BBC is anti-Christian says ex-host
We all know it, but it’s still refreshing to hear someone say it; this time Don McLean. I remember him from Crackerjack longer ago than I care to recall. Apparently he hosted Good Morning Sunday on Radio 2 for 16 years.
He said: “you don’t see any programmes on Anglicanism that don’t talk about homosexual clergy and you don’t see anything on Roman Catholicism that doesn’t talk about paedophiles.
“They seem to take the negative angle every time. They don’t do that if they’re doing programmes on Islam. Programmes on Islam are always supportive.”
He added: “I think there’s a secularist movement in this country to get rid of Christianity. Something must be done.”
The BBC’s new Head of Religious Programming, Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim, has been accused of producing programmes “that have tended to look at the fringes of Christianity where it can be brought into disrepute”.
*In January BBC presenter Jeremy Vine said he believed that Christ is who he said he was, but doesn’t think he would be allowed to say so on air.
*In October last year, the conductor of the BBC Philharmonic orchestra spoke of an ‘ignorant’ secular liberal minority in the media seeking to drive religion from the public sphere. He urged religious people to resist “increasingly aggressive attempts to still their voices”.
*The previous month the Christian best-selling author G P Taylor told how he was blacklisted by the BBC. He said a producer had told him the broadcaster could not be “seen to be promoting Jesus”.
*Last year the corporation’s Director General stated publicly that Christianity should be treated with less sensitivity than other religions.
Like politicians, the BBC have shown themselves to be anti-Christian and anti-British, preferring to betray us.
Sadly, “atheist/humanists” think they are being anti-establishment when they attack Christianity, when what is happening is that they are weakening the nation through infiltrating and devaluing our institutions, diluting our culture and waging war on our Christian-based moral standards. The result is that, rather than being anti-establishment, they are turning the UK to rubbish so that we become easier prey for global institutions to gobble us up into a worldwide system of government via the EU, UN and others.
These people are anti-anti-establishment, but they aren’t smart enough to realise, being blinded by their hatred of ‘religion’.
Hopefully I don’t need to spell out the horrors that this will undoubtedly lead to if allowed to continue.
Stewart,
I almost agree with you on a philosphical matter. It’s OK. Don’t call the paremedics on me. I had to turn them away last time someone called them on me and then the cops showed up wanting to know why I’d turned the paramedics away. Very menacing they were too. Needed the paramdics after that, just a whiff of laughing gas to mellow me out you understand.
I’m beginning to suspect that societies need a unifying ethos. All right. Sane people have known this for thousands of years – I’m very slow. But sometimes the penny drops, even with me. Even if there are peripheral characters who are refuseniks, like me, a society needs a predominant ethos. Yes. Tolerate diversity, but not at any price. The Americans still have an ethos. Other countries still have one. We don’t any longer, and now it’s costing us all.
Hello Jim,
If I can act as a catalyst for helping the penny drop in folks’ brains then I will be a happy hombre.
When you say “I almost agree with you on a philosphical matter,” I am wondering about the ‘almost’.
The diversity thing has been used against us in a divide and rule role, but you probably worked that out as well.
A society needs boundaries in terms of behaviour that all must honour. It’s like a football match. If two teams are playing by different rules then disagreements are guaranteed and fighting is likely.
Even if the teams play by almost identical rules – say one team follows the offside rule and the other doesn’t – there will still be trouble.
It’s like, for instance, what sexual behaviour a society deems acceptable. New ‘rules’ have been forced on us over the past forty years and many object, so we are not all playing by the same rules and thus society becomes fractured which leads to the ‘authorities’ making unwelcome intrusions into our lives.
Anyway, keep taking the laughing gas; it seems to be doing you good. It should be on the NHS.
Stewart,
My nature is to tolerate all things that cause others no harm. I have come to believe though that such an attitude ignores damage done to the coherence of a society in the name of pursuit of individual liberty. We can end up all in favour of individual liberty in all its forms and without a society. It happened to the Romans. It is happening to us. But it isn’t happening to the Chinese, to name but one country that it isn’t happening to.
I happen to be an atheist. That is, er, my cross to bear. It always will be. I’m in my fifties and I’m not going to change now. But I fear an atheistic society.
Jim,
The tragedy is that many people see our traditional values as contrary to their liberty rather than protecting it, just because they want to go off and do X,Y or Z. These people would find it impossible under a Chinese-style regime. They’d be hoping the Christians would rise up to set them free from Communist tyranny.
How much of an atheist are you? As I pointed out a couple of posts ago, Richard Dawkins claims to be a 6.8 or 6.9 out of 7.
You’re never old enough to change. You’re not a dog; you can learn new tricks.
“But I fear an atheistic society.”
So do I. When we allow governments to make laws based on man’s desires rather than God’s will, they can invent whatever they want that benefits them; not us.
How much of an atheist? Enough to be convinced that no supernatural being takes a special interest in humans but not enough to believe that there are no levels of awareness beyond ours. To paraphrase Woddy Allen, I believe there is an intelligence to the universe with the exception of the current denizens of the Treasury Bench. I’d say I’m with Spinoza but I’m not clever enough to understand him so I don’t know if I really am or not (unlike Descartes eh? Ha!). I may be a Sikh who simply doesn’t know it yet.
I would agree with you, perhaps, on one thing: when our lives become dominated by assertion of individual ‘rights’ and the pursuit of personal desires they become diminished, contentment eludes us, and society is weakened. I see that as merely a fact, part of the cycle of history – thesis, antithesis, synthesis, chaos. We’re in the chaotic stage now. Oh, but as we age those of us with little imagination (and I mean me, I don’t know about you) start shouting at kids to get off our lawns and think we remember a time when people had more respect. I may just be entering scunnerhood. I’ve always wanted to be a curmudgeon and now I have the obvious seniority to carry it off.
I may be guilty of fatalism, criminal negligence, or worse, as I propose and would support no political programme to stop people getting what they think they want. Che Guevara Guevara as Doris Day didn’t sing.