First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Life Site News ^ | NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 | Commentary by John-Henry Westen

[GonzoII]

Friday August 13, 2010

---

First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Commentary by John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, August 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, famed conservative Fox News host Glenn Beck may have shocked many Americans by noting that he was not very concerned about homosexual 'marriage.'

O’Reilly asked Beck, “Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?” Beck replied, “No, I don't,” adding sarcastically, “Will the gays come and get us?” 

After being pressed again on the question, Beck said, “I believe -- I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”  Showing his own surprise, O’Reilly remarked, “Okay, so you don't. That's interesting. Because I don't think a lot of people understand that about you.”

The Glenn Beck revelation comes on the heels of two other startling announcements by conservative celebrity pundits in the last couple of weeks.  Earlier this week it was announced that conservative pundit Ann Coulter would headline a fundraiser for the homosexual activist group within the Republican Party, GOProud.  And on July 29, although his position had been revealed before, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh again came out in favor of homosexual civil unions, while being opposed to same-sex ‘marriage.’

To be fair, it must be pointed out that Beck said he was looking at the ‘big picture’ and promoting faith, the answer to all such things.  Moreover, he added that he was okay with gay ‘marriage’ with a caveat.  “As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it,” he said.

But even to have suggested, as strongly as he did, that he was not opposed to gay ‘marriage’ is detrimental and demonstrates a ‘small picture’ approach.

Beck seems like a good guy. He’s thoughtful.  He’s right on many matters in the culture war.  For instance, when O’Reilly followed up and asked if Beck thought abortion threatened the United States, Beck replied dramatically in the affirmative.  “Abortion is killing, it’s killing, you’re killing someone,” he said.

So I thought it’d be worth it to calmly and persuasively share concerns with Beck on his approach.  He may not read my email, but I’m sure if enough pro-family folks were to get the message to him, he’d reconsider his outlook.

Here’s Beck’s email:

And here’s the gist of what I wrote:

Laws teach people what is right and wrong and thus homosexual acts will implicitly be given the stamp of approval where such legal recognition is granted.  The young will be given the false impression that this behavior is safe and acceptable, or even good.

Society has a duty to legally recognize and support married couples since they are, through procreation, the source for the continuation of human life and thus society itself.  Homosexual couples cannot properly procreate and thus have no such claim to societal recognition.

The question is not so much about marriage, but about homosexual acts.  The acts are harmful to the individuals who engage in them. They are harmful physically, emotionally and spiritually. 

With regard to persons engaged in such behavior or identifying with it, there must never be unjust discrimination.  All gay bashing, name-calling and the like should be condemned.  However, there must be discrimination on this front, a just discrimination, to preserve societal recognition for marriage between one man and one woman. 

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081315.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[little jeremiah]

That’s kind of like believing that earth and water give rise to life.

It’s the other way around in both cases.

Immoral people cannot create moral governments.

I guess that truth is too simple for you.

[CitizenUSA]

Almondjoy: “I don’t think it’s the government’s responsibility to make morality into law.”

That’s just it, Almondjoy. Nearly every law is based on morality. For example, laws against stealing, murder, and littering are based on morality. They all involve making moral judgments, typically with the majority opinion being held as most moral. The question isn’t whether or not government should legislate morality. What you should be concerned about is WHO’s morality is being made into law and where that is leading us as a culture.

[RFEngineer]

“I guess that truth is too simple for you.”

See, I was being nice to you, and you go and do this.

There is no question we have an immoral government. I do not believe that the American people are immoral, in total.

I do not believe the Russian people were immoral under Soviet domination.

I do not believe the Chinese people are immoral under communist rule

I do not believe the Cuban people are immoral under Castro.

So there is hope - we are still basically a moral people, so we can and will create a more limited, functional, and moral government.

[RFEngineer]

“Perhaps you would like a lesson on how to put quotes in FR posts via html? You’ve been around here how long?”

No thanks. I can’t be bothered.

[grey_whiskers]

Still mulling it over -- the problem with libertarianism is that it is so easily transmogrified into libertinism.

The problem with using government edict to reflect public mores is that a bunch of control freaks will get their hands on government -- oh, wait. That's happening NOW.

