Writers' Community!
Home Page Two Columnists Q&A Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login
Article Submission
We Need YOUR Articles!
We'll Promote Them for FREE!

Author Login

New Authors
Register Here


Now Serving 7,783 Authors
70,503 Quality Articles
& 3,627 Current Users Online!
Featured Authors
WarpTalk (92)
Mogama (16,433)
Bruce Horst (138)
Joel Hendon (17,877)
Michael Ramzy (633)
E. Raymond Rock (3,064)
Ira Coffin (7,406)
Connor Davidson (5,137)
Ben Morrish (8,401)
Steve Kovacs (4,388)
Sandra E. Graham (8,072)
Fran Larson (2,158)
Shari Vaudo (418)
David Tanguay (9,593)

View All Featured Authors
Most Recent
Pirates: Crimes on the High Seas - Do Hollywood Movies Inspire Terrorism?

The White House's Anita Dunn needs to admit she knows nothing about Mao

Oh To Be A Pot Reporter: Would That Be Your Dream Job?

Let's Party Like It's 1929?

GM, California, and Newspapers

Do Cell Phones Create Anger?

The Discovery of the 4.4 Million-Year-Old Lady---How Will it Affect Darwin's Theories?

Burning Books, Bibles, and Music CD's: Amazing Grace or Arrogance?

The Boil [we know as people] Is Ready To Bust.

Getting Old--From Looking at Beautiful Women to Looking at Medications!

Home » Categories » Society » Opinions » Should Christians Listen to (and follow) Rush Limbaugh? » Printer Friendly

Eugene Redstone

Should Christians Listen to (and follow) Rush Limbaugh?

Rated 4 out of 5
Rated an Average of 4.7 by 12 Readers ?
Rate It  /  View Comments  /  View All Articles submitted by Eugene Redstone
Submitted Thursday, October 23, 2008
Eugene Redstone (1,536)
Eugene Redstone


Log in to become a member of Eugene Redstone's Fan Club!


I admit it. I was at one time a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. I used to listen to his radio program for hours every weekday. For years I felt like finally, conservatives such as myself have been given a voice. He had the ability to verbalize exactly what I believed but was unable to put into words myself. To this day on my bookshelf sits a personally autographed copy of "See I Told You So", signed by the MahaRushi himself on the set of his now defunct television program (this goes way back to the early 90's). I casually refer to him as "Rush" because I've listened to him for so long, he seems like someone I've had a close friendship with.

It's been about 6 years since I have been able to listen to his program regularly, though I still catch bits and pieces here and there. Because of this, I don't know the latest from Rush and I openly submit to anyone who has more up-to-date information than I have.

I bring up this topic because I've been hearing some very venomous statements coming from Rush lately, not directly from Rush, but from his listeners. Recently I've heard some very dedicated Christians repeat some of the venom, and it has led me to wonder if Christians really have any business listening to this self-proclaimed, "talent on loan from God."

I don't know if Rush Limbaugh even says if he is a Christian, he may very well be. I remember specifically listening for this from his radio program and looking for this in his books. What I recall is that he always has said that he believes in God, but it seemed to be in more of a deist sense, where God is out there but he doesn't really have anything to do with our day-to-day lives. You know, the generic God-and-Country kind of stuff.

Why I consider this important is that I know Christians who typically listen to all 3 hours of Rush every day, which is more time than a college student usually listens to his or her college professors. Considering the Biblical imperatives to "to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." (Romans 14:19) I question if this is right for a Christian to do. I suppose if listening to Rush helped our "conversation be always full of grace" (Colossians 4:6) this would not be such an issue. But what I've witnessed lately has been quite the opposite. It's been us against them, liberal (heathen) against conservative (Christian) and after a while I believe listeners have a tendency to forget there is even such a possibility that someone who is liberal can be a Christian.

A few days ago a prominent woman in my church posted a note on the internet for her friends to see. She stated that her 4 year old son liked to listen to Rush Limbaugh with her, and he had just told her "I don't like liberals." This excited her and she boasted of how proud she was of her little 4 year old. Because of her position in my church, it made me wonder if she'd welcome someone who was liberal into our church. I don't consider myself a liberal, but it sure doesn't make me feel welcome to be around her. I have to wonder if there are any ways that she could possibly consider her sentiments Godly.

Which brings me to the character issue: Not knowing if Rush Limbaugh is a Christian or not, I will choose not judge him at all. The Bible does say numerous places that "By their fruit you will know them." (Matthew 7:16 & 20) and there are obvious fruit in Limbaugh's life (he has been married and divorced 3 times, addicted to pain killers, drinks, swears, & smokes cigars (not that there's anything wrong with that). Without judging him, I can easily state that he is not a good example for my kids and I would not want them growing up to emulate this behavior.

I have grown to appreciate people who are different than I. As a Christian I think I should work hard to earn respect from people who are not like me. Many of you know that Jean & I try to promote writers on SearchWarp who have different points of view, people who don't think like us or people who come from different backgrounds than what we are familiar with. This would be more difficult if everyone knew we enjoyed listening to the man who often plays the parody, "Barack the Magic Negro". Even though it is a joke, I don't think most blacks would appreciate the humor in this song. This would definitely hurt "my witness". That is, unless I kept myself hidden away in little white social groups where I never rubbed shoulders with ethnic minorities. As a Christian, I have a huge issue with this.

My final thought has to do with grace and mercy. Since the day I first listened to Rush he has articulated very well the supposed injustice of the welfare state. This has apparently gotten more attention lately with Barack Obama saying that he wants to shift some of the current tax burdens from the poor and middle class to the rich. I have good Christian friends who are incensed at this and I've heard the sentiment "I have worked for what I have and they don't deserve to have any part of it" stated many times, many different ways.

This deeply saddens me. The foundation of the Christian life is that because of Jesus Christ, we have been given that which we do not deserve and have been spared from the punishment which we do deserve. I want to ask them (and I guess I have been too much of a coward to ask), "Is that the way God has treated you?"

Jesus said, "Freely you have received, freely give." (Matthew 10:8) and with the parable of the Creditor and Two Debtors (Luke 7:41-43) and other Scripture I think a strong Biblical case could be made for the belief that a person who is unwilling to give to those who do not deserve will not have their own debts forgiven. This makes me shudder sometimes. (Please wait here while I go give the guy on the corner some more cash. He doesn't deserve it but then again maybe I don't either.)

Does Rush Limbaugh inspire this kind of grace and mercy in you? If not, then I encourage you to fill your days with something else which does.

I welcome your comments. I am no authority on any of this, these are just my observations.

Eugene Redstone is a website developer and and resides with his wife and 3 sons in Houston, TX.




Reprint Rights

Log in to become a member of Eugene Redstone's Fan Club!

There are a total of 66 comments on this article.
Most recent comment threads on this article:


» left by Dan Bimrose (1,259)
Dan Bimrose
(1 year 2 days ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Bruce,
 
Excellent, excellent article. I am so ready for this election to be over so that when I go to church we can talk about something other than politics. It is true that there are many who think that you cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat. The Sunday before last I had to listen to a guest evangelist question how someone can call themselves a Christian if you support the Democratic ticket. Of course the "hot button" issue is abortion. I heard that the "blood of all unborn babies" rests upon my shoulders multiple times. There is so much more to this issue than Evangelical Christians think. I am preparing a series of articles for all of those people who have left the church because their souls have been condemned by their pastors for supporting a Democratic ticket.
 
I applaud you many times over. A standing ovation.
 
The Bible teaches me that in order to get to Heaven I must confess my sins and accept Jesus Christ in my heart. Nowhere does it say that I must also vote for John McCain.

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(1 year ago.)

Thanks Dan, I appreciate your endorsement.
Respond to this comment
» left by Teresa Ortiz (11,326)
Teresa Ortiz
(1 year ago.)

Hi Dan, its pretty sad that had to happen.  I am an evangelical Christian in the biblical sense, we are all called to be that. It's too bad there are some high profile Evangelicals (as made into a denomination) that do this, as they impress upon people that all evanglicals feel this way.
 
It's evident that this is the case by your statement  "....than Evangelical Christians think"  I noticed that you didn't say some evangelicals... although I don't fault you for this.
 
God help us.  According to the New Testament, the blood of the unborn babies is on the unrepentant one, just as every other sin is.  But by the blood of the Lamb we are free.  My Pastor has never spoken of this election in these terms, only praying for God's will and for each of us to do what we believe God is calling us to do.   Abortion should be a hot issue, but not a tool used to bully or manipulate.
 
It is a personal conviction that I cannot vote for a man who is okay with abortion and will make no such effort to at least pass laws so that parental consent is needed...it does make me pray for all the little girls who will be teenagers soon.. and their parents. But I would never tell someone they aren't a Christian if they think its okay.  We are all in different places in our walk with God and we are not to play Holy Spirit to others.  What that man did was wrong.  Please do not let that be your standard thought of all evangelical Christians. 
 
God bless you!

Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (364 days 16 hours ago.)
Bruce - How exactly is Rush twisting things? Please don't refer me back to your article. I've already read it and I am still asking. Please be very specific in your response. I am looking for your response to make logical sense, without bible references or ambiguous religious terms.

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(364 days 16 hours ago.)

I already said I hardly ever listen to him.  I also said that since I'm not up on the latest from Rush, I am open to correction, so please point out where I am wrong in my article.
Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (364 days 15 hours ago.)
I find it very interesting that in your response to me, you clearly say Rush is twisting things. I ask you to explain that in detail. You respond by demanding that I explain myself. I am not the one who thinks Rush is twisting things. You are. What is he twisting, Bruce?

Respond to this comment
» left by Michelle Mackin (3,271)
Michelle Mackin
(363 days 19 hours ago.)

Dear Anon,
 
Maybe it would help your serenity if you try to respond instead of react. I find that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and Bruce is focusing more on God than on Rush. This is not a personal attack upon you or Rush.
 
God bless

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(363 days 15 hours ago.)

Ok, the specific instance I was referring to occurred Wednesday of this week.  I jumped into my jeep and the radio was still on the talk radio station that I normally listen to.  Rush had just started his first hour and he was going on and on about anyone who voted against liberalism 20 years ago had no business voting for the liberal Democrat now.  I was one who voted 20 years ago against liberalism, but much has changed in the past 20 years.  Shoot, much has changed in the past 20 weeks.  Our current Republican party has sold us out to line their own pockets.  They told us big business would let their profits trickle down if we just removed some regulations so they could be more profitable.  Guess what, even Alan Greenspan says this didn't work.  We are in this huge economic melt down right now, largely because of the deregulation that the Republicans have pushed through.  George Bush has engineered the largest expansion of government in the history of the World.  John McCain wants to continue on with deregulation and lowering taxes on big businesses.

Failure for Rush to even acknowledge what has changed, to me, means that he has an agenda and is not looking for the truth.

I then changed the station.
Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (363 days 13 hours ago.)
First to Michele: I asked Bruce a question. He did not answer it. I pointed out that he did not answer it. He finally did answer with a paragraph that begins with "ok". Asking a question and requiring that it be answered is responding, not reacting.
 
To Bruce: Liberalism is liberalism. It does not work, because it is a prettier word for communism. It says everyone should get equal resources whether they have earned them or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created, based on the liberal philosophy, to provide mortgages to poorer people. In recent years those GSE's abused their own process by lending to those who clearly could not afford to pay it back. Franklin Raines headed one or both of them. He received a base salary of 1 million per year plus a bonus. He figured out that his bonus was a percentage of the dollar amount of insurance he made available to cover mortgage losses that his GSE insured. He decided to make his bonus bigger by covering/insuring a much larger amount of mortgages. He forced his GSE to cover so much mortgage risk that he created an 84 million dollar bonus for himself over six years. Barney Frank had the power to stop Raines. Frank protected Raines instead. The GSE's are Congressionally created entities. Both the GSE's and the FDIC had 1% of the cash on hand that it would take to pay all of these loses. If any payout were necessary that exceeded that amount - hello bailout.
 
The democrats are attempting to cover up their own very important role in this mess by blaming wall street. Unfortunately, there are enough people out there who are not interested in thinking for themselves, that the cover up story is being believed.
 
Banks were being told, based on congressional mandate, to lend to many borrowers who did not qualify for mortgages using common sense underwriting guidelines, or else lose their license to lend. Sound like wall street corruption to you? I does not to me. That is plainly government intervention, courtesy of the liberal philosophy. I'm sure it is a very convenient time right now, because of the election season, to try very hard to blame this on Bush. I personally don't like Bush, or Clinton. I don't like it when people lie either. BOTH of those guys tried to stop the GSE's from doing this. NEITHER had the power. That's right - neither president Bush nor Clinton had the power to stop the GSE abuse. The president is the most powerful person in the world? That is a myth.
 
Bruce and Michele, you can live in fantasyland all you want. Do you know what happens when you leave people like Barney Frank, who caused these problems, in office? They get worse. Why would Frank want to do the right thing now? His antics are working for him. Besides, he is too busy blaming Bush and calling himself a hero. Frank knows he is lying.
 
Liberalism is the philosophy that says tax people more, so you can give the excess to those with less. Capitalism is the philosophy that says you get what you earn, and you benefit the most from your own efforts. Capitalism creates. Liberalism suppresses, by teaching people they can receive what someone else has, in return for doing little or nothing. At face value, liberalism sounds great because everyone appears to be a "have" instead of a "have not. " The problem is, when Barbara works hard for money, then has to give a large chunk to Steve, who did very little or nothing for the money, Barbara gets mad that she was forced to give a large chunk of her resources to Steve. Barbara decides Steve has it better than she does, and joins the ranks of Steve. After a while, everyone receives, but no one produces. There is nothing left to distribute. The economy evaporates. That is liberalism/socialism. Governments don't create. They only take.
 
I know this stuff sounds very basic and you may be asking why I am insulting your intelligence by explaining this. The answer is that you obviously need reminding. Liberalism destroys, regardless of what year or decade or century we are talking about

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(363 days 13 hours ago.)

OK, I've answered your question, and though I completely disagree with your answer, I would appreciate if you would answer my question.

What about my article do you believe is inaccurate?

Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (363 days 7 hours ago.)
I am more than happy to answer your question. When someone does not like Rush, it usually means they are liberal. I think the basis of your article is whether Rush is a good Christian. To me that is about as meaningful as asking whether my dentist is a good auto mechanic - it's irrelevant.
 
I believe very deeply in god, and Jesus. That is the truth about me. I keep it that simple for myself. I don't feel the need to label myself anything else - including being christian or not. Rush does not have a religious show, or even a spiritual show. The association you make with Rush being a good christian or not (or being good for christians or not) is irrelevant.
 
I think what you are doing with your article is using the topic of christianity to say unpleasant things about Rush. I also think what you really don't like about him is he is conservative. My response to you was designed to take the religion out of it and talk straight about what I consider to be the real issue - politics.
 
What do I believe is inaccurate about your article? The topic. You say it's christianity. I think you just wanted to say unpleasant things about him because you don't like conservatives. That is your right (no pun intended).
 
Your phrase: "We have been given what we don't deserve and we have been spared from punishment we do deserve". You have the right to believe this if you choose to. This is a very condemning view of humanity. This is apparantly the basis of your belief that those with more money should be legally compelled to give to those with less money.
 
Those with less have a legal right to work to produce whatever money they want. Those with more can give their extra money to whomever they want. This country is based in freedom. That freedom is what provides us the opportunity to create wealth. That freedom is what we all have in common. Each person makes their own choice how they want to use that freedom.
 
You and I probably disagree on a lot of things. I appreciate the lively chat - Best Regards

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(359 days 11 hours ago.)

You have it all wrong.  What I wrote, I wrote in the context of Christians listening to Rush, using what the Bible says as a reference.  Saying that was not my intention and then attacking that intention is not pointing out what you believe to be inaccurate in the article.  It's merely disagreeing with something I didn't say.

I do believe that Rush being a Christian or not should be relevant to Christians.

I am a conservative and have been all my life.  I firmly believe in small government, fiscal restraint and personal responsibility.  I didn't say that people with more money should be legally responsible to give to those with less money, but I did say Christians are.  This can be easily backed up with Scripture, such as Jesus saying if you have two cloaks and your neighbor has none, give him one of yours.

I know that you disagree with the premise of my article, but you have not pointed out anything inaccurate yet.

I guess I should ask you directly what the article asks: If you believe that a person should only receive that which he has earned, is that the way God has treated you?  Have you received from God only that which you have earned?

Respond to this comment

» left by Dom Sanchez from United States (274 days 9 hours ago.)
Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Bruce, I couldn't agree with you more. I notice that "anonymous" is pretty venomous in his responses to your article. What you've written makes a lot of sense to me too. I am a Christian conservative who has grown tired of the divisive rhetoric. I do believe as a Christian that I am my brother's keeper. I don't believe that we are communists or socialists or any other such thing just because we restructure the tax model to be less oppressive toward the poor. I think we all succeed when the least of us is given opportunity.
 
I can't tolerate listening to Rush because even though I do agree with some of his statements, I think he frames his points in unnecessarily divisive ways. I think Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter add nothing contructive to the dialogue when they talk about liberals as though these people are enemies of the state.
 
We may have valid disagreements, but we are all supposed to be Americans. For those of us who also happen to be Christians we also have an obligation to try to be "Christ-like". None of these people inspire me in that way so I don't listen to them.

Respond to this comment

» left by Annie from Richmond VA (248 days 12 hours ago.)
Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
What I have noticed about Christian brethren who devotedly listed to Rush:
 
1. They are quick to spout off in an authoritative manner all that is wrong with the government of this nation.
 
2. There is something very negative hanging around them when they are in corporate settings -- sort of like the cloud that followed that little Charles Schultz character, Pigpen, was it?
 
3. I seldom hear them glorify God's character, goodness, faithfulness and tender care for them as an individual.
 
4. They seem to carry a chip on their shoulders and a frown on their faces.
 
They are not pleasant people to be around. They are rather cheerless and hope dampening.
 
5. The only thing that seems to excite them is a good argument.
 
6. I seldom hear any praises of God from their lips.
 
7. It seems that there is some resistance to the simple-hearted and simple-minded Christians who simply pray for the coming of God's Kingdom and refuse to enter into strife.
 
8. There just seems to be an air of arrogance about them.
 
I just cannot help but think that they have become in spirit like the spirit that drives Rush Limbaugh, a spirit that grieves the Holy Spirit. Their company with this spirit has corrupted or perverted the precious fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Truly -- bad company corrupts good morals.
 
I seldom hear any testimonies of answered prayer come from their lips.

Respond to this comment

» left by Martha from Alabama (76 days 10 hours ago.)
Very thoughtful and thought provoking article. I am very concerned about how many of my Christian brothers and sisters consider Rush to be a suitable source of "truth" to help them make political decisions. I feel that he has been a major contributor to the great divide we now have in America. The Body of Christ should not be about dividing the world into us and them, but about being Christ to the world. Unfortunately the witness of the "Church" is greatly damaged by this divisive attitude that so many evangelicals seem to have. It breaks my heart!

Respond to this comment
» left by Bruce Horst (111)
Bruce Horst
(76 days 10 hours ago.)

It breaks my heart too, Martha. I have now had good friendships go sour because of my refusal to remain a ditto-head. Christians have given up so much of the message of the Cross by picking up the sword of politics. Sometimes I just can't believe what I'm seeing and hearing.
 
Thanks for commenting.

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:

This Article has been viewed 1,724 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on 10/23/2008 5:36:52 PM.
View other articles written by Eugene Redstone (1,536)
Eugene Redstone


If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

Disclaimer:  All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.


Today's Most Popular
Pirates: Crimes on the High Seas - Do Hollywood Movies Inspire Terrorism?

Inappropriate Teacher-Student Relationships Eroding Parent-Teacher Trust

Sex Without Intimacy and Intimacy Without Sex

My Personal Review of EdenPURE Infrared Heaters

When Does Life Really Begin? A Perspective on Science, Religion and Abortion

What Makes People Assume a Person Is Intelligent?

A View of NAIS from Wisconsin

Famous Quotes & Famous Sayings about Cultural Differences, Ethnic Groups, Race, Genocide, Hate

Prostitution - A brief guide

Providing First Aid To Car Accident Victims

Viewed from Cache. Load Time: 0.078.

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Questions & Answers  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company