Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
A typical BBC Vox Pops frame up. The BBC pulls this type of stunt to push its own political bias all the time.
In this case teh BBC line is that the Hamas government should be fully recognised and paid for by European donors inspite of the fact that its avowed aim is the destruction of Israel.
“BBC News website asked four Gaza residents for their views on the prospects of a national unity government. Should Hamas should recognise Israel?”
Here are their answers:
“Hamas are not ready to be humiliated by recognising Israel””
“We are the ones who need recognition”
“Fatah should help Hamas”
“The new government will represent all people”
I wonder what the BBC would make of Israelis looking for European funding to eliminate Palestine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5338856.stm
Steve E:
Thanks. I know Bill’s blog – a good one.
Anybody else hear “Thinking Allowed” today on Radio4 ?
What a crock !
The first five minutes was all of the BBC’s fetishes rolled into one.
WE heard how wonderful the scandinavian welfars states were, how much scandinavians all loved immigration. How only a few “populist and xenophobic” politicians in scandinavia were opposed to further mass immigration.
We then found out that most people in the UK were part of an urban cosmopolitan “vibrant” liberal mindset, and only a “silent minority” in the UK were opposed to mass immigration and the destruction of the british way of life.
He made a slip of the tongue – he originally said “silent majority” – then he corrected himself.
I had to switch off and listen to some children’s tapes that I found in the glove box.
I didn’t hear it, but I can guess how it went… if they actually think that scandies are so hot on immigration then they haven’t done much research up there. Being married to a Swede has been most enlightening. Most swedes are quite depressed about the whole affair, disillusioned with the welfare state they live in, annoyed about their high taxes, wondering why they can’t get better jobs (the taxes in Sweden have reduced the labour market year on year since the 1980s, and virtually no new jobs have been created in the last decade) and generally trying to figure out just what went wrong. Centre-right parties are epxected to get a huge share in the next election. They won’t seem much different, of course, because the Riksdag is designed such that the government is always a coalition dominated by left-wingers. It’s been that way since the 70s, when the left managed to re-write the swedish electoral system to cement their hold on power.
Some say Sweden is doomed. I say not, but they’re in for a very rough ride.
Oh yeah, I also have a norwegian friend who tells me that Norway is in a similar boat, with a government that is simply ignoring people’s anger at untrammled immigration.
re jeremy bowen
there is a story behind his intense hatred for israel.in the 1990s he was reporting in south lebanon together with his lebanese driver and ended up at the receiving end of an israeli tank shell.his driver was killed.and he received the scare of his life.he had always disliked israel but his feelings now became rabid.perhaps in the circumstances a surprising choice for a middle east correspondent.
Al Beeb Headline:
“Canada’s strict gun-laws still don’t prevent shooting spree”
Or maybe not
Humphries was in full cry this morning(Thurs) bashing the US. Speaking to a reporter from Montreal after the shooting there, there was mention of the rising incidence of gun crime in Canada, alluding to something back in 1989! Then a few other crimes were mentioned, and the Humph said, “oh,well, this isn’t the United States is it?” Don’t quite see the connection to the Montreal tragedy, but beeboids lose no opportunity to even irrelevantly slag off the US.
Ten days ago that typically-BBC attempt to pretend it is entering into the spirit of the blogosphere in the form of its ‘blog’ called ‘The Editors’ resulted in the posting of an article which drew the usual brain-dead, anti-Israel, PC moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah on the ‘war crimes’ issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/09/experimental_listening.html
The article was an attempt to justify an earlier article which drew the same brain-dead, anti-Israel, PC moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah on the ‘war crimes’ issue and which described a sort of court case between an Israeli defendant and a Hezbollah defendant with Human Rights Watch as, excuse me while I hurl, judge and jury.
I don’t pay much attention to ‘The Editors’ but I don’t believe there can be too many articles posted there on highly contentious issues that nevertheless attract no comments whatsoever. But this was one of them. Could ‘technical problems’ be the cause, I wonder? Or did the post attract such a flow of comments supporting Israel that the BBC in its wisdom simply decided not to post any of them? Or is it simply the case that in fact no comments were submitted?
Well, I know that at least one comment was submitted: mine.
hippiepooter | 13.09.06 – 6:34 pm |
You’re clearly not the sharpest knife in the B-BBC drawer.
1. I didn’t comment on the Lord Chancellor’s view of Gitmo • I commented on Umbongo’s proposal for a Ms Montagu follow-up on the ‘erosion of the rule of law’ in the UK – something he later elaborated in terms of ‘the increasing resort to legislation as PR’ and the ‘government’s fast and loose treatment of constitutional proprieties in the UK’.
2. My only reference to Gitmo was in a follow-up comment where I wrote: What I wouldn’t mind hearing is some questioning of the assumption that the constitutional safeguards/civil liberties that we (subjects of HM) or the citizens of the US choose to enshrine for our own protection should necessarily be regarded as universal in application (ie extended to foreigners…..including hostile ones….with ref to Gitmo etc.)..John Reith | 13.09.06 – 12:42 pm |. If you think that suggests a knee-jerk anti-Gitmo animus, you need lessons in basic comprehension.
Well, John Reith,
hippiepooter can be forgiven for assuming that you, as a BBC apologist, are also an automatic anti-Gitmo knee-jerker.
If there is any dissension in BBC ranks re the anti-Gitmo stance it certainly doesn’t come across on the World Service – which is what I mostly refer to since I don’t have the time and patience to absorb much more BBC output and I can pay attention to the World Service during slack periods at work. Work is an appropriate venue for such activity since it is damn hard work keeping track of the endless stream of bias emanating from the World Service.
Lyse Doucet is a prime example. On a recent ‘Have Your Say’ show she remarked about terrorism (yes, she actually used the word) in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. We all know that terrorism in Israel typically means young Muslims brainwashed with visions of virgins blowing themselves up along with innocent Israelis in buses and restaurants, but what about the other two? I suppose terrorism in Lebanon could be ascribed to the Syrians periodically blowing to bits those Lebanese who resist Syrian domination but what about terrorism in Palestine? Hmmm, I think I’m beginning to understand Doucet’s angle here. Rather than accuse Israel directly of state terrorism she prefers the subtle, indocrinatory approach. And isn’t it interesting how she will suddenly find it appropriate to use the ‘T’ word, shock horror, in order to subtly imply that Israel is guilty of state terror?
Would be nice if BBC hacks could just come straight out and declare their agenda instead of taking refuge in little camouflaged insults here and there and general false moral equivalence. Perhaps they are simply reluctant to lay their cards face up on the table. But that would require honesty and integrity – qualities sorely lacking at the BBC.
Bryan
If, as you say, your beef is with the World Service many of the strictures applied here are irrelevant. The licence-fee controversy, for one. The World service • as you probably know • isn’t funded by the licence fee. It is funded by the Foreign Office.
No doubt the FO mandarins from time to time make an appraisal of the WS’s output within the context of their own calculation of where Britain’s national interests lie.
My own impression is that British interests are not generally your own day-to-day concern. You appear to me much more frequently taken up with the interests of Israel.
If you are genuinely an aggrieved licence-fee payer or UK taxpayer, that’s one thing. But if you are commenting from….say…. Tel Aviv as an apologist for a foreign power, that’s different.
My own impression is that British interests are not generally your own day-to-day concern. You appear to me much more frequently taken up with the interests of Israel.
If you are genuinely an aggrieved licence-fee payer or UK taxpayer, that’s one thing. But if you are commenting from….say…. Tel Aviv as an apologist for a foreign power, that’s different.
John Reith | 14.09.06 – 12:33 pm
Ouch!
That old “dual loyalty” canard eh “John Reith”… insinuating that if Bryan is pro-Israel he’s less British.
I think you just crossed the line, you slimey PoS. And please don’t tell us again that some of your best friends are Jewish.
archonix
Re Scandanavian concern on immigration, the FT today http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d72692bc-438d-11db-9574-0000779e2340.html describes the Swedish view.
And now the BBC with the ‘news’:
Public ‘support licence fee rise’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5345132.stm
“The public is willing to pay an extra £31 a year for the BBC licence fee, according to a report commissioned by the government.”
Here’s the details:
British citizens are prepared to pay more money for the BBC licence fee in the future, a new study has found
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/aboutus/media/pressreleases/britishpeoplearewillingtopaymoreforthebbc.aspx
Ritter
The BBC don’t headline with the more important news, which is “75% of public want new BBC services to ‘go subscription'” whilst leaving the license fee unchanged!
And the real story, as supplied tby the Guardian:
TV licence payers want value for fee rise, says survey
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1871963,00.html
“Although the universal licence fee, currently £131.50, is secure for the next decade, 75% of respondents said they would prefer new services to be funded by subscription.”
Willingness to Pay for the BBC during the next Charter period
Click to access DCMS.pdf
D Burbage | 14.09.06 – 2:05 pm | #
——————————————————————————–
whoops, quick work DB!
So how does this work? 75% of respondents say no more licence fee rise, ie new services can be funded by subscription, but at the same time, ‘the public’ is willing to pay an extra £31 a year in licence fee?
Doesn’t add up. Both can’t be correct. Of course the results are in response to two different questions.
Crap.
Biodegradable | 14.09.06 – 1:07 pm |
“That old “dual loyalty” canard ”
Not in the least. My question is simply – is he a British subject/taxpayer?
He previously announced he used to be a citizen of South Africa.
For all we know, he went to from there to Israel and may never have lived in UK at all.
I’ve been playing about with a calculator and the graph on page 20 of the Work Foundation’s report and it looks like the Beeb’s headline figures are due to the mean figures being heavily skewed by the 3.5% of respondents who were happy to pay “more than £31 a month”. Exactly how much more, I wondered?
At first glance, it’s immediately obvious that a third of respondents said the licence fee should stay the same and another third say it should be reduced or eliminated, so that’s the thing that caught my attention – the graph must be skewed to give a mean figure significantly higher that the median.
A few taps on the calculator show that the mean figure given for everyone except the top 3.5% is…£11.11/month, near enough what it is now. To give an overall mean of 162.66, quoted by the BBC, the top 3.5% alone must have recommended a mean figure of almost £81/month, or £970/year, more than seven times the current figure.
Reading a bit more of the report, it seems the average pay of the top 3.5% is over £50,000 a year (pg 24)(again, how much over?) and they think £81/month “seems reasonable” for people on the minimum wage (pg 27).
I get the impression a small number of respondents were taking the piss, filling out the questionnaire with wildly high numbers in every field, or alternatively a small number of respondents are highly paid Beeb execs – either way the BBC seem to like what it did to the figures. Anyone want to check my working?
biodegradable
A few weeks ago you posted –
“The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.”
– Benjamin Disraeli
I thought how true and copied it to my quotes file so I could use it myself some day. even so, I think you have been too fast on the trigger firing off anti-semitism accusations at reith.
he didn’t mention bryan being jewish, he just suggested bryan could be posting from Israel.
I have always assumed that bryan was in israel because sometimes comments that are more or less identical to bryan’s views are posted here under the name Bryan Berman, Israel. Bryan Berman also posts on (D)HYS. Again, I have always assumed he was our bryan. Also nearly all bryan’s comments are about Israel/Palestinians and he does quote the world service a lot.
These read a lot like like bryan to me –
The first step to take in dealing with the threat of suicide bomb attacks is to do away with all the tired old justifications for terror and the endless search for ‘root causes’. It is not the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel-Palestine that are causing suicide attacks, but the desire on the part of the bombers for total domination through terror in this world in order to gain ‘paradise’ in the next. Once we accept that simple fact, we will be able deal with the threat without being tied up in politically correct knots.
Bryan Berman, Tel Aviv, Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4717303.stm
Bryan Berman, Israel:
The World Service’s Owen Bennett Jones appears to be stuck in some weird ideological time warp where Israel is an oppressive bully and Islamic terrorists can be likened to placard-waving, cop-beating, radical 60s demonstrators.
Of particular interest in The Interview were the following three questions he put to Joschka Fischer, ex-radical cop-beater and Germany’s ex-Foreign Minister:
1)You are suggesting that a nuclear Iran will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East when the first nuclear power in the Middle East was Israel?
[Right. Where have we heard this before?]
2)What’s wrong with radicalism?
[Where to start on that one?]
3)Are you saying that radical Islamists today are making the same mistake you made back in the 60s?
[Right. Islamic terrorists are just sort of going through an unruly phase. They are just the same as anyone else and will grow out of it and settle down to comfortable, productive, middle-class lives.]
And here’s how Fischer answered the questions:
1)….You have to understand the tragic history of the Jewish people. It’s the weapon of last resort. It’s the ultimate deterrent against a second Holocaust. Israel was never the cause of an arms race in the Middle East.
2)The use of force. You can’t change the lives of millions of people based on an ideology.
3)I think they are much more serious and much more violent. It’s a culture of death. This is inhumane and very, very dangerous.
Common sense meets the BBC. Match is incompatible.
Bryan Berman, Israel | 28.08.06 – 8:04 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/115669804478025144/
either way the BBC seem to like what it did to the figures. Anyone want to check my working?
Jim P | 14.09.06 – 3:24 pm | #
Jim – I haven’t had time but will read the report in detail later – on first glance it appears to merit a good Fisking. Some of the figures just don’t stack up.
Would you pay a higher licence fee?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=3821&edition=1&ttl=20060914165727&#paginator
“Should the BBC get more money from the public?
People are willing to pay an extra £31 a year for the BBC licence fee, according to a report commissioned by the government.
Research found people would pay an average of £162.66 for the BBC’s services up to 2017.
The current licence fee is £131.50 for a colour TV, but the BBC wants that figure to increase to £180 over the next seven years.
Would you be willing to pay more for the BBC’s services? Is the BBC good value for money? Or would you prefer the BBC to be funded by commercials?
I gave up watching TV, I don’t pay the prole tax any more.
Raft:
biodegradable
… I think you have been too fast on the trigger firing off anti-semitism accusations at reith.
he didn’t mention bryan being jewish, he just suggested bryan could be posting from Israel.
You may be right but I saw it as Reith questioning Bryan’s right to voice an opinion on British interests, or worse still that Bryan’s pro-Israel opinions could prejudice British interests.
I have no idea who Bryan is other than ISTR he has said that he’s Jewish and yes, I do remember him saying he once lived in South Africa.
As I’ve said before, I’m a second generation British born Jew currently living in Spain. As an ex-pat I do not pay the TV licence/tax but feel I have as much right as anybody to comment on BBC bias. By the same token, as a Jew and a supporter of Israel I do not feel that any of my opinions are against the British national interest, and whether Bryan posts from Tel-Aviv, Johannesburg or Milton Keynes is neither here nor there.
I didn’t realise that pre-requisites to commenting here were a) live in the UK and/or be a British subject, b) pay the telly tax. In that case me and several people who post from the US should be ignored.
I still feel that Reith’s insinuation that Bryan’s comments need to be qualified was uncalled for, to say the very least.
biodegradable
you ain’t the only Jewish kid on the blog but you are by far the most sensitive.
I didn’t read any of what you call insinuations into Reith’s remarks.
The BBC is heard all over the world and seen in quite a lot of it. That means anyone, anywhere has the right to express opinions about its quality – or lack of it.
But I think it perfectly reasonable that beeboids should give more serious attention to complaints from paying customers at home than to those from politically committed foreigners – wherever they come from.
Also, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that the middle east coverage here is getting excessive. A small group just bang on and on about Israel -related issues all day and much of the night.
biodegradable
you ain’t the only Jewish kid on the blog but you are by far the most sensitive.
That may well be so. I’ll leave Bryan to answer for himself, should he so desire.
Also, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that the middle east coverage here is getting excessive. A small group just bang on and on about Israel -related issues all day and much of the night.
daveP | 14.09.06 – 6:25 pm
This is an open thread. You’ll find no comments from me on the threads relating to Cuba or Gordon Brown.
Perhaps comments on the Mid-East are what you see as “excessive” because it is in its reporting of Israel – related issues that the BBC is more flagrantly and obviously biased?
Biodegradable
If some bloke from Kazakhstan uses this site to complain that the BBC World Service is being unfair to Kazakhstan – then that’s okay, so long as he keeps it brief.
But if twenty Kazakhs got in on the act and every second post on every open thread was about bloomin’ Kazakhstan, then I think I’d be begging Ed, Natalie or andrew to ring the bloody bell.
Now I recognize that Israel is more relevant in a geopolitical way than K’stan….but I must say I recognize what daveP is driving at.
Also…and this is where you come in..we have long been proud of maintaining standards here. Calling John Reith a ‘slimey PoS’ is well out of order. And you are reading far too much into what he said.
I’d hope that you, reith and most educated people would agree that Britain’s and Israel’s interests aren’t identical. Nor are they mutually exclusive. Sometimes they’ll overlap. Sometimes they won’t.
Borat writes:
” Calling John Reith a ‘slimey PoS’ is well out of order. ”
The man who so condescendingly referred to pounce as a ‘gobby NCO’?
Reith’s scaly hand is rarely far from the put-downs drawer, so I’d have said calls for his listing as an endangered species were a little wide of the mark.
BioD:
I’m an American and a non-Jew, but just like you, when I read this paragraph:
My own impression is that British interests are not generally your own day-to-day concern. You appear to me much more frequently taken up with the interests of Israel.
I thought, Oops, Reith screwed up. It was absolutely clear that he was saying Bryan might be compromised by “dual loyalty.”
The lesser charge, that Bryan has no stake in the BBC if he’s not British, is bogus as well. As an American I’m vitally interested in BBC bias, because a)it’s part of the reason the world “hates” the U.S.; b) the BBC is difficult to avoid (I’m sure JR will be glad to know) even here in Denver; and c) wherever Al-Beeb goes, the American MSM won’t be far behind.
Reith’s good at parrying B-BBCers with minutiae (he better be since it’s his job), but occasionally he slips up and lets the real BBC worldview slip out.
Stand by…
Almost a year to the day after the Mo Cartoons Affair, is it time for ‘Islamic Outrage, Part 2: The Pope Must Die’?
His Holiness gets it in the neck in this report (“abhorrent…”):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5346480.stm
‘Many Turks see Benedict as a Turkophobe and commentators call his words just before the holy month of Ramadan “ill-timed and ill-conceived”, our correspondent adds.’
Friday prayers tomorrow…does the Vatican have any embassies in the ‘Islamic world’?
according to newsnight , we have 4 years to save the planet.
after that, we’ll have jimmy carter bashing bush. and then after that, we’ll have claire short.
oh well. its back to watching YouTube for me so.
I don’t see that it matters where you hail from. This website is Biased BBC.
If you think the BBC displays Bias or indulges in bad journalism then you can make your case.
What is the Beeb’s motto?
‘Nation shall speak truth unto nation’?
That seems to be at least a two-handed deal.
(nation shall speak truth unto nation – that calls for strong drink)
To my detractor(s): I take your point(s)
To my supporter(s): Thanks.
I now raise a glass of Benedictine to the Pope and his speech on Islam: L’chaim and “confusion to our enemies”!
“Turkophobe” – Is this a new one for BBC PC idiots?? Whatever next!
Sorry I missed all the fun.
Biodegradable I believe you read Reith’s 12:33 pm post correctly in your 1:07 pm post. It’s his usual underhand tactic: unable or unwilling to cross swords with me on my 11:42 am post (which was, after all, addressed to him) he tried to discredit me by implying that people who do not pay the license fee somehow have less of a right to illustrate and combat BBC bias. This is, of course, absurd, given the BBC’s worldwide reach and the damage it does worldwide with its propagandist agenda and scant regard for the truth. It’s also absurd that John Reith, as a visitor to this site, should try to dictate who qualifies to express an opinion on BBC bias. jgm’s 9:56 pm post and paulc’s post above are absolutely spot on here.
On the subject of Israel, Biodegradable pointed out that the BBC’s most implacable bias is focused on the country. And the Middle East is also perhaps the most compelling hot spot in today’s world. Anyone who feels that the Israeli-Arab conflict dominates the site has a few simple remedies at hand: introduce other topics on the open threads and skip threads that deal with Israel.
Back to John Reith. It looks like soon he will be accusing me of being an ‘International Jew’ with loads of money and power and bent on corrupting the ‘international community’ for my own dubious purposes.
Sorry to disappoint you, Mr. Reith. I’m just an ordinary guy who’s appalled by BBC bias and who sees the need to expose it and thereby limit the damage it does on a daily basis worldwide.
I almost forgot: no, I don’t pay the license fee and yes, I do live in Israel.
Uh, and yes, I do occasionally enter into debates on BBC bias that have nothing to do with Israel.
Just got off the phone to beeb complaints.
The 10 o’clock news (and Newsnight) had the usual misleading crap about climate change and I’ve asked them to explain away an anomoly in their argument.
Their reporter said that the Co-op’s measures to cut carbon generation was “expensive” and ended the whole report by saying that these environmental changes (not just the Coo-op ones) needed “lots of cash”.
I wondered if in saying that CO2 was reduced by all these means were they viewing the whole cycle. In other words when the Co-op calclated its carbon savings did thay take into account the extra carbon used in the manufacture of their more expensive equipment and the extra energy these increased capital costs included.
They didn’t know and seemed reluctant to write me a reply when they had found this out.
I dont think the beeb are thinking in the round on this subject. Here’s another example. The Ethical Man is going to buy a windmill for his roof and I have no doubtr that he will be very smug about the few cc’s of CO2 he will be saving. But what about the CO2 generated by the manufacture of the windmill, which wouldn’t have been expended if he hadn’t ordered the machine.
And what about the costs of processing the Planning Application? Extra work will have been done to raise the extra taxes for the Council.
Am I getting this wrong?
gordon-bennet wonders: “Am I getting this wrong?”
Almost certainly not. Many of the nostrums being peddled by self-styled ‘Greens’ (recycling, ‘organic’ food, DDT, pro-wind power, anti-nuclear power etc) are seen to be utterly bogus, once properly analysed and costed.
But they aren’t really designed to do anything useful, anyway, they are designed to assuage the gnawing sensation of guilt among a post-hippy generation that, somehow, believes its comfortable lifetstyle must be at the expense of others’ misery.
The most productive study of ‘Green’ thinking could probably be best undertaken by psychologists – had that discipline not been so largely abducted by escaped lunatics.
In the absence of that, most likely the analysis will come from historians, once the world has finally woken up to the realisation that modern western man is no more immune from religious panic and illiogicality than was his mediaeval ancestor.
Jeez, poor Pope Benedict has opened a can of worms (and probably made himself one of the most hated people in Al Beeb Land):
Muslim anger grows at Pope speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm
Can they actually get angrier? I mean they live to be angry.
At least Al Beeb got a moderate muslim to comment. Mohammed Mahdi Akef of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nice!
As His Holiness (blessings be upon him)has already said – Islam CANNOT change without real difficulty as they accept the word of their holy book as fact whereas the Bible is merely a record of incidents and speeches/letters etc which can and are interpreted in different ways as time goes on. He gets it – pity the BBC that well known supporter of Christianity (end sarcasm) does not.
PS I’m not a practising left footer, have visited Israel but do not live there, and pay my licence pay under duress. Anything else we need to declare to keep Reith happy?
Kind of ironic that the supposedly shocking part of the pope’s speech was a direct quote of the 15th century emperor Manuel concerning the violence that is hard-wired into Islam. A few years after these words, the Muslim Mohammad II conquered Constantinople, capital of the eastern Christian empire, laid waste the city and converted the central cathedral of the Orthodox Church into a mosque. And the critics’ point is, exactly?
dave t,
You forgot your height, weight and hair and eye colour.
You will also have to fax Reith proof of every license fee payment you’ve made along with receipts of every TV and related purchase.
disillusioned_german,
From your link:
“It is clear that the Holy Father’s intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam,” said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.
I believe that respect has to be earned. It would be good to see Muslims go along that route rather than throwing tantrums at every justified criticism of their actions.
Bryan, true… I’m not a Catholic and not a member of any church but I believe we need a Pope who doesn’t care about policital correctness – especially considering the dangers we face from one specific “religion” and its followers. There are some great (pro-Pope) comments on the (D)HYS pages.
I’m a 100% bonafide Athiest…….
And I’ve got to say, I like this New Pope….
🙂