Glenn Beck, the right wing fringe commentator has not only embarrassed himself by calling President Obama a racist–he has embarrassed the Church and Mormons everywhere. In late July the firebrand exclaimed:
This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy — over and over and over again — who has a deep seated hatred for white people or white culture, I don’t know what it is . . . I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem, this guy is, I believe, a racist.
Of course the claim is nonsense, of the same genre as much of Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech, and that of Shawn Hanity. But, what makes Glenn Beck’s comments more harmful is that he claims he is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church does not need this type of publicity or association. Mormons everywhere ought to denouce the comments and Beck for making them. Why–because these comments perpetuate erroneous and harmful stereotypes of the Church and its membership. The post Proposition 8 media spin has already harmed the Church’s image painting Mormons who stood for religious principle as propagating hate and intolerance and being on the fringe. Glenn Beck’s comments only fuel that fire.
The more reasoned secular world is distancing itself from Beck’s ridiculous claims. Already advertisers are pulling their ads from his show–and rightly so. Mormons should do likewise. I, for one, as an active participant in the community of Saints denounce Glenn Beck, his comments, and the harm it does to the Church. With friends like Glenn Beck–the Church needs no further enemies.
UPDATE 7:30 p.m. David G’s comment just saved from the spam filter has some important links I wanted to highlight–Thanks David:
Glenn Beck and the Revivalism of Mormon Millenarianism?
The government is the devil: Glen Beck and Mormonism Redux
Glenn Beck on Smoking (Make certain to watch the video)
Other Links
Are Glenn Beck’s Values Mormon Values?
Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak For All Mormons (Mormon Times)
Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak For All Mormons (Deseret News)
August 11, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I’m there with you. It seems this is the way these guys get ratings and make a living. I’m astounded by the way the right relentlessly pounds the left for the exact same faults they themselves have. Why can’t we just be honest? I think it’s because people don’t want to watch that and there are those that are willing to make their living entertaining them.
August 12, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Jay-what is particularly offensive to me is that Beck does this for money, and as many have said already in comments, he’s nothing more than an entertainer–a sick comedian. Poor example in my view for a higher profile member of the Church
August 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I agree. There are too many extremists out there with their TV and radio shows. Beck just adds one more shrill voice. Personally, I’m tired of his ilk. Whatever happened to good solid journalism?
September 13, 2009 at 4:35 am
Indeed. What ever happened to good Christianity?
August 11, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Goodness knows, we wouldn’t want to not fit in with the secular world and it’s “reasoning”.
I couldn’t agree with Glen Beck more.
August 12, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Yeah, Bruce–Glen Beck doesn’t fit in at all with the world does he? Please.
August 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Guy,
Good luck trying to extricate Glenn Beck from Mormondom. He tied himself to W. Cleon Skousen who himself entrenched his beliefs deep within Mormon culture, tying himself with a popular prophet. Sadly, as Bruce in Montana shows, prying the hateful Glenn Beck from the rest of Mormon culture will be impossible. Mormonism will be tied to Glenn Beck, and Glenn Beck will be tied to Mormonism.
August 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Dan–I don’t know whether anyone can extricate Glenn Beck from the small but vocal fringe political element that is attracted to him in–even amongst American Mormons. But, what is of paramount importance, in my view, is that the world know that not all Mormons are in lockstep with this wacko.
The Church is no longer an American Church. It is an emerging world religion. I suspect most Mormons worldwide do not at all tie themselves to Glenn Beck.
September 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I am Not a mormon. Glen Beck is and unless mormons make a stand, the rest of us will believe that Glen Beck represents the mormon church! Do something about it.
August 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm
[...] things that were considered and deemed unrealistic to complete one blog on their own: David T. Glenn Beck An Embarrasment To Mormons–Perpetuates Harmful, Untrue Stereotypes – messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com 08/11/2009 Glenn Beck, the right wing fringe commentator has [...]
August 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’ve never heard Beck, but everything I’ve heard OF him is awful.
In the context of this thread, however, it should be clearly recognized that Bruce in Montana, as a fundamentalist, does not speak for Latter-day Saint culture any more than Beck does. Anti-black bigotry seems to be a proud tenet of most brands of fundamentalism; whatever racism remains among the Latter-day Saints is generally not flaunted, because most surviving bigots realize the majority of us deplore it.
August 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
So if you’ve never listened to Glenn Beck, don’t write him off until you listen to a few programs. You’ll see he really makes sense!
August 12, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Larry–I’ve listened to him enough and read enough transcripts to realize he does not make sense, and in my view does not exemplify what I understand to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ as expounded by the Church.
September 13, 2009 at 4:41 am
I concur with Guy on this one. I’ve listen to Glenn Beck many times. What strikes me whenever I listen to GB is how I can’t go five minutes of listening to GB without hearing something that is foreign and/or contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS church.
October 1, 2009 at 11:37 am
Ken, Wow I listen to him and must be out of touch with things taught by the LDS church. Give me some examples. Since you have read the transcripts and heard enough. Just give me 3-4 examples.
August 12, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Salt Laker–and as we mature and time passes more and more of the old fundamentalist ideas will die out with those who hold them.
September 17, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Oh yeah, and then replaced with that nice new “progressive” teachings. Blah.
August 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Dan,
Bruce in Montana is a fundie by his own admission so use him as an example of mainstream Mormons.
Of course I agree with Guy that it is embarrassing to have Glenn Beck out there and known to be Mormon.
August 11, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Oops. I meant to write: “Bruce in Montana is a fundie by his own admission so _don’t_ use him as an example of mainstream Mormons.”
August 11, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Geoff,
Sorry, I don’t know anything about Bruce in Montana. But among the other Mormons I’ve talked to, Glenn Beck is fairly popular, even here in New York. He is close friends with the current stake president of Manhattan (the one who was on his show who fainted). It’s not just the “fundies” who think Glenn Beck is alright. Certainly a highly successful businessman in Manhattan would not fit the same vein as Bruce in Montana.
August 12, 2009 at 11:30 am
Dan,
I didn’t know anyone in New York who was a fan of Glenn Beck; he was clearly not popular where I lived. The stake president did know him and had been on his show, but was relatively sheepish about that.
Seriously, I didn’t know a single member in NY who dug him; there were audible groans when people found out he was going to be speaking at a meet-the-Mormons thing (which, btw, was put together by the mission president with no input that I’m aware of from actual New York City members).
I’m glad he’s a member of the Church; I am glad salvation is available even to those I find politically and personally distasteful. But I am sad that he’s a public face of Mormondom (to the extent that he is a public face–if not for the Bloggernacle, I doubt I would have heard of him until his recent racist rant, and I’m not even sure I would have heard of that).
August 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Which I think is all the more reason to make known that not all Mormons, even in American admire his brand of rhetoric. And, more importantly as I replied to Dan–that we point out the Church is an emerging world religion, whose members for the most part will not be classified as Glenn Beck groupies.
September 17, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Hey, you must live in one of those rare liberal locations in New York. It is not like New York as a whole elected Hillary Clinton. Good grief.
August 12, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Guy, I have to ask this question: why would any of the other church members in the world know who Glenn Beck is? Beck talks about “AMERICAN” politics, and only occasionally talks about foreign news on his program. Church members who are citizens of other countries have their own political problems to keep up with and worry about, which means I doubt they are worrying too much about American political problems. Thus I doubt too many non-American church members really care about who Glenn Beck is, much less care about his politics. Glenn Beck’s politics are American-centered politics, thus a lot of people in the world will, as a default, not agree with his politics, especially non-church members. America is a unique country, as is its system of government.
I watch his program on TV every single day, and to tell you the truth, I have never ever heard him say out loud that he is a mormon (he may have, but I’ve never heard it before), and I think the only way anyone could know he is a mormon is if they 1.) either know a lot about the mormon church, 2.) already knew he was mormon, or 3.) are mormons themselves. The things he talks a lot about, on his TV show at least (I’ve never heard his radio show), like his 12 values of his 9.12 project thing, go hand in hand of what Christ’s church and it’s present and past leaders teach I believe. Here’s his 12 values:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude.
I don’t think Christ nor any of the church leaders would have too many problems with these 12 values, much less denounce them.
Glenn Beck, for any one who has attentively watched a full show of his, and not just read certain comments of his that might have been taken out of context, will know that he believes that the founding fathers had the right kind of system of government for this country and believes in the constitution and that it should not be trampled on or ignored-a system of government and a constitution inspired by God.
Some one made mention of W. Cleon Skousen. Has anyone commenting on this thread read his book “The 5000 Year Leap”: 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World? Glenn Beck recommended that book on his TV program, and I decided to read it to see for myself some of the things he talks about on his program. I have read that book, and I have found that 99.9% of its contents complement the scriptures and what they teach about living righteously.
So we must ask this question. Is Glenn Beck human? Yes. Does he make mistakes and will he continue to make them? Yes, just as any of us have and will. For example, his comment about “slipping poison in Nancy Pelosi’s wine” was inappropriate I think. But remember that as a comedian, he says things that come to his mind right then and there, as we all do sometimes when trying to be funny, and some of those comments aren’t always appropriate and are mistakes. We all make mistakes like that. To judge that he is a bad representation of the church based off one thing he said (the quote provided about Glenn saying he thinks Obama is racist) is wrong in my opinion. Do you judge or base the church off of Harry Reid or Mitt Romney, or any other members who are semi-famous and involved in politics?
And besides, would you call Glenn Beck a racist and a bad representative of the church if he said a white southerner who is a member of the KKK is racist? Are non-Caucasians incapable of racism? Let’s just look at the Black Panthers and that’ll answer that question. White people are not the only ones capable of racism. Just look at the Han Chinese and Japanese and how they treat racial minorities in their own countries, as well as how they feel about other races in the world outside their own countries. Or we can look at the histories of any of the South East Asian countries, especially Thailand, and see that they had racist tendancies as well, toward the Chinese, as well as the people of what are now called Laotian, Cambodian, and Mayalsian. Also Vietnam too.
And finally about Glenn Beck’s “brand of rhetoric”.
Let us look at the definition of rhetoric.
“rhetoric”: “the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.”
or “The art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with eloquence.” (Oxford English Dictionary Online)
I was taught in school that when making an argument, you have to have credible proof and sources to back up that argument, and that the most credible and best sources to use are primary sources, which are much better that secondary or tertiary sources. Glenn Beck uses primarily “primary sources” that have been checked over and over again for their credibility (as he has said himself on his TV show) as proof for his arguments. He uses actual quotes from people like Obama, or people who president Obama surrounds himself with, like his czars to prove any of his arguments about Presdent Obama or any other topic for that matter. He also brings in “experts” on the topic in question as his secondary sources, who in term provide primary sources as their proof. I don’t necessarily think that that “brand of rhetoric” is flawed. Now whether or not you agree or are persuaded by his rhetoric is a different matter. But the way he presents and backs up his arguments is not the way of an imbecile. And if they are, then please tell my professors at school that they are teaching me the wrong things.
I have posted this on facebook and twitter, but I’ll post it here also.
This is Elder Marion G. Romney’s 1966 conference talk about the socialism and the united order. Very informative and interesting. What is especialy profound is that Elder Romney mentions that socialism is based n the principle of “take” by “force”, while the united order is based off the just and righteous principle of “give” and “free agency”. He also argues and provides scriptural proof that America’s form of government (a Constitutional Republic) was inspired by God himself, so as to bring about the restoration of his church and to maintain the free-agency of mankind, a cornerstone principle in the LDS faith.
And Elder Romney uses a direct quote by president Johnson as proof for his argument that the USA was heading down the path toward socialism, way back in 1966. Does that make Elder Romney a bad representative of the church, because he thinks president Johnson was taking America down a socialist path? I wouldn’t say so. Nor do I think any one else here would either.
Just some ideas about this subject. And I don’t intend any of my comments to be offensive nor aimed at any single person or group of people. Rather I aim them at certain arguments that have been made on this topic. And I’m sorry about the length.
August 13, 2009 at 8:32 am
Whoops, forgot the link for the conference talk.
http://aheavenlybanner.com/index.php?page=documents&did=3
August 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Kumozarusan:
Well, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s all over the Internet, and it is discussed in the media, when he is interviewed by folks like Larry King and the like. Even if you Google Glenn Beck with out the word Mormon included his Wikipedia profile comes up, which has several mentions of his conversion to the Church. It doesn’t matter that he limits his discussion to American politics. It’s his style of discussion, his rhetorical delivery that is offensive, and that should embarrass Mormons not only in the U.S. but world wide. In my biased opinion (which I believe I can support factually) he is NOT a good ambassador for the Church, unlike say Gov. Huntsman of Utah, Steve Young of San Francisco, Williard J. Marriott, and a host of other well known and much, much better exemplars of the Church.
I agree neither Christ or current Church leaders would denounce those principles. The problem is that in my opinion Glenn Beck either does not believe them, or does not live them in part or at all. Specifically he has trouble with the following:
Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, Gratitude.
I base my conclusion on my observations of him in the media, things he says and things that are reported about him. He is the antithesis of humility, charity and sincerity. He is bombastic in his style and delivery. He takes almost every opportunity he can to personally belittle and denigrate people with whom he disagrees politically or socially. His comments each and every day are replete with examples. You may choose to ignore them, but they are there.
His personal life reads like a mockery of those 12 values. By his own admission is an alcoholic, drug addict, college drop out, and divorced. Had he been truly living those 12 values it is more probable than not, he would not have the same personal problems that resulted from poor choices early on in his life.
Cleon Skousen was a politically divisive figure who was in bed with the John Birch Society, an organization which I personally despise and think does not well exemplify Christ like principles at all. It is nothing more than a radical fringe political group.
That would be your interpration of the scriptures, not necessarily mine or that of any other person. You’re certainly entitled to your political and relgious views as they intersect with the Church; but, the fact they are yours do not in and of themselves make them more or less accurate than another’s. They are simply views as you perceive politics and religion.
No, I base my opinion on more than just his racist remark. This thread is replete with examples. Daniel has provided many, many examples. You may not view them the same as do I. We’ll have to agree to disagree, but each of the examples (and more) provided just on this thread provide more than ample factual basis for my conclusion Glenn Beck is not a good ambassador for the Church.
I’m sure that it was; however, I don’t see how Pres. Romney’s views on socialism are relevant at all to our discussion of Glenn Beck.
As a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles and a member of the First Presidency his opinions when he is clearly and uniquivocalbly speaking as Christ’s representative are to be give great weight. I’m not sure speaking about communism and socialism qualifies there. But, in any event, I have a couple of observations:
1. Yes, the Constitution is inspired; but, in my view just the broad brush stroke principles. Keep in mind the original inspired Constitution contained slavery in the document. The Constitution and its princples are evolving over time–but no doubt God’s hand in is the Constitution and its basic principles.
2. While I believe the Constitution is inspired, I do not believe unfettered capitalist economic theory likewise bears the Divine seal of approval.
3. Pres. Romeny’s opinions on socialism and communism are just that, his opinions. When you show me the united and unanimous Quorums of the First Presidency and The Twelve issuing political proclamations about socialism and communism–I’ll take heed. Otherwise, its just another person’s opinion, even though he’s an apostle.
August 14, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Kumozarusan
Further responding to this question and your comment: I don’t know whether you took the opportunity to read some of the links in the main post above, so I’m going to provide you with some of the “primary” sources which will help you understand why I think folks do know or Glenn Beck is Mormon or in the alternative the factual basis that supports my conclusion.
1. http://deseretbook.com/store/product/5005573
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpeolBTKIo&feature=related
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCXYciIr3xs&feature=related
I would also recommend you read the entire blog post and commentary on Glenn Beck at this very well written and documented site called the Juvenile Instructor:
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/glenn-beck-and-the-revivalism-of-mormon-millenarianism/
See also: http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/the-government-is-the-devil-glenn-beck-and-mormonism-redux/
I think these very few references answer your question and respond to your comment above. If not, let me know why you don’t think so.
August 15, 2009 at 4:58 am
I love when Beck says he is a “cuddly kitten compared with the old him.”
August 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I am an educated Mormon that considers myself fairly mainstream. I don’t own any guns and don’t plan on needing my own ranch in Montana (or fit any other stereotype that you have). I listen to him fairly often and even read his book Common Sense. I don’t see him as a radical at all. And I am just fine with him as well known example of Mormonsim.
I think the real problem is indicated by the individual who said that he never listens to him but only has HEARD about him. There are many more people who would rather label him some kind of extremist than find out what he really talks about. Like that he cares deeply about the country, thinks that bigger government is not the solution to our problems, and criticizes politicians from both sides of the isle on a regular basis.
August 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Thanks Morgan, what with all the hostility towards a fellow bother? This Man is honest and truly caring about our Nation and it’s perils..So the comment he made was Alarming to some, to others was refreshing, given the hype on Race relations from our New President, who has shown himself a divider not a uniter..sad times ahead and that’s why I’m Glad Glen’s on the job to expose the truths,many don’t want to hear..
August 12, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Further, your claim Obama is a divider rather than a uniter, speaks volumes about your perception.
September 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Yes, Glenn was correct in calling a president “racist”. He pre-judged a local situation by assuming that the Black professor was discriminated against. He also has his Attorney General call off an investigation of obvious intimidation by Black Panthers. He belonged to racist Black Power church under Rev. Wright for 20 years. He considers Louis Farakkan a friend.
14 states are suing ACORN for voter fraud. Obama rose through the ACORN ranks, with the questionable ethics which the Baltimore and Washington DC ACORN ladies displayed. They told how they could help a pimp and a prostitute import underage girls from Central America!
Van Jones is a self-avowed Communist who was a violent radical, supporting a cop-killer.
Don’t any liberals recognize perfidy when they see it? Bob Beckel (an ardent Democrat) does and wants to disassociate the mainstream Democrats from Barack and his minions.
August 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm
We are clearly in different worlds if you find Glenn Beck a well known example of Mormonism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
September 17, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Yes Guy you live in a world that believes that nothing about Obama is divisive and that he does not appear to be racist at all. That world is one where when the sun is at it’s peak you are yelling that it is nighttime. You apparently have neither researched Beck nor Obama very well or you read things with some pretty bizarre language filters on them.
August 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Thank you Morgan Deane for proving my point. Glenn Beck is too infused within Mormon culture to be removed from it. We’re stuck with the idiot for the rest of his life and his legacy for long after. It is a sad thing.
September 17, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Unless you and Guy leave the church we are stuck with two more idiots too. Thankfully nobody knows who you two judgmental fellows are.
August 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4blLpCV7F48&feature=player_embedded
It’s because of things like this that I will never associate myself with Glenn Beck. He drips with venomous hate. He pretends to be a sensible person, but when pressed reveals his true side, a much darker, sinister side, where he will say things like the president hates whites, or calling people pinheads. Or back when the San Diego area was hit by a terrible wildfire, Glenn Beck said that people who hate America just lost their homes in those fires. He didn’t seem to realize that among those who lost homes in those terrible fires were a bunch of Mormons. I guess those Mormons hated America and got what they deserved for hating America.
I cannot understand how any educated “mainstream” American or even more specifically a Mormon can ever consider Glenn Beck anything but a stupid, venomous hateful man who riles up people either fully for him or fully against him. He does not represent Mormonism well, and really should be shunned.
August 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm
You’re taking his comments out of context. Did you actually listen to him say those things, or are you quoting others? He has a very dry comedic sarcasm. You have to listen to the inflection in his voice–and have listened to the whole program–to read the sarcasm.
Calling people pinheads is part of his comedy. His comment about the San Diego wildfires and people who hate America as sarcasm.
His comments about the president hating whites happen to be correct.
August 12, 2009 at 12:43 am
Larry,
Wait a second, you’re telling me that I should consider some of his comments as sarcastic and others as not, yet you give no primer to tell the difference. What if he was sarcastic about calling Obama a racist and serious about calling those people who lost their homes to the fire as hating America?
August 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I don’t listen to Glenn Beck. My parents gave me his book as a present and I stopped about 20 pages in when it was clear that it was just going to be repetitious rhetoric.
However, I would think that you would cite something Beck said that was more egregious (if there are any) because the claim that Obama is racist is far from ridiculous. I think that claim has plenty of support (I’m not saying it’s true, I’m just saying it’s not outside the realm of possibility and that anyone who thinks that the issue is not debatable is being naive).
August 12, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Ryan, If you’ve followed the comments on this thread I’m pretty certain you’ve seen ample examples of Beck’s outrageous commentary. As for Obama being a racist, I’d have to say you and I are also living in separate realities on that subject.
September 17, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I followed the comments Guy and found that you and Daniel supply claims but seem to be wanting in actual substance. I believe you have confused claims with truth, simply because you and Daniel made them. As a reliable witness, you are not. You are prone to much talking with little substance. The few examples you try to post are either outright lies or simply you being misinformed. If you don’t think Obama is a bit of a racist then you know nothing about his history or his own writings. As a member any church it behooves a person to do some real and actual research. Yours is lame at best and outright purposely deceptive and distorted at worst.
August 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Mormonism does not go good with the liberal/progressive ideology. Everything Glenn Beck stands for, and any Conservative/Libertarian principles, is just as true as anything the church stands for. And I wasn’t aware that when non-mormons think of us they they Glenn Beck. As for the prop 8 thing, that was right, just because some people are offended of good doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do good.
August 12, 2009 at 10:49 am
As a liberal/progressive Mormon I’d have to disagree with you on that statement.
September 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm
As a mainstream conservative Mormon I’d have to disagree with you on your statement.
August 12, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Christian–you live a sheltered life if you don’t think non-Mormons are unaware of his religious affiliation. Google Glenn Beck and Mormon and see what you come up with. You’re also in a separate reality if you claim only conservative or libertarian principles are consistent with the Gospel. It’s such an absurd notion–I’m not even going to take the time to respond further.
August 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I completely agree with Guy here. If you think that some principles from all parties are consistent with the gospel. Suggestions otherwise are frankly insulting.
August 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I meant to say that I believe that some principles from all parties are consistent with the gospel. The republicans don’t have a Monopoly on gospel principles.
August 13, 2009 at 1:16 am
Guy, the key thing you mentioned here is that you have to Google “Glenn Beck” AND “Mormon” to get the connection between Beck and mormonism. If you only put Glenn Beck, you get something entirely different. If non-members had no idea he was a mormon, and they put Glenn Beck in the google search, not much would come up that includes mormonism. If people were really inclined to learn about mormonism, they would go DIRECTLY to the source-AKA the church website, http://www.lds.org, or the missionaries…or both. The only way you will enlighten yourself fully about something is going DIRECTLY to the source-that’s the way you get the best results and most accurate information. I don’t think a lot of people have quite figured that concept out yet, which is why you have a lot of misinformation about the church out there.
September 17, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I am well read in blogger land. Conservatives love Beck 99% of the time. And leftists despise Beck. Since the LDS church is pretty obviously conservative then Beck is doing a great job to attract people of like qualities and beliefs. He is serving as a great missionary with the life that he has ended up with. Liberals, leftists, radical leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Statists and Fascists all take issue with Beck. Which poor little ole me thinks is a good thing. Those in heavy support of Abortion, Gay Marriage, rewriting history etc hate Beck. Again, more evidence that Beck tends to be sounding the right message to the right people. The LDS has a few Guys and few Daniels that will come to the scene disliking Beck and trying to justify it from a religious viewpoint, which I find laughable, when in reality Guy and Daniel are common everyday leftist political hacks.
August 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcX5xXzbfuc&feature=player_embedded
Glenn Beck thinks America’s only hope is for Osama Bin Laden to kill more Americans.
Glenn Beck also said this a few years ago:
What kind of Mormon thinks about the ways he would kill another human being?
Is this really who Mormons want representing them?
August 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm
You’re just reading the transcript of his program. Actually listen to it. The comments about Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore were jokes. Very obvious jokes. It was part of his comedy routine. When you listen, you can hear him and Stu laughing and haming it up.
August 12, 2009 at 12:44 am
I actually did listen to the snippet about him wanting to kill Michael Moore. Nothing redeeming about it. But hey, if this is your idea of comedy then my original point to Guy is spot on. There is no way we can remove Glenn Beck from mainstream Mormon culture, because too many Mormons think alike as him. What a sad state of affairs.
August 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Ha! Ha! Ha! That is quite possibly the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. LOL. Killing people, too funny.
If this guy is so funny, why isn’t he on comedy central?
September 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Guy and Daniel no doubt laugh it up when people talk about wanting Beck dead. Guy and Daniel are good at waving around red herrings. Other than that they are nothing more than everyday leftist political hacks.
August 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Obama’s not a racist. That’s why he criticized John McCain for endorsing an Arizona ballot initiative that would ban the use of race in public hiring, contracts and education. (The Arizona Republic, Jul. 28, 2008)
Obama will have no part in not allowing race to be used public hiring and education.
Wait, what did I just say? Obama opposes race neutrality in hiring?
Strike my first comment. Obama is a racist. He thinks some should be discriminated against due to the color of their skin. That is racism.
August 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm
* they think of Glenn Beck
August 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Daniel, I have heard the entirety of the clip you linked. I don’t blame the dude for going nutso on that lady. She called in and started making up all kinds of craziness about his opinion on the bailouts and the banks.
He was shouting for emphasis and frankly, that lady was a pinhead. She didn’t call up to address his points. She called up and lumped him into a caricature of some imaginary conservative monster that she wanted to villianize.
Again, I’m not some Glenn Beck fan but want to see something solid here if I’m going to follow the advice to shun him from Mormon culture.
August 11, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Morgan Deane, I don’t listen to Beck but I’ve read quite a bit of transcription of his show, such as the paragraph Guy quotes to start off this post. There is no amount of context (short of, perhaps, “I’m about to say something truly ugly just to make the liberals mad, but it truly does not represent my own belief”) that would spin that quotation as anything but ugly.
That’s been true for every clip I’ve ever seen posted anywhere.
I have better things to do with my time than invest it in actually listening to this crap live.
September 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm
No doubt the clips you choose to follow come from liberal sources prepared to paint Beck at his worst. But you said the key thing, you don’t listen to Beck but, which says it all. As the scriptures say, it is a fool that answers a question before he hears it.
September 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm
All you people need to ask yourselves is:
am I a Christ Follower? Or a poseur? Provoking people who disagree with you is not Christ-like. Focusing on what divides people is not Christ-like. Stirring up anger and discord is NOT Christ-like. Joseph Smith was not Christ-like. He slept with young teenage girls and made up a story about golden plates so that he could manipulate gullible people into following him. Making up lies in order to gain noteriety and money is not Christ-like.
Christ was about DO-ing good for EVERYONE. Feeding the hungry. Helping the poor and needy. As someone who wants to follow Christ, I don’t need to affiliate myself with any group or political party. I don’t follow him to “save” me from “hell” or so I can judge my fellow man. I follow him because he was a true example of a MAN who got it right. “The way” is available to everyone. Period. People like Glenn Beck are NOT part of the solution. How productive are people like him and Rush Limbaugh? Pumping people full of anger and distrust. Shame on you. We need people to stop arguing about who’s ‘right’ and get busy. Shut up and do something. Volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters. Serve the homeless a hot meal at the local shelter. Build a home with Habitat For Humanity. Then, honestly ask yourself if YOU are part of the solution. Cause if you’re not, then you are part of the problem.
When I watch Glenn Beck, I see an insecure little boy.
Parading around, talking big and tough trying to play God. Him and his ‘fans’ need to grow up and start acting like the men they claim to be.
August 11, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Something solid? Calling the current president a fascist, a socialist, a communist, a racist isn’t solid enough for you? Agreeing that the only thing that can save America is Osama Bin Laden killing more Americans isn’t solid enough for you? Thinking out loud on his show about how he would kill another human being is not solid enough for you?
August 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Obama is a socialist/communist. Just look at the czars he is appointing. He also has some fascist qualities to him as well.
August 11, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Calling the current president…a racist
I think I already mentioned that this point is easily debatable.
Agreeing that the only thing that can save America is Osama Bin Laden killing more Americans
If you watch the clip, he was bemoaning the idea. NOT being pleased with it. He is actually afraid that an attack is the only way that America will step up border security
Thinking out loud on his show about how he would kill another human being
He was not really thinking about killing him. He was being hyperbolic to illustrate his frustration. How do you not see that? Seriously Daniel, I’ve read your blog and you’re a smart dude. You know he wasn’t planning to kill him. It’s akin to the extremely popular (but rarely followed through on) phrase “I’m going to wring that guy’s neck!”
August 12, 2009 at 12:50 am
Ryan,
1. Calling the current president racist is not debatable because there is little to no evidence. It is blusterous. There’s no there there.
2. I analyzed the clip in detail. Watch very carefully at what the two of them say. Beck sets the stage by essentially saying that the current governmental leadership is not redeemable. The ONLY thing left to do is remove the leadership. Taking action by themselves will not work because it would be clearly illegal. HOWEVER, if Osama Bin Laden were to strike again, it would provide cover for the likes of Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer to do what they really want to do: overthrow the current government. Watch that clip again and pay closer attention, Ryan.
3. There is no comedy in joking about killing another human being. Not for a follower of Jesus Christ. Saying “I’m gonna wring that guy’s neck” is not anywhere close to the same as what Glenn Beck did. That’s not comedy. Or have you forgotten what our prophets have taught us? To seek the good? Where is the good in what Glenn Beck does and says?
September 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Hey Dan, going to a black supremacy anti-white anti-jew church for twenty years might tip you off on his racism. But then, ignore the facts and hide your head in the sand whenever your new found god looks less than godly.
August 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The only one dripping hate seems to be Daniel, the OP and a few liberal commentors. I don’t know the context of the original and Micheal More quote. But being Mormons I think everybody should know how random snippets can be made to say and show all kinds of negative and false things about Mormons. Yet I think many choose their ideology over knowing for themselves. Or choose shut off thought after hearing a few anti snippets.
Since the Pew Survey just came out, I can say that I think conservatives have a better sense of representative Mormon culture than some of the people I regularly see flipping out and dripping hate in the bloggernacle.
August 11, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Christopher over at the JI has written a couple of posts on Beck’s incorporation of Mormonism into his broadcasts. They’re worth checking out:
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/glenn-beck-and-the-revivalism-of-mormon-millenarianism/
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/the-government-is-the-devil-glenn-beck-and-mormonism-redux/
I personally don’t agree with Beck’s politics or the fearmongering he uses to advance his agenda. Whether he’s just in the conservative radio/TV business for the money, or if he truly believes the things that he says, I’m not in a position to judge.
Whether you agree with his politics and fearmongering or not, I think all Mormons should be concerned with his blatant disregard for the Word of Wisdom on his broadcasts, all while presenting himself to the world as a representative of Mormonism.
Smoking a cigarette: http://media.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/10343/
Drinking wine:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002026/
So whether one believes Glenn Beck is just in this for the money, it’s apparent to me that he’s willing to do almost anything, even do things that could keep him out of the temple, do drive home a point and drive up his ratings.
August 11, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Since when has he presented himself to the world as representative of Mormonism?
August 12, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Mark D. Google Glenn Beck and Mormon and you’ll see several references including his own “conversion” story which he has put out in the public domain. It is naive to believe he doesn’t play on his religion when it’s convenient.
August 12, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Last summer he gave a missionary fireside here in NYC. I’m afraid I can’t think of anyone I would have been comfortable inviting. Of course, the other missionary fireside that summer was the CFO of Citigroup who was in the process of presiding over a 98% drop in the stock’s value.
August 13, 2009 at 1:09 am
Cigarette: Yes, that is a bit surprising and disappointing. But I don’t think we should judge him too far. He is a convert, and he was an avid smoker before his conversion, so maybe he hasn’t quite kicked the ADDICTION. Only he knows that for sure, and that is between himself and the Lord, and I don’t think that includes any one else as a third party.
And an other thing about the cigarette. Did you see how much he was coughing and hacking. That goes to show you he probably hadn’t had a cigarette in a while. Most of the smokers I’ve seen(and I’ve seen a great deal of them) only hack and cough when they are not smoking, and they never hack their lungs out like Beck did while taking a puff, if they are avid smokers. This is where it gets a little confusing as to why he did indeed smoke on the air. It might have been a mistaken choice he made and has since learned from the mistake. Again, only he and the Lord know that. And again, we are not filled in with the full and complete context of the situation. We need to to know a lot more than just what happened in that one show, or even the previous shows. We’d have to know things that happened off the air, what exactly happened that led to him smoking on that program-things we DO NOT know I’m sure.
Wine:
How do you know that what he had in the cup was really wine or any other alcoholic drink? Did you smell the the liquid inside, or sip it yourself? Yes, there is a wine bottle on the table, but you don’t know that he actually poured the contents from THAT bottle into the cups. And as I recall, after watching that clip again (I’d already seen the entire episode from that day, as I watch his program every single day), He did not take one sip from that glass! From what I can see, it was a prop for a comedic skit, no more no less. Until you prove that that WAS INDEED wine, this clip has very little relevance.
If people were to make judgments about the LDS church based off of all it’s members and their individual doings and sayings, then there probably wouldn’t be too many members today, seeing as we are all imperfect and subject to sin and making mistakes.
Christ said to the scribes and Pharisees in the New Testament, concerning the woman accused of adultery, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”.
August 13, 2009 at 10:03 pm
When you are this high profile a Mormon as is Glenn Beck having such a cavalier attitude toward the Word of Wisdom, which is a requirement for Temple worship certainly does not set the example we want for high profile Church members. You’ve done nothing but make excuses for the man. If he wants to engage in such antics, he should at least not pretend and hold himself out as an good example of Church membership. I understand we all fall short. But there is nothing in Beck’s attitude and portrayal of these videos to suggest he is doing anything but mocking not only the letter but the spirit of the Word of Wisdom. How disappointing. Why you defend such conduct is puzzling.
September 17, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Read the transcript and no evidence that he either smoked or encouraged smoking. Curious Dave what drugs you are on to draw such a conclusion. In any case, if he did smoke he would be guilty of being imperfect. And pretty darn sure the list of imperfections of you, Guy and Daniel would fill a book. But then it is not my job or your job to judge. Except you think it is.
August 11, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I also agree with Ryan. I wasted my time watching the youtube clip waiting for this horrible rant from Beck wanting Osama to attack us…and instead he looked really sad, and with a somber voice said that he wished Osama DID NOT do it. Wow, thats a pretty good example of anti mormon style twisting to suit an agenda. And just like Ryan said, I don’t know the context but it seems as though Beck were expressing some frustration with Micheal Moore. Again, its about as accurate and truthful as many anti arguments I see.
August 11, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Daniel,
Bush was a fascist, and Obama is no different. Osama Bin Laden is as big of a threat to this country as my dog. Our own government has killed more of us than Osama could ever hope to.
Beck’s mistake is that he’s bought into this false partisan bickering. He supported his team during Bush not due to principle, but just because it was his team.
The so-called battle between the R’s and the D’s in Washington is as authentic as the battles in the WWF.
August 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Amen! You hit the nail on the head. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen people from both sides switch sides on an issue depending on whatever’s popular with the party line they have chosen.
WWE indeed!
September 17, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Funny but Beck was always pounding on Bush. What world are you from?
August 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I don’t listen to him but from what I’ve heard of him, it’s hard to defend some of his over-the-top statements or emotional outbursts. Not having all the facts though, I won’t go as far as saying he’s acting “stupidly”
.
Beck may not act as we would like Latter-day Saints to behave, but it appears to me that he’s acting par for the course in politics nowdays, sadly. When you have a Democratic congressman likening protestors to the KKK or the Speaker calling them “un-American”, what’s the big deal? Beck is small potatoes, compared to our elected leaders acing like this.
But that doesn’t excuse Beck’s behavior. I don’t consider Beck a great example of a Mormon, but compared to many of the crazy and dumb things Sen. Reid has said about Pres. Bush and other Republicans, Beck has company.
August 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm
David–I have no problem criticizing elected Mormon leaders and have done so. I am not terribly proud of all that Harry Reid has done or said. But, he is not consistently on the fringe as is Glenn Beck and does not make money purposely being on the fringe as does Glenn Beck, all the while tarnishing the Church by his association and nutty commentary. BTW, thanks for the link you provided over at a Soft Answer to this post.
August 11, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Recently, Republican Congressman Bob Inglis was conducting a townhall meeting when one of his constituents yelled, “I’m afraid of Obama!” When Inglis asked why, someone else yelled, “Just watch Glenn Beck!” When Inglis suggested that Beck was a fearmongerer and that it would be best for South Carolinians to just turn him off, his constituents booed him incessantly. So its not just a handful of liberals who can’t stomach this guy.
August 11, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Crazy teabaggers and retirees? I guess the elderly are a little past the teabagging stage, eh?
August 12, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Good point David
August 11, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I’m a TBM who can’t stomache dingy harry or nutso pelosi. Stop trying to mix religion and politics. I agree with President Hinckely that racism is beneath all holders of the priesthood, but I also believe it’s beneath the dignity of the POTUS in the 21st century. There are certain minorities, who believe reverse racism is possible, and thriving in some circles. You can disagree with Beck without denigrating him, Guy, but you have chosen not to. That’s certianly your choice, but not one I respect.
August 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I don’t get the support of the current Administration after reading these posts it gives me, who’s investigating the Church, pause ,are these the fellow Mormons I want to join that hold family values dear and self-reliance as an asset and the role of Government limited so that we can live our life’s without interference ?? This World is changing and President Benson Haft warnings are more dire than ever..so Why don’t you look him up on Utube if you think Glen is a loon..also the John Birch Society..which he was a member of and get with the program..
August 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Jenna, John Birchers are indeed loons. President Benson’s political views were a bit looney, as well.
August 11, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Guy is a real live stereotype as he attempts to earn his bloggernacle bones by bashing conservatives. He reminds me of the stupid kid my wife met a couple of summers ago. For some reason he got right in her face and said with a big smile, “I’m a democrat; do you have a problem with that?” She replied, “You’re from Utah, aren’t you.”
Advertisers pulling from the show isn’t much of an indicator, especially when you link the story about Geico. Gosh, I wonder who owns Geico? Oh, yeah, it’s Obama’s best friend – Warren Buffet!
Guy, are suggesting that when Beck says Obama doesn’t like white people, what he is really saying is he doesn’t like black people? Huh?
Good luck Guy
August 12, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Brian–you know me well. I’m just like the stupid kid your wife met. What exactly is your point?
September 18, 2009 at 8:08 am
Frankly Guy, you do say some pretty stupid things. And I suppose somebodies wife may have heard you say them. But we don’t need to look there, we just need to review your posts here. And you sound overly judgmental and you are lacking in evidence to back up your claim that Beck is a bad example of an LDS person. And of course it is obvious that it is you and Daniel that are not mainstream LDS. It is also painfully obvious that you play the typical role of leftist political hack to a T. Sorry but you are convincing nobody except your leftist friends that are already predisposed to judge Beck negatively, even if they have to hide from the facts to do it. Which you seem very adept at doing, hiding from the facts that is.
August 12, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Oh yeah–forgot about this part: earning my bloggernacle bones by bashing conservatives—are you nuts? Give me a break!
August 11, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Guy Murray wrote, “…these comments perpetuate erroneous and harmful stereotypes of the Church and its membership.”
Oh, really? Did Glenn Beck proclaim it an “official revelation”? Did he prefix it with “Thus saith the Lord”? Was it formally incorporated into the D&C as “Official Declaration 3″?
The answers are No, No, and No. Glenn Beck was not speaking for the LDS Church. The fact that he’s known to be active LDS is irrelevant. We have no business allowing our critics to define us. Consequently, your hysterical hyperbole reflects your own flagrant political bias rather than a sober-minded assessment. You’ve damaged your own credibility with this post, almost as much as The Immoral Minority blogger did by pulling the Palin divorce story out of his posterior.
August 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I’d only correct you by saying he claims to be an active LDS member. He doesn’t need to be a General Authority to tarnish the Church with his vitirol and hate.
August 13, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Ditto to you Guy…Tearing down another person or their views does not exactly exemplify being Christlike, or does it in your book? Just keep in mind that the worth of your soul, my soul or Glenn’s soul are all equal in the sight of God; by tearing down another brother you have done nothing more than “tarnish the Church with (your) vitirol and hate”. Learn how to be positive and build up your fellow man, then you will see the truth – If not, I pray for your soul.
August 13, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Rob–below. Thanks for praying for my soul–as you can see I need all the help I can get–mostly because I deign to criticize the cult like figure of Glenn Beck for his mean spirited rhetoric. Yep, I definitely need God’s Grace on that one.
September 18, 2009 at 8:11 am
Guy’s vitriol and hate is so much better than the vitriol and hate of others. I looked up the word hypocrite in the Mormon Doctrine book, newest version, and it has a picture of Guy Murray next to it. What a hoot you are Guy. Try removing that beam from your own eye. It seems to be multiplying into a forrest.
August 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Brian, of all the bloggers in the ‘nacle who blog on political topics, Guy is one that can hardly be stereotyped. While he’s liberal on some issues, he is conservative on others. Just read his many posts on Prop 8 and you’ll realize the error in your assumptions.
August 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Amen!
August 11, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Guy, you’ve destroyed all credibility by posting links to DailyKOS to back up your claims. Plus, your excerpts and other links are without context. Would you like it if other people did that to you?
It was difficult for Glenn to make the decision to come out with his comments about Obama being racist. For the longest time, he pleaded with his radio and TV audience that our complaints about the state of the federal government not be directed at Obama because the problems are as much the fault of G.W. Bush and the GOP as they are Obama and his party, but there was a tipping point with Obama’s undignified reaction to the incident between his friend William Gates and Sgt. Crowley.
Glenn explained in full on his radio program the day after he made the comment on Fox & Friends. You can listen to it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7HLesav9tY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9oTKUlHFY8
I don’t think Glenn purports that he is a model saint. I don’t think he is, but I admire his devotion to his faith. I’ve hung out with him in person and I know he is the real deal. I do not believe he does what he does primarily for ratings. He’s had some substantial hits in his ratings over the the last couple of years but he didn’t change his tune to improve that- he just kept on saying what he believed. Honesty is a value he holds dear.
And, now, a peeve of mine because I respect Glenn so much: Please don’t lump him in with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hannity and Rush are so much more inclined to be apologetic for and to defend the GOP. Glenn isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade.
August 12, 2009 at 2:27 pm
If linking to the DailyKos destroys credibility (which is obviously a debateable point), why doesn’t linking to clips from Fox News destroy your own credibility?
August 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm
DailyKOS is a liberal blog site.
Fox News is an established, accredited news organization.
Comparing the two is apples and oranges, man.
August 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The link to Daily Kos was to a video clip–it just happens to be the site which is hosting that particular clip. What difference would it make if I linked to Fox News if it was the same clip? Are you serious? It’s not at all for Glenn Beck to be offensive and crude–the more offensive and crude the better the ratings, the better his job security. Don’t fool yourself.
September 18, 2009 at 8:14 am
Your linking to Daily Kos is just another reminder that you tend to frequent far leftist sites to help back up your view Guy. If you don’t think we are smart enough to read between the lines then you have some learning to do there. You keep talking about Beck being this and that all the while being far worse with your own attitudes. Again, the word HYPOCRITE seems to be the one best suited for you. And yes, we come from different realities. I know already. MIne is where it is daytime when the sun is shining and yours is the opposite. Get a grip Guy, you just look foolish.
August 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Here here. I actually think that Beck is more likely an idiot than an actual racist, but that hardly matters. I am sad that anyone would use him as an example of a Church member. In my local radio market we have a mini-me GB who is also affiliated with the Church (he calls himself a member–I believe he is excommunicated, however) and I shudder to think that he is the face of mormonism in my region.
August 11, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The irony here is that drawing attention to Glenn Beck’s Mormonism is likely to have the opposite effect – increasing the identification between the two.
I think it is interesting as a matter of idle curiosity, but beyond that so what? Don’t make him out to be a representative of the church and he won’t be one.
August 13, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Mark D. As you can see from many of the most vocal comments on this thread, many Church members not only embrace him, but make up excuses for his extremely boorish and bad behavior. My purpose is simply to point out not all Mormons are in lock step with the man. Yes, he’s entitled to whatever opinions he wants to disseminate–but I think it important to make it clear not all Mormons like or agree with his style.
August 12, 2009 at 2:46 am
interesting timing. I’m in the UK and have woken this morning to find Beck castigated by one of our major newspapers and it’s readers (follow the linked main story and read the comments) for his attacks (full of lies and misinformation- how can someone hold a recommend if they pedal lies for a living?) on our NHS.
I hope no-one here realises he’s LDS. If the Church is associated here with this sort of anti NHS attack, we’ll get even less interest than we are receiving at the moment, and more opposition.
And btw, you can keep Daniel Hannan, please find him a job. He’s a laughing stock here- a desperate laughing stock.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/aug/11/nhs-criticism-obama-healthcare
August 12, 2009 at 3:00 am
Let’s put some more context on the words of Glenn Beck, because there is a history here, and my utter distaste for the man doesn’t stem from the recent words. There is an incident that perfectly reflects why I find him abhorrent, and why there may be some confusion over whether to take him seriously or not, to take what he says as what he really means or as simple sarcasm. Because of course, when one employs sarcasm to a great degree, there has to be a way to differentiate when sarcasm is used and when it is not. Otherwise, people will mistake what you say as serious when you really meant to be funny. Of course, the use of a vague definition of sarcasm allows someone like Glenn Beck a way out if he stepped too far. His simple excuse is “well that was meant to be sarcastic and not real.” Oh really? How does anyone know this? How does anyone really know that Glenn Beck was sarcastic in saying that Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people? That comment is as ridiculous as calling New Orleans sufferers of Hurricane Katrina as “scumbags” right? Well, let’s look at that particular incident, because we have extra commentary from Glenn Beck on what he originally said.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200605050012
Yes, Media Matters. Better get your hatred of them out before we continue. Here is what Glenn Beck said of the people who suffered on 9/11 and at Katrina.
Should those words be taken seriously? Should they be considered “comedy?” Calling victims of the worst hurricane to hit the United States “scumbags?” Remember, he said these words in September 9, 2005. What exactly was his purpose in saying this? To get a laugh? This is important because the next spring, when he was getting his CNN gig, O’Brien asked him about this particular incident, and here is what Glenn Beck said:
Not intentionally controversial? Do I take that seriously or sarcastically? Calling Obama a racist, a fascist, a Marxist, a communist. Not intentionally controversial? Has it become the norm to call presidents of the United States such slanderous names? He knows exactly what he is doing. It is quite intentional. He gets press. He gets coverage. He gets liberals and moderates screaming against his brand of hatred, thus making him a martyr to the types who love this kind of garbage. He’s a hero.
And in this particular example, he shows exactly what he is doing. Make a hit against someone he doesn’t like anymore (9/11 victims and Katrina victims) and when called on it, say “hey, it’s just sarcasm!” That’s his way out of any responsibility for his words. Don’t take him seriously, he says. But yet, take him seriously. After all, he sheds tears on his show. Are those tears serious or fake?
This man is reprehensible and decent Mormons should be shunning him, whether or not they agree with his political views. The question here is not a matter of his views but of how he presents them. He says he cloaks them in sarcasm and with comedy, but those two things are used as covers so he can say whatever crazy thing he wants. Kill Michael Moore? Sure. Why not. Let’s talk about the ways. Kill the Clintons? Sure, let’s get the Sopranos characters in to take them out. Hatred for liberals? Sure, pretend that they were the ones who lost their homes in the wildfires of California. Hate the blacks stuck in New Orleans who need help after Katrina? Sure, call them scumbags and then claim it is all sarcasm.
I honestly wish there were more sensible conservatives to defend their position (in the vein of a William Buckley), but sadly, alas, we are stuck with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Anne Coulter. Why conservative Mormons would ever keep themselves close to these kinds of fools is beyond my understanding. They discredit serious conservative thought. They do all sorts of damage. They disunite the country. They sow contention and discord. They are not worthy of serious political discourse, and would normally not be even taken seriously by those on the left and in the middle, were it not for the fact that these individuals have the ears of millions of registered voters. We have to take seriously what they say because a hell of a lot of Americans listen to their hateful speech.
I just want to add one final thing, words from Glenn Beck himself, which he said in May of this year:
Great question Glenn. Why don’t you look yourself in the mirror on that one.
August 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Thanks, Dan for this additional context.
September 18, 2009 at 8:27 am
As always, I like to do my research before answering an issue. Beck did not say he hated all 911 victim families. He made it clear that he hated about ten of them. He also made it clear that the reason he hated them was that even after they were given extreme compensation for something that the US government did not cause, even after they received millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money for their loss, which is not ordinary since many families lose their breadwinners and relatives everyday, after all the benefits at taxpayer expense they still complained. I and most LDS members would have to agree with Beck that these sort of people that keep on complaining after they have already been given special and extraordinary benefits are not worthy of special compassion. They have already received that which took care of their needs. Then they continue to complain against the very government and the very taxpayers that gave of their own money and resources. I give often to beggars on the street. I would not go back, however, and give to a beggar that berated me to my face saying that I did not give enough. Sorry, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. BTW, every beggar that I ever gave to was kind and gracious in return. So I never had to test the theory. However there were most definitely 911 families (just a few as Beck points out) and there were also a few Katrina victims that were just plain and utterly unkind and unappreciative receivers of the gifts that they were given. Beck hit it right on the head. To claim that this was bad or uncalled for on Beck’s part is just ludicrous and off the mark.
August 12, 2009 at 5:37 am
I know. Why not have a bunch of Mormons get into contentious debates about trivia?
August 12, 2009 at 5:45 am
Glen Beck is a showman. But his message shouldn’t be discounted.
America and our constitutional form of government has, and is slipping away.
Freedoms once lost are not easily regained.
I hope those who have participated in demeaning brother Beck in this post, and in the comments will take a closer look at his message and try to see past the showman personality.
August 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The people that call him “brother Beck” make me laugh the most. Like that is going to make me take him more seriously. If we are all brothers and sisters, I could say just as accurately, Brother Hitler, Brother Il or Brother Marx.
Sorry, your “Brother Beck” rings hollow.
September 18, 2009 at 8:29 am
I would hesitate to call Ian Cook, Daniel or Guy brother using your ludicrous logic.
August 12, 2009 at 5:53 am
Why in hell, Jared, should we put up with the “showman personality” (i.e., the spewed hatred) to “take a closer look at his message”? That’s like saying we should take a closer look at everything Satan says, because we know he mixes some truth in with his deception. Gag.
September 18, 2009 at 8:32 am
You are using the typical strawman argument. Beck does not spew hatred. However, you, Guy, Ian and Daniel seem to have some hateful feelings of your own. Maybe you can have a party and all get together and see if you can haul some of those enormous beams out of your own eyes. I recommend hiring some heavy equipment for the job. It might be an all-nighter.
August 12, 2009 at 5:58 am
well said Salt Laker.
August 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Amen
August 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Amen indeed!
August 12, 2009 at 6:21 am
Worse than Beck is the fact that our church airs his hatred on its Bonneville stations,along with other right-wing hatemongers, such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage. It saddens me that the church, which claims to be politically neutral, is making a mockery of that claim. We thus have no right to be offended the next time the church is unfairly or cruelly attacked because an LDS candidate is running for high political office. We have forfeited any right to be outraged or offended.
September 18, 2009 at 8:33 am
Our church airs Obama’s hatred on it’s channels as well. Go figure.
August 12, 2009 at 7:48 am
I’ve done a fair share of listening to Beck in the last few years. Out of any commentator, he is the most honest and sincere I have encountered. He is not beholden to a political party, or some corporate giant dictating his words. He speaks the things that most are afraid to say-probably because most hope these things are not real. That’s why his TV show, radio show, and books are rolling over the competition. Americans are thirsting for someone that says what they mean and mean what they say. Telling the truth is not fearmongering.
He repeatedly tells his audience that he wishes he were wrong in what he sees and comments on. He openly invites ANYONE to prove him wrong – I suggest you try to before you write him off.
As for Beck’s “racist” comments, I remember him saying that and have to agree. Show me your friends and I’ll show you what kind of person you are, Mr. Obama. Beck, himself, is the farthest thing from a racist.
And if a mock comedic sketch where Beck feigns to smoke and drink is the worst thing he does as a well-known Mormon in the spotlight, then you’ll have to equally ostracize Mormon-sweetheart Kirby Heybourne for his role in “Saints and Soldiers.”
August 12, 2009 at 8:05 am
#38 Salt Laker
I take it you don’t like Glenn Beck.
Comparing him to satan was my first clue.
August 12, 2009 at 8:10 am
For me Glen Beck is not the issue ( but I do understand and share his frustration with what is happening to our country and federal government; as do many) the words republican and democrat to me are just a diversion and act as a devisor and smoke screen to the real issue, which is the secret combinations that the book of Mormon warns us about trying to take control of our form of government. If you believe the book of Mormon is a type of things to come and if you believe the warning comments of Mormon to us in Ether chapter 8 (and else where in the book) are words from a prophet; warnings for us in our day (since after all this was his very purpose in his abridging the records) ; look at what the secret societies were able to do in the books of Helaman and 3nephi, to get power and control of their form of government and corrupt it. This is the real issue to me, and what we should be united against, every thing else just acts as a diversion and divides us.
August 12, 2009 at 8:20 am
#28:
Guy is a real live stereotype as he attempts to earn his bloggernacle bones by bashing conservatives.
WHAT?? Wow, Guy…is that the real reason that you and I have gone to verbal fisticuffs repeatedly? Sorry, but anyone who thinks Guy “bashes conservatives” has got to be smoking something illegal!
August 12, 2009 at 5:45 pm
That’s me Nick–a regular conservative basher.
September 18, 2009 at 8:35 am
Guy, hate to break it to you dude but you are most definitely a conservative basher. Don’t tell me you are the last one to figure that out.
August 12, 2009 at 8:21 am
Guy,
I am pleased that we continue to be in agreement on so many spiritual and gospel related issues. It makes it so much easier to overlook the areas where we may and do disagree.
August 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm
As am I, Brian. Thanks for stopping by.
August 12, 2009 at 9:02 am
Jared, no I don’t like Glenn Beck. But your demand that we mine the dungheap in hopes of finding the diamonds that you think might be there, is laughable. Those same diamonds aren’t hard to find elsewhere, without the dung.
September 18, 2009 at 8:37 am
Beck is not a dungheap dearest. Your perception is lacking. That is the issue. As they say, “wo unto those that call good evil and evil good.” That would be you. You are mixed up in your perception. But Salt Lake has it’s fair share of radicals.
August 12, 2009 at 9:10 am
40: As Kent Larsen and Mark B. report here and here, you’re pretty much wrong.
August 12, 2009 at 9:12 am
In fact, I wonder if “Roger” at T&S isn’t trolling as “sam” here. His was a ridiculous comment, under either name.
August 12, 2009 at 9:50 am
My perception of Glenn Beck is that he is a guy who has read the scriptures, read the prophets, has studied history, and sees that the USA is in big trouble.
Regardless of which party or philosophy best represents your views, the one thing Latter-day Saints should agree on is the necessity to follow the prophet’s counsel.
That counsel includes having a temple recommend, getting out of debt, living providently, preparing a three-month’s supply of food you would normally eat, emergency water, a small cash reserve, and extended food storage for up to a year.
If you’ve taken care of those thing, the telestial politics of the world don’t really matter that much. We know that the Lord has shown the prophets that perilous times are upon us. (Just take note of how many times the phrase “perilous times” were used in the last two general conferences.)
Dividing the church along partisan lines is what the devil would enjoy. What would bother him most is seeing the saints fall into the ranks behind the prophet by observing his counsel.
September 18, 2009 at 8:42 am
Your comments on food storage, debt, temple etc are accurate. However, the prophet’s council has also been to be active in making sure that you vote for good, honest and wise leaders and that you are active in your communities and that you actively participate in your role as an informed voter. Lots of things matter beyond the realm of just taking care of yourself.
August 12, 2009 at 10:23 am
#49 Well said.
August 12, 2009 at 10:47 am
Really? The US is in big trouble? Which prophet has said this? Monson? Hinckley?
September 18, 2009 at 8:52 am
Lot’s of prophets have touched upon the potential dangers of nations in general and of the USA in particular. As to the final outcome of our nation the prophets remain vague, declaring opening that it has not been given to them what will happen. They speak in terms of conditionals, saying that if there is enough good then we will do well and that if there is not, then we will suffer. We are warned of secret combinations, judges and leaders that take the law into their own hands, that allow murder and other evil to take place unpunished. More than one prophet has said that he does not know if we shall have another civil war or see blood running in the streets. Prophets readily point out the dangers of unrighteous behavior and the benefits of righteous behavior. Prophets have pointed out both big trouble and big benefits of good living. But as always, they do not need to foresee each possible event, but just point out how to make the best of any event, saying wisely that if you are righteous then things work out better. Prophets do not guarantee even good results for every good person. They just point out that if you are righteous you will be saved in the end. Prophets have said that if the wicked rule that the righteous will mourn. Prophets have said that nations of the earth would fall. Prophets have said that Zion, not being bound by borders, will flourish. Prophets have said that all nations shall be gathered against Israel. Prophets have said some similar things to what Beck has said and prophets have said generically that some of the things that Beck has said are imperfect, in that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Prophets have said to make righteous judgment, for we will judge angels and must be prepared to understand right from wrong. Prophets have said to forgive men their trespasses as you would have them forgive you of yours. Prophets have said that there is a discerning spirit and that some have it and that some do not. And I would venture to say that none of us know of all the prophets sayings including you and me.
August 12, 2009 at 10:47 am
Beck is an entertainer, nothing less, nothing more. He makes money by making noise. Anyone that follows him for information is just sadly misinformed taking his rants as education instead of the entertainment they are designed to be. He himself has said he considers himself more an entertainer than newsman.
September 18, 2009 at 8:56 am
Obama is an politician, nothing less, he gains power and money by making noise. Anyone that follow him is sadly misinformed, taking his rants as education instead of political expediency as they are designed to be. He himself has said things on both sides of an issue and considers himself to be more than he really is. We all have our opinions of others, don’t we?
August 12, 2009 at 11:40 am
Oh, one big eyeroll to you. The guy is an entertainer. Don’t like his entertainment? Tune out. Enough do this, he goes off the air! Poof!
And Rush Limbaugh’s “hate speech”? Yeah, you lost me there. You clearly don’t listen to anything these people say in context, and are depending on hostile sources for your information about these characters. Funny, I think we discourage people from getting their information about the church this way. I guess it’s OK for you, though.
I’ve heard plenty of people talk about Beck being a wack-o and fringey, but never, ever, have I heard them connect that with his membership in the church — a fact that is rarely mentioned, even in the most hostile articles about him.
What other Mormons do for a living is not of concern to me; it clearly isn’t a concern for Beck’s bishop, so why not handwring over something that actually matters?
August 12, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Jana–you know about Beck’s Bishop’s concerns or lack of concerns, exactly how?
September 18, 2009 at 8:58 am
Apparently you know that Beck is unworthy of being called a worthy member, Guy, you gross and utter hypocrite. If you missed your view of his unworthiness, then you must have missed your own title and your own blog. Good grief, can you guys get more hypocritical than you are?
August 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Jana said, “You clearly don’t listen to anything these people say in context.”
Quite a few examples above were definitely taken in context. But that’s beside point for the idea I’d like to bring up. She also said, “why not handwring over something that actually matters?”
Well, how about this?
Let’s for argument’s sake say that Glenn and Rush et. al. are just showmen as many people say and are really just joking and being sarcastic. I don’t believe that, but for argument’s sake, let’s say that is the case.
Everyone on this thread seem to understand that they are joking. And I’m assuming the majority of people probably understand that as well. But not everyone has a developed sense of irony and sarcasm. Yes, they are in the minority, but there are still thousands upon thousands of people in the country who believe every vile statement that drips from these “showmen.”
Statements like:
Saying Obama is building concentration camps for Republicans
Saying the President is a racist
Saying I poisoned your glass to a cardboard cutout of Pelosi
Saying he wants to kill Michael Moore
Calling Obama an oreo (a highly racial slur in case you didn’t know)
And so on.
In some very few cases even I can see he’s trying to make a joke. A distasteful one in my view, but it’s still supposedly a joke. But not everyone can see that it’s a joke. Instead they see someone spouting extremely vile, racist, hateful, and ultimately very harmful words. And they agree with those words. They agree that Michael Moore needs to be killed. They agree that Pelosi needs to be poisoned. They agree that the President is a racist or that he wasn’t born in the US or that the government is going to kill old people and babies. They agree that the US would be better off if we’re attacked again by terrorists or that the new administration are socialist and turning America into the new Nazi state. These people’s anger and frustrations are fueled by Beck’s and Limbaugh’s hate filled words just as if you poured gasoline over a fire.
THAT is why I don’t like Glenn Beck. He wouldn’t matter to me at all if everyone considered him to me a comedian or a showman like he says he is. But a very large number of people follow him blindly and believe wholeheartedly in his supposedly false hate speech. And the anger and unbridled hatred of this group of people continues to grow and become more and more violent year after year. It may not be tomorrow or even this year or the next. But there will be another shooting from some hate-filled lunatic who listens to this unapologetic vitriol and the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world will say, “It wasn’t me that caused that! I was joking!”
September 18, 2009 at 9:38 am
James says this is Becks claims:
1)Saying Obama is building concentration camps for Republicans. Beck never said it and took the trouble to disprove it on his show. James, you are wrong on this case.
2) Saying the President is a racist.
Beck supplied more than enough evidence to prove that Obama has racist tendencies. Obama having attended a black supremacy church that was anti-white and anti-jew for twenty years might be a little hint to you James, but that was just one of many examples Beck gave. Perhaps you are not very well read on this subject. If Bush said what Obama did about race and people just reversing the color then you would have been all over Bush for being a racists. But hide your head in the sand but it does not change reality.
3) Saying I poisoned your glass to a cardboard cutout of Pelosi. That was pretty obvious a joke.
4) Saying he wants to kill Michael Moore
Again, obviously a joke, not that having Michael Moore gone would be a loss.
5) Calling Obama an oreo (a highly racial slur in case you didn’t know)
Never heard Beck call Obama an oreo. Do you have a link to it so we can see it in context? I do know of democrats tossing Oreos and referring to republican blacks as Oreos. If it is highly offensive then perhaps you democrats should stop the habit. You democrats had some choice racist words for Condoleezza Rice as well.
6) And so on.
You mean you have more lame non-expamples? This is the best you can do James? I can show you quite a few more examples of Obama being a real racist than this petty list of yours.
August 12, 2009 at 1:41 pm
James, the Pelosi thing was definitely comedy. Everyone on the set was laughing throughout the whole thing. I’ve never heard Beck use the Oreo term. Who *doesn’t* want to kill Michael Moore from time to time?
As for Obama being a racist, I completely agree with Glenn Beck, but in order to understand that, you have to listen to Glenn’s own explanation. He’s not saying that Obama is out to start his own white lynching gang or that he’s apt to start a black KKK. It’s more like Obama has racist undertones, underpinings, that are revealed from time to time. I think Obama does try to be a good, fair-minded person, but he has been exposed to so much radical crap during his life — much more than the average person — that it’s difficult to keep it under wraps at all times. Reverend Wright, anyone?
Anyway- listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7HLesav9tY
August 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm
You missed my point.
I really don’t care if he calls himself a comedian or a clown or a showman. I really don’t care if he was joking or not about poisoning Pelosi (except for the fact that no one with such a public forum should ever joke about murdering a senator).
I do care that far too many people will then agree that Pelosi should be murdered. At that point it doesn’t matter if it’s a joke or not.
And no, I personally don’t want to kill Michael Moore from time to time. Heck I don’t even want to kill Ann Coulter who I think is an extremely vile person; much worse that Beck (at least so far).
Saying you want to kill a senator while among friends in your own house is distasteful, but harmless. Saying you want to kill a senator on national TV is another thing entirely. It doesn’t matter if you are joking or not. Because there is inevitably someone who agrees with the talking head in the TV box that killing that senator is a Really Good Idea.
That’s my point.
September 18, 2009 at 9:43 am
“I do care that far too many people will then agree that Pelosi should be murdered. At that point it doesn’t matter if it’s a joke or not.”
Really? You James, actually think that somebody was going to want to really murder Pelosi because of that obvious joke?
Believe me, there are plenty of real reasons to dislike Pelosi. If she were going to be killed by a radical I doubt that a Beck joke was the thing that pushed them over.
However, I do recall more than one example of Democrats wishing death upon Bush. And not just low level democrats either. Palin hung in effigy. Bush hung in effigy. If it were Obama hung in effigy I am sure Guy, Daniel and perhaps you (you seem less radical than those two) would claim that it must be a racial hanging.
Your point is rather unconvincing James.
August 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Doran,
Glenn Beck didn’t just say Obama was a racist, but that he has a “deep seated hatred of white people.” Obama is neither a racist, nor has a deep seated hatred of white people. Furthermore, keep in mind that Glenn Beck also calls Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman, a racist too. The man is itchy with the trigger finger. He is a white male who panders to a very white crowd that thinks minorities are out to get payback for hundreds of years of whites discriminating against them.
Finally, Doran, are you black? Or Hispanic? If not, you will never understand what it is like to be discriminated against by whites. I had only the smallest glimpse of this when I lived in a almost completely black neighborhood. In Sunday School, I taught the youth. Every single one of them was black. Before the election last year, one kid stated that I was going to vote for John McCain. There is no context to that statement. It was out of the blue. I was white, therefore I would not even consider the black candidate. What Obama has shown through his composure and cool calm in the face of such attacks against his character and nature is amazing. There is no evidence he denigrates whites, particularly in the same way that Glenn Beck and the rest of his ilk denigrate him, calling him the names he does. There is no evidence that Obama has discriminated against whites in favor of other racial groups. Now, one could consider his pick of Sotomayor to be on race, but that is something every single president who nominates a minority candidate for the Supreme Court would have to face. Why did Bush nominate Thomas instead of some white guy? Was the white guy on his short list discriminated against over the black candidate? It gets to be really silly.
Calling Obama a racist is simply stupid, but Glenn Beck does it because it plays into the crowd who listen to him. That’s the only reason he does it. Glenn Beck’s audience is the highly conservative white religious group that has a strong history of disfavoring blacks and Hispanics, so ironically it is a very safe thing for Beck to call Obama a racist, and Sotomayor a racist. In the ears of his listeners, it sounds like sweet music.
August 13, 2009 at 7:17 am
“Furthermore, keep in mind that Glenn Beck also calls Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman, a racist too.”
I’m sorry but my wife is Mexican and she finds it offensive that any Hispanic woman would say that because of the fact shes a “Latina”, she would make better judgements that a “white male”.
Now I understand that she was trying to make the contextual argument that most Hispanics grow up in poverty and deal with discrimination whereas most white males don’t.
However, it’s a BEST a stereotype. That all white males are somehow privileged, and that all Hispanic females grow up in poverty and face constant discrimination.
Let’s even give Sotomayor the benefit of this stereotype for a minute. That all white males are privileged, while Hispanic females all face discrimination and poverty. It’s still a stupid comment that because of this, a Hispanic woman’s JUDGEMENT is better than the white males.
What she should have said was that a person (of whatever race and color) that has faced poverty and/or discrimination would have real-world experience when dealing with cases involving such events as a judge.
However, this is not what she said. She brought race into it, and she should get “called” on it.
Is she a “racist”. Probably not. But it sure reflect poorly on her judgement.
Which makes me wonder if a “Latina with the richness of her experiences” really does have good judgement after all….
August 12, 2009 at 2:10 pm
by the way, Jon Stewart had a perfectly timed segment last night on his show about this very topic.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-11-2009/reform-madness—white-minority
August 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The rise of wacky right-wing AM talk radio over the last twenty years is a direct backlash of the left-wing’s monopoly on the media through the years of “enlightenment.” There was, and apparently still is, a voraciously hungry audience for the likes of Rush and his ilk. And who can blame them? After decades of being bullied by the media — the right arm of the liberal academy — on how to live, act, and even think … well, who can blame them? Decades of having a bullhorn shoved upside their heads — incessant screeching about how filthy their values are. And, you know, the most amazing thing about all of this is that most of these folks who are fed to the teeth with the liberal media are only looking for a good laugh. They just want to know that they can laugh about it in good company and get back to their quiet lives.
August 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm
That’s your defense of this guy, Jack? People just want to know they can laugh in good company? Have a good laugh when joking about killing people, calling them vile names, and belittling them on national radio? Yeah, sounds like a blast to me. Thanks for the reminder.
August 15, 2009 at 11:53 am
Yeah, basically. That’s my defense. Right-wing talk-radio is wacky. The only thing more wacky is how some folks will backhand their foreheads, swoon, and then faint at such wackiness.
September 18, 2009 at 9:46 am
Guy, there are more than enough vile liberal talk shows wishing death on Bush, Beck, Rush, etc. Please, you fool nobody with your incessant hypocrisy. And neither have you made a case that Beck is vile. As to belittling, isn’t that what your intent is to do with Beck? Again, I see you, your comments and your photo and I see nothing but a prime example of HYPOCRITE.
August 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm
James, if you listen to Beck’s radio show, you will hear lots of hispanics and blacks call in to share their stories. His audience is very diverse.
How can you say Motomayor is NOT racist?! She has made comments and judgements that clearly show she has very defined racial biases that affect her personal and judicial decisions.
August 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Again, the point was missed.
It doesn’t matter that his audience is diverse. It matters that a subset of his audience (black, white, brown or green) takes his supposed jokes as gospel truth.
And I haven’t talked about Motomayor. Are you responding to someone else?
September 18, 2009 at 9:49 am
“It doesn’t matter that his audience is diverse. It matters that a subset of his audience (black, white, brown or green) takes his supposed jokes as gospel truth.”
Really? You fail to convince dear James. Show one example of a Beck joke as being considered true. Do you have somebody trying to kill Pelosi with poison because of a Beck joke? If not, then you are just blowing hot air.
August 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm
[...] to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!Guy’s discovered some very bloody bloggernacle red meat: Glenn Beck – Saint or Sinner? or maybe somehwere in [...]
August 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Thanks David
August 12, 2009 at 3:37 pm
James, Sorry about that. I wrote that as I was walking out of the office. SOTOMAYOR!
August 12, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Doran writes:
hahahahahaha, that is the funniest thing I’ve heard today. Fox News, a “news” organization. Tell me another one man.
August 12, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Yeah, I got quite a chuckle out of that one too.
September 14, 2009 at 1:59 am
Then you must get a REALLY big laugh out of people claiming CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, or CBS are news organizations, since every year credible non-partisan studies prove that they . Try the Project for Excellence in Journalism, for one.
If you don’t find them worse than Fox, as nonpartisan studies do, well, your intellectually dishonest attacks on Fox prove that you are where possible (leaving holes for Prop 8 maybe since it’s clear where the Church went on that) a closed-minded liberal at heart, which makes your attacks on Beck more understandable, if not more reasonable.
September 14, 2009 at 2:03 am
(somehow a big chunk got lost in editing; here we go:)
*that they are more biased to the Left than FNC is to the Right. For example, during the presidential campaign last year, Fox ran 40% negative stories to 22% positive on McCain with 40% negative stories to 25% positive on Obama. The others weren’t even close, with MSNBC being the worst one included in the study, airing 73% negative stories about McCain and only 14% negative about Obama.
August 12, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I suggest a challenge to those who are criticizing Glen Beck. So far most the criticism has been about style. Let’s discuss the content of his radio and TV programs.
For example, take today’s program. I watched part of it. I thought the content was worthwhile.
Daniel and other please address the content of his show.
Please tell us about the content of his show. Maybe you could focus on today’s show.
What do you have to say about the issues he raises?
August 12, 2009 at 6:09 pm
What do YOU say about it, Jared? You haven’t addressed the content other than to call it “worthwhile.” The obvious counter to that is someone saying it was “not worthwhile.” Where has that got us?
What about it was worthwhile? What did he say that especially carried his point with you? What issues did he raise, and what do YOU have to say about them? Don’t expect somebody else to do all the work you’re always calling for.
August 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Salt Laker–
I would like you and others who are criticizing him to address the issue of content. If you can’t, just say so.
August 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm
The thing is, Jared, is that you’re setting us up. You issue your “challenge” after the fact. No one who might have been willing to take you up on it who does not regularly listen to Beck has a chance of responding. Thus, you can claim “victory” because no one responded.
The other thing, Jared, is that you demand things here and elsewhere that you can’t deliver yourself. You make a big fuss over content, yet can’t offer two words on the content yourself.
I call you on it, Jared, you and your phony challenge.
August 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Salt Laker–
It’s no big deal. You’ve made your position clear. You don’t like Glenn Beck. You don’t really know what he trying to say, you just don’t like him.
Well, all I can suggest is that you might want to learn more about him. There are a lot of folks who thinks he is on to something very, very important.
I’m no expert but I am giving him the benefit of a fair evaluation.
He brought up one point today that I’ll mention. He thinks it “strange” that members of congress, the president, and others will not be part of the health care plan they are pushing on the rest of us. They will have a plan for the elite, and a plan for the rest of us. Why?
August 12, 2009 at 6:17 pm
This is ridiculous. The posters and author claiming that Glenn Back is spewing Hate speech and is an embarrassment are simply ignorant of what Glenn Beck says in context. The real embarrassment is when you claim to understand Glen Beck and call out those that actually listen to him and understand his context as being deluded and having poor perception. Ironic that those that point the fingers don’t even realize what they are talking about. The word IDIOT comes to mind here.
Glenn Beck is not far right. Get your facts straight and then talk. That goes not only for the author but for the ignorant others that can’t do their own research and understand how to look at things outside of their immature perception of reality.
You do not have to agree with Glenn Beck, you can even dissassociate yourself with him in every way, but what right do you have to malign him if you cannot understand what he is even saying? Get off your soapbox your playing the same game as the typical anti-mormon and it makes you look like a moron.
You do realize that the members of the Church hold a VAST amount of different views? Shame on anyone who claims someone is an embarassment to the church for the views they hold that are not dangerous for the Church itself. GROW UP and work on your comprehension and understanding of what others say. You have no credibility if you can’t even analyze what someone says correctly. Its a good thing there is a nice group of idiots that are active posters here to help reassure each other that they are not in error. …. seriously, a bunch of idiots
August 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Charilee–The only ones ignorant in this discussion are those who refuse to see Beck’s speech for what it is, hateful, divisive, obnoxious. It is the antithesis of praiseworthy, lovely, or of good report–it is not out of the best books, we should not seek after those things. I understand perfectly well what he is saying. I’m not the brightest person in the world; but, I do feel after four years of higher education, three years of law school, and practicing as a litigator for over 22 years, that I have some sense of understanding of the words and context in which Beck uses those words. Your claims otherwise are just absurd.
August 12, 2009 at 9:56 pm
nice, “I am not the smartest person in the world, but because of my credentials and experience I am not wrong, and when i declare it to be that way, so it is. ”
Thanks but no thanks, even the most impressive experience and credentials do no justice to a fool. A typical response, expected, and again absurd in every way.
You are absolutely wrong in your conclusion, and the only absurd thing is how entrenched and polemical you are in your own argument.
You have every right to interpret Glenn Beck as you please, but that does not change reality. Your references, and evidences are shallow and your argument is immature and biased. Get past your ideology and philosophy and honestly assess what he says. You do not have to agree, he may be absolutely wrong, but “hateful, divisive, obnoxious. It is the antithesis of praiseworthy, lovely, or of good report” is an utterly false.
Take a look in the mirror, your a spitting image of a pharisee slandering and maligning Christ. Your attitude is the same, your method is the same, and your bitter denial is the same. Good Riddance, get over yourself and your own little world of politics because your accusations are ridiculous.
September 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Dearest Guy, what is hateful and divisive is people like you. As the scripture says, you are attempting to remove a mote from another with a beam in your own eye. Of course you will disagree because you seem to enjoy ranting and rumbling and mis-stating the facts. Fine, no skin off of my nose. But are you really that self-deluded Guy? Most likely you are, and most likely I am wasting my breath. But dude, seriously, you are your own worst enemy. If you aren’t busy telling outright lies you simply distort reality to the breaking point. Peddle your vitriol someplace more suited to people like you, say Huffingtonpost where they love your style of hypocritical hate filled manure. And they love liars there so much that sometimes they give them jobs. You are in need of some self-evaluation which of course again you will deny. But dude, get off your high horse. It turns out it is a donkey and the donkey is on your back. Sheesh, you are a dime a dozen leftist spewing unfounded vile lies for the sake of a political party. Grow up, you just look dumb.
August 12, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Wow.
This ugly thread is so indicative of the chasm rapidly developing betweeen Conservative Mormons and Liberal Mormons…internet Mormons and chapel Mormons…TBM’s and NOM’s…etc.
Us crazy fundamentalists are just observing and shaking our heads.
Where is this going to stop folks?
I mentioned this on another site but the internet, and the rapid exchange of ideas, has caused this division in ideas to expand exponentially IMHO.
So what’s the answer guys?
I’ve got it!
Toss all the former scriptures out the door and have Thomas Monson write a new gospel that doesn’t have anything in it that would disagree with current secular “reasoning”.
Of course, when he passes away the Book of Thomas Monson can be just tossed and the newly elected church president can write another one. That way no foolish traditions of our founding prophets will make us appear like some peculiar people.
I’m sorry to be so crude but this liberal silliness, for the sake of “fitting in” really gets old.
Give it up people.
August 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Bruce–so–if I disagree with Glenn Beck and his brand of what passes for rational discourse or commentary, then I’m what a “Liberal Mormon” an “internet Mormon” an “NOM?” If I don’t properly perform the Glenn Genuflection then I don’t adhere to all the “former scriptures” the current and/or past prophets? You are beginning to sound a little like your hero here.
September 17, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yes Guy hate to surprise the heck out of you but you are a typical leftist spewing typical leftist manure thinking you have a grasp of reality. As the scriptures say, “Wo unto those that call night day and day night, that put good for evil and evil for good.” That would be you Guy, and wo unto you and your sort. You are on the wrong side of the fence and you just sound lame.
August 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“Crude” is very much the word for you, Bruce in Montana.
August 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm
And may God bless you and yours Salt Laker.
Can you elaborate on your personal attack?
September 17, 2009 at 1:38 pm
See Bruce, if you dare disagree with a leftist then they have a nice long string of negative labels to apply to you. Just let them rant. They are the blind with eyes that do not see and with ears but do not hear. And they will demonize any truth teller that comes along with a bit of common sense and wisdom. Just put them in the Sadduccee and Pharisee crowd of unwise and foolish hypocrites.
What is interesting about the liberal mormon is that they are so far away from mainstream mormonism yet they think they are part of the enlightened “progressive” element of the church. In reality these sort end up asking to have their names removed from the church and or get ex-communicated because they are too wise for the church and or they think they have discovered some deep dark evil about the church.
They tend to be a sad lot in general, doing a lot of talking having little to say and generally incapable of listening to reason.
August 12, 2009 at 8:55 pm
It’s an attack to agree with your own statement, Bruce?
August 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Salt Laker,
Please go get your Mommy and Daddy and admit to them that you are trying to talk “big people” words on the computer.
Kindergarten arguements really aren’t very productive and aren’t very good at conveying an exchange of opinions or ideas.
Isn’t it past your bedtime?
August 12, 2009 at 9:06 pm
We’re really not going to get into some childish “who gets the last word” contest are we?
August 12, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Looks like that’s where you’re headed Bruce
September 18, 2009 at 9:51 am
Guy joined in on the get the last word in game. Can I play too? I think I just did. I win the get the last word in game. Guy thought he had us beat.
August 12, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Guy,
So, if Glenn Beck is an embarrassment to the church, is Harry Reid the poster child for everything wonderful about our religion?
I am actually more embarrassed of Senator Reid and all he espouses as the Majority Leader in the Senate.
However, I am happy that both he and Glenn Beck are members of the church. The Church is big enough to welcome and cultivate members across the political spectrum. It is amazing to me that you liberals who are supposed to be the “tolerant” ones are anything but when it comes to people who do not share your worldview.
August 12, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Did you read somewhere that I attributed any such thing to Harry Reid? I’ll stick with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve if I want to hold out exlemplars of individuals who are wonderful ambassadors of our Church, who truly live Christ like lives.
Glenn Beck makes his living practicing the politics of hate, division, derision, and delusion. I have plenty of disagreement with Harry Reid. I think he’s been a particularly ineffective Majority Leader. In fact he’s not a particularly strong leader at all. But, he’s not at all in the same league of embarrassment to the Church as is Glenn Beck. I have no idea what you mean by “liberal.” This is not about liberal, conservative, or anything in between.
August 12, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Glenn Beck, the right wing fringe commentator” Right… not about politics.
^ oh wait, you’re the one that first makes the accusation ( a false one at that which only shows how credible your following conclusions will be )
While I agree that it shouldn’t be about politics, your analysis of Glenn Beck is unmistakably biased and influenced by your own political leanings.
“Glenn Beck makes his living practicing the politics of hate, division, derision, and delusion.” Give me a break, its painfully obvious you’re not very familiar with Glenn Beck or what he believes, which raises the question and concern – why would you write something about him, when you obviously know so little. I suggest you do your “homework” and get a clue.
The only information thats relevant from your article is that when it comes to reaching conclusions on someone that promotes pressure to your own political ideology you will drink your water from even the filthiest sources so long as you can discredit the individual.
September 17, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Guy Murray makes his living practicing the politics of hate, division, derision, and delusion.
There Guy, I fixed your little error. Anyway, do continue on with your liberal ranting. I have not seen such with and wisdom as yours since the last time I read a Huffington Post blogger. They pay $5.00 an hour for people with your talent. Go get em, tiger.
September 17, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Looks like kmichaels has spent the entire afternoon posting the same non-arguments on reply after reply. Hope you are getting more than $5 per hour, k.
August 12, 2009 at 10:10 pm
CHARLIEEE #65 In response to your reply
No–that’s not what I said. I said with my credentials–despite not being as smart as you, for example, I am still smart enough and sufficiently educated to understand and interpret Glenn Beck. He’s not that deep of an individual.
Why’s that because you say so?
Again, why’s that–because you say so–and I’m polemical? Please.
What reality is that? We appear to live in separate realities, my dear. That you want yours to be the “real” reality is a bit amusing, I must confess.
The references and evidences of Beck’s absurd notions and speech are spread plentifully throughout this entire thread–and they aren’t just mine.
You don’t know anything about my “ideology and philosophy” so do us both a favor and stop pretending you are somehow inside my mind.
I’ll simply refer to this as your Alice in Wonderland reality–calling black, white, right, wrong, Beck good, etc. etc. etc.
Criticizing Glenn Beck is akin to maligning Christ? Truly? I’m sorry, you just lost me, any credibility and any further argument on the matter.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
August 12, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I never said thats what you said word for word, its what is implied. Ironically you then put words into my mouth. SMART MOVE thats really an intelligent and mature thing to do. Do all your rebuttals show blatant hypocrisy that the same accusing behavior you attribute to me you go and commit immediately after? ( yes they do, its apparent you either don’t recognize your own behavior or you’re just being purposefully deceitful )
How about you get past your little game of attributing false behavior that you then go on to commit, and address the issues. Is that the only defense you have?
“Criticizing Glenn Beck is akin to maligning Christ? Truly? I’m sorry, you just lost me, any credibility and any further argument on the matter.” Really? if thats the kind of analytical skill you have at interpreting my own words, no wonder you view Glenn Beck as above stated.
I said your behavior and attitude was the same, I could care less for Glenn Beck, but I do care when people act like your acting and I intend to call them out on it.
You can step off from your soapbox now and go do some real research, you’re only convincing those that already agree with your own view points and thats not a difficult thing to do.
Its obvious my comments won’t help you in anyway, but I will try anyway. Next time you intend to write an absurd article like this you should do some real work before coming to a conclusion and show us why it is you feel that way. Your manner of accusation is simply petty and holds no weight. The quotes and sources you provided are terrible, its as if you did no work on your own, but simply followed the lead of other cronies that came before you and accepted their conclusions as fact. The only fact here is that your conclusion is fatally flawed. I could care less what your ideology is, I simply point out that its obvious from what you have stated. Its important that you realize you have no right to title someone as a shame and embarrassment to the church as long as their views and beliefs do not harm the church or conflict with its teachings. Even then your on thin ice to make such a statement.
P.S. I am bored and if you are as good at critical analysis as you say you are you should be able to realize I use the same arrogance and attitude you display, GO FIGURE RIGHT?!
Anyway, no hard feelings, I am glad i ruffled your feathers, but rest assured despite my arrogant attitude, my accusations toward you are accurate and your claims are stupid. Glenn Beck may have the dumbest views in the human race, but he is not what you want to paint him to be. You are simply wrong. Good night
August 13, 2009 at 7:37 am
Have YOU actually watched Glen Beck?
August 13, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Well, I don’t know if she’s watched him, but she’s certainly elevated him to a deity status.
August 13, 2009 at 12:21 am
I’m a Mormon, and I’m sick and tired of hearing Glenn’s paranoia, racism, xenophobia and narrow mindedness. It makes us all look bad. Very few people, except those that think like him, would be attracted to the church, and quite frankly, we need no more association than we already have in our history with these things. He offends me in the greatest of senses, being a black member from an international country. He somehow thinks he’s the watchdog for America, the church and the constitution. I see very little difference in him, than i would a practicing KKK member. He is that bad, that its hard to reconcile, any of the things he should be (being Mormon), with how he thinks and expresses himself daily. I’m utterly ashamed that he is such a public face of what and who Mormons are. He needs to do better, or publicly leave, and save us the drama.
September 17, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Tonnie, you go get em tiger. Racism, paranoia and xenophobia? And you listed so much evidence too to back you up. And oh, the classic KKK label. Brilliant manuever. You did know didn’t you that the KKK was founded and manned by 90% Democrats? Yep, the Democrats lynched 3400 black people and the Democrats lynched 1400 white conservatives. You should be ashamed. You seem to have demonized a person without proof (bearing false witness) and then lied about what he does. Check that beam in your own eye Tonnie, it is large enough to block traffic.
August 13, 2009 at 12:45 am
Why are liberals so angry all of the time?
When someone says something to me I don’t agree with I don’t get angry. Call someone stupid? If I know I am right why do I need to add insult to their stupidity? You can’t make millions of dollars a year and be stupid. I’m sure somewhere there is a liberal commentator that makes … ok never mind. But if there was a liberal commentator making millions a year I wouldn’t call him stupid.
August 13, 2009 at 7:30 am
Why are liberals so angry all the time? I’m a liberal, and I’m not angry all the time. Why are conservatives paranoid all the time? When there is a Democrat in the white house, the number of militias, gun sales and ammo sales go up exponentially.
September 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm
So if you thought a socialist marxist communist type of person was in the white house, and they tend to remove guns from the citizens would you consider it paranoia to stock up?
I don’t have a gun but it makes logical sense that if you get one of the most radical leftists in office, which Obama is, then it might be a good time to stock up.
Paranoia? Nah, just some wise preparation is more like it.
August 13, 2009 at 2:41 am
David Murphy,
Why are liberals so angry all the time? Are you kidding me? You’re asking why liberals are so angry all the time and we’re talking about the angriest conservative commentator in the business?
Glenn Beck is not stupid. He acts stupid, because he knows he gets money by acting stupid. By acting angry. By riling up the crowd. By sowing contention and discord. This is his bread and butter. But, yes, you actually can make millions of dollars and still be stupid.
September 17, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Daniel, still waiting for either you are Guy to show actual facts on how Beck “acts stupid.” I have read your posts and Guys posts and I would not list them as intelligent responses. You spew the same tripe that the typical found-less liberal always spew. You make claims that you don’t back up and when you do you simply lie when presenting what you think is evidence.
So, here is your chance. Show how Beck is ANGRY. You listed him as the ANGRIEST CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR. Explain first if there is ever a good time to be angry, and then explain how Beck is angry at the wrong issues.
I assume you would agree that if your children were being raped you should properly GET ANGRY.
So, have at it. Use that non-stupid response of yours to make your case and prove your point.
August 13, 2009 at 2:50 am
Kumozarusan says:
Actually Glenn Beck is a documented liar. The ladies at the View proved that.
You continue:
But don’t you see, that’s his way out of responsibility for his otherwise hateful and vile words: it’s okay, I was only kidding. Really? Who kids about poisoning the Speaker of the House? And how is that an example of Christ-like living that you show Glenn Beck supposedly believes in living? Is it charitable to joke about poisoning the Speaker of the House? You note that charity is one of Glenn Beck’s supposed values. Is that what Christ really taught about charity?
No doubt about it. But that doesn’t excuse Glenn Beck. And by you trying to defend Beck by saying “but their racists too” tells me you agree that Glenn Beck is a racist.
Can you show this here please. Let’s see the exact quote.
August 13, 2009 at 9:17 am
Here’s what Elder Romney said, and his quote by president Johnson.
“We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:”
“We’re going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots.’” (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
http://aheavenlybanner.com/index.php?page=documents&did=3
or
http://www.ldsinfobase.net/liberty/MGR_66apr.html
August 13, 2009 at 9:20 am
I responded to you down below.
August 13, 2009 at 9:43 am
Also in response to Glenn Beck being a liar and being proved a liar on the view, I have this to offer:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/26163/
This is a video that came in Beck’s free email news-letter that was done by a private investigator it seems that shows that it was indeed Whoopi and Barbara Walters who lied, and Beck told the truth.
I listened to the clip that Whoopi used as proof to say Beck lied. At no point in the clip did he say “Walters approached him first.”
I re-emphasize my comment made earlier about going DIRECTLY to the source if you really want to understand something fully.
August 13, 2009 at 11:04 am
Actually Daniel, what I was arguing is that it seems to me that you and others are calling Glenn Beck a racist because he called a black man, president Obama, a racist. And no one ever answered my question. Would you call Beck a racist if he called a southern white member of the KKK a racist?
So going by those means of establishing some one as a racist (Glenn Beck, for calling Obama a racist) by calling someone else a racist, I could just as easily call you and others that are calling Glenn Beck a racist, racists. And then you could respond by calling me a racist, and I could respond by calling you a racist back because you called me a racist, and it’ll go on and on; and then suddenly some will throw a “I know you are but what am I” comeback in there, and we’ll all be back in grade school.
But that would just be silly wouldn’t it?
August 13, 2009 at 11:55 am
It would indeed. So let’s lay off calling people racists. Would you care to do so by calling on Beck to stop calling people racists?
September 17, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Oh my, you figure the ladies at the View were right and Beck was wrong? You certainly swallow the kool-aid hook line and sinker. I saw the view episode and happened to research what really happened. The view ladies were simply wrong on their facts. But I bet you did not even bother researching the details yourself because you have a foregone conclusion against Beck. Tsk tsk, you would come across much wiser and better informed if you worked on your research.
August 13, 2009 at 2:57 am
Jared writes:
Really? Glenn Beck just figured this out now? Where has he been? Congress has ALWAYS given itself a better deal than the rest of Americans.
That’s Senator Grassley of Iowa (a real dirtbag of a senator). In this clip he tells someone complaining about his lack of health care that if he wants good health care to go work for the government! Ha! Because of course what Senator Grassley himself gets is quite nice. Congress made sure of that.
August 13, 2009 at 11:46 am
Daniel,
You’re right, common knowledge, so much so, I didn’t mention it.
The difference this time is that government is moving into the non medicare arena in a big, big way—that is, unless the people speak out strongly.
August 13, 2009 at 6:50 am
As a member of the church I enjoy both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I don’t believe they’re engaging in “hate speech” as the author of the article has put it.
Beck and Limbaugh have pointed out that Obama has made racially charged statements in the past which may be coloring his judgment.
Two issues come to mind:
1. Where Obama calls his grandmother a “typical white woman” because she thinks a black man on the street is a thug.
2. Obama “steps in it” by pointing out that the Gate/Crowley issue was a clear example of racial profiling of blacks before hearing the facts of the case.
I believe that the Mormon church should distance itself from politics (and they do). However, I also believe that we don’t need anyone (including the author of this article) apologizing for Mormons everywhere on behalf of conservative radio/television.
We all have our own opinions. The author and mine (both Mormons) disagree. That’s o.k. It’s part of the American Democracy.
August 13, 2009 at 6:57 am
“The post Proposition 8 media spin has already harmed the Church’s image painting Mormons who stood for religious principle as propagating hate and intolerance and being on the fringe.”
I think this is perception. It was Hollywood who came out against the Mormon church on prop 8. Most news outlets didn’t spin the story that much (at least from what I read). Possibly this was local CA newspapers….
Nevertheless, you should never be ashamed of your opinion, or what someone else thinks of you. As a Mormon you should already know that by now….
Beliefs and opinions are strange beasts. They don’t have to be right or wrong to be held firmly. You should never be ashamed of them because of what someone else thinks. There will always be someone out there that dislikes you and your opinions/beliefs.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time”.
August 13, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Joseph, The national and international media were all over the Proposition 8 story pre and post election. The media I saw definitely spun Proposition 8 against the Church by portraying Mormons and hateful, bigoted, and spiteful in the way that redneck whites were to blacks during the civil rights movement in the 60’s.
I don’t know if you are implying that I am ashamed of my opinions re: Proposition 8 or of being Mormon. If so, I invite you to spend a little more time around this blog and read what I’ve written about Proposition 8.
August 13, 2009 at 7:25 am
Daniel #77
The View incident was actually analyzed independently by inventigative journalists at Breitbart and found that Glenn was actually right.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=352443
And you really can’t call someone a liar unless the honestly know the truth and they speak otherwise. Beck does not lie, just like Maddow or Olbermann don’t lie, he just tells things as he sees them. He may be wrong in your view, but he is still honest in what he says.
August 13, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I don’t know if the View incident proves Beck a liar or not. It does, however, confirm just how mean spirited he is in discussion and portraying others on his national radio show.
September 14, 2009 at 2:13 am
Guy is complaining about people being mean spirited? Are you reading your own comments on this very thread?
August 13, 2009 at 7:51 am
#31:
I don’t think Glenn purports that he is a model saint. I don’t think he is, but I admire his devotion to his faith. I’ve hung out with him in person and I know he is the real deal.
I have to admit, I’m very curious about what kind of calling a high-profile person like Beck has in his home ward/stake.
August 13, 2009 at 3:57 pm
He is a home teacher and a ward missionary.
August 13, 2009 at 8:11 am
So I just read the last third of this list and I can’t help but think that there are very few people posting here who are actually and truly trying to follow Christ’s teachings as they express their views. On both sides of the isle:
And others. Those who actually have an intelligent point of view and a respectful manner are being drowned out by those who are “yelling” at the opposite side.
How about stepping back from the attacks and the anger? Whether Glenn Beck is an embarrassment to Mormons or not, we are fast becoming embarrassments ourselves to our faith.
From President Hinkley:
From Elder Wirthlin:
Please let’s try to be more civil. Nothing at all worthwhile will be accomplished by generating anger and fomenting strife.
August 13, 2009 at 8:53 am
Glenn Beck either is talking about nothing he knows about or is lying through his teeth about the state of health care in the US and other countries. He said, on Aug. 10th,
“So, why is there no more discussion than there is on Sarah Palin and what she said over the weekend that there would be death, what did she call it, a death squad? Or a death, a death panel for her son Trig. That’s quite a statement. I believe it to be true….” Death panels? This is just a blatant lie. A big fat lie. At best it is deeply misinformed. He’s on TV, getting millions of dollars a year. He’s acting like he knows what he’s talking about. He’s either lying or just completely and totally incompetent.
Incidentally, the end of life counselling (aka death panels) were bipartisan until someone or other decided that “the government will kill your grandma” as, really, letting you choose your end-of-life treatment for yourself is only sensible.)
On July 15th he said “In Canada, there’s a lottery system that people have to apply to to see who gets to go to the doctor this month.” Again a lie, a complete lie. A lottery? What’s he talking about?
He had a health care special on Fox news on Aug. 11th, and again spent quite a bit of time on various batty rationing ideas (and got Hitler in, too) among them the imaginary idea that the babies had little worth, and included this lovely sentence that compares health care reform with the holocaust:
“And I want to say something: You know, we’ve said about the idea that, you know, it all starts out really well and this then goes awry. Germany went awry because of a couple of things. First, money — they ran out of money so they’ve got to make choices, tough choices. And then, crazy people.”
Health care reform = holocaust.
The is not reasoned debate on what a health care bill might mean, this is fantasyland plus cheap demogageury.
Plus, let’s not forget this tidy bit of anti-semitism from the same program: “There’s the complainer. These are four men. Notice how ugly they are. How some of them look rich or fat or whatever, maybe Jewish, maybe this one, I don’t know.”
Complainer Jews? Health care = holocaust? Irony meter going haywire.
Is it a wonder that people have started turning up at health care town hall meetings with loaded guns? Is it a wonder that Glenn Beck has asked his followers to not kill anyone? Is it a wonder that some find this whole spectacle an embarassment?
September 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm
It really depends on how you define what a death panel is. If you define the way Sarah Palin said and meant it, that eventually under a socialized health care plan that you end up with politicians coming up with polices as to who gets care when resources are short, which they always end up being, then the natural result is “death panels” or a group of politicians that decide how to limit the care. This is a proven fact in every nation that has social medicine. A blatant lie to suggest death panels? Absolutely not. It is simply reality. I suggest you read some of the writings of Ezekiel Ramh on board with Obama. He has a chart showing who is likely to be denied healthcare when the inevitable rationing starts to take place. Those less than 20 and those over 55 are the first to be denied healthcare. Sure sounds like a death panel to me.
September 17, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Sorry, meant to say Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm’s brother.
August 13, 2009 at 8:56 am
One of the sentences in the middle of my screed got scrambled. It should read:
Incidentally, the end of life counselling portion of the health bill (aka death panels) was bipartisan (letting you choose your end-of-life treatment for yourself is only sensible) until someone or other decided that “the government will kill your grandma” was a great talking point.
September 17, 2009 at 2:12 pm
djinn, I am pretty certain that if socialists knew that socialized medicine results in rationed health care that can lead to early deaths do to lack of treatment that they would not actually spell it out in the bill. If you assumed wrongly that Palin was saying that the words “death panel” were in the bill then that is your own foolish nature. However, the concept of boards of people choosing how to ration health care is not only factual and a possibility but it is an inevitability as is the case in every country that does socialized medicine. Sarah Palin told the truth and you simply do not understand what she was saying or you have done too little research to understand that death panels are a reality.
August 13, 2009 at 9:12 am
Kumozarusan,
Thanks for sharing the link to Romney’s talk. I don’t want to go too far on this side topic (though it is relevant to the whole debate over the merits of Glenn Beck’s attacks on Obama, seeing he calls him a socialist, communist, fascist, racist). As I read Romney’s talk, I was impressed that he gave clear definitions of socialism, but was highly disappointed that he did not give clear definitions of communism, thus allowing him to conflate the two at his will. Like I said, this is a minor point and a guy like Beck really doesn’t care how one defines socialism or communism, or what the actual differences are between the two; or even care about how socialism and liberalism differ (as they do differ quite greatly). It was sloppy on Romney’s part, and I hate to say that it was probably intentional. Thus when Romney talks about socialism in America, what he really means, in the ears of his listeners, is communism, even though the two differ greatly. And then when he talks about what President Johnson is doing, it is easy for him to call it socialism, but what he really means is communism, the dastardly evil of our time!
August 13, 2009 at 10:43 am
Actually, Elder Romney does define communism, and explain the difference between the it and socialism.
Here it is:
“Communism, starting point
The “Communist Manifesto” drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)3
The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)”
He also give’s dome other examples of other styles of socialism:
“George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:
“Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)2
George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, “a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.” (Ibid., p. 888.)
Socialism arose “out of the economic division in society.” During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against “the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.”
“German Socialism4
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.
Fabian Society5
In the 1880’s a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands “for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a ‘welfare state.’” Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim “at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party.” They appeal “to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.” (Ibid.)
Forms and policies of socialism
The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.
They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated public control.”
(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.
(3) “That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . .” (Ibid.)
So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.”
Elder Romney, as I can see, is not so much of an uneducated man as to
The key thing is that communism is a form of socialism.
According to the research I’ve done, and according to Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change”, a lot of the “isms”, i.e. communism, socialism, fascism, pragmatism, progressivism, and yes, to some extent even liberalism (not to be confused with “classical liberalism”), in so much that it strives for socialism, are all forms of “applied Marxism”. and if you look at the history of those countries that have accepted Marxist thought into their society and government, like China, Russia, Germany, Italy, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, and others, all of these countries became dictatoriships, or totalitarian regimes. Christ’s way, as emphasized by Elder Romney, and as seen in the scriptures he provides as proof, is of “free-agency”. I don’t think God would ever condone “dictatorships/totalitarian regimes because man’s “free-agency” dies away in those regimes.
I’ve been trying to research the difference between the communism and socialism for a while now, and to tell you truth, I hardly see too much difference between the two’s end goals-everything owned by the collective, with the state in control. I think the main differences is how this goal is achieved, as outlined by Elder Romney.
Seriously, socialism needs to be seen for what it is. It’s MAN’S way of reaching perfection and utopia (something that will never be reached without God’s influence), one that often emphasizes and leads to, ignorance of God and celebration of secularism and the state as the authority. It is based off of “take by force”, which God does not condone, according to Romney’s conference talk and the scriptures he provides as evidence.
And to say that Obama is a socialist, well I would have to agree with that sentiment. Some one who is a socialist is a person who has socialistic tendencies that permeate their thoughts and desires. Obama has demonstrated some of these tendencies already, by having a government take over of GM and the automotive industry and the banks. The state running private production.
Mussolini coined the term “totalitarian” and described it as thus, according to Jonah Golderg’s book “Liberal Fascism”:
“a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside” (pg. 14).
That sounds an awful a lot like what Obama and his administration is aiming at, and what many modern day liberals want as well, as evident when president Obama said to “Joe the Plumber”, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. And who is Obama saying should be in charge of spreading the wealth? The state, by means of tax.
So is Obama a socialist and an advocate of Mussolini’s definition of totalitarianism? Yes, I think so, in so much as he have socialist and totalitarian tendencies in his belief system and actually implements those into his administration and it’s way of governing. Is he a Mussolini? NO! If someone is a socialist, then that person’s a socialist. What matters after that is what area of the socialist scale does that person lie.
To truly know whether Obama is a socialist or not, you have to study and learn about what socialism is and what it advocates, and then see if Obama matches any of the requirements of being considered socialist, not just base your opinion off of what the mainstream view or definition of socialism is.
Again, I’m sorry for the length, and I know it’s a little sidetracked from Beck and his mormonism, but as you pointed out Daniel, it does relate to the main topic of the thread, seeing as Glenn Beck has supposedly called Obama a socialist.
August 13, 2009 at 10:47 am
Whoops, error correction:
I meant to write in there
”
Elder Romney, as I can see, is not so much of an uneducated man as to avoid defining the difference between communism and socialism. I really don’t believe that he would try to trick the people of the church into going on a crusade against something that really isn’t bad or worth avoiding. Remember, he was a leadr of the church called by God, and this was a conference talk, which doesn’t make it scripture, but it does make it somewhat trustworthy in my mind. If we cant trust the leaders of the church, especially the apostles and the members of the 1st Presidency, then who can we trust?
August 13, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I confess, I’m somewhat at a loss just exactly how socialism and communism fit into why Glenn Beck engages in the types of antics he does while denigrating and belittling people with whom he disagrees on his national radio show.
September 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm
The saddest and almost laughable part of people like Daniel is that they strain at gnats and swallow camels. Let me make it simple for you. When evil men take control of governments they rarely follow a menu that has been written down and become an exact copy of a previous mad man. Take Hitler for example. He is neither a pure marxist, socialist, communist or any other ist. He simply was his own brand of evil horrendous leader. What Obama is is unique to Obama. Call him an Obama-ist or whatever you choose. He is radical to say the least and as he stated in his book he sought out Marxist professors in college. Is he a true Marxist then? He was on the roles of Socialists in Chicago. Does that make him a pure Socialist then? He is ok with controlling banks and car companies, does that make him a Fascist? Frankly it is an idiotic red herring to wonder what label fits Obama the best. However this is certain. He is not mainstream American, he is very radical in nature, he has had a very bizarre past and upbringing, he hangs around with mostly radical fellows and he is leading this nation in the worst possible direction. But have fun chewin on dem camels, Daniel. But make sure you identify the exact sex, species, size and nature of those gnats that you spend your time on.
August 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
“…the dastardly evil of our time!”
Yeah. I don’t know why people go on believing that a hundred million or so murders is such a bad thing.
August 13, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hello, djinn…we meet again on the same topic, yet a different venue. As two patent attorneys, we have got to find some commmon ground we can agree on, right?
But alas, I feel a few of your statements need to be addressed. You wrote:
“Death panels? This is just a blatant lie. A big fat lie. At best it is deeply misinformed.”
Actually, in the first draft of the Health Care bill there were provisions for this type of thing. They have since been removed, but it makes you wonder who the people really are that wrote the original version (Ezekiel Emmanuel?)
You also wrote:
“Again a lie, a complete lie. A lottery? What’s he talking about?”
The lottery he’s referring to goes back to the “20/20″ John Stossel report I brought up previously with you. Stossel unconvered at least one city in Canada where a lottery system is used for the citizens to receive health care. It’s a prime example of too much demand and not enough supply. One doctor in a small city just cannot keep up with the demand, therefore, a lottery system has been implemented to randomly choose who will be seen by the doctor there.
Lastly, we need to quit branding everyone a “liar” who thinks differently that we do. Again, a liar is someone who knows the truth and blatantly says otherwise. Glenn Beck does not lie on TV or radio; just like Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann don’t lie on their venues. Do you really think these people would hold themselves out to discreditation so easily. They all have researchers that help them come to their conclusions. They simply report on things as they best see them. You may not agree with what they say, but they tell it like they see it.
August 13, 2009 at 9:57 am
Jeremy,
Huh? Where do you get this from? Do you have a copy of the first draft of the Health Care bill?
Yes actually, because being called a liar by a liberal is a winning mark for a conservative.
August 13, 2009 at 11:53 am
Kumozarusan,
I’m going to reply down here, if only because I like the numbering system where it is easier to reference to whom I am replying. Since this tangent is related to the topic, I’d like to pursue it slightly further. Guy can let me know if strays too far.
I’ll grant you that Romney does define communism in his own words. He then shifts back to show how socialism is no different than communism. And, right on cue, you state:
As if communism is a segment of socialism when in fact the opposite is the case. Socialism has communistic attributes, and thus is has a foothold in the communist world, and not the opposite as you state. Communism would be the completion of the proletariat movement, whereas a true proletariat would say socialism is communism lite. But, again, I’m of the belief that Marion Romney and the rest of the influential church leaders of the 1950s-1960s wanted to instill in Mormons at the time, and in the future, that socialism was worse than communism. The reason being that communism was not a threat to American life. No, the real threat came, in their eyes, from socialism. Thus, focus on that as the enemy.
First big mistake. Don’t listen to Jonah Goldberg. The man does not know what he is talking about. Liberal fascism? Please. Here’s a primer to understanding the labelism of right-wing thinkers. If they call a leftist something, it usually means that they are what they call the liberal person. Thus, for someone like Jonah Goldberg to call liberals fascists, it usually means that he is actually the fascist. Remember something when it comes to the historical revisionism that Goldberg would like you to believe. He works for the National Review. A right-wing paper. The National Review, which back in the 50s-70s gushed over right-wing dictators like Juan Franco. Here are two snippets from the National Review on the fascist dictator, Juan Franco:
Gotta love how they throw a kiss to Chiang Kaishek too, the nationalist, fascist Chinese dictator who failed to stop Mao’s rise. In terms of scholarly work, I doubt you will find a worse piece than Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.”
1. China – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
2. Russia – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
3. Germany – had democracy before Hitler, but it should be noted, the ones who were fighting Hitler the strongest in Germany were the communists. Strike that against your point.
4. Italy – I’m personally not familiar with Italy’s democratic history (never bothered to check).
5. North Korea – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
6. Vietnam – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
7. Cuba – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
8. Cambodia – never was anything but a dictatorship or totalitarian regime. So that one doesn’t count.
The only one that I have doubts on is Italy, and that is only because I haven’t researched its democratic history. Otherwise, in none of your examples was the introduction of Marxist principles a factor in that country’s rise to totalitarianism or dictatorship.
Did you read the Communist Manifesto? Did you read Das Kapital? (ps, ain’t it ironic that the individual who introduced us to the word “capitalism” was none other than Karl Marx himself?) The communism Karl Marx envisioned was not what we have seen anywhere in the world. Vladimir Lenin messed it all up and turned it into some form of totalitarianism. That’s not what Marx envisioned. Marx envisioned something much closer to the United Order where the population wanted a communal state out of their own desires, because they were so fed up with the inequality of a capitalistic system, they of their own free will, as an entire society would form an egalitarian state. Of course, one key factor was missing from what Lenin gave us: Marx envisioned the process to go from feudalism to capitalism to communism. No state on the planet has yet done that. Lenin perverted what Marx envisioned, thus we have yet to see Marxism. We see, instead, Leninism, vastly different than what Marx had envisioned. And of course, in the end, unsustainable.
No it’s not. Socialism states that governmental control must be placed within certain industries where capitalism simply fails to accomplish the job of managing the masses. Industries such as defense, for example. Those are state run. Roadways are another. Sewage and sanitation for the most part is another. I am of the belief that capitalism simply cannot handle providing health care for ALL the population, and as such, governmental control must be added in to ensure all are covered. Capitalism discriminates, naturally, against those who do not have money. That’s simply the underlying basis of capitalism. If you do not have the money, you cannot purchase what you desire. It works just fine with most things, because most of the items we use our money to purchase are really not that important. We really don’t need cars. We really don’t need televisions. But having those kinds of items keeps the economy going and expanding. However, the cost of individuals who cannot afford to pay for health related issues is not borne simply by the individual who cannot pay. Because as a society we have decided it is simply inhuman to allow an individual to die simply because that individual cannot pay for health care. Thus the cost is shouldered by society whether we choose to provide a pathway for that cost or not. If a hospital chooses to service someone who cannot pay them, who do you think the hospital sends that bill to in the end? After all, they have to stay afloat or the community is in peril if the hospital closes! The taxpayer eventually pays the bill anyways for individuals who otherwise cannot afford health care, because the society has already decided it is inhuman to allow that person to die. Capitalism cannot account for the taking care of such individuals. It simply does not have the mechanism to handle people who cannot pay. Thus other forces must be at work.
Obama is not a socialist unless every single American is already a socialist. You forget, very easily I see, that the government already runs private production: the military. Is not the military a governmental run organization? Why don’t we decry the socialist nature of a government run military, I ask. See, the question of whether to label something socialist or not depends on how much an individual or group of people benefit from that particular entity. You, Elder Romney, and the rest of conservatism don’t want to call the government run military a socialist organization because you benefit from it, thus you can’t vilify it with your dependable boogeyman label.
As for Obama managing GM’s bankruptcy path, I have to say it was masterful. Not only did it not add to the panic, but it allowed all peripheral businesses not to collapse for lack of business with a usual trading partner. As for the government owning a part of GM, frankly if I were shepherding a troubled corporation through bankruptcy and back into solvency, I too would want to protect that investment. Nothing to see here, dude.
What? I told you, listening to Goldberg will eat your brain cells dude.
What?!? Here is where you completely lose your argument. Obama does not argue for, nor believe in, the kind of system implemented by Mussolini (though to Mussolini’s credit, he got Italy’s trains to be on time—a true marvel!). Your only argument for this position is that Obama told Joe the Plumber that if you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody. That is just lame dude. How does tax reform in any way even come close to the definition of totalitarianism that Mussolini defined? How does it become a state where “everything was inside the state and nothing was outside?” That’s the key to a totalitarian state, dude. Your argument doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t even hold air.
I’m glad to hear that. Tell that to Mr. Beck
August 13, 2009 at 4:53 pm
OK, Daniel, I have no idea where you got your education, or anything about you except for what has been presented here on this blog.
Let me tell you a little bit about myself though before I get started. I am currently studying at BYU Provo, and am majoring in “Asian Studies”, primary emphasis being East Asia, and within East Asia, Japan. So I know a little something about Asia and it’s history and political history. I have also lived in East Asia as well, and have spent time both in Japan and the PRC (China).
So please, before arguing anything more about communism and socialism in Asia, please take a look at the following books.
1.) “Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of North Vietnamese Colonel”, by Bui Tin (the Colonel himself)
2.) “Still Life With Rice”, by Helie Lee-about her grandmother’s memoirs of her time in Korea (before it was divided), North Korea (after the division and the fall of the Japanese empire there), China, and America.
3.) “Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China”, by Jung Chang, about her grandmother’s experiences in imperial democratic, and communist China, as well as her mother’s and her own experiences in communist China.
Talk to any of the refugee survivors from communist Cambodia, Vietnam, China even, especially those who were deemed educated or capitalist or any other enemy of the communist regime during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and they will tell you the horror stories committed by the regimes who CALLED THEMSELVES COMMUNISTS and stemmed their beliefs from Marxist-Leninist thought, and talk about the cause of socialism being victorious, as Chairman Mao Tse-Tung said himself here:
“The force at the core leading our cause forward is Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.” (from the opening address at the 1st session of the First National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on Sept. 15, 1954)
“If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and it’s running dogs.” (from “Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight Against Imperialist Aggression”, Nov. 1948).
“The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause socialism cannot be victorious.” (Talk at the general reception for the delegates of the Third National Congress of the New Democratic Youth League of China, May 25th, 1957.)
All of these quotes are from Mao himself, and are taken from Mao’s Little Red Book, quotations from Chairman Mao, which are still plentiful in China today.
To say that China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Germany (East Germany during the iron curtain era specifically) and Cuba are not communist or socialist, but just dictatorships/totalitarian regimes is completely false. They WERE INDEED dictatorships/totalitarian regimes, but they were COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST totalitarian regimes, as you can find from the books I listed above. All are memoirs of people who actually lived and participated in the communist government of their country, with the exception of “Still Life with Rice”, whose woman the memoirs belong to did not participate in the government as an official.
The only not mentioned in those books is Cuba and East Germany. But I’m am sure we can find some books or articles on Cuba that say they are indeed a COMMUNIST form of government.
According to the state.gov website, Cuba is indeed a totalitarian communist state, whose main and only political party is the Cuban Communist Party.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm
According to this website, connected with the Library of Congress, East Germany’s politics were “Monopolized by Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands–SED), the communist party.” And seeing as all of these countries were Soviet satellites, that by default alone must make Russia a Communist totalitarian regime as well. But there’ substantial proof of that argument and is a well known fact by all scholars, so I’ll leave that to the individual to look up if he/she still remain in doubt about the Soviet Union being communist/socialist or not.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+gx0009)
You mentioned this:
“Gotta love how they throw a kiss to Chiang Kaishek too, the nationalist, fascist Chinese dictator who failed to stop Mao’s rise”.
First off there is so much more to the story of why Mao was able to rise to power over Chiang Kai Shek, so much info that I don’t remember all of what I learned in class, and it would take quite a while to do some reasearch on it. But one of the primary thing was Mao and his communists offered unification of all of China (China, during 1920s-1949 was in state of division with warlords ruling over each division. Sun Yat Sen did bring about the Chinese Nationalist Party which had it’s little stint in the 20’s and 30’s, but China was never fully unified until Mao took power in 1949…and even then that’s somewhat debatable. Mao offered liberation from foreign imperialists and unification, which was something the Chinese were dreadfully wanting. There’s other factors of course, as I already mentioned, but this was one primary reason. Shek would have continued to cooperate with the West, which Mao was not willing to do now that the Japanese were not in the picture anymore.
The same goes for Vietnam as well, and their hatred for their French colonizers, and their wanting to get the French(and Japanese) out of Vietnam. Do your history on these countries. I have. Did you know that Ho-Chi-Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence in his 1st independence speech in 1945 I think, after the Japanese left and before the French came back in…I don’t have my SE Asian history book with me, so I can’t look up the exact date. He wanted America’s help in liberating the French, and really even though he was a socialist and a communist, he wanted independence first for Vietnam, and then socialism would come over time.
Anyway, about Chiang Kai Shek. Yes, he was a nationalist.
definition of nationalist:
“a person who advocates political independence for a country : a Scottish nationalist.
• a person with strong patriotic feelings, esp. one who believes in the superiority of their country over others.”
And yes, he was a totalitarian dictator, but one who was vehemently opposed to socialism and communism, as was Syngman Rhee of South Korea in the 50s, and of South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem. Fascist? I don’t know about calling these men fascists. If you mean by the fact that they were opposed to socialism and communism and because they were totalitarian, that they are fascists, then I would have to disagree. I have already shown that a communist totalitarian regime can, has, and does exist.
So they must be fascists because they hate communism and socialism. Not quite so. Mussolini was the father of Fascism (again, according to Jonah Goldberg’s book, which I’ll get to in a second), and Mussolini was indeed a socialist. He joined the Socialist Party in 1900, and he said this of his own father, Alessandro:
“Alessandro’s ‘[h]eart and mind were always filled and pulsing with socialistic theories. His intense sympathies mingled with [socialist] doctrines and causes.’” (again, according to Liberal Fascism”, but actually said by Mussolini himself).
Mussolini also said this:
“We must create a proletariat minority sufficiently numerous, sufficiently knowledgeable, sufficiently audacious to substitute itself, at the opportune moment, for the bourgeois minority. The mass will simply follow and submit.”
Hmmm, his use of class warfare mentioning the proletariat and the bourgeois classes, and how the proletariat to over throw the bourgeois class. Sounds a lot like communist and socialist ideology to me.
And:
“I bequeath the republic to the republicans (no, not American’s republicans) and not the monarchists, and the work of social reform to the socialists and not to the middle classes.”
He also participated in founding the Fasci Di Combattimento in 1919, which drafted up this platform for their program. Look up the highlights of the program, because they might sound familiar to you and other left-wing liberals. It’s too long for me to type out completely. Here’s one example though.
A minimum wage, “The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal work day of eight actual hours of work for all workers”, etc.
Jonah Goldberg, from what I can see and have read of his book “Liberal Fascism”, is no poor scholar. He does everything that I have been taught by my professors and teachers both in high-school and college about how to write an argument. He uses plenty of primary sources, and actuals quotes from the actual people he talks about to prove his point that fascism is actually something born of the left, and not the right, and continues to be so. Just because he works or worked for a conservative magazine or paper, whatever it is, doesn’t mean he is a poor scholar or is full of poppycock and a loon. That just means you don’t agree with his political beliefs. And I said this earlier. If I am being taught wrong as to how to present an argument and back it up with credible, factual primary sources, then please tell my professors at BYU that they are teaching me the wrong things.
Have you actually read Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism”, or W. Cleon Skousen’s “The 5000 Year Leap”? It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with your preconceived political views or labels themselves a conservative or is seen as a conservative by others, you automatically dismiss their opinions and their research as shabby and unbelievable. You cannot fully understand something until you go DIRECTLY to the source.
And one more thing about people calling Obama a socialist. We first need to set about showing the Obama does indeed have socialist tendencies. If indeed we can say that he has socialistic ideaologies, then we can indeed call him a socialist, because that is how the English language works. the “ist”on the end makes that adjective (social) into a noun. Socialism in the dictionary is this:
“socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.”
And someone who believes in socialism is indeed a socialist.
And when you look up synonyms of socialism, look what you get:
“socialist
adjective
the socialist movement left-wing, progressive, leftist, labor, anti-corporate, antiglobalization; radical, revolutionary, militant; COMMUNIST; informal lefty, red. antonym conservative.
noun
a well-known socialist left-winger, leftist, progressive, progressivist; radical, revolutionary; communist, Marxist; informal lefty, red. antonym conservative.”
September 17, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Like I said already, Daniel is the type that strains at gnats and swallows camels. He huffs and puffs to make sure that you understand that socialism is not part of communism but communism is part of socialism. Good grief, they are both evil, who knows who is who in what game they play. They are both evil and your dear Obama is showing shades of Marxist, Socialist, Communist, National Socialist and Fascist. And you are worrying about what the best label to apply to him. Tell me, what was Satan politically? I bet you think you know. I don’t care what political label best suits Satan but I do know that he has quite a long list of false paths that you can say. As the scripture says, straight is the gate and narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and truth. But guess how large the path that leads away is? Broad. And Obama is on the broad path and you are worrying about what label to assign every possible direction in that broad path away from truth and light. Again, enjoy swallowing the camel and swatting at the gnats.
August 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm
aww, look at that, just yesterday, Glenn Beck compared Obama to Adolf Hitler
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908120017
How nice.
September 17, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Really Daniel. Is that the quality of your reporting? He said read Mein Kampf and learn from past errors. Sounds like you have this thing against Beck so badly that you find error in him simply over a choice of words. Apparently in your mind Obama can do no wrong and there is no proper way of criticizing him. What a shame. We can’t use past books of past bad leaders. So I guess when he does something wrong we should use books about good leaders and say how his wrong stuff is like the good leaders. Of course that tact makes no sense, but that is what you are saying. You are a solid kool-aid drinker for sure.
August 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Guy,
First of all, I am not a Mormon. However, I find the views expressed here very interesting. The biggest problem in my view is that your blog is filled with partisan politics and not with the word of God. So I must ask the question, does the Mormon Church support a specific party or orientation (liberal or conservative?), hopefully not.
The church I attend teaches the biblical values & principles and does not steep to the level of partisan politics. However, in reading God word, I find it to be of a conservative nature. In reading your, as well as Daniel’s responses, I am surprised that you are part of the Mormon faith given your self proclaimed “liberal progressive” persuasion. The Mormon Church I know is all about family & children and about late term abortions as our current liberal progressive government supports. I am not sure how you could ever reconcile your liberal progressive views with the bible we all are reading.
Lastly, your views on this blog in my mind are more of an embarrassment to the Mormon faith than Glenn Becks. I have several Mormon friends and most of them care deeply about Glenn Beck and does not view him as an embarrassment of your faith. Please, do not confuse conservative biblical values with the Republican Party, because they are not interchangeable as much as you would like to do so.
Matt
August 13, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Mind if I answer this?
Officially the LDS Church does not favor any political party and tries very hard to remain politically neutral. That said, we and our leaders are all very imperfect people and occasionally stray from that ideal. But we try.
However, for a number of reasons the vast majority of members within the Church ascribe to the conservative side of the political spectrum. And so as a result there is a leaning towards the GOP by simple wealth of numbers.
Nonetheless, there are people such as myself who do not lean to the right. I personally am more of a centrist. It is my belief that neither the left or the right have a lock on the truth, and they both have ideas worth listening to. But I am only willing to listen if it is a civil discussion and not a name-calling rant such as I’ve been reading on this blog (from both sides).
As I wrote earlier, please let’s be more civil here.
August 13, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I disagree. The Church is a world wide Church. In that context the vast majority of Church members do not ascribe to American conservative political ideology (such as it is in 2009). I do agree that neither the political left or right do not have a lock on the truth. Not even the Church makes that claim.
Finally, James, I’ve read every single comment on this thread, and while I agree some comments have been sharp, with the exception of perhaps a few, most do not even come close in approaching the level of vitriol spewed out by Glenn Beck daily on his radio show.
Nevertheless, I agree that civil discourse is better than simply calling others names.
August 14, 2009 at 7:42 am
You are right, I should have been more clear by saying that the vast majority of Church members IN THE US ascribe to the conservative side of the political spectrum. Sorry about that.
And I also agree that none of the comments on this thread are anywhere close to Beck’s diatribe. As you may notice, I’m the same “James” above who had written:
September 14, 2009 at 2:25 am
“most do not even come close in approaching the level of vitriol spewed out by Glenn Beck daily on his radio show”
I listen to Glenn’s show almost daily. You’re a liar, plain and simple. I would say you’re just ignorant, but when someone is ignorant and knows they’re ignorant (even subconsciously, as I’m sure you do) but makes a statement as though it is fact, they are not telling the truth.
August 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Here’s the Church’s official statement on political neutrality.
August 13, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with this
August 14, 2009 at 7:44 am
As do I. It is the only true position to have for a religion that teaches everyone to love your neighbor.
August 13, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Daniel,
Are you saying that “communist thought” had nothing to do with the horrific purges of the 1930’s? What empowered the purges was an *ideology* based in Marxism. The end result, though, is that one totalitarianism merely replaced another. And primary point that we should learn from this tragedy is that Marxism is functionally untenable.
August 13, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Sorry,
“The primary point…”
August 13, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Jack,
Which purges are you talking about? In which country?
August 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm
There were provisions in (well, there’s lots of bills) for people to discuss end of life issues and make a living will if they so desired. These aren’t death panels. To use that phrase is so incredibly wrong that “lie” seemed the only appropriate word. And, as I said, facilitating living wills was a bipartisan idea. Republicans were for it. Are you against living wills?
As to calling someone a liar, when someone make blatant lies they should be called on it. Especially when about 6 million people are listening and don’t realize that the information they’re getting is a long way from the truth.
Oh, as to that ‘lottery’ remark, Glenn Beck presented it as if it had something to do with the Canadian health care system, rather than the difficulty of finding primary care physicians (not all health care providers) willing to work in one tiny town in Canada in the middle of nowhere.
Compare and contrast with the state of North Dakota, where fully 2/3rds of the counties are medically underserved. One lottery in one small town (of just over 4000 people) is pretty thin sauce to prove that Canada can’t deliver health care.
As to those “death panels,” Sarah Palin was for them (in 2008) before she was against them.
“WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions.”
August 13, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Kumozarusan,
Okay dude, I think you misunderstood my post. I guess here in America, I must do the obligatory “communists did horrible stuff” before I can actually debate. It’s rather silly, but here you go. Communists from Lenin on did some pretty dumb things that cost the lives of gazillions of people. Now that that is out of the way, can we discuss the philosophical issue at hand?
As to my education, I got my bachelors in International Politics from BYU, focusing on nationalism.
Now, on to the quotes from Mao. They perfectly illustrate my point and it seems you don’t even notice it. He states that he follows “Marxism-Leninism,” attributing that he doesn’t really follow Marxism, but the corrupted form that Lenin fomented. And truthfully, Mao corrupted Marxism further by believing that a true revolution could be done by peasants, rather than workers, far from what Marx originally envisioned. Like I asked earlier, did you ever actually read the Communist Manifesto? Have you done any serious study as to the evolution of communism from Marx to Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin to Mao to Fabianism to the rest? I recommend you do if you wish to understand communism better.
Here you totally misunderstood what I said. Let me review for you. You said:
thus implying that in each of your examples, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes came AS A RESULT OF the introduction of Marxism into their society. I merely refuted your claim that the introduction of Marxism into their societies CAUSED those societies to turn into dictatorships or totalitarian regimes. In all but two of those examples, those countries were all already run by dictators or totalitarian regimes. Germany was a democracy that had elected a fascist, nationalist by the name of Hitler. Italians had a fascist nationalist Mussolini. So keep your pants on dude.
Let me help you. It’s not as hard as you portray. Chiang Kai Shek was highly corrupt, rich upper class guy who oppressed the poor peasant. Quite easy for Mao to take advantage of the situation and get the poor peasant class on his side. Kind of ironic for a nationalist like Kai Shek, he was too close to foreign powers, beloved by the Brits and the Americans. He also failed to stem the tide of Japanese incursions in the late 30s and early 40s, whereas Mao was a true guerrilla to the Japanese.
Yep. One of the sad moments in American history. Our relationship to the French was more important than some “yellow” in the Orient. Yes, we were rather racist in our past, and that included racism against “Orientals.”
*shakes head* you DID lose some brain cells. At least check wikipedia for the common knowledge that Mussolini was anti-communist. I mean, com’on, this isn’t hard. Yes, Mussolini was a member of a Marxist movement in his younger years, but please, be honest with us, dude, he left them over disagreements and fought them the rest of his life. He went from one extreme to the other.
Yes, actually he is. I’ll let the New York Times book reviewer share how poor a scholar Goldberg is:
Exactly!
Really? Your professors in both high school and college told you to avoid evidence that obliterates your main thesis? See, in Goldberg’s case, it is simple: if fascism is a “liberal disease” then only Democrats would be contagious. But when Goldberg refuses to even delve into whether Republican presidents did anything fascistic, he is undermining his own research. He does nothing to answer the question of what happened in the 1920s, 1950s, 1980s and 2000s when Republicans were in charge. He fails to do this because doing so WOULD UNDERMINE his thesis. This is what professors taught you to do?
No matter how much Jonah may scream this from the rooftops of the world, it just is not factually true. Fascism has ALWAYS been a right-wing phenomenon. Always has, always will. Because fascism is tied to nationalism, to those who praise the nation, the imagined community. Communists believe, quite differently, that the state, the nation, the imagined community should not be just the local group/nation, but rather the whole world. That is except, of course, Stalinists. Communists were fundamentally at odds with fascists in how they viewed the state. Always had been, always will be.
That he is full of poppycock and a loon is not because he writes for the National Review. He just is full of poppycock and is a loon. However, he writes for a journal that has a history of praising fascist leaders. He doesn’t mention that in his book, does he?
I admit to not reading Goldberg’s book. I don’t need to. I know crap when I see it. As for Skousen, I have not read The 5000 Year Leap, but I have researched his other book (the title escapes me now) where he “exposes” the secret combination run by the Rockefellers. And let me tell you, that is among the silliest things I’ve ever read.
Which you and Beck still fail to accomplish. Sorry dude.
August 14, 2009 at 1:11 am
Quite frankly Daniel, I’m not going to argue much longer with someone who will not look, even with an un-opened mind, directly at the source we are arguing about. You cannot base your so-called “facts”, even those about Jonah Goldberg being full of poppycock and a loon, off of some review (again, a secondary source…I’m not sure what your professors at BYU taught you about making an argument) that was most likely done by a liberal author, and was done for an overwhelmingly liberal organization (The New York Times). I did look over the article you provided. I didn’t read it in great detailed, but I skimmed over it for the basic drift of the article. I’m tired of reading because I’ve been reading most of the day, but if you want me to read over it again, I’m willing to do so, unlike you. I’ve tried to be civil with you, something you haven’t always been willing to grant back to me when writing to me. And I don’t know you nor do you know me, so please stop calling me “dude”.
As for your argument about Goldberg skipping over the 1920’s, the ’50s, the ’80s, and the ’90s, well Woodrow Wilson’s presidency ended in 1921, and seeing as the rest of the ’20s had presidencies by Republican presidents (Yes, as I mentioned before, Goldberg is arguing that fascism is a thing born of the left, and because most democrats claim to be left of center, then yes, it will be mostly democrats who have fascist tendencies, but not always…conservatives too can have left-wing ideologies). Also the 50’s had Republican presidents as well, save Truman who went until 1953. The 80s as well had a Republican president as we all know. So it really makes no sense as to why he would cover those decades if they have very little relevance to his thesis. His book isn’t titled “the late 1800’s to 2009, including every year of each decade”. He doesn’t have to cover those decades if they have no relevance to his arguments.
Please enlighten me as to why not covering the Republican presidencies of the 20s, 50s, 80s, and 90s would UNDERMINE his thesis? How would they if he IS arguing that Fascism is something of the left? And If you are going to mention prohibition, let us remember that that was President Wilson who helped usher that in, in 1919, well ratified in 1919, but put into effect in 1920. Remember his presidency didn’t end till 1921.
That is exactly why his argument is so controversial, especially to you. It goes against everything you have been taught or believe, what “history” says, “as far as we know” (and I put “history” in parentheses because history can be falsified or re-written to be something that it isn’t or wasn’t, even though the true facts quite often remain for people to discover), or have preconceived notions on. That’s why he wrote the book. To inform people of not too well known history.
You know, quite a bit of my evidences have been primary sources, actual quotes from the people we’ve been talking about, except for a few which have been secondary sources, yet “credible” secondary sources, like those from the library of congress website. I’ve paid attention to the evidences you’ve provided, some of which have indeed been false, like when you claimed the View ladies proved Beck was a liar. Maybe you didn’t see mine and someone else’s proof of him not lying to the view ladies, or maybe you did but chose not to comment.
And actually, YOU misunderstood what I said. This is what I said my professors in high-school and college taught me.
“He uses plenty of primary sources, and actuals quotes from the actual people he talks about to prove his point that fascism is actually something born of the left, and not the right, and continues to be so.”
The use of primary sources, especially actual quotations from the people the argument is about as proof for my arguments; “words from their mouthes”, not mine. We even had a Japanese scholar come to one of my Japanese history classes at BYU and claim the same thing, saying that he thinks that American historians focus too much on secondary and tertiary sources when it comes to making arguments in historical essays.
I never said or indicated that I was taught to “avoid evidence that obliterates your [my] main thesis”. In fact I was taught just the opposite. But that is your OPINION, and others’ opinion as well, of what Jonah Goldberg does, and you have unjustly lumped that onto me as well. And your OPINION, no matter how much you might think so, is not FACT! If we are going to talk about “avoiding evidence that obliterates your main thesis”, then why don’t you follow your own advice and post a review of someone that does feel Goldberg is a good scholar, and let us compare the two arguments. But, as you have accused myself and Goldberg of doing, you have also failed to do so as well, because posting something that would make Goldberg look like a good scholar, and make his book “Liberal Fascism” look like a well researched book would UNDERMINE your thesis. And I can predict what you might say. “But Goldberg isn’t a good scholar, [again as if your opinion is fact], so how can I find something like that, let alone say something like that. He is a loon and that’s just he way it is.” I could be wrong about this prediction, but judging from what you have written about the man, I don’t think I’m wrong.
And guess what I’m now going to do? I’m going to criticize Goldberg and his book “Liberal Fascism”…surprise!
I don’t like that Goldberg stated in his book “I have tried not to clutter the book with citations, but I have included
quite a few explanitory-or discursive-notes. Readers curious about other sources and further reading should consult the website for this book, http://www.liberal-fascism.com.” (pg. 24) I wish Goldberg had put more citations in, because in my opinion, it would only make his book more believable, and it would make it easier to find out exaclty where he is getting some of the quotations of Mussolini, Hitler, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wislon, and many many others that he provides as evidences, so that we the reader don’t have to do too much additional research. But that doesn’t’ mean he does not include any citations for he does.
But in his defense, he does clue the reader into this: “I have tried to be fair to the academic literature, though this not an academic book.” (pg. 23).
Enough about Goldberg. Let’s move onto communism…not literally though. In this country, as well as the rest of the world, nobody has experienced anything BUT horrible stuff when it comes to communism, like “some pretty dumb things that cost the lives of gazillions of people”, because that is all the world has been exposed to, in the name of “Communism”. No wonder people are a little leery of it.
Like you said, no country on this planet has ever attained the communism Marx and Engels envisioned, and as far as I can see, is unattainable, without the influence of the Lord (Enoch’s and Melchizedek’s (sp?) Zion society), if indeed it is so similar to the united order as you claim. Marx had this to say in his “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:
“The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
It sounds to me that Marx doesn’t think there is too much room for religion in the “real” world of “reason” and that religion is just an illusion, something man creates to revolve himself around when he is not revolving around himself, or humanity. It this is indeed true, then it seems to me that if there is no room for God in a utopian society, then it must be an experiment of man, designed and implemented by man, which if there is no God, there will never truly be perfection and utopia, as you and I both already know from our experiences in the secular world.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
Thus because there has never been a communist society as Marx envision, we really can’t base communism off of that can we, because it has never been achieved. The next best thing we are able to look at then is the “communist societies” that have existed in our world, societies claim communism and Marxism, and that base their “communism” off of Marx’s and his ideologies.
I am going to admit right now that I have not read all of the “Communist Manefesto”, only part of it, but I intend to to read it in full very soon, so as to fully inform myself and truly understand what I am defending myself against (again, something you refuse to do with Goldberg’s book and Skousen’s book, yet are so intent on arguing about anyway. Need I mention that 95% of Skousen’s evidences come in the form of actual quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the creators and ratifiers of the Constitution?).
I also have not read Das Kapital, but do intend to read it and understand it very soon.
And now for Mao. You claim this:
“Now, on to the quotes from Mao. They perfectly illustrate my point and it seems you don’t even notice it. He states that he follows “Marxism-Leninism,” attributing that he doesn’t really follow Marxism, but the corrupted form that Lenin fomented. And truthfully, Mao corrupted Marxism further by believing that a true revolution could be done by peasants, rather than workers, far from what Marx originally envisioned. Like I asked earlier, did you ever actually read the Communist Manifesto? Have you done any serious study as to the evolution of communism from Marx to Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin to Mao to Fabianism to the rest? I recommend you do if you wish to understand communism better.”
Mao followed Marxism-Leninism. But guess who’s name is still in the formula; Marx’s, which means that Marxist thought is still involved, even though Leninist thought is also thrown into the mix. You can’t eradicate Marxist thought from the formula, because Lenin had to start somewhere, had to have some influence from something. It if were completely Leninist thought, then it would be called “Leninism”, instead of lumping Marxism in with it. And if you don’t like that quote, which you don’t seem to, how about this one?
Mao: “As we used to say, the rectification movement is ‘a widespread movement of Marxist [MARXIST] education’. Rectification means the whole party studying Marxism through criticism and self-criticism. We can certainly learn more about Marxism in the course of the rectification movement.” (Speach at the Chinese Communist Party’s National Conference on Propaghanda Work, March 12, 1957, taken again from “Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung”, AKA the “little red book”.
Here Mao is calling for the study of only Marxism, with no Leninism attached to the end.
You are right that both Lenin and Mao created new different forms of communism, something different, yet very much similar to Marx’s communism I’m sure, being that their work was grounded in Marxist thought. That is why China calls their party the Chinese Communist Party, because it has a chinese touch added to it. No matter how much you don’t like it, or how much you don’t want to believe it, Mao and Lenin were grounded in Marxist thought. It’s where they started, and added on.
You also say:
“And truthfully, Mao corrupted Marxism further by believing that a true revolution could be done by peasants, rather than workers, far from what Marx originally envisioned.”
What are peasants but “workers” of the land? Like I said, I haven’t read all of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, nor his Das Kapital, so I can’t argue too much about what Marx considered a “worker”. But peasants are workers too, workers of the land. They were the bottom rung of society during Mao’s time, even though during imperial China they were actually on the top level of society along with the scholars and officials, whereas the merchants were at the bottom of the scale, the slime of society, according to Confucian belief. So indeed, in terms of class, the peasants, or the workers of the land, were originally in the upper levels of society, part of the bourgeois level one might say, even though they didn’t always register on that level economically, but rather socially.
At that era in China, during the 20s, 30s, and 40s, there wasn’t too much industrialization going on, not compared to Western Europe and the United States at least, and only a little bit in the bigger cities like Beijing and Shanghai. So there really wasn’t a proletariat as Marx knew and envisioned present in China, at least not one that is comparable to the proletariat in Europe. The closest thing China had was it’s peasants, or it’s workers of the land. The land was China’s industrialization, and the workers were the peasants, whereas the upper strata of society, the bourgeois, were the landlords one could say.
And as for nationalism, well let’s look at the definition again in the dictionary:
Nationalism: a. Advocacy of or support for the interests of one’s own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination
You claim that Chiang Kai Shek was a naitonalist, but what about Mao? He wanted the foreigners out of China and a unified China under his control much more than Chiang did, as evident by his being a “true guerilla to the Japanese” as you indicated. I already gave proof for this, but I’ll give it again:
“If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism [imperialism!] and it’s running dogs [ the foreign Western and Eastern powers].” (from “Revolutionary Forces of the World Unite, Fight Against Imperialist Aggression”, Nov. 1948).
Mao also failed to fend off the advancing Japanese, and from what I can remember, tried much harder than Shek to do so, but he tried none-the-less to keep them out, and keep China for itself. How is that not nationalism?
This is my last argument with you on this topic. I’ve spoken my peace, and so have you, and obviously there’s no way I’m going to convince you any further, and you haven’t and probably won’t convince me of anything further, so I’m going to stop here, and let the other readers decide where they stand. It’s been an interesting argument though.
August 14, 2009 at 3:25 am
Kumozarusan,
The only thing I’ll say in conclusion is that I did approach Goldberg’s book with an open mind. The moment I saw how ridiculous his premise was, my mind closed because I know crap when I see it. Sorry that I just don’t let crap into my mind, but I’ve learned long ago that crap smells pretty badly and I don’t want it in my head.
And yes, you ought to take an English class while you are still there at BYU that will help you learn better how to form arguments, including how to make sure that any detrimental arguments are covered by your work. Goldberg is a terrible scholar because he refused to cover the Republican presidents to make sure to prove that no Republican president shared any fascistic tendency. See, Republican presidents have indeed had fascistic tendencies, far more frequently than Democratic presidents. And that is because fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. If Goldberg were to actually cover Republican presidents, his readers would come away with this conclusion because the evidence is overwhelming. Because Goldberg refuses to even talk about any Republican president, his research and scholarly work is poppycock bunk, crap. Thus unworthy of entering my mind.
I also recommend taking a comparative politics class. I don’t know what they offer these days at BYU, but those classes rocked.
August 14, 2009 at 4:32 am
By the way, Kumozarusan, don’t take my word that Goldberg’s work is poor scholarship. Why don’t you ask your professors what kind of grade they would give his work if he turned that in as his graduate thesis.
August 14, 2009 at 7:48 am
While I agree with Goldberg on his conclusions, I agree that his book isn’t the best on the subject. “The Forgotten Man,” by Amnity Schlaes – a CFR scholar – is my preferred for showing the fascistic tendendies of the progressive leadership during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations during The Great Depression.
August 13, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Guy, have to disagree with you on this one.
I haven’t heard/read everything that Beck has said on the president, but I think Beck is close to the mark on this one, that Obama is more of a racist than a “post-racial” man. I believed that from early on, and the Gates affair cinched it. (Or is the saying “clinched it”?)
And from what I have heard from Beck’s mouth, I agree with him on more things than I disagree.
Personally, I think Beck’s stance on the issues in general, and on Obama in particular, are in line with the LDS members I know.
IMNSHO, Obama is a lightweight incompetent demagogue, sort of along the lines of Carter. I hope 2010 will be like 1994, and we can get some grown-ups back in charge of the House of Representatives.
August 13, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Grown-ups like Tom DeLay and his Abramoff cronies? You really do live in an alternate reality, Bookslinger.
Obama was lightweight and incompetent enough to go against the Clinton machine and then face down the Republican dirty tricksters, all while keeping to the high ground.
As for demagoguery, it’s hilarious that Obama is the first person to come to your mind in a thread about our modern-day Father Coughlan, Glenn Beck, as big a demagogue as can be found these days.
For goodness sake, Obama is still trying to reach out to people like Chuck Grassley, who have forfeited any pretense of negotiating in good faith.
August 14, 2009 at 7:45 am
Yeah, I don’t believe Obama is that incompetent except, maybe, in his PR. His campaign was brilliant and his gobbling up of power as president was not dumb luck either.
As for making this a partisan argument, I don’t think anyone who follows Beck is going to follow you into that thicket. If you like Beck, you’re also likely to believe BOTH PARTIES are to blame for where we are today, with ridiculous debt and budget deficits and a federal government that wields entirely too much power.
September 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Obama reaches out to the other side? Good laugh Bill, thanks for the hilarious joke. BTW, did you that Abramoff had quite a few Democrat clients too? I bet you know but would not care to understand.
August 13, 2009 at 9:33 pm
A few years ago, while trying to find work after being layed off my “real job”, I attempted (and failed) to sell frozen steaks, chicken and seafood as I drove a refrigerated truck to whatever location seemed to strike my fancy. On an early training day, driving with my trainer, I listened to my first Glenn Beck radio show, knowing he was LDS, and hoping for the best.
After about 15 minutes or so of listening to Mr. Beck, my trainer turned to me and said, “he’s a little high-strung, isn’t he?”
I agreed, and I was happy to change the station to something a little more ear-friendly. I think we ended up at NPR.
September 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm
NPR is very ear friendly. I was in the US military and we were trained on propaganda. The best propaganda was the easiest on the ears. Tokyo Rose and all her counterparts were chosen specifically because she was easy on the ears, kind of sexy, and sounded non-threatening. I am certain that Satan himself did not go about yelling and screaming his lies. When he suggested that Christ cast himself off of a cliff I doubt he was in your face “just do it man” sort of a thing. It was more of a quite suggestion, in order to make it tempting. Again, to worry about how ear friendly a person is seems to be more like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. But then, John the Baptist was known as a bit high strung too no doubt, yelling in the wilderness and all.
August 13, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Glenn Beck’s reasons for believing that Obama (a half white man raised almost entirely by white people, and in, for a large part of his life, an overwhelmingly white place) seems to be “the voices in my head told me so.” What evidence is there that Obama is racist? What has he done to deserve this judgment?
August 14, 2009 at 7:41 am
Listen to his 20-minute explanation. I’ve linked to the YouTube videos of it a couple times in the comments above.
September 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
1) Obama said in his book that he learned to not trust white people early on.
Obama tended to support almost exclusively during his career programs that were intended primarily to help black people.
2) Obama said that it was typical of white women to fear blacks and things there were unfamiliar with.
3) Obama early mentors were primarily black, as he stated in his books.
4) Obama attended a black supremacy church for twenty years, with the main sermons being anti-white, anti-jew
5) During early speeches getting into the Senate Obama would often say that white urban people did not want to donate to help inner city black children
6) During his presidential run Obama made a point of playing the race baiting card saying that white people would not vote for him because he looked different from the other (white) presidents.
7) More recently Obama, claiming that he did not know the facts, sided with the black harvard professor calling the white cops stupid
These are just a few examples of why Obama appears to be a racist. Yes, Obama seems very much to be a racist and if I were to rewrite the list above inserting Bush and replacing black with white djinn, Guy, Daniel and most blacks would call Bush an extreme racist.
August 14, 2009 at 4:58 am
Jon Stewart shows the inconsistency and lies that Glenn Beck uses on health care. See, in 2009, Beck thinks our health care is the best in the world. But that’s not what he thought in 2008 when he had to get health care. The man is a natural liar. He works for Fox after all.
August 14, 2009 at 7:40 am
Just because Glenn thinks healthcare in the U.S. is the best in the world, doesn’t mean he thinks it’s perfect. But, the facts speak for themselves: When rich, powerful people in other countries need urgent care, they don’t usually rush to the nearest country with socialized healthcare. No, they come the U.S.
On the other hand, just because he had a bad experience and witnessed, firsthand, how bad healthcare CAN be, doesn’t mean he feels that the government being more involved can make it better.
August 14, 2009 at 8:25 am
They come here because our insurance companies are a bunch of whores who do anything for money. Last time I checked, the money litmus test wasn’t supposed to rank our importance as individuals.
September 17, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Jon Stewart the comedian is your news source Daniel? Figures. You and Guy are that far out of touch with reality.
August 14, 2009 at 11:22 am
Doran,
“The Forgotten Man?” Yet another revision of history? Roosevelt was no fascist. Neither was Hoover. Neither was Coolidge, nor Wilson, nor Truman, nor Eisenhower, nor JFK, nor Johnson, nor Nixon, nor Ford, nor Carter, nor Reagan, nor Bush Sr., nor Clinton. The only one you might start to see fascistic tendencies in is George W. Bush. Obama certainly is no fascist. By attempting to water down and redefine its true meaning, the likes of Goldberg defuse the power of the word fascist. A real fascist is truly a bad individual. It will eventually get to a point where these words no longer have actual meaning because they are thrown around so much.
As for Forgotten Man, I find it funny that one of the families Ms. Shlaes tries to portray as a victim of Roosevelt’s dastardly fascism, the Schechter family voted for Roosevelt in every election. Doh!
Doran, I recommend you tell people like Jonah Goldberg to simply stick with the truth and avoid lies, avoid distortions and misrepresentations. It will be more sustainable in the long run.
September 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Hitler was no Hitler either, until given the chance. Obama is heading towards a lot of very nasty “isms”. Some day they may refer to others as Obama-ists. Again, Daniel loves to strain at gnats and swallow camels. You want to debate properly Daniel? Then you go through what Obama does line by line and determine if it is a wise governmental approach. Taking over banks, bad, taking over car companies, bad, taking over health care bad, taking over energy bad, etc, etc. He is the worst president that we ever had. And Daniel picks up the smelly red herring and makes sure that you are diverted from the real issues. Beck is not president for example but Guy and Daniel want to keep the discussion about Beck in order to deflect the fact that Obama is an idiot kid president leading towards isms of every negative flavor.
August 14, 2009 at 11:26 am
Daniel, I’m going to respond to one more thing that you said, but nothing to do with communism or socialism or Goldbergs work (in great detail anyway).
you said:
“By the way, Kumozarusan, don’t take my word that Goldberg’s work is poor scholarship. Why don’t you ask your professors what kind of grade they would give his work if he turned that in as his graduate thesis.”
I will do just that. But keep in mind that Goldberg himself said in his book (I have already provided the quote in one of my above paragraphs) that it is not an academic book. Thus, it cannot and should not be judged entirely according to the world of academia. Thus, what my professors say about it, be it good or bad, cannot be applied completely to the book.
Also, about showing it to my professors. You most likely know as well as I do that professors have differing opinions about what is good and what is bad, what is effective and what is not, and what is necessary and what is not. If you never saw that at BYU, then I’d suggest taking some linguistics classes there if you ever go back, particularly those that cover language acquisition and TESOL methodology. Yes, I am a TESOL minor, so I know a lot more about the English language than you might think I do. I have have been involved in a wide variety of fields during my schooling years, and have taken a wide variety of courses (yes years. No I am not a freshman, sophomore, nor even a junior or even just a regular senior. I have taken my time in school, and have thus been there for a number of years and have had the chance to have many different experiences in many different fields of study. But I have never ever not been a full time student). And all of those professors in those different fields of study have their own opinions and ideas about what is good/bad, effective/ineffective, necessary/unnecessary. Sure they are bound by their department to teach “certain things” as the minimum that has to be done. But even department requirements differ as well, especially because different fields of study differ.
And about English classes: I have taken SEVERAL English classes, and have been trained in formulating arguments, not only from those English classes I have taken, but also from the many history courses I have taken as well.
As far as I have seen from our little discussion, you have failed to follow your own advice in offering counter-arguments that might undermine your ideas and arguments about Beck, but have offered only things that have supported your and other’s opinion about Beck, as I think we all have at times. And you have offered arguments as if they they were fact, without backing them up with any source, be they credible or not, because it seems that in your mind, and with what you might have been taught, they are “considered” fact. I’m sure I am guilty of this as well. But remember that theories and even scientific laws can be debunked with the right evidence. Just look at the “world is flat” belief, or the “sun and other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth” law as well. Those were the laws of the day, and remained so for a long while because the scientist and political/religious rulers of that day were not willing to open their minds to a differing opinion or opposing evidence that had been offered by others.
And finally, don’t forget about the old maxim, “never judge a book by it’s cover”, nor it’s back cover. It’s what’s inside that counts. I could say that Marx’s work (no not the Marx Brothers) is “crap”, but I will never fully know until I actually take the time to read it and pick it apart, finding out what seems logical and what doesn’t (especially in comparing it’s logic according to what the scriptures and prophets say, for indeed, theirs is truly what’s important).
I’ll leave you and everyone else now with this quote from John Adams:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Hopefully we can all learn from this maxim.
August 14, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Kumozarusan,
Indeed, I hope we can all learn from Adams’ maxim. Facts are indeed stubborn things. Fascists are right-wing. That’s a stubborn fact. Can’t really say more about that.
As for Goldberg and what your professors say, what I want you to ask them is this: Does Goldberg make a strong argument that fascism is a liberal phenomenon while refusing to show any evidence for or contrary from conservative presidents? If you make an argument that something is inherently tied to one ideology and NOT the other, then you have to show evidence of the other ideology to show that that characteristic you attribute to the former ideology does not appear in the latter. By completely ignoring the latter ideology, you completely undermine your very point. You are telling your readers, “don’t look at the latter ideology, focus solely on the former.” You are telling your reader that you don’t trust the latter ideology to be as pure as you pretend it to be, and that if your reader ever actually looks at that ideology, they’ll find you were wrong. That’s Goldberg. A terrible scholar. And his book is bunk, crap poppycock.
August 14, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Riiiight. It doesn’t matter that the most famous fascist, Adolf Hilter, was the leader of the Nazi party, AKA the German Socialist Workers Party, apparently a far-right fringe group.
Daniel, read the books. I think you’ll at least wonder about all the crap you’ve learned in school about who’s left-wing and who’s right-wing in history.
September 17, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Unfortunately Daniel will have what he thinks is a clever comeback telling you that although a nazi is a national socialist that he read some where that he was more right than left. It is the simple minded approach of trying to tag the opposing team with one of histories bad guys. The bottom line is that Obama is not healthy for America and is repeating negative traits from any number of negative historical leaders. In the future he may even start his own party with his own logo and his own version of “his struggles” fighting against evil conservatives. Evil leaders are not cookie cutter copies of past evil leaders but they share some common traits. Self absorption being one. An elitist know it all attitude. The idea that the masses are too stupid to do the right thing for themselves. Imagine Obama saying something like his idea of good government is to teach people the proper principals and let them govern themselves? Joseph Smith said it but Obama would tell you the opposite. Rely upon a larger and wiser government to be your savior and don’t worry about internal changes to your own character. Obama would say don’t worry about putting off the natural man but rather look towards your government to be your salvation.
August 14, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Doran,
DUDE! It was the Communists in Germany who fought hardest against Hitler! None other than Trotsky himself led the charge!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742862,00.html
Seriously Doran. Read up actual history. “Facts are stubborn things.”
August 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm
One could make the the argument that perhaps one of Hitler’s prime reasons for not supporting the Bolsheviks is because he was indeed a nationalist, someone who believed in the supremacy of the German race, and not that of the Russians, and Germany being under controlled of the Germans, and not the Russians.
Here is a quote from Hitler himself:
“We did not defend Germany against Bolshevism back then because were intending anything like conserve a bourgeois world or go as far as to freshen it up. Had Communism really intended nothing more than a certain purification by eliminating isolated rotten elements from among the ranks of our so-called “upper ten thousand” or our equally worthless Philistines, one could have sat
back quietly and looked on for a while.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=q3BfUcJIYtQC&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=we+did+not+defend+germany+from+bolshevism+back+then&source=bl&ots=UC9v5cq9dt&sig=IetEuKqpb55UBT91v3VCaJkRmaQ&hl=en&ei=X9-FSqL3EYeOtAOEl7CTBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
He also said this:
“Let us not deceive ourselves, our bourgeois is already worthless for any noble human endeavor.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=1wNCSxrUlyMC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=our+bourgeoisie+is+already+worthless+-+hitler&source=bl&ots=xVFYJ_kzAP&sig=nibutRHlVhjhDKoovWX_rD8pYJQ&hl=en&ei=TuKFSqb4Ao_YsgO9kdyhBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
So it seems that Hitler supported what the Bolsheviks were wanting to in terms of the bourgeois and eradicating them from the system, “purification by eliminating isolated rotten elements from among the ranks of our so-called “upper ten thousand” or our equally worthless Philistines”. But as we have seen through out the history of the Soviet Union under Stalin, Stalin’s Bolsheviks and their communism didn’t just stay in the Soviet Union (Russian territory), but rather, the Soviet Union established “satellites” all over Europe and Asia. One only needs to look at North Korea (chosen specifically for it’s accumulation of heavy industry capabilities, whereas the south was primarily farm land, unsustainable for the heavy industry that was to be going on in the North. The Soviets wanted the South I’m sure, but America beat them to it, just as the US wanted all of the Korean peninsula as well but the Soviets beat them to the North.), China, Vietnam, most of the “-Stan” countries in the Middle East, Cuba, where the Soviets could have as much influence as possible, not only politically, but materialistically as well…kind of like a another imperialist, only communist this time. That is why both the Chinese and the Vietnamese communist regimes both had tense and complicated relations with the Soviet Union and each other. Both were leery of the Soviet Union’s “real” motives. and Vietnam was also leery of China’s communist regime’s influence in Vietnam, because Vietnam has had a history of the Chinese invading Vietnam. China and Vietnam were indeed Nationalist, even during their communist revolutions and regimes. They accepted help from the Soviet Union, but were intent on keeping them at a distance from their own countries.
Now before we go any futher, let’s look at the definition of “Bolshevik”:
“a member of the extremist wing of the Russian Social Democratic party that seized power in Russia by the Revolution of November 1917″ (Merrium Webster Dictionary)
or
“A member of that part of the Russian Social-Democratic Party which took Lenin’s side in the split that followed the second Congress of the party in 1903, seized power in the ‘October’ Revolution of 1917, and was subsequently renamed the (Russian) Communist Party” (Oxford English Dictionary)
A Bolshevik is a member of the RUSSIAN Communist Party, or someone who affiliates themselves with the RUSSIAN Communist Party it looks like. So, even though communists in Germany were indeed German, they were also loyal to and influenced by the RUSSIAN Bolsheviks, who were not nationalist I assume, according to Stalin’s outward reaches into Europe and Asia.
“Orating two days later to his Fascist followers at Munich, Leader Hitler flayed as “tools of Bolshevism” the Roman Catholics and German bourgeoisie who oppose him.”
Here, with this statement, if Hitler indeed opposes the Bolsheviks, not because he disagrees with their ideologies and goals, but because of the Russian influence it would bring, it would only be natural for him to call the German bourgeoisie “tools of Bolshevism”, because we have already established that he hates the bourgeoisie. It would be killing two birds with one stone. Getting rid of the Bolsheviks (and their Russian influence) and the bourgeoisie, in addition to the ROMAN Catholics (again a religious organization, and a foreign one at that, for there is also proof that Hitler was not fond of Christianity).
Hitler again:
“night of 11-12 July 1941
‘When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church with something equivalent.’
night of 11-12 July 1941
‘The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianty’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world the relations between men and gods were founded on instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence would have developed in the direction of world domination and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that was in the natural order of things’.”
Unfortunately this is the best site I could find that hosted these quotes by Hitler.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
(down toward the bottom, under the “Hitler’s Table Talks” section.)
And again, this quote brings some life into how Hitler felt about Stalin.
“Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world history. He began as a small clerk, and he has never stopped being a clerk. Stalin owes nothing to rhetoric. He governs from his office, thanks to a bureaucracy that obeys his every nod and gesture. It’s striking that Russian propaganda, in the criticisms it makes of us, always holds itself within certain limits. Stalin, that cunning Caucasian, is apparently quite ready to abandon European Russia, if he thinks that a failure to solve her problems would cause him to lose everything. Let nobody think Stalin might reconquer Europe from the Urals! It is as if I were installed in Slovakia, and could set out from there to reconquer the Reich. This is the catastrophe that will cause the loss of the Soviet Empire.”
Because Marx and Engel’s communist society has never been developed on this planet, as you have said yourself Daniel, all we have to go off of is the warped form of communism that has existed in such countries as I have already mentioned, namely China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany (what used to be EG), the Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin, etc. And remember, as I have already provided evidence for, those countries CALL/CALLED (“called” is for those not longer exist) themselves communists, as well as profess Marxist education and a desire for a nation educated in, and draped in Marxist thought and victory of socialism. All of these countries have developed into dictatorships /totalitarian states or regimes, yes, I feel as a result of these Marxist principles. These leaders were socialist followers draped in Marxist and socialist thought. But they still claim communism, except The Soviet Union and East Germany of course since they no longer exist.
So communist societies can be governed by a dictator/totalitarian figure. It is not just Fascist societies that are governed by dictators/totalitarian figures, unless you are willing to admit that Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Ho-Chi-Minh, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong Il were all Fascist leaders.
August 14, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Sorry, I forgot to indicate that this statement below, that I analyzed in my reply up above, came from the source you provided Daniel.
“Orating two days later to his Fascist followers at Munich, Leader Hitler flayed as “tools of Bolshevism” the Roman Catholics and German bourgeoisie who oppose him.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,742862,00.html
September 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Hitler hated Stalin and Stalin hated Hitler but neither men were good. Stalin and Lenin were both communists but hated each other for the most part, when it came to who would control what. People like Daniel think that if one guy opposes another then they must be on opposite ends of the spectrum. I would bet a dime to a dollar that Satan had competition himself. Competition for power does not equate to having a different thought process. A communist in Germany would just as soon have started a fire at some German government building and blame it on Nazis as Hitler would do it and blame it on the communists. Both Communists and National Socialists are made from the same sort of mold. And Obama seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two, but just as bad if you let him run rampant and give him too much power. The fact that he is willing to take that power from the people and do it at such a rate of speed is what gives normal adult people cause for concern. That fact that Obama is popular and that Hitler was popular means that the majority can be deceived. On this subject Daniel and Guy appear to be on the deceived end of things. But that is life. Some people employ wisdom and others imply much talking but are found wanting on the wisdom issue.
August 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Kumozarusan,
I see you’re up for more arse-whoopin’. Alrighty. You stretch logic to try and make a committed, hardcore right-wing fascist into some socialist, communist lefty. I think you and Goldberg know why you try to put Hitler on the left, because it so bothers you that a conservative could turn into such a monster that you simply cannot accept reality. For you, it is impossible for any true conservative to become a monster like Hitler. Thus, because he is a monster, he must be a leftist. It is a sad state of affairs. But alas, Hitler was a right-wing nationalist fascist. And yes, conservatism can transform some men into pretty horrible beings.
So let’s get on with it. You said you would give up, but now you want more. Who said the following:
Would that be:
1. George W. Bush
2. Bill Clinton
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Vladimir Lenin
If you answered 1. you are WRONG. If you answered 3. you are correct. Yes, Hitler pressed for the same values that George W. Freaking Bush pushed. Huh…Oh I know the response. George W. Bush was not really a conservative. He just pretended to be. He just pandered to conservatives, but he was really a liberal. So was Nixon. See, there is no such thing as an evil conservative. That is a contradiction in terms.
Ah, let’s move on to the nail in the coffin. You ready for it, Kumozarusan? Can you handle the truth?
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/a/NaziChristian.htm
Read and weep:
Smack! Doh! So when you say:
I think you got served. I recommend the following link
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html
There you go again, with the lie. I already showed you that in each of those countries with Germany and Italy being exceptions, dictatorships/totalitarian states ALREADY existed, thus Marxism did not lead them toward dictatorships/totalitarian states. Why do you keep repeating a lie?
Of course dictatorships can be leftist or rightist. No one disputes this. Totalitarian regimes have both leftist tendencies and leanings and rightist tendencies and leanings. No one disputes this. I don’t know why you bring this up. Well, actually I do. You really hate the fact that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon and you are trying desperately to shift it to the left. It doesn’t work, dude. Facts are stubborn things. Fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. Always has been. Always will be. Deal with it. Own it.
September 17, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Daniel says (obviously dead wrong and he should darn well know it) the following …
“Yes, Hitler pressed for the same values that George W. Freaking Bush pushed.”
Really Daniel? So if Hitler said that we should feed the nations children and Bush said that we should feed the nations children (which both have said) then they believe in the same values.
Boy, Daniel, you are the gift that keeps on giving. And you are supposed to be the guy that is sitting in judgment over Beck?
You are a laugh a minute dude.
August 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Kumozarusan,
Who do you think supported Hitler among the Germans? It was the Christians. They were his biggest support. Remember that.
September 17, 2009 at 3:26 pm
List of people that supported Hitler
1) Poor
2) Those wanting a scapegoat
3) Laborers
4) Elitists
5) Those upset at Germans loss of world war one.
6) After communist party fell in power (the communists and the socialists)
7) The uneducated.
Being Catholic in Germany did not equate to supporting Hilter. It was based on the above list for the most part.
August 14, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Two Americans that were big supporters of Hitler were Walt Disney and Henry Ford. Both were staunch Republicans and strong capitalists. I’m wondering if you will find many Libs/dems that supported him at the time.
September 17, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Poppycock and nonsense.
Capitalists in general did not support Hitler but did look upon Germany in the early days as a large country with lots of potential customers. Neither Ford nor Disney supported Hitler from a conceptual standpoint.
If you want those that supported Hitler from a concept standpoint, look up New York Times. Even after Hilter displayed some of his more evil tendencies you still had NYTimes being on his side far too often. Not unlike NYTimes supporting Russian leaders, Castro, Chavez, etc.
Capitalists IN GENERAL hated Hitler and called him an uneducated buffoon. For every story of a capitalist liking Hitler you would have ten thousand that did not. Don’t be so simple minded.
August 14, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Daniel: “Who do you think supported Hitler among the Germans? It was the Christians. They were his biggest support.”
What other large non-Christian groups were there in Germany besides the Jews?
Remember, the Allies were, by and large, Christians. When push came to shove there were a helluva lot more Christians fighting against Hitler than for him.
September 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jack, Daniel is showing the logic of a child. That is obvious. You are wise in what you are saying. The fact that most Germans were Christians has little to do with whether real Christians supported Hitler. Neither does it account for deceived Christians supporting a propped up false version of Hitler, not unlike some Christians in America supporting the propped up Christian incarnation of Obama. Obama went to an anti-white, anti-jew church for twenty years, yet still calls himself a Christian. And like Hitler, he is not shy about using what he calls his Christian connection to gain political support. But, for the most part, it is an obvious farce.
August 15, 2009 at 4:16 am
Jack,
We’re not talking about outside forces. We’re talking about within Germany. The largest supporters of Hitler were Christian, and conservative. I don’t know why you are bothered by this. This is history. It’s okay. It happened. This does not make conservatism worse than it already is. Or do you also think Hitler was secretly some lefty liberal? The historical evidence is simply fully against it, Jack.
August 15, 2009 at 7:28 am
Daniel,
I Understand that you were talking about inside forces — and I’m asking, what other large religious groups were there in Germany besides the Jews? You make it sound as if the “Christians” were just one religious identity among many. The vast majority of the German populace was Christian and so it follows naturally that Hitler’s supporters would be Christian.
When I spoke of Christianity among the Allies my intent was to show that being Christian didn’t necessarily generate a propensity for Nazism.
August 15, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Jack,
No of course being Christian didn’t generate a propensity for Nazism. No one said this. However, I have read some research which indicated that Nazism had an easier time to foment under Lutheranism than any other Christian sect. Hitler himself and several of his key players, were Catholic by faith, however, and they did, at least at the beginnings of their rise, press for a tie between their ideology and Christianity. Obviously though it did not mean that other Christians were susceptible to Nazism as mostly Christian nations fought to defeat Hitler.
In the case of the Soviet Union, Hitler made an agreement with Stalin (which Hitler later broke) that Germany and Russia would not war. This agreement was completely strategic in nature. While Hitler wished to utterly crush the French and the British to his West, he did not want to repeat what Bismarck had to deal with 20 years earlier—a two front war. Hitler’s biggest folly was that he jumped the gun on attacking Russia. That, in the end, did the Germans in. The Germans lost the war at Leningrad.
Anyways, that’s a side issue of a side issue.
September 17, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sad silly poppycock. Your knowledge of history is horrendously lacking. What simplistic diatribe. It is like saying that the largest supporters of Hitler were human beings with two hands and two arms. It is what is known in logic as a non-related fact. Good grief, tackle this issue with adult reasoning for a change.
August 15, 2009 at 5:38 am
Comment:
Kumozarusan:
Guy, I have to ask this question: why would any of the other church members in the world know who Glenn Beck is?
Where to start? Why would they not? we’re not all as insular as some members in certain countries. The clips featuring Beck have been linked here on practically every British newspaper and website. We get Jon Stewart, too, you know, and the world of the church is so small here that news about anything soon spreads. One British LDS friend said to me yesterday that she was ‘ashamed to have any connection with that man at all’.
As for the rest of the non LDS society, check here on this story, check the readers comments at the bottom.Look at comments on page 3, and there look at the comments left at 12.49pm, 1.05pm, 1.10pm. (language warning on some of the comments).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/14/health-nhs?commentpage=3
I don’t see him being asked to do any missionary firesides any time soon, over here, anyway.
August 15, 2009 at 9:17 am
Thanks Anne
September 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I dont see any leftists in the UK having any conservative do firesides. But what is your point?
August 15, 2009 at 6:20 am
Anne, yours may be the most valuable, most informative comment in the entire thread. Thank you!
August 15, 2009 at 8:05 am
Hey Guy and Dan
Heard of Free of Speech!!! Those are Mr Beck OPINIONS!!! There is hate mongoring on this web site. People have expressed their OPINIONS and you have try to make little of them espiecally when they have a diffent OPINION.
I’ve seen this country shift to the left (soicalist) in the last 50 yrs. It’s a very sad thing to see and this president is putting it into hpyerdrive. Because of the wickness of this world I’ve been forced to choose the lesser of two evils, He didn’t win. I’m waiting for good and rightous people to step up to the plate. Unfornately they are few and far between. I do what I can, vote, speak out to my congressmen, e-mail to leaders and obey the law. But what comes out of the mouth of the person we elected President is frightening. The people that surround him and what little we know of them, now that’s scarey. We are doomed to make the same mistakes of the past if we don’t learn the lessons of the past. The formation of this counrty and the constitution of the U.S. were inspired by HF. I think that we should stick to what it says and not add lot of stuff that shouldn’t be in there. I believe that things will come out right, but not without a lot of pain and heartache for the wrong and wickness in our world. God help us!!
August 15, 2009 at 9:16 am
jfc,
I recall hearing some of that concept–but can’t remember just exactly where–can you please refresh my recollection?
Look, I don’t begrudge Mr. Beck the right to his opinions. I don’t want the world thinking all Mormons hold like opinions. That is the major point I was trying to make with this post. I don’t like Glenn Beck’s opinions. I don’t like the way he delivers those opinions. I don’t like those opinions in anyway associated with Mormons or the Church. Glenn can continue to spout his nonsense–but expect push back from folks like me who don’t agree.
If you will read this thread you will see that I have not limited anyone’s free speech or opinions. Everyone has been able to express how they feel and why. I have absolutely no problem with that. No one is being killed, injured or going to prison from expressing their opinions either in opposition to or in support of Glenn Beck.
September 17, 2009 at 3:39 pm
The major point dear Guy is that your opinion is far less than mainstream mormon opinion than is that of Glenn beck. As you repeatedly say, you and us live in different realities. And your reality is that when that burning ball of flame in the sky is at it’s pinnacle of brightness is when you declare boldly that it is night time. Enjoy your delusions. I find them as entertaining as they are uninformed.
August 15, 2009 at 8:29 am
sorry about spelling in a hurry, didn’t proof read.
August 15, 2009 at 8:47 am
#109
Ian,
One of the best sources I know for understanding responses to Hitler in the West – or, at least Great Britain* – both before and during the war is George Orwell’s journalism. It is collected in, I believe three volumes: roughly, one before, one during and one after the war.
In general, letting Orwell’s way of thinking politics get inside your head in a great corrective to the kind of mutual reaction this thread is chock full of. He’s also hilarious.
Since there have been some long posts on this thread, I hope it is ok if I post rather than link Orwell’s bit on who is a fascist. Sort of an early riff on everyone is compared to Hitler at some point. Next comment. ~
August 16, 2009 at 9:15 pm
This would be a really interesting read. Would love to see it.
August 15, 2009 at 8:48 am
Orwell on who gets called the boogeyman.
“Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.
Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky’s own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;
War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People’s Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.
Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
* * *
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.”
August 15, 2009 at 8:56 am
“It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.”
It’d be interesting to go through this thug of a thread and find how many instances we could find of words that have likewise been emptied of their content in order to retain a reactive stance.
I don’t know item 1 about Glen Beck. Apparently he is pretty polarizing. Criminy! don’t let yourself be polarized.
Guy – I know you’re a good guy. But this thread is the epitome of everything I dislike about the internet. ~
August 15, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Thomas
I resent the implication that I am anything that even remotely resembles a “good guy.” I am after all, a fascist–among other things
I can’t remember anymore how many things I’ve been called. Anyway, thanks for the enlightening and entertaining Orwellian posts–brings a bit more perspective to some of the discussion. Thanks for stopping by.
August 16, 2009 at 12:50 am
ugh, and I have family members who are sincere fans of Glenn Beck, forwarding me his youtube clips. It’s so painfully delicate trying to explain why I don’t believe him, why his rants sometimes disgust me.
September 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Do try to explain some of his disgusting rants. It seems those that dislike him tend to come up short with actual examples. And when they do attempt to justify their dislike of Beck, then tend to use examples of things that he never said and or were taken purposely or ignorantly out of context. Perhaps the delicate little secret in your family is that maybe you got your facts wrong and it is not the others in your family that are wrong. Just a thought.
August 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hey Guy
check out mormon-patriot.blogspot.com and read about the constitution being inspired.
August 17, 2009 at 11:05 am
I think anyone deciding whether someone is an embarassment to our faith is way out of line. I’m sure there are members who feel Mitt Romney or Harry Reid are also “embarassments” when they do not share the same political views. I believe that someone’s standing in the Church is between them, their appropriate priesthood leader who has their stewardship, and the Lord. It is always important to remember that the gospel is perfect, but the people trying to live it are not. Church is meant to be a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. It was a long time before Glenn Beck publicly acknowledged his faith, only because he did not want the Church publicly ridiculed or judged harshly by his being a member. I find it very distasteful that anyone would think that they can judge his worthiness for the Temple on a public blog. I see A LOT of stone throwing here, and I would think that we could be better served by putting our own houses in order and not worry so much about Brother Beck’s.
August 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Amen to that!!
August 18, 2009 at 10:29 am
I hear a lot about, “faith this and faith that….” What about researching the mormon history and realize that faith in crap just makes you a crappy person…!
September 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Faith is also involved in what one thinks is crap and what another thinks is a treasure. Yes, if you have faith in crap you have issues. However, this blog and especially Guy and Daniel seem to not be very convincing as to what is crap and what is truth. And then we have those wish washy luke warm people, saying both are right and neither are wrong. What kind of people are they? Oh yeah, worthy to be spit out upon the ground. So then we have not only some crappy people but also some spittle people. Have we got all the key bodily fluids covered yet? Of course not, but we don’t need to go there.
August 18, 2009 at 10:48 am
I just wanted to point out that this “James” above is not the same one as my original posts you can read on this list. I try to be a little more… shall we say… intelligent with my posts.
September 17, 2009 at 3:51 pm
James is a very popular name, so we take it all with a grain of salt. However, what the James above said is absolutely true. If you believe in crap you probably are a crappy person. If you worry about the word crap then you probably miss a lot of very wise concepts because somebody uses one of those naughty words. Me, I skip through the filler. I was trained in recognizing propaganda and the best propaganda has no cuss words, sounds rosy and will get you killed faster than a ranting lunatic with turrets.
August 18, 2009 at 10:53 am
To distinguish the two of us I have put a 26 at the end of my name.
