Former top UC official Steve Hassan believes that the Washington Times is a "Trojan horse" within the conservative movement. Hassan told EXTRA!, "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism."
The only religious group with any real heft in the Republican party is the Christian Right.
And if Moon ever showed up to a meeting with Falwell, Dobson and Robertson, he'd be the one who'd be "purged on God's orders."
peep this:
Quote:
Moon also has ties to TV preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Falwell has accepted money to speak at several Moon events, including a July 26, 1994, meeting of the Youth Federation for World Peace, yet another Moon front group. After that gathering, a photo of Falwell standing alongside Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han, appeared in the Unification News. About a year a half later, Falwell participated in a Moon-sponsored "Christian Unity in the Americas" conference in Uruguay.
In 1997, Moon money bailed Falwell out of a tight financial spot. A Moon-run group, the Women?s Federation for World Peace, gave $3.5 million to the Christian Heritage Foundation with instructions to use it to buy some of the debt incurred by Falwell?s Liberty University, reported The Washington Post. (The group later forgave the debt.) The paper also reported that a Moon publishing outfit had lent Falwell $400,000 at a low interest rate in 1996 for use in propping up Liberty.
In February of 2000, the Washington Times Foundation held an event on Capitol Hill honoring Moon that included an awards ceremony. Falwell was a top awardee, receiving a "Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Freedom, Faith and Family." (Several members of Congress, including Speaker Dennis Hastert also attended the event, which took place at the Canon Office Building.)
Moon?s relationship with Robertson is more complex. The volatile Virginia televangelist has launched many verbal broadsides against Moon over the years and has apparently had no direct dealings with him. However, Robertson?s longtime political associate, Billy McCormack, is close to Moon.
McCormack, a Louisiana preacher who Robertson says first gave him the idea to form the Christian Coalition, has served on the Coalition?s board of directors for many years. Recently, he has begun popping up at Moon events in his official Coalition capacity. McCormack was originally scheduled to appear at an ACLC "unity rally" held at the Supreme Court last Dec. 1, but dropped out due to a family illness. (Another Christian Coalition representative, Daniel Perkins, spoke instead.)
But McCormack did show up in person in January for a Moon-sponsored luncheon during the Bush inaugural, where he joined 1,700 other religious leaders for an event called "America Come Together." McCormack and Falwell both spoke at the luncheon, and McCormack later joined Moon on stage in Little Rock during Moon?s multi-state tour; he also served on the "Invitation Committee" that coordinated the "We Will Stand" events. (McCormack did not respond to Church & State?s request for an interview.)
I'm not sure I follow that sentence: ... "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism"
To what does "it" refer? Conservative politics or the Times? The proximity to "Times" would suggest the latter. If it does, the yoking together of the two--conservatism and fascism--seems to be implicit.
FMA FOLLIES. The dread specter of judicial activism and the noble banner of democracy are lurking all over The National Review's latest editorial in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment, but as you'll see, their proposal has nothing to do with either:
Even among supporters of an amendment, however, there has been considerable disagreement about what precise form it should take. We have defended an amendment that would accomplish three things. First, it would reserve the word "marriage" for the union of one man and one woman: No court or legislature would be able to create "gay marriage."
There's nothing remotely democratic about a constitutional amendment barring state legislatures from allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married. What's really going on here is that conservatives know they're losing this fight. Gay marriage remains unpopular, but on all other fronts support for gay rights has been growing strongly in recent years. Meanwhile, young people are far more supportive of gay marriage than are our elders, putting time firmly on the side of the left. A constitutional amendment today, however, would lock the public opinion of 2004 in stone for decades to come, as amendments are incredibly hard to repeal. If you'd passed a Federal Anti-Miscegenation Amendment back in 1956, interracial unions might still be illegal today.
By the same token, of course, constitutional amendments are extremely hard to pass, and it's very difficult to see how the FMA could ever achieve the requisite level of support. But even if the quest proves fruitless, conservatives hope to use this as an election year wedge-issue against the Democrats. Most polling has indicated, however, that the FMA is distinctly unpopular, hence the Bush administration's reluctance to endorse it. Nevertheless, the most recent poll on the subject, conducted by The New York Times, used a differently worded question and registered majority support for an amendment. The moral of the story seems to be that this may or may not be popular, depending on how the question is framed, thus the right's effort to cloak itself in misleading slogans about democracy.
--Matthew Yglesias
as the conservative congress tries to BAN the phrase... GAY MARRIAGE?
Funny if a state called it THE GAY AND MARRIED LAW.
I'm not sure I follow that sentence: ... "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism"
To what does "it" refer? Conservative politics or the Times? The proximity to "Times" would suggest the latter. If it does, the yoking together of the two--conservatism and fascism--seems to be implicit.
Cheers
Scott
I think the Trojan Horse analogy implies that The Washington Times is actually subversive to conservatism, despite giving it one of it's largest voices.
Horrible title. Horrible thread. AO is an intellectual wasteland.
Good title. Good thread. AO is just fine.
If you have any thoughts about the actual issues being discussed here groverat, I would (honestly) love to hear them. Nice to see that you are still around.
I don't think there's an "actual issue" aside from a misleading thread title.
I think that there has been a good deal of interesting discussion on why the title is, in fact, not misleading.
groverat, I always liked your long posts, even when they made me angry. I understand that you may have less time to post that way now (heck, I always have had little time with three little critters running around the house), but anytime you get the chance....
In any case, I appreciate this thread for documenting the sometimes blurry distinctions between the truly loony right-wing and the right-wing that is currently in charge.
In any case, I appreciate this thread for documenting the sometimes blurry distinctions between the truly loony right-wing and the the right-wing that is currently in charge.
This has also been a foray into documenting who is behind the information we rely upon, and this, to my mind, leads naturally into a discussion of media consolidation (e.g. Clear Channel, Murdoch, Times/AOL/Warner, etc.) and political power.
It all makes me want to read Alterman's What Liberal Media again....
I feel like I needed to say somewhere in there "No really! My sister was bitten by a moose once!"
I've heard moose bites can be quite nasty, but what triggerred the reference?. (It's from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail's opening credits. I injured myself laughing before the end of the credits.)
I've heard moose bites can be quite nasty, but what triggerred the reference?. (It's from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail's opening credits. I injured myself laughing before the end of the credits.)
Heh. Here's what I'd said in the post:
Quote:
You also need to keep in mind that some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and God, or have been justified by appeals to the two. You also also need to keep in mind that there are lots and lots of God-fearing Christian men in America who will tell you that they wouldn't bat an eye is every homosexual in the world we placed on an island and allowed to starve to death. You also also also need to keep in mind that all religions are pretty whacky when you don't believe in them.
I was joking about my "also also" and "also also also," which reminded me of the bits in the MPATHG opening credits where the subtitles say "also also wik"
You also need to keep in mind that some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and God, or have been justified by appeals to the two. [...] You also also also need to keep in mind that all religions are pretty whacky when you don't believe in them.
[...]
As the resident liberal Christian on these boards (although there are some others I am sure), this comment could have led to an interesting sidelight to the discussions here. But I did not want to derail the thread.
I am not insulted by the remarks, but they do raise some challenges for me. We have danced around such religious issues a few times on these boards, but I have not really had it out on them (except, in part, with BR on a few occasions). I may devote a thread of my own to such issues and in particular to the question of evil done in the name of Christianity.
As the resident liberal Christian on these boards (although there are many others I am sure), this comment could have led to an interesting sidelight to the discussions here. But I did not want to derail the thread.
I am not insulted by the remarks, but they do raise some challenges for me. We have danced around such religious issues a few times on these boards, but I have not really had it out on them (except, in part, with BR on a few occasions). I may devote a thread of my own to such issues and in particular to the question of evil done in the name of Christianity.
Go for it. It's a fascinating discussion, really, since it all boils down to how we use whatever paradigm we live in to justify cruelty.
Comments
From a 1987 FAIR article
Former top UC official Steve Hassan believes that the Washington Times is a "Trojan horse" within the conservative movement. Hassan told EXTRA!, "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism."
Originally posted by Frank777
The only religious group with any real heft in the Republican party is the Christian Right.
And if Moon ever showed up to a meeting with Falwell, Dobson and Robertson, he'd be the one who'd be "purged on God's orders."
peep this:
Moon also has ties to TV preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Falwell has accepted money to speak at several Moon events, including a July 26, 1994, meeting of the Youth Federation for World Peace, yet another Moon front group. After that gathering, a photo of Falwell standing alongside Moon and his wife, Hak Ja Han, appeared in the Unification News. About a year a half later, Falwell participated in a Moon-sponsored "Christian Unity in the Americas" conference in Uruguay.
