Tweets for the day
On iPM's Twitter (not sure what Twitter is? Read here ) people are telling us what they think about Thought for the Day . We're taking a look prompted by a blog comment from Cool4cads. Here's some of what people are saying.
More responses can be read here. Do you have any thoughts?
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As a free-thinking atheist, I think TFTD would be immensely improved by including secular/rational/humanist/scientific/artistic thoughts. It's a terrible imbalance for it to be religious only.
It's not hard to think of some terrific names who could bring us thoughts on anything from the big bang onwards - literature, art, medicine, physics, history, anthropology... The idea that faith is the only source of wisdom is ludicrous and, if you can be bothered, very offensive.
A balance of religious and secular thoughts seems to be entirely uncontroversial, inclusive and properly open. Bring it, as they say, on.
Complain about this comment
I also complained to the Today programme about Thought For The Day [TFTD] and received a reply containing the following: `the policy remains in place because a significant majority of the UK population (around 70 per cent), including increasing numbers from non-Christian faiths, claim a belief in God or describe themselves as `spiritual` Also, the level of attendance in religious activities among the Radio 4 audience is higher than the national average. We feel therefore, that broadening the brief of Thought for the Day would detract from the distinctiveness of the slot.`
In other words they are admitting that they are quite happy to actively discriminate against 30% (18 million) of the population! Imagine that statement being made about excluding any other sector of society! (The 2001 census found that 66% of the population say they have no actual connection to any religion or church and less than half of the British people believe in a `God`.)
Under the BBC`s policy on diversity it states `The BBC is committed to reflecting the diversity of the UK audience in its workforce, as well as in its output on TV, on radio and online`.
The BBC`s editorial guidelines say: `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.`
At present the humanist, rationalist, atheist, secular viewpoint is being actively discriminated against by being excluded from TFTD. It is unsupportable that these people are not represented in TFTD. (The programme title is Thought for the Day, not Religious TFTD.)
The BBC editorial guidelines are prefaced by the following: `The Agreement accompanying the BBC`s Charter requires us to produce comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the UK and throughout the world to support fair and informed debate. It specifies that we should do all we can
to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy.`
TFTD is part of the Today programme and therefore has to be seen as part of the News output, it is not a stand alone `faith` programme; I suggest that editorial guidelines should also apply to including the secular viewpoint in TFTD.
The argument put up by the producers of TFTD that `it is offering a faith perspective within a news programme` and `If we include secular voices, we undermine the slot`s very distinctiveness.` is a closed argument: `It is this way because it is this way`; it become impervious to rational argument. It`s like the dead hand of tradition, `it is this way because it`s always been this way`.It is perfectly possible for someone to be moral and also have NO belief in a God, afterlife etc. Those views should be heard.
At present the producers of TFTD discriminate against views they don`t like by excluding them, barring them from being heard. In an increasingly secular age it should acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at the world (particularly one so divided by religious conflicts), ethics and morality. If people in the UK are losing religious belief then it becomes more important for alternatives to be heard.
Complain about this comment
Should be renamed 'metaphysical ad break allowing listeners to put the kettle on without missing anything of importance for the day'.
Now I am sure there are lots of people with thoughts worth sharing but they seem to be excluded from this particular slot at present.
Complain about this comment
I am sure atheists are just as capable of boring a listener as any other, so bring it on and let's see which thoughts stand comparison and the test of time.
Complain about this comment
The BBC religion microsite describes Thought for the day as `Reflections from a faith perspective on issues and people in the news.` So it is part of the news and should be subject to the same editorial guidelines.
Given the news seems dominated by conflicts and violence with religion as their root cause it could also be well worth hearing the humanist perspective on these.
As we`re talking about differing philosophies, not just theologies, I agree with post one; the idea that wisdom can only come from religion is a little presumptuous.
Atheism has a long tradition in philosophical thought. It would also be nice to hear a broader range of topics discussed; science, cosmology, the arts, history and so on. That which uplifts the spirits or nourishes the mind clearly doesn`t have to come from just a religious perspective, too often today those seem to do the opposite.
