I was so disappointed

nelliem, I was not making what you call a side swipe at a religion when I mentioned that in some countries people are murdered for what some of the people there tink blasphemous. I was stating a matter of fact. People also get jailed in some countries for being "blasphemous". I think it is important to acknowledge that we are a darn sight luckier to live in a country where people can blaspheme or use expletives that others object to without violence being resorted to. Free speech is very important. Part of the price we pay for free speech is that sometimes we will hear things we don't particularly like, that we choose to take offence at. Free speech protects everyone. I don't like a lot of things other people say but I defend their right to say them. That is what this is about.

Sounds like it should have been bleeped out. Think I must have an autobleep function in my head as I didn't hear anything surprising!

But was it mockery? The man had just come face to a face with a wolf. Surely it was simply an expression of shock.

Mockery is totally different. I don't this man or programme set out to make fun of Christianity. Would you have preferred it if the phrase had been bleeped out so we could just assume he'd understandably used an expletive.

Crossed posts, jingl

I don't think the posters who mentioned Islam were having a go at Islam. I think they were pointing out that mockery of some religions and their adherents is now apparently acceptable. But most media organisations hesitate to mock Islam. And the Beeb regularly shows comedians and others who ridicule belief in God and particularly, Christianity, but it doesn't show much (any?) mockery of Islam. I think this is a good thing. I just wish they would apply it to all faiths. No-one has addressed my point about sexism, racism and homophobia. These areas are where we now show respect, thank goodness. But why stop being respectful of other sensitive areas?

It was you saying how predictable the thread was that made me think you found it boring Gerente. As I said previously on the thread, the point about tolerance by the Beeb for Christian blasphemy as opposed to their utter fear of offending anything Islam, is a very valid point. And one that should be raised more often.

Whilst I agree that the UK did have a history of religious persecution and bigotry, we were not alone in that, certainly Spain and France carried out their fair share, particularly Spain where the Inquisition was conceived, but it's irrelevant to the discussion really, most places in the world behaved appallingly in different times.

We can't change the past we can only concern ourselves with the here and now. Whilst we have moved on many places in the world are morphing back into the very dark times we left centuries ago.

Islam is mentioned in this context as many of us know it's treated as a sacred cow so I suppose the point NanKate was originally making, is that the BBC particularly, does not give practicing Christians the reverence and respect that it does for the adherents of Islam, purely on the basis that we all now have to be very careful not to antagonise the fundamentalists followers of that religion.

The mention of Islam is totally irrelevant to this discussion and appears to me as an unedifying side swipe at another religion.

Never forget our UKs dreadful history of religious persecution and bigotry.

Its bigotry and misinterpretation of scriptures that cause wars and hatred not a religion itself.

Being surprised is not the same as being bored.
Whether that expletive should have been allowed or not, is a matter of opinion. But the assertion that a similar expletive involving another religion would have been something for which the beeb would apologise, should concern us all.
An accusation that our national broadcaster is biased one way or another needs to be taken seriously. Impartiality lies (or should) at the heart of public service.
So, yes I think this is important and (IMO) we ought to make a lot of it.

I use the oath...Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Is that blasphemy or simply a list of names?

Would you have preferred it if the presenter had said, "F**king hell!" when he came face to face with a wolf?

It's hardly the situation when you would say, "Golly gosh," is it? Unless you're part of the Famous Five. I'm sure in that situation Julian would have strangled the wolf with his bare hands, skinned it and made a lovely coat for Anne who would have simpered about how wonderful he was whilst she cleaned up the blood and guts.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with criticising a religion. There is something wrong when members of a religion respond to criticisms of their religion with violence. Calling justified criticism "bashing" is not helpful.

The above can be applied to all religions and all philosphical ideas and all scientific ideas.

Jesus's name was not "taken in vain". Just by the way, Jesus is a very common name in Spanish speaking countries. Are the people who call their baby boys Jesus "taking the name in vain". This is turning into a load of tosh.

Stop taking offence, people!

I seem to remember someone on the thread saying that what is at stake here is NOT what would happen if it had been a different religion. That is a red herring - whether or not he should have said "Jesus wept" should stand alone as a question, regardless of whether he could or could not have involved Mohammed.

It would be too easy to be drawn off the point and into mere Islam-bashing.

Gerente - do you think the BBC would have been in trouble had Mohammed's name been taken in vain rather than that of Jesus? I think they might have been. You would think a presenter might have a better command of English than to use phrases which are obviously going to upset some people although I don't object to the use of eg 'Jesus wept' per se.

Did you want a lot to be made of it, Gerente?

Sorry if we're boring you Gerente.

This discussion has been pretty predictable and par for the course, but I'm surprised that there has been so little made of the assertion by the OP. that if any comment had been made about Mahommed the beeb would have apologised.

'Jesus wept' is well known to be the shortest verse in the Bible. (John 11, 35). So is it not simply a quotation by the speaker, rather than blasphemy?

Jane10 Hurt feelings may have played a role in causing wars but, if so, it would seem to be a very minor one. Greed, a desire for more power, suppression of minorities, revenge for past harm and many other factors have always played a much bigger role.

soontobe Would this particular instance be taking the Lord's name in vain or was it, in fact, taken with respect? Surely this will be known only to the Lord and Mr Buchanan.

Erm...isn't FFS offensive to some people or doesn't it matter as long as it doesn't insult someone's god.

[wooden spoon]

That is SOONS belief , I say good on her.

Surprise , surprise it maybe the belief of many others also.

Who maybe don"t wish to come forward because of the mockery!!

People can google.
That is all I am saying on this thread.

Perhaps it is soontobe's* belief that it is a serious matter to God. That's ok.

Oh FFS!

Where the hell is this thread going now?

When did she tell you that, soontobe?

Taking the Lords name in vain is a serious matter to God.