During my ten days away in Italy (28th June to 7th July) the attempted terrorist atrocities in London and Glasgow occurred. To all intents & purposes denied direct media contact with Britain, those of us who could be bothered were reduced to watching the news on Al Jazeera, the only English language television station apparently available in Italian hotels. Engrained – for good or ill - with the belief that Britain public broadcasting represents the best (or is it ‘least worst’?) and most impartial television in the world, it was interesting for me to see a quite different ‘take’ on world events. Cultural imperialism being what it is, there was an inevitable condescension in my approach to Al Jazeera’s impressive (‘money no object’) production values and the measured, authoritative, tones of the presenters - I was reminded of Doctor Johnson’s politically-incorrect … at least from a modern perspective, though in his own time it would not have been regarded as such … comparison of a woman preaching to a dog walking upon its hind legs (“It is not well done; but you are surprised to find it done at all”).

Is it racist to find it somehow incongruous that world news can presented in a modern, 21st Century, ‘impartial’ (I was going to use the world ‘westernised’) manner from the Islamist viewpoint … whilst most of what I imagine was the target viewing constituency – even in Al Jazeera’s own footage - seems to be dominated by primitive passion, zealous bigotry, lack of intelligence & education and the oppression of free speech, dissention & personal freedom?

Despite the arrogance of my attitude and the transparent slant - in my eyes - of Al Jazeera’s coverage of world events, it did get me thinking that maybe my slavish assumption regarding British news organisations (specifically that they are as impartial as it is possible to get) was suspect. The bottom line is that every opinion (verbal or written) ever expressed is subjective to the person making it. From Pliny The Elder to Walter Cronkite, nobody in history has ever produced wholly impartial news reporting or the definitive version of events. When you think about it, it’s an impossible goal anyway. In any event every listener, viewer or reader also brings their own subjective stance to the party, which is why some who read but a single daily newspaper opt for one of the tabloids whilst others choose one of the ‘heavies’ – and why some read the Guardian or Independent, rather than the Times or Telegraph. Save for those of us who are news junkies and/or concentrate upon sport, everyone naturally gravitates to the source that (it seems) best reflects their own viewpoint.

Funnily enough, to me the least impressive items on Al Jazeera (in terms of apparent authority and impartiality) were those featuring ex-British mainstream presenters, e.g. Rageh Omaar and Sir David Frost. I’m afraid that from my imperialist viewpoint to see the latter ponderously asking a representative of Hamas in the Gaza strip about the possibilities for a new accord of some sort … in the same mannered style as if he had been interviewing Tony Blair or Richard Nixon … detracted fatally from the piece, reflecting poorly both upon the complexities & seriousness of the Middle East situation and Frost’s preparedness to prostitute what little remains of his talent & reputation.

Whilst I was in Italy one of our party, a lady from Seattle, asked whether I was familiar with Christopher Hitchens, a British journalist/writer who is apparently making a huge stir in America with his latest, self-explanatory, book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I was aware of both him and it – having seen an extract in a national newspaper – but had little grasp of his detailed arguments. Ironically at the airport on the way out I had bought a paperback copy of Professor Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, another polemic tour de force which I found highly-readable & thought-provoking, even discounting for the fact that in my case he was preaching to the converted.

That said, previously I had been of the view that – though I was not religious myself – I verged on envy of those I knew who were because (it seemed to me that) their faith added something to their lives that was lacking in mine. Dawkins’ view is more aggressive. He not only denies that God exists but is adamant that, fundamentally, religion is a force for the negative and bad in humanity.

At least Dawkins is prepared to state that, as a scientist, he tries to be open to changing his views (e.g. even to accept the existence of God) if someone … anyone … can provide the evidence. The trouble is (runs his argument) that when it comes to God and religion they cannot, because there isn’t any. The best that the pro-God lobby can do is cling to the raft, from which further planks break off regularly, that science cannot explain everything … in other words, the ‘God is in the gaps’ theory … which Dawkins attempts to show is a fallacy anyway.

Dawkins reserves his greatest derision for religion and its pernicious effects upon mankind – witness these latest attempted atrocities. He points out that every principle & policy in every religion is (was) necessarily a product of the time in which it was originally conceived … and therefore doubts their relevance to the modern, let alone the future, world. We’re all part of Darwin’s theory of evolution, you see. Thus fundamentalists – whether of the Judaist, Christian or Islamic persuasion – are not only delusional but potentially positively dangerous.

For example, Dawkins refers to a paper by John Hartung whose interpretation of the Bible points to the fact that Jesus was firmly in the mainstream Jewish tradition and would have been horrified to learn that St Paul had taken his message to the Gentiles. The Book of Revelation contains two verses that limit the number of those to be ‘saved’ to 144,000 (i.e. 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel) … and that none of them could be women.

When it comes to fundamentalism all religions promote blind adherence to their (human-originated) principles - Islam is a significant case in point but not the only one. Dawkins maintains that only religion can motivate people to sacrifice themselves as suicide bombers and ‘martyrs’. Furthermore the Bible and the Koran can be interpreted to support virtually anything you want. Dawkins quotes from a 2005 article in The Spectator by Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, which detracted from the benefits of the ‘pick and mix’ version of religion by showing that Islamic scholars, attempting to cope with all the contradictions, developed the concept of ‘abrogation’ (whereby later texts trump earlier ones) … the only problem being that – even in those terms – ‘Islam is peace’ is about 1,400 years out of date:

“For today’s radical Muslims – just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam – it would be truer to say ‘Islam is War’ … Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the fringes of Muslim society in Britain, not following an eccentric and extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather than they came from the very core of the Muslim community and were motivated by a mainstream interpretation of Islam?”

Dawkins merely makes the case that society pays far too much respect to religion and religious faith, even when they propound statements that, made in any other circumstances, would at least be questioned if not actively challenged before being given credence. Whereas in every new instance science has to prove its case beyond a doubt, the opposite applies to religion – if it is a matter of faith, it’s accepted unless subsequently disproved to the nth degree. Unpalatable as it may be, Dawkins comments it is difficult to take away from Islamic suicide bombers the fact that, however misguided, they actually believe what they say they believe. How different is that to the explanations of the Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe) that he heard God telling him to kill prostitutes, or of President George Bush that God told him to invade Iraq?