Green given rough ride on Question Time

fuckwitonQT
He may have seen it as a huge opportunity to bring the word of God to the nation but, in the event, Stephen Green’s stuttering, lip-licking, and frequently incoherent performance on BBC’s Question Time did more to undermine the credibility of Christian Voice than a hundred protesting pickets.

Laughed at by the audience, berated by Simon Hughes, disdained by Dimblebly, and openly mocked by Janet Street Porter, you would have almost felt sorry for him – if you didn’t know him, or had missed his latest press release entitled Purity Comes to New Orleans.

When he wasn’t inducing groans with his bible quoting, his contributions ranged from the nonsensical to the banal. As Tim at bloggerheads notes, he seems to believe that freedom of speech only applies when you’re criticising the government. Luckily for him, there were no questions which allowed him to exhibit the full extent of his ignorant bigotry. Homosexuality and Charles Darwin were conspicuously absent. Pity.

There was a demonstration outside the Corn Exchange in Brighton by local gay rights activists prior to the recording. And, according to Ekklesia, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church, Rev David Peel, also spoke out in protest, saying

Christian Voice has the right to express its extreme views, but it is as representative of Christian opinion in Britain as the Monster Raving Loony Party would be of mainstream political parties – and far less entertaining.

It is unlikely that Mr Green will be invited back.

You can hear/see the whole thing again here (sans the lip-licking).


27 Responses to “Green given rough ride on Question Time”

  1. Andrew Nixon says:

    For those of you who missed the inept Green on Question Time, the BBC have the show up on their website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm

  2. Marc says:

    Now that was worth an hour of anyone’s time! Once again, Green proved he was a monster raving god-bothering twat and even fellow Xian JSP didn’t find common ground to agree with him on. Green’s really done it this time and in front of the nation! Well done Mentorn/BBC – what a coup!

    Now we know what he looks like and thanks to some bloggers, his telephone numbers too! RESULT!

  3. DaveB says:

    Green came across very poorly. He looked nervous from start to finish

    What’s interesting is the “what you’ve said” section of the Question Time microsite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/4295490.stm) where some people are “angry that a Christian is treated like this etc etc…” Xtian Voice people methinks!

  4. Marc says:

    GALHA blog has an excellent post mortem on the Green debacle. It’s shame they didn’t dedicate the whole programme to a thorough debunking of his mindless nonsense.

    http://galha.blogspot.com/2005/09/god-makes-monkey-out-of-green.html

    Class!

  5. Andy Gilmour says:

    Just watched the show via the Beeb website. Brilliant entertainment. To be fair, I think Mr. Green actually slightly edged that dimwit “entertainment reporter” woman from the Scum (?I believe it was? could well be erroneous) they had on a while back for basic intelligence (not that that’s saying much). But then every time he opened his mouth and revealed to the world how he has actually chosen to apply that (tiny) modicum of processing power he’s got… hehehehehehehehehehhaaaaahhooooo.

    Scary when you think just how brainless he clearly is, yet there are others out there willing to follow his lead. I know, there aren’t a particularly large number of them, but when they’re fuelled by righteous zealot certainty… I’ve seen it first-hand in the USA, and it is truly terrifying.

  6. Hector says:

    I agree Andy, he came across very badly, although rather frustratingly I think Dimbleby rather gave up on him. I too was shocked to find myself thinking: “Janet Street Porter – nice one”. I’ll get over it.

    Some of the viewers’ quotes on the QT site are priceless:

    “I note the general derision that was directed at the Christian panellist” – (did he not notice there was more than one?)

    “To see a Christian figure ridiculed in such a manner made my blood boil”

    “The protests Stephen organises are not aggressive, but the legitimate right of UK citizens to protest. [...] Not sure how Simon Hughes can claim to be evangelical and yet not be bothered by people’s blasphemous portrayal of his God in the media”

  7. Christopher Shell says:

    So far as I can see David Peel is not right: all known statistics point to the fact that far and away the quickest growing churches (often the only growing churches) are those which hold orthodox CHristian views. Far and away the main growing churches are the black churches, to whose viewpoint SG approximates.

    Hi Marc-
    Aren’t you missing the point? I very much doubt whether SG or any other Christian speaker would in the least mind being branded a ‘t***’. Do you think they/we are out to be cool or popular? That is the last thing on their/our minds. They/we couldnt care less about that.
    In the context of a debate, being either cool or popular doesnt matter two hoots (apart from, of course, the support it will gain you). What matters is being either right or accurate.
    With many other, non-Christian groups and ppl it is a different story. Indeed, it’s precisely various other ppl’s concern to be cool and popular that prevents them from countenancing any unconventional views. Never mind whether those views are right or wrong – they dont want to risk unpopularity, therefore unconventionality is sufficient to rule a given viewpoint out of court.

  8. Marc says:

    Yes indeed. Several Christians on the panel and only one with mental health issues. I was waiting for the men in white coats to drag him off screaming “Praise be to Jesus! The end of the world is nigh!”

    I haven’t laughed as much in ages. Please, Mentorn, let’s have some more!

  9. Marc says:

    **** Quoting from Ekklesia.co.uk *****

    Though the BBC Question Time website says that Green’s previously unknown group stands for “traditional Christian values”, it was today condemned by the head of one of Britain’s major denominations, the United Reformed Church (URC), and by a string of other church bodies.

    The Moderator of the General Assembly of the URC, the Rev Dr David Peel, said: “It is a matter of some regret that … the BBC should choose to undermine the reputation of Question Time by giving a platform to a small, self-selecting group distinguished mainly by its absurd claim to represent Christians in this country.”

    Mr Peel added: “Christian Voice has the right to express its extreme views, but it is as representative of Christian opinion in Britain as the Monster Raving Loony Party would be of mainstream political parties – and far less entertaining.”

    — and —-

    However CV went on to exert pressure on a Scottish charity to refuse a £3,000 donation that would help cancer sufferers, because cast members from the Jerry Springer show had been involved in raising it at a cathedral concert.

    Director Stephen Green also caused widespread offence by declining to offer compensation to the cancer sufferers, and by saying that he wished to reverse the stereotype of Christianity as “a religion for women and wimps”.

    ======================================

    Do I really need to say this again? HE’S A TWAT!

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    But even if he was/is a twat,and a prat, and a ****head, and various other grotesque things as well, that would be irrelevant to the question of whether he (or anyone else) was/is truthful or accurate.

    I think the real situation is becoming clearer. There is one group of people who debate to find the truth. There is another group who debate to retatin popularity and cool, and to this end avoid like the plague any position which is unconventional within their own peergroup, historical period and geographical location.

    It is also worth bearing in mind that the United Reformed Church is very much towards the liberal (ie shrinking) end of the Christian spectrum.

  11. Andrew Nixon says:

    But Stephen Green isn’t truthful or accurate. He is not seeking to debate to find the truth. He accepts clear fantasy as truth, much like you Christopher.

    Green is seeking to impose his idea of the truth onto others.

  12. Marc says:

    As are people like Peter Vardy, who unfortunately are rather better funded. I shudder to think what would happen if Green got into education!

    Part of my campaign to get religious zealouts out of schools is to boycott Reg Vardy dealerships. Tell your friends what his game is (mass emails are a great way to start – but keep to the facts)and plead with them not to buy his cars: no matter how good the offer, as the final price is Vardy’s idea of Christianity (10,000 year old earth, Harry Potter banned, etc.) gets into shcools.

    If you already bought a car from Vardy, remove all trace of advertising from it. Hurting rich people in their wallets is one place to attack them legally.

    I would take bets that Stephen Green secretly wants to burn witches and would if he thought he could get away with it. What he did to the cancer charity is tantamount to creating suffering in my book.

    AS for the URC shrinking, so fucking what? The whole Christian church is shrinking – even if odd pockets are expanding. People realise it’s an outmoded idea that has no place in the modern world. You can teach morals without deferring to a god. If the catholics gave up on their ideas on contraception, the RC church would be dead in a few short generations too.

  13. Christopher Shell says:

    I didnt say he was either truthful or accurate.

    But the issue is truth and accuracy. The issue is not twatdom or prathood. You know as well as I do that people can ber both cool and wrong. Or prattish and right. In a debate, the name of the game is to be accurate, not to avoid being a prat. People who really love the truth couldnt care less whether they were ‘prat of the century’. So what? Those who emphasise whether someone is a **** or not give themselves away as people who are not really interested in truth, merely in retaining cool, credibility, peer-group respect, conventionality, and various other things equally irrelevant to debate.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Marc-
    How can a worldview be ‘outmoded’? If it is wrong now, then it was wrong before as well. If it was right before, it is still right.
    By using *fashion* as your criterion, are you perhaps unintentionally giving away where you are really coming from? Maybe in your eyes the name of the game is to be fashionable. Not correct, just fashionable? Or have I got you wrong?

  15. Shaun Hollingworth says:

    “If it was right before, it is still right.”

    The point is, that some things many people thought were “right” before, actually weren’t “right” at all. Repression in the name of religion for example. The imposition of arbitrary “moral standards” on others.
    Which is an immoral act itself, unless it is to prevent secular harm. Then restrictions should be imposed by secular governments without any reference to religion.

    Some things which are “right” are universally recognised as such. For example not murdering people, attacking them, or stealing from them. This will not change over time. Unless the justification is villification and war of course. Then all moral convinction seems to be abandoned.

    But other “moral” pronouncements, for example, being a practicing homosexual, or watching people have sex with their consent, are in fact, subject to a wider interepretation because the evidence of REAL and SECULAR harm does not exist, or the sanctions people want to impose, are clearly disporportionate.

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Shaun-
    Yes: we agree on this. If it is wrong now, then it was wrong before as well. If it was right before,it is still right.
    Fashion is therefore (obviously) not the arbiter.

  17. tom p says:

    Christopher – many hundreds of years ago there wasn’t proof that the fundamental claims of xtianity were wrong (god creating the earth and all animals and plants thereon etc). Now there is. That’s why I can understand someone from the 1st to the early 19th century being xtian, but now that we know better, there is no reason for it other than stupidity. Outmoded doesn’t just mean out of fashion, it also means that its time has passed, and given the level of knowledge we have, the idea of a god has gone, for all but the most desperate or the most gullible.

  18. Marc says:

    Christianity’s stance on sex reminds me of these lyrics (Pink Floyd’s The Wall):

    You better run all day
    And run all night
    And keep your dirty feelings Deep inside.
    And if you’re Takin’ your girlfriendOut tonight
    You better park the car well out of sight
    ‘Cos if they catch you in the back seat
    Trying to pick her locks
    They’re gonna send you back to mother
    In a cardboard box

  19. Christopher Shell says:

    That is miles from Christianity’s stance on sex,which (within the boundaries that all true freedom always has) is unremittingly positive, as opposed to the bleak negative of the lyrics
    As between those who think ‘sleeping around’ is ok and those who dont, logically the latter must be the ones who assent to the proposition that ‘sex is special’. (Understatement of the year.)

    Secondly, when did you ever hear a Christian assent to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not get found out’? On the contrary, the Christian stance is (tongue in cheek, but accurately) ‘If thou dost not want to get found out, that proveth that thou knowest full well that it be one of those things that thou shouldest not be doing in the first place.’

  20. tom p says:

    Although, Christopher, during Franco’s reign in Spain, there was a law outlawing extramarital affairs, which was enacted purely to please/appease the catholic church.
    If you were found to be having an affair then you could be arrested. And, given that this was Franco’s fascist dictatorship, there was a reasonable chance that you could well be shot if the cops felt like it.
    I’m not saying I approve of infidelity, not by any means, but it does indicate the largest branch of the christian church’s repressive attitude to sex.

  21. Christopher Shell says:

    Well – at one location at one point in history. And no doubt not untypically. But why should those who hold no such view be held guilty by association?

  22. tom p says:

    I was merely pointing out that the seentiment of those lyrics is not, as you said, “miles from christianity’s stance on sex”.
    The cardboard box bit is just nonsense (they clearly only used cardboard so it would scan), but, as I pointed out, at one point in recent history where there was a dictatorship that was heavily christian and relied in large part on the catholic church for its strength, the scenario envisaged there was not far from the truth.

    For me, though, the line “keep your dirty feelings Deep inside” is far more pertinent and representative of christianity’s views on sex and suchlike. Take, for example, you, with your appreciation of the evangelical black christian stance of not talking about bad things. It’s all cut from the same cloth, even if sometimes it’s expressed less fervently than at others

  23. Christopher Shell says:

    Yet that’s almost exactly the opposite of my view, or the view of any Christian. Sex does fall into the category of things that are not for everyday talk, but for precisely the opposite reason. Not because it is dirty but because it is reverenced. Things that are of extreme value are inclined to be ineffable,or,at the very least,not to be spoken of lightly.

  24. tom p says:

    You’re taking on a mighty big role speaking for all christians there christopher.

    You take mild offence when people here suggest that as a christian you share what are clearly pretty mainstream christian views when you actually don’t, imposing suppositions on to you, so you’ve gotta have some chutzpah to do impose your interpretation of the christian view of sex onto the rest of christianity

  25. Christopher Shell says:

    OK – the misunderstanding arises because large swathes of Christianity equate ‘the NT view’ with ‘the Christian view’. About what the NT view is, there can be some debate, but the essentials are clear. It is also clear that the NT view is distant from that of Augustine, Jerome, believers in the perpetual virginity of Mary (and those who recruited nuns for a life of celibacy with this fictional Mary as a role-model).

  26. Christopher Shell says:

    I also recall that at the start of a University mission some years back, a couple of college missioners were treated dismissively by the Vicegerent of the College because he assumed they ‘must’ (being Christians) share Augustine’s and Jerome’s view of sex. Come on guys – how are we poor Christians supposed to help (or change) what people did 1600 years ago? To say that we ‘must’ agree with them, our ancestors, makes no more sense than to say that they ‘must’ agree with us, their descendants. (Not that their view was any worse than its libertine opposite.)
    It’s a bit like assuming that all Americans or Brits, by virtue of being Americans or Brits, supported the war in Iraq.

  27. JC/UK says:

    “Christopher – many hundreds of years ago there wasn’t proof that the fundamental claims of xtianity were wrong (god creating the earth and all animals and plants thereon etc). Now there is.”

    Tom….Really!? Perhaps you would like to share this “proof” with us?