Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:11:22 -0500
From:         Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy@GBORO.ROWAN.EDU>
Subject:      Why Are We Here?

Lon Mendelsohn writes:

> ... I really think that we're being just a bit childish over this Rush
> Limbaugh thing.  Some of like him, and some of us don't.  Whether or not
> we like him is not going to have any effect on our salvation.  Why bother
> taking up bandwidth over trivialities?

and while on one level I agree, on another level I do not.  The level on
which I agree was accurately explained by Mr Mendelsohn in his post, so I
will talk about the disagreement.

I read this newsgroup in an effort to understand everybody else.  I want to
know what is in their heads, why they do what they do, and how they see the
world.  Most particularly, I am interested in why people believe things, and
especially in so-called `Sunday Truths'.

Christians are sometimes criticised for believing `Sunday Truths' -- that's
where you believe something when you are in church on Sunday, but you do not
act according to that belief the rest of the time.  In church on Sunday, we
may read from the Bible where Paul says "Do not take revenge" -- and then on
Monday we `get back' at the person who wronged us by doing something to hurt
him.  This instruction from the Bible has become a `Sunday truth'.

I would be very interested in having an active member of the Ku Klux Klan
participate on this list.  Not out of approval, or a hope to change his mind
about the KKK, but because I perceive a contradiction in "joining the KKK" and
"being a Christian".  He might have many interesting things to say about his
beliefs, and about how he reconciles the apparent contradiction.

I have been on the other end of this, of course.  I oppose virtually all
abortions, but I am in favor of (limited) abortion availability.  Many of the
people on Christia see this as an unacceptable contradiction.  In the past, I
have tried to explain what's in my head -- although usually nobody actually
cares about what I think, they simply want to tell me I'm wrong.  Is it a
contradiction for a Christian to be pro-abortion-availability?  Maybe so; I
can't say for sure.  There is no way for me to be objective about my own
ideas, because any attempt to analyse my thoughts is at the mercy of whatever
thoughts are in my head.


We haven't got any KKK members, at least so far as I am aware, and since I
can't be objective about my own ideas (which may or may not be contradictory),
I usually jump at the opportunity to discuss situations in which I perceive
inconsistent behaviour.  Alas, I sometimes put people off because I am not so
courteous as I should be.  Sigh...


Anyway, Christians who are fans of Rush Limbaugh present me with such a
situation.  Some people in this newsgroup have posted articles about how bad
I am when I say something inappropriate; but those same people talk about how
much they like Mr Limbaugh, even though he does the same things.

Kerry Stephenson wrote that she didn't have time to explain Mr Limbaugh's
humor to me -- that is not necessary.  I understand a lot of the things that
he considers jokes, but I do not believe that he tells those jokes in an
acceptable manner.


Let me try to give you a personal example of what I mean.  A few days ago,
Miss Stephenson posted asking what the `Tanach' was, and where she could get
one.  To me, there's a bit of humor value in a bookstore employee who doesn't
look up new words in a dictionary; there's even more humor in somebody who
works at a Christian bookstore asking where to get a copy of the Jewish
Scriptures.

Suppose, working from this humor value, I had written this:

        Hey!  Isn't this funny?  She works/worked in a bookstore, and
        doesn't even know to look things up in a dictionary!  What kind of
        idiot bookstore doesn't have dictionaries?  I'm glad I don't have
        to shop for my Christian books in a place with airheads that don't
        even know what the Tanach is.

Would any of the Rush Limbaugh fans object to that?  Miss Stephenson, would
it bother you if I called you an airhead in the name of `humor'?  If so, why
don't you mind when Mr Limbaugh says such things about others?

I'm sure somebody thinks the indented hypothetical paragraph above was cruel;
maybe so.  I am trying to illustrate just how cruel I believe Mr Limbaugh's
humor is -- I haven't said anything that Mr Limbaugh hasn't said.  Those who
do not object to Mr Limbaugh's use of such epithets may wish to explain why
it is bad for me to use them but not for him.


I perceive a fundamental contradiction between saying that it's bad for a
Christia participant to engage in nasty name-calling humor, while at the
same time endorsing a radio show which uses much of the same kind of nasty
name-calling.

Miss Stephenson, the questions I've asked are not rhetorical ones -- I am
really trying to get an answer.  Where I see a basic contradiction, you
apparently see no conflict whatsoever.  So what is it that you see?

 *

Michael Kline writes about how he likes Mr Limbaugh, and so I tried to devise
an example to illustrate what I see as the contradiction: if your child called
a playmate `idiot' or `airhead' in the presence of your pastor, would you
applaud the child's language or rebuke him?

Few parents approve when their children call other people names; I am only
assuming that Mr Kline shares this sentiment.  But if he does, I perceive a
contradiction between not liking name-calling when your kids do it, and liking
name-calling when somebody on TV does it.

(If my hypothetical children came back from visiting with Mr Kline's concrete
 children, and they were talking like Mr Limbaugh, you can be sure they would
 not return to Mr Kline's house.)

Again, these are not merely rhetorical questions.  I am not trying to change
your mind -- I am trying to understand it.  Do you approve of name-calling?
In what situations?  If your children learn name-calling from the radio, will
you feel good about that?

 *

I'm sorry if it bores people, or if they don't like talking about "Sunday
Truths", but examining this kind of contradiction is one of the few things
that we do on Christia which I am really interested in.  And I apologise if
I sometimes go too far when I'm trying to make a point.  But when I question
people about these things, they almost never respond.  I do not know whether
Kerry Stephenson or Michael Kline approves of name-calling, even though I have
asked several times before now.

How can I interpret no answer?

Is it that they see the contradiction but don't care to stop doing something
they like just because it's improper?  I try not to think such things about
Christians until they say so.

Is it that they didn't see the post at all?  That doesn't seem likely.

Is it that they can't figure out what contradiction I'm talking about?  If
so, why not ask for a clarification?

Is it that they couldn't care less what I'm curious about?  If so, it'd be
a lot easier all around if they'd just say so.


In any case, I've just about given up on getting any replies, so I probably
won't post again unless something substantial gets said.  I'm sorry to have
bored so many people, but this discussion included an element which really
fascinates me.  Hoping to see some replies, I kept it going longer than it
should have gone.  Alas . . .


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU