The story/controversy is an interesting one--given the complaints of some that the GOP is controlled by religious types, but it was a particular paragraph--on the subject of frank dialogue, that resonated with me. After graciously asserting that MacDonald's inquiries seemed more rhetorical than earnest, Novak writes,
I do wish our atheist brothers and sisters would learn a little more than they now know about the profound and thoughtful sorts of believers that surround them, by the millions. Otherwise, they cut themselves off from many vital sources of human sympathy, and fail to be sufficiently skeptical about their own unexamined ideas — about religion, for starters.Although Novak is addressing "atheists" in this post, I think the admonition applies to anyone involved in public discourse.
Though I hated to do it, yesterday I began moderating my comments, because too many visitors were wanting to demagogue rather than dialogue. That change is grating on some commenters, but it was beginning to grate on me that too many commenters assume the worst motives, the least intelligence, the poorest character, etc. when "discussing" issues with the ideological counterparts.
Thanks for stopping by, but you can take your bomb-throwing somewhere else.
20 comments:
A few other interesting stories involving politics and religion.
1 - Methodist ministers from across the country launched an online petition drive today urging Southern Methodist University to abandon its efforts to score George W. Bush's presidential library: story. The SMU faculty has also complained.
2 - Evangelical leaders have backed a major initiative to fight global warming. These leaders include presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life." story
From what I've seen, 'comment moderation' is a tool used mostly by conservative blogs and websites to keep dissenting opinions at bay. It is nearly impossible to present a dissenting opinion that carries any weight at conservative broadcaster websites like Bill OReilly's and Mark Levin's. Any such opinions, except for the most naive, are moderated (deleted). Only dissenting opinions that are uninformed are kept for the purpose of discrediting.
That is how 'moderation' is used by conservative bloggers. I guess this is a challenge to not 'moderate' this comment.
Well, Pam, I haven't ever been to either of those sites and I'm not particularly a fan of those guys, but maybe it is the nature of the commenters on "Conservative blogs" that warrants such moderation.
It's not a crime to be a Republican. It's not de facto insanity to be a Conservative. It's not immoral to question the efficacy of statism. One "slam-dunk" comment on a blog isn't going to change my entire worldview. Thus flamer comments with such presumptions lack credibility and interest.
Jon,
Yeah, I've seen those stories and have commented on them--particularly Rick Warren's.
I read something today that provided some perspective on the issue of religion and politics. Read this and let me know what you think.
I think that it is feasible that evangelicals--in light of the terrible "press" they get and with the intent of being non/bi-partisan and being magnanimous, are susceptible to being "useful idiots" for Democrat politics.
I agree. Political pandering to court religious voters is not exclusively GOP territory. Democrat efforts in this area seem to be a reaction to the success of Bush and the GOP to do just that. It's as if they are trying to say that the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on religious moral values. I think America is slowly beginning to recognize this as well, not through the efforts of Democrats but through the policies of the Bush administration that often seem to contradict the moral creed they used in part to sell themselves during the election.
I rarely comment on blogs but I do read them. I must say I have rarely seen you reference any news or commentary from any other source but clearly identifiably biased sources with a conservative or Christian connection. I do think that 'colors' the info you present and creates an impression even before reading it. How about the citing the AP, Reuters or CNN sometime? Or maybe Cobert was right, reality has a liberal bias and we need to stay away from that.
Jon,
I haven't paying that close attention, but I have as a rule (in the past) scrupulously avoided linking to "conservative or Christian" journals for news items. As far as op/ed pieces, doesn't it make sense that I would find such sources more persuasive?
That being said, one thing I appreciate about most of the new or alternative media is that they don't pretend that their reporting or coverage isn't affected by their worldview. There is NO doubt that the majority of editors, producers, talents, reporters, writers, janitors in the MSM are coming at things from a "Liberal" worldview, and I think it is ironic that Liberals can't accede the fact that the reporting coming out of the MSM is slanted.
Bias is subtle, and I'd be interested to hear your opinion about my post "sectarian semantics."
