Replies

That's the way things are in today's America. If you ever make any comment or suggest in any way that you don't think that it's a good idea for religious groups to attempt to use the law to promote their religious ideals you are "anti-Christian" and a "Christian basher."

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? - Washington's Farewell Address (A. Hamilton, speechwriter)

The system of those who would "exclude religious principle" is to promote the conceit that anything beyond praying in your own closet is "an Establishment of religion." Not true. "An Establishment of religion" is a church funded by the national treasury, and/or with advantages given to those who attend it. Anything less than that is constitutional, as this author should know. And to propose that no religious symbol ever be placed on government property is to propose the removal of all religios symbols in military cemetaries. It is nothing less than a project to destroy the national memory.

There is however an actual Establishment based on the favor of the government and having political and religious implications. Broadcasting as we know it could not exist without the censorship of all but the few whom the government favors with licenses. And broadcasting - especially broadcast journalism, which the government promotes - contains the planted axiom that what is unusual and novel is what is important.

And the Bible - and church tradition - is neither unusual nor novel - it is the most common book in the country and it doesn't change.

SETBACK FOR REPUBLICANS
Neal Nuze ^ | 04/25/05 | Neal Boortz

Broadcasting as we know it could not exist without the censorship of all but the few whom the government favors with licenses.

I see your point about FCC licenses, and how the government could if they wished apply censorship to the very ones who have these licenses today. (It would be politically tough on the government if the media was to take on the fight.) So the government bends over backwards to appear to require general benefit to the public. They accept that a liberal station runs military recruitment adds in the dead airspace of early morning and counts it as time spent on public service. It is not, and everybody knows it.

I can see the need to regulate stations transmiting power and frequencies. Without this service all broadcasts would be jammed. (Look at Mexico jamming some of our stations). If the government ever makes a move on a station based on politics it will have its head handed to it by an elitist judge.

The internet, and private publication are the tools that can balance the elite broadcast media. And more recently Fox (already with a broadcast license) decided to show the more conservative side of the news.