Salon Goes After Glenn Beck For Saying "Freedom is Ugly" in regard to Proposed Arizona Law

[AuH20]

Goes right over their heads.

ht tp://www.salon.com/2014/02/26/glenn_beck_supports_anti_gay_arizona_law_because_f reedom_is_ugly/


During Tuesday’s “morning meeting,” Beck sat around with some of his co-workers and explained at length his thinking on the controversial bill:

Emotionally, I’m torn on it, because I want people to — let’s treat people right, let’s just be good, decent people. And thought today, I don’t to see signs in my country that say No Jews, No Dogs, No Gays — whatever. And you’d have the right to have a sign if your religion taught you that. And there are religions that would say No Jews, No Dogs and No Gays. So I don’t like that. But I thought, you know what? We’re not the same America that we were in the 1950s. We won’t frequent those places. And so there’s half of it.

The other half is, I don’t want to be forced to do something that goes against my religion. So why is this law so wrong, so hateful?

Later on, speaking about a hypothetical business owner who decides they won’t let LGBT people shop in their store, Beck said, “Is it their right to do that? Yeah! Fine.”

Beck next compared anti-gay discrimination (or really any form of discrimination) to a nightclub bouncer or owner deciding who will be admitted and who won’t. “What are they doing? They’re discriminating against people like me — old, dumpy people.”

[jllundqu]

Uh... freedom is ugly. It's messy and chaotic.... that is what makes it beautiful. It's the tyrants who try to bring 'order' to the masses that destroy anything worth a damn.

[jllundqu]

BTW as an arizonan I was against this bill and glad Brewer killed it

[acptulsa]

But you forget, AuH2O. salon.com is still trying to maintain the obvious fiction that freedom and liberty are the things that they promote...

[AuH20]

But you forget, AuH2O. salon.com is still trying to maintain the obvious fiction that freedom and liberty are the things that they promote...

largely because without this core belief they simply cannot go on promoting the excesses of the state.

[Warlord]

why give them a link?

[AuH20]

why give them a link?

I'm fixing that ATM.

[Brett85]

Beck is still completely mischaracterizing the bill. The bill wouldn't have allowed a private business owner to deny service to a gay couple who came into his restaurant to eat. The bill simply pertains to gay weddings. The bill was introduced in order to stop the growing police state that the gay lobby is trying to implement in America. The bill was meant to stop a Christian photographer from being forced to photograph a gay wedding, to stop a Christian bakery owner from being forced to bake and sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, etc. Why does Beck think that it's "ugly" for a Christian photographer to not want to photograph a gay wedding?

[unknown]

I realize that Beck and the other establishment gate keepers (Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage etc.) say some good things every once in a while, but its difficult for me to put aside my dislike for these guys, especially when they were very much anti-Ron Paul.

I have to question their sincerity when it comes to topics like freedom and individual liberties.

[LibertyEagle]

BTW as an arizonan I was against this bill and glad Brewer killed it

Why?

[jkr]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pHJm2K_ykuA/SQ9eYqfSLGI/AAAAAAAAAGw/8nXb918FwKA/s400/night.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Uh... freedom is ugly. It's messy and chaotic.... that is what makes it beautiful. It's the tyrants who try to bring 'order' to the masses that destroy anything worth a damn.

jllundqu, you are fined one credit for violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

[Anti Federalist]

Beck is still completely mischaracterizing the bill. The bill wouldn't have allowed a private business owner to deny service to a gay couple who came into his restaurant to eat. The bill simply pertains to gay weddings. The bill was introduced in order to stop the growing police state that the gay lobby is trying to implement in America. The bill was meant to stop a Christian photographer from being forced to photograph a gay wedding, to stop a Christian bakery owner from being forced to bake and sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, etc. Why does Beck think that it's "ugly" for a Christian photographer to not want to photograph a gay wedding?

Because if you do not embrace and love all things homosexual, you are an ugly, mean, horrible person...probably channeling Hitler, to boot.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The left believes in "my body, my choice", but not "my property, my choice."

[Acala]

Why?

