BBC Television's Support For Atheists and Atheism Must Be Challenged

Was the BBC Ever Intended To Be A 'Mouthpiece' of Atheism?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!



John Charles Walsham Reith, 1st Baron Reith (1889-1971) was a Scottish broadcasting executive who established the tradition of independent public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom. In 1922 he was employed by the BBC (British Broadcasting Company Ltd.) as its General Manager; in 1923 he became its Managing Director and in 1927 he was employed as the first-ever Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation, this was created under a Royal Charter. His concept of broadcasting as a way of educating the masses marked for a long time the BBC and similar organizations around the world. Lord Reith founded an institution strongly based upon Christian principles.

I t is little short of astonishing how many prominent atheists have been given encouragement and support by the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) during the last half-century or so, but especially during the last 10-15 years. This criticism mainly applies to BBC television, rather less so to BBC radio. Many of these individuals are freely given their own television series, whereas theists, committed Christians, and especially climate change 'deniers,' are always downgraded by the BBC (climate change deniers are dropped even where they had been 'major players.' A good example here is the formerly hugely popular television personality David Bellamy who had continually featured in BBC TV programming on science, but especially on botanical and ecology issues; Bellamy was quickly dropped by the corporation upon his well-publicised challenge to so-called 'climate change').

Atheists who have been outrageously promoted by BBC television include the truly awful atheistic propagandists Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins, but extend to Sir David Attenborough, one of the major controllers of the BBC. Without doubt Attenborough is popular yet - make no mistake - his approach is clearly atheistic (though he is on record in denying this). In fact, some believe that it is the huge influence of Attenborough at the BBC which has restricted Christianity, and even Theism, to the very margins of any serious consideration in TV programming. Sir David, according to the Daily Telegraph, tops a league table of academic honours-receivers, having received at least 29 honorary degrees from British universities, more than any other person. This is according to a table of Britain's most honoured compiled by The Sunday Telegraph. Let us make it plain, in case some misunderstand, that honorary degrees are awarded without study. Attenborough, the tireless promoter of both Darwinism and the equally mythical 'human population explosion' theory, holds, we are reliably informed, a single zoology degree from Cambridge.

It is noticeable that in most any BBC documentary-type programme, whether on history or science, atheism is simply assumed to be the untarnished truth whereas the central tenets of Christianity are assumed to be "purely mythical." Science is not to be challenged even when the principles thereof are frequently expounded in a manner which is plainly 80% speculation.

Here are some more examples of atheists regularly promoted by this broadcasting body:

That is not the total of it. I can think of at least another 25 or so top BBC television personalities whom - I believe - are atheists but I can find no confessions of such by them so I do not name them. These include several among the regiment of sometimes completely shameless "alternative comedians" endlessly promoted by BBC television, and several high-profile homosexual and lesbian presenters (please note: that statement does not contain any criticism of sexuality).

Yet - is it not incredible - that this broadcasting body has so strongly promoted atheists and the view of atheism over so many years? It still remains the case that most opinion polls show that something approaching 70% of Britons are at least loosely in support of Christianity. Rather than being an elitist, leftist and atheistic body, the BBC should more fully represent the views of the British people who pay for its continued existence through the licence fee.

Another interesting point here is how things have changed at the BBC. If one could go back to the 1950s it is very unlikely that a single atheist would be discovered among British television's leading personalities and pundits, then, perhaps by the early 70s, a few would indeed be found but not many. Now, in the year of 2010, atheists are probably very close to being in the majority of BBC personalities. What does this tell us? It illustrates how the BBC has mirrored changes in British society and it is not good news. The proliferation of social liberals - many of them atheists - into almost every area of our life has coincided with the amazing drop in moral standards and in the moral fibre of the British people. Why should we be shocked at the level of crime among our young, a level which has turned London into the stabbings capital of the western world! Why should we be shocked at the dreadful level of abortions, or of divorce? Instead of being taught the rudiments of the Christian Faith from an early age, our children are now only being taught the rudiments of godless Darwinism with it's utterly hopeless message that 'the survival of the fittest' is all that matters in life. The appalling decline in standards of the BBC simply mirrors those things - at least to a degree.

However, while the BBC could be said to be mirroring a depressing decline in British moral standards, the decline among ordinary Britons is not quite as dramatic as the BBC example might lead one to believe. As already stated, it remains the case that a majority of the British continue to identify with Christianity whereas a majority at the BBC seem to identify with atheism. The BBC more closely mirrors that wooly, insipid, anti-supernaturalist, leftist liberalism that has grown among the British intelligentsia. This woeful philosophy, wrapped up in a spirit of watery appeasement, only believes in standing up for anything which is suitably immoral (such liberals don't believe in morality) or vulgar (liberals always seem to have a great love of vulgarity), or offensive (especially where people of high moral character can be belittled or upset - how they love that!) Of course, this all came out of the 1960's British universities which, as though obeying some perverse demonic voice, suddenly developed a love affair for Nietzsche and Marx, the former clearly insane, the latter a philosopher of evil, if ever there was one. Generously sprinkled with the absurdities of the Frankfurt School, this eventually led to modern British liberalism. This brand pretends to care even while it seeks to destroy. This is the sort of pathetic liberalism that has led to the curse of political-correctness and to the idiocy of threatening to fire nurses who offer to pray for very sick patients and threatening to fire air hostesses who wear crosses around their necks (in case it offends people who are not Christian). The BBC now appear to be led by people who don't really believe in anything (excepting leftist Darwinistic liberalism and in a determination to hold onto their own jobs, come what may!) Very strangely, only Islam is afforded respect as a religion, as the BBC (like the British government) continue to hold on to the notion that most Islamics are very good and kind people who should be separated from the "Islamic fundamentalists." They think this way because they simply don't understand the teachings of the major religions. Neither does anybody gainfully employed by the BBC seem to understand philosophy. Arch-atheist Richard Dawkins, continually promoted by both the BBC and Channel 4, understands neither religion nor philosophy. Like a child who is an undisciplined spoiled brat, he rants against something which is obviously beyond his grasp, not realising (for instance) that his rants only demonstrate his own adherence to a particularly uncompromising religious faith, that of Darwinism.

But, the question could be asked, why does the spread of atheism even matter? It matters because many of us believe that the acceptance of atheism immediately impairs one's discretion, wisdom and judgment in many areas of life. Let us offer just one brief example:

If you were accused of a serious crime which you did not commit, would you prefer to be in the hands of a God-believing judge who believed that we will all be judged someday in the superior court of heaven? Or, would you prefer to be in the hands of a committed atheistic Darwinist, one who has no firm foundation for a sense of morality and who believed that everything on this earth is an accident with the 'survival of the fittest' all that really matters?? I know which sort of judge I would prefer: I would prefer the Theist who believed that there is a God in Heaven who will hold him accountable for getting my judgment wrong.

Robin A. Brace, August, 2010.


UK APOLOGETICS