Anyone here get new TIME mag on 25 most influential evangelicals?

[blm]

I am wondering if they even go NEAR the word Moon who has funded and provided promotional media for most of the evangelical political movement..

I highly doubt it, even though Bush based his marriage initiative on Moon's marriage program and that Moon owns the Washington Times which is one of the few papers read by Bush.

So, can anyone give a recap of the article?

[Pam-Moby]

1. No time's here! Not ever. I am done with them....n/t

[blm]

10. Same here. Stopped my delivery fall of 2002.

I told them I was sick of them propping up Bush and his lies.

[Pam-Moby]

19. Good going. They will never again make one damn dime from me.

[Warpy]

2. It should be online

later this week. Most of their main articles are online.

[qanda]

3. Here's a link

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/index.html

[Dr.Phool]

4. No Moon

They like to keep him hidden.

But Rick Sanitarium is in there.

[mhr]

5. Great Video On The Dominionists - Very Scary Stuff

http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

More here:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm

[UTUSN]

6. What, Their Jesus Covers Didn't Rake in Enough, or Just Piqued for More?

They have LaHAYE in there, but should include ROBISON who KKKarl+Shrub used for their start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3021089&mesg_id=3021089

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_24_4.ht...

.... James Robison

To try to understand President Bush, we cannot help but scrutinize Robison. Now sixty years old, Robison is the product of the rape of a forty-year-old woman who tried but was unable to secure an abortion. After a hard-scrabble childhood, Robison rose in Southern Baptist circles. As a young man, he became a big draw on the revival circuit. ....

In 1982, Robison befriended Texas millionaire T. Cullen Davis. Davis had been acquitted of the murder of his wife’s lover and his stepdaughter in 1977. In 1979, Davis was acquitted again, this time of attempting to procure the murder for hire of fifteen people, including the judge who had presided in his divorce case. Davis owned over one million dollars worth of Asian religious art treasures made of jade, ivory, and gold. He wanted to contribute them to Robison’s ministry. Robison opined that the objects were idols and had to be destroyed in obedience to Deuteronomy 7:25.6 Davis and Robison broke the art objects to pieces with hammers and dumped the shards into a lake. ....

http://www.freepress.org/journal.php?strFunc=display&st...

Bush moons America
by Bob Fitrakis
April 1, 2000

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush — the son of former CIA Director George Herbert Walker Bush — found himself in trouble and faltering after his New Hampshire defeat to Senator John McCain. A shadowy, secretive and spooky network centered around right wing religious organizations and causes rushed to his rescue in South Carolina.

At the crux of this network is the Council for National Policy (CNP) founded in 1981 by the Rev. Tim LaHaye and T. Cullen Davis, members of the ultra-right John Birch Society with financial backing from Nelson Bunker Hunt. Currently, the clandestine CNP has over 500 members and serves as the Who’s Who network of the United States’ right wing. At the center of the CNP, with a seemingly endless supply of questionable cash, is self-proclaimed Messiah and mind control cult leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon. ....

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/cnp.php

Council for National Policy

Acronym/Code: CNP

Updated: 9/89

Categories:

Political

Background:

According to one source, the CNP was formed in 1981 by Texas millionaires Nelson Bunker Hunt, Herbert Hunt, and T. Cullen Davis. (5) A second source reports that it was formed by Richard Viguerie to rival the Council on Foreign Relations. (8,26) The council is composed of politically powerful, wealthy individuals. It intentionally maintains a very low profile. (3,5) One of the conditions of membership is not to reveal the names of other members or the substance of the group's meetings. (9)

The CNP bills itself as being the Council on Foreign Policy for the Right. (9) But, its importance does not lie in producing and promoting an ultra-conservative foreign policy agenda, many of its affiliates already do that. It is considered by its members as a network that encompasses the entire spectrum of right-wing politics. (3) It provides a "safe" place for representatives of a wide range of ultra-conservative, anticommunist, pro-military organizations--including the executive branch of the White House--to discuss and promote their programs. (3) ....

The right wing rode the crest of glory and power in the early years of the Reagan administration. The Iran-Contra scandal, coupled with the moral fall of the religious right, have had a devastating effect on its wellbeing. According to investigative reporter, Sidney Blumenthal, the right is bankrupt. (9) ....

Representing the New Right and neoconservatives are: ... .... ...Cullen Davis, vice pres of Kendavis Industries Intl ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[UTUSN]

18. Kick for the Merit of It All n/t

[blm]

21. Yep. Robison is one of the biggies. He goes way back with W, Cullen Davis

and just about every other RICH Texas bully.

[jmowreader]

7. Moon's not on there

The title should be "25 Influential Evangelical Christians," not "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals."

Falwell's not on there. Neither is Pat Robertson.

They've got Tex Colson, but I really consider Colson to be a second-stringer.

They left off MOST of the major televangelists--the Crouches aren't on there. Billy Graham is, but he was a performing preacher before they had televangelists.

They also left off Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, opting for the slightly-less-powerful (but no less offensive) Santorum.

They left off the Big One: Where the hell is Shrub?

[salin]

8. Niether Robertson nor Falwell make the list.

but the LaHayes and Grahams do.

[blm]

9. That's manipulative. TIME is deliberately toning down the political angle.

It's absurd to think that Robertson, Falwell and Moon have little influence.

[salin]

11. They do point to some political connection

and power players - including the founder of the congressional prayer breakfast (but they don't get into the whole "the family" aspect of it).

[blm]

13. But there wouldn't even BE an article without the evangelical political

climate of the election and its aftermath.

Pointing to some of it is just a way of deliberately avoiding the BIGGEST part of it.

[salin]

14. The thing is

it is SO big/vast these days - that it is hard to cover it when only covering 25 figures. But that choice in and of itself underscores your point.

[blm]

15. And how many of the 25 they did pick are on most Americans' radar?

.

[salin]

16. Probably only the Grahams and the LeHayes

and the latter only because of their books.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

12. Churches are the BFEE's brownshirts, domestic Crusaders, RECRUITERS

Religion is highly political and has been carefully weaponized for psychological purposes. Remember Faux Nooze's 'Christmas Under Seige' stories about how liberals hate Santa, Jesus, and God???

The Authoritarian Personality discovered to be at the core of Fascism Receptivity by psychologist after WWII is the same thing driving Fundamentalist religion.

http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
(The F-Factor Questionaire for Fascism Receptivity)

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html
(The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism)
And the churches do the grass-roots organizing for 'politics.'

This is the 'Crusades for Freedom led by God's Chosen One'-cover story for the oil wars propaganda meme we will hear forever now that the middle east is being occupied by the Standard Oil/Rockefeller/Bush Family entity that some people call the US 'government.'

Recently, Time's cover story was about young men living at home (shitty economy) who "won't grow up." This was military recruiting propaganda working in combination with the Inaugu-urination of the Emperor who vomited 'freedom' over and over to justify permanent war.

Squeezing those young men into uniform is the main function of the CIA-influenced media right now. "For God and Country"

...you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie;
Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.
(It is sweet and glorious to die for ones country)
Wilfred Owen Dulce et Decorum Esthttp://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

[TWiley]

29. Great Post!

It is so good to hear someone speaking about the temperament and perils of contemporary American Christianity so rationally and eloquently.

[hector459]

24. I think they have more deals in the third world now than Robertson.

They go for more than just diamonds.

[hector459]

25. Who are the top ten? (I won't buy the mag...can't stand it)

Can I get it on the NET?

[TWiley]

17. Ok, how many support Bush?

And, how many oppose the bush family war in Iraqa?

This ratio will give us an insite into how bloodthirsty Christianity has actually become.

[gratuitous]

20. Context, please

Can that be "some segments" rather than a blanket statement? And, instead of "Christianity," perhaps it would be better and more accurate to say, "of our society that like to hide behind the Christian cross for the veneer of respectability they think it imparts"?

Wordy, I know, but some of us who identify as "Christian" are not bloodthirsty, and we are doing what we can in our own admittedly limited way to curb the excesses of the corrupt administration currently running our country.

[TWiley]

22. I agree

But, why is it that the "peaceful Christians" have no voice? Some combination of these two ideas would likely be true.

1) The group of "peaceful Christians" is small and obscure. So small that it is not worthy of a national voice.

2) The group of "peaceful Christians" is actually the majority, and they are simply not represented.

The reason I use the word "majority in example 2 is that if the majority of Christians were indeed "bloodthirsty" then this discussion would be mute. You would have no point to prove.

So, If Times list of the 25 most influential Christians is correct, and this "influence" is measured by following, and it is also true that all 25 support bush and his war in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it based on fraud, then the only conclusion would be that "Christians" are simply bloodthirsty, and do not need a definitive and rational reason to kill someone of another race or religion.

I used to struggle with it too, but I have accepted the truth. The "majority" is not wrong, they do represent the group. Your conception of Christianity needs to be updated in order to properly reflect common usage.

If there is evidence of a "peaceful Christian" majority in America, then SHOW ME THE PROOF. Unfortunately, there is none.

[gratuitous]

23. The proof resides not in popular news magazines

I realize that for a lot of folks, if it doesn't show up in the pages of Time, it doesn't exist. However, a lot of Christians aren't wedded to the forms and customs of popular culture; we quietly go about our Creator's business, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, housing the homeless. It's the sort of effort and work that doesn't make for splashy photographs that cause the masses to gawp.

Why don't "peaceful Christians" have a voice? Perhaps you're not listening in the right places. The song of the wren is beautiful and elusive. Just because you can't hear it over the jackhammer in the heart of a city doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And your characterization of the Time article seems to reflect a sloppiness of thinking. The article isn't about the "25 most influential Christians"; it's about the 25 most influential evangelicals, and though Time may be trying to blur the distinction, it's still there. Any list that includes James Dobson and Rick Santorum as evangelicals and leaves off Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis is clearly influenced by something other than a strict adherence to the truth. (By the way, if you're looking at the names Campolo and Wallis and wondering just who in the world they are, I would submit that as further evidence that you're trying to hear the song of the wren in the cacophony of the jackhammer.)

And if, as you assert, that the sole measure of the truth is whether or not someone made a list in Time magazine, then nothing I have to say will persuade you one way or the other. But I will still assert that a little context is called for before making rash statements about the bloodthirstiness of all Christians.

[TWiley]

26. I am referring to the temperament of the majority.

Which would be representative of the group.

<<I realize that for a lot of folks, if it doesn't show up in the pages of Time, it doesn't exist.>>

No response is necessary to this silly remark.

<<However, a lot of Christians aren't wedded to the forms and customs of popular culture; we quietly go about our Creator's business, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, housing the homeless.>>

In fact, very few, a tiny minority of American Christians are involved in this. The "Christian" masses prefer to drive their SUV's to the mall and bitch about the social welfare programs supported by the liberals.

<<And if, as you assert, that the sole measure of the truth is whether or not someone made a list in Time magazine>>

The Time magazine article is incidental. It just happened to be the topic of this thread. Like it or not, polling the beliefs of the top 25 "influential evangelicals" and those of their followers would be representative of the group. If a majority supported the war without evidence, provocation, or rational argument, and in the face of substantial secular (foreign or otherwise) resistance, then by definition, this group would be considered "bloodthirsty". Time magazine is not "the measure of truth" It is simply a list from which true statements about the group it represents can be drawn.

<<The article isn't about the "25 most influential Christians"; it's about the 25 most influential evangelicals>>

Evangelicals are not Christians? Huh?

<<Perhaps you're not listening in the right places. The song of the wren is beautiful and elusive. Just because you can't hear it over the jackhammer in the heart of a city doesn't mean it doesn't exist.>>

If this is your "proof" that a majority of Christians oppose the war, then it is you who displays sloppy thinking. Accepting things by faith alone might work well when selling bullshit, but a little evidence is necessary in this case.

It is a fact that the born-again-Christian in the White house who is solely responsible for the lies generated to sell families war for riches in Iraq, was indeed supported by the majority of "Christians" nation wide. Their willingness to do this blindly, without supporting evidence, and in the face of overwhelming evidence of fraud, implies one thing. They are simply bloodthirsty, and look for a socially acceptable reason to express their socially unacceptable violent behavior.

It is true that there are small pockets of dissenters here and there, but they do NOT represent the group. They are deviants within the group.

Before you make another rash statement concerning the loving tolerance and open minded insight of the average American Christian I suggest you find some facts.

It should be simple to do. After all, they are the majority.

[gratuitous]

27. No, we're talking at cross-purposes

You are wedded to your idea that what is popular is all that matters. I'm trying to say that isn't so. You refuse to consider any other evidence or facts. Why that is, I do not know.

I believe I've made my point, and I see yours quite clearly.

[TWiley]

28. No, my point is simple.

<<You are wedded to your idea that what is popular is all that matters. I'm trying to say that isn't so.>>

From the standpoint of ethics or morality, no it cannot be determined by popular vote. Morals are not necessarily defined by the bible either.

From the standpoint of defining a group - YES. This is the purpose of group analysis. 1) Establish a group "all zzz" 2)survey the group. 3) analyze the data. If a majority of the individual members of the group exhibit common traits, then the statement "most zzz are yyy, or believe xxx". This common statistical practice occurs thousands of times a day. Valid conclusions can be drawn from this information.

<<You refuse to consider any other evidence or facts. Why that is, I do not know.>>

That is not true either. You have not shown me any facts.

<<I believe I've made my point, and I see yours quite clearly.>>

Well, the only point you have made is that a Wren's song can be drowned out by a jackhammer. Well, I can float on my back in a pool too. What does that have to do with anything?

You do not see my point either. My point is simple. Statistical analysis can provide accurate descriptions of any group.

It also could be true that it is you who is wedded to your ideas. I am only suggesting that the majority of the individuals within that group do not exhibit the character traits which you claim define the group. This is not saying that exceptions do not exist.

Show me some evidence beyond hypothetical scripture interpretations. I am not interested in what is supposed be, I am more interested in what really is.