Cheers!

[RFEngineer]

“You would be wrong. The people have become immoral. And an immoral people beget and tolerate an immoral government. It’s axiomatic, I’m afraid.”

No, I am not wrong. What, are all you guys that I’m taking to school tonight not able to collaborate properly?

You assume that the people have become immoral and you would be wrong.

You assume that our present government is an end-state. It is not. The American people are better than you and the rest of you “we give up” apocalyptic fundamentalists on here tonight.

Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Was that because he surrendered in the face of a tyrannical government? No, it was because he realized that fighting tyranny would be an ongoing cause - to keep liberty.

You didn’t learn to be a cheese-eating surrender monkey from your Bible - who taught you? What a bunch of cowards you and the rest of you “Gay marriage = Rapture is imminent” types.

Come on, grow a pair will you?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Our kids have the same aversion to queers as we do, if we are paying attention and rearing them Americanly.

America has nothing to do with it. America has only been around a few centuries. Homosexual behavior was forbidden by G-d long, long, long before America ever existed. And it will remain forbidden long after (G-d forbid!) America is no more.

[Natufian]

“Nearly every law is based on morality. For example, laws against stealing, murder, and littering are based on morality.”

Not strictly true, IMHO. Most laws are based upon percieved or real trampling of anothers rights not upon whether there is anything inherently immoral in the act. It is just happenstance that the three things you cited are also considered ´immoral´ by most sane individuals.

There are plenty of things that are immoral (IMO) that are not illegal.

[little jeremiah]

Okay, do you think it’s a good or bad thing for a government to forbid the teaching of homosexual agenda stuff in schools? As long as there are public schools. Simple question, simple answer.

[RFEngineer]

“The problem with using government edict to reflect public mores is that a bunch of control freaks will get their hands on government — oh, wait. That’s happening NOW.”

We agree completely. That’s why we had a 10th Amendment. We still have it, but the states need to rediscover it. One day that will happen.

[little jeremiah]

Control freaks always do that.

[TheOldLady]

Cut its funding ( so we can remove the Deputy Understudy to the Vice Superintendent of Redundancy Department)?

Hey! That's the Deputy Understudy to the Assistant Vice Superintendent of the Department of Redundancy Department!

Heck! ;-D

[little jeremiah]

I am not a rapture afficiando. Nor do I advocate giving up, the exact reverse.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your dishonest debating tactics.

[DJ MacWoW]

You assume that the people have become immoral and you would be wrong.

No. We aren't. Society has degraded because of the people's immorality. They have filthy mouths as do their children, they dress like hookers as do their children, they watch trash on TV as do their children, and they become coarser as time passes. Society has been degrading steadily.

What one generation condones the next practices.

[aruanan]

First Rush, then Coulter, and Now Glenn Beck ... What’s Happening?

Folks like John-Henry Westen are name dropping and writing misleading headlines to help move their product.

[RFEngineer]

“Okay, do you think it’s a good or bad thing for a government to forbid the teaching of homosexual agenda stuff in schools? As long as there are public schools. Simple question, simple answer.”

It’s definitely a bad thing to teach homosexuality in school. Also sexuality in general - doesn’t belong in school.

However, if a locality wishes for this to be taught (and they pay for it), the Federal Government should be silent.

I think that many places are getting beyond being able to afford public schooling and it’s attendant costs, when there are many non-government alternatives.

[RFEngineer]

“No. We aren’t”

Yes you are. The American people are not immoral. You are completely wrong.

[little jeremiah]

Schools cannot be morally neutral. I used to have a set of McGuffey’s Readers and they were chock full of moral teachings in the various reading lessons, age appropriate.

Nothing - no schools, no governments - can be morally neutral. It is an impossibility.

[RFEngineer]

“Schools cannot be morally neutral.”

I agree. Nor should they try to be morally neutral.

[little jeremiah]

It’s a two way street. Children are born basically little savages. The environment they grow in - what they see, hear, learn, the examples of others - affect them, for better or worse. Of course everyone is an individual and conditioning doesn’t “take” the same for everyone.

But it is obvious that social morality has been degrading steadily for a few generations, speeding up rapidly.