I was so disappointed

Gordon has done so much work to promote animal conservation; tigers, polar bears, brown bears and now wolves. He risks his life sometimes to do so. It seems wrong to critiscise him for what was an unscripted comment...they could hardly say 'cut' and shoot the scene again could they? Far better to use time and energy to attack the person who 'accidentally' shot Echo recently imo.

I have noticed recently that being made to 'feel uncomfortable' is increasingly being used to constrain other people's freedom of speech and action, whether intentional or not. So, for example, sexist language is not acceptable under any circumstances while offensive comments about religion or using 'Jesus' as an expletive is. Is it because more people are now offended by sexist language than by blasphemy?

I object to this thread being used to attack Islam and Mohammad (p.b.u.h.).

If you don't like what the presenter said then that's fine but you can't use your feelings about someone using Christian words to go on to attack another faith.

If you want to start a thread attacking Islam or any other faith feel free to do so but be prepared to argue your case.

crun I am sorry, but what on earth has Islam got with this thread?

Have I missed something, is Gordon a convert to Islam who was insulting Christianity? Don't think so.

I use good grief!

"You can say anything about Christianity but goodness mention Mohammed blessings be upon him in anything but the most fulsome terms and the dear old BBC get their knickers in a twist ."

Yes, and this just teaches Muslims that violence is the way to get what they want.

NanKate btw what expression do you normally use when totally amazed or taken by surprise.

I made grandkids laugh this holiday by using really silly old expressions, like 'blooming Nora' and 'oh my giddy aunt' - which they'd never heard.
Their father is from a very good home and was well brought up and has an excellent and senior job, but he uses the 'f' word a bit too liberally for my liking- but somehow it is not too offensive coming from him- a bit like Billy Conolly.

I like that, jura— thinking about why a person says a certain thing and in what circumstances. As a friend of mine always used to say: "Listen to the meaning, not the words." And it sounds as if the meaning in this case was something like "I am completely awed and amazed by this". Somehow that doesn't quite have the passion and immediacy of what was actually said. He didn't say what he said offensively therefore it wasn't offensive.

Thing is- he was supposed to observe and film the wolves from afar- but then as they go used to him being there- one or two of the young wolves became over curious, and perhaps even over hungry- and got closer and closer- until nearly touching nose- and unscripted, totally surprised, bewildered and even scared- he swore- without thinking about it. As said, I think anyone put in that amazing situation would have- although these are words I never ever use. Very different to a scripted play or story.

I thought the second part even better than the first... sad that one pup was lost but on the whole a thoroughly brilliant program but then most things I've see with Gordon Buchanan have been most watchable.

No just watched it Shysal.

I realise that my reaction was not the norm and for me it took the sparkle off what was a fascinating film.

I think I am a bit old fashioned and am influenced by how my parents brought me up, but to be honest I wouldn't change a thing (referring to my up-bringing)

I'm glad the programme was so popular.

When I read your first few words, Kate, I was awestruck, thinking you had directed or produced the programme! Duh! (as my DGCs would say!)

I didn't see the programme, but loved his bear series. I probably wouldn't have noticed the blasphemy, although I don't use those expressions myself.

I once had a very prim mature student who, when moved to curse, would exclaim,'Oh buttercups and daisies!' But I can't imagine that coming from the lips of Gordon Buchanan. It was a marvellous programme - blasphemy or no blasphemy. Did I notice? No. Do I care? No.

A terrific programme. I don't recall Gordon Buchanan being angry at all, and didn't pick-up on him saying 'Christ, Jesus wept' either. I was certainly aware of his feelings of joy, delight, surprise and sorrow.

In short, complain then if you want. But other people are free to shrug at your outrage.

Blasphemy is what some people find offensive. That's all. In all cases there will also be people, as this thread has already shown, who wonder what all the fuss is about, that is, why someone has taken offence at some words that do no-one any harm.

Which is why defining things people say as blasphemous is stupid.

Go ahead. Be offended. Big deal! What good does taking offence do to you or anyone else? None as far as I can see but, as I intimated earlier, taking offence can cause a lot of trouble. It isn't blasphemy or swearing or using words some people don't like that causes trouble. It's the taking offence at it and the sense some people have that they shouldn't have to hear anything they don't like. In a free society everyone will hear things they don't like at times. Mature people will just live with that, secure in the knowledge that if they want to say something they think is important but which some people might not like, then it's OK for them to speak up.

Not exactly to the point but I remember an American friend of mine when she was doing an A level English exam. In those days – I don't know about now – you had to put a Shakespearean speech into modern English. Her paper's was from Othello and began with the word Zounds, meaning "By God's wounds" – a kind of minor blasphemy. In her efforts to think of a modern equivalent, she came up "Jesus H. Christ". I have no idea what the examining board of the University of London made of that.

Just thinking further about feeling more shocked at saying Jesus instead of God. Where does the Concept of the Holy Trinity come in ?as in God the father, God The Son and God the Holy Ghost.

My mind is boggling!! How can that be Blasphemy! I can't say I know the actual context but if it was one of the Gospel writers, reporting an alleged reaction from Jesus to something or other How can it be Blasphemy?
It is surely an expression of despair or horror at something dreadful
Should we not say ,"Love one another"?

I didn't see the programme but I agree with you NanKate - I don't like it either. And I don't know why I find "Jesus" more offensive that "oh God", but I just do!!!!
And why not complain? I once complained about an ad on tv (where a woman took a gun out of her drawer and aimed it ….. was a car ad) and in fact the ad was withdrawn. Obviously many others complained too.
Most of us are not very good at complaining - e.g. in restaurants, or poor service, but maybe we should be braver and stand up for what we believe in.

People get murdered for saying so-called blasphemous things elsewhere in the world. We should be glad that doesn't happen here.

I didn't see the programme. I'd be interested to know in what circumstances he said "Jesus wept" if someone would be so kind as to tell me. Was he annoyed at some destruction of wildlife habitat or something? Why shouldn"t he express anger and something that angers him? Jesus did.

John 11:35 'Jesus wept' - the shortest verse in the bible. NOT that that explains why it should be used in ordinary speech.

Stansgran got a good point there.

Just thinking about it- NanKate, what would you say in such a situation.
I'd probaly say something much worse, but not blasphemous- not sure in which language.

If ever a wolf come nose to nose with me, I just do not know what I'd say! Last thing on my mind would be if someone, somewhere, maybe offended.

Just don't get the Muslim comment- as since when do 2 wrongs ever make a right?