![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anti Though for the Day
Nov. 2nd, 2007 07:31 pmThought for the Day is appalling. The broadcasts are either a trite series of cliches glued together to form a clumsy moral message or an attempt to foist some extreme aspect of one bizarre group delusion or another onto Today's captive audience.
The BBC consistently refuse to allow contributions from non-religious speakers, arguing that they are unnecessary because the rest of the Today Programme is secular. However, this does not convince. The secularity of Today is not comparable with the religiosity of the God Slot because Today does attempt to impose any sort normative morality.
Further, any views expressed on Today are subject to scrutiny. Either they are drawn out as part of an adversarial interview or, if the views are expressed in a standalone piece, they will be followed by something which presents a counter view in an attempt to balance the discussion — even, as the case of MMR, where very little objective evidence can be found to support one of the parties. None of which apply to the supers in Religiose Corner, who are allowed speak ex cathedra.
Thus, it seems that the BBC's argument fails because the two things they are seeking to compare are insufficiently alike.
Maybe they should consider abolishing the slot entirely. Or, if they're not willing to do that, they should at least have the decency to allow non-religious ethicists, scientists and writers to contribute. That would at least have the effect of balancing the output. It would show that morality can be decoupled from a belief in the supernatural; that a universe devoid God can be just as, or perhaps more, exciting than one with a Primum Mobile; and that the artistic and literary creations of mere humans can be just as deep, just as important, as the supposed works of the Almighty.
The BBC consistently refuse to allow contributions from non-religious speakers, arguing that they are unnecessary because the rest of the Today Programme is secular. However, this does not convince. The secularity of Today is not comparable with the religiosity of the God Slot because Today does attempt to impose any sort normative morality.
Further, any views expressed on Today are subject to scrutiny. Either they are drawn out as part of an adversarial interview or, if the views are expressed in a standalone piece, they will be followed by something which presents a counter view in an attempt to balance the discussion — even, as the case of MMR, where very little objective evidence can be found to support one of the parties. None of which apply to the supers in Religiose Corner, who are allowed speak ex cathedra.
Thus, it seems that the BBC's argument fails because the two things they are seeking to compare are insufficiently alike.
Maybe they should consider abolishing the slot entirely. Or, if they're not willing to do that, they should at least have the decency to allow non-religious ethicists, scientists and writers to contribute. That would at least have the effect of balancing the output. It would show that morality can be decoupled from a belief in the supernatural; that a universe devoid God can be just as, or perhaps more, exciting than one with a Primum Mobile; and that the artistic and literary creations of mere humans can be just as deep, just as important, as the supposed works of the Almighty.
