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.
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.
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?