C
catharina
Guest
**Yes. **
Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?
- Status
T
Tigg
Guest
I am at times just amazed at the dynamics of some of these threads. Not one person who spews at Beck has addressed concerns for the REAL EVIL being perpetrated under the name of social justice, (and there are plenty of links, if they had EYES to see) but it is written in Scripture that “even the elect will be fooled.” I cannot, for the life of me, see how so-called “Pro-Life Catholics” can advocate the agendas of the Socialists and Progressives, but they have bought into the lie that poverty and lack of healthcare and pollution of the planet are evils equal to the killing of the UNBORN. We are the only creatures God made who would do such a heinous thing yet they would close their eyes to this fact. Such deception in present in these End Times.
E
Ella
Guest
Well, I found a link to what he actually said on the air:
youtube.com/watch?v=5c4DqdleJuY
According to what he said, we should all avoid the catholic.com website because it has a forum called ‘social justice’.
youtube.com/watch?v=5c4DqdleJuY
According to what he said, we should all avoid the catholic.com website because it has a forum called ‘social justice’.
J
jrabs
Guest
Yes indeed. What you have highlighted is exactly what I have been saying.
The words Social Justice are being convoluded.
J
jrabs
Guest
No kidding!
J
jrabs
Guest
And the sound/vite clip is 6 min. I do believe his show runs longer for the full discussion and clarification. Oh if it were a full 12 min clip! He may have made his real intent clear.
Sad really when we judge upon a snippet. Someone posted that particular bite because it has wow factor impact. Makes people agitated and hostile. It worked.
Though the real meaning slips by because the next 6 mins of the clip were not posted.
How sad and deceptive the internet can be as our source of truth.
Also funny how some may call me a Glenn Beck supporter. I am supporting the truth, not the man. He talks about this topic quite frequently.
E
Ella
Guest
Post the rest of the show, or post a transcript of the show, and prove that he said anything else about this topic on that show.
K
kbkam
Guest
I don’t get why some just can’t seem to understand, that taking the interpretation of someone’s words, is exactly and only that- one person’s interpretation. Yes, Colbert is funny; yes, Father Jim is a priest and hopefully is following the tenets of the Church, but if he is basing his opinions on sound bites, even people we expect to respect can be wrong. And, yes, talking heads hate GB and constantly accuse him of things he doesn’t say.
What is his critics fail to do is listen to the entire conversation he had about social justice and the Catholic Church. For your convenience:
glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/37852/
and
Code words which might be of interest
article.nationalreview.com/428189/code-words/john-leo?page=1
Giving to the poor/helping them out of poverty=good
Government Marxist redistribution policies=bad
When one side actually has heard the entirety of what he said and his comments about how what he said was purposely misinterpreted, and the other side has listened to only the misinterpretations, the conversation is bound to deteriorate.
Oh, and by the way, he ALWAYS stresses non-violence.
You want to follow Christ’s teachings? Give to the poor and try to help them out of poverty. He didn’t tell us to count on some government to do it.
For goodness sake (literally), if one is reading these forums, one has access to the internet and in this day and age, there is no excuse for intellectual laziness.
Even a little bit of Marxism is Godless.
What is his critics fail to do is listen to the entire conversation he had about social justice and the Catholic Church. For your convenience:
glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/37852/
and
Code words which might be of interest
article.nationalreview.com/428189/code-words/john-leo?page=1
Giving to the poor/helping them out of poverty=good
Government Marxist redistribution policies=bad
When one side actually has heard the entirety of what he said and his comments about how what he said was purposely misinterpreted, and the other side has listened to only the misinterpretations, the conversation is bound to deteriorate.
Oh, and by the way, he ALWAYS stresses non-violence.
You want to follow Christ’s teachings? Give to the poor and try to help them out of poverty. He didn’t tell us to count on some government to do it.
For goodness sake (literally), if one is reading these forums, one has access to the internet and in this day and age, there is no excuse for intellectual laziness.
Even a little bit of Marxism is Godless.
T
Tigg
Guest
If our parish starts a group supporting social justice under the umbrella of JustFaith, for instance, (and many Catholic parishes all over the country have done so) we will immediately drop all financial support to that parish and register at another. We will not do so because Beck told us to, but we will do so because we are faithful to the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church and will not join some organization which touts Catholicism, while at the same time teaching heresy!
I’d like to hear your comments to the questions posed in Post #221. No one seems to want to respond.
S
smbaran
Guest
After reading some of the comments, I am deeply disappointed. Glen Beck was speaking very specifically about running away from any teaching where the emphasis is placed upon social justice being dispensed by a body separate from the individual whose charity comes from God. Glen Beck is one of the most brilliant and charitable individuals working in the public sphere. He is trying very hard to educate people about the difference between human rights that come from God as opposed to the current ideology of right “deemed” from government. If anyone heard his clarification later on the Factor, you would see that what he means is anywhere rights and obligations arise from any source except God, there can be no authentic Charity. Without authentic Charity from God, we also have no Faith and certainly no Hope. Please people, listen to him very carefully. He understands well the difference between God’s role and man’s desire for control apart from God.
A
Arandur
Guest
Again, I hear only ad hominem attacks an an attempt to demonize and vilify a person. In my experience, this appears typical of those who try to just dismiss Glenn Beck and, particularly, libertarian and conservative commentators. Attacks, not intellectual discussion over the points at hand. This is not Christian. It is a disservice to truth.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
You are so right. That says it all. I watched Jon Stewart do Glenn beck this morning. He was not quite as reverent, but made an excellent point.
huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/jon-stewart-glenn-beck-parody_n_505329.html
H
Havard
Guest
Okay, so I watched it… now what’s the excellent point?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
It seems the nuns have figured this out and took a courageous stand.
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
You couldn’t have watched it since it ran 15 minutes and you posted 10 minutes after I did. What’s your point?Okay, so I watched it… now what’s the excellent point?
H
Havard
Guest
Trying to understand what you like about the video!
Edit: I sent you another pm, can you see if you can read it?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
Harvard,
Did get your message and responded twice. I’m not sure it went through. Did it?
Did get your message and responded twice. I’m not sure it went through. Did it?
V
Via_Dolorosa
Guest
I wrote, in the private message that I posted this crazy video with Jon Stewart, that I thought Jon actuallly addressed how much of a buffoon Glenn Beck is. We can take what he says to either extreme. Jon Stewart takes it this extreme. He is not the only one that takes things to extremes. Please fact check the news sources that you favor. I think we all may be in for a surprise if we follow the money.Trying to understand what you like about the video!
Edit: I sent you another pm, can you see if you can read it?
C
Convert66
Guest
How disappointing it is to endure Jon Stewart’s attempted caricature. I hear that he made an excellent point, but for the life of me I can’t find it.
Who knows, perhaps he is simply ignorant that our secretary of state, during the democratic primary-debates, described herself as an “early-twentieth century progressive.” Or, perhaps he is simply ignorant of what “early-twentieth century progressives” advocated.
Surely he’s heard of “prohibition”, but maybe he is unaware of other progressives, like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, whose stated goals were to sterilize “undesirables” and “negros” before they could breed more like themselves. Maybe he is unaware of Woodrow Wilson’s hundred-thousand plus political prisoners, later released by that “evil republican” Calvin Coolidge.
Perhaps he is ignorant of Edward Bernays’ (Sigmund Freud’s nephew) who worked in Wilson’s “war socialism” cabinet as propaganda minister in order to drum up support for American intervention in WWI. He also later consulted extensively with Madison avenue executives to fashion an advertising industry that capitalizes (literally) on Freudian theories of subconscious desires in order to sell the consumer society on the notion that wish-fulfillment is “your right”, not to mention profitable to manufacturers and big business----you know, those things that progressives now rail against (how ironic). He wrote a book published in 1923 called “propaganda” which Joseph Goebbel’s referred to as his “inspiration.”
It is odd that he is unmoved by self-described communists, black nationalists and various radicals in Obama’s sphere.
Perhaps “safe-schools czar” Ken Jennings, founder of GLSEN, has been missing from Mr. Stewarts radar, which I suppose is a blessing, considering that GLSEN’s recommended reading list for kids in the public schools, ages 12-17, includes graphic pornographic depictions of adult-child sex acts, you know, in order to combat homophobia and bullying (which is why Obama tapped him, according to the President). That would please Jennings’ “hero” Harry Hay, the NAMBLA supporter. Ahh “progressives.”
And obviously, should we heed any notion of Mr. Beck’s that the US Constitution is the law of the land, it is only “code” (oh, the irony, indeed) for a desire to establish a “theocracy.” Those Taliban-esque founders of ours were quite the stealth reactionaries, now, weren’t they?
Maybe he is unaware that Wislon’s “war socialism” was the brainchild of Edward Bellamy (yet another self-described socialist), whose 1888 international bestseller “Looking Backward” describes the Fabian approach also advocated by HG Welles, George Bernard Shaw and other fashionable leftists of the era, which our current secretary of state wishes to associate herself with. Incidentally, I am certain that Mr. Stewart is totally unaware that Mr. Bellamy’s cousin, Francis was the author of the “pledge of allegiance” and that, oddly enough, the original “pledge of allegiance” salute was eerily reminiscent of another future national socialist leader’s party who would rise to power spouting similarly progressive and statist ideas in the post-Weimar Germany of the 1930’s.
I mean, after all, who cares that Mussolini’s domestic program is nearly identical to that of Hitler’s Germany, minus the “Jewish solution” and the Aryan paganism, or, more incredibly, almost identical to the political goals of the American progressives of the “early-twentieth century,” whom Hillary Clinton chooses to associate herself with. I guess Jon Stewart missed all of that in history or in his personal study. I mean, all progressives really want is to keep lead out of toys and to monitor toxins in water, right? Equality and justice for all, right?
Who needs to concern themselves with the brutal facts, such as the fact that Hitler himself said he was “inspired by the American eugenicists of the progressive era” in structuring his own eugenics programs.
Who would want to relive that horrible anti-progressive, reactionary “McCarthy era” and the “red scare” even though Venona cables confirmed that not only was McCarthy (oh and liberal icon’s RFK and JFK) right, but he had vastly underestimated the levels of espionage within the federal government. Surely he is unaware of the “useful idiots” as Lenin and later apparatchiks referred to countless Western journalists (like Walter Lippman, also in Wilson’s propaganda department) and academics who offered ready apologia for the Soviet system and it’s crimes. They even pined for Hitler’s glorious national socialist experiment, that is, until after Hitler broke the pact he signed with “Uncle Joe” Stalin (he of the Kulak genocide and the Ukrainian “wholecaust”). See, once Hitler defied Uncle Joe, well, he was on his own—a “right-wing reactionary” in the minds of his former supporters on the left in America and Europe and Soviet Russia.
But still, I am certain that Stewart did have an excellent point in there somewhere.
I am STILL waiting for evidences of ANY of the derogatory charges leveled against Beck in this thread. The crickets are getting tired by now.
PS. Google video hosts a highly-recommended and very revealing four-part series entitled “The Century of the Self”, which deals extensively with “early twentieth century progressive” ideas, as set forth by Freud, Bernays and Freud’s daughter Anna, and the influence those ideas carried into social science, psychiatry, advertising, the ‘human potential movement’ and politics. Must-see TV, if you know what I mean. It is produced by BBC documentaries.
Who knows, perhaps he is simply ignorant that our secretary of state, during the democratic primary-debates, described herself as an “early-twentieth century progressive.” Or, perhaps he is simply ignorant of what “early-twentieth century progressives” advocated.
Surely he’s heard of “prohibition”, but maybe he is unaware of other progressives, like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, whose stated goals were to sterilize “undesirables” and “negros” before they could breed more like themselves. Maybe he is unaware of Woodrow Wilson’s hundred-thousand plus political prisoners, later released by that “evil republican” Calvin Coolidge.
Perhaps he is ignorant of Edward Bernays’ (Sigmund Freud’s nephew) who worked in Wilson’s “war socialism” cabinet as propaganda minister in order to drum up support for American intervention in WWI. He also later consulted extensively with Madison avenue executives to fashion an advertising industry that capitalizes (literally) on Freudian theories of subconscious desires in order to sell the consumer society on the notion that wish-fulfillment is “your right”, not to mention profitable to manufacturers and big business----you know, those things that progressives now rail against (how ironic). He wrote a book published in 1923 called “propaganda” which Joseph Goebbel’s referred to as his “inspiration.”
It is odd that he is unmoved by self-described communists, black nationalists and various radicals in Obama’s sphere.
Perhaps “safe-schools czar” Ken Jennings, founder of GLSEN, has been missing from Mr. Stewarts radar, which I suppose is a blessing, considering that GLSEN’s recommended reading list for kids in the public schools, ages 12-17, includes graphic pornographic depictions of adult-child sex acts, you know, in order to combat homophobia and bullying (which is why Obama tapped him, according to the President). That would please Jennings’ “hero” Harry Hay, the NAMBLA supporter. Ahh “progressives.”
And obviously, should we heed any notion of Mr. Beck’s that the US Constitution is the law of the land, it is only “code” (oh, the irony, indeed) for a desire to establish a “theocracy.” Those Taliban-esque founders of ours were quite the stealth reactionaries, now, weren’t they?
Maybe he is unaware that Wislon’s “war socialism” was the brainchild of Edward Bellamy (yet another self-described socialist), whose 1888 international bestseller “Looking Backward” describes the Fabian approach also advocated by HG Welles, George Bernard Shaw and other fashionable leftists of the era, which our current secretary of state wishes to associate herself with. Incidentally, I am certain that Mr. Stewart is totally unaware that Mr. Bellamy’s cousin, Francis was the author of the “pledge of allegiance” and that, oddly enough, the original “pledge of allegiance” salute was eerily reminiscent of another future national socialist leader’s party who would rise to power spouting similarly progressive and statist ideas in the post-Weimar Germany of the 1930’s.
I mean, after all, who cares that Mussolini’s domestic program is nearly identical to that of Hitler’s Germany, minus the “Jewish solution” and the Aryan paganism, or, more incredibly, almost identical to the political goals of the American progressives of the “early-twentieth century,” whom Hillary Clinton chooses to associate herself with. I guess Jon Stewart missed all of that in history or in his personal study. I mean, all progressives really want is to keep lead out of toys and to monitor toxins in water, right? Equality and justice for all, right?
Who needs to concern themselves with the brutal facts, such as the fact that Hitler himself said he was “inspired by the American eugenicists of the progressive era” in structuring his own eugenics programs.
Who would want to relive that horrible anti-progressive, reactionary “McCarthy era” and the “red scare” even though Venona cables confirmed that not only was McCarthy (oh and liberal icon’s RFK and JFK) right, but he had vastly underestimated the levels of espionage within the federal government. Surely he is unaware of the “useful idiots” as Lenin and later apparatchiks referred to countless Western journalists (like Walter Lippman, also in Wilson’s propaganda department) and academics who offered ready apologia for the Soviet system and it’s crimes. They even pined for Hitler’s glorious national socialist experiment, that is, until after Hitler broke the pact he signed with “Uncle Joe” Stalin (he of the Kulak genocide and the Ukrainian “wholecaust”). See, once Hitler defied Uncle Joe, well, he was on his own—a “right-wing reactionary” in the minds of his former supporters on the left in America and Europe and Soviet Russia.
But still, I am certain that Stewart did have an excellent point in there somewhere.
I am STILL waiting for evidences of ANY of the derogatory charges leveled against Beck in this thread. The crickets are getting tired by now.
PS. Google video hosts a highly-recommended and very revealing four-part series entitled “The Century of the Self”, which deals extensively with “early twentieth century progressive” ideas, as set forth by Freud, Bernays and Freud’s daughter Anna, and the influence those ideas carried into social science, psychiatry, advertising, the ‘human potential movement’ and politics. Must-see TV, if you know what I mean. It is produced by BBC documentaries.
C
catharina
Guest
Unless YOU are writing flat-out satire, I can’t imagine what you’re saying about Stewart.How disappointing it is to endure Jon Stewart’s attempted caricature. I hear that he made an excellent point, but for the life of me I can’t find it.
Who knows, perhaps he is simply ignorant that our secretary of state, during the democratic primary-debates, described herself as an “early-twentieth century progressive.” Or, perhaps he is simply ignorant of what “early-twentieth century progressives” advocated.
Surely he’s heard of “prohibition”, but maybe he is unaware of other progressives, like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, whose stated goals were to sterilize “undesirables” and “negros” before they could breed more like themselves. Maybe he is unaware of Woodrow Wilson’s hundred-thousand plus political prisoners, later released by that “evil republican” Calvin Coolidge.
Perhaps he is ignorant of Edward Bernays’ (Sigmund Freud’s nephew) who worked in Wilson’s “war socialism” cabinet as propaganda minister in order to drum up support for American intervention in WWI. He also later consulted extensively with Madison avenue executives to fashion an advertising industry that capitalizes (literally) on Freudian theories of subconscious desires in order to sell the consumer society on the notion that wish-fulfillment is “your right”, not to mention profitable to manufacturers and big business----you know, those things that progressives now rail against (how ironic). He wrote a book published in 1923 called “propaganda” which Joseph Goebbel’s referred to as his “inspiration.”
It is odd that he is unmoved by self-described communists, black nationalists and various radicals in Obama’s sphere.
Perhaps “safe-schools czar” Ken Jennings, founder of GLSEN, has been missing from Mr. Stewarts radar, which I suppose is a blessing, considering that GLSEN’s recommended reading list for kids in the public schools, ages 12-17, includes graphic pornographic depictions of adult-child sex acts, you know, in order to combat homophobia and bullying (which is why Obama tapped him, according to the President). That would please Jennings’ “hero” Harry Hay, the NAMBLA supporter. Ahh “progressives.”
And obviously, should we heed any notion of Mr. Beck’s that the US Constitution is the law of the land, it is only “code” (oh, the irony, indeed) for a desire to establish a “theocracy.” Those Taliban-esque founders of ours were quite the stealth reactionaries, now, weren’t they?
Maybe he is unaware that Wislon’s “war socialism” was the brainchild of Edward Bellamy (yet another self-described socialist), whose 1888 international bestseller “Looking Backward” describes the Fabian approach also advocated by HG Welles, George Bernard Shaw and other fashionable leftists of the era, which our current secretary of state wishes to associate herself with. Incidentally, I am certain that Mr. Stewart is totally unaware that Mr. Bellamy’s cousin, Francis was the author of the “pledge of allegiance” and that, oddly enough, the original “pledge of allegiance” salute was eerily reminiscent of another future national socialist leader’s party who would rise to power spouting similarly progressive and statist ideas in the post-Weimar Germany of the 1930’s.
I mean, after all, who cares that Mussolini’s domestic program is nearly identical to that of Hitler’s Germany, minus the “Jewish solution” and the Aryan paganism, or, more incredibly, almost identical to the political goals of the American progressives of the “early-twentieth century,” whom Hillary Clinton chooses to associate herself with. I guess Jon Stewart missed all of that in history or in his personal study. I mean, all progressives really want is to keep lead out of toys and to monitor toxins in water, right? Equality and justice for all, right?
Who needs to concern themselves with the brutal facts, such as the fact that Hitler himself said he was “inspired by the American eugenicists of the progressive era” in structuring his own eugenics programs.
Who would want to relive that horrible anti-progressive, reactionary “McCarthy era” and the “red scare” even though Venona cables confirmed that not only was McCarthy (oh and liberal icon’s RFK and JFK) right, but he had vastly underestimated the levels of espionage within the federal government. Surely he is unaware of the “useful idiots” as Lenin and later apparatchiks referred to countless Western journalists (like Walter Lippman, also in Wilson’s propaganda department) and academics who offered ready apologia for the Soviet system and it’s crimes. They even pined for Hitler’s glorious national socialist experiment, that is, until after Hitler broke the pact he signed with “Uncle Joe” Stalin (he of the Kulak genocide and the Ukrainian “wholecaust”). See, once Hitler defied Uncle Joe, well, he was on his own—a “right-wing reactionary” in the minds of his former supporters on the left in America and Europe and Soviet Russia.
But still, I am certain that Stewart did have an excellent point in there somewhere.
I am STILL waiting for evidences of ANY of the derogatory charges leveled against Beck in this thread. The crickets are getting tired by now.
PS. Google video hosts a highly-recommended and very revealing four-part series entitled “The Century of the Self”, which deals extensively with “early twentieth century progressive” ideas, as set forth by Freud, Bernays and Freud’s daughter Anna, and the influence those ideas carried into social science, psychiatry, advertising, the ‘human potential movement’ and politics. Must-see TV, if you know what I mean. It is produced by BBC documentaries.
Clue?
- Status