Are Mass Shootings a Reflection of Our Godless Society?

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?”

Glenn revisited the famous “God is dead” quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on today’s show, analyzing how our society has disintegrated since people decided they no longer believed in God and asking if that loss has encouraged mass shootings. When we’re told that God doesn’t exist, there are no heroes to look up to and even science can be ignored, what else can we expect but chaos?

“How much … has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers?” Glenn asked. “How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledygook?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to tell you about a movement now to get schools just to recognize the sixth commandment. Just can be can we -- can we recognize the sixth. Don't need to have all ten. Let's just put one in. You can't murder.

How much of this has been -- how much of this has been -- has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers? How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledegook.

We're doing this now with science. We're now saying that just because you say you're a man or say you're a woman, you are. Rejecting science. We've always been told, as religious people, you are science deniers. But we're now being told that just because you say you're a woman, you are a woman. Denying the X and Y chromosomes.

What is happening to us? What happens to us is, no matter what the god is, no matter what the -- we used to -- develop a society based on what the shoe box says. And inside the shoe box is a Magic 8-Ball. And that's what we've set our society up on.

Well, we might go and say, you know, we -- am I a woman? Shake the Magic 8-Ball and it says, ask again later.

And we build our whole foundation on that. Well, if you take away the Magic 8-Ball, you better replace it with something else that is going to decide what is true and what is not.

We've taken away our Magic 8-Ball. We've taken away the truth that we all recognize, the Judeo-Christian truth. We have taken -- we have taken God and chased him out in our society. What made western culture different was, we looked to Jesus. Jesus was a messenger of peace.

Now, religion's got screwed up all the time. All the time. But generally speaking, when we would take these big leaps forward, it was because we were basing our society and the greatest men in our society, on Jesus.

They were the ones who sacrificed it all. They were the ones who were peaceful, who were gentle, who were giving, who were healing. Who were listeners and comforters. Who took more than their fair share for everybody else. And that was something that was grown inside of us.

Now we've gotten rid of that character. And what have we replaced it with. Nothing. There is no hero. There is no archetype. There is nothing.

Point to what we're all striving to be. You know, we all -- we all chanted -- well, not all of us, but many chanted for change. To what?

To what? There has to be a point on the horizon. To what?

Many of us said, you're going to make these changes, and they're never going to be enough. It's never going to be enough. Because you haven't told us -- if you told us that look, we just want people to be fairly treated. Gay people should be able to get married. Fine. The way to solve this is to get the government out of marriage.

Otherwise, you cause far too many problems. So get government out of marriage. As a Christian, I don't get anything from the government declaring my marriage is sacred or valid. Who cares?

What we've done, however, is created a system to where now, what about the wedding cake? What about this? What about that? And the government has to be involved. That's not American. That's not freedom.

But because we don't have a point on the horizon, where we're saying, we're headed for that archetype. That's what we want. And this is what people are like, in that archetype. And they're well-defined characters, in all kinds of situations. We know how Jesus acted when he was angry. We know Jesus, how he acted when he was being scourged and accused. We know when he had the power to heal. We know how he acted when he was offered up the wealth of the earth. We know every scenario. We know.

Where is that archetype for us?

This is -- you know, I'm -- I'm reading Pinkerton and I'm also reading Jordan Peterson at the same time. And they're both coming at the problems of our society in very similar ways. Jordan Peterson, however, is saying there is a case for God here. Pinkerton is saying there is no case for God.

As I'm looking at -- as I'm looking at things, I'm realizing how foolish I have been. And how much -- how much I have to learn.

And how I have -- how I have allowed people to shape my thinking. For instance, I've always thought Nietzsche was, you know, God is dead. And it's nihilistic. And it's all over. And there's nothing good.

Nihilism. No, that's what he was warning against. And it's amazing, because he -- he makes this case that God is dead in something that he calls The Parable of the Madman. And the ending is what we've done.

We didn't listen to what he was saying. Listen to this Parable of a Madman.

Have you not heard of the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours and ran into the marketplace and cried incessantly, I'm looking for God, I'm looking for God. And many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there and excited considerable laughter. And they said, oh, you lost him? Oh, did he lose his way like a child? Is he hiding? Oh, he's afraid of us. Has he gone on a voyage? Maybe he's emigrated. They shouted and they laughed.

And the madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. So here he is, around a bunch of people, who are mocking the fact that he's looking for God.

He says, where has he gone? I'll tell you, we have killed him. You and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How are we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?

What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Is it moving, or are we moving? Or are we perpetually falling backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there even an up or down left now? Ask yourself these questions. Is there an up or down left now? Do you know what is up, down, sideways? Do you know which way we're falling?

Are we falling to the left or are we falling to the right? Are we falling, or are we falling backward?

There's no consensus to this at all. We have no idea. That's what this, quote, madman was saying to the people.

We don't have any idea. Is it not more and more night coming all the time? Has it not become colder? Ask yourself that question. Are we not a colder society than we were 20 years ago, 40 years ago? Are we not colder in many ways?

Doesn't it seem like darkness is getting earlier and earlier now in our society?

He then says, the famous quote from Nietzsche, God is dead. God remains dead. Here is what we don't follow.

And we have killed him. How shall we murderers of all murderers console ourselves now?

Think of this. If there is no God, who is consoling? Where do you get your -- where do you get your peace, your solace?

He's saying, because in that society, that's -- everybody found it with God. That which is holiest and mightiest of all, that the world has yet possessed, has bled to death under our knives. Who is going to wipe this blood off of us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement? What sacred games will we need to invent?

Now, think of that. We had a system. It was the atonement. It was for Christians. It was Jesus bore the sins so you can start over. Well, what is our -- what is our ritual of atonement now?

We don't have one as a society. There is no one who makes up for everything. There is no one who can forgive our sins. We just have to do it. You just forgive it. All you have to do is just stop drinking. Just stop drinking. All you have to do is stop eating so much. Just stop eating so much.

That's all you have to do. Then why don't we do it?

You know what I have to do? I just have to start exercising. Why don't we do it? There are things that we tell ourselves all the time that we just have to get over it, but why don't we?

That was an important ritual that we had. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Listen to what the people said.

Here the madman fell silent. He regarded his listeners -- they were silent as well and stared at him.

At last, he threw down his lantern to the ground and broke and it went out. I have come to, too, early, he said to them, my time is not yet come. The tremendous event is still on its way. Still traveling. It hasn't reached the ears of men yet. Lightning and thunder require time. The light of the stars require time.

Deeds require time, even after they are done, before they can even be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant than them from the distant stars. And yet, they had done it themselves. Meaning, Nietzsche is telling us now, what are you going to invent? Who is going to be your God? Who is going to make your rules?

Now, remember, he is writing this in Germany. And he is saying the Germans have lost their God. You're now going to have to restructure. So what is it? So it was built on the Progressive Era. It was built on science and pseudoscience. According to man. And man said, what you know we have to do is treat everybody equally? We have to be a collective. Instead of God saying, each of you are individuals, man said, yeah, but we're going to protect the individuals by working as a collective.

That led to death camps, death chambers, gas chambers, gulags, all over the world.

We have to fix reason firmly in her seat. But we also have to realize, we've killed God in our society. And it's going to end the same way it does every time a society kills God. If you want to kill God, then what are you replacing it with? Let's be very specific on that.

What is our God? What gives us eternal truth? What is that point on the horizon that we need to affix and look at and say, we're headed in that direction? If you get rid of the God who gave us the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as individuals, if you get rid of him, then it's logical to have a conversation about getting rid of those rights.

But then, who is going to issue our rights? And what exactly do they mean?

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.