Joe Klein and Chris Matthews both got lumps of coal for Christmas. Klein got two for being the ugliest mess on TV.

I’m so surprise that leftist media want to cash in with Glenn Beck rates and popularity.

Who is Joe Klein if not a rebarbative journalist trying to save some liberals extremists.

Klein is a left-wing loon. Beck presents NO conspiracy theories. It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.
Maybe it is Klein that has that bombshell on Beck that GBR keeps pushing? LOL.

Klein would fall apart like an overcooked chicken if he debated Beck.

Beck continually challenges his listeners not to believe him, but to look up what he’s saying on their own, do their own research into the issues he discusses. Klein is a shallow, left wing pontificator who’s opinion is just that – one man’s opinion.

More psuedo-intellectual dross from the left.

Seems more like a Klein fit of jealousy

gordonbloyershow said:
Klein is a left-wing loon. Beck presents NO conspiracy theories. It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.
Maybe it is Klein that has that bombshell on Beck that GBR keeps pushing? LOL.

The Gordon Bloyer show avoided service the same way that his buddy Limbaugh did. Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?

The real story is that these two panty bunchers could’nt draw flies to a shit factory in the middle of August. Hence forth the temper tantrum.

Winners Win and Losers just keep making excuses. Beck draws big ratings, while Matthews little weekend show gets sandwiched between ‘How to Make It Big In Real Estate and ‘The Best of Billy Mayes’.

SarahP said:
The Gordon Bloyer show avoided service the same way that his buddy Limbaugh did. Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?

Just once would you morons stay on topic? Jesus, go next door and kick your neighbors dog if ya need to gratify yourself, but if you’re going to be part of a conversation would you at least stay on point? Once??

TristramShandy said:
Joe Klein and Chris Matthews both got lumps of coal for Christmas. Klein got two for being the ugliest mess on TV.

Hi Tristram – I hope Santa was kind to you and your gravity challenged bags (getting old is a bitch isn’t it?) and provided you with some extreme plastic surgery, a little botox and perhaps a B-12 injection.

timzank said:
Just once would you morons stay on topic? Jesus, go next door and kick your neighbors dog if ya need to gratify yourself, but if you’re going to be part of a conversation would you at least stay on point? Once??

Thanks for that bit of advice dip shit but basically you can go fuck yourself – I’m sure you can work that out.

Harry Flashman said:
Klein would fall apart like an overcooked chicken if he debated Beck.

Beck continually challenges his listeners not to believe him, but to look up what he’s saying on their own, do their own research into the issues he discusses. Klein is a shallow, left wing pontificator who’s opinion is just that – one man’s opinion.

More psuedo-intellectual dross from the left.

Actually chicken that is over-cooked doesn’t fall apart at all and Klein would basically chew Beck up and then promptly spit him out. No contest really.

SarahP said:
Thanks for that bit of advice dip shit but basically you can go fuck yourself – I’m sure you can work that out.

Seriously? Everybody enjoys name calling and a good jab, but at least most people try to keep it a little on topic.

Poor Joe and Tingles are upset that they have no influence and Beck does. Liberal whiners are getting really boring.

timzank said:
Seriously? Everybody enjoys name calling and a good jab, but at least most people try to keep it a little on topic.

Are you the comment police? Honestly officer, I wasn’t speeding!! LOL!!

SarahP said:
Actually chicken that is over-cooked doesn’t fall apart at all and Klein would basically chew Beck up and then promptly spit him out. No contest really.

Klein doesn’t debate, he whines (much like you do).

Boy o boy, sounds like Joe K. touched a nerve. Apparently, the truth hurts, especially where lil’ Becky is concerned.

Why is the left always consumed and obsessed with people on the right – or RWingers??

Need examples?
The leftstream media obsession with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. (Save the “she puts herself and her family out there…that sh*t doesn’t flush)

Another example – GBR’s obsession with Beck, other posters here using Palin’s name and likeness for avatars, and now some lefty stealing Gordon’s name and pic…and on and on and on.

The left in this country is losing it.

timzank said:
Just once would you morons stay on topic? Jesus, go next door and kick your neighbors dog if ya need to gratify yourself, but if you’re going to be part of a conversation would you at least stay on point? Once??

That’s Drive-By Ted for ya’.

timzank said:
Klein doesn’t debate, he whines (much like you do).

But it sounds like you’re whining. Are you sure you’re not whining? There is a very fine line between bitching and whining.

Well SarahP, No I’m not the comment police, but please explain to all of us how this “The Gordon Bloyer show avoided service the same way that his buddy Limbaugh did. Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?” has ANYTHING to do with Hardball, Chris Matthews, or Joe Klein?

SarahP said:
Are you the comment police? Honestly officer, I wasn’t speeding!! LOL!!

No, but you were impersonating a Mediaite commenter.

timzank said:
Well SarahP, No I’m not the comment police, but please explain to all of us how this “The Gordon Bloyer show avoided service the same way that his buddy Limbaugh did. Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?” has ANYTHING to do with Hardball, Chris Matthews, or Joe Klein?

Okay here goes. Gordon Bloyer Show likes to call those he disagrees with liars and cowards and he does so on a consistent basis. Now I didn’t serve but I don’t call everyone I disagree with a coward. In fact, I have the utmost respect for those who did serve. I just wonder where Gordon Bloyer Show stands and where he was when it was his turn to serve given that he is big into cowardice.

Joe Klein: Glenn Beck Is A “Telecharlatan” With A “Phony, Professorial Air”

Tell me about it Joe, I’ve been. I’ve been trying to tell these jokers, but they are like sheep.

Harry Flashman said:
Klein would fall apart like an overcooked chicken if he debated Beck.

r u srs?

Beck has had ONE debate in the last few years when he had that Acorn guy on and started repeating everything the man was saying like a 4 year old child would do.
Then he cut his mike and returned from commercial break break bragging how he physically threw him out of the studio.
Since that embarrassing display Beck has never had a serious opposition voice on his show.

He couldn’t even debate the ladies of the View. He ended up apologizing to them and then getting drunk and not showing up for his own show.

Beck couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag and you have absolutely no proof he can.
If you do I would like to hear it.

SarahP said:
Okay here goes. Gordon Bloyer Show likes to call those he disagrees with liars and cowards and he does so on a consistent basis. Now I didn’t serve but I don’t call everyone I disagree with a coward. In fact, I have the utmost respect for those who did serve. I just wonder where Gordon Bloyer Show stands and where he was when it was his turn to serve given that he is big into cowardice.

And again I ask you, what does that have to do with the article on Joe Klein & Chris Matthews?

timzank said:
And again I ask you, what does that have to do with the article on Joe Klein & Chris Matthews?

Obviously nothing, You don’t like it and frankly I don’t care whether you do or don’t. Enjoy your Sunday.

Sarah P. said:

“Actually chicken that is over-cooked doesn’t fall apart”

It doesn’t? Oh. Thanks. The next time I over-boil or over-bake one and it does that whole fall-off-the-bone thing I’ll remind myself of that. Keep those informed comments coming. Very enlightening.

And BFD – where do you get your information? He got drunk? How do you know that? Or – is it possible tghis is just another leftie using personalo slurs instead of fact to discredit someone they can’t touch otherwise?

Methinks so.

Harry Flashman said:
Sarah P. said:

“Actually chicken that is over-cooked doesn’t fall apart”

It doesn’t? Oh. Thanks. The next time I over-boil or over-bake one and it does that whole fall-off-the-bone thing I’ll remind myself of that. Keep those informed comments coming. Very enlightening.

And BFD – where do you get your information? He got drunk? How do you know that? Or – is it possible tghis is just another leftie using personalo slurs instead of fact to discredit someone they can’t touch otherwise?

Methinks so.

No Harry, when you over cook chicken it has the texture of leather – when it falls off the bone you’ve done well. Glad I could enlighten you but it wasn’t that hard.

I see God didn’t take SarahP from us for Christmas. She seems to be back and stinking up the forum… Well, God bless her and smelly dried zit squeezed armpits.

Harry Flashman said:
He got drunk? How do you know that?

He admitted it on a “call in” that day.
He tried to prove so hard to O’Reilly (I think) that he was really sick, he was selling that phony memo and slurringly talking about taking Nyquil and he had NO IDEA it knocked you for such a loop.

The FIRST rule in recovery is you are responsible for everything that goes into YOUR body, even if a doctor prescribes it.
The second rule of recovery is don’t drink Nyquil like a fucking idiot.

Becks recovery date started over on that day no matter how you look at it.

Still waiting your evidence Beck the master-debater.

BTW, I personally don’t believe his Nyquil story.
He didn’t appear sick on the View that morning then all of a sudden he had the terrible flu and hour later.

Actually I think he was so embarrassed on the View he relapsed, missed his scheduled show, and then made up the memo and Nyquil story. Of course I have no proof, but any 45 year old alcoholic who says on national tv that he has no idea Nyquil sends you for a loop is straight up lying.

Also, he sounded very drunk when he slurred out “HEY!! Hispanic lady chick!!!” on his radio show.

Wake up.

Glen Beck appeals to frustrated, unhappy unsophisticated people who live outside of large cities, who do interact with a wide spectrum of people and most of all people who are not well educated in a broad cultural sense.

The man lies on TV, he tells people to check what he says. It is often false or half truths but the people that watch him are not the type of people who are going to make the effort to do any research. Most of them have no clue how to do research. Klein is 100% right. These people believe in a semi- religious way. They are the type of people who do not question anything, let alone their faith. They assume what they believe in is truth. It is done on an emotional level, not an intellectual level.

I can’t help but see that the descriptions given to Beck could pretty easily be applied to a whole slew of TV news “personalities”.It’s dumb to single out just one when there are so many but then that’s what you do when you’re working to aid a particular agenda.

The news channels and massive corporations behind them have left it up to you the viewer to figure out for yourselves how right or wrong these people are with no accountability what so ever.That allows all these kooks,Beck,Klein and many others to say pretty much anything about anything or anyone and face no real consequences for it.

Once again the solution is simple,don’t watch or pay attention to any of them.

TristramShandy said:
I see God didn’t take SarahP from us for Christmas. She seems to be back and stinking up the forum… Well, God bless her and smelly dried zit squeezed armpits.

Still dragging the sagging flesh across the hardwood floors? That would make anyone, even a skank like you bitter, Tristram.

lunatic-left d-crat socialist ideologues with no foundation or logic to their positions have no way to defend their lunacy except by name calling.

gordonbloyershow said:
Klein is a left-wing loon. Beck presents NO conspiracy theories. It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.
Maybe it is Klein that has that bombshell on Beck that GBR keeps pushing? LOL.

Hey Bloyer, He’s just like you he is one big conspiracy theory. Just like Rush and Coulter people keep on listening to find out what the next big outrageous thing that spews out of their mouths.

P.S. Did you get your family the Glenn Beck survival kit for Christmas??

TeaPartyPatriot said:
lunatic-left d-crat socialist ideologues with no foundation or logic to their positions have no way to defend their lunacy except by name calling.

Yeah, it’s a good thing you don’t resort to name calling. lolol

dhg said:
I can’t help but see that the descriptions given to Beck could pretty easily be applied to a whole slew of TV news “personalities”.It’s dumb to single out just one when there are so many but then that’s what you do when you’re working to aid a particular agenda.

The news channels and massive corporations behind them have left it up to you the viewer to figure out for yourselves how right or wrong these people are with no accountability what so ever.That allows all these kooks,Beck,Klein and many others to say pretty much anything about anything or anyone and face no real consequences for it.

Once again the solution is simple,don’t watch or pay attention to any of them.

How could you put Klein in the same category as Beck? Are you familiar with klein?

armwood said:
people who are not well educated in a broad cultural sense.

Fact: Please groid! You don’t ever have clue what having a working functioning brain works like and feels like! Klein is a ding bat 100%
Telecharlatan. On Webster’s dictionary states; just another blow somebody’s dick word liberals like to use. No really it stated.
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Glen Beck has quite a fan base that listens to what he says and it must ring ring ring of the truth or you, Mediaite’s racist wouldn’t always be pulling out the pitiful display of constantly whining about what he stands for! So quit being so small! Yes small and learn from him!

SarahP said:
even a skank

Fact: I’l give Sarah three arm farts by placing my left hand in right armpit and thrust downward three times! She loves it!

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Please groid! You don’t ever have clue what having a working functioning brain works like and feels like! Klein is a ding bat 100%
Telecharlatan. On Webster’s dictionary states; just another blow somebody’s dick word liberals like to use. No really it stated.
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. Glen Beck has quite a fan base that listens to what he says and it must ring ring ring of the truth or you, Mediaite’s racist wouldn’t always be pulling out the pitiful display of constantly whining about what he stands for! So quit being so small! Yes small and learn from him!

The racist speaks. What do you mean by “groid please” and lets count the number of good “conservatives” that tell you to take your hood and racist act back to storm front.. My guess is zero.

Regardless, you can tell us what mean by “groid please.”

SmartAlec said:
some lefty stealing Gordon’s name and pic

Fact: Would be funny? But the way it was used is not cool!

I am a firm believer in peace through negotiation and compromise. In the case of the US their hard line stance of ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’ is all well and good. However I am searching my brain stem and cranial contents for anything resembling a negotiation from the onset of wars present and past.

We declared war on ‘the ghosts of history’ without even finding out what the heck they want? Most conflicts can be avoided except when most standards have been violated and compromise cannot be met nor satisfied. War is always the last resort.

The US is not considered world friendly if they will jump into any and all frays at their whim and not the established protocol of global welfare and behavior. The question is always ‘Is it easier to make an enemy your friend, turn a friend into a enemy or ignore either of those precepts.’

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Would be funny? But the way it was used is not cool!

Hey asshole, why the hood?

SarahP said:
My guess is

Fact: This dog humps my leg on every post! Creepy very creepy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT5NeZnHcqU

Just4thefax said:
Fact: I’l give Sarah three arm farts by placing my left hand in right armpit and thrust downward three times! She loves it!

As long as you get yours from the fun loving boys at storm front, right?

SarahP said:
Hey asshole, why the hood?

Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uXk-YbZ8Q

Just4thefax said:
Fact: This dog humps my leg on every post! Creepy very creepy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT5NeZnHcqU

You wear a hood, you use terms like “fag” and “wetback” and “groid” – my guess is you belong to storm front and the thing humping your leg is your dog.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uXk-YbZ8Q

Are you going to tell us why you wear a hood or are you going to tuck your tail again and cut and run?

SarahP said:
You wear a hood, you use terms like “fag” and “wetback” and “groid” – my guess is you belong to storm front and the thing humping your leg is your dog.

Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfE51W1eZfQ

armwoody lackey!

Just4thefax said:
Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfE51W1eZfQ

armwoody lackey!

Just as I thought. Another gutless racist who doesn’t have the balls to come clean about it. Figures.

SarahP said:
Just as I thought. Another gutless racist who doesn’t have the balls to come clean about it. Figures.

Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFN9pxfGu0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Just4thefax said:
Fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFN9pxfGu0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

The racist has no guts and no balls.

armwood said:
unsophisticated people

armwood said:
people who are not well educated

armwood said:
Most of them have no clue how to do research

armwood said:
It is done on an emotional level, not an intellectual level.

Once again, leftarmywoody shows up to remind us how smart he is and how stupid everyone with a differing opinion is.

Thanks, I almost forgot.

btw-you need to get a refund on your alleged education. Your posts do not reflect anyone with an education beyond high school.

SarahP said:
The racist has no guts and no balls.

Fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFN9pxfGu0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

The POS known as just4thefax took his little balls and evidently went home for a cross burning.

To all you “tolerant” conservatives who haven’t said word one about his blatant racism…I’m not surprised.

Just4thefax said:
Fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKFN9pxfGu0&NR=1&feature=fvwp

No guts, no balls, all racism all the time.

I stand corrected – the pos racist known as Just4thefax did not take his little balls and go home – he’s posting cute youtube videos.

SarahP said:
The POS known as just4thefax took his little balls and evidently went home for a cross burning. To all you “tolerant” conservatives who haven’t said word one about his blatant racism…I’m not surprised.

I don’t think they are tolerant. I think they are in total agreement with him. Only have less balls than him to admit it.

w_t_f said:
I don’t think they are tolerant. I think they are in total agreement with him. Only have less balls than him to admit it.

Appears that you are correct. Pathetic but apparently true.

And WHO is Joe Klein? Some little opinion columnist of a magazine hardly anyone reads anymore? Hey Joe, it must suck that none of your books have become New York Times’ bestsellers, doesn’t it? It’s sooo easy to criticize those who are successful and have MILLIONS of followers. Yeah Klein, keep hiding on MSNBC, nothing like a friendly audience for a no-good elite Yankee writer terrified of real debate.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

Blockquote>I stand corrected – the pos racist known as Just4thefax did not take his little balls and go home – he’s posting cute youtube videos.

Can we end this?

lazzzlo said:
Blockquote>I stand corrected – the pos racist known as Just4thefax did not take his little balls and go home – he’s posting cute youtube videos.

Can we end this?

I don’t know – what do you think of the racist comments from Just4thefax? You approve?

I had to check this out. Joe Klein gently, too gently, points out that Glenn Beck is a ‘telecharlatan.’ Actually he is a leader of ignorance as a political movement, the Tealiban. The Beck apologists have nothing of significance to say, they’re essentially the Niedermeyers of the world banded together under the bannder of Beck, the Birch Society and the Tealiban.

lazzzlo said:
Blockquote>I stand corrected – the pos racist known as Just4thefax did not take his little balls and go home – he’s posting cute youtube videos.

Can we end this?

The truth is lazzzlo, the so called “conservatives” on this site could have ended this a long time ago by telling this pos racist with little balls known as just4thefaxt to take his hood and go home, But not one, not one of you so called “conservative” called this asshole on his racism which speaks volumes. You “conservatives” not only have “values” but you’ve got guts. LOL!!

You’re handling jus4 just fine, Sarah. Fact: Look for him to change his screenname and disappear soon.

SarahP said:
racist with little balls

Fact: Two left nuts were on the Mediaite site. They started discussing Sarah P,and one of the Left nut said, “Gonna be a good night, I smell cock in the air. “The other left nut looked at the other left nut and said, “No, Sarah P just burped. “

Bill Adkins said:
You’re handling jus4 just fine, Sarah. Fact: Look for him to change his screenname and disappear soon.

It is astonishing that not a single so called conservative has stepped up to the plate and told this pos where to stick his hood – Which may tell us something very disturbing about the so called conservatives that post on this site.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Two left nuts were on the Mediaite site. They started discussing Sarah P,and one of the Left nut said, “Gonna be a good night, I smell cock in the air. “The other left nut looked at the other left nut and said, “No, Sarah P just burped. ”

I think you have me confused with the fun loving boys at storm front.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Two left nuts were on the Mediaite site. They started discussing Sarah P,and one of the Left nut said, “Gonna be a good night, I smell cock in the air. “The other left nut looked at the other left nut and said, “No, Sarah P just burped. ”

These kinds of comments come typically from someone who is about to evacuate. In your case that would mean both shit in your pants and leave.

SarahP said:
I think you have me confused with the fun loving boys at storm front.

Oh, just4 used to call himself ‘tylerdurden.’

Bill Adkins said:
change his screenname and disappear soon.

Fact: A D-bagger opens up Mediaite’s web site. After a few minutes he reads then turns and post with a loony lefty look and smells and smells and then post, “Can I smell your pussy on my PC? ” Sarah P replies to the post disgusted and types, “Certainly not your a racist!” “Hmmm,” Then the D-bagger smells again and replies. “It must be your feet that is stinking up your postings, then. “

Just4thefax said:
Fact: A D-bagger opens up Mediaite’s web site. After a few minutes he reads then turns and post with a loony lefty look and smells and smells and then post, “Can I smell your pussy on my PC? ” Sarah P replies to the post disgusted and types, “Certainly not your a racist!” “Hmmm,” Then the D-bagger smells again and replies. “It must be your feet that is stinking up your postings, then. ”

That’s really pretty bad. Regardless you are still a pos racist with very tiny balls.

i

Just4thefax said:
Fact: A D-bagger opens up Mediaite’s web site. After a few minutes he reads then turns and post with a loony lefty look and smells and smells and then post, “Can I smell your pussy on my PC? ” Sarah P replies to the post disgusted and types, “Certainly not your a racist!” “Hmmm,” Then the D-bagger smells again and replies. “It must be your feet that is stinking up your postings, then. ”

Ahh, yes – tyler is back Fact: An idiot like Tyler can change his screenname – but he can’t hide his idiocy. So, Tyler, where’ve you been?

Just4thefax said:
Fact: A D-bagger opens up Mediaite’s web site. After a few minutes he reads then turns and post with a loony lefty look and smells and smells and then post, “Can I smell your pussy on my PC? ” Sarah P replies to the post disgusted and types, “Certainly not your a racist!” “Hmmm,” Then the D-bagger smells again and replies. “It must be your feet that is stinking up your postings, then. ”

PS – Its “…you’re a racist” not “your a racist.” Not a chance in hell that you were ever a teacher.

Bill Adkins said:
i

Ahh, yes – tyler is back Fact: An idiot like Tyler can change his screenname – but he can’t hide his idiocy. So, Tyler, where’ve you been?

So now we have a name to go with the hood.

Wow…Mediaite needs to implement some type of troll reporting mechanism …. not going to stick around here when every article gets run over by fuckwads like SarahP instead of having real discourse.

Kspraydad said:
Wow…Mediaite needs to implement some type of troll reporting mechanism …. not going to stick around here when every article gets run over by fuckwads like SarahP instead of having real discourse.

Go fuck yourself dip shit.

SarahP said:
The POS known as just4thefax took his little balls and evidently went home for a cross burning. To all you “tolerant” conservatives who haven’t said word one about his blatant racism…I’m not surprised.

I guess I answer that question for you. It’s because when we (and I say “we” as in the few responsible people from both the left and right) see your name, fax, or w_t_f, BFD, and so on… well, we read them for the chuckle, imagine you guys pounding on the desk… and then move on.

Frankly, we just don’t care about you. And while you insist on stalking people around this site, attempting to ruin what little value it contains, most of us don’t see much of a difference between your posts, and the ones telling us about great websites that will sell us discount shoes. It’s just typed noise.

Sorry if you thought you were more than that. You’re not.

SarahP said:
Go fuck yourself dip shit.

No really. You’re comment pollution. Incessant, inane and ignorant. If you ever made a point it would die of loneliness. You’re like a yappy little mutt that simply can’t shut up, and has to constantly announce its existence.

Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, Now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, teabagger, teabagger, teabagger!

You’re like a broken record without the rhythm.

ImNotBlue said:
I guess I answer that question for you. It’s because when we (and I say “we” as in the few responsible people from both the left and right) see your name, fax, or w_t_f, BFD, and so on… well, we read them for the chuckle, imagine you guys pounding on the desk… and then move on.

Frankly, we just don’t care about you. And while you insist on stalking people around this site, attempting to ruin what little value it contains, most of us don’t see much of a difference between your posts, and the ones telling us about great websites that will sell us discount shoes. It’s just typed noise.

Sorry if you thought you were more than that. You’re not.

Jesus – cut the sanctimonious bullshit. You either support a racist or you don’t. I think even you can wrap your mind around that but I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. Please – grow pair and man up.

Pablo said:
No really. You’re comment pollution. Incessant, inane and ignorant. If you ever made a point it would die of loneliness. You’re like a yappy little mutt that simply can’t shut up, and has to constantly announce its existence.

Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, I’m Ted, Now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, now I’m SarahP, teabagger, teabagger, teabagger!

You’re like a broken record without the rhythm.

You are a blithering idiot – that much we know to be consistent. And I did not hear a word from you about the racist comments from just4thefaxs. Go figure.

SarahP said:
Jesus – cut the sanctimonious bullshit. You either support a racist or you don’t.

I thought I made this clear, but I’ll say it again:

I don’t support “the racist,” I don’t support you, I -and most of the people who read this site- don’t care what either of you have to say about each other, or the world in general. You folks are a waste of time.

Now move aside so the adults can talk.

SarahP said:
The Gordon Bloyer show avoided service the same way that his buddy Limbaugh did. Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?

What time do they let you out of the cuffs?

SarahP said:
Jesus – cut the sanctimonious bullshit. You either support a racist or you don’t. I think even you can wrap your mind around that but I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. Please – grow pair and man up.

It’s sad to see someone so desperate that they would deign to defend Tyler4chuckles. IMB likes his choir, i.e., Pablo, and you and I are supposed to be – - what? Surprised?

ImNotBlue said:
I thought I made this clear, but I’ll say it again:

I don’t support “the racist,” I don’t support you, I -and most of the people who read this site- don’t care what either of you have to say about each other, or the world in general. You folks are a waste of time.

Now move aside so the adults can talk.

That means you would need to leave. Buh bye and thanks for the brain dead conversation. And yes, your silence is indeed an indication that you support racism. Sorry – deal with it.

Bill Adkins said:
It’s sad to see someone so desperate that they would deign to defend Tyler4chuckles. IMB likes his choir, i.e., Pablo, and you and I are supposed to be – – what? Surprised?

Again, not one of these values driven conservatives has said a word about the racists but rather have decided to attack me for attacking the racist. We should not be surprised – we’re dealing with the brain dead.

gordonbloyershow said:
What time do they let you out of the cuffs?

Isn’t time for you to have an anal cyst?

SarahP said:
Okay here goes. Gordon Bloyer Show likes to call those he disagrees with liars and cowards and he does so on a consistent basis. Now I didn’t serve but I don’t call everyone I disagree with a coward. In fact, I have the utmost respect for those who did serve. I just wonder where Gordon Bloyer Show stands and where he was when it was his turn to serve given that he is big into cowardice.

This is just another lie by the coward hiding behind the Palin photo and name. Anybody can tell that you are a coward or you would not be hiding behind her name.
What part of “I enlisted” don’t you understand?

gordonbloyershow said:
This is just another lie by the coward hiding behind the Palin photo and name. Anybody can tell that you are a coward or you would not be hiding behind her name.
What part of “I enlisted” don’t you understand?

You my anally challenged friend are both a Rush Limbaugh coward and a Glen Beck liar.

ImNotBlue said:
I don’t support “the racist,” I don’t support you, I -and most of the people who read this site- don’t care what either of you have to say about each other, or the world in general. You folks are a waste of time.

Now move aside so the adults can talk.

Seconded.

Pablo said:
Seconded.

Well congrats – you “seconded’ it. You and ImNotBlue have more courage than anyone could have ever imagined. You bot.h don’t support racism and you don’t support me. That’s big of you Pablo.

This is where this thread went south….

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-klein-glenn-beck-is-a-telecharlatan-with-a-phony-professorial-air/#comment-253530

There was no saving it after that.

Maybe if Ted/ElaineB/SarahP post another fifty or so comments crying “Racist!” the thread will greatly improve. Probably not, though. But I guess we’re gonna find out.

Pablo said:
Maybe if Ted/ElaineB/SarahP post another fifty or so comments crying “Racist!” the thread will greatly improve. Probably not, though. But I guess we’re gonna find out.

Ignorance is really no excuse. You either support what Just4thefax said or you don’t. The issue is black and white so I’m not sure why you are having a problem wrapping your head around this.

Anyone who has live Mormonism knows Beck has everything to do with the Birch Society. Any one who thinks otherwise is naive to Mormonism and has never lived it, never breathed it.

John Birch and the Birch Society REEKS thru the right wing of Mormonism. It’s stupid to claim otherwise, or at least NAIVE!!!.

gordonbloyershow said:
Klein is a left-wing loon. Beck presents NO conspiracy theories. It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.
Maybe it is Klein that has that bombshell on Beck that GBR keeps pushing? LOL.

OH Boy, Gordon. YOU are really naive to Mormonism and clearly have never lived it’s right-winged way of living. Do yourself a big educational favor and do some objective educational reading on Ezra T Benson. You won’t come off as so incredibly ignorant

Good God, y’all are vocal.

Why don’t we just get an area that is only challenged by quirky IP adresses. That way we can group the problem children together and have fun with statistics.

Otherwise, act your age and intelligence.

He makes more money than you , Joey!

LOL

SarahP said:
The POS known as just4thefax took his little balls and evidently went home for a cross burning.

To all you “tolerant” conservatives who haven’t said word one about his blatant racism…I’m not surprised.

You are a racist.

SarahP said:
attack me for attacking the racist

Fact: I’m not a racist! You are the racist and so is armwoody! Bill Adkins is a left nut D-bagger! I hope we are all straight now!

Fact: The four loony lefties on the panel should get the “Chutzpah” award! They still don’t get it! Like Sarah Palin said How is the hopey changey working for you! That is a fact!

Harry Flashman said:
Klein would fall apart like an overcooked chicken if he debated Beck.

Beck continually challenges his listeners not to believe him, but to look up what he’s saying on their own, do their own research into the issues he discusses. Klein is a shallow, left wing pontificator who’s opinion is just that – one man’s opinion.

More psuedo-intellectual dross from the left.

IMO that’s all part of the act.. I imagine most of his audience sees that as conformation that it must be true, while those who are able to do critical research on his claims soon become ex viewers.

When does Beck have guests on to offer their side of the story. As he criticizes and pulls quotes out of context to form his “theories” and “conclusions” when does he allow those people on his show to offer their side of the discussion?

SarahP said:
your silence is indeed an indication that you support racism

horseshit

Oh, Chris Matthews and his band of liberal partisan hacks hate conservatives?

Yawn. Wake me up when something interesting happens.

SarahP -

Wow, you are a really lonely person. Maybe if you weren’t so filled with hatred, you would have some friends and wouldn’t need to spend your entire Sunday afternoon telling us how much you hate people you have never met. LOL

CosmosDan said:
IMO that’s all part of the act.. I imagine most of his audience sees that as conformation that it must be true, while those who are able to do critical research on his claims soon become ex viewers.

When does Beck have guests on to offer their side of the story. As he criticizes and pulls quotes out of context to form his “theories” and “conclusions” when does he allow those people on his show to offer their side of the discussion?

You can apply that logic to all media these days.

BFD said:
Since that embarrassing display Beck has never had a serious opposition voice on his show.

He doesn’t really have any guests on his show. Occasionally he has an author on his show.

BFD said:
He couldn’t even debate the ladies of the View. He ended up apologizing to them and then getting drunk and not showing up for his own show.

Seven-Minute Slam: The Inside Story of Glenn Beck’s ‘Ambush’ on ‘The View’

Dear GordonBlo:

You are a very funny fellow. Even the JBS disagrees with you about their influence on Beck.

http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6372-glenn-beck-recapitulates-the-john-

gordonbloyershow said:
Klein is a left-wing loon. Beck presents NO conspiracy theories. It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.

-society

BFD said:
Of course I have no proof, but any 45 year old alcoholic who says on national tv that he has no idea Nyquil sends you for a loop is straight up lying.

Yup!

Beck has been challenged several times to debate and/or discuss his assertions by several capable people and I haven’t heard of him accepting yet.
If someone was truly concerned about getting the answers to questions, and presenting his audience with the proper information he’d have theses guests on.

I think he’s hesitant since the Eric Massa debacle. All it takes is convincing his screeners on his radio show for those truly interested though.

Dear GordonBlo:

Or if you don’t find the JBS a credible source on who is emulating them how about this:

“What Beck gave these new viewers, though, was a blast from the radical past, and more specifically, the John Birch Society’s radical past.

At New Majority.com, David Frum writes, “The audience for Beck’s Friday night special were each given copies of two books. One of them was Cleon Skousen’s ‘Five Thousand Year Leap.’ Skousen, who died in 2006, is one of the legendary cranks of the conservative world, a John Bircher, a grand fantasist of theories about secret conspiracies between capitalists and communists to impose a one-world government under the control of David Rockefeller.” (Hat-tip to Andrew Sullivan.)

What Frum missed, though, was that the other book Beck promoted, “The Real George Washington,” has its own Skousen connection. It was published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which Skousen founded.”
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/03/17/beck

Like that any better?

So! A haughty Liberal media elite from TIME Magazine deigns to declare that someone ELSE is ‘professorial?’ That’s rich.

SmartAlec said:
Once again, leftarmywoody shows up to remind us how smart he is and how stupid everyone with a differing opinion is.

Thanks, I almost forgot.

btw-you need to get a refund on your alleged education. Your posts do not reflect anyone with an education beyond high school.

No, not everyone, just people who behave and think like you and Just4thefax. Your crudeness as well as his only degrade yourselves and your political positions.

armwood said:
No, not everyone, just people who behave and think like you and Just4thefax. Your crudeness as well as his only degrade yourselves and your political positions.

In all fairness, four out of every five people who comment on this site do so in a crude manner.

Kird said:
You can apply that logic to all media these days.

So you’re saying they are all as phony as Beck?

Beck keeps saying check it out, look it up , don’t just take my word for it, and often uses the ploy , “Well I don’t know, I’m just asking questions” as he makes assertions and draws conclusions from carefully selected facts and soundbites.

It is the fact that he doesn’t have guests on to present another side of the story, even the very people he is criticizing after they ask to come on. can you think of another example in the media of someone who has refused to let someone they were criticizing come on their show? All the while Beck plays the Christian card and talks about being concerned about the truth. Where’s the Christian principle in criticizing someone on the air, and then refusing to let them come one and discuss it or offer their side of the story? Where’s the concern for the truth if you don’t want your audience to hear an alternative view or opposing facts?
He’s a sham , plain and simple.

AngelPeters said:
OH Boy, Gordon. YOU are really naive to Mormonism and clearly have never lived it’s right-winged way of living. Do yourself a big educational favor and do some objective educational reading on Ezra T Benson. You won’t come off as so incredibly ignorant

You need to see a doctor. I know all about the Birch Society moron. I know what they believe and I know what Beck has said. They are not related. You are INSANE.

CosmosDan said:
Yup! Beck has been challenged several times to debate and/or discuss his assertions by several capable people and I haven’t heard of him accepting yet.If someone was truly concerned about getting the answers to questions, and presenting his audience with the proper information he’d have theses guests on.

Like I said in my above comment, Beck doesn’t really have any guests on. He has the occasional author, but nobody else really comes on. It’s the Glenn Beck program. Not the Glenn Beck and Jim Wallis show. He’s under no obligation to have anybody on his show. I believe you said something similar about Stewart when I brought up how Maddow lied. http://johnnydollar.us/files/101107fhwir.php Not that he doesn’t have guests that he disagrees with, but that he didn’t adress the whole Rachel Maddow lying thing.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/epic-jon-stewart-turns-glenn-becks-george-soros-conspiracies-on-glenn-beck/#comment-220776

CosmosDan said:
It’s Jon’s show and he get’s to decide what to cover and how. He has his bias to and it is a comedy show.

If you want to talk about avoiding debates, I think we should talk about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpkn-gicCg

Speaking of getting proper information, I think that link about Glenn Beck’s appearance on “the view” I posted is a good example of not gettng proper information. If you only saw the clip from the view you’d think Glenn was lying on the view.

Kird said:
In all fairness, four out of every five people who comment on this site do so in a crude manner.

When someone reacts to post discussing substantive issues it is inappropriate to respond with personal attacks. Making fun of peoples names is inappropriate. What 4 out of 5 people do is irrelevant to concerns for morality and rightness. Popularity is generally the lowest common denominator. McDonalds is the most popular restaurant in the world. Would you argue that it is the best? Would you choose to eat a McDonalds hamburger as your first choice for burgers?

In all fairness being nasty, making fun a peoples names and attacking people is not fair. You sense of fairness seems to make excuse for those who engage in crude and inappropriate behavior. Where are your standards? If more people spoke up on this site we could raise the level of discussion. Reasonable people can disagree. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can disagree without personal attacks and making degrading comments about each other. I am just asking for some civility. I do not think that is to much to ask.

Dear greg454:
Your comment might have been sensible had it been based in fact.

greg454 said:
Hey Joe, it must suck that none of your books have become New York Times’ bestsellers, doesn’t it? It’s sooo easy to criticize those who are successful and have MILLIONS of followers.

Unfortunately, it was not. As your elementary school teachers must have said:”Read, read, read!”

Yet Klein is probably best known for being unknown. He was the anonymous author of “Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics,” based on Clinton’s 1992 run for the presidency. It held the No. 1 spot on The Times’s fiction best-seller list for nine weeks in 1996.

CosmosDan said:
can you think of another example in the media of someone who has refused to let someone they were criticizing come on their show? [edit] Where’s the concern for the truth if you don’t want your audience to hear an alternative view or opposing facts?

Keith Olbermann off the top my head in the political sphere. I was actually mostly responding to this part of your original post that I quoted though:

I imagine most of his audience sees that as conformation that it must be true, while those who are able to do critical research on his claims soon become ex viewers.

Most viewers don’t research topics raised on media outlets like “Good Morning America,” “Meet the Press” etc. They take opinions expressed as fact. Hence the logic.

leftofsocialist said:
Or if you don’t find the JBS a credible source on who is emulating them how about this:

When did I say that everything the Birch Society believes is wrong. They do present the truth about Communism and that is where the comparison ends. Joe McCarthy was right and it has been proven by William F. Buckley and Ann Coulter.

CosmosDan said:
So you’re saying they are all as phony as Beck? Beck keeps saying check it out, look it up , don’t just take my word for it, and often uses the ploy , “Well I don’t know, I’m just asking questions” as he makes assertions and draws conclusions from carefully selected facts and soundbites. It is the fact that he doesn’t have guests on to present another side of the story, even the very people he is criticizing after they ask to come on. can you think of another example in the media of someone who has refused to let someone they were criticizing come on their show? All the while Beck plays the Christian card and talks about being concerned about the truth. Where’s the Christian principle in criticizing someone on the air, and then refusing to let them come one and discuss it or offer their side of the story? Where’s the concern for the truth if you don’t want your audience to hear an alternative view or opposing facts?He’s a sham , plain and simple.

How about K.O.

Calvin said:
Like I said in my above comment, Beck doesn’t really have any guests on.

Calvin, these clowns don’t want the truth. Beck has publicly invited Van Jones, Obama, Biden and many others to be on his show. They decline. They are the cowards.

leftofsocialist said:
Dear greg454:
Your comment might have been sensible had it been based in fact.

Unfortunately, it was not. As your elementary school teachers must have said:”Read, read, read!”

Yet Klein is probably best known for being unknown. He was the anonymous author of “Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics,” based on Clinton’s 1992 run for the presidency. It held the No. 1 spot on The Times’s fiction best-seller list for nine weeks in 1996.

Joe Kein has been a regular on the Sunday news shows for years. I have read his column, in the New Yorker, dating back from the mid nineties. For someone to call Joe Klein an unknown says a lot more about the person uttering that comment than it does about Joe Klein. Geez!

armwood said:
I am just asking for some civility. I do not think that is to much to ask.

I completely agree with you, but I know what I’m exposing myself too when I wad through the comments here and choose to participate. Right or left, its an avalanche of sludge here as I expect it to be.

Kird said:
I completely agree with you, but I know what I’m exposing myself too when I wad through the comments here and choose to participate. Right or left, its an avalanche of sludge here as I expect it to be.

I agree with you on that but I still think it is important to try and lift the level of discourse.

armwood said:
I agree with you on that but I still think it is important to try and lift the level of discourse.

I can’t argue with idea of that. I can only question the odds of achieving it.

Calvin said:
He doesn’t really have any guests on his show. Occasionally he has an author on his show.

Right. He regularly will criticize others and take select quotes to do so, but they ask to come on his show and discuss it, no go.

Dear GordonBlo:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave….
Or is it just inept casuistry? I’ll report, you decide, fellow readers.

gordonbloyershow said:When did I say that everything the Birch Society believes is wrong.

gordonbloyershow said:
It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.

Now, while I’ll grant GordonBlo that even “nuts” say sane things at times without knowing it, generally one doesn’t cite “nuts” as their source for ANY information.

gar said:
How about K.O.

Don’t like Keith much but give me a specific example of him not letting someone come on his show , who actually offered to come on and talk to him, or defend themselves against something he said. Maybe it happened.
I’m just saying there’s a specific difference between network bias, and not letting someone you’ve criticized come on to defend themselves after they’ve asked to.

Dear Mr/Ms Armwood:

The comment on Joe Klein was commendatory and made reference to his anonymity in the context of his having been the anonymous author of Primary Colors. I was citing the remark as part of a continuing education project for some contributors to this forum. “best known for being unknown” as the anonymous author. This was an editor’s remark in the Sunday Times Book Review section and I’m confident it was simply meant as a witticsm, admittedly lame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Upfront-t.html

CosmosDan said:
Right. He regularly will criticize others and take select quotes to do so, but they ask to come on his show and discuss it, no go.

Is this still about Jim Wallis?

CosmosDan said:
Don’t like Keith much but give me a specific example of him not letting someone come on his show , who actually offered to come on and talk to him, or defend themselves against something he said. Maybe it happened.
I’m just saying there’s a specific difference between network bias, and not letting someone you’ve criticized come on to defend themselves after they’ve asked to.

Bristol Palin

CosmosDan said:
Right. He regularly will criticize others and take select quotes to do so, but they ask to come on his show and discuss it, no go.

BTW, he has offered George Soros the whole hour on his show to talk.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-called-on-carpet-by-bosses-for-bashing-bristol-palin/

leftofsocialist said:
Dear Mr/Ms Armwood:

The comment on Joe Klein was commendatory and made reference to his anonymity in the context of his having been the anonymous author of Primary Colors. I was citing the remark as part of a continuing education project for some contributors to this forum. “best known for being unknown” as the anonymous author. This was an editor’s remark in the Sunday Times Book Review section and I’m confident it was simply meant as a witticsm, admittedly lame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Upfront-t.html

Gotcha, point taken!

Dear Readers:

There are many who have expressed criticism of Glenn Beck on air. Glenn Beck has expressed criticism of many who are on air. Has Glenn asked, and been refused, time on the shows of these other people? If not, why not? If so, could you direct me to sources on this? Many thanks.

leftofsocialist said:
Dear Readers:

There are many who have expressed criticism of Glenn Beck on air. Glenn Beck has expressed criticism of many who are on air. Has Glenn asked, and been refused, time on the shows of these other people? If not, why not? If so, could you direct me to sources on this? Many thanks.

Does anybody listen to Beck’s radio show? I’m curious to know how many listener calls he takes and if dissenting calls get through.

leftofsocialist said:
Dear Readers: There are many who have expressed criticism of Glenn Beck on air. Glenn Beck has expressed criticism of many who are on air. Has Glenn asked, and been refused, time on the shows of these other people? If not, why not? If so, could you direct me to sources on this? Many thanks.

Off the top of my head, I believe he has asked for an apology from the following people: Barbara Walters, Politico, and Forbes magazine.

Kird said:
Does anybody listen to Beck’s radio show? I’m curious to know how many listener calls he takes and if dissenting calls get through.

He used to take them pretty regularly, but not so much anymore. Seems like he hardly takes any callers lately. Ones that agree with him or don’t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91eRwD2ojm0

Dear Kird:

For a start you might try youtube for the clip of Glenn and a caller disagreeing and his Jul 15, 2009 emission. Delightful repartee, full of wit and whim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10

Not really suitable for a beginning class in rhetoric, unless perhaps as a so-called counter-example.

Dear Calvin:

I’m afraid you misread my question. I was wondering if Glenn has volunteered to debate on their shows others who have criticized him. I wasn’t at the time particularly interested in from whom he was demanding an apology. We might pursue that at another time.

leftofsocialist said:
Dear Calvin: I’m afraid you misread my question. I was wondering if Glenn has volunteered to debate on their shows others who have criticized him. I wasn’t at the time particularly interested in from whom he was demanding an apology. We might pursue that at another time.

Isn’t refusing to apologize equal to not letting someone come on their show? Especially when the people he wants an apology from are clearly wrong. Otherwise, viewers/readers will think that Glenn was lying when he wasn’t.

Calvin said:
Like I said in my above comment, Beck doesn’t really have any guests on. He has the occasional author, but nobody else really comes on. It’s the Glenn Beck program. Not the Glenn Beck and Jim Wallis show. He’s under no obligation to have anybody on his show.

No contractual obligation to be sure. Given his rhetoric about the truth, God, asking people to check it out, and his common,” I’m not sure I’m just asking questions,” he creates with his own choice of words and tone, an ethical obligation. If you attack someone on the air on a regular basis , and you claim to have some concern for the truth , and love for Christian principles , you’ve created an ethical obligation to allow that person to discuss it with you.
With Wallis it was a personal criticism directed at Wallis, There was also at least one other incident that I’m aware of when he was railing against Black Liberation Theology and calling it a perversion of the gospel , he was challenged to a debate on BLT and never accepted although he continued to criticize it for days.

Calvin said:
I believe you said something similar about Stewart when I brought up how Maddow lied.

There’s a significant difference between choosing to not cover something and refusing to let someone you have repeatedly criticized come one to defend themselves. Jon has had people from Fox and MSNBC on and has gone on both networks. Do you imagine he would refuse to let Glenn come on? Hardly.

Calvin said:
If you want to talk about avoiding debates, I think we should talk about this:

What?? Let’s stick to reporters and or commentators who make their living discussing the issues.

Calvin said:
Speaking of getting proper information, I think that link about Glenn Beck’s appearance on “the view” I posted is a good example of not gettng proper information. If you only saw the clip from the view you’d think Glenn was lying on the view.

Since Beck’s defenders like Stu like to get technical, I’ll point out that neither Whoopie or Barbara said Beck was lying about being told the seat was reserved. Their objection was his caricature of Babara which was clearly mocking her as if she was acting superior and getting special treatment.
Another technicality, since the guy from Amtrak said they do occasionally reserve seats for groups or regulars,{not just celebrities} his whole point of stressing “you can’t reserve seats” was bogus wasn’t it?

And why exactly is that guy making a point about the view devoting 7 minutes to that,rather that N Korea or other relevant issues, when Beck had devoted part of his radio show to it? Who committed that offense first?

Who the hell is Joe Klein and what monkey’s butt did he fall out of?

Kird said:
Most viewers don’t research topics raised on media outlets like “Good Morning America,” “Meet the Press” etc. They take opinions expressed as fact. Hence the logic.

I agree with you there. That seems to say that his asking people to research it themselves is just a superficial act.

I suppose when I watched him spout off about Black Liberation theology one day after praising MLK I should have written to tell him he was full of it after I did the research.

Kird said:
Bristol Palin

I read a little about that. Did she ask to go on his show to respond, or just respond through the media?

btw; Olberman was a total ass on that one.

Calvin said:
BTW, he has offered George Soros the whole hour on his show to talk.

Good for him. It makes you wonder why he refuses others who volunteer doesn’t it?

Calvin said:
Isn’t refusing to apologize equal to not letting someone come on their show?

It certainly isn’t. Are apples the same as oranges?

CosmosDan said:
I agree with you there. That seems to say that his asking people to research it themselves is just a superficial act.

I suppose when I watched him spout off about Black Liberation theology one day after praising MLK I should have written to tell him he was full of it after I did the research.

Would you care to share your research on the topic? I’ve been looking at it for quite some time and it looks to me like it’s Marxism in African garb, tailored for a resentful American audience. Like Kwanzaa.

A big part of it is simply that Klein is jealous. We’re all jealous of some people, but I think Klein is frustrated that he can’t understand HOW Beck is so successful. And the reason is liberals like Klein can’t fathom conservatives.

They can’t fathom conservatives because the liberal imperative is to force everything to be “equal” and Beck (and the others) are working according a system that works to make things better.

So Klein is pissed that Beck is educating people. This is why liberals not only say Fox, Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. are wrong, but that they should be censored.

These people are literally a threat to liberalism so they are working to eliminate the threat.

But more and more people are figuring out that liberalism suck as it only ends up hurting people. Just watch the FCC as they Left will work to try to silence the speech that they don’t like.

Dear Nahu:

What an engaging name! I’m afraid I’m not familiar with the custom of observing what comes out of a monkey’s butt, but if you were asking about Joe Klein’s bona fides we could start with his degree from the University of Pennsylvania, currently ranked as tied with Stanford as #5 in Tier 1 of national universities.

Nahu Tuk said:
Who the hell is Joe Klein and what monkey’s butt did he fall out of?

Memorable Beck interviews, none of which ever happened because he never does that sort of thing:

Dick Blumenthal

Debra Medina

ACORN spokesmouth Scott Levinson

Then, there’s the legendary Eric Massa. You can’t forget that one, because that interview virtually ended Beck’s career, or so I heard.

gordonbloyershow said:
You need to see a doctor. I know all about the Birch Society moron. I know what they believe and I know what Beck has said. They are not related. You are INSANE.

You dont know a damned thing about Mormonism, do you?
And you call me insane? At least I am educated about the background that Beck is coming from. It’s obvious you know nada about what he is exposed to every Sunday.

Pray tell, Gordon, when was the last time you sat thru a Mormon sacrament meeting? A Mormon Sunday School lesson, or a Mormon Elders quorum meeting? Mmmm. Thought so.

AngelPeters said:
You dont know a damned thing about Mormonism, do you?And you call me insane? At least I am educated about the background that Beck is coming from. It’s obvious you know nada about what he is exposed to every Sunday.

Beck is a converted Mormon, dummy. That is NOT his background. I know more about Mormons than you know about Beck.

CosmosDan said:
Another technicality, since the guy from Amtrak said they do occasionally reserve seats for groups or regulars,{not just celebrities} his whole point of stressing “you can’t reserve seats” was bogus wasn’t it?

CosmosDan said:
Since Beck’s defenders like Stu like to get technical, I’ll point out that neither Whoopie or Barbara said Beck was lying about being told the seat was reserved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csTS7fk01iI&feature=channel (skip to 3:47)

CosmosDan said:
Another technicality, since the guy from Amtrak said they do occasionally reserve seats for groups or regulars,{not just celebrities} his whole point of stressing “you can’t reserve seats” was bogus wasn’t it?

http://tv.breitbart.com/amtrak-refuses-to-investigate-becks-claim-of-reserved-seating-for-walters-whoopi/ (skip to 7:20) He said that it’s not common policy to reserve tables on Amtrak, but they’re not going to look into it. Like I pointed out above, Goldberg did say that they didn’t reserve their seats, labeling Glenn a “lyin’ sack of dog mess.” This was just elites who didn’t want people to know that they get special treatment.

CosmosDan said:
Good for him. It makes you wonder why he refuses others who volunteer doesn’t it?

Because it would be a waste of time, that’s why. Glenn has made clear how he defines social justice. As far as BLT goes, there is no scriptural basis for it. Not that I have found.

leftofsocialist said:
Now, while I’ll grant GordonBlo that even “nuts” say sane things at times without knowing it, generally one doesn’t cite “nuts” as their source for ANY information.

You do it all the time. You are a nut.

CosmosDan said:
It certainly isn’t. Are apples the same as oranges?

I didn’t mean to say that they’re the same thing. I meant to say: Isn’t there a failure to get the other side’s view in both instances? Again, especially when the person demanding an apology is right?

armwood said:
In all fairness being nasty, making fun a peoples names and attacking people is not fair.

How does that relate to questioning someone’s parentage and the quality of the parenting they received because they said something you don’t agree with? Suppose you were to attack someone that you had no idea who they were or what their background is by telling them they were uneducated and lacked culture because they didn’t agree with you. How does that line up with this:

armwood said:
I agree with you on that but I still think it is important to try and lift the level of discourse.

Mote, beam, etc…

I LIKE TURTLES :)

Does anyone know where I can find some good Reagan porn?

No one cares what that pretentious little arsehole Joe Slime says. The man blows himself and thinks that someone cares about him.

Let’s try this: how many people read Slime’s crap in a given week? A thousand? A hundred thousand? Glenn Beck has millions of people listening to him. Joe Slime is just mad that no one wants to listen to his unadulterated verbal diarrhea.

And, to add, remember that Slime got the heat for “looking up” the meaning of sedition and Beck and Sarah Palin were doing it, according to arse-kissing Joe.

So, Joe, where is that napkin you wrote “sedition” on now – is it up your backside, you little scumbag?

http://yep.it/fyphgj

http://yep.it/fyphgj

http://yep.it/fyphgj

http://yep.it/fyphgj

Pablo said:
How does that relate to questioning someone’s parentage and the quality of the parenting they received because they said something you don’t agree with? Suppose you were to attack someone that you had no idea who they were or what their background is by telling them they were uneducated and lacked culture because they didn’t agree with you. How does that line up with this:

Mote, beam, etc…

People who grow up in home that practice and model moral values and good behavior tend to practice them. The old adage that an apple falls off the tree is most often true. People usually mimic the behavior they see around them, especially when their young. Often teenagers stray away from the values they leaned at home but as they mature they usually return to them.

People who curse a lot, use ethnic, religious, racial and gender slurs usually come from families who engaged in the same practices. It is normal behavior for them. Just like table manners. If you have ever interviewed graduates seeking employment after graduating from professional school you take them out to lunch or dinner. You watch how they behave. You purposefully ask them a question after they have taken a bite of food to see if they respond to your question right away or wate to after they finish chewing. If they don’t they are not hired. If they curse or tell off color jokes they are not hired. The reason is they would have a high likelihood of embarrassing the firm in front of clients.

These values are not learned at school. This type of education come from the home, good parenting. It is easy to spot someone who does not have these skills, if you yourself have had that type of upbringing and experience.

Reasonable people can and di disagree. Sophisticated people can disagree without being disagreeable. They are secure enough not to resort to name calling or ridiculing someones name, race baiting or using profane language.

armwood said:
These values are not learned at school. This type of education come from the home, good parenting. It is easy to spot someone who does not have these skills, if you yourself have had that type of upbringing and experience.

Ah, so your parents were ignorant, ill mannered bastards, then? Were they unreasonably arrogant too, or did you learn that elsewhere?

Calvin said:
http://tv.breitbart.com/amtrak-refuses-to-investigate-becks-claim-of-reserved-seating-for-walters-whoopi/ (skip to 7:20) He said that it’s not common policy to reserve tables on Amtrak, but they’re not going to look into it. Like I pointed out above, Goldberg did say that they didn’t reserve their seats, labeling Glenn a “lyin’ sack of dog mess.” This was just elites who didn’t want people to know that they get special treatment.

Listen to your own link again where the guy investigates. {you just quoted it} later on he gets in touch with another Amtrak guy who claimed they did sometimes reserve seats for various reasons. Sometimes groups, sometimes regular travelers. I’d say if they elitists they wouldn’t be on the train at all.

What they specifically mention is him implying that Barbara approached him or called him over, {he never said it specifically but couldn’t seem to remember that on the show} and it’s obviously the mocking tone of his voice that is the worst offense because that’s what he apologizes for immediately. My guess is Barabara would have acted his apology and it would have been all over but Whoopie kept going.

Then they talk over each other with him trying to explain that he and his friends were told the seats were reserved, and Whoopie says ” we didn’t reserve the seats” which doesn’t mean the office didn’t call. It’s not clear she is referring to the reserved seat thing when she says “Lying sack” etc.
The whole incident is no big deal to me. The guy in your link who called Amtrak asked why it was even being discussed while there are other important issues but failed to ask that question of Beck. He went out of his way to mock them and paint them as privileged and feeling superior , then got embarrassed when they called him on it.
To his credit he apologized immediately and that should have been the end of it, but Whoopie is more volatile

Calvin said:
Because it would be a waste of time, that’s why. Glenn has made clear how he defines social justice. As far as BLT goes, there is no scriptural basis for it. Not that I have found.

Calvin, isn’t it very obvious that different Christian groups interpret the Bible differently. Mormon’s not only have their own interpretation but their own Bible called “The inspired version” improved and upgraded by Joseph Smith, as well as other Books they consider equally to be scripture. Some Christians wouldn’t even consider Mormons to be Christians , so maybe you can understand that it appears odd for Beck, a Mormon, to be calling BLT a perversion of the gospel.
Considering how diverse beliefs are in Christianity , what person gets to be the authority about what the correct interpretation is. You may not agree with BLT but it very clearly has a scriptural foundation. What I found objectionable was for Beck to praise MLK one day and call for Christian unity from the stage, and begin a period of slamming BLT the next day. The principles MLK taught were the foundation of BLT. He ignored that MLK was a close associate of an avowed communist, and believed in reparations, while criticizing Van Jones and James Cone for those things.
You’re right , it’s his show and he can do what he wants, but I find his inconsistency in principles objectionable especially when he invokes God and Jesus. I feel the same way about other preachers

Pablo said:
Would you care to share your research on the topic? I’ve been looking at it for quite some time and it looks to me like it’s Marxism in African garb, tailored for a resentful American audience. Like Kwanzaa.

There’s no need for us to discuss it again. I’m not a supporter of any particular theology, but I understand it enough to follow the scriptural foundation.

I just shake my head when people easily dismiss the realities of racism in America with a rather cavalier “get over it already” attitude. It’s like going back to the spouse or child you abused and being annoyed that they haven’t been as forgiving as you think they ought to be.

armwood said:
These values are not learned at school.

Yes, but the schools used to reinforce the values. Now, they teach that all values are “equal” and that we are to tolerate most behaviors.

By teaching that everything is “equal”, we intentionally dumb kids down because they have trouble learning reason. We use our morals to decide what is right and to help “seek the better.” Normally, we judge what is right and wrong.

But liberalism short-circuits all of this and society is therefore all screwed up.

Calvin said:
I didn’t mean to say that they’re the same thing. I meant to say: Isn’t there a failure to get the other side’s view in both instances? Again, especially when the person demanding an apology is right?

Sure. I think journalists or pundits ought to allow those they criticize an opportunity to answer if they choose to. Beck ads to his own moral imperative with all his talk of truth, and research, and Jesus.

armwood said:
No, not everyone, just people who behave and think like you and Just4thefax. Your crudeness as well as his only degrade yourselves and your political positions.

Now you are a liar as well. You don’t confine your comments to me and just4fax. You repeatedly generalize about Fox News watchers, republicans, etc. In every post you call some group of people unintelligent or similar. You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. But you have to call everyone who disagrees with your twisted logic stupid. You have done so over and over until even you believe it.
Have you ever noticed that I don’t even argue politics with you? I know people like you already…you are not changing my mind, and I’m not changing yours. But you have to go one step further and belittle other’s opinions by calling everyone who disagrees with you unintelligent. You are the problem here, you intolerant asswood. You are so in love with yourself that you get upset that someone makes fun of your name. I have found that it’s best to just ignore a pompous elitist “my sh*t doesn’t stink” ass like you, but I am tired of you calling other people unintelligent. Everyone that posts here has some level of intelligence or they wouldn’t even be able to type…but on PlanetLeftArm you must agree with him or your just plain stupid. YOU ARE NOT EDUCATED, YOU ARE INDOCTRINATED…the sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

CosmosDan said:
There’s no need for us to discuss it again. I’m not a supporter of any particular theology, but I understand it enough to follow the scriptural foundation.

I just shake my head when people easily dismiss the realities of racism in America with a rather cavalier “get over it already” attitude.

So, in other words, you have nothing to offer in rebuttal to Beck’s description of BLT? Just that he’s full of it, because, well, he’s Glenn Beck, right? I’ll go ahead and file that complaint under ad hominem.

CosmosDan said:
You’re right , it’s his show and he can do what he wants, but I find his inconsistency in principles objectionable especially when he invokes God and Jesus. I feel the same way about other preachers

How many preachers do you know that would offer their pulpit to the devil, just to be fair about things? There’s a kernel you could work with in your argument, but religious hypocrisy ain’t it.

Pablo said:
How many preachers do you know that would offer their pulpit to the devil, just to be fair about things? There’s a kernel you could work with in your argument, but religious hypocrisy ain’t it.

Yes. “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.” – Thomas Mann

Alz said:
Yes, but the schools used to reinforce the values. Now, they teach that all values are “equal” and that we are to tolerate most behaviors.

By teaching that everything is “equal”, we intentionally dumb kids down because they have trouble learning reason. We use our morals to decide what is right and to help “seek the better.” Normally, we judge what is right and wrong.

But liberalism short-circuits all of this and society is therefore all screwed up.

Huh! Where did you go to school. I went to a very liberal university for undergraduate school that had a wide spectrum of political persuasions in my major’s department. We had right wing conservatives and we had card carrying Marxists. That is what education is about. Why do you fear notions of equality? Do you need a order that reinforces structural privileges to compete? That type of economic system is a very wasteful. Equal opportunity benefits everyone because you allow true talent to rise to the surface. Fortunately for me I come from a long line of educators. I am the third generation of a least mastes or doctorate degrees in my family. Not everyone was so lucky, I am sure including many posters on this forum.

Look how inarticulate and vulgar some of the posters on this site write. They may have other skills but written expression is not one of them. If they had received the same quality of education that others have received they might be better able to compete. Equal opportunity does not have to mean patterning (making everyone the same) and does not predict an equal outcome. Liberalism does not dictate who you should win and who should lose. It does seek to compensate for structural inequalities which handicap people in society. American, historically has been and largely remains a racially and sexually stratified society. This is a demonstrative fact. It was based both in our constitution and laws up until my teenage years. If you break someone leg and tell them to enter a race with people who are not disabled is that fair? Of course not. Just help everyone to have a shot at the prize. Do away with structural inequality. Right now our economy needs the most sophisticated workforce we can possibly produce. We do not have time to continue our past practice of a winner take all economy.

SmartAlec said:
Now you are a liar as well. You don’t confine your comments to me and just4fax. You repeatedly generalize about Fox News watchers, republicans, etc. In every post you call some group of people unintelligent or similar. You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. But you have to call everyone who disagrees with your twisted logic stupid. You have done so over and over until even you believe it.
Have you ever noticed that I don’t even argue politics with you? I know people like you already…you are not changing my mind, and I’m not changing yours. But you have to go one step further and belittle other’s opinions by calling everyone who disagrees with you unintelligent. You are the problem here, you intolerant asswood. You are so in love with yourself that you get upset that someone makes fun of your name. I have found that it’s best to just ignore a pompous elitist “my sh*t doesn’t stink” ass like you, but I am tired of you calling other people unintelligent. Everyone that posts here has some level of intelligence or they wouldn’t even be able to type…but on PlanetLeftArm you must agree with him or your just plain stupid. YOU ARE NOT EDUCATED, YOU ARE INDOCTRINATED…the sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

You are now lying. I have repeatedly posted, if you took time to read, that their are plenty of conservatives that I respect, know personally and discuss issues with. However when conservatives or any one else takes personal shots at means, creates posts made up of false facts and lies I will call them out. I have simply tried repeatedly to raise the level of discourse here. Many posts are not based in intelligence. If you notice I provide documentation when I challenge a false assertion. I do it all the time and many conservatives complain because it destroys their argument. It is one thing to assert something is a fact. It is another thing to back up your statements with documentation. I think you are being totally disingenuous here. Go back and review any of my criticisms. They are fact based. If someone calls me names, makes fun of my names or race baits I will continue to call that un intelligent behavior. Why? Because it is!

Pablo said:
How many preachers do you know that would offer their pulpit to the devil, just to be fair about things? There’s a kernel you could work with in your argument, but religious hypocrisy ain’t it.

When you see your political opponent as the devil there is no room for negotiation or accommodation. The only option then becomes stalemate or war! Is that what we really want. David Petraeus argued for and carried out negotiations with the Bathis Party in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

CosmosDan said:
Listen to your own link again where the guy investigates. {you just quoted it} later on he gets in touch with another Amtrak guy who claimed they did sometimes reserve seats for various reasons. Sometimes groups, sometimes regular travelers. I’d say if they elitists they wouldn’t be on the train at all.

But that’s two different people. It’s probably different with other railroads. The important part is the first guy who said they’re not going to even look in to it. At the 4:50 mark on the yt video, Barbara Walters is talking about how they were having a tough time getting seats, and there was no seat for Steve. Then she goes on to say to Beck, you’re a reporter, do you not check your facts? And elitists can’t ride trains now? Really, that’s your excuse for them? I guess Joe Biden better get of Amtrak then.

CosmosDan said:
and it’s obviously the mocking tone of his voice that is the worst offense because that’s what he apologizes for immediately.

Really? At the 6 minute mark, she says she’s trying to find out why Glenn would lie about their encounter. It seems like the “lying” is the worst offense. That is the crux of this matter. He also apologizes for saying that Barbara came over when he never said she did. He was also sick, which didn’t help.

Pablo said:
He went out of his way to mock them and paint them as privileged and feeling superior , then got embarrassed when they called him on it

They ambushed him. What are you supposed to do when these people are accusing you of being a liar? Almost all of them at once. Again, he was sick, which didn’t help his performance. They said he lied about the seats and about who came over first. We know the who came over first part is a lie, again, he never said she came over. But were supposed to believe them when they say that they didn’t reserve their seats? One guy says it’s not common policy and the other guy says regulars and groups can. The guy who says it’s not common policy says they’re not going to look into it. This was calling a man a liar on national television and they’re not even going to do a little looking in to it?

CosmosDan said:
To his credit he apologized immediately and that should have been the end of it, but Whoopie is more volatile

It should never have been like that. They wasted 7 minutes of national television over who approched the other first. The only thing he should have apologized for maybe is his impression of Walters.

CosmosDan said:
Calvin, isn’t it very obvious that different Christian groups interpret the Bible differently. Mormon’s not only have their own interpretation but their own Bible called “The inspired version” improved and upgraded by Joseph Smith, as well as other Books they consider equally to be scripture.

The thing is, they can tell you where they get the basis for their works. They can back it up. I’ve referred you to mormon apologist websites before. I don’t have the actual paper, but I remember there being an Evangelical apologist paper where they were saying how good Mormon apologists were and how that’s a problem for them. It’s not even about interpretation. I mean how do you interpret a verse about helping the poor to say take rich people’s money, it’s a sin to be wealthy? Where does it give them authority to say that people are not entitled to their wealth and there money needs to be forcefully taken? Where does BLT get authority to make a religion out of Black nationalism? Does that mean white people can find scriptures where white nationalism is authorized? I fail to see where they get their scriptural authority. It is twisting scripture beyond recognition. In fact, James Cone doubts that the Bible is God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw (skip to 14:15)

gordontheblowhardwithashow proved that he is clueless about Glenn Beck when he wrote above:

“Klein is a left-wing loon.”

That’s how the reactionary right sees all liberals.

“Beck presents NO conspiracy theories.”

Uhhh, do the words “Crime Inc.” mean anything to you Gordon?

Then Gordon really showed his ignorance by claiming, “It has NOTHING to do with the John Birch Society nuts and they are nuts.”

Beck embraced the JBS way back in his CNN days. Beck’s mentor, the racist Cleon Skousen, was involved with the JBS. Now what’s not clear is what you mean by “it,” the conspiracy theories that you turn two blinded by ideology eyes toward?

Klein was right: Beck is a telecharlatan, something I’ve been arguing for various reasons here for over six months now. One doesn’t have to be college educated about the Constitution to know that it is not held up, as Beck claims, by faith, hope and charity. Even an average citizen with an average IQ knows that the SCOTUS has to be on any list of what holds up the Constitution.

Beck is a charlatan; only the ideologically blind cannot see this basic truth about him. For much more information about Glenn Beck, see The Glenn Beck Review.

Joe Klein is TIME’s political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. His weekly TIME column, “In the Arena,” covers national and international affairs. In 2004 he won the National Headliner Award for best magazine column.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/author/jklein1271/#ixzz19L884dfq

a leftist political columnist would be more honest, but he has every right to his opinion

SarahP says:
“Hey Gordon, do you suppose that Glen was given a deferment due to his obvious mental illness?”

There was no draft when Beck was eligible. Don’t be convinced that Beck is mentally ill. His biographer and I are both independently convinced that the crazy is just part of Beck’s performance art. He is a charlatan, and a performance genius (from Tears of a Clown). Nothing he does on stage can be believed. It’s just an act.

dhg says:
“I can’t help but see that the descriptions given to Beck could pretty easily be applied to a whole slew of TV news “personalities”.It’s dumb to single out just one ”

Many people far smarter than you and I disagree with you about this.

Read How Glenn Beck’s Twisted Worldview Goads Disturbed People into Acts of Violence. In case you don’t get through to the end:

“Among Americans’ most prized possessions are the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a free society, controversial public policy issues should be expected to generate vigorous and even heated debate. Our political leaders should expect to be subject to exacting scrutiny and energetic criticism. And Americans must be willing to embrace the First Amendment rights even, or especially, of those whose opinions we disagree with and find offensive.

But Americans must also be willing to use their First Amendment freedoms to challenge those who exploit their political positions or media megaphones to promote lies that are intended to inflame rather than inform, that encourage paranoia rather than participation, and whose consequences are at best divisive and at worst, violently destructive.

Those who are challenging Beck and Fox are taking on the responsibilities of engaged citizenship, and are acting to promote the nation’s best values.”

Beck is uniquely dangerous and especially deceitful. He needs to be taken off the air.

lol, give it a break GBR

I was watching Glen Beck on TV the other day in his long red underwear. He was talking to an audience who knows less than he does and I got quite a kick out of his trying to act like an older person with lots of history and experience from the really old days gone by. He is only 46 years old. I think he always got hand me downs from some source or another, we all did, manly from his grandpa. He would really have experience and knowledge if he was born in the very early 30’s instead of the mid 60’s. In this case he could claim never seeing a dentist unless he was going to have a tooth pulled, without insurance. He could also say none of his neighbors, relatives or friends had insurance, some still wore knickers and high socks, most everyone had shoes with holes in and an anvil and hammer to repair their own shoes and some cut a piece of cardboard to fit inside their shoes to cover the hole in the bottom. Most had chickens, rabbits and a garden in their back yard, some with big back yards to can their veggies, chickens and rabbits for winter. We all made apple butter in the big copper kettle and jelly for the fruit cellars. Many built a garage and lived in the garage till they built their house. Few had credit, most used only cash and savings even to peace meal their house to the finish. People, who lived like this in the past, do not fear the future like Glen Beck does. I know I lived there.

GlennBeckReview said:
dhg says:
“I can’t help but see that the descriptions given to Beck could pretty easily be applied to a whole slew of TV news “personalities”.It’s dumb to single out just one ”

Many people far smarter than you and I disagree with you about this.

Read How Glenn Beck’s Twisted Worldview Goads Disturbed People into Acts of Violence. In case you don’t get through to the end:

“Among Americans’ most prized possessions are the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. In a free society, controversial public policy issues should be expected to generate vigorous and even heated debate. Our political leaders should expect to be subject to exacting scrutiny and energetic criticism. And Americans must be willing to embrace the First Amendment rights even, or especially, of those whose opinions we disagree with and find offensive.

But Americans must also be willing to use their First Amendment freedoms to challenge those who exploit their political positions or media megaphones to promote lies that are intended to inflame rather than inform, that encourage paranoia rather than participation, and whose consequences are at best divisive and at worst, violently destructive.

Those who are challenging Beck and Fox are taking on the responsibilities of engaged citizenship, and are acting to promote the nation’s best values.”

Beck is uniquely dangerous and especially deceitful. He needs to be taken off the air.

I agree that Beck is “uniquely dangerous and especially deceitful” but I believe that the protection of free speech is the most important right we can have as Americans, as citizens of the world. As a result I am forced to support his right to spew lies and hate on the airwaves. I a, wiling to fight for his right. By defending the right of people like Beck, Limbaugh and the KKK I defend my own right to free speech. I lived two and one half years in a country that does not have a first amendment. There is a huge difference in the flow of information when censorship is practiced.

On the other hand I would support actively boycotting companies that advertise on Beck’s show. I will not subscribe to the Golf Channel again anytime soon as a result of them putting Rush Limbaugh on one of their shows. Boycotts sponsors yes, censorship no. I really believe the ACLU has it right on the First Amendment.

Glenn rather reminds me of the old traveling circuses, where they had “geeks.” Guys who bit off the heads of chickens,then ate parts of them, raw – for public entertainment. Glenn appeals to that same public mentality of the Repug rancid masses.

gordontheblowhardwithashow says:
“When did I say that everything the Birch Society believes is wrong. They do present the truth about Communism and that is where the comparison ends. Joe McCarthy was right ”

What communists were ever found in the State Dept. during McCarthy’s demagoguery?

Reactionaries like Beck still have an inordinate fear about communism. Hell, that this point Beck’s fear has reached the point of panic. Beck’s POV and pseudo-history is absurd, and that’s an understatement.

cjd ohio 1 says:
“lol, give it a break GBR”

Why? Seriously, why? You think Beck is not dangerous? You’re wrong. Three dead cops prove that.
You think Beck is not divisive? Wrong.
You think Beck is honest. Way wrong
You think Beck is qualified? Wrong!

Why should I “give it a break,” cjd? Am I stepping on your hero’s toes? You don’t like it when someone has a boot in your hero’s ass?

I know you can’t get this through your reactionary head of yours, but what I’m doing is providing a public service, a warning to would-be viewers of The Glenn Beck Show: Caution, this is fiction. Entertaining but fundamentally bullshit from beginning to end.

Oh, did I write? Beck is a big time hypocrite too. Apparently, that’s become A-OK for so-called Christians these days.

Interesting how losers like GBR suggest silencing free speech as a way to defend American rights and values, a way to take “on the responsibilities of engaged citizenship”. Disgusting.

Meanwhile, an admitted liar, Klein is simply circling the bowl, waiting for the next flush. As the President attempts to ride the nation to financial ruin, with his printing presses printing dollars, each worth less than the last, tired old gasbags and pieces of crap are occasionally called upon by the worthless left for their thoughts. Why?

Beck is calling the haters out, and anything liars like Klein have to say is pointless.

armwood said:
When you see your political opponent as the devil there is no room for negotiation or accommodation.

We were talking about preachers, not politics. But sometimes your thesis holds true without considering your adversary to be the devil. Would you like to answer the question I actually asked?

divisive…yes, honest….no, qualified for what.,………paranoia is hitting you hard man, no not a fan of beck, watched him some just like matthews and ed schultz and the rest. heros toes? you are nuts, reactionary, you dont know me, how the hell would you know…… No i think you are a blow hard just like gordon, pick a new hobby man

GlennBeckReview said:
What communists were ever found in the State Dept. during McCarthy’s demagoguery?

See the Venona Project. You’ve never heard of Alger Hiss?

Reactionaries like Beck still have an inordinate fear about communism.

What’s a hundred million corpses when there’s PROGRESS to be made? Really, it will work this time.

GlennBeckReview said:
gordontheblowhardwithashow says:
“When did I say that everything the Birch Society believes is wrong. They do present the truth about Communism and that is where the comparison ends. Joe McCarthy was right ”

What communists were ever found in the State Dept. during McCarthy’s demagoguery?

Reactionaries like Beck still have an inordinate fear about communism. Hell, that this point Beck’s fear has reached the point of panic. Beck’s POV and pseudo-history is absurd, and that’s an understatement.

There were none. Joseph McCarthy and his congressional cronies destroyed the live of so many of America’s brightest and best. A lot of people forget that America was not the same country in the 1950s it is now. America had a barbaric racial caste system. Voting rights were manipulated to favor the wealthy, irrespective of ethnicity. We did not have a one person one vote rule then. Communism was understandably attractive to many Americans. Social Security and Medicare as well as Medicaid were ideas that came from the Communist Party. Communists were outspoken opponents of racism and discrimination (however not in actual practice) . Many great Americans joined the Communist Party as a way to protest the deplorable human rights violations in this country. People like the great actor, orator, singer Paul Robertson. They did not at the time understand the the horrors of Stalin and his regime. I knew many Communists during my college years. They were good people though very naive.

People like Glen Beck make enemies of people, stripping them of their humanity. In that way he is like Joseph McCarthy. I was not referring to your post when I mentioned the John Birch Society. It was related for my dislike of Billy Graham and my old Explorer Post Leader. When I think of Billy Graham it brings back those memories.

armwood says:

“As a result I am forced to support his right to spew lies and hate on the airwaves. I a, wiling to fight for his right. By defending the right of people like Beck, Limbaugh and the KKK I defend my own right to free speech. I lived two and one half years in a country that does not have a first amendment. There is a huge difference in the flow of information when censorship is practiced.

On the other hand I would support actively boycotting companies that advertise on Beck’s show. I will not subscribe to the Golf Channel again anytime soon as a result of them putting Rush Limbaugh on one of their shows. Boycotts sponsors yes, censorship no. I really believe the ACLU has it right on the First Amendment.”

So, to be clear, you don’t think that Laura Ingraham or Rich Sanchez should have lost their jobs? Bigotry is OK with you?

The ACLU protects free speech from the gov’t censorship. I’m not suggesting that gov’t step in and take Beck off Fox; I’m arguing for basic human decency on television channels that pretend to be news outlets, even if they are not. Murdoch is going to have to have his hand forced with Fox Propaganda Channel boycotts to get Beck back into the hole from which he crawled. I don’t think Beck will be forced out until Murdoch loses money on Fox altogether.

GlennBeckReview said:
armwood says: “As a result I am forced to support his right to spew lies and hate on the airwaves. I a, wiling to fight for his right. By defending the right of people like Beck, Limbaugh and the KKK I defend my own right to free speech. I lived two and one half years in a country that does not have a first amendment. There is a huge difference in the flow of information when censorship is practiced. On the other hand I would support actively boycotting companies that advertise on Beck’s show. I will not subscribe to the Golf Channel again anytime soon as a result of them putting Rush Limbaugh on one of their shows. Boycotts sponsors yes, censorship no. I really believe the ACLU has it right on the First Amendment.” So, to be clear, you don’t think that Laura Ingraham or Rich Sanchez should have lost their jobs? Bigotry is OK with you? The ACLU protects free speech from the gov’t censorship. I’m not suggesting that gov’t step in and take Beck off Fox; I’m arguing for basic human decency on television channels that pretend to be news outlets, even if they are not. Murdoch is going to have to have his hand forced with Fox Propaganda Channel boycotts to get Beck back into the hole from which he crawled. I don’t think Beck will be forced out until Murdoch loses money on Fox altogether.

laura ingraham lost her job? when

Quit picking on GBR, cjd,
He is busy saving the world from Glenn Beck.
Making a hell of a dent I notice!

Watch out if GBR and Armwood teams up!
Look like a possibility!
DING DONG!!!! DING DONG!!!

sorry, its too easy sometimes

bye GBR lol

GlennBeckReview said:
armwood says:

“As a result I am forced to support his right to spew lies and hate on the airwaves. I a, wiling to fight for his right. By defending the right of people like Beck, Limbaugh and the KKK I defend my own right to free speech. I lived two and one half years in a country that does not have a first amendment. There is a huge difference in the flow of information when censorship is practiced.

On the other hand I would support actively boycotting companies that advertise on Beck’s show. I will not subscribe to the Golf Channel again anytime soon as a result of them putting Rush Limbaugh on one of their shows. Boycotts sponsors yes, censorship no. I really believe the ACLU has it right on the First Amendment.”

So, to be clear, you don’t think that Laura Ingraham or Rich Sanchez should have lost their jobs? Bigotry is OK with you?

The ACLU protects free speech from the gov’t censorship. I’m not suggesting that gov’t step in and take Beck off Fox; I’m arguing for basic human decency on television channels that pretend to be news outlets, even if they are not. Murdoch is going to have to have his hand forced with Fox Propaganda Channel boycotts to get Beck back into the hole from which he crawled. I don’t think Beck will be forced out until Murdoch loses money on Fox altogether.

I believe that private organizations have a right to fire their employees. I agreed with NPR for firing Juan Williams. Those cases do not raise First Amendment issues because there is no “state action” involved. We are on the same side here I believe. I was just reacting to your “He needs to be taken off the air” comment. I took that to mean that you were implying that the government should take him off of the air. If I was wrong I apologize. I despise Glen Beck. As I have posted before he reminds me of Mussolini for some reason. He is a horrible demagogue.

cjd ohio 1 said:
laura ingraham

correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t she pushed out by the network? She needed to go. And this that Sarah Palin women told her to reload! These are really disgusting people.

what network? when?

and no offense armwood it was GBR that i was looking for the response from

cjd ohio 1 said:
what network? when?

I was confusing Dr. Laura with Laura Ingraham. i was wrong

thanks, i know that but GBR doesnt, point is withdrawn from him

cjd ohio 1 says:
“laura ingraham lost her job?”

My bad, brain fart. I meant Laura Schlessinger.

Meanwhile, Probably ALWAYS wrong says:
“Quit picking on GBR, cjd,
He is busy saving the world from Glenn Beck.
Making a hell of a dent I notice!”

I’d love to have the time to do more to get this hole off the air. He is to political discourse as the oil spill was to the Gulf: a toxic spewage. Of course, I could always forgo the obligation I have to my country and sit on the couch yelling at the television. That did a hell of a lot of good.

Look, supporters of this lying hypocrite: I really don’t care about your inane observations. I’m doing what I know is right. It is the least one can do when confronted with a deceitful charlatan with millions of followers. I’ve written it before, but it is always true, Glenn Beck is living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time . His supporters, minions and apologists here and on right-wing blogs prove this sad fact of life.

“Those who are challenging Beck and Fox are taking on the responsibilities of engaged citizenship, and are acting to promote the nation’s best values.”

lol

lucky that armwood was here to fact check you lol

I was at a Thanksgiving Party given by my church and a lady in her sixties, made a comment that she was a Glen Beck fan. I had to bite my bottom lip to keep my mouth shut. I felt it was not an appropriate time to respond. I have been a member of this small church for only about nine months. I am usually outspoken but most of the congregation is very conservative. Most are elderly ex military people.

For the life of me I can’t understand the fascination with Glenn Beck. His program is revolting and impossible to watch. He has no idea what he’s talking about and yet lots of people gobble his stuff up. It’s a very sad commentary on the dumbing down process we’re been caught up in certainly for the past 10 years. Hopefully, we’re beginning to come out of this period as reality sets in. In a year or two Beck will be a fading burnt out star and he might actually be institutionalized, that’s how crazy he is. I wonder how his fans will feel when they come to understand what an utter fraud this guy is and that they’ve been taken in by a real sicko.

Glen Beck plays on peoples fears and insecurities. Like Ronald Reagan he helps some people get over feeling guilty about their prejudices, bigotry and ignorance. He also creates a simplistic view of the world which is audience finds emotionally reassuring and easy to understand. In this way he is selling a kind of pseudo religious rightwing political philosophy.

Who the hell cares what Joke Line thinks?

armwood said:
I will not subscribe to the Golf Channel again anytime soon as a result of them putting Rush Limbaugh on one of their shows.

Golf Channel. Putting. Sure it may be an accidental typo, but that is the most wonderful accidental pun ever!

Blair Maury said:
Golf Channel. Putting. Sure it may be an accidental typo, but that is the most wonderful accidental pun ever!

You got me. I have always said the obvious. “I cannot type”. My daughter makes fun of my typing. The 30 year old crowd had keyboard classes in high school unlike us old geezers.

That was pretty “punny”, like my golf game. I am a lefty with a vicious slice. My putting is probably the best part of my game.

armwood said:
You got me. I have always said the obvious. “I cannot type”. My daughter makes fun of my typing. The 30 year old crowd had keyboard classes in high school unlike us old geezers. That was pretty “punny”, like my golf game. I am a lefty with a vicious slice. My putting is probably the best part of my game.

Sorry. Just couldn’t help laughing. Must have had golf on the mind!

GlennBeckReview said:
I’d love to have the time to do more to get this hole off the air. He is to political discourse as the oil spill was to the Gulf: a toxic spewage. Of course, I could always forgo the obligation I have to my country and sit on the couch yelling at the television.

Wait, so you’re link whoring for America? Please.

armwood said:
Huh! Where did you go to school. I went to a very liberal university for undergraduate school that had a wide spectrum of political persuasions in my major’s department. We had right wing conservatives and we had card carrying Marxists. That is what education is about. Why do you fear notions of equality? Do you need a order that reinforces structural privileges to compete? That type of economic system is a very wasteful. Equal opportunity benefits everyone because you allow true talent to rise to the surface. Fortunately for me I come from a long line of educators. I am the third generation of a least mastes or doctorate degrees in my family. Not everyone was so lucky, I am sure including many posters on this forum.

Look how inarticulate and vulgar some of the posters on this site write. They may have other skills but written expression is not one of them. If they had received the same quality of education that others have received they might be better able to compete. Equal opportunity does not have to mean patterning (making everyone the same) and does not predict an equal outcome. Liberalism does not dictate who you should win and who should lose. It does seek to compensate for structural inequalities which handicap people in society. American, historically has been and largely remains a racially and sexually stratified society. This is a demonstrative fact. It was based both in our constitution and laws up until my teenage years. If you break someone leg and tell them to enter a race with people who are not disabled is that fair? Of course not. Just help everyone to have a shot at the prize. Do away with structural inequality. Right now our economy needs the most sophisticated workforce we can possibly produce. We do not have time to continue our past practice of a winner take all economy.

It’s been explained here (and elsewhere MANY times). Equal opportunity through our founding system is GOOD and forcing equal outcomes (liberalism) is BAD.

You waste a lot of keystrokes.

Pablo said:
So, in other words, you have nothing to offer in rebuttal to Beck’s description of BLT? Just that he’s full of it, because, well, he’s Glenn Beck, right? I’ll go ahead and file that complaint under ad hominem.

I’m referring to the lengthy discussion we had at the time. There’s nothing in BLT that can’t be backed up by the New Testament, which is more than we can say for Mormonism. His accusation of group salvation or whatever the hell he called it was total bullshit. If someone’s a Baptist, they probably won’t agree with all the doctrine of the Methodists, or the Pentecostals, etc etc. but they are all based on interpretations of the Bible just as BLT is. So, for him to make a huge show one day of calling for religious unity and then describe BLT as a perversion of the gospel the very next day is hypocrisy plain and simple. For him to praise MLK one day whose actions and teachings were so similar to BLT, and then condemn BLT, is hypocrisy.

Alz said:
It’s been explained here (and elsewhere MANY times). Equal opportunity through our founding system is GOOD and forcing equal outcomes (liberalism) is BAD.

You waste a lot of keystrokes.

It’s not as simple as that. You might want it to be but real life is more complex. Our founding system was based on inequality not equality. Only land owning white males were allowed to participate in the political system. You are looking at America through rose colored glasses. The founding principles you imagine never existed. Liberalism is what improved our system over time. Conservatives fought a step towards progress. I challenge to site specifics where I am wrong. I am not saying that liberals were always progressive. They were not, i e. FDR ordering the internment of Japanese Americans, which was supported by conservatives but every single element of social progress that has occurred in America was proposed and implemented by liberals. I am waiting!

Pablo said:
How many preachers do you know that would offer their pulpit to the devil, just to be fair about things? There’s a kernel you could work with in your argument, but religious hypocrisy ain’t it.

This is a feeble and completely imaginary defense. Do I need to quote the Bible about bearing false witness or making false accusations. We’re talking about disagreements within Christianity not from Satan worshipers. Shall we look at the New Testament to see what the apostles said to early Christians who disagreed.

No. as long as Beck continues to spout off about God ,the need for God and religious unity, while attacking theology he doesn’t agree with, religious hypocrisy is exactly the right term. When he attacks them publicly and distorts their beliefs without allowing them the opportunity to discuss or explain, it is he who has perverted the Christian principles he mouths off about.

armwood said:
It’s not as simple as that. You might want it to be but real life is more complex. Our founding system was based on inequality not equality. Only land owning white males were allowed to participate in the political system. You are looking at America through rose colored glasses. The founding principles you imagine never existed. Liberalism is what improved our system over time. Conservatives fought a step towards progress. I challenge to site specifics where I am wrong. I am not saying that liberals were always progressive. They were not, i e. FDR ordering the internment of Japanese Americans, which was supported by conservatives but every single element of social progress that has occurred in America was proposed and implemented by liberals. I am waiting!

You may want to take it back. Look at what the liberals have done to the inner cities and the Indians – dependency. How many families have been destroyed and how many people have been killed because of your liberalism?

Look at what Supreme Court Justice (and ex ACLU attorney and uber liberal) Ruth Bader Ginsberg said about Roe V Wade IN 2009: : “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”!

Read up on the history of the left. You are in some la-la land.

Calvin said:
The important part is the first guy who said they’re not going to even look in to it

Why is that the important part? One guy didn’t want to help him, another guy was more helpful. You’d think the important thing was the actual policy. I’d guess they may not want reserving seats to be common knowledge because more people would expect them. It’s easier to have the no reservations rule and make exceptions per situation.

Calvin said:
And elitists can’t ride trains now? Really, that’s your excuse for them?

I don’t need to make excuses for them. I didn’t call them elitists you did, and Beck very clearly tried to imply that. With really nothing to support it.

Calvin said:
This was calling a man a liar on national television and they’re not even going to do a little looking in to it?

I’m not sure why Beck’s gratuitous and unnecessary mocking of Ms Walters is acceptable but them calling him on it is some horrible crime. He mouthed off when he shouldn’t have and they overreacted and accused him of lying. If you’re going to excuse Beck on some technicality then apply the same rule to them and let’s move on. It’s petty nonsense.

Calvin said:
The thing is, they can tell you where they get the basis for their works. They can back it up. I’ve referred you to mormon apologist websites before

No they can’t really back it up, anymore than Christians can back it up. They are religions based a lot on tradition with little basis in facts. I don’t believe Smith found golden plates and translated them, and there’s no evidence to support it’s true. There is evidence that Smith was a con man and charlatan. I don’t really care. What bothers me is Beck or anyone preaching religious unity {which is a good idea} and then contradicting their own words the next day by attacking a Christian theology they happen to disagree with. Asking for unity and then recommending people leave their church if they use the words social justice is another example of hypocrisy.

Calvin said:
It’s not even about interpretation.

Of course it is Calvin. ALL, I repeat ALL, Christian denominations are based on some person’s interpretation of passages in the Bible, and quite obviously, they don’t agree with each other on what God is saying to them through the scriptures. All the various differences in doctrine that keep them separate are based on interpretations of the Bible.

Calvin said:
I’ll deal with those other questions in the morning.

Um, not sure why that happened but didn’t say that last bit …I did.

Kspraydad said:
Wow…Mediaite needs to implement some type of troll reporting mechanism …. not going to stick around here when every article gets run over by fuckwads like SarahP instead of having real discourse.

If they did that, most of the liberals would be banned from the site.

Yeah, and some of the conservatives, too.\

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/26/sen_coburn_control_government_spending_or_face_apocalyptic_pain.html

CosmosDan said:
This is a feeble and completely imaginary defense. Do I need to quote the Bible about bearing false witness or making false accusations.

Why would you do that when it does absolutely nothing to advance your argument? Misdirection is not going to be your friend. I asked you a really simple question. I think you should answer it if we’re going to continue.

When he attacks them publicly and distorts their beliefs without allowing them the opportunity to discuss or explain, it is he who has perverted the Christian principles he mouths off about.

Are they gagged? If you want to know what Jim Wallis has to say, you can find lots of it at The Blaze. (Hey, who runs that thing?) Or you could Google “Sojourners” and you’ll find that he has a platform all his own.

CosmosDan said:
There’s nothing in BLT that can’t be backed up by the New Testament, which is more than we can say for Mormonism.

Really? How about this:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

I would love to know where you can find that in the New Testament.

QUOTE: GLENN BECK IS A MORON.

SOURCE: ME

Get over it, he’s wrong from the start… Mormon??? That’s the biggest CULT in the world, it’s not a religion. Have ANY of you read up on it? I called up their toll-free number once and they sent me their LDS bible. I got through the first part of the book until it was explaining their theory on how african americans came about. According to Mormons, african americans are Europeans that sinned and after sins occurred were painted black and sent to Africa. What kind of BS is that??? It does make sense that the majority of Mormons are GOP though… they believe that BS they’ll believe anything… ESPECIALLY when the person spewing such nonsense is both a GOP and Mormon (Glenn Beck).

Now you know… YOU’RE WELCOME.

Pablo said:
Really? How about this:

I would love to know where you can find that in the New Testament.

OK, forget that one. I’d like to know where in the New Testament you can find support for this, from James Cone, at the same link:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

Unless there’s a Gospel according to Shabazz that I missed, I don’t know where you find anything like that.

CosmosDan said:
No they can’t really back it up, anymore than Christians can back it up.

Here you go. Talk with these people. They can give you better answers than I can. And they can back it up. Do they have photographic evidence of the Golden Plates? No. If they did, there’d be no need for faith. Also, are you implying that Mormons are not Christians? That’s what it seems like when you say “anymore than Christians can back it up.” Here’s my definition of a Christian: somebody who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his principles. The Ten Commandments. You can have different interpretations about the Bible or who Jesus was in the Bible (was he part of the three in one trinity or was he a single being) but you should believe in his basic principles. This whole thing about forcibly taking from others and not being entitled to wealth does not seem like something Jesus taught. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say anything like that. Even Grover Cleveland knew that:

As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Yeah, that means rich white people are oppressing black people and we should hate rich white people ’cause they’re our enemy. Right.

Calvin said:
The Ten Commandments. You can have different interpretations about the Bible or who Jesus was in the Bible (was he part of the three in one trinity or was he a single being) but you should believe in his basic principles.

…unless you believe in something like this which is nothing close to what’s in the bible:

Pablo said:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

CosmosDan said:
Of course it is Calvin. ALL, I repeat ALL, Christian denominations are based on some person’s interpretation of passages in the Bible, and quite obviously, they don’t agree with each other on what God is saying to them through the scriptures. All the various differences in doctrine that keep them separate are based on interpretations of the Bible.

There’s a difference in interpreting something differently and having a totally warped point of view with no scriptural basis at all.

Alz said:
You may want to take it back. Look at what the liberals have done to the inner cities and the Indians – dependency. How many families have been destroyed and how many people have been killed because of your liberalism?

Look at what Supreme Court Justice (and ex ACLU attorney and uber liberal) Ruth Bader Ginsberg said about Roe V Wade IN 2009: : “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”!

Read up on the history of the left. You are in some la-la land.

I am very familiar with these discussion. Roe v. Wade was a compromise. I have read the opinions and studied it many times, have you? What liberals did to the inner cities? You really do not know American history. The modern inner cities developed as a result of the “great migration” which occurred from the 1930s-1950s when nearly half of the nations African Americans in the nations fled the South to get from under the extremely brutal tenant farmer system and the formalized caste system that conservative democrats maintained at the point of a gun. Once up north African Americans rand into a less formalized form of segregation historians call “de-facto segregation” to illustrate that this form of segregation was done under the color of what appeared to be race neutral laws. In the northern cities conservatives Democrats sought to maintain this system of de-facto segregation in all of the major cities thought brutal policing, bank redlining and other policies including institutionalized housing and school segregation. Richard Daiey Sr. from chicago is but one example of the conservative democratic mayors. As a result these cities blew up into riots during the 1960s. The one big city mayor who was a shining liberal was New York City Liberal Republican mayor 1966-1973. New York did not have a riot of the night Martin Luther King was killed as a direct result of the mayors reputation in the African American community coupled with the fact he walked the streets of Harlem all that night. He left the Republican Party and became a Democrat in 1970-71. He had lost the 1969 Republican primary to a State Senator from Staten Island, John Marchi whose daughter I knew. I had the good fortune as a teenager to work for Mayor Lindsay’s political organization from the Spring of 1969 until 1973. He and his wife were wonderful people. John Lindsay passed away a few years ago.

My point is that their are sociological reasons for the urban problems that developed in the north after the “great migration” To blame them on liberals is revisionist history. I lived through this period of time in New York City. I was politically aware. I new many of the political players.

There is a wonderful report on this problem which was the result of a commission set up by President Johnson to study why the northern cities had exploded into riots in the 1960s. It was chaired by former Ohio governor and judge Otto Kerner and co0-chaired by Mayor John Lindsay of New York. It was called The Kerner Commission Report on Civil Disorders

http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf

Read this report. I still have my original first edition publication. It destroys the revisionist history that is being used to recreate the history of the northern inner cities.

Pablo said:
OK, forget that one. I’d like to know where in the New Testament you can find support for this, from James Cone, at the same link:

Unless there’s a Gospel according to Shabazz that I missed, I don’t know where you find anything like that.

Who filled your mind with the idea of black theology. Have you ever been in a black church? Have you ever read any of the works of black theologians dating back to the founding of the African Methodist episcopal Church founded by Reverend Richard Allen in 1816?

You miss the whole point of color and the portrayal of Jesus Christ . The question was “should black churches portray Jesus as white because he was not white? He was a Hebrew, a light brown skin people, much like myself. The Bible makes two references to Jesus’s appearance in the book of Revelations:

Revelation 1:13–16 describes his features as he appears in his heavenly form, as seen in a vision by John the Divine.
1:13 – And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 – His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
1:15 – And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 – And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength.(KJV translation)

I don’t quite frankly think that any of this matters.

This issue was first raised in African American religious literature by Reverend Cleage founder of the Black Madonna Church and Cultural Centers in Detroit.

All peoples adopt their religious icons to look like themselves. In Europe Christians portrayed Jesus as Europeans. The oldest Christian religious order in the world, the Ethiopian church in Auxum portrays the holy family as east Africans. In Poland however Mary is portrayed as black in the famous statue of the black Madonna

If you have traveled around the world and visited religious institutions you will see this as the normal practice. Buddha was an India, but in China and Taiwan I have seen him look Chinese, in Japan he looks Japanese, inKorea he looks Korean. It is natural and healthy for people to create their religious icons in their own image.

People create their own religious myths. That is how religions develop. Religions tell the history of a people and show how God or in Buddhism the concept of cause and effect deliver them from the conditions they live in today. Religions provide hope for a people.

“Durkheim goes further. He is not content to make religion the epistemological basis for contemporary society. He seeks to radically invert this conception of the relation of religion and society, making not religion the origin of society, as he has just proposed, but in fact making society the origin of religion! In this way he follows Marx in making religion a reflection of society.”

http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/sociology-of-religion.html

One of my favorite comes is “Good King Wenceslas” is a popular Christmas carol about a king who goes out to give alms to a poor peasant on the Feast of Stephen (the first day after Christmas, December 26). During the journey, his page is about to give up the struggle against the cold weather, but is enabled to continue by the heat miraculously emanating from the king’s footprints in the snow. The legend is based on the life of the historical Saint Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia (907–935), known in the Czech language as Svatý Václav.

The tune is based on a 13th century spring carol “Tempus adest floridum” (“It is time for flowering”) first published in the 1582 Finnish song collection Piae Cantiones. The “Wenceslas” lyrics were written much later in 1853 by the English hymnwriter John Mason Neale (1818–1866) and substituted for the original Latin (to which they bear no relation) in collaboration with his music editor Thomas Helmore.

Wenceslas was considered a martyr and a saint immediately after his death, when a cult of Wenceslas grew up in Bohemia and in England.[1] Within a few decades of Wenceslas’s death four biographies of him were in circulation.[2][3] These hagiographies had a powerful influence on the High Middle Ages conceptualization of the rex justus, or “righteous king”—that is, a monarch whose power stems mainly from his great piety, as well as from his princely vigor.[4]
Referring approvingly to these hagiographies, the chronicler Cosmas of Prague, writing in about the year 1119, states:

But his deeds I think you know better than I could tell you; for, as is read in his Passion, no one doubts that, rising every night from his noble bed, with bare feet and only one chamberlain, he went around to God’s churches and gave alms generously to widows, orphans, those in prison and afflicted by every difficulty, so much so that he was considered, not a prince, but the father of all the wretched.
Several centuries later the legend was claimed as fact by Pope Pius II, who himself also walked ten miles barefoot in the ice and snow as an act of pious thanksgiving.

Although Wenceslas was, during his lifetime, only a duke, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I posthumously “conferred on [Wenceslas] the regal dignity and title” and that is why, in the legend and song, he is referred to as a “king”.[8] The usual English spelling of Duke Wenceslas’s name, Wenceslaus, is occasionally encountered in later textual variants of the carol, although it was not used by Neale in his version. Wenceslas is not to be confused

Pablo said:
OK, forget that one. I’d like to know where in the New Testament you can find support for this, from James Cone, at the same link:

Unless there’s a Gospel according to Shabazz that I missed, I don’t know where you find anything like that.

Pablo, African Americans have from the earliest days of slavery identified most with the Israeli’s enslaved in Egypt. Look at the wonderful tradition of Spirituals:

Go Down Moses

When Israel was in Egypt’s land: Let my people go,
Oppress’d so hard they could not stand, Let my People go.
Go down, Moses,
Way down in Egypt land,
Tell old Pharaoh,
Let my people go.

Oh Freedom

Oh freedom
Oh freedom
Oh freedom over me!
And before I’d be a slave
I’ll be buried in my grave
And go home to my Lord and be free.

No more moaning
No more moaning
No more moaning over me!
And before…

There’ll be singing…
There’ll be shouting…
There’ll be praying…

Swing Low Sweet Chariot

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home,
Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

If you get there before I do,
Coming for to carry me home,
Tell all my friends I’m coming, too.
Coming for to carry me home.

I’m sometimes up and sometimes down,
Coming for to carry me home,
But still my soul feels heavenly bound,
Coming for to carry me home.

The brightest day that I can say,
Coming for to carry me home,
When Jesus washed my sins away,
Coming for to carry me home.

This continued during the civil rights era;

MARCHING ‘’ROUND SELMA

Marching ‘round Selma like Jericho,
Jericho, Jericho
Marching ‘round Selma like Jericho
For segregation wall must fall
Look at people answering
To the Freedom Fighters call
Black, Brown and White American say
Segregation must fall
Good evening freedom’s fighters
Tell me where you’re bound
Tell me where you’re marching
“From Selma to Montgomery town

Religions are created and developed to help people to overcome the conditions that they find themselves in and to connect with the transcendental.

Rick Knutsen says:
“QUOTE: GLENN BECK IS A MORON.
SOURCE: ME
Get over it, he’s wrong from the start”

Being wrong doesn’t make one a moron. On the contrary, it’s very clever to habitually lie and still have millions of followers not notice or not care. Of course, they may be morons, but Glenn Beck is not. He has got to have an average IQ at least. (Of course, that is still only two digits.)

Beck is or seems ignorant about many things, wrong on many things; but he’s not a moron.

armwood said:
Pablo, African Americans have from the earliest days of slavery identified most with the Israeli’s enslaved in Egypt.

What the hell does that have to do with Cone’s blasphemous babble and the New Testament?

armwood said:
Who filled your mind with the idea of black theology.

Are you familiar with Cone? Are you familiar with Jeremiah Wright? It exists. If you’d rather not discuss it, I’d suggest you stop discussing it.

Pablo said:
What the hell does that have to do with Cone’s blasphemous babble and the New Testament?

What do you mean blasphemous? You don’t undersand my point. Religions, evolve and change as they move from culture to culture. Are you arguing that the Bible is the literal, unerring word of God. If you are I understand your viewpoint even though I disagree with it. Otherwise this simply reflects how religions grow and change.

Mormonism is a far greater perversion of Christianity as is the Jehovah’s witnesses by your standards. I see it differently. I do not see religions as a static snapshot of beliefs but as an organically growing and changing set of beliefs. Many Christians still deny the science of evolution and still believe the earth was created in six days. Others like me do not. Earlier Christians believed that Galileo was blasphemous for pointing out that the earth was not the center of the universe. I personally believe that religions change. It is a natural part of human development.

Pablo said:
Are you familiar with Cone? Are you familiar with Jeremiah Wright? It exists. If you’d rather not discuss it, I’d suggest you stop discussing it.

Why not discuss it. Pablo have you ever seen me unwilling to discuss any topic. I love this kind of civil discussion. I live for it. Cone and Wright are not new. They are new to you. Have you heard of David Walker or David Walker’s Appeal written in 1829. His is my favorite African American religious document. i had to read it in a freshman African American History class in 1971. I had the complete document . I fell in love with it. This is an example of what I was talking about earlier how regions evolve and adopt to cultures and their historical context.

David Walker’s Appeal: To the Coloured Citizens of the World, But in Particular and very expressly , to those in The United States Of America

Excerpts from the Appeal

My dearly beloved Brethren and Fellow Citizens.

Having travelled over a considerable portion of these United States, and having, in the course of my travels, taken the most accurate observations of things as they exist — the result of my observations has warranted the full and unshaken conviction, that we, (coloured people of these United States,) are the most degraded, wretched, and abject set of beings that ever lived since the world began; and I pray God that none like us ever may live again until time shall be no more. They tell us of the Israelites in Egypt, the Helots in Sparta, and of the Roman Slaves, which last were made up from almost every nation under heaven, whose sufferings under those ancient and heathen nations, were, in comparison with ours, under this enlightened and Christian nation, no more than a cypher — or, in other words, those heathen nations of antiquity, had but little more among them than the name and form of slavery; while wretchedness and endless miseries were reserved, apparently in a phial, to be poured out upon, our fathers ourselves and our children, by Christian Americans!

….. I call upon the professing Christians, I call upon the philanthropist, I call upon the very tyrant himself, to show me a page of history, either sacred or profane, on which a verse can be found, which maintains, that the Egyptians heaped the insupportable insult upon the children of Israel, by telling them that they were not of the human family. Can the whites deny this charge? Have they not, after having reduced us to the deplorable condition of slaves under their feet, held us up as descending originally from the tribes of Monkeys or Orang-Outangs? O! my God! I appeal to every man of feeling-is not this insupportable? Is it not heaping the most gross insult upon our miseries, because they have got us under their feet and we cannot help ourselves? Oh! pity us we pray thee, Lord Jesus, Master. — Has Mr. Jefferson declared to the world, that we are inferior to the whites, both in the endowments of our bodies and our minds? It is indeed surprising, that a man of such great learning, combined with such excellent natural parts, should speak so of a set of men in chains. I do not know what to compare it to, unless, like putting one wild deer in an iron cage, where it will be secured, and hold another by the side of the same, then let it go, and expect the one in the cage to run as fast as the one at liberty. So far, my brethren, were the Egyptians from heaping these insults upon their slaves, that Pharaoh’s daughter took Moses, a son of Israel for her own, as will appear by the following.

….The world knows, that slavery as it existed was, mans, (which was the primary cause of their destruction) was, comparatively speaking, no more than a cypher, when compared with ours under the Americans. Indeed I should not have noticed the Roman slaves, had not the very learned and penetrating Mr. Jefferson said, “when a master was murdered, all his slaves in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death.” — Here let me ask Mr. Jefferson, (but he is gone to answer at the bar of God, for the deeds done in his body while living,) I therefore ask the whole American people, had I not rather die, or be put to death, than to be a slave to any tyrant, who takes not only my own, but my wife and children’s lives by the inches? Yea, would I meet death with avidity far! far!! in preference to such servile submission to the murderous hands of tyrants. Mr. Jefferson’s very severe remarks on us have been so extensively argued upon by men whose attainments in literature, I shall never be able to reach, that I would not have meddled with it, were it not to solicit each of my brethren, who has the spirit of a man, to buy a copy of Mr. Jefferson’s “Notes on Virginia,” and put it in the hand of his son.

….But let us review Mr. Jefferson’s remarks respecting us some further. Comparing our miserable fathers, with the learned philosophers of Greece, he says: “Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too, in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master’s children; Epictetus, Terence and Phaedrus, were slaves, — but they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction.” See this, my brethren! ! Do you believe that this assertion is swallowed by millions of the whites? Do you know that Mr. Jefferson was one of as great characters as ever lived among the whites? See his writings for the world, and public labours for the United States of America. Do you believe that the assertions of such a man, will pass away into oblivion unobserved by this people and the world? If you do you are much mistaken-See how the American people treat us — have we souls in our bodies? Are we men who have any spirits at all? I know that there are many swell-bellied fellows among us, whose greatest object is to fill their stomachs. Such I do not mean — I am after those who know and feel, that we are MEN, as well as other people; to them, I say, that unless we try to refute Mr. Jefferson’s arguments respecting us, we will only establish them.

…I must observe to my brethren that at the close of the first Revolution in this country, with Great Britain, there were but thirteen States in the Union, now there are twenty-four, most of which are slave-holding States, and the whites are dragging us around in chains and in handcuffs, to their new States and Territories to work their mines and farms, to enrich them and their children-and millions of them believing firmly that we being a little darker than they, were made by our Creator to be an inheritance to them and their children for ever-the same as a parcel of brutes.

Are we MEN! ! — I ask you, 0 my brethren I are we MEN? Did our Creator make us to be slaves to dust and ashes like ourselves? Are they not dying worms as well as we? Have they not to make their appearance before the tribunal of Heaven, to answer for the deeds done in the body, as well as we? Have we any other Master but Jesus Christ alone? Is he not their Master as well as ours? — What right then, have we to obey and call any other Master, but Himself? How we could be so submissive to a gang of men, whom we cannot tell whether they are as good as ourselves or not, I never could conceive. However, this is shut up with the Lord, and we cannot precisely tell — but I declare, we judge men by their works.

The whites have always been an unjust, jealous, unmerciful, avaricious and blood-thirsty set of beings, always seeking after power and authority.

….to my no ordinary astonishment, [a] Reverend gentleman got up and told us (coloured people) that slaves must be obedient to their masters — must do their duty to their masters or be whipped — the whip was made for the backs of fools, &c. Here I pause for a moment, to give the world time to consider what was my surprise, to hear such preaching from a minister of my Master, whose very gospel is that of peace and not of blood and whips, as this pretended preacher tried to make us believe. What the American preachers can think of us, I aver this day before my God, I have never been able to define. They have newspapers and monthly periodicals, which they receive in continual succession, but on the pages of which, you will scarcely ever find a paragraph respecting slavery, which is ten thousand times more injurious to this country than all the other evils put together; and which will be the final overthrow of its government, unless something is very speedily done; for their cup is nearly full.-Perhaps they will laugh at or make light of this; but I tell you Americans! that unless you speedily alter your course, you and your Country are gone! ! ! ! !

If any of us see fit to go away, go to those who have been for many years, and are now our greatest earthly friends and benefactors — the English. If not so, go to our brethren, the Haytians, who, according to their word, are bound to protect and comfort us. The Americans say, that we are ungrateful-but I ask them for heaven’s sake, what should we be grateful to them for — for murdering our fathers and mothers ? — Or do they wish us to return thanks to them for chaining and handcuffing us, branding us, cramming fire down our throats, or for keeping us in slavery, and beating us nearly or quite to death to make us work in ignorance and miseries, to support them and their families. They certainly think that we are a gang of fools. Those among them, who have volunteered their services for our redemption, though we are unable to compensate them for their labours, we nevertheless thank them from the bottom of our hearts, and have our eyes steadfastly fixed upon them, and their labours of love for God and man. — But do slave-holders think that we thank them for keeping us in miseries, and taking our lives by the inches?

Let no man of us budge one step, and let slave-holders come to beat us from our country. America is more our country, than it is the whites-we have enriched it with our blood and tears. The greatest riches in all America have arisen from our blood and tears: — and will they drive us from our property and homes, which we have earned with our blood? They must look sharp or this very thing will bring swift destruction upon them. The Americans have got so fat on our blood and groans, that they have almost forgotten the God of armies. But let the go on.

Do the colonizationists think to send us off without first being reconciled to us? Do they think to bundle us up like brutes and send us off, as they did our brethren of the State of Ohio? Have they not to be reconciled to us, or reconcile us to them, for the cruelties with which they have afflicted our fathers and us? Methinks colonizationists think they have a set of brutes to deal with, sure enough. Do they think to drive us from our country and homes, after having enriched it with our blood and tears, and keep back millions of our dear brethren, sunk in the most barbarous wretchedness, to dig up gold and silver for them and their children? Surely, the Americans must think that we are brutes, as some of them have represented us to be. They think that we do not feel for our brethren, whom they are murdering by the inches, but they are dreadfully deceived.

What nation under heaven, will be able to do any thing with us, unless God gives us up into its hand? But Americans. I declare to you, while you keep us and our children in bondage, and treat us like brutes, to make us support you and your families, we cannot be your friends. You do not look for it do you? Treat us then like men, and we will be your friends. And there is not a doubt in my mind, but that the whole of the past will be sunk into oblivion, and we yet, under God, will become a united and happy people. The whites may say it is impossible, but remember that nothing is impossible with God.

I count my life not dear unto me, but I am ready to be offered at any moment, For what is the use of living, when in fact I am dead. But remember, Americans, that as miserable, wretched, degraded and abject as you have made us in preceding, and in this generation, to support you and your families, that some of you, (whites) on the continent of America, will yet curse the day that you ever were born. You want slaves, and want us for your slaves ! ! ! My colour will yet, root some of you out of the very face of the earth ! ! ! ! ! ! You may doubt it if you please. I know that thousands will doubt-they think they have us so well secured in wretchedness, to them and their children, that it is impossible for such things to occur.

See your Declaration Americans! ! ! Do you understand your won language? Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776 — “We hold these truths to be self evident — that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL! ! that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! !” Compare your own language above, extracted from your Declaration of Independence, with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us — men who have never given your fathers or you the least provocation! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2931t.html

Here is a link to the complete book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0_2gp43IdngC&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Walker's+Appeal&source=bl&ots=zr37XNF0-I&sig=ce43k0YHKZhANMTZriwSmGDNPps&hl=en&ei=Og4aTcrNOcT68AbH1-yvDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

I love this stuff. David Walker was a true patriot, an unsung American hero. His story should be taught in every American history class but unfortunately this is still not the case outside of the best schools.

What does Walker have to do with BLT?

armwood said:
What do you mean blasphemous?

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community”

armwood said:
Are you arguing that the Bible is the literal, unerring word of God.

No, I’m arguing with CD’s statement that there is nothing in BLT that cannot be backed up by the New Testament. If you’re trying to understand what I’m saying, it would be helpful for you to actually read the words I type. It’s right up there, plain as day.

Pablo said:
Why would you do that when it does absolutely nothing to advance your argument? Misdirection is not going to be your friend

It’s not misdirection. If Beck wants to be a political commentator that’s one thing. When he voluntarily decides to focus on God and openly publicly criticize and misrepresent the beliefs of others then he opens himself to criticism along those lines, and religious hypocrisy is fitting and accurate.

Pablo said:
I asked you a really simple question. I think you should answer it if we’re going to continue.

As you know, you and I already had a rather long discussion of this very issue where I showed my research and answered your questions and arguments. If you’d like to find and review that thread that’s fine by me because I’m happy to have other readers go through it. It’s fine if you disagree with the arguments I made and reach a different conclusion based on the evidence I presented , but let’s not pretend I haven’t already backed up my arguments on this subject.

Pablo said:
Are they gagged? If you want to know what Jim Wallis has to say, you can find lots of it at The Blaze. (Hey, who runs that thing?) Or you could Google “Sojourners” and you’ll find that he has a platform all his own.

No, they are not gagged, but tell me honestly how we would view any other pundit or reporter who criticized a specific public figure and then refused to allow that person on to answer that criticism. Speaks to credibility doesn’t it? If someone is at all concerned about the truth , and admittedly repeatedly asks viewers to check his work because it’s only an opinion, and he may be wrong, then the fair thing, if you’re concerned about your viewers getting accurate information, is to let them respond to your criticism to your viewers. When you claim to be a Christian whose beliefs and the truth, are so very important to you, and openly publicly criticize other Christians then the imperative is multiplied by your own words and the words of the NT and judgment of others.

Mat 5: 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

Mat 7: 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Romans 14; 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat {speaking specifically about disputes of beliefs among Christians}
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.
Nothing wrong with disagreements about doctrine and a reasonable discussion, but to call for unity one day, which strongly implies we should overlook doctrinal differences, and find common ground, and then to single out a theology to call perverse the very next day, or advise people to leave their church, for the use of a term you don’t like. A rather obvious and startling example of religious hypocrisy.

Comon everybody, let’s come together in God’s love, and not let our differences comes between us, ….well except this group because they’re perverse and also let’s exclude anyone who uses this term I don’t like. But other than that , we are one.

Mark 9: 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,

Pablo said:
What does Walker have to do with BLT?

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community”

That is totally false. Black theology has always accepted as an apriori concept that God is on the side of justice. Read the writings in the tradition. Read Richard Allen, the 19th Century founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the most prestigious of African American denominations. You are talking about things that you know nothing about. Please, please do some homework so we can have a real discussion. It is frustrating to read wild unsubstantiated claims, especially when the truth is so readily available. I grew up in a time when we had to go to libraries with dim yellow lights and search through microfiche for these documents. You are blessed use the tools at your disposal.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/allen.html

Pablo said:
Pablo said:
What does Walker have to do with BLT?

He is a founding father of not just African American Liberation Theology but global liberation theology. Pablo you obviously did not read the excerpts I posted. The lineage is obvious. Pablo, please tell me what you don’t see in the connection?

Pablo said:
OK, forget that one. I’d like to know where in the New Testament you can find support for this, from James Cone, at the same link:

We already did this but briefly;

At the birth of BLT, the issue was that a large part of white Christianity ignored the plight of blacks in America, and indeed in many churches blacks were not even allowed in. It isn’t hard to read the NT and see what Jesus taught about that kind of thing. Jesus clearly said, “whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me” and “not everyone who says “Lord Lord” is his disciple but those whose real world actions and treatment of others reflects his teachings. So, merely claiming to love God, worship Jesus and his teachings, was not enough. In fact , according to Jesus own words, if you made that claim while ignoring the plight of the needy around you, you weren’t really a Christian at all.
That is essentially the same principle Cone is speaking of in the quote you selected. Although BLT came about to specifically deal with the very real oppression of blacks by the white largely Christian majority in this country {the very issue MLK addressed who received high praise from Beck} the use of black and white are both literal, regarding that specific issue, and metaphorical in regards to the larger issue of oppression of the poor anywhere by anyone. I specifically quoted this same Cone quote to you before.

But that is only one aspect of my experience. When I begin to investigate the particular experience of blackness and whiteness in America, I begin to see beyond it. Through my particular experience of blackness, I encounter the symbolic significance of black existence and how that existence is related to god’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color

So while it is relatively easy to pull select quotes and focus on the more militant ring of Cone’s belief , when you make an honest effort to look at the big picture it’s quite different. If a sermon is preached upon the wrath of God, does that mean the preacher doesn’t consider God’s love? It’s foolish to assume so.
It’s equally narrow minded to view BLT this way without considering it’s historical context. We can easily take select verses of the Bible and make God appear to be a bloodthirsty vengeful God interested only in strict obedience , but it’s not an honest or inclusive approach.

CosmosDan says:
“Mark 9: 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,…”

Dan, 50 years at least passed between Jesus’ crucifixion and The Gospel According to Mathew. How many of those red words, “Jesus’ words, were actually spoken and how many were put in his mouth across 2 and 1/2 generations of word of mouth story telling?

This is why I think it’s safe for Beck to become a “fricken televangelist,” his phrase, rather than someone who deals with concrete reality, political or otherwise. Spiritual Truth is much more a matter of belief than the truth about progressives, policies, the President or the past. Beck has more leeway to say whatever comes into his head without lying as he is inclined to do about the world.

It’s easier to get away with being a spiritual charlatan than with being a political charlatan. That makes Beck’s turn toward God safe if not sound.

What I find far more interesting is Beck telling his flock how and how often to pray, as if his one college course in religion qualifies him as an ordained minister. For people who carry the Gadsen flag, he sure tells his sheep how to live a lot. Freedom? Reads more like spiritual fascism to me.

CosmosDan said:
Why is that the important part? One guy didn’t want to help him, another guy was more helpful. You’d think the important thing was the actual policy. I’d guess they may not want reserving seats to be common knowledge because more people would expect them. It’s easier to have the no reservations rule and make exceptions per situation. I don’t need to make excuses for them. I didn’t call them elitists you did, and Beck very clearly tried to imply that. With really nothing to support it. I’m not sure why Beck’s gratuitous and unnecessary mocking of Ms Walters is acceptable but them calling him on it is some horrible crime. He mouthed off when he shouldn’t have and they overreacted and accused him of lying. If you’re going to excuse Beck on some technicality then apply the same rule to them and let’s move on. It’s petty nonsense

I’ll adress these comments later.

Calvin said:
Here you go. Talk with these people. They can give you better answers than I can. And they can back it up. Do they have photographic evidence of the Golden Plates? No. If they did, there’d be no need for faith. Also, are you implying that Mormons are not Christians?

No I’m not saying Mormons aren’t Christians. Definitions vary and plenty of other Christians would consider their beliefs just as perverse as anything taught by BLT maybe moire so.
I tend to go more by character and actions rather than denomination and doctrine. If someone is a good person who treats others well I don’t care if they believe Joe Smith, Mohammed, Moses, or Bahá’u’lláh were prophets.

Calvin said:
That’s what it seems like when you say “anymore than Christians can back it up.

I’m only saying that most religions are based on a lot of tradition and beliefs that are taken on faith rather than fact, so when it comes down to it, they can’t be backed up. It’s simply the nature of religion.

Calvin said:
This whole thing about forcibly taking from others and not being entitled to wealth does not seem like something Jesus taught. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say anything like that

Let’s dispel this completely false premise of the conservative argument. Nobody is suggesting forcibly taking ,money from anyone. What’s being suggested and disagreed upon, is a perfectly constitutional process of a democratic republic establishing laws. Conservatives and liberals both agree that we should help the less fortunate but we disagree on the method. Neither is more biblically correct. You don’t really suppose Jesus would have disapproved of taxes helping the poor do you? Seems incredibly far fetched.

Calvin said:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Yeah, that means rich white people are oppressing black people and we should hate rich white people ’cause they’re our enemy. Right.

It it easy to ignore what the white so called Christians did to their black brothers and sisters for generations so you can criticize the christian standing up to do something about it? Do consider those churchgoers who barred blacks from their churches, their bathrooms and fountains, to be Christians, because they certainly gave lip service Jesus and the ten commandments? So in your eyes the people who had the advantages and practiced racism while claiming to be Christians are excused but the Christians who were treated as half human and resented it can’t be Christians? That doesn’t sound like you and the impression I’ve had so far.
You have to look at BLT in the historical context of which it was born. Like MLK, BLT addressed a specific issue , but had a larger Christian belief. As I posted above , and found in a more extensive read of Cone, black and white went beyond skin color. It imposes a moral imperative all all who claim to follow Christ to stand up and be active against oppression and injustice regardless of skin color. That is completely supported by the words of Christ. in the NT.

Calvin said:
There’s a difference in interpreting something differently and having a totally warped point of view with no scriptural basis at all.

I suppose there is, but the fact is if you want to be selective of which passages you stress and how you interpret them you can justify just about belief, and that is demonstrated by snake handlers, those who like to speak in tongues, and even the hateful Westboro Baptist.

How can you logically claim BLT has no scriptural basis when so many Christians and theologians believe it does, and at the same time defend Mormonism which is also disputed by a lot of Christians? It just doesn’t follow any logical path. People can have there opinions but BLT is no more perverse in their teachings or less scripturally based than Mormonism. Beck’s presentation of BLT was intentionally aimed at an audience that wasn’t aware of it’s history and he purposely selected inflammatory quotes to cast it in the worst possible light.

and this’……

Calvin said:
James Cone doubts that the Bible is God’s inspired, infallible, inerrant Word

Um,…so what? Not only is that correct, other Christians believe that as well. That is not a requirement of being a Christian.

GlennBeckReview said:
Dan, 50 years at least passed between Jesus’ crucifixion and The Gospel According to Mathew. How many of those red words, “Jesus’ words, were actually spoken and how many were put in his mouth across 2 and 1/2 generations of word of mouth story telling?

I know. We don’t actually know if Jesus was an individual who walked the earth. or just a myth. Nevertheless, Beck’s issues with BLT and churches who teach social justice still rings to me as blatant religious hypocrisy.

armwood said:
He is a founding father of not just African American Liberation Theology but global liberation theology. Pablo you obviously did not read the excerpts I posted. The lineage is obvious. Pablo, please tell me what you don’t see in the connection?

No, he isn’t. BLT didn’t exist until the late 1950′s – early 1960′s.

Read Richard Allen, the 19th Century founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the most prestigious of African American denominations.

AME does not equal BLT. You’re wrong.

CosmosDan said:
That is essentially the same principle Cone is speaking of in the quote you selected.

Bullshit. Revisionist bullshit, to be more precise.

CosmosDan said:
No, they are not gagged, but tell me honestly how we would view any other pundit or reporter who criticized a specific public figure and then refused to allow that person on to answer that criticism.

Where are all these forums, particularly Christian forums that host views antithetical to the principles upon which the forums are built? Where and when do atheists speak from Church pulpits? Again, there’s something of a point you could be working on here, but it isn’t “religious hypocrisy” and using that term leads one to believe that you don’t understand either of the words in it. Where in Christianity does God command followers to sit down and politely listen to heathen ideologies?

Pablo said:
Where in Christianity does God command followers to sit down and politely listen to heathen ideologies?

Quite the misrepresentation you’re promoting. We’re not talking about non believers but other Christians who happen to disagree with Beck. That is dealt with very clearly in the Bible as I just demonstrated. You may think you can apply any label you happen to prefer in order to make yourself right but it’s a sadly transparent effort.

Pablo said:
Bullshit. Revisionist bullshit, to be more precise.

That’s the point. Christian denominations are made up of all kinds of revisionists, like say, a man who pretends to be a prophet and makes up some story about golden plates and starts his own religion about restoring the truth long hidden form all those less fortunate Christians who only have the Bible to go by.

There is no mental gymnastics that escape from the obvious fact that men interpret the Bible differently and foster all the various doctrines and denominations we observe. So, when man who follows a prophet that a huge majority of Christians do not believe is a prophet, makes a big show and calls for religious unity, and immediately contradicts himself by calling other Christians perverse, I call it as I see it.
When he praises one man one day, and attacks another with similar thoughts and principles the very next day, the hypocrisy seems obvious.

Pablo said:
No, he isn’t. BLT didn’t exist until the late 1950’s – early 1960’s.

Not existing , and not having a specific title, are not the same thing.

GlennBeckReview said:
CosmosDan says:
“Mark 9: 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,…”

Dan, 50 years at least passed between Jesus’ crucifixion and The Gospel According to Mathew. How many of those red words, “Jesus’ words, were actually spoken and how many were put in his mouth across 2 and 1/2 generations of word of mouth story telling?

This is why I think it’s safe for Beck to become a “fricken televangelist,” his phrase, rather than someone who deals with concrete reality, political or otherwise. Spiritual Truth is much more a matter of belief than the truth about progressives, policies, the President or the past. Beck has more leeway to say whatever comes into his head without lying as he is inclined to do about the world.

It’s easier to get away with being a spiritual charlatan than with being a political charlatan. That makes Beck’s turn toward God safe if not sound.

What I find far more interesting is Beck telling his flock how and how often to pray, as if his one college course in religion qualifies him as an ordained minister. For people who carry the Gadsen flag, he sure tells his sheep how to live a lot. Freedom? Reads more like spiritual fascism to me.

Very well put!

CosmosDan said:
Not existing , and not having a specific title, are not the same thing.

You are wrong. Do you have a degree in Africana studies? I didn’t think so! Have you every talked to Reverend Cleage or any other African minster in this movement. The answer for you is no and for me the answer is yes. David Walker and Richard Allen are major influences. Don’t believe me. Go to their websites and contact them. Or contact a professor at any African American Divinity School. This is as I posted earlier no anything new. This is old hat for anyone with a superficial exposure to the topic.

armwood said:
Pablo said:
No, he isn’t. BLT didn’t exist until the late 1950’s – early 1960’s.

You are wrong. Do you have a degree in Africana studies? I didn’t think so! Have you every talked to Reverend Cleage or any other African minster in this movement. The answer for you is no and for me the answer is yes. David Walker and Richard Allen are major influences. Don’t believe me. Go to their websites and contact them. Or contact a professor at any African American Divinity School. This is as I posted earlier no anything new. This is old hat for anyone with a superficial exposure to the topic.

Sorry CosmosDan . I am getting a little frustrated with the elementary difficulties we are having here. I posted by mistake to your obviously thoughtful comment. It strikes me that many people today have little or no understanding of the historical context of the development of ideas. It is actually a little frightening. Maybe I expect to much of average people. My wife always say that.

CosmosDan said:
Not existing , and not having a specific title, are not the same thing.

Yes. I said and meant “didn’t exist.”

armwood said:
You are wrong. Do you have a degree in Africana studies? I didn’t think so!

Suck an egg, armwood, and while you’re doing so, read about the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

armwood said:
David Walker and Richard Allen are major influences. Don’t believe me. Go to their websites and contact them.

Movements are usually based on older philosophies. That doesn’t make the authors of those prior philosophies founders of them. Allen was a founder of AME. He is not a founder of BLT. But I would like to know, what website do I go to to contact guys who have been dead since the 1830′s?

CosmosDan said:
That’s the point. Christian denominations are made up of all kinds of revisionists, like say, a man who pretends to be a prophet and makes up some story about golden plates and starts his own religion about restoring the truth long hidden form all those less fortunate Christians who only have the Bible to go by.

That isn’t revisionism, that’s adding to the scripture. Mormons do not rewrite the New Testament. See, writing a new book is different than rewriting an old one. I know, this is very confusing.

There is no mental gymnastics that escape from the obvious fact that men interpret the Bible differently and foster all the various doctrines and denominations we observe.

Where in the New Testament can I find the place where it says people need to kill God if he’s not fighting the battles they’d like Him to fight? Or, anything remotely close to that…

CosmosDan said:
That’s the point. Christian denominations are made up of all kinds of revisionists, like say, a man who pretends to be a prophet and makes up some story about golden plates and starts his own religion about restoring the truth long hidden form all those less fortunate Christians who only have the Bible to go by.

Dan, the Bible supports the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon supports the Bible.

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Joseph_Smith.html

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Book-of-Mormon.html

Before you post the verses from Revelations (22:18,19) that say this: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” …let me give you this.

You don’t have to believe the Joseph Smith story, just bear in mind the things above.

Pablo said:
Suck an egg, armwood, and while you’re doing so, read about the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Movements are usually based on older philosophies. That doesn’t make the authors of those prior philosophies founders of them. Allen was a founder of AME. He is not a founder of BLT. But I would like to know, what website do I go to to contact guys who have been dead since the 1830’s?

Pablo, don’t be angry. l was not trying to put you down i had a double major in political science and Africana studies in undergraduate school. I have studies this topic extensively and met many of the significan figures. There is a long continuous tradition of African American thought that most Americans are totally unaware of. There were African American newspapers in the 1850s that argued for global African revolution. The most famous book was newspaper publisher Martin Delaney’s “Blake Or The Huts Of America” an answer to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The story s about Blake, a runaway slave in Cuba who organizes a international slave rebellion which starts in Cuba, spreads to the United States and South America. It was not called Pan Africanism in the 1850s but it was the first Pan Africanist novel. Did you know that Nelson Mandela’s political party the ANC (African Nationalist Congress) as modelled after W.E. Dubois’s N.A.A.C.P in the U.S.? The N.A.A.C.P was formed in 1909 as a result of the Niagara Movement led by Dubois in 1905. The ANC was founded in 1912, inspired by the founding of the N.A.A.C.P.

People so not live in isolation. People involved in social struggle study history. This is crucial. I have met African revolutionaries like the late Amilcar Cabral who knew more American history than most Americans. Martin Luther King studied Ghandi as well as Martin Luther, Augustine, Acquinas, Calvin, Wesley etc. This is par for the course. to think that these people are unaware of their antecedents is in credibly naive.

Calvin said:
Dan, the Bible supports the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon supports the Bible.

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Joseph_Smith.html

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Book-of-Mormon.html

Before you post the verses from Revelations (22:18,19) that say this: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” …let me give you this.

You don’t have to believe the Joseph Smith story, just bear in mind the things above.

Wow! You have got to be kidding!

“Like Douglass’ “Heroic Slave,” Martin Delany’s Blake is the story of an African American who chooses violent rebellion over Tom’s resignation. Blake repeatedly dismisses Christianity as his “oppressors’ religion,” and in this text “stand still and see the salvation” means wait and plot in secret until the signal for the insurrection comes. Delany was one of the most out-spoken black critics of Stowe’s novel, but there is much about Blake that remains unknown, including how soon after the appearance of Uncle Tom’s Cabin Delany began writing it, and whether he ever finished it. Included in this archive is Part One, or just about exactly the first half, of the novel. Most of Part One (chapters 1-23 and 29-31) originally appeared serially in The Anglo-African Magazine, January to July, 1859. The rest of Part One was first published when Delany reprinted the story in The Weekly Anglo-African, November, 1861, to May, 1862. It was not published in book form until 1970, when Floyd J. Miller prepared an edition of Part One and the first 40 chapters of Part Two (all that have been recovered) for the Beacon Press.”

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/africam/blakehp.html

armwood said:
Wow! You have got to be kidding!

Nope. If you’ve got anything that says otherwise, check it against these websites:

http://fairlds.org/

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/

http://www.shields-research.org/

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/

I’m not going to debate Mormonism anymore than I have already. We’re talking about Black Liberation Theology.

Pablo said:
Yes. I said and meant “didn’t exist.”

I’m sure you meant it since I’ve seen that weak tea before. I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong. The principles and foundation of BLT existed for some time before it received it’s official name. Comparing the quotes of Cone and MLK shows this.

Calvin said:
Nope. If you’ve got anything that says otherwise, check it against these websites:

http://fairlds.org/

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/

http://www.shields-research.org/

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/

I’m not going to debate Mormonism anymore than I have already. We’re talking about Black Liberation Theology.

So you are afraid to discuss Mormonism with me, not surprising. I have posted a lot of information for you to chew on. Your selectiveness is interesting. You want to keep your non biblical Mormonism off the table. I understand your cowardliness. If I were you I would be afraid to discuss Mormonism with me also.

By Gary F. Zeolla

In 1820, a man by the name of Joseph Smith claimed he had a vision in which God the Father and the Son appeared to him. He said he was told the churches of that time, “were all wrong” and “all their creeds were an abomination” (Smith, p.49).

In a later vision Joseph Smith alleged he was told he was the one chosen to restore the true Church to the world by bringing forth the Book of Mormon. As a result, on April 6, 1830, “The Church of Christ” was founded. The name was later changed to, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (LDS). The group is more popularly known as “Mormonism.”

Joseph Smith was killed by an angry mob on June 27, 1844. Afterwards, Brigham Young took over the presidency of the new church (McDowell, pp.64-66). Since then, the Mormon church has had a succession of 11 presidents (or prophets; Hinckley, pp.130-131). The LDS church also has 12 men designated as apostles at all times.

Doctrinal Shift

Mormonism has diverted from historic Christianity on many doctrinal issues. One important shift is its attitude towards revelation.

The LDS believes its prophets are “God’s mouthpieces” and, “… the statements of the presidents of the church should stand next to the scriptures as authoritative sources on the various gospel doctrines” (Ludlow, pp.viii, ix). The teachings of its apostles are also considered authoritative, though not infallible like those of the prophets.

But the Bible does not teach that the offices of prophet and apostle as givers of special revelation will continue indefinitely. Paul refers to the Church as, “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” A “foundation” is laid first, and only once. The “building” then “grows” on top of it (Eph 2:20,21).

Further, “The epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, among the last New Testament writings to be penned, exhort the readers to avoid false doctrines by recalling the teachings of the apostles (2Pet 1:12-15; 2:1; 3:2,14-16; Jude 3-4,17). Peter and Jude did not say “Listen to the apostles living today,” but instead urged believers to ‘remember what the apostles said’” (Bowman, p. 31).

Low View of the Bible

One reason Mormonism has moved away from a belief in the all-sufficiency of the Bible is its acceptance of a negative, lower criticism of the Scriptures.

Joseph Smith claimed, “Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” Brigham Young said further, “… many precious things have been rejected in the compilation and translation of the Bible” (Ludlow, pp.345f). For discussions on these claims see Have Precious Truths Been Lost from the Bible? and An Introduction to Textual Criticism.

Despite its low view of Scripture, Mormonism still claims its belief system coheres with the teachings of the Bible. Brigham Young proclaimed, “In all my teachings, I have taught the gospel from the Old and New Testaments. I have found therein every doctrine and the proof of every doctrine the Latter-Day Saints believe in” (Ludlow, p.346).

This LDS claim will be tested against the teachings of the Bible (Acts 17:11).

Doctrine of God

Joseph Smith declares the Mormon doctrine of God, “GOD HIMSELF WAS ONCE AS WE ARE NOW AND IS AN EXALTED MAN and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! …”

Joseph Smith continues, “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that HE WAS ONCE A MAN LIKE US; yea, that God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”

Another LDS prophet, Lorenzo Snow, taught, “We are the offspring of our Father in Heaven and we possess in our spiritual organizations the same capabilities, powers and faculties that our Father possesses, although in an infantile state.”

Further, the Mormon god still has room to progress. President Woodruff stated, “GOD HIMSELF IS INCREASING AND PROGRESSING IN KNOWLEDGE, POWER, AND DOMINION, and will do so, worlds without end.”

Moreover, the Mormon god’s progress is contingent on man’s. Lorenzo Snow, another president taught, “He has given us faculties and powers that are capable of enlargement until HIS fullness is reached.”

Also, Joseph Smith taught, “Our Father in Heaven is a personage of tabernacle, just as I am … and HE HAS ALL THE PARTS AND PASSIONS OF A PERFECT MAN, and HIS BODY IS COMPOSED OF FLESH AND BONES, but not of blood” (Ludlow, pp.277,276,78,74,278).

Thus, according to Mormonism, the difference between God and human beings is only one of degree, not of kind. He has simply progressed further than we have.

Is This the God of the Bible?

Is this the God of the Bible? First it must be asked if God changes, grows and progresses. Is God mutable (subject to change) or immutable (not subject to change)?

Psalm 102:25-27 contrast the changing, non-eternal nature of the universe with the unchanging, eternal nature of God. God Himself spoke through Malachi and proclaimed, “For I am the LORD, I do not change …” (Mal 3:6; see also 1Sam 15:29; Heb 6:13-20; Jam 1:17). These verses clearly show the God of the Bible is immutable.

Second, there is no way the God of the Bible used to be a man. Moses prayed, “Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Ps 90:2; see also Numb 23:19).

Third, the God of the Bible does not have a physical body composed of “flesh and bones.” Jesus stated very clearly, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). Elsewhere, Jesus declared, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Also, if God had a physical body, He would be visible; but the Bible teaches God is INVISIBLE (Job 9:11; Col 1:15; 1Tim 1:17; 6:16; Heb 11:27; 1John 4:12).

And finally, Paul proclaimed to the Athenians, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He served with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives life and breath and all things to all” (Acts 17:25,26; MKJV).

The God of the Bible is in no way dependent on us; but we are absolutely dependent on Him! (see also 1Chr 29:14; Rom 12:3; 1Cor 4:6,7; 15:10; 2Cor 3:5).

Sex in Heaven?

Next to be studied is Mormonism’s attitude towards Jesus and His relationship to people in general. Brigham Young professed, “WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS OUR ELDER BROTHER ….” Likewise, Joseph Smith said, “Among the spirit children of Elohim [God the Father], the firstborn was and is … Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors” (Ludlow, p.280).

LDS apostle Bruce McConkie writes, “Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of AN ETERNAL MOTHER” (quoted in Tanners, p.164).

Moreover, another Mormon apostle, Orson Pratt, declared, “We have now clearly shown that GOD THE FATHER HAD A PLURALITY OF WIVES, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His first born, AND ANOTHER BEING UPON THE EARTH BY WHOM HE BEGAT THE TABERNACLE [PHYSICAL BODY] OF JESUS, as His only begotten in this world” (quoted in Tanners, p.227).

Joseph Smith explains further, “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, ELOHIM IS LITERALLY THE FATHER OF THE SPIRIT OF JESUS CHRIST AND ALSO OF THE BODY in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh …” (Ludlow, p.280).

Putting this all together, Mormonism teaches the SPIRITS of all people were conceived in heaven via physical, sexual intercourse between the Father and one or more of his goddess wives. This “heavenly sex” is possible since the Mormon god (and presumably His wives) have “all the parts and passions” that we do.

Thus, in Mormonism, the only difference between Jesus and people in general is that His spirit was conceived before ours. Also, to produce Jesus’ physical body, the Mormon god came down to earth and had sexual intercourse with the virgin Mary.

Is This in the Bible?

Are any of these ideas in the Bible? Is Jesus just our “elder brother” or is He unique? John 1:18; 3:16 teach Jesus is the “only begotten Son.” The footnote in The Believer’s Study Bible comments, “The only begotten Son” (Greek, monogenes) means one of a kind, unique, without precedent” (Criswell, p.1494). John 5:18-26 clearly upholds Jesus’ uniqueness. He is said to be “equal to God” (v.18) and to have “life in Himself” (v.26). Jesus is declared to have an unique relationship with the Father (vv.19-24; compare Matt 11:27).

As for heavenly sex, it must asked, “How can the copulation of PHYSICAL beings (the Mormon god and his goddess wives) produce SPIRIT children?” Further, as already shown, the God of the Bible does not have a physical body. Hence, the whole concept of sex in heaven is simply nonsense (see Matt 22:30).

As for God having sexual intercourse with Mary, according to Mormonism, Mary is literally the daughter of the Father. As such, for God to have had intercourse with her would have been INCEST! But such behavior would have Him breaking His own Law while causing Mary to sin (see Lev 18:6,7,17).

And lastly, the Virgin Birth of Christ is explicitly and implicitly taught in the Bible. This was demonstrated in the article “Born of the Virgin Mary.”

Mormon Exaltation

Joseph Fielding Smith was a descendent of Joseph Smith and the tenth Mormon president. He declared, “Joseph Smith taught a plurality of Gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and KEEPING THE WHOLE LAW will eventually reach the power and EXALTATION BY WHICH HE ALSO WILL BECOME A GOD” (p.98).

The book Gospel Principles is used by the LDS church to train new converts. The last chapter is titled “Exaltation” and explains this concept, “Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the father of spirit children. He is a creator. WE CAN BECOME GODS LIKE OUR HEAVENLY FATHER. THIS IS EXALTATION” (pp.289,290).

Lorenzo Snow summarizes the Mormon position, “AS MAN NOW IS, OUR GOD WAS; AS NOW GOD IS, SO MAN MAY BE …” (Ludlow, p.72). So a Mormon man is working to become a god. But the goal for a Mormon woman is rather different.

John Taylor, third president of the Mormon church, explains this goal in a letter to a Mormon lady. He is responding to her question, “And what is my final destiny after having obeyed the truth, if faithful to the end?”

Taylor writes:
Thou wilt be permitted to pass by the Gods and angels who guard the gates, and onward, upward to THY EXALTATION in a celestial world among the Gods, to be a priestess queen upon thy Heavenly Father’s throne, and a glory to thy husband and offspring, TO BEAR THE SOULS OF MEN, TO PEOPLE OTHER WORLDS (as thou did bear their tabernacles in mortality) WHILE ETERNITY GOES AND ETERNITY COMES; and if you will receive it, lady, this is eternal life (quoted in Ludlow, pp.9,10).

So a Mormon woman is working to have the privilege of populating her exalted husband’s planet. And notice, this is done in the same way children are brought forth “in mortality” (i.e. on this earth) and it continues indefinitely. In other words, “heaven” for a Mormon woman is to be eternally pregnant!

Biblical Justification

But what does the Bible teach on these matters? First, can men become gods? The true God declared through Isaiah, “And understand that I am He. BEFORE ME WAS NO GOD FORMED, NOR SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME. I, even, I am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:10,11).

How much clearer could God be? There is only ONE God. This has always been the case and always will be (see also Deut 4:35; 6:4; 2Sam 7:22; Isa 44:6,8; 46:9).

So men cannot be “exalted” to gods and women need not look forward to being eternally pregnant. The true need for both men and women is JUSTIFICATION before God.

John Robbins explains, “Justification by faith is the heart of the Gospel. As sinners we are all condemned before God; we deserve whatever punishment he is pleased to give us. But Christ died for the sins of his people; they are justified, rather than condemned” (Robbins, p.1; Luke 18:9-14; Rom 3:9-26; 4:5-8; 5:8-11).

To those trusting in Christ’s death for their justification, Paul writes, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1; see also Acts 13:38,39; Rom 8:33-39; 1Cor 6:11; Titus 3:4-7).

For additional study on the teachings of Mormonism, see the book Behind the Mask of Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. It is available from Books-A-Million .

Bibliography: Note: All emphases in quotes are added.
All Scripture references from: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.
Bowman, Robert. “Faulty Foundation of Five-Fold Ministry.” Christian Research Journal. Fall, 1987, p.31.
Criswell, W.A. The Believer’s Study Bible: NKJV. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991.
Green, J.P. ed. Holy Bible, Modern King James Version. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1993.
Gospel Principles, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1988.
Hinckley, Gordon. Truth Restored. USA: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979.
Ludlow, Daniel ed. Latter-Day Prophets Speak. USA: Bookcraft, 1988.

http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/mormonism.htm
McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart. Handbook of Today’s Religions. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life. 1983.
Robbins, John. “Are You Catholic?” Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1994.
Smith, Joseph. The Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, 1986.
Smith, James Fielding. Doctrines of Salvation. Vol.I, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954.
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra. Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987.

CosmosDan said:
Um…so what? Not only is that correct, other Christians believe that as well. That is not a requirement of being a Christian.

Oops. I don’t know how/why I put that there.

Pablo said:
That isn’t revisionism, that’s adding to the scripture. Mormons do not rewrite the New Testament. See, writing a new book is different than rewriting an old one. I know, this is very confusing.

Evidently to you it is. Two things. Since the Bible is considered all the official Christian canon there is, adding the Book of Mormon , Doctrine and Covenants and whatever, qualifies as revision and any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense. Not only that Smith actually did rewrite large portions of the Bible in his Inspired version.

Pablo said:
Where in the New Testament can I find the place where it says people need to kill God if he’s not fighting the battles they’d like Him to fight? Or, anything remotely close to that…

Perhaps you’re familiar with the term, figure of speech? Such as
Heb 6: 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Ya see, they don’t literally crucify Christ again do they?
or Mat 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

He doesn’t mean literally he never knew them. He’s Jesus , of course he knows them.

Getting the idea how that figure of speech things works now?

CosmosDan said:
I’m sure you meant it since I’ve seen that weak tea before. I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong. The principles and foundation of BLT existed for some time before it received it’s official name. Comparing the quotes of Cone and MLK shows this.

Uh, no. It was founded when it was founded. It did not exist until it existed. The principles upon which it was founded certainly existed elsewhere, but the foundation did not exist until it was founded. America did not come into existence when England did.

MLK did not teach BLT. He was a Baptist, actually. And he preached unity, which is decidedly no where to be found in BLT.

I feel like I’m trying to explain gravity to a two year old. I’m bored now.

CosmosDan said:
Two things. Since the Bible is considered all the official Christian canon there is, adding the Book of Mormon , Doctrine and Covenants and whatever, qualifies as revision and any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense.

No, you moron. Addition is not revision no matter how many times you’d like to say it is. Writing a new thing, whatever its merits or lack thereof, does not change things that already exist. Yes, in this case it created something new and different, but it did not change that which already existed.

CosmosDan said:
Perhaps you’re familiar with the term, figure of speech?

I would ask you to explain the “figure of speech” that Cone used, but I’m just too tired of your nonsense. Me, I’m not at all familiar with the colloquial use of “Kill God”.

Pablo said:
Uh, no. It was founded when it was founded. It did not exist until it existed. The principles upon which it was founded certainly existed elsewhere, but the foundation did not exist until it was founded. America did not come into existence when England did.

MLK did not teach BLT. He was a Baptist, actually. And he preached unity, which is decidedly no where to be found in BLT.

I feel like I’m trying to explain gravity to a two year old. I’m bored now.

There were many white members of Reverend Wright’s Church. If he was not a unifier why were they there? BLT has been smeared as anti-white by those with a political agenda. These people know nothing about BLT. White politicians in Chicago always visited Reverend Wright’s church. The whole controversy is nonsense. It was made up by Fox News and the conservative media to attack Obama. Do you think Obama would go to a church where hate of his mother and grand parents was preached. does this make sense to you? Not to me.

armwood said:
Pablo, don’t be angry. l was not trying to put you down

Anger isn’t an issue here but I find that statement rather funny in light of the one it excuses:

You are wrong. Do you have a degree in Africana studies? I didn’t think so!

Do you believe this stuff when you write it, armwood?

armwood said:
BLT has been smeared as anti-white by those with a political agenda. These people know nothing about BLT.

Except what they’ve heard from the people who FOUNDED it.

White politicians in Chicago always visited Reverend Wright’s church.

I’ve watched quite a bit of video from Trinity. Aside from Pfleger, I very little diversity there.

The whole controversy is nonsense. It was made up by Fox News and the conservative media to attack Obama.

Then why did Obama repudiate Wright?

“I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Obama told reporters at a news conference.

After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, Wright made three public appearances in four days to defend himself. The former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been combative, providing colorful commentary and feeding the story Obama had hoped was dying down.

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

Link

Calvin said:
Dan, the Bible supports the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon supports the Bible.

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Joseph_Smith.html

http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/Book-of-Mormon.html

Before you post the verses from Revelations (22:18,19) that say this: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” …let me give you this.

You don’t have to believe the Joseph Smith story, just bear in mind the things above.

Calvin, I’m already pretty familiar with Mormon claims. In fact let me give you a couple of more.

John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

LDS claim this is Jesus reference to his appearance to the people of North America.

and Isaiah 18: 1Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:
LDS teach this is a reference to the American continents.
Although that verse in Revelation is a common Christian argument against continued revelation I wouldn’t use it since I’m not a Christian. The books of the Bible have no divine authority other than that given to them by tradition. They were written, translated , copied and recopied, and eventually chosen from among a large number of writings, by men. Even if we accept that the original writings were inspired by God, {and there’s no good reason to do that} we don’t have the original writings. We have copies that have a lot of differences.

I’d be more likely to point out Joe Smith’s record as a con artist, finding buried treasure for money, the fact that American Indians as a lost tribe of Israel was a somewhat common theory of the day and not new to Smith, and the idea of a book of hidden golden plates, was previously published in a fiction novel of that era. Odd coincidences huh?

That’s not even the point Calvin. The point is that religion and theology REQUIRES interpretation of the scriptures and you can justify all sorts of doctrines by choosing whether you read passages literally or not, or which ones you choose to elevate on the list of priorities. Some churches speak in tongues on a weekly basis and have regular miraculous hearings. Others don’t. Some have bands, some believe that’s an affront to God. etc etc.
BLT is no more a perversion of the gospel that any number of various doctrines, including Mormonism, and far less than some.
Although BLT sprang from and focused on the issue of black oppression in America {by white “Christians” } the theology was broader than just that issue if you make the effort to explore it fully.

Pablo said:
No, you moron. Addition is not revision no matter how many times you’d like to say it is. Writing a new thing, whatever its merits or lack thereof, does not change things that already exist. Yes, in this case it created something new and different, but it did not change that which already existed.

The thing that was revised was the gospel which Smith claimed was incomplete and damaged by generations of men and that he was instructed by God to restore. He updated and added to, and improved the story of Jesus which clearly constitutes a revision.
I just like to go by the actual definition of words rather than make up my own. I’m funny that way. I’ll file your empty insult where it belongs , with the other crap you’re spouting.

You try so hard to find some technicality to hang your correctness on even when you’re shown to be wrong. It’s kinda funny really. And I noticed you conveniently ignored the fact that Smith did indeed rewrite that as well.

Pablo said:
Except what they’ve heard from the people who FOUNDED it.

I’ve watched quite a bit of video from Trinity. Aside from Pfleger, I very little diversity there.

Then why did Obama repudiate Wright?

Obama repudiated Wright out of political expediency. He was a member of that church according to newspaper reports around 20 years.

Dean Snyder, pastor of Hillary Clinton’s former church, warns against using Jeremiah Wright to polarize the nation

Written By: Shawn Williams

I’d like to provide everyone with a statement issued by Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. Foundry is the church that the Clinton’s attend during their time in the White House.

It should be noted that Syder was not the pastor of Foundry when the Clintons were there. Also, I added the paragraph breaks as the statement appears all together on the Foundry website.

A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream.
To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence.

Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.
This is a critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.

Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008

Pablo said:
Anger isn’t an issue here but I find that statement rather funny in light of the one it excuses:

Do you believe this stuff when you write it, armwood?

This was a legitimate question. I do have a degree in this area and I have studied it for forty years. That obviously means something Pablo. You must admit that I am knowledgable about the topic.

Pablo said:
he principles upon which it was founded certainly existed elsewhere,

They certainly did. That means we can look at the principles that preceded and influenced it founder and foundation. What Beck did was praise the man who heavily influenced BLT and shared major principles with it , on Saturday, then on Sunday he called it perverse.

Pablo said:
MLK did not teach BLT. He was a Baptist, actually. And he preached unity, which is decidedly no where to be found in BLT.

Is it the unity of reparations you’re referring to because King promoted that?
Is there unity preached in these quotes.

Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

A riot is the language of the unheard.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.

It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society.

Dang, who said those things ? That sounds a lot like those BLT principles. Couldn’t be the guy Beck was praising on Saturday could it? What about this one

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.

Holy crap that sounds like that group salvation stuff Beck was condemning shortly after the rally.

How about this one

God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom.

Well , actually that one isn’t so bad as the others. As it turns out that’s James Cone speaking of all men and our common humanity.

Pablo said:
I feel like I’m trying to explain gravity to a two year old.

What a strange coincidence. I feel like a two year old is arguing about something he doesn’t really understand, but just likes to say” Is not! Is not!” over and over again because he’s,…you know,… two.

armwood said:
A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT

Excellent! I understood that after watching the complete sermon from which one of the sound bites was lifted. 45 minutes of wonderful inspirational speaking and they intentionally focused on the few seconds they lifted playing it over and over and over. It’s a dishonest regular occurrence for them.

CosmosDan said:
I’d be more likely to point out Joe Smith’s record as a con artist, finding buried treasure for money, the fact that American Indians as a lost tribe of Israel was a somewhat common theory of the day and not new to Smith, and the idea of a book of hidden golden plates, was previously published in a fiction novel of that era. Odd coincidences huh?

The testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses has been a thorn in the side of the critics for more than a century and a half. Many critics have tried to ignore their testimonies, while others have simply glossed over their significance. Those who have attempted to tackle the issue generally have relied on ad hominem arguments—attacking the credibility, honesty, or motives of the Three Witnesses.

It is important to keep in mind that these three men never denied their testimonies. Throughout their entire lives they claimed that an angel of God had shown them the Book of Mormon plates. Each of these men separated themselves from the LDS Church at some point in their lives for one reason or another (Cowdery and Harris eventually returned). If the Book of Mormon was true, then why did they leave the Church? Did not Judas—an Apostle chosen by Christ—betray Jesus? Did not Peter—the chief Apostle—deny Christ three times? Are we to conclude therefore that Christianity is a fraud?

Despite their loss of membership, however, they continued to affirm their testimonies of the Book of Mormon. Think of the significance. Despite excommunication, embarrassment, and ill feelings, these men knew they had seen an angel; they knew they had heard a voice from heaven declaring the book’s authenticity; and they knew that the Book of Mormon was the word of God.

What possible motives might have driven the Three Witnesses to proclaim (and maintain) their testimonies? There are five possibilities that need exploration.

Wealth—They might have hoped to get rich from the sales of the book. Perhaps they even thought they would start an organization by which they could con thousands of people out of their money. Several critics have claimed that Joseph was simply trying to get rich off of a con.

If wealth was the motive, there must have been some indication from the beginning that they could make money from such a venture. Nobody makes a blind investment with so much at stake unless there is some hope of a reward. Was there hope? One of the characteristics of a successful con-man is his ability to give the people want they want, to entice them with something attractive, and to demonstrate a talent for understanding human nature. So what did Joseph Smith have to offer? He presented a lengthy book claiming to be the record of the former inhabitants of the Americas. Enticing as a novel, but what if he were to claim that such a book was sacred scripture and authentic ancient history? How would it be received? Could he get away with such an arduous venture?

It must be remembered that Joseph’s townsfolk ridiculed his claims of a “golden bible” before he even received the plates—let alone translated and printed the record.1 Once Joseph acquired the plates, the persecution for having a “golden bible” increased. As Hugh Nibley points out, “there are ten thousand safer and easier ways of fooling people than byundertaking a work of infinite toil and danger which, as he could see from the first, only made him immensely unpopular.”2 Nibley notes:

Joseph Smith wanted only one thing of the Book of Mormon—that people should believe it. The story never sold well and only made trouble for the “author.” Those who believed he was a prophet would have believed him just as much without the Book of Mormon. His enemies would have had far less against him– the Book of Mormon might even be called his undoing. From the day he received the plates it gave him only trouble and pain.3

If there were any expectations of getting rich, such hopes were quickly dashed. On June 26, 1829, nearly a year before the Book of Mormon came off the presses (and at about the same time the Three Witnesses had received their experience4), the Wayne Sentinel ran an article about the “Golden Bible.” As noted by this Palmyra paper, the Book of Mormon had been “generally known” as the “Golden Bible” for a while, and had “for some time past” been speculated upon—most people thinking it was a “gross imposition, and a grosser superstition.”5

What kind of con artist would try to become wealthy by publishing a book that was ridiculed prior to being printed? Cons are designed to make money an easier way, not a more difficult way. All signs pointed away from the possibility of becoming wealthy by publishing the Book of Mormon. And why then would his comrades—the Three Witnesses—expect to get rich when Joseph Smith most certainly did not? They were just as cognizant as Joseph was to the unpopularity of the Book of Mormon before it was published. It is incredulous to believe that these four men would attempt to become rich from such a plan.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_1.pdf

…it goes on about other motives ending with the Truth as a motive, but I was just pointing out the relevant portion.

As far as those other things go:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/View_of_the_Hebrews

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_Spaulding_manuscript

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/The_Wonders_of_Nature

Calvin said:
I’m not going to debate Mormonism anymore than I have already. We’re talking about Black Liberation Theology.

sigh… if only

CosmosDan said:
The books of the Bible have no divine authority other than that given to them by tradition. They were written, translated , copied and recopied, and eventually chosen from among a large number of writings, by men. Even if we accept that the original writings were inspired by God, {and there’s no good reason to do that} we don’t have the original writings. We have copies that have a lot of differences

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Inerrant.pdf

CosmosDan said:
That’s not even the point Calvin. The point is that religion and theology REQUIRES interpretation of the scriptures and you can justify all sorts of doctrines by choosing whether you read passages literally or not, or which ones you choose to elevate on the list of priorities. Some churches speak in tongues on a weekly basis and have regular miraculous hearings. Others don’t. Some have bands, some believe that’s an affront to God. etc etc.
BLT is no more a perversion of the gospel that any number of various doctrines, including Mormonism, and far less than some.

Again, I fail to see which verses justify hating rich/white people (say it like Rev. Wright, everybody! you know, RICH, WHITE PEOPLLLLLLE!). Must have taken some fancy interpretation (mangling beyond recognition) whatever those verses are.

Matthew 7: 15-20
15¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening dwolves.

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their afruits ye shall know them.

What are the fruits of BLT? Rev. Wright and James Cone. Racism and hate. Marxism.

The Fruits of the LDS church?

Countries Receiving Humanitarian Aid Since 1985 178
Humanitarian Cash Donations Since 1985 $327.6 million
Value of Humanitarian Material Assistance Since 1985 $884.6 million
Welfare Service Missionaries
(Including Humanitarian Service Missionaries) 8,167

http://lds.org/church/statistics?lang=eng

CosmosDan said:
It easy to ignore what the white so called Christians did to their black brothers and sisters for generations so you can criticize the Christian standing up to do something about it? Do consider those churchgoers who barred blacks from their churches, their bathrooms and fountains, to be Christians, because they certainly gave lip service Jesus and the Ten Commandments? So in your eyes the people who had the advantages and practiced racism while claiming to be Christians are excused but the Christians who were treated as half human and resented it can’t be Christians? That doesn’t sound like you and the impression I’ve had so far.

Slavery was a practiced in numerous cultures, many were made slaves by being captured in war. Even in Israel there was slavery, though they were to treat them more humanely and were treated far better than the Greeks, Roman or slaves of other nations. A servant whose master maimed him (or her), causing the loss of an eye or even a tooth, was to be freed (Exodus 21:26). Israel was told to give a slave’s release in the seventh year allowing a choice of indefinite slavery. (Exodus 21:6) The year of Jubilee allowed the slaves to go free (Leviticus 25:40). During New Testament times there were still slaves. The church did not receive a commandment to remove this custom inherited in Judaism, but the gospel of did give equality and justice and the master was to have love of man in his master to servant relationship. A spiritual brotherhood was practiced with believing slaves to believing masters. The apostle Paul wrote: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, …. ye all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul’s letters to live Christ like lives and make their relations one to another base on love. “Bondservants (be obedient unto …. your masters,… with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart…. doing the will of God from the heart… as bondservants of Christ …. that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And, you masters …. giving up threatening: …. knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him” (Ephesians 6:5-9). In other words God is no respecter of persons.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/BlackTheology.html (yes, I saw that Mormonism was on their list of cults)

When did I say anything that suggested that whites who excluded blacks were Christians? Because I don’t think it’s right for Cone to be a racist, I would probably alright with “Christians” excluding blacks?

You have to look at BLT in the historical context of which it was born. Like MLK, BLT addressed a specific issue, but had a larger Christian belief. As I posted above, and found in a more extensive read of Cone, black and white went beyond skin color. It imposes a moral imperative all who claim to follow Christ to stand up and be active against oppression and injustice regardless of skin color. That is completely supported by the words of Christ in the NT.

…which is why Cone is saying that white people need to give up their power (dang, how’d Obama get elected) and all the Supreme Court justices are white as far as he’s concerned (this is from 2 years ago.) He thinks white supremacy is white people making all the rules and regulations. He thinks any group that has institutional power is violent. If you’re part of the dominant group in society, you’re being violent, according to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw (I think from the 5 minute mark to the 12 minute mark)

CosmosDan said:
No I’m not saying Mormons aren’t Christians. Definitions vary and plenty of other Christians would consider their beliefs just as perverse as anything taught by BLT maybe more so.
I tend to go more by character and actions rather than denomination and doctrine. If someone is a good person who treats others well I don’t care if they believe Joe Smith, Mohammed, Moses, or Bahá’u’lláh were prophets.

Like I said, hating white/rich people is not something Jesus did.

CosmosDan said:
Let’s dispel this completely false premise of the conservative argument. Nobody is suggesting forcibly taking money from anyone. What’s being suggested and disagreed upon, is a perfectly constitutional process of a democratic republic establishing laws. Conservatives and liberals both agree that we should help the less fortunate but we disagree on the method. Neither is more biblically correct. You don’t really suppose Jesus would have disapproved of taxes helping the poor do you? Seems incredibly far fetched.

The oppressed/oppressor battle is in liberation theologies and groups in many areas. Animal liberation Front, Black liberation Theology, Earth liberation Front, Palestine liberation Organization; all seek to make oppressed and oppressors equal by whatever means necessary. This is very much against the Gospel and is very much more akin to Lucifer’s plan. The Lord wants us to be equal but He wants it through kindness, love and charity; not by legislation, coercion, theft or Marxism.

How can you logically claim BLT has no scriptural basis when so many Christians and theologians believe it does, and at the same time defend Mormonism which is also disputed by a lot of Christians? It just doesn’t follow any logical path. People can have there opinions but BLT is no more perverse in their teachings or less scripturally based than Mormonism. Beck’s presentation of BLT was intentionally aimed at an audience that wasn’t aware of its history and he purposely selected inflammatory quotes to cast it in the worst possible light.

Argumentum Ad Populum

Calvin said:
Slavery was a practiced in numerous cultures, many were made slaves by being captured in war. Even in Israel there was slavery, though they were to treat them more humanely and were treated far better than the Greeks, Roman or slaves of other nations. A servant whose master maimed him (or her), causing the loss of an eye or even a tooth, was to be freed (Exodus 21:26). Israel was told to give a slave’s release in the seventh year allowing a choice of indefinite slavery. (Exodus 21:6) The year of Jubilee allowed the slaves to go free (Leviticus 25:40). During New Testament times there were still slaves. The church did not receive a commandment to remove this custom inherited in Judaism, but the gospel of did give equality and justice and the master was to have love of man in his master to servant relationship. A spiritual brotherhood was practiced with believing slaves to believing masters. The apostle Paul wrote: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, …. ye all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The Christian slaves and masters are both exhorted in Paul’s letters to live Christ like lives and make their relations one to another base on love. “Bondservants (be obedient unto …. your masters,… with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart…. doing the will of God from the heart… as bondservants of Christ …. that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And, you masters …. giving up threatening: …. knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him” (Ephesians 6:5-9). In other words God is no respecter of persons.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/BlackTheology.html (yes, I saw that Mormonism was on their list of cults)

When did I say anything that suggested that whites who excluded blacks were Christians? Because I don’t think it’s right for Cone to be a racist, I would probably alright with “Christians” excluding blacks?

…which is why Cone is saying that white people need to give up their power (dang, how’d Obama get elected) and all the Supreme Court justices are white as far as he’s concerned (this is from 2 years ago.) He thinks white supremacy is white people making all the rules and regulations. He thinks any group that has institutional power is violent. If you’re part of the dominant group in society, you’re being violent, according to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw (I think from the 5 minute mark to the 12 minute mark)

Like I said, hating white/rich people is not something Jesus did.

The oppressed/oppressor battle is in liberation theologies and groups in many areas. Animal liberation Front, Black liberation Theology, Earth liberation Front, Palestine liberation Organization; all seek to make oppressed and oppressors equal by whatever means necessary. This is very much against the Gospel and is very much more akin to Lucifer’s plan. The Lord wants us to be equal but He wants it through kindness, love and charity; not by legislation, coercion, theft or Marxism.

Argumentum Ad Populum

The Euro-American chattel slavery was the most brutal and slave system ever devised by mankind. It treated human beings like animals. Millions have Africans were brutally murdered during the middle passage. Slaves were bred like animals. Slave were serially raped and subject to every perversion. Children were routinely molested. Slave education was a crime. A caste system was established basing the slave system on race with some states adopting the one drop rule. Slave-masters routinely molested their slaves. A whole class of mixed race light skinned African Americans are a result of these serial rapes. Many of the rapes were perpetrated against minors. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most prominent child molesters of his generation.

As cotton became king huge plantations grew up in the deep south. These were even more brutal. This system lasted from 1619-1865 formally but was partially reinstated after the Tilden Hayes election of 1876 when the northern troops were removed from the south as a result of a political deal known as “the great betrayal” The former slave owning class (America’s Nazi equivalents) came back to power and instituted Jim Crow laws whose sole purpose was to rein-slave people of African decent whenever possible. Blacks were arrested for any infraction possible, many made up, and the sheriffs made them work for the plantation owners as slaves with the sheriffs offices reaping the profits.

Religion played an important role. The Southern Baptists were formed in 1845 out of a split with northern baptists over the issue of slavery. This church was founded based on support for this barbaric practice. The LGD church which developed in the west adopted similar racist policies and continued this evil non Christian practice of racism, in direct contravention of the teachings of Jesus into my lifetime. Both these institutions represent the very face of religious evil in America. The Southern Baptists have apologized for their original sin but they cannot extricate themselves from an evil which lies at the very essence of their being. They still practice discrimination and open bigotry against homosexuals. Both of these institutions represent perversions of Christianity and are examples of the worst aspects of religion in America,

CosmosDan says:
“Nevertheless, Beck’s issues with BLT and churches who teach social justice still rings to me as blatant religious hypocrisy.”

According to an expert on BLT, Beck’s issue with BLT is ignorance. Regarding social justice, there are two kinds. Voluntary efforts at social justice are a-ok with Beck (now) and the Mormon church. State efforts at creating social justice is for Beck just a modified version of Marxism.

It’s just another reason I’d love to debate Mr. Beck. There is something called justice as fairness, a Theory of Justice put forth by philosopher John Rawls. Rawls’ theory is not based on Marxism or class analysis. It’s a contract theory, much like social security is, but it addresses poverty and how to end it. I’d give Beck his criticism of social justice and point out the growing instability of inequality. The great revolution that he’s predicting will be an outcome if the Tea Party nut jobs manage to tear apart the social safety net or this country. We have welfare precisely to save capitalism from revolutionary socialism. For details, see: Glenn Beck’s road to socialism.

GlennBeckReview said:
CosmosDan says:
“Nevertheless, Beck’s issues with BLT and churches who teach social justice still rings to me as blatant religious hypocrisy.”

According to an expert on BLT, Beck’s issue with BLT is ignorance. Regarding social justice, there are two kinds. Voluntary efforts at social justice are a-ok with Beck (now) and the Mormon church. State efforts at creating social justice is for Beck just a modified version of Marxism.

It’s just another reason I’d love to debate Mr. Beck. There is something called justice as fairness, a Theory of Justice put forth by philosopher John Rawls. Rawls’ theory is not based on Marxism or class analysis. It’s a contract theory, much like social security is, but it addresses poverty and how to end it. I’d give Beck his criticism of social justice and point out the growing instability of inequality. The great revolution that he’s predicting will be an outcome if the Tea Party nut jobs manage to tear apart the social safety net or this country. We have welfare precisely to save capitalism from revolutionary socialism. For details, see: Glenn Beck’s road to socialism.

I am not a big John Rawls fan, I read his Theory Of Justice almost thirty years ago in a Jurisprudence class. My problem with Rawls was his sense of neutrality and distance from actual evils that have been committed. I frankly don’t care if an idea cam from Marx if it is a good idea. I care about ideas that work. This fear of anything associated with Mark is utter ignorance. Getting back to Rawls I was more impressed with Ronald Dworkin, his book “Taking Rights Seriously” wherein he argues that there are certain basic rights that are part of our legal system and culture that underlie all of our institutions. He saw a need to redress specific harm where Rawls seemed more concerned with an abstract view of justice than the actual implementation of policies to remedy injustice. I would like your take on my comments. I am also especially fond of the writings of Derrick Bell “And Still We Are Not Saved” and “Ethical Ambition” among many others. What separates Bell from Rawls is that he analyses various practical and impractical strategies for achieving justice in America. One of my academic high lights was sitting in his office having a long discussion concerning some ideas I had developed in a jurisprudential paper.

Calvin said:
The testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses has been a thorn in the side of the critics for more than a century and a half. Many critics have tried to ignore their testimonies, while others have simply glossed over their significance.

PLease don’t cut and paste Mormon apologetics I’m pretty sure I’ve heard all of them before. None of it proves anything. I’m not trying to discredit Mormonism and support BLT. I’m simply pointing out that denominations and doctrines vary quite a bit in Christianity and Mormonism stands out as so different that even many Christians don’t see it as Christian. Personally, I don’t care what religion a person belongs to.
I still maintain it was hypocrisy for Beck to make a huge show of calling for unity one day with all those various preachers on stage, some of different religions, and then begin his attack on Obama through BLT. It’s hypocrisy for him to praise MLK one day and then attack BLT the next since MLK taught and fought for many of the same principles. found in BLT.
If he thinks reparations is Marxism why is MLK worthy of praise? Look at the MLK quotes above and you’ll see the principles of BLT.

Calvin said:
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Inerrant.pdf

We don’t have the originals of the Book of Mormon either, and changes were made from the original version some minor, some more significant. You have to wonder why, if Smith translated the plates directly by the power of God, changes needed to be made.

Calvin said:
Again, I fail to see which verses justify hating rich/white people (say it like Rev. Wright, everybody! you know, RICH, WHITE PEOPLLLLLLE!). Must have taken some fancy interpretation (mangling beyond recognition) whatever those verses are.

You’ll find some pretty scathing remarks in the NT by Jesus aimed at the Pharisees. Did he hate them or was he just condemning their actions? Calvin there are plenty of flaws in even well intentioned people and it takes time and effort grow out of those flaws. While I don’t applaud anger and resentment in blacks toward whites, for those who suffered and experienced the ugly racism in America I cut them some slack. Judge for yourself, after generations of abuse and cruelty who deserves our compassion and patience,the abuser of the abused? Do we condemn the abused because they haven’t been as forgiving as we think they should be?
Let’s put humanity in a little perspective. Read the remarks by Dean Snyder in armwoods earlier post.
Cone and Wright have their flaws as humans but they actually worked to overcome racism and accomplished a lot of good in spite of their imperfections.

Calvin said:
What are the fruits of BLT? Rev. Wright and James Cone. Racism and hate. Marxism.

No Calvin, They taught people to take a strong stand against racism in this country, and to work to overcome racism in their own hearts. That’s not something that’s easily overcome with a prayer or two. Cone and Wright experienced that racism and worked to fight it so future generations of whites and blacks could be free of it. They aren’t perfect or always right , but that’s how humanity works. There is some bad in the best of us, and some good in the worst. You seem to be judging them based on a very superficial look at their lives presented by people with an agenda. I;m thinking we could look at MLK , take select quotes like the ones I used above, find the flaws in his personal life, exploit his close association with an admitted communist , his advocacy of reparations, and make him every bit as racist and hateful and Marxist as Cone or Wright. In fact that might be a good project to make the point. We could call it “The Truth about Martin Luther King” and only focus on all the negative.

And yes, the Mormons have done good things, but they also wouldn’t allow blacks to be in the priesthood until the late seventies, they recently spent a load of money trying to deny gays equal rights in CA.

J Smith “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization”

After the death of Joseph Smith Jr., the Prophet Brigham Young Sr. taught that “Negroes” were black due to the mark of Cain, which also meant that they were Canaanites and were under the curse of Ham.

let’s look at the Book of Mormon.
2 Nephi 5:21
And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

Alma 3: 6
“And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.”

3 Nephi 2:14-15
” And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.”

It took generations for the Mormons to begin to overcome their racist teachings. Maybe we can have patience for the people who were the subject of racism,

People are not trees Calvin and although I understand and appreciate the analogy real humans are not either good fruit or bad fruit but a mix. I think what Jesus stresses is that the reality of our actions in the world and how we treat each other is more important than the whatever beliefs or doctrine we give lip service to.
I think if you take a closer in depth look at Cone and Wright you’ll see more good than bad.

armwood said:
I frankly don’t care if an idea cam from Marx if it is a good idea. I care about ideas that work

Exactly. It’s ridiculous to find random similarities in political philosophies and then claim they are the same, or “the path to” It’s ridiculous to present an idea as negative simply by association with a person.

armwood said:
“I frankly don’t care if an idea cam from Marx if it is a good idea. I care about ideas that work”

CosmosDan says:
“Exactly. It’s ridiculous to find random similarities in political philosophies and then claim they are the same, or “the path to” It’s ridiculous to present an idea as negative simply by association with a person.”

I wanted to pick up on this claim by armwood as well, except I disagree. In the battlefield of ideas, some will “sell” better if they are not associated with the central mode of analysis that Marx introduced, i.e., class struggle. Let’s be honest with ourselves, many working class Americans have been programmed (some would say brainwashed) into thinking that class warfare only leads to Communism as Marx claimed. In the U.S., that nor, for that matter, socialism will not sell. That’s why, when talking about justice, I avoid social justice and discuss justice as fairness, Rawls’ theory.

I don’t have an issue with “Rawls’ … sense of neutrality and distance from actual evils that have been committed.” The idea is to move forward, not harp upon the past. What’s done is done. How do we fix our republic which has been transformed into an empire. Beck was right that this has happened; he just lied about who done it.

GlennBeckReview said:
armwood said:
“I frankly don’t care if an idea cam from Marx if it is a good idea. I care about ideas that work”

CosmosDan says:
“Exactly. It’s ridiculous to find random similarities in political philosophies and then claim they are the same, or “the path to” It’s ridiculous to present an idea as negative simply by association with a person.”

I wanted to pick up on this claim by armwood as well, except I disagree. In the battlefield of ideas, some will “sell” better if they are not associated with the central mode of analysis that Marx introduced, i.e., class struggle. Let’s be honest with ourselves, many working class Americans have been programmed (some would say brainwashed) into thinking that class warfare only leads to Communism as Marx claimed. In the U.S., that nor, for that matter, socialism will not sell. That’s why, when talking about justice, I avoid social justice and discuss justice as fairness, Rawls’ theory.

I don’t have an issue with “Rawls’ … sense of neutrality and distance from actual evils that have been committed.” The idea is to move forward, not harp upon the past. What’s done is done. How do we fix our republic which has been transformed into an empire. Beck was right that this has happened; he just lied about who done it.

There is noting fair about breaking someone legs, stealing their clothes and leaving them out on the street and telling them to fend for themselves. That is not justice. American tort law reflects justice. Where there is an injury which is caused intentionally or negligently by another and it can be demonstrated that the actions or inactions of the other were the proximate cause of the injury then damages are warranted. In American criminal law we have the concept and practice of restitution, paying back the value of what you stole, i.e. reparations. It is quite convenient for someone like Rawls to sit aloof in his ivory tower and be unwilling to deal with real issues of justice. His Theory of Justice is an elitist self serving view which intellectual dodges the American reality which is a long history of uncompensated in justice. There has been no level playing field. The field was intentionally slanted to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. Rawls’ Theory of Justice reminds me of an update of Plato’s concept found in his Republic.

“Justice is thus a sort of specialization. It is simply the will to fulfill the duties of one’s station and not to meddle with the duties of another station, and its habitation is, therefore, in the mind of every citizen who does his duties in his appointed place. It is the original principle, laid down at the foundation of the State, “that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his nature was best adopted”. True justice to Plato, therefore, consists in the principle of non-interference. The State has been considered by Plato as a perfect whole in which each individual which is its element, functions not for itself but for the health of the whole. Every element fulfils its appropriate function. Justice in the platonic state would, therefore, be like that harmony of relationship where the Planets are held together in the orderly movement.”

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

I reject this Platonic View. It only serves to protect the existing hierarchy in society. Harvard Law School Professor Duncan Kennedy lays out how legal concepts of justice, like those expressly exposed by Rawls result in injustice by simply reproducing hierarchy. I do not agree with all of Kennedy’s ideas but I think he hits this nail into the wood. You may read the short book online here:

Legal Education And The Reproduction Of Heirarchy

http://books.google.com/books?id=hdIQF1zM43sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=duncan+kennedy+on+justice&source=bl&ots=n4XrCWDBd4&sig=uelURiJSVkxferaZMGQp0ZE82KM&hl=en&ei=UnAbTdvbB4P58AafubXhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=duncan%20kennedy%20on%20justice&f=false

What makes Marx so compelling to those of us who, though not Marxist, seek, advocate and work for social change and find his writings unavoidable if one is to seriously study the history of social science and social change are statements he made like this one which i find extremely compelling:

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways—the point however is to change it,”

This has been one of my favorite philosophical quotes for over forty years. I have little use for philosophers who engage in egoistic masturbation and avoid the real issues facing real people.

Calvin said:
Slavery was a practiced in numerous cultures, many were made slaves by being captured in war.

I’m not sure what your point is here. That slavery really isn’t that bad? I’d say Jesus taught that the inner person and how we treated others was more important than superficial titles, and not all slave owners were cruel, but that’s beside the point isn’t it. If we’re trying to understand we are all equal children of God then at some point the very idea of owning another human has to be rejected. Nobody said the south or southern “Christians” invented slavery. That doesn’t change their actions or their responsibility. The cruelty was in large part the aspect of inferiority that was taught and practiced, and all the crimes that led to.

Calvin said:
When did I say anything that suggested that whites who excluded blacks were Christians? Because I don’t think it’s right for Cone to be a racist, I would probably alright with “Christians” excluding blacks?

You seem to minimize the cruel acts that led to BLT, and the experiences of Cone and Wright in a racist America. too often I see a caviler attitude of “just get over it” towards the experiences of blacks. There is a cause and effect dynamic in human society. You can’t be continuously cruel and abusive toward a race of people and not expect some repercussions.
One of the concepts of BLT is that those who supported racism were not really practicing Christianity even though they went to church every week and gave lip service to Jesus. Read MLKs quotes and you’ll see he criticized those who claimed to oppose it, but really did nothing to actively change things.

Calvin said:
…which is why Cone is saying that white people need to give up their power (dang, how’d Obama get elected) and all the Supreme Court justices are white as far as he’s concerned (this is from 2 years ago.) He thinks white supremacy is white people making all the rules and regulations. He thinks any group that has institutional power is violent. If you’re part of the dominant group in society, you’re being violent, according to him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw (I think from the 5 minute mark to the 12 minute mark)

I’m not defending all of Cone’s views or Wrights.

Calvin said:
Like I said, hating white/rich people is not something Jesus did.

And BLT does not teach that.

Calvin said:
all seek to make oppressed and oppressors equal by whatever means necessary. This is very much against the Gospel and is very much more akin to Lucifer’s plan. The Lord wants us to be equal but He wants it through kindness, love and charity; not by legislation, coercion, theft or Marxism.

Is case you missed it , Jesus was an activist and an advocate for the poor, the oppressed and those rejected by society. BLT does not advocate equality by any means necessary any more than MLK did, who, btw, worked to change legislation.
Sure , Jesus advocated and taught a sincere brotherly love rather than a superficial one, but that doesn’t mean passing laws to try and help people and prevent oppression is somehow against the Gospel. That’s crazy talk.

Legislation is to help and protect people while we’re also working to change people’s hearts. If you’re suggesting people should just peacefully wait for oppressors to change their mind then you don’t understand what Jesus taught or how a democracy works.
You’re free to promote what you think is best for this country, but so are others, and they’re not somehow Satanic for disagreeing with you on the best method.

Calvin said:
Argumentum Ad Populum

Not exactly. I’m only pointing out the illogical aspect of thinking a superficial cursory examination of a subject is conclusive and accurate, but you’re welcome to your opinion.

CosmosDan said:
Calvin said:
Slavery was a practiced in numerous cultures, many were made slaves by being captured in war.

The slavery practiced by Europeans and Americans in the Americas was by far the most barbaric in human history.

1) It scale was horrific. It involved the kidnapping and murder of between 4 and 16 million Africans, most dying in the middle passage
2) It involved the purposeful dehumanization of the kidnapped people, treating them as farm animals, breeding them, nearly 300 years of sexual abuse and molestation.
3) Work with out compensation and a stubborn refusal to provide any reparations for this holocaust
4) After the Tilden Hayes election of 1876 the introduction of the tenant farm system and a new for of slavery through the penal system using Jim Crow laws as a tool for re-enslaving former slaves
5) The purposeful destruction of African culture and the stripping away of any elements from the African culture that could be taken away including language, religion, cultural traditions.
6) The systematic destruction of the family, the selling of of husbands, wives and children as well as the serial rape of women and children.
7) Brutaal lynchings and murders that persisted into the late 1960s
8) Denial of the right to an education

These are just a few elements of this barbarism. There is no instance in recorded history of a slave system as barbaric as that was practiced in the Americas.

CosmosDan said: I’m not sure what your point is here. That slavery really isn’t that bad?

No, read the last line. God is no respecter of persons.

CosmosDan said:
You seem to minimize the cruel acts that led to BLT, and the experiences of Cone and Wright in a racist America. too often I see a caviler attitude of “just get over it” towards the experiences of blacks. There is a cause and effect dynamic in human society. You can’t be continuously cruel and abusive toward a race of people and not expect some repercussions.
One of the concepts of BLT is that those who supported racism were not really practicing Christianity even though they went to church every week and gave lip service to Jesus. Read MLKs quotes and you’ll see he criticized those who claimed to oppose it, but really did nothing to actively change things.

I thought God wanted us to forgive. MLK wanted inclusion of whites, Cone does not. Only unless they understand that blacks come first. Then he’ll let them into his fold. In a 2004 essay, Cone expressed his belief that white racism in America had not diminished at all since the publication of his aforementioned books three-and-a-half decades earlier: “Black suffering is getting worse, not better…. White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison.” Again, how on earth did Obama get elected if we’re so racist? How is Oprah one of the richest women in the world? I can understand why Cone might feel the way he does but I don’t respect him. He’s an ignorant racist. Cone defines liberation as the “emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.” This definition would seem to allow for the use of violence.

Real Median Income Growth, 1980-2007
Black Women 80%
White Women 78%
Black Men 34%
White Men 10%
All People 40%

Now is everything nice and peachy for blacks? No, because the cities are ran by the progressives and have been for a long time. But is America irredeemably racist? No. It’s my opinion that racists are a minority of the population. I think Morgan Freeman had the best solution to racism: stop talking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGfrExozQ&feature=related

By the way, Thomas Sowell/Allen West 2012.

CosmosDan said:
And BLT does not teach that

Somebody better tell Cone and Wright, then.

“What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

Cone argues that white people traditionally have exploited Christianity as an opiate of the (black) masses. He asserts that the destitute “are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few,”(white people) and that “[n]o one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one’s solidarity with victims.”

“Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it.”

“The demonic forces of racism are real for the black man. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces.”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2315

RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number 31, Mister Broadcast Engineer. I just want to put things in context here. Remember yesterday we had the sound bite of President Obama saying that he was going to try to revive his coalition going into the midterm elections: African-Americans, Latinos, and women, playing the race card, which was predicted by moi on this program. That they would go for immigration first, not cap and trade, and not these other things, they would go for immigration first, and they would do so on the basis, (impersonating
Obama) “There are people that don’t want you to become an American, they don’t think you’re American because of the color of your skin.” So Obama is playing the race card. Let’s not forget the kind of things he heard in church for 20 years.

WRIGHT: Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.

RUSH: That’s one of the foremost influences in President Obama’s life, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That was a montage of various sermons between 2000 and 2007. Here, play that again and keep in mind here that it was just over the weekend in a video that the president said he’s going to revive his coalition here of African-Americans, Hispanics, and women. He specifically left out whites, didn’t go for white women, white men, old white men, white anybody. He left out the Asians; he left out the Jews; he left out the Indians; he left out the Portuguese; he left out Eskimos; he left out the Tibetans. He left out a lot of people.

WRIGHT: Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.

RUSH: What a sermon, my friends, what a sermon, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaching from the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042710/content/01125112.guest.html

CosmosDan said:
PLease don’t cut and paste Mormon apologetics

Then please don’t type out your objections to Mormonism. We were talking about BLT. I don’t see any comparison to the two. One can lay claim to a legitimate interpretation to scriptures, one cannot. f you don’t agree, oh well. Let’s focus on BLT. Tell me which scriptures they use to justify hating rich white people and white people in general. Cone thinks Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom. He thinks “[Racism is] in — it’s in American culture. As you say, it’s in the DNA. It’s our — it’s white America’s original sin and it’s deep.” If you’re part of the dominant in society-whites- you’re being violent to blacks, according to Cone.

CosmosDan said:
Is case you missed it , Jesus was an activist and an advocate for the poor, the oppressed and those rejected by society. BLT does not advocate equality by any means necessary any more than MLK did, who, btw, worked to change legislation.

BLT and those who agree with BLT, are making the poor stay poor by preaching warfare and taking all of the rich people’s money. They are adamantly against welfare cuts. So much so, that they get arrested. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/08/us/christians-against-welfare-cuts-are-arrested-in-capitol.html (Hey, who’s that Jim Wallis fellow that they mention?) If you don’t think that is an example of any means necessary, I’ll refer you again to the quote from Cone: Cone defines liberation as the “emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.”

Sure , Jesus advocated and taught a sincere brotherly love rather than a superficial one, but that doesn’t mean passing laws to try and help people and prevent oppression is somehow against the Gospel. That’s crazy talk.
Legislation is to help and protect people while we’re also working to change people’s hearts. If you’re suggesting people should just peacefully wait for oppressors to change their mind then you don’t understand what Jesus taught or how a democracy works.
You’re free to promote what you think is best for this country, but so are others, and they’re not somehow Satanic for disagreeing with you on the best method

I’m pretty sure that the War in Heaven was about Satan wanting to make sure we all get to Heaven (sounds like collective salvation) and he would receive the glory instead of Heavenly Father. Jesus wanted to give us free agency and give the glory to Heavenly Father. Let me give you the Cleveland link again: http://www.mackinac.org/7440

As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”

Is he wrong?

I didn’t think opressors were out to get us. I thought it was more like the clowns in Washington who want to spend our money into bankruptcy. It’s not the rich who are keeping down the poor, it’s the government.

Calvin said:
Cone might feel the way he does but I don’t respect him. He’s an ignorant racist. Cone defines liberation as the “emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary.” This definition would seem to allow for the use of violence.

So the American Revolution wasn’t violent? Just to be clear are you saying that African Americans had less of a reason to revolt against the U.S. government, prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act than did George Washington et al?

armwood said:
Pablo, African Americans have from the earliest days of slavery identified most with the Israeli’s enslaved in Egypt.

You’ve got that cut-and-paste move down to a science!

As for the ID thing though, maybe AAs used to have something but when Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jones, and a few others showed their true feelings toward Jewish people (e.g. “Hymietown”) any commonality that once may have existed evaporated like spit on a griddle.

armwood says:
“There is noting fair about breaking someone legs, stealing their clothes and leaving them out on the street and telling them to fend for themselves. That is not justice.”

You’re right, armwood, but it has nothing to do with Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness. You’re describing a matter of justice as a criminal matter; Rawls’ theory described a matter of how to most fairly address poverty. You’re describing equal justice; Rawls is describing material fairness.

I’ll grant that extending human rights might be a manner of economic justice more suitable to the american political climate than the income redistribution that Rawls put forth. I just wanted to address a form of justice that is not specifically the sort that Beck attacks.

Keeping the eye on the ball here: Klein is spot on: Glenn Beck is a performance artist and a self-proclaimed rodeo clown. He flaps his gums to attract the cattle (gullible people) to protect the cowboys (corporate fat cats). I wish that were the worst of his offenses. He’s also inciting violence (while contradicting himself by preaching non-violence). He’s a dangerous paradox.

Calvin said:
I thought God wanted us to forgive

Sure, Jesus told us to be perfect also but we’re not yet. I’m suggesting we should be cautious about judging others who have experienced things we haven’t. “Walk in that person’s shoes” etc.

Calvin said:
MLK wanted inclusion of whites, Cone does not. Only unless they understand that blacks come first. Then he’ll let them into his fold.

Two things. Although Cone is credited as being a key founder of BLT not every quote from him is automatically BLT beliefs.
2ndly; I’ve already posted quotes that show the black and white in BLT is both literal, in relation to it’s historical beginning and racism in America, and metaphorical as well. Black represents the oppressed no matter race or color, and White the oppressors.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone

“Being black in America has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.” (Black Theology and Black Power, p. 151)[7]

In 1977, Cone wrote, with a still more universal vision:

I think the time has come for black theologians and black church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world…For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups

So while BLT was born in the era of racism and the struggle for equality , the theology itself is about God and Jesus supporting the oppressed which is true according to Jesus own words in the Bible and consistent with Jesus teachings

Think about the times. Much of White Christianity was either racist, or doing very little to speak out against racism or address the poverty of African Americans. The parable in Matthew 25 speaks to that.
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

IMO , that and others are the scriptural basis for BLT.

Calvin said:
But is America irredeemably racist?

Of course not. Wright and Cone are old school having grown up through much more racist times. Thinks have obviously gotten much better, and will continue to improve. One good thing about studying this is I’ve been made more aware of how theology has changed through the decades. We;re aware of how a scattered and diverse Christianity eventually became the Roman Catholic church and how Martin Luther challenged them, and various leaders with their interpretations of the scriptures formed the hundreds of denominations we have now.
The message of BLT is about being active in helping the poor and dispossessed where ever and whom ever they are. BLT will change it’s focus as things continue to improve for black Americans.

Calvin said:
Somebody better tell Cone and Wright, then.

I won’ t defend whatever anger and resentment the may harbor but I think talking openly and frankly about racism isn’t pleasant but doesn’t necessarily promote hatred. The goal being to confront racism, even in your own.

Calvin said:
Cone argues that white people traditionally have exploited Christianity as an opiate of the (black) masses. He asserts that the destitute “are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few,”(white people) and that “[n]o one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one’s solidarity with victims.”

Is your argument with this that you believe it’s false or that he mentions race at all?
on this page; http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html
I found a decent presentation of the roots of BLT. Because of racism in America more blacks were feeling alienated from Christianity and Islam was on the rise in the black community.

If the gospel has nothing to say to people as they confront the daily realities of life, it is a lifeless message. If Christianity is not real for blacks, then they will reject it.

To develop a theology that speaks to African-Americans, black liberation theologians such as James Cone begin with the person of Jesus, and specifically the Jesus revealed in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus has a concern for the oppressed that does not always come through in the other gospels. Luke’s Jesus begins his ministry with this announcement:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

What is the goal of a black theology of liberation? Is it a society in which blacks are given special treatment and rights? No. All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, “If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as ‘the helper of the fatherless’ (Psalm 10:14) to ‘deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper’ (Psalm 72:12)

Calvin said:
Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.

As stark as that is, is it wrong, other than the Bill part which is opinion? He’s telling his congregation that Barack will understand them better than Hillary will.

Are you aware that the right has courted conservative Christians for decades now, regardless of the content of their sermons? When the Wright controversy was going on I remember reading an article by the son of a conservative preacher who talked about how his father had been honored and courted in spite of his hateful speech. Because of the Wright controversy McCain had to reject the endorsement of John Hagee after accepting it, because of hateful words by Hagee. That’s the Hagee that was sitting behind Beck at his unity rally. I guess some hatefulness is tolerable.

Calvin said:
Then please don’t type out your objections to Mormonism. We were talking about BLT. I don’t see any comparison to the two.

Other than both having sprung from Christian roots there isn’t much. As I said earlier. I’m not supporting or really objecting to either one. Christianity is built on stories that can’t be verified , so whats a few more from Smith. I only mentioned it because it seems odd for someone who made a huge show of promoting religious unity , who belongs to a denomination plenty of Christians see as a cult, and is pretty far afield from mainstream beliefs, to be calling another perverse. And for accuracies sake, I realized BLT is not a denomination. Those who lean toward it belong to a variety of protestant denominations.

Calvin said:
One can lay claim to a legitimate interpretation to scriptures, one cannot. f you don’t agree, oh well

Congratulations, you’ve done what Christians have done for for generations. Claim one interpretation of the scripture is legitimate while another is not. That’s exactly why they can’t agree on doctrine. Personally I think it’s harder to justify reading the Book of Mormon into those scriptures than finding support for helping the poor and oppressed but ultimately it’s just my opinion.

Calvin said:
Let’s focus on BLT. Tell me which scriptures they use to justify hating rich white people and white people in general.

As I said, BLT is not about hating white people any more than conservative Christianity is about hating homosexuals. It was born to deal with very real racism in America and is built around the command to actually work to help the poor and oppressed rather than simply wait for things to improve. Kinda like

James 2:15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

I’ve given you the scriptures that form the foundational principles of BLT. I’ve given you the quotes that show that it’s not just about race. Even if you don’t like some of the things Cone and Wright have said, keep in mind that they are men with flaws and opinions and not everything they say is a BLT teaching.

Some scholars of Black Theology noted that controversial quotes by Reverend Jeremiah Wright may not necessarily represent Black Theology. James Cone responded to these alleged controversial comments by noting that he was generally writing about historic white churches and denominations that did nothing to oppose slavery and segregation rather than any white individual

Cone based BLT in part on the delivery of Israel from Egypt. Is God a racist because Israel are his chosen people?

Calvin said:
BLT and those who agree with BLT, are making the poor stay poor by preaching warfare and taking all of the rich people’s money.

Actually it preaches real equality, which would mean equal opportunity and pay at jobs , but many people did believe that the effects of racism warranted some reparations which is also a completely biblical concept of justice. I agree that welfare can have the effect of making people dependent and lazy so we have to be responsible with how social programs are implemented.

Calvin said:
They are adamantly against welfare cuts. So much so, that they get arrested. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/08/us/christians-against-welfare-cuts-are-arrested-in-capitol.html (Hey, who’s that Jim Wallis fellow that they mention?) If you don’t think that is an example of any means necessary, I’ll refer you again to the quote from Cone:

So people shouldn’t exercise their right to protest and express their feelings about policy? I thought that’s what this country was all about. Wanna guess how many times MLK was arrested, or others who fought for what they believed in?

Calvin said:
Is he wrong?

If If taken simply and literally, yes, he’s wrong. Do we do away with a standing army intelligence agencies, homeland security, and all the other services paid for with taxes? I wonder how our infrastructure will hold up without them. As long as people feel we should pay taxes for the common good then as a democratic republic we get to vote on how that happens. When it’s the law, it’s not theft. Laws can be unjust, and policies can be fiscally irresponsible, and we get to change them.

Here’s another MLK quote
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

The military budget is well over half a trillion dollars. The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China

I agree we need to get spending under control but there needs to be some discussion on where the cuts are made.

Calvin said:
I didn’t think opressors were out to get us. I thought it was more like the clowns in Washington who want to spend our money into bankruptcy. It’s not the rich who are keeping down the poor, it’s the government.

And in a lot of cases it’s the rich influencing policy.

I think the generalizations at both extremes are wrong. Just as there are welfare recipients that are far to dependent, there are also greedy corporations that don’t care who gets hurt as long as they prosper.

The only people who do not readily grasp that Glenn Beck is a bald faced liar are his loyal fans who are too ignorant to comprehend when Beck lies and don’t want face up to the truth. Glenn Beck lies about Van Jones, about Obama, about telling the truth even! The latter makes Glenn Beck a hypocrite, not just that one time though, but over and over again, Beck demonstrates that he’s a blatant hypocrite!

Beck took one college course on the history of religion and dropped out. He has spent his entire life working hard and preparing to be a huge radio star, not studying political theory or political science. Beck is not much more than an amazing performance artist and an extremely convincing demagogue with ideas that Republican, President Eisenhower considered “stupid” in his days as President. Glenn Beck demonstrates repeatedly that he has virtually no understanding of political language or ideas. Beck is a yellow propagandist who comes across as sincerely interested in the country but his motivations are “are, and have always been, money and fame. If Beck has a true religion, it’s not Patriotism. It’s not Mormonism. It’s cross-platform self-marketing.”

armwood said:
Do you have a degree in Africana studies?

Where is Africana? Are you my uncle? Can we pretend that you’re my uncle? Will you buy me a kitten? Daddy boiled my other kitten and ate it.

GlennBeckReview said:
The only people who do not readily grasp that Glenn Beck is a bald faced liar are his loyal fans. All my fans know that I’m the only one telling the truth.

My daddy always tells the truth! Just ask mommy and me. My daddy bought me a BB gun. He taught me how to shoot birds.