From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Thu Jul 12 2001 - 08:37:10 MDT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 07:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Party of Citizens <citizens@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: LIFE-GAZETTE@yahoogroups.com
To: LIFE-GAZETTE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] Do Ordinary Strumpets Trump Spiritual Strumpets?
Let's ask Bill Clinton, after he says the subject line 10 times,
quickly.
Any reason why a Louisiana Whore House shouldn't get registered as a
"church" and apply for "faith-based public works" money? The biggest
whores in society are the religiocrats. So "faith-based
prostitution" should be funded without discrimination.
POC
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, David Sutherland wrote:
> Compassionate Fascism
>
> John W. Robbins
>
> Last November the American people and the Electoral College elected a
> Methodist President. Methodism, of course, shares several theological
> notions with Roman Catholicism, two of which are man's free will and
the
> necessity of doing good works in order to obtain final salvation.
President
> Bush's favorite hymn, as he repeatedly has told us, is "A Charge to
Keep I
> Have," the next three lines of which are: "a God to glorify/a never
dying
> soul to save/and fit it for the sky." Perhaps even a sober Roman
Catholic
> would demur from the implied Pelagianism of these words, but
Methodists, at
> least devout ones, do not. They save their own souls; they fit them
for the
> sky. And one of the indispensable ways they do this is through good
works.
> Now, thanks to President's Bush's leadership, those good works will be
> federally funded.
>
> President Bush's theology explains much about his administration's
policies.
> For at least a year he has been meeting privately with Roman Catholic
> bishops, cardinals, and cardinals-to-be. John F. Kennedy himself,
precisely
> because he was a Roman Catholic, probably could not have gotten away
with
> the sort of private audiences President Bush has been keeping with
prelates
> of the Roman Church-State. Besides, Kennedy seemed to prefer private
> meetings with floozies, for which the American people ought to be
thankful.
> When it comes to the preferred vices of rulers, ordinary strumpets
trump
> spiritual strumpets.
>
> The Roman Church-State, whose social teaching and some of whose
theology
> President Bush has adopted as his own, is described by the Holy Spirit
> speaking in Scripture with these words: "Come and I will show you the
> judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the
kings of
> the Earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the Earth were
made
> drunk with the wine of her fornication. And the woman whom you saw is
that
> great city [which sits on seven hills] which reigns over the kings of
the
> Earth" (Revelation 17).
>
> Rome reigns over our king. George W. Bush has made it clear that he
endorses
> the social teaching of the Roman Church-State. In his May 20, 2001,
> commencement address at Notre Dame (Our Lady) University, President
Bush
> said,
>
> Notre Dame, as a Catholic university, carries forward a great
tradition of
> social teaching. It calls on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic, to
honor
> family, (1)to protect life in all its stages, to serve and uplift the
poor.
>
> Karl Rove, the President's long-time adviser, speaking to the National
> Catholic Leadership Forum in Washington on April 25, said that
President
> Bush's compassionate conservatism fits well with the Roman
Church-State's
> principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. "Catholic teaching is
between
> libertarian indifference and bureaucratic centralization," Rove said.
Other
> speakers, including Steven Wagner, editor of Crisis magazine and the
> Republican Party's new National Chairman for Catholic Outreach, said
that
> President Bush "talks the Catholic language."
>
> A Holy War on Poverty
>
> Here is more of that "Catholic language" from the President's Notre
Dame
> address:
>
> In 1964, the year I started college, another President from Texas
delivered
> a commencement address talking about this national commitment [to the
poor].
> In that speech, Lyndon Johnson advocated a War on Poverty which had
noble
> intentions and some enduring successes. Poor families got basic health
care;
> disadvantaged children were given a Head Start in life. In 1966 [sic;
> correct date: 1996] welfare reform confronted the first of these
problems
> [created by the War on Poverty]. But our work is only half done. Now
we must
> confront the second problem: to revive the spirit of citizenship.
>
> Welfare as we know it has ended, but poverty has not. We do not yet
know
> what will happen to these men and women, or to their children. But we
cannot
> sit and watch, leaving them to their own struggles and their own fate.
> Jewish prophets and Catholic teaching both speak of God's special
concern
> for the poor. This is perhaps the most radical teaching of faith.
>
> Mother Teresa said that what the poor often need, even more than
shelter and
> food is to be wanted. This is my message today: There is no Great
Society
> which is not a caring society. And any effective War on Poverty must
deploy
> what Dorothy Day called "the weapons of the spirit."
>
> It's not sufficient to praise charities and community groups, we must
> support them. And this is both a public obligation and a personal
> responsibility.
>
> The War on Poverty established a federal commitment to the poor. The
welfare
> reform legislation of 1996 made that commitment more effective. For
the task
> ahead, we must move to the third stage of combatting [sic] poverty in
> America.
>
> Government has an important role. It will never be replaced by
charities. My
> administration increased funding for major social welfare and poverty
> programs by 8 percent. Yet government must also do more.
>
> So I have created a White House Office of Faith-based and Community
> Initiatives. Through that Office we are working to ensure that local
> community helpers and healers receive more federal dollars. We have
proposed
> a "Compassion Capital Fund," that will match private giving with
federal
> dollars.
>
> And we're in the process of implementing and expanding "Charitable
Choice"
> the principle, already established in federal law, that faith-based
> organizations should not suffer discrimination when they compete for
> contracts to provide social services. Government should never fund the
> teaching of faith, but it should support the good works of the
faithful.
>
> Some critics of this approach object to the idea of government funding
going
> to any group motivated by faith. But they should take a look around
them.
> Public money already goes to groups like the Center for the Homeless
and, on
> a larger scale, Catholic Charities. Do the critics really want them
cut off?
> Medicaid and Medicare money currently goes to religious hospitals.
Should
> this practice be ended? Child care vouchers for low income families
are
> redeemed every day at houses of worship across America. Should this be
> prevented? Government loans send countless students to religious
colleges.
> Should that be banned? Of course not.
>
> Groups of this type [Habitat for Humanity] currently receive some
funding
> from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The budget I
submit to
> Congress next year will propose a three-fold increase in this funding.
>
> The federal government should do all these things; but others have
> responsibilities as well including corporate America. But if we hope
to
> substantially reduce poverty and suffering in our country, corporate
America
> needs to give more - and to give better. Faith-based organizations
receive
> only a tiny percentage of overall corporate giving..
>
> I will convene a summit this fall, asking corporate and philanthropic
> leaders throughout America to join me at the White House to discuss
ways
> they can provide more support to community organizations - both
secular and
> religious..
>
> I leave you with this challenge: serve a neighbor in need.because the
same
> God who endows us with individual rights also calls us to social
> obligations.
>
>
> Now where did these ideas come from? Dr. Marvin Olasky, advisor to
President
> Bush, Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas, Senior
Fellow of
> the Roman Catholic Acton Institute, and editor of the pro-Roman
Catholic
> World magazine, is generally credited with coining the term
"compassionate
> conservatism"; but he is not the source of these ideas. True, Olasky
was
> present at the White House on January 29, 2001, when President Bush
signed
> the Executive Order creating the new Office of Faith-Based
Initiatives, but
> many others were there too: Charles Colson, whose Prison Fellowship
and
> Justice Fellowship hope to get more taxpayer money; Dr. James Skillen,
> president of the Center for Public Justice, a think tank promoting
> faith-based policies; Michael Joyce, president of the Bradley
Foundation, a
> conservative foundation promoting faith-based policies; and
representatives
> from the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, The Salvation Army,
Teen
> Challenge, Habitat for Humanity, the Islam Center of America, Young
Life,
> World Vision, and so on. They all stand to gain financially from the
new
> policy, and have found their "place at the table," or more accurately,
at
> the trough. The love of money, as some long forgotten person once
wrote, is
> a root of all kinds of evil.
>
> In his Notre Dame speech President Bush cited as authorities Dorothy
Day, a
> Roman Catholic social worker and socialist of the 1930s, and Mother
Teresa,
> a Roman Catholic social worker of the late 20th century. Both of them
echo
> the collectivist social teaching of the Roman Church-State, which is
the
> source of Bush's ideas, as he suggested at the beginning of his
address.
> That social teaching, as I have demonstrated in detail in my book,
> Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the
Roman
> Catholic Church, is Antichristian, pagan in origin, and has spawned at
> various times fascism, socialism, corporativism, feudalism, and the
welfare
> state. It is this collectivist teaching that the President thinks "our
world
> needs to hear," as he said in his remarks at the dedication of the
Pope John
> Paul II Cultural Center at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., on
March
> 22:
>
>
> I'm grateful that Pope John Paul II chose Washington as the site of
this
> Center. It brings honor and it fills a need. We are thankful for the
> message. We are also thankful for the messenger, for his personal
warmth and
> prophetic strength.. Always, the Pope points us to the things that
last and
> the love that saves. We thank God for this rare man, a servant of God
and a
> hero..
>
>
> In remarks preceding the dedication, made while receiving Roman
Church-State
> cardinals, bishops, and other leaders in the East Room of the White
House,
> President Bush said,
>
>
> I've been struck by how humble the good folks [the prelates] are; how
there'
> s a universal love for mankind and a deep concern for those who are
not as
> fortunate as some of us. The Catholic Church is fortunate to have such
> strong, capable, decent leadership. And America is fortunate to have
such
> strong leaders in our midst.. All of you are part of the humanizing
mission
> which is part of the "Great Commission," and the Pope John Paul II
Cultural
> Center.will bring this message to generations of Americans in this
capital
> of our nation. The best way to honor Pope John Paul II, truly one of
the
> great men, is to take his teachings seriously; is to listen to his
words and
> put his words and teachings into action here in America. This is a
challenge
> we must accept.
>
>
> As Princeton University's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and
Director
> of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions,
Robert
> George, remarked in the National Catholic Register, "Bush made clear
that he
> is not backing away from his faith-based initiative, despite criticism
of
> some, not all, evangelical leaders and many libertarians.. What Bush
is, in
> effect, stating is that 'I am a John Paul II Republican..'" Professor
George
> is, of course, a Roman Catholic. And President Bush is indeed a John
Paul II
> Republican. (2)
>
> Despite what Professor George implied, the President has met with
virtually
> no opposition from so-called evangelical leaders. Christianity Today,
for
> example, enthusiastically endorsed the Bush plan in its April 2 issue,
> saying, "Bush's plan.is great." Those most often cited as opponents -
Jerry
> Falwell and Pat Robertson, for example - do not oppose the program in
> principle; they just grouse about money possibly going to
"non-mainstream
> religions." Pat Robertson has endorsed Bush's plan as "an excellent
idea."
> The ersatz evangelicals are not only supporting the President's plan
now,
> they have been supporting it all along. His legislative program is
being
> pushed in the House of Representatives by a Baptist minister, J. C.
Watts of
> Oklahoma, and in the Senate by Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew from
> Connecticut, and Rick Santorum, a Roman Catholic from Pennsylvania.
>
>
> Faith-Based Foolishness
>
> Central to President Bush's program is "faith." This faith seems at
first to
> be quite independent of any doctrine, for the President makes it clear
that
> his administration will fund "Methodists, Mormons, and Muslims." "We
will
> help all in their work to change hearts while keeping a commitment to
> pluralism." (3) Obviously this sort of faith has nothing to do with
> Christianity; in fact, it is inimical to Christianity. Secular social
reform
> efforts, according to the President, have failed because they cannot
change
> hearts, but "people of faith" can change hearts, and the government
will
> help them do so.
>
> Some misguided and foolish Christians think that only Christ can
change
> lives, and they therefore preach the false gospel of the changed life.
They
> do not understand either Christianity or false religions. One of the
most
> impressive testimony meetings I have ever attended was in the First
Church
> of Christ, Scientist. Moslems, Mormons, Methodists, and Mariolaters
can give
> similar testimonies: "The Koran, or Holy Mother Church, or the Queen
of
> Heaven, or the Saints have changed my life." The natural man can
believe and
> does believe many varieties of false religions, some of which may
indeed
> help him curb his drunkenness or his womanizing or his wife beating.
But
> none of these religions is true; none can save his soul; only the
finished
> work of Christ, accepted in simple faith, can do that. And it is
precisely
> this message of the Gospel that all these religions and government
policies
> oppose. When fans of faith-based organizations say they want results,
they
> are demanding results that they can observe, record, quantify, and
subject
> to statistical analysis. They could care less about the souls of those
on
> whom they operate. If Mohammedanism can produce sober citizens from
drunks,
> more tax money and power to it.
>
> Today it is common to hear that faith helps people recover from
accidents
> and illness; faith helps them put their lives and families back
together,
> or, as President Bush puts it, "Social scientists have documented the
power
> of religion to protect families and change lives. Studies indicate
that
> religious involvement reduces teen pregnancy, suicide, drug addiction,
> abuse, alcoholism, and crime." Ronald Sider, writing in Christianity
Today
> (June 11, 2001), informs us that "a growing body of research
demonstrates
> that religion often goes hand in hand with good citizenship and
overall
> health." Which religion? It doesn't seem to matter for faith-based
> foolishness. Mormonism works as well as Christianity, and the messages
of
> Prophet Mohammed and the Apparition Mary are as effective as the
Gospel of
> Christ. They all work. And the President has made it clear that he
wants
> results.
>
> Now this exploitation of religion by government for government's
purposes
> has been the story of humanity, from the Fall of man to the 21st
century.
> Fascism is not a new idea, invented by Mussolini and Hitler in the
20th
> century. Attila, the man of force, has frequently used the
Witchdoctor, the
> man of superstition, or formed a partnership with the Witchdoctor, in
order
> to control the people and maintain power. Faith-based fascism is but
the
> latest example of this religio-political partnership. Ronald Sider,
writing
> in Christianity Today, unwittingly put it this way:
>
>
> Scholars.cite a wide range of studies showing that "religion is
strongly
> associated with good citizenship and improved physical and mental
health."
> Active participation in a religious group correlates with lower
suicide
> rates, drug use, and criminal behavior; better health; and altruistic
> behavior.. [While] Nonreligious funders [contributors to charitable
> organization] may overlook a perfunctory prayer to start the day,
.they
> often refuse to support holistic social programs run by Christians who
think
> that encouraging the adoption of a specific religious faith is an
essential
> component of their social program.
>
>
> Sider makes it clear: The adoption of a specific religious faith is a
> component of a social program. This is theological paganism, a
complete
> reversal of Christian doctrine and priorities, which teach that all
social
> programs (if there are any at all) are secondary at best, and that the
> proclamation of the Gospel and the whole counsel of God is primary.
> Christians are to set their minds on things above, not on earthly
things.
> They are to fear him who can destroy both body and soul, not him who
can
> kill only the body. They are to recognize that a person is not what he
eats,
> but what he thinks. They are to teach that God's kingdom comes, not by
> might, nor by power, but by his Spirit working in the minds of men.
They are
> to warn all men that this earthly life is brief, and the things of
this
> world are passing away; that wrath is coming, and the life (or death)
that
> follows the Judgment is everlasting. They are to warn everyone that
what
> they think of Jesus Christ will result in their everlasting happiness
or
> their never-ending agony.
>
> The Great Commission is not a component of some larger social program;
it is
> the whole program, and it is not social. Whatever charitable works are
done
> by individuals, private organizations, and churches (not governments,
whose
> purpose is the punishment of evildoers, not the ministry of mercy) are
to be
> done in the furtherance of that mission. To reverse ends and means is
to
> deny the Gospel. Christ said, contradicting Ronald Sider and all other
> proponents of the Social Gospel, "Seek first the kingdom of God and
his
> righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." To make
earthly
> things the goal, and to make the kingdom of God and his righteousness
the
> means, is a damnable perversion of Christianity.
>
> Writing of an earlier proposal to bastardize Christianity and make it
a
> useful contributor to good citizenship and a component of a social
program,
> J. Gresham Machen said,
>
>
> We find proposed to us today what is called "character education" or
> "character building." Character, we are told, is one thing about which
men
> of all faiths are agreed. Let us, therefore, build character in
common, as
> good citizens, and then welcome from the various religious faiths
whatever
> additional aid they can severally bring.. What surprises me about this
> program is not that its advocates propose it, for it is only too well
in
> accord with the spirit of the age. But what really surprises me about
it is
> that the advocates of it seem to think that a Christian can support it
> without ceasing at that point to be Christian. (4)
>
>
> Today, the so-called evangelicals are mindlessly parroting the pious
> bromides of the modernists and Social Gospelers of 75 years ago. To
state it
> more clearly, many of those we now call evangelicals are in fact
modernists.
> They have abandoned Christianity. And what pious fascists call "social
> justice" are the sins of envy and theft.
>
>
> Faith-based Fascism
>
> The 16th century Cardinal Tommaso Cajetan, a determined opponent of
the
> Reformation, explained very clearly the Roman Catholic theology behind
> faith-based fascism:
>
>
> Now what a ruler can do in virtue of his office, so that justice may
be
> served in the matter of riches, is to take from someone who is
unwilling to
> dispense from what is superfluous for life or state [condition], and
to
> distribute it to the poor.. For according to the teaching of the
saints, the
> riches that are superfluous do not belong to the rich man as his own,
but
> rather to the one appointed by God as dispenser, so that he can have
the
> merit of a good dispensation. (5)
>
>
> The same theological and moral justification of stealing by government
has
> been stated by many popes, councils, and theologians throughout the
long and
> bloody history of the Roman Church-State. Using the principles of the
> universal destination of goods and subsidiarity, the Roman
Church-State
> concocted the most comprehensive case for economic and political
fascism the
> world has ever seen. It is this social teaching that President Bush
praises,
> follows, and urges all of us to follow.
>
> Of course, he is not the first modern political leader to do so.
Amintore
> Fanfani, Premier of Italy in the mid-twentieth century, published a
book
> titled Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism in 1934. Fanfani
presented
> the Roman Church-State's social teaching and concluded that "the
essence of
> capitalism.can only meet with the most decided repugnance on the part
of
> Catholicism." What is that essence? Individualism, the private
property
> order, freedom of enterprise, freedom of association, freedom of
religion.
> Fanfani, like many Protestant-poseurs today, longed for the good old
days,
> the feudalism of the Middle Ages:
>
>
> The pre-capitalist age is the period in which definite social
institutions
> such as, for instance, the Church, the State, the Guild, act as
guardians of
> an economic order that is not based on criteria of individual economic
> utility. The Corporation or Guild is typical of the period. It is the
> guardian of a system of economic activity in which the purely economic
> interests of the individual are sacrificed either to the moral and
religious
> interests of the individual-the attainment of which is under the
control of
> special public institutions-or to the economic and extra-economic
interests
> of the community. Competition was restricted; the distribution of
customers,
> hence a minimum of work, was assured; a certain system of work was
> compulsory; trade with various groups [guess whom] might be forbidden
for
> political or religious reasons; certain practices were compulsory, and
> working hours were limited; there were a number of compulsory feasts;
prices
> and rates of increase were fixed; measures were taken to prevent
> speculation. (6)
>
>
> This fascist organization of society was a result of the social
teaching of
> the Roman Church-State, and it has been a result of that teaching
wherever
> the Roman Church-State has been powerful enough to impose its will on
a
> nation.
>
> Roman Catholic historian Christopher Dawson, writing in 1936 in
Religion and
> the Modern State, acknowledged Romanism's affinity for fascism:
>
>
> [Roman Catholicism] is by no means hostile to the authoritarian ideal
of the
> State.. [T]he [Roman] Church has always maintained the principles of
> authority and hierarchy and a high conception of the prerogatives of
the
> State. [Roman Catholic social ideas] have far more affinity with those
of
> fascism than with those of either [Classical] Liberalism or Socialism.
> [They] correspond much more closely, at least in theory, with the
fascist
> conception of the functions of the "leader" and the vocational
hierarchy of
> the Fascist State than they do with the system of parliamentary
democratic
> party government..(7)
>
>
> The Joy of Fascism
>
> Who supports this faith-based fascism? Most if not all the Religious
Right,
> including groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian
> Coalition; the Roman Church-State, of course; conservatives; a
considerable
> army of nonprofit organizations, such as the Hudson Institute, that
receive
> money from the government and spin out "scholarly" studies allegedly
showing
> why government funding of faith-based organizations is the answer to
social
> problems; wealthy foundations, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and
the
> Bradley Foundation, that also fund such stupid studies; Charles Colson
of
> Prison Fellowship and Ronald Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action,
as
> well as other advocates of the Social Gospel; and even some foolish
people
> who call themselves Reformed Christians, of whom we shall have more to
say
> later.
>
> The man heading the President's Office of Faith-based and Community
> Initiatives, Dr. John J. DiIulio, is a former member of the board of
Prison
> Fellowship. Calling himself a "born-again Catholic," DiIulio explains
> "compassionate conservatism": "Compassionate conservatism warmly
welcomes
> godly people back into the public square.. It fosters model
public/private
> partnerships.." Quoting a July 22, 1999, speech by Governor Bush,
DiIulio
> says that Bush rejected the "destructive" idea that "if government
would
> only get out of the way, all our problems would be solved." Two years
later,
> on January 29, 2001, President Bush asserted, and he has repeated it
many
> times since, "Government cannot be replaced by charities or
volunteers."
> President Bush clearly rejects the Biblical view of limited
government.
