I think we are some of the same things, which we agree on and I don’t think we disagree as much as we see things differently.

First, I would not call what Limbaugh does “sin”. Speaking falsely of another is I believe grave matter which can be sin, but isn’t automatically as the person must have full knowledge and do it anyway. I’m not sure I would say Rush has full knowledge. But Rush does speak false witness of others and call opponents to his beliefs names and degrade them (Hilabeast?).

Second, and I think that this is where we differ the most, is that while Rush does not compare in scale to those like Hef and Stern, I am not considering any scale of affect in my argument. Like I said in my first response, the line of Truth is not on the middle of the page for people to go “left” or “right”, the line of Truth is on one side of the page, and everything else is on the other side. The Gospel of Matthew says to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no. There is no middle ground. Matthew also writes about the parable of the two ways, which is broken out in the CACC. Matthew writes that there is one way that leads to life, and it is narrow, and the other way leads to death, and it is broad and those that find it are many, and between the two is a great difference. The CACC breaks this open further and when reading both we see the diametric difference between the two ways. Basically, if we aren’t moving toward Christ, then we are moving away. There is no one in a static relationship with God.

I state all of this to help you understand with my view, not expecting agreement; just that you know where I am coming from.

Rush, in my mind, is lumped in with Hef and Stern because he does the same thing they do and that is twist the Truth for profit. Regardless of the few good things Rush believes in, his purpose and approach remain the same. Imagine if Hef was pro life, would your opinion of him change as well?

Thanks for the great conversation. I love this stuff. In dialog we learn more about our faith and each other.

bob

I read your political porn post when you first posted it and thought I agreed with it entirely. After reading your reply, I went back to look at it again to be sure. I still think I agree with it entirely, unless I’m missing something.

Where I guess we disagree about Limbaugh is that I don’t think he degrades or dehumanized those that disagree with him. He certainly makes ample use of satire and hyperbole, but I don’t think that rises to the level of sin you must think that it does. Admittedly, I don’t listen to the political talk shows much anymore. So his tone may be much more strident now than it used to be.

For the sake of argument though, let’s say that his radio show is nothing more than political porn. To my knowledge, there are no studies that show that “political porn” (or talk radio) lead to violence against women. It doesn’t lead to broken marriages, broken families, and abortion. Whatever damage that you can attribute to Limbaugh (and others like him) doesn’t come anywhere close to the harm caused to our society by real pornographers like Hefner and Stern.

I understand that if you think his methods are wrong (which I think is debatable), that you must call it that way. I would, too. And where he falls short of the Truth (which as a typical, male, American Protestant, he often does) he should be corrected. But it’s much too far of a leap to equate him with HH and HS. It’s no different than when people draw comparisons between President Bush and Hitler (and many do).

And just to be clear, I agreed with the overall message in your original post. Keep up the good work!

God bless,

In faith there is the Church, and everything else. There is no liberal or conservative. The line of Truth is not on the middle of the page for people to be left or right of. The line of Truth is on the side of the page and everything else is liberal, or different, than it. So from a faith perspective, Rush is liberal.

Also, I think it does no good to propagandize the issues, call the other side names, and generally raise cain about the Democratic party, as Rush does. While I tend to agree with some of his stances on issues, I can’t stand his approach to degrade those who oppose him. What is different there than Howard Stern? I see only differences of opinion, the approach and attitude are the same.

And yes, “he who is not asainst us is for us”, however that cannot and is not our only guage in the Bible for those who sometimes agree with us. The Bible also calls us to be relentless for the Truth, to pray unceasingly, and to always recognise and acknowledge Christ. To deny Christ in one area of our live is to be denied in front of the Father. So, is it okay to speak evil and degrade our oponents if what we believe is “right” in our minds? I don’t think so. That is why I put Rush with those other folks. Ck out my post on Political Porn for more on this ideal. It may help you to understand my opinion more.

Thanks again for your comment.

bob

I love what you write, when I can find where it’s being posted this week. But do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh is on par with Hugh Hefner, Howard Stern, and every other morally degenerate person? Really? I’m hoping that you just threw his name in there in an effort to appear “balanced,” in some way.

Each in their own way, Hefner and Stern have caused great harm to the moral fiber of our country. While I think Limbaugh is wrong about certain issues, he is not trying to lead us down a road of decadence. He’s spoken quite beautifully on behalf of the pro-life cause a number of times. And at the risk of sounding Protestant, “For he who is not against us is for us.”

God bless,