Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (29322)	2/13/2004 1:15:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

This is a nice explanation, karen, but does not fit the facts as I have observed them wrt to the Beeb. There is a discernible difference between 'showing the warts' on an institution in a reform minded way and a disdainful way, and I would say that the BBC does more of the latter wrt to Christianity. Also, given that the BBC is a British institution, and Britain has a long history of official anti-Catholicism, it is very questionable whether British lampooning of the Catholic Church can be viewed as comments on the "dominant" religion. If the BBC were lampooning the Church of England it would be different. Also, did I mention my opinion of the BBC's treatment of Judaism? As far as I can tell, the beeb thinks Judaism does not exist, certainly not as a religion. Certainly as regards the Middle East, only Muslims are mentioned as having religious sentiments, though they will occasionally mention that places like the Temple Mount are sacred to 3 religions. Though even there, I have heard them call it by its Arab name, al Haram al Sharif, as the primary name for the place. I think that Israelis, who are viewed as "western" are supposed to be atheists like all good westerners. (Indeed, most Israelis are secular.) The only time the BBC mentions Judaism as a religion is in the context of the religious Zionists, whose religious views they can safely dismiss as lunacy, and offensive colonialist lunacy at that.

To: Lane3 who wrote (29322)	2/14/2004 1:51:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

It is natural for people to be more critical of themselves and those nearest and dearest than they are of strangers For many people in the press and at least some in government conservative church members are strangers. The criticisms from are more often bashing of ideas and even people that seem alien to those in the media then they are balanced criticisms of people the media feel they are close to or similar to. (Of course it works both ways the "Religious right" also throw around poorly founded criticisms and bash the media and liberals as being ungodly or unamerican) I can also see why they might be so sensitive that they would loose sight of context. Folks who feel under siege loose skin thickness. I can see that too, and I can see that it can be a problem. But sometimes its not just feeling they are under siege. Many of their ideas really are under siege. Of course one could argue that it might be a good thing that some of these ideas are under siege. Tim