Mark Levin calls Glenn Beck a false prophet

How many people does Leven have listening to him?

If he mentions a book, what happens at Amazon?

Beck can be a little strident, and as you know I'm a little pissed at him at the moment, but I hear tell Moses had problems like that.

Maybe Beck is a falase prophet. Where exactly does he lie?

I forgot to mention he was talking to a libertarian at the beginning. Bob, the libertarian.

Neither Beck, nor anyone who speaks Truth needs “defense”, and I like many things that Mark Levin brings out in his own unique way.

However, Glenn has said repeatedly (including during yesterday's radio program) that the “political” process is a necessary part of the WHOLE… but NOT the primary part of our long-term return to Founding Principles, as a Republic. He points out (and history bears out same) that “politics” was never the primary focus of those who, 234 years ago, “…brought forth on this continent, a new nation…”

Their letters, notes, and our resulting Founding Documents are not stocked with 'legalese' or 'PC'ness… but with the presentations of ideals, the declarations of 'self-evident' Truths about the privileges, duties and responsibilities of “free men”. And the fabric of these garments of our nation were sewn together with equally strong declarations of the genesis, purpose and intent behind them… Faith, Hope and Charity.

If Beck has been wrong with ANY:

1. Information
2. Points of Fact
3. Predictions of event and/or affect

…then present the EVIDENCE of it.

But to call a man a “false prophet” because he doesn't focus primarily on the same part of the elephant you're BOTH eating (keeping in mind that he DOES mention the importance of the “leg” YOU are chewing on constantly)… is beneath the intelligence, experience, and otherwise BRILLIANT work of a fellow patriot, Mark Levin.

If you just don't like him, Mark, then use that well-known and oft-used chutzpa of yours to simply say, “I HATE THAT S.O.B.!”

That way you BOTH are still just dealing with Truth, as you see it.

CM Sackett

hickup… multiple post

Agreed.

I dunno…

At 42 seconds, Levin says… get involved in the Tea Party movement… create your own movement… become equipped with knowledge and information, and spread the word… that's the whole point of Liberty and Tyranny…

Ok, well, spreading the word is what Beck has done… and helping other authors to sell their erudite books with hundreds of pages of footnotes is indeed spreading the “word”…

So, why does Levin throw verbal stones at thought leader Beck? I dunno.

At 57 seconds, Levin says… I hear these back-benchers… some with their own radio shows say… I'm gonna have an event… this is more than politics…

Levin continues…
“Yes, it's always been about more than politics.
“It's about protecting our civil society…
“That's what Liberty and Tyranny is about, protecting our society and preserving the conservative cause…”

So, Levin agrees with Beck, one of those with a radio show…

So, why does Levin throws more stones at Beck's back? I dunno. Because Beck is not articulating the conservative cause the way Levin thinks Beck should? I dunno.

This is like one side of the paper calling the other side of the paper irrelevant because the other side of the paper has different words on it.

So, what does Beck do?

His vision seems to be forward movement, ignoring the back-benchers who are following Beck, the thought leader, and throwing stones at Beck while he is on point reconnaissance duty, looking ahead for the enemy while the back-benchers are too busy throwing stones.

Is this what is going on between Levin and Beck the thought leader?

I listen to Levin every day, and I appreciate his passion, but, why does he throw verbal stones at his own guys who are thought leaders, out front and leading the pack, out front and on point patrol?

I dunno.

At 2 minutes Levin says… when I hear a would be prophet say… I want to change the people, I want to change the way they think…

At 2 minutes 15 seconds… Levin says, “it's both, it's both.”

So, is Levin implying that Beck is too dumb, too narrow minded, too involved in the role of prophet or too whatever, to agree with Levin that it is both?

I dunno. But I do know that Beck has never said it is not. Has he?

So, why does Levin throw verbal stones of “innuendo without substance” at thought leader Beck? I dunno.

At 2 minutes 25 seconds, Levin says, you won't find me putting my name on books that other people write.

That comment by Levin is a verbal molotov cocktail of “innuendo without substance” designed to demean Beck, not designed to define Beck.

In other words, there's no “there” there because the “books that other people write” comment does not promote dialogue about the conservative cause, it stifles it with an insult, i.e., a verbal molotov cocktail.

Why does Levin throw verbal stones at thought leader Beck? I dunno.

At 3 minutes 4 seconds, Levin says, do not leave the playing field to the enemy…

The word “leave” is another example of “innuendo without substance.”

At 3 minutes 17 seconds, Levin says, you can't clean up what's going on simply by preaching. You clean up what's going on by activism. And you can not clean it up merely by rallying.

At 6 minutes 9 seconds, Levin says, the answer isn't following any one person… whether they're on tv or the radio… the answer isn't this all important rally that we all have to attend… although they're important… but they are not a substitute for action on election day.

I listen to Beck and Levin every day, and Beck has never said or even intimated that election day took a back seat to rallies… more “innuendo without substance” from Levin designed to demean Beck, not to define Beck.

At 7 minutes 12 seconds, Levin says, reject the false prophets who tell you that politics is not important.

The “false prophets” words are classic “innuendo without substance” words designed to “bait” the reader or listener with a verbal equivalent of a drive by speeding vehicle from which a verbal molotov cocktail is thrown and which the reader or listener can't respond to with coherent substance considering the intent of the words… to demean the man Beck, not to define the man Beck.

The words “reject” and “false” and “prophet” are words of “innuendo without substance” because they are “… an indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.” (4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary)

So, why does Levin throw verbal stones at thought leader Beck?

I dunno.

Art
STOP! Islamization Of America

We have enough people doing the political side. I personally prefer the history lessons and although I don't feel Beck is trying to be a prophet, he is pretty darn accurate most of the time. Learning real history is very important in avoiding the same mistakes. Until about 8 years ago I felt that Wilson and FDR were great presidents. Then I started doing research to find Wilson was one of the most racist people on earth. FDR prolonged the depression for years with his Obama style of politics. This is news to a lot of people and Beck is covering that end of the problem. To avoid repeating bad history, you need to know history. We need people like Mark and Beck doing what they do best.

Thank you very much for the extraordinary videos you have been posting. I found material on your site which I've been unable to get anywhere else. I can see how much thought and work you put into this and deeply appreciate it.

About Mark Levin's video and why he's wrong, I respectfully submit the following for your consideration:

(1)
Contrary to Mark Levin's assertion, Glenn Beck never said politics wasn't important or that he wasn't political. He said that he wasn't taking sides because both political parties were corrupt. But he interviewed and talked about candidates. For example: He interviewed and talked at length about Hoffman and New York's 23rd. He interviewed Fiorina and DeVore running against Barbara Boxer, and without endorsing anyone he showed obvious support for DeVore on his TV show. He also talked about NJ's Cristie with admiration, wondering whether Cristie was the George Washington Glenn's been looking for.

(2)
The whole point of Beck's educational series, events, shows and books is to wake up a nation so that WE will become active and replace this non-representative, corrupt and oppressive government. That's the most important aspect of his work and indeed the goal of his show: get people to come together and see that we are stronger than them, and there are more of us than of them.

That is the undercut, or the sub-product, of activating people.

He brought, as an example, the Pope's visit to Poland as it struggled under the Soviet yoke. Glenn pointed out that as the huge wave of people came out to greet the pope people realized that there were more of them than the Soviets, and therefore could overcome the evil empire.

The enemy would like you to believe that there are only a few of you, that you are weak and therefore don't have a chance against it. The realization that a seemingly overwhelming goal is surmountable and doable is the first step toward action.

That's what Glenn is using his show for: get us to realize that we are powerful and we can get this done. This isn't the work of a “false prophet.” This is the work of an extraordinary being who realizes what needs to be done to to get people involved in the political process.

(3)
Glenn Beck said that more important than what political party a representative belongs to is the content of his/her character; that if our representatives were people of honor we would be in good shape regardless of differences of opinion about this or that topic.

I don't believe we would have such a robust citizen uprising if it weren't for Glenn Beck and honorable people who decided it is time to come together and act.

Thanks again very much for everything you're doing.

Yes…

“… Mark, if you have evidence… present that instead of just railing against Beck himself.”

That's a great point to make to Levin the lawyer… and founder of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

Hopefully someone Levin respects can set Levin straight by telling him that the “real enemy” is those who are trying to take Beck (… and ultimately Levin and Limbaugh) down… so don't help our common political and ideological “enemy” by throwing verbal molotov cocktails at thought leader Beck.

Yes…

“… Mark, if you have evidence… present that instead of just railing against Beck himself.”

That's a great point to make to Levin the lawyer… and founder of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

Hopefully someone Levin respects can set Levin straight by telling him that the “real enemy” is those who are trying to take Beck (… and ultimately Levin and Limbaugh) down… so don't help our common political and ideological “enemy” by throwing verbal molotov cocktails at thought leader Beck.

I agree regarding the history and informative information Glenn provides for us. I occasionally listen to other conservative “talks” and “tv personalities” and NONE provide the quality of credible information that Beck provides. I know, I've followed much of the paper or video trails and have the downloads to verify his claims, as well as other unmentioned sources.

Beck provides a very valuable service to us, and I was frankly shocked by Levin's attack. I agree with most of the comments here, that we shouldn't be fighting or “backstabbing” each other – especially if we come from the same ideological position. I think Levin's attacks are more personal than professional (based on some of his wording), and this does not belong in the public forum. If he has a beef with Glenn, he needs to be a man, go talk to Glenn, and keep this sort of negative talk private.

The time is too critical for in-fighting between camps that are essentially on the same side (although I am left to question where Levin is coming from frankly). I would also venture that his venomous spewings will not increase his ratings, and in fact he will probably lose listeners – like myself.

… and there it is. The biggoted anti-Mormon dig. You're probably a big Huckabee guy. How did that work out for you? Gave us the great loser, John McCain.

Sorry, I don't see the “cult” like movement you see (in your own mind). I see a guy in Beck who is passionate about his views. I think he tends to speak in hyperbole on occasion, but he is right most of the time. (So is that hyperbole?)

Bottom line it is the ideas that matter. You might not like his style, but you cannot argue his effectiveness. It's all about how best to influence others towards the truth. (In this case we're talking about, “you say tomato, I say tomato.”)

Unfortunately, in this case, Levin can't see through the forest through the trees (maybe a touch of jealousy, no?) which is too bad because Levin is a great communicator for the conservative movement.

I'd say the ONLY thing I can agree with Levin on here is that it's BOTH principles and politics both.

I personally believe there's a fine line between the balance of activities of this world and activities beyond this world.

It honestly doesn't matter in the slightest to me personally if this world end tomorrow, but I feel the need to flip light switches so-to-speak. That's MY role on this physical plane.

I think everyone's got their own roles to play. Also…I'm not really sure where Glenn's specifically telling people not to vote or not to be an activist. The closest thing I've heard him do to what Levin mentions is saying that principles are more important than the candidates because without the principles, then candidates are garbage.

Beck is a Mormon, so what?

Jefferson was a Diest, so what?

Levin is a Jew. Last I heard Jew's are not very hip to the whole “Jesus is the Messiah” thing.

I am Eastern Orthodox, but I love a quote attributed to Martin Luther. He was asked if we should only use Christian people in our business and tarde. Luther simply said that if he were sick, he would rather be treated by a pagan surgeon than by a Christian butcher.

I don't agree with Mormonism, but while I may not think that Beck understands theology, I know he does understand freedom and the constitution.

Did Levin rail about intra-party sniping and then proceed to snipe at GB? Need I remind anyone that the opposition can be counted on to magnify any percieved division on our side and use it against us?
I think Levin and Beck are saying the same thing, but in different ways: Beck can be an alarmist at times, and Levin appears to pay particular attention to callers that agree with him.
Neither man is perfect.
Both are worthy of consideration.

Beck is a Mormon came at the end of a rather long post. I laid out my critique of Beck leading up to that for better or worse. My opinion of Beck doesn't hinge on his Mormonism.

You just proved my point. Think like me or i will silence you. Wait. What do you mean what i just said can be used against me when i am no longer in power?

Eleanor Roosevelt was never more right than when she said:

“Great minds discuss IDEAS. Average minds discuss EVENTS. Small minds never get beyond discussing PEOPLE.”

…VIVA LA IDEAS!

CM Sackett

Are they really conspiracies if they are true?

Your bigotry and arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. I suggest you look again ,Christianity is defined as a belief in the teachings of Christ and in his divinity,nothing more or less. Christianity has many differing paths,faiths or sects(pick whatever term you like),but in the end they all arrive at the same place. As to what answers or solutions individuals such as Beck,Hannity,Levin,Limbaugh,Williams or even Palin present all are worthy of consideration, your closing statement only succeeds in showing your own narrowness of thought and shallowness of mind.Perhaps you should take your own advice. Just a thought.

I have respect for Mr Levin but this really just amounts to political infighting. I dont ever remember Beck saying that we should not get out and vote or that we should not make our voices heard to our representatives. He has said that for the more political things turn to someone like a Rush or a Hannity and not him. He is performing his role as he sees it which is to inform us of our history and of what is going on. Does he come off as crazy sometimes, sure, but so does Mr Levin. If Mr Levin wants to challenge Mr Beck on facts, great either go on his show or have him on yours. It is really easy to sit behind the microphone and take shots at someone else and not give them a forum to debate with you about your accusations. Political infighting among those that lean to the right, no matter how far or little, will guarantee that Washington will be ruled by the progressive left for a long time.

Nice job trolling, fool.

You seem to greatly overestimate your own capacity to eloquently make a point, you seem fond of telling people to look things up, so here, Dunning-Kruger, look it up.

I'm no longer a fan of beck because he seems evermore to be approaching the “mission from god” self-assured zeal that can legitimately be called dangerous, and he is more a fan of telling people to ask yahweh for help than taking action themselves.

Not one of your criticisms are constructive, most are ad hominem and all are void of any sign of sound reasoning.

Ever hear of Poe's Law? I suspect you're the anti-Poe, the one that applies to people's perception of atheists.

Keep in mind that Reagan also grew a great deal of the federal government (to win the cold war, yes, but still grew the gov't) as well as fell for an amnesty deal.

We need another Coolidge, but I was saying that before Beck made it “cool.”

This is why I don't listen to Levin anymore. This just smacks of jealously. The only talk show hosts he likes are Rush and Hannity, who are personal friends, and the rest are “backbenchers.”

Ever hear of something called the Constitution? Careful what you wish for, As one day it may be used against you. The Miranda Warning is a reminder of your constitutional rights, Beck's point on the mosque was that if we allow government to ignore the 1st Amendment and they step in what is to prevent them doing it again, only next time it's a Christian church,what then? By the way if they can ignore one piece of the 1st what is to stop them from ignoring the rest? Like your right to free speech,a free press or to gather with more than say three or more like individuals to speak out. Its fairly obvious that you neither listened to what Glenn said the other day or have any concept of just what the purpose of the Constitution is. Go back to your lefty blogs and Have a nice day.

Um…..Romney's Mormon also. Not a dig, I was hoping he'd win the primary as well.

About 3 weeks ago Beck had the Freshman Congressman from Utah, Jason Chafee on his program talking about P.R. The details escape me but Glenn made it sound like the congress was about to sign off on a treaty of sorts and it was a very bad thing. I got worked up over it. I walked into my desk at work and told a co-worker about this P.R. thing. She said to me — you've got to stop listening to Limbaugh and I said it was Beck.

When I got home from work I went into my office to check out the blogs. I went to HotAir first as I alway do and there was a video of Mike Pence. I clicked on the video and it was a 5 minute floor speech on how great this P.R. deal was. I said to myself, who do you trust on this matter Beck or Pence. The answer was Pence and Beck never brought it up again. I felt akward, betrayed and concerned. I think that was about 3 weeks ago and I have not watched his show except for Founders Fridays since.

I posted earlier and a couple people replied but I was not able to get the system working as to respond so thus a second and last post. It's sad that people will not allow you to disagree with Glenn as though he was Jesus. It's sad that people say, well you must not understand Glenns brilliant constitutional positions on terrorist rights or the mosque being built across from ground zero. Glenn can't be right 100% of the time and people should be allowed to disagree with him and still find other positions they agree with.

I do think Glenn can get into your head. He's gotten into mine and you can chatise me all you want but for me I have to monitor the amout of Beck I take in. This is a small site but I bet I'm not alone. From some of the Beck defenders on this post you can see how deep he's gotten into other peoples heads as well.

Glenn at the beginning of his show today mentioned a task force meeting on the status of Puerto Rico. Rep. Jason Chaffetz just tweeted this link to the meeting: http://bit.ly/9ywsHL

Levin, in wanting to demean Glenn, unwittingly demeaned Sarah Palin, who had someone else write her book. I am not slamming Palin, just pointing out that fact.

“But then wants to redefine it or ignore it when it comes to injecting god directly into the governance of the states and nation.”

Now, see, there is the problem. None of the first amendment addresses the church's role in government, whether to encourage it or deny it. You are thinking of the phrase “seperation of church and state,” not the establishment clause. The establishment clause only addresses the CONGRESS's role in religion, that is to say none. It DOES NOT address the President's role, or the Court's role, or a public school's role. But the constitution not only refuses to restrict private or state religious role in the Federal government, it specifically requires prayer in Congress.

One place I believe Beck does miss it though is his insistence of the equality of religions, i.e. Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, etc. The founders used the term “religions” to specifically identify the various Christian denominations. All other forms of worship were called heathenism. We have broadened the definition of the term religion in the intervening years between the founders and today, and then applied the definition to the first amendment. Something tells me this was a Progressive change but that would be pure speculation on my part at this time.

As to Miranda, I was in agreement with Beck until I heard Levin's logic that it is not a Constitutional right to be reminded of your Constitutional rights. It is your responsibility to know them. Since then, I do not even believe it should be required that I be mirandized. However, it should never be the case that our actual Constitutional liberties be violated as has been suggested recently. We have the right to speedy trial, by jury, not to be detained without probable cause and not indefinitely, etc.

But not all which call themselves “Christian faiths” are so. Mormonism believes in the teachings of Christ (sort of) and his divinity, but also the divinity of all of us. It is a bit of a cop out to be able to claim “christianity” because Christ is divine when everyone is divine.

Mormonism uses many of the same terms as Christianity, but has redefined them, so that in general conversation with a mormon, a Christian tends to agree completely with him. It requires discovering what the person really meant by those words to realize you were actually having two different conversations. Mormonism is very much like Progressivism in this way, it co-opts the terms and redefines them for its purposes. In this way it is difficult for me to understand why Glenn is a Mormon, considering his distaste for Progressives.

So far, I have only read a couple who prefer Beck to Levin, but instead most like them equally, but differently.

Yes. Because they still require the conspiring of people together. The formation of the Constitution was a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy against nationalized government.

The operative word in the phrase “conspiracy theory” is theory. Beck hates those, and thus will not present anything until he is certain they are fully shown to be “conspiracy facts.”

Levin is an intellectual, Beck a pragmatist, both are needed in the battle.

Levin's schtick is logic mixed with vitriol. Beck's schtick is history mixed with comedy.

Ah, my mistake, speed-read your post, my own comment was not seeking to chastise yourself but simply to call attention to it.

I see now it was redundant.

Hats off to you Jaynie59! Though I am not an athiest, I am certain that I don't know; been there and done that too. For political purposes I have settled on a firm belief in the possibility of a Higher Power, and I really like “Nature and Nature's God,” what a great way to bring everyone together. Anyway, what is this all really about? Lots of speculation here. So what if these two mouths want to air some laundry? So what if the leftist/statists want to try and use it to divide- such tactics only work if we start screaming at each other over the issue. both Levine and Beck are humans beings and they send hours on the air searching for words. Take what ech of them has to say and use what males sense to you. Fill your war chest from whatever source; I listen to left radio and read their books too (as much as I can stand); you will best understand yourself when you understand those who think least like you. Let Mark do his thing, even if it at times seems to be self-embelishment- it's his show. And Glenn too has his “humanizing” moments of humility-like, doe-eyed egoism: they are both people. I look at like this- No one religion can bring all the sheep to salvation in this life. Look at Christianity: Baptists, Lutheran, Methodists, etc., all different sects of the same faith- holy rollers in blue jeans to the stuffiness of a full-dress Mormon prep-school, these two mouths are appealing to a different crowd of folks, Yes, there is a spill over, but one of them has caught the attention of a certain crowd, and in the interum, that certain crowd then branches out and begins to hear the politicla truth from other encomapssing sources. Our founders even agreed to a “religion of America” that was effectively neutered of detais rlated to salvation- a religion of sorts that was based on basic principles that allow all of the major religions to come together in a body politic- such was the purpose of the Jefferson Bible (If this is new to you then your homework isn't done; check out “THE 5000 YEAR LEAP”). Mark has some quirks – I don't know why, he just does. He and Michael 'Weiner” Savage have had it out too, but I get some good stuff sometimes from Savage. Pass up on the bickering and lets all get to work. As a foot note, you gotta wonder (quietly) about a man who sees darkness in every shadow who decides to join a Church whose closet is filled with modern-day shadows. BUT, I don't care- I look for truth wherever it may be found. I don't need to heroize the messenger.

Yes.

Conspiracy:

1. the act of conspiring together

2. an agreement among conspirators. a group of conspirators- Synonym – see plot

Just like Kurt Cobain said, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

Brian O'Connor
http://www.RedDogReport.com

Again more aspersions without substance, casting the seeds of doubt about,fertilizing them with innuendos.I've sat at my share of poker tables and I know a shill when I see one.

Beck hangs arround the luke warm liberial bill o rielly too much . He needs to distance himself from the rocking chair . I have noticed, beck , o rielly , fox news , and others using subliminal messages to minipulate and to coerse for someones agenda . Please be wary , There are many WOLVES in sheeps clothing .

Yes, and Dred Scott was a court decision, as well. And we did not just live with it. And this did not entirely invalidate the Court. But the Court has been given an air of infallibility today it was not intended to have. We have been taught that the Constitution established a system of checks and balances, but not on the Court. We are taught the Court is the “final” arbiter. This is not the case. The Court is checked by the Legislative and Executive branches just as the Court checks them. The fact that the typically progressively controlled Congress and Presidency do not keep the Court under appropriate supervision does not negate that fact.

Your next two paragraphs illustrate perfectly my point that the establishment clause is a one way street. Thank you for proving my point. No wall was established preventing the church from intervening in state affairs. Only the Congress in the church's activities. That said, Thomas Jefferson was not a part of the Constitution's framing nor privy to its debates. No one affiliated with this process ventured such a blanket statement of none interference, which is an important distinction. The letter you spoke of addressed concerns of the Dansbury Baptists who faced certain persecutions because of Connecticut's law establishing a different denomination. The Baptists were requesting federal intervention in this matter. Jefferson's response was to tell them that while he was sympathetic, a wall of seperation had been established federally and also it was not within federal jurisdiction. In other words, it was a state matter, as delineated in the Tenth ammendment.

I would have to look up the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but your characterization of its implications seem much more intrusive than was typical for the people of the founders day. Does it really “flat out restrict the government from 'mixing' with religion,” or does it instead restrict the government from INTERFERING with religion. This is a massive distinction.

As to the Lemon test, it is a perfect example of the overreach of the court as exemplified in Roe V. Wade and other recent rulings which establish some constitutional precedent not actually found in the Constitution. Again, the First amendment does not address the jurisdiction of the several States, but only the Congress of the United States. The Supreme Court is fully capable of making mistakes just as the Congress and President are. These mistakes also need to be remedied.

I do not dispute the definition you gave of religion. I did however assert that the Founders viewed only the Judeo-Christian religion as true religion, and others as false. They called these false religions either paganism or heathenism. In actuality, true Christian practice will allow other religion to be practiced even despite the belief it is a wrong religion. It is a fundamental precept of Christianity that people are naturally wrong and that it is also not up to us to condemn them for it (people's failings in regard to this do not negate their factuality). Thus, Christianity provides the freedom to practice false religion. The further we get away from a Christian view of freedom and governance, the more tyrannical the governement will be. While it is not the place of the Congress to establish or prevent religion, it is imperative that the Church be integrally active in government.

