and take a philosophical stance when considering the life I lead and when considering the life experiences reflected in the news and current affairs. It is just not moderated by an external organisation that makes it easy to label. I do want to listen to a wide range of responses and reflections to help me reflect on my philosophy, and maybe adapt and change to be more inclusive, more understanding. Learning is life-long. We live what we learn. Listening aids learning.
Complain about this comment
There might be a balance of religious voices but it is a very priveleged and prime time voice for the religious to attack the secular and humanists and atheists. It is very common for the religious to attack atheists and humanists as nihlists and to claim that religion holds the monopoly on values and morality. As an atheist I have very strong morals, values and convictions which sometimes clash with theocratic viewpoints. Limiting the philosophical thought for the day to religious viewpoints bolsters this idea that those lacking in religion also lack morals. It is about time that non religious viewpoints were also included. Mark Damzars defence is inadequate. The quality of the religious thoughts for the day would increase if there was other viewpoints.
Complain about this comment
There is a place for fiction on Radio 4 and we should see this 3 minute slot as one of these.
However, we should certainly widen the range of contributors to include more non-religious views to more clearly reflect the makeup of our society. How about views from the major professions, industry and charity leaders or just random academics.
Complain about this comment
In other words 'we know best, the listeners' views are not important and we'll provide what we know they need'.
A typical response from Mr Damazer.
With someone who is clearly infallible at the helm why bother having messageboards etc at all?
Complain about this comment
I think the most worrying thing about thought for the day is a lack of responce. In every other segment an opposition point of view is put across. Why should the thought for the day be unchallenged simply because it is religious? Thought for the day is often the only thing on the Today show that makes me turn over.
Complain about this comment
In days long gone "Thought..." was called "Lift up your Hearts" a phrase taken directly from the Book of Common Prayer. It was, I think, purely Cof E and utterly religious.
Those days have long,long, gone.
To be utterly frank "Thought ..." should have gone with it.
I expect in a time honoured tradition the BBC will "scrap" it, then bring it back under a different name at a different time.
I personally do not need a slot at 0750 to remind me I "should try harder"
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day genuinely occasionally offends me, regularly irritates me. If it wasn't for the excellent content of the rest of the Today programme I would have long ago boycotted it.
I have no problem with people wishing to listen to religious preachers but please, this is not the forum. How can programmers at the BBC be so out of touch with their listeners' preferences and the zeitgeist of the people?
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day is our alarm clock - we listen until it comes on then it forces us out of bed. In this respect I support it. In all other respects it is a complete waste of time and the mumbo jumbo should be left to less useful programmes.
Complain about this comment
A pathetically lily-livered response from Mr Damazer. Thought for the Day seems to be to be discriminating against those of no faith, such as myself, who are fed up with the BBC ramming religion down our throats.
Damazer is right in that as he says, humanists and atheists are invited onto other religious programming, but they are always heavily outnumbered by the parties of god. I fail to see why the BBC continues to give religions this platform for unopposed spouting of superstitious nonsense, when the majority of license fee-payers are not regular attendees of religious services. Why should I pay through my license fee for religious "leaders" to attempt infecting me with the virus of faith.
The main point here is however, is that we should all wake up, and stop believing things just because a man in a frock tells us they are true. Think people. Be rational. Use the brains that "god" almost certainly didn't give you, and speak out against religious proselytising on the radio and television (songs of praise anyone?). Remember people, you are not God's flock. You are not sheep. You are people with advanced brains, please use them!
Complain about this comment
Over the last 50 or 60 years the BBC has substantially subtracted its output of Christian programmes on both TV and radio. What is left of Christian content has also been further weakened by extensions into other areas of religious belief. "Thought For The Day" has a long and, in the main, laudable history. Arguments about its present broadcasting position being "confusing" themselves confuse the issue. It should continue but as a Christian programme since this is still the major religion of the UK and all others fall into very low single figure percentages. If there is an argument for periodic broadcasts for other beliefs then introduce an "Alternative Thought For The Day"
Complain about this comment
Religious faith is an important part of human experience - the Today programme should reflect it, and not just when religious leader says something controversial.
The value of Thought for the Day is explained well by Mark Damazer - reflection on the issues of the day from a faith perspective. I am a Christian, but find all the thoughts worth listening to, because they are rooted in faith. As Mark says, secular views get plenty of time.
It is sad that some listeners cannot even offer 3 minutes respect to another perspective - but show tolerance! Sports news bores me so I switch off - I am not campaigning to get half of it replaced by book reviews.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the day is inspiring and uplifting. Lets have more of it!
Complain about this comment
Lord, please deliver us from this daily dose of platitudes, over-wrought similes, and unchallenged prejudice which fits so badly with the dialectic debate which characterises real 'thought' as exemplified in the rest of the Today Programme.
Complain about this comment
Distinctive is good, but preachy is bad. There are plenty of thoughtful people who can contribute to the unique nature of this slot who are not religious. They might even make it more relevant.
Complain about this comment
Not a difficult question at all. It does no harm to have a view from 'believers' of one sort or another; it is feeble not to be able to cope with it - even if your mind is closed and you only use it as a turn off.
If you think it's a difficult issue, you haven't had enough difficulties in your life. Grow up, good luck ... and keep it as it is!
Complain about this comment
I am one of the millions of people of faith for whom that faith is the principal motivator for our active engagement with society and with the big issues. For me and those millions, the call for some kind of 'separation' between religion and the 'real' world is unreal. It is faith which catapults us into action in the real world. It is faith which makes our engagement there more focussed, more energetic, and frankly more sacrificial. Thought for the Day regularly inspires us to do that better and more wisely. Keep it!
Complain about this comment
We do not have to agree with what is said for us to listen to a programme. There are lots of things broadcast that I don't like or am not interested in. Leave my few minutes a day alone.
Complain about this comment
In a week when one of atheism's prophets, Charles Darwin is getting a daily half hour spot on Radio 4 then to get squeamish about 5 minutes everyday for people who have religious concerns is a bit churlish. I always saw the BBC's placing science programmes on Sunday nights (which has often happened) as a quite deliberate 'religious' statement in which science was the explanation for everything which had hitherto been ascribed to God. All children have an intuitive acceptance of God only for adolescence to erode this. Many adults retain this outlook and Thought for the Day speaks to them.
Complain about this comment
I would be happy if TFTD continued if it allowed comments from people who are not religious., which is currently does not. To exclude secular perspectives discriminates against those who are not religious and the religious views go virtually unchallenged.
During the entire duration of TFTD, there is no dedicated slot to reflect on the secular or humanist perspective that sits outside the cut and thrust of a busy news broadcast. There needs to be balance and only allowing religious views to be broadcast is just behind the times.
But why is this such a difficult question? Would religious fans of the slot suddenly complain bitterly that another point of view has been included and that simply wont' do? What is the difference between a secularist expressing their view and someone from a religion not as yet included?
In my opinion, religious belief is based in fiction and I thought BBC news broadcasting was about considering facts. I don't think this issue is going to go away.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Mark Damazer for defending Thought for the Day. It brings such a variety of helpful thoughts to complex situations. Please keep it. It's part of our responsibility to be tolerant and listen to one another.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Mark Damazer's reasoning. I think he has got it right.
I was under the impression Radio 4 was designed to appeal to people that thought about things. It is sad that some people want deny us the ability to do this because of their personal philosophy, even for 3 minutes in 3 hours. How desperate can they get?
I trust the BBC will not bow to this censorship.
Complain about this comment
I was struck by the thought that "Though for the Day" shouldn't be in a "fact" based programme. I have faith because the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection make it the best explaination of all of those facts. As a Christian I am happy to listen to a range of other faiths and I am sad that athiests find difficult those facts which challenge their faith. That shouldn't close open minds though.
Complain about this comment
I am amazed that Thought For Today only lasts three minutes, it seems much longer.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to challenge the notion of 'people of faith', as though it describes a privileged position in some way.
Everyone believes in something, it is just that some people adopt off-the-shelf belief systems (often referred to as 'faiths') while others find their own paths.
To single out the major religions as having special access to spirituality or morality is as pompous as it is wrong.
I have no problem with thought for the day, but I'd rather see it allow reflection of all kinds, and ditch the limited, predictable and sometimes slightly smug perspectives that currently dominate.
TFTD could be fresh, challenging and even occasionally controversial, but this will only happen if Mr Damazer is able to see that there is nothing 'special' about the 'religious'.
Complain about this comment
There is no reason for a news programmed such as the Today Programmed to air the views and opinions of people because they believe in religious nonsense and non-existent gods. This rubbish should be left to the many god only channels that are now available on satellite and digital radio. The news itself is full of the consequences of these misplaced religious loyalties the whole planet is awash with blood because one group or another is convinced that everyone else is wrong and killing them is fine. There is no god - the sooner this message is understood and accepted the better.
Complain about this comment
@Mark Damazer:
'...a brief, UNINTERRUPTED interlude of spiritual reflection...'(?!) when the rest of the world are being (extremely agressively and unproductively in many cases - thanks JH) challenged to defend their views why are religious people not subjected to the same degree of rigor? The offense many of us is not in the slot's existance but in the special status accorded to religious people to editorialise 'uninterrupted' (read 'unchallenged') when a significant minority of your listeners are non-adherent. The issue is indeed in representativeness.
@curiousman:
Religious people do have a monopoly on selflessness and charity. A secular, agnostic, atheist or humanistic perspected may be just as considerate and contemplative. This is not an argument for keeping The Thought for The Day exclusively religious.
Complain about this comment
It is sometimes refreshing, sometimes annoying and occasionally dull but I hate to miss it even when I do not hold with the speakers views.
It is definately one the better bits of the Today programme --we could do with less political claptrap and a lot less businessmen trying to sell their wares or spin there way out of trouble,
and as for all those Israeli spokesman who go unchallenged.... there is a lot more that can be improved on the Today programme before this three minute slot.
As a Christian I would not object to the views of those without faith being broadcast but I do have a preference for John Bell from the Iona Community --even when he gets his facts wrong!
Complain about this comment
I absolutely disagree. Religious programming should be optional; those who wish to listen to it may do so. By slotting it in within a programme covering news and current affairs, the BBC is forcing a wide public to listen to it whether they wish to or not - the only option is to turn off the radio. Religious programming should be scheduled separately, like any other kind of programming. You don't have a 5 minute slot of gardening in the middle of the Today programme, do you?
I am from Ireland, which I thought was a country where religious matters often dominated in areas of life where they should not necessarily be found - until I moved to the UK and was shocked to discover a religious programming slot bang in the middle of the BBC's flagship news and current affairs programme.
The content of the slot is also uninspiring and very repetitive. The same speakers are trotted out each week; does the public wish to hear so very often what these individuals think about various topics?
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Vallance,
I wrote to Radio 4 a while back about "Thought for the Day" and got a rather unhelpful response from the person in charge of religion.
This segment sticks out like a sore thumb. Most of it seems to consist of diluted antirationalist twaddle, with no forum for dissent or discussion.
In essence I'm being told every day that I'm wrong to think it's unlikely that there's such a thing as a god. I resent that.
I wonder how religious people would react to being told every day that there wasn't a god and that they should lead their lives accordingly.
I just don't think the BBC should be in the business of asserting either point of view as the truth. It's not what they're there for.
The only amusing thing about it is listening to John Humphreys trying to pretend he's okay with it. The contortions that man must have to go through just don't bear thinking about!
Prof. David J. Benson
University of Aberdeen
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day should be just that and completely secular - not Prayer- or Sermon for the Day. Many contributions are thought-provoking or just witty, but when they go off into irrational, religious god-speak I turn off. TftD can never be "balanced" if it excludes humanists, agnostics and atheists. With all these extra channels on DAB, why can't the god squad have one of those?
Complain about this comment
Thought For The Day is so horrible that I can't bear to listen to it. The contributions are so patronising to the listener, so banal and so predictable that I feel embarrassed for the contributors. I suppose it is no great inconvenience for me to swap to Five Live each day, but I just can't understand why Radio Four continues to waste electricity on this drivel. Please do yourselves a favour and drop this programme into a very deep hole.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the existence of "thought for the day" however I think that secular voices should also be represented on this slot. Religious people have teh opportunity to reflect on the world in this slot and those who are Atheist or agnostioc deserve the opportunity to have their views reflected also.
Complain about this comment
Being an atheist, I must admit that I rarely listen to "thought for the day". I am amused that it is the only slot in the Today programme in which the representatives of irrational belief systems can make statements unchallenged. If this is to remain the case I would prefer it to be named more honestly as "irrational thought for the day", or "religious thought for the day". Perhaps the scope of faiths could be widened to include Paganism, Jedi, and Scientologists.
Of more interest to me would be to extend its scope away from vague spirituality and include the thoughts of contemporary philosophers and scientists. Indeed, with the exception of "in our time", philosophy is a neglected subject in R4 programming
Complain about this comment
And another thing:
If Damazer is counting the minutes of airtime given to religious people does that mean we can have a couple of months off from TFTD now after three hours of Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor?
Complain about this comment
It's a question of the Beeb's consistency: Within months of screening the Jerry Springer Opera, a deliberate attempt to annoy evangelicals, your journalists turned up mob-handed outside the Vatican to celebrate the new Pope. (It was celebration, not reportage).
Are you religious or not?
Complain about this comment
Here we go again. If religion is as marginal in our supposedly secular age as the Dawkin brigade would have us believe, I’m at a loss to understand why people are so exercised at removing a 3 minute slot in a three hour long programme. Particularly in these current stressful times of war, famine and credit crunch, the need for a considered/alternative view point is surely all the more important? The title says it all “Thought for the Day”, not “Christian Thought for the Day” or “Religious Thought for the Day”. There is surely room for all people of faith and none. The criteria should be that the speaker has the ability to pull us up short and make us think about the world around us from a different point of view, not that they should be in tune with current trends.
Yesterday saw the end of a project called http://www.prayerforliverpool.org in which the great and the good, together with rest of us, young and old, left prayers for Liverpool on the website. Although organised by the Anglican Cathedral, there was no requirement for contributors to be a member of any religious organisation. Looking at the site and the exhibition in the Cathedral, it is clear that once again the silent majority are still keen to seek alternatives to the noisy, secular world.
Complain about this comment
To many people all 'religions' are dubious and often the cause of much war terrorism and suffering. I think the scope of speakers used for the slot should be vastly widened if it is to be included in a reality program such as Today. To include thoughts from notable thinkers, atheists and non-believers would give the slot better credibility and a better reflection of thought to the diverse types of listener tuned in to hear the news of the day
Complain about this comment
I find 'Thought for the Day' a really valuable slot, and look forward to it, even printing out some particularly good items. I would be really deprived to lose it. If other folk don't like it, they don't have to listen. Neither do they have to impose their will on others. I don't happen to be interested in sport, but would not clamour to have the sports report removed. There is room for all interests.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark Damazer makes his usual excuses for excluding the humanist voice from TftD. There are no good reasons for this policy, and the Humanist perspective would make an vital contribution to the moral, ethical and spiritual reflections which form the basis of this slot. Given that the majority of listeners are probably not christian, it would only be fair for a Humanist view to be offered for contemplation. Other religions may feel they should also be represented, and a case could be made for this. But for me it is equally important that the values of Humanism should be aired to contrast with the god-worship of the current pervading religious mythology.
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer says, "...the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection." So why should there not be a brief, uninterrupted interlude of atheist reflection?
"Non-religious voices are also heard extensively across the general output in news, current affairs, documentaries, talks, science, history." True, but this is mere sophistry. They are heard only by chance in that a fraction of the participants in these happen to be atheists. As far as I am aware, (unlike Thought for the Day) there is no BBC slot at all dedicated exclusively to the atheist perspective. Atheists do not wish for such a thing, but are entitled to have their moral and humanist points heard along with others in Thought for the Day.
The reason why Thought for the Day as currently constituted is invidious is that it perpetuates the offensive idea that religious people have a moral perspective denied to the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
If Mr Damazer really believes this is "a very difficult question", why this reflex reaction in support of the status quo, which completely ignores that:
- TFTD's occurence within a fact based programme with highly regarded presenters grants religion undeserved credibility by association. I cannot imagine the BBC granting this status to astrology even though it is probably believed by more people than believe in any one of the individual religions represented in the slot.
- the lack of balance it represents is highly inappropriate for a publicly funded broadcaster. Specifially, there is no right of reply or equal airtime for the atheist position. Even if the occasional atheist were to be allowed, this would not be sufficient. Every individual religious slot would have to be balanced by an atheist slot ie a God/No God balance.
- the presentation of the slot as a "moral" view on world events is almost laughable. Religious belief is often in opposition to what most people would consider "moral". Examples are numerous but the use of condoms against aids, the treatment of women and gays and the ritual slaughter of animals are but a few of the areas where there is a clear conflict.
Finally, I was amazed that Mr Damazer has posted this reply before either Today or the Today's Complaints have had the courtesy to reply to my email raising this very issue.
Best Regards
David Lemon
Complain about this comment
"Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question"
To whom, I wonder..? I, for example, find no difficulty. But then, that's only me...
"However, on balance the BBC's position is that it is reasonable to sustain the slot with believers."
Really? How many people in the BBC have been asked? How many licence payers..?
"We believe that broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot."
Who, are 'We"? please define and justify. Facts. Not beliefs... Please.
Complain about this comment
I am very sad and disappointed that there is never any air time given to those with a humanist ,atheist ,logical ,rational scientific world view on the Thought for the Day slot.
Religious people need to be made aware that a philosophy of life which embraces logic and rationality above superstition and blind belief in intangibles is a good and moral way to live.
By accepting the reality that we have one life here on earth we all have a moral imperative to be kind to and respect each others well being, health safety and right to have a good life.
Religion causes so much war, terrorism , conflict and disharmony in the world and atheists and humanists cannot , like some religious people do, justify treating each other badly and risking world peace with war and terrorism.
Terrorism with its origins in religion is making the world a more dangerous place , I want people to know that there are other ways to live. Please listen to our peaceful and harmonious voice and respect our wishes as much as you do those of religious people.
Complain about this comment
Why are all those messages blanked???
Spooky.
Complain about this comment
Difficult to comment without being able to read the other (as yet unmoderated) comments, and I'm sure someone else will have made similar points to those below.
Mark Damazer's remark that 'the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection' misses the essential point - which is that TFTD comes in the midst of a highly regarded news/current affairs programme, which thus confers a spurious legitimacy/credibility upon the views expressed by contributors.
One is also tempted to ask what is so special about a 'faith perspective' on issues of the day? Why does there seem to be an underlying assumption that holding certain kinds of irrational beliefs (but not others) qualifies somebody to comment with special insight on worldly issues at all?
Perhaps in the interests of the 'balance' that Damazer mentions more than once TFTD should also host contributions from spiritualist mediums; alien abductees; the reincarnated (it would be interesting to hear Alexander the Greek's thoughts on the current Middle-East situation, don't you think?); satanists and other similarly deluded souls.
Failing that, pull it and put it somewhere else in the schedule, so the rest of us don't have to turn over to Radio 3 for five minutes while driving to work...
Complain about this comment
"the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection."
This is predicated on the erroneous belief that people who have faith are in some way better qualified to comment on the ethical or moral issues that surround the news of the day. This is both discriminatory and entirely lacking in in any evidential basis. In point of fact, if we examine the average religious content of the news it generally involves inter-religious violence.
"We believe that broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot."
How about a male only opinion slot, that would be distinctive enough? Perhaps a no gays or disabled comment slot? Again, quite distinctive.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the day is some calm reflection from a wide range of interesting people from a diverse range of faiths. The thoughts are generally informed by faith but applicable to all, I as, at the very least agnostic, would be extremely saddened to lose this interesting, and let's be honest, very short slot from my morning journey to work. Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
I cannot support Mark Damazer's arguments for a totally religious content to thought for the day. Though he might argue that the Today programme is devoted to "secular concerns" there is a world of difference between the presentation of news issues with open discussion and allowing one particular type of thought (religious) a select spot to make unchallenged comment. This does not lie well with the "careful balance" he alludes to in his next paragraph. The faith based monopoly of thought for the day continues the myth that only religions are capable of making moral judgements on issues, which I feel is insulting to atheists, a group who in this country are also a "considerable membership" of the listening community. So can the BBC finally reflect 21st century Britain ? Its continued discrimination against Humanist thinking in Thought for the day remains a disgrace and a glaring imbalance of broadcasting.
Complain about this comment
Whilst supporting the premise of Thought for the Day (in fact I started Listening to Radio 4 because of it!) and as someone who is not a follower (or supporter) of any faith I find the majority of the speakers very balanced in their views, I just wish the majority of the followers of their respective faiths were also.
Thought for the Day need not be a religious slot and I do not see it that way. In fact to claim it is, is in fact insulting to those of us who would rather see Religion of ALL kinds removed from society as a block to peace and living together in harmony.
Putting it bluntly, Religious zealots don't have the ability to think at all - at least not for themselves.
Complain about this comment
Utterly predictable response from the avowedly religious BBC.
I am not sure where it is detailed in the BBC charter to spend licence payers money on advertising nonsense dressed up as fact, but they persist regardless.
The wooly thinking and bias runs deep at the beeb eh!
And the BBC's statement that some one as deluded as a vicar and some one as far from reality as an imam would have any qualification at all to comment on the important issues of the day diminishes the good standing of the show and the BBC as a whole.
What's more, the idea that becuase lots of people are religious their wooly views should be reflected in a show as important as the Today program beggars belief. Lots of people smoke canabis, perhaps Howard Marks should have a slot also?
We demand to know, is the BBC a religious organisation? All evidence suggests yes! If so, I demand my licence fee back now.
Complain about this comment
I fail to see why it is even a difficult question. Why not have 8 minutes of the show in French or Punjabi to represent elements of the population? Also, please look at the religious attendance figures.
The Today programme subjects topics to scrutiny (except when they have religious figures on e.g. this morning with the homophobic bishop). This morning's 'issue of the day' was an attempt without debate and therefore fear of contradiction to equate some stone age nonsense with the theory of evolution by natural selection as another contributor did earlier in the week. Religious thought contributes NOTHING as they wrigggle and try to say 'I told you so' from their fairy tales. Incidentally, religion tends to be explicitly or implicitly featured in any numberof other items whether it be the above mentioned adoption by gay couples or the crisis in Gaza.
PS - Detracting from the distinctiveness of unremitting drivel would be a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Dear sir
As it was my complaint to the BBC regarding the lack of an atheist voice on Thought for the Day and the astonishing response from Mark Damazer, that reignited this debate, I thought it worth publishing the exchange again and I challenge the BBC to publish it unedited in this blog.
My complaint:
"Thought for the Day" explicitly excludes contributions from those who profess no faith; this is extremely insulting to agnostics and atheists who probably account for the majority of the UK population. For all the issues that are examined on "Thought for the Day" there is a distinctive non-religious moral perspective.
One concludes that the BBC endorses the assertion that morality is inevitably linked to religious belief and that faith confers additional authority to the speaker. In a secular society such as our, this is an unacceptable policy. I therefore ask the BBC to ensure that in future "Thought for the Day" will allow contributions from outside religious groups despite the discomfort that this may bring to those who produce it.
Damazer’s response:
TfTD is commissioned as a theological reflection on current events. It is not an opinion piece. All contributors are told to ground their 'thought' in their own theological tradition, using the words of scripture or liturgy that have been worn smooth as a pebble by centuries of repetition and devotion. Their authority is drawn from faiths that have survived the centuries, including periods of persecution and intense scrutiny and still proved themselves valid. It is therefore a unique voice on the BBC. I would contend that the BBC should strive to maintain its 'uniqueness' in an increasingly overcrowded market place and serve the audience by giving them a chance to hear a perspective from the great faith traditions that have shaped our society and continue to wield enormous influence over current
events.
So if you change the commissioning brief to allow in secular voices it would no longer be Thought for the Day and I hear no appetite for such a change from Radio Four.
I do not accept that the majority of the country are atheistic or agnostic.
The last census showed 71% declaring themselves Christian and another 8% spiritual. Since then with immigration continuing apace from countries more religious than our own I see no reason to think the religious majority has declined. In a survey a few years ago Radio Four discovered that one in four of its audience go to a worship service every week so we know there is a lot of interest in the subject.
Secularism has not swept religion aside as some would have hoped, indeed some academics are writing about the new visibility of religion, albeit more fractured and fragmented than before. With religion so high on the agenda it would be a strange time to change the one place where it is possible to hear the intelligent religious voice in a secular setting and understand something of why millions if not billions of people still put faith at the centre of their lives.
Yours sincerely
Mark Damazer
BBC Controller Radio 4
My reply to his response:
Dear Mr Damazer
Thank you for your response to my correspondence. However I am astonished at its contents. In your opening paragraph you endorse the assertion that faith confers additional authority to the speaker and that morality is inevitably linked to religious belief.
Let me quote you: “Their authority is drawn from faiths that have survived the centuries, including periods of persecution and intense scrutiny and still proved themselves valid”.
As a private individual you have every right to hold these views but as the controller of BBC Radio 4 this partisan view is in opposition to your public service obligation of neutrality, objectivity and fairness. One is left in no doubt that the “authority is drawn from faiths” in your opinion justifies a ban on those who have no faith contributing to this programme.
You go on to say “So if you change the commissioning brief to allow in secular voices it would no longer be Thought for the Day” again your prejudice is staggering. The secular voice would include those who are atheist, agnostic and humanist, who are every bit as qualified and concerned to comment on current events in the context of an ethical and moral perspective as those of religious faith.
You continue “and I hear no appetite for such a change from Radio Four”. Perhaps you should visit the BBC forums and message boards where this complaint is regularly expressed.
You say “and serve the audience by giving them a chance to hear a perspective from the great faith traditions that have shaped our society and continue to wield enormous influence over current events”. These great faiths were also responsible for 9/11, 7/ll and countess other atrocities throughout human history and yet you still assert their moral authority.
As regards the extent of religious belief in the UK you state “The last census showed 71% declaring themselves Christian” and “In a survey a few years ago Radio Four discovered that one in four of its audience go to a worship”. I am happy to accept this statistic if it would result in TftD being delivered by a contributor who does not have a faith agenda on one day of every week that the programme is broadcast.
I ask you once more to change your mind
Yours sincerely
Graham Davis
Complain about this comment
If we must have a Tftd slot on the Today programme then the atheist, humanist,rationalist, secularist viewpoint should be heard. The absence of our views implies that only the religious can have moral and ethical views.
Complain about this comment
Having explored the issue, I now see this is a concerted media campaign and people have been encouraged in a certain newspaper to flood the Today programme with calls for non-religious T4TD content. (I won't name the newspaper as I don't want to add to the problem.)
It is curious, isn't it, that this comes up on the IPM Blog at the same time? This is clearly a coordinated campaign, not an accidental upsurge of popular sentiment. It is good to know what you are up against, and even more reason for the BBC to maintain the status quo and play us a rousing chorus of the Agincourt battle hymn: Non nobis Domine. Not to us Lord but to you belongs the victory! :-)
Complain about this comment
The people who want to stop others hearing Thought for The Day remind me of the militant walkers who, having sole right as pedestrians to 99%+ of the countrys paths, campaigned and largely won the exclusion of powered vehicles from the miniscule percentage of ancient roads which were open to them.
Is it not enough that Today is 197 minutes of secular content? How can they live with themselves having the nerve to agitate against 3% reserved for people of faith?
It seems to me that in both cases, the caricatures of religious people as intolerant bigots and off-road drivers/riders as selfish and noisy apply more accurately to their respective detractors. Live and let live please.
Complain about this comment
Contrary to your claim, most of your contributors to Thought for the Day are the same people who invariably have a religious background.
The slot is totally irrelevant to our needs. There is not a jot of evidence for the existence of any "God" of any description, on earth or anywhere else. Human moral behaviour is derived from our evolved inheritance and this has been been clearly demonstrated by research. (See amongst others Marc Hauser of Harvard) We do not need the meanderings of clerics or worst of all the execrable Ann Atkins (whoever she may be) to hand out advice on how we should live.
One program that has delighted me over the last few days has been Melvyn Bragg on Darwin. This has done a little to hopefully enlighten people of our origins and to show that evolution and not God is responsible for our existence.
Complain about this comment
For me the difficulty in swallowing what is often nonsense and more than often hypocrisy in these broadcasts is that religion itself has not moved on out of the patriarchal mindset that hijacked all religions sometime in the far and distant past.
This is the 21st century for gawd sake, but we still have men and some women too who talk about a Lord God, he and him and sons and fathers.
This adoration of the male and the shear indifference and denial of the meaningful existence of the female except in her role as the breeders of sons is really rather over the top wouldn't you say?
I'd like to hear some of these contributors taking on the moral responsibility for the appalling misogyny that exists in all cultures to a greater or lesser extent. This misogyny has been bolstered and maintained in the name of one religion or another and I'd like to hear its adherents coming to terms with and facing up to this sad and indeed violent state of affairs.
If we must have these religious folk pontificating and claiming the moral high ground then lets hear them address the dreadful sadistic practices that are carried out in the name of their various religions, lets hear then loudly disclaim the need for say FGM, and many other gender violent practices that are carried out in the name of a religion.
Complain about this comment
I'm not new I've been commenting here for a very long time look at the date of enlisting.
Complain about this comment
I'm not new, look at my date of enlisting.
Complain about this comment
are your moderators stuck somewhere on the West coast line??
or have some job cuts at the BBC not been announced?
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day is well overdue for the axe. I was unimpressed by Mr Damazer's arguments: the Today programme has earned a reputation as one of this country's prime sources for news output in any medium. It deals (or should deal) with current affairs in a balanced, critical and even-handed way. I, like several contributors, find the attitude of several speakers to those of us without faith as patronising, and even insulting on occasions. Just because I don't go to church/mosque/synagogue, it does not mean that I occupy some sort of moral wasteland. There is a well developed history of non-religious moral philosophy that is ignored by almost all TFTD contributors.
I was amused to read that Mr Damazer thinks that the programme 'Sunday' gives a voice to atheists. Has he actually listened to this programme recently? It practically never consults those with a non-religious viewpoint.
I am not against religious broadcasting per se, but there is a time and a place for it, and TFTD occupies neither.
Complain about this comment
Re Post #31 -
'All children have an intuitive acceptance of God only for adolescence to erode this. Many adults retain this outlook and Thought for the Day speaks to them.'
My two small children display an intuitive acceptance of Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, Harry Potter and sundry other improbable fictional creations, though I'm sure that well before they reach adolescence they'll have realised the truth. The fact that 'Many adults retain this outlook ' should be a serious concern to us all...
Complain about this comment
If you don't like what the Thought for the day contributors have to say you can perfectly well ignore them. If you disagree with a religious point of view on the basis that it is not based on proven fact etc etc and dislike being "preached at" you should think hard about what many politicians have to say for themselves. Shall we ban them also ? I applaud the notion of giving balance.
Complain about this comment
wemberlee@10. Religion and sport are inextricably linked. In fact you could say they are the same. One team tries to beat, or kill, the other team. They are unhappy in co-existence. Sometimes they use footballs, but more often guns, bullets, bombs. The victors win silver cups, or they win land, or power. Sport and religion are the same dreary and endless game.
Do not imagine they differ. It is irrational to do so.
Complain about this comment
The time taken to publish comments here is a bit odd. Why pre-moderate...
Sorry, silly question! We can see that Athiests have no morals, and that Athiests have nothing to offer any debate, at least that is what the controller of Radio 4 says in his statement above, so perhaps its hardly surprising that his moderators are hesitating to publish the comments here. Just in case we are all nasty about the poor little baby jesus or something horrid like that!
Regards,
A Baby Eating Athiest. Free from moral obligation or any ethical standards whatsoever. That's the BBC's view of me at least. For shame!
Complain about this comment
Although a humanist I will always defend the right of others to practise their religion as long as they do not try to impose their views on me.I feel the latter is exactly what the BBC is facilitating by scheduling TFTD in the middle of the Today programme.
I try to switch it off but ineviatably miss part of the rest of the programme by not switching back on in time.
If the BBC feel they must continue to give air time to allow religious propagandists to impose their views on all of us why not move the slot to the end of "Today" and thus allow the 30%ish of listeners like me to switch off without the fear of missing any of the factual news/discussions etc.
Go on Mark----You know this makes sense! Maybe not , I'm a mere listener!
Complain about this comment
Wrong. This slot is many decades out of date and should be abolished. If it was 50 per cent atheist, fair enough. But religious leaders no longer hold the rights to morality in society. Religion is to blame for most wars and conflict, and is based on Iron Age ridiculous fairy stories, which fewer and fewer people believe. I'm a Radio 4 fanatic, but I loathe this ridiculous Thought For The Day and want it off (even more than The Archers). Get Rid Of Thought For The Day, and forget your twaddle in support of it, Mr Controller, your comments are ridiculous. Off ! Get it off! (Or make it Humanist).
Complain about this comment
Why not just move it back to the 6.45am slot when true believers who want to listen to it can set their alarm clocks.
I listen to Today for insightful balanced and challenged comment not unchallenged, biased and sometimes bigotted, narrow-minded vacuous platitude which TFTD mostly is.
The 'argument' that it is the only non-secular bit within the programme and hence secular voices shouldn't have a say in TFTD is a poor one. I have no religious beliefs but I do have thoughts that are not mentioned within the news items and which wold be very apt for a TFTD slot.
Either make TFTD fully exclusive, move it to 6.45am or put it on MW at the sametime. Make TFTD inclusive for all, after all isn;t that what all the religions say htey are?
Complain about this comment
Given the size of the church going population in proportion to the overall population size we would need around 10 secular speakers for every one of religious persuasion at which point it would give a fair reflection of society's opinions. As scientist I would like the opportuntiy to respond to all the religeous people who have been on recently claiming God guided evolution because they cant get away from the fact that the creation story is clearly incorrect. The fact that I have no religeous angle to this seems to preclude me from commenting.
This spot has little relevance to me and I suspect many of your listners, its only benefit to me is that if it starts when I am still on the A1 I'm running late, if it starts when I reach the outskirts of Leeds Im ahead.
Complain about this comment
Reading all the above leads me to a question: Why is it that perfectly reasonable people revert to blind prejudice in their drive to marginalise anything whatever to do with the idea of God?
Complain about this comment
Mr Damazer's defence of the "god slot" would appear to be that, for the remaining 2 hours and 57 minutes of quite excellent FACTUAL coverage of home and international events, quirks and other newsworthy items, we can feel comfortable in the knowledge that we are sharing the experience with all listeners without thought for the content, be it of a religious nature or otherwise.
I fail to see then, why for 3 whole minutes of the programme, we should be forced to listen to often pointless, theological drivel which, with the exception of a very tiny proportion of humanist contributions, would seem bent on attempting to steer those of us who have evidently "strayed" to come back to the fold, in the forlorn hope that all ills of the world will seemingly be corrected as a result.
Surely the provision of any such platform for one-sided commentary is biased broadcasting? Perhaps the answer would be to accrue the 3 minutes per day and present a fortnightly half-hour programme dedicated to the rather fatuous religious-heavy ponderings, which appear to be the norm during the Today programme?
Of course, I used the term "forced" above. That's not entirely true, as I nearly always tune into Uncle Tel and crew on Radio Two when Thought for the Day is aired. One man's religion is, in this case, another man's Terry Wogan!
Complain about this comment
I listen to Today daily and find Thought for the Day offensive. There are many reasons I could give for this, but the most straightforward is that it clearly discriminates against a significant group within society - atheists.
It is (rightly) unimaginable that the BBC would bar a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Black person, homosexual, Scot or woman from participating in a particular programme and yet the discrimination against atheists in this slot is absolute.
I am pleased that this debate is being had. I hope the BBC Trust reads the contributions and responds accordingly.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day gets turned off here if it’s by anyone one remotely religious.
No rational person has time to listen to guesswork by pop stars talking about politics or union leaders talking about global economics or actresses discussing medical matters.
Religious people talking about real life are just as poorly qualified. Their ideas are predicated on basic propositions which they refuse to validate but which they then, unaccountably, insist on broadcasting as if they had some sort of objective merit.
Gordon Brown’s spoutings also get turned off for exactly the same reason!
The UK had has more than 100 years of compulsory education and yet some people still try to solve real problems using mythical propositions and it’s just too depressing to listen to them trying…
Complain about this comment
Fantastic. So pleased my comments have started this thread.
Brilliant points by all the rational majority. But special respect to:
largeorangegoblin
"I think the most worrying thing about thought for the day is a lack of response. In every other segment an opposition point of view is put across. Why should the thought for the day be unchallenged simply because it is religious?"
and
spark15
Quoting Damazer: In the midst of the three hour Today programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns
"What's secular about the reporting of Shiha muslims killing Sunni muslims in Iraq? Or the ongoing naval-gazing soul-searching within the Anglican church as it tries to come to terms with women and gays .
Or maybe the reporting of the pope who thinks that people should stop doing this or start doing that."
Have to come back at:
FreddyMzungu for
"All children have an intuitive acceptance of God"
Yes they do, Freddy, that’s because they havbe an intuitive acceptance of everything adults tell them. So let’s stop telling them fibs?
and
johnmalham for
"I was struck by the thought that Though for the Day shouldn't be in a 'fact' based programme. I have faith because the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection make it the best explaination of all of those facts."
That’s fine John, and every time The Today Programme covers a story for which the best witness was someone not present at the events, writing 40 years afterwards, you can have the Thought for the Day slot too.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark, Yes, there certainly is `a case for widening the pool of contributors on TFTD by having someone [those] with an avowedly non religious perspective.`
You`re dealing with a legacy issue. TFTD started as a wholly Christian slot, then it began including speakers from other religions.
If you were starting a radio station today, would you automatically think that the morning news programme should feature `a slot offer[ing] a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection . . . on an issue of the day from [a] faith perspective`? I doubt it.
However TFTD is now established and has a large captive audience, attracted by the surrounding news output. I imagine it is quite strongly defended by producers with personal religious convictions.
Over the past few decades Christian church attendance has dropped sharply, as has the importance of religion in people`s lives and belief in a supernatural `God`, afterlife etc. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday.
Research by Tearfund (a Christian development agency) in 2006 found that two thirds of UK adults (66%) or 32.2 million people have no connection with church at present (nor with another religion) and only a quarter of the UK population said they `believe in a personal god`.
If we use the figures (which I think are on the conservative side) from the complaintresponse I received from BBC complaints [`a significant majority of the UK population, around 70%, including increasing numbers from non Christian faiths, claim a belief in God or describe themselves as spiritual.`] then 30% of the UK population do not now believe in God or describe themselves as `spiritual`, however `spiritual` is defined (Is astrology a spiritual belief?).
Yet that 30% still represents a substantial number (18m) of the UK population; all we humanists/agnostics/atheists are asking for is equality of representation. I am sure that others of an open mind will also welcome such views being expressed. A thought for the day should include thoughts you may not normally be exposed to, not just the familiar.
The tradition argument is a closed one: `It is this way because it is this way.` Imagine if that argument was used to exclude, say, Catholics who make up just 10% of the UK population.
You point out that outside TFTD `the BBC`s religious output contains both religious and non religious voices in programmes such as Sunday, Beyond Belief, Moral Maze.` I think this makes it more difficult to plead that TFTD be treated as a special case; why should TFTD only have religious contributors when other religious/moral programming does include non religious voices?
It can`t be argued that ethics, morality or the ability to think and reflect on the issues of the day are the sole preserve of either the religious or the merely `spiritual`. Nor is having a conscience or displaying `humanity` towards others.
You do not need religious belief for example to have an ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others (an ethic of reciprocity).
Philosophers over the centuries have debated the best basis for the conduct of human affairs, ones that don`t rely on belief in supernatural beings or the authority of a church.
I do not claim that humanist/atheist thinking is infallible, just that we be given the same opportunity to be wrong as the religious are. There are also healthy debates between those without religious convictions.
You never know, including humanists/agnostics/atheists on TFTD may even help increase Today`s audience and re energise how the audience engages `with the comments and ideas expressed by our contributors. . . whether they are believers or not.`
Complain about this comment
I'd rather have a 3-minute Tip of The Day - how to prune a rose, how to sharpen kitchen knives, where to find the best wild mushrooms, how to paint faces or the best way to carry a python.
I don't need grown men or women telling me about how much their imaginary friend loves them.
How to be in touch with national opinion - there's another one.
Complain about this comment
Only one other speaker on the Today Program gets the chance to speak their mind without being challenged on it by an interviewer. Can you imagine a politician being allowed to speak uninterrupted for three minutes on the program? Only the weatherman gets that privilege, and no one believes them either.
Complain about this comment
Mr Damazer states in his revealing letter to Mr Davis above, that 71% of the population are C of E according to the last Census and consequently justifies the religious monopoly of TFTD.
However, this is statistic is largely meaningless, as Jeremy Paxman said so accurately in his book "The English":
“[In history, the English] were not in any meaningful sense religious, the Church of England being a political invention which had elevated being 'a good chap' to something akin to canonization. On the occasions when bureaucracy demanded they admit an allegiance, they could write 'C of E' in the box and know that they wouldn't be bothered by demands that they attend church” .
Of far greater interest to the relevance or rather irrelevance of the religious slot within TFTD, is that in most people's lives in the UK, 66% (the majority) or 32.2m adults in the UK have no connection with church at present. These people are evenly split between those who have been in the past & have since left (16m) & those who have never been to church in their lives (16.2m) This secular majority have a right to expect the BBC to provide at least a secular view in addition to the religious minority view currently occupying ad nauseam TFTD. (Source: Christian relief & development agency Tearfund's survey of 7,000 representative UK adults in 2006)
Complain about this comment
If Mark Damazer thinks this is a genuinely difficult question, he must find some of the arguments against TFTD persuasive. Instead of providing us with a balanced account of the reasons for and against, he simply states the reasons why the status quo should be maintained. I for one would like to hear him explain those arguments against TFTD which make this, for him, a genuinely difficult question. Everything else in his statement suggests that he found his answer very easily indeed.
Complain about this comment
There should be more faith based broadcasting. People who can't cope with there being something on a magazine format programme such as Today that they don't like are missing the point of the format. That's why I made the ironic point about Cricket earlier.
The fact that the programme is consistent in its timing means you can organise what you do around it. I am away from the rdio when sport is on. Those who do not wish to Thought for the Day can be in the shower, running for the tube or out of earchot for those few minutes at the same time each day.
The strength of the magazine format is the variety of styles and topics.
Thank God for a time of reflection!
Complain about this comment
A lot of these comments seem to think that thought for the day is the only bit of the Today programme that is unchallenged --I must disallusion most of those who think the placid interviews of people mixed up in fraud, deception, war or corruption are challenging --what is so disappointing is how both presenters and apparently some listeners are taken in by these interviews and soundbites which are made to justify either dishonest activity or lethargic inactivity.
Maybe if we had a three minute thought for the day followed by five minutes of discussion or reflection -- but that might be to much thought for those that only want news and unchallenged comments.
Complain about this comment
Damazer clearly needs to think more deeply about his 'difficult question'. 'Today' is a news programme, when people are interviewed on it they are asked to justify what they say on the basis of evidence, not just a belief that their idea is true. Extolling views based on imaginary friends is not evidence. I've heard it said that TftD is an opportunity for those of a religious bent to give a moral or ethical comment on the news, but are they the only people who are allowed by the BBC to have such views? In any case why should they be allowed a special slot of their own? If they have something news worthy to say then report it as news - the fact that the BBC continues with TftD suggests that the imaginary friend brigade actually have little of value to contribute.
Complain about this comment
cycling thomas - "It is faith which catapults us into action in the real world. It is faith which makes our engagement there more focussed, more energetic, and frankly more sacrificial."
It may well be so in your case, but your comment contains a tacit suggestion that the millions without faith don't engage with the 'real world' in a focussed, energetic and 'sacrificial' way, which is highly patronising and blatantly untrue.
What motivates most rational, intelligent people to 'engage in the real world' is informed comment on situations (and that engagement may be via comment, political activity, voluntary work, charitable donation; none of the these are the sole preserve of people of faith). The 2 hrs, 57 mins of informed debate within Today programme is a far greater help in motivating the majority to this end than the 3 minutes of patronising drivel!
Complain about this comment
The BBC remit should and does offer content for a wide range of listeners. A five minute slot on various religious perspectives of current issues is quite reasonable, in my opinion.
By the way, as per any media outlet, self-censorship is just a button/dustbin away.
If any atheists feels hard done by - get together, develop some interesting content, then send it in.
BTW, hope you all had a good Christmas holiday (Christian or pagan version).
Complain about this comment
I think it's only right to widen it so that atheists and agnostics can also present. I'm sure there are such people who have some wonderful things to say that can be morally uplifting and it would be good to explore other rationale for compassion and service or other approaches to complex questions of the day. It is a shame to deny them this.
Why deny them this? Is there a fear somewhere? Why should Thought For The Day be restricted to people of certain faiths?
Does it hurt a Christian listener any more to listen to a humanist talking about how they see the world then it hurts them already to listen to a Muslim or a Hindu?
It is outright discrimination to rule that members of such a significant part of our society cannot have a say on a public service radio program aimed at providing a moral viewpoint. There is no justifiable reason to assume that atheists and agnostics are not qualified to make such broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
The objection is NOT to having religion and religious viewpoints covered on Today (or any other news and current affairs programme). The objection IS to having it covered in a discriminatory way by not being subject to mediation or editing. Speakers often use the slot to say very controversial and tendentious things and they ought to be subject to journalistic questioning like any other speaker advocating a special interest.
If there IS going to be an unmediated slot, it ought not to be discriminatory and should be open to people of all philosophical stances.
Complain about this comment
If you don't believe that atheists can have moral views - some of the comments here seem to reflect this - then take a look at some philosophy books. I particularly like Andre Compte-Sponville including his "Little book of philosophy" which is an excellent introduction to ideas of moral and ethical behaviour. He gives reasons for compassion and so many of the things we see as good that do not come from a god's dictates but come from philosophical reasoning.
Barbarians at the gate indeed! Barbarians within if you're going to say that!
I challenge also the idea that the opposite of "bowing down to a god" is "being selfish and greedy". I'd say in practice there is little correlation between the two. We get good Christians and bad Christians, good atheists and bad atheists. It seems that what matters is not which god you worship if any but something else about how you are as a person and how you live.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the day is worth keeping - mostly... Usually it is better than listening to your interviews with politicians!
Complain about this comment
TFTD is not well balanced, all the major religions are male dominated. Where is the representation of people who don’t believe women are second class citizens? I have sent three e-mails to the BBC complaints page about this raising specific legal human rights legislation points on this in the last two months, and have never received a reply to any of them. This is just how much of an open consultation this is. I’ve been trying to give my point of view on this and ask questions that deserve a reply and the BBC ignored it.
TFTD is a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Could we please also make sure the Astrologists get a chance at TFTD, many millions of people read their stars every day, it would be wrong to deny people of that faith an equal platform.
Complain about this comment
This campaign is a scam and needs to be exposed. A little web work will show you the trail. Gavin Orland - the coordinator of this campaign - and fellow travellers like Jim Sting are now posting on the Richard Dawkins official website to let everyone know they have honoured their 'pledge' to complain to the BBC, and the real agenda here is quite clear. I call it a 'scam' because they are not telling us who they are (i.e. Dawkins' Fan Club), but what they won't tell you is their hero has actually contributed a Thought for the Day, quite some time ago. It had little to say except bickering about faith, as usual.
Complain about this comment
@Happyf1sh: "If any atheists feels hard done by - get together, develop some interesting content, then send it in."
I really don't think you've got your head round this topic, have you Happy?
Complain about this comment
Every month we should have a Ms.God. week. As Her ubiquitous ladyship is not vocal I offer up her thought for the day.
And lo! God will demand to be brought before her the foreskins of every male child born that week and the Arch Angel Gabriella will sew a coat from the said skins and the coat shall be soaked in the menstrual blood of all women and girls of the world till it glows red with the sorrow of their treatment under patriarchy.
And lo! the men will repent and ask Ms God for forgiveness for the all the raped women in the wars, they will ask for forgiveness for the men who rape in the D.R. Congo, in Somalia, the UN soldiers who rape the little refugees supposedly under their protection, those who raped in Kosovo, the little child wives in Afghanistan, India and Africa, the teenage UK ethnic girls forced into marriage, and all girls forced into marriage, and those little girls who suffer the most horrific abuse, the abomination of FGM. And the men will reflect and take responsibility for the their atrocities and no longer will they deny the carrying out of these horrors and they will learn to respect women.
Complain about this comment
TFTD is a unique slot where religious monomaniacs are allowed to shoehorn their irrational viewpoint on a news item into a current affairs programme.
Name one religious programme where an atheist point of view is allowed a 3 minute unanswered reign.
You're clearly determined to retain the huge imbalance of religious programming, and determined to offer no explanation why. Your defence of TFTD is no such thing - it is simply a restatement of what the slot is, with no justification for its existence, let alone its continued existence.
Allowing the religious this slot is equivalent to allowing crystal healers to comment on medical stories or inflicting a 3 minute horoscope on us.
Complain about this comment
The reason why the BBC will not open up this 3 minute slot of religious propaganda can be summarised in one word: fear. Currently, TFTD requires its presenters to hold a religious faith. By artificially restricting the slot to believers it is able to maintain the impression that they have a distinctive moral and ethical perspective. Sometimes this is quite explicit - presenters frequently state, apparently oblivious to how insulting this is, that only those with a religious faith can have the insights that they possess.
Priests, imams, rabbis, and the religious establishment in general, have a huge investment in the faith industry. It's how they make their living after all. They have been forced to retreat over the centuries from an ever increasing number of areas of human endeavour, areas where "god did it" has become a clearly inadequate explanation. The idea that they have some monopoly on morality is one of the few remaining pillars of their industry. If they allow the non-religious to provide similar reflections then this myth is shattered.
This is why they are so afraid of letting non-religious voices be heard on TFTD. It'll put them out of business and they know it.
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole@105: In what sense was the campaign ever supposed to be a secret? (Clue: it wasn't.) Just because Gavin thought of co-coordinating objections to TFFD doesn't mean that those objections aren't genuine or heartfelt. I shout at the radio most days listening to the amazing inanity of many of the comments. Mona Siddiqui's stunning "thought" in late December about how we should all be careful not to be seduced by games such as Second Life in case we become obsessed by what is not "real" was a particularly illustrative case, considering that the whole foundation for the slot as it stands is that which is (probably!) not real.
Complain about this comment
`I call it a `scam` because they are not telling us who they are (i.e. Dawkins` Fan Club), but what they won`t tell you is their hero has actually contributed a Thought for the Day, quite some time ago. It had little to say except bickering about faith, as usual.` # 105
There`s no secret, Gavin late last year posted a pledge: `I will e-mail the BBC to object to `Thought for the Day` but only if 100 other people will too. The fact that humanist, non-religious contributors are excluded from the slot gives the impression the BBC believes morality is the exclusive remit of religious people, which is offensive, unrepresentative and untrue.` on the PledgeBank website and people (many more than 100) signed up and passed the idea on via social networking sites, emails and so on.
Dawkins was allowed to broadcast once (in 2002) and did not replace the regular daily slot but ran an hour afterwards as an unofficial `Thought`. Dawkins simply argued science gave a better explanation of life than religion.
As 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin it should come as no surprise that many people believe the explanation of science more than they do any scripture; It is hardly an extreme position, far less `bickering`.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2193321.stm
One slot for an evolutionist in the past 58 years, Gosh! Wow! That`s hardly balanced or fair is it? Must we be condemned to another 200 years where various scripture (essentially ancient myths and legends) is judged to be the sole basis for explaining the Universe and life, where science and philosophy is considered unfit to contribute anything of value to human thought?
Would contributions from, say, Phillip Pullman, Terry Pratchett, Salman Rushdie, A.C. Grayling, Baroness Susan Greenfield, Russell T Davies or Stephen Hawking (all declared atheists) really contribute nothing to a TFTD?
Why are they considered to have nothing to contribute to any debate about our origins, our possible futures, world events or ethics simply because they do not believe in ancient scriptures as revealed truth or in supernatural deities?
Complain about this comment
I'm pleased that I'm not the only one who sees it as the cue to leave for work.
I sometimes listen to it but it is often not a thought and not topical or relevant. I echo the comments of others - have religious broadcasters on there but also balance it for the third of us that don't follow any particular religion and have something for us too.
Complain about this comment
IanCEdmond@110
Mona Siddiqui's Second Life slot was indeed the most bizarre and incongruous 'Thought' I've ever heard.
Shakespeare himself couldn't have written dramatic irony better: with all intelligent members of the audience seeing the blatant folly invisible to the speaker.
To paraphrase her:
"Let's return to the real world; focus on the tangible physical life; believe in my giant sky pixie!"
I almost had to have the Heimlich maneuver administered, as I attempted to laugh, shout, weep and swallow a mouthful of bran flakes all at once.
Complain about this comment
I agree with other comments that the concept of TFTD is good, but it should definitely not be exclusive to religion. A balance of speakers from fields such as philosophy, education, science, business, politics, and religion would be much more fitting with the supposed editorially independent ethos of the BBC and the Today programme. As an indication of the balance I would see as about right, religious speakers would have access to this slot perhaps once a fortnight rather than every day.
Complain about this comment
Many Radio 4 listeners I have spoken to over the years agree with me in finding the presence of "Thought for the Day" in the middle of the BBC's news flagship, the "Today" programme, utterly anomalous.
TTFD, I understand, is produced by the Religion & Ethics Department, and it seems absurd that specifically religious viewpoints should be put forward without contradiction in a context where no statement by anybody else is allowed to go unquestioned.
The underlying assumption seems to be that religious views are automatically more ethical, more helpful and more worthy of consideration than secular ones; an assumption which seems to me unfounded.
Since such assumptions seem to be unshakable at the Religion & Ethics Department, there seems little likelihood of this slot's being opened up by them to give secular thinkers a reasonable share. This being so, perhaps the slot could either be wrested from the grasp of this department or moved into a completely different context, rather than interrupting an otherwise excellent news programme.
I might also add that the current arrangement seems to infringe your own editorial guidelines on impartiality and diversity of opinion.
Complain about this comment
This is an old debate – and comes around with remarkable regularity from a bunch of ‘intellectuals’ who seem to have an unusual amount of sway in the public media.
Your controller is quite right to say that it is a genuinely difficult question and it’s good to keep the debate going. But beware of the siren voices of the media influencers.
The BBC is right to carry on its Thought for the Day policy.
There is plenty of room in most of the Today programme for contemporary thoughts to challenge and enlighten every aspect of our lives from every perspective.
Those of us who analyse our lives through a spiritual prism need to be challenged and encouraged with the rigour that Thought for the Day facilitates. It is important and valuable that speakers present a connection with ancient thinking and traditions which have stood tests of time and have been of value to millions of people.
We are glad – are we not – for the Christian inspiration of architects of old who created wonderful structures which now challenge the pragmatism and plain functionality of many modern buildings.
Just as we recognise the place and value of both types of building in our modern environment, so with our thinking, society - and the Today programme schedules - can be enriched by the challenge of the best in spiritual tradition and understanding.
Complain about this comment
What a depressing and blinkered response for all the excellent reasons given previously.
When does the listenership get a chance to actually influence the output ?
To assuage frustration, I recommend http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php for a humourous translation of the daily tripe that is 0850 on BBC R4.
Complain about this comment
SheefTim: I think my point was quite clear: when a lobby group takes an action without declaring who they are, it is up to the rest of us to find out and expose the true agenda. Now that your supporters are quite openly having to admit this was all connected to the Richard Dawkins Fan Club, the true agenda is there for all to see on the Radio 4 blog.
When the voice of atheism sets itself up as a new fundamentalist religion (even with its own T-shirts now, I see on your website!), then it needs to recognise that it has a lot of catching up to do in developing the language of interfaith dialogue. You have a long way to go.
Complain about this comment
Rabbitfoole @ #105
There is no scam, and we will tell you who we are. My Name is James Palmer and I live in West Sussex, if that makes you feel any better.
Yes, I have posted on the Richard Dawkins Forum telling people about this cause, and those there that agree with this cause may be contributing to this debate. Other atheists that are not that bothered about this debate haven't.
Organising Atheists is like herding cats, we are free thinkers and make our own descisions based on evidence, our inherent moral compass and social conditioning. It would be impossible to organise a conspiracy. All that has happened is that a few of us that feel strongly on this issue and are sick of being ignored when we complain, have decided to get together for a big push.
Yet still the BBC ignore us. Just like most religious groups they remain steadfastly in the past, and ignorant of modern thinking and unwilling to accept that moral and ethical discussions can occur without defferring to a sky ghost.
Complain about this comment
Was forced to track it down, here's a link to the script of the most perfect piece of dramatic irony and self delusion you may ever read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20081204.shtml
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole@118: The "true agenda" was never hidden. I don't know what you think needs exposing. You talk as if someone was hiding something. Which is nonsense. As is your implication that action taken collectively is somehow less "genuine" than that taken individually.
Care to engage with the actual issues rather than take snide pot-shots at the participants?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, the automatic line break there makes the link fail. God moves in mysterious ways. But remove the 5 letter code from the address line in your browser after /documents/ and before t20081204.shtml and it will magically work again...
Complain about this comment
I am struck by the sheer illogicality of Damazer’s argument:
"... a careful balance is maintained of voices from ... religions with significant membership in the UK" This is an argument about Rights (otherwise why boast about the "careful balance"). How can you possibly argue that the very large number of people who disavow all religion do not have the same right to be heard? Why is the balance between competing religious philosophies considered important while the balance between religious and non-religious philosophies is not?
"... broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot." The brief and the selection of speakers is not the same thing. It would be perfectly possible to broaden the pool of speakers while actually narrowing the brief. Many of the religious speakers would benefit from a narrower brief as they are often not very "spiritual". I dare say an atheist briefed to "address matters of faith in a reflective, thoughtful way" would be at least as interesting as a religious spokesperson under the same brief.
"... in these programmes atheists, humanists and secularists are regularly heard ..." Of course, but so are religious people! The point is that the non-religious are NOT given a fixed length, un-mediated daily slot with no follow-up, questioning or right of reply. They do NOT have some special privilege that requires balancing by Thought for the Day which clearly IS a special privilege.
Do the religious actually want a special, protected ghetto in the schedules where they can be gawked at like animals in a zoo or politicians on a party political broadcast, or Prince Charles on a rant? As an atheist, I would not want a specific slot devoted to atheism as it would imply that atheism cannot survive in open debate. But if there is going to be such a slot, I want atheism to be heard alongside other philosophical stances.
Finally, if sense and fairness cannot prevail here, could you not at least give the slot an honest name? "Religious Message", "Daily Sermon" or even "God Slot" might be appropriate. "Thought for the Day" comes perilously close to contravening the Trade Descriptions Act!
Complain about this comment
Mona Siddiqui's comment late in December
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20081217.shtml
Had this quote in it:
"These various insults are part of wider cultural differences across the globe with many being based on deeper sociological issues of honour and respect. An example of this closer to home has been the recent return from Bangladesh of Humayra Abedin, a 33 year old GP who returned to Britain after allegations that she was being forced into marriage. What may seem like an insult to human dignity to many of us, a 33 year old woman being denied freedom to act in her own interests, is in her cultural context an issue of family honour where very often individual freedom is sacrificed. There are many women like Ms Abedin in Britain who may be rescued by the judicial collaboration of two different countries only to face the ongoing dilemma of how one lives with two different cultural ideals - honouring duty to parents, even parental pressure and at the same time living with freedoms that seem indispensable but can come at a huge personal cost? "
I read into this that she is intimating that it is OK to kidnap and person and hold them against their will as long as it 'has a cultural context'.
There has been no right of reply for anyone apart from the official BBC complaints system (replied to me as saying...no she didn't mean that) or OFCOM (which replied...it's a BBC editorial decision...nothing to do with us guv').
Even without a non-religious view-point in TFTD such comments MUST be challenged and on Today which thrives on balanced debates with two sides TFTD is the un-questioned anachronism.
Complain about this comment
@rabitfoole, #105:
"This campaign is a scam and needs to be exposed. A little web work will show you the trail. "
If it had been organized by church group would that have been a "scam" also, or is that acceptable to you? I call bigotry.
Complain about this comment
My thought for the day is one of wonderment. I'm wondering how on earth Eddie and Chris are going to edit this down to half an hour. But the response is marginally better than 'guess the moustache', so, well done!
Complain about this comment
Does anyone else note the delicious irony of the religious complaining about an atheist lobby group. Religious groups are some of the strongest lobby groups in the country - they have even got their own three minute lobby spot called TFTD.
As for "the Richard Dawkins fan club", at least there is proof that he exists:)
Regards
David Lemon
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole@118:
actually, if you go back to my original comment, which started this ipm story, you will see I made it plain from the beginning that there was a social networking element to this. Though I personally came across something through facebook and am certainly nothing to do with a Richard Dawkins fan club. I've also had many a pub and dinner conversation about the issue.
If anything it only serves to illustrate the strength of feeling there is against this ridiculous anachronism if people are discussing it in so many ways and so many places.
What a joy is this world where we can use instant wireless technology to discuss antiquated desert superstitions.
Complain about this comment
If TFTD is to continue to exclude non-religious views then it should be renamed with an exclusive title.
How about RELIGIOUS THOUGHT FOR THE DAY, or SPIRITUAL TFTD.
As a 'non-believer' I find it totally insulting that the BBC thinks only religious people are capable of moral reflection on the current affairs.
If it is only for religious people, then it should be labelled as such. If it continues with the current all inclusive title then it should include all.
Complain about this comment
"... in these programmes atheists, humanists and secularists are regularly heard ..."
But NOT on 'secular' topics simply topics in the news.
Do people have to state their 'religious convictions? Do no religious people talk on topics not related directly to religion in the programmes?
I have also wondered exactly what a 'secular' subject is that would not be relevant to some one who believeed in some god. By the very fact that it is secular means the subject is simply about 'getting on with life' be it medical/educational/financial etc.
It is a totally illogical statement to say that secular voices are heard.
Complain about this comment
A lot of the comments so far are saying that TFTD has no place because we’re an increasingly secular society. But that’s exactly why it does have a place.
The BBC has always valued ‘edgy’ content – stuff that challenges the conventional way of thinking and gets audiences shifting uncomfortably in their seats. That used to be done by the likes of Ross and Brand until they became mainstream and lost the power to shock. So where do we look now for edginess? In today’s secular society, what does it take to be provocative, to challenge preconceptions, to get people thinking? Well here’s an idea … you can talk about God.
So keep TFTD, I say. At its best, it’s the most edgy thing on Radio 4 – precisely because it’s counter-cultural.
Complain about this comment
#118 `Now that your supporters are quite openly having to admit this was all connected to the Richard Dawkins Fan Club, the true agenda is there for all to see on the Radio 4 blog.`
a) I don`t have any supporters, nor have I looked at the Dawkins website.
When I came across this idea I thought it a good one with well founded arguments behind it.
I clearly am an atheist see posts above. I have contributed many times to BBC blogs over the past few years on a range of topics.
I feel insulted that I am seen as a second class citizen (and presumably immoral) by not having my views represented on TFTD and instead have to listen exclusively to beliefs that I consider irrational and unfounded.
b) `The true agenda`? Can I ask what you see the `true agenda` as being?
(Hint, not everyone posting here believes that the Bible is the literal word of a`God`. We’re quite open about it. That`s the only thing we have in common.)
c) Presumably you do have religious belief? If you think that religious views are inherently superior to views based on rational thought and empirical evidence then you have to make a case for that. Can you?
Complain about this comment
It's very trendy these days to get up in arms every time the word 'religion' is mentioned, but personally I rather like the TFTD slot. It's just what it is, a little bit of time out for reflection in amongst the hard hitting news coverage and interviews. Not that I either agree with everything in it, or even like everyone who contributes, but I would say 'let's keep it'.
Complain about this comment
Okay, if it's just a bit of 'time out for reflection' that's needed perhaps we could consider some further options. Perhaps we could just have meaningful silence. I recall Mr Damazer scrapping the UK theme (an equally platitudinous bit of broadcasting, absurdly contrived to include everyone and please nobody), perhaps this could be played in the intermission?
Complain about this comment
I complained to the BBC about Mona Siddiqui's appalling 17th December TFFD. This was the reply:
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Thought For The Day'.
I understand that you believe that guest Mona Siddiqui condoned rape and kidnapping on the grounds of cultural beliefs. I appreciate that you were offended by this and that you feel strongly that this sort of discussion should be vetted before being aired. I also note that you believe that she was given free rein to say whatever she liked due to her being from a religious background.
It's not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC doesn't seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.
I appreciate you feel strongly on this subject and I can assure you that your complaint has been registered on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your feedback.
Regards
Sarah Wilson
BBC Complaints
Complain about this comment
TftD is that is produced by the Religion and Ethics Department, that’s the problem. Religion considers ethics to be under its dominion whilst it should be the opposite. Those parts of religion that deal with ethics should certainly be included within the purview of a BBC Ethics department so long as all the supernatural drivel is excluded. In an attempt do dispel this criticism (that I have levelled at the Board, the BBC Trust as well as Radio 4 for more than two years) there is now a separate web page for Ethics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/ but who is behind this page, you guessed it The religious department?
Complain about this comment
131. At 11:22am on 08 Jan 2009, grahamajones wrote:
That is the first time that I have ever heard TftD described as “edgy” On second thoughts Riky the Bish Harries and Cormac Smurph O'Connor is cummin in wiv the big stuff, whilst Cliff The Tab Longely and Rocky Williams aint dissin da upstairs man.
Complain about this comment
Personally I love Thought for the Day. Sometimes the speakers infuriate me, and sometimes I disagree with them - but so what? Its often thought provoking, challenging and uplifting.
When most of the world's population beleive in some sort of God, and with religion shaping much of the news agenda in an entirely negative way I find it refreshing to hear these speakers share something positive from their religions.
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer, although trying to be fair and balanced is really arguing from the point of view of a religious liberal. I think he should come clean and declare whether or not he is a "believer".
Complain about this comment
My comments have largely been covered by other humanist and atheist bloggers. This is as more of a petition to add my name to the number of people unhappy with the current situation.
I am perfectly happy with a few minutes of quiet reflection and meditation if it gives John Humphries a chance for a breather even though it is a little incongruous on a news programme but allowing deluded believers in gods, fairies and the like to have this valuable airtime is ridiculous. Have a bit of moral reflection but do not confuse it with organised religion. Having the occasional atheist or humanist speak is not enough..religion should not come in to it. Religious people get far too much airtime as it is.
Complain about this comment
If this slot is to continue then I think it should be entirely devoted to the religious leaders, priests, vicars, friars, imams, rabbis, et al. addressing their own shortcomings, putting their own houses in order, most significantly the sexual terrorism that is endemic in all their religions.
Note the sleight of hand that leads Ms Siddqui to avoid responsibility for her own religion's misogyny. She evades these issues by attributing them to culture. Religions have always embraced culture and have traditionally incorporated cultural practices into religious diktats which are carried out and used to uphold the status quo, that is the patriarchal grip, fgm is one such example. Although this was and still is an ancient African ritual, it is now carried out in a 21st C so a called modern liberal democracy with impunity by those who believe it's an Islamic necessity or indeed a coptic Christian duty. However, it is the what men do not what men say that must be judged and this abomination is just simply the most appalling act of GBH of a child, sexual terrorism of a particularly obnoxious nature. Again we allow our anti-racist agenda to be hijacked by those religious patriarchs who wish to maintain control over their women. So afraid are we to speak up against such practices as forced marriage, 'honour' killings, and fgm that we allow ourselves to be wrongly accused of racism when we try to address these human rights abuses against females. We are now, in the Uk, running a gender apartheid system of law whereby you can with impunity deprive females of certain ethnic groups of their Human Rights even in this so called 21stC modern liberal democracy, all in the name of 'respect' for religion.
Religions are the holding banks for male self interest, all diktats are made by men for the benefit of men and for the control of women. Most particularly they demand control of the uterus which is even today still in the sights of the Catholic church which will not let go.
Perhaps if we could just disengage religion from the sadism of patriarchy we could reclaim a sense of spirituality that will give us respite from the daily rigors of life.
I'd like to see these men who have adorned themselves with religious status addressing their fears and inadequacies with regard to females. When that is achieved they could join us again in a meaningful relationship with ALL of the human race, not just with men.
Complain about this comment
@cool4cads #106
cads,
I think I do have my head around this topic.
But let me re-iterate, if you don't like the content of TftD you can always apply self-censorship.
TftD is a short slot, providing a variety of religious perspectives, on current issues. You may not enjoy/like such content but many others do - such is the way of life.
Remember, the today program is an early morning 'audio magazine'. So if you want to also include an atheists perspective, I'm sure you are more than capable of suggesting an atheist slot for the BBC. Maybe you could call it 'Moan of the Day'.
Complain about this comment
I think the recent use of Thought for Today to make political points undermines its position. For example, on 23/10/08 the Rev Lane-Priestley used the slot for an attack on the British Humanist Association. Which, of course, the humanists could not respond to in kind.
In general, I think Mr Damazer's response is mistaken; could it not be said that those who do not believe in gods can still be believers. A person can have beliefs about how people should behave or how life should be lived - ethical and moral beliefs - without reference to metaphysical beings. And surely such persons could make interesting contributions to Thought for Today.
Complain about this comment
I hope Mark Damazer is going to turn up on the programme and not hide behind the usual "nobody was available for comment". If he does, can I suggest two questions:
1. Why do you think that including secular commentators like philosophers, poets, scientists etc. would "detract from the distinctiveness of the slot"? As long as the brief calls for profound thought, reflection and a spiritual, ethical or moral outlook it ought to retain (and even enhance) its distinctiveness.
2. Why is this "a genuinely difficult question" over and above any other issue of balance or scheduling?
I am guessing that the hidden difficulty here is that TftD scheduling is a stitch-up between the BBC and the powers-that-be in the major religions. Including non-religious speakers would re-open the question of the balance between the religions and it might be difficult to get agreement again. If this is the difficulty, I think the BBC should adopt a policy of interacting directly with the licence payers and not assume that religious leaders speak for a "constituency".
(For the record all my postings are my own views and I am not a part of any organised or coordinated campaign. However religions feel free to organise such campaigns so I do not see why atheists shouldn't).
Complain about this comment
IanCEdmond: Interesting comment. You wrote: 'You talk as if someone was hiding something. Which is nonsense. As is your implication that action taken collectively is somehow less "genuine" than that taken individually.'
This is the point I have already argued with you on the Richard Dawkins official website, so you know what my response is. http://richarddawkins.net/forum/search.php?search_id=egosearch
When a whole bunch of people suddenly find Thought for the Day unnacceptable because of its religious perspective (which is why it exists!) there must be some agenda. I exposed your agenda. You are all connected with the Richard Dawkins fundamentalist pseudo-scientific religion.
We could get into the precariousness of that view by discussin Karl Popper, but that's for another time.
Yes, you are quite right: action taken collectively is not to be despised. Far from it! I tried to rally some other people to express the Church view, with very little success! I'm coming to this from a Catholic perspective, entirely as an individual, unlike your organisation. On this occasion you are better organised, but it's a pity you couldn't tell us who you were before I exposed you.
When people reflect on this event, they will notice that very few Christians became involved. Why? Because it was an un-announced attempt to drown the BBC with fundamentalist atheist rhetoric. Now you have been exposed. Your campaign was planned from the end of October, as I see from a little bit of web work, but no announcement was made that a debate was going to take place.
Free and fair discussion is what you say you want. You must be joking.
Complain about this comment
What a thoroughly depressing response by Mark Damazer to all of those who put so much thought into the wording of our email requests.
How can the BBC justify this lack of regard for so many of its listeners?
The TFTD slot (especially in its current format) has no place in a news programme.
I love the Today programme, but am now beginning to wonder if I have now reached the point at which I will stop listening.
Complain about this comment
I just don't understand Mr Damazer's argument. Is he saying that because The Today Program is non religious in nature it somehow needs to have a religious section inserted in order to redress the balance?
Why should religion come in to it at all?
Complain about this comment
Years ago, when I was a staff producer at the BBC, I nearly made a documentary on religion for BBC2. I say nearly, it was to be an opinion piece by Douglas Adams, attacking religious belief, and we were within weeks of shooting it when Adams both withdrew and promptly had a fatal heart attack. We were sad that he died and sad that the programme was cancelled, but we were particularly sad that our title – The Gods Boll**ks – wasn’t ever going to appear in the Radio Times.
I've been retired now for some time but my sense of unfinished business with the topic of religious nonsense remains acute. Just a small part of our cunningly planned programme had been to have a go at Thought For The Day as a perfect example of how bronze age campfire stories were still alive and kicking, and being taken seriously at the BBC. One day, I suspect, historians will smile at the paradox of a daily injection of straightfaced but utterly fantastic claptrap into Britain’s most trusted news programme. And all without even a hint of a raised eyebrow from the toughest presenters in the BBC.
I remember a few years ago BBC mandarins boring on about how a vital BBC role was to be “a trusted guide”. Well I think you are doing a really poor job. It is no small matter for “Today” to be a platform for uncriticised religious fairy stories, nodded through onto the air with a cheery welcome. At the same time you are applying almost forensic zeal to examining the truth about the world in the rest of programme. And when you treat everything with the same respect, the same genial handovers and so on, you are encouraging people to believe that there is equal merit in both. Well there isn’t.
Moreover your attempts at some sort of weird evenhandedness by allowing “Thoughts“ of different religious stripes equal respect on different days is absurd. If you put them all together as a weekly compilation the contradictory positions would be immediately apparent. They can’t all be right! As I tell my children (Oh God, Dad's going off on one again.....) there are only two possibilities, no more. Either one religion is absolutely right about their "God" and all the other "Gods" are false.... or every religion is false, no exceptions. Hedging your bets like this is just ridiculous.
But the real crime is to deliberately exclude humanism and all the varied atheistic voices as if they have absolutely no merit in comparison with the religious ones. What kind of message do you think that sends to the listeners? It is an absolutely crushing negative appraisal of the quality of non-religious thought in this country. It’s hundreds of years since the Enlightenment for heaven’s sake. The fact is that religious blather is one of Today’s default settings when it comes to the most important moral issues, and it is a scandal.
Allow me to quote Douglas Adams, who put it far more neatly than I ever could.
“God used to be the best explanation we’d got for the universe, and we’ve now got vastly better ones.”
“God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.”
“The arguments in favour of religious ideas are feeble and silly next to the robust arguments against them. In fact religious ideas are embarrassingly childish. They are never subject to the kind of outright challenge which is the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavour whatsoever.”
A "religions-only" Thought For The Day has no place in an otherwise rational news programme, and that to continue to run it is an affront.
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole@145: So many possible replies! I'll restrict myself to the accusation of being a "fundamentalist" atheist. Rebecca West famously said "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." I have never been able to find out precisely what a fundamentalist atheist is: I only know that the accusation is thrown about when people not only hold atheist views but are prepared to robustly express them.
Complain about this comment
Your post 145. At 2:10pm on 08 Jan 2009, rabitfoole
Rabi T Fool, I hope you don’t mind the familiarity, contrary to your assertions, this is the culmination of a campaign that I have been waging for more than two years and others more recently. It has gained momentum due in part by the response from Damazar last year to my criticism (see 66. At 7:00pm on 07 Jan 2009, gcdavis), widely published on the internet and partly due to the flurry of interest due to the atheist bus campaign.
Perhaps you would like to address some of the issues that I raised rather than looking or half-baked conspiracy theories?
Complain about this comment
I see from his potted biography that Mark Damazer is a History graduate. I wonder if any decision makers at the BBC have a scientific background?
Complain about this comment
`I exposed your agenda. You are all connected with the Richard Dawkins fundamentalist pseudo-scientific religion.` #145
That statement expresses a great deal about your own prejudices and beliefs. I and others here have been stating our views quite clearly all along; hardly great detective work to deduce that we don’t have views that rely on belief in supernatural beings or the authority of scripture or a church. I’m sure most readers of this blog probably managed to work that out too. But well done for spotting that there are some atheists and humanists here.
I would not presume to speak for anyone else but I imagine that many here also prefer the theory of evolution to the various creation myths from around the world.
You say that you are 'coming to this from a Catholic perspective` but accuse us of `fundamentalist pseudo-scientific religion`. You really don’t see the irony do you?
`When a whole bunch of people suddenly find TFTD unacceptable because of its religious perspective (which is why it exists!) there must be some agenda.` #145
I’ve felt TFTD unacceptable because it excludes those of non religious views for quite a while now; sometimes it takes something or someone to get the ball rolling. Yes, we are challenging the status quo. As it happens I only came across this last week, via the Bright’s network. I’m sure others only came to it via this blog in the past 24 hours.
http://the-brights.net/
`Free and fair discussion is what you say you want.` #145
I'm asking for equality of representation on TFTD (I only ever speak for myself) and putting forward reasons for that. For example we represent at least 30% of the population, the Catholics just 10%.
As I said above, if you think that religious views are inherently superior to views based on rational thought and empirical evidence then you have to make a case for that. Can you?
Complain about this comment
Would anyone settle for a happy Medium?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps IPM could tell us:
- how many emails did Mr Demazer actually read or did he just get an executive summary from the Religion and Ethics department?
- did he write his own response or was it prepared for him by this same department?
Come on Eddie ferret out the truth for us:)
Regards
David Lemon
Complain about this comment
GC Davis: You ask "Perhaps you would like to address some of the issues that I raised rather than looking or half-baked conspiracy theories?"
None of you said you were writing as supporters of Richard Dawkins until I did a little homework and found the connection. Now that is out in the open, it's a bit clearer to everyone, so yes let's address the issues.
In a three minute religious slot, why is it surprising that the contributors come from a religious perspective? Perhaps some of the representatives of a 'rational view' can try to express their puzzlement over this in a more coherent and less hysterical fashion?
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole you have been very busy today on this blog but appear not be reading anything written by the other contributors.
Stop seeing this in terms of conspiracy!
It is not a conspiracy to gather a group of like minded individuals together to better let their feelings be heard.
It is not a conspiracy to request equal treatment for all on a public funded broadcasting service.
Just the briefest look on the web demonstrates that the people objecting to TFTD are approaching this from many different sources- Richard Dawkins, the British Humanist site, Gavin Orland.com, the brights site, Platitude of the day , and this blog to name a few.
Once someone gives an opportunity to the many to collectively air a grievance then you are bound to get a large and growing response.
There are many many people who have felt very strongly that TFTD is arcane and archaic and that it is time to look at it once again in terms of a fairer representation of society and its viewpoints. However voices heard together are easier to hear.
No conspiracy, just a lot of like-minded and clear headed individuals asking for a change, having been given a voice.
Complain about this comment
Rabi T Fool
I write this on Woden’s Day and hey tomorrow is Thor’s Day. Every time there is a thunder storm I cower in a corner wondering what I had done to offend the great deity Thor. But then of course sanity returns and I remember that it is only an electrical storm. Perhaps one day you too will see the absurdity of your belief and the ridicule that you bring upon yourself.
Complain about this comment
`In a three minute religious slot, why is it surprising that the contributors come from a religious perspective?` #155
To put it another way:
Only the religious can guide us on ethics because only the religious are entitled to guide us on ethics; only the religious can guide us on ethics because only the religious are entitled to guide us on ethics. It is this way because it is this way; it is this way because it is this way, it is this way because it is this way; it is this way because it is this way.
How very Catholic of you : )
A circular argument that maintains the status quo, and one I feel can no longer be sustained. Why should these `Thoughts` only come from the religious?
TFTD used to be just for Christian speakers, then they began including other faiths in order to recognise other communities. My argument is that the social landscape has changed again and that it should no longer be solely a religious slot, but be opened to the non religious as well.
There are other equally valid `Thoughts` about ethics and world events that come from a secular viewpoint. For other arguments read through comments above.
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole.
What difference does it make to the argument whether or not one is a supporter of Richard Dawkins? And what exactly does it make clearer?
And, talking about coherence, it is not at all surprising that a religious slot should have religious speakers but why should it be inserted into a strictly factual programme like Today?
Complain about this comment
rationalman2k: "It is not a conspiracy to request equal treatment for all on a public funded broadcasting service."
Quite right. And you will see I have not used the word 'conspiracy' once. I have said it is a 'scam' to organise a mass protest without stating where you are coming from. The fact that very few contributors from a religious perspective are coming into this debate is a fair indication that they don't even know a debate is taking place.
I've simply identified the source of the mass protest and my job is done. Once we can see that this is an organised vocal minority, rather than a real upsurge of 'gut feeling' from Radio 4 listeners, it puts it into a certain perspective. Some of the rather personal accusations and silly language also help to underline that perspective.
I don't think you can expect any change to take place after this noisy escapade, but it may indicate a need for a more measured debate. It should be announced beforehand, properly conducted, and not simply sprung on everyone by a motley group of atheists as a new year stunt.
Complain about this comment
Jan says "love the Today programme, but...
I have nothing against TFTD except the choice of its speakers and the terrible way most of them perform.
They do not have to be religious and I for one wish to listen to anyone with a true lesson learnt and delivered effectively and with aplomb.
The Chief Rabbi is one I detest and turn off immediately, but Rabbi Lionel Bloom (or Bloem) is one who is normally very interesting.
The blame should be with those cretin editors and producers of the Toady Programme for making it so sickeningly biased to Super Gordon and so revoltingly PC.
Nearly as bad as Woman's Hour?
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer seems to overlook the frequency of religious elements in ‘the other 2 hours 57 minutes of Today’. War and terrorism items inform listeners about aspects of religion, and frequently religious leaders are given airtime to comment on current affairs and political issues in those 2 hours 57 minutes.
Mark Damazer describes the slot as an ‘interlude of spiritual reflection’. For some reason he fails to clearly identify the key criteria for speakers, i.e. they must believe in a supernatural deity.
Why not permit a member of the Humanist community (I am not one) to speak in this segment? Humanism has a long established tradition, I understand it is used by its adherents to make sense of life and the world, and many would say it offers a spiritual viewpoint. Insisting on supernatural deities is narrow and biased.
Complain about this comment
rabitfoole - I posted earlier, I came to this debate because Eddie promoted it on PM last night, not because of any organised campaign. Is Eddie part of the scam as well? However did he do this so only the Dawkins Fan Club heard it and not religous listeners?
Complain about this comment
Re #160 rabitfoole
'The fact that very few contributors from a religious perspective are coming into this debate is a fair indication that they don't even know a debate is taking place.'
I found out about this debate because it was mentioned several times on Wednesday evening's PM programme. I presume that there must have been thousands of people with religious convictions also listening - possibly millions, if Damazer's statistics are correct. I've never visited any of the websites mentioned above, and am unfamiliar with any of the other contributors arguing from an atheist, humanist, secularist, rationalist or other non-religious perspective. I simply wanted to voice my views on TFTD (see above).
As a one-time Catholic myself I appreciate that you might have a tendency to see every challenge to your views as an organised conspiracy. The Church has a great tradition of this, after all - and as the De La Salle Brothers by whom I was taught never tired of telling us, 'The voice of the atheist is the voice of Satan himself.'
I can assure you (and the Brothers), however, that I am not an obscure Babylonian deity nor am I - to the best of my knowledge - the hapless subject of demonic possession.
Have to go now - got some brimstone heating up in the microwave (damn...)
Complain about this comment
Do atheists really begrudge to non-atheists two or three minutes out of a three hour programme?
Someone said that the Today programme is a factual programme and should have no religion in it. Well, I would certainly argue about that my own religion, Christianity is fact, but leaving that aside - yes, the reporters on the Today programme do report what they believe to be the facts, but most of the programme is opinion, not facts, different people giving their views on how they see the situation to be, and what they think should be done about it. There would be no programme if only facts were reported, because so much of it relies on people arguing about how they see the situation to be. In real life, to a large proportion of the population, religion is part of how they see the situation to be.
Are atheists so bigotted and scared that they can not allow religious people of diverse persuasions two or three minutes out of three hours to give their opinion on how they see things? A large part of the population is of one religious persuasion or another - are their likes and dislikes to be ignored?
It does nobody any harm to stop and think for a couple of minutes - to try to see something from another perspective.
Complain about this comment
The poor quality of the response by Mr Damazar accurately reflects the obvious weakness of any case in support of keeping TFTD.
Mr Damazar's is in fact no rational or reasoned defence of the TFTD slot but simply a descriptive statement of its current format and content - which is exactly the cause of the complaint – has he missed the point? - and Mr Damazar provides no justification for its existence, let alone its continued existence.
By his own words Mr Damazar reveals that he too holds the erroneous presumption insulting to all secular people that the religious possess the monopoly of human morals, ethics and values as he maintains that only the religious can offer this 'uninterrupted (ie unchallengeable) interlude of spiritual reflection'.
Mr Damazar then illogically opines without any justification, reason or argument that “We believe that broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot”, without saying who the 'we' are; so who exactly are the 'we' who are of this baseless opinion? And where is the evidence to support this 'belief'?
The rest of Mr Damazar's response is totally irrelevant to the specific complaint being made about TFTD.
The editorial guidelines for the BBC state that "we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under- represented." No matter how short the slot, completely equal access to broadcasting philosophical morality is mandatory; the current format simply does not reflect 21st century views in the UK on secular matters.
So adhere to the guidelines and invite secular speakers or remove the TFTD slot completely.
Complain about this comment
virtualWinklepicker@165: You miss several important points.
No one is saying that religious viewpoints should not be heard on Today. And of course, guest speakers, be they politicians, industrialists, trade unionists, etc. give there perspectives as well. The difference is that when these latter speakers are features, they are thoroughly questioned by the Today team, asked to justify their positions and, where appropriate, provide evidence. This does not apply to the speakers of Thought For The Day.
You say that you regard Christianity as fact. This implication of this is that you regard the other faiths with which Christianity shares the Thought For The Day slot as false. Why do you not object to their share of the slot in the way that you object to a non-religious voice?
And again, we have the accusation that atheists are bigoted. Can you explain what you mean? I don't see any bigotry here - just a debate and a call for fairness.
Complain about this comment
zzanasta wrote: "As a one-time Catholic myself I appreciate that you might have a tendency to see every challenge to your views as an organised conspiracy."
Ah, that word 'conspiracy' again. Amazing how it catches on so quickly. Of course, as an ex-Catholic you will have a definite view on matters, and af course some individuals will found this debate due to the brief few seconds in which it was mentioned on the PM programme. My point was that many more people were preparing for it for quite a long time, and I have given the evidence for that above.
That's not a conspiracy, and I'm not saying it is. But it is an organised campaign, rather than an apparent spontaneous outbreak of listeners' sentiment, and I have simply reminded people of the difference. I think I have succeeded, and the resulting unpleasant invective from some is an unsurprising indicator of the disappointment felt by them, after months of preparing their new year stunt.
When you attack church schools, squeeze the people with religious commitments out of areas of social work, and force the destructive dogma of moral relativism on the populance, and then - as a last straw - claim that your quality of life is being diminished by a couple of minutes of thoughtful response to real questions of the day, in a traditional daily religious moment; at that point your position looks a little absurd. It might seem self-evident, and iny case the BBC has now expressed a clear view; but a consistent rebuttal of this nonsense is necessary and I'm happy to give it.
Complain about this comment
An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in a god. A militant atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, and says so.
Complain about this comment
I see the religious nature of Thought for the Day as an implication that those who are not religious couldn't possibly have anything to say that radio 4 listeners would find interesting and thought provoking!
I'd like to think that this is not the case, and personally would be far more inclined to engage with the three minutes of Thought for the Day should there be a more varied selection of contributors.
Complain about this comment
Re #168 rabitfoole
'When you attack church schools, squeeze the people with religious commitments out of areas of social work, and force the destructive dogma of moral relativism on the populance (sic)...'
Not bad going for a 'minority' consisting of 'a motley bunch of atheists', eh rabit? A tiny group of rationalist malcontents is apparently in control of education, local authority social work departments and presumably the media as well, if it is capable of 'forcing' ideas into the minds of an unwilling populace. Perhaps Mark Damazer is a 'sleeper', just biding his time... Sounds like a conspiracy to me - I think you should write to the BBC about it.
Revealing use of the word 'dogma', by the way.
Complain about this comment
I find it extraordinary that in the 21st Century, contribution to TFTD is restricted to those with supernatural beliefs. It is intellectual apartheid to deny this slot to those with non-religious perspectives. Perhaps Mr Damazer could invoke the mechanism which enables Radio 4 to simultaneously transmit ball-by-ball cricket with 'normal' programmes: the religious TFTD could be broadcast on long-wave with an alternative secular TFTD on FM! ;-)
Complain about this comment
If you want morals & ethics then we atheists & humanists are your people!, We act morally & ethically because we want to, not because we have an invisible friend who will punish us if we don't, and reward us if we do. For us the reward for a good life is a good life. I don't know how religious people can be so smug when most things on the news at the moment - war, child abuse. I'm waiting for Rowan Williams or Murphy-O'Connor to come on and tell us that they are giving up all their (churches) wealth and giving it to the poor, and sick. (And the pigs are all revved up & ready to fly)
Complain about this comment
I very much look forward to hearing a live debate with Mr Damazer on Saturday's show - surely this must now be inevitable.
I assume he has the courage of his convictions to defend his position in debate with an audience which reflects the population.
Simply issuing a statement and not adequately responding to other views may be, ironically, in tune with the philosophy of Thought for the Day, but would be unprofessional and not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
One wonders if Mark Damazer is religious himself and is determined to keep atheists off TFTD no matter how many listeners want change?
Complain about this comment
I agree with Mark Damazer's defence of the 'Thought for the day' slot. Most news is depressing and it's wonderful to have a few minutes to contemplate and nourish our spiritual side. Words of hope and inspiration encourage us to meet the challenges of each new day.
Athiests and Richard Dawkins fans should give in gracefully and let us believers enjoy a few moments of air time.....we get precious little these days !
Complain about this comment
I look forward every morning to Thought for the Day on my long drive to work. We all get bogged down in the here and now and all the problems on our doorstep and in the wider world. I find Thought for the Day very renewing - it touches my soul and allows me to see the world with a different perspective. I hope I carry some of it with me into work. So keep this slot on Today - I suggest those who don't like it switch off for a moment or two, like I have to every day when sport comes on!
Complain about this comment
A quick question - would either of the above commentators enjoy the slot less if it contained the occassional comment from someone with a different perspective? Think about it . . . it could be so much more interesting, illuminating, liberating, challenging, affirming, uplifting, coherent, tolerant, equal, legal . . .
Complain about this comment
My journey to work always seems to coincide with thought for the day. If I wasn't in a poor reception area, I'd change channels - but there is no competition to turn to for a news and current affairs programme - so here I am pleading with you to put an end to the irritating, boring, patronising nonsense that is thought for the day. It is irrelevant and should be sidelined to where it belongs, ie in some religious slot away from prime time. Only 10% of the population go to church, and the morning journey to work is not a time to have religion insidiously preached.
How about a compromise and change the thought to one of a non religious theme?
Complain about this comment
Mr Damazar, I am appauled that you find this a difficult question. I think what you are trying to say is that you find it very difficult to justify the status quo. This certainly appears to be the case as I do not see an argument which justifies this direct discrimination against secular speakers.
In paragraph 2 you are extremely careful with your words, but you are effectively saying that adding non-religious speakers to TftD would `detract from the distinctfulness of the slot`. Is the lack of secular perspectives really the main attribute that gives TftD its `distinctfulness`? Can we not please make it the thought-provoking content of the slot that merits its three very important minutes in the Today Programme?
Largely the slot has secular content, besides the closing conclusion. Why does the merit of the first 80% of content always have to be linked with religious scripture? You will find that it is not the scripture that many of your listenership enjoy but the content which many atheist minds are perfectly capable of if only they were given the opportunity.
Perhaps you are also suggesting that the history of these religions is the aspect which gives TftD this `distinctfulness` - particularly given the quote in #66. Is challenging established belief a bad thing? I do not think so. Certainly I think catholic belief regarding homosexuals[1] should be challenged. You will also find that many academic institutions have been around a considerable time... Cambridge University is this year celibrating its 800th Anniversary. All of academia has benifited from their predecessors' findings, and unlike religions whose scripture has `been worn smooth as a pebble by centuries of repetition and devotion`, their understanding has been scritinised and improved by their devotion instead. This makes us better able to understand the world around us.
I would like to draw your attention to the distinction between reflective secular perspectives and good impartial journalism. The former is underrepresented in media and I would appreciate your aid in correcting this.
Thought for the day is supposed to be a positive slot. Please, let secular contributors have the opportunity to look forwards in it, rather than looking backwards in to scripture
[1] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/22/europe/23pope.php
Complain about this comment
@ rabitfoole
My name is Craig Rigby.
I have never heard of the people you keep mentioning and joined and posted on this blog because Eddie asked people to do so on the PM program.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to see some of the arguments put forward by self-proclaimed atheists here, particularly in the way they resort to targeting individuals, in a rather rude way, rather than responding to what is being said by them. That suggests a rather dismal outcome if you put atheists on Thought for the Day!
The whole history of Western civilised thought has revolved around the question of God. The excellent "In Our Time" series on Radio 4 has dealt with this in great depth. Now look at modern philosophy. Despite three centuries of liberal individualism there is no coherent rationally defensible statement of its point of view. However, as Alasdair Macintyre has pointed out in his remarkable synthesis "After Virtue", the Aristotelian tradition restores intelligibility and rationality to our moral and social attitudes and commitments, and after Marxism that is where he he felt was the only direction to go. For much of Christianity, it is precisely the scholastic philosophical underpinning of theology - with its Aristotelian discipline - that informs our faith with true reason, so for atheists to claim some kind of monopoly on rationality is quite curious, for it shows they have misunderstood what religion contains in its rich store, tempered in the fire of constant pastoral practicality.
But there is a simpler point I wish to finish with, in respect to Thought for the Day. Very frequently, the most compelling speakers always invite us to give thanks in some way, at the beginning of our day. Who do you give thanks to if you are an atheist? I really would like to know. For that in the end that is what religion is about: thanking the Creator for the life I have, and thanking Him for those around me, and thanking Him for who He is. And if you do not give thanks, what have you got to share with me of the way that I might give thanks?
Complain about this comment
`Who do you give thanks to if you are an atheist?` #182
It`s late November, time for giving thanks
But thanks to whom? For me, this question ranks
Among the more important we can ask;
To answer, I`ve assigned myself the task.
Tradition holds we should give thanks to God.
In fact, your average person finds it odd
That anyone would even think to question
Whom to thank, but still, my bold suggestion:
Thank the ones who really did the stuff
That God gets credit for. There are enough
Deserving people we can thank, without
Inventing gods to steal their praise or pout.
`Thank God for all the bread we have to eat.`
Instead, I`ll thank the ones who grew the wheat,
And ground the flour, baked and sold the bread;
Why thank God, when I can thank these folks instead?
(Is God behind it all? I rather doubt;
So many other farmers suffered drought,
And watched their crops disintegrate to dust;
A God like this is not one I would trust.)
`Thank God my sister`s cancer`s in remission!`
Absolutely not. With no contrition,
Thanks go out to doctors, and to nurses,
To those who opened up their hearts and purses,
Friends who volunteered their time to cook,
Or feed her cats, or bring a favorite book
For her to read. Oh, yes, and thanks
To perfect strangers who gave blood - the banks
Would not be there without your precious gift.
By thanking God, we`re giving you short shrift.
I`m thankful to (not for) the ones who taught
Her doctors what they know. I also ought
To thank those who invented the machines -
Like X-rays, MRI`s - that gave the means
To find the lump before it was too late.
It`s people whom I thank. Not God. Not fate.
My thanks to cuttlefishpoet for the above
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/search?q=atheist+Thanksgiving
Complain about this comment
Ah yes, an amusing rhyme indeed, but it is hardly poetry, is it? Let alone spiritual nourishment.
My atheist friends, I have the solution! As Englishmen we find compromise usually works well in the end. Mr Damazer, how about this:
The Church of England has a wonderful tradition of producing atheist bishops. Could you ask if they can train up a few new ones for your radio programme?
Complain about this comment
I hven't read every comment, but some points seem clear:
1. The explanation given now (and in the past) for TFTD policy doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
2. I don't think that critics of TFTD are generally attacking the concept - just the religious-only scope.
3. Clearly TFTD could include both religious and non-religious perspectives under a banner of ethical/moral issues.
4. If either religious or non-religious contributions were campaigning or propaganda then we'd all still be complaining, and
5. It should be perfectly possible to have a gentle broadining of scope and redefinition of purpose to allow wider contributions without losing the point of the item.
The question for me is how to get beyond the current brick-throwing and brick wall attitudes. Apart from debating here is there anything constructive we can do?
Complain about this comment
LordCoat #182
'For that in the end...is what religion is about: thanking the Creator for the life I have, and thanking Him for those around me, and thanking Him for who He is.'
Even though it sounds like a terribly smug, affluent, self-satisfied and complacent world view (try applying it to someone crouched in a shelter in Gaza, waiting for the next shell to fall), if that really is what 'religion is about' you might want to pass the message on to some of the misogynists, homophobes, fanatics, fantasists and other assorted gangsters who hold positions of power and influence in most of the world's major faiths.
However, I think they would merely laugh at your naivety. It must be difficult to live in the Vatican, for instance, and not be aware every day of the fact that religion is 'about' power - temporal and material - and the accumulation of wealth.
I'm with SheffTim and cuttlefishpoet on the other point.
Complain about this comment
LordCoat
P.S. Why do you assume that a) we are all men, and b) we are all English?
Complain about this comment
#184
Geology, botany, biology, music, art, medicine, hill walking, intelligent argument (even if I disagree) and the wonderfulness of many people I meet are just a few of the things that provide me with spiritual nourishment. I don`t need belief in god[s] to feel uplifted. What provides us with `spiritual nourishment` is different for each of us.
A Christian may read in the Muslim scriptures that Mohammed flew on a winged horse [1], and will dismiss it. (A Muslim will believe it.)
Both a Christian and a Muslim will laugh when he reads that Roman historian Suetonius wrote that the spirit of Caesar Augustus was seen ascending to heaven after he died [2].
But when a Christian reads in another ancient scripture that Mary gave virgin birth to a man god who walked on water, died, came back to life, and flew off into the sky, they believe it!
[1] In Islamic tradition the Buraq is an angelic winged horse, often represented as a milk-white winged four-legged creature with the head of a woman.
[2] Suetonius (c.69 - 122 AD) on the The Divine Augustus.
Why are atheists dismissed when they point facts such as this out?
Why are atheists considered to have nothing to contribute to any debate about human origins, our possible futures, world events or ethics simply because they do not believe in ancient scriptures as revealed truth, or in supernatural deities?
If you think that religious views are inherently superior to views based on rational thought and empirical evidence then you have to make a case for that. Can you?
Another way of looking at the God debate is to ask: If there were a God, is it one I consider worthy of my devotion?
Looking around the world (particularly at the religions that claim to worship the same God) my answer would be No.
Does that make me immoral, sinful or lacking ethics. I don`t think so.
If you`d like to read my personal ethical code by all means do so:
http://sites.google.com/site/atheismandmorality/
Complain about this comment
165. At 5:47pm on 08 Jan 2009, virtualWinklepicker wrote:
"Do atheists really begrudge to non-atheists two or three minutes out of a three hour programme?"
I am in New Zealand, and so don't get the programme in question, but I am "fully in agreement with VirtualWinklepicker. Why do atheists begrudge these three minutes? If they don't like it, they can do what I do when sport comes on our National radio, turn it off!
-----------------------------------------
169. At 6:40pm on 08 Jan 2009, johnnyess wrote:
"An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in a god. A militant atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, and says so."
No, a militant atheist is someone who's permanently in attack mode, as is the case with many people here. I am a Christian, I live in the self-proclaimed most secular country in the world outside of Scandinavia, and I'd like to have something like Thought for the Day. We Christians aren't really the minority many atheists would like us to be!
Debbie
Complain about this comment
I think we have now seen quite enough to know that an 'atheist' view, if the posts here reflect it genuinely, simply means having a rant at religions and simplifying, debasing and debunking them. It has nothing positive t offer.
Is this what we can expect as the non-religious voice on Thought for the Day.
Heaven forbid!
Complain about this comment
186. First you reproach me with the ghastly and crass suggestion that giving thanks is "smug". Then you extend to all of us your dismal revelation that religion is mostly about "power and influence" wielded by "misogynists, homophobes, fanatics, fantasists and other assorted gangsters".
187. Finally, you ask me why I am making assumptions.
Oh, glorious! I hope some of these absurdities will be quoted on the radio programme eventually. Priceless.
Complain about this comment
"How can we live together in this complex world, and how can religion cease to be part of the problem? As a Buddhist what strikes me as important in the clash of ideologies is not so much the content of our differing beliefs, as the emotions and attitudes that underlie them.
Don't believe something because it's part of a tradition, because others believe it, or because it's found in a holy book. And it isn't enough that something sounds convincing, or that you're used to thinking in that way, or even that you've worked it out through reason - What matters is not whether one believes in God, or life after death, or the Buddha's Enlightenment, but the inner needs that are met by that belief."
Thought for the Day 18/11/2006
There have been Buddhists on TfTD. (I understand they have no God, just belief in reincarnation.) What was said in the Thought for the day above could have been said by an atheist.
Do the religious folk here all agree completely with all the other religions, even those that have no God?
(If yes, how? given the differences?)
Are things right or 'The Truth' simply because they come from a `religion`?
I'm struggling to see why religions should be considered such a special case that they alone can fill the TfTD slot?
Complain about this comment
Re Rabitfoole
Debunk "to expose false, sham or exaggerated claims" - that is what a lot of the Today programme is about, but according to your argument that is not a positive thing to do:)
It is of course something "Heaven" has be trying to "forbid" for centuries with heresy and blasphemy laws, no I won't mention the Spanish Inquisition (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition)
Cheers
David Lemon
Complain about this comment
192. Thank you for that jayfurneaux. If we could get Mark Damazer to just answer your last question we would be getting somewhere.
Complain about this comment
I just want to offer my 'hear hear' to all the posters who have already argued so cogently against T4TD. I particularly agree with postings: 85-90.
I feel that it is:
-religious propaganda, with no come back on the Today programme allowed for objections to the claims of the speakers
-it does not include secularist/athiest points of view, which have plenty to contribute to moral debates
-it allows, positively encourages, speakers to bring in topical themes - which allows free reign to incredibly unfounded beliefs being foisted on the listening public - so it is a free slot to religions to comment on the 'secular' agenda of the Today programme.
- it reminds me of my Convent School assembly where each day an ill-qualified school girl had to give a little homily relating to current affairs, ending in enforced 'link' to religious belief or the life of Christ, and seems to have about the same intellectual level.
-it doesn't represent the beliefs of the majority of the people in this country
The only good point is the exercise it gives me in rushing to the radio quickly enough to switch stations.
But it is not good for my stress levels as I feel cross every day that you allow religious leaders the right to prime airtime without balancing it with other points of view.
I say - either cut T4TD or balance the speakers with people from the atheist / secular side of the moral debate.
Complain about this comment
There are a number of options currently being considered ranging from a TURN OFF TftD campaign, a symbolic gesture that would damage the reputation of the Today programme, (who is the innocent victim in this dispute) all the way to a legal challenge based upon the BBC public service obligation of providing balance, neutrality, objectivity and fairness. Watch this space!
Complain about this comment
#191
I'm rather saddened that your study of Philosophy does not appear to have equipped you with the ability to decipher a fairly straightforward argument. If you read my post you will see that I do not suggest that 'giving thanks is smug' - merely that your definition of what religion is 'about' implies a world view with the characteristics I mentioned.
['Then you extend to all of us your dismal revelation that religion is mostly about "power and influence" wielded by "misogynists, homophobes, fanatics, fantasists and other assorted gangsters".']
I'm not sure to whom the 'us' in your statement refers (is it inclusive or exclusive?), nor why you think the notion that religions possess power and influence is 'dismal'. Perhaps there are some truths that just don't bear looking at too closely. Not really the Thomist/Aristotelian way, though, is it?
I will be happy to supply you with a list of candidates for the appelations of 'misogynists, homophobes, etc' as you do not seem to possess that information. I struggled to justify 'gangsters' momentarily - then I remembered the late Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, who was indicted by the Italian authorities as an "accessory to fraudulent bankruptcy" following the collapse of the Vatican bank, Banco Ambrosiano, in 1982. I recall that he claimed diplomatic immunity from prosecution, and was forced to remain in hiding in Vatican City. His mafioso friend, Michele Sindona, was not so lucky, though. It's a great pity that Marcinkus died in 2006 - I am sure that he would have been an excellent presenter of TFTD, who would have been able to offer some interesting views on the current global financial crisis from his very individual faith perspective. [Bloggers unfamiliar with the shady world of Marcinkus and his associates can read his obituary at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/feb/23/guardianobituaries.religion]
As you would no doubt say, 'Priceless'.
Complain about this comment
An interesting observation about the contributions here: If you exclude the obviously unreasonable postings, there is actually common ground between the religious and the atheist perspective. By unreasonable I mean both "I hate religion therefore TftD should be axed or turned over completely to atheists" and "I hate atheism and/or atheists therefore they should continue to be excluded from TftD."
Many of the supporters of TftD say they value the program because of its thoughtfulness, its positivity or because of the intellectual challenge of hearing unfamiliar perspectives. None of this would be threatened by including atheist speakers, indeed the intellectual challenge would be enhanced. Some religious people seem to fear atheist speakers would be negative, but that is a matter for the programme brief not for the speaker's beliefs. Many of the religious speakers would also benefit from a brief to be more positive.
In all the ding-dong between atheists and religionists I hope this key point does not get lost: As far as I am aware, TftD is the only programme on the BBC which systematically and as a matter of policy excludes contributors because of their beliefs. If a programme policy excluded Catholic or Muslim contributors this would certainly be regarded as unacceptable. This discrimination is simply not sustainable in the twenty-first century and the sooner the BBC realises it the better!
Complain about this comment
197. Sorry, but I have no idea why Archbishop Paul Marcinkus comes into anything here! It is a very obscure connection. Did he contribute to Thought for the Day? It would be good to focus on matters that are closer to the topic I think.
198. You are actually expressing a jolly good point here, and if you were an atheist I'd say you should be on Thought for the Day as soon as possible!
Of course, you aren't an atheist and you are also speaking from long experience of these matters. You know the view that the BBC is taking will remain in place, and you know the reasons why. Nevertheless, a good balanced view is what is needed here, without the ranters. I think that is probably going on behind closed doors somewhere anyway, with sensible atheists and sensible religionists doing a much better job of it than some of the ones we're hearing from here. Quite right too.
Complain about this comment
TFTD? Whereelse could you find a slot for those who would glory in and celebrate a little girl's pregnancy?
Mary would, according to the pattern of those times, be approx. 12 or 13yrs old, a very physically dangerous age even today to get pregnant without the help of good medical care to compensate for the damage such a birth does inflict on a pregnant child.
The Jews where living in an occupied country, consequently they lived in fear, under an ever present threat, their women and girls would constantly be under the threat of rape by the occupying soldiers. This is probably the reason, their being under occupation, why the Jews made it one of their diktats that Jewishness is given through the female line, it saves the fate of the illegitimate baby from being rejected by its cultural group. Mary was probabaly such a victim. To ameliorate her dilemma she would be married off to an older man less concerned about her lack of virginity.
This slot is mostly taken up by men who huff and puff about the injustices of the world but rarely do they bother to examine the double standards accompanied by the sexual terrorism that their religions uphold. Hypocrites on stilts is the generally the status quo here.
Complain about this comment
#199
Sorry if you're confused. The reason for the brief Marcinkus biog was that you seemed to take exception - enough to quote it back at me - with my description of some of those holding positions of authority within the major faiths as "misogynists, homophobes, fanatics, fantasists and other assorted gangsters".
As the first four categories are fairly self-evident, I would say, I included Marcinkus as an example of someone who would neatly fit into the category of 'gangsters'.
Hope that helps.
Complain about this comment
I really think its time to get rid of this nonsense. I cannot see what jemmying a news item to fit some folk story/ religious twaddle has to do with reporting news. Its not as if we dont have enough opinion on the Today programme with reporters being interviewed by other reporters.
I can see that if you frame the news as "secular" then you can manufacture a polarised debate where the "non-secular" appears to have some relevance but there are many ways in which we could characterise the news- how about "unamusing"? If the news isnt funny surely we should have a comedian doing a spot? Personally, I would reccomend Chris Morris for the gig.
Being liberal about other peoples beliefs does not mean you have to subscribe to them nor does it mean we abandon judgement regarding validity of these beliefs. Nor does it mean we have to espouse them or priviledge them over more consistent reality based social constructs.
I would not like you to expand this slot to include other fantasies- they are all as tiresome in their own way. Why can u not just get on with reporting the news?
I listen to R4 all day most days and so I have developed a strategy to deal with the ridiculous- I switch to commercial radio and if that is more to my liking I stay with it. Now if u could only reduce Woman's hour to a single slot per week it would remove another opportunity for me to simply switch off.
Complain about this comment
Mark
This is such a terribly thin argument.
It boils down to a single sentence "We are broadcasting to the general Radio 4 audience which regularly engages with the comments and ideas expressed by our contributors from the world's major faiths - whether they are believers or not." The rest is just padding.
You are basically saying that TFTD is justified because people listen to it, right?
If this argument stands up then moving it to some other slot where it doesn't interfere with a seriously good news programme will not be a problem. Or is it that people have to listen to it because you've plonked it right in the middle of another programme where it is very difficult to avoid?
Is this really the best defence that you have?
Yours
Aussen
Complain about this comment
@182 Lord Coat.
You ask, "Who do you give thanks to if you are an atheist? I really would like to know."
Just thinking of the Magdeleine Sisters under the influence of Catholicism in the grip of what has come to be known as the Irish Taliban, I would certainly give thanks to those women who had the courage to stand up to and expose the sadism that the Catholic church is capable of distributing. This particular religion wears it's fear of women's sexuality boldly on its sleeve, its icon Mary goes from virginity to motherhood without that terrifying sexual act intervening. Just how neurotic a fantasy is that? Lets see these religious appointed guys address such things.
Complain about this comment
As a WASP and also someone who is completely areligious I always remember listening with avid and growing interest to the thoughts and words of the great man Indarjit Singh (one time editor of the Sikh times)
His wise words both put the days news into some kind of perspective and gave me an insight into a wonderful, faith which espouses religious tolerance and basic respect for ones fellow man amongst others.
It would be sad to lose these still voices of calm and reason in a medium where over sensationalism and tub thumping is rife
Complain about this comment
201. Ah yes. Got it. Jolly clever! The case for maintaining the value of religion in everyday life is now completely demolished. Well done.
Complain about this comment
204. The spelling is 'Magdalene'. And the story is about Ireland. We are - I remind you - in England. Try to be relevant please.
Well, this has been very interesting, thank you everyone. This 'blog' idea is very clever but I can't see it catching on.
I can now see why things worked better under Lord Reith. Keep the show going, Mr Damazer, but the riff raff will probably win in the end. That's the general experience.
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazar acknowledges that TFTD is, has and for the foreseeable will be a religious slot. Indeed the primary justification for its existence is purely to be a 'distinctively' religious slot.
If the aim of the slot was to purely offer an insightful and thoughtful comment on current events then the restriction to the religious would be unnecessary.
I feel that including a wider range of voices from from a more diverse range of worldviews would improve the slot.
Sadly, I meet people who think that ethics and morals require a religious base. Including non-religious voices on TFTD would also help erode this myth.
I hope that was not too strident, millitant or fundementalist for the sensitive ears on this blog.
Complain about this comment
207 - Actually some of us (licence payers) are in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. And many people in all of these places (and England for that matter) will have experience of being "educated" in Catholic schools, often in ways just as bad as those described.
Complain about this comment
Lord Coat
are you actually a lord? perhaps a catholic bishop in the house of lords? but no, your commanding manner of speech, deprecation of others and feeble arguments suggest someone who is unused to being challenged in open debate. You're not prince charles are you?
as for:
"184.LordCoat wrote:
Ah yes, an amusing rhyme indeed, but it is hardly poetry, is it? Let alone spiritual nourishment."
By what standards do you say it isn't poetry, please? As it happens, I have a BA and MA in English literature and am a multi award winning, much translated author, studied by universities in my own lifetime. And I thought the poem was rather good.
I'm certainly no arbiter of spiritual nourishment though: more of a bacon sandwich man.
Complain about this comment
cliffburn@80 has the answer.
Complain about this comment
When TFTD comes on I change cannels to Terry Wogan. That should indicate how much I dislike TFTD!
Complain about this comment
I'm with JeremyB on this one:
"TftD is the only programme on the BBC which systematically and as a matter of policy excludes contributors because of their beliefs"
This is the point exactly. It's a simple case of discrimination. All the bickering between those with a religious bent and those without should not detract from the overwhelmingly obvious fact the TFTD is biased, unfair, discriminatory twaddle. Simply including humanist / atheist voices alongside the religious would instantly make this argument go away.
If the BBC was operated in the same way as for example, religious television channels on Sky, then I would have less of a problem with just taking the option to switch off, because these channels are free-to-air, and I haven't paid a bean for them, so I don't have a say in what they put out, providing it's not so offensive as to be illegal of course... I can just switch off. However, for the BBC I pay my license fee - otherwise I'm not allowed by law to have a telly - so I'm trapped. I don't watch the BBC much, and as about 45 minutes of the Today show as I drive to work is all I really listen to on the radio, then TFTD is actually a fairly significant wedge of what I am forced to pay for. So now if I'm faced daily with this unchallenged and often hideous claptrap with speakers whose views more closely reflect my own being purposefully excluded, I feel I have a right to complain, and you Mr Damazer, have a duty to come back with something a lot more convincing than this very weak argument.
No disrespect to the religious folk who enjoy TFTD - fair play guys, you should get to hear the comments of religious leaders - we can all listen together and think about whether we agree with what they say - but excluding non-religious or anti-religious voices is a really low form of censorship isn't it? - if religious views were sytematically denied a presence in a slot which regularly criticised religion, then I'm sure you would all be crying foul right now? - I'm sure there must be some moderate, tolerant religious people out there who actually agree with me about standing up against unnecessary censorship - I would like to see some religious voices requesting that humanists and atheists etc be given the right to speak on TFTD - if we can get away from all the back-biting and grow up a bit (on both sides...), then we could listen to each others points with a bit more understanding.
Change TFTD to include secular / atheist voices Mr Damazer. Or do away with it entirely. Otherwise it will remain an irrational embarrassment to your otherwise seemingly fair-minded organisation.
Complain about this comment
@207 Lordcoats wrote,"The spelling is 'Magdalene'. And the story is about Ireland. We are - I remind you - in England. Try to be relevant please."
Thank you for the spelling correction. I'm not sure how it is that you think Irish Catholicism is exempt from criticism?
Would yoy be finkin dat afta a few jars Himself would be praisin da brevren for makin deez women pay for da sin of havin sex? An forgive me for finkin dat deez women must have been doin the sex thing all by demselves cos ders no men mentionioned in da punishment loik. An hoi is it day didn't go bloind? An furthermore, insn't dat just what Mary herself did, da dirty little..........hallelujah!
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid that I think MD's statement tosh.
The Today programme is not largely devoted to 'secular concerns', it is (or should be) devoted to news, pure and simple. The news in't secular. It's just the news.
By this logic, why don't you have a prayer in the middle of Gardener's Question Time? Or a gospel reading in the middle of Just a Minute?
Complain about this comment
Most Thoughts for the Day involve very little religion. The presenters are far too intelligent to base their talks on the fundamental truth of the dogmas of their faith. Instead they present essentially secular arguments and draw conclusions accordingly. Only at the end do they dredge up a piece of religious lore which seems to support their case. Presumably we are expected to feel warmly towards religion in general because it is set alongside rational argument in this way. Of course, to do so would be against logic; we all know that religious law is a rich enough source to yield text to support any conclusion whatsoever.
What, then, is the objection to including presenters who restrict themselves solely to the secular, rational part of the argument? There are certainly many atheists who could provide moral and ethical insights, historical perspective and so on at least equal to those of the current presenters. Shorn of the need to include the nods towards religion, they could actually develop their arguments more fully.
Mark Damazer's arguments are facile. He contrasts 2 hours 57 minutes of "non-religious" perspective with 3 minutes of Thought for the Day. Nonsense. Those 2 hours 57 minutes involve presenters and interviewees of nearly every religious persuasion, in no sense are they excluded - it is the 3 minutes which exclude. His prejudice is that moral issues are the sole province of the religious. He expects us to be impressed by the fact that non-religious voices are not excluded from "religious output" such as the Moral Maze. He would do better to ask himself why such a programme is classified as "religious output" in the first place.
Complain about this comment
@183 the poem. Much liked, thank you too.
Complain about this comment
I would like to echo the comments calling for TftD to be broadened to include other philosophical perspectives.
If Thought for the Day really is about "thought" it should be open to philosophers of all stripes, rather than those that solely embrace religion.
Someone up-thread remarked that the great benefit of TftD was that it had made him realise the common ground between the various religions in the UK today.
As the debate between religion and and atheism becomes ever more polarised, it would be worthwhile indeed to hear the common ground between religion and other philosophies. If (non-religious) philosophy was to be included in the slot, perhaps more people would realise that ethics and compassion are common to many systems of thought, and are not the sole province of the god-fearing.
"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." Aristotle
Complain about this comment
I've just realised what TFTD reminds me of: that comic sermon by Alan Bennett in "Beyond the Fringe." "It sometimes seems to me that life is like a tin of sardines. There's always a little bit in the corner that you can't get out."
Complain about this comment
This is world view apartheid. The slot's name should be changed to "Supernatural thought of the day" to make it clear to listeners that the thought is being expressed by a person who holds an outwardly genuine belief in some form of fairies.
The BBC are really missing a trick here. There is a clear intention to show that people of all religious beliefs and persuasions are essentially "good", but the Really Big Thought is that it's possible to be "good" without subscribing to a load of mumbo jumbo.
Complain about this comment
The key to the problem seems to be that Mark Damazer sees Thought for the Day as a brief faith slot in the middle of a secular programme. However, it could also be seen as a moral issue slot in the middle of a news/current affairs slot. But why consider the Today programme as a secular thing? Of course it is, in a way, but then the whole world is secular on that basis. If the intention is a brief gasp of spirituality in a secular world, it would be equally valid in the middle of any programme, so why not put it in The Archers, or the News Quiz? As this doesn't happen, it must be assumed that it is in fact seen as a moral issues slot, in which case it should be open to anyone who thinks deeply on such subjects to contribute to it, rather than limiting it to religious believers.
Complain about this comment
I have a feeling that if this issue were put to the Archbishop of Canterbury to judge even he would come down on the side of those arguing for the occasional inclusion of an atheist/humanist presenter. One only has to have an innate sense of fairplay after all.
Complain about this comment
Our electric kettle is noisy. While it is heating the water I cannot hear the radio. Accordingly, I try to boil the water for our first cup of tea during TFTD. It seems indefensible, to me, to prevent somebody from speaking on public radio based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer is certainly not speaking for me when he makes the case for retaining the explicitly religious "Thought For The Day".
Every time I hear James Naughtie tell me that it is about to come on I feel ill at ease. Sometimes my remote control is nearby, but usually it is not. The most recent nonsense I had to endure was about Samson being the first suicide terrorist.
Mark Damazer's determination to keep TFTD is grounded is something other than reason. It is a programme that forces religion on those who do not want it.
Complain about this comment
"gjkathome wrote:
Most Thoughts for the Day involve very little religion. "
The majority of the TfTD's end up relating a recent news story to what ever god/prophet/book they believe in in the most convoluted way possible.
Complain about this comment
Mark's so-called 'defence' is no defence at all. Today is not a programme devoted to secular concerns; it is a news programme and includes both secular and religious issues. The question remains; what justification is there for reserving to representatives of various religions a slot in the programme for the expression of thoughts on issues of the day? It gives the wholly misleading impression that moral issues are the sole province of religion. It seems that either Mark has missed this point or that he believes it is so.
I find religious views about morality are often very worrying and note that rational people often discard the religious doctrine they don't agree with, suggesting that our true sense of morality does not come from religion at all. I therefore find the implication that secularists have nothing to say on matters of morality very offensive.
At the end of the slot each morning, an announcer says, 'That was thought for the day' and I nearly always think 'Yes, but not a very good one.'
I urge Mark to read all the comments on this blog and think again.
Complain about this comment
I also urge Mark (and all his contributors to TFTD) to look at the "Platitude for the Day" website. If they don't all cringe with embarrassment they have no shame. By the way, what is Mark's religion? I think we should be told.
Complain about this comment
I too received a copy of Mark Damazers statement.
This is my response.
Mark Damazer,
Thank you for copying me your statement.
Thought for The Day does not represent the views of religion , only a few selected religions.
Where are the opportunities for voodoo, astrologers, numerologists, scientologists, witches etc.
Who decides who's in a , "proper "religion and qualified to speak on TFD?
The News is The News. It's not secular and does not need a religious balancer.
Should we to expect to have religious slots in all secular programmes?
If balance is so important we should have atheist slots in religious programmes
Since when did the religions selected to proselytise on Thought for The Day have a monopoly on spirituality?
Please quote your source for membership numbers of the religions selected to speak on TFD.
David Marshall.
Complain about this comment
I would be very sad if there were no thought for the day. I am a Christian, but I listen with interest to all the speakers from all faiths and gain from this. The atheists/agnostics etc. who complain it pushes religion or is biased or just a story are missing the point. It is what it says it is - a thought, a contemplation, a suggestion for our contemplation that we can ponder, accept or refute. Though there may be a religious background given, the moral, ethical, human, compassionate, justice, or even just common sense points that are made can have relevance to anyone's life and the state of the world around us independent of faith. Bravo to the BBC for continuing to give us an opportunity and a prompt to think more widely and deeply.
Complain about this comment
It is quite interesting that in the week that the 'athiest bus adverts' are now around the country at least 150 people have complained to the ASA about them...presumably saying they should not be allowed...that is after all why people complain to the ASA.
And yet on this thread 'secularists' are saying...we wouldn't mind TfTD IF it had secular voices in it otherwise it is not covering the main 'beliefs' in this country. I would be happy to continue having TfTD if secular people spoke as it would be a more balanced slot. Mixed in with the platitudes of the various religious cults that I have no truck with would be voices free from religious dogma that I probably wouldn't agree with either! but I would know it was a personal view on a subject rather than one tethered to a religion that has told that speaker how to think.
Complain about this comment
I agree that TFD is an annoying slot in an otherwise fine news programme. News by definition should be about relating factual information. Not something that supports a load of mumbo jumbo dreamt up as a means of controlling people by promising either great pleasure if you do what they want or pain if you don't. All conveniently after your death of course so it can't be proved one way or another.
Complain about this comment
What is so difficult about the "difficult question" of thought for the day?
"Thought for the Day is a unique slot in which speakers from a wide range of religious faiths reflect on an issue of the day from their faith perspective."
Meaning Thought for the day is excusively for religious thought.
"In the midst of the three-hour Today programme devoted to overwhelmingly secular concerns – national and international news and features, searching interviews etc –
the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection."
Me aningThought for the day is excusively for religious thought.
"We believe that broadening the brief would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot."
Meraning the brief is for speakers from a wide range of religious faiths"
Within Thought for the Day a careful balance is maintained of voices from different Christian denominations
and other religions with significant membership in the UK. We are broadcasting to the general Radio 4 audience which regularly engages with the comments and ideas expressed by our contributors from the world's
major faiths – whether they are believers or not."
Meaning the brief is for speakers from a wide range of religious faiths, but please continue to comment and express
your ideas - we are not going to change.
In short - "Thought for the Day is an exclusively religious commentary, and we welcome the audience engagement that it generates."
Please call the slot - Religious Thought for the Day
Difficult question answered!
Complain about this comment
Like it or not, most people believe in God. I believe in God and therefore appreciate Thought For The Day. Perhaps the vital three minutes of factual content lost could be made up by getting rid of the horse racing tips.
Complain about this comment
Everybody has a spiritual side, whether they be religious or not. Therefore a radio slot devoted to spirituality should include non-religious voices too. By specifically excluding them the BBC is guilty of discrimination and should be ashamed of itself. Are there any legal types out there that know whether a court case could be brought over this? I'd happily make a contribution to the costs, as I'm sure many others would too!
Complain about this comment
A spot devoted to superstition-believers is completely unacceptable. It must be extended to secular commentators.
Alan Truelove, Fairfax, Va.
Complain about this comment
If Mark Damazer insists on excluding non-faith perspectives from Thought For The Day (and how insulting his implication that non-believers cannot share in spiritual reflection), then the slot should be renamed accordingly to 'Religious Thought For The Day', 'Faith Perspective' or whatever.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate that Bessyanne is on my side (the side of the angels - ha ha), but while not wanting to pick a fight with her, I've never been able to understand what "spirituality" means. Can anyone enlighten me? All I know so far is that whenever anybody mentions "spirituality" I'm in for a load of new age bullshit. Sorry, Bessyanne, nothing personal. I wish it had been someone less rational who had used the dreaded word.
Complain about this comment
I don't listen to TFTD as I'm still tucked up in bed at that time so I can't comment on its current content.
However I do notice that the majority of Radio4 news programmes are devoted to various people's views on what is happening (including moral implications) rather than straight facts. Many contributors I expect are atheist/humanist/other and I suspect that those of religious persuasions may quite often be offended by some of their comments (particularly as views can be presented as factual). And surely alternative views are aired that counter points made in TFTD, even though there is not a debate with the speaker at the time.
It seems to me there are no non-believers. Either a person believes there is a God or she/he believes there is not a God. Then the world is viewed through those glasses. Perhaps TFTD should be opened up to atheists etc as in this format it is more obvious how views stem from beliefs.
To simply remove TFTD would be no less discriminatory to those, religious or not, minority or not, who appreciate listening to other viewpoints than its presence is to those who consider it all fairy tales (and have the option of switching off ears or radios for 3mins).
Complain about this comment
It should be called 'Lack of Thought for the Day'
The basis of religion is faith and irrationality.
Faith is belief without reason, evidence or justification, in other words, coming to a conclusion without thought.
Irrationality is the lack of mental clarity and sound judgement.
Why those who subscribe to such perspectives are thought to have some exclusive qualification to present 'thoughtful' muses to the rest of us is perverse in the extreme.
Rupert
Complain about this comment
Renaming of TftD is not a solution I am afraid; the content is still the same and would not have changed. The program's moral and ethical links are still there and would be heavily associated with the slot. It would in fact make the situation worse as it would be making an even stronger link between religion and ethical/moral reflection.
It also would not solve the strong argument that has been made that TftD is inappropriate half way through a factual programme.
In my opinion there are three options available. These are:
1) Include secular speakers;
2) Remove thought for the day altogether;
3) Move TftD to a different time, under a different name, and under a changed brief that would no longer relate to the non-religious.
I am sure you will agree that #3 sounds like a lot of hard work.
Complain about this comment
I am an atheist. I sometimes find Thought for the Day" interesting, more often it is sadly predictable. What I can't understand is the BBC's dogged refusal to allow atheist, agnostic or Humanist speakers. This might upset a few bigots, but would more fairly reflect the balance in society, something I have up to now thought the BBC managed fairly well.
It is not good enough to offer marginalised representation on a few other programs - I can't imagine that Sikhs or Jews would accept that, and there are probably more atheists/agnostics/humanists than there are either Sikhs or Jews. Some regional stations with equivalent programs have offered space to non-religious speakers and the sky hasn't fallen in. Radio Four should follow their example.
Complain about this comment
With reference to Lord Coat's post 183
There's a story about an old man who got hold of an allotment. The allotment was a real mess, loads of weeds and rubble, but he worked patiently, and eventually it was full of healthy plants, and he started harvesting his first crop.
The vicar was passing by and said "What a wonderful job God and you have made of that garden!".
"Yes", said the old man "but you should have seen what a mess it was in when God had it on his own".
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that much of what is said on TFTD is not particularly "spiritual". Speakers share their personal reflections, views, philosophy, morality ... that they attribute their insights to the revelations of faith need not concern anyone else. Indeed, it would be better if they didn't mention it, since reference to a particular religion is only likely to engender unthinking acceptance or unthinking hostility in some listeners.
In a publicly funded radio programme aimed at the wider audience, it is a political decision to define categories of citizens who have and have not the right to be heard.
Secularism is the essential political principle which allows people to think and believe what they choose in a plural and egalitarian democracy. The BBC has a duty to uphold that principle.
Complain about this comment
241. 'Audibleminority' wrote: "I am an atheist." Yes, so you are, and your point, "there are probably more atheists/agnostics/humanists than there are either Sikhs or Jews" is entirely unmeasurable and irrelevant.
I believe that this blog, as an electronic fringe-protest event, has reached a natural end-point with this sort of inane nonsense.
I remember seeing a bunch of people once, standing on the steps of a Whitehall building in the rain: the remnant of a demo after most sensible people had long gone home. The banners had gone all soggy and they had lost their voices, so the chant was quite unintelligible.
Meanwhile, if you want a bit of carefully considered reflection, why not listen to Thought for the Day on Radio 4?
Bye bye, and say a prayer for me, a very norty sinner.
Rabitfoole
Complain about this comment
"And you know, I think life's like that". Come on, TFTD is often embarrassing and it has no place on Today. It's time to let it go.
Complain about this comment
As a regular Today listener I really appreciate TFTD. I am also a Christian and 3mins of TFTD is almost the only time someone of a different faith gets my full attention with a view to challenge mine. I bet the same can be said for millions of people of many other faiths. What a contribution to the country's listening!
Conflict in the world today is personal balance of the value of life weighed against ones own selfishness, Atheists only have Darwin to guide them, anything more must be based on faith. Faith itself needs to be talked about, it can make or break us.
Complain about this comment
Rabbitfoole, you've lost the argument.
Complain about this comment
Ah yes, 'johnnyess', but he won his place in Heaven.
Complain about this comment
I don't need to hear a religious view point to continue being a moral and reasonable human being. Even for those three minutes of the day.
Complain about this comment
LordCoat post 248. How on earth can you possibly know that?
Complain about this comment
''Spiritual' and 'soul' can mean whatever you want them to mean.
As far as I can see most people see it as meaning emotion, usually in a positive way. (It makes me happy, gives me hope etc are more prosaic ways of expressing it.)
It is also closely associated with self development, coming to terms with the world, understanding oneself and others, (rudimentary philosophy in other words) - but can also be ascribed to any irrational belief under the sun; a trite, meaningless, often biased and prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original. Tantric sex, psychedelic drugs, whale songs, crystal healing, astrology etc - `it's spiritual man.` Pick and mix from the above as you wish to make your own spiritual experience, or sell something.
The only specific use of spiritual I can think of from those that believe in mediums and `contact with those from the 'other side''; Spiritualism, which is [bizarrely] classed as a religion and has 'churches'. Perhaps they should be on TfTD.
I don`t discount that we have different emotional states. I disagree that I [we] need supernatural agents or 'belief' to alter them. Some things make me happy, others sad etc. But I don't ascribe them to or rely on to enter them] any supernatural agencies.
All I ask for is equality of representation on TfTD. I accept people have differences of opinion, I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as I disagree with others, but isn't debate interesting? I fail to see why religions shouldn't be challenged and arguments tested and developed. As someone above pointed out above there are different ways of thinking. As many have lost their 'belief' in conventional religious belief, shouldn't secular alternatives be heard? Ignoring this won't make it go away.
Complain about this comment
It seems that Mark Damazer has set himself up as the defender of TFTD: his religious prejudice is manifest. That the wishes of so many licence fee payers can so conspicuously be ignored is indeed depressing. He is detached. What must people struggling to pay the licence fee think of his £220,000 annual salary (more than the prime minister)?
Complain about this comment
"These programmes approach the world from perspectives which are not religious. As, of course, do the other 2 hours 57 minutes of Today."
Oh, so taking 3 minutes at a different point in which no other viewpoint was allowed but an atheistic one would be okay?
More accurately, the other 2 hours 57 minutes get a mix of perspectives, including religion, and then 3 minutes of pure religion when all other viewpoints are forbidden.
Not that anybody would expect anything else from those promoting religion. It's not like religion has ever actually practiced tolerance.
Complain about this comment
246 Nigelis wrote "Atheists only have Darwin to guide them"
Many of the religious folk posting to this thread seem to have a strange view of atheists. They seem to think we derive our world view from a narrow body of work, written by a couple of authors, namely Dawkins and Darwin.
While Dawkins and Darwin have a lot to say about the origins and the propagation of life, I am not aware that they have a lot to say about how to conduct ones life. There are, however, plenty of other rational philosophers who have something to ethics. Indeed, Nigelis' limited view of philosophy reinforces the view that the scope of TFTD should be widened away from the narrow faith based Judeo–Christian-Muslim school of philosophy. Lets have some Zoroastrians, some of those wacky Rastafarians, Scientologists, Mormons. Better still, some hard core atheist existentialists.
Its interesting that the BBC permits a Christian to make a statement about ethics unchallenged but forbids a Marxist.
Complain about this comment
In # 244 rabitfoole wrote:
"I remember seeing a bunch of people once, standing on the steps of a Whitehall building in the rain: the remnant of a demo after most sensible people had long gone home. The banners had gone all soggy and they had lost their voices, so the chant was quite unintelligible."
So you dismissed the validity of their protest based on how they presented themselves?
Complain about this comment
As a thinking person, when I am awake that early, my ears are alert when I hear the words 'thought for the day'; then I groan when I realise I am getting a religious sermon, and go back to sleep. why cant I have a 'thought for the day' to stimulate my atheist, rationalist views; give me something interesting, philosophical, stimulating to consider as I drink my cup of tea, and gather my not inconsiderable thoughts, which do not involve god, jesus, churches, or religious groups. Support me, radio 4, I support you!
Complain about this comment
Well, I think the foolish rabbit was probably right about something: the debate is dwindling, and interestingly - or not - it has come and gone without the pro TFTD party making a single actual point.
Damazer's comments seem lucid and all encompassing by comparison to what else has been said.
So, just to recap, can I confirm that everyone of religious bent is so terrified by a bit of rationalism that - say 1 in 4 or 5 - for a non signed up witch doctor is out of the question?
Why would it be worse to hear the thoughts of, say a university don or an historian, a writer, a poet, a war hero than someone of a completely different - and so just as irrelevant and destined for damnation - faith? Why does the only qualification need to be the belief in one or more giant sky pixies?
If it was just silly, it would just be silly. But it isn't, it is discriminatory and wrong. It would not be tolerated in any comparable form, and it should not be tolerated, and will not be tolerated any longer.
I strongly suspect that if this issue is not dealt with fairly we will see a license fee revolt. And a court of law could only judge the matter one way. They, at least, are forced to deal in facts.
Oh, and, it probably wouldn't have occurred to you: but maybe the guys standing on the steps of the Whitehall building in the rain were just waiting for the team bus so they could go to the victory party?
That's where I'm going.
Peace. Out.
Complain about this comment
Its beauty is that it gives a place for faith in the middle of the news whilst affording the parenthesise to remind us that this is perspective and not fact.
News is a series of facts, known points in a three dimensional world. Our religion, be it traditional, humanist or even atheism is the direction from which we view these.
The parallax afforded by hearing a gobbet from another person’s faith enriches my understanding of the world in which I live which was, I thought, the purpose of The Today Program.
I may be wrong as I only bother to wake to listen when a story I am following is breaking. The normal fair is a duplicitous politician obfuscating, the celebrity who preens themselves and sports people that are as sick as hackneyed metaphor.
We would be better off were we to question the promotion of the propaganda sheets in the press review than a well-meant thought for day ahead.
Complain about this comment
250. johnnyess, you ask "LordCoat post 248. How on earth can you possibly know that?"
I'll tell you. Because 'rabitfoole' is an invention (call him the Official Vatican Troll, if you like) and 'LordCoat' is an invention also (call him the Pontifical Sockpuppet to the Vatican Troll).
My father was an atheist, and he never stopped ranting on about religion. He made sure we were not allowed to attend school assemblies, so made us look stupid in front of our classmates by having to wait in the classroom while assembly was going on. He suppressed my mother's desire to explore faith, in a very cruel manner. I grew up observing that atheists would argue with the Muppets if there was nobody else around.
And that's what you just did, folks. If you couldn't spot the clues in the names 'rabitfoole' and 'Lord Coat' - and their stereotype viewpoints - then you could at least have recognised classic troll and sockpuppet patterns.
Yes, this was an atheist wind-up by someone brought up by an atheist and who sees no value whatsoever in your faith. This is the real me speaking, but I'll remain anonymous, as most of you do anyway.
And for the record, a lot of what I hear on Thought for the Day is very puerile, and I don't think it really matters if you had a couple of atheists balancing out the Sikhs and the Evangelicals.
I'm certainly not going to start arguing with Muppets.
So - 'rabitfoole' and 'LordCoat' - it's goodnight from you. :-)
Complain about this comment
I can't see the logic in having representation fom different beliefs but pejeducing against atheists.
Surely the program is trying to ascertain the differences in perspective from people on various topical issues, so by ignoring aethists is missing a large portion of society??
Indeed if you were to classify people's religion in the UK vai their behaviour rather than by the word they write on a sheet then atheists would be the most dominant belief in the UK.
it is a disgrace in the UK that people such as the BBC are allowed to show prejudices on a dimension that would never be acceptable in racial terms.
This situation is worse in the US where being an atheist is a larger barrier for a politician than being black, female or even a criminal.
We grant religion to much scope to operate in a non-pc context in todays world. If there is such confidence in beliefs than surely an additional voice at the table is no bad thing???
Complain about this comment
As davevauxall2 wrote 'people with religious views don't hold the monopoly on values and morality'. It would be good to hear humanist and aetheist views on these issues, which should not lead to losing the 'oasis' effect of 'Thought for the Day'.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to say how much I appreciate 'Thought for the Day'. I think it's balanced and it's a way of acknowledging the central part spirituality and religion has in our lives, both on a global and national scale, but also in people's personal lives. There's something odd in British society which is embarrassed about discussing religious issues which other cultures don't have a problem with. The thing is 'we do do God' whether some like it or not. 'Thought for the day' provides a brief window into the spiritual world and often provides a helpful perspective on current issues.
Complain about this comment
The Today Programme is a news programme.
The BBC's editorial guidelines state that all BBC output should be impartial. The guidelines have a section that specifically covers impartiality and diversity of opinion. So let's consult this section.
"The Agreement accompanying the BBC's Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs" it goes on to say "we should do all we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services".
The presence of three minutes of overtly religious content at peak time in a major BBC news programme is not authoritative and impartial coverage.
TFTD clearly violates the BBCs own editorial guidelines. Mark Damazer obviously didn't consult these guidelines before preparing his statement otherwise he wouldn't have found this to be a genuinely difficult question. It is totally clear that TFTD is neither authoritative nor impartial and has no right to be part of the BBC's news output.
To be sure that people like Mark Damazer are totally clear about this, the editorial guidelines conclude with the following paragraph.
"News, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality."
What's so difficult about this Mr Damazer?
Complain about this comment
243. PinkGhost, you say, "In a publicly funded radio programme aimed at the wider audience, it is a political decision to define categories of citizens who have and have not the right to be heard."
I disagree. It is an editorial decision. Just as editors determine content over every aspect of the media. Certain issues are exercised on East Enders, others are excluded. When were serious issues of Christian faith last evident in any TV soap opera? You don't hear a big fuss about that, but it is far more influential.
This secular brainwashing of young people makes them 'consumers' and 'exploiters' fit for the market place but unfit for exploring deeper meaning in their lives, individually or collectively. A three minute slot on Radio 4 about living life reflectively is best done by people reminding us of a higher responsibility, whether they 'suit' our religious views or not.
The idea that religion should be a private business that takes place behind closed doors was pretty standard during the persecutions in communist countries, and still is for Christians in China. From the atheists who write to say how offensive the find Thought for the Day, we can see that a common wish is to suppress religious expression in one of the few places it can be heard in a regular slot on the broadcast output. They do this under the cover of seeking fairness and equality.
In fact there already exists a glaring inequality that is exactly the reverse of this idea, and rhetorical manipulations of this kind by a vociferous lobby group - interestingly appearing the same week as the advertising on buses, funded by Richard Dawkins - should be robustly resisted.
Complain about this comment
Damazer's rationale - it's a spot for believers - logically excludes atheists, but it also logically includes children who believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and adults who hold such absurd beliefs as Mormons, Raelians, Scientologists and other weird faiths (fyi - all these believe God originally came from outer space).
Thought for the Day can either carry on being about belief - which ranges from the irrational to the crazy - or it can be about morality and / or reflections on current events, in which case it should be open to anyone, including atheists.
No matter how much the Today team have thought about this, they still haven't come to the logical conclusion - they must either include all beliefs, no matter how absurd, or include atheists. (And if they argue that they can reject beliefs with small numbers of followers, they must surely accept atheists, who are more numerous in Britain than the Sikhs and Hindus who regularly appear in the slot.)
Complain about this comment
“...using the words of scripture or liturgy that have been worn smooth as a pebble by centuries of repetition and devotion.”
Mark Damazar
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
Exodus 21:20-21
No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.”
Deuteronomy 23:3
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13
“A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death.”
Leviticus 21:9
Complain about this comment
This is just so easy to resolve. All Mark Damazer has to do is allow Humanists on. They are non religious, generally atheists, but Humanism is an ethics-based belief. Humanists conduct legal marriage ceremonies in Scotland [still need an extra step in England] so surely that must give them credence. Having Humanists on TFTD would, I believe, make most people happy.
If Mr Damazer continues to restrict TFTD to FAITHS only, then, as many people have said, you might as well have all the religious nutters on from all cults and where is the morality in that?
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion", Arthur C Clarke.
Complain about this comment
Please don't censor out 'Thought for the day'. It may not suit everyone but I don't believe anything you broadcast does that. I look forward to hearing it every day when I can.
By all means try to widen the scope of your contributors, but if you find a humanist, get someone who actually has something positive to say. The last one I heard (which must have been over a year ago) spent his whole 3 minutes knocking religion.
Complain about this comment
To exclude the non-religious from spiritual discussion is baseless discrimination.
The comment that the non-religious need not be involved in Thought for the Day because their "...voices are also heard extensively across the general output..." would if taken to a fair and balanced end imply that people who believe in a god should not be involved in the general BBC output because their voices are heard in religious and spiritual output. This is just a bit silly.
Complain about this comment
#262 Yetene,
Thank you for commenting. I assume you hold a religious perspective and would encourage others who may be reading this to also contribute.
Could you please clarify if you have a personal objection to secular speakers such as philosophers, poets etc taking part in the slot? If you do have objection, please explain.
You say `it's a way of acknowledging the central part spirituality and religion has in our [a proportion of peoples] lives`
I believe this is adequately covered through the news that is covered throughout the programme. I also believe that giving religious speakers a voice in a slot which covers morality and reflects upon current events would also be respecting the central part religion plays in your life. In other words, allowing secular speakers would not detract from the current position. Please, if you disagree with this, explain.
Complain about this comment
266. At 10:56am on 10 Jan 2009, gcdavis wrote:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, (sic) both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13
I expect you have quoted this as an example of 'homophobia' in the Bible, have you? If indeed it is an example of homophobia, by the rules of this blog it is prohibited. Therefore, please test your conviction properly by complaining about your own message and demand its removal. We shall then see if it is judged by the BBC as unacceptable.
On the outcome of this we will have the answer to a few interesting moral dilemmas that have been posed, plus it will make the BBC face up the issues they have dumped on the rest of us here! Watch this space.
Complain about this comment
"This secular brainwashing of young people makes them 'consumers' and 'exploiters' fit for the market place but unfit for exploring deeper meaning in their lives, individually or collectively." says Gareth Th in message 264.
Well that is just one of the many good reasons why the BBC should include a secular contribution to TFTD. There are many non-believers who are not rampant consumerists ; you do not have to believe in a Supreme Being to care passionately about issues!
Allowing a healthy mix of "thinkers " onto this slot would make it so much more relevant and effective, and would be a far more representative reflection of the diverse range of views held by listeners.
I still would much prefer TFTD to be broadcast separately as its own programme instead of being randomly inserted into Radio 4's flagship news and current affairs programme. However, as relocation seems to be very unlikely under the present controller, the next best outcome would be for a range of voices to be heard from a range of perspectives, not just representatives of the major faith groups.
Please Mark Damazer re-read all those emails you received and all these comments and try to find the strength to do the right thing.
Complain about this comment
271. At 11:35am on 10 Jan 2009, GarethTh wrote
"I expect you have quoted this as an example of 'homophobia' in the Bible, have you? If indeed it is an example of homophobia, by the rules of this blog it is prohibited. Therefore, please test your conviction properly by complaining about your own message and demand its removal"
Nice try
Complain about this comment
The current position is clear discrimination and therefore not sustainable. Full stop.
Complain about this comment
I think one thing that many religious people do not understand, or refuse to admit, is that atheists do not believe in a controlling deity(s). Thus any 'thought for the day' that revolves around the presumption that there is such a thing comes from a very different perspective.
By not allowing an Atheist perspective the BBC is failing a large number of listeners (licence payers) in favour of those who do believe in such things.
Maybe a better format would be to have contributers from around the world and with different social backgrounds irrespective of beliefs.
Complain about this comment
You said: "Within Thought for the Day a careful balance is maintained of voices from different Christian denominations and other religions with significant membership in the UK." So, just call it "Christian Thought for the Day". or "Religious Thought for the Day.", or "Thistic Thought for the Day". Adjectives are wonderful and honest!.
Complain about this comment
Yu said: ..." voices from ....other religions with significant membership in the UK." I posit that Humanists and Atheists have a "significant memebership in the UK." , therefore, by your own rule, they should be represented in this program.
Complain about this comment
GarethTH@264: Nice use of the term “secular brainwashing” there. Care to explain what that means? Anything to do with giving another side to the debate, and encouraging children to make up their own minds? Even the pleasingly progressive primary school that my son attends, which enlightens pupils about many different faiths, does not seem to discuss the “none of the above option,” so a little redressing is not out of order.
You say “A three minute slot on Radio 4 about living life reflectively is best done by people reminding us of a higher responsibility.” If you mean reflecting on our role in society, on looking beyond our personal daily concerns, I couldn’t agree more. If by “higher responsibility” you mean to some sort of deity, then you’re just being silly!
And as for “the advertising on buses, funded by Richard Dawkins,” in the interest of accuracy I fell obliged to point out that while Dawkins supports this campaign, it is not his campaign, he didn’t start it, and his contribution comes in at less than 4% of the current total. The simple truth is that it has benefited from a huge groundswell of support from people who, just for once, would like to answer back to the many similar religious messages trust upon us with alarming regularity.
Complain about this comment
I endorse the comments made by Mark Damazer.
I would like to point out that there are many much longer broadcasts that I do not support but because I believe that others have the right to listen to them I do not ask for them to be removed from the airways I simply use the "off switch".
Complain about this comment
@259 LordCoat wrote, ".....but I'll remain anonymous, as most of you do anyway."
Gocha!
You are Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of the RCU. 'Reclaim Control of the Uterus' a Vatican based organisation declaring Catholic jihad on the vulva.
I claim my £5.
Complain about this comment
When Mark Damazer states that TFTD offers an "uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection" what exactly is going on in his home when it pollutes the airwaves - the butler bringing him his kippers!
Most ordinary folk are rushing around getting ready for a hard day ahead. People are looking at the clock; stuffing toast in their mouth and trying to get the kids to do likewise. Sandwiches have to be prepared, and dishes cleared away and washed.
Mark Damazer sees nothing wrong with using the BBC as a means to privilege religion: this is a misuse of the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting how most of the religious contributors here are interpreting this as a call for censorship. In fact it is a call to include alternative viewpoints, hence the very opposite of censorship. While I suppose we shouldn't really expect rational arguments from the religious, this does seem particularly striking. Mr Damazar likewise puts forward no argument for excluding thoughts from outside the tiny box of religion. Anyway, surely the naming of the slot is a breach of the Trades Descriptions Act - rename it "Irrational Belief of the Day" and I for one would have less of a problem with it. But if it's "thought for the day", let's have some actual thought on it....
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Damazer,
I have a programme proposal for you: A three minute talk to be inserted into the middle of all religious services broadcast on Radio 4. The brief will be to reflect on religion from a rational perspective and it will be a requirement that all speakers be atheists. The talk will be commissioned and produced by the BBC Science Department and the presenters from the Religion and Ethics Department will introduce it without comment before or after.
Absurd? Of course it is, but no more so than Thought for the Day! You might object that a religious service is not equivalent to the Today Programme and I agree. It has a much smaller audience for one thing. But I am picking up on your defence of Thought for the Day as a religious "right of reply" to a programme with an inbuilt secular bias. The church service certainly has an inbuilt religious bias! Personally I do not think Today has a secular bias, if anything the reverse. A homophobic, racist or misogynist cleric or imam is much less likely to be confronted than a politician or layman with similar views. I'm willing to bet the average bishop gets a much higher proportion of the airtime in a John Humphrys interview than, say, a politician or a scientist. The programme often carries tediously detailed coverage of religious politics, particularly in the Church of England, and of religious interventions in secular controversies.
I hope I have made this a little less of a "genuinely difficult question" for you.
J Hind
(Licence fee payer and not part of any organised campaign.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To be clear from the start:
I have also written an email of complaint. I have never read Dawkins, but I have been brought up as a humanist. I have never before spoken out. But as I said in my email I am no longer willing to accept that while I freely respect, tolerate and consider the world views of religious people they may in turn disrespect my world view by questioning my morality, show their intolerance by commissioning unchallenged proselytising by religious people on a programme as important as the Today Programme and show themselves inconsiderate by putting the conservation of their status in society over my right to have my views heard.
I have simply felt that this time with so many complaining there might be a chance to be heard. I do not wish to exclude the religious voices from Thought for the Day - I merely wish my own non-religious worldview to be reflected also.
According to the 2001 Census, the non-religious are the second largest group after Christians. Moreover, the results show that the number of non-religious people in the UK is bigger than any of the other religions added together. Thought for the Day thus disregards the world views of more than 15% of the population, and the selection of contributors to Thought for The Day grossly underrepresents a large part of its audience by excluding non-religious view points. More recent studies show that an even larger proportion of the population consider themselves to be non-religious (including a 2005 BBC poll finding non-religious at 22%).
The slot clearly breaks several of the principles of the BBC Trust's Charter (for instance to reflect society and to represent the views of licence payers). It does so because it is commissioned as a purely religious slot, purposefully excluding people based on their views.
Mr Damazer points out that non-religious views are broadcast in other programmes but the editorial guidelines plainly say that in the case of Impartiality in Series:
“We can not achieve impartiality in this context by ensuring other views will be heard on other services”
Thought for the Day is clearly a series. It is not called Religious Thought for the Day or Prayer for the Day – the name Thought for the Day tells the unsuspecting listener that this is to be a feature intended to stimulate reflection of current events and can be expected to broadcast opinions from philosophers, atheists, agnostics and other notable non-religious persons – it does not imply there is to be only commentary from the religious. Thus, excluding the non-religious is unmistakably in violation of the editorial guidelines.
One more comment about the use of the word secular:
Secular does not mean anti-religious but that no group is given preference over any other and that no group may be given advantages by the state based on their beliefs. It also means that no one is allowed to be persecuted for their beliefs and that all are equally subject to the law of the state.
For GarethT #264: I grew up in a communist country and would be very happy to explain the difference between a secular country and what went/goes on regarding religion in communist ones.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it should be renamed "Religious thought thought of the day" as it sets out to exclude all other viewpoints and thus perpetuates the narrow worldview of religious cults.
Complain about this comment
283. At 2:36pm on 10 Jan 2009, JeremyB
Brilliant!
Complain about this comment
The problem with thought for the day is that it is from the "faith perspective".
There is little that the reinterpretation of ancient mythological texts can tell us that is relevant in a modern society. Indeed, it is the continuation of this muddled thinking that prevents society moving forward. The Act of Settlement, Archbishops in the House of Lords, Faith Schools and thought for the day define religious privilege in this country. Widening the number of contributors to Thought for the Day to include rational thinkers is only fair and reasonable.
Complain about this comment
We need to remember that the innocent phrase 'from their faith perspective' means 'from the perspective of someone who claims to communicate with, and take instruction from, invisible, immortal, superpower creatures'.
From another perspective, it seems rather odd that the BBC thinks that only such people are qualified to present an unchallenged moral opinion on issues of the day.
Complain about this comment
I complained about Songs of Praise being dumbed down and full of somewhat non-religious 'music'. The editor told me that SOP wasn't supposed to be a religious program.
Complain about this comment
I agree that Thought for the Day is a special segment of the Today programme, but regardless of the argument over whether it should exist or not, I can not see a reason why the Humanist / Atheist voice shouldn't provoke similar "thought" to that which a religious believer does.
Humanism is another belief system. Uniquely different to religious belief systems; but that isn't a particularly good reason for preventing those people from reflecting on issues of the day and making their comment.
Complain about this comment
These blogs are getting better & better. 283 & 285 are particularly pertinent. I only hope they are all read. They seem absolutely irrefutable. The trouble is when the decision-makers are getting their instructions from fairy-godmothers in the sky no amount of rational argument will move them.
Complain about this comment
Even if a "pause for spiritual reflection" were appropriate in the middle of a secular political programme (which it isn't) TFTD goes way beyond this. Example: on the day last year when the House of Commons was debating the highly controversial issue of the "need for a father" in the context of lesbian fertility treatment, we were treated to a rant by Joel Edwards, a fundamentalist extremist, on the evil that the proposal would do if it were passed (as it later was). This is an example of the use of TFTD as a platform for unbalanced political propaganda without any challenge or alternative point of view being allowed. At least if non fatih voices were allowed the balance would improve.
Complain about this comment
As an athiest and humanist I can only echo what has been said before. Infact my take on the comments listed is that 90% and above support the view that TftD needs to change.
I for one listen regularly on the way to work and at 8:50 retune to Radio2/Radio5. On the occasion that i've listened, either the content is mediocre drivel lacking insight and any significant moral content, or else I've been shouting at the Radio at the totally offensive nonsense that is uttered without cross-examination.
Banning the programme is not an option as the programme, in principle, is worthwhile and I am all for free speach and opinion. It does however need to be opened up to a broader cross section of the population whose morals and ethics are not enforced by an invisible sky daddy who will send them to hell if they step out of line.
I am waiting to hear IPM at 5:30 and will be VERY dissapinted if Mark Damazer is not interviewed for commment. The BBC, as a publically funded organisation have a duty/charter to which they are failing to uphold.
Complain about this comment
Wonderful. I didn't know so many shared my distaste for this religious nonsense. I *always* tune into radio 3 for the four minutes or so that this is on.
I just refuse to listen to it. At 07:48 it's by! I'll be back by 07:55 (unless I like what I hear on R3, then I'll stop there!).
Complain about this comment
Well what a waste of space today’s IPM was! The fundamental issue was not discussed at all. It seems the editors had not read the posts that prompted this debate and Eddie’s fake kowtowing to his boss didn’t sound fake at all!
Complain about this comment
After much anticipation, waiting to hear this issue fully aired, I feel profoundly disappointed. The radio programme failed to reflect the scale of opposition to TftD, instead merely repeating the controller's insufficient explanation. I will email the BBC to complain and encourage others to do so.
The clear high point was the thought from Ariane Sherine which demonstrated that non-believers can make a coherent and illuminating point.
Well done Ariane. Deep shame discriminatory BBC.
Complain about this comment
The slot is too religious and irrational at present, it might be possible to balance this to include a much wider range of non religious views, but on balance I think its time to pull the plug on it.
Complain about this comment
296. gcdavis wrote: "Well what a waste of space today?s IPM was!"
I genuinely agree with you. Entirely unsatisfactory from the Christian point of view too. At least we heard what an atheist Thought for the Day would sound like. What a load of twaddle! Worse than the worst of our lot on a bad day, or even Lionel Blue...
Complain about this comment
Well IPM was a waste of time.
Mark Damazer's statement was simply read out and not one of the many good counter arguments presented here were aired. Total whitewash.
What happens now? We have to continue this further.
I have quietly been putting up with TftD until now, but this blog has simply emphasised to me that I am not alone in my views!
Complain about this comment
It is not just Thought for the day I find irritating, although I do enjoy Lionel Blue, but the whole special pleading that the religious assume is theirs as of right. I think it is high time that ALL religion is privatised. By all means believe what you will, but don't expect me to believe in dead men walking from sealed tombs or mud men and rib women. For those of you who would ask where morality comes from without religion, you are a member of the human race and as such able to recognise that what you do affects the lives of others.
Complain about this comment
No - I don't agree with Mark Damazer. I don't even agree it's a "difficult question." I speak as a Christian but would claim no special privileges because of that, and don't think others should, either. I think that's not a difficult concept at all. Having just listened to the lady who devised the atheist bus ads (can't recall her name, I"m afraid) I find myself thinking what an excellent contributor she would be. I agree the three-minute space on Today should be maintained for a period of reflection, but as someone else has commented spirituality is not the same as religion. We need to hear lots of different voices. and people of all religious beliefs need to realise that belief is just that: belief, not necessarily truth.
Complain about this comment
If you agree that iPM did not reflect the online debate, complain here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Complain about this comment
In hindsight I feel that Ariane Sherine's piece, irrespective of the content, was a fob off and actually insulting. A single 3 minute humanist speach does not make up for 30 years of religeous drivel. Dawkins was also given his three minutes the last time this was debated and the question was equally side stepped afterwards.
Insulting.
Complain about this comment
296. gcdavis wrote:
"Well what a waste of space today?s IPM was!"
I entirely agree. This went nowhere near resolving the issues raised. Now that iPM has opened up this for debate, they need to settle it properly.
Complain about this comment
I have tried twice to post a simple message saying iPM was unsatisfactory and the matter was not resolved. Twice the massage has not appeared. Let's try one more time shall we?
Complain about this comment
I'm not a regular Radio 4 listener (simply because of work commitments), so was unaware that this debate was happening until I read about it in one of today's papers. I sympathise with those who were disappointed by the programme tonight, but am however delighted that it happened at all and I now have hope that things will at long last change.
What I want is a level playing field. If Thought for Today and Pause for Thought are to continue, then there MUST be regular contributions from a non-religious perspective, and as a member of the British Humanist Association I would love to see them becoming more involved.
It's great to see all these posts and I hope the BBC finally realises the strength of opinion about this - I have personally never done anything like this before. For those in the know, is there anywhere else I should be expressing an opinion?
Complain about this comment
Isn't it a coincidence that the messaging system has sudenly broken down, after both sides equally feel that iPM has made a mess of it?
Complain about this comment
Useless!
Complain about this comment
I have to agree with post no. 296 entirely. I was taken aback that Eddie did not even discuss any of the many counter-arguments people have presented here (and in the 1500+ e-mails sent as a result of my pledge). This topic has not yet received the serious attention it deserves.
Complain about this comment
I do understand that any form of spiritual dimension in life is now considered reactionary and somewhat passe. This may well be no more that a fashion. The spiritual dimension can be glossed over but it will not go away. Thought for the day must not go away either, any more than Church Bells on Sunday. These are not relics from a simpler age. At the most primitive level, 1920s blues still has things to say to us today , let alone sacred writings from whatever tradition and the questions they pose.
Complain about this comment
“Thought for the Day is a unique slot in which speakers from a wide range of religious faiths reflect on an issue of the day from their faith perspective.”
The above quote from Mark Damazer sums up the whole problem with TftD. All of his arguments can be answered by straight forward balanced reasoning, but MD will never listen if he believes that the slot is acceptably “unique”.
Why should one person (or perhaps a few) have the right to give such a unique privilege to one particular superstition?
Complain about this comment
Justice is the guideline surely? Things have to be fair. What's fairness where Thought for the Day is concerned?
T f t D is a great idea. Get the best of the whole gamut of ideas on life, living and the universe.
The best thoughts going on life, living and the universe are essential.
The only unfairness I can see in TftD is that the Humanist and Atheist contribution are not included. Am I correct? If I am, this definitely needs to be corrected because it is not fair. I am a committed Christian and Christianity is certainly about universal fairness - though you wouldn't always think so by the opinions some Christians feel obliged to hold.
This is the same problem as exists in so-called RE in schools. I say "so-called RE" because the title is not helpful. The subject should be called "Values Education". That would give the non-believing student as much a feeling of ownership of the subject as the believing one. It does not allow for study of the Humanist, Atheist life viewpoint. Unfair discrimination. The atheist or humanist has as much right as any religious believer to have and share their view. To have their view analysed, studied, evaluated. This generosity does not suit the religious lobby. Am I wrong in feeling that their opposition betrays a lack of a sense of justice?
So. Don't scrap TftD. Make it truly representative of the gamut of life viewpoints... As long as the life viewpoint respects the human rights of all other citizens! This is not a passport for Abu Hamza and his like.
Complain about this comment
I have just registered the following complaint about the recent IPM programme:
To whom it may concern,
I would like to register my dissatisfaction at the way the "Thought for the Day" issue was handled on IPM this evening.
The subject in question has provoked a massive online debate via the IPM blog site, particularly after Mark Damazer posted his recent controversial statement. Many people have posted eloquent and reasoned arguments as to why Mr Damazer's thinking is flawed and inconsistent and yet none of these were given any airtime. Instead, Mr Damazer's statement was simply read out verbatim, with no opportunity made to explore the counter views.
By ignoring these comments, IPM has effectively chosen to ignore and stifle a contrary opinion. I thought that the entire point of IPM is that it's an interactive programme, and one cannot choose to ignore a debate simply because it criticises the views of the Controller of Radio 4.
It's even more frustrating that the vast majority, and I do mean the vast majority of the 300 plus comments, were in opposition to Mr Damazer's statement. As a publicly funded, and supposedly impartial organization, I find it alarming that a much needed and worthwhile debate is being side-stepped and swept under the carpet.
Complain about this comment
May I add this rider?
TftD most definitely has a place in a factual programme on what's going on in the world. It highlights that values are just as present in the world as facts. Are just as important.
What people think is just as important as what they do. In fact more important. Because they determine what they do. Isn't it obvious that ideas are more important, more dangerous than actions - because they are the manipulators in the background?
It is in the mind that murder, mayhem, injustice are planned .
The facts of Gaza and the Israel-Hamas struggle are important. Of course they are. Immensely and tragically important. But what produced these horrible facts? The ideas, the attitudes, the political or social or religious dogmas in the hearts of Israelis and Hamas adherents.
TftD airs the positives that drive peoples' lives. Would it be progress to get rid of it? Or further impoverishment?
Complain about this comment
Oh God! I despair when I see all this vehement anti TFTD blog. The point is to take time out for a reflective three minutes on a topic of current interest. Anyone with the skill to put it together should be welcome to make a contribution, regardless of faith or background. I don't see them as mini-sermons or a dose of indoctrination - usually the contributors have thought very carefully about what they can reasonably fit in to the time available and look for a different angle on current thinking. That is the joy of listening to them - taking time out to STOP AND THINK AND APPRECIATE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. I for one would be sorry if the slot - like the old music break - were to be scrapped. Who would benefit?
Complain about this comment
Hey folks, I just had a funny thought, just to lighten the gloom. I came out of night prayer just now. Twenty five seminarians in a very prayerful chapel. And I reflected on the iPM "Thought for the Day" fiasco and felt sorry for the atheists. At least we can offer it up in prayer... Oh go on atheists, at least laugh at that!
Complain about this comment
The word "rational" is being claimed with ever increasing fervour by the secularists ... but for what exactly?
Three minutes of religious comment on the world's affairs in a three hour programme? why that's nearly one sixtieth of the whole programme! How disproportionate when at least half the population have an interest in religion.... and at least half the news-stories seem to have a religious angle too.
Tolerance is a two way street. We need to respect diversity instead of trying to snuff it out with unfounded assertions of universal values.
Complain about this comment
Dear Joy (316)
"STOP AND THINK AND APPRECIATE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT"
I agree entirely. I'd like to hear the viewpoint of someone who has rejected faith, but has a perfectly valid point of view now please. Oops, sorry, no. That's banned by the BBC.
I suddenly realised when I was typing those words the true horror of the situation. My thoughts are baned by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Can we have an iPM slot next week to discuss why the subject of TfTD as discussed on iPM was one of the most feeble pieces of 'journalism' I have ever witnessed.
The whole section was: Damazer's fob off piece, a secular 'TftD', Eddie jokingly cow-towing to his boss, an excellent revealing interview with the chap from Ekklesia showing the Ethics and Religious department do not like being spoken against and that was it.
Did iPm not try to get some to back up TfTD? Is everyone scared of their jobs?
It would seem that freedom of speech is only available for the ones the people in power choose.
Complain about this comment
Clearly Eddie was manipulated by Damazer and his Thought Police.
Complain about this comment
joy-from-canon-frome wrote:
"Oh God! I despair when I see all this vehement anti TFTD blog".
On the contrary far from being anti TFTD, if you took the time to read the 300+ posts, you would find that the vast majority actually value the programme and would like to retain it, only with the INCLUSION of non-religeous views.
Religeon does not hold exclusive opinion on morality and ethics. In fact some would say that they are the least suitable organisations to comment on these subjects.
Complain about this comment
Chris:
I read the remarks from Mark Damazer, controller of Radio 4, on his remarks from the topic....I have to agree with his remarks and understand, totally agreed with his reasons....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
I believe thought for the day gives us a welcome chance to reflect spiritually about current affairs. So often issues are around negativity and it gives us a thoughtful reflection on what is happening Everlie
Complain about this comment
It is clear from Mark Damazer's poorly argued response to the complaints that he is finding it "difficult" and should not be the one who is dealing with this particular complaint. He does not understand the nature of the complaint. These need to be considered by someone who does (and I am not talking about Mark Thompson!). As identified by others, to be truly "balanced" a daily spot would have to be given for a non-faith based view on particular issues on a daily prime-time news/ current affairs program. This is different from secular based output where neither a faith or non-faith view is given.
Complain about this comment
What a cop-out! Not only was Mr Damazer not available to answer his critics, but most of the carefully developed criticisms on this blog were not even given an airing. Despite the jokey mock-cringing of the presenters I got the definite impression they were under instructions to close this down as quickly and quietly as possible.
The only non-religious contributor was effectively neutralised by being briefed to deliver another "mock Thought for the Day". She did this very well, but was effectively forced to use her time for an uplifting homily in which she could not address the issue at all. I seem to remember that Richard Dawkins was given the slot "unofficially" once in parallel to the "real" slot and presumably without the involvement of the Religion and Ethics Department. Really, are these people so fundamentalist that it would kill them to commission a humanist thought just once? Just to show willing? Pretty please?
The case for wider inclusion was actually made by a religious speaker, and to be fair he did not pull any punches. It was interesting to hear his claim that the Religion and Ethics Department is so Stalinist that not only do you get banned for not agreeing with religion, you also get banned for not agreeing with the policy of banning people who do not agree with religion!
(I will now be part of an organised campaign as soon as I can find one!)
Complain about this comment
FreddyMzungu wrote:
"In a week when one of atheism's prophets, Charles Darwin is getting a daily half hour spot on Radio 4 then to get squeamish about 5 minutes everyday for people who have religious concerns is a bit churlish."
Darwin is not an athiest prophet. Please stop trying to make out being 'secular' is anything like being religious. Darwins scientific discoveries are as relevant to you as any one else. And judging by the number of speakers on TfTD tlast week trying to say evolution was compatible with religious teachings the religious leaders are trying to grab Darwin for themselves or at least shuffle up to him.
And yes Darwin had some time this week but for one week to celebrate 200years since his birth..and hardly 'atheistic'.
"I always saw the BBC's placing science programmes on Sunday nights (which has often happened) as a quite deliberate 'religious' statement in which science was the explanation for everything which had hitherto been ascribed to God."
Really? You seem somewhat scared of science. Is it a problem with knowing the actual truth about how things occur rather than the view that 'God did it.'?
"All children have an intuitive acceptance of God"
No all children have an intuitive acceptance that adults will tell them the truth and will accept what they say as the truth.
"only for adolescence to erode this."
No, in adolescence they start to realise that adults WILL lie to them and many re-assess what adults told them and a lot come to the conclusion that gods do not exist.
"Many adults retain this outlook and Thought for the Day speaks to them."
Yes, many adults do not get past the unquestioning child-like mental state.
Complain about this comment
Dear pdw709 (322)
Well, that's alright then! Thanks for putting me straight! Clearly you know how many of these blogs I read to get a flavour of the anti TFTD feeling I picked up! Jesting aside, I too am supportive of a diversity of viewpoints - which is what I said if you read it carefully. By the way, 'religious' is spelt with a second 'i' not an 'e'!!! But I'm sure you'll knock me down in flames for that, too.
Complain about this comment
@317--I'm glad it made you feel better, while having no effect at all on the real world. As for me, I spent a bit less time than that writing a verse (no, not a poem) about the issue:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/01/thought-for-day.html
Excluding the atheists—sure, that’s ok—
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
Or judging your worth based on how much you weigh
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
Get out, if you’re black! Or you’re white! Or you’re gray!
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
And keep your mouth shut if you chance to be gay
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
Let’s bother the man with the ill-made toupee
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
And joke at the homeless, with no place to stay
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
Any group that we wish, we can not let them play
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
And look down our noses in utter dismay
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
It’s only three minutes; no need for dismay
If you choose to get huffy, and join in the fray
We’ll label you “angry” to keep you at bay
Dismissing your view as a public display
And repackaging it as some worn-out cliché
From a group with essentially nothing to say
And it’s fine if our freedom of speech goes away…
So long as it’s only three minutes a day
Let me simply agree with the majority of commenters here--there is no reason that a "thought for the day" need discriminate against any group. Certainly, editorial control may be exercised over content, but that is the case for any contributor--there are certainly inappropriate "thoughts" that may be contributed by believers and unbelievers alike.
Complain about this comment
Re #311
'At the most primitive level, 1920s blues still has things to say to us today.'
I absolutely agree. You should read the excellent essay, 'The Blues: Religious or Anti-Religious?' by Brian Darrith (available free online), which includes the following:
'The sinful content of the blues and the frequent opposition between the blues and religion has led many scholars to consider blues music and musicians atheistic in nature.
According to Garon, “The blues is uncompromisingly atheistic. It has no interest in the systems of divine reward and punishment: it holds out for “paradise now” (1975, p. 148).
Garon posits that this antireligious nature of blues stems from the oppressive nature of the
church. '
[Garon, P. (1996). Blues and the poetic spirit. San Francisco: City Lights.]
Complain about this comment
Thought for The Day is a particularly faith centered item which should keep its religious basis. If atheists want a spot on the Today programme they should work to create something new and different, not muscle in on a well established item. According to the last national census atheists are, at 18%, a minority. The BBC would lose some credibility if it gives in on this issue.
Complain about this comment
Re #317
Hey, GarethTH! I just had a funny thought. Twenty-five seminarians gathered in one night prayer meeting. Heaven forbid, if the building were to collapse that would mean the loss of the entire next generation of the UK's priests...
Oh go on, Christians: you can at least laugh at that.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I would love to hear some secular, non-political views on the Isreali-Gaza 'conflict'.
Yes, this has been discussed on Today but only from people with 'vested interests' or politicians who have to be 'diplomatic'.
Since this subject is essentially about people from two religious sects attacking each other with a heady mix of politics as well would it not be right to have a truly neutral voice giving a 'thought' on the situation of TfTD and a secularist/athiest would be the ideal person.
Complain about this comment
SORRY: that should be: a truly neutral voice giving a 'thought' on the situation in the TfTD slot and a secularist/athiest would be the ideal person.
Complain about this comment
Post 311. "These are not relics from a simpler age." Is the pantomime season over? If not, "Oh, yes, they are!". But I love 1920s blues. They are still relevant.
Complain about this comment
iPM are now asking for topics for next week. I'm suggesting one more chance to give this subject the debate it deserves. Join me?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/01/suggest_a_story_4.shtml#commentsanchor
Complain about this comment
If I were in charge of the B.B.C. I would sack Mark Damazer. He simply isn't up to the job. He lets his own upbringing and prejudices influence his decisions, and refuses to consider anything which might call them into question. Who can sack him? Or is it like being the Pope, a job for life?
Complain about this comment
My feelings over this subject have moved from one of annoyed indignation at the injustice of having a secular voice unable to comment on morals on TFTD to one of anger over the manner with which this subject has been "glossed over" by the BBC first with that ridiculous statetement by Mark Damazer, and then by the shoddy airing of this subject on iPM.
I am not alone in this mood juding by the current tone of the comments..
Fairness for all is evidently not the BBC way.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I do not agree with his opinion, I would not go as far as calling for Mark Damazer to be sacked. I do however expect him to rationally defend his position and if he is unable to do so, he should back down.
Complain about this comment
Post 337, I am beginning to think this (the dismissal of Damazer) is the only next recourse. This issue received completely inadequate treatment on PM today and Mr Damazer has apparently not even read any of the counter-arguments to his position. This seems to me to be a neglection of professional duty. Regarding who can sack him, I believe this would be DG Mark Thompson, but as he is a staunch Roman Catholic who has so far shown no willingness to entertain even negotiate on TFTD, we will have to consider the best way to move forward on this issue.
Complain about this comment
I found it curious that Mark Damazer was not asked on to the programme to justify his position on TFTD. The approach taken was indeed quite light-hearted. Eddy referred to him as "God", and the programme lacked its customary thoroughness and incisiveness. Mark Damazer giveth and He taketh away, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
332. zzcanasta wrote:
"if the building were to collapse that would mean the loss of the entire next generation of the UK's priests..."
Not quite, but you're not far off it.
Seriously though, the outcome of the debate that started here and was entirely mishandled by the BBC will have repercussions. I have learned something from this, and I'm sure everyone has, if they were paying attention to the real issues.
In the end, the BBC did not really want to listen to its traditional supporters for keeping the status quo (and I speak as one of them), nor did it want to listen to those who stand in the middle (like the spokesperson for Ekklesia), nor those who argue for radical change (like the atheists).
The iPM programme disgracefully failed to confront the Controller of Radio 4 in the way that any politician would be grilled when there was significant criticism. And in the end I am left with the impression that I don't like any of it.
I did not like the way the lobby was begun, by a secret agenda, not a publicly announced process (and thank you Gavin Orland!) I did not like the tone of the Dawkins' camp (and they were organised from the official Dawkins website, as you can see if you care to look at that site.) I did not like the way the BBC pretended to want to examine the issue, but then smothered it quickly, as if embarrassed y the Pandora's box they had opened. It was predictable, so this looked very incompetent.
As a long time supporter of the Christian voice on Thought for the Day, and I have enjoyed it for several decades, I now wonder if it really has a future, because it is not being presented honestly after this inconclusive and suppressed debate. I think many people will come to that conclusion.
It is a surprise to me that I am coming to that conclusion myself. But that is a genuine rational position. (Sorry to mention the word rational in the context of faith, folks, but we'll save that for another time.)
The atheists organised themselves in an underhand way to catch people by surprise with an unexpected debate, but what they did was show up the shabbiness of the BBC at its paternalistic worst.
You cannot give people a voice - as iPM did - and then suppress their views by quoting patronising claptrap and saying there wasn't ever any offer of a real conversation in the first place. This has been the best way to illustrate exactly the point the non-religious lobby were making, and after this I really could see it.
I seriously suspect the time has come to scrap the Thought for the Day slot, if the managerial thinking behind it can lead to a fiasco like this. It will bring the religious voice into disrepute, so let it go.
If we really believe what we say we believe, then we can be quite relaxed about that. We don't need the BBC to speak for God. He can speak for Himself.
Complain about this comment
This is a complete sham of an "interactive" programme. What's the point of this blog if the on air output is going to misrepresent, ignore and insult any debate that's taking place here.
Are they even reading this?
Are these license payers going to receive any response from the BBC that doesn't involve patronizing frippery. I feel like some justified and well appointed complaints of discrimination have just been swept under the carpet.
interactivePM? My Arse.
Complain about this comment
GarethTh
"I did not like the way the lobby was begun, by a secret agenda, not a publicly announced process (and thank you Gavin Orland!) I did not like the tone of the Dawkins' camp (and they were organised from the official Dawkins website, as you can see if you care to look at that site.)"
I do find it quite depressing that this 'secret agenda' and mentioning Richard Dawkins name as if he is the earth bound cypher of the anti-christ.
The e-mail sending to the BBC was not organised via the Dawkins site but as it had a secular link it was mentioned on the site just like, one would assume, Christian events would be mentioned on Christian outlets.
Also, if iPM will not do anything more about this or indeed the BBC I suggest contacting the BBC Trust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/
Complain about this comment
#342 GarethTH
Good for you for giving the issue the serious thought it deserves.
'If we really believe what we say we believe, then we can be quite relaxed about that. We don't need the BBC to speak for God.'
