Now that we've heard from a long-time critic of conservative black churches that oppose homosexuality, can we assume that an interview with a supporter of their position is in the works? Or are we supposed to believe that Ms. Butler is speaking as an objective scholar, that the religious stance that God opposes homosexuality has been objectively determined by scholarship to be wrong, and she's just speaking on the basis of objective facts? If that's the position of Being (the show), it should be made explicit, since it's a controversial view that would be determining content. If it isn't the position of the show, then the issue of fairness and balance should be obvious.
It's not unusual for journalists trying to promote their own views, consciously or not, to find experts who will say what they want to say, and to not bother with experts who will say the opposite. That seems to have happened recently at Being (the show) with regard to embryonic stem cell research. Is that what happened here too? Can Ms. Moos see that she has plainly privileged the liberal views she holds while suppressing the conservative views she opposes? And not only in regard to homosexuality but also hierarchies and other issues? Isn't that a problem? Among other things, won't it tend to exclude from the community of the show conservatives whose views are suppressed while giving liberals whose views are privileged a false sense of security about their views?
On hierarchies, it's worth notice that Being (the show) is itself a hierarchy, one with significant power that assumes a certain leadership mantle (perhaps even a prophetic one). While there may be some self-awareness about it, and efforts to include listeners in the power structure, the hierarchy still remains firmly in place, with few checks and balances (beyond strictly voluntary ones). I hope this doesn't mean Being is arguably ineffective at best and criminal at worst. Perhaps I've misunderstood Moos's view.
More information about text formats