BBC’s “satirical tirade” provokes Christian complaints

Christian Concern for our Nation are probably wishing they lived in Ireland right now. In their latest mailshot they urge readers to complain to the BBC about “blasphemy” on Radio 4’s Now Show:

The BBC Radio 4’s Now Show has allowed a blasphemous satirical tirade against the Lord Jesus and the Word of God. We urge you to complain to the BBC (click here) at the offence caused to Christians and the corrupting effect of this kind of behaviour on a vulnerable audience.

They also helpfully provide a pdf transcript of Marcus Brigstock’s tirade, in which he opines uncontroversially that the Bible contains

acts of wanton genocide, infanticide, fratricide, straight murder, rape, pedophilia, enslavement, brutality and frankly, a level of sexism that would make John McCririck go “woo steady, now give the little ladies a break”

Perhaps what gave the pious pearl-clutchers of CCFON the vapours was the likening of Almighty God to “a paranoid menopausal housewife with an adulterous husband”, owing to his using up the first 4 of ten commandments to bolster his own fragile ego.

Anyway, you can hear the whole thing, suitably illustrated, on YouTube. Provided you aren’t vulnerable, that is. We wouldn’t want you to get corrupted.

Oh, and why not take CCFON’s advice and write to the BBC. They deserve a bit of praise every now and again.

UPDATE: (27 July) This is priceless. The CCFON’s next mailshot – sent out the day after the one containing the Brigstock complaint – is about the perils of the government’s Equal Treatment Directive. It is a dodgy bit of legislation to be sure, but CCFON’s objections to it are quite breathtaking in their hypocrisy.

The Directive extents discrimination law, introducing the concept of “harassment” which it defines as conduct with “the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

Here’s what CCFON are saying about it:

“Harassment,” as defined in the Directive however, allows an individual to accuse someone of discrimination merely for expressing something the individual allegedly perceives as offensive.

Individuals can easily alleged offence from a discussion about faith or sexual ethics…
The freedom to speak freely about one’s religious beliefs should not be considered “harassment”, but should remain a fundamental right in a democratic society.
Giving people the right to sue someone because they allege that they feel offended is extremely dangerous for freedom of speech
Adopting a provision covering harassment on the grounds of religion or belief or sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services creates a massive chilling effect on freedom of speech and the free exercise of conscience by religious people.

One wonders if even their supporters take these clowns seriously. One day they are squealing about how offended they are, and the next they are pontificating about how taking offence shouldn’t interfere with the “fundamental right” of free speech.

They really do seem to think that freedom of speech should only apply to them.

19 Responses to “BBC’s “satirical tirade” provokes Christian complaints”

  1. Duncan Stott says:

    Just to point out, the embedded video is an old Brigstocke Now Show rant on religion, not his latest one (which I haven’t heard yet)

  2. Alan Woodland says:

    My appreciation comment:

    I’d just like to say how funny the now show is. I especially liked Marcus Brigstock’s recent piece that despite being almost 100% accurate, witty, and well thought out seems to have put the wind up a lot of people who weren’t forced to listen to it.

    Thanks for letting comedians make comedy and churchy types make programmes I find offensive!


  3. Rik Hemsley says:

    Left ‘appreciation’ feedback. I can’t believe… no, I can believe, some idiots actually complained about it. That’s like saying ‘Oh the nutters? That’s us! Over here!’

  4. mauvedeity says:

    Ooh, that reminds me – time to catch up on my Now Show podcast feed. And they obviously missed Marcus Brigstock asking for his country back, too.

  5. Alfster says:

    “and the corrupting effect of this kind of behaviour on a vulnerable audience.” Spoing…irony alert..the vast majority of Now Show listeners I would say are down to earth rationalists…one can only assume the CCFON heard it via the weekly podcast.

    Once again, Christians show that they believe their religion is so weak it will fall apart if some comedian makes some factaully correct (and yet humourous) commenst about their religion…they obviously haven’t read the OT just the cuddly ‘new covenant’ NT.

    • barriejohn says:

      Yes, but isn’t it unbelievably patronising again! They’re not complaining that THEY have been offended or outraged so much as that a “vulnerable audience” (WTF?) are going to be in some way “corrupted” by this satire!! Where on earth do they get these barmy notions from?

  6. Ian Kirk says:

    Challenge this self appointed group to state exactly what on that list it not correct! When view can’t perhaps view will explain why a cool containing such horrors shouldn’t be banned to protect the vulnerable?

  7. Tom Doran says:

    I find it really depressing how a liberal Radio 4 audience, after applauding Brigstocke’s comments on the Bible, become audibly very uneasy when he does the same for the Koran. We have to get over this idea that Islam is somehow more deserving of “respect” than any other religion. Tolerance and multiculturalism doesn’t mean letting people get away with preaching any kind of hateful old nonsense without ever challenging them on it. Sigh.

  8. Stonyground says:

    Yes once again the followers of JC have scored an own goal by drawing attention to this amusing rant. They also once again have demonstrated their complete ignorance of the contents of the Bible. Or maybe they actually do know what is in it but they don’t want a vulnerable audience to find out.

    As for the Koran, apparently as an unbeliever I am to have boiling water poured over me until my skin peels off and I am then to be given a new skin so that I can have my skin boiled off again. This I am repeatedly, and I mean REPEATEDLY, told, is because Allah is oft forgiving, most merciful. I have some difficulty getting my head around just how stupid you have to be to believe something like that.

    Now I think that I will scroll back up and have just one more look at that fantastic bottom.

    • Tom Doran says:

      Hear hear. I love how these people apparently still haven’t learned that (figuratively) erecting a huge neon sign saying “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WATCH/LISTEN TO/READ THIS, ESPECIALLY ALL THE TITS, SWEARING AND BLASPHEMY” in front of anything they disapprove of may not, in fact, be a winning strategy in the war on free expression.

      Also, seconded on the arse.

  9. Stuart W says:

    Christian Concern for our Nation quoted in 2006 after the defeat of the Religious Hatred Bill:

    “… the Lords’ version was a dramatic improvement in the protection of the uninhibited freedom for Christians to preach the Gospel.”

    Why do these fundie fringe-groups ALWAYS think that uninhibited freedom of speech should apply only to them?

  10. Neil Hoskins says:

    I listen to the podcast as I’m walking to work. I was wetting myself.

    • Alan Woodland says:

      I do that too. Occasionally I forget where I was actually going or walk into people 🙂

  11. Alexander says:

    Actually, I researched what CCFON do for some time and have to admit that they have done much good to this country, apart from the great speakers I have listened who spoke on behalf of CCFON. The above article is shallow and does not represent their real work and commitments.

    • barriejohn says:

      And what “good” would that be exactly, Alexander? I have visited their appalling website and it is full of the usual bigotted, archaic, xenophobic, homophobic views that we more civilized members of society have come to expect from the religious right. Perhaps you think that a return to the morality of the Middle Ages would be just the thing for Great Britain, but I beg to differ. They are lauding a narrow-minded teacher who walked out of a staff training session because the leader was (in his view) “promoting homosexuality”. (Presumably they were all being forced to have gay sex on a regular basis, whether they liked it or not!) Not only had he broken his contract by the action he took, but he is obviously not fit to teach children in the Twenty-first Century. However, thanks to the Christian Legal Centre, and a lot of threatening noises concerning his “human rights” and further costly legal action, the bigot has been reinstated. If gay students had THEIR “human rights” respected properly they would not be left in the charge of arrogant retards like himself!!