Memorandum by S Ryder
1. The BBC, while it has a responsibility
to represent the interests of minority groups, clearly has a bias
towards selecting the interests of religious groups above those
of rational-minded non-religious thinkers.
2. The BBC, like many other institutions, seems
to have a streak of cowardice in that it happily allows reactionary
bigots from the religions who shout the loudest in society to
have regular platforms to air their drivel, tiptoeing around issues
of faith so as not to risk offending anybody who will cause a
fuss. On any given day, there are rabid evangelists for Christianity
and Islam using the licence-payers' money to spread their beliefs.
It is clear that representatives of less reactionary and more
humble religions are given less of a platform.
3. That said, there is no reason why these special
interest groups should be given any special treatment.
How can the BBC justify giving a platform to one religion and
not another? If I invented yet another patently false religion
today, would I be given the opportunity to try to corrupt
the minds of the young via the BBC?
4. Most importantly, there is absolutley no
justification for denying the validity of sensible, rational thought
while essentially promoting the lies of the religious minority,
which is exactly what happens on a daily basis. As an obvious
example, Radio 4's Thought for theDay supposedly speaks
to the people of the nation about matters of morality and how
we live in the world; yet, for no valid reason whatsoever, only
representatives of several seemingly randomly picked religions
are chosen as the spokespeople for our inner lives. This is not
to do with "thought" in any sense of the word, still
less to do with fairly representing how we deal with issues of
morality and the inner life in this country. Whichever religion
is being spoken for on any given morning, the majority of people
listening do not believe in that god—whether they believe
in another god or, like the majority of people, have no god, whichever
religious group is being given airtime that morning does not speak
for the majority. The majority of people in the UK in 2005 are
decent, thoughtful and moral—they do not get this from the
Koram or the Bible but from thought, both rational and instinctive.
God and other faity tales have no place in creating a civil, morally
upright society.
5. It is not just Thought for the Day
which shows the BBC pandering to the needs of religious groups
to spread their word. The majority of news programmes contain
at least one issue on which it is thought proper to have comment
from leaders of a couple of the (noisier) faiths. What valid reason
is there that representatives of secular groups are not given
equal platform? We are the majority after all. If an issue is
important enough in its social resonance that it seems reasonable
to invite someone to comment on its effect on the fabric of society,
why does the BBC instinctively go for a Muslim cleric and a Church
of England Bishop? The prime purpose for these people is to spread
their religions; that is their raison d'etre—and indeed
the raison d'etre of all religion is to propgate itself. It seems
only sensible—only fair to my mind—that non-religious
people are chosen insetad from now on to comment on societal events
of import and to host Thought for the Day; to present programmes
on morality based on morality, not on religion. There is
no shortage of these commentators—the philosophers, scientists,
sociologists, writers and thinkers who make up our intellectual
world are the people who have valid opinions, based on thought
and reason, not blind faith in fairytales.
1 September 2005
|
