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

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I wouldn't attend a church or any organization that is pushing an agenda that involves the government forcing more redistribution of wealth.

Like the Catholic Church for instance.

Funny how there are now liberals that are so into the church and are now gasp Christian (where were you during the athiest rants?) and still continue to do things not Christ like like attacking / slurring Beck when he aired the clips showing how leftists were defining Social Justice.

That is a very very very long sentence. Make it shorter please.

[Dan T.]

I'm fairly confident in stating that Beck is going to go through at least three major political transformations in the next ten years.

And to complete the circle, he'll end up as a zany radio DJ, broadcasting wacky banter with his "Morning Zoo" partner between top 40 hits. Hopefully on a small market station. With no syndication.

[Destino]

Absoluely. No argument. It's your leap from that too "having a heart attack if we help a single mom" that is out in left field.

So what you're saying is that you don't want to help the single mom... but you'd rather look at it as we don't want to help anyone else either. To you that sounds better?

[AsburySkinsFan]

So...ummm....ASF, can I have 10K?

Acts 3:6 But Peter said, "I have no silver or gold, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk."

[AsburySkinsFan]

In fact, it does. Jesus specifically rebuked the Jews for their treatment of a Samaritan.

Just because Jesus spoke about the treatment of the Samaritans during his ministry doesn't mean that this passage is somehow restricted to being directed at Samaritans especially considering that they aren't even the topic at hand, instead it only makes sense to understand this as a universal call rather than try and insert some arbitrary restrictions on this teaching.

Are you not in support of open immigration and support of this? Are you not trying to source scripture in an attempt to support this ideology?

First you'll have to define what you mean by "open immigration". If you mean striking down all immigration laws to have totally open borders then no.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am not comfortable, and likely never will be comfortable, with Scripture in Politics. While I understand why many want Scripture in Politics, I don't see it as ever being a good idea. Scripture will never get a fair shake in Government because it is diametrically opposed to much of what is passed by our Government. Conservatives, for many years, have wanted the Church to play a bigger role in Government and the Left has been steadfast in it's opposition to this. It is used only when it is politically expedient to do so.

Honest question then, as a Christian and as a disciple of Jesus Christ who honors the commandments to Love God with my heart, mind and soul, and to love my neighbors as myself am I supposed to put aside those religious and scriptural convictions when appealing and lobbying for how I would like my tax dollars spent? If so then you have literally eliminated any Christian from the political process if they hold any sort of spiritual or scriptural convictions that might affect another. I just wonder what would have become of William Wilberforce if he followed your advice. God forbid it.

Jesus was executed, according to scripture, because of political views. I see no good that can come of Politics using scripture to substantiate itself.

Jesus was executed for treason, "King of the Jews" and Caesar didn't like the added competition, this is WAY different than saying "I want my tax dollars to go to help the poor."

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't believe that Welfare, Food Stamps or Housing can be equated to the Scripture. Thats very thin IMO.

You don't believe that my desire to provide for the poor through food stamps or housing assistance can be directly tied to the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

[Zguy28]

You don't believe that my desire to provide for the poor through food stamps or housing assistance can be directly tied to the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Sure you can desire that based on that command. However, others may feel that the corruption and abuse of those systems may not be loving their neighbor. In fact they may believe its detrimental to their neighbor. If that's the case, then they would be violating their conscience and in their interpretation, violating the commandment.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sure you can desire that based on that command. However, others may feel that the corruption and abuse of those systems may not be loving their neighbor. In fact they may believe its detrimental to their neighbor. If that's the case, then they would be violating their conscience and in their interpretation, violating the commandment.

Then the onus is on them to find a better way to meet the need of the poor in our nation. While the bridge we are on may not be perfect and may have holes in it, it does no good what-so-ever to say we should tear down the bridge until such a time as there is another way across.

If you want to reform it...fine so do I.

If you want to make it better for the people...great so do I.

If you want to have it where people can be equipped better for life...awesome so do I.

If you want it to be developed in such a way as to equip people to break the cycles of poverty and move off the assistance perfect we are truly of one heart.

But if you want to eliminate it with nothing else there...this is where we part company. And as it was stated earlier there are many within the Conservative movement would like nothing more than to eliminate entitlement spending altogether.

[Destino]

Sure you can desire that based on that command. However, others may feel that the corruption and abuse of those systems may not be loving their neighbor. In fact they may believe its detrimental to their neighbor. If that's the case, then they would be violating their conscience and in their interpretation, violating the commandment.

As long as they are honest and educated in that belief I'd have no problem with it. However if you tell me that corruption accounting for less than 5% justifies the discontinuation of the other 95% and you propose no plan to assist those after you deal with corruption I will doubt the honesty of that argument. There is no charity in negatively impacting a large group in the name of political ideology, particularly if no thought it put into how to help the significant population that remains in need.

A persons reasons are often reflected in the way their propose their ideas. If you're motivation is to simply cut off aid no thought will be given to helping those that actually need help. The corruption argument is such an argument. A minority is zeroed in on to deflect the true position that no such program should exist. If you however think people should be helped but this program doesn't accomplish that goal an alternative typically makes up the meat of the argument, job training for example or no welfare without serious requirements being met forcing people to at least try.

It's not that hard to read people when it comes to politics. Their focus is typically plain as day.

[Kilmer17]

So what you're saying is that you don't want to help the single mom... but you'd rather look at it as we don't want to help anyone else either. To you that sounds better?

Id prefer the Govt get out of all entitlements, yes. That includes incentive programs that are abused by corporations, farm subsidies, etc etc etc.

[Destino]

Id prefer the Govt get out of all entitlements, yes. That includes incentive programs that are abused by corporations, farm subsidies, etc etc etc.

So you're problem wasn't with the accuracy of my statement just that it wasn't broad enough to cover all the groups you'd prefer the government not help in any way. Single mothers being among them. Fair enough.

The only problem being that no safety net can lead to some rather nasty situations. Personally I'd view it as a black eye for the world's most advanced nation to allow third world poverty, starvation, and general abject misery to exist without taking any action to alleviate it. Some have a stronger stomach for such things.

[Kilmer17]

So you're problem wasn't with the accuracy of my statement just that it wasn't broad enough to cover all the groups you'd prefer the government not help in any way. Single mothers being among them. Fair enough.

The only problem being that no safety net can lead to some rather nasty situations. Personally I'd view it as a black eye for the world's most advanced nation to allow third world poverty, starvation, and general abject misery to exist without taking any action to alleviate it. Some have a stronger stomach for such things.

And others exagerate to make a political point.

I think LESS intervention from the Govt would lead to LESS poverty starvation etc.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And others exagerate to make a political point.

I think LESS intervention from the Govt would lead to LESS poverty starvation etc.

As has been seen where and when?

[Kilmer17]

As has been seen where and when?

Do we have more or less people needing welfare since CLINTON reformed it in the 90s?

Govt is part of the problem, not the solution.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Do we have more or less people needing welfare since CLINTON reformed it in the 90s?

Govt is part of the problem, not the solution.

With a 10% unemployment rate? What do you think?

If you take government out of the way something WILL fill the vacuum, many on the Right want business to fill that vacuum and we have a clear picture of what that looks like already in our own past. Child labor laws and the organization of Unions come to mind. Your idealistic world fails when the light of reality shines upon it.

[Destino]

And others exagerate to make a political point.

I think LESS intervention from the Govt would lead to LESS poverty starvation etc.

I think social darwinism is as likely to create a society with little to no poverty as it is to create flying unicorns that rain down skittles on sunny afternoons. No safety net has always allowed tremendous suffering or hidden the fact behind a rarely mentioned exodus of the poorer classes.

[Kilmer17]

With a 10% unemployment rate? What do you think?

If you take government out of the way something WILL fill the vacuum, many on the Right want business to fill that vacuum and we have a clear picture of what that looks like already in our own past. Child labor laws and the organization of Unions come to mind. Your idealistic world fails when the light of reality shines upon it.

Which Communist country is doing great these days?

[Kilmer17]

I think social darwinism is as likely to create a society with little to no poverty as it is to create flying unicorns that rain down skittles on sunny afternoons. No safety net has always allowed tremendous suffering or hidden the fact behind a rarely mentioned exodus of the poorer classes.

And I think Govt entitlements lead to more and more people relying on Govt for their own existance.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Do we have more or less people needing welfare since CLINTON reformed it in the 90s?

Govt is part of the problem, not the solution.

Not to mention the fact that your logic simply doesn't follow. You say that reforms were needed to help people and to that I agree...but in the next breath you say that government is the problem, your conclusion simply does not follow from the logic presented especially since it was not an abolition of government entitlements but a reformation of them. You simply have not made the case that government is the problem.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which Communist country is doing great these days?

Who is advocating for Communism Kilmer? Grasping much are we?

[Kilmer17]

Who is advocating for Communism Kilmer? Grasping much are we?

Im using an extreme to combat the accusation that the Conservative postion equates to "Having a heart attack if we help a single mom", ie extreme.

When a govt program or entity has a private sector competitor, which does better?

The reforms that Clinton enacted made Welfare SMALLER.

And I do think that private industry can handle it better than Govt.

[Zguy28]

Then the onus is on them to find a better way to meet the need of the poor in our nation. While the bridge we are on may not be perfect and may have holes in it, it does no good what-so-ever to say we should tear down the bridge until such a time as there is another way across.

If you want to reform it...fine so do I.

If you want to make it better for the people...great so do I.

If you want to have it where people can be equipped better for life...awesome so do I.

If you want it to be developed in such a way as to equip people to break the cycles of poverty and move off the assistance perfect we are truly of one heart.

But if you want to eliminate it with nothing else there...this is where we part company. And as it was stated earlier there are many within the Conservative movement would like nothing more than to eliminate entitlement spending altogether.

You'll get no disagreement with me there. Most conservatives aren't even Christians. In that case, then there is nothing wrong in their eyes with eliminating welfare programs completely. Unfortunately, many Christians are influenced by non-Christian conservatives or fundamentalists whose hearts have grown cold.

On the other side of the coin, you or Destino don't see anything wrong with taking other people's tax money and using it for things that are against their wishes.

Personally, I think there is a place in gov't for helping people in need, however I feel that the current system is nearly unrecoverable and I feel nearly helpless to contribute to fixing it. So I just contribute and help people on my own and through various organizations such as food pantries and church.

[coolbeans]

You don't believe that my desire to provide for the poor through food stamps or housing assistance can be directly tied to the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"?

If you really want to love the poor as yourself then answer me this. What would you do for yourself if you could not afford food and shelter? Would you be satisfied to live off the public dole or would you work hard to improve your situation so that you could provide for yourself and your family? I suspect you would choose the work hard path for yourself. If so, that is what you should want for the poor instead of simply handing them money every 2 weeks which, in fact, destroys their self worth and keeps them in a constant state of poverty. Of course I'm talking about the able bodied poor who have simply chosen not to work but to be societal moochers their whole life. I doubt anyone has a problem with helping those who are incapable of helping themselves.

[coolbeans]

Who is advocating for Communism Kilmer? Grasping much are we?

You may not realize it but anyone pushing for social justice is doing just that!