OK, so I get that people feel strongly about helping the poor. I think rare is the person on either side (and all along the continuum) of the political spectrum who doesn't.
I'm not necessarily a fan of Glenn Beck; he too often uses too much extreme rhetoric for my liking.
But good grief, the responses to his recent comments on social justice (or, better said, how people are framing those comments) are also really extreme in their rhetoric, and to me missing the core point -- and missing an opportunity where we as a nation might actually have some discussions on how we really can and should help the poor.
Even before I read this quote, my thought about all of the hoopla was that many people are hearing what they want to hear in what he said, not actually addressing the core of his concern. Reading this strengthened that opinion for me:
"Social justice is code language. Code language for big government… If your church is preaching social and economic justice you better do some digging and find out exactly what that means. Because if that means big government, (that) you need to support big government programs, (then) you don’t have a church… Now if your church is talking about social justice in a way that you empower yourself to go help the poor, well then that is exactly what Jesus… would like you to do.”
– Glenn Beck, March 12 radio program (hat tip for the quote comes from a comment here)
Does he dismiss social justice outright? No. Does he show ignorance about the notion that helping the poor is important to religions? No. Is he really saying something so outrageous? I don't think so.
Here, I hear him encouraging people to think about what social justice means -- because it means different things to different people and faiths -- and to figure out if it's really a good thing in every context.
What is so crazy about that?
I understand disagreeing with his politics, but so many really emotional reactions to his comments don't seem to me to be hearing what he is saying at all and don't really even address the politics he takes a stand on.
In Anatomy of Peace language (a book that I think should be required reading for everyone), that's called being in the box. And it's pretty much like shutting off your heart AND your brain.
Such a dynamic plagues the political process. But it's such a precious waste of time and energy, and clouds the ability to actually think clearly about things like this that matter.
We've got to get outside the box.
For Mormons, to me, a compelling point when engaging in politics is to note that the First Presidency has reminded us that "“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties."
So I say let's seek for good, solid principles across the spectrum, rather than waste precious time slinging mud at the "other" -- especially when that mud-slinging often involves arguing against things that weren't actually the real message of what was said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Well said
Here is what is reprehensible about the comment, m&m.
Conservative people are always up in arms because they fear the government might be intruding into this or that aspect of their religion. So there is a great deal of irony, not to say hypocrisy, when a man who purports to be conservative thinks it is OK to mess with religion. If a pastor or priest advised his flock not to listen to Beck, can you imagine the fuss?
Beck is an embarrassment to LDS people. He's a dumb guy who doesn't know what he is talking about 90% of the time and his supporters always want to point to the other 10%. Why is this so hard to admit?
If it's all the same to you, I don't care about Beck's views on anything. He's never served in public office, never served in the military, never done anything, in fact, except promote himself as a media personality. So he has opinions -- so does my dog, and I'll take his over
Beck's any day.
I'm not going to take on opinions about Beck, here, folks, because that is missing my point. Regardless of what you think of Beck, in my view this is a simple example of a larger problem inherent in politics. (And I didn't say Beck didn't and doesn't contribute to the problem. But then again, I think most people who deal with politics do.)
And I think in order for us to really solve problems as a nation, we as a people have to learn to work better together, differences aside.
m&m,
With respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. Are you under the impression that Beck really wanted to start a conversation about how we can better care for the poor? I disagree that that was his intent; I believe he wanted to take shots at people in liberal denominations. Period.
I am somewhat incredulous that you want to defend him. With his thoughtless and ridiculous comments he has singlehandedly erased much of the good will with other churches which we have been trying to build up for the past 20 years. I am certain that he is a net negative for our missionary efforts. And now he has instructed his listeners to not participate in the census in direct opposition to a letter from the first presidency.
You cannot write a post wherein you call people to task for going overboard in their distaste for Glenn Beck, then turn around and say that you are not going to take opinions about Beck. I mean, I guess you can if you want, but then you will be having conversations with yourself only.
If you want to have a conversation about how to best help the poor, that conversation can be had without taking shots at people who find Beck abhorrent.
If you think I am being too harsh, please point me to another blog post you have written wherein you defend a person who is factually wrong at least half the time, who has severely damaged the church's efforts at outreach, and who is in public opposition to a current public statement by the first presidency.
Mark,
My point is that this post isn't really about Glenn Beck, although you should note that I noted his extremism in my post; he definitely falls into the trap I'm talking about. (No, I don't think he wanted to start a discussion and that is half the problem. But if people insist that he's all the problem, they are in the box, too. It's easy to do -- it's almost built into our human nature, but that doesn't mean it's right.)
