Skip to content

Rush Limbaugh Has a Problem With This

April 20, 2011

I was driving, and listening to Rush Limbaugh as I drove. Rush was having a difficult time controlling himself. He sounded to be as if he were wanting to laugh. He said he would play what President Obama said without commentary, because it needs none. Then, after playing a clip when President Obama said that everything was insignificant in light of the Resurrection, Rush couldn’t help himself.  He started mocking Obama. He was mocking at the fact that everything should be put in perspective of the Resurrection.

Anyone listening to this can hear President Obama’s Christian faith. There are some very beautiful words here. But one might begin to wonder about Rush, and what perspective he is coming from. Is he, perhaps, reading too much Ayn Rand?

About these ads
82 Comments
  1. April 20, 2011 3:01 pm

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104200022

    This is not the tirade I heard. It seems to be later when people were upset at Limbaugh. He’s spinning now…

  2. Jason permalink
    April 20, 2011 3:28 pm

    President Obama is such a boring speaker. He always sounds like a politician. This sounds like all his other speeches: lots of words that signify nothing, without the the sound and fury. If he said anything controversial in this speech his office would be quick with a reasoned “clarification” befitting a political speech. He can’t stop being a politician, even when speaking about the Resurrection. There’s no fire in this speech. There’s nothing to indicate he’s burning with faith. That’s why the speech fails. I’m not saying doesn’t believe in the Resurrection. I’m just saying that he wouldn’t inspire me to believe with this kind of speech. You’d never hear the words of St. Stephen in an Obama speech: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51).

    • April 20, 2011 3:34 pm

      Talk about the death and resurrection of Christ signifies nothing? Isaiah means nothing? Seriously? Calling Jesus Lord and Savior, talking about his death and resurrection — for our sins — signifies nothing? Really?

      You would reject our Lord and Savior as nothing?

      • phosphorious permalink
        April 20, 2011 6:24 pm

        You misunderstand Jason’s intent: when a conservative can’t address the content, they go after the tone. Usually the charge is rudeness, but boringness will do as well, as in this case.

        Just as long as they are disagreeing with Obama; that’s the important thing.

  3. kellyjwilson permalink*
    April 20, 2011 4:07 pm

    The issue Jason has is not with the words, nor even (what might be) Obama’s actual conviction, but rather with, what Jason sees as, an uninspiring delivery. I found Jason fairly clear that given the way Obama spoke, Jason wouldn’t be inspired to believe…

    • April 20, 2011 4:10 pm

      What he said wasn’t apologetics. It wasn’t a discourse meant to make anyone else believe. It was just his belief. Jason said it was “boring” and what was said signified “nothing.” I’m sorry, anyone who says any speech about the death and resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, signifies “nothing” has a problem. The only way one can see this is boring or signifies nothing is if one wants to.

      • kellyjwilson permalink*
        April 20, 2011 4:18 pm

        You don’t have to convince me. I enjoyed the speech, and generally enjoy Obama’s speeches. I don’t find him boring at all.

        But Jason does.

        And your response to him didn’t reflect accurately on what he had written.

  4. April 20, 2011 4:39 pm

    It does reflect on what he wrote. He wrote pure nonsense. He wrote how what is contained there signifies nothing. Well, then the death and resurrection of Christ, forgiveness and sins and prophecy of Isaiah signifies nothing. Really. That IS what Jason wrote. Why? Because Obama said it? Really? Those who will say that to such words just because Obama said it will get such a response, for it indicates to me their political affiliation is more important than Christ. Really. If one says it signifies nothing, then yes, they have mocked Christ. Period.

    • April 20, 2011 4:58 pm

      Jason wrote, “This sounds like all his other speeches: lots of words that signify nothing, without the the sound and fury.”

      I read this as meaning, the current speech sounds like other speeches of his which signify nothing. He’s making a general comment about Obama’s speeches, and then saying that this speech “sounds like” his other speeches.

      In other words, even when speaking about the Resurrection, Obama manages to make it “sound like” his other speeches which signify nothing.

      He makes it clear that this is because of his delivery: He’s boring, he sounds like a politician, there’s no fire, etc. It’s clear that he’s criticizing the style and not the content.

