Santorum's take on church vs state

116 answers Last reply
More about santorum church state
  1. Well, when you believe we just appeared from apes, and apes from semi rats and them from sea creatures, and that from scum, and the planet from nothing, add in alot of faith, throw in some hatred and intolerance, plus a complete ineptness as to understanding the bill of rights, the constitution etc, also cant forget the ongoing ineptness of understanding religion, what it means to followers, according to the constitution, the bill of rights etc.
    Now, if ever there was direct quotes, and since we also have some from the current admin going against our history, its laws, it rights, God given or elseways, it seems as tho people are more afraid of this, these rights, and would rather see them squashed is a shame, a sham, destructive and so intrusive, accompanied with an alloofness that goes beyond description.
    Now, what didnt we get when Mr B.O. crossed our lines of laws and history?
  2. There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

    You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.
  3. Separation of Church and State is derived from the first amendment of the constitution. My interpretation is that the government will not take religion into consideration when passing laws and that you can not pass laws saying that someone cannot belong to a particular faith. I completely agree with the first amendment in this regard. First off, you cannot take into account someones faith when passing laws because there are so many faiths. One law you pass might violate another faith's principles. Not to mention that religion can be used a tool of oppression and subjugation. It can lead to hatred for a person of another faith as well. When you look back at our history and see how religion has been abused its easy to understand why this is a step forward.

    Our traditions have changed many times over the last century, and they will continue to do so. Our country is a melting pot of many different cultures and these will continue to influence each other. As far as I know, our history is unchangeable.

    Can you imagine if we had all the different religions involved in our political process?

    As far as evolution goes, it happened over millions of years. We humans cannot process that kind of time frame so I understand why you are skeptical. I find the concept of religion far more outlandish than evolution. At least with evolution we have evidence to support it.
  4. riser said:
    There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

    You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.
    Santorum is a weirdo and says things that are completely wacky. There should be the separation of church from the state.He is to fanatical with this religion of his and then denounces Kennedy when he said in his speech about his religion should be private from his presidency.This Santorum is a NUT!
  5. So an invasive government is bad but invasive religion is our national history?

    Is the billions in tax cuts to religious organizations count? I think thats a pretty large affirmation of how much the government cares about churches. They are all tax free.

    Even the wacky ones like Scientology.

    Ive heard some of you lash out at a Muslim based republics, but when Christians call for more, you just going to roll over and say why not?
  6. B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

    Heres where religion steps into the worldview

    Abortion
    Gay Marriage
  7. You are ******* nuts! Because the moderator of a debate asks a question about abortion (?!?) its a liberal / democratic plan to force the issue? what the *** is wrong with you?

    I WAS ONE YEAR OLD WHEN EXXON CRASHED! Im not wasting my time here. See ya.
  8. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    The relevant portion of the 1st Amendment states simply:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Lets break that down. It starts with 'Congress'. This refers specifically to the US Congress. It doesn't say government, it means Congress, the legislative body.

    Now, compare that very simple text of the 1st Amendment to the text of my state's Constitution as it pertains to religion.

    "Section 16. Free exercise of religion; no establishment of religion.

    That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please."


    Very much more detail. It even specifically mentions a creator and Christianity in the text. The language is very careful not to establish Christianity as the state religion though. However, I see nothing in the text that would prohibit the display of the ten commandments on a court building, or a cross in a state park honoring veterans. In fact I consider the prohibition of the display a violation of the free exercise thereof. Then again, it is never Congress that prohibits this, it's always a judge. In my opinion a judge's role is to uphold the law as written, not 'interpret' the law as they see fit which is what we've all been taught to accept.

    I know that many judicial precedents can be cited that changes this interpretation. It is my opinion that these precedents are "bad law" and further illustrates my concern over the judiciary subverting the law rather than upholding it.


    "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever" If a person must go to the courthouse to pay a fine or something like that, then they are forced to observe an article of worship. That seems to be a violation of this clause.

    "or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination" They would have to put up other pieces of religious text to represent the other religions as well.

    Those are just the two that stuck out to me, there are a couple of other parts in that section that could also be used to argue against having the religious text in plain view at a courthouse.

    By the way, the legislative body is just one part of our government and that's mostly who I was referring to. The judicial branch could still strike down the legislation at anytime.

    If you truly think that precedents are the judiciary branch's way of subverting law, then you my friend should either find yourself a new country or get used to it. This is how our legal system has worked since it was created. Precedents are one of the key factors taken into consideration in almost every step of the judicial process. If we had to retry or go over every case individually without referring to previous cases on the matter, our judicial system would collapse. Why argue over something that has already been decided numerous times?
  9. riser said:
    There is nothing wrong with Santorum's religious stance. Science does the exact same thing.

    You take a hard stance on something until completely proven wrong. How long did E=MC2 last until it was proven wrong? Now that it no longer stands as an absolute, we can move further on. But in order to get there we had to accept it was an absolute.


    There was at least a method and evidence behind E=MC2. I can't say the same about religion, and Santorum's stance is ludicrous at best. Lets have it so that religion is above the rules that every person in the country is bound by. Lets make it so that any religion can do anything they want and answer to no one but God. Let's make the United States of America a country ruled by the Churchs. Yes, this sounds like a great idea. All you have to do is look at what drove our forefathers here in the first place to understand that this is a horrible idea.

    By the way, nothing is proven as an absolute in the scientific process. It is only accepted as fact and even then there are always people trying to prove it wrong. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 experiments and they all point in the same direction. Nothing can ever be PROVEN to be true, only accepted as fact until evidence suggests otherwise. If only religion or our political process worked the same way.
  10. wanamingo said:
    B.S. the dems dragged abortion into the spotlight. That's a republican talking point through and through.

    Heres where religion steps into the worldview

    Abortion
    Gay Marriage


    On Abortion, it is because many people do not want to fund it. Remove Federal money from being supplied to locations that do abortions and the issue on a political scale would disappear.

    Gay marriage. Can't force a church to do what it doesn't want to do. Let gay people have civil unions or whatever they want to be recognized by the government as together. From the standpoint of the Church/Religion, the term "marriage" to sacred to them. It is a simple as making the exact same rights but calling it something else.. that would remove the issue again. Politics as usual.
  11. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    I uderstand, but don't you see a problem with the free exercise thereof part of the 1st amendment? What if the judge wants to put up the 10 commandments in his courtroom? The atheist walking into the courtroom is not being forced to follow those commandments simply by them being displayed. Now, if the judge threatened jail time or torture if the atheist didn't accept the commandments then I would agree with your argument.

    It seems to me, that this mythical "freedom from religion" violates the 1st amendment at its most fundamental core.

    The basic tenet being you can not exercise your right or freedom if in doing so you deny someone else's free exercise of their right or freedom. This is why when Dick Cheney is giving a speech and someone stands up in the auditorium and begins shouting him down they can be tossed out. The shouter is denying someone else their right to free speech by exercising their own. You can't do that.

    I understand judicial precedents, I'm just saying I don't necessarily agree with precedents that are based on opinion rather then the letter of the law.

    What I see happening as it pertains to the 1st amendment is not an establishment of a state religion but more of an assault on the free exercise therof. I know the atheists and the secularists will disagree, but take a look around. I don't see a huge push to establish a state religion but I do see a constant assault on peoples' freedom to worship as they see fit and where they see fit.


    I do agree that politics play too much of a role in the judicial process. It is suppose to be an impartial process but when you are put into your position by democrats or republicans, because you think along the same lines as they do, then I cannot agree with that process. If there is a republican majority in the supreme court and an abortion law comes up for debate, then they rule against it and set the precedent, then is that fair? Luckily precedents from previous cases can be retried for a different outcome, but on the whole our judicial system would be chaos without them.

    If you are an atheist or belong to another religion that does not accept the 10 commandments as text relating to your religion and then you are forcing them to observe religious text from another religion, that is a violation of your rights to not have another religion imposed on you. Also it just sets a bad example for our justice system. It is suppose to be impartial with no relation to any religion or any other factor. I would expect a country like Iran to do this. Not because they are followers of Islam, but because they are a nation ruled by the church.

    People should be able to worship in their houses and on their property however they please. Also if they establish a church, then they should be able to worship there whenever they want. However, the second their worship is imposed on someone else in a median that does not pertain to a church or their private residences or land, then you run into problems. I don't have to go to your church or house, but I am legally obligated to go to the courthouse in certain situations. In other words I am inadvertently being forced to observe religious text against my will.
  12. Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.
  13. riser said:
    On Abortion, it is because many people do not want to fund it. Remove Federal money from being supplied to locations that do abortions and the issue on a political scale would disappear.

    Gay marriage. Can't force a church to do what it doesn't want to do. Let gay people have civil unions or whatever they want to be recognized by the government as together. From the standpoint of the Church/Religion, the term "marriage" to sacred to them. It is a simple as making the exact same rights but calling it something else.. that would remove the issue again. Politics as usual.


    Agree with the abortion comment. If people don't want tax money spent on certain government programs then their claims are legitimate. As far as marriage, a church cannot force a government to not do something. If two gay people want to go to the city hall and get a marriage license, let them. Their rights in no way interfere with yours and you cannot deny them based on religion or the fact that you don't like it.
  14. riser said:
    Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.


    You dismiss my argument by saying it is liberal and that not everyone will be happy? Gotcha, good point!
  15. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    wanamingo WTFPWND Rage Quit. :)


    Yep. The internet is a large place, no reason to wast time here. Im off! Maybe ill find out where Gulli went or the other 20+ people you have ostracized.
  16. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Just because you are exposed to religious text does not mean you are being forced to accept it. If its mere presence offends you, you can always just not look at it, just like you don't have to stand with your hand over your heart during the playing the national anthem.

    What is your opinion on someone standing on a public street corner, speaking the gospel for whatever religion or handing out religous pamphlets? It is in public and not in ones house or established church.

    Can one proselytize any given religion or against any given religion in the public square?


    You are not forced to go to the public square or accept the pamphlet. You can also hand out your own pamphlet or speak your own gospel. In the end, the main reason the people in the public square can do this but the courtroom cannot is because the courtroom is an extension of the government and they cannot promote any religion.

    Why does the 10 commandments have to be in the courtroom anyways? At the simplest level its absurd, it conveys all the wrong messages about our legal system. Its almost like the judge is going to base his or her judgement on religious text. You don't see anything wrong with that? You might as well have a priest up there handing out judgements. No one can base the judgement of a fellow man or woman based on their beliefs in their religion. Only their God can do that, the thing we can base judgement on is the laws that a collection of us passed to govern ourselves and the evidence brought against us.
  17. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    What makes him a weirdo exactly? The fact he has been indoctrinated into Sun worship? (see a monstance)

    At least he's consistent, for the most part, for a politician.
    He is not consistent like you say one time he says he was for Romney years ago and now he says no. His concepts are really weird about his religious beliefs and education. He is a fanatic about this religious beliefs of his and his accusations are also not really logical. Education is indoctrinated by Obama talking
    about college . Forgot this weirdo!
  18. Hey......

    Guess what, freedom is an ethereal thing.
    Ot is enjoyed and shared until someone attacks it. Tears it down. Makes it a bad thing.
    Do we just start giving these things up?
    Handing out decisions about how, what and why were supposed to think?
    I trust no one more than our founding fathers whove set up a constitution thats been and will go down in all of human history as the best, or one of the best ever written.

    After 200 plus years, its starting to be torn at, reinterpreted.
    People say, its outdated, people say it no longer fits today.
    The only thing thats changed from now since then is a few inventions which allow us to worry about getting fat and lazy, and these same that attack our understanding of, and the very value of our constitution our now wanting us to eat what they want us to eat, as we slowly get fatter and lazier.

    Some doll this up, as now man is close to having his chance at a utopia, where need and strife are no longer a part of life.
    Where our very thoughts and hearts should change for a greater whole to achieve these goals.
    Smacks of communism to me.
    The state was too important to allow God into it
    Reminds me of this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3YFmpSFJ40
  19. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    I do see your point there. What if the judge wore a visible crucifix or star of david around his neck over his robes. Since it is on his body and not actually displayed in or on the government building does that count as an endorsement or establishment of religion? Or what if the judge has a portrait of jesus displayed on his bench?

    I don't mean to harp on the court/judge thing but it seems to be a good medium to discuss this topic.

    Well, our laws and hence our legal system stems from Judeo/Christian laws and values, so I think the ten commandments are very relevent to our legal system. People are typically judged by a jury of their peers, unless they are too stupid to have a lawyer or ask for a jury trial and then they are tried under admiralty law instead of statutory law.

    Understand that religion provides a moral compass for many, including judges.


    If the judge did decide on wearing the crucifix or star of david, I doubt that anything could be done about it. Why they would feel the need to wear it on the outside, instead of tucked in, is another matter. I think the portrait of jesus on the bench would be along the same lines as the 10 commandments. The judge comes and goes but the bench stays in the courthouse.

    I won't deny that our legal system has roots in religion, its just that if I were up for trial and was innocent, I would want people to look at the evidence and nothing more. I wouldn't want them to judge me based on faith, nor would I want them to be influenced by the judge having religious text in the courtroom. I guess some people would want the exact opposite though.
  20. Imagine if people we unaware that the ten commandments were of religious origins, what then would people think of them?
  21. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Imagine if people we unaware that the ten commandments were of religious origins, what then would people think of them?


    I would think that the guy that wrote them was pissed that his neighbor screwed his wife.
  22. So, isnt it you saying the worlds upside down?
  23. Well, if people assume a foundation is after anything else, then I guess it is.
    Having things like the ten commandments are great foundations, and arent meant to be use in conjunction with corruption, but, obviously the worlds upside down, so we must look at it this way

    PS If we dont look at it this way, we will not only not be able to understand some people, but never be able to help them
  24. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    How true. I am not a Christian or a Jew. When I look at the 10 commandments specifically I can not possibly see why anyone would have a problem with them, even if they were on a wall in a courtroom or outside on a building facade. Unless of course someone is trying to remove God from society all together then it makes perfect sense why they would have a problem with it.


    Why does anyone feel the need to display the 10 commandments out in public anyways? What does it accomplish besides create controversy? Do people not feel complete in their faith unless they are reminded of it every time they go to court, or in the judge's case work? Sounds selfish to me that someone would need to display their faith to feel good about themselves, or maybe it's just a ploy to earn God's favor? If people feel the need to express their religious beliefs to other people, then do it with people that share the same sentiment, in church or other religious venues. There is a place and time for everything.

    If someone was trying to remove god from society all together, they should go after churchs first.
  25. Remove any religious ideals someone could extract from them.
    Then, reread them.
    Why have drunk driving ads?
    Pregnancy ads?
    Anti smoking ads?
    If theyre ineffectual, then the government is once again wasting tons of money.
    If they are efective, this is a good thing, and tho they are words from the bible, doesnt mean we shouldnt use them.
    I can give various examples where words from other writings are used in many varying ways, and again, are used for the betterment of the people.
    We tear down certain things, we leave vacuums.
    So, either quote no others, be original, or quit spending our money.

    If people lose track its only because of being from the bible, then I guess we need to blame ourselves, if you so believe, and God, even if you dont
  26. riser said:
    Such a liberal argument. Liberals first need to learn to be tolerant. Second, they need to understand that not everyone will be happy. Third, they need to understand that most of the time "not everyone will be happy" will likely be them.
    And Republicans must learn not to be afraid of everything they are confronted with in life.They do not have one proposal
    to lift up the economy and create jobs. They know one thing to kiss the ass of the rich and corporations and banks!
  27. Start opening up federally owned or controlled land to oil drilling, I think Ive heard every one of them say this.
    Obama claims so much oil is coming now, but our federal contributions are severely lagging behind what they once were, and way behind even more of what they can be.
    The oil being pumped now come from private or pre existing fed wells
  28. Plenty of Federal land is open for oil exploration and drilling... it just happens to be the land that doesn't have any oil under it. :) The current administration says they have milions of acres of land open.. but they don't mention it is worthless for oil exploration/drilling.
  29. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    My question is, if gas prices are on the rise, expected to hit $4.00/gal. by summer why are we exporting so much of it. I am talking about refined gasoline not crude.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1

    /scratches head

    Sorry for the derail. Here's a great column from Ann Coulter on Rick Santorum and I happen to agree with most of it concerning ol' Ricky.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49879


    I hope that you don't agree that higher education is for democrat indoctrination. We will never be able to provide a cheaper unskilled workforce than say, india or china. We can however, have the best skilled workforce out there. It would be our niche in the global economy.
  30. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Not all higher education, but most Universities are nothing more than indoctrination centers for the youth, absolutley I agree with that. I've experienced it first hand when I finished my degree as an adult. And that was at a local community college even. My professors were so freakin liberal and they could not tolerate opposing points of view. I even had to modify my papers to fit with their view in fear of getting a failing grade. It royally sucked!



    There are two kinds of professors, the ones you have to agree with and the ones that you have to disagree with. Once you figure that out you can pass any class. I know that some professors may have liberal point of views, but you cannot judge all of the universities on this alone. My higher educational experience was the other way around, many of my professors were conservative. One of my finance professors was a ridiculously attractive blonde from Sweden, but she had no political affiliation(I didn't learn much in that class and I'm not even sure if she could vote). My business ethics professor was a retired air force pilot who served on carriers during the first Iraqi War, he was a conservative. You cannot judge something by only seeing a sliver of it or by taking someone's word for it.

    Besides all that, anyone with half a brain will not blindly buy into what people tell them and become "indoctrinated". If they do become indoctrinated, they were probably an idiot to begin with and no harm done. Idiots will be idiots even if they are liberal or conservative. People that come to their reasoning by their own means, are the ones worth listening to.
  31. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    I get that, I do. That's why I was able to pass all my classes with flying colors. But, like I said I went back to school in my early 30's after becoming a father at age 22, and working in the private sector since the age of 15. I had a much different perspective on the country than say an 18 year old skull full of mush just coming out of high school. They are far more easily swayed to the professor's opinions than I would be simply because of my experience and maturity.

    Here is an example of indoctrination at the middle school level. I watched this story last night and my heart broke for this young lady. She is being persecuted by the education establishment for simply telling the truth of what she learned.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tearful-eighth-grader-defends-controversial-essay-on-gbtv-not-a-racial-issue-its-a-learning-issue/


    You watch Glenn Beck?!?!?!? How would you feel if you were a teacher at one of these schools, doing your best to teach, and then a child writes an essay saying that your a racist and your just trying to keep black people down? Would you not be insulted by that? Would you not be insulted by the label "White Teachers"? It is only the white teacher's fault, the other races are fine, but the white ones are the racist bigots.

    I do not see an example of social indoctrination here at all. All I see is little girl who has been influenced by her mother to be inclined to dislike white people, so she reads a book about slavery and pulls from that book the idea that all white teachers are racist, and that they are trying to keep the black people as slaves by keeping them uneducated. No wonder Glenn Beck went with this story. I hate that guy with a passion. Speaks of the doom of the American financial system and then makes a killing promoting a gold investment company. Even has an ad in the article in question!
  32. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Umm, you didn't read the article did you? You just saw it was glenn beck and instantly formed your conclusion. How very sad.

    The young lady was quoting Frederick Douglas in an essay about Frederick Douglas. Read dude!

    Your hate for Beck has completely clouded your thinking.

    Glenn first started advocating buying gold when it was $400/oz. Now, the people that listened to him then and started doing just that, how do you think they feel now?

    Glenn clearly says that he buys gold as an insurance policy against the declining dollar. He is very clear that it is not for everyone and you should do your own homework.

    For you to harp on this just shows your complete ignorance about what Glenn Beck does. Cheers!


    I read the whole article and the accompanying article as well. At first I felt bad for the child until I read further into it and read some of the quotes for her article. Then and only then did i draw my final conclusion. Seeing that the article was on the glenn beck show did nothing to influence my opinion on the story but reminded me of how much I hate that bastard.

    The fact that you are defending Glenn Beck tells me all I need to know.

    http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/glenn-beck-quotes.htm

    How the hell can you defend this guy? My 5 year old nephew has a better grasp of reality then this hack. He is a ******* moron.

    Satan's mentally challenged younger brother." –Stephen King, writing in "Entertainment Weekly" (Source) <---LOL, perfect description.
  33. “It just appears to me that here again our staff doesn’t seem to be on the same page as parents and students,” Elliott said. “That’s distressing to me.”
    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120228/NEWS01/302270062/douglass-essay-jada-williams?odyssey=mod|mostview
    This wouldve been my response.
    If someone doesnt feel included, and has catching up to do on top of that, someones been dropping the ball.
    As far as Becks concerned, I agree with OMG, hes been an attack target by the media, and it speaks more to the people quoting them than Beck most the time.
    If someone doesnt recognize the dislike of Beck by the main stream media, then I feel they are either being duped, or simply not paying real attention.
    If someone finds it easier to accept this tripe from the media, then usually they are just as lazy about the facts.
    It also sometimes tends to fit their particular political/lifestyle, and is not only news, but often quoted as fact, and until someone disagrees with them, its the only time they actually try to inform themselves, but unfortunately, they tend to go back to the same slanted groups which provided the somewhat dubious info to begin with.
    I find it much better to check both sides, and seek several sources that can produce an unbiased account of the facts
  34. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Those quotes, I mean really? All except the 1st are taken completely out of context. I know this because I actually listen to the source rather than listen to what others tell me to think about the source.

    The 1st quote is accurate in my opinion. Obama called his own grandmother "a typical white person" in his own book. That tells me he has a chip on his shoulder about white people.

    Nice try, but fail. You are obviously an intelligent person as evidenced by the discussion we have had in this thread. But you are glaringly ignorant when it comes to Glenn Beck, that is for certain.

    You libs love to tout diversity. Just not diversity of thought.


    If you make a valid point with actual reasoning behind it, I will listen. I value different perspectives, and I am always one to ask what people think. As much as you want want to group "libs" into this category of single minded thinking, it is not true, any intelligent person will realize that they do not know everything, and that the advice and perspectives of the people around them is invaluable. Conservatives are far more guilty of a closed throught process that liberals. The party of NO and WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. Even faced with insurmountable evidence the hardcore tea baggers will deny and lie to the end. They would rather the country face economic ruin than compromise on issues with democrats. Even republicans don't like them, and that's saying something.

    Here are some videos that have the previous quotes in them plus more ridiculous comments from Glenn Beck. That way you can hear it straight from the horses mouth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqk7W0jk9SM&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVH_45acqaM&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbg604XqPY&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_6A&feature=related

    Here is a good video to watch about the pathology associated with the Glenn Beck "thought process", I thought it was kind of amazing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7FdA7af8s
  35. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    “It just appears to me that here again our staff doesn’t seem to be on the same page as parents and students,” Elliott said. “That’s distressing to me.”
    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120228/NEWS01/302270062/douglass-essay-jada-williams?odyssey=mod|mostview
    This wouldve been my response.
    If someone doesnt feel included, and has catching up to do on top of that, someones been dropping the ball.
    As far as Becks concerned, I agree with OMG, hes been an attack target by the media, and it speaks more to the people quoting them than Beck most the time.
    If someone doesnt recognize the dislike of Beck by the main stream media, then I feel they are either being duped, or simply not paying real attention.
    If someone finds it easier to accept this tripe from the media, then usually they are just as lazy about the facts.
    It also sometimes tends to fit their particular political/lifestyle, and is not only news, but often quoted as fact, and until someone disagrees with them, its the only time they actually try to inform themselves, but unfortunately, they tend to go back to the same slanted groups which provided the somewhat dubious info to begin with.
    I find it much better to check both sides, and seek several sources that can produce an unbiased account of the facts



    I did not inherit or obtain my dislike of Glenn Beck from the evil media empire. I watched ONE show of his and immediately knew this guy was a fraud.
  36. Id say hes a tad goofy, may over exuberant?
    But, he has been not only consistent with his approach, but fairly factual as well.
    Sometimes he does see the writing on the wall, other times, I hope hes wrong, and he is.

    I guess, the big thing is, most of his quotes are taken out of context by the media, and you have to be careful as to who you quote about him, which speaks volumes about our woeful media
  37. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Linky #1:
    Rachael Maddow if taking a big leap by inferring Glenn is calling that veterans organization a "communist front group" which he did not. Glenn is talking about MoveOn.org who is absolutley organizing with The Communist Party USA, The Open Borders Society, The Tides Foundation, The Center For American Progress, The Apollo Alliance, various unions including SEIU, and dozens of other organizations all of whom receive funding, directly or indirectly, from George Soros. Glenn Beck has spent hundreds of hours on his radio and TV show illustrating how these organizations and the people that run them are tied together and have been for decades.

    But, since you don't watch or listen this just sounds crazy to you because you are uninformed and ignorant about these things, or simply don't care because you support the goals of these organizations.

    Anyone who knows Glenn, knows he is an strong supporter of our military. He raised $4.2 million for the Special Operations Warriors Foundation in a single day during his 8/28 rally. Of course, you're not going to hear that watching Rachael Mandow.

    Linky#2:
    How is he supposed to answer a question about something he said when he is mis-quoted. It is clearly a loaded question and cute little Katie was trying to trip him up. I would have reacted the same way. See quote #1 you posted a link to yesterday. He said President Obama has a chip on his shoulder about white people, and I somewhat agree based on Obama's own words and actions. He called his own grandmother a "typical white woman". What the hell is that supposed to mean? In his first day in office he had the bust of Winston Churchhill packed up and sent back to the British who gave it to George W. Bush after 9/11. This may seem odd to some but not to the informed. You see, Obama's father was a communist revolutionary during British rule in Kenya. He was arrested during a rally/riot and imprisoned and probably tortured by the Brits so you can understand his distaste for western colonialism, especially the Brits. This is why his book is titled "Dreams FROM my Father", not dreams of my father. What was his father's dreams that he passed on? I think we can guess the answer.

    Linky #3:
    I'm not sure what this video is trying to illustrate. It is several years old when he was still with CNN and the war in Iraq was still raging. That congressman was advocating we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan entirely and pretty much give up the war on terror. In my view it was a legitmate question to ask even though he asked it in a weird way.

    Linky #4:
    Seriously? That's the best evidence you can dig up that Glenn is a racist? A 30 second snippet from 2007?

    Linky #5:
    Absolutley insulting. Notice they didn't actually play any clips of interviews but proceeded to insult their lack of intelligence simply because they disagree on any given topic.

    Your reference to the TEA Party as tea baggers is also equally insulting, and not appreciated.



    1. He is a strong supporter of our military until he gets a whiff of that communism, lol. Seriously, we have come so far from Cold War and yet people still buy into this communism crap?

    2. Katie is twice as intelligent than Glenn Beck will ever be. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html. Misquoted my ass, he said what he said so quit trying to defend him. He knew that he couldn't lie his way out of that one so he just refused to say anything. All she was was for him to clarify what he meant too, what a complete joke of a person. You referring to Obama as a communist is laughable and only leads me to believe that you have bought into the bullshit that is spewed by Glenn Beck and Co.

    3. He basically asked an elected congressman if he was a traitor and a spy. Absolutely no respect for what the man has accomplished, and for his position within our government. He has no respect for anyone but himself.

    4. He is a racist, plain and simple. Not sure why its even up for debate given all of the racist statements from him.


    5. Here is the link in relation to linky #5 for clarification, notice how well informed these people are, quite the intelligent group.

    http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/02/when-stupid-people-dont-know-that-they-are-stupid-glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect/


    Before you blow a gasket over facing the truth of Glenn Beck, I apologize for the Tea Bagger statement, but everything I said
    about them I stand by. They are like children who would rather bury their head in ignorance than actually do something.

    You can say that he was misquoted or misinterpreted all you want, it doesn't change the fact that he is a liar and plays on people's emotions. He pulls these conspiracy theories out of his *** by making radical connections and uses the fear that it creates to make people believe him. Clear your mind and do real research about some of his outlandish statements, you will realize that he is playing you for the fool.
  38. johnsonma said:
    1. He is a strong supporter of our military until he gets a whiff of that communism, lol. Seriously, we have come so far from Cold War and yet people still buy into this communism crap?

    2. Katie is twice as intelligent than Glenn Beck will ever be. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html. Misquoted my ass, he said what he said so quit trying to defend him. He knew that he couldn't lie his way out of that one so he just refused to say anything. All she was was for him to clarify what he meant too, what a complete joke of a person. You referring to Obama as a communist is laughable and only leads me to believe that you have bought into the bullshit that is spewed by Glenn Beck and Co.

    3. He basically asked an elected congressman if he was a traitor and a spy. Absolutely no respect for what the man has accomplished, and for his position within our government. He has no respect for anyone but himself.

    4. He is a racist, plain and simple. Not sure why its even up for debate given all of the racist statements from him.


    5. Here is the link in relation to linky #5 for clarification, notice how well informed these people are, quite the intelligent group.

    http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/02/when-stupid-people-dont-know-that-they-are-stupid-glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally-and-the-dunning-kruger-effect/


    Before you blow a gasket over facing the truth of Glenn Beck, I apologize for the Tea Bagger statement, but everything I said
    about them I stand by. They are like children who would rather bury their head in ignorance than actually do something.

    You can say that he was misquoted or misinterpreted all you want, it doesn't change the fact that he is a liar and plays on people's emotions. He pulls these conspiracy theories out of his *** by making radical connections and uses the fear that it creates to make people believe him. Clear your mind and do real research about some of his outlandish statements, you will realize that he is playing you for the fool.
    Beck is another Savage always making people paranoid with his crazy concepts.Savage saying yesterday that a conspiracy may have happened pertaining to Andrew Breibarts sudden death yesterday.These are entertainers with in the wrong media could be dangerous to unpredictable listeners.
  39. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    That's fine john. We are never going to agree on Glenn Beck.

    However, you forming an opinion based on 5+ year old 30 second sound bites further illustrates your ignorance, and level of maturity. In addition, it makes me think you're not as smart as I thought you were.


    The fact that Gleen Beck has become a staple of the republican establishment is scary and can be directly linked to the gross degradation of the republican party. Glenn Beck indocritnates people with fear, the greatest enemy of logic and reason.

    In this thread I have said that I have watched his "show" and then provided many examples of him on other shows, radio sound bites and interviews. Then you say that my opinion is based solely on 30 second sounds bites?!? Not to mention that them being 5+ years old should have no bearing on their legitimacy. That my friend, is the DEFINITION of ignorance, but it is a required trait to believe the vile crap that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth. Research some of the stuff that he says and you will realize what he truly is, a manipulative liar who takes advantage of people.
  40. I'd add, his close ties to Israel shows his lack of racism.
    Like I said earlier, you need to carefully choose who says what about him.
    Then research that as well.
    I know quite a few "popular" spin heads, even if theyre only just popular, such as hollowoodians.
    Many of these play upon the beliefs of their following, and enhance them.
    Beck asks to check yourself before you believe him, quite a contrast
  41. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    That's fine john. We are never going to agree on Glenn Beck.

    However, you forming an opinion based on 5+ year old 30 second sound bites further illustrates your ignorance, and level of maturity. In addition, it makes me think you're not as smart as I thought you were.
    Sound bites can be modified to make it seem like what you want the listener to hear.Same as videos.
  42. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    You once again show YOUR ignorance. The Republican establishment hates Glenn Beck and want nothing more than for him to go away.

    I don't need to 'research' anything. I listen for 3 hours a day. He puts out a total of 5 hours a day.

    He is close friends with Alveeda King so yes he must be a devout racist. You sure got him pegged.

    I find your "examples" extremely lacking but you have your opinion and I have mine.

    The fact that you "hate" someone just because you disagree with them speaks volumes.

    If you don't think communism is alive and well then you once again are showing your ignorance.

    http://www.cpusa.org/


    Glenn Beck has become a prominent figure within the republican establishment whether they like it or not. The reason they don't like him is because of how it makes other people, who are not entranced by Beck, view the republican party.

    You listen to Glenn Beck for 3 hours a day and then feel that everything he said is the truth and requires no research? Wow!

    Those examples show Glenn Beck on his show, other shows and even in public events and yet you find they are lacking. You can deny the truth all you want, like I said ignorance is part of the equation as related to Glenn Beck.

    I don't hate him because I disagree with him, I hate him because he takes advantage of people for his own greed. Its amazing how you can come to the conclusion that the sole reason I hate him is because I disagree with him. Your emotional defense of this man has robbed you of your reasoning.

    Alive it may be, but well? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, we do live in America after all. If people think that communism is the right answer, then fine, they can think what they want. Glenn Beck conjures it up to seem as though it is a threat to our national security, a rebellion, full of traitors, that will stop at nothing to overthrow the American regime. Do you know why he does this? This plays on peoples FEAR, especially the elderly who were around for the cold war and have an engrained fear of communism. The site you linked looked completely benign and without malice. Was that link suppose to fill me full of dread about the downfall of capitalism and the end of the American Dream?

    Read up on his behavior, I know you will automatically discredit for some reason because I linked it, but maybe some of it will actually sink in.

    http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2011/02/why-glenn-beck-isnt-crazy-and-millions.html

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201004/tantrum-morality-tea-party-and-glenn-beck

    http://asterisky.com/2011/05/06/birthers-deathers-and-glenn-beck-the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/
  43. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    I'd add, his close ties to Israel shows his lack of racism.
    Like I said earlier, you need to carefully choose who says what about him.
    Then research that as well.
    I know quite a few "popular" spin heads, even if theyre only just popular, such as hollowoodians.
    Many of these play upon the beliefs of their following, and enhance them.
    Beck asks to check yourself before you believe him, quite a contrast



    If someone has close ties to Israel they are automatically not racist? This is news to me!
    Most of my examples show it straight from the horses mouth.
    I agree that Glenn beck is not the first or the last to play on peoples beliefs or emotions. That includes the left and the right.
  44. musical marv said:
    Sound bites can be modified to make it seem like what you want the listener to hear.Same as videos.



    If I could link to full episodes of his, I would. Its not like the videos of him jump from one part to the next, they are continual streams that show as is. The reason I link some of the ones that show him on other shows is because it portrays the real Glenn Beck without his scripted dialogue.
  45. So, saying this is more like a blazing saddles scenario?
    Otherwords "everyone but the Irish!"?
    If he aims at evil people, that doesnt make him racist.
    If he disagrees with people different than him, it doesnt mke him racist.

    The racist tags are old and wimpy, so handily thrown about now days.
    Its getting to the point we wont recognize a racist, even if theyre taking advantage of you.
    Crying wolf doesnt mean theres a wolf, and after time, it wont matter when there is one
  46. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    So, saying this is more like a blazing saddles scenario?
    Otherwords "everyone but the Irish!"?
    If he aims at evil people, that doesnt make him racist.
    If he disagrees with people different than him, it doesnt mke him racist.

    The racist tags are old and wimpy, so handily thrown about now days.
    Its getting to the point we wont recognize a racist, even if theyre taking advantage of you.
    Crying wolf doesnt mean theres a wolf, and after time, it wont matter when there is one



    He aims at evil people? Give me a break, lol. He aims at whoever will create the most controversy and keep his audience faithful.

    That fact that he is a birther makes him a racist. All birthers are without a doubt, racist. Maybe not in a hateful sense, but they still treat black people differently. How in the world can you call your president a muslim and a foreigner? Absolutely no respect, none whatsoever.

    I could care less that he is a racist at this point. The lies and fear that he infects on unsuspecting people is a far greater crime against humanity.
  47. So, Arpaio is racist?
    Now, you said because he stands with Israel doesnt mean hes not a racist, then you turn around and accuse all those who speculate the presidents birth place racist?
    Re-read what I just said, cause lowering the bar for racism isnt a wise thing to do
  48. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    So, Arpaio is racist?
    Now, you said because he stands with Israel doesnt mean hes not a racist, then you turn around and accuse all those who speculate the presidents birth place racist?
    Re-read what I just said, cause lowering the bar for racism isnt a wise thing to do
    I am sick and tired of Israel being used as a pawn in this game we play who loves Israel all the time.Let israel defend themselves if they want war with Iran!Benjamin N is a Dove all the way.
  49. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Showing your ignorance again john? Beck is not a 'birther'. In fact, he regularly makes fun of birthers on his radio program and often brings up how silly it is to pursue the issue.

    I've never heard him call the President a Muslim or a foreigner.

    Can you give some examples of the lies he is infecting people with? I mean real, intentional lies. i.e. he knows the truth but says the opposite, not a mistake that he later corrects. There is a difference.



    Your right, beck is not a birther, it kind of blew my mind. Something too farfetched for even Glenn Beck to get behind? What does that tell you about Sarah Palin and Donald Trump! Unlike you, OMG, I will admit when I'm wrong and accept facts and evidence to that contradict what I previously thought, so enough with the ignorance comment, its childish that you feel the need to impose one of your perceived shortcomings to people who disagree with you. I know that Glenn Beck is probably your idol but in the end I am just trying to help you realize he is a fraud.

    He did say that Obama had a deep seated hatred for white culture, which just means white people. You can try to deny this all you want but he never would clarify, which leads to only one logical reasoning behind the comment. He did this with no evidence backing him, just his gut feeling.

    Here are some of the lies for you, and watching that much Glenn Beck about killed me so you better be happy. By the way the second video got removed, I am guessing that somebody filed a complaint against the video. If I was Glenn Beck I bet I could come up with one hell of a conspiracy theory for this! Damn nazi, communist, socialist, liberal Obama took down my video!

    http://lynnrockets.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/glenn-beck-lies-to-his-naive-followers-again/

    Just look at how the man conducts himself on the first video, its like watching a child, painful really. How can you defend this man is beyond me.
Ask a new question

Read More

Politics