We do not want even the smallest part of Sharia. No one atom of it, not even a proton or Neutron. I have written to the Prime Minister telling him I am appalled at the permitting of Sharia Courts in our fair land.
If you don't like Sharia write to the Prime Minister and tell him so.

Sharia and other forms of woman-hate-control from angry psychopathologically repressed and heavy-duty Islamism is just plain see-through rubbish. Impeach the Arch' of Canterbury ! asap. I have no issues with so-called "atheists'or freethinkers, and in fact very much appreciate their unconditional views, which are secular and therefore healthy. Certainly 'they' do not condone 'sharia'or sit in ridiculous Bishp's Palaces and get free hots and a cot. Thankyou from a radical Buddhist priest. ( smiles and says "Peace" ..how civil and kind.))

Freedom is not deserved and should not be extended to those who would take it from others. Sharia is an affront to human rights and freedoms everywhere, whether they are a western culture or otherwise. I would hope that countries such as Canada, the UK, and the US would know better than to allow this type of inhumanity to be permitted.

It is glaringly obvious that Sharia "Law" is a blatant, Islamist, politicized movement which radicalizes, fragments, and erodes any free and civilized culture. It is an abomination, and the actions of these governments who defend it are a slap to the face of all the people who have given their time, their energy, and, in some cases, their lives to create and protect basic human freedoms.

Sharia is an inhumane, barbaric abomination and should be handled accordingly, not pandered to by cowardly administrations such as these.

Dear writer,

I as a Muslim woman am fully agree with you and I believe that for the Superpowers such as USA and UK it doesnt matter at all that how much we are all affected by their unlimited support to the fundementalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and elsewhere and what price we are paying for so called Sharia Law in the hand of the people who themselves have no knowledge of Sharia and the people who highly tranditionalized and politicized the religion. Probably they know but these governments dont care about me and you and 1000s like us what they are caring is who can better fight their political interests. USA and West supported Osama Bin Laden and Afghan Mujahideen in 1980s to defeat Russia they used Islam as a tool to and never mattered for them what will happen next. This is what is happening now that s bunch of war criminals are part of Afghan government by the support of US and West again and continue to oppress people of Afghanistan particularly women but what is important for the US and West is "Afghanistan is a success Story"???!!!.

We all should get united and fight fundementalism of any form and of any religion in West and East.

Keep the good work there we are all with you!

Right on!  Sharia law is misogynistic, inhumane, unworthy of any civilized people and disrespectful of human rights and freedom for all.  The Archbishop of Canterbury needs to have his head examined for his utterly ridiculous comments that any civilized nation should allow any part of its citizenry to live under such an inhuman legal system.  The man must be out of his mind!

Muslim countries should learn from the civilized West about values & freedoms & NOT VICE VERSA.
This has nothing to do with religion, it is BASIC HUMANISM.
Everyone should be opposed.

No one will ever force me to adhere to the Islam faith horrendous and evil ways.

For religions to exist, they should be private choices. They should never be imposed on individuals. Their purpose should be to try and make us better people. They should teach tolerance and not harshness and rejection, respect of others and not disrespect and they should never, never encourage the killing of others under any circumstances with the exception of self defense when there is no other choice. And of all other things, they should primarily teach the respect of women.

Islam and, in particular, sharia fail to do all of the above and should therefore be fought against until it changes its stances and horrendous ways and reforms itself to become a peaceful religion respecful of other faiths and human rights and freedom.

Until then, we should do away with any belief sytem (whether religious or political) that does not fit this description.

I have not interest in Islam and its terrorist, sexist, untolerant agenda.

There will be punishment to those who use God to commit crimes in his name and mistreat people because they are just sick individuals whose only true purpose is destruction,, oppression, hate and sexism.

I agree with all your very articulate comments on the evils of Sharia. Ultimately we are talking about man-made belief in an invisible, deaf, mute, careless, cruel & blood-thirsty god.
However, as we all know, this is not at all about religion (I say, believe whatever nonsense you like but keep it in your head); it is entirely about the power that MEN (I write as a man) have derived from exploiting some primitive belief system for their own shameful ends.
We have to vote out any prospective government in the UK that gives away any such concessions as appeasement. Appeasement is such a pusillanimous & cowardly activity which, in any case, never ever works. The "appeased" just see the "appeasers" as weak. Why do we need to appease believers in Islam anyway. Just see how much appeasement you get as, say, a Christian in Saudi Arabia.
All of us who care about our very hard-won freedoms must come out & fight this horror.

Started reading the comments on sharia law and apartheid sexual laws and then I was sidetracked into reading the 45 odd bloggs on thoughts for the world and must admit never before reading such random unadulterated rubbish in my life.
I sincerely suggest that all contributers to this hogwash watch a couple of Pat Condells sensible rethoric based mainly on the subjects you people are still trying in a very UK passive manner to grasp.

Muriel Gray says:

“I don’t wish to live in a society pressuring me to take my own life should I begin to suffer. I want to be able to cry out ‘I want to die!’, but not mean it. I don’t wish to be regarded as selfish, a burden on my relatives should I fall into their care, neither do I wish to deprive my family of the opportunity to care for me, an honour I’ve cherished when nursing people I’ve loved and lost. When in pain or distress I will crave comfort and love, not execution.”

In these 94 words, Muriel Gray very movingly expresses her own views on assisted suicide. I admire her, and would never deny her her choice. But why does she seek to deny others (Margo MacDonald included) a different choice? In the 94 words above, the word ‘I’ appears 9 times! What about the second and third persons Muriel? Why may not they too make their choices?

Muriel is making the all too prevalent mistake, or deliberate ignoring of the word VOLUNTARY which is always attached to the proposals put forward by those of us who think very differently from her. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in Ms MacDonald’s bill which would deny her family ‘of the [honour and] opportunity to care for’ her.

Muriel is a caring person. So let her think of others. Margo’s bill is not about her.

Well, I'e been saying it all along! The philosophy of greed which has prevailed is the consequence of Thatcherism. As is the consequential  addiction to lotteries.

So  a big THANK YOU for Claire Rayner's for voicing such. Another great podcast

I feel people caring for someone who wants to die is selfish, We have a right to be born marry have children but no right in our country to die,

@Eric,

i think you've slightly missed the point: these are thoughts from a variety of people, some of whom are secularists, some humanists, others atheist, or agnostic and one or two will even be religious. they're free to say what they think, whether or not that accords with a humanist perspective.

but thanks for listening and sharing your own point of view.

I wish to address Muriel Gray's thought for the world regarding assisted suicide. I think she is seriously wrong. Assisted suicide, according to Margo MacDonald's bill, would not be a general license to pressure people to die. It would enable those who wish to bring their suffering to an end to do so.

I recognise that Muriel Gray's circumstances are difficult, and she must take every such proposal as a little added pressure on her to give up the life of her brain damaged daughter. Nothing could be further from the truth, though, if her daughter is able to express her own wishes, I hope it would enable her to bring her life to an end if she found it no longer worth living.

It is simply false that all pain and suffering can be controlled, and also false that, even with control, no one would wish that there suffering should not be brought to an end.

I fail that this is a humanist thought at all, for humanists do at least respect the freedom of people to make decisions for their lives. A decision to bring your life to an end is included, and should be included in the compass of this freedom. While I sympathise with Muriel Gray, I believe her position is anti-human and inhumane.

Congratulations one and all, this initiative is a breath of fresh air,all humankind have been suffocating under the clouds of religeous doctrine for far to long.

Please let us have these comments in Text too. One in seven of us have hearing loss and many cannot hear them

I agree with Muriel Gray that euthanasia should not replace caring in society, however that is a false dichotomy. The option needs to be there as a last resort, otherwise it will simply be done anyway by those desperate enough who will then possibly botch the job or face criminal proceedings.

Your entry about Brett Lock is outdated.

I have read it for a third time.  Hanne seems to be claiming that individuals need a voice in their own right, not as part of a group.  But with 60m people in the UK that is pretty much impossible.  We all need to join groups in order to have our voice heard.  There is no reason (in theory at least) why a Muslim woman cannot have her voice heard as a woman by joining a women's group.  Similarly, Humanists need to be part of a 'bloc' in order to get their voice heard.  There is no problem with multiculturism as long as, as Hanne says, people's multiple identities are also respected.  It's not a question of either/or.  We are unique individuals but we also have group loyalties as well.
Sorry I was rude about your Thought but it does wade into very muddy territory about human identity.

I listened to Hanne Stinson's podcast and didn't really understand what she was going on about.  I then read the transcript and was still none the wiser.  Soporific stuff.  
Sorry Hanne - I love you really but this was disappointing.

Another great batch of thoughts this year.  Well done to all the speakers, and to the Humanist Society of Scotland for such a great idea!  I'm looking forward to the 2009 batch (or even some more during 2008?).

James

Short but sweet .... not hard to understand ...



The poor souls who doubt what has been said ...
not their opion so they will not believe what has been said.

The power of a brainwashed mind ...

Thankfully not ours ... perhaps one day others
may see the true freedom of the mind ...
free from the chains and twisted beliefs.

    How many more scandals etc etc
     
will be happen .. behind the face of religion.

Please keep up the work of a good life.  Podcasting is allowing the voice of reason to encircle the world, and inter-leaven the debate about what it means to be human with something other than blind belief.

Christopher Brookmyre's thought is hilarious.
great idea - "DITCH THE BITCH"

Really enjoying these - great idea!

thanks for a chuckle here -gosh today teacher would have ben arrested

I've just found this through iTunes.
It's a great idea.
I'm looking forward to Iain McWhirter's. He always writes such sense.

Great off the wall thought from Arthur Smith.
Diane must have a sense of humour-ectomy

A poor start to 2008 Darwin week, unless the aim was to make humanists look strange, in which case you've succeeded. Since when has Arthur Smith been considered a great secular thinker?

No doubt the press will take the mickey - if any of them are interested enough.

I agree with the British Humanist on most position's however I am also a supporter of the BBC. I thought that a secular thought of the day would be interesting but I also agree with the BBC that many secular perspectives and various religious perspectives can be heard on the BBC. This week I watched a documentary on the History of Disbelief produced by the BBC and broadcast on public television here in the United States.This is just one of many example's of this type of programming offered by the BBC. I usually listen to the BBC world service on the internet or on the radio. Their programs on world religions are usually neutral or in the case of the "Reporting on Religion" program the BBC journalist take's a hard skeptical view of all the world's theology's. Each week the BBC journalist ask religious leaders tough question about their belief.

 Here in the United States a so-called modern free country, all to often secular perspectives are kept out of public discourse. Even different religious perspectives are ignored by mainstream media. So I say the British Humanist Association is important in a democracy and so is the British Broadcasting Corporation so all views can be heard in the public sphere.

Thank You,

KN

I would like to propose Bernard Crick as a suitable contributor to any future podcast.

thanks very cheery -what we need -well done

The podcasts were great while they lasted. But why haven't there been any more?

Grayling is argued that atheist, humanists, etc. are not "FAITH", so if this program wants to focus on FAITH GROUPS, your group is not part of this category.   You can't have it both ways. Either your group exhibits "faith" or not.

Yes, Darwinism and darwin came to challenge the establishment and god, but the telelogical arguement and the design argument surely point towards a god as surely someone has to get the ball rolling, after all would u expect such amazing things just to happen with no design, surely you wouldn't expect democracy or architectural wonders to appear through trial and error.

My class at my school has just started looking at Humansim, on this topic we all did a simple test to see if we were Christian, had no faith or a Humanist. I discovered I was more likely a Humanist, of which i wasn't that surprised. But discovering that Humanists can't broadcast on 'Thought Of The Day' makes me question the people who make that show and say what people can say or whether they should be silenced. Eveyones thoughts should be heard religious or not, as everyone is equal there thoughts must be equal as well.

Is the link to iTunes podcast broken?
I did not receive anything since 10-02
brgds

Anthony Grayling writes in the comments, 'It is wrong that "Thought for the Day" refuses to have any but religious voices on it.' For other reasons, too. It comes right bank in the middle of a news programme, for goodness' sake, and here we are with three minutes of <i>totally unchallenged</i> material. I can just see John Humphrys biting his tongue as this bilge clogs the airwaves, dying to jump in with a yes-but. OK, some of them can be interesting and even entertaining, and I always shut up when Lionel Blue comes on. But it's the principle. Unchallenged comment right in the middle of hard news? No. It's dishonest, too, capturing hard-news listeners who are hardly going to go and switch the radio off for three minutes while the Reverend Dimwit pontificates.

Thouroughly enjoyed the various podcasts - hopefully they will be back soon. It was great to the different views of humanists from all walks of life.

Many thanks

Graeme Anderson
Monifieth, Angus

My beloved wife had a very very good Humanist funeral service,we my sons and myself decided this.After the service and over the weeks after the service I felt as if a great service had been done for my wife,s memory,in so much as I felt that I had gained freedom yes freedom from the steel like grasp of religion.Strange thing to say you might think.
I feel more part of life and closer to living than I ever have done.
Long live free thinkers like ourselves.

If the transcripts are just text, why are they put online as pdf files? A text file or even an html page would suffice and be quicker to load and view!

Great idea, this podcast.
But changing the URL after 3 days without a warning message in iTunes was not. It is like shooting your own initiative in the foot.
brgds
Karl

Re Nick's idea that "if more folk [send letters to the RT etc] they might be persuaded to print one of them" -- he might be interesting in my little project, "Doing It By The Letter", which aims to do just that: to get a reasonable number of people writing to publications on key ideas, articles, etc. It's at http://www.brightsonline.net/bytheletter

I'd also like to echo a big thanks to the SHA and the BHA for putting this Humanist TFtD together. I'm enjoying them all so far.

I enjoyed Lee's, Warburton's and Baggini's pieces, but I also note that all three were to a greater or lesser extent about religion, or the non-religious approach to religion in Lee's case. It's all good stuff, but I think we have to be careful about what proportion of Thoughts are about religion; otherwise there's a risk of turning Humanist TFtD into Anti-Religion TFtD. That would be sad. There's a lot of positive social, moral, artistic, philosophical ground out there to cover. I'm not saying there shouldn't be anything at all on religion, but there's a balance to get right.

Thank you again

Good idea Nick, I have emailed radio.times@bbc.co.uk with a letter for publication. Let's hope others will do the same.

Oh I see - you simply click the "Previous Days" button. Silly me!
Re the publicity comment (George Shilling) I sent an email to Radio Times readers letters and if more folk do that they might be persuaded to print one of them.
I'm really impressed by what I've heard so far.

I missed yesterdays podcast - Kate Hudson. Isa there any way I can get to hear it?

Thoroughly enjoying these. I hope someone is onto organizing some media coverage - a spot on Channel 5 News or BBC Breakfast would be good! Surely an emailing and pestering campaign could be started to target some news programmes...?

Concratulations to all for bringing this project to fruition. It is the BBC's loss that they refuse to benefit from the wit and wisdom of some of their countries greatest philosophers.

That they base this discrimination on the fact that these 'freethinkers' reject one more faith than those they invite onto Thought for the Day is both outrageous and pathetic. How can this be legal?

We owe it to the listening public to circumvent the censorial attitude of the BBC and to continue working to have it ultimately rejected.

The first "Thought for the Day" on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme was by Richard Dawkins on 14th August 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eng … 193321.stm

A humanist scientist has become the first atheist to deliver a Thought for the Day on the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme.

In his two-and-a-half minute slot, Professor Richard Dawkins from Oxford University, argued science gave a better explanation of life than religion.

Radio 4's policy of not including non-religious contributors has been heavily criticised - leading to more than 100 public figures demanding the "ban" be lifted.

However, Prof Dawkins's broadcast did not replace the regular daily slot but ran an hour afterwards as an unofficial "Thought".

It's a shame you thought that Jeremy. I thought it was lovely piece about Love. Sure she talks about the CND, I would imagine it means a lot to her: if only more people felt as passionately about what they believed in.

Have you listened to the last two archived podcasts? They are also really interesting and thought provoking.

Humanism is a 'broad church' and we will never all agree but at least kate's podcast made you think enough to comment.

The BBC's refusal to allow non-religious voices on Thought for the Day infuriates me, so I was delighted to hear about the Humanist TFTD and have just listened to Kate Hudson.

A big disappointment.

I get indigestion when Anne Atkins uses the slot to force-feed us with her religious views. Kate Hudson did exactly the same with her peace movement views, and I suffered exactly the same reaction.

Surely the idea of the slot is to provide a stimulating thought, often with a link to a topic in the news, not to propagandise.

Although Art for me is very important i recognise the importance of knowing oneself also physically, biologicvally. Now, in those schools where the children are bombarded by teachings of the bible and hope in God, it is not much place left to developpe the consiousness of absolute necessity to keep healthy because there is no spirit without body. Food and drink habits and exercise as way of life will be replaced by use of drugs, although to that drives as well the other extreme, that of trying to be absolutely dry-thinking and exclude the playful poesy of the myth. While makes sense to project ideals as role models and role actions, as visions for our future, a certain philosophy  that conencts with religious thinking systems conduct to the negect of basical material conditions of life, being that our body as well as our home and our environment. Also there is in religion that psychological method of absolute and unquestioning obedience that can not promote a natural and beautiful evolution. While being without god should not meen being without visions, without perspectives, without self respect and respect of the other. It should indeed meen a magior development of consiousness and responsibility.

I think that often between those who say they believe in God and those that they do not, are ways of seeing things and expressing themselves. In my thinking and feeling system ther is no place for belief or faith, about things that we dio not, know do not see and do not sense. But, There are wholistic, environmental options, talking about which, there is a parallel expression to so many theological lines. I think, that in Myth there is truth and, some how various meanings are transmitted in a more pleasant and digestive way rather than if they are presented in a dry and free of decorations expression. To say what people need is a better life, includes also a large space of imagination that is filled with artworks of other people and by ourselves.

Interesting quote from Che - new to me