Daily Mail readers are revolting. Also, they're very unhappy about the BBC's decision to appoint Aaqil Ahmed as Head of Religious Programming - apparently one of the most prestigious religious roles in the country after the Queen, Archbishops and Jade Goody. You see, Ahmed is one of "Teh Ev1l Muzlimzz!!!", and the reaction to him is neatly summed up by Mail hack Stephen Glover's whiney little headline: "Why can't the BBC understand that we are STILL a Christian country?"

Well, Stephen, because it just isn't really. Only about 15% of British people go to church more than once a month, and even those are often tricked into it by church fetes, free food, or senility. Not that many really believe in the Bearded Master of the Universe either. Yes, we celebrate Easter and Christmas, but I suspect they would be somewhat less popular if they didn't involve days off work, stuffing your face and getting presents. Describing Britain as a Christian nation is a bit like calling a Big Mac a beef-burger - it may look like one, and it may have some of the required trimmings, but there really isn't much meat in it.

Glover unwittingly provides further evidence for that himself, noting that "religious programming on the BBC has dwindled over the past ten years". Yes it has, probably because nobody watches it, and the proof of this comes from the fact that virtually no other channels anywhere in Europe show free-to-air prime-time religious shows like Songs of Praise.

But let's put that objection aside for a moment, pretend that Glover is right, and accept the premise that Britain is a "Christian nation", whatever that means.

Glover's basic argument is that the head of Religious Programming should be Christian because Christianity is the majority religion. He also takes a swipe at the fact that the producer of Songs of Praise is a Sikh, for pretty much the same reasons. The meat of it is summed up in the following quotes:

"Let me say at once that I have nothing whatsoever against Mr Ahmed, who is, I am sure, an excellent broadcaster who may have much to contribute to the coverage of religion.

Nor do I doubt that Britain’s three million Muslims have every right to expect the BBC to provide some religious broadcasting directly aimed at them.

They pay their licence fee like everyone else, and their views should be properly and proportionately reflected in the Corporation’s programming. "

But this is the first Muslim ever appointed to the post - indeed he is the first non-Christian ever to be appointed to this post. The head of the BBC is a Christian, every single previous head of religious programming has been a Christian, surely a procession of Christian heads with the occasional Muslim or Sikh or Jew or FSM-Worshipper is a pretty reasonable compromise? How is this not proportionate representation?

And besides, what exactly makes him unsuitable for the job? The fact that he is a Muslim does not preclude him from making excellent programs about Christianity, any more than a Christian head would be precluded from making programs for the BBC's increasing non-Christian audience. Surely people should be employed on the basis of their talent, not based on their religious orientation. Indeed, this principle is enshrined in British law, and so for all of the Daily Mail's spluttering on the issue, the idea that a job must always be given to a Christian is illegal. And rightly so.

These don't seem to be the arguments of a person who believes in fairness and equality. There is nothing fair or equal about the idea that the top jobs in religious programming should be restricted to Christians. But then this isn't an article about fairness, and Glover's true colours show through the occasional cracks in his phoney attempts at reasonable balance:

"On Monday, the Corporation announced that it has appointed a Muslim as head of religious broadcasting. This is not a joke, I can assure you."

I don't get why it would be a joke. Can anyone explain it to me? On the other hand, this had me very amused:

"At every possible opportunity it will wheel forward one of those professional atheists who are not happy to live silently with their own non-belief but are determined to shove it down everyone else’s throats."

Hilarious - a man who writes column after column for papers like the Mail bemoaning the fact that the Church is no longer Britains "moral authority" is bitching about the fact that atheists would like to have a say in how the country is run. Why do the people I fisk never seem to get irony?

And I also have to wonder - since by Glover's reasoning Britain is a Protestant nation, would he be having the same palpitations were a Catholic to be appointed?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Follow me on Twitter! @mjrobbins