Giles Fraser, Vicar of Putney, doesn't think atheists should be given a turn on the BBC's Thought for the Day programme to say what they've got to say. Here is his reason:
Contributors to Thought for the Day mustn't attack the beliefs of others. It's a basic BBC rule. This is not a place where Christians can fire pot shots at Hindus or Muslims have a go at Judaism. Which is why it's just not appropriate for atheists. Not that they haven't important things to say. The problem is that atheism is defined by what it's against, that it is not theism. And to introduce such a sense of "againstness" would fundamentally alter TftD's character.
To put things bluntly - just for once - I think this is a case on Fraser's part of thoughtless for the day. Atheists are just as capable as people of faith are of speaking generally about their beliefs and the implications of these, without making attacks that are directed specifically at Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews or any other kind of believer. They can speak about some of the implications for them of not believing in God, how they handle ethical dilemmas in the light of their disbelief, how they think about death and life and the problem of, or the reasons for, valuing human achievement, and natural beauty, and domestic pets. Atheists can talk about all this without attacking anybody.
If Fraser's claim is that just by being atheists and talking about anything at all we implicitly attack religious belief, then the same can be claimed in reverse: just by being religious and talking about stuff on Thought for the Day, the religious could be said to be attacking us non-believers. But anyone can tell the difference between an out-and-out attack on someone else's beliefs, and speaking of one's own beliefs in a way that merely implies that you don't share the beliefs of others that are incompatible with yours. If the spirit of the Thought for the Day programme is tolerant and 'non-sectarian', then so be it. Atheists, too, can respect this norm. Sauce for the goose and all that.