Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken agree.
HOLY CATASTROPHE!
Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken agree.
It is a rare day when ultra-conservative Rush Limbaugh and ultra-liberal Al Franken agree. But they did this past week when they both cast “Christians� as Republicans (right-wing conservatives)! Below I have the quote from Rush implying that Christians are not Democrats. And he directly says that Democrats are fearful of Christians. Is this bazarre or what?
The crazy thing is that Al Franken totally agrees with Rush on this posturing of Christians.
I protest. Jesus followers are all kinds of people. This is what is so wonderful about the Jesus journey –all kinds of people are on that journey with you!
I protest both Rush and Al for placing Christians in a neat fully defined political box. Shame on both of them!
This is what Rush Limbaugh said on his June 8 2005 broadcast of his radio show:
LIMBAUGH: Let me tell you something, the Democrats are more fearful -- and I've told you this too -- they're more fearful of Christians than they are of Al Qaeda. The Democrats are more fearful of Democrats [sic] than they are of Islamist terrorists living in this country. They are more fearful of Christians than they are of any enemy of the
Here is how Al Franken responded on his website and on his July 12 2005 television show to Rush’s ridiculous characterization of Christians:
FRANKEN: I am more afraid of Christians than I am of getting a flesh eating virus.
I am more afraid of Christians than I am of being forced to ingest the contents of Rush Limbaugh’s medicine cabinet.
I am more afraid of Christians than I am of getting trapped in an elevator with Linda Tripp - that’s how fearful of Christians I am.
I am more afraid of Christians than I am of Buddhists.
I am more afraid of Christians than I am of being shipped to
I am more afraid of Christians than I am of farting during my radio program. Actually, I’m not afraid of that at all. In fact, I just did.�
There it is! This is what happens when Jesus is presented as political agenda. What a sad and pathetic thing.
Jesus is about people and not about political agenda. Jesus died to take away our sins not our brains. Resist every temptation to be a “ditto-head� to any agenda.
To my non-Christian friends: You were created by God –therefore you are important just as you are. If you have dismissed the Journey with Jesus because it seemed to you to be about political nonsense, may I say, I can really understand that. The way political types keep using the name of Jesus (or “Christian�) as some sort of “divine approval� –gives the impress that Jesus is somehow linked to a political agenda or party –as both Rush and Al seem to think.
The Bible is clear, however, the Jesus Journey is open to all – to “whosoever� – to “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female.� I invite you to check out the real Jesus of the Gospels (first four books of the New Testament part of the Bible).
To my Right wing friends who connect Jesus to their political agenda: Repent, you are hurting the kingdom. And celebrate the diversity of your brothers and sisters who are different than you. By the way they are just as loved by God as you are.
16 Comments:
Regarding Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken agreeing: Everyone is missing the point. Rush and Al do not agree because the issue is more complicated than just saying all "Christians" are Republicans. All Christians are not one or the other, but not all "Christians" are "followers" of Jesus and the Word and that makes all the differnace. The "left's" agenda is not in line with either Love or Life as God intended either to be. While the "right" can often be wrapped far too tight for their own good, and tend to think they must defend God it is impossible to vote for most Democrats whose party opts for the death of the unborn and other liberal postions that fly in the face of the Founding Father's vision for our country and be a true follower of Jesus. I am of neither party, and am an Independant!
I'm with Robert. What Rush is saying is not that all Christians belong to the Republican party, just that the majority of "conservative and Evangelical" - you know, red state "christians" are closer to the Republican base and platform than they are to the Democrat platform which tends to want to destroy babies before they are born, crazy environmental laws etc. Yes, Christians should be Christians first and Reps and Dems second but that is the way life is. Dave, don't be naive and please get your head out of the sand. You want to be all things to all people for the sake of your audience and that's fine but please first seek to understand what Rush is saying exactly.
Great website BTW
Fandude
One other point is this - when Rush uses the term "Democrats" as in this case, he is usually referring to the leadership of that party not the regular, everyday people who vote for those leaders. I am sure there are some very committed Christians in the Democratic party - they just need to make their voices heard more and move the crazy, leftist leadership out.
I really enjoy your website, Dave. Keep up the good work!
MY FIRST TIME POSTING, BUT HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THIS TOPIC. NOT SURE WHY IT IS GOING ON ABOUT MOVIE REVIEWS, BUT HERE IS MY TWO CENTS.
AS A CHRISTIAN THAT IS CONSERVATIVE....WHICH MEANS I TAKE GOD'S WORD TO MEAN THOU SHALL NOT MURDER AND SO FORTH, HAVE NOT FOUND MANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES THAT I CAN VOTE FOR. I LOOK AT THEIR VOTING RECORDS AND MAKE MY DECISION. I DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL REPUBLICANS, BUT THEIR VOTING RECORDS REFLECT WHAT I SEE IN GOD'S WORD TO BE TRUE. I AM NOT FOR BIG GOVERNMENT NOR AM I FOR CUTTING OFF HELP FOR THE POOR, ELDERLY, OR DISABLED, BUT AFTER TERRI IN FLORIDA, NOT SEEING ANY SUPPORT THERE BY THE DEMOCRATICS EITHER. SO WHY WOULD I WANT TO VOTE FOR ONE WHO GOES AGAINST LIFE.
BTW I HAVE LISTENED TO BOTH AL F. AND RUSH. RUSH DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN. I WILL PRAY FOR AL F.
Regardless of what Rush really meant, the impact of Rush's words are clear in Al Franken's response. Rush should have been more careful in his rhetoric. If he means certain members of the Democratic leadership --he should say so. I contend that such representations and generalizations of Christians are misguided and wrong. I feel as though I am on the edge here, but the test of being a Christian is NOT being agreement with a particular political agenda. Being a Christian is being in agreement with Jesus. There are many Republican Christians and many Democratic Christians, and then here are many independents like myself who have difficulty swallowing the platforms of either party. Bottom-line remains: Mixing Jesus with politics is a bad idea. Christians can be political, but Christianity is NOT a political group.
David,
I agree wholeheartedly with your urging of repentance for Christians who connect Jesus with their political agenda or party.
However, what would you have someone like myself do in this regard?
Let me explain: I am a pastor of a relatively theologically conservative church. Most of our membership is probably also relatively politically & socially conservative. We are very careful not to muddy our message with politics. But sometimes we believe that Jesus' call to be salt and light means that we, as a congregation, take a plublic stand on an issue that many will see as being "political." I'm not talking about endorsing candidates or party slates (I would never do that, and not only because as a 501(c)3, we're not allowed to, but because it would be counter to our evangelistic mission), but about such thing as come up in Oregon on a fairly regular basis (you're an Oregonian, you know what I'm talking about).
So, do we refrain from any activity that might "offend" some on the more left-ward side (whether a Christian like yourself or somebody like Franken) rather than take a reasoned, fully-explained stand of conscience?
Do you see my dilemma? I don't want to turn off a seeker/guest/fringe-person whose politics are not mine, but neither do I want to send the message that Christianity has no absolutes, standards, or genuine ethics.
So, what should we do?
"Good afternoon, my fellow white Christians." --Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman addressing a reception of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
David: Limbaugh is such an easy target that I don't think Franken could resist, and I'm guessing Franken's response is mostly a sendup intended to ridicule Limbaugh's mindless caricature of Democrats as anti-Christian and godless. Christians come in all political stripes, of course. If your faith doesn't influence your vote, you're abrogating your responsibility to engage the world (to be "salt and light," as one of your commentators noted).
To Tom Orr:
I agree, a person's faith should be a part of how a person votes. However, Franken's comments although comical were sincere, I saw the show, and he took the opportunity to underscore his fear of the so-called Christian right wing agenda. It was the one time he agreed with Rush. As he replayed the Rush tape he said, “You know when you are right, you are right.�
To derek helt,
Controlling the requirements of a 501(c)3 tax exempt non profit corporation (e.g. church), gives opportunity for the government (those in power at the time) to control religious people. It is a clear form of censorship. A religious group should have every right to define what its practice and belief is –that is not the government’s job. Religious groups should be allowed to endorse any candidate or any proposal. Look at the early opposition of various church organizations to slavery. The government needs to keep their hands off religion. Freedom of religion and speech demands this. I do not believe that if a church group opposes abortion the government should take away its status as a tax exempt group. Or if a religious group takes a stand against certain social injustices… etc, etc. We need the “moral voice� in society even if we disagree with it.
I am in the minority on this issue, however, because I think most people I want government controls placed on religion. But, look what happened in Waco, had Janet Reno and the Clinton administration left that religious group alone all those children would still be alive. There were other avenues open to legitimate concerns they may have had about the group.
I am a strong supporter of citizen rights of speech, press, religion, assembly and firearms.
That said, as a Christian I am very cautious how I use the name of Christ. I get concerned about those who tack their agenda onto God. And I so caution fellow Christians as I have done. But this is a personal concern, it should not be the concern of those in power (government).
Perhaps the best way for your church to be agents of change is through friendship and dialogue. Change goes both ways. “I had an enemy until I met him…�
No government or political agenda will endure. Civilizations and empires come and go. But of the Kingdom of God there is no end. That’s where I hang my hat.
"No government or political agenda will endure. Civilizations and empires come and go. But of the Kingdom of God there is no end. That’s where I hang my hat."
Well, I don't think there's anyone that can argue with that.
But Mr. Bruce, in your original post, you end with "To my Right wing friends who connect Jesus to their political agenda: Repent, you are hurting the kingdom. And celebrate the diversity of your brothers and sisters who are different than you. By the way they are just as loved by God as you are."
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I think you are painting with as broad a brush as Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Franken. I don't know what it means to "connect Jesus to [my] political agenda" because I connect Jesus to EVERYTHING I think about, do, and partipate in. My faith shapes the way I think and behave. That means I tend to fall on the "right wing" side of the political agenda more often than not. Why does everyone have to presume, even in the Christian community, that I am some kind of close minded, self centered bigot? Because of my faith, I am working for social justice and harmony. I choose to live in a diverse community where my racial group is in the minority. Why? Because that'w where God wants me and my family to live. I choose to actively support programs that reach out to the poor, both with my money and with my time. My church friends and I actively support local candidates who help us in our agenda to reach out to the poor, whether they are republican or democrat. I voted for George Bush last November because he represented more of what I believe than Mr. Kerry. He "spoke to me" at a heart to heart level. I celebrate diversity everyday of my life, yet, i will not apolgize or shrink back from my wholehearted commitment to Jesus. i will not compromise what I belive in because of the "community" or in the name of "tolerance" as it is defined by the political left.
Mr. Limbaugh is correct, but not because of how you characterize it. The left wing idealouges of the Democratic party fear conservative christians almost more than anything because we will not back down in what we believe, and will vote our conscience, no matter what. On issues like abortion, gay rights, pornography, sanctity of marriage, personal moral responsibility, etc. we will work unflinchingly. I believe Mr. Franken's reaction is partly motivated out of a sense of not wanting to recognize the "moral" side of the "moral right." Its like the old argument made about the legitimacy of the Bible. Many will argue against the veracity of the Bible, or the fact that Jesus is God, for if they accepted these things as true, there might be a concept to need to live thier lives in a way that recognized that truth.
I have a dear, dear friend who is as far to the left politically as one can perhaps be. I have argued with him that if the Democratic leadership would ever embrace Christian moral and social causes with the fervor that such moral and social causes were supported by the political left in the past (e.g. slavery, the temperance movement etc.), republicans would never win another national election. That is because our support (or at least Christians like me) is not based on party affilliation, or group afilliation, but on the truth. If dems would shift their policy on the important social issues to christans, they might alienate a portion of their current voter base, but the support they would win would more than make up for it.
And I am not trying to support or justify what Limbaugh said. I just think that to assume because i am, in essence, a "right winger," it means I am some kind of narrow minded bigot --that's as narrow minded as you accuse right winters of being. I resent that. My politics, my social life, and my commitment to Jesus are all much more complex than that. I think you have done many of your readers a disservice.
And right you are! You should have an integrated life. My point is that in the Rush and Al comments there is the sense (untrue though it is) that Christian are to be feared. And that they have a particlar political agenda.
As a non-xtian, I have been appalled at so-called xtians' excessive literalism. Jesus, the rabbi, the man, was great because he preached against literalism. If your horse is drowning on the Sabbath, don't just sit there. Stoning is not an appropriate response to adulterous behavior; eye for an eye? excuse me, turn the other cheek. Don't go evading taxes; stop lending at usorious rates; learn from parables.
I believe it was he who said, "Blessed are the Peacemakers."
People who lament Teresa Schiavo seem to have a hard time ponying up at the tax table for a national health care system that would prevent thousands of deaths annually. People who say they are Christians and for a culture of life have voted again and again for an administration that disregards the value of life through its martial and anti-environmental policies.
It's not Jesus we fear, it's the hypocrites who think they are speaking in Jesus' name and the Pharisees that manipulate them.
Al Franken is a Jew and like the Jews, including Jesus, who wrote down and/or are part of the biblical narrative, he is capable of using figurative speech (in Franken's case hyperbole)to get his point across.
Thank you for your Christ-centered, yet non-religious, response. I hope others can get what you are trying to say: It's not Jesus that is the problem, rather it is those who use Jesus in a manipulative manner for their agenda.
I thought I could sum all this up now, several months later...
The right wing voted for Bush because he was MORE moral, now we know with close to 2000 deaths in a war, based on administration lies, it wasn't moral, it wasn't to give people their freedom, until after WMD's were not found. And the war, face it, will never be won, it is not possible. These words will be true, because like most other wars, the war was not just, it was criminal! Now his top aids have been caught breaking the law, Karl Rove put another person's life on the line, because they had courage to speak out against the war because they knew there was no WMD's. Now Bush's ratings are lower than Nixon's, and by the time he leaves office this will not change. The right wingers have lost their golden child! Because he never was Golden, he lied to the right wingers and showed the world what fools they truly are! George Bush isn't going to save America! Jesus spoke of love, helping the poor, not the rich! Bush's help of the Poor and his mother's comments about people entering Texas after Katrina clearly shows their love of the poor. Is that Christian behavior? Jesus was for the minority, the minorities, the African-Americans in the USA, voted 98 percent to 2 percent against Bush. As one man of color recently said, "Bush hates black people." I don't know what all these right wing white Christians think about Christ, but his skin wasn't WHITE!
Just people need to turn away from all these politically minded people who are using your belief to get elected and into your pockets!
Jeff Kelly Seattle
Mr. Kelly, there are many problems with your thesis, both Biblically and factually, because it is based solely on unproven claims, not on facts. Your moral argument is dismissive, and even if your intentions are good, your argument carries no weight because it is entangled in propoganda, and not in applying the Bible to the overarching arena of politics, especially in your claimed issue of Republicans being characterized as the "Christian Party," or "More Moral Party." There are many, like you, who claim no true Christian could possibly be a Republican, because after all, Republicans are (supposedly) the party of unjustified war, tax breaks for the rich, and against any measure to help the poor. But your argument does not investigate on any of these issues, rather takes them as proven fact. Weak.
With regards to associating religion and politics...there are several interesting points in the previous responses, but the only one that stands up against any argument I read is that being a Christian trumps any party affiliation. However, this is easily distorted, and I think has been. The concerted effort by the Democratic party, to be more specific, the secular-progressive facet of the party to entirely remove religion from the political arena, has now taken over the entire party, as is shown by many of the party's leaders, including Howard Dean (now DNC chairman, the "spokesperson" of the party, who's anti-Christian remarks are numerous). So, in my judgement, which is entirely consumed by living Jesus' word, I cannot see how a true Christian could side with the very people who actively work to remove Jesus from politics, in both their rhetoric, and their declared political stances (i.e gay marriage, abortion) which are entirely, 100%, against the teachings of Jesus. It is apparent to me, as it should be to any student of Christianity, that one cannot truly be a Christian, living Jesus' word in everything they do, by supporting this agenda. It is impossible. Frighteningly enough, our government was designed only for a religious people, which clearly this group (the new secular "base" including many prominent members, who have been given authorization to speak for the party as a whole) is not, and constantly try to twist this secular agenda into the confines of our founding document. It simply is not adequate.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
Before I give my opinion on Christianity and Republicans, let me bring out one fact, on a solely constitutional basis. America is a Christian nation (not to be confused with Christian state), whether one wants to admit that or not (Benjamin Franklin even explained this in a letter to the French..."serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced."), and lately with the issue of terrorism and its Muslim ties (regardless that Muslims comprise less than 1% of the U.S population), many are far too uncomfortable, especially when blasted with the "intolerant" label, and afraid to admit this. The founders of our country clearly convey in every one of the founding documents framing America, that religious values (Christianity...which is to be practiced in every aspect of one's life, including politics!) is clearly not only accepted, but encouraged. But don't try to sell that argument today, as the words "separation of church and state" are the only that matter, regardless of how completely out of context this phrase is conveyed by "mainstream (hmmm...mainstream?)" politicians, who have made their convoluted interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights the "mainstream."
Now, associating Christianity firstly with being a Republican, secondly, does not seem as complicated to me as some are making it. The fact of the matter is that voting for those that convey Christianity is absolutely a very important part of living Jesus' word, and by pushing this aside, we are pushing Jesus aside. To non-Christians, this is impossible to understand, and very frightening to them, because after all, we would be pushing a religious agenda from a government level (not quite..). And they are right, there is no state-sponsored religion, so there is a "separation of church and state." But this is also not an agnostic country, far from it, and, in my opinion, it is our duty as Christians, to support the candidates, party, and issues, that best align with our beliefs. And, as stated prior, it is hard for me to believe that a Christian could find these values in today's Democratic party, with the Anti-Christian theme that runs through it, regardless if there are still Christians that consider themselves to be Democrats, the majority of the agenda the overall party promotes is nowhere near anything found in the Bible. The current party Christians who consider themselves Democrats would have to be referring to is the party of years past, not the party of today. If aligning politics and religion makes some uncomfortable, then so be it, i'm entirely comfortable with it, and am not afraid to act on through politics, even if it means aligning with the Republican party. A socially conservative stance is in line with the Bible, and because one believes and promotes this through their party/candidate/issue support and affiliation, does not come close to infringing on separation of church and state, or forming a "Christian Political Party."
Post a Comment
<< Home