A chance to scrap the Angelus - Nutella, Croissants and Pineapples.

robdonn

lazygal wrote: »

It is not the same since they changed it from Jif.

Silly Europeans....

SpaceTime

robdonn wrote: »

Silly Europeans....

Nothing to do with Europeans. It was just to save a few quid on the bottles. It's called Handy Andy in some markets!!

Still tho, it's part of our culture along with Taytos

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

SpaceTime

Fred Swanson wrote: »

So nothing to do with Jif being a rude word in Arabic?

You should check what Pajero means in Spanish : rhymes with banker, begins with W. Mitsubishi should have checked

But back to the bells!

robindch

SpaceTime wrote: »

You should check what Pajero means in Spanish [...]

Still remember the laughter when, years ago, I was giving a lift in Dublin to a spanish guy I know and a Pajero hove up beside us - "I tell you, Robin, he wouldn't be looking so fancy in his new car if he knows what it means".

And there was the "Ford Nova" which Spanish-speakers found quite funny. Not to mention the French reaction to the Toyota MR2 (cough).

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

And there was the "Ford Nova" which Spanish-speakers found quite funny.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Claim: The Chevrolet Nova sold poorly in Spanish-speaking countries because its name translates as "doesn't go" in Spanish.

FALSE

Though there was the Mitsubishi range of cars with horsey-themed names: Colt, Lancer, Starion...? http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/starion.asp "Undetermined" hmmm...

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

SpaceTime wrote: »

Nothing to do with Europeans. It was just to save a few quid on the bottles....

reminds me of when they shortened the name of Emmerdale Farm, to just Emmerdale. so they could fit more of a storyline in....

Zamboni

Just spotted the thread title change!
Do I win a free Hawaiian pizza voucher or something

KingBrian2

Their are so many epic songs out there like using the A-Teams tune or Batman or Star Trek they have some really cool songs.


Perfect for News opening try this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ruY38xQBI

robdonn

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Perfect for News opening try this.

Your link has double "https://"

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

And there was the "Ford Nova" which Spanish-speakers found quite funny.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

Well, as you throw down the gauntlet - there was a car named a "Chevrolet Nova" and in Portuguese "nova" means "new" and in Spanish, means "doesn't go". And I've a vague memory of being told the gag by a translator friend, so I'll defer to him as to what's funny in his native language. And I didn't say that sales were crap - just that spanish-speakers found it funny.

Personally, I think the "MR2" name is much better

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCnJ2_xN2jU

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

A practice that still happens in every catholic school in the country.

Don't be too sure,
Sure it happen in primary school for me, but not secondary school. Both were Catholic but the secondary school never did praying. Or even acknowledged 12.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. What I am saying is that although 84% of people tick the Catholic box in the census, we know that a large proportion of these people are not faithful catholics, i.e. they do not attend mass (only 30%) and nor do they align with church teachings (e.g. gay marriage). Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that a catholic call to prayer holds any relevance for them. Now if you have evidence to support this assertion of yours then fine, but in the meantime, the sensible position is to reject the claim that the Angelus is relevant or important to 84% of the population because it has not been supported by evidence.

To be fair, I never asserted that a catholic call to prayer has relevance to 84% of the population, only that 84% of the population identify as Catholic, contrary to Brians assertion that there is a non-religious majority in Ireland.
I did say that if you're going to provide content that reflects Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity (as is part of RTEs mission statement), you must be cognizant of the fact that 84% of the population identifies as Catholic, and cultural content should reflect that. Whether that reflection is a catholic call to prayer or a daily feature on the best bouncy castles for communions, if it engages that cultural segment I'm good with it. And so far, someone is engaging with the Angelus, and I don't think a very large proportion is likely to be Muslims waiting for the Six One News.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really? Because further down your post you say the opposite:"To be fair, I'm not saying that the Angelus is necessarily representative of their beliefs; I'm saying that it is likely to be relevant to them. Even a cultural catholic, as it is being put, is likely to place some value on Catholic culture, of which the Angelus is a part."

That's not the opposite though? I can see distinction between cultural catholics and the population at large (I'll agree they are a large proportion of the population at large though). As I was pointing out, RTE isn't supposed to just provide programming relevant to the population at large; it is required to provide services for all ages, interests and communities, and reflect Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity. Cultural catholicism may account for a big chunk of Ireland's cultural diversity, and therefore deserve a big chunk of that programming time, but it's not the population at large.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, relevance is at the centre of this discussion. With regard to religious programming Catholicism utterly dominates the airtime with regular Sunday services, Urbi et Orbi, the Angelus twice a day on multiple channels and all feasts and special events covered. No other religion is accorded this level of cover. There are no Jewish services broadcast or coverage of Diwali or why not broadcast the Muslim call to prayer if relevance is not an issue. If you are catering to minority interests and there are 50,000+ muslims in Ireland, then why should RTE not broadcast the Muslim call to prayer daily. Why do they only get Ramadan diary?

Fair point; I would agree that cultural programming time should be allocated on the basis of the size of the audience for it. RTE say they broadcast over 100 hours per annum of religious programming, and I can't see any reason for Islam related broadcasts not to get 1% of that, or even to bend the concept slightly and allow atheist/agnostic oriented programming for 7% of that time. But I can't see any reason not to allow 84% of the overall time for Catholicism (or even 90% for Christianity), though I'll agree there's an argument for only 30% of that time to be allocated to devout Catholics, and 70% to 'cultural' Catholics. A rude calculation off a minimum 100 hours places that devout time allocation at 25+ hours. Take out 6 for the evening Angelus and I reckon there's still enough for a few Masses and whatnot...

