is how the BBC’s Nisha Pillai introduced a report by Brian Barron about the growth of Christian music, radio and publishing in the US on BBC News 24’s Reporters programme this week. Did you notice a far right putsch in the US last November? Me neither, though I do recall a democratic election – one in which the winner took office in accordance with the law. Either the BBC’s definition of ‘America’s far right’ is very broad, covering 50% plus of American voters or they’re spinning us their interpretation of reality again.
Notice also the conflation in Pillai’s introduction of ‘far right’ with ‘evangelical Christians’ – a faulty presumption, slipped in as if fact. Whilst there may be some individuals who fall into both groups, I am sure there are many in each group who would be aghast at being tarred with the brush of the other.
This conflation isn’t an isolated occurence – Joan Bakewell, reviewing the Sunday papers on the BBC’s Frost on Sunday this morning referred, with considerable angst, to “far right Christians” protesting about the forthcoming national tour of Jerry Springer, The Opera, tarring the right with the brush of apparent religious intolerance, quite at odds with the typical British right-of-centre view on matters like this, namely to let them all get on with it – let the theatre producers put on their play, let the protestors have their protest, so long as whatever is done is peaceful and within the law – although recent events in Birmingham, where Sikh protestors disrupted and forced the cancellation of a theatre play they didn’t like, may make these particular Christians feel that intimidation
works in Blair’s Britain, since the police declined to enforce the law to the extent necessary to protect free speech in the Birmingham case. Not that Bakewell mentioned any of this while slandering the right.
Wonderful how they have to fit everything into a secular-reason-Left and a religious-fundamentalist-Right world. Given that the English Right has very little links with Evangelism, it’s quite likely that a lot of those “far right Christians” have very Leftish views on economics and international policy. Even in the US, before the parties polarised, Evangelists got Carter elected.
Yes I noticed that patrician lefty Bakewell’s “right wing” comment.
Frost was followed by a Sunday “all one people” type prog with a report on architecture in Casablanca. The Christian cathedral is now an arts centre, having been a squat after ceasing use as a church. The reporter says “Just imagine what a splendid place when” …. A place of worship? No, a squat. “Imagine being brought back to this pad” What, for a f***?
Also on Friday’s R4 “Today” Humphrys interviews the Archbishop of Perth on the Angican split.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/friday.shtml
Humphrys asks how the Archbish would convince a fundamentalist that the Bible supported homosexual practices. Humphrys had decided that those fundamentalists would be beyond argument.
Humphrys seemed to ignore both that it would be very difficult to find biblical support for such behaviour & also that it was the supporters of homosexual clergy that were being sidelined – not the “fundamentalists”.
Normblog has an account of the distorted picture of Iraq told from the BBC & other MSM bunkers.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/02/counting_on_fai.html
did anyone see the vile kirsty wark doing a piece on newsnight friday about the increase in rape cases and the decrease in the number of prosecutions ?
young women out binge drinking were targeted by rapists she said on several occasions, a lamentable situation indeed, however at no point did la wark suggest that young women may help themselves by not getting blind drunk and wandering off into the wee small hours alone.
call me old fashioned, but it seems to me that the arguements proffered by the bbc in particular and the left in general are way out of kilter with simple common sense and with most people.
And meanwhile, the Beeb flatters, promotes and sucks up to the really far right religious group in their midst.
Yeah, I’m not talking about the ones who would just raise a few eyebrows at the question of gay clergyman, but the ones who would want to throw them off of tall buildings.
Like Red Ken’s best bud, Sheikh al-Qaradawi, who sends the Beeb and the al-Guardian crowd into fits of orgasmic ecstasy.
It’s worth remembering Bush’s comments about not wanting to bash gays.
Most “Middle Americans” are not anti-gay or “homophobic”. They are, however (especially working class Americans) concerned about the institution of marriage being weakened and thus society itself being weakened.
That may seem silly to metropolitan sophisticates, but it matters alot to working class Americans.
It has very little to do with “homophobia”.
Marius
You say “at no point did la wark suggest that young women may help themselves by not getting blind drunk and wandering off into the wee small hours alone”.
In a free country young women are perfectly at liberty to get drunk and wander around at any time of the day or night, provided that they are not causing harm to anyone else. You are quite right to raise points about the BBC’s silly and dishonest coverage of the issue, but you surely should stand by the right of any person to go about his to her lawful business (or pleasure) without being harmed.
Zevilyn
I yield to no man when it comes to recognising the silliness of metropolitan sophisticates; nor indeed when it comes to recognising the basic decency and common sense of “ordinary people” (as the BBC likes to call us).
Nonetheless, I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to marry can weaken the institution of marriage. It seems to me that the greater danger lies with those who seem to think sharing life with one person is a bit much to ask. Hollywood types are notable in this respect, and seem to be vying with one another to see who can remain married for the shortest amount of time.
If as a society we place too low a value on marriage you can hardly blame homosexuals who have been (and still largely are) excluded from it.
James,
I agree, but I think there is an issue of responsibility here. If I wander around town with a wodge of 20-pound notes sticking prominently out of my top pocket, as I have every right to do, but then have them stolen by a fleet-footed passer-by I won’t get any sympathy. What’s more, I’d expect a pretty withering response if I then insisted that not enough was being done (always by others) to allow me to exercise that right unmolested.
Or are women special cases?
John
No, women aren’t a special case. If you were to wander around with your money sticking out of your pocket as you describe, and then that money was stolen, I would certainly sympathise with you. Perhaps you were being careless, but that doesn’t justify a crime being committed against you.
Your analogy is a little misleading, however. It is hardly a significant constraint on your activities to keep your money secure in a pocket. It is much more of an imposition to expect people to adopt self-imposed curfews. Some years ago I was mugged after being irresponsible enough to remain in the pub until closing time and then walk home on my own. Curse my recklessness, but, even after this happened I continue to go out at night. Clearly I’m asking for trouble.
James Hope: “Nonetheless, I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to marry can weaken the institution of marriage.”
Because the definition of marriage that is commonly understood is one between a single adult man and a single adult woman, who are not related to each other, with the purpose of providing a stable, secure, environment to bring up their children.
If homosexual marriage is allowed, then you are discarding the assumption that it’s “for the children”, in which case why the ban on incestuous marriages? In fact why have this institution at all?
Given that many of the people who are so emphatically in favor of homosexual marriage have at other times expressed considerable hostility towards the concept of heterosexual marriage, (patriarchal and oppressive to women) one is perhaps justified in questioning their motives.
Are they really interested in homosexuals enjoying the blessings of marriage – or is their interest in spoiling an antiquated institution they despise?
Alan Massey
If marriage is “for the children” as you say, then presumably it is also wrong for infertile heterosexuals (which of course includes all women and a good number of men once they reach a certain age) to marry.
You say that marriage is “commonly understood” as a contract between a man and a woman. Fine: so it will continue to be. Heterosexuals will always outnumber homosexuals and heterosexuals will continue to form stable family units as they have done througout history. Heterosexuals will hardly start to turn their noses up at marriage just because homosexuals can marry too.
I can see that there are reasons to be cautious about extending marriage rights to homosexuals. But, quite simply, the notion that the institution of marriage is under threat from this quarter doesn’t wash.
BBC does its best to inform tomorrow’s Commons consideration of anti-terror laws by showing an (apparently re-scheduled) episode of “Outlaws” in which the incompetent & cynical security services succeed in jailing an innocent Moroccan on baseless terror charges, helped in the process by a cowed judiciary.
Good point, Roxana.
Has anyone at the Beeb bothered to analyze the election numbers by demographic groups, or by counties? Bush in 2004 increased his share of the vote, relative to 2000, of EVERY major Democratic group: women, hispanics, blacks, labor. In New York City alone, Bush gained an additional 100,000 votes, an increase in his share vs 2000 of 39%.
Could someone at the Beeb kindly tell us how many Christian fundamentalists there are in New York City among the 100,000 or so who voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004?
Also, if 100,000 voters in NYC alone switched from opposing Bush in 2000 to supporting him in 2004, then it’s very likely that at least 10x that number switched from Gore to Bush (or maybe from pro-Gore to anti-Kerry) nationwide. Which means that the really crucial vote in 2004 were those national security Democrats in NY and Miami and LA and Philadelphia and Cleveland and elsewhere who constituted at least one-third, and probably half or more, of the 3 million voter margin of
James,
I’m sorry to hear that you were mugged. And thanks – you’re clearly more charitable (indulgent?) than I am. But I disagree.
Let’s say my style (or lack of it in this case) were such that I wished to make a hobby of ostentatious displays of my wealth (real or fake) precisely by the pocket-wodge method and that security considerations were a “significant [and unacceptable] constraint” for me, then we’d be back to square one.
The issue really is one of responsibility and, with it, of what one implicitly demands of others. There’s a trade off.
Say my hobby caught on, becoming the height of fashion in my town and then spreading throughout the country. Crime figures would sore, the police forces would be inundated and taxpayers would foot the bill. No doubt there’d be a newly formed brigade of victim therapists ready to suck on the taxpayer teat too. And all because the poseur element (I’d exclude myself, of course) in the country wanted to be fashionably irrespons
…to be fashionably irresponsible. The net result would be that now everybody, not just the poseurs, had their pockets picked – this time by the government who, incidentally and as we know, would call it an “investment”. So what happened to the taxpayers’ right not to have their pockets picked – whoops – their right to make their own investment decisions? But it’s all legal this time. So that’s all right then.
OK, it’s a silly example but the idea is the same. And none of this has anything to do with justifying the crime – it just isn’t justified, ever. It’s a question of striking a balance between rights and responsibilities. Or, more accurately, of deciding where irresponsibility sets in, at which point you can’t expect others to go on effectively funding your indulgence indefinitely – you don’t lose your rights but you do lessen your call on others to protect them. In the end it’s a decision for the voter, and you.
If you want, you can call the point at which irres
…If you want, you can call the point at which irresponsibility sets in the “curfew point”, because that’s pretty much what it is, self-imposed or not. I think one sometimes has to regard the actions of others rather like the weather and take precautions accordingly.
Finally, I see you recognise your own recklessness and irresponsibility yet you continue to court trouble. Each to his own.
James,
Those last two sentences of mine – on re-reading them they look harsh. They were intended as only mildly sarcastic but friendly nonetheless. Please append a smiley.
Thibauld – you know, presumably, that turnout was massively higher in 2004 than 2000.
As a result, there were few people (outside of three or four vocal centre-right bloggers…) who switched their vote from Gore in 2000 to Kerry in 2004. However, there were a lot of people who voted Bush 2004 instead of nobody 2000.
This is where the evangelical thing comes in (although to be fair, it’s not so clear that a large proportion of the new voters really were evangelicals rather than mainstream Bush supporters).
James Hope: “…then presumably it is also wrong for infertile heterosexuals (which of course includes all women and a good number of men once they reach a certain age) to marry.”
Wrong, no. But a childless marriage has traditionally been understood to be a pale reflection of the “real thing”, to the extent that it has at times been grounds for divorce.
Roxana
It may be the case that some people who are in favour of marriage for homosexuals have, at other times, expressed contempt or hostility towards mainstream society. But I see no reason to assume that this is a majority view among the pro-gay-marriage lobby. There are many racists in this country who want to prohibit immigration because they don’t like foreigners. Does this mean that we should close our ears to everyone who advocates immigration controls for other reasons? Or are we to assume that they are all malicious and bigoted? That sounds a bit BBC to me.
Alan Massey
Since a childless marriage is a “pale reflection of the ‘real thing'” then presumably we should discourage (or prohibit) infertile people from marrying. Since, as long as we allow infertile people to marry, we are “discarding the assumption that it’s ‘for the children'”.
James, I’m afraid I’m just incurably cynical about the motivations of the left. Comes of having grown up in 1960s California – a child’s eye view of the ‘revolution’ was enough to send me and my brother screaming rightward.
James Hope: “…then presumably we should discourage (or prohibit) infertile people from marrying.”
Except by the time they find out they’re infertile, they’re usually already married.
“Given that many of the people who are so emphatically in favor of homosexual marriage have at other times expressed considerable hostility towards the concept of heterosexual marriage, (patriarchal and oppressive to women) one is perhaps justified in questioning their motives.”
Well, you could say the same thing about a lot of institutions the Left despises. Christianity, for instance. Let the Pope or the Archbish of Canterbury make some LLL-ish noises about the war in Iraq, for instance, and suddenly they’re vast repositories of unassailable spirituality and wisdom.
When the peace marches are over though, they instantly go back to being catcalled and ridiculed as “out of touch, homophobic old men in dresses.”
True. The Left is incurably – and obviously – hypocritical.
I especially enjoyed their trying to play the ‘sexual harassment’ card against Schwartzenager after their stout defense of Clinton.
Not to mention the dead silence of the ‘Peace Movement’ during ‘Monica’s War’. Apparently they had no objection to a Democratic president trying to distract the electorate from his abuse and exploitation of women by sending our boys to die somebody else’s civil war.
re: “Notice also the conflation in Pillai’s introduction of ‘far right’ with ‘evangelical Christians’ – a faulty presumption, slipped in as if fact.”
I think that a lot of the miscommunication about is due to the fact that most people have no clue what an Evangelical Christian is. So the newspeople mutter the word and you half expect the theme music from the “Psycho” shower scene to creep up into the background.
An Evangelical Christian, however, is merely a Christian who belongs to a church that concentrates on the life of Christ via the gospel according to the Four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In other words, they’re mainstream Protestants!
Evangelical Christian churches include Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and… Anglicans ;).
The term “Evangelical” began usage when splinter groups such as the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists began leaving mainstream Protestant churches, as a method of the mainstream churches to differentiate themse
(cont)
The term “Evangelical” began usage when splinter groups such as the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists began leaving mainstream Protestant churches, as a method of the mainstream churches to differentiate themselves from the splinter groups.
Yet one more instance where the alledged “news” media need to educate themselves :).