http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/ Author, musician and theologian Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:41:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-2269 Tony B Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:54:25 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-2269 >If we're going to have religion on the radio (and I think we should) then let's have it with its teeth left in. And the way to do that is by having a debate, having different points of view. Trying to protect "Holy ground" from invaders, not allowing it to be challenged; that kind of defensiveness smacks of cowardice. >If we’re going to have religion on the radio (and I think we should) then let’s have it with its teeth left in.
And the way to do that is by having a debate, having different points of view. Trying to protect “Holy ground” from invaders, not allowing it to be challenged; that kind of defensiveness smacks of cowardice.

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-2268 maggi Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:45:12 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-2268 Jonathan and Simon - happy to give credit where it's due, although the news item on your site didn't appear to name the writer. I've noted the paper behind the news item in my post above. Keep up the good work! (and please do get wound up! it matters) Jonathan and Simon – happy to give credit where it’s due, although the news item on your site didn’t appear to name the writer. I’ve noted the paper behind the news item in my post above. Keep up the good work! (and please do get wound up! it matters)

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-2267 Simon Barrow Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:31:22 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-2267 Hi Maggi... hpe you're well. Er, we're not "wound up". But we have just launched the first of two reports on the Thought for the Day controversy <a href="http://ekklesia.co.uk/research/thought_for_the_day" rel="nofollow">http://ekklesia.co.uk/research/thought_for_the_day</a> - not written by either of us, incidentally. You write: "I would like to see better religious broadcasting, but I would envisage that as being more red-blooded coverage of actual religion." Couldn't agree more, though preferrably based on insight rather than vituperation - blood being about life! As for "ironing out the creases". Our point is simply that Christians do themselves and their message no favour when they put God in a slot and try to keep others out of a broadcasting feature which has the opportunity to create a real conversation about beliefs of different kinds. I wrote about that from a theological POV here: <a href="http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/5160" rel="nofollow">http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/5160</a> And Jonathan, who was effectively sacked simply for saying that humanists shouldn't be banned from contributing, has written about the politics of TftD here: <a href="http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8302" rel="nofollow">http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8302</a> I'm not sure whether Nick has registered much of this. Hi Maggi… hpe you’re well. Er, we’re not “wound up”. But we have just launched the first of two reports on the Thought for the Day controversy http://ekklesia.co.uk/research/thought_for_the_day – not written by either of us, incidentally.
You write: “I would like to see better religious broadcasting, but I would envisage that as being more red-blooded coverage of actual religion.” Couldn’t agree more, though preferrably based on insight rather than vituperation – blood being about life!
As for “ironing out the creases”. Our point is simply that Christians do themselves and their message no favour when they put God in a slot and try to keep others out of a broadcasting feature which has the opportunity to create a real conversation about beliefs of different kinds. I wrote about that from a theological POV here: http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/5160 And Jonathan, who was effectively sacked simply for saying that humanists shouldn’t be banned from contributing, has written about the politics of TftD here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8302
I’m not sure whether Nick has registered much of this.

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-2266 Jonathan Bartley Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:16:16 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-2266 The report is by one of our researchers Lizzie Clifford. (Credit where it is due please, as she put a lot of work in). She is also doing an analysis of TFTD scripts to be published in the new year. Her postgraduate degree is in Theology from Cambridge, in particular in theolinguistics and the relationship between theology and the arts. She may be assessing your script Maggie! The report is by one of our researchers Lizzie Clifford. (Credit where it is due please, as she put a lot of work in).
She is also doing an analysis of TFTD scripts to be published in the new year.
Her postgraduate degree is in Theology from Cambridge, in particular in theolinguistics and the relationship between theology and the arts. She may be assessing your script Maggie!

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Never Conforming Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:41:30 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-4 One aspect of the challenge which comes from restricting voices such as the BNP is the greater profile they end up receiving and also the Beeb was reporting they're getting greater donations than they have in years. When the Troubles were at their worst in Northern Ireland and politicians were gagged (either through under/no reporting or actors voicing their words) we didn't seem to get any progress. It's only since we've allowed their voices to be heard that things have changed. I'm not sure which is the right way, but I think that when the ideas held by the BNP are shared by a significant minority of the population we need to acknowledge that and seek proactively to challenge them. If we do it through silencing and exclusion we then add a righteous level to the indignation already felt. I think the BNP should be closed down - but I also think (rather idealisically) that it needs to be done through diminishing the need for such a party, decreasing the opinions they represent and working to listen and honour the (non-racist) politics which many misguided people use as their inspiration for turning to such a difficult and unpleasant party. One aspect of the challenge which comes from restricting voices such as the BNP is the greater profile they end up receiving and also the Beeb was reporting they’re getting greater donations than they have in years.
When the Troubles were at their worst in Northern Ireland and politicians were gagged (either through under/no reporting or actors voicing their words) we didn’t seem to get any progress. It’s only since we’ve allowed their voices to be heard that things have changed.
I’m not sure which is the right way, but I think that when the ideas held by the BNP are shared by a significant minority of the population we need to acknowledge that and seek proactively to challenge them. If we do it through silencing and exclusion we then add a righteous level to the indignation already felt.
I think the BNP should be closed down – but I also think (rather idealisically) that it needs to be done through diminishing the need for such a party, decreasing the opinions they represent and working to listen and honour the (non-racist) politics which many misguided people use as their inspiration for turning to such a difficult and unpleasant party.

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Wulf Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:38:15 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-3 I am not convinced that the BBC is wrong in this decision. They are an elected party and we are a democracy: the rule of the majority but with a right for dissenting voices to be heard. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to make the programme a platform for their racist views. Ask them (and the other panelists) questions that don't relate to immigration and cut them off if they keep trying to bend that way. It will be apparent if there is any merit to their pretension of being a serious political party and heads off the opportunity for them to proclaim themselves oppressed. I am not convinced that the BBC is wrong in this decision. They are an elected party and we are a democracy: the rule of the majority but with a right for dissenting voices to be heard.
What they shouldn’t be allowed to do is to make the programme a platform for their racist views. Ask them (and the other panelists) questions that don’t relate to immigration and cut them off if they keep trying to bend that way. It will be apparent if there is any merit to their pretension of being a serious political party and heads off the opportunity for them to proclaim themselves oppressed.

]]> http://maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-2 @submergedgate Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:38:00 +0000 http://dev.maggidawn.com/thought-for-the-day/#comment-2 The BNP need to be scrutinised and the racism behind the suits need to be exposed. This is starting to happen and the foundation of lies will be revealed. However, there will be some vulnerable Black, Asian and other minority individuals who are likely to suffer verbal or physical abuse by racists as a direct result of this kind of normalising exposure, where racists feel they are given permission to carry on their diabolical behaviour. The BNP need to be scrutinised and the racism behind the suits need to be exposed. This is starting to happen and the foundation of lies will be revealed. However, there will be some vulnerable Black, Asian and other minority individuals who are likely to suffer verbal or physical abuse by racists as a direct result of this kind of normalising exposure, where racists feel they are given permission to carry on their diabolical behaviour.

]]>