And regarding "pandering"; I think offering or promising something is only pandering if you don't believe, aren't sincere in what you're saying, or don't intend to follow through on what you've promised.
I think that is more true of Democrats on the "Faith" issue than any issue as presented by Republicans. Or can you point me to a similar thing?
I have become very sensitive and aware of the liberal bias in MSM. When CNN runs a series called "Broken Government" right before the election, I think the anti-Bush slant is obvious. But what I find is more revealing is the opposite slant from Fox News which, I think everyone can agree by this point, is truly very far from 'Fair and Balanced'... an oxymoron. This is evidenced by not only what they report but what they omit and what they emphasize.
This anti-Bush slant from CNN, (ie 'Broken Government'), PBS ('Rumsfeld's War' and the 'Dark Side') - first and foremost I ask myself - are these facts correct are these sources credible and connected? In my experience, I have to say yes most of the time with CNN and PBS, despite the slant, they are giving us basically the truth. Their journalism generally stands the test of scrutiny.
Fox News on the other hand will spend inordinate amounts of time on Duke Lacrosse and Natilee Holoway when a Republican is indicted, an General speaks out against the war, or a large number of GIs are killed in Iraq.
In a free society I think it is the responsibility of the free press to ask the tough questions, expose corruption and wrong doing, and provide careful fact finding investigations into issues of our time - including government policies. How many times has our Vice President been interviewed by Fox News compared with ABC, PBS or other MSM? How many times have you heard the names Jack Abramoff or Duke Cunningham come out of the mouths of Fox Day Side anchors, O' Reilly or Cavuto?
Politics aside, for these reasons I'd prefer a press that criticizes the government as opposed to trying to shield it from criticism. This is essentially the product of our freedom and what makes us different from communists and dictatorships. I get very nervous when I hear that such criticism not met with explanation but met with counter charges of 'aiding the enemy' or 'bashing the President' - demonizing the press. That to me sounds more like societies and ideologies we are at war with.
If CNN wants to portray our government as 'broken', they very well ought to back it up. And they nearly always do - with facts.
Jon,
I don't have much time to respond now, but the difference between FoxNews--at its birth, and EVERY other news channel was that it presented both sides of stories. I know that MacNeil/Lehrer used to do it some, but they were the exception.
But, I hope you appreciate the fact that after 20-30 years of a Liberal bias in news reporting, the fact that FoxNews existed was "balance."
Lastly, I don't watch, much less monitor ANY of the news channels (except very sporadically), so I can't speak to specifics, and I'll assume you're correct (though I doubt you are--Lexis-Nexis could tell us) but one reason that I can see a difference between networks in coverage of scandals like Abramoff is how big of a story it is perceived to be . . . if it a dog bites man story, then it is less newsworthy. Waste in military spending? Imperfect response to a natural disaster? Perverted congressman? These aren't man-bites-dog stories (to be reported ad infinitum) unless your premise is that they are Republican problems.
In general, people who vote Republican are much more informed than people who vote Democrat; and Left-of-center folks have MANY more outlets for news/views from their perspective. Why the bellyaching about little ol' FoxNews?
"In general, people who vote Republican are much more informed than people who vote Democrat."
I must take exception to this since I believe those that are most informed also tend to be the best educated. Lookin at US census stats regarding % of college educated adults, it is extremely clear that the states which form the top level of this demographic are overwhelmingly Democrat and vica-versa.
I wouldn't necessarily equate "well-informed" with "educated" but I think the stats reflect that Democrat voters especially dominate at the lower extreme and marginally dominate at the upper extreme.
But it reminds me of the Pew Center (I think) poll conducted for NPR a couple years ago in which more than 50% of the listeners were self-identified "Conservatives." Without talk radio, I would be listening to NPR, because I enjoy "news" or discussion as entertainment. And I think that's at least one reason that Liberal talk radio can't support itself--people who vote for the more Liberal party of the two aren't as interested in shall we say non-fiction media.
NPR/PBS are generally the best sources of non-fiction media, documentaries, science programs and are most often identified as 'liberal'.
Regarding the 'lower extreme' you mentioned - These are 19 BOTTOM ranking states in % of college educated adults in order:
WV, KY, MS, AR, NV, IN, AL, LA, TN, OK, IA, OH, SD, SC, WY, NM, WI, ID, MO - ALL were carried by Bush in 2004.
Here are the 14 highest ranking states in college educated adults - DC, MA, CO, CT, MD, VA, NJ, VT, MN, NH, WA, NY, CA, RI
12 of these top 14 went to John Kerry.
This makes a very convincing argument in my view regarding education and voting. Again, I submit that those that are better educated generally are more aware.
Of course, all the educated people in the "Blue" states voted for Kerry and all the uneducated ones in the "Red" states voted for Bush.
Jon, I agree.
Can you imagine this on any other network but Fox News?
Fox smears Sen. Obama, says he 'covered up' Muslim past
Fox News Channel's morning program Fox & Friends pointed to a report on Friday that Sen. Barack Obama had attended a Muslim 'madrasa' while living in Indonesia as a 6-year-old child.
Host Steve Doocy went on to highlight Obama's middle name, Hussein, and questioned whether Obama was indoctrinated in extremist Muslim doctrine.
Link to video
25 Americans killed in Iraq, the deadliest day in 2 years for US soldiers. - These are the headlines in every media source except - you guessed it - Fox News. At 4 pm CST, not one word - not one mention of these deaths in Iraq on the Fox News website. But, we have stories headlining: "Cops Hunt for Gunman, Kidnapped Mom, 4 Kids"... "Iran to [maybe] Test-Fire Missiles"... "Kidnap Suspect Reveals Shame."
Better to not upset those in Fox fantasy land, keep them afraid of Iran, but don't let them know Americans continue to die by the dozens due to Bush's incompetence. MAKES ME SICK!
Gee, MSNBC isn't "reporting" the near-milestone either . . . neither is the AP . . . and neither is googlenews--on the Nation section (which is generated without FAUXNews bias); does that MAKE YOU SICK?
Incidentally, FoxNews is reporting it as the top story on the International page. Boy, that's some vast right-wing conspiracy.
Oh, and flamer types like you need to stay on subject, avoid all caps and avoid mountain-from-molehill-making.
See for yourself -
CBS News main page top story - Deadliest Day In 2 Years For U.S. In Iraq - http://www.cbsnews.com/
ABC News main page top story -Bloody Day: 25 U.S. Dead in Iraq as Militants Impersonate Americans
http://abcnews.go.com/
CNN main page top story - 25 U.S. troops in 1 day
http://www.cnn.com/
Fox News main page top story - Cops Hunt for Gunman, 'Kidnapped' Mom, 4 Kids - http://www.foxnews.com/
No excuses for this.
"Excuses"? to whom? I don't need to make excuses for FoxNews (or AP, or MSNBC or google) but I can tell you I knew about the number of casualties over the weekend . . . even though my media overlords don't have it as their top "story" today.
By the way, this is your last comment on this subject on my blog today (and maybe tomorrow) Pam.
As I mentioned on my blog - can you imagine a more nefarious GOP 'hit-job' on a Democratic candidate that was done by Fox News on Obama last Friday? Listen to the way the all white Fox News anchors talk about someone different from themselves on the video. O my god! - his father was a Muslim! Kinda reminds me of the "macaca moment" that lost the Republicans the Senate.
Well, it turns out that Fox News and Insight Magazine have been exposed as liars in a CNN report. Fox has recanted... but the damage was done. Amazing, they had the nerve to blame this on Hillary. (Why would Hillary communicate this to a conservative mag? Huh?)
Just another day of 'fair and balanced' Fox News.
I'll follow your links, but you've got to be kidding me to say that you can't imagine a "nefarious" "hit-job" (as opposed to an un-nefarious one?) from Hillary Clinton or that she wouldn't use a "Conservative mag" to carry out such a task.
Post a Comment