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

[Veretax]

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.

Glad to meet you Goaldeje. I am sorry if my comment offended you. I myself was raised Presbyterian, in a PCA church as a matter of fact, and believe me I've seen studies of late about the main line presbyterians and how off base they are, how the Gospel message has been replaced by other things and it saddens me to know end. Now does that mean all the churches in that or any denomination are the same, no there will always be some exceptions to the rule, but my point was that Beck may be looking at the larger sects that are clearly liberal churches, many of which don't believe in the virgin birth let alone that Christ was the son of and also God, and then casting an aspersion as if all Presbyterians believe as these people do.

I have found that the media, and even Fox News does this sometimes, that they tend to paint or ignore the smaller sects, of which Presbyterians have I think 5 or 6 other denominations that I can think of off the top of my head that are not main line or anywhere near as liberal. I only used the Presbyterian main lines as an example because I've actually known a few churches like them. I disagree that most presbyterians are more liberal. They certainly arent in the Orthodox Presbyterian Sect, or the Presbyterian Church in America sects (Of which I've been part of churches in both groups, the former of which is even keen on trying to be hard core on sabbath keeping in my experience.)

But having grown up in one of those smaller break off Presbyterian denominations I have seen for thirty years how the media basically tries to paint the whole as if the mainline is reflective of all, and that's what I'm saying. Not all the mainline presybterian churches (the originals here like the old PC US, PC USA, or whatever they are calling themselves today) are reflective of presbyterians in general. That is the one area I think Beck was being a bit disengenious on or perhaps he just has no clue that there are distinctions in groups like that. Whatever the case, that's the point I was trying to make. Does that make better sense? You can't look at a person or church that says they are X, and assume that necessarily means Y without looking at the people who are that Church, and what they believe and do first hand. This is basically a stereotype I guess you could say, now that I think about it.

[DRSmith]

Ok, Glenn Beck...before I thought you were just a really annoying blathering buffoon, now you're touching on my turf and I have two words for you Beck...and the first one isn't fit for print.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/

That is all good if the chuch keeps out of other social issues and not ask the government to dictate lifestyle to people.

Issues like gay marraige, abortion and Isreals wars.

[Burgold]

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

And I agree with you BurGold,

Does that make more sense?

Yes, yes it does. Well, now that we're all in agreement...

I do wonder though, if social justice is defined differently by every church that practices it or if it is a codified philosophy. I do know that when Olbermannn or Mike Moore defines Republicans it is almost always wrong and when Hannity, Rush define Democrats it is almost always wrong.

[twa]

Most certainly defined differently,even within denominations.

Which is a problem when trying to discuss it(as most things)

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

I have never mentioned Glenn Beck in a sermon...sermons are the time to talk about God not some buffoon who tries to whip people into a frenzy through mischaracterization, misinformation, and out-right fear mongering. If you'd like I can email you my notes from my sermons over about the last 5 years or so, I save them all both the good and the bad one's.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is all good if the chuch keeps out of other social issues and not ask the government to dictate lifestyle to people.

Issues like gay marraige, abortion and Isreals wars.

So churches should be seen and not heard then? I'll ask Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. about that when I see him after the resurrection.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Most certainly defined differently,even within denominations.

Which is a problem when trying to discuss it(as most things)

And yet that little tid bit didn't stop Beck from telling his listeners to run from their churches which work for social justice. This is why Beck is so dangerous, and people keep telling me that no one takes him seriously, if that were so then why is he not on the Cartoon Network? The problem is that people do in fact listen to him, and they do in fact believe that what he says is truth...and that is the scariest part about Glenn Beck.

[DRSmith]

So churches should be seen and not heard then? I'll ask Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. about that when I see him after the resurrection.

Christians can preach and indivuals can choose how to live their lives.

If churches had taught the right things who would have treated blacks in such a way that you needed laws made so they were treated like humans?

[Burgold]

I have never mentioned Glenn Beck in a sermon...sermons are the time to talk about God not some buffoon who tries to whip people into a frenzy through mischaracterization, misinformation, and out-right fear mongering. If you'd like I can email you my notes from my sermons over about the last 5 years or so, I save them all both the good and the bad one's.

Okay, I hope this doesn't come off wrong and if it does I apologize in advance, but it's a question that has been nagging at me for a little while. It's weird hearing the ammount of hostility that I do from someone who is a member of the clergy. Is calling this child of G-d a buffoon right. I know that I sometimes forget my role on ES and joke or say stuff that's not very professional (but hopefully most know me or can tell when I'm just being goofy and I usually to be civil, fair, and reasonable even when some people or events that really call for both barrells), but does a man of G-d ever not get to me a man of G-d?

Is having hate in your heart for a Beck or a Bush or a Cheney even Kosher?

I really do apologize if it's an inappropriate question, but I see the work you did with the mission which generates a ton of respect with me and the work you've chosen to do with your life which is also very noble and demanding of sacrifices, but the dissonance between that and some of your rhetoric I find sometimes unsettling.

Some of your approaches to topics seem downright... well... down in the dirt.

[DRSmith]

Here is the thing I wonder Harry Reid and Glenn Beck are both members of the LDS church which one reflects the chruch's position?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Okay, I hope this doesn't come off wrong and if it does I apologize in advance, but it's a question that has been nagging at me for a little while. It's weird hearing the ammount of hostility that I do from someone who is a member of the clergy. Is calling this child of G-d a buffoon right. I know that I sometimes forget my role on ES and joke or say stuff that's not very professional (but hopefully most know me or can tell when I'm just being goofy and I usually to be civil, fair, and reasonable even do some people or events that really call for both barrells), but does a man of G-d ever not get to me a man of G-d?

First I'd question the term hostility, I'm not hostile to Glenn Beck, I just think he's an idiot...actually I don't think he's an idiot because I honestly believe that he's smarter than that which makes him worse, it means that he is a manipulator, and a liar. I don't believe that Beck who has plenty of resources at his disposal to investigate the things he talks about (i.e. google not to mention his research staff) makes the "mistakes" that he makes, it simply seems all to deliberate to me especially considering the frequency. Beck is a child of YHWH, that I'll affirm wholeheartedly and I have prayed for Beck though I'll admit it is hard. The problem that I have with him is that he is a mass manipulator and spreader of half truths, and those things truly hurt people as such he has neglected his responsibility for responsible speech and that makes him a very dangerous person.

Is having hate in your heart for a Beck or a Bush or a Cheney even Kosher?

I don't hate any of them, I think that they hurt a lot of people, and I think that through their actions and manipulations they have hurt this country, and have cost the lives of 10's of thousands of people that is not the same as hating someone. There is one person in my life I honestly do feel hate for and oddly enough I never knew what that really felt like until recently. Hatred for me is the anti-love it is a powerful emotion that makes you wish ill will toward another, and I can honestly say that I don't feel that way toward Beck, Bush or Cheney. I could easily sit down at a dinner with any of them and behave quite civilly (assuming that is they accept the invite) however this other person...I in my heart cannot say the same, but that's a whole other thread one that I will not start.

[Burgold]

That's cool. Perhaps I'm hearing a tone or a subext that isn't there. Certainly possible on a message board.

I'm sure we've all been misread in this pressure cooker of life... or even just the inferno of the Tailgate.

(And generally, I agree that they are a bunch of bums... though with Bush there is a part of me that still believes he was and is a well-intentioned bum who tried his hardest and just was mislead by anger, fear, advisors, and paranoia)

[twa]

And yet that little tid bit didn't stop Beck from telling his listeners to run from their churches which work for social justice. This is why Beck is so dangerous, and people keep telling me that no one takes him seriously, if that were so then why is he not on the Cartoon Network? The problem is that people do in fact listen to him, and they do in fact believe that what he says is truth...and that is the scariest part about Glenn Beck.

You could say the same about some that preach certain versions of social justice...among many other things.

I said from the start his advice there is worthless to me,just as is those that use religion to force charity or political agendas.

If only people would follow my dictates.:evilg:

Maybe if I had a TV program or pulpit?

[Burgold]

You could say the same about some that preach certain versions of social justice...among many other things.

I said from the start his advice there is worthless to me,just as is those that use religion to force charity or political agendas.

If only people would follow my dictates.:evilg:

Maybe if I had a TV program or pulpit?

I would definitely come to listen to you preach.... 'course I might bring some rotten tomatoes and old eggs.

[twa]

I would definitely come to listen to you preach.... 'course I might bring some rotten tomatoes and old eggs.

You might be pleasantly surprised and enjoy it away from politics.

Thankfully that ain't my calling,though my lay preaching seems well received.(no accounting for tastes:silly:)

[zoony]

Not that I agree with Glenn Beck, but not sure I agree with ASF's point of view either

A member of the church telling someone that their point of view is "touching on my turf and I have two words for you Beck...and the first one isn't fit for print" vaguely familiar- and not in a good way.

... would we feel the same if the point of view was from a man speaking out in favor of evolution?

You say that's different? It's not. It's a point of view. If the Church (or churches) feel threatened, they should pick their game up, not go on the offensive against those voicing their opinions

[AsburySkinsFan]

You say that's different? It's not. It's a point of view.

It is different, because he portrays himself as one with an informed opinion when the only thing he's doing is spreading blatant misinformation. As has been stated a million times on this board we are each entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts. Beck made blatant mischaracterizations about social justice and then told people to run from their churches if they found that their churches support "social justice". Do I feel threatened by Beck? No. Do I think he can hurt people by talking as irresponsibly as he does? Yes, and that's what makes me mad.

[Baculus]

Here is the issue: Beck has it all wrong from the get-go when he attacks "social justice" as being "communist" or "fascist." That's a ridiculous enough angle of attack as it is. Combining it with telling others to leave their church over it is even worse.

If Jesus were alive today, Beck would attack him as a CommuNazi.

[Veretax]

I think maybe it would be important to define some terms to see if we agree on Defintions:

First: Fascism.

• A political philosophy that advocates governance by a dictator, assisted by a hierarchically organized, strongly ideological party, in maintaining a totalitarian and regimented society through violence, intimidation, and the arbitrary use of power. (http://www.semp.us/publications/disaster_dictionary.php?letter=F)
  
• A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms. (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/witnesslegacyteacher/glossary.html)
  
• 1. A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.
  2. By vague analogy, any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism)
  
• a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fascism)
  
• Fascism is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)
  

Second: Communism.

• Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)
  
• 1. Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
  2. Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.
  3. The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communism)
  
• a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/red/back2.html)
  

Lastly: Social Justice.

• The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society. (http://www.glenbow.org/mavericks/teacher/english/thm_poli/glossary.html)
  
• Refers to the concept of a society that gives individuals and groups fair treatment and an equitable share of the benefits of society. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equity. Under social justice, all groups and individuals are entitled equally to important rights such as health protection and minimal standards of income. The goal of public health — to minimize preventable death and disability for all — is integral to social justice. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccph-cesp/glos-r-z-eng.php)
  
• the application of the concept of justice on a social scale. The term "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin used the term in his publications in the 1930s and 40s, and the concept was further expanded upon by John Rawls' writing in the 1990s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.
  Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies or are available to some classes in a given society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice)
  

So when I read that fascism is a totalitarian system perpetuated through violence and intimidation, when I read that it puts the state or nation at the highest priority (Note not the individual or his or her freedoms), that it has relationships between business and the centralized government that is a highly corporatist perspective. I can't help think about what's happened in the government of late.

Corporate bail outs of banks and other companies, bail outs of GM, etc. Propping up and favoring certain corporate interests. That almost sounds like what some of these defintions are saying.

When I read that in Communism there are no classes, so in effect a single class, no property rights, all is held common, that everything is produced collectively, and where the state plans or controls where the economy grows and focuses. Then read those definitions of Social justice, and it begins to boggle your mind.

Equality of opportunity, in essence sharing resources and benefits sounds a lot like communism. That all are equal in income, and opportunity etc would be a classless society as in communism too. So you can see why some would think the two ideas have things in common. The only link to Fascism I can see is the government heavy handed control in creating and maintaining this kind of order, and not only that but that as Beck has shown on his program how Nazis (who were fascists) were peddling the idea of social justice at some of their rallies.

Putting that altogether you can see that it isn't just about helping the poor or down trodding. Its about taking from anyone who isn't poor to give to them. And then you have to ask yourself then, do I believe everything is owned collectively? Or do I believe in personal property rights? Is what's yours yours, or does it belong to society.... Those are the questions that come into mind when I investigate these things

[Burgold]

So when I read that fascism is a totalitarian system perpetuated through violence and intimidation, when I read that it puts the state or nation at the highest priority (Note not the individual or his or her freedoms), that it has relationships between business and the centralized government that is a highly corporatist perspective. I can't help think about what's happened in the government of late.

Really, this is what you see. A totalitarian government that uses intimidation or violence to get what it wants? Maybe in the Cheney White House, but the Obama White House has hardly intimidated anyone or even gotten its own way much of the time. If anything, Obama's too willing to cede control to experts and other branches of gov't.

Corporate bail outs of banks and other companies, bail outs of GM, etc. Propping up and favoring certain corporate interests. That almost sounds like what some of these defintions are saying.

When I read that in Communism there are no classes, so in effect a single class, no property rights, all is held common, that everything is produced collectively, and where the state plans or controls where the economy grows and focuses. Then read those definitions of Social justice, and it begins to boggle your mind.

Equality of opportunity, in essence sharing resources and benefits sounds a lot like communism. That all are equal in income, and opportunity etc would be a classless society as in communism too. So you can see why some would think the two ideas have things in common. The only link to Fascism I can see is the government heavy handed control in creating and maintaining this kind of order, and not only that but that as Beck has shown on his program how Nazis (who were fascists) were peddling the idea of social justice at some of their rallies.

Putting that altogether you can see that it isn't just about helping the poor or down trodding. Its about taking from anyone who isn't poor to give to them. And then you have to ask yourself then, do I believe everything is owned collectively? Or do I believe in personal property rights? Is what's yours yours, or does it belong to society.... Those are the questions that come into mind when I investigate these things

There are lots of elements that are communitistic or socialistic in the United States and have been that way for a long, long time. Sharing resources for highways, public education, paying for a millitary that protects everyone equally. The court system is inherently socialist. What you are succumbing to is very similar to when a first year med student starts studying diseases and thinks he has contracted every illness in the book.

The danger lies in the fact that you can stretch most definitions to fit any fear you have. Look at the libs with the Patriot Act. Did we turn into a totalitarian state there? There were absolutely legit fears when it came to warrantless wiretapping and the infringement of rights, but did the U.S. collapse into an Orwellian stupor? Now, you have the end of the world exaggerations coming from the right where they try to paint Obama and the left as socialist or communist or the Devil. And it really is just absurd.

[NavyDave]

Beck talked about and showed footage from the media vaults in Southern Cal about Nazism in America back in the 1930's one of the more famous organizations being called the German American Bund with summer camps for German American kids in Long island and Jersey and some guy called Fritz Kuhn holding a huge Nazi rally in Madison square Garden Feb 20th, 1939 with a Jewish protester suffering a beatdown on stage.

Who knew that at the beginning of WW2 the USA sent alot of German Americans to internment camps then deported of the US to Germany?

On Fascism from the Right he pointed out and showed video how Canadian born Catholic Priest Father Charles Edward Coughlin started out as a supporter of FDR but was anti Semitic, wanted FDR's policies to go further than they did, and for "Social Justice" (Redistribution of Wealth and power)

Old Newspapers with pictures of Stalin and Hitler side by side in his Social Justice magazines were interesting

[Veretax]

SO, Obama and his staff talking about trying to silence talk radio, declaring war on Fox news, that was all just play full banter? Sorry not buying it.

And yes there are going to be some shared things that only the collective government can due well. The constitution's main one is the common defense actually.

[twa]

Who knew that at the beginning of WW2 the USA sent alot of German Americans to internment camps then deported of the US to Germany?

I did, one of the benefits of marrying a Kraut:silly:

There were a number from her family detained,but only a few deported ,though her father and twin brother(germans) both fought for the US

Interesting family that includes a couple that survived the extermination camps ,the tattoo's kind of bring history to life....as do the tales

[Smoot Point Really]

I thought I'd check out what the colleges are teaching for a degree in "Social Justice":

Gonzaga

Loyola of Chicago Masters Program

Vanderbilt Law School

I'm sure there are other examples... Just pulled out a few.

[Burgold]

SO, Obama and his staff talking about trying to silence talk radio, declaring war on Fox news, that was all just play full banter? Sorry not buying it.

And yes there are going to be some shared things that only the collective government can due well. The constitution's main one is the common defense actually.

See, that's what you doesn't get about totalitarianism. Criticizing FOX and talk radio isn't trying to silence it. If they were totalitarians, they would silence it. Look at the how they control the airwaves in communist countries or in the Middle East. They don't complain about it, they turn it off, arrest the reporters, and sometimes execute them. Has Obama done any of that? Has he tried to do anything like that? Heck, if he was a Nixon level totalitarian, he'd at least fine the heck out of them until they complied. Has the government fined FOX into submission? Have they even tried?

Is that happening? Did it happen?

Saying, "what these guys reported isn't true" and "we will continue to point out when they distort or invent stuff" isn't fascist at all.