Posted on 06/24/2009 2:07:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Public Broadcasting Service recently announced it will not allow new religious programming on their taxpayer-subsidized airwaves. The handful of stations that have shown a Catholic Mass or Mormon devotions will be allowed to continue, but the other 300-plus stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of evangelism.
Welcome to Barack Obama's new world order.
News reports explained that the PBS station services committee insisted on applying a 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian."
To everyone who's watched a pledge drive or contemplated a toy store stuffed with "Sesame Street" toys, the idea that PBS is following any "noncommercial" policy is absurd.
To everyone who's watched two minutes of "Bill Moyers Journal," with its panels unanimously screaming for Bush's impeachment, or more recently, for a single-payer socialist health-care system, the idea of PBS being devoted to a "nonpartisan" stance is several miles removed from ridiculous.
But the atheists and secularists who want all traces of sectarian "proselytizing" for Jesus banned from PBS do have something to say about PBS public-affairs programming. "Nova" creates a special to shred the authenticity of the Bible, and PBS doesn't think to assemble a committee to evaluate it. PBS stations air tax-subsidized documentaries celebrating lesbian-feminist choirs, "transgender" riots and a liberal teenager fighting against abstinence education, and nobody inside "public" broadcasting wonders whether they're guilty of doing the very "proselytizing" they condemn.
As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism that would curl the hair of any pro-lifer. On June 12, the PBS show "Now" (formerly with Bill Moyers) devoted most of its half-hour to smearing the pro-life movement as a vicious band of terrorists. They hailed two men who abort babies into the ninth month, Dr. Warren Hern of Colorado and Dr. Leroy Carhart of Nebraska. Reporter Maria Hinojosa briefly noted at one point that pro-life groups issued press releases denouncing Dr. Tiller's murder. But those words were lies, claimed the abortionists.
Carhart attacked. "They may claim innocence, and they may technically, under the law, be innocent, but their heart was certainly with Scott Roeder on the day that he shot Dr. Tiller."
Hern echoed: "The anti-abortion organizations, you know, making these statements of distress and disapproval. No, no, no, no, no. This is what they wanted to happen. And it happened."
Oppose abortion, even very late in pregnancy, and PBS is clear. You are a terrorist.
Let's go back to Hern. "This is a terrorist movement. And they instill fear in people," he said. "This is not an abortion debate. There's no debate. This is a civil war. The anti-abortion people are using bombs and bullets. And they've been doing this for 30 years."
"Now" host David Brancaccio began the program with a topic sentence: was Tiller's murder terrorism, and did it succeed? Hinojosa asked Hern: "Do you say they've won? They've been successful?" Hern whacked that softball question silly: "Of course, they won. But this is the consequence of this kind of violence and terrorism. Terrorism works ... The message from the anti-abortion movement is, 'Do what we tell you to do, or we will kill you.' And they do."
On MSNBC, Hern uncorked this slur: "The main difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles." For this, he is hailed on our taxpayer-funded airwaves as a feminist hero, a very brave provider of services for desperate women.
Where was the airtime for the pro-lifers? Hinojosa granted a few seconds to Randall Terry -- in the familiar soundbite declaring the pro-life movement didn't cause Tiller's death, but Tiller was a mass murderer. PBS also aired a series of Bill O'Reilly segments where he referred to "Tiller the Baby Killer." Hinojosa again set up Hern, this time to denounce O'Reilly as an accessory to murder: "It's offensive, it's vulgar, it's grotesque, it's fascist speech that's designed to get Dr. Tiller killed, and it worked."
Despite the noxious theme that describing abortion as the death of a baby enables terrorism, no one -- not Terry, not O'Reilly, not a single professional in the pro-life movement -- was granted the courtesy of an interview by PBS.
This story has a very disturbing ending. Ken Bode, hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as an ombudsman or viewers' advocate, lauded the show as "strong and convincing on this point: radical, anti-abortion opponents, including Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, are guilty of promoting domestic terrorism." Bode even said "Now" has established itself for reporting "within the boundaries of fairness and balance mandated by PBS standards."
That only underlines that there are no standards for balance at PBS on the issues religious Americans care about. There's only a standard of malice.
PBS already DOES sell commercial time. What do you think those “informative blurbs” between programs are?
“Sponsored by”/ “broadcast with the help of a grant from”/ etc. means what to you?
Then there is the outright fraud perpetrated by some PBS stations. “To keep quality programs like this on the air, donate!” Then they play that program ONCE in the three months following, at 3 in the morning.
Pro-life does not automatically equate to being religious.
Jed, it doesn’t matter if commercial time is sold or not. It is a PUBLIC TV station on the PUBLIC airwaves. The Constitution specifically grants free speech to religious persons, BECAUSE they were the most likely to have their speech rights taken away by coercion or force, whether by a secular or theocratic state. Check that history, and you’ll see I’m correct.
That, incidentally, is why RELIGION precedes SPEECH in the 1st Amendment.
These ALL are about EXPRESSION: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Public TV on Public airwaves constitutes a Public Forum, and government cannot forbid free expression of religion while allowing free expression of everything else.
That is WHY kids in schools are permitted to pray, have bible clubs, share their faith, etc.
Now, if President Obama stands up and begins declaring that Islam is special with special rights and we’ll all be visited by gov’t agents if we don’t start following sharia law, then you have the GOVERNMENT advocating religion.
Having Billy Graham get airtime on PBS to broadcast a crusade is not government advocating religion. It’s allowing all viewpoints within a public forum.
Surely you see the difference.
What aspects of your life as a Christian are "secular"?
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.
So you are not opposed to using taxpayer money to undermine your Christian beliefs and values as long as it is done from a "secular" perspective?
So you are OK with using taxpayer money to produce "secular" shows that ridicule Christian beliefs and mock God and everything you, as a Christian, hold dear and wish to preserve for your children, but if someone were to use taxpayer money to do a show that actually promoted the very religious values and beliefs that you hold dear, that you would be opposed to that?
Am I correctly stating your position?
No. You are not correctly stating my position, and you know that. You’re just trying to be argumentative.
Read what I wrote.
I don’t want my tax money being used to promote false religions.
Government will always spend tax money in ways taxpayers may not like. You think the Romans spent Jewish tax receipts for godly purposes? No. Yet Jesus said to pay up.
Following your argument, I don’t approve of using my federal taxes to build roads into Las Vegas, but there’s not much I can do about it.
I don’t really think the government has any business funding PBS, either. I’d rather PBS just sell commercials or make people subscribe like other networks do. But I can’t do much about that, either.
And I do enjoy many PBS shows, like Masterpiece Theatre, as one example. And lots of the music. Frankly, PBS programming is a cut above most offered on commercial networks.
If some religious organization wants air time, they can buy it. I don’t want them using my tax money to spread their views.
As for secular things with which I agree as a Christian, how about cooking? Or enjoying classical music? Or sports? Or buying a sofa? Anything not directly tied to religious expression is considered, by definition, “secular.” It’s not a dirty word.
PBS is airing Pavarotti and Josh Groban concerts tonight. You’d probably enjoy that more than Big 0’s Socialist Healthcare infomercial.
Xzins, it’s not about seeing the difference. It’s about equal access.
Of course I wouldn’t mind PBS airing Billy Graham — except that if PBS airs Billy Graham, then Ayatollah Badguy gets access, too. And any other nutjob who spreads Satan’s lies under the guise of religion. “Allowing all viewpoints within a public forum,” as you put it, can be dangerous business.
You really want to give “reverend” Wright airtime on your dime?
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.