| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2003 11:48:38 PM |
| Object: |
Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
From The Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03:
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/opinions03/111303_opinions_rush.shtml
The fall of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh raises troubling
questions about moral hypocrisy for our nation, says today's writer.
By Andrew Bard Schmookler
The recent saga of Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction raises
important questions.
The crucial thing is not that Limbaugh was a drug addict who fed his
habit on the black market.
That private vice is small change compared to his larger, public sin.
The real issue about Limbaugh is brought into focus by the question:
What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a
shred of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while
knowing that he is no better than they?
And that raises the still larger question:
What does it say about a society if it repeatedly grants high moral
authority to people who practice such hypocrisy?
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye . . .?"
First, about the man.
Even in a moralist who is himself above reproach, the lack of
compassion for sinners would be troubling enough.
Especially since most of Limbaugh's contempt has been directed at
groups that have, historically, been the least privileged in our
society, one would hope for moral condemnation to be leavened with
human sympathy.
One would hope, that is, for the impulse to denounce from on high to
be mitigated by the humility embodied in the old line, "There but for
the grace of God go I."
But we already knew that Limbaugh did not speak from such humility.
Not for Rush has been the "hate the sin but love the sinner" approach
to other people's moral failings.
Now we know, however, that Limbaugh must have known better than to
entitle himself to denounce from so high a horse.
His moralism was a dishonest posture.
We in America talk a lot about things like sex and drugs and rock šn'
roll when we address issues of sin and morality.
But the red letters in my New Testament talk a lot more about the
dangers of mounting the kind of high horse Limbaugh rode into fame and
fortune.
Even as a non-Christian, I would say that Jesus' insight into that
danger has lost none of its relevance.
Which raises the question about the society that gives such a
dishonest voice so large a megaphone, making him the Godzilla of talk
radio to spew out - into the American airwaves to tens of millions of
his countrymen - the "hate the sinner" kind of moralism.
If Limbaugh were the only instance, the question would not arise.
But consider the other most prominent voices of American moralism in
the past decade.
Surely, even a very short list would include, besides Limbaugh, the
voices of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich.
Bennett is a less blatant instance.
The man who became Mr. Virtue for the 1990s - with his best-selling
"Book of Virtues" - and whom we've since discovered to have gambled
away millions of dollars in what may have been a gambling addiction,
did climb onto a high horse.
But he never treated with scorn those who lacked the virtues he
represented himself as having.
The same can hardly be said of Gingrich, the most prominent Republican
moralist during the 1990s.
His disappearance in disgrace from his position as speaker of the
House cut short our marveling at how a man could so viciously denounce
the sexual misbehavior of Bill Clinton while at the same time, as we
eventually learned, he was conducting a similar and much more serious
sexual adventure of his own.
"Let him who is without sin . . . ."
So there's a pattern there - the Elmer Gantry pattern, we might call
it - and we're compelled to ask:
What does it mean?
While I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I think I see
some possible connections that might point toward an answer.
It connects, I believe, to our having the most punitive of penal
systems among the Western democracies.
We humans are never so eager to punish as when we make others
scapegoats for our own unacknowledged sins.
It connects, I believe, to our failure to notice, a couple of years
ago, how bizarre it was for our president to denounce Osama bin Laden
as a coward for sending young men off to die while remaining himself
protected from danger.
Neither the president, nor the media covering him, seemed to think it
strange for this accusation to be leveled by the best-protected person
on the planet who had, himself, just sent young men off to war.
There's something in our culture that can make it difficult to see
ourselves in the same moral perspective we apply to others.
And it connects with our current leaders' righteous anger at those
nations that do not assume the unilateral actions of the world's one
superpower - on a range of issues, including war and peace - advance
the cause of justice in the world.
For the unquestioning assumption of our own righteousness can reflect
blindness to the perspectives of others, as well as to what lies
within ourselves.
We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges
we face and about how far short we fall in meeting them.
But our conversation about the problem of sin in our society needs to
be about "us" and not about "them."
Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about.
______________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Im Right" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 08:14:24 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c5r8rvgu9uhaoq0sm0jibnmog4skc07ojf@4ax.com...
:
: From The Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03:
: http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/opinions03/111303_opinions_rush.shtml
:
:
: The fall of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh raises troubling
: questions about moral hypocrisy for our nation, says today's writer.
:
: By Andrew Bard Schmookler
:<CAPS LOCK TO DISTINGISH THE RESPONSES TO THIS MAGGOT INFESTED MORON
WANNABE WRITER
:
: The recent saga of Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction raises
: important questions.
:
: The crucial thing is not that Limbaugh was a drug addict who fed his
: habit on the black market.
:<WHAT RUSH DID WAS WRONG, HOWEVER YOU ARE THE HYPOCRITE HERE, DEMONIZING A
PATIENT IN PAIN YET YOU SCUM LIBERALS WANT DOPE ,POT ETC GIVEN TO EVERYONE
FOR EVERY AILMENT.
: That private vice is small change compared to his larger, public sin.
:
: The real issue about Limbaugh is brought into focus by the question:
:
: What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a
: shred of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while
: knowing that he is no better than they?
:<COMPASSION?, OH YAE LETS ALL HOLD HANDS AND SING *****-BY-YA.
IT CERTAINLY IS IMPROPER FOR ANYONE TO SPEAK OF ANYONE ELSES SHORT COMINGS.
WELL IF ITS A CONSERVATIVE DOING IT, IT IS EVIL. IF A DEMONRAT LIBERAL PINKO
FREAK DOES IT, THEY ARE POINTING OUT FACTS TO HELP THE OTHERS FEEL BETTER
ABOUT THEIR WAYS.
: And that raises the still larger question:
:
: What does it say about a society if it repeatedly grants high moral
: authority to people who practice such hypocrisy?
