The BBC and Islam: sensitivity or sycophancy?

[brodski]

just to add,
I have just watched through the BBC archive of reports into the danish cartoons and the aftermath.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/in_depth/world/2006/prophet_cartoon_row/bb_rm_default.stm )

lots of mentions of Mohamed, no reporters saying "peace be upon him".

 

[brodski]

I think if the material on the particular page that uses the phrase is intended for a Muslim audience, then fair enough.

I will be interested to see if this does creep into everyday usage though (one slippery slope fallacy coming right up, you want fries with that?), cause then it will be very wrong.

The BBC religion pages are basically about each religion presenting themselves to the world, so it's their story so (IMHO) they get to set out how their religious figures are referred to. I have need no evidence of PBUH being used by BBC reporters, and I very much doubt that it will be.

 

[Darat]

I think if the material on the particular page that uses the phrase is intended for a Muslim audience, then fair enough.

I will be interested to see if this does creep into everyday usage though (one slippery slope fallacy coming right up, you want fries with that?), cause then it will be very wrong.

Thinking it through I don't think it would necessarily be wrong, after all the BBC and the rest of Society often uses religious groups made-up titles and phrases.

 

[tkingdoll]

Thinking it through I don't think it would necessarily be wrong, after all the BBC and the rest of Society often uses religious groups made-up titles and phrases.

I would agree if I thought for one second that a blessing after a name would a) be appied equally to all religious figureheads and b) would be carried out by the BBC for the right reasons (e.g. factual accuracy in news reporting) and not to appease certain groups (or even out of fear).

My opinion is that to bless a name is to acknowledge your belief in the entity or person concerned, and I don't think it's the BBC's place to do that unless it's something written by a believer, for believers.

But, as mentioned, they haven't done it yet so I'll worry about it in a few years

 

[Darat]

I would agree if I thought for one second that a blessing after a name would a) be appied equally to all religious figureheads and b) would be carried out by the BBC for the right reasons (e.g. factual accuracy in news reporting) and not to appease certain groups (or even out of fear).

My opinion is that to bless a name is to acknowledge your belief in the entity or person concerned, and I don't think it's the BBC's place to do that unless it's something written by a believer, for believers.

But, as mentioned, they haven't done it yet so I'll worry about it in a few years

Do you object then when they refer to the vicar as "Reverend such a body" or refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" - to me they seem the same type of thing e.g."official" recognition of a cult's made up stuff.

 

[tkingdoll]

Do you object then when they refer to the vicar as "Reverend such a body" or refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" - to me they seem the same type of thing e.g."official" recognition of a cult's made up stuff.

Reverend is the job title too though isn't it?

Do they say 'his holiness?'. I don't watch TV and don't recall that from when I did or from their website but I've never been looking it for it. I think there's a difference between an official title and invoking a blessing after the name of a deity. After all, there is no debate about the existence of the Pope, or Her Majesty the Queen, for example.

 

[brodski]

Reverend is the job title too though isn't it? .

Not quite, its an honorific related to a job, similar to referring to judge as "your Honor". The same with "his Holiness".

Do they say 'his holiness?'. I don't watch TV and don't recall that from when I did or from their website but I've never been looking it for it.

I seem to recall that they sometimes do, other news outlets certainly do, however I think this is still in the same camp as "Reverend"

I think there's a difference between an official title and invoking a blessing after the name of a deity.

I agree, although the pedant in me wants me to point out that Muslims don't regard Muhammad as a deity as such.

After all, there is no debate about the existence of the Pope, or Her Majesty the Queen, for example.

Is there any real debate about the existence of Muhammad?

 

[Darat]

Reverend is the job title too though isn't it?

Only in the way that I can say I am a HumpleWinker and everyone should address me as "Your Most Astute HumperWinker".

Do they say 'his holiness?'. I don't watch TV and don't recall that from when I did or from their website but I've never been looking it for it. I think there's a difference between an official title and invoking a blessing after the name of a deity. After all, there is no debate about the existence of the Pope, or Her Majesty the Queen, for example.

I noticed it during the coverage last year of that old geezer who liked to wear dresses and had miraculously died, it struck me as odd that they would refer to him as that.

It could also be that a lot of my childhood was spent in a Muslim country and a predominately Muslim area of another so to me it sounds natural, I wouldn't;t notice it if the started saying it. (I used to find it hard to say his name in speech without the pbuh!)

When said by a non-believer I'd say it's no more a blessing then when someone says "bless you" after a sneeze - for a non-believer there is no actual thought behind the words.

