If its true that 20 – 30% of the current republican base is made up of the christian right – those that have enabled the erosian of their own economic interests with the promise of a christian social agenda from the white house – it should be no suprise, that the office of faith & community based initiatives can be seen as the conduit of government grant money that flows back to that very base. Ironically, the christian right, in exchanging economic power for social values, has drivin itself back into the arms of the (big) government it has promised (in its republican alliance) to defeat.
The office of jim towey, saddly, only acts to complete the fish – hook effect of this power alliance loop, placing those who have victimized their own interests, right back in the den of further victimization.
So if this election goes down with a republican win, in the total ignorance of the real issues facing the nation, then somebody better figure out not only “whats the matter with kansas” but whats the matter with America.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 19 2004 19:43 utc | 3

Down here on the other side of the world a documentary was shown on TV about some faith based iniative to combat teenage pregnancy in the US called ‘The silver ring thing’. The doco which from memory was a BBC one showed that the main strategy for teaching high school kids to stay unpregnant was to teach em to “Just say No’. Considering how ineffective that approach was with drugs I have no doubt that celibacy will not prove to be very effecaious in combating teenage pregnancy in the US. The doco went on to point out all the obvious stuff like if you don’t teach kids anything but say no, if they don’t say no then they have no knowledge of how to prevent STD’s etc.
Anyway the truly interesting stuff was watching the organisation in action. It was headed up by some bible basher on the make who was building his empire courtesy of the taxpayer. He was shown organising some sort of self-aggrandising ‘conference’ the keynote speaker of which was some fundie sob-sister. I can’t for the life of me remember who that was. I don’t think it was Dr Laura of celeb x internet fame but it may have been. Anyway when the keynote speaker was having a bit of trouble organising her itinary, the good reverand kept saying “Look don’t worry we’ll charter a jet” The celeb guest was obviously discorncerted about how this would play if the left wing media got hold of it and kept saying “No No I don’t think we should do that” Meanwhile the silly vicar who had got so locked into showing off his new found power and wealth to the foreign film crew got quite insistent.
All of this was being paid for by taxpayers in a country where old people starve to pay for their medicine and poor people have to work at minimum wage jobs for welfare, leaving their children in dangerous situations that will almost certainly lead some of these children into unwanted pregnancy.
It would be comedic if it weren’t so tragic. This is probably where the BushCo stategy is so dangerous. Paying out the special interest groups with taxpayer dollars has always been a tactic of the left and did a great deal to implement strategies that a government would have had difficulty getting past a legistlature as a totally state operated program whilst providing careers for activist sympathisers and hopefully keeping program overheads low. Bush has taken this strategy and used it to pay out his sympathisers but the strategies have outcomes that resist qualitative measure. In this instance it will be easy to count the number of silver rings distributed but impossible to measure how many teenagers didn’t get pregnant. In best dodgy program tradition the processes are measured not the outcomes. That means any failure to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies can be blamed on anything from lack of resources to the work of the devil.
If I were living in the US and seeing my tax dollars being used in this shaneful fashion I would adopt the tactics that conservatives the world over have used against social programs. That is use the audit process to expose wastefulness and avarice and keep hammering away in the media that these holy rollers have their snouts in the trough courtesy of everyones tax dollars.

Posted by: Debs in ’04 | Sep 20 2004 1:16 utc | 5

The separation between Church and State.
RAT OUT A CHURCH HERE
::ENDING RADICAL LEFT-WING POLITICS IN THE PULPIT::
Neither your name nor your address will be revealed. The information will be examined and appropriate letters will be sent to the offending party and to the Internal Revenue Service.
(…)
“William J. Murray, the president of the Religious Freedom Action Coalition, a social conservative group, announced the formation of a group to monitor traditionally liberal churches for political activity. The new group, Big Brother Church Watch, functions primarily through its Internet site at http://www.RatOutaChurch.org!
The newly formed organization has already placed monitors in politically active Metropolitan Community, Unitarian/Universalist, and AME churches. AME churches are predominately African-American and their pastors frequently endorse liberal Democrat candidates from the pulpit. Volunteer workers will also be monitoring Internet sites of Democratic candidates and following them to churches where they have announced they will speak. If pastors allow the Democrat candidates to speak and do not invite their opponents for equal time, the church will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service as a “violator.”
“When Big Brother turns a church in to the IRS we will have documented proof that it has assisted a political candidate or a political party,” said the new group’s leader. “We have established a state of the art Internet site to gather the information from our volunteer monitors.”
“Murray says that a pastor would not even have to mention a candidate’s name, for example Senator John Kerry, in order for a complaint to be lodged with the IRS. He stated that the monitors will be watching closely for liberal “code words.” “If a pastor tells the congregation to vote ‘pro-choice’ or for candidates that back nationalized health care or “taxing the rich” he is really telling them to vote for Democrats. If a pastor uses the words ‘racist’ or ‘confederate,’ referring to any Republican, he is telling the congregation to vote Democrat. If the pastor tells the congregation to go see Fahrenheit 9-11 or says he appreciates the work of Michael Moore, he is telling them to vote Democrat.”
Link
On another page, the site endorses The houses of worship free speech restoration act. (HR 235)
“….But the right to peaceably discuss matters of morality, politics and public policy is a right which is indispensable to a free society. It is the very kind of speech above all which the founders wanted to protect, and it is the one least protected today. (…) The THIRD and very important reason HR 235 needs to be passed is that the current law is unfairly and unequally enforced. Every election year, we watch liberal Democrats march into black churches across the nation, to openly ask for votes while the pastor endorses them. It’s not uncommon for campaign funds to be collected right then and there. (…) What’s very wrong, though, is that the law is selectively enforced against conservative pastors, especially those who speak up for pro life issues and defend traditional heterosexual marriage.”
Etc. etc.
No comment.

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 20 2004 15:48 utc | 7