Post by Teddy Bear on May 9, 2011 16:53:31 GMT
While most here are already aware that belief in the way the BBC conveys a particular story, especially when it relates to a known agenda of theirs, is akin to a belief not dissimilar to a religious version of events. I've no doubt that many of the British public, accept the BBC version of events as 'the truth', despite it having any real merit from what actually is happening.
The BBC has certainly done its best to devalue or dismiss 'the truths' upheld by other religions and replace it with their own, with the exception of Islam - and only there because they're shit scared to take them on. So it's ironic that a court, basing it's decision on another matter, should determine that belief in the BBC has no greater or lesser merit than belief in any other religion or faith.
Besides the actual case involved in this decision, I have to wonder what will be the longer term impact of this ruling.
Ed West at The Telegraph covers the story.
The BBC has certainly done its best to devalue or dismiss 'the truths' upheld by other religions and replace it with their own, with the exception of Islam - and only there because they're shit scared to take them on. So it's ironic that a court, basing it's decision on another matter, should determine that belief in the BBC has no greater or lesser merit than belief in any other religion or faith.
Besides the actual case involved in this decision, I have to wonder what will be the longer term impact of this ruling.
Ed West at The Telegraph covers the story.
Can state-worship now be classified as a religion? It's certainly faith-based
By Ed West Politics Last updated: May 9th, 2011
Is belief in the BBC a form of religion? While the most obvious answer might be, “no, don’t be stupid, I’m telling John Rentoul”, stranger things have happened. For it now transpires that a belief in “public service broadcasting” can now be protected by religious discrimination laws. As this paper reports:
At first glance it seems like a slightly extreme case of social justice mission creep; the logical conclusion of anti-discrimination laws that have gone beyond correcting blatant injustices. If the state is going to outlaw discrimination based on race, then why not on religion, which for many people is an inherited anchor of identity as important as their ethnicity? And if you’re going to protect the major religions, why not protect the minor ones too, and why not those belief systems which are in that grey area between religion and health fad. And in that case why not make it illegal to discriminate against any belief, even political? If you cannot discriminate against people based on their behaviour, why not?
On the other hand there’s an argument to be made that modern egalitarian liberalism exhibits many of the characteristics of religion. Wikipedia defines religion as:
This last sentence is certainly applicable. Anti-discrimination laws, beyond very basic rules to cover outrageous racial preferences, are a reflection of a belief system; one that holds that men are essentially perfectible creatures and that the state can end all injustice and inequality through positive action. Before the cultural revolution most people believed that prejudice, discrimination and unfairness were essentially part of the human condition, and that government could only do so much; justice would come in the next life. Now many (most?) people genuinely believe that such unfairness can be ended, with politics taking on many of the church’s old functions.
Curiously the BBC’s lawyer told this paper that, “A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations but it would be absurd for that to be the case.” Indeed Nigel Lawson once remarked that the NHS was “the closest thing the English have to a religion”, and those who have dared to criticise this institution are met with a wholly irrational and fervent hostility.
A few Sundays back we had two people knocking on our front door in quick succession. The first sweet-looking middle-aged woman handed me a leaflet promising “all suffering soon to end”, which showed some happy-looking people in a bounteous field next to some pumpkins and a moose (for some reason); the second sweet-looking middle-aged woman handed me a Labour Party leaflet and promised to restore social justice and end child poverty.
GK Chesterton’s famously overused, attributed quote about post-religious societies believing anything is usually applied to things such as homeopathy and astrology. But I suspect a far greater number of people place an irrational faith in the power of the state.
By Ed West Politics Last updated: May 9th, 2011
Is belief in the BBC a form of religion? While the most obvious answer might be, “no, don’t be stupid, I’m telling John Rentoul”, stranger things have happened. For it now transpires that a belief in “public service broadcasting” can now be protected by religious discrimination laws. As this paper reports:
A former BBC employee who strongly believes in the ethos of public service broadcasting will be allowed to bring a discrimination case against the corporation under laws designed to protect religious faiths, a tribunal has ruled.
The decision effectively puts the broadcaster’s core principle on a par with Christianity.
A Birmingham tribunal has given Devan Maistry permission to sue the corporation for wrongful dismissal on the grounds of discrimination.
Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, claims he suffered from discrimination for six years and has filed a claim for “religious or belief discrimination”.
He alleges that his belief that “public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion” led to him being treated unfairly, although the exact details of his alleged mistreatment are unclear.
Laws governing employment equality for religion or belief were passed in 2003.
At first glance it seems like a slightly extreme case of social justice mission creep; the logical conclusion of anti-discrimination laws that have gone beyond correcting blatant injustices. If the state is going to outlaw discrimination based on race, then why not on religion, which for many people is an inherited anchor of identity as important as their ethnicity? And if you’re going to protect the major religions, why not protect the minor ones too, and why not those belief systems which are in that grey area between religion and health fad. And in that case why not make it illegal to discriminate against any belief, even political? If you cannot discriminate against people based on their behaviour, why not?
On the other hand there’s an argument to be made that modern egalitarian liberalism exhibits many of the characteristics of religion. Wikipedia defines religion as:
Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
This last sentence is certainly applicable. Anti-discrimination laws, beyond very basic rules to cover outrageous racial preferences, are a reflection of a belief system; one that holds that men are essentially perfectible creatures and that the state can end all injustice and inequality through positive action. Before the cultural revolution most people believed that prejudice, discrimination and unfairness were essentially part of the human condition, and that government could only do so much; justice would come in the next life. Now many (most?) people genuinely believe that such unfairness can be ended, with politics taking on many of the church’s old functions.
Curiously the BBC’s lawyer told this paper that, “A belief that the aim of the NHS should first and foremost be to look after the health and welfare of its patients could, if the claimant were correct, amount to belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations but it would be absurd for that to be the case.” Indeed Nigel Lawson once remarked that the NHS was “the closest thing the English have to a religion”, and those who have dared to criticise this institution are met with a wholly irrational and fervent hostility.
A few Sundays back we had two people knocking on our front door in quick succession. The first sweet-looking middle-aged woman handed me a leaflet promising “all suffering soon to end”, which showed some happy-looking people in a bounteous field next to some pumpkins and a moose (for some reason); the second sweet-looking middle-aged woman handed me a Labour Party leaflet and promised to restore social justice and end child poverty.
GK Chesterton’s famously overused, attributed quote about post-religious societies believing anything is usually applied to things such as homeopathy and astrology. But I suspect a far greater number of people place an irrational faith in the power of the state.
