Like Button

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

On Public Statements

It has been interesting watching the developments of this Sandra Fluke incident. First, she complained that the government ought to rescind the religious freedoms of those who are opposed to contraception (and, by inference, abortion). The government ought to mandate that employers violate their principles in order to provide her with her $1000/year contraception habit. No, not habit, hobby. It wasn't only me that thought, "Really? $3000 for contraception for 3 years?? That's pretty expensive." A little research would tell you that you could get it from Planned Parenthood for something between a total of $600 to $1800 for those 3 years. And, of course, there was the nagging question, "Has it ever occurred to her to not have sex while she's engaged in law school?" Well, no, of course not! Don't be ridiculous! Freedom of Religion may not be a mandate anymore, but the freedom to indulge our whims is!

Then there were the infamous slurs from Rush Limbaugh. He suggested that a woman who wishes to get paid to have sex is at least a slut and more likely a prostitute. Oh, bad choice, Rush. That will not fly. Sponsors were pulling out. Women's groups rallied around Fluke. She was the victim in all this, first of those sexist Republicans for not calling her to testify in their hearings and now of the evil Limbaugh.

Then came the apology. Bad choice of words. Doesn't actually believe she's a slut or a prostitute. Carried away. My bad. And sponsors are still pulling out. And Ms Fluke has no interest in accepting the apology. She's the victim, after all. Why should she accept an apology from Rush Limbaugh? No way!

Far be it from me to introduce logic in any of this. That would never do. But, I can't help myself. When Limbaugh made his ludicrous suggestion that Sandra Fluke wanted to be paid to have sex, I thought, "But ... that makes no sense." She didn't want to be paid for having sex. She simply wanted to avoid pregnancy while having sex. Come on, Rush, be reasonable. A prostitute is one who solicits payment for sex acts. She wasn't looking for payment for sex acts. Look, she would be using the contraception whether or not she had sex, so that just didn't fit. She was no prostitute. And a "slut" is a slatternly woman. (Okay, I'm just having fun there.) In modern vernacular a slut is a woman who is sexually promiscuous. Rush, you don't know if she was sexually promiscuous. She may have just been having a lot of sex with one guy. Come on, man, be reasonable! (Of course, if she was actually sexually promiscuous, well, then, if the shoe/term fits, it will have to be worn, won't it?)

I was taken aback, however, at Fluke's position that there was no apology that would be accepted. She was applauded for it (literally, on the TV show she was on when she said so). Her "moral high ground" was to refuse to forgive. So, let me see if I've got this straight. We cannot assume that Sandra Fluke is a prostitute and should probably not bother assuming she is a slut (although there is no current evidence one way or the other at the moment). What we can know is this. She is a law student, so career is pretty important to her. She spent $3000 in three years on contraceptives, so sex is probably pretty important to her. According to her testimony, she spent on contraception what she made in a summer job, so she is not particularly careful or wise with her money. She clearly has no interest in sexual purity or delayed gratification. And she will hold a grudge with a vengeance. No forgiveness. So, guys, keep all this in mind when considering Sandra (or her fans) for marriage purposes.

And the hypocrisy is a bit disturbing to me. Rush used some pretty horrible slurs against Ms Fluke. Sponsors withdrew. There was a public outcry. Rush apologized. On the other hand, when public figures in public venues make accusations against folks like Kirk Cameron for stating that he believed God's Word regarding homosexual practices that he is bigoted, hateful, homophobic, even "an accomplice to murder with his hate speech" (Roseanne Barr"), no one seems to care. That's all okay. That's good. Insults to a woman like Fluke? Bad. Insults to a Christian because he's "out of step with a growing majority of Americans"? Good! A negative opinion about a woman who has no concern about religious freedom or sexual morality is bad, intolerant, judgmental, but a negative opinion about a man who holds to his biblical beliefs about the morality of an issue like homosexual behavior is not bad nor intolerant nor judgmental. Folks, I think there needs to be some rethinking here. I think we've just about arrived. You won't find a public outcry in favor of statements like Kirk Cameron's public confession of his beliefs because Christians who believe the Bible for what it says are "antiquated" and "dated", "bigoted", not acceptable in modern society. These things will not be tolerated. These things are evil and shouldn't be allowed. Or, to put it another way, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion that our Bill of Rights has said is inalienable is antiquated, dated, and not acceptable. As soon as a majority of Americans see that, Christians, expect trouble.

One other thing. I suspect that any liberals that read this will disagree (of course). The outcry against Cameron was good and the response to Fluke was bad and that's the way it is. The conservative complaint that they're not playing by the same rules that we are required to play by is real. The problem, of course, is that we don't know what game we're playing. In the game we're playing, there are rules. Limbaugh broke them and was penalized. Roseanne did not and was not because in that game there are no rules. The rule of that game is "win". Do it by lies or meanness, by turning public opinion or by overturning public opinion, by media control or by mind control, by defamation or redefinition, whatever it takes. We're suggesting bringing civil disagreement to a gun battle. Don't expect equity. As in the old "cops and robbers" movie, the good guy is always at a disadvantage. He has to play within the rules, while the bad guy by definition gets to break them. Complaining about it won't make it better. Perhaps standing by biblical standards and trusting yourself to the righteous Judge of All the Earth is a better plan.

17 comments:

Danny Wright said...

Here's an interesting link

http://mrctv.org/blog/liberal-media-bias-view-laugh-when-schultz-called-igraham-right-wing-slut-yet-sympathize-fluke

Stan said...

Yes, Dan, it points out (quite well) the double standard. But I think that we miss the point when we continue to complain about the double standard. Even my post is on the verge of missing the point. The point is that we're playing by certain rules and they aren't. The reason that we're playing by certain rules and they're not is that they're playing a different game. We're playing football, and they're planning a gang war. We have rules of civility and they have one rule -- win. Now, we must not give in to their approach; we're stuck with our rules. So recognizing the double standard won't help. We need to understand the game and respond appropriately. Kind of like "cops and robbers". Different games. One is for "right and justice" and the other is for "what I want" and "right and justice" has to play within the rules while still responding to "what I want".

Marshal Art said...

I think the game is really "last man standing". We who continue to defend traditional standards of morality, virtue, character, honor, etc., even when we fail to uphold them ourselves at all times (being imperfect humans), need to continue defending those standards loudly and whenever necessary. Point out how their rejections of those standards have resulted in all the ills so commonplace in our society. At the same time, when they stomp their feet at such explanations, demand they demonstrate where we're wrong. Hold their feet to the fire, for they cannot and will not stand the heat. They don't have it in them.

Stan said...

Would that they only stomped their feet.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The hypocrisy of these people is so loud and clear that it is downright amusing. Remember all the horrid names, including downright filthy ones, directed at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, with NO apologies by anyone and no outrage over them!

Stan said...

Yes, we're comparing things like "I think it's unnatural and detrimental" to "He's an accomplice to murder", "hateful", and "homophobic". Not the same order of magnitude. (Nor as accurate.)

Danny Wright said...

I think something rises up in us when we see this kind of hypocrisy, deceptions, closed-mindedness and hatred from people who falsely accuse us non-stop for what they in fact do. You are right of course. It is the reality within which we exist, and it really shouldn't surprise us. But it still causes something to rise up in us; much like school children who cry "that's not fair" when they witness a severe injustice.

We are, therefore, faced with a two-fold challenge: one, to not descend to their level, two, to win the battle of passions within our own souls that arise when witnessing such aggressive hypocrisy.

Stan said...

Danny,

When the atheist is asked for a basis for his morality, all he can answer if he is truthful is "It's what I think." The believer can point to the Creator and say, "He made the rules and He will judge rightly."

When we look at the disparity between how we're supposed to behave and how those others violate those rules, we're stuck with "I can't go there" for ourselves as well as "I still have to oppose that view" for them. In the end, then, we're left in the same position -- trusting the Judge to judge rightly.

Anonymous said...

Stan wrote, “When we look at the disparity between how we're supposed to behave and how those others violate those rules…”

A few years back I was looking at Andrew Tallman’s Christian blog. I came across the two of you disagreeing on whether it is morally acceptable to walk away from an underwater mortgage. How do you explain disparities within the body of Christ? Is this the “wheat vs. tares” thing rearing its head again?

Stan said...

A simple difference of opinion on items not actually addressed in Scripture doesn't qualify as a "wheat and tares" thing. It qualifies as "a simple difference of opinion on items not actually addressed in Scripture."

I suppose, from the purely skeptical mindset, if a religion is to be true, there cannot be any sort of "simple difference of opinion on items not actually addressed in Scripture." Or, to put it another way, from the skeptical perspective, if there is a God, He would eliminate the nuances and variations in the minds of His followers so that they end up purely mental clones. Now that would demonstrate a "good God". (Of course, the Bible disagrees, but I'm just talking about the skeptical mind.)

Anonymous said...

“…He would eliminate the nuances and variations in the minds…”

The New Times about a week ago ran an article on a Mexican man who immigrated north of the border. In Arizona he was given the Book of Mormon to read. After reading it, he prayed to ask God whether the book was true. God told him, so it says in the article, that the book is indeed true. Does it break your heart to think that God would allow an individual who is seeking Him to walk away from prayer thinking the Almighty had confirmed such a thing?

May we presume that Andrew Tallman took his topic of the day to the Lord in prayer prior to his radio program coming on the air? Does it break your heart to think that God would allow Mr. Tallman to walk away from prayer thinking God had confirmed a certain position on mortgage responsibilities that you feel is the wrong position?

Stan said...

Your answer, then, is "Yes, I believe that if a God existed, He would do whatever it took to eliminate differences in the minds of His followers. I believe that if God existed, He would essentially practice mind control. If no such practice exists, no God exists."

It is consistent with your other constant: "If there was a God, He would speak to all of His followers in an audible voice."

Danny Wright said...

If God presented himself in a way that pleased the likes of, say Dawkins, there wouldn't be any faith involved. I think many believe that if this were actually the case, and faith was not an issue, that they would then believe in God. But belief would no longer be one of a thing that would set some apart from others. The question would then be, if the greatest commandment now in scripture were still in tact under such alternate circumstances, is do we love God? Of course such thinking is purely hypothetical, but it is awfully presumptuous to assume that once one gets beyond "faith" that the natural reaction to the ultimate authority in our existence would be love, for we are a naturally rebellious people.

As it stands, the atheist and the faithful are in the same boat. Both face death convinced that their faith in what happens next, if anything, is correct. If the rules of this "game" were to change I don't think the outcome would.

Stan said...

True, Danny.

I've had atheists tell me, "If God would do a miracle in front of me I'd believe" or "If He'd appear right here I'd believe" or "If He'd speak to me ..." -- if God would meet whatever my particular standard of proof is, I'd believe. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that "if they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Indeed, someone did; they don't.

David said...

I can't believe that anyone who has read and believes the Exodus account would be able to really say that if God did X, I'd believe. The Israelites had miracles done in front of them on a regular basis and still they failed to believe.

Stan said...

To be fair, David, I don't think the skeptics believe the Exodus account.

Conversely, I think it should tell us something. We believe the Exodus account. We point to them and say, "Wait, guys, you had all that done in front of you and you didn't believe? What's wrong with you?" The fact is that we all tend to forget what God has done and begin to question. Something we should watch out for in ourselves.

Stan said...

To the commenter whose rude, crude, and intentionally offensive comment I did not publish, surely you can come up with something better than that ... twice.