Un musulmán dirigirá por primera vez los contenidos religiosos de la BBC

BBC: Bring Back the Caliphate… Tengo que decir que me parece bien, muy bien. A lo mejor así despiertan algunos:

El nuevo director de contenidos religiosos de la BBC, Aaqil Ahmed. (Foto: 'fairknowledge')

La cadena BBC tendrá un director de programación religiosa musulmán. Se llama Aaqil Ahmed, es la segunda persona que ocupa este cargo sin ser cristiana y además el primer musulmán que controla esta área de la pública británica.

Aaqil Ahmed ha confirmado que deja Channel 4 para ocupar este cargo y ha entrado en la dilatada historia de la BBC, que ya abarca 87 años. Si bien en 2001 un agnóstico, Alan Bookinder, dirigió esta área, Ahmed se ha convertido en el primer musulmán en lograrlo.

La controversia está servida, al menos en algunos ámbitos cristianos. Rowan Williams, arzobispo de Canterbury ya subrayó el mes pasado, cuando empezaron los rumores sobre el fichaje, sus dudas al respecto.

Se las transmitió al director general de la BBC, Mark Thompson, con esta sentencia: «la voz cristiana está siendo dada de lado», según recoge ‘The Guardian’. Sin embargo, durante su paso por Channel 4 como editor de contenidos religiosos y multiculturales, Ahmed dio cabida a programas cristianos, como ‘Cristiandad: una historia’, entre otros.

En el apartado religioso de la sección de radio también ha habido cambios. Christine Morgan estará al frente, aunque la pública no ha dado ninguna respuesta sobre las creencias de ésta.

Así queda escindida la religión de la BBC en radio y en televisión. Anteriorente, el pastor metodista Michael Wakelin controlaba ambos flancos.

4 comentarios

  1. El escándalo Sokal

    «El escándalo Sokal fue un famoso engaño cometido por el físico Alan Sokal al equipo editorial de la importante revista académica de humanidades Social Text.

    En 1996, Sokal, profesor de física en New York University, envió un artículo pseudocientífico para que se publicase en una revista postmoderna de estudios culturales. Pretendia comprobar si una revista de humanidades, en palabras de Sokal: «publicaría un artículo plagado de sin sentidos, si (a) sonaba bien, y (b) apoyaba los prejuicios ideológicos de los editores.»

    El artículo titulado «Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,» [1] (Transgrediendo las fronteras: hacia una hermenéutica transformativa de la gravedad cuántica) se publicó en el número de primavera/verano de 1996 de Social Text, sin la revisión de ningún físico cualificado.

    El mismo día de su publicación, en otra revista Lingua Franca Sokal anunciaba que el artículo era un engaño.

    El hecho causó un escándalo académico en la Universidad de Duke, donde se publicaba Social Text. Sokal dijo que su artículo era «un pastiche de jerga postmodernista, reseñas aduladoras, citas grandilocuentes y rotundo sin sentido», que se «apoyaba en las citas más estúpidas que había podido encontrar sobre matemáticas y físicas» hechas por académicos de humanidades.»

    Dentro del artículo vienen un par de escándalos más, a cual más significativo.

    Y dos «FAQs», las dos imprescindibles. Son dos recetarios políticamente incorrectos sobre la importancia del cociente intelectual y sobre el concepto de la raza, dos asuntos que el posmodernismo desearía que fuesen irrelevantes pero que la naturaleza considera que no lo son. Están escritos con naturalidad y criterio por un tío que lleva tratando estos temas casi cuarenta años. Están a su vez llenos de enlaces que dan las bases de cada aseveración del autor.

    Why Do We Keep Writing About Intelligence? An IQ FAQ

    The Race FAQ

    Tres ejemplos de a qué me refiero:

    «Q. Is IQ hereditary?

    A. At the moment, we only have a vague idea of which genes affect IQ, but the data is pouring in. James Watson figures no more than 15 years until the main genes driving IQ scores are nailed down. It could be faster.

    In the mean time, we have a lot of circumstantial evidence, such as twin and adoption studies. Almost all of it points toward IQ having a sizable genetic component.»

    · · ·

    «Q. Isn’t race just about skin color?

    A. That’s a simplistic verbal shorthand Americans use to refer to ancestry. Nobody really acts as if they believe race is synonymous with skin color.

    Q. What do you mean?

    A. Consider the golfer Vijay Singh , who during 2004-2005 became the only man in this decade besides Tiger Woods to be the number one ranked player in the world. Singh, who was born in the Fiji Islands of Asian Indian descent, is much darker in skin color than Woods.

    Singh is at least as dark as the average African-American. Yet, nobody in America ever thinks of Singh as black or African-American. There’s an enormous industry that celebrates the triumphs of blacks in nontraditional venues such as golf. But Singh’s accomplishments elicited minimal interest in the U.S.

    A 2007 article, for example, asked where are all the black golf champions who were expected to emerge in the wake of Tiger Woods’s first Masters championship in 1997. It never mentions the blackest-skinned player on tour, Singh … because we’re not actually talking about skin color when we use the word «black,» we’re talking about sub-Saharan African ancestry.»

    · · ·

    «Q. So my family tree doesn’t extend outward forever?

    A. At some point in the past, the number of unique individuals in your family tree (as opposed to slots) would start to get fewer in number, ultimately forming a diamond-shaped rather than fan-shaped family tree. Genealogists label this «pedigree collapse.»

    Demographer K.W. Wachtel estimated that an Englishman born in 1947 would have had two million unique ancestors living at the maximum point around 1200 AD, 750 years before. There’d be a billion open slots in the family tree in 1200, so each real individual would fill an average of 500 places. Pedigree collapse would set in farther into the past than 1200.

    Q. Wait a minute! Are you saying my ancestors married among themselves? So I’m inbred???

    A. Yes. It’s mathematically certain. There just weren’t enough unique individuals alive.

    Q. Ooh, yuck!

    A. I suspect that the American distaste for thinking about inbreeding, even when it’s so distant and genetically benign as in this English example, is one reason why our understanding of relatedness and race is so deficient.

    Q. What does this have to do with race?

    A. Pedigree collapse reveals how the biology of race is rooted in the biology of family. We can deduce from the necessary existence of pedigree collapse that while everybody is related to everybody else in some fashion, it’s more genealogically significant to note that every person is much more related to some people than to other people. Even a Tiger Woods can identify himself as being of Thai, black, Chinese, white, and American Indian descent, but not of, say, Polynesian, South Asian, or Australian aborigine origin.

    Pedigree collapse is how extended families become racial groups. A race is a particular kind of extended family—one that is partly inbred. Thus it’s socially identifiable for longer than a simple extended family, which, without inbreeding, disperses itself exponentially.»

  2. En algunos momentos es casi brillante:

    «Q. Isn’t race just a social construct?

    A. Relatedness is the most real thing in the world: mother, father, baby.

    Q. But, don’t different societies have different rules about who is considered to be related to whom?

    A. Yes. Indeed, every culture comes up with a way to deal with the exponential unwieldiness of family trees.

    For many purposes of daily life, you have too many relatives. The sheer numbers of ancestors, distant cousins, and potential descendents you have expand out beyond any manageable boundaries. The amount of relatives you’ll send a Christmas card to might be larger than the number you’ll volunteer to cook Thanksgiving dinner for, but, still, there’s got to be an end to everything.

    Many cultures have devised rules to limit who counts as a relative for the purposes of, say, inheritance. English aristocratic families didn’t want their land holdings divided up into unimpressive and inefficient parcels, so they followed the rule of primogeniture, passing the claim to be of noble blood down through the first-born son, with latter-borns falling out of the aristocracy within two generations. For instance, Mr. Winston Churchill was the first-born son of Lord Randolph Churchill, who was the second-born son of the Duke of Marlborough. That seems awfully aristocratic to us plebian Americans, but by English law, he wasn’t a peer because his father wasn’t first-born. And thus, to Winston’s political benefit, his parliamentary career was spent in the House of Commons rather than the House of Lords.

    The Chinese treated sons more equitably, but almost completely ignored daughters.

    In contrast to these attempts to nominally define down the putative number of relations, many Middle Eastern cultures have come up with an actual biological solution (of sorts) to reduce the number of relatives: cousin marriage. In Iraq, half of all married couples are first or second cousins.

    Q. Why?

    A. One reason is this: If you marry your daughter off to your brother’s son, then your grandchildren/heirs will also be your brother’s grandchildren/heirs. So, there is less cause for strife among brothers. Cousin marriage helps make family loyalties especially strong in Iraq, to the detriment of national loyalties.

    Q. Do you ever want more relatives?

    A. For many political struggles, the more the merrier.

    Ibn Saud, who founded Saudi Arabia in the 1920s, consolidated his victory over other desert chieftains by marrying 22 women, typically the daughters of his former rivals. Thus, today’s vast Saudi ruling family represents the intermixing of the tribes, which has helped it survive in power for 80 years.

    On the other hand, the wealthy Syrian Jews of Brooklyn, with few political threats hanging over them here in America, don’t need blood relations with other power centers, so the community fiercely ostracizes anyone who marries outside it.

    Or, political entrepreneurs can attempt to widen or narrow their followers’ working definition of who their relatives are by rhetorical means. For example, in the 1960s, black leaders encouraged African-Americans to call each other «brother» and «sister» to build solidarity.»

Dejar una contestacion

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada.


*