It’s like encouraging a mosquito
Paul Sims watched Stephen Green on Channel 4’s 4Thought.tv the other day, so you won’t have to. 4Thought.tv is Channel 4’s version of the ever-laughable Deepity for the Day on BBC Radio 4. Stephen Green was srsly good, apparently. His Thought was about that there HoMoSeckShuality and why he thinks it should be put a stop to. Paul Sims collected some extracts, which is way helpful of him.
Homosexuals can never be one flesh, so they have to press into, like, sexual duty parts of the body that aren’t designed for that.
I think Stephen Green has been overthinking this. I think he has been having smutty thoughts.
In 30 years our dying civilisation is going to be taken over by a stronger one and the obvious candidate is Islam and the gays aren’t going to like it much living under that system.
So – um – let’s get rid of them all now before that happens, and then they won’t have to worry about not liking it much living under that system, because they’ll all be gone.
But srsly. Why are people giving Stephen Green air time? It’s like giving Bill Donohue air time. It’s like giving mildew a plate of food in your kitchen. It’s a mistake.
No that’s a slur on mildew everywhere! Take it back! Take it back!!
(Shorter Stephen Green: “Teh ghey gives me a funny feeling in my trousers.”)
Ophelia, sorry to split hairs, but Thought for the Day is a feature of The Today Programme on Radio 4. ‘BBC4’ is a splendidly idiosyncratic digital TV channel which commissions a (comparative) torrent of science programming. It is in no way connected with Channel 4.
Don’t forget it was the BBC which stood up to the odious Green and his mates over Jerry Springer: The Opera, in the face of Christian death threats. Thought for the Day is an aberration which no programme producer would think of commissioning today. It’s there because … it’s there; it would cause noisy grief in Tunbridge Wells if it were pulled and, the Corporation reasons, it’s not worth the bother.
Green is given air time so that he can be punted around the park by people like you, and me.
I think (though I may easily be wrong) that these days, “Thought for the Day” is an offshoot of the even-more-wierd “Sunday” programme on the same channel, in the hour up to 08.00 on Sunday morning.
The presenter of “Sunday” is a well-known RC crawler, Ed Stourton.
The open insanity and complete lack of joined-up-thinking, never mind anything remotely approaching logic on said programme is truly mindbending. It can really hurt your brain, realising just how far off-the-wall some of these people are, wandering around in our society, rabbitting on about their invisible friends, rather than being in some mental care home or other.
Don’t listen to it, unless you want to start shouting at the inoffensive radio-set!
Religion has been around in that slot since before WW2, although only with its present moniker for the past 40 years. The issue is the implication that in order to think about ethics you need to be religious, in some way. It also sits near the peak audience point of a programme which claims to be the agenda-setting acme of BBC journalism and therefore enjoys transferred cred. Sunday is just a wiffley religion show which, you could well argue, needs to be there because of the Corporation’s public-service remit, just like asinine Saturday evening game shows.
I’m sorry but lines like “they have to press into, like, sexual duty parts of the body that aren’t designed for that” just crack me up. I don’t like to speculate about other people’s sex lives, my own being less than spectacular, but what? Truly unsuited for booty duty? Sure, some fun is unfruitful, but I thought that was part of the point.
You mean the BBC has given air time to somebody you disagree with? Dust down the tumbrils Comrade.
@Mark Mitchell
If it were the case that it was necessary to be religious to present the slot then they would never invite on a representative of the “Church” of England now, would they?
All that kissing my wife insists we do, with parts of the body designed for eating and talking, being pressed into sexual duty. Disgusting.
Greg – please don’t knock Sunday. I wake up to the programme and find it a useful summary of all the nonsense in the religious world. I get a giggle when I hear about the “cancer of secularism”, or the fact that in the year after The God Delusion Richard Dawkins got more mentions than Jesus, but not without the addition of the word “outspoken” or “militant” of course. My favourite bit was in 2007 when Roger Bolton was interviewing Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Great Britain. It was about the Hindu protests against India’s plans to create a shipping channel by dredging the sea between India and Sri Lanka. As Roger Bolton began to ridicule the claims that this would destroy an underwater limestone bridge that Hindus believed was built by the Lord Ram and his army of monkeys, Ramesh Kallidai hit back by saying that his beliefs were no more ridiculous than the claims that Jesus came back to life! LOL
One programme that does make me angry though is Beyond Belief.
Please, we’re all too busy baying for blood to be be dusting the tumbrels.
Yes, it’s a mistake. Stephen Green started out as an Anglican and converted to Pentecostalism. He’s the leader and chief spokesperson for Christian Voice, which, according to Wikipedia
So, as you can see, Stephen Green is a bright light shining in the feverish glook of pagan Britain, supporting all the latest progressive Christian causes.
Channel 4 is not part of the BBC. Why do you think it is ?
Thought I had proofread that. It should read ‘feverish gloom of pagan Britain…’ I’m not familiar with the word ‘glook’, though it has the right resonance, especially where one Stephen Green is concerned.
Comment is free post on this issue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/03/christian-voice-homophobia
It’s there I scratch my head, should it be used? If so, should Blasphemy laws be used also? It was homophobic, it was wrong, it was sad and dumb, but that doesn’t automotically link to inciting hatred.
The other issue ignored in the CiF is aftermath of Griffin’s appearance. He was shown up for what he was and that one appearance probably did more harm for his cause than all the years of keeping him in exhile.
My following of the aftermath of Green is something similar, that one 5 minute slot has turned more against than I can see for.
Morally, if such things end up with a 100 new people adamantly against these individuals for every one new convert to their bile, was it worthwhile for the greater good?
It should also be pointed out that the BBC is obliged to have a percentage of religious programming due to public funding. When you look at all the output of the BBC across 4 tv channels and all the radio stations, it really is a very small portion they hand completely over to religion. I’m actually surprised they get away with providing so little.