My point is that the extremism on BOTH sides, in general, hurts our country.
It hurts families and friendships.
It hurts individuals.
It hurts the Church.
It hurts us all.
BTW, Mark, I understand that you are seeing this all in a context of a lot that is bothersome in your mind, and as I just said in a recent discussion, big picture thinking has a place in analysis of ideas and all. So I'm not trying to argue away your opinion of Beck.
I still think, however, that the general concept of political dialogue is so often dominated by intense, extreme, emotional reactions rather than reasonable, rational, talking about ideas. There is more attacking people than talking about ideas. It is tiresome.
People so often can't talk about politics without their blood pressure going through the roof.
If you have done any study at all on human physiology, you know that when adrenaline kicks on, a good percentage of the brain shuts off.
Not a good way to try to solve problems.
I also think too many people let platforms do the thinking for them, but that's a post for another day....
It's good to read a post about Glenn Beck that takes a more analytical and less emotional approach. Some of the invective I read on some of the so-called "cool" LDS blogs is downright un-Saintly.
Extremism on both sides does hurt, but I find more of it on the progressive side. Some progressives will say "intolerance of intolerance is the only intolerance tolerated". My response: "Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance".
Jesus Christ didn't ask us to embrace all points of view, but He did counsel us to be tolerant of the right of all to express their views.
Thanks m&m,
I have mixed opinions on Glenn Beck. I have family members who have embraced him to the point of climbing completely in your box and it hurts me to see their brilliant minds shuttered. But I also have family and friends who are in on the invective slinging on the other side--still in the box. What I wonder is if all these people slinging invective at each other realize that they are in the same mindless box.
I am sick to death of the entirely overused rationale on both sides that would have us believe that perceived rightness cancels out the need for civilized discourse or even justifies this evil dreck we see masquerading as intelligent, respectful conversation.
So, thank you m&m.
Wow! Such divisive opinions coming fom a single group concerning one man!
I agree with the guy who made the original comments concerning Glen Beck and our needing to think outside the box.
But let me offer an analogy of what I observe in the huge disparity of comments regarding this man.
In the Marines, your basic training is established in what appears to be doctrines of madness & confusion.
To the initiate and first time recipient of these tactics, it may appear as sadistic insanity designed to torture you.
Especially the kind of training philosiphy adopted during the Vietnam War.
And each person sees it from a different perspective...mostly negative and causes one to wonder what foolish mistake have I made?
But as the whole process progresses, you begin to see the method to their madness.
It is not torture on the part of the Drill Instructor that is taking place but rather a simulated torture designed to get a person to see past the facade and focus on the real objective.
In other words, don't focus on the menacing face and jestures designed to throw you off, or you will not see what the hand is actually doing to help you.
They simulate what the enemy will attempt to do to throw you off and are trying to get you to wise up and focus on the truth behind the distractions.
As far as Glen's approach to things are concerned, he's a master at getting anyones attention for better or for worse.
But that's not his concern. His concern is to only get the attention of everyone to focus on things people have become blind & oblivious to. And I mean attention in a way that is first focused on himself, then he presents a message.
Once he has done that, try focusing on the Message as opposed to the Messenger.
The messenger is using out of the box methods to mearly grab your attention...Like a Marine Drill Instructor but with a little better sense of humor.
The essence of his message is not the person he portrays but rather the TRUTH he is attempting to get us to wake up to.
And for those who can't bring themselves beyond the image designed to grab your attention and focus it on the truth, reveals volumes concerning a person's adversion to the truth.
This phenomina is not in the least bit surprising. Glen is just a catylist for something like this. Don't our own scriptures teach us that there would come a time for a great division among us?
Doesn't the Lord's solution to that as defined in the scriptures indicate that something "out of the box" is to occur?
Or do we only see what we want to see?
The question arises...Who is right and who is wrong?
Those offended by Glen's approach to things are not doing a very good job of focusing on the real message of truth.
And if THAT is what is really offending a person, it sort of defines why goats are so stubborn and refuse correction and are chosen to represent those who can't or wown't recognize and accept the truth.
The great division among us has been cultivating itself for years and has mainly manifested itself in the battle of political philosiphies among us.
The problem lies with any of us aligning ourselves with either one as it is portrayed in man's world.
These are philosiphies of men that are doomed to fail. Not that either don't pocess some truth and merrit, but neither are the solution.
The solution will be dilivered by God in the form of an "out of the box" man that God will send to correct our understanding of things.
And if we fail to adhear to his directions for us, then we will be cut off from the presence of God.
Glen is mearly a forerunner type of this man to come.
So it is easy to comprehend what this great division will be like by the preview we are now recieving. Only AMP that up by a factor of one million when the time comes for that to fulfill scripture...God's Word & Garuantee!
Or do you not believe this?
Wow! Such divisive opinions coming fom a single group concerning one man!
I agree with the guy who made the original comments concerning Glen Beck and our needing to think outside the box.
But let me offer an analogy of what I observe in the huge disparity of comments regarding this man.
In the Marines, your basic training is established in what appears to be doctrines of madness & confusion.
To the initiate and first time recipient of these tactics, it may appear as sadistic insanity designed to torture you.
Especially the kind of training philosiphy adopted during the Vietnam War.
And each person sees it from a different perspective...mostly negative and causes one to wonder what foolish mistake have I made?
But as the whole process progresses, you begin to see the method to their madness.
It is not torture on the part of the Drill Instructor that is taking place but rather a simulated torture designed to get a person to see past the facade and focus on the real objective.
In other words, don't focus on the menacing face and jestures designed to throw you off, or you will not see what the hand is actually doing to help you.
They simulate what the enemy will attempt to do to throw you off and are trying to get you to wise up and focus on the truth behind the distractions.
As far as Glen's approach to things are concerned, he's a master at getting anyones attention for better or for worse.
But that's not his concern. His concern is to only get the attention of everyone to focus on things people have become blind & oblivious to. And I mean attention in a way that is first focused on himself, then he presents a message.
Once he has done that, try focusing on the Message as opposed to the Messenger.
The messenger is using out of the box methods to mearly grab your attention...Like a Marine Drill Instructor but with a little better sense of humor.
The essence of his message is not the person he portrays but rather the TRUTH he is attempting to get us to wake up to.
And for those who can't bring themselves beyond the image designed to grab your attention and focus it on the truth, reveals volumes concerning a person's adversion to the truth.
This phenomina is not in the least bit surprising. Glen is just a catylist for something like this. Don't our own scriptures teach us that there would come a time for a great division among us?
Doesn't the Lord's solution to that as defined in the scriptures indicate that something "out of the box" is to occur?
Or do we only see what we want to see?
The question arises...Who is right and who is wrong?
Those offended by Glen's approach to things are not doing a very good job of focusing on the real message of truth.
And if THAT is what is really offending a person, it sort of defines why goats are so stubborn and refuse correction and are chosen to represent those who can't or wown't recognize and accept the truth.
The great division among us has been cultivating itself for years and has mainly manifested itself in the battle of political philosiphies among us.
The problem lies with any of us aligning ourselves with either one as it is portrayed in man's world.
These are philosiphies of men that are doomed to fail. Not that either don't pocess some truth and merrit, but neither are the solution.
The solution will be dilivered by God in the form of an "out of the box" man that God will send to correct our understanding of things.
And if we fail to adhear to his directions for us, then we will be cut off from the presence of God.
Glen is mearly a forerunner type of this man to come.
So it is easy to comprehend what this great division will be like by the preview we are now recieving. Only AMP that up by a factor of one million when the time comes for that to fulfill scripture...God's Word & Garuantee!
Or do you not believe this?
M&M, you highlighted what I believe to be the very problem we are experiencing among the membership of the church.
You mention extreamism on either end of the spectrum as being a problem. And that view of extreamism is exactly the problem the average member faces.
If something is true, there should be no extream to which we should not be willing to go to support or defend that truth. Even unto death.
What you describe is a fence sitter. One who doesn't wish to rock the boat under any circumstances for the sake of maintaining a ballance or peace.
It's a cowards way of not taking a stand for the truth as it is in it's ultimate extream.
Extream is not a bad word. Only it's application could be deamed as good or evil.
Have you taken a good look around you? Are we not living in a time of extream evil?
Does this condition not call for extream truth to be voiced to counter it's influence?
But for someone such as adopts your view of how things should comfortably fit us in a time when I really don't care to have such filth coming near me or my family, I feel it is "EXTREAMLY" important to take an extream view of extream wickedness.
Or is God lying to us when He says we live in days that are worse than Noah's day?...And we know what God thought of that degree of wickedness...
Did Noah appear extream to those people? Of course he did. But who wound up being right?
Spiritual Apathy is what grips our members in the fear of not wanting to draw attention from the wicked by our openly and valiantly opposing it when it has become so strong and previlent that it will obviously overtake us unless God intervienes.
I say your view of extreamism is what most members have adopted as a means of coping with an impending danger by taking sides with the treat, as opposed to standing up to it under all extream circumstances including death, as the Lord tells us to.
You and most other members are cowering to man's threats and wickedness...You feel if you can't beat em, then Join em.
Because ANTIPATY depicts exactly THAT!
Glen Beck is one of those Noah or Elijah types who stands as an oddity to those adverse to having the courage to stand for truth and suggest he should tone things down, or is out in left field.
His speaking the truth is not what is giving us a bad name. What is giving us a bad name is the fact that we as a church, are gaining greater & greater acceptance in the eyes of an ever growing evil world.
Get off that fence of Spiritual Antipathy before it bites you in the ---!
The others who hate the message of truth are flat out enemies to God. And there are certainly those who reflect that image in some of these comments.
Our days of straddling the fence are numbered and will be decided by God when He interjects Himself directly into these matters and sends those who hate truth, or who are affraid to stand for it in the extream, running for their lives with no place to go.
Right now...The wicked believe THEY are in the right and see the righteous as eventually suffering the ultimate price at THEIR hands.
But God has a different view & PLAN for how things will truly turn out. But the righteous will have to go through Hell to get there. Even if it means death in some cases.
But truth is worth enduring whatever it takes!
I supose that sounds a little extream ? It sounds like the very thing Christ was willing to do and DID.
M&M, you highlighted what I believe to be the very problem we are experiencing among the membership of the church.
You mention extreamism on either end of the spectrum as being a problem. And that view of extreamism is exactly the problem the average member faces.
If something is true, there should be no extream to which we should not be willing to go to support or defend that truth. Even unto death.
What you describe is a fence sitter. One who doesn't wish to rock the boat under any circumstances for the sake of maintaining a ballance or peace.
It's a cowards way of not taking a stand for the truth as it is in it's ultimate extream.
Extream is not a bad word. Only it's application could be deamed as good or evil.
Have you taken a good look around you? Are we not living in a time of extream evil?
Does this condition not call for extream truth to be voiced to counter it's influence?
But for someone such as adopts your view of how things should comfortably fit us in a time when I really don't care to have such filth coming near me or my family, I feel it is "EXTREAMLY" important to take an extream view of extream wickedness.
Or is God lying to us when He says we live in days that are worse than Noah's day?...And we know what God thought of that degree of wickedness...
Did Noah appear extream to those people? Of course he did. But who wound up being right?
Spiritual Apathy is what grips our members in the fear of not wanting to draw attention from the wicked by our openly and valiantly opposing it when it has become so strong and previlent that it will obviously overtake us unless God intervienes.
I say your view of extreamism is what most members have adopted as a means of coping with an impending danger by taking sides with the treat, as opposed to standing up to it under all extream circumstances including death, as the Lord tells us to.
You and most other members are cowering to man's threats and wickedness...You feel if you can't beat em, then Join em.
Because ANTIPATY depicts exactly THAT!
Glen Beck is one of those Noah or Elijah types who stands as an oddity to those adverse to having the courage to stand for truth and suggest he should tone things down, or is out in left field.
His speaking the truth is not what is giving us a bad name. What is giving us a bad name is the fact that we as a church, are gaining greater & greater acceptance in the eyes of an ever growing evil world.
Get off that fence of Spiritual Antipathy before it bites you in the ---!
The others who hate the message of truth are flat out enemies to God. And there are certainly those who reflect that image in some of these comments.
Our days of straddling the fence are numbered and will be decided by God when He interjects Himself directly into these matters and sends those who hate truth, or who are affraid to stand for it in the extream, running for their lives with no place to go.
Right now...The wicked believe THEY are in the right and see the righteous as eventually suffering the ultimate price at THEIR hands.
But God has a different view & PLAN for how things will truly turn out. But the righteous will have to go through Hell to get there. Even if it means death in some cases.
But truth is worth enduring whatever it takes!
I supose that sounds a little extream ? It sounds like the very thing Christ was willing to do and DID.
You and most other members are cowering to man's threats and wickedness...You feel if you can't beat em, then Join em.
Wow. That's quite an accusation from someone who presumably just stumbled on my blog.
I don't think it's cowardly to realize that no one side of the political spectrum has a corner on truth.
I admire Glenn Beck's courage. But I just don't see him as a prophet-like leader as you do. That's hardly the same thing as being apathetic.
If you want to rally more people to your cause, it might be good to start by not assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is catering to evil. My point is that I think the solution to finding truth is more complicated than that.
And for the record, I am not afraid of standing up for truth. The question here, and where I think we disagree, is what is the truth for which we need to stand, and who should be our rallying leader(s) in such an effort.
If your intent was to rally me to your cause, it isn't working. If anything, it's only sort of proving my point for me. ;)
Post a Comment