Was the BBC Ever Intended To Be A 'Mouthpiece' of Atheism?

[Bubbles]

It doesn't matter how hard you try,  you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.

In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.

Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?

http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm

How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)

Does the BBC need to address the balance?

[Shaker]

The BBC is a public service broadcaster with a remit to offer a range of material covering the widest possible audience.

That blog post was merely the maunderings of a crank with a grudge (a creationist, of course) bewailing the fact that in British society religion is a minority interest and is becoming even more so, something like naked speed chess only not quite as popular. It was in short merely a whine, a sort of "I'm being ignored!" bleat. Well no; the BBC's religious output is extensive - far more so, many would say, than its actual audience justifies. We even have a God-slot crowbarred into the middle of a serious and much-admired news and current affairs programme, for goodness' sake. That the writer of this swivel-eyed rant is an utter doofus can be ascertained by the fact that he genuinely seems to believe that any programme which contains somebody known to be an atheist therefore makes it a programme promoting or promulgating atheism. Yes, seriously, that's the acme of his intellectual endowment - a cookery programme presented by Nigella Lawson (an atheist) is a front for the BBC's espousal of atheism.

The fact that that mess is five years old means that its statistics are by now woefully out of date, so the crowing about 70% of the population purporting to adhere to Christianity is no longer the case. (Actually it wasn't then either, but that's for another thread).

It isn't the background that should have been green but the writing, since it comes over as a missive from one of the green ink brigade. Read once and ignore thereafter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

a cookery programme presented by Nigella Lawson (an atheist) is a front for the BBC's espousal of atheism.

Nigella an atheist? That surprises me given the generosity of her Rum Babas.

[Bubbles]

Nigella an atheist? That surprises me given the generosity of her Rum Babas.

Trust you to have your eyes on her Rum Babas 

No wonder you never noticed she's an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trust you to have your eyes on her Rum Babas 

No wonder you never noticed she's an atheist.

Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......

Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.

[Gonnagle]

Dearest Forum,

Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.

Come on, now that's funny

Gonnagle.

[Bubbles]

Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......

Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.

Oh dear! it must be my mind.

I was a bit concerned at your first sentence and my mind took a tangent 

I better go sit on the naughty step 🌹

Blame it on the Rum Babas 

[Sebastian Toe]

Perhaps they could get Nigella and Delia together......

Roman Catholic Delia could make a starter of curate's egg and Nigella could provide atheist waffle.

Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. 

Well, it made Mr G and meself smile and after all......that's what counts.

[ippy]

It doesn't matter how hard you try,  you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programs on the BBC, others that there is not enough.

In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.

Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?

http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm

How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)

Does the BBC need to address the balance?

There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.

See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.

Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.

In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air

Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of  unchallenged airtime.

Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC? 

ippy

   

[Bubbles]

Well, it made Mr G and meself smile and after all......that's what counts.

And me

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And me

Sorry Rose for forgetting.

[Bubbles]

There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.

See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.

Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.

In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air

Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of  unchallenged airtime.

Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC? 

ippy

   

The problem is as well I think that some religious people  see programmes like Eastenders and father ted as non religious. Eastenders because it has a secular setting.
Because it hasn't got a Christian message behind it, and Father Ted is a comedy.


I think it no longer matters if the BBC doesn't cater so much for religion anymore because most of us have free veiw and there are whole channels that dedicate all their air time to religious matters.

It mattered more when we had only four or five channels to watch.

I like some of the programmes the BBC make that tell you about other religions or archeology and what they have found.

The thing is if it was representative, what about Islamic religious programmes?

I think we have so many channels to choose from now, we don't need that many religious programmes.

That could apply to sport too.

Most of the big matches are now on Sky anyway.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Funny you should mention curate's egg.
It's a bit like your posts, both good and bad qualities ....sadly..... without any off the 'good'. 

Actually you're closer to the truth than you might think. "Curate's egg" meaning "good in parts" is a misnomer. The point of the story was that after giving the sermon a curate was invited for lunch where he was served an egg that was bad - all bad; an egg cannot be just a bit bad.

When asked by his host what he thought of his lunch the curate replied, "Oh, good in parts" so as not to cause offence. It's a euphemism though for "all bad" despite the common (mis)usage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.

See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.

Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.

In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air

Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of  unchallenged airtime.

Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC? 

ippy

   

But let's face it, Jonathan Miller was never nasty to believers whereas Dawkins started out to be seen to be.

I'm sure Jim Al Khalili would make a great fist at presenting what is after all a great world faith and belief.

Atheist Bamber Gascoigne made a great and classic effort at presenting Christianity.

I think though that anybody reasonable wouldn't go down well with you guys who now prefer Secular Humanist to be more WWF smackdown with violence and menaces than a civilised exchange.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a BBC Religion & Ethics Department in Manchester, running at about £10,000,000 pa.

See if you can find any program designated as life from a Humanist Secularist viewpoint that is unchallenged, whereas there's a plethora of religion based programs that go to air freely and unchallenged almost whenever the religious want them.

Yes occasionally the BBC put out a program such as Jonathan Miller's one about atheism, some time back, but so what it's swamped over and over again by unchallenged religion all over the BBC's various TV and radio out puts, try Radio 4 from midnight Sunday right through its 24 hours.

In effect the way the BBC R & E Department acts something like as if we had Conservative Central Office editing the output of anything the Labour party wanted to put out on air

Of course it's right and proper that the BBC should cater for the now only 50% of religious viewers and listeners, but whether it's like it or not the non-religious are here and should be getting somewhere near a similar amount of  unchallenged airtime.

Atheists and secularists do get to be on air on challenging programs with the religious, not that it matters if the non-religious are challenged we can deal with anything the religious throw at us, but the why, is always there in the background, the religious can give out more or less as many unchallenged programmes as they want to, when do we get anything like a similar quantity of unchallenged output for the non-religious from the BBC? 

ippy

   

We have to ask ourselves then why secular humanism has not opened it's own TV channel and why the Sunday Assembly has not requested an airing on National TV.
Of course it could be argued that the Big Question is run by one of the biggest secular humanists in broadcasting Nicky Campbell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seb,

Actually you're closer to the truth than you might think. "Curate's egg" meaning "good in parts" is a misnomer. The point of the story was that after giving the sermon a curate was invited for lunch where he was served an egg that was bad - all bad; an egg cannot be just a bit bad.

When asked by his host what he thought of his lunch the curate replied, "Oh, good in parts" so as not to cause offence. It's a euphemism though for "all bad" despite the common (mis)usage.

Don't reply to this......you'll only be egging him on.

[ippy]

Don't reply to this......you'll only be egging him on.

You're ova doing the puns now Vlad.

ippy

[Shaker]

You're ova doing the puns now Vlad.

ippy

10/10 for that one ipples

[Outrider]

It doesn't matter how hard you try,  you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.

In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.

Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?

http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm

How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)

Does the BBC need to address the balance?

I don't see that he has a case, to be honest. He suggests that Lord Attenborough's broadcasts are 'atheist' in nature, when in fact they are merely scientific, they have nothing to say for or against religion. I can't think of any explicitly atheist broadcasting that the corporation puts out, whereas it's relatively easy to list at least a few explicitly religious - primarily Christian - shows that are regular features of both television and radio.

I think, ultimately, he's confusing science and reason with atheism (argumentum ad Vlad, as it were), and unreasonably expects more things to be explicitly linked to God than there is any justification for; he's pining for the 'glory days' of the mid 20th Century when men where Christians and atheists knew to keep their bloody mouths shut, as is evidenced by the nonsense closing paragraph about not wanting a court judge who had no moral grounding/was an atheist as though the two were synonymous.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think, ultimately, he's confusing science and reason with atheism

Like Waterstones.

[Shaker]

Like Waterstones.

If I were you I'd compose a strongly-worded e-mail as you said yesterday, Vlad.

To let them know you really mean business, put it in Comic Sans and in magenta. That'll show them how serious you are.

[Rhiannon]

It doesn't matter how hard you try,  you can't please everyone.
Some will always think the balance is wrong.
Some people argue there is too much religion and religiously motivated programmes on the BBC, others that there is not enough.

In this link the blogger is grumbling about the atheist influence at the BBC.

Do you think he is making a good point, that it needs to b challenged ? Or talking nonsense and bemoaning days past when more people claimed to be Christian ?

http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/BBCatheism.htm

How could the BBC improve? ( well apart from reinstate the messageboards)

Does the BBC need to address the balance?

This is stark staring mad. Just saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I were you I'd compose a strongly-worded e-mail as you said yesterday, Vlad.

To let them know you really mean business, put it in Comic Sans and in magenta. That'll show them how serious you are.

font size?

[Shaker]

font size?

Oh, 72 at least.

Make a statement, Vlad.