It depends where you start from…

There is room for a whole thesis-worth of discussion in this on-the-face-of-it stark raving lunatic headline from the BBC in this article:

‘Some Imams ‘biased against women”

What I say is this just points out the need to work harder at increasing the number of female Imams. Oh. Wait a minute…

The BBC- not p.c. at all, oh no.

Hat tip to DumbJon.

THE VICAR OF TILBY.

I’ve heard of the vicar of Dibly, but today I wish I hadn’t heard of Vicar Tilby! She was providing the “Thought for the Day” contribution on the BBC Today this morning and what a pro-Islamic troll she was! At one point she had the temerity to refer to a press release from Muslim clerics last year as being akin to hearing “the voice of God.” Allah be praised. Naturally she had a go at President Bush before concluding her segment with the wise words that we need to listen to Islam a lot more than we do. She has a point in one way – if we listen carefully then we might all realise it is more a pathology and less of a religion – though I doubt this is what the vicar was getting at. My point here is that this “Thought for the Day” section is most frequently given over left-wing pseudo-clerics who then use it as just one more front to propagandise for the leftist chic so beloved of Al Beeb. Religion is culture war by other means when it comes to the BBC.

EXONERATING JUDAS.

How interesting to read that the BBC is to screen a new drama about the final week in the life of Jesus Christ which appears to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate. Producers of The Passion have portrayed the men in a sympathetic light because they believe they have been “very harshly judged” by history. A BBC spokesman said:”We are not seeking to subvert or rewrite the Gospel narrative – we are just retelling it to bring it alive for a contemporary audience.” Right, so you KNOW that that this is exactly what they are looking to do. However I’m looking forward to these bravehearts in the BBC pitching a drama about the life of Mohammad which implicates him in a paedophile and mass murdering scandal. I mean, it’s not JUST Christianity that the BBC wishes to “take a fresh look at” – is it?

Interventions.

Example #1: Catholic cardinal denounces abortion, and says Catholic politicians who back abortion should consider their stance on receiving Communion.

The BBC invites comments on the following question:

“Should the church intervene in politics”

What are your views on the speech given by the Cardinal? Should politics and religion be kept separate?

Example #2: Anglican Archbishop criticises the government over its case for war in Iraq and says that there has been a loss of trust in the political system.

The BBC invites comments on the following question:

“Is Archbishop right to speak out against the government?”

Do you agree with the Archbishop’s views? Is he right to speak out about the government? Have you lost your trust in politics?

Notice how in the second case, Dr Williams is described as “speaking out”, which has a flavour of courage about it, whereas Cardinal O’Brien is “intervening in politics”, which suggests a busybody. Yet a Catholic prelate has a far more obvious duty to relay his Church’s clear and emphatic teaching about abortion (particularly when his remarks are addressed to politicians who identify themselves as Catholics) than an Anglican prelate has to employ a sermon give his personal opinion about one particular war, a subject upon which the Anglican church can have no doctrine, for all the efforts of its more “progressive” members. I wonder why the BBC did not see fit to ask “should religion and politics be kept separate?” in the case of Dr Williams’ views rather than Cardinal O’Brien’s?

True Colours

Andrew McCann has written of his attempts to put his views across to the Beeb over Sweenygate. I am referring, of course, to the bullying, hectoring behaviour (caution, highly entertaining stuff) of the BBC’s fearless sleuth, John Sweeney, as he ventured into the deep hidden danger facing us all from Tom Cruise’s religion, Scientology. McCann’s words are well worth reading. Summary account of the incident here.

He points out the BBC’s complacent reliance on the freedoms accorded them in the US and UK. He demonstrates what true objectivity might mean- the fearlessly equal treatment of all on an equal basis. His analogy was the most obvious one going- between the BBC’s treatment of Scientology and its treatment of Islam- but the point is a deep one.

Talking of his approach to the BBC’s phone-in minders he says:


“I posed a rhetorical question as to whether Sweeney would have lost his temper if treated in the same way by Muslims outside the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. In other words, would Sweeney have behaved that way had it not been for his own prejudices and the environment in which he found himself?”

Indeed. PS. I notice that Sweeney has done investigations in Saudi Arabia, but one does indeed wonder if he treated the Saudis as imbeciles as he did so, or whether it was their religion he was interested in targeting.