A bit of fallout

[Miles Coverdale]

I am sorry to see that ff has apologised to this thread without permitting us to absolve her for her fault.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I do wish people would stop feeling that they are obliged to apologise because someone's (apparently very delicate) religious sensibilities may have been offended. The Catholic Church (and, let's be even-handed here, other religious organisations) have said and done many things over the years that have caused an awful lot more 'upset and anger' (and much worse besides) than some post on a messageboard, yet getting an apology out of it is harder than getting blood from the proverbial stone. In any case, even if they were offended, so what? They're adults, they'll get over it. Nobody died.

Surely freedom of expression (which, by definition, encompasses the possibility that someone, somewhere will be offended), is more important than the sensibilities of individuals.

[french frank]

Surely freedom of expression (which, by definition, encompasses the possibility that someone, somewhere will be offended), is more important than the sensibilities of individuals.

Freedom of expression here is limited by the House Rules. No, nobody died, but Friends of Radio 3 yesterday lost two of its supporters, one because of what a non-FoR3 supporter wrote here which some (three people, actually) found offensive. So we were the losers, not the forum or the forum's members.

Friends of Radio 3 exists to battle for a decent quality radio arts station: not all forum members support us and they are free to say so. But I'm damned if I'm going to see FoR3 suffering because of offence caused by forum members who aren't even our supporters.

[DracoM]

The Choral Evensong management are by and large pretty even-handed in distributing the slot to a range of Christian observance, or rather to places where a very wide range of liturgical music is included, and formats ancient and modern are the structure. I applaud that planning, and I hope it continues to enrich us.

However, it is also true that from time to time a member does rather relish controversy, and enjoy chucking flares onto the terraces. While such flares in normal spoken conversation would be the merest straws in the much bigger wind, once such flares are committed to a posting, however, they almost inevitably arouse greater reaction than they might in the course of a long off-screen chat. The difficulty is calibrating the words one uses in a public posting with the way the audience is likely to interpret them.

As MC says above, it is almost impossible at times unwittingly to avoid treading on unsuspected toes, but as FF also rightly says, some writers intend abrasiveness, and some readers of postings can take instant, totally justifiable but maybe sometimes surprising offence. It is also a truth universally acknowledged that some posters only have to have their name streamed at the head of their posting for regulars to relish disagreeing / taking offence and then indeed do, thus stoking even more controversy. 'Twas ever thus? For hosts of such a Forum as The Choir, such is the everyday life of the job. No host can be on duty 24/7, and given that the Forum is open 24/7 and reaches all parts of the globe, one can check in earlyish on a UK morning to find that out of a chance remark or infelicity of phrasing all hell has been let loose!

The problem is what does one then do on The Choir, fraught as the subject can be with conflicting agendas? Say nothing? Say it so blandly as to say nothing? Speak honestly and run the risk that what one seriously intends as honesty without any intention whatever of giving offence is then taken as offence? Sometimes one comes back to a thread and is seriously astonished by how a posting has been taken. Very tricky indeed.

[jean]

My absolution bestowed on ff was meant to be OTT (and in the vein the thread had taken) to indicate that I thought it really wasn't necessary, especially because it wasn't an apology for having done anything, but only for not spotting what someone else had done.

But if people leave because of things like this, then it is serious. This forum is chippy enough anyway even when it sticks to the music, but old-fashioned sectarianism should have no place on it. It did occur to me that more swingeing criticisms of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular had been aired on the Gay Marriage thread, but I thought they were probably more legitimate there.

I do realise that DracoM's (now) #4 was intended to smooth things over, but it did, unfortunately, serve to further marginalise any Catholics who might be reading. That was my feeling, anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

The Choral Evensong management are by and large pretty even-handed in distributing the slot to a range of Christian observance, or rather to places where a very wide range of liturgical music is included, and formats ancient and modern are the structure. I applaud that planning, and I hope it continues to enrich us.

However, it is also true that from time to time a member does rather relish controversy, and enjoy chucking flares onto the terraces. While such flares in normal spoken conversation would be the merest straws in the much bigger wind, once such flares are committed to a posting, however, they almost inevitably arouse greater reaction than they might in the course of a long off-screen chat. The difficulty is calibrating the words one uses in a public posting with the way the audience is likely to interpret them.

As MC says above, it is almost impossible at times unwittingly to avoid treading on unsuspected toes, but as FF also rightly says, some writers intend abrasiveness, and some readers of postings can take instant, totally justifiable but maybe sometimes surprising offence. It is also a truth universally acknowledged that some posters only have to have their name streamed at the head of their posting for regulars to relish disagreeing / taking offence and then indeed do, thus stoking even more controversy. 'Twas ever thus? For hosts of such a Forum as The Choir, such is the everyday life of the job. No host can be on duty 24/7, and given that the Forum is open 24/7 and reaches all parts of the globe, one can check in earlyish on a UK morning to find that out of a chance remark or infelicity of phrasing all hell has been let loose!

The problem is what does one then do on The Choir, fraught as the subject can be with conflicting agendas? Say nothing? Say it so blandly as to say nothing? Speak honestly and run the risk that what one seriously intends as honesty without any intention whatever of giving offence is then taken as offence? Sometimes one comes back to a thread and is seriously astonished by how a posting has been taken. Very tricky indeed.

As one who has myself been guilty of stoking a bit of controversy on this forum, the only conclusion I am able to reach is that one should speak up for oneself as honestly as courtesy allows, and trust in french frank's proven record of judgement on these things. If people are prepared to be offended for no reason than that they glory in so being, it should be obvious to the majority of posters committed to the forum's spirit of open but civilised debate, for which it should be greatly valued.

[jean]

...If people are prepared to be offended for no reason than that they glory in so being...

I feel very strongly that it is both unfair and divisive to embark on criticism of those who were offended when we can no longer see what it was they were offended by.

Please stop it now.

[Serial_Apologist]

I feel very strongly that it is both unfair and divisive to embark on criticism of those who were offended when we can no longer see what it was they were offended by.

Please stop it now.

I was referring to offendees generally, jean, rather than specifically to this thread, because it symptomises something wider for which religion can be used as a scapegoat; but I agree as regards this thread, and will delete my post if requested, or leave it as an example of not how to go about putting forward one's views.

[Anna]

I saw the post that was removed. Knowing the poster from old (including the original R3 MBs) I thought it par for the course for him (the merest hint of incense or deviation from a bog-standard Anglican service sets him off) and I merely sighed and moved on and ignored it, much as you do when an annoying child persists in bad behaviour. I had half expected some flak from him also about the recent CE broadcast of Membra Jesu nostri patientis sanctissima but he, grudgingly, admitted it was alright for a change!
I'm very sorry that two people were offended enough to leave the forum, as jean says above old-fashioned sectarianism should have no place on the Choir thread. After all, we're all singing from the same hymn sheet ...

[Edited here, without wishing to reactivate this thread. It was not a matter of 'sectarianism' which caused the objections. I moved all these posts to a new thread to allow people to actually discuss the service itself, if they wished, without having to wade through the preceding less relevant comments - ff]

Sorry frenchie - Mea Culpa!!

[jean]

As it was I who first used the word sectarian, can I just explain that by it I meant anti-Catholic from an avowedly Protestant rather than atheist viewpoint.

It is unseemly for Christians of any stripe to go around sniping at each other. They should bear in mind, as Hilaire Belloc knew even in the 1930s, that they are a declining band:

John Henderson, an unbeliever,
Had lately lost his Joie de Vivre
From reading far too many books.
He went about with gloomy looks;
Despair inhabited his breast
And made the man a perfect pest.
Not so his sister, Mary Lunn,
She had a whacking lot of fun!
Though unbelieving as a beast
She didn't worry in the least,
But drank as hard as she was able
And sang and danced upon the table;
And when she met her brother Jack
She used to smack him on the back
So smartly as to make him jump,
And cry 'What-ho! You've got the hump!'
A phrase which, more than any other,
Was gall and wormwood to her brother;
For, having an agnostic mind,
He was exceedingly refined.

The Christians, a declining band,
Would point with monitory hand
To Henderson his desperation,
To Mary Lunn her dissipation,
And often mutter, 'Mark my words!
Something will happen to those birds!'
Which came to pass: for Mary Lunn
Died suddenly, at ninety-one,
Of Psittacosis, not before
Becoming an appalling bore.
While Henderson, I'm glad to state,
Though naturally celibate,
Married an intellectual wife
Who made him lead the Higher life
And wouldn't give him any wine;
Whereby he fell in a decline,
And, at the time of writing this,
Is suffering from paralysis,
The which, we hear with no surprise,
Will shortly end in his demise.

The moral is (it is indeed!)
You mustn't monkey with the Creed.

[Frances_iom]

nice(o)ne