Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Glenn Beck and Social Justice, and Thinking Outside the Box in Politics

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.

9 comments:

  1. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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....

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 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. ;)

    ReplyDelete