This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Where is Channel 4's 'Anne Atkins on gays' programme?

Where is Channel 4's 'Anne Atkins on gays' programme? - Comments

hayden_scott's Avatar Comment 1 by hayden_scott

Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country?

Agreed, who cares!

They’re the minority that dare not make a fuss (unlike their Muslim brethren), and so forfeit all right to being taken seriously.

No, they have a right (like anyone else) to make a fuss, and, depending on its merit, it may even be taken seriously.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:10:27 UTC | #476631

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 2 by Chris Roberts

So, it is bias for a non-catholic to comment on homosexuality, creationism and faith?

And as for faith schools. there may be some wonderful faith schools in this country that get phenomenal results - but that is not the issue. They are, by their very nature, devisive and primarily to promote their chosen faith and worldview - regardless of evidence and reason. If we need children who can read and write only, then there would be no issue. But we need scientists as well in the world, and learning that god did evolution so that Darwin could find it is no way to produce the biologists of the future - in my opinion.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:24:55 UTC | #476636

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 3 by Cartomancer

I can think of no-one better to present a programme on faith schools than Richard. Looks like Channel 4 are committed to rational, unbiased, pro-education programming after all. I can think of few people better to present a programme on Joseph Ratzinger than Peter Tatchell either. Faith schools are unnecessary, divisive and utterly without excuse in a modern secular society, and the pope is a dangerous medieval-minded bigot whose policies are responsible for the deaths of millions and the oppression and suffering of millions more. Even showing the tiniest mote of respect, deference or admiration to these institutions is grossly insulting both to their victims and to common human decency.

It is very interesting, though, that Ms Odone brings up the points she does about faith schools. These are either attempts to point to the things ALL schools do, or outright lies. It seems her only way to defend one specific faith school is by pointing out that it DOESN'T teach creationism or any kind of religious dogma. The claim that they are higher-achieving academically is utterly bogus, because the vast majority of faith schools are selective. When you take this into account, and look at the "value-added" measures of achievement rather than the overall results, the figures actually show them UNDER-performing by about 5%.

Also, the idea that these schools foster a culture of "respect and responsibility" is laughable. If they did then we would expect to see lower statistics for bullying and suchlike in faith schools, whereas there is actually little difference overall and, in some specific cases, MORE bullying in faith schools. Studies by Stonewall have shown that gay pupils at faith schools are more than 10 percent more likely to be subjected to anti-gay bullying, and 23 percent less likely to feel they can tell anyone about their sexuality. If this is a culture of "respect and responsibility" which "supports society's most marginalised members" then I dread to think what a culture of intolerance and bigotry that doesn't would look like. I do hope Richard intends to address statistics such as these in his programme - they need to be disseminated as widely as possible.

And all this is before we take into account the very real problems of segregated communities in places like Northern Ireland, Bradford and the Middle East.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:43:37 UTC | #476638

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 4 by Tyler Durden

They chose as presenter the comic Sean Hughes. This struck me as gross, given that Hughes was (in theory if not in practice) a funny man, an avowed atheist and had no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church.

Sean Hughes is of Irish descent, and spent most of his life living in Dublin, Ireland.

Seriously, how could one have "no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church" all the while living in Catholic-run Ireland?

Odone is a moron.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:49:48 UTC | #476639

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 5 by Philoctetes

I wonder if Christina Odone supports madrassers or just christian and Jewish faith schools. Learning should be about understanding and not subject to the drag factors of dogma. Neither should it be about accentuating the tiny differences in dogma which can widen divisions within society. Clearly Odone believes that only those whom have undergone a religious education are qualified to be impartial reporters into the actions of people and organisations that happen to be religious. Where will this end? Will we recruit denominational police. Oh we did that in Northern Ireland with disastrous results. Then there was the spanish inquisition and the saudi religious police. "Is that what you want (said that great philosopher H Enfield) 'cos that's what'll 'appen"

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:53:51 UTC | #476641

jaytee_555's Avatar Comment 6 by jaytee_555

Yet another sloppy journalist who doesn't think deeper than her own personal emotions. Why doesn't she engage with the arguments? And who the hell does she think she is to be patronaising about Richard Dawkins? Damn cheeky, I call it.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:15:56 UTC | #476647

Corylus's Avatar Comment 7 by Corylus

Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country? They’re the minority that dare not make a fuss (unlike their Muslim brethren), and so forfeit all right to being taken seriously.

She says, while making a fuss in her newspaper column - for a paper that has a daily readership of just under two million.

(Rolls eyes)

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:20:02 UTC | #476649

PERSON's Avatar Comment 8 by PERSON

Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country? I'm not sure, but they must be a right bunch of idiots.

'Anne Atkins on gays' In which she explores the horrific crimes of gays, such as not being committed to each other and wanting to get married, being gay, admitting being gay and being gay, in a variety of interviews with bulging eyed, sweating, twitchy evangelical men about their concerns: luggage, wide stances, the impact of instant messaging, and so on. On her journey, she will constantly witter on about how much she loves gays, and wishes they would stop making baby jesus cry, all the while maintaining a joyous aura of smug satisfaction and irrepressible condescending irritatingness.

The program will be followed by a party political broadcast by Exxon Mobil. Oh wait, they've done that one.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:58:51 UTC | #476654

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 9 by phasmagigas

Blockquote

How appropriate, huh? Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, getting his hooks into his favourite hate figure. Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country? They’re the minority that dare not make a fuss (unlike their Muslim brethren), and so forfeit all right to being taken seriously.

Blockquote

so a gay gay presenting a show about the pope will offend 4 milion?? a bit of fatwa envy thrown in for good measure. taken seriously? well if those people didnt look up to the pope and instead see him for the ridiculous clown he really is then maybe they could be taken seriously.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:25:18 UTC | #476665

Mattmon's Avatar Comment 10 by Mattmon

Where is Channel 4's 'Anne Atkins on gays' programme?

Fox News?

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:28:46 UTC | #476667

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 11 by Jos Gibbons

Where is Channel 4’s “Anne Atkins on Gays” programme?

Channel 4 has a long–standing practice of using separate shows to present each side of a controversy. For example, Rod Liddle’s The Problem With Atheism aired soon after RD’s “Root of All Evil?” (a title they insisted on to create extra cointroversy, much to RD’s consternation – all he could append was the question mark, and Liddle might even have faced similar problems). If an anti–pope show with a gay presenter is made as part of this, the antithesis might be a pro–pope piece, but probably not an anti–gay piece with a Catholic presenter. Insofar as Channel 4 perceives a debate over the pope to exist, they don’t see it as down to Catholics and gays not standing each other; in fact, it’s not really about Catholics at all.

… on paedophile priests. They chose as presenter … an avowed atheist [who] had no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church. The incident proved … anti-Catholic bias

It’s just Channel 4’s standard practice – let each side be told separately, by a presenter who agrees with it. I do not necessarily support the move myself, but it is that which is going on here, not anything indicative of a bias. They’ll probably have something else to balance it out later, as with the RD-Liddle example.

Peter Tatchell (on Benedict XVI) and Richard Dawkins (on faith schools). … Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, getting his hooks into his favourite hate figure. Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country? They’re the minority that dare not make a fuss (unlike their Muslim brethren), and so forfeit all right to being taken seriously.

While I agree Catholic Britons (who I doubt are that numerous, at least in terms of sincere believers) lack some annoying properties of the loudest Muslims, they can hardly be described as silent. Nor is it right to worry about people being “offended”. You’re going to have to state the arguments for a side sooner or later and thereby “offend” anyone on the other side, and only with religion does anyone bother mentioning it. It is worth noting that Channel 4’s policies, while in a certain sense balanced, require their presenters to take a strong view, in one half of cases a negative one.

[8 years ago] Dawkins claimed [a school] taught creationism … [Ofsted] found no such thing. [4 years later] the school’s head of science … was discovered to be a member of Truth in Science, a group that questions evolution. The school immediately issued a statement saying that it did not share Layfield’s views, and Layfield resigned from Truth in Science. When … I went to visit the school [which RD didn’t] the first image to greet me was a portrait of Charles Darwin. Hardly the sign of a backward-looking establishment refuting the great man’s work.

A school had an evolution–denying head of science, and you think we can be sure no creationism was taught just because Ofsted didn’t catch them? It is very easy to fool Ofsted into thinking you don’t do things, by just taking a week off from it, and Channel 4 has previously demonstrated through undercover tactics what goes on the rest of the time is far more extremist. A Darwin cut–out proves only a fascination with the man behind the idea. Creationists are even more likely to exhibit this than scientists, as they try to rubbish his ideas by rubbishing him. RD drew attention to a situation that shouldn’t have been happening. That it apparently wasn’t happening 4 years later doesn’t prove wrong his suspicions.

let this film portray faith schools as the high-achieving academic oases they are, the one chance for many children from a disadvantaged background to get a proper education

Only because not enough good schools use intelligence tests instead of socio–economic biases such as the catchment area method. Faith schools indirectly exhibit these problems anyway.

[let RD] explore the extraordinary ethos that teaches respect and responsibility, as well as the importance of an enquiring mind, found in faith schools

Let you prove they do before you insist no–one be allowed to be critical of them. The enquiring mind idea is especially hard to take on board, since faith by definition specifies exemptions be made to inquiry. As for responsibility, which religious ideas inspire that? The view that confession and a few Hail Marys makes it all better, however you have caused harm? The idea that we are all born sinful and that this is not a matter of what one does? The idea many if not all alternatives to some specific faith guarantee damnation regardless of decisions? Or maybe the equivocation of masturbation and murder as both “sins”. As for this idea of respect, for whom? How much do you “respect” someone you think is going to hell? Why should we use them–us divisions in education to achieve what is good?

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:41:18 UTC | #476672

Lisa Bauer's Avatar Comment 12 by Lisa Bauer

In addition to "schools" like the Emmanuel Community Technical College, perhaps Richard could also visit Jewish schools and Muslim schools -- here I'm thinking of Yusuf Islam's Islamic faith schools, Islamia Primary School, Islamia Girls' Secondary School, and Brondesbury College, a secondary school for boys, all in London. (Well, it's a thought!)

I'm also interested in what Peter Tatchell will say about the Pope...sadly I can't imagine any large US channels that would even dream about putting on such a program, for fear of, among other things, attracting the wrath of William Donohue's Catholic League!

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 12:50:58 UTC | #476675

Rachel Holmes's Avatar Comment 13 by Rachel Holmes

Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, getting his hooks into his favourite hate figure. Who cares that in doing so he will be offending the more than four million Catholics in this country?

Yes, Cristina, we realise that the notion of equality for homosexuals is offensive to neanderthals like yourself.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:48:32 UTC | #476688

at3p's Avatar Comment 14 by at3p

She reminds of Monty Python and the complaint bits between sketches.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:18:53 UTC | #476699

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 15 by Pete.K

Comment 4 by Tyler Durden :

Sean Hughes is of Irish descent, and spent most of his life living in Dublin, Ireland.

Seriously, how could one have "no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church" all the while living in Catholic-run Ireland?

Odone is a moron.

If I recall correctly, Sean Hughes even stated that he was brought up in a Catholic household, I can only assume that, like so many brought up in a faith household, he eschewed the doctrine when he was old enough to make up his own mind, as did my father, and many more!

I really can't believe in the day and age that faith schools would be allowed, I recall being split up from friends when they went to different schools as we progressed through the three tier system that was in operation then, how divisive is that!

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:08:42 UTC | #476745

Ophelia Benson's Avatar Comment 16 by Ophelia Benson

Oh, this is disgusting stuff.

You could sue her for libel, Richard. Of course you wouldn't, but you could. That remark about "peddling lies" is libelous. I bet she wouldn't have used it if she didn't know god damn well that you wouldn't sue her for doing so. I bet the Telegraph wouldn't have published it if it didn't know the same thing.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:15:11 UTC | #476750

lazarus's Avatar Comment 17 by lazarus

I wrote recently about the BBC producing a short film for The One Show on paedophile priests. They chose as presenter the comic Sean Hughes. This struck me as gross, given that Hughes was (in theory if not in practice) a funny man, an avowed atheist and had no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church.

How does having knowledge of the Catholic affect the wrongs of paedophile ?

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:21:33 UTC | #476751

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 18 by phasmagigas

Blockquote

I wrote recently about the BBC producing a short film for The One Show on paedophile priests. They chose as presenter the comic Sean Hughes. This struck me as gross, given that Hughes was (in theory if not in practice) a funny man, an avowed atheist and had no knowledge of the contemporary Catholic Church. The incident proved to me that anti-Catholic bias in broadcasting is alive and well.

Blockquote

well i guess they could have used a serious believing non lapsed catholic instead as that would have made the paedophilia bit somehow more palatable??

grrr, damn quotes, i still cant do this.

Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:52:20 UTC | #476782

Richie P's Avatar Comment 19 by Richie P

What an absurd and naive article. I love the bit where she seems completely in denial about the Creationism peddling Emmanuel College.

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:02:07 UTC | #476816

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 20 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Comment 18 by phasmagigas

grrr, damn quotes, i still cant do this.

Including a link is my personal Schleswig-Holstein question - I had the answer once but have now forgotten it.

sigh

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:08:30 UTC | #476818

Corylus's Avatar Comment 21 by Corylus

Comment 20 by Ivan The Not So Bad :

Including a link is my personal Schleswig-Holstein question - I had the answer once but have now forgotten it.

sigh

Personally I...

  • Open the page I wish to link to in a tabbed browser.
  • Highlight the address bar and press "ctrl and c" for a copy.
  • Then I tab back to RD.Net and press the little globe icon at the top of the editor.
  • Press "ctrl and v" for a paste at the prompt for an address.
  • Write a title for the link in between over the 'link text' bit which shows in square brackets in the editor text.
  • Example: Wikipedia

    There might be an easier way of doing it, but in the absence of the instructions on how to use the editor, I am unaware of it.

    P.S. You can check links work by resting your mouse on the link shown in the preview box, right clicking and selecting 'open link in new tab'.

    Updated: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:44:14 UTC | #476830

    SeanSantos's Avatar Comment 22 by SeanSantos

    The Catholic Church has a direct line into the hearts and minds of millions of people, and they are complaining that their critics get a bit of news time.

    That sounds fair-minded.

    Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:11:17 UTC | #476839

    Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 23 by Michael Gray

    If I recall correctly Christina Odious has defamed Richard on previous occasions, and makes a 'habit' of being 'controversial'. For what reasons, one may only guess, but it surely can't hurt the advertising revenue of the Telegraph, having legions of annoyed sane folk clicking on their articles, and giving their email addresses in order to comment against her bile!

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:13:25 UTC | #476938

    Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 24 by Tyler Durden

    Richard Dawkins is responsible for peddling a lot of lies about faith...

    Richard,

    Will you be taking any action against Odone/Telegraph for such libelous statements?

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:36:09 UTC | #476956

    keddaw's Avatar Comment 25 by keddaw

    But it is more than anti-Catholic, it is anti-faith. Anti-Faith, eh? So if Sean Hughes believed in things without evidence, like alien abduction, then he'd be a fitting presenter for a program on Catholic priests raping children? But as he only believes the evidence he can justify he has no place having an opinion of the rape and cover-up of child rape let alone presenting a program on said abuses?

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:47:33 UTC | #476958

    atheistinchurch's Avatar Comment 26 by atheistinchurch

    Will be great to see Richard Dawkins present a programme on faith schools - these institutions are given a free pass by much of the UK media.

    I have a vested interest in seeing these schools examined: I am caught up in the whole unfair system. Unlike the poor, discriminated against Odone I don't get to pontificate endlessly in the press about them. I have set up a blog as a small contribution to the debate: http://atheistinchurch.wordpress.com/

    Updated: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 06:20:33 UTC | #476963

    SeculR's Avatar Comment 27 by SeculR

    Well why wait until the programmes have hit the screen. Heck, let's get in there and criticise before they've even been made!

    But then again, if you spend your life worshipping something that doesn't exist, it's but a small step to go on to criticise TV shows that don't yet exist either.

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:16:45 UTC | #476986

    Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 28 by Ivan The Not So Bad

    Comment 21 by Corylus re. inserting links

    I had it, lost it and now, many thanks to you, have it again - but in a different way.

    Whatever, it is now committed firmly to memory.

    My next challenge - and that of not a few others by the look of it - is to work on a method to stop the blockquote inserting unwanted paras and spaces.

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:50:55 UTC | #477011

    Ophelia Benson's Avatar Comment 29 by Ophelia Benson

    Tyler Durden asks if Richard will be taking action against Odone and the Telegraph for her libelous claim that Richard "peddles lies" about "faith". Of course he won't, because of course he doesn't want to resort to the grotesque UK libel laws. The thing is, the cowardly and malicious Odone must be relying on that very fact, and so must the Telegraph - because if they weren't, they wouldn't risk it.

    In other words Odone and the Telegraph are exploiting Richard's principles for the purpose of defaming him. It's beyond contemptible.

    I did a rather heated post on the subject yesterday.

    George Pitcher does exactly the same thing in his foul-mouthed attacks on Evan Harris, by the way. He knows damn well Harris won't sue - so he accuses him of everything but cannibilism.

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:47:20 UTC | #477040

    PERSON's Avatar Comment 30 by PERSON

    In other words Odone and the Telegraph are exploiting Richard's principles for the purpose of defaming him. It's beyond contemptible. I did a rather heated post on the subject yesterday. George Pitcher does exactly the same thing in his foul-mouthed attacks on Evan Harris, by the way. He knows damn well Harris won't sue - so he accuses him of everything but cannibalism.

    This rather emphasises why an outright ban on libel cases is a bad idea. But of course, even if Dawkins brought a legitimate, reasonable case, he'd be called a hypocrite because he's so hated by right-wing hacks for various other reasons.

    Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:16:52 UTC | #477047