Sometimes free people do ignorant things. Sometimes they do self-destructive things. Sometimes they do vulgar things. Sometimes they hurt other people's feelings. A real advocate of freedom knows that this is one of the prices of freedom and must be allowed. BUT if you are trying to PROMOTE freedom, your motto should not be "With Liberty you get to do ignorant, self-destructive, vulgar, mean things!!!! Go Liberty!!!"

But that is what Arizona Republicans did - the proposed law would not have advanced freedom one single step but it made Republicans look like bigots because millions of people think it is ignorant and mean to discriminate against gay people. And many people who are opposed to gay marriage and think male homosexuality is kinda gross at best, STILL think the Arizona bill was obnoxious. It was a purely political move designed to appeal to a small minority and ended up offending millions and making Arizona Republicans look like assholes.

As an Arizonan I wish it had never been passed. And even though it was vetoed, the damage is done. Idiots.

[Red Green]

BTW as an arizonan I was against this bill and glad Brewer killed it

Same here. It was a stupid bill and in reality this has nothing to do with 'Freedom of Religion'. What they should be affirming is that people have an inherent right to freedom of association, regardless of whatever the basis for that association. As an atheist, I was outraged they wanted to leave me out....

[LibertyEagle]

Sometimes free people do ignorant things. Sometimes they do self-destructive things. Sometimes they do vulgar things. Sometimes they hurt other people's feelings. A real advocate of freedom knows that this is one of the prices of freedom and must be allowed. BUT if you are trying to PROMOTE freedom, your motto should not be "With Liberty you get to do ignorant, self-destructive, vulgar, mean things!!!! Go Liberty!!!"

But that is what Arizona Republicans did - the proposed law would not have advanced freedom one single step but it made Republicans look like bigots because millions of people think it is ignorant and mean to discriminate against gay people. And many people who are opposed to gay marriage and think male homosexuality is kinda gross at best, STILL think the Arizona bill was obnoxious. It was a purely political move designed to appeal to a small minority and ended up offending millions and making Arizona Republicans look like assholes.

As an Arizonan I wish it had never been passed. And even though it was vetoed, the damage is done. Idiots.

Question. Is what Traditional Conservative said about what the bill did, true? Because if it is, it would seem to me that the bill in fact would promote liberty, in that businesses would be free to pick and choose who they did business with? Shouldn't they be able to?


Beck is still completely mischaracterizing the bill. The bill wouldn't have allowed a private business owner to deny service to a gay couple who came into his restaurant to eat. The bill simply pertains to gay weddings. The bill was introduced in order to stop the growing police state that the gay lobby is trying to implement in America. The bill was meant to stop a Christian photographer from being forced to photograph a gay wedding, to stop a Christian bakery owner from being forced to bake and sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, etc. Why does Beck think that it's "ugly" for a Christian photographer to not want to photograph a gay wedding?

[Christopher A. Brown]

AUh20, maybe you missed what salon was doing, exposing Beck using "cognitive distortions". Using such is a tool implemented by a recommendation of cass sunstein, a supreme court justice, to Obama and his administration to use "cognitive infiltration" of social activist groups online and on the ground.

Salon Goes After Glenn Beck For Saying "Freedom is Ugly" in regard to Proposed Arizona Law

AUh20 wrote:
"Goes right over their heads."

"Freedom is Ugly" uses "labeling" to create a "generalization" that might cause "all or nothing thinking" relating to other Americans that are simply trying to defend the constitution and is an action intended to divide Americans.

[liberty2897]

Because if you do not embrace and love all things homosexual, you are an ugly, mean, horrible person...probably channeling Hitler, to boot.

http://tpah.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/541274_365605540151473_298041233574571_1105018_159 3694756_n.jpg

Netenyahu is not gay.

[compromise]

Glenn Beck is of course right, as usual. Can't believe some 'libertarians' are against religious freedom.

[kathy88]

New laws do NOT promote Liberty. They offer the goon squads something else to beat and kill people over.

[Acala]

Question. Is what Traditional Conservative said about what the bill did, true? Because if it is, it would seem to me that the bill in fact would promote liberty, in that businesses would be free to pick and choose who they did business with? Shouldn't they be able to?

No, what he says is NOT true and I have tried to correct him numerous times. Under existing Arizona law, there is NO prohibition on discrimination against people for their sexual orientation. Not in statute, not in case law, none. You could hang a sign on the door of your hotel in Arizona that says NO *****! and it would be perfectly legal. You don't have to make their wedding cakes or photograph their ceremonies or anything else. The law would have changed nothing at all. It was a political stunt. It did not promote freedom. In fact, it is very likely to result in a backlash restricting freedom. It was an idiotic maneuver.

I asked TC to cite anything to the contrary and all he could come up with was from states that have in their laws a prohibition on discrimination for sexual orientation. Arizona has no such law. I have said this so many times now in so many threads that I normally would have given up long ago, but since I live in Arizona and have to deal with these pricks I feel the need to try and keep clarifying this.

[Superfly]

It's stupid to grant the statists that freedom is 'ugly'. A society based on peace and cooperation is freakin glorious. You don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. Together we can increase both of our standards of living. What's prettier than that?

[matt0611]

New laws do NOT promote Liberty. They offer the goon squads something else to beat and kill people over.

Not necessarily. New laws can amend or cancel out other laws.

[osan]

Uh... freedom is ugly. It's messy and chaotic.... that is what makes it beautiful. It's the tyrants who try to bring 'order' to the masses that destroy anything worth a damn.

Boy is THIS on the money.

Pony up guys. He earned it.

[osan]

I realize that Beck and the other establishment gate keepers (Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage etc.) say some good things every once in a while, but its difficult for me to put aside my dislike for these guys, especially when they were very much anti-Ron Paul.

I have to question their sincerity when it comes to topics like freedom and individual liberties.


Good points. Beck says many things with which I agree. But his ability to pull the many disparate elements into a properly coherent whole is nowhere evident.

It is this interplay of overall view and the details which give him away as either an intellectual inept or controlled opposition. I still cannot tell which. And by "intellectual inept" I mean that his intellect either cannot or will not go beyond a threshold WRT what he believes and said ability to pull it all together.

One thing that really frosts my cake about him is his endless talk of freedom, yet he turns around and obsequiously services the missile of police... oh how wonderful they are... how necessary... It's disgusting. Does he really believe this bullshit or is he just trying to save himself from getting endless traffic tickets to and from work?

Getting good things in dribs and drabs means nothing to me. It brings nothing of value to my life. If you stand for something, be clear about it. Beck is anything but, most times.

[osan]

Sometimes free people do ignorant things. Sometimes they do self-destructive things. Sometimes they do vulgar things. Sometimes they hurt other people's feelings. A real advocate of freedom knows that this is one of the prices of freedom and must be allowed. BUT if you are trying to PROMOTE freedom, your motto should not be "With Liberty you get to do ignorant, self-destructive, vulgar, mean things!!!! Go Liberty!!!"

You utterly contradict yourself with this statement. That is EXACTLY what the motto should be, if only tacitly perceived. This is precisely what liberty is about - to do great things and to do stupid things, the one restriction being that one does no harm. Hurt feelings is not a harm. Inconvenience is not a harm. They may suck, but that is an altogether orthogonal issue.


But that is what Arizona Republicans did - the proposed law would not have advanced freedom one single step but it made Republicans look like bigots because millions of people think it is ignorant and mean to discriminate against gay people.

That is because millions of people are idiots. That they choose to be ignorant and refuse to use their brains for anything useful, it does not follow they are right in their assessments. Once again, the are willful idiots and as far as I am concerned their opinions don't count for shit. Unfortunately, those imbeciles were gifted with the contractual right to vote, and that is fly in the ointment of our Constitutional Republic.

The bill was wrong in the broadest sense because it should not have to exist in the first place. But I can understand why they would propose and pass it: our rights are under assault in open warfare fashion. Nothing "we" have yet done has put the least dent in the juggernaut that bears down upon us. Some may call it "feel good" legislation and they may be right - but what else can people do when the vast majority of Americans are either too fearful, lazy, ignorant, or corrupt to put the war to ends?

People say "work within the system". Well, this legislation was doing just that and look what it got them: bupkis-minus. We are not ready to start shooting, so what else is there? This habit of accomplishing nothing is leading us directly to a new Dark Age. We are, in fact, already in its second decade at the very least.

One must ask himself why is it that over the past 100 years minimally that Theye have never once retreated and we have done nothing but retreat in the face of their endlessly advancing aggressions against our sovereign rights as free men? Am I the only person here who finds this most curious? How are Theye able to get away with it? How is it that there exists so perfect an inter-generational continuity and consistency in the nature of Theire behavior as if they were a mono bloc entity with a life span that as yet has shown no sign of being finite, like a great corporation? This seems a little too coincidental, if you understand my drift. Could the proclivities of the power-seeking human be that perfectly consistent across individuals to the tune of millions spread over hundreds of years that by pure coincidence of nature they act with such unintentional synergy in virtually all cases? I concede it possible, but is it really the case? Beside this or the existence of a truly grand conspiracy spanning inhuman time frames, what else could there be? Seriosuly, I'd love to see some thought on this.


It was a purely political move designed to appeal to a small minority and ended up offending millions and making Arizona Republicans look like assholes.

How do you know this? Do you have a confession in writing or on video you can show us? Short of that, it is impossible to know another man's heart. Half the time men do not know their own hearts. I would be careful about assigning malicious intent because not only might it be falsely posited, it can be very dangerous because that road to hell is not in the main paved with malice, but with the well intended solutions people think they are smart enough to concoct for an entire world.


As an Arizonan I wish it had never been passed. And even though it was vetoed, the damage is done. Idiots.

I would agree, but for widely differing reasons.

[nobody's_hero]

As an Arizonan I wish it had never been passed. And even though it was vetoed, the damage is done. Idiots.

Why are you so quick to write this bill off as 'damaging'? Has there been an election since the bill was passed? Have republicans been pulled out of their offices and tarred/feathered? If you are gauging the damage done by articles written at huffpo or salon, then everything the GOP does is damaging, lol.

And for what it is worth, we can stop acting like the bill whipped up a problem that did not exist before. When the gay lobby took a photographer to court and the court ruled the business owner cannot refuse service, that was the first shot, and therefore it is not all that surprising that other states feel these laws are now necessary.

[pcosmar]

Question. Is what Traditional Conservative said about what the bill did, true? Because if it is, it would seem to me that the bill in fact would promote liberty, in that businesses would be free to pick and choose who they did business with? Shouldn't they be able to?

NO,, The bill was not about Property Rights. It was about "religious freedom".
Essentially it was in response to a court decision on discrimination against Gays.

The Cake store owner was a bigot with no religious principles,, just bigotry toward Gays.

It was not about sanctity of marriage at all.. Or the hypocritical bigot would not have agreed to make cakes for a DOG Wedding.

Had the Bill been rewritten and worded differently,, as a Property Rights issue rather than a Religious Intolerance issue it may have gotten more support.

[leverguy]

NO,, The bill was not about Property Rights. It was about "religious freedom".
Essentially it was in response to a court decision on discrimination against Gays.

The Cake store owner was a bigot with no religious principles,, just bigotry toward Gays.

It was not about sanctity of marriage at all.. Or the hypocritical bigot would not have agreed to make cakes for a DOG Wedding.


Yeah, because hypocrisy and bigotry should be illegal. Right?

And what is the fundamental difference between religious freedom and property rights? Don't they both stem from self ownership or is that a principle that no longer applies since we're talking about the most recent
"oppressed" group de'jour?

[Weston White]

How about: Freedom is responsibility, it is choice, and most profoundly it is confidence; however, no individual can truly respect any other’s freedom without first possessing an appreciation for self-awareness.

[Paulbot99]

Freedom is ugly. It's not politically correct or polite or even nice. Freedom is personal choice for good or evil.

[Occam's Banana]

Freedom is ugly? Ugly?!

You wanna see ugly? Here's some "ugly" for you ... and it ain't got a goddam thing to do with "freedom" ...

http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/u/7/bergenbelsen3.jpg


It's stupid to grant the statists that freedom is 'ugly'. A society based on peace and cooperation is freakin glorious. You don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. Together we can increase both of our standards of living. What's prettier than that?

This ^^^ x1000000.

The "ugliness" Beck foolishly associates with freedom has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

That "ugliness" has everything to do with how some people will act & behave regardless of whether they are free or not.

(And woe betide when any of those people get their hands on the reins of State power ... see the pic above.)

In fact, all the things that Beck cedes as being "ugly" about freedom are actually far, FAR more monstrously hideous under conditions of lack of freedom.

Glenn Beck FTF. Again.

[Cabal]

Glenn Beck FTF. Again.

No surprise, but what can you expect from a man who is only interested in 'libertarian' lip service.

[jllundqu]

Why?

Because I thought we were for less government laws, not more. This law would accomplish nothing. Plus I don't like messing with the first amendment, in general ;)

[JustinTime]

Because I thought we were for less government laws, not more.

Its in my sigline so I have a tough time complaining, but I'm for less government, not necessarily less law. Usually those two go together but I'm all for rules and regulations on the government.

[JustinTime]

Freedom is ugly? Ugly?!

You wanna see ugly? Here's some "ugly" for you ... and it ain't got a goddam thing to do with "freedom" ...

That doesn't mean freedom can't also have an ugly side. IMO its a mistake to pretend everything will be Pollyanna with a greater amount of freedom, there will be problems no matter what and acting like there wont be an ugly side builds up an unreasonable expectation that ultimately harms the cause of liberty.

I cant promise that a freer world would be a perfect world, only that things will be better with more freedom than with less of it.

[Occam's Banana]

That doesn't mean freedom can't also have an ugly side. IMO its a mistake to pretend everything will be Pollyanna with a greater amount of freedom, there will be problems no matter what and acting like there wont be an ugly side builds up an unreasonable expectation that ultimately harms the cause of liberty.

I cant promise that a freer world would be a perfect world, only that things will be better with more freedom than with less of it.

I did not spout any such nonsense as "everything will be Pollyanna with a greater amount of freedom."

I said that freedom does not have an "ugly side" - and it does not. Ugliness exists independently of freedom.

Human nature has an "ugly side" - and that "ugly side" of human nature is vastly magnified under conditions of lack of freedom.
The ugliness that will inevitably exist under conditions of true & genuine freedom will exist in spite of freedom, NOT because of it.

Absence of such ugliness is simply NOT an option - not under any system, free or otherwise. Our enemies seek to perpetuate the lie that the ugliness of human nature can be successfully limited and mitigated by limiting and constraining freedom. They claim that human nature can be made "pretty" if only the "right people" were put in charge and the "right rules" were implemented. Bruiting about the ridiculous notion that "freedom is ugly" plays right into their hands. It allows them to say, "Look! Even the supporters of liberty admit that freedom is ugly. Put us in charge, and we'll get rid of ugliness." (Which means: "Put us in charge, and we'll get rid of freedom.")

But freedom and ugliness have nothing to do with one another - and it is fantastically foolish to draw non-existent associations between them. Doing so will benefit no one but the enemies of liberty.

[JustinTime]

But freedom and ugliness have nothing to do with one another - and it is fantastically foolish to draw non-existent associations between them.

Im not sure Id agree, the ugly aspect comes directly from people being free to do as they please, which may be ugly. Its a direct result of freedom. But regardless, this is all just semantics.

[Occam's Banana]

Im not sure Id agree, the ugly aspect comes directly from people being free to do as they please, which may be ugly. Its a direct result of freedom.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with human nature (which is the same regardless of whether men are free or not).
The source of any ugliness that manifests under freedom is exactly the same as the source of the ugliness that manifests under lack of freedom.
That source is human nature. Free or unfree - it doesn't matter. Ugliness and freedom are "independent variables."

The only relationship between freedom and ugliness is that freedom diffuses & disperses ugliness while lack of freedom focuses & magnifies it.
But ugliness will still be there either way. Freedom is NOT the source or cause of ugliness - and ugliness is NOT inherent in freedom.

The "ugly aspect" you talk about does NOT come "directly from people being free to do as they please."
It comes from human nature - some people are going to do ugly things regardless of whether society is free or not.
And when society is NOT free, the ugly things that some people do will be greatly amplified. (See: Nazi Germany)


this is all just semantics

This is not a mere semantic quibble.

Declaring that "freedom is ugly" lends significant moral credence to the notion that freedom must be limited in order for things to be "pretty."
Absence of ugliness is NOT an option - the existence of ugliness is inevitable and inescapable.
Thus, blaming any of it on freedom is an extremely foolish thing for defenders of liberty to do.