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.

[RFEngineer]

“Your people skills need some work (and after this you should know it). “

I was annoying you and your friends quite on purpose - because each of you, in turn, struck out on arguments that bore no relation that was posted to you (what, did I catch you on bridge night? - wait - with you guys it HAS to be bingo night)

I must add that you guys have the lamest gang on FR.

“It was all you as far as failure... “

Yes, I failed to drill through each one of your thick skulls using tools of logic and observations of the obvious.

[RFEngineer]

“I don’t believe debate is the point. I believe that ego trip is.”

Debate WAS the point. It became sport much later.....

[RFEngineer]

“Whaddaya say? Or do you always need to have the last word?
My supposition is that you just can’t shut up...
Prove me wrong. Go ahead. “

No, by all means, you can have the last word.

[RFEngineer]

“The early fathers of our country did not believe that the federal government had any religious role. Jefferson declared days of prayer and fasting as governor of Virginia but resisted doing so as President. He did not believe that was a Presidents job. That all the Founders were God-fearing men is a given. That few in DC today even know who God is is also a given. What’s there to discuss?”

You actually articulated a cogent thought that bears some relation to actual history! Congratulations.

When Jefferson was Governor of Virginia he passed the “religious freedom act” - previous to that the Church of England was the official religion in Virginia.

Back then, religion had political influence (It took two tries to pass it) - today, not so much.

Which was my point that got you and your buddies all excited - as you took it as a treatise against Christianity, which it was not. It was a statement of observational fact - when “gay marriage” can be declared a “constitutional right” by a federal judge, it means that Christianity, indeed religion in general, has no practical influence, politically, at the federal level - hence my view that a “revival of limited government” must occur before a “Christian revival” can occur.

So I accept your apology on behalf of you and your friends.

[DJ MacWoW]

I’m glad that you that are for laws that are against adultry and divorce. Since that is deviant behavior as well.

Or are you going to try and wiggle your way out of it again?

I have never said that I was for any laws. Quote me with post numbers or go away.

[DJ MacWoW]

Which was my point that got you and your buddies all excited - as you took it as a treatise against Christianity,

You aren't as smart as you think you are. That was not what our debate was about.

Bye.

[DJ MacWoW]

hence my view that a “revival of limited government” must occur before a “Christian revival” can occur

Which puts you in direct opposition to the Founders. I agree with them, not you.

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

[RFEngineer]

“Which puts you in direct opposition to the Founders. I agree with them, not you.”

No it doesn’t. They had no idea how big government would get, and how it would twist the constitution to support things that were obvious in their day - things like marriage being reserved between a man and a woman.

Believe it or not, I do see your point. You can’t generally go wrong standing with our founding fathers, but I think they would agree with me that our government has gone so far afield - directly opposing the original constitutional intent - that they would see that reeling that back to sanity was necessary as the first step.

Power must be wrested from tyrants, it will not be surrendered peaceably. While we may indeed have freedom of religion with those freedoms originating from God - our present government does not recognize that fact - just like the King in revolutionary times.

The exercise of God given freedoms necessarily required defeat of the tyrant in revolutionary times. It requires no less now.

[RFEngineer]

“You aren’t as smart as you think you are. That was not what our debate was about. “

And I know that you and your clueless cabal on this thread are not as dumb as you seem. You debated agreement amongst yourselves, not with me (except the last couple of posts - refreshing!) but I’m sure you knew exactly what I was saying - you were just blinded by animus to admit it. That’s okay.

Don’t be hatin’, bro.

[DJ MacWoW]

Your debate with me was a different one than with others. You can't even remember what it was. And I'm not your "bro".

Good day to you.

[vox_freedom]

"Whaddaya say? Or do you always need to have the last word?
My supposition is that you just can’t shut up...
Prove me wrong. Go ahead.“

No, by all means, you can have the last word.

.

.

.

.

Thanks for proving me right. You just can't shut up.

[DBeers]

I was annoying you and your friends quite on purpose - because each of you, in turn, struck out on arguments that bore no relation that was posted to you (what, did I catch you on bridge night? - wait - with you guys it HAS to be bingo night)

Oh --OK...

If that was your intent -wow, you were ineffective; however, it was all my fault --I was just too moronic and brain dead to be annoyed -your skillfully threaded communicative interplay went right over my small head.

So long for now -I must make use of the short bus service and head into the primitive village center to pick up a few more decks of cards for group, my extra absorbent depends, and my mega dosage lithium prescription.

I can see I am no match for you and your superior self image just yet. I will have to study hard all manner of subjects if ever I hope to debate you again...

[vox_freedom]

...my mega dosage lithium prescription.

Thanks for that DBeers, my dosage just went up X4 with this thread because of all the trolls that occupied it. See you at the usual place for cards this evening.

Don't forget our Domino game on Wednesday, and bowling Friday.

[alstewartfan]

You are right, Carolyn. No one can involve himself in every issue, not even Glenn. It’s Ann Coulter who absolutely disgusts me, as she readies herslf for a speech before the GOProud convention. *Barf* Bob

[alstewartfan]

Is Ann herself a closet gay? You wonder why this bizarre issue would be of such importance to her. BTW, Rush ripped Vaughn and Ted Olsen apart last week over their participation in this monstrosity of a ruling. Bob

[RFEngineer]

“Thanks for proving me right. You just can’t shut up.”

Well, you can’t be wrong about everything all the time.

But I observe that you don’t have even the slightest hint of a sense of humor.

[RFEngineer]

“however, it was all my fault “

See, you are starting to master the art of self-deprecating humor. Good job. Of course, you seem to have more material than most from which to work.......

Of all of your friends on this thread though, you’ve got the best sense of humor.