Abortion? Gay marriage? Meh, small fish. So saith Glen Beck.
(Note: The transcript is included at the end of this post.)
To be fair, Beck isn’t a conservative so I can’t expect him to support the conservative position on gay marriage. He’s also not the kind of guy who is able to understand why abortion and traditional marriage are the “bigger fish” and more important than shouting about whatever closet-socialist was hired to work as an Assistant Secretary for Farm Subsidies at the USDA. He’s a libertarian entertainer acting like a libertarian entertainer.
But he is a very influential libertarian entertainer, and that worries me. Either Beck is someone to be taken seriously because he can sway the opinions of multitudes or he is someone that we can safely ignore.
What do you think? Is there a concern that Beck will be able to sway his audience into believing that gay marriage will not harm the country? Or does it not really matter what he thinks?
Here is a transcript of the video:
O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t cover that much, right?
BECK: Nope.
O’REILLY: Why?
BECK: Because honestly I think we have bigger fish to fry. You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever –
O’REILLY: Yeah.
BECK: — all you want.
O’REILLY: Yeah.
BECK: The country is burning down. I personally think these–
O’REILLY: But isn’t that one of the reasons because we are getting away from the traditional way we used to live into this progressive–
BECK: So let’s get back to — instead of arguing about these divisive things, let’s get back into our churches and our synagogues and–
O’REILLY: You’re not going to get people going back unless there is a reason to go back.
BECK: But here is the reason, America. Your country is burning down. I don’t think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with -
O’REILLY: But they do have.
BECK: –what is a religious right.
O’REILLY: I know, but they do have something to do, because gay marriage is going to be a reality in this country in 10 years.
BECK: Why do they have anything to do with it?
O’REILLY: Because they choose to, and you’re not going to stop ‘em.
BECK: This is where we disagree.
O’REILLY: The Supreme Court may rule against gay marriage, very possible it would be a 5-4.
BECK: You’re willing to continue to go down the road of just accepting well that’s the way it is.
O’REILLY: I’m not accepting anything. I wrote a book about it! Don’t give me this “accepting.” Come on.
BECK: He’s so hostile.
O’REILLY: Yeah
BECK: Need a little Jesus?
O’REILLY: I have to correct you. I do. You are ignoring the profound change in the American family. In the way –
BECK: No, I’m not. No I’m not.
O’REILLY: But you are not covering it?
BECK: Because I think that the thing that needs to be covered — Bill, I believe in a symphony. If we are all playing clarinets we ain’t gonna get very far. A symphony needs to sound. I’m covering what I cover. You cover what you cover. Both of us are saying the same thing. Watch the culture.
O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?
BECK: A threat to the country?
O’REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?
BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?
O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?
BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?
O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.
BECK: As long as we — as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we –
O’REILLY: Oppose it –
BECK: — we oppose it –
O’REILLY: Right.
