It seems that the Christian Coalition of America elected a new President named Dr. Joel Hunter.Upon his election, Dr. Hunter, a senior Pastor at the Northland Church Group in Florida, had the audacity to........wait for it...... speak of his desire to want evangelicals to follow the path of Jesus Christ more closely. Y'know, that whole bit in the Gospels about serving the poor and maintaining a clean environment.....the stuff that Jesus actually talked about...as opposed to the "let's kill all the fags" and "enslave the whores" parts of the scripture that don't exist at all.
Well, you can imagine what happened after that. Lawdy! Lawdy Lawdy! It was chaos. The Alabama chapter of the Christian Coalition quit. The Mississippi chapter threatened to quit. Some Christian conservatives quietly supported Dr. Hunter but were afraid to speak up....in case they got branded a....LIBERAL! Jerry Falwell, and other evangelicals, fretted over the fact that if Christian Conservatives began allying themselves with these left wing causes, they could...(tearful sniffing here) be brainwashed and brought into the evil cabal of liberalism.
So, the Board of Directors of the Christian Coalition forced Dr. Hunter to step down and now they have to go and elect a whole new president....one that will continue to make up a bunch of shit that Jesus never said and act as God's official mouthpiece on moral judgement.
In a recent interview on CNN, Dr. Hunter spoke of his vision of Christianity in America. He truly wants people to focus on serving the poor (gasp!) and improve the environment (Oxygen! I need oxygen! Can someone get me some O2?). He feels that enough has been said and done about gay marriage and abortion. Christians around the world need to broaden their perspective and look to Christ for guidance. Please click here to watch the full interview:
Dr. Hunter on CNN
My message to the board at the Christian Coalition and the people that support them:
Your party is just about over.
13 comments:
I'm fairly certain the Christian Coalition isn't listening to you since you don't really have their best interests in mind.
Also, you can't utter phrase "trouble in river city" since you haven't seen The Music Man yet. When you sing "Shipoopi" to me I'll let you off the hook.
On a related note, by chance did anyone here see John Stossel's primetime TV special called "Cheap in America" on Wednesday night? It showed that people of faith give far more to charity than non-religious people.
The highlight of the show was when they set up 2 salvation army bell ringers in 2 very busy shopping areas...one in Sioux Falls, SD and one in San Francisco, CA. Even though the San Francisco bell ringer easily had twice as many people walking by him, the Sioux Falls bell ringer had twice as much money in his little red pail at the end of the day.
Score one for Hicksville, USA.
What exactly are the "best interests" of the Christian Coalition?
"People of faith" is a very broad definition. A pastor at the United Church of Christ recently remarked on a popular radio program that everyone in her church helps the poor out all the time. Her church happens to be the same one that Barak Obama belongs to so I think we can all agree that liberals and conservatives give to the poor.
I think we can also agree that we are not doing enough. We should not have as many poor people in this country as we do and the wealthy people in this country don't care enough to do more.
I did not see John Stossel's special but I did read his column and I found it be laughable. He points out that we gave 260 billion dollars to charity last year. That's every charity everywhere.
The United States Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Charities don't have the financial muscle to actually get anything done as opposed to the United States Government, with its money AND resources.
I think your comparison of Sioux Falls and San Francisco is also amusing. So, by this example I am supposed to think people in South Dakota are OK now...even though they want women to be slaves and all the fags locked up?
Crab, I would suggest that you and I sit down sometime with Dick McFarland and have him explain to you why he wanted his taxes raised. You might want to take a Xanex beforehand.
I don't know and I don't care what the best interests of the Christian Coalition is, I'm not in it.
People of faith = people who go to church on a regular basis...people who believe in God. I'm just using the language John Stossel used. He showed small town (aka Hicksville) churches who took over sponsoring entire towns in Africa and got those people medicine, clothes, food, etc...something the US government and the UN sure hadn't been able to do up until they began sponsoring the town. The church members go over there on a monthly basis to meet the people they sponsor.
Of course you find the comparison amusing...it contradicts many things you believe. Just like your statement "Charities don't have the financial muscle to get anything done". John Stossel is on a coalition that cleaned up central park in NYC. He showed pictures of the park from 15 years ago whent he government ran things...grafitt, crime, etc and he showed pictures of it today not that the maintenence of the park has been turned over to the private sector. The difference is amazing. I think you're the first one who has ever uttered the phrase "The federal government gets things done".
You know, I still believe in Santa Claus, but the federal government ain't Santa Claus. Where is your separation of church and state now that you want government charity? It is not a moral act to forcibly tax one to give to another, nor is it charity - no matter how much you care or how much you think "we should do more".
People giving to faith and charity is fine but now you want the federal government to use its power of taxation to force the rest of us to give more?
Nothing prevents Dick McFarland from giving more money to the government or more money to charity. Perhaps if taxes were lower the rest of us could give more. Dick could also sit down with me and find out why I think I should pay less in taxes. He can have his opinion, I can have mine.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.
One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.
Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.
He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.
His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
So they donate money to charity. Which are the charities they donate to? I have yet to see the actual names of these various beneficiaries of all this money...
Crab, you are really missing the point of this post. An actual member of the religious right ( Dr Hunter) is saying that they dwell too much on gay marriage and abortion and not enough on helping the poor and caring for the environment. They are not saying the right does not give to the poor.
Until every man, woman and child in this country and on this earth is at least at level two of Maslow's Hierarchy your statistics are meaningless.
"Statistics don't lie" - quote from Markadelphia on this blog. I guess it's only statistics that he agrees with.
The point of my responses is to show exactly who in this country gives to charities. Seems to me that your message of "you people aren't doing enough to help the poor" could very easily be directed at liberals.
Dr. Hunter didn't say it but you sure semed to..."Ya know...serving the poor as opposed to Let's kill all the fags" that you posted in your original post.
Maslows hierarchy, while useful to many, is mostly meaningless to me because I will never reach level 4 because I do not seek validation or recognition from anyone else in any way. I don't care about status either.
Charities and the private sector do a much better job at this type of thing that the US government could ever do.
Crab, there is really no way that you can seriously believe that "liberals" do less than "conservatives" for the poor. If you do, you are seriously insulated and have a warped sense of reality.
The fact is that rich people, regardless of whether or not they are liberal or conservative, don't do enough. Period. Dr. Hunter is saying we need to do more. He, an evangelical, is saying that Christians need to start acting like Christians. Poor people in this country are suffering while our population in general does not do enough...regardless of where they stand politically.
What conservatives are good at is spin. They are much more succesful turd polishing than they are at just about anything else. Stassel's report has been mentioned to me by virtually every neocon I know in the same way a person of small stature tries to prove to me that he can do things better than me.
I think they have mentioned it because the American people perceived them, whether true or untrue, to not care about poor people and as result voted for Democrats last November. So, neocons feel slighted. Cry me a fucking river.
As long as you keep talking about how important your money is to you...i.e income taxes, estate tax, corporate welfare...you are not going to convince the American public. You are certainly not going to convince the middle class...or what's left of them....that conservatives care about them. Our own Tresury Secretary has gone on record stating how bad off this country is as far as distribution of wealth goes...and it has gotten worse under President Bush, a conservative president.
Yes, it's true. Charities do a better job but they don't have the infrastructure and the funds to do what the US government can do. So they aren't as effective.
I didn't say conservatives to more than liberals. I said people of faith do more than liberals, for the most part. Going on the internet and saying they care abbout poor people more than conservatives doesn't count. You liberals are great at spending other peoples money.
Who defines what "enough" is? My guess is that we weill never reach the level of "enough" because someone will always raise the bar.
I've said it about a dozen times on here - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Unlike you, I trust that the people around me are smart enough to make their own decisions. I don't want anyone in the government to "care" about me. I want them to get out of the way so I can do things myself.
The US government is effective? Yes the government has more money but it also has a lot more bureacracy as well. How much education money ACTUALLY reaches the classroom? Again, you focus on intentions, I focus on results.
Poor people in this country have been suffering for decades for many reasons other than "rich people not doing enough". When Clinton signed welfare reform in 1996 you liberals said that there would be a massive crime wave and starvation when the year 2001 came around because of peoples welfare benefits reaching the 5 year lifetime limit, I remember it well. Well, mass starvation didn't happen. Somehow, the country got by. teeheehee
Don't force your morality on me by advocating the government take more of my money through taxation so you can spend it on priorities you deem important. Listening to you tell me that more of other peoples money (mine included) should go to the government instead of my bank account is you forcing your morality on others...and all this time I thought you were against morality in government.
I'm done with this blog for a while (again) and trust me - it's not because of shame or acceptance of your positions in anyway whatsoever. It's just the same old stuff over and over. Having this tax debate with someone who has more than likely not paid any federal income taxes thus far in his life is kind of ironic.
Here is the problem with your first sentence. There are liberals...many many of them...that are people of faith. In fact, both of the churches my family and I go to are pretty evenly split down the middle...just like the rest of the country.
Second, after Bush has spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama Bin Laden, your comment about liberals spending your money is flat out wrong.
It's funny how "your money" becomes an issue when the government chooses to spend it on helping people but where is your call to arms when 400 dollars is spent on a hammer at the Defense Department? The Defense Budget is 400 billion dollars this year. Do you think that that is money well spent? Or is the government wasting there as well?
Your last paragraph is just plain ludicrous. First, I have paid thousands of dollars in income taxes...I was employed before I was married, y'know...and second, my wife may be the bread winner but my whole family pays taxes. If you think my job of raising kids has been easy, I challenge you to try it for a week. Be the CEO,taxi driver, child psychologist, cook, dishwasher, laundry maven, and handyman of my fucking house and see if you can do half the job I do.
In fact, I challenge you to make some of your comments to the housewives and househusbands across the country who "likely have not paid any income taxes." I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that conversation.
What is really sad here is that you really missed my point about Joel Hunter and the one with Greg Boyd. These are both men who I have differences of opinon with but still respect. Yes, they are against gay marriage and abortion but they aren't taking any actions as a result of these views. They choose to use their actions in a more constructive way...like helping the poor. This is a good thing. The tide is turning and I am welcoming it.
I don't know why you have a problem with this.
Oh, and you can add part time job, in which I do pay taxes, and part time student to the list of things that fall under my weekly duties as well...
What would Christ do?
Even though Dr. Joel Hunter has stepped down, I think he has really left us with something to ponder. The Christian Coalition having a leader that is trying to lead as Christ would lead.
What a brilliant idea.
How can my comment about liberals spending money be wrong...it’s what you’re advocating when you say “we aren’t doing enough” followed by “Charities don't have the financial muscle to actually get anything done as opposed to the United States Government, with its money AND resources”. Put those 2 statements together in the same discussion and it sure sounds like you want to US government to tax people more and redistribute the money to poor people (based on your morality).
You never defined what "enough" is. My point is - there will never be "enough". Notice that tax cuts have an expiration date but tax increases never fall off once they've "solved" (barf) the problem.
I want GWB to cut corporate taxes. I work at a corporation. Corporations are not faceless entities – they are made up of people.
I don’t have a problem with anything Joel Hunter says…he can tell his people whatever he wants to...it’s one thing to advocate that people help the poor, feed the hungry, give to charity, whatever. It’s another thing entirely to call for the federal government to get involved and tax people the producers in this society more and redistribute the wealth as they see fit – as you have called for. You’re all about taking action on your “views” here aren’t you?
I’m sure there is plenty of waste in the defense budget. This isn’t a zero sum game. $400 is too much for a hammer. Feel the outrage.
Yes, my money is important to me and I vote on issues related to it. Don’t all of a sudden pretend that I have a monopoly on caring about money on this blog when you have used the phrase “people are working harder for less” on this blog several times. Less what? Besides, when I put my money in my savings account, the bank uses it to loan to people and businesses that will spend it...it could also be used by a family who gets a mortgage through the bank to buy a house. Buying a house and opening a business is good for the economy. The money I invest in the stock market allows companies with initiative to make money, sell goods, hire people, and better the economy.
I’m not talking about your wifes income, I’m talking about your income. I’m sure your family has paid plenty of taxes – sales taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, etc. Federal income tax is what I’m talking about as that is the money the federal government collects so they can spend it on whatever they choose and you really don’t start paying into that coffer till you make $25k - $30k per year. When adding up the federal taxes you pay, don’t forget to subtract the whopping $5k - $7k federal tax refund you get back every year due to claiming your children on your taxes (something you’ve told me). I’m guessing you don’t set an example for the rest of us and send any of that money back to the government. Don’t worry – I wouldn’t either.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1916.html - read the conclusion before the table. My softball teammate Rob was telling me that they get every dime he pays in federal income taxes back every year via his refund simply because they claim their children...said he hasn’t paid any federal income taxes for many years.
Re-read my posts - I never said your job of raising kids was easy and I haven’t said anything about your weekly duties, not sure where you got that or what any of that has to do with anything here. Those things are all a part of being a parent and that’s the choice you have made...it's what you sign up for when you go that route. Along the same lines, you, or anyone else for that matter, couldn’t just waltz through the doors of my company and sit down and jump right into my job either, same for Waxey’s job, same for blk's job, same for PL’s job.
If a stay-at-home parent is not on the payroll at a company/business, they aren’t paying any income taxes because they aren’t generationg any income. They still pay taxes, just not federal income taxes.
It is not a moral act to forcibly tax one to give to another, nor is it charity - no matter how much you care or how much you think "we should do more".
Well, Mary M got my point. But apparently the deaparting Crab has not.
Look at this column and the chart at the end of it..
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0803/p03s03-usec.html
This is fucking apalling and this is what I have a big problem with...this article lies in direct dichotomy with the link that you sent me.
Our whole system is set up to favor rich people and keep poor people poor. It is not a Christian system at all and when you have neocons running around saying we are a "Christian" nation, it sounds insanely hypocritical.
Which is why I am thankful that Dr Hunter and others like him are starting to turn the tide. I hope that we can change the way we do things because it really has not turned out well for societies in the past that have been at the same point we are...it has ended....badly.
I understand that you view these debates as currently pointless. I do not. I enjoy them because, as a result, I have sought out good people like Dr Hunter and Greg Boyd, who differ from me in many ways, and have found them to share some commonalties. This is a good thing.
So, why you view these debates as pointless due to my supposed close mindedness is...bizarre to say the least. I am pretty much the most opened minded person I know. I am perfectly willing to admit that the federal government wastes money and should be smaller. There is a large part of me that is fiscally conservative. Of course, that part of me is at war with the part of me that thinks we should have spent 400 billion dollars on education, health care, and feeding the poor instead of the Iraq War.
Crab, there is no easy anwer to any of this but I think you need to start with being willing to be organic. Based on your posts and your reticence to continue to post in the future, I wonder if that is possible...
Post a Comment