The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Laura and Her Ilk

The most obscene thing about Laura Ingraham, the neocon pundit who subs for Bill O'Reilly and joins the discussion on Fox News Sunday from time to time, is that she never appears on TV she doesn't have a big gold cross dangling from a gold chain around her neck. (In her favor I must say at least she doesn't have a huge Adam's apple like her colleague Ann Coulter.)

Almost all of the conservative pundits I have seen on TV profess their Christianity, incorporating it into their selfish views on government, including the idea that there should be no separation of church and state. Yet the very things they stand for would, in my opinion -- had the guy been buried and not resurrected -- have caused their prophet to roll over, squirm, and scream in his grave, protesting as I must believe he would, the notion that getting filthy rich is saintly. They ignore the fact that the early Christians at least had the grace to recognize that the idea of property ownership was anathema to their prophet's message; for this reason, they were the original communists.

Neocons like Ms. Ingraham follow the "prosperity gospel" espoused by the leaders of the mega-churches, whose Sunday sermons suggest that God wants us to amass great fortunes. I understand Oliver Stone is making a sequel to Wall Street. I hope he does it right and has Gordon Gekko coming out of the penitentiary, donning a clerical collar, and preaching (as do the evangelicals in so many words): "Greed is good."

0 members like this

Attachments:

225px-Laura_Ingraham.jpg, 13 KB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angie Jackson on May 3, 2009 at 7:08pm

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. 'nough said.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 3, 2009 at 7:51pm

I think they need to re-write the Cardinal Virtues they hold so dear. Some humble suggestions -

~~Prudence~~ - Knee-jerking
~~Justice~~ - Selfishness
~~Temperence~~ - Greed
~~Fortitude~~ - Scapegoating

At least then they could also claim to be honest.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on May 3, 2009 at 9:46pm

Touche, felch! Tee hee....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 3, 2009 at 10:14pm

Trouble is, it's as true as it is amusing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on May 3, 2009 at 9:38pm

Angie, interesting you should mention Jim and Tammy Faye, lol. (Actually, I do not know why I am chuckling; I think, toward the end, knowing she was dying of a fatal illness, Tammy Faye "repented," e.g. supporting gay rights, and anybody who doesn't think Jim enjoyed his stint in the hoozgow doesn't have hir gaydar turned on.) When the Bakker scandal broke, who do you recall it was stepped in and took it upon himself to become an ad hoc receiver of their vast broadcasting empire? Why, none other than that king bigot, the ReverEND Jerry Faultwell. Anyway, somehow the network itself wound up in the hands of one Paul Crouch, Sr.

Say what you will about Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), he had the courage to go after the mega-churches for tax violations, but I don't think anything came of it. The Crouch Empire (shared by Paul, Sr., his wife Jan -- recently divorced, and now we know why, and his sons Paul, Jr. and Matthew) includes a couple dozen McMansions, including California beachfront homes and one in the mountains, a jet big enough to fly for a regional airline, and many other luxuries (remember the Bakkers' air-conditioned dog house?) Between the two of them, at the time of their divorce the Crouches were earning a million dollars a year. Unfortunately, so far as I know, Grassley's campaign went nowhere.

Crouch Sr. was outed by a long-time worker for his Trinity Broadcasting Network; it seems the two of them had some sexual dalliances in the mountain retreat. Jan Crouch is no longer married to him. Matthew was heard to comment: "I am devastated. I am confronted with having to face the fact that my father is a homosexual." Duh! Here is City Room Press's take on the scandal, which broke about a year ago:

"At the time of the investigation into the homosexual relationship, it was learned the Crouch's, who claim to be humble folks of middle-class America, bought a $5 million oceanfront home in the California yachting resort of Newport Beach. Crouch claimed the luxurious home was proof of the lavish rewards bestowed upon them by the Almighty for their good works.

"Millions of TBN partners in America and third world countries are poor, low income people that give sacrificially a portion of their income. While they struggle to meet daily needs, such as food and shelter, the Crouch's have secretly lived the lief style of the rich and famous." See http://www.cityroompress.com/2008/03/sex-scandal-continues-to-rock.

Sometimes I wish there really were a Hell.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl on May 5, 2009 at 2:03pm

What is more interesting I think is that these people are allowed the airtime.
I know Americans are very attached to the principle of freedom of speech but there comes a time when the good of the people is better served by not allowing them any freedom of speech.
There is a precident for this in england at any rate when the barking mad wingnut Margret Thatcher banned any member of the IRA from being seen on television.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on May 5, 2009 at 6:00pm

I'm sorry, I cannot agree. I am a 1st Amendment absolutist. The only speech I would squelch is the type that leads immediately to violence threatening life or limb, e.g. falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. When he served on the U. S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a dissent to a case involving a communist publication (as I recall, but the exact nature of the message is not relevant here). He said that if the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is to have any meaning at all, it is that we allow unpopular sentiments to be openly expressed "in the marketplace of ideas," there to be shouted down, if that be the will of the public. While I dislike (well, despise) fundamentalist and evangelical Christian broadcasters, I cannot deny them the right to a forum.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl on May 6, 2009 at 2:11pm

So if you live in a country where people with green eyes are despised, and then someone comes on the radio saying that people with green eyes should be killed on sight,thats OK is it? according to the 1st amendment thats perfectly Ok. you are living ina country where people are afraid to stand up and say 'I am an atheist' for fear of loosing their jobs or being assaulted yet right wing loonies are allowed to incite people to murder, for a so called civilised country that's pathetic.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on May 6, 2009 at 4:56pm

No, if you remember (or go back now to) what I said, I believe in an absolute right to express any sentiment or idea no matter how loony. But if your speech incites to violence, that should be curtailed. You may recall that during the last presidential campaign, some of John McCain's supporters would go to his speeches and shout hings like, "Kill him!" (meaning Obama). McCain was quick to hush them, but if he'd said, "Yes, we should kill him," he probably would have been arrested. You cannot incite a crowd to violence in the U.S. under our Constitution. That is the one big no-no. That is as bad as "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" because, either way, someone gets hurt.