 

[tkingdoll]

When said by a non-believer I'd say it's no more a blessing then when someone says "bless you" after a sneeze - for a non-believer there is no actual thought behind the words.

I wonder what the BBC's policy on that is if a newscaster sneezes during a live broadcast?

I'm trying not to think of this as just-another-episode-of-kowtowing-to-religious-pressure-groups, but my own atheistic biases are poking in. I guess it is similar to already well-used phrases and sayings, but I would prefer it if no other new ones crept in and if the old ones dissolved. Wishful thinking, I guess, but it seems to me that if the BBC specifically introduced this into their broadcasting guidelines, and the majority of newscasters would be blessing a god (or whatever he is) that they don't believe in.

 

[Darat]

Oh don't get me wrong I'd like to see the end of all religious kowtowing in all its forms - it irks me no end how when you wrap religion around irrationality it somehow becomes something we have to treat with respect as if it made some form of sense.

But then on the other hand if we are going to have the kowtowing we should have it for all religions not just say Christianity.

Up the anti-antidisestablishmentarianism movement!

 

[scimystic]

What we're seeing here is just my old friends: Postmodernism, Knowledge Relativism, and Separate Magisteria. The Beeb is in knee-jerk mode, 'responsibly' trying to stick a band-aid on a cancer. They think that if we all try really hard then we can regain the civilized gentlemen's club atmosphere of mutual tolerance that we had 25 years ago. My message to them would be: "Wake up and smell the napalm." Read 'The Fundamentals of Extremism', or 'The Republican War on Science', or 'The End of Faith', or anything by our opposition's leaders (like Dembski, or Ralph Reed). We are at war, now, and the only consequence of trying to hide it from ourselves will be defeat. Allah doesn't want your 'respect' or 'tolerance'; he wants your submission. And to my friends in the UK, who can't conceive of a theocratic society there, let me just note that I'd have said exactly the same here in the US twenty years ago. But that we're now at least 2/3 of the way to it, and moving on just as fast as Dick and Karl and 'Wolfie' can find their way under around and through the undefended battlements of our Constitution. I'm just trying to scrape up enough money for a big enough boat to get the hell out of here. To become a small target, out in the middle of the Pacific, with a satellite dish. So I can try to do what Voltaire did from Fernet (take effective sniper shots from a safe distance). Good luck and good hunting to you all.

 

[Darat]

What we're seeing here is just my old friends: Postmodernism, Knowledge Relativism, and Separate Magisteria. The Beeb is in knee-jerk mode, 'responsibly' trying to stick a band-aid on a cancer. They think that if we all try really hard then we can regain the civilized gentlemen's club atmosphere of mutual tolerance that we had 25 years ago.

...snip...

Did you not look at the actual evidence above e.g. that they are not doing this? That the only place where they do use pbuh is where it is entirely appropriate to do so?

 

[ceo_esq]

Did you not look at the actual evidence above e.g. that they are not doing this? That the only place where they do use pbuh is where it is entirely appropriate to do so?

It certainly hasn't been established that in the areas where they do use it, such use is appropriate. That is, indeed, a point under discussion. The BBC uses it, at the very least, in the educational section of their website wherein different religions are profiled. Although brodski writes that "The BBC religion pages are basically about each religion presenting themselves to the world, so it's their story so (IMHO) they get to set out how their religious figures are referred to", I disagree (although, if you only read the Islam section, you might easily mistake it for a Muslim document). The BBC religion pages do not purport to be a case of different religions presenting themselves to the world; they purport to be the BBC's presentation of those religions to the world. As an article in The New Criterion recently put it, it is a surprising example of "confessional language in the very secular setting of a BBC internet history lesson."

The website states "The BBC uses the pbuh in the Islam section out of courtesy, and we would do the same for any other religion if they had a similar phrase that was universally used as a sign of respect." Accordingly, one might be justified in expecting that the section on Christianity would, for example, capitalize the pronoun he when referring to Jesus. For whatever reason, it does not.

 

[brodski]

The website states "The BBC uses the pbuh in the Islam section out of courtesy, and we would do the same for any other religion if they had a similar phrase that was universally used as a sign of respect." Accordingly, one might be justified in expecting that the section on Christianity would, for example, capitalize the pronoun he when referring to Jesus. For whatever reason, it does not.

The BBC also uses the term "Jesus Christ", Jesus is the name of the person being identified, but "Christ" is a title indicating divinity, should the BBC cease to refer to Christ?
The fact is, Islam is getting no special treatment on the BBC religion pages, each of those pages gives an uncritical account of a particular religion, its part of their public service remit, which is why hey still have things like "thought for the day" and "songs of praise". I relay don't see what the problem is, especially as PBUH is only used by the BB Cs religious programming department, and is not used by the news, current affairs or factual programming departments.

 

[ceo_esq]

The BBC also uses the term "Jesus Christ", Jesus is the name of the person being identified, but "Christ" is a title indicating divinity, should the BBC cease to refer to Christ?

I think we would all find that analogy more apt if we were discussing, say, the BBC's use of "the Prophet" before Mohammad's name.

The fact is, Islam is getting no special treatment on the BBC religion pages, each of those pages gives an uncritical account of a particular religion...

I haven't delved deeply enough into all the sections on other religions to speak with as much certainty as you. On the other hand, the website's unusual, self-conscious disclaimer regarding pbuh strongly suggests that the BBC itself is aware of something out of the ordinary on the Islam pages which it feels compelled to address pre-emptively.

 

[Rat]

I have for some time rankled at the unquestioning use of 'Mahatma' before Mohandas Gandhi's name, but it seems that an awful lot of people seem to think that that was actually his first name.

Cheers,
Rat.

 

[scimystic]

Did you not look at the actual evidence above e.g. that they are not doing this? That the only place where they do use pbuh is where it is entirely appropriate to do so?

Yes Darat, I read the whole thread, and checked the links. Like CEO, I simply disagree with you in regard to your "entirely appropriate". I don't think that reason pandering to religion in any way is appropriate. I think that religion - or at least this institutionalized theistic kind of religion - is a form of mental illness. It has, observably, been doing our species great harm for thousands of generations. These people are crazy, and we are cowards in not doing them the basic service of telling them so. If we were to return to fighting them openly and honestly - as some of us were still doing up until about 100 years ago, before the sweet nauseating miasma of postmodernism settled over our intellectual landscape - then some of them might even come to their senses. Every time we take them seriously, every time we say 'pbuh', or Jesus Christ, or His Holiness The Pope, or some other such rubbish, we further confirm and legitimize their insanity. We tell them that its OK to embrace rationally absurd proposals as knowledge. It isn't. Embracing absurd proposals screws up human minds as elegantly and inexorably as breathing carbon monoxide screws up metabolic oxygen transportation, or as ingesting potassium cyanide screws up cellular respiration. I don't know what you guys got in England, but over here we were treated to a virtual river of gushing media sanctimony when John Paul (or whatever his real Polish name was) finally kicked it. Like I said above, its time for the big boat.

 

[brodski]

I haven't delved deeply enough into all the sections on other religions to speak with as much certainty as you. On the other hand, the website's unusual, self-conscious disclaimer regarding pbuh strongly suggests that the BBC itself is aware of something out of the ordinary on the Islam pages which it feels compelled to address pre-emptively.

Either that, or maybe they have had some complaints.
They would probably also have had complaints if they had not used "PBUH" on those particular pages. Remember that the BBC is a public service broadcaster, with a legally mandated remit to provide religious programming to meet the needs of all major religions in the UK, most of that broadcasting is geared towards Christianity, but other faiths do get a look in (see the rotating religious and even occasionally secular, voices we here on "though for the day"). When the BBC engages in any religious programming, (that is, programming produced by the "religion and ethics" department) they pay the up most respect to the religion under discussion. However, when referring to religion in non religious programming, the same level of respect is not afforded.

 

[Darat]

It certainly hasn't been established that in the areas where they do use it, such use is appropriate.

...snip...

It has to several contributors to this thread.

To summaries the BBC is a publicly funded organisation that has a duty to provide information regarding the major religions of the UK to the UK population. If the BBC did not use the "pbuh" in the that section that section would not be usable for many UK Muslims in regards to providing accessible information on Islam so you could say it is a matter of sensitivity.

However since there is no evidence that away from that section the term is used by BBC presenters, journalists etc. (apart from quoting people who use that term) I cannot see how their usage is inappropriate (given their responsibilities).

Could you explain why you believe it is inappropriate?

 

[Darat]

It certainly hasn't been established that in the areas where they do use it, such use is appropriate.

...snip...

It has to several contributors to this thread.

To summaries the BBC is a publicly funded organisation that has a duty to provide information regarding the major religions of the UK to the UK population. If the BBC did not use the "pbuh" in that section that section would not be usable for many UK Muslims in regards to providing accessible information on Islam so you could say it is a matter of sensitivity.

However since there is no evidence that away from that section the term is used by BBC presenters, journalists etc. (apart from quoting people who use that term) I cannot see how their usage is inappropriate (given their responsibilities).

Could you explain why you believe it is inappropriate?