Archbishop of Canterbury praises article accusing BBC of sneering attitude to religion

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that the BBC is “sneering” at people with faith after leading presenters criticised Thought for the Day.
Justin Welby said a column calling on the BBC to “stop sneering and keep the faith” was “excellent”.
It comes after John Humphrys, the Radio 4 presenter, claimed that the daily slot on the Today programme was “deeply, deeply boring”......


“To the overpaid panjandrums of the BBC, religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible,” he added.

To read more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/31/archbishop-canterbury-endorses-column-accusing-bbc-sneering/

"religion is for....the stupid and the gullible".

[msongs]

1. religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible says archbishop who lives off it

[guillaumeb]

2. You left out a large part of his comment, so here it is in full.

Writing in the Guardian, Fraser claimed that Humprhys’ comments were part of an “endemic” culture within the BBC, in which it is “acceptable” to “slag off Thought for the Day”.
“To the overpaid panjandrums of the BBC, religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible,” he added.

The archbishop was speaking of the higher ups at the BBC, not (as your comment seems to infer) to religious believers.

[trotsky]

3. "religion is for....the stupid and the gullible"

Did the BBC say that?

[guillaumeb]

7. Well, from the article:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested

followed by what he feels is suggested.

[trotsky]

16. Ah, OK, so the BBC didn't actually say those words.

The way you posted that quote made it unclear, and implied the BBC had done so. Honesty and clarity are good things, don't you agree?

You might also want to more closely read the article you posted, as you are clearly confusing what the homophobic bigot Justin Welby said, and what Giles Fraser (who wrote the piece that actually used those words) said.

[guillaumeb]

19. I think that the confusion is evident in the responses.

I posted it as it was written, so your quarrel is with the original author. But no, I do not personally feel that the article was unclear.

[trotsky]

26. Sure thing.

It's everyone else, definitely not you.

[Mariana]

29. Gil, if your posts are being misunderstood all the time

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear, and you're the only one who consistently has this problem? Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

[guillaumeb]

33. You have given this response numerous times.

Almost a refrain of some sort for the choir.

So in counterpoint, simply reread my answers for the other times you have brought this up.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. But... You.... what... seriously?

[trotsky]

4. Justin Welby unable to give 'straight answer' on whether gay sex is sinful

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/02/justin-welby-unable-to-give-straight-answer-on-whether-gay-sex-is-sinful

Asked by Campbell if gay sex was sinful, Welby said: “You know very well that is a question I can’t give a straight answer to. Sorry, badly phrased there. I should have thought that one through.”

Pressed on why he could not answer, the archbishop said: “Because I don’t do blanket condemnation and I haven’t got a good answer to the question. I’ll be really honest about that. I know I haven’t got a good answer to the question. Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships.”

But he has a sad because someone isn't being respectful enough of his religion.

Aww.

[guillaumeb]

9. So what did he mean by this statement?

"Inherently, within myself, the things that seem to me to be absolutely central are around faithfulness, stability of relationships and loving relationships.”

Or what do you feel he meant?

[trotsky]

17. I know exactly what he meant.

Did you perhaps notice what part of an adult relationship he left out of that sentence?

Hint: it's the part that he was specifically asked about. The part that he wouldn't answer.

He's a homophobic bigot, but you want us to care that he thinks his religion isn't being given enough respect.

Tell you what, when he respects ALL people and their full, loving relationships, I'll consider respecting his religion. Until then, he can fuck right off, as can ALL bigots like him.

[trotsky]

5. Doubts Grow Over Archbishops Account of When He Knew of Abuse

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/europe/justin-welby-archbishop-of-canterbury-iwerne-abuse.html

LONDON — The Anglican Church has been embroiled for most of this year in a scandal involving decades-old abuses that occurred in elite Christian holiday camps for boys where Justin Welby worked in his 20s, before eventually assuming his current post as the Most Rev. Archbishop of Canterbury.

The archbishop has said that he knew nothing of the abuse until 2013, when the police were informed about it, and he apologized in February for not having done more to investigate the claims further.

But now the grown men who were victims of the abuse as boys are coming forward to challenge the archbishop’s version of events, casting doubt on his claims of ignorance.

But guys, someone on the telly didn't speak glowingly enough of his religion. That's the real tragedy, you know.

[Voltaire2]

6. Idiotic nonsense not being given proper respect.

[guillaumeb]

8. As opposed to intelligent nonsense?

Interesting how the agnostic news reader's comments are ignored by some here.

[Voltaire2]

10. for example: Jabberwocky by Lewis Carrol

[guillaumeb]

11. A clergyman wrote it. eom

[Voltaire2]

12. perhaps you think you have made some sort of point?

You appeared to think you had scored a hit with " As opposed to intelligent nonsense?" and now, predictably, you are trying to tack away from yet another blunder.

[guillaumeb]

13. Okay. I concede that you have convinced yourself that you made a point.

Congratulations on making your point, whatever it was.

[Voltaire2]

14. a brief recap might be in order.

1. Me: Idiotic nonsense not being given proper respect.
2. You: As opposed to intelligent nonsense?
3. Me: for example: Jabberwocky by Lewis Carrol
4. You: A clergyman wrote it. eom

So far we have my original snark, in reply to your op. (1)
You then attempt to claim that "intelligent nonsense" is an oxymoron. (2)
I point out that the category exists. (3)
You then counter with a non-sequitur (4).

[guillaumeb]

15. An excellent recap, and gif.

My only possible reply can be:

No true knight would persist in this attack when he has been as severely wounded as you have been.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. If you say so.

[guillaumeb]

20. If I said what exactly?

I did post the article, so there is that.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. That nonsense you put in quotes.

[guillaumeb]

22. The reference to the Archbishop's statement?

I thought that it was appropriate, in light of the theme.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. The archbishop didn't say that. Giles Fraser did. That's how badly you took it out of context.

You don't even know whom you quoted.

[guillaumeb]

24. I did assign the quote incorrectly.

But the sentiment is still appropriate to the piece. And the context of the piece is intolerance for religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. You also chopped the quote in half (would have cost you NOTHING to post the whole quote)

robbing it of the reader knowing it was a description OF the state of the BBC by a partisan, not a statement by the BBC itself.


Your attention to detail shines a bright light on the entire sub-thread above with Voltaire2

[guillaumeb]

34. I provided the entire article in the link.

Some here have previously admitted to only reading the title prior to responding. So I would suggest that any who respond might want to read the entire piece.

And Voltaire2 obviously completely misread one reply of mine already, and claimed I said something that I did not actually say. So what does that say about attention to detail on that posters part?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. You're still confused from Voltaire's thread.

You made a mistake here. I humbly suggest you re-read as you made a similar mistake there.

[guillaumeb]

36. Voltaire2 made a claim that is unsupported. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Mariana]

30. Intolerance for religion.

Saying that one particular daily religious propaganda program is boring and probably shouldn't be on public radio is not an example of intolerance for religion. For the record, here is a link to some shows available under the BBC's category Religion and Ethics, which includes both radio and television shows:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/religionandethics/player/episodes

Do you think it's a proper role of publicly funded television and radio to broadcast religious propaganda? Why or why not?

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Here's the most complete summary of the interview generally available:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/radio/2017-10-30/today-radio-4-thought-for-the-day/

(a link in it to the complete article interviewing all five directs me to iTunes, so it seems they want you to pay for that)

Fraser's claim that the BBC attitude is "religion is for the little people, for the stupid and the gullible" seems out of line. For instance, Humphrys does not just blindly dismiss religion; he did some programmes a few years ago on why he's agnostic, in conversation with religious leaders - see eg http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/745/in-search-of-god-with-john-humphrys .

[Mariana]

31. I think Fraser got his wittle fee-fees hurt

because Humphrys said Fraser's daily propaganda bit is deeply, deeply boring. Fraser's reaction resembles a temper tantrum.

[Mariana]

28. Fraser and Welby might consider consulting their Bibles.

Jesus told his followers, in Matthew 5 : 11-12 (NIV), Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So, why are Fraser and Welby whining and complaining? Why aren't they rejoicing and being glad?

[guillaumeb]

32. Perhaps they are simply pointing out intolerance when they see it.

Is this not a good thing?

[trotsky]

38. It's not a good thing when it's not really intolerance.

By mislabeling it as such, they (and you) are seeking special treatment for religious opinions.

[guillaumeb]

39. Are you the official definer of what constitutes intolerance?

I had no idea.

[Mariana]

40. Criticism is not intolerance. Ridicule is not intolerance.

A sneering attitude is not intolerance. Etc.

Different words generally have different definitions, Gil, because they mean different things. The BBC runs loads of religious programming. One guy criticized this writer's daily radio bit of religious propaganda. BFD. That is not intolerance.

[trotsky]

43. Oh but criticism and ridicule of religion *is* intolerance, you see.

Because religion is special and must be protected from foul atheists who simply will not keep quiet.

[trotsky]

42. Nope, but neither are you, and neither are they.

So thanks for proving my point, g-man!