Tea Party + Religion = Eschatological fulfillment

[bonnie]

In his serious mode, Glenn Beck is all about the union of church and state. That is scary. He use to say that he would leave politics up to Limbaugh and Hannity. In those days he was a riot. I would often laugh non-stop during his entire three-hour program. Now he takes himself way too seriously and has a following that does the same. I still listen as he still has some good knee-slappers but not like he use to.

I guess it is a pick and choose which each one finds the scariest.

I have not heard him push for the union of church and state.He certainly wears his religious beliefs on his sleeve.But he is right out in the open with that. If I were to fear someone it would be those that excel at the art of pretense

But I have heard things coming from his opposition that would scare me if I did not believe as I do.

[jasd]

>>I still listen as he still has some good knee-slappers but not like he use to.<<

Umm, laughter is good; however, should one desire more of a substantial nature - Glenn Beck proves exceptionaly informative. I'd describe that as

a plus.

[Dr. Shane]

Glenn Beck is about as extreme right wing as one can get. He is more radical than Limbaugh - who is more extreme than O'Reilly. Beck is out on the fringe with Hannity and Ann Coulter.

If you didn't know he wants a union of church and state, just check out the professors he employs at Beck University.

Beck University (Scroll down to see the list of professors) One will spot the famous lets-join-church-and-state David Barton right away.

But Beck is funny. I give him that. That is why I listen to him. He is great for a laugh. And he does produce some good knee-slappers.

[bonnie]

Glenn Beck is about as extreme right wing as one can get. He is more radical than Limbaugh - who is more extreme than O'Reilly. Beck is out on the fringe with Hannity and Ann Coulter.

If you didn't know he wants a union of church and state, just check out the professors he employs at Beck University.

Beck University (Scroll down to see the list of professors) One will spot the famous lets-join-church-and-state David Barton right away.

But Beck is funny. I give him that. That is why I listen to him. He is great for a laugh. And he does produce some good knee-slappers.

I wonder if you have taken as careful a research into those that have been placed in a position of power at the highest levels of current government.

A suooporter of Nambla,self described socialists and communists etc.These might present as big a problem as what you see presented by Glenn Beck

[doug yowell]

In his serious mode, Glenn Beck is all about the union of church and state. That is scary.

Scarey is a term that is applied by those who are easily scared.I don't care for Beck's style or some of his methods, but scarey?? Have you ever noticed that every popular public spokesperson on the conservative side is considered extreme, far-right,dangerous,and scarey by those whose ideology is being challenged? Can anyone name a "moderate" conservative spokesperson?Painting Beck as an anti-church/state guy is par for the course,even if it's not true.Chuck Colson is labeled the same way but he's got some interesting comments on Beck's recent Restoring Honor rally.www.christianexaminer.com

[Neil D]

Shane-

Glenn Beck .....is ...some sort of ...entertainer? You equate Glenn Beck with Jon Stewart??? Some of his statements are "knee-slappers"????

I guess I don't know which ones are "Knee-slappers" and which are not....He's so serious when he makes those outragious statements....I suspect that he actually believes them....the word "megalomaniac" comes to mind...

Doug,

The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, that even a moderate progressive/democrat/liberal is conscidered a socialist, and one who is out to destroy this country. This is an error to be sure.

To even open one's mind to the possiblity that your[that's a general you here] own assumptions are in error, is such an extreme position, that the political person will not even accept any other idea except one that comes from his political party...that is why we are now deadlocked, across this country. We are polarized such that, individually, we will not change....unless we are willing to unite as a country....

But then, we have been told, even prophecised, that this would happen....

I am not saying anything against you, specifically...But I am spouting general principles and warnings that apply to all...unless we are willing to compromise, we will be our own demise....

[doug yowell]

Doug,

The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, that even a moderate progressive/democrat/liberal is conscidered a socialist, and one who is out to destroy this country. This is an error to be sure.

I am not saying anything against you, specifically...But I am spouting general principles and warnings that apply to all...unless we are willing to compromise, we will be our own demise....

Truth is truth and assertions must be illustrated to be proven true. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that the politica spectrum has shifted to the far right. Your description bolsters my point that there seems to be no far left only far right. You also fail to show how "progressive"policies are not a form of socialism and do not reflect the extremist policies of the 60's and 70's generation.Progressives,by definition, are not moderates and have no use for the status quo.When far right means hanging on to past fiscal,social, and religious policies it is proof that yesterday's moderate is today's extremist.Fact is that our entire society has moved so far to the left that what was once unthinkable is now considered "moderate".The Democratic Party has championed "change" and calls those who oppose it "far right". Good PR. Bad truth.

[cardw]

The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, that even a moderate progressive/democrat/liberal is conscidered a socialist, and one who is out to destroy this country. This is an error to be sure.

I don't know if the political spectrum has shifted one way or the other. I think it has become polarized. And I think a lot of it has been due to the strident messages of fear and exaggeration presented by the Christian right to gain political power starting with James Dobson and the 700 club. They basically created a market for this type of message and those like Rupert Murdock and Karl Rove realized that there was money, votes, and power to be had from that base and began to present programs and presenters that appealed to the Christian right. It's no longer only the territory of the TV evangelist.

The sad thing is that Christians are so easily duped and they actually believe this drivel. The exaggerated far left programs don't make near the money the far right does because the market isn't as big. That should tell you something of the intelligence of the market.

One bright note from this change is the increase in reported non-believers in this country from 10 to 35 percent. Maybe that can indicate a shift to reason as a basis for government instead of exaggeration and fear.

[phkrause]

I don't know if the political spectrum has shifted one way or the other. I think it has become polarized. And I think a lot of it has been due to the strident messages of fear and exaggeration presented by the Christian right to gain political power starting with James Dobson and the 700 club. They basically created a market for this type of message and those like Rupert Murdock and Karl Rove realized that there was money, votes, and power to be had from that base and began to present programs and presenters that appealed to the Christian right. It's no longer only the territory of the TV evangelist.

The sad thing is that Christians are so easily duped and they actually believe this drivel. The exaggerated far left programs don't make near the money the far right does because the market isn't as big. That should tell you something of the intelligence of the market.

One bright note from this change is the increase in reported non-believers in this country from 10 to 35 percent. Maybe that can indicate a shift to reason as a basis for government instead of exaggeration and fear.

You make some very good points cardw. I also believe that its not just one party that does this, its both. They look to see what can be gained to there advantage by backing this trend or that trend. That's why you see both parties backing this or that, not because they care about the people they just are looking for the votes. Also when I hear SDA Christians mention being scared, I don't really believe that they are in fear of what's going to happen, at least I'm not. I say bring it on, the sooner the better. Because for me it means that the end as described in the Bible will become a reality. I also agree with you that many Christians are very gullibal(sp).

[doug yowell]

[

I don't know if the political spectrum has shifted one way or the other. I think it has become polarized. And I think a lot of it has been due to the strident messages of fear and exaggeration presented by the Christian right to gain political power starting with James Dobson and the 700 club. They basically created a market for this type of message and those like Rupert Murdock and Karl Rove realized that there was money, votes, and power to be had from that base and began to present programs and presenters that appealed to the Christian right. It's no longer only the territory of the TV evangelist.

The sad thing is that Christians are so easily duped and they actually believe this drivel. The exaggerated far left programs don't make near the money the far right does because the market isn't as big. That should tell you something of the intelligence of the market.

One bright note from this change is the increase in reported non-believers in this country from 10 to 35 percent. Maybe that can indicate a shift to reason as a basis for government instead of exaggeration and fear.

Yeah, those lying,idiot Christians (like the founding fathers and every generation since except for this one)are liable to run this country right into oblivion if the unbelievers don't rescue us soon.Maybe a few of those financially strapped moderates like George Soros could find someone to build up the nearly broke media to help fight this inequity.Come on, Rich,Some of us actually look at both sides of the story.

[cardw]

Yeah, those lying,idiot Christians (like the founding fathers and every generation since except for this one)are liable to run this country right into oblivion if the unbelievers don't rescue us soon.Maybe a few of those financially strapped moderates like George Soros could find someone to build up the nearly broke media to help fight this inequity.Come on, Rich,Some of us actually look at both sides of the story.

Christians are such easy targets because of the types of "rationales" you present here. Let me outline how you exaggerate and misrepresent.

Exaggerations

1. Founding Fathers were not the Christian right by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I did not say that the non-believers alone would rescue anybody. I know that non-believers don't generally refer to any holy book, but do respond to reason. To me that is a hopeful trend.

Misrepresentation

1. I did look at both sides. If you actually read and comprehended what I said you will note that I mentioned both extreme left and right journalism.

2. I clearly was talking about the Christian right. You lump my criticism with every Christian.

If you would actually recognize the idiotic drivel that comes from some Christian circles and clean your own house I would have some respect for what you post. But you are so intent on defending an illusionary perfect Christian church that nothing ever changes.

I certainly don't accept an idea because someone says they are an atheist or an unbeliever. The idea has to stand on its own no matter who says it. That's the ethic of those who look to reason. Reason doesn't have any special regard for persons. Everyone is free to be an idiot.

[doug yowell]

[ Let me outline how you exaggerate and misrepresent.

Exaggerations

1. Founding Fathers were not the Christian right by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I did not say that the non-believers alone would rescue anybody. I know that non-believers don't generally refer to any holy book, but do respond to reason. To me that is a hopeful trend.

I certainly don't accept an idea because someone says they are an atheist or an unbeliever. The idea has to stand on its own no matter who says it. That's the ethic of those who look to reason. Reason doesn't have any special regard for persons. Everyone is free to be an idiot.

1)True the founding fathers were not the Christian Right. They were far more conservative than anything coming out of Christian politics today.They would consider today's "right wingers" far too liberal.2)True you didn't say that non-believers ALONE would stabalize our country's political situation.What you DID say is that unbelievers, as opposed to believers,represented hope for a more reason based approach. Your wording implied that believers(not merely religious righters)couldn't be counted on to inject reason into the political discussion.This argument lies at the core of the latest Federal Court ruling stating that laws prohibiting asme sex marriage aren't reasonable,rejecting the reasons given by those Christians opposed.At face value this is a insult to Christians in general and a subjective,Bill Maher type condescension of the Christian Right.As stated it implies that Christians need to leave the reason of their holy book at home and simply be guided by their own intuitive reason("there is a way which seems right to a man...") something which the founding fathers rejected as suicidal nationalism.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane-

Glenn Beck .....is ...some sort of ...entertainer? You equate Glenn Beck with Jon Stewart??? Some of his statements are "knee-slappers"????

I guess I don't know which ones are "Knee-slappers" and which are not....He's so serious when he makes those outragious statements....I suspect that he actually believes them....the word "megalomaniac" comes to mind...

Neil,

You probably have not been following Beck as long as I have. I was listening to Beck way back in 2003. Beck got a TV program with CNN in 2008 (I think) and switched over to FOXNews in January 2009. Once he got his TV program with CNN things started to change. He started to take himself seriously. Prior to that, he was a riot. His radio show is three hours long and it was non-stop humor. Most of it wasn't political either. Often times his callers would tell him that he was better when he didn't get political.

Now Beck is all political and over the past year has been mixing religion in with his politics. He has partnered up with "liar-for-Jesus" David Barton and is trying to save America for God. Beck is a big red flag for those concerned about religious liberty. I even once heard him explain why we don't need to keep Saturday as the Sabbath any more. That is a Jewish institution. Anyone that takes Beck seriously needs to really back up and consider the color of kool-aid they are drinking. He is a dangerous guy if taken seriously. If you take him as a joke, he is good for a few laughs.

[jasd]

>>Glenn Beck is about as extreme right wing as one can get. He is more radical than Limbaugh - who is more extreme than O'Reilly. Beck is out on the fringe with Hannity and Ann Coulter.<<

And I, more extreme than they, which, guess!—leaves me as comfortable with them – as with mums, the flag, and apple pie.

I’m so far right that I occasionally run into anarchists in the tall grass – as well, other sundry lefties, socialists, and commies comin’ round from the extreme left.

I ...carry a big stick

Anyway, re the principle of ‘Separation’ – we have strayed so far from Constitutional values that – the Fed Govt has taken the role of Adversary to its Xtian constituents. Time for a reality check and – redress...

[jasd]

>>...moderate progressive/democrat/liberal is conscidered a socialist,<<

And well he or she may be, given that – Socialist/Communist – are sides to the same coin – according to rhetorical Marxists. And yes, notwithstanding labels,

modern Democrats all – who’ve measurably contributed to the enslavement of the Peoples of the USSR, the former Eastern European Bloc, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, and so on ad nauseum;

...their cognizant matrix seemingly dedicated to the same befalling us.

Percolating throughout has been and is – the sort of ideation that engenders or otherwise translates to a Stalin – who killed 50,000,000 people – and Mao – who exterminated even more... Kinda makes one

almost miss a piddlin’ Adolph.

"Ah, Pish-Tosh, surely you jest!" Does one? Should one? It’s a matter of comparative scale...

>>we will be our own demise....<<

We have already met the enemy – and it is not a thing of recent years, but a long and insidiously grinding enculteration of J. Q. Public, by and large. Moreover, the enemy is

intransigent: impervious to persuasion or reason.

[cardw]

1)True the founding fathers were not the Christian Right. They were far more conservative than anything coming out of Christian politics today.They would consider today's "right wingers" far too liberal.

[Neil D]

Truth is truth and assertions must be illustrated to be proven true.

[Dr. Shane]

I completely agree that fighting back abortion, gay "rights" and the liberal agenda is important. However I do not think we need to employ the civil government except to the extent required to preserve religious liberty. We need to fight abortion by supporting crisis pregnancy counseling centers and teaching our youth about sex and its consequences in our academies and AY programs. We need to fight the gay agenda by teaching our church members how to love gays and share the gospel with them with compromising its principles. We need resist the liberal agenda that teaches moral relativism. But we use our pulpit and Sabbath School rooms to battle these evils. We do not implore the power of the civil government to fight God's battles. We need the civil government only to protect our religious liberty.

[doug yowell]

I completely agree that fighting back abortion, gay "rights" and the liberal agenda is important. However I do not think we need to employ the civil government except to the extent required to preserve religious liberty. We need to fight abortion by supporting crisis pregnancy counseling centers and teaching our youth about sex and its consequences in our academies and AY programs. We need to fight the gay agenda by teaching our church members how to love gays and share the gospel with them with compromising its principles. We need resist the liberal agenda that teaches moral relativism. But we use our pulpit and Sabbath School rooms to battle these evils. We do not implore the power of the civil government to fight God's battles. We need the civil government only to protect our religious liberty.

Try applying that approach on your compassionate liberal agenda.At least be consistent, Shane.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

1)True the founding fathers were not the Christian Right. They were far more conservative than anything coming out of Christian politics today.They would consider today's "right wingers" far too liberal.

Conservative and right wing are different things. I am conservative in terms of government and liberal in social policy. That is, I want fiscal responsibility and less government. I also believe in taking care of the disabled and providing a safety net for people when they get into trouble in responsible ways that provides accountability.

It seems to me that the far right simply wants to cut out any help the government might provide and let the free market or faith based charities take care of it. We know that doesn't work. We also know that helping without accountability doesn't work. Both of them increase the problems.

This is why we need to work together because these are difficult problems and require rational dialog to work out. As long as we are polarized with all these conspiracy fear based rhetoric idiocy both on the left and right the only people making out are the con men who get rich off the controversy.

The founding fathers had right wingers in their day and they thought they were idiots. The founding fathers based their government, not personal belief, on secularism. They may have given credit to a god, but it certainly wasn't the god as defined by the Christian right today. Jefferson and Franklin would certainly protest against the amount of religious interference in politics today. Washington would probably not say anything, but I don't think you would find him attending any evangelical church.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

2)True you didn't say that non-believers ALONE would stabalize our country's political situation.What you DID say is that unbelievers, as opposed to believers,represented hope for a more reason based approach.

Show me where there are smart solutions coming from believers. They are all stuck on abortion, gay marriage, and fighting the so called liberal agenda. It's fear based. Where are the creative solutions for poverty and education? I thought Jesus was about the disenfranchised. Christianity today is founded in hypocrisy. It's so prevalent that nobody even sees it anymore. There are no solutions because they spend all their time being against stuff. They don't even read the solutions that are being worked on because if it has the word democrat or Obama on it they automatically dismiss it because Christianity is about labels not truth or solutions. It's a disgrace and you support it by ignoring it.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Your wording implied that believers(not merely religious righters)couldn't be counted on to inject reason into the political discussion.This argument lies at the core of the latest Federal Court ruling stating that laws prohibiting asme sex marriage aren't reasonable,rejecting the reasons given by those Christians opposed.

See what I mean. All you can think about is gay marriage. Tell me where Jesus talks about gay marriage and I'll pay attention. I can point to where Jesus talks about poverty and the down trodden and I'm not even a believer.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

At face value this is a insult to Christians in general and a subjective,Bill Maher type condescension of the Christian Right.As stated it implies that Christians need to leave the reason of their holy book at home and simply be guided by their own intuitive reason("there is a way which seems right to a man...") something which the founding fathers rejected as suicidal nationalism.

No, Christianity is an insult to itself. It has been a long time since it had anything to do with Christ.

Thank you for validating my previous observations.

[cardw]

Thank you for validating my previous observations.

You have no response because what I have noted about Christianity is true. It's all about ego and little to do with truth. When the going gets tough you simply generalize.

[Dr. Shane]

Try applying that approach on your compassionate liberal agenda.At least be consistent, Shane.

I don't have a liberal agenda. I am a moderate. I lean more to the conservative side of the spectrum than the liberal side. However I am compassionate. I can't deny that.

[doug yowell]

[That would depends upon what I was trying to prove...and if I was attempting to prove anything....but if you think I was out to prove something, well, give it your best shot....make your point...I will submit that your best evidence is my post, which was not trying to prove anything, but rather tryign to reach an agreement....to which, you blindly assurt that I am trying to prove something....[sigh] another failed attempt at agreement...brought on by the convoluted mind of one who insists that proof is needed in an agreement...

[....How old are you again??? Are you less than 45? If so, how can you talk about the 60's when you were barely cognitive of your surroundings? Your experience of those times is somewhat lacking, it seems....

Quote:

Fact is that our entire society has moved so far to the left that what was once unthinkable is now considered "moderate".The Democratic Party has championed "change" and calls those who oppose it "far right". Good PR. Bad truth.

In what area are you reffering to? Politically??? Socially???

If so, you are sooooooo lacking in experience.....

If your observations are based on all these if's,try plan B. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[jasd]

QR frame:

Uh, uhhh, uh—didja all see the pictures from the Lefty/Socialist/Marxist confab this past weekend on the National mall? Talk about waste and litter! Check those against pictures of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally (all ‘extreme right-wing conservative Xtians types’) at the same mall August 28 – no scattered refuse!—because the participants picked-up after themselves. Now, what’s to be learned from those diametrically opposed groups?—species? Ain it not obvious!? It is

GIGO – garbage in garbage out –

with the natural assumption (like white on rice, eh? ) that that characteristic is the continuum of their philosophical aberrations.

The time may be fast arriving when we might think to emulate our forefathers who – whilst still on the deck of the Mayflower convenanted with Gd vis-à-vis this new land – or, those who wrote Gd into the Constitutions of the colonies/States. Right-wingers all.

It is from these Covenanted people, their progeny, and their Gd that – ta-da! – our Republic AMERICA!—was born.