The BBC is once again attacking, undermining Christian beliefs and teachings.
It has consistently produced programmes that mock or demonise Christians, undermine the Church as an institution and denounces the Bible as a doctored, fraudulent piece of propaganda.
In ‘The Prophets’ on R4 it has examined five prophets. Here I look at one programme which examines ‘Isaiah’ who is a major prophet upon whose prophecies rests the basis of Christianity…the prediction of the ‘Messiah’.
Firstly you must realise that Isaiah isn’t a real person, probably, says the BBC….and if he isn’t real how can his prophecies be real? And if his prophecies are not real how can Jesus, the Messiah as predicted in those prophecies, be real?
In other words the whole basis of Christianity is set upon a lie.
Isaiah gave permission, gave rise to the idea of the Messiah…..
And the BBC tells us….listen to the tone of voice particularly here…..with such an expectation it is hardly a surprise that some group of Jews would say to themselves ‘this is the Man’.
‘Some group of Jews’ eh? Interesting phrase.
Not long ago Melvyn Bragg had a pop at the Prophets…telling us that the Bible is made up, doctored, written after the events ‘prophesised’ had occurred, to ‘confirm’ prophecies rather than to record them and that there was a ‘conscious fabrication of Christ’.
He had on Muslim Mona Saddiqui…who only spoke to praise Mohammed and the Koran…telling us the Koran couldn’t possibly be a fake…as Mohammed couldn’t write…therefore it must be the Word of God, a true miracle…..not only that but that we would all be Muslims if only Mohammed had been so prophesised as was Jesus in the Bible….nothing like a bit of Muslim propaganda on the BBC.
This is presumably why Bragg feels so readily able to criticise Christianity:
“Do I believe in the fundamental tenants of what makes Christianity, that there is a God who cares about every one of us? I’m afraid not. Resurrection? I’m afraid not. And so on.”
Ironically, if his own programmes about Christianity weren’t contradiction enough, in the same speech he states:
“What I really resent is their (atheists’) attack on the Christian ways and particularly the Christian history. Dismissing the ‘sky Gods’ – how dare they? That was the best people could do at that time.”
I guess that once inside the bowels of the BBC with all those eyes upon you your principles go out the window.
In contrast he BBC has stated that it refuses to examine Islam in the same manner because Muslims are a minority in this country who must be above criticism because they would feel victimised and alienated by such a process.
You can pretty much dismiss that argument. The reality is that when Islam is criticised various threats are made by the Muslim ’community’…..not restricted to violent extremists….Lord Ahmed’s threat to march on Parliament with ten thousand Muslims springs to mind, as does his alleged bounty on Obama and Bush….and the BBC is intimidated into silence.
The BBC’s stance on Islam is contradicted by their approach to reporting Buddhism…in which they happily denounce Buddhism as a ‘religion of violence’.
Just how many Buddhists are there in the UK? Are they not also going to be ‘victimised and alienated’ by the BBC‘s aggressive criticism of their religion? I imagine the BBC feels that there is little threat that any employee will be beheaded by the followers of this religion despite it being one that, the BBC tells us, is a ‘religion of violence’.
It is more than apparent that one religion gets far more favourable treatment from the BBC than any other.
like most bullies the BBC are also cowards. They only pick on the ones that will not fight back whilst appeasing the oppressors.
Well British Christians can fight back by joining those who deplore the bias , distortions, lies and intolerance of the BBC and help get it closed down.
Often Christians side with the liberal left on ‘compassionate’ issues and end up supporting the BBC line. But surely they can see that the constant attacks upon their core beliefs by the BBC is undermining the Christian culture of the country. Furthermore, by allowing no serious examination of Islam , let alone criticism , the BBC is actually promoting Islam and not giving Christianity a fair hearing.
How long before various sections of British society realise that the BBC is determined to change Britain without even allowing a debate about what the people want.
The liberal elite think that we are too stupid to know what we want and are determined to put in place their vision of a multi racial society in which Chritianity and British culture and history has no place. The BBC is their most effective asset. Those who support Britain and believe in our values should join together , show the politicians how many people loath the BBC, and get them to close it down.
Whether the BBC like it or not, modern Western civilisation is essentially the building of the church.
Lord Clarke in his series on Civilisation ( Western), makes it abundantly clear, that had it not been for Christianity, Europe would never have recovered from barbarism after the fall of Rome.
In the wake of the news that several churches were burnt down by the MB , and captured nuns paraded as PoWs by the RoP even the Daily Mail and most of its commentators are getting it. Many are now worried what will happen once Muslims are a majority in the UK – time line around 30 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396764/Egypt-crisis-Islamist-mob-parades-nuns-Cairo-prisoners-war.html
“This is presumably why Bragg feels so readily able to criticise Christianity:”
Is that why the article is headlined:
“Christians deserve respect, says Melvyn Bragg” and Bragg went on to say:
“But I do think the Christian books — and other religions too — are an extraordinary body knowledge and wisdom about how people have lived at different stages.”
Later Alan, when talking about Buddhism, includes the following quote, suggesting that they come from the article he cites:
“The BBC’s stance on Islam is contradicted by their approach to reporting Buddhism…in which they happily denounce Buddhism as a ‘religion of violence’.”
Interestingly, the article does not contain the phrase “religion of violence”.
Interestingly, the article does not contain the phrase “religion of violence”.
No maybe it doesn’t and your’s might be a fair point. however that report does contain the following phrase:
“But aren’t Buddhist monks meant to be the good guys of religion?”
Bet you won’t find anything along the lines of “isn’t Islam supposed to be the religion of peace”.
Nor do you typically find quotes like this in stories about those stories that there is a strong hint of political islam at work:
“The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all. “
The article you point to quite clearly puts the spotlight on the buddhist element of this story. It lifts them out and focusses on them and their religion and whilst (as I said earlier) it does not include what you perceive as a quote from Alan, it does do this at the end and it also pulls the following little stunt.
“So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity. “
Not only does it do that it also seems to pull the following stunt. Immediately before that quote about it includes the following section
“Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of “freedom-loving nations”, all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.”
So lets look again at the quote which follows it:
“So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity. “
Well, well well. Look who suddenly disappeared from the list of religions with a violence component.
And let us go on to a further quote within the very same article:
“He destroyed his opponents. After the bloodshed, some enlightened ones consoled him: “The slain were like animals; you will make the Buddha’s faith shine.”
Yet how many times would you see a piece on the BBC that contextualised a story on the middle east situation with either of these quotes:
“Palestine in its entirety is a revolution… continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith… says:
“The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” “
or
“Our war with the descendants of the apes and pigs (i.e., Jews) is a war of religion and faith. Long Live Fatah!”
Now by and large I find this to be quite an intelligent piece and fortunately it does go to mention the notion of the perception of radical Islam being at the heart of many of the world’s violent conflicts, but I suspect that this is more due to the fact that it’s written by an external academic.
But the general point illustrated well by this article is that the the BBC is willing to engage in a level of criticism about many religions to a level that largely becomes absent when it comes to things with an extreme islamic component. In fact it’s become so notable it its absence as to draw attention to it. I’m not talking about lamsbasting islam here and throwing insult after insult at the faith, but a simple holding to account as part of a willingness to hold an adult debate, strangey absent from the BBC.
I won’t however hold my breath.
Buddhism is not inherently violent or non-violent., as it does not consider anything material in this world to be of any importance. Which makes Buddhism nihilistic, and thus lacking in genuine feeling of compassion for the lowly and injured. Buddhists will be kind to others, but it is an indifferent kind of kindness.
Christianity on the other hand is genuinely compassionate, rooted on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. That is why we have the Red Cross, or the recent practice in Christendom of not finishing off the injured on the battlefield, or making slaves of prisoners of war. All these Christian originated ethics are part of the modern order.
The liberal leftist ethos has contributed nothing to Western civilization except arrogance.
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn writes..
It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that “revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.” That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.
http://www.roca.org/OA/36/36h.htm
LOL…foiled again by Albaman!
I thought I’d hidden that link to Bragg’s article so well that no one would ever see it…it was supposed to be a secret….though I imagine there must have been a reason I linked to it….can’t imagine what…I’ll have to read the post to find out…you should try that as well Albaman….it’ll be quite a novelty for you to read a whole post.
I did manage to keep something secret from anyone reading the post though….Albaman quotes this:
“Christians deserve respect, says Melvyn Bragg”
…presumably Albaman is trying to say I have attempted to hide Bragg’s ‘respect’ for Christianity or at least Christian’s right to believe.
And yet in the post, apart from linking to the article (so not really a big secret at all is it Albaman?), I quoted Bragg saying this:
“What I really resent is their (atheists’) attack on the Christian ways and particularly the Christian history. Dismissing the ‘sky Gods’ – how dare they? That was the best people could do at that time.”
… perhaps Albaman just didn’t want to see the quote as it was inconvenient for his ‘case’.
As for Buddhists being violent I think anyone reading the BBC’s article will come away with the impression that Buddhism can be used to encourage and incite violence.
What do kids get in their school reports who are not fulfilling their potential?
‘Tries hard, lots of determination when dealing with challenging questions, enthusiastic contributions in class but shines most on the sports field.”
Must try harder Albaman, or at least try being honest.
With his self most especially
(Said with love and concern only you understand)
all our non-lefty institutions in fact
hate the royal family?
jealous of the the good pr they’ve been getting lately? frustrated that `republic` is backed by gobshites and practically invisible?
don’t worry, we’ve here to help you get your bile out of your guts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23743997
see the comments
The top comments tell a different story, most of them seem to be praising Harry for bringing a problem to public light, and some are also butchering the BBC for its bias with one saying they watched a news channel in RUSSIA of all places that was more impartial.
Yes, Alan. INBBC relegates the intrinsic role of violence in the history of Islam, and its tenets.
INBBC’s default political position is one of endorsing the ‘left-Islam’ alliance, as illustrated in BBC-NUJ support for UAF, and for, e.g., Obama’s endorsement of Muslim Brotherhood.
INBBC avoids direct criticism of Islam by non-Muslims. On issues relating directly to Islam, INBBC generally delegates/defers to Muslims. E.g. on history of Islam, INBBC gets in (via its Muslim head of religious programming, Aaqil Ahmed) the likes of Muslim Rageh Omaar to do TV series. And on the nature of Islam, INBBC gets in Muslim Brotherhood apologists such as Tariq Ramadan.
On the nature of Islam, INBBC still has the mantra of ‘the tiny minority of extremists’; and INBBC avoid direct criticism of Islam -in line with policy demands of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation-a body INBBC hardly ever mentions, and doesn’t question.
Instead INBBC invents a concept called ‘Islamism’ which it is prepared to question. But not to be critical of Islam.
Will INBBC expose the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, not only in Egypt but in Europe and Britain?
Will INBBC allow British non-Muslim people to criticise the fascist nature of certain Islamic organisations and practices?
This is the same broadcaster who ran a documentary about how great it was that less than 10% of Premier League footballers were completely changing the culture of the game against the consensus of everyone else, because they happened to be Muslim. One Muslim footballer won Man of the Match and was offered the traditional bottle of champagne that has been the prize for two decades. He politely turned it down due to his religious beliefs, which is fair enough, but then the FA decided to completely do away with the champagne and just offer a trophy in future. It’s not like footballers can’t afford champagne but it’s the precedent that’s worrying.
Alan,
“It has consistently produced programmes that mock or demonise Christians, undermine the Church as an institution and denounces the Bible as a doctored, fraudulent piece of propaganda.”
It also broadcasts acts of Christian worship every day, as well as producing programmes in which Christians discuss their faith without any hint of mockery. You shouldn’t ignore it when coming to judgement on what the BBC thinks about Christianity.
Well Songs of praise seems to have moved from a peak 6.30pm on a Sunday to much earlier when everyone is watching the new god – football.
Not everyone, surely – only those who have Sky.
I’m not sure how many people fit into both the football-watching and the Song of Praise-watching bracket. In any case, SoP is available on iPlayer, and the highlights from the football are shown on Match of the Day 2 later.
While there are still acts of worship, there is no longer any serious discussion of Christian doctrinal or spiritual matters on the BBC. On Radio 4 on Sundays, there is the oxymoronic programme called “Something understood”, consisting of a stream of consciousness from some (usually ill-informed) person, combined with vaguely related music. Inexplicably, this outpouring of subjectivity is repeated in the evening! That I suppose is meant to be “religious broadcasting”, but is nothing of the sort. Then there is “Sunday”, which scours the world’s news for problems associated with religion – Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. We rarely hear of all the positive work that is being done day in day out by dedicated people, very often in the face of active hostility, if not persecution. Those who are called to defend Christianity are usually unorthodox, on the left, and half-inclined to agree with the critics of Christianity. There is scandalous imbalance between different faith groups on the daily “Thought for the Day” on R4. Those who worked for the old communist ministries of anti-religious propaganda must look on the BBC with admiration: more subtle, but much more effective.
You’re right Chris and it is a good point; this and all the local stations and far flung coverage where many private media don’t reach is why there is widespread support for the BBC and why a unilateral closure is all but impossible: there would be an outcry. Unfortunately most front end news, political and science gathering, programmes, reporting etc are twisted beyond cure and urgent full reform is needed.
For INBBC:-
“Middlesbrough Muslim facing jail for slashing friend who sympathised with tragic soldier Lee Rigby”
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10618775.Middlesbrough_Muslim_facing_jail_for_slashing_friend_who_sympathised_with_tragic_soldier_Lee_Rigby/
Tis truly amazing how many “local” stories of violence, sexual abuse and other such heinous crimes involve followers of the religion of peace.
Oddly, our national broadcaster never deems it fit to give them national exposure.
funny you should say that – the bbc seems oddly uninterested in the latest sex gang scandal, no doubt involving `lincolnshire men`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396486/UKs-biggest-child-sex-gang-uncovered-45-men-arrested-abuse-girls-young-13.html
Yes the anti-Christian bias of this fellow Bragg is shocking, if you’re prepared to overlook the fact that most of his recent TV programmes have been about Christianity, e.g. William Tyndale, and that his last book was about the King James Bible – or that he has been conducting a running feud with Dawkins and other ‘new atheists’ for the last year or so.
Further evidence of his overwhelming hatred of Christianity is obvious on the website of his Radio 4 programme, which Alan linked to, which contains recent programmes such as:
Gnosticism, a sect associated with early Christianity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s4rhz
St Anselm’s Ontological Argument: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mwx64
…George Fox and the Quakers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f67y4
…the Christian scholar Erasmus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bmlsy
The Lollards: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011vh4k
St Augustine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010dstl
The Nicene creed, “which established the divinity of Christ”: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008jglt
etc etc etc ad nauseam.
Posted this earlier but probably because of the number of links it seems to have been banished…here again with links removed.
Yes the anti-Christian bias of this fellow Bragg is shocking, if you’re prepared to overlook the fact that most of his recent TV programmes have been about Christianity, e.g. William Tyndale, and that his last book was about the King James Bible – or that he has been conducting a running feud with Dawkins and other ‘new atheists’ for the last year or so.
Further evidence of his overwhelming hatred of Christianity is obvious on the website of his Radio 4 programme linked to above, which contains recent programmes such as:
Gnosticism, a sect associated with early Christianity
St Anselm’s Ontological Argument
George Fox and the Quakers
the Christian scholar Erasmus
The Lollards
St Augustine
The Nicene creed, “which established the divinity of Christ”: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008jglt
etc etc etc ad nauseam.
The BBC are for ever running programs about the Nazis does that make them pro Hitler?
Good point, Stewart. Now would you like to inform us how many times the BBC have made certain they carefully skirted round, ignored or tried to explain away the horrors committed by the Nazis? How many times have there been programmes, or even items, praising the Nazis, especially for their non-violence? Perhaps I missed all those programmes, along with the ones trying to convince us the Nazis behaved the way they did because of some perceived injustice carried out against them many centuries ago.
The only time the BBC displays any sympathy towards the Nazis is when they can no longer resist their urge to portray Britain as behaving like rampaging murderous thugs killing poor Germans as acts of evil vengeance to satisfy the insatiable British Bloodlust.
A bit off topic but I believe in the Friday evening news the BBC reporter from Cairo said ‘the Muslim brotherhood are hitting back at churches’.
Anyone surprised?
For INBBC:-
“Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood supporters torch a Christian school, parade nuns through streets as ‘prisoners of war'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-supporters-torch-a-christian-school-parade-nuns-through-streets-as-prisoner.html
So Radio4 broadcasts a series of five programmes about the Prophets of the Old Testament and this apparently is the BBC once again “attacking, undermining Christian beliefs and teachings”
Ohkay…
“Firstly you must realise that Isaiah isn’t a real person, probably, says the BBC….and if he isn’t real how can his prophecies be real? And if his prophecies are not real how can Jesus, the Messiah as predicted in those prophecies, be real?”
One of the most ridiculous, floppy bits of ‘logic’ I’ve read in a long time. Akin to saying; “If Galileo wasn’t a real person, how can all those things he said about planets be real, therefore how can the Earth going around the Sun be real?”
But never mind, because of course the programme didn’t actually say that Isaiah wasn’t a real person [Alan? Lying? No, surely not?!]. In fact it quoted Dr. Adolfo Roitman (Curator of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Isreal Museum):
Interviewer; “Do you think there was a man called Isaiah?”
Dr Roitman; “Oh I have no doubt”
Instead it made the widely accepted case that the words attributed to Isaiah probably came from more than one source; either that he or was over 200 years old when he died (is that what you believe Alan?). Then went on to describe where Isaiah would of stood when Isaiah said what he said.
“And the BBC tells us….listen to the tone of voice particularly here…..with such an expectation it is hardly a surprise that some group of Jews would say to themselves ‘this is the Man’. ‘Some group of Jews’ eh? Interesting phrase.”
Oh the innuendo! Oh the “listen to the tone of voice” argument! Scraped out of the bottom the barrel by Alan’s bent, old, encrusted fingernails.
And whose ‘tone of voice’ was it that Alan is using to imply that the BBC is Anti-Semitic?… Clive Lawton; the author of the programme. Also co-founder and Executive Director of Limmud, ex-Chair of Tzedek, former head teacher of King David high school in Liverpool and columnist for totallyjewish.com.
Isaiah the prophet was a real person.
It was Irving the prophet who wasn’t.
But, like Churchill, he got his Irvings and Isaiahs mixed up.
The BBC’s logic Dez, is impeccable, simple and easy to understand.
If Isaiah didn’t exist then his prophecies can’t be real and anyone claiming to be ‘The Messiah’ based upon those prophecies must be suspect.
As for Gallileo…Yes I know the feeling having to continually push the truth whilst those with their own reasons and vested interests try to deny and suppress that truth.
Anti-Semitic….where did I claim that?
I questioned the tone of voice and turn of phrase….it seemed to suggest that this group of Jews who were turning towards ‘Christ’ were fools and charlatans.
Was Lawton trying to mock and belittle them?
Anti-Semitic? No….as you say Lawton is Jewish….it might suggest he could be anti-Christian…which is, er, the whole point of the post….might a Jew have a vested interest in undermining ‘The Messiah’ ….he writes: ‘I can’t see Jesus as the Messiah we Jews are waiting for…..you’ll have to understand when we Jews look at the claims made about Jesus with incomprehension and remain true to our own tradition.’ ….especially as Christians have been persecuting Jews for two thousand years?
As he also writes:
Them and us. ‘The Jews’ are now clearly the villains of the piece. Pilate – vicious, nasty, oppressive Pilate – nearly qualifies as a proto-Saint. In Mark, ‘the Jews’ includes Jesus and the disciples and just about everybody else. In John, they become the enemy.
As always Dez you rush in to criticise, but do so without any thought as to what the post is about.
Next week, starting on INBBC Radio 4, a new series of five programmes, presented by Robert Spencer of ‘JihadWatch’ on the theme of his recent book: “Did Muhammad Exist?”
‘Look Inside’-Amazon-
( Only kidding. )
George R,
“…a new series of five programmes, presented by Robert Spencer…”
If BBC4 broadcast a series of programmes written and presented by an anti-Christian, Muslum Cleric claiming that Jesus didn’t exist you might have a valid point.
But seeing as they didn’t; you don’t.
So, there will continue to be Beeboid censorship of criticism of the central belief system of Islam.
How could a muslim preach that Jesus did not exist – isn’t he recognised as a prophet?
Channel 4 tried that with Tom Holland’s far from provocative ‘Islam: The Untold Story’
It didn’t go so well
On Alan’s final point (and as if to prove him right), this afternoon’s ‘Beyond Belief’ on Radio 4 has chosen to discuss the following issue:
‘Buddhism and Violence’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038c0f6
Director General HALL continues THOMPSON’s policy of preferential treatment of Islam:
“BBC boss says Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity” (2008).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3198804/BBC-boss-says-Islam-should-be-treated-more-sensitively-than-Christianity.html
It sticks in albeeb’s gullet that a bunch of Jews wrote both the Hebrew bible and the “New” Testament! And what about that fictional character, what was his name, the one who slipped down the birth canal of a virgin, and was later on resurrected?
It just confirms that the bbc are happy to ridicule Christianity, label other religions as violent, when it come to Islam this is a no go area and the bbc seem to promote any radical view of Islam without ever questioning it.