This next paragraph of yours needs some qualification. If my goal is the freedom and liberty historically found in the United States of America, then yes, I would only be cool with my religion (Christianity) dictating the behavior of government officials. If however, my goal was some other government, less free, more restrictive, more tyrannical, then I would believe my religion was not sufficient to those ends, and thus some other religion would be necessary to the dictation of government behaviors.

The next paragraph of yours is wholly imbecilic, and I mean that with all due respect. Your analogy misses the whole point and the assertion you make is in 180 degree contradiction to everything in my post. I continue to assert it is not the place of the Congress to favor one religion over another, thus, I am not at all hopeful of being favored over others. I am perfectly happy seeking the freedom of other religions to practice theirs, even as I attempt to convert them to mine.

You only get the sense of tyranny because of your own prejudice. Even the Founders did not support subjugation of “false” religions, despite belief in their inferiority. I make no assertion of selective treatment under the law. Instead I seek to actually apply the law as put forth, rather than changing the law to what it is not. Point of fact, the Lemon test, Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists are not in the Constitution, and neither have they amended the Constitution. Until this time, I will continue to seek the proper application of law. For example, Virginia's Statute is perfectly Constitutional in that it is Virginia state's right to implement it. It does not violate the Constitution, as long as it does not become applied on a national level.

You have a valid point concerning Miranda. However, perhaps you can point out to me where the Supreme Court has been given the power to dictate due process. Hint: you will not find it in the Constitution, which is the determiner of the powers of the Court. If law enforcement is not acting according to the law, then it is subject to prosecution, not being dictated to by a Court with an overdeveloped sense of power.

I would also invite you to take that same 8 seconds and consider that this already has happened. Additionally, I would invite you to reread my previous post, which you have obviously ignored, and find that I am not in favor of denying ACTUAL Constitutional rights to citizens, regardless their religion.

As to your edit, can you explain to me how the founders understanding of the presence of other religions somehow disproves their belief that these religions were in fact false ones? I would also be interested in your citation of your assertion. I have heard Beck make the same unreferenced statement, and would appreciate some validation for it.

Don't tell me I miss the point. I get the point and I think he is wrong!!

Everyone has there own style, why is it so hard for people like Levin and the rest to accept? Glenn has a style and method all his own, and it makes no sense when “conservatives” (conservatives that rail against liberals, for example, that say don't want debate, but only want to silence their opponent. Yet they demonize someone like Beck because they don't always like their opinion or style…just like Levin does-beyond hypocritical) attack him for it.

Why the hell does Levin expect Beck to follow his opinion on how a talk show host should present themselves to their audience? Beck's dramatic increase in his audience OBVIOUSLY shows us his style is successful-so why break what isn't broken…

Why the hell can't Levin do his thing, and Beck do his? In the end we're fighting for the same thing-so what's the deal.

Stop acting petty and appearing childish over another person's success and do what you need to do to return our government to the one our founders envisioned. That doesn't include pathetic personal attacks on the same side.

i accidentally liked that. my bad.

because of his brand of faith you allow that to factor into your dislike of him? lame. if tradition involves pathetic personal attacks (and not perhaps..the content of his debate) and attacking the fact that he's, gasp, Mormon, then that tradition sucks ass.

why are you so focused on Beck's religion and not his ideas and opinions? If you consider yourself a Christian or a decent person you understand that type of attack is incredibly unbecoming of a Christian or a decent person. It's bigoted and hateful and instead of addressing the message it personally attacks the messenger.

Don't claim you know what a Christian should be doing when you have no idea what it means to be a Christian.

Shut up? So elegant coming from the enlightened, intelligent class you claim to be part of.

i agree, none of us want to see it built but i believe beck's point, or one of them anyhow, is that if you make new rules up as you go to stop something like this from happening, then that opens up the possibility of leaders, for example, making up rules to prevent us from doing what is constitutionally guaranteed in the future.

there are ways to make a difference in the fate of the mosque but to justify making new rules up as we go will just bite us in the butt down the road.