Limbaugh makes anti-Christian remarks?

I used to be quite a fan of his…and sure he still makes lots of good points…but I think the wealth and lunches with the high-ups has tainted what was consistently a humble and steady mind.

From his show today (emphasis mine):
I understand this. We talk on this program a lot about the natural human tendency toward negativism, toward pessimism, toward doom-and-gloomism. We know that it exists because it takes hard work to think positively. People who have written books teaching others how to think positively have become multimillionaires. But you can’t go to the book or the library and find a book on how to fail because we all know how to do that. You will not go to the library, be able to check out a book, “How to Make Yourself Miserable in Three Easy Steps,” because everybody can do it. But being upbeat and positive is regarded as unique, is it not? When somebody’s upbeat and positive, “What’s wrong with them? **Nobody can be that happy all the time.” They think it’s odd. We’ve all been raised with the idea that there’s virtue in suffering. That’s the biggest bunch of crp, but we are raised this way, that there’s virtue in suffering, and there’s virtue in enduring misery and pain.** So we immerse ourselves in it, the idea that we’re getting stronger, and that we’re making ourselves better people and perhaps even in the eyes of God, we are improving our odds of eternity. But we have one life. It’s a gift. Who says it’s meant to be suffered? Why is there guilt associated with enjoyment? Why do people feel guilty when they’re having a good time, especially if they’re not at work? Well, we’re all raised that way. *
He never used to say stuff this elitist. And it certainly isn’t very Christian. I’m sure any of us could put up Scripture that talks about the glories of suffering. If he’s trying to say we shouldn’t seek suffering, he didn’t articulate it very well. But to blanketly say there is no virtue in suffering is about as wrong as it gets.

Well there is virtue in sufferign but if it is deliberately sought out that is not Christian either. We don’t have to be victims all the time. Christ meant for us to be happy here as well in the afterlife. Sure God sends us some crosses occasionally and we should accept them joyfully but there is no purpose to deliberately seeking out other crosses than the ones He gives us. That is not humility. That is false pride.

I think what he’s saying there is that whatever comes along in life, you can choose to be joyful, or you can choose to be miserable. It actually goes right along with Christian doctrine, even if he’s not quite using the terminology correctly. When bad things come into your life, you suffer from them. However, you can choose to suffer them with joy in your heart, trusting in the perfect mercy and justice of Jesus, or you can opt for misery. I think what Limbaugh is saying is that some people choose misery at every turn in the road, and that others (himself included) would rather be cheerful about life and suffer the hardships with joy.

Your’e right of course… good post:thumbsup:

Like I said…if he was trying to say we shouldn’t seek suffering, he did not articulate that. He said very clearly that there is no virtue in suffering, nor in “enduring” suffering.

If he had qualified it as the other posters said he “meant,” I would believe he meant something different. But he didn’t.

He simply so be assassinated. God took Falwell, Dr. Kennedy, now it’s time for Rush. The country and the God would be happy :stuck_out_tongue:

I think you have it right here. Anyone who listens to Rush knows that he is an optimist and I believe that the point is that we can choose to be happy, dispite life’s adversities. It took me many years to figure that out. We all have problems, things do not always go well, but we plug along. My oft repeated saying is “What is, is.” We can either sit back and whine and moan that life it not treating us right, or we can pull ourselves up and forge ahead. I choose the latter.

And you never make a distake in anything you say, leaving a different meaning? When one is on the air as often and as long as Rush, or any other talk show host, a mistake in leaving the wrong impression is bound to happen. I often say something that does not come out exactly the way I intended it to come out. Have done so on this forum.

I’ve listened to Rush on and off for a long time, and even though he espouses a belief in God, I’m not sure he’s ‘down’ with Christian values or understands the deep mysteries that make up our faith.

I think he’s like many Americans who have a superficial belief in a higher power, but don’t really go much deeper into it.

You are mistaken. How do you explain the Church’s teaching on fasting? I think you should turn off your TV and read more of your Catechism :wink:

You know I thought this same thing after I made my last post. Fasting. Making time for your neighbor. Giving. Losing your life for the Lord. Avoiding gluttony. Fighting the body instead of giving into it. Etc…etc…

And optimism would see the glory in suffering instead of denying it. In fact, later in that same discourse, Rush said:
We’ve all been raised with the idea that there’s virtue in suffering. That’s the biggest bunch of crp, but we are raised this way, that there’s virtue in suffering, and there’s virtue in enduring misery and pain. So we immerse ourselves in it, the idea that we’re getting stronger, and that we’re making ourselves better people and perhaps even in the eyes of God, we are improving our odds of eternity.*
If he had said that those who suffer should do so quietly and not have public pride, that would be one thing…but he right down to the core of this whole speech denied any value in suffering, denied that God would have us suffer. Period. It didn’t sound like a misspeak to me. He strayed from optimism/negativism and got on a soapbox about the uselessness of suffering.

And believe me, I know Rush well enough to know that he’s been taken out of context a thousand times. And if he wants to clarify his comments fine, but I think he believes there is no place for embracing suffering at any level.

I completely agree with you. My comment was directed toward goofyjim’s idea that if one seeks out suffering they are being “un-Christian”. That idea simply is not true. Making little sacrifices throughout the day is a wonderful way to practice our Christian faith.

And sorry, the 2nd half of my comments were directed to those who defended Rush by saying that he was just being optimistic.

I think this is true of many protestants as far as our faith goes. But Rush is strongly opposed to abortion, euthanasia, gay “marriage”.

This strikes me as similar to Harry Potter-bashing.

Rush is one of the good guys. Remember: “Talent on loan from GOD.”


We can only pray for him.

This just struck me as so funny!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: and true!

It reminded me, actually, of one of House’s many speeches about pain.

House (the fictional doctor) is…addicted to painkillers.

I think that might explain it.

As much as I adore Rush, I listen to him for political commentary and laughs. I don’t go to him to learn about Christian doctrine. I don’t think his comments were anti-Christian as much as they are ill-informed words from a person who has obviously not studied any Christian faith in depth. I think he was raised Christian and claims that identity. I think he believes in God and that may be as far as it goes with him.

How many ignorant Catholics sit in the pews every week not understanding anything they are doing? Millions… they are not anti-Christian, they are just undereducated Christians. I once heard a child ask what I think was his grandma what the priest was doing up on the altar. This was during the Consecration. She said, “I don’t know.” Yet she went up for Communion and took the grandkids with her. She had no idea what she was doing (and I was shocked that she didn’t even know something that basic!) or what she was receiving, but that didn’t make her anti-Catholic.

As for Rush, I will continue to listen to him and laugh and think and be grateful for his voice. Did you hear his latest parody today, where they took Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” and had Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson singing anti-American lyrics to it? It was hilarious. :smiley:

Darn—I missed that one!

But the good thing is – I am sure Rush will play it again. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit