Since you object to the Angelus being broadcast on RTE

branie

are you also against the transmission of Mass on Sundays?

Dougla2

yes of-course

Turtwig

Actually "Mass" per se isn't broadcast on Sundays. There is a very nice variety to the religious services shown on RTE - Sometimes Catholic mass, sometimes Church of Ireland services etc. So no objection there. The Angelus at 6.00 p.m everyday is a a clear signal of favouritism to Catholicism over other religions. In recent years RTE have tried to multi culturalise it but it still mainly consists of that old traditional BONG! at the time that Catholics pray, either we inlcude the Muslim (and other religions) calls to prayers for their times of the day or we just change it to a minute of reflectance for all - lose the Catholic bong!

Dades

branie, who are you talking to? I don't object to the Angelus at all.

I hope you're not assuming everyone here shares everyone elses views.

Dougla2

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually "Mass" per se isn't broadcast on Sundays. There is a very nice variety to the religious services shown on RTE - Sometimes Catholic mass, sometimes Church of Ireland services etc. So no objection there. The Angelus at 6.00 p.m everyday is a a clear signal of favouritism to Catholicism over other religions. In recent years RTE have tried to multi culturalise it but it still mainly consists of that old traditional BONG! at the time that Catholics pray, either we inlcude the Muslim (and other religions) calls to prayers for their times of the day or we just change it to a minute of reflectance for all - lose the Catholic bong!

i meant to say this but was too lazy basicly unless all religion is broadcast equally (impossible) its not good to have the angelus on

MagicMarker

Here we go...

Coriolanus

At least you could try and sing along to the muslim call to prayer. The bongbong is just boring.

mathepac

So I guess that's Christ-mas and Easter celebrations gone off the telly and the radio, as well as addresses / appearances by the Chief Rabbi for Ireland on Jewish feast- or high-days. Down with this kind of thing, I say, all of it; it might give believers a sense of hope or comfort or belonging in difficult times, and we couldn't have that.

Turtwig

mathepac wrote: »

So I guess that's Christ-mas and Easter celebrations gone off the telly and the radio, as well as addresses / appearances by the Chief Rabbi for Ireland on Jewish feast- or high-days. Down with this kind of thing, I say, all of it; it might give believers a sense of hope or comfort or belonging in difficult times, and we couldn't have that.

Christ-mas? Last time I checked it was christmas. Did the hyphen just descend down from the heavens or something?

krudler

Malty_T wrote: »

Christ-mas? Last time I checked it was christmas. Did the hyphen just descend down from the heavens or something?

Its not Christmas anymore either, its Yuleathon, or Giftivus. Anyway lay off it, its the one time of the year where all religions finally agree on something, and thats the birth of Santa and the saving of those poor souls in Nakitomi Plaza by our true saviour, John McClane.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

branie, who are you talking to? I don't object to the Angelus at all.

I hope you're not assuming everyone here shares everyone elses views.

+1

This is the problem with Atheist Ireland. They create a misrepresentation of atheists.

veritable

Isn't the majority of Ireland Catholic? Why shouldn't the national broadcaster, paid for by tax payers (of whom Catholics are then the majority) represent the views of the majority?

Turtwig

Tim Robbins wrote: »

+1

This is the problem with Atheist Ireland. They create a misrepresentation of atheists.

While I agree with you in part about it being AI's responsibility. It depresses me to say that even if AI didn't exist this nonsense would happen anyway. Hopefully, to a lesser extent though.

Zombrex

branie wrote: »

are you also against the transmission of Mass on Sundays?

I objected to the Angelus, but I don't object to transmission of mass on sundays.

Oh how can that be wicknight, surely you are being hypocritical because you hate the Catholic angelus but secretly love the Catholic mass ... or something ...

I don't object to religious broadcasting on RTE so long as it fits in with RTE's already established and pretty good religious broadcasting guidelines.

Transmitting coverage of religious events does. Transmitting the Angelus, which is basically a glorified call to prayer, doesn't.

It is the responsibility of the national broadcaster to cover or document events of national interest. It is not the responsibility of the national broadcaster to ensure everyone stops what they are doing at 6pm to have a quiet reflection or prayer. The angelus isn't a broadcast, it is a pause in broadcasting because we are all supposed to be Catholic and supposed to be saying the Catholic prayer. You are actually not supposed to watch the angelus, which is the most ridiculously aspect of it. We ain't all Catholic and the national broadcaster shouldn't regulate Catholic practices.

We don't live in Saudi Arabia, and I think that is a very good thing.

Turtwig

veritable wrote: »

Isn't the majority of Ireland Catholic? Why shouldn't the national broadcaster, paid for by tax payers (of whom Catholics are then the majority) represent the views of the majority?

Well the majority of Earth is filled with microbial organisms so using your logic us Humans shouldn't be allowed any input on this planet.

Put it this way, if you were a member of the minority religions of Ireland would you be ok with the idea of another faith getting prime time air time for its calls to prayers and your own faith is expected to use that prime time air time call to prayer as a means of service for your own religion?

Zombrex

veritable wrote: »

Isn't the majority of Ireland Catholic? Why shouldn't the national broadcaster, paid for by tax payers (of whom Catholics are then the majority) represent the views of the majority?

The majority want a secular government (read the constitution). The majority want a secular national broadcaster (read the RTE mandate and the RTE internal guidelines)

So I agree, RTE should represent the views of the majority. They aren't though, they are representing the views of the tiny yet vocal minority of right wing Catholics who would cause a ton of political pressure if the angelus was ever removed and RTE don't want that headache.

veritable

Malty_T wrote: »

Well the majority of Earth is filled with microbial organisms so using your logic us Humans shouldn't be allowed any input on this planet.

Using your logic, a human and a microbial organism are one and the same. Don't know where you're going with that. :rolleyes:

Put it this way, if you were a member of the minority religions of Ireland would you be ok with the idea of another faith getting prime time air time for its calls to prayers and your own faith is expected to use that prime time air time call to prayer as a means of service for your own religion?

I don't understand what you mean? I think that that a tv station funded 80:20 group x:group y should represent the views of group x in the same proportion, whether it's religious, sports or current affairs programming,

veritable

Wicknight wrote: »

The majority want a secular government (read the constitution). The majority want a secular national broadcaster (read the RTE mandate and the RTE internal guidelines)

So I agree, RTE should represent the views of the majority. They aren't though, they are representing the views of the tiny yet vocal minority of right wing Catholics who would cause a ton of political pressure if the angelus was ever removed and RTE don't want that headache.

So be it. If that is the case, surely RTE would have made the required changes?
I don't think that a "tiny yet vocal minority of right wing Catholics" really have as much clout as you say. Aggressive atheism seems to much more politically potent and vocal, quite the opposite of your suggestion.

Galvasean

veritable wrote: »

Aggressive atheism seems to much more politically potent and vocal, quite the opposite of your suggestion.

Yep, because we have a stranglehold on the media and all...

Zombrex

veritable wrote: »

I don't think that a "tiny yet vocal minority of right wing Catholics" really have as much clout as you say.

Ok, you're allowed think that. You're wrong, but I don't really care that much.

veritable

Galvasean wrote: »

Yep, because we have a stranglehold on the media and all...

Where did I say that? And don't say I implied it. I like your sarcasm...

Galvasean

veritable wrote: »

Where did I say that? And don't say I implied it. I like your sarcasm...

I never said you said that. However you did say,
"Aggressive atheism seems to much more politically potent and vocal, "
I would strongly disagree. If it were so politically potent the national broadcaster would not be airing a Catholic call to prayer every day during prime time. Since there is no publicaly funded 'lack of belief' style broadcast (at least that I am aware of) I can't agree with your statement that 'aggressive atheism' is more politically potent or vocal than right wing Catholocism

veritable

Galvasean wrote: »

I never said you said that. However you did say,
"Aggressive atheism seems to much more politically potent and vocal, "
I would strongly disagree. If it were so politically potent the national broadcaster would not be airing a Catholic call to prayer every day during prime time. Since there is no publicaly funded 'lack of belief' style broadcast (at least that I am aware of) I can't agree with your statement that 'aggressive atheism' is more politically potent or vocal than right wing Catholocism

In my opinion there should not even be a publicly funded broadcaster. (Even saying it's publicly funded implies that the public has a choice.) That way, the public could decide with their feet whether they liked the angelus, or any other religious thing, on a tv station. But that's a separate issue.

Zillah

I wonder, is there a way that I, as an atheist, am allowed to express my desire for secularism without being labelled "aggressive" or "militant"? Serious question. Because it seems that any atheist who expresses the belief that religions should not receive special treatment are immediately labelled as some sort of fumingly intolerant elitist.

veritable wrote: »

In my opinion there should not even be a publicly funded broadcaster.

This is a grotesquely shortsighted opinion. The only other option is privately funded broadcaster, which makes them inherently susceptible to partisan views, profit based censorship and behaviour entirely inconsistent with the public interest.

veritable

Zillah wrote: »

This is a grotesquely shortsighted opinion. The only other option is privately funded broadcaster, which makes them inherently susceptible to partisan views, profit based censorship and behaviour entirely inconsistent with the public interest.

Partisan views like atheism or any other view for that matter?

As if publicly funded broadcasters are not political? RTE, BBC, etc?

Inconsistent with the public interest? Supposedly the angelus is inconsistent with the public interest, on the publicly funded RTE?

You're joking, right?

Ickle Magoo

veritable wrote: »

So be it. If that is the case, surely RTE would have made the required changes?
I don't think that a "tiny yet vocal minority of right wing Catholics" really have as much clout as you say. Aggressive atheism seems to much more politically potent and vocal, quite the opposite of your suggestion.

Aggressive atheism, lol...

veritable

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Aggressive atheism, lol...

This pie chart is a favourite on boards. I wonder does it automatically come up when aggressive atheism is typed?!

The actions of a party, any party, should be seen for what they are, regardless of the size of that party.
How many Irish people do the IRA represent? A tiny minority, if anything. Should the actions of the IRA be treated differently because they hold a minority viewpoint?
Obviously, atheists and IRA bear no relation in deeds or ideology.

strobe

veritable wrote: »

T
Obviously, atheists and IRA bear no relation in deeds or ideology.

That's what we want you to believe.....

checkyabadself

Who watches TV on a Sunday morning ?

Zillah

veritable wrote: »

Partisan views like atheism or any other view for that matter?

As if publicly funded broadcasters are not political? RTE, BBC, etc?

I don't think you're quite following me. Look at the US for example. You have Fox News blatantly supporting Republican viewpoints and constantly insulting, demeaning and attacking Democrats. Tons of self censorship due to fears over profits, sensationalist and hysterical reporting designed to drive up viewing numbers rather than report on important events, sentimental soft stories designed to tug at heart strings being given time slots over politics, finances, arts etc. RTE and other public broadcasters are able to rise above all of that. RTE news, for example, is a shining beacon of journalistic professionalism by contrast.

A publicly funded broadcaster is charged with persuing public interest, their funding is not dependent on sensationalism and the lowest common denominator. They're enabled to rise above the petty demands of profiteering.

Inconsistent with the public interest? Supposedly the angelus is inconsistent with the public interest, on the publicly funded RTE?

I didn't say anything about the angelus, I'm explaining what is so terribly wrong with your attack on the value of publicly funded broadcasters.

iguana

Nevore wrote: »

At least you could try and sing along to the muslim call to prayer. The bongbong is just boring.

What if they played something like this for a minute at 6 every evening?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7tRTBZJk0M

veritable

Zillah wrote: »

RTE news, for example, is a shining beacon of journalistic professionalism by contrast.

On the contrary. RTE is heavily political (towards the left), anti-US, anti- Israel and anti-Catholic.

Zillah

Would you care to back up those assertions? I presume you mean they go a step beyond reporting on bad things that the US, Israel and the Catholic Church have done?

Turtwig

checkyabadself wrote: »

Who watches TV on a Sunday morning ?

Me, naked science on rte was such an appealing title.

rua327

If you don't like the Angelus, you can always switch channel and do your own thing. I think it should be seen as a reminder to take a moment to reflect, irrespective of what religion you are. Get over it.

Zillah

rua327 wrote: »

If you don't like the Angelus, you can always switch channel and do your own thing. I think it should be seen as a reminder to take a moment to reflect, irrespective of what religion you are. Get over it.

If it was doing Muslim call to prayer would you be telling people to "get over it"?

(I think elegant singing is far superior to an obnoxious bell for contemplation)

Ickle Magoo

veritable wrote: »

This pie chart is a favourite on boards. I wonder does it automatically come up when aggressive atheism is typed?!

The actions of a party, any party, should be seen for what they are, regardless of the size of that party.
How many Irish people do the IRA represent? A tiny minority, if anything. Should the actions of the IRA be treated differently because they hold a minority viewpoint?
Obviously, atheists and IRA bear no relation in deeds or ideology.

It just always makes me laugh when anyone politely suggests reducing or minimising the grip the RC church has, an organisation that's held this country by it's short and curlies for many years now that the old "aggressive" line gets trotted out - even more hilarious that comparisons are being drawn with a terrorist organisation.

Of course, the other way of looking at it is that a modern progressive society is inclusive and that's why despite having a majority of able-bodied tax payers and able-bodied people in general, we still try to ensure state buildings are accessible to all. There is no reason why modern ireland has to trumpet a single religion on state broadcasting prime time but given the radical shift away from the RCC in younger generations, I think it's living on borrowed time anyway and for the record, I'd rather it died a natural death than was forced off the airways.

rua327

Zillah, don't get me wrong. 'Get over it' wasn't meant to be rude, "lets not make a big deal out of the Angelus" would be putting it better. Each to their own, I don't understand why people get so upset over this. Its 1minute of reflection, mute it if the bells annoy people, or have singing, like you said.

Zillah

rua327 wrote: »

Zillah, don't get me wrong. 'Get over it' wasn't meant to be rude, "lets not make a big deal out of the Angelus" would be putting it better. Each to their own, I don't understand why people get so upset over this. Its 1minute of reflection, mute it if the bells annoy people, or have singing, like you said.

So just to be clear, you'd have the same reaction if we played the Muslim call to prayer before the news on RTE?

amacachi

rua327 wrote: »

Zillah, don't get me wrong. 'Get over it' wasn't meant to be rude, "lets not make a big deal out of the Angelus" would be putting it better. Each to their own, I don't understand why people get so upset over this. Its 1minute of reflection, mute it if the bells annoy people, or have singing, like you said.

I think most people are getting upset at being told not to get upset despite not originally being upset.

Galvasean

veritable wrote: »

On the contrary. RTE is heavily political (towards the left), anti-US, anti- Israel and anti-Catholic.

Yet they give out a Catholic call to prayer every day during prime time...

iguana

veritable wrote: »

Isn't the majority of Ireland Catholic? Why shouldn't the national broadcaster, paid for by tax payers (of whom Catholics are then the majority) represent the views of the majority?

About 50% of RTE's funding comes from commercial activities such as advertising revenue and sale of sale of programming to foreign channels.

Zombrex

rua327 wrote: »

If you don't like the Angelus, you can always switch channel and do your own thing. I think it should be seen as a reminder to take a moment to reflect, irrespective of what religion you are. Get over it.

It is not the purpose of the State to remind people to have religious reflection, particularly around one particular religion's practices (lets not kid ourselves this isn't a general moment of reflection, it is a Catholic practice).

That is a very slippery slope, one Ireland has been crawling out of for the last 50 years.

Truley

Not bothered, don't watch TV and haven't owned a television in years.

I'll be damned if I'm going to pay €160 for RTE, a state channel, to broadcast ads at me. I think that is a bigger cause for concern.

Zillah

Truley wrote: »

Not bothered, don't watch TV and haven't owned a television in years.

I'll be damned if I'm going to pay €160 for RTE, a state channel, to broadcast ads at me. I think that is a bigger cause for concern.

You make it sound like they use the money for RTE-only private jets or something. Ad revenue reduces the financial burden on the tax payer.

iguana

Zillah wrote: »

You make it sound like they use the money for RTE-only private jets or something. Ad revenue reduces the financial burden on the tax payer.

Well they do over pay their "stars" to a disgusting degree. Up until recently Pat Kenny was on just shy of €1m annually. He wouldn't have gotten that type of money anywhere else in the world because he isn't talented enough to make it as a major star in a bigger country and TV3 don't have that type of money, so there was no justification for that salary whatsoever. The money they pay Tubidy, O'Connor, Finucane etc are all similarly nuts.

Zillah

I agree, but how much they pay their staff is a different issue to how they are financed. They could both offset the expense to the taxpayer with advertising revenue and pay reasonable salaries.

Zombrex

iguana wrote: »

Well they do over pay their "stars" to a disgusting degree. Up until recently Pat Kenny was on just shy of €1m annually. He wouldn't have gotten that type of money anywhere else in the world because he isn't talented enough to make it as a major star in a bigger country and TV3 don't have that type of money, so there was no justification for that salary whatsoever. The money they pay Tubidy, O'Connor, Finucane etc are all similarly nuts.

I don't like Kenny or Tubirdy but a lot of people do, thus they generate ad revenue for RTE and this is reflected in their salaries. When the ad revenue dried up RTE cut their salaries. Pretty simple really. It isn't really a case of them getting the same money at TV3, it is more a case that they would simply leave RTE and do something else. Same with any industry where you are paying for an individual rather than a position.

Osgoodisgood

veritable wrote: »

On the contrary. RTE is heavily political (towards the left), anti-US, anti- Israel and anti-Catholic.

I stayed out of the angelus discussion due to my complete indifference but this attracted my interest

We don't have any centre or centre-right political parties with any sort of representation. What exactly would RTE cover?

Anti US? really? I honestly hadn't noticed

Anti Israel? I suspect this is an opinion drawn from the coverage of the Israel/ Palestine border conflict. All bad. Unless you are suggesting that RTE has a pro Palestine agenda?

Anti catholic? Utter nonsense.

veritable

Zillah wrote: »

I agree, but how much they pay their staff is a different issue to how they are financed. They could both offset the expense to the taxpayer with advertising revenue and pay reasonable salaries.

BS. The taxpayer has no choice in paying the e160 RTE tax each year. It is outrageous that the taxpayer's money is then used to pay people like Pat kenny e500,000 each year.

veritable

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't really a case of them getting the same money at TV3, it is more a case that they would simply leave RTE and do something else. Same with any industry where you are paying for an individual rather than a position.

Rubbish they would leave RTE. Nobody else would pay them what RTE pays them. Why do you think almost all of them stay in RTE for life?