I am no musician, but I have a distinct preference for Bach, Beethoven and Vivaldi over Rap, Jazz, and Heavy Metal.

Similarly, I have no religion; but I have a distinct appreciation for Paul Collins’ informed, caring and thoughtful take on it: so much a contrast against that of the belligerent, fundamentalist, superficial alternatives. He so often provides a valuable window into a section of society which, while it is other than my own, is irretrievably enmeshed with our affairs.

Our National Broadcasters have been about propaganda and dogma for a long time. From the promotion of the perverse lifestyle to the unscientific dogma of man made gw the ABC is a champion. When it comes to tolerance they are champions except when it comes to godliness and decency. Their is little balance with our preachers of secular humanism. Their faith in such unscientific dogma puts many true believers to shame.

The ABC is dumbing down. Stephen Crittiden's talent for insightful and in-depth interviewing - I am sorely missing. Don't forget they tried to sack him once. The demise of the Religion Report was like the loss of a good friend. Crittiden would be one of the very very few honest and thinking Australian journalists around. Scott and his posse of ABC managers have shallowly dismissed religion as irrelevant in today's world when it is clear that it is totally significant. Doesn't make any sense to me. Unprovocative, unchallenging, dull, anti-intellectual and generalised pap reporting is becoming the norm.

Personally I feel good riddance to the religion report.

It is probably catering to less than 1% of the listeners (those with radios attached to their Zimmer frames), and was mostly a advert for Christianity.

“And part of the challenge about faith is that some of the things we hold to be true ... are not visible, cannot be proven.”

Does that apply to this ‘truth’ as well? If we do not have to prove the truth of matters of faith then why bother proving the truth of anything. Why bother proving the truth that religion is irrelevant to the ABC. Why should only matters of ‘faith’ be exempt from the burden of logic, reason and proof? Who would have the arrogance to claim that matters of religion lie outside the constraints of every other discipline? Why should the ABC make an exemption for religion? Should they also have a UFO report? A drug addicts report? A show about alcohol abuse?

Just because a phenomenon like religion exists does not mean that it has a right to be reported on. Many things exist that do not have their own report. Each subject must be examined on its merits. If it has good reason to warrant a report then it should have a report. The only reason that seems forthcoming about religion is that it exists and is claimed to be relevant to many people. So are drugs, alcohol, and UFO’s. It is not just a question of numbers. Those who decide what merits a report and what does not have obviously rejected religion because it has not given good reasons why it should be supported. When religion comes up with a good reason why it should be reported on then it should have its own show. The problem is by its own definition it cannot prove its reasons and ABC managers need reasonable proof. Religion cannot have it both ways.

I remember when Paul Collins was on the ABC and the energy and incisiveness he brought to the role. Perhaps Paul could make a comeback? But it is the same old boring story with the ABC, they are interested in religion but not interested in the really interesting bit, the theology. So we have endless and pointless programs featuring religious people and not a well thought out idea in the whole program. I think we should start a "come back to the ABC Paul" movement and try to get the nation thinking again about God in a disciplined fashion.

Peter Sellick

Phanto:

You need to accept that not all reality is experienced through our senses. Theology is often described as “faith seeking understanding”. As such it uses logic as a primary tool but, whereas sciences apply logic only to empirical reality, theology applies it also to a different sort of experience. Think of the way we indulge in literary criticism and analysis of the visual and performing arts. In many ways these pursuits are similar to theology. “Proof” in your scientific sense is irrelevant in this sphere.

Sells:

I agree with you that the return of Paul Collins would be a boon, but there are nevertheless occasional very good programmes on the ABC that get into theology in various ways. One I heard recently in Rachel Cohen’s “The Spirit of Things” had a panel of theologians examine Pride from diverse angles; it illuminated a fundamental topic and stimulated further questions well worth pursuing. Nevertheless, I miss “The Religion Report”.

Ah, theology! that peculiar blend of word salad, received opinion, and revelatory hallucinations that passes for a 'discipline' among the ill-informed. For those who have missed out on the delights of modern theology, here is a typical sample from Hans Kung:

"This means that atheism is nourished, if not by a nihilistic fundamental distrust, then at any rate by an ultimately unjustified fundamental trust. By denying God, man decides against a primary ground, deepest support, and ultimate goal of reality. In atheism the assent to reality turns out to be ultimately unjustified: a freewheeling, nowhere-anchored and therefore paradoxical fundamental trust. In nihilism, on account of radical fundamental mistrust, an assent to reality is completely impossible. Atheism cannot any condition for the possibility of uncertain reality. For this reason it lacks not perhaps all rationality but certainly a radical rationality, which lack, of course, is often disguised by a rationalistic but essentially irrational trust in human reason."

Gripping stuff indeed! Obviously the ABC should assign its best and brightest to cover this momentous material...

LOL Jon J

Is that a genuine quote or did you make it up?

On second thoughts it must be genuine. I don't think even Monty Python could make that sort of thing up.

Paul Collins <"And when will we get an analysis by the mainstream ABC of Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd's very public church going?"
Why do we need to know politicians religious activities outside parliament? Boring!

Paul Collins is obviously upset that the ABC did not run this religious program. Was he hoping to achieve some converts to Christianity by programs such as these?

The ABC ran a very comprehensive set of religious reports through their program 'Compass' recently.
These programs were very enlightening about many of the differing Gods and religions in our world.

What I learnt from watching these was that no one religion was any better than another, and that they all basically strove to teach the followers how to be good people.

In a multicultural country like Australia, the ABC should not be seen to be showing favouritism to any one religion.

It would be awful if we went down the slippery, money-grabbing road of the TV evangelists in the US.

Suzeonline,

You are just a typical predictable cynic of Christianity – one of the herd. Sorry I am not as fashionable as you, but I am modern. The point is, is that we are now living in an atmosphere where Tony Blair delayed his conversion to Catholicism while acting as Prime Minister as he was afraid of being deemed a nutter. A pretty poor display on his part, I must say, as a lot of his motives seemed to be just in wanting to please people. Your simple summation of Paul Collins seeking converts? Have you ever read or heard him speak? You are missing something otherwise. How about some understanding or do you wish to remain smug ignorant. Take note of Jon J’s comment and what Hans Kung had to say, as it is so true.

Constance, no I haven't read anything else by this author.

I thought we were only commenting on this article?
Was there some prerequisite reading I missed?

No, I am not cynical of Christianity, just of those who call themselves Christians and then behave totally unchristian towards others who do not share their beliefs.

Excuse my 'smug ignorance', and I will excuse yours.

Suzeonline,

Well don’t make misleading accusations on someone (an innocent) you do not know anything about, especially when they are liberal and insightful. It is of no help jumping to conclusions, making fireworks and immediately play the multi-cultural advocate which has nothing to do with the article. Oh please. Yes, Compass can be nice and pleasant(I watch it a lot myself)and give people like yourself that warm fuzzy feeling inside, but it does not always dig very deep I'm afraid.

Constance I beleive you are contributing to the same online opinion forum as I am? We all have our own opinions to add, and mine is no better or worse than yours.It is just my opinion.

"Yes, Compass can be nice and pleasant(I watch it a lot myself)and give people like yourself that warm fuzzy feeling inside, but it does not always dig very deep I'm afraid."
Don't take everything so seriously Constance, and don't assume you know anything at all about me!

You believe programmes like Compass don't dig very deep? By deep, do you mean agreeing only with the Christian point of view?

No, that show's producers obviously have open and enquiring minds and use many experts to garner opinions from.
They don't limit their world to just a bible.

Suzeonline,

There you go again making more assumptions. Who said all the author or myself just wanted to hear about was the bible – I haven’t even read it, luv. I like to hear all. You seem to get in a tiss over the word mainstream – is that it? A program like the now defunct Religion Report covered all religions – just a lot more in depth than a show like Compass - of which I don’t think you would have been able to handle. That’s why you will never get a program like the Radio National one ever on mainstream(!) telly. This is just my opinion also.

Constance < "Who said all the author or myself just wanted to hear about was the bible – I haven’t even read it, luv. I like to hear all."

Well 'luv' it beats me how you can comment intelligently on the subject of mainstream ( predominantly Christian in Australia) religion at all if you haven't even read the bible.

Paul Collins laments that the ABC didn't even mention, what were to him, important Catholic deaths in the world. What is that if not pushing the Christian barrow? He most certainly is a devotee of the bible.

You must have a very high opinion of yourself 'luv' if you think only people like yourself can understand with any great 'depth', religious issues shown on non-mainstream tv.

I fully agree with Colinsett: I too have no religious convictions but a broadcaster like the ABC needs a dedicated radio program on religion & society. I often watch Compass on ABCTV... most sincerely hope that that isn't in Scott's sights as well!

I miss the Religion Report too, and would like to see it re-instated, but with more about non-christian religions. It was pretty light on Islam, for instance, when it plays such an important part in world affairs. The RR filled the important role of putting religion in the context of public affairs, which not addressed by the Spirit of Things or, generally, Compass, and certainly not by the mainstream news and current affairs programs. Surely we'd be better off with the Religion Report than the Nth repeat of daytime Radio National programs through the evening and again after midnight. I can't help feeling that we're all being punished for Stephen Crittenden's passionate broadcast in support of RR before it was axed.