That's more like it.
Posted on 12/11/2006 7:30:27 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
In Rush Limbaugh's customary spirit of Christian brotherhood, (and on a good day, sisterhood), the conservative broadcaster kicked off the sacred season with an attack on Christians. His nationally broadcast rant has resulted in a slew of hate mail to a fledgling progressive think tank, the Institute for Progressive Christianity.
IPC drew Limbaugh's ire by publicly challenging James Dobson's recent crackpot assertions about the curability of homosexuality; that separation of church and state is not part of the U.S. Constitution; and especially his claim that liberals do not know the difference between right and wrong.
My question right up top is: Will we allow Limbaugh to intimidate and silence a gutsy group that took up the battle when no one else had the courage and political good sense to do so?
While this entire matter merits our attention, I am taking a special interest because I had previously reported at Daily Kos, and at Political Cortex and here at Talk to Action, on Dobson's hate-based claims on Larry King Live, and linked to the transcript. I encouraged liberals to stand up for themselves and said that Dobson's claims should not go unchallenged. IPC, to my knowledge, was the only group to rise to the occasion.
Dobson had gone way out on a limb on several matters, and was encouraged by Larry King to elaborate on his views. Intentionally or not, King gave Dobson enough rope to hang himself. Dobson showed the world that he is a man divorced from any commitment to honest history or science and lacks the most basic respect towards people with whom he disagrees. And yet, this is one of the most influential and powerful men in America. That is, of course, why when IPC publicly debunked Dobson, Limbaugh went on the attack.
Here is what Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh read an account of the press release, from the rightwing Cybercast News Service,. He called it a "sinister story" and he blames IPC's press release on the Democratic Party.
The IPC is a "brand-new group whose express purpose is to bash Christians. They do so by claiming that they are Christians, too,"
"they're ramping up to trash any Christian who dare say anything"
"So you have here a new group of Christians -- the "progressive" Christians -- who are running around with a script that says existing evangelicals and Christian leaders are corrupt, just as Republican incumbents were corrupt."
"Okay, so the libs have started their new Christian group: the Institute for Progressive Christianity. I'm thinking of starting a group with some of my renowned conservative colleagues called the Americans for Creative Reality. We believe in the power of positive delusion. Sometimes you have to rise above your principles. It would be the Americans for Creative Reality. We'd just make it up, make up our own reality, counter the libs and deal with them on that level."
This is, of course, a diversion. The IPC trashed no one, and made no attack on conservative Christianity. IPC offered a clear, factual rebuttal to the substance of Dobson's remarks. A credible national conversation on any of these subjects, especially when presented by authentic Christians, who do not substitute their religious beliefs for science and history and respect the rights of others is dangerous to their campaign to place only the most conservative forms of Christianity at the moral center of public life. The religious right's claims about homosexuality and about American history are instances where faith has been placed at the service of far right ideology and they cannot stand up to reasoned challenge.
This is why it is important to publicly challenge leaders like James Dobson when they issue proclamations on national television that have little to no basis in reality. Remember, we are not talking here about Dobson's radio broadcast (although his performances there are worthy of note as well.) We are talking about a program on CNN that reaches millions of people who are not part of the religious right, hosted by one of the best-known broadcasters in America.
I don't want to devote this post to all of the details of Dobson's delusional claims. Nor do I want to get into IPC's rebuttals and Liimbaugh's diversionary counter claims, although sorting all this out is well worthwhile. There is only so much one can do in one post.
I want to underscore that when it comes to these things, you are in the game or you are not. And IPC had the vision and the guts to publicly challenge one of the top leaders of the religious right -- and the result is a nasty attack from a man with one of the biggest megaphones in America. I hope that people will find ways to help and encourage IPC; thank them for stepping up to the plate; and join them in keeping the focus on Dobson and his crackpot claims.
Let's keep up the good work and make sure the pressure stays on these "progressive Christians." Oops, Communists.
I'm really curious how Rush and David are brothers. Was Rush adopted?
That's funny. Non-crackpot PhD Psychologists at Columbia University have published research showing that homosexuals can, indeed, change their way of thinking, thereby being cured of homosexuality.
The IPC is another DemonRat front group.
Well, come to think of it, that language is pretty mild for a liberal.
Mulsims are progressive Christians too. They teach OF Jesus while denying His divinity, His death, and His resurrection.
Why rewrite the holy texts? "Progressive Christianity" is the word of false prophets. Homosexuality (and prostitution) is still sin.
There is no charity in lawmakers forcing citizenry to pay for a welfare state. That is paying Caesar taxes for the Empire. Our charitable obligation must be voluntary.
Every alternative weekly hippie sex paper has ads for "bi-curious" people to respond to.
Certainly all of those "curious" people aren't homosexual. But far be it from Christians to be permitted to counsel confused individuals. Better for the homosexual lobby to do that.
Certainly all of those "curious" people aren't homosexual. But far be it from Christians to be permitted to counsel confused individuals. Better for the homosexual lobby to do that.
The Gay-stapo has a name for those people now. The acronym GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender) is commonly amended with a "Q" for "Questioning." And as far as the advocates of sexual anarchy are concerned, if you have to ask the question, the answer is always "YES!"
And Dobson was right!
Here's what the IPC says in a press release regarding Dobson's comment on church and state. Read it carefully.
Did you catch it? They concede that Dobson is right in saying that "the phrase separation of church and state is not found in the constitution (sic) or the first Amendment (sic)" and in the very next paragraph write "As progressive Christians, IPC is steadfastly committed to the separation of church and state as stated in the Constitution of the United States"! Can you believe it?
KING: We have a separation of church and state.DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution. That was...
KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be. What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
Dr. Dobson's claim that there is no such thing as separation of church and state is not supported by history. While it is true that the phrase separation of church and state is not found in the constitution or the first Amendment, the concept was well understood by the leading thinkers of the time. Thomas Jefferson's's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, is considered by historians, legal scholars and the U.S. Supreme Court to be Jefferson's definitive statement on the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
As progressive Christians, IPC is steadfastly committed to the separation of church and state as stated in the Constitution of the United States. We base our belief not as an expression of hostility towards religion, but as a guarantee of its free practice whereby the position of one faith is not elevated over any other. In that manner, America will protect, as FDR proclaimed, "The freedom of every person to worship God in his own way."
That was a rhetorical question. Of course you can believe they would be so disingenuous. And you know you can't believe anything they say.
IPC ideology has blinded them from seeing their own contradictions.
Yeah... and the homosexual lobby HATES the ex-gays. They prove that it is a decision.
************
Uh-oh. They're bringing out the big guns now. It's the classic "it was hurtful" attack!
The homosexual denial movement is the greatest threat to free speech and freedom of conscience that America has ever faced.
Additionally, the homos always trot out people who claim to have attempted to go through conversion therapy and failed.
If I remember correctly, research from the 1960s found it was only 30 percent effective. I analogize trying to quit homosexuality to trying to quit smoking because some find themselves able to do so while others can't.
If homosexuality has the characteristic of curability (either curable or incurable), then it sounds like a disease. Thank you to the "progressives" for acknowledging that fact.
See Post 16.
The libs are so programmed, so indoctrinated with their own dogma...that to them, it is not to be questioned; even if facts, even logic does not apply to them. To them, they are right; all else is wrong. (Yet somehow they're also supposed to believe that everything is equally right...) Pathetic existence they have, eh?
"IPC drew Limbaugh's ire by publicly challenging James Dobson's recent crackpot assertions about the curability of homosexuality; that separation of church and state is not part of the U.S. Constitution; and especially his claim that liberals do not know the difference between right and wrong."
So what? It's Dobson's opinion, it's IPC's opinion, and its Limbaugh's opinion. Right? I thought that was the way any argument could be put to rest.
(Comment: there IS no such thing as "separation of church & state" in the Constitution, and the non-establishment clause technically exists only in the Bill of Rights.)
The only thing the word "establishment" meant in the 18th century was an institutional church that everyone paid taxes to support and was required to attend, period.
The state constitutions bear this out in clearer detail than the federal constitution.
It was not intended to establish an anticlerical, atheistic state, contrary to the radical Left's claims.
Aah, it's just the squeals of some dark entity after he encountered a bit of light. He has to toss out the usual lies and get recharged for his ongoing trek in the dark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.