jesse3

"But Limbaugh also heard more than a few "amens" from people who considered difference of opinion a sufficient justification for publicly defaming the young woman."

--From whom? I have never heard anything other than condemnation of his remarks from everyone.

"Given what we heard on the talk radio, changing the tone of the conversation is long overdue."

--I wonder what Sojo thinks of the new Democratic campaign strategy of charging the Republicans with a 'War on Women.' With all the columns recently asking for more positive public discourse, you'd think they'd have something to say about this.

"This anger acts much like any other fundamentalist message does. It galvanizes a minority base while alienating the rest. "

--A perfect description of the Occupy Wall street movement.

"As this piece in the Christian Science Monitor notes, his comments — and the greater sentiment they reflect — point to a sexual double-standard among many social conservatives."

--This piece noted no such thing. They noted a general sexual double-standard that has existed for millenia...not a "double-standard among many social conservatives."

"Anger and fear are wild. Though powerful and often effective they will not be tamed. And eventually, they will turn on their maker."

--Empirically false. Is there any room for righteous or justified anger? Acknowledgement or identification of true threats? Sojo contributors have certainly expressed anger and provoked fear a time or two.

And what does 'Anger is their achilles heel' mean? The phrase is usually used to describe a weak or vulnerable spot, but you're stating that it is their central feature here.

When read in context, Limbaugh was actually making a bad joke to make a point. It was still crude, wrong, and mean...but in my opinion it wasn't as hateful as comments many on the left have made about Palin, Bachmann et al...including comments made by Olbermann, Schultz and the like. 

"I suspect if she were your daughter, you might think quite differently about what Limbaugh said.  In fact, if you have a daughter, imagine him lewdly staring at her, and then think about whether his words deserve the criticism they are getting."

--Limbaugh was trying to make a point of the absurdity of people being basically forced to pay for her to have sex, which is practically speaking, what she was arguing people must do (since if she wasn't having sex, they wouldn't be paying for her birth control). It was clumsily worded and crude...but there are multiple ways of understanding what he was trying to say.

I would be quite ashamed of her behavior if she was my daughter...though it still doesn't excuse what he said. The bottom line is that--regardless of your feelings on the matter--this is attracting way more headlines than it should. 

"It is long past time that the right turns away in disgust from this man, and if these aren't the words, and if this isn't the incident that causes the right to once and for all shut Limbaugh down, then it is rather frightening to think about what it could possibly take."

--"Shut Limbaugh down"?? Not quite sure what you're asking for here. Limbaugh is ultimately an entertainer, not a spokesperson (though the left would like to make him such)...is his influence positive? Often not. But you could argue the same about many liberal pundits, including Olbermann, Maher, Schultz, Maddow, Cornell West, Spike Lee, and yes...Jim Wallis. 

Can't believe how many news stories are coming out about this incident. You'd think it was the most important issue facing our country today. He apologized...several times. As Christians, this should be enough.

The reason it's getting so much airplay is simple: this a purely political attempt to silence the right and critics of the president.

Nice. Thanks for elevating the conversation, Sojo.

"Telling the truth about someone's history and conduct in context doesn't violate any rules at all; if that offends you, then maybe you shouldn't be here."

--Yep, that's what every bigot says, too: "I'm just acknowledging the truth. I'm just being truthful. I don't care who it offends." 

"Pray tell, what is the "Christian" worldview?"

--Good question...there are some areas of overlap between the Christian worldview and conservative principles...especially with regard to sexual morality, the importance of the family, and absolutes regarding truth and morality. The importance of self-control and temperance--as opposed to unrestrained hedonism via drunkenness and the like are additional areas. Even though there are many influences on our behavior, we are ultimately responsible for it, as we are free moral agents, judged as such by God. And this is apart from Christian teachings regarding the sacredness of human life (ie, life being inherently sacred, people being made in God's image and as such are separate from the rest of creation). 

The predominant worldview associated with our culture as a whole and with academia is that: 1) all perspectives are equally valid and no one possesses absolute truth; 2) morality involves not harming others but everyone is entitled to do whatever they want to make themselves happy; 3) the traditional family is one of multiple lifestyles and is no better than other living arrangements; 4) any kind of sexual lifestyle is ok, no matter what or how many adults it's with; 5) the dignity of humans is a product of functionality (ie, what they can do) and they are not qualitatively distinct from animals; 6) the West and Christianity are inherently oppressive and are to be viewed and treated as such; 7) children should be able to choose their own paths, and it is immoral for parents to raise them according to their religious beliefs; 8) no one is ultimately responsible for their behavior because we are a product of our genes and environment. 

These are just some of the main points of difference between the two...obviously not an exhaustive list, and I was trying to highlight the differences--there are obviously some agreements between the two, as well. 

Note: please don't make this into a conservative vs. liberal thing...that will just lead to lots of name calling that I've really grown tired of. I'm trying to stick with Christian worldview vs. secular worldview. 

"Either way I don't think you're thinking logically about this. If non-college kids are leaving the faith more rapidly than college kids than something non-college is pushing them out. And college kids are less influenced by it."

--Whether college or non-college kids are leaving the faith at a higher rate is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that the ideology taught by academics can have a negative influence on those they teach and those they don't teach. Dozens of books have been written on this topic. Ideas, philosophies, etc. often start in academia and among intellectuals before they reach the rest of society. 

How so?

--Primarily, they influence students who influence others. More directly, they produce the work that is reported on by the news media. And they frequently interact with the public via news stories, talk shows, etc. 

"the 'hypocrisy' explanation is no more simplistic than the 'it's the colleges' answer"

--Sorry, I meant no *less simplistic*

His remarks were pretty clumsy and not at all helpful ...definitely playing to the Palin, anti-elitist base. While I agree that fewer (not more) people need to go to college, there are a lot of other factors to consider besides college attendance that are related to loss of faith commitment...and I'm not sure that staying out of college would have somehow protected these students' faith.

I'm guessing you're upset because you approve of homosexual relations? I imagine Piper speaks for most evangelical leaders when he states this. No evangelical I know would recommend a friend to a same-sex relations affirming church. This is really not that controversial or exceptional.