Complain about this comment
I'd like something like along the lines of Radio 4's "A Point of View" or may be give someone like A C Grayling a slot.
Complain about this comment
Sue Blackmore has written an article about TFTD opening itself up to secular contributions, arising from the current debate and online petition (and differences between regional TFTD slots, which HAVE invited atheists to contribute) here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/religion-atheism-radio4-bbc
The argument is about fairness. If you agree then please send an email to Today expressing your views.
Complain about this comment
Thought for the Day is infuriating! Each day, if you do not want to turn off the radio, you are forced to listen to someone who is speaking from a religious viewpoint, uninterrupted by John Humphries or James Naughtie and with no contrary point of view allowed. This morning a 'Muslim scientist' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) proposed the view that it was possible to support the facts of evolution AND believe that a god created the the world. This is outrageous! Where are the 200 years worth of carefully collected and checked evidence and facts to support the creation 'theory'? There is a horrendous war going on in the Middle East almost entirely because one group of people believe they were chosen by a god to live in a particular place. Unless and until the large percentage of people who do not hold with this superstitious nonsense are allowed a voice, there will be no hope for the Middle East or any other part of the world.
Complain about this comment
I wish you would remove Thought for the Day from the Today programme, at least the religious part. It infuriates me (I am an atheist), and I turn it off and then miss the rest of the Today programme, and sometimes fail to turn the radio back on at all. Why can you not have Thought for the Day at a later time when I have gone to work? I do regard it as offensive to have to listen to religious figures preaching at me patronisingly.
Complain about this comment
I find Thought for the Day interesting and encouraging.
It serves to remind me that I am not ultimately in control of my ( and the world's) destiny: I am privileged to share life's short journey with others who believe that someone infinitely wiser and more loving than we human creatures could ever be will have the final say in all things. This enables me (and numerous others) to live with hope and purpose. I am grateful to all the T for the D contributors who have encouraged me in this way. Long live Thought for the Day! MG Edinburgh
Complain about this comment
Preach to people that all ethical ideas are derived from religion, and then watch what happens if they lose religion. Let the humanists in, and at least we have some agreement. It's outrageous that 'Thought for the Day' doesn't allow for secular ethics, or morality, or spirituality.
Complain about this comment
drop the slot or include atheists.
the sunday programme should also be dropped - it does not include atheist views.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the toast-thrower, although the quality of tftd is wildly uneven,ranging from theshrink-wrapped, bite-size thoughtlet,to the occasional real philosophical insight. But it's generally more of a belief purveyor than a thought provoker. Lionel Blue remains the best, probably because he is different from most people and so concentrates on what human beings have in common. And that's not religion!
'Beyond belief' is consistently much more interesting, simply because it's not a monologue.
Finally,does anybody vet the 'factual' content of tftd? I was horrified some time ago to hear one speaker revile the French for 'banning the islamic veil'.(sic) This was dangerously inaccurate, but was aired uncontested nonetheless. If I agree to let people to express their beliefs on air, I expect them (or at least radio 4) to check their facts.
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 include rational thinkers is only fair and reasonable.
Complain about this comment
I'm not particularly religious, but I do think the news programmes would benefit from more ethical/moral discussion of current news items, not necessarily religious.
On the other hand, I think organised religion is virtually extinct because of it's anonymity and one way to tackle this would be to hear more views from faith 'leaders' on the main news stories. They seem almost too afraid to comment and therefore the word 'leadership' is a bit of a misnomer.
Complain about this comment
TFTD is a valuable and brief counterbalance to an otherwise journalistic programme, so please do keep it. As a Christian I welcome hearing the view of other faiths on topical issues and I am perfectly happy to hear the moral insights of anyone with well thought-out views (which would appear to disqualify the vast majority of bloggers here (e.g. "muslim scientist is an oxymoron" - for heaven's sake!).
