Glenn Beck: Revival of Irresponsibility

March 20, 2010 | Filed under: Guest Commentary,US,Views | Posted by: Liam Fox

On March 27th, Glenn Beck will kick off his ‘American Revival’ tour in Orlando, Florida. Entitled ‘The Future of History’, this eight hour long stage show will discuss ‘Faith, Hope and Charity’. For the price of admission, Glenn promises that this event will give information, inspiration and preparation to turn this country around(1). His prescriptions for the future provide “a brilliant endorsement for the separation of church and state”, the “continued need for the republic’s representative democracy, responsible to the needs of its citizens” . . . and a harbinger of disaster should anyone who agrees with Beck ever achieve political power.

There are two main contentions that Glenn asserts leading up to his American Revival. First, he claims that support and charity should not be provided through the government. Second, he claims that rights are granted by God and not by man. These comments have received a great deal of press this past week. While many took exception to his attack on churches that preach social justice(2), he received resounding support from conservatives on these two main points.

Social Service Programs as a Religious Function

Like the Republicans, Glenn exhorts the benefit of smaller government and rails against what he calls a nanny state with entitlement programs. Glenn proposes that all charitable acts should be religious in nature. He states that any such services or supports should be offered through churches or synagogues, or by individuals exercising their religious duty of almsgiving. He declares that social justice is forced charity, and dismisses Christian churches that preach or practice this philosophy as being not truly Christian, but progressives cloaking themselves in Christianity(3). He continues by stating that justice is only to be given by god and supporting this argument by explaining that that is why there is a judgment seat in heaven. According to this rationale, you may not get justice here, but if you behave as instructed, you may achieve it in the afterlife. Justice in society is not for man to create, it is the providence of God.

The wonderful convenience of this, is that it gives the wealthy complete control over the masses. If someone is born into poverty, it is the will of God. The fortunes of the affluent are likewise explained, and therefore claimed as God-given right. The wealthy are in a position to give only what they deem necessary and appropriate to give, and are never required to give enough to allow someone to break free of their poverty; only enough to maintain them in it, if they are so inspired. The only requirements they have are what they choose as their interpretation of Scripture. It creates a wonderfully cheap, impoverished working class for the elite who get to choose what each person’s allotment should or should not be.

With this power and control over the basic necessities of life, the power and ability to affect complete social change, and influence laws and legislation according to the will and advantage of the elite, is elementary. The masses, relying wholly on the wealthy for their survival, would have no recourse. Without options, one could be commanded to work for whatever wage was offered or face utter destitution. There would be no unemployment or social services, simply a large, cheap, desperate work force. This is apparently God’s will, and just happens to work really well with laissez faire, free-market, capitalist economic systems.

For someone who preaches the Constitution as much as he does, Mr. Beck seems to completely miss the point of it by being caught up in the very elitism that the document was drafted to protect Americans from. His system of charity hearkens back to the days of fealty to feudal lords for a pittance in return. His plan for the future is a revival of desperate hope of the oppressed, for benevolent masters governed only by their peity. This prescription for reform is nothing short of a road map to a two-tiered, wildly disparate, third world system with an extremely wealthy minority wielding complete control over a vast majority of impoverished and subjugated laborers.

Beck has co-opted the founding fathers as the clergy for his own messianic campaign, choosing excerpts from their works to support his theories and agenda. He has deified mere men and made their words gospel. He has re-contextualized their thoughts and subjected Americans to a destorted understanding of statements over two hundred years old and rejects any divergent views or development of their theses, as he interprets them, as heresy.

Rights Determined by the Clergy

Glenn is very adamant that rights can only come from God(4). The Declaration of Independence states, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. This is what he considers unassailable proof of his assertion. He didn’t consider that the intention was to say that a person’s rights cannot be assailed, limited or controlled by another person. According to Glenn, your rights are the rights God gave you. What you have is what you’ve got. What you can achieve is what you are allowed. If God put you in a position where you don’t seem to have any rights, you apparently need to take it up with God, or simply wait until the afterlife. He seems completely distraught that the American Government would have the audacity to recognize the rights of its citizens, articulate them, codify them and legislate the protection of them(5). Once again we see a theocratic rationalization for concentrating power in the hands of Glenn Beck’s God fearing elite, to dole out as they see fit.

As Desmond Tutu so eloquently stated, “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.”

Mr Beck offers no description, nor does he cite any reference material to discover what rights are granted by God. A search of the Bible yielded only six mentions of rights(6):

Exodus 21: 7-11
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Deuteronomy 21:16
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.

Psalm 82:3
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Proverbs 31:8
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

Galatians 4:5
God sent his Son,born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.”

Hebrews 12:16
refers to Esau, who “sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.”

Although two of these encourage advocacy for the rights of the less fortunate, there is no definition as to what those rights are. Only two rights are represented in the remaining four verses. Three verses are dedicated to the property and inheritance rights of men, and one verse is dedicated to the right of women to be treated as chattel. As scripture fails to adequately discuss the issue of rights, I’m sure the implication is that church doctrine communicated through clerics would provide the necessary guide.

Therefore, a person’s rights could only be granted by, or affirmed by, the clergy, rather than their own democratically elected representational government. The Nineteenth Amendment would certainly have run into trouble with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 which allows women no authority over men which would include the right to vote for or against a man.

The world according to Glenn

On the basis of these two principles alone, that the people cannot provide for themselves as a collective through their government, and that the government of the people and by the people cannot articulate, codify and ensure the people’s rights, Mr. Beck would effectively take us back to a time ruled by Nobles and Clerics not enjoyed since prior to the French Revolution, with the potential upward mobility of share-croppers, or minors wholly determined by the company store. This would take the country much farther back than even Mr. Beck admits, as he races headlong towards yesteryear.

His desire to take the country back is not motivated by what is good for the country, but serves only to benefit those that currently enjoy privilege, while disenfranchising and disempowering the vast majority of Americans. This country doesn’t need to move backward, it needs to move forward. The use of religion and a God, as a surrogate to usurp the rights of the people, is based on failed societal models recycled throughout our history. The distorted past that Mr. Beck wants to revive, with an added and increased role of religion, is nothing but the ramblings of a terrified fool. The past is the comfortable domain of cowards and the status quo is the sanctuary of the elite.

Beyond Beck

This desire to abdicate responsibility to an omniscient being in order to avoid responsibility or accountability is destructive regardless of how tempting it may seem. America is ruled by a government of the people, by the people and for the people; not of the people, by the rich and religious, for God. The representatives of the people can and should recognize, articulate, codify, and ensure the rights of the people, by the people and for the people. The people must take collective action and provide services and supports for themselves through their government. The government is not the alien ‘other’, or ‘them’, as in the paranoid delusions of Mr. Beck. The government is made up of the representatives that Americans elect to represent their will. If their representatives fail in this, they can and should be replaced by the people. They should not be replaced by the clergy or the affluent, or their agents, that offer no such representation or democratic remedy.

America has evolved and progressed and will continue to do so. As new obstacles and past shortcomings are identified Americans will meet the challenges and move ahead, learning from their past so as not to repeat it. Americans must be careful not to follow the fearful call to retreat into the embrace of the devil they once knew simply because of the uncertainties inherent to the future. Is this not the land of the free and the home of the brave? Let Mr. Beck retreat into the past, if he wishes. Americans have the freedom to claim their rights and insist that their government recognize and ensure them, and the bravery to take those rights into the future that they will determine of, by and for themselves.

1 – http://www.glennbeck.com/
2 – http://mediamatters.org/research/201003120055
3 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9Apn5N0MI
4 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiucQ_INghE
5 – http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-confirms-that-your-rights-come-from-god/
6 – http://www.ccfwebsite.com/archives/What_does_the_Bible_say_about_rights.pdf

Liam Fox is a secular humanist active in social justice, and a climate justice proponent. He is a social service worker, community organizer, musician, and public speaker. Liam can be found in most places the web connects, and likes to write on his own site, Irreverence Cafe, as well.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.

17 Responses to Glenn Beck: Revival of Irresponsibility

Baconsbud March 21, 2010 - 10:02 am

I want those that believe Beck is speaking the truth to really study history. Most of the things consider by all as great evils have started with words such as he uses. I think he claims to support the Constitution because he knows he will lose most support if he doesn't. I want to read more about him but am afraid I won't be getting the truth but a glossed over story with many half truths and lies.

I want to see Congress enact a law defining what is and isn't legitimate news. I see to many shows that call themselves news programs but in truth all they are is political opinion shows. I would also like to see new programing go to a non-profit setup and the only way a channel could receive the name of news programing would be if they have at least 75% of their programing is actual news. They would also be required to ensure that all sides of a story are reported not just one side as many of the reports are done now.

- LeeJ March 26, 2010 - 7:37 pm
  
  I would like to think I am intelligent enough to read the Constitution for myself, know what it says and does not say, read history books, not revision or "new" history books, and make my own choices about what I want to watch, listen to, and support or not support. Anyone who has something to say that people want to listen to has the opportunity. Even people who don't have viewers are staying in business just fine. There are plenty of examples of that.
  
