It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pomise Keepers are alive and well, but are they being funded by our government?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
From President's Bush's State or the Union Address...
"Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail.

Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush. "
-----------------------------------
Gee, I wonder if this plan involves the Promise Keepers.
"and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence."
Sounds like the Promise keepers to me.....but just what do they teach, is it really respect for women and the rejection of violence?
--------------------------------
"While Promise Keepers is not a political force in its own right in 1995, McCartney leads by example. He has repeatedly attacked reproductive rights, and he campaigned for the 1992 anti-gay Amendment 2 ballot initiative as a member of the board of Colorado for Family Values, the sponsor of the initiative. His rally addresses have been uncompromising. "Take the nation for Jesus Christ," he directed in 1992. The following year he said, "What you are about to hear is God's word to the men of this nation. We are going to war as of tonight. We have divine power; that is our weapon. We will not compromise. Wherever truth is at risk, in the schools or legislature, we are going to contend for it. We will win."
No less militant is Promise Keepers co-founder Dave Wardell, who told The Denver Post, "We want our nation to return to God. We're drawing a line in the sand here. . . . There has already been controversy about abortion and homosexuality. I hope there won't be any physical confrontations. . . . "
www.publiceye.org...
--------------------------------
I can hear you saying, 'I want to be a spiritually pure man. Where do I start?' The first thing you do"is sit down with your wife and say something like this: 'Honey I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.' Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back."--Evangelist Tony Brown. Brown also insists that there is to be "no compromise on authority," and he suggests that women submit for the "survival of our culture."
www.politicalamazon.com...
---------------------------------
While serving as an assistant football coach at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Bill McCartney encountered and was deeply influenced by the Word of God (WOG) community. McCartney has said that
WOG leader Jim Berlucci is one of the two men who most influenced his life. WOG, a select and insular group of about 1,600 adults, practiced "shepherding/discipleship," which required total submission to a person called the "head." Members were required to submit their schedules in advance and account for every hour of every day. Marriage partner, movie choices, jobs, and other decisions also had to be approved by this leader.
Members who questioned authority, or women who questioned their extreme submission to men, were subject to often traumatic "exorcisms." WOG members were trained to see the world with suspicion and contempt--as an enemy. They believed that they were specially chosen by God to fight the Antichrist. When McCartney was hired by the University of Colorado, WOG introduced him to the WOG-linked "Vineyard" church, which has a parish in Boulder. Vineyard churches emphasize "signs and wonders" and "prophecy." Vineyard leader John Wimber calls their work "power evangelism" and describes his followers as "self-conscious members of God's army, sent to do battle against the forces of the kingdom of darkness." "One is either in God's Kingdom," Wimber insists, "or Satan's."
www.publiceye.org...
-------------------------------
" "One is either in God's Kingdom," Wimber insists, "or Satan's."" kind of sound like Bush's you're either with use or against us bit, doesn't it..
-----------------------------
And, well, here's some info that, if true, is really quite alarming.
---------------------------
The Promise Keepers experiment was begun on 70 Colorado men in 1990. About 4000 turned out to rallies in 1991. As attendance grew to 22,000 in 1992, the project leaders arranged for the writing of a bizarre book intended to mold the emotions and self-conception of their now-growing mass following. Masculine Journey was written for the Promise Keepers by Lt Col. Robert Hicks, a military expert in religious terrorism. It was published in 1993 under the supervision of Hicks's Air Force colleague, Gen. Jerry White. a specialist in military mobilization, military police, and electronic security. General White is the longtime chairman of a military ministry group, "The Navigators." whose NaviPress published the book, and a companion study guide for Promise Keepers (PK) psychological trainers.