Quite right. I think that is the gist of what the overwhelming majority of non-religious people on this blog have been saying throughout the debate, and I, for one, am glad to have you, if not aboard, at least in a rowing boat alongside, waving.
Now, about this imaginary friend of yours...
Complain about this comment
This is NOT a "genuinely difficult question." Or it wouldn't be, if Mr Damazer wasn't squirming under the combined pressures of prejudice and vested interests.
TftD is a slot in the middle of a news and current affairs programme. It's intention is to provide a brief respite from natural disasters, bickering politicians and wailing 'fat cats'.
The last thing we need is yet more pious platitudes from self-righteous reverends. The Great British public firmly demonstrate their support for these gentle men and ladies every Sunday morning - by washing their cars, or in the current winter weather, staying in bed.
Genuine morality springs from intelligent humanity. As religion has been the most significant source of strife during the last two millennia, it's time to listen to non-religious voices for a change. Or even just once a week would be fine.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate Thought for the Day very much, and totally agree with Mark Damazer's viewpoint.
Complain about this comment
Thanks to GarethTh for a thoughtful and considered response to this debacle (I think we both agree that it is a debacle). Just for the record, I am an atheist who was not mobilized by anyone to write in about this matter. I am a Radio4 listener of some 30 years standing, have no connection with Richard Dawkins or his website, and am certainly not part of any organised campaign. I am, however, rather fed up with being the unwanted recipient of homilies and self-righteous claptrap at 7:50 in the morning. Although I hold strong moral views on certain subjects (and, yes, atheists can adopt moral positions), I don't think I have any more right than anyone else to foist my views on other people. Like it or not, the atheist standpoint is held by a sizeable proportion of the population, and the Radio4 listening community. If Radio4 really wants to engage with its audience, why not give us a say?
Complain about this comment
Yes, this agenda (freeing up or abolishing TFTD, to be precise) was so secret I advertised it as far and wide as I could. Mr Damazer had announced he heard "no appetite for change" regarding policy on TFTD, and people had almost given up hope with their e-mails simply being forwarded to the Religious dept. It's obvious now that there is a big appetite for change, yet still - so far - nothing is happening.
Complain about this comment
I used to think Thought for the Day was outmoded and should be dropped. Mostly that was when Anne Atkins (Sp?) was allowed on.
Perhaps allowing a wider sample of thoughtful people on would be an appropriate way to bring it up to date. While religion should remain central to the slot I would like to hear a greater variety of secular commentators.
Its important to remind people that there's more to life than the daily blather of current affairs.
Complain about this comment
I wrote to the BBC asking for a wider range of views on this slot several months ago and so am please that many others seem to feel the same way. Mark Damazer doesn’t sound as though he is gong to take any notice though when he refers to those who have an “avowedly non-religious perspective”. Would they be all right if they were just non-religious and kept quiet. Is an “avowedly” religious perspective particularly reprehensible and should it therefore be kept off the air.
Of course there is some balance on the rest of the BBC output but this is a slot where relevant Thoughts are expressed and it looks like censorship if non-religious views are excluded. I have the feeling that lurking in the background is the idea that atheists are marginal to society, trouble makers, best ignored and that by contrast the churches have a special authority and privileged access to wisdom and truth.
This is one of those little entrenched establishment barriers, let’s break it down and have a truly open society.
Complain about this comment
Would a petition to Number 10 be worth a try?
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/
Complain about this comment
344. 3Dots wrote "The e-mail sending to the BBC was not organised via the Dawkins site."
I understood there was a direct connection from various things mentioned here earlier, including Dawkins' supporters on that site. Of course the fact that this coincided with the bus advertising campaign also added to the impression that it was all part of a 'package'.
However, I accept the Dawkins crew were just one element in the mix, as you say. While you are right to point out that it is tiresome that we see him as the bete noir and secular messiah of the atheist faith, that is what he has become. It is easy for some of the opposition here to knock the institutions of our faith, while you can claim to have no institution yourselves. If Dawkins has created one for you, and we criticise it, that's because in this kind of debate where you are taking fixed positions against people of faith and knocking our institutions, you would naturally expect to receive something in return, as we look to see where the focus might be. It would be a very clever game to disown everyone on your side, and make out that a few thousand atheist individuals had suddenly all come up withy the inspiaration of writing to the BBC! It was certainy not stated on the iPM introduction to this debate.
For us to look and try to understand how this was organised and what is the motivation is quite natural. If it was not immediately obvious, then you have clarified that. Thank you.
And now let us end with an interfaith prayer in acceptable language. On this Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord, let us pray for those who have no imaginary friends.
Complain about this comment
Richard Dawkin's has had no real input to this debate. As a frusrtated athiest and avid Radio4 listener I have long had to suffer the drivel that is spouted at 8:50am.
After hearing of the debate on PM, I realised that for the first time there was finally an opportunity for myself, and other like minded individuals to present our views.
Please, do not attempt to ignore the views here just because you perceive an organised response - Indeed, it has been nothing of the sort.
The problem that atheists have is that no ONE individual does speak for us. We have no "Bishop" or "Pope" that can be said to speak on behalf of the collected view. Athiests are individuals who hold many contrary views and opinions, and as Dawkins is fond of saying are like "trying to heard cats".
Please, enough. All we seek is a well reasoned response to our criticisms - is this really too much to ask?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps one strategy worth trying might be to put the case to some of the less dogmatic/blinkered regular contributors to TFTD - John Bell springs to mind, as do one or two of the Buddhists, whose names I can't recall - and ask them to withdraw their services until the BBC comes up with an alternative that is fair and workable.
It could, of course, come to nothing, but it would certainly keep the issue alive, and put further pressure on the BBC to review its current discriminatory policy.
If you're reading this, John (or any other TFTD contributor), how about it?
Complain about this comment
It's interesting to see that this story is now being covered in the UK by the Guardian and the Telegraph. It's also being picked up internationally, reported by the Chicago Herald, Times TV India and Sky News Australia. Do a Google News search to see the articles.
Surely a prompt resolution is required to avoid this damaging the BBC's reputation around the world.
End the discrimination now.
Complain about this comment
BS9 351, I learned long ago that BBC rarely listens to anything listeners/viewers say. Listen to Feedback for a good example.
Complain about this comment
mcm49 83, What proportion of the population listens to Today?
Complain about this comment
353: GarethTh wrote:
344. 3Dots wrote "The e-mail sending to the BBC was not organised via the Dawkins site."
" I accept the Dawkins crew were just one element in the mix, as you say."
There you go again 'Dawkins crew' can we start calling you god-botherers as it has the same demeaning tone that 'crew' does?
", while you can claim to have no institution yourselves. If Dawkins has created one for you, and we criticise it, that's because in this kind of debate where you are taking fixed positions against people of faith and knocking our institutions, you would naturally expect to receive something in return, as we look to see where the focus might be."
Obviously, you do not understand 'athiests' then or 'you' need to create some 'fixed position'/institution' to catagorise athiests since that is what happens in religions. Unfortunately, the only thing atheists have in common are that were are human beings who believe that supernatural beings do not exist. There are many things that do not exists...unicorns etc but you do not hear pf people catagorising people who do not believe in unicorns or focus one the person who is most vocal about there not being unicorns...replace unicorns with god and thats the level we are working at here.
It seems that religious people have to group together individuals into one group otherwiese it must seem scary to have so many free-thinking people around.
Complain about this comment
I think it is becoming obvious to a lot of people here of all shades of opinion that we are dealing with one of those good old British Establishment stitch-ups. This is "genuinely difficult" for Mark Damazer because he is constrained to support an unsupportable position without revealing the true reason why he is supporting it.
It seems likely to me that elements in the BBC have negotiated this secretly with the top levels in the Church of England. I know other religions are involved in Thought for the Day, but the CofE under the current Archbishop of Canterbury has an established strategy of repositioning itself to be the "gatekeeper" for faith in this country, throwing crumbs to the other religions and building them into a "grand alliance" against secularism. Witness the Archbishop’s recent support for sharia law (he overplayed his hand on that one) and the persistent continuation of unelected bishops in the House of Lords (with life peerages tossed to leaders of other religions to keep them happy).
I came to this through Eddie Mair’s invitation on PM not any supposed atheist conspiracy. I think the appearance of secretiveness and conspiracy comes from the BBC’s own unwillingness to promote this debate, which left the atheists, who started it as was their right to do, the only ones promoting it. This has been a radicalising experience for me and I will now be seeking out organised atheism and secularism as action is clearly needed to combat the rise of divisive religious communitarianism in this country.
However I do not think that the regulatory or legal route is sensible here. It is not an effective way to confront the establishment in this country. Also, religious forces can use this route too and we do not want to get into tit-for-tat competitive complaining which engenders a destructive bean-counting approach to broadcasting.
I believe satire and ridicule will be a more effective weapon. I propose a spoof awards process for Thought for the Day along the lines of the Ig Nobel Prize for bad science, the Anti-Tate for bad art or the Bad Sex in Fiction Award. Let’s single out and expose to the light of reason the most egregiously dumb, laugh out loud irrational, clunkiest link from the profane to the sacred, most trendiest vicar cringeworthy, most creative justification of the unjustifiable in religious dogma or practice and best head-in-the-sand pretence that my religion is the only one that actually exists. Mona Siddiqui’s amazing attack on Second Life is only the tip of the iceberg – there is comedy gold in those archives!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Since the 'block' has now been lifted, let me explain that a carefully worded statement, suggesting a forum yet to be agreed, ws typed out here, together with criticisms of the BBC as an appropriate forum. I have taken twenty mintes to type it out each time, so I am not going to do that again. Each time it has been rejected by the moderators. Now my short statement above has appeared, can I just add that the way this entire fiasco has been handled is an insult to people of all faiths and none, and we could do a better job of 'impartiality' than the BBC even though we have radically different points of view.
Above all, this episode has displayed the arrogance of the BBC as an institution and shown us what really lies behind the 'open forum'.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to have to do this in short chunks, but I just don't know which bits they want to censor.
I would like to propose from the Christian side of things, Jonathan Bartley who appeared on the iPM programme. He believes as a Christian that atheists and humanists should be able to contribute to Thought for the Day on the grounds of justice, and he said that on the BBC - then he was dropped from the slot.
If it was possible for atheists and others to propose figures to moderate, then someoe might suggest an appropriate forum we could move into, that would be better than continuing with this farce, subject to the whims of the paternalism of the BBC.
Who is for it?
Complain about this comment
I'm not so sure that we need another debate. This blog is to discuss what should be broadcast on iPM. In that sense we need a debate to make the BBC see reason about broadcasting the TftD issue in the first place, rather than actually debate the athiesm/religious issues. In that sense this blog is the best place to do it.
Besides there are already lots of existing secular and religious websites that are already having actual debates. I also see little point in debating the main issues much anyway as the athiest/secularists clearly have the winning poistion and the moral high ground!
Complain about this comment
Hi Gareth
I've enjoyed reading your posts - it's great to see those with faith and those who reject it can unite against the blatant discrimination of Religious Thought for the Day.
However, I disagree with the proposal to jump to another forum. This isn't a debate about religion v atheism, which could well be held elsewhere (although unlikely to reach a conclusion in our lifetimes). It is a debate about the ongoing discrimination of Religious Thought for the Day and, more recently, about the BBC ignoring the opinions expressed on this webiste when compiling the iPM show.
The best place for this particular debate is right here, where, hopefully, some of those concerned may bother to read it.
Can anyone tell me what the 'i' in iPM actually stands for?
ignorant, ideological, insane? Clearly it could be anything other than interactive after last night's performance.
Any other suggestions?
Complain about this comment
Mark Damazer wishes to continue to restrict TFTD to those who will reflect on an issue of the day from their "faith perspective". Is it really too big a jump to modify those last two words to "moral perspective"?
Atheism implies only a lack of faith in God. It does not imply any lack of morality. Humanists support the "Golden Rule" - treat others as you would want to be treated in their situation. This rule, expounded by Confucius and Socrates among many others, was adopted by Christianity as "Love your neighbour as yourself".
Surely it should be the moral message that should be the point of TFTD, not the speakers's faith in any particular supernatural entity.
Complain about this comment
364. pdw709 wrote:
I'm not so sure that we need another debate.... I also see little point in debating the main issues much anyway as the athiest/secularists clearly have the winning poistion and the moral high ground!"
I'm glad you feel so satisfied. I agree - if that is your view - there is no further ground for dialogue.
Have fun with your campaign.
Complain about this comment
365. paulwanadoo wrote:
"I've enjoyed reading your posts...
However, I disagree with the proposal to jump to another forum."
Fine. It's just that, as our Christian point of view is already well represented, and as the BBC has now shown itself to be discriminatory and unhelpful, a broader front might have been a good idea, since some of us on this side might now have seen yoir point."
Never mind. That's about all the energy I can bring to this, since no suggestion seems to help achieve anything.
Pax et bonum.
Complain about this comment
Just wanted to also express appreciation for the thoughtful response of GarethTh, and also to add my voice to the chorus-without-a-conductor to say that I am also an atheist who came here without any prompting by Dawkins or any other (I noticed a visitor to my blog, and followed that link back).
This debate convinces me all the more that T4tD should remain, but truly needs the perspective of thoughtful atheists, like some of those participating here. Morality is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Religion, and if some commenters here cannot see that atheists and believers alike may be moral, amoral, or immoral, then the current voices are doing an inadequate job of speaking to the matter.
I have yet to be convinced that the BBC is listening, though.
Complain about this comment
Post 360 If you want a satirical slant on TFTD, go to:
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php
You'll enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
Dear iPM
I was somewhat dissappointed that the broadcast item completely failed to pick up on the main thrust of the blog comments.
In general and whether atheist or religious the feeling was that TftD is discriminatory in the range of voices employed.
This aspect was barely touched on an it certainly was not responded to.
I don't think I'll bother contributing to iPM if it continues to be a tokenistic activity.
Regards
Complain about this comment
Regarding post 361: if any of you managed to read it in the short time it was there, you'll see there was nothing remotely offensive or problematic about it. This is pure George Orwell. I am disgusted. A complaint will be going to the BBC governors.
Complain about this comment
Have you seen today's Sunday Telegraph (page 30)? Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald, thinks that TFTD is a "three-minute morning torture," "a daily smugfest," and urges Christians and atheists to unite to "kill [it] off." That wasn't you, GarethTh, was it?
Complain about this comment
373. johnnyess wrote:
"Have you seen today's Sunday Telegraph (page 30)? Damian Thompson, ... urges Christians and atheists to unite to "kill [it] off." That wasn't you, GarethTh, was it?"
No. I wrote to Damian Thompson on Wednesday when I was trying to rally the troops against you lot! He didn't even reply, although we have had contact before. I am in Rome, so I haven't seen the English press today.
This matter is causing a number of surprising responses from all quarters. I certainly have lost all trust in the BBC (the censorship experienced here doesn't help either.)
If this post disappears like some of the earlier ones (and I know people on your side of the debate have experienced similar as I have now been in touch independently), I will be contacting various people. A letter to the BBC governors is already under way.
Complain about this comment
GarethTh - Although Gavin's pledge has come to an end, the page still accepts comments, so if you would like us all to read your censored post you can put it there:
http://www.pledgebank.com/thoughtfortheday
I'm sure Gavin won't censor it, even if he disagrees with it.
Complain about this comment
why are the religious (and we all know it's you) attempting to defend TftD on the grounds that it is somehow a showing of tolerance?
religion is intolerance in it's finest form. believing that you are one of god's chosen people (which, let's face it, is kinda the point) inevitably leads to intolerance. how can it not?
this, and the point that religion is simply emotional blackmail (and what kind of god resorts to that?) show any of us with half a brain that religion itself is wrong.
anything that stems from wrong cannot be right. ever.
Complain about this comment
I was highly vexed that Mark Damazer did not appear personally on iPM, it was cowardly in the extreme, not to defend his policy. Does he not have the courage of his convictions? How refreshing to hear Jonathan Bartley, and how odd that after he mentioned that TfTD should be opened up, he was never contacted again. Another small point - these TfTD speakers get about £100 for their effort, so not only are rationalist license payers not getting value for money, they are also contributing to church funds. TfTD is unfair, unrepresentative, and discriminatory against a section of the UK public. If the name atheist was changed to gay or female or black it would not be allowed. I think we should start a campaign to remove Mr Damazer from his very responsible job and give it to someone who is more impartial. Arianne did a great Thought for the Afternoon, and some religious responses to it show how much we need to change TfTD. Now you know how we feel.
I am a little sad that theists have to resort to name-calling, and it is very funny that they accuse us of being the very things that they are, strident, joyless, whingeing,
narrow-minded. They also manage to bring "Dawkins and his crew" into it in fairly short order, they must be pretty scared of him to react so. In the USA the churches have started courses on how to deal with "Dawkins and his ilk". Priceless !!
For the record, I am a freethinker, I am not joyless, I love life - its the only one I've got- so I try to fill it with as much as I can, not just marking time until I can be somewhere better, I try to act morally and ethically and harm no-one. I do not consider what consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors to be any of my business. I also consider the Pope's Xmas message to be an incitement to harm against the Gay community, and he should be rebuked by all decent people (he said that homosexuality was more a danger to the planet than cutting down the rainforest- amongst other things). The church has replaced anti-semitism with homophobia, still the poor old RC Church has to have someone to persecute, bless them.
Complain about this comment
375. johnnyess wrote: "if you would like us all to read your censored post"...
Some people may remember it, from the time before they deleted it: it contained a reference to the attempts I had made to upload a longer statement which was a fully developed conciliatory five-paragraph piece, saying I agreed with the non-religious view I had argued against originally, but was appalled at the BBC's attitude. It disappeared within seconds each time, and it took me a long while to re-write it, which in the end became pointless.
Since then it has become apparent to all that the BBC has lost the plot, so I don't think they'll dare censor any more. If this post doesn't appear, that's one more example for my letter to the governors...
And I challenge the person whose Orwellian task it is to read this and possibly delete it: re-instate post 361 to show everyone what was wrong with it, with your comments attached. Maybe put in some asterisks instead of offending words, just for the fainthearted!
Complain about this comment
The “Thought for the Day” slot in the Radio 4 Today programme specifically excludes those of us who are not religious. Does the BBC believe that we do not think about moral issues? Does the BBC think that atheist philosophers, doctors, scientists, politicians, business people or journalists have nothing to offer the public in this broadcast?
The proportion of atheists in the population is estimated to be at least 16% and is growing. The BBC will not be able to ignore us forever. In 2007/8 the BBC spent £9.8 million on its Manchester Religious Broadcasting Unit. To be equitable, the BBC should spend £1.8 million each year on serving the needs of atheists. I cannot recall one BBC TV programme in the past 5 years which examined skepticism towards religion.
As a constructive suggestion, perhaps the BBC would care to make a programme on the life and work of Thomas Paine who died in 1809.
Complain about this comment
Earlier I proposed a forum to continue this discussion independently of the BBC and there are now encouraging developments.
I do not wish to lead it: I have only proposed it, and to my delight there are suitable people coming forward. You will be pleased to see who they are if you listened to the iPM programme on Saturday. I'll say no more for now.
This needs to be properly 'firmed up' and it will take a bit more time. For those of you who wish to look out for news, this blog may not allow information to be available eventually (as we have seen, information can disappear quickly if it is not liked by the puppetmasters): so I will flag this up now with Gavin Orland and if you may find that he can point you in the right direction if nothing is seen here.
I will establish that link with him now and see if he is willing. His website ws already included somewhere above but you could do a search easily.
As I write this, I am conscious of being just three hundred yards from the tomb of St Paul, just across the road from here. He began as a religious persecutor and changed sides; but more than that, he experienced an extraordinary dialogue with sceptics in the Areopagus in Athens. In one sense he lost the argument with them, but in another sense we are all the richer from that dialogue.
If as an atheist you can hear that, happily regard it as claptrap but still want to engage in sensible discussion, join us. The secular view is the dominant one in Britain today, but we Christians do not understand it. Darwin is celebrated this year in a big way: do we claim him for our 'side' or see how his relevance for all of us can be admired in different ways.
Radio 4's Thought for the Day may be on the way out after this, but its demise could be productively employed. Be part of the action.
We shouldn't fear talking, as the BBC seems to, and if we move the dialogue elsewhere please do join us. The first step will be to establish common ground (other than our view of Mark Damazer of course!)
Complain about this comment
@seculardemocrat
TftD does not exclude you. You are only excluded if you choose not to listen.
There are many differing ways of looking at the world. You may not agree with what is being said, or who said it, or why it has been said, but none of these aspects mean you may not derive some value from it. TftD may, for example, strengthen your belief as an atheist, and so it will have value and therefore you are not excluded.
Complain about this comment
I think the double standards of Mark Damazer are breathtaking.
When responding to a criticism of "Woman's Hour" (that the show could do with fewer middle class women on talking about recipes) he justified the inclusion of said women on the grounds that our society had become more middle class. Why does he refuse to apply the same reasoning to TFTD?
The figures for people who attend church on a regular basis are in freefall, but Damazer is determined to drive religious drivel down our throats. Why does he stress the importance of licence fee payers in one case but not the other?
Complain about this comment
To begin with, it would help his case, if 3Dots were to be more careful to learn to spell 'atheist', given that he's such an adamant one!
-------------------------
257. At 02:51am on 10 Jan 2009, cool4cads wrote:
Well, I think the foolish rabbit was probably right about something: the debate is
dwindling, and interestingly - or not - it has come and gone without the pro TFTD party
making a single actual point."
Sorry, cool4cads, I think you mean "without the pro TFTD party making a single point we'll accept", right?
"So, just to recap, can I confirm that everyone of religious bent is so terrified by a bit of
rationalism"
Er. No, you can't confirm that, because it's simply your assertion, and completely non-factual.
Really, I still must ask the same question as before. Why begrudge people with faith, 3 out of 180 minutes? Why yell "discrimination"? A clue lies in the insulting tone many of the atheists use. "Sky-fairy" (redundant, surely?)
"Giant pixie"...
And then there are the insulting sneery names they give their opponents when quoting them.
Sad. IMO, it's the atheists who discriminate, and I know that from long and bitter experience.
Vicky
Complain about this comment
383. Simply Vicky: Don't get pithy with me! wrote: "Why begrudge people with faith, 3 out of 180 minutes?"
Because it's not doing our faith any good. The Gospel has to always identify who the marginalised are. For example, Mark Damazer just marginalised the listeners. Atheists and Christians. That's why Damian Thompson of the Catholic Herald, writing in the Telegraph has said we should unite and close down Thought for the Day. I think he is right.
You also say, "it's the atheists who discriminate, and I know that from long and bitter experience." I also have experienced that: my father was an atheist. He rammed his opinions down everyone's throats. I eventually became a Catholic. I don't want to deny your experience. But you must think there's a possibility of dialogue here, otherwise you would not have written anything. If there is an intelligent debate about Thought for the Day, one possibility is that the atheists are right on this occasion: they should be allowed equal representation. When the BBC failed to even address the issues, did you not feel some sense of identity with those who were thus shut out?
It's not a question of percentages of who is represented here or there; that is the group that is presently marginalised. That's all we need to recognise. They are the people to whom we should apply our Gospel values. It sounds a bit weird, perhaps, but it is real.
The BBC has been expressing an empty Christian message: while proclaiming the Gospel in words, they are denying the Gospel in actions. It took me a while to see it this way. It's a tough question and I sympathise with your difficulty, but the atheists are actually right.
Complain about this comment
Well said GarethTh.
I wish more religious people were as tolerant and understanding as yourself. Although I'm an athiest, I have no problem with religion - infact some of my best friends are believers. In a free society people should have the freedom to believe in what they want, and the government (and thereby BBC) should show NO favoritism and take an entirely secular stance.
Personally I do not wish to remove TftD, simply offer an occasional athiest/humanist view to re-address balance.
Complain about this comment
I’m afraid Ariane Sherine’s “Thought” did rather miss the point of this slot, ie to add a moral/ethical context to current events which is what I have tried to do with my own “thought”
Thought for the Day
The tragedy of Gaza demonstrates yet again what happens when human beings regard each other as part of a group, be it religious, ethnic or political, rather than as individuals. It all too easy for Hamas to demonise all Israelis and to justify the firing of rockets into their midst or for the Israelis to punish the defenceless population of Gaza for having elected Hamas.
The historic reasons for this conflict stretch back to the power politics of the inter-war years long before the formation of the State of Israel in 1948, with so many twists and turns that it is all but impossible to find a solution that satisfies the aspirations of both sides.
In a recent Thought for the Day Angela Tilby drew an analogy between this dispute and that of family arguments that many of us have experienced. Both the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Moslems share a common Abrahamic lineage and like families they know each other only too well. She hoped that this shared heritage might eventually lead to reconciliation.
A less hopeful prospect is that the two religions having diverged from that common origin now see each other solely as rivals, Moslems and Jews, rather than as fellow human beings. That common ancestry has resulted in each making an exclusive claim to the land that they both share.
Humankind has the ability to do wonderful thinks, to invent and create, to nurture and protect, to manage the present and plan for the future. Our intelligence can make that future better for our own offspring and generations that will follow us but only do if we respect our fellow human beings.
This is the simple philosophy of the humanistic tradition. It requires no deity and no scripture; it obliges each one of us to consider the needs of those not just close to us, but of all humanity. We place our trust in our fellow human beings, whatever their race, age or gender, because we know deep down that they are all like us. In the Merchant of Venice Shylock utters that immortal phrase “If you prick us do we not bleed?” As is so often the case, Shakespeare expressed a truth abo