Isn't this free speech?

Submitted by Victor (United States), Dec 17, 2002 at 18:16

I agree that government funds should not be used to promote and proselytize for any religion. I will have to defer to Mr. Pipes and assume PBS has not done this on behalf of Judaism or Christianity. He did not say that per se, but I assume this is so because that is the logical point of the argument.

But all of Mr. Pipes' complaints seem to turn on the producer's editorial prerogative. If the producer feels the current critical thought of Mohammad's life should be omitted, then this is a stylistic option he should have the right to decide. If the current thought truly has that much clout, then the documentary's omission will detract from its credibility. The unsupported comments by believers about Mohammad's life, I think, show that these people are shooting from the hip. Or maybe there is support for what they say but they just didn't mention it.

Citing back to the '98 Jesus documentary is futile, for you would then be making it the standard and create homogenity in a realm where it should exist least--The First Amendment.

Maybe it does embellish a little about the current American Muslims. But does that make it so bad that someone should sue and not broadcast it? Im not convinced that the line has been crossed between cultural celebration and misleading, religion promotion.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".