
-
The Christians have made a stand - but will Athiests?
Below is a transcript of a television billing that is scheduled to be shown on BBC 1 on Sunday 16th January 2005 at 5:15pm (unless we get enough people to complain).
"BBC2 plans to broadcast Songs of Praise on National Nothing Day of all days! This regular musical presentation, notorious for containing the choral presentation of over 25,000 references to the words, 'Christ', 'Lord', 'God' and 'Almighty', depicts the characters of Jesus, Mary and God as infallible beings who give and receive love following a horrific series of events in Jerusalem, all in the name of religion. 12,500 hymns have been sung on Songs Of Praise over the last 40 years. That's over 30 million celebratory references to religious figures that are openly offensive to those who deny their existence. Hymns often include claims that one can live without food or even live forever! The most popular hymn on the programme is called 'How Great Thou Art' - a stark challenge to all atheists! Nevertheless, the show is scheduled to be transmitted without any cuts."
If you disagree with the BBC's plan to broadcast this material, please register your feelings with the BBC info@bbc.co.uk tel 08700 100222) or OfCom (contact@ofcom.org.uk tel 0845 456 3000). Could you also forward this message to anyone else you feel would want to be aware of this. This does make a difference - 500 calls are considered as a very significant complaint, so I am sure we can do this!!!!!!!!! You need to complain to both OfCom and the BBC.
The following URL is a direct link to the Ofcom website - and to register a complaint online. Please make use of this:
www.ofcom.org.uk/contact_ofcom/tv_radio_other
Please forward this message to as many people as possible, because time is of the essence as the 16th Jan gets nearer!
-
[edit] - I am greatly alarmed by the number of people taking this seriously...
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:31, archived)

Even now they are crawling inexorably closer to you.....START ITCHING NOW! bwhahahahah
*Huggles*
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:39, archived)

Rawr!
*Huggles back*
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

But atheists who try and destroy other people's faith's and ruin their happyness are total wankers. Fuck off.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:33, archived)

that is like saying "Christians are OK but Christians who go around promoting their faith are wankers"
Just because you are credulous enough to believe this beardy fairy bollocks is no reason I shouldn't feel smug about having a functioning brain.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:38, archived)

Can realise that there is no God. And be absolutely, 100,000% certain of this fact, because, for Crying out loud, you've gone through further education, and the rest of these proles are dumb.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:43, archived)

it's called logic. take a minute or 2 to just think about the whole situation and think about it with even one iota of reasoning.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:47, archived)

I have solved the greatest question ever posed to man. Thankyou for your tutorship, master. I go now in peace.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:50, archived)

it isn't the greatest question ever posed to man
it isn't even a good question
it isn't even a question that makes sense
it only becomes an interesting question if you accept that the answer is "god exists" ... if you don't accept that answer then it is about as meaningful as "what colour is the teapot that orbits mars?"
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:53, archived)

to see that religious questions do not, and are not expected to, obey ordinary logic.
I appreciate that the question of whether you want to be religious entails more than this, but it should be easy to see it's a personal choice and you're not going to go to hell* if you don't take it. Then you have to ask yourself whether it's a good idea to start giving up logical thinking, and why it shouldn't apply to a certain class of question.
* the most insulting concept imaginable
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:54, archived)

How does "You can't be certain there is no god" extrapolate to "you should follow Religion X"?
Whether there is a god or not is not the question. It's not even a question, since it's not expected by anyone to stand up to ordinary logic. That's why I reject religion.
That and that if you're not a fundamentalist, you don't really need it; you're just helping to make something socially acceptable which has resulted, when it's taken to extremes*, in unspeakable oppression and suffering all over the world throughout all human history.
*wipes off foam*
* i.e. actually practised as the holy books seem to demand
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:48, archived)

I get your point.
I deal with some of them on a daily basis. Of course this is my interpretation, they could be what Jung called archetypes, or theycould be hallucinations. They could also be parts of my own personality that I see as seperate individuals.
I dont say I am right, and everyone else is wrong. It's just a personal observation.
I was told by an Anglican Vicar that 'we couldn't both be right'. I agreed, but did mention that it was entirely possible we could both be wrong...
Edit - and I don't see it as a religion. It's just natural to me, is all.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:52, archived)

but after what I said up there, that'd be hypocrisy.
I do think you're wrong. But I do think it's absolutely fundamentally important that you're allowed to be religious (or whatever you call it) if you want.
I've also met you and, like a number of theists I know, you're not stupid, so there may well be something else I'm missing.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:59, archived)

only with all the words, the context, the subtext and every shred of meaning changed
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:51, archived)

this was in any way serious I would still not bother.
I'm not about to turn into a Pagan Fundie, just to attack some Xtians.
They do it to us, fair enough, but I'm not sinking that low.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:34, archived)

as a 'Wiccan Witch' she probably knows that already.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:38, archived)

