A Note to My Brother Expresses the Futility Millions Feel as They Watch Their Constitution Shredded - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 8 months ago to Culture
98 comments | Share | Flag

I listened to this on the radio today as I chauffeured my kids in preparation for the coming school year. The letter sent to Limbaugh's brother and the conversation it fostered from Rush offers much food for thought.

In spite of any preconceived notions about Limbaugh try reading the article before slamming the source.

I add:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

I adjust the quote to say a self-policing people governed by morals.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1st of all that is like saying Geometry is Greek Math or Newtonian physics is english physics. The founders rejected christianity as the source for any of the founding documents and for the common law. You can bury your head in the sand, but that does not change the facts. Many of the founders were extremely critical of Christianity and none were interested in a country founded on christianity
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    British common law is not part of the constitution. Common law was based in Lockean Natural Rights through Sir William Blackstone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No confusion. Christians always try to make distinctions that don't exist. The philosophy of christianity, which has a strong base in Plato, was the reason these things occurred.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    dbhalling,

    Dear Sir;

    "The Constitution is based on Roman and Greek law."

    You left out "British Common Law"

    What do Roman and Greek law have in common? They are steeped in pagan beliefs and value systems.

    The Romans and Greeks were not atheist. Nor were the British.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Shame is a very useful emotion. It keeps you from doing bad things. Of course, it requires a moral framework to even exist...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yeah? What freaking religion were their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers and sisters, huh?

    Don't tell me someone raised in a Christian society is merely a Deist who regards Islam, Wicca and atheism as morally equivalent to Christianity.

    Sophistry.

    You're just trying to pretend, "The Founding Fathers believed more like me than like you".

    which is a nonsense argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Isn't there a city in SoCal named after them?

    Never been to a Culvers, but I have been to many a Taco Cabana. And the occasional Luby's.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Somehow, I don't get the feeling it would take 250 years...

    And if you listen to all the climate change stuff, DC won't be "sacked"... it'll be "soaked"! --grins--
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    teri-amborn has it right: the founders were Deists which is by no means the same as being a Christian. See my response to teri below.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From WikiPedia: "Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of authority as a source of religious knowledge. Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity."

    Deists are by no means Christians as they decry many of the basic tenets of Christianity. They had taken a tentative step away from irrationality but were unable to fully embrace reason by eliminating the need for a Creator.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If being a mind-numbed automaton were the only reason, I probably wouldn't. There are those who live their faith in such a manner, I'm not one. I see it as a time to work on self-discipline, awareness, and gratitude.

    I have a problem with the hierarchy when they give "special dispensation" when St. Pats day is on a Friday during lent, and there are other times when local diocese get same for some local reason. It is either important or not. It is not a requirement that you eat corned beef and cabbage on 3/17 (yum, love it). And waiting one day or advancing such by one day is certainly reasonable.

    So, nobody "tells me what to eat," I choose so freely as a part of how I live my life, and what is important to me. It could just as easily be meditating an hour a day, or yoga, or exercise, etc., etc., etc.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They're growing fast. Even ran across on down in AZ. Nice Wisconsin company giving BK and Wendy's a run for their money.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Natural Rights" is a fiction created by atheists to dodge the fact that atheism has no source or context for morality.

    Where do "natural rights" come from?

    Grow up, intolerant child.

    ""The results should have been predictable, since a human being hasno natural rights of any nature."
    Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of
    happiness’?"
    "Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’
    to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to
    life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so
    as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which
    man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document
    pledged themselves tobuy liberty with their lives. Liberty isnever unalienable; it must be redeemed
    regularly with the blood of patriots or italways vanishes. Of all the so-called ‘natural human rights’ that
    have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and isnever free of cost.
    "The third ‘right’? — the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a
    universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me
    at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives — but neither
    gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.""

    Talk about mysticism... you have no basis for natural "rights". You have the natural "right" to do whatever you want.

    Without theology, there are no "rights"... only power and action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. That's one thing that I have learned from him to use once in a while in my professorial duties.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "yourself" is more like a book than a video game.
    God gave you your life, therefore, like a book, it's yours.
    God did not license your life to you, like a video game, whereby you are required to use it according to His license agreement.

    The *Founding FATHERS* designed the country so one State or municipality could have laws against blasphemy (or not have them), but the nation could not. So you could vote with your feet, and be thereby free.

    And yes, we know you two are shameless.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why did they go out of their way to say "Creator" instead of naming the creator? That our country could only exist under judeo-christian values and its morality derived from such is ludicrous. It's like saying Euclidean Geometry can only work if it's Greek. Our country is based, in part, on the Enlightenment. A period of time in the History of the World that was rebelling AGAINST religion not embracing it. Everyone wants to ignore the majority of founding fathers' statements highly critical of organized religion. I realize the colonies were religious as a whole, which is why the framing is so unique in its wording. It would have taken nothing to add "God" this and "God" that. Why is it phrases such as "In God We Trust" or "under God" came along MUCH later, long after the founders were gone? It's telling, and I think an intentional grab by Christians to capitalize on something that just is not so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bradberry1984 10 years, 8 months ago
    When both of my sons were born, the first book I bought them was the US Constitution. My oldest (now 25) holds it close to his heart and my youngest (now 22) has yet to learn of the Constitutions full power.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ arthuroslund 10 years, 8 months ago
    Some historians set the start of the decline of the Roman Empire at around the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. The Roman and US constitutions have a number of likenesses and similar evolution from their beginning until they became essentially a political tool used, interpreted or ignored. The US constitution seems to be at the same “evolutionary” place that the Roman constitution was just before Julius Caesar installed himself as emperor. If this is true and we can use Rome as a template, maybe we can expect the US to drift into a long decline for the next 250 years until Washington D.C. is sacked.
    The above scenario would probably fit into a picture of people sitting around in a futuristic fantasy world with embedded electronic devices. Inflation will get out of control while higher and higher taxes are required to fund ever expanding entitlements. The decline will be exacerbated by poverty, cultural decay, loss of borders and language degeneration.
    Magic Dog

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And he does so with a hint of humor - part of the reason he's a successful entertainer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Precisely. The Founders very specifically wanted to avoid a situation like that which they had just left in England where the Church of England (a "religion" started by the King of England) was the state-supported religion. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs because it created an apparatus of government-enabled persecution and subversion of ideas. One of the first Supreme Court cases was about several of the States (Pennsylvania was one, I believe) attempting to levy taxes on behalf of one Protestant religion, and this (thankfully) was struck down as a direct violation of the Establishment Clause.

    That being said, however, the basic values were those that specifically stipulated that rights were an endowment exterior to man and not of his invention. That those rights so closely coincide with the rights proclaimed by many Judeo-Christian faiths (which undoubtably predate Locke or the concept of natural law) is IMHO not a coincidence at all.

    Have there been people throughout history who have turned from the principles espoused in the doctrine of Christ to abuse power? Assuredly. But it should be noted that among all the religions known to man, the Christian ethos (but not necessarily any specific sect) is the most providential and closely aligned with natural rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertasAutLetum 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That could be true, but the founders were Christian and logic, like it or not, would dictate that they would naturally design a way of life based on Christian values. Just as Jews, Hindus, Taoists and very unfortunately muslims base their way of life on their values.
    Clearly, and thankfully, they avoided (by means of reason) incorporating any archaic or draconian gobbledygook from the King James Bible into their great experiment but it is more than a very safe assumption that they believed in their hearts and minds that what they were doing was right in the eyes of God. And no, I am not a theist but I know how theists work.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, we miss Culvers. However, I am not a big burger person. I typically ordered the fried cheese curds. yum
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    LS and I will encourage you to break the Catholic "lent rules".
    Why would you allow ANYONE to tell you what to eat?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo