Rush vs. the Pope - Really???

Before I begin this endeavor, let me begin by letting my readers know that I am a registered independent voter. I have as many critiques of Democrats as I do of Republicans. Just because this particular critique is of a Republican does not in anyway make Democrats the victors. Democrats have played as much into this issue as have Republicans - it just turns out that a Republican, Rush Limbaugh, is the one that happened to speak up.

We kid ourselves in the United States if we think that either party is "for" the people. Both parties are "for" corporations. That is where they get their financing. I recently saw an internet meme with President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush saying that both are essentially Corporate CEO's.  As sad as that is, that is basically the truth. Of course, these two presidents are not the only presidents who have been "sell outs" to corporations. This has been happening for years.

But now, let me turn my attention to the topic of this writing. The source of my critique can be found here (A Link to the Rush Limbaugh Show).

In this show transcript, Rush Limbaugh takes on and is upset by Pope Francis' "attacks" on "unfettered capitalism as a 'new tyranny.'"

First, Mr. Limbaugh admits that he is not Catholic. That is to his credit. I find this respectable. Unfortunately, this is where Mr. Limbaugh did not stop. Rather than saying he needs to research the Pope's stance or that he respectfully disagrees, Mr. Limbaugh takes a pompous and arrogant attitude displaying that he knows little to nothing about Christian teaching on the subject of economics. What is more disturbing is that the blind followers of Mr. Limbaugh may see what he says as "gospel" and equate it with "true Christian teaching" thus perverting the True Gospel.

Limbaugh says that the Pope has gone "beyond Catholicism" and has become "pure political." It would do Limbaugh well to recognize that the Gospel message is political. By claiming "Jesus is Lord," we are not making a mere spiritual statement, we are making a political statement. By saying, "Jesus is Lord," we are saying, "Caesar (or the President, or the King, or Money, or whatever else) is not Lord." We are saying that we may respect our earthly rulers, but we are saying that we worship our Messianic Ruler. No political statement can be larger than that. It would do Limbaugh well to research the martyrs who have given their lives because they refused to honor the ruler of the day because they worshipped the one true God incarnate in Jesus Christ. Limbaugh would be wise to research those who have dedicated their lives to serving this God incarnate in Christ, who is at odds with the world's political systems, at great risk and suffering to their own comfort and well being.  Limbaugh would be very wise to visit his local homeless shelter where everyday people are violating his "winner take all" system and giving to the "least of these" as Christ commanded. That, my friends, is politics.

Mr. Limbaugh goes on to say that the Vatican itself would not exist without capitalism.  On this point, he may be right. I say, "may be right" because I am not versed well enough in Catholic Church history to know how the Vatican was funded. I would assume, that the ornate decorations, the vast amount of gold and jewels, and the artwork were not donated. But, again, Mr. Limbaugh is assuming that these items were bought on the free market in competition. I will tread lightly because it may be possible that some of these items were up for competition among buyers. The majority, however, were specially made for the Vatican. Of course it took money and profit to buy them. But the capitalism that it took to buy those items is not the same type of capitalism it takes to run a multi-national company that competes with another multi-national company while employing workers and holding the fates of towns and cities in the palms of their hands.

He then goes on to accuse the Pope of Marxism. A "theologian" such as Limbaugh should know very well that a Marxism is a worldly system and is of no concern to the economics of God's Kingdom. Pope John Paul II had strong criticisms of Communism (mostly of the Soviet Union). The fact that Pope Francis is critiquing Unfettered Capitalism does not mean that he is in an "either-or" game. The Pope is advocating God's Economics. When he says that the rich should share their wealth, that is not Marxism, that is "Jesusism." Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me (Matthew 25:40)." Jesus is not advocating an earthly economic system. Jesus is pronouncing the Kingdom of God. Does the Kingdom of God look like Marxism? Hardly! Marxism excludes a certain class of people. The Kingdom of God includes everyone who would be a part. The only exclusion is self-exclusion. 

Limbaugh sets up a poor argument to accomplish his political agenda. After accusing the Pope of Marxism, he goes into a rant about how Democrats are modern day Socialists. First of all, this is completely untrue, and second of all, this is just short of blasphemy that he uses the Church to do this. The Democrats are as close to Socialism as Limbaugh is. Both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to Unfettered Capitalism. The Democrats give lip-service to "care for the poor" as do Republicans. Both parties say they have solutions, but in the end, neither party delivers. Neither party creates jobs. Neither party increases the family income. Neither party decreases the number of people who need social welfare. Instead, they blame the need for welfare on the recipients instead of on the system. Of course there are some who abuse the system. There will always be people who abuse ANY system. But to blame the millions who are on welfare for their own plight is ludicrous. When there are no jobs to find, when the poor and racial minorities are confined to the worst parts of cities with bad schools and no job training, when faith communities refuse to see their neighbors as themselves, what do we expect? 

Later in his show, Limbaugh goes on a patriotic discussion of the United States. He talks of American exceptionalism. I certainly hope Limbaugh is not expecting to convert the Pope to his line of thinking. I also hope he is not expecting to convert Christians to this narrative. Christians can love whatever nation they are from. Christians can find beauty and goodness in the world. Christians, however, are "resident aliens" in this world. Stated differently - This world is not our home. Those of us who live in the United States do not deny the goodness of our nation. Our ultimate allegiance, however, is with the Kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ. Contrary to Limbaugh and our founding documents, we DO NOT have a God Given Right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We may have a legal right to that here in America, and that can be debated depending on your social and racial class, but we do not have a God Given Right. God did not inspire the Constitution. God inspired the Bible. There were some God loving people who wrote the Constitution, and there were some who did not know God who wrote the Constitution. Compare it to this: I love God, but God did not inspire this article. I wrote this article. God did not. This article is not Scripture. God gave me the skills to critique and to write, but this article is not beyond error. You, my reader, are allowed to disagree with anything in here. I may disagree with my own writing in a few days or weeks. It's happened before, and it may happen again.

Limbaugh concludes with a long rant about Democrats, Communism, and sharing wealth. Basically, Limbaugh is shadow boxing in this argument because he does not know what he is arguing. He thinks he is arguing against a real political foe, but he is not. Limbaugh is not arguing against a Democrat or a Communist. Limbaugh has labeled the Pope something he is not. The Pope is not concerned with changing from one system of economics to another current system of economics. In that area, Limbaugh is right. Moving from Capitalism to Communism would be disastrous - Or, it would be as disastrous as Unfettered Capitalism.  Instead, the Pope is calling all Christians to follow God's Economic Plan. 

God's Economic Plan is one of abundance. The world's economic plans are of scarcity. If we followed God's plan, there would be enough for all. Look at the statistics - there are enough resources and wealth for every person on this planet. There is no statistical reason that anyone should starve to death. Notice I didn't say, "be poor," or "go without something one wants." I said, "STARVE TO DEATH." Take a moment and think what that means. Most of us can't even envision ourselves starving to the point of death. But millions do it every year. Millions do it when there is enough food and resources to prevent it. The Pope is calling for simple Christian charity, but he is also calling for world transformation. He is calling for us to live into what Christ has called us to do. We don't change the world - God does. But, Christ has already told us what to do - When will we actually listen?

Letter Sent to Presidential Candidate Former Senator Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, a former US Senator is running for the presidency in 2012.  After reading a quote he made about education, I sent him the following e mail via townhall.com and his Presidential Campaign FaceBook Page.  Ironically, there is no link to contact him on his official Campaign Website.

Dear Senator Santorum,

In this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-santorum-iowa-2012_n_919266.html), you were quoted as saying that our “schools indoctrinate our children.”  You went on to say that surveys show that students find socialism to be better than capitalism, and the ultimate reason is that is because “they don’t understand America.”

From this website (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm#Education) , I found your voting record while you were in the US Senate of the votes pertaining to education. From that website, I have selected just a few issues from 2001-2005:

            *You Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)

            *You Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr                                     2001)

If this account of your voting is inaccurate, I would appreciate a correction.

Senator Santorum, I have to agree with you that our schools DO, in fact, indoctrinate our nation’s children.  But, that indoctrination does not stem from a fundamental flaw with public education, nor does it stem from inadequate teachers (I will grant you that there are inadequate teachers, but that is not our immediate problem).

As for my background, I have been a public school teacher for 10 years. During those years, I taught mainly in high-poverty communities with few exceptions.  I hold a BA in Music Education, an M.Ed. in Educational Administration, and I am working on my M.Div. degree in Pastoral Ministry.  I am proud to be serving as the pastor of a church, and I am even more proud to be the husband of a former teacher and the father of 2 small children ages 2 and 5. 

As stated before, our schools do indoctrinate our children.  What you call socialism, teachers call “sharing.”  From day one of Kindergarten, children are taught to share their toys, learning materials, and ideas.  While you see this as a Communist plot, we call it “learning to work with others,” something that sadly you and many other politicians failed to learn as is proven almost every time the nation requires cooperation across party lines.

Your voting record may indicate why children say that socialism is better than capitalism.  As I said, most of my teaching career was in high-poverty communities.  Because of the lack of funds to these schools (and your voting record is clear that you supported this lack of funding), we had to ration things such as paper and pencils.  Teachers continue to be limited in the number of copies they can make because the school budget does not allow for such “luxuries.”  Senator Santorum, from your own record, it is obvious that you took part in creating this situation.  So, rather than “survival of the fittest,” and allowing the “more motivated” students have access to the pencils and paper, many of us teachers used socialistic techniques such as “rationing,” “sharing,” and “recycling.” 

You voted to fund private tutors rather than reducing class sizes, but yet the “No Child Left Behind Act” states that ALL students should be competent in the tested subjects.  Do you find it ironic that by stating that all must be equal, The NCLB Act supports a socialistic agenda?  I’m certain, however, that you were only using socialism to actually root out the “lower performing students,” and allow the “gifted students” to rise up as would be part of a true capitalistic agenda based on competition and success through personal effort.  Through the NCLB, you can, in effect deny funding to those schools that do not perform as arbitrarily decided by people who have little to no educational background.  Sadly, you did not make it clear to teachers or school administrators that this was your agenda.  So, in the spirit of socialism, schools attempt to teach EVERY child to reach his or her highest potential, and schools have jumped aboard and teach to the arbitrary standards (which, as I’m sure an expert on education such as yourself would know are not statistically valid measures of actual educational goals).  Despite the large class sizes, teachers try to give their time equally to all students with added time during their lunch breaks, planning periods, or recess to assist the lower performing students.  So that we know unequivocally that you do not support these socialistic techniques, will you please go on the record and state that education is ONLY for those who can compete at the top notch? 

Again, as one who sees public education as the enemy as it is in its current form, I, and many Americans would like your answers to the following questions:

            *Though you attended Butler (PA) Area School District in your youth, you graduated from Carmel High School in Illinois (a Private Catholic School).  Though I don’t think many would begrudge your private education, could you please let the public know how this qualifies you to legislate public school policy?

            *As a person of faith and a pastor, I believe most certainly that God created the universe.  If you will permit me to assume that from your “Santorum Amendment” to the NCLB which basically says that schools should be required to teach Intelligent Design and promote the idea that the evolutionary theory is flawed, why do you also state “Compassionate Conservatism relies on healthy families, freedom of faith…(emphasis is my own)” (November 17, 2005: "The Conservative Future: Compassion".http://townhall.com/columnists/ricksantorum/2005/11/17/the_conservative_future_compassion)?  How does promoting this religious belief in public education allow for “freedom of faith?”

            *In order for schools to be able to avoid vicariously teaching socialistic concepts such as sharing, rationing, and recycling, would you please go on the record that you in fact support funding schools so that each student can have his/her own piece of paper, pencil, textbook, etc. and that teachers will be provided with adequate educational essentials so they do not have to spend money out of their own pockets (taking away from their families and their own wellbeing)?

            *Finally, so that the idea of competition to achieve a desired end can be taught and practiced, will you please go on the record and advocate for the complete repeal of the NCLB which in fact promotes a socialistic agenda saying that ALL students are equal?

Senator Santorum, as an American, voter, former teacher, current parent, person of faith, and pastor, I ask that you address the above questions so that America does not fall into the abyss of what was once the Soviet Union under communism.

I will pray that you make wise decisions during your presidential campaign and in whatever may follow.

Educational Policies of Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, a former US Senator is running for the presidency in 2012.  After reading a quote he made about education, I sent him the following e mail via townhall.com and his Presidential Campaign FaceBook Page.  Ironically, there is no link to contact him on his official Campaign Website.

Dear Senator Santorum,

In this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-santorum-iowa-2012_n_919266.html), you were quoted as saying that our “schools indoctrinate our children.”  You went on to say that surveys show that students find socialism to be better than capitalism, and the ultimate reason is that is because “they don’t understand America.”

From this website (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm#Education) , I found your voting record while you were in the US Senate of the votes pertaining to education. From that website, I have selected just a few issues from 2001-2005:

            *You Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)

            *You Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar                                     2005)

            *You Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)

            *You Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr                                     2001)

If this account of your voting is inaccurate, I would appreciate a correction.

