Glenn Beck Has A Dream

[corianderstem]

I'd say Pat Robertson gives Christians a bad name, but it goes deeper than that - he gives human beings a bad name.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Exactly why the Founders feared government growing too large and why, though they thought separation of Church and State was vital, they thought it equally vital that those individuals in government have religious principles upon which to base their decisions. That is the key, the principles upon which the institutions run.

Those who are not religious are not principled?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Exactly why the Founders feared government growing too large and why, though they thought separation of Church and State was vital, they thought it equally vital that those individuals in government have religious principles upon which to base their decisions. That is the key, the principles upon which the institutions run.

The trouble with this is when man, who you agree is inherently flawed, presents a flawed interpretation of religious principles and then tries to apply that in the governance of a multi-cultural country comprised of peoples of myriad (or no) faiths.

[melon]

As promised, here's my response to the rest:

Originally Posted by INDY500

We could go waaaay off the thread on this.

What you are buying into is the same philosophy that drove the French Revolution, Nazism, Communism, The New Deal and Sixties Liberalism. All very different in their methods to be sure (eugenics, redistribution, propaganda, tyranny, etc) but all transfixed on the transformation of society, the tearing up of all institutions and traditions by the roots, to create a New Man.

With this kind of logic, we might as well throw in the American Revolution. The formation of the United States was the original transformation of the Western world away from an unelected monarchy and a complete reliance on unwritten, common law (and it is worth noting that a good number of British philosophers mostly supported the idea of an unwritten Constitution, out of fear that it would inhibit flexibility) to an elected representative republic, a written Constitution, and--even more brashly--a document that explicitly outlined freedoms, the Bill of Rights.

To be "conservative" in these days would have been to support an absolute monarch and the state-sponsored religion, which you'd have no say in. And, even then, to presume that the previous eighteen centuries were an unbroken continuum of tradition would be similarly nonsensical. Certainly, up until the 17th/18th centuries or so, people did believe this, thus trumpeting their ties to "Roman law" and traditions. Of course, once historians actually decided to investigate these claims and strip down to what "Roman culture" actually boiled down to, they soberly came to the realization that what they had deemed to be "Roman" in the early modern period was anything but. Society, whether they had liked it or not, had changed to the point that the Romans might as well have been aliens.

And this leads to my point...

While I believe man can never be perfect and thus needs institutions and moral limitations to improve the human condition. New Man philosophy believes society can only be improved by naturally virtuous humans freed from the shackles of old ideas and moral codes, traditional religion, Christian marriage and other repressive institutions. When Morality is no longer defined by oppressive hegemonies and Reason no longer hindered by superstitious thought; then, and only then, can Man reach his true potential.

That's why you and Melon disdain social conservatism. Your vision of human nature.

I'm sure that the above makes for some nice right-wing historical narrative, but it's as fatally flawed as Marx's historical narrative. If you're looking for me to adhere to this rather terrible stereotype of liberalism that is really more a parody of socialism/communism, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is not how I think at all.

Man can never be perfect, and, as such, institutions and moral limitations are necessary. Nonetheless, institutions are the provenance of mankind, and share the flaws of mankind--thus worthy of scrutiny and oversight. And this is precisely what we have in democracy, particularly with the three branches of government in the United States all designed to keep each other in check, with complete freedom of religion--and freedom from religion--so as to allow reason, rather than superstition, to guide the "moral limitations" that we deem "law." Now, on that note, just because religion is prone to superstition by nature of its allowance for the non-empirical, doesn't mean that religion is incapable of reason. It is just that religious notions, in a democratic society, are placed no higher nor lower than any other notion in the marketplace of ideas. No idea, religious or secular, should be immune from criticism.

With that, since I presume that you're, at least, partly inferring to the issue of gay rights and marriage, it is becoming increasingly apparent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is indefensible through reason. Neither science, nor psychology, nor--in many cases--even serious Biblical criticism can support the view that homosexuality is aberrant and thus worthy of inherent condemnation. And it is, at this juncture in history, that a conservative case for gay marriage is able to be made, just as much as Theodore Olson and others before him have elucidated. It is humorous that you're crying "the end of tradition," when, in fact, the notion of falling in love, settling down, and getting married to start a family is, unto itself, a very conservative desire compared to, say, having sex with multiple partners and never settling down through old age. If anything, the desire for gay marriage is a validation of tradition, not the destruction of it. As such, the notion of gay Christians and gay Republicans is far less of a shocking concept than it was 20-30 years ago. In fact, it is now downright normal.

At this point, I'm inclined to say that your insistence on the contrary is prejudiced, but I'm more inclined to say that it's stubbornness. Your stubborn clinging to some romanticist notion of "tradition" isn't grounded in a factual basis. If I have a "disdain for social conservatism," it's not because I have some Marxist anarchist fantasy; ideologically, I increasingly lean toward classical liberalism and its support of limited government which a great number of Republicans also claim to believe. Nor is it because I have some utopian ideal of mankind; I share the Straussian disdain for utopianism. Nor is it because I hate religion; in fact, I have a great respect for and faith in the Catholic tradition--which, incidentally, has a strong tradition in faith grounded in reason.

No, if I have a disdain for social conservatism, it's because I despise nonsense. If you want me to, at least, respect your beliefs beyond the basic democratic respect for your freedom of speech, then you have to do much better than arguments based on fallacious appeals to tradition or fictitious strawmen claims based on fear. You have to back up your claims, rather than expect respect out of some notion of entitlement masquerading as "balance." After all, don't conservatives hate entitlements?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by melon

Man can never be perfect, and, as such, institutions and moral limitations are necessary. Nonetheless, institutions are the provenance of mankind, and share the flaws of mankind--thus worthy of scrutiny and oversight. And this is precisely what we have in democracy, particularly with the three branches of government in the United States all designed to keep each other in check, with complete freedom of religion--and freedom from religion--so as to allow reason, rather than superstition, to guide the "moral limitations" that we deem "law." Now, on that note, just because religion is prone to superstition by nature of its allowance for the non-empirical, doesn't mean that religion is incapable of reason. It is just that religious notions, in a democratic society, are placed no higher nor lower than any other notion in the marketplace of ideas. No idea, religious or secular, should be immune from criticism.

Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant.

Seriously though, I love when you (or yolland) can come in and thoughtfully and thoroughly articulate arguments that I struggle to scratch the surface of.

Outstanding post, melon.

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant.

Seriously though, I love when you (or yolland) can come in and thoughtfully and thoroughly articulate arguments that I struggle to scratch the surface of.

Outstanding post, melon.

And Pfan is doing a fine job, as well. Gotta love logic.

[INDY500]

melon,

That is an interesting post. Thanks for taking the time to compose it. I will respond but I had some oral surgery today and I'm afraid the pain meds have rendered me even more nonsensical than usual.

[anitram]

Beck: "Women are psychos" | Media Matters for America

You don't know the psychosis that is chickdom...women are psychos.

[INDY500]

YouTube - FOX's Greg Gutfeld Slams 'Media Matters' - With Digital Puppets

"Just today, I have sent 35 press releases about Glenn Beck."

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

"Just today, I have sent 35 press releases about Glenn Beck."

Sponsored by Goldline.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by anitram

Beck: "Women are psychos" | Media Matters for America

Well if you watch some of the behavior he exhibits on his show you'd think he might be a psycho

[BVS]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Well if you watch some of the behavior he exhibits on his show you'd think he might be a psycho

Oh, I'm banking on it.

[MrsSpringsteen]

"This one could end with a dead intern"..Is that a picture of him in a straight jacket on his wall? I have to admit, "did you see me naked in Cosmo" is a funny line-that should be on his Senate business card

YouTube - Glenn Beck: What was Scott Brown thinking with the daughters thing?

[INDY500]

YouTube - The Revolutionary Holocaust...Live Free...Or Die...01-22-2010

This Friday on the Glenn Beck show at 5 pm

What they don't teach in school anymore.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

This Friday on the Glenn Beck show at 5 pm

What they don't teach in school anymore.

I occasionally wonder if Glenn Beck is better at being Colbert than Colbert is.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by anitram

Beck: "Women are psychos" | Media Matters for America

Takes one to know one, I guess.

[INDY500]

The Fox Juggernaut: Why It's No. 1 -- Politics Daily

written by someone I've never heard of from the establishment media prospective.

[anitram]

Fox News is #1 for the same reason that Adam Sandler movies sit at the top of the box office and Danielle Steel makes the bestseller list and pre-pubescent boys sell more albums than Radiohead.

Like we should be surprised?

[PhilsFan]

As far as news networks go, Fox is sort of like Jay Leno. Little substance, and clearly the worst in the profession, but the highest rated simply because people form habits.

[BVS]

I, like Glenn Beck have a dream as well...

That one day people will inform themselves and Beck and his ilk will no longer have an audience in this country