All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
May 23, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, I'm going to get into something here.
But I have to put a disclaimer on the entire topic.
I am not a religious broadcaster, don't purport to be.
I am certainly not a religious zealot.
I'm not a prude.
I watch all sorts of things that a lot of people say that you shouldn't watch.
But I'm offended by the Da Vinci Code.
And it's bothering me.
It's bothering me that this is just okay to make this movie.
That it's just okay that millions and millions and millions of Americans went out and bought the stupid book.
Things are very, very weird in this country right now.
You can't say anything about anyone.
Look at the number of things that someone can say and get in all sorts of hot water.
Why that was not sensitive to this group.
Why that was offensive to that group.
Look at the number of things that can be said in the workplace that result in claims of sexual harassment.
Look at the number of things that political figures have said as a joke that outrage people.
Look at the slips of the tongue that have resulted in huge, enormous controversies.
Most times people who claim to be offended aren't really offended.
They pretend to be offended because they want to make a point or because they want to they want to do something to harm the individual who made the statement.
Nonetheless, we live in a society in which we have to walk on eggshells when it comes to talking about anyone's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, anything.
With one exception.
You can say anything at all about Christianity.
It's exactly the opposite with Christianity as it is to everything else.
The obvious example is radical Muslims all over the world, not even limited to radical Muslims, appalled at a couple of stupid cartoons in a newspaper in Denmark that they felt did not cast a positive light on the holy prophet of Islam, Muhammad.
Nearly burned down the entire country.
Look at the number of people who are facing death threats because of it.
Most American newspapers refused to run those cartoons, meaning Americans who are trying to learn about the controversy didn't even know what anybody was upset with because they didn't want to run those cartoons for fear that they might offend Muslims.
We have to walk on tippy toes around anything that might offend anyone.
And in that case, we couldn't offend Muslims by reprinting a cartoon that was the subject of worldwide turmoil.
Yet with regard to Christianity, I now think there's nothing you can't get away with.
Nothing at all.
Now part of the reason for that is most Christians are very, very tolerant people.
Despite the caricature of them that appears in the media of being very intolerant, particularly the fundamentalists.
Why they're intolerant, they are not open to other views.
They're people that are claimed to be filled with love, but they're really filled with hate.
That's the caricature that occurs.
But the reality is that Christians are extremely tolerant people.
They're not like Muslims.
They're not like members of other groups in which they take offense at everything.
This is allowed though, almost an open season when it comes to mocking values of people who believe.
Now, again, I want to put my disclaimer in place here.
I'm not somebody who normally is offended by things like this.
I went to see The Last Temptation of Christ, which was the movie that Scorsese made that a lot of Christians objected to.
I thought it was actually a pretty good movie.
It didn't offend me at all.
So I'm not somebody that's running around, trying to blue pencil everything and saying that it's outrageous, or it goes too far, or it's blasphemous.
This movie and this book, though...
have touched a nerve with me.
It's just, I think obnoxious.
The reason Brown is writing the book in the way that he's writing it is that he knows there's an audience out there for alternative theories about Christ.
There's a huge audience for it.
So he comes up with this little game in which he said, well, it's a work of fiction, but he also presents it as something that he believes to be true.
People get into it because they like the mystery.
People get into it because they're open to other ideas.
We are talking here about God.
You're talking about someone that Christians believe is the personification of God.
And you're taking the story that people believe to be true and turning it into a farce, turning it into a joke.
And people are lapping this up.
How many copies of the Da Vinci Code were sold?
Something like 60 million?
I'm bothered that there are that many of you that want to read that.
The movie opened this past weekend, despite terrible reviews, scores huge at the box office.
Why?
Why do you want to see this?
As for me, I'm judging it even though I haven't seen it.
That's correct.
I don't want to see it.
I don't want to see my particular faith mocked to this extent.
I don't like the motivations behind anybody who's involved in this, and I'm bothered that more people aren't bothered by it.
You couldn't make this movie about actual people who are alive now.
Make a movie about Martin Luther King, change facts about his life to reflect badly on him.
The movie could never be made.
Why that's racist, that's terrible, that's offensive.
It's a pack of lies.
Yet make a film like this about Jesus.
And why that's okay, that's art.
People are interested.
Well, why are they so interested?
What is it that intrigues them about the notion that the story of Jesus has been a bill of goods that we've all been sold by a bunch of church leaders?
The premise of this movie is that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene and raised the family.
Instead of ascending, rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, instead he became a family guy and was hanging around with a chick and they had kids.
And that the leaders of the largest Christian religion, Roman Catholicism, have known this for years and have been covering it up.
They're running around killing people to keep the truth about the real Jesus, Jesus the family guy, a secret.
To me, that's just obnoxious.
Yet there is a desire on the part of many people, including many of you, to see it.
What is it about the actual real story that's too boring for you?
I don't know the answer.
But I think what has happened is a lot of smart alecky people in the entertainment industry have realized that not only can you get away with saying anything about Christianity, that there's a market out there for it, and you don't pay any price at all.
There are a lot of people who I think look at Christianity and they resent it.
They don't buy into it, either they're atheists or there's something else, or they've created their own God.
And they have found that they can get away with mocking and ridiculing it.
I don't know what the answer really is.
I know that leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have said don't watch the movie.
Even some Jewish leaders have said the same thing.
It's been criticized by a number of Protestant leaders as well.
But people are going to see it.
And it's bothersome to me.
I think it is blasphemous.
I think it's an insult to all believers.
And I'm mostly troubled that I don't think many people agree with me on this.
And I'm not normally the kind of guy who would react to something in this way.
But I think that the motivation behind this is terrible.
And the motivation behind people who want to go see it and spend their money on it is really, really difficult to understand.
If you'd like to react to this, and I don't expect anybody to agree with me, but if you'd like to react to this, the telephone number is 1-800-282-2882.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I know I'm sounding like Jerry Falwell here.
I know that that's what it sounds like.
It bothers me that more people aren't bothered by the Da Vinci Code.
It's a pile of garbage, is what it is.
And it's offensive on its face to Babylon in Akron, Ohio, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi.
Um yeah, I read the Da Vinci Code.
I haven't been able to see the movie yet, and it I really didn't see anything that should offend most Christians in it to me.
He's presenting a heresy that's been around for a long time.
The Mary Magdalene heresy is old, it's not a new thing.
And he's not trashing on modern Christianity at all.
He puts forth that the Catholics back in the fifth century covered up a lot about about Mary Magdalene, but you know, you really can't say that what they did thousands of years ago reflects on them now.
Do you believe that Jesus got married and had a kid?
Um I hold an open mind on it.
I'm not personally Christian, so it doesn't really matter to me whether he did or not, but well, okay.
It doesn't really matter to you or not.
If you are a Christian, seeing millions and millions of your fellow Americans going and watching something that says that everything that the Bible says is wrong, and everything you've ever been taught about your faith is wrong.
It means that Jesus isn't really who Jesus was.
It means that everything is wrong.
Well, that you know, you may not be bothered by it, but you know doggone well, you couldn't get away with doing that to anyone else's religious beliefs.
Well, he doesn't say that, though.
He doesn't say that everything is wrong.
He just says that Jesus has kids, which is not a central tenet of Christianity.
He doesn't, he doesn't say that Jesus didn't do the things that he did.
He just says that Jesus had children.
The point of it is that Jesus was just a guy.
That's what he is saying, that he was just a guy.
Furthermore, to be a Christian generally means that you accept certain things as being true.
Otherwise, there is no such thing as Christianity.
This isn't true, and he knows it, but most of all, why do you think he picked the story of Jesus?
Because he knows there's a market out there for people to hear an alternative theory of who Jesus is.
There's a market out there for for doing something, specifically that will offend some Christians.
There's a market out there for selling this bill of goods, and that's what bothers me that there are people like you and a lot of others, especially people who claim that they're believers, who are willing to spend their money on garbage like this.
Anyone can make any of this stuff up, but some things ought to be off limits.
And I'm not saying they should be banned.
I'm not saying that the book and the movie should be censored.
What I am saying is that we shouldn't be making this guy a zillionaire, and we shouldn't be going in droves to go watch a movie that just mocks the basis of the religion that is dominant in this country.
Thank you for the call.
He presents an alternate view.
Thank you for the call.
Yes, he does mock it.
Presenting an alternate view is mocking it.
That's what it means.
San Diego and Steve.
Steve, it's your turn on EIB.
Hey, Mark, you're doing a great job today.
I'm really enjoying the show.
Thank you.
Hey, um, my point is that my biggest concern, and I agree with you 100% in all the uh your points.
Um but remember that JFK movie that came out that had I believe Kevin Costner in it.
Yeah, the Oliver Stone movie.
Yeah, exactly.
Now there's a whole a large number of people who actually think that that's what happened.
That's true.
I'm afraid that this movie is gonna do the same thing to Christianity and it's gonna distort it, and it's gonna make, you know, it's gonna it's for younger people especially, it's gonna kind of tweak their thoughts.
It must be true.
I saw it.
That's how people that's how people react.
You're right.
Stone made his movie about JFK, and all sorts of people assumed that there was this massive conspiracy involving everybody that Oliver Stone said was in on it to kill Kennedy.
You are laying out a notion that turns Christianity on its ear, and yes, there are a lot of people who are going to accept it, but what does it say about their own lack of faith that they were open to the notion in the first place?
Well, it's just it's a continuing breakdown of what this country's made of.
I mean, for goodness sake, this whole country's laws and morality are based upon Jesus and his living and and it's a continual deterioration of what makes this country great.
Every day pecking away at it as Rush and you and Roger Hedgecock and everybody continue to say.
Well, what we do know is this is that it's almost impossible impossible to go too far when it comes to things like this.
We live in a world in which you can't even take a baby step in in certain directions about offending certain people, but with regard to Christians or traditional values, you can go as far as you want and not only not get a sanction, you can make a lot of money.
And I don't know if the answer is for people to stand up and do what I'm doing and criticize the movie.
What interests me is that more people aren't actually bothered by it.
I'm not nor I'm not normally bothered by stuff like this.
I'm normally able to handle most of these things.
This is this movie is running around making a joke out of whom I believe to be God, making an absolute joke about it, and turning the entire story on its ear and saying that everything that I have ever been taught and everything that I believe is simply a pack of lies, and it's all because a bunch of old goats in the Catholic church are jamming this down your throat.
That's why you have the beliefs that you have.
Well, it's just garbage.
Dan Brown is a hack author who came upon an idea that he knew would probably sell a lot of books because he knows it's now cool to rip on Christianity.
Thank you for the call, Steve.
To Bergen County and John.
John, it's your turn on Russia's show.
Yes, Mike, I I I appreciate what you're saying.
I am a conservative Christian, an Orthodox Presbyterian, and I did go to see the movie this past weekend to sort of keep my wife happy for its entertainment value.
And I I have to agree with you.
I did find it uh patently offensive, and the entire time I was watching it, I wasn't entertained.
I I in the back of my mind I I was thinking about exactly what you were saying about the cartoons mocking Mohammed.
And and what if how would Jews react if they made a blockbuster movie out of a book uh on the protocols of the learned elders of Zion?
Or or make a movie that changes facts about the Holocaust.
Right.
It would not be accepted.
It would be considered terribly offensive and terribly inappropriate.
There are those Holocaust revisionists out there right now, those quacks who for their own reasons say the Holocaust never occurred, the Jews are making it all up.
They are out there.
If they made a major motion picture, first of all, it wouldn't be made.
No studio would make it.
And any and it yeah, not out of Hollywood, and nobody who went to see anybody who went to see it would be perceived as being a bigot.
But when it comes to Christianity, you can write anything, you can create anything, and Christians seem to be just accepting of it, perhaps because of their own lack of faith, and maybe more people are open to this story than I'm ready to acknowledge.
If so, then it's even more troubling.
But the fact it's not just that you can get away with doing it, it's that so many people are willing to go out and see it and looking to be entertained by a story that says that everything that you've ever believed is just untrue.
God bless you, Mike.
Thank you for the call.
Now, I made this big deal about trying to establish to the audience That I'm not somebody who would normally object to things like this.
And I'm doing that because I don't want to create the impression that I'm James Dobson or Falwell or Robertson or somebody out there who's deploring what has happened to the culture.
I just think that this particular movie and this book and the phenomena surrounding it are different, that it's somehow a bigger deal.
This deals with the central aspect of belief in Jesus, that he is God.
