I have been having a rather interesting (?) discussion with a reader on my "Why We Homeschool" post a few entries back. My last reply was too long to be accepted in the comment field, so I am going to post it here. If you haven't read the post in question or followed the comment thread, you will probably need to back up and do so in order to understand this post. Feel free to skip it, though. I know my readers have busy lives, and this is mostly for Working Man.
Before I post my comment, though, I do have to say that I find it interesting that someone that I don't know in any way (at least I don't think I do) would invest so much time in discussing politics with me. I am not any sort of political guru. I am not a pundit. I don't have hundreds of people reading my blog on a daily basis to see what latest brilliance I am going to emit. I am just a homeschool mommy and self-employed musician that keeps a blog as a personal outlet and means of communicating with family and friends. Most of the people that read and comment here are either people I know or people that I have come to know as a result of sharing some common ground (chess, homeschooling, Lutheranism, etc.). I don't know how "Working Man," the commenter to whom my response below is addressed, discovered my blog or why he cares what I think. The blogs that I take time to comment on are the blogs of people I know, either in real life or in cyberspace. (I read some other, national blogs, but I don't comment on them, since no one, either the writer or the other readers, would know who I am or have any interest in what I might have to say.) The online political discussions/debates I have had have thus been with people that, again, I know in some capacity. I may know them in cyberspace only, but I don't consider them anonymous because I know something about them, or I know people they know, or we are on the same email list, or belong to the same denomination, or SOMETHING. And because there is that connection and common ground I care what they think and suppose that maybe they feel the same about me, and we can have some meaningful, enlightening discussions. But I find myself a bit perplexed at why an anonymous reader with whom I have nothing in common (of which I am aware) is spending so much time arguing with me, someone he doesn't even know.
Anyway, here, for what it's worth, is my final comment to Working Man. Working Man's words are in quotation marks.
"Your right, the number has changed. I see that as truthfullnes on his part. If the number he was given to begin with was 45 million, and now he has learned it's more like 30 million . . . "
So, Working Man, you suggest that perhaps the number "he was given" was wrong and that now "he has learned" otherwise. He has been throwing the 46 million number around for at least a year. He's trying to take over 1/6th of our country's economy. He is the President of the U.S. He is responsible for the numbers he puts out there and uses as a basis for remaking our health system. So I guess best construction is that he's too incompetent to do that. But I don't think he's that incompetent. That leaves us with dishonest.
"As for Rush and his statements. Sexist; He said when Bill Clinton went To North Korea to bring back those two reporters. Where is HillarY Is North Korea too important for the girl."
I don't get your point here, Working Man. Are you saying it was sexist for Rush to call Hillary a girl? Last time I looked, that's what she was. Or that it was sexist for him to question why Obama sent Bill to North Korea and not Hillary? Seems like a fair question to me. I don't see why either of those things suggest sexism. Rush is definitely anti-feminist. I guess in your mind that makes him a sexist. But that is a position I reject. To embrace traditional male/female roles and accept that there are differences between the sexes does not make one a sexist. Furthermore, I don't see how someone who has supported any number of female politicians can be called sexist. When Palin was brought on as McCain's VP candidate Rush went from being totally down on the GOP ticket to supporting it. He supported it because of the WOMAN on the ticket, not the man. That is not the mark of a sexist. Of course, you will probably discount that example because it's Sarah Palin, and in your mind and the mind of many liberals she doesn't count because she embraces traditional values, and so it's not politically correct to support her.
On the issue of Hillary, anyone who has listened to Rush for any period of time knows that while he is not anti-woman, he is definitely anti-Hillary, and yes, he has gotten much mileage out of making fun of her over the years. But that's because she's Hillary Clinton, married to Bill Clinton, not because she's a woman.
The quotes you provide on the topics of slavery and James Earl Ray are disputed, and WikiQuote acknowledges them to be so. There is no evidence that he ever said either one. The only source for both of them is a book by Jack Huberman in which he did not provide air dates or source material for the quotations. So let's not waste our time on those.
"Take the bone out of your nose and call me back."
I'm not sure I even get this one. But I looked it up and found that it's over 30 years old. He said this back in the 70s when he wasn't even known as Rush Limbaugh but was doing a top 40 show as "Jeff Christie" on Pittsburgh radio. WikiQuotes says he has expressed regret about it. Can we let that one go and deal in the here and now please? Or maybe in the last 10 years, at least? It seems a bit of a stretch to make statements about a man's character today based on a 30+ year old remark.
"I left out the one about Donavan Mcnabb the Eagles Quarterback."
Oh, let's not leave that one out. For anyone who doesn't know that story, here is a summary:
I don't accept that acknowledging that the NFL would consider it to be a positive to have a black quarterback do well to be a racist remark. And I don't accept that someone who would repeatedly ask Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell to guest host for him is a racist.
"Homophobic; He made a joke about Barney Frank that was disgusting, of course he only made it because he was gay."
I am not familiar with the joke, so I can't comment. Perhaps it is a joke that I would object to based on its crudeness. I don't care for crude humor, and sometimes Rush has said some outrageous things, but crudeness and outrageousness do not equate to sexism and racism. And if your argument is that saying anything that could be seen as critical of homosexuality is homophobic, then we may as well give up the conversation now, Working Man. Because I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. But that doesn't make me homophobic. I don't hate gay people. I don't think they should be made to sit on the back of the bus or drink from their own water fountains. I don't think they're less human than anyone else. But I do think homosexuality is a sin, just like I think a whole bunch of other things are a sin. So if you're going to call me homophobic based on that I guess you also have to call me fornication-phobic, and adultery-phobic, and liar-phobic, and anger-phobic, and profanity-phobic, and whatever else you want to add to the list. Basically, I guess I'm sin-phobic. Now to be clear, that doesn't mean I'm not a sinner, too. I'm a sinner through and through. So I guess I'm also self-phobic.
"If I or anyone makes a derogatory joke about lets say confessional Lutherans would you consider that humor?"
That's a false analogy, Working Man. It is not a sin to be a confessional Lutheran. At least I don't think it is. Readers? And for the record, I have heard a lot of great jokes about confessional Lutherans! And I have enjoyed them!
"I don't care who makes any of these statement right, left, or moderate they are still unacceptable."
That we can agree on. But I'm afraid we disagree on what is considered to be an acceptable/unacceptable statement.
"Lies, to create a false or misleading impression. I think death panels or funding illegal immigrants qualifies as lies"
I disagree. I think both of those phrases peel away all the pc, pretty rhetoric and get to the heart of both matters.
"Finally if Jesus was not sent to judge the world but save it. why do you and so many like you feel that they can judge."
You have it wrong, Working Man. Jesus is God, and God is both Judge and Saviour, both Law and Gospel. He is the only one that can condemn, and He is the only one that can save. To identify right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil, is not the same thing as judging. Naming is just that--naming. In fact, naming is one of the jobs God gave Adam to do. But the judging (and saving) are left to God.
Working Man, I think you and I have exhausted this discussion. I would kindly ask you to now let it be. This all grew out of an offhand remark on what I thought was a homeschooling post on my personal blog. The debate has been interesting. But I don't really see what there is to be gained by you and I continuing it. I'm getting ready to head into a busy week, and I'm sure you are, too, and I don't know that either of us or my readers have anything to gain from our continued sparring. Our world views and foundational beliefs are too different. What say we give it a rest?