Politics Daily.com: Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches that Preach Social Justice

[Smoot Point Really]

I think Beck's language was lazy and dangerous.

I don't care much about Beck... I don't care much for the ideas concerning "social justice"... If you think about the phrase, it evokes imagery of an impartial and dispassionate arbiter balancing the scales of justice based on social standards that are hard to measure.

Occasionally, there are causes that are worthy of the term "social justice", but those are few and far between.

[Burgold]

I actually don't mind criticizing "social justice" and to be honest I don't know exactly what it means. It sounds okay to me and the descriptions I've read seem okay. What I don't think makes sense is comparing this church practice to Nazism or Stalinism. Those were two really dark, horrible, monstrous periods in the world and I don't think anything that these churches are doing or advocating rises anywhere close to that standard.

If Asbury preaches a "social justice" platform with his congregation, I'll trust that he knows what it means. While definitions from the outside are useful because it is sometimes to see the forest while amongst the trees, it is not always best to accept the definition from the outside by someone who is not a neutral party, but an active antagonist.

[twa]

Do you feel the same way about Neo-cons?:evilg:

We just practice social justice

[Veretax]

I actually don't mind criticizing "social justice" and to be honest I don't know exactly what it means. It sounds okay to me and the descriptions I've read seem okay. What I don't think makes sense is comparing this church practice to Nazism or Stalinism. Those were two really dark, horrible, monstrous periods in the world and I don't think anything that these churches are doing or advocating rises anywhere close to that standard.

If Asbury preaches a "social justice" platform with his congregation, I'll trust that he knows what it means. While definitions from the outside are useful because it is sometimes to see the forest while amongst the trees, it is not always best to accept the definition from the outside by someone who is not a neutral party, but an active antagonist.

Beck wasn't comparing churches in general to those two. What he was saying is that Social Justice actually was a phrase used by Hitler, and other Fascists, and even Stalin. We should remember history or be doomed to repeat it, that's what Beck is saying.

There are some in this country that think everyone should have Equality of Outcomes, and to achieve that they will tax those who prosper to bring them lower, and in essence dumb us down to a lower common denominator.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thank you, now I know who you are and can disregard you.

The quickest way to deluding one's self is to ignore all of the voices that sound different than your own, have fun with that.

[Burgold]

Beck wasn't comparing churches in general to those two. What he was saying is that Social Justice actually was a phrase used by Hitler, and other Fascists, and even Stalin. We should remember history or be doomed to repeat it, that's what Beck is saying.

There are some in this country that think everyone should have Equality of Outcomes, and to achieve that they will tax those who prosper to bring them lower, and in essence dumb us down to a lower common denominator.

To me even the casual association is dangerous. And you are adult enough to understand what he was implying and why he chose to use the groups he did. It's lazy and stupid to compare the goals of most church's "social justice" and the plans of the Nazis, Stalin or Mao. It really isn't comparable.

He has the right to say it. Free speech gives us the right to be stupid and wrong. I just wish those with a platform would be more thoughtful.

[zoony]

While this is true to an extent, it is incredibly sad how many holocausts have occurred since the Holocaust.

Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia, Bosnia, etc. We've had at least 20 acts of genocide perpetrated since we've uttered those words "Never again" As a species, we have failed.

My only argument is to think about what has been avoided.

And we (the US) would have been blasted for interfering in any of those more than we already did.

....

[Burgold]

My only argument is to think about what has been avoided.

And we (the US) would have been blasted for interfering in any of those more than we already did.

....

I don't disagree with that either and I am proud of the work we have done with our money and our blood to make the world better. The U.S. has done an incredible ammount and stuck its nose in places because it was the right thing to do without economic or political reason and it's one of the reasons that I love America so much. I just don't think that we should pretend that our strength of arms has prevented so many tragedies or that our vigilance or will has been always in the right place. There have been way to many genocides since we said, "Never again."

That said, the failure to stop these genocides is not the fault or failing of the U.S. They are a failing of the world and the human species. We have fallen way short.

[AsburySkinsFan]

My only argument is to think about what has been avoided.

And we (the US) would have been blasted for interfering in any of those more than we already did.

....

I'm sorry Zoony but when confronted with Rwanda Clinton said that the US wasn't going to interfere there because the US did not have any vital interests in the region, and when the US was confronted with Darfur Bush echoed the same line. Our government says we fight for freedom and liberty for all people and that the Neo-Cons claim that the US government is a force for good around the world, but the stark reality is that the US sends our military to intervene only when the US has interests in specific regions.

I would have been fine with Clinton and Bush getting blasted intervening in Rwanda and Darfur. But, the problem is that our government gets blasted for their hypocrisy, not their consistency. Rwanda 800,000 dead in 8 weeks because our government was in a debate about the definition of genocide all this while people were getting hacked to death by machetes. Same in Darfur.

[Burgold]

Well, for what it's worth... despite a tremendous ammount of internal blasting from Republicans and external blasting from the Europeans, Clinton did go into Bosnia and stopped the genocide there.

So, he at least gets half points.

For Bush, the one argument that made sense about Iraq was stopping the Kurdish slaughter (mind you, it wasn't as pronounced as it had been and it was reason number 6 on his list behind WMD, Al Qaeda, and a host of others, but it was a worthy goal.) There's a tremendous number of reasons to be cynical about the start of the Iraq war, but Sadam had been a monster too his own people.

So, maybe Bush gets half or a third credit too.

[twa]

ASF have the Methodists eliminated poverty and suffering?

Yet they still have vast property and wealth.

While I agree there are many examples where we fail to act there are limits both politically and financially that constrain the US.

Not the least of which are those opposed to military force and spending.

The atrocities committed by Saddam were numerous and rank well up in the scale,yet the US is regularly condemned for acting even with political cover.

added

Bur don't forget the Shia which paid a dear price in Iraq as well.

Darfur still pisses me off with us spending large sums and political capitol w/o real result by letting others carry the ball.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, for what it's worth... despite a tremendous ammount of internal blasting from Republicans and external blasting from the Europeans, Clinton did go into Bosnia and stopped the genocide there.

So, he at least gets half points.

For Bush, the one argument that made sense about Iraq was stopping the Kurdish slaughter (mind you, it wasn't as pronounced as it had been and it was reason number 6 on his list behind WMD, Al Qaeda, and a host of others, but it was a worthy goal.) There's a tremendous number of reasons to be cynical about the start of the Iraq war, but Sadam had been a monster too his own people.

So, maybe Bush gets half or a third credit too.

I get that, but in my ears I hear both Clinton and Bush looking into those cameras saying straight faced that the US would not be intervening in Rwanda/Darfur because the US does not have any vital interests in those regions. That to me revealed probably more than they ever thought about why they intervene in the areas that they do. The sarcastic side of me says that Rwanda/Darfur weren't in Europe and don't have massive oil reserves so....

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF have the Methodists eliminated poverty and suffering?

Yet they still have vast property and wealth.

While I agree there are many examples where we fail to act there are limits both politically and financially that constrain the US.

Methodists/Christians have not eliminated poverty, but we also don't look at Methodist interests before intervening in areas around the world we look to the interests of the people we are going to serve, huge difference.

Not the least of which are those opposed to military force and spending.

The atrocities committed by Saddam were numerous and rank well up in the scale,yet the US is regularly condemned for acting even with political cover.

The atrocities that Saddam committed were 30 years ago but at that time he was working on our behalf, and if you want to talk about denying rights to people, and wrongfully imprisoning torturing and killing people that's fine, but then the discussion quickly becomes about China. The truth is that our government wasn't nearly as concerned with Saddam's atrocities as it was the oil under his feet.

[Burgold]

Yup, it bothers me deeply too because I wish that 1) humanity would have matured to the point where genocide would be obsolete and 2) that the world would rally much earlier and with greater forse and conviction whenever someone decides they are going on a rampage against a group because they are somehow "different"

I do sympathize with the burden of the choice to act or not to act. It can't be easy for a President, but while we certainly can't prevent or stop all the world's problems. All of us, from the religious using social justice to the secular using rallies and logic to the governments and armies ought to a better job policing each other.

Again, it's not the America's responsibility. It is a human responsibility.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yup, it bothers me deeply too because I wish that 1) humanity would have matured to the point where genocide would be obsolete and 2) that the world would rally much earlier and with greater forse and conviction whenever someone decides they are going on a rampage against a group because they are somehow "different"

As per #1, I don't believe humanity has matured a single iota.

As per #2, I agree, but it seemed that we would rather debate definitions rather than save actual people's lives.

I do sympathize with the burden of the choice to act or not to act. It can't be easy for a President, but while we certainly can't prevent or stop all the world's problems. All of us, from the religious using social justice to the secular using rallies and logic to the governments and armies ought to a better job policing each other.

You're right we can't stop all of the world's problems but how disappointing is it that our leaders stood aside when two of the greatest genocides took place, citing national interests over life.

Again, it's not the America's responsibility. It is a human responsibility.

I agree, and as a world leader the US has to be at the front.

[Burgold]

I think humanity has made some strives... worldwide slavery is generally frowned upon. Rape is becoming less and less acceptible around the globe (although there are certainly pockets of ignornance) and we can probably think of a few other ways where we have grown in the last 200 years.

Otherwise, I think I am mostly in agreement. I also think that the U.S. should lead. Simultaneously, it is not our sole responsibility and others should not wait for us to take the lead if they are aware of an attrocity.

[twa]

ASF those vital interests are political cover for action.

Just look at how much **** we catch even with vital interest,morality,political cover and a coalition behind us:silly:

[Veretax]

To me even the casual association is dangerous. And you are adult enough to understand what he was implying and why he chose to use the groups he did. It's lazy and stupid to compare the goals of most church's "social justice" and the plans of the Nazis, Stalin or Mao. It really isn't comparable.

He has the right to say it. Free speech gives us the right to be stupid and wrong. I just wish those with a platform would be more thoughtful.

BurGold, I understand why he's doing this, and I do think he's slightly off. For one thing not all denominations/churches actually spend that much time talking about social justice. Its my understanding that falls more into the realm of what you might call the Old Protestant Main line denominations (For example the Presbyterians as in PC US/A). These are churches that have largely moved past the gospel's salvation message to either preach the prosperity gospel peddled by some on TV, or to focus everything on only certain social issues, be it abortion, poverty, or whatever.

That is one thing that I think Glen Beck doesn't get is that not all churches are liberal churches, and there are quite a few of strong denominations/churches that do not fall under his broad brush. On that I think he's wrong.

As far as Rwanda and Darfur, I blame the effect of Somalia on that one. Remember Somalia? What a debacle that turned out to be,...

[Burgold]

BurGold, I understand why he's doing this, and I do think he's slightly off. For one thing not all denominations/churches actually spend that much time talking about social justice. Its my understanding that falls more into the realm of what you might call the Old Protestant Main line denominations (For example the Presbyterians as in PC US/A). These are churches that have largely moved past the gospel's salvation message to either preach the prosperity gospel peddled by some on TV, or to focus everything on only certain social issues, be it abortion, poverty, or whatever.

That is one thing that I think Glen Beck doesn't get is that not all churches are liberal churches, and there are quite a few of strong denominations/churches that do not fall under his broad brush. On that I think he's wrong.

As far as Rwanda and Darfur, I blame the effect of Somalia on that one. Remember Somalia? What a debacle that turned out to be,...

I easily concede that many on the board know much, much more about church philosophy and practice than I do. I spent 6 months as a technical director for a Charismatic Church's cable show. Pretty eye opening in many ways. I really hate how money driven the sermons were.

God told me that I need 500 dollars today. Who'll give me fifty.

There was a lot of good stuff too, but so much overt greed and a little bit of intolerance and we are better than thou which I found bothersome.

All that said, as a Jew and a mostly non-practicing secular Jew, I can't speak very well to Church practice or motivation or agenda, but I do believe that it is the duty of a church or synagogue to teach morality, do work with the community outside the building, and lead/guide people towards a more moral life.

To me, that's what social justice sounds like. Maybe that's because it's what I want it to be.

I also think that Churches should preach on everything that happens in the lives of their congregation. They ought to have a voice in the matters of the day. Now, I don't want them in charge, but I do think they a role in the debate, just as Beck does, politicians do, journalists do, and you and I do.

All of us should be in on the discussion and figuring out the issues big and small from every angle. And we should stop trying to define everything as liberal or conservative, but just judge the idea. If it's a good idea, if it will make the country stronger in the long run or if it will provide for our people... we should pursue it. If it will only help us in the short term, we need to figure out how short a term and what the long range consequences are, but ought to stop with the darn witchhunts and trying to turn everyone into Commies and Nazis and deal with the problems instead.

[alexey]

I understand the difference between a hand-up and a hand-out, but I am having a hard time understanding what Beck-approved hand-ups would look like. Is it some kind of a training program? Employment opportunities?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I understand the difference between a hand-up and a hand-out, but I am having a hard time understanding what Beck-approved hand-ups would look like. Is it some kind of a training program? Employment opportunities?

It's a figment of the imagination. But, if Glenn Beck keeps telling this fairy tale as if its true enough times it has to be real right.

[Baculus]

This is an article which discusses this issue. Incidentally, I think Beck is a horrid sort of character. I have never seen someone so obsessed with agitating against anything which "socially" helps people.

From the article:

"The Church's social Magisterium constantly calls for the most classical forms of justice to be respected: commutative, distributive and legal justice. Ever greater importance has been given to social justice., which represents a real development in general justice, the justice that regulates social relationships according to the criterion of observance of the law. Social justice, a requirement related to the social question which today is worldwide in scope, concerns the social, political and economic aspects and, above all, the structural dimension of problems and their respective solutions...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/glenn-beck-to-catholics-l_b_490669.htmll

[Smoot Point Really]

I wonder how many times ASF mentions Beck in his sermons... Unless my search was wrong, I count 32 seperate threads containing a post by ASF mentioning Beck.

It may be an unhealthy obsession... I think it's just a distraction.

[Goaldeje]

BurGold, I understand why he's doing this, and I do think he's slightly off. For one thing not all denominations/churches actually spend that much time talking about social justice. Its my understanding that falls more into the realm of what you might call the Old Protestant Main line denominations (For example the Presbyterians as in PC US/A). These are churches that have largely moved past the gospel's salvation message to either preach the prosperity gospel peddled by some on TV, or to focus everything on only certain social issues, be it abortion, poverty, or whatever.

Uhhh... no. I don't usually speak up on these topics for fear of being embroiled in WW III, but as someone who has been a Presbyterian all my life, and someone who works in churches of all different denominations every day, let me correct something.

Presbyterian, Episcopals, and sometimes Catholics generally are more liberal than Baptists and fundamentalists. Generally. However, we are not purveyors of the name-it-claim-it gospel, or the prosperity gospel. That is very conservative, mostly charismatic churches.

My church offers a food pantry, as do many more conservative denominations that I work with. Social Justice is generally a Catholic catch phrase, FWIW. Feeding the poor is something most churches support theoretically if not in actuality.

I actually (sigh) agree with Burgold. This is cheap theatrics by Beck, and not really worthy of conversation.

[Veretax]

And I agree with you BurGold, but Churches should be about drawing people to God, instructing them in His way of doing things as scripture lays out.

Oh btw, for those who don't know, God did rail on Israel through the prophets for in essence not taking care of their elders. So to say that we are off the hook for helping our parents, would seem not to be valid in his eyes.

That having been said, there is a difference between teaching true Justice, and teaching Social Justice. True justice is color blind, doesn't care if you are gay or straight, doesn't care about your skin tone, doesn't care how much money you make, or what causes you support, and most assuredly doesn't care what may be popular at any given time. True justice judges people according to God's righteous and delivered precepts without any blemish, bias, or favoritism due to association. In short it simply looks at the facts and tosses any extraneous data that is unrelated.

Social Justice, as I understand it, is not about God's precepts. It's about the idea that equal opportunity must in all cases result in equal outcomes. For example, if you and I both go to a casino, wagering a thousand dollars on a pull of some slot machine or card game, you would expect our outcomes in a Social Justice light to be the same. IE either we both lose the same, or we both win the same. The problem with this line of thinking is you then have the following social creep happen in society. It used to be that being poor meant, you didn't have a home, or you couldn't afford food or basic necessities. Now it includes such things as access to the internet (as we've seen in the push to expand internet to rural areas, which I'll admit is needed in some areas, but some folks don't actually need the internet per say because they don't even know how to use a computer), phone service, cable/satellite TV, cell phone service, and on and on with things that a century ago if you'd said poor people need x or y they would have looked at you and laughed.

Take this as it applies to healthcare, did our founding fathers have health insurance? Did they need it? The answer is obviously no. Did they live better lives than us? That may be hard to answer, but they did live, and survive without healthcare bureaucracies. They struggled with their human condition even when doctors were not even ten minutes away.

I think this is what Glenn Beck is identifying Social Justice as. This phony belief that the pursuit of happiness as defined by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence must result in equal outcomes. We know that doesnt, and in fact can't happen. We can't all be millionaires, we can't all win the lottery, or be good at athletics, yet the push from society in Social Justice is in essence trying to make people equal in results, when everyone is actually quite different. Different back grounds, different hopes and dreams etc. I think it boils down to a confusion on what equality meant to the framers of the constitution.

Does that make more sense?