Hey jbowen...
I'm interested in reading more about this. Can you please provide some references to what you're talking about?

It's in the planning stages now, but they're not going to limit it to radio - they want to include the internet in it as well. It's nothing more than first amendment censorship. I'm also concerned about the attack on the second amendment, but the "censorship doctrine" is definitely bothersome.

All Christians should heed Acts 4:19 (to obey God rather than man) but we're in a unique situation in the US. Romans 13 says to submit to authorities (as far as possible, obviously censoring the gospel is not included in that) but in the US we ELECT our REPRESENTATIVES. They represent us.

The first amendment cannot be clearer. Therefore, it is with prayer that we should carefully and with full knowledge vote for someone who will uphold the constitution.

About the Censorship Doctrine: it was originally enacted in the 40's to make sure every report was "fair and balanced" then in the 80's under Reagan the FCC not only recognized that it was unconstitutional, but they labored to repeal it and they did in 1987. The democrats do want it back mainly to hush talk radio, but it will have harsh consequences for Christian circles.

Mark Levin had a pretty good talk about it last night at www.marklevinshow.com (Warning: sometimes Mark tends to get a wee bit animated)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...
http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/em368.cfm

Ok, now I'm really confused :) I just found this quote directly from the office of the current president:

Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

I did, however, find a few Senators who want to reestablish this. But, from my research, this only applies to political content, not religious content, so Christian radio would not be affected. Am I wrong on that?

Addition: Yeah, from what I read, this ONLY affects political topics. Which means, if Christian shows talk about political issues then they'd fall under this rule. Maybe this will help remind Christians that "Our kingdom is not of this world" and get us out of our infatuation with politics? For example, we could still talk about how precious the life that God creates is, without having to talk about the abortion laws in this country (and that kind of discussion wouldn't fall under this topic).

I realize many of you will disagree with me...but I might see this as a good thing :)

When it comes to something like this I think it's important to look before we leap.

Thinking as a Christian first, our goal is to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20 ESV) We need to be careful not to make politics our mission or to try to force people to live under our rules. There is a difference between a disciple and someone who lives under our rules. Our goal is to make disciples and I hope we don't forget that.

I'm not concerned about anyone targeting Christians or trying to take Christian radio off the air. Between the freedom of religion in the Constitution and the political desire to not upset a large faith base I don't see this as an issue.

I think this is an opportunity for Christians. We can react and look like jerks. This is counter to the mission of the church. We can respond and try to be against this with kindness. Yet, that still is about the politics and not about the mission. Or, we can lead and innovate in a new direction based on what's going on in a way that reaches people for Christ. The 3rd option is the only one that fits in with the mission of the church. The question for us to ask is how can we do this.

Chuck Colson's Breakpoint just did a decent look at Christians and their involvement in politics. Check out http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=11080

I agree that we need to be involved and speak out on certain issues as Christians. In other issues, we need to speak out as citizens. Obviously, there's going to be some overlap for Christian citizens, but we need to be careful about when we say, "God wants…."

Just as a point of order... from what I have read (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) there is no legislation at this time attempting to reinstate it. There's a lot of talk based on comments from a couple Senators. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and let this consume too much time with idle chatter that takes away from something better we could be doing.

Rob, I have to respectfully disagree with you on several points.

1. Just because Obama promised one thing during his campaign doesn't mean he'll stick with it during his presidency. The precedent is that campaign promises != presidential mandates. This is true of past presidents and it's most especially true today when Obama states two entirely and contradictory positions. The law of non-contradiction does not apply here.

2. Do you really think that if you give them an inch on free speech that they will not apply it to Churches? Case in point: churches are threatened with losing their nonprofit status if they talk about politics. See also Canada: friends of mine are forbidden to declare that a cult is not a Christian denomination. Homosexuality is also another forbidden topic.

3. While our kingdom is not of this world, would you be willing to simply toss out your ability to freely declare the love of God and the gospel of Christ? I don't think it's healthy to be infatuated with politics, but I do think it's irresponsible for Christians to a) not vote, b) vote without knowing what the Bible says, c) vote for a candidate that rejects biblical principles (while it may be impossible to find a candidate that upholds all Christian principles, we should vote for the candidate that has values closest to Christian morals) and lastly d) not fight for the same rights which thousands of brave patriots fought for in this nation. This nation was birthed with a Declaration, founded upon a Constitution, and guaranteed in those documents is my freedom to legally and lawfully disagree with our president, judicial, and legislative bodies.

4. It's a small step from abridging talk radio to abridging the pulpit. If a governing body is assigned to determine what is "fair" and what is "fit" for publication, then what's to stop them from censoring anything they do not like?

Lastly, GK Chesterton was commissioned to write for a magazine but they told him that there are only two things you cannot talk about: Politics and Religion. Chesterton wrote back and basically said "Then what else is there to talk about? Politics is about man's relationship with man. Religion is about man's relationship with God."

The greatest commandment according to Jesus is to love God with all your heart, soul, body and mind. The second greatest is to love your neighbor as yourself. That covers both politics and religion. To love God means to be willing to share the gospel with a neighbor and to warn of the horror of hell - regardless of what the law states.

While it is still lawful to do so, I will preach the gospel and fight for the legal basis to do so. When it is unlawful, as it surely will be in the future, I will continue to preach the gospel.

I work and Christian TV, and this has come up a bunch recently in staff meetings. What our lawyers have told us is the following:

• TV Preachers who make statements about abortion being a sin, and tell people not to do it, will not be allowed on the air unless an alternate view point is also expressed (in equal air time).
• TV Preachers who make statements about homosexuality being a sin, and tell people not to engage in it, will not be allowed on our air unless an alternate viewpoint is also expressed (in equal air time.)
• The same applies for stem-cell research, protection of marriage, gambling, and any other political issue.

However, my understanding of this is that it will ONLY apply to free, over-the-air broadcasting. The reason for this is that the airwaves are owned by the "people", therefore they are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Therefore, cable and satellite really shouldn't be covered by this legislation (should it pass), since they are NOT public entities. Now, US-hosted domains do fall under the same jurisdiction.

If this is passed, the legislation supposedly is written in such a way that the FCC would get to interpret what constitutes political speech. Certainly, 40 years ago, talking about abortion would not constitute political speech. Today it does. The bar will change, with legislation like this. The questions are: How Far? In what direction? Bush gets knocked a ton (rightfully so) for signing statements, but in principle, it's a good idea, it just shouldn't be the president drilling down the exact meaning of the legislation.

I agree with BishopBooyah... someday, the true, full gospel will be classified as hate speech in this country. Christ himself said that the gospel is an offense to those who are outside of His grace. This legislation, if passed, will allow the FCC to regulate the gospel long before that comes to pass, however.

No, this bill is not targeted at Christians. It's targeted at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Roger Ailes (Fox News). Please don't be deceived, however - our Enemy exists in a very real sense, with a real mind, not just as a spiritual concept, and he will most certainly use this legislation for his own purposes, because of how it is shaped and structured.

Any bill that is written in such a way that a judge, or a bureaucratic agency can radically reinterpret it should be instantly tossed out in committee. Quite frankly, the only reason to WRITE a bill that way is intentionally - the POINT is to write it in such a way that it passes, and can be re-interpreted later.

Blessings,
Tony

Good info here Anthony, thanks.

I can't help but think, through all of this, that an alternate view is good and should in no way threaten Christians. Here's a couple thoughts to mull over:

• If we are telling the truth about God, the Bible, and sin, why should we fear a discussion on that? Why should we fear the ability of folks on the other side to tell their story? If we believe that what we say is truth, it should only allow the light to shine brighter, shouldn't it? Isn't this an opportunity to listen to the other side and respond, very publicly, in LOVE rather than in defensiveness or in a one-sided slam?
• If God is on our side when we talk about these issues, again...why fear? It is our job to speak truth, not dictate it. This law (even at it's most extreme) doesn't prevent us from speaking that truth. If God is with us, who can be against us?
• This only applies to the airwaves. Does this hamper each individual from living out their faith every day? Absolutely not. Isn't 'every day' where we spend 99% of our time (100% if we don't work on air)?
• I think the 'public airwaves' comment that Anthony makes is valid. We are using 'the people's money' when using public airwaves, therefore if we rely on 'the people's money' we should, in proportion, expect to play by their rules (this reminds me of 'render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's).
• Finally, and I think this every time I hear talk about "America outlawing Christianity eventually". Didn't the Bible tell us to expect that? I think, here in America, we've been spoiled by having this immense freedom of faith that doesn't exist, virtually, anywhere else in the world. Maybe we've been coasting too long and a little less political weight would be good for us, reminding us of the struggles of faith (and sacrifice) that Christ calls us to.

All these are just what run through my head when hearing all this fear about this issue. I see it as opportunity to shine as Christians instead of playing right into the Devil's hand of fear and hate. If we protest this, let's not do it as 'us vs. them', but as Christians with a heart for those who may (eventually, if everything comes about as you are predicting) be persecuting us.

I agree with you Rob. I am going to tell people (or at least I better) about God and what His Son has done...regardless of what law is established, what president is in place, what the majority of people believe, how intolerant my view might appear. that is our job - spread the Gospel. if it is illegal, so what. if it is laughed at, so what. Our Great Commission did not come with any exceptions. So I am not going to add any or fear any.

To add to that, I do not want to put my focus on the negative. Yes, I want to understand current events and how our culture is changing, but at the end of the day...i really don't care about that. Nothing in the news ultimately changes what I (we) am supposed to do.

If we are telling the truth about God, the Bible, and sin, why should we fear a discussion on that? Why should we fear the ability of folks on the other side to tell their story?

You're assuming that they want a discussion. How can you argue with a statement like "Your wrong." Today, very few arguments are logical and consistent. Emotionalism and fear mongering are the argument for today.

Being an apologist and studying atheist commentators, there used to be a day where the atheist would present logical and cogent arguments for their position (Anthony Flew for example). Today, the modern atheists rely on emotional attacks against Christianity that have no argument, no logic, and no basis. You cannot argue with a non-argument.

The censorship doctrine is about eliminating free speech.

If God is on our side when we talk about these issues, again...why fear? It is our job to speak truth, not dictate it. This law (even at it's most extreme) doesn't prevent us from speaking that truth. If God is with us, who can be against us?

I'm not sure either Anthony or I are fearful per se. Scripture warns us of what's to come, but just because the Bible tells us of what is to come doesn't mean that we shouldn't use every available means to delay it. If the law allows the right for an objection, we shouldn't self-censor that right.

This only applies to the airwaves. Does this hamper each individual from living out their faith every day? Absolutely not. Isn't 'every day' where we spend 99% of our time (100% if we don't work on air)?

See my comment above about Canada. See also 1930's Germany. Censorship is a very slippery slope.

I think the 'public airwaves' comment that Anthony makes is valid. We are using 'the people's money' when using public airwaves, therefore if we rely on 'the people's money' we should, in proportion, expect to play by their rules (this reminds me of 'render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's).

In this country we have the right to determine legislature. Therefore, until we actually lose that right and have a Ceaser, we should exercise our rights defined in the Constitution and legislated by natural law.

Finally, and I think this every time I hear talk about "America outlawing Christianity eventually". Didn't the Bible tell us to expect that?

We do have freedom and we should exercise our freedom until the day they take it away. It's not an issue of fear it's an issue of being faithful to the work God has called us. He said preach the gospel, let's do it - law or no law. Make no mistake, you will be a criminal some day if you are faithful to His command.

Christians such as those involved with the Parents Television Council have been advocating for moral censorship for years. PTC advocates getting rid of "the gratuitous sex, foul language, and violence on TV (along with stories and dialogue that create disdain for authority figures, patriotism, and religion)" and they primarily use the FCC as a vehicle for doing so. (http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/aboutus/main.asp)

The reality is, many politically-minded conservative Christians are pro-government intervention of some kind, provided it works to their favor. From a political perspective, it can't be had both ways, and for those of us in the body of Christ who are not politically-conservative Christians, it looks hypocritical for people like Brent Bozell and others in PTC to argue for the FCC to control the airwaves for the public good, as long as "public good" means "them."

Dean,

A couple of things to consider.

1. It's our right to petition government.

2. How is it hypocritical to uphold and petition for a set of values?

ALL laws legislate morality, the question is: whose morality will be used? (see Turek & Geisler "Legislating Morality")

This country was founded upon biblical principles and while not every founding father was a Christian, they did recognize natural law and the morality of scripture.

It's not hypocritical to lobby for traditional moral values against progressivist anarchy.

When something is enacted into law, it shapes peoples' perceived morality. For example, Abortion is legal, therefore it's moral. When prohibition outlawed alcohol, alcohol was seen as bad (and had a positive impact on society that lasted 40 years).

When kids see sexual situations, violence, etc it shapes how they perceive the world. Can you honestly say that our society is more moral than it was 20 years ago? Most people do not believe that there is such a thing as absolute TRUTH (see also Alan Bloom "The Closing of the American Mind").

When absolute truth is opinion and determined by how you feel about something, then the gospel has no authority and Christ has no historicity. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is not true because it makes us feel good, nor because we prefer it, it's simply TRUE. It happened and regardless of how anyone feels about the cornerstone of Christianity, it will always be true.

John Adams said something to the effect that the Constitution will work only when people are moral and religious - it will not work when people are neither.

I look away for a few hours and this thread explodes. Anyway @Matt I have a health dose of fear for one reason. My owner will rightfully so rather turn this station off and not broadcast then let some idiot countermand the values we uphold in our broadcast because the government says he can. If that happens I loose my cool job :(
But the airwaves may belong to the people but who pays for the power to transmit 95k watts of power to the "public". We do. They issued a liscense for us to use this spectrum and it is our right to broadcast what is deemed proper to the public in any format we choise as long as it serves the interests of the public.

My station reaches over 1 million people locally and upwards off 2 million in other states through translators. We are also putting together a plan to put a new station up that will reach another 500k people. We use our station to glorify God and play programs and music that teach and spread the Gospel.

My fear is that those 2.5 million people will not be given the opportunity to tune in and hear the Gospel because the government wants to meddle with things. To tell someone they can't swear or make lewd comments on a public broadcast is fine but to tell them they can't exercise their free speech is another. This doctrine has the chance to drastically change the world of broadcasting and to hurt the outreach we have now. It might not be targeted at Christians but it all starts someplace. Look at prayer in schools. Look at abortion. It was all started with small little changes that lead to bigger and bigger changes and now its a total mess.

I don't agree with those who scream and yell at politicians and run their mouths but we have a right and duty as Christians to stand for what is right and should be informed about what is going on. Change in America will not come from political channels. We need to change the hearts and minds of the people and the government will have no choice but to follow if we can do it in enough time before this country becomes socialistic (communistic). Our goal and drive should be to reach those around us and spread our salt and light into the world but we need to know what is happening and defend our position and pray.

The community of Christians I've rolled with for a while has looked the most vocal segment of Christianity in America and has always sorta had the thought "I don't think I fit in there."

This discussion is starting to make me feel that way. Particularly frustrating to me is this ethos of a Christian culture war. This Us vs. Them mentality.

And if I were to make one criticism of this discussion so far, it is that it seems to be slanting in that direction. To me it seems like there are some people saying "Let's circle our wagons" and some others looking around and asking "Why, all those people over there look pretty cool?" And we are subsequently talking past one another.

Also, I might say (if I were to apply any label at all) that I was leaning more liberal politically and definitely consider myself as a progressive (whether it be when I'm leaning democrat, republican, libertarian, or whatever politically, which I do often swing). And so, in using labels like "progressivist anarchist" I feel more like I want to ignore this conversation rather than discuss the pros/cons and likelihood of such a law passing. And I might argue that tabling my voice with such statements instead of inviting dissent and conversation we are just back to just shouting past eachother.

Besides, it is good to have a lot of voices over a spectrum IMO because historically theocracies = Bad, which is what we have when we all agree on the application of Christian principals to the government. (As an aside, interesting article at the Columbus Vineyard website on the topic of voting our values)

One thing that my particular group of misfit Christians have found helpful is the teachings from a church in Cambridge/Boston:
The Boston Vineyard
They have a stated goal of "Pastoring Secular America." And in trying to do so, they have really come up with some great ways to introduce secular people (or people of other faiths, or people with widely differing opinions on Christianity) to ideas of Christian faith in a way that is mutually beneficial for all parties.

What I have found particularly interesting and helpful is how Dave Schmelzer (The senior pastor) is conduction discussions on his blog:
Not the Religious Type - where we discuss lots of thoughtful topics with a broad range of political and religious views (which includes a lot of posts recently about atheism).

If discussions framed in the context of a culture war make you feel sorta left out like I do, I would invite you to check out what Dave calls "Stage 4 Faith" (like on the top of his site describing that) and to join in those discussions.

As for my thoughts on this law? I wonder how long the constitutionality of this thing would hold up in our modern political climate?

And I applaud some of the outspoken people in this discussion in your vigor and zeal for pushing the unconstitutional laws out, especially when they have a direct impact on Christians ability to speak out in public for/against things that they find troubling. I may not share that zeal or vigor for such things, but I do find that this pursuit to have merits, and hope to learn some positive things from people who are really into this stuff.

But I hope that you can learn from me that rhetoric matters, and heated rhetoric isn't helpful in actually discussing the merits of such a law. I have yet to hear anyone talk about how the Christian viewpoint would have to be given equal time on Air America and what positive effects that may or may not have for certain political opinions.

Regards
Ben

Ben and friends, I hope that the lack of emotional "content" that lacks from forum posts in no way implies that I'm angry or hurling insults or any such thing.

My label of "progressivist anarchist" meant to imply "a new moral order based on anarchy (ie no moral values at all) rather than a moral order based on natural law (which is based in God)".

Regarding circling the wagons, I'm not of that mindset. I'm more into exercising my constitutional rights until they're rescinded.

Am I angry at these doctrines? Not really. Jesus has already told us what is to happen so I might be passionate but I'm certainly not surprised.

However, being a Christian and an american (while I'm hispanic, I do not subscribe to the hyphenated labels of "mexican-american" or "latin-american", I'm simply an american) puts this thread in an interesting quandary.

As Christians we are representatives of Christ. As americans, those people in washington are OUR elected representatives.

Washington -> You -> Christ.

As a representative of Christ, it behooves me to choose wisely who will represent me. THAT is what makes me passionate about this issue.

When I get on a tangent about Politics my mom always ends up saying...

"Stop complaining and start a revolution"

I believe apathy is the root of our nation's problems. People who are fat, dumb, and happy don't feel bothered in writing politicians, voting, and working for change on any issue. Yes there are those groups that make a dang fine living voicing their opinions that reflect some of my views on the air but for the most part when elections are over people turn on "I love Lucy" until the next election.

If a radio station has 2.5 million people's attention on this issue or any issue then why aren't 2.5 million people writing their politicians? NewFlash.... "U.S. mail system bogged down by 2.5 million letters heading to xyz politician's office." That should even make CNN.

Maybe Christians should focus one day a year on sending a letter to their politicians about the issues. Imagine 200 million letters hitting the mail system heading to political offices. That would be too cool and we would be heard.

It doesn't have to be hate mail. It could simply be a letter saying "I am a Christian, I love you, and God loves you. Please read the Bible and vote accordingly" I kind of threw in the last sentence just cause that is me.

Love you guys and enjoyed the discussion. Great read.

Chris

I think it's time where I concede my significant difference of opinion with the majority in this topic and back out of the discussion here. I'm happy to share further in a different setting, but I think we all have well-developed takes on these topics so I'm not sure what good the debate will do, other than let us all hear our own voices.

God bless you all and your ministries, and I'll see you around G&G.

One thing to keep in mind... this is not a biblical issue, a sin issue, or anything else like that. There is no negative morality attached to the Fairness Doctrine. Ultimately, it's a philosophical issue. I have conservative views on governing and the constitution. It has nothing to do with Christianity or my faith. I have an intellectual bent towards smaller government ant free-markets, because I believe they present people (in the broad sense) with the best possible chance to succeed in life.

This is the part of political discussions with other Christians that really erks me. There is no party, or political philosophy in this country that aligns totally with scripture, just issues that are more important to us personally than others. There is room at both sides of the table for Christians.

So, when I come at this issue, I come at it not from the POV of a Christian, thinking it is morally wrong, but as a strict constitutionalists who finds the Fairness Doctrine intolerable constitutionally... because it will be interpreted by a government Bureaucracy, not the duly elected representatives of the People.

I wholeheartedly agree about the hypocrisy mojodean pointed out, sorry BishopBooyah! It's just not intentionally hypocritical, Dean. Conservative Christians become "Conservative Republicans" because of certain social issues without understanding what it truly means to be a Constitutionalist. Therefore they don't realize why it seems hypocritical to others.

Of course, this is where MOST Americans fall... they don't really care about what form of government they have... they just want it to work for them and their family and their lives. This includes Christians, Homosexuals, Day Traders, Car Dealers, or almost any sort of "special interest" group you can name! Unfortunately, this is a very shortsighted and narcissistic view of government.

In a strictly constitutional sense, the FCC should not be able to define free speech or regulate airwaves. It's limited mandate would include enforcing sensible laws that are voted on by the duly elected representatives of our government. Many people will tell you that's exactly what is happening. The real problems arise because laws are not limited in scope. So many different things get thrown into every bill that have nothing at all to do with what the bill is theoretically about, that any attempt to write laws in such a way as to leave no doubt to interpenetration gets lost in the feeding frenzy of pork and special interests. Anyway, that's enough on this rant.

To sum it up, the Fairness Doctrine is not fair because it leaves the definition of fair in the hands of a non-elected bureaucracy appointed by the Executive Branch. This is why Reagan, with the help of the Reagan Democrats, had the thing thrown out in '87.

I'm finding myself, as I often do, somewhere in the middle here.

I expect the world to act like the world, and while I think some serious persecution of Christians would be good for the church, I'm not going to pursue it--it'll happen if God lets it. (You'd think Satan would get that, that he should just let the whole world get lazy and pampered, and the church would go down the toilet, but I guess he sees that even the US has passionate Christians who like to take advantage of freedom and share the Gospel!)

Because this could easily get lumped into another bill as mentioned by Anthony, yes, it's very possible, and if the right people are on the committee, likely. That said, I don't know how well it would hold up in court. I'm thankful that we have 3 branches with checks & balances.

I disagree with Rob in that I don't think Christian stations should be forced to broadcast The Golden Compass right after a Narnia movie, and if I'm in the mood for a sermon and turn on a local Christian station, I don't expect to find an atheist diatribe. (For that matter, a Christian diatribe would likely get turned off by me, too.) Atheists already have their own stations--it's called PBS, which does not give equal time to both sides by any stretch. For that matter, who says any issue only has 2 sides? Taken to the extreme, a Christian station would have to let the atheist come on, then the Muslim, the Wiccan, and "The Adventures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Within certain decency guidelines (which have gradually slipped), stations should be allowed to broadcast whatever they want with no attempt at "fair and balanced." I think it would be good for Christian stations to broadcast debates or discussions with other religious representatives, but putting an atheist show on a Christian network rubber stamps the show much the same way I wouldn't have a Muslim as a guest preacher on Sunday morning, but I'd love to invite our Muslim neighbors (if we had any in our county) to explain what they believe and why they believe it in an open forum for friendly discussion (We've invited Mormons onto our podcast, but none have taken us up on the offer.) in order for, I believe, Christians to see further the "superiority" of salvation by grace instead of works.

As is typical, I'm all over the map with my comments, so I'll sum it up: Christians should be active in the public square and speak up for the truth because of our vocations as citizens and our calling to speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves (the poor, the unborn, the elderly, the disabled, the disenfranchised). Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone must promote all forms of speech. Christians should be willing to talk to those of other beliefs in love, but we should not be expected to advertise for their beliefs.

