C3

Yet Even More Evidence That David Barton's History Cannot Be Trusted

Just last month, we wrote a long post exposing the way in which David Barton routinely misrepresents court cases in an effort to support his pseudo-history and promote his cultural and political agenda. Today, we came across another instance of Barton doing the same thing with a different court case while delivering a presentation a few weeks ago at Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California.

Barton was making the case that, until the Supreme Court's decision in Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 — which Barton also routinely misrepresents — teaching the Bible in public schools had been the norm. To support this point, Barton cited the Supreme Court's 1844 ruling in a case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors, which he claimed declared that no school that refused to teach the Bible could receive public funds:

"We look at Christian schools today," Barton said, "and we think that's alternative education. No, no, no. Christians schools is mainstream education. Secular education is brand new in America. We never had that before. That's the new thing ... In 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court had case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors and what you had was a government-operated school that was not going to teach the Bible and the Supreme Court came back with an unanimous 8-0 decision and the Supreme Court said well, if you don't want to teach the Bible, you don't have to teach the Bible but you do have to become a private school. We're not going to fund any public school that won't teach the Bible.

As usual, if you actually take the time to read this case, the facts in no way support Barton's interpretation.

The case involved an extremely wealthy man named Stephen Girard who, as a childless widower, left in his will large sums of money to the City of Philadelphia for various civic improvements, as well as money to establish a school for "poor male white orphan children."

Among the stipulations Girard placed upon the school was that no religious leader was ever to hold a position there, nor could any specific denominational doctrine be taught:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever, but as there is such a multitude of sects and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Some of Girard's heirs then sued on various technical grounds that are not germane to Barton's point, as well as by arguing that prohibiting clergy from working or teaching at the school was a violation of both the Constitution and the Common Law because it discriminated against Christianity.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument:

All that we can gather from his language is that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means, and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive. The objection, then, in this view, goes to this -- either that the testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his scheme of education (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation), or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those truths. In either view can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the bill of rights already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded because we are not aware that anything exists in the Constitution or laws of Pennsylvania or the judicial decisions of its tribunals which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar school. And in America, it has been thought, in the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies. It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require anything to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.

This view of the whole matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine the other and remaining question, to whom, if the devise were void, the property would belong, whether it would fall into the residue of the estate devised to the city, or become a resulting trust for the heirs at law.

Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly.

Barton's representation of this case is entirely false, as it had literally nothing to do with the teaching of the Bible nor any requirement that schools must do so in order to receive public funds.

Despite the fact that his claims are totally false, Barton will nonetheless continue to make them in future presentations, secure in the knowledge that his Religious Right supporters will never hold him accountable for his misinformation and misrepresentations.

Fischer: Banning 'Stop And Frisk' Is 'A Hate Crime Against Black Citizens'

On "Meet The Press" yesterday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson had a heated exchange on the issue of police violence in black communities. On his radio show today, Bryan Fischer predictably sided with Giuliani on the issue, declaring that banning the use of "stop and frisk" policing was committing a hate crime against black people.

Fischer, whose love of black men is well established, asserted that since most of those arrested under "stop and frisk" were black, the people who were most protected by "stop and frisk" were other black people.

"These areas were riven with black-on-black crime," Fischer said. "Stop and frisk started to bring those numbers down. When you go away from stop and frisk ... you are endangering black citizens. It's like a hate crime against black citizens. You are exposing them to risk by removing a law enforcement tool":

>

Glenn Beck Calls For Department Of Education To Be Shut Down Based On Facebook Mom's Anecdote

A rather manic Glenn Beck spent an entire segment of his radio broadcast today speaking with a woman who posted a message on his Facebook page about how her daughter's kindergarten teacher had reportedly told her students not to listen to anyone who was not their teacher. Even worse, this teacher was also allegedly refusing to honor the pilgrims during a class segment on Thanksgiving on the grounds that they were "terrorists."

Beck, of course, was absolutely infuriated by these anecdotes, saying there were analogous to the Hitler Youth and  declaring that the only solution was to get rid of the Department of Education entirely.

"There is no reform that is going to be good enough," Beck announced. "You have to shut down the Department of Education. It must be turned off ... The only way is to shut down the machine. You have to reboot the entire system and wipe the hard drive. That's the only way":

Fischer: Impeachment Campaign Should Copy The Gay Rights Movement

On his Friday radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer said that conservatives need to keep talking about impeaching President Obama over his executve action on immigration in order to bring about the "social change" necessary to make it acceptable, just like gay activists did with the issue of homosexuality.

"I'll give you a perverse example," Fischer said. "The homosexual lobby, they said we want to overhaul straight America. We want to turn them into thinking this is not aberrant sexual deviant behavior. We want them to think this is wonderful. How do we do that? Well, number one, we just use the word 'homosexual' over and over and over again. We just keep talking about homosexual, homosexual, homosexual, homosexual. We get people accustomed to it. We get them used to it, so we get past the shock factor of what the word homosexual actually means. They say don't let them think about what homosexuals actually do, that will gross them out, just use the word homosexual over and over and over again and eventually people will get used to it. It will become normal, it will become part of kind of the lingo."

"Well that's exactly, I believe, in a positive sense, what we need to do with impeachment," he said. "Let's just keep talking about impeachment all the time. Let's make it a normal part of the political discourse to consider impeachment":

Glenn Beck Seeks To Become The Walt Disney Of Jesus Stories

Last week, Glenn Beck hosted an hour-long, commercial-free television special during which he discussed the myriad health problems he had faced in recent years, with the big takeaway being that he has decided to shift the focus of his company toward telling stories in an effort to change the culture.

To that end, Beck's company has announced that it is producing on a family program called "History House" and a scripted drama about Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison, as well a film about a warrior Santa tasked with protecting Jesus Christ and another super-secret Spanish-language film called "The Revolutionary" that will also apparently be about Jesus.

In order to fund all of these projects, Beck is selling t-shirts and various pieces of artwork, as well as tickets to a "Keys to the Kingdom" event where, for $5000, attendees will get to spend an entire day at Beck's studio where they will have an opportunity to look behind the scenes at all of the projects that Beck has in the works.

Beck spent the last segment of his radio broadcast promoting these fundraising efforts along with Ben McPherson, whom Beck has hired to bring all of his visions to life, and the two explained that the fundamental purpose behind every project they do is to turn Beck and his The Blaze network into the Walt Disney of Jesus stories.

"I'm modeling everything on Disney," Beck said, explaining that his network was built in order to have a platform from which to spread his vision and stories, all of which are going to be about Jesus in one way or another. "We are driven by telling the story of Christ in every way we possibly can."

"It shouldn't be overt," McPherson added, "but it should always point to him in some way."

"You will always see in everything that we do, there will always be something that you go 'oh my gosh, look at that, I wonder if they knew [that was a reference to Jesus]?'" Beck said. "Yes. Yes we did. Yes we did."

Daubenmire: Christians Can Never Compromise On Allowing Gays To 'Come Out Of The Closet'

On his "News With Views" commentary today, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire made the case that conservative Christians can never compromise one iota when it comes to homosexuality, which he said should be a criminal offense.

As Daubenmire explained, once Christians compromised on God's standard of "no homosexuality [and] sodomy is a crime" by agreeing to allow gay people to "come out of the closet and be recognized," it became impossible to stop gay marriage.

"The church is rot with compromise," Daubenmire said. "Values we used to stand for we now compromise because why? We think maybe God was a little bit crazy back in those old days when he made some of those rules ... Compromise isn't a good thing. How do we know that? Because the Lord himself said, 'I change not. I'm the same yesterday, today, and forever.' He is a solid rock. He doesn't compromise. And neither should we on values that matter. Compromise is deadly, folks."

Just to clarify the point that Daubenmire is making here, he is saying that Christians can never compromise on God's rules, even the Old Testament ones that might seem "a little bit crazy" ... like Leviticus 20:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Beck: The AP 'Just Raped Bill Cosby' By Asking About The Sexual Assault Allegations

Last night, the Associated Press released an interview that one of its reporters recently conducted with Bill Cosby in which the comedian refused to comment on the multiple allegations of sexual assault that have been leveled against him, after which he asked that any footage of him refusing to comment be cut from the interview.

Glenn Beck discussed to topic on his radio broadcast today and lashed out at the media, saying that "journalism is the most dishonorable, dishonest, callous, cynical, mean, stupid, stupid people and industry I have ever seen" and fuming that Cosby's reputation is being ruined because he is being unfairly vilified in the court of public opinion.

This is, of course, particularly ironic coming from someone like Beck, who is currently being sued for having spent several days in 2013 publicly accusing one of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing of being an Al Qaeda terrorist responsible for that very bombing.

Cosby himself admitted during the exchange in question that "we didn't say that up-front [that questions regarding the allegations were off limits] because we thought that AP had the integrity to not ask" and the AP also clarified that it "had made no agreement to avoid questions about the allegations or to withhold publishing any of his comments at any time."

Despite being totally wrong about the very issue that served as the foundation of his entire rant, Beck nevertheless blasted the AP for asking Cosby about the allegations and then releasing the footage of him refusing to comment, saying that by doing so, "you've just raped Bill Cosby."

"You want to talk about rape? That's media rape, right there," Beck said. "You said you would not do that. Since when does your 'no' mean 'yes'? Do you know the definition of 'no,' sir? You've just raped Bill Cosby. You said you wouldn't do it. You just did it and then you blamed it on him. My gosh, maybe we should have a lesson on rape":

Glenn Beck Is Always Two Years Ahead Of Everyone Else

All of Glenn Beck's programming yesterday was dedicated to the message "I Choose Hope" because, as he explained on his television program last night, very bad things are coming in the next two years and so he and his audience need to "prepare our hearts" in order to be ready to save this nation when things fall apart.

"I know I'm ahead of the parade on this," Beck said, "and I'm asking you to go with me because I usually am, hopefully, two years ahead in this case of bad things happening. And I always look like an idiot for about a two year period, but I'm telling you, bad things are coming and when they do [we have to be] spiritually ready to help people with they are surrounded by darkness and shadows":

'Ex-Gay' Activist Says Nobody Is Born Gay, They Are Just Born With A 'Sensitive Temperament'

"Ex-gay" activist Christopher Doyle was a guest on the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" radio broadcast this morning where he informed hosts Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano that nobody is born gay but rather some people are simply born with a "sensitive temperament" that makes them think they are gay.

"There's no such thing as a gay gene or gay hormones or gay brain. Those studies have been debunked," Doyle said. "What the sensitive temperament does is it makes the client more vulnerable to experiencing these hurts and this lack of attachment and bonding growing up. And whenever they get to puberty, they start unconsciously sexualizing all those emotional need to the same sex."

Doyle, who works with the "ex-gay" group Voice of the Voiceless, then continued to lay out his theory with an even more confusing explanation about how young boys who do not know other boys while growing up then become sexually attracted to boys instead of girls when they hit puberty.

"It's really the psyche's way of saying, 'Hey, I want to know the same sex and I want to get to know them so therefore I'm sexualizing this emotional need because of that psychological drive," he said. "But in actuality, if you look underneath the surface, what you see in these individuals is they have a desperate longing to have emotional intimacy with the same sex and that why they're sexually attracted. It's not really attraction, it's really an emotional longing to have that relationship with a man and that's what's really going on there:"

Beck: Obama's Immigration Action And Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Will Lead To A Race War

Glenn Beck opened his television program last night with a monologue in which he warned that if President Obama taxes executive action on immigration in the same week that a grand jury decision regarding the possible indictment of Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown is expected, it will lead to an all-out race war in America and the rise of a "strong man" dictator.

Beck has been warning that Obama is trying to foment a race war for well over a year now, and last night he asserted that the only possible reason why Obama would take a controversial executive action at such a time as this is because he wants the nation to be torn apart along racial lines.

A lack of an indictment in the Brown killing will incite the Left, Beck warned, while Obama's executive order will incite the Right ... and when that happens, all hell will break loose.

"When you have everybody fighting and you have race involved and people are scared, isn't this usually when a strong man steps in and says, 'I can fix it'?" Beck said. "Please pray for our president. Please pray for the republic. And so it begins. They mocked 'preppers' and now as the unrest becomes more of a reality, the advice being given this week, on the eve of potential violence, is prepare":

Fischer Proposes Religious Right Conclave To Pick The Next GOP Presidential Nominee

On his radio broadcast today, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer called for Religious Right leaders to gather together for what would amount to a political papal conclave designed to pick the next Republican presidential nominee.

Worrying that the Religious Right may have too many excellent choices among the crop of 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls and may end up diluting its power by splitting its support among various candidates as a result, Fischer suggested that Religious Right leaders ought to organize a summit where they would all gather and relentlessly "grill [the candidates] one after another."

"Probe them and challenge them and test them and ask them really hard questions about what they would do as president of the United States with this issue or that issue," Fischer said. "And get some promises from these guys."

After said grilling, Religious Right leaders would then collectively decide "on one candidate that you as a group of leaders would recommend that the entire evangelical community gather behind."

"It's kind of like picking a Pope," he said:

Rafael Cruz: The Poor Man's David Barton

The Sunday before the midterm elections, Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Sen. Ted Cruz, spoke at John Hagee's church in San Antonio, Texas, where he spent an entire hour delivering a speech that was literally little more than an amalgamation of material that he has directly pilfered from other Religious Right speakers, most notably pseudo-historian David Barton.

As we have noted before, the elder Cruz is quite fond of lifting Barton's misinformation about American history and the Constitution and passing it along during his own presentations, but the speech he delivered at Hagee's church was quite remarkable for just how much of it was simply a rehashing of Barton's standard presentation.

Cruz's presentation was such a wholesale rip-off that he even managed to work in Barton's false claim that the Supreme Court banned school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools because it could cause brain damage:

This is a false claim that Cruz lifted directly from Barton, who has been spreading this misinformation for years and which we debunked back in 2013:

The Supreme Court, when it took the Bible out of public schools, said that this is without precedent; there is no precedent in our history for taking the Bible out of schools but this is the time to do it.

Now, if there is no historical precedent, why would they say the Bible has to go out of schools?  I mean, everything we have in history says just the opposite, so why?  They quoted Dr. Solomon Grayzel on the reason that we need to get the Bible out of schools ... In the Supreme Court decision, this is what the Court said why the Bible has to come out of schools; the Court says this:

If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.

Time out.  Let me see if I get this: if we keep reading the Bible in schools, our kids are going to suffer from brain damage? Yeah, that was the reason given by the Court for the removal of the Bible out of the classroom back in 62-63.

Of course, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that this citation of Dr. Grayzel appeared at the beginning of the decision when the Supreme Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial. 

On top of that, Barton also utterly misrepresented the point of Grayzel's testimony, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

Donnie Swaggart Says That Gay Rights Activists Would Love To Behead Christians

Last month, Donnie Swaggart, son of the infamous televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, hosted a panel discussion on the "Frances & Friends" television program dedicated to discussing the controversy that had erupted in Houston, Texas, after the mayor's office subpoenaed sermons and other materials from a handful of pastors as part of a lawsuit anti-gay activists had filed in an effort to overturn a local antidiscrimination ordinance.

During the show, Swaggart asserted that, like ISIS, gay rights activists in America would publicly behead Christians if they could get away with it.

"All of this is to shut the Bible up," Swaggart declared. "They want the Bible gone. And I'm going to make a statement: These people that are trying to do this in Houston, the only difference between them and ISIS, those thugs in Iraq, is those here cannot chop our heads off. That's the only difference. The heart is the same. The heart is the same. If they could silence us that way to intimidate others, that's exactly what they would do":

UPDATE: Swaggart's SonlifeTV has filed a copyright complaint and YouTube has removed this video. We have already filed a counter-claim arguing that this video is protected under fair use and we fully expect it to be restored. In the meantime, we have uploaded the clip elsewhere:

Fischer: Muslim Prayer Service At National Cathedral Was 'Spiritual Sabotage'

On Friday, a Muslim prayer service that was held at the National Cathedral was predictably interrupted by a right-wing Christian activist. Just as predictably, Bryan Fischer is now praising that activist as a modern-day Elijah for taking a stand against this prayer rally, which he called a "desecration" and "spiritual sabotage."

Fischer, who was already on record as opposing the prayer service, said on his radio show today that allowing Muslims to gather to pray to a "demon god who goes by the name of Allah" was a desecration of the National Cathedral, asserting that it is all part of Islam's attempt to destroy America from within.

"This was an act of spiritual and national sabotage," Fischer said. "It's as if they had dug some tunnels under the floor of the National Cathedral and filled them with explosives to completely obliterate our spiritual history and our spiritual traditions":

Rick Scarborough: 'Christians Have Infiltrated The Republican Party In Texas' And Turned It Into A Revival Meeting

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP.

Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.

"Christians have infiltrated the Republican Party in Texas and it's like going to revival meetings when you go to our state conventions," Scarborough said. "That's why God's blessing our state and why, I believe, Texas has become a model for other states":

Fischer: God 'Quickened The Campaigns' Of Republicans In Response To Our Prayers

While appearing on Jerry Newcombe's "Vocal Point" radio program last week, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer doubled down on his assertion that the prayers of anti-gay activists at the recent "I Stand Sunday" event caused God to help Republican candidates win their races for elected office in the last election.

"A good part of that evening, the pastors and the people in that congregation and all those across the country got down on their faces before God to repent of our sins, to seek God's favor over this land because of the threat to religious liberty," Fischer said. "And on Tuesday, we saw these resounding election results and I have to think there was a connection. When God's people got on their faces in repentance in faith over the issue of religious liberty, how threatened it is in our land, how important it is, I think God heard those prayers and I believe he quickened the campaigns of those who are willing to stand for religious liberty and Tuesday, I think, was part of the fruit of those prayers and that repentance":

Staver: Like Nazi Germany, America Will Fall If It Does Not Support Israel

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Mat Staver made the incoherent case that the United States must stand firm in its support of Israel because states that do not do so eventually go out of existence while the nation of Israel continues to exist.

Staver asserted that, throughout history, every nation that has opposed Israel has fallen, starting with Egypt and continuing up through Nazi Germany, warning that America will face the same fate if this nation does not stand by Israel.

"Egypt, the most powerful nation on the planet, that regime of the Pharaohs is gone," Staver asserted. "Now the land of Egypt is still there but the government that was in existence is gone. Israel still exists as an identifiable nation, the language is still there. Babylon, that most powerful nation on the planet, stood against Israel. Babylon is gone, [it's now] modern day Iraq or Baghdad. The Persian government that went against Israel to some extent but also then helped Israel to go back and rebuild the temple, it's gone. It's modern day Iran. You go through year after year, decade after decade, century after century, the Nazi Germany machine, becoming the most powerful government on the planet. The Nazi German machine is gone."

"America needs to stand with Israel," Staver concluded, "because there's been one constant through history, through millennia of human history, and that is Israel has existed no matter the opposition it's faced":

Fischer: People Recoil At Transgenderism Because God Does

Bryan Fischer kicked off his radio broadcast today with a discussion of Deuteronomy 22, in particular the prohibition against women wearing men's clothes or men wearing women's clothes, asserting that this is God's way of saying that He does not approve of transgenderism, which is why people recoil upon seeing transgender individuals.

Deuteronomy 22: 5 states:

A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Fischer assured his audience that this does not apply to people who are just "fooling around" by dressing up as the opposite sex or prohibit unisex styles of clothing, but rather it is a prohibition on people presenting themselves as members of the opposite sex, because doing so in "an abomination."

"What the word 'abomination' refers to is this just internal kind of glitch that we get when we see that," Fischer said. "That comes from God because God reacts to that the same way that we do. We see transgenderism on display and there's something inside us that recoils against that. There's something inside us that says that is not normal. There's something inside us that says that is not right. And God feels exactly the same way about that as we do. That inner recoil that we experience when we see that on display, we got that capacity from God because we are made in his image":

Just last week, Fischer made a very similar argument for why people supposedly recoil at the thought of "homosexual behavior."

A Helpful Lesson From Glenn Beck On Nicki Minaj And The Importance Of Keeping Kosher

It has been a few months since Glenn Beck went off on one of his trademark tangents in which he attempts to deliver some important lesson but merely ends up rambling rather incoherently.

On his television broadcast last night, Beck grew increasingly manic during his opening monologue as he tried to explain to his audience his utter horror over the new Nicki Minaj video which features lots of Nazi-like imagery.

Saying that the video is "the most degrading thing I have seen," Beck then sought to explain that this video was somehow a violation of the Torah's requirement to keep kosher because it was mixing "graphic, awful sex with the images of death."

God commands Jews to keep kosher, Beck explained, because "milk is life" and "meat is death" and so "you don't put life and death together." And that is exactly what Nicki Minaj did in her video, Beck said, which is why, when you see it, "every warning bell in you goes off."

"That's not keeping kosher," he said. "You're mixing life and death. You put those two together, it is the height of evil, okay? That's what God is trying to tell us with keeping kosher. That's sacred! Creating life is sacred. Death, not good! Don't put those two together. Well, that's what happened. When you see that video, that's exactly what happened":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious