wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:27:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

ANd I pointed you to the three top christofascists
operating massive media outlets and you claim you've
never heard of their views.
I am not aware that any of the better known "televangelists" are
"fascists" of any brand.

We know why you're not, Hartung

Because you have shown NO intellectual capability, no
awareness of public events, little awareness of
historical facts, and little knowledge of American
civics and government.


Actually, it is you who demonstrates a distinct lack of intellectual
effort. You do it with every post.

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
- - -
When, specifically did this happen?

Fall of 1994, setting up the vetoes by Clinton in 1995
over the budgets, eventally leading to the GOP shutdown

ALL of the major networks covered the event---(not the
meeting itself, but the fact it was called)

A leak from that meeting was published in various
internet sites describing Dobson's threats to refuse
funding to GOP candidates, to run candidates against
incumbents, and to use his media empire to campaign
against them

Okay, the meeting took place.

Worse than that.. Several have "taken place", David..

A Righteous Indignation

James Dobson--psychologist, radio host, family-values crusader -
- is set to topple the political establishment

BY MICHAEL J. GERSON

On March 18, in the basement of the Capitol, 25 House Republicans
met with psychologist James Dobson for some emotional venting. But
this was not personal therapy; it concerned the fate of their party.
Dobson, long on loyal radio listeners and short on patience, was
threatening, in effect, to bring down the GOP unless it made
conservative social issues, including abortion, a higher legislative
priority. "If I go," he has said, "I will do everything I can to
take as many people with me as possible."

In the audience sat some of Dobson's closest ideological allies.
Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma, a former star football player,
was a volunteer speaker for Dobson's organization, Focus on the
Family, from 1990 to 1993. He credits this with "sparking my
interest in public policy." Rep. James Talent of Missouri, years
before, had pulled off the highway and prayed along with Dobson
on the radio to become a Christian. "He is the instrument through
which I committed my life to Christ. It is the single most important
thing that has ever or will ever happen to me."

But for over two hours, until nearly midnight, House conservatives
confronted Dobson about his indiscriminate attacks on the Republican
Party, asking credit for achievements he had ignored. At one point
the wife of a congressman, in tears, explained how Dobson's
broadside had hurt their family, inviting harsh questions from
friends. An emotional Dobson, according to one witness, responded,
"I'm so sorry I hurt you."

Sobered, Dobson canceled planned meetings with the New York Times
and the Washington Post, where he would have laid out his threat
to leave. But in the next two weeks, he sent lengthy, public letters
renewing the threat, which hangs in the air like distant thunder at
the Republican picnic.

This conflict dramatizes a growing gap between grass-roots
conservatism and governing conservatism, between the raised
expectations of activists and the weary realism of legislators.
It reveals a party that may be crumbling, not at its periphery
but at its center, among its most loyal supporters. And it may
be signaling a major shift in the attitudes of Christian
conservatives toward politics."

There are several questions:

Yes, and you're avoiding the real question..

1. Was the meeting called, or requested by Dobson?

Why does that matter, David?

2. What is wrong with applying political pressure?

What's wrong with religious figures trying to influence
politics? Well, if politicians were trying to influence
religion, you'd be questioning that too..

That 'wall of separation' works both ways, in case you missed it..

The Left does it all the time.

That would be a logical fallacy..

While I am skeptical of Dobson's group, I do pout him in a different
category, simply because he is not an ordained minister, and does not
seem to be trying to build himself an empire.

So, now you're saying that Dobson's "Focus On The Family" isn't
an empire? A multi-media empire, at that? Here's some numbers..

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/focus-family

Founder: Dr. James C. Dobson

President/Chief Executive Officer: James D. Daly

Established: 1977

Finances: $137,848,520 (2004 Focus on the Family revenue);
$24,988,036 (2004 Focus on the Family Action revenue)

Staff: approximately 1,300 employees

Publications: 2.3 million subscribers to ten monthly magazines.

Media: Dr. Dobson is heard daily on more than 3,400 radio facilities
in North America, in 15 languages, on approximately 6,300
facilities in 164 countries.

Funding

* According to Ministry Watch, Focus on the Family is the eighth
largest ministry in terms of revenues in their database. FOF
receives a substantial portion of its revenue from its countless
resources, including book, periodical, CD, video, and magazine sales,
as well as conference and retreat costs, yet still, in its 2004
990 form, declares $118,263,318 of grants, contributions and gifts
received from donors. Focus on the Family's ownership of its land
and buildings add up to $48 million on its books, and in 2004 they
cited the cost of upkeep and improvements on their property to be
over $101.5 million.

--And that's somehow, by your redefinitions, not an empire?

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
David Hartung deleted and then bleated:
wrote:
- - - - - - - - - -
Sorry Hartung, but you get told over and over by
several who answer you----that either you're one of the
most ill-infomed idiots on the usnet, or you're
pretending to be.

NO ONE sits by the 700 club channel recording Robertson
take credit for keeping hurricanes from hitting the SE
seaboard coast----but the PUBLIC RECORD has recorded
it, reported it, and laughed about it

THere isn't a week that goes by that Roberston doesn't
attribute the deviance from HIS interpretation of
dispensationalism to be the cause of "gods wrath" and
THAT gets reported and aired in the media

He attributed the Twin Towers on "gays" and god doing
it because we're not following HIS interpretation of
Scripture

Falwell sends out weekly news letters (now his son does
of course) railing against the god-less Americans and
how THEY'RE bringing the misery and woe onto America

If YOU'RE going to be informed, YOU need to find out
what they're saying and use YOUR powers of intellect
(or lack thereof) to ferret out the bull**** that you
automatically spout as IF it were truth

Dobson is famous for his attribution of fundamentalist
religious nuttery into political ideology----even
forcing Neut Gingrich to include his "3-pt agenda" into
the budgets just prior to the Government shutdown by
republicans

"I" shouldn't have to "cite that, you idiot

Any INFORMED American knows it.
The claim was that Robertson, Falwell and Dobson have claimed that
Republicans have the corner on Christianity.
You are again dishonestly trying to reframe what was said..
From earlier in the thread:
Soumay Nonay wrote:

"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."
So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

How quaint..
May I once again suggest that yo learn to read?
No.. May I again suggest that "yo" learn to proof-read?
Point taken.

Good.. You've made several typos which I could almost
qualify as Freudian Slips in the past 72 hours..

your understanding of the quote I provided is completely wrong.
Nope, the context which you're trying to misrepresent that quote
with is lacking a few details that I find amusing..

--And typical of a right-wing zealot..
From what I see, you are making excuses.

No, you're the one making excuses, David. You've again deliberately
tried to 'reframe' this discussion to suit your opinion, rather than
openly discussing how the churches led by Dobson, Falwell and
Robertson (eg "Moral Majority", "religious right") have violated
the separation of church and state..

How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority, violate the
constitution?

You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..

In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell would
like to build a religious empire, with them in charge. Of course in
Falwell's case, it would be Jonathon, jerry has passed.

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..

The original claim was not that these men are building empires, but that
the Republicans had the corner on Christianity, a claim which borders on
heresy. If these men made such a claim , they would have exhibited a
level of biblical understanding expected of a high school dropout, not
someone with a seminary degree.

That is why I am trying to track down a specific quote.

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:52:37 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:04:32 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

I don't pay any attention to the gentlemen in question. I have grave
doubts that what they teach is truly the Word of God.
See, that's the point, Hartung

Millions do----and they send tens of millions in
contributions to the *******s who in turn funnel it
into PACs to inject religious belief into law

Dobson has/had enough control over the GOP platform
committee to have had the power to summon Neut Gingrich
and the entire GOP leadership before him and threaten
them with retaliation unless his "agenda" was included
in legislation pending before government.
When, specifically did this happen?

March 18th, 1998..

US News, May 4, 1998 http://www.usnews.com

By the way, the linkl you provided goes to the currewnt page, not one
from 1998.

Dobson went to the Capitol building, Dobson went to the Republicans.
That is a far cry from "summoning" the leaders of the GOP.

Look at the date, Hartung

I said the meeting in which Dobson called the GOP
leadership on the carpet was in 1994---just prior to
the Upcoming 1995 appropriations bills coming up.

The article I found said 1998, as does your post above.

Dobson demanded, and got, his "3 pt agenda" placed on
all those appropriations bills

So?

That was the year that clinton summarily rejected
(vetoed) those bills which led to the Government
Shutdown. The American people sided with Clinton.

Clinton was in the wrong, no matter what the "people" may have thought.

That shutdown led to the meeting of CPAC and the use of
Scaife money to set up a smear campaign to counter
Clinton with a "question of character" (the jones
stories and lies), and gave rise to the D'Amato,
Burton, and Thompsen Hearings to ruin Clinton.

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the omitted text/context:
- - - - -
"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.

If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
conclusions credibly?

I fully understand the influence of Dobson, Falwell(deceased)
and Robertson. A previous poster made a statement which led me
to believe that the three had claimed that only Republicans
could be Christians.

That's incorrect, and yet another deliberate mis-statement of
what was actually posted, which you also deliberately deleted
from the quote-backs of your message..

What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

--Otherwise, you can expect the usual pogroms of the Dark Ages..

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:38:27 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

There have been many times throughout history, where the Christian
Church has gotten in bed with government. What specifically are you
referring to?

From the establishment of the Christian faith as
officially Roman and the fall of the Roman Empire, the
Catholic Church and it's Popes were the ONLY government
that most/all of Europe had.

The HRE empire lasted until the rise of the nation
states began throwing off the Rome authority, then the
reformation began using the "Divine right of Kings"

The Pilgrims were EXTREMIST religious nuts who
literally have nothing in common with any known
religous group today----outside their insistence that
THEY should have no restrictions placed on their faith

HOWEVER, once established in the colonies, THEY became
the oppessors, forcing everyone to adopt their views,
punishing those who did not.

(Did you think that the "scarlet letter" was only a
figment of someone's imagination?)

The association of official state religions dominated
Europeans

Prohibition was an American example of religous nuttery
laying the groundwork for corruption, crime, and
eventually gave rise to organized crime.

The entire south was riddled with bible waving,
scripture spouting red-necks justifying their lynching,
segregation from positions of law-enforcment to judges.

Now we have had the resurgence of religious
fundamentalism promoting a hapless (and thank god
whipped) political party into more and more extremist
positions-----giving us a clearer picture of why
religion and government is dangerous.


I think you have the Puritans confused with the Pilgrims.

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.

This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations are set up as
evangelistic, church groups. Their stated purpose is to proclaim the
Gospel. Thus it is improper for them to be politically active.

Dobson's group, on the other hand, seems to be designed as a political
group who's members happen to be Christians, and who's purpose is to
advance the moral values of the church. Even though I might not always
agree 100% with Dobson, I see his group as essentially a good thing.
Should they cross the line from advancing a moral code based upon the
Scriptures, to advancing the idea that Christianity should become the
national faith, then I will oppose them.

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted and then bleated:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The claim was that Robertson, Falwell and Dobson have claimed that
Republicans have the corner on Christianity.

You are again dishonestly trying to reframe what was said..

From earlier in the thread:

Soumay Nonay wrote:

"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

How quaint..

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read?

No.. May I again suggest that "yo" learn to proof-read?

Point taken.

Good.. You've made several typos which I could almost
qualify as Freudian Slips in the past 72 hours..

your understanding of the quote I provided is completely wrong.

Nope, the context which you're trying to misrepresent that quote
with is lacking a few details that I find amusing..

--And typical of a right-wing zealot..

From what I see, you are making excuses.

No, you're the one making excuses, David. You've again deliberately
tried to 'reframe' this discussion to suit your opinion, rather than
openly discussing how the churches led by Dobson, Falwell and
Robertson (eg "Moral Majority", "religious right") have violated
the separation of church and state..

How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority,
violate the constitution?

It's not a "provate entity", David..

Focus on the Family is a multi-media empire now..

You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..

In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell
would like to build a religious empire, with them in charge.

And so, you think that they haven't? How did you conclude that?

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.

Henh! Heisenberg didn't come into play here, right?

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..

The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,

Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
David Hartung deleted and then bleated:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The claim was that Robertson, Falwell and Dobson have claimed that
Republicans have the corner on Christianity.
You are again dishonestly trying to reframe what was said..
From earlier in the thread:
Soumay Nonay wrote:

"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."
So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

How quaint..
May I once again suggest that yo learn to read?
No.. May I again suggest that "yo" learn to proof-read?
Point taken.
Good.. You've made several typos which I could almost
qualify as Freudian Slips in the past 72 hours..

your understanding of the quote I provided is completely wrong.
Nope, the context which you're trying to misrepresent that quote
with is lacking a few details that I find amusing..

--And typical of a right-wing zealot..
From what I see, you are making excuses.

No, you're the one making excuses, David. You've again deliberately
tried to 'reframe' this discussion to suit your opinion, rather than
openly discussing how the churches led by Dobson, Falwell and
Robertson (eg "Moral Majority", "religious right") have violated
the separation of church and state..
How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority,
violate the constitution?

It's not a "provate entity", David..

Focus on the Family is a multi-media empire now..

You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..
In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell
would like to build a religious empire, with them in charge.

And so, you think that they haven't? How did you conclude that?

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

I believe that these men, and others like them would like to return to
the days when the temporal government was subservient to the Church, and
they would like to be the one in charge of the Church.

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.

Henh! Heisenberg didn't come into play here, right?

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,

Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung wroteL
- - - - - --
I don't pay any attention to the gentlemen in question. I
have grave doubts that what they teach is truly the Word of God.

See, that's the point, Hartung

Millions do----and they send tens of millions in
contributions to the *******s who in turn funnel it
into PACs to inject religious belief into law

Dobson has/had enough control over the GOP platform
committee to have had the power to summon Neut Gingrich
and the entire GOP leadership before him and threaten
them with retaliation unless his "agenda" was included
in legislation pending before government.

When, specifically did this happen?

March 18th, 1998..

US News, May 4, 1998 http://www.usnews.com

By the way, the linkl you provided goes to the currewnt page

That's my link, David.. Couldn't you tell by simply looking
that the URL would go the the 'front page' of that web-site?

A Righteous Indignation

James Dobson--psychologist, radio host, family-values crusader -
- is set to topple the political establishment

BY MICHAEL J. GERSON

On March 18, in the basement of the Capitol, 25 House Republicans
met with psychologist James Dobson for some emotional venting. But
this was not personal therapy; it concerned the fate of their party.
Dobson, long on loyal radio listeners and short on patience, was
threatening, in effect, to bring down the GOP unless it made
conservative social issues, including abortion, a higher legislative
priority. "If I go," he has said, "I will do everything I can to
take as many people with me as possible."

In the audience sat some of Dobson's closest ideological allies.
Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma, a former star football player,
was a volunteer speaker for Dobson's organization, Focus on the
Family, from 1990 to 1993. He credits this with "sparking my
interest in public policy." Rep. James Talent of Missouri, years
before, had pulled off the highway and prayed along with Dobson
on the radio to become a Christian. "He is the instrument through
which I committed my life to Christ. It is the single most important
thing that has ever or will ever happen to me."

But for over two hours, until nearly midnight, House conservatives
confronted Dobson about his indiscriminate attacks on the Republican
Party, asking credit for achievements he had ignored. At one point
the wife of a congressman, in tears, explained how Dobson's
broadside had hurt their family, inviting harsh questions from
friends. An emotional Dobson, according to one witness, responded,
"I'm so sorry I hurt you."

Sobered, Dobson canceled planned meetings with the New York Times
and the Washington Post, where he would have laid out his threat
to leave. But in the next two weeks, he sent lengthy, public letters
renewing the threat, which hangs in the air like distant thunder at
the Republican picnic.

This conflict dramatizes a growing gap between grass-roots
conservatism and governing conservatism, between the raised
expectations of activists and the weary realism of legislators.
It reveals a party that may be crumbling, not at its periphery
but at its center, among its most loyal supporters. And it may
be signaling a major shift in the attitudes of Christian
conservatives toward politics."

[Too] bad the divorce never became final.. Your loss, I suppose..

Dobson went to the Capitol building, Dobson went to the Republicans.
That is a far cry from "summoning" the leaders of the GOP.

Look at the date, Hartung

I said the meeting in which Dobson called the GOP
leadership on the carpet was in 1994---just prior to
the Upcoming 1995 appropriations bills coming up.

The article I found said 1998, as does your post above.

That was my post, David.. Do you read for comprehension,
or did you simply skim for the details that suited your
beliefs?

Dobson demanded, and got, his "3 pt agenda" placed on
all those appropriations bills

So?

So, doesn't that violate the separation of church and state?

It works both ways, and as you've observed, the mixing of
'politics' and 'religion' has never been a 'good thing'..

That was the year that clinton summarily rejected
(vetoed) those bills which led to the Government
Shutdown. The American people sided with Clinton.

Clinton was in the wrong

That would be your own opinion. History reflects a
different picture, free from your religious hypocrisy..

--See subject header for details..