The BBC - yet more sucking up to incomers: prepare for the wail of the Muezzin on TV, infidels!

There was an article in today's Daily Telegraph, entitled "BBC is 'too Christian' and 'could broadcast Muslim prayers' to reflect growing multi-culturalism". I wonder if the corporation is also considering broadcasting non-judgmental programmes about honour killing, female genital mutilation, the joys of Jihad, the need to execute homosexuals and the case for stoning adulterous women? After all, shouldn't we reflect the cherished cultural practices of all the members of our immigrant communities, not just those propounded by the cuddly, "safe", smiley-face front men (not that they're particularly smiley, come to think of it)? Enough of this half-hearted, Laodicean attitude towards inclusivity - let's go the whole hog (or shouldn't we mention pigs, because, after all, they're haram?) I mean, we wouldn't want to, you know, offend anybody, would we?  Here's the start of the Telegraph article:

A report by Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, has suggested Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faiths should get more airtime.

One Muslim leader suggested the review could lead to Friday prayers from a mosque being broadcast in the same way that Christian church services currently feature in the BBC’s schedules.

The report is now being considered by Lord Hall, the director general, who could make changes to make religious output less “disproportionate”, the Sunday Times (£) reported.

Mr Ahmed told a Commons meeting on religious literacy he had written a report for Lord Hall that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were under-served.

Mr Ahmed said in a statement: “Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths.

Gee, thanks Aaqil! Mighty big of you!

Despite their relatively low numbers, Jews and their religion have added immeasurably more to our shared culture than all the Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus put together, but Mr. Ahmed doesn't seem to be as exercised about Judaism as he is by the other faiths - perhaps he thinks it sort of "comes with" Christianity, what with the Old Testament and Christ having been a Jew. He also makes no mention of the followers of the Klingon religion, or, indeed, Satanists or Wiccans (or should that be Wiccanists?) Aren't they "underserved" as well?

I'm not sure there's really any point in commenting on the BBC's latest move to untether indigenous Britons from their traditional uniculture - but, nevertheless, I can't resist. John Whittingdale last week encouraged the BBC to enter full "cultural cringe" mode, so why wouldn't they take advantage of the governmental green light to boot silly old Christianity off its undeserved pedestal. About time it paid for the Crusades. Besides, who do these bishops think they are, acting as if their views on morality matter a toss, when everybody knows it's the enlightened, secular, left-liberal cultural elite of this country which decides these matters, not old blokes in frocks (unless, of course, they happen to be Grayson Perry or Eddie Izzard)?

Granted, the majority of Britons aren't Christians in any meaningful sense - the liberal elites, including the wets who run the Anglican Church, have made sure of that. But the culture of this country is at the very least underpinned by Christianity: shot through with the language of the Bible, informed by Christian morality (whether ignored or otherwise), visually informed in myriad ways by Christian symbols, and imbued with the sound of Christian music - hymns, anthems, Christmas carols: the unofficial national anthem of England is "Jerusalem", and the British national anthem mentions God (rather than, say, Allah) rather a lot. Great state occasions tend to require the presence of bishops and often take place in St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey.

It strikes me the British have been jolly nice about letting every newbie practice their religion without let or hindrance - even to the extent, it seems, of the authorities turning a blind eye to some truly disgusting third world attitudes and practices. But I see absolutely no reason why our national broadcasting corporation should go out of its way to encourage or advertise religions that have absolutely nothing to do with the culture or customs of this country. Especially as many adherents of one of those religions have made it quite clear that they despise this country and its traditional way of life, and would like to impose an alien religion - and an alien legal system - on indigenous Britons, and are currently slaughtering Christians in the Middle East (with apparent impunity) and would murder every Israeli Jew if they got the chance.

It couldn't be - could it? - that the BBC in general, and Aaquil Ahmed in particular,  have allowed their contempt for the established religion of this country (I keep hearing ignoramuses claim that there's a separation of state and religion in Britain - there isn't: they're mixing us up with America) to sway its judgment. They're normally such staunch defenders of the British people and their traditions! And why don't they ask their license-fee payers - that would be all of us - whether we actually think multiculturalism is really such a great idea and whether we want it to "grow" or not? Well, they won't obviously, because they know the answer they'd get. Britons are the most tolerant people I've ever met: state-enforced multiculturalism is the enemy of tolerance.

Personally, I think Prince Charles has a lot to answer for, what with all that bloody nonsense about wanting to be dubbed "Defender of Faiths" rather than "Defender of Faith". That didn't go down well. Anglicanism is the established religion of Britain, and, while Charles can be as nice as he likes to the followers of other religions, Anglicanism is the faith the Monarch is duty bound to defend. And it would be nice if the BBC could lend a helping hand - for a change.