The Christ in Prophecy Journal

Silencing the Christian Voice

Is America losing its freedom of speech?

If freedom of speech isn’t being lost today, it certainly is in the crosshairs tomorrow. Olive Tree Ministries‘ Jan Markell, a friend of Lamb & Lion Ministries who’s “Understanding the Times” conferences frequently invites Dr. David Reagan to speak, has released an article titled “Silencing the Watchmen.” This article makes an informative and powerful case that America is quickly slipping from its height of being “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Jan’s warning is reproduced with her permission below. Please note the strong prophetic message in the last paragraph.

Silencing the Watchmen

“America is changing at break-neck speed and many of the changes are not helpful! While Americans were eager for ‘change,’ it is doubtful they anticipated the loss of free speech.

So let me explain the unfair ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ My radio program, Understanding the Times, is in the target range.

The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) met last weekend in Memphis and according to President Frank Wright, experienced an ominous shroud cast by the issue of the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ They intend to fight this issue as much as that is possible. However, they may not even be given the opportunity to fight it as they would wish.

In an article posted online by Human Events on February 6, ‘Christian broadcasters say they will be targeted once President Obama’s appointees gain control of the Federal Communications Commission.’

Warren Kelley, president of Point of View, the first Christian talk show to go on the air via satellite 37 years ago, states, ‘The Left Wing will immediately start filing complaints, and it will in short order shut Christian broadcasting down.’ He concludes, ‘I think it will so limit what they say that, in essence, they will cease to be Christian broadcasters.’

NRB President Wright says that he expects Christian broadcasters to be hit hard because of the doctrine’s requirement for so-called ‘balance.’

Human Events has information that the Christian talk giant of Salem Communications may be the first targeted. Please note that I air on many Salem stations including Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle, and Portland. Salem’s national talk show host Janet Parshall states, ‘What we want to do is tell the message of Jesus. What the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would have us do is give equal time to Buddha, Allah and (Scientologist) L. Ron Hubbard.’ NRB President Wright backs that up by saying, ‘If an opposing view must be found for every matter of controversy, Christian broadcasters could find themselves in the unenviable and untenable position of seeking out other religious viewpoints — Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist — to counter what ministers of the gospel say on air.’

The process would work this way: A Muslim group such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or a homosexual rights group such as the ACLU, would file a complaint with the FCC because Understanding the Times radio failed to provide the proper contrasting view. The FCC would be empowered to force the station to present the other side of the story or lose its license. Many stations would opt to cancel the show to avoid the controversy and legal expense.

One of last Saturday’s radio guests on Understanding the Times is Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. Tune in on my Radio Archives to hear Gary explain this process. It does not require any vote in Congress. It just requires the new head of the FCC to sign a paper and the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is law again, having been abolished by President Reagan in the early 1980s.

As it looks now, this policy will only apply to Christian and conservative talk radio, not the print media or TV. They already lean left and conservatives will not be given the same opportunity to be a balance in those arenas. Nor would they be given an opportunity to speak on liberal talk radio such as Air America.

Christian radio upsets the Left because it opposes same-sex marriage, abortion, teen pregnancy, strict teaching of evolution, and the liberal secular movement. Thus, we are targeted even before Rush Limbaugh who actually sways elections.

While President Obama was vague on this issue during the campaign, he is no longer! The White House Web site on its technology agenda page states that the president plans to ‘encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.’

George Orwell’s 1984 may have been 25 years early but the world it envisions has arrived. Welcome to the new America. God has allowed a strong delusion to take over this nation. Hopefully Christians on their knees can lessen the damage.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


ABOUT AUTHOR View all posts Author Website

Dr. Nathan E. Jones

As the Internet Evangelist at Lamb & Lion Ministries, Nathan reaches out to the over 4.5 billion people accessible over the Internet with the Good News of Jesus Christ. He also co-hosts the ministry's television program Christ in Prophecy and podcast The Truth Will Set You Free.

13 CommentsLeave a Comment

  • In theory, yes. But, Christian radio stations are not going to have shows expousing non-Christian teachers. Liberal stations already don’t allow anything conservative.

    While the “Fairness Doctrine” sounds like a potential avenue for Christian inroads, its purpose is to silence political conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and anti-liberal point of views, so it will end up becoming censurship.

  • Hart…to liberals the Constitution is a “living” document, their codeword that means they can spin the document to mean what they want it to mean even if it says the opposite. That’s one of the reasons millions of unborn babies have been murdered in the name of “constitutional privacy”. If it doesn’t bother them to kill babies what makes you think they care about your freedom of speech?

    My all-time favorite liberal oxymoronic bumper sticker:

    That’s the mentality we are dealing with.

  • I think Hal Lindsey said it well. We are living in the post-christian era..
    As for me, I will stand up, call my representatives. Sign petitions, spread the gospel, walk the talk. But I am preparing myself mentally, spiritually, and physically of what may come if christians are rounded up like the Jews in World War II.. Last year I would of said, not likely. But with reading headline after headline, I could see it starting..

  • I know that it won’t work, but why couldn’t Christian broadcasters claim that this is a violation of so-called Church and State? My pastor thought it an interesting question.

  • Nathan Jones:
    “Liberal stations already don’t allow anything conservative.”
    Which stations do you mean? I tend to listen to NPR which many consider a “liberal station” and I find that they usually present very balanced discussions.

    son of thunder:
    “why couldn’t Christian broadcasters claim that this is a violation of so-called Church and State”
    Because you are using federal air waves. Same thing as if churches want to get involved in politics, they must give up their protected tax-exempt status, can’t have it both ways.

  • see Nathan’s article on “Wilders Prophetic Warning-to the Jews”
    Free Speech is in Danger Everywhere
    Britain bars entry by anti-Islamic Dutch lawmaker
    By RAPHAEL G. SATTER,Associated Press Writer AP – Friday, February 13LONDON – British officials barred a far-right Dutch lawmaker from entering the country when he flew in Thursday, citing his anti-Islamic views in an order that has touched off a wide-ranging debate in the United Kingdom about the limits of free speech.

    The British government had said Geert Wilders was not welcome because he posed a threat to “community harmony and therefore public security.”

    A letter from the British Embassy in the Netherlands this week informed Wilders that he would not be allowed into the United Kingdom, but he criticized the travel ban as an attempt to stifle freedom of speech and traveled to London anyway.

    Wilders told The Associated Press he had no regrets about the trip, attacking what he called “the cowards in the U.K. government” and accusing British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of having a servile attitude toward Islam.

    Wilders told the AP by telephone that it was “a sad day for Britain and freedom of speech.”

    “You would expect something like this to happen in Zimbabwe or Jordan,” he said.

    After returning to the Netherlands, Wilders said: “I expect that (Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter) Balkenende will firmly confront Brown about this.”

    British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told British Broadcasting Corp. that Wilders was guilty of “extreme anti-Muslim hate.”

    He said Britain supported freedom of expression, but “there is no freedom to cry ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater; there is no freedom to stir up racial and religious hatred.”

    After Wilders flew back to the Netherlands, the Dutch Embassy in London issued a statement saying it “deeply regrets that the British authorities” denied entry to a member of the Dutch parliament.

    “The Netherlands believes that a Dutch MP should be able to travel freely” in European Union members, the statement said.

    Wilders is being prosecuted in the Netherlands for on a hate speech charge after calling for a ban on Islam’s holy book, the Quran.

    He was invited to Britain by a member of Parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, to show his 15-minute film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed verses from the Quran with images of violence by Muslim fanatics and calls on Muslims to “tear out the hateful verses from the Quran.”

    The film sparked violent protests around the Muslim world last year.

    Wilders has called the Quran a “fascist book” and urged that it be banned.

    Britain’s refusal to let Wilders into the country has sparked debate in Britain, with some commentators arguing that the ban had backfired.

    “Banning Geert Wilders insults Muslims, diminishes freedom and cheapens Britain,” Daniel Hannan, a Conservative lawmaker in the European Parliament, wrote on The Daily Telegraph’s Web site. “Being obnoxious is not a criminal offense.”

    Opinion in Britain’s 2 million-strong Muslim community runs strongly against Wilders. Manzoor Mughal, the chairman of the Muslim Forum, told BBC that Wilders was peddling hatred under the cloak of free speech.

    “His film is a scurrilous attack on Islam,” Mughal said. “His film propagates hatred and poisonous lies, and therefore it should be banned,”

    But the Quilliam Foundation, a British-based Muslim think tank devoted to fighting extremism, said Wilders should have been allowed into the country so that his views could be challenged “through debate and argument.”

    “Freedom of speech should be protected _ so long as people do not use this freedom to call for violence against others,” the foundation said in a statement.

    Britain has barred controversial public figures from Britain before, although the policy’s application has been uneven.

    The government was criticized for granting a work permit to controversial Jamaican reggae singer Rodney Pryce (better known as Bounty Killer), which allowed him to perform in Britain in November. Gay rights campaigners were outraged, saying the singer’s lyrics encouraged the murder of homosexuals.

    Hard-line Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi was allowed into Britain in 2004 after being invited by the mayor of London to speak at a conference, but his visit was widely criticized. When he asked to come last year, reportedly for medical treatment, he was refused: The government said his views justify terrorism.Copyright © 2009 Yahoo!


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *