Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[irishpatrick]

It’s because she presents herself as being just like us, like being the mom we talk to at the playground, a next door neighbor, someone from church. I know she’s not, but I think she “gets it” better than a lot in the spotlight. But, as a local radio host (who isn’t a fan of her as a politician) said, she’s a “king maker”.

If she remains in the public as a speaker, than I have no issue at all. I just hope she does not run for the Presidency.

It all just shows how starved people are for anyone who speaks about morals. Palin really holds nothing unusual, yet I suppose to many today it is…

 

[Ridgerunner]

If she remains in the public as a speaker, than I have no issue at all. I just hope she does not run for the Presidency.

It all just shows how starved people are for anyone who speaks about morals. Palin really holds nothing unusual, yet I suppose to many today it is…

I don’t think you need to worry about her running for President. She won’t.

I’m not a Palin-swooner either, though I’m a fairly conservative, traditional guy. But I have seen how people react to her. It’s hard to put your finger on. You’re right. Her message isn’t really unusual. I really do think it’s the identification so many people have with her; perhaps women in particular. I realize this is a local thing, to some degree, but my wife just couldn’t keep herself from buying one of those pink Sarah Palin bows for our eldest granddaughter (who is an archer as well as a dead shot with a rifle). I could be wrong about this (what man understands women?) but I think that non-masculine assertiveness Palin has (“mama grizzlies”) is a big part of it. She isn’t Beaver Cleaver’s mom by a long, long way. But neither is she a feminist who’s trying to be a man. She doesn’t mess around and apologize for what she thinks. She just says things a lot of people would like to say, looks right at people or cameras, grins, and seems to dare anyone to fight the “mama grizzly”. I don’t know. That’s as close as I can come to explaining it.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t think you need to worry about her running for President. She won’t.

I’m not a Palin-swooner either, though I’m a fairly conservative, traditional guy. But I have seen how people react to her. It’s hard to put your finger on. You’re right. Her message isn’t really unusual. I really do think it’s the identification so many people have with her; perhaps women in particular. I realize this is a local thing, to some degree, but my wife just couldn’t keep herself from buying one of those pink Sarah Palin bows for our eldest granddaughter (who is an archer as well as a dead shot with a rifle). I could be wrong about this (what man understands women?) but I think that non-masculine assertiveness Palin has (“mama grizzlies”) is a big part of it. She isn’t Beaver Cleaver’s mom by a long, long way. But neither is she a feminist who’s trying to be a man. She doesn’t mess around and apologize for what she thinks. She just says things a lot of people would like to say, looks right at people or cameras, grins, and seems to dare anyone to fight the “mama grizzly”. I don’t know. That’s as close as I can come to explaining it.

Your theories are as good as any. I think she is very popular with women and specifically mothers.

 

[gmarie21]

Your theories are as good as any. I think she is very popular with women and specifically mothers.

In my household, she’s more popular with my husband. I like her, but am not falling all over her words. I spent too many naive years watching Oprah and have had to reeducate myself on the dignity of men and women to know that I must be cautious of who I listen to and must fight the “crowd” mentality of agreement. My husband only looked up to the Beatles and the Hollies, and only for their music ability. I have heard so many “my way is best” people that I realize that they really don’t know best, or at least reality. Palin is a good motivator, but like with anyone else, you can take some and toss some of what they say.

 

[irishpatrick]

In my household, she’s more popular with my husband. I like her, but am not falling all over her words. I spent too many naive years watching Oprah and have had to reeducate myself on the dignity of men and women to know that I must be cautious of who I listen to and must fight the “crowd” mentality of agreement. My husband only looked up to the Beatles and the Hollies, and only for their music ability. I have heard so many “my way is best” people that I realize that they really don’t know best, or at least reality. Palin is a good motivator, but like with anyone else, you can take some and toss some of what they say.

Sounds like you have gained much wisdom.

 

[edwest2]

I do not understand the enormous attraction to Palin (I will concede the word ‘worship’ is a bit strong). I just do not get it.

Sincerity. People are suckers for the truth. The “get your God and beliefs off my body” crowd want everyone to worship them. They are “right,” after all. They are rational. Unlike those primitive, superstitious, evolution denying, small town hayseeds, who will ruin everything. And who would dare to impose their Dark Ages thinking on the rest of us (actually, them).

Sarah Palin is the Secular devil.

After years of living in secular media darkness, someone dares to speak about God in a positive way? It’s like finding water after crawling through the desert.

God bless,
Ed

 

[irishpatrick]

Sincerity. People are suckers for the truth. The “get your God and beliefs off my body” crowd want everyone to worship them. They are “right,” after all. They are rational. Unlike those primitive, superstitious, evolution denying, small town hayseeds, who will ruin everything. And who would dare to impose their Dark Ages thinking on the rest of us (actually, them).

Sarah Palin is the Secular devil.

After years of living in secular media darkness, someone dares to speak about God in a positive way? It’s like finding water after crawling through the desert.

God bless,
Ed

I wonder if it is sincerity, or just very good showmanship…

 

[CMatt25]

A couple simple questions:

How “socially just” is it to kill an innocent person on purpose?

How can any person receive “social justice” if they are never born?

Well as it applies to a democracy of plural beliefs, it depends I suppose on how said democracy grapples at the answer and defines an embryo, a fetus, and a person in its law.

How just is it to kill a person who has already been born, innocent or not? I have to laugh when I hear ppl toss in “innocent”. That is code for it being alright to kill someone on death row. Hmm. Christ might not have mentioned the word abortion. But He did say something about how we had heard an eye for eye but He was adding a “but” to it. Peace.

 

[edwest2]

I wonder if it is sincerity, or just very good showmanship…

You’re free to believe that. But her life, so far, shows a woman I can believe in. And I’m not talking about a politician but a person. The amount of venom she is getting from the Left tells me they see her the same way.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Teelynn]

I’m not sure I get it either, but she does have a mind of her own, she speaks her mind and she holds strong moral beliefs. I think the country is hungry for that after the last few years. You can see that with the Tea Party movement. That does not mean that all of those who are attracted to her think she should run for president.

I happen to like her values, her moxy and unlike others, think she actually is very intelligent. Unlike the current President, I think she is thicker skinned. That said, I don’t believe she would be good Presidential material. I think there is definitely a place for her on the public scene, but the Presidency…I don’t think so.

 

[tr1strev]

I happen to like her values, her moxy and unlike others, think she actually is very intelligent. Unlike the current President, I think she is thicker skinned. That said, I don’t believe she would be good Presidential material. I think there is definitely a place for her on the public scene, but the Presidency…I don’t think so.

She is not my first or my tenth choice to be the Republican’s nominee. But if it falls to a choice between her and Obama, I will support her without hesitation.

 

[Suudy]

Well as it applies to a democracy of plural beliefs, it depends I suppose on how said democracy grapples at the answer and defines an embryo, a fetus, and a person in its law.

So, if “said democracy grapples at the answer and defines an embryo, a fetus, and a person” wrongly, that makes it acceptable for them to treat any of them as it sees fit? So if ancient Rome felt that any child under the age of 1 was free to be be killed for any reason, though in objective fact that child was a human person, deserving of the the dignity and respect that all human persons should have, that’s just fine with you?

What if in objective fact a 6 week old fetus is a human person, deserving of the dignity and respect that all human persons should have, is aborted because the “said democracy grapples at the answer and defines an embryo” as nothing more than a blob of cells, that is just fine with you?

So you are fine with acts that are evil in objective fact, as long as society defines them not to be evil? So society is free to define what is evil, what is good, and what is neutral?

How just is it to kill a person who has already been born, innocent or not?

Have you read the Catechism?
CCC 2263: The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”
So, do you think self defense that results in the death of an aggressor an unjust act?
CCC 2267: The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’
So apparently, there are just applications of capital punishment, no?

“I have to laugh when I hear ppl toss in” “already been born”. Do you think the killing of the unborn is just, or at least not unjust?

I have to laugh when I hear ppl toss in “innocent”. That is code for it being alright to kill someone on death row. Hmm.

Which is the greater evil, killing an innocent person or a guilty person?

And you might be surprised, but many of us, myself included, are staunchly opposed to capital punishment for the very reasons listed above in CCC 2267.

Christ might not have mentioned the word abortion. But He did say something about how we had heard an eye for eye but He was adding a “but” to it. Peace.

And you’ll note that the Church does not teach that capital punishment is to be used for revenge. It may only legitimately used “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” In this sense, it is self defense. Eye for an eye has never been taught. And those that promote capital punishment for that reason are acting contrary to Church teaching.

 

[CMatt25]

Go back to the other thread an read my response.

I never said Christ was limited. My point is that serving the needy, in and of itself, does not lead to salvation.

His mission, was our salvation.

You left out a part. Those who do so out of love (caritas or charity) would be saved. The government is incapable of love. And the government is not in need of salvation (at least the same kind of salvation man is in need of). So why then do you and other insist the government should do this?

Then you are mistaken. Who is judging? Who is acting “holier than thou”? Please do cite examples.

Suudy, I’m sorry but to me you seem now to be talking in circles so I have no need to “go back”.

Indeed the reason to advocate for the poor is because Christ told us to and by doing so we would serve Him and would obtain salvation. I’m sorry you appear to me not to get the clear words of Christ, Suudy, in Matt 25:31-46.

I did not leave out love. In fact I have said we are to serve those Christ mentioned in the above verses out of love for Him as an expression of our faith.

And you continue saying Christ’s mission was salvation. I never said it wasn’t. But if you read the Gospels and the work He advocated, and still believe for a minute it was His sole mission on earth, then I can’t help but at least wonder if perhaps you might be the one mistaken as to the Gospel of our Lord. But I pray otherwise.

You can not tell me Suudy the Church and individuals alone have accomplished that other part of His mission you seem to overlook. And if the government can play a role to help, I say the more the better.

I don’t have the time to go back and look at all the posts where a judging, holier than thou attitude has persisted on these forums. I’m certain I have been guilty at times myself. But if we open our hearts and minds to His love, perhaps we will be able to see. God bless you Suudi on your faith walk and again peace.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Suudy, I’m sorry but to me you seem now to be talking in circles so I have no need to “go back”.

Indeed the reason to advocate for the poor is because Christ told us to and by doing so we would serve Him and would obtain salvation. I’m sorry you appear to me not get the clear words of Christ, Suudy, in Matt 25:31-46.

I did not leave out love. In fact I have said we are to serve those Christ mentioned in the above verses out of love for Him as an expression of our faith.

And you continue saying Christ’s mission was salvation. I never said it wasn’t. But if you read the Gospels and the work He advocated, and still believe for a minute it was His sole mission on earth, then I can’t help but at least wonder if perhaps you might be the one mistaken as to the Gospel of our Lord. But I pray otherwise.

You can not tell me Suudy the Church and individuals alone have accomplished that other part of His mission you seem to overlook. And if the government can play a role to help, I say the more the better.

I don’t have the time to go back and look at all the posts where a judging, holier than thou attitude has persisted on these forums. I’m certain I have been guilty at times myself. But if we open our hearts and minds to His love, perhaps we will be able to see. God bless you Suudi on your faith walk and again peace.

Charity is an act of personal love and sacrifice, not a communal one. The government has no legitimate role in it when it comes to serving the poor as an act of love in submission to the will of God. Unless, of course, you want to establish a strict theocracy.

 

[CMatt25]

While adopting the Marxist focus on the proletariat no doubt makes liberals feel wonderful about the essential goodness of their hearts, in terms of the devastation that Marxist policies wreak upon the poor, following this type of liberation theology has always been disastrous.

If we are talking about Fr Martin’s definition of liberation theology instead of Glenn Beck’s, can we please refrain from bringing up Marxists and holding people at gun point from now on. It serves no purpose other than to demagogue. Thanks! Peace.

 

[Suudy]

Suudy, I’m sorry but to me you are now talking in circles so I have no need to “go back”.

Examples?

Indeed the reason to advocate for the poor is because Christ told us to and by doing so we would serve Him and would obtain salvation. I’m sorry you appear to me not get the clear words of Christ, Suudy, in Matt 25:31-46.

Think about it. It is clear that Christ commands us to serve the needy. Nobody disputes that. But what seem to be missing is why Christ asked us to serve them and why we should serve them. To what end? For what purpose?

He didn’t say to serve them just to get salvation. That’s pure legalism. Everything must be motivated out of love. Keep that in mind below.

I did not leave out love. In fact I have said we are to serve those Christ mentioned in the above verses out of love for Him as an expression of our faith.

In your statement, you did. You said:

" Indeed He said those who serve Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, would be saved."

It takes right motivation. If you are serving the needy just to get into heaven, that is definitely a wrong intention. If you are serving the needy out of love for Christ and love for the needy, then that is right intention. But note that the ultimate end is not the serving, but the love. It is the love for Christ and the needy that is critical. The act itself is contingent upon the love. Without love, the act has no salvific value.

And you continue saying Christ’s mission was salvation. I never said it wasn’t. But if you read the Gospels and the work He advocated, and still believe for a minute it was His sole mission on earth, then I can’t help but at least wonder if perhaps you might be the one mistaken as to the Gospel of our Lord. But I pray otherwise.

I didn’t say you did think otherwise. The issue is that you seem to think the very act itself of caring for the needy is what is important.

You can not tell me Suudy the Church and individuals alone have accomplished that other part of His mission you seem to overlook. And if the government can play a role to help, I say the more the better.

I’ll ask you again, read *Centesimus Annus. Once again, here’s the link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

*Read it. See how the Church teaches that the government is not the proper agent for achieving the goal of providing for the needy. The government does have a role. Nobody disputes that. The role, however, is to to collect taxes and pay for social programs. From CA (emphasis mine):**In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. **This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
The state’s role is not one that you seem to advocate.

I don’t have the time to go back and look at all the posts where a judging, holier than thou attitude has persisted on these forums.

Then I hope you’ll retract the accusation.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

Oh? This proves something in and of itself?

You mean like Whittaker Chambers “saw the light”, like Irving Kristol “saw the light” and like all the other “neocons” the left loves to hate so much “saw the light” and abandoned liberalism for conservatism?

I Wouldn’t know. I’m addressing one comment. I didn’t think Irving Kristol was ever left of center. His son surely isn’t.

 

[CMatt25]

there are just applications of capital punishment, no?

No there are not based on my faith in Christ and my God given ability to reason.

You’re very concerned about killing unborn life. But apparently you believe and reason it to be just to kill a human being who has already been born because of something we have both read in the CCC. You can believe and reason however you wish on things Suudi. I don’t have the time right now to respond further to you.

God bless you and as always peace.

 

[Suudy]

If we are talking about Fr Martin’s definition of liberation theology instead of Glenn Beck’s, can we please refrain from bringing up Marxists and holding people at gun point from now on. It serves no purpose other than to demagogue. Thanks! Peace.

But that is exactly what using tax dollars to pay for social programs is doing! It forces people to fund social justice initiatives. And since charity must be a voluntary act, such efforts cannot be called charity.

Remember, the means are just as important as the ends. The end is the care for the needy. The means must be voluntary and motivated through love.

 

[Suudy]

No there are not based on my faith in Christ and my God given ability to reason.

Your faith? Really? Your faith? You list yourself as Catholic. The Church teaches there are, at least theoretically, just applications of capital punishment. Whether those conditions exists or not is an arguable point (and I don’t think there are right now anywhere in the United States and much of the world).

You’re very concerned about killing unborn life. But apparently you believe and reason it to be just to kill a human being who has already been born because of something we have both read in the CCC.

No. I believe it might be just to kill a human being who has already been born. And only in very limited, specific circumstances. And I don’t think in the present day United States there are any.

Now, as for unborn life, there are no circumstances that can justify direct killing. Unborn life is by its very nature innocent. And there is never any justification for the intentional, direct killing of an innocent life.

You can believe and reason however you wish on things Suudi.

As can you. But the point is to examine our reasons for what we believe. Why do we hold these ideas as true. Now, between you and me, either one of us is right or neither of us is right. Until we come to agreement, we cannot both be right.