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

← Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show - Comments

briankelly321's Avatar Comment 1 by briankelly321

Look inside the DVD box for THE TRIANGLE...

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:50:00 UTC | #414849

Eamonn Shute's Avatar Comment 2 by Eamonn Shute

The programme is 2 hours long, but Richard starts at 8 minutes.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:51:00 UTC | #414850

Mr Blue Sky's Avatar Comment 3 by Mr Blue Sky

Quite disappointing that OUR BBC needed to employ the services of Joanna Bogle who was like a fundie on speed. RD was at a bit of a disadvantage and Jeremy should have got a better grip and known about TGSOE and the Bus campaign since it was previously discussed on his programme. Still, at least it was another bit of exposure and every little helps.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:52:00 UTC | #414851

Jeremy Collins's Avatar Comment 4 by Jeremy Collins

I didn't think this was the best of interviews. Especially towards the end, when the interviewer raised the pragmatic issue, it just seemed unclear why we're so concerned about 'labelling' children.
I also disagree with Richard saying that he didn't want to interfere with parents teaching their children about the world, and that all we're objecting to is the assumption embodied in a label that the child has already made their mind up. Is this a case of bending over backwards? I'd love it if instead we can insist that it is simply immoral to teach children non-evidence-based views. I have absolutely no qualms about 'interfering' in this way.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:12:00 UTC | #414855

donttellhimpike's Avatar Comment 5 by donttellhimpike

Usual cack about morality from the 24 year old caller. The muslim guy commenting about his moral duty to teach his religion (his religion mind, no one else's).

He states, "My children are starting to ask questions". What, like "why can't mummy leave the house on her own?" And, "why can't I eat during the day/sausages/humanely killed animals/with both hands?" Etc, etc, blah, blah, Jeremy bloody Vine was about as useful as Chris Moyles on this interview. Time for some license fee ranting I think.

Oh, and where did they dig up the hysterical Bogle. Shrill and strident anyone?

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:14:00 UTC | #414857

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 6 by Chris Roberts

Off topic (because I havn't listened to it yet) but I've just noticed this:

Darwin's Brave New World
History channel, 24/11

http://tv.sky.com/darwins-brave-new-world?DCMP=DMC-HighServ_CG

Looks good.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:21:00 UTC | #414859

donttellhimpike's Avatar Comment 7 by donttellhimpike

Ok, there were some good points. Consciousness raised for those listening (good). Bogel sounding like she was dragged in from a patch of waste ground where she was partaking of her favourite past time - making roaring noises (good).

I don't know why but the impression formed in my mind of some panda-eyed, empty-gin-bottle-clutching, straw-haired mentalist with colourful facial bruises. No? Just me then.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:30:00 UTC | #414867

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 8 by the great teapot

Why does Richard say "she", when refering to a child.
Nowadays children can grow up and determine their gender for themselves.
Surely "it" is more appropriate.
Thank God that's over I can stop listening to radio 2 now.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:37:00 UTC | #414870

MrPickwick's Avatar Comment 9 by MrPickwick

That catholic woman (the one with the power to read Richard's mind) was a real scary witch! (and strident)

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:48:00 UTC | #414878

The-bleeding-obvious's Avatar Comment 10 by The-bleeding-obvious

Dont think children were baptised in the bible, only adults!

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:02:00 UTC | #414881

peteabel's Avatar Comment 11 by peteabel

Jeremy Vine! Were you being deliberately obtuse. What a terrible interview. Richard spent the whole time trying to get his basic point across and they were both just too thick to get it

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:03:00 UTC | #414882

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 12 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Meanwhile, in Belfast, the poster is already stirring things up:

http://tinyurl.com/ygdhpjh

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:09:00 UTC | #414884

Matt H.'s Avatar Comment 13 by Matt H.

I can't believe how rude that woman was. I find it irritating how Richard Dawkins is called strident, shrill etc, while religionists like Bogle get away scot free.

Did anyone else listen to the callers afterwards? Some of the non-sequiturs were truly stunning. One woman said she brought her children up in the Christian faith because she wanted them to brush their teeth. Another said being Christians made her children not litter the streets.

I thought it very unfair how Jeremy Vine misrepresented Richard's position after the discussion ended. He asked his listeners something along the lines of, "Should Christians be allowed to teach their children Jesus was the son of god?", knowing full well Richard was very insistent that he objected to the LABELLING of children, not the decision of parents to educate their children about a particular religion.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:21:00 UTC | #414886

Thurston's Avatar Comment 14 by Thurston

My ability to spot a stupid woman is improving: 0.0003 seconds after Joanna Bogle began speaking. A new record.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:21:00 UTC | #414887

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 15 by InYourFaceNewYorker

HAHA That woman got so defensive.

Julie

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:00 UTC | #414890

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 16 by Ivan The Not So Bad

@Matt H

Jeremy Vine is a well-known christian and often goes on about it.

He once complained that the BBC did not allow him to bring it into his broadcasts and was unable to see that he was being treated no differently to every other presenter who is told to keep their political views to themselves when working and behave professionally and impartially at all times.

But no, he's religious and that's special.

I remember one TV interview he gave about his faith when the interviewer asked him what he would do if one of his children fell ill. Would he trust in god and pray for them to get better or would he trust in science and take them to a doctor?

He was first struck dumb, then started to phisically wriggle in discomfort. This was followed by some umming and erring before he finally confessed he would choose science.

Toe curling.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:43:00 UTC | #414892

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 17 by Rawhard Dickins

It's sad that people make decisions to choose religion because they're either unaware of the whole picture or couldn't understand it if they were. (Helped along with a good dose of indoctrination of course).

So if they want to believe in mythology, miracles and ideas that are in opposition to current knowledge, so be it. But please don't pass it on to the next generation.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:45:00 UTC | #414893

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 18 by Mitch Kahle

This is a weak argument in my opinion.

Dawkins should stick to asserting that all religious indoctrination is child abuse, which it most definitely is.

Dawkins contradicts himself, when he claims to have "no problem with parents teaching their children anything" - this is not true.

Dawkins (and the rest of us here) has a huge problem with parents teaching children lies, which is what all religion is.

This smacks of political correctness and Richard should know better.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:51:00 UTC | #414897

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 19 by Peacebeuponme

Ivan The Not So Bad

He was first struck dumb, then started to phisically wriggle in discomfort. This was followed by some umming and erring before he finally confessed he would choose science.
Yes. I had heard second-hand that he was asked whether he would take his ill child to a church or a hospital, and his response was something like:

"A church....No, what I am I thinking. A hospital of course."

To have to even think about it is pretty alarming.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:07:00 UTC | #414901

sheepscarer's Avatar Comment 20 by sheepscarer

The Belfast Muslim's comment (from Ivan's link)
"We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.”

Suggests a fairly simple natural experiment I would suggest.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:26:00 UTC | #414909

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 22 by Peacebeuponme

sheepscarer

Wouldn't the appropriate response be to ask why they need to teach the faith if it is implanted at birth?

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:43:00 UTC | #414915

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 21 by Sally Luxmoore

Joanna Bogel is very much into illogicality and ranting.
See her on the catholic anti condom policy in Africa. She gets worse and worse. What a ghastly woman.
Whoever put her against Richard was trying to sabotage what he was saying. This woman is not rational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXNcV6Jbimc

At least Jon Snow on this YouTube clip stood up to her in a way that Jeremy Vine did not. My opinion of Jeremy Vine has plummeted after this 'interview'.
Richard definitely scored a point and got her to shut up successfully after pointing out how ill-mannered she was.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:43:00 UTC | #414914

Sandra S's Avatar Comment 23 by Sandra S

12. Comment #433274 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Taken from the article:

“I would totally reject the advertisement. It is reprehensible and so typical of the hypocrisy of the British Humanist Association today. They have a defeatist attitude and are just trying to draw attention to themselves. I think it is totally arrogant, presumptuous and sparks of total hypocrisy. I believe this doesn’t deserve a counter campaign. I will be expressing my public position on it in my own church on Sunday. I will be saying that this advert is another attack on the Biblical position of the family and will be totally rejecting it.”

There's just so much wrong with this statement that I wouldn't know where to start.

Yes, everything is an attack on you and your Bible, isn't it? No, it's an attack on you shoving your Bible down your kids' throats and forcing them to identify as kids with Bible down their throats rather than the Qur'an.
“It is none of their business how people bring up their children.

Yes, I agree, I too think people should be allowed to tell their kids that they're marxists (and that they'll burn in hell if they ever reject it), and people should be allowed to do with their kids as they please, it's not like the kids are actually human after all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580159/Russian-bird-boy-discovered-in-aviary.html

Totally justified, none of peoples' business that he was brought up to be a bird.


17. Comment #433283 by Rawhard Dickins

I'm sorry, but your name always makes me smile. I think I might be twelve or something...

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:49:00 UTC | #414918

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 25 by Nunbeliever

I'm sorry to say, I can't really see why this matter is of such importance. Can someone please explain to me. Yes, of course labels are always bad when forced upon people.

But, from a child's perspective. In which way is it damaging for the child to be labelled accordingly with their parents' faith? Could anyone give me some concrete examples. Because I honestly can't see why this is such an important issue. To me it feels like it's more about the PRINCIPLE of not labelling people without their consent than actual consequences for the child.

But, yes of course! Consciousness raising is always a good thing. I just think there possibly could be issues more urgent to address than this one.


EDIT: At the campaign website the only real argument they put forward is that labels serve as obstacles to understanding between children around the world.

Still I would say that religious indoctrination is the real issue here. I mean, people who are conservative believers do not see their faith as a label. It's the only alternative. They see it as their parental duty to raise their children to become true believers. Everything else would be a failure. So I can't really see how they could ever gain consciousness on this matter. That would by definition make them liberal. People who are more liberal from the start do not label their kids anyway...

I think they are attacking this issue from the wrong direction. The real issue is conservatism. Without conservatism no religious indoctrination and hence no need for labels.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:50:00 UTC | #414920

j.mills's Avatar Comment 24 by j.mills

I aren't a'gonna listen to this, it will make me cringe. Everything about Vine's pre-chewed pablum pseudo-discussion programme depresses me: journalism at its feeblest. Combine that with not-listening-not-listening religiots over-shouting RD and the usual assortment of thinkless callers... No, I'll pass.

Shame, 'cos most of Radio 2 is jolly good!

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:50:00 UTC | #414919

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 26 by mjwemdee

Normally I never listen to Radio 2 and listening to the execrable Jeremy Vine now I remember why. His voice also has that dreadful repetitive tic called, I believe, 'rising terminals' where every statement goes up at the end and sounds like a question.

The Bogle woman did protest too much, methinks.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:54:00 UTC | #414922

Lithium_joe's Avatar Comment 27 by Lithium_joe

Just listening to the callers in - I wonder what was said at the catholic funeral mass that might inspire someone to get themselves baptised? The delights of heaven and the terrors or hellfire perhaps? The desire to *really believe very, very hard* that death is not the end?

Colour me unimpressed.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:05:00 UTC | #414926

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 28 by Sally Luxmoore

Comment #433310 by Nunbeliever

It's important because it links into the mentality that sees nothing wrong with faith schools. The children already 'belong' to X or Y religion, so why get upset about sending them to a school run by that same X or Y group...

Without labelling people would see faith schools for what they are - childhood indoctrination.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:12:00 UTC | #414928

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

12. Comment #433274 by Ivan The Not So Bad

“We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth.


So does this mean Jews are actually born muslim? That would be interesting.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:00 UTC | #414931

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 30 by TIKI AL

What an American living in Arizona learned from listening to the BBC today:

Only Anglican children are taught "proper hygiene".

Oy!

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:26:00 UTC | #414933