Civil title
Reader P Harvey sent in this e-mail to The Editors:
- Why was the report on civil partnerships (Radio 4 Monday, 6.00 news) covered by the religious affairs correspondent? This is a secular matter.
An interesting point. And the answer is, I fear, very mundane. We used the religious affairs correspondent on this story for the simple reason that he alerted the programme to its importance and interest, and he offered to file on it. There was nothing more to it.
I, of course, accept that this is a secular matter. It may be of interest to note that 91Èȱ¬ correspondents do cover a wide number of issues within their portfolios; none more so than the religious affairs correspondent. However I do think that, on reflection, it would have been better to have introduced the report with the words "This report from Robert Piggot", rather than what we did - "This report from our religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggot".
Comments
Any objection to the secular commenting on a religions matter?
Because of Moral & Social scarecity in our daily life as human values are rapidly dissolving we may use religion to resolve the prevailing along with futur problems, nothing wrong to project any religion as all prevailing religion's are the root of our civilisation & have an impact in our daily life & common behaviour.
While I recognise that this is indeed a 'secular' story in some sense, I would challenge the objection to this correspondent filing the report in a couple of ways.
Firstly, what is 'secular'? Everyone has a worldview. It may not be a 'religious' one as we usually understand the term, but it generally has some fundamental assumptions behind it (e.g. there is a God/higher being; there is no God/higher being; there may or may not be a God/higher being but we can get on perfectly well without him/her/it).
Secondly, whether or not it is an issue for your reader or for many others, the issue of Civil Partnerships does hold implications for those of a religious persuasion - if nothing else, many are seeking to find a line somewhere between 'anything goes' and 'my interpretation of Scripture says this is absolutely forbidden' that is both distinctive yet acknowledges of developments in society. Of course, not having heard the report in question, I have no idea whether Mr Piggot approached the item from a 'religious' point of view or not.
Although I agree with the majority of Mr Bailey's response to the objection, I cannot see why Mr Piggot should have his job title 'hidden' in this way in future just in case it offends some secularists or atheists. If it is necessary, perhaps give him an expanded title: 'Religious and Secular Correspondent' perhaps, or Religious, Ethical and Social Affairs - although this could get a bit wordy, like my post!
On this embarrassment about religion in the 91Èȱ¬, I don't see why 91Èȱ¬ News Online doesn't have a 'Religion' section alongside our other 'religions' like Entertainment, or indeed Football (though at least there's still a Religion and Ethics page as part of bbc.co.uk). Then at least all the Islam stories could be grouped together, along with the occasional Christian/Buddhist/Jewish/other story that comes along, and even sometimes a social, ethical or cultural story that doesn't fit anywhere else.
It does smack of political correctness. Becuase much as the minority of the gay population would have us all believe that being gay is some kind of culture it isn't. Much in the same way a minority of the death community would try and convince us deafness is a culture, it isn't.
Being gay makes you have no more in common with other gays than a straight person has with other straights.