Glenn Beck Restroing America - 2010 Pretty darn evangelical

[LibertyEagle]

Oh LE, I have to admit that was funny.

Yeah, and what's even funnier is that it is the truth.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting that you overlook the hilarious statements of Christians saying "you're going to go to hell". Or "Catholics aren't Christians".

I wanted to leave something for you to do.

 

[low preference guy]

I wanted to leave something for you to do.

pretty lame excuse for not pointing out the flaws of people who agree with you. it damages your credibility in the eyes of those that might still care about your opinion.

 

[Minuteman2012]

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

Deism isn't any more logical than Christianity, it would still require faith in an omniscient being who defied scientific laws to create the universe

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Deism isn't any more logical than Christianity, it would still require faith in an omniscient being who defied scientific laws to create the universe

Belief yes, faith no. I think people are confusing the two terms. I wouldn't necessarily say that God had to defy scientific laws to create the universe either. I don't even think humans can really grasp the conception of the universe. God is an abstract of sorts. Deists don't see God as some divinely inspired, human sitting on high. God is an abstract.

 

[parocks]

There was nothing wrong with what he wrote originally. He is talking to Ron Paul supporters. Telling them about Christians. He isn't on a Christian forum, telling them about Ron Paul Supporters. What he originally had to say has value. If Ron Paul runs in 2012 he's going to need votes from the kind of people at the Beck event. Bashing Christianity is not going to get Ron Paul votes. Good basic advice.

pretty lame excuse for not pointing out the flaws of people who agree with you. it damages your credibility in the eyes of those that might still care about your opinion.

 

[Southron]

Ok well then it's not Deistic. But it was not a "Christian" event per say. It's the typical religious manner that Beck usually talks in. Deism has always just meant (to me) belief in a God or all Gods, like all faiths have the same God and just don't realize it.

Thanks. That is what I meant by "deism".

I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be a Christian event.

These people were starving for some political action and he delivered vague religious talk.

 

[erowe1]

That would be like saying if Scientists use reason and logic, then they must have faith in mathematics. A ridiculous thing to say. You have basically said there is no true knowledge in the world, everything is based on faith.

I guess I don't see how that's ridiculous.

Of course scientists have faith in mathematics, as well as the laws of logic, the validity of their senses as conveying accurate information about the world outside them, the trustworthiness of their own memories, and other things. They can't prove these premises that are foundational to knowledge using the very same principles themselves, since that would be circular, and would still require a prior acceptance of them by faith before they could be used to prove themselves. They must accept them by faith. And of course this does mean that we can't have any knowledge without faith. There is no world view that builds itself up from nothing at all. They all require axioms that have to be accepted on faith. This includes deism and objectivism.

Does this mean there is no true knowledge? No. It just means that we can't have it without faith.

 

[TNforPaul45]

All rocks go to heaven.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

He is rounding up and rallying the right wing Christians to do what they do best, vote for neocons.

 

[FunkBuddha]

I imagine they're trying to corral those evangelicals that feel like they've been deceived by the Republican party back into the tent.

 

[Southron]

He is rounding up and rallying the right wing Christians to do what they do best, vote for neocons.

I'm a right wing Christian and I don't vote for neocons.

 

[Gin]

Yeah...those things aren't really planned, though. They kind of just happen when people get all caught up in the moment without paying attention...like accident babies.

A couple that I have read are from my College History classes.. One thing to take into consideration is that you need to start before the US was born to get an understanding as to why the Founders came to America to start with. Also another good thing to research is the Jefferson, Washington, Stonewall Jackson Memoirs and journals.. many are listed at the Library of Congress.

For History of Western Civilization since The Thirty Years War read
Making of West: Peoples and Cultural , Peoples and Cultures, Volume II: Since 1500, (3rd addition)

For History up to 1877 read
America: A Concise History, Volume 1: To 1877 (4th edition)

I am currently reading
A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

All are available at Amazon...

 

[Gin]

To put in my 2 cents as a staunch Ron Paul supporter I appreciate the fact that Beck is bringing our History as a Nation into the forefront. Ron Paul has always said that education is the key. Why bash Beck for that? Do I agree with Beck.. no... I know full well that he is a neocon, but he is useful. As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

 

[sailingaway]

As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

Making Beck the um, fertilizer? Or what?

 

[YumYum]

To put in my 2 cents as a staunch Ron Paul supporter I appreciate the fact that Beck is bringing our History as a Nation into the forefront. Ron Paul has always said that education is the key. Why bash Beck for that? Do I agree with Beck.. no... I know full well that he is a neocon, but he is useful. As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

I believe Glenn Beck wants this country to be a Theocracy. He believes that the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 by force is fulfillment of scripture.

Alan Dershowitz argues against the notion that our country’s Founding Father’s wanted this country to be a Christian Nation.

His book is:

“Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence”


Here is one person’s opinion of the book:

"Alan Dershowitz, celebrity lawyer and frequent cable news talking head, has in "Blasphemy" used his estimable legal skills to create a necessary answer to the Christian right (the so-called "religious right" in this country is almost entirely Christian, and Protestant at that), who have lately taken to claiming one of the nation's founding documents to be implicitly, if not overtly, Christian in nature. This, of course, is the legal front of their overall "wedge" strategy to finally make fundamentalism the law of the land. Needless to say, this would endanger the liberties (and maybe even the lives) of the vast majority of Americans, no matter their belief system, or lack thereof. Although in length (less than 200 pages) and often in tone, Mr. Dershowitz clearly intended this book as a broadside, he also wants to ask broader legal questions and examine the "morality" that should be inherent in a secular nation. In the end, he may be misinterpreting the overall strategy of his opponents, but this is still a worthwhile and thought-provoking read.

In the first section, he examines the history and creation of the Declaration of Independence, gathering in impressive yet concise detail, the evidence that the Founding Fathers, in particular Thomas Jefferson, clearly intended a radical break from British law, to the extent that America would refuse to establish itself as Church-based. They were Deists, who while perhaps believing in some sort of deity, didn't accept the Christian version at all. The wording of the Declaration, with its references to a "Creator" or "Nature's God," was in fact a way to avoid using specifically Christian iconography. This was eventually crystalized in the Constitution, which acknowleged no divine authority at all.

In the second section, Dershowitz examines the words and actions of the Christian right itself. In his view, they intend to re-establish America as a kind of democratic theocracy, where minority faiths are technically allowed, but effectively voiceless. Unfortunately, he focuses too much on Alan Keyes, who although a persistent advocate of faith-based government, is essentially not a major threat in terms of power or influece. Important players in the movement, such as James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich are barely even mentioned, much less examined. Although Mr. Dershowitz has a clear grasp of many of their legal arguments, this oversight is a troubling harbinger of his overall understanding of the movement itself (for a more comprehensive journalistic approach, read Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism).

It's in the final section of the book where Mr. Dershowitz attempts to contribute his own ideas to the debate. He looks at the language of the Declaration from a legal standpoint and asks critical questions about phrases like "Nature's God" and "Natural," as opposed to "Positive" law. He even goes so far as to critcize the founders themselves for not realizing the full implications of their words. He also goes back to a newspaper column he wrote in 1984 called "The Ten Commandments for Politicians," which laid out some suggestions for how candidates should address issues of faith. Many of these seem eerily prescient, considering the tone of the current campaign for president: "Do not publicly proclaim your religious devotion, affiliation or practices, or attack those of your opponents;" "Do not surround your political campaign with religious trappings or symbols;" "Do not seek the support of religious leaders who impose religious obligations on members of their faith to support or oppose particular candidates." Here, Dershowitz could be talking to or about anyone from Barack Obama to John McCain; Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani.

The problem I have with the book is that for all his legal acumen, Dershowitz finally fails to realize that the Christian Right doesn't actually care about the Declaration; they certainly have no interest in the "godless" Constitution. They just want to re-format their ideas to make them stand in court, whether they be local districts to possibly the Supreme Court itself (Justice Scalia can certainly be counted as one of their friends, even if he is Catholic). Frankly, it's almost comforting that they wish to stage only a legal coup, as opposed to something more physically demonstrative. Dershowitz's comeback, therefore, is designed with the courts in mind. Any counter-tactic he can offer will only be legal as well. The root question of how a pluralistic democracy can deal with anti-democratic fundamentalist ideologies is somewhat foreign to him, and his book suffers as a result. Nevertheless, this is still worth your time, given its size and considered within its scope."

http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Rel...ndependence/dp/product-description/0470084553

 

[Minuteman2012]

Belief yes, faith no. I think people are confusing the two terms. I wouldn't necessarily say that God had to defy scientific laws to create the universe either. I don't even think humans can really grasp the conception of the universe. God is an abstract of sorts. Deists don't see God as some divinely inspired, human sitting on high. God is an abstract.

Belief and Faith are the same thing.
Faith is defined as:
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith?show=0&t=1283099524

And if your theological conviction, your belief, that a god created the universe, is true, it would have to defy scientific laws, because the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. You can believe that an invisible, unprovable, omniscient being exists, and that he defied scientific law, but it isn't any more rational of a position than a Christian/Jewish/Muslim Theist.

 

[Gin]

Making Beck the um, fertilizer? Or what?

nope...not at all... but Beck does have the Medium to make folks want to know the true history.. not the history most schools are teaching... as I said, just my 2 cents..

 

[Gin]

I believe Glenn Beck wants this country to be a Theocracy. He believes that the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 by force is fulfillment of scripture.

I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

 

[sailingaway]

I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

I'm Christian but the hair on the back of my neck goes up when someone so blatantly mixes religion and faith with politics. I think government shouldn't interfere with religion, and should be limited out of our lives in most of our individual decisions and actions. But while religious beliefs inform the actions, including political actions, of individuals, I am not comfortable with this sort of revival at a political event, to be honest. I don't condemn it, but I'm glad I didn't have to sit through it, and I see it as a lost opportunity to spread the message of limited government in a more objective fashion. People's religious beliefs differ, but freedom bring us together.