Yeah. Well, I wouldn't be happy defending lots of things. However, since the
list is hosted by jiscmail, an academic server, I've a background concern
that the list could be shut down if an unsympathetic view is taken of
things.
One might also remark, redundantly I suppose, that not all believers in the
Koran, Bible or whatever, are believers in violence.
Treacherous waters.
best
Randolph
----- Original Message -----
From: "MJ Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [POETRYETC] Thought for the day
> This I find, with all due respect, Randolph, pretty obscurantist - after
> centuries of ecclesiastical censorship & persecution on the one hand & on
> the other efforts to demystify what is after all the crude tendency of a
> lot of "sacred texts" to glorify violence in the name of the Lord
> (whatever his given name); there is no such privileged status for the
> writings of less successful sects, those which like the Cathars were
> genocidally eliminated by a coalition of Church & state, for the beliefs
> & rituals of those millions sacrificed by the Spanish invaders in what we
> now call "Latin" America in the name of G-. The Muslim invasion & conquest
> of India brought the deaths of almost a hundred million Hindus in its
> wake, this being placed on record and justified in the name of Allah by
> those responsible. And so it goes. If someone wants to defend the Koran,
> the Bible or the Book of Mormon from David's rather humorous charge, then
> fine, but waving the flag of "sacred text" is not going to protect any
> ideology from the weapons of criticism or the criticism of weapons, I
> hope, particularly on this list. Compared with the inflammatory tenor of
> some present-day calls to arms at least pretending to religious
> inspiration, the term "a load of bollocks" strikes me as rather mild.
> Best
> Martin
>
> wild honey press wrote:
>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> I'd prefer if you didn't call what some regard as sacred texts as a load
>> of bollocks.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Randolph
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Bircumshaw"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [POETRYETC] Thought for the day
>>
>>
>>> Dear Granpa
>>>
>>> now i dont listen to that thing daily, i just catch it now and again,
>>> BUT
>>> you are wrong - they have had at least one atheist talking, i know
>>> because i
>>> heard that one, point two, the emphasis in recent times has not been
>>> churchy, the star turns are a Sikh and a Jew, it does matter, in our
>>> society, that bridges are offered, i'm thinking this time about the
>>> terrible
>>> inter-racial violence that has beset Brum, that between
>>> Anglo-Caribeaeans
>>> ( can't spell that right this time of night) and Asians.
>>>
>>> These matters are scary, I had to occasion the other day to actually
>>> read
>>> the Qu'ran - in translation - it reminded me nothing so much as the Book
>>> of
>>> Mormon - i.e. a load of bollocks - but unfortunately a load of b. that
>>> justifies, exhorts in fact, violence. I thought parts of the Bible were
>>> nuts
>>> but this is in a class by its own.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Patrick McManus" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Thought for the day
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dave-Bertrand Russell as an atheist would not be invited -that is the
>>>> problem
>>>> For twenty tears or so other voices- than smoothy churchfolk (one
>>>> always
>>>
>>> if
>>>
>>>> caught before turning it off wonders- how they will get god into it)
>>>> other
>>>> voices have been trying to get heard-but it has some how been sewn
>>>> up-shame(like bishops being allowed as of right in the House of Lords?
>>>> P atheist P
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
>>>> poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Bircumshaw
>>>> Sent: 05 November 2005 19:56
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Thought for the day
>>>>
>>>> Roger, I doubt whether an advent of humanists or atheists would make
>>>> any
>>>> difference to the platitude output of TFTD. As I see it, in its
>>>> half-baked
>>>> way, it is doing a service in admiting the voices of other traditions
>>>
>>> (Sikh,
>>>
>>>> Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist) in an anodyne way to the actuality of
>>>> Britain. what is noticeably absent is the 'God-squad' - the right-wing
>>>> fundamentalist evangelical Christians - they don't get air-time.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its a fuzz, so are the services on long wave too, but I would
>>>> rather
>>>> that fuzz than other things. The way I read it is that it is a sprout
>>>> from
>>>> the liberal-humanist tradition (which is what is responsible, to an
>>>
>>> extent,
>>>
>>>> for what elements of being civilised this country has) - Bertrand
>>>> Russell,
>>>> if he were still alive, would not be out of place on it.
>>>>
>>>> All the Best
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Roger Day" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:27 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Thought for the day
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Patrick got it about right. The fact that the people on TFTD
>>>> sound so reasonable and cosy and warmsy marmite doesn't lessen their
>>>> status, or their fundamentalism. The fact that they're not (currently)
>>>> caling for anyone's head to be chopped doesn't essen their potential,
>>>> or the anomaly of this secular nation being treated to their
>>>> half-baked ideas and platitudes on a daily basis. A better leavening
>>>> of atheists and humanists wouldn't go amiss. Also, the anomaly of the
>>>> daily service on R4 long wave - that should have been dunked years
>>>> ago. The BBC sometimes feels as if the 1940s never ended. Orwell would
>>>> be quite at home, I think.
>>>>
>>>> The religious in the UK have their own radio and TV stations these
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>> On 11/5/05, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> > Well there was a certain irony in my choice of post title, Patrick. I
>>>> think
>>>> > you might give a rather wrong impression of the beeb thing to our US
>>>> > cousins - it's not, is it, by any means God-spouting fundamentalism,
>>>
>>> it's
>>>
>>>> > rather soft and soggy and very very multi-cultural : Sikhs, Muslims,
>>>
>>> Jews,
>>>
>>>> > Hindus as well as Christians do the speak. I think they had an
>>>> atheist
>>>> once
>>>> > as well. It is, generally speaking, quite harmless, and forgetable,
>>>
>>> apart
>>>
>>>> > from some of Rabbi Lionel Blum's jokes (at times!)
>>>> >
>>>> > Poets get a look in on R4 early too - there was Mr Horowitz
>>>> inimitably
>>>> > singing his ideas of how Blake should be a little while back. The
>>>> presenters
>>>> > have been known to quote Milton from memory (on Today I'm talking
>>>> about
>>>> > now) - imagine that across the waters.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best
>>>> >
>>>> > Dave
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Patrick McManus" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 9:37 AM
>>>> > Subject: Re: Thought for the day
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > 'Thought for the day' on our radio is religious propaganda/
>>>> > > brainwashing-/toshing posing as serious ideas-the BBC is
>>>> breaking its
>>>> > > charter on balance here -why not instead of religious pundits have
>>>
>>> some
>>>
>>>> > > real thinkers (now not allowed)or god help us!!!bring on the
>>>> lions or
>>>> even
>>>> > > some poets spouting off-protest now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> > > P atheist P
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.badstep.net/
>>>> http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 1.1277 (20051105) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> M.J.Walker - no blog - no webpage - no idea
>
> Nous ne faisons que nous entregloser. - Montaigne
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1277 (20051105) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
|