91热爆

Barack Hussein Obama.

My choice too.

William, you always seem to feel it necessary to preface Richard Dawkiins name with a "militant" or a "controversial" or in this case a "culture warrior" but Paisley and McGuinness who MANY WOULD SAY ARE BOTH MILITANT AND CONTROVERSIAL GET NOTHING. HOW COME?

OMFG nobledeebee, that's the very definition of paranoia.

nobledeebee has a point, a fair few people died as a result of sectarian violence and the actions of the paramilitaries. I wouldn't call that uncontroversial.

I vote for Eoghan Quigg!

Jayfurneaux:

I'm with you on this one. Richard Dawkins has not fronted a terrorist organisation or spread bigotry and intolerance.

Dawkins wants to unite cultures and sees the aesthetic beauty in science. Culturally, he is an integrationist.

Clearly, of the three, the real 'culture warriors' are Paisley and McGuinness. In fact, that's what they spent 30 years doing: fighting a culture war, either physically or intellectually.

Brian would you still object to Dawkins being described as a "scientist and culture warrior" if I gave you evidence that he'd described himself that way?

Hi jovialptl, its not the term "culture warrior that I object to. Its the way certain parts of the media, including William tend to demonise Dawkins. Sometimes its quite subtle eg. they get to interview him face to face and comment afterwards about how surprisingly civil and reasonable he was during the interview. Now I've seen many interviews that he has given but I've never seen him be anything less than gracious and polite, so why the surprise. Could it be that they spend so much time telling people that he is some sort of atheist ayatollah that they come to believe it themselves, and the religious commentators/columnists are the ones who exhibit this tendency the most.If you don't believe me just start looking out for his name in the media. It's amazing how often it appears in conjunction with some mildly pejorative term like militant or controversial. Compare this with some of our more outspoken politicians who say they are merely repeating the word of God when they condemn homosexuality. I have yet to hear a journalist ask them how they know what the word of God is.

I second Helio in post 6!


Nobledeebee - Are we talking about the same person here?

The one who writes that faith is a mental illness - and his field of expertise is........ zoology???

I think a general rule in the media is that if you give it out you must be prepared to take it too!

Hi OT, Archbishops and Cardinals frequently comment and pontificate about areas outside thier "fields" of expertise. When was the last time that William (or any journalist) referred to one of these people as outspoken or militant.

So what's this with jumping on William's every word at the moment?

First he doesn't know he odd from his even when it comes to selecting panels for Sunday Sequence.

Then he dares to mention 'religion' and 'ethics' in the same sentence.

And now he's 'demonising' Dawkins.

The complaints are beginning to look a little silly.

Peter:

Why do you personalise everything?
Presumably William didn't choose the panel on SS. Remember, he doesn't produce the programme.

'Religion and ethics' is also presumably not his description of the programme or what it's about.

The criticisms stand. I think Nobledeebee is spot on in post 9. There is a certain journalspeak in which some people are wrapped up into little balls. Atheists and non-believers are forever being given controversial adjectives to describe whereas clerics aren't.
It's another of the bias, Peter, which of course you don't see.

Hi Nobdledee..


Outspoken heir to the thrown Prince Charles

Firebrand preacher Ian Paisley

Meddling Archbishops

...need I go on?

OT

errr....throne that is!

I agree Peter. Richard dawkins is one of the most outspoken atheists in the world, who has made a name for himself partly through his willingness to call people names. He has a reputation for rudeness too, as evidenced in hundreds of interviews where he calls religious people 'ignorant', illiterate, and 'intellectually underdeveloped', and subject to a kind of mental illness. He freely describes himself as engaged in a culture war. And all William has done is describe him here as a scientist and 'culture warrior!' This is the same William who is attacked by creationists for his programs supporting evolution! I reckon Dawkins would be proud to be called both a scientist a culture warrior. This is no insult to him.

I nominate the northern Ireland humanists as person of the year, for their controversy-seeking paranoia, their militant argumentation and their fashion sense during a culture war.

ok I will go on;-

controversial MP Iris Robinson...

Militant muslim cleric...????

Far right BNP politician...????



Personally I think the fundamentalist term is much misused at 91热爆 NI and beyond.


It dismisses the vast majority of traditional Christianity as a modern American abberation....


OT

OT would you agree that William Crawley is more often criticized by creationists for supporting evolution and dawkins? Why are humanist turning on him now?

In the midst of the Iris Robinson gay comments row this year I would like to nominate James Parker.


James, was a former client of Iris' "lovely psychaitrist".

In the misdt of very high feelings on both sides, I though James provided a real way forward.

He was very gracious and compassionate and the notorious Nolan clearly warmed to him on air;-


/northernireland/nolan/phonecallarchive/


While having left behind a gay lifestyle and now being married, James spoke with warmth and sensitivity about his journey. There was not an ounce of judgement in his voice and he encouraged gay people to be open and honest about their feelings and lives.


An minor icon in a major issue;-

But he could inform a useful discussion as to how discussion from polarised camps on this debate could progress with grace, respect and honesty in 2009.

The issue is not going to go away you know!

;-)

OT

Brian

I see you must persist with idea that every time I mention a name in a post I'm being 'personal'. And let's be clear I understand you to mean by that that I am being negative.

What is your problem here?

I'm not the one criticizing the content of recent threads and programmes related with this website.

Brian you complained about the panel, you complained about the 'Religion and Ethics' discussion, as you complained about the 'book' thread. And incidentally when Helio raised it to 'Will' (using a name!) you said he was right to 'play', now it's personal - good grief.

Nobledeebee also directed his comments to an individual saying, "It's the way certain parts of the media, including William tend to demonise Dawkins."

And you are accusing me of being personal.

Yikes!

No Brian, I don't see the bias, cos I'm not looking for it (gave up ages ago, already told you that) and anyway I'm more than happy for the 'religious' to be taken to task, but even when I have done that and given my opinion about aspects of religion I disagree with, you criticized me for that too.

Whatever.

John's right though - paranoia!


At this rate there isn't going to be a W&T person of the year.

Three votes for Eoghan Quigg. Best representative for NI we've had in ages.

Actually, "scientist" has nothing but positive connotations, and "culture warrior" suggests that there is a cultural problem that Dawkins is resolutely trying to address.

I think Will was paying Professor Dawkins a compliment, Brian! Although I will agree that it makes it very easy for some people to use words like "rude", "abrasive", "shrill", "aggressive" - the sorts of words that Jesus of Nazareth probably had to put up with himself. That's what happens when you challenge the worldview of punters like Augustine - rather than address the arguments, they revert to simple ad hominem.

But as for more folks for 2008, we are looking for people who stepped into the spotlight, and turned a situation around - giving hope where there could easily have been despair. For that reason, I nominate:


Sarah Palin, for effectively making John McCain unelectable, and allowing Barack Obama to take the US presidency.

Robert Peston.

Or Karolina Kurkova.

John Shuttleworth for his services to the humble sausage roll

Well said, Helio. I agree that Dawkins would see the phrase "scientist and culture warrior" as a compliment.

I nominate Archbishop John Sentamu. for proving that the word "controversial" can be a badge of honour! He's never afriad to make the headlines, to speak about the truth, and to be controversial with it. long may he remain controversial.

Helio:

Whether William meant the terms as a compliment and whether Dawkins would approve are beside the point. I suspect that the widespread perception would be to reinforce a negative impression of the man. 'Warrior' would be widely taken as similar to the 'aggressive' label that is stuck on him.

Also, clearly the other two characters are more accurately descibed as 'warriors' in anyone's book. They have, wittingly or unwittingly inspired more death and destruction than Dawkins ever could.

Peter:

You implied that all the criticisms were levelled at William. I'm sure they weren't.

Answer me a couple of basic questions, please.

1. Is Northern Ireland a more religious society than most countries in Europe?

2. Does the media significantly challenge this religious characteristic?

3. Or does the media largely reinforce it?

My answers are yes, no, yes.
What are yours?

Having a godfest, including SS, on Ulster Sunday radio is a perfect example. There is no real challenge to the religious nature of the society. Quite the reverse.

Yet 14% of the population declare that they have no religion.
Are they adequately represented. Clearly not. look at the schedule and compare it with Radio 4 or event RTE radio on a Sunday. You will see the difference. Both have very little religious programming.

RTE 1 has 'Spirit moves' (55 minutes)

91热爆 Radio 4 has:
Worship (40 minutes)

Radio Ulster has:
Sunday Sequence (one and a half hours)
Morning Service (45 minutes)
Brian D'Arcy (cleric; one hour)
John Anderson (many religious items; one hour)
Sounds Sacred (one hour of religious music).


If you take last Sunday, the only specifically secular view heard on Radio Ulster that whole day was that of Michael Irwin.

Brian is just wrong on the facts about Radio 4 and RTE. Both have very large commitments to religious broadcasting throughout the week. Brian hasn't even included Radio 4's Sunday programme, their equivalent of Sunday Sequence, or Morning prayer etc. Radio Ulster's religion shows tend to be on Sundays, where Radio 4 has a lot more religion shows spread through the week, including Beyond Belief and Moral Maze, etc.

This rant from Brian McClinton is becoming ridiculous. Who in their right mind would deny that Richard Dawkins is a major figure in the "culture wars" about religion and science? Dawkins does battle with creationism and with belief in God. He used that kind of pugilistic language himself. He has even acknowedged that he is involved in a culture war of sorts and is in that respect a "warrior". Dawkins has dished out some of the most insulting, nasty attacks on religious people one can find in print. Especially on Christians. He's a bit more careful not to knock Islam. How can Brian try to portray him now as anything other than a culture warrior? It beggars belief.

In fact, I would argue that Dawkins was NAMED person of the year precisely because he's a warrior, not because of his work in zoology! That's how he's made his many millions. He's a culture wars millionaire.

Really, Brian, you're bringing humanism into disrepute with this nonsense.

Augustine:
Sorry: I missed out 'Sunday' on Radio 4 from 7 10- 7 55 (45 minutes; SS is twice as long)

You are wrong about The Moral Maze. It is an ethics programme, not a religious one. That's part of my complaint about the local SS programme: that ethics tends to be treated as an appendage of religion, instead of an integral aspect of life for anybody, religious, secular or whatever.

Brian
1) Northern Ireland is more Religious
2) No the media should not challenge this.
3) I don't think Sunday Sequence is the root cause of religiosity in Northern Ireland. And I don't detect a conservative bias on the show.

Of course all my students tune into Suday Sequence, so it's much easier to brainwash them. But then they're spending so much time watching Northern Irish soaps, and Northern Irish film, and listening to Northern Irish Pop music. And the influence of "branding" and the internet and all those bill boards advertising Christian values - all made in Northern Ireland.


I've also those pro-evangelical documentaries on Channel 4 to thank. And I mean, the Beeb clearly is run by the Vatican, isn't it? Russel T Davies has been deeply influenced by Humanae Vitae. And whenever Andrew Davies adapts a novel like "The Way We Live Now" or "Brideshead Revisited" he's sure to keep the Christian subtext very much to the fore.

With the best will in the world, Brian, you're overstating your case. Not only does the media prevent my students from understanding basic Christian concepts, it prevents *Christians* from getting their heads around them.
As an example, ask the average churchgoer, or even the average evangelical youth worker what love is. They'll tell you it's a feeling. Ask them what grace is, and they'll look at you funny.

As a matter of fact, simply because you are a literate man, and well grounded in history, I would bet that you would have a much deeper and subtler understanding of the Christian view of love and grace than the average churchgoer.

The mass-media has left us rootless and without identity. But that may leave Humanism out in the cold as much as Evangelicals or conservative Catholics.

GV

JoviaL:

It seems that I am not the only ranter. "bringing Humanism into disrepute'. Now, where have I heard that from Christians before? It seems in NI that if you make a criticism that touches Christian nerves and gets at the truth, you are automatically labelled with all sorts of personal weaknesses. Is that what Christianity is really about?

Graham:

Are you admitting that Radio Ulster is more 'religious' than Radio 4 or RTE?

Should not the media in a free society challenge prevailing assumptions? Should it not 'bring truth to power' (religious, political, economic power) Are you saying that in, for example, the Soviet Union under communism, it was right for the media to broadcast government propaganda, for example?

And are you saying that the local media should never have challenged the religious opinions of Iain Paisley? Or the Pope?

Wrong again Brian. Moral Maze is listed under "Religion and Ethics" on the radio 4 website. Oops.

/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

Oh, and while you're at it, look at all those other religion programmes on radio 4!

/radio4/religion/

Have you considered the possibility that the 91热爆 and other broadcasters may make programmes in this large number because there is a large audience for them? Just as there's a large audience for sport and arts and politics and other genres?

Why shouldn't the large audience interested in programmes seriously discussing religion not get their piece of the licence fee pie too?

Graham:

You say: "I don't think that Sunday Sequence is the root cause of religiosity in Northern Ireland".

Where on earth did that statement come from? Does anybody? What an extreme statement!


I would say that it largely helps to reinforces the religiosity but less so than it used to. Secular voices are now heard more often, but no way is there is a balance. It is still largely a religious programme, and the token non-believer doesn't really obviate the bias. Let's not pretend that he or she does, please.

I would like to see it replaced by a Moral Maze-type programme, where religious and non-religious contributors can make an input on a more or less equal basis on the ethical issues of the day. This would be more fair and more honest.

Jovial:

I'm not wrong. It is listened there but it is an ethical programme, not a religious one. OOOPs! It makes no religious presumptions whatsoever. Listen to it.

Listened should be listed in line one.

Brian I think Sunday Sequence discusses religion and examines ideas related to it, including ethics. It is not a Bible Study on air! Many religious people would want a more devotional or orthodox programme, I would say. This programme asks religious people to think about what they believe, and that's a good thing. Many of us detect a liberal agenda though.

PeterM - don't worry too much about Brian's thinking your comments personal - wait till he accuses you of putting him on the couch!

Brian, I think my last post on the Margo McDonald thread is equally relevant here. I would argue that Humanism is a religion and its spokespeople could not truly be said to be secular. A radio programme seeking secular representation on its panels would require golf-bores, game-show addicts or bankers...

For an alternative to Obama;

Nambu, Kobayashi and Maskawa

Liberal agenda?

Then I vote for Will Crawley!

-H

I'm guessing Obama is likely to top the poll. What might be more interesting is - who will be in second place!

So, I'm one of the panel. Should I be extremely offended, or flattered at all these comments? C'mon, SS is probably the most theologically (and possibly politically) progressive show on radio ulster, and y'all know it.

But I'm not telling who I voted for person of the year.

Brian
Define "religion". Define "religious".
GV

Augustine OC

sorry for delay in reply - What I think I could say easily is that I think the 91热爆 is more sympathetic to humanism than to creationism... though I would say that is a media characteristic in general.

I mean, talk shows are quite comfortable with discussions about how Jesus was "only a man" and also throwing lables like "bible bashers" etc.

But I suspect interviews and panel discussions generally creationists a tougher run for their money.

see this;-




I dont think this is a human agenda but rather symptomatic of a bigger spiritual picture.

OT

For example take three societies.

(i) In the first regular church attendance on a weekly basis runs at about 90%. However people value church attendance for it's "extrinisic" values - basically it's social functions, charitable work etc. However, only 5% of church attenders have any emotional or personal commitment to Church teachings. Less take the Churches teachings to be true.
(ii) In the second society Church attendance on a weekly basis runs at 30%. However those who attend church value religion for it's "intrinsic values" They feel it brings them closer to God, and they value the religious doctrines and ethical teachings.
(iii) In the third church attendance and religious commitment is low, but unlike the first two societies religion has an important state and legal function. The head of state must take a religious oath of alleigance, state functions and celebrations are religious in nature, many laws have a religious justification etc.

Now which of the three societies is the most religious?

GV

Jovial, Helio:

A liberal agenda on an Ulster religious programme? Horror of horrors! Let's call in the thought police to put an end to such dangerous nonsense. Let's get back to good old fire and brimstone Bible thumping. Hallelujah! (not the Leonard Cohen version).

OT:

As usual, your comments are OT. Humanism v creationism is not the only choice available. As for spiritual, why assume that it must have anything to do with a God?

Graham:

I am quite well aware of the problems of defining 'religion'. My definition relates to beliefs and actions predicated on the existence of entities with supernatural powers which are alleged to have created the universe and which demand worship and obedience.

Some great suggestions here already. Remember, that the focus of our pick will link to the programme's interests.
I've also had the following suggestions:

Mary Warnock

John Sentamu

Mickey Harte

Russell Brand-Jonathan Ross

the Iraqi journalist who threw the shoe at Bush

The shoe itself

Presbyterian Mutual Society

Sarah Palin

Brian
And in which of the three societies do people most consistently act on the belief that a supernatural power exists? And which of the three is closest to NI?
And doesn't your definition rule in Platonists and Philosohical Theists, and rule out New Age beliefs and Buddhists? And Karen Armstrong for example?
GV

Brian,

I wasnt assuming the only choice was humanism vs creationism.

A poster asked me to make a choice between those two and I deed.

Do you honestly think I believe those are the only two viewpoints/issues represented on the 91热爆????!!!

As for my comment about spirituality, can we just say I have a faith outlook and leave it at that?

OT

Brian, you really are making a mockery of yourself.

You have no proper conception of supernatural, creation or even universe, as I think I've pointed out to you before.

It really tires me to read these never-ending cliches and strawmen that you build up before abandoning.

I mean...put it simply for me...what are you actually complaining about?

That people who share your own particular facile views on metaphysics and morality are not given enough airtime?

Surprised had to wait for 49 previous nominations before getting to ......

Muntazer al-Zaidi

Okay, it has to be Sarah Palin.

Bernard:
Take a chill pill. Or arise up from the dark depths of your own metaphysical cave.

I don't particularly want to hear people who share my views 鈥� only more of those who don't shared cliched and facile religious ones.

Bernard:

My complaint started partly over assisted dying. What particularly annoyed me was that a so-called human rights lawyer came on the programme (not for the first time) and argued, in true Orwellian fashion, against a human right.

Presumably it would be too facile and cliched for a 'human rights spokesman' actually to come on the programme to support a human right, would it?

My other complaint was about the 'religion and ethics' books of the year. Ethics hardly got a look-in.
But perhaps expecting ethics books of the year to be discussed would be too cliched and facile, would it?

Is it wrong to criticise aspects of SS on this blog? Is it too cliched and facile? If it is, then I'm away.

Brian;

I obviously don't need to point out that you're already begging the question by declaring assisted dying a "human right".

In the obvious absence of any consensus of that issue, the view of one well-respected human rights lawyer is a matter for himself.

What you're implying isthat he is no real spokeman for human rights, simply because he doesn't agree with YOU about one issue that YOU claim is a human right.

He doesn't agree with you, and has every right not to.

Your criticism of the "religion and ethics books..." thread is perhaps not facile. Silly and petty are probably better words.

Religion and Ethics Books...it includes both books about ethics, books about religion, and books about the multitude of links between the two.

Are you complaining that William didn't ask for a "Books Solely on Humanist Ethics" list?

Not only that, he asked for contributions. My God, didn't you give one or two yourself.

Are you complaining that not enough readers of this blog nominated books "Solely on Humanist Ethics".

Once again, Brian, your problem isn't about a lack of diversity. This blog is a relatively free forum, open to all to express their views in whatever way they see fit. That includes their nominations for a Best Religion or Ethics Book of the year.

No Brian, as usual your problem is that everyone doesn't agree with YOU, and your response is a pomposity, arrogance and whinging self-pitying demeanour that does you not favours at all.

I'm sorry to be so harsh though

Brian

I see this 'bias' debate is continuing. The very last thing I wanted when I commented that 3 was an odd number and that 'Will and Testament' was coming in for what I saw as some unnecessary criticism was for things to become sidetracked. If my comments have done that then apologies to one and all, William included.

I was simply trying to point out that the 91热爆 is criticized by almost all points of view and that I really don't see the point in any 'side' complaining about less airtime than another.

Personally since I started reading this blog and then contributing to it I have found it to be as open and as fair a debating forum as any in NI. There are remarkably few personal 'attacks', frank exchange of views, yes, but also respect, and compliments too.

I think too that SS is a pretty religiously progressive programme (especially for NI) and on this blog I have found my own views, tested, challenged and worked through.

Surely whether we be Catholic, Protestant, Dissenter, Humanist or Freethinker this can only be good. At least we are communicating.

Happy Holidays all (hopefully I'm not too early this time!)



And further thoughts about people of the year.

To all the unknown carers, who, out of the public gaze, give of their time, love, energy and expertise to act with compassion towards those in need - thank you - you are my vote for people of the year.

Barack Obama. He has given the world hope that america can turn its policies around and become a "good" superpower again.

Donald Watts

What a guy!

A caring sharing example of Christianity

Bernard:

You really are hot on the personal remarks. I suggest you and go and pray to your God and ask him to improve your manners.

My main complaint in general about SS is that it is billed as a religion and ethics programme, but it is too much about religion and not enough about ethics. And when it does talk about ethics there is excessive input from people who are religious and see issues such as human rights from this narrow perspective. I think this is fair comment.

I don't want everyone to agree with me. That would he hell on earth! So your assumptions are quite wrong. But I do wish to see a more liberal perspective on issues in general. In this sense, you might call me a militant liberal. In my humble opinion this society badly needs a good dose of liberal thinking. Sure, that's bias. But are you biased too? Aren't we all?

Peter:

I agree that SS has improved, but everything is relative and describing it as 'pretty progressive' is going a bit far.

As it describes itself as about 'religion and ethics', I think there should be more discussion of ethics WITHOUT a religious perspective. From that point of view, the discussion at the beginning on the Bill of Rights proposals was good. But I would still contend that the assisted dying and 'religion and ethics' books of the year items were skewed towards a religious perspective.

Merry Yule!

Brian:

My main complaint in general about SS is that it is billed as a religion and ethics programme, but it is too much about religion and not enough about ethics.

That's a silly complaint however. For one thing, whether you like it or not, ethics are to many people wholly inseperable from religion. A view of the good grounded on anything but self-defeating personal relativism generally leads to some kind of theism. But that's an argument for another day, and one I suspect we've already had.

Leaving aside the ultimate justification for a transient humanist ethics, thesimple fact of the matter is that for many people ethics are deeply dependent on transcendence. That a discussion of religion and ethics is often going to involve religious ethics is only natural.

Humanists are a small minority of the population, Brian, and I think their view is more than adequately reflected in the media.

I don't want everyone to agree with me. That would he hell on earth... But I do wish to see a more liberal perspective on issues in general.

That would be the liberal perspective that you hold Brian, would it? In other words, your complaining that not enough airtime is given to your particular view. Not that you want more diversityin general, but that you want more of a liberal perspective. Which by no means entails diversity.

Sure, that's bias. But are you biased too? Aren't we all?

Certainly I'm biased. I, however, am not crying that my own particular biases aren't catered for enough on national media.

Bernard:

From my perspective as a liberal, it is not a silly complaint. Liberalism is not exactly a strong tradition in NI. If it was, we would be more tolerant of diversity, but in general the society isn't. It is pretty intolerant.

Of course, you are not complaining, because by and large the media here do not challenge your conservative Christianity. That's obvious.

Where is the liberalism on the Shankill or the Falls, in the Orange Order, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, The Presbyterian Church and Free P Church, the Catholic Church, the DUP, Sinn Fein?

Most liberals are hounded out of here or made into pariahs: Gerry Fitt, David Armstrong, John Hewitt or (in the Republic) Noel Browne,

By liberalism I mean a commitment to individual freedom, tolerance, diversity and pluralism. This is broad enough
to embrace a wide spectrum of opinion. They are also the dominant values of many societies throughout Europe.

What do we often have here: hang murderers, flog thieves, beat naughty children, cane unruly pupils, ban sex education from schools but make RE compulsory, ban condoms, keep women subjugated, stigmatise gays, keep out blacks and other 'foreigners', stigmatise gays, have no Pope here, or stigmatise Protestants as not real Christians. On and on it goes: a dreary litany of reactionary, intolerant thinking which has dragged the society down for decades (or hundreds of years probably).

I you don't think this needs to be opposed by people who have some brains and can educate us in a better direction, then your Christianity has definitely confused your mind.

Accept that it's been a bad year for people, and wait a year.

Maybe Iris Robinson or Sarah Palin for the reason...heck Voltaire said it better than I ever could...

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Alan Harper - both for having the courage in the hostile environment of the Northern province of the CofI to sound a positive note on the acceptance of homosexuality in the Church and for the elegance of the supremely Anglican framing of his case.

While disagreeing entirely with the premise on which his argument is founded nothing this year made me prouder of my denomination.

In the spirit of Christmas, I hereby publicly forgive Portwyne for being an Anglican, fully and without reservation.

John for your love to the loveless shown I thank you! May there be as much spirit in your Christmas as there will be in mine...

I would nominate young , who is from Letterkenny in Donegal, Ireland, Alan, was born with a rare maxillofacial disorder called "OTOCEPHALY". As a result he has no lower chin and has to breathe through a tube in his throat. How many of us enjoy a good meal, think about Alan who has never eaten a meal in his life and who communicates through a keyboard because he cannot speak.

Brian;

From my perspective as a liberal, it is not a silly complaint.

So you're admitting that your problem is that YOUR perspective isn't represented enough.

Dry your eyes.

Liberalism (or your preferred version of it) is not exactly a strong tradition in NI.

That's probably why it's not given the amount of airplay that you would like. Wh not bring your army of one to Broadcast House to protest.


Of course, you are not complaining, because by and large the media here do not challenge your conservative Christianity.

To be fair, I wouldn't call my Christianity conservative. I certainly don't feel that it's adequately represented by the 91热爆. But I'm not crying about it.


Where is the liberalism on the Shankill or the Falls, in the Orange Order, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, The Presbyterian Church and Free P Church, the Catholic Church, the DUP, Sinn Fein?

Again, your form of liberalism - atheist humanism. For the record there are many many dissenting voices on the Shankill and Falls, the AOH, the Catholic Church, the DUP and Sinn Fein. There is dissent and discussion about many issues. Are you really saying there is no diversityor plurality on the Falls or shankill roads?


Your complaint is that there isn't a large degree of atheist humanism about. Perhaps your magazine should up its stakes and try evangelising.

By liberalism I mean a commitment to individual freedom, tolerance, diversity and pluralism.


Are you really saying that there is no diversity or pluralism on the Falls and shankill Roads, or that the people in those areas somehow aren't "free", as individuals or otherwise? Don't talk nonsense, Brian.

This is broad enough
to embrace a wide spectrum of opinion

Even religious faith? You seem to wish to deny it.

What do we often have here: hang murderers, flog thieves, beat naughty children, cane unruly pupils, ban sex education from schools but make RE compulsory, ban condoms, keep women subjugated, stigmatise gays, keep out blacks and other 'foreigners'

Well quite. I could also make up a lot of things that aren't true, but if they were, wouldn't it be awful.


I you don't think this needs to be opposed by people

You think no one in the public sphere opposes beating children, racism or homophobia? What planet are you living on Brian, really? You are ranting hysterically.

Is Brian still complaining that humanists are under-represented?

This thread is supposed to be about people of the year. Um, it's supposed to be a fun thread. Brian get with the festive spirit! Why not suggest a humanist as person of the year instead of moaning.

Bernard:

You know full well that I am making generalisations and talking about tendencies. I came originally from the Shankill Road, so I don't need you to tell me that there are no dissident voices from there. However, the point is that they are are rarely heard in the media.

My generalisations stand. This is a conservative society in which liberal voices are largely swamped.

Jovial:

If you want to call criticisms moaning, feel free. But, in my view, 'Person of the Year' is a ridiculous idea in the first place. It is a media invention. Unless the person has featured in the media, he/she doesn't could. It is a phoney concept. The world is full of good and brave people whom we never hear of. Indeed, the Puritan's suggestion in post 70 above is appropriate as any of the other suggestions, and probably more so.

'No dissident voices' should be 'dissident voices' and doesn't could' should be 'count'.

Obama's an obvious choice...too obvious.

My picks:
Politician (US): Ron Paul. He was one figure who got quite popular, but didn't fit in to any brackets.
Politician (UK): Damian Green. His mistreatment may bring Brown down.
Religious figure: Rick Warren. I'm no fan of his for numerous reasons, but he has shown his influence a great deal.
Entertainer: David Tennant. His Doctor Who performance was brilliant, and, from what I have heard, his Hamlet performance was great as well...

Agree with Orville on Ron Paul, but don't figure he'll get much more attention than that. Suffice to say, Ron Paul was truly the one that got away.

I would like to make two nominations:

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg for his courageous stand against euthanasia;

The Christian martyrs of this century including: Samuel Masih was a simple street cleaner. One day, while cleaning a garden in Lahore, the twenty-seven-year-old Pakistani Catholic was accused of deliberately piling garbage against the wall of a mosque. He was arrested and thrown in jail, where he was repeatedly tortured for his faith. While being treated for tuberculosis, which he contracted in prison, a police constable decided to earn a place in Janna鈥� (Paradise) by killing him with a hammer.

Thousands of miles away thirty-two-year-old Fr. Jesus Adrian Sanchez was giving religious instruction at a school in the rural area of Chaparral (Tolima), Colombia. An armed man burst into the classroom, ordered him outside, and shot him dead.

Deep in the Brazilian rainforest, a seventy-three-year-old Sister of Notre Dame, Dorothy Stang, was used to living among people who wanted her dead. She had long been trying to protect peasant laborers from exploitation by logging firms and ranchers. One day, while walking to a meeting of poor farmers near the town of Anapu in the western Brazilian state of Par脿, two armed men intercepted her on the path. She knew what they were there to do. Taking out her Bible, she began reading to them and, for a precious few minutes, they listened before opening fire. Sr. Stang was shot six times in the head, throat, and body.

These are only three of the hundreds of Catholics and other Christians who bear the distinction of being the first martyrs of the twenty-first century.

鈥淭hree things distinguish anti-Christian persecution and discrimination around the world,鈥� said Denver鈥檚 Archbishop Charles Chaput to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 鈥淔irst, it鈥檚 ugly. Second, it鈥檚 growing. And third, the mass media generally ignore or downplay its gravity.鈥�

brian of course person of the year is a media invention. It helps us though. To remember the many people who made a difference this year. Nothing wrong with that. And really anybody famous or non famous could fit the title as long as their story touches the rest of us.

I propose the gentleman who phoned a cork radio programme for giving me one of the best laughs of the year.

Hi DD:
Smee. I second your nomination of 'Jeff'. Hilarious! Almost a funny as Catriona Ruane inspiring young kids to a shared future by applauding Bobby Sands.

John Wright
pascals wager continues on science of god thread..

OT

Glad you liked it Brian!

Just noticed that Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai hasn't been suggested yet.

Surely some mistake!

Barack Obama, President Elect, for Person of 2008.

My vote goes to Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Sir Hugh deserves to be considered for this award for his distinguished career as a Chief Constable and in particular the leader of one of the world's outstanding police forces.

I guess one deserves to be given an award for the good deed.