I'm not Wiccan, but 'traditional-ecclectic-heathenish-solitary-with wiccan influences witch from manchester' just doesn't have the same ring to it ;)
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:45, archived)

Wiccans I have seen, you would know why I am distancing myself ;)
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:49, archived)

I'm not atheist as it happens, am on speaking terms with a few of 'them', it would be rude to pretend they don't exist.
I don't go round believing in them though. That only encourages them, and as I have said before it's pointless, like believing in the postman*
*directly lifted from Witches Abroad.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:43, archived)

I also disagree with the original post.
I also disagree with this response.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:35, archived)

Honestly, what is the harm in it all? They are mostly good people who try and live a life of a decent moral standard & help others.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:35, archived)

The real problem here is students. All students should report to the nearest football stadium, where they will be machine-gunned and their remains used as hardcore for a brand new motorway to be built across a nature reserve.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:37, archived)

They can record it all & make a nice arty program out of it.
Sadly we still need engineers, doctors, mathematicians and suchlike.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:39, archived)

What exactly are students are supposed to have done?
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:39, archived)

Im on a placement and have an actual job for now. You can shoot me in September, right now im working against them, not for them.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:42, archived)

and ask for £50 cash back, that's what they do.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

I set in a sensitive position on this given my current placement and the fact that I am otherwise 'one of them'.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:44, archived)

yes I do
Actually was just being sarcky, I was a student once you know.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:48, archived)

cheaper beer, more money and better prospects than he does
and perter buttocks
and more manageable hair
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:43, archived)

I've had a few sanctimonious born agains piss me off.
Having said that though, what other people believe is none of my concer, it is only when someone tries to convert me, or denigrate Pagans as child abusing monsters (oh it happens) I get annoyed. THAT is when I start complaining.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:39, archived)

of paganism and other religions. They conveniently forget that when it suits them.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

same as Gardenarian Wiccans gloss over the influences of Freemasonary and Rosicruician when talking about their 'craft' ;)
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:42, archived)

In my experience all religions seem to get pious about the things that they bought to it and conveniently forget all the bits that they 'acquired' when they 'took over' another.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:44, archived)

/christian, but readily mocks the Vatican, Pope, and basically most of it :P
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:46, archived)

are fully aware of what we nick from others ;)
We'd be beaten up if we declared it FACT without at least 25 verified historical sources. Most of the Pagans I know have a good historical research/anthropological background and will call you on it...
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:47, archived)

*remembers he doesn't have a tv*
on principle
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:40, archived)

An entirely different kettle of fish.
Can't see what all the fuss with that one is about. You don't like it, don't watch. Not too difficult a concept to grasp.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:42, archived)

Cnuts. Why bother do this - it may upset some people, while making you all look like plonkers.
*refluffs*
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:38, archived)

on a national scale to see if it could be done.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

more news on page 7
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

it's a sign of decent satire if it is sufficiently believable and touches enough nerves to cause this kind of knee-jerk ranting
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:47, archived)

that I've had to insert a this-is-a-joke disclaimer on B3ta. I was so surprised I nipped back and popped another on my site.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:50, archived)

^
|
Fuck off all of you, you ponces! If the thick religious type can do it, so can we
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:41, archived)

anyone who is stupid enough to believe all that religious tripe is
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:52, archived)

Not as funny as the person who runs the website which, briefly, featured the names and addresses of BBC management, when interviewed last night: (apologies in advance for paraphrasing)
Christian Fundamentalist: TV is already overun with violence, bad language and blasphemy.
Interviewer: Which programmes in particular do you find blasphemous.
Christian Funadmentalist: Err, well, I don't really watch TV.
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:42, archived)

you can read more about this lovely man here:
media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1387536,00.html
( , Wed 12 Jan 2005, 16:48, archived)