Angelus

magicbastarder · 28-07-2015 4:11pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolan's point is that the ringing of the Angelus bell is also "part of life", and objecting to its being broadcast on the grounds that it "promotes Catholicism" makes about as much sense as objecting to the broadcast of gay kissing on the grounds that it "promotes homosexuality".

if RTE broadcast one minute of two men kissing every evening at six, people would be legitimately worried that they were deliberately promoting gaiety.

this is the thing; i've no objection to RTE broadcasting sunday mass (which probably has a genuine public service element to it, for people who cannot physically get to mass), or that gay byrne show or other religious shows; that's standard programming decisions to make, and caters for a catholic audience which form a large part of RTE's customer base.

but there is a qualitative - and quantitative - difference when it's considered a default position that they should have a religious broadcast, named for a prayer overwhelmingly associated with one religion, at an early primetime slot.

like i said, i don't care all that much about the issue, so at this point, i'm kinda just debating this as i'm bored looking at progress bars.

i'd like to see it gone. but that's about as passionate as i can get about it.

robdonn · 28-07-2015 4:21pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It falls under "religious", but I don't see the relevance of the categorisation. If you want to take the view that broadcasting an event or practice = promoting that event or practice well, you're entitled to your opinion. But if that's an objection to the broadcast, then that pretty much knocks documentary and current affairs broadcasting on the head. Which is not a position I can take very seriously.

But that is not the objection. Broadcasting an event or practise, religious or not, every day without informative and/or educational content and without offering any alternative or opposing information or practises on an equal scale is biased promotion of the event or practise.

Absolam · 29-07-2015 3:48am

galljga1 wrote: »

Maybe not a great campaign if it was introduced at the moment but anything that has lasted for 65 years shouldn't be sneezed at.

I think I would look askance at any ad agency that proposed running the same ad for 65 years and expecting a result simply from its constant presence, to be honest.

galljga1 wrote: »

I still see it as a free advert even if all it does is enforce consumer behaviour for an existing client base.

It does take a certain amount of mental self trickery to see it that way though, doesn't it? You can't consider that the Catholic Church isn't in any way involved with deciding on whether it is broadcast for instance, or that it doesn't endorse them in any way, or that it has no apparent return, or that the broadcaster doesn't treat it is an advert, because if you did, it would be rather difficult to see it as a free advert....

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not into marketing but I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of the advertising budget of major brands is spent on retaining existing customers.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that the Angelus doesn't meet even basic criteria for being considered an advertisement for a moment, can you think of three television adverts that extol continuing to use an unchanged, unnamed, and undepicted product exclusively to existing customers?

Absolam · 29-07-2015 5:20am

robdonn wrote: »

So, as I have said before, I will fully support the broadcasting of the Angelus if call to prayers of other religions are also broadcast equally. If RTE do not do this, and can give no valid reason for doing so beyond "tradition", then I will object to the whole thing.

Well, RTEs reason for broadcasting the Angelus at the moment is already more than 'tradition' (an argument I don't find particularly compelling myself).
It broadcasts the Angelus, as Peregrinus has said, as Religious Programming; which is a part of it's obligation to provide content that reflects Ireland’s cultural diversity. It probably continues to broadcast it because, according to it's own press releases, the Angelus is it's most watched religious programme.

Certainly, I'd agree that if a Muslim (or any other religious) call to prayer could garner an equal (even proportionately) audience, RTE would have good reason to broadcast it as well. I'd be less inclined to say that every religious call to prayer, or even every religion, should get equal air time. I can't see any reason to give Samaritans any air time at all for instance; they don't constitute a part of Irelands cultural diversity, and frankly I doubt they'd care to have it.

robdonn · 29-07-2015 9:58am

Absolam wrote: »

Well, RTEs reason for broadcasting the Angelus at the moment is already more than 'tradition' (an argument I don't find particularly compelling myself).
It broadcasts the Angelus, as Peregrinus has said, as Religious Programming; which is a part of it's obligation to provide content that reflects Ireland’s cultural diversity. It probably continues to broadcast it because, according to it's own press releases, the Angelus is it's most watched religious programme.

It could definitely be argued that it is the most watched religious programme because of it's time slot, but I think that has been debated to death in another thread so I won't press it.

Absolam wrote: »

Certainly, I'd agree that if a Muslim (or any other religious) call to prayer could garner an equal (even proportionately) audience, RTE would have good reason to broadcast it as well. I'd be less inclined to say that every religious call to prayer, or even every religion, should get equal air time. I can't see any reason to give Samaritans any air time at all for instance; they don't constitute a part of Irelands cultural diversity, and frankly I doubt they'd care to have it.

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that, or at least to a point that I find nothing really worth arguing about. No idea how RTE would define the cut off though as to how large a religion needs to be represented demographically to be given airtime, but I do believe that many groups are significant enough.

Peregrinus · 29-07-2015 10:17am

robdonn wrote: »

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that, or at least to a point that I find nothing really worth arguing about. No idea how RTE would define the cut off though as to how large a religion needs to be represented demographically to be given airtime, but I do believe that many groups are significant enough.

Well, as already pointed out, Muslims in Ireland don't actually practise a call to prayer, so there is nothing Islamic to broadcast that's closely analagous to the angelus.

And this raises the point the diversity in religious broadcasting (or anything else) is not the same thing as rigorously identical treatment for all. If you were actually to ask Irish Muslims what they felt about their coverage in RTE's religious broadcasting and, if they wanted more coverage, what it should be, it's unlikely that the answer would be "something like the angelus, only more Islamic". Treating Muslims or other minority religions as though they were just a slightly different kind of Catholic would not really be diversity; more the opposite; trying to shoehorn them into an essentially Catholic concept of what a belief-community looks like and how it should be represented.

RTE's religious broadcasting coverage should reflect Muslim and other minority religious perspectives in Ireland. For that matter, it should reflect atheist, humanist, etc perspectives. (To be clear, I'm not saying that atheism, etc, is a religion; I'm saying that atheist perspectives on religious questions ought to be covered.) But this doesn't mean we have to broadcast a "Muslim angelus", a "Jewish angelus", a "secularist angelus", etc; that would be just silly. Coverage of these communities should reflect the realities of the communities and their practices perspectives. And the reality for the most part doesn't include anything like the angelus.

Are these communities adequately covered in RTE's religious broadcasting? Well, that's probably a separate discussion, and my guess is that it doesn't lend itself to a one-word answer (either way). But I don't see that broadcasting the angelus, in itself, prevents or impedes good coverage of non-Catholic communities and perspectives. In the context of this thread, whether Muslims receive adequate coverage is probably a bit of a red herring.

Cabaal · 29-07-2015 8:38pm

It's interesting for someone to suggest the Angelus bell is part of life,

You know what else was part of life for decades and seen as perfectly normal in Ireland... Teachers beating the ****e out of children, women having to give up jobs after marriage, condoms being illegal, being gay being illegal, marriage not being equal, husbands being able to rape their wife and the wife could do nothing, school sacking a women for being pregnant outside of marriage, sticking single mothers in homes, selling the single mothers baby's for profit....sure those unclean women deserved it.

All seen as just the norm during the times they took place or atleast normal and moral for the guardians of morality that are followers of the Catholic faith in Ireland...

The angelus is yet another backwards thing that represents a backwards religion and time in Ireland, it doesn't have a place being funded by the tax payer.

When it's eventually gone off RTE people will look back and wounder why some backwards people wanted to keep it,

Kidchameleon · 29-07-2015 11:43pm

Cabaal wrote: »

It's interesting for someone to suggest the Angelus bell is part of life,

You know what else was part of life for decades and seen as perfectly normal in Ireland... Teachers beating the ****e out of children, women having to give up jobs after marriage, condoms being illegal, being gay being illegal, marriage not being equal, husbands being able to rape their wife and the wife could do nothing, school sacking a women for being pregnant outside of marriage, sticking single mothers in homes, selling the single mothers baby's for profit....sure those unclean women deserved it.

All seen as just the norm during the times they took place or atleast normal and moral for the guardians of morality that are followers of the Catholic faith in Ireland...

