Media spreading confusion over religion in "public?"

[Daggah]

While I was watching coverage of the 10 Commandments spectacle on ABC, I noticed that they tossed around the word "public" quite a bit, and if I suspect that many of the people watching out there may easily be confused by what is meant by the word...so I wonder, is the media (intentionally...?) confusing the issue by not making clear what is meant?

The issue, of course, is government endorsement of religion, but I would not be surprised to find that many are under the impression that the issue is actually "religion in public," period. I know if I were religious, I would be extremely hostile to any perceived attack on religion in public, if I didn't understand that what's being attacked is government endorsement. I wonder how many out there truly (mistakenly) believe that secularists are out to remove any mention of God in public completely? Perhaps a lot of people out there would be less hostile to the church-state separation movement if they understood it only affects what the government can and can't endorse?

[The Other Michael]

It is the same type of thing as when they were all saying that Newdow removed "under God" from the POA.

They're just simplifying things to make it easier to guide the masses where they want them to go.

cheers,
Michael

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
It is the same type of thing as when they were all saying that Newdow removed "under God" from the POA.

They're just simplifying things to make it easier to guide the masses where they want them to go.

cheers,
Michael

With all due respect, I think you are being waaaaaaay to kind to them! They are not simplifying it, they are obfuscating a simple message and they are lying!!!

It is not the public grounds that the secularists are trying to make free from religious influence, it is the government! Pure and simple. Replacing the word "governement" with "public" is not simplifying in any way, and it is an out and out lie!

Not that the media seems to know the difference. :banghead:

Cheers,
Lane

[SLD]

The media is only partly to blame. The real blame belongs to the fundamentalists who believe that secularists are out to destroy their rights to pray in public. Nothing of course could be further from the truth.

You hear it time and again: why can't children pray in school? Duhhhh they can moron!! No one has ever said they couldn't.

The media just doesn't call them on it. There are no liberals equivalent to Bill O'Reilly who will attack them about and call them liars to their face.

SLD

[hezekiah jones]

Constitutional law is messy, especially the religion clause stuff. Reporters can't be expected to grasp the subtleties of the caselaw, which has developed over several decades. In instances like this, the press is to report both sides of the story, fairly and objectively. Unfortunately the press' claimed devotion to objectivity tends to legitimize liars like Roy Moore and his incredibly ignorant supporters in a way, when their views are presented side by each with those speaking from a more informed position.

Years ago in Canada, a holocaust denier named Ernst Zundel was put on trial for hate speech. In reporting on the trial, the papers reproduced his utterances as if they were factual, and even made some of his claims into headlines, which is what a lot of people read without delving into the story itself. It's not so much the press' fault as liars like Zundel and Roy Moore playing the news media like a violin.

There is informed commentary in the press on this issue, you just have to dig around for it. Unfortunately the mainstream press in this country, particularly television, is dreadful, glaringly so when it comes to relatively complex legal issues such as this bonehead's 10Cs idol. Apparently there was a poll on CNN that claimed 4 out of 5 respondents felt the block should remain. Even so, I don't think the press is to blame for this incredible example of Americans' ignorance of their own founding document.