Social justice & Glenn Beck

From: Wesley Report: Alex, I’ll Take Social Justice For 500

Glenn Beck caused an uproar when he suggested that people should leave churches that talk about social and economic justice. Now Jim Wallis wants Christians to stop watching Beck, and Christian Post reports that Christian anti-poverty groups are up in arms. (This reference makes me wonder if there are Christian pro-poverty groups.)

The Wallis crowd is far removed from biblical truths. No matter what they read in the Bible they interpret it as a mandate for Christians to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. It is all about income redistribution for them.  The average person in the world makes $850 / yr. I’ll be impressed when Wallis & Co. voluntarily give away enough to achieve that. After all, why do they just focus on the U.S.?

One “pastor” even claimed that Ananias and Sapphira were killed for not redistributing wealth, even though Peter explicitly notes the real sin (lying to the Holy Spirit) and that the funds had been theirs to do with as they wished. You don’t need to be able to dissect the Greek to understand that one.

And the Sojourners folks are mostly pro-legalized abortion, as if any serious notion of social justice could include the right to crush and dismember an innocent human being. This “minister” thinks the health care bill is pro-life, even though it most certainly will lead to taxpayer-funded abortions.  See Dems look to health vote without abortion foes for more on their deceptions.

Should Christians give generously? Absolutely! But it isn’t a virtue to give from your neighbor’s wallet.

Lobby for whatever political positions you like based on your case for why it is good public policy, but be very careful when you attach Jesus to your views.

Oddly, the social justice crowd does more to push their religious beliefs on the populace than anything the Right ever did. (We can argue the pro-life / pro-family case all day long with or without the Bible.) Why don’t the ACLU et al get mad about that? Oh, because they share the same political views.

It was also odd that they didn’t realize Beck was Mormon and/or that Mormons aren’t Christians.

P.S. I don’t watch or listen to Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc. Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .

0 thoughts on “Social justice & Glenn Beck”

  1. A couple of our lib friends have been ripping on Beck for his comments. One is doing to Beck’s comments what he has just recently done to mine, which is to totally and, I believe, purposely misrepresenting them to say something he didn’t quite say. And of course, in their muddled minds they believe Christ is all about social justice as the term is used today. Quite sad.


  2. I didn’t realize that Beck was a Mormon. Not that this prevents him from some valid view points. Just didn’t know that. I listen to him from time to time, butt must admit, I’m really tiring of it all.


  3. Beck occasionally talks about his Mormonism. But what I don’t like about Beck is his constant prattle. He has some good stuff to say, but too much prattle distracts from it. I bought his book, “Arguing with Idiots,” because I was able to get it for $15 instead of cover price of $30. I highly recommend it because he has assembled a wealth of data very useful for debating the liberal agenda on various subjects. Yes, he has some prattle with it, which is easy to by-pass. But it is a great reference source.


  4. I had not heard the goat-herd thing before either. I like it and will probably appropriate it. Sort of re-distributing the wisdom you see.


  5. “Oddly, the social justice crowd does more to push their religious beliefs on the populace than anything the Right ever did”

    Perhaps the public needs to be made aware and shaken from their slumber. As the United Methodist Women’s Social Action Coordinator at my church, I’m wondering if you have a problem with our strong stands on social and economic justice.

    There is a difference between charity and justice. Doing works of charity, while admirable, does not necessarily require us to leave our comfort zones, but doing works of justice ALWAYS will.

    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
    –Hélder Câmara


    1. “Perhaps the public needs to be made aware and shaken from their slumber. As the United Methodist Women’s Social Action Coordinator at my church, I’m wondering if you have a problem with our strong stands on social and economic justice. ”

      Considering that those stands amount to little more than twisting the Bible to fit a radical liberal agenda, I’d say yes, a lot of us have problems with the UMW’s “strong stands”


      1. Tom,

        I’m truly grieved that you feel the UMW’s work of social and economic justice is “twisting the Bible to fit a radical liberal agenda”. Especially since the entire Bible speaks to these things, maybe not in those exact words, but certainly the concept. For those of us involved, it is doing what Jesus calls us to do for the least among us, for the oppressed, for the marginalized. I’m not sure how or when doing these things became politicized and “liberal”… meaning something dirtier than dirt… but obviously it has.


    2. I’ve yet to find “social justice” people who weren’t pro-legalized abortion — or if they called themselves pro-life they did absolutely nothing about it.

      “When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I say it should be illegal to crush and dismember innocent human beings they say I’m forcing my values on others, that I’m anti-woman, anti-choice, etc.”
      – Neil Simpson


      1. Neil,

        The connection you make in your quote…..feeding the poor and abortion….do you think there is a direct correlation between poverty and abortion? In which case I would think some social justice action would be required to help eradicate poverty in order to save lives, including those of the unborn. And it seems to me that the question “why” must first be answered to find a solution.


      2. In which case I would think some social justice action would be required to help eradicate poverty in order to save lives, including those of the unborn.

        Hi Marty,

        So if infanticide becomes common for economic reasons, will you wait until poverty has been eradicated before opposing it?

        How about if the gov’t decides to reduce homelessness by killing homeless people? Will you wait until the factors causing homelessness are completely eradicated before opposing such deaths?

        Those are not rhetorical questions. I’d appreciate answers.

        If you really want to reduce abortions then support crisis pregnancy centers with your time and money. And support laws against the killing of innocent human beings. Both those will help. But don’t propose that we wait for utopia before ending the legal slaughter.


      3. Neil,

        I think you have totally misunderstood my question and my motives. I was honestly wondering if you felt there was a connection between poverty and abortion. I think in order to eradicate any unjustice, including abortion, we must understand the “why” of it. That is all I am saying. And I answer a resounding NO to both of your questions. I wasn’t proposing that we wait for utopia. Quite the contrary. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.


      4. Hi Marty,

        My apologies for misunderstanding your point. Poverty can be part of the reason but not a dominant one. Usually it is just abortion as birth control, and mostly from out of wedlock sex. If I remember when I’m home I’ll find some stats for you.

        Sent from my iPhone


  6. Have you read the Mosiac Law? There’s lots of redistribution of wealth described there. For example, every 50th year, when all land goes back to its ancestral family owners, or every 7th year, when all debts are cancelled. In addition, the tithe of every 3rd year was to be given to the poor and needy. Isn’t that wealth redistribution?


    1. Hi Tyson,

      Thanks for visiting and commenting.

      Yes, I am familiar with those passages. But they were for an Israelite theocracy. I find it odd that those most opposed to God (not you, btw) are the most in favor of government-driven wealth redistribution and forcing Jewish civil laws on the rest of the populace.


      1. If debts were canceled every 7th year, I bet it was really hard for the poor to borrow anything in the 6th year. (Nowadays, that would be discriminatory and a lender who did that would find himself the subject of a civil rights investigation.)


      2. Hi Roxeanne,

        Actually, Moses foresaw exactly what you mention. He addressed it in Deut 15:7-9:

        “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin.”


      3. Tyson,

        I think that you’re missing two important points when you write that (and your subsequent comment about how wealth redistribution is legitimate from a biblical perspective): this was commanded by God, not Barack Obama (who, imagery to the contrary, is not a deity); and the word NEEDY.

        On the first point: If God says, “Kill this person,” then you do that because it is just. When the government says the same thing, it is a Holocaust. When God says “Give”, it is because all that you have was made possible by Him – your skills, intellect, strength of mind, and character; when the government says “Give”, it is demanding something that it did not create.

        All people, religious or not, should be squeamish with this business of equating God’s laws with what it is okay for secular governments to do.

        Second point requires a bit of explanation as to why charity works but the same thing fails when implemented by government: accountability. A widow, disabled person, elderly person, or just plain poor person could, under Judiac law, count on the charity of others around them. A lazy mooch, however, would eventually run out of charity or the community would run out of assets. Our welfare system gives no incentive for people to work and produce; a charitable system ensures that only the truly needy will ask for help, since they must so ask and plead their case before their fellow man.

        As I like to say, communism works really well in the family unit but fails, in a deadly and horrifying way, when implemented on a country-wide scale.


      4. With that logic, it is also wrong for the government to ask for any taxes at all, since that involves taking from those who can afford taxation to benefit everyone.

        Why is it okay to take money for things like schools, roads, defence, clean water, police and MEDICARE, but as soon as the same rules are expanded to include a small level of health care for everyone, we are suddenly talking about communism?


      5. Aside from the fact that the Bible only gives money from others to NEEDY, there is a Constitutional issue here. The Constitution allows taxes to be taken for certain needs of maintaining a country. Defense is a very important part, as are interstate and international transportation needs. Try finding Medicare or Healthcare as something authorized by the Constitution. In fact, most of the pork our congressmen legislate is unconstitutional abuse of their power to benefit those who put money in their pockets. Look as the deals with Nebraska and Louisiana that were needed to pass the healthcare fraud!

        Schools, police, etc are needs of local communities and therefore local communities can tax for those things. Taxes are for needs, not wants. If a state wants to do state healthcare, and their constitution allows it, so be it. But there is nothing in the National Constitution that allows it. And the bill is not just about providing health care, it is about forcing taxes to pay for abortion, forcing everyone to have healthcare or face punishment, limiting health care. etc. Look at England where nationalized health care has been for a long time – I have good friends from England who can tell horror stories and who want nothing to do with socialized medicine.


      6. So you put schools and police in the “needs” column and health care in the “wants” column? I suppose a valid argument could be made for any of those things to be in either column, but where in the constitution does it define the difference?

        I’m not denying your right to lobby to keep health care out of government budgets, but how is paying for health care “socialist” and paying for education something different?

        As for your friends in England – the grass is always greener. I’ve lived under socialized medicine my whole life, and wouldn’t live anywhere that didn’t have it.


      7. Without police you have anarchy. Public schools are necessary to educate the populace because most people don’t have the ability to do so for themselves, and not everyone can afford private schooling. Uneducated people do not make a good citizenry.

        Read our Constitution and tell me where you find the right for Congress to spend money on nationalized health care. If they want to do so, the proper method would be an amendment and not an backroom deal.

        No one is denied healthcare in the USA and anyone who says other wise is a liar. Even illegal immigrants get free heathcare. NO one should be forced to carry healthcare insurance – that is a private decision. The heathcare that the gov’t wants is to force insurance companies to cover elective care, to force them to cover that which is immoral and to decide whether your remaining life is worth spending money on. It will also decide how much health insurance you want and will force employers to offer health insurance whether they can afford it or not. There is so much wrong with this bill it would take a book to cover it all. But a major problem is that it is an unconstitutional abuse of power. And when you have that, you have socialism and a dictatorship.


      8. Socialism has nothing to do with “abuse of power”. It’s just an ideology.

        I agree with you on public schools and police, and numerous other things we need to be productive and safe as a society. I’m just pointing out that health care is also pretty important for a society to be productive.

        It is the fact that emergency health care is accessible (not free) to anyone in the US, regardless of who they are, that insurance needs to be mandated. You are going to pay through taxes for people to go to the hospital when they need to anyway, so why shouldn’t they be forced to pay for insurance for that almost inevitable occurrence? I don’t have the right to say “I’m not going to have any kids, so I don’t want to pay for schools” or “My house is made of space age flame retardant foam so I don’t want to pay for fire departments”.


      9. Yes, I find that ironic as well. And, I recognize that we do not need to demand Mosiac law be enforced today.

        Nonetheless, I think there are *principles* for good government that we can learn here. If the Law of Moses is not instructive for government, then why are we Christians always upset whenever plaques or statues of 10 Commandments are removed from courthouses and other public spaces?

        At the very least, I believe these laws demonstrate that wealth redistribution is legit from a biblical standpoint, even if not required today.


  7. Ryan,
    You’re coming up with the same liberal tripe the politicians come up with. You still did not tell me where it is found in the Constitution. You can’t just say, “We should have it so let’s do it” and damn the law.

    Emergency care IS free – they can not turn you away just because you have no money. And paying for those without insurance would be one heck of a lot cheaper than this monstrosity illegally and unconstitutionally foisted on us.

    America has the best health care system in the world and no one suffers from lack of health care. The cost of health care could be reduced substantially if the tort system was fixed – but since most of our politicians are lawyers they don’t want to do that.

    No, insurance does NOT need to be mandated. What if I have enough money to pay for my own bills – why should I be forced to buy insurance? Insurance is not a right! And that is part of the whole entitlement mentality. I’m sick of everyone thinking they are entitled to everything.

    And yes socialism always leads to a totalitarian government – read the history books. It is always about abuse of the power of those in charge – they will force you to give up what you earn to make sure dead-beats are supported, so that the dead-beats will keep them in office!


    1. I gave you some good reasons that there is little difference between paying for schools and paying for health care, but you seem to have jumped right to an attack on me. Neither provisions are in the constitution. Perhaps they should be.

      Are you not sick of paying for the heath care of people who walk into hospitals uninsured? Are you not sick of the children in the country who do not get care because their parents are too lazy or too poor to afford it? And don’t give me that “everyone gets health care garbage”. That only applies to people who need emergent care. It doesn’t cover kids that need orthotics to be able to play sports, or hearing aids to hear, or glasses to see. Those are the things that kids need to be able to participate in a capitalist society, and they are not covered adequately, if at all. Every kid deserves a baseline of medical care that allows him to go to school, learn, and grow up with at least a chance.

      I’m not advocating socialism, I’m just advocating an expansion of one socialist principal. You can’t apply the “Glenn Beck” slippery slope argument to every liberal principle.


      1. I didn’t attack you – I attack your liberal, socialist ideas. Schools are not in the Constitution of the US — but the Feds aren’t collecting taxes for local schools. Taxing for school IS in local constitutions – state or city codes, etc. Health care is NOT in the US constitution, which means it is something to be left to the states – or do you not read the constitution?

        Yes, I’m tired of paying for health care for those who CAN afford their own insurance, but that isn’t what we are dealing with, is it? We’re talking about a complete takeover. It costs me lots less money in taxes to pay for the deadbeats now than it will under Obamacare. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

        By the way, NO ONE needs orthotics to play sports. Playing sports is not a right or an entitlement. And paying for orthotics is not a right, and certainly not an entitlement from the Federal government. No one needs straightened teeth either. Hearing aids and glasses have always been paid for by states and local cities for those who need them (I know this for a fact because I know people who have both from local governments).

        Obamacare is part of an overall socialist strategy to destroy the US economy, and that is a fact!

        You might not mind that most of the money you earn will go to taxes, but I prefer to have my hard work provide for me and my family and not for those who are lazy or refuse to work for whatever reason.


      2. “Obamacare is part of an overall socialist strategy to destroy the US economy, and that is a fact!”

        Really? A fact? What would “they” gain from destroying the U.S. economy?

        Makes me think about what David From recently wrote. He said the only conservatives who won from the health care debate were the talk show hosts, because now people are even more angry and the discourse is even more poisoned.


      3. Have you read about the Cloward-Piven strategy? It is the playbook of Obama and his Demokrat administration. Destroy the economy and socialism becomes forced on the populace.

        Find in the Constitution where the President has the authority to take over automobile companies and banks; all part of a socialist agenda. What “they” gain is a socialist country, which the demokrats have been fighting for, for a very long time.


      4. Obamacare is part of an overall socialist strategy to destroy the US economy, and that is a fact!

        That’s just a silly thing to say, and makes me think that you are just an alarmist conspiracy theorist.

        You might not mind that most of the money you earn will go to taxes, but I prefer to have my hard work provide for me and my family and not for those who are lazy or refuse to work for whatever reason.

        Another alarmist thing to say. You guys are talking as if your taxes have been doubled. You don’t mention that your lifestyle and ability to provide for yourself depends heavily on a ot of people making a lot less money than you. I know you think they just don’t work as hard as you, but I believe they should at least have a minimum standard of health care. Until you stop pretending that everyone who is a little more socialist than you is in favour of destroying the country, you won’t have the opportunity to be involved in reasonable debate.


      5. There’s nothing “alarmist” about it – it is the truth! Look at the underhanded way they had to use to pass this socialist bill; back room deals, misuse of procedure, and violating the Constitution. There was no “reasonable debate” – just forcing down our throats. Poll after poll demonstrated that the majority of citizens did not want this bill, yet these people who are supposed to represent us were only interested in lining their own pockets and fostering their socialist agendas. Taxes will more than double to be able to pay for this boondoggle.

        How can you even make a comment about the difference i what I make and what others make, since you have no idea how much money I make! I am on a fixed income – retired, buddy – and I don’t want to see my hard work siphoned away for dead-beats and illegal immigrants, which are the primary benefactors of this bill. Most people work for a living and do indeed have healthcare coverage of some sort. This was not about providing healthcare and you know it – it was about taking over a large segment of the economy.

        It was the demokrats who spewed the “alarmist” rhetoric about people not having healthcare so as to get everyone to be a sucker for their socialist programs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s