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, twice in your second quote above you use the term likely. You claim that it's likely to be relevant to them and that cultural catholics are likely to place some value on the Angelus. Likely on what basis? Where's your evidence to support this contention.

I'd say it's likely on the basis that the subject matter is relevant to Catholics, there are 318,000 people that watch it every day, and RTE say a majority of viewers want to keep the Angelus. All of these factors make it seem likely that it's 'cultural' Catholics watching the program, since they are the majority of the population, and have at least some passing connection with the content. I'll admit, I may be wrong; it may be Catholic hardcore watching it (also likely), it may even be a combination of lazy atheists and Pentecostals (not so likely). If I were certain, I wouldn't be using the term likely.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Again, where's your evidence. You're claiming that a substantial proportion of the population feels that the Angelus is relevant to them. Yet this is not born out anywhere except the Census (which we have reason to suspect). It's certainly not relevant as a call to prayer given the very low mass attendances. It's certainly not relevant to the point that many of them actually watch it given the low viewing figures.

Actually I'm claiming that it is relevant to them if they feel that it is of interest to them and/or reflects their culture. That's more born out of the fact that people watch it, so it's obviously of interest to someone, and the census may give us an idea of who. As for 'low' viewing figures, I think 20% of the top rated show seems pretty good; it's 65% of the average Six One viewership and that's the fifth highest rated show on RTE. The Angelus may not be top ten but it doesn't seem be dragging it's heels either.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that I didn't make any such claim. Trying to shift the burden of proof is not only a weak argument but also a logically fallacious one. What I said, if you read my post, is that RTE have claimed that a majority of people want to keep the Angelus. However, RTE have not published said research and so their claim remains unsubstantiated. Any unsubstantiated claim can be summarily dismissed. This is the principle of the null hypothesis. This is not making a positive claim about RTE, its just rejecting their unfounded claim.

You didn't, however, you are saying their claim is unfounded, as distinct from they haven't presented the data which is the foundation for their claim. Saying their claim is unfounded leans more towards an inference that their claim is false than it does towards they simply haven't demonstrated their bona fides to you, don't you think?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, it doesn't have to be case of RTE making deliberately false statements. Let's say 50 people responded to the survey and 35 wanted to keep the Angelus. That would be as you described a clear majority. But it would also be completely unrepresentative of the population at large.

That's true, but then you can put that argument towards any survey mechanism that uses sampling; like TAM for instance. I would think that like TAM RTE use a sufficiently large sample in their research that they feel they can draw conclusions from it, so that it's not a waste of money. Perhaps they even used Neilson TAM for this research, we don't know.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Of course it's inconsequential. You can talk about the viewing figures in relative terms all you want. However, 318000 people is still just 318000 people. Now as Hotblack Desiato points out, not all of these people are necessarily going to watch out of religious interest. But let's say for the sake of argument that all of them are. That's still just 6% of the population. So there is no evidence on the basis of viewing figures to suggest that the Angelus is relevant to any more than 6% of the population.

I can only flatly disagree. If it addresses the relevant cultural segment it is aimed at, it is consequential to RTE as it fulfils their obligation.
What % of the population does it take to become consequential to your mind? Muslims are only 1%; a sixth of your inconsequential number, surely you wouldn't say Muslims are inconsequential? Only 38% of the population watch the highest rated show on RTE, so relative terms would seem to be pretty relevant; matching viewer totals to the total number of people living in Ireland just shows the %s are going to be pretty small overall.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It is property (in the same way intellectual property is treated) which would ordinarily cost €11,000 per minute and is being given for free for the promotion of a single religion. That is an endowment.

It may be property; it's value is debatable. If it were advertising space, it could be sold for a price, if it were programming it could not be sold, just like the Six One news. And RTE lists it as programming, not advertising. It's not given (or sold) to anyone; it's broadcast by RTE. Again, just like the Six One News, like Nationwide, like Ramadan Week. As for whether it promotes religion, that's just as nebulous an assertion as the idea that it provides income. Anyway, promoting things isn't endowment according to your definition; nor is it according to mine.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Nice strawman. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a big difference between airing a programme about religion (i.e. a documentary on the papal election) and airing a programme promoting a religion (i.e. the Angelus). Just as there is a difference between airing a documentary about the corporate structure of a company e.g. Unilever and airing an advertisement for Unilever products. If RTE were to suddenly start giving Unilever free ad time there would be an understandable controversy.

Ah now; I did say the airing of religious material. Which could be a programme about religion, but can also be a programme of religious material (like the Sunday Mass, or the Angelus). And the airing of such religious material is not a source of income for any religious organisation; per your definition of endowment. Obviously I don't accept the idea that such material is a programme promoting a religion, any more than a programme about a religion necessarily is; in order to be a promotion I think the level of advocacy should rise considerably above simply presenting the activities of the religion (as it does, for instance, in ads for Unilever products). If RTE considered it advertising (rather than cultural/religious programming) I think they would probably try to charge someone for it. If that someone agreed it was advertising, they might even pay. That doesn't seem to be happening though.
Finally, providing free advertising to someone doesn't fit the definition of endowment you offered; there's nothing to show that it is a source of income for the recipient?

SpaceTime

Under the standard rules used to calculate Benefit In Kind (BIK) used by Irish accountancy bodies and the Revenue Commissioners, I'm pretty sure it could be construed as endowment.

If RTE gave several minutes a day to any other group there would be uproar.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair, I never asserted that a catholic call to prayer has relevance to 84% of the population, only that 84% of the population identify as Catholic, contrary to Brians assertion that there is a non-religious majority in Ireland.
I did say that if you're going to provide content that reflects Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity (as is part of RTEs mission statement), you must be cognizant of the fact that 84% of the population identifies as Catholic, and cultural content should reflect that. Whether that reflection is a catholic call to prayer or a daily feature on the best bouncy castles for communions, if it engages that cultural segment I'm good with it. And so far, someone is engaging with the Angelus, and I don't think a very large proportion is likely to be Muslims waiting for the Six One News.

OK, let's get one thing out of the way first. The census is a pretty useless measure of religious identification. Firstly, there are almost a million people (979,590 to be precise) who do not make a free choice in being counted as Catholic (or any other religion), the 0-14 age group. This group will be marked down as whatever their parents choose, regardless of their own thoughts on the matter. Also, we know from topics already discussed that there are a lot of people who put Catholic down on the census out of habit or tradition but that being Catholic is not a meaningful aspect of their identity in any way. So the idea that the division of RTE's religious programming should be based on a flawed measure of population is unwise, at best.

Secondly, I don't see why cultural content should reflect the majority view in the way it does now. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, whatever about the content being catholic in nature, I don't see why a call to prayer ought to be broadcast. Given that the majority of catholics are cultural ones rather than devout ones (i.e. 84% vs. 30%) programmes with a broader interest, i.e. more documentaries about the church, the bible etc. rather than a programme which has no informational content and only appeals to those with who are devout. Secondly, Ireland is as you have already recognised a diverse society and this diversity is increasing. RTE as the state broadcaster has a responsibility to not only acknowledge this but also to act in the common good as it were. However, when you have such a lot of people who are not only deeply ignorant of the tenets of their own religion but other people's aswell, RTE has an opportunity to build a more cohesive society by airing religious programming which teaches the population at large what the different religions in our society actually believe and what religious life is like for them on a day to day basis. Scrapping the Angelus on TV alone, would free up 12 hours of additional programming. Imagine what you could do with that if you had a PBS style approach.
We could utilise the religious programming on the state broadcaster to much greater effect than simply reflecting what some perceive to be the current state of the nation.

Absolam wrote: »

That's not the opposite though? I can see distinction between cultural catholics and the population at large (I'll agree they are a large proportion of the population at large though). As I was pointing out, RTE isn't supposed to just provide programming relevant to the population at large; it is required to provide services for all ages, interests and communities, and reflect Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity. Cultural catholicism may account for a big chunk of Ireland's cultural diversity, and therefore deserve a big chunk of that programming time, but it's not the population at large.

Except for two things.

Firstly, as explained above, what is the connection between a call to prayer and cultural catholics. What does RTE giving airtime to a call to prayer mean to or be useful to cultural catholics.

Secondly, it's not a big chunk of programming time, it's almost all of it. In terms of documentary programming there are only token amounts of airtime given to other religions. Its kind of like Star Trek TOS in that respect, technologically advanced civilisation but the black lady still answers the space phone. In terms of programming dedicated to religious services or practices then its catholicism all the way. Well, christianity any way. You might have a handful of sunday service broadcasts given over to COI services but you're not going to see the inside of a mosque or synagogue anytime soon.

Absolam wrote: »

Fair point; I would agree that cultural programming time should be allocated on the basis of the size of the audience for it. RTE say they broadcast over 100 hours per annum of religious programming, and I can't see any reason for Islam related broadcasts not to get 1% of that, or even to bend the concept slightly and allow atheist/agnostic oriented programming for 7% of that time. But I can't see any reason not to allow 84% of the overall time for Catholicism (or even 90% for Christianity), though I'll agree there's an argument for only 30% of that time to be allocated to devout Catholics, and 70% to 'cultural' Catholics. A rude calculation off a minimum 100 hours places that devout time allocation at 25+ hours. Take out 6 for the evening Angelus and I reckon there's still enough for a few Masses and whatnot...

OK, I have highlighted two passages above because I think that you have slightly understood my overall point.

To clarify, I think that basing cultural programming on the relative makeup of society is a bad idea and a fallacious argument, an argumentum ad populum. If you've got a group who only make up 1% of the population and therefore they should only get 1% of the airtime, then the population at large is never really going to learn about this group.
Secondly, even if you could say that a group with 84% of the population should get an 84% share, when that group is much less than 84% in practical terms, getting close to a 100% share of the airtime makes no sense at all.
In summary, even if 84% of the population were devout catholics then an 84% share of religious airtime is still a really bad idea.

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say it's likely on the basis that the subject matter is relevant to Catholics, there are 318,000 people that watch it every day, and RTE say a majority of viewers want to keep the Angelus. All of these factors make it seem likely that it's 'cultural' Catholics watching the program, since they are the majority of the population, and have at least some passing connection with the content. I'll admit, I may be wrong; it may be Catholic hardcore watching it (also likely), it may even be a combination of lazy atheists and Pentecostals (not so likely). If I were certain, I wouldn't be using the term likely.

There are several problems with your point here.

Firstly, you say that the subject matter is relevant to Catholics and yet the numbers don't bear this out. The Angelus is a call to prayer and those who don't attend mass and are not likely to pray are not going to have an interest in a call to prayer.

Secondly, there are 318,000 people who watch it every day. Again, this is just 6% of the population. It can also be explained entirely by the 30% who do attend mass. Finally, as Hotblack Desiato points out, the reasons why there are 318,000 people tuning in is unclear. They could have an interest in the broadcast or they could simply have turned over to the news a minute early.

Thirdly, again you bring in RTE's claim as if it's somehow relevant. It isn't. It doesn't matter what RTE say because they haven't supported their claim with evidence.

