---

BBC: Humanism

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity for this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing it. It was the late Gerald Priestland, the former religious affairs correspondent of the BBC, who, some 25 years ago, was asked why the BBC had religious viewpoints only on "Thought for the Day", and why the BBC did not provide atheists and humanists with their own slot. Priestland, in his own inimitable way, replied: "Actually we do. We call them news bulletins". I guess one had to be there to know whether that was humorous or not. I have had the privilege of debating with Richard Dawkins on television and hearing him say on the same programme, "But I’m a cultural Anglican". So there is an interesting observation to be made here. Today, I speak as someone who has not been asked to contribute to "Thought for the Day", unlike my illustrious predecessor, the late Jim Thompson, whose contributions to the programme were perhaps most notably marked by his "Thought for the Day" following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Neither do I speak as someone who needs to defend the programme from humanist or secular thought. That is a little like St. Irenaeus who, when asked whether he would defend the Bible, replied, "Defend the Bible. I would rather defend a lion". Paradoxically perhaps, I welcome debate and critique of faith, particularly my own, in order that it may be lived more appropriately to the precepts of its founder. I agree with much of what humanists have to say about the worth and dignity of human life and with Andrew Copson's article in last Saturday's Guardian on John Stuart Mill in which he enunciated those very values of, ""worth and dignity of human life—vital principles for modern humanists—stimulated him in social action, opposition to slavery, and a commendably anachronistic appetite for gender equality"." I agree too with Copson when he observes that, ""the political principles he"—" that is Mill— ""evolved are ones that can be shared today by people of any religion as much as by humanists"." I believe that there are places where the humanist secular voice can be heard in programmes made by the religion and ethics department, and I offer the "Moral Maze" and the Sunday programme as examples. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I would welcome the opportunity for something more imaginative in general debate between religious people and people who do not base their faith in humanity on a religious tradition. The difficulty about "Thought for the Day" is that it is defined by the BBC as providing, ""a unique reflection from a faith perspective on topical issues and news events. Speakers from across the world's major faiths offer a spiritual insight rooted in the theology of their own tradition. This brief, uninterrupted interlude has the capacity to plant a seed of thought that stays with listeners throughout the day"." That is the nub of it: it is a distinctive slot where faith perspectives can be given on the day's news. Once that is lost, it loses its role. By their nature, both humanism and secularism are non-religious, and offer a valuable perspective by being so; but not on "Thought for the Day". It is a bit like the lion lying down with the lamb. The only recorded incident seems to have been on Noah's Ark, and when Noah was asked, "Did it work?", he replied, "After a fashion, but it took a new lamb each day". A recent BBC survey—we are all citing figures—by MORI indicated that 85 per cent of 2,200 people polled identified themselves as having a faith—62 per cent Christian. We can all throw figures at each other. Despite the fact that, as I have said, I would like be there to be wider programmes, I believe that "Thought for the Day" should continue to be as it is defined.