Thursday, 1 March 2007

GS: Thursday

Updated Saturday

Thursday Morning: official report here.

Thursday Afternoon: official report here.

Church Times for Thursday.

Press reports on Friday morning:

Guardian TV contests humiliate losers, say synod speakers
Telegraph Blame TV for moral decline, says Synod
The Times Church censures rating-chasing TV shows for humiliation factor

And a very detailed report in the Evening Standard Film sex and violence ‘fatally eroding’ society

And a further Guardian organ grinder blog comment that I missed earlier: Who dares to attack TV’s lack of morality?

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 1 March 2007 at 3:28pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: General Synod
Comments

Merely passively 'reflecting' society, as Andreas Whittam-Smith advocates, is a weak option at the best of times. But when one considers that social change (and change of perceptions of what is acceptable) do not happen for no reason, then it is hard to think of a more economical explanation than that the change of perceptions reflects the change in what TV and media portray as normal.

Does anyone have a more economical suggestion? - as I have struggled to think of one.

Claiming to reflect society, he is in fact inextricably involved in shaping and creating it. All of us are so involved, but film censors far more than most.

To allow is not to condone; but it is to normalise. In a society where most peopel apparently cannot tell the difference between morals and mores, between ought and is (even though they are about as different as it is possible to be), that is a dangerous step.

I guess the ought/is blindspot is caused by a pre-existing moral relativism, which in turn is the child of convenience, and is not in practice upheld by any of its advocates (e.g. in cases where someone claims it is good for them to steal their phone or harm their relative).

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 2 March 2007 at 12:14pm GMT

As for having Andreas Whittam-Smith in a position of responsibility in the C of E, the C of E has missed a trick. They should forthwith appoint to high ecclesiastical office John Mortimer, Paul Raymond, Alan Johnson, the leader of the Satanist church, and others who have the interests of Christ at heart. What other denomination would fail to do so?

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 5 March 2007 at 12:30pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.