Angelus

robdonn

jcd5971 wrote: »

Normally don't pull the grammar/spelling lark I make enough mistakes myself, I just found that one funny as it kinda flipped his point 180

I wonder if Godwin's Law takes effect if I call you a grammar nazi. :P

jcd5971

God let's hope so... Or not God as the case may be :-)

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I didn't say that RTE has to appeal to everyone, I said that it needs to represent everyone. Classical music is not a socially divisive dogma that causes violence around the world. GAA support is not a cultural division asked about in the census.

GAA is certainly divisive though, and Bressie has been known to incite a desire for violence in my house.
I don't see how anyone imagines that RTE should, or even more could represent everyone. Provide something of interest to everyone at one point or another? Sure. Provide something relevant to everyone? Maybe. But none of the four programmes I mentioned even come close to being of interest to, or relevant to, never mind representative of, everyone.

robdonn wrote: »

A religious call to prayer, if made available, should be made available to all major religions that operate in Ireland, and arguably smaller religions too. If this is untenable or too costly then there should be no call to prayer at all.

To the first part, sure, why not. To the second, why? If you can't please all of the people all of the time, you can still please some of the people some of the time. We don't say if everyone can't live in a house, no one can live in a house. We do what we can to make sure everyone can live in a house. And we acknowledge that some people are always going to have bigger houses, though if you're American you can pretend that everyone who tries hard enough will get one too.

robdonn wrote: »

If the RCC wants to keep the Angelus then they can, they just have to pay for it themselves at an advertising rate suitable for the times that it is played.

But the Catholic Church hasn't asked for it as advertising, has it? RTE say they believe their audience want it; and the audience is already paying for it with their licence fees.

robdonn wrote: »

Do you think that all practising Catholics tune in for the Angelus? As has been argued about in another thread, we don't have any reliable figures about the viewing statistics of the Angelus, so we have no idea how relevant it is.

We don't have reliable figures about the viewing statistics of any programme on RTE though. Quite possibly not a single Muslim tuned in for Ramadan Diary; we have no reliable figures to say that they did. I don't think an absence of knowledge is a great justification for calling on RTE to change their programming though; after all, they do have reliable figures on viewing statistics for all of their programmes, and have been known to make decisions based on them. As they should.

robdonn wrote: »

That is ignoring an issue, not solving it. But as I have said before, this is not the end-all of secular issues. Nobody loses sleep over this. But it is an ongoing issue that at the very least is a mild annoyance and at most it is a display of the RCC's unspoken hold on the core of our society.

I don't think so; the programme itself is hardly an issue, as you've said, the Angelus itself is not a socially divisive dogma that causes violence around the world, nor is it a a cultural division asked about in the census (though cultural divisions aren't asked about in the census).
The issue is what people feel the Angelus represents. Not what they feel it represents, but what they feel it represents. And if you feel a tv programme represents something you don't want to engage with, changing the channel absolutely solves your problem.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Huntergonzo

Anyone else think the angelus is just there to satisfy idiots, or at very least to knock whatever brain cells you had left out of you with a big loud BONG! (Surrender your reason) BONG! (Surrender your logic) BONG! (Surrender to our God).

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Viewers might though?

Hotblack Desiato

branie2 wrote: »

I liked the religious paintings in the original Angelus

I like ice cream. But I don't think that everyone in Ireland should be made to consume it, even only a little bit...

robdonn wrote: »

If the RCC wants to keep the Angelus then they can, they just have to pay for it themselves at an advertising rate suitable for the times that it is played.

Ironically, religious advertising on radio and TV is illegal in Ireland, the free promotion RTE gives to the RC church (and to a far lesser extent, some others) is not.

brightspark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I like ice cream. But I don't think that everyone in Ireland should be made to consume it, even only a little bit...

Made to consume it? I wasn't aware watching RTE1 at 12 and 6 was mandatory!

As I said earlier it's no longer 1978 with just one channel available, and you don't even need to get out of your chair to watch something else.

Hotblack Desiato

It's still imposing it on people, even though there has always been an off switch, and other Irish TV channels have been available since 1978

Why should RTE be in the business of promoting a particular religion at all? Nobody can provide an adequate answer for this. If we didn't have the angelus on TV and radio already, we wouldn't introduce it now, it's simply a relic of an extremely harmful period of Ireland's 20th century history, and calls to retain it are simply appeals to tradition.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's still imposing it on people, even though there has always been an off switch, and other Irish TV channels have been available since 1978

By that logic, every single tv programme is imposed on people. Should we simply ban television, or is there a particular level of imposition that you feel is appropriate?
How closely those that level align with your own particular viewpoint, as distinct from being entirely acceptable to every single viewpoint in Ireland?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should RTE be in the business of promoting a particular religion at all? Nobody can provide an adequate answer for this. If we didn't have the angelus on TV and radio already, we wouldn't introduce it now, it's simply a relic of an extremely harmful period of Ireland's 20th century history, and calls to retain it are simply appeals to tradition.

Nobody has adequately explained how RTE is in the business of promoting a particular religion at all, which may explain why nobody has suggested a reason why it could be.
Can you show that the Angelus in any way advocates the benefits of, or encourages membership of Catholicism? Actually, can you show it says anything about Catholisim at all? I think RTE would need to seriously step up the content before you could reasonably say the Angelus promotes a religion. And if we didn't have it already, would there be any outcry if RTE did decide to introduce it? I suspect the objections raised against the Angelus have far more to do with the associations some people create for themselves than with what it actually is.

magicbastarder

Absolam wrote: »

Can you show that the Angelus in any way advocates the benefits of, or encourages membership of Catholicism?

hmm, how can i show that a catholic call to prayer being broadcast on the national TV station at 6pm could in any way be seen as advocating a particular religion? that's a toughie...

that said, i don't think it's a particularly pressing issue. it's idiotic that the national broadcaster in a modern democracy should be broadcasting a call to prayer, but i've bigger things to worry about.

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

hmm, how can i show that a catholic call to prayer being broadcast on the national TV station at 6pm could in any way be seen as advocating a particular religion? that's a toughie....

It is isn't it? I mean, it doesn't even mention the religion in question... bizarre.

magicbastarder wrote: »

that said, i don't think it's a particularly pressing issue. it's idiotic that the national broadcaster in a modern democracy should be broadcasting a call to prayer, but i've bigger things to worry about.

Nor do I. It's idiotic that sixty seconds of religious broadcast that can be, and generally is, ignored by those who have no interest in it, should occasion such vitriol from those who, in fact, have no interest in it

magicbastarder

Absolam wrote: »

It is isn't it? I mean, it doesn't even mention the religion in question... bizarre.

now you're confusing me. something named (essentially) 'catholic call to prayer' does not mention that it's catholic?
how can you claim that it does not mention something when that something is encapsulated in its *name*?

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

now you're confusing me. something named (essentially) 'catholic call to prayer' does not mention that it's catholic?
how can you claim that it does not mention something when that something is encapsulated in its *name*?

Let's try and keep the discussion at least modestly grounded in reality.

It's not named "Catholic call to prayer", or even "essentially" named that. It's named "Angelus" from the first word of the rite, but even if you set out the rite in full the word "Catholic" does not appear anywhere in it.

RTE doesn't broadcast the rite; just the ringing bell which traditionally calls attention to it. Ringing church bells as a call to prayer is a practice commonly observed by Catholics, but obviously not just by Catholics; it's not a distinctively Catholic (or even distinctively Christian) practice. Nor is broadcasting church bells ringing a particularly Irish or Catholic thing.

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

now you're confusing me. something named (essentially) 'catholic call to prayer' does not mention that it's catholic?
how can you claim that it does not mention something when that something is encapsulated in its *name*?

So when you say 'essentially'... does that mean 'not in fact'?
So for instance, when you look at the RTE Guide, the words 'catholic call to prayer' might not be there? Or, if you inadvertently flick onto RTE 1 a 6pm, you might hear a bell tolling, but maybe not a voice saying 'this is the catholic call to prayer'?.
That might be confusing alright, if you think it's supposed to be mentioning that it's the catholic call to prayer. As promotion goes, that's a pretty horrendous job in fairness...

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not named "Catholic call to prayer", or even "essentially" named that. It's named "Angelus" from the first word of the rite, but even if you set out the rite in full the word "Catholic" does not appear anywhere in it.

the angelus "is a Catholic devotion commemorating the Incarnation" (from wikipedia).
maintaining the name as 'the angelus' is incompatible with claiming it's not a catholic-specific prayer. if they want to claim it's a general pause for contemplation, they should pick a name which is not linked to a specific religion.

robdonn

magicbastarder wrote: »

the angelus "is a Catholic devotion commemorating the Incarnation" (from wikipedia).
maintaining the name as 'the angelus' is incompatible with claiming it's not a catholic-specific prayer. if they want to claim it's a general pause for contemplation, they should pick a name which is not linked to a specific religion.

Maybe we should rename all Christian holidays to something like "Easter - Brought to you by Christianity!" :P

galljga1

I may be getting confused here. Are some people trying to state that this is not a catholic call to prayer? or at the very least, a christian call to prayer? This is not promoting religion? That is just a ridiculous point of view. It is equivalent to saying that the adhan is not a muslim call to prayer.

robdonn

galljga1 wrote: »

I may be getting confused here. Are some people trying to state that this is not a catholic call to prayer? or at the very least, a christian call to prayer? This is not promoting religion? That is just a ridiculous point of view. It is equivalent to saying that the adhan is not a muslim call to prayer.

The word "adhan" does not contain "muslim", so...

galljga1

robdonn wrote: »

The word "adhan" does not contain "muslim", so...

I never said it did. It is still a muslim call to prayer.

It would have taken a brave man to tell john charles that the Angelus was not a catholic call to prayer.

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

the angelus "is a Catholic devotion commemorating the Incarnation" (from wikipedia).
maintaining the name as 'the angelus' is incompatible with claiming it's not a catholic-specific prayer. if they want to claim it's a general pause for contemplation, they should pick a name which is not linked to a specific religion.

The devotion was traditionally recited in Roman Catholic churches, convents, and monasteries three times daily: 6:00 am, noon, and 6:00 pm (many churches still follow the devotion, and some practise it at home). The devotion is also used by some Anglican and Lutheran churches.
Also Wikipedia... so not exclusively Catholic, as it turns out with a moments more reading
But I think you were trying to assert that the Angelus mentions the religion in question, rather than that they shouldn't use a name for it that doesn't mention what you said it mentioned?

galljga1 wrote: »

I may be getting confused here. Are some people trying to state that this is not a catholic call to prayer? or at the very least, a christian call to prayer? This is not promoting religion? That is just a ridiculous point of view. It is equivalent to saying that the adhan is not a muslim call to prayer.

No, for the first part; the Angelus, to those who are aware of it's meaning at all, is of course a call to prayer (if not exclusively). The Angelus as broadcast by RTE simply doesn't mention that fact; it's not part of the name, or the broadcast.
For the second part, I'd say quite the contrary. The idea that simply portraying something promotes it is the sort of notion generally reserved to the kind of people who object to men kissing on television because it promotes homosexuality. Just because people don't like what other people do, I don't think they should feel entitled to insist it's removed from their view; they're quite capable of looking elsewhere if they wish.

magicbastarder

Absolam wrote: »

But I think you were trying to assert that the Angelus mentions the religion in question, rather than that they shouldn't use a name for it that doesn't mention what you said it mentioned?

no, i didn't intend to assert that it contained 'catholic' explicitly by name. more that it was an explicitly (though maybe not strictly exclusively) catholic call to prayer.

magicbastarder

Absolam wrote: »

the Angelus, to those who are aware of it's meaning at all, is of course a call to prayer (if not exclusively). The Angelus as broadcast by RTE simply doesn't mention that fact; it's not part of the name, or the broadcast.

we're getting bogged down in semantics here.
RTE list it as 'the angelus'. 'the angelus' is an almost exclusively catholic prayer.
it doesn't matter that RTE do not list it as 'catholic call to prayer', because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, i didn't intend to assert that it contained 'catholic' explicitly by name. more that it was an explicitly (though maybe not strictly exclusively) catholic call to prayer. we're getting bogged down in semantics here. RTE list it as 'the angelus'. 'the angelus' is an almost exclusively catholic prayer. it doesn't matter that RTE do not list it as 'catholic call to prayer', because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

But neither walking like a duck, nor quacking like a duck, promotes being a duck.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

For the second part, I'd say quite the contrary. The idea that simply portraying something promotes it is the sort of notion generally reserved to the kind of people who object to men kissing on television because it promotes homosexuality. Just because people don't like what other people do, I don't think they should feel entitled to insist it's removed from their view; they're quite capable of looking elsewhere if they wish.

Well that's making the assumption that one's objections to the Angelus being broadcast on tv is part of an objection to it's existence at all. Nobody is suggesting that the Angelus as a religious tradition should be stopped, simply not broadcast on tv.

People who object to two men kissing on tv are working from a point of hatred/dislike of the act itself. A valid objection would be if RTE showed two men kissing exclusively and refused to broadcast any other combination without giving any reason other than "culture" or "tradition". But RTE do not do this, they broadcast relationships of all forms or at least would not object to broadcasting one that is currently not shown.

Do you see this openness with a Muslim call to prayer?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

But neither walking like a duck, nor quacking like a duck, promotes being a duck.

Viewing your responses, it appears that they are obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The angelus (the RTE programme) is simply a call to prayer.

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

Do you see this openness with a Muslim call to prayer?

But RTE don't broadcast any Muslim call to prayer, for the obvious reason that it's not practised in Ireland - there is no call to broadcast.

If it were practised, and they broadcast it, I wouldn't object.

Would you? Is it just Catholic calls to prayer that you object to seeing on the airwaves, or call to prayer from any tradition? Is it just gay kissing you don't want to see on air, or any kissing at all? ;-)

Peregrinus

galljga1 wrote: »

Viewing your responses, it appears that they are obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The angelus (the RTE programme) is simply a call to prayer.

Nobody has suggested otherwise. But some of the people objecting to it lay great stress on the claim that it's a Catholic call to prayer. Which I think legitimately opens up two questions. First, to what extent is it purely Catholic? Second, why is this relevant?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well that's making the assumption that one's objections to the Angelus being broadcast on tv is part of an objection to it's existence at all. Nobody is suggesting that the Angelus as a religious tradition should be stopped, simply not broadcast on tv.

Well no not all; Hotblack Desiatos objection was that by broadcasting the Angelus RTE is promoting a religion. My point is that in order to promote something, some positive advocacy must be put forward on it's behalf, whereas simply portraying the Angelus doesn't promote anything.

robdonn wrote: »

People who object to two men kissing on tv are working from a point of hatred/dislike of the act itself.

That may depend on the person who objects; I'm not offering any rationale for why someone might object to either thing, only pointing out that objecting to the visibility of something on the grounds that simply by being visible it promotes something objectionable is a shared characteristic in the two cases.

robdonn wrote: »

A valid objection would be if RTE showed two men kissing exclusively and refused to broadcast any other combination without giving any reason other than "culture" or "tradition". But RTE do not do this, they broadcast relationships of all forms or at least would not object to broadcasting one that is currently not shown.

How would it be a valid objection then? I don't think RTE should have to give any reason for showing two men kissing personally.

robdonn wrote: »

Do you see this openness with a Muslim call to prayer?

You haven't shown any openness, only your reasons why you think it would be valid to object to men kissing?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

But neither walking like a duck, nor quacking like a duck, promotes being a duck.

Well look at a system like the UK's Ofcom rules on Party Political and Referendum Broadcasts. Their rules state that each party, no matter how small and how fringe, must be given equal air time on all licensed public service stations. This is to prevent any party receiving unequal treatment and coverage and to make sure that the channel does not show any bias towards one particular group.

Even though it is not the broadcasters that are creating the content, their control over how they choose what and when to air can be taken as bias and promotion of a group.

It is agreed that RTE have tried to tone down certain religious elements of the Angelus and tried to present it more as a secular "moment of reflection", but it is still a Christian ritual and described as RTE as a Religious Programme. It has the same secularity as broadcasting a minute of silence and the word "CHRISTIANITY" across the screen once every day. It is not an explicit advertisement, but it is unequal access to airtime.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Viewing your responses, it appears that they are obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The angelus (the RTE programme) is simply a call to prayer.

And there was me thinking I was quite clearly sticking to the point that Hotblack Desiato and magicbastarder were trying to put forward; that broadcasting the Angelus is promoting a religion. For the sake of avoiding obtuseness then, I'll abandon magicbastarder's metaphor and more plainly say:
simply broadcasting a call to prayer doesn't promote a religion.
To lean even more towards being acute;
In order to promote the religion, the call to prayer ought to contain some sort of recommendation or endorsement of the religion or at least the act of prayer which those unaware of the meaning of the tolling bells are being magically seduced into, and I'd suggest some indication of which religion is being promoted (lest prospective candidates choose the wrong one after being subjected to such a compelling message).

Peregrinus

But public service broadcasters generally provide religious programming. Are you objecting to all religious programming, or just this? And, if just this, why just this?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

You haven't shown any openness, only your reasons why you think it would be valid to object to men kissing?

You have a mighty hunger for cherries.

The "valid objection" argument was not based on the act itself, but the reason for refusing to broadcast other similar acts, the acts in question are interchangeable.

For example:
Complainer - "You only ever show straight people kissing, why?"
RTE - "We don't have any programs to air that contains gay people kissing."

An acceptable reason.

Complainer - "You only ever show straight people kissing, why?"
RTE - "Straight people kissing is a part of Irish culture and tradition. The numbers of people interested in seeing gay people kiss is so small that we don't consider them relevant. If you don't like straight people kissing, change the channel."

Not an acceptable reason.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Well look at a system like the UK's Ofcom rules on Party Political and Referendum Broadcasts. Their rules state that each party, no matter how small and how fringe, must be given equal air time on all licensed public service stations. This is to prevent any party receiving unequal treatment and coverage and to make sure that the channel does not show any bias towards one particular group. Even though it is not the broadcasters that are creating the content, their control over how they choose what and when to air can be taken as bias and promotion of a group.

That's not quite true though, is it? For instance, Rules 13 & 14 state:
13. Before a General Election, and in the case of other elections where appropriate, each major party (referred to in Rule 12) should be offered at least two PEBs, the length of a series offered to a particular party being determined by the Licensee. This includes the SNP and Plaid Cymru on Channel 4 and Channel 5. In every case, the number of PEBs should be determined having regard to the circumstances of a particular election, the nation in which it is held, and the individual party's past electoral support and/or current support in that nation (see Rule 16).
14. Other registered parties should qualify for a PEB if they are contesting one sixth or more of the seats up for election in the case of first-past-the-post, multi-constituency elections such as a General Election. For proportional representation systems of election (such as the European Parliamentary Elections), the minimum qualifying requirement for the allocation of one PEB should be set, reasonably and fairly for each election, according to criteria which have regard to the particular system of voting, the number of seats available for election, the number of constituencies/regions, and the number of candidates nominated by the party. On PEBs alone, time is allocated according to the size and support of the parties involved; the little ones get less. Or even none.

But this is not the UK, and we're not talking about broadcasts seeking to promote one religion or another; we're talking about broadcasts which are representative of and of interest to various diverse parts of Irish culture, the broadcasting of which is part of RTEs mandate.

robdonn wrote: »

It is agreed that RTE have tried to tone down certain religious elements of the Angelus and tried to present it more as a secular "moment of reflection", but it is still a Christian ritual and described as RTE as a Religious Programme. It has the same secularity as broadcasting a minute of silence and the word "CHRISTIANITY" across the screen once every day. It is not an explicit advertisement, but it is unequal access to airtime.

Of course, it's not actually required to be secular though, is it? Religious programming is actually part of what RTE is supposed to do. And tellingly, it doesn't have the word "CHRISTIANITY" across the screen.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

You have a mighty hunger for cherries.

If you're concerned I ignored a point you made, feel free to point it out

robdonn wrote: »

The "valid objection" argument was not based on the act itself, but the reason for refusing to broadcast other similar acts, the acts in question are interchangeable.

As I said; that may depend on the person who objects; I'm not offering any rationale for why someone might object to either thing, only pointing out that objecting to the visibility of something on the grounds that simply by being visible it promotes something objectionable is a shared characteristic in the two cases. Personally, I don't think RTE should have to give any reason for showing two men kissing, but perhaps I'm in a minority there.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

But public service broadcasters generally provide religious programming. Are you objecting to all religious programming, or just this? And, if just this, why just this?

I do not object to the existence of religious programming, only when that religious programming gives almost exclusive preference to a single religion.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

And there was me thinking I was quite clearly sticking to the point that Hotblack Desiato and magicbastarder were trying to put forward; that broadcasting the Angelus is promoting a religion. For the sake of avoiding obtuseness then, I'll abandon magicbastarder's metaphor and more plainly say:
simply broadcasting a call to prayer doesn't promote a religion.
To lean even more towards being acute;
In order to promote the religion, the call to prayer ought to contain some sort of recommendation or endorsement of the religion or at least the act of prayer which those unaware of the meaning of the tolling bells are being magically seduced into, and I'd suggest some indication of which religion is being promoted (lest prospective candidates choose the wrong one after being subjected to such a compelling message).

We will have to agree to differ on this one. Personally, imho, it cannot be seen as anything other than a programme that promotes the catholic religion. I would safely say that the vast majority of persons in this country seeing the RTE programme 'the angelus' automatically think of the catholic church (maybe a few think of christianity, maybe a few think of prayer or possibly nothing). It is simply a free advert, advertising works.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

If you're concerned I ignored a point you made, feel free to point it out

As I said; that may depend on the person who objects; I'm not offering any rationale for why someone might object to either thing, only pointing out that objecting to the visibility of something on the grounds that simply by being visible it promotes something objectionable is a shared characteristic in the two cases. Personally, I don't think RTE should have to give any reason for showing two men kissing, but perhaps I'm in a minority there.

What's with "two men kissing". It's part of life. Is someone objecting to it being shown?

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

I do not object to the existence of religious programming, only when that religious programming gives almost exclusive preference to a single religion.

But the Angelus is a very small part of RTE's religious programming. You could equally object to RTE's broadcasts of Sunday Mass, on the grounds that they are even more exclusively Catholic than the Angelus is, or to its broadcasts of Anglican services on the grounds that they are exclusively Anglican, or to its (very occasional) broadcasts of, say, Jewish services on the grounds that they're a bit too single-mindedly Jewish. This makes no sense at all.

Any public broadcaster's religious programming is going to reflect the variety of religious belief and expression in the society they serve, with perhaps more emphasis given to minority traditions than their numbers would strictly warrant. I don't think RTE is out of line here.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Personally, I don't think RTE should have to give any reason for showing two men kissing, but perhaps I'm in a minority there.

That's a lovely strawman that you've built there, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Peregrinus

galljga1 wrote: »

What's with "two men kissing". It's part of life. Is someone objecting to it being shown?

Absolan's point is that the ringing of the Angelus bell is also "part of life", and objecting to its being broadcast on the grounds that it "promotes Catholicism" makes about as much sense as objecting to the broadcast of gay kissing on the grounds that it "promotes homosexuality".

galljga1

robdonn wrote: »

I do not object to the existence of religious programming, only when that religious programming gives almost exclusive preference to a single religion.

The more I think about this and religion in general, the less of a sh1t I give. I still cannot fathom belief in religion and it used to annoy the sh!t out of me particularly as I was forced to endure it long after I ceased to believe. To each their own. Live long and prosper, let the bells ring.
I am a bit of a turncoat, I know but I am on hols at the moment and feeling a bit more tolerant than normal.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

We will have to agree to differ on this one. Personally, imho, it cannot be seen as anything other than a programme that promotes the catholic religion. I would safely say that the vast majority of persons in this country seeing the RTE programme 'the angelus' automatically think of the catholic church (maybe a few think of christianity, maybe a few think of prayer or possibly nothing). It is simply a free advert, advertising works.

I would suggest that only the ones already sufficiently familiar with christianity/catholicism would make the connection at all; those unfamiliar would have no idea what it is. Even those who know what it is are given no reason to consider the religion in a positive light, all they get is 18 tolls of a bell. Not likely to encourage a lot of lost sheep back into the flock with such a cunning argument I imagine.

Personally, I'd fire any ad agency who told me they were only going to speak to consumers who were already very familiar with my product, but they weren't going to recommend it, or even mention it's name, only allude to it's existence in non committal terms. Some advertising really doesn't work that well.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolan's point is that the ringing of the Angelus bell is also "part of life", and objecting to its being broadcast on the grounds that it "promotes Catholicism" makes about as much sense as objecting to the broadcast of gay kissing on the grounds that it "promotes homosexuality".

And it is a strawman as nobody is saying that it shouldn't be there on the grounds of religious promotion alone, but that by only having a Christian call to prayer is disproportionate promotion. So either have a call to prayer for each religion represented in Irish demographics, or don't have one at all.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest that only the ones already sufficiently familiar with christianity/catholicism would make the connection at all; those unfamiliar would have no idea what it is. Even those who know what it is are given no reason to consider the religion in a positive light, all they get is 18 tolls of a bell. Not likely to encourage a lot of lost sheep back into the flock with such a cunning argument I imagine.

Personally, I'd fire any ad agency who told me they were only going to speak to consumers who were already very familiar with my product, but they weren't going to recommend it, or even mention it's name, only allude to it's existence in non committal terms. Some advertising really doesn't work that well.

Yeah, I had that argument in my head before I posted. Maybe not a great campaign if it was introduced at the moment but anything that has lasted for 65 years shouldn't be sneezed at. I still see it as a free advert even if all it does is enforce consumer behaviour for an existing client base. I am not into marketing but I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of the advertising budget of major brands is spent on retaining existing customers.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

That's a lovely strawman that you've built there, but irrelevant to the discussion.

You're the one offering reasons for objecting; I quite specifically said I'm not offering any rationale for why someone might object to either thing. If you're not comfortable with it, try substituting 'miming', or 'planting a three field crop rotation system' instead of 'two men kissing'.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

You're the one offering reasons for objecting; I quite specifically said I'm not offering any rationale for why someone might object to either thing. If you're not comfortable with it, try substituting 'miming', or 'planting a three field crop rotation system' instead of 'two men kissing'.

I am offering reasons for objecting to something not being shown, not for it being shown. (Terrible sounding sentence, I apologise.)

So, as I have said before, I will fully support the broadcasting of the Angelus if call to prayers of other religions are also broadcast equally. If RTE do not do this, and can give no valid reason for doing so beyond "tradition", then I will object to the whole thing.

Peregrinus

galljga1 wrote: »

Yeah, I had that argument in my head before I posted. Maybe not a great campaign if it was introduced at the moment but anything that has lasted for 65 years shouldn't be sneezed at. I still see it as a free advert even if all it does is enforce consumer behaviour for an existing client base. I am not into marketing but I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of the advertising budget of major brands is spent on retaining existing customers.

But on that basis every documentary or current affairs broadcast depicting any event, practice etc is a "promotion" of that event or practice. That's not a serious argument against the broadcasts of events or practices.

robdonn

Peregrinus wrote: »

But on that basis every documentary or current affairs broadcast depicting any event, practice etc is a "promotion" of that event or practice. That's not a serious argument against the broadcasts of events or practices.

Would documentaries and current affairs programming not fall under educational? I don't even know what category the Angelus falls under, but it certainly isn't that.

Peregrinus

robdonn wrote: »

Would documentaries and current affairs programming not fall under educational? I don't even know what category the Angelus falls under, but it certainly isn't that.

It falls under "religious", but I don't see the relevance of the categorisation. If you want to take the view that broadcasting an event or practice = promoting that event or practice well, you're entitled to your opinion. But if that's an objection to the broadcast, then that pretty much knocks documentary and current affairs broadcasting on the head. Which is not a position I can take very seriously.