Bcuz it needs a new thread... Glenn Beck is a Mormon!?!Political/Religion Disclaimer

[Farbin Kaiber]

Something I've juse learnt.

Found here.

Who cares? Glenn Beck is a douchy LDS and Limbaugh is a pill popping hypocrite that has been banished from the NFL for racism.

Researched here.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705307446,00.html

They even wrote a book...

http://www.amazon.com/Unlikely-Mormon-Conversion-Story-Glenn/dp/B001EVKWLQ

So, is the sky falling?

I continue to respect the man for his faith, something that is to his own discretion, but I've lost a bit of value on his rants from the prejudiced angle I have been given after moving to a Mormon Stronghold Suburb. (Within three hours of SLC)

There is some super wacky, as is in most religions stuff that he must assumably agree to. So, now that I've posted a trifecta; a right wing, religous, and political thread in one fell swoop, what have ye to speaketh?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Should I start another thread where I state that his birthday is the day before mine?

[Stephen]

yea

[pureaudio]

A conservative friend of mine has a pretty funny opinion on Glen Beck...

"I just can't listen to someone talking about all these conspiracy theories when he himself has fallen for the biggest one of all (Mormonism)"

I could care less if he is Mormon and I can't say I listen to him that often but I do like that the guy will blast anyone, common party or not, for being an asshat in politics.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well, it goes to show just how deeply he buys into it. I'm all for faith saving someone from addiction, and I'm glad he found something that works for him, but it's not gonna work for me. It seems like such a meek, socially inept group of faithers.

[ck_taft325is]

Mormonism is a heavy handed Religion. Again, Faith in God and Religion do not go hand in hand. Religion is the crotch of faith. The ugly part that bad men use to gain power, wealth, etc.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ That, rite durr.

They have WAY too many laws to follow, when all those damn laws have been "ammended".

(And what makes you so special to think your religion will singlehandedly supply the 144,000?)

[ck_taft325is]

Religion as determined by the Church I attend is any addition to the Bible. While a LOT of people will harpe on the Bible and anyone that follows it, this is a huge point as the majority of "Religion"(s) or Christianity that people have a problem with are the additions to the Bible. Ironically, the Bible calls Religion out on almost every front. Whether or not you believe in Christ or if he was God, etc, etc... Religion killed him. The Religious leaders, killed Christ. Not the Pagans. Not the heathens. Religion.

At every turn Christ challanged Religion. A lot of crap has been done in his name, but maybe, just maybe, people on a larger scale should blame those involved instead of God. Just sayin'...

[Farbin Kaiber]

And, he did kick the money changers out of the temple, that needs to happen these days.

[ck_taft325is]

And, he did kick the money changers out of the temple, that needs to happen these days.

Not only did he kick them out, he fashioned a whip of cords and beat the living fuck out of people

There's a 39 rule adendum (spelling?) on the Jewish word "Work" for the Sabbath. I thought it was pretty self explanitory... Work is work. Making myself a sandwich is just good times.

My Paster (Mark Driscoll) recently went to Isreal. He wakes up one morning and gets on the Elevator. It stopped on EVERY floor. He asked the elevator full of the Religious types what was wrong with the Elevator. The explained to him that it was the Sabbath and it would be a sin for them to push the button. He laughs a bit and asks if there is a regular elevator for the "gentiles". They point him across the hall and say the "genti-vator" is on the right. So, he exits the Sabbath-vator and boards the Genti-vator. The next thing he knew, all of the Jews had followed him onto the Genti-vator. He gave them an eyebrow up and the guy that explained it to him asked him to push the button for the 4th floor ;)

[joshh]

I like Glenn Beck but my God (lol) he goes into the whole God thing way too much.

I have to turn the channel when he goes there.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I did notice that, just a few days back as well. I really enjoy my right-wing conservative whacko nutjobs as much as the next guy, but I'll take my God on my time, not while tuned to talk radio.

[ck_taft325is]

I did notice that, just a few days back as well. I really enjoy my right-wing conservative whacko nutjobs as much as the next guy, but I'll take my God on my time, not while tuned to talk radio.

Bingo. And I'm a believer.

[mrsleeve]

yeah I like beck (bout the only pundit I like) as well, till he goes in on the fake crying and the god thing. A little mention of god here or there, I can stand but hes getting a bit too far out there with it at times.

[ck_taft325is]

Here's a fire starter. This an excerpt (spelling?) from a book I'm reading and found very insightful. Bear with me, I'm reading and typing it all out. Apologies if it's a bit long.

"3. Keep religion/faith completely private"

"Another approach to the divisiveness of relgion is to allow that people may privately believe their faith is the truth and may "evangelize" for their faith, but that religious beliefs or faith should be kept out of the public sphere. Influential thinkers such as John Rawls and Robert Audi have argued that, in public political discussions, we may not argue for a moral position unless it has a secular, nonreligious or faith grounding. Rawls is well known for insisting that what he calls "comprehensive" religious views be excluded from public discourse. Recently a large array of scientists and philosophers signed "A Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism," which called on the leaders of our government "not to permit legislation or executive action to be influenced by religious beliefs." The signers included Peter Singer, E. O. Wilson, and Daniel C. Dennet. The philosopher Richard Rorty, for example, has argued that religious faith must remain a strictly private affair and must never be brought into discussions of public policy. To ever use an argument grounded in a religious belief is simply a "conversation stopper", which the non-believer cannot engage.

To those who complain that this approach discriminates against religion, Rorty and others retort that this policy is simply pragmatic. They are not ideologically opposed to religion per se, nor are they seeking to control religious beliefs, so long as they are kept in the private sphere. However, in the public square it is divisive and time-consuming to argue constantly over religion. Religion-based positions are seen as sectarian and controversial, while secular reasoning for moral positions are seen as universal and available to all. Therefore, public discourse should be secular, never religious. Without reference to any divine revelation or confessional tradition, we should work together on the great problems of our time-such as AIDS, poverty, education, and so on. WE should keep our religious views to ourselves and unite around policies that "work" best for the most people.

However, Stephen L. Carter of Yale responds that it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any kind of moral reasoning at all.
"Efforts to craft a public square from which religious conversation is absent, no matter how thoughtfully worked out, will always in the end say to those of organized religion or fath that they alone, unlike everybody else, must enter public dialogue only after leaving behind that part of themselves that they may consider the most vital." "

There's more if anyone's interested. I enjoyed Carter's quote and would normally have put that alone, but the back dialogue was intriging. Thoughts? Opinions?