UCB (United Christian Broadcasting) organisation recently lost
its appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the State-run
UK Radio Authority. The appeal was based on the alleged infringement
of their human rights when their application for a digital terrestrial
broadcast license was rejected by the State.
Court ruled that their right to freedom of expression was not
violated because the State had the right to ensure that the available
but limited frequency spectrum was not dominated by one particular
religious viewpoint. The UCB
may believe they have one final court of appeal in Heaven, but
as far as it goes here on Earth, the fight for a national radio
station looks over for the time being.
here, across the Atlantic, I watch as the current interpretation
of the First Amendment runs its course in removing religious words
and artefacts from State-funded entities. To that debate, I can
add nothing new.
in Britain, there is an establishment of religion in the form
of the Anglican Church and whose bishops can occupy seats in the
House of Lords and whose bishops require the approval of the Prime
Minister for their ordination. To that debate, I could add something,
but my main concern here is the symbolism of the UCB case.
UCB, of course, does not wish to be promoted as a State-established
medium; it merely wants to have a voice on the British airwaves.
The argument about limited terrestrial digital bandwidth may or
may not be relevant. Here, in Britain, there is about 416MHz of
terrestrial bandwidth. This is to be compared to 1,485MHz for
satellite, and it is to be noted that Sky Television offers about
400 channels within this bandwidth, of which 10 channels are of
Christian content. Proportionally, there seems to be enough room
for a few religious broadcasters at the terrestrial level.
I do not want to give the impression that, in a multicultural
society, only one religious group may have a voice to the exclusion
and suppression of all other religious groups. What I do object
to is the intention of the State to maintain a multicultural
society to the exclusion and suppression of all other societies.
other words, it is not the job of government to declare that a
multicultural society is the best form of society. Assuredly,
it is the job of this government to ensure that whatever
trends are emerging in society as regards religious belief are
not actively or passively hindered insofar that they do not affect
the liberty of others.
way of example, if the majority of British citizens decided to
practise the philosophy of Zoroaster and intend to vote into power
those who would enshrine its laws, should the State interfere?
If the Christians and Jews were still allowed to practise their
religion, then what is that to the State?
is it a concern of the State that one religious body gains an
advantage over others? Does not the established Anglican Church
have such an advantage already? Does not the Roman Catholic Church
have State-funded schools but Muslims and Hindus do not? How do
these current advantages threaten multicultural Britain? Nothing
that is apparent to me.
not a few politicians have expressed their fear of the likes of
tele-evangelist Benny Hinn being imported to Britain. Well, the
Benny Hill show may be exported to America, but not the Benny
Hinn show in the opposite direction!
I venture to suggest one reason for this inconsistent behaviour
towards the UCB? A culture that is a fluctuating hive of activity
as regards belief is potentially more prone to instability than
a mono-belief society. One may argue that its dynamism offers
a marketplace of choice in a society’s progress through civilisation
and that is true.
like the individual consumer who decides on one consumable item
from an array of choices, so society has the right if it so chooses
to select one item from a volatile array and settle upon it for
a period of time. If the chosen product proves to grow stale after
a while, then society may settle upon another choice. And is this
not the way civilisation has largely progressed through the ages?
One new religion or philosophy enters into a society and is embraced
because the incumbent philosophy failed to compete or was found
wanting (entropy in the form of corruption or complacency is one
an unstable vortex of water, there is dynamism, confluences and
eddies of opinion. But the vortex will eventually seek its state
of equilibrium and finds a rest position before the next unsettling
force chances by.
State errs greatly in assuming to itself the guardian of a meta-philosophical
position. That is, there is a whirlpool of philosophies interacting
and colliding in society, but above them, like a large rock in
the pool, stands the unshakeable meta-philosophy of multiculturalism.
They arrogantly assume that this philosophy is like no other philosophy
and must needs be established like the Anglican religion.
let it be subject to the same free market forces of belief seeking
that it allows of other so-called sub-philosophies. For, in my
considered opinion, multiculturalism is not a state of equilibrium
but a state of flux as a society rejects the old and seeks the
new in an open marketplace of belief (as to what role the State
takes when the new dominant philosophy is enthroned is another
it is as foolish to maintain it perpetually through the artificial
means of political correctness, as it is to attempt to put a whirlpool
in a bottle. Whatever philosophy comes through the melee and gains
the ascendancy will be a matter of historical record in centuries
to come. Belief should be deregulated and subject to the enquiries
and prayers of the corporate mind of society. That philosophy
which is true and has behind it Divine Will shall have nothing
to fear in that respect, but any philosophy that needs
the State to prop it up is a loser from the very start. If it
does not have the devotion of a revived people, it is a shell.
UK Radio Authority, let the UCB have their national radio license
and may the best philosophy win!