Rush Limbaugh, M.Div.

Yesterday, I had the distinct displeasure of hearing Rush Limbaugh attempt to define the "tenets" of the Christian faith, and fail miserably in doing so. I have nothing against Mr. Limbaugh, particularly. I'm also not a huge fan and I'm certainly not a "Dittohead."

The context of Rush's remarks was that President Obama recently said, in trying to articulate why he is a Christian, that he holds to the Golden Rule (though he didn't refer to it by its moniker) and (rather oddly) that he should be his brother's keeper. Limbaugh, in suggestion that the President doesn't understand his own declared Christian faith, had this to say on yesterday's show:

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have to forgive me here, but -- and not disputing -- President Obama says he's a Christian, that's good enough for me. And there's a lot of people who do not know details of their own religious belief. But the Golden Rule is not a precept of Christianity. I hate to point this out, but the Golden Rule does not emanate, originate, from Christianity. And this brother's keeper business? That's not Jesus. I hate to say this, but Jesus Christ did not talk about brother's keeper. That is from the story of Cain and Abel, and even that story is misunderstood. The story of Cain and Abel -- my brother's keeper does not mean, "I'm going to take care of my brother or take care of my sister". The story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed Abel, and then he said he had no idea. He denied it. He denied killing Abel, and then said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Meaning, "What, is he my responsibility? He's not my responsibility, I didn't kill my brother." Now, a lot of people misunderstand all this, but the Golden Rule doesn't come from Christianity, and Cain and Abel is not, "I'm going to take care of my brother and I'm going to take care of my sister," and Jesus Christ has nothing to do with either one of them

***

RUSH: The code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon. Many people's first experience to the Golden Rule is actually... like my brother, David, told me that he first heard of the Golden Rule when he opened up a fortune cookie at the Purple Crackle Club in East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, and the fortune cookie had the Golden Rule in there as a fortune. How many of you have you seen the Golden Rule as a fortune in the fortune cookie? Now, the code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Ancient Babylon is modern Iraq. You could even find the story of Cain and Abel in the Koran -- sorry -- the Holy Koran, as Mrs. Clinton points out. And so was the Golden Rule. I'm getting a lot of e-mails that the Golden Rule is in the Old Testament, that it's in the New Testament, but it's the Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, do unto others. But the point is, I am my brother's keeper. There is an effort -- the reason why this is important, there's an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist, and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global warming people. We are the stewards of the planet and so forth.

What Limbaugh is (quite foolishly) suggesting is that because the Golden Rule, in some other expression, predates Christian, that it's not a tenet of the Christian faith. Mr. Limbaugh simply does not understand Christianity.

If you believe that the "tenets" of the Christian faith are expressed in the New Testament, you need only look to the New Testament to see if the Golden Rule is in it. By golly, it is! Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 7:12, " Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." As recorded in Luke 6:31, "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."

It is completely and utterly irrelevant that the Golden Rule might be expressed outside the New Testament or even in some form or fashion in the "holy books" of other faiths. The point that Limbaugh made was that the President, in paraphrasing the Golden Rule and pointing to it as evidence of his personal Christian faith, did not express a Christian belief.

That would be like saying that because the concept of "democracy" did not originate in the United States, valuing democracy is not valuing an American ideal or belief. If Limbaugh were correct, any expression of Christian beliefs that incorporated the Ten Commandments would not be expression of Christianity, at all, but of ancient Judaism. That, of course, would be foolishness.

Mr. Limbaugh should stick to politics and stay away from teaching the Bible.

How can it be that...

you take the White House after the most unpopular US President of the last 100 years

your presidency is historic

you win the election by a huge margin, destroying your opponent

your party handily controls both houses of Congress

the other party, the GOP, is declared "dead," "irrelevant," "out of step with the American people," and virtually any other negative you can imagine

you were (supposedly) given a mandate by the American people, or were at least told by the mainstream media that you had that mandate

you win the Nobel Peace Prize (for talking nicely to/about Muslims, while sending more troops into enemy territory)

you have the keys to the country in your pocket...

but you and your party can't even pass health care reform or hold a Senate seat occupied by a Kennedy, in Mass., for decades.

I cannot imagine how the Democrats can be given anything other than an F for their party's overall incompetence.

I recognize that I'm oversimplifying a number of issues. I also recognize that other parties have done more with less. Look at the agenda that Newt Gengrich and the Republicans in 1994-96 were able to push while the White House was occupied by a Democrat. Love them or hate them, that crew knew how to get stuff done.

If we really evolved from chimpanzees...

how on earth is this cartoon "racist"? In that sense, it is nothing more than an acknowledgment that we are what we are: apes.

*Note: writer does not endorse this point of view. Writer also does not believe we are descended from apes.

Exclusion in the name of...inclusion? *scratches head*

I saw this bit in the "Metro Times," a free Detroit area rag. I find this typical of the politically correct left. There is a drone of whining and complaining about how conservatives or "right wingers" are bigots, hate-mongers and want to shut out from society those that are not like them. But the minute one of their own welcomes in someone who does not share their political or religious views, the attacks start.

I blogged about this before, but it's worth mentioning. Instead of this Obama disciple celebrating a huge day in American history for all the good in it, she's upset that a supposed right winger is giving the prayer. Notice the response of Metro Times' Dan Savage:

Q: I'm going to Barack Obama's inauguration in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20. I've spent eight years, one month, one week, and one day waiting for this. (But who's counting?) However, I am looking for suggestions for a respectful way to protest the participation of Rick Warren. As a lifelong Episcopalian, I really don't want to engage in an antireligious protest. (FWIW: I was annoyed with some of the antireligious people at the anti-8 rallies. We need all our allies for this fight, so don't trash the engaged, progressive religious folk!)

While my friends want me to throw shoes, that ain't gonna happen. Ideally, I'd like a peaceful, gracious way to protest Warren's participation that won't undercut this great day, a way that can be picked up (and publicized) by folks on the Mall. Any suggestions? —Faithful Obama Girl

A: Whatever you do, FOG, don't do those things you, um, already said you don't want to do. No one should boo or throw shoes or do anything disruptive. The American Taliban love to pretend that they're the persecuted ones around here, and booing or throwing shoes or even just turning your back on Warren — the gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot Barack Obama invited to give the invocation at his inauguration — will invariably be spun as an attack on people of faith, as a vicious assault on prayer itself, as the moral equivalent of a syphilitic rent boy pissing directly into the open mouth of a crying baby Jesus.

I don't think I've ever seen a less inclusive, less open-minded assessment of a person than this. If saying homosexuality is "wrong" or a "sin" is "hate," than how can this type of talk not also be "hate"?

I wish people on both sides of the political fence -- on both sides of the so-called culture war -- could simply agree to disagree. Are none of you folks capable of living by the golden rule? Do you have to engage in character assassination and dehumanization over differences in worldviews?

People disgust me, particularly the politically correct thought police.