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.
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.