Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Amerigo Vespucci, & Me

[amencorner]

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

Read about our founders views on Christianity above. Also, watch the links to the videos above.

Your definition of “deist” is word for word from the misinformation put out by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A deist in 18th century colonial america, did NOT believe that God was a detached “clock-winder”. Read how many times Jefferson and Franklin talk about God’s Providence at work during the birth of our nation. Providence is defined as:

Main Entry: prov·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-və-dən(t)s, -ˌden(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin providentia, from provident-, providens
Date: 14th century

1 a often capitalized : divine guidance or care b capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
2 : the quality or state of being provident

Sustaining and guiding are NOT characteristics of a detached, clock-winding deity.

As for the liberal attempt to secularize Jefferson to their liking:

"Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation’s third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.

Moreover, his “Notes on Religion,” nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are “very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ,” according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson’s religious life.

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson’s “Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians” was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his “abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians” would help civilize and educate America’s aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ’s healings."

Here is Washington’s Farewell address:

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=62

 

[amencorner]

gurneyhalleck,

wnd.com/?pageId=108445

So, Van Jones wasn’t a Marxist? Despite calling himself a Marxist? Then read Storm’s Manifesto (link above)

How about Obama’s FCC Czar? Is Chavez a Socialist? Is someone that says “he is having an incredible revolution, democratic revolution” not expressing solidarity with a guy that supports Castro, Ahmadinejad, etc.?

When the ACLU founder says:
“I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”

…is it fair to call him a socialist/marxist? I mean how far from laissez-faire, constitutional democracy does one have to go before they can be called a socialist?

The largest caucus in the U.S. Congress is the Progressive Caucus. Do you know anything about the Progressive Party, and how they are connected to both the communist party, and the nazi party? The information is out there, it is just not talked about. Why not? Why is the most powerful, dominant political movement of the 20th century not discussed?

Why wasn’t the release of the Venona papers on the front page of every paper in this country? It re-wrote history, and no one talks about it?

Your comments about the founding fathers is boiler-plate revisionist history, taught in almost every public and private school (k-12+) in the country. When I started reading the original documents, I was blown away by how much I was lied to.

Glenn Beck is human, and therefore imperfect, but the fact that he is the only one talking about this stuff means that it is easy to kill the ONE messenger. Fine. Glenn Beck always says to do your own reading. He is getting millions of people to read the constitution, founding documents and about the “secret” history of our country; the progressive movement and the impact it has had on everything from the economy to the breakdown of the family.

As I said, I was a socialist/union true believer in the 70’s and 80’s. It wasn’t until the Bush/Dukakis election, and I noticed that in the same newcast, Jesse Jackson was called “the Reverend Jesse Jackson”, and Pat Roberston was called “Fundamentalist Preacher, Pat Robertson”, that I started to notice that I was hearing a very one-sided perspective of the news.

It takes guts to put away preconceived ideas about anything, so I don’t expect to convince you. All I will say is that the difference between Progressives and Conservatives in this country, is that while both may tell lies, the media only does their job attacking the lies of Conservatives (as they should). It takes a lot of work to learn the truth about the progressive world view and agenda.

Beck is the one guy talking about things the “real” news organizations should be all over, but choose to ignore.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html

 

[scipio337]

…
But I think simpletons like Beck here terms like “endowed by their Creator” and “under God” or “by God” and they immediately attribute the Christian God to those references without an honest assessment in doing their homework. Anachronism, pure and simple.

But one of the founding principles of the country, held by Jefferson, Paine, Madison, and others is that of “unalienable rights” derived from “natural law”. This is impossible in an atheistic system. Deism may not exactly be Chrisianity, but it is a far cry from the atheisitc model where the government, not “nature’s God”, or any other, is the one dispersing rights, instead of protecting them.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That’s where I am, though, I don’t hate them. I just don’t agree with any of them. The last major election I thought about drawing straws.

Agreed.

People that think Obama is too far to the left, especially Republicans, have to admit that Obama did not exactly have a credible opponent in the McCain/Palin ticket. The Republican party seems to give out Presidential nominations from time to time as if it were some sort of prize for seniority ~ Dole and McCain are two recent examples. What both parties need to nominate are leaders.

 

[tomarin]

The Republican party seems to give out Presidential nominations from time to time as if it were some sort of prize for seniority ~ Dole and McCain are two recent examples. What both parties need to nominate are leaders.

So in the 2008 election, who was more deserving of the nomination than McCain? I supported Huckabee for a while but he just didn’t win enough delegates, especially outside of the southeast (at least I think that’s what happened – it seems like ancient history now).

In retrospect, I think all of the Republican nominees were problematic. Many of my conservative friends liked Romney (I think they saw him as the truest heir of the Reagan mantle) but his wholesale reinvention since being Governor of Massachusetts made me think he was a shapeshifter – that you didn’t really know what his core values were.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So in the 2008 election, who was more deserving of the nomination than McCain? I supported Huckabee for a while but he just didn’t win enough delegates, especially outside of the southeast (at least I think that’s what happened – it seems like ancient history now).

In retrospect, I think all of the Republican nominees were problematic. Many of my conservative friends liked Romney (I think they saw him as the truest heir of the Reagan mantle) but his wholesale reinvention since being Governor of Massachusetts made me think he was a shapeshifter – that you didn’t really know what his core values were.

I don’t think there was a good choice, at least not an electable choice. Some were just poor candidates. Some were unelectable for various reasons. I don’t think Romney will ever be a viable candidate because I don’t believe that Evangelicals will ever vote for a Mormon. Fair? Probably not. But I think that’s the way it is.

On the other hand, Liberty University had Beck come and talk, so perhaps in the future Evangelicals could be persuaded to vote for a Mormon, especially if the Democrat opponent is Obama.

At the moment I still don’t see a viable leader on the Republican side, but perhaps that will change.

 

[Ahimsa]

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755 Jefferson’s “Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians” was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians.

That was never the title Jefferson gave it. The title was “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels”. Jefferson, later in life, referred to his edited gospel work as a possible resource for evangelizing Native Americans, but that possibility was not part of his original impetus.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I couldn’t agree more. Just because many of the Founders were deists does not give liberals the right to totally secularize and obliterate religion from our lives. Freedom of religion is not freedom from it.

But one of the founding principles of the country, held by Jefferson, Paine, Madison, and others is that of “unalienable rights” derived from “natural law”. This is impossible in an atheistic system. Deism may not exactly be Chrisianity, but it is a far cry from the atheisitc model where the government, not “nature’s God”, or any other, is the one dispersing rights, instead of protecting them.

 

[St_Francis]

Were Jefferson and other Founding Fathers influenced by Catholic political thought?

catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0003.html

shaunkenney.com/index.php/2009/02/st-robert-bellarmine-and-thomas-jefferson/

A search on Thomas Jefferson Bellarmine returned over 24,000 results, so I think maybe so…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You give Beck too much credit as usual. Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin, and the rest of the hardcore GOP talking heads have been branding people socialists and commie cut-and-run traitors for years. Beck just perfected the conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo and feeds the birther type paranoia that many want to consume.

I’m no fan of Obama, trust me. As a teacher he has done me plenty of harm and he, in my opinion, has stabbed unions in the back in many ways. I dislike his arrogance, hate his out of control spending mania, don’t think he has a clue as to how to govern half the time, and think he was vastly under-qualified for the senate let alone the presidency. So I’m no big fan of the Administration.

Your post seems to contradict your last post. You said that Beck never called anyone a Marxist or a Communist. Now you’re seeming to say, ‘yeah, well, don’t the people he’s labeled deserve it!?’

