There are a lot of news stories right now about the usage of the Confederate Flag.
Now let me be very clear: I’m not sure where I stand on whether the flag is a symbol of racism. I do not know enough about the history. This is not a post intended to discuss the racial, or lack of racial, history of the flag or the Confederate army/ideals.
The Confederate Flag was used by the south during the Civil War. I am not a student of Civil War history, and so I’m not an expert. But I do want to consider one part of the argument. Just because the flag is racist or not (I’m not sure either way), is irrelevant. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights provide Free Speech. Of course this “freedom” is trampled on all of the time, but it is provided to every person in the United States.
I don’t understand why we allow ourselves to be compromised by this stuff. Remember The American President? Great movie! Here is one of my favorite lines from the movie:
“The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”
Should not the opposite be true as well?
As a white person I have to listen to the unReverend Jesse Jackson and other African American’s who hate white people. I dismiss them, just like I dismiss the white people who call African Americans names and speak terrible hatred from their mouths.
As a Catholic I am stuck listening to all of the ill-catechized Catholics say they want to vote for Obama who stands firm is his anti-Catholic and pro-death stance. I’m stuck listening to Gary Wills write complete junk and completely misrepresent the Church and what it means to be Catholic, let alone what it means to be obedient to the Church teachings.
As a moral and sometimes level headed person I have to live and listen to people like Hugh Heffner, Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and every other morally degenerate person. I have to listen to the pro-death side of the homicide abortion issue tell me that a billion babies aren’t worth discussing because every woman should be able to commit murder. And I have to listen to those that would ruin our beautiful country by electing someone who doesn’t care about Americans.
But these are examples of the free speech God gave us, and which is present in our founding documents as a country. It is what makes the United States of America great.
None of them should be able to speak in public in my opinion. Not one. Not a racist, not a person who misrepresents their faith, not a propaganda spreading extremist, not someone who doesn’t care for the most innocent of us… Not one of them.
But lucky for them, and for me, our founding fathers and our God give all of us the right to free speech. President Shephard in The American President also says this,
“You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.”
Let’s stop fighting unconstitutional battles in court. Let’s stop fighting about what we can and cannot say. It can all be said. The battle to fight has nothing to do with what someone says and everything to do with what we say to their soul. We will never get someone to understand God’s plan for the world by telling them to shut up.
“The battle belongs to the Lord.” We don’t have to speak to the racist, or the murderers, or the propaganda. We speak on a higher and deeper level. If we pay more attention to God’s plan, and allow Him to do His work as King and God, our words will speak to people’s souls.
A soul always longs for God.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Bob,
I love what you write, when I can find where it’s being posted this week. But do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh is on par with Hugh Hefner, Howard Stern, and every other morally degenerate person? Really? I’m hoping that you just threw his name in there in an effort to appear “balanced,” in some way.
Each in their own way, Hefner and Stern have caused great harm to the moral fiber of our country. While I think Limbaugh is wrong about certain issues, he is not trying to lead us down a road of decadence. He’s spoken quite beautifully on behalf of the pro-life cause a number of times. And at the risk of sounding Protestant, “For he who is not against us is for us.”
God bless,
Leo, thanks for the comment. I do put Rish in the same classification as the others because while he has said some good things, he is still an extremist. He’s just “conservative” compared to the other two I named.
In faith there is the Church, and everything else. There is no liberal or conservative. The line of Truth is not on the middle of the page for people to be left or right of. The line of Truth is on the side of the page and everything else is liberal, or different, than it. So from a faith perspective, Rush is liberal.
Also, I think it does no good to propagandize the issues, call the other side names, and generally raise cain about the Democratic party, as Rush does. While I tend to agree with some of his stances on issues, I can’t stand his approach to degrade those who oppose him. What is different there than Howard Stern? I see only differences of opinion, the approach and attitude are the same.
And yes, “he who is not asainst us is for us”, however that cannot and is not our only guage in the Bible for those who sometimes agree with us. The Bible also calls us to be relentless for the Truth, to pray unceasingly, and to always recognise and acknowledge Christ. To deny Christ in one area of our live is to be denied in front of the Father. So, is it okay to speak evil and degrade our oponents if what we believe is “right” in our minds? I don’t think so. That is why I put Rush with those other folks. Ck out my post on Political Porn for more on this ideal. It may help you to understand my opinion more.
Thanks again for your comment.
bob
Hi Bob,
I read your political porn post when you first posted it and thought I agreed with it entirely. After reading your reply, I went back to look at it again to be sure. I still think I agree with it entirely, unless I’m missing something.
Where I guess we disagree about Limbaugh is that I don’t think he degrades or dehumanized those that disagree with him. He certainly makes ample use of satire and hyperbole, but I don’t think that rises to the level of sin you must think that it does. Admittedly, I don’t listen to the political talk shows much anymore. So his tone may be much more strident now than it used to be.
For the sake of argument though, let’s say that his radio show is nothing more than political porn. To my knowledge, there are no studies that show that “political porn” (or talk radio) lead to violence against women. It doesn’t lead to broken marriages, broken families, and abortion. Whatever damage that you can attribute to Limbaugh (and others like him) doesn’t come anywhere close to the harm caused to our society by real pornographers like Hefner and Stern.
I understand that if you think his methods are wrong (which I think is debatable), that you must call it that way. I would, too. And where he falls short of the Truth (which as a typical, male, American Protestant, he often does) he should be corrected. But it’s much too far of a leap to equate him with HH and HS. It’s no different than when people draw comparisons between President Bush and Hitler (and many do).
And just to be clear, I agreed with the overall message in your original post. Keep up the good work!
God bless,
Leo,
I think we are some of the same things, which we agree on and I don’t think we disagree as much as we see things differently.
First, I would not call what Limbaugh does “sin”. Speaking falsely of another is I believe grave matter which can be sin, but isn’t automatically as the person must have full knowledge and do it anyway. I’m not sure I would say Rush has full knowledge. But Rush does speak false witness of others and call opponents to his beliefs names and degrade them (Hilabeast?).
Second, and I think that this is where we differ the most, is that while Rush does not compare in scale to those like Hef and Stern, I am not considering any scale of affect in my argument. Like I said in my first response, the line of Truth is not on the middle of the page for people to go “left” or “right”, the line of Truth is on one side of the page, and everything else is on the other side. The Gospel of Matthew says to let our yes mean yes and our no mean no. There is no middle ground. Matthew also writes about the parable of the two ways, which is broken out in the CACC. Matthew writes that there is one way that leads to life, and it is narrow, and the other way leads to death, and it is broad and those that find it are many, and between the two is a great difference. The CACC breaks this open further and when reading both we see the diametric difference between the two ways. Basically, if we aren’t moving toward Christ, then we are moving away. There is no one in a static relationship with God.
I state all of this to help you understand with my view, not expecting agreement; just that you know where I am coming from.
Rush, in my mind, is lumped in with Hef and Stern because he does the same thing they do and that is twist the Truth for profit. Regardless of the few good things Rush believes in, his purpose and approach remain the same. Imagine if Hef was pro life, would your opinion of him change as well?
Thanks for the great conversation. I love this stuff. In dialog we learn more about our faith and each other.
bob
Bob,
Wow! Great stuff. I admire your article, but as you mentioned, the dialog that follows is super as well.
I admit I’ve followed the politics and elections far more closely in the past, but I’ve tried my best to remain even keeled and focused on the greater things in life that don’t come from politics and country. And it appears your arguments are build on ethics and not ideology, obviously. But I still harbor some respect for Limbaugh, if only for the reason that he adheres to the idea that there are things out there bigger than any one person — I don’t believe he arrived at success because he found that ‘twisting the truth’ one way made him any more money than twisting it the other way. That’s a pretty sharp contrast to the other shock jocks and lost souls you indentified. I guess at the end of the day, I can pick some things out of Rush’s dialogue that apply to my thoughts and principles, and even some conservative principles that parallel Catholic teaching. The scourge of filth perpetrated by the others you listed reeks of the feel-good, instant gratification world that I guard my children against.
These are the conversations that make me truly excited for the Church and God’s work. Keep it up!
Matt