Glenn Beck:Has your church has been infiltrated by Marxists?

[Accidental Martyr]

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/03/24/glenn_beck_issues_guidelines_to_help_you_know_if_y our_church_has_been_infiltrated_by_marxists.php

I guess this could go in Religion or Politics....

[Twiler]

I'm surprised that he's attaching a negative connotation to 'progressive'. Is that usual?

[paiute]

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/03/24/glenn_beck_issues_guidelines_to_help_you_know_if_y our_church_has_been_infiltrated_by_marxists.php

I guess this could go in Religion or Politics....

If your church has been taken over by long-haired hippies wearing sandals and robes and trying to convince you that unfettered capitalism is bad for the soul and telling you to love terrorists instead of blowing them to hell, then you need to get two long pieces of wood....

Etc.

[TimCallahan]

Some helpful hints for Glenn Beck:

1) Grasp both of your ears firmly.

2) Tug really hard.

3) Repeat steps 1 and 2, and maybe - just maybe - you'll manage to free our head from your rectal orifice.

[I Ratant]

Some helpful hints for Glenn Beck:

1) Grasp both of your ears firmly.

2) Tug really hard.

3) Repeat steps 1 and 2, and maybe - just maybe - you'll manage to free your head from your rectal orifice.
.
Our heads aren't anywheres near his. :)

[jimtron]

I'm surprised that he's attaching a negative connotation to 'progressive'. Is that usual?

Yes, for him and many other conservatives (not that he represents the mainstream conservative view).

[TimCallahan]

I have news for Glenn Beck: The original Christian Church was Marxist and very much committed to social justice. Remember the Marxist maxim, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"? Consider this description of the Jerusalem church under the apostle Peter in Acts 4:34, 35:

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

[Dave Rogers]

I have news for Glenn Beck: The original Christian Church was Marxist and very much committed to social justice. Remember the Marxist maxim, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"? Consider this description of the Jerusalem church under the apostle Peter in Acts 4:34, 35:

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

So, basically, Glenn Beck's right. His church has been infiltrated by Marxists, but it was nearly 2,000 years ago.

Dave

[TimCallahan]

So, basically, Glenn Beck's right. His church has been infiltrated by Marxists, but it was nearly 2,000 years ago.

Dave

Or you could say that the Christian church has been, over the centuries, infiltrated by capitalists.

[headscratcher4]

I won't be the first to note that Mormonism, Beck's church, while not always progressive in the way we use the word today, was always very communitarian in action, espousing and practicing the practice of the community taking care of those unable to help themselves. Indeed, it is arguable (outside of the sex of course) that one of the reasons for plural marriage was to ensure that single, widowed women (most likely to be left poor and in need of aid) would be married to good providers (and then there was the sex, of course). Beck really doesn't understand much of what he says little less that which he says he believes.

[AvalonXQ]

I have news for Glenn Beck: The original Christian Church was Marxist and very much committed to social justice. Remember the Marxist maxim, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"? Consider this description of the Jerusalem church under the apostle Peter in Acts 4:34, 35:

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

Describing a voluntary process. Which is exactly the sort of "social justice" that Glenn Beck supports.
This is what people are missing -- Glenn Beck is opposing churches that are using terms like "social justice" to support government mandated charity and wealth redistribution. The Christian model is one where charity is critical, but also the voluntary decision of individuals.
So how did it work in the Jerusalem Church? Let's pick up two verses after your citation ends:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

I'm limiting my quote to these verses because I want to avoid getting sucked down the rabbit hole of whether it was an overreaction for God to kill the man and his wife over lying to the Church about how much they got for their land.
The point is that never in the New Testament is it conceived that charity is the role of the government, or that charity is compulsive. Instead, Christianity assumes that the money is yours, and that the right thing to do is to choose, freely, to help the poor.
No forced or mandatory wealth redistribution is found anywhere in the Bible's accounts of the Christian Church. And this is precisely what Glenn Beck is denouncing -- not voluntary wealth redistribution (which is good), but forced wealth redistribution (which is bad).
I'll end with another Scripture to shore up the point:
But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

[AvalonXQ]

Just in case my last post wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer:

Straw Man position being put forward as Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good to redistribute your wealth to others.

Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.

[sadhatter]

Just in case my last post wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer:

Straw Man position being put forward as Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good to redistribute your wealth to others.

Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.

So the church tries to make sure that only they can tell people what to do again. Not the biggest shock to me.

[TimCallahan]

No, I think Beck is down on churches even using the words "social justice." He seems to be part of the God-is-a-Republican cult o Christian Capitalism. In any case, a death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira for not giving all the proceeds of the sale of their property doesn't sound like a voluntary contribution.

By the way, a graduated income tax involves government redistribution of wealth. Are you against that?

[AvalonXQ]

In any case, a death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira for not giving all the proceeds of the sale of their property doesn't sound like a voluntary contribution.

Paul made it abundantly clear in that verse that the property was theirs, and after the sale the money was theirs.
The death sentence was for lying to God. They were within their rights to do what they wanted with the money, but to claim they were giving it all to God (as other had done and earned the acclaim and respect of the Church) when in fact they weren't, was the sin.

And, no -- Glenn Beck is of the opinion that charity should be private. He claims the Bible backs him up on this (I agree), and it's quite reasonable for him to explain that some churches have gone away from this idea and warn people that their church may be preaching government-sponsored wealth redistribution.

[AvalonXQ]

By the way, a graduated income tax involves government redistribution of wealth. Are you against that?

Submit to the ruling authorities; give to Caesar what is Caesar's. I don't like the details of our tax system, but it is moral for me to obey it while it stands, and I have no responsibility as a Christian to speak out against it.

[Earthborn]

Your church has been infiltrated by Marxists if you preacher tells you in his/her sermon that religion is the "opium of the people". Otherwise, I don't think you can tell.

[AvalonXQ]

What if he refers to his flock as "the enlightened proletariat"?

[cwalner]

“Here’s a simple rule of thumb. Make sure your church puts God first and politics and government last…"

So, Mr. Beck, is it appropriate for a church to spend millions of dollars in support of passing a state constitutional ammendment to ban gay marraige?