Absolam wrote: »

You didn't, however, you are saying their claim is unfounded, as distinct from they haven't presented the data which is the foundation for their claim. Saying their claim is unfounded leans more towards an inference that their claim is false than it does towards they simply haven't demonstrated their bona fides to you, don't you think?

OK, let me explain this in more detail. When someone makes a positive claim, they have the burden of proof in supporting that claim with evidence. So when someone makes a claim with no evidence to support it, that claim can be rejected as false. This is how the world works, the position before proof is to reject the claim. New drugs are presumed not to work until it can be shown that they can. People are presumed not to have done the thing they're accused of until the prosecution provides evidence. There are an infinite number of claims that people can make (including the existence of any number of gods). We are not obliged to accept any of them as possible, plausible or true without evidence. So my use of the term unfounded is perfectly valid. It is for RTE, or you since you made the assertion to support the claim with evidence. This little video may help explain things further:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

Absolam wrote: »

It may be property; it's value is debatable. If it were advertising space, it could be sold for a price, if it were programming it could not be sold, just like the Six One news. And RTE lists it as programming, not advertising. It's not given (or sold) to anyone; it's broadcast by RTE. Again, just like the Six One News, like Nationwide, like Ramadan Week. As for whether it promotes religion, that's just as nebulous an assertion as the idea that it provides income. Anyway, promoting things isn't endowment according to your definition; nor is it according to mine.

OK, firstly, it's not whether it is currently programming or advertising that's important. It could be used for advertising which is the salient point here. That is where the value is.
Secondly, the broadcast is a call to prayer of a specific religion. It has no informational content. It does not tell people about a religion, it is engaging in a religion's practices, therefore it is promoting that religion.
Finally, promoting the religion isn't the endowment, using commercially valuable airtime for the purposes of promotion is an endowment.

Absolam wrote: »

Finally, providing free advertising to someone doesn't fit the definition of endowment you offered; there's nothing to show that it is a source of income for the recipient?

Not sure if serious here.

You're not sure that providing free advertising is a source of income? Really? A reduction in expenditure and a source of income have the same practical effect. A company who gets paid something and gets something for free gets the same boost to their balance sheet. A retail company doesn't get paid by a supplier (e.g. Cadbury) to run a promotion of their products, they get free stock. It still has the same effect though.


OK, let me bottom line this because these lengthy arguments are really getting to not be worth the bother.

The argument that the Angelus should be kept has been posited either on the basis of an appeal to tradition or on an appeal to popularity. Neither of these represent logically sound reasons. There are like most things in the real world, practical considerations to be looked at. It is my view that there is a much more important opportunity for RTE to build a more cohesive society by being more egalitarian in its programming. We could all do with learning about other people's religion and culture but this isn't going to happen if we continue to stick in the same rut of "well this is how it always was" or "well catholics are the majority". If you want to repsond to this point then fine, but at this point that's the only argument I'm interested in.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

Under the standard rules used to calculate Benefit In Kind (BIK) used by Irish accountancy bodies and the Revenue Commissioners, I'm pretty sure it could be construed as endowment.

I very much doubt it; Benefit in Kind is an employment benefit, and occurs between employers and employees, a relationship that does not pertain between RTE and the Catholic Church.

SpaceTime wrote: »

If RTE gave several minutes a day to any other group there would be uproar.

Maybe, but is that a reason not to do it?

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's get one thing out of the way first. The census is a pretty useless measure of religious identification. Firstly, there are almost a million people (979,590 to be precise) who do not make a free choice in being counted as Catholic (or any other religion), the 0-14 age group. This group will be marked down as whatever their parents choose, regardless of their own thoughts on the matter. Also, we know from topics already discussed that there are a lot of people who put Catholic down on the census out of habit or tradition but that being Catholic is not a meaningful aspect of their identity in any way. So the idea that the division of RTE's religious programming should be based on a flawed measure of population is unwise, at best.

I can't say I agree; if the census is a flawed measure, there is no less flawed measure available, so it would seem to be the best available basis to at least begin the division of RTE's religious programming.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, I don't see why cultural content should reflect the majority view in the way it does now. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, whatever about the content being catholic in nature, I don't see why a call to prayer ought to be broadcast. Given that the majority of catholics are cultural ones rather than devout ones (i.e. 84% vs. 30%) programmes with a broader interest, i.e. more documentaries about the church, the bible etc. rather than a programme which has no informational content and only appeals to those with who are devout.

I can't see that as a reason for not broadcasting it though? Even if it only appeals to the devout 318,000 that tune into it every day that's a substantial reason to broadcast it. There are heaps of programmes on RTE that I don't watch because their content is irrelevant to me, but I acknowledge they're relevant to someone.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, Ireland is as you have already recognised a diverse society and this diversity is increasing. RTE as the state broadcaster has a responsibility to not only acknowledge this but also to act in the common good as it were. However, when you have such a lot of people who are not only deeply ignorant of the tenets of their own religion but other people's aswell, RTE has an opportunity to build a more cohesive society by airing religious programming which teaches the population at large what the different religions in our society actually believe and what religious life is like for them on a day to day basis. Scrapping the Angelus on TV alone, would free up 12 hours of additional programming. Imagine what you could do with that if you had a PBS style approach.
We could utilise the religious programming on the state broadcaster to much greater effect than simply reflecting what some perceive to be the current state of the nation.

I don't think I can really get on board with the idea that the State broadcaster is going to start acting in the common good by building a more cohesive society with it's programming. I'm sure your motivations in deciding what can be gotten rid of and what can be added in order to bring us together better are very pure, but others may not be; it sounds a little too like re-education. At a minimum you're arguing for replacing religious expression with religious education; I just think there should be room for both.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except for two things.
Firstly, as explained above, what is the connection between a call to prayer and cultural catholics. What does RTE giving airtime to a call to prayer mean to or be useful to cultural catholics.