BECK: — but we’re not trying to kill anybody or trying to –
O’REILLY: In Sweden they have that too. OK, so gay marriage to you, not a big a threat to the nation.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:36 pm
Over the years I’ve asked lawyers if same-sex marriage will harm First Amendment religious freedoms (as well as freedom of association and speech). They always lie. That is they say no, no effect. Mr. Beck believes this. He has been, as Rick says in CASABLANCA, “mis-informed.” You don’t have to have a law degree (I do) to appreciate where all this has been heading. It does help to have sat in law school classrooms for three years immersed in the culture of unending civil rights struggle and open contempt for Christianity and values. Just as the feminist project has been essentially about abortion (and I’m sympathetic with Feminists for Life, but the rhetoric is unhelpful), so this latest civil rights putsch is about neutralizing the Church and her teachings about sexuality and family and childrearing. NOW and the HRC are in complete agreement in their goals and their rationales as well as their methods. I refer FT readers to today’s Wall Street Journal Letters to the Editor page (August 12) and a response to a weekend piece “Now What For Marriage?” The letter is from Joyce Show of La Pinata, Calif. (If you’re a Catholic and a conservative that name should make you smile, at least, given the beating we’re getting from institutional America.) To quote from the last paragraph of Ms. Show’s letter: “Striking down Proposition 8 strikes down the civil rights of proponents of exclusive heterosexual marriage to act according to their religious and traditional cultural beliefs. Americans need to wake up to the wider truth about this debate.” I would only quibble and say “THE TRUTH” about this issue. Mr. O’Reilly is also wrong; it won’t take ten years to realize this agenda. I would counsel the USCCB to accept the inevitable. If you can, listen to the Fox Sunday (8/8) interview with Ted Olson, atty for the plaintiffs. He bullied his way through the questions which did not include a challenge on establishment clause issues. This is going to happen. The question is will the Catholic Church in America insist — and I mean INSIST — on her First Amendment rights and freedoms. Otherwise we will end up, like the Archbishop of Westminster, negotiating with the Government for the privilege to run adoption agencies and hospitals and schools and most importantly, to peform the Sacrament of Marriage. In law school Catholic students did not challenge abortion; I’m not optimistic that the laity and many priests and nuns will challenge this existential threat to the Church. The president now refers to “the freedom of worship” not “freedom of religion.” The change is telling and cynical. The first lady has been more honest. Where will episcopal leadership come from? Do we have a Cardinal Sin (the Philipines), Cardinal Kim (South Korea) or a Cardinal Zen (Hong Kong/China)? We’ll see. I pray that the Holy Spirit does raise up a fearless Catholic leader who will not be intimidated by institutional America or by voices of moderation within the Church.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:46 pm
Are there any major Fox News figures who recognize SSM for the threat it is? Huckabee, I guess. But who else?
Could any non-politician become a major figure at Fox News if they are a vocal opponent of SSM? Fox’s conservatism has always struck me as fraudulent.
August 12th, 2010 | 9:45 pm
How many right wing radio hosts make gay marriage an issue? Not Limbaugh, not Boortz. Not Hannity, if I’m not mistaken. I believe Laura Ingraham does. But how many of these people, if they even espouse Christianity, ever argue from Christian precepts? If they do, I haven’t heard them do it.
I think Christians taking their politics from people whose Christianity appears to be nominal when it even exists is a big, big problem.
August 12th, 2010 | 9:55 pm
Graham said
>> I pray that the Holy Spirit does raise up a fearless Catholic leader who will not be intimidated by institutional America or by voices of moderation within the Church.<<
Personally, I pray that the Holy Spirit doesn’t send One of His Faithful Angel to settle the matter of same-sex-marriages and Abortion cause then it might turn into an Armageddon domino effect but God only knows for sure.
Peace
August 12th, 2010 | 10:12 pm
Setting aside gay marriage (not that I do, really, but others have already covered it) what the heck is a bigger fish than abortion, from Beck’s perspective? What about what Jefferson said, “As long as you’re not picking my pocket or breaking my leg,” that doesn’t include sucking me through a vacuum tube or poisoning me?
August 12th, 2010 | 10:16 pm
“Fox’s conservatism has always struck me as fraudulent.”
It’s not fraudulent so much as it is cynical, opportunistic, and profoundly commercial.
(This is not the same thing as disputing that some of the reporters, editors, producers, anchors, etc. aren’t genuine conservatives.)
August 12th, 2010 | 10:23 pm
I have to say, Glenn Beck is a mensch here. Regardless, I can’t take the guy seriously.
Graham, since you accuse so many lawyers — including, by implication, Bush’s former Solicitor General Ted Olson — of “lying,” when do you predict the Supreme Court will overturn Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and on what grounds?
August 12th, 2010 | 11:18 pm
“What do you think? Is there a concern that Beck will be able to sway his audience into believing that gay marriage will not harm the country? Or does it not really matter what he thinks?”
The real politik answer — and it’s a short term real politik as in it expires the day after election day this November – is that even if Beck could convince his audience gay marriage will do no harm — that will not convince them to support Democrats on election day. Beck is pretty clear about the need to get rid of those in charge.
Once those in charge have been disposed — by the ballot box–then we need to revisit with Mr. Beck and his quaint notion of Thomas Jefferson and gay marriage. I’d like to see some evidence TJ would use the same quip on the subject.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:33 am
I’d like to see some evidence TJ would use the same quip on the subject.
Thomas Jefferson was accused by various religious people back in his day of being a closet atheist and Jacobin. As far as we can tell, Jefferson did believe in a divine Creator but he privately held contempt for certain religious leaders: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Of course, it would be impossible to know what the mind of Thomas Jefferson would think of gay marriage had he lived to see the rise of the modern gay rights movement. But we can quite confidently say he would have little patience for people who claim authority for their views based on divine revelation or clerical qualification.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:41 am
It would be an issue if he thought they were “big fish.” Since he doesn’t it doesn’t matter. He probably just won’t talk about it.
Social conservatism has always been more about grassroots than firebrands. On this, ignore Beck.
Unfortunately, on other things, he can’t be ignored. Infotainment “conservatives” are dangerous. To paraphrase Henry Adams: “The progress of evolution from Buckley to Beck is alone evidence to upset Darwin.”
August 13th, 2010 | 12:43 am
Glenn Beck is a celebrity. And while sometimes informative and bright fellow, he basically simply an overpaid celebrity as are Hannity and Limbaugh, et al. If they champion moral positions and causes, bravo. If not, it should not affect our own reasoning on positions as deadly to the moral structure of the United States as so-called gay marriage and the vast genocide against our unborn infants.
August 13th, 2010 | 1:00 am
For those interested in a legal riposte to Mr. Beck, this letter lays out the implications for religious organizations should same-sex marriage be legalized without putting safeguards in place:
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/files/12-4-2009-nj-sarlo-ssm-letter.pdf
August 13th, 2010 | 3:27 am
What I find particularly interesting is that Glenn Beck professes to be a devout Mormon and the church of LDS clearly opposes both same sex marriage and abortion.
I suspect he is either (as he states) too focused on his pet issues or just doesn’t want to get involved in any issues that might negatively effect his celebrity status/commercial interests.
Either way, I agree: he has his head in the sand when he states:
“As long as we — as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech”
because that is exactly where the USA is headed. You may not have Human Rights Tribunals (yet) but freedom of religion and freedom of speech (particularly for Christians) is being eroded regardless.
August 13th, 2010 | 6:57 am
Beck is even wrong about the new core of conservative and Tea Party fears: fear of “Big Government.”
The fact is, what conservatives need to remember, is that there were historically not one, but TWO major forms of BIG GOVERNMENT: not just socialist/communist, but also the conservative POLICE STATE (in Germany, Italy).
Liberals might tend toward the former; but conservatives tend toward the latter.
In the classic conservative Police State, we are patriotic, or nationalistic; and support the “troops” or the military; support religion; support the police and traditional “values,” or “law and order”; and support big business.
We support troops, the military. But love of traditional values and of the military, results in using the military to invade other countries that do not share our values. The conservative support of traditional laws, supports them to the degree of emphasizing the law, police, to jail those who try new ideas.
That was the pattern of the OTHER, more dangerous form of Big Government in the 20th century: the police state, Nazi-ism, fascism. And THAT is the form of Big Government that conseratives unfortunately, unknowingly support.
Today, America is extremely patriotic – and is involved in several wars overseas. After building many new prisons, we have more people in prison than any other country. While the secret police, the NSA, wiretap with impugnity.
And soon, millions of women who have abortions, will be thrown into jail for life, even executed, for “murdering” their embryos?
Thanks to CONSERVATIVE BIG GOVERNMENT.
August 13th, 2010 | 7:27 am
Glenn Beck has a huge influence on people who have suddenly decided they have to become informed about politics, history and the Constitution. Many Tea Party participants are like this. Unfortunately, Glenn Beck is informing himself at only a slightly faster rate than his followers, and he has very little background or context into which to place the things he learns. And he has a penchant for simplistic world views and conspiracy theories, things that are picked up by some of his listeners. Most of his followers are social conservatives who are still going to oppose same-sex marriage, but Beck’s attitude will cause them to minimize its importance. And without some input from somewhere, they will not be able to understand and express why it is important, they’ll just know it is; and that makes them ineffective on this front. I’m glad Bill O’Reilly is talking about it; I don’t watch him often enough to have caught that.
August 13th, 2010 | 9:04 am
Most of his followers are social conservatives who are still going to oppose same-sex marriage, but Beck’s attitude will cause them to minimize its importance. And without some input from somewhere, they will not be able to understand and express why it is important, they’ll just know it is
If they can’t explain it then they won’t know that it is, they’ll only feel that it is. In other words, they’ll be expressing a presumption that borders on prejudice, not a principled position.
August 13th, 2010 | 9:28 am
The problem with Beck is that his knowledge base is sporadic yet his confidence is high. If you disagree with him that’s bad, but if you agree with him it’s worse because he offers an half baked case for your cause. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
A short time ago, he said that the Apostle’s Creed was written at the council of Nicaea, and that anyone who disagreed with it had his “head chopped off” (news to Athanasius). He also said that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden to protect them from the Nicaean Fathers. (this, of course would have required a time machine.) Is this what they taught him in LDS confirmation? Someone tell me it’s not so. I’ll chalk it up to Beck’s hubris. What makes this more annoying is that he does this while extolling the virtues of studying history. He’s a walking advertisement for the benefits of a systematized education.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:20 am
This is probably a case where most of Beck’s viewers do not agree with him. As Joe says, he cares more about “such-and-such is a socialist” while not managing to define socialism in a coherent way. Look, I don’t like socialism either, and I don’t like President Obama’s economic policies either, and yes, lousy economic policies can mess up societies (see Europe). However, Europe’s problems are also attributable to cultural decline: the end of children, and marriage, and religion. At the end of the day, the culture counts too. Economic policies effect the culture but other policies do too. Beck’s libertarianism is a bit confusing, and I do not think most libertarians (e.g. the folks at Cato or Reason) like him very much.
The conservative media folks do touch on gay marriage and abortion, but it is not the primary focus of people like Limbaugh or Hannity (although, unlike Beck, they do oppose it). Mark Levin opposes it too, but his focus on it is more of a general focus on judical arrogance and lawlessness, which is his area of expertise as a constitutional lawyer (incidentally, Levin does not like Beck). If you want to listen to good hosts, I would tune into Dennis Prager or Hugh Hewitt. They cover just about everything but do not give social issues short-shrift, and both are far more knowledgeable about religion than the other hosts.
As for Thomas Jefferson’s views on gay marriage, we all know that to even entertain the view that he would tolerate it is pretty fatuous. It was largely inconceivable until the late 90s (that’s 1990s, not 1790s).
August 13th, 2010 | 12:44 pm
What Glen Beck or anyone else believes or doesn’t believe doesn’t really matter. “Gay marriage” (I use scare quotes because I don’t believe there’s such a thing as gay marriage, just a J. Fred Muggs parody of marriage involving gay people) is inevitable. It’s one more sign of our advanced state of cultural degeneracy and decay. If you drop an object the energy of its fall is dissipated into heat, but you can’t heat the object and make it rise. Entropy only works one way.
