h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For non-UK people or non-Radio 4 listeners 'Thought For The Day' is a 3ish minute slot on RAdio 4 at 7:50am on the Today programme. It is a religious slot where a religious person (clergy or high-profile writer/Charity person) has a few minutes to link up something going on in the world with what their particular god said about such things. One interesting fact about the slot is that there are no non-religious people who get to speak.

This morning the person spoke about the 'anti-gay' laws, 'Gay Lobby' and Christians. He was basically saying the law was wrong as it would stop Christians following Gods law. He also was equating 'Gay Lobby' with simply sex rather than something more and was making out(*ahem*) that the 'Gay Lobby' was in fact worse than the people outside parliament earlier in the week protesting againts the law.

I suggest you listen to it from the BBC website to hear that it was a purely political statement and, in a round about way basically said, God's law is higher than the the countries law.

I seem to remember last last year a number of anti-vivisection and other groups being stopped from 'advertising' their views as they are considered political statements.

And yet, a charity ('the Christian Church') which also has many of its members in the House Of Lords i.e. directly involved in voting on this countries laws has as carte blanche slot every day on a national radio to make what is in effect a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of The Church.

I do beleive the rules are that the opposing side of the argument must have equal say on the matter but I doubt whether we will here someone from the gay side on TFTD.

This person accusations were of a level that should have someone from the other side 'defending' what they want.

Could this (in all seriousness) be breaching any broadcasting regulations?

Why not make an official complaint and see what happens Alfster?

Alternatively you can accept the speaker's right to free speech.

Free speech which is trying to allow him to carry on being prejudiced towards a group of people.

Free speech is only truly free speech when someone can challenge the views made equally. This is not the case here.

I have always found it ironic that in one of Radio 4's flag ship current affairs progammes where the interviewers try as much as possible to get the most ouit of both sides of a story in a logical and fair fashion that we have a section that is one-sided and where illogical and plainly wrong statements can be made with no comeback. I am not talking about the simple God stuff but statements about science, medicine, social structure etc (Anne Atkins constantly talks unsubstaited, incorrect drivel that, if they had someone on who knew what they were talking about, would be exposed as rubbish very quickly.

Was going to mention something about Ann Atkins - I have tried not to listen to Thought for the Day for several years, ever since I heard Ann Atkins calling for an end to the "Unborn Holocaust" and condemning anyone that had ever had a termination. I will use it as a prompt to go brush my teeth/go to the loo/leave the room for something. Only sit through it if I'm already in the car on my way to work.

Don't mind the sikh chap they have occasionally, the thoughts of his guru at least have a whiff of common sense about them.

As a slot, it does seem very anachronistic. Didn't they let Richard Dawkins do it once? Imight be misremembering that...

They did about 4ish years ago...not really the best person to use as an example of what a secular TFTD would be though he was more openly honest than the religious people are. He basically said we need to use rational common sense rather than believe in superstitions.

The people on TFTD say basically the opposite and that their eligion and religion in general is the only way to solve any problem that came up the day before i.e. we must follow what a 2000year old book said rather than rational thought.

Problem is, Dawkins doesn't use obtuse flowerer language like the TFTD people normally do.

*But* back to the point of the first post: did this mornings slot breaching any guidelines?

Painful as it is to hear,I often think that people like this are giving rational people the rope to hang them with. Or something like that.

I think it's useful to know what they really think.

I hear TFTD most days (not today, unfortunately).

Time and again, I think:

- Lionel Blue isn't as funny as he thinks he is
- Jonathan Sacks is a sanctimonious
- I would cheerfully pull the trigger on a crossbow aimed at Ann Atkin's throat, just to see the look on her face
- I have never, ever heard anything from either of the regular Sikh contributors that has made me think anything other than "yup".

I wonder what it is about Sikhism that makes their views seem so reasonable, so rational, so considerate and liberal, compared to the representatives of all the other religions? Dunno. But there it is...

SoRB

Text of this morning's broadcast:

"Good morning

Jesus had very little to say about sex. Paul on the other hand said quite a lot about it. And by the 4th century, Augustine - arguably the most important Christian theologian of all times - was so tormented by his own sexuality and guilt that his own Confessions would have made front page in any tabloid.

Anybody who thinks that the Christian Church is preoccupied with morality and human sexuality can be forgiven for one very good reason: it's because we are!

But then so is the gay lobby. In fact I think in the sex-obsession war, gay and lesbian people win hands down.

So when the Government introduces a piece of legislation called the Sexual Orientation Regulations no one should be surprised if the headlines paint a picture of an all-out war between the leading contenders in the sexuality debate.

But this debate is about a lot more than sex and sexuality. It's a conflagration of competing rights between people of faith and the gay lobby. How will we conspire together to protect the gay community from injustice - without kicking Christian conscience to touch? And the government which applauds itself on its own equality track record is uncertain precisely how to referee this democratic competition.

Frankly on both sides of the argument the stakes are high.

Christians are anxious about losing power and influence. They're worried about losing the freedom to believe. But they're also worried about something else: losing the freedom to serve. Because there's a lot more to Christian faith than sex.

Serving is the thing.

In the New Testament Jesus told the classic story of the Good Samaritan in which a Samaritan found a battered Jewish enemy by the roadside. Rather than walking on the other side, the Samaritan risked his own life to rescue and find accommodation for him - presumably in an enemy Samaritan inn. Remarkably the inn-keeper said 'yes' and the Samaritan left his enemy having paid his hospital bill in advance.

In finding justice for the gay community the Government has a serious obligation to respond to the sensibilities and real fears of the faith communities.

Undermining faith is not just bad politics; it's an act of social vandalism.

But if they don't Christians will still serve. For that is what Jesus would do. For Christian rights and freedoms are not as important as serving people. "

Note the above is copyright BBC.

SoRB

Now I've read it, I have to say it comes across as rather mild compared to some of the tosh I've heard on TFTD (e.g. Ann Atkins referring to the "ongoing abortion holocaust").

SoRB

<>

I think it's because Sikhism is one of the few religions that actively preaches tolerance.

Amazing how such a small amount of text can take up so much airtime.

ALso, the speaker might like to know that it is against bigots and ALL non-bogits rather than the Gay Lobby.

Hey, does that mean I, a hetrosexual man can be part of 'the gay lobby'.

I agree it does sound mild but it is the underlying point that it is directly talking about a piece of legislation that is being looked into at the moment.

Atkins is just spouting off the usual trash but at least there is no way she will get abortion made illegal...at the moment...

I've noticed that Sikh representatives combine humour with common sense. They also seem to be representative of Sikhs in general. I've never met a Sikh I didn't like.

I dunno, it seems perfectly reasonable to me! I expected "salivating hate speech" judging by the first posting, and yet, I found it hard at first to know where she/he was coming from...

Vicky

Hope you caught this morning's TftD Alfster - it put the opposing view, from a christian perspective.

Welcome to our resident homophobe. Oh, yes I put in alot of 'hate speech' there didn't I? The usual 'hate speech' that is defined as criticising Christians while they are demonstratably trying to justify their prejudices against certain parts of society.



Kelli: I did indeed hear TFTD today. It was 'good' to have an opposing side. However, you say from the Christian perspective. Yesterdays view was also from the Christian perspective. So, on two days we have had two memebers of the Christian faith giving us totally opposing view points all based on the same teachings just different interpretations.

It simply goes to show the cherry picking and convenient interpretations that people get from the religious texts to justify their own requirements.

Right, this is going to hurt...

Alfster... I think what Vicky/Della/this week's name meant was this:

The first post was your description of yesterday's TFTD.

From that description, she expected that TFTD was going to be "salivating hate speech".

She read the transcript, and found it to be not that, but in fact apparently quite reasonable, if a bit incoherent.



OK, pause while I clench my teeth a bit...



I agree with her. (The crackling sounds you can hear are hell freezing over...)

To the point that when I found that transcript, I read it three times, and checked back through previous TFTDs to make sure that this was the one you meant.

Don't get me wrong, I've shouted at the radio with the best of 'em at some TFTDs, most often Anne Atkins'. But yesterday's just didn't seem to me as bad as you painted it.

There.

Bet nobody expected that...

SoRB

Well your initial post in this thread was to complain at an unbalanced view being presented, with no-one giving the opposing view. Today they balanced it out with someone who pointed out many of the things that have been discussed in the various threads here.

Now you're on a different subject - how can one 'religion' spawn such different views.

Simulpost with SoRB.

Blimey

You are missing the point of my initial post:

My point of the first post was more about the lack of balance that is in TFTD.

Luckily, they had the good sense to get someone in to counter the comments of Wednesdays slot...it was not *specifically* about the content - if that's the way it came across then sorry. But I did proffer the question at the end about whether it was against regulations. I was not talking about any 'bile' etc or Anne Atkins level tripe.

I was not shouting at the radio (a raised eyebrow at the obvious us and them: 'gay lobby' vs the Church) I was wondering about the political aspects of it, which was its intent. To sway public opinion on the matter. i.e. not content per se but purpose.

This is the first time that I have heard a counter argument given to a TFTD slot. It seems someone had the good sense to realise that Wednesdays slot was indeed a very political statement that had direct links to something that would affect the way *some* people in the Church believed they would have to lead their lives. Therefore, a counter argument was required.

We get TFTD speakers talking about potential bills all the time: the Trident replacement for one and why it is wrong(as usual throwing in a Biblical quote to justify their (not unreasonably stances)). However, on the whole, the bills etc that they talk about affect all of us in the same way rather than specifically, supposedly, affecting the continued bigotry of a few people.

I am all for non-politicians getting a regular voice on radio. The TFTD slot does talk about some interesting topics BUT always from the point of view of what a god says about it.

It would be nice to have some make comments without having to fall back onto a religious text to back their arguments up rather than having the confidence in their own mind.

The thread is more about politics and religion...and possibly the topic drift concerning an organisation that cannot decide on where it stands on subjects such as homosexuality.