August 18, 2009 at 10:55 am
If, by “intelligence” you meant that you understand and accept your flaws in faith then, yes. I stand by my comment and encourage people to seek the truth…
August 18, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What a fascinating thread. (Some disclosure here: I’m fascinated partly because, like some others, I view Glenn Beck as running greatly counter to what I’d like to see from prominent Mormons. Though he clearly gives voice, meaning, and hope to many people, it seems to me that he uses, exaggerates, and stokes people’s basic fears [the fears that make the “natural man” an enemy to God] as a fundamental part of the process. I can’t see him as anything but a huge potential liability to the Church in its global manifestation. But that’s just my own perspective – I’m an ideological Lefty.)
But what really fascinates me is the issue of divisiveness. Basically, it seems that to a large extent we find divisiveness where we want to find it. In this discussion, at least, Beck and Obama are places that we allow ourselves to see divisiveness. (From my liberal point of view, I’ll just say that Beck seems to have brought the label of a divisive figure on himself far more than Obama has.) In either case, whether we see Obama or Beck as the divider, I think we do so because we want to do so. Politics is an area of life where we feel it is appropriate to be divided.
On the other hand, this thread also seems to imply that the closer a famous figure is to being a high church official, the more (and the more willfully) we resist any notion that such a person could be divisive. Some anti-Mormons and non-Mormons willingly see church leaders as divisive figures in various ways. But we Latter-day Saints most often refuse that perspective. But when it comes to Beck and Obama, our “hopes and fears of all the years” (to steal from the hymn) come pouring out. This is not to compare either of them to Christ, but to say that they function for many people within our LDS community as figures around which our deep and heartfelt worries and hopes are safely expressed (since we often feel it’s inappropriate to “talk politics” in more directly church settings).
Maybe these charges against divisive figures are a problem; perhaps they reveal deep, underlying disunity within the church membership. But maybe these expressions are a good thing. Maybe this is the only way we can really articulate what we think Zion might be. Maybe our challenge in achieving Zion isn’t to abolish politics, but instead working through politics.
September 17, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Ethan dear, if you want to talk about divisiveness review what Jesus said about himself. I came not to bring peace to this word but a two edged sword. To set brother against brother and father against sun.”
A two edged sword is designed with one purpose in mind, that of dividing things into separate parts. As in the resurrection, being one of the greatest divisions. Placing the sheep on one side (the righteous) and the goats on the other side (the unrighteous)
As Jesus also stated, I would that ye be either hot or cold, but to be lukewarm you are good for nothing, except to be spewed upon the ground.
If you fear division, then you have a child like understanding of truth. If you fear contention, then that is another thing. However, depending upon the language chosen, Jesus was considered very divisive and very contentions (contentious so much so against the leadership of his day that they sought his life). I have seen liberal voices saying that they would be happy to see Glenn Beck dead. And wacky voices (not many really) that would be happy to see Obama dead.
For me, I hope that all the bad people die and all the good people live, but in a manner that is just, and does not hurt the wheat in attempting to remove the weeds. But that time will come when judged right by the person that is worthy of judging.
Christ said that we should JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT. Let us hope that the side that we choose is the correct side. But to think that division is necessarily a bad thing then you have not lived a full life and are a child in your understanding.
Let us assume for a moment that somebody like Beck lived during Hitler and exposed Hitler for the evil that he was. Does that mean that Beck would have been paranoid about Hitler and causing unnecessary division? Believe me, it would have been a great hero to have exposed Hitler early on, instead of waiting for that mad man to have so much power that it was too hard to remove him without much blood.
So please, a child’s view of division does nobody any good. The issues are divisive and the consequences are large. It is not a fight over whether vanilla or chocolate is the best flavor. And it is not paranoia if both flavors are tainted with poison.
September 17, 2009 at 4:02 pm
sorry about my typos. I type quickly and my auto corrector goes crazy. Father against son, not sun. And bring peace into this world and not word. And various other sundry errors.
August 19, 2009 at 11:42 am
I like Beck. I think what he says is true. If any church or sect feels that they must control the free speech rights of their members, that is sad. Let him be who he is and don’t stress over whether he’s Mormon or an active mormon or and non-active mormon. The Pope’s of the Catholic Church have given Catholics a “bad name” from time to time, as have their priests. Does that mean Jesus is getting a bad rap? We follow GOD, not a man. Let people decide for themselves.
August 19, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Here’s an interesting column done for Politics Daily that I found on the AOL website.
Might add some more perspective to this thread.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/18/glenn-beck-boycott-censorship-or-good-citizenship/?icid=main|main|dl5|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F08%2F18%2Fglenn-beck-boycott-censorship-or-good-citizenship%2F
August 20, 2009 at 4:24 am
it’s certainly not censorship. If Glenn Beck can pay to be on the air, no one is shutting him up. Making sure no sensible, rational corporation pays him any money is not censorship. It is good citizenship. We need better, saner commentators than Glenn Beck. He can go back to swilling alcohol for all I care.
September 17, 2009 at 4:06 pm
You just want to shut up Beck, but are powerless to do so. The test is what you would do if you had the power. But alas, I doubt that you will get that far. But it is obvious that you and Guy are playing politics with religion. Oh, look at bad Beck, he is a shame to our religion, yada yada yada. I find you and Guy substantially more delusional and substantially worse examples of our religion, but I wont be starting a blog talking about your worth as a member. That is the difference. Face it, you dont like Beck because you and he have a religious disagreement. You think Obama is God and Beck does not.
August 20, 2009 at 5:52 am
Daniel,
You’re “Christian” behavior amazes me. You can continue worshipping at the false idol of obama for all I care.
August 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm
um…. how am I any different than Beck? If I say he ought to go back to swilling alcohol for all I care, how the hell is that any different than him saying some of the vile contemptible stuff he says? What false idol does Beck worship?
September 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Daniel, you have failed to show that Beck says vile things. Of course he is not perfect but dude, you really need to remove that beam from your eye. It is large enough to block lumber hauling trucks from getting down the mountain.
August 20, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Looks like Glenn Beck’s “racist” tirade was too much even for Fox. They put him on a forced vacation. May he drink it away liberally.
August 20, 2009 at 8:13 pm
This is EXACTLY why I said linking to DailyKOS only discredits you.
Glenn is on vacation this week because his second daughter is starting college.
August 20, 2009 at 9:03 pm
doesn’t discredit me at all. Prove that that is the reason why he is on vacation, if you can.
September 14, 2009 at 3:03 am
What discredits you are your insane rants and reliance on a known hate blog to get your “news.” Beck announced he’d be going on vacation and had it on his schedule long before he did. Prove to me that this ISN’T the case, if you can. You’re the one claiming guilt; the onus is on you – and considering what you used as evidence last time and your continuing hate-filled spew toward Beck and any who dare disagree with you, I highly doubt you’ve got anything of worth to add.
August 20, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Thank the Lord that you see through him. He is evil.
August 26, 2009 at 2:27 pm
ya so is our president….You know i have watched glenn Beck for a while and i didnt even know he was mormon untill i found this web site. wow if i had to choose my job due to my religion i dont think i would have one in fear of offending someone. Americans needs to wise up and pull back together before we loose all..
September 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm
My Lord taught me to not answer a question before I reviewed and researched it. Your lord seems to believe in not providing evidence to prove your case.
August 26, 2009 at 6:42 pm
From Ed,
Hey have any of you guys checked up on Glenn’s “facts”? I have and his facts are just that. As for his opinions, I do not know if they are truth or not. He doesn’t either.
August 26, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The inconvenient truth here is that Beck makes some good points about Obama. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and goes to a duck church for 20 years, maybe we have ourselves a duck!
I perfectly realize it might be politically expedient to call the duck something else, but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter.
You can question Beck’s decision to actually say these things for a t.v. audience, but to me that’s another issue.
August 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Is your assumption that all Mormons should think alike? If that’s the case then Harry Reid is also a poor example of Mormonism as most Mormons disagree with him. I don’t think either of them are bad examples of Mormonism at all, but are examples of the much needed diversity within the church.
August 28, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Paul thinks we need diversity of opinion within the church. Hello!!!!! The gospel is the pure truth, our opinions of the truth should be the same among members. Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck and you should be on the same page on morals, self reliance, decency, patriotism, war and most issues. Their votes and opinions should match the truth (gospel). If they differ, someone is on the wrong page. I know I put my votes where the prophet does. I make my opinions match the Gospel, which is what Glenn Beck does too. Also, I like Glenn, make fasting, prayer and temple attendance part of my decision making. Glenn Beck does this too. I heard Harry Reid is basically a Jack Mormon according to his own brother. So why should I trust him?
August 28, 2009 at 9:41 am
I thank God Glenn Beck is LDS. He is the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Saints will save the republic and the constitution.
Yes, I know that is an unpopular view here, where prophecy and the coming of the Lord is sniggered at by those who believe in their own intellectual superiority.
I am in the same business as Glenn and have been for 30 years, so I know the difficulties he faces, from the boycotts to the death threats for speaking an unpopular truth.
Perhaps you could look past your bigotry and, even if you don’t agree with him, give him credit for trying to save a nation.
August 28, 2009 at 9:53 am
hear hear!
August 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
But he is not trying to save the nation. He is destroying it by causing such division. He is a hateful man who deserves our scorn.
August 28, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Yes, Glenn Beck has a lot of hate. Hate toward those who want to “fundamentally transform” our great country; Hate toward those who see our constitution as irrelevant and not deserving of respect or reverence; Hate toward those whose only motive in life is power and influence; Hate toward those who can’t seem to use common sense and stop spending taxpayers’ money in a financial crisis.
Hateful. All I can say is, “Yeah. Me too.”
Have you even watched or listened to Glenn? I’m guessing not much if at all. You should definitely watch this week’s TV show, which you can get on YouTube. He’s putting some very important questions out there to be answered.
August 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Doran,
You think I’m stupid? Of course I’ve seen Beck. And he is utterly distasteful, stupid, dumb, hypocritical disgrace to the good name of conservatism. You ought to be ashamed that he speaks for you.
August 28, 2009 at 11:58 am
I hope we continue to live in a country where all we have to do is change the station if we don’t like what we hear. Let’s continue to have choice.
August 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Those of you who bash Beck are completely insane. If you know the history of the Church, America and prophecies or the gospel in the least way, you know Glenn is right on. Wake up!! The seperation of the wheat and tares is happening. You bashers are tares it appears.
August 29, 2009 at 12:50 am
There are now more Church members outside the US than within. Certain factions within the Church need to wake up and realise that the gospel is completely separate from ‘America’.
This kind of gung ho nationalism does not play well outside the US- amongst either members or non members. Beck’s attacks on our NHS will only make missionary work more difficult here, as I evidenced days ago on this thread. If you’re now trying to portray him as some sort of media frontman for the Church, then we’re beyond the point of any mutual cultural understanding, and on rocky ground with regards to doctrine too.
For example: here, the vast majority of the population sees our NHS as the embodiment of Christianity in action- those who have give to those who have not, in order to heal the sick.No-one is left to suffer through lack of means.Free at the point of delivery. Beck and his ilk would portray it as a tool of Satan. It’s that disconnect which concerns me as inevitably here we, as members,end up shrugging our shoulders and trying to apologetically explain away such rants as ‘well, they’re American, you know’, because we can’t find any other plausible explanation.
August 29, 2009 at 10:20 am
Thank you, Anne, for reminding us that this is not an “American” church.
Our Houston area ward is more than fifty percent minority, and a large number of members are either African of African-American. At one point, we had seven active, temple-going mixed race couples in the ward. In our ward, Obama’s election was met with rejoicing. It was seen as both historic and inspired; one man suggested that the Obama election was somehow tied to the revelation on the Priesthood, a necessary step in taking the Gospel to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people.
And that perhaps illustrates better than anything else the great danger and the great challenge that we face as a Church. There are faithful Latter-Day Saints on both sides of every political debate: I know Mormons who think Obama is sent of God, and Mormons who think he’s the Antichrist. When we attempt to politicize our faith (something Mr. Beck delights in doing), we divert ourselves from the difficult task of being One, and become just another bunch of yammers, crying Lo here! and Lo there!
September 14, 2009 at 2:47 am
Cort: “When we attempt to politicize our faith (something Mr. Beck delights in doing)”
When has he EVER politicized the LDS faith? When he even mentions it, he generally talks about how he’s not the best example of it and talks about how one of the things he likes about it is how it doesn’t take sides politically. Clearly you are anti-Beck and get all your so-called “facts” about him from others that are anti-Beck.
Anne: “There are now more Church members outside the US than within. Certain factions within the Church need to wake up and realise that the gospel is completely separate from ‘America’.”
You have a point here, but you’re entirely missing Chris’s. Let me reiterate it. Look at Church history. It is inextricably tied to the U.S., not simply because the Restoration happened here. You really need to study up on early Church history and prophecies.
August 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I’m one who agrees that Glenn Beck is over the top at times.
But I think this discussion is over the top in its own right.
I don’t have a problem speaking up and saying, ‘Hey, not all Mormons agree with him” but I think it’s as important to disagree with him in respectful ways. And to leave room for people to have their opinions. Glenn Beck may not represent all of Mormondom, but neither does the Glenn Beck bashing, imo.
August 29, 2009 at 12:15 am
M&M,
It’s important to disagree with him in respectful ways? Aww, how nice. Why don’t you tell him that? He is the one poisoning the political waters. Tell him to be respectful.
September 17, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Sorry Daniel, but Beck has no more poison to add to the political waters than you and Guy seem to do. In fact, I doubt that Beck would go after you based on you supposedly being Mormon. I suspect that he would be going after you for having silly leftist slants to your understanding of politics. Maybe we should start a blog about Daniel or Guy and how they don’t make good members of the LDS community. Nah, then we would be just as bad as you two overly judgmental fellows.
September 3, 2009 at 10:09 pm
It’s important to disagree with him in respectful ways? Aww, how nice. Why don’t you tell him that? He is the one poisoning the political waters. Tell him to be respectful.
I know this thread is dead and gone, but Daniel, I don’t disagree with the fact that Glenn Beck could be more respectful, too.
But that doesn’t change how I felt about this discussion here.
September 6, 2009 at 9:29 am
Glenn Beck is a Mormon….? This is what your church teaches? Here he is calling a woman caller an “evil little bitch” because she disagrees with him. He then continues with a list of people he wants to kill with a shovel. I’m sure the LDS is proud of Mr. Beck being a very public figure of the church.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/1/774938/-Remember-when-Glenn-Beck-said-he-wanted-to-kill-Charlie-Rangel
September 14, 2009 at 2:40 am
First, human beings are imperfect, that audio is from over 8 years ago and he’s mellowed out since then by his own admission (even apologizing for those old antics). Second, you’re clearly not interested in an honest discussion and would prefer to be an anti-Mormon bigot instead if the first thing you can think of is, “hey, I bet that thing that offended me must be what he learns in church so I’ll go straight over to some blog with people who belong to that church so I can attack them all collectively with it!” Third, I’ll not be wasting my time discussing this with you further since you’re obviously closed-minded, what with #2 mentioned previously and your getting your hashed up “news” from Markos “Screw the Troops” Moulitsas’s hate blog and all. Preaching to the sinners is all well and good, but you don’t go around preaching to people who are gouging out their own eyes to avoid seeing the truth.
September 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Sounds like a recovering alcoholic. How long ago was this Don? As I recall, Hitler was born a Catholic. Does that make all Catholics Nazis Don? I am sorry that you are so overly judgmental. And I am sure that you never ever in your life called somebody a b—ch before, he he he. Sorry Don but you seem to be transparently hypocritical.
September 9, 2009 at 7:44 am
I personally like Glenn Beck. Yeah, he can be over the top; yeah, I don’t agree with some of his positions. But I have really enjoyed hearing about his conversion, and I’m grateful he talks the chance to talk about his faith.
In my conversations with non-Mormons, most do not see Beck as a “representative” of other Mormons.
I fully agree with m&m that this discussion is way over the top too!
September 9, 2009 at 9:44 pm
You and your left wing talking points. Right wing Fringe Beck! HAh, Looks like with the help of Beck, Mr (Radical)Van Jones is out and I hope he gets the other Soicalist/maxist out.
September 11, 2009 at 11:27 pm
In an age of wickedness when wickedness is called out into the light of exposure, the wicked will attack someone like Glenn Beck who simply calls a spade a spade.
As far as the critisim of Glenn Becks personal life goes…the whole thing smacks of self righteous condemnation of a man who has turned his life around and publicly thanks God for what he has found in the Church.
The only part of Glenns life that is truely lacking is not having been in the Church long enough to see that it has been hyjacked by a deluded self righteous majority that the Lord, one day soon I’m quite sure, will spit out of his mouth.
If there ever was a bonefide deluded religious bigot, it would be the idiot I keep seeing displaying that proud mug of his as if to proclaim his opinion as that of mainstream Mormonism.
Wait a minute. Now that I think of it, I believe he could very well be the Church’s poster child for exempliary Mormon behavior.
It dose seem to be rather Typical of several Degerations of self deluded children of the pioneers who think their stuff don’t stink…
What was that I used to hear about the number of Degenerations it takes to screw a good thing up?
Brother Murray, where you and I have our biggest difference, is that you are very atimate about expressing what you call an opinion, where as I simply comment on simple OBSERVATIONS and can occasionally recognize a SPADE when I see one and call it what it really is.
When you keep repeating the fact that you and those you dissagree with are from different worlds, I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. The world were you live is a very small one with yourself dead smack in it’s center.
Get a real life BRO and do yourself a favor and try using your hands to create something that your mouth is incapable of…
September 11, 2009 at 11:44 pm
While serving a career in the Marines during the course of two wars, it was guys like you who sat around all day offering up pearls of opinionated wisdom that caused the rest of us to pick your sorry ass load up and carry it for you. At the end of the day when it came time for the rest of us to take a break and discuss the days ACCOMPLISHMENTS, guys like you, suddenly had NOTHING more to say…and would just finally GO THE HELL AWAY!
September 12, 2009 at 1:01 am
After reading more of these comments, for those of you like Bro Murray and Daniel, I have one more parting remark before leaving this garbage in the dust.
I keep having these flashbacks of some real slugs I’ve had the priviledge of casting out of the Corps.
If I were to sum up the essence of their worth to the Corps, I would describe those such as yourselves, as men masquerading as women.
That’s a good thing for a woman to do but tends to be a little unbecoming of a man!
September 14, 2009 at 3:37 am
ooh, a militant. one who likes to cast people out. I wonder how violent he likes to get. does he get a rise from his violence?
September 15, 2009 at 11:06 am
I love the way the leftist posters on this board denounce Beck with claims but back them up with nothing but wild assumptions.
Is Obama a racist? If you read quotes from his books, from his past speeches (especially when he felt amongst friends) his twenty year stint at an anti-white, anti-jewish church, then yes, the evidence suggests that Obama is a racist.
Now, the evidence that Daniel and Guy have shown to prove their case that Beck is unworthy or a bad example? Zilch.
Leftists tend to have more emotions than brains. After all, Obama is a proven marxist, statist, socialist type of person. If you cant see it you dont want to see it. You folks are simply the type of people that are prone to call night day and day night and put evil for good and good for evil.
September 16, 2009 at 6:53 am
You Mormons that think Glenn Beck is an embarrassment need to change the channel. His program is informative. Consider this: are ye judging the man or his program? “… see that ye do not judge wrongfully: for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.” Moroni 7: 18
September 17, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Now Joyce, don’t be bringing level headed common sense into this hot discussion. One might think you know what you are talking about.
September 16, 2009 at 9:48 am
So now, if you critize Pres. BO’s policies you are Racist. These leftist, librals, socialist will go to any length.
September 17, 2009 at 3:56 pm
kmichaels Says:
Does anybody know how to spell fanatic?
September 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Ardis I believe is the correct spelling.
September 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ok, so if a white guy goes to a church that teaches white supremacy, says that blacks are generally the cause of most evils and says that latinos are nearly as bad for twenty years would that person be considered a racist?
Well, there you have it, Obama is a racist. He went to a black supremacy church for twenty years and that church repeatedly made white American guys the enemy and white jewish guys nearly as bad.
I say that there is ample evidence that Obama is definitely a racist on that alone. However, if you read his books, listen to past audios and watch him at unguarded moments then you will find even more evidence.
To not see it is to be purposely blind.
September 17, 2009 at 8:48 pm
To not see it is to be purposely blind.
Or rational.
September 17, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Rational, Ardis, would be to explain why Obama going to a racist church for twenty years does not make him somewhat racist. But go ahead, instead of your one worded non explanations feel free to defend your view.
September 17, 2009 at 9:56 pm
kmichaels,
Are you Mormon? How long have you been Mormon? Should we label you a racist because of your affiliation with the Mormon church?
September 18, 2009 at 9:59 am
Sure thing Christopher, if you have record of me listening for twenty years as to how blacks and or latinos are the cause of all problems, or that it is typical of black women to be fearful of whites, or that I learned early to not trust blacks, or that blacks only support programs that benefit blacks then you can call me a racist. That is what Obama did, only replacing white and jew for black and latino. If I did that Christopher, and listened to such talk without complaint, then yes, I would be a racist.
September 18, 2009 at 8:46 am
feel free to defend your view.
My views need no defense beyond the fact that they stand opposed to the irrationality of your oft-expressed — how many times is it now? 30 or so, in the last 24 hours? — overwrought and paranoid claims. You make my case for me.
September 18, 2009 at 9:56 am
Is it anal retentive to count the number of posts? Hmmm, Daniel and Guy have equal number of comments. Are they overwrought and paranoid too, Ardis? Again, if you have a view, feel free to post what it is. If you just like to count posts, there are thousands of blogs with thousands of entries everywhere.
So, you were saying why it is not racist to attend a church that says that whites are the enemy and that jews are the enemy over and over again?
September 18, 2009 at 11:11 am
kmichaels,
you would know about overwrought and paranoid from personal experience, wouldn’t you?
September 22, 2009 at 8:17 am
We all know that the LDS Church *as an institution* was very racist for most of its latter-day history. Simply reading up on the history (not the myths) of the blacks and the priesthood proves that point. In the 1830s and 1840s the Church ordained black men to the priesthood, called them on missions and ordaining one of them a traveling seventy; then, particularly after the Westward migration, the Church adopted polices which stated that no black man could hold the priesthood or receive temple ordinances, and by extension since the Church did not approve of interracial marriages and black women could not be sealed in the temple either. These policies were debated and the policies became more draconian over time, they were not completely finalized until the 1940s! The policies and restriction became more restrictive over the course of that entire 130 year period from the late 1840s to the late 1970s. From the 1950s to the 1970s the Church had to “defend” the policies against a changing world. Eventually the correct doctrine was revealed and past mistakes set aside. Even Elder McConkie admitted his past statements were incorrect and should not be considered useful tot he Church members.
I suspect many of us on this thread were members of the Church prior to 1978, in my own case I don’t think that makes me a racist. But there were thousands of “members” who *did* leave the Church after 1978 because they *were* racists, and no longer believed the Church was true.
Likewise a person simply attending a Church does not mean he agrees with everything that church teaches. In my own case I attended, and still attend, the LDS Church because I believe God and Christ restored it, and that they have witnessed to me – through the Holy Ghost – that I should attend it, participate in it, and receive the ordinances of salvation through it.
Part of the problem I think many in this thread are stumbling upon is that the U.S. society is, and was, racist overall. We built much of our economy using slaves, we committed ethnic cleansing on the Native Americans and Mexican people, and we are not to friendly even today with many immigrants. Given all that reality a person who honestly recounts history will have to say a lot of bad things about “white people” (the main determiners of U.S. policy for the vast majority of its history) – does that make the honest historian a “reverse racist” or does it make them a realist – i.e., one who tells the truth?
Beck is a professional commentator (professional only in the sense he is paid to do so) who has chosen to market fear and resentment to obtain the riches of the world (Forbes estimates he “made” $23 million dollars last year). He might believe some of things he is saying or he might not, but regardless he is fomenting irrational responses on the part of his listeners to real problems. That doesn’t help the country find solutions to the issues it is facing.
With respect to his Church membership, and the effect his public persona has on peoples’ perceptions of the LDS Church, I am dismayed and disgusted – but not surprised – by his demeanor and behavior. I take comfort in the fact that I am not required to judge him beyond the requirements my various stewardships impose upon me (primarily for my children). I am counseled by my Church leaders to examine the influences I let into my home, and to exclude those which would detrimental to the spiritual or physical health of my family. Beck is one of the influences I exclude.
September 18, 2009 at 9:58 am
There’s certainly nothing anal retentive about you, kmichaels — give you a little poke, and the &#!^ just pours out.
Poke!
September 18, 2009 at 10:00 am
Yawn!
September 18, 2009 at 11:11 am
Apparently Ardis Parshall is a blogger on all sorts of different boards, sharing her leftist views with anyone that will listen. From the looks of it she has spent months if not years blogging about this or that. And apparently since I answered most key questions on this particular issue, she feels that I am a fanatic, having spent all of sixty total minutes on this issue. Whereas Ardis has spent months if not years blogging. Again, hypocrisy is a very common fault with leftists. They are especially prone to want to shut you down, as does Guy, Daniel and Ardis if your view and opinion becomes popular, such as Glenn Beck does. Apparently my comments have caused Ardis to be poked and now she is oozing her venom on me because I don’t toe the leftist line.
September 18, 2009 at 11:12 am
“now she is oozing her venom on me because I don’t toe the leftist line.”
No, it’s because you are stupid. You’re a conservative. They go hand in hand. Stupidity = conservatives. Conservatives = stupidity.
September 18, 2009 at 11:32 am
Great, Danny the vunderkind of leftist autoblogography has to enter his two cents.
Feel free to use my comments and conclusions to show how stupid I am. Apparently your approach is to make claims then not back them up with facts.
To you, if your hypocritical blathering denouncement of others such as Beck is not bought hook line and sinker then it must be us that are stupid.
Sorry Danny, it is apparently how idiotic your claims on this issue are, to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.
September 18, 2009 at 11:46 am
In fairness, Daniel, I am far more conservative than liberal, although you might not be aware of that since my blogging is virtually always about religion, not politics.
You’re right about kmichaels’ stupidity, though. Add to the evidence the way it mistakes troll-feeding for venom! If it only knew!
September 18, 2009 at 11:55 am
Ardis is fine to have Daniel call all conservatives stupid. Hmmm, Ardis, and you are calling me stupid?
September 18, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Ardis,
I do apologize that I tend to generalize conservatism. There are a great many good conservatives out there. But they remain generally silent whilst the crazy fools storm the coop.
Sadly I don’t see a way out. For the foreseeable future, the Glenn Becks of the world will rule modern conservatism.
September 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Daniel, if you are an example of liberalism and progressive thinking then no thanks. You are simply a gross hypocrite that has failed to convince anyone of the evil of Glenn Beck. All you have done is add your name to list of leftist political hacks that attack the messenger for exposing the weakness of your political heros. That part is painfully obvious. Everyone in the world is stupid and evil and vile and blah blah blah except for you and Guy.
September 18, 2009 at 11:37 am
Daniel and Guy and obviously Ardis has no problem with Obama attending a black supremacy church for twenty years where it was routine to say that the root of most problems was because of white Americans or white Jews.
Still waiting for the rational reasoning as to why this is acceptable behavior for Obama.
Watch for the crickets to respond to the details of Obama’s racist life.
September 18, 2009 at 11:43 am
well, as most of America’s problems came from white Americans, it is not a lie to say that most problems come from white Americans. As most of America is white, saying “most” problems come from white Americans is not a lie. It is factually correct. Snap!
September 18, 2009 at 11:58 am
Sorry Danny, but that comment is simply ludicrous.
September 18, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“Still waiting for the rational reasoning as to why this is acceptable behavior for Obama.”
I guess since I attend a church with a whole lot of white racists, I see no need to condemn Obama for doing the same.
I wrote about this at FPR a while back:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/03/reject-and-denounce/
September 18, 2009 at 11:45 am
kmichaels seems to be under the impression that most of America’s problems do not come from whites, but rather from the minorities in America. That is racist.
See, it’s all a matter of statistics. There are more whites than non-whites in America. Thus “most” problems America has come from that population which represents most of the entire population. It is quite factually true.
September 18, 2009 at 11:51 am
Actually, that is a very stupid approach to statistics. If you are judging frequency of problems based on race you would use a per capita measurement, not a total number measurement. But that is neither here nor there, since I never said one race is more prone to causing problems than others. What I said is that Obama went to a church for twenty years that said one race is prone to causing ALL problems, not most. This given church blamed ALL problems on whites. The point is, your idiotic childish head fake around the issue of Obama’s historical racist behavior will not be excused by your transparent lame use of statistics. Your ilk are quite use to such idiotic rationale being accepted at Huffington Post and Daily Kos, where I am sure you ploys are most happily accepted.
September 18, 2009 at 11:56 am
Yes, I am well aware that I said most, being generous. But if you hear Jerry Wright, it is pretty much ALL problems in his view that are to be blamed on whites.
September 18, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Using Daniels lame logic, I would not be a racist if I all I did was report on black crimes in a church setting, over and over again, only bringing up black crimes, especially if I was factually correct that the crimes I mentioned were all really done by blacks. Apparently there would be no racist intent if all I talked about was blacks doing this thing negative and blacks doing that thing negative, as long as I quote legitimate cases.
Obama did things consistent with those things that racists tend to do.
September 18, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Don’t feed the troll.
September 18, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Daniel, as always, plays the role of hypocrite to a T. When anyone dares to oppose all his negative comments then suddenly you become the evil troll. Good grief, Daniel, if anyone is a troll here it is you.
September 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm
/whiny tone/ But why can’t I feed the troll, Daniel? It’s such a funny troll! It drools, and its eyes bug out, it wets its pants, and it uses words it doesn’t understand. It looks and sounds like a mini-Glenn Beck!
September 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Again, Ardis, how is it that Beck is evil but Daniel saying that all conservatives are stupid is somehow acceptable behavior? Not quite sure if you have the right troll in mind. But then, apparently my comments hurt your sensitivity in that you too have jumped on the hate Glenn Beck bandwagon. I suppose it would not bother you if there was a blog set up entirely to smear Ardis E. Parshall, and that you would find no evil in that sort of direct attack.
September 18, 2009 at 4:31 pm
heh, you’re right Ardis, this is a fun troll.
Hey Troll, fetch!
Glenn Beck is a racist loony!
September 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm
oh, I’m cracking up at the turn this thread has taken… never thought I’d see Ardis and Dan lumped together as ‘leftists’!!
besides, we all know that real ‘leftists’ don’t exist in the US. You’re all centrist, right-ish, or extreme- falling- off- the- planet- right. Only outside the US do we have worthy faithful members of the Church elected to serve as members of universal- healthcare- welfare- state- human- rights-anti- nuclear- weapons- supporting governments.
September 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Ardis allowing Dan to call all conservatives stupid is a bit of a hint that Ardis may not be quite as conservative as she wants people to think. And Anne, I am sure that all the good Mormons live just outside of the USA. Nothing bigoted about that comment of yours. This thread has not taken a turn in any particular direction than that with which it started. An elitist leftist decided that he was the judge of Glenn Becks moral worthiness. Then those that think leftist judgmental attitude is a bit hypocritical gave their opinion. Anne, leftist in UK agreed that she had enough evidence to condemn Beck as unworthy, with a few other leftists like Dan, Guy, and sometimes Ardis. We just see what kind of hypocrisy the leftists seem to enjoy living by.
September 18, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Hey, Daniel, the troll thinks I have the power to control whether or not you call conservatives stupid. That’s a level of power I never dreamed I had! I’m going to bow out now, maybe take a wander across to visit Anne in that leftist U.K. paradise, and plan what to do with the immense power at my command. Back to you later! (Please keep the troll fed in my absence. It has shown a tendency to fade away during the past few hours — its posting frequency has slowed to 38 comments per hour. I fear that its strength is spent. Poor, stupid troll.)
September 18, 2009 at 4:33 pm
So YOU’RE the one controlling me, Ardis! I was wondering why I was suddenly typing words I wasn’t planning on typing!
September 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Now, I am offended. As the only real leftist here, I do not want to be associated with moderates like Dan or traditionalists like Ardis. Have you seen Guy’s gay marriage posts? Yep, not lefty.
Of course, now Anne has me wanting to move to the UK. Sigh.
September 19, 2009 at 3:01 am
oooooh, now I’m offended. There’s nothing ‘-ist’ about me. I’m left, full stop. So far left I’m driving on the hard shoulder (but as you folk drive on the wrong side of the road you won’t get that one
)
September 18, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Just 2 days back I contacted the Mormon Church through the live chat feature on the website.
I asked Jordan, the person I was chatting with, if the Church had an official position on Glenn Beck, seeing as he makes no secret of the fact that his conversion to the Mormon faith changed his life. (Not quite enough, I fear). Jordan explained that the church believes in free thought and cannot control what its members do.
I mentioned the racist comments and death threats and suggested that the church ought to consider distancing itself from Beck. I said that Beck is giving the church a black eye. Jordan responded that any decision about that would be made by the Leaders. I asked if I could write to the Leaders, and he (or she) said that the Leaders take their direction from God.
That may be so, but the American public is taking its direction from the hate speech of Glenn Beck. The lunatic fringe embraces it, but the vast majority of people despises it.
Today I kicked off a new website called GlennBeckReport.com. It will go live in a few days; on this site I will catalog his smears, distortions, and lies with the thing he hates the most, the plain truth.
-Wexler
September 30, 2009 at 10:56 am
How about you catalog your own hate speech first, mr beam in the eye.
October 2, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sometimes the truth hurts.
I will not sugar-coat anything Beck has said, period. He has toed the GOP line incessantly, the party of hatred and division. He has supported the policies of the failed Bush Administration that left us in 2 wars and killed millions.
If pointing that out offends you then you probably won’t want to visit my websites. Instead you may feel more comfortable in your teabagger-approved tinfoil hat waiting for the ACORN to root you out or AmeriCorps to take over the government and make you sing the Russian National Anthem.
-Wexler
September 19, 2009 at 9:04 pm
You can whine and name call all you want but Beck is popular with many who like him very much and think he is right on the spot. So, (sour grapes) lefties keep up the nashing of the teeth you do it so well.
September 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm
We also spell and punctuate better than you do.
September 20, 2009 at 7:24 am
too much texting
September 30, 2009 at 10:57 am
You seem anal about spelling. And yet you end up missing the key points. What a bore you have become.
September 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm
You can whine and name call all you
Don’t you get the irony in using that logic to defend Glenn Beck, jfc?
September 20, 2009 at 4:52 am
no, Christopher, I don’t think jfc gets it.
September 20, 2009 at 7:30 am
Yes, Both sides do whine and name call but you have it down to a sciene. Can’t argue with idoits. Oh, I think that part of a title to a book. As the old saying goes we agree to disagree.
September 20, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I agree Glenn Beck is harmful to the church. And the First Presidency should pull any books based on his opinions from all LDS sites and stores..AND stop letting him sell this hateful propoganda and the expensive of our church.. It is shameful that nobody is speaking out, he is spreading hate.
September 30, 2009 at 11:00 am
Conservatives love Beck and leftists hate him. Not very likely that the conservative LDS church is going to bother with the leftist whines and rants and your constant distortions of the truth about Beck. I would like to see what hate Beck is supposedly spreading. All I see is people like katie, dan, guy and ardis spreading their own form of hate with anyone that disagrees with them.
September 22, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Wow, you people are something else!
Glenn Beck is an entertainer, yes, a political entertainer, like Limbaugh. Anyone who thinks he is causing the Mormon Church harm is not thinking realistically. Has Harry Reid caused the church harm? No, he has not. Has Mitt Romney caused the church harm? No, he has not. Has Steve Young, who wife opposed prop 8 in CA, caused the church harm? No, he has not.
The church has diverse political views amongst members. Anyone who thinks that all members should think the same is not supporting free agency.
Glenn Beck is fine as a member representative. Give me a break, all you commentators. Go do something useful with yourselves. Yeah, that’s it, go do something political or something.
September 22, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I have never seen harry Reid, take a gas can in a mocking of wanting to burn someone, LIKE MR. BECK,…. I do not think all members should have the same political views…JUST SANE ONES…. Glenn Beck has called woman names, recently mind you, look at some of his clips…. Is this a man that should still be aired on BYU radio, or invited to hosts events… And it is harmful, we want people to attend the temple, what non-member would want convert with members like this… So yes he is harmful… not all but non-members think this is how alot of LDS feel….. and that is harmful to their salvation……you might have yours but millions do not and will now back away………THE 1ST PRESIDENCY NEEDS TO ADDRESS
October 3, 2009 at 9:01 am
“Glenn Beck has called women names.”
Wow, this is his big sin, to call a less than feminine female a name? Oh my. I suppose that is going to be on the temple recommend questions now. Have you ever called somebody a name, especially a female. I bet you never in your life called somebody a name right katie? Ever.
September 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm
What’s with this weird false equivalency between Reid and Beck, as if the two are even remotely comparable. That’s just silly.
September 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
Dan can’t see his own political bias and BS so of course he wont see a connection between Reid and Beck. Dan has the intellectual honesty of … well, he has none.
September 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I assume that many of the comments above are from members of the LDS Church.
As a ‘gentile’ I am happy to see this argument taking place. Should reason prevail, and the Church opt to officially distance itself from Beck’s hate speech, it will salvage the best possible outcome from an extremely embarrassing situation.
-Wexler
September 30, 2009 at 11:05 am
Wexler has yet to prove that Beck promotes hate speech. Leftists assume that if you dislike socialism then you are just being hateful. Put me down on the list of people that hate socialism. Still waiting for all these judgmental goofballs to explain why their hate is better than the hate they suppose Beck is spreading. Wexler, Dan, Guy, anyone? Yeah, did not think so. They are too busy fomenting hate against Beck to have an intelligent response. These ignorant people using their political bent to try and stir up hate against Beck is just a hoot to watch. All I see is their own unfounded hatred and their own gross and utter hypocrisy.
October 2, 2009 at 11:55 am
Not you again.
By defending Beck you have already proven yourself to be irrational. That’s why you don’t even flinch when he holds up a can of chaw and says the President may cause cancer. It’s why you think it’s OK for him to joke about poisoning Nancy Pelosi and fantasize about strangling Michael Moore with his bare hands. It’s why you support his utterly false and slanderous attacks against ACORN, AmeriCorps, Van Jones, SEIU, and anyone else you disagree with.
Now somebody call the waambulance, I think Michaels is going to cry along with Beck. Oh, you love this country sooooo much, you can’t stand to see the commies take it over…
-Wexler
September 24, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Katie,
You are so right! Deseret Books should not promote Beck’s books, even if the book promoted seems inocuous. The fact remains that almost every sentence he utters is either stupid or inflammatory! In no way does Beck represent what true Latter Day Saints believe, and if Sheri Dew took a close look at the things he says, his books would be off the church book list in record time!
October 3, 2009 at 9:03 am
Amy, Katie, now official judges in Israel. Pity Israel that we now have such lame judges.
September 25, 2009 at 8:26 am
“…if Sheri Dew took a close look at the things he says, his books would be off the church book list in record time?”
I am under the impression that Sheri Dew is behind the right wing direction Des Book. I bet she has read Beck’s books and like them.
September 30, 2009 at 11:06 am
I bet you leftist read Obama books and like them. So what? It is still a free country. You leftists are really a sad lot of hypocrites for the most part.
October 1, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Actually Des Book carries both of the Obama books. I actually have little interest in reading books by politicians or media personalities.
kmichael,
They did have lots of picture books. Those might work well for you.
September 25, 2009 at 11:14 pm
What a sad thread you have going here! It’s like some nasty little back bitting gossip column, or bunch of small town bitties getting together to bash all those that do not meet their exacting standards. Glenn Beck, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney – it does not matter. Why so nasty to a member of the church when that member has NEVER said, “I represent the LDS church”. Glenn would be the first to say that he is very flawed and is not a stellar example of Mormonism. President Hinckle said that the role of the church is to make bad men good and good men better. Sorry to break it to you – most of us don’t start out perfect (unlike some of the posters here). Glenn, like most all members of my faith, are on a path to perfection – it does not matter where on the path they are but only that they are trying to go in the right direction. Good job wishing him to be shoved of the path – you would make the pharisees proud.
What is the purpose of this thread? To look for the bad in others. To give thanks to God that you are soooo much better than those crazies like Beck. Stand high on your internet Rameumptom and declare how embarrased you are of that idiot on TV. You critics are doing so much good for the image of the church by demonstrating how loaded you are with the love of Christ. So you may call your neighbor “Fool” but keep in mind how humble and loving you sound when you do it. With members like you – the church has no need of enemies.
September 30, 2009 at 11:15 am
The purpose of this thread is that some left leaning elitist members of the LDS church are irritated with the political success of Beck bringing to mind the flaws of the leftist political philosophy so in order to help shut Beck down these same elitists feel it necessary to assume that everyone else views life through the same leftist hateful spectacles that they do. So they will present their so-called facts illustrating (by making unfounded claims) that Beck is the big evil hateful boogy man and they can’t understand why everyone can’t be so informed and enlightened as they are. This is typical BS political hacking and harping in the guise of helping those poor church members that might relate to what Beck is saying. I just half to laugh at the severe hypocrisy in these elitists’ posts and comments. I just shake my head and and think what a sad lot they are. These sort inevitably learn other great hidden secrets and they soon discover that they are too good for the flawed LDS church and for their flawed LDS neighbors and ask to have their names removed from the records. Then they start some lame blogging sites and foment their little hate groups which eventually fall by the wayside to be ignored by better people than they are.
October 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Hmmm, political success requires winning at the election booth. He is achieving financial success. In that, more power to him.
October 1, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Chris, since he is not running for political office Beck’s success would logically be based on his numbers compared to other similar news programs. Beck beats MSNBC by two hundred to three hundred percent better numbers. He is rated number two overall, and has a less than favorable time slot. He is successful with his personal political message based on those that “vote” to watch him, by actually watching him. And this simple fact gnaws at leftists so much that they want him to be judged relative to his standing in his own personal church, which is really a sign that you leftists are getting even more desperate. He is enormously more popular as a member of the LDS church than Harry Reid for example. Again, a point that leftists just get irritated with.
October 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm
That was my point. It is media/market success. However, winning an early evening time slot will likely never lead to a victory in the electoral college or a majority in Congress and that is what really matters. So, I have nothing to be gnawed about. From the looks of things, you are the only one irritated around here. Try taking a deep breath.
October 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Even the Democrats admit that Republicans are likely to win big during the 2010 elections. Much of which is due to Beck’s success against Acorn, Van Jones and Obama’s image itself. Obama’s numbers are worse than the vast majority of presidents based on the same time in office. My point was on Beck’s personal success. But if you want to talk political success, Obama’s numbers are going down constantly and have been for some time. Democrats in general are fearful of extreme losses in 2010 and even though they hold a strong majority they shore don’t act like it. And that is because their voters are not liking the realty of all the lame programs that the Democrats are currently pushing. They have the majority and are forced to give into the Republicans because even the Democrat politicians see the writing on the wall. And since the is supposedly a LDS blog, the LDS PEOPLE tend to love Beck, generally and despise Harry Reid, generally. And that is just the way it is. Democrats are a rare breed in the LDS church, especially leftist Democrats. So either we are all wrong or your really are a special precious elitist group and we should bow down to you. But it just aint gonna happen any time soon.
October 1, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Even the Democrats admit that Republicans are likely to win big during the 2010 elections.”
Name one.
“But if you want to talk political success, Obama’s numbers are going down constantly and have been for some time.”
According to Real Clear Politics, a pretty conservative site, the approval polls average to about 52.2 percent. That is the percentage he won with last November. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
“Democrats are a rare breed in the LDS church, especially leftist Democrats.”
As a socialist Mormon, this is not news to me. I am not looking for popularity. Are you? Nobody is right or wrong. We just disagree. It is politics.
Oh, I in no way want you to bow down to me. That might require you and I to be in the same room together.
October 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“Nobody is right or wrong.”
So then, you are saying that Beck is not wrong. Good for you to finally admit to the truth.
I suspect that a member that created a blog calling another member out for being reprimanded by the church leadership might be a bit WRONG. But then, since it is all relative, he he he, then nobody is right or wrong.
Jesus was not right or wrong.
Joseph Smith was not right or wrong.
And Jesus never said that he brought a two edged sword to divide right from wrong. It is all a dream.
Goodness, how lame of a statement.
October 1, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The statement referring to sentiments about Beck or Reid and not a universal statement about metaphysics, you twit.
October 1, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Chris H you see to go off way too easily. Twit? Was that in Pee Wee’s big adventure? Does it irritate you that others use your own brashness against you? It seems to. So, neither Beck or Reid are right or wrong unless you are calling Beck wrong, which you do. Well, thanks, you cleared everything up now. No need for further discussion. Metaphysics. Great line. Still waiting for how you justify your hateful language against others but somehow Beck is the evil boogeyman when you spot an imperfection in him. I guess it will remain one of those great mysteries of life.
September 25, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Had to add one more comment
Katie:
“It is shameful that nobody is speaking out, he is spreading hate.”
That would be called – projection.
September 29, 2009 at 10:56 am
Well, I for another, am in serious opposition to Glenn Beck and every thing he stands for. I was in Orem just days ago in Deseret Book, and it was frightening to see his book, by the dozens, splattered everywhere. Tell me that people don’t equate Beck with the church. Some of you people need to get out of town more often and see what’s going on in the world. Ivory towers don’t cut it all the time.
September 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“Some of you people need to get out of town more often and see what’s going on in the world. Ivory towers don’t cut it all the time.”
Well, I left my ivory tower recently (the Kimball Tower to be specific) and I went to that same Deseret Book. I noticed that they had a rather poor selection of Mormon Studies-type books but a rather high amount of conservative political books including Beck.
I still think that most people think of the Osmonds when they think of Mormons and not Beck. To be honest he might actually be quite representative of Mormons (as a culture) and the political ideology that they hold (not all Mormons but a huge chunk of us).
September 30, 2009 at 11:08 am
Yep Bart, bookstores should only promote leftist leaning books. Perhaps some nice Obama books would be fitting. You guys are a hoot. Your hypocrisy is astounding and your judgements seem rather flawed.
September 30, 2009 at 11:15 am
It’s back! Hide the sheep and the children! kmichaels is back!
September 30, 2009 at 11:17 am
Yes, Ardis the elitist troll is back. Apparently she is now anal about my posts. Fetch Ardis, we wouldn’t want your elitist friends to be disappointed.
October 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm
[kmichaels--I've essentially deleted this comment--it even surpasses Glenn Beck's ability to offend. I've pretty much let this thread run with little interference--but I do read each comment. I've deleted a couple, and kmichaels you run the risk of further deletions if you don't exercise a bit better judgment than this comment I've taken out.] Guy
October 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Guy,
I think a ban is now needed.
October 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Hey, Guy, while you are banning posts, perhaps you could ban the Ardis post about hiding the sheep and the children. But alas, Guy, since that self important Ardis is on your side on this issue you would not even think of banning her ignorant attacks against others. And while you are banning, perhaps you should ban yourself for starting this hypocritical judgmental blog in the first place. But again, alas, your own self-importance will not allow your lack of intellectual honesty to do the right thing.
October 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Ardis cannot be only “self important” because I think she is very important. Alas, I am not sure if Guy is important, but anyone with a beard that freaking awesome must be important.
kmichael, you wrath is a testament to the type of politics Mr. Beck has encouraged. Thanks for proving the point.
October 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Chris H, my wrath at the left is no more wrathful nor out of line that Guy’s rather against Beck, nor more wrathful than your rath against Beck, nor more wrathful that Ardis’s personal wrath against me. There is plently of wrath (if that is what you want to call it) to go around. The first wrathful comment was posted by Guy himself, taking on the duty of judge against Beck, for having a political bent different from his own. Again, if you people feel that wrath aimed at specific persons is uncalled for then by all means remove those beams from your own eyes first. There is a literal forrest of unkind wrath against Beck on this blog, including your own, Chris. Ardis has been more than prolific and her own personal attacks against other, as has Dan. Again, clean your own house before you start worrying about mine.
October 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I do not think any of us lefties (lol, I know these others too well to honestly include them in the category, but I would be honored if they would joint me in the cause of social justice…back to topic) has wrath towards you. You have made yourself an easy target because you are easily set off. It is not so much that we are angry with you, but we find smacking you around rather enjoyable. Thanks for playing along so well. Maybe this makes us snobs or elitists. I think we are okay with that.
I have no wrath towards Beck, he represents a type of conservatism that should be out there for all to see. It speaks for itself and I am not worried. I have said as much above and elsewhere. I have told plenty of people on the left to relax on this topic, so you are not alone in being told to chill.
As for our wrath towards you: Ardis is my friend and you should be careful when messing with her. It is your behavior, and not any feelings towards Beck, which have provoked her. You are out of your league here.
October 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Right Chris. Because Ardis is your friend and because my comments dont jive with your political views then I am a justified target for your wrath, and her wrath. Friendship establishes your moral basis. Wow, I should have thought of that myself. Sort of like Obama being friends with the harvard professor so he is justified in calling the cops stupid because they picked on his friend. Just curious. what league is it that I am supposed to be out of here? The league of self important judges? The problem is simple. Beck is liked by most conservatives, including the vast majority of LDS members and he will continue to be liked. He is a friend of conservatism and a his research is doing much damage to the leftist propaganda. So of course those in your league will be against him, since his stings hurt your political cause. The more popular he gets the more the leftists will whine and come up with lame personal attacks against him since you have neither the intellect nor the guts to give an opposing view of what he is talking about. To those like you you will look for any imperfections to use against him. But alas, none of the work. His numbers rise and yours continue to fall. As Gamaliel stated, if God is against him he shall fail, but he continues to grow in influence. What a pity for the leftists hiding in their respective holes. They are being exposed by the poor little Mormon boy Beck and there is nothing you can do to shut him down.
October 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Maybe if you had friends you would understand. You are boring me now. Good bye.
October 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Yeah … well, if someone is going to speak for me while I’m doing real writing (people actually pay me for my words, kmichaels, so I don’t spit them out by the pound the way you do), Chris H. is a good man to do the job. I wonder if even Beck wouldn’t be a tiny bit ashamed to know that kmichaels had his back, though.
Thanks, Guy. (Guy’s important, too.)
October 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm
It’s back! Hide the sheep and the children! Ardis E. Parshall is back!
October 1, 2009 at 3:34 pm
The unoriginality of the lunatic fringe lies exposed again.
October 1, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The unoriginality of the lunatic fringe lies exposed again.
October 1, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Ardis,
I am waiting for him/her to say “I know you are but what am I?”
October 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Apparently Chris, you beat us both to it. You get one extra gold star for being Pee Wee Herman first. Congratulations. Gosh darn, it, I will give you two gold stars so that you can share with a lonely friend.
October 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Thanks for allowing all this fun, Guy. It might be fun to see just how much lower kmichaels can sink, but I’d have to follow him/her/it there to know, and even I have my limits.
One last word for you, kmichaels: Mooooo!!
October 2, 2009 at 10:52 am
If I try real hard Ardis, I might be able to sink as low as your level. But then I never liked the pious self important judgmental self-righteous hypocrite crowd, so most likely I will pass. Please tell us again how your language and your attacks against others stack up when reviewing your own gross hypocrisy. Get that beam checked in your eye. It can’t be good for your vision.
October 1, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Wow, pretty out of hand. But I’m curious do any of the Beck supporters on this thread think that a non-member listening to Beck would get an impression of the LDS Church which is consistent with Christ’s teachings as revealed through latter-day scriptures? (Hint this is an opinion poll, not a sarcastic rhetorical question.) Further, Do you think that is a relevant issue?
Although I doubt anyone will do it, a simple series of “Yes” or “No” responses; e.g., 1. No, 2. Yes. (In my case) would be sufficient.
I ask because I think the level of nastiness in this thread is due more to differences in fundamental beliefs about what parts of the Gospel Teachings “matter the most” (normative judgment call) than about disagreements about what Beck is actually doing (factual events).
Given that General Conference is next weekend it will be very interesting to see how many (if any) General Authorities address any of Beck’s concerns about the state of the world directly.
October 1, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The general authorities will address neither Beck directly nor Obama directly, nor Harry Reid directly. As to how people think about Beck, conservatives of other religions think, for the most part, that he is great. And conservatives think that Harry Reid is a dried up old never was with some serious intellectual deficiencies. I suppose we should start a blog about whether or not the perpetual liar and hateful Harry Reid should remain a good member in standing. But we wont see that because wise people understand not to mix his religion with his politics to the degree that we have to have elitist discussions about his personal worthiness on a blog as ridiculous as this one is.
October 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm
As a non-Mormon who has always been courteous and respectful to Mormon missionaries, I’ll say the following… and I believe that there are thousands of us who think along the same line.
If Beck belonged to MY church I would be doing everything I could to pressure the church to issue a formal statement that he does not represent Mormons beliefs and the church does not agree with his political views or his radical conspiracy theories.
My church does not excommunicate people, but the Mormons should excommunicate Beck as that would be the clearest statement they could make.
However, I believe that the church leadership is corrupted by money and therefore they will not take any action against him.
-Wexler
October 2, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Wexler, you are a hoot. Excommunicate him for what crime exactly? Explaining the dangers of socialism and power grabs by an overly large government are not on the list of sins. Last time I checked it was not in the ten commandments. It is not even on the list of little sins. Sorry, you have the wrong church in mind. Perhaps you can ask Obama’s church leadership whether decrying socialism is on their list of sins. Believe me, it will be. Jerry Wright loves socialism so he would be glad to have a mock excommunication of that poor Mormon boy Glenn Beck. And Wexler can be in the back pews says amen and hallelujah.
October 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Back on subject, leftists get irritated when you use their own form of personal attacks upon them. So noted. Ardis started her brilliant entry by calling me a fanatic, since I posted multiple entries. Then she used a few hidden cuss words (#%@*$) sort of stuff. I found that approach childish but she gets a C+ for effort. Then she pretty much just followed me around waiting to get that next nasty zinger in. Her most recent involved sheep and children. I wonder if she will bring up sheep and children to anyone that disagrees with her during he Sunday School lessons. Chris has been running a close second, vying for first place. Both are ok with their own personal attacks against others but just can’t seem to condone Beck saying something negative against socialism or government takeovers of various private industry. Apparently Beck is hateful but they are not. Ardis was not remotely hateful when she mentioned sheep and children being at danger because I support Beck. And Dan, Chris and Guy, nothing at all hateful about any of them. They just care for your well being and that of your children so the hateful Glenn Beck must be punished. Do I ever say negative things about others? Darn right. Especially when obvious hypocrites open their mouths and display their vile message to others. Those I let have it with both barrels. However, you won’t find me with those other self righteous pious hypocrites pretending that their hateful comments are somehow justified when somebody else’s are not. This entire lame blog is based on a very poor choice of a subject, showing that Guy thinks he is justified in setting himself up as judge against Glenn Beck and others. I am pretty sure he was not called to that position. He certainly lacks the wisdom or evidence to make his case.
October 2, 2009 at 11:58 am
So do you support Glenn Beck’s fantasies about murder?
Do you support his charge that Obama is a racist?
Do you support Beck’s theory that AmeriCorps will become an armed secret police force for Obama? And his report that it will receive half a trillion dollars funding?
Do you think that Patrick Gaspard used to work for ACORN?
LOL you’re manic.
-Wexler
October 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Obama is a racist, that one is easily proven by reading his own statements in his own books. Then the clincher is Obama attending a black supremacist, anti-white, anti-jew church for twenty years without a peep of a protest. You can hide your head in the sands but Obama has some serious racist tendencies. If Bush were to do the same thing in reverse all the liberal blowhards would never let it die about how racist they thought Bush would be for attending a white supremacist church for twenty years hearing how it is the evil black person that is the cause of all or most of the problems. Or if Bush said that he learned early not to trust black people or if Bush said that black women are afraid of white men. No doubt about it, Obama has racist tendencies.
Fantasizing about murder? You really think that is serious? If so, you have deep issues with relating to reality. I suspect when Bush was burned in effigy by you leftists that it was part of your fantasy to see Bush burned in real life. Sheesh.
Patrick Gaspard? Is he a friend of yours? Is ACORN friends of yours? I guess you surround yourself with likeminded people. And Obama seems to surround himself with radical leftists and people that generally dislike America. So be it. Where the carcass is the vultures will gather.
October 2, 2009 at 12:45 pm
kmichael…
If you speak for Mormons it’s no wonder half of America thinks that the Mormon Church is a dangerous cult of murderers.
I’m assuming you must actually work for either Beck or the church since you’re johnny-on-the-spot defending Beck within minutes… and you seem to be the only one doing it…
OR are you actually Glenn? Come over to my place, Glenn…
http://www.GlennBeckReport.com
October 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I speak for me. And I am certain that you were already leaning towards thinking of the Mormon Church as a dangerous cult.
Now a good start to prove your credibility Wexler is to explain why Obama is not a racist, after doing what he did. You are welcome to refute my facts, instead of the attack against me personally, which is a not so clever tactic used by those that have no factual response.
As to Gaspard, the reason some said that he worked for ACORN was because the founder of ACORN said that he worked for ACORN. Then the founder more recently stated that he was in error and that Gaspard did not work for ACORN.
With ACORN being this confused about it then one can understand others being confused about Gaspard.
Gaspard does have ties with other groups directly tied and promoted by ACORN so I doubt that it really matters whether Gaspard was a Scribe or just a Pharisee or both. Gaspard was part of the New Party party in Chicago, a self avowed socialist party.
The web of radical leftist connections between Obama and his friends has, like a web, many interconnections.
New Party listed Obama as a member and the member that they supported in Chicago. ACORN openly supports democrats. ACORN was founded by leftists and socialists.
Gaspard and ACORN both had connections with Working Families Party another socialist leaning group and with the leftist union SEIU.
If you expect any mortal to unravel all of the interconnections that Gaspard, Obama, Van Jones and all the other leftists have with ACORN, Working Family Party, New Party, and the SEIU union thugs and all the other socialist offshoots then good luck with that.
Obama said to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. I take him up on that offer.
October 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Hey, Beckerhead,
I’ll start refuting your “facts” any time you start establishing them. It’s no wonder you’re a goofball Beck follower. You wouldn’t understand a true syllogism if it were diddling your noodle.
What you have actually posted is pure-D BS, it’s your opinion or the opinion of somebody else. You don’t have a real fact in your empty noggin.
Explain how he’s NOT a racist? You can’t prove a negative, however, since he’s surrounded himself with his closest staff members being white and Jewish, I guess that might be a start. Oh, of course, he just did that to throw us gullible Obama supporters off the trail! That explains his Cabinet, too! LOL! And the General staff of the military, and the ambassadors… Oh, but he’s a racist!
Glenn Beck said “Obama is a racist” and then he IMMEDIATELY said “I didn’t say he was a racist”. Which statement do YOU believe? OH, the cognitive dissonance!
On a related topic. To you, anyone who talks about white people critically is a racist, which is why you can’t understand that what Jeremiah Wright said is true. The chickens came home to roost, and man, I’ll tell you what, there’s a whole flock of chickens heading over to Glenn Beck. There’s such a thing as karma. You never get away with it, you always pay a price. Sure, he’s rolling in millions now, and he’s got a few dozen goofball weirdos like you who hang on his every word, but it’s not going to last. It never does. Ask Joe McCarthy.
It’s started already. You must have missed what Lindsey Graham said about Beck last night… LOL you foolish person, wake up. Even the GOP doesn’t want him out there whoring for them.
Glenn Beck will say anything that he thinks will get people like you to listen to him, and the reason he stays on the air is because people like you are too stupid and gullible to understand how he’s wrong. You believe crap like Americorps is turning into a secret army. LOL! You believe crap like “Obama is a racist” even when the man who SAID that IMMEDIATELY says he didn’t mean it!” LOL! You believe that there’s secret “socialist architecture” in the building where NBC (Oh, and Faux too!) has their studios! You believe that the “public option” is socialism… but you haven’t read a thing about it, you don’t know anything. This is a revival of stupidity, just plain stupidity.
Now post me some facts, and post some documentation. I don’t give a flip about your opinions because you are obviously an idiot. If you post a fact I will continue posting back to you. I want one group of facts per argument, and I don’t want vague BS about who worked for who or who founded what. If you want to make a charge about ACORN, then you back it up with documentation or I will not accept it in the argument.
There’s a freakin’ putz on this page and it’s not ME.
-Wexler
October 3, 2009 at 9:08 am
Wexler, nice ranting. Too bad you can’t back it up with some truth.
October 3, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I think I speak for the majority here when I say that we’ve had about enough of you.
I don’t exactly understand the exchange for you, but if you’re trying to convince anyone of anything you are clueless. If you just like to annoy people you’re doing a fair job but as noted about some people don’t even care enough about you to be annoyed.
Perhaps you’re working for Beck; maybe you’re a Gentile who’s trying to make the Mormons look like Beckerhead fruitcakes. Perhaps not.
Who knows? Who cares?
-Wexler
October 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Right, some punk kid like you that said in your post that you pretty much hate every conservative and now you speak for all them. You are so precious.
October 2, 2009 at 4:11 pm
why are people still feeding this stupid troll?
October 3, 2009 at 9:09 am
Daniel the troll wants to know why people have opposing views to his. What a bore you are, danny.
October 2, 2009 at 6:09 pm
At 2:22 of this video, Glenn Beck is told to portray himself cursing God.
No joke. He does it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4I2f0ZO6g
Excommunicate him while you can.
October 3, 2009 at 9:10 am
So, your church does not excommunicate but if it did it would do so based on pretending to curse God. Sounds like you would make an evil taskmaster.
October 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm
A real Mormon would not do that and joke about it.
That is a fact.
October 3, 2009 at 2:23 pm
You know all about real mormons now do you? A leftist and a ranter and anti-conservative and now you are an expert on the most conservative church in the USA. Yeah, right.
Instead of your usual avoid the issues, again, explain what the big sin is about having a photographer ask you to look up in the sky and pretend like you are cursing god. It is in dozens of movies. It means nothing, much like Wexler.
October 3, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I’m not sure what Mormons you hang around with, but the ones I know would NEVER do what Glenn Beck does in that film. It’s dishonest, disingenuous, and… but wait. That’s what his whole shtick is.
Name me a Mormon who would joke about killing people because of them having different beliefs. I don’t know a single one.
Name me a Mormon who would smoke a cigarette.
Name me a Mormon who would drink alcohol.
Name me a Mormon who would knowingly lie to mislead people into thinking something that isn’t true. (Yeah, want some examples? How about the AmeriCorps lie? Just prove that one then we’ll go from there).
Name me a Mormon who would say “shit” on national TV.
I can name you one who did all that and much more. Y’all know who I’m talkin’ about….
-Wexler
October 3, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Dearest foolish little Wexler, I can name you Mormons that have sinned every sin under the sun. As Jesus stated rather eloquently, I came not to call the righteous unto repentance but the sinners. Your and others sad attempts to demonize Beck make you look most foul and unwholesome. There is not a Mormon on earth that will proclaim that they have not sinned. The idea of the LDS church is to teach true principals and then aid and assist each other unto a perfect day. I don’t know what kind of koolaid your are doped up on but you certainly demonstrate a bizarre twisted form of reality. Since you stated clearly your belief that conservatives are evil it is fairly evident that you are, in your present bizarre blinded state a bit on the hopeless side of a reasonable debate. Beck, like most LDS is simply a person with his own set of flaws. Let he who is sinless cast the first stone. Therein lies the mystery of you. You are obviously seriously flawed both personally and logically. I am just wondering why you figure you should be casting so many stones at Beck. I suppose that due to the idiotic nature of this blog in general that one could logical expect that other self-rigtheous dweebs and pious fools might want to gather and pat each other on their hypocritical backs. And that explains the displeasure that you and others share with my defense of Beck. You are like a whining little child demanding that somebody be punished by the elders of the LDS church because he is not yet perfected. Believe me, they wisely look upon blowhard fools such as you, Guy, Dan, Ardis, Chris etc and just shake their heads wondering when you backbiting children will ever learn to grow up. If you don’t understand the idea of forgiveness, repentance, flawed followers of Christ, etc then there is not enough time nor energy to rectify your sad pathetic understanding at this time. I doubt that you sincerely can be stupid enough to believe your own rantings. But who knows. In any case, you are simply a fool straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
October 3, 2009 at 7:21 pm
No one ever said the Mormons don’t sin.
However, your favorite Mormon, the topic of this article, is an unrepentant sinner who hypocritically claims that his religion changed his life.
Changed it did. As in cha-CHING!
BTW, I will continue to respond to other posters here but as far as I’m concerned you’re a dead hunk of meat that types. You have nothing to offer; you argue for the sake of arguing, you have no facts, no logic, and apparently no regard for the damage your type of person does to your church.
So, drink up, the Beck Kool-Aide is being served, drink it. Drink it. DRINK IT.
(To quote Glenn)
-Wexler
-Wexler
October 3, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Bill Maher on Mormons: “Mitt Romney is a candidate for President and Glenn Beck is a candidate for Thorazine.”
October 3, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Great, the wit and spiritual wisdom of the self avowed Christian hater Bill Maher. Gee, you are so convincing of a spokesman for the anti-Christian crowd. I bet the LDS leadership hangs on your ever word, just as much as they do those priceless gems from Bill Maher.
October 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I think you just proved your own intolerance of Bill Maher’s atheism.
That’s all.
His point of view reflects that of a few atheists. Most of America isn’t atheist, but they agree with him because of people like you and Glenn Beck.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
October 3, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I am not asking for Maher to be removed from the rolls of his atheist church, dearest Wexler. And obviously the intolerance claims of yours are just more idiotic projects of your own hatred. After all, you were just saying how you thought all conservatives were evil. Do you really think that your gross stupidity and hypocrisy is that hard to spot. You are an ignorant child playing the role of foolish juvenile to a T. You are nothing special. The garden variety windbag hypocrite.
October 6, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Since the GOP leadership is distancing itself from Beck, and he has never spoken for Democrats, Progressives, or Libertarians, who does he speak to besides Teabaggers?
The answer to that question for a growing number of Americans is that he speaks for Mormon fundamentalists.
That is why the Church needs to take action. That is, unless the Church wants to be tarred with the same brush as Glenn Beck.
-Wexler
October 7, 2009 at 8:27 am
WWWexler is simply lying in order to further his idiotic ranting and raving. He has no idea about Mormons, LDS church leadership, rules and reasons for excommunication, etc. He is simply a hateful political hack that does not like the popularity that Beck has achieved. Beck is mainstream, WWWexler is just an idiotic leftist with like minded conclusions. Who is distancing themselves from Beck? Oh yeah, a couple of rinos like Lindsay Graham, the great fence-sitter. Wexler, poor wexler, you do like to rant.
October 6, 2009 at 9:18 pm
There are always wacko Mormons who spout off weird stuff on the Right and the Left, as well as from the extreme Libertarian or communitarian view points. The Church just tends to ignore them unless they get convicted of a felony – then they excommunicate them. Also if they start trying to set up their own church or community they tend to get excommunicated as well. Other than that the policy seems to be to just ignore them, they usually mellow out or leave on their own anyway.
October 7, 2009 at 8:32 am
On the subject of Koolaid drinking, the original story to that is that it came from a Democrat, Jim Jones, that had his foolish followers convinced in his personality cult (much like Obama now has a personality cult following) that he talked them into drinking poison laced Koolaid. Yep, the original Koolaid giver and drinker were DEMOCRATS for the most part.
October 7, 2009 at 8:38 am
More on the original democrat leftist Jim Jones …
The Peoples Temple was initially structured as an inter-racial mission for the sick, homeless and jobless. He assembled a large following of over 900 members in Indianapolis IN during the 1950’s.
“He preached a ’social gospel’ of human freedom, equality, and love, which required helping the least and the lowliest of society’s members. Later on, however, this gospel became explicitly socialistic, or communistic in Jones’ own view, and the hypocrisy of white Christianity was ridiculed while ‘apostolic socialism’ was preached.”
October 7, 2009 at 12:43 pm
WWWexler says this claiming that wexler was the grand holder of truth …
“Glenn Beck said “Obama is a racist” and then he IMMEDIATELY said “I didn’t say he was a racist”. Which statement do YOU believe? OH, the cognitive dissonance!”
I use this as just one example of how leftists tend to twist the facts and misrepresent things.
What Beck said was that he Obama had a deep seated hatred for whites, then clarifies later in the same talk that he, Beck, did not mean to say he hated all whites, just that he had racist tendancies.
So yes, I guess we could say that Beck was guilty of toning down his first terminology with something more in tune with the absolute truth of it.
That truth is that Obama went to an anti-white anti-jew church for twenty years and chose to never complain about it until he was running for president.
Not only did wexler get the facts wrong but his conclusion was dead wrong as well.
Beck continues to think that Obama has certain racist tendencies. The following day or two later Beck showed his evidence. It was good and truthful evidence that showed that Obama did indeed do some fairly racist oriented things.
October 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Response to kmichaels:
You (kmicheals) and I went/go to a racist Church (the LDS Church denied the blacks the priesthood until 1978 – in spite of the fact the Joseph Smith ordained blacks, called them on missions, and made one the equivalent of a traveling GA). But then the Church changed its mind and from the late 1840s/early 1850s until 1978 the LDS Church banned black men from the priesthood and temple. We also by extension banned black women from the temple because the Church would not approve an inter-racial marriage for a sealing, and as a policy would not allow black women to receive the temple ordinances. Does/did that make you and me racists? Did it make my parents and grandparents racists? (all of whom worked for equal rights for blacks and women).
October 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm
You know John Harvey, I never once heard any member of the LDS church say that the majority of problems that existed in the world was because of blacks. That it was evil blacks that did this or evil blacks that did that. Never once did I hear a church leader say that it was typical of black women to be afraid of whites. Never once did I hear the LDS church say that all Jews were evil. Yet these things were said in Obama’s church on a weekly basis. So Harvey, I guess you can compare the two issues as though they were the same. On the subject of Priesthood only the Levites were allowed to hold it in the old testament time, so it makes sense that perhaps at times that it is not given to everyone. However, you can be certain, Harvey that if the LDS church said that blacks were all evil, and that they could not be trusted and that they were the cause of the bulk of the problems then it would indeed be racists. But since Joseph Smith said that if a black person was educated they would be just like an educated white person then I have no problem with it. Especially considering they day. During the Lincoln Douglass debates Lincoln said that he would never suggest that blacks should have the right to vote, or that they should have other rights And this was Lincoln. It was also somewhat racist looking for Jesus to refuse blessings for those that were not part of Israel and compare them to dogs. I guess it is all in the interpretation.
However, Harvey, I guess you can say it is the same thing. But it is not.
I have yet to meet a single member of the LDS church, personally, that ever said about blacks what Obama’s preacher said about whites. And Obama could have easily gone to another church, since he did not believe in a restored gospel.
So nice try Harvey, but you failed to convince.
October 7, 2009 at 3:34 pm
In addition to what Obama learned at his racist church he stated in his own books that he learned early not to trust white people (racist) and that it was typical of white women (racist) to be afraid of black people. Then with the lame Harvard Professor Obama, admitting that he did not know the facts called the Black Professor in the right (not knowing the facts) and called the white cops stupid (not knowing the facts). These are things that Obama learned and concluded on his own.
October 7, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Glenn Beck ought to be serving up Kool-aide with his death threats, smoking, drinking alcohol, and wakko bizarre conspiracy theories.
For example, did you know that Americorps is going to turn into a secret, armed police force for Obama? LOL, they’re even going to have almost as big of a budget as the PENTAGON! Wow, now it’s going to take a pretty doggone big swig of Glenn Beck kool-aide to get THAT one down!
When it comes to wakko conspiracies that are heavy in Glenn Beck’s paradigm and devoid of facts, you don’t have to go much further than Glenn Beck claiming that since Patrick Gaspard was “the right hand man” of Acorn (Gaspard never worked for ACORN, but that doesn’t deter Glenn Beck), and according to Glenn Beck Gaspard has “ties” to SEIU, then SHAZZZAAM~! ACORN IS SEIU! LOL, that’s just another one of his crackpot, fact-free fairy tales. I think you’ll need a whole mug of Koolaide to get that one down.
But don’t be too mean to Glenn or he might cry. Not because of socialism, or because he “loves America SOOOOO much”, but because he’s got himself smeared with VAPO RUB.
OK, as to the poster who keeps trolling everyone here and posting personal attacks, isn’t everyone getting tired of their BS? What exactly is this person adding to the conversation? Nothing, other than vilification of anyone who thinks that Beck ought to not stand for the Mormon faith as he does in conversations on a regular basis. Yes, that’s what I said, he STANDS for the Mormon faith. He LITERALLY stands for it, in front of hundreds or thousands of people, telling them how his conversion to Mormonism has changed his life.
Now if that’s what the Mormons what out there on stage claiming kinship, so be it. But you should be advised that there are many out there who do not differentiate between you and Beck. Is it fair to send your young men out all over the country and world to minister with this maniac on the public stage?
Think about it.
-Wexler
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 am
Obama said that he wanted a private citizen force that is funded as much as the US military. Maybe Obama was just doing his typical lying thing or maybe he has some bizarre plans. Obama is a bizarre radical character so who knows how far he would go if he got enough idiots like KoolAid drinking Wexler to support him. Hitler would never have made it as far as he did without some “useful idiots” to help him out. How you blame Beck for repeating what Obama said is just another sign of your strange rationale.
Nobody needs Beck to see that Obama has surrounded himself with marxists, socialists, communists, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Jarett, Kevin Jennings, Jerry Wright, New Party of Chicago (socialists), etc. No matter how hard Wexler pretends that Obama is normal the vast majority of conservatives know better. Liberals lying and lying and lying about things are par for the course.
And I hope that many conclude that Beck is mainstream LDS, which he is. That does not harm us, that makes us on the mark and part of the force that will eventually help shut down the radical leftist movement.
And that dear Wexler is what worries you. You know that there is a force moving that is exposing the liberal lies, Obama’s bizarre radical ways of thinking, etc.
We know that Obama has a sense of hatred against America and wants to, in his words “RADICALLY CHANGE IT.” Then he goes on an apology tour explaining how error prone America is. This boosts his popularity amongst who? Amongst European socialists.
Beck is a great person to expose the truth and Wexler and his liberal friends will of course want to shut him down.
Thankfully there are people like Beck and myself that will push back and explain your many and often lies and misinformation.
October 8, 2009 at 7:40 am
Is this some sort of social experiment, Guy? I count 129 kmichaels bricks, not including the ones that were so ugly you deleted them, coming over my transom. When is enough enough?
October 8, 2009 at 8:01 am
Ardis,
I think Guy has found a sure fire way to assure that his stats are really good the next time ZD does a quantitative analysis of the bloggernacle.
October 8, 2009 at 8:20 am
You’re on to something, Chris. And check your email.
October 8, 2009 at 9:04 am
The socialist Chris and anal Ardis mutual admiration society is now in session. Whoopee.
October 8, 2009 at 9:02 am
Anal Ardis strikes again. Since you are so anal retentive about counting blogs, how many blogs on the various blog sites have you written. How many words have you put down in writing. Go away and count them fast. Somehow it is important to you. Then you can count Joseph Smith writings, and then you can count Shakespeare writings. That I am certain will be very important to other people that are as anal retentive as you are.
October 8, 2009 at 9:10 am
Oh yeah, about all those posts of mine that Guy removed (1) and the horrible things that I said. Ardis implied that I was a sexual predator with sheep and kids. Obviously Ardis feels that this is a kind polite form of comments, but then Ardis being Ardis has no problem with such language and insinuation. So I refered to Ardis as a particular farm animal, the one known for producing milk for consumption. Oh my. Such language on my part. But then, Ardis’ comments were somehow classy and acceptable. This is the type of hypocrite that Ardis is.
October 8, 2009 at 11:10 am
Ardis, Chris,
I think you’re right. One end of the controversy is pretty much being held up by one person, who never answers the challenge to provide proof and only engages in further personal attacks.
This makes for good theater, classic. The actors stand on the stage and converse, and the chorus stands offstage and keeps saying the same thing over and over.
-Wexler
October 8, 2009 at 11:41 am
Wexler,
I am not sure if I appreciate your approach much either. Please, let it drop.
October 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I don’t really have an approach. I’m just a realist.
The reality is that Glenn Beck is the new face of the Mormon Church for many people who have not thought anything about Mormons for quite a while, negative or positive.
I appreciate the subject matter of this particular blog post, because it is right on the mark and it should be of grave concern to anyone who does not wish to be associated with the ravings of a bipolar freak.
If you would prefer that I not post what I think, and what I think a great big lot of us non-Mormons are thinking, then please refrain from reading my posts.
Bottom line: if the Mormon Church doesn’t distance itself from Glenn Beck, it is then tacitly condoning Glenn Beck. It’s not every Mormon’s job to defend the church against Glenn Beck, it’s the Church’s job. And it’s not the Church’s fault that they have a madman among them, but they do, and by not dealing with it they own it by association.
This is unfair, but true.
Best,
Wexler
October 8, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Did not mean to seem as though I was attacking you. I was mostly referring to your engagement of somebody in particular (not Beck, but close). Like Ardis, I do appreciate your perspective.
My own perspective is this: I am a pro-choice socialist. I am not very comfortable with the Church taking action against anyone on political grounds or for being odd.
October 8, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Chris, I can appreciate you defending Ardis, however, since her first comments about me were nothing to do with what I said but to immediate go into a rant about me being a fanatic, etc, then she deserved like treatment. You know the saying, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And since this entire blog is about attacking Beck personally, it seems that my personal attacks are about par for the course, considering most of the posters here have been involved in personal attacks against others. Ardis very first comment about me has been a personal attack and pretty much every one since then has been a personal attack. If you want to play fair, then you can give your speech to Ardis too. If I were to say that because Obama were present that we should hide the sheep and the children then you most likely and lots of other leftists would be up in arms. But because such terms were used against somebody you disagreed with politically then you were not so quick to run to the rescue.
When Bush was claimed to be like Hitler, literally hundreds of times, then leftists said nothing about it. But when Obama, who politically is much closer to Hitler in my opinion, is referred to as Hitler then thin skinned leftists go crazy with self-rigtheous indignation.
The reason I bother so many leftists here is that I point out those things that they claim they are angry about in others.
And frankly, the hate against Beck has nothing to do with his language. It has to do with his political slant being against their own. Are we seriously to believe that the average leftist is upset because Beck used the B word on an obnoxious female caller? As if the left does not make a habit of using that word in their daily conversation, and worse?
No, the attack against Beck is supposedly about him being a bad example the reality is that he is fairly tame in language and mannerisms compared to plenty of very popular leftist personalities.
So I bother people, especially leftists and hypocrites because I cut to the chase, ignore the false premises and get to the key points.
October 8, 2009 at 11:47 am
Wexler darling, your personal attacks, those personal attacks of Guy, of Dan, of Ardis and of Chris, they are so much more kind, humane and praiseworthy of those from others. Blah. That is why you are so apply labeled as the hypocrites that you are.
So, tell us again the chorus lines that you have repeated. Somehow they are better than the chorus lines of Guy, who says the same thing, Dan, who says the same thing repeatedly, Ardis, who says the same things repeatedly and Chris, who says the same things repeatedly.
It seems poor little Wexler, a chorus member, is thinking that he has the top billing in this play. Sadly, as in all his lame claims, he is mistaken.
October 8, 2009 at 11:47 am
Surreal is the word for it Wexler, fer shur!
I appreciate your general tone, by the way, when it comes to Mormons and Mormonism. I hope we still enjoy the reputation we had with you before you found this freakishness. This certainly hasn’t been representative of the Mormonism I know.
One tip for future conversations, where rational people prevail: the term “Mormon fundamentalists” has a peculiar meaning with us. Unlike fundamentalists of other religions, which I think you’d generally define as being politically and socially conservative to the nth degree, scriptural literalists, and whatever else goes into the mix, a “fundamentalist” in the Mormon world is specifically one who advocates and/or practices polygamy, contrary to the good order of the church. Understanding that may spare you the derailing of some discussion in another forum.
Also, because of its significance and consequences to spiritual progress, there is a very high bar to excommunication that can only be judged by a person’s immediate church leaders. Anyone here who has said that Beck should be excommunicated — and means it, and isn’t just exaggerating a la Beck himself — doesn’t understand the process or purpose of church discipline. It isn’t anyone’s right to pressure the church for such action. That would be entirely out of order, no matter who was being discussed. It just isn’t done, and won’t be. I cringe when I think of people who may think Beck’s thought and behavior represents Mormonism, but it isn’t my right to call for his excommunication. All I can do is hope that people in general are smart enough to distinguish between one member’s behavior and the thoughts and opinions of church membership in general.
This note is addressed solely to Wexler, although no one who is still checking in with this thread has any doubt of what will follow. Persons to whom it is not addressed can drown in their own spit, but no notice will be taken.
October 8, 2009 at 11:51 am
Ardis says to Wexler, who earlier was berating the evil nature of all conservatives in general …
“I appreciate your general tone, by the way, when it comes to Mormons and Mormonism.”
Hey Ardis, I suppose that you like the enemy of your enemy is now your friend approach to life.
Wexler has stated in an earlier post that conservatives are all evil. But then, I suppose you need to pat him on the back because he disagrees with me, and you obviously don’t like me, since I had the nerve to defend a fellow member of our religion. Go get em, tiger. Somehow your affection for Judas is most thoughtful and enlightened.
October 8, 2009 at 11:55 am
This is the only time I have ever subscribed to email notification for replies on any blog. I’ll never, ever do it again…please, Guy, make it stoooooooppppppppppp!
October 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Anne,
I am now going to unsubscribe. I actually like the subscription feature and use it all the time.
Guy,
I think I get what you are doing. I worry that allowing the post to be taken over may have given a platform the the craziness that you and I oppose. Thanks for the great blog.
October 8, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The blog is apparently being taken over because the leftist view is being faced with a conservative view that opposes their view. Oh Guy, stop the insanity of not sending us just those updates that support our view that Beck is evil. I have to say, leftists are certainly entertainingly bizarre in their sense of justice and free speech. Stop the crazy defender of Beck Guy, he posts too many times and we don’t like being called hypocrites and we can’t stand the pressure when others disagree with our views. As I said before, the whole premise of this particular blog was doomed from the very beginning.
October 8, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Given how much you hate this blog, you sure spend a lot of time here. This is a sign of irrationallity.
October 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm
i hate the hypocritical message that this blog has started out with. And since you are slow learners, I will have to repeat my message more than once.
But Chris, I do say that you attempt to be two sided occasionally, which is good of you.
However, you still tend to strain at the gnats and swallow the camels on most issues, which is unwise of you.
October 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Wexler especially is a hoot. In between attacking others personally, along with most of the other posters attacking others personally, he insists that people that attack him personally should not do it. You see, with the true hypocrite, they despise the loudest the things that they themselves are doing. That is the pure definition of hypocrisy. This entire blog started out as Guy’s personal attack against Glenn Beck. Apparently Wexler and others that also hate Beck are dead against personal attacks, when others do it. But of course, the nature of their personal attacks somehow are above reproach. As I said before, Ardis can claim that posters are sexual predators against sheep and children, and of course she is to be commended for such a fine articulate manner of discussion. Wexler can call all conservatives evil but stand back and lo and behold the self-rigtheous indignation of the left when faced with their own medicine. Leftists are particularly thin skinned with having people use their own medicine against them. Conservatives, including Beck, are repeatedly called all manner of vile things then the thin skinned liberal screams and shouts and waves their arms about when they discover the same thing being done to them.
October 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Other radicals that people cringed about because they opposed the common thread of the day.
Jesus.
He was just too radical, talked too much, repeated his message way too often, and people sought to shut him up. The experts of his day, scribes, pharisees, saducees, they all had their list of valid, in their minds, grievances against Jesus. Obviously Jesus had his little wexlers demanding that the church shut him down because he was offended by what he had to say.
This is nothing new. It is the leftist political view being upset at the conservative political view.
Funny how the leftists respond though. They demand that the view of the conservatives is just shut down. They will use various pretense to shut them down. Fairness doctrine, too radical, inciting people to violence, etc. Then the go for what religion a guy belongs too. Better have the religion shut him down. Oh, he is so evil, he is such a bad example of your religion. Please, hurry, shut him down.
The irony here is so thick it can be cut with a knife.
October 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm
We’re not talking about me, this has never been about me.
This has been about Glenn Beck and the Mormon Church. However, certain posters here cannot attack or defend ideas, they just ignore them and go for the poster. This is a common tactic on internet chat boards used by people who want to spam the discussion and derail it.
You KNOW who you are. If you can’t address a comment to the topic instead of attacking the people who are posting about it, why don’t you just STFU and leave? Do you think anyone cares about your personal attacks? Do you think they are going to accomplish anything at all except make you look like a person who can’t hold up their end of an argument with a CRUTCH?
Really. Go away and play, there are adults talking about real topics, and if you want to make mudpies and fling them you can go to the 9/12 website and have plenty of fun. You’ll be happier with your own kind, I just know it.
-Wexler
October 8, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Neither is this about me, however you have been more than willing to do all those nasty things that you say others are guilty about.
I have plenty of content in my posts with plenty of details and logic.
There is a tactic to play the role of victim and then go about attacking other posters, which you do like a real pro.
And your idea of adult communication is “just STFU and leave?”
Seriously, your delusions are getting the best of you and your projections of your own sins upon others is almost laughable.
October 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Wexler, please read my 195. I might temper my praise for your tone a leeetle bit after this one
, but I certainly understand the provocation. Please know that most Mormons — or a lot of us, anyway — have at least a passing acquaintance with rationality. What you’ve faced here is the soft, wormy rot that takes up residence under any stone in any garden. Try not to let it overwhelm your appreciation of finer things.
October 8, 2009 at 4:26 pm
You two are a hoot. In your effort to flatter a guy that is less than rational himself you just end up looking more and more lame. Nice to know that your form of communication does not suffer from wormy rot or, for that matter, has a tiny tinge of hypocrisy.
October 8, 2009 at 7:27 pm
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/91016-Latter-day-taint/?page=1#TOPCONTENT
October 9, 2009 at 8:47 am
We can also give you links of people praising Adolf Hitler. Guy, in his effort to be hypocritical judge over others, has yet to show why Beck is bad for either America or the church. However, Guy comes up with some links to leftist thinking articles from leftist thinking publications and somehow this proves his point. The links you use guy come from people that generally dislike conservatives. That means that these people will generally dislike Mormons, and that they will generally disagree with the LDS church views on most issues anyway. What part of that does not sink into your skull Guy? These people are against mainstream Mormonism anyway. So of course if an LDS person is successful at making leftists look bad they will be attacked. I am amazed at how stupid this entire approach that Guy takes. He shows no signs of being able to judge righteous judgement. Period.
October 9, 2009 at 8:57 am
While you are checking out Guy’s link to the Boston Phoenix you may notice the nice adult entertainment section that it Boston Phoenix promotes as well. These are the type of people that Guy uses to promote his Beck is evil schtick. Read about evil Beck and get adult entertainment at the same site. People apparently have to dig deep to find evidence supporting their theories.
October 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for the link.
The article explains in detail how Beck arrived at his crackpot brand of conservatism. His is laced with white supremacy, jingoism, millenarianism, and the fantastical hallucinogenic meanderings of Cleon Skousen. I applaud you for linking to it and putting it on the table. It is a must read for Mormons and non-Mormons alike, as it clears the air and gets down to the facts.
I think it’s fair to say that most Americans who grew up outside the Church do not understand the evolution of Mormon doctrine, the schisms of the past and present, and the almost universal leaning towards the GOP. The article refers to the candidacy of Mitt Romney in 2012, who, at this time, I would say had better start distancing himself from Glenn Beck with a passion if he wants to have a snowball’s chance in Hades of being nominated.
As an aside, it’s interesting to note that the GOP is already trying to push away from Glenn Beck, and Glenn Beck is trying to push away from the GOP, but he still toes the GOP line pretty much to a word. Beck’s future is tied to the GOP, whether either side wants to admit it or not.
Another aside: today the Nobel Prize for Peace went to Barack Obama. Glenn Beck says, in effect, that HE should have won it, not Obama. This kind of megalomania from a dry drunk follower of Cleon Skousen is what’s going to really drive Mormons out of the church and out of political office. There is a certain faction of the GOP that eats that kind of crap up like candy, but anyone with any sense should be proud of their President. The Beckerheads have become the “hate America first” crowd that they used to call the left when we asked inconvenient questions about WMD, torture, Valerie Plame and yellowcake, the Downing Street memos, un-armored Humvees, and so on and so on. Instead of joining in with us to operate in a truth- and fact-based frame of reference, instead the right chose to accuse us of being un-patriotic socialists who side with the terrorists. Everything was from a political frame of reference, instead of a reality based one.
So in that spirit, I will close with the comment that those on the right who are saying that Obama shouldn’t have won the Nobel Peace Prize are on the same side as Hamas and the Taliban, who said the same thing this morning.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
-Wexler
October 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The article comes from a leftist site that has a couple of links to adult entertainment on the same site as well. This is hardly a site with newsworthy credibility. As to hating America, I guess it is all in how you look at it. Wexler and his ilk screamed at Bush for eight years. Wexler has apparently fallen for every liberal view on every subject but is now wanting a conservative church in the most conservative state of the union to shut down a conservative voice in Beck. Tell you the simple truth Wexler, it aint gonna happen. The truth hurts? Never has, never will. But what you spew is not truth, never was and never will be. Your form of truth is dimestore nazi propaganda. And it aint worth even a dime.
Nobel prize to Obama from a leftist organization that gives prizes for leftist leaning leaders. Gee, a real shocker there. And the reasoning for his prize, since he was nominated 10 days after he was president? The hope, the change, the promise. Simplistic buzzwords that Stalin, Lenin and Hitler all use.
If you ever read the scriptures you would be familiar with the fact that there will come days when peace is declared when there is none. Obviously, looking around at reality, something you never do, we can see that peace on earth is not hear, not even close and no likelihood of it being here any time soon.
Here is the list of what Obama has done to bring peace into this world. Jack and Squat. But he has managed to get socialist countries that will always hate conservatives to like him. Gee, socialists in Europe like the socialist Obama. My goodness, sure surprises me.
In closing … about you and Obama …
John 12:43
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
October 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Other great leftist leaders that got the Nobel prize. Carter (for disliking Jews and supporting Palestine). Gore, for his work in nothing related to what he got it for. Yasser Arafat, for taking millions of dollars from palestinian kids and putting it into his own pocket and then encouraging the palestinian kids to strap dynamite to their bodies in order to help spread peace. Yes, Obama is in great company receiving the praise of man (mostly socialists and radicals).
It is a badge of honor if what you honor is socialism and anti-Isareli treatment.
I know wexler that many of your ilk are anti-Israeli, so you might as well know right now that the LDS church is pro-Israeli all the way. Not much chance of you finding a lot of support on that issue either.
October 9, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I’m pretty sure that kmichaels is either part of the Beck organization, a friend of the website who is trying to prolong the controversy, or a Beck hater who is playing Devil’s advocate (not very well) to make sure the anti-Beck posts keep coming.
Nobody else would post over 100 comments in a thread like this that all basically say the same thing.
-Wexler
October 9, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I am pretty sure wexler is your typical leftist that is paranoid about anyone that disagrees with his small world leftist view of reality.
October 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Nah. He’s just a garden variety idiot. There are fresher discussions of Beck going on in the Mormon bloggosphere, but kmichaels isn’t bright enough to find any of them.
October 9, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Ardis apparently is still talking here, assuming that I can’t talk on more than one blog on the same computer. Using Ardis’ lame “idiot” logic she is not bright enough to find other blogs. Ardis is just angry that she got called on her gross hypocrisy so now she has to get her little zingers. Fine, I zing her, she zings me, but then she is the only hypocrite here, since I don’t put on her sad pathetic little pious self-righteous act. And Ardis kissing up to wexler, the extreme leftist that says that all conservatives are evil, that used the F word on this board, etc. Ah well, good old dependable Ardis.
October 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm
By all means Ardis, go blog on greener pastures, or whatever it is you do on pastures.
October 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Let’s see … first response posted at 3:54, second at 4:07. That means it took kmichaels 13 whole minutes to come up with what he considers a zinger.
Sorry, I erred. He doesn’t rise to the level of a garden variety idiot. He’s somewhere below that.
Seriously, kmichaels, since your only audience is the two or three of us who remain fascinated by your monomania (not your politics, and certainly not your wit), why haven’t you found some of those other discussions about Beck, in addition to this thread, where you might actually be read by somebody who cares? Doesn’t the rest of the Bloggernacle deserve to benefit from your wisdom? They’re saying mean, nasty things about Beck on several of the blogs — what did poor Guy do to merit receipt of your entire focus?
Do you know how to find those current discussions, or was I right in claiming that you are too dim to know how the bloggosphere works?
October 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Watching this person post is like watching a train wreck. Hate to see it, can’t stop watching.
I’ll bet they were a big Bush supporter too, even though Bush has been thoroughly discredited on every excuse that he made to attack Iraq.
Yeah, kill the ragheads, that’s the Beck way.
-Wexler
October 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Beck said we should kill the ragheads did he? Poor itty bitty baby wexler, cant stand the opposition so wants to shut it down. That is typical. Those giving out untrue messages always hate to be called out into the light of day.
Anyway, I am sure you have Christians to bash on other blogs old sport. God speed, I am sure you will get exactly what is coming to you.
October 9, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Yes, Ardis, I have the internet and automatic messaging. I get to be notified about lots of things automatically. It’s technology. You should try it, or don’t your type have opposable thumbs?
If the audience is so small here Ardis why do you keep coming back? Did somebody hurt that pride of yours and so now you need to be all huffy and puffy to set the less intelligent folk straight with your wit and wisdom?
Don’t you have some other blogs that you can go to and talk about ninety minutes to explain how great your twenty minute sunday school lesson was?
Sorry if you are such a pathetic little hypocrite Ardis and that you got called out for it.
And every time my mail shows that you have another post, I will be sure to see what new stalking you have been doing over my posts. You seem to be personally attached to having to shut me down.
Go for it, Ardis. Fetch the stick. Stalk the mean old poster that had the nerve to defend Beck while you pious self-righteous just wanted to bash him in peace.
You are a true example of something Ardis, but it is not the thing that you think of. You are nothing more than an overly self important wannabe.
October 9, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Excuse for attacking Iraq, we would see mushroom shaped clouds if we don’t do something. Whoops, that was Hillary the democrat saying it.
Good thing Obama shut those two wars right down. Good thing that the number of dead in Afghanistan is not at a record rate right now. Otherwise some might suspect that the false messiah Obama is not up to the task.
Wahoo, wexler, the leftist vunderkind, hows that shutting Beck thing going for you?
October 9, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Howcum your technology hasn’t alerted you to those other, newer, current, ongoing discussions of Beck, where you could strut in front of more than two or three unworthy critters like me? Wexler has it right — we keep coming to see what you’ve written for the same reason that we’re fascinated by horror movies or gore shows. There’s something so primal, so reptilian-brained about watching you implode over and over that we can’t tear ourselves away. We admit it. How much lower can he sink if we give him another poke? Fascinating.
October 9, 2009 at 5:34 pm
You really think that the only story worth discussing is Beck, Ardis? And do you really think that I don’t have access to hundreds and thousands of Beck stories? You can go to youtube, call up the hundreds of beck youtube videos and discuss Beck. Perhaps you think that the only blogging world worth discussing is the few that you like to frequent. This self important problem of yours would cause you to think that your world is the only one that exists. But darling, the world is much larger than yours. And what gives with your constant hypocrisy on almost every story? How is poking who? It seems you stir and foam over my posts as much as anyone. Does that beam in your eye cause you distress? Simply remove it. I really don’t know why you insisted on taking the pious self-righteous attitude from the start but that was your choice. If you want to play the tit for tat game, I can do it with the best. But why are you so caught up in either Beck or me? Is your life that sad and lonely that this is it? You being the pious self righteous corrector of the evils of Beck and now me? Yes, you are primal, but more than that, I think you are showing signs and symptoms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Perhaps you should have that checked.
October 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Anyway, I am sure you have Christians to bash on other blogs old sport. God speed, I am sure you will get exactly what is coming to you.”
Not nearly what you’re already getting.
You have to live within your own head.
-Wexler
October 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm
What am I getting exactly, Wexler? You hate all conservatives. I am just one of many that you hate. Your hate does exactly zero damage to me now or later. And whose head are you living in? Apparently you are living in the head of a self-deluded person that spins truth into lies as if you have practiced it for many years.
October 9, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Oh, that’s no fun at all, kmichaels. Now that I see you’re not just a curiosity here, but have talked the same trash — and nothing but the same trash — in unmoderated forums where anything at all goes, you’re not an object of sick fascination anymore.
Now you’re just a bore. Have a nice eternity.
October 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Not quite sure what trash talking you are talking about Ardis dear. Are you simply turning a blind eye to your own trash talking? That is your problem. You are a gross hypocrite. You started out on me with trash talking. You have continued to trash talk against me. Which part of that don’t you understand? You are simply an ignorant hypocrite that justifies your own trash talking while acting pious and self-rigtheous. That is the very essence of this entire blog thread. It consists of wiser people than you recognizing that Beck is merely human. He, for the most part seems sincere and honest. Yet the pious self righteous here are guilty of being just as hateful as the few examples you find coming from Beck.
You better stick with history and your jakob sickness. You seem kind of lame in your grasp of modern events and you can’t seem to even see past your beam in your own eye. How can you have credibility on historic issues when you so easily misread current ones?
In the end, you just look like a self important overly pious hypocrite.
October 11, 2009 at 5:45 pm
If you’re a Mormon I would NEVER want to become one, and neither would anyone anyone else.
I think that’s the overriding message of this thread.
-Wexler
October 12, 2009 at 7:39 am
wexler, with your open hate against conservatives, which you yourself said were all evil, I doubt that we Mormons will be missing anything with you not being a member. Everyone is invited by Christ to become a better person. However, if you are going to be the hateful person that you have shown yourself to be, you would not make good company in church. I can see you now, openly calling all of the fellow conservative church members evil, as you have done in your posts. If you think that you are a great prize to the church you are insane.
However, obviously no church member will be perfect. And to judge everyone on a few members is just stupid, which is par for the course with you.
And, since you are liberal, hateful, and have declared all conservatives bad and evil, nobody will be wanting to join your liberal conservative bashing club either. So boo hoo.
October 12, 2009 at 8:27 am
Post #181.
October 12, 2009 at 10:36 am
Post 181 was a stupid rant the first time you posted it. Did it get better and more truthful with age? It was idiotic leftist hot air then and it continues to be idiotic leftist hot air now.
October 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm
You still haven’t answered any of the questions I’ve asked you about Glenn Beck. All you do is go into attack mode and parrot the same garbage. It’s really quite pathetic.
Do you really believe this crap you spew? Are you a Mormon or a friggin’ robot? Do you have a heart, a mind, any reasoning power or do you just automatically suck up anything that Beck says like a Hoover on steroids?
This article and discussion thread has an undertone that should make you very, very happy. That is that anyone you disagree with will never want to become a Mormon. Nobody who is rational, fair-minded, liberal, would read this thread and think “I want to be a Mormon”.
Your rap may attract a few fellow nutjobs, but the polls say that fewer people are identifying themselves as right wing and frankly you’re way righter than right wing. You’re ozone.
Well, I said I wasn’t going to respond to any more of your BS but I did. Shame on me.
-Wexler
October 14, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Wexler, you are a hoot. You show all the qualities that you say you are against. You spew the same talking points. You are far out in the ozone. There are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals in the USA. 40% conservatives, 19% liberal. Then the rest independent. You are in the minority whether you hide your head or not. Your points are not just wrong but kind of dumb, intellectually. Anything you think is special about you, is not. You are pretty much just a troll.
October 16, 2009 at 8:22 pm
It’s obvious who’s trolling here.
What you’re doing, kmichaels, is a pretty good job of disgusting anyone who did a search on “Glenn Beck Mormon” and ended up here.
Now they not only know that Beck is a Mormon, and with followers like you they never want to have anything to do with Mormons.
I suppose you probably get a big kick out of reading whatever poll you got those numbers from. The plain truth is that liberals kicked your tail in the last two elections. So I guess the conservatives must be stupid, huh, voting a communist marxist socialist Nazi fascist into power when they outnumber us by a factor of 2? Yep, that’s it, they’re just stupid.
One thing you ought to remember, kmichaels. I’m not sure what the real percentage of conservatives are. But whatever it is, don’t confuse yourself. The Mormon congregation might be very high percentage of conservative, but a very small percentage of conservatives are Mormons. In fact, a very large percentage of them are Bible-thwackin’ Baptists and other hell-fire preachers who think that Mormons are a Satanic cult.
Just sayin. All your teabaggers and 9/12 folks just don’t pay that much attention to the fact that Beck is a Mormon. But the news is indeed getting out. And a lot of them aren’t as tolerant as you and me.
-Wexler
October 17, 2009 at 6:56 am
[Wexler--I've been out of town for the last several days--but found this latest comment of yours completely unrelated to Glenn Beck and a swipe at the religion and traditions I hold dear. I find it pretty amazing anyone finds Glenn Beck interesting enough to continue this thread this long; but you've gone too far with the tone and content of this comment, I have now edited out. I may decide to close comments completely at this point as your back and forth with kmichaels doesn't seem to be going very far---Guy]
October 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Since I don’t know how to contact you except through posting, I will just post my response here.
One of the criticism I noted in the post that you deleted is that members can get into trouble with the church for discussing things that are considered taboo. Apparently even mentioning that is taboo?
I have been doing quite a bit of reading over the last few days and some posting in a thread elsewhere about where the line is between political activism and religion. I am getting the feeling that there are some who believe that they can get away with playing that on both sides of the line.
Well, close away if you must, I can’t disagree with you that kmichaels is a dolt. However, I would appreciate it if you could leave this thread up as it contains information that I may need to refer to for a while. Also, I will link to it from my site.
If you pull this comment out, that’s cool, I’ll understand.
Thanks, Guy.
Bill
October 17, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Bill, Guy will or won’t explain to you the rules of civility when you are a guest in someone else’s forum, but I’d like to butt in an say that the trouble you are having in understanding that other thread is this:
We aren’t trying to “play on both sides of the line.” We know where our line is; the church doesn’t cross that, and most individual members don’t, either (although, as you’ve seen here, some crazies are so extreme that nothing short of a sledge hammer could rein them in).
The problem is that you put the line waaaaaay over to one side, unreasonably far, and far beyond what the law and good sense requires. Nobody could walk on your side of the line except one who is in lockstep agreement with you. With our line being where the law puts it — not where your partisanship would prefer it to be — we appear to you to be doing something wrong when, in fact, we are well within law, morality, ethics, reason, decency, and any other measure of good order.
October 18, 2009 at 10:55 am
Not really, Ardis.
My complaint is that the Mormons threw $180k “officially” and another $20 million in unofficially to deprive another group of a civil right, namely to marry the person of their choice. You (and Elder Oaks) believe that this is within the civil rights of Mormons to do, as he was the one who made the comparison to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I don’t see the comparison at all, unless he was contending that black people got together to conspire to end the civil rights of southerners to practice discrimination against them.
As I posted there this morning, this is similar to the US Government telling the Mormons that polygamy was illegal. I don’t agree with polygamy, but I don’t think it should be illegal. I also don’t believe for a moment that the Mormon’s contribution to passing Prop 8 was outside the church.
Now here we are discussing another thread at another website in Guy’s thread. I’m sorry I brought it up and made you feel as if you had to respond to it.
-Wexler
October 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I responded because I had a vague idea that you were a reasonable man who, even if he would never agree, would still be open to understanding his opponent’s viewpoint.
My mistake.
October 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I think I do understand your viewpoint. Your viewpoint is that the Mormon Church didn’t break the law by organizing an effort to pass Prop 8.
Do I have that right? If so, then you should understand my viewpoint that imposing your church’s marriage regulations on somebody else through the political process is trying to make everybody else “lockstep” with you, as you put it.
I don’t get how what someone else does about their marriage has any effect on you at all unless they want to join the Mormon Church. And I put polygamy in the same category. If Mormons want to practice polygamy I do not see how it affects me at all. If this were raised as an issue now you would find me on the Church’s side, as I believe it’s a civil rights issue.
I also don’t understand why you call me outside the line of anything when all I am doing is discussing civil rights. I think I’m pretty reasonable, I’m sorry you don’t think so but honestly, since I can’t control what you think it’s one of those things that I don’t try to control.
As in what gays do.
-Wexler
October 19, 2009 at 6:34 am
OK. I’m going to close the comments, as the topic now seems to be trending from Glenn Beck to gay marriage–not really the focus of this post. Wexler–if you want to engage on genderless marriage, you will find no shortage of posts on that topic on other places on my blog. Thanks.