  We do not need speech police, viewer police, thought police . . . what we need are to maintain freedom. You watch, read, listen, and think what you want, but allow me the same freedom. That's where it becomes contentious and heated.
  
  - Baconsbud March 26, 2010 - 9:01 pm
    
    Where did I say we need speech or thought police? What is needed is a means of separating news from opinion shows. If you keep track of what people say, you find many think that what Glenn Beck is doing is reporting the news but it is just his screwed view of things. Do you want people voting because they have been misled or because they are well informed. Where did I say you couldn't read, listen, watch or think as you want? I agree we have to maintain our freedoms but much of those that support the right seem to be about not allowing freedoms. They want to force all to be of their faith and if you refuse you have no such freedoms.
    
    - LeeJ March 26, 2010 - 11:14 pm
      
      Anyone can look at Beck and tell he is not the evening news anchor! He is a man who passionately believes what he believes and will go to any length to explain it. He is not part of a right wing plot to transform American into a right wing religious (only as he sees it) nation. Today I tried to watch some things on MSNBC and it is truly frightening. The absolute intentional lies, intentional lies, that are told with the intent to transform America into a progressive thinking, big government, dependent country that is so far removed from what the founders intended is so clear that I do not see how anyone can miss it. It is absolutely undeniable. I watched the Ed Show and he shouts "we need to bring back the fairness doctrine. We need to shut Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity up." That's not news. That's not freedom. I want people to have the freedom to hear it all. Too long, I have to split it up.
      
      - Baconsbud March 27, 2010 - 12:53 am
        
        I have my doubts about you understanding the Constitution. I haven't said that they couldn't speak but that it should clearly be shown that they aren't news but opinions. You must not be watching the same stuff I have seen Beck doing. He is about religion being first in this country and he wants the christian religion ahead of all other religions. The problem with what you say people want is people like Beck mislead them about what the Founding Fathers were wanting from the government. Just studying the Constitution isn't how you will fully understand what they were going for. You need to read their works also to better understand what they were going for. I do agree that the government does get to involved in some areas of our lives but if they don't there would be many people who would have nothing and only a few would have everything.
        
        
        LeeJ March 27, 2010 - 2:06 am
        
        Charitable people have always shared. I can't imagine having something, seeing someone in need and not sharing. Not in my DNA. Most people I know are that same way. My problem is with anyone taking from me and giving to someone. That's why we have non-profits, that why we support non-profits. Sounds very much like redistribution to me. I'm much more from the "teach a man to fish" camp. Once the government gets in, they never get out. We will never agree, but at least we can agree to disagree without name calling.
        
        
        Jenny Donati March 26, 2010 - 9:30 pm
        
        . . . and while I’m only now catching up on this conversation you two are having, I’m very glad to see that you both can disagree without name calling. It’s really refreshing, especially with the way the news is these days! (Not just what the talking heads say, but what’s HAPPENING.)
        
        Baconsbud March 27, 2010 - 8:22 am
        
        I don't have a problem with people making a good wage but have you really looked at what some people are being paid while you have families that can barely afford to provide just the basics for themselves. You are right that there are charities out here that will help people but have you ever actually tried to use them? If the money spent on bonuses for the bailed out banks and insurance companies were actually used to increase pay for the lower paid employees I would bet that it would do more good for the economy then just giving it to a small number of people. I would like to see this list of charities that you say will help with major health care for a family of 4 who makes more then 25,000 but less then 35,000?
        
        Josh April 7, 2010 - 7:25 pm
        
        Sir, what you are referring to enacting is socialism. That is what failed in the USSR and other places. The problem is that those in power are the "rich" taking from everyone else in order to maintain their status because no one has a chance to improve their situation which secures the position of those with wealth.
        
        The great thing about our country is that it gives all men the opportunity to get ahead. While I am not sure how everyone else feels about temporary welfare and emergency assistance for the truly needy in times of extreme duress, that is open to reasonable debate in my opinion. The major problem is really that the majority of those on welfare view it as a lifestyle. There does exist in this country opportunities to work hard and better your economic picture, to be responsible and better your economic picture, to live within you means…
        
        The free market and capitalistic environment is the reason that immigrants from every other nation on earth have sought to come here.
        
        You know what i find quite interesting? These people who do choose to leave their caste system, welfare states come to America and in the vast majority of cases do very well for themselves. They get educated, earn money, and provide a great life for their families despite serious disadvantages related to language. It is interesting that the people who want to work leave welfare states and come here and succeed, but those that are born here who don't want to work don't succeed. Yet we want to take from those that have worked hard in life to give to those who have not and do not intend to.
        
        I am speaking for myself as an unemployed adult student with a family. While i am currently taking advantage of unemployment income and food assistance, I am finishing a bachelors degree program in 1.25 years. I am bettering myself. I also do not feel entitled to the support I am receiving. Should I not receive it, i would get help from family, church, etc. I simply don't feel entitled to have every need met by the government just because i am josh… unfortunately, many in our country feel the opposite. They do nothing with their life, have no intention to do anything with their life, but feel they are entitled to full support from the government and those who work for a living. That is just my 5 cents.
        
        Baconsbud April 7, 2010 - 10:41 pm
        
        First what I am suggesting isn't socialism. Also socialism isn't what failed in the USSR. It was the same thing that is putting such a drain on the USA. Spending way to much on military and not enough on keeping the foundations of this country alive. If you look at history most nations fall because they fail to make things fair within their borders. You say everyone has a fair chance at getting ahead in this nation. I say you are full of crap on that. Ask many of the poor black men and women if they were giving a fair chance to get a good education. Ask all the gays if they have had a fair chance to get ahead and be themselves. No this nation isn't about everyone getting a chance to get ahead. If it really was there wouldn't be the need for welfare as there is now.
        
        Damn and here I thought you might have been about to say how you aren't on and never have accepted assistance from the government. Why didn't you get all of these from that church you attend? Why should I who works between 40-60 hours a week help feed a family just because you are attending school. Unlike you I have only drawn unemployment once and that was for less then 2 months.
        
        I do agree that there does need to be a safety net for times like the financial disaster created by a somewhat free market. I also agree that there are some that abuse the system but I would bet that if you look closely it isn't as many as reporters tend to make it sound.
        
        Josh April 7, 2010 - 7:14 pm
        
        If you are anti-Christian religion you are in the minority. Please refer to the numerous polls, including a recent Easter poll by Rassmussen, that shows 78% of America believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Our country was founded on Christianity and the majority of the public is still Christian, despite what the vocal minority touts.
        Other faiths are welcome in our country, that is what our founders intended. However, the Christian faith is what our country was founded upon and to return to that foundation is truly what is needed. That is when our country was great.
        
        
        JennyD April 7, 2010 - 7:25 pm
        
        You ARE aware that Glenn Beck is a Mormon, right?
        
        Baconsbud April 7, 2010 - 10:51 pm
        
        Josh are Catholics christians? Do you know how many called themselves christian in 1950? Do you know how many of the Founding Fathers identified themselves as christians in their writings?
        
        I hear about a lot of polls done but it is odd that I seldom hear this company getting credit for doing these polls. I can't say much about them since I have only heard of them once or twice and what I have read so far about them makes me wonder about the bias or lack of it the hold. Will need to read more about them.
        
        I want you to show me how this nation was founded on christianity. I have heard this many times but haven't heard anything that really fits with the teachings of Jesus.
- Josh April 7, 2010 - 7:28 pm
  
  Those of you who hate Glenn Beck and feel that his political philosophy is so hateful, you should at least know that you are in the minority. Rassmussen polls recently released a poll showing that the clear majority of americans feel that the Tea Party movement (which is Glenn Beck mentality) more closely resembles their beliefs and values than our current presidential administration.
  
  - JennyD April 7, 2010 - 8:08 pm
    
    Are there only two options, the hate-filled rhetoric of Beck, or Obama-Pelosi?
    
    I'm sorry that you feel the world is so black-and-white, Josh. I and many independents like me don't strongly identify with either "side". The Tea Partiers have been co-opted by Beck and Judson Phillips; Obama has disappointed as well.
    
  - Baconsbud April 7, 2010 - 10:55 pm
    
    I have to disagree with you. It is hard to believe you are about to get a degree in college yet you claim his views are what are wanted in America. You might want to do some more research into the 1st Amendment and get a better understanding of why it was enacted.
    
    I don't hate Glenn Beck but I do hate that so many believe so many of his lies. There are several fact check sites and next time he starts ranting about how liberals are this or that, check to make sure his facts are correct.
    
    Just a guess but you are attending a christian college aren't you?
    
LeeJ March 26, 2010 - 11:14 pm

Go to heritage.org and get a copy of The Constitution. Anyone who can read can read it for themselves and then they should be informed enough to figure it out and vote. They should know when government needs to back off and the things that people need to do for themselves. Today I watched Beck and he had a live audience of regular Americans. They were not right wing kooks and they were saying we need to go back to what the Founders intended our country to be and that was not to be under the care of the government from the craddle to the grave. Not news, but it is my opinion.

Secular News Daily News & Views from a Secular Perspective

Socialize

Interact

Glenn Beck: Revival of Irresponsibility

17 Responses to Glenn Beck: Revival of Irresponsibility

Leave a Reply Cancel reply