Glenn Beck Restroing America - 2010 Pretty darn evangelical

[Stary Hickory]

I went for about an hour. It was eerily similar to Sunday school or a church gathering. There were LOTS of people there, I would say at least 300k or so, maybe 500k I can't say. It never struck me just how many people where there until I walked back towards the Washington Monument and looked back at the Lincoln Memorial. Lawn up to the Washignton Monument very well covered for the most part and packed after that up to and on top of the Lincoln Memorial plus ample crowds around the edges...basically all over.

It was interesting although Beck was not speaking much substance but mostly evangelical religious krap which I did not care for. I saw some people with Gadsen Flags, saw some Oathkeepers, and a girl with a Schiff for Senate 2010 shirt at a spontaneous Tea Party gathering.

Michelle Bachman put up a "town hall" Tea party gathering so people leaving Becks event after 1:00 would pass right by it. I stayed listened for awhile. Had some entertaining speakers, mostly good because they focused on out of control spending, the HC bill, and obeying the Constitution. That guy Tito(the Hispanic from the Hannity show) spoke at Bachman's tea party rally. He was pretty funny, although his limited English made for some terrible sounding soundbites, Like we must destroy them (socialists) and their philosophy. This was of course not exactly what he meant to say or wanted to say but it was funny.

Anyways. A little Neoconish at the Beck rally, but mostly just really really kreepily religious.

[RM918]

I went for about an hour. It was eerily similar to Sunday school or a church gathering. There were LOTS of people there, I would say at least 300k or so, maybe 500k I can't say. It never struck me just how many people where there until I walked back towards the Washington Monument and looked back at the Lincoln Memorial. Lawn up to the Washignton Monument very well covered for the most part and packed after that up to and on top of the Lincoln Memorial plus ample crowds around the edges...basically all over.

It was interesting although Beck was not speaking much substance but mostly evangelical religious krap which I did not care for. I saw some people with Gadsen Flags, saw some Oathkeepers, and a girl with a Schiff for Senate 2010 shirt at a spontaneous Tea Party gathering.

Michelle Bachman put up a "town hall" Tea party gathering so people leaving Becks event after 1:00 would pass right by it. I stayed listened for awhile. Had some entertaining speakers, mostly good because they focused on out of control spending, the HC bill, and obeying the Constitution. That guy Tito(the Hispanic from the Hannity show) spoke at Bachman's tea party rally. He was pretty funny, although his limited English made for some terrible sounding soundbites, Like we must destroy them (socialists) and their philosophy. This was of course not exactly what he meant to say or wanted to say but it was funny.

Anyways. A little Neoconish at the Beck rally, but mostly just really really kreepily religious.

I imagine that's why Huckabee polls so high.

[Cowlesy]

Thanks for the report, Hickory.

[Jeremy]

FYI, Glenn Beck isn't even a Christian.

[erowe1]

Anyways. A little Neoconish at the Beck rally, but mostly just really really kreepily religious.

But it was billed as a religiously themed event all along. Right?

At least that was the impression I had based on what little I heard Beck and others say about it over the past few weeks.

[low preference guy]

FYI, Glenn Beck isn't even a Christian.

yeah, neither are evangelicals.

[Dr.3D]

FYI, Glenn Beck isn't even a Christian.

I'll bet he thinks he is. What qualifies you to determine if he is or isn't.

[low preference guy]

I'll bet he thinks he is. What qualifies you to determine if he is or isn't.

jeremy is just trying to start a religious flame war.

[erowe1]

I'll bet he thinks he is. What qualifies you to determine if he is or isn't.

What qualifications does he need to have in order to be able to have that opinion?

[speciallyblend]

thanks for update but nothing out of the ordinary!! hopefully some were converted by our Liberty Movment.The rest might not be saveable

[NewFederalist]

Beck not a Christian?? I am shocked... SHOCKED!! OMG WTF?

[Dr.3D]

What qualifications does he need to have in order to be able to have that opinion?

That's just what it is, an opinion.

[erowe1]

That's just what it is, an opinion.

And since it's obviously just an opinion, and nobody could confuse it for anything else, how could he not be qualified to say that?

FWIW, there may be different ways to use the word "Christian," some of which include Mormons in the definition. But he was certainly not using the word in some idiosyncratic way by excluding them from it. Most Christians themselves would agree with him.

[Dr.3D]

And since it's obviously just an opinion, and nobody could confuse it for anything else, how could he not be qualified to say that?

FWIW, there may be different ways to use the word "Christian," some of which include Mormons in the definition. But he was certainly not using the word in some idiosyncratic way by excluding them from it. Most Christians themselves would agree with him.

Why you are absolutely correct. So when someone says Catholics, Baptists and others are not really Christian, we should just consider that to be their opinion and brush it off as such.

What was I thinking?

Carry on.

[low preference guy]

jeremy is just trying to start a religious flame war.


And since it's obviously just an opinion, and nobody could confuse it for anything else, how could he not be qualified to say that?

FWIW, there may be different ways to use the word "Christian," some of which include Mormons in the definition. But he was certainly not using the word in some idiosyncratic way by excluding them from it. Most Christians themselves would agree with him.


Why you are absolutely correct. So when someone says Catholics, Baptists and others are not really Christian, we should just consider that to be their opinion and brush it off as such.

What was I thinking?

Carry on.

success

[Jeremy]

Point is that Beck is not leading some evangelical Christian movement. I'm not trying to start a religious discussion. The OP claimed that Beck's event was an evangelical event, which is false.

[awake]

So what did I miss do we have a new leader?

[LDA]

So what did I miss do we have a new leader?

Hell no. Glenn Beck is the leader of the passive media outlet watchers that'll accept whatever canned news story is fed to them. Ron Paul is the leader of people that can think for themselves. Choose your camp wisely.

[Stary Hickory]

mods, it's about time this thread is moved to religion to be with all the other crap threads on that forum.

Yeah guess should have seen this coming. I don't care that the event was "faith" oriented or what have you. Religion doesn't bother me. I don't like it when people replace rational reasoning with blind religious faith however. It's dangerous even if religion often teaches the correct and moral approaches to life's issues...the masses can be manipulated easier when they don't question and stop thinking.

The fact of the matter is God(whether you believe in his existence or not) would want people to question the world and use the facilities he gave us to understand the reasoning behind morality. Otherwise you run the risk of being overrun by charlatans and demagogues before people wake up and figure it out.

I guess in a sense Relgion can serve as an excuse to be intellectually lazy, something I don't think God would want at all.

[Kotin]

Please continue this discussion in the split thread:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258739

Stop derailing threads.. Just make a new one.. It would save me a lot of time.

[Mini-Me]

Please continue this discussion in the split thread:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258739

Stop derailing threads.. Just make a new one.. It would save me a lot of time.

Yeah...those things aren't really planned, though. They kind of just happen when people get all caught up in the moment without paying attention...like accident babies.

[Southron]

Stary Hickory, would you say his theme was deism/universalism?

I haven't been able to watch or listen to any of it.

[Stary Hickory]

Stary Hickory, would you say his theme was deism/universalism?

I haven't been able to watch or listen to any of it.

Yes it was deism. He mentioned Jesus quite a bit. And passages and stories from the bible. He was definitely making an effort to appeal to a wide range of faiths. It wasn't so bad, it was just a lot of feel good national pride stuff mixed in with a religious/faith theme and a good dose of neoconism, with very little insightful info.

He did say it was not going to be a political event...so it was rather bland intellectually.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes it was deism. He mentioned Jesus quite a bit. And passages and stories from the bible. He was definitely making an effort to appeal to a wide range of faiths. It wasn't so bad, it was just a lot of feel good national pride stuff mixed in with a religious/faith theme and a good dose of neoconism, with very little insightful info.

He did say it was not going to be a political event...so it was rather bland intellectually.

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

[Stary Hickory]

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

Ok well then it's not Deistic. But it was not a "Christian" event per say. It's the typical religious manner that Beck usually talks in. Deism has always just meant (to me) belief in a God or all Gods, like all faiths have the same God and just don't realize it.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes it was deism. He mentioned Jesus quite a bit. And passages and stories from the bible. He was definitely making an effort to appeal to a wide range of faiths. It wasn't so bad, it was just a lot of feel good national pride stuff mixed in with a religious/faith theme and a good dose of neoconism, with very little insightful info.

Soooo, a three hour live version of his TV show?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ok well then it's not Deistic. But it was not a "Christian" event per say. It's the typical religious manner that Beck usually talks in. Deism has always just meant (to me) belief in a God or all Gods, like all faiths have the same God and just don't realize it.

Good primer.

http://www.moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html

Deism believes in reason, logic, and an impersonal God who essentially has no direct association with the universe and its running. That it (God), merely created the laws and dynamics of the Universe and it is a self-running, self-regulating, space. The ultimate non-interventionist if you will. We can use reason to construct moral compasses. A great example is that of Ludwig von Mises, Anthony de Jasay, and other utilitarian freedom loving libertarians.

[Stary Hickory]

Soooo, a three hour live version of his TV show?

I got there at 11:45, the metro system was all jacked up. They are doing maintenance. So I got there just as someone was finishing their speech (maybe Palin). And then Glenn Beck got on stage and talked for like an hour and fifteen minutes.

It was not as entertaining as his TV show because he really just stayed in "faith" mode the whole time. I am not going to knock the guy for his faith. But I guess I was naively thinking there would be more substance to it all. Religious themes never motivate me much, I like rational intelligent arguments and such. It wasn't devoid of it but it was pretty darn stale, I was bored pretty fast.

[silentshout]

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

^^

Maybe Beck was trying to channel the Universalists, but I doubt it. I don't think too many UUs are into Beck.

[Anti Federalist]

I got there at 11:45, the metro system was all jacked up. They are doing maintenance. So I got there just as someone was finishing their speech (maybe Palin). And then Glenn Beck got on stage and talked for like an hour and fifteen minutes.

It was not as entertaining as his TV show because he really just stayed in "faith" mode the whole time. I am not going to knock the guy for his faith. But I guess I was naively thinking there would be more substance to it all. Religious themes never motivate me much, I like rational intelligent arguments and such. It wasn't devoid of it but it was pretty darn stale, I was bored pretty fast.

Thanks for the update and clarification.

I was reading snippets of the speech on my phone browser since my net connection was down.

I was getting the impression that either I was missing something, or the speech was really, as you said, boring and lacking substance.

I won't use this as a jump off point for a Beck Bashing, either.

I'll just repeat what someone else already said, choose your message and messenger wisely.

[Ricky201]

I went for about an hour. It was eerily similar to Sunday school or a church gathering. There were LOTS of people there, I would say at least 300k or so, maybe 500k I can't say. It never struck me just how many people where there until I walked back towards the Washington Monument and looked back at the Lincoln Memorial. Lawn up to the Washignton Monument very well covered for the most part and packed after that up to and on top of the Lincoln Memorial plus ample crowds around the edges...basically all over.

It was interesting although Beck was not speaking much substance but mostly evangelical religious krap which I did not care for. I saw some people with Gadsen Flags, saw some Oathkeepers, and a girl with a Schiff for Senate 2010 shirt at a spontaneous Tea Party gathering.

Michelle Bachman put up a "town hall" Tea party gathering so people leaving Becks event after 1:00 would pass right by it. I stayed listened for awhile. Had some entertaining speakers, mostly good because they focused on out of control spending, the HC bill, and obeying the Constitution. That guy Tito(the Hispanic from the Hannity show) spoke at Bachman's tea party rally. He was pretty funny, although his limited English made for some terrible sounding soundbites, Like we must destroy them (socialists) and their philosophy. This was of course not exactly what he meant to say or wanted to say but it was funny.

Anyways. A little Neoconish at the Beck rally, but mostly just really really kreepily religious.

I'm sorry...did you say 300-500k O_O?!

[Smitty]

Beck was probably instructed to bore the people to tears this time so they'd have second thoughts about converging on D.C. en masse again.

[Stary Hickory]

I'm sorry...did you say 300-500k O_O?!

Yeah I would say 300K is a very safe estimate could have been more easily. I mean it's hard to tell when you are there. Overhead photos though I just saw are consistent with at least 300K.

It was way bigger than I was thinking it would be, I would have not gone had I known. I thought I would be able to see Glenn Beck in person. I never saw him....I could barely see a sliver of the screen with his face on it. In fact I could not even tell there was a fountain there until I got all the way to the Washington Monument. You could not get close enough really.

[erowe1]

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

If deists only use logic and reason, then they must have faith in logic and reason.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If deists only use logic and reason, then they must have faith in logic and reason.

That would be like saying if Scientists use reason and logic, then they must have faith in mathematics. A ridiculous thing to say. You have basically said there is no true knowledge in the world, everything is based on faith.

[ks.studentforliberty]

I didn't have a problem with the event I watche it on the internet, nothing wrong with getting people together especially for a cause such as that despite what can be disagreed on Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's philosophy.

[LibertyEagle]

That would be like saying if Scientists use reason and logic, then they must have faith in mathematics. A ridiculous thing to say. You have basically said there is no true knowledge in the world, everything is based on faith.

No. Many scientists have faith in huge leaps of logic.

lol

[LibertyEagle]

I hate to remind you guys again, that the majority of the Republican party at the grassroots level, are Christians. So is Ron Paul and guess what, even Lew Rockwell. :p

Until and unless you figure out how to talk to them without insulting them, whatever movement you think you're a part of has no chance whatsoever. And if you think you are going to convince them to be little heathens, think again. When you bash them because of their faith in God, you are running them away from anything and everything else you have to say.

[low preference guy]

I hate to remind you guys again, that the majority of the Republican party at the grassroots level, are Christians. So is Ron Paul and guess what, even Lew Rockwell.

Until and unless you figure out how to talk to them without insulting them, whatever movement you think you're a part of has no chance whatsoever. And if you think you are going to convince them to be little heathens, think again. When you bash them because of their faith in God, you are running them away from anything and everything else you have to say.

Interesting that you overlook the hilarious statements of Christians saying "you're going to go to hell". Or "Catholics aren't Christians".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No. Many scientists have faith in huge leaps of logic.

lol

Oh LE, I have to admit that was funny.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh LE, I have to admit that was funny.

Yeah, and what's even funnier is that it is the truth. :)

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting that you overlook the hilarious statements of Christians saying "you're going to go to hell". Or "Catholics aren't Christians".

I wanted to leave something for you to do.

[low preference guy]

I wanted to leave something for you to do.

pretty lame excuse for not pointing out the flaws of people who agree with you. it damages your credibility in the eyes of those that might still care about your opinion.

[Minuteman2012]

Deism doesn't use faith. Deism rests on logic and reason. This event was not DEISTIC. I should know..I'm a deist. Deists are also NOT Christians.

Deism isn't any more logical than Christianity, it would still require faith in an omniscient being who defied scientific laws to create the universe

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Deism isn't any more logical than Christianity, it would still require faith in an omniscient being who defied scientific laws to create the universe

Belief yes, faith no. I think people are confusing the two terms. I wouldn't necessarily say that God had to defy scientific laws to create the universe either. I don't even think humans can really grasp the conception of the universe. God is an abstract of sorts. Deists don't see God as some divinely inspired, human sitting on high. God is an abstract.

[parocks]

There was nothing wrong with what he wrote originally. He is talking to Ron Paul supporters. Telling them about Christians. He isn't on a Christian forum, telling them about Ron Paul Supporters. What he originally had to say has value. If Ron Paul runs in 2012 he's going to need votes from the kind of people at the Beck event. Bashing Christianity is not going to get Ron Paul votes. Good basic advice.


pretty lame excuse for not pointing out the flaws of people who agree with you. it damages your credibility in the eyes of those that might still care about your opinion.

[Southron]

Ok well then it's not Deistic. But it was not a "Christian" event per say. It's the typical religious manner that Beck usually talks in. Deism has always just meant (to me) belief in a God or all Gods, like all faiths have the same God and just don't realize it.

Thanks. That is what I meant by "deism".

I was pretty sure it wasn't going to be a Christian event.

These people were starving for some political action and he delivered vague religious talk.

[erowe1]

That would be like saying if Scientists use reason and logic, then they must have faith in mathematics. A ridiculous thing to say. You have basically said there is no true knowledge in the world, everything is based on faith.

I guess I don't see how that's ridiculous.

Of course scientists have faith in mathematics, as well as the laws of logic, the validity of their senses as conveying accurate information about the world outside them, the trustworthiness of their own memories, and other things. They can't prove these premises that are foundational to knowledge using the very same principles themselves, since that would be circular, and would still require a prior acceptance of them by faith before they could be used to prove themselves. They must accept them by faith. And of course this does mean that we can't have any knowledge without faith. There is no world view that builds itself up from nothing at all. They all require axioms that have to be accepted on faith. This includes deism and objectivism.

Does this mean there is no true knowledge? No. It just means that we can't have it without faith.

[TNforPaul45]

All rocks go to heaven.

[Andrew-Austin]

He is rounding up and rallying the right wing Christians to do what they do best, vote for neocons.

[FunkBuddha]

I imagine they're trying to corral those evangelicals that feel like they've been deceived by the Republican party back into the tent.

[Southron]

He is rounding up and rallying the right wing Christians to do what they do best, vote for neocons.

I'm a right wing Christian and I don't vote for neocons.:)

[Gin]

Yeah...those things aren't really planned, though. They kind of just happen when people get all caught up in the moment without paying attention...like accident babies.

A couple that I have read are from my College History classes.. One thing to take into consideration is that you need to start before the US was born to get an understanding as to why the Founders came to America to start with. Also another good thing to research is the Jefferson, Washington, Stonewall Jackson Memoirs and journals.. many are listed at the Library of Congress.

For History of Western Civilization since The Thirty Years War read
Making of West: Peoples and Cultural , Peoples and Cultures, Volume II: Since 1500, (3rd addition)

For History up to 1877 read
America: A Concise History, Volume 1: To 1877 (4th edition)

I am currently reading
A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

All are available at Amazon...

[Gin]

To put in my 2 cents as a staunch Ron Paul supporter I appreciate the fact that Beck is bringing our History as a Nation into the forefront. Ron Paul has always said that education is the key. Why bash Beck for that? Do I agree with Beck.. no... I know full well that he is a neocon, but he is useful. As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

[sailingaway]

As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

Making Beck the um, fertilizer? Or what?

[YumYum]

To put in my 2 cents as a staunch Ron Paul supporter I appreciate the fact that Beck is bringing our History as a Nation into the forefront. Ron Paul has always said that education is the key. Why bash Beck for that? Do I agree with Beck.. no... I know full well that he is a neocon, but he is useful. As far as Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement... I believe that Paul Supporters are the seeds planted within the movement. Until folks understand the History of America and the Founders, they will continue to vote for socialists like Obama.

I believe Glenn Beck wants this country to be a Theocracy. He believes that the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 by force is fulfillment of scripture.

Alan Dershowitz argues against the notion that our country’s Founding Father’s wanted this country to be a Christian Nation.

His book is:

“Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence”


Here is one person’s opinion of the book:

"Alan Dershowitz, celebrity lawyer and frequent cable news talking head, has in "Blasphemy" used his estimable legal skills to create a necessary answer to the Christian right (the so-called "religious right" in this country is almost entirely Christian, and Protestant at that), who have lately taken to claiming one of the nation's founding documents to be implicitly, if not overtly, Christian in nature. This, of course, is the legal front of their overall "wedge" strategy to finally make fundamentalism the law of the land. Needless to say, this would endanger the liberties (and maybe even the lives) of the vast majority of Americans, no matter their belief system, or lack thereof. Although in length (less than 200 pages) and often in tone, Mr. Dershowitz clearly intended this book as a broadside, he also wants to ask broader legal questions and examine the "morality" that should be inherent in a secular nation. In the end, he may be misinterpreting the overall strategy of his opponents, but this is still a worthwhile and thought-provoking read.

In the first section, he examines the history and creation of the Declaration of Independence, gathering in impressive yet concise detail, the evidence that the Founding Fathers, in particular Thomas Jefferson, clearly intended a radical break from British law, to the extent that America would refuse to establish itself as Church-based. They were Deists, who while perhaps believing in some sort of deity, didn't accept the Christian version at all. The wording of the Declaration, with its references to a "Creator" or "Nature's God," was in fact a way to avoid using specifically Christian iconography. This was eventually crystalized in the Constitution, which acknowleged no divine authority at all.

In the second section, Dershowitz examines the words and actions of the Christian right itself. In his view, they intend to re-establish America as a kind of democratic theocracy, where minority faiths are technically allowed, but effectively voiceless. Unfortunately, he focuses too much on Alan Keyes, who although a persistent advocate of faith-based government, is essentially not a major threat in terms of power or influece. Important players in the movement, such as James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and Paul Weyrich are barely even mentioned, much less examined. Although Mr. Dershowitz has a clear grasp of many of their legal arguments, this oversight is a troubling harbinger of his overall understanding of the movement itself (for a more comprehensive journalistic approach, read Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism).

It's in the final section of the book where Mr. Dershowitz attempts to contribute his own ideas to the debate. He looks at the language of the Declaration from a legal standpoint and asks critical questions about phrases like "Nature's God" and "Natural," as opposed to "Positive" law. He even goes so far as to critcize the founders themselves for not realizing the full implications of their words. He also goes back to a newspaper column he wrote in 1984 called "The Ten Commandments for Politicians," which laid out some suggestions for how candidates should address issues of faith. Many of these seem eerily prescient, considering the tone of the current campaign for president: "Do not publicly proclaim your religious devotion, affiliation or practices, or attack those of your opponents;" "Do not surround your political campaign with religious trappings or symbols;" "Do not seek the support of religious leaders who impose religious obligations on members of their faith to support or oppose particular candidates." Here, Dershowitz could be talking to or about anyone from Barack Obama to John McCain; Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani.

The problem I have with the book is that for all his legal acumen, Dershowitz finally fails to realize that the Christian Right doesn't actually care about the Declaration; they certainly have no interest in the "godless" Constitution. They just want to re-format their ideas to make them stand in court, whether they be local districts to possibly the Supreme Court itself (Justice Scalia can certainly be counted as one of their friends, even if he is Catholic). Frankly, it's almost comforting that they wish to stage only a legal coup, as opposed to something more physically demonstrative. Dershowitz's comeback, therefore, is designed with the courts in mind. Any counter-tactic he can offer will only be legal as well. The root question of how a pluralistic democracy can deal with anti-democratic fundamentalist ideologies is somewhat foreign to him, and his book suffers as a result. Nevertheless, this is still worth your time, given its size and considered within its scope."

http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Religious-Hijacking-Declaration-Independence/dp/product-description/0470084553

[Minuteman2012]

Belief yes, faith no. I think people are confusing the two terms. I wouldn't necessarily say that God had to defy scientific laws to create the universe either. I don't even think humans can really grasp the conception of the universe. God is an abstract of sorts. Deists don't see God as some divinely inspired, human sitting on high. God is an abstract.

Belief and Faith are the same thing.
Faith is defined as:
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith?show=0&t=1283099524

And if your theological conviction, your belief, that a god created the universe, is true, it would have to defy scientific laws, because the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. You can believe that an invisible, unprovable, omniscient being exists, and that he defied scientific law, but it isn't any more rational of a position than a Christian/Jewish/Muslim Theist.

[Gin]

Making Beck the um, fertilizer? Or what?

nope...not at all... but Beck does have the Medium to make folks want to know the true history.. not the history most schools are teaching... as I said, just my 2 cents..

[Gin]

I believe Glenn Beck wants this country to be a Theocracy. He believes that the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948 by force is fulfillment of scripture.


I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

[sailingaway]

I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

I'm Christian but the hair on the back of my neck goes up when someone so blatantly mixes religion and faith with politics. I think government shouldn't interfere with religion, and should be limited out of our lives in most of our individual decisions and actions. But while religious beliefs inform the actions, including political actions, of individuals, I am not comfortable with this sort of revival at a political event, to be honest. I don't condemn it, but I'm glad I didn't have to sit through it, and I see it as a lost opportunity to spread the message of limited government in a more objective fashion. People's religious beliefs differ, but freedom bring us together.

[silentshout]

I hate to remind you guys again, that the majority of the Republican party at the grassroots level, are Christians. So is Ron Paul and guess what, even Lew Rockwell. :p

Until and unless you figure out how to talk to them without insulting them, whatever movement you think you're a part of has no chance whatsoever. And if you think you are going to convince them to be little heathens, think again. When you bash them because of their faith in God, you are running them away from anything and everything else you have to say.

I don't give two hoots about their religion. Whatever floats one's boat. What i don't like is that they bash people who don't believe exactly as they do.

[silentshout]

I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

Believing in a creator does not equal being christian...

Also, what do you propose doing with the fact that not everyone in this country is Christian? What is The point of all of this? I hear this all of the time, that people want to restore this country to judeo-Christian "values," but what does that mean? People are free to believe or not believe in whatever they want.

[Che]

Hands down, Glen Beck's rally had more people than Ron Paul's March in D.C., what a load of shit

[silentshout]

Hands down, Glen Beck's rally had more people than Ron Paul's March in D.C., what a load of shit

Well, it was promoted by fox..was ron paul's?

[Seraphim]

I'm sorry, but I also believe that we are a nation built on Judeo-christian values. From everything I have read thus far about those that came before us.. ie Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Stonewall Jackson to name a few... God (Creator) was a very big part of their life and a big part of the founding of this country. The American Experiment has always been know as "The City on the Hill" or A Beacon of Hope and Freedom....

Not true. USA was NOT founded on ANY religion. That was absolutely CLEAR by the Founding Fathers. It was founded on principles that human beings are born with inalienable rights endowed by our creator (whatever it may be). God is not religious. No religion accurately represents God nor do they form the moral basis of the USA. The FF explicitly said you have the right to practice your faith in ANY way, any religion so long as your do not hurt anyone or impeed on their rights. This means Judeo-Christian is the foundation for the USA? Can one draw certain moral teachings from these religions that mirror the founding principals of the USA, YUP. But religion is of ZERO basis to the founding of the USA. Faith in God, sure, Religion, absolutely not.

[Aratus]

sir isaac newton's seemingly pleasant deism was almost our state religion
until wise auld ben franklin and george mason thusly passionately spoke?

[Minuteman2012]

Not true. USA was NOT founded on ANY religion. .

Just thought I would supplement that statement with documented evidence. Here is the Peace Treaty between America and the Barbary States in 1797. I clearly states here that the United States is not a Christian nation and has no history of hostility against the Muslim nation(s)(at the time, the Ottoman Empire pretty much encompassed the majority of politically muslim nations.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64526.html

Writes Bob Wenzel:

I noted your comments on the Glenn Beck Rally. I happened to be on the streets of D.C. as the rally was breaking up. I watched the faces of those leaving the event, you know, sort of like the way you watch people coming out of a movie before you head in, to see what reaction people have on thier faces, happy, sad, etc.

The Glen Beck crowd looked totally bored. No one was pumped up. No one was moved to cry. There was no camaraderie among the attendees. Nothing, zero. I could tell for sure Ron Paul and Tom Woods weren’t speaking at this event. If I saw these faces walking out of a movie theatre showing, I would bet the movie would prove to be a total bust.

[silus]

Religion is not making a comeback in politics. What a waste. Slice it any way you want, old people are dying, and little by little they are taking their religion to their graves.

[Minuteman2012]

Religion is not making a comeback in politics. What a waste. Slice it any way you want, old people are dying, and little by little they are taking their religion to their graves.

Thankfully religion is dying, that is one of the few positive things I see going forward in this country right now.

[erowe1]

Thankfully religion is dying, that is one of the few positive things I see going forward in this country right now.

That's what they were saying in the 1700's. It ain't gonna happen.

[libertybrewcity]

Thankfully religion is dying, that is one of the few positive things I see going forward in this country right now.

I think Catholicism is slowly dying and will soon be replaced by Islam, Hinduism, and Atheism. I feel like Christianity is making a comeback among middle aged people, but growth will likely stay flat IMO.

[libertybrewcity]

That's what they were saying in the 1700's. It ain't gonna happen.

As stupid as people are today, they are a lot smarter than they were in the 1700's. The Church establishments don't have a hold on things as they did a few hundred years ago.

Christian ranks grew as they converted millions of Asians and South Americans. The only group that remains 'untouched' is parts of Africa. After these next couple generations are 'atheized', there will be no ground to conquer.

The only 'rebirth' I see is an offshoot of Christianity that revolutionizes the fundamentals similar to Martin Luther. OR, some sort of fusion between a sect of Christianity and Islam.

[erowe1]

I think Catholicism is slowly dying

I don't know what portends for it in America (though I doubt it's dying). But worldwide, Catholicism is growing significantly.

Here's a good book that describes that phenomenon (among other things).
http://www.amazon.com/Next-Christendom-Coming-Global-Christianity/dp/019518307X/

[erowe1]

As stupid as people are today, they are a lot smarter than they were in the 1700's.

I should probably just let that slide.

[low preference guy]

I should probably just let that slide.

I'll take it. People who lived during the Enlightenment were on average a lot smarter than people in our age. Many of the innovations we enjoy today our due to their brilliance.

Remember that people in the 1700's established the United States of America. People today want to turned it into the USSA.

[libertythor]

FYI, Glenn Beck isn't even a Christian.

Mormons believe in Christ and his resurrection and have that as a basis for the faith, despite all of the eccentric beliefs that accompany it. The folks at the Church of God of Prophecy are also Christians too despite the speaking in tongues and dancing in the aisles.

[libertybrewcity]

I'll take it. People who lived during the Enlightenment were on average a lot smarter than people in our age. Many of the innovations we enjoy today our due to their brilliance.

Remember that people in the 1700's established the United States of America. People today want to turned it into the USSA.

That is not true. How much technological advancement has occurred in the 20th century and in the beginning of the 21st century? A hell of a lot more than in the 18th century. Anything from the airplane to the car to the internet to advancements in manufacturing, medicine, and science.

Sure, the 1700's gave us carbonated water, the submarine, and steam engine. However, nothing comes close to the electron microscope, space travel, and even wireless internet.

If anything, most of the innovations we enjoy today spring from the industrial revolution and post-civil war era. The 1700's may have given us a small start to technological advancement, but inventing the electric telegraph, for example, is nothing compared to the invention of mass communication in all the forms we have today from the satellite phone to email.

Important drugs today are far better than the blood-letting used in the 1700's. If I recall, George Washington died from that very practice in 1798. The formation of America was brilliant, no doubt about that. However, advances even in abstract subjects are far more advanced than ever seen before as well.

[BlackSand]

They were better educated back then (or at least those with money were). We just have more information, better access to it, and less people using it.

I think theres certain things that are missing from culture. Logic. Well reasoned debate. Respect for honorable men. The concept that a man is only as good as his word...We get all that back, and well be better than the founding fathers.

[low preference guy]

That is not true. How much technological advancement has occurred in the 20th century and in the beginning of the 21st century? A hell of a lot more than in the 18th century. Anything from the airplane to the car to the internet to advancements in manufacturing, medicine, and science.

Sure, the 1700's gave us carbonated water, the submarine, and steam engine. However, nothing comes close to the electron microscope, space travel, and even wireless internet.

The discovery of Newton's Laws alone was a more significant leap than any of the inventions you're mentioning. And most important of all, the method of discovery was formulated then.

[YumYum]

They were better educated back then (or at least those with money were). We just have more information, better access to it, and less people using it.

I think theres certain things that are missing from culture. Logic. Well reasoned debate. Respect for honorable men. The concept that a man is only as good as his word...We get all that back, and well be better than the founding fathers.

Would you say that people were more superstitious then, or now?

[BlackSand]

And by superstitious, do you mean religious?

If not, then this is my answer: Valid point. But thats also because they were just at the beginning stages of understanding science.

And Im referring to the rich people anyways. The founding fathers and people like that. Im ignoring the poor because they didnt really have any education whereas today, we all have an education.

Eh. My arguments losing validity. I say we all just blame the public education system, and move on.

[Southron]

Thankfully religion is dying, that is one of the few positive things I see going forward in this country right now.

No. Religion isn't dying. Now we worship men and the institutions of men.

[libertybrewcity]

The discovery of Newton's Laws alone was a more significant leap than any of the inventions you're mentioning. And most important of all, the method of discovery was formulated then.

Newton's Laws of Motion were first published in around the 1680's. He lived into the 1700's but most of his main work was done in the 1600's.

I would argue that the discovery of DNA and the process of transcription, translation, etc and mapping the human genome is more important than the laws of motion.

[libertybrewcity]

They were better educated back then (or at least those with money were). We just have more information, better access to it, and less people using it.

I think theres certain things that are missing from culture. Logic. Well reasoned debate. Respect for honorable men. The concept that a man is only as good as his word...We get all that back, and well be better than the founding fathers.

I believe that much of this is true, but much of this is just stuff we've seen in movies. There are still honorable men, and people still respect honorable men.

Logic and reasonable debate are much needed. I would argue that people were not better educated back then, they were more well-rounded. Today, we have so much information that you can't possibly learn everything in every subject. We are forced to specialize in one area of expertise.

[BlackSand]

I think were kind of being bias also. Were talking about polymaths, and about the importance of first discovery vs. the importance of combined knowledge.

Trying to rate intelligence is near impossible. Some people are gifted. I wouldnt say its any less of the population thats gifted today than it was then. It was just that it was easier to rise above the rest back then, because everyone was so pushed down.