: < WHO GRANTED RUSH MORAL AUTHORITY? yOU MUST HAVE,, NO IT IS ALL OUT THERE
FOR THE WORLD TO SEE,,,,, YOU ARE A CLOSET DITTOHEAD!!!!! FURTHER RESPONSE
UNNEEDED,,,,
: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye . . .?"
:
: First, about the man.
:
: Even in a moralist who is himself above reproach, the lack of
: compassion for sinners would be troubling enough.
:
: Especially since most of Limbaugh's contempt has been directed at
: groups that have, historically, been the least privileged in our
: society, one would hope for moral condemnation to be leavened with
: human sympathy.
:
: One would hope, that is, for the impulse to denounce from on high to
: be mitigated by the humility embodied in the old line, "There but for
: the grace of God go I."
:
: But we already knew that Limbaugh did not speak from such humility.
:
: Not for Rush has been the "hate the sin but love the sinner" approach
: to other people's moral failings.
:
: Now we know, however, that Limbaugh must have known better than to
: entitle himself to denounce from so high a horse.
:
: His moralism was a dishonest posture.
:
: We in America talk a lot about things like sex and drugs and rock šn'
: roll when we address issues of sin and morality.
:
: But the red letters in my New Testament talk a lot more about the
: dangers of mounting the kind of high horse Limbaugh rode into fame and
: fortune.
:
: Even as a non-Christian, I would say that Jesus' insight into that
: danger has lost none of its relevance.
:
: Which raises the question about the society that gives such a
: dishonest voice so large a megaphone, making him the Godzilla of talk
: radio to spew out - into the American airwaves to tens of millions of
: his countrymen - the "hate the sinner" kind of moralism.
:
: If Limbaugh were the only instance, the question would not arise.
:
: But consider the other most prominent voices of American moralism in
: the past decade.
:
: Surely, even a very short list would include, besides Limbaugh, the
: voices of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich.
:
: Bennett is a less blatant instance.
:
: The man who became Mr. Virtue for the 1990s - with his best-selling
: "Book of Virtues" - and whom we've since discovered to have gambled
: away millions of dollars in what may have been a gambling addiction,
: did climb onto a high horse.
:
: But he never treated with scorn those who lacked the virtues he
: represented himself as having.
:
: The same can hardly be said of Gingrich, the most prominent Republican
: moralist during the 1990s.
:
: His disappearance in disgrace from his position as speaker of the
: House cut short our marveling at how a man could so viciously denounce
: the sexual misbehavior of Bill Clinton while at the same time, as we
: eventually learned, he was conducting a similar and much more serious
: sexual adventure of his own.
:
: "Let him who is without sin . . . ."
:
: So there's a pattern there - the Elmer Gantry pattern, we might call
: it - and we're compelled to ask:
:
: What does it mean?
:
: While I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I think I see
: some possible connections that might point toward an answer.
:
: It connects, I believe, to our having the most punitive of penal
: systems among the Western democracies.
:
: We humans are never so eager to punish as when we make others
: scapegoats for our own unacknowledged sins.
:
: It connects, I believe, to our failure to notice, a couple of years
: ago, how bizarre it was for our president to denounce Osama bin Laden
: as a coward for sending young men off to die while remaining himself
: protected from danger.
:
: Neither the president, nor the media covering him, seemed to think it
: strange for this accusation to be leveled by the best-protected person
: on the planet who had, himself, just sent young men off to war.
:
: There's something in our culture that can make it difficult to see
: ourselves in the same moral perspective we apply to others.
:
: And it connects with our current leaders' righteous anger at those
: nations that do not assume the unilateral actions of the world's one
: superpower - on a range of issues, including war and peace - advance
: the cause of justice in the world.
:
: For the unquestioning assumption of our own righteousness can reflect
: blindness to the perspectives of others, as well as to what lies
: within ourselves.
:
: We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges
: we face and about how far short we fall in meeting them.
:
: But our conversation about the problem of sin in our society needs to
: be about "us" and not about "them."
:
: Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about.
:
: ______________________________________________________
:
: Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 09:52:38 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c5r8rvgu9uhaoq0sm0jibnmog4skc07ojf@4ax.com...
|
| From The Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03:
| http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/opinions03/111303_opinions_rush.shtml
|
|
| The fall of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh raises troubling
| questions about moral hypocrisy for our nation, says today's writer.
|
| By Andrew Bard Schmookler
|
|
| The recent saga of Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction raises
| important questions.
|
| The crucial thing is not that Limbaugh was a drug addict who fed his
| habit on the black market.
|
| That private vice is small change compared to his larger, public sin.
|
| The real issue about Limbaugh is brought into focus by the question:
|
| What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a
| shred of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while
| knowing that he is no better than they?
|
| And that raises the still larger question:
|
| What does it say about a society if it repeatedly grants high moral
| authority to people who practice such hypocrisy?
|
| "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye . . .?"
|
| First, about the man.
|
| Even in a moralist who is himself above reproach, the lack of
| compassion for sinners would be troubling enough.
|
| Especially since most of Limbaugh's contempt has been directed at
| groups that have, historically, been the least privileged in our
| society, one would hope for moral condemnation to be leavened with
| human sympathy.
|
| One would hope, that is, for the impulse to denounce from on high to
| be mitigated by the humility embodied in the old line, "There but for
| the grace of God go I."
|
| But we already knew that Limbaugh did not speak from such humility.
|
| Not for Rush has been the "hate the sin but love the sinner" approach
| to other people's moral failings.
|
| Now we know, however, that Limbaugh must have known better than to
| entitle himself to denounce from so high a horse.
|
| His moralism was a dishonest posture.
|
| We in America talk a lot about things like sex and drugs and rock šn'
| roll when we address issues of sin and morality.
|
| But the red letters in my New Testament talk a lot more about the
| dangers of mounting the kind of high horse Limbaugh rode into fame and
| fortune.
|
| Even as a non-Christian, I would say that Jesus' insight into that
| danger has lost none of its relevance.
|
| Which raises the question about the society that gives such a
| dishonest voice so large a megaphone, making him the Godzilla of talk
| radio to spew out - into the American airwaves to tens of millions of
| his countrymen - the "hate the sinner" kind of moralism.
|
| If Limbaugh were the only instance, the question would not arise.
|
| But consider the other most prominent voices of American moralism in
| the past decade.
|
| Surely, even a very short list would include, besides Limbaugh, the
| voices of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich.
|
| Bennett is a less blatant instance.
|
| The man who became Mr. Virtue for the 1990s - with his best-selling
| "Book of Virtues" - and whom we've since discovered to have gambled
| away millions of dollars in what may have been a gambling addiction,
| did climb onto a high horse.
|
| But he never treated with scorn those who lacked the virtues he
| represented himself as having.
|
| The same can hardly be said of Gingrich, the most prominent Republican
| moralist during the 1990s.
|
| His disappearance in disgrace from his position as speaker of the
| House cut short our marveling at how a man could so viciously denounce
| the sexual misbehavior of Bill Clinton while at the same time, as we
| eventually learned, he was conducting a similar and much more serious
| sexual adventure of his own.
|
| "Let him who is without sin . . . ."
|
| So there's a pattern there - the Elmer Gantry pattern, we might call
| it - and we're compelled to ask:
|
| What does it mean?
|
| While I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I think I see
| some possible connections that might point toward an answer.
|
| It connects, I believe, to our having the most punitive of penal
| systems among the Western democracies.
|
| We humans are never so eager to punish as when we make others
| scapegoats for our own unacknowledged sins.
|
| It connects, I believe, to our failure to notice, a couple of years
| ago, how bizarre it was for our president to denounce Osama bin Laden
| as a coward for sending young men off to die while remaining himself
| protected from danger.
|
| Neither the president, nor the media covering him, seemed to think it
| strange for this accusation to be leveled by the best-protected person
| on the planet who had, himself, just sent young men off to war.
|
| There's something in our culture that can make it difficult to see
| ourselves in the same moral perspective we apply to others.
|
| And it connects with our current leaders' righteous anger at those
| nations that do not assume the unilateral actions of the world's one
| superpower - on a range of issues, including war and peace - advance
| the cause of justice in the world.
|
| For the unquestioning assumption of our own righteousness can reflect
| blindness to the perspectives of others, as well as to what lies
| within ourselves.
|
| We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges
| we face and about how far short we fall in meeting them.
|
| But our conversation about the problem of sin in our society needs to
| be about "us" and not about "them."
|
| Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about.
|
| ______________________________________________________
|
| Harry
The louder one screams about the immoral actions of others, the more a
moralist will think that they themselves are free from the guilt of their
own sins.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Lenz" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 02:04:33 PM |
|
|
By Andrew Bard Schmookler
The recent saga of Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction raises
important questions.
The crucial thing is not that Limbaugh was a drug addict who fed his
habit on the black market.
Which others have established that if (illegal purchases) occured this is a
felony offense against Florda State law. Some might not consider this a
crucial thing, but we are governed by laws that should be upheald.
That private vice is small change compared to his larger, public sin.
The real issue about Limbaugh is brought into focus by the question:
What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a
shred of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while
knowing that he is no better than they?
And yet though this we're willing to talk about a man with contempt, and
without compassion. Therefore in my mind defeating and/or disqualifying your
own arguement unless you exist in one of two states.
1 You are above all having no shortcommings, therefore beliving yourself
better than another (yet if we put you under the microscope you there may be
shortcommings that show your no better than they).
2 You are disqualifying yourself from making any principaled stance due to
your knowledge and understanding of your own shortcommings (you are no
better or worse than anyone else therefore you cannot judge anyone else). It
then could be asked why are we writing this in this fashion?
And that raises the still larger question:
What does it say about a society if it repeatedly grants high moral
authority to people who practice such hypocrisy?
I would ask
Did society know that hypocrisy was taking place?
Now if you want to argue or ask should society grant the same high moral
authority to this man now that that they did before, or what of a society
that grants a person that is found to be a hypocrite high moral authority.
(at least for a time until that public trust can be once agian proven
trustworthy)
Never the less the arguement is somewhat of a stupid one on either side of
this issue. People will always look, see, and hope that there is a voice out
there that they can trust, and in most cases it will always be found that
the man behind that voice wasn't all that they professed they were (fact of
life, live with it). I don't believe we should stop trying to elevate
ourselves to a higher standard (what ever that standard we choose to
accept).
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye . . .?"
I would have to agree with this, and if you would have this artical would
not have been written.
First, about the man.
Even in a moralist who is himself above reproach, the lack of
compassion for sinners would be troubling enough.
Especially since most of Limbaugh's contempt has been directed at
groups that have, historically, been the least privileged in our
society, one would hope for moral condemnation to be leavened with
human sympathy.
Who would you define as "sinners" he has no compassion for that you find
troubling?
Which groups have he historically shown contempt for?
Are these "least privileged" groups shown contempt for "sinners" as you
claim they are?
One would hope, that is, for the impulse to denounce from on high to
be mitigated by the humility embodied in the old line, "There but for
the grace of God go I."
But we already knew that Limbaugh did not speak from such humility.
Then you truly have never heard him speak.
Not for Rush has been the "hate the sin but love the sinner" approach
to other people's moral failings.
Now we know, however, that Limbaugh must have known better than to
entitle himself to denounce from so high a horse.
His moralism was a dishonest posture.
I would ask you your question here:
"What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a shred
of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while knowing that he
is no better than they?"
We in America talk a lot about things like sex and drugs and rock šn'
roll when we address issues of sin and morality.
But the red letters in my New Testament talk a lot more about the
dangers of mounting the kind of high horse Limbaugh rode into fame and
fortune.
Ok perhaps were reading differant red letters.
That I know of they don't say, you'll never be good enough therefore you
should never even try. They don't say hide your light under the bush that no
man can see it and perhaps be guided by it. Yet this is what your telling me
one should do. You make the claim of Rush's condemnation yet in kindergarden
we learn "sticks and stones...." sorry but only you can feel or believe
yourself condemned by another mans words.
Even as a non-Christian, I would say that Jesus' insight into that
danger has lost none of its relevance.
So what your saying is that 11 of the 12 were not called by him to be men of
high moral authority. That the one called on the road and brought that
Gospel to the gentiles was not called to be a man of high moral authority.
Christian or not is not truly relevant but one should at least try and be
better than you were yesterday.
Which raises the question about the society that gives such a
dishonest voice so large a megaphone, making him the Godzilla of talk
radio to spew out - into the American airwaves to tens of millions of
his countrymen - the "hate the sinner" kind of moralism.
Again I'll ask what sinners has he told his audience to hate?
What does it mean?
While I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I think I see
some possible connections that might point toward an answer.
It means that you should learn some simple truths.
1 "A smart man knows only half of what he hears is true, a wise man knows
which half"
Myself I'm smart, but only occasionally wise.
2 You can believe in a message, but you should never believe in a man
(unless that man is Christ Jesus and your inclined to believe that way).
It connects, I believe, to our having the most punitive of penal
systems among the Western democracies.
We humans are never so eager to punish as when we make others
scapegoats for our own unacknowledged sins.
I will ask who did Rush make a scapegoat out of for is problem?
His claim was that it was his own responsability, his error, his sin (if you
wish). Therefore is he offer the correct message according to your statement
above or should he have tried to make excuses for his problem.
It connects, I believe, to our failure to notice, a couple of years
ago, how bizarre it was for our president to denounce Osama bin Laden
as a coward for sending young men off to die while remaining himself
protected from danger.
What young men did Rush use as a scapegoat for his addiction to drugs?
Neither the president, nor the media covering him, seemed to think it
strange for this accusation to be leveled by the best-protected person
on the planet who had, himself, just sent young men off to war.
There's something in our culture that can make it difficult to see
ourselves in the same moral perspective we apply to others.
And it connects with our current leaders' righteous anger at those
nations that do not assume the unilateral actions of the world's one
superpower - on a range of issues, including war and peace - advance
the cause of justice in the world.
That I know of President Bush has been President for only 3 years, Rush was
an addict for 5, and has been on the air as a popular voice of conservatives
for 15+ (can't remember the exact number). So your blaming a man that has
been in the public spotlight 3 years for all this. Using a canned statement
"You need a reality check".
For the unquestioning assumption of our own righteousness can reflect
blindness to the perspectives of others, as well as to what lies
within ourselves.
We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges
we face and about how far short we fall in meeting them.
Rush has Bush has and in each case we have like in this condemned them.
You are welcome to join in now in this late hour and take up the discussion.
But our conversation about the problem of sin in our society needs to
be about "us" and not about "them."
Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about.
I agree.
Maybe a little less time condemning Rush, Bush, Bennett, Gingrich, and a
little more time on us would have been better. I'm no better, in many ways
worse than you. I am Christian, and I do from time to time sin and am fully
aware of that fact, at least you have the promise of "forgive them for they
know not what they do". All I know is we should never stop trying to be
better, we should never stop trying to elevate, and exalt those in your
sphere of influence, and we should never surrender our principals for any
reason unless we come to know with all our being there wrongly placed.
bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apache" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 01:17:43 AM |
|
|
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:c5r8rvgu9uhaoq0sm0jibnmog4skc07ojf@4ax.com:
From The Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03:
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/opinions03/111303_opinions_rush.shtml
The fall of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh raises troubling
questions about moral hypocrisy for our nation, says today's writer.
By Andrew Bard Schmookler
The recent saga of Rush Limbaugh and his drug addiction raises
important questions.
The crucial thing is not that Limbaugh was a drug addict who fed his
habit on the black market.
That private vice is small change compared to his larger, public sin.
The real issue about Limbaugh is brought into focus by the question:
What does it say about a man if he can talk with contempt, without a
shred of compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while
knowing that he is no better than they?
And that raises the still larger question:
What does it say about a society if it repeatedly grants high moral
authority to people who practice such hypocrisy?
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye . . .?"
First, about the man.
Even in a moralist who is himself above reproach, the lack of
compassion for sinners would be troubling enough.
Especially since most of Limbaugh's contempt has been directed at
groups that have, historically, been the least privileged in our
society, one would hope for moral condemnation to be leavened with
human sympathy.
One would hope, that is, for the impulse to denounce from on high to
be mitigated by the humility embodied in the old line, "There but for
the grace of God go I."
But we already knew that Limbaugh did not speak from such humility.
Not for Rush has been the "hate the sin but love the sinner" approach
to other people's moral failings.
Now we know, however, that Limbaugh must have known better than to
entitle himself to denounce from so high a horse.
His moralism was a dishonest posture.
We in America talk a lot about things like sex and drugs and rock šn'
roll when we address issues of sin and morality.
But the red letters in my New Testament talk a lot more about the
dangers of mounting the kind of high horse Limbaugh rode into fame and
fortune.
Even as a non-Christian, I would say that Jesus' insight into that
danger has lost none of its relevance.
Which raises the question about the society that gives such a
dishonest voice so large a megaphone, making him the Godzilla of talk
radio to spew out - into the American airwaves to tens of millions of
his countrymen - the "hate the sinner" kind of moralism.
If Limbaugh were the only instance, the question would not arise.
But consider the other most prominent voices of American moralism in
the past decade.
Surely, even a very short list would include, besides Limbaugh, the
voices of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich.
Bennett is a less blatant instance.
The man who became Mr. Virtue for the 1990s - with his best-selling
"Book of Virtues" - and whom we've since discovered to have gambled
away millions of dollars in what may have been a gambling addiction,
did climb onto a high horse.
But he never treated with scorn those who lacked the virtues he
represented himself as having.
The same can hardly be said of Gingrich, the most prominent Republican
moralist during the 1990s.
His disappearance in disgrace from his position as speaker of the
House cut short our marveling at how a man could so viciously denounce
the sexual misbehavior of Bill Clinton while at the same time, as we
eventually learned, he was conducting a similar and much more serious
sexual adventure of his own.
"Let him who is without sin . . . ."
So there's a pattern there - the Elmer Gantry pattern, we might call
it - and we're compelled to ask:
What does it mean?
While I don't have an adequate answer to that question, I think I see
some possible connections that might point toward an answer.
It connects, I believe, to our having the most punitive of penal
systems among the Western democracies.
We humans are never so eager to punish as when we make others
scapegoats for our own unacknowledged sins.
It connects, I believe, to our failure to notice, a couple of years
ago, how bizarre it was for our president to denounce Osama bin Laden
as a coward for sending young men off to die while remaining himself
protected from danger.
Neither the president, nor the media covering him, seemed to think it
strange for this accusation to be leveled by the best-protected person
on the planet who had, himself, just sent young men off to war.
There's something in our culture that can make it difficult to see
ourselves in the same moral perspective we apply to others.
And it connects with our current leaders' righteous anger at those
nations that do not assume the unilateral actions of the world's one
superpower - on a range of issues, including war and peace - advance
the cause of justice in the world.
For the unquestioning assumption of our own righteousness can reflect
blindness to the perspectives of others, as well as to what lies
within ourselves.
We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges
we face and about how far short we fall in meeting them.
But our conversation about the problem of sin in our society needs to
be about "us" and not about "them."
Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about.
______________________________________________________
Harry
Rush should have been a fundamentalist preacher, then he could have cried
on air and been forgiven by his flock like they tend to do. Rush is a
typical glutton he probably has excesses in other areas too besides
drugs, power, money and food. Although with that piggy look and his drugs
I doubt he functions well enough to include sex as an excess.
The right wing should learn from this. Self rightous men of low
principles should have training wheels and seat belts on their pedestals
- they tend to fall off often. Humpty Dumpy had nothing on their exalted
leaders. What a disgusting bunch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Lenz" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 02:12:49 PM |
|
|
Apache
Rush should have been a fundamentalist preacher, then he could have cried
on air and been forgiven by his flock like they tend to do.
But that would have been agains his principals.
Rush is a
typical glutton he probably has excesses in other areas too besides
drugs, power, money and food. Although with that piggy look and his drugs
I doubt he functions well enough to include sex as an excess.
That's some serious name calling, I don't recall Rush ever stating something
that brutal. Could you offer up some quotes that show your just returning in
kind.
The right wing should learn from this. Self rightous men of low
principles should have training wheels and seat belts on their pedestals
- they tend to fall off often. Humpty Dumpy had nothing on their exalted
leaders. What a disgusting bunch.
Actually the principals as many point out here (and the original artical
stated) are high. The problem is the higher your principals the harder it is
to live up to them. I would ask:
1 Should man live unprincipaled?
2 Should man live principaled, even though you may not be able to always
live up to them?
bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apache" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
14 Nov 2003 07:59:30 PM |
|
|
"William Lenz" <billlenz@erie.net> wrote in
news:vrae1p89smlfcb@corp.supernews.com:
Apache
Rush should have been a fundamentalist preacher, then he could have
cried on air and been forgiven by his flock like they tend to do.
But that would have been agains his principals.
Rush is a
typical glutton he probably has excesses in other areas too besides
drugs, power, money and food. Although with that piggy look and his
drugs I doubt he functions well enough to include sex as an excess.
That's some serious name calling, I don't recall Rush ever stating
something that brutal. Could you offer up some quotes that show your
just returning in kind.
The right wing should learn from this. Self rightous men of low
principles should have training wheels and seat belts on their
pedestals - they tend to fall off often. Humpty Dumpy had nothing on
their exalted leaders. What a disgusting bunch.
Actually the principals as many point out here (and the original
artical stated) are high. The problem is the higher your principals
the harder it is to live up to them. I would ask:
1 Should man live unprincipaled?
2 Should man live principaled, even though you may not be able to
always live up to them?
bill
Rush the hypocrit
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought
to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush on tolerance -
It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy
sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what
we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the
other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and
make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about
punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks,
especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush Limbaugh is an intolerant glutton. His views are the same views
folks throughout history have used to justify their own selfishness. He
is a dispicable example of humanity and deserves exactly what he has
called for for others. If he is a principled man as you suggest he would
accept the same fate as he has called for for others. But he is not a
principled man and he will like others of his ilk cry and beg
forgiveness. Forgiveness he has never offered to any in simular
circumstances. He is a fraud, a glutton, and a criminal. Like most
typical republicans he becomes a liberal when his own welfare is in
jepardy. Funny how that works - it's called being selfish. One becomes
unselfish if your concern for self is extended to those around you.
Republicans will never understand or apply this simple ideal. As a
retired military officer, I am ashamed of this countries current lack of
integrity and principles. People like Rush have contributed to the
widening division in this country but more than that he has provided the
selfish with false justification for their own greed. He is the piper
playing the vile tune.
The best definition I've heard for a "Gentleman" is one who is more
concerned of the welfare of those around him than he is of his own
welfare. Rush is no gentleman and few if any are to be found in the
republican party. The dismantling of the unselfish, compassionate and
progressive ideas that came out of the FDR generation who experienced
massive universal strife and deprivation is the act of a truly selfish,
shortsighted, and greedy lot worthy of all the disgust I can engender.
They proclaim their patriotism while few serve and while reducing the
benefits of those who do. They say they are for education while starving
the education system. They loudly promise they are for popular social
programs while building deficits to strangle these same programs and once
they are truly dead they will blame the same deficits for their death as
if it was some unforeseen and uncontrollable event. They call themselves
Christians and every action proclaims them unChristian.
Yes you are right, I detest Rush, his actions, his words and his every
thought. He deserves nothing but the harshest condemnation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Lenz" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
15 Nov 2003 02:32:48 PM |
|
|
Apache
Rush the hypocrit
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought
to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush on tolerance -
It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy
sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what
we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with the
other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and
make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about
punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks,
especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush Limbaugh is an intolerant glutton. His views are the same views
folks throughout history have used to justify their own selfishness. He
is a dispicable example of humanity and deserves exactly what he has
called for for others.
So what your saying is that you disagree with "The Albuquerque Tribune",
11/13/03: artical written by Andrew Bard Schmookler. Where he concludes "We
need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges we face
and about how far short we fall in meeting them. But our conversation about
the problem of sin in our society needs to be about "us" and not about
"them." Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about."
If he is a principled man as you suggest he would
accept the same fate as he has called for for others. But he is not a
principled man and he will like others of his ilk cry and beg
forgiveness. Forgiveness he has never offered to any in simular
circumstances. He is a fraud, a glutton, and a criminal. Like most
typical republicans he becomes a liberal when his own welfare is in
jepardy. Funny how that works - it's called being selfish. One becomes
unselfish if your concern for self is extended to those around you.
Republicans will never understand or apply this simple ideal.
I'm Republican and understand that, although I would ask why do you not
apply that ideal here?
The hell about principle's is if you choose to live by them you should apply
them to all. Its easy to love those that love you its harder to love those
you disagree with even hate.
I'd ask the same question the OP writer asked "What does it say about a man"
<I'll insert here, you> "if he can talk with contempt, without a shred of
compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while knowing that he is
no better than they?"
Moving on to Rush to date I have not heard him cry and beg for forgiveness,
yet you show contempt as if he already has. I don't know what will happen in
the future, but isn't it rather selfish to show such contempt for something
that hasn't happened yet (and may not)? Isn't it enough that you can find
things about him you don't like and have contempt for that have occured and
are in the past? Do we know the differance between reality and fantasy? He
may do this he may not who knows what Monday will bring.
As a
retired military officer, I am ashamed of this countries current lack of
integrity and principles. People like Rush have contributed to the
widening division in this country but more than that he has provided the
selfish with false justification for their own greed. He is the piper
playing the vile tune.
Well I do hope I'm being allowed to speak freely "Sir".
(not meant as sarcasm really I left as a SP4, it is a respect thing)
I would argue that what I have seen of liberalism the same is true. In the
end though I would have to conclude both sides are playing a vile tune at
times.
One thing that may help can be found in the original conclusion. The
Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03: artical written by Andrew Bard Schmookler:
"We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges we
face and about how far short we fall in meeting them. But our conversation
about the problem of sin in our society needs to be about "us" and not about
"them." Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about."
Perhaps if you stop waisting your time on what you assume Rush is feeling. I
would ask so what if Rush and Republicans are the selfish little &$^#'s that
you seem to believe they are. If your ideas, ideals, and principles are
greater then argue them, be them, and live them. I would say you and those
like you (of like mind) are what contribute to the division you see in this
country. For what matters more to you is what another man is feeling,
instead of what he does, or what he may say. That our contempt and hate is
so deep that you only hear what you want to hear instead of listening,
learning, and trying to find common principles to build upon.
Lets bring this down here: (referance first Rush quote above)
Do you agree or disagree with these.
Some Drugs destroy individuals? (seen it and I agree)
Some Drugs destroy families? (seen it and I agree)
Some Drugs destroy communities? (seen it in my neighborhood and agree at
least until there gone)
Some say drugs are destroying this country? (well on a strech but disagree)
Do we or don't we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using
drugs, importing drugs? (I agree)
Do you agree or disagree these laws are good? (in some cases yes, in some
no)
Should those that violate (city, state, or national) laws be:
Accused? (I agree)
convicted? (I agree, for they violated)
Punished according to the law? (I agree, although "sent up" is dependent,
and some conditions that get people "sent up" I disagree with, but it is the
law)
Would you agree or disagree with this: (Referance Second Rush quote)
That some criminal acts have differant punishments? (I agree)
That some seem to harsh because some that are not that harsh are for crimes
we believe worse than others? (I agree)
Do you agree or disagree with his opinion for resolution of this?
Myself I disagree in part for it's dependent and cannot be judged
universally. I might assume that there was a lead up to this opinion he made
and it referanced to that, but he messed up by making it general.
The best definition I've heard for a "Gentleman" is one who is more
concerned of the welfare of those around him than he is of his own
welfare. Rush is no gentleman and few if any are to be found in the
republican party. The dismantling of the unselfish, compassionate and
progressive ideas that came out of the FDR generation who experienced
massive universal strife and deprivation is the act of a truly selfish,
shortsighted, and greedy lot worthy of all the disgust I can engender.
They proclaim their patriotism while few serve and while reducing the
benefits of those who do. They say they are for education while starving
the education system. They loudly promise they are for popular social
programs while building deficits to strangle these same programs and once
they are truly dead they will blame the same deficits for their death as
if it was some unforeseen and uncontrollable event. They call themselves
Christians and every action proclaims them unChristian.
Again I'll go back to the OP's statement: "Why beholdest thou the mote that
is in thy brother's eye . . .?". Now is that selfish or is that unselfish?
The unselfish man in liberal terms would ignore the mote in his own eye and
continue to try and remove the one from his brother. One truly needs to live
a selfish life that dictates these are my principals, these are my beliefs,
and I will not surrender them, and in that (if they are true) he becomes
unselfish. A Gentleman is one that lives by his principls, and a code of
morality he believes in, he may not live up to them all the time, but that
doesn't mean he should stop trying.
I don't disagree with what you stated there dumping more money into these
programs is not the answer, reforming, changing, or just abandoning them and
rebuilding something better, is the answer. Sorry but men like Rush have
said that all along if you listened. As well he has stood up for better pay
and benifits for those of us who have served. I would also state when it
comes to your above issues its not one party or the other that is to blame,
but both.
As well one really shouldn't judge parties historically going back to FDR
for if that were true then the Democrate Party would still believe that "a
rising tide lifts all ships". That the economy can grow through tax cuts for
all. Parties change, conservativism as a leading force in the republican
party is more Regean time, the Christian Coliation is more a Clinton time.
It all depends on who is the driving force behind the party at the time.
Yes you are right, I detest Rush, his actions, his words and his every
thought. He deserves nothing but the harshest condemnation.
And you have every right to do so I have no problem with that. But I might
argue if you weren't so "unselfish" and could put your feeling's about what
you believe his feelings are aside for a moment, you might find he does say
something valid once in a while. I don't agree with all he says, and
sometimes I sense an attitude within him I disagree with (but he to, has the
right to say it). I would argue perhaps you should become a little more
selfish and realize that detesting people is just a waist of your time, and
emotion, and in turn makes you a lesser person as the OP's implies. Its fine
to argue ideas, ideals, and principals, but give up the hate because it only
clouds the truth. You point out the division and the division is solely
based in the hate each side feels, and displays.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "free radical" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
15 Nov 2003 06:57:45 PM |
|
|
This whole debate is funny. The problem with Rush is that he's not
conservative enough. Liberals are all liars, and I don't believe anything
they say anymore. They are the scum of the earth. They are the biggest
hypocrites of all. Just look at the fools running for president in the
Democrat Party. Even the moderate ones are idiots. They need to repent and
get right with God.
ts
www.sobran.com
www.ca-ra.org
www.frc.org
"William Lenz" <billlenz@erie.net> wrote in message
news:vrd3hh6ot4h216@corp.supernews.com...
Apache
Rush the hypocrit
"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws
against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And
the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies
and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are
violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they
ought
to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush on tolerance -
It's kind of like sentencing. A lot of people say that we have a heavy
sentence for this crime and a light sentence for another crime, and what
we ought to do is reduce the heavy sentence so it's more in line with
the
other. Wrong. In most cases we ought to increase the light sentence and
make it compatible with the heavy sentence, and be serious about
punishment because we are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks,
especially of crime, in too many parts of the country."
-- Rush Limbaugh. October 5, 1995 show transcript.
Rush Limbaugh is an intolerant glutton. His views are the same views
folks throughout history have used to justify their own selfishness. He
is a dispicable example of humanity and deserves exactly what he has
called for for others.
So what your saying is that you disagree with "The Albuquerque Tribune",
11/13/03: artical written by Andrew Bard Schmookler. Where he concludes
"We
need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges we face
and about how far short we fall in meeting them. But our conversation
about
the problem of sin in our society needs to be about "us" and not about
"them." Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about."
If he is a principled man as you suggest he would
accept the same fate as he has called for for others. But he is not a
principled man and he will like others of his ilk cry and beg
forgiveness. Forgiveness he has never offered to any in simular
circumstances. He is a fraud, a glutton, and a criminal. Like most
typical republicans he becomes a liberal when his own welfare is in
jepardy. Funny how that works - it's called being selfish. One becomes
unselfish if your concern for self is extended to those around you.
Republicans will never understand or apply this simple ideal.
I'm Republican and understand that, although I would ask why do you not
apply that ideal here?
The hell about principle's is if you choose to live by them you should
apply
them to all. Its easy to love those that love you its harder to love those
you disagree with even hate.
I'd ask the same question the OP writer asked "What does it say about a
man"
<I'll insert here, you> "if he can talk with contempt, without a shred of
compassion, about the shortcomings of other people, while knowing that he
is
no better than they?"
Moving on to Rush to date I have not heard him cry and beg for
forgiveness,
yet you show contempt as if he already has. I don't know what will happen
in
the future, but isn't it rather selfish to show such contempt for
something
that hasn't happened yet (and may not)? Isn't it enough that you can find
things about him you don't like and have contempt for that have occured
and
are in the past? Do we know the differance between reality and fantasy? He
may do this he may not who knows what Monday will bring.
As a
retired military officer, I am ashamed of this countries current lack of
integrity and principles. People like Rush have contributed to the
widening division in this country but more than that he has provided the
selfish with false justification for their own greed. He is the piper
playing the vile tune.
Well I do hope I'm being allowed to speak freely "Sir".
(not meant as sarcasm really I left as a SP4, it is a respect thing)
I would argue that what I have seen of liberalism the same is true. In the
end though I would have to conclude both sides are playing a vile tune at
times.
One thing that may help can be found in the original conclusion. The
Albuquerque Tribune, 11/13/03: artical written by Andrew Bard Schmookler:
"We need to be able to talk with each other about the moral challenges we
face and about how far short we fall in meeting them. But our conversation
about the problem of sin in our society needs to be about "us" and not
about
"them." Yes, the Rush Limbaugh saga gives us a lot to think about."
Perhaps if you stop waisting your time on what you assume Rush is feeling.
I
would ask so what if Rush and Republicans are the selfish little &$^#'s
that
you seem to believe they are. If your ideas, ideals, and principles are
greater then argue them, be them, and live them. I would say you and those
like you (of like mind) are what contribute to the division you see in
this
country. For what matters more to you is what another man is feeling,
instead of what he does, or what he may say. That our contempt and hate is
so deep that you only hear what you want to hear instead of listening,
learning, and trying to find common principles to build upon.
Lets bring this down here: (referance first Rush quote above)
Do you agree or disagree with these.
Some Drugs destroy individuals? (seen it and I agree)
Some Drugs destroy families? (seen it and I agree)
Some Drugs destroy communities? (seen it in my neighborhood and agree at
least until there gone)
Some say drugs are destroying this country? (well on a strech but
disagree)
Do we or don't we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using
drugs, importing drugs? (I agree)
Do you agree or disagree these laws are good? (in some cases yes, in some
no)
Should those that violate (city, state, or national) laws be:
Accused? (I agree)
convicted? (I agree, for they violated)
Punished according to the law? (I agree, although "sent up" is dependent,
and some conditions that get people "sent up" I disagree with, but it is
the
law)
Would you agree or disagree with this: (Referance Second Rush quote)
That some criminal acts have differant punishments? (I agree)
That some seem to harsh because some that are not that harsh are for
crimes
we believe worse than others? (I agree)
Do you agree or disagree with his opinion for resolution of this?
Myself I disagree in part for it's dependent and cannot be judged
universally. I might assume that there was a lead up to this opinion he
made
and it referanced to that, but he messed up by making it general.
The best definition I've heard for a "Gentleman" is one who is more
concerned of the welfare of those around him than he is of his own
welfare. Rush is no gentleman and few if any are to be found in the
republican party. The dismantling of the unselfish, compassionate and
progressive ideas that came out of the FDR generation who experienced
massive universal strife and deprivation is the act of a truly selfish,
shortsighted, and greedy lot worthy of all the disgust I can engender.
They proclaim their patriotism while few serve and while reducing the
benefits of those who do. They say they are for education while starving
the education system. They loudly promise they are for popular social
programs while building deficits to strangle these same programs and
once
they are truly dead they will blame the same deficits for their death as
if it was some unforeseen and uncontrollable event. They call themselves
Christians and every action proclaims them unChristian.
Again I'll go back to the OP's statement: "Why beholdest thou the mote
that
is in thy brother's eye . . .?". Now is that selfish or is that unselfish?
The unselfish man in liberal terms would ignore the mote in his own eye
and
continue to try and remove the one from his brother. One truly needs to
live
a selfish life that dictates these are my principals, these are my
beliefs,
and I will not surrender them, and in that (if they are true) he becomes
unselfish. A Gentleman is one that lives by his principls, and a code of
morality he believes in, he may not live up to them all the time, but that
doesn't mean he should stop trying.
I don't disagree with what you stated there dumping more money into these
programs is not the answer, reforming, changing, or just abandoning them
and
rebuilding something better, is the answer. Sorry but men like Rush have
said that all along if you listened. As well he has stood up for better
pay
and benifits for those of us who have served. I would also state when it
comes to your above issues its not one party or the other that is to
blame,
but both.
As well one really shouldn't judge parties historically going back to FDR
for if that were true then the Democrate Party would still believe that "a
rising tide lifts all ships". That the economy can grow through tax cuts
for
all. Parties change, conservativism as a leading force in the republican
party is more Regean time, the Christian Coliation is more a Clinton time.
It all depends on who is the driving force behind the party at the time.
Yes you are right, I detest Rush, his actions, his words and his every
thought. He deserves nothing but the harshest condemnation.
And you have every right to do so I have no problem with that. But I might
argue if you weren't so "unselfish" and could put your feeling's about
what
you believe his feelings are aside for a moment, you might find he does
say
something valid once in a while. I don't agree with all he says, and
sometimes I sense an attitude within him I disagree with (but he to, has
the
right to say it). I would argue perhaps you should become a little more
selfish and realize that detesting people is just a waist of your time,
and
emotion, and in turn makes you a lesser person as the OP's implies. Its
fine
to argue ideas, ideals, and principals, but give up the hate because it
only
clouds the truth. You point out the division and the division is solely
based in the hate each side feels, and displays.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Lenz" |
|
| Title: Re: Limbaugh's larger, public sin |
16 Nov 2003 08:09:25 AM |
|
|
free radical
This whole debate is funny. The problem with Rush is that he's not
conservative enough.
He could not translate principal 100% of the time to life, that's true.
Principal being a person should face, deal with, and overcome problems in
your life, and not look to escapes. Thats easier said than done.
Liberals are all liars, and I don't believe anything
they say anymore.
I only need to look back to my youth, that time when I could say I gave a
f#$%# about what people felt about me to begin to understand liberals. The
passing years, living life, and growing up, lead me to learn, understand,
and change my principals, and ideals. I wouldn't call those truths I once
head so dearly to in my youth lies, perhaps misguided values, but not lies.
I return agian to the old saying "a smart man knows only half of what he
hears is true, a wise man knows which half".
They are the scum of the earth. They are the biggest
hypocrites of all. Just look at the fools running for president in the
Democrat Party.
We are a nation (a society) of individuals, a nation (a society) that prides
itself on individual rights, a nation (a society) that has shead its blood
to ensure men/women are judged as individuals, and not as a group (gender,
race, or social). If you judge liberals using the bar of only a few, then
you must accept there uses of judging conservatives using the same bar.
Even the moderate ones are idiots.
The fact that they are doing what they need to in order to get there parties
nomination does not dictate idiot, it only dictates their desire to become
President outweighs a principaled stance they may be willing to take (on
some issues). In turn for some of them the flip/floping makes them look
foolish.
They need to repent and
get right with God.
Perhaps, but its not really my place to make that judgment. Abraham told
Sara to only tell Pharoah he was her brother, and this in turn saved his
life. In todays standard some might call that a lie, did Abraham need to
repent for what he told Sara to do?
bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
