grneyedmonster's posterous

PBS Response to Letter Regarding Certain Affliates Continuing Religious Programming #atheist

In response to Freedom From Religion's call to action regarding the "grandfathering" of religious programming currently being aired on PBS affiliates (see http://ffrf.org/action/2009/PBS_707.php), I wrote a letter to PBS expressing my dismay that they did not act to prohibit all such programming. Here is the response from PBS:

Thank you for taking the time to write to PBS. We appreciate comments from our viewers and welcome the opportunity to clarify the nature of the review that was just completed.

For more than one year, the PBS Board, which comprises PBS station managers and general directors who represent the public, reviewed the policies concerning admission to and retention of membership in PBS.

PBS is a mission-driven membership organization that emphasizes local station autonomy and control, unlike a commercial broadcast network that owns affiliates and controls their programming.

The PBS Board vote on June 16 dealt with criteria for PBS membership. Since 1985, the membership policy has stated that "PBS Members provide a nonsectarian, nonpolitical, noncommercial educational program service."

The board engaged in a methodical review to determine how to best interpret this policy in light of the rapidly expanding media landscape. Many stations now have resource-rich Web sites and the capability to "multicast" — that is, to broadcast more than one channel of programming — among other forms of distribution.

The board vote allows stations to air sectarian content on any channel or distribution platform that does not include the PBS brand or PBS content. Sectarian content includes programming that advocates a particular religion or religious point of view.

The board also determined that stations currently airing sectarian programming on their PBS-branded channels may continue to do so. However, no new or additional sectarian programming may be broadcast on channels branded as PBS or that feature PBS content. Stations are encouraged to offer such content as part of their non-PBS services, such as the multicast channels, Web sites or other media platforms mentioned above.

News coverage of a religious program, historically significant programming about religion, cultural (i.e., arts and entertainment) performances of a religious nature or other objective commentary presented in a religious venue (church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.) are not considered sectarian.

PBS provides its stations with a wide variety of programs that focus on many aspects of faith that are not considered sectarian. This will not change. Series such as the long-running RELIGION AND ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY will remain part of the PBS service, as will miniseries and specials that present the historical, cultural and social aspects of religion, such as CITIES OF LIGHT: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain, GREAT PERFORMANCES "Renée Fleming: Sacred Songs and Carols," THE JEWISH AMERICANS, THE MORMONS, PETER AND PAUL AND THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION and WALKING THE BIBLE, among many others.

The review included feedback from member stations and the communities they serve. These policies take effect immediately.

The members of the PBS Board are pleased to have found a solution that allows the continuation of programming that is valued by individual communities while adhering to our policy of presenting a noncommercial, nonpolitical, nonsectarian service.

We will continue to welcome stations’ efforts to provide programs about all faiths to their communities.

Your interest in our programming and governance are greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

PBS Viewer Services

I wonder just what they consider "objective commentary" that would be presented in a religious venue. A documentary walk-through, perhaps? Obviously, truly non-sectarian programming is not objectionable, but no soul-gathering should ever be paid for using public moneys. Don't these churches have "flocks" they can fleece to pay for this sort of thing? Having such programming on PBS-branded channels could constitute an endorsement by PBS of the religion being presented and, as such, is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because PBS is publicly, as well as privately, funded.

I encourage all U.S. citizens interested in maintaining the wall of separation between church and state, built brick-by-brick by our very intelligent forefathers, to write to PBS to urge them to reconsider allowing certain affiliates to continue to broadcast religious programming on PBS-branded channels. Contact information can be found on the Freedom from Religion website under this link: http://ffrf.org/action/2009/PBS_707.php.

Why Health Care Reform Is Needed

Some people do not think health care reform is necessary. They think that private health insurance, Medicaid, SCHIP and Medicare are sufficient. Think again.

I work for an attorney who specializes in elder and disability law and before that I worked for the Arizona Long Term Care System for five years. Every day I talk to people whose lives have been devastated or their quality of life diminished because they do not have any insurance or they are underinsured. Try a few of these true stories on for size:

  1. A woman and her husband are driving from Phoenix to Sedona when the woman, who is 47 years old, has a massive heart attack. The brief lack of oxygen to her brain causes brain damage and she ends up in a nursing facility. Her husband is faced with paying $6,000 per month for her long-term care as well as paying the mortgage, car payments, and other bills with just his income now that she is unable to work. They won't qualify for Medicaid long-term care right away because she has $50,000 in her 401(k). The cost of the first hospital bill alone is about $15,000, after insurance pays its share. They will declare bankruptcy and spend every cent they have saved over the course of their working lives to pay for her care and they will have nothing left for their old age.
  2. A man is merging his motorcycle onto I-10 when he is hit by a van and slides 100 yards on his head. He is wearing a helmet so he is still alive, but during the fall his helmet broke and his brains are exposed by the time he stops sliding. He cannot work anymore because he has short term memory loss as a result of the accident. He worked enough to qualify for Social Security Disability, but he has to wait two years for Medicare to kick in and his monthly Social Security income is about $100 over the Medicaid income limit. No private insurance will cover him because he needs expensive ongoing neurological care. The car insurance of the person who hit him will only pay $100,000 and the person who hit him does not have any personal assets that can be attached. After the hospital liens are paid, he will have about $30,000 left. He will have to use that money to pay out-of-pocket about $2,500 per month for his own medical care, not including his living expenses. He will run out of money before the two-year waiting period is up and will have to choose between eating and going to the doctor.
  3. A state worker whose salary is $25,000 per year is a single parent with two children. She would meet the financial qualifications for KidsCare, the SCHIP program in Arizona, except that a federal law prohibits state workers from using that program. She has to pay $200 per month for family coverage in addition to the mandatory retirement contribution taken out of her check and barely has enough money to keep food on the table after rent and day care are paid, yet she helps applicants who make way more than she does get onto the KidsCare program. She gets irritated when she hears some of the applicants complain about paying $35 per month for their family's KidsCare coverage or the $1.00 copay for office visits. She pays a $25 copay each time she takes her kids to the doctor.
  4. A 68-year-old truck driver who has had mini-strokes and heart problems was retired but now has to go back to work because his wife got laid off and he cannot afford his medications once he's in the Medicare "donut hole." Even though he is now working again, he still has to do without one of his more expensive medications because he just can't afford it.
  5. A woman makes $40,000 per year and has employer-sponsored health insurance, but she cannot afford the family coverage, which costs $550 per month, not including the annual deductible or copays. Her husband is working part-time and going to school part-time, so he doesn't qualify for his employer's health insurance. They were paying for private health insurance for their three kids, but now the premiums have increased and they cannot afford it anymore, so everyone except the woman are uninsured. They make too much money to qualify for KidsCare or Medicaid. She has to change jobs and take a huge cut in pay to get affordable coverage.
  6. A woman works as a nurse and she and her husband own a small business. They offer state-sponsored health insurance to their two employees. They pay $1,500 per month for this insurance just for themselves and there are high deductibles. The woman, now in her mid-50s, has a massive heart attack and is now unable to work. She has applied for Social Security Disability and was approved, but she will have to wait two years for Medicare and the couple will have to continue to pay the $1,500 per month for the insurance, even though she is no longer working, because she cannot get private insurance coverage due to her disability. Due to the economic downturn, the business isn't doing as well as it has previously. They have to move out of their home because they cannot afford the mortgage and end up living in a run-down mobile home. They end up selling off a portion of the business to one of their employees and she decides not to take one of her medications because they still cannot afford it.
  7. A divorced woman lives with her parents and her 5-year-old son. She works part-time at a big-box store and has been promised a full-time position once one becomes available, but that hasn't happened yet so she can't get her own apartment. In the meantime, she pays rent to her parents. She applies for KidsCare because her son has no health insurance, but is turned down because her income is about $20 per month over the income limit. Under the terms of the divorce, the boy's father is supposed to provide health insurance but he isn't and she cannot afford to take him back to court to force him to do it.
  8. I was tweeting with an elderly gentleman earlier today whose wife spent 41 days in the hospital before passing away at home. He said he was left with $324,000 in medical bills after insurance paid its share. He has managed to negotiate the bills down to $35,000. He is retired and living on his pension. Who knows how he'll end up paying the remaining bills?

These are just a few stories. I can go on for days. I have talked to little old ladies who had to eat cat food because all of their Social Security money went to pay for rent and medications, to people with cancer or HIV who weren't sick enough to get Medicaid long-term care or sick long enough to be considered disabled and have to keep working while getting energy-draining treatments so they don't lose their health insurance, to people whose insurance company denied their claims, not because the service wasn't covered, but because it's the end of the month when the insurance company's monthly budget has been exceeded and they just deny every claim since they know that most people don't know how to appeal the decision...the list goes on. And don't even get me started about the parents of children with disabilities who cannot work because they spend all of their time haggling with insurance companies about coverage, with state agencies about home modifications and Medicaid-covered services, and with doctors about referrals.

Part of the problem with the current Medicaid system is that there are so many different coverage groups that it takes a lawyer to sort through them all. Often times the Medicaid workers only know the coverage group they work on all of the time and don't know enough to refer applicants to another coverage group if they don't qualify for one. As to Medicare, H.R. 1708 proposes to lift the two-year wait for individuals with disabilities, but even if that passes (it's in committee right now) that still leaves the "donut hole" wherein medications are not paid for by Medicare.

It seems pretty clear to me that the system needs mending. If/when universal health care is implemented, I hope it's not like some states' Medicaid programs, where recipients have to sit for hours in dirty clinics and be treated by sub-standard providers or medical trainees or have to wait for months to get much-needed treatments. I hope it's similar to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the state agency that administers public insurance programs in Arizona, which contracts with many private insurance companies to provide public insurance services. This engenders competition between the contracting insurance companies and allows a greater level of choice for the recipients. There will still be problems, I'm sure. No system is perfect, but it will still be better than watching our citizens suffering because they had an unexpected medical tragedy or because they managed to live through stuff that killed people of their parents' generation.

If universal health care passes, I guess I'll be out of a job, but my co-workers and I can always learn another area of practice. Better that than for our people to have to live a poor quality of life because they are not wealthy enough to pay out-of-pocket indefinitely, are not poor enough to immediately qualify for Medicaid, and/or were not lucky enough to land a job with health insurance that pays for 100% of their care at a very low premium.

An Atheist's Response to Theist Relative's Dismay

I wanted to post this conversation that I had with my aunt about my atheism. Although I have been an open atheist for 25+ years, she apparently was not aware of that fact and was upset because I do not believe in god or religion. This is unedited except that I corrected a few spelling mistakes my aunt made and omitted names:
Aunt: Why don't you believe in God? Please help me understand, because I can tell you there is a God and you never really learned about Him while you were growiing up. I love you and your husband, and I worry about you! As a geriatric nurse, I saw God in the face of death so many times. Please lets talk about it. You know my life has not been great, but I know there is a God who loves me and you and all your family. In spite of my trials and tribulations, my faith has only grown stronger! Let's talk.
My response: I learned plenty about religion growing up. At a very young age, I began researching religion and theology and questioning religious beliefs and practices. I even attended several kinds of religious ceremonies to see for myself what it was all about and my first wedding was in a church. I think that believing in something because someone tells you that you should or because you were raised in a religion rather than drawing your own conclusion is the worst kind of mistake a person can make. Look at Iran: their religious leader tells them the world is flat and they believe it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Such behavior is certainly not confined to Islam. Faith is, by its very definition, belief in something without proof. I will not believe anything without proof through scientific method, and I have not seen any evidence that makes the existence of a god likely. If it comforts you to believe in god, I am happy for you, but for me, life is its own reward.
At which point she sent out a general appeal to her friends and our other relatives to deluge me with their god stories: I appeal to all those facebook friends and family who believe in God to tell my niece their stories so that she may finally believe and have comfort in the knowledge that God does exist!
My response: Don't bother. You cannot convince me of the existence of god by relating personal stories and I cannot convince you to abandon your beliefs using logic and reason. Let's agree to disagree. I have been an atheist for a long, long, long time and have listened (gracefully, I hope) to many people try to convince me of the "truth" of their theology. I would not deny others the beliefs that help them face life; I would only ask those others to stop trying to force their beliefs on me and my children. My children will make their own decisions about religion objectively when they are older. The only purpose of early childhood religious teaching is indoctrination through fear and authority. As for myself, I will continue as I am now, in the knowledge that statements about the existence of god cannot be tested and therefore have no scientific or epistemological value.
Aunt: Once upon a time your mother told me that she was going to allow her children to make their own decisions about religion objectively when they were older. However, she did not give you any instruction in any direction on religion. She allowed you to choose for yourself, as a child. Your mother believes in God, although she did not practice the faith formally. Early teaching of children is not indoctrination, but rather education. Religious beliefs are personal. I fought, denied, and argued religious beliefs for most of my life. I've studied and experimented other religions and through my own death experience have learned that it's very basic. There is a beautiful God who will forgive all and who has a beautiful place in "heaven" for all good people. And even though you don't believe, He will receive you into that community of love, because you are a great, loving person! You know that I love you so very much! Whether you believe or not, I will always love you!

My response: My mother enrolled me in catholic instruction classes when I was in 1st grade. I asked the nun questions she did not like and I did not get satisfactory answers. I told my mother I wanted to stop going, she let me stop, and I started exploring on my own. She made several attempts to get me to go to church later, but by that time I had already seen through the BS and didn't want to give up half of my day off to hear more of it. You are making my point about indoctrination. You were indoctrinated as a child and could not break free of the guilt associated with denial of christian dogma. I'm sure it was hard for you, but I won't believe or disbelieve something just because my mother believes it. The truth speaks for itself and does not need to be handed down like an old pair of shoes to obtain followers. I love you, too, whether you believe it or not. :-)

Aunt: I guess we'll all find out the truth someday. I'm just grateful that I have faith to see me through! Love you! By the way, I was indoctrinated as a child, but like you, I rebelled and questioned everything. That's just a sign of intelligence. However, as I matured, I realized more truths and dwelled less in emotions. Aging does have its benefits.

She posted some additional tidbits on her own Facebook page, but did not direct these to me. I did not respond on her page because it was clear that she did not mean for me to do so, but I have done so here:

Aunt: Life doesn't end when you die. Life may be your own reward, but death teaches you so much more. You don't just die, you begin a new life. It happened to me! I was given a glimpse of forever, and it was a beautiful place with no pain, with all those that I love who have gone before me. I have not lived the life of a saint. Death brought me enlightenment. You are so smart. Please open your heart.

My response: If death teaches you more than life, why not hasten your own death to start the learning sooner? You might say 'god does not want that.' Why? Because life is precious. But when people die, you say it's all part of god's plan, which means if you take your own life, that was part of god's plan all along, so who are you to question it? As far as the glimpse into the hereafter is concerned, science has shown us that when the brain is deprived of oxygen, euphoric hallucinations may occur. This is why some people engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation - just ask the late Mr. Carradine! As to opening my heart, my mind is what you need to address. My heart will follow. I won't touch on the saint comment because I do love my aunt and would not want to hurt her feelings.

Aunt: My life has not been perfect, but my death will be, because I'll be in the arms of my maker!

My response: Yikes! Why not strive to make this life better instead of just waiting for the next and hoping you're right?

Aunt: You aren't a chemical construction. You are a miracle of life! I love your intellect. I'm very proud of you! You have so much to offer. There is a God, believe me!

My response: Science has shown we are made up of chemicals, plus there is more stuff on the sub-atomic level we have not begun to discover yet! My intellect is a product of the combination of genes from my parents and other ancestors. Maybe there is an atheist gene - I'm not the only one in my family. I cannot believe in anything without proof. If evil is the absence of god, then faith is the absence of reason.

Aunt: I don't want to change my niece's mind about God. I only want her to have enough information to make an educated decision about her own life, her children's lives, and the lives of all those who love her. How sad is a life with no hope or promise or faith!

My response: As stated above, I have made an educated decision and will continue to educate myself about everything I can because I think that when you stop learning and feeding your mind, that is when you have died, regardless of when your body follows. Why do theists always think that atheists have sad, hopeless lives? They have to believe that because a happy atheist puts the lie to all of their beliefs. They think a person who has denied god should be miserable (like them?), so they cannot fathom that we can hope for good things in the future (things we will work towards, not expect some god to hand to us) and that we do have morals (they just aren't based on some book written by a bunch of men who wanted to control people's lives and keep them subservient).

Aunt: I love you and I always will. We may agree to disagree, but I will always be proud of you and your beautiful family!

My response: I love all of my family, even those whose beliefs are different from my own. I have no objection to other people believing what they want to, but I do object when those beliefs lead to oppression of other people's rights (women, homosexuals, minorities) and when believers try to foist their beliefs onto the minds of my children by trying to authorize prayer in schools, trying to intimidate the religious minorities by posting religious writings in public buildings, and introducing legislation to add religion to the government. Ask the royal family of Saudi Arabia what happens when you let religion into public schools - they are now beset by fundamentalist terrorists and their hold over their country is rocky at best as a result of their decision to let Islamic leaders bring sharia into the classroom. Look at sixteenth-century Europe to see what happens when churches get involved in state affairs - all of the people who were killed in the Inquisition, St. Bartholomew's Night, burned as heretics, etc. over religious doctrine. Look at the Holocaust; look at the indigenous peoples of the world whose cultures were nearly obliterated by white men who used religion to justify the taking of land and lives. Look at Afghanistan. Look at all of the scientists whose lives were taken or threatened because their findings contradicted church doctrine. Religion has always been used to justify forcing other people to the will of the religious leaders and to justify the "divine right" of some to rule. Today's world is no exception. I remember when the artificial heart and life support were created and the religious people said, 'You can't do that. God wanted that person to die and you are subverting god's will.' Now they're yelling that you can't take people off of life support when they're brain dead because 'god is keeping their body alive and the life support is god's tool.' Belief in god seems to have helped some people through rough times, which is nice for them. Believe what you want to about god, just do not infringe on my right to do the same or act in a manner that will hold back discovery and knowledge.

Just wanted the atheists who haven't come out yet to know that you can do it without alienating your family forever. Just keep using your brain and you can't go wrong!

My Letter to U.S. Representative to Urge "No" Vote on H.J. Res. 6 and H.R. 539 to Keep Church & State Separate

Please, by all means, steal this and write to your Representatives as well:

 

I am very concerned about H.J. Res. 6 and H.R. 539, which, if passed, would seriously harm people like myself and my husband, who are atheists, as well as people who participate in religions that are in the minority in this country.

 

If "voluntary" prayer is allowed in schools, regardless of the phrase stating that no one will be "required" to participate, those who do not participate will be subject to discrimination and violence. I do not want my children subjected to abuse for non-participation, nor do I want them indoctrinated into religion before they are old enough to choose for themselves what they believe.

 

In addition, if jurisdiction over matters concerning religious freedoms is taken out of the federal courts, the state courts will be free to rubber stamp discriminatory legislation enacted by state and local governments, similar to the dilemma faced in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), when the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee did not have the standing to sue the State of Georgia in federal court, leaving them at the mercy of that state's unfair and harmful laws.

 

Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the First Amendment and I urge you to vote no on H.J. Res. 6 and H.R. 539.

 

Thank you.