Wow, I'd heard about all these "Beck haters" before but it wasn't until I got my free newsletter from glennbeck.com with the link to this article that I actually saw some of your comments. I just have to ask... are you guys serious? Do all of you "so called Christians" out there who revile Beck realize what you're doing?
I'll bet that most of you agree with him on a lot of the points that he makes. Most of you probably like freedom. Freedom to give when you want to give, freedom to worship God according to your own conscience, freedom for others to do the same, etc. The thing that amazes me is how some people can misinterpret something so badly.
I'll give an example. First, I'm LDS(the same faith as Glenn, and yes, we are a Christian religion), guess who else is, Harry Reid. He gave a talk at BYU several years ago and said that it is easier to be mormon and a democrat than a republican because democrats are charitable. First, let's dispense with this so called distinction of democrats and republicans. We've "progressed" past that because most people realize that the corruption is widespread in both parties and there's really not much of a difference between the two. It's no longer "democrats and republicans", the debate now is between "liberals and conservatives". And somewhere along the way, it all got twisted up to where people think that liberals are the ones who care and are charitable towards all mankind, and conservatives are the rich, greedy, racist haters.
I understand that this is the way that much of society views this but it's so backwards. Benjamin Franklin, who I think most people would agree was a good, charitable man, said that the best thing that we could do for the poor is to make poverty uneasy and uncomfortable. People, by human nature, take the path of least resistance. Of course we all have dreams, but if there's an easier way of hitting those dreams, we'll take it. The problem is that most people are not tenacious. When failure comes, as it ALWAYS does and must, if there is a safety net, we'll fall into it.
Thus, a "welfare society", or what is referred to here as "social justice", is not a Christian doctrine. When he taught the sermon on the mount, he never once advocated someone forcing you to do good, or what I've heard referred to as "legislated righteousness". He taught us to go the extra mile and to be anxiously engaged in helping. He taught us to care for the needy. But more important than all of that, he taught us "be ye therefore perfect". If we are compelled to give, how can we be perfect?
It's precisely that force that makes people feel less charity for the poor. I don't mean charity as monetary, I mean it as the pure love of Christ. This is why Obama gave less than 1% of his income to the poor for years until he started getting into the political scene. That information is found at the heritage foundation. The point is that when government steps over its bounds and gets into the redistribution of wealth, or "social justice", it only produces negative results. Americans are the most generous people on earth, it's been documented that we give more per capita and per average income than any other nation on earth. So if the government would stop getting in the way, let people fail when they need to for their development's sake, and let those who want to give to do so according to their own desires, we would quickly see this country, and this entire world for that matter, change for the better.
That is what Christ taught and what he really wants for us to do. He wants us to be perfect and give according to what we feel is right, not "social justice". He understood how important it is to not control charity, otherwise he wouldn't have ASKED the rich youth to give away all his riches and follow him, he would have FORCED him to do so. Think about it.
One article that I found very enlightening is actually a talk entitled "The Celestial Nature of Self-Relience". It is at this address.
Enjoy!!
