<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV>Dear greenBubble (and everybody else of course),</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Obviously, I disagree, which is why this discussion can be both fun and
edifying. (It would be a very boring discussion if we all saw everything alike).
But my disagreement is not a direct NO to what you say. I guess, first of all, I
don't believe there is much of anything or anyone that is, all at the same time,
liberal, anti-religious, anti-Israel, and anti-America. People don't come in
neat little categories like that, although the media would like us to think so.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Liberalism grew directly out of evangelical Protestant Christianity, with
some help from the humanistic strain of Judaic thought. Look at all the great
liberals of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Also, remember that when Charles
Colson first came out of prison, proclaiming that his devotion to Richard Nixon
had been replaced with faith in Jesus Christ, the first to welcome him and take
him at face value was Sen. Harold Hughes of Iowa, a born-again minister, and one
of the most <EM>liberal </EM>members of the senate. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is quite simple really: the Protestant Reformation denied the authority
of any earthly hierarchy to speak for G-d, and proclaimed each individual has
their own direct relationship to the creator. (In the Christian context, through
Jesus, but I know you have a direct relation that pre-dates Christianity). Once
freedom of conscience was proclaimed, it was a small step to proclaim government
of limited powers -- that some areas of human life, besides religion, are also
simply outside of the government's limited jurisdiction.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, there are same anti-religious voices that are commonly classified as
liberal. They are not, because they proclaim that the government may and should
intervene in all kinds of areas of human life where it has no business. But so,
in the end, do the "conservative" voices you refer to, which is why I despise
them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Israel used to be a touchstone liberal cause, even within my lifetime.
(Also, conservatives tended to dismiss anything Jewish). It is true that people
who considered themselves radical or communist (two very different things, and
both different from liberal) adopted an anti-Israel position in the late 1960s.
This showed profound ignorance of their own supposed creeds, since the Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem was both a feudal landlord and a friend of Adolf Hitler, and
the first head of state to endorse the Balfour Declaration was Lenin, but that
dizzy preoccupation with Arab nationalism did exist, and still does in some
circles.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is also a trend in "politically correct" circles to keep religion
totally private. I think it was Sen. Lieberman from CT who said that in
his youth, religion was acceptable dinner table conversation, while sex was not,
and now it is the other way around. I too prefer the older set of priorities.
But the "liberals" and the "conservatives" have made a tangled mess of
public debate on this subject. If people would READ what the Supreme Court
actually SAID, instead of FANTASIZING about what it could MEAN, 99% of us would
be happy, and the ACLU would acquire a dose of common sense. FFRF and ACLJ could
go sulk in a corner. (You could find a brief synopsis from this area of the
law in a widely unread book called "Who's Afraid of Madalyn Murray O'Hair"
published by Xlibris, but that too would advise you not to take the author's
word for anything; read the court decisions for yourself).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the whole subject of "anti-America" -- as a nation, we are neither
as good nor as bad as our patriots and internal critics would have it. Neither
is anyone else. The motives of those who made the American Revolution were as
sordid as any motives in history, but the results (in spite of the falliable
mortals who made them) are something to treasure. It is true that with 6% of the
world's population we use up 2/3 of its resources. It is true that there is a
certain exploitation of other people involved. It isn't exactly something we
arrived at by plotting to become masters of the world. It will cost us something
over time as other nations catch up. Some of our leaders have been pretty sorry
spectacles. Some of our non-leaders have been shining inspirations. What the
militant pro and con people miss is our greatest strength. Americans don't as a
whole agree on much of anything, but we manage to hold together as a nation to
protect our very precious right NOT to have to think alike.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So I don't have much use for new outlets created specifically as a reaction
to the liberal bias of anything, nor has Air American produced quality
programming that improves on Rush Limbaugh. I can find no better reference to
explain this than C.S. Lewis's comment in <EM>The Screwtape Letters,</EM> that
to move a person away from G-d and toward Nothing, "you should always try to
make the patient abandon the people or food or books he really likes in favour
of the <EM>best</EM> people, the <EM>right</EM> food, the <EM>important</EM>
books." Both the "liberal media" and the "conservative media" have their own
lists of <EM>best, right</EM> and <EM>important </EM>people and books. I could
care less about any of them. I don't follow ANY brand of political
correctness.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now a newspaper that ran your column and mine, (and one for Jeanene also),
and reported the news on the news page, just the facts ma'am, no presumptions
that everyone looks at it the same way... that might be worth something. We
could develop a press syndicate called Good Clean Funny News. Frank and Dave
could do an advice column for new grandfathers, which would probably be the
most-read item in the entire paper.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>P.S. Be careful Carla. If you are watching news where the presenters all
have the same values as yours, and show it, you are missing a good chunk of the
news, and, your own principles will be lulled by lack of challenge. One of the
things I appreciate about Jeanene and greenBubble is they make me WORK at
understanding what I believe and why.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:15:14 -0500 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <<A href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</A>>
writes:<BR>> <BR>> Siarlys<BR>> While you are correct that some media
entities have a conservative <BR>> bias, the mainstream media -- the "news"
sources that most people depend <BR>> on -- have a decided liberal,
anti-religious, anti-Israel, anti-America, <BR>> bent.<BR>> <BR>> CNN
is the worst, followed by the NY Times and the Washington Post.<BR>> <BR>>
Some conservative-leaning newspapers, such as the NY Sun <BR>> (reincarnated
a couple of years ago) were created specifically as a reaction to the<BR>>
liberal bias in the other papers. greenBubble</DIV></BODY></HTML>