My radio reception is bad. Really bad. I get a handful of FM stations and only one on the AM dial. So, whenever I tire of listening to REO Speedwagon and Billy Squire "hits," I'm forced into the world of Dr. Laura and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.
And so it was, after struggling through one and a half songs of an Eagles "Fourplay" Wednesday afternoon, that I happened to catch Rush going off on a bizarre rant about religion. He has conveniently put a transcript of this tirade on his website under the charming title, "Why Liberals Fear Religious People."
You can tell just from that title what Rush is up to. To him, the left is a godless horde. He uses the terms "liberal," "leftist" and "secularist" interchangeably: "those of you on the left, you secular people" is his mantra. And what sends all liberals into the icy embrace of atheism? Fear. According to Rush, there is "a total lack of understanding and a fear that is felt, quivering in corners, folks, these liberals do when they start, you know, imagining the strength of faith."
Now, I've listened to Rush Limbaugh enough to know that he's not stupid. He's certainly aware that 92% of Americans profess a belief in God (the poll was taken by Fox News, after all). And the financial calculations required in his (alleged) attempt to avoid SEC scrutiny in order to support his prescription drug habit shows that he can handle basic math, too. So he must be capable of figuring out that even if every last atheist in the electorate voted for John Kerry in 2004, that still leaves a whopping 83.54% of Democratic voters who believe in God. (Want me to show my math? Click here.)
Again, Rush isn't stupid; he's just disingenuous. His attitude seems to be, "What I believe isn't important; what really matters is what I can get you to believe" (and in this sense, he's really no different from the Michael Moore's of the world). And what he wants to get people to believe is that liberals are hell-bound atheists who call their pet cats "mongrels" (yes, he actually says this), and that God votes Republican.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Margaret Romao Toigo
People like Mr. Limbaugh have successfully framed the religious debate in the public sphere because when they speak of God and faith they are more often than not met with hostility from those of us who would rather keep our religion separate from our politics.
Wrath begets wrath, as it always does, and the national conversation devolves
into an "us versus them" shouting match -- even when most of us supposedly have faith in the very same God.
It takes no courage or character whatsoever to shout back, anybody can do that. Christians must find the strength to somehow lead our poor lost brothers and sisters back to the truths that Christ revealed.
Christ taught that we should be charitable toward our fellow man, even when he is not charitable toward us. So rather than judging and condemning these entertainers who suffer from delusions of punditry, we should pray for God to grant His grace upon them so that they might find deliverance.
2 - Nancy
Love your title; wonder how many will 'get it' and/or identify the source?
I pity you deeply for having only those limited radio resources. Listening to Limbaugh & the religious reich is like listening to the bellowing of a combative bull, and about as intelligent. You CAN'T refute their rantings with logic or intelligence, because they DON'T USE IT. Their output is entirely visceral, & is meant to appeal to the emotional viscera of their listeners, not their rational aspects. It could be argued by the unkind that they have no rational aspects. Their ideas and convictions are rooted in the same ideas that preceded them in Mein Kampf and other such propaganda. Trying to make any kind of connection between Limbaugh & company, and any kind of common sense, logic, or intelligence is a non sequitur: no connection.
3 - MCH
And don't forget, Rush Lardbaugh is perhaps the phoniest of all the right-wing war mongers who esposue sending others into harm's way while they themselves remain safely back home.
During Bill Clinton's two terms, Larbaugh repeatedly bashed Clinton for avoiding the Vietnam War, perhaps his favorite rant being, "Never trust a draft dodger!" But where was Rush during Vietnam?
You guessed it...back home with student deferments before dropping out of college, and then a medical deferment (granted by his family physician) for a pylodinal cyst, ie, and ingrown hair on his bummy.
(source: THE RUSH LIMBAUGH STORY by Paul Colford, Chapter Two, "Beating the Draft")
I would suggest to Chickenhawk Lardbaugh that the next time he spouts "Never trust a draft dodger," to make sure he's looking in the mirror...
4 - Dave Nalle
Give it a rest, MCH. Limbaugh's a blowhard and a hypocrite, but he still has the right to any stupid opinion he wants and calling him a chickenhawk just shows how intolerant of free speech you are.
Dave
5 - MCH
(fat) birds of a feather, flock together...
...cluck-cluck-cluck.
6 - alongyourpath
In this day and age we see many people spewing forth their "view" of religion and spirituality. Most of the time it is in the hands of people with a far 'left' or far 'right' point of view. Most people do being in some form of divinity, yet, people can't get pasted their idiot-logical sense that since we are create equal, in the eyes of God no less, that we are all singular organisms that belief differently then what they may belief. I'm 33 yrs old and all I can say is why can't people grow up? Child's play is all its worth being called. Yet, my rant is like Rush's, or Moore's, it's a view of reality we share in this existance.
7 - Randy Kirk
Of course Rush uses Hyperbole. What else is new on the right or the left.
I grew up a Methodist. At age 19 our youth pastor was using Catcher in the Rye as a text. I left the church for 14 years because of the hypocracy I saw. I came back because of the hyprocracy I saw outside the church and in myself.
Now (as you know) I'm a fundy. In for a penny, in for a pound. In theory, but poorly, we trust God, not man. Many, not all, liberal Christ followers, seem to fundy's to trust man, then God. It may seem subtle, but it is a critical difference.
Methodists, Catholics et al are, in my opinion, going to heaven in the same numbers as Baptists. But if you want to know the basis of Rush's underlying argument, there it is.
8 - Mark Schannon
Wait a minute, Dave...if MCH can't call Rush Limberger "chickenhawk," isn't that restraint upon MCH's free speech?
Gotcha! (I hope.)
Cluck, cluck, cluck.
Actually, I sometimes wonder if Limberger isn't a closet liberal having the time of his life pretending to be a fascist right wing albatros. There's something fishy about him.
9 - Nancy
Limbaugh, Coulter, and the like are not true conservatives, they are neocons, purveyors of demonizing and hate of anything and everyone that refuses to go along with them. True conservatives are inclined to let others follow their own inclinations, and while they may disapprove of certain things, they favor smaller, less intrusive goverment, personal responsibility (of which, of course, Limbaugh is a prime exemplar? Do as he says, not as he does?), fiscal responsibility, etc. Actual conservatives are not at all like Limbaugh, or Coulter, or Bush, or Rove, who have hijacked the 'conservative' name and party, and use it together with wrapping themselves in religion and patriotism to consolidate their grab for power and their ability to manipulate. The 'real' conservatives I've met all tend to be thoughtful & intelligent, w/a sense of history and a good grasp of civics, unlike Mr. L.
10 - gonzo marx
oh my stars and garters, i leave yas alone fer a few days and look what happens..
ok..Limbaugh is too easy..instead i just wanna take a look at one thing..
Randy sez..
*Many, not all, liberal Christ followers, seem to fundy's to trust man, then God. It may seem subtle, but it is a critical difference.*
an excellent Observation, and just might point out the nut of the matter more clearly than is readily apparent..
the statement shows a very basic difference in how folks can differ intheir View of the world...and just how profound that can be when it comes to inciting conflict...
but i have one small problem with the way it is phrased...you see , the difference is actually a Trust in Authority (meaning the "Church" structure, the priests/reverends/pastors and the dogma they espouse) versus trusting in yourself
some folks place their own self Responsibility paramount...for good or bad, over whether some Authority figure tells them they are "saved" or "damned"
that's not even counting the agnostics, atheists, hindu's, buddhists and followers of JuJu, may his tusks shine with the Light of Reason...
one last Observation...ok...two
1) i do find it amusing that when Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Hannity or some others start spewing vitriolic hate speech against their opponents, they are referred to as "entertainers" and we are told to give them some slack, it's all in "fun...note that some of those names i mentioned try and pass themselves off as "journalists" or "pundits"...yet when Michael Moore, as an "entertainer" does his "thing" those same folks are aneurysm candidates....
2) i mean no offense by this, just checking to see if anyone else has noticed it...2 of our new BC members seem to have names that woudl qualify for comic book characters secret identities... "Harp" and "Kirk"
ok...time to put my tinfoil hat back on..
Excelsior!
11 - Dave Nalle
>>Wait a minute, Dave...if MCH can't call Rush Limberger "chickenhawk," isn't that restraint upon MCH's free speech?<<
No, because MCH was given a specific number of 'chickenhawks' to use by God and now they've run out. Take it up with God.
Gotcha! (I hope.)
Actually, MCH can say whatever stupidity he wants, but I have the right to call him on his hypocritical whining when he displays what a buffoon he is.
Dave
12 - Randy Kirk
***but i have one small problem with the way it is phrased...you see , the difference is actually a Trust in Authority (meaning the "Church" structure, the priests/reverends/pastors and the dogma they espouse) versus trusting in yourself
some folks place their own self Responsibility paramount...for good or bad, over whether some Authority figure tells them they are "saved" or "damned"
No. That is not correct at all. Man's greatest sin is pride. I can do it all. And I had it in spades. I read all the motivation and self help books and wrote my own, spoke all over the country, etc.
One day, I realized that while I have responibility for my actions, I am not the author of my existance. God is. As such, I need to trust him, regardless of my circumstances or my sinfulness. It is the hardest lesson to learn. I haven't come near to living it out yet, but I'm working real hard on it.
Trust God. Not myself. Not other men.
Trust, meaning not just truthfulness, but trust Him with your life, being aware of His direction for your life.
13 - gonzo marx
ah..so you go for the predestination thing over free will..
fair enough, and i do hope that belief brings you comfort
silly me...allow me to share something..
"you can choose a ready guide,
in some celestial Voice.
if you choose not to decide,
you still have made a Choice.
you can choose from phantom fears,
and a Kindness that can Kill.
i will choose a Path that's clear,
i will choose Free Will"
by Rush
now Randy sez..
* Man's greatest sin is pride.*
close...and how sinfully Prideful is it to claim to Know the Mind and Will of "God"??
my Point was that NO mere Man can know such, anyone that tells you that they do is either mad, a liar, or a charlatan after your money
i can readily admire Faith, it's the arrogance of someone attempting to tell me that they have the "word of God" and want to share it, then rattling the collection plate....
congregation members being hungry, while the "shepard" rides in a limo...yet purrs that he "loves" them...
on and on...
Randy, if you have found something that helps you make it , i am very happy for you...
i earnestly ask you, as a self professed "fundy"...
can you say the same to others, who have taken other Paths?
Excelsior!
14 - Nancy
Gonzo-! Whereya been? On vacation, I hope instead of jail? Go get 'em.
15 - Randy Kirk
So Gonzo
Who is your source? Science, which changes its mind everyday, and provides us with wonders like cars, but fail to plan for exhaust?
Maybe you like mans ideas. Which will you follow, Marx, Dr. Spock, Ayn Rand?
Are you your source? Please don't kid around. No man is an island, and neither of us has ever really had an original idea.
So, who do you turn to?
16 - Victor Plenty
Dr. Spock will get that warp drive back up! We've just got to give him a little more time!
17 - gonzo marx
to Nancy...voluntary electronic media purge..some time off to read a book and Contemplate...
to Victor..thas Mr Spock, silly wabbit...but you knew that >grins<
and now for Randy...
i am sorry that instead of Answering my Question, you Ask one of me...no worries, i will try and explain...
caveat incoming: i don't quite grasp what you are going for here, i just don't see how my particular Views are relevant to the Questions i have Asked...that being said, i am going on the thought that you are seeking better Understanding by Asking, as i am in the Questions i put forward....fair enough?
