On Tuesday June 16, 2009 the Board of Directors of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) met in its offices in Crystal City, located in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the pressing issues they face.Top on its agenda was to consider whether it would continue airing “religious programming” or allow any more such programming to be aired on its member stations in the future.
In explaining its mission on its’ own website the Corporation notes “…that PBS is a private, nonprofit corporation, founded in 1969, whose members are America’s public TV stations.
PBS provides quality TV programming and related services to 356 noncommercial stations serving all 50 states, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.”
On that same website the visitor is welcomed with these words “PBS, with its 356 member stations, offers all Americans – from every walk of life – the opportunity to explore new ideas and new worlds through television and online content.
Each week, PBS reaches more than 65 million people and invites them to experience the worlds of science, history, nature and public affairs; hear diverse viewpoints; and take front row seats to world-class drama and performances.”
However, as a result of yesterdays meeting, an entire segment of Americans will soon be unwelcome in the PBS family and their viewpoint will be censored. Apparently "religious” Americans are second class citizens.
The Board of this Public Corporation which derives much of its funding from the US Government has decided that the few programs they have which could be considered “religious” will soon be phased out and no new ones will be allowed.
According to some reports the Board actually compromised from an immediate outright “ban” which had been requested by some of its members. Instead, it “allowed” some of the existing programming to continue to air for a while.
However, the fact is that they simply delayed the inevitable. They have decided to censor of all “religious” programming from their line up. Susan Briggs, director of Communications for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which airs a Catholic Mass for shut-ins, indicated correctly in an interview that "PBS' goal is to not have religious programming on PBS affiliates of what we call 'pure' religious (content) such as Masses or devotional readings’." This certainly sounds like a form of “religious cleansing.”
In 1985 the Corporation directed that all stations provide non-commercial, non-partisan and “non-sectarian” content. However, the leadership of the Public Broadcasting Service failed, at least according to some who oppose what they call “religious” programming, to strictly enforce the direction to exclude “sectarian” material by allowing some this “religious” programming.
Now, that has all changed.
Though the move was couched as a compromise since the Board permitted the few stations which carry such programming to continue doing so for a while, the fact is that it has banned any member stations from airing any new “religious” TV programs on Public Broadcasting channels. The chilling effect was immediate.
For example, WHUT, a PBS affiliate in Washington D.C., announced that it will cancel the weekly Mass for shut-ins they had aired for 13 years at the end of July.
Those apparently relieved by the compromise also noted that PBS stations can air programs and documentaries which cover events such as a Papal Mass and some other “sacred topics”.
However, the question will now become what “sacred” or “religious” topics are to be considered “sectarian” by the Censors at PBS and by what criteria will they make those decisions? The censoring of religious speech has begun on Public Broadcasting in America. What really needs to be addressed is the simple question, WHY? Are religious people second class citizens? Are they not part of the “Public” which is supposed to be served by Public Broadcasting? Is the contribution of religious institutions suspect?
In an age which has determined that so many moral issues are now “religious” and therefore must be confined to the four walls of a religious house of worship and not dare to attempt to influence the public conversation, the move is ominous.
Federal law does not bar the broadcasting of religious services on public television. It does not require the censoring of the religious speaker. It does not frown upon the proper role of religious institutions and the consideration of ideas informed by religious faith but helpful to our common life. It does not preclude religious history and has long recognized that that religion is a vital fiber in the fabric of freedom which has helped to build American culture.
It most certainly does not require the kind of “religious cleansing” which this PBS censorship represents. In a draft report anticipating this move, a committee of the Board wrote last March that it “believes that if PBS or its Member Stations were perceived by the public to be ‘commercial,’ ‘political’ or ‘sectarian,’ PBS could be hampered in its ability to carry out its mission.”
PBS, it continues, “places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view.” That is unless that purported respect for diversity involves the ideas offered by the religious speaker or the expression of religious institutions.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, upon which all Federal Law must be based and against which all efforts to censor speech must be measured, is clear: "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."
The prohibition against the establishment of religion is in effect a “non-establishment” clause, prohibiting government support of an official church in this country.
It is not a requirement to censor religious speech, expression or the religious speaker’s vital role in the public conversation.
In addition, the Public Broadcasting Corporation is a Private, Not For Profit Corporation, not an Agency of the Federal Government. This is simply NOT a Church/State issue. Some religious cleansers in the activist community such as “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” were quick to try to make it one.
In anticipation of the PBS Board meeting, Rev. Barry Lynn, the Executive Director told reporters, "There is some tax funding involved in public television, and that does make this shade into a church-and-state issue, because in general, we don't use tax dollars to promote sectarian programs…What creates problems is when you have taxpayers directly or indirectly subsidizing evangelism.”
The comment reveals a horrid understanding of Constitutional Law and a real hostility toward free speech, including the religious speaker.
It is clear that the programs being censored provided a community service, such as providing televised services for shut ins. Susan Gibbs of the Archdiocese of Washington noted that the Mass for shut-ins “… is community-based, locally produced programming that fills a community need.”
Wick Rowland of KBDI in Denver which has also aired a Mass for shut-ins made this observation to Fox News "KBDI is a very eclectic television station with a huge diversity of programming with all sorts of political and social opinions… No one would mistake us for Catholic television station."
This corporate action taken by PBS is one more sign of a growing hostility toward the rightful role of religious faith, religious institutions and the religious speaker in the Public Square in the United States of America.
Many of the great ides which informed the American experiment came from the influence of religious people and religious institutions.
A robust representation of all Americans on Public Broadcasting is in the Public Interest.
Censoring the voices of Religious speakers from Public Broadcasting is repugnant to the Constitution and does not serve the common good.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (CO)
SV (ED)