February 11, 2000

Protecting Religious Programming
by Congressman Robert Aderholt

Over the past several weeks, I have heard from many of you, who, like me, are very concerned with a recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which interfered with the Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. I share your concerns regarding this encroachment on the religious liberties of Americans and wanted to take a moment to update you on this important issue.

On December 29, 1999, the FCC released a decision granting a transfer of licenses between two Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania television stations, Cornerstone Television, Inc. and Paxson License, Inc., which singled out and restricted broadcast "primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing or statements of personally-held religious views or beliefs.

The ruling also provided broadcasters with what the FCC called "additional guidance" in determining what could be considered "general educational" programming on reserved noncommercial broadcasting channels. While "general educational" programming could have included programs which analyzed the role of religion in connection with historical or current events, various cultures, or the development of the arts, it would not have included church services, unless it was part of a historic event, such as the funeral of a national leader.

On January 7, 2000, I wrote President Clinton requesting that he contact FCC Chairman William E. Kennard to urge him to withdraw the new guidelines, which would threaten religious liberties in our nation. In addition, on January 24, I co-sponsored H.R. 3525, the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act, to overturn the FCC's ruling and prohibit the Commission from amending its service requirements for noncommercial licensees in the future without public input.

However on January 28, 2000, the FCC dropped this ruling. The FCC stated that "widespread public confusion over the meaning and effect of the 'additional guidance' language instead of helping parties understand this complex definitional issue of what constitutes educational programming, was instead causing considerable misunderstanding."

While the FCC believes there was "confusion" over the intent of their order and therefore chose to withdraw it, I am concerned that the FCC may choose to repeat its bias against religious broadcasting in the future. Therefore, I remain a strong supporter of the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act, H.R. 3525, and plan to continue my efforts to preserve religious liberties in Alabama and throughout the Nation.

We are fortunate to live in a nation in which the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. This doesn't mean freedom from religion, rather it means that we are free to believe as we choose. For this reason, I believe it is essential that we remain vigilant in our fight to protect and preserve the right to religious expression for this and future generations.

If you would like more information about this legislation or any other legislation, please give me a call.