Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

Ricc9

New member

Beck: Help us restore traditional American values
Email this Story

Aug 28, 9:46 PM (ET)
By PHILIP ELLIOTT and NAFEESA SYEED


WASHINGTON (AP) - Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march.

While Beck billed his event as nonpolitical, conservative activists said their show of strength was a clear sign that they can swing elections because much of the country is angry with what many voters call an out-of-touch Washington.

Palin told the tens of thousands who stretched from the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the grass of the Washington Monument that calls to transform the country weren't enough. "We must restore America and restore her honor," said the former Alaska governor, echoing the name of the rally, "Restoring Honor."

Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008 and a potential White House contender in 2012, and Beck repeatedly cited King and made references to the Founding Fathers. Beck put a heavy religious cast on nearly all his remarks, sounding at times like an evangelical preacher.

"Something beyond imagination is happening," he said. "America today begins to turn back to God."

Beck exhorted the crowd to "recognize your place to the creator. Realize that he is our king. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us." He asked his audience to pray more. "I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see," he said.

A group of civil rights activists organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton held a counter rally at a high school, then embarked on a three-mile march to the site of a planned monument honoring King. The site, bordering the Tidal Basin, was not far from the Lincoln Memorial where Beck and the others spoke about two hours earlier.

Sharpton and the several thousand marching with him crossed paths with some of the crowds leaving Beck's rally. People wearing "Restoring Honor" and tea party T-shirts looked on as Sharpton's group chanted "reclaim the dream" and "MLK, MLK." Both sides were generally restrained, although there was some mutual taunting.

One woman from the Beck rally shouted to the Sharpton marchers: "Go to church. Restore America with peace." Some civil rights marchers chanted "don't drink the tea" to people leaving Beck's rally.

Sharpton told his rally it was important to keep King's dream alive and that despite progress more needs to be done. "Don't mistake progress for arrival," he said.

He poked fun at the Beck-organized rally, saying some participants were the same ones who used to call civil rights leaders troublemakers. "The folks who used to criticize us for marching are trying to have a march themselves," he said. He urged his group to be peaceful and not confrontational. "If people start heckling, smile at them," Sharpton said.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, said she remembers being at King's march on Washington in 1963. "Glenn Beck's march will change nothing. But you can't blame Glenn Beck for his March-on-Washington envy," she said.

Beck has said he did not intend to choose the King anniversary for his rally but had since decided it was "divine providence." He portrayed King as an American hero.

Sharpton and other critics have noted that, while Beck has long sprouted anti-government themes, King's famous march included an appeal to the federal government to do more to protect Americans' civil rights.

The crowd - organizers had a permit for 300,000 - was a sea of people standing shoulder to shoulder across large expanses of the Mall. The National Park Service stopped doing crowd counts in 1997 after the agency was accused of underestimating numbers for the 1995 Million Man March.

It was not clear how many tea party activists were in the crowd, but the sheer size of the turnout helped demonstrate the size and potential national influence of the movement.

Tea party activism and widespread voter discontent with government already have effected primary elections and could be an important factor in November's congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative races.

Lisa Horn, 28, an accountant from Houston, said she identifies with the tea party movement, although she said the rally was not about either the tea party or politics. "I think this says that the people are uniting. We know we are not the only ones," she said. "We feel like we can make a difference."

Ken Ratliff, 55, of Rochester, N.Y., who served as a Marine in the Vietnam War, said he is moving more in the tea party direction. "There's got to be a change, man," he said.

Palin told the crowd she wasn't speaking as a politician. "I've been asked to speak as the mother of a soldier and I am proud of that distinction. Say what you want to say about me, but I raised a combat vet and you can't take that away from me." It was a reference to her son, Track, 20, who served a yearlong deployment in Iraq.

Palin likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists from 1963. She said the same spirit that helped them overcome oppression, discrimination and violence would help this group as well.

"We are worried about what we face. Sometimes, our challenges seem insurmountable," Palin said. "Look around you. You're not alone."

Beck paced on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and spoke through a wireless microphone headset. "For too long, this country has wandered in darkness. ... Today we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished - and the things that we can do tomorrow."

In one of his many references to King, Beck noted that he had spent the night before in the same Washington hotel where King had put the finishing touches on his "I Have a Dream" speech.

Clarence B. Jones, who served as King's personal attorney and his speechwriter, said he believes King would not be offended by Beck's rally but "pleased and honored" that a diverse group of people would come together, almost five decades later, to discuss the future of America.

Jones, now a visiting professor at Stanford University, said the Beck rally seemed to be tasteful and did not appear to distort King's message, which included a recommitment to religious values.

Both groups heard from members of the King family.

Alveda King, a niece of the civil rights leader, appealed to Beck rally participants to "focus not on elections or on political causes but on honor, on character ... not the color of our skin."

Martin Luther King III said at the site of the planned memorial that his father in 1967 and 1968 "was focused on economic empowerment. He did not live to see that come to fruition." King added, "We have made great strides, but somehow we've got to create a climate so that everybody can do well, not just some."

Beck had appealed to those attending not to bring signs with them. But Mike Cash, a 56-year-old Atlanta businessman, found a way around that. Over his polo shirt, he wore a T-shirt that read "Treat Obama like a used tea bag, toss him out now!"

"I wouldn't have missed it (the rally) for anything," said Cash, who drove up with his family. "We are here kind of protesting about our government, too. I'm a businessman and I'm worried about taxes going up."

Many in the crowd watched the proceedings on large television screens. On the edges of the Mall, vendors sold "Don't Tread on Me" flags, popular with tea party activists. Other activists distributed fliers urging voters "dump Obama." The pamphlet included a picture of the president with a Hitler-style mustache.

LaVert Seabron, 80, a retired federal public health officer who lives in northwest Washington, said he was at the 1963 march and made it a point to attend Saturday's rally. He recalled King as a "great orator" and said "because of what he did we're here." Seabron, who's black, said he was heartened to see many young people at Saturday's event.

"It's good to see the next generation is still participating," he said. "We've been through this. It's good to see so many young people, because they'll have to pick up the torch and carry it to the next generation."

Regarding the Beck rally, Seabron said: "That's part of a democracy - everybody gets a chance to say what they want."

Online:

Beck rally: http://www.glennbeck.com/828/
 
Originally Posted By: Rim_RunnerElmer Gantry

If you're using this character as a comparison to Sharpton I'd say you were pretty right on. Throw in the fact that he's a race-baiting slug that has been devious enough to carve out a niche for himself (and a few friends and entourage) instead of working for a living.
 
Originally Posted By: WorkmanOriginally Posted By: Rim_RunnerElmer Gantry

If you're using this character as a comparison to Sharpton I'd say you were pretty right on. Throw in the fact that he's a race-baiting slug that has been devious enough to carve out a niche for himself (and a few friends and entourage) instead of working for a living.
it works for Beck and Sharpton both.
 
Originally Posted By: WorkmanOriginally Posted By: Rim_RunnerElmer Gantry

If you're using this character as a comparison to Sharpton Beck I'd say you were pretty right on. Throw in the fact that he's a race-baiting slug that has been devious enough to carve out a niche for himself (and a few friends and entourage) instead of working for a living.

Fixed it
 
Huggy Bear and RR, what part of Beck's speach do you disagree with and why? Do you agree with what the current administration is doing to this country and if so why? I don't want any Snoops links just your thoughts. Thanks
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Originally Posted By: WorkmanOriginally Posted By: Rim_RunnerElmer Gantry

If you're using this character as a comparison to Sharpton Beck I'd say you were pretty right on. Throw in the fact that he's a race-baiting slug that has been devious enough to carve out a niche for himself (and a few friends and entourage) instead of working for a living.

Fixed it

I'd be real interested to see you make this case. I'm familiar with both "characters" and want to see how you draw the comparison. Then if you're really feeling ambitious, tell me how you can exclude Sharpton from this discussion.
 
I would disagree with the "Elmer Gantry" characterization, but I was somewhat disappointed with the emphasis on faith as opposed to politics.

While I am a Christian and would not belittle the importance of faith in personal matters or it's importance in the overall scheme of life, I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity.
 
Quote:While I am a Christian and would not belittle the importance of faith in personal matters or it's importance in the overall scheme of life, I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity. NMLeon, I agree with you, in part, but I feel that a majority of our problems are due to the fact that we, as a country, have gotten away from the basic teachings of most religious concepts...

We have "public servants" that put themselves above others and the ones they are supposed to represent, in the name of greed and power...

The general public is prone to many of the same traits, putting honor and character on the back burner in favor of material acquisition, at any cost and by almost any means...

We have a population that is content to sit on the sidelines and lap up the handouts at the public trough, rather than be productive in most endeavors...

I can remember when churches and fraternal lodges were rampart in this country, with the main emphasis on helping others that were in honest need, rather than the government doling out the non-responsible welfare...

I can also remember when most of our natural resources were cherished and used in a productive manner, rather than being sent to other countries for processing and then sold back to us in a generally inferior state and our workforce had an abundance of jobs for the taking, including job security...
 
Originally Posted By: OldTurtleQuote:While I am a Christian and would not belittle the importance of faith in personal matters or it's importance in the overall scheme of life, I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity. NMLeon, I agree with you, in part, but I feel that a majority of our problems are due to the fact that we, as a country, have gotten away from the basic teachings of most religious concepts...

We have "public servants" that put themselves above others and the ones they are supposed to represent, in the name of greed and power...

The general public is prone to many of the same traits, putting honor and character on the back burner in favor of material acquisition, at any cost and by almost any means...

We have a population that is content to sit on the sidelines and lap up the handouts at the public trough, rather than be productive in most endeavors...

I can remember when churches and fraternal lodges were rampart in this country, with the main emphasis on helping others that were in honest need, rather than the government doling out the non-responsible welfare...

I can also remember when most of our natural resources were cherished and used in a productive manner, rather than being sent to other countries for processing and then sold back to us in a generally inferior state and our workforce had an abundance of jobs for the taking, including job security...



Right on again!!!
I remember an old church women telling me a long time ago,that once you destroy the family structure, the country will follow....
 
Originally Posted By: Rim_RunnerOriginally Posted By: WorkmanOriginally Posted By: Rim_RunnerElmer Gantry

If you're using this character as a comparison to Sharpton I'd say you were pretty right on. Throw in the fact that he's a race-baiting slug that has been devious enough to carve out a niche for himself (and a few friends and entourage) instead of working for a living.
it works for Beck and Sharpton both.

OK Rimmy, I'll bite. Do have any examples of Beck's "race baiting"?
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonI would disagree with the "Elmer Gantry" characterization, but I was somewhat disappointed with the emphasis on faith as opposed to politics.

While I am a Christian and would not belittle the importance of faith in personal matters or it's importance in the overall scheme of life, I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity.

The immediate problems of today are a direct result of what happens when a nation turns its back on God. This country was blessed and flourished as one nation under GOD. The liberal lifestyles are what have tarnished this country and have led us down a path of destruction. We have learned to be "tolerant"...Tolerant of homesexuals, tolerant of murdering babies, tolerant of muslems, tolerant of trash sucking our economy dry by their lazyness and their "you owe me" attitude. We stopped standing up for our core beleifs and morals a long time ago. We are used to being slapped in the face repeadedly while apoligizing for being there to be slapped. We allowed the media and politicians to demonize the ones who stood up for our communities and homes. This cancer has spread to far to be reversed. Its the men's fault. We let this happen. I can't imagine why anyone would criticize a man for telling the country to turn to God.

-Dave
 
Last edited:
Quote:OK Rimmy, I'll bite. Do have any examples of Beck's "race baiting"?
You'll have to ask workman about the race baiting. He's the one that brought up that subject.
 
As I said, I would not downplay the importance of faith, BUT...

There are many people of faith who are extremely liberal and who vote for libtards.

Charity, for just one instance of many, is after all a virtue, and it's not too high a leap for many pious folks to support the idea of society (government) "taking care of" those who are less fortunate than themselves. The social programs originating from that often Christian inspired attitude has produced enormous structural damage to our country.

Indeed the very "tolerance" bemoaned as being due to we as a nation "turning our backs on God" is preached from the pulpit of a great many Christian churches each Sunday. Does the phrase "love the sinner hate the sin" ring a bell?

That's just part of why I say "I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity."

In the interest of getting full disclosure, one of the things I DO want to know about any political candidate is their religious views. Often I'll consider a strong faith as a positive, but it also often it doesn't matter, and could be a strong negative depending on what that faith is.

How many of you would vote for those Christian ministers, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? How many here ever supported Robert Byrd? Jimmie Carter?

Reflect on it for a minute and I think you'll agree that many of our problems have been caused by well intentioned people of faith.
 
Originally Posted By: nmleonAs I said, I would not downplay the importance of faith, BUT...

There are many people of faith who are extremely liberal and who vote for libtards.

Charity, for just one instance of many, is after all a virtue, and it's not too high a leap for many pious folks to support the idea of society (government) "taking care of" those who are less fortunate than themselves. The social programs originating from that often Christian inspired attitude has produced enormous structural damage to our country.

Indeed the very "tolerance" bemoaned as being due to we as a nation "turning our backs on God" is preached from the pulpit of a great many Christian churches each Sunday. Does the phrase "love the sinner hate the sin" ring a bell?

That's just part of why I say "I feel the immediate problems of today are primarily problems of a political nature, not of religiosity."

In the interest of getting full disclosure, one of the things I DO want to know about any political candidate is their religious views. Often I'll consider a strong faith as a positive, but it also often it doesn't matter, and could be a strong negative depending on what that faith is.

How many of you would vote for those Christian ministers, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? How many here ever supported Robert Byrd? Jimmie Carter?

Reflect on it for a minute and I think you'll agree that many of our problems have been caused by well intentioned people of faith.



Supporting the ones who are less fortunate than others is not the same as helping those who are in need. I'm pretty sure we are talking about the ones who are driving cadillacs while on welfare and food stamps right? Give them fish and you will feed them for one day, teach them to fish and feed them for a life time...that being said, if they don't want to fish, they aint that hungry. Its a political tool to cater to those, not a Christian obligation to support a good lifestyle for those who are not willing to work (so i beleive). Read Proverbs sometime. Rise up, you sluggard, look at the ant. Not exact words, but you get the picture i hope. If you don't work, you don't eat (country boy terms).
I know that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Just like there is no such thing as a homosexual Christian. Love the sinner, but hate the sin has nothing to do with tolerance. If you love the sinner but tolerate the immoral lifestyle, its a contradiction. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton Christians? There is much more to being a Christian than standing in public saying: I'm a Christian. A Christian livestyle is lived, not just spoken.

Political problems? We got em. A muslem president and many others like him who cater to liberals for whatever reason.

-Dave
 
Quote:I'm pretty sure we are talking about the ones who are driving cadillacs while on welfare and food stamps right?

Nope, I'm talking about all the social(ist) programs implemented in the name of Cristian decency (at least in part). Welfare is only a small part of it. Medicare/medicaid, Social Security, government education, etc, etc, etc. All of these "social programs" are unconstitutional when implemented, controlled, or financed by the federal government.

Our basic problem in my belief is that we have allocated too much of what should be our individual responsibilities to government. It's very seductive to be able to let someone else handle your less fun responsibilities, but the price for doing so is that you give up power over your life to the government.



Quote:I know that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian.

Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Jackson, Sharpton, Robert Byrd, etc were/are certainly strong Christians, as well as being total liberals.

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian at all. He (as well as many others of our founding fathers) was a Diest, believing in God the Creator and a strong moral code, but not in the tenets of any particular sect (though strongly attached to Christianity as a moral philosophy). He actually wrote his own "bible" ("The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth") in which he strips out all references to Christ's divinity, miracles, etc, while admiring "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man" (a quote from a letter to John Adams).



Quote:There is much more to being a Christian than standing in public saying: I'm a Christian. A Christian livestyle is lived, not just spoken.

Didn't Jesus Christ himself in affect basically make the only requirement for being a Christian accepting Him as personal Savior?

More to the immediate point of this thread, Beck's "Black Robe Brigade" had clergy of all stripes, including Jewish rabbis and Muslim imams.

Beck seems to be advocating a return to religious values as a solution to the country's problems. While I certainly support the concept of being informed by a strong moral (religious) code, and agree it would be a vast improvement over the moral secularism that has permeated our society, for the reasons partially outlined above I separate that from the basic question of how we should fix our political system.
 
Quote:
Right on again!!!
I remember an old church women telling me a long time ago,that once you destroy the family structure, the country will follow....

Which family structure?

You know I am really tired tonight and don't feel like typing out my opinion of how untrue that opinion is so I am going to quote someone who has a lot more knowledge about it.

The following is from Barbara Kingsolver's article/essay called Stone Soup. Although it is quite improper to give as large a quote as I am about to from copyrighted material I feel it is necessary for you Ricc9.

"Arguing about whether nontraditional families deserve pity or tolerance is a little like the medieval debate about left-handedness as a mark of the devil. Divorce, remarriage, single parenthood, gay parents, and blended families simply are. They're facts of our time. Some of the reasons listed by sociologists for these family reconstructions are: the idea of marriage as a romantic partnership rather than a pragmatic one; a shift in women's expectations, from servility to self-respect and independence, and longevity(prior to antibiotics no marriage was expected to last many decades - in Colonial days the average couple lived to be married less than twelve years). Add to all this, our growing sense of entitlement to happiness and safety from abuse. Most would agree these are all good things. Yet their result - a culture in which serial monogamy and the consequent reshaping of families are the norm - gets diagnosed as "failing."...

"To judge a family's value by its tidy symmetry is to purchase a book for its cover. Ther's no moral authority there. The famous family comprised by Dad, Mom, Sis, and Junior living as an isolate economic unit is not built on historical bedrock. In The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz writes, "Whenever people propose that we go back to the traditional family, I always suggest that they pick a ballpark date for the family they have in mind." Colonial families were tidily disciplined, but their members (meaning everyone but infants) labored incessantly and died young. Then the Victorian family adopted a new division of labor, in which women's role was domestic and children were allowed time for study and play, but this was an upper-class construct supported by myriad slaves. Coontz writes, "For every nineteenth-century middle-class family that protected its wife and child within the family circle, there was an Irish or German girl scrubbing floors...a Welsh boy mining coal to keep the home-baked goodies warm, a black girl doing the family laundry, a black mother and child picking cotton to be made into clothes for the family, and a Jewish or an Italian daughter in a sweatshop making 'ladies' dresses or artificial flowers for the family to purchase."

The abolition of slavery brought slightly more democratic arrangements, in which extended families were harnessed together in cottage industries; at the turn of century came a steep rise in child labor in mines and sweat-shops. Twenty percent of American children lived in orphanages at the time; their parents were not necessarily dead, but couldn't afford to keep them.

During the Depression and up to the end of WWII, many millions of U.S. households were more multigenerations than nuclear. Women my grandmother's age were likely to live with a fluid assortment of elderly relatives, inlaws, siblings, and children. In many cases they spent virtually every waking hour working in the company of other women - a companionable scenario in which it would be easier, I imagine, to tolerate an estranged or difficult spouse. I'm reluctant to idealize a life of so much hard work and so little spousal intimacy, but its advantage my have been resilience. A family so large and varied would not easily be brought down by a single blow: it could absorb a death, long-illness, an abandonment here or there, and any number of irreconcilable differences.

The Family of Dolls came along midcentury as a great American experiment. A booming economy required a mobile labor force and demanded that women surrender jobs to returning soldiers. Families came to be defined by a single breadwinner. they struck out for single-family homes at an earlier age than ever before, and in unprecedented numbers they raised children in suburban isolation. The nuclear family was launched to sink or swim.

More than a few sank. Social historians corroborate that the suburban family of the postwar economic boom, which we have recently selected as our definition of "traditional," was no panacea. Twenty-five percent of Americans were poor in the mid-1950's and as yet there were no food stamps. Sixty percent of the elderly lived on less than $1,000 a year, and most had no medical insurance. In the sequestered suburbs, alcoholism and sexual abuse of children were far more widespread than anyone imagined.

Expectations soared, and the economy sagged. It's hard to depend on one other adult for eveything, come what may. In the last three decades, that amorphous, adaptable structure we call "family" has been reshaped once more by economic tides. Compared with fifties families, mothers are far more likely now to be employed. We are statistically more likely to divorce, and to live in blended families or other extranuclear arrangements. We are also more likely to plan and space our children, and to rate our marriages as "happy." We are less likely to suffer abuse without recourse, or to stare out at our lives thorugh a glaze of prescription tranquilizers. Our aged parents are less likely to be destitute, and we're half as likely to have a teenage daughter turn up a mother herself. All in all, I would say that if "intact" in modern family-values jargon means living quietly desperate in the bell jar, then hip-hip-hooray for "broken." A neat family model constructed to service the Baby Boom economy seems to be returning gradually to a grand, lumpy shape that human families apparently have tended toward since they first took root in Olduvai Gorge. Were social animals, deeply fond of companionship, and children love best to run in packs. If there is a normal for humans, at all, I expect it looks like two or three Families of Dolls, connected variously by kinship and passion, shuffled like cards and strewn over several shoeboxes."



As far as I know Ricc9 nobody has destroyed the American family just the myth!!


 
Last edited:
Back
Top