[GCFL-discuss] the media and me

Tue Mar 7 19:28:47 CST 2006

Dear greenBubble (and everybody else of course),

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. 

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 liberal
members of the senate. 

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 The Screwtape
Letters, 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 best people, the right food, the
important books." Both the "liberal media" and the "conservative media"
have their own lists of best, right and important people and books. I
could care less about any of them. I don't follow ANY brand of political
correctness.

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.

Siarlys

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.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:15:14 -0500 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
> 
> Siarlys
> While you are correct that some media entities have a conservative 
> bias, the mainstream media -- the "news" sources that most people
depend 
> on -- have a decided liberal, anti-religious, anti-Israel,
anti-America, 
> bent.
> 
> CNN is the worst, followed by the NY Times and the Washington Post.
> 
> Some conservative-leaning newspapers, such as the NY Sun 
> (reincarnated a couple of years ago) were created specifically as a
reaction to the
> liberal bias in the other papers. greenBubble
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20060307/1e58df98/attachment.htm