Jump to content

C Street


roundthebuoys

Recommended Posts

I know this story has been floating around for a few weeks, but haven't read much here about it. Can Republican's get any weirder? Wide stances, male pages, hiking the Appalachians.. But this one is over the top and includes dozens of the Red team members.

 

They admire them. Counseling Rep. Tiahrt, Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ's words, he says, "You know Jesus said 'You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that's what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn't murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom."

 

So it is for Ensign. Sen. Jim DeMint, one of Ensign's C Street roommates, insists that the prayer groups that meet there -- "invisible believing groups," in the Family's words, designed to facilitate private prayer between partners of equally high status -- are all about accountability. That is, the kind that takes place behind closed doors. We now know that the Family was aware of Sen. Ensign's affair long before Doug Hampton's wounded pride forced it into the public. What's more, if Hampton is to be believed, their concern with the payoffs made by Ensign and his parents to his mistress's family was that they were too small; operating in a medical and spiritual capacity, Sen. Coburn counseled $1.2 million, according to Hampton. Coburn is no hypocrite -- he's a true believer in the faith of the Family, the idea that the chosen need to look out for one another. Christian right leader -- and Watergate felon -- Chuck Colson, converted through the efforts of the Family, has boasted of it as a "veritable underground of Christ's men all through government."

 

What do they do? Rep. Zach Wamp, one of Ensign's fellow C Streeters who's been in the news for defending the Family's secrecy, has teamed up with Family-linked Reps. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., and John R. Carter, R-Texas, on an obscure appropriations committee to help greenlight tens of millions in federal funds for new megachurch-style chapels on military bases around the country. Former Rep. Chip Pickering was not only sleeping on the sly with a representative of the telecom industry, he was living with one -- former Oklahoma Republican Rep. Steve Largent, a C Streeter who in his post-Congress capacity as the head of a telecom association paid for travel by Pickering and John Ensign. Some might call that "crony capitalism"; Family members call it "biblical capitalism."

Complete story
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/tr...oryId=106115324

 

GROSS: Now, what's the connection in the philosophy of the Family between free markets, capitalism and Christianity?

 

Mr. SHARLET: You go back to this moment in the Great Depression that I describe, where they see this as a sort of punishment from God for what they see as sort of a sin of socialism. The attempts to regulate the market are prideful. In other words, the invisible hand, they take that very literally, you know, the invisible hand of capitalism.

 

They say what you have is an invisible hand through which God touches the hearts of corporate titans, leaders and so on, and they then run their companies, and the Family began primarily as a union-busting organization. That was their sort of first mission. They were terrified of organized labor in the 1930s, but they tapped into this older American tradition that really goes back to something in the 19th century called the businessman's revival, this idea that if you have Christian men of business and Christian politicians and so on, you don't need laws to protect the poor because they will protect the poor.

 

It's this very paternalistic and potentially very dangerous tradition, because of course it leads you away from accountability. If we say we don't have regulation, we don't have oversight, we don't have laws, we just have God operating in the heart of these powerful men, well, we're left without a lot of recourse when a powerful man like, say, Governor Sanford or Senator Ensign goes off the rails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also this.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/tr...oryId=106115324

 

GROSS: Now, what's the connection in the philosophy of the Family between free markets, capitalism and Christianity?

 

Mr. SHARLET: You go back to this moment in the Great Depression that I describe, where they see this as a sort of punishment from God for what they see as sort of a sin of socialism. The attempts to regulate the market are prideful. In other words, the invisible hand, they take that very literally, you know, the invisible hand of capitalism.

 

They say what you have is an invisible hand through which God touches the hearts of corporate titans, leaders and so on, and they then run their companies, and the Family began primarily as a union-busting organization. That was their sort of first mission. They were terrified of organized labor in the 1930s, but they tapped into this older American tradition that really goes back to something in the 19th century called the businessman's revival, this idea that if you have Christian men of business and Christian politicians and so on, you don't need laws to protect the poor because they will protect the poor.

 

It's this very paternalistic and potentially very dangerous tradition, because of course it leads you away from accountability. If we say we don't have regulation, we don't have oversight, we don't have laws, we just have God operating in the heart of these powerful men, well, we're left without a lot of recourse when a powerful man like, say, Governor Sanford or Senator Ensign goes off the rails.

 

 

 

Protocals of the Elders of Zion, anyone? If true, it's a very logical progression of Calvinistic protestantism merged with social Darwinism. Just as scary as Khomeni's version of Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

Either way, its a huge pile of BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

The first group by definition contains nothing but hypocrites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

 

I'd say that if the stories in that book are accurate, it's a textbook case

of religeous dogma and power combining in a very unhealthy manner.

Using religon to gain absolute certainty rather than reflection, as

Jim Wallis says:

 

''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.

 

''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want. Easy certainty.''

 

 

 

The C streeters may have formed their own cult. It's really not fair to damn all

Christians for this abomination, any more that it would be

to do so as a result of Jim Jones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

The first group by definition contains nothing but hypocrites.

 

Nope, you're conflating dishonesty and hypocrisy. All liars are not hypocrites. If I say I'm a Christian and I'm not I'm a liar. If, standing on a moral high ground I establish with my faith, I condemn others for engaging in behavior which I dabble in also (Sanford) then I'm a hypocrite.

 

Can you imagine a politician, particularly a Republican, running as a Humanist? Saying, "Well I don't belong to any particular church but I do try to lead a moral life based on treating my fellow man like I'd like to be treated" would be political suicide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

The first group by definition contains nothing but hypocrites.

 

Nope, you're conflating dishonesty and hypocrisy. All liars are not hypocrites. If I say I'm a Christian and I'm not I'm a liar. If, standing on a moral high ground I establish with my faith, I condemn others for engaging in behavior which I dabble in also (Sanford) then I'm a hypocrite.

 

Can you imagine a politician, particularly a Republican, running as a Humanist? Saying, "Well I don't belong to any particular church but I do try to lead a moral life based on treating my fellow man like I'd like to be treated" would be political suicide.

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy

Pronunciation: \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide — more at certain

Date: 13th century

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

The first group by definition contains nothing but hypocrites.

 

Nope, you're conflating dishonesty and hypocrisy. All liars are not hypocrites. If I say I'm a Christian and I'm not I'm a liar. If, standing on a moral high ground I establish with my faith, I condemn others for engaging in behavior which I dabble in also (Sanford) then I'm a hypocrite.

 

Can you imagine a politician, particularly a Republican, running as a Humanist? Saying, "Well I don't belong to any particular church but I do try to lead a moral life based on treating my fellow man like I'd like to be treated" would be political suicide.

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy

Pronunciation: \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide — more at certain

Date: 13th century

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

hyp⋅o⋅crite  /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit]

Use hypocrite in a Sentence

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

 

I'd argue that the connotation of the word "hypocrite" is more closely associated with definition 2 from both of the above. The definition you put in bold for me would include cross dressing. The difference lies in the contradiction between words and actions.

 

But whatever, are you really trying to argue the moral equivalency of someone who proudly proclaims their Christian beliefs and makes it a cornerstone of their viability for political office while cheating on their wife/wide stancing/having knocked up teenage daughters to someone who, while adhering to Judeo-Christian moral standards, is lying about their belief for political expediency?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And make me an instrument of your will." BHO

You are smarter than that.

Well the thread is about "God operating in the hearts of powerful men".

 

I think his point may have been that there is a very large difference between people in power who maintain their religious faith for the sake of appearances and True Believers Washed and Purified in The Holy Blood Of Our Lord and Savior (Praise Jesus).

 

I am of the opinion that many politicians fall into the first group. Sure it's dishonest, but I think it's preferable to being in the second group which seems to have a very high proportion of hypocritical whack-a-doos.

The first group by definition contains nothing but hypocrites.

 

Nope, you're conflating dishonesty and hypocrisy. All liars are not hypocrites. If I say I'm a Christian and I'm not I'm a liar. If, standing on a moral high ground I establish with my faith, I condemn others for engaging in behavior which I dabble in also (Sanford) then I'm a hypocrite.

 

Can you imagine a politician, particularly a Republican, running as a Humanist? Saying, "Well I don't belong to any particular church but I do try to lead a moral life based on treating my fellow man like I'd like to be treated" would be political suicide.

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy

Pronunciation: \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide — more at certain

Date: 13th century

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

Date: 13th century

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

hyp⋅o⋅crite  /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit]

Use hypocrite in a Sentence

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

 

 

I'd argue that the connotation of the word "hypocrite" is more closely associated with definition 2 from both of the above. The definition you put in bold for me would include cross dressing. The difference lies in the contradiction between words and actions.

 

But whatever, are you really trying to argue the moral equivalency of someone who proudly proclaims their Christian beliefs and makes it a cornerstone of their viability for political office while cheating on their wife/wide stancing/having knocked up teenage daughters to someone who, while adhering to Judeo-Christian moral standards, is lying about their belief for political expediency?

Who is lying about their religion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...