Is anyone surprised that the BBC despises the Christian roots that made this country great? Consider this if you will, as pointed out by a Biased BBC reader;

” Does’Biased BBC’ do a good job, is it worth complaining to the BBC about its outputon so many platforms? Yes…itis. 

The changes made to the BBC’s ‘GCSE Bitesize’ content illustrate that theycan change things if enough leverage is applied….though Islam is still copperplated, protected and burnished by the BBC whilst Christianity is by comparisonstill subtly damned.  

Here isthe original text from the BBC’s thoughts on prejudice and discrimination inreligion: ‘However,no one can follow these teachings perfectly, and there are occasions whenChristians are guilty of prejudice and discrimination.  

In thepast: In SouthAfrica, for many years the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid, thesystem which meant that black people were separated from white people andtreated as inferior. WhenEuropeans were colonising other countries around the world they often killedthe native people there and treated them as slaves. 

.In the21st century there are still some instances of racism in the Christian Church,although in the majority of cases Jesus’ teaching about treating all peopleequally is put into practice.JohnSentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raiseawareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in widersociety. 

Sexism isstill a problem for the Christian Church – somepeople say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodoxservices and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewishwomen today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men andchoose to combine a career with family responsibilities.’  

Quite aclear condemnation of Christianity (And Judaism) , pretty much blamed for slavery, sexism andracism….no such condemnation for Islam though. But it isnow changed to this: 

 ‘No onecan follow these teachings perfectly, and there will be occasions whenChristians, like those of other faiths, are guilty of prejudice anddiscrimination. But thereare many examples too of Christians challenging injustice when they see thelaws of God being broken.JohnSentamu, the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda where he was a lawyer and judgeuntil 1975 when he was forced to flee to Britain when President Idi Aminstarted a reign of terror against his own people. Archbishop Sentamu has done alot to raise awareness of racism in British society and in the Anglican church. Manypeople think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men andwomen equally.’   

Still acondemnation of Christianity…but note the inclusion now of ‘other faiths’ Islam’ssection still protests Islam is a protector of women with quotes from the koranto support that whilst the Bible quotes are chosen to illustrate how sexistChristianity is. Sodespite the BBC being forced to make changes it still can’t bring itself totreat these religions equally and criticise Islam at all. 

The proliferation ofBible bashing on the BBC continues…..even on programmes meant to show thegood side to Christianity there is always a guilty ‘but’. How manyprogrammes have we seen about the Koran? None? How many programmes have we seentelling us Islam and Muslims are harmless?  There isa definite narrative from the BBC intent on social engineering….they areattempting to change our views on Islam by pumping out feel good propagandatelling us that Islam is ‘cuddly’ and Muslims are given a bad press by thelikes of right wing papers (lead by Murdoch’s ‘rags’)….Muslims and Islam onlydesire peace, they love Britain, they respect the equality of women andhomosexuals and they embrace democracy and hate Sharia. 

There is clearly still a of work to do on the BBC.”
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. J J says:

    The BBC offends Christianity worse in the complete lack of entertainment shows with anything close to a Christian view of family life, morality and so on.


  2. Barry says:

    “..the Archbishop of York, is from Uganda and he has done a lot to raise awareness and put a stop to racism in the Anglican Church, and in wider society.

    He certainly did – as one of the advisors to the Macpherson Inquiry.


  3. Foxy Brown says:

    Given the BBC obssession with the Slave Trade, you think that they would examine the role of the dissenting Protestant groups in its eventual abolition.  The Quakers and Wilberforce’s Evangelical Anglicans of Clapham are the most well known in this.  Islam enslaved far greater numbers of black Africans, but that particular detail does not suit the BBC agenda of it being a tolerant faith. 

    Another subtle dig at Judaism.  Surely the majority of Jews in this country are of the Liberal, Reform or Progressive branches, where women are even permitted to become rabbis? 

    BBC Delenda Eat.


    • RGH says:

      In the British Non-conformist tradition, the powerful Christian arguments are well known, or used to be. I was certainly exposed to the activities of Wilberforce and the Quakers role in abolition while at school.

      To develop that point at the institutional level of Western Christianity, it is also right to point out the consistency of Rome on this question. The Papacy being highly influential and authoritative.

      In 1741 Pope Benedict condemned slavery generally.

      In 1815 Pope Pius VII  demanded of the Congress of Vienna the suppression of the slave trade.

      In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, one of the most highly visible and vocal adversary of slavery,Pope Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders.

      In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI  condemned the slave trade in ‘In Supremo Apostolatus’.

      In 1888 Pope Leo XIII condemned slavery in ‘In Plurimus’.

      In 1962, slavery was still legal and accepted in Saudi Arabia.

      Saudi Arabia is noted as an Islamic nation ruled by sharia in its social jurisprudence.


    • George R says:

      Yes; e.g.

      ‘Arab Slave Trade’ (with section on Islam):

      One would hope that INBBC  does not self-censor itself so that it refuses to Google: ‘Arab Slavery’.


  4. J J says:

    One criticism I have of the above article is that it seems to suggest that traditional, which is different to the fundamentalist variety of Sayyid Qutb or Wahhabi, Islam is more an opponent of traditional Christianity than is secularism, modernism and liberalism(in the 18th century sense.). This is incorrect.  

    I see much to praise in traditional Islam but I see little to praise in liberal or secular or modernist thought which is not a contintuation of or refinement of Christianity, Judaism or the Golden Chain of Classical thought.

    Obviously I believe England should be a Western and Christian nation but I don’t think attacking or singling out Muslims really helps that aim. They seem to have erroded less of Western Christendom than secularism, modernism or liberalism. I also don’t think that treating one’s enemies’ enemy as your friend helps nor does cooperating with forces that will are opposed to traditional at an even  fundamental level than traditional Islam. I suppose so many Christians today are blind to the real essense of traditional Christianity and would see Sean Hannity or indeed the Murdoch press as better friends than Ibn Arabi or Ibn Sina. One wonders what the Angelic Doctor who drew so much from Ibn Sina, would have said to that.

    Ah, seek the treasure of a mind at rest
    And store it in the treasury of Ease;
    Not worth a loyal heart, a tranquil breast,
    Were all the riches of thy lands and seas!
    Ah, scorn, like Hafiz, the delights of earth,
    Ask not one grain of favour from the base,
    Two hundred sacks of jewels were not worth
    Thy soul’s disgrace.



    • RGH says:

      No issues with Avicenna. A great mind. He lived in the tenth century and was, I believe, a Persian.

      Unfortunately, the world of Avicenna, which promised so much and produced his genius (which attracted accusations of impiety, but then his Christian contemporaries and later admirers also had to confront the malicious attacks of others), seems to have moved steadily into an eclipse. The last light is often seen to be Al Ghazzali. After him occasionalism triumphed and the cultures which Islam had conquered finally succumbed to a remarkable lack of enterprise and freedom of thought. A condition which has persisted for well nigh seven hundred years.

      Some, rather facetiously, have commented that the ‘lights went out’ .


      • james1070 says:

        Al Ghazzali was they guy that killed philosophy with the The Incoherence of the Philosophers.

        After him it was game over for Islamic civilisation.


      • J J says:

        Yes but who were these people who say that? Were they people who preferred Ockham, Calvin, Descartes, Kant or heaven forbid Bertrand Russell to later Islamic thought and practice? If so I have little time for them, you’re simply highlighting the erroneous choosing of allies that I talked of.

        Many of the great Sufi saints come from the 12th and 13th centuries and Sufism is still relatively vibrant. Western Christianity has never produced mysticism on such a systemic scale.

        As a Traditionalist I would say that Christianity, or at least Western Christianity, lost its way not long after Islam. The later scholastics were the first step in the massive decline of the West that has lasted until today and which is not made up for by the material compensations. Indeed I’d say that the West and Western Christianity has fallen further than Islam. Certainly there are fundamentalists in Islam but there is a general level of spirituality and spiritual thought that is still greater than Western Christianity, even post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Certainly there is still spirituality in the West after 1400, even every Baptist or Calvinist is a victory over the adversary, but it is no greater than Islam and in fact less so in general.

        In the end my point is that it is foolish choice, for a traditional Christian, to take the side of Ockham, Calvin, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Voltaire and Hume(to name just a few) against Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Hafiz and Omar Khayyam(to name a few.). In the end such a choice is also to take sides against Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, the Cappadocian fathers, Erigena, Aquinas, Dante, Eckhart and if you are an Anglican like me Hooker, George Herbert, the Cambridge Platonists, William Law, Coleridge and the Tractarians.

        If you’re a modernist, if you admire Kant or Hume or Kierkegaard or their offspring or think the West’s material ‘progress’ and the Reign of Quantity is more important than its spiritual impoverishment then what I say will mean little to you. But if your a Traditionalist and a Traditional Christian(or Jew or Hindu or Sikh or Buddhist.), even a more radical Protestant one, then I hope it will make you think again about how you think about Islam and how you attack it.


  5. james1070 says:

    I can’t see why the BBC is moralising. After all didn’t  they force the Licence Fee Payers under threat of imprisonment  to pay for the Black and White Mistrel Show.

    After me, one, two, three, Camptown Ladies sing this song, do da, do da..


  6. George R says:

    The tenets of Islam are largely hostile to non-Muslims and infidels; and to non-Muslims, the historical experience of Islam, whose adherents strive through jihad and other methods to enslave the world (with the easy compliance of ‘liberals’ in the West, not least INBBC) has been, and is negative.

    Two books on that historical experience:

    1.) ‘The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims’ by A. Bostom, ed;

    2.) ‘Islamic Imperialism’ by E. Karsh.


    • J J says:

      This is not really true. Islam was never the ‘multicultural’ or secular paradise that the left believe in but as traditional civilisations go they are reasonably tolerant. It was better to be a Jew or non-Orthodox Christian under the early Caliphs and the Abbasids than it was under Heraclius or many medieval Christian rulers.


  7. ltwf1964 says:

    It beatsme why these idiots blow the islamic trumpet

    can’t they see that if they ever did take over and put sharia law into effect,it’s those self same moronic lefties with the morals of alleycats who will be the first ones to swing?


    • DP111 says:

      I believe it will be the traditional way (Halal), a slit throat to chants of allahu ackbar.


  8. David Preiser (USA) says:

    “The” Christian church is sexist?  Which one?  Worse, the BBC’s own series about inheritance law “You Can’t Take It With You” proved that Islam is specifically very unfair to women in certain regards.  They even made a show of going to an “expert” to work out a loophole. Yet they’re pretending it’s only some interpretations here.


    • J J says:

      More important is that it is not proven that the examples of so called ‘sexism’ in Christianity are illegitimate. Christianity accepts a difference between men and women at a fundamental level, though at an even more fundamental one it recognises no differences. This leads Christianity to have traditionally accepted different religious and social roles for men and women. Sometimes there were illegitimate deviations but it is important not to abandon our principles upon attacks of things like sexism or homophobia or similar New left or psychoanalytic terms.

      This is what I meant when I talked about not attacking Islam from positions that undermine our principles. The obvious example is Islam and women. I don’t agree with the fundamentalist Saudi example but the attacks on Islam from evne the relatively traditional right seem to share much in common with far worse groups than traditional Islam such as feminists, Marxists, post-modernists, New leftists and so forth.

      Lets not forget one equally important and anti-Christian principle that such attacks carry as a seed within them; namely that social freedoms are more important than spiritual freedom. When Saudi women are asked whether they want the freedom’s of Western women they often say they prefer the freedom of Islam. Now the modernist will scoff at this, but the traditional Christian should pause for thought.

      One could of course change Saudi Arabi for Calvin’s Geneva or Cromwell’s England. To attack them is one thing, but the traditional Christian should make sure he is not attacking them upon grounds at odds with his principles.


  9. deegee says:

    Perhaps the crucial difference between early and Medieval Christianity and early and Medieval Islam is that Christianity has moved on. (For the record I am Jewish).


    • J J says:

      This is exactly the sort of position I’m criticising. Your operating from a modernist perspective and suggesting that it was a positive move for Christianity, or alternatively Judaism if you wish, to abandon its traditional roots and become modernist. A traditional Christian(or indeed Jew.) should think hard before simply accepting such a perspective to critique traditional Islam from. Maybe you are a modernist or post-modernist, then my comments don’t apply to per se but the general point is still to be made.

      Also fundamentalism is unavoidably modernist. Without Ockham, Luther, Calvin, Descartes and the so called ‘Enlightenment’ there would have been no Wahhabi or Qutb, just as there would have been no Pat Robertson or Westboro Baptist Church.


      • J J says:

        Note certain changes were positive, like not burning people at the stake, but I’m not talking about the spirituality and philosophy at the heart of Christianity.


        • deegee says:

          Changes in Christianity include but are not restricted to acceptance of secular democratic government, no more witchcraft trials, no more death sentences to homosexuals, no more forced conversions of Jews, no more trials for heresy, no more denying the Earth rotates the sun, no more crusades, no more denial of money lending for interest, no more divine right of Kings, no more restricting education to the priesthood/nuns.

          The list goes on. 


          • J J says:

            Why should Christians except secular, democratic government? England isn’t a democracy nor is it secular. I support our ancient monarchy and balanced constitution as well as the established Church of England which is constitutionally superior to parliament.

            I have no problem with protection of certain rights in themselves. I do have a problem with acceptance of modernist philosophical, spiritual and theological principles, though my point here is aimed at pointing out the dangers to traditional Christians rather than trying to convince others.

            Blanket statements praising Christianity having grown in the last 500 years or sloppy attacks on Islam, carry with them the implication of acceptance of modernist or post-modernist principles that are contrary to traditional Christianity like secularism, nominalism, worldliness and such. This is very different to isolated liberties(which don’t include usury, for consumption at least!). I celebrate the true liberties of the modern world, and think they have a lot to do with Christian, Judaic and Classical foundations, but I try and make sure I strip these of any dangerous contexts or consequences.

            “How were Wahab and Qutb in any way influenced by Ockham, Luther, Calvin, Descartes, etc? That both Muslim thinkers reject modernity in no way suggests they were in favour of 7th century Christianity, except in the limited Dhimmi role allocated to it by Mohammed.”

            My point was that Wahhabi and Qutb were modernists and were irremediably, if unconsciously, influenced by the likes of Ockham, Luther, Calvin and Descartes.


      • deegee says:

        How were Wahab and Qutb in any way influenced by Ockham, Luther, Calvin, Descartes, etc? That both Muslim thinkers reject modernity in no way suggests they were in favour of 7th century Christianity, except in the limited Dhimmi role allocated to it by Mohammed.


  10. Paul Weston says:

    I take my hat off to Biased BBC for it’s relentless exposure of the blatant impartiality and propaganda that spews forth from the loathsome children who run the BBC.

    BUT I must point out that their GCSE Bitesize section was changed in Sep 2009 after huge protests were mounted on the back of the following article which I wrote in July 2009.

    Yours Pooterishly

    Paul Weston