Comments for: “PBS Revelation: Network’s ‘Wall Of Separation’ Has Religious Right Genesis”

Well if worst comes to worst and it is just recontructionist propaganda, then supporters of the seperation of church and state should make their own movies explaining the turth and submit that to PBS. If PBS rejects it, then AU can rightfully yell and scream that PBS does not actually support a diversity of viewpoints. If they allow it then, as long as the flim making is good, our movie will cancel out the effects of “Wall of Seperation.”

Diversity of viewpoints is a good thing, but PBS does not always preface a film with a disclaimer indicating the show represents a “viewpoint”.

As such, many time a so-called documentary is perceived as an objective review instead of the propaganda it truly is.

Israel has been pumping the PBS station full of these types of history/propagada films for years.

A simple disclaimer can go a long way to enable the viewer to interpret the content from a critical viewpoint as opposed to an educational viewpoint.

I think most PBS viewers will be able to view the program through a lens of skepticism. There will certainly be the members of the choir being preached to, and others that may have a change of opinion based on the program. I don’t think it’s necessary for PBS to post a disclaimer. That said, I’m still waiting for the Denver affiliate to run A Brief History of Disbelief. It has run in other markets, and I can’t say for sure, but I suspect there wasn’t a disclaimer needed there. I have more faith (pun somewhat intended) in the critical thinking skills of PBS viewers.

There are loads of films about Holocaust denial. Will PBS show them, too? They will certainly provide a “diversity of viewpoints.”

Dave makes a good point and further justifies the need for disclaimers.

Not all people are as astute as John might think, especially the younger viewers, which are usually the prime targets of these propaganda films.

Propagandists know once a person locks onto a perspective it is unlikely to be swayed since it is now the new point of reference.

I have followed up on this at my blog Classically Liberal. The connections between these people and the Reconstrucitonists is even stronger than this article covers. They are part of a project for the “complete annihiliation of the sacred and secular distinction.” http://www.freestudents.blogspot.com.

I still don’t feel there is a need for a disclaimer. I think young people watching PBS are going to be more critical than the average. I understand the concerns of others. We are in a time when representatives of the religious majority are feeding uncritical thinkers propaganda about a so called war against their religion. And as such, that religious majority is being told it needs to assert its will more aggressively against the minority. If only every repressed group represented 80 or 90% of the population by their own count! I don’t think the long term trends favor the bible pounding theocrats. There was a program on a couple of weeks ago about the Mormoms and I thought telling the truth about their religion made them look ridiculous.

Relying on people’s intelligence to determine that a piece is a viewpoint is dangerous. Moreover, those with an agenda may cite the program in arguments, and if it were not disclaimed may attempt to less-than-entirely honestly report it as fact.

Some things are obviously a matter of opinion, such as belief or disbelief in deities generally. They should still probably be disclaimed as opinion. A disclaimer is short and costs essentially nothing.

Simply for the sake of intellectual honesty, a disclaimer is necessary. In addition, though, I know from experience that many people - who appear otherwise to be intelligent - do not view propaganda with a critical or skeptical eye. If it fits their preconceived notions, they are ready to sieze it as affirmation of those notions.
For those seeking ammunition against vacuous claims that the Founders intended this to be a Christian nation, based on Judeo-Christian concepts, etc., I urge you to read the following two articles written by Brent Walker, Exec. Dir. of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty: “A Critique of David Barton’s Views on Church and State” at
http://www.bjconline.org/resou.....barton.htm, and “Telling the Truth about Church-State Separation” at http://www.bjconline.org/resou....._top10.htm.

Barry,

Your comment says, “I don’t know if Godawa calls himself a Reconstructionist – his reviews have been removed from Chalcedon’s Web site — but his perspective is definitely pretty far out.”

Many websites have been automatically archived by the Internet Wayback Machine for many years; it is quite probable that you can find this material there. See

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

and

http://www.archive.org/

Regards, Bill

If you spent as much time investigating the historical epoch surrounding the founding of our nation as you do tracking down Brian Godawa’s bona fides, you might actually have accomplished something here.

Look, for example, at the state constitution for North Carolina, which was explicitly Christian and required Christian principles be incorporated into government.

If your reading of the Establishment Clause is correct (which is doubtful), how could such a state constitution stand as it did for nearly 175 years? This is surely a government “establishment” of religion.

But if you read “establishment,” not as a verb but as a noun, which makes more sense both logically and grammatically (otherwise they could have simply said “government shall not establish a religion”), then all your frothing is meaningless anyway.

Thanks for the well-written and even-handed article. It was informative and yet didn’t fly off the handle. You leave it for us to figure out for ourselves whether to be outraged.

I’m a Christian — an evangelical Christian, for that matter — and am saddened that so many of my brethren, such as Buzz above, don’t have much of a grasp of American history. More pertinent to this article, I’m also disturbed that PBS seems to have become influenced by a very false idea of “balance,” one that does not require different points of view to actually be factual. Ugh.

So I saw ‘Wall of Separation’ last night; I hadn’t heard of it before, but I watched it with curiosity, and now this morning I’m searching the Web for information.

I usually don’t look for further information on PBS programs, but I was a little shocked to see, on PBS, the propaganda techniques ‘Wall’ used. For example, when quoting from Hugo Black’s opinion in Everson, a dark, minor key melody plays in a low register. When Rhenquist criticizes Everson, a hopeful pentatonic scale sounds on a bright clarinet.

In spite of this, it was somewhat informative, in that the narrator read from writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et alia. But it presented much of this material in a (deliberately?) confused sequence.

“Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.”
-Orwell’s 1984

I’m appalled that PBS would do this. It’s something like Disney putting out a movie that isn’t true to its “family-safe” heritage. Then we couldn’t thereafter trust that every Disney film was automatically safe to take the kiddies to.

PBS has been a rock of truthfulness and unbiasedness (save for the obligatory “humans are doing nasty things to animals and plants” message from the nature films). And quality.

Now, PBS’s non-news programs are like a white dinner jacket with an unremovable stain … not good for anything.

I fear what they’ll do with the Newshour after Jim Lehrer retires … a clone of Fox News?

Did anyone really think this administration would leave PBS alone? The highly effective Bush PR machine knows that co-opting PBS is a major coup because people have trusted PBS for decades. So stay tuned…Bert and Ernie will move to seperate apartments and get girlfriends.

Buzz, a history lesson:

These state constitutions you are mentioning were drafted before the establishment of the Constitution. After the establishment of the United States Constitution, these restrictions allowing only Christians to run for public office and such have either been struck down by individual states or the Supreme Court because they were found to be a violation of what the First Amendment stands for.

Hmm, maybe you better hit the history books!

June 13, 2007

Louisiana Public Broadcasting

Dear Sirs;

As a long-time view and contributor I was distressed that you failed to air the British mini-series on atheism, “A Brief History of Disbelief” and that you also failed to respond to my query regarding any plans you might have to air it in the future.

Now I find that PBS has approved the broadcast of a program “Wall of Separation” produced by a known fundamentalist, reconstructionist, Christian filmmaker, Brian Godawa, and Boulevard Pictures (whose website suggests that it promotes a radically revisionist view of church and state) that argues that our nation’s founders did not really intend a secular nation with freedom to practice religion but, rather, a so-called “Christian Nation”. Evidently, this program purports itself as a ‘discussion’ of the ‘truth’ of the issue rather than straightforwardly identifying itself as Christian Reconstructionist historical revisionist propaganda.

Your website’s search function does not allow me to determine whether you have scheduled this program or not.

I suggest that, if you chose not to air a series of programs exploring atheism (out of fear of Christian backlash?) balance could only be provided by not airing Christian Reconstructionist propaganda regarding the 1st Amendment.

I sincerely hope LPB does not let me down again.

Respectfully,

Marshalldoc
Marshall, TX

So here’s something weird: Not only has Godawa’s ‘Brokeback’ review been purged from Chalcedon’s site, but it’s also missing from “The Wayback MAchine” (The Internet archive suggested above by Bill Jefferys). I didn’t even know such was possible, but sure enough — it’s gone.

Here are the Wayback pages for both Godawa’s 2006 & 2005 blogs:
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....g/blog.php
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....g/2005.php

As you will see, the review is found on neither.

Why can’t PBS have a disclaimer? There are disclaimers on almost every controversial show these days (probably rightfully so) and even on conversation blog sites (like this one; look at the bottom of the page). A disclaimer costs nothing but can help people understand that they need to question a show and examine its points closley.

I knew nothing of this program before I happened to catch it prior this evening. I was impressed with the dozens of quotes from the founding fathers that they used to prove their case. I had forgotten that Jefferson wasn’t involved in writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but I knew that the “wall of separation” was taken from a letter he once wrote and not law. It is clear from what Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington and other founding fathers said and wrote that they were fine with the states doing all kinds of religious endorsements and such. Jefferson himself wanted Moses on the US seal, ordered Bibles for DC schools, wanted Native Americans converted to Christianity, had Chaplins in Congress, church services for the Military, invoked God in speeches, and issued days of thanksgiving and fasting while governor. Are these the actions of a man who believes in a impregnable wall of separation.
If anyone commenting has not yet seen the program, you probably should. It is very informative as to the history of the first amendment and church and state.
I think it is fine to disagree with the founding fathers and those who wrote our Constitution, but one can’t argue about what they intended.
Personally, I would like to see the Constitution followed to the letter. Original intent. If we don’t like what the Constitution says, we change the Constitution, not the meaning of the word held within it. We Amend the Constitution when we want it changed, not just decide to interpert it differently. That is a dangerous road to travel. When a Court can suddenly decide a law means something other than what was intended, our system is trouble.
As for a “Wall of Separation” Amendment to the Constitution, I am all in favor of it and would urge my representatives to vote for such an Amendment. That is how our system is supposed to work.

Love,
The_Bricklayer

I’m very disappointed in PBS. I agree they should have a disclaimer making it clear who is behind this and that it is only their opinion. There should also be a counter piece. I’m not opposed to these Chrisitan extremists proselytizing, but am deeply opposed to them rewriting history and trying to pass it off as fact. It’s just a matter of time before they turn this country into a theocracy, not unlike those wreaking havoc in the Middle East. They do a huge diservice to this country, a country that has done quite well respecting and maintaining the wall of separation between church and state.

Bricklayer illustrates the danger of presenting agenda-based films like this one without disclosure. There are many people who are unable to analyse this material in the larger historical context. As an example, I can produce several quotes from the Holy Bible which state explicitly that “There is no God.” Does this then show that the Bible is an atheistic document? By Bricklayer’s standards, apparently so.

PBS should clearly add a disclaimer to this propaganda piece.

I went to his website and saw that Mr Godawa is currently in production of another film:

http://www.godawa.com/MonkeyTrial.htm

“MONKEY TRIAL

Historical Romantic Drama
Feature film in development

Written by Brian Godawa and Fred Foote

Story
Monkey Trial is an exciting love story couched in the atmosphere of the “Trial of the Century” – similar in style to the movie Titanic with a romance taking place in the middle of history in the making. It’s 1925, the era of swing, flappers, prohibition, jazz and baseball. It’s an era of great change and upheaval in American society. Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism, Prohibition, the KKK, and the eugenics movement are all at their height in this turning point in history.

Enter, a trial in the sleepy little town of Dayton, Tennessee. A test case arranged by the ACLU to challenge the Butler Act, legislation making it illegal to teach human evolution in the schools.

But when infamous lawyer Clarence Darrow, and populist hero William Jennings Bryan get involved, it becomes the trial of the century. This is more than a trial, it is a battle royal for the control of our children. Darrow seeks to uphold evolutionary control of schools and Bryan fights for equal time to teach both views. And the event is covered by the biting wit and satire of curmudgeonly journalist H.L Mencken.

We all know the outcome of this infamous trial, but there is much of this fantastic event that we are unaware of because of the stories we have been told, or rather, not been told. Monkey Trial is that untold story. ”

Notice how he totally flips on its head what the Scopes trial was about: “Darrow seeks to uphold evolutionary control of schools and Bryan fights for equal time to teach both views.”

Could there be a more blatantly revisionist statement?

James Madison was among those who did not, and he conveyed his views to the Assembly in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.”

“Who does not see,” he asked in a passage that delinated his concern for personal freedom of religion, “that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

Madison’s advocacy of government freedom from religious control is equally explicit:

If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been een the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it [liberty], needs them not.

Citing the “malignant influence” of religious hatred not only on individuals but on “the health and prosperity of the state,” Madison conceded that even a law guaranteeing complete religious liberty might no be sufficient to extinguish ancient enmities. Nevertheless, he argued, a secular government’s evenhandedness toward all forms of belief and nonbelief would serve “sufficiently” to minimize the worst effects of religious discord on civil society and government.

The most regrettable consequence of the discontinuity in the record of American rationalist dissent is that its moral lessons must be relearned in every generation. When your own mind is your own church, it can take a very long time for future generations to make their way to the sactuary.

-Source: Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby

quoting above: “I think most PBS viewers will be able to view the program through a lens of skepticism. … I still don’t feel there is a need for a disclaimer. I think young people watching PBS are going to be more critical than the average.”

Hard to believe how naïve people still are in this country - that they think propaganda doesn’t affect people. I saw this kind of thing on a forum not long ago where posters thought Americans see how destructive Michael Savage is to the nation but Limbaugh and Hannity somehow are not part of the same problem. This nation will never come back, it is gone.

Hey, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler responded directly to this article here, mentioning AU by name -

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2.....aphor.html

just thought i’d let you know. Thankfully, my PBS affiliate has some sense, especially when donors start talking. Notice at the end of the response, not a single positive letter is cited… go figure.

I JUST THINK IT IS FUNNY THAT YOU HAVE ALL THIS FREETHINKERS OUT THERE WHO THINK THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE CAPABILE OF CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHT. THAT SEEMS PRETTY FACIST TO ME. ANOTHER PIONT TO BE MADE IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO ANALIZE A PROBLEM OR ISSUE IS TO LOOK AT IT FROM ALL SIDES.NOT TO PUT DISCLAMERS ON THE PARTS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH.

TRY HAVING A LITTLE FAITH IN YOUR FELLOW MANS’ INTELLIGENCE.

Just caught the program tonight by chance on a local affiliate. There was no disclaimer at the beginning, but there was a caution that the content might not be suitable for all audiences. Huh? I was wondering how they were going to expand the topic area to include sex and violence. I guess they thought people needed a warning before being exposed to a genuine member of the ACLU, not to mention Americans United. It did remind me of the Mormon program, too, in that it started out in a fairly reasonable tone and then got wackier as it went on. As for the heavy emphasis on the Founders’ intent, let’s not forget they wrote the Constitution to include slavery and leave out women’s rights–I would like to think we’ve evolved since then…