RTE Religious

imfml

I think alot of people will feel that the RTE Religious programs are out dated, but as a national broadcaster surely they should take a more balanced approach? This gem was on the other night, maybe it's just me but what is said is pure meaningless dribble. It's just one example of the pointless waste of money that these clips are.

CerebralCortex

imfml wrote: »

I think alot of people will feel that the RTE Religious programs are out dated, but as a national broadcaster surely they should take a more balanced approach? This gem was on the other night, maybe it's just me but what is said is pure meaningless dribble. It's just one example of the pointless waste of money that these clips are.

That's pretty messed up. It's like instead of getting rid of the Angelus they're adding more nonsense.

Ciaran0

Good for her. I'm happy that she's found her connectedness in life through faith.

I'm not happy, however, that she's found her way onto my television.

iguana

What's the purpose of these little shows? Are they meant to be a take of Channel 4's 4thought.tv* where each week there are short films of people talking about a particular theme of a religious, moral or ethical nature? Is that particular clip part of series where different people talk about faith and on one of the others in the series someone might have talked about their conflicted feelings about religious faith and on another someone may have talked about being happy without it?

*http://www.4thought.tv/themes

qrrgprgua

Well a lot of Religious people pay the TV licence so I think we can entitled to balanced programming.. Lets fact it less than 2% of airtime is spent in anything religious related.

Sarky

I'm sure a lot of degenerate perverts pay their license as well. Let's get some snuff films on the telly for the sake of balance.

Mintoz

imfml wrote: »

I think alot of people will feel that the RTE Religious programs are out dated, but as a national broadcaster surely they should take a more balanced approach? This gem was on the other night, maybe it's just me but what is said is pure meaningless dribble. It's just one example of the pointless waste of money that these clips are.

There is no inbalance at all. 95% of the programmes on tv are not even religious, sometimes anti-religious and mostly secular, seething with anti-religious undertones.

Pure meaningless dribble, really now? So not only do you fail to tolerate other faiths like a bigot, you have to reduce another persons spiritual experience to 'dribble', how intolerant you are. Guilty exactly of what you accuse religious people of.

It's perfectly reasonable for her to believe what she does, and to express it, based on what she has experienced. The most honest thing you can do is to with hold judgement inline with your lack of experience.

StupidLikeAFox

was waiting for the ".....Im Mary, and I'm a VHI Healthcare member" at the end

Ciaran0

Mintoz wrote: »

Pure meaningless dribble, really now? So not only do you fail to tolerate other faiths like a bigot, you have to reduce another persons spiritual experience to 'dribble', how intolerant you are. Guilty exactly of what you accuse religious people of.

In fairness this is an atheist and agnostic forum, most of the posters here are going t think the same. That's not intolerance. It would be intolerant to say the same thing in a religious forum. Also, what has he accused religious people of? I can't see accusations

It's perfectly reasonable for her to believe what she does, and to express it, based on what she has experienced.

Yes, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs and all that. Doesn't mean they should be broadcast to the nation though.

Mintoz

Ciaran0 wrote: »

In fairness this is an atheist and agnostic forum, most of the posters here are going t think the same. That's not intolerance. It would be intolerant to say the same thing in a religious forum. Also, what has he accused religious people of? I can't see accusations



Yes, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs and all that. Doesn't mean they should be broadcast to the nation though.

I don't see how it should bother anyone, since athiests are as tolerant as anyone else are they not? ...

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, as long as nobody knows them..that makes sense.

Broadcasting is the means people have of sharing their experiences with others, not just beliefs. Like you would be so unhappy if Dawkins, or one of your idols showed up on tv, you'd probably post the youtube video here.

Again these double standards, and all completely blind to it. There doesn't seem to be at least one intellectualy honest athiest among you.

robindch

Mintoz wrote: »

It's perfectly reasonable for her to believe what she does, and to express it [...]

Mintoz wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, as long as nobody knows them..

Mintoz wrote: »

Again these double standards, and all completely blind to it. There doesn't seem to be at least one intellectualy honest athiest among you.

You sure you thought your position through before posting?

im invisible

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Yes, everyone's entitled to their own beliefs and all that. Doesn't mean they should be broadcast to the nation though.

Mintoz wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, as long as nobody knows them..that makes sense.

perhaps a :rolleyes: or two would make sense here

imfml

Hi Mintoz, as Ciaran0 says, it would be helpful for me to better reply if you could clarify what it is you think it was I was accusing anyone of.

In regards to your bigot comment, perhaps my choice of words was a little unintelletual, but however it was worded, I've a feeling anyone visiting an atheist forum with a religious agenda may have misunderstood. My point was purely this, (yes, I was never going to agree with what she had to say), but (a little ironically given your understanding of my post), having listened openly to what she is saying, her words fail to help me understand what it is she is trying to communicate.

Saying "I was created, therefore there is a plan" without any other comment to clarify what the person thinks this means, is imho, dribble. Words for the sake of words.

My comment on 'balance' referred solely to RTE Religious, as opposed to RTE as a whole.

qrrgprgua

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sure a lot of degenerate perverts pay their license as well. Let's get some snuff films on the telly for the sake of balance.

Thats rich... So you equate religious people to perverts..

The insult sums up your intelligence.

Ciaran0

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thats rich... So you equate religious people to perverts..

The insult sums up your intelligence.

He didn't equate religious with perverts. You didn't get that. What does that say about your intelligence?

qrrgprgua

Ciaran0 wrote: »

He didn't equate religious with perverts. You didn't get that. What does that say about your intelligence?

Then why bring the word into the discussion?

In the last census over 90% said they were religious.. to some form.. So lets say for argument that that 40% are actually religious. Why is it wrong to programme according to there interests for the sake of Balance.

Anyway RTE does not balance... Religious programming is very much less that 2% (if that)

Ickle Magoo

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thats rich... So you equate religious people to perverts..

It's deliciously ironic that you see "degenerate perverts" written and automatically assume they must be religious, despite the poster having made no such connection. :pac:

Bloodwing

This is just one of a number of issues I have with RTE(Faircity being another one:p). As RTE is a semi-state body and the public service broadcaster of Ireland, which my licence fees and taxes go towards I think they have a responsibility to be neutral and unbiased in their broadcasts.

I have no issue with them broadcasting religious content, I'll just change over to the likes of BBC 4 when it comes on because they have some bloody amazing programming! If they feel it appropriate to broadcast catholic mass every Sunday, excesively cover the eucharistic pantomime congress and play the angelus at six every evening then why aren't they broadcasting Salah at the prescribed times? Why don't they broadcast one of the Atheist Ireland conferences?

RTE have an unjustifiable bias towards promoting the catholic rhetoric, I know some of you will now try and justify it by saying Ireland is a catholic country so at this point I'll introduce myself, my name is Neil, I pay taxes to the Irish Government, I hold an Irish Passport, I was born in Ireland and I have lived all my life in Ireland, I love this country and the people in it. I am Irish and I am not a catholic.

Gbear

Ciaran0 wrote: »

That's not intolerance. It would be intolerant to say the same thing in a religious forum.

No it wouldn't.
Intolerance means you don't tolerate something. It is not impoliteness.
For example, if you prevented somebody from stating their opinion by duct-taping their mouth shut - that would be intolerance.

Or the law mandates that people are tolerant of other "races" - it doesn't mean you can force a white supremacist to like a black person - it just stops the white supremacist from beating them with sticks.




RTE is a rubbish institution by and large. We don't need it to produce ****e like Fair City and we don't need it to broadcast american tv shows.

It should be restricted to tv shows of a factual nature.
In order for charging people TV licenses to be fair, it should not be about subsidising **** soap operas - if people want them they should have to pay privately - it should be a public good that provides equally for everyone.

Robert ninja

Mintoz wrote: »

Like you would be so unhappy if Dawkins, or one of your idols showed up on tv, you'd probably post the youtube video here.

robindch

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So you equate religious people to perverts.. The insult sums up your intelligence.

Sarky did not equate religious people to perverts. Go read the posts concerned again.

Kivaro

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sure a lot of degenerate perverts pay their license as well.....

Are we talking about priests here?

Sarky

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thats rich... So you equate religious people to perverts..

The insult sums up your intelligence.

Where did I say that? Jesus, what is it with religious people twisting the words of someone else to mean what they want them to m-

Oh, right. Heh. Sorry.

Kivaro

Sarky wrote: »

Where did I say that? Jesus, what is it with religious people twisting the words of someone else to mean what they want them to m-

Oh, right. Heh. Sorry.

You're not very smart, you know.
Well according to qrrgprguaqrarrqa anyway.

(That username probably has some hidden Opus Dei code in it).

Mintoz

robindch wrote: »

You sure you thought your position through before posting?

Nice, just snipped off the 'that makes sense' at the end there, sly. I'm sure you've got some more tricks up your sleeve. I know where you stand now, anyway. Thanks for highlighting your dishonesty.

Sonics2k

Mintoz wrote: »

Nice, just snipped off the 'that makes sense' at the end there, sly. I'm sure you've got some more tricks up your sleeve. I know where you stand now, anyway. Thanks for highlighting your dishonesty.

And yet he hasn't edited his post.

He must be a wizard!

Mintoz

imfml wrote: »

Hi Mintoz, as Ciaran0 says, it would be helpful for me to better reply if you could clarify what it is you think it was I was accusing anyone of.

In regards to your bigot comment, perhaps my choice of words was a little unintelletual, but however it was worded, I've a feeling anyone visiting an atheist forum with a religious agenda may have misunderstood. My point was purely this, (yes, I was never going to agree with what she had to say), but (a little ironically given your understanding of my post), having listened openly to what she is saying, her words fail to help me understand what it is she is trying to communicate.

Saying "I was created, therefore there is a plan" without any other comment to clarify what the person thinks this means, is imho, dribble. Words for the sake of words.

My comment on 'balance' referred solely to RTE Religious, as opposed to RTE as a whole.

Your choice of words was insulting, to a person who has good reason to believe what she does, based on her experiences. But just because you have nothing to draw from (because you don't allow God in) does not mean it's drivel.

Why does she have to explain her comment? It's not an athiest question time. This is a majority Catholic country, so expect this programming to appear on tv, it won't kill anyone.

vard

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Then why bring the word into the discussion?

In the last census over 90% said they were religious.. to some form.. So lets say for argument that that 40% are actually religious. Why is it wrong to programme according to there interests for the sake of Balance.

Anyway RTE does not balance... Religious programming is very much less that 2% (if that)

It's called an analogy you fool.

imfml

Mintoz wrote: »

imfml wrote: »

Hi Mintoz, as Ciaran0 says, it would be helpful for me to better reply if you could clarify what it is you think it was I was accusing anyone of.

In regards to your bigot comment, perhaps my choice of words was a little unintelletual, but however it was worded, I've a feeling anyone visiting an atheist forum with a religious agenda may have misunderstood. My point was purely this, (yes, I was never going to agree with what she had to say), but (a little ironically given your understanding of my post), having listened openly to what she is saying, her words fail to help me understand what it is she is trying to communicate.

Saying "I was created, therefore there is a plan" without any other comment to clarify what the person thinks this means, is imho, dribble. Words for the sake of words.

My comment on 'balance' referred solely to RTE Religious, as opposed to RTE as a whole.

Your choice of words was insulting, to a person who has good reason to believe what she does, based on her experiences. But just because you have nothing to draw from (because you don't allow God in) does not mean it's drivel.

Why does she have to explain her comment? It's not an athiest question time. This is a majority Catholic country, so expect this programming to appear on tv, it won't kill anyone.

Visit an atheist forum, get insult. I'm I'm certainly not going to rise to you calling me a bigot.

Kivaro

Mintoz wrote: »

But just because you have nothing to draw from (because you don't allow God in) does not mean it's drivel.

What does that mean? "Don't allow God in?"

I bet the millions of starving children in Africa would love to allow God in. But it does them no good, does it.
And for the pedophile priests and bishops who allowed God in, it didn't much for the kids they raped and tortured either, did it.
And for the decent, moral people of the planet suffering from the most horrific pains due to cancer and other sickness who beg for God to be there; it doesn't do them any good, does it.

robindch

Mintoz wrote: »

Nice, just snipped off the 'that makes sense' at the end there, sly. I'm sure you've got some more tricks up your sleeve. I know where you stand now, anyway.

Mintoz - the appearance of the ambiguous phrase "that makes sense" makes no difference to the meaning of the two splendidly contradictory sentences I quoted above.

Mintoz wrote: »

Thanks for highlighting your dishonesty.

I've sent you a PM regarding possible sock-puppetry between yourself and the "liveya" boardsie account. Can you please reply to this PM as soon as possible so we can resolve this suspicious report? Thanks.

Zombrex

I think the OP needs to define what he means by "balance". As has been pointed out the amount of religious programming on RTE is tiny compared to other types of programming (I would imagine there was more football on over Euro 2012 than the entire years worth of religious programming).

"Balanced" doesn't mean non-existent. So I'm not really sure what the complaint is here. It would hardly be balanced for RTE to remove all religious programming, would it? If the OP thinks they should make an argument for that, but he seems to be calling for the removal of religious programming under the banner of "balance" which is nonsensical given how many religious people are in this country.

Zombrex

Ciaran0 wrote: »

He didn't equate religious with perverts. You didn't get that. What does that say about your intelligence?

The analogy is attempting, I assume, to point out that just because some people want to see something doesn't mean we broadcast it. True, but then if he isn't equating religion with perversion then the analogy doesn't make any sense. Perverted sexual acts are kept off the telly because they are considered immediately harmful and disturbing. Religious broadcasting isn't.

Or to put it another way many times we do broadcast some things just because some people want to watch them. In fact that sums up most of broadcasting. Euro 2012 or CSI Miami are not broadcast due to the merit of the programs, but simply because people want to watch them. So the point of the analogy is some what nullified.

Zillah

Mintoz wrote: »

This is a majority Catholic country, so expect this programming to appear on tv, it won't kill anyone.

This is always a bad justification. Resorting to such vapid extremes is often trotted out to defend the status quo: Ah sure you can not drink for one day, it won't kill you! Ah sure it's just one minute in the evening, it's not the end of the world!

Just because the privilege the state grants your religion does not have immediately dire consequences does not mean it is anyway reasonable or fair.

imfml

Zombrex wrote: »

I think the OP needs to define what he means by "balance". As has been pointed out the amount of religious programming on RTE is tiny compared to other types of programming (I would imagine there was more football on over Euro 2012 than the entire years worth of religious programming).

"Balanced" doesn't mean non-existent. So I'm not really sure what the complaint is here. It would hardly be balanced for RTE to remove all religious programming, would it? If the OP thinks they should make an argument for that, but he seems to be calling for the removal of religious programming under the banner of "balance" which is nonsensical given how many religious people are in this country.

No, I wasn't calling for an end to RTE Religious, though it would help them save some money I guess. By balance I mean there should also be other faiths and believes covered, by all means in proportion to what box people ticked in the census as most Catholics seem to cling to this no end. I guess the CSO would need to confirm the number of Jedis for us in that case though.

Daftendirekt

Zombrex wrote: »

I think the OP needs to define what he means by "balance". As has been pointed out the amount of religious programming on RTE is tiny compared to other types of programming (I would imagine there was more football on over Euro 2012 than the entire years worth of religious programming).

"Balanced" doesn't mean non-existent. So I'm not really sure what the complaint is here. It would hardly be balanced for RTE to remove all religious programming, would it? If the OP thinks they should make an argument for that, but he seems to be calling for the removal of religious programming under the banner of "balance" which is nonsensical given how many religious people are in this country.

I agree with this for the most part. If there are a lot of religious people in the country, it's not unreasonable for RTE to cater to their interests to some extent. So I wouldn't object to a certain amount of religious programming.

However, that shouldn't be confused with RTE taking a specifically pro-religious stance, and using its position as the national broadcaster to promote that viewpoint.

I don't have any hard and fast rules to distinguish one from the other, but the video posted by the OP appears to me to have very little in the way of educational or entertainment value. It doesn't really say anything other than 'Having faith is awesome!' and that RTE gives that idea the thumbs up. Essentially, it's a pro-religious advertisement being run by RTE off their own back and that's just not very secular.

robindch

Daftendirekt wrote: »

It doesn't really say anything other than 'Having faith is awesome!' and that RTE gives that idea the thumbs up. Essentially, it's a pro-religious advertisement being run by RTE off their own back and that's just not very secular.

True. If the state broadcaster wants to do that, then they should offer equal airtime to any other religious organization who wishes to promote their religious views. With Atheist Ireland's anti-religious output, presumably, being equal in length to the sum of the pro-religious output.

It's unfair that just one religion is effectively granted unimpeded, preferential access.

muppeteer

I would think that some things are somewhat unsuited to a state sponsored national broadcaster no matter what the demographic of the audience.
Political broadcasting is not doled out to different parties based on % vote. It is supposed to be somewhat impartial, without any promotion of one over another, bar the party political broadcasts at election time.
I think religious broadcasting is enough of an controversial and intractable problem to be put into the same category as politics.

DuPLeX

robindch wrote: »

True. If the state broadcaster wants to do that, then they should offer equal airtime to any other religious organization who wishes to promote their religious views. With Atheist Ireland's anti-religious output, presumably, being equal in length to the sum of the pro-religious output.

It's unfair that just one religion is effectively granted unimpeded, preferential access.

So your suggesting that one religion should be given equal air time to all the other religions combined?
as for non religious content I think It outweighs religious content by far.

robindch

DuPLeX wrote: »

So your suggesting that one religion should be given equal air time to all the other religions combined?

Atheism isn't a religion. I'm simply suggesting that if the national broadcaster is required to provide airtime to pro-religious viewpoints, then it should provide equal time to the anti-religious viewpoints too. Simples really.

DuPLeX wrote: »

as for non religious content I think It outweighs religious content by far.

There's a difference between an anti-religious program and a program that doesn't mention religion.

speaking

robindch wrote: »

Atheism isn't a religion. I'm simply suggesting that if the national broadcaster is required to provide airtime to pro-religious viewpoints, then it should provide equal time to the anti-religious viewpoints too.

Fair enough, but if your suggesting that atheism is inherently anti religious I would have to disagree. For me atheism is absolutely nothing more than an absence of belief in God. I am not anti religious per say. Each to their own would be my take on it.

robindch

speaking wrote: »

Fair enough, but if your suggesting that atheism is inherently anti religious I would have to disagree. For me atheism is absolutely nothing more than an absence of belief in God.

And for me too, but you're not going to fill up several hours per week with nothing more than "God(s) don't exist".

speaking wrote: »

Each to their own would be my take on it.

And if religious people felt that religion was a private matter, I'd be right there with you.

robindch

Mintoz wrote: »

Thanks for highlighting your dishonesty.

Reports of sock-puppetry on this account have been confirmed to the satisfaction of local and cat-mods, so I'm banning this account permanently from A+A. Feel free to continue posting using the previous account 'liveya'.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Atheism isn't a religion. I'm simply suggesting that if the national broadcaster is required to provide airtime to pro-religious viewpoints, then it should provide equal time to the anti-religious viewpoints too. Simples really.There's a difference between an anti-religious program and a program that doesn't mention religion.

In fairness though how would that work? Endless reruns of Hitchens debating some Rabi? Dawkins pimping his new book?

Its like people who dont like any sport wanting a program to tell people not to like sport.

Anyway, there is plenty of sciencey stuff on RTE too, maybe not enough to your liking but hey the public broadcaster pisses everyone off as each tax payers sees it as their own private television channel.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Its like people who dont like any sport wanting a program to tell people not to like sport.

No, it's about guaranteeing equal access to differing points of view. It's done for political broadcasting already, so it should be done for religious output too.

jank wrote: »

there is plenty of sciencey stuff on RTE too

As I mentioned to duplex above, there's a difference between an anti-religious program and a program that doesn't mention religion.

Gbear

robindch wrote: »

No, it's about guaranteeing equal access to differing points of view.

I think this is nonsense though. All viewpoints aren't equal. It's like when there's something sciencey on the news and they have some scientifically illiterate dickhead tagging along for the sake of "balance".

Far better than this would be RTE having no view points.

We don't need it to provide light entertainment and I don't see any legitimate way of providing unbiased views based on their own merit.
There's certainly scope for it to provide a basic news and information service, just like any other public service like buses, but I don't see why it should be pushing any agenda, even if it tries to balance it.

If it takes everyones money through taxes and TV license fees, then the only mandate I can see it having is one of the lowest common denominator - facts.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

I think this is nonsense though. All viewpoints aren't equal. It's like when there's something sciencey on the news and they have some scientifically illiterate dickhead tagging along for the sake of "balance".

It's just like inviting a creationut to a scientific debate. Far wiser and cheaper to bring in someone from St Loman's.

We don't have snake-oil merchants on tv so we shouldn't have religious drivel either, in terms of fairness, otherwise those merchants might want their share of airtime.

robindch

Gbear wrote: »

I think this is nonsense though. All viewpoints aren't equal. [...] Far better than this would be RTE having no view points.

Absolutely. If RTE can't treat them all religious viewpoints equally then RTE should withdraw from sponsoring one specific religious viewpoint(*) to the exclusion of all others.

(*) Would any sane person want to watch several hours on atheism per week? I certainly wouldn't...

magicbastarder

suggesting that all religious viewpoints should be equally represented is unrealistic - if the majority of licence payers are catholic, and would like to see programmes of a catholic bent, it's reasonable to suggest that there be more programs related to catholicism than there would be to zoroastrianism.
RTE do have a remit (whether explicit or implied) to provide programming of interest to their audience. i'd be curious as to whether they do any research into the demand for religious programming, though.

jank

robindch wrote: »

No, it's about guaranteeing equal access to differing points of view. It's done for political broadcasting already, so it should be done for religious output too.As I mentioned to duplex above, there's a difference between an anti-religious program and a program that doesn't mention religion.

So let me get this from you. You want equal access from RTE to show what exactly? Anti-religious programming? To you give me an example of such?To warn of the dangers of Religion? What does that even mean?

If a movie say the godfather is broadcast would you want equal time to show anti-religious programming because it had a subtle religious theme to it?

Utterly bizarre!!

jank

Gbear wrote: »

- facts.

That rules out about 99% of movies it can show then, or any childrens tv.
Hey include advertisements too and ANY political news or hey any opinion at all. Not even the weather would be safe most of the time.

How about we just let RTE broadcast the time, then everyone can be happy!