91Èȱ¬

A bus company should run the ads it wants to run.

A bus driver should drive the buses he's told to drive, or find a job that doesn't threaten his sensitive soul quite so much.

"...no reasonable member of the public could conclude from the presence of a humanist ad on the side of a bus that the bus driver is a humanist."

Exactly.

Fire his butt.... let his God lead him to another job?

A rare consensus!

We need to stop pandering to the whims of these people, it is getting beyond a joke. Make him drive whatever bus he is instructed to drive. I wouldnt get on a bus and refuse to be driven by a christian, why should he be afforded special treatment. The lunatics truly are taking over the asylum

A suggestion for the next atheist 'bus' add.

"Atheist bus ad results in World Peace.'

I can understand Ben Mocha, an Israeli paratrooper, refusing to participate in the obscene Israeli assault on Gaza, which has resulted in real harm, suffering and the deaths of innocents. But a bus driver objecting to an ad expressing an opinion on 'his' bus? This is ridiculous. Such sensitivity is OTT. It's not his bus anyway. Should I, as an non-believing teacher, have refused to teach pupils who were members of the school's Christian Union?

Rev David McIlveen, who demands freedom of expression for Christians to insult gays, and who appeared to tolerate the Humanist ads on Radio Ulster on Friday, by Friday night wanted to prevent their appearance. This is hypocrisy and intolerance combined.

Tolerance I define as the deliberate choice not to prohibit, hinder, interfere with opinions or behaviour of which one disapproves. Intolerance is the deliberate attempt to eliminate disapproved opinions and conduct. By this definition Mcilveen is clearly being intolerant

For years I am quite sure that many atheists, agnostics, and Humanists have driven buses in NI with 'The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God' displayed on them, without protest. As such, they have displayed real tolerance. Christians are, after all, allowed to express their opinions in public.

But are atheists or Humanists in NI? That is the real question here.

The Atheist bus slogan is actually less offensive than the aforementioned Christian ad. The former merely expresses an opinion, whereas the latter is offensive to the atheist personally.

And will atheists and humanists be allowed to express their opinion without being personally attacked? I return to the Nolan Show on Thursday where two Christians insulted a Humanist by calling him a liar and a fool with impunity. This would not be left unchallenged by an interviewer in the rest of the UK. But of course it is par for the course in our 'great wee country'.

I'd like to think that kind of insult would not go unchallenged on Sunday Sequence, Brian.

Augustine:

Yes, I agree, I think it wouldn't.

Maybe Mr Heather would like atheists and agnostics to wear little yellow stars, so that he could refuse them travel on his bus. I wonder has that ever been tried?

Sandown Road Presbyterian Church(the Rev. McIlveen's church) has of course been ordered to withdraw an ad because it was deemed to be homophobic, and thus unlawful, so it's somewhat hypocritical of the Rev. McIlveen to complain about the Humanist/Atheist one.



A bit like the pot calling the kettle black I suppose.

I wonder if the bus driver would have had the same response if the ad said 'There probably is no Allah'; given all the Abrahamic religions are monotheist?

Of course I support the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, conscientious objection etc provided they take into account the laws of society, the requirements of public safety and a desire for peaceful resolution of conflict and the just treatment of every citizen.

I hope that the bus driver also believes that freedoms of conscience and speech, and laws supporting the principle of just treatment of every citizen, also supports the atheists' right to place these advertisements.

On a more general point, people that decide to break the law in protests involving non violent civil disobedience, or individuals that decide to take a stand on the grounds of freedom of conscience should also be prepared to take responsibility for any consequences of their actions, be it loss of income, fines or imprisonment and so on.

SheffTim-

No, "There probably is no Allah" is a racist sentiment, and very intolerant and offensive. .

Helio

I would have thought that the people of Gaza, Zimbabwe or the Sudan might have cause to play the victim, but atheists or christians in the West? And no, I don't agree with him, but he's not actually discriminating against the company's passengers, just being a little silly.

The ref to the star is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?



Brian,

I wonder if I could pick you up to on the fools comment again.

I see you quoted the Psalm from which it is taken, either 14 or 53. A couple of things, one, I do not understand this Psalm to be giving us a definition of the word fool, i.e. someone who does not believe in God, e.g. 'you're a fool if you don't', nor to I understand the word 'fool' to be a word which relates to our use of the word, ie. idiot.

Rather, David appears to be reflecting on those who have abandoned morality, (which is what I am led to understand is the Hebrew emphasis of the word translated 'fool') those who, for example, are described in the Psalm as acting unjustly towards the poor. It's as if he is saying, the unjust the immoral have chosen to act as they please, they hold themselves accountable to no-one, they are people without standards. Now I am not saying that atheists are immoral, that would just be a different insult, but what I do think David is saying is that when we forget about moral accountability, people suffer. Now, obviously those from a Judeo Christian background are going to say the we are finally accountable to God, but for me the wider point is, morality demands accountability, and to live without accountability will lead to injustice.

David, having lamented the plight of those on the receiving end of injustice finishes the Psalm looking forward to the day (praying, I suppose) when justice will finally be done, something I'm sure we would all appreciate.

Two things seem to be in play here, one, poor translation and two, as I said before, presumption on the part of those who use words as weapons.

If I might give a very practical example of what a Christian's response could be to the words in this Psalm, next time a Christian is shopping in the supermarket, they might ask themselves if they are acting as a fool in failing to buy 'Fairtrade' products.

I hope this makes sense.

#13. Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Being a Muslim (or Christian) is not restricted to one race or ethnic group. That both religions can be found amongst the populations of many countries on all inhibited continents is evidence of this.

In Arabic Allah means 'The God. 'The Quran says: ''Allah is He, other than whom there is no other god.' Allah is used is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to 'God'.
There are, of course, different conceptions of God and major theological differences between Christians and Muslims.
Christians believe that the Muslim God is different from the God they worship; Muslims believe that the Judeo-Christian God is the same God as the Muslim God.
However both insist that there is only one 'God', despite the differences in doctrine and interpretation. (There are also major theological differences withing both Christianity and Islam.)

The is now a law against incitement to religious hatred (The Racial and Religious Hatred Act); I don't believe that challenging the idea that God[s] exists, offering alternative ways of thinking for people who are not religious or the idea that you can be good without gods or religious faith is inciting hatred against [a] religion.
The Act revolves around: "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". The point as I understand it is to protect people, but not their ideas.

It is absolutely right that that everyone - including Muslims - should have the right to freedom of religious belief in any free society, just as they and others such as humanists & atheists have the right freedom of expression, providing they observe the limits of civil law. The point of democracy is that it advances through the debate of ideas. It is absolutely right that people should protest against actual demonstrable discrimination whenever and wherever they experience it.

It is also absolutely wrong to demand that any system of belief or thought should be immune against criticism, irreverence, satire or even scornful disparagement.
Religious tolerance does not mean accepting all beliefs as equally true, avoiding criticizing actions motivated by religion that harm others or to avoid comparing (debating) the beliefs of different religions with each other, to science or to other philosophical ideas.
On a wider, but related, issue of causing offence, there is a difference between causing offence and causing actual harm. A person can decide whether or not to take offence (this can be a matter of opinion), they have no such choice about actual harm being caused.

The bus ads are obviously intended as atheist propaganda - should a driver really be forced to deliver this around his route, against his conscience?

Gregory Campbell's idea is worth considering, don't you think? - ie adding the question: ..."but what if there is?" to the ad.

I have to say that I think one good thing coming out of all this is that many more people will actually be talking about God.....and I'm all for that!!

A Christian bus driver thinks he has the right to refuse to drive a bus carrying a Humanist message?

Will he also refuse to drive buses which carry adverts for shops which are open on Sundays? Or adverts for banks, since they practise usury?

And then the Muslim drivers will refuse to carry adverts which refer to alcoholic drinks or feature women without head scarves.

The managers of the bus company have been extremely foolish in pandering to this stunt. They should have told him to take up his P45 and walk.

Gregory Campbell's idea is daft. He can't expect people who paid for an ad to have extra words added to the ad that cur across the ad's message. That couldn't be required by law, any more than commercial ads could be required to add the words "but what if this product is rubbish?" at the end of their commercials.

The whole thing's getting daft.

Had a thought though, about Mr. Heather.

He says he won't drive a bus with the ad on it; but let's say he needed to take a bus home, or into town, or maybe even to go to a church meeting, who knows, and let's say he was waiting at the bus stop and along came one of the buses with the ad on it, what would he do then?

'There probably isn't a God, but what if there is?' would really be for the Churches to run as a riposte, if they wished. Rather as political parties reply to their opponents criticisms at elections.

Would the Churches be happy to let the Humanists have a hand in drafting Church publicity and pronouncements in return?

SheffTim

Hi again.

Interesting idea. What would you do with this bit of Christian thinking?

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love you neighbour and hate your enemy'.' But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."

SheffTim-

I appreciate your reply, and I agree ... I was actually being entirely facetious in #13!

Pastorphilip:

You say: "The bus ads are obviously intended as atheist propaganda - should a driver really be forced to deliver this around his route, against his conscience?"

Come off it! It's only an opinion! Is any opposing view to your own intended as 'propaganda'? Are Christians so intolerant that they cannot stand a contrary view being expressed in public? Mr Heather has lived a very sheltered life if he has never heard an atheist viewpoint expressed before. He needs to get out more (and as a passenger on an 'atheist bus', Peter, if he has to).

Hearing or seeing an opposing opinion might actually make him think and question his own assumptions. Or does a Christian conscience have such a narrow range that it cannot consider that it might possibly, just possibly, be mistaken?

It proves my point yet again. Many Christians here simply aren't accustomed to an opposing opinion being baldly stated in public without challenge. That's what this opposition is really all about. They cannot stand the possibility that some people might see it and actually agree with it!

Pastorphilip, many of the current ads are highly evangelical: "Jesus saves", "... eternal life through Jesus Christ", etc. Do you think that Catholic drivers in conscience should refuse to drive these buses? Suppose there was an ad that said: "The Church is the way to salvation". Should an evangelical Protestant refuse to drive such a bus?

'I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.' (Luke 6:27-29)

#21. Peter I don't intend entering into debate over this, but you asked a question (I recognise the quote, but history shows that very few that have 'faith' live up to that message.) and this is my personal answer , 'on the hoof' as it were (and at 7.45am!)

Turning the other cheek is a very hard aspiration to live up to and I have deep respect for those that decide to live [and some to die] by it.
In his book on the genocide in Rwanda 'We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families', the author tells the stories of two groups of school girls, in separate schools, who during an attack on their schools were roused from their sleep and ordered to separate themselves into 2 groups - Hutu and Tutsi. The girls refused, saying they were all Rwandans, so they were all killed. The Hutu girls could have lived, but they chose to identify with their Tutsi friends and were killed with them.

In a different context Albert Einstein once said: 'Remember your humanity and forget the rest.' I don't think that you need religious faith to agree with that, particularly as we look at events around the world.
Personally I am not a pacifist, I believe in the right to defence and that sometimes it is right to intervene to protect those being persecuted from coming to harm.
My personal thinking, such as it is, is along the lines below:

Act without belligerence, seek peace rather than conflict. Attempt to seek to resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence.
Defend yourself only if unavoidable and as a last resort; use force without anger, hatred or desire for vengeance.
Do not strike out blindly or from malice. Use your strengths to protect others.
Protect the young, the weak and the vulnerable from cruelty and harm.
Seek to protect yourself and others from those whose actions cause harm or those that plan to cause deliberate harm.
Be compassionate and beneficent. Share with those who are less fortunate and assist those who are in need of help without expectation of reward; but be realistic as to what can be achieved.
Respect the right of others to disagree with you. Allow other individuals the right to their beliefs, values, and lifestyle, even though they may differ from your own. We may not agree with them, but each individual is entitled to their convictions and freedoms as long as they do not harm others, wish to harm others or to prevent them from exercising their rights.

#22 Thank you for your comment.
Some would use the racism card to defend religion.

Ron Heather was on the Nolan Show this morning and, as one caller said, wasn't he such a nice man in contrast to many of the callers? So, there you have it: Ron is right because he seems such a nice man.

Jess Yates was such a nice man on TV. He played the organ and introduced hymns, in total contrast to his private life. Hughie Green was such a nice, warm man on TV but was, according to many who knew him, capable of being bad-tempered and nasty. Rock Hudson was the perfect ladies man in his films. Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer, appeared so nice and helpful on TV after the killings. None of them were as they appeared to be.

Actually, Ron Heather didn't really know what he was doing. He was quite contradictory. He has worked on Sunday, even though he doesn't approve of it. In other words, he objects to an opinion which contradicts his own but fails to practise what he preaches.

Of course, I should have said that the worst example of hypocrisy in the last three weeks has been Israeli government ministers appearing on TV, calmly and politely justifying their slaughter (and it theirs because they took the decision) of 400 children.

Brian, you are losing it. Hughie Green, Rock Hudson, and Ian Huntley? Outrageous, ridiculous analogies. that kind of response loses you an argument with the public. Be careful.

Augustine:

I'm NOT saying that Ron Heather is like these people. Don't be silly. I am merely saying that you cannot judge the real person from the media, that's all. I took extreme cases to emphasise the point. Is that not legitimate?

Augustine:

Let me clarify a little bit more. It gets my goat when people judge others from appearances on the media. In the Nolan Show, a number of people rang up and expressed annoyance at Ron Heather's action over the Humanist bus ad, and rightly so. I would have done the same thing myself. But Ron was very calm and collected and never got flustered. Someone rang up and said what a nice man he was, in contrast to his accusers. How on earth can anyone tell what he is really like from a ten-minute interview?

It takes a lifetime to get to know people. Or maybe a bit less: hence the number of divorces.
Human beings are like chameleons: they put on different masks in different situations.

The media is largely about presentation and soundbites. If you don't play their game, then it is assumed that it is you who is defective rather than the media.

Why should people not get annoyed at hypocrisy? Why shouldn't they get annoyed at injustice? Let's have a bit more annoyance. Maybe the hypocrites and warmongers might listen for a change.

"Why should people not get annoyed at hypocrisy? Why shouldn't they get annoyed at injustice? Let's have a bit more annoyance. Maybe the hypocrites and warmongers might listen for a change."

Yes, but a nice old man making a point that you don't agree with doesn't really fall into those categories, does it.

I'm all for your stand against hypocrisy, i agree with you that the media is more about presentation and soundbites, but does the fact that someone said the old man came across as a nice fella have anything whatsoever to do with this issue.

Or are you just off on a mad rant again?

No doubt you think it's gross hypocrisy that someone rang Nolan to say the man was nice, and they wouldn't do that with humanists.

Bias!

Discrimination!

Fascist Pogroms!!!!

Theocracy!

Brian
What did you expect on the "Nolan Show" - rational debate?
I agree with you - most debates should not be settled by quick character assessments. And the media has a tendency to promote a belief that we personally know someone just because we hear their voice in our living rooms. I think television and radio is an ideal place to promote and begin discussion and investigation. But discussion and investigation cannot be pursued there in any depth.
I cannot see any reason for taking offence - in fact I rather wish the advertisement was a little more assertive. I cannot see any reason for opposing the campaign on moral or theological grounds. That is to say, whatever the Rev McIlveens feelings I doubt that he can produce an argument that coheres with Evangelical convictions.
Mr Heather's heart may be in the right place. That is, he may be following the demands of his conscience. I think that you should allow for that possibility. But this does seem to be one case where a conscience has been very poorly informed.

GV

To clarify
(i) I see no evidence that Mr Heather is a hypocrite. I do see evidence that he does not have a reasonable view concerning freedom of speech.
(ii) The only debates that should be constituted of quick character judgments are those concerning who to vote off "Celebrity Big Brother".

Which is why we got rid of the TV arial.
Still miss "Match of the Day" though.

GV

Graham, Bernard:

Good to see that I have stirred you both up a bit out of your theological slumbers.

Bernard, how do you know that Ron Heather is a nice old man?
Nice people often have 'nasty minds'. Ulster is full of them. And is the Pope just a 'nice old man'?

He did say that he had driven buses on Sunday, even though he didn't agree with working on that day, yet he refuses to drive a bus carrying an opinion different from his own. How do you unravel this one, Bernard. Come on, get your jesuitical brain to work.

Brian, good to see this "jesuitical" nonsense being brought up again...even though this issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with jesuits.

Rant.

On the substantial issue that you raise;

1:
I have no idea whether he's a nice old man or not. I didn't even hear the show, so can't even make a superficial judgment.

I was merely pointing out the fact that you got so wound up that some one else, some random listener, thought he was a nice old man.

You speak, as you always do, as if this is yet another instance of some kind of bias against humanists, or implies that we live in some kind of theocratic state.

2.
I agree with graham. I think the man's decision is probably slightly misguided. But it's not bias, he's not discriminating against anybody, nor is he attacking free speech, or the secular society. He's simply arguing that he shouldn't have to drive a bus with atheist propaganda on it.

I think the argument doesn't stand up, because in that case we could all argue against working in organisations with any sort of argument at all.

But regardless, my main point was not that Ron heather is RIGHT, nor that he's a nice old man.

My point is that you, as usual, are intent on playing the victim. not only is this man's decision somehow a direct attack on you, but so also is the fact that a Nolan listener thinks he's a nice old man. somehow this is gross hypocrisy, bias and theocracy.

Actually, as you know, it's nothing of the sort, but one man's action in relation to his work circumstances, probably better suited to an employment tribunal...certainly no reason for you to play the victim, Brian.

Second paragraph in point 2 should read

"we could all argue against working in organisations with any sort of ADVERTISING at all"

Brian
The Pope drove buses on a Sunday? Which Pope? Why did he do this?

GV

Ha.

I suspect that was just an excuse to mention the pope.

After all, a man won't drive a bus! Not only is that jesuitical popery worthy of the middle ages, but it's also BIAS that someone thinks he's a nice man!

THEOCRACY!

Bernard:

YOU said he was a 'nice old man'. You agreed with the listener without even having heard the programme! Are you telling me that you don't mean what you say? Perhaps the listener who rang in didn't mean it either.

Perhaps when you say you believe in a God, you don't mean it either. Perhaps nobody means anything. Perhaps indeed we live in an irrational universe.

How are we meant to know the difference between when are you serious and when are you just joking? Perhaps Ron Heather is joking too.

So concerned are you with psychoanalysing and attacking me that you haven't answered my question. Why is it such a great matter of conscience to take a stand on an opinion in an advertisement but not to object to having to work on what you think is a Holy Day when you shouldn't have to work?

You are quite wrong and totally misguided about my alleged victimhood. I don't feel victimised at all partly because I personally have had some access to the media. In that respect, as an INDIVIDUAL, I am comparatively privileged, compared to many other atheists, humanists. But the ad is not for me. It is for all those who have felt threatened by or insulted by religious advertising and threats of hellfire if they don't believe. It is for the mass of people who have been subjected to religious propaganda for centuries without any comeback.

Personally, threats of hellfire have no worry for me. I know that when I'm dead, I'm well and truly ended.

Brian at the very least humanists could learn from Ron Heather. Stay calm, don't rant, and appeal to the audience's sense of fair play. Arrogance doesn't play well with the public.

Brian, good God, what nonsense are you talking?

I didn't say he was a nice old man...as I say, i didn't hear the program, and even if I did, wouldn't make the judgment just on that.

What I said was " Yes, but a nice old man making a point that you don't agree with doesn't really fall into those categories"

the categories being "hypocrites and warmongers"...which you decided to bring up...because a radio listener called him a nice old man.

As I say, i don't know whether he's a nice old man. what I do know is that, whether he is or not, the fact that a radio listener thinks he is has no relevance to warmongers or hypocrites, which you seemed to be suggesting in post 29.

As for the question you ask, I have told you that i personally think his argument doesn't stand up.

so the answer to this;

"Why is it such a great matter of conscience to take a stand on an opinion in an advertisement but not to object to having to work on what you think is a Holy Day when you shouldn't have to work"

is


It isn't. I don't think it's such a great matter of conscience, and think he's misguided.

Now, a question for you.

Why, on remarking on the fact that a radio listener thought he was a nice old man, did you start talking about bias, hypocrites and warmongers????

As for your other points. i am glad that YOU don't feel victimised (although that's far from apparent judging by your posts).

How, then, are you so conviced that others are being victimised?

"for all those who have felt threatened by or insulted by religious advertising and threats of hellfire if they don't believe."

What?????

People are threatened by advertisements now are they?

As for insulted....i believe you're the one talking about freedom of speech.

But "threatened"!!! By an ad? this is where your cries of bias and victimhood come into their own.

The fact that you are claiming that you aren't a victim, but that, presumably others are, only reinforces how spurious your claims are.

of course, YOU are not worried by threats of hellfire....somehow, though, other atheists are, and they need you to stand up for them against these "threats"!!!

What a lot of nonsense. not just victimhood, but proxy victimhood!

It is for the mass of people who have been subjected to religious propaganda for centuries without any comeback

Peter (#14)/ Augustine (#39):

Admirable sentiments.

Augustine:

Can't we 'rant' on this blog? Are we not allowed to be angry'?

Peter:

I appreciate your attempt in post 14 to clean up Psalm 14:1. Whoever wrote it many possibly have meant what you say, but you need to educate a lot of Christians, not least the other David. Of course, it's too late to educate the Psalm writer, who may have expressed himself badly.

Brian, rant on here as much as you like. That's not my point. My point is, if you want to build support on-air, in the media, you could learn from Ron H's approach. You catch more flies with honey then vinegar, Brian!

Augustine:

I think sometimes that's true and sometimes it isn't.

Smooth talkers may be a turn off. There is often a suspicion that behind the facade lies a heart of steel. Read Shakespeare: he is the greater writer on the difference between appearance and reality.

Remember: Adolf Hitler mesmerised millions with his 'rants'.

Bear in mind that it precisely their rational, smooth talking in the face of 400 dead children that makes the Israeli ministers appear so hypocritical. It all depends, you see. If you are an Israeli who agrees with its government, then the rational smooth talk reassures you that they did the right thing. But if you are a suffering Palstinian, then the smooth talk only adds to the pain and insult (and, alas, hatred).

I like both honey AND vinegar.

It depends on the context though, doesn't it.

Brian, fair play to you for expressing your views, and for doing so on this forum, with a number of people who disagree. I'm sure many people think you do a good job, and you're always a formidable person to argue with.

But does it ALWAYS have to take the crying tone, the self-righteous assertion that you're defending the rights of generations of atheists who were brutally discriminated against?

It's acceptable to make the point that atheists were persecuted in the past. Many many people were persecuted in the past. In many m,any way, all societies were extremely intolerant of all dissension until just a century or two ago.

But it's no longer the case. Atheists aren't persecuted. you can publish your ad. you can argue on internet blogs. you can even drive a rusty nail through the host.

So why the persecution complex, and the constant whiny tone? Especially as you've admitted that you yourself aren't persecuted or discriminated against!

Augustine:

Just another thought or two.

Being calm is not the same as being rational. Ron Heather was calm, but he wasn't being rational because he was prepared to foresake his principles by working on Sunday, yet insisted on sticking to them over an innocuous opinion on the side of a bus he drove.

I suspect hypocrisy here. In the former case, his job was at stake, whereas with the ad he knew that there were plenty of other buses and they would get him one.

I think you have to consider the history of Ulster and its firebrand preachers before you make comments about honey and vinegar. From Roaring Hanna to Big Ian we have had loud Christian mouths thrusting large does of vinegar down our throats. And the point is that they were popular and had huge followings.

J B Priestley once said that it's no good talking in soft, gentle tones when all around you are shouting, and he had a point, and our society tends to prove it.

Look back at the thread where Portwyne analysed the speeches of Brutus and Mark Antony. The former speaks calmly and rationally and is applauded by the crowd. But Mark Antony speaks with poetry, power, sarcasm and emotion and the crowd are whipped up into a frenzy.

The trouble here is that people tend to be hooked on the messenger, not the message. I suspect that the person who said that Ron Heather was a nice man was a Christian himself and therefore was prepared to agree with whatever he said because he seemed such a 'nice' Christian.

Bernard:

Humanists have a long way to go here. The ad hasn't arrived yet and if some Christians have their way it won't.

Has local television covered the campaign? Not, as far as I know. Why not?

As for all that damning with faint praise, "whiny tone" is another personal remark. My tone will remain. I suggest that if you don't like it, then just ignore me in future instead of responding.

I'll make one comment about your manner, though. You never seem to be able to address me just on a point; you always have to surround it with personal remarks of one kind or another. Perhaps that indicates a deficiency on your part. Behold the beams, Bernard.

Brian
1)No harm in a rant/"flame
2) But I don't see any evidence of hypocrisy, or anything to get annoyed over
3) One of the reasons we got rid of the TV is that the preponderance of broadcasts were inconsistent with conservative Christian belief. But I don't feel persecuted

GV

Oh, I wouldn't take Bernard's remarks too personally.
If pushed, I daresay he'd say he respects you as much as I do. You've been debating a good while, and I didn't think he was being too rude in expressing his exasperation. Your exchanges are good fun to read.

I'm tempted to draw analogies to an episode of "Grumpy Old Men" but I don't want to make unwarranted inferences about anyone's age ( ;

GV

Your's and Bernard's that is.

Hi Graham:

As Victor Meldrew might have said: "The day I stop being grumpy and whiny is the day I die".

My blood is presently boiling over reports from Gaza in the Observer and Guardian over the last three days.

According to the Observer, in one town, Israeli soldiers
• killed civilians trying to escape under the protection of white flags;

• opened fire on an ambulance attempting to reach the wounded;

• used indiscriminate force in a civilian area and fired white phosphorus shells.

According to the Guardian today,

Israeli soldiers daubed the following on the walls of the ground floor of a house:
"Arabs need 2 die", "Die you will",
"Make war not peace" "1 is down, 999,999 to go".

The current figures for the dead are: Gazans, 1360 (40% women and children under 18); Israelis, 13 - a proportion of almost exactly 1,000 to 1.

Absolutely appalling.

Brian
I've been reading a little about the Israeli alliance with the Phalangists in 1982.
How many people know the names Sabra and Shatila?

GV

Graham:

That proportion should of course read 100 to 1.

Yes, the film Waltz with Bashir features these massacres.

I'll Google that, thanks Brian.

Neither massacre has stayed in our consciousness in the same manner as Srebinicia or My Lai.

Why is that?

Hi Graham:

I could suggest a number of reasons:

1. No one has been held to account, unlike the two other incidents you mention. An attempt was made to indict Sharon but it failed.

2. It is difficult to indict Israelis for war crimes in view of what happened to Jews, especially in 1933-45. The Holocaust excuse becomes a kind of moral blackmail, silencing criticism of Israel.

3. Palestinians don't 'count', as the figures above indicate. Their lives are generally treated in the West as 'expendable'.

4. Western discourse is dominated by the Israeli viewpoint, which means that they get widespread support for their reasons for action, however feeble or phoney.

5. American Zionists are even more rigidly pro-Israel than many Israelis and attempt to stifle criticism in the US, where most western 'public opinion' originates.

6. As many Americans turned off the Vietnam war, they looked for justifications. My Lai was one.

7. Britain is generally a US lackey and rarely says anything to offend the US government. Thus Miliband declares the 'war on terror' was a mistake, as Bush leaves office but not before.