From: FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET (Usenet/Netnews Moderator)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Last night's Rush Limbaugh Show
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:43:23 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
>Subject: Last night's Rush Limbaugh Show
>Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:57:42 GMT

/* This seems to have vanished in earlier attempts to send it.  Sorry
 * if you are seeing it twice.
 */

[ I have already made clear my dislike for Mr Limbaugh's humor and his
  attempts at reasoning, but I will contribute another post because I
  believe we should be careful about what things we endorse as Christians.
  Many people are sympathetic with Mr Limbaugh's political views, and do
  not seem to consider carefully the material in his programs. ]

 *

"Cruelty is shameful -- unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical
 joke.  A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a
 man's damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to
 do can be done, not only without disapproval but with the admiration of his
 fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke." -- Screwtape

 *

Scott Wilburn wrote:
> Sorry, guys, but I do not like anyone doing what Rush Limbaugh does and
> that is putting down other people.

Jim Coen asks:
> What do we mean by "putting down other people". I suppose a case could be
> made that Jesus "put down" the Pharisees. (You brood of vipers. You blind
> guides.)

Jesus criticised people in strong terms for things they'd done wrong, but
he never engaged in pointless and mean-spirited ridicule.

Last night, I watched the TV show for the first (and probably last) time.  One
of the highlights was when Mr Limbaugh held up two styrofoam models of sperm,
and the TV technicians superimposed the faces of Bill & Hillary Clinton on the
models.  This was no attempt to criticise Mr Clinton or satirise things he has
done; no mention was made of any policies which this represents.  It was
adolescent humor and nothing more.

I thought only Howard Stern engaged in such bathroom humor.  Mr Coen, suppose
it had been you and your wife who were so displayed on television -- how would
that make you feel?  How about if it had been your parents?  What if it had
been your children?

Michael Kline is a big fan of Mr Limbaugh, and he has children.  Mr Kline,
would you appreciate seeing your daughter's face superimposed over a model
of sperm and broadcast nationwide?  How about if Howard Stern had done the
same stunt with the faces of George and Barbara Bush?


At another point, we saw a section of a textbook in which the author wrote
that the great disappointment of talk radio was that it did not serve as a
useful tool to improve the democracy.  In rebuttal, Mr Limbaugh called the
writer an `idiot', said that his talk show got big ratings, and that he had
convinced listeners to mail tea bags to elected officials.

[ This sort of name calling serves to point up some really rank hypocrisy
  from Mr Limbaugh.  Several months ago, Mr Kline posted an excerpt in which
  one US senator called another senator a `boob'.  Mr Limbaugh went on about
  how name-calling was not appropriate, that the senator in question had
  served the nation for many years, and was NOT a `boob'.  Then Mr Limbaugh
  called the other senator an airhead.  It seems that Republican senators
  should not be called names, but Democratic senators do not deserve similar
  courtesy. ]


At the end of the program, Mr Limbaugh said he was going to run something
which would show how HE had seen this past week's Inauguration.  He ran a
segment from a movie (it appeared to be a version of "The Hunchback of Notre
Dame", but I am not sure).  This clip appeared to be a mock Coronation, with
the hunchback putting on a fool's cap as if it were a crown, and a large
group of cheering peasants wiggling their rear ends at him.

If Howard Stern had said "I watched the Vatican Midnight Mass last December,
and this is how it looked", and then ran a segment from `Animal House' or
"Porky's", holding up Roman Catholics to ridicule, people would clamor for him
to be lynched.  It wouldn't even have to be that extreme -- if Mr Stern had
run the exact same movie clip as his summary of President Bush's Inauguration
in 1989, he would have been blasted for making fun of an important event.
Rush Limbaugh would be talking about how rotten our society was, that someone
like Howard Stern could get away with such rotten antics on TV.  However, when
Mr Limbaugh engages in such antics -- with no regard for anyone's feelings or
anything else -- Christians applaud him and say that playing his show on the
radio at work is a way of witnessing for Christ.


Some weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh made a point of talking about and reading a
pretend flyer about an `inaugural party' to be held by Bill Clinton with all
the free beer you can drink, and women getting in free.  (I do not remember
the wording, but it had several pointed references to drunkenness.)  It is
true that Mr Clinton is from an alcoholic family, but why Mr Limbaugh feels it
is an appropriate topic for humor I do not know.  Worse yet, Michael Kline
posted it to Christia, a list where several people have discussed their own
problems with alcoholism.  I think one woman got divorced because her
alcoholic husband beat her up.  And despite all of this, Michael Kline posted
a flyer making fun of people who supposedly drink a lot.  What's next, jokes
about people who had miscarriages?  Al Gore's son was almost killed in a
traffic accident; maybe we can do a bunch of jokes about kids getting killed.

There are a lot of non-Christians who read Christia; is this the face we want
to present?  That Christians make fun of alcoholism?  Does anybody believe
that this is how Jesus wants us to act?

 *

None of these items from Mr Limbaugh's program was intelligent commentary;
none of this had any arguments or constructive criticism; none of this even
pretended to be at all relevant to anything Mr Clinton has said or done.
Virtually the entire program was pointless and mean-spirited ridicule of
people that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like.

Dan Quayle and George Bush both acted like adults about the election; both men
gave Mr Clinton credit for running a good campaign and for never giving up.
Mr Quayle even said, with grudging admiration for a worthy opponent, that if
Bill Clinton runs the country as well as he ran the campaign, we'll be all
right.  (This line from Mr Quayle was ten times as funny as anything I have
yet to see from Mr Limbaugh.)  They both lost the election; both men were as
concerned about the outcome as Mr Limbaugh, and both men are as concerned
about the direction the country is headed.  But they both accepted defeat like
gentlemen and neither had a single nasty thing to say after the fighting was
over.  Do they disagree with Bill Clinton?  Yes, of course they do.  But they
won't sit around making fun of him just to make fun of him.

Where the people who lost the election have acted with grace, Mr Limbaugh
continues with snotty remarks and nasty humor, because he knows that his
audience wants to hear such things and he knows who pays his salary.  (He even
said as much when he was interviewed for the 12 Dec 92 issue of TV Guide.)

 *

I have often heard Christians say that we should be careful about what kind of
image we project to the world.  Christians should make sure that they do not
appear to endorse sins -- if you do not take drugs, but hang out with people
who do, then you may be sending a message that says "drugs are okay".  Not
only to non-Christians, but to new Christians who might USE drugs, since they
see your example and believe nothing is wrong with them.

I believe that the same applies to our entertainment.  I surely hope that no
Christian would ever tell their children "If you can't convince people that
they are wrong, it's okay to ridicule them instead" or "If you lose, don't
accept defeat but instead talk about how stupid the winner is".  And I hope
that none of us would do such things, either.  But Rush Limbaugh does them,
and I think people should be more thoughtful before endorsing him.

Mr Kline, if your daughter started calling people `idiot' and `airhead', and
made a picture of a cow's rear end with your pastor's picture glued on it,
would you be proud of her?  Is that the kind of behaviour you want her to
engage in?  Is that what you want to teach her?

Aren't you teaching her those things by approving of Rush Limbaugh, who does
them?  Aren't you telling her that this kind of nasty behaviour is okay for
Christians?  Do you want her to grow up calling people names because they
disagree with her?  Is "ridicule other people" one of the Family Values you
intend to teach?

For parents, that's what this is about.  You may think your kids never listen
to you, but they are ALWAYS watching you.  They will do many of the things
they see you doing; they will approve many of the things they see you approve.
If they see that you like name-calling, then name-calling is what they will
do.  Just be sure it's what you want before you approve of it.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows
 is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, `I was only joking!'"
                                                    -- Proverbs 26:18-19
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU