"Audience: Jerry, Pennsylvania – says there’s proposed legislation to outlaw Christian radio, “they want to silence us”

Commentary: Don’t take this at face value."

Never take anything at face value however this is not far from the truth.
There is a bill in Congress being debated that would resurrect the "fairness doctrine" which would in effect squelch free speech and bring a tyrannical government taboo against critics both political and religious.

This would be enacted by claiming "hate speech" laws against any one who has a contrary opinion against anything that special interest groups want to shove down our throats.

One has only to look to Canada to see the effects of this violation of free speech.

At present Jay Seculo of the ALCJ is involved with resisting this free speech inhibiting "fairness doctrine".

Call your Reps. to have them support our Constitutionally protected free speech rights by having them vote for the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 2905; S. 1748)

This is not a hoax.

I googled "pending legislaton fairness doctrine" and found this article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20080612d.html

Note that 1) the Fairness Doctrine was in effect before 1987. I heard a fair bit of Christian radio pre-1987 because my mom would turn it on. I don't anything that could be construed as hindering anybody's ability to preach the Gospel. Or anyone's ability to call sin, sin, for that matter.

2) Some members of Congress have _proposed_ reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. They haven't gone as far as introducing a bill so far. In fact, a bill that would prevent the Fairness Doctrine needs only 22 more Representatives' support to be forced out of committee to a floor vote in the House. Which is something worth talking to your own Congressman about.

Hodeuon

I am surely not up to date on all Canadian law but I do live there and am wondering why you would make the claim that we would become "like Canada" if the bill is not passed? (I am American)

I'm a big fan of the CBC and have to say that I've heard programming that I would characterize as being far more open to all than I hear here.

To be fair, I must say that I am not a fan of Christian broadcasting such as Grace Hour nor do I listen to Christian music. However, I have listened to call in programs for many years that certainly aren't Christian in purpose but never exclude anyone from expressing their convictions. As a matter of fact, what I do hear, is respect for all. Those I've heard are clearly Christian.

Perhaps the new study done by the PEW foundation would be interesting to you. It states that most Americans believe that many religions provide a pathway to God, not just their own. I think about 21% believe that only their religion is the truth and that all need to follow it.

I find amongst the Canadians I know, they respect one another's religion and don't mind your expression of it. Whether personally or on the air. I have serious doubts as to whether they would appreciate being proselytized in any way.

Can you enlighten me as to this Canadian law? I'd like to read it. Thanks.

Here is one example of what has taken place in Canada.

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!
Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality.

A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer, Alberta, newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

(Story continues below)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...ew&pageId=66704

Boisson. I am aware of this man.

The point is that it is now illegal to take a moral stance according to ones belief system and there is an attempt in Colorado to do this very same thing going on right now.

I think that no one should ever commit violence against some one who, to them, is being immoral but it should never be illegal to express a disagreement about activity that another chooses to engage in.
(the exception would be self defence)
This applies to anything, not just sexual activity.

Perhaps taking christian broadcasting off the air would act as an enviornmentally sound policy. Just for sheer bad taste and the unfair exploitation of widows and the elderly. As far as Boissons comments, they may very well have been harmful. How many of us heard Carl use harmful language toward people only to have it defended by the empire gazers. My daughters have it down with christian music. 1.8 seconds after they flip to a station they can identify the chessy, spike haired, monologue of banality. Thank God for good instincts.

Maybe some of these radio heads would get of their butts and interact with real human beings face to face if they didn't have their "radio ministry." I think the televangelists and many of the radio pastors are an embarrassment anyway.

I agree with you.

I am personally very opposed to this policy. Not just for the sake of the Grace Hour, but the hundreds of other programs out there.

Thinking from a secular point of view, who are we to determine what is and is not "fair" speech. Think of the many ideas that were once considered "dangerous": racial integration, women's suffrage, ... even democracy itself was once considered dangerous.

The Marriage of Figaro, written by Mozart, depicts a common man outwitting a nobleman. Just humming the tune was banned in half of Europe.

A lot of the teaching from quite a few of these radio heads and televangelists is blatently unscriptural too. I don't waste my time listening to a lot of them!!

We each like to come here and speak openly (at least most here speak openly) about what we think.
Do you think that this medium would be exempt from censorship if such a law where passed?
Not on your life.
Someone could complain and have it shut down if they wanted to by simply stating that the comments where hate speech and that they where "offended" by what was said.

Still think it's a good idea now?

I hope that you understand the extent of what is intended by this law because if too many take it lightly that's exactly what will take place.

We need to get away from the "This is America and it can't happen here" mentality because it can and will if no one takes it seriously.

I'm not being an alarmist just a realist.

The slippery slope

Time rolls up like a scroll

Memories of friends and family that were

NoT MuCh To AmMeNd HEre

The above posted part is what I agree with, most of them make me laugh, angry or I feel embarrass for mainstream Christianity.

I'm a freak for free speech, and know that we must take the bad with the good. I just don't listen to the talking heads except to tune in to grace hour/gg archived messages from time to time.

I first heard about carl on the radio in Framingham, Mass. The radio broadcasts have been anextremely beneficial propaganda tool for tbs/gg. Good $$$ maker for them too.

The fairness doctrine is directed at political speech, mostly conservative political speech. They can not touch religious speech.

Near as I can tell, this Boisson was speaking hurtful words that were perceived as hate.

Canadians seem to be tolerant people who may err on the side of letting things go that shouldn't. Maybe too passive.

Televangelists and radio ministries that speak words of hate and encourage intolerance have managed to rile enough to get Lund to speak up. I'm glad about that.

I enjoy listening to CBC programing and hope it stays free of hate speech.

I agree it's difficult to police but at least Lund spoke up. I was disappointed that he used another unrelated story to bolster his own claims. He didn't need to. If he didn't speak up we'd have the airwaves full of rants.

Boisson's case is now on appeal. This case was heard and decided by a lawyer. I heard there was disgust by Boisson's hate talk. That simply is not tolerated.



AmCan

Keep believing that and you'll find out you're wrong soon enough.
They already are "touching" religious speech.

A man was arrested, now get this, right next to the Liberty Bell, for preaching the Word of God.
He wasn't violating any laws but they still arrested him anyway.

It IS here now and if there is not resistance then say goodbye to your right to speak your mind.

He was arrested for not going to a free speech zone at the Liberty Bell when told to by a ranger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones

I'm not wild about free speech zones, but they are essentially fair in that they avoid the issue of the content of the message.

Content of the message?
What has that to do with Constitutionally protected free speech?
The guy was standing on a "public sidewalk" and wasn't interfering with the free passage of anyone.

Free speech zones are not fair in that they prevent anyone from speaking their mind in public places based on an agenda that doesn't fit with anything to do with freedom of expression.

Most "free speech zones"are tactically placed so as to keep those indivuduals who want to speak to others as far away from those others as possible.
How is that fair?
How is that legal?

All of American is a "free speech zone" and assigning and limiting people to these zones violates the Constitution protection of public freedom of speech.

What would happen if guest starts preaching his stuff on the street......how long do you think some people would put up with him? If he didn't get beat up he'd be taken away by the men in white coats.

Some free speech is so annoying. Can't imagine I'd like him outside my business. He'd send people away real fast.

I'd have rights to complain but it'd cost me in time and money to get rid of him. I can live without the hate homos talk and the pictures of aborted fetus's. They aren't good neighbor's. They are obnoxious.

I understand that but on the other hand what if your opinion is considered obnoxious to someone?
Should you then have no right to it?

I don't think any one should interfere with the free operation of someones business but if they are out of the way of hindering someone from walking down the sidewalk (say that they are on the side not blocking anyone) why should anyone have the right to stop them?

Free speech is only free if it includes everyone.

Personally I wouldn't stand on the street shouting at people and I have done a lot of street preaching without blocking peoples progress down the walkway.

There is a concerted effort to inhibit free speech in this nation and it's not a good thing.
If you think it is then you should not express you own opinion openly, just for the sake of being consistent that is.

I'm not asking you to shut up, I'm just trying to make the point.

You have the right and so should every one else regardless of whether you like what they have to say or not.

(By the way, I agree with the comment about televangelists being an embarrassment)

I have no problem with free speech zones so long as it a win win situation. A person or group should have the right in public places to get their message out but not to block the sidewalk so it is difficult to pass.

I'm in agreement that they should not be hindering anyones progess down the street for sure.
That guy in Penn. wasn't blocking any one.
I saw the vidio and people where passing right by him with no problems.
They just didn't like what he had to say so they arrested him on false charges.
He didn't break any laws and he kept asking them what law he was breaking but they had no legitimate answer.

I can hardly wait to see what takes place in court on this one.

If this preacher isn't found innocent, then is any Christian safe in America anymore??? If he can't speak his mind freely without getting arrested and locked up, who else can?? Something to think about!!!

Where gov't action is concerned, content has everything to do with free speech law and the constitutiional limits on speech.

Free speech is not limitless. There are lots of things you cannot say. But outside specific rules about certain kinds of speech, the government is only supposed to limit based on time, place and manner and these rules are supposed to have nothing to do with the content of someone's speech.

The guy was found guilty and I think he should have been. The ranger's job is to enforce the rules, not to change them. You want to change the rules as written or how they are executed then you file a complaint and sue someone, but you don't give cops/rangers crap when they tell you to move. Especially on Federal property.

He's not a hero, IMO. He's a jerk that thinks the law applies to everyone but him.

But I offer you with a little something from the Late George Carlin, which makes mention of the fairness doctrine and provides some foundation as to how we treat the public air waves:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=438&invol=726

Munson, would you defend a Carlinesque monologue on the street or would the person have to ride in on an ass preaching the gospel?

imo, if someone has discretion, they would draw the line with others in mind. If they don't know where to draw it and no one can convince them they are out of line, then we're left with government stepping in.

George Carlin was brilliant and really really funny. If I were home, I would not be surprised if the CBC aired some of his monologues. It would be so much better hearing him than reading him.

Goerge Carlin saw through things and understood that there is a man behind the curtain pulling our strings....he didn't have it easy...I always loved this clip with his "rambling treatise" on modern man...and I love the ones where he really portrays religion as a big circus. He had more truch in his comedy than there has ever been in our governmnet through out history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCljFYn3zTY

I have to add this one...

I love his audacity....thank you George Carlin...you had to wrap it as comedy but everyone laughs because it's true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=related

I have to say, this video is full of profanity and Carlin shows no respect to doctrine.
Which is exactly why I love it. It says what many think but are always afraid to say outloud.

I would probably exercise my right of free speech and correct any error or misrepresentations well as expose the things I know about this aberrant ministry.

Okay I get ya. So no matter how extreme, free speech should be free. No restraints.

I think it bothers me to hear street preachers as much as it would bother me to hear a monologue about 7 words you can't say shouted from the street corner. but, I don't generally go to the places where street preachers go and I've never heard a comedy monologue on the street. The colorful language I hear comes from the teenagers walking along the street.

George is funny, no?

No George is not funny,
he's hilarious.
:lol:

Sorry but I had to.

I think I should make something a bit more clear.
When I "preached" on the street it wasn't like you see others do today.
I would ask some people if I could talk with them for a moment.
I didn't stand around laying it on every one and I didn't speak with everyone.
Just certain select people and most where very open and didn't get annoyed.

I met my wife doing this and we've been married now for over thirty years.
Thirty one this November.

The funny thing is that I never felt led, if I may use that term, to preach to her and I found out why later.
She had been scared by a hellfire and brimstone street preacher and would have been turned away if confronted on a personal level.
She used to sit where I chose to talk with others and listened to what I said to them as she waited for her, at that time, boyfriend.

She's quite a Godly woman now and everyone who knows her loves her tender heart.

I think people have a right to be left alone.

Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church certainly have the right to their "views", but does that right extend to disrupting a funeral for a dead soldier, even if it's on public property? Pastor Phelps often cries that he's being persecuted and his free speech rights are being trampled upon.

Would the Christians that feel that they are being persecuted for exercising their rights to free speech allow a gay rights activist free and unencumbered access to say, a Promise Keepers rally? Would they allow such a person "equal access" to exercise their right to free speech?

Is it OK for a Christian to stand on a public sidewalk in front of a business to spout a fire and brimstone message at the top of their lungs? What if it's driving away customers from some businesses? Is it violating free speech for a business owner to ask that this person stop yelling?

I don't think there's any problem with people wanting to be left alone IN PEACE and not have to put up with some idiot with a megaphone ranting about Christianity, NAFTA, the Gay Menace, the Heterosexual Menace, the Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Scientology Menace, or anything. There are tons of venues for self expression.

fyi- the CBC did an interesting program yesterday on the life and travels of Peter-yes, that Peter, the one from the bible. Doubt we'd hear that kind of programming in the US on NPR. Even the Christian stations. All I've heard from the US is some guy preaching, asking for money or that absurd call in show called Grace Hour where those in the group call in to talk to those in the group.

I agree guest, I want to be left alone when it comes to preaching like Phelps or Boisson does.

B)

Come one & come all to preach at the thunderbox.

:D

New Kid here, not logged in ...

I agree amcan...cute name!

I can't stand most of the programs on christian broadcasting...whenever I hear some a**hole to tell some "person with a back pain" (only half the population) to lay their hands on the radio to get a healing...I get so ticked...but maybe that is what people want, a god who is nothing more than a genie in a bottle who will do them favors...as long as they send in the money.

I would really love to get a few thousand people to write letters to some idiot preacher on radio just to tell them they were not led to give them money but just to pray for them tp get real.

But my wish is they would just "get lost."

I don't listen to most of them anyway. So many of them talk way too much about money, money, money. There's a lot of preachers telling people to give X amount of dollars to THEIR ministry and THEN AND ONLY THEN God will heal them. That makes people feel like they have to earn their healings with money. If it worked that way, how come none of the people that came face to face with Jesus for healing gave Him pieces of silver or other forms of payment before He would heal them? Too many of these preachers are hustling people for money. They are saying in way that people have to buy their healings (by giving money to them of course) when God lovingly wants to heal people for free. Then so many people that buy into this never get healed and feel ripped off and disillusioned in the end. These preachers misrepresent God and do a real disservice to the body of Christ. My time would be better spent listening to Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin or other rock groups than a lot of those preachers.

After people give a lot to these preachers and don't get healed, the preachers might also say that it's not God's will to heal everyone. But that's said AFTER the big sales pitch that just duped a lot of people to hand over lots of $$$. Or they'll say it's just not God's time to heal you yet and you just have to sit there and wait for who knows how long. They might even tell you to hand over some more $$$ as a test of your faith while you're waiting for that healing. In the end, so many people still are not healed, those preachers have even more $$$ in their pockets and the peoples' disillusionment gets even worse.