Posted on 06/24/2009 2:07:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
I quit watching anything on PBS a long time ago. When they are devoted to shows based solely on deviant, immoral lifestyles its not worth watching anymore.
1) PBS has a lot of good shows.
2) I don’t want my tax money used to air religious programs. Not appropriate. If you allow one, you have to allow any, including those I find abhorrent
3) It’s a relief to finally agree with this otherwise incompetent administration about something.
I wonder if this programming will include his proclamation of what fatherhood means. (wink-wink)
Uh, the thing is, for PBS the most extreme Liberal mindset is promoted 24/7, and it’s their ‘religion’. Of course, NPR is worse, and they’re both taxpayer funded.
Fatherhood is only reserved for the likes of David Crosby in Obama’s America.
BFL
The so-called "Public Broadcasting System" is a tax-payer + private donor sponsored mess of propaganda and fundraisers.
But, IF it is supposed to be "public", and IF no one is to be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc., then HOW is it NOT discrimination to forbid religious people equal access to the "public" formum, but to still require them to be taxed for it?
Are religious people permitted to speak in the town square, or would you rather have their right to free speech squelched there BY THE GOVERNMENT also? And, why is "public" programming NOT the "town square" of the 21st century?
I guarantee you that if you permit the government to prohibit religious speech, they'll be coming after your conservative speech next.
Assuming, of course, that you are conservative.....
I’m with you - with one caveat. They should classify atheism as a religion, or at least a system of belief (well, non-belief). Therefore PBS shouldn’t be promoting that either.
Lambasting all other religions equally is neither fair nor even-handed. Its pro-atheist.
If govt subsidies to NPR defray the costs of Christian broadcasts, the door is wide open for Muslim, Wicca, Scientology, etc to demand similar and equal access. Access at least partially on your dime. I’d just as soon that door stayed closed.
The radio dial has loads of religious commercial stations. NPR’s new policy doesn’t affect these, the overwhelming bulk of nationwide religious broadcasting. No real harm is done and potential problems are foreclosed.
They should classify atheism as a religion, or at least a system of belief (well, non-belief).
***********************************************
Add secular humanism to that and I’d go along with you. They would never do that of course as it is the foundation of liberalism in it’s current form.
I would agree with your modification (and also with your analysis, unfortunately).
I knew PBS’ “Non-Commercial” claim was a load of bull years ago when I saw Jamie Farr (”Klinger” from MASH) hawking triple glazed windows.
INDEED.
HIDEOUS.
If a religious program is aired on a PBS station and the religious program is paid for entirely out of private funds and actually gives PBS a "profit", then would you be likewise as opposed to the airing of religious viewpoints or shows?
Or do you think it is perfectly fine to prohibit any religious speech on a publicly owned station?
If you believe that merely because the station is "publicly owned" that the station has a right to prohibit religious shows while giving carte blanche to secular and often anti-religious viewpoints, then you my friend are a secular socialist.
We'll, are you?
BTW are you as upset that PBS broadcasts secular viewpoints that you find abhorent?
BTW the "airwaves" are technically publicly owned and auctioned to private entities. Are you also against selling or allowing religious groups from purchasing "public" airways? Would you be happy if all religious broadcasting were similarly prohibited on any station licensed by the FCC?
If not then how is it any different if PBS is prohibited from allowing any religious broadcasting?
There is a cute little sleight of hand that the left and the courts have pulled regarding the religion of “secular humanism” or just “humanism” -
it IS a religion for the purposes of free exercise. You may use your “religion” of humanism to “conscientiously object” to serving in combat,
BUT, it is NOT a religion, according to the courts, for “establishment” purposes. IE, a school or government cannot be stopped from promoting and establishing secular humanism as the state religion.
That needs challenging then, very seriously.
It’s simple: I believe strongly that my freedom to worship and live as a Christian on this earth is greatly enhanced by the separation of church and state that we enjoy in this country.
That means that opinions about secular things — both those with which I agree and those that go against my beliefs — belong on a secular forum. So I don’t care if radio or TV carries political viewpoints with which I do not agree. That’s freedom of speech in this country, and I value it.
(I also sometimes listen to it. Know thy enemy, and all that.)
It’s another thing entirely to use my secular tax money to air religious programs that go counter to my understanding and love of God and His Word. I do not think I should have to pay even one penny to promote Islam or Mormonism or Hinduism, etc.
You suggest that PBS might sell commercial time. I haven’t heard of such plans, but it would not involve spending my dime, and it’s a free country. I have no problem with any religious group buying airtime on any outlet. But I really think you’re just trying to change the subject.
Am I a “secular socialist”? No. You’d find that funny if you knew me.
I have the advantage of years and experience — been around a while. I’m a very conservative voter and committed evangelical Christian who knows history and feels strongly that our freedom to worship and to teach the Word is best served by keeping the government out of our relationship with God, just as Jesus taught.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.