Over the past week we have been subjected to a purposefully distracting teapot tempest. Radio host Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the anti-Catholic women’s activist and sometimes student a name, a bad name. This caused the most vicious among to come down with a sudden case of the faints at the incivility of it all.
Mr. Limbaugh, to his credit, has now apologized to Ms. Fluke. I think that Rush did the right thing. But the problem I had with Rush’s comments is not that he called her a name, it is just that he called her the wrong name.
Beyond the specifics of the Limbaugh-Fluke kerfuffle, I have been pondering this notion that in a civilized society that there is no place for name calling. I think this is wrong. Some name calling, the kind meant to only dehumanize and denigrate a person for reasons beyond their control is always wrong. I think that the N-word and the R-word are examples of this type of morally repugnant name calling.
But there are other names to call, names that are based upon a judgement about behavior, that I think are not only in bounds for a civil and moral society, but perhaps even vital to it. In a classically liberal society, we are loathe to try to legislate morality. Historically, we have chosen to legislate morality only when such immorality gravely infringes upon the rights of others. Yet still, society has an interest in resisting and penalizing other forms of immorality with something short of criminalization. Historically, one of the means of such discouragement is social stigma, a societal judgement of your actions. And one the chief means of of communicating such judgement is name-calling. Liar! Cheat! Homewrecker! And yes even Slut! They all denote judgment …
March 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Perhaps(?) Rush did go too far in labelling Ms. Fluke, but on a daily he defends Catholic teachings better than most Bishops.
March 4, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Christ labeled things for what they were. Matthew 23 is a good example of this.
March 5, 2012 at 1:44 am
LUST is a spiritual disease and cannot be treated by medical science. The exercise of LUST can only be treated by an act of the will of the abuser. To enable the perpetrator of abuse against himself is a lack of charity. To make taxpayers assume the responsibility to prolong and enhance the exercise of LUST against their religious beliefs is totalitarian.
March 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Calling a person what Rush called her and totally misrepresenting her testimony deserved an apppology. I hope this is the start of advertisers getting rid of Rush like they did Beck. Maybe marginalize them like Dr. Laura and Beck to the point of nothing.
March 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I had to go through the comments to figure out that the "R-word" was the outdated term for seriously impeded growth or limited mental ability. (How sad is it that dictionary.com had the slur form as the primary definition? It's a perfectly good word, just not suited to humans– kinda like "vegetable.")
March 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Anon-
Don't hold your breath.
Actually… on second thought… do…. Won't cause you harm, and it'll pass the time.
March 5, 2012 at 5:27 pm
From a Washington Post blog by Sarah Kliff:
"Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy. "
Sandra Fluke is definitely being misrepresented by the media. And perhaps a better "S" word for her would be "shill".
March 5, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Georgetown receives funding from the United States Government and therefore must conform to the requirement that it not impose Catholic doctrine on either its workforce or its students.
___
Seriously??? A Catholic University cannot teach Catholicism??? Then Harvard should not be able to teach Liberalism.
March 5, 2012 at 8:13 pm
This is quite the red herring to turn us away from the seriousness of the economy and unemployment (with its false figures).
And years ago, even 10 years ago, would a woman go before the world to DEMAND free contraceptives so that the young women can sin more with fewer consequences? There is little decency left! And more birth control leads to more abortions…..but that is okay too with our government which will save money because there will be 'less people' said Sebellius. And who is next in the 'less people' plan?
Folks, we are looking at population control here; please see what is going on.
March 6, 2012 at 12:25 am
"Seriously??? A Catholic University cannot teach Catholicism??? Then Harvard should not be able to teach Liberalism. "
Ahh, but it's LEGAL to force the doctrines state worship on others because it's "secular".
March 6, 2012 at 5:37 am
There is nothing wrong with what Rush did! He was Christ-like in his name-calling! I always call sinners names. There's no better way to convert sinners to the truth than calling them names and insulting them so they'll want to convert to our loving ways.