Washington Post:
The Public Broadcasting Service agreed yesterday to ban its member stations from airing new religious TV programs, but permitted the handful of stations that already carry "sectarian" shows to continue doing so.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
and as an atheist I Thank god. If you want no separation of Church and state maybe you head for Iraq and take along walk to east. I'm sure the mullah government will accept your doctrine - and while you are at it maybe you tell breveren that it is a sin to murder in the name of you local god.
As an atheist, you should study up on separation of church and state. On the theory that it's always best to get a grasp of a subject before attempting to lecture on it. Just a thought.
As has been pointed out a number of times throughout the thread, PBS is not government-run. Nor are the public airwaves on which it airs. Separation of church and state doesn't apply, in short.
As you'll discover if you elect to study up on the concept.
So PBS and not zanti gets to decide how to program themselves. Thank you for clearing that up.
You know nothing...
PBS isn't a state-run network. (Actually, I'm not sure it' even really considers itself a network, either).
Well, it does, evidently, when it's playing control-freak games. But I suspect that, like nearly all bureaucrats, their function doesn't stray far beyond issuing orders and writing memos to correct the previous correction of the last memo correction. "Be advised that...," "It has come to our attention that...," and "Effective immediately...." are probably their three favorite opening lines.
That is, to the extent that PBS makes itself the state, then I suppose it is "state"-run. I'd love to see its member stations shoot back their own snotty memo. Public TV is a great idea, but it just doesn't fly over here (in the U.S.). And PBS stopped being noncommercial long ago--as in, the moment they started running those long spots for GE, etc. On commercial TV, such spots are called ads, but who knows what PBS calls them.
PBS was established as a result of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which (pay attention, please) was created by the US Congress and signed into law by LBJ. You can't get much more "state" than that. Its mandate is to provide PUBLIC television broadcasting, i.e, unbiased programming for ALL citizens of the United States. PBS is not required to broadcast programs that promote a particular political or religious view.
If you have a product to shill - be it coke or Hummers or Christianity - then you should pay for your own advertising. It really is as simple as that. Religious groups can buy as much airtime as they can afford on half a dozen or more cable networks. Or they can buy their own network - there are already several religious networks carried by my cable provider.
Just as with public schools, public broadcasting should be as free as possible from the promotion of particular religious or political views. The word "public" doesn't mean every particular view should be promoted, it means that programming appropriate for general viewing should be promoted.
Just how much help do the churches need to shove their nonsense down innocent throats, anyway?
.
Yes! This is the first step in the neo-atheist plot to take over the WORLD!!!! Soon we will organize into mobs of howling unbelievers and descend upon houses of worship to paint mustaches on statuary, pour kool-aid in the baptismal fonts, and shout rude things. Look out, True Believers!
Oops, I just received a telegram from AH (Atheist Headquarters) that we weren't suppose to reveal our plans just yet. Um, ignore what I just wrote.
.
Have you received your pamphlets yet, for next weeks "Knocking on Doors for No Gawds" campaign?
Or, is that supposed to be a secret too?
Ah, the sledgehammer repartee of wondering.
PBS is being called out for its snotty disregard for religion, which, in pure wondering fashion, it regards as beneath itself. PBS's protect-us-from-the-public fans, unable to stand any criticism of their worth-watching TV, insist that the First Amendment forbids PBS from airing "religious" programming, and never mind that the article is talking about community programs of a religious nature aired by member stations, which are allowed their own programming. And never mind that PBS, not being government-run, doesn't have to answer to the First Amendment. I mean, facts only get in the way of a good anti-faith-athon at Huff-Po, no?
And, as we all know, the burden of proof is on believers. Which translates to nonbelievers getting to assert whatever they want.
No one's talking about a neo-atheist plot to take over the "WORLD!!!!" And I doubt n.a.'s could pull off such a stunt, given your group's tendency to "debate" amongst itself without consulting outside sources or opinions (or so much as checking the hour), and given the fact that your high-fiving festivals take up a good 95 percent of your on-line time. By the time you get around to taking over the planet, it will long since have been consumed by our expiring sun.
I see you haven't gotten any "help" yet.
Ouch ... you are the literalist, aren't you?
It's called satire, friend. Look it up. Actually, it was directed at True Believers like yourself who collapse into hysterics over imagined anti-faith persecution every time someone writes a comment or article that doesn't gush with starry-eyed god-love.
Wasn't early Christianity replete with stories about martyrs being fed to lions? If there is in fact a conspiracy against Christians, why not embrace it as a test of faith set for you by your compassionate god? Oh yeah, you don't actually believe in god.
Really, Zanti, it's just words. Why do you get your knickers in a bunch so? When atheists deny you the right to marry or picket outside a doctor's office, then you can cry about persecution. When atheists force teen-agers to marry their cousins or perform genital mutilation on girls all in the name of no-god, then you can wail and gnash your teeth. When you have to deny your faith just to get elected to public office, come tell me what a meanie I am. Until then, quit whining about the big tough atheists stealing your lunch money every day.
.
I certainly agree that PBS should not allow any mythological mania to be demonstrated on its channels and stations. While they can certainly air programs discussing the history of religions and philosophical movements, any semblance of a religious ceremony has no place in their programs. Such always offends someone, somewhere.
And, why do the mythomaniacs insist that their religions receive time on PBS, down at the City Hall, in public buildings, etc. and NOT in their houses of worship? We give them tax free status so they can afford a place to demonstrate and preach about their mythologies, yet they insist that is not enough.
The fact is many of these mythological based forms of self-deception are waning. The public is becoming more and more educated as to the ongoing fraud and deceit of many religious houses.
While these mythology houses have freedom of religion, we Americans also have the right of freedom FROM religion.
And, so, if I decided I'm entitled to freedom FROM your views, then you'd be required to keep them private? That's how a democracy works?
No rules require religion to be segregated in "Religion Only" fashion, and, while you're free to hold such bigoted opinions, you're not (thank God) free to practice them. Welcome to America.
"While these mythology houses have freedom of religion, we Americans also have the right of freedom FROM religion."
And you have that freedom still. It's called changing the channel.
Thank God!
I wish that God (R) would take care of business. I've always heard that he "will provide".
Why don't those shut-ins have a free god-provided religion channel?
There are at least 4 god channels on my basic cable.
Local stations broadcast all kinds of paid preachings and services.
So put your hand on the TV and send them your social security check.
From what I've heard on this forum about the minister shown in the picture above, he has something to say that wouldn't neccessarily come through on the commercial channels. Believe it or not, there are liberal Christians out there - just the kind who would be on PBS - and they will get lost in the tide of televangelists.
Somebody at PBS just discovered the Constitution. This is encouraging.
The 1st Ammendment actually says that Congress cannot make laws regarding religion. It says nothing about public funds going to religion. It also says that there is freedom of spech. How does this keep PBS from showing religious programming at all?
Exactly. The First Amendment forbids the government from tromping on our rights to, among other things, worship freely and speak (and write) freely. In other words, it's assurance against government tyranny in those regards. HOW ON EARTH so many people interpret this a measure against religion and religious expression, let alone how so many believe that rules written for the government somehow apply to everyone BUT the government, I'll never know.
PBS doesn't make laws, it isn't government-run, and it's operating on the public airwaves, which--contrary to what our religion-hating friends insist on believing--are NOT state-run. Just as we don't have a state-run newspaper, we don't have state-run television. (No, Fox isn't an example thereof. It's just a shameless shill--a testimony to the power of $$ in our corporate democracy.) This, apparently, is news to some of the PBS crowd. Saints preserve us.
I often wonder if the no-religion-in-public folks actually WANT the government dictating this, that, and the other thing in such a fascist fashion. Does it occur to them that THEIR values would be next? The Big Brother lovers never think Big Bro is going to target them--they think Big Bro is on their side. Sure.
For many, PBS is a protection from the realities of mass mediation, class diversity, and all those other pesky details that keep everything from being About Them. Religion, evidently, is not about them. So, out with it!
Please tell me where the constitution says that a television station can't show religious programming...?
I like their decision too but it has nothing to do with the constitution.
The P in PBS stands for Public, like Public Schools (where authorities have been barred from leading prayer and espousing religious views), funded by taxpayer dollars.
PBS is partially tax payer funded. Commercial and subscription TV can air whatever programming they like, as far as I'm concerned. But content that falls into the category of proselytizing, if funded even partially by tax-payers, infringes on State/Church separation.
Anything that's against religion is Constitutional, according to the dominant view around these parts. It's a thing of extreme arrogance--wherein all opinions held by them are somehow backed up by (pick one) logic, reason, science, common sense, Darwin, and/or the Constitution.
It's the extreme left's version of "God is on my side." Some people think their every burp has been blessed by official endorsement of one type or another. Reality as viewed through the lens of ego.
There no reason for PBS to even exist any more.
It's a great service, and there is no comparable programming available in many places.
Um...what about all the cool shows they have? Ever see GlobeTrekkers?
rubbish...
obviously have no kids
PBS should not be in the business of airing any religious programming. It should, on the other hand, be in the business, of airing programs which take a critical view of religion -- all religions -- both positive and negative.
No hidden agendas; no proselytizing.
I seeee. So, on one hand, positive critical views of religions are possible. Yet, on the other, religion is something evil and covert, to the extent that any presentation of "religious programming" would constitute something wrong.
I see inconsistency there.
You are clueless... and paranoid now. This is just rubbish you are spewing now.
But with a little Bartok.
Thank God(that's a joke)!
Someone is left who hasn't drunk the Religion Kool-Aid.
Can we can the 'drink the kool-aid" bit?
Doesn't anybody remember how horrific Jonestown was?
It certainly shouldn't be reduced to a flip remark!
Funny you should mention "hidden agendas." There's one program that will likely be grandfathered in along with the others. It stars a Presbyterian minister who liked to consider episodes of his show his sermons. What's even more shocking is that his primary audience was children. (I can just see atheists crowing about "getting them while they're young.") But I can almost guarantee that most of the people here have seen the show at least once.
The minister's name? Fred Rogers.
Fred is dead and he did not preach o kids on his show. You clearly do understand...
Nice try at stirring the pot but this atheist watched Mr. Rogers with his young children regularly. I don not remember him ever saying anything overtly religious. The show was about his Christlike demeanor. We enjoyed it very much.
Zanti. Traditional knowledge of favoritism, self interest, power grabbing, unwonted opportunism for the benefit for the previleged and powerful in or out of public office. Traditional knowledge comes not only from various forms of media, talking heads, editorials, and demigogues of every description; Traditional knowedge also eminates from private educational institutions with hidden or dogmatic agendas, institutions of higher education who cultivate secretive knowledge that is useless except for purposes of exclusive power and control. For example, the pernicious statement that "the first priority is to mend or cleanse the banks" convinced the Congress to apppropriate hundress of billiions in the futile attempt to correct years of banking fraud and swindle. It was a self serving truth that benefited a few billionaires while perhaps damaging our democracy beyond repair.
Modern knowledge comes from the breasts of the best thinking of citizen specialists and knowledge generators whose only navigation system is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Such knowledge is based upon working knowledge, repeated historical experience and empirical data. Such knowledge is interpreted through the lens of the Preamble and processes of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The mission of PBS is to provide valid knowledge that contributes to knowledge and skill rather than knowledge of self interest, stagnation and decline.
Wow. Thanks for clarifying.
Thank gawd. At least someone has some principles and will try to curb the religious predators who infest our country. I will contribute to PBS because of this....
There is absolutely no reason in our modern communications age to have any public funding for TV or Radio
'Both hands raised to chest level and speaking in monotones': "Yes master, I will obey"...
There is unequal access to the resources of "our modern communications age". Public funding gives some measure of independence from sponsor pressure to suppress or inflate the value of certain information.
Yeah there is.
Why?
Thank God PBS did this.
Ban it. Such programming is only a baby step away from engendering the theocrtatic catastrophy we are witnessing in Iran.
Well, sure--theocracies happen so easily. One day, you've got a democracy wherein zillions of competing faithviews operate. The next, you've got rule by Bible.
It happens that fast!
Have you mentioned any of this to your therapist?
Seriously? A few shows on a few channels in the early morning leads to repealing the First Amendment?
That is seriously paranoid.
yeah, it's a good thing our founding father were athiests so we would not have something like in Iran.
What don't these right-wing bible-beaters NOT get about SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE? PBS is PUBLIC broadcasting system. MY tax dollars and yours run it. I could not agree more with the decision. They are tax-exempt, and therefore NOT allowed to have ANY religeous view ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Now if the CHURCHES in this country would follow suit, and play by the rules....which they DO NOT. I thinks they should have random inspections (secret shoppers if you will), and if they are doing what MOST of them do...and preach the gospel of the Repug party, their tax exempt status should be revoked.
.
PBS has run it's course.... there is no longer a need for it and our tax $ should not be spent to keep it afloat... public $ should not be used in a most obvious effort to prop up left leaning issues
.
I'll agree when Tax Free Religious Status is dropped.
A large portion of PBS is private donation so stop whining.
It think the same thing about the military. Its run its course as well...
Christianity has run its course....
1. Our tax dollars--around 50%--contribute to its running
2. It is a private non-profit
3. Since when are non-profits not allowed to have religious views
4. How do you know what "most of them do?" What charity work have you been involved with yourself where you have seen it?
I ultimately agree with you, but your facts are completely wrong.
If they don't pay taxes, they CANNOT support one religeous view or another...seperation of church and state applies to all entities that DO NOT PAY TAXES, and recieve TAX PLYER MONEY. Try praying in a public school and see what happens.
And I have had to WALK out of a few churches, when they start the "prey for Bush to defeat his opponents" talk. I gave up on finding a non-bias church.
It's more like 10-20% (both state and federal) NOT 50%! Members account for 80% of the funding!
all religion should be outlawed in this country.
The editors will ban you for criticism of Israel, but they let comments like that through.
I know. May God have MERCY on their souls.
I only watch PBS when I'm in the mood for a Moody Blues concert.
Which isn't often.
Very nice
What? No Yanni? Or John Bradshaw self-help tripe? Or the bald guy who does the (what is it?) faith-healing or something along those lines?
Get with the program!
You seem to be very familiar with programing you claim not to need.
Thaneb. You must recognize that PBS is an origination of Congress. It is supported by governmental funds in part. It is to provide information in accordance with the Constitution which may be denied or ignored by private media. It is not to spread the traditional knowledge of stagnation, mentally crippling doctrines inviting blind obedience, human slavery and organizational decline.
"It is to provide information in accordance with the Constitution which may be denied or ignored by private media."
What? Please restate.
PBS is a private organization, period. It receives some government grants
Exactly. Of course, its cheerleaders are happier when they can justify its attitude toward religion by quoting the First Amendment. But, since the issue has zilch to do with the First Amendment, what is their explanation now for PBS disassociating itself with any local (i.e., community) religious programming? Except that PBS is run by jerks?
Loading comments…
Posted: 06-17-09 01:38 PM