VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1357503201|CONTENT|[blockquote]widespread scepticism......mixed with resentment and perhaps even envy towards those who claim religious certainty[/blockquote]

Observation of the site&#039;s scepticism about religion generally and the talks from TFTD specifically is valid. TFTD is deliberately scheduled at a time when the most people are listening to the Today programme. Its themes vary but sit incongruously amid the BBC&#039;s serious attempts to inform people of the state of the world as they, typically, travel to work. 

TFTD lacks seriousness even when it is not actually absurd. With few exceptions, TFTD episodes require a listener to accept unproven assumptions to make sense of what is said and at best make uncontentious assertions of good or bad and then claim that only religion in general, or even one specific religion, empowers people to make that moral judgement.

This site protests that TFTD contributors are selected only from religious figures and only from a specific set of mainstream religions, and only the representatives of those religions who don&#039;t express themselves in fanatical terms. Not in public, anyway. Such partiality makes a nonsense of the BBC&#039;s attempts to rationalise TFTD&#039;s purpose.

Other commentators representing alternative perspectives have been explicitly excluded. The BBC claims that TFTD is for the purpose of philosophical reflection. Even if true it would still be questionable to have it during the Today programme at a time when people are tuning in to get the news. In fact, it is unquestionably a religious insertion into R4&#039;s flagship news programme that&#039;s forced upon us all.

&#039;Resentment&#039; is understandable when religious influence intrudes upon us or offends the values of others. Otherwise? 

The envy? Not sure I follow that.

The viewing figures displayed for the comment pages of each POTD is surprisingly low and revisits could account for a high proportion. The article didn&#039;t seem particularly negative so the reference to this site, in the same context as references to Hitch and Dawkins isn&#039;t a bad thing and could alert more people to this website&#039;s existence.

Am not sure what anti-muslim racism is. Presumably a concept of convenience whose purpose is to assert that disagreement with any aspect of islam and its mores and claims is equivalent to prejudice against someone&#039;s inherited genetic make up. 

This is absurd and extended to its logical conclusion, fascistic. And undermined by the intolerance with with non-muslims can be treated by muslims [i]as policy[/i] or as social norms in islamic countries, without objection from those making claims of islamophobia. 

Religions do not have rights. 
All individuals have a right to freedom of conscience, speech, association and, therefore, religious freedom. There&#039;s a difference.|IP-ADDRESS|86.134.247.172|MODERATIONFLAG|