Evangelical Alliance whinge about Dawkins

Apologies for being bit late with this one. Last week the Evangelical Alliance hit back against the Channel 4 documentaries by Richard Dawkins, The Root of All Evil?.

They have someone titled the Head of Theology, who thought Dawkins “seemed particularly intent on gratuitous abuse of religious people”. And their Head of Publicity had this to say:

We are not suggesting that ‘The Root of All Evil?’ should be banned or censored; we are simply surprised that Channel 4 commissioned a programme of such poor quality. Like the BBC, commercial terrestrial channels are subject to broadcasting standards, and this did nothing to enhance Channel 4’s reputation for often impressive, well-researched documentaries. Dawkins’ film was so viciously biased against faith-communities, and against Evangelicals in particular, that in the interests of balance and freedom of speech the station ought to offer a substantial right of reply.

In fact it was the leading “evangelical”, Ted Haggard, who created the worst impression of evangelicals all by himself. The wild, staring eyes and barely-suppressed violence of the man who lectured Dawkins on a subject he knew nothing about – and then accused him of “arrogance” – needed no editorial comment to underline the point. Watch the video clip here.

Incidentally, Dawkins revealed on Radio 5 Live that the feedback Channel 4 received after the first program was favourable by a ratio of 2:1, and that the negative feedback was highly abusive.

UPDATE: Larger clip of the Haggard video available here, plus a clip of the silly American Jew-turned-Muslim who tells Dawkins, “sort out your women”.

Bartholomew has lots more on Haggard.

11 Responses to “Evangelical Alliance whinge about Dawkins”

  1. marc says:

    And Shirley Williams (in a side note) said on R4 today that the government’s new academy’s have allowed religious eccentrics to take over schools. At least there are a few sane people left in the world! I must write and ask what she’s doing to stop them (being a peer n all). Funny how some people get knighted for buying themselves a massive majority share in a school (for a tiny minority stake) and others get sod all (and precious little air time) for constantly and demonstrably proving our origins and educating millions.

    Haggart is typical of this sort of scum who are all smiles until they find themselves intellectually bettered and beaten so they take to violence as the only recourse! Amazing how Dawkins keeps his own cool in the company of these utter bufoons and faithful morons.

    I’d shake Dawkin’s hand in an instant – and I’d like to spit on Vardy in the same one.

  2. Bartholomew says:

    “Ted Haggard”, not “Jim Haggart”. You’re thinking of Jimmy Swaggart, maybe (which, despite all his faults, is a bit unfair on Haggard). I’ve written a few posts about him.

  3. Joolz says:

    I share your thoughts about Vardy.

  4. Monitor says:

    Thanks for the correction, Richard. Fixed now.

  5. Andrew Nixon says:

    I share your thoughts about Vardy.

    As do I. Being a car dealer makes him bad enough, but a creationist aswell! That makes him amongst the scum of the earth.

  6. Stuart says:

    re Evangelical Alliance’s comments – Dawkins had no need to abuse evangelicals when they did a perfectly fine job of abusing themselves. All he had to do was ask a question and leave the sound running!

    Incidentally, funny EA never complained about the excellent Channel 4 programmes put on last year by the theologian who exposed the spread of Nigerian and Brazilian style evangelism to the UK and the tragic results (Victoria Climbie etc.). Their silence demonstrates that they daren’t admit that it isn’t just outspoken atheists who are alarmed at the replacement of middle of the road Christianity, aware of the contradictions and ready to discuss them (e.g. Bishop of Oxford with Dawkins) by what can only be described as ‘Christofascism’.

    re Vardy – what’s he going to call his next school, ‘Arthur Daley & All Saints’,perhaps? If no sane person would buy a second hand car from this nutter, how the hell can Blair let him loose with public money and children’s education?

  7. Stuart says:

    Back again!
    Forgot to say that if Evangelical Alliance are playing the ‘right to reply’ card they’ve been swapping ideas with US religious right groups like AFA or Focus on the Family.
    The idea that TV and radio programmes should have a ‘right to reply’of the same length and using the same resources to controversial items is a US concept and explains the blandness of much of their ‘documentary’ product. It’s been used by religious groups and also large corporations as a way to stop small production companies putting out views they don’t like. Basically, it works because when you budget for the programme you have to double the figure on anything hardhitting to allow the folk you’re exposing equal facilities to make a programme in response, so controversial programmes don’t get made.
    When the broadcasting laws changed in UK in the early 1990’s there was an attempt to introduce this. Because most TV product now is made by indie companies and sold to the majors it would have wrecked the industry, so it was rejected. If EA, who have a voice on both the BBC and ITV monitoring bodies, are trying it now that suggests something is being discussed behind the scenes – such as reform of the law when the next BBC licence review or ITV franchises comes up. Even more proof, I’d say, that religious groups should not automatically be invited onto the boards of broadcasting authorities to put a ‘moral view’.

  8. Dan Factor says:

    Saying relegion is the root of all the evil in the world is a bit like saying McDonalds is to blame for the desruction of the rain forest.
    Relegion becomes evil and dangerous when it’s used to attack and oppress people by nutcases like Stephen Green and co.

  9. G. Tingey says:

    What I want to know is …

    Why are the deliberate public liars Vardy and Edmiston being allowed to tell their lies in state schools?

    Ah, and why are the “moderates” allowed to get away with the “oh, they’re not PROPER christians/muslims/marxists” when some set of true beleivers stsrts telling lies and killin people?
    Because that is what does happen, and then people like my self, and Dawkins get called extremist bigots for pointing out the facts …..

  10. marc says:

    Guess I’m an extremist bigot then too, G. Tingey.

    Shirley Williams doesn’t agree and she’s in the house of lords – now that’s an interesting woman to get on our side.

  11. […] (Hat tips to onegoodmove, which has an audio of the whole programme, and to MediaWatchWatch) […]