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.

[vox_freedom]

Is nine posts in less than six months a lot for a new poster?
Let’s see, that’s 1.5 per month...

[RFEngineer]

“Christianity as a foundation are irrelevant or impotent players.”

I never said that. I said that Christians, as a political force failed to stem the tide of government growth. A true statement to be sure. I also said that they don’t have a seat at the table of governance now - not that they shouldn’t or won’t ever.

[DJ MacWoW]

Well I’m not Darks but it doesn’t sound very chatty to me.

[little jeremiah]

Are you non-judgemental towards who judge that homosexual acts should not receive special legal protection?

[vox_freedom]

And he/she chooses his/her topics very, very carefully. Two of the nine posts attacked Rush Limbaugh saying it was terrible to make fun of Robert Reich for being short, and that news blip about Michael J. Fox and saying Rush is "just a script reader."

Is troll spelled with two ll's or one?

[little jeremiah]

He also didn’t like Rush because Rush is “hateful”.

Trrol is spelled with two “r”s.

;-)

[Eva]

I know that the Gay activists want marriage because it is more destructive than a civil union, but the fact is that once civil unions are enacted, the legal arguments for marriage disappear.

[little jeremiah]

And what is the basis for your assertion, other than the fact that you are saying it?

Homosexual activists themselves state that they want SAME SEX MARRIAGE and why they want it, and I’ve quoted a number of them above, please cite your own sources that prove your assertion right.

Ping me when you do, okay?

[DJ MacWoW]

Is troll spelled with two ll's or one?

Two "l's" and in this case I think at least 4 "o's". As in "trooooll". I read their posting history too.

So jasonnfree, why are you trolling FR?

[little jeremiah]

I was thinking “trrol” with a deep, gutteral “rr”.

[DJ MacWoW]

Ahhhh! I was thinking of drawing it out like a battle cry.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Simple, Beck has bigger fish to fry and this is just not high up on his radar screen, there is only so many minutes in a day and too many issues of importance.

[vox_freedom]

well, I got the one “T” correct! :-)

[little jeremiah]

Yeah, freedom of speech, religion and association aren’t very important in the big scheme of things.

Nor the natural family, etc.

[DBeers]

I said that Christians, as a political force failed to stem the tide of government growth. A true statement to be sure. I also said that they don’t have a seat at the table of governance now - not that they shouldn’t or won’t ever.

Which groups were behind and promoted Proposition 8? Which groups opinions were singled out as factually irrelevant in the ruling?

Maybe, one can not fail UNLESS they do at first attempt to accomplish? Maybe, the path to eventual success is paved with occasional failures along the way?

I did not see the secular limited government engineers group anywhere -did you?

How exactly are you working to "stem the tide of government growth" -by whining about Christians that do something and HAVE done something for centuries?

Like I stated prior -lead, follow, or get out of the way...

[dan1123]

This post struck me. Not because I was influenced by it, but because I have heard it before.

So gay advocates are now into repeating urban legends to help their cause?

[DJ MacWoW]

Good catch. And Sandy01 was given the Zot in post 293.

[RFEngineer]

“Which groups were behind and promoted Proposition 8? “

The proposition process is used when you have no influence through the “normal” governmental means.

“by whining about Christians that do something and HAVE done something for centuries? “

Who’s whining? I state obvious truths - Christians do not have a seat at the government table without judgment.

“Like I stated prior -lead, follow, or get out of the way...”

You can’t even be honest about where you are - so you don’t even know where you are going. Fortunately there are folks that do - but you and your friends on this thread aren’t among them.

“How exactly are you working to “stem the tide of government growth””

Becoming more politically active - supporting only candidates who’s actions “starve the beast”, legally minimizing any taxes, becoming more self-reliant every day.....

What are you doing, besides deluding yourself that you’ve got some influence in our present federal government?

[Matchett-PI]

"..pretty much tells us all we need to know about your views of Christ and Christianity. Christ wasn't harsh with sinners? Oh, really?"

Not a thoughtful response. I see you didn't click my screen name as I suggested, and your reading comprehension skills continue to be an embarrassment to you.

The point being made was that the "sinners" that Christ withheld his harshest criticisms for were the hypocritical legalists (ie: the religious zealot "leaders" of his day.) :

"Jesus defined legalism in Matthew 15:9b as "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." The 'commandments of men' usually begin with something God commanded and then over-extend it at the expense of some other Godly quality.

Legalism is a zeal for righteousness, the law, truth, and justice. However, it is at the expense of grace, mercy, forbearance, and love. It tends to the spiritual affairs of others without grace, mercy, forbearance, or love. It is unbalanced.

Legalism is not a zeal for God. It is trusting in oneself, as Jesus said of the Pharisees in Luke 18:9. "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others."

All eight statements by Jesus above can be summed up in a few words.

These people were about Power, Prestige, and the Purse (see The News & Views, Vol. 2, No. 5, Religious Dysfunction and Christian Responsibility). These are the root motives behind the desire of one group of people to impose the "commandments of men" upon others."

Of course, that is why I wrote this in post #500:

There are plenty of professing Christians (of all spiritually immature stripes) who would like nothing better than to be able to use the arm of government to impose their personal religious conscience on others.... "for their own good", of course. (See my previous post quoting C.S. Lewis, who understood that mentality perfectly.) They are merely the flip-side of the extremist left coin. bttt"

<>.//<>

"..The Pharisee [put your name here] stood and prayed, "God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess." The publican, however, standing afar off, would not even lift his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

[Darksheare]

I was thinking “TrLoL”, but that’s my typo inducing brain going “ooga booga!” at me again.