> Rather than restricting government to its only legitimate role, the
> punishment of evildoers, as Paul says in Romans 13, President Bush
wants to
> involve government further in society by expanding the
"government-by-proxy"
> fascism that already grips America. DiIulio explained the plan to the
> National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) on March 7:
>
>
> Since the end of World War II, virtually every domestic policy program
that
> Washington has funded in whole or in part has been administered not by
> federal civil servants alone (there are about 2 million of those
today,
> roughly the same number as in 1960), but by federal workers in
conjunction
> with state and local government employees, for-profit firms, and
non-profit
> organizations. There are, for example, six people who work indirectly
for
> Washington for every one federal bureaucrat who administers social
programs.
> Certain nonprofit organizations, both religious and secular, have long
been
> funded in whole or in part through this federal government-by-proxy
system.
>
> Catholic Charities, for example, gets 65 percent of its $2.3 billion
annual
> budget from government. The Jewish Board of Family and Children
Services
> receives 75 percent of its funding from government.
>
> Far from objecting to this fascist government-by-proxy system, with
its
> network of public-private "partnerships" and government "coordination"
(such
> "partnerships" and "coordination" are characteristics of fascism),
DiIulio
> intends to extend this fascist system to include even more
organizations and
> people, specifically religious organizations. He exults in the fact
that
> under federal law signed by President Clinton in 1996, "sacred places
that
> serve civic purposes can seek federal (or federal-state) funding
without
> having to divest themselves of their religious iconography or
symbols..
> [N]uns in habits [can] rub shoulders with Americorps volunteers." and
so on.
> He finds such prospects delightful because at the present time there
is
> anti-Catholic discrimination: "Catholics who believe and follow the
Church's
> official teachings on social issues 'need not apply' to many secular
> nonprofits presently funded, in whole or in part, through Washington's
> government-by-proxy system."
>
> In his speech to the NAE, DiIulio attempted to answer objections to
> faith-based fascism. To those who think it would corrupt their
organizations
> if they were to participate, his answer is simple: Don't participate.
Good
> advice, but worthless. Under fascism, non-participation is not an
option. We
> are compelled to pay taxes to support fascist government-by-proxy. We
are
> compelled to obey the government's proxies. The freedom not to
participate
> should be extended to the collection of taxes, not just to the
distribution
> of stolen property that DiIulio calls federal funding. One slogan of
Italian
> Fascism was "Everything within the State; nothing outside the State."
Our
> home-grown fascists operate on the same principle, working to expand a
> political system that already penalizes those who oppose
institutionalized
> and legalized theft and rewards those who favor legalized theft. Their
goal
> is to politicize what remains of private charity.
>
> In an interesting remark to the NAE, DiIulio disclosed his
Antichristian
> view of the church: "Community helpers and healers need and deserve
our
> individual and collective help. But they would need it less, much
less, if
> the church behaved like the church, unified from city to suburb.."
These
> sentiments are Antichristian for at least two reasons. First, the
Christian
> church is not a social welfare organization. Anything it does to care
for
> the physical welfare of people is incidental and subordinate to its
> overriding purpose, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The
> Christian Gospel is not the Social Gospel. Paul even gives us
instructions
> on who is not to helped - those who will not work and widows under age
60 -
> to name two groups. Second, the church is not supposed to be a
centralized
> institution. The churches in the New Testament are scattered over a
wide
> geographical area; there is no centralized administration, no
denominational
> apparatus, only congregations and an occasional presbytery meeting.
The
> churches' only visible links to each other are not organizational, but
the
> apostles and evangelists. When the apostles die, there is no visible,
> structural, or organizational link between the churches. Their unity
lies
> solely in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"; Paul mentions nothing
about
> one denomination. There is no common organization. Of course, the
ambitious
> founders of DiIulio's Church-State, the bishops of Rome (not Jesus
Christ or
> Peter), seeking to supplant both the head of the church, Christ, and
his
> apostles, invented and asserted apostolic succession, claimed to be
the
> vicars of Christ walking on Earth, and imposed their control on other
> churches. Two thousand years after Christ the bishops of Rome are
still
> seeking to impose their control on other churches. It is this
bureaucratic
> and totalitarian view of the church that DiIulio favors, and it is
this
> Antichristian view of the church that compassionate fascism will
encourage,
> support, and if successful, impose. No wonder DiIulio says, "our
hearts are
> joyous and light."
>
>
> The Nominally Reformed
>
> Marvin Olasky, an adviser to President Bush pushing compassionate
fascism,
> is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and a member
of the
> board of Covenant College. Dr. Amy Sherman, who started the Abundant
Life
> Family Center at Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Charlottesville,
> Virginia, is now Urban Ministries Advisor there. That church already
> receives government funding for its social programs, and it apparently
> desires more. Dr. Sherman uses her position with The Hudson Institute
to
> propagandize for faith-based fascism. Russ Pulliam, editor of the
> Indianapolis Star and a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of
North
> America, published an essay in that denomination's magazine,
Covenanter
> Witness, saying,
>
>
> Bush should stand his ground in response to any legal threats to drag
his
> proposals into court. He has the First Amendment on his side, based on
a
> strict constructionist reading of the Constitution.. Thomas Jefferson
> approved federal grants to Roman Catholic missions to the Indians.
Congress
> approved its own government-paid chaplain.. There is nothing
> unconstitutional about a government grant for a rescue mission that
helps
> the homeless..
>
> Not only does President Bush have the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson,
and
> Congress on his side, according to Pulliam, he has Jesus Christ, the
Bible,
> and the Apostle Paul as well:
>
> In Romans 13, Paul explains how civil government is designed to be a
> "minister of God to thee for good." The king of civil government,
after all,
> is Jesus Christ; so it should not be surprising that he can use that
> government to help in the resolution of social problems, through
cooperation
> with ministries like Prison Fellowship.
>
> Pulliam is not alone; the Christian Statesman, a periodical published
by the
> National Reform Association, whose members are supposed to be
conservative
> Presbyterians with Reconstructionist proclivities, has expressed
similar
> views.
>
> It may come as a surprise to Pulliam and his friends that there is no
> constitutional warrant whatsoever for federal subsidies to rescue
missions.
> The arguments he uses - what Jefferson and Congress may or may not
have
> done - beg the question: He ought to show that what they did was
> constitutional, rather than assume that the actions of Jefferson and
> Congress are ipso facto constitutional. Pulliam, for example, should
have
> quoted James Madison's February 27, 1811, veto message to Congress:
>
>
> The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and
support of
> religious societies [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution
which
> declares that Congress shall make no law respecting a religious
> establishment.
>
> Furthermore, there is no warrant in the Constitution for any federal
welfare
> program, let alone a welfare program for religious societies.
>
> Pulliam's understanding of Scripture is no better, and perhaps worse,
than
> his understanding of the Constitution: If Jesus Christ is king of
civil
> government, and if it is therefore proper to use civil government to
"help
> in the resolution of social problems," then it also follows that it is
> proper to use government to help in the resolution of religious
problems.
> One good non sequitur deserves another. That is how totalitarianism
comes,
> step by illogical step.
>
> The separation of church and state - a phrase that has been demonized
by the
> Religious Right for the past 20 years - is what has afforded and still
> affords us some religious freedom in this country. The Roman
Church-State -
> indeed all pagan religions - has always been opposed to the separation
of
> church and state, and it remains so today. Now it has millions of
> conservative dupes singing its siren song of partnership between
church and
> state.
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> Faith-based fascism will increase the size and scope of the federal
> government, extending it to organizations that have hitherto been
outside
> the state. That is the explicit goal of the policy, as expressed by
the
> President himself. "Everything within the State; nothing outside the
State."
>
> Faith-based fascism will increase, not decrease, the constituencies of
the
> welfare state, creating new special interest groups, government-funded
> religious organizations, that will pressure officials to grant them
more
> money.
>
> Faith-based fascism is based on a political delusion. John DiIulio and
> President Bush tell us that federal grants will be awarded and
withdrawn on
> the basis of results. DiIulio asserts: "Opening competition for
federal
> funds to all, including tiny local faith-based organizations, could
usher in
> a new era of results-driven public administration. Scores of federal
welfare
> programs could be cured or killed." For someone who has co-authored a
> textbook on American government, DiIulio shows little understanding of
how
> government actually works. Government-grant awards and denials are
decided
> by political clout, political cronyism, and political biases. With the
> addition of government grants to faith-based organizations, we must
add
> religious clout, religious cronyism, and religious biases. Tax funds
will
> flow to political and religious friends and be withheld from political
and
> religious foes.
>
> Faith-based fascism, therefore, will affect which religious societies
will
> grow and which will not. Those with federally funded programs will
attract
> members; those who obey the Bible and the Constitution will be pushed
from
> the public square, marginalized, criticized, and persecuted by the
"armies
> of compassion." Richard John Neuhaus' "naked public square" will once
again
> be filled with praying, autodafeing fascists, just like in the good
old
> days.
>
> How should a Christian respond to the President's baiting questions,
"Do the
> critics really want them [Catholic Charities] cut off [from federal
> funding]? Medicaid and Medicare money currently goes to religious
hospitals.
> Should this practice be ended? Child care vouchers for low income
families
> are redeemed every day at houses of worship across America. Should
this be
> prevented? Government loans send countless students to religious
colleges.
> Should that be banned?"
>
> The President answers, "Of course not."
>
> The Christian answers, Yes, and the sooner the better.
>
> End the student loans; they are funded by money stolen from taxpayers;
they
> have driven the cost of a college education out of sight; and they are
used
> to put young people deeply into debt at the start of their lives.
>
> End the child care vouchers; they are funded by money stolen from
taxpayers,
> and they are used to put children into 9-to-5 orphanages.
>
> End the subsidies for medical care; they are funded with money stolen
from
> taxpayers; they have raised the price of medical care to exorbitant
levels;
> they have encouraged people not to provide for their own; and they
have made
> government an idol.
>
> End the subsidies to Catholic Charities and World Vision; they are
funded
> with money stolen from taxpayers. If those charities were half as
wonderful
> as they tell us, their efforts would attract adequate voluntary
> contributions. The fact that these charities must rely on funds
obtained by
> force suggests that their programs are less than worthwhile, less than
> efficient, or less than beneficial.
>
> And let's be clear about charity. Charity is not compelling someone
else to
> give his money to the poor. It is giving one's own money away; it is
freely
> contributing one's own time. Government charity is a contradiction in
terms,
> for government has no money except what it collects by force from
others.
> What President Bush proposes is not greater charity, but aggravated
theft
> and increased compulsion. There is nothing Christian or charitable
about it.
> It is a violation of the Ten Commandments.
>
> This writer has heard no "Christian" leader give the correct answers
to the
> President's questions. They have already agreed in principle with the
> President's faith-based fascism. Long ago they abandoned the whole
counsel
> of God, choosing which Biblical doctrines they would believe and
teach, and
> which they would ignore. Many of them have abandoned the Gospel of the
> substitutionary death of Christ for his people and justification by
faith
> alone. Now they have denied what the Scriptures teach on private
property,
> the role of government, and the social order.
>
> The salt has lost its savor; it has become worthless; and it deserves
to be
> trodden underfoot by men.
>
>
> Recommended Reading
>
>
> Fanfani, Amintore. Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism.
>
> University of Notre Dame Press [1934] 1984.
>
> Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. Free Life Editions [1944] 1973.
>
> Laquer, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University
Press,
> 1996.
>
> Robbins, John W. Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and
Political
> Thought of the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinity Foundation, 1999.
>
> Rummel, R. J. Death by Government. Transaction Publishers, 1995.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- > ---- > > 1. For a more accurate view of the Roman Catholic treatment of marriage and > the family, see Sheila Rauch Kennedy, Shattered Faith: A Woman's Struggle to > Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage. It is outrageous that > two institutions that have sinful views of marriage and the family - the > Roman Church-State and the Mormon Church - now enjoy reputations as > defenders of the family. > > 2. President Bush is not the first convert, but he seems to be more > enthusiastic about the religion than some others. Last year, under pressure > from the Vatican, Republican Congressional leaders dropped their opposition > to a Clinton administration proposal to forgive the debts of 30 poor > countries. President Clinton made the proposal a week after John Paul II > called for government forgiveness of debts during 2000, a "Jubilee Year." > > 3. Relativist tolerance is always disguised intolerance. When asked during > the campaign if he would support federal funding of the Nation of Islam, > Bush replied, "I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs > where spite and hate is the core of the message." But the Nation of Islam > had produced results: It is reputed to be very effective at dealing with > drug abuse and crime problems; in fact, in the early 1990s, the Department > of Housing and Urban Development had contracted with the Nation of Islam to > provide security in public housing projects. Under pluralism, all religions > are equal, but some are more equal than others. > > 4. The Necessity of the Christian School," in Education, Christianity and > the State, John W. Robbins, editor, 76. > > 5. Cited in John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 36. > > 6. Cited in Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 74. > > 7. Cited in Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 161. > > > > > > What kind of city with surroundings would one expect of a "faith-based public works" project with the objective of designing and constructing a "culture of life"? Would a George Bush "culture of life" be the same as a Vatican "culture of life"? > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > What kind of city with surroundings would one expect of a "faith-based public works" project with the objective of designing and constructing a "culture of life"? Would a George Bush "culture of life" be the same as a Vatican "culture of life"? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:43 MST