/end caveat
ok...i've been reading 1-2 books a week for about 35 years now, so my "sources" are quite varied...one thing i have always enjoyed discovering were common Threads and Patterns...innate similarities...as well as my infamous lack of Respect for Authority...
i make a definate distinction between Thought and Symbols directly from a Soucre as opposed to an Authority telling me something just because It "says so"
Lao-Tzu, SunTzu, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Buddha, Confucious, Galileo, DaVinci, Newton(the Arian "heresy" of his time is quite interesting), Franklin, Jefferson, Jung, Morihei Ueshiba, Musashi, Ginchin Funakoshi, Campbell(the mythologist, not the sci-fi editor), the Dalai Lama, Sifu Bruce Lee, Nathanial Branden(not Ayn Rand for Objectivist writings), Heinlein, Twain, Carlin, Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, Valentinius, Stephen Hawking, Charles Fort, Shakespeare...the various Authors of the Old and New Testament(various Translations), the Nag Hammadi texts, and Hunter S. Thompson
to name just a few of the high points...
the baseline Postulate remains...
gnosis > dogma
meaning i value personal Understanding more than "faith" in any Authoritarian "voice"
hope that helps...
Excelsior!
18 - Randy Kirk
If you're my neighbor, how do I trust you to have picked the right set of folks to drive you to an understanding that I can count on not to harm me.
My neighbor has a pit bull that barks for hours. She seems (based on our conversations) to have come to the conclusion that I shouldn't be upset. I had to bring in an outside authority to set her straight.
19 - Victor Plenty
You think Christian neighbors more trustworthy, Randy? Just because somebody calls themselves Christian, you really think they can be trusted not to harm you? No wonder televangelists so easily fleece people out of their life savings.
The simple fact is, there is rarely any way to know whether or not a person can be trusted until it is too late.
Fortunately, most people can be trusted to some degree, regardless of whether they happen to be Christian, Muslim, atheist, Wicca, or something else entirely. Otherwise civil society would have collapsed centuries ago.
20 - Randy Kirk
I spent a considerable amount of time a couple of years ago in a huge discussion with atheists and agnostics. Almost all of them agreed they would rather live in a nation that had a Christian population, even if they didn't believe in God or Jesus.
But, at the same time, my real point was that if we all come to our own conclusions about what is right and wrong, if there is no standard that we agree on, then how do we have a civil society. And I think we have plenty of examples from history to show that society does break down.
21 - Victor Plenty
We're still here, showing the regenerative power of civil society is stronger than the forces seeking to break it down.
A shared value system does not require any shared religious affiliation. In fact, shared values can be stronger in a religiously diverse community. Here people must openly discuss values rather than foolishly and incorrectly assuming they already have shared values merely because they agree on a few points of theology.
This is probably one of the reasons the United States has endured so long, with its federal government expressly forbidden to establish an official federal religion.
22 - Pete Blackwell
To quote Randy *my real point was that if we all come to our own conclusions about what is right and wrong, if there is no standard that we agree on, then how do we have a civil society.*
Civil society is, by definition, based upon consensus and we do have to agree on standards upon which to base our laws. None of this even remotely requires a religious point of view. Christianity and morality are not inseperable.
As for your conversations with athiests and agnostics, they would rather live in a Christian nation than live where? In a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Hindu nation, a country filled with amoral axe murderers? Your comment isn't very illuminating. I'm sure most athiests and agnostics would not want to live in a world filled with right-wing evangelical Christians who want to ban abortions and the teaching of science in schools.
What exactly are you trying to say?
23 - Bennett
"I'm sure most athiests and agnostics would not want to live in a world filled with right-wing evangelical Christians who want to ban abortions and the teaching of science in schools."
Absofreakinlutely to that!!!
24 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
Pete, i haven't read any comments yet, so i dunno how this thread has been recieved, but i thought this was just wonderful. But then, what do i know, i'm a stinkin' leftist. A leftist with a strong belief in God, which is maybe even worse! Anyone would think Jesus was some sort of authority-challenging long-hair or something.
25 - Randy Kirk
Until 40 years ago, abortion was against the law. Was the country so horrible then?
Point to one Christian who wants to ban teaching science anywhere. They want balance and science to be about scientific method and not about agendas.