I like Beck.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
You just joined FR to post this crap? Move along please
You sign up yesterday to post this?
Beck’s not my cup of tea. His hyper-emotionalism must be an acquired taste.
Conservatives are those who advocate the preservation, conservation, or restoration of our constitutional republican form of government. Not a single candidate who leads with their personal religious preference ever, ever, ever meets that test.
Religious tyranny is not conservative.
Pro-life liberalism is not conservative.
Authoritarian statism is not conservative.
Constitutional conservatism is conservative.
From my memory of the book, it boils down to 28 solid ideals the founders had for keeping the country free and prosperous.
I find the article lacking any meat in it’s criticism. Beck’s OCD usually has him spinning around trying to find a direction for his thoughts, which irritates me. Especially when he goes dark after reading some obscure book. This is not one of those books.
I smell an elitist GOP hack in Oman. His resume sides toward that conclusion. If the author wants to make a point, he should have cited quotes from 5000 instead of glossing over what his overall thoughts were.
Apparently Beck is good for a headline though.
where is the chalkboard?
This is kind of an odd sentence. I've read it several times and I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not sure what it has to do with Beck.
BTW, welcome to FR. Try not to get ‘zotted’ straight away. Personally I find the occasional contrarian far more interesting.
I notice the author couldn’t include any actual quote from the book where it is said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist. Usually when people do that it is because they either haven’t read what they imply they have read, or have read it and are not being truthful about what they have read. Maybe the author should read the books he critiques before writing about them and then actually provide supporting quotes to make his point.
I don't have much use for Beck but I and many others here are "the religious right" that you are looking down your nose at.
Or was he being more disingenuous in THIS article?
Mormonism's Al Smith moment?
January 02, 2008|By Nathan B. Oman
Let us suppose that Mitt Romney does not become the next president. What will this mean for the Mormons? There about 5.7 million Latter-day Saints in America, which in a nation of more than 300 million makes us demographic chicken feed, but the question is important for what it reveals about the presidency and its relationship to American citizenship.
As a Latter-day Saint, I care deeply about whether a Mormon can be elected president. This is not because, as the anti-Mormon fringe suggests, my co-religionists and I want to impose a theocracy on the nation, but because so long as a Mormon cannot be elected president because he is Mormon.
Rather, I care because so long as a Mormon cannot be elected president because he is Mormon, I am a second-class citizen in our culture, a member of a tribe disqualified from full political participation.
Maybe we should note that he seems to think religious Conservatism is just alright as long as it comes from HIS religion.
I have nothing against Mormons per se, Beck being a Mormon himself. I think this article ADDS to Beck's credibility rather than detracts from it.
So where does that place you?
For the record, I am an Orthodox Jew, and would never in a zillion years vote for anyone on the basis of religion alone like so many blacks voted for obama, or so many Mormons voted for Romney. If you ain't right, you ain't right. Period.
"First, despite partisan triumphalism in the wake of electoral victory, voters at the center of the political spectrum hold the balance of power in American politics."
Largely true, though it continues to be a center-right nation.
"In the recent congressional elections these voters broke in favor of the Republicans, but they did so in spite of Beck's Skousen revivalism, not because of it."
Well, he presents no data from which to draw that conclusion, and instinctively it would probably be safest to say that their decisions at the polls were neither because of Beck or in spite of him, but rather irrespective of him. Obama's signature political achievent, 'Obamacare' is unpopular, unemployment is high, and the spendthrift Congress has a 13% approval rating. It had little to do with tv host Beck or even with specifically 'religious conservatism.'
"Second, and more important, Beck's neo-Skousenism is a distraction and a dead end."
On the contrary, the second point is made even less important by the irrelevance of the first.
I haven't read the book but when the first example a critic uses is made up and not from the work being criticized ... it's pretty much a lock that the critic is more full of BS than a stock yard.