Well, we don't know that cultural Catholics aren't interested in it, but I did point out earlier, that even if it is only devout Catholics that are interested, they more than make up a sufficiently large proportion of the population to justify the time.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, it's not a big chunk of programming time, it's almost all of it. In terms of documentary programming there are only token amounts of airtime given to other religions. Its kind of like Star Trek TOS in that respect, technologically advanced civilisation but the black lady still answers the space phone. In terms of programming dedicated to religious services or practices then its catholicism all the way. Well, christianity any way. You might have a handful of sunday service broadcasts given over to COI services but you're not going to see the inside of a mosque or synagogue anytime soon.

And again, as I've said before I wholeheartedly support the notion of proportional representation in religious programming, though it does still mean that Christian programming will have an overwhelming proportion of that programming.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To clarify, I think that basing cultural programming on the relative makeup of society is a bad idea and a fallacious argument, an argumentum ad populum. If you've got a group who only make up 1% of the population and therefore they should only get 1% of the airtime, then the population at large is never really going to learn about this group.

I can't really see an issue with argumentum ad populum in the context though; tv is by its nature a populist medium, and part of RTEs mission is to provide services for all ages, interests and communities, and reflect Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity. The idea of that is not to inform the 99% about the 1%, it's to provide the 1% (and the 99%) with content that is relevant to them.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, even if you could say that a group with 84% of the population should get an 84% share, when that group is much less than 84% in practical terms, getting close to a 100% share of the airtime makes no sense at all.
In summary, even if 84% of the population were devout catholics then an 84% share of religious airtime is still a really bad idea.

Per previous points, I'm entirely open to the notion of accurate distribution of time. Not seeing any reason for considering that a really bad idea, apparently simply because one group is a large majority.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There are several problems with your point here.
Firstly, you say that the subject matter is relevant to Catholics and yet the numbers don't bear this out. The Angelus is a call to prayer and those who don't attend mass and are not likely to pray are not going to have an interest in a call to prayer.

But they do bear it out? Even if you only permit that devout Catholics would find it relevent (and I'm not convinced no one else is quite happy to take it as a moment of reflection), there are more than enough of them to account for the numbers. But we both know that the Angelus isn't just a call to prayer, it's iconic in it's own right as a marking of the time of day in a peculiarly Irish context. Which means there are others who will find it relevent to themselves when they hear it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, there are 318,000 people who watch it every day. Again, this is just 6% of the population. It can also be explained entirely by the 30% who do attend mass. Finally, as Hotblack Desiato points out, the reasons why there are 318,000 people tuning in is unclear. They could have an interest in the broadcast or they could simply have turned over to the news a minute early.

Yes, you said that already. It remains that at best 38% of the population watch tv, making that 6% a substantial viewing audience. Six times greater than the entirety of the Muslim population.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thirdly, again you bring in RTE's claim as if it's somehow relevant. It isn't. It doesn't matter what RTE say because they haven't supported their claim with evidence.

No its relevent, they just haven't presented you with the evidence to support their claim. You may be dubious as to its veracity (though personally I don't think they've any reason to lie about it), but doesn't make it less relevant at all.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let me explain this in more detail. <...>This little video may help explain things further:

I think I got it. Only, that doesn't make their claim less relevant? You may dismiss it because you haven't seen the evidence, which is fair enough; they don't actually need to you to believe it's true anyway. I'm inclined to believe they probably have the evidence, so I don't quite dismiss it out of hand.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, firstly, it's not whether it is currently programming or advertising that's important. It could be used for advertising which is the salient point here. That is where the value is.

Well it is important; you're treating the Angelus as advertising, but treating other programming as programming. Does Gort accrue that advertising value when Nationwide does a special on it? Do the Gardai derive an income stream from Crime Call?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secondly, the broadcast is a call to prayer of a specific religion. It has no informational content. It does not tell people about a religion, it is engaging in a religion's practices, therefore it is promoting that religion.

You see, if you said it was extolling the virtues of Catholicism over other brands, I might agree it was advertising. If it advanced the opinion that Catholicism, or Christianity was in some way desirable, I might agree there's promotion going on. But it does neither; there is no attempt at encouragement of any sort. It just doesn't conform to the concept of advertisement or promotion.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, promoting the religion isn't the endowment, using commercially valuable airtime for the purposes of promotion is an endowment.

You did provide a definition of endowment; you still haven't to make any of this conform to that definition though?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Not sure if serious here.You're not sure that providing free advertising is a source of income? Really? A reduction in expenditure and a source of income have the same practical effect.

I am. They may have the same practical effect, but that does not make them the same thing. Nor have you shown any reduction in expenditure on behalf of the Catholic Church; the Church has never paid advertising fees to broadcast the Angelus, and there's no reason to think they ever would. You can't reduce an expenditure that is not expended.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A company who gets paid something and gets something for free gets the same boost to their balance sheet. A retail company doesn't get paid by a supplier (e.g. Cadbury) to run a promotion of their products, they get free stock. It still has the same effect though.

A company that doesn't get paid something also receives the same benefit as receiving nothing for free; none. You can't really assert that receiving nothing for nothing is an endowment....

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let me bottom line this because these lengthy arguments are really getting to not be worth the bother.
The argument that the Angelus should be kept has been posited either on the basis of an appeal to tradition or on an appeal to popularity. Neither of these represent logically sound reasons. There are like most things in the real world, practical considerations to be looked at. It is my view that there is a much more important opportunity for RTE to build a more cohesive society by being more egalitarian in its programming. We could all do with learning about other people's religion and culture but this isn't going to happen if we continue to stick in the same rut of "well this is how it always was" or "well catholics are the majority". If you want to repsond to this point then fine, but at this point that's the only argument I'm interested in.

I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything.
I agree that RTE could contribute to a more cohesive society, but draw the line at mandating it to build one, though I agree egalitarian programming is certainly desirable. To be truly egalitarian, programming should provide more than a lowest common denominator one size fits all approach; it should also address topics relevant to the different cultures and groups and societies. I don't doubt that there is room for people to learn more about other people's religions and cultures, whilst still enjoying and valuing their own. And Only Fools and Horses reruns.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sticking with the appeal to popularity; the most logically sound reason for a broadcaster to broadcast anything.
I agree that RTE could contribute to a more cohesive society, but draw the line at mandating it to build one, though I agree egalitarian programming is certainly desirable. To be truly egalitarian, programming should provide more than a lowest common denominator one size fits all approach; it should also address topics relevant to the different cultures and groups and societies. I don't doubt that there is room for people to learn more about other people's religions and cultures, whilst still enjoying and valuing their own. And Only Fools and Horses reruns.

As I said in my previous post I am responding to this point because as far as I am concerned this is the core issue. I have no interest in following you down a rabbit hole, particularly when you aim to be as needlessly pedantic as possible (i.e. you've split the 7 points of my last post into 17 separate response points). As other posters have noted your overly pedantic posting style is not going to win you any favours. You insist on splitting someone's post into as many minor points as possible rather than trying to focus on the central issue. This is deeply unhelpful to the overall debate not to mention really f*cking annoying.

Now, with regard to your point above, how is it that a logically fallacious argument (appeal to popularity) is a "logically sound reason" for anything. If the matter were solely based on popular opinion, you might have something but it isn't. For example, if we were talking about a commercial TV station then naturally viewer choice would be the dominant factor since customer service is the single most important consideration of a commercial enterprise.
However, RTE is not a commercial enterprise and is in fact bound by a public service statement which details its core commitments which include:

"RTÉ will provide for and be responsive to the interests, needs and concerns of the whole community on the island of Ireland."

There is no indication here that this should be done on a proportional basis. Should people who make up 1% or less of the population not receive acknowledgement through RTE's service. Of course not. In fact, if there is any talk of proportion it should be that airtime should be almost inversely proportional to population so that minority issues be given more airtime so that they can be brought to the attention of the wider population. It is the same principle as affirmative action.


"RTÉ will uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution and serve the public interest"

Except that as far as constitutional values and religious programming are concerned RTE seems to be falling short of their commitment. Firstly and most obviously, there's Article 40.1 which holds all people as equal before the law. So equality is something enshrined by the constitution but not everyone gets equal access to the airwaves if its bending to the will of the majority. Similarly and more importantly Article 45.1 states:

"The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life."

Notice again the use of the term "the whole people" and not just the majority. RTE as an arm of the state has a commitment to all the people and this means sharing airtime equally among all religions regardless of how many adherents they might have. Furthermore, as I mentioned above with affirmative action, the state in the constitution places value on disproportionately helping weaker sections of the community in Article 45.4.1:

"The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged."


"RTÉ will reflect and nurture traditional and contemporary Irish cultural expression and seek to inform a greater understanding of the wider world"

Now while it could be argued that the current situation represents a reflection and nurturing of the traditional Irish cultural expression, it is certainly not reflecting contemporary Ireland (at least not where religious programming is concerned). This is where RTE is falling down, or at least missing an opportunity. Many people in Ireland are now living in communities where there are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons etc. and yet I would guess (mostly from personal experience) that a lot of people are deeply ignorant about what Muslims believe or how they practise their religion. As Dara O'Briain explained, the reason why he doesn't do jokes on Islam is: "a) I don't know a f*cking thing about Islam and b) neither do you". RTE could attempt to improve that situation. A more cohesive society could be built by using religious programming to explore the basics of different faiths.

Now as I've stated previously the Angelus is a relic of a bygone age when most people in Ireland could not only be reliably assumed to be catholic but also devout catholics. It has no relevance in modern Ireland but also no utility. In an increasingly multicultural Ireland we could and should be using religious programming to highlight the actual beliefs and traditions of the people who continue to alight on our shores.

EDIT: quotes from the RTE public service statement are highlighted in blue to distinguish them from quotes from the constitution.

Brian Shanahan

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

How can you be so sure Fred?

How many people in church say the angelus when it's being called out by the holy rollers in the front pews before mass?

Not very many in my experience, and that's in the place where you're going to get the highest concentration of angelus reciters in one spot.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As I said in my previous post I am responding to this point because as far as I am concerned this is the core issue. I have no interest in following you down a rabbit hole, particularly when you aim to be as needlessly pedantic as possible (i.e. you've split the 7 points of my last post into 17 separate response points). As other posters have noted your overly pedantic posting style is not going to win you any favours. You insist on splitting someone's post into as many minor points as possible rather than trying to focus on the central issue. This is deeply unhelpful to the overall debate not to mention really f*cking annoying.

I'm not avoiding focusing on the central issue though. If you put a point forward, I think it's fair to consider it may be rebutted. I understand you may not consider many of them to be significant, but if you think they're worth making, why should I not think they're worth discussing?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, with regard to your point above, how is it that a logically fallacious argument (appeal to popularity) is a "logically sound reason" for anything. If the matter were solely based on popular opinion, you might have something but it isn't. For example, if we were talking about a commercial TV station then naturally viewer choice would be the dominant factor since customer service is the single most important consideration of a commercial enterprise.

In fairness argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. Arguing that something has popular appeal and therefore has value is a somewhat different thing; it's an appeal to popularity that is not fallacious. The fact that content is popular is a logically sound reason to broadcast it I think, particularly if you derive revenue from advertising around popular broadcasts.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, RTE is not a commercial enterprise and is in fact bound by a public service statement which details its core commitments which include:"RTÉ will provide for and be responsive to the interests, needs and concerns of the whole community on the island of Ireland."

True, though it doesn't operate without commercial considerations; it relies on advertising sales for it's existence. And whilst I agree that RTE is required to cater to the whole community, it is also required to reflect Ireland’s cultural and regional diversity. It can't do that if it only produces programming that only suits the whole community (if that's even possible). So it has to attempt both, which leaves room for the Angelus still.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

There is no indication here that this should be done on a proportional basis. Should people who make up 1% or less of the population not receive acknowledgement through RTE's service. Of course not. In fact, if there is any talk of proportion it should be that airtime should be almost inversely proportional to population so that minority issues be given more airtime so that they can be brought to the attention of the wider population. It is the same principle as affirmative action.

No, there is no requirement to be proportional, only reflective of cultural diversity. Not being proportional would distort that reflection though.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"RTÉ will uphold the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution and serve the public interest"
Except that as far as constitutional values and religious programming are concerned RTE seems to be falling short of their commitment. Firstly and most obviously, there's Article 40.1 which holds all people as equal before the law. So equality is something enshrined by the constitution but not everyone gets equal access to the airwaves if its bending to the will of the majority.

I think that's more than a bit of a stretch in fairness. That all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law doesn't even begin to imply that a majority of viewers ought not to preferred when determining broadcast viewing, before you even get to the caveat that this shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function. The same argument would hold that democracy itself is unConstitutional; as only the majority of voters are represented by those who are elected. If we were to provide all state services equally to everyone, then old age pensions could not be restricted to pensioners, medical cards could not be withheld from the affluent, and civil service jobs could not be restricted to those most qualified. Equality before the law means that the State assures us that all people are subject to the same laws of justice, and that it cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens. Which is manifestly not the same as saying that the State cannot discriminate between citizens at all.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Similarly and more importantly Article 45.1 states:
"The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life."
Notice again the use of the term "the whole people" and not just the majority. RTE as an arm of the state has a commitment to all the people and this means sharing airtime equally among all religions regardless of how many adherents they might have.

Well, firstly, the preamble of Article 45 runs "The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas." so the principle you're quoting is directed specifically at the Oireachtas and its functions; of which RTE is not one. Secondly, I really can't see how promoting the welfare of the whole people prohibits reflecting the culture of the people in a proportional fashion? If the whole of the peoples cultural values are reflected proportionally, the welfare of the whole people has been considered.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Furthermore, as I mentioned above with affirmative action, the state in the constitution places value on disproportionately helping weaker sections of the community in Article 45.4.1:
"The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged."
"RTÉ will reflect and nurture traditional and contemporary Irish cultural expression and seek to inform a greater understanding of the wider world"
Now while it could be argued that the current situation represents a reflection and nurturing of the traditional Irish cultural expression, it is certainly not reflecting contemporary Ireland (at least not where religious programming is concerned). This is where RTE is falling down, or at least missing an opportunity. Many people in Ireland are now living in communities where there are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons etc. and yet I would guess (mostly from personal experience) that a lot of people are deeply ignorant about what Muslims believe or how they practise their religion. As Dara O'Briain explained, the reason why he doesn't do jokes on Islam is: "a) I don't know a f*cking thing about Islam and b) neither do you". RTE could attempt to improve that situation. A more cohesive society could be built by using religious programming to explore the basics of different faiths.

And on all of that I absolutely agree, with the sole exception of the role a State broadcaster should take in altering a society, even if it may appear to be for the good. I agree wholeheartedly that we should see more content that reflects the cultural and religious diversity of the nation.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now as I've stated previously the Angelus is a relic of a bygone age when most people in Ireland could not only be reliably assumed to be catholic but also devout catholics. It has no relevance in modern Ireland but also no utility. In an increasingly multicultural Ireland we could and should be using religious programming to highlight the actual beliefs and traditions of the people who continue to alight on our shores.

And yet people watch it. They may watch it because they're devout Catholics, they may watch it because it's a relic of a bygone age, they may watch it because it's relaxing, they may watch it because they're waiting for the news, or they've lost the remote, but they still watch it.
We can certainly use some religious programming time to highlight the actual beliefs and traditions of the people who continue to alight on our shores, and if people watch it, that will also contribute to RTEs religious programming; but that doesn't mean the time necessarily has to come from the 6% of religious programming that the Angelus currently represents.

We should scrap the Angelus when people stop watching it; or at least, when there are insufficient numbers watching it to justify it's timeslot. That is when it will no longer be relevant.

galljga1

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

How many people in church say the angelus when it's being called out by the holy rollers in the front pews before mass?

Not very many in my experience, and that's in the place where you're going to get the highest concentration of angelus reciters in one spot.

That is probably the rosary.
Answer: not many.

How many people get anything from the repetitive prayers said during mass?
Same answer.

recedite

galljga1 wrote: »

That is probably the rosary.

I never gave any thought to it before now, but apparently there is a special prayer formula to be said at the appointed time.
According to Wikipedia; the Angelus is

practised by reciting as versicle and response three Biblical verses narrating the mystery; alternating with the prayer "Hail Mary".

It doesn't say which three biblical verses. Maybe its the devotee's choice, or maybe wiki doesn't know which ones.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

℣. The Angel of the LORD declared unto Mary,
℟. And she conceived of the Holy Ghost.
HAIL MARY...
℣. Behold the handmaid of the LORD.
℟. Be it done unto me according to thy word.
HAIL MARY...
℣. And the Word was made flesh.
℟. And dwelt among us.
HAIL MARY...

Thats the first bit, the three by three dongs, then theres a couple short prayers (which I won't bother transcribing...)

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

can't edit post, the actual verses are in Luke, Chapter 1.
Verse 38 is 'Behold the handmaid of the LORD. Be it done unto me according to thy word.'

Hotblack Desiato

Back in the day I might have been able to recite it by heart :eek:

although any time it was recited at home or in school there would have been prompters

My mother was very much into all the ritualistic RC stuff, but even 35-odd years ago she didn't get us to recite the angelus at home except on very rare occasions (around Easter perhaps, can't remember, but it was very unusual)

At one point in the early 80s - probably something to do with Family Sodality, she got the booklets - there was an attempt to get us kids to turn off the TV and kneel down in front of the gas fire and recite the rosary, that didn't last more than 3 days until the Resistance won out

I probably broke the poor woman's heart (she tried to get me to be an altar boy, and might have thought I'd become a priest one day :pac: if I hadn't vehemently rejected becoming an altar boy) but I can't help but think - and my now 80+ mother-in-law is similar - that there is a very strong ritualistic element to pre-vatican2 catholic worshippers, they certainly weren't brought up to think about what they were doing but instead immerse themselves in repetitive rituals like angelus, rosary, or the latin mass they didn't understand a word of.

tirchonaill86

To Brian Shanahan and Galljga1 and the rest of the atheists; To coin a phrase from the green mile and keeping with the film theme....God have mercy on your souls. Also out of respect to one of my favourite films from youth The Terminator.....Im back! Ridiculous how i was banned for giving friendly advice as a mental health professional by trade but anyway. Hope you are all having a great Friday. Bless. And space-time i never asked you to explain or justify yourself to me...you are right i am a stranger on the internet but sometimes the best advice comes from a stranger. I was only trying to help but i probably should have private mailed ya. Anyways i hope the bells aren't ringing too loudly in your nightmares this weather brother.

tirchonaill86

At one point in the early 80s - probably something to do with Family Sodality, she got the booklets - there was an attempt to get us kids to turn off the TV and kneel down in front of the gas fire and recite the rosary, that didn't last more than 3 days until the Resistance won out

Think you watched The Terminator too many times Hotblack lad.

Turtwig

Ohm my god.
I still know the Angelus by heart. Never properly learned the entire rosary as kept hearing mondegreens and getting confused over and over. I can say something that'll you'll think is the rosary when I say it with speed.

I know what your thinking and yes drugs are bad mm'kay.

Hotblack Desiato

Turtwig wrote: »

mondegreen

Is that like Excuse me, while I kiss this guy ?

or Billy Connolly's 'Gladly, the cross-eyed bear'

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Is that like Excuse me, while I kiss this guy ?

The very thing.

Bon Jovi

I ain't going to be another fish in the crowd.

Was one that stuck with me for years.

I actually suspect many others didn't know the rosary either. Just the sound of the thing.

Hotblack Desiato

Turtwig wrote: »

Ohm my god.

Ah so you are also part of the Resistance?

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah so you are also part of the Resistance?

No I'm way more current than that.

Hotblack Desiato

Turtwig wrote: »

No I'm way more current than that.

Watt?

SpaceTime

tirchonaill86 wrote:

Bless. And space-time ... you are right i am a stranger on the internet but sometimes the best advice comes from a stranger. I was only trying to help but i probably should have private mailed ya. Anyways i hope the bells aren't ringing too loudly in your nightmares this weather brother.

I will be polite and bite my tongue: No, you shouldn't send me anything by private message and please refrain from doing so.

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Watt?

I subscribe to groups that actually have power.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I will be polite and bite my tongue: No, you shouldn't send me anything by private message and please refrain from doing so.

Seeing as you're typing/gliding shouldn't you really be biting your fingers?

Hotblack Desiato

Turtwig wrote: »

I subscribe to groups that actually have power.

Joule be sorry someday.

tirchonaill86

Turtwig wrote: »

I subscribe to groups that actually have power.

Who are they? In your dreams mate.

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Joule be sorry someday.

Do you really think your organisation has the potential [to make a] difference?

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

Who are they? In your dreams mate.

They are the ones in charge.

SpaceTime

Turtwig wrote: »

They are the ones in charge.

They help you to release your potential energy?

Turtwig

SpaceTime wrote: »

They help you to release your potential energy?

They will induct me into the Hall effect of fame.

Hotblack Desiato

Turtwig wrote: »

Do you really think your organisation has the potential to make a difference?

Wait a second - do you think our leader can force anyone? You'd have to metre - but she might make you kilo ver.

tirchonaill86

Turtwig wrote: »

Do you really think your organisation has the potential [to make a] difference?


They are the ones in charge.

enlighten me?

tirchonaill86

is this the crystal maze because I'm starting to feel confused?

Turtwig

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wait a second - do you think our leader can force anyone? You'd have to metre - but she might make you kilo ver.

See there is your problem always trying to transform into more physical mechanical situations. Be more electric!

Turtwig

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

enlighten me?

You'd need a tungsten filament.

tirchonaill86

Is this confuse a christian night?

Hotblack Desiato

Coulomb story bro.

Turtwig

tirchonaill86 wrote: »

Is this confuse a christian night?

No, why does the thread hertz your head?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Coulomb story bro.

Thanks for switching back.