Hicks's book was distributed to every one of the 50.000 men who assembled for the first PK mass rally, held at the University of Colorado's Folsom Field. This free distribution was unique, since PK usually charges its men high prices for group clothing items, worship accessories, and commercial aids to male bonding.
Promise Keepers then mass-marketed Masculine Journey, and its study guide, through 1994, when about 275,000 people came to PK rallies, and 1995, when attendance hit 725,000.
By 1995, the Hicks book had come under increasing criticism. Promise Keepers stopped publicly selling the book, but they continued to endorse it for their inductees, who buy it from NavIpress.
Masculine Journey to Sodom
Under veneer of Bible chapter and verse citations, Masculine Journey is pagan psychological manipulation, akin to the New Age pornographic training that shaped the lesbian and Wiccan upsurges of the 1960s. Its techniques are congruent with those developed by the British military and intelligence services through the Tavistock psychiatric institute, a pivotal agency in introducing the drug-rock-sex counterculture to the USA. The author, Lt Col. Robert Hicks, is an intelligence community professional in the field of post-traumatic shock. The Tavistock Institute, pioneer in this field, viewed public shocks such as the Vietnam War and the 1960s' multiple assassinations, as the opportunity to radically alter the philosophy of the American population. The current societal breakdown, with the stimulus of PK Nurrmberg-style rallies. gives this mindbending a fair chance to succeed.
Hicks teaches "Religious Terrorism" to officers at the Air War University (Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama). In that military course, be explains the mental path that Christian Identity and other varieties of British-Israelite race cultists are induced to travel and, similarly, with Jewish fanatics (Kach, Kahane Chai). Islamic suicide bombers and Japanese armageddonist terrorists.
His Masculine Journey complements ad competes with radical feminism, making the genitals the center of the Promise Keepers psyche. The book explains:
"Possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God. . . . We are called to worship God as phallic kinds of guys, not as some sort of androgynous, neutered nonmales, or the feminized males so popular in many feminist enlightened churches. We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men."
educate-yourself.org...
----------------------------------
It it all just government propaganda in disguise?
-------------------------------
The Cult's links to the White House, and Congress.
------------------------------
"Item: One of President George W. Bush's closest spiritual advisors and confidantes is the Rev. Tony Evans, a homophobic, anti-feminist, African-American pastor at the Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas, Texas. The Rev. Evans, one of the most fiery and controversial of all Promise Keepers' speakers, once said: "I believe the feminists of the more aggressive persuasion are frustrated women unable to find the proper male leadership. If a woman were receiving the right kind of love and attention and leadership, she would not want to be liberated from that."
At an October 1999 Promise Keepers meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, Evans stated, the "bacteria of society are causing social breakdown of the church," and that some churches are already suffering from "spiritual AIDS." He demanded that Christians mobilize: "Hell, everybody else is coming out of the closet, you might as well too."
During the presidential campaign, Evans told The New York Times that Bush "believes that God has a place in government, that religion has a place in society, and it is not to be marginalized and put on the periphery as though it is some sort of extra. There is no America without a theistic world view." He recently, he has been the president's guest at several meetings involving Bush's faith-based initiative.
Item: In a recent extensive Washington Post profile, Rep. Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (R-Texas) claimed that the Promise Keepers had made him a kinder, gentler Christian and politician. If what we're seeing is the kinder, gentler version of Tom DeLay… uh, you know the rest. "
gaytoday.badpuppy.com...

--------------------------------------

I've had run-in with the promise keepers on yahoo massage boards a few years ago, they were the ones who told me I should overdose my kids with his asthma medicine just so my husband could get a good night's sleep, even though at the time, they didn't know just what the medicine was or what effect it would have on them. They said I should have obeyed the Bible and given my son the medicine (not knowing what it was) and "have faith" that God would protect them....Then I told them what it was......they then began to say that I should have sat there and patiently persauded my husband that he was wrong...(instead of tending to my son who was having an asthma attack)..when I told them I felt that was a waste of time, time that I spent holding my son in the steamy bathroom with the hot water running full blast....well, then I was just a radical feminist, lying through my teeth.
I don't want my kids being taught their idea of "respecting women" and I don't want my taxmoney paying for them to do it. And, I will allow myself to starve to death before I pay to have my sons' morality corrupted like this, or have any grandduaghters I may have in the future degraded to such a level of pure powerlessness just so a few men can regain a power that they beleive "God gave them"!







[edit on 3-2-2005 by dawnstar]




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I am sorry for your bad experience with some people associated with PK. It is true of any good movement that there are those who do not get it or take it beyond its reasonable bounds. I have had a reasonable amount of experience with PK and can honestly say that your article is a distortion of the PK message and intent. It takes out of context quotes and fashions them into a warped picture of the organization in a similar manner to the now infamous F911.
The true message of Promise Keepers is that husband and wife join in mutual submission to each other but through different mechanisms that recogize the inherent social differences between men and women. Let me explain in more detail. Men are taught to love their wives as Christ love the church. In other words they are taught to give up what they want for the good of their wives even to the point of suffering and dying for them. As part of this a man would never force his will upon his wife but rather would seek by Biblical leadership to guide the family. Biblical leadership is based in servanthood, attending to the needs of others.
It is true that wives are told to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. They are also directed to respect their husbands. This becomes a very natural thing to do if the husband is living up to his end of the commandment above. The diffence between the two forms of Love and submission are indiciative of the womans need for understanding and love and a mans need to hold a position of respect and authority. Promise Keepers teaches that when both rolls are exercised and only when both rolls are exercised will a family find unity and harmony.

I do not deny that there are people who do not understand nor apply this teaching properly. There are also those who apply it only to the woman's side of the bargin. There are also those who apply it only to the man's side of the bargin. Both of these distortions of the teaching and hence cause harm rather than good. It is taught that if either the husband or the wife fufills their role it will help the other partner to begin to fill their role as well but the idea that one partner can demand that the other fufill their role is vehemently opposed by the teachings of PK since it would be an act that is outside of the defined roles for either partner.

If PK receives faith based funding for a social work to the inner cities and their broken families, all the better. The model of marriage roles presented by PK has been tested over centuries and found to be a model that creates happy marriages when it is fully applied. Thus since it is a working ideal it needs to be taught by whatever means in order to strengthen floundering marriages in this country.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
"It is true of any good movement that there are those who do not get it or take it beyond its reasonable bounds."

gee, wonder how gang members would interpret the whole thing......
my experiences have told me that far too many interpret the wrong way. and well, let me ask you this one, if I was actually stupid enough to have given my son another dose of the medicine and he had died (a very strong possibility) just who would they have pressed charges against?

A baptist minister said on one of the sunday news commentaries that if meant that if the husband doesn't want the wife working, then she should be working. Does that mean God would prefer she stay home and listen to her hungry child cry because there's no food in the house for them since the husband swings by McDonalds every day and eats or there's inadequate food in the house to feed them all?

I know a women who came home from work every one day with her hard earned savings in hand. Her husband demanded that she give some to him, so he could go and buy his booze. Well, she didn't have the money to spare so she refused. So, he pushed her down the stairs and took the money and went out and got drunk. She was pregnant at the time and lost the baby. So, who is the child killer? The husband who's desire for drink overcame his joy at the prospect of another child, or the wife who refused her husband's demands...disobeying God. Gee, maybe it was God punishment to her....who knows...
which is the problem. YOu go about redesigning the culture to fit your belief in this matter, well, that lady won't have a social service to fall back on, and well, very well might walk away with the idea that God want her to do whatever he says, regardless of the consequences...I did!!

So, tell me, in your little world, is it possible for a husband to rape his wife?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Since you make no reference to my explanation of the teaching you must agree that the teaching itself is valid. All you do now is show how depraved people have acted and how terrible it is when depraved people distort a teaching for their own uses. I have already granted that depravity will have its way with such a teaching but that does nothing to invalidate the worth of such a teaching.

Our current laws post speed limits on our highways. THese limits cause many people to think they can drive that fast in any condition. People destroy property and lives when they drive the speed limit in bad road conditions. Does that mean that speed limits are bad? Of course not. In the same way teaching that wives should respect and submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church is not bad just because someone abuses the teaching for their own ends.

The Bible does not give justification for abusive behavior. In fact it condemns it. If you don't want to submit to a husband don't get married. Husbands in the same way should not marry unless they are willing to lay down their lives for love of their wife. This means for the husband, laying aside his own desires and wants for that of his wife and for the good of the family. What better design is there for a lasting relationship than mutual submission to one another, especially when that submission recognizes the inherent need of each gender. Wives need love. Husbands need respect. When each decides to meet the other's need first, both win.

In fairness to your post I should take a moment to comment on PK teaching for disfunctional relationships. First you must understand that PK is primarily a men's organization so it focuses on calling men to fufill their role. It is recognized in the organization that in situations that involve abuse there is often a need to remove the abused from the abuser. PK does have teaching that shows how this can be done without breaking from a role of submitted love. It is called tough love. The simplified teaching states that an abuser harms the family and themselves as well as the person they abuse. Most often the victim enables the abuser to continue by remaining in the situation that spawned the abuse. This is not to say they are at fault or to blame but only recognizes their role in perpetuating the process of abuse if they remain in the situation from which it arose. Therefore since remaining will perpetuate abuse that harms all parties in the family separation is the loving thing to do. PK even recognizes that there are situations where relationships must be permanently severed due to unrequited unreformed abusive behaviors. THere are ministry helps within the PK organization for men who have problems being overbearing or controlling, as well as a host of other abusive behaviors. Bottom line is the abuse you quoted takes place with or without PK but PK is an organization built to help heal wounded and disfunctional families by teaching men how to fufill their role as SERVANT leaders of their homes.

Bottom line is that it is unwise to evict the doctor just because the community has taken ill.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by Johannmon]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Shouldnt the Department of HUman Services or whatever be the one to offer these services if they are government funded?

Department of CHildren Youth and Families?

Why do we need to outsource? I seen an interview with the person who was head of one of these organizations, and he was a total weirdo. He looked like a correctional officer or something that seemed like he should of been on of those infomercials where he performs supposed miracles. A cheasy weirdo.

Why should we pay this guy to run a troubled youth camp? You know there are going to be bible readings, like some idiot preaching "And on this day the father brought he bread and issaih was called a propet blah blah BS BS blah blah" all day long.

I wouldnt want to be succumbed to that as a troubled youth.

Does anyone know if he has to make new laws to allow himself to do so? If so that is definatly unconstitutional. Or do they have to enter a contract? Then wouldnt they not be allowed to pray and teach religion?

Its stupid. Why cant they hire people who went to school for counseling. Im sure there are tons of people with conseling degrees. The government should give these people who are qualified the contract.




[edit on 4-2-2005 by Ritual]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
"Since you make no reference to my explanation of the teaching you must agree that the teaching itself is valid. All you do now is show how depraved people have acted and how terrible it is when depraved people distort a teaching for their own uses. I have already granted that depravity will have its way with such a teaching but that does nothing to invalidate the worth of such a teaching. "

No, it was my feeble attempt to express why I disagree with it with my country teaching the idea to the masses. When interpreted badly, it can lead to great harm. Yes, abuse occurs without religion being involved in it, but when religion is brought in as justification for the abuse, it can disconnect the person from the God you say she should be obeying.
But, the conservative christian right keeps pointing at the true intent of our founding fathers when they try to get their religious beliefs into our government policies, so, well, I see no reason why I shouldn't do the same. Look into the old testament.....what is really the origiinal intent of this belief?
Let's see, a man finds a women attractive, goes to the father desiring her.....there's no mention of anyone asking her of her opinion of the matter. He tells him that if he works for him for seven years he can have his daughter....ya, you can have her, but you're gonna have to buy her!!! Then at the end of seven years, he gives her the wrong daughter.....hey, he gets someone he really doesn't want, and didn't chose! And well, then he works another 7 years for the one he wanted.....
Sounds like slavery to me!!!

And, then there is this one:
A king is having a party, and desires to "show off his wife's beauty" for all his friends to see. SO, he summons his wife to him. She, in another area of the palace, entertaining the women folk with their own party, since they are probably not wanted at that moment by the men. Well, she is either caught up with something there, or who knows, maybe the king wanted her to show off just a little more of her beauty than she wished to. But, she refuses his request. Well, he is so angered by this move, he banishes her from his kingdom, and commands that all the women in the kingdom obey their husband!!
This one kind of clashes with your interpretation also, doesn't it? He didn't force her to do anything, but he laid down such consequences that not only did she suffer for her actions but every women in the kingdom did also.
And, then there is little Ruth, her husband died while she was still young, and she spent years of service to her mother in law, following her whereever she went (she did have the option to go back to her family, but I don't see any indication that her working and providing her own way was an option.) Naomi has no other son so she couldn't pawn her off in him. So, the mother in law, either desiring a better life for Ruth, or just tired of having her around takes her to a relative of hers. But, well, look in the bible, and read the intructions of what she instructs Ruth to do. I don't see any indication in that story that your interpretation of that verse within the words of that story either.

The doctrine that you just described is one that has evolved through time. But, the original version was a part of what could only be described as a slave system. women being sold, and then serving their masters...husbands.
God says that we should obey only him, doesn't he? But, well, due to our disobedience to him, society was forced to make up laws, which God instructs us to obey, just to avoid the chaos and to protect his obedient children.
Today, in most of the first world nations, the laws applies equally to men and women, and we are told not to deny one rights based on such things as sex, right? Isn't the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny a part of those rights?
So if you teach my son that his wife should leave the decision of her working, or driving, or even taking off a few hours and visiting her freind, aren't you encouraging him to break the laws, and thus disobey your god? Aren't you telling that women to forego her rights, because God desires it of her. And, thus, leaving her to compromise the foundation of equality and freedom our nation was built on?
Justifying it as something that is just the natural way of doing things, also is wrong. According to the same doctrine, sin is also within our nature, and we are told to fight it every day!!! And, well, we are told that the idea of women's submission is the result of this sin.....so well, this kind of tells me just where this concept really is in the scheme of things.

--------------------------------------
"I can hear you saying, 'I want to be a spiritually pure man. Where do I start?' The first thing you do"is sit down with your wife and say something like this: 'Honey I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.' Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I'm urging you to take it back."--Evangelist Tony Brown. Brown also insists that there is to be "no compromise on authority," and he suggests that women submit for the "survival of our culture."
www.politicalamazon.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

And, well, if the Man is the Head of wife and the Jesus is the head of the Man.....isn't this telling man to turn his back on Jesus to be lord of his wife?
Maybe man should just keep his eyes on Jesus, and trust in God to take care of his wife. Seems that there would be less chance of them finding themselves far out in right field, since then, if the wife sees that her husband has gone too far astray she can yank him back in line. Instead of finding herself just as lost, since she didn't have her eyes on god and was just following him.

I think it is really ironic that some of the same people that are preaching personal responsibility also would be striving so hard to undermine half of the population's ability to do just that!

So, I don't feel that the doctrine is sound, nor do I feel that it would have much positive effect in today's society, where we need the women holding down the jobs, and taking the responsibility for their own actions just as badly as we need the men.


[edit on 4-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think *anything* can be twisted to say what you want it to. What you may THINK it is trying to say. Also sometimes the verbage means something different than what it is interpreted as. The word "submit" has many definitions. Without the statements that defines the way the man should act, it makes it sound like the woman must be a slave to his desires

Men are supposed to love their wives the way that Jesus loved the church. Basically they should be treating them like something wonderful and precious. They SHOULD be making good decisions for the family. IF that is the case, then the wives should submit to their judgement.

If men are making poor decisions, selfish decisions, abusive decisions, than he is not fufilling his role and therefore, she should not submit to it. Make sense when explained like that???

My inlaws are VERY religious. I do not agree with them always. For many reasons I will not go into here. I do work(I am "the wife") Although it is second to raisng my kids. I am not salaried. I am fully comissioned so if I don't produce, I don't get paid. My $$$ is not necessary(though helpful!) I do it for ME, for the family and it does not get in the way with being able to get the kids from school, take them where they need to go, be a part of the PTA ect; and so on. That is the way I WANT it to be

Though, to hear my inlaws, you would think I was a horrible mother. I just don't pay attention to them. There are more than one way to be faithful, to be a good person, to be a good parent/spouse. GENERAL rules/guidelines are great. One must be flexible to a degree though

I don't think PK is funded by the government, I could be wrong though. I do believe it is all privately funded by churches and fees from members. I do think the basic premise of it is a very good one. It teaches men to be GOOD to their wives, to be faithful and to uphold God's ideal way to treat the wife/family.

Again, I could be wrong as I have never attended and my husband hates big groups of hugging men! My FIL is a PK member though



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
"to be faithful and to uphold God's ideal way to treat the wife/family. "
according to who's belief?
Not mine....
and well, the stories I gave are from the old testament of the Bible, if one wants to know the original intent today's doctrine, well, why not look in the past where it started for the answers.... or does that only work with our constitution.
Just like the church has reinterpreted the words "submit" and the doctrine around it as time has passed, so hasn't our government when faced with issues sometimes... Why should the concept of "original intent" be appropriate one instance, and not the other?
But, well, you may believe what you will, and each person should be free to decide how they should live, how they handle the responsibilities of having a family, ect....as they see fit. I tried your way, it didn't work for me, okay.
I have no problem how you conduct your life. I have no problem with the government allowing you to seek counseling or other services that more in tune to your beliefs. As long as the funds are also available for the next person to seek the type of service that are accirding to their beliefs, even if that belief is no belief. In other words, are you willing to allow your money to be used for someone to teach the Islamic way to the perfect marriage, or hey, what about a wiccan teaching spells and magic and how they could help their marriage or life?
But, well, I can't find the story now, but I ran across it earlier, about one state that took a large sum of money and diverted to the faith based initiative, even created a new government agency for it, and well, ticked off the Union that represents the employees of the traditional social service agency. If even one person who is seeking help is forced into a situation where they are being taught what is essentially religous doctrine (one that advises women to give up their right to self determination at that), simply because that's where all the funding is, well, then there is a problem.

But, well, this is my belief....
I believe that it is truely God's desire for everyone of us to hold our own destiny in our hands, since this is the only way we can be totally free to obey only him, isn't it. We weren't ready for that big leap when Jesus came, and we still aren't. And, well, maybe God knew that there would be a better outcome if man willingly gave his unauthorized authority over his wife up, and allowed her to make her own decisions, and hold her own destiny, instead of having women fight for it. Just like slavery. Okay, we are now at the present, and man has indeed, for the most part, given up his unauthorized role. We have a consitution that now basically says that we are each free to make our own decisions, hold our own destiny, and well, serve our God however we feel he desires....instead of obeying someone else's beliefs. This is called spiritual evolution as far as I am concerned, growth. And, where would my "tough love" be if I remained silent about my concern while a few members of my society try to convince the rest of us to take that authority back, or give it up, and send us back a few centuries in our spiritual evolution? Especially when my beliefs also believe that the eventual result will be the men also losing their own right of self-determination, and his right to make his own decisions...slavery.

Ya see the difference is this. I believe that weather or not I have a job is a dicision that I alone make. Yes, I should consider my husband's point of view, but he reallly doesn't have the final say. And, well, if I decide to have a job, and it happens to be opposite his shift, it is his responsibility as a father and a husband to support me in this decision and take on the task of caring for the children while I am at work. Just as if he is working his tail off and decides that maybe I should get a job, well, I should really consider his request as valid, and take on that responsibility if I deem that it is for the good of all concerned. But, in the end, it is up to the individual to decide what he desires to do....there are no set defaults in the system, guaranteeing either of them a greater say.







[edit on 4-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I can't find anywhere that states the the US government financially supports promise keepers. And that being the case, if you do not agree with them, do not join them. Do not hang around them and keep yourself seperate.

From this site, which is HUGELY biased against them, it states they are funded by the religious right(duh) Campus Crusade(makes sense) And wealthy religious leaders www.positiveatheism.org... Nowhere does it states that the government bankrolls them.

So, you have made the accusation that they are being funded by the government. I can't even find sites where the site owner's agenda is completely against the PK that say they are funded by anyone except private orgs.

Do you have a link? A reference? Or do you just have a warped view of them? Like I have said earlier, my husband isn't one, nor would he ever be, but I don't think it is fair to malign a group that is supposed to uphold VALUES. Supposed to uphold treating their wives with respect and honor. To uphold your marriage vows. What a terrible thing!

You can make up stories of how this religious person was abusive or that religous person was oppressive, but that doesn't mean that is what religion TEACHES. So the bad person happened to USE a twisted view of the bible to support his evil ways. That doesn't make religion bad. It makes the people bad who do bad.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
We need social services with people in the right fields with the education and training to help others, not reglious groups dictating what the rest of the population out to do under the guidances and rules of the bible and their personal believes.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Marg, where are they doing that? Is this *really* a conspiracy? Or is it just something you fear?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I mean really. If the Moonies and Scientologists get your tax money through their front groups, why not Promise Keepers? The only requirement apparently appears to be creating a frontgroup and maintaining some facade of not having a political agenda...which they all do of course in order to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ on my dime.

Isn't it fabulous? It's like getting your Bush campaign contributions back in spades! With the additional authoritiy to lord it (pun intended) over public schools, court mandated counseling interfaces and the public at large.

I've found this to be among the hardest thing to research as well given the obvious implications for scrutiny. Do you think they want to advertise they're funding Moonies and Polygamists?


Anyway, start here: www.whitehouse.gov...

But be quick about it. These White House web pages are subject to immediate scrubbing these days at the slightest hint of public scrutiny!

After explaining the fundie's successfully lobbied changes in long standing Seperation tradition wiped out by the Bush administration:


The Administration has eliminated regulatory and policy barriers that have kept faith-based organizations from partnering with the Federal government to help Americans in need. It has also worked to put into place regulations to ensure that faith-based organizations are able to compete on an equal footing for Federal funding within constitutional guidelines, without impairing the religious character of such organizations and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries...


It directs off site to some sample front groups it's currently giving millions.

Oh looky here. Another $31 Million to 50 Some Bush Backing Jesus Groups on my dime...to teach abstinence!

Brilliant. :shk:

A random example from the list... Alpha Center.

Somehow I think I could teach the residents of Sioux Falls, South Dakota better sex education than The Alpha Center, and I could do it for less than $800,000, BUT I'm probably not going to misinform them with undoubtably Jesus inspired side effects of the Morning After pill like infertility and death!


Obviously not being doctors themselves though, I understand. Their "clinical" specialty appears to be more in witnessing their personal counter-science dogma and scaring the living bejesus out of pregnant women that accidentally fall into their government sponsored "counseling" trap. What more deserving people though for a government grant to get in public schools? Heaven forbid (pun intended) qualified secular people do it!

I'm off topic and I'm not. When the Promise Keepers show up on the list as some Men's Outreach of Lubbock or other innocuous sounding name, you'll understand how it all works. And how Bush gets away with giving millions of your tax dollars to the likes of Moonies.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Tell you the truth as a non religious follower I find them quite obnosious.

And for faith base programs, people need profesional help not faith.

My mother always said, "when faith is food for the soul it does not take the pain away and does not feed an empty stomach"

The bush administration wants to give money away for religious pushers but is not helping the domestic agendas in our country and the real need of our poor and needy citizens.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
.
These guys get along very well with radical islam.

The man should be the prick of the family?
The woman should subordinate herself to his [supposedly] superior judgements?

Women are often superior at making family decisions. They are often less caught up in their egos and don't have testosterone to cloud the issues. Their natural focus and intent is on the children and thereby the family. Combining the qualities of the Man's influence with the Woman's probably gives you the best decisions of all.

Maybe we can go back to traditional wife beating like in the 1960s and prior.
These religions are based on Faith. Faith is acceptance without question or qualification, in short ignorance.

If you support ignorance and bigotry you will want to be a member of religions of ignorance.

If you think humanity has a higher calling that is never fixed and stagnant you will look to a spirtuality that leads you towards a higher vision.

Not something that is regressive evolution back to the ape society.
.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I have to say that when folks have no one to attack except a bunch of men who want to be good fathers and husbands, the left has really run out of targets. Oh, wait a minute. The primary target of the left is the family and what better way to destroy the family than to destroy the role of the father.

Who gets medical advice from the internet discussion groups, anyway? That's what hospitals and medical clinics are for.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
When time comes for me to have a family of my own, here's what I hope will happen - my wife (or girlfriend - I don't believe in marriage at all costs) stays home for the first year... then I take a sabbatical to be home with the kids while she resumes her career... or something like that.

I believe that makes me a good father.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Aside from the expected vitriol from someone who is a religious bigot slank makes a point that I have heard taught in PK meetings. I will quote it here.

Originally posted by slank
Women are often superior at making family decisions. They are often less caught up in their egos and don't have testosterone to cloud the issues. Their natural focus and intent is on the children and thereby the family. Combining the qualities of the Man's influence with the Woman's probably gives you the best decisions of all.
The last sentence is so close to a direct quote from a PK meeting that if I didn't know better I would say that Slank had been to one. It is always amazing to me how easy it is for people to make huge assumptions about things they really know nothing about. It is also amazing how easily prejudice can see the devil in any good work.


If you support ignorance and bigotry you will want to be a member of religions of ignorance.
Since you obviously support bigotry and are ignorant of PK teaching does this mean that you are a member of the "Religions of Ignorace" Personally I have never heard of the Church of ROI but then again it doesn't sound like a place I would like to be anyway.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545


So to balance the abhorant practice of giving money to planned parenthood, an organization that propagates the opinion that murdering unborn babies is OK, the government also gives money to groups who support mutual respect in relationships and moral living instead of promiscuity. What is so wrong with that? Since the government already plays one side of the street it is only fitting that they be allowed to play the other as well. Unless you are suggesting that the government not fund any organization that espouses a cultural paradigm. If the government did that there would be scant few programs funded for anything other than roads and bridges. Maybe that is the way it should be but until that becomes the benchmark of federal funding it is better that the government play all the strings of the cultural fiddle.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon


So to balance the abhorant practice of giving money to planned parenthood, an organization that propagates the opinion that murdering unborn babies is OK, the government also gives money to groups who support mutual respect in relationships and moral living instead of promiscuity. What is so wrong with that?


Maybe if the church murdered more babies, they might get more money.

On a more serious note, we have this pesky little thing called the seperation of church and state. As far as I'm concerned, the church can play politics as much as they want, as long as they also pay taxes.

But, that's not happening any time soon.

Also, I associate alot of things with christians, but mutal respect ain't it. I don't want the government to pay the church. I don't care if they can turn Pepsi into Coke. Planned Parenthood isn't a religion, no matter what the nice little man on the Bible box says. Now, if the church wants to get out of the Religion business, then I'd be all fo them suckling up to the public teat for a hit of that sweet, sweet tax nectar.

It's unbelievable the real disconnect some people have with the entirely personal thing that religion is. The flat earthers really can't understand WHY it shouldn't be public. They're like pushy drug addicts. "It's the greatest high EVER, you have to try it", and they're offended when you don't want a hit.

I do not mainline Jesus.
I do not want the Religious Right in my bedroom.
I do not want to live my life in accordance with your invisible man in the sky.
I do not want my tax dollars paid out in the form of Theocratic welfare, to subsidize the denegration of 21rst century man into cave dweller status.

It is not religious bigotry when I don't want YOUR cult in MY personal space. Keep God in your homes, your hearts and your churches. Keep him away from public policy and the treasury.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
"You can make up stories of how this religious person was abusive or that religous person was oppressive, but that doesn't mean that is what religion TEACHES. So the bad person happened to USE a twisted view of the bible to support his evil ways. That doesn't make religion bad. It makes the people bad who do bad. "

I think I asked the question once, in the heading, if they were being funding by the govt. It's my understanding that the movement is embedded into the churched, the men went to the big meetings, had their fun, and then were sent home to work in their own churched, so, it will be really hard to trace the money. Sounds easier to ask the question here, and well, eventually someone may arrive who had a personal experience that answers the question.
And, well, what's you problem. Gee, I said I didn't really care how you lived you life, even agreed that people should have access to belief based counseling if THEY WISH and didn't mind too much if the government gave a few bucks to make that possible. But, then, they should also encoumpass all failths.....And, well, the funding should be there for anyone who doesn't wish the religious doctrine! Maybe that is where your problem is.....you have your doubts also.

Catholic charities I know is getting some of this funding. They are a good organization, I have gotton counseling from them......there was no suggestions that I give up my desires and substitute them for my husband. But, well, everyone around here that caters to the poor and the needing with counseling is booked up for over a year!!!! Why take a portion of that money and set it aside for just one particular group of Americans? I got a feeling that it will force some to be taught what is essentially religious doctrine who don't desire it!

Ans, well, most of my words was me expressing why I believe this particular doctrine is wrong, and why I really don't want the government having a part in spreading it to others. It wasn't addressing PK in particular, but rather the ideas of the church that I once went to, the southern babtists and most other religious oranizations. Even in your watered down version, a pampered slave is still only a slave, unable to hold their destiny in their own hands, owned by another, so how can they give a life they don't own to God?

But, well, in a world where the women is told to "obey your husband in ALL THINGS", just where does the teaching of abstinance help her? If her husband latches onto it, well, maybe. But, according to religous doctrine, does she really have any other choice but to not abstain or disobey her God?
I've gotten some good services with family planning also, including healthcare when I was carrying one of my kids.....ya, they're real bad.....maybe if Washington would spend some time working on the problems connected with the healthcare system, women wouldn't need their services, but at the moment, I think some do.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join