[uruk]

Quote:
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”


I'm limiting my quote to these verses because I want to avoid getting sucked down the rabbit hole of whether it was an overreaction for God to kill the man and his wife over lying to the Church about how much they got for their land.
The point is that never in the New Testament is it conceived that charity is the role of the government, or that charity is compulsive. Instead, Christianity assumes that the money is yours, and that the right thing to do is to choose, freely, to help the poor.
No forced or mandatory wealth redistribution is found anywhere in the Bible's accounts of the Christian Church. And this is precisely what Glenn Beck is denouncing -- not voluntary wealth redistribution (which is good), but forced wealth redistribution (which is bad).
I'll end with another Scripture to shore up the point:

I don't think that quote in the scripture means exactly what you interpreted it to mean.

I think that particular statement meant to say that there was nothing or none who had claim or control over the item they sold for the "proceeds to be laid at the apostles feet".

Meaning that they had no reason to with hold any of the money (i.e. "to render unto Ceasar" a.k.a. taxes) and thus "lie to god" about the amount of money they "laid at the apostles feet".

To me this part of scripture says that god will kill you if you don't give up alll your money to distribute amoung the poor.

Remember the other scripture that says "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter unto heaven?

Christanity is all about doing away with possesions. Chasing money and possessions detracts from the attention you should be giving to god.

Have no other gods. If you chase money and possessions you are essentialy worshiping another god in the eyes of christianity.

Maybe not for the capitalist-friendy version of christianity that hardline conservatives follow.

Jesus with a Rolex perhaps?

[Fnord]

I forget where I read this, but someone said...


When I fed the poor, they called me a Saint.
When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a Marxist.


:mad:

[AvalonXQ]

I don't think that quote in the scripture means exactly what you interpreted it to mean.

I think that particular statement meant to say that there was nothing or none who had claim or control over the item they sold for the "proceeds to be laid at the apostles feet".

Meaning that they had no reason to with hold any of the money (i.e. "to render unto Ceasar" a.k.a. taxes) and thus "lie to god" about the amount of money they "laid at the apostles feet".

To me this part of scripture says that god will kill you if you don't give up alll your money to distribute amoung the poor.

Remember the other scripture that says "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter unto heaven?

Christanity is all about doing away with possesions. Chasing money and possessions detracts from the attention you should be giving to god.

Have no other gods. If you chase money and possessions you are essentialy worshiping another god in the eyes of christianity.

Maybe not for the capitalist-friendy version of christianity that hardline conservatives follow.

Jesus with a Rolex perhaps?

I think you've made a good point in noting that chasing worldly possessions is evil in Christianity. We're to be generous, responsible, and charitable -- not money-loving or worldy.
But Christianity is also basically about doing these things of your own free will, not by compulsion. The Scripture I quoted in 2 Corinthians about how to give makes this especially clear -- give, but give because you know it's right, not because you think you're supposed to.
Compulsory charity (just like compulsory religion in general) really is anathema to Christianity.

[quixotecoyote]

I think you've made a good point in noting that chasing worldly possessions is evil in Christianity. We're to be generous, responsible, and charitable -- not money-loving or worldy.
But Christianity is also basically about doing these things of your own free will, not by compulsion. The Scripture I quoted in 2 Corinthians about how to give makes this especially clear -- give, but give because you know it's right, not because you think you're supposed to.
Compulsory charity (just like compulsory religion in general) really is anathema to Christianity.


This is kinda funny. I'm reminded of a kid going to clean his room shouting, "I'm doing it because I WANT to! Not because you TOLD me to!"

[steve s]

I forget where I read this, but someone said...


It was apparently Helder Camara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara) of Brazil.

Steve S

[AvalonXQ]

This is kinda funny. I'm reminded of a kid going to clean his room shouting, "I'm doing it because I WANT to! Not because you TOLD me to!"

At some point the "kid" actually starts cleaning his room because he knows the room should be clean. We call this "growing up".
It works the same way for Christians -- you move from doing what you're told to because you're told to doing it because you know it's right. That's spiritual growth.

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, this is pretty much off-topic, but the title reminded me of my favorite poster (http://www.ectomo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2439695420_ce0033c184_o.jpg) ever.

[Tricky]

So if the church says, "Thou shalt not kill", that is just a personal recommendation for the people he's talking to. If the Government makes laws to prevent killing, it's Marxism.

[Fnord]

My corporate firewall blocks the website, Marquis. Can you post the text?

[Marquis de Carabas]

My corporate firewall blocks the website, Marquis. Can you post the text?
Here you go.

[Fnord]

So if the church says, "Thou shalt not kill", that is just a personal recommendation for the people he's talking to. If the Government makes laws to prevent killing, it's Marxism.

As a form of Authoritarianism, perhaps. It might be more evident if the government declared that: (1) marriage shall be solely between one man and one woman, of consensual age, of mutual consent, and for the express purpose of producing and raising children; (2) adultery is any form of sexual gratification that takes place between any two people outside of marriage; and (3) adultery shall be punishable by death to both (all?) participants.

In other words, when government defines what is moral behavior, legislates morality, and sets draconian penalties for the slightest infractions thereof, then we shall have an Authoritarian state, Marxist or otherwise.

[AvalonXQ]

So if the church says, "Thou shalt not kill", that is just a personal recommendation for the people he's talking to.
Well, yes. Unless you think the church is the government? I don't.

If the Government makes laws to prevent killing, it's Marxism.
How do you figure?
If the government recognizes and protects the freedom of individuals to own and dispose of property, it's Capitalism. If the government refuses to recognize and protect property rights but instead forcibly redistributes wealth in an attempt to equalize people, that's Marxism.
A law against killing others might exist either way.

[Fnord]

Marquis, where ever did you dig up that priceless treasure?

:D

[Tricky]

As a form of Authoritarianism, perhaps. It might be more evident if the government declared that: (1) marriage shall be solely between one man and one woman, of consensual age, of mutual consent, and for the express purpose of producing and raising children; (2) adultery is any form of sexual gratification that takes place between any two people outside of marriage; and (3) adultery shall be punishable by death to both (all?) participants.

In other words, when government defines what is moral behavior, legislates morality, and sets draconian penalties for the slightest infractions thereof, then we shall have an Authoritarian state, Marxist or otherwise.
The government does indeed legisltate morality. However, they do so in a way that is somewhat less draconian than your example.

But if the government does something that is in accordance with Christian principles, even if it is because of a chance overlapping of moral codes, then why should the church be against it just because it is the government?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Marquis, where ever did you dig up that priceless treasure?

:D
Reproductions of it were for sale in some catalog a friend of mine had when I was a teenager. Why I never ordered one, I don't know.

But now I've found I can get one for $8.00 here (http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/4004.html). It's a happy day.

[Fnord]

... if the government does something that is in accordance with Christian principles, even if it is because of a chance overlapping of moral codes, then why should the church be against it just because it is the government?

Because anything that arises out of secular reasoning -- even if it arises for the overall public good -- must, by its very nature, be God-less, thus a tool of the Devil, and therefore sinful.

(Yes. Really. There are religionists that express the very same thought in the very same words!)

Now, if the government does something that is in accordance with Christian principles, even if it is because of a chance overlapping of moral codes, then why should non-Christians (even Atheists) be against it just because it is also a Christian principle?

(I know ... I'm putting another face on the strawman ... :rolleyes: )

[AvalonXQ]

But if the government does something that is in accordance with Christian principles, even if it is because of a chance overlapping of moral codes, then why should the church be against it just because it is the government?

Not every instance of government compulsion is contrary to Christian principles. However, compulsory charity and religion certainly are.
In other words, the true (Scottsman?) Christian Church should oppose an effort by government to force people to join the true Christian Church.

[TimCallahan]

Paul made it abundantly clear in that verse that the property was theirs, and after the sale the money was theirs.
The death sentence was for lying to God. They were within their rights to do what they wanted with the money, but to claim they were giving it all to God (as other had done and earned the acclaim and respect of the Church) when in fact they weren't, was the sin. . . .

Leaving aside that Paul wasn't involved, I think you're reading something into the text that just isn't there. Acts 5:1 only says that Ananias, with Sapphira's knowledge, kept back some of the money from the sale of his property and brought only part of it to lay at the apostles' feet. The verse says nothing about whatever claims they either did or did not make.

[AvalonXQ]

Leaving aside that Paul wasn't involved, I think you're reading something into the text that just isn't there. Acts 5:1 only says that Ananias, with Sapphira's knowledge, kept back some of the money from the sale of his property and brought only part of it to lay at the apostles' feet. The verse says nothing about whatever claims they either did or did not make.

Yep. You have to go down another three verses for that.

Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”
She said, “Yes, for so much.”
Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”

[Pikachu]

This does seem to be a particularly American version of Christianity. I'm afraid it just sounds like plain old "dog in the manger" greed. Over on this side of the pond most active Christians* (and Muslims) I know are broadly in favour of some wealth redistribution and social justice.
* Most of these are Catholics though so if you're one of the Rapture Ready* crowd you probably don't think they're Real ChristiansTM.
* Has anyone else read that book BTW? Or visited their website?

[Michael Redman]

Just in case my last post wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer:

Straw Man position being put forward as Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good to redistribute your wealth to others.

Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.Glen Beck's strawman position: "Social Justice" means churches teaching that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.

[AvalonXQ]

Glen Beck's strawman position: "Social Justice" means churches teaching that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.

What Glenn Beck actually said was that the term "social justice" was an indicator that your church might be like this. In other words, buzz words like "social justice" have come to be associated with wealth distribution.
He never said, and does not believe, that using the term "social justice" is the litmus test for progressive churches either positive or negative.

[TimCallahan]

Yep. You have to go down another three verses for that.

Okay, I concede that you have a point in Sapphira's case. However., we still have a death penalty for a less than capital crime. Peter seems to have forgotten this teaching he personally received from Jesus (Mt. 18:21, 22):

Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven."

Now I suppose you'll counter that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was not against Peter, but against God. However, the NT also teaches that God's forgiveness is boundless, that all of us have fallen short, and that it isn't our virtues but God's grace that saves us. Further, even in the OT much more egregious sins are committed by, or example, David, with out the instantaneous death penalty.

[Michael Redman]

What Glenn Beck actually said was that the term "social justice" was an indicator that your church might be like this. In other words, buzz words like "social justice" have come to be associated with wealth distribution.
He never said, and does not believe, that using the term "social justice" is the litmus test for progressive churches either positive or negative.According to the link in the OP, Beck gave his definition of the term "social justice" as:Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility towards individual property rights under the guise of charity and/or justice

Beck that is making the association between social justice and wealth distribution, not reporting on it.

[Cleon]

What Glenn Beck actually said was that the term "social justice" was an indicator that your church might be like this. In other words, buzz words like "social justice" have come to be associated with wealth distribution.
He never said, and does not believe, that using the term "social justice" is the litmus test for progressive churches either positive or negative.

Erm...No, you are (again) completely wrong. Here's Beck's actual quote:


I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!


There's no qualifiers. There's no "might" or "could be." His message is very simple: "social justice" means "communism," and if you see this on your church web site, you should leave your church.

[Michael Redman]

More from Beck:For example, if your church is preaching social justice in education and your church is doing it themselves… great, do it! That is exactly what your church should be doing.

So it's OK to talk about social justice in what the church does, but the church shouldn't talk about social justice in what the govenment does? The implication of the education example is that churches should not have been speaking out in favor of desegregating public schools.

[quixotecoyote]

At some point the "kid" actually starts cleaning his room because he knows the room should be clean. We call this "growing up".
It works the same way for Christians -- you move from doing what you're told to because you're told to doing it because you know it's right. That's spiritual growth.

So right now people have to be told to help each other avoid going bankrupt from getting sick/suffering from lack of treatment, but eventually they'll grow up and do it voluntarily? Or is there another way you were thinking of applying that?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

But what if my church says something about abortion or teh gays?

[Tricky]

Not every instance of government compulsion is contrary to Christian principles. However, compulsory charity and religion certainly are.
How about government compulsion to support armies? Is that a Christian principle? Why aren't more churches socialist for this? And compulsory charity is very much in line with church thinking. What do you think tithes are?

The churches (some of them anyway, especially of fundamentalist sects) simply want it both ways. They want to control government actions and they want to be free from government control.

[quixotecoyote]

How about government compulsion to support armies? Is that a Christian principle? Why aren't more churches socialist for this? And compulsory charity is very much in line with church thinking. What do you think tithes are?

That's a little complicated because churches lack the power to physically compel. But it's interesting that threats of damnation = voluntary while threats of incarceration/property seizure = involuntary.

[Toke]

The original idea of communal property and/or voluntary charity would work for a small cult.
For a whole country you need a taxation system.

[uruk]

I think you've made a good point in noting that chasing worldly possessions is evil in Christianity. We're to be generous, responsible, and charitable -- not money-loving or worldy. Unfortunately modern interpretations of capitalisim has become "make as much as you can regardless of the consequences or who has to suffer, or even if you destroy your own business to do so."
Captialism has become about the chase.

But Christianity is also basically about doing these things of your own free will, not by compulsion. That's kind of an odd idea considering the enternal consequences of not choosing to be christian. It kind of like god saying "You should choose to love and worship me of your own free will. And to make sure it is of your own free will, I will roast you in hell for an eternity if you choose not to." Free will, maybe; but certainly not a free choice.

And of course, in order to be christian you have to do all those things that define you as being christian. Wether you agree with them or not.

I guess that is why there are all those different flavors of christianity.

The Scripture I quoted in 2 Corinthians about how to give makes this especially clear -- give, but give because you know it's right, not because you think you're supposed to. But the scripture kind of reinforces the notion that it doesn't really matter if you do it willingly or not. The husband and wife chose not to donate all the money they made from the sale of thier land. They gave part of the money willingly, but not all. They died for making that choice.

Compulsory charity (just like compulsory religion in general) really is anathema to Christianity. How is it not compulsory if you die because you did not willingly give charity?

[uruk]

Well, yes. Unless you think the church is the government? I don't.


That's funny. There are a lot of hardline conservatives who think America should be a christian theocracy. They sure have been trying to insert god into government when ever they can.

"in god we trust"
"One nation under god"
Both inserted at the behest of religious organizations.

[AvalonXQ]

But the scripture kind of reinforces the notion that it doesn't really matter if you do it willingly or not. The husband and wife chose not to donate all the money they made from the sale of thier land. They gave part of the money willingly, but not all. They died for making that choice.

They died for lying to God. Had they given part of the money and been honest about it, or never sold the land in the first place, they would not have been punished.
Again, the charity was voluntary.
But pretending to charity was deadly.

[quixotecoyote]

They died for lying to God. Had they given part of the money and been honest about it, or never sold the land in the first place, they would not have been punished.
Again, the charity was voluntary.
But pretending to charity was deadly.

Now you see, I've read Acts 4-5, and I know you've just given the standard apologetic, but in no translation have I ever seen Annais tell a lie. His wife lies, but Annais simply holds back the money. The act of holding back the money is referred to as the lie to the holy spirit/god/the lord/whatever.

[Dave Rogers]

Is the New International Version admissible?


1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."


See bolded portion. If Ananias had claimed that he was passing on the full value of the land, he would have 'lied to men', which Peter said he had not done. Therefore, it seems that not donating enough money to charity was the crime.

Dave

[paiute]

At some point the "kid" actually starts cleaning his room because he knows the room should be clean. We call this "growing up".
It works the same way for Christians -- you move from doing what you're told to because you're told to doing it because you know it's right. That's spiritual growth.

Or it could be the fear of spending eternity in hellfire.

[ponderingturtle]

“Here’s a simple rule of thumb. Make sure your church puts God first and politics and government last…"

So, Mr. Beck, is it appropriate for a church to spend millions of dollars in support of passing a state constitutional ammendment to ban gay marraige?

Do you honestly think Glenn Beck can't resolve that little bit of cognitive dissonance? Or is remotely self aware enough to realize it?

[ponderingturtle]

I think you've made a good point in noting that chasing worldly possessions is evil in Christianity. We're to be generous, responsible, and charitable -- not money-loving or worldy.

No, just listen to more people preaching the prosperity gospel, like Crefo Dollar.

[ponderingturtle]

Not every instance of government compulsion is contrary to Christian principles. However, compulsory charity and religion certainly are.

What ever you say pope.

[AvalonXQ]

What ever you say pope.

Awww, I didn't know you thought of me that way.
Don't worry, sweetie, I'll let you stay up late on weekends.

[Checkmite]

Does this mean we can expect Glenn Beck to come out in support of the separation of church and state?

[AvalonXQ]

Does this mean we can expect Glenn Beck to come out in support of the separation of church and state?

I would hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Toke]

Does this mean we can expect Glenn Beck to come out in support of the separation of church and state?

I think he works with some idea of unilateral separation.
As in government does not interfere with the church's business, and the church accept that government follow gods will.

[uruk]

They died for lying to God. Had they given part of the money and been honest about it, or never sold the land in the first place, they would not have been punished.
Again, the charity was voluntary.
But pretending to charity was deadly.

How did they pretend to be charitable when they did give some of the money?

Charity is giving. It does not say anything about how much you give.
They gave some money voluntarily, just not all of it. They were, by definition, voluntarily charitable.

I believe the "lie" was in holding back some of the money when "god" wanted all of it.

To my interpretation of the passage, this is what they were punished for.

[TimCallahan]

They died for lying to God. Had they given part of the money and been honest about it, or never sold the land in the first place, they would not have been punished.
Again, the charity was voluntary.
But pretending to charity was deadly.

Again, I ask you: Why the death penalty? Why not something like Miriam's punishment of being turned leprous for a number of days (Numbers 12:9 - 16), or withering their hands until they begged to be forgiven, as in the case of King Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:4 - 6)?

The death penalty enacted against Ananias and Sapphira, without any chance being given to repent, sounds more like a cautionary tale set up by a church hierarchy to command offerings - ort of like, "Yez pays or yez gets it in da neck."

[uruk]

Does this mean we can expect Glenn Beck to come out in support of the separation of church and state?

If he is a constitutionalist he should. But then Glen Beck is not exactly what you would call "consistent."

[Achán hiNidráne]

Again, I ask you: Why the death penalty?

Because Comrade Yahweh is merciless against the counter-revolutionary traitors who would with hold the People's money from the People, Da?

Typical AXQ, hand-waving away the Bible's bloody, totalitarian message while distracting us and obfuscating the issue with a few utterly unoriginal hearts-and-flowers phrases.

Christianity must be destroyed.

[Michael Redman]

If he is a constitutionalist he should. But then Glen Beck is not exactly what you would call "consistent."It's hard to be consistent when you're intentionally and proudly ignorant of what you're talking about.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, yes. Unless you think the church is the government? I don't.

Ironically put given that historically your fellow Christians are more than willing to demand that government follow your church's dictates regarding freedom of speech/press, science and history, economics, recreational drugs and alcohol, freedom of and from religion, and sexuality--especially sexuality.

Christianity must be destroyed.

[TimCallahan]

As to whether Glenn Beck was making off-the-wall loony remarks or merely advocating that churches stay out of politics and is being misread by the press, one way to determine this is to look at some other remarks he's made and to see if they are off-the-wall and deliberately outrageous or not. Consider the following:

Beck said that when he sees families of 9/11 victims on the air he wants to say, "Oh shut up!" He's tired of hearing them whine.

He referred to victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as "scumbags."

This doesn't sound like someone who believes in much charity at all. He's a rude, abusive jerk.

[Toke]

He referred to victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as "scumbags."
Well, how could they be nice people if god punishes them like that, and taking upon ourselves to second guess god decisions by helping them would be most unchristian.
:rolleyes:

[patrick767]

No surprise there. Beck is a loyal disciple of supply-side Jesus.

And yes, Beck and others have long used the term "progressive" as a negative thing. Take, for example, Bill O'Reilly's favorite made up term: secular-progressive. He frequently uses the term to describe the evil Other, the liberals that he and his audience believe are destroying everything that is traditional, good, and Godly about America.

At every cross-way on the road that leads to the future, it has placed, against each of us, ten thousand men to guard the past; let us therefore have no fear lest the fairest towers of former days be insufficiently defended.
-- Maurice Maeterlinck

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Gotta bring this up anytime someone mentions Glenn Beck

Victim in Fatal Car Accident Tragically NOT Glenn Beck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-faCh8BUEts

[themusicteacher]

I'm fairly certain Beck has never even read "Das Kapital," even the Cliff's Notes version. He just uses his own definitions like so many of the talking heads these days. Don't like the real definition of an inflammatory word? That's okay, just change it to mean whatever you'd like it too. Beck is a disingenuous bomb-thrower trying to make a buck (and, disgustingly enough, doing quite well at it) by inciting hate, rage, racism and fear. He's a first-class douchebag, know-nothing, pot-stirrer who doesn't give a rip for anything other than his own bank account. The only thing dumber than Beck is the millions of asshat's that listen to him and think he has anything of substance to add to the conversation.

[ponderingturtle]

Awww, I didn't know you thought of me that way.


Well you seem to be claiming infallibility in your interpretations.

[CORed]

http://www.newshounds.us/2010/03/24/glenn_beck_issues_guidelines_to_help_you_know_if_y our_church_has_been_infiltrated_by_marxists.php

I guess this could go in Religion or Politics....

Our top story: Glenn Beck is a wacko. In other news, the sun rose in the East today and is expected to do so again tomorrow.

[David Wong]

Let's make it very clear. the Bible says, in Matthew 25:31-46, that you HAVE to give to the poor, or else you burn for eternity.

Not optional. Not of your own free will. And the penalties are MUCH more severe than anything the government can hand down:


31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'


37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'


40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'


44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'


45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'


46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV

Government has been far far far far more effective about providing basic needs of the poor than any system of private charity in history. Private charities can't raise the funding or organization of a strong central government, so it only makes sense to turn the task over to them. Otherwise, our failure to do it means we all burn in hell.

According to the Bible, anyway.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's interesting the Evangelicals want to re-write the history of the USA making it a Christian theocracy. The Republics* (at least if Mary Matlin's comments on the Daily Show reflect the Republic view) want to rewrite Christianity and make Jesus a Libertarian. Beck's views go along with both revisions. But he adds the CT that communists/socialists have infiltrated the church.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can so distort the world the see.

[AlBell]

Re; Beck

He's a rude, abusive jerk.
Do you know his username here? Otherwise, there are too many candidates to choose from to guess it.

[dudalb]

Glen Beck is a Mormon, and they have always had a negative view of other Christian Denominations.
No surprise here.

[dudalb]

It's interesting the Evangelicals want to re-write the history of the USA making it a Christian theocracy. The Republics* (at least if Mary Matlin's comments on the Daily Show reflect the Republic view) want to rewrite Christianity and make Jesus a Libertarian. Beck's views go along with both revisions. But he adds the CT that communists/socialists have infiltrated the church.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can so distort the world the see.

I have to point out that Evangelical Christians and the Mormon church have no love for each other.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to point out that Evangelical Christians and the Mormon church have no love for each other.What is your point? That Beck's loony followers are all Mormons?

[Achán hiNidráne]

About half of my family are WELS, and they worship the ground this turd walks on.

[Lucian]

About half of my family are WELS, and they worship the ground this turd walks on.

I had to look up WELS. Is Wisconsin Synod the one that's even more conservative than Missouri Synod?

[Achán hiNidráne]

I'm not qualified to make a comparison. What I do know is that they are quite, quite literal. As indiviudals, all of my WELS family members are YEC, outspokenly racist, and very, very Republican.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Just in case my last post wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer:

Straw Man position being put forward as Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good to redistribute your wealth to others.

Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.


If I have a couple of bushels of random goods, and a couple of needy people, in a village of a couple hundred people max, then all well and good. I know them all by name, every family, every issue, and I can distribute to the needy without the worry that someone greedy will push out someone truly in need, or that I'll miss someone, or that while I'm not passing out freebies then my fellow churchgoers, perhaps more bigoted than I am might let the minority race family or the wrong church family starve out of malice.

Once things get bigger than village scale, you start needing leaders, laws, and organization. Charity is no different. Charity on a large scale needs organization and rules. You can either duplicate the functions of an organization you already have, which is expensive, or you can slightly expand the function of the existing organization, which is cheap.

Beck just wants to see churches in control of more wealth, even though if they had to manage it on the scale that the scary gub'mint did, they'd have to duplicate all that administration. Not only that, since there's not a whole lot of agreement between the various sects, it would be duplicated hundreds of times over. Churches have a built in excuse to let people they don't like starve too. It's the 'kill the infidel' hatred thing they all have built in lately.

A

[Toke]

This got me thinking about those "Faith based initiatives" where I believe the government is to collect the taxes and churches get to decide how the money is spent.
Sounds like not only a bad idea but also counter to the stated stance of churches.

And no you cannot have country wide charity/welfare on volunteer basis.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just in case my last post wasn't clear, I'll make it clearer:

Straw Man position being put forward as Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good to redistribute your wealth to others.It wasn't a straw man, it was Beck's direct statement, no government connection whatsoever. You are imagining a defense for Beck. Your position is very odd.


Glenn Beck's position: Churches should not teach that it is good for the government to redistribute your wealth to others.What a bunch of crap. Do you have any evidence Beck gives anything to charity? Do you have any evidence this is the correct interpretation of Beck's urging anyone to leave their church if the church promotes social justice?

[Foolmewunz]

Reproductions of it were for sale in some catalog a friend of mine had when I was a teenager. Why I never ordered one, I don't know.

But now I've found I can get one for $8.00 here (http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/4004.html). It's a happy day.

And.... and... they've got the Milky Way - You Are Here t-shirt!! May the FSM caress you in his noodly appendages, Marquis and may all your goats be fertile and bear you many kids.

[AvalonXQ]

Do you have any evidence this is the correct interpretation of Beck's urging anyone to leave their church if the church promotes social justice?

Yes, Beck's own words from the very biased article tell us this:
"The term ‘social justice’ has been completely perverted and hijacked by progressives… It doesn’t simply mean ‘help the poor’ to them. It does to some people and maybe your church. But be very careful when you see those words. Because you have to know who you’re dealing with. Are you dealing with somebody who believes it’s just coming from the heart? Or are you dealing with a progressive?"

Never one to underestimate his own significance, Beck continued, “America, this is extremely important! Here is my definition of ‘social justice!’”

He went to his trusty chalkboard where he had the definition written out: “Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility towards individual property rights under the guise of charity and/or justice.”

Hopefully that's clear.
Beck's point was that the term "social justice" may be a disguise for a wealth redistribution agenda, and that is what you have to watch out for.

[Fishstick]

Matthew 25:41-45: And lo Jesus stood on the hill and said "**** the poor." And Jesus then went unto the city of Jerusalem and yea there were lepers that were in the street and Jesus said unto them "get a job."

[AvalonXQ]

Matthew 25:46-50: And Jesus said unto them, "Forget what I have told you about compassion. Instead give unto Caesar, and Caesar shall tend unto the poor."
And Jesus came to every man in the city, his disciples being armed with swords, and took from every one by force according to that man's wealth, and gave it unto the poor.

[TimCallahan]

Yes, Beck's own words from the very biased article tell us this:


Hopefully that's clear.
Beck's point was that the term "social justice" may be a disguise for a wealth redistribution agenda, and that is what you have to watch out for.

So, Beck has the right to define what other people mean when they say social justice? So far, all I see is a guy saying that if a church believes in social justice, they want to forcibly take from the rich and give to the poor. Why don't we let these churches speak for themselves, rather than listing to Beck's interpretation o what they mean.

By the way, the fact that there is a graduated income tax and public education means that the government is forcibly redistributing our wealth. Do you have a problem with that?

[AvalonXQ]

So far, all I see is a guy saying that if a church believes in social justice, they want to forcibly take from the rich and give to the poor.


Beck didn't say that, so I'm wondering who you're seeing.
Maybe the Beck-shaped strawman people are setting up.

[Towlie]

I guess this could go in Religion or Politics....No, neither. Here's (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91) the forum for Glenn Beck quotes.

[cwalner]

No, neither. Here's (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91) the forum for Glenn Beck quotes.

I would have suggested AAH myself

[TimCallahan]

Beck didn't say that, so I'm wondering who you're seeing.
Maybe the Beck-shaped strawman people are setting up.

Beck said that when he sees families of 9/11 victims on the air he wants to say, "Oh shut up!" He's tired of hearing them whine.

He referred to victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as "scumbags."

Are you an I talking about the same Glenn Beck?

[AvalonXQ]

Are you an I talking about the same Glenn Beck?

Apparently not.
I'm talking about the Glenn Beck that warned people not to attend churches that support compulsory wealth distribution by government in the guise of "social justice".
You're talking about the Glenn Beck that hates all church-sponsored charity.
The difference is, the Glenn Beck that I'm talking about actually exists.

[TimCallahan]

Apparently not.
I'm talking about the Glenn Beck that warned people not to attend churches that support compulsory wealth distribution by government in the guise of "social justice".
You're talking about the Glenn Beck that hates all church-sponsored charity.
The difference is, the Glenn Beck that I'm talking about actually exists.

First: Glenn Beck did say those hateful things about the families of 9/11 victims and the those devastated by Hurricane Katrina. So that Glenn Beck exists.

Second: Can you tell me specifically which churches support compulsory government redistribution of wealth and specifically what they said that makes either Glenn Beck or you believe they favor such policies?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, Beck's own words from the very biased article tell us this:


Hopefully that's clear.
Beck's point was that the term "social justice" may be a disguise for a wealth redistribution agenda, and that is what you have to watch out for.This is just so distorted it's hard to know where to start.

What you are trying to claim is that Beck's false claims about what social justice means to Progressives means he isn't claiming one shouldn't be charitable. Yet he defines being charitable as Progressives define it as being beyond charitable and in to Marx's wealth redistribution.


So, if you take Beck's definition, then normal charity is still communism. So if he believes progressives' view of what charity is, is the distortion you describe, then Beck views normal charity as bad.

His definition of charity has to be far stingier than Progressives' definition any way you cut it here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Matthew 25:46-50: And Jesus said unto them, "Forget what I have told you about compassion. Instead give unto Caesar, and Caesar shall tend unto the poor."
And Jesus came to every man in the city, his disciples being armed with swords, and took from every one by force according to that man's wealth, and gave it unto the poor.This gets back around to the problem you have here originally: Beck was referring to churches not the government. So unless you can show churches encouraging members to give to the government for redistribution, then you cannot keep avoiding facing a big dilemma here. Beck was referring to churches, not government.

In other words, what Tim said:...
Second: Can you tell me specifically which churches support compulsory government redistribution of wealth and specifically what they said that makes either Glenn Beck or you believe they favor such policies?

[AvalonXQ]

Beck was referring to churches, not government.

Yes. He was referring to churches that support government-mandated charity. He often refers to these as "Wright-style" churches.

[AvalonXQ]

And here's an excerpt from an actual Beck article (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/38320/) that makes his position clear:

Notice what they all have in common: Taking from one and giving to another. The second half of that equation — giving to another — is charity. But then President Obama's spiritual adviser says this:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REV. JIM WALLIS: We have to be very clear about this. Voluntary, faith-based initiatives with no resources, no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction, is not adequate. That's a charity that falls far short of biblical justice.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Voluntary charity doesn't go far enough? Give to the poor by taking from the rich? Unfortunately that means theft.

You can boil these justices down to one thing: It is a fancy name for socialism, which is forced redistribution of wealth, which is a fancy name for Marxism.

Jesus preached many things, but he never preached socialism. If you voluntarily wanted to live in a commune, Jesus would be cool with that. But he never said take from someone and not give to anyone else.

The article isn't very long; if you want to continue to debate what Beck is claiming and what Beck believes on this issue, please read it first. It will stop you from burning a straw man.

[TimCallahan]

Okay, reading the article, I get the following:

1) Beck is against healthcare reform

2) He's against federal programs to put people to work

3) He sees Rev. Jim Wallis as Marxist.

4) In Beck's opinion when anyone says "social justice" it means they are for forced redistribution of wealth on a Marxist scale.

About the only thing of substance here, particularly in terms of Marxism in churches, is point #3. That's one church. Otherwise he's predictably against Obama, just as, I'm sure, he'd have been against Franklin Roosevelt.

[Towlie]

Otherwise he's predictably against Obama, just as, I'm sure, he'd have been against Franklin Roosevelt.... and just as, I'm sure, he'd have been against the American Revolution.

[AvalonXQ]

4) In Beck's opinion when anyone says "social justice" it means they are for forced redistribution of wealth on a Marxist scale.

How did you get that from an article where he explicitly says:

I want to make this clear: Some people look at social justice as going out on mission and going out and doing good works for God. That's great — as long as it's Jesus and the church or your synagogue or whoever is who you are serving, not a government-bloated program.

Again, Beck never says "If they use the term 'social justice', we know they have a progressive agenda". He mentions "social justice" as an example of a term co-opted to the progressive agenda; that doesn't imply that everyone uses it that way -- just that some do, and it should trigger warning bells when you hear it.

[Toke]

I think I get the point here, it god loves you he will make you rich, and only a godless communist would want to change that by redistribution according to some principle of "social justice".

[TimCallahan]

. . . Again, Beck never says "If they use the term 'social justice', we know they have a progressive agenda". He mentions "social justice" as an example of a term co-opted to the progressive agenda; that doesn't imply that everyone uses it that way -- just that some do, and it should trigger warning bells when you hear it.

Here's a quote from the article you cited and to which you gave a link (hilite added):

Here's my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.

This is a quote from Beck, not something made u by those nasty liberals.

[AvalonXQ]

Here's a quote from the article you cited and to which you gave a link (hilite added):

Here's my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.

This is a quote from Beck, not something made u by those nasty liberals.

Yes, you correctly quoted Beck.
And if you jump from that to the notion that Beck believes that everyone uses the term "social justice" that way, you're not only wrong, you're directly contradicting the article.

[Michael Redman]

Yes, you correctly quoted Beck.
And if you jump from that to the notion that Beck believes that everyone uses the term "social justice" that way, you're not only wrong, you're directly contradicting the article.That's about the worst argument I've ever heard.

[TimCallahan]

Yes, you correctly quoted Beck.
And if you jump from that to the notion that Beck believes that everyone uses the term "social justice" that way, you're not only wrong, you're directly contradicting the article.

No, I did not say that everyone used that definition for the term "social justice." I said specifically that Beck used it that way. Thus, he is likely to read his own skewed definition into any church's use of the term.

Again, this is the same guy who said he'd like to tell the families of 9 / 11 victims to "shut up." This is the same guy who called victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags." Nobody has to read anything into what he says: His own mouth assassinates his character quite nicely. I can't imagine why you're defending him.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I can't imagine why you're defending him.

I can: Right-wing religious rubes must defend their own.

[themusicteacher]

Does Beck even bother to define "justice" at all? I doubt he could and if he did look it up, he wouldn't like the definition so he would change it to suit his agenda (and he partially does by saying that government can't possibly be a force for justice; this guy doesn't think much of the constitution or the founding father's does he?; why does Glenn Beck hate America?).

The bottom line is that charitable giving isn't enough considering the need versus what's available. Justice takes a lot more into consideration than just "property rights" (another obsession of libertarians) but people like Beck would prefer we stop there. In Beck's mind, justice is only justice when the have's decide to deliver it. Yet another example of his self-indulgent, shallow take on things that always skews towards his own proclivities and never considers anything outside of his own sheltered little existence. It's a naked attempt to paint the oppressed as "theives" and "welfare queens" and the like while the noble wealthy ride like angelic saviors who would gladly give of their own if not for the evil government forcing them to give up their hard-earned and well-deserved riches. The poor, persecuted rich are much like those poor, persecuted Christians; cry me a river.

In essence, Beck's take is a strawman itself. Can one strawman a strawman? The issue of social justice is a hell of a lot deeper than a phony like Beck could ever fathom so he just boils it down to "charity" versus "government-forced redistribution." Like so many on the right, it's always an either-or scenario with no nuance or grey area's like there are in, you know, real life. Stick to swabbing the anuses of Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin with your tongue, Beck. Philosophy isn't your strong suit.

[Praktik]

Something tells me Beck has dropped the "veil" from "veil of ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) and just sees things through ignorance...

[AvalonXQ]

In essence, Beck's take is a strawman itself. Can one strawman a strawman?

Apparently one can.
If you want to attack Beck's position that private charity is sufficient and mandatory government charity is inappropriate (and you clearly do), good for you.
But this idea that Beck is painting all churches with this brush, or objecting to all charity, is a strawman and not Beck's real position.
If we've finally gotten to a discussion of Beck's real position, I'm pretty much satisfied with that.

[AvalonXQ]

Again, this is the same guy who said he'd like to tell the families of 9 / 11 victims to "shut up." This is the same guy who called victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags." Nobody has to read anything into what he says: His own mouth assassinates his character quite nicely. I can't imagine why you're defending him.

Without having actually heard either of these quotes (since I don't listen to the guy), I can certainly understand his point in both cases.
In case you've forgotten, the families of the 9/11 victims were complaining, loud and often, that the millions of dollars in compensation allotted from the government and private charities weren't enough. They started to sound like entitled whiners, and I would speculate that it was that behavior that Glenn Beck was commenting on.
As for New Orleans -- the amount of looting and violence during Katrina was unprecidented. The people who shot rescue workers, who took the chaos of the hurricane as a signal to make off with whatever they could carry and generally turn a disaster zone into a riot zone, are scumbags, plain and simple. Which certainly isn't all Katrina victims (or even most), but I seriously doubt he was talking about all Katrina victims, but the scumbags.

But all of this is beside the point. If you're so certain that the things that Beck says are undefendable, why do you have to make stuff up and take things completely out of context to attack him on? If he's so terrible, why can't you quote him in a straightforward and honest manner? Why do you have to twist his words to get your point across?
And even if he has said sleazy things, how does that imply that other, unrelated things he's said are also sleazy?

[Praktik]

And even if he has said sleazy things, how does that imply that other, unrelated things he's said are also sleazy?

I've thought about these questions before, especially in debates with CT theorists. I think the most rabid Beckians and Beck himself share many contours of psychology with say, Alex Jones and his fans. So the challenge was: when my distaste for Alex Jones is challenged by a True Believer, and they suggest that just because Jones was wrong on Y2K and any number of other things, then how can I use that to say he's wrong about say, impending Martial Law or swine-flu vaccines being a trojan horse for RFID-chipping the population?

Firstly, I cannot say that his being wrong in the past makes the current claim under discussion wrong. Let's have that out of the way first...

The answer I developed is similar to the Carl Sagan line, "its good to have an open mind, just not so open your brain falls out". After a certain amount of exposure it is natural to have formed an opinion. Is this source credible? What's their track record like? Do they seem irrational, vindictive or prone to logical fallacy?

With all the information available these days, why would I pick a source who has such a poor track record? Why would I intentionally spend the time it takes to suss out a rare nugget of "truth" amongst all the excrement?

When it comes to Glenn Beck - his track record of invective should be more than enough for a rational person to regard any future statement of his with a grim skepticism. You admit to have not had much exposure to his words, and so you are sitting from a position of relative ignorance and imbuing Beck with a credibility he hasn't earned with you yet.

In this case, these claims about social justice are fraught with generalization, loaded with political bias, and are straight-up innacurate. Why should we take anyone seriously who claims that "socialism" is a "fancy name for Marxism"?

That right there shows the understanding of an intellectual 7 year old...

[TimCallahan]

. . . . If you're so certain that the things that Beck says are undefendable, why do you have to make stuff up and take things completely out of context to attack him on? If he's so terrible, why can't you quote him in a straightforward and honest manner? Why do you have to twist his words to get your point across?
And even if he has said sleazy things, how does that imply that other, unrelated things he's said are also sleazy?

No, I'm not making it up, nor am I twisting his words.

By the way, while this is a bit off topic, are you ever going to answer me regarding what you would accept as verifiable / falsifiable scientific evidence for the age of the earth, whete young or old?

[TimCallahan]

Here's another Glenn Beck quote:

"This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." –on President Obama, sparking an advertiser exodus from his FOX News show, July 28, 2009

So, is Beck saying President Obama hates his own mother, or is this more evil liberal wisting of what Beck said? Here's another quote:

"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization...And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]." –"The Glenn Beck Program," May 1, 2007

So, do you think - as Beck seems to - that Al Gore invented a global warming hoax for the purpose of "globalism"?

[AvalonXQ]

Here's another Glenn Beck quote:

Which part of this quote tells us what his "social justice" discussion means?

This is, in fact, a textbook ad hom argument. "Because Beck is the sort of person who says 'bad things', therefore this thing he said must be 'bad'." It pretty much fails on its face, even so.

[TimCallahan]

Which part of this quote tells us what his "social justice" discussion means?

This is, in fact, a textbook ad hom argument. "Because Beck is the sort of person who says 'bad things', therefore this thing he said must be 'bad'." It pretty much fails on its face, even so.

No, it's not so much that Beck says "bad things." It's that he says off-the-wall wack-job things. He has stated that in his specific view "social justice" means forced redistribution of wealth. You have defended his views on this, saying in the process, that his critics are twisting his words.

I quoted these other two things Beck said - one about President Obama hating white people and the other about Al Gore acting like Hitler in an effort to use global warming to enforce "globalism," whatever that means - not as ad hominum arguments, but to demonstrate that Beck is in the habit of spouting sensationalistic, dishonest accusations. He is a loose cannon.

Neither the press nor I have to twist or falsify anything Beck says. He is deliberately outrageous the same way Internet trolls, like Sushil Yadav, are outrageous. Oh, and while we're on the subject of trolling - even though this is, again off topic - are you ever going to answer my question, on that other thread, about what you would accept as a valid, verifiable / falsifiable means of telling the age of the earth, whether young or old?

[AvalonXQ]

Neither the press nor I have to twist or falsify anything Beck says.

And yet the press did so regarding the "social justice" issue. Not surprising, since it had the potential to turn religious conservatives against Beck.
Fortunately it appears that most people have better listening and reading comprehension than the press when it comes to the words of certain pundits.

[gnome]

My personal take on charity in a religious context comes from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
1967: "Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence"

http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

[TimCallahan]

And yet the press did so regarding the "social justice" issue. Not surprising, since it had the potential to turn religious conservatives against Beck.
Fortunately it appears that most people have better listening and reading comprehension than the press when it comes to the words of certain pundits.

Okay, I Googled "Glenn Beck on social justice." He did specifically say that "social justice was a code phrase for what was essentially Nazism and communism. He also specifically said that if you spot the words "social justice" or "economic justice" on your church's website then run.

This is not the press twisting his words. This is Glenn Beck himself talking.