Bush Pushing for More Faith-Based Funds

[Judi Lynn]

Bush Pushing for More Faith-Based Funds

Monday January 3, 2005 9:31 PM


By LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush has succeeded in opening the checkbooks of five federal departments to religious organizations. Now he's setting his sights on money doled out by the states.

The goal is to persuade states to funnel more of the federal money for social service programs that they administer to ``faith-based organizations.''

Federal regulations now allow federal agencies to directly fund churches and other religious groups. Bush acted alone to rewrite these regulations after failing to persuade Congress to change the law.

Partly as a result, in 2003, groups dubbed ``faith-based'' received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to The Associated Press. That was about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments.
(snip/...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4708670,00.html

[DiverDave]

1. Can you say PAYOFF?

sure you can.

[PartyPooper]

4. Can you say "Theocracy"?

I can say it. Can you? Can everyone else in this country say it, too?

[OldVlad]

7. I don't think "everyone else in this country" reads it like we do

We would be smart to just let this kind of stuff go. Sure its probably kick backs, but that's nothing new. More and more in the polls we are being pigeonholed as anti-faith, anti-Christian, anti-"values" its all because of this falling into GOP traps. Because Rove knows we hate him, he says something about "faith" and when we attack-we diminish ourselves. We're attacking Bush, not "values" but it always looks like the latter. They assume wrongly that we are anti faith, and these days we're boxed in a corner. Its just worse and worse every election and I don't see any end in sight.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Do We Go On "Letting This Kind of Stuff Go" Until...

...the Dominion has declared itself the state religion
and requires its doctrines to be taught in public schools?
Do we "let it go" when they make the dictates of their relgion
the law of the land?

[OldVlad]

22. the Dominion... like DS9?

Well perhaps when someone declares a "state religion" such hystrionic will not seem off the wall. Until such concrete actions happen we should "let this go", because WE HAVEN'T YET for crying out loud, we keep falling smack dab into their traps like clockwork of the "anti-Christian Bigots" rightwing radio terminology that is seeping from into the mainstream. The "values" issue already crushed us in the last election, led by an innarticulate dunce, and the more times we fall for this simple trick, the more that destructive stereotype is reinforced.

By your tone it appears enough of us will continue this mistake, and the prospects of the party are bleak.

[Q]

24. Did you notice this?

"Bush acted alone to rewrite these regulations after failing to persuade Congress to change the law."

Why do you think Congress wouldn't touch it? It's because they know it's illegal and unConstitutional. Bush is funding the churches through an executive order. The RWingers used to call using EO's unAmerican until Bush started using them as the decree of a dictator.

[OldVlad]

25. Q you're from NG not DS9

The RWingers used to call using EO's unAmerican until Bush started using them as the decree of a dictator.

Yes, but if that's truely how it went down, you'll never get any mileage out of that, the RWingers still have a huge bug up their butts about Clinton's Ridge pardon and will get all bug eyed if we even mention the words Executive Order. The point is, this is a no win topic, and for my money an OBVIOUS trap, and we have walked into more than our fair share of traps in the past 4 years, and we're about 3 million short these days to a guy who couldn't sell a space heater to an eskimo.

There are so many topics rife with corruption for us to blast him on that this is a complicated one that can and will easily backfire bigtime. Aren't these groups providing food to the hungry? Counciling to alchoholics and the abused? Providing clothing and shelters? Yeah, that's something we really wanna critique, some doe eyed Christian girl on the news full of idealism, they'll say the only reason we could possibly want to do this is that we are some hatefilled antiChristians and every good Dem in the red states gets the alien stare on the campaign trail. Just how Rove wants it. I wish you did have magic powers Q, you could instantly get us off this slippery slope.

[AndyTiedye]

26. You Don't Hosannah Like You Mean It. No Food For You!

Is it OK for these "faith-based" organizations to force people
to accept their religion as a precondition to getting help?

[OldVlad]

27. Forcing their religion with Phaser guns from the "Dominion"

Your disdain for these little do-gooders is caustic in the political debate. Sure the little Flanders want to lecture the homeless schizos about "Jesus Saving" before they give them food and a cot, and if the booze hounds don't wanna hear that they could go to a different one in my hometown, but there isn't any "forcing" them to do anything beyond listening, and its unlikely they're in any state to hear anyways so your goal of stopping more Christians converts will be accomplished.

That's not your goal to keep people from being Christians? I don't doubt that my friend, however that is how it will appear to people who hear you assail these biddies, and expand the growing impression of us as the big bad "antiChristian Party" and further our minority status in this country. If that hasn't happened already.

[Bridget Burke]

31. No, "Dominionists" & "Christian Reconstructionists"

They are behind the politicization of religion in the USA. The movement goes beyond Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christianity, although it uses these people. I can remember when the Southern Baptists avoided political involvement.

Read about them:
www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

They have been quite successful so far.

[OldVlad]

32. Wow, how could everyone be so stupid?

I read this far and couldn't get any farther because of reflexive eyes-rolling brought about by having a cerebral cortex;

Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Yeah, when Shrub is annointed this supposed position--get back to me. Didn't that moron Robertson blast Bush before the election about how he "warned of casualties" as if he was cornering the market there?

I can remember when the Southern Baptists avoided political involvement.

You are 100% correct! That is my point all along!!!! But you are adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 22. The freaking REASON all these Christians are getting involved in politics is because, duh, we keep attacking Christians! Why do you think I said it would be better to leave this alone and this is a no win trap. Keep up the bad work, Rove is so proud of duping you.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Everyone but you, that is?

As a Texan, I can remember when the Texas Republicans were taken over by the far-right "Christians"--quotations marks to distinguish them from the real thing. Young Bush was "saved" shortly thereafter & began his political career; he'd run before as a lukewarm Episcopalian & lost.

"Christianity Under Attack" is an old theme for this gang. Read the whole articl & get back to me. Separation of Church & State is worth keeping.

When a new DU'er joins just to warn us off a topic--I've always considered it a clear sign that we need to stay on it.

[OldVlad]

36. I kept reading, but fan fiction about star trek is more plausable

Well until you can distinguish better between attacking Christians and attacking "Christians" other then using quotation marks for the bad ones, this vagueness will only accomplish it being read as; attacking Christians.

I tried to read the rest of your article, but its circular logic. (I got a psych degree many years ago, I know paranoid delusions when I read them ma'am) "The Dominionists are doing this because the Dominionists are doing it." I mean, there's no "there there" they keep refering to these guys and the only one mentioned by name is Robertson. Well he ran for Pres and got balled in their own primary. He's a punch line, but I don't think even he takes the name your author likes to reuse. Its like there are millions of these people, who control everything but no one knows who they are because they don't go by their name in public.

Now, does Katherine Yurica know of their secret handshake that they use to identify themselves, or is she in their newsgroup? Sorry to be such a smart mouth about it, I mean nothing against you because I think you've found answers in it, I'm just saying this perspective just obviously doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes I am a new poster, because I've read here for a while, and after the election nightmare it became apparent I gotta start throwing my 2 bits in.

[AndyTiedye]

40. Objecting to the Turnover of Social Programs to Religious Groups...

...is NOT attacking Christians. It is safeguarding our Constitution.

[Malva Zebrina]

59. I don't think so

Christians make up at about 80% of the poplulation of the US.

They are NOT persecuted, by any means of the imaginiation. But they insist they are. You tell me why this assumed martydom.

They are, in fact, utilizing thier majority by accepting faith based arbitrary, tax payer grants by, NOT OUR GOVERNMENT, but the actions of one fascist idiot, George Bush, who with his largesse in granting money to these Christians who are in his favor (without any accountability on their part, btw) is actually tethering them all to his fascism. And now he has them by the balls. Either you preach Bush fromj the pulpit, or you do not get the money. Get it?

That is NOT freedom to practice your religion of choice. See?

If they receive the money, sure they will feed the hungry, thus the money they receive from Bush, will free their other monies to subsidize their missionary pursuits to convert all those they see as victims to their corporatism and fascism of the Christian way, complete with free bibles to Muslim children, whose fathers are, according to that custom, subject to punishment and even imprisonment for allowing their children to be preached to by these "missionaries", and BTW, don't forget to get lunch at McDonald's--they have a special--it is the crucifiction sandwich, complete with blood red catsup.

[OldVlad]

68. Awefully persuasive

don't forget to get lunch at McDonald's--they have a special--it is the crucifiction sandwich, complete with blood red catsup.

Um...Yuck? Perhaps you are an example of how we're making comments that pigeonhole us so that we're losing the ability to relate to Christian voters. Maybe, I could be totally wrong. Call me crazy, its just a hunch.

[Malva Zebrina]

73. I don't think I must relate to Christian voters

especially the cult like extremists that have infiltrated our government.

I relate just fine with liberal Christians, Muslims and others of any faith, or no faith or those not sure.

The point is that these cult like extremist, literalist Christians, are supporting corporatism and fascism and think they are on the way to a theocracy here in the United States. Further they are getting MY money to spread that word. I have no objection to the practice of a faith,or to anyone's beliefs, as long as it is kept in the churches and the home, but I will object strenously to the infiltration of the Christian religion into the government.

[saigon68]

44. Disgusting

[AndyTiedye]

28. A Bit Like That

They call themselves "Dominionists" or "Christian Reconstructionists",
they want to take over the world, and they are well on their way to doing so.
They have a seamless connection to the Bush* regime. They own
the companies that make the voting machinez. The own the largest
polling organization. They have effective control of the Republican
party.

"Faith-based" programs exist to to divert money from social programs
into their coffers, as well as providing them with a steady stream
of fresh converts.

You say we should "let this go", when the only religious freedom they
are taking away is that of poor people who are clients of government
social programs. By the time we need someone to stand up for OUR
religious freedom, it will be too late. Nearly all who have been
force-fed religion by the Dominionists will have joined them.

[OldVlad]

34. Now are these strawmen "Dominionists" related to the Illuminati?

Perhaps they are Reptillians, or the guys who killed JFK. I got it, they are the monsters under my bed.

Seriously, what religious freedom is being taken away? Of course nothing, unless you are talking about the religion of anti-Christianity because you don't like these old biddies yammering about Jesus to these winos. There isn't anything taken, only opposed. That's certainly how it will come off because there is no religion you are "standing up for" you just attacking one religion that has some out there doing more for the poor then I am, and I'll take a wild guess and include you too.

You may be too young to remember, but I know of the days when the Democrat Party owned the south. We had Governors and Senators all across the midwest and rockies. Now we have this monolithic growing opposition that lazy thinkers like to call "red states" and they are only getting more convincing with every election. Well those are OUR states, we have just alienated the hell out of them with this insipid, baseless paranoia about just like this about Christian groups. Why not attack mothers and apple pie? If FDR or JFK were alive today they would be embarrassed and angry at the sorry state of affairs these profoundly myopic missteps have left us in...and it appears nobody gets it, and its only going to get worse rather than better. The GOP is going to run increasingly stupid candidates every election and beat us soundly given our attitudes.

[Bridget Burke]

35. It's the "Democratic" party.

Thanks for your advice. It will be given due consideration.

[hatrack]

66. Yes, the missing "-ic"

It's such a giveaway . . . :eyes:

[AndyTiedye]

38. Spelling It Out

> what religious freedom is being taken away?

You seem to know already, but you don't seem to care if they only
do it to "winos" and welfare recipients.

> Of course nothing

So willing you are to sell out other people's freedom.

> unless you are talking about the religion of anti-Christianity

There is no such religion, of course, but even if there were,
it is would be entitled to be protected under the Constitution.

> because you don't like these old biddies yammering about Jesus to
> these winos.

It may be contrary to *their* religion.
Even winos are supposed to have freedom of religion.
Being forced to attend religious services is not freedom of religion.

Being forced to pay for that religious service is not religious
freedom either.
I don't want my taxes going to pay for the spread of anybody's
religion. Neither did our Founding Fathers, who wrote both
freedom of religion *and* the anti-establishment clause into
the Bill of Rights.

> There isn't anything taken, only opposed. That's certainly how it
> will come off because there is no religion you are "standing up for"

I am standing up for all of them.


> You may be too young to remember, but I know of the days when the
> Democrat Party owned the south.

I remember those "Democrats".


Would you have advocated that we let segregation go on forever
to avoid alienating the South?

[OldVlad]

39. So you enjoy this losing?

You seem to know already, but you don't seem to care if they only
do it to "winos" and welfare recipients.

I was using those terms to make a point, I don't really care either way, but they are citizens just like us, but the important point is that you aren't standing up for any religion, you are standing against one. You can deny that til the cows come home, its the impression you are opposing the Christians. I don't care about that, I care that this leads to Democrates never winning another national election again. Roughly 80% of American's identify themselves as Christians. More people attend Christian services EACH week then attend all sporting events in America---a year! Now how many of that 80% is becoming disenchanted with the D politicians simply because so many so called Democratic pundits are always opposing Christians in the public square? How long before we lose that entire 80% block? I admire your efforts at opposing Bush on giving kickbacks to people pushing for him, but to criticize Christian "faith based" groups when only a segment of them are Bushbots is like criticizing homosexuals because of the Gay Republicans. Now I agree that I don't want tax dollars going for evangelical crusades anymore than you do, and this money MUST be accounted for by the chimp, but we must be careful how we attack this.

I remember those "Democrats".
Would you have advocated that we let segregation go on forever
to avoid alienating the South?

Now think about that, segregation ended in the 60's, yet we maintained a total domination into the 80s. Ask yourself, what changed? I'll tell you-Jimmy Carter or JFK were never seen as trying to appeal to the radically secular anti religious. Fair or unfair, too many left pundits give the impression that we oppose Christians in the public square or that we're out of step with fly over country. I don't think its possible with the way Rove has stacked the deck now to convince people the Democratic party is value-friendly these days without irritating many of the loudest in our own camp. I don't have any answers, its bleak, but I do know if we keep picking on these Ned Flanders fundies we are walking into Rove's trap.

[AndyTiedye]

43. We Should Not "Let" Our Social Programs "Go" to the Fundies

I was using those terms to make a point

The point apparently being that some people's first amendment rights
are worth "nothing".

I don't really care either way, but they are citizens just like us,

seems to me like reason enough to care.

but the important point is that you aren't standing up for any religion,

I am standing up for all religions.

you are standing against one.

I stand against granting that kind of power to one religion.
It is a gross injustice to all the others.

You can deny that til the cows come home,



its the impression you are opposing the Christians.

Even within Christianity, there are some very sharp disagreements,
which have been the subject of long and bloody wars.

Is it fair to make Catholics go to a Protestant church for aid,
or visa-versa?

I don't care about that, I care that this leads to Democrates never winning another national election again.

Democrates is no longer eligible for elective office, he died in 370 BCE.

Democrats have been losing elections due to fraud, and due
to Republican ownership of the media

> Roughly 80% of American's identify themselves as Christians.

Even assuming a half of them only come into contact with a church
for weddings and funerals, that number is hard to believe.


More people attend Christian services EACH week then attend all sporting events in America---a year!

Most people would rather watch their sports on cable -- if at all.
I have never bought a ticket for a sporting event in my life.

Now how many of that 80% is becoming disenchanted with the D politicians simply because so many so called Democratic pundits are always opposing Christians in the public square?

It has more to do with the churches opposing us politically, and
electioneering for the Republicans. The Democrats haven't
really fought back against this, and we need to. 8% of these
programs have been diverted to church organizations, and Democrats
went along with it. You say we should let the rest go.
I hope that they do not.

to criticize Christian "faith based" groups

...is not what I have been doing. I am criticizing the diversion of
government funds from social programs to these groups.


> Now think about that, segregation ended in the 60's, yet we maintained
> a total domination into the 80s. Ask yourself, what changed?


That is what changed.

[OldVlad]

49. Circles

You keep saying you aren't standing against a religion, I'm telling you that is the appearance which is most important, then you say you are not standing against a religion yet again. You couldn't possibly be failing to understand my original point if you were trying...boring!

Democrats have been losing elections due to fraud, and due
to Republican ownership of the media

How sad, keep telling yourself that. Keep making excuses, buying into paranoia and a total lack of personal responsibility, best of luck, it is obvious now that you really do enjoy losing. I don't, you need to stop screwing things up with your miscalculations, you don't even believe that 40% of the country is Christian when the polls say its 80%? Talk about not having your finger on the pulse of the country. Did you see what that violent movie The Passion did in ticket sales? Its obvious that this total lack of understanding of how many Christians there are and their impressions of disdain and persecution from the left and the Democrats is angrily opposed in the middle states, we'll never again get those "red" states, and get progressively less blue states with every election. Sianora.

[AndyTiedye]

61. The Democrats Already Tried It Your Way. See Where It Got Them

Whey Boosh** started turning social programs over to churches,
(to the tune of 1.17 BILLION so far) the Democrats did not object,
and many voted for it. What have the churches done? Gone stumping
for Boosh** like never before! You say we should "let it go" as
** delivers the rest of the social services budget to his favorite
churches. Why should we? Not only does it violate the Constitution,
but it won't get us any more votes.


(Edit, 2 stars for 2 stolen elections)

[OldVlad]

67. Yes, see where its gotten us...nothing

We're not only losing the President, but the local levels too, if you want to talk stolen stolen stolen then keep up the great work. Either their getting amazingly better at adding votes, or we lost by 3 million more then last time. Apparently all of your talk about thievery is the the true test of "tried it your way. See where it got us"

No, simply letting these Fundies get tax money will in no way win us any elections. If I implied that was a cure-all I was unclear. But its past time to keep alienating by going MORE secular. If you want to say these groups should be auditing, bravo, but to say they can't get $ because they're religious SOUNDS exlusionary, at least to a lot of people we need to get Dems back into national office. But hey, like I said we're talking in circles here, so let me stop your talk about conspiracies, its working famously.

[Megahurtz]

71. Wow, you act so incredibly arrogant on the board

have you ever considered that, quite possibly YOU may be the paranoid one???

[Megahurtz]

70. The point about Christianity (or fundamentalism for some believers)

is very simple.

We need BOUNDRIES.

In order to avoid misleading arguments and grey area such as this, and to preserve the constitution and all citizen's personal beliefs, we need to preserve the separation of Church and State.

OldVlad, surely you know what boundries are.

[OldVlad]

72. I agree about boundaries

The Founding Fathers wanted boundries, they never wanted to establish a Church Of England here. While I completely agree, it is the common use of the term "fundamentalists" which has Muslim terrorists connotations that my point is we should avoid. I use the term too, don't get me wrong, but its just these choices of words that I believe are the reason why I am failing to convince my traditionally Dem friends who happen to be Christian that the modern Dems are a big tent for their Christian values. They have made convincing arguements to me as to why they don't feel welcome, and when I see "or fundamentalism for some believers" I see where they're coming from.

As to whether I'm paranoid, I'm not the one relying conspiracies, so that would be a 'no' unless of couse you know that They are after me.

[tom_paine]

45. Can't stop calling it the Democrat Party, can you?

You see, you are engaging in the most typical of Orwellian Frank Luntz-like demagoguery.

False Dichotomy, but one played successfully by the Busheviks.

But you would know anything about it, would you, being a member of the "Democrat Party" and all.

The only reason the Democratic Party owned the South was because racist (and non-racist) Dixiecrats who detested Lincoln (who would be a Democrat today, excoriated 24/7 on Faux ReichsPravda) had no other option.

And you use personal insult as distraction and contempt in the cookie cutter fashion which can be observed on virtually ALL of Corporate TV Pravda, not just Faux.

You see, no one is attacking Christianity, but is in the interest of Totalitarian Bushevik Propagandists (and their followers, eh?) to make it to be so.

What people are attacking is the dangerous precedent of giving government aid to religious organizations that dangerously incentivizes the religions to toe the Party Line and causes other negative ripple effects.

There are any number of reasons the Democrats are losing, rigged electronic voting, the death of the Free Press combined with the rise of Totalitarian Bush Sub-Media beholden to no ethics, Democratic Party weakness and it's inability to really see the roots of the problem or to acknowledge what we are up against.

But of course, it has been taught across the land that it is easier to shout, smear and distract rather to elaborate with reason.

It has always ben such, and is a big factor in BushPutinist successes today as well as the successes of other Totalitarian Iterations throughout history.

Now, insult me, perhaps make a geek refernce or such, and distract.

Put words in my mouth and knock that old Straw Man down. Insult me and all of DU for good measure. Repeat Reich Wing talking points.

Because that has been the entirety of what you have posted on this thread thus far.

[OldVlad]

50. Do you even know what a "Democrat" is?

I have no idea what exactly was the point of your non linear reply, but lets get one thing crystal fricking clear already;
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democrat

I was a DEMOCRAT before you were born "Tom", spare me your pretentious snobbery and paranoia that I am a Bushnik.

You see, no one is attacking Christianity

As well they probably aren't, but unless they start with demanding accounting of the money because they don't want to fund evangalism or something along those lines...rather than the failed strategy employed here; belittling of the little do gooder Fundies that run these rescue missions and soup kitchens...there is the APPEARANCE of attacking Christianity. I'm not saying we are attacking them, or that it is fair, but its reality. We've been making this mistake of treating these people with contempt for 20 years, and our fortunes have followed that most directly.

Democratic Party weakness and it's inability to really see the roots of the problem or to acknowledge what we are up against.

But of course, it has been taught across the land that it is easier to shout, smear and distract rather to elaborate with reason.

You and I agree on a lot of things, which is why I find your angry response so bizzare.

[tom_paine]

51. "Democrat" is a noun, "Democratic" is an adjective

The "Democrat Party" slur vs. the proper term "Democratic Party"

is semantically identical to calling someone a "Jew Lawyer" instead of a "Jewish Lawyer".

Sprinkle in the correctly contemtuous tone and the slurs work perfectly.

Ask any hardcore Bushevik/Freeper WHY they call it the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party", and they generally will be happy to tell you of why the slur is 'appropriate'.

(that is, if you don't know already)

One of the main The problems is the lack of a Free Press in the Empire. With a slavish and cowed, harried and hurried Corporate TV Pravda (and yes, CNN is almost identical to Faux now more than half the time) being basically lead by the nose into talking about and covering whatever the Bush-Loyal Sub-Media wants to talk about and for how long they want to talk about it, often repeating Reich Wing Talking Points verbatim as if they were factual and without opportunity for rebuttal, the "appearance" of attackling Christianity is largely a construct of the whole edifice I like to call Goebbels v2.0.

We have long ago enetered Orwell Territory, where no truth is so clear that it cannot be obfuscated and ridiculed and no lie, no matter how demonstrable, cannot be swiftly laundered into "conventional wisdom".

There are so many more reasons that our Orwellian descent into One-Party Totalitarianism has occured. It has been since 1933 that a Republic has undergone such a multi-pronged, multi-fronted assualt by a revolutionary cabal that has foreswiorn violent revolution in favor of 'legally' destroying it from within.

You may be a Democrat, but you are Democratic. Like I am a Jew but I am Jewish (and also a Democrat and am DemocratIC)

I firmly believe, having seen the Busheviks appropriating whole sections of the Nazi Propaganda Playbook (luckily they haven;t turned violent, but then we haven't had an economic catastrophe like the Germans did...yet) that it is no coincidence of the semantic similarity of the slurs.

Just as it was no coincidence that Poppy Augutus Bush's Meat Puppet started his campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia Mississippi who's ONLY claim to fame was the murder of Three Liberal Hippie Traitors by Good Christian Conservatives in 1964.

[OldVlad]

56. Reading is Fundamental

*Sigh*

The "Democrat Party" slur vs. the proper term "Democratic Party"

is semantically identical to calling someone a "Jew Lawyer" instead of a "Jewish Lawyer".

First I never said Democrat Party, I said I was a Democrat, if I did call it the Democrat Party I was wrong and apologize, but the Democratic Party has members, who are referred to individually as a DEMOCRAT. You were wrong to attack me about this, and compare me to a Bushivik, someone who complains about their being too much yelling and not enough looking at the facts is comically hypocritical on this. The dictionary clearly pointed that Democratic members are called Democrats, the fact that you continue despite such clear Dictionary evidence to the contrary is bizzare and kind of comical at this point.

Add to that the insinuation that rednecks in the south that murdered hippies should be associated with "christian" people as a whole and you prove my point 100 fold of why this Party, the Democratic Party, is losing the so called "values" issues in national elections from 94, and every single national one since then, most dramatically in 02 and 04. I hope you don't poison the minds of swing voters in 06 with this unjust attacking we can't afford it. It doesn't convince, it only irritates people, like you irritated me.

[tom_paine]

62. Excellent sophistry in that first paragraph.

Completely full of bull. An utter and very sophisticated obfuscation.

First I never said Democrat Party, I said I was a Democrat, if I did call it the Democrat Party I was wrong and apologize, but the Democratic Party has members, who are referred to individually as a DEMOCRAT.

Oh yes you did. Scroll up and look. If the message is still there the proof is there. Thanks for the apology, but did you not read or understand my comments about the noun vs. adjective use? Of course Democrats are referred as Democrat when speaking about them indiviually.

That wasn't my point. I'm quite surprised an "Old Guy" like yerself could miss it. Comical, almost.

Noun vs. adjective. Semantic structure of similar slurs.

And just what is "dictionary evidence"? For an Old Guy your writing is somewhat youthfully structured.

And riddle me this OldVlad, how is it that Free Republic says the craziest, most hateful stuff, including frequent "kidding on the square" or actualy fantasies of scenarios in which they are allowed to imprison or kill Random Liberals, has never made the papers but a handful of Kooky Tunami Threads on DU has had an article on NYT & Faux.

How is it that "Poll Freeping" has never had a story done on it? (if you do not know the term, please do Google it)

Finally, you do make half a point at the end. However so much of the False Dichotomy which creates the Red Herring issue you are harping on was created by muting the other side and creating false perceptions.

Plus you've been baiting and insulting the shit out of people like you baited me into making that comment, for which I take responsibility but do YOU have the balls to admit you've been baiting the hell out of people from your first post?

I have heard read about that tactic, too. Very common among Busheviks.

I apologize and I am not calling you a Bushevik specifically now, but your arguments are structered in the same cookie-cutter obfuscational pattern of aggressive straw man building and distraction as the Busheviks use.

It could just be because that Totalitarian Way of thinking and that cookie-cutter pattern of deceptive arguing has been ingrained into all our brains including mine by thousands of hours of watching Corporate TV Pravda (CNNMNBCFOXABCNBCCBS).

That would be the alternate hypothesis, and equally possible.

You just might not know of things like Gingrich's Contrasting Words or any of the other dozens of assualts on language, media, perception and psychomanipulation.

So many are living in the Old America still, unaware that is has already gone, perhaps (though I hope not) beyond the point of no return.

The corspe isn't even cold yet, so to speak.

Finally, I am not trying to convince, and you were irritated long before I got here. If you aren't an outright troll, your actions are indistinguishable from if you were one, the way you came in here and shit all over EVERYONE IMMEDIATELY.

There's no point intrying to convince anyone by now. Kinder and Gentler Germany 1936. The voting system is broken and untrustworthy at the top, and if it continues it will one corrupt ALL elections, the media cowed bullied and crazily nonfunctional (not to mention parasitized by a multi-billion dollar Propaganda Structure which resembles the Soviet or Nazi infrastructures in several key ways), the Democratic Party Leadership is reprising the cluelessness of the 1930s German Social Democrats to the severity of the problem and blind to the fact that they are not dealing with another party, but a revolutionary cabal that for all it's pious mouthings simply doesn't believe in the concept of Democracy or transparency or even seperation of powers.

Add all those up and swing voters is sort of an archaic term, isn't it?

God, I would love to be wrong about this. Happiest plate of crow I would ever eat.

[OldVlad]

64. You were right, I am a poor typer

Oh yes you did. Scroll up and look.

You were right and I was wrong. I can't believe I typed that ("Democrat" Party) and I was wrong to argue about that since I did do it. Sorry.

As for the other stuff, I think you are engaging from the same thing that too many others are, (and the reason why I am "baiting" as you called it). There's way too much talk of conspiracies these days, media, voting, or whatever else you mentioned. I'm not saying the media isn't lazy, stupid and uninformed, uncreative, and that Bush isn't trying to steal votes. What I am saying is that I have suffered, ok we all have suffered WAY too much in the past 3 elections to not stop and ask more fundamental questions as to why the red/blue map is changing other than saying its outside forces and cabals. Sure there are bad guys out there, but I think the main point is the one you were bringing up earlier, a failure by a weakened Democratic Party (I spelled it right) to convince with specifics, to make people understand they have detailed plans and to reason the voters to those and most of all to relate to THEM. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/weekinreview/02nago.html What I am saying is that talking about the media or vote stealing is spinning our wheels in the mud. Back on topic of this thread, I don't think anyone is denying that our natural disposition is to cring at the thought of outright Christians in the public square, that's not baiting, that's a reality because I do it too. What I realized when I did that is that its past to question "why" on things like this, we're mad at the evangelicals for siding with Bush so we're against them in general, when we should be persueding them, because we have lost SO much ground it may become institutional at this point and we lose an entire generation before we realize the problem was mostly within.

[tom_paine]

69. We have a fundamental difference of opinion here

You continue to believe, if I am not mistaken, that the core of the Old American System of checks and balances, seperation of powers, a Free Press (yes, I am aware it is not formally a part of the system but it is the only profession mentioned in the Constitution) is sufficient and that we need to think in those terms to "win".

In 1952 that was true (although McCarthyism was certainly a foreshadowing, wasn't it?). In 1980 that was true, but starting after that with the reign of the First Emperor Poppy Augustus Bush (who's actual reign extended from 1983-1992 as Reagan's people were purged and the befuddled senile old man became a powerles figurehead) the seeds were planted (such as killing the Fairness Doctrine and the payback to Fat Tony Scalia, one of the most corrupt and Soviet-style judges in recent memory, maybe ever) for the situation we have now, and the digging out of the Foundations of Constitutional Democracy in America had begun the long slow slide to the terminal illness.

If you are right and I am wrong, and the Old American System is as healthy as it ever was, then your comments are generally correct.

But if I am right and you are wrong, then the only way to repair the system is to beat off the infection and restore the "patient" to health.

And that means, without question, attacking the infection at the places where it is "eating our flesh", the corrupted and cowed media (not to mention the rise of Totalitarian Media that the original FCC rules were designed in the 40s to prevent after that generation saw what One-Party Unchecked Propaganda could do to an unwitting people), our Third World "voting" system, and getting our National Immune System (a strong opposition Party and a strong Constitution) back on it's feet.

These two worldviews demand different courses of action.

And I suppose we must agree to disagree.

By the by, have you noticed that "conspiracy theories" tend to be true MUCH MORE OFTEN in Totalitarian Nations (such as I believe America is transitioning into) than the Free Nations to which we no longer even really belong?

"I think maybe the Nazis set the Reichstag Fire Themselves."

"You conspiracy nut! Der Fuhrer is too godly and honest to murder Germans for political gain."

"I think maybe the Communists are erecting Gulags in Siberia and transporting innocent people who disagree with them."

"You conspiracy nut! The Party loves the Soviet Citizen, it takes care of them from birth until death!"

"I think Enron is purposefully gaming the power distribution grid to rob California of billions of dollars."

"You conspiracy nut! The Free Market would NEVER allow such unethical and coutnerproductive behavior. Bush is honest and would never allow grandm,others to have thousands of dollars stolen while he turns a deaf ear to their cries for help and an investigation."

"I think that maybe Hitler is falsely exaggerating the threat of Poland in order to justify an agressive takeover of lebensraum."

"You conspiracy nut! Our Fuhrer is a Man of God, sent by God to lead the German People from Liberal Immorality! Such a honorable and noble man would NEVER knowingly do such a thing!"

"I think that maybe Bush is falsely exaggerating the threat of Iraq in order to justify an agressive takeover of resources."

"You conspiracy nut! Our Leader is a Man of God, sent by God to lead the American People from Liberal Immorality! Such a honorable and noble man would NEVER knowingly do such a thing!"

Hell, even back when America was still free, Watergate was gotten away with for almost 2 years, and I have no doubt that such an honest accvounting of the law would be literally impossible today.

Take what I have said however you like. But you remain blind to the fact that we are no longer dealing with anothe political party, but a revolutionary cabal who, like the Nazis (but not as violkent nor overtly racist for the moment), only desire to seize governmental power in order to destroy that government.

Read "They Thought They Were Free". You might recognize something of your comments to me in the dismmissals of German "alarmists".

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

The Democratic Party, IMHO, has the identical chance (no matter WHAT course of action they take) of regaining power in Imperial Amerika as the German Social Democrats had of taking power back from Hitler by "moving to the right" and not offending any moderates.

The very same chance.

[bunkerbuster1]

55. Mid-40s myself, and I remember plenty.

I know of the days when the Democrat Party owned the south.

Well, of course, this was in no small part because those Democrats were often RW goons.

I've "only" lived in the South for 3½ years, myself, but I'm well aware of our party's history. Some of it is pretty fugly.

Frankly, when I read history, if I'm rooting for anyone it's the Republicans until *well* into the 20th century. And some southern Democrats are still, well, RW goons, and I'd just as soon have them switch.

That said, I do hear what you're saying about how our party is perceived among decent Americans who are evangelical Christians. While I'm not lying awake nights worrying about getting the entire Southern Baptist Conference to adore us (it'll never happen), I do think we have a legitimate shot at winning over more of their members than we do now.

[OldVlad]

57. Wish I could sleep

Well, of course, this was in no small part because those Democrats were often RW goons.

Yeah, and still are, let be honest about the racism that is still there on both sides of the aisle, but I think everybody here is too quick to write them off like "racism" was the big reason the south is solidly red. People forget those Dems were solid New Deal Dems fighting against the Big Business monopolies that helped make the New Deal happen. I wouldn't say "segregation" was a big part of either platform down there in the 70s and 80s yet it was entirely blue. Something else changed, I don't claim to have all the answers, but I know in debating with non partisan friends this kind of impression keeps coming up with why they're voting wrongly. Whatever it is, until people figure it out, the masacre will continue.

While I'm not lying awake nights worrying about getting the entire Southern Baptist Conference to adore us (it'll never happen), I do think we have a legitimate shot at winning over more of their members than we do now.

Why? We have their best interests at heart...I thought. I thought we were for the voiceless little guy who didn't have best cars or the best jobs. I don't share your optimism about having a shot, as it is now. We seem more concerned with appearing fashionably securlarist and appealing to the northeast corridor jet setters. I have nothing against them, (but they are a bit snobish is all) but they don't make up a majority in America. "God" help us that these elites have taken over the punditry and party because we'll never win nationally again if they don't wake up to who is in this country.

[bunkerbuster1]

58. Standing up for the little guy, whether it's a guy, gal, black white, gay

or straight. I think the main thing is that we stand up, we don't run away from issues that matter to us. Plenty of Dems ARE religious, devoutly so; granted we might not be as comfortable wearing our faith on our sleeve but it doesn't mean that we can't work this angle.

Anyhoo, to speak to one thing you brought up:
I don't share your optimism about having a shot <at southern baptists>, as it is now. We seem more concerned with appearing fashionably securlarist and appealing to the northeast corridor jet setters. I have nothing against them, (but they are a bit snobish is all) but they don't make up a majority in America.

C'mon. We're all concerned about winning, I don't know of any Dems here in GA who want to be "fashionably secularist", whatever that's supposed to mean. NOBODY makes up a majority in America--not fundamentalist Christians, not atheists, etc. What matters are coalitions, and there's nothing incompatible about a progressive Democratic agenda and Christian faith. Far from it.

Back, for a bit, about the whole concept of "faith-based funding." FWIW, I think some of the concern over the concept is hooey. Yes, there needs to be oversight, you don't just fork over money and hope a church is doing its job. But some church-based groups do wonderful work, and states have been working through such organizations for many years.

When we lived in NJ, we wound up adopting our child through such an organization (affiated with a Catholic church, in fact). It was anything but discriminatory--in fact, the first adoption this group completed was to a gay couple!

[OldVlad]

65. u're right

there's nothing incompatible about a progressive Democratic agenda and Christian faith. Far from it.

That's what I'm saying to! We used to own "values" Now the pundits are saying that's the reason we lost....to a fricking retard. For some reason I am having a lot of problems with those I work with here in the grass roots level (granted that CA not GA) convincing them that liberalism does not equal exclusion of the publicly Christian set. I'm not saying turn the party over to these zealots, but we need to find a place for them, at least in a token sense. Otherwise it is the LACK of discussion on issues that matter to these people, and the LACK of these people within the Party that I feel speaks volumns when the other guys have their ranks full of token Christians.

[Bouncy Ball]

30. Oh please

give me a fucking break.

We are NOT anti-faith. We ARE anti giving federal money to churches when churches don't even pay taxes and I don't see ANY of these churches using this money to help people on a large scale!

Where's the money going? Where's the oversight?

This has NOTHING to do with faith, it's ALL about money. It's the taxpayers' money and we have a RIGHT to know what is done with it.

Shove that in your pipe and smoke it.

[OldVlad]

37. I know that

We are NOT anti-faith. We ARE anti giving federal money to churches when churches don't even pay taxes and I don't see ANY of these churches using this money to help people on a large scale!

Well good, I don't doubt we are, but lets ask for the oversight, lets ask where the money is going, those are good questions, lets not start talking about these Christians like are aliens or 2nd class citizens.

I appreciate anything and everything you can give me to smoke in my pipe.

[ally_sc]

47. it's a well known fact...

most of the churches at least down here in the good old bible belt have very large expensive sancutary's and equally large roomy halls and often schools attached...there are always special funds for this and special funds for that...

case in point: a few years back a few people started seacoast church here in mount pleasant. it is a non-denominational church with a huge membership. it has now spread across the state...it is freaking huge they even have an annex for their services it is so popular...so it has exclusive programs, and new buildings...it even has it's hands in e cooper habitat for humanity...what percentage goes there i do not know.

we actually call it "seacult"...

[NYC]

46. Why should tax exempt churches be tax recipients?

How does that work?

Pigeon holed as anti-faith? How about anti-corruption? Start calling a spade a spade, and stop submitting to the other side.

[TahitiNut]

54. Too bad those "faithful" don't put their money where their 'faith' is.

Any 'faith' that needs a double-layering of coerced taxpayer subsidies isn't a very strong 'faith.' I guess they're tired of "rendering unto Caesar" and aspire to be Caesar instead of faithful.

[mother earth]

79. Nailed it, NYC, why indeed!

[Maat]

11. My thoughts, exactly, DiverDan.

He's already managed to get funds to the likes of Pat Robertson, and his orgs. Shameful! What does this man have to do with either Chistianity or community service? By the way, Pat is a J.D. (earned doctorate in law), and is a trained manipulator (I know. I'm a J.D.).

I worked for the County as a social worker for seven years. The government was objective, and did not discriminate. That was not my experience (or my clients') with faith orgs. who received government funds.

[Sub Atomic]

2. So much for States' Rights

Fuck, I cannot stand the thought of this Holy Roller administration running this country for another 4+ years.

:cry:

[flordehinojos]

3. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES BUSH SAVE EVERY TIME HE GESTS SOME CRAZED 'FAITHBASED'

ORGANIZATION TO DO THE JOB THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING?
and.....
WHO DO THE FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS HIRE TO DO THEIR WORK AND HOW MUCH LESS DO THEY PAY THESE HIREES TO DO THE JOBS OF PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE WITH PROFESSIONAL DEGREES AND CAREER SERVICES PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEIR FEET?

[Maat]

12. The answer is that he really doesn't save.

It's just that his favorite faith-based org. administrators get more than adequate compensation.

And, no, this retired social worker does not believe that those orgs' professionals have the same skills that those hired by the county do. Most times, these orgs. are not obligated to hire counselors, therapists or social workers with even a Bachelor's degree, let alone a Master's, which is required for most similar positions with the County.

As stated in my previous post, I worked for the County. But I also interviewed with a faith-based organization in 1992 or 1993. They were supposed to be complying with state law. They still asked me, however, whether or not I believed in abortion (failure to hire a pro-choice person was forbidden by law at the time). The Church itself my discriminate in hiring, but not in the arm receiving public funds. They just ignore that, however.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. And which "faith-based" organizations get the money?

Are any of them Jewish? Muslim? Even Unitarian? Suuure they are...Betcha every last one is Christian, most likely of the fundie persuasion.

[pop goes the weasel]

6. Can I sue?

I resent being forcibly taxed in order to support religious organizations. How do we challenge the constitutionality of such mis-use of tax money?

[Maat]

13. Contribute to A.U., thank you very much.

(au.org) - Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They are on it. If they are not, then send an e-mail to them.

[Just Me]

8. Buh-bye,...founding fathers' hope for democracy.

:hi:

Buh-bye.

Second verse, same as the first,...George the ruler, the ruler I am, George the ruler I am I am, married the the wench from next door,...

[many a good man]

9. ONE BILLION F****ng dollars in 03???

This is a huge transfer of wealth from social programs to religious extremists! Imagine that outcry if we tried paying off one of our special interest groups! This isn't politics as usual.

This is the complete lack of checks and balances! This nation cannot survive with the single most important element of its Constitution. Its the only thing that makes it work. Wake up America! Before its too late.

[Tace]

10. This Is A Radical Broach Of The Separation Between Church And State

The churches, or "faith-based" organizations, should fund their own programs. They don't deserve tax-payer money. They've already got non-profit status.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. there is to be no joy except from godgodgodgodgodgod

Thou shalt have no sex, no fun, no recreation, no safety nets for the unfortunate except from the Witchy-Man. Singing, theatre, dance and anything else that smacks of happiness may only be enjoyed under the auspices of the big scary thing.

Government must be completely dismantled, and all social services must be turned over to the harvesters of souls.

It must be driven into the skulls of everyone that the only nurturing that humans ever give is because of the big whatever. All crisis intervention will have a prominent stamp of god; you must never think that a world without this concept is anything but evil.

Loot the treasury, preserve one's position and forever enslave one's fellow citizens to one's personal guess; it's the Newmerican way.

[Judi Lynn]

15. List of federal faith-based grants for Alabama agencies

Thought it would be worth posting this list,(not knowing how complete it is, however....) for reference. If I see more from other states, I'll add them. I would expect certain kinds of organizations to start creating names which would conceal their religious association, now that they're officially on the "gravy train."


List of federal faith-based grants for Alabama agencies

Last Update: 1/3/2005 4:44:40 PM

http://wpmi.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=EF9BDFFA-0B76-440E-8800-A6676318A2F3

[Judi Lynn]

16. Faith dollars spread around

Faith dollars spread around
$1 billion awarded in '03 under Bush initiative, but secular groups among those sharing the wealth.

By LAURA MECKLER
Associated Press
Published on: 01/03/05
WASHINGTON — The government gave more than $1 billion in 2003 to organizations it considers "faith-based," with some going to programs in which prayer and spiritual guidance are central and some to organizations that do not consider themselves religious at all.

More than $57.4 million of the money went to about 30 Georgia groups.
Many of these groups have entirely secular missions, and some organizations were surprised to find their names on a list of faith-based groups provided to The Associated Press by the White House.

"Community-based is the way we've always been classified. Based on the fact that we had faith-based origins, they put us in that bucket," said Tom Andrew, president of St. Joseph's Mercy Care Services in Atlanta, which has been receiving federal money for two decades.

St. Joseph's, which was founded by Catholics but operates as a secular organization, received two federal grants totaling about $1.7 million last year to provide health care to Atlanta's homeless.

Other grant recipients are religious, offering social service programs that the government may have deemed too religious to receive money before President Bush took office.

Visitors to TMM Family Services in Tucson, Ariz., which received $25,000 for housing counseling, are greeted by a picture of Jesus and quotes from the Bible.
(snip/...)

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1204/03faithfunds.html
(Free registration is required)

[saigon68]

17. Can you say JESUS FREAKS with Snouts in PUBLIC TROUGH

OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK
OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK OINK

[arwalden]

19. For A Faith-Based Payoff To Fund More Faith-Based Bigotry And

so that the church can MOVE the money they might otherwise use to help those in need INTO their general fund and do vital things like proselytizing.

Come on now! You know this happens! How could it not? Only an idiot would believe that the church doesn't allocate LESS of their funds to community service whenever they know federal funds are coming in. And WHERE do you think the difference goes?

This is federal subsidies for CHURCHES! It's outrageous!

[not fooled]

20. and will we ever see any audits???

didn't think so. or studies of how effective the religious groups are at achieving the putative goals, especially compared to gov't programs administered by professionals??? nawww.

of course diverting $ to religious groups ("faith-based" = focus-group tested euphemism for RELIGIOUS) also supports *'s efforts to weaken, then kill off gov't social programs.

[olddad56]

21. $1.17 Billion that could have gone to education....

makes sense to me.

[Supersedeas]

23. Bush acted alone after failing to persuade Congress--and not so much as a

blink from the U.S. MSM. Odd?

[tom_paine]

52. Not surprising, as the MSM is fit for duty in any Totalitarian Nation

Must not report on items which make Fuhrer, Pemier, or Emperor look bad, otherwise you are a traitor and open to attack.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY isn't this story being covered in the US press? Nevermind I already know.

Oh. My. God.

DROP THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF CHURCHES IMMEDIATELY.

I don't see any "faith-based initiatives" helping anyone where I am!!! What are they supposed to be doing with the money? Making themselves rich? Where is the oversight?

Damn, I need to get me a conservative hardline Christian fundie church then hold out my grubby paw for some of those faith based dollars!

CHA-CHING!

[righteous woman]

41. Christian???

I just checked Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, Oral
Roberts, and Pat Robertson websites. And guess what? NO
mention of the Tsunami, not even a "let us pray"! 
Christian my ass!! 

[kwolf68]

53. You got an email to Pat Robertsons crowd

I'd love to email them, but I don't want the 700 Club to get in my cache.

[Penndems]

75. Don't even get me started on that fraud Robertson, LOL

I volunteered on one of his "700 Club" telethons. I used to watch that show religiously (no pun intended) and wanted to do some good.

It was my 22nd birthday, and I wanted to make it meaningful, so I called the local number and submitted my name as a counselor. One of their people picked me up and took me to an office they had rented over on Lee Highway in Falls Church City, Virginia. Some woman who was in charge of this so-called "mission for Jesus" sat me down in a cubicle with a telephone and a laminated script, with a speech I had to parrot. The calls started pouring in from people donating anywhere from a few dollars to a couple of hundred. I had to fill out a form showing how much each caller gave, the time and the date, my name, and what (if any) prayer requests they had.

One of my callers was a young man who was about my age at that time (this was in 1977). His first statement after my opening speil was "I'm gay. Why doesn't God love me?" This was right about the time of the Anita Bryant imbroglio (an ex-beauty queen homophobe who was shilling for the Florida orange juice industry). I responded, "God does love you. He loves everyone, just as we are."
Well, we must've talked for at least fifteen minutes. All of a sudden, I feel something pecking on my left shoulder, where I'm cradling the phone receiver. It was my "supervisor". I put the guy on hold, looked up at her and asked, "Yes?" Her response was, "You've been on the phone too long with whoever it is you're talking to. From now on, stick to the script and wrap it up in five minutes." I left - and never went back.

I still got letters from the good Reverend, though. Starting in 1979, he sent out missives telling his followers that God had recruited him to create a new coalition (a "Moral Majority") for his flock in the political realm within the Republican Party, and soliciting funds for CBN (now Regent) University, a place were Christians could get an education based on Bibical fact to take God's teachings out into the world. Every letter went into the trash.

I literally and figuratively ditched Pat Robertson. God and I, however, are still hanging.

Pat Robertson's father, M.G. (who was a Virginia State Senator) must be spinning in his grave.

[leesa]

42. 'christians only' need apply...and only Fundie christians.

[Massachusetts]

48. Praise Gee Sus

and show me the money!:evilfrown: O8) :evilgrin:

[Malva Zebrina]

60. Some research done on Robertson

by Charles Henderson. I like this guy, really. I am an atheist, but have had some communication with him and respect him for his approach and he has respected my approach and is most gracious. Anyhow, here is what he dug up on Robertson's faith based welfare money.

<snip>

Early this year, Robertson denounced the Bush proposal, warning that the program is a "Pandora's Box" that could make legitimate religious charities dependent on government and that the government would end up financing "cults that brainwash" prospective adherents. He went on to tell his 700 Club television audience that the groups getting such funding "will begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can't get off of it." He added, "It'll be like a narcotic; they can't then free themselves later on."

All the more surprising then, that among the very first organizations to be funded by the Bush administration's new program is Operation Blessing International, a Virginia Beach charity created by Robertson. This group is to receive $500,000 in the first wave of grants to be distributed under the faith-based initiative. The award to Operation Blessing is one of 25 announced on October 3rd by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.

Aside from the irony involved in Robertson's own organization applying for and then accepting such "addictive" government funding, one needs to take a closer look at the finances of Operation Blessing International. On the surface it looks very much like the sort of church sponsored, social service organization that the federal government has been funding for many years. Indeed, according to tax returns filed by the organization, its main purpose is to give "food, medicines and other necessities of life to individuals in need." What could be more appropriate than to have our federal tax dollars going to feed the hungry and house the homeless?

Unfortunately, to understand what Operation Blessing is actually doing, one needs to read a bit deeper into that tax return. In 2001, the organization solicited from individuals and corporations various products which it then distributed to mostly small churches and Christian missionary organizations. Among the products distributed, for example, were Ensure, a dietary supplement and Splenda, a no calorie sweetener. I suppose that few would object too strongly to such products, though one would wonder whether a no calorie sweetener ($2,572,548 of it to be exact) could be considered among the "necessities of life." Also, looming very large on the list of products being distributed by Operation Blessing International are panty hose and candy. ($10,465,640 worth of candy.) Do you suppose that those being asked to contribute to this organization understand that a significant portion of its money is involved in the distribution of panty hose and candy?

<snip>
http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa100302.htm

additionally, I do believe that this money is guaranteed for three years. In other words, the $500,000 is granted each year for three years. Yipee--your tax money at work.

[YolandaMartinez]

63. There Should be separation of church and state.

I think so anyway.

[Mr_Spock]

74. Bush gets faith shoved up his ass and hands off to OJ for the final run

:eyes:

[Sugarbleus]

76. Gee, does that mean I can go to a local church and get them to

pay my rent? Weeeeeeeeeha

Will they give me bucks to go to the dentist? How about a downpayment on a home instead of rent?

Do I have to sit through bible study before I get any help? :eyes:

This administration is dangerous!

[JoFerret]

77. All the more reason to NEVER give to faith-based

IF there are alternatives. Many faith-based do amazing work (all power to them) BUT why make that choice when there are alternatives. Why is Catholic Relief one of those at the top of this page?

[infusionman]

78. This is subtle taxation if you ask me...

The more he can get us to contribute to the faith based inititives, the more money he can divert to his UNHOLY war.