My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Thread checklist

Black National Anthem -- check
Global Warming -- check
Existence of God - check
Mosque at Ground Zero (well 2 blocks away) -- check
Left bashing right - check
Right being offended by left bashing right - check
Unicorns -- check
Taxes - ??
Universal Healthcare -- ??

You forgot:

Nazis -- ??
Simpsons -- ??

You could also throw in:

Pie -- ??
Question 3 -- ??

But they are a bit more WP specific.

[GusFrerotte]

Sorry dude, I am a libertarian leaning conservative if there is such a thing and Glenn Beck is a joke in all honesty. Did you see him a few years ago with the fake tears on Fox talking about his 9/12 Project? The guy even admits he is more of an entertainer than newsman,etc. What he has successfully done is get so called conservatives to follow his schtick(and Palin's) and ignore the more change minded and serious Ron Paul or anyone else for that matter. Also if Beck was such the influential man, why did less than 200,000 people show up to his much advertised Rally? And really, do you see a revival with tons of people going back to God? I go to a rather large church and well over 70% of the parishoners are older retirees or folks in their 50's(which fits in with Fox's and Becks number one market age group). Another one of Beck's jobs is to help with the illusion of there being a true opposition party in America, where in reality you get pretty much the same policies no matter who you want to vote for. Beck just wants to give his flock the illusion that their way of life can somehow return to what it used to be ie circa 1970. Beck is making a killing on book sales, etc playing to the fears of a dying demographic that rather live in self delusion than actually doing anything to salvage anything of their way of life.

[JoeRedskin]

Wait, we're still talking about Beck? Why, I thought we had moved onto Global Warming Nazis and the climate change's effect on apple pie?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wait, we're still talking about Beck? Why, I thought we had moved onto Global Warming Nazis and the climate change's effect on apple pie?

I have heard that it is a scientific fact that apples will no longer turn red due to gcc and thus more apples will be available for pies. pie nazi tho' will still not allow seinfeld to order at his store. Meanwhile joe gibbs remains speechless that beck was not asked a question as tough as question 3 was.

[JoeRedskin]

Does the fact that I stated that the Simpsons have not been referenced count as a Simpsons reference?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Does the fact that I stated that the Simpsons have not been referenced count as a Simpsons reference?

I would think that clarifying the checklist doesn't count as a mention

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Excellent post.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing my beliefs being referred to as fairy tales by those who chose to believe differently.

BB, where do your "inalienable rights" come from? If you do not believe in the existence of a being outside creation, aren't they just conveyed to you by other humans? If so conveyed, isn't it equally true that they can be legitimately denied by the same?

From an agreed upon system of government/culture that places value upon them. It is a creation of men and their philosophy and yes, it is possible they could be denied, look around the globe for countless examples. IF these rights were guaranteed by our supposed creator, you'd think he/she/it would do a better job of follow up. Just sayin'. Oh, I know, mysterious ways and all that. Right.

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Also, the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean the role of creator is played by a god. Could very well be a process, like, I don't know, evolution? Take it for what it's worth.

Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

Why is it disrespectful for the religious to be told their beliefs are baseless when those of us who prefer to live in the real world must constantly be told that we "need saving" or "face eternal damnation..?" Why are religious views worthy of more respect? I'd love to hear an answer without "god" in the verbiage.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

From an agreed upon system of government/culture that places value upon them. It is a creation of men and their philosophy and yes, it is possible they could be denied, look around the globe for countless examples. IF these rights were guaranteed by our supposed creator, you'd think he/she/it would do a better job of follow up. Just sayin'. Oh, I know, mysterious ways and all that. Right.

Preliminarily, we have a very different understanding of God. I have said this before in a more detailed post, but, put simply, my God doesn’t keep human pets.

We are free to disbelieve in God and, as such, we are free, through “agreed upon system[s] of government[s]/culture[s]”, to choose systems that deprive fellow humans of their basic humanity. It’s not the Creator’s job to ensure that we love and respect each other – it’s ours (Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?). Our success or failure in that respect, however, does not belie the Creator's underlying endowment. Rather, if the Creator forced humans to behave in certain ways, then we are not truly free, the Judeo-Christian God is a lie, and we are just very intelligent hamsters in a cage.

[Similarly, earlier you said you demand proof of God’s existence. Actually, what you are demanding is forensic evidence of God’s existence – God’s blood samples and fingerprints. Such a demand is antithetical to the God in which I believe. If you have undeniable, forensic evidence that a supreme, all powerful being exists, then to disobey such a being is foolhardy. Again, my God says I am free to disbelieve him/her/it. Forensic evidence destroys the need for faith but equally destroys the ability to freely choose. W/out freedom of choice, you cannot choose to love. Rather, the “proof” of my God’s existence comes in the form of testimony - testimony that you categorically disbelieve and find not credible. That’s your choice. I am not going to go into a long discourse on my philosophical/spiritual journey but, suffice it to say, it was long, contemplative and rocky and the outcome not certain until my mid -30’s. Through my own experience, I found some testimonial proof concerning the existence of God credible and some not so much. I weighed them and, after much thought and analysis, made my own determination. You are free to make the same choices or not.]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Also, the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean the role of creator is played by a god. Could very well be a process, like, I don't know, evolution? Take it for what it's worth.

Again, I believe evolution took place and I believe it to be entirely consistent with the existence of God. I do believe that, at some point, something was created from nothing. Even if you say, created is part of the evolutionary process, fine by me – the rights did not come from man and cannot legitimately be taken away by other men.

As for being “forced to pander to the religious”, I don’t recall an armed militia holding a gun to the Continental Congress. They made a choice based on their experience. I suggest you see it as pandering b/c of your hostile attitude toward religion rather than a conclusion with factual basis.

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Why is it disrespectful for the religious to be told their beliefs are baseless when those of us who prefer to live in the real world must constantly be told that we "need saving" or "face eternal damnation..?" Why are religious views worthy of more respect? I'd love to hear an answer without "god" in the verbiage.

Ahh. So some individuals/groups made remarks that disparaged your belief system and you feel the appropriate response is to treat anyone who holds similar beliefs to those individuals/groups with equal and opposite disrespect. Excellent moral/ethical conclusion – do unto others as they do unto me. Nice. Sign me up for that system.

Why are religious views worthy of more respect? They aren't. I would suggest, however, that the spiritual choices and belief systems of others are worthy of the same respect you demand for your own belief system. Your disrespect towards millions of people you don’t know strikes me as arrogant and condescending.

To be clear – I live in the “real world” and am not passing judgment on your spiritual choices. Who knows, maybe there is no God. I’ll take that chance and you take yours. In the meantime, I will live in the moment, cherish the gift of life and do unto others as I would have them do unto me - Even if they are disrespectful, arrogant individuals who mock my beliefs without any understanding of how I arrived at them.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preliminarily, we have a very different understanding of God. I have said this before in a more detailed post, but, put simply, my God doesn’t keep human pets.

We are free to disbelieve in God and, as such, we are free, through “agreed upon system[s] of government[s]/culture[s]”, to choose systems that deprive fellow humans of their basic humanity. It’s not the Creator’s job to ensure that we love and respect each other – it’s ours (Have you actually read the 10 Commandments?). Our success or failure in that respect, however, does not belie the Creator's underlying endowment. Rather, if the Creator forced humans to behave in certain ways, then we are not truly free, the Judeo-Christian God is a lie, and we are just very intelligent hamsters in a cage.

[Similarly, earlier you said you demand proof of God’s existence. Actually, what you are demanding is forensic evidence of God’s existence – God’s blood samples and fingerprints. Such a demand is antithetical to the God in which I believe. If you have undeniable, forensic evidence that a supreme, all powerful being exists, then to disobey such a being is foolhardy. Again, my God says I am free to disbelieve him/her/it. Forensic evidence destroys the need for faith but equally destroys the ability to freely choose. W/out freedom of choice, you cannot choose to love. Rather, the “proof” of my God’s existence comes in the form of testimony - testimony that you categorically disbelieve and find not credible. That’s your choice. I am not going to go into a long discourse on my philosophical/spiritual journey but, suffice it to say, it was long, contemplative and rocky and the outcome not certain until my mid -30’s. Through my own experience, I found some testimonial proof concerning the existence of God credible and some not so much. I weighed them and, after much thought and analysis, made my own determination. You are free to make the same choices or not.]



Again, I believe evolution took place and I believe it to be entirely consistent with the existence of God. I do believe that, at some point, something was created from nothing. Even if you say, created is part of the evolutionary process, fine by me – the rights did not come from man and cannot legitimately be taken away by other men.

As for being “forced to pander to the religious”, I don’t recall an armed militia holding a gun to the Continental Congress. They made a choice based on their experience. I suggest you see it as pandering b/c of your hostile attitude toward religion rather than a conclusion with factual basis.



Ahh. So some individuals/groups made remarks that disparaged your belief system and you feel the appropriate response is to treat anyone who holds similar beliefs to those individuals/groups with equal and opposite disrespect. Excellent moral/ethical conclusion – do unto others as they do unto me. Nice. Sign me up for that system.

Why are religious views worthy of more respect? They aren't. I would suggest, however, that the spiritual choices and belief systems of others are worthy of the same respect you demand for your own belief system. Your disrespect towards millions of people you don’t know strikes me as arrogant and condescending.

To be clear – I live in the “real world” and am not passing judgment on your spiritual choices. Who knows, maybe there is no God. I’ll take that chance and you take yours. In the meantime, I will live in the moment, cherish the gift of life and do unto others as I would have them do unto me - Even if they are disrespectful, arrogant individuals who mock my beliefs without any understanding of how I arrived at them.

Great post, very well said.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

Then why even make your statement.

My little scenario is certainly no "agrument for religion". Just a 30 second retort to folks who know everything, look at Christians as idiots, and feel the need to mock people's beliefs publicly. Who knows, maybe it's made someone over the years think and eventually seek and find God.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (my emphasis).

Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time. As his recent editor has written, once Coke said that something was the law, almost everyone agreed. Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke’s custom and right reason." Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that before the Revolution, the first volume of Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England "was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties."

Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things.” For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will. Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

[firstdown]

Some girl is in our office with a screaming baby and its driving me nuts. If I go nuts will that be covered under OBama care? I'm guessing the baby is starving because the Rep. blocked some bill to keep babies from eating.

[MTK]

You could probably file a stress claim under comp.

[JoeRedskin]

It depends on the type of nut you turn into. If you turn into a right-wing Nazi terrorist then most likely not. If you turn into ACORN, yes.

If you turn into a pecan, well, then you'll just be made into a pie.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (my emphasis).


And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

You are officially more smarterized than me. Well done.