Jim Wallis’ un-Christian response to Glenn Beck

As much as I hated Glenn Beck’s call on Christians to flee churches that emphasize “social justice” — which is to say, just about every church there is — I’m still disappointed in the response of lefty Christian Jim Wallis:

“What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show,” Mr. Wallis wrote on his blog, God’s Politics. “His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern.”*

I’m disappointed because Wallis’ response could’ve shown Glenn Beck what’s “Christian” about a “social justice Christian.” That is, it could’ve responded in a way that emulated Jesus’ exhortation to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” And maybe Wallis is doing so. But his response comes across as a piece of churlish, cheap moralizing in the vein of Bill Donohue or Donald Wildmon. It seems more interested in scoring political points than in doing God’s work in the world. It’s just uglier and less graceful — in the full meaning of that word – than you’d hope for.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m out of the church, so maybe I shouldn’t be offering theological advice to those who’ve remained. And I certainly believe Glenn Beck is an ass who needs a rhetorical slap in the face, oh, daily. But I maintain a respect for faith, even if I can’t share it. And I hate to see it cheapened by the sordid pettiness of our all-too-human politics.

* I had to rely on the New York Times account of Wallis’ words. For whatever reason, Wallis’ blog post isn’t opening up on my computer. If I find I’m erring in my response to Wallis’ words, I’ll correct the record.

Does Glenn Beck think Mennonites are Nazis? (Or: Of liberal churches and freedom of religion)

The Mennonites I grew up among had a consistent “pro-life” ethic that didn’t place them easily in the service of either major political party: Most of the folks I knew were very much against abortion — but they were also anti-war, anti-death penalty and for helping the poor. A number of them didn’t like to pay taxes, but not for any Ayn Rand-inspired reason; they just didn’t want their money used to pay for America’s wars. A lot of the church’s missions abroad have been done under the umbrella of the Mennonite Central Committee, which has — sometimes controversially within the churches — focused more on helping people and less on evangelizing.

Over the years, there was a phrase I heard used to describe this overall approach to the world: “Social justice.” And until this week, I had no idea that it meant that the Mennonites are secretly in league with the Nazis. Thank goodness we have Glenn Beck to set us straight.

On his daily radio and television shows last week, Fox News personality Glenn Beck set out to convince his audience that “social justice,” the term many Christian churches use to describe their efforts to address poverty and human rights, is a “code word” for communism and Nazism. Beck urged Christians to discuss the term with their priests and to leave their churches if leaders would not reconsider their emphasis on social justice.

“I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

Later, Beck held up cards, one with a hammer and sickle and other with a swastika. “Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That’s what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: ’social justice.’ They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy.”

I’ll let Mennonites and other Christians decide if they really want to take theological advice from Beck, a Mormon whose adopted theology many mainstream Christians consider heretical, at best. I’m certainly not going to try to argue theology with the likes of Beck. And in any case, I doubt many adherents of churches that espouse “social justice” are taking their cues from Fox News, anyway.

Suffice it to say, though, I doubt that the answer to “WWJD?” would ever be to “Go Galt.”

What’s more disconcerting, though, is Beck’s framing device. He’s not merely asserting that left-leaning churches are wrong — that’s his right, though I think he’s mistaken. He’s suggesting that Americans, broadly, are about to see their freedom of religion come under assault. What’s his basis for this? He doesn’t have one, as far as I can tell. Is there some Bible-censoring program underway that I don’t know about?

Probably not.

And that’s what bugs me about Beck. It’s not that he has spectacularly wrongheaded opinions – it’s that he proceeds from spectacularly incorrect facts. And that he disseminates those spectacularly wrong facts from one of the highest-profile slots on television. It’s a real disservice to his audience, and to the country that has to put up with a debate influenced by so many of his acolytes.

Some of my conservative friends tell me they think Glenn Beck is full of crap. Obviously he is. But he’s influencing a large swatch of the conservative movement. And he’s doing so in a way that wrongly sows panic and fear among his audience, not thoughtfulness and vigorous debate. Glenn Beck, not churches who believe that pursuing “social justice” is the calling of Christ, is the real danger to our country.

Glenn Beck makes light of rape

There’s probably never a good time to use a rape analogy; it’s a uniquely awful crime. But it’s worse to use a specific rape — in this case, Roman Polanski’s assault on a teen girl, now a grown woman who (for all we know) might’ve been watching this — to make a point about health care policy.

And it’s worse yet for the analogy to be applied clumsily. Hey Glenn: It was the criminal who sought refuge in Europe, not the victim. What an incredible dumbass.

Fox News, CNN and partisanship in the news

Piece in the Times today claims that Fox News merely reflects a return to the 19th century practice of partisan journalism — but that it’s not alone. Just check out the audience numbers.

In audience surveys from August 2000 to March 2001, Fox News viewers tilted Republican by 44.6 percent to 36.1 percent. More narrowly — 41.4 percent to 39.4 percent — so did the audience for MSNBC. The audiences of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central leaned Democratic.

Four years later, amid the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, the audience data had shifted. Fox News viewers had become 51 percent Republican and just 30.8 percent Democratic, while MSNBC viewers leaned Democratic by 41.7 percent to 40.4 percent. Viewers of CNN, Headline News, CNBC and Comedy Central grew slightly more Democratic.

By 2008-9, the network audiences tilted decisively, like Fox’s. CNN viewers were more Democratic by 50.4 percent to 28.7 percent; MSNBC viewers were 53.6 percent to 27.3 percent Democratic; Headline News’ 47.3 percent to 31.4 percent Democratic; CNBC’s 46.9 percent to 32.5 percent Democratic; and Comedy Central’s 47.1 to 28.8 percent Democratic.

This is all very interesting, but it doesn’t really tell us anything about the journalism — or propaganda — being purveyed by the respective cable news networks. (Why the hell are they measuring Comedy Central in there, anyway?) It’s true that MSNBC features more straightforward liberals in its lineup than the other networks — but it also has former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough in the morning. CNBC has Reagan-worshipping free market prophet Larry Kudlow as a key part of its lineup. CNN has Lou Dobbs. And Headline News was Glenn Beck’s first television home, lest you forget.

So it’s not necessarily the case that all the non-Fox networks decided to appeal to Democrats as a business strategy. It seems just as possible — just as likely, in fact — the demographics have changed because conservatives have decisively fled the non-Fox networks for the warm ideological tongue bath they get from Fox. That’s left the other networks with only Democrats as their audience. And as the lineup of stars above suggests, they still don’t cater to their ideological audience as thoroughly as Fox News does. Suggesting, as the Times does today, that Fox isn’t all that unusual flies in the face of common sense.

The debate about the health care debate

That’s the topic of my Scripps Howard column with Ben Boychuk this week:

As often happens in American politics, the debate over health reform has become a contest of who can scream louder.

It’s a pretty stupid contest.

This is partly President Obama’s fault. Instead of offering a straightforward proposal, he’s let Congress take the initiative. The result has been a still-evolving series of proposals that, taken as a whole, looks to the average observer like a near-indecipherable morass that might contain a few good ideas — but also might not.

Democrats have thus far been unable to offer a coherent message about why reform is needed and how the proposed reforms solve the problems. That’s created a void into which Republicans have, gleefully, jumped.

Some of the opposition at “town hall” meetings has been based on legitimate philosophical differences. There are conservatives who see a greater government role in providing and regulating health insurance as creeping socialism — and hey, didn’t we wage a Cold War to be free of that kind of thing?

But much of the opposition has come from irresponsible and fact-free fear-mongering: Glenn Beck and his talk about health insurance as “reparations” for slave descendants; Sarah Palin raising the specter of “death panels” that would kill her son; Investor’s Business Daily’s assertion that a British-style health system would’ve killed disabled scientist Stephen Hawking — never mind that A) Hawking has actually lived his entire life in that system; and B) Democrats aren’t trying to copy the UK.

Democrats need to offer a coherent plan and a smart message to back it up, or they deserve to lose the debate. But Republicans don’t deserve to win based on loudness and lies. An estimated 46 million Americans have no health coverage, and millions more are under-covered or unduly burdened by insurance costs. They deserve better than to have the loudest screamer win.

Will Joe Sestak’s town hall turn into a war?

Dan U-A posts over at Young Philly Politics:

Joe Sestak is going to hold a meeting on universal health care this Wednesday. Like every other town hall meeting on healthcare, insurance companies will partner with crazy, racist, nut jobs to try to disrupt any actual meeting from taking place. It is a holy alliance of the fringes of society, spurred on by Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, and a too compliant national media, with the power and money of the insurance companies goading them on. All to stop every American from getting to see a doctor.

For example, word got out that Sestak’s meeting would actually be held in Philly, and so, there was this tweet:

CON SESTAK PA 7TH DISTRICT IS NOT HAVING MEETING IN AREA OF VOTERS THAT ELECTED HIM HE IS MAKING US GO 2 PHILLY WHERE THE BLACK PANTHERS R

Oh, where the black panthers are!?

And, if that was a little to subtle for you, it was followed by this one:

@glennbeck iTS A BLACK CHURCH IN ANOTHER DIS. SESTAK IS GOING TO SAND BAG US

Um, yeah. It is even directed at Glenn Beck. That is too, too, too perfect. That is who will be at the town hall, hoping to drown out any conversation from actually happening.

For what it’s worth, Sestak is running for U.S. Senate now. That’s to represent the whole state. So I don’t see any conspiracy in Sestak holding an event outside his district.

Anyway, Sestak will be speaking at 6:30 Wednesday at Broad Street Ministries, 315 S. Broad. It should be a barn-burner.

What we need is another attack on America

Remember, this appeared on Fox News:

I outsource my commentary to Adam Serwer at The American Prospect:

Yesterday, Glenn Beck guest and former CIA official Michael Scheuer openly hoped for a terrorist attack on the United States, saying, “the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States…It’s an absurd situation again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.” Beck nodded solemnly.

This is the same Michael Scheuer who, a few months ago, played patriotism police arguing that anyone who didn’t support the United States using torture to interrogate terrorist suspects was anti-American…now he’s begging for a terrorist attack on the United States. This is a pretty awesome example of how the right conflates their political interests with the interests of the country as a whole. If there’s no terrorist attack, then Americans are safe. But Scheuer can’t be right if there’s no terrorist attack. And Scheuer being right is actually more important than Americans staying alive.

Torture apologists have tiptoed around the edge of this argument without actually saying so for some time, Leon Panetta walked back his observation about Dick Cheney, that “it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point,” but as Scheuer and Beck proved yesterday, this is really how some people feel.

This gets to the essential creepiness about Beck’s emotional display introducing his whole 9/12 project–the man wasn’t weeping because he wished the country was as “unified” as it was after 9/11, he was weeping because the country is no longer in a such a state of petrified fear that it will acquiesce to whatever extreme measures the right deems necessary. Beck wasn’t crying for the country, he was crying for himself, crying because people are no longer frightened enough to agree with everything he has to say. Understand, he only wants to hurt you because he loves you.

But understand, this is not unpatriotic. You can wish all manner of horrors on this country, but as long as these horrors might serve a specific political agenda, you’re not being unpatriotic. Unpatriotic is a public health care plan. Unpatriotic is a judge modifying subprime mortgage loans to keep a roof over someone’s head. Unpatriotic is phosphate free detergent. Patriotic is wishing for a terrorist attack on the United States.

Patriotism is dead, long live patriotism.

Did they give Steven Wells a BBC gig?