I wanted to laugh out loud when you said that my comments about deism in many of the founding fathers is revisionist history. Look, I have no reason in the world to lie about them being deists nor do I want them to be, amencorner? I’m a Christian and I personally loathe deism and think it’s a doomed, idiotic philosophy. Honestly I respect atheism more than deism. I am a religious person and support churches and faith. But the fact is, the men I mentioned were deists. You can call it what you want. You can pretend that Lincoln never gave the Gettysburgh Address and call it revisionism if you want. That’s fine. Some people never can be convinced of something when they put an idea into their head that they want firmly planted there. Take the birthers. If you tell them Obama is a citizen, they’ll demand a birth certificate. If you produce one, they’ll say it’s a forgery. If you talk to the lady who issued it, they’ll say she was paid to lie. Or the idiots who thought that Bush blew up the Trade Center towers on 9/11. They actually want to believe Bush blew em up and no evidence you produce will sway. That’s what’s wrong with the Beck mentality. You’re in a mode where I can actually produce quotes from Ben Franklin where he said in his OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY “I’m a deist!” and you’ll jump on that public school brainwashing bandwagon. Silly.

As far as the media slant toward the Left, often you’re right. The New York Times leans hard left, the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and Fox News hard Right. MSNBC and NBC are very liberal and don’t seem to apologize for it or try to hide it. PBS is also left-leaning as heck. CNN is a little of both IMO. In my area KMJ radio is the only real channel played anywhere and all you hear on there is Rush, Levin, Hannity, and all the hardcore right-wingers. There is plenty of media bias on both sides.

I find it interesting how you seem to think Beck is this poor, persecuted, lone voice of sanity when most of talk radio is as fanatically right as he is if not more so? Rush was around long before Beck jumped on the scene. With all the tea party rallies, the Palin worshippers, the legions of predominantly white tea party protestors and anti-public employee anti-union ditto-heads and “the great one” Mark Levin plunking out book after book along with Savage and Victor Davis Hanson (my former professor) and other hard right voices, I don’t think Beck is alone and being stoned by the masses. He’s in it for $$$ just like the rest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued…

I don’t have preconceived ideas, as you seem to think. I have been a conservative Republican all my life. I voted for Dole, Bush, Bush, and all my senatorial and congressional choices have always been GOP all the way. Only in recent years, the last couple, have I found the tea party, the anti-union rhetoric, the anti-public education ranting, and some other GOP war-mongering to be disturbing. Give me a Republican who doesn’t loath the public sector and unions and hate teachers and I’ll vote for him. I’m a pro-life, pro lower taxes, pro environment, anti gay marriage, pro military American. I’m also patriotic so I hate outsourcing our jobs to India like the “patriotic” Republicans love to do. I’m more Independent than you think, pre-conceived is laughable with my personality! If you told my family and friends that, it’d give ‘em a chuckle!! I have indeed been humbled by a change in some of my positions. For years I was very anti-public education until I taught in it. I have taught in public education for 13 years now and we are NOT what the far right thinks we are. We’re painted with a broad brush. I have changed my views on the war and nation-building. I was very pro-Iraq War. Pro Afghanistan too. I pretty much was in favor of bombing anything anytime. I used to be anti social security, yada yada. I have always been pro-environment. I’m a tree-hugger and proud of it. I used to be anti-minimum wage, pro-GOP everything. So your thesis that I’m unable to show humility and switch ideaologies is a moot point with me. The things I have NOT changed and will not change are
pro-life
anti-illegal immigration/pro-deportation
anti-gay ‘marriage’
anti-stem cell research
pro-2nd amendment, gun owners’ rights all the way
anti imminent domain
pro-military
pro-Israel
pro low interest rates
anti outsourcing
anti death tax
anti vouchers
pro social security
pro medicare
anti medical
anti stimulus 1, 2, and 3
anti cash for clunkers
anti-Palin on anything

etc.

The Republicans and Democrats have good ideas. Neither is completely demonic and maniacal as both would like me to believe. Washington and other early founding fathers didn’t like the idea of parties. I agree. Partisan politics is loathsome. It’s what’s wrong with this country. My team vs. your team. It’s childish, it isn’t working, and it is keeping us from being a country.

If we’re going to move forward we need to embrace some secular ideas and some religious, some respect for unions and workers’ rights and the private sector. Some pro-environment concessions and some pro-growth business innovation. We need a strong military but to stop nation-building and the naivate that the third world all wants to live in a democracy like ours.

gurneyhalleck,

wnd.com/?pageId=108445

Your comments about the founding fathers is boiler-plate revisionist history, taught in almost every public and private school (k-12+) in the country. When I started reading the original documents, I was blown away by how much I was lied to.

It takes guts to put away preconceived ideas about anything, so I don’t expect to convince you. All I will say is that the difference between Progressives and Conservatives in this country, is that while both may tell lies, the media only does their job attacking the lies of Conservatives (as they should). It takes a lot of work to learn the truth about the progressive world view and agenda.

Beck is the one guy talking about things the “real” news organizations should be all over, but choose to ignore.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The founding fathers is a larger group than being discussed here. It is a group that encompasses all who signed the Declaration of Independence and and the delegates who took part in framing the Constitution.

Of the delegates, the majority, by far were Protestant, 49 of them. Three Catholics. The rest either deist or no religious affiliation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

True. Some of them were deeply religious men, some lukewarm and more nominal, some deist and skeptical, etc. It was a mixed bag with more religious men than anti.

I still maintain that this country has two groups just like on the Mayflower: secularist capitalists and pilgrim religious. It has always been a tough task to respect both sides and work together. Never has the U.S. been as polarized as it is now with this two-party team mentality that delights in each other’s failures. Everything is politics for both camps. The Left is overjoyed at Katrina and Bush’s snail-paced efforts to deal with it. The Right is delighted at the Gulf Oil Spill and Obama’s slow reactions. Republicans like a slow economic recovery, the Dems love seeing Michael Steele flounder and stammer. They both aren’t out for Americans, pure and simple. One is for corporate greed and they’d just as soon see our nation turn third world with no benefits, no pensions, no regulations, and no perks for the little guy. The other side would like to eliminate the upper class or at best gag and tie them up and overregulate everything with a one trick pony govt govt govt mentality. Both suck if you ask me…where’s Ross Perot and Anderson when you need 'em! LOL

The founding fathers is a larger group than being discussed here. It is a group that encompasses all who signed the Declaration of Independence and and the delegates who took part in framing the Constitution.

Of the delegates, the majority, by far were Protestant, 49 of them. Three Catholics. The rest either deist or no religious affiliation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

True. Some of them were deeply religious men, some lukewarm and more nominal, some deist and skeptical, etc. It was a mixed bag with more religious men than anti.

The commonality among all of them was that they had the qualifications to vote. Which was, being a white land owner. Tada!

There ain’t no going back. Thank God.

 

[amencorner]

You aren’t reading my posts. I said that Beck uses the words (on video or written words) of people who call themselves Socialists. If they aren’t upset by their association with socialism, why are you in denial about it?

If they can’t convince you that they are socialists, what would convince you?

And as for the deism trope, did you read anything on the links I sent you? How do you explain the constant references to Divine Providence, if you think that Deism, in Jefferson’s case, means a detached god? I understand what the term means in “enlightenment” terms, but is simply didn’t mean the same thing in the colonies.

"This is a prayer said by Thomas Jefferson, our third President. It was written on March 4, 1801 in Washington, D.C.

Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people, the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thanksfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.”

By this definition, I guess I’m a Deist as well.

 

[amencorner]

Of the delegates, the majority, by far were Protestant, 49 of them. Three Catholics. The rest either deist or no religious affiliation.

Rebecca,

Who would you include in “the rest”? And what sources are you quoting?

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” --October 11, 1798

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Amen,

I’m not sure to whom you’re addressing your post but I’ll gladly reply. I have indeed watched countless hours of Beck, both my wife and I. We’ve seen probably thirty episodes of his show. And your statement that he’s never called anyone a socialist or a Maoist is patently not true. He has indeed.

You missed something rather important in that claim, which was that Beck never called anybody a socialist or Maoist WHO DID NOT CLAIM THAT FOR HIM/SELF.

I haven’t seen Beck’s show anywhere near as much as you have, evidently, but I haven’t seen him call someone a Maoist, communist or socialist who had not called him/herself that first.

Y’know, that part of the claim is sorta important.

 

[Ahimsa]

How do you explain the constant references to Divine Providence, if you think that Deism, in Jefferson’s case, means a detached god? I understand what the term means in “enlightenment” terms, but is simply didn’t mean the same thing in the colonies.
…
…and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.”

By this definition, I guess I’m a Deist as well.

Both Franklin and Jefferson believed Christianity to be a religion superior to any other religion, but that is a far cry from believing that Christ was the God the Son in human form. One can believe that Christ was a superior moral teacher, and also believe that Christianity, as a religion, is also superior.

In addition, Deist “Providence” refers to a God who does care about humans, and created the universe in such a way that humans can find happiness, but such a God does not violate natural laws (in the form of miracles, and such).

 

[FaithJoy]

National Socialist German Workers’ Party also known as the Nazi Party had a public medical plan such as what Obama wants. Very bad idea. Our founding father,George Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Which sounds VERY antiObama. Just like what the Tea partiers been saying,govt is getting too powerful,spending us into no where. You have to admit, they have a case. Look at Europe right know, they are turning away from the socialism(finnally). Obama was talking to himself at the G20 just the other day, he wanted other countries to spend more and more. How Naive President we have here. He is just like Carter, going to screw it all up. Carter destroyed my wife’s country ( Nicaragua), on day one he got into office he pulled ALL funding to help her country to defend itself from the communists. Now here father put in prison from the communists and tortured and her country is now a communist state,thanks to the democrat party( who agreed with him). Obama did the same thing Carter did, but without the same result. When Honduras was trying to fend off the communists taking over their country, Obama withdrew all help. Denyed the democratic president of Honduras to talk at the United Nations because Obama didn’t want to appear to take sides. WHAT? THAT naive man. WE suppose to defend freedom and support freedom here in the US. He doesn’t?

Do I sound like Beck? I care not if you think so. BUT I state facts here.

 

[amencorner]

Everyone is making good points. My only gripe is that when people complain about Beck, in particular, who do they NOT complain about?

People that are obviously in the tank for nationalized health care, raising taxes, social programs that have already succeeded in destroying the family in countless ways, are always for more condoms for kids, fewer parental rights and, of course abortion on demand…I could go on.

So to call Beck a “fanatic”, when he opposes the above, where is the criticism of the major news outlets? Silence.

Did anyone notice, for example, that the “justice” department threw out the black panther case, and NONE of the major news outlets covered it? And J. Christian Adams quit his job as a whistleblower, and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, WP didn’t bother mentioning it?

Beck did. So…who is doing a better job of informing people? The “revisionist and a fanatic, an anachronism”?

Did anyone mention that these same organizations have listlessly glossed over, or made excuses for Obama appointing Berwick as Medicare Czar with a recess appointment to avoid that messy process of disclosing who we have Czaring our healthcare system.

Beck talked about it. And discussed how Robert Gibbs was “ready” to combat anyone who dare ask about why they bypassed congress with a sneering, smug, dismissive misdirection.

Why, Gibbs might have called the CNS reporter a “revisionist, fanatic anachronism”

Isn’t it funny how a “conservative catholic” finds people discussing these things as unseemly as Robert Gibbs. It’s almost like they aren’t that conservative. Or Catholic.

Remember the words of Cass Sunstein:

“government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

I’m just sayin…