August 13th, 2010 | 12:55 pm
What Beck meant about about gay marriage and abortion IF you listened to him instead of following this Joe Carters lead like cattle going to slaughter is that if you returned to your churchs of choice {That Means Everybody} being Queer and killing babys wouldn’t happen at all! Because as far as i know 99% american religion does not advocate homosexuality and murder.The 1% idon’t know about?Here Beck said ” BECK: So let’s get back to — instead of arguing about these divisive things, let’s get back into our churches and our synagogues and–” And That Grand Canyon mouth of O’Reilly’s ,the self imposed John Wayne of TV news analyst of course would not let him finish {Or anyone else for that matter }O’REILLY: You’re not going to get people going back unless there is a reason to go back. Well i am a Christian and my religion is under attack because of this asshole Obama,OUR Constitution is being torn apart by this ASSHOLE Obama. Just on the 10th of this month Obama signed the Federal Education Bill for 16 billion dollars to tax you with,instead of taking it out of the left over stimulis money which we have 367 billion! The bill which was written with these clauses by George Soros { Obams backer } included cuts in education which were unimportant and useless to us Americans to be taught to our children were History,We the People,the bill Of Rights and economics! So our children do not need to know about economics, there American history,There Rights as a American { I guess the Constitution is already dead as in “We The People”?}! 60% of this countrys problems could be solved by one action, remove Obama from office along with clinton and there whole administration. That is what Beck meant by bigger fish to fry. Watch the last movie on this page if you have a hour to kill it is a eye opener http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/
August 13th, 2010 | 6:25 pm
Just for the record, Glenn Beck is against abortion. If you watch the entire clip, he states at the end that abortion “is murder.” And if you ever listen to his radio show, he talks all the time about how wrong abortion is. He also regularly attacks Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood’s founder).
Regarding his stance on gay “marriage”, I cannot defend him there. I don’t think he quite understands that it will effect us all if it happens.
August 14th, 2010 | 3:59 am
Most Beck fans are unaware of his pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage/legalize drugs & prostitution positions. Now that Fox viewers know what we in Florida have known for a long time (he had a local show) maybe they’ll dump him. Ppl don’t believe me when I tell them Beck used to mock and ridicule pro-lifers on his radio show everyday but changed when he went to Fox.
August 14th, 2010 | 6:02 am
Glenn Beck Is Wrong, Changing The Definition of Marriage is a Threat to America…
Glenn Beck was on the O’Reilly Factor a couple of days ago discussing with Bill O’Reilly why he doesn’t focus on culture issues much on his Fox News show or on the radio. You can watch the video below: Partial Transcript: O’REILLY: Do you believ…
August 14th, 2010 | 10:23 am
Beck is all over the map, and by pushing his Mormonism more and more he is dividing the professing church.
Lately, he pushed the notion that Adam and Eve did the right thing to eat the apple. It was necessary that they know right from wrong, have freedom of choice, and so they can become as gods
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=8174
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/?p=8548
August 24th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
I have listened to Glenn for years, I have seen the transition from comedic entertainer to concerned US citizen…if he was concerned about being an entertainer he would never speak of most things he speaks of. He has lost many sponsors and is ridiculed and hated by the left and many others I see. As far as the comment from Brian about Glenn mocking pro lifers before he went on Fox…I’d love proof of that…I listen to him everyday and as a pro lifer I think I would remember this ever happening…I am a born again Christian and Beck is a mormon…I do not agree with his religious views at all and know this will cause me to disagree with some things he says, but he is doing a lot more than most I know to try and wake up this nation as to where it is headed…..he is human and he will make mistakes just like all of you…but ultimately he is right on the fact that America is burning from the inside out….
August 28th, 2010 | 4:30 pm
[...] shocked and awed the right wing earlier this month, when he admitted to Bill O’Reilly that he doesn’t believe marriage equality should be considered a political issue. “Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way,” asked [...]
August 30th, 2010 | 3:02 am
I wrote a post for Catholic Vote Action on how not only Beck, but Ann Coulter and CPAC have deserted social conservatives on the marriage issue.
This is a fundamental social issue which will effect not only famlilies, but the free speech of Christians in a dramatic fashion. It is every bit as crucial as Roe V Wade which destroyed 50 million babies.
September 1st, 2010 | 4:25 pm
[...] Beck is not the social conservative many people, Moore included, seem to think he is. Beck has declared his support for gay marriage and tries to avoid discussions of abortion, apparently because he is too busy spinning conspiracy [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact