Good & fair point.
Most or all religions are hijacked by bigots , has always been like that . Christianity probably being the worst example (historically) & the Roman Catholic branch has been the most disgraceful example ???
If the BBC invited him on to do a hatchet job
- Thread starter DRM
- Start date
Good & fair point.
Most or all religions are hijacked by bigots , has always been like that . Christianity probably being the worst example (historically) & the Roman Catholic branch has been the most disgraceful example ???
Sponsored Links
This one, that timeline and what we know of mohammed's life suggest this religion was started as a way for him to get power from the beginning.
I don't think that is the case.
I think you'll find it was they who invented religion - or the supernatural - to frighten and gain that power.
D
Doggit
Unfortunately no, religion is always created by those wishing to help others better themselves, and hijacked by the unscrupulous.
The supernatural is reality debunked by those at the top of the church, because they don't want the people under them to know the truth.
Religions tell you that only by following their teachings can you enter heaven, but if you knew that that's where you start from, and you come here to learn, and then keep coming back until you become a better person, then they'd have no more power over you. The church hierarchy know that there's more to the supernatural, but if they admit it, they'd lose the basis that they've built themselves on.
I once met a born again Christian, and he knew he'd sit on the right hand of God when he died, and I had one of those epiphany moments thinking, what makes you worthy of sitting on the right hand of God.
The supernatural is reality debunked by those at the top of the church, because they don't want the people under them to know the truth.
Religions tell you that only by following their teachings can you enter heaven, but if you knew that that's where you start from, and you come here to learn, and then keep coming back until you become a better person, then they'd have no more power over you. The church hierarchy know that there's more to the supernatural, but if they admit it, they'd lose the basis that they've built themselves on.
I once met a born again Christian, and he knew he'd sit on the right hand of God when he died, and I had one of those epiphany moments thinking, what makes you worthy of sitting on the right hand of God.
Sponsored Links
D
Doggit
But if we remind ourselves that history is always written by the winners, what can we really take as truth from something that happened 1500 years ago, and why wouldn't he have just taken control of the army, and gone to war. Genghis Khan didn't start a religion, and look at how big his army became.
In arabia before muhammad almighty the arabs religion was war. Tribal wars was a way of life.
Maybe muhammad brought some sanity?
If the desert had never existed perhaps islam would never have existed?
A harsh faith borne out of a harsh environment.
And now unleashed on the world beyond the deserts.
It was only in 586 AD that women in arabia were acknowledged to be human.
Maybe muhammad brought some sanity?
If the desert had never existed perhaps islam would never have existed?
A harsh faith borne out of a harsh environment.
And now unleashed on the world beyond the deserts.
It was only in 586 AD that women in arabia were acknowledged to be human.
Last edited:
D
Doggit
Hang on, wan't the idea that Mohamed brought the tribes together part of the plot of Kingdom of Heaven; but even if that were true, does that lessen his attempt to teach people a better way of life, and so starts a new religion.
i actually find andrew neil as fairly neutral but will ask points to ballance debate in general
he will challenge views from any angle to get ballance
now i dont take his words or thoughts as gospel but think he is fairly ballanced in general with his points and opinions
he will challenge views from any angle to get ballance
now i dont take his words or thoughts as gospel but think he is fairly ballanced in general with his points and opinions
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 141
- Country
Until watching that clip, I would have agreed with you although I don’t know how he treated Nigel Farage when the establishment tried to paint him as a nutcase.
As sooey has said, he fired questions (made points) and didn’t want the viewers to hear the answers, hence the reaction from Paul Weston at the end.
This is why I thought it looked like a hatchet job.
Andrew Neil is a good presenter and I think well balanced. He does have a tactic in that he wont allow mouthpieces and agendas onto his show. You're there to answer his difficult questions with honesty, not there to turn them around to the interviewees own agenda. When the interviewees start to do that he digs in and is insistant on keeping the interview on track.. (who's track?). Now I also believe that he knows exactly the buttons to push and is often better informed than the politician/pressure group he is interviewing.
Jo Coburn does it too, it's part of the game they're in. They are quite contrary when questioning a person who has a particular political slant, they edge their questions with the opposite political slant, and watch them squirm away from the trivial but "obvious" answer into the non-trivial. You can see the interviewees who get the hardest time are those that appear to think they're there for an easy ride and some free publicity on national telly with a full five mins to spout their agenda unchallenged.
Of course the interviewees know if they do answer questions honestly it appears their whole political ideology, of any slant, falls to pieces for the nation to see.. and shortly followed up by another question which nails the coffin firmly shut.
I say keep up the good work.
Nozzle
Jo Coburn does it too, it's part of the game they're in. They are quite contrary when questioning a person who has a particular political slant, they edge their questions with the opposite political slant, and watch them squirm away from the trivial but "obvious" answer into the non-trivial. You can see the interviewees who get the hardest time are those that appear to think they're there for an easy ride and some free publicity on national telly with a full five mins to spout their agenda unchallenged.
Of course the interviewees know if they do answer questions honestly it appears their whole political ideology, of any slant, falls to pieces for the nation to see.. and shortly followed up by another question which nails the coffin firmly shut.
I say keep up the good work.
Nozzle
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 141
- Country
This video is described as UKIP party leader Nigel Farage gets a tough grilling from presenter Andrew Neil.
He asked Nigel some tough questions, but did give him the courtesy of allowing him to answer those questions (starts at 4 minutes in).
Can you spot the difference?
My point was that if you ask someone a question you should allow them to answer or it is not balanced and it is reasonable to call it a hatchet job.
He asked Nigel some tough questions, but did give him the courtesy of allowing him to answer those questions (starts at 4 minutes in).
Can you spot the difference?
My point was that if you ask someone a question you should allow them to answer or it is not balanced and it is reasonable to call it a hatchet job.
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 141
- Country
They were both warlords, but Khan must have been strong enough so as not to need a religion as an aid to control his followers.
D
Doggit
I suspect if most friends (or anyone having a discussion) was recorded, the same thing would happen. We all interrupt others trying to get our point across, and it's a difficult thing to unlearn.
I think the more important aspect in these supposed hatchet jobs, is that Andrew Neil is fairly astute at picking up bullsh1t, so snaps back at some interviewees quickly, but give others a chance to state their point, whereas John Humphrys and the rest of the Radio 4 interviewers just act as rottweilers trying to get the answer they want, even if it's not there.
That's fair enough in a general conversation but a professional political interviewer is there to find out what the interviewee thinks and to ascertain whether or not his views and policies stand up to scrutiny.
To do that he should at least give him a chance to get his point out, at which point he can challenge it anyway he likes, and if the person being interviewed does try to change the subject he can be challenged on that too, but that is not the way Neil was conducting himself in this interview, he came across as more interested in how the public perceive him, than he was in getting the views of the person he was supposed to be interviewing.
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Messages
- 1,330
- Reaction score
- 141
- Country
On this occasion, Andrew Neil and the BBC did not want to hear any of the answers.
More disappointingly, they did not want us hear the answers, all they wanted to do was to try their very best to discredit him.
The same tactics that the establishment and the media have tried with the likes of Nigel Farage in the past and are doing with Donald Trump in the present.
More disappointingly, they did not want us hear the answers, all they wanted to do was to try their very best to discredit him.
The same tactics that the establishment and the media have tried with the likes of Nigel Farage in the past and are doing with Donald Trump in the present.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
