Think Glen Beck might be Evil. Not Sure.

[Matt Pniewski]

Quote:

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.

So, in other words, Mr. Beck has his own definition of social justice. And despite the fact that his definition is something he has to explain himself, it's still a communist buzzword.

Quote:

On my radio program, I said if your church is promoting Jeremiah Wright-type "social or economic justice," you should run from it or at least get educated on what progressives mean by this.

Which is, again, according to his definition, and is attributing it to another man.

You understand this is double-speak, right?

Quote:

When you are in church sometimes it's not so easy to see it. But here's a simple rule of thumb: Make sure your church puts God first and politics and government last. Here are the clear warning signs: "social justice" or "economic justice" or "ecological justice."

So then this is wrong, but he's defining it on his own terms, attributing it to others.

Quote:

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.

And you know they are doing this by the key words, which are defined by him but attributed to other people.



Let's clear the bushes: He claims social justice is a communist buzzword. He has an article explaining his definition after he came under fire for it. He's making his own definition, and applying it to others, as if they wrote the definition themselves.

Quote:

He's in favor of helping the poor and what he meant by social justice isn't the same as what many of you mean by it. Glenn Beck is not telling you that if your church wishes to do the same, that you are being led down a path that'll destroy the country. He's speaking against ones like the one our president distanced himself from...

I had the pleasure of meeting Reverend Wright many years ago. He's a nice guy. Anyway, I'm wondering why we should fear supporting Christian initiatives? Is it NOT our Christian duty to provide those in need? Help the less fortunate?

God works his way into everything we do, shouldn't we vote for these things?


32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' fee
-Acts

"If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God."-Leviticus

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew  

[Semiremis]

Quote:

So, in other words, Mr. Beck has his own definition of social justice. And despite the fact that his definition is something he has to explain himself, it's still a communist buzzword.

So in other words Glenn Beck is telling you what he thinks progressives mean by Social justice and he's speaking against that. So in other words you were wrong about the man, you painted him as someone who is against helping the poor and obviously didn't get the picture in the end of your post. Christians should help the poor but because someone is against stealing from the rich and forcing them to help the poor through social programs doesn't make him against helping the poor. Conservatives tend to view things differently and personally I see a hell of a lot of merit to their way as well. They want to give on their own terms, why should they be forced to trust a government run program, why are they bad for wanting to help the poor directly?

Most of this country isn't a big fan of Communism, I'm not a big fan of it because it does not work on a large scale and as a result of the previous attempts made at it, a lot of people have suffered greatly (Stalin and the USSR is a perfect example of this).

Quote the bible as much as you want but Glenn Beck was right and the versus you posted support what he is saying. Jesus would never have forced anyone to follow him, or to do what he said. Stealing from the rich and forcefully redistributing the wealth isn't found anywhere in the word of God.  

[zz1000zz]

This is incredible. An argument over semantics that wasn't started by me. Or maybe it was started by me, as I am the one defending Beck.

Matt Pniewski

So, in other words, Mr. Beck has his own definition of social justice. And despite the fact that his definition is something he has to explain himself, it's still a communist buzzword.

Matt Pniewski

Which is, again, according to his definition, and is attributing it to another man.

You understand this is double-speak, right?

Matt Pniewski

So then this is wrong, but he's defining it on his own terms, attributing it to others.

Matt Pniewski

And you know they are doing this by the key words, which are defined by him but attributed to other people.

Let's clear the bushes: He claims social justice is a communist buzzword. He has an article explaining his definition after he came under fire for it. He's making his own definition, and applying it to others, as if they wrote the definition themselves.

I will try to explain what the issue is as clearly as I can.

Glen Beck lives and breathes the media world. He is at the forefront of trends and catch-phrases. He noticed a common movement amongst "progressives" to label their political aims as "social justice." While inappropriate, it was fairly common in his world, the world which tends to set trends. Based on the trend he has observed for some time, he made remarks criticizing "social justice."

Now, people who don't care or don't know much about the politically charged environment that makes up popular media misunderstood his remarks. They took his comments as applying to the social justice which has been around for over a century, rather than the catch-phrase which was becoming ever more popular. He clarified his position almost immediately.

Matt Pniewski

The man took one of the most important tenants of my faith and claimed it was a key world for communism.

It took only a few moments' effort to find this was not what Beck said in the slightest. Despite this, you continued to argue this point even after doubt was cast upon it.

The only reasonable interpretation is you called Beck evil because you don't like him. The inopportune word choice was just an excuse.  

[Matt Pniewski]

I'm able to acknowledge when I've made a mistake.


But there is still something that has to be said-

Quote:

Quote the bible as much as you want but Glenn Beck was right and the versus you posted support what he is saying. Jesus would never have forced anyone to follow him, or to do what he said. Stealing from the rich and forcefully redistributing the wealth isn't found anywhere in the word of God.

Even in the way we vote. Every day, Christians are told to look to God when it comes to voting for matters like abortion, or gay marriage. Now, we are talking about something that is even more clearly stated in the bible, and we are being asked to go against it.

Also, there is no stealing if it is a Democratic Decision.  

[The_Cursed_Phoenix]

Hah! Democracy today is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner, and to that I rest

I find it important to say that I am a member of the 9/12 project  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

Also, there is no stealing if it is a Democratic Decision.

If say, 70% of the people agree to take everything the other 30% have, that wouldn't be stealing?  

[Grilled Cheese]

Matt Pniewski

Also, there is no stealing if it is a Democratic Decision.

If most of the people wanted to, say, sterilize all members of a certain race, that wouldn't make it okay to do so. How is stealing any different?  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

Matt Pniewski

Semiremis

eek eek eek

Glenn Beck is awesome! I'm going to have to read through this and get back to you all later, see what the fuss is about but he's always seemed like a smart, compassionate, and thoughtful man. I watch his show once in a while and I've never seen anything that would illicit such a harsh response.

The man took one of the most important tenants of my faith and claimed it was a key world for communism. Being a communist, i would LOVE to take credit for it. But more importantly, Christ faught for the poor, the unfortunate, the down trodden. And now Glen Beck is telling you that if your church wishes to do the same, they are leading you down a path that'll destroy the country.


Glen Beck is, whether he realizes it or not, trying to lead people away from Christ. Isn't that enough to call him evil?

I know this dosent ad much to the discussion, but it's gonna take me a few days to get back into this one. In the meantime I'd like to mention that Evil is stil relative. Leading people away from christianity is totaly cool by me. however Christians like Beck who preach prety-much Satanic ideals (capitalism, the end of a wellfare state, Survival of the fittest, etc.) and then still get high and mighty about their religion towards me are so much more anoying than actual practicing christians.  

[freelance lover]

Unfortunately, I am really too politically ignorant to add much to this conversation. I will say I don't like Glen Beck and I disagree with a large majority of what he promotes.

But here's my contribution.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Grilled Cheese

Matt Pniewski

Also, there is no stealing if it is a Democratic Decision.

If most of the people wanted to, say, sterilize all members of a certain race, that wouldn't make it okay to do so. How is stealing any different?

No, because stealing is loosely defined in this case. It presupposes personal property.  

[Call Me Apple]

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

Hah! Democracy today is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner, and to that I rest

I find it important to say that I am a member of the 9/12 project

Isnt that synonomous with the Tea-Baggers?
Either way, you people scare me.  

[Priestley]

Matt Pniewski

Grilled Cheese

Matt Pniewski

Also, there is no stealing if it is a Democratic Decision.

If most of the people wanted to, say, sterilize all members of a certain race, that wouldn't make it okay to do so. How is stealing any different?

No, because stealing is loosely defined in this case. It presupposes personal property.

The trouble with nullifying the idea of personal property is that taking what one wants for oneself becomes easier after having done so. This is essentially the easiest way that altruistic Communism is undermined.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Call Me Apple

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

Hah! Democracy today is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner, and to that I rest

I find it important to say that I am a member of the 9/12 project

Isnt that synonomous with the Tea-Baggers?
Either way, you people scare me.

Pretty much. Which is pretty foolish, if you ask me. OH! Speaking of the Tea Baggers.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/90800134.html?page=1&c=y


Regardless, this is still in direct opposition to what I have shown in scripture. Also, the America-centric take on Christianity amongst the 9/12 movement is not only foolish, but also arrogant.

Of course, denying Scripture is easy once you first deny tangible proven things.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002539-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody





Now, what this whole arguement is about is simply. Imagine we are shipwrecked on an Island. We can't find any food. Until, of course, somebody finds an Orange tree. The Orange Tree is a resource. It can be crafted, manipulated, ect. But it's still, at the core, a resource.

You climb up, and you grab all the oranges. Now you claim you own them, when it was merely a naturally occuring resource. Meanwhile, your crewmates are starving. Since you believe you own these oranges, you now determine how the oranges are divided up. I have something you want, so I give it to you in exchange for food. What about those who have nothing?

While you may think "I'd be just" let's say your not. This is the scenario. People are starving simply because of what they don't have, or because they simply can't climb a tree. Let's say there was somebody else capable of climbing the tree, but he was farther from shore. He has nothing, is useless, and will starve, along with anyone else who does not have what you want.  

[Grilled Cheese]

Call Me Apple

Curse-of-the-Phoenix

Hah! Democracy today is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what to have for dinner, and to that I rest

I find it important to say that I am a member of the 9/12 project

Isnt that synonomous with the Tea-Baggers?
Either way, you people scare me.

What's so bad about the Tea Partiers? You could at least explain why you find them so scary.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

America as a whole has forgotten that it is NOT, in fact, a democracy, and needs to stop throwing that word around. Furthermore, it needs to stop pushing its nose into other countries and demand that THEY be democracies as well. But that's another discussion. America is a republic. The people have given up their rights to make decisions for themselves. Oh, we're still allowed to vote... but the popular vote doesn't mean anything. Voting for the president, for example, is done by the electoral college, which doesn't have to go the same way as what the people want. We're given the illusion of having a say in what happens in America, but really anything that's going to happen is pushed through by those already in power, and those who see themselves as 'elite.' Glenn Beck is just one more person who hasn't quite come to grips with the fact that his country isn't the way he wants it to be, is frightened of change of any sort, and is rich, white and powerful and is terrified anything that the current administration is going to do is going to take away his money and power. This isn't about the church or God for him. He, like so many others, is just using conservative Christian values to broadcast his own personal insecurities.

I don't like him, and I don't like the people who fall in with him. Most of them are also conservatives who are petrified of change, even when the system that we've been 'using for decades' is failing, and HAS been for decades. But it's the only thing they know, and this darn liberal is going to set their whole world on its side. I think Obama is the first president since FDR to actually give a crap about the people who populate the country he's leading, and the people are finally starting to stir from their Republican-induced hazes. That scares everyone who's held the populous on a string until now, and it scares the people who don't know what to do when everything they've been told from the government is being overthrown. Beck is fighting change with both hands, even when it's going to help so many of his own followers, along with millions across the country. He attracts the sort of person who has the sign in their front yard that says "Keep your healthcare, give me freedom."

The winds of change are blowing. If things don't change in the next... 20 years, even, there's going to be another civil war in America. And the rest of the world is going to sit back and laugh. The 'best country on Earth' is going to go up in flames, and Beck and his cronies are the ones helping to widen the divide between those of us who want things to get better, and those who only want things to get better for themselves, their friends, and the 'elite.'