Norah, You Ignorant Slut

by Mike on April 28, 2006

in Politics

This was originally posted after Scott McClellan’s resignation but worth a mention here while we’re on the topic of the White House press corps. Saturday Night Live, a show which only seems to be funny during the latter half of any given decade, recently took a pretty amusing swipe at the White House and the press. You can check out the video at Expose the Left.

These reporters who seem to think it is their job to debate rather than report are ripe for counter-punching. Let’s see if Tony Snow can learn something from Brittany Doyle.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz April 30, 2006 at 12:01 am

Hi Mike,

Checked the site, have to say some interesting and thought promoting items.

I don’t have a problem with ‘journo’s giving opinion, as long as it’s clearly labeled as such (FOX does as much as any and it’s the channel of the right.) Being from ‘Down Under’ I don’t necessarily get the full drift of the Norah/slut angle.

On the subject of opinion, FOX balances a left wing bias in other networks, but it does, like the left, pass opinion, especially political, as fact. No better nor worse than the others, but I guess it does balance them.

I was struck by one of the side-bars on that URL that I hope you don’t mind me passing comment on, that of the suggestion that Jesus was sexual.

Son of GOD or not, I would be supprised if he didn’t have sexual feelings. What both sides of that arguement seemed to miss was that sexual feelings are natural, and, if one believes in a GOD, then that GOD made Man and Woman the main species where both male and female actually enjoy sex and both orgasm. (Some arguement that some of the apes and Dolphins/Whales may also). The enjoyment of sex is part of GOD’s intended life for man, as is the responsibility to not abuse that gift.

If one believes in the classic interpretation of Jesus, he was the Son of God, but was both of heaven and earth.

I would see added strength to a Jesus who had the normal feelings of any man, but acknowledged and managed those feelings (not that I see any mention in scripture).

I did note that in the original Uni article it suggests homosexual leanings. Now I personally have no problems with homosexuality, I know th Old Testament is vehemently opposed to it, however see a difference in Jesus’ teachings.

I do however have a very strong problem with the suggestion the Jesus had such tendencies. I have seen nothing in scripture to suggest that. (Believe me I have a deep knowledge of scripture, having been brought up in a strong faith and studied, even if it was more years ago than I care to count)

I feel that the suggestion was there solely to offend or gain notoriety, and while it may be their 1st Ammendment right to say so, object on the grounds that it deeply offends people of faith, whithout any remote basis in scripture. We in Australia have a similar freedom of speech ethos, however I do believe that with freedom comes resonsibility.

I am strongly opposed to deliberately offending any deeply held belief, whether I agree with it or not. I would not attempt to offend a Moslem, or Agnostic for that matter. I may wish to enter into debate but would hope to respect their right to their views, even if sometimes I do open my mouth a bit too quickly.

(remember I’m the guy with no time for organised religion)

Reply

Mike April 30, 2006 at 11:56 am

Hi Oz:

The Norah/slut title was a reference to an SNL skit from the early 1980s where two reporters on a news broadcast would give commentary. Dan Ackroyd’s rebutttals frequently began with the line “Jane, You Ignorant Slut!” Since this was the same program and the “press secreatry” referred to Norah as a slut, it seemed perfect.

As for the Jesus ad you refer to , I confess I did not see it. Expose the Left is a website that is unparalleled (sp?) in posting video clips from a conservative perspective. I rarely if ever pay attention to hte ads on any given website.

That said, I think I agree with you. The divine entering humanity as a man probably had the sexual component to which you refer. I too see strength in a man who controls those urges, setting an example for modern clergy to follow in the process.

In terms of Christian teaching on homosexuality, keep in mind that the Catholic Church has three sources of faith, Sacred Scipture, Apostolic Tradition and Divine Revelation. Reading and studying all three of these sources together provide a clearer picture of Catholic opposition to homosexual acts. We are more likely to look at natural law for guidance than perhaps a Bible only Protestant. I don’t say “Bible only” as a criticism.

I say this just to give you and others a better idea of where we tend to come from on theological issues. All three of us are Catholic. Two of us in the same Catholic high school, two in the same Catholic college.

As for the ad, I never saw it. I stand by endorsement of the site’s content.

Reply

rightonoz April 30, 2006 at 7:46 pm

Hi Mike

No criticism taken.

I was not criticising the site itself. I didn’t have a problem with the side bar being on the web site. It wasn’t advertising the statement – simply and rightfully offering a strong comment against the original sexuality and homosexuality claim. I certainly had no problem with the site itself, it’s closer to my outlook on life than most.

As to the differences in churches, I was raised Protestant but spent some years going out with a Catholic and did attend church with her and took the time to learn about her faith. I was exposed to the differences, and while not perhaps totally agreeing with some, could just as easily be a member of the Catholic church as any other should I choose to me a member of an established church.

I certainly mean no offence to your openly stated faith and take the view that it’s the diversity of belief that enriches society, so long as it doesn’t become a ‘them and us’ dogma or used to justify discrimination or persecution.

I have taken the time to study alternative faiths and see good in all of them in their purest ideals.

In these times it is useful to remember that both Christianity and Moslem religions stem from the same earlier faith, still practised (and persecuted) in a very small area around the northern Iran/Iraq border.

I have no issue with the Moslem religion as practised by many as it worships the same GOD and preaches most of the same ideals that we hold to, only a different prophet. I may not agree with their prophet being THE prophet, but accept their right to that belief. I mentioned on a previous post, my exposure in Iran. MOST Iranians I met hold a very moderate Moslem belief and respect our beliefs also.

Shame that so many ignorant radical leaders in religions (and society in general) cannot adopt the same tolerance.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: