[GCFL-discuss] the media and me

Wed Mar 8 06:39:25 CST 2006

  Siarly...too much,  way too much information for me... no fun.  I'm going to go watch Fox & Friends
  Carla

----- Original Message ----- 

  Subject: Re: [GCFL-discuss] the media and me

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  GCFL-discuss mailing list
  GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
  http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20060308/66d5b5ea/attachment.htm