Rusty Reno Apologizes for His Tweets About Masks

Today, on First Things, Rusty Reno apologized for his “foolish and ill-considered remarks about masks and mask wearing.” It is short, so I reproduce it here.

I regret my foolish and ill-considered remarks about masks and mask wearing on Twitter on Tuesday, May 12. Masks are clearly indicated in many situations. I used over-heated rhetoric and false analogies. It was wrong for me to impugn the intentions and motives of others, for which I apologize.

I wrote about his tweets (now deleted along with his entire account) last week. Given the position First Things has in the world of religion, it would be good to hear what tipped the scale in the other direction.

This seems like a good start. Reno also distorted history in his crusade against social distancing measures and it would be a good thing to see corrections made there as well.

11 thoughts on “Rusty Reno Apologizes for His Tweets About Masks”

  1. It is a twisted relationship with fundamentalist Christian thinking and laissez faire capitalism that appears to catalyze comments like Reno’s fulminations. That relationship goes back many years.

    1. Yes, the “twisted relationship” of which you speak is a very strange one; one would have thought that those most inclined to take the words of Jesus and the prophets at face value would be unconcerned about money … yet they appear to be adamant about their ‘right’ to make money regardless of how that might impact on others.

      And it works the other way round too: a friend who has finally left a somewhat fundamentalist outfit was giving large sums knowing that the funds were not being used responsibly (“I must be a joyful giver and not question what my ‘superiors’ do with the cash” – something which I put down to fear and control).

      1. Speaking of money- I will watch “The Real Jane Roe” on FX this Friday- I want to know who she says paid her to lie about her life- and see if it is believable. Once someone reverses their account, and then reverses again- it’s difficult to know which reversal is credible.

        1. I think you mean “AKA Jane Roe”. It was “Operation Rescue” that paid her according to Rob Schenck (former OR member). However, OR is denying the claim that they paid her to change her views (but I couldn’t find any denials that they paid her.)

          1. Yeah I read that finally. Can’t wait for the movie. I expect it will be growing evidence that fundamentalist Christians lie as much and are as extreme in their beliefs as Muslim fundamentalists. They just aren’t as violent about it….yet.

          2. Not violent? I suggest you look up the names:

            Eric Rudolph
            Michael Griffin
            Jim Kopp

            Army of God

            And those are just a few of the anti-abortion christian fundamentalists. If you start looking at anti-gay, anti-semetic etc then you get into hategroups like the KKK and the list gets a lot longer.

        2. Abortion is, to be sure, a particularly sensitive and complex issue. In principle I am opposed to it (as I suspect most people are), but in practice, I can see the need for an appropriate legal framework to address the situation where a women believes that she has no other credible option.

          Of course, we would all like to see the incidence of abortion reduced to the lowest possible level. One important (possibly the most important) strategy is to promote greater respect for women generally. It is a bitter irony that the man regarded by some as the answer to their dislike of abortion is the same man who boasts about grabbing women’s private parts.

          1. Like Bill Clinton said , “Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. ”
            And is we did have everyone covered with medical insurance- or socialized medicine in the USA- according to studies, the number of abortions would decrease by 80%. So are Republicans Libertarians, and other conservatives really pro-life- or are they only pro-birth?

          2. I think Clinton put it well.

            I might question the 80%; in Western Europe (the least ‘aborting’ part of the world), the incidence of abortion is a little over half that in the United States (and this despite the higher levels of ‘religious shrieking’ in the USA). Effective sex education, access to contraception and sexual health services (e.g. through the NHS in the UK), and the high level of empowerment of women are cited by many as the main reasons for W Europe’s relatively good performance. I strongly suspect that lower levels of social inequality are also a factor: in the UK, which by W European standards has a relatively high incidence of abortion (around 75% of that in the USA), there is greater social inequality than in W Europe as a whole.

          3. It is because the overwhelming number of abortions in the United States are requested and performed because abortion is far more affordable to those who lack medical insurance , Having a child is expensive, and pre-natal care is next to nonexistent to pregnant women who lack access (insurance) to health care. Poor or no pre-natal care results in complications to pregnancies and increases the need for medical intervention like abortions.

  2. So what triggered Reno’s spasms in the first place?

    My money’s on an overdose of Fox or Breitbart.

Comments are closed.