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.