NPR’s dangerous idea

NPR’s board is about to decide whether to ban sectarian religious programming from its member stations. 

That this should even come up for a vote in a major media network in the free world is baffling.

Although NPR apparently wants its member stations to be not only non-commercial and non-political but also non-sectarian, in doing so they are creating a non-religious environment. Rather than welcoming varieties of religious expressions, they only want to peer at religion from the outside.  They think they can have religion without having religions.

They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum consistently advocated by Barrack Obama since he first enunciated his three major principles for religion in the public sphere in his Call to Renewal speech back in 2006.  I summarized these principles back then as follows—

Rule # 1:  FREE EXPRESSION 

Summary:  When people participate in public discussion and debate, they should be free to fully express their beliefs.  Believers should be free to express their religious concerns.  Likewise, those who do not identify themselves as religious should be free to express their beliefs as they see them.

Rule # 2:  COMPROMISE 

Summary:  Although both religious and non-religious viewpoints should be heard and discussed, the goal of public discussion is to establish common agreement on value judgments in order to obtain the broadest possible base for legal action in a pluralistic, democratic society.

Rule # 3:  GOOD WILL 

Summary:  Recognize the limits of the political process:  accept that significant change comes slowly; speak fair-mindedly about the issues; presume the best from each other.

 

NPR is now considering a direct contradiction of all three of these principles.

 

# 1:  FREE EXPRESSION 

NPR is considering denying its member stations the option of allowing local churches to buy time to broadcast services.  It is basically saying that there is to be no free expression of religion on its member stations.  This rule is not required by the government—it is self-imposed censorship.  I guess it is up to supporters to decide what they think of this rule.

Apparently NPR is willing to allow other types of programming on its member stations.  But religion is so controversial, so universal and deeply ingrained in people that it is like sex, difficult to control.  Perhaps we could think of NPR as going through a Victorian stage, seeking to cover up religion, attempting to deny its pervasiveness and power except to provide objective reports with clinical detachment. 

 

# 2:  COMPROMISE 

 

Apparently there are some problems that led to this issue being raised in the first place.  I can only speak to my own station, WDUQ in Pittsburgh, which is owned by Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost (I put it that way because that is the source of your tax receipt for donations to NPR through WDUQ).  Donating to NPR is donating to religion in Pittsburgh.

Although I very religious and I am a huge fan of NPR and I am not a supporter of across the board legalized abortion, I no longer support WDUQ because they returned a $5,000 donation from Planned Parenthood after initially accepting it because they felt it compromised their message.  I do not believe this was justified; I had an amiable email dialogue with the university chancellor in which we clarified our views; and we have left it at that.  My donation levels were very small and do not amount to anything significant anyway.  Furthermore, I want Duquesne University to be free to exercise its religious viewpoints.  And I want NPR to figure out a way to allow for freedom of religious broadcasting.

 

I also saw somewhere that NPR was considering allowing listeners to contribute directly to the main network, with perhaps a portion going back to the local station.  That would be fine with me.  And I would resume contributions in that way.  One thing religious broadcasters have taught the political world beginning with Howard Dean through Barrack Obama is the power of small contributions coming from many people.  Collecting donations centrally to counter-balance local conflicts might be a good compromise for others too.  But NPR does not seem willing to take this step.

 

# 3:  GOOD WILL 

 

I have not seen any issue brief about this issue from NPR--only the statement that they are planning to vote.  Perhaps they want input. But if they exclude serious God-talk from their member stations, then I think they are raising questions about their own good will.  I think the onus will be on them to defend their actions.  It’s an exceedingly small thing, but if they don’t provide a mighty good explanation if they vote to exclude religious programming, then NPR won’t appear on my Facebook page anymore. 

From what I have seen so far, it looks to me like they just think it is a matter of their rules and regulations.  That is not good enough for me.  Organizational rules are driven by people’s values and beliefs. 

Why do they think they need a rule to exclude sectarian religion from their member stations?

That is the question I want answered.  This is a self imposed rule.  Not imposed by the government. 

But as upset as I am that they are even considering this question, I’m waiting to hear what they have to say.