When Glenn Beck Met Billy Graham

[Valin]

First Things:

Joe Carter
2.25/11

Glenn Beck recently sat down with Rev. Billy Graham for a three hour meeting. The differences in worldviews can be summed up in this one line:

“I spoke of a growing darkness and evil,” Beck said of his meeting with Graham. “He spoke of a greater growth of light.”

So did Graham’s optimistic vision make a lasting impression? Of course not. This is Glenn Beck we’re talking about.

“In sitting there and speaking to Reverend Graham, I thought, here is a man who has been all around the world,” Beck explained on his website on Tuesday, apparently a transcript of comments made on his radio show on Monday. “Here’s a man who has seen it all. Here’s a man who’s done profound good. One of the first to stand in Alabama as a white preacher and stand and say we must come together.”

“My message to you,” Beck continued, “is we must come together. Evil has ‑‑ the left has stood ‑‑ is standing now with profound and clear evil and they’ve connected from evil all the way to the average Democrat and everything in between.

(Snip)



"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

"A pessimist is a man who thinks all women are bad. An optimist is a man who hopes they are."
Chauncey Mitchell Depew

[Saltbag]

I won't smack down Beck. His heart is in this, but you have to take him with a teaspoon of sugar. Consider him a metric or polarity, that if you're not as apocalyptic as him, you're probably right but can still function in society. We need our crazy mammals.

[pollyannaish]

I won't smack down Beck. His heart is in this, but you have to take him with a teaspoon of sugar. Consider him a metric or polarity, that if you're not as apocalyptic as him, you're probably right but can still function in society. We need our crazy mammals.

 

I don't feel a need to smack him down, but he does irritate me sometimes. I agree with him on occasion and find him funny sometimes. Some of his shows on black history have been excellent and some of the best I've seen on TV. At the same time, I don't listen to him often because I get exasperated with some of his "connections" and "charts" and the hystronics exhaust me. I feel the same way about O'Reilly.

 

I also tend to be anti-conspiracy theory. There are forces in our world that push one way or another...but a widespread secret conspiracy is a hard thing to do. Large movement happen right out in the open and in right under our noses...but our "normalcy bias" (I was just listening to someone talk about this somewhere yesterday) gets in the way of seeing what's happening until its too late.

 

Beck challenges our normalcy bias...but then so does Graham. And Carters summation puts into words what has bothered me for months. Beck sends us looking for darkness everywhere, and Graham sends us searching for the light. We know that by beholding, we become changed...so if I am going to put time and energy into beholding, I want to search for the light, not the darkness.

[Saltbag]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

[Rheo]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

[pollyannaish]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

 

 

Ha! Ditto that.

 

Well said Saltbag!

[pollyannaish]

The danger when one paints the world in such conspiratorial terms is that it devalues the rational side of politics. It encourages a cast of mind that looks to expose enemies rather than to engage in arguments.

 

This is from the article later...and is the key problem in today's politics is this exactly.

 

Today's approach to politics is intellectually lazy, spiritually infantile and socially isolating.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pollyannaish
for clarity

[Saltbag]

Well, the argument between two fools is foolish. There needs to be argument, but we need people that "get it," for a lack of a better term.

 

When you look at the deficit, and one side says "We need to run up the deficit for the people," and the other side says "The People Have Spoken, so we're proposing to still run up the deficit, but God as my witness, it will be a little less."

 

It's purely a political argument, not an effectual one. Intellect, spirit, and the social desires take a back seat.

 

Okay, now I'm starting to sound like Glenn Beck...

[pollyannaish]

Well, the argument between two fools is foolish. There needs to be argument, but we need people that "get it," for a lack of a better term.

 

When you look at the deficit, and one side says "We need to run up the deficit for the people," and the other side says "The People Have Spoken, so we're proposing to still run up the deficit, but God as my witness, it will be a little less."

 

It's purely a political argument, not an effectual one. Intellect, spirit, and the social desires take a back seat.

 

Okay, now I'm starting to sound like Glenn Beck...

 

Yes, but every argument between the right and the left is not foolish. And the argument that you use as an example is not, imo, a ideological one, but a functional/process one: ie do the benefits of balancing the budget immediately (akin to ripping off a bandaid) outweigh the immediate and devastating pain it will cause the society. You may say yes, but then you look at the practical side and realize that you will not be reelected and any progress you made would be wiped out quickly. So then you have to look at ripping the bandaid off slowly. I think though, that is the implementation stage...and it has to come after we've convinced most folks on the ideological side. (Which right now I think we're winning, actually...thanks to Walker and Christie.)

 

Personally, I think this country would be better off if the day to day ideological arguments were between conservatives and libertarians, rather than conservatives and liberals. But that isn't where we are now. We must make rapid progress on many fronts at once, without being so draconian as to hurt ourselves with the majority of voters. That's a flat out difficult process which requires patience, timing, communication and persistence. And yes, sometimes compromise. Ronald Reagan was a master at this.

 

As far as liberals go, one of the greatest contributors to my way of thinking is Christopher Hitchens. I disagree with him vehemently on a great many issues. LOTS of issues. But understanding his positions (which are not irrational) and being able to refute them makes me a better conservative/Christian/you name it. I am a shameless copy cat, but I completely agree with Dennis Prager when he says he values clarity over agreement. Clarity in our own ideological arguments is a responsibility—and once those are clear in our own minds, the debates on process, function and electability begin in my estimation.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pollyannaish
For clarity

[Innocent65]

And let's not leave out God's role in this world--He is there--He is here.

[Valin]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

 

 

I would hope you are not putting Mark Levin and Michael Savage in the same category. Mark Levin is a scholar of the Constitution, and someone I have a great deal of respect for, in spite of his radio style. Michael Savage is nothing more than a cheap demagogue, that thinks he is the be all and end all of conservatism. The instrument has yet be developed that can measure my lack of respect for him.

[pollyannaish]

And let's not leave out God's role in this world--He is there--He is here.

 

Amen to that! And great to see you posting!

[pollyannaish]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

 

 

I would hope you are not putting Mark Levin and Michael Savage in the same category. Mark Levin is a scholar of the Constitution, and someone I have a great deal of respect for, in spite of his radio style. Michael Savage is nothing more than a cheap demagogue, that thinks he is the be all and end all of conservatism. The instrument has yet be developed that can measure my lack of respect for him.

 

Good point. Didn't think of that at all. But you are right.

 

 

This is a classic case of style v. substance. I would rate them on substance as Levin, Beck, Savage. I don't trust that guy and never will. He does not hold a consistent position, tends towards "not liking" policies based on the people who hold them...and is a general huckster. Beck has some truth to his work, asks some good questions, but in my opinion tends to over connect the dots. Levin is consistent and his writing is fantastic. I would never identify Levin as "patient" with people who are not as intelligent as he is.

 

And they all three tend to be over-emotional on air. But that does not mean they are alike in substance.

 

(

[righteousmomma]

Back to the difference between Glenn Beck and

Billy Graham - it is not a difference in world view. It is a difference in theological view or Christian world view.

Graham has also said (and I totally agree with all 3):

Believers, look up - take courage. The angels are nearer than you think.

 

My home is in Heaven. I'm just traveling through this world.

 

I've read the last page of the Bible. It's all going to turn out all right.

The Bible plainly forecasts the coming of yet another great war. It will be a war to eclipse anything the world has ever seen. It will embrace most of the nations of the world; and its focal point will be in the Middle East, where the armies of the world will some day deploy themselves, centering at Mount Megiddo. This great war has been called the battle of Armageddon. In the midst of this terrifying war that could destroy civilization the Lord Jesus Christ will return to this earth in glory and power to judge the nations of the world and set up His own glorious kingdom.

[pollyannaish]

Back to the difference between Glenn Beck and

Billy Graham - it is not a difference in world view. It is a difference in theological view or Christian world view.

Graham has also said (and I totally agree with all 3):

Believers, look up - take courage. The angels are nearer than you think.

 

My home is in Heaven. I'm just traveling through this world.

 

I've read the last page of the Bible. It's all going to turn out all right.

The Bible plainly forecasts the coming of yet another great war. It will be a war to eclipse anything the world has ever seen. It will embrace most of the nations of the world; and its focal point will be in the Middle East, where the armies of the world will some day deploy themselves, centering at Mount Megiddo. This great war has been called the battle of Armageddon. In the midst of this terrifying war that could destroy civilization the Lord Jesus Christ will return to this earth in glory and power to judge the nations of the world and set up His own glorious kingdom.

 

Amen to that.

[Saltbag]

Well said.

 

I want to look to the light as well, but you gotta keep an eye on the darkness. Glenn is filling that role. So are Savage, Levin, and a few others. I understand their points, but wouldn't want to pay their therapy bills. They probably shouldn't run any suicide hotlines.

 

 

I would hope you are not putting Mark Levin and Michael Savage in the same category. Mark Levin is a scholar of the Constitution, and someone I have a great deal of respect for, in spite of his radio style. Michael Savage is nothing more than a cheap demagogue, that thinks he is the be all and end all of conservatism. The instrument has yet be developed that can measure my lack of respect for him.

 

Oh lord, no. I bundled the two together because they must need a lot of therapy, not their quality. They get so wound up you wonder what night they're going to have a stroke on the air. That was my intended point. They both need anger management.

 

Mark Levin starts shouting at the least provocation. Okay, you take an ignorant lib as a screened caller... exactly what are you expecting? And then he has his angry calm voice, like he's trying to not turn into the Hulk. I like the guy, his principles are sound, but wow ... he needs to get (BLEEP)ed, smoke a cigarette, and calm down.

 

You can sum up the Mike Savage show as:

1) Nostalgic reflections of eating the best pizza at this real Italian place with his dog.

2) YOU KNUCKLEHEADS WOULDN'T KNOW FREEDOM IF IT BIT YOU IN THE FACE!!

 

.. and that fills 3 hours nightly.

 

He probably deserves more credit than that, but that's what I feel like when I listen to him.

[Pepper]

“I spoke of a growing darkness and evil,” Beck said of his meeting with Graham. “He spoke of a greater growth of light.”

 

 

Perhaps the Rev Graham was referring to a thermonuclear explosion.

[nickydog]

And let's not leave out God's role in this world--He is there--He is here.

Very well and succinctly said, Innocent65. I am studying Isaiah this year, and you could summarize the whole book with just those few words.