Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christianity. Show all posts

Friday, April 4, 2014

How TV mega "churches" are raking in tax-free profits and DC doesn't seem to care

This is not an old story (remember the Jim and Tammy Baker?), but the scale has grown (money and gov't incompetence). Televangelists now have nearly billion-dollar empires, that are conveniently mostly tax-free as a "religious nonprofit". They also enjoy stronger privacy status (financial and otherwise). Even the huge luxury compounds that these orgs own don't have to pay property tax because they are classified as parsonages (had to wiki this one: a church-owned abode for the clergy to live in).

Since 2009, the IRS can no longer audit churches without the approval of a top official at Treasury (and who can be bothered to sign off for that?). Supposedly an org must meet the IRS' 14-point checklist to be called a church, but few of these "TV ministries" do. Too bad no one is checking but folks like NPR apparently.

And what do these churches do with their huge rakes? Private jets, Bentleys, publishing subsidiaries, and generally Wall St. level compensation for the preachers.  They claim that they route congregation donations to worthy causes, but an investigation of TX-based Daystar Ministries revealed that they only gave 5% of revenue to charity (they claimed it was 30%). In comparison the secular Red Cross is >90% and Catholic Charities USA is 75%. But hey, Daystar sponsored a Christian NASCAR team to the tune of $600K. And remember that the congregation is getting tax breaks as well.

The Senate Finance Cmte. led by C Grassley (R) investigated 6 mega-churches recently. They found evidence of abuse, but didn't take action and more or less dropped the issue (church leaders were threatening to sue over religious persecution). They recommended "self regulation" and Grassley hopes that the problem will "cure itself". I guess there is a lot of gov't paranoia/precedent about interfering in religious matters. Maybe DC has no right to decide what a preacher gets paid, but if the gov't can legally make us fight in a war, spy on us, seize our property, and sentence us to death, I think they can revisit whether they need to at least tax and monitor religious orgs a little more (even tightening up how they define them would make a big impact).

Monday, March 8, 2010

Balanced coverage of religious violence?

Maybe you have heard about the religious, social, and ethnic tensions in parts of Nigeria. Here was a headline today from the AFP:




http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100308/wl_afp/nigeriaunrest



Machete attacks on Christian villages kill 500-plus in Nigeria



This was the first news headline on Yahoo! at 4:30PST, so millions of eyes may have browsed it in a matter of minutes. It's terrible and despicable; I think we all can agree. What's also terrible is that in this 791-word article, not until the 717th word do readers learn of a potential motive for the attack:

Rights activists said the slaughter appeared to be revenge for the January attacks in which mainly Muslims were killed.

In high school journalism, they told us to structure stories like inverted pyramids, with the most important facts coming earlier. Isn't motive pretty important, or do they deliberately bury anything that makes Christians into aggressors and Muslims into victims? If you had 10 seconds to scan the article, starting from the lead, you may assume that a bunch of Muslim barbarians slaughtered innocent Christians minding their own business. Like Osama and the Hollywood depictions, every Muslim on the planet appears to be very hostile against non-Muslims. Not that a prior attack justifies this atrocity, but it adds context. Apparently the author and editor felt that marginally-relevant material like this was more important than motive:

The Vatican led a wave of outrage with spokesman Federico Lombardi expressing the Roman Catholic Church's "sadness" at the "horrible acts of violence".

"People were attacked with axes, daggers and cutlasses -- many of them children, the aged and pregnant women."

I seriously doubt that the Christian-on-Muslim attack in Jos in January got as much attention. Apparently the AFP did minimally report on that clash, but the article was much shorter, and again, you only learn in the last sentence that 364 of the 492 victims were Muslim, suggesting that the violence was majority perpetrated by Christians. But many scholars think that this year's violence is not primarily due to religion, as the two warring groups also compete for agricultural resources, speak different languages, and have different tribal origins.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gzl2_TiUNy_W4vqIC3NZSasnA5HA

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Family


"Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over." - member of the Family and US congressman

"We desire to see a leadership led by God," reads a confidential mission statement. "Leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." Another principle expanded upon is stealthiness; members are instructed to pursue political jujitsu by making use of secular leaders "in the work of advancing His kingdom," and to avoid whenever possible the label Christian itself, lest they alert enemies to that advance.

--------

No, this is not about the mafia, but it's not that far off either. There is a secretive fundamentalist Christian group headed by Doug Coe named "The Fellowship" or "The Family", founded in the 1935, which makes Scientology or the K Street Gang look like Boy Scouts. Members of the Family include US senators, cabinet members, and state governors, and they seek to use their business/political connections to advance their views. They help organize the Congressional National Prayer Breakfast in Washington that sitting presidents also attend.

Their agenda is quite bizarre and hard to even call Christian. They believe that the New Testament's emphasis on helping the poor, humility, love, and compassion is all wrong. In fact, the Bible's secret message is all about worldly power, and they use free market capitalism, anti-gay, and anti-abortion issues to rally support. Yes, I know, Dan Brown is taking notes as we speak. Ironically for US lawmakers, they believe that American democracy is doomed to fail and totalitarianism is the way to go - the way Christ intended for us. Like many US elites, they were enamored with the European fascists (rising from nothing, their manipulation of the masses, uniformity of thought, and rapid industrialization/militarization), but after WWII they had to tone it down of course. Though even today, their leaders including Coe have used the examples of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot to instruct and describe how the Family seeks to embody and propagate total fanatical commitment to absolute power for Christ and his "true message".

They could be described as "elite fundamentalism". They also believe that Jesus has a special message for the chosen few, and his parables for the masses were just Spam, because we can't really handle the truth of his grand plan. Of course the high-ranking members of the family are the chosen. Strangely, the Family has both Catholic and Evangelical members. I suppose they put their dogmatic differences aside to join forces for the Culture War.

Their prominent members:
- Congressmen (some potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees, and some Dems too): Coburn, Prior, Grassley, Pitts, Stupak, Wolf, Ensign, Shuler, Nelson, Enzi, Thune, Inhofe, Wamp, McIntyre, Clinton (while she may not be an official member, Family head Doug Coe is an intimate spiritual advisor to her since her husband was president).
- Governor: Mark Sanford (yes, the guy who was caught using state resources to go to Argentina for a booty call).
- Other notable alums: Strom Thurmond, Charles Colson (Nixon's hatchet-man who went to jail for Watergate but after became CEO of big defense contractor Raytheon), Pat Robinson's father, David Kuo (Dubya's head of Faith-Based Initiatives).

Maybe leftist journalists are just trying to tar these conservative politicians with shady, unproven connections to a religious cult (like how douchebag Glen Beck tries to connect Obama to ACORN to the end of the world). But many of the Congressmen listed above live at C Street residences while in Washington owned by the Family, and rented to them at below-market rates. Probably the only reason the mainstream knows of the Family is some of their members were caught in embarrassing affairs (Ensign, Sanford, Pickering). I guess sometimes God wants you to break one of his commandments in service to the greater good.

Maybe you think that this is just tabloid and doesn't really affect our lives, but look at some of the Family politicians' recent actions. The last-minute abortion amendment to the House health bill was called the Pitts-Stupak amendment. Mother Teresa was not an outspoken critic of abortion until she met Pitts in the 1970s. Family members have used government funds to go on overseas missions in support of cruel dictators and corrupt regimes who happen to endorse pro-Family policies. They helped get weapons and money to Indonesian dictator Suharto, supported Christian militias in Lebanon, and currently back Yoweri Museveni, the despotic leader of post-Idi Amin Uganda (a nation with some of the most draconian anti-gay laws in the world). Before Museveni, they also armed Somali strongman Siad Barre during the Reagan-Bush years, who contributed to thousands of deaths. I have no idea how those Third World, war-torn nations and their pathetic leaders factor into God's plan for the world, but apparently the Family does. But what's the big deal, since other politicians take trips sponsored by companies or special-interest groups all the time? Well, it undermines US foreign policy and credibility when US legislators travel to speak with foreign leaders, advancing a private agenda that may or may not be aligned with official Washington policy (I would hope it isn't). One thing we have to thank Abramoff for are 2007 Congressional reforms that allow these trips and their funding to become public knowledge.

So to close, I know the Family is probably less of a risk to global stability than Al Qaeda or H1N1, but the fact that they are out there, that they believe what they do, and occupy very high positions of US power is cause for concern. If they are doing God's work and mean no harm as they say, then why be so secretive? Level with us and lead the masses on the path of righteousness, like the dictators they admire. Hopefully government transparency and accountability will grow, and constituents may find out if their leaders are affiliated with and executing the agenda of private groups that don't have the people's or America's best interests in mind.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVrQkunIZXo&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_(Christian_political_organization)
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15778 (a criticism of the Family from a Christian right source)
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Obama courting Evangelicals


Describing why some white blue-collar rural voters in states like Pennsylvania might hestitate to support Obama or have faith in the Federal Government, spoken at a SF fundraiser, first published on the Huffington Post blog, April 2008:

"It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Barack Obama

-----------

Obama targeting Evangelical voters, from NPR, August 2008:

"When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.
"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

-----------

I find this sort of pandering to a specific voter demographic, whether religious or otherwise, to be contrary to Obama's message of unity and universal inclusion. How about the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, Mormons, Atheists, Santerians, etc.? All American votes count and all are equal, right? Where is the talk of securing 70% of the Sunni or Agnostic vote? I know previous Democrats have shied away from discussing religion and their personal faith (maybe to their political peril), and Obama is one of those "special" candidates who doesn't easily fit a political mold. But in comparison, religion plays a much smaller role in McCain's campaign. Yes it's true that if Obama manages to secure at least 25-30% of the white Evangelical vote, he will pretty much lock up the election. McCain only has 60% of their votes, versus George W. Bush's >70% in 2004. And even if this recent "faith offensive" is not totally aimed at religious voters, but instead meant to dispel misperceptions that Obama is elitist (and/or Muslim), it's pretty darn sad for Obama and America if he has to engage in such public displays of Christianity to convince people he's "one of them".

One of the few things I like about the Democratic Party is they don't shove religion down your throat, and don't consider it a prerequisite to being American. Maybe it's because they're too "politically correct" and fear offending people, as Obama said in his celebrated speech on religion and politics in June. But I also think it comes from a sense of humility, respect for personal privacy, and maybe the realization that religion won't solve or even help with many pressing matters of government, so why bother opening such a dogmatic, divisive Pandora's Box? Many progressives endorse a woman's right to choose (not pro-abortion, but legally permitting the procedure if a person decides to) and same sex unions (more Americans committing to relationships with each other and strengthening the family/home can only do our country good). Yes some "anti-religion" Dems go overboard with removing religious content in public spaces, but many Dems who are religious tend to keep it to themselves. Religion (especially Protestant Christianity, of which Evangelicals belong) is inherently a private relationship between a person and his/her creator, and doesn't have to be publicized and institutionalized. Sure your preacher acts as the intermediary between you and your maker, and you may enjoy worshipping in the context of a congregation. But for Obama to get up on his "pulpit" and often spout scripture like he was Reverend MLK Jr. concerns me, especially because he didn't before the Iowa Caucuses. I suppose the feedback he's getting from advisors and the public is that it's working. The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne said that Obama's speech on religion and politics in June in was the greatest by a Democrat since JFK. But maybe a problem with American politics is that we inject religion much more than anyone else in the developed world. We don't have to be "secularism Nazis" like the Turks, but I think it would help the political discourse and electoral process to tone it down a notch.

Obama grew up without religion in his life, and may have joined Trinity Church in Chicago for its social-political connections, according to The New Yorker. As a community organizer, he only targeted South Side churches because those were the easiest conduits by which to contact and mobilize local black voters. He wasn't "drawn" to church by faith alone. So maybe his god did touch him, and now he is a real believer and agent of his will. Kudos to him. That has NOTHING to do with the job of President of the USA, except for being an attractive addition to your resume when you court skeptical Christian voters. His explicit displays of religion are also peculiar, especially considering his statment above about rural whites. Not long ago in April, he made the argument (if I'm interpreting it correctly) that rural whites are frustrated from decades of decline and being ignored by Washington. They feel the government has failed them with countless unmet promises of better jobs returning, so they are bitter and blame global trade, immigrants, and others not like them for their predicament. They also "cling to guns or religion" as a way of coping with their situations. So in essence, Obama was saying that rural whites (many of them are Evangelicals) medicate themselves with their religion, yet now he is invoking those same sentiments to profess his kinship with them. He implicitly mocked rural whites for using Jesus to make them feel better about their problems (which doesn't really solve anything or address the root causes of their economic situations), but now he is saying that he draws his strength from Jesus, and is inspired by him to try to help those same people.

However, those voters may not be easily won over. On his website, Obama clearly states that he supports a woman's right to choose, access to birth control, and stem cell research, which may be at odds with many Evangelicals. For same sex unions, his positions are less clearly defined. He has said several times that marriage should be between a man and a woman, though he does support same-sex civil unions and equality under the law. He also denounced the "discriminatory" proposition in the CA ballot to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, of which McCain supports. But just by being a Democrat, I don't know if the "defense of marriage" Evangelicals will hear him out. Though clearly many Christians take more into account than just their religious views when they vote ("It's the economy, stupid!").

So I guess it's ok to do whatever it takes to win, even speaking from both sides of your mouth. That's not much "change" from the Washington status quo. In addition, Obama first vowed to take public campaign financing if McCain followed suit (after all, he is above all that lobbyist influence and special-interest money, right?). Deep in financial trouble at the time, McCain went public, but Obama changed his mind because he knew he could raise more money privately (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=5201819&page=1). The Obama and McCain camps supposedly agreed to a series of debates prior to the 3 official presidential debates, but depending on who you ask, either Obama or McCain reneged on that commitment too (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debates). Obama also used to denounce immunity for telecoms who helped Bush spy on Americans without warrants, but ended up voting for the FISA bill in the end, much to the chargrin of many liberal supporters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080702/tc_cnet/830110784399828987). I know McCain has done his share of "flip-flopping" too, and has said some really stupid things about energy policy just to score PR points with cash-strapped voters (he thinks that expanded US drilling will actually make gas fall below $4/gallon, but by the time we tap those new fields, gas may be $6!).

But I expected "The One" to hold himself to higher standards.

Election 2008: Issues
Evangelicals Up For Grabs? Candidates Court Voters
by Mara Liasson

Listen Now [7 min 45 sec] add to playlist

"We believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look."
Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama campaign
Morning Edition, August 7, 2008 · On Aug. 16, Barack Obama and John McCain will appear together at Rick Warren's Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Joint appearances by the presumed nominees of the major parties are rare, and this one shows that both parties are working hard to court the votes of white evangelical Christians.

This year, there's been a role reversal in the competition for those voters. Now, it's the Democrat who is comfortable quoting Scripture and talking openly about his beliefs. "When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

John McCain is more reluctant to talk about his own faith. And he has had rocky relations with religious conservatives. But McCain is a believer, and he has a powerful story about the time his own faith was tested — when he was being tortured as a prisoner of war. One Christmas morning, he was allowed out of his cell for a few moments. As he stood alone in the prison courtyard, one of the Vietnamese guards — who had shown some small kindness to McCain in the past — walked up to him. "Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt," McCain said. "We stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away. To me, that was faith: a faith that unites and never divides, a faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. It is the faith that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the faith I would die to defend."

'Mainstream' Man Of Faith

That story is often about all the Arizona senator will say about his faith, much to the chagrin of his evangelical supporters. Obama, however, is making an all-out push to court religious voters. The Illinois senator has promised to expand President Bush's faith-based initiative. During the primaries, the senator distributed leaflets with headings like "Committed Christian" and "Called to Christ."

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.

"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

A Volatile Mix

Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. For McCain, it has sometimes been an exploding cigar. This year, McCain accepted the endorsement of fundamentalist pastors Rod Parsley and John Hagee. But McCain had to reject their endorsements after it was discovered that Parsley had called Islam evil, and after Hagee said the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews. "I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church. I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views. But the comments made most recently by Pastor Hagee are just too much," McCain said in a statement at the time.

In that statement, McCain was reminding voters about the 20 years Obama spent in a Chicago church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose many controversial remarks included accusations that the government created the AIDS epidemic to kill blacks. Obama had to cut his ties to Wright, saying the minister's comments "were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

Closing The Gap

The Wright episode planted seeds of doubt about Obama in the minds of many voters, and the rejection of Hagee and Parsley reopened the old wounds between McCain and evangelicals. But Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader, says McCain still has a good chance with those voters. "What I hear a lot from Southern Baptist pastors and lay people ... is a variation of this sort of theme: 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, but I'll take a third class fireman over a first class arsonist.' And when it comes to the issue of life, when it comes to the issue of marriage, they perceive Barack Obama as a first class arsonist," Land said.

Land thinks that, in the end, evangelicals will vote for McCain. But Bauer worries about something else: McCain needs a committed army of volunteers — the kind President Bush found in the evangelical community four years ago. Bauer said he sends out an e-mail to a quarter-million Christian activists every day.

"I've noticed in the feedback from my own daily reports, that if I go back three months ago, there was a large number of people saying, 'Gary, there's just no way I can do this.' And now people are saying, 'We've got to elect him,' and 'How do I volunteer?' So that gap is going to close, too. But whether it closes quickly enough over the next hundred days remains to be seen," Bauer said.

A 'Humble' Outreach

In 2004, President Bush got 78 percent of the evangelical vote. John Kerry got only 22 percent. Right now, Waldman said, polls show McCain has about 60 percent — about 10 points behind where Bush was at this point in 2004; Obama has about 25 percent, a little better than where Kerry ended up. "What the polls are showing in terms of evangelicals is that John McCain has lost a bunch of them compared to George Bush, but that Barack Obama has not yet gotten them. … He has an opportunity that Democrats haven't had in a long time, but he has not yet succeeded in bringing them over," Waldman said.

At least some of these voters are up for grabs. And in the next few weeks, Obama will be stepping up his efforts to get them. He'll launch a new outreach project aimed at younger evangelicals with community service projects, house parties and Christian rock concerts. "We're pretty humble in this outreach. We certainly don't plan on winning outright the evangelical vote … but we do believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look and will end up supporting him," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national director of religious affairs.

No one expects Obama to even get half the evangelical vote. But just breaking 30 percent would be a kind of miracle for a Democrat. The last Democrat to do so was Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist who got 32 percent of the white evangelical vote. It may not be a coincidence that he was also the last Democrat elected president.

Related NPR Stories
July 8, 2008
Evangelical Leader Discusses Candidates
July 7, 2008
Evangelicals Take a Second Look at Obama
July 28, 2008
Evangelicals Eye Presidential Race