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.
I have seen the same logic here on FR.
I don't know, but I don't think so. They really resemble each other.
They're brothers.
Another thing, groups such as IPC are actually about the abolition of Christianity from within because their goal is to create backbiting and discord.
Actually noone was required to attend, or else the entire continent of NA would've been building only Anglican churches and not wasting it on Catholic, Congregational, Quaker, and Lutheran churches.
But they WERE required to support it, regardless of affiliation or attendence. Double payment, in a way.
Kind of the way those who send a child to "private school" are now paying double as they pay their school and for the public schools in their area....
The secularists tend to forget the influence the Baptists had upon Jefferson and Madison in the immediate aftermath of the Great Awakening. The mountains for Virginia where they were from had large Baptists congregations, which were severely persecuted by the Anglican established church.
Additionally, the Great Awakening emphasized Christianity more as a spirituality than as an institution. Hence, they opposed the idea of state control of the Church. For all the ignorant talk about how Evangelicals want to create a "theocracy," I've never heard the Evangelicals who I know advocate any sort of institutional union of church and state. Actually, that idea would be anathema to them.
The Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania explicitly spells out the narrow confines of the separation of Church and State.
"Religious Freedom
Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
Religion
Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth. "
I'm sure the anticlericals in the Democratic Party would recoil if efforts to amend the establishment clause with this language was ever reintroduced. If you read the Anti-Federalist Papers, you will see that several states suggested this language in their post-1787 ratification conventions.
Also. I love the term progressive. The oft forgotten question is,"Progressing towards what? A society that would make Atilla the Hun or the Vikings proud."
I typically call them, "regressive".
But many "essives" would apply.
Oppressive. Suppressive. Aggressive.
I typically call them, "regressive".
But many "essives" would apply.
Oppressive. Suppressive. Aggressive.
>>How about Neo-Barbarians?
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.