And if you're willing to throw that away, if you're willing to mock it, if you're willing to change it, then it means that we really don't have any faith at all.
You couldn't do it to any other religion, and you shouldn't be doing it to mine.
I'm Mark Belling and I'm in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, railing away like some puritanical tight-collared prude about the Da Vinci Code, which I really don't think I am, but I realize that is how it's coming off.
And the reason it comes off that way is because people aren't that bothered by this movie, and that's what bothers me.
Now I know how that happens.
We've been assaulted so many times.
Government grants are given out to people who take a crucifix and put it in a jar of urine and call it art.
People love to mock everything about Christians.
Anyone who is a fundamentalist when portrayed on a television show is viewed as some sort of a nut job.
The terrible publicity that the Catholic Church has had over the last several years, mostly deserved because of the sex abuse scandals with regard to priests have allowed a lot of people to portray the church itself as totally hypocritical, as if the errors of its leaders mean that the faith is somehow illegitimate.
In the meantime, with all of their sensibilities assaulted for so long, for many Christians they see this movie that tell, well, yes, let's look at Jesus a little bit differently, and well, maybe he was a guy who had kids, and maybe he wasn't really who we've been taught that he is, and it just somehow doesn't seem to be that bad in comparison to everything else.
But to illustrate how absurd it has gotten, there are right now objections from a special interest group to the Da Vinci Code.
I'm not making this up.
The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation is appalled that one of the villains in the movie is portrayed by an albino actor.
The actor's name is Paul Bettney.
The albino group says that whenever there's an albino in a major motion picture, they always portray him as a bad guy, as a killer, as somebody who's weird and we're sick and tired of it.
The Albaidos are bothered by this movie, but not the Christians.
Do you understand why I think that's a little weird?
Am I the one that's out of touch?
No, I'll take this a step further.
I believe that many contemporary Christians have doubts.
Even if they are believers, they wonder.
We live in a world in which we have to see things.
It's hard to see heaven.
It's hard to understand creation.
It's hard to understand God.
We don't really know we weren't there when Christ was around.
Everything that we've ever been taught has been attacked by someone.
We don't really know we've got doubts.
That's natural.
Only people of the strongest faith can say that they have no doubt whatsoever.
Because we have these doubts, we're willing to accept anybody's version as being plausible.
There is no truth anymore.
Clinton taught us that.
It's just a matter of how you see things.
And we become so accepting of all of these things because indeed we do have doubts.
But the fact that we have doubts shouldn't become an excuse to have No beliefs.
There's a difference between having some doubt and having no belief at all.
The old saying is nothing sacred.
Well, some things perhaps ought to be sacred.
And again, I am not suggesting that we put out a death order on Dan Brown or Tom Hanks, like Muslim extremists would do.
I just think that we ought to be a little bit more bothered by something like this, and there ought to be some restraint in the mocking of Christianity that is going on all over our society.
Bloomington, Illinois, and Mike.
Mike, it's your turn on Russia's show.
Hi, Mark.
Um, I was going to say I think you're kind of touching on uh an appropriate point, and that should be shouldn't shouldn't we be beyond the you know need to be upset as uh Christians.
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, and I don't find um the movie or book threatening.
Um I've not read or seen the movie, but I I have the basic understanding and knowledge of the plot, but uh it does not bother me.
And doesn't it?
If somebody made a movie like this telling a bunch of lies about your father, would you be bothered?
You see, you see my point here.
I might be bothered, but I I would know I would know different.
Well, would you want the rest of the world to see this movie casting your father as something that he wasn't?
Well, I understand I understand.
You see, you see my point here.
It's I I think Christians have become so tolerant and so accepting that it hasn't occurred to them that there might be some things that they ought to be bothered by.
We live in a world in which people are always trying to be offended by everything.
You know doggone well that 95% of the things that special interest groups claim to be offended by merely their attempt to press their own agenda and get apologies and get their points made.
In this instance, though, you're talking about Christians who are never ever offended by anything almost because the notion of God and Jesus doesn't seem real to them.
You would be offended if this was said about your father, but you're not offended when it is said about your God.
That's the part that I find curious, and yes, it does bother me, and I'm somebody who's hardly ever bothered by any of these things.
Yeah, that's that's what I wanted to try and I guess get a better understanding from you about is.
I don't want a bunch of people going to a movie saying that Jesus was an oversex guy who was carrying on with Mary Magdalene.
I don't like that.
It makes me feel uncomfortable that people think that that's a nice way to spend the night.
They ought to have more respect for my religious beliefs, and they ought to have enough of their own that they don't find that entertaining.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Now I thank you for the call, Mike.
I do believe there are positive signs out there.
Gibson made the great movie, The Passion of the Christ.
No studio would bankroll it.
He couldn't find any investors.
But because Mel Gibson is a man of incredible net worth, he was able to make the movie on his own.
This was not an uplifting story.
The movie was about the crucifixion of Jesus.
It was very graphic.
It was very unpleasant.
It wasn't one of those movies that you can leave saying, well, gee, that was a lot of fun.
Despite that, despite the fact that the message itself was not entertaining, was somber.
Millions of people went to see that movie.
It stunned the Hollywood executives that there would actually be a film of rather a market for a film that told the story of Christ.
Then on the heels of that, we've got a movie that does exactly the opposite of Mel Gibson's movie, comes up with its own version of Christ, and just as many people, if not more, go to see it.
Now I believe, and I might be wrong because the Da Vinci Code's success at the box office this past weekend has surprised me.
I didn't think it would open with the strength that it did.
My own belief is that if Mel Gibson did another movie about the life of Jesus, the actual biblical version, Jesus doing his teachings, performing his miracles, his flock spreading as people came to realize that this was indeed the Son of God, that there would be a market for that movie, of course, presuming it is well done.
I think a lot of people would go to see that.
So there's obviously an interest here in things that are religious and are spiritual.
But it's not like these versions ought to be put out there on equal status.
You know, Jesus either was God or he wasn't.
There's no gray area with regard to that.
Some things are either true or they are not.
And if you believe that he is, I don't know why you'd be so doggone interested in seeing a movie that says that he isn't.
These are the most important beliefs that we have.
They are what define us as people.
While we should not be so intolerant as to say that everyone has to believe the way we believe, it doesn't mean that we have to be so open-minded that we reject our own viewpoints and allow our own beliefs to be caricatured and mocked by a bunch of Hollywood hucksters who want to make a buck.
That's how I see it.
And I realize that in so saying, I sound like something that I don't think that I am.
You're all looking at me like I'm nuts, aren't you?
That's what I that's what I think the audience.
Rush had some holy roller on the program.
He's making a big stink about the Da Vinci Code.
I just think that this is in a different category, and it's taken us that extra step that I wish we wouldn't be taking as a society.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Okay, here's what you have to do.
After the program is over, you go to www.rushlimbaugh.com and you submit your weekly tithe.
I get the uh no.
You know, most people in the audience don't really know me.
They think that Russia's allowed some sort of religious nut to come in and does he ask, like after he comes back after he's taken a day off what the guest host did.
Yeah, yeah, well, he may get these emails.
See, I never want to know what my guest hosts in Milwaukee do when I'm away.
I just don't want to hear about it because I know it can't be good and Russia's going to I may not be back, folks.
I am going to change the subject, perhaps by popular demand.
I want to get into some political stuff.
You should pick up today's New York Times, if for no other reason than to see this weird story about the Clintons.
They have on the top of page one a story that goes on and on and on and on and on about what kind of a marriage Bill and Hillary have.
I think it's fascinating that they're even delving into this.
Why are they doing it?
They dig into how much time they're spending together, how many days a month they are together, the oddity of the potential of her returning to the White House with him in tow.
I don't think it's an illegitimate news story.
I think it actually is a real story.
It will be very unusual to see a first lady running for president knowing that she's bringing the husband along with her.
I do think, and I'm one of these people who thinks that Hillary has no chance of being elected president.
I think there are too many odd things about the whole thing for the even the Democrats to nominate her.
And when you see a star, I mean, there is no other candidate for president who's the who's got 98 paragraphs appearing in the New York Times about their marriage and how much time they spend together.
There is going to be a different examination of her because of him.
Continuing on a political note, this is actually good news.
Scandal for once is good news.
The Republicans are facing a very, very tough fall election period for a lot of reasons.
People are concerned about the war with Iraq.
The Republicans have been in power for a while.
The last off-year election of a president's second term tends to be a bad one for the party in power.
And then you have the whole Tom Delay lobbying scandal thing that makes the Republicans in Congress appear to be not on the up and up.
And this is going to be part of the Democratic strategy.
Every Democrat every Democrat running for Congress in America this fall.
He's going to run an ad showing the Republican opponent morphing into Tom Delay, and they're going to have the headlines about the money and cozy they were with the lobbyists.
And they're going to try to scandalize the Republican Party.
That's the Democrat's strategy to win.
Well, that got screwed up a little bit over the weekend with the accusations against Congressman William Jefferson.
He's the guy that was the subject of an FBI investigation.
They raided his house and they found $90,000 in the freezer.
He actually had the money on ice.
The fact that this guy is facing these allegations, bribery, I think is going to make it harder, not impossible, but harder for the Democrats to be able to sell this notion of scandal as being a uniquely Republican thing.
I think corrupt politicians are as likely to be Democrats as Republicans, that when it comes to greed and sleaziness and the willingness to sell out your beliefs for money, that that's something that does it no party label.
The Duke Cunningham story of the Republican Congressman that was disgusting.
The allegations against Jefferson are disgusting.
As somebody who admired Tom Delay for a long time, I came to the conclusion that he either lost his motivation for why he went to Washington in the first place, or maybe he never really had it.
I think corruption is all over the place.
But politically, the fact that you've got this story with regard to Jefferson is going to make it harder for the Democrats to portray this whole thing as Republicans crooked.
Democrats good.
What is it about Democrats named William Jefferson, by the way, that Clinton's middle name, this guy's name is William.
Maybe Clinton was named after him, I don't know.
Now to our favorite musical group, the Dixie Chicks.
Their new CD is out and selling like hotcakes.
They are retracting their apology that they offered President Bush a couple of years ago after criticizing him while touring in Europe.
Natalie Maines, the head Dixie Chick, the fat one, said, I don't feel that way anymore.
I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever.
Marty McGuire, another member of the Dixie Chicks, saying that while this is going to cost them some of their following, the fact that they are retracting their apology to President Bush.
Some country radio stations around the country not playing their music.
She says I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it than people that have us in their five disc chamber changer with Reba McIntyre and Toby Keith.
So what was the last time you saw a celebrity saying that I don't want a lot of these fans that listen to other people?
Now I understand Toby Keith is he's a redneck.
I mean, he's a he's his stuff is really, really good.
He's he's right out there going after my taste.
What how does Reba McIntyre get linked in with that?
What did poor Reba do now to be uh ripped on by the Dixie Chicks?
My name is Mark Belling and I am sitting in for Rush.
This is the EIB network.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Never fear the great one will be back tomorrow.
Rush will be back in the chair.
I realize that you don't have an opportunity to hear me that this often, and I'm sure I have you completely confused now.
If you were listening in the first hour of the program, you think that I'm some sort of lefty because I'm soft in immigration.
If you listen to the third hour of the program, you think I'm some religious nut job, some right wing wing nut out here.
So I've got that what did Clinton call this triangulation?
Kind of catch you from all sides.
What did I do in the middle?
A little bit of conservative conservative economic stuff.
No, I'm really I'm I'm really just calling them as I see them, and I appreciate Rush and you giving me the opportunity to express myself.
I do want to make a serious comment about the Dixie chicks, who I alluded to before.
They made the cover of Time magazine now with this no apologies thing.
They're being praised for being outspoken and for being courageous.
There's nothing courageous about this.
They know full well that they are going to get huge media approval.
They know that this is going to get them publicity And positive feedback from all the people that matter.
Courage is stepping forward and saying the things that get hostility from the politically correct crowd.
Because as I established during my discussion of the Da Vinci Code, most of us out there who are conservative have tolerated so much that the next outrageous thing isn't going to bother us because we've been assaulted again and again and again.
So the Dixie Chicks can get away with assaulting our values.
There's nothing courageous about this.
They're just playing to an Amen corner out there and getting approval.
They aren't courageous, uttering viewpoints that you know will result in you being criticized.
That's where courage comes in.
I'm Mark Belling.
▲
Export Selection