Exclusive: Book says Bush just using Christians ‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003
By Jonathan Larsen
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Oct 11, 2006
More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.
“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
big shock.... Posted by bond006 on :
No doubt about that glass the religious right has been used big time.
Look at Bush, see the mans works and don't listen to what he says.
Two things nobody should do under Bushes watch never get old or sick
Posted by bond006 on :
look at his list
1. Health care - not a moral value 2. Medicare - not moral value 3. Affirmative Action - not moral value 4. Welfare - not a moral value 5. Abortion - moral value 6. Gay rights - moral value 7. Gun control - not a moral value 8. Balancing the budget - not a moral value
So, why is it that God doesn’t care about health care? Because, if he does…it’s a moral value, right? God couldn’t care less about welfare, screw the poor after all. But when it comes down to making gays feel like they are less than human, hells yah, God’s all about that.
Sounds to me like one’s standard of morality has shifted from the Bible to the RNC’s party platform. And if that’s the case, no wonder the religious right sees that Democrats are the scourge of morality. If morality = republican, then I’ll take immoral any day of the week
Posted by Browndog on :
is torture a moral value?
Posted by Nirvana on :
The Bible doesn't place the responsibility of health care, care of the poor, care of widows and orphans, education, etc. on the government. The Bible places the responsibility for these issues with individuals, with people. The Bible commands people to care for the poor and down-trodden, not the government.
Posted by jordanreed on :
The Bible commands people to care for the poor and down-trodden, not the government
isnt government sposed to be the people?
Posted by Nirvana on :
Not in the Bible I've read. The Bible, nor Jesus Christ gives a single exhortation for political action on any level. The Bible does not define government nor does it require its followers or Christ's followers to be politically active.
The Bible puts the burden of issues like care of the poor, care of widows and orphans, education, health, etc. on individuals, not on governmental institutions.
The government's war on fill-in-the-blank is always going to be generally a colossal failure. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on education, etc. has all been a failure.
Just think back to the government's war on Katrina -- absolute failure! Who got the most work done, who contributed the most money, who volunteered the most, who gave the most, who helped the most -- individual people. And that's exactly what the Bible calls people to do, not governments.
Posted by turbokid on :
then why do they want their hand in what gets taught at schools (or prayed for), or taxation for education. if its not the governments resposibility to fund public schools then why do they do it..? is it because they really care about people, or do they want to do just enough not to get fired..?
Posted by glassman on :
Bush campaigned thru the Evangelical Christian movement...
i never question his (or anybody elses) faith
Bush campaigned on faith based funding promises..
he failed to deliver any new funding of substance..
so if you are thinking you are defending him? you aren't....
the discussion here is whether Bush behaves as a good man of the Christian Faith...
Hilter CLAIMED Christianity for his own too... not many of US would call Hitler's actions those of a Christian tho...
the GOP grassroots get out the vote was based on a network of Evangleical Churches.. Rove got a lot of his mailing lists from churches...
in other words? you are just throwing mud in the water here nirvana
The government's war on fill-in-the-blank is always going to be generally a colossal failure. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on education, etc. has all been a failure.
this statement sounds like the US govt is a total failure.. it isn't.. WTF do you care anyway? you are Dutch....
Tery Shaivo was another good example of how these politicians have pandered to a certain portion of the Christian Community...
Posted by Nirvana on :
I'm not defending Bush at all! I think my point is pretty clear -- there is absolutely no Biblical basis for the intermingling of faith and politics!
Bush and the Repubs have clearly captilized and have taken advantage of "Christianity" to get themselves put in office. What Bush and the right wingers have done in the name of Christ is an absolute mockery and atrocity.
If a politician is going to bring in his/her faith into his/her politics, everything in their personal and political life better fail inline with Biblical teaching. In the case of Bush, his life has not fallen in line with his so-called faith.
It's a travesty for politicians to use religion as a springboard to political office -- that is completely unbiblical.
Posted by Nirvana on :
Oh, American politics are very fascinating to me. Just the fact that you are pigeon-holed into a two party system is beyond a freakshow anomoly to us Europeans!
One of the two political parties you have are constantly stressing over what the world thinks about your political actions. Well, the fact that your political system only has two choices pretty much makes you a joke in our eyes.
Posted by glassman on :
In the case of Bush, his life has not fallen in line with his so-called faith.
OK, i mis-read your intent...
at one time? we had a lot of Bush supporters here that argued constantly for Bush's "great faith"...
i actually disagree with you that we have only two choices...
i see very little real difference between the two parties...
a few issues they PRETEND to disagree on...
even fewer do they truly disagree on...
consolidation of power is their main goal, and they work together when it its in their personal interests
i see religion as the politics of Faith...
Faith guides people at a level that much more primal... wahtever Faith you have will show thru in every facet of your life.. you don't "shrug it off" in some cases and apply it in others...
within teh two parties we have GREAT struggles for dominance of ideals...
it makes for acleaner election when we finally do decide who will represent each party...
but? i assure you that iif you look deeper into party politics? you will find great differences in platforms..
this Evangelical Republican movement is a very recent phenomana...
Republicans traditionally represent/ stand up for strong INDIVIDUAL rights... lately? that message has been subverted by the religious fanaitcs... they are sheep following their Judas Goat...
Posted by Nirvana on :
What we in Europe cannot fathom is how your American ideals of democracy, freedom, indenpendance, individualism, and capitalism can be achieved with just two parties who operate on a love/hate relationship?
Again, this is a joke to us. It seems both of your main political parties have beat into your heads that you are wasting votes by voting for third party candidates. In many European political systems there are dozens of different political parties that all run for office and all have equal chances of election.
Posted by glassman on :
In many European political systems there are dozens of different political parties that all run for office and all have equal chances of election.
like i said? within each party there are many factions that struggle for control..
they have elections to decide who will represent the party before the main elections...
a sort of "survival of the fittest" program...
after Bush Sr lost? the fanatical religous Republicans were pushed aside for a short period...
as a matter of fact? before Ronald Reagan? Southern Baptists were most likely to vote Democrat...
but the Democrats went pro-choice, and Reagan and then Bush Jr. seized on that to recruit the Evangelicals...
the Republicans went so far as to pass blatanlty unconstitutional laws to "stir up" the Evangelicals...
they KNEW that partial birth abortion laws that didn't provide for the health of the mother would be struck down, and they passed them that way on purpose to polarise the electorate...
Posted by bond006 on :
love /hate Americans thrive on that kind of relationship.
as for freedom we used to have more of that until Bush the anti christ was elected by the same people that would have bought the Brooklyn Bridge
Posted by Dan VA 1983 on :
To get back to an earlier point, the US governemnt is supposed to be BY the people, for people, and of the people. Do you feel the governments hand, or do you feel the hand of someone working for the government.
Siting examples of how the government is failing in the last 10 years is pretty bogus cause all in all the US government is a pretty decent one - but it's been hijacked and power has been consolidated..
Europe has it's own political problems -it's a joke to think that each party has an equal chance to win. They form coalitions because some parties have no hope of winning on their own.
The two party system is kinda a relic of the electoral system which was meant to promote states rights and relative independance. That has been so thoroughly eroded now I don't know if our electoral system makes any sense any more.
Posted by bdgee on :
Dan,
I appreciate your attitude on those points, except there is one I thouroughly disagree with.
I see often the argument that the "electoral system which was meant to promote states rights" (electoral system = electoral college). I think that is a false assumption that comes from failing to realize the situations the Founders actually faced.
In a day when travel (AND COMMUNICATION) was by horse or horse drawn vehicle (or mule or ox) counting and collecting the vote of the people in any manner was thought an improbable task that would take perhaps years.....at least months.
So, the means of polling the electorate was designed to be done on the local level and the various states were saddled with the responsibility of constructing the means of it, except for purely federal offices.
For those, they concockted the "Electoral College" as a method of makeing elections practical (and when you think about it, the Electoral College and leaving polling to the States were the ingenious devises that made what the whole world thought was impossible work).
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i actually disagree with you that we have only two choices...
i see very little real difference between the two parties...
a few issues they PRETEND to disagree on...
even fewer do they truly disagree on...
consolidation of power is their main goal, and they work together when it its in their personal interests
ding...ding...ding...we have a winner here!!!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
Ok, retiredat49, so you won. But what have you won?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I haven't won anything...just giving Glass kudos for telling it the way it is...
Posted by bdgee on :
I just thought it needed to be specifically said....."ding...ding...ding..."could have been taken more than one way.
.............lol..............
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i actually disagree with you that we have only two choices...
i see very little real difference between the two parties...
a few issues they PRETEND to disagree on...
even fewer do they truly disagree on...
consolidation of power is their main goal, and they work together when it its in their personal interests
ding...ding...ding...we have a winner here!!!!!
I concur. although I could see myself voting for....drumroll please................
McCAIN!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Sorry for the confusion bdgee...I'll try to simplify future posts for you. With all the B.S. that is spewn on the off topics thread...it was refreshing for me to see someone cut through the crap and tell it like it is....sad but true!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Sorry for the confusion bdgee...I'll try to simplify future posts for you. With all the B.S. that is spewn on the off topics thread...it was refreshing for me to see someone cut through the crap and tell it like it is....sad but true!
You are right, Glass does post well thought out and respectful reality......and has the good old fashioned American values that allow him to not require you to "knee jerk" to his prospective.
Posted by rimasco on :
I wonder who hes gonna vote for in 08?
McCAIN?!!! WWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Posted by Machiavelli on :
McCain will lose simple as that because instead of saying his own party has made mistakes and need to be corrected he blames everyone else. Instead of playing the blame game he should be coming up with solutions to the problems we deal with now not in the past. Btw Separation of Church and State. Bottom line.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)