So who agrees with Ed Howard (Nebraska State Paper) all the time? That would be a strange person. But I have to agree with his take on one of America’s favorite liars.
It is unlikely that Rush Limbaugh has a sense of shame. That’s too bad, because he has good use for one these days. A cold-blooded liar with a history of criminal drug abuse, Limbaugh … most recently disgraced himself with an attack on Michael J. Fox, the actor who suffers from Parkinsons disease and endorses the need for stem-cell research.
Like the people of our acquaintance who suffer from this disease, Fox sometimes has less control over his body’s shaking than at others. After being miffed by a campaign ad done by Fox for a stem-cell research proponent, Limbaugh said it was obvious that Fox had not taken his medicine, or was exaggerating the twitching that is symptomatic of his disease.
Even by the standards of a drug-sucking hypocrite like Limbaugh, it was a venal, mean-spirited and hateful bit of entertainment.
Whatever drugs Michael J. Fox has in his pocket, he obtained them legally, and he needs them for reasons other than feeling good.
Here’s a copy of the ad, from Youtube.
William Bollinger, you asked: â€œ.. what justified the backlash?â€?
I think you are right in analyzing how Rush Limbaughâ€™s particular soul was lost, but when you ask …
Where in the Bible you believe in does it say you are justified to attack others, because they believe differently?
… you are blurring the outlines of an important differentiation between personal attitudes and cultural (religious or political) tendencies or movements. Of course, the Bible does NOT yield such a justification, as you suspected me to apply, but the biblical principle which IS relevant in this context is that we are supposed to love the sinner while hating his sin, and not just sin, in an abstract fashion.
I talked of [the cultural movements of] Â»â€œbible-believingâ€? evangelismÂ« being a backlash against [the cultural movement of] Â»liberal secularismÂ« …
(!! well, here is an inaccuracy of mine, I meant â€œevangelical Christianityâ€? !!)
… and found some justification in it FOR THIS SPECIFIC REASON that we are not allowed to mechanically suppose that a representative of (anti-secular) evangelicalism must be motivated by hatred of the representative of (secular) liberalism and not, – as (s)he will doubtlessly allege -, by hatred of the specifical wrongs or reciprocate hatreds that liberal secularism itself might be found or believed engendering.
And there ARE ways of arriving at the conclusion that liberal secularism MIGHT be engendering evil.
It is a common notion in political science, – as well as, in my eyes, a very workable hypothesis -, that rightist polical perceptions tend to regard politics as the art to differentiate between friend and foe and place checks and balances between any groups of â€œfriendsâ€? completely crushing their opponents (policies as Realpolitik), whereas leftist views seek strictly democratic principles for politics and conceive of politicies as a tool to further an enlightened agenda of liberty and peace.
If this analyses should not prove completely wrong, I take your stance to be a purely leftist one, for while you certainly pay genuine tribute to the rightist, â€œrepublicanâ€? outlook of politics, you intuitively apply (as far as I can see) a purely democratic standard for you own thinking, which, however, implies the unwarranted assumption that an enlightened way to look at policies [unimpaired by religious belief] will further liberty and peace WITHOUT being obliged to bother with piercing the veil which partisan differentiations between friend and foe WILL invariably spread over the issues, – whether we like it or not.
The fact, however, that neither liberalism nor secularism, is a method to safely escape radical ideological conflict (the conflict arising from clashing conceptions of truth, of what is â€˜enlightenedâ€™), has in a dangerous extent grown strange to a culture that is, for six decades now, incessantly submitted to â€˜social engineeringâ€™, in order to achieve exactly that ideological bandwidth which is necessary for inducing a democratic society to support ideological warfare on the world scale.
This has not always been so. Remember that the American Civil War, for example, was waged between two forces who, both, made appeals to secularism and liberalism, according to their understanding of the proper live meaning of these principles.
The laissez-faire conception of liberty held by the Confederacy, was opposed by Abraham Lincolnâ€™s (correct, in my eyes) realization that the values embodied in the American Constitution are incompatible with a concept of liberty which relates to the rule of law via the (essentially British-imperial, according to philosophers like Locke or Hobbes) fundamental right of property, as opposed to the American-constitutional inalienable right of â€˜pursuit of happinessâ€™, – which contains the former, but not vice versa.
Many people have doubts that this â€˜idealismâ€™ was indeed a justification for such a bloody war. Many Christians are reluctant to even hail its outcome as a success (judging by the immediate fate of – former – slaves) or question Lincolnâ€™s motives. But all this, in my eyes, is beside the point. Of course, Abraham Lincoln was no saint, and had very earthly, political motives alongside with the idealistic ones pretended, but then you must acknowledge that the effectiveness of an ideal thing (like the Bill of Rights) is itself no ideal process, – and must not be expected to be so.
Power considerations, and with them the old, â€˜barbaricâ€™ logic of friend and foe, have been, are, and will always stay an inevitable concomitant of any enlightened deliberation of what is favourable to liberty and peace.
The crucial question for Christians, therefore, is this alone: whether they will remain Christians in (their way of) participating in that process, – and the question for you and me is: Will we be loving our enemies while hating (as we see it) what they work.
thanks for probing & challenging. I’m going to clarify my point (succinctly!) in a few days.
The crux, in my eyes, lies not so much in deciding “how justifyable” this or that kind of lovelessness may be, as in asking HOW, at all, an individual incurs responsibility for the cultural movements he/she may be found supportive of, — and, dirivative of that, how, therefore, morals and spirit of such movements (“backlashes”) is to be judged, in the first place.
In any case, there is no inch of difference between you and me in stating that nobody is ever entitled to hate his/her adversaries in the name of Jesus.
You mentioned “A backlash against liberal secularism” as being understandable and justified. Understandable maybe. I can easily understand being opposed to what is against your beliefs, but what justified that backlash? Where in the Bible you believe in does it say you are justified to attack others, because they believe differently? That justification to attack was where Rush got started. It justified the lies mentioned above, and led to the losing of bearings you mentioned. I think that the basic error wasnâ€™t â€œgoing alongâ€?, with the neo-cons. It was believing that they were justified to hate in Jesusâ€™ name.