Wonder what you make of the news that the BBC is considering whether to hand over Thought For The Day to non-religious speakers?
The long-running Radio 4 slot, which airs during the Today programme, remains
one of the few features devoted entirely to religion and ethics. But it emerged
yesterday that the corporation’s governing body, the BBC Trust, has launched an
investigation into whether it should be opened up to secular and humanist points
of view.
An “investigation”, eh? Yes, we need to hear some Wiccan insights in our wonderful multiculti world. The BBC elite hate the Christian religion and have reduced most “thoughts for the day” to mealy mouthed liberal platitudes but now it seems that is no longer tolerable!
I would not be adverse to intelligent philosophical / moral comment as long as it was not an attack on the established religions or broad religious values.
At their core most religions and humanist moralistic theories share similar values and the exchange of ideas between the creeds can be interesting.
No big deal as long as it was part of the bigger picture that was still overwhelmingly generic Christian (as per the British population.)
I would actually argue that the BBC should be religion free. Why can't we be more like the US and France where there is separation of Church and state?
It would also help keep Islam off the sodding TV.
I'm no fan of religion, but the BBC should simply steer free of it. I object to Songs of Praise on a Sunday.
There are plenty of free digital channels for those that believe in fairy stories to watch.
"secular and humanist points of view" – i.e. more of the same leftie talking points which dominate TFTD now, just packaged differently.
Get rid of it completely.
I would actually argue that the BBC should be religion free. Why can't we be more like the US and France where there is separation of Church and state?
It would also help keep Islam off the sodding TV.
Agreed. Nothing is worse than the Islamophile propaganda which the BBC pumps out now under the name of religious broadcasting. France has been better at keeping the Islamofascists at bay – look at what happened to Tariq Ramadan for example.
I like a bit of Wicca.
Can anybody tell me, is it still possible to get a free flat in london by pretending to have come from Africa?
They must need a white face to fit the diversity quota.
Ian Smith has a nice 1 bedroom flat in Tower Hamlets.
"Can anybody tell me, is it still possible to get a free flat in london by pretending to have come from Africa?"
"They must need a white face to fit the diversity quota."
WTF?
I read an article by a 'wicca' one page one she blames the western quick fix culture for our problems on page two she gives a spell for getting rich.
Given that quite a chunk of the population is fed up with the malign influence of religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, I'm not sure this is BBC bias. It sounds as if DV is simply annoyed at the BBC not being just like he is.
I would be happy with a reasonable moralistic stance as generally accepted amongst the great religions and indeed many thinking agnostics. What we don't need, and indeed need to overcome is the "we mustn't be judgemental" attitudes practised in so many schools where children aren't taught what is right and wrong.
I was under the impression that "thought for the day" was a bit of a chivvy up for those needing someone to reassure them that they're keeping their spiritual obligations in order. It seems a bit pointless trying to do something secular around that – us agnostics have already got Paul McKenna and Dear Dierdre if we're struggling to cope. And the pub.
"Given that quite a chunk of the population is fed up with the malign influence of religion."
Religion is a euphemism for Islam – in whose name almost all the terrorism in the world is being committed.
Nobody sane or knowledgeable thought that the cause of the last decades' Troubles in Northern Ireland was religious in nature [it was national with religion as a marker of who stood where], but the bombs and the sabotage and the beheadings today are almost all Islamic in origin. As is the frothing anti-Semitism that comes from so many mosques worldwide and paid for by the Euro dollar rich Saudis, Iranian Islamists, and Gulf states.
Nobody sane and knowledgeable thinks that militant Protestants or Copts or even Orthodox are going to be killing anyone soon, save as part of secular military service.
It's Islam that most people rightly fear, but the BBC will, of course, never mention that and so they have their silly little 'discussion' programmes about the malign influence if 'religion.'
David, can I just say how inspired this posting was.
Especially this bit:
The BBC elite hate the Christian religion and have reduced most "thoughts for the day" to mealy mouthed liberal platitudes but now it seems that is no longer tolerable!
This is quite brilliant. There's no evidence that the BBC says that Christian contributions are no longer tolerable.
But you say it anyway!
All at one with your mantra that bias exists by virtue of the licence fee and no other proof is necessary.
As dear Ratass likes to say, there are blue lights burning all over the sewers of White City. Hoorah!
North Northwester –
What makes you assume that religious terrorism is my biggest fear? Religious terrorism is currently, of course, the reserve of Islamists, but that's not what I'm worried about. (I'll leave you to work out your chances of dying in a terrorist attack, compared to your chance of dying in a car crash, to see why that's far from my biggest concern.) As such, 'religion' was far from a euphemism for Islam.
What worries me more is the abject lack of critical thinking inspired by all the Abrahamic faiths. (The word 'faith' should instantly highlight the heart of the problem.) This society has no need for influential people, via the medium of Thought for the Day, to spread the idea that God's last messenger was an illiterate warmonger who married a 6 year old, or that a talking snake made it all go wrong, or that pre-marital sex is bad because some beardy man in the sky says so, or that God promised a bit of desert on the Mediterreanean to a select bunch of followers, or that apostasy really is so terrible that it should be punished by death. If anything, the BBC is biased in refusing to balance these views with secularism.
Martin
There are plenty of free digital channels for those that believe in fairy stories to watch.
Quite so. Of course the bast way to ensure we have no more religious red herrings inflicted on us by The BBC. Is to utterly destroy The god damned awful organization, by tomorrow morning.
However.
Please understand that what may appear to be a fairy story, is in fact old science, described in a manner which ordinary people could partly relate to.
This old science is a combination of occult knowledge, and astrology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fairies, and still less to do with gray bearded old gentleman, sitting around in heaven all day. That is just the BULLSHIT the established religions have spent the last few thousands years blinding, and binding ordinary people with.
A true understanding of Biblical or other ancient texts is a life time journey, which few embark on, and even fewer reach the end of.
Please understand this.
Almost ALL of the worlds leaders are true believers in one particular religion above all else.
Therefore ask yourself WHY, this is most surly the case, and has been so for thousands of years.
Could it be that THEY know something that they have no intention of telling US, the terminally profane about?
Please continue to believe that you know everything that there is to know about this planet and the human beings living on it, simply by watching TV, if you wish. Total and complete ignorance is not yet against the law.
However.
If life as we know it, was really a perfectly enormous game of incredibly lucky chance, as your types have been brainwashed into believing it is.
May I suggest you buy a lottery ticket ASAP? Because with luck like yours, you simply can't lose.
Atlas shrugged
On the radio 4 points of view type programme at the weekend some posh Liberal type woman was whingeing about how only religious people get to speak on Thought for the Day. The beeb are obviously preparing Radio 4 listeners for the eradication of religion from thought for the day.
Is it not the BBCs remit to represent "the UK, its nations, regions and communities"? As part of this "representing" it surely should include its religions (and none).
In the 2001 census over 80% of the population in the North East of England where Christian. With just over 3% Muslim in the whole of England. Those with no religion accounted for 14% of the English population.
So let the BBC have Humanists and the like on Thought for the Day and take off the Islamic spokesmen who should really only get a slot once every month at the most.
The problem is that the BBC won't do this – the humanists will replace the Christians not the Islamists. Thereby the BBC will be ignoring most of the British population who pay their TV tax.
Now if we didn't pay for it I would agree with the aethiests on this blog.
The fewer religious programmes on the BBC the better.
Having my money fund Eastbenders is one thing – having it fund the propogation of "Tales of the invisible sky pixie" is just quite another.
Religious organisations in this country earn quite enough money to finance this kind of shit for themselves, if they want to.
Why dont the have a whip round and buy themselves a channel off sky? They could preach till they were blue in the face and i could more easily avoid them.
wankers
Cuckoo
You obviousley missed the point I made above. It seems its OK for you to say that your TV tax should not fund religious broadcasting on the BBC, which is a fair point, but what about the majority of the population who are Christian?
I thought the attack on the BBC is that it does not represent its licence fee payers but only minority interest groups. You cannot have it both ways.
Its true. There are probably more British Pagans, or nature worshippers than there are moslems. They tend to be very discreet. Unlike the bloody muslims.
I would rather hear a Wiccan point of view about the change of the seasons at say the winter solsctice, than some hypocritical islamist drivel.
You are perfectly right John, this is partly why the forced BBC subscription should be abolished. The BBC it is not holding its end of the deal on many levels, therefore it does not represent those who pay their subscription fees year in year out. Obviously the more that decide their money is being wasted on something they neither want to watch or even like makes the BBC redundant.
Anonymous
“North Northwester –
"What makes you assume that religious terrorism is my biggest fear?”
True – it was probably naive of me to assume that someone on the anti-religious side of the argument would be particularly bothered about all those silly bombings and would-be bombings in the name of Islam. A lot of our secularists are also liberals or socialists of some sort or another and of course the bad thing about a lot of Abrahamic religion is that it makes it tricky to have abortions or screw around or respect property or family or authority or all those dreary little rules for the little people in their bourgeois lives. You may not fit into that group, of course, but let's see, shall we?
“. (I'll leave you to work out your chances of dying in a terrorist attack, compared to your chance of dying in a car crash, to see why that's far from my biggest concern.)”
Ah, so it makes sense for MI5 and the Army to start a war against Ford and Nissan, I suppose, rather than chasing those charming chaps with the beards and the book that tells them to kill or subjugate anyone else forevermore? The boys can come home and we can start spending the military budget on more speed cameras and cats’ eyes and ignore the occasional loud noise and bright light from the Tube or restaurants or airliners and so learn to accept the lower (and finite and unchanging) threat to life from terrorism, I suppose.
That makes sense: in Left-world.
“What worries me more is the abject lack of critical thinking inspired by all the Abrahamic faiths.”
Guess you missed out on that whole Reformation thing. And the Counter-Reformation. And Methodism and Baptism. And the Oxford Movement. And reform Judaism, and liberal Judaism. And the mountains of literature that look into Judaism and Christianity from a multitude of perspectives. May I suggest you start with a little light reading to disabuse yourself of your ignorance by picking up anything from the Lionel Blue, and the Screwtape Letters of CS Lewis? They’re quick to read and will remove any thought from your mind than the first two Abrahamic religions are unself-critical.
There are similar writings from Islam, too, but they don’t seem to have caught on much. I wonder why.
“This society has no need for influential people, via the medium of Thought for the Day, to spread the idea that God's last messenger was an illiterate warmonger who married a 6 year old, or that a talking snake made it all go wrong, or that pre-marital sex is bad because some beardy man in the sky says so, or that God promised a bit of desert on the Mediterreanean to a select bunch of followers, or that apostasy really is so terrible that it should be punished by death. If anything, the BBC is biased in refusing to balance these views with secularism”
While we’re on the subject of what this society doesn’t need, how about letting no secular humanists decide what society needs on the BBC, ever?
Secular humanists ruled Russia and its empire from 1917 onwards, Italy from 1922 onwards, and Germany from 1933 onwards.
That’s what we need more of on the BBC – the thoughts of people who know there is not God, and who have better ideas for us to decide what is right and what is wrong.
The genius of the American system of separating church and state says: do whatever you want PRIVATELY. But don't do it in the public sector forcing me to pay for your peculiar delusions and superstitions.
Who actively listens to Thought of the Day? Surely there are surveys with that information.
By active, I mean deliberately tunes in to listen to Thought of the Day rather than simply has Radio 4 in the background and lets TOTD drift past for the two minutes and 45 seconds alloted to it or as I suspect of several B-BBC followers lurks for the thrill of being offended by Rowan Williams.
My mental image is of gentle, past middle-aged women who also follow the gardening programmes, vicars of quiet country parishes and on a case-to-case basis the friends and followers of the 'religious' 'leader' who happens to be 'on' that particular day. Am I wrong?
Sometimes it's hard to remember that England, legally, has a state religion (Anglican) and Scotland, a national church (Church of Scotland – The Kirk). The British Broadcasting Commission certainly doesn't push this point. General Christianity is not the state religion of the UK.
Once Roman Catholics and Methodists were accepted into TOTD the 'British' connection was already broken and the occasional Jew, Jain, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim pushed the Britishness element even further away.
I suspect so few listeners 'actively' tune in on a daily basis that the entry of a Wiccan or an atheist will make no difference to this relic.
Perhaps the best reason to keep broadcasting is archeology rather than religion?
I'd be in favour of the banning of the eco-mentalist "thought for the day" on every blasted news broadcast
the constant hammering into people's heads of lies,bad science and propaganda
the new secular religion-worship "the planet"
ever notice how everything is now "the planet"
never are the words "earth" or "the wrold" mentioned,as if "the planet" adds some sort of pseudo gravitas to their rubbish
The BBC elite hate the Christian religion and have reduced most "thoughts for the day" to mealy mouthed liberal platitudes
With the willing compliance of leading churchmen, if this morning's example from the bishop of Liverpool is typical.
Slavery, Africa, Aid, Obama, White guilt – with quoting one verse from Genesis as the only concession to religion.
Wiccan is a form of religion – humanism or secularism are the absense of belief
What's wrong with giving it a voice in a mostly secular country? an atheist opinion on curent debate seems appropriate
you're always whinging about muslims, which is done to include religion – so you just want (minority) christian viewpoints?
tarquin 10:29 AM, July 15, 2009
"Wiccan is a form of religion – humanism or secularism are the absense of belief."
Actually, Wicca is the only religion that England has given to the world – if you follow Ron Hutton's definition in:
Triumph of the Moon ,and it's less than 70 years old in its internationally recognized form.
It's soppy as all get-out, and of course was never practised here in ancient days because it didn't exist back then, so it's about as genuine as the 'ancient' practises of freemasonry, i.e., made up here in Albion's island for fun and profit.
Some people get pleasure out of it, though, bless them; and I don't think it's murdered a dozen people in all its 60-odd year history; let alone hundreds of millions – unlike secular humanism and Islam.
North Northwester –
'…. let alone hundreds of millions – unlike secular humanism and Islam.'
You're quite right to include Islam – its primary holy text abounds with instructions to kill and slay, much of which has been acted on.
But you include humanism – an ideology that regards human dignity and values as paramount. Is it too much to ask of you to realise that Stalin, Pol Pot, et al committed their atrocities in the name of what was quite demonstrably not humanism?
And you omit Christianity. The Bible is also awash with commandments to kill for all manner of acts – mainly in the OT, but also in Luke's Gospel. (I expect you were already aware of this.) Thankfully, none of these instructions have been acted on for a long time. But surely you haven't forgotten Christianity's history?
Thus runs the Wiccan Rede, remember it well; Whatever it is that you desire, whatever it that you ask of the Gods, first be assured it does harm to no one.
And remember this too, that as you give, so it shall return to you threefold. Give of yourself in love and life and you will be thrice blessed.
But send forth hatred and harm and that too will return to you thrice over.
Anonymous
"But you include humanism – an ideology that regards human dignity and values as paramount. Is it too much to ask of you to realise that Stalin, Pol Pot, et al committed their atrocities in the name of what was quite demonstrably not humanism?"
Funny how they keep making that fundamental mistake, somewhere between, say Nietzsche and the lime pits. There's no god, no absolute morality, let our reason tell us right from wrong, and oops, right appears to include killing scores of million people who just won't get with the programme.
Is it possible that the conviction that we're on our own might lead to these repeated unfortunate incidents?
"And you omit Christianity. The Bible is also awash with commandments to kill for all manner of acts – mainly in the OT, but also in Luke's Gospel."
Most of which [and a very small number compared with the Koran, Sira, and Hadith] are not open-ended permanent injunctions to conquer, and in the case of the Jews specifically relate to certain territories. And now it's over. The Jews can get on with being a light unto nations and sending text messages to their enemies to remove civilians from their planned air raid targets.
And Jesus was no war-lord and specifically forbade his followers to fight the temple guards.
I have not forgotten the inquisition, the witch trials, the forcible conversion of the heathen peoples of Europe – none of it:
But it's over. The Wars of Religion and the Enlightenment allowed the Christians to leave aside or ignore the relatively few demands that Jehova made encouraging men to make war.
The only Christians I can think of recently persecuting other faiths are the clash of nationalisms in Northern Ireland [in which religion is just a badge] and the Serbian oppression of Muslims and Croats in former Yugoslavia.
Pretty much everybody else's busy fixing the church roof, or trying to convert the heathen peacefully or arguing for or against contraception in Africa and feeding the poor.
I'd rather live under reformed Christianity or modern Judaism than any sate governed by atheists.
Back to the 20th century. The fascists and the communists didn't cheat – they just followed the anti-religious argument to its logical end.
Any people ruled by a class or nation whose leaders think that human beings are little more than clever meat will – sooner rather that later – be introduced to the butcher.
Funny,
firstly omit Christianity as a violent religion, then defend its crimes as in the past and finished, then you give current examples of pointless violence in its name…
Then you say anti-religious arguments lead to the likes of Stalin…whose ideology was communism/fascism
which means therefore the great many of us non-believers are what? Communists?
If anything Christianity has simply followed modern society's trends so as to stay relevant rather than die, it certainly hasn't caused any progress, but whatever, this argument's been done to death for years on the net
"Any people ruled by a class or a nation whose leaders think that human beings are little more than clever meat will sooner rather than later, be introduced to the butcher"
Brilliant.
Tarquin said.
Funny,
firstly omit Christianity as a violent religion,..
[it's not a particularly violent – in fact it preaches peace but many people have used it as a poor excuse for violence and against its founder's teachings unlike Islam which insists upon violence so the good guys have to be selective in their faith ]
then defend its crimes as in the past
[I stated that they are largely in the past; I was not defending them. Things do change in the real world, don't they, or are the dinosaurs and the Romans still with us?]
and finished,
[ where ARE those bands of marauding Christian thugs?]
then you give current examples of pointless violence in its name…
[ To demonstrate their relative infrequency today compared with, say the 16th and 17th centuries when they were rife. You did read my comment, did you? All the way through? Remembering previous sentences and having understood them?]
Then you say anti-religious arguments lead to the likes of Stalin…whose ideology was communism/fascism
[ yes I did, and yes they do, in big, impressive genocidal ways]
…which means therefore the great many of us non-believers are what? Communists?
[ Dunno. It's quite possible to be a non-believer and not a communist or a fascist but who cares?
They are the ones with the programme and they walk all over moderates' corpses, and still do so today.]
If anything Christianity has simply followed modern society's trends so as to stay relevant rather than die, it certainly hasn't caused any progress,
[ so the abolition of the slave trade and of child labour, the building of all those schools and libraries and universities and hospitals; that was all done by blameless agnostics and atheists?]
over centuries but whatever, this argument's been done to death for years on the net.
And you're still demonstrably wrong.
Politer than me, perhaps; but still wrong.
Aw, word verification for this was…
'bless'
piggy kosher ..
"Any people ruled by a class or a nation whose leaders think that human beings are little more than clever meat will sooner rather than later, be introduced to the butcher"
Brilliant.
Thanks PK.
I think I'm paraphrasing Robert A Heinlein from something I read in my teens, but I might easily be brilliant.
Let History / our Maker decide decide
😉
NNW
like I said, old argument, I'm not going into it
But just one thing – a Christian movement did help end the slave trade (arguably), but who started it and endorsed it for two centuries?
Tarquin
…"But just one thing – a Christian movement did help end the slave trade (arguably), but who started it and endorsed it for two centuries?"
Pagans started it – at least 4,000 years ago – along with infanticide, gladiatorial combat and all kinds of nastiness to women almost forever…
Christians alone [no help from anyone else in any numbers as far as I know] decided to cease and desist – for the first time since almost all of Eurasian civilisation was confined to four or five sets of river valleys.
That's a good one, I am now satisfied
Tarquin
That's a good one, I am now satisfied
Hmm…
The BBC is the state broadcaster.
The Church of England (Anglican) and the Churches of Scotland and Ireland (Presbyterian) are the state religion.
Until both are changed only the state religion should have any broadcast time on the state broadcaster.
Under no circumstances should there be separation of religion and state until it is democratically decided by the British people.
The BBC has no right to implement secularism as its default position. The BBC has no right to push for other religions, particularly Islam to have equal footing with the Church of England. The BBC has no right to enthuse about the atheist materialist religion as espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins.
Just because you may feel that is correct (and it may well be) you have no right to impose such upon the UK without a democratic mandate and a change in our constitution.
The BBC has no right to take it upon itself to represent other religions, denominations or to support secularism until such time as this is mandated by democratically adopted law change.
Only in Wales where the church is disestablished already could such a position be tenable, though it is hard to imagine a scenario where the British Broadcasting Company had such a different line for a releatively small part of the UK.
Sorry if this is unpopular with you individually on this site as much as it is for the BBC but that is the correct opinion.
If you wish to stop this remove the BBC as state broadcaster and disestablish the the churches of England, Scotland and Ireland (something I personally approve of, but it certainly has not happened yet, and just acting as though it has does not make it legal).