I asked him if he would sign a similar petition by Howard Stern or someone else if he asked the FCC to ban Christianity from television.
Here's his response and my thoughts. What do you think?
Good question. I think there is an obligation of broadcasters to use the public airwaves responsibly. I think I still would sign the petition in spite of Stern's hypothetical petition. Of course, if I perceived a real risk to wholesome endeavors such as proclamation of the Good News, then I would be slower to take such a course.
Some would argue that this issue should be left for the "free market" to decide. I agree that many things should best be addressed that way. However, I think the use of public airwaves and the protection of children from their misuse are legitimate FCC concerns -- ones that even affect our relationship with the world.
A lack of FCC enforcement has led to the envelope being pushed significantly over the past 30 years -- and a growing absense of moral content in broadcast media has had a negative affect on public morals.
In the name of free trade, our government promotes our TV shows overseas. This works against us.
Because of the irresponsibility of our media, many in the Muslim world have developed the idea that America is a wicked, immoral place -- based on the content of the media that we export. Action films, horror movies, and hollywood dramas paint a pretty sad picture. We have turned much of the world against us by exporting our trash.
It is my contention that our media is the single greatest cause of Muslim animosity against America. We are perceived as a moral risk. After all, a Muslim might reason, "if we are as wicked as our media present us, why shouldn't we be fought against?" Add a few misbehaving soldiers stationed overseas to the mix and that only reinforces the idea that we are not a moral people.
It has been said that the average Muslim father cares more about the chastity of his daughters than having a democratic form of government. That's worth thinking about.
I say its well past time that we stop exporting our trash and start cleaning up our act.
And my response:
I understand and tend to agree. I just always worry when we start censoring any type of free speech, because it gives them more ammunition to censor me and my free speech.So do you agree or disagree? Let's see some debate here ;-).
But because of limited public air space, I think for the sake of children, guidelines should be given and followed, but who gets to decide the guidelines. At what point do we stop "watching out for children" and pushing our morality on everyone else.
3 comments:
I understand and tend to agree. I just always worry when we start censoring any type of free speech, because it gives them more ammunition to censor me and my free speech.
Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying.
But because of limited public air space, I think for the sake of children, guidelines should be given and followed, but who gets to decide the guidelines.
That's a good question to debate. Its not a new question. These issues had to be grappled with by previous generations.
I still prefer that market pressures be brought to bear -- but that's not always enough.
At what point do we stop "watching out for children" and pushing our morality on everyone else.
Jonathan -- somebody's morality is always being employed -- or "pushed" if you feel compelled to use the term. Laws are inherently "pushy" if they are enforced at all.
Many on the left want to push their (im)morality and intolerant ideas about tolerance on the rest of us. There is no neutral ground on morality.
Back to your question: "At what point do we stop "watching out for children" and pushing our morality on everyone else." Why do you ask it that way? Do you think there is neutral ground?
John
Back to your question: "At what point do we stop "watching out for children" and pushing our morality on everyone else." Why do you ask it that way? Do you think there is neutral ground?
I don't know what the middle ground would be.
But if we were in a Muslim country their morality would be completely pushed upon us.
Of if Muslims took a greater role in our country's government, could you imagine what television would look like in America.
No women, or if they're there they would be completely covered.
There would be no art (true Muslims believe only God can create and to create art is to try and play God).
I would be greatly upset if a Muslim tried to push his morality and rules and regulations upon us.
I think watching out for our children would involve giving parents a greater control over what their children watch.
Things like the V-Chip and Parental Controls would help us protect our children.
That way we're not infringing on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution, but we're giving parents way to protect their children from the filth on TV (whatever their parents believe filth is -- i.e. Muslim teachings, nudity, language, Jewish teachings, or even Christian teachings.)
I still prefer that market pressures be brought to bear -- but that's not always enough.
If the market isn't pressure enough, it may not be a big enough concern for Americans. It may show Christians and those who want "filth" off the air are in the minority. That doesn't mean one side is right or wrong, but enough people may not be concerned about it. And that may have more to say about apathy than anyone's moral convictions.
Many on the left want to push their (im)morality and intolerant ideas about tolerance on the rest of us. There is no neutral ground on morality.
I don't know if airing "filth" on TV is pushing an agenda on someone else.
Everyone has the right and ability to turn off the TV to block whatever you see as filth. I think people need to stop expecting the government to protect everyone everywhere from everything. Stop depending on the government to protect your children and start doing it yourself. The government doesn't force you to even own a TV, let a lone watch it. Just like people weren't forced to live in New Orleans, but they did. And now they've lost homes and lives and want the government to come to the rescue for their decisions.
Just like smoking, with people expecting the government to pay for their medical bills because they made the bad decision to start smoking. People need to make their own decision (and decisions for their kids) and quit blaming everyone else when they screw up.
I know of a mother who blamed our youth pastor and church because her daughter had two children out of wedlock.
Sure there were other kids in the youth group who did the same things, but you don't see them trying to blame the church because their kids messed up. Take responsibility for your own actions.
I may have gotten off topic here, but I think people need to be aware of what's going on, and quit expecting the government to pay for and protect us from everything. Good debate though.
John Stewart had some pretty funny bits on his show Monday night about this topic.
After someone from the Christian Coalition (I believe) spoke at length about how wholesome TV used to be, Stewart pointed out that it was a wonderful time, when blacks weren't seen on TV and water fountains and businesses displayed signs that said, "Whites Only"
I don't know what the middle ground would be.
But if we were in a Muslim country their morality would be completely pushed upon us.
I haven't spent much time in that context. There are legitimate concerns here. Of course, in a Muslim country you wouldn't have to protect your children against blatant and pervasive sexual imagery and innuendo.
Even in this country some people don't like the country and small towns because they want to indulge themselves in unhealthy behavior and therefore prefer the anonymity and isolation of the big city.
Or if Muslims took a greater role in our country's government, could you imagine what television would look like in America.
No women, or if they're there they would be completely covered.
There would be no art (true Muslims believe only God can create and to create art is to try and play God).
I would be greatly upset if a Muslim tried to push his morality and rules and regulations upon us.
I understand your point. It does matter what you believe.
I think watching out for our children would involve giving parents a greater control over what their children watch.
Things like the V-Chip and Parental Controls would help us protect our children.
That way we're not infringing on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution, but we're giving parents way to protect their children from the filth on TV (whatever their parents believe filth is -- i.e. Muslim teachings, nudity, language, Jewish teachings, or even Christian teachings.)
I can see benefits with DVRs and other tools that give consumers more "atomic" control over their media. The Hollywood elite complain about filtering technologies as impinging on their artistic freedom. How convoluted!
If the market isn't pressure enough, it may not be a big enough concern for Americans. It may show Christians and those who want "filth" off the air are in the minority. That doesn't mean one side is right or wrong, but enough people may not be concerned about it. And that may have more to say about apathy than anyone's moral convictions.
I don't think those who believe in protecting marriage are in the minority -- however, in spite of high turnout, most registered voters didn't vote.
It matters whether you believe you make a difference. Indeed, coordinated grassroots effort really does make a difference. The homosexual lobby, although a small group, learned how to use this to their advantage to push their agenda on the rest of us. The ACLU targets the courts, desipte public opinion.
Are people apathetic when they think they genuinely make a difference? Many people do care about this -- but the business of life squeezes it out of their awareness.
I agree with the statement that the opposite of love is not hate but apathy. God help us lest the epithet "I don't care" becomes the hallmark of American existence.
As God transforms the hearts of men and women, they do care about their neighbors and, by extension, about their country.
Thanks,
John
P.S. You wrote more. If you remind me I'll try to respond to it.
Post a Comment