Rush, and Christians
Dec. 1st, 2005 02:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumLimbaugh has been at it again.
This time maligning Quakers.
I know a little about Quakers. Maia is a Quaker, her family is Quaker. I have an ex-girlfriend who is a Quaker. Now Limbaugh, he doesn't really care that the people he's maligning are Quakers, he doesn't care if they are Christians; then again he's said in the past that lots of people who call themselves Christians aren't and the definition he seems to use is runs along the line of "fag-hating, standing on streetcorners while praying, warmongering, Bush-idolizing = Christian Anything else = non-Christian.
Here, for those of you who can't stomach to go and read his site, are his words.
Yep, he is against them because they are trying to stop the violence.
I wish I was ripping that out of context, and that there was something which mitigated the evil of that idea (that kidnapping people who are against violence was a good thing), but he makes it clear that this is something he finds not only acceptable, but laudable.
Given the size of his audience, and the nature of the things he things are good; and which make him happy, he may be right when he calls himself "the most dangerous man in America."
But (and I know this might be hard to believe) it gets worse.
Limbaugh says that the only way this isn't a stunt is if they get killed. By inference that means he thinks it would be a good thing for them to get killed (as Coulter would say, as an example to all the other liberals out there who might want to stop the violence).
Which is where the knowledge of Quakers comes into this.
One of the tenets of quakerism is testimony. Public testimony. It happens that, for some reason unknown to me, testifying where there is grave risk of bodily harm, or death, is appealing. This is why Massachussetts had Quaker activists, and Rhode Island didn't. Massachussetts would pierce thier tongues with awls (for speaking heresies) and tell them if they came back they would be hanged; which is what happened when they came back.
Quakers are also painfully honest. Not agressively so, they may avoid personal confrontation, but in dealings; and especially in things where war, violence and testimony are involved, they don't truck with hedging. So when I heard this morning on the news that an active Quaker had been abducted, I knew it was real.
Tom Fox, of Baltimore (who has a name which makes one think of Quakers) was in the Marine Band. He isn't unacquainted with violence, at least not in the abstract, and not as one who has never been ready to mete it out on orders, so he can't be called lily-livered in that way. He came to his Quakerism through introspection.
Limbaugh, well I, at the risk of delving too far into pop-psych, think him a phony of the first water. Pressed to hold to his faith and die, or turn apostate and live, he'd be running for the altar to bow down to whatever was behind it. He can't concieve of not giving in to force and so people like these terrify him, because they shame him.
I wish there was some way I could make it plain to the people who pay him that promulgating his loathesome rhetoric is unprofitable, but I can't, there are too many cretins who like to be told that turning the other cheek is weak, that crushing all who oppose you, in the least way, need to be eradicated (not just beaten, but eliminated from the face of the earth, save a few, kept as examples to all who might think to oppose the Grand Order of Life, as Limbaugh sees it... just look to what he said about liberals, and not killing all of them. It means he was talking about killing most of them. Once might be satire, but things like this make me disbelieve him).
But I can't. So I have to testify in my own small ways.
But I'm not a Quaker, so pity the fool who strikes at me, I'm not turning the other cheek to them.
This time maligning Quakers.
I know a little about Quakers. Maia is a Quaker, her family is Quaker. I have an ex-girlfriend who is a Quaker. Now Limbaugh, he doesn't really care that the people he's maligning are Quakers, he doesn't care if they are Christians; then again he's said in the past that lots of people who call themselves Christians aren't and the definition he seems to use is runs along the line of "fag-hating, standing on streetcorners while praying, warmongering, Bush-idolizing = Christian Anything else = non-Christian.
Here, for those of you who can't stomach to go and read his site, are his words.
Well, here's why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality. So here we have these peace activists over there. I don't care whether they're Christian or not; they're over there, and as peace activists they've got one purpose. They're over there trying to stop the violence.
Yep, he is against them because they are trying to stop the violence.
I wish I was ripping that out of context, and that there was something which mitigated the evil of that idea (that kidnapping people who are against violence was a good thing), but he makes it clear that this is something he finds not only acceptable, but laudable.
they believe that if they just go there, like these idiot human shields before the war. "If they just go there, Mr. Limbaugh, it's real simple -- something you wouldn't understand because you've never been to conflict resolution. But it's real simple. If we go there, and we show them that we are people of peace, and that we want to stop the violence, and that we don't hold them responsible, they will see and understand. This is the way we bring peace." Fine, they get kidnapped. They get kidnapped at gunpoint. If that version of this is true, then, okay. You've met the bad guys, and you tried your technique on them, and now you're blindfolded in a room with guns pointed at you and knives at your throat. I don't like that, but any time a bunch of people that walk around with their heads in the sand practicing a bunch of irresponsible, idiotic theory, confront reality, I'm kind of happy about it because I'm eager for people to see reality, change their minds, if necessary, and have things sized up.
Given the size of his audience, and the nature of the things he things are good; and which make him happy, he may be right when he calls himself "the most dangerous man in America."
But (and I know this might be hard to believe) it gets worse.
Limbaugh says that the only way this isn't a stunt is if they get killed. By inference that means he thinks it would be a good thing for them to get killed (as Coulter would say, as an example to all the other liberals out there who might want to stop the violence).
what will happen next is that these peace activists will be released in two or three days but with the news that they have changed the hearts of their captors. Well, let's just see. That's how we'll know if this is a stunt. Now, for this to be a stunt these captors cannot be terrorists or insurgents. They wouldn't go along with it. So it has to be a bunch of other peace activists pretending to be terrorists or insurgents. If this is a stunt. If it's a stunt it won't be long before these people are released and they will have eaten better than they have in the past three weeks and their captors will not be caught and their captors may issue a statement after talking to these people, "We realize they are not our problem, and we cannot hold these people accountable. They made excellent points to us, they connected with our hearts," blah, blah. If that happens, I guarantee you this is a stunt,
Which is where the knowledge of Quakers comes into this.
One of the tenets of quakerism is testimony. Public testimony. It happens that, for some reason unknown to me, testifying where there is grave risk of bodily harm, or death, is appealing. This is why Massachussetts had Quaker activists, and Rhode Island didn't. Massachussetts would pierce thier tongues with awls (for speaking heresies) and tell them if they came back they would be hanged; which is what happened when they came back.
Quakers are also painfully honest. Not agressively so, they may avoid personal confrontation, but in dealings; and especially in things where war, violence and testimony are involved, they don't truck with hedging. So when I heard this morning on the news that an active Quaker had been abducted, I knew it was real.
Tom Fox, of Baltimore (who has a name which makes one think of Quakers) was in the Marine Band. He isn't unacquainted with violence, at least not in the abstract, and not as one who has never been ready to mete it out on orders, so he can't be called lily-livered in that way. He came to his Quakerism through introspection.
Limbaugh, well I, at the risk of delving too far into pop-psych, think him a phony of the first water. Pressed to hold to his faith and die, or turn apostate and live, he'd be running for the altar to bow down to whatever was behind it. He can't concieve of not giving in to force and so people like these terrify him, because they shame him.
I wish there was some way I could make it plain to the people who pay him that promulgating his loathesome rhetoric is unprofitable, but I can't, there are too many cretins who like to be told that turning the other cheek is weak, that crushing all who oppose you, in the least way, need to be eradicated (not just beaten, but eliminated from the face of the earth, save a few, kept as examples to all who might think to oppose the Grand Order of Life, as Limbaugh sees it... just look to what he said about liberals, and not killing all of them. It means he was talking about killing most of them. Once might be satire, but things like this make me disbelieve him).
But I can't. So I have to testify in my own small ways.
But I'm not a Quaker, so pity the fool who strikes at me, I'm not turning the other cheek to them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 11:13 pm (UTC)with him and his girl friend to the making of a
Limbaugh show and it was in fact a special treat
of two shows. I am reminded of a Kabuki ticket for
all day in Tokyo one New Years but Kabuki is better
and something remains in mind, I did not think much
of the show, fellow seemed first of all obbssessed
with politics...well...
on this , and I didnt read his commentary in detail,
but on the other hand and not in these terms...but
I think it is possible to not think much of that kind
of peace mission.
It is not something the Society of Friends did during
World War II they did not send people to Normandy to
stand on the beach during the allied landing or to
Germany to keep peace during the advance etc...they served
in medical corps and so on as I recall.
well World War II analogies are usually best ruled out
but I think it is a possible evaluation that these people
are naive about the nature of the people we are fighting
and have gotten themselves into the position not so much
of peacemaker but of innocent abroad as victim..
the other side will present them as spies, probably release
them eventually etc
So that's my thought on it...I did not favor the intervention
in Iraq, I do not willingly listen to Rush...just to note
though that in spite of that it is possible to question these
people.
+Seraphim
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 11:23 pm (UTC)As a note, those who served in the service in WW2 (and it was about 25 percent of males of age) were all ejected from their meetings (which would include Nixon, but he was a programmed Quaker they are a different breed altogether, with preachers and singing).
If they wanted to go back, they had to petition for membership, and (as I understand it) many remained attenders, not becoming members again.
Whether this was the action of the meeting, or the sense on their part that they could no longer claim to be Quakers, in fulless of spirit I don't know. The last person I could have asked died a few years ago.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 11:38 pm (UTC)the best of her or his thought deserves
respect...as you know doubt know there were
rules in the early Church, local ones at
least, saying someone who served in the
Roman Army had to spend a period of
reflection on release from service before
being readmitted to communion.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 01:23 am (UTC)maybe not going to come, one can get dead in
both places anyway there is that...but it is
my opinion that often this kind of protest is
naive and not fruitful...and you may see it
differently and that is fine.
here is a rather precise analogy
Date: 2005-12-02 01:31 am (UTC)the war in Chechnya which has gone on for
years and will run its course no doubt for
several more...Russian army, I think necessarily
engaged but using from the beginning primitive
and brutal methods, their enemy the Chechens
have a culture deeply based on violence and
themselves if anything more brutal than the
Russians which takes some doing cosidering the
demoralised state of the Russian army in recent
years.
ok peace activists go in. with presuppositions
in favor of the chechen "resistence"(now
controlled by Wahabi people and al Qaeda
like the jordanian Al Khattab). they think
the chechens will love them but as I believe
has happened they get kidnapped and end up
with severed heads chechen style...
My guess is the people in Iraq will not be
treated that badly, they remember the badpress
of those beheadings in slow motion on internet
broadcast ...
I think anyone who goes to Grozny, with a sort
of pro-Chechen idea of making a witness is
naive and their witness likely fruitless...
At the same time let me say that I do honor
people who have done many things, in the name
of Christ often, to alleviate the suffering of
the Chechen people , aid war orphans on both
sides, make a witness for peace in many other
ways...
It is a very large subject and in relation to
Iraq also, my knowledge is limited.... but
anyway my thought that there are ways of
working for peace which are naive and fruitless
and others which are positive and thats about
all I have on it. blessin's
+Seraphim.
Re: here is a rather precise analogy
Date: 2005-12-02 11:55 am (UTC)But as TK said, Rush seems to be painting anyone working towards conflict resolution as a naive idiot. Then again, Rush is an unqualified 'creep.'
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 11:50 am (UTC)I'm afraid there are a lot of permadolescents out there, though.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-05 08:34 pm (UTC)