Oh, this is just priceless…

An increasingly popular idea about how consumers, well, consume cable is the pay-per-channel, or a la carte, method. Conservatives, who don’t particularly care for the idea of having filth like MTV, Logo, Bravo, and CNN streamed into their homes alongside Fox News and the Golf Channel, have been particular champions of the idea.

Except for televangelists, who are pooping their panties at the mere thought.

Pay-per-channel pricing “would have a devastating effect on the inspirational programming we currently provide” and “decimate both the audience and financial support for religious broadcasting,” according to the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition. The group includes Pat Robertson ’s Christian Broadcasting Network, which is based in Virginia Beach…

In addition to CBN, the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition includes televangelist Jerry Falwell , Benny Hinn Ministries , Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet TV…

[M]uch of CBN’s revenue is generated by telethons, and that income might suffer if CBN’s cable-based audience shrank under per-channel pricing. The network’s latest tax return showed that 68 percent of its revenue came from contributions, gifts and grants…

If that’s the case, surely people will shell out to buy religious channels, though…right?

John Roos , senior vice president for communications at Inspiration Networks, had similar expectations of per-channel pricing.

“People are probably not going to opt for religious networks, that’s just the way it is,” he said.

Even Christians may skip a la carte religious channels, said Megan Mullen , a communications scholar who wrote “The Rise of Cable Programming in the United States.”

“People may say, 'Well, we go to church on Sunday, we try to teach our kids good lessons, we can tune-in’” to Christian programs “'on the radio, and it would be nice if it was cheaper, but it cuts into our budget,’” Mullen said.

D’oh! Of course people aren’t going to pay for something they can get for free. I’ve probably got 10 places delivering for free what Pat Robertson’s offering within a 5-mile radius. If NBA games were free, and there were 10 professional basketball teams in every town, a lot fewer people would buy ESPN, too.

Religious broadcasters say they fear that pay-per-channel cable packages will encroach upon their goal of distributing Christian programming in America and “getting out the gospel,” a mission which is currently subsidized by all of us who pay for cable packages that include Christian programming, even if we don’t ever watch it. And they’d prefer that it stayed that way. Especially since they’ve got a nice little racket going, which includes enjoying the same tax-exempt status as churches.

Unlike secular specialty channels, evangelical networks might also be concerned about per-channel pricing’s impact on their political and social influence…

But according to [CBN’s president Michael D. Little]’s view, CBN’s news commentaries don’t cross into political activity that is forbidden under its tax-exempt status.

“We do not have a political agenda,” he said. “Our core mission is to get the gospel out.”

Little added: “What Pat Robertson does as a private citizen is his own business and is not a topic we even comment on.”

Right.

They dress up religious broadcasting as a “public service,” both to hold on to their tax-exempt status on the millions of dollars they rake in every year from viewers, and to argue that changing to pay-per-channel cable packages would deny Americans something they need, even if they don’t realize it, but it’s a total scam. Logo—the LGBT channel—has a great series called “Coming Out Stories,” in which people who come out are followed through the process and which is arguably a public service to young LGBT viewers who struggle with coming out and don’t have a building on every corner dedicated to addressing their needs and concerns. Logo doesn’t get tax-exempt status, nor do they get picked up by nearly as many cable affiliates as religious programming does. And pay-per-channel would likely benefit them, as people all over the country could pay for the channel if they wanted it, rather than waiting for their cable provider to offer it as part of a package.

Religious broadcasters are fixin’ to lobby the FCC to nip this idea in the bud before it ever blooms. But they’re going to have a tough time, since many of the people who line their coffers—whether through direct contributions during fundraisers from conservatives or the indirect subsidization of their teleministries just by paying for cable—simply don’t share their interest in maintaining the status quo.

(Hat tip to The Carpetbagger Report, via Memeorandum.)