BBC finally admits: We are biased

[Stoned_Rider]

We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen
) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770#StartComments?

[Madrigal]

Very good, Stoned Rider, you did it again. They closed down your playground and you still managed to pull it off. Anyone with a brain can interpret this thread and its highlighted text for what it is - another little rant in your anti-Islam agenda, disguised as a World issue.

When will mods and admins prohibit you from posting in the World altogether? When will anyone take action against this blatant trolling? I don't know when that will be, but I'm praying to Allah that it happens soon. Because, despite my passion over Middle East affairs, I stopped posting in the World for a reason, and people like you are an important part of that reason.

[sandwich]

It's impressive how honest they are about their bias. I knew that it was bad at the BBC, but wow, that really is over the top.

[stopharian]

Why should the forum be biased against Stoned Rider's anti-islam Agenda?

[targo]

The 'secret' meeting wasn't all that secret now was it if they had access to the happenings there. And also no one should be shocked or surprised by this at all. They have been trying to disallow Christianity in Britain for about a year now, and also there is a high Muslim population in Britain from what I have seen.


At the moment I really have no idea what your point was are you planning on adding to your intial thread with some of your own thoughts and ideas?

[charred_heart]

I don't think the BBC has a Pro-Islam bias (that's almost impossible in the current political climate) but they are for multiculturism which is a good thing imo.

[Abelard]

It sounds like the BBC is doing OK. They protected the minority cultures from being overrun. They admit the pendulum has swung back a bit too far, but that's just how this process works. Now they are trying to address the institutional problem, and it's perfectly understandable that the first steps are being taken quietly.

[AMDG]

It sounds like the BBC is doing OK. They protected the minority cultures from being overrun. They admit the pendulum has swung back a bit too far, but that's just how this process works. Now they are trying to address the institutional problem, and it's perfectly understandable that the first steps are being taken quietly.

I agree.

Also, I think the pro-Islam 'bias' is more about being pragmatic. If a Bible is thrown into the dustbin on TV, some Christians will be offended, but most British ones would probably either laugh along with it, or just tut but not feel the need to 'do' anything about it. But if it was the Qur'an, there would likely be widespread civil unrest and riots in the streets.

There's a great deal of seething going on in the UK about the majority-minority that is Britain's Muslims, and a lot of it's based on total misunderstandings of what goes on, what it's really about, what really happens with immigrants and whatever - fed by the much more right-wing, conservative tabloid newspapers. It's only practical for the BBC to counterbalance this tendency and off-set it with messages to the contrary.

I have seen Newsnight where fundamentalist Islamic clerics have been invited onto the programme, where they've been perfectly able to make total arses of themselves without any help from the BBC or its staff.

[AMDG]

Very good, Stoned Rider, you did it again. They closed down your playground and you still managed to pull it off. Anyone with a brain can interpret this thread and its highlighted text for what it is - another little rant in your anti-Islam agenda, disguised as a World issue.

When will mods and admins prohibit you from posting in the World altogether? When will anyone take action against this blatant trolling? I don't know when that will be, but I'm praying to Allah that it happens soon. Because, despite my passion over Middle East affairs, I stopped posting in the World for a reason, and people like you are an important part of that reason.

I thought that was a bit unwarranted. A bit double-standardish as well, since someone who starts a thread saying 'The Bible is a load of crap and Christians are idiots with XYZ evil intention and ABC phsychiatric disorder', all they get is mass applause, not calls for them to be banned!

I suspect that if SR's quote in the OP had been saying similar things about a TV station being biased towards Christianity and the words were all switched, you wouldn't have felt such a desire to attack in this way.

[rawr]

Oh no. The bbc has morals and treats people who arnt the rich fairly, how dare they. Every muslim I have met has been on the toplist of the purely nicest people I have met. Just because the religion doesn't align perfectly with americas culture of buying, living for the minnute, fun and worshiping wealth, is no reason to demonize them in the media. Nor is it a reason to deny explanation or tolleration of their culture to the people of the world.

[meshou]

I thought that was a bit unwarranted. A bit double-standardish as well, since someone who starts a thread saying 'The Bible is a load of crap and Christians are idiots with XYZ evil intention and ABC phsychiatric disorder', all they get is mass applause, not calls for them to be banned!Were you here for the months he was posting absolutely nothing but ISLAMISLAMISLAMISLAMEVILISLAM? You know there was an entire forum opened because of it, with 90% of the threads being his-- and that same forum being closed because of it? And then this pose came less than a week after it had been closed?

It was entirely reasonible given the context. Everyone was fucking tired of it.

[Zephyrus055]

Well, if you were a wealthy aristocrat, wouldnt you hate BBC and the views it stands for?

[Intension]

I agree.

Also, I think the pro-Islam 'bias' is more about being pragmatic. If a Bible is thrown into the dustbin on TV, some Christians will be offended, but most British ones would probably either laugh along with it, or just tut but not feel the need to 'do' anything about it. But if it was the Qur'an, there would likely be widespread civil unrest and riots in the streets.

This aspect makes it much worse than simply kow-towing to political correctness: it shows that the tactics of jihadis -- rioting, assassinations, terrorism -- are effective in instilling fear, and thus will be repeated in the future.

[meshou]

This aspect makes it much worse than simply kow-towing to political correctness: it shows that the tactics of jihadis -- rioting, assassinations, terrorism -- are effective in instilling fear, and thus will be repeated in the future.No, it really doesn't. They were this way long before the terrorist threat was very threatening.

There's a certain philosophy that comes from the standpoint that people are basically good, if you give them the resources, time, and education. From that standpoint, it doesn't make sense to be all that blunt with people who, in a generation or two, will be as "civilized" as anyone else. It makes more sense to make nice because you're in it with them for the long haul.

This isn't a standpiont of fear. It may be niave as fuck, but it's not fearful.

[AMDG]

Were you here for the months he was posting absolutely nothing but ISLAMISLAMISLAMISLAMEVILISLAM? You know there was an entire forum opened because of it, with 90% of the threads being his-- and that same forum being closed because of it? And then this pose came less than a week after it had been closed?

It was entirely reasonible given the context. Everyone was fucking tired of it.

Aha. Well... no, I wasn't aware of that background. It just looked like an unprovoked attack, and since I've previously only thought good things of SR and very much enjoyed his posts and humour, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He seemed a bit too laid-back to me, to be the bee-in-the-bonnet type.


Well, if you were a wealthy aristocrat, wouldnt you hate BBC and the views it stands for?

*is a wealthy-ish aristocrat and doesn't hate the BBC and is very liberal*


This aspect makes it much worse than simply kow-towing to political correctness: it shows that the tactics of jihadis -- rioting, assassinations, terrorism -- are effective in instilling fear, and thus will be repeated in the future.

Yeah... but perhaps it's just a question of limiting the damage while we wait for them to have a Renaissance. Remember that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, and if you look at the latter that long ago, you'll see a lot of unrest going on while big changes were afoot - people going to extraordinary lengths to prevent Catholics and Protestants trashing everything and killing everyone while competing for territory, before it eventually reached a reasonable equilibrium. EDIT: except in Ireland, but that's blatantly about political independence, not religion.

It always happens when something ancient and well-established comes into abrupt contact with something very different and new, that it can't just hide from or pretend isn't there. Conflict between those who want to stick their fingers in their ears and sing LALALALALALA and force everyone else to do so as well, and those who want to re-examine, update, re-evaluate and progress, etc...

[Abelard]

This aspect makes it much worse than simply kow-towing to political correctness: it shows that the tactics of jihadis -- rioting, assassinations, terrorism -- are effective in instilling fear, and thus will be repeated in the future.

Speaking as a Methodist seminarian, that take is mistaken. The relationship of Christians to the Bible is completely different that that of Muslims to the Qu'ran.

I doubt Sunni Muslims would be as offended if someone threw Sahih Bukhari into the trashcan. But the BBC probably won't do that because picking up all those volumes would give the props guy a hernia.

[Stoned_Rider]

Were you here for the months he was posting absolutely nothing but ISLAMISLAMISLAMISLAMEVILISLAM? You know there was an entire forum opened because of it, with 90% of the threads being his-- and that same forum being closed because of it? And then this pose came less than a week after it had been closed?

It was entirely reasonible given the context. Everyone was fucking tired of it.

Well that was quite an objective take on things. Bravo :theclap:

[AMDG]

Well that was quite an objective take on things. Bravo :theclap:

I would like to hear your side of things, if you'd care to give it. My spider sense is tingling like a good'un.

[Stoned_Rider]

I would like to hear your side of things, if you'd care to give it. My spider sense is tingling like a good'un.
This thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14463) sparked this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14563), which caused the administration to create a separate Islam/Middle-East sub-forum (no members were consulted in the process).

And then of course there was Prolific (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15290&p=441172).

I think it is better to make up your own mind on this one. I really don't want to delve into the details of that whole thing yet again.

[AMDG]

Well, I'm making my way through them, and I don't see why you're picked on here - you show no more ignorance and prejudice than the majority of other respondants to the first thread...

But that was my overwhelming impression within a week of being here - that there's a huge majority feeling against religion in general, coupled with an apparent narrow experience of it and lack of knowledge of any type of it that isn't apparently obvious, by the people who speak out the loudest.

Just like nobody seems aware of the millions of moderate, progressive Christians and zooms in on the whackos to overgeneralise - I don't think many people here have bothered to learn about people like Hamza Yusuf and Cat Stevens and other moderate, non-violent Muslim spokespeople. In other words, this isn't the place for balance :)

[euterpenc]

Perhaps it is christianity's time soon. It's been decaying for a while now, and isn't a fraction of what it originally was. A fresh religion would be a nice change.

[Zephyrus055]

*is a wealthy-ish aristocrat and doesn't hate the BBC and is very liberal*

Rly? And what's your networth? $1-5 million doesn't count. That's lower middle class.

[AMDG]

Rly? And what's your networth? $1-5 million doesn't count. That's lower middle class.

My good man, old money doesn't value itself in terms of bank balance. Class in old money is about genetics, heritage, name, state of mind; it's perfectly possible to be economically lower class whilst still culturally aristocratic :D

Unlike the nouveau riche, I don't need to have a huge bank balance behind me; my name is my currency, it and my upbringing are my greatest assets.

[Intension]

No, it really doesn't. They were this way long before the terrorist threat was very threatening.

There's a certain philosophy that comes from the standpoint that people are basically good, if you give them the resources, time, and education. From that standpoint, it doesn't make sense to be all that blunt with people who, in a generation or two, will be as "civilized" as anyone else. It makes more sense to make nice because you're in it with them for the long haul.

Wrong!

Whatever the merits of that philosophy, it is not their philosophy. Adopting a submissive, deferential posture towards radical Muslims just to "make nice" will not make them more respectful of Western values, but less so. The jihadis will observe the efficacy of threats, riots, killings and continue that behavior because it works.

They will never become civilized unless they are made to do so. I notice you put "civilized" in scare quotes, suggesting you don't believe in the value of your own civilization. The jihadis notice this too, correctly interpreting it as weakness. Why would radical Muslims even become "civilized" if Westerners don't even seem to believe the word has meaning? Westerners must make them realize that Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is a legitimate subject of criticism and ridicule. Tolerance for people with a differing opinion is an essential part of living in a Western society. This doesn't simply mean that we tolerate them, but that they also tolerate us. If these values are not communicated sharply things will just get worse.

[AMDG]

This thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14463) sparked this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14563), which caused the administration to create a separate Islam/Middle-East sub-forum (no members were consulted in the process).

And then of course there was Prolific (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15290&p=441172).

I think it is better to make up your own mind on this one. I really don't want to delve into the details of that whole thing yet again.

Well, I don't agree with everything you said, but I still don't think you were any 'worse' than all the people who have bitter experiences of trying to go against the grain in Bible Belt America and bang on constantly about - well, all the sweeping generalisations I see on this board all the time about Christians - in every other thread. And Prolific's just a total penal rash - less said, the better!

I still dig ya. Just my ha'penny's worth :)

[meshou]

Wrong!

Whatever the merits of that philosophy, it is not their philosophy.Oh? How do you figure? It seems to be what they believe.
Adopting a submissive, deferential posture towards radical Muslims just to "make nice" will not make them more respectful of Western values, but less so. The jihadis will observe the efficacy of threats, riots, killings and continue that behavior because it works.I know this. It doesn't mean everyone believes this. Not everyone has the direct line to the truth you do, hm? perhaps some people see reality in ways you don't?


They will never become civilized unless they are made to do so. I notice you put "civilized" in scare quotes, suggesting you don't believe in the value of your own civilization.You're reading an awful lot into what I said.

I am not so absolutist to believe my own civilization is the pinnacle of civilized behavior. I'm not so subjective to say I'd be just as happy in a middle easter country. I put "civilized" in quotes because to put it in the most precise terms would take paragraphs, and I assumed no one would be nutsy enough to read stupid shit that isn't there into it. Apparently a luxury I don't have.


The jihadis notice this too, correctly interpreting it as weakness.look, you're dealing with fucking psychos who will interpret the phase of the fucking moon as a sigh from Mohammed himself that the rivers will run with our blood. They could read ANY western media outlet and start declairing victory because they're fucking nuts. I really fucking doubt the BB fucking C could say or do anything that could make them less insane or more likely to say "Wait... maybe we SHOULDN'T kill them!" but apparently you do.


Why would radical Muslims even become "civilized" if Westerners don't even seem to believe the word has meaning?It's a loaded, imprecise term. The muslem world is plenty "civilized." They have writing. They have infrastructure. They have fucking nukes.

It's a loaded, imprecise term is why I put it in quotes. It does not take into account, for example, that there are civlized nations that we'd legitimately consider fuckin psycho.


Westerners must make them realize that Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is a legitimate subject of criticism and ridicule.We also must realize that europe doesn't want to scrub its own toilets so it's importing poor muslems to do it. Muslems who come from a very differnt culture and will take time to integrate. Knowing history, yes, being really really nasty to immigrants usually does make that process longer.

I'm kind of admiring of europe in that regard. Here in the good old USA, we'll call em spics and talk about building fences while at the same time demanding our toilets get scrubbed cheap.

Maybe we shuld trade. I'm sure Mexicans and Central Americans, who are usually awesomely hard working, would love nice countrys that'll let em be there legally, give them health care, and pay them a living wage, and a fawning appreciative media sensitive to their religion and culture. The US and the Muslems can bitch at each other. Sounds perfect.


Tolerance for people with a differing opinion is an essential part of living in a Western society. This doesn't simply mean that we tolerate them, but that they also tolerate us. If these values are not communicated sharply things will just get worse.Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but you don't know if it won't in a couple generations. History is certainly on the BBC's side.

[Zephyrus055]

My good man, old money doesn't value itself in terms of bank balance. Class in old money is about genetics, heritage, name, state of mind; it's perfectly possible to be economically lower class whilst still culturally aristocratic :D

Unlike the nouveau riche, I don't need to have a huge bank balance behind me; my name is my currency, it and my upbringing are my greatest assets.
Awww... Well today money is power.

[Oculus Sinister]

I find it interesting that anyone thinks its possible for bias not to exist. No observation of any event is objective. All of us are unique observers.

[AMDG]

Awww... Well today money is power.

Not necessarily dude, not necessarily... ;)

But I certainly wouldn't call myself poor :)

[rainfall]

"who are biased against Christianity "

Well, that's a good thing. We need to get rid of christianity.

[RottenApple]

"who are biased against Christianity "

Well, that's a good thing. We need to get rid of christianity.

...but do you believe it should be singled out ?

[Dom]

This bias is well known, and seen, it is obvious to a half descerning brain.

How ever having been exponsed to sky news and worst still CNN I'd say even given it's bias' the reporting on the bbc is still much much more informed than other news channels.

The Anti-American bias has been overstated though, it seems to me, that is expressed in reporting on individuals and individual policies..

If my memeory servesm they were much much kinder on Clintons administration, and that suggests the bias is based on the individuals and policies. The BBC has a liberal bias, so it's bound to find Bush an affront, like most of us...

It's pro-islamic stance annoys me a little.. and the way they allow some ethnic minorities to pass over their responsibilities, I'm not trying to say that they are bad parents (as the example in the op suggests) and I'm not trying to understate how disadvantaged their situations often are, but total reject of them having any power to change this situation is an overstatement...

Anyway, the BBC still reports informed opinion, even if it is biased..

Who the hell in life isn't?

[Dom]

"who are biased against Christianity "

Well, that's a good thing. We need to get rid of christianity.

Why?

[cafe]

Awww... Well today money is power.
In the US money is power. Europe isn't the same as we are.

[cafe]

"who are biased against Christianity "

Well, that's a good thing. We need to get rid of christianity.
I suspect lending to a feeling of persecution of Christianity is not a good way to get rid of it.

[rainfall]

Why?
Like any religion, it's a brainwashing cult, and what's worse, due to their sizes and old roots it's a cult that's socially accepted. It's a terrible sutiation. Delusional people living their lives according to will of entity not proven to be existent. In fact, entity thought up from beginning of mankind to explain things one could not explain by any other means. Worst part is that these lunatics are forcing their "religious" views onto everyone, everywhere. Why are you smiling at me? Why are you giving me your shitty little pamplets about jesus and "soul" and "salvation"? Trust me, I have no "soul", nor do I seek "redemption".

But, to be honest, banning/eliminating religion would not solve anything. The problem is not the cult of religion, problem is that a very big portion of people are stupid, irrational, gullible and easily moldable. That part comprimises fundies of whatever religion you could pick. Gullible, ignorant fools are born everywhere around the world, and if they're born in US, they become christians, if they're born in middle east, they become moslems. Religion just preys on them and their emotions, whatever the name of religion is. "god" is just an invisible friend that helps them along. Universe is a cold place, unwelcoming, cruel. Humans are just a lifeform that appeared on a tiny spec of dust and water in this huge nothingness. At some point something will wipe it out, a meteorite, a black hole, super nova, sun exploding, war, disease, something. And it means nothing, all your day to day actions, the politics, the strife, the techonology, none of it will lead to anything just a lot of bones. But of course, before ending comes, there will be whole lot of suffering and pain.

*puts on his black nuclear fall out T-shirt* ;)


I suspect lending to a feeling of persecution of Christianity is not a good way to get rid of it.
Why not? If religious folks manage to keep some of the homos in closet, I think it's possible to scare and ostracize religious folks till they reject/hide their religiousness. I mean, imagine you'd get punched in face every time you tried to give out religious pamphlets on streets. Negative behaviour getting negative responce, conditional training and all that.

[cafe]

Why not? If religious folks manage to keep some of the homos in closet, I think it's possible to scare and ostracize religious folks till they reject/hide their religiousness. I mean, imagine you'd get punched in face every time you tried to give out religious pamphlets on streets. Negative behaviour getting negative responce, conditional training and all that.
Historically, it hasn't worked. Quite the opposite. Christianity is in it's element under persecution. It tends to go underground and grow.

[Serotonin]

If the same critical fervour were applied to all major media conglomerates, publicly funded or otherwise, then I imagine the level of bias in the BBC would be relatively mild.
But they are kept more on their toes because it runs off the public purse. Which in the long run, is a good thing.
What's strange is the "It's my money, so I should have a say in how it is run" broken records you hear everywhere. It's his and her money too, as much as yours though, and if it's really intolerable for you get involved in the organisation and facilitate change.

The value in publicly funded media is that the push for ratings rates lower in its priorities than its private counterparts. Personally the sensationalism and lowest-common-denominator programming (kinda ironic, since one would intuitively expect the BBC to program LCD because of the public purse) I see in commercial media is far more tiresome than liberal bias. So I'm an elitist prick. Eat me. At least picking out the faults of the BBC is a more intellectually stimulating exercise.

[AMDG]

Why not? If religious folks manage to keep some of the homos in closet, I think it's possible to scare and ostracize religious folks till they reject/hide their religiousness. I mean, imagine you'd get punched in face every time you tried to give out religious pamphlets on streets. Negative behaviour getting negative responce, conditional training and all that.

That pretty much is the way it is in western Europe. Believers believe against the grain of the norms of a vastly secular society. Kids get beaten up and bullied at school for going to church, people get looked at with suspicion if they mention that they're religious. If I mention it anywhere outside of the company of my fellow-believers, I can fully expect that I'll get a torrent of ignorant hostility towards what they think I believe. Most people of my age and younger don't know basic Old Testament stories and probably couldn't name more than one or two Apostles.

What it's done, is to winnow out of the churches most of the people who were just there for the social life, the status and the image, leaving behind mostly the people who genuinely care, who are now looking at themselves and their faith and the institutions of the churches and asking themselves where they went wrong, re-evaluating their interpretations and finding ways to reconcile their faith with the modern world and the realities of the past, to rebuild an inclusive and positive church that engages with the world, rather than trying to control it or discipline it.

If anything, it's making it stronger. At the moment, it appears superficially weaker, but European Christians are talking about the present time as 'post-Christianity', a time when Christians are demoted from the dominant force in society that they were in the middle ages or the administrative, institutional monster that they were in the Victorian times, and back to the underground movement that they were in Ancient Rome. Which is viewed by many as a much-needed and positive transition.

So there. :P

[rainfall]

AWESOME!!! ^_^

Just gotta find those hardcore fundies that don't give up, and execute them. :)

[Dom]

Like any religion, it's a brainwashing cult, and what's worse, due to their sizes and old roots it's a cult that's socially accepted. It's a terrible sutiation. Delusional people living their lives according to will of entity not proven to be existent. In fact, entity thought up from beginning of mankind to explain things one could not explain by any other means. Worst part is that these lunatics are forcing their "religious" views onto everyone, everywhere. Why are you smiling at me? Why are you giving me your shitty little pamplets about jesus and "soul" and "salvation"? Trust me, I have no "soul", nor do I seek "redemption".

But, to be honest, banning/eliminating religion would not solve anything. The problem is not the cult of religion, problem is that a very big portion of people are stupid, irrational, gullible and easily moldable. That part comprimises fundies of whatever religion you could pick. Gullible, ignorant fools are born everywhere around the world, and if they're born in US, they become christians, if they're born in middle east, they become moslems. Religion just preys on them and their emotions, whatever the name of religion is. "god" is just an invisible friend that helps them along. Universe is a cold place, unwelcoming, cruel. Humans are just a lifeform that appeared on a tiny spec of dust and water in this huge nothingness. At some point something will wipe it out, a meteorite, a black hole, super nova, sun exploding, war, disease, something. And it means nothing, all your day to day actions, the politics, the strife, the techonology, none of it will lead to anything just a lot of bones. But of course, before ending comes, there will be whole lot of suffering and pain.

*puts on his black nuclear fall out T-shirt* ;)


Most humans can not handle the bleakness of the 'truth' you are offering them, and most of the tennants of the christian faith are more benefical to society than are detrimental. The problems with fundies is that they have it wrong, take those one that picket outside abortion clinics and harrass the staff... I see no where in my New Testament where Jesus suggests anything like that... In fact the only close example of him getting violent was at the money changes in the court of the gentiles in the temple... more a suggestion that he gets upset out of making money from people wanting to worship than anythign else.

Overall taught by a sane human, it's all good stuff... Most important commandment was love god, and love everyone else... not sure just how you can take umbridge at that... sure there may not be a God, but I'm pretty certain forcing others to agree contravennes the second part.



Why not? If religious folks manage to keep some of the homos in closet, I think it's possible to scare and ostracize religious folks till they reject/hide their religiousness. I mean, imagine you'd get punched in face every time you tried to give out religious pamphlets on streets. Negative behaviour getting negative responce, conditional training and all that.

But they are still Homos in the closet or not, if you persecute you'll put them underground where they will get even more fundie untill they start blowign shit up...

[rainfall]

Most humans can not handle the bleakness of the 'truth' you are offering them, and most of the tennants of the christian faith are more benefical to society than are detrimental. The problems with fundies is that they have it wrong, take those one that picket outside abortion clinics and harrass the staff... I see no where in my New Testament where Jesus suggests anything like that... In fact the only close example of him getting violent was at the money changes in the court of the gentiles in the temple... more a suggestion that he gets upset out of making money from people wanting to worship than anythign else.
There is need for a new, godless doctrine that offers some amount of spiritual sentiment - enough to live in "bleak 'truth' ".


Overall taught by a sane human, it's all good stuff... Most important commandment was love god, and love everyone else... not sure just how you can take umbridge at that... sure there may not be a God, but I'm pretty certain forcing others to agree contravennes the second part.
Due to gullibility of religious people, it's also easy tricking them into doing whatever you want (and here are just some bright examples):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns-kPDVXACE
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8827/bigotrylc4.jpg
So you attract people with love of jesus(allah, buddha etc) and then use them for whatever means you need.


But they are still Homos in the closet or not, if you persecute you'll put them underground where they will get even more fundie untill they start blowign shit up...
Never heard of a homo blowing anything up before... See, homos, closeted or not, are mostly harmless. They don't influence politics, they don't have funding. Fine, be underground, live your little lie. But it would be a littttllleee hypocritical to blow shit up when the little black book you live by tells you to love your neighbour.