The angelus is yet another backwards thing that represents a backwards religion and time in Ireland, it doesn't have a place being funded by the tax payer.

When it's eventually gone off RTE people will look back and wounder why some backwards people wanted to keep it,

Whataboutery. The Angelus harms no one. Its a dirt cheap programme to make aswell. Your tax money is being wasted far more elsewhere.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-07-2015 1:44am

It is an expression of the continued power and influence and moral corruption of the RCC in this State and that most certainly IS harmful.

Absolam · 30-07-2015 2:46am

Cabaal wrote: »

It's interesting for someone to suggest the Angelus bell is part of life, You know what else was part of life for decades and seen as perfectly normal in Ireland... Teachers beating the ****e out of children, women having to give up jobs after marriage, condoms being illegal, being gay being illegal, marriage not being equal, husbands being able to rape their wife and the wife could do nothing, school sacking a women for being pregnant outside of marriage, sticking single mothers in homes, selling the single mothers baby's for profit....sure those unclean women deserved it.

You know, none of those seem like reasons to not let people watch the Angelus?

brightspark · 30-07-2015 8:55am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is an expression of the continued power and influence and moral corruption of the RCC in this State and that most certainly IS harmful.

Despite the harm that has been done to many by the RCC, many people still have their beliefs and get comfort from them (not sure if you have ever spoken to someone who has just had a bereavement, but I certainly wouldn't recommend telling them there is no afterlife, even though you may not believe in it).

I can't understand why so many atheists are so evangelical about trying to destroy others beliefs, perhaps they are like the first kid in school to realise that Santa Claus isn't real and then want to tell everyone else, ignoring how it may make some of the other kids unhappy.

Yes the RCC has power and influence, but so does any large organisation with a lot of followers e.g. the GAA, Finnia Fail etc. and it's true that it has in the past abused that position but it has also been beneficial to many too.

I'm sure we all know at least one person who does believe and gets comfort from the Angelus, let them have it, there are so few opportunities for happiness in life, why take it away from anyone?

Hotblack Desiato · 30-07-2015 9:26am

Note that you go on and on about people's beliefs, I didn't mention people's beliefs at all.

If a daily dose of religion on TV is such a good thing, why do only catholics get a look in?

Peregrinus · 30-07-2015 9:29am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Note that you go on and on about people's beliefs, I didn't mention people's beliefs at all.

If a daily dose of religion on TV is such a good thing, why do only catholics get a look in?

They don't.

galljga1 · 30-07-2015 10:24am

brightspark wrote: »

Despite the harm that has been done to many by the RCC, many people still have their beliefs and get comfort from them (not sure if you have ever spoken to someone who has just had a bereavement, but I certainly wouldn't recommend telling them there is no afterlife, even though you may not believe in it).

I can't understand why so many atheists are so evangelical about trying to destroy others beliefs, perhaps they are like the first kid in school to realise that Santa Claus isn't real and then want to tell everyone else, ignoring how it may make some of the other kids unhappy.

Yes the RCC has power and influence, but so does any large organisation with a lot of followers e.g. the GAA, Finnia Fail etc. and it's true that it has in the past abused that position but it has also been beneficial to many too.

I'm sure we all know at least one person who does believe and gets comfort from the Angelus, let them have it, there are so few opportunities for happiness in life, why take it away from anyone?

I had to put up with gobsh!tes telleng me that my wife "has gone to a better place" and that "You know? god is good". Fcuking nonsense. Tell that to her 6 year old daughter and 9 month old son. How I did not beat the crap out of these ar$eholes, I will never know.

brightspark · 30-07-2015 10:47am

galljga1 wrote: »

I had to put up with gobsh!tes telleng me that my wife "has gone to a better place" and that "You know? god is good". Fcuking nonsense. Tell that to her 6 year old daughter and 9 month old son. How I did not beat the crap out of these ar$eholes, I will never know.

Sorry for your loss and I do understand what you mean.

However I had the opposite happen a few years ago when at a wake the young widow was asking for affirmation that she would see her husband again. I bit my tongue and said she would of course. I envied her beliefs whenever I had a loss and I could never destroy someone else's as a result.

Kidchameleon · 31-07-2015 2:43pm

galljga1 wrote: »

I had to put up with gobsh!tes telleng me that my wife "has gone to a better place" and that "You know? god is good". Fcuking nonsense. Tell that to her 6 year old daughter and 9 month old son. How I did not beat the crap out of these ar$eholes, I will never know.

How very grateful of you

jcd5971 · 31-07-2015 7:31pm

galljga1 wrote: »

I had to put up with gobsh!tes telleng me that my wife "has gone to a better place" and that "You know? god is good". Fcuking nonsense. Tell that to her 6 year old daughter and 9 month old son. How I did not beat the crap out of these ar$eholes, I will never know.

Yes how dare people try and be supportive in a time of bereavement, hate to be awful but what else did you want them to say "ara suur she's worm food now" some people just can't be helped smh

lazygal · 31-07-2015 9:17pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How very grateful of you

What would one need to be grateful for?

Kidchameleon · 31-07-2015 9:31pm

lazygal wrote: »

What would one need to be grateful for?

We've been here before, I don't have time to run around in circles with you. Basically be grateful that they are there for you in their own way.

In before "but but they arnt really doing anything!" yadda yadda yadda :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato · 01-08-2015 12:20am

It is equally as insensitive as a 'worm food' comment, and entirely thoughtless, and entirely indefensible.

Absolam · 01-08-2015 8:01am

jcd5971 wrote: »

Yes how dare people try and be supportive in a time of bereavement, hate to be awful but what else did you want them to say "ara suur she's worm food now" some people just can't be helped smh

If you really hate to be awful, why not just not say that?

Absolam · 01-08-2015 8:07am

robdonn wrote: »

It could definitely be argued that it is the most watched religious programme because of it's time slot, but I think that has been debated to death in another thread so I won't press it.

It could; if RTE generally moved popular programs to less popular timeslots to see if they continued to perform well I imagine it would be an equally interesting exercise with the Angelus. I'm not sure they do though, and obviously if it is still to be the Angelus it could only move to 6am and midday. It would certainly be fascinating if it was still the most watched religious program when in a 6am slot.

robdonn · 01-08-2015 8:42am

Absolam wrote: »

It could; if RTE generally moved popular programs to less popular timeslots to see if they continued to perform well I imagine it would be an equally interesting exercise with the Angelus. I'm not sure they do though, and obviously if it is still to be the Angelus it could only move to 6am and midday. It would certainly be fascinating if it was still the most watched religious program when in a 6am slot.

I would definitely support that experiment. :P

jcd5971 · 01-08-2015 11:09am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It is equally as insensitive as a 'worm food' comment, and entirely thoughtless, and entirely indefensible.

Nonsense people try to reassure and console individuals after a bereavement, there is nothing insensitive about that they do what they can, and if some religious type offers a few prayers or blessings, well it shows they at least give a ****, looking to pick a fight over it is just disappointing.

My girlfriend is religious ( I am not at all) and God forbid ( pun intended) anything happened to her, then her friends would say things like that, and while it would do nothing for me I would at least know they care and were probably dealing with their on grief as well

Yeah the comment I made was a bit ( very) crass and reading it back I regret typing it, but I stand by the point I was making, even if it was delivered poorly. I apologise for that there was no need of it.

robdonn · 01-08-2015 12:09pm

jcd5971 wrote: »

Nonsense people try to reassure and console individuals after a bereavement, there is nothing insensitive about that they do what they can, and if some religious type offers a few prayers or blessings, well it shows they at least give a ****, looking to pick a fight over it is just disappointing.

I agree that the sentiment of saying it is good, it's better than saying something negative, but there is a side to it though that recognises that a non-religious family probably has children that were not raised to believe in an afterlife.

This is really a topic of it's own but to put it briefly, when a small child is raised in a family not believing in an afterlife then the grieving process is slightly different. There is no "Mommy is in heaven and you'll see her again some day", part of the grieving is the accepting that the person is simply gone. This is a thought that even adults have trouble accepting at such an emotional time, but it can be a lot harder for children. And when someone then comes along, with the best of intentions, and says that they will see them again in heaven or words to that effect, it undermines the process for the family.

We all know that religion's power is at it's peak when someone is in personal distress, it claims to offer easy answers to difficult questions. Children can be very susceptible to this as it offers an answer that they can comprehend more easily and is hard to reverse once they have taken it in.

I agree that it's not something to start a fight over, the intentions of the person is to offer comfort and not to try convert anyone, but when attending a funeral of a non-religious family it can do unseen damage by introducing the fairytale version of death.

Brian Shanahan · 03-08-2015 2:07pm

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

well, i mightn't be entirely happy with the solution, but I probably would move...

What about calling the guards on Magic? You'd be within your rights to.

But the core of Magic's argument is that just because something happens for long enough to become a tradition doesn't make it right or moral for that thing to continue.

I'd go so far as to argue that if something has become traditional so much as to be considered a sacred cow then it's begginings stem from an immoral act, like, say forcing a specific form of religious worship on the national airwaves in a country which ostensibly is a secular republic.

The proper place on TV for the angelus bells is EWTN, the rcc's own tv station.

Absolam · 04-08-2015 4:23am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'd go so far as to argue that if something has become traditional so much as to be considered a sacred cow then it's begginings stem from an immoral act

That's a pretty odd argument.
Are you saying that because something has become traditional it is therefore considered beyond criticism?
And if it is beyond criticism it necessarily stems from an immoral act?
It's not apparent how either conclusion must follow from the observations.

expectationlost · 19-10-2015 10:16pm

here the new 'People's Angelus' or rather Roger Childs Angelus http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/the-peoples-angelus-30003637/

The People's Angelus is RTÉ One’s weekly showcase for aspiring filmmakers & artists. We welcome non-verbal submissions that are conducive to prayer or reflection for people of all faiths and none. For information, email peoplesangelus@rte.ie

http://www.thejournal.ie/peoples-angelus-new-films-changed-update-2398157-Oct2015/ same company won tender again

rehashed statement http://www.newstalk.com/The-Angelus-is-getting-an-update-to-be-inclusive-of-people-of-all-faiths-and-none

Cabaal · 20-10-2015 10:37am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poyEmiIp6U8

Staph · 20-10-2015 1:55pm

So they're going to be inclusive....but still call it the angelus......

Cabaal · 20-10-2015 1:58pm

Staph wrote: »

So they're going to be inclusive....but still call it the angelus......

Its as inclusive as a catholic ethos primary school...which is that basically its not really and the belief is that non-catholics should be thankful they are getting a look in at all.

Absolam · 21-10-2015 6:55am

I'll vote for Star Wars Angelus. Every day. But it should finish with the immortal words of Ben Kenobi every time.

pauldla · 21-10-2015 7:45am

Absolam wrote: »

I'll vote for Star Wars Angelus. Every day. But it should finish with the immortal words of Ben Kenobi every time.

'These aren't the droids you're looking for'...?
'You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy'...?

Sorry, no youtube heere, I can but guess..

Absolam · 21-10-2015 8:01am

pauldla wrote: »

'These aren't the droids you're looking for'...?
'You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy'...?
Sorry, no youtube heere, I can but guess..

Remember... the Force will be with you. Always.

Even without youtube you should have got that one....

pauldla · 21-10-2015 8:11am

Absolam wrote: »

Remember... the Force will be with you. Always.

Even without youtube you should have got that one....

Well, old Obi Wan came out with a lot of lines. 'Stay away from the power couplings' might be a more useful end to the Angelus. Or 'This little one is not worth the trouble'. Or 'I will never join you, Dooku'.

Not 'Come here, my little friend. Don't be afraid' though. I think that's already being discussed on another thread....

FortySeven · 21-10-2015 8:40am

As an aethist I like the angelus. It is a good daily reminder that most of the people I deal with on a daily basis believe in beasties and fairies. Helps me keep perspective on life.

robindch · 21-10-2015 11:39am

Staph wrote: »

So they're going to be inclusive....but still call it the angelus......

Yes, that's how "inclusion" works from a catholic perspective - just invite everybody along to join in catholic prayers.

robindch · 21-10-2015 1:55pm

Meanwhile, no less a public intellectual than Michael Healy-Rae has weighed in, explaining that

http://www.killarneytoday.com/td-leave-our-angelus-alone/

Mr Healy-Rae wrote:

I strongly condemn any change in the way the Angelus is presented. It has been with us for decades and any watering down of it should not be allowed.

Comments on KillarneyToday's comment page on facebook suggest that Healy-Rae has said something as popular as it is populist, no doubt entirely by accident:

https://www.facebook.com/killarneytoday/posts/1633711230229669

wp_rathead · 21-10-2015 2:21pm

Whole thing is rather "meh" for me
I'm fully in support of Secularism but I cared as much about getting rid of the Angelus as I did about the Presidential Age Referendum passing
it's waaaaaay down on my list of priorities

robindch · 21-10-2015 3:06pm

wp_rathead wrote: »

it's waaaaaay down on my list of priorities

It's way down everybody's list of priorities. And while there really are far, far more important things to worry about though, it is worth discussing it when it's up for discussion, as it was recently.

In this case, even just dropping the catholic part of the name and call it "The People's Reflection" or something like really would make it fully inclusive. Simply calling it the "People's <Name of Catholic Prayer>" is not inclusive, no matter how sincerely Roger Childs thinks to the contrary. If the shoe were on the other foot, and if it were named "The People's Rejection of A Deity", people would be rightly upset. But people aren't upset with the opposite - they've simply got used to the privilege to the point of not even seeing it any more.

expectationlost · 21-10-2015 5:31pm

Childs was on against Nugent who is a very precise debater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dn9lB8NPNw Childs says secularism shouldnt dictate to the 90% self described catholics in Ireland

FortySeven · 21-10-2015 5:38pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Childs was on against Nugent who is a very precise debater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dn9lB8NPNw Childs says secularism shouldnt dictate to the 90% self described catholics in Ireland

When one side uses fairies and beasties and an old novel as fact and the other side uses rational and science then it is time the majority were told to move aside and get with the program. Laughable stuff. How can anyone believe this tripe?

Fred Swanson · 21-10-2015 5:51pm

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes · 21-10-2015 6:01pm

expectationlost wrote: »

Childs was on against Nugent who is a very precise debater https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dn9lB8NPNw Childs says secularism shouldnt dictate to the 90% self described catholics in Ireland

I presume MN pulled him up on the 90% figure?

The census showed 84%, but many of those would not have self identified as catholic.

Fred Swanson · 21-10-2015 6:03pm

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost · 21-10-2015 6:57pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

I presume MN pulled him up on the 90% figure?

The census showed 84%, but many of those would not have self identified as catholic.

84% 90% not much difference

Cabaal · 21-10-2015 8:44pm

expectationlost wrote: »

84% 90% not much difference

It's a difference worth noting none the less, next census it'll likely be 80% or lower

expectationlost · 22-10-2015 5:06pm

Cabaal wrote: »

It's a difference worth noting none the less, next census it'll likely be 80% or lower

I noted it but, It wouldn't really make much difference to the debate they were having

Absolam · 23-10-2015 4:50am

pauldla wrote: »

Well, old Obi Wan came out with a lot of lines. 'Stay away from the power couplings' might be a more useful end to the Angelus. Or 'This little one is not worth the trouble'. Or 'I will never join you, Dooku'.
Not 'Come here, my little friend. Don't be afraid' though. I think that's already being discussed on another thread....

All Obi Wans lines are of course nuggets of unparalleled wisdom. Even the latter shows how an innocent conversation with an astro droid can be recharacterised as something sinister if you stretch credulity enough; you should certainly put it forward on the other thread

pauldla · 23-10-2015 6:33am

Absolam wrote: »

All Obi Wans lines are of course nuggets of unparalleled wisdom. Even the latter shows how an innocent conversation with an astro droid can be recharacterised as something sinister if you stretch credulity enough; you should certainly put it forward on the other thread

I do hope you're not suggesting something untoward about the Jedi order, moving Knights from one planet to another for reasons that are never quite explained..

'Use the Force, Luke! Like I showed you with the puppets...force it...'

(If you haven't watched the Family Guy Star Wars parodies, do so now!)