Here's a taste of how he begins:
Over the past two days, I’ve seen numerous Tweets and Facebook messages vilifying Pat Robertson for his comments about the disaster in Haiti that he alleged was the result of a pact Haiti made with the devil. Of course, Pat also must have made some deal with the devil to even espouse such comments in the wake of enormous human suffering. These posts were right to point out his evil ways, but is anyone really paying attention to Pat Robertson anyway? Some of my more progressive Christian friends were outraged, but in all fairness, I hope they understand that most evangelicals are not even listening to Pat anymore. Katrina put the nail in his coffin when he blamed the hurricane on voodoo, homosexuals and feminists.
Pat Robertson is not the problem. Rush Limbaugh is.
To read on click here.
6 comments:
Larry, thanks so much for the comments and the link on your blog. I regularly follow yours, and it's one of my favorites.
I also encourage you to read my recent entry on MSNBC and FOX ... my real intent here is not to make partisan statements about one pundit or another but to call us to a better and more productive discourse of respect and hope.
Limbaugh caused Haiti's problems? When did he do that?
Todd, if you are going to bash Rush Limbaugh you should at least get your facts straight. BTW, a few weeks ago you suggested everyone not listen to Rush. Now here you are misrepresenting him.
David Brooks, a writer from the New York Times, said essentially the same thing Rush did. Where are the Brooks bashers?
Rush did not say that anyone should not give to a Haiti charity. He suggested that we give to a non-governmental charity. Haiti has at least 10,000 such organizations that preform missions. It seems that nearly every church has such a project. My church is one of them. They are doing the Lord's work. As a matter of fact Haiti has more non-governmental organizations per capita doing work than any place on earth.
The government, on the other hand has spent trillions to generate growth in the developing world. So what is the result? The countries that have not received much aid have tremendous poverty reduction, in fact they are propping us up. I speak of China. The countries that have received aid have not. The truth is we don't know how to use aid to reduce poverty.
Of course there is a place for government aid as a result of the earthquake. No church mission could possibly do it. But on a normal basis government aid has not been effective. And it is true that the $100,000,000 is coming from everyone of us that pay taxes.
And by the way, Rush is not a racist. I personally thing you are a closet listener.
Is Ed Schultz on MSNBC part of any problem?
"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are"
c hand, you are correct. The extremes and the "entertainment" news sources on hte left are every bit as out of line as those on the other extreme. What we need is honest conversation and reporting. One major problem is the fact that news organizations now must account to share holders' bottom lines. But,you are correct, if he said that, he's no better.
No commerical messages
Post a Comment