Rob, think of it this way: if the Skepticality podcast wanted to put one of their shows in your feed, would you let them? I'm sure you'd love to have them on the show to talk with you, but would you put their show in your feed, even with the opportunity to do a separate show to discuss it afterward? Or how would you feel about going to church to be fed on God's Word, but a Buddhist monk is the guest preacher who has also written the entire liturgy sans Christ? It may be fascinating, but it's not feeding you. The Christian stations want to feed their viewers/listeners.

All that said, I'm not worried until this one is on the table as a bill, at which point I'd be emailing my congressmen to voice my opposition to it on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

ack! fingers cramping up! must stop typing!

Obama is in fact against it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/...

Our legislature will try to sneak this into legislation is my feeling. This is what happened in the past, and people called their legislators which made them change their mind.

Tim

Sorry Pastor Dale, but Pelosi is driving this talk, not President Obama. And How president Obama feels about it is not relevant... because it will be written into an energy bill, or a green bill, or a stimulus bill, and Obama will have no choice politically but to sign the thing. That's how this works. That's why so many people want to give the President a line-item veto... it'll stop Congress from adding things to bills that don't belong there...

... the problem is, it will also stop any work from getting done at all. No one in Congress votes for bills on their merits, just on the pork that is included for their state.

Blessings,
Tony

Pastor Dale, what makes you think it would be found unconstitutional? We HAD the Fairness Doctrine in place from FDR to Reagan. The Supreme court never said boo... the current court leans structuralist, which means follow precedent and don't rock the boat. They couldn't overturn this without coming across as totally hypocritical.

Tony

Lets face it the balance of power between the branches has been unbalanced for years. The courts have to much power in some areas and the entire thing is a mess. Best solution I can think of.... Mandatory random drug tests for elected officials :) That would eliminate most of the bad ones.

Somewhere Donald Fehr is laughing his behind off... Actually, I'm in favor of ALLOWING congress to use performance enhancing drugs, lol.

Tony

I just want to point out that the mission of the church is to make more disciples. We have to be careful how we approach others and attempt to do this. Our mission is not to have a Christian nation. The bible says we will be persecuted. Our mission is not to live in a Christian subculture. It's to make disciples.

If a group of people opposes something a huge question to ask is how does this fit in with the mission and help it? This is usually something that will be uncomfortable to those who live and are comfortable with the culture as it has been.

I guess with people going forward the thing to ask yourself before doing anything in opposing, supporting, sitting on the side or what ever is to know how your actions are intentional in making more disciples. If your motivations are about preserving a way of life, getting your way, working towards your personal ends, or anything else than I suggest you re-think them.

I would, also, suggest that you take some time to look at what makes disciples. 97% of church growth in America is Christians moving from one church to another. That's only 3% of church growth doing the making of disciples. Before we can be active in making disciples we need to learn what actually works here and now. :)

That's right, Matt.

That's why I said in my post above, I don't approach this issue as a Christian, cause it's not a moral issue, in my mind. Certainly, there is the danger that it can be used to hinder the spreading of the gospel, but it can't be used to stop it, so it shouldn't cause us to lose sleep from a Christian's perspective. As I Christian broadcaster, I am TERRIFIED of the implications on my industry, but I'm not concerned that Satan will win, or anything.

Tony

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:34)

This is not attached to a bill yet and not a bill of it's own. There is a lot we can do now rather than worry about this. If you don't like the idea of it than challenge people to write they congressman and provide info to help them. If it is written up to be put on a bill raise awareness of it and give info for people to act on. This is good and constructive.

Other than that, we shouldn't be worrying.

Also, how we handle this, how we carry ourselves, we respond to this, and how we lead others going forward is very much a Christian thing. How we do this affects how others see God through our representation. Our actions have direct consequences to the mission of the church when we deal with issues exactly like this one. That's why I've written so much pointing to this. :)

Personally, I'm not worried. I do not like my constitutional liberties infringed, but as a Christian I'm resigned to the fact that we are going to become illegal aliens in this world.

Anyway, just because barack says he's against the fairness doctrine does not mean he's against such things as "local content" or diversity ownership and other things.

Rush Limbaugh wrote an open letter to obama: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508978035028163...

"You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue."