RoR: Forum

Yes they do suck. And they also vote. God (or Dog) help us all.

Post 1

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 11:59am

And do you want to know the really scary thing, Luke?

The radio hosts pandered to them. They didn't outright agree (because that would be stupid), but they didn't overtly disagree, either.

It was as if these radio personalities were running for office or something (i.e., as two-faced, people-pleasing, lying, stand-for-nothing-controversial hypocrits).

Ed

Post 2

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 8:59am

It's funny what a combination of the two ideas can produce: The Devil caused all our problems, so we have to fix them by government edict!

Maybe if I sell my soul and start humoring the insane, I can become a rich and successful radio talk show host, too. New career plan!

"The Devil, you say?"

Post 3

Monday, December 15, 2008 - 5:03pm

Why would they disagree? Glenn Beck is deep in thrall as an adult convert to Mormonism, thus denying his reason. Ron Reagan is a subjectivist himself, and hardly a Nobel economist. Neither has more than a superficial understanding of reality nor the strength of will to think for themselves.

Post 4

Monday, December 15, 2008 - 5:57pm

According to Wikipedia, Beck converted from suicidal alcoholic Catholicism (he lost his mother and two siblings) to Mormonism and alcoholics anonymous. That might not be ideal according to some, but is it possible it was a step in the right direction for him?

My boyfriend likes the guy. I haven't heard or seen any of his shows. But I wonder whether he might be doing something right.

Welcome, Chris. Please fill out your extended profile to the extent with which you are comfortable.

Post 5

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 7:19pm

Welcome, Chris.

I have to agree with Ted, and I actually like Glenn Beck.

My criticism of Glenn Beck is of his action, his response to a caller -- which I am, at present, only able to integrate as something cowardly. There is a tension between keeping your audience large (to pay the bills) and telling the full truth about things, which has the unfortunate consequence of shrinking your audience (because so many don't want the full truth). In that respect, at least Glenn Beck didn't overtly pander by actually saying that he agrees that the Devil should be getting the blame (for the actions of Liberal Fascists).

Ed

Post 6

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 11:16am

Well this is interesting. Here's a guy who moves from one denial of reality to another (actually just another flavor but with just as exotic ingredients). Have you listened much to his show? He's beating the drum of a meltdown of western civilization. Just this morning I heard him going on about whether his listeners will be in the September 9 group (head in the sand), the September 10 group (I've forgotten the distinction), or September 12 group (preparing to lead in the coming disaster). This is a blatant use of emotional manipulation to get the weak-minded to the right frame of mind.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19403/

I don't see how a denial of reason, intellect, and historical fact can be construed as doing something right. His objective is much like that of "Culture Warrior" Bill O'Reilly and many others in that they wish to distort the founding of our nation by rewriting its roots from the Enlightenment to religion. Here are the principles in the book he is touting, "The 5000 Year Leap:"

http://www.nccs.net/ftyl.html

He is a religionist. That's enough for me.

Chris

Post 7

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 5:12pm

Hi, Chris. I agreed with your reasoning fully on the Bomb Iran thread. But that begs the question, how does someone's being a "religionist" alone allow you to judge him. On one hand we have, say, Ronald Reagan and Ayaltollh Khomeini. On the other hand we have Richard Dawkins and Mao Tse Tung. Does religious belief serve us well in judging these people?

I would again ask you to fill out your extended profile so we know some of your background. Context helps.

Post 8

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:59am

My objection to his religiosity is its requirement that he subsume his intellect and reason to accept the faith tenets of the church. Now I don't have so much of a problem with, say, and Anglican or Presbyterian who use their minds. I would not call them a religionist.

I have filled out my extended profile, and will just say that I was a fundamentalist Baptist for 15 years before I finally realized the dichotomy between my faith and my mind. I credit Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged for helping me own my atheism.

Post 9

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 10:15pm

Okay... But Anglican? As in low-church gay-bishop the-host-is-just-a-cracker Anglicans? What about Aquinaical-Catholics? Too idolatrous for your ex-Baptist grapejuice-drinking biblical literalism?

Post 10

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 7:17am

Okay... But Anglican? As in low-church gay-bishop the-host-is-just-a-cracker Anglicans? What about Aquinaical-Catholics? Too idolatrous for your ex-Baptist grapejuice-drinking biblical literalism?

In my view, all religion is a denial of reason. Check Paul's definition of faith. I've never known any Aquinaical-Catholics, and the term is new to me. Sorry to have insulted either you or Anglicans, I was only using a couple of examples from my own experience of sects that spend less time insulting the intelligence. I have found that the American Catholics involved in public affairs can be as fundamentalist as any Baptist ever was.

Funny that Anglican is considered low church, I know technically that's true. Should I have said Episcopalian? But for anyone from a free church tradition, there's naught but hair splitting between Mariolatrous, transubstantiationist, saint-worhipping Papists, and the Anglicans and Episcopalians who still go for the formal stuff.

LOL where I come from, if the organ has pipes, and the choir wears robes, it's high church.

Post 11

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 8:13am

I was kidding you. There are high church and low church Anglicans, high church being basically Catholics but not under the pope. Low church being much more Protestant. I was raised a Mariolatrist transubstantiationist saintworshipping Papist, but with a very strong Jesuitical/Aquinas influence. My father's favorite saying is "only you can make you happy" which he was taught by the Jesuit teachers of his high school. I was an atheist within one week of picking up Virtue of Selfishness, my first Rand book. I laughed aloud in joy when I saw the title for the first time.

Post 12

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 1:25pm

This'll sound crass and rash, but I think GB is a mormon in order to get laid (in a YouTube video he admitted that his wife wouldn't marry him unless they joined a religion together).

He sold his soul in order to get into the sack (I think).

Ed

Post 13

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 1:50pm