Why does Penn Jillette hate this word?

Last night, Glenn Beck sat down with Penn Jillete for a full hour to discuss tolerance and religious views. See why Penn Jillette hates the word "tolerance" and disagrees with trying to persuade someone to your own form of belief.

Rough Transcript Below:

Glenn Hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and to TheBlaze. This is the network that you are building. It’s odd to be a Christian, a Mormon, an atheist, in a Greek Orthodox church.

Penn We’ve got it all covered. This is what a church looks like on the inside?

Glenn This is what it looks like on the inside.

Penn High ceilings, good for juggling.

Glenn I know.

Penn They do a lot of juggling in here?

Glenn No juggling in here.

Penn What a waste of some nice ceilings.

Glenn We actually wanted to talk a little bit about everything, but I want to kind of start on tolerance, because I think we’re having a hard time understanding tolerance in America on all sides.

Penn I sure have a hard time with it. It’s a word that I really don’t like because it’s a word that often brings to mind condescension. There’s a way you do tolerance. And because we use that word in other context too, you know, I was tolerating him. We were out to dinner. There’s your wife’s friend, and I tolerate him. It’s got such a negative connotation. So often when you’re a group of people and someone starts saying nut stuff that everybody knows is nut stuff, you know, whenever that happens to be in that social group, I don’t even care what it is, but just for the social group it’s nut stuff, everybody smiles and nods and let’s that move on.

That kind of tolerance seems to me to be not good. It seems the tolerance that smiles and nods is really not good. I think you want a kind of tolerance that says I like you as a person, and you’re wrong. And that’s the hardest kind of tolerance to do. When you want to live together in a society, trying to find those rules—we pretty much have the rules for physical violence down. We know where that is. As Steve Allen said, my right to swing my arms stops with your face.

Glenn Right.

Penn I can do this, and no one has any trouble. I move three feet that way, all of a sudden we have trouble. With words and ideas, because ideas matter, and the only way you find out you’re wrong is to state your case very clearly.

Glenn I agree with you; however, we have to be able to allow people to say you’re wrong, where we’re not allowing people to say you’re wrong or I disagree with you. Once you have that conversation, then you have to go back to like you and I are. I think you’re wrong on things. You think I’m wrong on things. That’s cool.

Penn You also keep picking at that scab. That’s important to do.

Glenn What do you mean?

Penn You keep reiterating where your differences are because that’s where you learn. The best conversations are the ones you come away with having been beat up and realizing you’re wrong, and you always want to keep—conversations you have, you know, online and with people who just say you can’t change that person’s mind, give up, that breaks my heart. I don’t think you ever give up. It’s just finding that exact tightrope that you have to walk down of being able to live and exist with somebody and at the same time not give up your own principles. It’s a really difficult tight wire that I think we fall off all the time.

Glenn Isn’t that kind of an arrogant stance though to take there?

Penn What’s that? Don’t ever give up on changing their mind.

Penn No, you never try to change their mind. Don’t ever give up on stating what you believe. Whenever anyone comes in, there’s all these, and you’ve seen them, they’re on both sides, and they’re identical. I can show you Christian sites and I can show you atheist sites that say how to talk to your friend, how to talk to your atheist friend, how to talk to your Christian friend. And they have this whole way of well, first of all, don’t tell them they’re wrong, but tell them is there another explanation for what could be going on other than their faith, and try to be nice and don’t be this way. Telling people how to manipulate other people seems to be folly and morally wrong.

The way I should talk to you is as another human being. So, sometimes they’re just going to say, “No, you’re just wrong. Are you crazy?” And sometimes I’m going to go—but you have to do it from your heart. My goal sitting down with you must not be to say how can I get my friend, Glenn, to become an atheist and not a Mormon? That cannot be my goal. My goal has to be can I speak to this person from my heart on whatever happens to come up? And that subtle difference to me is the tightrope. I can’t be trying to manipulate you.

I can’t be saying in the car on the way over, “I’ve got the argument that will convince him.” I have to be saying, “I wonder what he’s going to say.” I’ve got to listen to him.

Glenn This is a problem that I have with many just Christians that are always trying to baptize people. They’re always trying to get you into the water and baptize you. It drives me out of my mind because it’s like why don’t you just love somebody? Just be their friend. Just love them.

Penn Tricking people into a philosophical position seems really wrong. First of all, if you’re secular, if you are looking for truth, then tricking someone into looking for truth is insane. On the other side, if you are Christian and if you believe, like many, many, many Christians—I guess I won’t say all—that God can see into your heart, then trying to get someone to kind of believe by a rhetorical trick is completely useless because God already knows you’re going to try that trick, at least in many faiths.

I can’t speak to this at all, but I’m just saying that it’s the problem with the why not bet that there’s a God because if there isn’t, you don’t lose anything, but if there is—it’s that argument that falls to pieces because oh, wait a minute, God can see in your heart, so running a scam on him is just not going to work.

By the way, if you’re ever in a confrontation with an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, and you’re in a competition, there’s one game you can play and you can win, chicken, because he can see into your heart and knows you’re not going to turn the car. It’s the only theoretical game you can play, not that I think you’re going to be in a confrontation one-on-one with God.

Glenn Right. I don’t think I’m going to be heading my car towards His car.

Penn I don’t think so. I’m just saying if it does, wouldn’t that be great? My buddy, Penn, helped me out here.

Civics isn’t optional—America's survival depends on it

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.