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.

[listenhillary]

I don’t support the revision of the word marriage. Words mean things and should not be subject to revision.

That being said, it has been said over and over that the founders supported the death penalty for sodomy. With this being thrown out again and again on this thread, the definition of sodomy is not as solid with many states defining sodomy as ANY act that did not contribute to procreation. How many should we put to death?

It was only 1960 or so that state laws were stuck down that prohibited married couples from purchasing birth control.

How far do we go back in our past for the standard for using the state to enforce views of morality?

Homosexuality should not be encouraged as it is not behavior that is conducive to the survival of civilization. We are being out bred by fundamentalist Islamics. This is also not conducive to the survival of civilization. It will not be good when Christians have been reduced to a minority and Sharia law rules our great grandchildren.

I wont be around to see it happen I hope. Once a person says that government should enforce morality based on a religious beliefs, you will end up with government that reflects the majorities religious views.

[little jeremiah]

Straw man right off the bat. No one here is advocating execution for sodomy practiioners. The death penalty was only quoted in reference to the fact that the men who wrote and approved the Constitution considered it perfectly legitimate to outlaw the practice.

Source for your “many states” sodomy definition?

What is your purpose for bringing up birth control?

What basis for morality that is supported by government do you advocate, if you reject moral absolutes as taught by religion?

“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson

[little jeremiah]

In home ec, which I think all girls took, we made a meal and boys from shop came in and ate it.

How sexist! /sarc

[vox_freedom]

It was only 1960 or so that state laws were stuck down that prohibited married couples from purchasing birth control.

Huh? There weren't birth control pharmaceuticals until then...

[listenhillary]

The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP), often referred to as the birth-control pill or simply “the Pill”, is a birth control method that includes a combination of an estrogen (oestrogen) and a progestin (progestogen). When taken by mouth every day, these pills inhibit female fertility. They were first approved for contraceptive use in the United States in 1960

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

[DJ MacWoW]

We had a taffy pull. I hated taffy! LOL

Gotta go. Night!

[listenhillary]

Reason for bringing up birth control and the death penalty for sodomy? To ask how far back in our past should we go to make things “right” in your mind.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

Beginning with Illinois in 1961, state legislatures reexamined their sodomy statutes. Twenty-seven states repealed these laws, usually as a part of a general revision of the criminal code and with the recognition that heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
(c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct.

[listenhillary]

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_it_possible_for_man_to_live_a_moral_life_without_religion%3F

[listenhillary]

The case I remember might have been in 1961. You might have me there.

[vox_freedom]

They were first approved for contraceptive use in the United States in 1960.

Yes, and is that anyway contradictory to what I said in my post?

Huh? There weren't birth control pharmaceuticals until then... (1960)

[listenhillary]

Post above.

[vox_freedom]

You might have me there.

Might ... ?
I suppose that's an admission?

[listenhillary]

Should I bend over or what?

[Atom Smasher]

Well, feed me peanuts & call me Dumbo!

Ugh! I thought wikipedia was a dictionary website, like the Webster. I only go there to look up quick definitions & such. I’ve never delved deeply into the site, & by no means ever thought that anybody can put their 2 cents in.

Thanks for that info ole gal, I’ll be more prudent in the future!

ps: as you can probably tell, I’m a little lame when it comes to traveling around to different sites...

[DBeers]

Thanks. I still work on refining my arguments incorporating knowledge from many backgrounds and perspectives -all cogent -all reflecting objective truth...

A reference that you and others may find useful -- F. A. Hayek -think of it as another arrow in the quiver of rational sound arguments that defend what is morally right and historically proven successful against the morally devoid elite leftists who wish to experiment and innovate based upon what they 'feel' should be right and historically has failed repeatedly.

Those who would be God and create a Utopoia on earth always follow the same path -they acquire power, to free the masses they enslave the individuals, to lift up those who fail they knock down those who succeed, they become evil pursuing a means justifies the ends noble ideological cause -pursuing heaven on earth they create hell on earth..

Some may be failiar with the noble prize winner F.A. Hayek who wrote a book I recommend to any free market conservative --he is noted for his writings on the inherent good associated with the free market system and the inherent evil associated with socialism. It is no coincidence that underlying legitimate individual freedom premised not only his arguments on the value, benefits and sound reason for the economic free market but as well arguments regarding the value, benefits and sound reason for the moral free market e.g. society -its historically proven sucessful and historically observed traditions and institutions...

Hayek on Tradition(40 Page PDF Document)

-excerpt:

Traditional morality is rejected today as commonly as it was once taken for granted. And if the specific content of that morality, especially where it touches on matters of sexuality, is widely regarded with contempt, the meta-ethical notion that one ought to respect a moral code precisely because it is traditional gets even worse treatment: It is held to be beneath contempt. Modern educated people take it to be a sign of their modernity and education that they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any institution or code of behavior, however widespread, ancient, and venerable, which has not been rationally justified. Traditional morality stands doubly damned in their eyes: It is not rationally justifiable, and its adherents fail even to attempt to justify it so. The traditional moralist, they take it, is a slave not merely to the “conventional wisdom” but to the conventional wisdom of people long dead. He is in the grip of irrationality, superstition, and ignorance; worst of all, he is out of date.

Read it, add it to your arsenal, use it, and pass it on...

For those interested on what Hayek says about big government socialism: Readers' Digest Condensed Version of the Road to Serfdom (in PDF format(40 Page PDF Document)

[Atom Smasher]

LOL!

[vox_freedom]

You “might.”

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for the ping. I’ve heard of Hayek, looked up his books on Amazon, and almost bought one. That’s as close as I’ve come to read him. I’ll read the link.

[lady lawyer]

In order to maintain a system of self-government, you must have people who actually govern themselves. People who believe that God expects them to be honest, and to honor their commitments to their families and to each other. When that breaks down, more and more government is necessary to clean up the mess.

[little jeremiah]

Sort of like sometimes there are idiot savants who are really good at math or music although they’ve never studied.

I don’t want to debate it tonight, for sure.

In a culture that has as its foundation the moral absolutes taught by religion, individuals can still be moral - iow, believing in morals, and acting morally, since the atmosphere encourages them to do so.

In a culture or society devoid of religion, or a false set of religious beliefs or practices (pre-Columbian Central and South America, for instance), people may be moral in somce ways and dreadfully immoral in others. For instance, individual Mayan Indians might have had monogamous marriages (theoretical, I do not know) but they thought it perfectly moral to kill people to sacrifice to “gods” and cut their beating hearts out and the priests or someone would sometimes eat them as part of the “religious” (and therefore moral) ritual.

So, the short answer is , it is not possible for a whole society to be moral without religions. Nope.