Barry, "sectarian" programming should not be excluded from public broadcasting at a time when matters of faith and religion are so much in the news and in the hearts and minds of viewers.
Local public broadcast programming is supposed to be tailored to the unique needs and characteristics of the community. This unfortunate decision serves to further nationalize the control of public broadcasting and undercuts the ability of local stations to provide a full, diverse, and relevant community service. The fact that this decision came after twenty-five years of lax enforcement is telling.
For one thing, this decision was certainly not required by the Establishment Clause. The fact that a small percentage of a public broadcast station's air time includes programming with religious or sectarian content does not violate the Establishment Clause. Any such content would further the legitimate secular interest of providing public broadcast content that reflects the needs and interests of the local community. The few local stations permitted to keep their longstanding religious programming to serve the needs of their communities have no reason to fear a violation of the Establishment Clause.
In addition, under Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), public television programming is not typically a forum for private speech and broadcasters have editorial discretion to decide what to air. Importantly, however, where public broadcasters air a political debate or other program that provides a platform for the expression of private speech, free speech principles come into play. A ban on religious or "sectarian" viewpoints in such programming would violate the private speakers' freedom of speech. This likely explains why the recent decision does not cover discussion programs that air different religious points of view. It is also, ironically, one of the reasons, aside from money, why PBS stations may still air religious programs on their secondary digital multicast TV channels and websites.
Barry, the PBS decision reflects two major problems that reach far beyond this particular decision: the secularization of public life and the federal monopolization of local control. PBS should have followed the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hi Dr. Jay,
I greatly appreciate your contributions to the weekly blogs. I, too, am a big fan of constitutional law and a supporter of religious liberties. Therefore, I really treasure the informal mentoring that takes place when I read your responses, learn from them, and either assimilate the knowledge in my brain or in my own answer.
I proudly admit that I am a classical music lover and listener. Among my several favorite public stations I listen to, they all broadcast religious programming, usually on Sunday, in which they play sacred classics like Gregorian Chant, Handel's Messiah, sacred requiems, and mass music. This beautiful, inspirational music is a gem for both religious and non-religious people alike. If public radio is allowed to host sacred programs, public television ought to be able to host religious programs as well.
The updated requirement on religious programming for PBS member stations is summarized in the 6/16/09 posting on "Current," a public broadcasting newspaper:
"In a compromise with the small number of PBS stations running religious programming, the PBS board today approved a membership requirement that would allow those shows to continue but would ban more sectarian programs to be added on PRIMARY channels. Also, religious programs may be carried on MULTICAST (SECONDARY) channels or OTHER PLATFORMS as long as PBS branding is not included. This was the final requirement recommended by the Station Services Committee after more than a year's work updating membership criteria...." [Emphases added]
In my judgment the requirement is Wise and Necessary--and contrary to Mr. Sekulow, it doesn't "further nationalize the control of public broadcasting and undercut the ability of local stations to provide a full, diverse, and relevant community service."
He failed to note that the PBS board updated the requirement to accommodate the federally mandated 6/12/09 conversion from analog to digital television, whereby 356 local member stations can MULTICAST two or more digital channels from one FCC-licensed transmitter.
For example, TPT (Twin Cities Public Television) in Saint Paul is using two licensed transmitters to MULTICAST one PRIMARY channel in a high-definition format and three SECONDARY channels in standard-definition formats.
Per my understanding of the requirement, TPT could provide sectarian programs on one of its SECONDARY channels if they weren't PBS branded, it could continue providing PBS-branded nonsectarian programs like the "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" on its other MULTICAST channels, and its Website could be a PLATFORM for secular programs if they weren't PBS branded.
TPT has been MULTICASTING digital channels for several years, and they've enabled it to increase the volume and variety of its nonsectarian programs--many of which have been locally produced with religious and nonreligious partners. Contrary to Mr. Sekulow, TPT and other PBS stations can STILL do this to enhance their "community service."
Richard Lee Dechert
(A media researcher and retired TPT staffer speaking only for myself.)
Correction - My above statement should say: "Per my understanding of the requirement, TPT could provide sectarian programs on one of its SECONDARY channels if they weren't PBS branded, it could continue providing PBS-branded nonsectarian programs like the "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" on its other MULTICAST channels, and its Website could be a PLATFORM for sectarian [not secular] programs if they weren't PBS branded."
There never was a separation of Church and State as our Congress printed the first family Christian Bibles and I'm free to pray anywhere as jesus gave me that right. Stop the evil atheist Obama and his fraudulent treaty with Russia on nukes. 2/3 of the senate must ratify any treaty with a foreign country which makes his treaty unconstitutional. Our military is not obligated to follow an unconstitutional treaty. Have our US Senate stand up for their rights and stop the dictator Hussein Obama.
Paul Duncan thinks president Obama is an "evil atheist" for trying to make peace with a treaty. What Paul does support obviously are the two holy wars wars of aggression started by the evil evangelical Christian George Bush. Christians start wars and kill people. Paul thinks that is good. When people try to make peace the Christian Bible believer Paul Duncan thinks peace is bad.
Paul also thinks his rights come from Jesus Christ, someone who never existed.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.