From: sco@aero.org (Stacey C. O'Brien)
Subject: Re: People is not America (was Amy)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.201323.21758@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <Bsu1C8.64C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid) writes:
>>Just no pleasing some people!  (Remember, the "they" that Jesus referred to
>>were the Pharisees -- the fundies of their time -- and the Sadducees -- the
>>liberal theologians of their time.)
>
>Hmmm, don't think I agree with the characterization.  Are you saying that
>those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and living a Holy life 
>dedicated to the Lord are all hypocrites who would crucify him again if
>given the chance?  Being a "fundie", I always try and learn lessons from
>the mistakes of the Pharisees, not emulate them.  I would like to see
>the resoning (or any Scriptural reason) for paralleling the two groups.
>Since this is off the topic of music, E-mail would be fine.

This brings up a subject that has been nagging at me way in the foggy back
of my mind, but which is now being involuntarily spewed onto my keyboard:
"The Media" is as much a propoganda machine, and as much a PR device as
it is a "news" source. The liberal agenda in particular finds much of its
voice and expression in the media. I do NOT think that most media slants
and even stories are neutral. The point being that a media campaign against
a person is enough to ruin that person's credibility and even their
effectiveness. I'm thinking of Dan Quayle. The ridicule, and the sheer
mass and onslaught of ridicule of EVERYTHING he does, the way every little
thing is made into a mountain from a molehill to me is part of the liberal
agenda to totally discredit the republican ticket and presidency. I really
do not care how Dan Quayle spells potato. Honest. I really really don't. But
the point has been to discredit and mock him at every turn.

OK, so why am I saying this? Because I always look carefully at an article
to see 1. What are they trying to accomplish  2. What is the "spin" on the
article -- how are they interpreting things for the reader, 3. What
words are they using to describe an activity or person and how does that
wording create an impression. Like if Clinton sneezes and the headline the
next day is "Clinton blows Bush away".. you get what I mean.

So a reporter shows biases through the wording of things, and can say a lot
without having directy said anything. Look to Christians and those who
stand for unpopular moral standards to be the brunt of this.

So I think the "fundies" have been protrayed consistently by the media
as "frothing at the mouth". Fundementalism is simply a way of interpreting
scripture, taking it more literally than figuratively. It disturbs me
to see Christians using the word fundementalist derisively, blindly imitating
the liberal media's example. For instance, pro-life people are labelled as
"a fundamentalist fringe group". Oh really? Aren't we about 50% of the
population (folks who do not support abortion on demand)? 

So if I am a fundementalist theologically, I should not have to hide my
head in shame because the media has tried to make the word a bad word.
A lot of people are theologically fundementalist and do not even know that
this word means them. I mean they believe the Bible to be literally the
Word of God and the fundementals of the Bible to be absolutely true.

We have seen the affect of how words are used to describe the same thing
in different spins on the Amy Grant debacle. Sexy? Wholesome? Dresses like
a whore? sensual? appealing? all trying to describe the same person. The
only difference is the spin. 

Just a thought.

I just hope that we as Christians can be less susceptible to this stuff
than our non-Christian companions and friends....

                       --Stacey


Newsgroups: rec.music.christian