Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week’s show is the very model of civil conversation and discourse as our hosts debate the President’s speech, and a whole host of his policies and positions. Who defends him and who throws him under the bus? This discussion may surprise you. Later, Hoover fellow Bruce Thorton joins to discuss the ever-evolving story in the Middle East and the continuing echoes of 9/11. Then, yep, El Rush Bro himself — David Limbaugh — stops by to chat about his new book Jesus On Trial (buy here now) which leads to yet another spirited discussion on faith and the deeper meaning of the Bible.
Music from this week’s episode:
How I Got Over by Aretha Franklin
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Thanks for not yelling at us, EJHill.
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Advertisers!
For the closest shave at the best prices, order your next shaving kit from Harry’s! Also, get new blades sent you automatically every month and never pay drugstore prices again. Save $5 from your first purchase by using the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
For 15% off any title, go to EncounterBooks.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout. This week’s featured title is Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel by Joshua Muravchik.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Thanks for the great testimonial, FightIn’!
You might consider Matt. 10:34, Luke 22:36. Christians are not pacifists, and the opposite of love is not violence but hate. Sometimes love requires violence, for instance when we intervene to protect an innocent victim under attack, or to stop a grave injustice. These motives are at the heart of the medieval Christian idea of chivalry.
The Christian difference with respect to Islam isn’t that Christians aren’t warlike, it is that we understand that the true war is primarily spiritual rather than merely physical (although the spiritual war may occasionally manifest itself in the physical domain – thus Christ’s references to swords). Paul’s epistles are replete with martial imagery, especially Ephesians 6:13-17.
Both Christians and Muslims are called to war – but for Muslims, as you point out, that war is a straightforward war of terrestrial conquest as exemplified by the career of Mohammed. For Christians, it is a spiritual war – but that spiritual war does not necessarily prevent us, and indeed may require us, to fight terrestrial wars as well.
Israel P.
Am I the only perwon who thinks that Hairy is a funny name for a shaving product?
Israel P.
Am I the only perwon who thinks that Hairy is a funny name for a shaving product?
Apparently, there’s at least two of you “perwon”s that think so. (It will be nice when the editing function is fixed.)
I’ve tried ordering Harry’s shaving products, but it appears they don’t deliver outside the USA and Canada.
He doesn’t stand up for things because an open stance can be challenged.
His underlings have been perfectly clear, in a “nice car, of course nothing will happen to it” way.
Early in his first term a lot of active and ready reserve military got surveys, at their home, with their identifying information, asking about their views on open homosexuals in the military. With much assurance about how of course this would never be used against them professionally… on the page you sign and fill out. Or you can enter your personalized code on the website and fill it out.
About the same time as the Black Panthers who were physically threatening voters were not being charged.
I heard the podcast interview with David Limbaugh yesterday while boarding my airliner for the long trip home to San Francisco and was moved to rearrange my reading priorities. I fired up my Kindle, bought a copy of Jesus on Trial and read about a quarter during the flight (my nap breaks were the fault of my schedule, not the author’s skill). You know what? David Limbaugh, a man I associate with trenchant political analysis, not theology, has written a respectful, solidly reasoned and above all deeply personal account of his journey from skepticism to Christianity. This is a very worthwhile and engaging book for the Christian, the seeker, and anyone interested in how one man approached finding answers to life’s biggest questions.
Which means B is always “golf”. Got it.
I’m not quite sure how someone, even someone like Barry who’s spent most of his life deferring responsibility for doing, well, anything, can square the statements he himself made about being devoted to the job of president if the people give him the votes, and his complete abdication of responsibility. An abdication that goes well past the “Bush’s fault” thing that he has so successfully beaten into the ground that even his supporters are rolling their eyes at him. For Exhibit A, I give you “Obamacare”, which he farmed entirely out to Congress and came in for the big win by signing it and stuff. And then not having regular meetings with HHS to see his signature accomplishment that he outsourced to others was doing.
He’s oblivious to responsibility. I’m pretty confident that he has no idea what that really means. Because he’s been able to deflect it from himself, all his life, and everything has turned out just gosh super-swell as a result. This is what happens to children whose parents excuse, cover, and coddle them – they grow up into adult children, who think they know how the world works, but are not living in the same one that you and I live in.
I think that’s part of it. But I also think he doesn’t believe in “correct” answers. It seems he thinks there are always multiple paths. Many equally good solutions. So he tries to choose the most politically advantageous solution from that set.
Also, I don’t think this is terribly unique to him. This sort of thinking is taught in college “leadership” classes.
Unfortunately, in real life, one usually has to pick something and move on.
That’s not what I heard. Rob shouted Peter down before Peter could explain himself. That’s not just bad manners. It’s a waste of our time. I listen to these podcasts for arguments (and jokes), not to hear someone simply call a statement “absurd” and leave it at that.
I didn’t agree with Peter either, but I wanted to hear his reasoning.
“Let me finish!” He shouldn’t have to shout to be heard. We get enough of that garbage on TV news.
Maintaining civility on a podcast is difficult enough for the simple reason that participants can’t see each other and know from facial cues whose turn it is to speak. James gets trampled half the time he tries to join in.
Are we better off now than in 2011, defense-wise?
Rob’s point is a strong one. Americans are now alert to dangers they were not previously attentive to. However, many Americans have taken that caution to the point of paranoia. Schools and businesses are evacuated just because someone doesn’t recognize an unattended package or backpack. Every year, September 11th is treated by citizens and officials alike as if it was Friday the 13th. Fear of terrorism continues to significantly disrupt American life. And politicians have capitalized on that fear by greatly expanding bureaucracies and legal authorities.
What made the United States exceptional even among free nations was a radical degree of preference for freedom over security — two good and necessary values which are forever in contest. Americans preferred great risks in pursuit of great rewards, forgoing oversight and restrictions which might reduce the threats of pain and loss.
Do Americans still prefer freedom to security? Is this still a core aspect of “the American Experiment”? 9-11 tipped that balance heavily in favor of the Nanny State… apparently forever.
That was supposed to be standard starting back after Columbine.
We don’t treat 9/11 like “Friday the 13th,” we treat it like a dark alley. We don’t know that something dangerous is down it, but it’s not a bad bet.
There’s a difference between freedom and ignorance. 9/11 made it so it was much harder to be ignorant about people not wishing us well; those who prefer ignorance are now trying to make it so they can act like they did when they were ignorant, which would be the trading for the appearance of security that you see.
“We tried to do more than we could do [in Iraq].”
No, Peter. We tried to do more than we would do. As one empire after another has demonstrated, as recently as the British in India, it is possible to force change on a culture; but the necessity of force doesn’t end upon invasion. The occupying military must be confident that at least some aspects of its own culture are superior, and be willing to impose those values.
In Christianity, we are constantly reminded that salvation requires surrender/death of the old self. It requires humility, acceptance of fault, and guidance. The deeper and more pervasive the corruption, the more painful the remedy.
Iraq’s culture and politics could have been fundamentally changed, but neither our voters nor our politicians were ever willing to do what was necessary to achieve that. The Bush administration confused democracy with freedom, and confused infrastructure with society.
I think our porous borders have tipped the balance, not a preference on the part of the Average American. Many, myself included, would prefer greater security at the border and maintenance of our traditional civil liberties at home. But DC elites of both parties aren’t going to allow it.
I travel internationally nearly every month and the United States remains the only country I have encountered that pays no attention to who is leaving. There is no passport control here, no need for a foreign visitor to reconcile visa and length of stay. This was the case prior to 9-11 and, despite untold billions spent on “homeland security,” the system hasn’t changed.
Our open border to the south guarantees that we don’t even know who is arriving, never mind who is overstaying an originally legitimate visa. Since we can’t keep the bad guys out–too politically incorrect–our homeland security apparatus begins treating each individual as a potential national security threat. And the Agriculture department gets its own SWAT team.
One of these years, when the calendar cycles align, Sept 11 will fall on Friday the 13th. =P
To David Limbaugh and others, here is a quote from 19th Century Scottish Presbyterian minister John Dick that speaks to Islam, and the Koran specifically and highlights the point being made:
“The Koran is stamped with the express image and superscription of the profligate in whose brain it was concocted and in the absence of all internal and external evidence of its truth, it was first propagated and is still supported by the sword. Its success only proves that Muhammad was a conqueror and that his followers, stimulated to frenzy by enthusiasm, were too strong for the nations in whose dominions they invaded under the standard of the crescent. There is not an instance of a nation which embraced the religion of Muhammad from a calm, unbiased investigation of its claims.”
— John Dick, “Lectures On Theology“, pg. 55
(Also David Limbaugh grossly misunderstands Calvinism)
Wait, don’t they use Skype? They can see each other.
I am still mad at Rob for contemptuously stomping on James’ awesome summary of all the Star Treks that one time. Anyone else remember that? But, I forgive Rob in other ways.
I can speak for myself only, but I have lived in New York City for nine years and it is my experience that September 11th is a very frightening time of year. Despite the reality that NYC is always a target no matter the time of year (for instance, the attempted Times Square bombing in May 2010), I feel more vulnerable around the anniversary of 9/11. Perhaps you feel differently in Texas. I suppose you have fewer opportunities to wonder if the person sitting next to you on the subway is a suicide bomber.
They can’t see each other as we don’t use video when we record the podcast. Way too much of a bandwidth hog.
Oh, gotcha.
By the way, I know you’ve said that you do already do this, but please continue to remind them to mute their microphones when they’re not talking.
Forgive me for going all meta here and if someone’s already made this point, but damn: Rob was just a powerhouse in this podcast! I almost need a transcript to follow and keep up with all his interrelated tangents. Regarding the holy mess in Iraq and Syria–how it relates to our own country’s popular and political paralysis on the issue of Islamic terrorism and what it portends–Rob bobbed and weaved around through the issues and arguments thumping us with one head-smacking trenchant point after another. Rob ate his Wheaties before this one.
I found this a really strong and really entertaining episode. Probably the best yet of any Ricochet podcast. Y’all must have been well-rested. Maybe you should skip a week more often. (Kidding!)
Thanks for the wonderful discussion.
Like I wrote in the member feed, strong and entertaining it was until David Limbaugh went on his religious rant. Passionate arguing is not fun to listen to–do you enjoy listening to Hannity and that Cornell West guy going at it? I’ll forgive Peter and Rob though. However that Mississippi Preacher-Man monologue about religion from Limbaugh was over the top. Thank god Peter stopped him.
I’m glad that a guest got to speak for more than seven minutes, but I wish it hadn’t been an evangelical witnessing. And when someone casually mentions Intelligent Design as if it were not a pseudo-scientific farce, they lose all credibility. You can say that I’m making the argument from (no-)authority fallacy, but if you’re advocating ID I worry you are not conducting rational analyses of any other topics.
The conversation between our three regulars at the end was great, though. Rob is becoming quite the extemporaneous polemicist.
Indeed. Intelligent Design isn’t an observation as much as it is a conclusion – because it works backwards from a predetermined conclusion. It is a presuppositional argument.
It was interesting to hear Peter lose it and unload. Not something you hear everyday. Who else is ready for Uncommon ***whuppin’ with Peter Robinson?