The great thing about the United States is the right for all of its citizens to speak and act according to their own beliefs and dispositions. This is one the the fundamentals of our nation and it needs to be protected. So, first, I need to tip my proverbial hat to Glenn Beck, who certainly has no problem using this right on a daily basis. He uses it so well that he has made a living from its exploitation. There are some who would like to silence his voice because they disagree with his ideas or fear for those who follow him. This, however, is not an acceptable option. The freedom of speech does not mean that only those things that are pleasing to us are allowable, but what it does mean is that we have every right and a duty to speak up about things with which we disagree. Our country has had a lopsided conversation for decades with the party in power controlling the dialogue, which is one of the main reasons we are experiencing such chaos in our nation. Party politics have only created a dialogue of nonconstructive disagreement between the two parties and divided our country. They don't disagree because they genuinely believe the policies of the other party are wrong (not to say this isn't true some of the time), but because they somehow cannot be a Republican if they support an idea of a Democrat and vice versa. This is not the type of dialogue we need, because it accomplishes nothing. What we really need is a dialogue where people express their opinions based on their knowledge and beliefs in a civil and respectful manner. The freedom of speech should be used to make our country better and stronger, not to degrade and and tear it apart.
OK, enough about that for now. Please follow this link to listen to Glenn Beck's comments and read a brief synopsis of it.
I have tried to write this section many times and I keep writing a novel about Glenn Beck, so it is clear to me that at some point I need to devote a separate entry to him. However, my initial intent in writing this post was to provide a different perspective on the situation over which Glenn Beck is calling for the rally to 'Restore Courage'. My question is: "Where is the courage in supporting a nation that already receives the largest amount of foreign aid from the United States and uses this aid to build fences and walls to imprison an indigenous population not only in its own lands, but within its own cities and towns?"
 |
| © Chad Card |
This is effectively what the State of Israel has done. The Palestinians have been removed from much of their land and continue to have it confiscated from them. The Israeli Separation Wall is poorly named, because it does not just separate the Israelis from the Palestinians, but it hijacks Palestinian land and it confines and demobilizes the Palestinians. The wall and the border crossings from Jordan and Egypt, which are also under Israeli control, have effectively killed the Palestinian economy and made it difficult for men and women to provide for their families. Access to adequate medical supplies and care has also been all but eradicated. It is no wonder that on occasion, groups of Palestinians throw rocks at the wall or even at the soldiers at the check points. I don't condone violence, but I can understand how a people that has been forced into desperation might try to do anything to be freed of such oppression. The worst part of this is that the stone throwing is often met with machine gun fire from the other side and has resulted in the killing of men, women, and children.
In Glenn Beck's call for the rally, he states: "Evil grows when goodness does not stand, . . . when man is afraid, or man is apathetic, evil grows." I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I believe we all have the duty to teach correct principles and to stop the unjust actions of those around us. If we continue to avert our gaze from the wrongs of the world, we will no longer be left with any rights. We do need to take a stand!
I, however, cannot condone the type of stand for which Glenn Beck is calling. In his broadcast, he mentions that there are "forces all over the globe that are trying to destroy us, but remember we are the Great Satan, Israel is the little satan." Without mentioning Muslims once in his broadcast, Glenn Beck makes them the ones against whom we all should stand by making the reference to the great and little satans. He furthers this association by claiming that the attack on Jerusalem will not be an attack with "bullets or bombs", but the attack will be "with a two-state solution that cuts off Jerusalem . . . to the rest of the world." With these comments, he not only calls upon the decades long process of demonizing Muslims in order to instill fear in his listeners, but he also associates them with the Palestinians, who are rightfully working towards recognition from the international community of a sovereign Palestinian state. These comments whether intentional or not, and I believe they are the former, work to undermine the process the Palestinians are pursuing to create their own sovereign state and free themselves from the oppressive occupation of Israel. 'Restoring Courage' is nothing but a publicity stunt to frighten Americans into continued support of a regime that has not only been oppressive to the Palestinians, but whose policies continually place the United States at risk because of our association with them. The is no courage in standing with the Israeli government, the true courage comes in standing up for the rights of those who have been oppressed for the last 60 plus years.
 |
| © Chad Card |
President Obama had the opportunity to 'restore courage' when the UN Security Council voted on February 18, 2011 on a resolution presented by the Palestinian Authority to condemn the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as illegal and to stop any further settlements. All members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of this resolution except for the US, which has veto power. President Obama didn't just miss this opportunity to 'restore courage' he demonstrates how weak the US is when it comes to Israel, since the resolution represented the very ideas that he had relayed to Prime Minister Netanyahu at the beginning of the peace talks. Obama had the opportunity to stand for his ideals and for what is right, but he caved. Now Glenn Beck is calling on Americans and citizens all over the world to stand in support of this 'lack of courage'. The fear he is using to perpetuate the situation in Israel and Palestine should be the real focus of such a stand not only to 'restore courage', but to restore the integrity of the United States of America.
Fearmonger? Glenn Beck? How dare you!
ReplyDeleteHe was the one who finally had the courage and insight to call out universities for being just as dangerous as terror camps in the Middle East: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009010042
In all seriousness though, I'm still amazed by how many people rabidly follow his every word. Admittedly, he's quite talented at mixing up truth and lies as well as playing to people's fears, but it really doesn't take much logic to realize he's usually completely full of crap.
First of all Chad, it's good to hear you're thoughts. You've always been so articulate and I love your thoughts. While you have just spoken politically about Israel, I'd like to hear how you reconcile spiritual views with your political ones. Could you share with us if you feel that God granted Israel that land? If yes, why is it wrong for them to inhabit it the way they see fit? If no, how did you come to that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteAnd please Chad, I hate arguments. I don't want one started on here. I'm just super interested in your views as they differ from mine in some points. I just want to see if there is another view I should consider.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI'm a friend of Chad's, and I don't know you, but I thought I might share my perspective on the matter. I am Hebrew professor here in Utah, and have spent quite a bit of time in Israel/Palestine, and have observed a lot of the problems Chad talks about in his blog. Your question is a really good one, and a legitimate question that I often here Christians pose. One thing we learn from the Bible is that God grants covenant blessings to, yes, covenant people. In Abraham's case, Abraham was beloved of God because of his diligence in obeying God's commandments. In response to Abraham's great faithfulness, God promised him a land of inheritance for his posterity. (It might be noted here that Abraham's posterity includes far more than the descendants of Judah). Even if we take the promise of land literally, and if we apply it solely to Palestine, we must ask if the only qualification for inheriting the blessing is blood-descent from Abraham.
In John 8 of the New Testament, Jesus says to the Pharisees (the Jews), "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham." Here, Jesus equates being the seed of Abraham with doing the works of Abraham. He suggests to his interviewers that, although they are literal descendants (and presumed heirs) to Abraham, they are not in God's eyes, his children. Any promise made to Abraham cannot be claimed by one who does not do Abraham's "works".
What this means is that Palestine --- or any land of promise --- does not belong to anyone by default. Covenant blessings can only be claimed by covenant people. Covenant people are those who keep their covenants (or their ancestors' covenants) with God. If the Jews were keeping all the commandments of God, the land might rightfully be called theirs --- along with any other people that does the works of Abraham. As most of those currently running the state of Israel are neither religious nor give Abraham a second thought (and thus it has been since the beginning of the Israeli state and before), we cannot assume that the covenant blessings are by default theirs.
If you are LDS, you are probably influenced in your thoughts on this subject by the teachings of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon also has some wonderful things to say on the subject. I recommend you read 1 Nephi 17: 32-40. We learn here that God esteems all flesh as one, and that "he loveth those who will have him to be their God." Nephi explains to his brothers in verses 33-34 that God would not have given the land of Canaan to the Israelites in the first place if they had not been more righteous at that time than the Land's current inhabitants. It was not theirs by default, but it was theirs because they chose to keep his covenants.
How does this apply to our day? It would be very difficult for us to judge who, among the early secular Zionist Jewish settlers and among the native Palestinian inhabitants of the Land, was the more righteous in God's eyes. There is not space here, nor is it my place, to make such a judgment. The important thing is to understand that a covenant land belongs to no one who does not follow the precepts of the only true and living God. The Book of Mormon makes the same point about America (Ether 2:9).
I also recommend you examine the chronology in 3 Nephi 20, particularly verses 29-33. It might clarify some commonly misunderstood notions about how God intended/intends for the Jews to return to the Land.
I hope this helps. I appreciate the tone in which you presented your question, and hope you might be able to seek your own answers with discernment and a questioning mind.
Best,
Meredith Marshall Nelson
Thank you for the statements made. I would like to briefly address some of the topics mentioned.
ReplyDeleteFirst:Freedom of Speech. While I don't mind Glen Beck ranting and raving about whatever it is he wants to rant and rave about, I must admit his influence disturbs me. Free speech can be good, but does it have to come at the cost where people replace their own research with one man's opinions? I have traveled a bit and always find it difficult to stomach my own family's static condition when I return. I know my experiences are meaningless unless I share what I have learned, just as you are doing in this blog, however I fear Glen Beck is turning into a symbol of worship that cheats people of earning their knowledge through study and research. Rather, he offers a short cut to "being informed" that is so tempting that people blindly buy into his ideas without understanding the facts behind them. Influence is a powerful thing, and freedom of speech is often misinterpreted to mean a lack of responsibility for those affected by ones words.
Second: Amen, the Democrat/Republican thing can just be absurd!
Third: Palestine and Israel. Where is King Solomon when you need him! His solution to the women fighting over one baby seems almost feasible in this situation...almost. :)
I am glad Sarah asked her question because I love Meredith's answer. Some of these are the same conclusions I've come to, but others are new and thought-provoking. Thank you.
It used to bother me that people hadn't learned the same things I had, but then I realized there was a point I didn't know them either. Recently, my dentist shook his head about the issue saying how sad it was that these people have been fighting for millenia. When I told him this was not true he mentioned how they were fighting even in biblical times. I had to correct him again by first letting him know that Islam didn't come into being until around the turn of the sixth century - about 500 years after the bible had been compiled - which was the time when the Arabs really started to unite. Before then they were separate groups such as the Assyrians and Babylonians etc. To this he replied how it goes to show how much a little education is needed. I appreciate his answer and hope that more who know about the situation in Palestine and Israel will also speak up in proper and respectful ways to correct myths such as these. If it is not done with kindness then it turns into a struggle of pride and oneupmanship. Meredith provided an excellent example. Again, thank you.
Fourth: Obama. Currently I still give Obama the benefit of the doubt. You make a good point that it reflects Israel's power and influence in the US. However, I don't believe the man should not be faulted for the machine's inherited structure, so to say. And given his recent comments, even though it is for the two-state solution, I think he has done more to put the US-Israeli relations in their proper perspective than any of his predecessors. Although, like my dentist, he is obviously still learning. And frankly so am I.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for all of your comments. I am assuming that you are the same one that has left comments on the other posts. I responded to your post about President Obama's speech and I forgot to thank you for your thoughts and interest in what was posted. I really do appreciate everything. I agree with you about Glenn Beck, but I would also suggest that most of the media does what Glenn Beck does--slant the reporting to their own biases and goals. I think Americans everywhere should question the news that is reported and find out through more research what the real story is.
I will be posting my own thoughts to Sarah's questions later today and you can read my comment to your post on President Obama's speech to hear what I have to say about him. I do want to add that I was hopeful that President Obama would change things and his address to the Arab world at the beginning of his presidency helped confirm that hope. I was in Egypt at the time and everywhere we went people would joyfully great us by saying "Obama" with their thumbs pointing up. However, because he hasn't done much to act on his words, he has lost his appeal. Last summer I was in Palestine, and the majority of the people with whom I spoke said they liked Bush better, because at least they knew what they would get when he spoke and with President Obama they can't tell. I really think President Obama has missed too many opportunities to actually change things.
You make a good point that the media puts a slant on the news. Although I agree with people doing more research, as I said earlier, I have started thinking somewhat differently as of late. There is now such a flood of information in the news and so many sources that constructive research has become more and more difficult, not to mention confusing. I want to put out the idea of gleaning information rather than absorbing it in regards to the news media. Gleaning would only gather the facts, as long as they are collected from multiple sources and point out their differences. Refraining from making an opinion when there is honestly too little information would also help. This method could combat media spin because the less you delve into something the less it will influence you. I'm not even sure if I agree with this statement, but I am still toying with the idea. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughts on Obama and understand your frustration. My personal frustration and my basis for defending Obama is primarily because I am tired of hate politics. I am not accusing you of doing this, but I see so many who start off with rational criticisms, such as the ones you have mentioned, but upon conversing go even further to use base and prejudiced arguments like saying Obama is not a Christian or that his birth certificate is invalid to substantiate their hate. Without a balance of the good and the bad in our vocal assessment of Obama the door opens for others to justify or feel justified in the irrational hatred of Obama. I have decided that I want to stay as far away from these radicals as possible so that no one will mistakenly think that I am unified with them through hate. Even though I sometimes want to shake Obama by the shoulders and tell him to grow a backbone I want to always counter this statement with a sign of support and encouragement to go even farther in the right direction that he already has. No, I don't feel like you have joined the Obama Hate Team, but part of me hopes there will be a better balance.