I've tried to post this to Ofcom but no luck, so here it is:
Dear Mrs, Mr,
After viewing a program called "Faith school menace" broadcasted on More4 on Wednesday 18th of august 2010, I would like to raise my concern and complain about a serious breach of Ofcom code of practice (The Ofcom Broadcasting Code - Revised December 2009).
In the light of the followings:
Section 2 - Rules 2.2 & 2.3
Section 4 - Rules 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 & 4.6
Section 5 - Rules 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 5.7 & 5.10
Section 7 - Rules 7.1, 7.9 & 7.11
It is clear that the program broadcasted (Faith school menace) constitute a serious disrespect to the rules cited above; not only that but the program is inadmissible in form and in content.
In form:
Faith school menace is the main headline and it understood that the school is under threat from faith!
If you search the definition of faith, you will notice that faith is governing the intellectual human being, as faith is synonymous of believing in something whatever it is, the essence of the human being is to believe in something be it true or false, good or bad, static or dynamic, existent or
Non-existent…; therefore faith is an essential component of well constituted human being.
In content:
It's quiet chocking that a professor at a university has completely neglected a scientific approach to an explosive subject which in fact is Religious Faith in Public Schools.
Meaning by scientific approach is, you might know, first thing is to make a definition of the subject you are studying, then you try to find examples, then analyse, then compare, check the result, if in doubt ask an external view, at the end you can draw a conclusion.
Not only the author didn't follow a scientific approach to the obvious subject, but also he seem to be himself confused and disturbed whether religious faith is good or bad in public school.
Also, portraying that the theory of evolution is scientific fact is almost laughable and frankly chocking (as he never provided any evidence during the documentary), yes it might seem a scientific abduction but never a scientific fact or tangible prove of the evolution of species and it will never be.
For the breach of the rules:
Section 2:
2.2 - the public is misled by not only the title but also by the content (see above, also misleading examples).
2.3 – humiliation and violation of human dignity, I quote: "let me take a fact that we and chimpanzees are cousins" or we are monkeys; well sir I don't know if you can understand my writing or maybe you too are a monkey like the author of the documentary and I assume if you were told that your granddad was a monkey I think the next thing your interlocutor is going to see is a heavy punch strait to his face, and if you tell me that you don't feel any humiliation and your dignity have been tarnished than I think something must be wrong with you, of course unless he provide you with scientific prove!
Discriminatory treatment, I think this rule is clear, and the author have deliberately chosen to discriminate against all the evidences we have (archaeological evidence of the existence of Noah, Moses, pharaoh,…; Holy books that explain us the origin of the human being and a lots of scientific fact that have been discovered way after the books have been sent to us) these evidences exist and deserve to be taken in account as they lead to the SUPREME DESIGNER; the approach of the author is discriminatory to those evidences and discriminatory against the SUPREME DEISGNER (All thoughts HE doesn't need us for anything, if HE says Be it will in a blink of an eye or faster than that)
Section 4:
4.2 – I think it's clear that the god believer have been a subject of an abusive treatment especially the Christian and the Muslim religions, by constantly hammering them with the author's "shred of evidence" about evolution and indoctrination, without providing any prove whatsoever; keeping in mind that the religious faith school constitutes only a 1/3 of all schools and yet he says they are a menace!
4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 – it's clear that the author is trying impose his believe which is seeing is believing and scientific evidences and these are an underline of atheist religion which he didn't mention and trying to promote in stealth, by the same occasion take advantage of vulnerable tranche of the society to persuade them to join his faith by using the educational system as a battle ground.
Section 5:
5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 5.7 & 5.10 – I think these rules are self-explanatory, I just quote "shred of evidence" the author have said in different places in the documentary; Due Accuracy and Due Impartiality were not respected in providing the news (in this case a scientific documentary which should be an aggregates of scientific news bulletin formatted), As mentioned before, scientific approach hasn't been respected and evidences not provided, and a deliberate action to mislead the public; no corrections have been made; this program is part of series promoting the atheist faith obviously; Views and facts are misrepresented otherwise the whole atheist argumentation will collapse like a house cards; I think the author should have made it clear at the beginning that he is promoting the non-GOD-believer's faith so people can chose either to watch or go chill out in the pub, as the headline is well catchy and troublesome especially for parents.
Section 7:
7.1 – This documentary is unfair toward the three main religions (Jewish, Christian and Islam) and de-facto unfair toward GOD, as all that existed/exist/will exist is leading straight to HIM, no matter what we do or say, from Adam & Eve passing by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed, all of them pointed at One GOD not two not three, not a caw or a monkey; they pointed at a Powerful GOD who created the universe in 6 days and HE said clearly that he is expanding the universe and it is until now that we discovered that the universe is actually expanding (see BBC series solar system) and that's just one Holly fact that is reinforced by a scientific discovery and there a lots of them that you and me can go through (just check the archaeological research) .
Unfair in a sense that blaming these main religion of dividing the society, restricting the research and development, creating boundaries; well that's totally wrong, the society is constitution of lot of human being with different aspiration, different origin, culture, shape,…; there are already a micro societies inside the big society (with or without religious component ); restriction research and development, I think the author fell short of history otherwise he will know that most of the scientific evolution and discovery have been made under different religious dominance and the Holy books have an infinite of context in R&D; creating boundaries, well I have to admit that this point is interesting as it create safeguards to the human being and not to push boundaries beyond their limits and to prevent disastrous consequences (predict than cure) and frankly at least these main religions have boundaries so each human will not cross his boundary and respect his neighbour and this the sword of Damocles as the atheist have no boundaries as they don't believe in anything so it's easy for them to cross someone's territory as they don't believe in territory to begin with.
7.9 – facts about the menace of Religious' Faith haven't been presented (except 1/3 of school are religious faith which doesn't constitute a menace), facts about the theory of evolution that is a scientific fact haven't been presented. An unfair treatment have directed toward the three main religions.
No opportunities have been offered to clear these three main religions from the alleged accusation "Menace". (The documentary focused on teaching the theory of evolution)
7.11 – it's clear the author is incompetent in providing an adequate information, as it's clear that the main purpose of the documentary is to promote the atheist view not give a scientific impartial state of the religious faith in public school, therefore I ask this question was is the intention of the author to draw the attention of the public about his faith and how come his religious faith hasn't got any financial backing from the taxpayer to fund his own religious faith school?
Last but not least, I would like to apologize for treating your granddad as a monkey, I've said that so you can wake up and see for yourself that being treated as an animal is not good thing to say, however I can assure you that I'm not a chimpanzee twitting in the Congo river nor am I a baboon Emailing from the plain of south Africa, but I'm just a well constituted handsome young man from the beautiful but rainy Lancashire, who felt hurt by a destructive documentary.
I hope you give a positive suite to this complain, otherwise I will reserve a seat for every human being in the nearest zoo close to the smartest monkey.
Best regards
