With you on this one Pete, so what is the best way for them to make a formal declaration without bringing religion into it. Bearing in mind that SOME people appearing in a court may have no honour, reputation. or self respect?
Good point. The BBC generally and R4 Today in particular are supposed to (indeed obliged to) maintain balance. On many issues, such as politics and commercial matters, they are pretty good at this. They usually (OK, with the occasional lapse) go to lengths to ensure to both sides of a debate, and all parties/candidates in elections, get their say. Thought for the Day is an egregious example of this principle being grossly violated. The religionist gets to speak unchallenged and uncontradicted, and non-religionists are strictly forbidden access. No atheist, humanist or secularist of any kind has ever been permitted to give a Thought for the Day. The National Secular Society has been trying to reform this for several years, and has made repeated complaints all of which have been brushed aside without explanation. That is where matters stand.
Playing Imaginary Foe of an Imaginary Deity's Advocate here for a moment - is it possible that TftD itself an attempt to bring balance to the the material that the station broadcasts? Hypothetically - if every other programme and opinion that is broadcast is secular in nature and in message, then surely a single programme with a religious message is simply an effort to "balance the books"? I am speculating. I don't listen to R4, is too much like some of the threads we have here on the Forums.
Given the law as it is today under the Oaths act 1978, there is no way. Each witness must either swear a religious oath thus disclosing their religious faith, or object to swearing and ask to affirm thus disclosing their lack of religious belief. Whatever the witness does, religion is brought into it. I would favour affirmation for all witnesses without exception, thus curing the whole problem.
not at all, you are more than welcome to say what ever you like whether i like it of not! just find the idea of the bible or any other religious clap trap amusing and only one that was on drugs would put it forward as being perhaps more relevant than science...
"... if every other programme and opinion that is broadcast is secular in nature and in message": very hypothetical indeed then. R4 broadcasts a 'Daily Service' 365 days per year, plus a lengthy service every Sunday morning, plus a great number of other religious programmes, talks, prayers, hymns, etc throughout the year. That's all OK as far as it goes, but Today is a news and current affairs programme dealing with often controversial matters. It does not broadcast tendentious material arguing for one side of an issue and suppressing all other voices - except for Thought for the Day.
Thank you. I see why you take issue as you do. It's small potatoes in the scheme of things - there are much worse things that are broadcast as "news", to far bigger audiences, but I accept your point. Minor in scale as it is.
There are billions and billions of things which do not exist. An infinity of ideas, notions, hypotheses ... and I am not able to "prove" that any of them do not exist. So what you are doing is picking out just one notion from all those billions (i.e. god), pointing out that I am not able to "prove" it does not exist, and then implying this has some kind of significance. Can anyone deny that it is possible - indeed easy - for anyone to postulate anything they like, based on no evidence at all, and challenge all comers to "prove" their postulate is not true? Gods are just one class of postulates among an infinity.
Our planet and our solar system are just a momentary arrangement of atoms that will soon dissipate leaving nothing. 'Soon' meaning within a few billion years.
Right, I'm going in on last nights made up, self important description of things that mostly cant be proven. Wish me luck
What, ashes? Or Ipswich? Yawn. Why does someone yawning make you feel like yawning yourself? Is it because a deity makes you do it?
