The Big Questions [BBC]

Penn · 20-01-2014 9:55am #1

Anyone else enjoy watching the debates on this, particularly the ones concerning religion? Thought this could be a good thread as they have debates about religion every few weeks or so, and some of the past ones have been very good.

I think the guy who presents it is very good and isn't afraid to call people out on hypocrisy or sensationalism, but equally he's usually very respectful of both sides and gives as much time to both sides as possible.

This is a fairly recent one about whether human rights should always outweigh religious rights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5X_lPXnvU

pauldla · 20-01-2014 11:10am

No podcast, it seems! A pity, it'd make good listening on the bus.

weisses · 20-01-2014 11:39am

Its a can of worms and will always be I'm affraid

Sulla Felix · 20-01-2014 9:18pm

pauldla wrote: »

No podcast, it seems! A pity, it'd make good listening on the bus.

youtube-mp3.org

Brian Shanahan · 20-01-2014 11:01pm

weisses wrote: »

Its a can of worms and will always be I'm affraid

What's a can of worms?

weisses · 20-01-2014 11:55pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What's a can of worms?

The whole discussion about human rights and religious rights, Interesting program but this same discussion is going on for so many years and they all seem to believe they are right.

PopePalpatine · 21-01-2014 12:12am

Care to elaborate?

pauldla · 21-01-2014 3:30am

Cheers for that, Sulla Felix, I'll check it out later!

Penn · 21-01-2014 9:06am

weisses wrote: »

The whole discussion about human rights and religious rights, Interesting program but this same discussion is going on for so many years and they all seem to believe they are right.

It's a discussion. A debate. None of these people are in any position to actually change this. What it's about is hearing the viewpoint of other people, discussing all the points raised from both sides, and maybe some of the viewers will change their minds one way or the other.

None of that equals "can of worms".

magicbastarder · 21-01-2014 9:41am

weisses wrote: »

they all seem to believe they are right.

is this a criticism?

branie · 21-01-2014 12:18pm

Excuse the dreadful pun, but I watch it religiously

weisses · 21-01-2014 12:58pm

Penncil Dick wrote: »

It's a discussion. A debate. None of these people are in any position to actually change this. What it's about is hearing the viewpoint of other people, discussing all the points raised from both sides, and maybe some of the viewers will change their minds one way or the other.

None of that equals "can of worms".

The can of worms point is that every time this discussion comes up on TV you get all the various groups together things are discussed (all remain in their trenches) If you got the wrong Host or wrong representatives from various groups these debates could end up in abuse and maybe more.

Good show nonetheless, i watched it with great interest.

But in my opinion you can never put religious rights before human rights.

weisses · 21-01-2014 12:58pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

is this a criticism?

No an observation

magicbastarder · 21-01-2014 12:59pm

I'd be a bit worried if people argued positions they believed were incorrect.

Kiwi in IE · 22-01-2014 8:28pm

Loved the woman who said she believes religious 'traditional' rights are far more important than the rights of the 'gay minority' and then went on to say she supports the burqa ban in France and would like to see the same in the UK. And the other who was squawking about Christians being 'discriminated' against. She believed the religious rights of a Christian couple who owned a B&B were being denied because they were prosecuted for discriminating against gay guests, however she also believes that Muslims who don't want to handle pork and alcohol should not work on checkouts.

Personally I agree with the last bit about not working on checkouts, but my opinion this should also extend to Christians. Those who don't want gay guests; don't open B&Bs, don't want to handle contraceptives; don't go into pharmacy, general practice, gynae or sexual health in the public system, don't want to preform terminations; don't go into public obs & gynae, don't want to preform marriage ceremonies for gay couples; don't become a registrar.

As for the burqa ban, I think it is ridiculous in public places. However employers, officials and anyone needing to identify a person should have the right to ask that it be removed.

PopePalpatine · 22-01-2014 10:12pm

I'm guessing that first woman you mentioned is probably a Daily Mail reader.

Penn · 09-02-2014 9:11am

Colm O'Gorman will be on it this morning to debate the UN's recent report on the Vatican's response to child abuse.

MrPudding · 09-02-2014 9:37am

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman will be on it this morning to debate the UN's recent report on the Vatican's response to child abuse.

And:

Are some topics too sacred for humour?

Looks like it could be a good show.

MrP

Cabaal · 10-02-2014 4:18pm

MrPudding wrote: »

And:

Are some topics too sacred for humour?

Looks like it could be a good show.

MrP

Not seen it yet...but I'm guessing Muhammad gets a mention

jank · 11-02-2014 3:48am

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Personally I agree with the last bit about not working on checkouts, but my opinion this should also extend to Christians. Those who don't want gay guests; don't open B&Bs, don't want to handle contraceptives; don't go into pharmacy, general practice, gynae or sexual health in the public system, don't want to preform terminations; don't go into public obs & gynae, don't want to preform marriage ceremonies for gay couples; don't become a registrar.

So people do not have the freedom of conscience so? Personally speaking if a GP in his/her own private clinic doesn't want to give out contraceptives than that should be their right.

11-02-2014 5:30am

jank wrote: »

So people do not have the freedom of conscience so? Personally speaking if a GP in his/her own private clinic doesn't want to give out contraceptives than that should be their right.

Is that only for contraceptives or other things?

jank · 11-02-2014 10:14pm

Define other things?

robindch · 11-02-2014 10:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that only for contraceptives or other things?

jank wrote: »

Define other things?

Going out on a limb here, but I'm thinking that it might be things other than contraceptives.

12-02-2014 9:23am

robindch wrote: »

Going out on a limb here, but I'm thinking that it might be things other than contraceptives.

It's like you read my mind.

Cabaal · 12-02-2014 10:41am

jank wrote: »

Define other things?

what if renewing subscriptions for cancer curing drugs was against their belief?

Should they also be free to refuse to do this and as such affect people in the local community forcing cancer sufferers to travel to another GP?

Would you be ok with your mother, father, daughter etc having to travel perhaps 20miles+ to another GP for something your local gp should be providing that could save their life, remember not everyone has a car or loads of support when they need to travel so even a few miles can be a big ask and can be expensive.

Gelio · 12-02-2014 10:45am

What was worse than her ridiculous views was the way she pronounced "Chris-tee-ans." Nearly drove me crazy.

Penn · 12-02-2014 10:52am

Cabaal wrote: »

what if renewing subscriptions for cancer curing drugs was against their belief?

Should they also be free to refuse to do this and as such affect people in the local community forcing cancer sufferers to travel to another GP?

Would you be ok with your mother, father, daughter etc having to travel perhaps 20miles+ to another GP for something your local gp should be providing that could save their life, remember not everyone has a car or loads of support when they need to travel so even a few miles can be a big ask and can be expensive.

Plus they'd probably be charged for two doctor's appointments.

jank · 12-02-2014 10:55am

robindch wrote: »

Going out on a limb here, but I'm thinking that it might be things other than contraceptives.

But what 'other things'? It is a fair question, to define the terms of the argument here rather than leave it so open ended.

jank · 12-02-2014 10:57am

Cabaal wrote: »

what if renewing subscriptions for cancer curing drugs was against their belief?
.

Well unless you can point me to an actual example of the above happening in Ireland than we can award you the 'Strawman' award.

Penn · 12-02-2014 11:02am

jank wrote: »

Well unless you can point me to an actual example of the above happening in Ireland than we can award you the 'Strawman' award.

Doctor/Patient Confidentiality.

robindch · 12-02-2014 11:04am

jank wrote: »

But what 'other things'? It is a fair question, to define the terms of the argument here rather than leave it so open ended.

Doctory things other than contraception.

Say, a Jehovah's witness doctor decided that it's morally wrong to permit a blood transfusion, but doesn't tell you that he/she's a JW. Are you ok with that?

Cabaal · 12-02-2014 11:23am

jank wrote: »

Well unless you can point me to an actual example of the above happening in Ireland than we can award you the 'Strawman' award.

It very much has a basis in reality unfortunately,
We've seen catholic ethos people against cancer treatment in the past

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html

So because of the use of contraception they refused to go with the particular treatment. So a GP could very easily refuse to issue a drug based on ethos on the basis that they know the women would have to use contraception to use the drug.

Would you be ok with a GP refusing cancer treatment to the locals based on their ethos? Based on your previous posts you certainly appear to think its ok for a GP to put their faith above people's lives.

jank · 16-02-2014 1:32pm

Cabaal wrote: »

It very much has a basis in reality unfortunately,
We've seen catholic ethos people against cancer treatment in the past

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html

So because of the use of contraception they refused to go with the particular treatment. So a GP could very easily refuse to issue a drug based on ethos on the basis that they know the women would have to use contraception to use the drug.

Would you be ok with a GP refusing cancer treatment to the locals based on their ethos? Based on your previous posts you certainly appear to think its ok for a GP to put their faith above people's lives.

Could but didn't. So I am correct in calling foul for your attempt to build a straw man argument about something that has not happened in Ireland. Unless you have proof of a specific example of this…..
Got to love the hypothetical scenarios being pointed out at me, feels very religious.

jank · 16-02-2014 1:44pm

robindch wrote: »

Doctory things other than contraception.

Say, a Jehovah's witness doctor decided that it's morally wrong to permit a blood transfusion, but doesn't tell you that he/she's a JW. Are you ok with that?

Why did you add the bit at the end I bolded, I am curious.

The patient has the right to know why they are being refused a service and the doctor has the right to tell them it is because of their religious or moral beliefs. The state certainly does not have the right to tell a doctor how to treat their patients nor compel them to carry out services that go against his own moral or religious beliefs. That is a dangerous road in of itself.

A simple notice or sign on the clinic door stating that the doctor does not provide service x,y,z and if you are after a service x,y,z then go see doctor a,b or c. Simple enough really. Patients will vote with their feet and money.

The Big Questions [BBC]

Comments