Rush Limbaugh, "The Egalitarian Left & Intelligent Design" (2005)

"The Rush Limbaugh Show" December 23, 2005; http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122305/content/institute.guest.html

>

The Egalitarian Left & Intelligent Design

December 23, 2005

> <a href="http:/mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/05/12/12205_8_intelligent_design.asx">

> BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
>

RUSH: This is Michael in Charlotte, Michigan. Nice to have you with us.
> CALLER: Hello, Rush.
> RUSH: Hello, sir.
> CALLER: Yes. My axiom, which can be applied to all liberals, is: The God you make is the God you must defend. The God that made you needs no defense. With that said, I was wanting to know your opinion on the court rejecting the ability for high school teachers to mention intelligent design as an alternative viewpoint for how man came into being.
>

RUSH: Well, you know, I have mixed emotions about this on multiple levels. For one thing, it doesn't surprise me at all, just in the context of judicial activism. I think it's another great example of how we need different kinds of judges. I mean, I know the case ended up before the guy, but these are the kinds of cases that the school board had authorized and a bunch of parents sued and it ends up before this judge and this judge just discounts it on behalf of the district that he rules in, just discounts it. On the other hand, I do think this: I think that the people -- and I know why they're doing it, but I still think that it's a little bit disingenuous. Let's make no mistake. The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones, that there is just some intelligent being far greater than anything any of us can even imagine that's responsible for all this, and of course I don't have any doubt of that. But I think that they're sort of pussyfooting around when they call it intelligent design.

Call it what it is. You believe God created the world, and you think that it's warranted that this kind of theory for the explanation for all that is be taught. On the other hand, I understand why they went with intelligent design, because they knew that calling it what I just called it gave it no chance. They wanted to sneak it in and at least have it exposed. Well, they realized they're dealing with liberals here, and liberals are intolerant when it comes to this. You can find all kinds of reasons to explain this, be it radical egalitarianism or self-loathing or what have you. And I think there are equal amounts of both that go into explaining this. But at the root of it is you have fear. The liberal cannot stand to be confronted with anything that would challenge the cocoon-like existence he or she has, so anything that does bounces off the cocoon in which they live. It's like a boundary that just doesn't permeate. Fact or not, it doesn't permeate. They will not even consider it. And when it threatens them -- see, I think if they were firm in their belief, if they were confident in their belief that evolution explains everything, they wouldn't mind a competing point of view because they could knock it down. They would relish the opportunity to defeat it. But they are threatened by it precisely because they fear it and they fear it because deep within themselves, they know that they're probably not right about this. But they don't have the guts or the temerity, the courage to admit that.
> You got to understand who we're dealing with here, and they have now structured things such as this: when 95% of the people of the country agree with something, 5% of the country disagrees, the liberal will say the 5% must win because we can't hurt their feelings, we mustn't offend them. They already feel left out. We are excluding them from our society and our country. We are excluding their views, and we can't do that. And so the only fair thing to do is present nobody's views, except we will present our views, which don't threaten anybody because our views are the ones that everybody knows are right. And these are the

5 to 10% of the people that win the day on these kinds of arguments. Everybody is susceptible to the egalitarian argument and the egalitarian argument goes sort of like this: That perfection is possible in every human being, and that when a human being comes along who is not perfect, that person deserves our sympathy because that person who is not perfect is going to be shunned or made fun of or denied rights or what have you. So the liberal will take those people, whoever they are, whatever their so-called affliction or their behavior or existence that does not fit within the confines of what we define as normal, and champion them. And will make them heroes and will turn them into fearless crusaders against a tyrannical majority. And this is where I think the Christians in this country are suffering. They're viewed as a tyrannical majority, forcing their way on people, demanding that their way be believed and followed and heard when it's just the exact opposite.
> The Christian majority in this country is the majority because it's the majority. It's the majority because of numbers. This is a democracy, a representative republic, and yet when any of the -- I don't care if it's a religious view or an environmental view or a political view, if it offends liberals who believe that nobody should go through life offended, with hurt feelings, then whatever is going on to cause that has got to be stopped. And they end up making these arguments and they are based in emotion and they're rooted at trying to permeate people's hearts. "Oh, yes it's unfortunate they feel bad. Well, okay." But it's gone on and on and on for so long now that it's become apparent what it really is. The effort that is underway here is to redefine the traditions and institutions that made the country great, and to say that those very traditions and institutions that made the country great actually led to a bad country. We are not a fair country, we're an unjust country. We are mean-spirited. We are extremist. We are environmentalist destructors. We destroyed a once pristine place that the great Native Americans protected with all of their being. We've come along, we've introduced racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, all these things, in society. This is what the majority has done. America's not a just country. America's not good, and any value that defines American traditions and institutions is good. Therefore, it becomes subject of attack and assault on the part and by people who are simply feeling left out, like they're a little odd, a little weird, and the people who sympathize with them. And that is why you will find various types and groups of people championed and embraced by the egalitarian left because they're the true crusaders, they're the ones that have courage, they're living in a place they don't like.
> END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

(USAToday: 'Intelligent design' ruling may have ripples)

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Sections

Personal tools

Rush Limbaugh, "The Egalitarian Left & Intelligent Design" (2005)

Document Actions