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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
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.


Grady, nothing would please this old leftie more than men being good fathers and husbands.

Why does that require an organized political movement against women and homosexual's rights? Or for prayer and Creationism being taught in school for that matter? And why would I have to fund it, as the thread author postulates will happen given Bush's new social mandate to "pastorize" at-risk youth? The evidence of prior millions to faith-based witness groups makes it a tad more than idle speculation. The PK are an excellent bet for my tax dollars given the track record of spending to date. And their own track record of lobbying government legislation and motivating voters makes me scowl at the thought.


"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. . . . "


Are men so emfeebled today they are incapable of being good fathers and husbands without voting Republican and getting on the government lobbyist dole?

The circular argument of the right presumes they are that feeble and absent of self governing mind... On top of the self perpetuating fallacy that anyone for women's rights or against homosexual discrimination is somehow against marriage, fatherhood and families.

What ever happened to the concept of rugged individualism and personal responsibility in this country? Even in matters of faith, does it really require a movement of millions and a well compensated interpreter to have a "personal" relationship with God now?

If you can seriously argue that "the primary target of the left is the family" (and still respect yourself in the morning) then consider the obvious implication...

The primary target of the right is individualism.

How can we in Alabama possibly be expected to be good father's if people in Massachusett's allow gay marriage? There outta be a law...

How authoritarian of you. The only reason these religious groups earn any of my own highly prized disdain is the pretense of it all for monetary, authoritarian and political gain. I don't care how people worship or, for that matter, do their duty as "men" whatever that's supposed to mean. But when the snakehandlers want to start legislating my life... no thank you.

Just because some can't manage their life without the spiritual and psychological guidance of a sect leader, doesn't make their own guru's prescription one for all mankind.

And funding such cookie cutter, anti-individual, authoritarian, ditto head movements on my dime is tryanny.

J. makes an excellent point that funding abortions, for example is abhorant to many as well. But then so is funding state sponsored executions, war, nuclear proliferation and even welfare!

What they all have in common though is a secular position as a current legal right of man or responsibility of the state.

Religion does not enjoy such a pass from itself in matters of religious freedom. So in matters of goverment funded witnessing programs of nothing more than a self serving nature (which applies here on many levels)... Jefferson's words on Religious Freedom apply.


"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


That would apply to all religious opinions, not just Christian, so let's not pull out the well worn soap box of right wing martyrdom just yet. The same seperation of my tax dollars from certain government activities, however, may not be similarly said of providing a legal health service any more than it may of maintaining a well regulated militia.

All makes perfect sense to me! But then I'm out to destroy the family, so what do I know?




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I still don't know where PK teaches that women must give up everything and listen to their husband's whims and demands. Dawn, have you ever been to a PK meeting?? Do you know anyone who has. Actually, I don't even think that is fair. Just because someone joins a group, doesn't make them a good representation of what is taught.

My understanding of it is that it is a group that is there to support *one another* in being BETTER husbands and fathers. Trying to improve on THEMSELVES. Not subjugate their women. Quite the opposite

I would be fine with the government not giving money to ANY groups. I would be fine with the government downsizing. Why I will NEVER be a democrat is the handout mentality of the party. I think THAT subjugates people much more so than empowering them to better themselves. Telling them they are too dumb or worthless, or whatever to get a job and NEED the government to house and feed them. That is why the democrats always get the vote of the poor/welfare voters. They don't want their free lunch taken away

I think I lean awful close to libertarianism though. PK probably has some jerk off's in its ranks. As does ANY group. The government is not funding them and sending them out to the masses to keep women down.

I think it is always so bizarre how loud the left/non religious/gay rights people scream for their freedom of speech but if a "religious" or conservative group does the same, they scream for them to be shut up. Like the feminists who want women to be empowered, but look down and critize those that CHOOSE to stay home and raise children. (I was in a feminist class in college and this view was soooo WRONG and expressed so overtly)

We all have the right to choose and to pick and choose who should be given the right to have groups is against everything that freedom stands for.

IF you seek tolerance, spread tolerance. Not just tolerance for the trendy and non conservative groups. There are many things the government supports and/or funds that I don't agree with. There are others that DO support it and believe strongly in it. No one forces me to support any group and as long as that is the case, it won't hurt me

You hate religious groups. Don't join them. Respect the right of others to participate. I still don't see where they are funded directly by the government though.

This is what I came up with from Faith based charities: archives.cnn.com...

The legislative portion of the president's plan -- which would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs -- will be sent to Capitol Hill Tuesday, