Why does the BBC actually need a Head of Religion? If it’s one figure, and given that there are umpteen religions (and goodness knows how many sectarian divisions within ‘em), then that figure is potentially going to be vilified by all those whose religion or sect he or she doesn’t share. Christian Voice and Christian Concern for Our Nation may maintain that the nation (which one?..check out sectarianism in N.I., or the West of Scotland to rubbish their notion of one faith and one nation unity) is Christian, but I’ll wager most of the nominally Christian majority don’t share their particular articles of faith, and were the Head to be Christian but a soft liberal syncretist Anglican type, they’d be gunning for him or her.
The role is both kinda redundant (just commission religious programmes in with all other non-drama output) and a poisoned chalice..

If the BBC was a properly secular organisation we wouldn’t have this problem.

I say give the job to Ken Barlow.

I agree with the two previous comments. Let the various religions peddle their myths on their own radio stations and leave the BBC to cover factual and entertainment matters.

My last comment might sound a little harsh and perhaps a bit too quick to get to the point but I’m suffering from ‘Man Flu’!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I agree with previous comments about the BBC having too much religion anyway – but since the department exists we should stand by the principle that it doesn’t necessarily need to be headed by a Christian.

The next campaign should be to put pressure on the Beeb to open up ‘Thought for the Day’ to atheist speakers….

Why does the BBC need a head of religion? Well, I guess because there are significant numbers of people in this country who still believe and want to watch Christian programming. Whether you guys like it or not is somewhat irrelevant – in a democratic liberal society we should be representing a broad range of views, opinions and lifestyles. Otherwise, banning religion is as extreme as the people who want to thrust religion down our throats.

The next campaign should be to put pressure on the Beeb to open up ‘Thought for the Day’ to atheist speakers….

This, I agree with wholeheartedly.

Sunny says: ‘Firstly it’s classic identity (religious) politics.’

The (unintended) consequences of multiculturalism. Disparate groups fighting for positions of power. Christians whinge about muslims getting jobs. Muslims moan about sikhs getting jobs. They all moan about christians in the lords. Faith schools. etc. etc. They moan just as loud, if not louder, in the US and France. Only in those countries religion and state are constitutionally separated.

@ Sunny (6)

in a democratic liberal society we should be representing a broad range of views, opinions and lifestyles

Agreed, but why give religion a whole department to itself? Can it not just sit in with the rest of non-drama (I was going to say put in with factual programming, but that’s too much of a stretch…). that was my main point, but also, if there has to be dept of religion, why have one head, as one person is just going to end up as the hate figure of whichever ‘out-there’ sects and religions feel he or she is not pushing their agenda.

Yea,

Can’t we have a Father Christmas department too?

And what about pixies, a department for them as well.

The problem is that the reactionary right-wing religious groups are the ones who shout loudest. If you look at the stats for the C of E (for one example), the majority of attendees may be evangelical these days, but they are not ‘conservative’ by any stretch. The Holy Trinity Brompton/Bishop of Willensden/Bishop of Liverpool/Bishop of Durham sort of grouping is not very vocal on ‘defending’ anything in the media as they do not see the UK as a ‘Christian Nation’ (in the mythological revisionist way that the crazies like Christian Voice do), and they just don’t see the conspiracies that those groups see behind every advancement of multiculturalism.

The danger is that the opposite of a Religion department (which is probably needed as the type of broadcasting has to be so representative, adaptive and specialised) is to create a sort of secularist oppression which is just as bad as a religious one.

The BBC has a large Children’s Department but it’s not headed up by a kid.

Also, it’s viewers are expected to grow up eventually.

Unless I am mistaken the BBC has had a non-Christian head of religious programming before in Alan Bookbinder, who was a cultural, if not orthodox, Jew.

Yup Paul – though he called himself agnostic.

shatterface: Agreed, but why give religion a whole department to itself?

It sounds grander than it is. The BBC has been shedding producers at the religion dept and cut programming, (as have other channels).

shame, as I actually like engaging religious programming. In the Mind of a Suicide Bomber was really good.

councilhouseTory – The (unintended) consequences of multiculturalism.

Well, perhaps in the way that in the past these lobby groups what they wanted. Now, with the onset of people with different backgrounds, they have to use disguised xenophobic arguments to maintain their privilege.

Not sure how ‘multiculturalism’ exacerbates – the point is about who gets a job. It would similarly apply if a non-white person went for a senior job and the Daily Mail and Telegraph ran pieces saying he / she only got it thanks to diversity policies (classic character assassination).

The Libertarian Right’s greatest idea yet: Ken Barlow for PM!

Ken for PM, Clarkson for Transport Secretary, Jade Goody for Culture Secretary, Peggy Mitchell for Local Government Secretary, Alfie for Children, Families and Schools Secretary, Alan Sugar for Chancellor, and Max Clifford for Senior Press Officer.

It’s the dream team!

Excellent work here, a very good job of pointing out the holes in the right-wingers bile. Also the Tories true colours come out

Sunny,

Dunno.

In the somewhat restricted circles I move in no-one is overtly religious.

(OK, in the interests of full disclosure, I have a cousin who brought disgrace on the family by becoming a minister)

It seemed to me, once upon a time, that you were the great leveller, someone who saw religious affiliation as just another way up the ladder to power or influence or both? So, rather than argung pro a Muslim, say, being given that position, shouldn’t we really be arguing that no-one should? It is rather like the arguement about the Lords Spiritual: some of us – me, at least – wish to see them abolished, others wish to see them encompass other faiths.

“The (unintended) consequences of multiculturalism. Disparate groups fighting for positions of power”

As opposed to the consequences of monoculturalism where the dominant group gets the positions of power and usually uses them to oppress the smaller groups.

Alisdair Cameron and various at several:

Why does the BBC make Top Gear? Or televise Parliament? Or give the quite remarkable quantity of airtime, when you include all channels and radio, that it gives to an English football league which 7 weeks out of 10 produces nothing of interest except to the certified fan?

The answer is that regardless of whether we personally fit into the demographic that likes that programming, the channel administrators have identified a significant quantity of their viewers who do, and they’re catering to that. Seems fair to me. I stopped watching Songs of Praise years ago (except when Harry Seacombe was on): but several years after I stopped being a Christian.

Now, for me the more significant question is this: do you really want to see the BBC ignore one of the most significant political realities of the modern day? Religious agendas, religious communities, and the impact of the actively religious on secular life are extremely important. The significance of a good understanding of religious history and current affairs to be able to interpret, for example, education data from the UK is clear. The significance of a clear understanding of the myths and teachings of global religion to any kind of strategy for teaching our kids not to believe stupid things about each other is equally clear. I would say that the duty of the BBC to be good at that is just as easy to spot: the other channels are all in the enviable situation of having no duties at all except increasing shareholder value. Only with the BBC can one make an argument of duty about programming.

It’s not just relevant to the news/politics side of the issue, either. When a writer for a cop show wants to put a Catholic priest in an episode being a dick, someone needs to check if the writer has correctly understood Catholic dogma, or the point is not well made. If they want to portray indigenous religion in modern Goa or in medieval London, they need someone in the system who really knows, to make sure they get it right.

The BBC needs to have experts in this field: considerably more than they need football pundits or dance instructors. Those things are how you get eyes on your air, but they’re not the reason you want the eyes in the first place. Understanding politics and economics, being able to develop an acceptable and nuanced narrative in the portrayal of faith, race, gender and class; these things are what the BBC should be best at. To decide that religious expertise is unnecessary just because a lot of liberals happen to be secularists reflects an insufficient analysis.

@ John Q., I’m not saying the Beeb shouldn’t broadcast such shows, by any means, nor that they should employ people expert in the field (or they could start to…), simply that (using your Top gear example) they don’t have a dedicated motoring dept, and actually they don’t have a dedicated politics or economics department so why one for religion, especially given the relatively low number of hours broadcast on the subject.
My secondary point was that is there is to be such a dept, then having a single individual heading it up makes that person a target for heated attacks that often come with the (religious) territory. Better to have a committee etc.
That was pretty clear in my original and subsequent posts and doesn’t show insufficient analysis: I fully recognise that religion is a topic that merits programming, but I don’t accept your apparent view that it warrants a whole dept.

Keep your hair on – the role is head of ‘Religion and Ethics’ – not of religion alone. So everyone who said they don’t support a department for just religion – should have left their obesessive religion-bashing at the door.

Doesn’t anyone check their facts before wading in? Just shows what an irrational hair-trigger nerve some folks have to the word religion.

Alisdair Cameron @20:

they don’t have a dedicated motoring dept, and actually they don’t have a dedicated politics or economics department so why one for religion, especially given the relatively low number of hours broadcast on the subject.

I actually didn’t know that. I’d kind of assumed that their departments were along the lines of news, politics, sports, entertainment, religion, etc. I have a BBC bod who’s a regular at the pub: I shall have to ask him about that.

Top Gear is presumeably ‘sport’?

My secondary point was that is there is to be such a dept, then having a single individual heading it up makes that person a target for heated attacks that often come with the (religious) territory. Better to have a committee etc.

Ime it is almost never better to have a committee in such a contentious area, when you actually have to get something done. If all you need to do is talk, committees are perfect.

I fully recognise that religion is a topic that merits programming, but I don’t accept your apparent view that it warrants a whole dept.

My mistake, and I apologise. The tone of the thread, which contextualised your post, seemed to me not to be about an org-chart critique of BBC bureaucracy but instead to be querying why the BBC has religious programming at all. I shouldn’t have necessarily assumed that you were saying the same.

Fair enough, John Q!