Senator Santorum, I have to agree with you that our schools DO, in fact, indoctrinate our nation’s children.  But, that indoctrination does not stem from a fundamental flaw with public education, nor does it stem from inadequate teachers (I will grant you that there are inadequate teachers, but that is not our immediate problem).

As for my background, I have been a public school teacher for 10 years.  During those years, I taught mainly in high-poverty communities with few exceptions.  I hold a BA in Music Education, an M.Ed. in Educational Administration, and I am working on my M.Div. degree in Pastoral Ministry.  I am proud to be serving as the pastor of a church, and I am even more proud to be the husband of a former teacher and the father of 2 small children ages 2 and 5. 

As stated before, our schools do indoctrinate our children.  What you call socialism, teachers call “sharing.”  From day one of Kindergarten, children are taught to share their toys, learning materials, and ideas.  While you see this as a Communist plot, we call it “learning to work with others,” something that sadly you and many other politicians failed to learn as is proven almost every time the nation requires cooperation across party lines.

Your voting record may indicate why children say that socialism is better than capitalism.  As I said, most of my teaching career was in high-poverty communities.  Because of the lack of funds to these schools (and your voting record is clear that you supported this lack of funding), we had to ration things such as paper and pencils.  Teachers continue to be limited in the number of copies they can make because the school budget does not allow for such “luxuries.”  Senator Santorum, from your own record, it is obvious that you took part in creating this situation.  So, rather than “survival of the fittest,” and allowing the “more motivated” students have access to the pencils and paper, many of us teachers used socialistic techniques such as “rationing,” “sharing,” and “recycling.” 

You voted to fund private tutors rather than reducing class sizes, but yet the “No Child Left Behind Act” states that ALL students should be competent in the tested subjects.  Do you find it ironic that by stating that all must be equal, The NCLB Act supports a socialistic agenda?  I’m certain, however, that you were only using socialism to actually root out the “lower performing students,” and allow the “gifted students” to rise up as would be part of a true capitalistic agenda based on competition and success through personal effort.  Through the NCLB, you can, in effect deny funding to those schools that do not perform as arbitrarily decided by people who have little to no educational background.  Sadly, you did not make it clear to teachers or school administrators that this was your agenda.  So, in the spirit of socialism, schools attempt to teach EVERY child to reach his or her highest potential, and schools have jumped aboard and teach to the arbitrary standards (which, as I’m sure an expert on education such as yourself would know are not statistically valid measures of actual educational goals).  Despite the large class sizes, teachers try to give their time equally to all students with added time during their lunch breaks, planning periods, or recess to assist the lower performing students.  So that we know unequivocally that you do not support these socialistic techniques, will you please go on the record and state that education is ONLY for those who can compete at the top notch? 

Again, as one who sees public education as the enemy as it is in its current form, I, and many Americans would like your answers to the following questions:

            *Though you attended Butler (PA) Area School District in your youth, you graduated from Carmel High School in Illinois (a Private Catholic School).  Though I don’t think many would begrudge your private education, could you please let the public know how this qualifies you to legislate public school policy?

            *As a person of faith and a pastor, I believe most certainly that God created the universe.  If you will permit me to assume that from your “Santorum Amendment” to the NCLB which basically says that schools should be required to teach Intelligent Design and promote the idea that the evolutionary theory is flawed, why do you also state “Compassionate Conservatism relies on healthy families, freedom of faith…(emphasis is my own)” (November 17, 2005: "The Conservative Future: Compassion". http://townhall.com/columnists/ricksantorum/2005/11/17/the_conservative_future_compassion)?  How does promoting this religious belief in public education allow for “freedom of faith?”

            *In order for schools to be able to avoid vicariously teaching socialistic concepts such as sharing, rationing, and recycling, would you please go on the record that you in fact support funding schools so that each student can have his/her own piece of paper, pencil, textbook, etc. and that teachers will be provided with adequate educational essentials so they do not have to spend money out of their own pockets (taking away from their families and their own wellbeing)?

            *Finally, so that the idea of competition to achieve a desired end can be taught and practiced, will you please go on the record and advocate for the complete repeal of the NCLB which in fact promotes a socialistic agenda saying that ALL students are equal?

Senator Santorum, as an American, voter, former teacher, current parent, person of faith, and pastor, I ask that you address the above questions so that America does not fall into the abyss of what was once the Soviet Union under communism.

I will pray that you make wise decisions during your presidential campaign and in whatever may follow.