Restoring honor, Glenn Beck, Wash., DC

[DAII]

Dr. King was very far from being a "fiscal conservative" in the mold of Palin and Beck ...

We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed annual income. Now, early in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation, as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's ability and talents. And, in the thinking of that day, the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber. We've come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that the dislocations in the market operations of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. Today the poor are less often dismissed, I hope, from our consciences by being branded as inferior or incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands, it does not eliminate all poverty.

The problem indicates that our emphasis must be twofold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available.

[A Testament of Hope, Page 247

call our demonstration a campaign for jobs and income because we feel that the economic question is the most crucial that black people, and poor people generally, are confronting. There is a literal depression in the Negro community. When you have mass unemployment in the Negro community, it's called a social problem; when you have mass unemployment in the white community, it's called a depression. The fact is, there is major depression in the Negro community. The unemployment rate is extremely high, and among negro youth, it goes up as high as forty percent in some cities.

We need an economic bill of rights. This would guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work. It would also guarantee an income for all who are not able to work. Some people are too young, some are too old, some are physically disabled, and yet in order to live, they need income. It would mean creating certain public-service jobs, but that could be done in a few weeks. A program that would really deal with jobs could minimize -- I don't say stop -- the number of riots that could take place this summer.

[...]

We need to put pressure on Congress to get things done. We will do this with First Amendment activity. If Congress is unresponsive, we'll have to escalate in order to keep the issue alive and before it. This action may take on disruptive dimensions, but not violent in the sense of destroying life or property: it will be militant nonviolence.

[...]

In any event, we will not have been the ones who will have failed. We will place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind. If that power refuses to acknowledge its debt to the poor, it would have failed to live up to its promise to insure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its citizens."

[A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., Pages 67-69]

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Beck is a mormon?

Yep.

[DAII]

King on Marx and Traditional Capitalism:

Yet, in spite of the fact that my response to communism was and is negative, and I considered it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, referred to communism as a Christian heresy. By this he meant that communism had laid hold of certain truths which are essential parts of the Christian view of things, but that it had bound up with them concepts and practices which no Christian could ever accept or profess. Communism challenged the late Archbishop and it should challenge every Christian -- as it challenged me -- to a growing concern about social justice. With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged. Communism in theory emphasized a classless society, and a concern for social justice, though the world knows from sad experience that in practice it created new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. The Christian ought always to be challenged by any protest against unfair treatment of the poor, for Christianity is itself such a protest, nowhere expressed more eloquently than in Jesus' words: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

[...]

But in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me ever more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system: capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity -- thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism.

In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers -- from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial "yes" and a partial "no." In so far as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous "no"; but in so far as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite "yes."

My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise, and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. Nineteenth century capitalism failed to see that life is social and Marxism failed and still fails to see that life is individual and personal. The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.

Great job ... MediaMatters on pointing out FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KING AND BECK

Dr. King was in the middle and atypical with a compass that pointed towards social justice. A true Christian thinker. Not a "Christian right" clone or a parrot for a Fox Informercial. Beck isn't a pimple on his ....

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008250037#2

[Jermyn Davidson]

Beck did nothing to restore honor today. All he did was further polarize.

I respect him even less now.


I started not to type this, but I changed my mind. It appears to me that Beck caters to many people from many walks of life, to include white people who be a bit racist, but know how to dress it up and make it presentable with the disguise of legitimacy.

It's like having that 6th sense that a person really doesn't mean anything for your good, but there's no real proof. Yet you know inside that something just isn't right and that you should be careful.


The fact that he at one time wanted Nugent involved with this venue shows me where his heart is today.

Today, either he wanted to cater to people who find him acceptable, or he finds him acceptable.

[DAII]

King ... like the men at the merger was a PACIFIST who didn't see America as a LIBERATOR ... there was a time the old paths was CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES ... not bringing God into our violence to attain influence, wealth and power using nationalism as an opiate.

This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the "Vietcong" or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Strange Liberators

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

From UPCI's Articles of Faith:

Conscientious Scruples


We recognize the institution of human government as being of divine ordination, and, in so doing, affirm unswerving loyalty to our Government; however, we take a definite position regarding the bearing of arms or the taking of human life.


As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we believe in implicit obedience to His commandments and precepts which instruct as follows: "That ye resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39 KJV); "Follow peace with all men" (Hebrews 12:14 KJV). (See also Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:19; James 5:6; Revelation 13:10.) These we believe and interpret to mean Christians shall not shed blood nor take human life.


Therefore, we propose to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizens, but are constrained to declare against participating in the combatant service in war, armed insurrection, property destruction, aiding or abetting in, or the actual destruction of human life.


Furthermore, we cannot conscientiously affiliate with any union, boycott, or organization which will force or bind any of its members to belong to any organization, perform any duties contrary to our conscience, or receive any mark, without our right to affirm or reject same.


However, we regret the false impression created by some groups of so-called conscientious objectors that to obey the Bible is to have a contempt for law or magistrates, to be disloyal to our Government and in sympathy with our enemies, or to be unwilling to sacrifice for the preservation of our commonwealth. This attitude would be as contemptible to us as to any patriot. The Word of God commands us to do violence to no man. It also commands us that first of all we are to pray for rulers of our country. We, therefore, exhort our members to freely and willingly respond to the call of our Government except in the matter of bearing arms. When we say service, we mean service - no matter how hard or dangerous. The true church has no more place for cowards than has the nation. First of all, however, let us earnestly pray that we will with honor be kept out of war.


We believe that we can be consistent in serving our Government in certain non-combatant capacities, but not in the bearing of arms.


We further believe that our military personnel must live in a manner consistent with the Articles of Faith.

[Hoovie]

Wish I could have been there - sounds fantastic.

True, King did not embrace capitalism nor was very supportive of our government, but he did stand up for equal rights for all races and in that sense he is like Palin and Beck. Give honor where honor is due.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Wish I could have been there - sounds fantastic.

True, King did not embrace capitalism nor was very supportive of our government, but he did stand up for equal rights for all races and in that sense he is like Palin and Beck. Give honor where honor is due.

We have
Social conservatives
Fiscal conservatives
and other conservative factors.

MLK was against abortion. That is as far from all the folks on the left as it gets.
Rights for the unborn.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Beck did nothing to restore honor today. All he did was further polarize.

I respect him even less now.


I started not to type this, but I changed my mind. It appears to me that Beck caters to many people from many walks of life, to include white people who be a bit racist, but know how to dress it up and make it presentable with the disguise of legitimacy.

It's like having that 6th sense that a person really doesn't mean anything for your good, but there's no real proof. Yet you know inside that something just isn't right and that you should be careful.


The fact that he at one time wanted Nugent involved with this venue shows me where his heart is today.

Today, either he wanted to cater to people who find him acceptable, or he finds him acceptable.

God mixed in a soup of 17th century deism, Enlightenment philosophy and theocratic, patriotic rhetoric served up by a tri-theist .... and swallowed whole by those who spiritualize politics and rejoice at the altar of Tea Partyism and Republicanism.

having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

Paul's Charge to Timothy

10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by coadie

We have
Social conservatives
Fiscal conservatives
and other conservative factors.

MLK was against abortion. That is as far from all the folks on the left as it gets.
Rights for the unborn.

I agree Coadie. Abortion is most often the deciding factor in my votes. It IS the greatest question of the day.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

We have
Social conservatives
Fiscal conservatives
and other conservative factors.

MLK was against abortion. That is as far from all the folks on the left as it gets.
Rights for the unborn.

John F Kennedy and Obama personally are against abortions .... even gay marriage.


And Stalin was for the rule of law.