      • April 20, 2011 5:10 pm

        Again the only one who can say this signifies nothing is one who thinks a speech about Christ signifies nothing. Once again, I ask YOU as with anyone else, why is it ok to say Obama talking about Christ signifies nothing? Just because you don’t like how he speaks, it means nothing now? Really?

  5. kellyjwilson permalink*
    April 20, 2011 4:51 pm

    I suspect the motive you attribute to him is correct. I have no way of knowing for sure, however.

    I maintain your original response does not capture his words.

    But I am happy to let readers come to their own conclusion, as I don’t want the intention of your post to be derailed…

    • April 20, 2011 5:11 pm

      His words is it signifies nothing. My words is to say — speaking of Christ in these words, in this way, can’t signify nothing.

  6. Jason permalink
    April 20, 2011 5:00 pm

    It was just his belief.

    Great. Obama believes in the Resurrection. Move along. Nothing to see here. So do millions of other people. But they don’t get put in front of a camera and get invited to speak at a prayer breakfast.

    What does his speech signify? If he had been speaking to a group of Jews about passover he would have had a nice, neat speech to give too.

    I’d rather hear an unknown monk speak at a breakfast than the President. At least I might get something that couldn’t be written by a speechwriter.

    I don’t have any particular dislike for Obama. I find him to be like most politicians: suits and ties who say a lot without saying anything.

    • April 20, 2011 5:09 pm

      So, for many years, people questioned this because he didn’t make it public. Now he says something which strongly reflects the Christian faith, we should ignore it because millions of others believe? This is nothing to see?

      Well, remember, as I said, Rush thought this was ridiculous. So apparently it is something for someone. That Rush thinks it is ridiculous to look at all things in light of the resurrection shows what many think.

      What does his speech signify? What does any speech about Jesus dying and rising again, as being the one who brings the forgiveness of sins signify?

      Seriously, the only way to find something wrong with his word is to want to. That you keep saying this signifies nothing indicates more about you than anything else.

      • Jason permalink
        April 20, 2011 5:24 pm

        Perhaps it does indicate more about me than anything else. In fact, I think you hit the nail on the head. There’s nothing “wrong” with his speech. But show me any great man in history whose claim to greatness was in not saying anything “wrong” (at least, wrong to the right people). I live in an age of men who say all the right things. It reminds me of the W.H. Auden poem “The Unknown Citizen”:

        Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
        Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

        There’s nothing wrong in Obama’s speech. There’s nothing wrong in anything he says. But as the Savage says in “Brave New World”: “I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

        So, yes, the problem I have is mainly about me. I’m fed up with living in a society where we give nice little speeches about Easter at nice breakfasts where we dress up in our nice suits and ties. “Another Festivus miracle!”

        If you hadn’t posted this video, I wouldn’t have commented on Obama’s speech (I probably wouldn’t have even known about it). It’s not like I go about the world looking for places to criticize President Obama.

        • April 20, 2011 5:26 pm

          Jason

          Again, people say he is Muslim. Others say he is non-Christian. These words are not just “nice little words.” Listen carefully. They speak quite a bit. To treat these words with contempt is a danger. Rush mocks them. You say they signify nothing. The fact you say they signify nothing indicates how much they do speak.

      • Jason permalink
        April 20, 2011 5:41 pm

        Sure, his words say a lot politically. They say Obama is a Christian, and thus he can be trusted by Christian America. They say he respects “people of faith” (hence his nod to the guy at the beginning of the speech who works with faith-based initiatives). They say his administration is not an enemy of religion.

  7. Jason permalink
    April 20, 2011 5:42 pm

    Anyway, that’s my last post. I gave my opinion, and I’ll leave it at that. I’ll just add that Obama looks tired. I’m sure he could use a nap.

  8. April 20, 2011 5:48 pm

    Henry writes, “Again the only one who can say this signifies nothing is one who thinks a speech about Christ signifies nothing. Once again, I ask YOU as with anyone else, why is it ok to say Obama talking about Christ signifies nothing? Just because you don’t like how he speaks, it means nothing now? Really?”

    Again, as I read it, Jason didn’t say (in his original comment) that the speech signified nothing. You cannot find the words “the speech signified nothing” in Jason’s comment. What he said was that it sounded like other speeches which signified nothing. The *sound* was the same, i.e. boring and lifeless. His implication being, I suspect, that a speech on the Resurrection should be delivered with more liveliness and feeling.

    For the record, I am neither defending Rush nor criticizing the President’s speech, neither of which I listened to. Accordingly, I have not said that it signifies nothing, nor have I said that it’s “OK to say” that it signifies nothing. I simply denied that *Jason* said that it signified nothing.

    • April 20, 2011 6:18 pm

      He said the words signified nothing. His own words.

      Come on, this is pure nonsense and trash. And I will call it and anyone who defends such trash out.

  9. April 20, 2011 6:37 pm

    Henry:

    You know, we are supposed to put the best possible construction on what people say, for the sake of charity. I have provided a way of doing that in this case, but you seem determined to put the worst possible construction on Jason’s words (and mine too, for that matter) rather than the best. [You don't have to post this comment if you don't want to.]

    • Ronald King permalink
      April 21, 2011 9:30 am

      Jason states “…lots of words that signify nothing…”

    • brian martin permalink
      April 21, 2011 12:51 pm

      Henry seems to be saying that it is not possible to invoke the name of Jesus, and quote the bible, and have it mean nothing. I would suggest that it is entirely possible to use those words and speak of Christ and signify nothing. If the words are just words, and not backed by belief, or if they are being used to manipulate and not represent what they seem to represent, then they are meaningless. Call me cynical, but politicians of every stripe and creed use words to influence people. If they are not from the heart, they are empty words. Not knowing Obama’s heart, I cannot speak to that. As for Mr. Limbaugh, his willingness to ridicule, demean and belittle people he disagrees with would seem to illustrate quite well what worth his words have….as well as offer a testimony to his…lack of understanding of Christianity

    • phosphorious permalink
      April 21, 2011 5:57 pm

      You know, we are supposed to put the best possible construction on what people say, for the sake of charity. . .

      Unless that speaker is a politician one disagrees with, in which case it can be dismissed as political parrot-talk.

      Nothing Obama can do or say. . . nothing at all. . . will win over, or even lessen the contempt of catholic America towards him.

      Now Bush. . . there was a man who could make his faith come alive!

  10. Pentimento permalink
    April 20, 2011 7:04 pm

    I heard it as a moving confession of a personal faith, delivered in an intimate, conversational style, not in a fiery, passionate one. Whatever anyone else may think of his delivery, however, this speech can hardly be dismissed. And to mock it, and to call the president’s faith (or his presentation of it) into question, as Rush appears to have done, is desperate.

    • Rodak permalink
      April 21, 2011 6:22 am

      Ah-ha! The voice of charity and reason. Thank you, Pentimento.

  11. April 20, 2011 7:39 pm

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042011/content/01125107.guest.html

    Has the transcript. It appears I heard the end of it, not the beginning….

    “RUSH: There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, President Barack Obama, peace be upon him, praise be his name, commenting on Easter at the Easter prayer breakfast at the White House yesterday. There’s just something about the Resurrection that puts everything else in perspective, like, what, tax cuts are no big deal, tax increases are no big deal? When you start thinking about the Resurrection, you know, socialism, not that important to me. What does he mean? What is it about the Resurrection that puts everything else? He said something about it. What about it?”

    There you go, you see politics is more important than the resurrection. Obama is right, in comparison to everything else, the death and resurrection is more important.

  12. Kurt permalink
    April 20, 2011 8:49 pm

    I appreciate Mr. Obama’s words even though I expect no one at the breakfast was moved to feel an altar call and asked to be immediately baptized in the fountain on the North Lawn.

    Limbaugh’s comment, however, I not only find offensive but close to blasphamous.

    • April 21, 2011 4:00 am

      Right, that’s how I found Limbaugh’s words… which is sad how some people seem to have no problem with them, though President Obama, they do…

  13. Thales permalink
    April 21, 2011 8:06 am

    I agree that Limbaugh is very wrong and silly to criticize the President on this, and I very much appreciate the President’s words. I found it extremely refreshing to hear these thoughtful words from the President, and I hope that it continues — it’s a very good thing to have our political leaders, especially our President, make religious statements in public. It’s a good antidote to the creeping falsehood that religion and state can never mix, that religion has no place in the public sphere, and that a discussion of religion by a political leader is a step towards a dreaded “theocracy.”

  14. Ronald King permalink
    April 21, 2011 9:38 am

    Limbaugh’s contempt is palpable. My contempt for Limbaugh is palpable and I must somehow pray for him as Christ would want me to as I pray for those I love, otherwise I belittle what He has done for us. God Help All of Us live in Your Love.

    • Pentimento permalink
      April 21, 2011 10:22 am

      Amen.

  15. Darwin permalink
    April 21, 2011 10:39 am

    Yes, Obama’s words here are good, though it underscores how little religious sensibility we expect from our public servants that his words about our Savior’s death and resurrection here (which would be no surprise at all coming from any minor blogger — Catholic or Protestant, left or right) seem so refreshing and so remarkable. And Limbaugh is clearly wrong to mock him for them.

    What this underscores, more than anything else, is simply how much partisanship pervades our reactions to events. It takes a positive effort on my part to listen to Obama talk about about the very basic elements of Christianity and think anything other than, “Yeah, well, he’s got some good writers, but of course he probably doesn’t mean it.”

    And by the same token, when figures like president Bush talked about their Christian faith or were invited to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, the reaction of many Catholics on the left was merely, “Oh yeah, well he supports the death penalty and war and torture and, and, and…”

    • April 21, 2011 10:56 am

      Darwin,

      What I would like to take away from your message is this sentence: “What this underscores, more than anything else, is simply how much partisanship pervades our reactions to events.”

      But of course since I have a bias in favor of Obama and Democrats, and since I can’t abide Rush Limbaugh, and since I have a pretty good idea of where you stand politically, I read your message—probably unfairly—as saying, “Yes Limbaugh is wrong here, but you people who are complaining about him do the same thing!”

      • Paul DuBois permalink
        April 21, 2011 11:30 am

        And what I take Darwin’s message as saying is we all need to stop.

    • April 21, 2011 1:33 pm

      I think perhaps my first reaction was not quite fair enough to Darwin. It is a good message, and it is legitimate to point out that we all let our partisanship influence our judgments. Certainly I am aware that I have plenty of biases, and what is more troubling, I am not quite sure I know what they are. As I have noted before, when I look inward, I find that I am in perfect agreement with all of my own positions. When I am debating with someone, it never ceases to amaze me that whatever deficiencies they claim to point out in my arguments, I have an almost instantaneous insight into why they are wrong. And yet I realize I can’t be right 100% of the time. (Most of the time, of course, but not 100% of the time.)

      I highly recommend Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error by Kathryn Schulz, who tells us that a lot of these “flaws” in the way our minds work are actually extremely beneficial most of the time. None of us could function if we had to rethink our basic position every time we were presented with a new fact. She points out that nothing is more devastating to a politician than being perceived to have changed positions. We don’t have confidence in leaders who don’t seem to be certain. In fact, she points out—and this is definitely true of me—that few things are more infuriating than undecided voters who keep saying they need to know more before they make up their minds. In the last election, as an Obama supporter, I could accept that some people supported McCain, sadly mistaken as I thought they were. But when I saw undecided voters being interviewed right up until the last minute, my thought was, “How in the world can these idiots not know whom they want to vote for???”

    • Darwin permalink
      April 21, 2011 2:35 pm

      I guess I meant half self accusation, half, “watch yourself as well”. When I finally listened to the clip Henry had posted, my first reaction was “yeah right” and my second a desire to pick it apart and find some fault in it. I had to actively remind myself that if the same words had been said by someone I liked, I would have found them likable.

      I would imagine that’s much the same feeling that left-leaning Christians had when Bush talked publicly about his faith.

      It underscores the political polarization of our public arena that my first reaction was to want to see if there was some sense in which Limbaugh was justified in his criticisms, not because I like Limbaugh (I don’t, and haven’t listened to him in nearly a decade) but because Henry was attacking him.

      (And yeah, like you, I find it hard to understand “undecided voters” and find it sort of frustrating that most elections are decided by that “swing” segment who lack any clear political philosophy.)

      • April 21, 2011 3:44 pm

        Oh yes, Darwin. We know, I’m so bad, so evil. I say Christ rose from the dead, you wonder if you should reject it. Yes, we get it.

      • Pentimento permalink
        April 21, 2011 3:56 pm

        Henry, I believe Darwin is being sincere, and also going out on a limb to reveal to everyone here a painful flaw in himself. If you re-read his comment in the spirit of charity, you will not want to cling to the sarcasm I’m getting from this comment of yours.

        • April 21, 2011 4:04 pm

          What he has said is clear: he wants to reject what I write because I write it. So I must be so bad, so evil, he will reject whatever I say. Notice, he said it is because _I_ said something, he wanted to go on the attack. It does reveal much about him. I’ve found him to be shallow: he admits it. He is very shallow. No wonder he defends that which cannot be defended: The American Catholic. They lie, they slander, and he helps them as they delete people who point out their slander.

          The sarcasm is because he has revealed how much a disaster his methodology is. It deserves sarcasm. Perhaps he will repent. If not, I will point out how vile he is. For his methodology is that and deserved rejection.

      • Pentimento permalink
        April 21, 2011 4:10 pm

        Henry, I think you’re mistaken in your perception of what Darwin wrote and of what he meant. And the sarcasm I referred to was yours, though I see you may not have meant it that way. We all need to back from the ad hominem attacks.

        • April 21, 2011 4:28 pm

          This is not an ad hominem, it is a pointing out that Darwin’s reaction to me is constantly to find something to reject because I said it. He has a history of insulting me. Though he is younger than me, he acted, years ago, as an elder telling me off, having to learn from people like him who know more from experience than I. This is typical of him. It is how he is, and I will point out, he admits he has the most ridiculous reasons to look for a reason to attack what someone said or did. It’s him. This is how he is. He has been this way for years. His smugness wears thin. Time is now for him to either repent, or be shown for the ridiculous clown he really is.

      • April 21, 2011 4:53 pm

        I’m quite prone myself to react with a knee-jerk dismissal of or attack upon something someone says because of my (probably unfair) sense who the person is who said it. It’s something I have to constantly remind myself I’m doing, and regrettably I succumb to the temptation more often than not, or fail to even recognize that I’ve responded in such a flawed way.

      • Thales permalink
        April 22, 2011 8:39 am

        Whoa, Henry, I think you’re missing Darwin’s point.

        The bad thing about the Internet is that you can’t see the face of the person you’re talking to, which leads to believing something was said with an attitude that is not actually present.

        • April 22, 2011 8:43 am

          I get his point. I’ve seen his smugness all the time. He has shown himself for what he is in this comment; he’s done it many times before. I am calling him out.

      • Darwin permalink
        April 22, 2011 7:07 pm

        Henry,

        My apologies, but I think you may have misread my intention. When I said, “When I finally listened to the clip Henry had posted, my first reaction was “yeah right” and my second a desire to pick it apart and find some fault in it. I had to actively remind myself that if the same words had been said by someone I liked, I would have found them likable.” I was referring to listening to Obama (I had to click through from Google read to actually listen to him) in the clip and my desire to disagree with whatever Obama says because I dislike him.

        When talking about someone I didn’t like, I was referring to Obama — not you.

        My apologies for the confusion and offense.

        Kyle and Pentimento,

        Thanks.

        All,

        A blessed Easter!

    • Cindy permalink
      April 25, 2011 10:25 am

      Oh Darwin, and don’t forget. He supported lying our way into a war. Taking information on reports given, and using parts of information to plead a case. (which turned out entirely fales-yellow cake matter anyone)… He supported the outing of a CIA agent, (a federal offense) and he pardonded the man who did it. What a Christian!

  16. Paul DuBois permalink
    April 21, 2011 11:37 am

    In general I do not think anyone should listen to Rush Limbaugh. When people I know, even those I respect, bring up something he said I cut them off and say his comments are not welcome in the discussion and he should not be listened to. The reasons I give include his statements on the poor (degrading them offering free squeegees to the homeless) his many statements on religion, his statements on women including his ex-wives and especially Elizabeth Edwards and now I can add this.

    The man is a shock jock and nothing more. I would not listen to the ramblings of Howard Stern or any of the others, nor would I let someone use their statements in a political discourse, so why would we include Limbaugh’s?

  17. Mark Harden permalink
    April 21, 2011 12:06 pm

    If we agree that actions speak louder than words, then these words of Obama’s are as nothing compared to his action of sitting at the feet of the man Obama acknowledged as his mentor, the vile racist Jeremiah Wright, for 20 years. Obama proclaims himself a Christian; so does Fred Phelps.

    • April 21, 2011 1:02 pm

      I think it is unwarranted to call Jeremiah Wright a “vile racist,” and in any case, racism for centuries got more than its fair share of support from both Catholic and Protestant clergy who could not doubt speak very eloquently and accurately about the resurrection. And even if Jeremiah Wright was a racist, Obama is clearly not. I think only someone who detested Obama in the first place would judge him because he attended Jeremiah Wright’s church.

    • Cindy permalink
      April 25, 2011 10:26 am

      So does Dick Cheney. Bush sat at his feet. So would Karl Rove. All proven liars.

  18. Kurt permalink
    April 21, 2011 12:34 pm

    Mark,

    Planning on watching the cable TV program on the Borgia Popes?

  19. Ronald King permalink
    April 21, 2011 4:52 pm

    Darwin wanted to see if there was some sense in Limbaugh’s criticisms not because he likes Limbaugh, “…but because Henry was attacking him.” What is implied in that statement? That is what I want to know. It obviously hurt Henry. Darwin, did you mean to hurt Henry? With all due respect, I think it is time for confession.

    • Thales permalink
      April 22, 2011 8:44 am

      We all have our political/cultural biases. It’s natural for a conservative to get defensive when a liberal attacks a conservative, and for a liberal to get defensive when a conservative attacks a conservative. Darwin acknowledged this, acknowledged that this was a fault in himself, and actively resolved to overcome this bias re: President’s speech. I don’t see anything more that one should take as insulting here.

      • April 22, 2011 8:48 am

        First, I am no liberal.

        Second, Darwin and many others continue to misrepresent me and use that to encourage people to disregard me. He shows it is his tactic here. I am calling him out.

        Third, yes, yes, we all know, he is all attack all the time. This is why he can be a part of the vile TAC group. Yes, everything is all about political face. Shame that his initial reaction is that he wants to defend Rush. Sorry, what Rush said no good Christian can ever respect. He insulted the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyone whose initial desire is to defend that shows, to me, what they are.

      • Darwin permalink
        April 22, 2011 7:22 pm

        Okay, sorry, to clarify the other point that seems to be causing offense here: My point was not that anyone that Henry criticizes, I feel inclined to defend, but rather than when someone attacks Limbaugh (even though I don’t like Limbaugh) as a conservative marker, and especially in the process of defending Obama (as a liberal marker) I feel an immediate instinct to defend Limbaugh and blame Obama.

        To flip this around in an attempt to back up the point, if Henry had attacked someone I habitually disagree with (say Obama or Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins) I would not have thus wanted to defend that person against Henry.

        It is the phenomenon of, as a conservative, reflexively wanting to defend “conservative” markers even when I don’t actually like them that I was referring to.

      • Darwin permalink
        April 22, 2011 7:24 pm

        And again, I apologize for causing offense. It was unintended.

  20. Ronald King permalink
    April 22, 2011 9:18 am

    Thales, “…but because Henry was attacking him…” is what Darwin wrote. If I am confronted with the perception that I have harmed someone I will address it and make amends. Defensiveness is the antithesis of the Cross. Today would be a “Good” day to make amends.

  21. brian martin permalink
    April 22, 2011 9:27 am

    Henry, please forgive me, I’m new here and have no history. I would like to comment on your response to Jason’s comment. “Talk about the death and resurrection of Christ signifies nothing? Isaiah means nothing? Seriously? Calling Jesus Lord and Savior, talking about his death and resurrection — for our sins — signifies nothing? Really?

    You would reject our Lord and Savior as nothing?”

    Rejecting the words of a human being, a politician quoting the bible is clearly not the same as rejecting Jesus Christ. One certainly would reject out of hand some racist using biblical comments about slavery to justify current racist attitudes. Quoting Jesus or quoting the bible does not, nor should it, lend automatic credibility to a politician.

    That does not take away from your point about Mr. Limbaugh’s attack on President Obama. It is a side point.

    As far as your comments about Darwin, I am assuming there must be history, as you suggest, because if I were to judge by this thread alone, you come across as angry and flailing at him. Clearly, at some point he must have seriously insulted you.
    You made reference to the vile TAC group. Could you clarify what that is?

    • April 22, 2011 9:46 am

      He said the words, the WORDS signified nothing. To say those words signify nothing is absurd, and again points very well to the fact that so many people think so little about Christ. Words about him signify nothing! Got it.

      I reject this nominalistic nihilism.

      • brian martin permalink
        April 22, 2011 10:00 am

        The words themselves have great meaning. But that seems a simplistic response to the original point, which was not that those words have no meaning, but that those words, coming from the mouth of President Obama have little meaning to him, because they are used in a safe political context. And my statement is not about the words themselves, but the use of the words. My use of words in the context of my saying something broader, applies additional or different meaning to the words than are there originally. Saying that they sound empty coming from the mouth of a politician is not the same as saying the words, in their original context are empty. So yes, if a person with little true faith uses the words of Christ to justify their actions, the words have little meaning…in that context. If I use those words to justify sinful action, the words of faith coming out of my mouth are “empty words”
        Again, could you clarify what the “vile TAC group” is?

      • Darwin permalink
        April 22, 2011 7:26 pm

        Brian,

        The vile “TAC” is a group blog called The American Catholic. I’m assuming that a link here would be unwelcome, but I believe Google should uncover it.

  22. Thales permalink
    April 22, 2011 9:43 am

    This is not my fight, so Darwin is going to have to speak up, but I think you are missing the fact that Darwin is not disregarding Henry, or disagreeing with Henry’s point, or defending Rush, or attacking Obama. On the contrary, he said “Obama’s words here are good” and “And Limbaugh is clearly wrong to mock him for them.” Henry, Darwin agrees with your post!

    …but because Henry was attacking him…” is what Darwin wrote.
    Um, yeah, Darwin acknowledged that that was his first reaction, but you’re missing the whole point of the fact that Darwin recognized that this knee-jerk biased reaction was a fault in himself and one that he actively resolved to overcome.

    • April 22, 2011 9:55 am

      Thales

      No, he was attacking me, taking it for granted that one should just oppose what I write because I write it.

      • Thales permalink
        April 22, 2011 10:12 am

        Henry,

        I tend conservative, so I tend to oppose some writers on VN — when I see a MZ or Morning’s Minion post, my bias is to think that they’re on the wrong side of the issue. Now there’s nothing terribly wrong with my bias, as long as I acknowledge it and seek to overcome it, and I don’t let my bias affect my reading of their posts and I give them a fair a reading. That’s what I try to do. We all have biases – that’s just being human – but the key is to not let them affect an objective reading of a situation. I suspect that you’ve got a bias against Limbaugh. That’s fine, and that makes sense to have that bias since there are things that Limbaugh says that are wrong (like what he said about the President’s speech here). But supposing Limbaugh said something correct, hopefully you would acknowledge that you’re biased against Limbaugh, but notwithstanding your bias, he was correct in this particular instance.

        To me, it looks like that’s all that happened here. Darwin has a bias against your posts generally. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as Darwin acknowledges the bias and doesn’t let the bias affect a fair reading of the post. And that’s what he did: he acknowledged the bias, but overcame it, gave your post a fair reading, and then agreed with you. That’s not an attack against you.

        • April 22, 2011 10:20 am

          Thales

          “There is nothing wrong with that.” Sorry, there is everything wrong with what he said. He decided to attack me personally, all because I dared criticize Rush because Rush was mocking Christ. Well, have at it.

          We see how little so many here think of Easter. So be it.

  23. Thales permalink
    April 22, 2011 10:29 am

    He decided to attack me personally, all because I dared criticize Rush because Rush was mocking Christ.

    But he didn’t attack you personally. He agreed with your post.

    Okay, this is my last post on this. Have a holy weekend, Henry.

    • April 22, 2011 10:30 am

      He most certainly attacked me personally. His point is that if I write something, it should be rejected because I write it.

      • Thales permalink
        April 22, 2011 2:24 pm

        I’m back. :)

        He most certainly attacked me personally. His point is that if I write something, it should be rejected because I write it.

        Not as I read it. I read Darwin’s point to be that Darwin’s first biased inclination was “if I [ie, Henry] write something, it should be rejected because I write it”….. but that this biased knee-jerk inclination was without merit and problematic and unfair to what you had written and a weakness on Darwin’s part; and that your post deserved to be read objectively and without that bias; and that read in that spirit, Darwin agreed with your post.

        Apparently there is a history between you that I’m entirely unfamiliar with, so please know that I’m speaking from the view of an entirely uninformed and ignorant reader.

        Have a great Easter everyone!

  24. Ronald King permalink
    April 22, 2011 10:50 am

    Thales, I like your conservative approach. If Darwin had been more conservative in his approach he never would have mentioned Henry’s name in his comment. He would have taken into account his history with Henry and the emotional conflict within that history which apparently has never been resolved through the humility that is necessary to resolve such pain. I do not even know if there is a conscious awareness of pain in their relationship. I do know that when our core beliefs of self, others and the world are confronted in an aggressive insensitive manner then harm is done to the person who is the target of this confrontation whether it is intended or not. The resolution to this is for each person to speak from a position of openness and vulnerability so that the sensitivity of each soul can be open to the empathic understanding that any interaction with one another is harmful to self and others if it is not in union with God’s Love.
    I hope this makes sense.

  25. brian martin permalink
    April 22, 2011 12:39 pm

    Henry… “We see how little so many here think of Easter. So be it.”
    What is it with the broad generalizations here? Someone disagrees with a portion of what you say and it’s an assault on Easter. Is your ego really that much on your sleeve? I truely am sorry my comments regarding the content of speech offended you or gave the impression that I think little of Easter or of Christ’s words, but I can honestly say that I really don’t understand the degree of what comes across as bitterness and defensiveness. Lashing out at people with comments like that above seems a bit petulant to say the least.

    • April 22, 2011 1:00 pm

      Yeah, we should all think “words signify nothing” when speaking about the death and resurrection is where it is at! Oh yes! We should think the death and resurrection is nothing — for that’s what such words signify… or so I am told. I will have none of it.

  26. brian martin permalink
    April 22, 2011 1:27 pm

    Are you intentionally being obtuse, or was my differentiation between the meaning of the words themselves versus the meaning of the words as used by a politician that unclear?
    The words themselves have meaning…I don’t disagree.
    However, a politician’s words (like a political talking head entertainer) can be empty.

    If someone like Rush Limbaugh would quote the bible to support one of his often hateful…the words would indeed be empty in that context.
    The death and resurrection are not nothing, and I honestly don’t see anyone here saying that.

    • April 22, 2011 1:30 pm

      Why would the words of Rush mean nothing? Words don’t signify nothing. The constant attempt to continue to support nihilistic nominalism is insane.

  27. brian martin permalink
    April 22, 2011 1:38 pm

    ahhh…i’m a bit slow…..the words have no value to me in that context. Words cannot help but have meaning as they are symbols. They may be devoid of value to me. You are correct, when taking the statements that literally, that it is insane to suggest the words have no meaning. I wonder if anyone else here interpreted the comments that literally.

    • Ronald King permalink
      April 22, 2011 2:31 pm

      Yes

  28. Ronald King permalink
    April 25, 2011 10:19 am

    Darwin, I want to thank you for your compassionate response above.

  29. Montana permalink
    April 26, 2011 11:19 pm

    Wow, the Blush LimpBlah is now a reverend, he can take his place next to the other flakes like Jim Jones, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, (all silly jimmy’s), Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Gramham (son of Billy), John Hagee, and we can’t forget the rev. Mike Huckabee. Maybe LimpBlah next sermon will be about the scripture “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s”, found in the good book. But alas we probably hear more or the same lies that we heard today. He is such a windbag.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers

%d bloggers like this: