Dropping religion from TV schedules would have “dangerous” consequences, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.
Barely have we said goodbye to one Arsebishop, than a new one pops up wittering bollocks. Look, it is not dangerous to not show tedious religious claptrap, okay? I’ve not watched any religious bunkum for around four decades and I’m doing just fine. Indeed, I have suffered no danger whatsoever. In fact, not watching this claptrap has enriched my life and I feel much better for it.
The Most Reverend Justin Welby said that abandoning religious programming would “cultivate ignorance”.
Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts with twenty-four carat encrusted underpants. Religion thrives on ignorance and superstition – that’s what it is, after all. If we are actually (although I don’t believe it) moving away from this ignorance and superstition that would be a good thing, not a bad one. Religion would be of historical interest as in “did we really believe all that nonsense?” but beyond that, nope, won’t be missed.
He told the Radio Times that religious formats were the real “reality shows”.
To jump the shark so soon in his tenure is a wonder to behold. Religion is based upon myth, legend and made up stuff believed by primitive people who didn’t understand the world in which they lived. The stuff they made up – including mythical deities that lived in the sky – was merely an attempt to make sense of all this wonder. That people still believe it in this century is the triumph of ignorance over logic and common sense, frankly. That we have daft old men in frocks peddling it is deeply sad. If Welby wants more of this crap on our screens, then I suggest he starts a religion channel and see how many people tune in.
Good luck with that one.
But if broadcasters were also to adopt the view that religion is something separate and private, rather than stitched into our public life, then we could set off down a dangerous road.
On the contrary, quite to opposite. If people kept their wacky beliefs to themselves instead of expecting the rest of us to respect those absurd beliefs and didn’t feel it necessary to impose them upon us; getting all offended when we don’t or are rude about them, life would be better all round for everyone. We neither need, nor want religion stitched into public life – because, you see, we have this quaint idea that religion and the state should be sperate. This is a good thing. And the sooner Welby’s organisation is disestablished the better, frankly and the house of Lords is rid of its bishops, too.
We would be cultivating ignorance where what we need is insight, and prejudice where we most badly need open minds.
What we need is to be left alone and not preached to by idiots like Welby. You worship the god of your choice and do so in private. And Those of us who do not believe can ignore you and your silly bronze-age superstitions. I don’t need to know about them to reject them – although, having believed, I do understand all too well and I don’t like it. Not one little bit.
He’s not very good at this threatening lark, is he?
Perhaps that’s because most of his power has been stripped from him.
Strip the last vestiges of it away post-haste, please.
Religion in politics is a cancer on our society.
In fact, not watching this claptrap has enriched my life and I feel much better for it.
Ach, come on – did you never deliberately have dinner during Songs of Praise before Sky+?
If Welby wants more of this crap on our screens, then I suggest he starts a religion channel and see how many people tune in.
Zakir Naik seems to do alright.
“If Welby wants more of this crap on our screens, then I suggest he starts a religion channel and see how many people tune in.”
What an excellent idea. In this digital age it would surely be a piece of cake for the Beeb to spend some of their ill gotten gains on setting up a religious channel on both TV and DAB radio and then moving all of their religious programmes there. Of course the ABofC would never want that because it would prove clearly just how unpopular religious programmes are.
I must say that I would make an exception for the Radio 4 show Beyond Belief. The format is that they sit representatives of various religions around a table and discuss a particular topic. Everybody is always very ecumenical and polite so they all put their contradictory views forward and there is never any logical way of deciding who is right.
The really great thing about the show is that the guests are often so phenomenally witless that the results are hilarious. We had a representative of jainism, a generally benign religion that is let down by an unhealthy obsession with fasting. He suggested that it would be a good idea if we all stopped eating and instead used photosynthesis like plants do and was delighted that his mother had decided to starve herself to death. There was a Muslim guy who was compelled by his particular take on the Islamic faith to say ‘Peace be upon him and upon all of his disciples also’ every single time that he mentioned Mohamed. As you can imagine, that was pretty often, so it became quite inconvenient and, as a result, he ended up saying ‘pissbeuponimanonallisdisciplesalso’ every time instead.
Other than the Bible and the Koran, I can’t think of a better advertisement for atheism than this show.
Of course the ABofC would never want that because it would prove clearly just how unpopular religious programmes are.
Only if you’re Christian. Among Muslim audiences, religious bigotry is extremely popular.
So what you are saying is that I should have said:
Of course the ABofC would never want that because it would prove clearly just how unpopular Christian religious programmes are in comparison with Muslim religious programmes which are getting far better ratings.
Similar, but not quite. What I’m trying to say is that Muslim bigotry is extremely popular due to the Islamic fanaticism that we have imported wholesale. Our mainly-white secular society has shed its religious fanaticism and even, in most cases, the mere motions of religious observance – so of course Christian programming won’t be popular (outside some African and Caribbean communities in London and Birmingham).
All very profound and modern but, as an agnostic, I still would like the populace to be taught the ten commandments. If parents don’e instil conscience then these ten precepts are a good substitute and it may help preserve me longer from thuggery and viciousness (I can only hope).
Do us a favour! The 10 commandments are brimming over with visciousness:
“I am a jealous God vsiting the iniquity of the Fathers on the children”, for exampe.
I think you purposely miss my point. How are badly parented people to be given a moral grounding in the absence of religion? Even if it is nonsense, religion came about as a method of regulating society in my view. When/if it is finally eradicated what will take its place? Is amoral anarchy what we desire for future generations?
Well, assuming we are talking about the same ten commandments – there being more than one version – no, we don’t need them. Mostly, they are about the relationship between the Israelites and their god, if you ain’t an Israelite and you don’t believe in their god, the ten commandments are not relevant.
There is a golden rule that runs like a thread through every civilised society, irrespective of religion – although religions have generally hijacked it. That rule contains the moral absolutes – no murder, no violence against another, no theft for example. Other moralities will vary from one society to another. Many of us are indifferent to the concept of sex outside marriage or practising homosexuals, for example, yet some religious groups have a very different idea. Frankly, living in a world where their idea of mortality is imposed upon the rest of us makes my blood run cold.
Justin Welby has delusions of relevance. For the vast majority of us who don’t step inside a church from one decade to another (and are sickened by the sanctimonious claptrap about original sin when we do), his brand of snake oil is something we can well do without.
If he and his religion vanished tomorrow (please, God), the golden rule would still exist.
This is great post! it really is a giggle that there’s people in 2013 playing “let’s pretend” so seriously and pretending it’s actually in some inexplicable way, real or important. If people choose to participate, so be it, but to force it onto radio and TV and exposing the 95% of people that don’t go to church to their nonsense is wrong. Here in Australia, the commercial networks are all required by law to broadcast one hour a week of religious programs. Their popularity is exampled by the fact that they’re all scheduled at 4:00am.
” I suggest he starts a religion channel and see how many people tune in.”
Splendid idea. Also a televised fight channel between various sects as they argue over the schedules. Pay per view of course.
😈
@Den Do you think that morality and conscience did not exist before the bible existed ? I think we could find a better framework than the ten commandments. esp as my neighbour dosn’t appear to have a goat 😉
Hi Harry,
No, I don’t think that, I’m sure it did exist but look at world history. The strong and vicious have too often prevailed and current morality here doesn’t impress me much. The world can be nasty at times and I think that any attempts to inculcate conscience is useful to society. From the highest and the lowest in the land I see lack of conscience displayed constantly and the ‘squeezed middle’ doesn’t look too good either sometimes.
I do take your point but where is the framework of which you speak? I don’t recognise it in our society. Have we found it yet? If not, why not?
The framework has been with us for a long time and is still with us. It is the law between men – otherwise know as civil or common law. it’s an excellent system.
I would also point out that most people are good most of the time. There always will be scrotes and there always were. The threat of eternal damnation never stopped them before, so I fail to see why it would in the future.
Den, you are going to have to explain why, in our current time, the healthiest societies are the least religious and the most dysfunctional societies are the most religious. For our moral frameworks to work they need to be based on reality. Basing them on the ideas of ignorant and barbaric tribespeople is a really stupid idea.
As for the Ten Commandments, Really? Is this the best set of ten dos and don’ts that infinite wisdom could come up with? He wastes the first four on telling everyone how to massage his massive but eggshell thin ego. There is a commandment specifically forbidding any form of representative art, why? And why isn’t there a rule against raping children?
you are warm , you are safe, you are well fed. Hence your attitudes.
But when things get hazardous the churches reappear. Even Stalin ws content for them to exist in WW2.
Er, no… Belief is something you have or you don’t. It has nothing to do with one’s physical comforts. This is a variation of the old “no atheists in foxholes” canard. That isn’t true either.
I’m always amused by the following:
The United Kingdom has the State and Religion intertwined; the Queen is Head of State and Protector of the Faith. Bishops vote on laws by right, not democractic will.
The United States of America has State and Religion separated; the President is Head of State and has no religious office. No specifically religious representatives vote on laws.
But, the funny thing is, that politicians in the USA always wear their religious credentials with pride, whereas over here (in the UK), politicians will almost always go out of their way to avoid mentioning their religion or views on religion.
Anyway, it makes me chuckle.