Comments

With all the vile nasty hatred coming from the American Right-wing, I think an objective blogger could have provided more examples than Wanda Sykes and Al Franken. One should also consider the fact that they are comedians-- saying their piece for comic affect when folks like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh speak their hate without tounge-in-cheek.

I agree with many of the points. But I also agree with some of the content that Wanda Sykes started with. Primarily, that for Rush to publicly hope that the president failed, that the economy would get worse, etc., does verge on treason. Of course, that is not my definition of treason, but Rush's. He is the one that has called many people treasonous for daring to question the government. I agree that because he did it, doesn't mean that others should. But I would ask that the next time he does it, that some people would step up and tell him to stop as well. Of course my definition of treason does not include questioning the government. And I would recommend that as a starting place for lowering the level of verbal nastiness.

Great comments Matt K & Adam S!

While I am the first to call people to a more civil public discourse (in fact, that was my blog post yesterday!), there were two points of irony that troubled me about this CT post.

1. While some of Sykes comments should be rejected, it is ironic that the blogger chose to condemn her verbal nastiness in a comedy routine toward Rush. Surely her comments, while not helpful, are not nearly as negative or influential as the verbal nastiness of Rush. His tone is far angerier, and people fail to recognize him as a performer.

2. With such a glaring irony (inconsistency) in this blog post, I found it ironic that CT would chose to post it. Stan, would you post a blog about the verbal nastiness of Rush? I think that more CT readers are in danger of drinking from that poison than being influenced by a Sykes comedy routine.

I deeply respect and appreciate CT. I also resonate with a call to a more respectful public discourse, which I believe you were trying to communicate. Unfortunately, this post failed to deliver that call due to the glaring inconsistencies.

let me get this straight, CT is publishing this article?

CT is publishing an article from an extremist political editorial site that defends Rush Limbaugh?

Politics aside, and yes- I do mean politics a-side, this is an article calling for the return of civility, and supposing civility is related to moral behavior,

"So civility has an unavoidably moral component. The proper treatment of others conveys regard and demonstrates self-control. Rudeness sets out to dominate and humiliate. " It goes on to say that it seems politics has forgotten this.

All while defending the humanity of Rush Limbaugh. Sure, let's discuss the humanity of Rush Limbaugh aside from political content. This is a man who demeans the humanity of others based on sure- their politics- but also their humanity. He claims higher morality even as he avoids the proper treatment of others or conveying regard and demonstration self-control. Rudeness sets out to dominate and humiliate. That's his game- that's how he gets money and a following.

This is not a man we should be defending. Not. Ever.
Not in the politics section.
Or the humanity section.
Or the live blog.

CT, you are posting this article?
Not only is it an article that contradicts itself (poor logic, people, and gaping errors in thought process!), but it is also an article that should never be linked to from this site.
CT. Please. Get off this train.

Gerson is correct. The quote from Carter is powerful. And, I believe, to the objective, the blog stands on its own merits.
Gerson is NOT defending the commentators on the right in his objection to comments on the left. He is trying to provoke some self understanding, and reflection. In that his platform is on one side of the fence, he writes in a manner to be heard.
The fact that some can't even be open to a blog posted at a certain site, is the reason Gerson writes for his own audience.
I am not a follower of all of Gerson's politics, but his message is dead on and his life speaks of the civility with which he writes.
Stan, I sometimes get frustrated at what I perceive as sensational headlines of the CT blog postings (Do you not believe Gerson is writing about Limbaugh and Coulter, as much as Sykes and Franken? Yet your subtitle obscures Gerson's message, not enhances it), but the post is valuable. Thank you.

I've never understood why anyone - on either side - thinks it's funny to hope for someone's death.

Gerson should be careful what he says publicly. There is a good chance that history will not be kind to him if it turns out that he was a naive shill for tens of thousands of needless lives lost, not just jokes about such.

Yes, we owe a degree of civility to Rush Limbaugh -- as Christians.

Criticise him? Make fun of him? Even call what he has said treason? (He would have said as much if any of us had said the same about a Republican President) YES!

Wish for his kidneys to fail? NO!

There is a very interesting book on all this from a non-Christian point of view, Reverence, by Paul Woodruff (Oxford University Press,2002; on Amazon). Woodruff, a philosopher, begins with the concept of reverence of the Greek philosophers, and applies it (as they did) to the public square rather than religion. "Reverence is an ancient virtue that survives among us in half forgotten patterns of civility." But also, reverence is "the virtue that keeps human beings from trying to act like gods," to understand our limitations as human beings.

These are exactly the limitations that Limbaugh and Wanda Sykes have forgotten in their rants, but that we, as reverent Christians, should be ever mindful.

Because of its secular orientation, the book got little notice in Evangelical circles -- to our own loss.

Full disclosure; I am related to Paul Woodruff.

Tim, your post leaves me rather confused.

While I totally agree that Christians should not joke about anyone's death, are you arguing that Wanda Sykes is a Christian or that we should expect non-Christians to behave in Christian ways?

If it is the latter, then it seems we are committing the same exact fallacy of the Puritans (both in England in the US). The anti-puritanist backlash against such Constantinianism/Dominionism has done nothing less than a virtual total devastation of the US harvest fields for evangelism.

God give us more Roger Williams and William Penns who understood that regenerate behavior is to be different than unregenerate behavior. To expect unregenerate behavior to equate with ours (and be shocked when it isn't) is nothing less than a denial of the power of the Cross and an embrace of the core tenet of the gnostic view of the essential goodness of man.

The Moral Majority-type movements of the past 30 years are probably responsible for more Americans going to hell than anything else American Christians have done in the last 2 centuries.

Someone tell me where I'm wrong here.

God help us.