blatham
Quote:Au...you've got this one wrong, and by a country mile. Lott's statement was racist, but Moran's wasn't anti-Semitic.
As with everything else it's in the eyes of the beholder.
Lott was known to have a racist background as do many of the southern republicans. However, his praise of Thurmond IMO was just that and was not meant to support racism. It however, was successfully used against him. I do not support Lott and a glad to see him get his butt kicked however,that does not mean I agree with the reasoning.
I the other hand the congressman's statements IMO were direct and need no interpretation.
Frank
You are running true to form. Had you expressed any other view it would have been out of character.
EXCERPTS from Harpers magazine 3/03
Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover among America's secret theocratsBy Jeffrey Sharlet ["an editor of the online magazine KillingtheBuddha.com and co-author of the forthcoming book Killing the Buddha: A Heretic's Bible (The Free Press)]
..It is April 2002, and I have lived with these men for weeks now, not as a Christian -- a term they deride as too narrow for the world they are building in Christ's honor -- but as a "believer." ... Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." 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.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities. The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family's leaders, "a target for misunderstanding."*
[*Footnote: The Los Angeles Times reported in September that the Fellowship Foundation alone has an annual budget of $10 million, but that represents only a fraction of the Family's finances. Each of the Family's organizations raises funds independently. Ivanwald, for example, is financed at least in part by an entity coiled the Wilberforce Foundation. Other projects are financed by individual "friends": wealthy businessmen, foreign governments, church congregations, or mainstream foundations that may be unaware of the
scope of the Family's activities. At Ivanwald, when I asked to what organization a donation check might be made, I was told there was none; money was raised on a "man-to-man" basis. Major Family donors named by the Times include Michael Timmis, a Detroit lawyer and Republican fund-raiser; Paul Temple, a private investor from Maryland; and Jerome A. Lewis, former CEO of the Retro-Lewis Corporation.]
...In the process of introducing powerful men to "Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships "between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenics Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez,
himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. "We work with power where we can," the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, "build new power where we can't."...
...The morning I attended, Charlene, the cook, scrambled up eggs with blue tortillas, Italian sausage, red pepper, and papaya. Three women from Potomac Point, an "Ivanwald for girls" across the road from The Cedars, came to help serve. They wore red lipstick and long skirts (makeup and "feminine" attire were required) and had, after several months of cleaning and serving in The Cedars while the brothers worked outside, become quite unimpressed by the high-powered clientele. "Girls don't sit in on the breakfasts," one of them told me, though she said that none of them minded because it was "just politics."...
...I ran into Doug Coe, who was tutoring Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Kansas. A friendly, plainspoken man with a bright, lazy smile, Coe has worked for the Family since 1959, soon after he graduated from college, and has led it since 1969. Tiahrt was a short shot glass of a man, two parts flawless hair and one part teeth. He want ed to know the best way "for the Christian to win the race with the Muslim." The Muslim, he said, has too many babies, while Americans kill too many of theirs....
...Two weeks into my stay, David Coe, Doug's son and the presumptive heir to leadership of the Family, dropped by the house. My brothers and I assembled in the living room, where David had draped his tall frame over a burgundy leather recliner like a frat boy, one leg hanging over a padded arm. "You guys," David said, "are here to learn how to rule the world." ...
...In a document entitled "Our Common Agreement as a Core Group," members of the Family are instructed to form a "core group," or a "cell," which is defined as "a publicly invisible but privately identifiable group of companions." A document called "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains that "Communists use cells as their basic structure. The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four man squad. Hitler, Lenin, and many others under stood the power of a small core of people." Another document, "Thoughts and Principles of the Family," sets forth political guidelines, such as: 21. We recognize the place and responsibility of national secular leaders in the work of advancing His kingdom. 23. To the world in general we will say that we are "in Christ" rather than "Christian"?-"Christian" having become a political term in most of the world and in the United States a meaningless term....
...But "Youth Corps Vision," which is intended only for members of the Family ("it's kinda secret," Josh cautioned me), is more direct. The Vision is to mobilize thousands of young people world wide?-committed to principle precepts, and person of Jesus Christ.... A group of highly dedicated individuals who are united together having a total commitment to use their lives to daily seek to mature into people who talk like Jesus, act like Jesus, think like Jesus. This group will have the responsibility to: ?-see that the commitment and action is maintained to the overall vision; ?-see that the finest and best invisible organization is developed and maintained at all levels of the work; ?-even though the structure is hidden, see that the family atmosphere is maintained, so that all people can feel a part of the family.
[Footnote: *The Family's "financial precepts" apparently amount to the practice of soliciting funds only privately, and often indirectly. This may also refer to what some members call 'biblical capitalism," the belief that God's economics are laissez-faire.]
...Another document?-"Regional Reports, January 3, 2002"?-lists some of the nations where Youth Corps programs are already in operation: Russia, Ukraine, Romania, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Nepal, Bhutan, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru. Youth Corps is, in many respects, a more aggressive version of Young Life, a better-known network of Christian youth groups that entice teenagers with parties and sports, and only later work Jesus into the equation. Most of my American brothers at Ivanwald had been among Young Life's elite, and many had returned to Young Life during their college summers to work as counselors. Youth Corps, whose programs are often centered around Ivanwald-style houses, prepares the best of its recruits for positions of power in business and government abroad. The goal: "Two hundred national and international world leaders bound together relationally by a mutual love for God and the family."...
...The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant who made his living as a traveling preacher. One night, while lying in bed fretting about socialists, Wobblies, and a Swedish Communist who, he was sure, planned to bring Seattle under the control of Moscow, Vereide received a visitation: a voice, and a light in the dark, bright and blinding. The next day he met a friend, a wealthy businessman and former major, and the two men agreed upon a spiritual plan... Vereide arrived in Washington, D.C., on September 6, 1941, as the guest of a man referred to only as "Colonel Brindley." "Here I am finally," he wrote to his wife, Mattie, who remained in Seattle. "In a day or two?-many will know that I am in town and by God's grace it will hum." Within weeks he had held his first D.C. prayer meeting, attended by more than a hundred congressmen...
... In 1944, Vereide had foreseen what he called "the new world order." "Upon the termination of the war there will be many men available to carry on," Vereide wrote in a letter to his wife. "Now the ground-work must be laid and our leadership brought to face God in humility, prayer and obedience." He began organizing prayer meetings for delegates to the United Nations, at which he would instruct them in God's plan for rebuilding from the wreckage of the war. Donald Stone, a high-ranking administrator of the Marshall Plan, joined the directorship of Vereide's organization. In an undated letter, he wrote Vereide that he would "soon begin a tour around the world for the [Marshall Plan], combining with this a spiritual mission." In 1946, Vereide, too, toured the world, traveling with letters of introduction from a half dozen senators and representatives, and from Paul G. Hoffman, the director of the Marshall Plan....
The only reason for the curbs on embryonic stem cell research is Bush's imposition or his religious beliefs on the Issue.
Broad Movement Is Backing Embryo Stem Cell Research
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PE?'A
n state capitols, universities, charitable foundations, hospitals and companies around the country, a scattershot movement is under way to counteract President Bush's 2001 order sharply limiting federal money for embryonic stem cell research.
Lawmakers in New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and Massachusetts are considering bills authorizing embryonic stem cell research, according to advocates of the research and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some bills go further, as one passed in California did last year when it authorized the use of state money to support research using embryonic stem cells, which scientists contend could eventually yield treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer and other ailments.
Mr. Bush and others who oppose such research say it is immoral because human embryos are destroyed when the cells are extracted.
Private groups, meanwhile, have greatly increased their support of stem cell research. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the Wellcome Trust, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation and others have given tens of millions of dollars to various laboratories, many in Europe.
Several universities, teaching hospitals and biotechnology companies have also stepped up their involvement in the field, as have wealthy individuals. Late last year, an anonymous benefactor gave Stanford University $12 million to build a stem cell research center, and Andrew S. Grove, the Intel chairman, gave the University of California at San Francisco $5 million for such a center.
"This research holds tremendous promise for medical breakthroughs for things like spinal cord injury and diabetes, and most likely for a wide range of things we haven't even imagined yet," said Michael Manganiello, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a lobbying effort by several disease research groups.
Both sides in the debate say that these disparate efforts, significant though they may prove to be, do not approach the sums of money the government would have devoted to embryonic stem cell research, were it not for the Bush directive.
In August 2001, President Bush decided that federal money could continue to be used for research on self-sustaining colonies, or lines, of cells that had already been extracted from human embryos. But he ordered that no new embryos be taken for federally financed research. The estimate of the number of viable lines in laboratories around the world at the time varies from more than 60 to fewer than 10.
Supporters of such research point to the efforts to circumvent the presidential order as evidence that Mr. Bush's directive, paradoxically, has stimulated interest in the field among philanthropists, lawmakers and researchers. "A lot of these things, including the proposed state laws, would not have happened if the White House hadn't attempted to choke it off," Mr. Manganiello said.
Opponents call the moves deeply disturbing, and say they show that the federal government should adopt tougher restrictions. They also say there is no evidence to support predictions that stem cells will produce medical breakthroughs.
"The proliferation of these various efforts points to a need for an honest debate on this issue, especially since many scientists are recognizing that this is not a technology that is going to lead to therapies any time soon, if at all," said Richard M. Doerflinger, deputy director of anti-abortion activities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
In the last year, the stem cell debate has merged with the one over human cloning. At one time, embryonic stem cell research involved only leftover frozen embryos created for people trying in-vitro fertilization. But scientists now want to preserve the right to create embryos through cloning.
Congress has become deeply involved, debating proposals to ban cloning for reproduction, either with or without provisions allowing for cloning for research. But Congress has shown no inclination to enter the field of research on existing embryos and stem cell lines to either strengthen or weaken the president's 2001 order.
The law in California and similar bills in other states explicitly prohibit reproductive cloning while allowing the cloning of embryos for research — a position that could be rendered moot if Congress bans all human cloning.
"No one wants to clone human beings," said Assemblyman Scott Stringer, a Manhattan Democrat who introduced the first bill in New York in support of embryonic stem cell research, in January. "The only goal is to cure devastating diseases, and if the federal government won't do it, the states have to."
But opponents have attacked the bills as pro-cloning, saying that they would permit scientists to gestate a cloned embryo into a nearly fully developed fetus, then destroy it to harvest tissue. Scientists dismiss that claim. But it was that type of criticism that prompted lawmakers in New Jersey to withdraw their bill just before the final vote.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "These bills, these researchers, are promoting not just research on existing embryos, which we object to, but fetus farming, the creation of embryos for the purpose of destroying them."
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to evolve into cells of other types, giving them a particular fascination for medical researchers and, some say, tremendous promise in the treatment of serious diseases. Most cells in the body can be regenerated only by other cells of the same type, and some, like brain and nerve cells, are capable of little or no regeneration at all, greatly limiting the body's ability to repair damage.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that there is an alternative: using so-called adult stem cells, which can be derived from blood, bone marrow, body fat and certain organs. But adult stem cells do not have as broad a range of possibilities as those taken from embryos. Stem cells can also be harvested from umbilical cord blood, and some scientists contend those may prove to be more versatile than adult stem cells. There is no opposition to research on either adult or cord blood stem cells.
Tartarin
I'd read that piece in Harpers. Quite something. You guys are in a bit of trouble down there, and I wish you all luck.
Au
For goodness sakes...would you please define anti-Semitism and then show how this is an example of it.
Off topic, sorta, and not to be construed as any sort of "Statement of Official Position", but I would prefer links to publicly available articles where possible as opposed to lengthy cut-and-pastes ... it saves bandwidth. No big deal, really, just a personal observation. Of course, if the article is from a paid subscription site, or otherwise restricted from general access, that's a different thing.
And again, just a personal observation, and my perception could be wrong, but it seems to me the lengthy cut-and-pastes are more often opinion or commentary supportive of a particular viewpoint than "objective reporting". I myself find it more satisfying to form my own opinions of "The Facts" than to read the opinions of others regarding those "Facts", whether or not I may agree with those opinions.
There ... I just wanted to get that out. And again, that's just me; it is not "Policy", it is "My Opinion".
timber
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
blatham
This is Just one of the things that the congressman said.
Speaking at a Northern Virginia forum a week ago, Moran said, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. ... The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”
In other words if it were not for the Jews we would not be attacking Iraq. How would you interprate that remark. That is only one of his statements. I will leave it to you to find and read the rest of his remarks.
au1929 wrote:Frank
You are running true to form. Had you expressed any other view it would have been out of character.
COMMENT:
Well you aren't, Goldie. At least not in the quoted sentence. (Which I consider out of character for you!)
If a person has something specific to say to another poster, I think it should be said in a way that makes statement clear -- and the reponders intentions clear. You certainly didn't do that here.
I suspect you have a problem with what I said -- but of course, the way you worded your sentence, you could reasonably deny anything I say about it.
If there was something I said in my last post with which you disagree -- just mention what you disagree with and we can discuss it. If you think that what I had to say, you could simply say: "Wow! That was brilliant" -- and I would thank you and put it to bed.
dys: I agree with you! :wink:
Sorry, Timber. I worried about the length of the excerpts and was fully aware of the problem. But precisely because Harpers' articles aren't usually available online (sometimes they are posted several months later), and because I think this piece has particular relevance to the discussion, I posted it but took care to reduce the font size hoping that would help the situation. I wanted to give everyone enough of a "taste" of it to entice them into getting hold of a copy and reading the whole thing!
However, I think you're quite wrong about the "facts" in this case. This article was written by someone who spent time with the group in question and reported from the inside, I think, quite thoroughly and credibly. Harpers has a stellar reputation and is an old, old rag -- I don't think it would throw its lot in with a charlatan (in spite of his name!). What do you think, Blatham?
Actually, Blatham, I don't think the damage the "Family" is causing is limited to this country. The "Family" seem to have managed to get their tentacles around much of the rest of the world -- certainly the kids they draw into the youth group come from all over. Perhaps the evident nervousness of many of our allies and others has been exacerbated by this latter-day crusade of self-appointed (and incredibly self-righteous!) imperialist "saints."
And finally, I don't think the "Jewish community" which supports Zionism is as dangerous as the "Family" described in the Harpers article. However, when a group of co-religionists act politically as a community to further the interests of their religion or the nation they consider a religious fiefdom, then they shouldn't cry foul when people who oppose them politically say so. I have not seen Moran's statement in print (the NYTimes didn't have it in quotes) but if Au's quote (?) above is verbatim, then I'd have to say I agree with Moran's statement. He doesn't say (in your quote, Au) that the Jews are responsible for Iraq, but rather that they have influence in the situation and "could change the direction of where this is going..."
Thanks, ci. I thought it was too -- which, obviously, was one of the reasons I included it as a choice.
I suspect Goldie won't choose that option.
Quote:The only reason for the curbs on embryonic stem cell research is Bush's imposition or his religious beliefs on the Issue.
So no one can be against using embryonic stem cells for any other reason?
Quote:Off topic, sorta, and not to be construed as any sort of "Statement of Official Position", but I would prefer links to publicly available articles where possible as opposed to lengthy cut-and-pastes ... it saves bandwidth. No big deal, really, just a personal observation.
I thought that was requested/suggested in the guidelines.
Tartarin
The evangelical community is very well connected and has been for some time. For example, we have a school board in a neighboring municipality which has been successfully dominated by local evangelicals, and their press releases are often word for word duplicates of releases out of the US. I think timber ought to pick up the magazine and read the piece. It is not at all an unbalanced article, and bloody revelatory. If one considers it possible that separation of church and state is actually a potential problem - that is, that violations CAN actually occur in the real world - then maybe one ought to be alert for real world instances. Like jeepers, hey.
Tres
Yes, the guidelines do recommend a variety of sources and viewpoints added to the discussion. I have it on good authority that the author of those guidelines had an arm wrestle with timber, and that the author won (hands down?), and that timber suffered a whuppin of biblical proportions (really really big cubits), and so the wording stayed.
blatham - I was referring to the request that lengthy citations (copied and pasted) be avoided--one that many people completely ignore.
I personally perfer short quotations and a citation link because it helps flow AND keeps people honest.
the problem of posting only links
Tres, the problem of only posting links and not an entire article is that the source may only be available for a short period, sometimes only one day. Frustrated late readers cannot access the entire article. So one just has to try the best method available.
BBB
c.i.
