While I’m just as "avid" a fan of Glenn Beck as Rusty (i.e. only really catch him on the occasional web snippet), I have read the transcript of his "social justice" rant, and I really don’t think Beck said what his detractors say he said.

Beck was talking about churches/denominations for whom one of their driving forces is implementing aid to the poor and oppressed via government force, and seem to think that almost every time Jesus opened His mouth He was speaking economics.  (I’ve seen the parable of the sower turned into one where the birds taking away the seed were priests taking temple tithes and tribute, and the thorns choking out the seed were the Roman tax collectors stealing from these humble farmers.  Jesus said plainly what He meant, but some can still wrangle an economic message out of it they find more palatable.)  The term "social justice" seems to figure prominently in these forms of theology, and Beck was just saying that you should avoid them completely if you see that they do. 

What his critics are doing are quoting Bible verses that show we should help the poor.  Thing is, I don’t think Beck would disagree, and it doesn’t appear at all that he was saying he disagreed.  What he was saying is that churches where the phrases "social justice" and "economic justice" figure prominently are the ones trying to "spread the wealth around" via legislation and are going to bankrupt us in doing so; a political message.  Of the reports so far, only Hannah Siegel, reporting for ABC news, even mentioned this:

Stu Burguiere, executive producer at "The Glenn Beck Radio Program," sought to clarify Beck’s comments today.

"Like most Americans, Glenn strongly supports and believes in ’social justice’ when it is defined as ‘good Christian charity,’" he said. "Glenn strongly opposes when Rev. Wright and other leaders use ’social justice’ as a euphemism for their real intention — redistribution of wealth."

So Beck is in favor of the concept of social justice (without the quotes) but against those who use that term to couch ends that he finds immoral.

But the reactions from critics seem to miss this completely.  When Wallis insinuates that Beck is lined up against Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and Mother Teresa, or National Council of Churches President Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin says, "Justice is a concept throughout the scriptures", they’re both completely misrepresenting what Beck actually said. 

Beck does need to clarify, on-air, that he is in favor of the concept of social justice, though, if you fairly read his words, he never once insinuated that he wasn’t in favor of giving to the poor; this clarification would be for those who didn’t realize that the first time.  I understand that he did just that recently, though I haven’t heard or read what he said yet. 

Albert Mohler has the most balanced analysis of this issue.  Read the whole thing.  However, I want to quote one bit from it, showing how many Beck critics really missed the point.  Mohler notes that Beck’s aims are political.  However…

My concern is very different. As an evangelical Christian, my concern is the primacy of the Gospel of Christ — the Gospel that reveals the power of God in the salvation of sinners through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The church’s main message must be that Gospel. The New Testament is stunningly silent on any plan for governmental or social action. The apostles launched no social reform movement. Instead, they preached the Gospel of Christ and planted Gospel churches. Our task is to follow Christ’s command and the example of the apostles.

There is more to that story, however. The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social salvation, but it does have social implications.

I grew up in the Salvation Army; a social services arm of the Christian church if ever there was one.  But one that stays true to this concept of creating social change by implementing the Gospel, not a government program.

As a follow-up to my earlier post on Glenn Beck’s affront to Christians, can anyone identity the author of the recent book that included these shocking words:

“As we see the world through God’s eyes, we actually do put others’ needs ahead of ours.  This is why, when the great novelist Flannery O’Connor was asked by one of her correspondents how he could experience God’s love, her reply was, “Give alms.” She meant do something for the poor, for those in need, which in fact is one of the most telling marks of Christian holiness, as the apostle James reminds us (1:27; 2:17).

When we care for God’s favorites, the poor, who include the destitute, the widowed, the fatherless, the sick, prisoners, and anyone suffering injustice, we plunge immediately into the cosmic battle that’s always raging between good and evil.  We choose sides. Once on God’s side, we come to understand God’s point of view and position ourselves to experience God’s love and friendship in a whole new way.”

Good morning.

1. A fact vs myth for the healthcare debate.
2. A word from the desert.
3. Wind farming and climate.
4. Gay bashing and standards.
5. Conservative.
6. Watching the Druze.
7. Lance Armstrong.
8. Prayer.
9. Geting it backwards.
10. The courts.
11. Multipliers.
12. CS Lewis and St. Silouan.
13. An interview on Eric Rohmer and his films.
14. Talking about liberty.

Good morning.

1. Selection of a sort.
2. If those stats on age refer to the “brake/accel” issue, the problem is not mechanical.
3. A view of Mr Obama which makes some sense … but see this in that context.
4. Chesterton.
5. Repentance.
6. The rehabilitation of US Grant … is that it? To keep Mr Reagan off the $50 bill?
7. Very sweet.
8. On war.
9. Hmm.
10. Smile, your feel good story for the day.
11. Image, archetype and propaganda … 
12. Girls.
13. And some old advice that remains good.

It really is past time for Glen Beck to apologize to Christians for his equating the church’s work in social justice with Nazism and Communism. He’s not just enraging liberals; he’s become an embarrassment to conservatives. And on this point he’s just wrong in the most offensive way.

Although he wasn’t directing his comments at the Heritage Foundation video series, Beck’s comments were made just after the release by Heritage of the series on social justice with Chuck Colson of BreakPoint, Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Sean Litton of the International Justice Mission, and other evangelical leaders speaking on the meaning and importance of social justice.

Beck’s comments are not an issue of left and right but of false representation of the teachings of Jesus on care for the poor and the suffering, and a broadside against those who live out the Gospel in our society.

The criticism of Beck is strong and diverse, from many parts of the religious spectrum:

Jim Wallis, Sojourners

James Martin, S.J., Catholic priest

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Joe Carter, evangelical editor, First Things

The Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches of Christ USA

David Gushee, evangelical, professor of Christian ethics, Mercer University

Marty Duren, Southern Baptist pastor

It’s time for Beck to make amends, or for Fox News to censure him or drop his show.

Are you a home school parent? Have you come up against criticism such as, “How can you be qualified to teach high school to your child”? If so, then simply hand out the following am i kwalafied 2 teech? card, which highlights an incoherent E-mail written [sic] by the President of the Detroit Public School Board.

Printing instructions: Click on the image above to open up the full-size version. Print the image, size to 3.5″ wide by 2″ tall.

Yes, that 9th Circuit.  The same one that ruled it unconstitutional before.

A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

But here’s the thing.  The last time he tried this, it went to the Supreme Court which simply said he had no standing.  So they never really dealt with the salient issue.

Now, the 9th Circuit takes up the exact same issue, and, lacking some SCOTS precedent to fall back on, rules in the opposite direction. 

Apparently, it’s all due to the luck of the (judicial) draw; it depends on which 3 judges you get.  Although…

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."

I’d say, neither does "under God" in the pledge; it’s a statement of historical fact.  Still, "In God We Trust" gets a 3-0 unanimous decision while "under God" goes 2-1.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals richly deserves it’s position as the most overruled appeals court in the country.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

It is better to empower the people to be more charitable by letting them keep their money in order to give it than to get the government in the health care business.  It is both cheaper and more moral. 

Will people fall through the cracks if this is left up to the people?  Yes.  And it will be the same for a government program.  Don’t let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good", especially if the "perfect" is clearly known to be unobtainable. 

Trying to obtain that perfection via government will do 2 things.  First, it will not happen.  Second, it will give more power and money to a government already awash in both.  For those that already despise dealing with a more local insurance company, multiply that for dealing with the government.  (Including, yes, "death panels", just like they have in Canada, in behavior if not title.)

But will government involvement, if not perfect, be at least better than we have now?  Perhaps we could ask that cancer patient in Alberta (follow that link up there) who came to Minnesota to get lifesaving surgery.  Or you could read the article in the London Times about how the liberal Labour party hid the truth about patient neglect in their National Health Service.  If your measure of "success" is how many people have health insurance, then sure, it would be "better".  But if you factor in the quality of care, not so much.

Because our system isn’t perfect, don’t make a deal with the devil.  Our founding fathers felt government to be a necessary evil.  They were students of history that saw the natural tendency of government and tried to avoid those problems when they wrote the Constitution so that government’s power was limited.  We are "unwriting" those limits if we do this.

Good morning.

1. Bonhoeffer on technology.
2. The Democrats getting press, more here.
3. Undermining public education by the Admin, a feature not a bug?
4. Candidates and boxes.
5. Wind bottles and power.
6. Of metric, model, and stimulus.
7. Church and culture.
8. Trust and reputation.
9. The medieval warm period … and a correlation (which is not causation … but that doesn’t mean it isn’t either).
10. A long conversation on morals and war.
11. Freedom of speech and the word ‘nigger’.

Per Planned Parenthood’s annual report, they performed 305,310 abortions in 2007, compared to 4,912 adoption referrals. HT: Mere Comments.

It would seem that, in terms of being Pro-Choice, their act of choice is… abortion.

Good morning.

1. Wrecked ships.
2. The Chicago machine and what it means w.r.t. our current President.
3. Data and the CBO.
4. A modest suggestion.
5. Jokes in the Chavez regime.
6. Go left.
7. Laptops in lectures.
8. On the Toyota recall.
9. A sign you might be wrong.
10. Free market and correction.
11. On Greece.
12. Google maps and the bike route.
13. Heh.
14. On fear and terrorism.

Colder means warmer when global warming becomes climate change except when more hurricanes result in less hurricanes before a dip in temperature preceded by a warm few years and less snow on an Olympic downhill run sixty years after record heat waves.

Oh bother!

Fumento tells us all about climate vs. weather regardless of who happens to be doing the claiming (and he links to an interesting page which tracks EVERYTHING that global warming is affecting).

Nancy Pelosi:

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Emphasis added (by Reason magazine), and it speaks for itself.  No matter what they tell you about the bill, they’re not telling you everything.  No matter what they say it’ll cost, they won’t say all of it.  "Trust us to overhaul the health care insurance industry, with a bill made with back-room deals with unions, and bribes for votes."

Yeah, right.  It’s huge and it’s shrouded, and it’s a classic carnival huckster method.  How can people actually fall for this?

Good morning.

1. Concerning Mr Trotsky.
2. Russian/Iran relations.
3. Mr Krugman and Mr Krugman.
4. For the crowd that follows Ms Palin.
5. Armenian genocide again.
6. Unemployment.
7. Water damage and books, DIY fix.
8. Our classy administration … not.
9. Class and the ladies of the silver screen.
10. Grenada and their economic outlook.
11. Biking pic of the day, do you vote (A) or (B) or (C)?
12. Corruption of blood? Huh? You know when you start out saying ” I admit I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes …” making stuff up doesn’t help.
13. Could there possibly be collusion between big media and the administration to protect government owned industries?
14. Climate trends.
15. Loser letters.

From the New Mexico Independent. Actually, the headline reads,

Anti-gay marriage bill dies in committee

An excerpt,

An attempt to define marriage as between on [sic] man and one woman failed in the Senate Rules Committee Monday by a vote of 5-2.

It is indeed interesting to see how clarifying the definition of marriage, as being between one man and one woman, is twisted into being an anti-gay stance.

I suppose, to be fair, we should consider the proposed bill to also be anti-polygamy, since it referred to marriage between only one man and one woman. Perhaps the bill is anti-child as it excludes children from the equation. Anti-species? After all, there may be some individuals interested in marrying one of their pets. And, for all those narcissists out there, the bill is certainly anti-self since it would prohibit one from marrying themselves.