In 1997, Moon money bailed Falwell out of a tight financial spot. A Moon-run group, the Women?s Federation for World Peace, gave $3.5 million to the Christian Heritage Foundation with instructions to use it to buy some of the debt incurred by Falwell?s Liberty University, reported The Washington Post. (The group later forgave the debt.) The paper also reported that a Moon publishing outfit had lent Falwell $400,000 at a low interest rate in 1996 for use in propping up Liberty.
In February of 2000, the Washington Times Foundation held an event on Capitol Hill honoring Moon that included an awards ceremony. Falwell was a top awardee, receiving a "Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Freedom, Faith and Family." (Several members of Congress, including Speaker Dennis Hastert also attended the event, which took place at the Canon Office Building.)
Moon?s relationship with Robertson is more complex. The volatile Virginia televangelist has launched many verbal broadsides against Moon over the years and has apparently had no direct dealings with him. However, Robertson?s longtime political associate, Billy McCormack, is close to Moon.
McCormack, a Louisiana preacher who Robertson says first gave him the idea to form the Christian Coalition, has served on the Coalition?s board of directors for many years. Recently, he has begun popping up at Moon events in his official Coalition capacity. McCormack was originally scheduled to appear at an ACLC "unity rally" held at the Supreme Court last Dec. 1, but dropped out due to a family illness. (Another Christian Coalition representative, Daniel Perkins, spoke instead.)
But McCormack did show up in person in January for a Moon-sponsored luncheon during the Bush inaugural, where he joined 1,700 other religious leaders for an event called "America Come Together." McCormack and Falwell both spoke at the luncheon, and McCormack later joined Moon on stage in Little Rock during Moon?s multi-state tour; he also served on the "Invitation Committee" that coordinated the "We Will Stand" events. (McCormack did not respond to Church & State?s request for an interview.)
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs6013.htm
Moon would be Falwell's DON KING!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, this throws us a big curveball!
From a 1987 FAIR article
I'm not sure I follow that sentence: ... "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism"
To what does "it" refer? Conservative politics or the Times? The proximity to "Times" would suggest the latter. If it does, the yoking together of the two--conservatism and fascism--seems to be implicit.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
AO is an intellectual wasteland.
Good to see you're still here.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
Horrible title. Horrible thread. AO is an intellectual wasteland.
No, AO was an intellectual wasteland, as in back in march when folks said things like:
Originally posted by groverat
There's never been a question about Iraq having proscribed weapons from anyone with half a brain.
January 09, 2004
FMA FOLLIES. The dread specter of judicial activism and the noble banner of democracy are lurking all over The National Review's latest editorial in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment, but as you'll see, their proposal has nothing to do with either:
Even among supporters of an amendment, however, there has been considerable disagreement about what precise form it should take. We have defended an amendment that would accomplish three things. First, it would reserve the word "marriage" for the union of one man and one woman: No court or legislature would be able to create "gay marriage."
There's nothing remotely democratic about a constitutional amendment barring state legislatures from allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married. What's really going on here is that conservatives know they're losing this fight. Gay marriage remains unpopular, but on all other fronts support for gay rights has been growing strongly in recent years. Meanwhile, young people are far more supportive of gay marriage than are our elders, putting time firmly on the side of the left. A constitutional amendment today, however, would lock the public opinion of 2004 in stone for decades to come, as amendments are incredibly hard to repeal. If you'd passed a Federal Anti-Miscegenation Amendment back in 1956, interracial unions might still be illegal today.
By the same token, of course, constitutional amendments are extremely hard to pass, and it's very difficult to see how the FMA could ever achieve the requisite level of support. But even if the quest proves fruitless, conservatives hope to use this as an election year wedge-issue against the Democrats. Most polling has indicated, however, that the FMA is distinctly unpopular, hence the Bush administration's reluctance to endorse it. Nevertheless, the most recent poll on the subject, conducted by The New York Times, used a differently worded question and registered majority support for an amendment. The moral of the story seems to be that this may or may not be popular, depending on how the question is framed, thus the right's effort to cloak itself in misleading slogans about democracy.
--Matthew Yglesias
as the conservative congress tries to BAN the phrase... GAY MARRIAGE?
Funny if a state called it THE GAY AND MARRIED LAW.
or Gay Betrothal
or
Gay Eternal Commitment That's Equal to Marriage
or...
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure I follow that sentence: ... "Conservative politics is glad to have a voice through the Times, but ultimately it has nothing to do with conservatism. It has to do with fascism"
To what does "it" refer? Conservative politics or the Times? The proximity to "Times" would suggest the latter. If it does, the yoking together of the two--conservatism and fascism--seems to be implicit.
Cheers
Scott
I think the Trojan Horse analogy implies that The Washington Times is actually subversive to conservatism, despite giving it one of it's largest voices.
Originally posted by groverat
Horrible title. Horrible thread. AO is an intellectual wasteland.
Good title. Good thread. AO is just fine.
If you have any thoughts about the actual issues being discussed here groverat, I would (honestly) love to hear them. Nice to see that you are still around.
I was wrong? Do you know what "proscribed" means?
--
chinney:
I don't think there's an "actual issue" aside from a misleading thread title.
Originally posted by groverat
chinney:
I don't think there's an "actual issue" aside from a misleading thread title.
I think that there has been a good deal of interesting discussion on why the title is, in fact, not misleading.
groverat, I always liked your long posts, even when they made me angry. I understand that you may have less time to post that way now (heck, I always have had little time with three little critters running around the house), but anytime you get the chance....
In any case, I appreciate this thread for documenting the sometimes blurry distinctions between the truly loony right-wing and the right-wing that is currently in charge.
Originally posted by Chinney
In any case, I appreciate this thread for documenting the sometimes blurry distinctions between the truly loony right-wing and the the right-wing that is currently in charge.
This has also been a foray into documenting who is behind the information we rely upon, and this, to my mind, leads naturally into a discussion of media consolidation (e.g. Clear Channel, Murdoch, Times/AOL/Warner, etc.) and political power.
It all makes me want to read Alterman's What Liberal Media again....
Cheers
Scott
I feel like I needed to say somewhere in there "No really! My sister was bitten by a moose once!"
I've heard moose bites can be quite nasty, but what triggerred the reference?. (It's from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail's opening credits. I injured myself laughing before the end of the credits.)
Originally posted by Stoo
I've heard moose bites can be quite nasty, but what triggerred the reference?. (It's from the Monty Python and the Holy Grail's opening credits. I injured myself laughing before the end of the credits.)
Heh. Here's what I'd said in the post:
You also need to keep in mind that some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and God, or have been justified by appeals to the two. You also also need to keep in mind that there are lots and lots of God-fearing Christian men in America who will tell you that they wouldn't bat an eye is every homosexual in the world we placed on an island and allowed to starve to death. You also also also need to keep in mind that all religions are pretty whacky when you don't believe in them.
I was joking about my "also also" and "also also also," which reminded me of the bits in the MPATHG opening credits where the subtitles say "also also wik"
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
It all makes me want to read Alterman's What Liberal Media again....
Cheers
Scott
I have not read this...I'll have to pick up a copy.
Originally posted by Chinney
I have not read this...I'll have to pick up a copy.
It's quite good, I think. Go here to get a feel for what he's all about.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
[...]
You also need to keep in mind that some pretty horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity and God, or have been justified by appeals to the two. [...] You also also also need to keep in mind that all religions are pretty whacky when you don't believe in them.
[...]
As the resident liberal Christian on these boards (although there are some others I am sure), this comment could have led to an interesting sidelight to the discussions here. But I did not want to derail the thread.
I am not insulted by the remarks, but they do raise some challenges for me. We have danced around such religious issues a few times on these boards, but I have not really had it out on them (except, in part, with BR on a few occasions). I may devote a thread of my own to such issues and in particular to the question of evil done in the name of Christianity.
Originally posted by Chinney
As the resident liberal Christian on these boards (although there are many others I am sure), this comment could have led to an interesting sidelight to the discussions here. But I did not want to derail the thread.
I am not insulted by the remarks, but they do raise some challenges for me. We have danced around such religious issues a few times on these boards, but I have not really had it out on them (except, in part, with BR on a few occasions). I may devote a thread of my own to such issues and in particular to the question of evil done in the name of Christianity.
Go for it. It's a fascinating discussion, really, since it all boils down to how we use whatever paradigm we live in to justify cruelty.
Cheers
Scott