Perhaps instead of drawing ludicrously hyperbolic links between TFTD contributions and world conflicts, those who rush to put the kettle on or take a shower might actually like to absorb the views as representative on a great many people and reflect on whether this might challenge their own skin-deep moral and social framework.
Now if we really want to make a worthwhile change to CA broadcasting, how about auditioning a team of "ordinary men and women" to join the panels of Question Time and Any Questions so we get a voice to counter-balance the politicians, professional commentators and other self-interest groups. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus should be heard!
Complain about this comment
I'm glad of thought for the day and listen deliberately on my way to work.
The insights and religious perspectives
shed light on the day and raise hopes. They draw on timeless wisdoms for modern day matters and we are foolish if we do not see their specific contribution to debate and thought.
And perhaps the anti religious lobby will open their closed minds and give three minutes a day to religious thought.They might just learn something!
Complain about this comment
Who has been the most popular contributor to T4TD? well if it isn't Rabbi Lionel Blue he is certainly my favourite. Perhaps we should look for the reason. Lionel Blue always gives his contributions a personal touch and manages to find the spiritual in the day to day. In this way his 'thoughts' have often touched me personally. His little touches of humour are also priceless.
Other contributors tend to be fall into the trendy vicar trap of trying to link some headline story with their own faith a link that can be either tenuous or fatuous.
As an atheist I do not mind the theists having a slot but the Controllers insistence that there be a link to some current issue is wrong.
W.
Complain about this comment
Anybody wondering about the value of TFTD only had to listen to Rev'd Angela Tilbury this morning to know why it should be kept at all costs. In three minutes she cast more light with less heat on the current problems in Gaza than I've heard anywhere else.
I've never heard any speaker use the opportunity for, so to say, a party political in favour of their particular religion, and I'm sure they'd never be invited again if they did.
Is it possible that those who say they never listen to it as a matter of principle might learn something if they did?
Complain about this comment
Surely in what is essentially a secular society and during a factual programme there should be no space for the religiously delusional to pontificate to the rest of us. We have enough of that from politicians. We should be helping them overcome their delusions, not reinforcing them.
Complain about this comment
I commute to work by car. I always begin my journey listening to Radio 4. If I am early enough, when TFTD comes on, I switch Radio 4 off and listen to something else. I rarely switch back.
The first reason why TFTD should be go is purely commercial - how many other broadcasters put a religious lecture in the middle of a current affairs/news show? A - none.
The second reason is that the BBC as a national braodcaster should not be promoting any religion at all. Religion is an irrational belief, and if the BBC wants to promote irrational beliefs, it should give equal weight to all and any irrational beliefs: UFOs, astrology, etc.
Complain about this comment
Having returned as a listener to radio4 after a lenghty absence, i was initially amused to discover the risible nonsense of TFTD persisted. World affairs condensed into 'we should turn the other cheek / punish evil / do nice things not nasty things' gets a bit wearing.
As an e.g. the lady this morning (thu 7th) prayed that 'god willing, a peaceful settlement can be reached in Palestine'. What utter garbage. Presumably therefore, the fact that the 'Holy Land' is always fuelling hate filled conflict is because god can't be bothered. Or is being a bit stubborn or moody. After all, if he created the universe in a day, in the dark, then sorting this mess would take the blink of eye.
Alas man created god. As one of the growing number of anti-theists (it's not just nonsense, it's positively a bad thing) the tedius propaganda peddled by the more benign proponents of this toxic myth should be challenged. Liven it up & inject some reality, with contributions by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens & Harris. Or Gervais. Or Attenborough.
Or bin the feature. The reason less than 5% of the UK population regularly attend church is that the ramblings of ancient nomadic cattle herders are utterly irrelevant in an educated society. In its current format TFTD makes the Today programme seem somewhat anachronistic & less credible than it should be, whilst lending underseved credibility to a diminishing band of mystic half-wits.
It's long overdue that Radio4 got with the times & changed TFTD.
Complain about this comment
8. You make a remarkable statement, Clichoid, when you say: "This morning a 'Muslim scientist' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) proposed the view that it was possible to support the facts of evolution AND believe that a god created the the world."
That is a perfectly sensible understanding. Science talks about creation using one type of language and religion talks about it in another, different language. They are quite often in reasonable agreement when you translate the ideas from one language to another. Apart from the fundamentalist end of the spectrum, people of the world's major historical faiths accept this without any difficulty.
When you say 'Muslim scientist' is an oxymoron, you are not only being offensive to that faith but you are betraying the most surprising ignorance of the way that Muslim learning gave back to us in the West much of what we had lost in Europe in the Dark Ages. Our learning was impoverished due to centuries of vandalism but we began to regain science and other knowledge in the 12th and 13th centuries via Arabic learning centres like Toledo and Seville.
I'm surprised you apparently don't know that. I had no interest in present day atheists before this revealing discussion began about Thought for the Day, but now I have a much clearer idea of what they are about. I see the nihilism of the atheists in this discussion, with their pessimistic ignorance of faith, cultures and history, and an obvious desire to eliminate the voice of faith, as clearly expressing the appeal of an new age of barbarism.
Complain about this comment
22. "the growing number of anti-theists"
I would be genuinely interested to see any evidence you have for this claim. I have to admit, your complaining little protest brigade is certainly growing more noisy!
Complain about this comment
I somewhat question Mr Damazer's distinction between the secular Today and the spiritual TTTD. Don't contributors frequently address ongoing news stories?
Given this - it would seem only fair that contributors should be subject to the same level of cross-examination as anyone else on the programme. Many a time I have been rocked back on my heels by a glib, unsupported statement that really deserved a challenge. A case in point was this week when Usama Hasan said:
"The question: "Did God create us, or did we evolve from simpler life-forms?" has an obvious answer that harmonises both views. God created man via evolution."
At very least I'd have liked some questioning from an evolutionary scientist (you might be able to think of a suitable candidate) who would understand that evolution is a random, directionless process which does not sit easily with the idea of an interventionist god or a special place hor humankind.
That's just an example. But on a wider point...shouldn't religious ideas be subject to the same sort of examination and challenge as political ideas?
However...TOTD does have one use. A good shout at the ludicrous and trite Ann Atkins is as effective as a triple espresso.
Complain about this comment
For heaven's sake, we're talking about a tiny program slot. Hardly worth getting your smalls in a twist over, is it? Personally I rather like TFTD. It's nice to hear from someone on the spiritual side of the spectrum from time to time.
Complain about this comment
Dear Darling Beeb
If people want to believe in a god(s) that is fine. But do we really have to endure daily party political broadcasts by primarily Christians.You do not propagandize us daily with party poltical broadcasts by the Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem parties. Why do you do this for the minority Christian cult?
In 2009 the BBC should be reflecting Britain today not a Britain of a bygone age. Most people in this country are not Christians. The FT reported last week research that today even the over 50's increasingly do not believe in a Christian god.
No one minds programmes for Christians. But daily in a news programme (Today)? Worse the hypocritical tosh they spout 'Archbishop calls for an end to materialism from his Palace on the Thames' is truly not up to the intellectual level of a country that sends nearly 50% of its young people to University.
We accept you are fundamentally a part of the establishment. And we accept that BBC Radio 4 largely apes the Daily Mail agenda. But even the Daily Mail does not have a daily editorial propagandizing Christianity.
Its truly time you guys and girls recognize this is 2009. Most people in this country are not Christian despite the socialisation they had to endure in British schools. You are holding the country back with your 1950's view of the Christian Church's position in today's Britain.
Wishing you a Fantastic 2009
Malcolm Rasala
Complain about this comment
What an extraordinary response! Extraordinary because I’m astonished the BBC should want to reveal that religionists require a special space in its flagship news programme because the delivery of news is secular! Why does secularism – equality without privilege of all religions and none - require balance? If such a space for “reflection” as Mr Damazer impudently calls it was so necessary, why does the BBC not broadcast three minutes of New Age music? I suspect the reason being is that it has nothing to do with “reflection” and everything to do with promotion or proselytising. That is not balance: It is privilege. A privilege the BBC award to any religion wealthy, powerful enough, or – in Damazer's own words – boasting “significant membership” to interrupt the morning news.
I think the majority of people would agree religion has enough tax-funded privileges in our society. To suggest that Radio 4 audiences – “whether they are believers or not” – regularly engage with the religionist contributors the BBC favours is insulting to the majority of people of no religion, let alone humanists, spiritualists, pagans, followers of Odin or anyone else who have little choice.
If the BBC wants to properly acknowledge the “harm done in the name of religion”, than please have the courtesy of removing it from your flagship news programme. Religionists can and do integrate within the output of the news just like the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
As an atheist myself I look forward to thought for the day - which I find thought provoking and uplifting. I would also welcome more secular contributions.
As for it having no place on a news program - I also enjoy the cultural pieces such as biography in 6 words, paper cup poetry of Guantanamo bay, and why are wheeled suitcases a good/bad thing. Conversely I am bemused as to why so much time is spent on sports reporting - this is certainly not the news!
Complain about this comment
I tune in especially for this slot. I am after inspiration not more information. The comments about belief in God are for me missing the point. I think we all yearn for greater meaning in life and this slot helps us to step back from our material concerns and connect with important questions of morality, ethics and truth. Do we really want another 5 minutes of 'news' and discussion on the credit crunch when we could be thinking about how to make the World a better place?
Complain about this comment
Regarding Post 7 and "fairness". It is not about fairness at all! the religious angle (granted often added at the end of good logical observations) is clearly just superstitious nonsense and TFTD gives it way too much priveleged airtime. Even equal time given to the so-called secular voice is giving too much credence to niave worldviews!
Complain about this comment
I'm writing as a paid up member of the C of E - so interest declareed.
I like the idea that in 180 minutes of news, comment, bullying interviews, trivia etc., there's 2.5 minutes of time to reflect in the light of religious principles.
But with some fine exceptions such as this morning's rabbi, and Roy Jenkins, the contributions are pretty awful. I wonder if they represent some great atheistic conspiracy led by Mona Sxxxx.
If it's going to continue, as it should, the following must be taken on board:
Representatives of all faiths and none
Contributors must be very good broadcasters - most are not
contributions should be thoughts for today not yesterday - that means that they should be written between 7 and 7.30 that morning, not last night
(this is tricky) the religious perspective should be there but not stuffed down our throats already occupied with cornflakes.
Never let anyone say "as a Christian/jew/moslem "etc.
'Cos I as a Christian have sometimes turned it off with my toes curling
Complain about this comment
Keep TFTD, and keep its distinctive religious flavour. I know some see 'ancient mythical texts' as irrelevant and even dangerous (allymac08 and 1trevor), but how much of such texts form the basis of our current values and way of working in society? Nearly all! It is dangerous to reduce the world view to a solely material and 'factual' one as Communist governments past and present have tried. Even ancient wisdom has something to give us now, let alone a spiritual perspective on current events. Let those who don't like it switch off or not listen for three minutes!
Complain about this comment
I noticed on a humanist site a month back that they were planning a coordinated assault on the faith aspect of thought for the day.
As a free-thinking human being, I notice that the best things in life can often not be reduced to facts alone, and that these things (like love, music, art, humour and values) can themselves impact news and the way we live in a good way.
I would also include faith in that list, as what I have seen of Christians suggests that they have a lot to offer. They are typically trustworthy people who quietly serve their community, and their values (love, self-sacrifice and generosity) have helped me.
It may be coincidence, but over my 40-something years I have noticed a parallel: alongside a decline in respect for christianity in the media, we have seen a decline in social cohesion, family stability, trust and respect. Along the way we have also become more litigious and seen record teenage pregnacies.
For the sake of my kids' generation and the kind of world I'll have to live in when I'm old, I'd like to see more Christian input on TFTD and the media generally - especially if it is of the quality of people like Bishop James Jones and Rhidian Brook.
Complain about this comment
Quote from BBC spokesperson: "the slot offers a brief, uninterrupted interlude of spiritual reflection"
But why a special exclusive slot for the religious perspective on 'spiritual reflection', deliberately excluding the non-religious? Do they think spirituality is confined to religion just as some people think morality is confined to religion?
We (my wife and I) as spiritual Humanists (yet secular and agnostic) get much of our inspiration from pantheistic spiritual experience and a sense of life expressed, as well as we can, in these words from the agnostic Albert Einstein: "A human being is part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
If Einstein was alive now would the BBC exclude this 'Thought' from the programme? We honestly cannot see any justification for excluding people like us in the reply offered to our email. As strong supporters of public broadcasting and the immensely valuable role of the BBC this saddens us.
We still hope that one day Thought For Today 'will widen its circle of understanding' to include people like ourselves, and others in the growing non-religious community whether or not there share our interpretation of spirituality.
Complain about this comment
"Even equal time given to the so-called secular voice is giving too much credence to naive worldviews!" # 31
Could I suggest you read some books by A.C. Grayling on humanist philosophy and ethics before labelling something as naive when you clearly haven't looked into it.
What is Good?: The Search for the Best Way to Live.
Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age
The Reason of Things: Living with Philosophy.
As for the meaning of secular, to quote from post 285 in the BBC Radio 4 controller's response thread (at top of iPM blog):
"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."
Secular also refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based as much as possible on evidence and fact rather than religious influence.
"It may be coincidence, but over my 40-something years I have noticed a parallel: alongside a decline in respect for Christianity in the media, we have seen a decline in social cohesion, family stability, trust and respect. Along the way we have also become more litigious and seen record teenage pregnancies." #34
It could also be argued that many find the tenets of Christianity (That Jesus was born of a virgin, he died, rose from the dead on the third day, is now at the right hand of an omnipotent God, that there is an afterlife, that we all will rise again from the dead at some future judgement day, that a God created the Universe 6,000 years ago in a week etc) impossible to believe, this is why Christianity has declined. My perspective is that I would be naive to accept those claims at face value, I simply cannot believe them.
This makes it more important for us to look at different ethical and moral codes to find ones that are suitable for the present day. The way to keep morality is to promote morality in and of itself; not insist that to be moral you also have to believe in the supernatural.
It is perfectly possible to have morality without religious belief. What is needed is to base moral training on less precarious foundations than ancient myths, a belief in the supernatural and promises of rewards or threats of punishment after one has died.
Atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if motivated by different principles. They often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, including involvement in movements to abolish slavery, contributing to relief efforts associated with human suffering and public service.
Religion does not inexorably lead to moral behaviour. Rwanda is generally regarded as one of the most 'Christian' countries in Africa and the world, one of the real 'successes' of Christian missions in Africa! Statistically speaking some 80% to 90% of the population regard themselves as Christians. An absolute majority are Roman Catholics, and a strong minority Protestants. Much of this Christianity is of a strong evangelical persuasion. Yet in 1994 Christians killed Christians in the worst genocide of recent years.
Religion has led people to commit a long litany of horrendous crimes, you cannot deny that that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God, and even in the name of Christianity. God’s command to Moses to slaughter the Midianites (men, women, boys and non-virginal girls) is one biblical example; through the Crusades, others include the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, whilst Hitler was a Catholic until his death (in Mein Kampf he wrote: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work.").
Not to mention the innumerable conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslems, and terrorists who blow themselves up in the confident belief that they are going straight to paradise.
Complain about this comment
I listen to TFTD as a philosophical comment on a current issue. Surely only narrow minded people feel the need to remove parts of programmes which they do not find to their taste. Let us be a bit more tolerant of others' views and keep the distictive nature of the Today programme.
Complain about this comment
Chris:
Excellent tweets for the day...
PS: I have a Twitter account...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
TFTD has a good track record of making me so angry I turn off Radio and more often than not take several days to come back to it.
I am still baffled as to why a prime morning slot is given over to a religious lecture. Either all viewpoints including humanism and atheism should be given the chance, or the beliefs put across as fact should be able to be questioned and challenged to their veracity.
May I be the first to suggest Marcus Brigstock to be the first speaker for atheists?
Complain about this comment
To declare myself, the old time word for my church situation would be 'dissenter'. The basic problem here as I see it is the same as that of the joining of church and state. To have a religious slot shoe-horned into a news and current affairs program is never going to sit happily.
I do quite enjoy tftd when I catch it, as far as it goes. However the editors are careful to whom they choose to give the microphone. Denominational churchmen all, paid preachers, never of the calibre of, say, John the Baptist. No, to hear this kind of speaker one has to go out into the wilderness, so to say.
So everyone, do not worry so much about these 3 minutes, you'll never get to hear a man with real fire in his belly. Not a Dave Carr or a Ken Gott; neither a Rambabu or a Derek Prince or even a Smith Wigglesworth! Do not fret, we'll be able to continue aborting our unborn children and going our way without anyone to kick up too much fuss.
Complain about this comment
Its just that there's no challenge, questioning or comment after TFTD ... just a bland, unsatisfactory 'thank you' ... its the only topic on Today that gets away with it.
Complain about this comment
I think it might be a good idea to have a political thought for the day. It could include a wide variety of political views from Conservatives, Liberals and even Plaid Cymru and the rest, except of course the Labour party as a recent poll suggested that they only had 30% of the vote and their opinions are represented elsewhere anyway.
Complain about this comment
All I really ask of you Mark Damazer is that you allow some people who have read some other books to give us something more to think about in a morning. Due to the inherent limitations and inevitable repetitiveness of Thought for the Day's current format, it has become nothing more than a barricaded cottage of regurgitated mediocrity amid an otherwise flourishing metropolis of mind food. Don't you realise the pitiful irony of the fact that Thought for the Day has become the only slot on the Today programme that doesn't give us anything new to think about? If nothing else, this is about the quality of your programming.
Complain about this comment
As an atheist I would clearly welcome different views both religious and secular.
Congratulations on getting a well considered debate going on this, with two excellent speakers -- this is just the level of debate that we need.
Complain about this comment
It appears that we're arguing about the benefits of a religious or atheistic lifestyles. That's not the point of the TFTD complaint, and isn't something that's going to get sorted out on a BBC blog!
The point is: why does the BBC promote the idea that only the religious have something to say on morality? It doesn't make any sense - especially when it comes from a supposedly unbiased organisation like the Beeb.
Complain about this comment
The Archbishop of Canterbury tells us to shun materialism from his Palace on the Thames via the BBC. Angela Tilbury this morning on Thought for the Day tells us to concentrate on things other than money. She fails to mention the 5 billion in shares owned by her Church. Does the BBC think we out here are stupid? Why is the BBC platforming this hypocrisy; the grossly rich religious establishment telling the rest of us
we should not be doing what they are doing every day coining-in income. There is a deep irony here for a media company that enforces us to pay it by fear of imprisonment trying to propagandize us to this 2000 year old total hypocrisy from Christians.
Complain about this comment
To me the point is not whether this platform should be made available to 'atheists' or 'humanists' or 'non-believers' but that it should include a secular viewpoint. There is a contradiction to me to include atheists as if they were another religious interest. The vast majority of response to this judgement that I have seen today has been against it, but predominantly because people find the views expressed constricted and forced through a faith bottleneck.
Complain about this comment
I don't see the point of non-religious comment on thought for the day, as there is plenty of secular comment and world view already expressed. What would be refreshing would be a return to its Christian roots, maybe including comment from leaders, pastors, elders and ministers of non-denominational churches and evangelical groups, which are very under represented compared to the fact that these are the churches and faith group which are on the increase.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS