Afterthought for the Day - Latest Comments

Re: Good night Evan, good night John, good night everyone…

Sweyn Hunter — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:34:45 -0000

I have appreciated your efforts, when I have had time to stop here and read them!

I hope you will leave the blog here for a while, even if you are not actively updating it!

Re: Good night Evan, good night John, good night everyone…

crowth — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:11:31 -0000

Cheers Peter. I've mostly enjoyed writing my rambles, but enjoy reading your parodies even more. I shall certainly be hovering around at POTD.

Re: Good night Evan, good night John, good night everyone…

Pete — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:32:46 -0000

Sorry to hear that Richard. You often had interesting things to say and provided a lot of useful background links and some entertaining and informative pictures and videos. I hope if you ever feel the urge to comment further on TFTD you'll pop over to POTD to give us your point of view.

Re: Tuesday 12th January 2010: Canon Lucy Winkett

crowth — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:05:46 -0000

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I think that sounds like a great idea. Certainly something that an organisation like Help the Aged would approve of.

Re: Tuesday 12th January 2010: Canon Lucy Winkett

sally cedar — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:13:29 -0000

I was pleased and so impressed by Canon Lucy Wingate's Thought for the Day Jan 12.
As a retired advertising woman, I would like to see a free campaign - spaces donated in newspapers that show four portrait shots of old people, changing from time to time. No headline, just captions underneath each which could say
''Fighter Pilot' 'Cameraman' 'Olympics Champion' 'Nurse' etc etc.
The short copy below could simply say something like 'Old people are real people'.

Re: Saturday 9th January 2010: Catherine Pepinster

crowth — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:25:04 -0000

To be absolutely honest, I had seen it before. It took me a while to recall it and find it again though. What a wonderful bit of footage.

Re: Saturday 9th January 2010: Catherine Pepinster

Pete — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:03:00 -0000

What a superb video Richard - an excellent find!

Re: Thursday 10th December 2009: Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries

deedyi — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:36:10 -0000

I couldn't see where to vote "like" but I do. Very good.

Re: Monday 7th December 2009: Rev Dr Colon Morris

deedyi — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:20:03 -0000

Very thoughtful comment. YOU should be on TftD

Re: Wednesday 2nd December 2009: Dr Mona Siddiqui

Pete — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:12:57 -0000

Well said Richard.

Re: Friday 27th November 2009: Lord Sir Chief Sack Baron Rabbi Jonathan

crowth — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:22:01 -0000

I think it probably helps if you're exceedingly middle class or a member of the British establishment. But I think believing in all of the big six would confuse matters for the Religion and Ethics department. It has to be one of six, not all six. To my knowledge we've not had any Bahá'í on TftD yet, so perhaps that's indicative of how, at multicultural Britain's public broadcaster, they don't like to go blurring the the distinctions between people. Everyone has to be pigeon-holed, just so long as most of those holes have Protestants in them.

Re: Friday 27th November 2009: Lord Sir Chief Sack Baron Rabbi Jonathan

HarryR — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:02:45 -0000

It's simplistic to say that only those people holding one of 6 select religious beliefs can get on TFTD.
I have never once been asked to use this platform to strengthen the moral fibre of the nation and I believe in not just one but all of those 6 religions. Is that fair? There must be some additional selection criteria.

Re: 17th-21st November 2008: Catch-up

crowth — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:05:05 -0000

That might be my favourite comment to date.

Re: 17th-21st November 2008: Catch-up

SLC — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:35:01 -0000

Good work . I'll pop back soon, see if your still writing this over inflated bullshit, it's a waste of your time writing this shite and I'm a silly little cunt for wasting my time reading it.

Re: Wednesday 11th November 2009: Rt Rev Tom Butler

deedyi — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:32:38 -0000

Ha, ha great!

Re: Wednesday 28th October 2009: Oliver McTernan

crowth — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:40:54 -0000

Yes, it's stupefying when you consider that the problem of climate change has compounded the problem of peak oil and there's still no real recognition of the urgency of it all. Not to mention the complete failure of our economic system, which rather than changing we're simply propping up for another fall. All the science and understanding in the world seems rather depressingly pointless when slapped down by our collective incapacity to heed it.

Incidentally, you might be interested in a new film that's coming out soon.

Re: Wednesday 28th October 2009: Oliver McTernan

Pete — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:37:46 -0000

Have to agree with you here. I remember trying to convince people to deal with peak oil twenty years ago, because that was the kind of timescale that we needed to devise a realistic solution. I was laughed at, and that was by the Liberals. I've pretty much given up now and am just on the planet to enjoy the ride. It's way too late to do anything about anything. The good times might just last until I pop my clogs.

Re: Wednesday 14th October 2009: Akhandadhi Das

deedyi — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:21:57 -0000

Hahahahahahahahahahha! great joke.

Re: Monday 12th October 2009: Clifford Longley

crowth — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:54:55 -0000

Yes, I was overreacting considering how often it happens. The relative insignificance of the story and the time that had passed since its initial coverage had lulled me into a false sense of closure. I can't imagine the tedium the repetition of the MacCann story would induce. I suppose now we should beware of Catherine Pepinster bidding a bony goodbye when they finally leave the country. Vague evidence of editorial oversight really would be a nice surprise every now and then. I don't really blame them for not listening to each other though.

Re: Monday 12th October 2009: Clifford Longley

Pete — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:13:19 -0000

The one thing that seems to be pretty clear from TFTD, is that none of its presenters actually listen to it, at least, not when it's presented by somebody else. The Madeline MacCann dissappearance was almost unbearable, with almost all of them repeating themselves day after day (and then week after week).

Re: Friday 9th October 2009: Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries

crowth — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:25:29 -0000

I'm sure the thought of a successful war looking good on his political CV crossed his mind. Wanting to be considered a great and bold leader and all that. But I also think that he had a devout belief in the righteousness of it. I don't think he would have gone to so much effort to have intelligence fabricated, and to defy the UN and weapons inspectors if it hadn't gone a lot deeper than just politics. I tend to think there's probably a lot of truth in what his political agent said, that he saw it as a matter of good versus evil, and so was prepared to go to great lengths, and against popular sentiment, to see it through.

Re: Friday 9th October 2009: Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries

deedyi — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:04:57 -0000

I can't help thinking that Bliar had an even more ignoble reason but I bet he won't admit it even to himself - he was remembering Thatcher's Falkland's success and trying to emulate it.

Re: Saturday 3rd October 2009: Rev Rob Marshall

quedula — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:16:39 -0000

Excellent. Couldn't agree more. Still nothing from the BBCTrust on my (and others) appeals.

Re: Friday 25th September 2009: Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan’s Sack

crowth — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:52:31 -0000

It's very supportive of you to egg me on to assert that the Anglo-Spanish war was about religion, but as I didn't make that assertion, and wouldn't make it, I'll pass on that, ta.

The longevity of Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland is entirely due to the stubbornly intransigent nature of religious belief and identity. There are people who look the same, talk the same, live the same lives, live across the road from each other, and yet they will fight and kill each other because they have a different set of religious beliefs. If you don't believe me, then believe the wife of a man who was killed in exactly this context:

“My neighbour had to step in to save me and she was pregnant and they beat her too and she shouted ‘I’m pregnant’ and they didn’t care. It was all to do with religion, and I’m not even a Catholic. I am a Protestant, it’s a mixed marriage, but they just seem to hate us so much.”

I include the fact that she was was in a mixed marriage because I'm not saying that religious coexistence isn't possible. Despite the peaceful coexistence and intermarriage that goes in in this community, there are still those who will beat her despite that because, as she says, of her husband's religion. Religious coexistence has occurred throughout history, but the one thing you can always rely on is that it won't last. In parts of Spain in the middle ages, Catholics, Jews and Muslims lived side by side in peaceful harmony for a long time. One day that all came to an end and the Muslims and the Jews were kicked out, if they made it out. There's no doubt that, as you say, conflict is a part of human nature, but the difference which makes such conflict possible, and so violent, is preserved and galvanised by religion. The absolutism of religious belief makes the preservation and enforcement of those differences so incredibly potent. Another example of peaceful coexistence was found in India, where for long periods Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs lived in peaceful coexistence, and even worshipped together. And yet, generations later, religious difference not only led to conflict and violence, but to the creation of national border erected for no other reason than religious difference. Religious difference always returns to divide and destroy.

So if I speak of religion in general, it is because such tendencies are inherent in religion in general.

Re: Friday 25th September 2009: Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan’s Sack

pancho — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:21:38 -0000

'Nations will fall, cultures will merge, races will mix, but religion preserves a façade of otherness between human beings that will always persist because the preservation of ancient identities is an intended by-product of the divine proclamation of absolute truth.' Am I to take that on faith? A somewhat meaningless assertion. Again, it depends which religion you're talking about - for instance, belief in the divinity of one's own nation a la Israel is a good example of what you're talking about - but the NT tends to hold a very generalised and post-national view of humanity, and doesn't make the discriminations of the Tanakh. You'd be hard-pressed to find the root of the Protestant-Catholic violence there. You'd be better off looking at politics; Ireland's relation with Protestant England, and - even - Protestant England's war with Catholic Spain. Try telling me that that war was about religion, go for it. But it wasn't. It was about military superiority and naval freedom just prior to the age of exploration. The fact is that up until a couple of centuries ago every human being on the planet held a religion, and it is human beings that are naturally warlike. To be honest with you, for atheism's short history, I'd say its track record isn't that good...

It's not the fault of atheism that some of its followers are nutters, although one could blame eugenics for some of the terrible crimes of the Nazis... and the problem, for atheism, is that it has no meaningful way to combat the idea, whereas Christianity contains a belief in the sanctity of life. That said, I can't account for the actions of some Christians, because, you know, they're human beings.

I don't, and didn't, mean to wade in here and be deliberately overcritical, it's just that I generally like the idea of the blog, and the way you write, and just think if you'd drop the reference to 'religion' as a whole, then it's be a whole lot better.