Media

Partly Sunny with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Humanists rejoice! BBC will consult them on religion

For the first time, the broadcaster will take advice on programmes like 'Thought for the Day' from a secularist

By Emily Dugan

Salisbury Cathedral Choir during 'Songs of Praise'. The humanists hope for greater influence in religious and ethical programming

David Sandison

Salisbury Cathedral Choir during 'Songs of Praise'. The humanists hope for greater influence in religious and ethical programming

Religious broadcasting has taken an unexpected turn at the BBC, leaving secularists last night claiming a breakthrough. An important new committee that the corporation will consult on religious broadcasting is to include a humanist.

The move, which some see as a potential threat to the future of slots such as Thought for the Day, will see groups representing secular beliefs offering advice and suggestions to the broadcaster. The move is a significant shift for the corporation, and follows a series of recent victories for secularists in public life, including a legal ruling in favour of the so-called atheist bus, the addition of humanism to a GCSE religious studies syllabus, and the launch of the first major national student secular society.

Andrew Copson, director of education and public affairs for the British Humanist Association, has been appointed to the BBC's Standing Conference on Religion and Belief, a new body which replaces the Central Religious Advisory Committee (Crac), which advised on "religion-related policy and coverage".

Mr Copson suggested his appointment may give him the chance to challenge the long fought over Radio 4 religious slot, Thought for the Day. "We need to see an increased contribution from humanists in slots run by the religion and ethics department that are presently confined only to religions," he said.

The new body, which will meet with senior BBC officials several times a year, gathers for the first time on Wednesday. Unlike Crac, which was closed by the BBC Trust at the end of 2007, the Standing Conference on Religion and Belief will be independent from the broadcaster, but it will continue to have the same chairman, Bishop Graham James, at its head.

The BBC played down the significance of the inclusion, concerned that it would alarm religious groups. Despite this, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, Hanne Stinson, heralded Mr Copson's appointment as a "great step". "Until now humanists have been excluded from any consultative or advisory role in relation to the BBC on a level with religious groups and representatives," Ms Stinson said. "In an open society, those of religious and non-religious beliefs should have a fair input on matters that concern them and the inclusion of humanist representation is a great step towards this."

The philosopher A C Grayling said the news was "incredible", and signified the culmination of a series of successes for secularists. "I would say in recent months we've seen a real change. There have been cracks in the ice over the last few years, but bits of Antarctica are finally floating free now. When you think of the great institution of the BBC finally conceding that a whole viewpoint needs to be heard, that's pretty incredible.

"At long last, here is one token of acceptance that the traditional way of thinking about matters of the spirit and matters of the mind needs to be rethought."

According to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, 6 per cent of viewers watch religious programmes on the main TV channels – the lowest proportion of any programme genre. A recent poll found that more than a third of Britons did not feel they belonged to a religion at all.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Info
[info]yambas wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 02:11 am (UTC)
At last some ethics without all the supernatural nonsense.
hurray!
[info]ericms00 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 04:49 am (UTC)
A good day for ethics! Who needs a fairy tale when there are rational reasons for being ethical?
Unusual?
[info]adullamite wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 06:54 am (UTC)
How is this unusual?
The BBC has been run by secularists (if that is the word?) for years and has had an anti-religion policy for decades. What is news about this? Maybe they are just being honest for a change?
'Thought for the day' has long been a meaningless waste of time, any attempt at religion there being thought being downplayed in case it upset the chattering classes. At no time is Christianity or any other religion shown in a good light as the 'humanists' (or is that the 'closed minds?) don't allow it.
The BBC is run by a London cabal, a small group that think they know what is best for us all. Their 'open minded inclusiveness' stops when something they disagree with appears. How democratic!
Re: Unusual?
[info]cybernaught2009 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
My impression is that the opposite is true. The supposed, long-ovrdue, breakthrough is that the BBC has finally realized that a 'Religion and Ethics' department cannot simply be a religious department. The majority, or at least a large minority, believe that it is possible to be ethical without being religious. indeed, many would argue that "divine" ethical systems have been a source of great human misery.
Ice shelves floating free?
[info]cybernaught2009 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
This sounds like good news. But I won't believe that ice shelves have broken free until I see a major change in the BBC's "religious and ethical" broadcasting.

A test case might be 'Thought for the Day' (TFTD). Will the BBC recognize that it is no longer appropriate to have a religious propaganda program embedded in what is supposed to be an objective news programme? Or will the BBC at least allow a regular non-religious slot on TFTD in which humanists, atheists, secularists, etc., can speak freely?


an unfortunate metaphor!
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
good news re 'secularists' ( if all we anti- any organisation or grouping with a name must have a name), but an unfortunate ice sheet metaphor... you would have thought that grayling could have done better than that?!
Jesus was a friend to the atheist.
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
When will the religous realize their spiritual leader taught tolerance? Let him who has doubts ask himslef why Jesus told the parable of the mustard seed? It is because he knew all lacked faith, all had fallen from the greater glory of God, and only through grace are they saved. Those who push the atheists out of the religous/ethical time slot at the BBC are lie the pharisees who preferred the best places in the sinagogue. Let him who has no sin cast the first stone. A honest atheist seeking the truth is worthier than a dishonest preacher abusing his position. God knows who is who and will reward each according to their works and their hidden motives. Grace is not a right it is a gift. The religous can lose it if athesits are more moral/ethical and earnest in their search for truth. God Himself will decide on this.
No Victory!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC)
Oh wake up people. This is a sap to gradually increase the Islamic content of BBC religious affairs. Bring in the Secularists, and we can have more Islamic programming, no one will notice, and all will be content. Classic backdoor stuff. And guess who is being touted as head of BBC religious affairs?? A Christian not.....A MUSLIM.
Are Religions Really About Goodness?
[info]superkeith wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 04:38 pm (UTC)
There has been an assumption by the BBC and many others that because an ethos claims itself to be a religion that it is about goodness and yet some of the inviolable tenets of some religions are against UK law. There are many who believe in a Supreme Being who are appalled at much of the doctrine of the organised religions and find it neither moral, nor ethical or even about goodness. The Govt. have privileged and funded certain organised religions, but appear to discriminate against those that don't meet with the approval of the executive. Is the apparent directing of funds to support religious bias proper behaviour by the Govt and a proper use for taxpayers money? Why is there any question in the BBC that those not attached to organised religions should have equal rights? Even non believers and Atheists have equal rights, under the law, to be pleased or offended and to express another view. In fact those not attached to organised religions probably represent not only the electoral majority but also the majority of BBC licence payers.Humanists and secularists appear to have high moral and ethical standards support goodness and obey the law. Why shouldn't they be heard?
Ethical BBC ? It's too late...
[info]frank_reader wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:20 pm (UTC)
I hope to hear in the near future: "It was a big broadcaster, but it is dead now."
This broadcaster doesn't deserve a single click on my desktop.
Rational thinking will be overruled
[info]treenonpoet wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:58 pm (UTC)
The real price that Britain pays for the BBC's religious broadcasting is not the fraction of the TV licence revenue, but is the credence that it gives to religious indoctrination in schools and by parents. Religious indoctrination is not compatible with rationality, so many aspects of rational thinking are simply not taught. This compromises Britain's competitiveness and its ability to deal with crises.

Most Christians reject certain teachings in the bible. For example, Matthew 15:4 teaches that children who do not honour their parents should be put to death, but even if this was not illegal today, I do not think that many Christians would implement it. In rejecting this teaching, they draw on a morality not derived from the bible. That so many BBC broadcasts on ethical issues assume that superstition has some relevance reflects the refusal of many Christians to acknowledge that morals do NOT need to be based on the Bible. There is a similar problem with other religions. How a multi-faith body ever comes to a consensus on some issues of morality I do not know. I would have thought that the addition of a rational thinker to such a body would almost guarantee an impasse, and result in the suppression of his/her views by the (religious) chairman.

As an atheist, I am not rejoicing yet.
Re: Rational thinking will be overruled
[info]adullamite wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:42 pm (UTC)
But humanists and atheists indoctrinate their opinions also.
None of them are perfect either.
Rejoice!
[info]whatacrapname1 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:13 pm (UTC)
Hopefully this will only be the start. This recognizes the slow death of superstition in Britain. To derive your morals from a book written 1,800 years ago is frankly laughable. If religion had its way we'd be stoning adulterers, committing genocide and killing homosexuals. Common sense and rational thinking is the only way forward. Hopefully we will be able to abolish faith schools, religious instruction and the legal requirement for prayer during this generation. We've won this battle, lets win the war on irrationality!
Re: Rejoice!
[info]adullamite wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
Your open minded tolerance does you credit.
Wake up!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:30 pm (UTC)
Oh please, stop this infighting between this and that, that and this. A Muslim is earmarked to takeover Religious affairs on the BBC. Bloody sick, whether religious (even humanists, secularists etc owe their forefathers some credit), or not. Talk about the REAL issue, or let the Country rot. Maybe that's what some of you want? Not me. I'll fight this despicable destruction of our Nation. Wake up.
Humanism and Atheism
[info]keith1412 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:58 pm (UTC)
To state that there is no God implies a theological position. In order to state his or her disbelief, an atheist has to have an idea of God to disbelieve in. The only people who should not need to be given places on this Standing Committee are agnostics.
Re: Humanism and Atheism
[info]dwdp wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
I also have the "idea" or concept of Thor, Valhalla, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Horus, Set, Vishnu, Ao, Rangi, Papatuanuku and Allah in my brain, and I'm an atheist with regards to all of them.

So, by your logic, ONLY people who are agnostics with regards to the "idea" of God, Thor, Valhalla, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Horus, Set, Vishnu, Ao, Rangi, Papatuanuku and Allah should be given places on the committe. In other words, only people who are total fence-sitters with regards to all gods, religions and belief systems.

Or, maybe you are just full of it and a little confused.
Re: Humanism and Atheism
[info]jimboz wrote:
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 01:06 pm (UTC)
An agnostic has as much of a religeous position as an athieist or a believer. All the agnostice says is that there is no eveidence to support either contention.
Very confused article
[info]spointer wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 08:15 am (UTC)
The way the words humanist and secularist are used interchangably shows the author hasn't managed even to grasp the basics.

Very poor
Re: Very confused article
[info]sn_97 wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 10:13 am (UTC)
Some posts here suggest that this move is not good enough and only Atheists/Secualarists/Humanists should speak, and the presumption that if your outside these catergories then your contribution will obviously not be rational. That is a opinion that is increbibly non-sensical and somewhat offensive to all rational religous people out there. Such intolerance is unacceptable in this age!
Thought for the day. Humanism on youtube.
[info]maryfletcher wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Good news if humanism on thought for the day. Meanwhile I made a 5minute film -"Its Up To Us" humanism- will find it on youtube, in which Peter Blake of Cornwall humanists speaks. Its one of 3 films I made with willing members of our group. Mary Fletcher.
About time
[info]roxy641 wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
I am surprised it has taken this long.

It is about time that the BBC recognised that most people in the UK aren't religious, and
even those that do attend church do it only "a few times a year".

Roxy
Secular Thought for the Day
[info]secularthought wrote:
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
I've been fighting a small corner of the fight for inclusion of secular content in TftD over at this site: www.secularthought.org

A step in the right direction
[info]genesis915 wrote:
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 06:57 pm (UTC)
Good news. Does this mean that Mark Damazer's disgraceful stonewalling over secular input to "Thought for the Day" is likely to be reconsidered?
Outstanding news !
[info]fasharoomy wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 04:50 pm (UTC)
This is truly something to rejoice about. Every small victory for rationality is to be celebrated. But let's not rest on our laurels, the dangers posed by organized religion, complacency and appeasement cannot be underestimated. Let's keep up the good work as secularists.

Most popular