Many laws already cross the line between church and state policy, ranging from marriage laws (since marriage is both a spiritual institution and a secular contract with rights and policies that vary per state) to the death penalty/abortion/euthanisia (since termination of life is a spiritual issue and inherently involves religious or moral beliefs). The only way to prevent an imposition by the state concerning religious matters is to only pass laws that reflect a consensus. Instead we have an imperfect system of supporting one side over another, based on majority-rule, which unfortunately infringes on those with dissenting opinions. Thus, people on both sides tend to use whatever means necessary to rally support for their cause and against the opposition they fear as threatening their freedom.
Given this flawed democratic process, people with religious or moral convictions against certain policies either accept the fact that everyone compromises in one case or another, since our system of laws and government is not perfect, or they reject and protest the use of public tax money to establish policies they don't agree to fund. So they equally demand "religious freedom" from oppression by state institutions they view as violating their religious principles.
Since current policies have been adopted and maintained by majority vote, without the consent of dissenters, this causes people on both sides of such conflict to campaign vocally to rally support in defense of their views they feel are threatened by the opposition. Those who feel discriminated against as Christians may appeal to fellow Christians to organize and lobby for reform.
In general, because of the partisan system of majority-rule, campaigns often appeal to emotional fear of and opposition to perceived enemies on the other side. The mutual defensiveness perpetuates continuing outcry from both sides against the other, equally threatened by oppression if overruled by opposing views.
That is why you will see and hear similar rhetoric on both sides.
Note: Regarding radio vs. print media, I notice that Conservatives and Christians use spoken word more effectively to reach their audiences, while the progressive approaches supported by liberal analysts seem better presented in written form, as these are not easily presented in short sound bytes by TV or radio. So that is another reason why it may come more naturally to deliver Christian messages by radio format in keeping with the well-established tradition of spoken word and symbolic language.
2006-12-02 13:11:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by emilynghiem 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
? Seperation of Church and State is limited to the government's acknowledgement of religion. That being said, as long as public radio is *equal access,* nothing is being done wrong if there are religious entities on the air. What would be a good point is if you could prove that public radio *discriminates* based on content (specifically radio).
But honestly: is the radio industry even run by the government? I thought it was privatized... but that may only be FM. AM may be government sponsored somehow. Not sure about it.
2006-12-02 12:42:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Philistine! Are you serious? Where did you go to school? The separation of C & S has nothing to do with talk radio. How is talk radio a part of the church? Explain how the state has anything to do with Rush Limbaugh (besides throwing him in jail for illegal drugs)? You have to be kidding with this question.
I mean, really -- would you rather have everyone's opinions censored? You would likely not be allowed to post such nonsense if that were the case. Jesus!
2006-12-02 16:49:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by S B 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
These people have a right to be on the air because of the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state because they're on private radio stations.
2006-12-02 17:07:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are religious political hosts because...they believe in Christ and really they have a string faith in Him....
Thats all Thank you...God bless...vote 4 me!!!
hehehehe
2006-12-02 12:40:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by jenny 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because every good huckster knows to appeal to the emotions, not intellect.
2006-12-02 12:38:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It can be public as long as it's not government funded.
2006-12-02 12:37:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