<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=3 topMargin=0 rightMargin=3>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Siarly...too much, way too much
information for me... no fun. I'm going to go watch Fox &
Friends</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Carla</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [GCFL-discuss] the media and
me</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>GCFL-discuss mailing
list<BR>GCFL-discuss@gcfl.net<BR>http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>