BBC Blog Network

User Profile

time_for_lunch

Listed below are comments made by time_for_lunch between Saturday, 17th January 2009 and Wednesday, 25th February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue 10:57pm on 25 Feb 2009 Mark, I would very much like to hear a similar blog entry describing your recent decision keeping thought for the day exclusive. Any chance of it?

I'm not intending to "haunt" your blog but I would seriously find that an interesting read. Feel free to throw in some good news at the end too, like in this case :)

Thanks
The Moral Maze 8:49pm on 22 Feb 2009 Jem/Mark,

This was my first time listening to TMM. Overall I enjoyed the program, although I must say I found it hard work when Claire came on as she always sounded so agressive.

The moral maze is much better than Thought for the Day could ever be. I am a bit bedazzled that you don't think (for instance) Michael Portillo could make a well-structured statement any better than he could make a well-structured argument in Maze though. Maze is a much more challenging arena for anyone's opinions.

Please give secular voices the same respect as they were offered in Maze.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 10:37pm on 18 Feb 2009 The recent activity regarding Thought for the Day was cited by The Moral Maze this week when they asked "Can a post-religious society be a moral society?"

Peter Cave spoke particularly well on the programme, and a lot of interesting discussion was touched upon.

It's on iplayer for the next I think http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hkprf/b00hkpp2/Moral_Maze_18_02_2009/
'Thought for the Day' uncut 01:32am on 28 Jan 2009 14 newlach
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/TFTD_disco_blog.mp3

15 MrStrop
Census figures are all well and good but they also suggest that there are more Jedi Knights in the UK than Jews. The census question is flawed; it asks `what is your religion`, and not `are you religious`. It will also be affected by culture, a bit like how asking anyone what football team they support would likely result in the answer being the local team, no matter whether they actually take an interest in football or not.

I better not go into the other subjects raised as I've already gone off topic enough.

Thank you Eddie and iPM, it was interesting to hear Alister's perspective, with religious viewpoints being side-lined - something he repeated numerous times. I have sympathy for him, although it isn't a balanced story across religions. There has been a huge amount of BBC programming on Islam recently - Science and Islam, After Rome, etc. There was an interesting piece this morning on Today as it happens..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7853000/7853001.stm

Of course these programs aren't programs of prayer but they are impartial BBC coverage. I have no problems with such coverage of any religion and find it insightful to watch and listen to such things. It's very different to programs of sermon and prayer though.

I am very disappointed that Mark has been unwilling to redress the situation. No one has been willing to defend his stance and it can only be a matter of time until he does the honourable thing.

Mark said in a recent interview in the Independent, `For some of our audience, if you move the furniture around there is a bit of an issue. You can change things; what they don't like is huge amounts of furniture moved too quickly.`

I'm sure they wouldn't mind someone pulling up another chair to the Thought for the Day table; we've not been suggesting a trip to ikea.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 11:59pm on 22 Jan 2009 JimOnTyne,

First of all I apologise, but the i does stand for interactive (and `possibly individual`). I have heard it defined as such by Eddie on the program itself and it is referenced at various places on this blog.

You may be aware that Mark Damazer made his statement regarding TftD through iPM. Does it not therefore make sense to respond to him through this medium? Afterall, what with this being interactive that does seem logical. If Mark was looking for three minutes of uninterrupted, unattested sermon he maybe should have read his statement out at 7:45 in the morning as Thought for the Day.

I would encourage you to read some of the many posts in this blog, as although iPM have been unfairly burdened with Mr Damazer's problems these problems are in fact real, and represent a broad discrimination that should be unacceptable in modern society.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 10:01pm on 22 Jan 2009 I'm afraid I don't find the platitudes website funny. Satire like that isn't really my cup of tea and tends to make cringe.

The manifesto for change however, that was a very interesting and is very eloquently written. I've put a paragraph from it below and also a link.

"How about we really open up TFTD, not just to the great and the good, but to the people up and down the country who have to make moral choices every day: nurses, teachers, policemen. And I don't just mean the heads of their respective professions. Let's have a nurse from a busy A&E ward, or a primary school teacher, or a bobby on an inner city beat. What does the bloke who sweeps the streets see in the rubbish that gets thrown away? What problems do the family who own the shop on the corner face? The Today programme is full of politicians, bishops and businessmen. They get their say. Let's hear about a different class of problem, a different set of choices."

Hear hear!

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/static.php?page=static070426-073514
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 02:29am on 19 Jan 2009 It is interesting to read the above exchange, and I do believe Gareth is due an apology for the assertion made against him. However, the subject is still relevant as it does highlight an issue which does not appear to have been addressed yet with a morals slot based upon scripture alone.

Technology changes and introduces new challenges to society. Often these have moral or ethical consequences. They also tend to have consequences on law too, which gets revised and improved to reflect the consequences - should the highway code have been written in stone when the first horse and cart traversed a country lane? Of course that is a ridiculous statement, as it would have been to say a similar statement at any time in motoring's history or future. It is something that should reflect the here and now and no matter how much prudence is employed doing that in the past is only possible with omniscience.

Ok the highway code may have been a bad example as it doesn't cover moral issues. Laws governing stem cell research maybe? I have not studied law - or moral philosophy for that matter. The highway code is something we can all identify with.

So, a religious body can intervene between book and believer - as appears to have been the case with the Humanae Vitae the 1968 - but what if it doesn't, as appears to have been the situation over the last 40 years? Or if the person's own moral position does not agree with the religious body? Should joe believer until that day follow the written stance?

My personal view is that in order to be moral a person has to understand why they come to their own conclusions, and not simply take them from a book. That would defeat the point entirely. Morality requires a large degree of empathy.

Returning to Thought for the Day, a program focusing on moral reflection upon current affairs, would it not make sense to see people's opinions, rather than those of religious organisations that have been shown to be out of touch with those they represent [1]? it is my opinion that this is what we are already receiving - as demonstrated in the recent newspaper article citing minority views being represented [2]. What is the difference between a minority view which is unsupported by a religious organisation to an atheist position? Besides the lack of a god?

Thought for a Day is about today. It does not have 50 years over which the religions it currently represents can change their position on controversial subjects.

To be clear, I am not implying that I see religious people as being immoral due to their basis around scripture; I feel that their humanity is what brings them to associate their beliefs with some of the powerful stories of generosity and selflessness described in the books. Not the other way around.

[1] http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561 paragraph 5
[2] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/10/christians_and_atheists_should_unite_to_kill_off_thought_for_the_day
Suggest a story 00:49am on 19 Jan 2009 May I thank you for continuing to recognise the interest in the Thought for the Day subject, and wishing to engage with your audience in how to best cover the subject.

I agree with #2 johnnyess that a three-cornered debate would be productive. I recognise this would extend beyond the normal time you devote to a subject but extended time is the only way to give the subject justice.

I think it is appalling that Mark Damazer has given a statement to the iPM blog and has presumably since refused to engage with its consequences. Did he of all people not understand the format with which he was engaging?

Either way, I look forward to constructive progress on this issue.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 5:43pm on 17 Jan 2009 Chris Vallance at 17 Jan 09, 05:15 PM wrote on the iPM blog:

"Finally, many of you were keen for us to do more on Thought for The Day. We've not ruled that out for later programmes and we have been discussing how we might return to the subject in a fresh and informative way that reflects the vigorous debate on the blog. Suggestions and thoughts on how we might do that and who we should talk to would be welcome."

Doesn't look like it'll come up this week then.
Thought for the Day: "a genuinely difficult question" 4:02pm on 17 Jan 2009 to 454 gcdavis

As far as I am aware all TftDs are pre-recorded in a studio. It wouldn't make sense for it to be any other way, what with the lack of rebuttals etc.

In effect there is no reason why we can't have contributors from all over the world - although as demonstrated in your post there is plenty of talent from within the UK. Keeping our objective in sight I would therefore recommend the push is aimed at including non-religious UK speakers, rather than including foreign speakers which would affect the choice of religious speakers too.

to 446 pontiouspirate

I too never received a response to my complaint about iPM. For journalists to joke about their impartiality is very distasteful and I am still waiting to hear any statement which says how Mark Damazer's statement could ever be described as "well-argued". Mark's statement has faced almost unilateral criticism and the sentiment in this blog is that it doesn't actually contain any argument - just padding. It was wasted airtime, just like the sound byte at the start referencing Just a Minute.

oh well.. let's wait and see what happens this week. I am not getting my hopes up though and will be looking at other ways to get this discrimination addressed.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

time_for_lunch