The Crucifix and the Contradiction: Laura Ingraham’s Sermons of Division

The crucifix gleaming on Laura Ingraham’s chest is more than a symbol of faith; it’s a beacon she holds up to the world, invoking the teachings of Jesus moments before launching into rhetoric that stirs division and fear. This juxtaposition—of sacred symbol and incendiary speech—suggests a deeper contradiction, one that challenges not just the values the crucifix represents but the integrity of its bearer.

The Role of Christianity in Ingraham’s Life

Laura Ingraham’s journey to Catholicism, culminating in her conversion in 2003, is a story she tells with the gravity of one who has found an unshakable foundation. The faith that sustained her through a battle with breast cancer is, by her own account, the bedrock of her values, the source from which she draws strength. Publicly, she speaks of Christianity as essential to America’s moral fabric, arguing that without it, the nation would lose its way. Yet, beneath this declaration of faith lies a tension—between the Christian virtues she espouses and the divisive rhetoric she wields on her platform.

A Complicated Past and Early Controversies

Ingraham’s public embrace of Catholicism is complicated by the shadows of her past. Her brother, Curtis Ingraham, paints a grim portrait of their father—a man he describes as an abusive, alcoholic Nazi sympathizer. Curtis claims Laura’s controversial views are rooted in their father’s influence, calling her “insensitive” and “inhuman.” Yet, these are allegations from a single voice, one contested by Laura, who has never publicly supported such claims.

At Dartmouth College, Ingraham’s role as the editor of The Dartmouth Review was marked by controversy. She allegedly outed gay students, an act widely condemned as cruel and in direct conflict with Christian teachings of love and compassion. These early actions suggest that the seeds of her later contradictions were sown long ago, laying the groundwork for the dissonance that would come to define her public life.

Promoting Divisive and Dangerous Ideologies

In her professional life, Ingraham has consistently championed ideologies that marginalize vulnerable communities. Perhaps the most troubling is her promotion of the “Great Replacement” theory—a white supremacist conspiracy that frames immigration by people of color as a deliberate effort to undermine Western civilization. When Ingraham describes the U.S.-Mexico border as being under “invasion,” she echoes the language of extremists, fostering fear and division. Such rhetoric is not just at odds with Christian teachings—it actively undermines the call to “love thy neighbor.”

In addition to this, Ingraham has repeatedly targeted the LGBTQ+ community, hosting guests who espouse homophobic and transphobic views and making inflammatory statements herself. These actions perpetuate a culture of hostility and discrimination, directly contradicting the Christian commandment to love and care for others. The gulf between her public faith and her divisive rhetoric grows wider with each broadcast, raising uncomfortable questions about the true nature of her beliefs.

Objectivism and Social Darwinism: Philosophies Behind Ingraham’s Rhetoric

To fully grasp the contradictions in Ingraham’s public persona, one must examine the philosophies she appears to embrace—Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and 19th-century Social Darwinism. These ideologies, which prioritize self-interest and competition, stand in stark contrast to the compassion, community, and care for the vulnerable that are central to Christian teachings.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism champions rational self-interest as the highest moral aim, elevating greed to the status of virtue. In this worldview, the pursuit of personal gain is the ultimate moral purpose, and altruism is seen as a hindrance to individual and societal progress. Ingraham’s criticism of welfare programs and her emphasis on personal responsibility over communal support echo Objectivist principles, promoting a philosophy that seems to have little room for the Christian ideal of serving others.

Similarly, Social Darwinism applies the concept of natural selection to human societies, suggesting that social and economic disparities are not only natural but justified. Ingraham’s rhetoric often mirrors this ideology, framing social hierarchies as the result of personal merit or failure. Historically, Social Darwinism has been used to justify dehumanizing policies, including eugenics and racial discrimination, which have led to immense suffering. The embrace of these ideologies, which prioritize the individual over the collective, only deepens the contradiction between Ingraham’s professed faith and her public actions.

Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic offered a stark illustration of the disconnect between Ingraham’s public display of faith and her actions. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting vaccines and masks as effective measures against the virus, Ingraham consistently spread misinformation, questioning the efficacy of these public health measures. While she discouraged her viewers from getting vaccinated and wearing masks, it was reported that over 90% of Fox News employees were vaccinated—a contradiction that is as striking as it is troubling.

The case of Officer Robert LaMay, who gained notoriety for refusing to comply with Washington State’s vaccine mandate, further illustrates the dangerous consequences of Ingraham’s rhetoric. Ingraham celebrated LaMay’s decision as a stand against government overreach, but when he later died of COVID-19, she did not publicly acknowledge his death. This selective attention—praising him when he served her narrative, ignoring him when he didn’t—speaks volumes about the true cost of her influence.

A Clash Between Ideology and Faith

In the end, the crucifix that Laura Ingraham wears may serve as a mirror, reflecting not only her own contradictions but those of a society grappling with the chasm between the sacred and the profane. Ingraham’s public persona is that of a devout Catholic, yet her actions align more closely with ideologies like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and Social Darwinism, which emphasize individualism and self-interest over communal responsibility and care for the vulnerable. This ideological stance is in direct conflict with the teachings of Christianity, which call for love, compassion, and care for the least among us.

Ingraham might argue that her faith is personal and separate from her professional life, but this division itself raises questions. Can faith be compartmentalized so neatly, or should it permeate every aspect of one’s life, especially when that life is lived in the public eye? The contrast between the values Ingraham publicly espouses and the ideologies her actions support forces us to ask: when faith becomes a tool for division, what remains of its power to heal and unite?

As figures like Ingraham continue to wield faith as both shield and sword, it becomes imperative for society to scrutinize the alignment between their words and deeds. The disconnect between the two not only erodes public trust but also diminishes the power of faith to inspire positive change. In a world that is increasingly divided, the challenge lies in reconciling the sacred with the secular, the professed with the practiced, and the ideals of faith with the realities of public action.