source:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/lindy-mcdowell/atheists-havenrsquot-a-prayer-when-it-comes-to-spot-on-radio-4rsquos-god-slot-16209991.html#ixzz26OOqiX9H
Should atheists get a God slot? Not according to the BBC's head of religion who has been considering calls from the National Secular Society to be allowed to take part in Thought for the Day (affectionately known as the God Slot) during Radio 4's Today programme.
The secularists argue that not being allowed to contribute goes against the claims of balance, fairness and a voice for everyone that the BBC purports to uphold.
However, the head of religion (great title) says the slot was obviously always intended to provide a religious perspective.
In a way, though, this surely makes the argument of the atheists all the more potent since in some disbelieving quarters anyway, atheism is a new religion.
As a total non-believer myself it always intrigues me how close to organised religion some of the secularist persuasion seem to want to become.
What they dress up as a challenge to religion is a mirror image of the worst sort of religious extremism.
"You WILL believe what I believe (or don't believe.)"
My view of religion is that while it's not for me, if it helps others in their daily life (and I know that |belief in their God has brought enormous comfort to very many people), that can only be a good thing.
Respecting other people's religion — other people's many and diverse religions — does not have to interfere with my view of the universe.
Listening to the Rev this or Father that or Rabbi this or Imam that discussing their views in a God slot isn't going to convert me.
(And, before that person who occasionally inundates me with the annual output of a religious tract publisher swings into action again, please take my word for this. You're just wasting your stamps.)
But would opening the God slot to the ungodly provide some sort of balance? I can see some logic in the call. But it's not as though atheists are elsewhere denied an opportunity to expound their views. A five minute (or less) spot aimed at the religious, being |confined to religious contributors, doesn't strike me as being in any way unfair.
What is depressing though is that "secularism" like "liberalism" seems to have become infected with the same sort of closed-mind fundamentalism that drives the more extremist religious nuts.
Atheism these days is all too often about preaching. It's about demanding we all sing from the same hymn sheet.
It's a deity short of being the very thing it purports to despise.
Most people, whether we believe or not, are happy enough to let the other man or woman get on with their lives — having faith (or none) in what they will.
The old fashioned word for this was tolerance. But tolerance has been supplanted by the strident demand for "equal" rights in just about every situation — even when that extends to the farcical lengths of giving the non-believer a turn in the pulpit.
Personally, instead of atheism I think I'm embracing Meldrewism.
This doesn't require equal access to sermonising nor is it about rubbishing someone else's faith.
Where religion is concerned it's got one simple, straightforward, non-preachy message.
I just don't belieeeeeve it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment