Comments on: Evangelical Alliance whinge about Dawkins

By: The Clash « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion

The Clash « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:03:56 +0000

[…] (Hat tips to onegoodmove, which has an audio of the whole programme, and to MediaWatchWatch) […]

By: marc

marc — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:40:04 +0000

Guess I’m an extremist bigot then too, G. Tingey.

Shirley Williams doesn’t agree and she’s in the house of lords – now that’s an interesting woman to get on our side.

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:57:45 +0000

What I want to know is …

Why are the deliberate public liars Vardy and Edmiston being allowed to tell their lies in state schools?

Ah, and why are the “moderates” allowed to get away with the “oh, they’re not PROPER christians/muslims/marxists” when some set of true beleivers stsrts telling lies and killin people?
Because that is what does happen, and then people like my self, and Dawkins get called extremist bigots for pointing out the facts …..

By: Dan Factor

Dan Factor — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:58:59 +0000

Saying relegion is the root of all the evil in the world is a bit like saying McDonalds is to blame for the desruction of the rain forest.
Relegion becomes evil and dangerous when it’s used to attack and oppress people by nutcases like Stephen Green and co.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:29:13 +0000

Back again!
Forgot to say that if Evangelical Alliance are playing the ‘right to reply’ card they’ve been swapping ideas with US religious right groups like AFA or Focus on the Family.
The idea that TV and radio programmes should have a ‘right to reply’of the same length and using the same resources to controversial items is a US concept and explains the blandness of much of their ‘documentary’ product. It’s been used by religious groups and also large corporations as a way to stop small production companies putting out views they don’t like. Basically, it works because when you budget for the programme you have to double the figure on anything hardhitting to allow the folk you’re exposing equal facilities to make a programme in response, so controversial programmes don’t get made.
When the broadcasting laws changed in UK in the early 1990’s there was an attempt to introduce this. Because most TV product now is made by indie companies and sold to the majors it would have wrecked the industry, so it was rejected. If EA, who have a voice on both the BBC and ITV monitoring bodies, are trying it now that suggests something is being discussed behind the scenes – such as reform of the law when the next BBC licence review or ITV franchises comes up. Even more proof, I’d say, that religious groups should not automatically be invited onto the boards of broadcasting authorities to put a ‘moral view’.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:49:01 +0000

re Evangelical Alliance’s comments – Dawkins had no need to abuse evangelicals when they did a perfectly fine job of abusing themselves. All he had to do was ask a question and leave the sound running!

Incidentally, funny EA never complained about the excellent Channel 4 programmes put on last year by the theologian who exposed the spread of Nigerian and Brazilian style evangelism to the UK and the tragic results (Victoria Climbie etc.). Their silence demonstrates that they daren’t admit that it isn’t just outspoken atheists who are alarmed at the replacement of middle of the road Christianity, aware of the contradictions and ready to discuss them (e.g. Bishop of Oxford with Dawkins) by what can only be described as ‘Christofascism’.

re Vardy – what’s he going to call his next school, ‘Arthur Daley & All Saints’,perhaps? If no sane person would buy a second hand car from this nutter, how the hell can Blair let him loose with public money and children’s education?

By: Andrew Nixon

Andrew Nixon — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:41:11 +0000

I share your thoughts about Vardy.

As do I. Being a car dealer makes him bad enough, but a creationist aswell! That makes him amongst the scum of the earth.

By: Monitor

Monitor — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:44:52 +0000

Thanks for the correction, Richard. Fixed now.

By: Joolz

Joolz — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:55:20 +0000

I share your thoughts about Vardy.

By: Bartholomew

Bartholomew — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:30:23 +0000

"Ted Haggard", not "Jim Haggart". You're thinking of Jimmy Swaggart, maybe (which, despite all his faults, is a bit unfair on Haggard). I've written a few posts about him.