Topic awaiting preservation: Politics and Religion in America (Page 1 of 1)

Well, a big topic, maybe? I just wanted to bring this article to the table Meet 'The Family'. If this guy is right, then it would seem that there is some sort of 'loose' religious organization with ties all over the place...interesting, I would say. Here is a little excerpt out of the article

quote:

---

The Fellowship is one of the most secretive, and most powerful, religious organizations in the country. Its connections reach to the highest levels of the U.S. government and include ties to the CIA and numerous current and past dictators around the world.

--AlterNet

---

And there is quite a parade of interesting names that belong to this...group. Here are some

quote:

---

The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.).

---

Hmmm...what exactly is going on here?

Cooooooooooooooo.

Just imagine if this was a bunch of atheist lefties (people I'd pos. be able to sit in a room with without activating he suicide pill in my left third molar)!!

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This is worrying:

quote:

---

GNN: What are some this group's core ideas and what level of secrecy is involved here?


SHARLET: The goal is an "invisible" world organization led by Christ ? that's what they aspire to. They are very explicit about this if you look in their documents, and I spent a lot of time researching in their archives. Their goal is a worldwide invisible organization. That's their word, and that's important because it sounds so crazy.


What they mean when they say "a world organization led by Christ" is that literally you just sit there and let Christ tell you what to do. More often than not that leads them to a sort of paternalistic benign fascism.

---

Thats just what we need an organisation pulling the strings 'interpretting' messages from God - I kind of hoped we'd got passed that kind of thing.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yeah, it is worrying, isn't it? It would seem that it is in existence since the 1930s...and, more or less, has had some seemingly huge impacts on America's foreign policy decisions. Yes, I find that somewhat alarming.

I wonder why this isn't getting more coverage. Strange.

Webshaman.... Those articles I beleive are in reference to "Boheimia or Boheimian Grove" a club of some of the worlds elite in which many politicians and some reporters have joined therby becoming apart of the "Family". The Grove is an isolated private forested park in Northern California were once a year this club or family has a gathering and a ceremony to initiate new members who must get the approval of certain other members to be invited or considered for membership. It all depends on the power that person yeilds as to personal wealth or political influence. A documentary film on the web that shows actual film footage of the inner workings of the club at the grove and their practices can be found on the Infowars website ...just add the www and the .com and follow links at that site or type in "boheimia grove" in a search engine. Alex Jones is a syndicated Radio Talk Show Host who claims to have infiltrated one of the gatherings and filmed parts of it from a short distance. Supposedly members (cloked in long robs) worship a "giant stone owl" at the "grove" an ancient
god called (Molauch?) originating from a group of people (I can not recall at this time their name or origin) a few thousand years ago...members include the late President George W. Bush and His father ex-President Bush, Bill C*****n, Ronald Reagan just to name a few among other well known political and business figures.

Scary? Yes. But it does explain a lot!

If it's not one secret society, it's another...

What's really strange, is that all of the American Presidents have been Freemasons (with the exception of John F. Kennedy, and that was part of the problem, apparently). The Freemasons are not a religious group at all - and don't advocate one religion over another, though most Masons will tell you they are Christians.

I wonder how many of these groups are at cross purposes in the government these days?

Some of that just made me shudder...

Bodhi - Cell 617

secretive? - maybe
secret? - hardly, excepting that most people are unaware, or just don't care, or are too busy with other things
propaganda? - most likely

"What, me worry?" -- Alfred E. Neuman

"My kingdom is not of this world." -- Jesus, The Christ



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 06-17-2003).]

That's the coolest thing I've read in a while.

Here is Harper's 11 page story about it.
It's pretty good ---> Jesus + 0

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 06-19-2003).]

I can certainly see how this would scare the bejeezus out of you. The idea of these guys confusing Christ's mission with theocracy or some sort of forced thing scares the crap out of me... HOWEVER... I'm not seeing a lot of that the article that GN just linked. That seemed to be the source of most of the interview of the first link anyways.

So the idea of theocracy is very bad but the idea of people in leadership positions being led by God couldn't be a better thing. You do realize that every leader is led by something. I find it far more appealing to be led by those who hold Christ as their role model than I would by those who held the State as the ultimate purpose in life.

I would like to hear more thoughts on this from you all. The thing that is so awkward for me is that so much of that dialogue mentioned in the article is so much like what I've experienced with fellow Christians over the years. I almost feel as I'm reading it like I'm sitting at church in a small group talking about missions or other topics. So much of it felt familiar.

The comment in the first article about keeping thing relatively low key because it would just be misunderstood makes a bit of sense, especially reading some of your responses and particularly some of the comments in the articles themselves. For instance, having Christ tell you what to do means that you study and pray hard for guidance in making decisions. But everyone makes decisions in life whether you ask your uncle, go to a palm reader, or pray to God.

I suppose it's understandable that this would terrify some of you and I must admit that there are elements of American Xianity that terrify me too! But most of that second article did *not* scare me much at all. I found it all very interesting.

Thanks, WS, for bringing this up. I'm going to run this by a few friends to see if they've heard of this. A few of those names rang a bell and I know some people who know some things about them. What I said above are my initial reactions. I hope to find a few more things out about this.

. . : slicePuzzle

The scary thing, is not that politicians may use Christ to guide their decisions, and aspire to model their behavior after his, but that many politicians may seek to use the Christian faith to further their own agendas...

As in, say, making abortion illegal, or continued persecution of homosexuals (among other things)...

I have no problems whatsoever with anyone modeling their lives after Christ, or using the Christian faith to guide them in their decisions... Christianity, when used appropriately, can be a good thing... However, we are all aware that there are people in political power who will use whatever tools they have available to further their own plan for the country.


Cell 617

I agree with Bug's. I think its awesome that these political leaders are joined
by a common goal of following the words of Christ. Now, I am not a Christian,
but I totally believe in Christ and his power, and respect him greatly and think
about him often. I believe he is an example of what humans have the potential
to become: healers, providers of peace, and all the other powers he had. I think
we all have this ability inside of us. That is why I am so into shamanism, because
it is all about bringing out the inner power within us all, and it is, I think, one of the
ways to learn to become as much like Jesus as possible.


.quotes.

I am really being pushed further and further towards thinking that some of you are completely insane.

Christ as a personal role model? Great. Fantastic.

Organized christian dogma as political policy? That's a *whole* different barrel of monkeys....

Now, I've only skimmed so far, so perahps my judgement is hasty...I'll read more thoroughly when I get a chance.

quote:

---

Organized christian dogma as political policy? That's a *whole* different barrel of monkeys....

---

Exactly! That's the scary part.

Especially in a country in which the government specifically states the necessity of the separation of church and state...



Cell 617

A seperation of church and state does not mean
that politicians can not have a religion.

Oh no - that's not what I meant...

Just that politicians shouldn't involve religion in government policies..

I actually prefer a politician who's got some religion. It's a good indication that he knows there's something more powerful than he is...


Cell 617

But I think that is exactly what this is... politicians with religion. The articles specifically state that they are very ecumenical in their structure. So this does *not* represent any one "church" but rather a group of individuals with a somewhat loose commonality focused on the person of Jesus Christ. At least that is what I can surmise from the articles themselves.

I've got nothing against politicians that have a religion either. But after reading the King David analogy in the Jesus+0 article, politicians who believe they have been chosen by God make me very nervous. I can just see the wheels spinning- "What ever I do to get what I want is OK, because I have been chosen by God..."

And then we have the sheer arrogance of it all. I'm not totally against arrogance, I've got my fair share of it my self. But chosen by God? That's a bit much. Is this like being picked for playing kickball on the playground?

I'm not sure how I've missed this thread for so long.

I have some pretty serious reservations about this, on a few different levels:

1) There is nothing at all wrong with having a personal belief in Jesus of Nazareth as your personal savior, reading the Bible, going to church or taking communion. The problem comes when elected officials wish to use (their interpretation of) the Bible for policy. Religion has no place in secular law. No questions asked. Secular law is to be made based on the very best that science can offer us at the moment.

The Bible says that we should feed the poor. I happen to agree that we should feed the poor. If a senator stood up an campaigned that we should feed the poor 'because Jesus said so,' I would not vote for that wo/man. No way.
If that same senator stood up and said we should feed the poor because 'that is in the best interest of the neighborhood' 'there will be less crime, etc', even 'it is not ethical to let people starve to death' (one can have ethics without religion) I would not have one problem with electing that wo/man to office.

The very nature of consulting religion for public, secular policy erodes at the notion of a free and secular society. It is a slippery slope.

2) As I alluded to in my first problem, it is based on an interpretation. We're all aware of how interpretations of religion lead to some pretty un-religious things. That scares me. When you have a group of powerful, wealthy men interpreting religion for 'the masses' you have a problem.

Which brings us to #3

3) This combined with the neo-Machavellian, neo-conservative, non-democratic ideas that there is a ruling class of elites predestined to dictate policy for the world (ala Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) creeps me out. So now you have a bunch of ego-maniac, powerful, wealthy men dictating polics based on their own, very narrow, and very self-interested version of some 'chosen people' story...give these guys the largest army in the world and now we have trouble...

This quote says it all, "Christ's kingdom is not a democracy."

For now I don't care about Christ's kingdom. I care about the democratic republic of the United States of America, and my political leaders better remember that.

This story, this organization is not about Christianity. On the surface it seems to be, but it isn't. This group is VERY clearly about the idea that their god put them on this Earth, gave them their money and weapons, and has commissioned them, and them alone, to rule the earth.

Aren't you presuming all of these people are egomanical and self-interested? Why are you doing that? I'm not saying that I know they are not but you definitely are making a serious value judgement on their character.

[edit] Another point. Our secular law is based on religious law. How does that square with a complete break with religion?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 06-20-2003).]

i don't really understand the turmoil here

quote:

---

The very nature of consulting religion for public, secular policy erodes at the notion of a free and secular society. It is a slippery slope.

---

yea, right. tell that to the guys who framed the declaration of independence and the constitution.

ed: i guess i just said the same as bugs did, just in other words. oh well

jeremiah was a bullfrog


[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 06-20-2003).]

Here are the people the article mentions as being involved.

Don Nickles - Throughout his Senate career, Nickles has worked toward a more responsible and less intrusive federal government. A consistent proponent of a more family-friendly tax system, Nickles' $500-per-child family tax credit provision helped millions of children.

Charles Grassley - The only working family farmer in the U.S. Senate, Grassley brings true grit to his congressional oversight responsibilities. Seeking a more accountable government, Grassley works to keep Washington honest.

Pete Domenici - Domenici has been a champion in Congress for federal investments to help women and minorities achieve the dream of owning a small business. In addition, he continues to work to attract more private-sector job creation on New Mexico's Indian reservations, while maintaining a federal commitment to Indian education and infrastructure improvement on these lands.

John Ensign - Ensign immediately began practicing veterinary medicine and opened the first 24-hour animal hospital in Las Vegas.

Yea, it seems like these guys are up to no good.

-Other Links-
Los Angeles Times - By far the most comprehesive.
John Baldacci
Jeffrey Sharlet


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 06-20-2003).]

As long as they continue working for the good of the country in a secular fashion, I have no gripes with where they get their inspiration.

It's the possibilities, knowing human nature, that really make it scary.

As long as they continue to keep it separate - go ahead. I, for one, would feel better if it hadn't even been brought to my attention. I would happily continue in my blindness...





Cell 617

[This is a long post, I'm sorry. Try as I might, I can't think of anything to cut out and still say my piece. As it is, I cut 5 paragraphs from the original. Anyway, sorry you have to read so bloody much of my ramblings.]

Bugs:
I did make a value judgement, and a serious one. I also did not explain clearly why I did, so here it goes.

First of all, they are quoted as saying their mission is an '"invisible" world organization led by Christ'. I have a problem with a democratically elected leader who has an 'invisible' agenda. Not only do they have an 'invisible' plan for their constituants, they have a plan for an '"invisible" world organization'.

Secondly is this bit here:

quote:

---

There are a lot of places that they've done good things, and that's important to acknowledge. But that also means they might be involved with General Suharto in Indonesia and if that means that God leads him to kill half a million of his own citizens then, well, it would prideful to question God leading them.

---

More often than not, with organizations that claim to have world-governing plans and a top-down approach to the peons...uh, I mean...the people, an organization led by 'X' (in this case, 'Christ', but it could be anything) the people are supposed to sit back and let the members of the organization tell them what X REALLY means. That is egotistical. That is the way the Catholic Church worked for a long time (in some ways still does), that is the way that many Muslim communities work, that is the way 'leadership' works in many 3rd world countries and, more and more, that is the way I see things happening in the US -- shut up and trust your leaders.
A democratic society is not one based on the unquestioned dictations of a few, but on the active and knowledgable participation of many. These guys acknowledge acting AGAINST that model.

quote:

---

This is a lot more militaristic. Really at its fundamental core, almost monarchist. We would be told time and time again, "Christ's kingdom is not a democracy" This is their model for leadership. They would often say, "Everything you need to know about government is right there in the cross - it's vertical not horizontal."
---------
A loyal leadership cadre, which is interesting because guys like Hitler and Stalin were famous for purging, but they seem to focus on a couple of guys. "If two or three agree" is a phrase they use a lot. If you can get together and focus you can accomplish anything. You don't need to sway the electorate.
---------
They are really interested in the biblical concept that whether you are good or bad it doesn't matter, what matters is whether you are chosen. That's part of the Hitler Concept. It doesn't matter whether Hitler was good or bad, Hitler was chosen for leadership. That was part of God's plan. Nothing happens that isn't part of God's plan.

---

And now from the Harper's article:

quote:

---

There they forge "relationships" beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and "throw away religion" in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves "the new chosen."

---

So, let me get this straight:
It doesn't matter if you do good things or bad things.
It doesn't matter what the people you govern think of you or your policies.
All that matters is who is powerful and who is 'chosen'.
These people, by self-proclamation, declare themselves 'chosen', thus free from the burdens of actually acting in an ethical, responsible, or representative manner for their constituants...and God says 'that's OK'.

People who think that leadership should be 'vertical', often (of course) place themselves at the top of the ladder. Well, then, that to me is egotistical. You can call it whatever you will. You can even decide that your standards of 'ego-mania' are different than mine. That's fine. I'm simply defending my statement that these people are egomanical and self-interested. These are my standards.

Outcydr
Thomas Jefferson, one of the guys who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and the third president of the United States had quite a lot to say on the issue.

quote:

---

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
---------
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
---------
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

---

Now, none of these congress and military men mentioned in the articles are clerics in the traditional sense. That is, I think, Mr. Coe's point. The public would never go for a man in a black robe and white collar in government. So, take away the black robe and white collar. That does not diminish their 'clerginess'. They are still wishing to set up a world-wide government of Christ, with them at the head.

Now, I should clarify -- I thought I made it clear in my first post, but just to be sure --it bothers me none if a government leader (elected or otherwise) worships his god in whichever manner he sees fit. But to offer support for General Suharto murdering and torturing his population, then make the claim that god is on their side, god has chosen them, it doesn't matter if they do good or bad, they are 'supermen' above the laws of men because they are 'chosen'...that bothers me. And it should bother you too.

GN
Doing good things does not absolve one of the bad.
"Well, I supported General Suharto murdering his population, and I supported terrorism and torture in Cental America...but I built a 24 hr vet clinic. That makes everything OK. I'm chosen. Read about King David."
I could go on, but I think the point is clear. I don't want to diminish the good things they may do. I really don't. But to somehow 'forget' the bad things because of a prayer breakfast and a vet clinic is irresponsible.

To all
It interests me that these fellas talk about destroying democracy. They very openly despise the democracy we have. They wish and work for a non-democratic, top-down, dictatorial/monarchical society.
I wonder if this were a group of Muslims wishing to replace our democracy with Islamic law, how you all would feel about it? Or maybe if this were an anti-religious, military leader looking to create his own military/police state, how would you feel about it?

A dictatorship of 'Christ' is somehow OK, but a dictatorship of 'Allah' or of simple 'guns and power' is not? I don't get it. A dictatorship is bad news, regardless of who is at the top.

That's my point. This isn't about Christianity; this isn't even about Christ. This is about power and ego and an attempt to erode democracy.
Now, maybe this is just a bunch o' guys shooting some basketball and praying together. If that's really all it is, fine. I have no problem.
All three articles I read (Alternet, Harpers, LA Times), however, told not such an innocent story.

GN: I can't imagine their Senate web page profile is a good source for a rounded picture of an individuals activities ("Likes: Harrassing minorities and promoting right wing dictators around the world"). I did a quick check in google and got things like:

Don Nickles:

quote:

---

Nickles champions the religious right agenda in Congress - promoting schemes to display the Ten Commandments in the public schools and backing every effort to limit access to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. In 1996, he was a leading sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act and other legislation designed to prevent gay and lesbian couples from receiving the same benefits and legal protections as heterosexual couples.

---

from: http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/39006.php

There is a site called 'Right Wing Watch' and the relevant links are:

Don Nickles

Charles Grassley

Pete Domenici

John Ensign

Oh and what mobrul said

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Very nice post, Mobrul...I'm glad that you have taken the time to post that. It echoes exactly what has worried me about this topic.

I once again bow to Mobrul's well informed and well stated position.

You always seem to be able to sum up the things I want to say but don't necessarily have all the facts or the coherence to get out properly.
Thanks.

GN - I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the things you accept at face value and in turn make claims based upon are truly frightening. You'll take blurbs written with the express purpose of making them look good as a realistic representation of their character

Please, please, for your own sake: be more demanding of the information you find.

{edit -

Thomas Jefferson, being one of my favorite people of all time, has of course provided my favorite part of your post, Mobrul -

quote:

---

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own

---

I think perhaps the majority of the world needs a *serious* course in world history. I think that most people have a *serious* failing in not learning world history or human psychology. It is what has allowed so much imperialist and socialist activity to continue generation after generation.

Too few know the pre-determined results of such things. Too few see that the alleged "good things" that such platforms *always* rise upon are evil and corrupt from the start.
}




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-22-2003).]

I don't really know how many times I say this,
but I just like to take the other sides viewpoints.
That's all. I find it interesting. And it's not really like
my opionions of it really matters.

Say, for instance, I went to that house and told them, 'hey
You guys are all wrong here. You can't run the country based on
Jesus. They would say, yea whatever. The point is, that this already
exists, and whether or not we like it, is irrelevant. You can say that you
disagree with it, but that does not change the fact that it exists, and I am
trying to look at this in a positive manner. That's all. Trying to think of all the
positive things that could come of some sort of organization and friendship between
the world. Any sort of world bond, I think is good. Because like some of you so often say,
there are always a few bad sheep, amoungst the herd. So sure, some of the people are bad,
but probably for the majority, the ones involved are honest, good people who are interested in
helping the world.


.quotes.

This fits in rather nicely I think. Very good read imo.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/dawkins.html

quote:

---

the ones involved are honest, good people who are interested in
helping the world.

---

Well, once again GN, the question is - what are you basing that opinion on? Because somebody wrote down somewhere that they are good people? What about all the evidence to the contrary? That is to be ignored so that you can have 'happy thoughts' about it all?

And so....once something bad exists, we need to just sit back and accept that it exists and that it can do whatever it wants becauses it wants to? We shouldn't be concerned about anything that happens, and we should never do anything about it? And we can unify the world under a tyrannical force in the name of 'christ' and divine mandate, because, hey - at least we're unified...?

And, taking the other sides of view points - ? The concept is good. But what you do seems a bit different. Looking at the other side of a viewpoint is a great thing. Taking a side and sticking to it and basing claims upon it without any sort of discretion as to the source of your "facts" is a totally different story. Taking a blurb from a bio page of a senator and using it to make a point as to their "goodness" is, quite frankly, absurdly irresponsible.


Again, I have to reiterate, you could really use a few lessons in world history.

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-22-2003).]

quote:

---

And so....once something bad exists, we need to just sit back and accept that it exists and that it can do whatever it wants becauses it wants to?

---

No, I'm saying that just because the article makes it out to be bad, they are only basing it on a few isolated incidents, and not on the good this can do for the whole of the world. Now, I know the US is messed up, but not compared to the rest of the world. Like 85% of all people in the world live on less than $500 a year, where as compared to in America, the average income is like $28,000 or something. I am just saying that perhaps if there is more organization amoungst the world, that it would help a lot of people from dying due to startvation and whatnot. I am not saying ignore the bad, I am saying that there will always be some bad things mixed in with the good. And hopefully the good will overtake the bad in numbers.


.quotes.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 06-22-2003).]

Ok, so we'll make it a tradeoff - less people die of starvation, many more get slaughtered by dictators who believe that god put them in charge....

Now your seeing the big picture.

*norm waves his arms wildly*

Hey God!!! I'm right here... Pick me.... Pick me...Pick me! Come on man, it's my turn...

you truly frighten me GN.

truly.

LOL.
I was just kidding dude.

Perfection is no where in this world.

Shake it

NoJive - that was a good interview. Thanks for the post

I agree with everything that mobrul said... And part of the reason that the US exists, is to give the power of government to the people. Increasingly, power is not from the people, but from those who manage to buy their way into office. Look at the election that got Bush into office... closely. When have we ever had a miscount in a presidential election? I smell a rigging there...

We are led like sheep to the slaughter - they do what they want, and tell us what we want to hear. I think I said before, religion, used properly, is a good thing. Religion used improperly - is as bad as anything else you might consider "evil". If the people don't speak up for themselves - we will continue to be led blindly...

It's all well and good to consider that for the most part - people aren't bad, even politicians aren't bad... Jesse Helms was a really great grandfather, so say his grandkids... but he was a conservative bigot in his politics... Politics is all about who can get themselves in office, and what they can accomplish for themselves and the lobbyists who are paying their campaign financing. Unless the people speak out about it and make the changes, according to the precepts set by people like Thomas Jefferson - things will never change. And the "Family", may yet take over the world, amputating our freedoms as they go... and that, is really frightening...


Cell 617

Wow that is kinda scary. It's been a while since something caused me sit up and pay real attention, but that certainly did it.

I am suprised Bigimus was happily able to pass over all the very worrying points that are in the articles and that Mobrul so clearly highlighted and see this group as a blessing. These people are definately not following the example of Christ.