Another Attack on Religious Liberty

Regulating Religion

The FCC is going after ministries which broadcast on television.  As Politico reports, since 2006, religious broadcasters had been widely exempted from the closed captioning requirement due to expenses involved, but just in time for the 2012 campaign season, those exemptions that had been issued under a much broader interpretation are now being pulled, and religious broadcasters will be forced to re-apply, demonstrating the excessive expense on a case-by-case basis.  I am frequently cynical about such things, but since religious broadcasters tend to be Christians more apt to raise moral issues important to Republicans, I suspect this has more to do with politics than any concern for deaf and hard-of-hearing interest groups said to be behind the regulatory move.  This is a move against Christian conservatives under the guise of regulating broadcasting.

There will be little you can do about it, but I expect that the Obama administration will use this to silence some broadcasters they find more likely to rouse voters in a conservative direction via their religious teachings.  Bet on it.

Advertisements
Leave a comment ?

4 Responses to Another Attack on Religious Liberty

  1. Is the expense to make sure the hard of hearing can enjoy the public airwaves any more substantial than a film crew, TV set, air time purchase, graphics, audio engineering and new clothes for the hosts? No. Frankly, I"m shocked Christians wouldn't have been LEADING to make sure their programs were closed captioned to reach those that need it.

    I agree it may be a veiled attack on Christian TV. I totally disagree it is out of bounds. Frankly, I'm disappointed they didn't voluntarily comply to show love to those people.

    Just my take.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      It's a question of money. Some of these broadcasters operate on a shoestring, but I'm against government mandates of this sort, irrespective of what the motive is, stated or otherwise.

  2. Cheechako says:

    Does the name Mark Lloyd ring any bells with either of you gentlemen?

  3. trafficker says:

    I do enjoy the way you have presentedthis specific issue