PBS' Sectarian Neighborhoods

Under the Bush administration, things were done to the Republican-despised PBS system much akin to what was done to FEMA and NASA: Christian groups taking over public time when they could have *public access* in other ways.

Meant to crowd out things not in keeping with some's agendas in order toundermine the very purpose of public TV.

Before then, you could see and still can, Christian stations over-amping their signals *to* interfere with PBS news and others, if not buy out the bands.

No real sympathy, really, there. You can't get *away* from Christian broadcsting, even in some places in the South and elsewhere, to the exclusion of other broadcasts, even if the Christian evangelism is veiled in terms of travelogues or cooking shows.

You say:

"Only a few PBS affiliates have any religious programs at all. Unless you count Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which I do but only because the late, great Fred Rogers -- an ordained Presbyterian minister -- saw his kind and gentle, soft-shoe and sweater work as a ministry and a calling. Mister Rogers never talked about Jesus. He just acted like him."

No flies on Mister Rogers. Even if he came off pretty creepy at times, he was *totally* clear on what public TV was about.

He wasn't marking territory, he was on there talking to kids in affirming ways, and eventually, introducing us to kinds of people 'religion' was among the voices telling us to be scared of.

I think what'd offend Christians today would be, not anything he said, but that he could do it *without* making it about Jesus.

Dear God, save us from religion!

Themself got people on it. *whuf.* :)

Being supported by tax payers money vitiates any religious programming!!! Next topic ???

If I'm agreeing with CCNL on something, it's time for theocrats to stop whining and let PBS be public again. :)

There are two issues here, one the issue of church and state, the other the mission of PBS. Bush's privatization schemes along with his born again-ness paved the way for both the corporate and sectarian financing of PBS. The two are interwoven.
Separately, they are dangerous; together, they are toxic.

No sectarian programing allowed on PBS by law?

Well, you could have fooled this long time viewer.

Regularly as the seasons I can count on getting a new instructional guide to the Holocaust (Shoah), the Israeli struggle for independence and security against those awful Muslims, the rites of the menorah, and of course any attempt to show any report semi-favorable to the Muslims/Arabs (who are all terrorists don't you know)is quashed by local big contributors to PBS from foundations and trusts and individuals.

But afterall if a pressure group controls the Hollywood product, the newspapers, and TV why shouldn't it also control the programing of Public Radio/Television? Sure makes sense to me.

But nothing sectarian going on around here. If you doubt it just ask any admiring supporter/adherent of the true faith.

Has anyone considered that taxpayers are both sectarian and non-sectarian (if there is such a thing as non-sectarian).

To be truly diverse, all "sects" should be represented.

That alone is representative of the American taxpayer.

Religions and non-religions may all be considered "sects" by anyone on the outside of that belief system.

Targeting Christians is as bad as targeting Muslims, though at present one target is more popular than the other in being rejected.

Atheism is as much a sect as theism, make no mistake.

It is possible for all of us to live our public media lives in ways that are accepting of each other, and stop bowing to the noises of the bigots. They are the real problems, not the "sects."

Waters says, "The PBS board's decision doesn't effect any religious programs now airing." Effect? Does he mean "affect"?

And--"Oscar the Grinch"? Surely he means Oscar the Grouch, who would tell us, in no uncertain terms, that PBS should remain out of the religion business.

Gee if it's only 3 or 4 religious shows, I hardly see what the harm is. Doesn't most of the money come from private doners?

The case of KMBH shows that having a religious mission affects programming because they declined to run a documentary of great public concern to protect their institutional, sectarian interest. I understand that corporations, even non-profit ones, have institutional interests also. But they do not attach their core mission to exclusionary claims outside the laws of physics. The essence of the public domain is inclusion, in the sense that it involves a tangibility based in the physical world, the only sphere that we are sure that we all share. KMBH shows that they will violate that sphere when it suits them.

The same rule used to ban religious programming also bars commercial and partisan programming. So, will PBS remove Moyers, Smiley and their ilk from the air waves? Will the long commercials at the beginning of broadcasts be stopped?

Nah. those things might be required by the rules, common decency and fairness but that would require liberals not to be self-righteous hypocrites. We all know that won't happen. This is a real important, pressing issue too. Another progressive crisis requiring immediate action. Think of the millions being injured by mass for shut ins and the damage to our national fabric. I mean think of the horrors that might arise if PBS actually reflected the genuine diversity of our culture instead of a narrow, sterile, fringe secularist point of view. I mean we need more jazz programs, homosexual programming, ballet, obscure artists and Progressive nihilist points of view on every subject. More commercial and culturally failed outre please!

By the way haven't the Supremes repeatedly ruled that the Government must be neutral to religion when the use of public facilities are in question? Yeah they have. But Progressives don't want to be bothered with that troublesome old Constitution except when it suits their agenda.

In the end of course Progressives, like the PBS board, know better then we do and they have a Constitutional and moral right to take our money for their friends and entertainment.

Can anyone tell me where the phrase "liberal pin-head" comes from?

To this list of stations you should add the much-listened-to WBUR in Boston. This station broadcasts a live Protestant church service on Sunday mornings.

Religion is an integral part of this country's evolution and that includes atheism. Instead of banning religious shows include shows for all religions including atheism. Bring Dawkins on. That will be the true American way.

For the record, PBS is not the same as NPR. WBUR is a member of NPR, National Public Radio, not the Public Broadcasting System. I don't know what the rules are for NPR, so the shut-in services may or may not be acceptable.

It is a red herring to say that "all faiths" should be presented in order to be representative. It's not achievable, because in a nation of 300 million people, there will always be additional groups which have not been presented.

And, give the "Bush is to blame" argument a rest. These shows have been on for decades. The ownership of the stations has not changed, either. Why wasn't this addressed between 1993 and 2001?

PBS is not a single entity controlling hundreds of broadcasting locations. It is a system of independent stations which contract to carry programming. Does anyone know how much government money actually goes to the local stations, rather than going to producers of the programming? And, does the system meet its mission better by using these three stations, or by having no station in those markets?

There is plenty of religious programming on WETA in Washington--the kind that will be around even after they enforce this rule.
Dr Wayne Dwyer is the most obvious example. He preaches that we should "have faith in yourself, and tap into your inner-spirit." His religion is Humanism, and it is a worldview like any other--requiring faith and trust, despite abundant evidence that humans are the source of our problems, not the solution. Yet this is what so many PBS viewers believe in: themselves.

Dear God,

Please tell the knuckle dragging neo-conservative bible thumpers that you are not pleased with their insidious proslytizing in your name. Please advise them that their control freak mentality is not favorable to you. Thank you.

Dear GOD

Please forgive the knuckle dragging humanist how think we came from monkeys.
Please advise them controling the air waves and are schools is not favorable to you.

Dear God,

Did you make "JITL" illiterate, or did he choose to be illiterate?

Just wondering.

are the local viewers complaining?
if not - just let them be.

PBS almost exclusively caters to people under 10 and those pushing 60 and older. I doubt those who have strong objections to religion even watch it. Can't you people mind your own business? Talk about f'in proselytizing!

God, if he is up there, must be sick of the shenanigans that go on in his name. The BAC president is gone after doing his best to dismantle the "wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson envisaged.

The antics of our politicians who talk about a "Judeo-Christian nation" remind me of British humorist Mel Calman's cartoon about god: "Sometimes I feel like saying -- Don't call me, I'll call you".

Keep PBS programs free of religious mumbojumbo.

Dear Sally: it's a one year memorial for dear Tim Russet, do you plan the give his memory crude offence again as you did when he died?

I didn't read comments from those on the right, but as someone who is center left politically, I don't understand how this makes any sense.
"PBS is banning all new religious programs to comply more faithfully with 1985 bylaws that require programs to be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian."
"Nonpartisan"??? Who are they kidding? PBS could not be less representative of the US as a whole, unless we're all upper middle class white liberals.

CHECK to names on the PBS BOARD OF DIRECTORS...

Then check the board members and the NEW STAFF at your local station.

You'll see what's going on. It's the ADL and other Jewish groups trying to stifle anything that doesn't further their purposes.

ADL's Friedman, in a video on this forum last week, told the radical about what they were going to do. Last week. GO read it.

Meantimd, DO CHECK the members of the board.

In the PBS outlett in my area, there are two new Jewish top staff...so bizarre given the area it's laughable. We got a
thing on Yiddish the other day.

Would that they'd do a scouring of the MSM.
that they own.

It's gonna blow up one of these days, this new stiffling attempt. Like the part where
no one could mention that Madoff was Jewish.
Not an important part of the story, Abe Foxman argued. Oh.

It's just one more attack by the atheist heathen crowd to erase God from America.

I don't understand why PBS felt that this is necessary. Local stations should feel free to program whatever they want--if the station is licensed to a sectarian organization, like BYU, they should feel free to run programs relevant to the people who provided the funding to start it up and continue to fund it. PBS itself, as a Gov't funded organization, shouldn't distribute religious programming.

Our Miami PBS station constantly runs Jewish history year round but does not allow any Catholic programs so I never give them any donations.Soviet TV did not allow any religious programs either. David Axelrod Obama's chief guru worked on communist newspapers many years. Audacity of Hope by Obama revealed that Obama is an atheist as was his mother.

"Atheism is as much a sect as theism, make no mistake."

Huh?? Where did this morsel of insight come from? Negation of supernatural claims translates into a sect??? Please!
I also don't believe in pink unicorns, does that make me a sect member also?????

Public Television should not be in the business of proselytizing. I agree that any regular programming of religious services should be stopped.

You all may wish to hear the recent video here "ON Faith" by Berlinerblau, who heads the Jewish something or other at Geo Washington University....

He did a the piece (still available) with the ADL's David Friedman...about how

SOMETHING MUST be done about all the new anti-semitism
in the media. It was suggested that the government take action; American laws and the constiution notwithstanding, of course.

If you think this attempted purge at PBS isn't related, think again. But do find the video, still there, and listen to it.

And be prepared for holocaust stories day and night. Maybe less than during Gaza, but increasing with the next Israeli
savagery.

And watch this space for a new campaign against catholics. It's all over, little snippets and big ones. Foul.

"It's just one more attack by the atheist heathen crowd to erase God from America."

POSTED BY: RFRBOY | JUNE 18, 2009 11:55 AM
---------------------------

Yeah, isn't that the truth? It's strange that they accuse us of being weak "cheek-turners," "Bible thumpers," etc., but if we weren't, they would be long-gone. They should be GLAD we're not hate-filled people, or we'd have wiped them off the earth...yet they call us "dangerous."

I guess they DO have plenty to gripe about to God; if He had eradicated sin instead of letting it play out, they wouldn't have ever existed.

"The same rule used to ban religious programming also bars commercial and partisan programming. So, will PBS remove Moyers, Smiley and their ilk from the air waves? Will the long commercials at the beginning of broadcasts be stopped?"

Moyers isn't partisan, he's Moyers. Smiley, for that matter, is often overtly-Evangelical. The McLaughlin Group is often ridiculously 'partisan' for the Republicans but more or less plays within the rules. Many conservative journalists made their mark on PBS, especially in the financial reporting sector, Louis Rukheyser comes to mind.

How about William F. Buckley, ...I think George Will got his start on PBS, ...no, it's not the Faux News idea of blatantly-slanted and Evangelical-biased 'Fair And Balanced,' it was actually *conservative people, not Neocons.*

I'd talk back at the TV a lot, but they were actually about as well as conservative positions could be proposed and defended, anywhere. With the exception of Matthews, not just shouting down people who disagreed.

Eh, caught that at the last moment, I meant in that sentence to be referring to McLaughlin, not Matthews, but, same thing.

"To be truly diverse, all "sects" should be represented."

All sects are represented although, admittedly, Catholicism and Christianity do take center stage. The Shoah is not a sect, concerns European and, to an extent, European history. Increasing attention is being paid to Islam, almost none to Hinduism, Judaism (the religion, duh).

Bu analogy for Catholic racist whistling and his ilk:

Next Papal to-do, quest for historical Jesus, Jesus crucified, risen, opening a department store to be announced, endorsing a soccer team, to be announced.

There is nothing inherently wrong with PBS programs that deal with religion per se, so long as all are represented, not just the Christians/Catholics. What is wrong is programming by religious institutions, particularly since PBS is now taking so much corporate (Christian/Catholic, I point out, for whistling and co-bigots) money. Not a good mix, religion and business.

jailkkhosla wrote:
Religion is an integral part of this country's evolution and that includes atheism. Instead of banning religious shows include shows for all religions including atheism
-----------------------
Atheism is not a Religion by definition - it is the absence of a religion. Don't try to lump atheists into the delusional religious ranks, please. Most people are not dumb enough to fall for it.

Interesting that the Jew-hater whistling turns out to be Catholic. Many had thought he/she was a Protestant Fundo. Still possible of course. One needs must consider, however, that the Protestants always claim that it is the Catholics who are the racists. Interesting.

Ah...religion does uplift us all. When I look at the number of religious racists on this blog, I wonder from how far down they have been lifted and to what moral heights. From the center of the earth to two miles down?

joedbrown asks: 'Can anyone tell me where the phrase "liberal pin-head" comes from?'

Perhaps it comes from conservative pin-heads.

Such adolescent categorizations and name-calling are the result of a failure on both the left and the right to understand that solution to problems are not about these polarizations, but are about finding the common ground on which to come to unity of thought and action. But that is too much work for all those who allow their spirits and minds to shrink to a small size.

"Such adolescent categorizations and name-calling are the result of a failure on both the left and the right to understand that solution to problems are not about these polarizations, but are about finding the common ground on which to come to unity of thought and action. But that is too much work for all those who allow their spirits and minds to shrink to a small size."

Yes, it is. However, the media thrives on these conflicts, and, in fact, has more than a passing interest in them. Just a few days ago, WaPo first published, then removed from the web, REMOVED FROM the web, an article by Paul Kane, disclosing real estate shenanigan by Senators Pelosi, Connell, MConnell, to the tune of tens of millions. The article on said senators' health care thieving, along with that of Sen. Kennedy, however, was not pulled. Interesting.

OHHHHhhhh Whistling and co-bigots. NOw, Madoff stole money from Jews, but these Catholics stole money from everyone, including their fellow Catholics. OHHHHhhhh Whistling and co-bigots, by your reasoning, isn't their Catholicism relevant? How come we're not hearrriinnnggg about it? Has the Pope been notified?
Think that they'll lose their Senate seats, let alone be indicted, go to jail? OHHHHH Whistling and co-bigots think that the Catholics/Christians as in WaPo take care of their own? How come we don't hear more about this? Hmmmm....

The original blogger's question incorrectly assumes that PBS is paying the individual broadcasting stations and specifically financially supporting their religious programming, such as mass for shut-ins and religious sermons. That is NOT the fact. For example, KBYU is an educational broadcasting station that primarily functions by sharing programming produced by Brigham Young University with the larger community, many of whom are BYU alumni and/or parents of students. This includes musical and dramatic performances on the campus, lectures on secular topics by visiting speakers, graduation ceremonies, sports events, and educational lectures. The "devotionals" are simply one more university community event that is being shared with the larger regional audience. The broadcasting facilities of KBYU and the salaries of its staff, primarily faculty and students in broadcast journalism school, are paid for by BYU and by the usual "begathons" that solicit community financial support.

PBS is PAID by KBYU for PBS programming it provides to the station for broadcast. PBS does NOT pay KBYU to show Frontline, American Experience, or McLaughlin Group. PBS does NOT provide any financial subsidy to BYU's broadcast of religious programs held on campus, just as it does NOT subsidize the broadcast of BYU sports events or concerts or educational lectures.

No taxpayer is supporting KBYU religious broadcasting. PBS is simply a retailer of TV programming. It is not the owner or operator of local broadcast stations. It is frankly ridiculous for PBS to think it has any right to tell its customers--the non-profit broadcast stations--what they can broadcast on their own stations. It would hardly be more ridiculous if PBS demanded that anyone who watches PBS had to disavow watching religious programs on the same television!

If PBS is concerned that station IDs show a PBS logo just before a local religious broadcast, the local stations can just show an overlay that says "This program is not a PBS product, and is purely supported by your donations to your local station."

continued

DeAnne Hamilton (2010) *
Director & General Manager
WKAR
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

M Howard Jacobson (2009) *
Former President
Idle Wild Foods, Inc.
Westborough, Massachusetts

Al Jerome (2009) ***
President & CEO
KCET
Los Angeles, California

Paula Kerger
President
Public Broadcasting Service
Arlington, Virginia

Angus S. King, Jr. (2011) *
Former Governor of Maine
Brunswick, Maine

John King (2010) *
President & CEO
Vermont Public Television
Colchester, Vermont

Jennifer Lawson (2010) **
General Manager
WHUT
Washington, D.C.

Peter Morrill (2009) *
General Manager
Idaho Public Television
Boise, Idaho

James R. Pagliarini (2009) *
President & Chief Executive Officer
Twin Cities Public Television (tpt)
St. Paul, Minnesota

John E. Porter (Chair) (2009) **
Hogan & Hartson
Washington, D.C.

Sharon P. Rockefeller (2009) *
President & Chief Executive Officer
WETA
Arlington, Virginia

Geoffrey Sands (2010) *
Director
McKinsey & Company
New York, New York

Richard Schneider (Vice-Chair) (2009) **
President & CEO
WPBT Channel 2
Miami, Florida

Donna A. Tanoue (2009) *
Vice Chairman
Bank of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii

Allen Weatherly (2010) *
Executive Director
Arkansas Educational Television Network
Conway, Arkansas

Eugene Williams (2009) **
General Manager
KTWU-TV
Topeka, Kansas

Thomas K. Williams (2011) **
Alaska Tax Counsel, BP Exploration
(Alaska), Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska

OHHHHhhhh Whistling and co-bigots, Whistling wrote:

"CHECK to names on the PBS BOARD OF DIRECTORS..."
DONE: Scroll down. Now, Whistling and co-bigots, seems there are an awwfffulll lot of Christian/Catholic names here. Soooo, by your reasoning, should we ask if this is why we aren't hearing more about the thieving Catholic Senators Kennedy, Connell, MConnell, Pelosi, and their fellow Christians. By analogy is this why we have soooo much OIL company support suddenly for PBS, so much Christian/Catholic stuff day in and day out, that mentioned in the essay being the least of it? OOOOoohhhhh Whistling and co-bigots, should the name be changed to the Christian/Catholic Broadcasting Company? To use Whistling's word, "foul."

PBS Board of Directors

Fred Berens (2010) *
Director-Investments
Wachovia Securities, LLC
Miami, Florida

Mary G. F. Bitterman (2009) **
President
The Bernard Osher Foundation
San Francisco, California

Malcolm Brett (2011) *
Director of Broadcasting & Media Innovations
Wisconsin Public Television
Madison, Wisconsin

Molly Corbett Broad (2010) *
President
American Council on Education
Washington, DC

Ernest Bromley (2010) ***
Chairman & CEO
Bromley Communications
San Antonio, Texas

Ruby Calvert (2011) *
General Manager
Wyoming PBS
Riverton, Wyoming

Paula Castadio (2011) *
President & CEO
Valley Public Television- KVPT
Fresno, California

John S. Domaschko (2011) **
Former President
MC Squared, Inc.
Covington, Kentucky

Robert J. Flowers (Vice-Chair) (2009) *
Former Senior Vice President
Washington Mutual
Seattle, Washington

Peter Frid (2010) **
General Manager
New Hampshire PTV
Durham, New Hampshire

PBS is PAID by KBYU for PBS programming it provides to the station for broadcast.

I understood as much from the David's article, and it is objectionable. However, there is worse, the broadcasting of Easter and Christmas services on PBS, for instance, which is paid for by PBS. To the extent that this is still a publicly owned broadcasting system, it would be fitting if it upheld its conduct upheld the "spirit" of secularism: separation of "church" and state.

I have no objection to broadcasts on Irish Catholic immigration and the like. They do not concern religion per se.

If we were really talking about anything christian here I doubt the political invectives would be necessary.

This is just more of the same discourse we have been hearing for the last 8 years. Wrap up the cross, church, missionaries and preachers in the american flag, taxes, free speech, and freedom of religion, and see how many people you can get angry.

I'm sick of it.

I have never read so many people making such a "to do" over a few religious programs. I don't watch the programs myself, but have no objection to letting others do so. What's the big deal if my neighbor, or anyone else, enjoys the programs and wants to watch? What upsets you, that something is said with which you might disagree? I personally think PBS and NPR stations should be allowed to broadcast ANYTHING they wish. If you do not like the broadcast then simply tune your receiver to another station.

The religion clause of the Bill of Rights is pretty clear: it prohibits any governmental "establishment of religion"; not of "of a religion," or "of some religion; just "of religion." The implication and intent of the framers are clear: "of religion as such." Preaching on publicly funded media is therefore an illegal use of public funds. End of argument.

Morphex writes:
The implication and intent of the framers are clear: "of religion as such." Preaching on publicly funded media is therefore an illegal use of public funds. End of argument.
____________________________
Indeed, it is. These stations need not use PBS to preach. They can do so on other channels. Why is this so difficult?

"..but should religious organizations be using taxpayer supported public television to carry out sectarian missions?"

Thomas Jefferson knew a little bit about 'Separation of Church and State" and used taxpayer funds to print and distribute bibles. He supported and attended church meetings in the US Captiol building etc... he did not see these taxpayer supported religious activities as a problem. You are proposing a standard entirely foreign to the intent of the establishment clause, according the establishers of the clause.

Well, old Uriah Heap Donohoho abtains from pimping delicious altar boys to drooling R.C. priests to impose his views on the rest of us. Puhleez, csn't someone rid us of this"rat du benitier"?

Wallenstein wrote:
"PBS almost exclusively caters to people under 10 and those pushing 60 and older."

Please cite your sources and authorities to support this assertion.

Another misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

As long as PBS ofers the same kind of access to all religions equally, it is not engaging in "sectarian missions". It doesn't even have to assure equal representation, only equal access; then let religious groups accept or decline to participate. That is all the first Amendment requires. If PBS is concerned about public perceptions, it can of course run a standard message that this content does not necessarily represent the views of PBS etc.

To reiterate: the First Amendment does not require freedom from religion, only freedom of religion. Neither does it require a religion-free public square. Any policy toward religion that goes beyond this comes from other sources than the First Amendment.

I think this may be a bit more far-reaching that it seems. Does this include Christmas concerts from the Mormon Tabernacle, Midnight Mass from the Vatican, programming about religious concepts and images in Western art and architecture, and series on the history of various religions?

In an increasingly diverse world, public education and media have a responsibility to provide education about the cultural and religious content that has alone formed the last 15 centuries of Western culture. Who knows, some of you pagans and atheists might figure out that you are sucking on the wrong end of the cigar!

"Gee if it's only 3 or 4 religious shows, I hardly see what the harm is. Doesn't most of the money come from private doners?"

--marcedward1

Actually, it's a lot more than that. Just last night I fell asleep to a documentary on the local PBS and woke up this morning to something telling kids to pray Christian prayers with talk of overtly-evangelistic intent. Sunday morning public radio is *also* a wash if you don't want someone yammering in your ear about it.

Half the basic cable bandwidth we all have to pay for is *already* taken up with Christian channels, and most of the rest is spammed with advertisements for Bibles and Christian shows and the same darn music over and over again.

It's not like they can't afford some air time.

Do they get to buy out public TV, too, subsidized by my tax dollars, when we donate to have something *besides* the corporate media to watch?

In the last 220 years (since the French Revolution) there has been as much religious persecution in the name of secularism than in the name of establishment. French revolutionaries, Mexican revolutionaries under Plutarco Elias, Spanish Republicans in the 1930s, Soviet, Chinese and Cuban communists all persecuted the churches and gave secularism as the excuse.

I am not talking only about the executions of priests or closings of churches. As one example, the Spanish Republic first nationalized the hospitals and then forbade dying patients from calling a priest because that would mean a religious activity in a government building. Cuba not only cancelled Christmas as a holiday, but forbade anybody from taking a vacation day on Christmas under penalty of losing their job. Having experienced this sort of persecution, pardon me if I am unimpressed with the secularist imperative.

The wall of separation concept was promoted by Jefferson who was influenced by the anticlericalism of the French Revolutionaries. The Federalists were by no means establishmentarians, but were much more tolerant of cooperation between Church and state (simply opposing the favoring of one sect over another). That has always been an alternate position among the Founding Fathers that is at times forgotten.

Since the article specifically mentions KBYU, I feel like correcting a misperception. I'm a BYU graduate and worked for KBYU as a student. I don't see how KBYUTV paying PBS to run some of their programs constitutes public tax support of their station.

KBYU is not funded by tax dollars in any way. But they do see the benefit of broadcasting many PBS shows. If PBS doesn't like that, KBYU will just stop showing Sesame Street and Nova and run their own programs. It would be a shame, IMO, and pointless, but they could do fine.

I don't understand the angst over a station that has religious programs showing PBS' secular programs alongside. I think the audience is smart enough to tell the difference and make their own judgments. If you're worried about government support of religion, then what if that station already doesn't use tax money to operate?

"I don't understand the angst over a station that has religious programs showing PBS' secular programs alongside. I think the audience is smart enough to tell the difference and make their own judgments. If you're worried about government support of religion, then what if that station already doesn't use tax money to operate?"

PBS... *does* use government money to operate. My money.

Buying out the local PBS and calling it PBS means... We don't have PBS.

If there's only 'six stations' broadcasting sectarian material, I seem to have an uncanny way of having lived in five of them. :)