Glenn Beck, Evil, and Us

I am convinced that there will be no virtue in Hell. It will not exist there. Not even a residue of it.

Glenn Beck has the Lord's Prayer upside down: "On Earth as it is in Hell."

I say this because Glenn Beck compared the young victims of the Norway massacre to Hitler youth. The blogger who reported this (see below) states that Beck did not condone the killing. But Beck dips his finger in the water before he jumps in. For example, he claimed on Fox News that President Obama hates White people. He backed off when even his Fox News cohorts balked at his offensive accusation. But before he backed off, he offered this accusation to the world.

As to the Norwegian victims: before their toe tags had been taken off for burial, Beck gestured to a shadow of a justification for their assassination by a right-wing, Christian fanatic.

This sickened me.

1. Even Glenn Beck is complicated.

Yet I believe that human beings are complicated. To see someone as a cartoon villain instead of as a person with good and evil inside is wrong. My commitment to seeing complexity in humans makes me try to understand how Beck can be say something so sickening.

This goes against my instinct. My instinct is to say that when the Evil One speaks, Glenn Beck’s lips move.

But that would be wrong. So here goes my meditation on Glenn Beck.

2. Beck is disoriented by a mix of conservatism, Christianity, and evil.

Somebody deeply decent that I am related to condones torture. I was dismayed when I learned that. But I know that he strongly identifies with the Republican Party and with George W. Bush. This relative could see no evil in his president or party. So Bush’s endorsement of torture moved him to endorse it, too. I believe that the shallowness of President Bush is a falling light that caused shadows to rise among those who admired him. These shadows rose in my deeply decent relative. They took the form of considering a great evil to be a great good.

If he had been willing to see evil in the president – even if he saw good, too – my deeply decent relative’s morality would not have been darkened by Bush.

This shows how some people might idealize persons, and therefore not be able to see evil in them, to their detriment.

Now Beck. Beck does not so much idealize a single person. But he idealizes persons, like the assassin, who have qualities of Christianity and conservatism. To Glenn Beck, Christianity and conservatism, which the assassin embraces in the extreme, are good things. Perhaps to Beck, if Christianity and conservatism are good things, extreme Christianity and extreme conservatism are extremely good.

Could it be that Beck cannot recognize the evil effect of these things in the Norwegian assassin? Like my deeply decent relative, Beck might see a person as good or evil, not good and evil. Because he is a conservative Christian, this assassin, Beck might deep down want to see him as good or as mostly good.

If so, it must disorient him to see Christianity and conservatism and murder exist together in the Norwegian assassin. To restore his own mental equilibrium, Beck must find a way to reconcile this perceived goodness with murder. That involves contriving a way to make the death of the scores of victims not a bad thing, but somehow a good thing.

Naziism is a premier evil, so it becomes a handy label with which to blacken the blameless. Beck immolates the memories of the dead to preserve his ideology.

3. Beck might be acting out of anxiety for his followers.

Another explanation. Perhaps Beck considers his ideology to be an ark in dangerous seas. Himself an extremist, perhaps he worries that this proof of the evil of extremism, Christian extremism and conservative extremism, will demoralize his followers. Beck might fear that this demoralization will make some of his followers jump off his ark, to their peril. So it is out of compassion that he stains the memory of the dead – compassion for those who listen to him.

4. But that doesn’t make defaming the dead right.

This is the best that I can do to explain what Beck has said. I know that what I write is shallow and unsatisfying.

Even though I try to explain what Beck has said, I don’t justify it. Evil with a reason behind it is still evil. To say that there is some compassion or logic mixed in with what Beck says is not to say in any ultimate way that he is a good person. It only acknowledges that he is a complicated person.

5. Making peace with Glenn Beck.

But to say that Beck is complicated is to concede his humanity. To say that Beck is complicated is to say that he is like me and like every person that I know. We differ only in degree, because nobody is entirely good or entirely evil.

The Norwegian assassin had one kind of extreme Christianity. Another extreme Christianity – let me distinguish it by calling it radical Christianity – calls us to recognize our universal moral poverty before God. With the prophet Isaiah, we are called to say:

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. [Isaiah 64:6.]

Isaiah calls us to know our universal moral poverty before God. Having in mind this universal moral poverty, a Christian does not look upon a Glenn Beck and say, "There but for the grace of God go I." A Christian says, "There I go."

And if I look at Glenn Beck in this way, then I must say, "Glenn Beck is me."

_________________________

My source for Glenn Beck’s statement:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/a-madman-and-his-manifesto/

A Stench in the Nostril of God

Lies are a stench in God’s nostril. In the first ten Psalms, four condemn lies and deceit. In the third chapter of the Bible, Eden is lost because of a snake. Satan is called a "liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44.)

To a believer, God hath said should be the last word. It may be, or not.  And not everybody believes. So, God aside, here is a think-piece on truth and lies.

This is not "It’s nice to be good." This is a big deal. In Nixon’s "I’m not a crook";  in  Reagan’s   "[W]e did not - repeat - did not trade weapons, or anything else, for hostages"; in Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman"; and in Bush/43’s – well, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o – in all of these, our leaders pissed on public virtue. And America is fumbling with its zipper.

I don’t want to be preachy. But before we amble down into Gehenna with Richard, Ronald, Bill, and George, let’s look at the landscape of where we are headed. Let’s look back at what we are leaving.

1. Power.

Truth gives power to the weak.

In a court contest against a powerful adversary, a poorer, less-lawyered party can tell himself, "I have truth on my side". This declaration gives moral strength. It literally encourages.

And truth matters. By and large, judgment in court is based on truth. This is important, because a rich man can buy lawyers, but he can’t buy truth. If society values it, truth makes a legal contest more fair.

We expect that the party that should prevail in court can prevail. We expect that being right matters. Yes, our courts aren’t perfect. Sometimes courts convict the innocent. Sometimes courts give judgment against the righteous. But jurors try to rule right. They take seriously their duty to discover the truth. And that matters.

If judgment weren’t based on truth, it would have to be based on something else. Without judgment based on truth, judgment would be more often against the weak and for the powerful.

Like elsewhere. A former colleague of mine became a prosecutor in a court of another culture – I forget where. He told me that judgment there was based on the parties’ comparative status, not on the truth. And in Russia, jury tampering by the government is common. Russian jurors report government interference, but Russian judges do nothing; they even help the government. This happens because Russian courts exist not to determine the truth. They exist to vindicate the government.

These are examples of courts where truth plays a subordinate role. This is unheard of in America’s recent legal history. We assume that a court case is a search for the truth or falsity behind the charges. We may not perfectly find out the truth, but we try to, blunt as the effort sometimes may be.

But if truth is thought of as a shabby has-been, we lose the power of truth in our courts. We become like courts in other countries where truth is valued only if it meshes with any other goal of the court system – upholding the rich against the poor, upholding the insiders against the outsiders, upholding the government against the people. And that would be tragic for us.

2. Usefulness.

Truth is helpful.

Truth acts as a common ground. We might argue about values, but we fundamentally expect that we will agree on basic facts. If disagreement about facts separate us, we try to return to the common ground of agreed facts. If we did not intend for basic facts to be our common ground, the bedrock of our decision-making would be sinking sand.

Society makes life-and-death decisions based on facts. Do we go to war, or no? That depends upon whether our adversary is seeking weapons of mass destruction or not. Do we extend unemployment benefits to the unemployed, or no? That depends upon whether the unemployed need the benefits to stay afloat while they seek work, or if a government stipend squelches their effort to find replacement work. Do we reform health care so that sick people don’t die because they are poor, or no? That depends upon whether the reform includes provisions to kill old people (aka "Death Panels"). These are decisions where truth was needed to make right, crucial choices. These are decisions where people will choose wrong if they believe lies. These are cases in which lives will be wasted by a wrong decision.

People who inject truth into society’s debates help society make right choices. People who inject lies corrode society’s decision-making.

People also make important personal decisions based on truth. Sometimes my clients wobble about whether to take a plea bargain or go to trial. I often tell them, "I wasn’t there. You were. You know what happened. If the charges are true, then this is a fair deal. But if the charges are false, then no deal is worthwhile and you should fight the case in front of a jury." Most of my clients make the right decision.

3. Morality.

Morality presumes truth.

Lies are the servants of immorality. A man who gets between sheets with a woman not his wife tells his wife that he was driving home a co-worker. A person who destroys the innocence of a child denies molestation. A police officer who wrongfully beats a man claims that the man assaulted him. A politician who betrays his constituency says he acted on their behalf. A thief denies stealing.

Lies make a mockery of morality. Some people labor to do right, even when doing wrong would be easier or more profitable. But the liar cheaply gains the benefit of virtue by falsely claiming it.

4. Culture.

In our culture, we value and expect truth.

In romance, we don’t expect a suitor to woo a bride with lies. Someone who does is called a cad.

In medicine, we don’t expect a doctor to give us advice he knows is wrong. A doctor who does is called a quack.

In law, lawyers have a duty to speak truthfully to the judge Dishonest lawyers are called shysters.

In science, we don’t expect scientists to fudge data. One who does is despised in the scientific community.

In business, businesses are expected to be upright. We are shocked to be cheated.

We expect our friends to be honest with us. When we discover that a friend has lied, we loose trust in him.

The assault on truth turns back all of these expectations and values.

5. Conclusion.

Lies do to truth what forgeries do to currency. They debase it. They shake people’s trust in it.

When nominated as a Republican Senate candidate, Lincoln said:

A house divided against itself cannot stand'.(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

In truth and lies, the same must be true. Between virtue and evil, the middle cannot hold.

One last note. I started out saying that lies are a stench in God’s nostril.  I started out saying that to believers, God hath said may be the last word. But to be clear: in my observation, believers are not noticeably more truthful than non-believers. This makes me sad to behold believers.

Sources

For more on Russian government interference with juries: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=russian%20juries&st=cse