Navigation
User login
Quote
PBS' "Wall of Separation" comes from religious right roots
I think PBS should air "Wall of Separation", even though it clearly comes from a religious right propaganda perspective (and a wrong one at that), but they should do so with a disclaimer about the films creators.
It's just another view, a view that a little history concerning Jefferson, Madison, etc, easily dispels, but nonetheless another opinion. Now you could argue that it is silly to air this thing, and will not help the reputation of PBS among people that know better, but thats a different argument than it being improper for them to air it in the first place.
That said, it is also true that PBS is manipulated all the time when it comes to political and religious agendas. For example many stations in the states buried "A Brief History of Disbelief" (and I might add that program, whether or not agreeable to you, is not disingenuous like the "Wall of Separation" stuff).
TotSP Search
Community
Chatter
- I am a huge Java developer
1 week 6 hours ago - Its coooooooool.. Java
1 week 15 hours ago - Perfect!
1 week 1 day ago - Necropost about Linux v Mac
1 week 4 days ago - Agreed
1 week 6 days ago - I ran Ubuntu for awhile. It
1 week 6 days ago - A common task when developing
2 weeks 4 hours ago - Sorry, not just counter-racism
2 weeks 7 hours ago - The problem isn't the any one party alone
2 weeks 7 hours ago - I couldnt agree more
2 weeks 9 hours ago
Comments
PBS editorial standards and policies.
Here are two criteria PBS gives as directives to their producers. I believe Wall meets this criteria.
PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
C. Diversity
To enhance each member station's ability to meet its local needs, PBS strives to offer a wide choice of quality content. Content diversity furthers the goals of a democratic society by enhancing public access to the full range of ideas, information, subject matter, and perspectives required to make informed judgments about the issues of our time. It also furthers public television's special mandate to serve many different and discrete audiences. The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. The diversity of public television producers and funders helps to assure that content distributed by PBS is not dominated by any single point of view.
F. Courage and Controversy
PBS seeks content that provides courageous and responsible treatment of issues, and that reports and comments, with honesty and candor, on social, political, and economic tensions, disagreements, and divisions. The surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas; today's dissent may be tomorrow's orthodoxy. The ultimate task of weighing and judging information and viewpoints is, in a free and open society, the task of the audience. Therefore, PBS seeks to assure that its overall content offerings contain a broad range of opinions and points of view, including those from outside society's existing consensus, presented in a responsible manner and consistent with the standards set forth in these Standards and Policies.
Wall and PBS standards
Those are actually only C and F of the high level, somewhat nebulous, corporate "policies" document. I think and reasonable person would agree that PBS would do well to be concerned not just about "Diversity" and "Courage and Controversy."
There are other factors, such as the truth, deception, ulterior motives, and so on. Those are the issues here, not diversity.
The complete PBS standards
I actually only went to look after I posted the previous comment. Pretty funny, the first two standards, A and B, left off the anonymous comment, are actually integrity and quality. It's those standards that Wall would actually NOT meet, as I read them. (But again I said it should go on, with a disclaimer about its origins, I was not saying yank it.)
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html
PBS' "Wall of Separation" balances secular left viewpoint
I actually watched "Wall of Separation" (unlike those who first complained about it on the AUSCS web site that Charlie Collins links to). Most of the criticisms I've seen of it were knee-jerk, ad hominem put-downs, not refutations of the content of the film which, from my reading of history, seems fairly accurate. I think the documentary provides a needed corrective. It gives us some little-known "history concerning Jefferson, Madison, etc" that dispels some common misconceptions about their views toward religion. If it prompts people to dig deeper into what they think they know about the Founders, the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, all the better. Theocracy and the secular state are both very bad extremes that need to be avoided by maintaining a balance between the anti-establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
As the PBS Ombudsman column indicates, "Wall of Separation" wasn't aired very widely so maybe it was "buried" the same way "Disbelief" was? All PBS films dealing with issues like this should have disclaimers since they are "point of view" pieces.
I have not seen the film,
I have not seen the film, no. But, I have read a little history in my time, and I am an AU member. I knew well and good what site I was linking to. Just like Rev. Barry Lynn (from the AU), who DECLARED he had not seen the film in his original statements, I am skeptical of the premise and the background, based on the press releases for the film, statements from the creators, and the backgrounds of the creators.
Go back and read the original criticism.
And, if your reading of history puts Jefferson in the viewpoint that the United States should NOT be a "religiously pluralistic secular nation," then we indeed have very different "readings."
Also, while I certainly welcome the dialog in general, and people learning more about history and the founding fathers - everything is not a debate. You can learn about something without twisting it into opposing viewpoints. Not all "viewpoints" have the same factual basis or merits.
Lastly, I completely disagree that a secular state is anywhere near as bad an extreme as a Theocracy. In fact, I think that is a pretty misguided and dangerous statement (one that again sure does indicate a different reading of history from my own).
I have seen the film and I also read history.
You haven't seen the film. You are skeptical of the people who produced it. Your objection is not to what was said but to who is saying it. When the shoe is on the other foot that's often called prejudice. Rightly so.
"Not all "viewpoints" have the same factual basis or merits." This is certainly true. How about this one:
"Lastly, I completely disagree that a secular state is anywhere near as bad an extreme as a Theocracy. In fact, I think that is a pretty misguided and dangerous statement."
Why? Why would a purely secular state be any better than a theocracy? One appropriates God's authority for its own ends. The other acknowledges no higher authority than itself. It ends in the same place. What makes this statement misguided and dangerous? I see danger in the extremes. You see it in the balance?
The AU and the Religious Right have a lot in common, I think. They're both well meaning extremists who can see the serious problems with their own points of view.
Ugh.
I meant. "... They're both well meaning extremists who can't see the serious problems with their own points of view."
"You haven't seen the film.
"You haven't seen the film. You are skeptical of the people who produced it. Your objection is not to what was said but to who is saying it. When the shoe is on the other foot that's often called prejudice. Rightly so."
No, that is completely wrong. First off I made no "objection", but rather expressed skepticism, you might do well do look up the distinction. Secondly, once again, the entire context of this issue, and the original post is not the CONTENT, nor actually the "people who produced it." Last time for the slow people, the nature in which the people who are presenting the content (by their own descriptions, whether or not I have seen it) was the problem. The specious, deceptive nature of the "documentary" - which in reality is a film with roots very close to the Chalcedon foundation. If they had said "religious right funded revisionists take on the founding fathers and church and state" - then there would not have been any discussion (nor any interest, but maybe that was the reason for the deception?).
And I certainly don't need to explain why a secular state is nowhere near as bad as a Theocracy? Really? Please tell me that itself is not also a "debate"? How many secular states blow the shit out of other states because their god, or even the way they differently worship the same "one true god"? How many of the same torture and imprison, burn at the stake. How many are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, etc (beyond ordinary ethnocentrism). You can thank religion, and in many cases theocracy, for ALL THAT NONSENSE throughout history.
Equating no religion with some kind of zealotry for no religion is a fallacy. A common one, but still bullshit. The AU is not PRO non religion (nor anti-religion). They, quite rightly, as the founding fathers actually believed (at least the ones the documentary notes, Jefferson, Madison, etc) are simply pro religion and government separate. This relationship actually benefits RELIGION (and government). This stance, once again, is in no way anti religion (the state should not sanction religion, that's all, period - no stance about religion at all, pro or con).
The AU and the religious right do not have much in common, that is ludicrous. But that goes back to the misunderstanding about the AU being pro non religion. The religious right wants religion in government, just THEIR religion. That has proven over time (back to those history books) to not work out so well. Eventually the religion being sanctioned may not be the most popular one in the long run. Some people might even feel persecuted by the state sanctioned religion, and, oh, I don't know, get in a boat and move to a new land to start a new country where church and state are separate.
Re: "You haven't seen the film"
Well I may be slow, but I thought you're saying that "It's just another view, a view that a little history concerning Jefferson, Madison, etc, easily dispels, but nonetheless another opinion." was a remark about the content of the film that you haven't seen. If you haven't seen it, how do you that what you say here is true? You also know that the documentary is "specious and deceptive" without having seen it. How is that?
"How many secular states blow the shit out of other states because their god, or even the way they differently worship the same "one true god"? How many of the same torture and imprison, burn at the stake. How many are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, etc (beyond ordinary ethnocentrism). You can thank religion, and in many cases theocracy, for ALL THAT NONSENSE throughout history."
How many? Only all of the most secular ones. And they don't need a theology to justify it. It's easier that way, without a holy book that might contradict their justifications.
A balanced view of history is important in understand issues like this. Neither the RR or the AU tells the whole story. Both have an agenda and tend to tell only the truth that is effective to their cause. I always recommend A. James Reichley's book, Religion in American Public Life as a good source. Check up on his bio. I think he ought to pass your skeptical bias filter and leave you without as much reason for not reading the book as you have for not seeing the film. His more recent The Values Connection is also good. The problem for you might be that he offers a lot of justification for the point of view of people you don't like and you won't be able to tar him with the same brush as the others. Take the "red pill" Charlie, and good luck. ;-)
I'll bite, last time though
My remarks, as I clarified about four times, were based on the press snippets and interviews the films creators gave - their actual words (not on the content of the film). This was the same criticism Barry Lynn had, yes, I agree with him on this one. The "view" I was refuting is even quoted in one of my responses, and if you had bothered to read the original criticism you would see where that statement comes from.
As for "How many? Only all of the most secular ones. And they don't need a theology to justify it. It's easier that way, without a holy book that might contradict their justifications." Yeah, thats it, all the secular states are heathens because they dont have a "holy book". Sure. Except for the fact that religion is not the basis for morality in human behavior - uh oh. On the contrary, it is used far more often to justify violence and inhumane treatment, rather than to as a moral compass to avoid it (and what morality it does have, which depending on which religion we mean is valid, is not sourced in it - evolution, group dynamics, reciprocal altrusim, etc, are responsible for "morality", not religion [especially not any contemporary religion we have that is only ~2k years old]).
Not to mention the fact that there basically are only a handful of "secular states" examples that are cited, and the majority of those are highly debated as to their "secular" status. Hitler for example, probably the religous crew's favorite to say "he had no holy book and was an atheist, see there!". Well, actually no, what he really felt reinforces my point pretty damn well:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"The problem for you might be that he offers a lot of justification for the point of view of people you don't like . . . " interesting judgment of me and who and do and do not like, based on only my skepticism? As for his justification, I will take your word for it, and just decide now not to like him ;).
If we are offering up book reviewsI suggest Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. That, and the many references it provides to other related works, explains quite well the whole "morality from religion" fallacy.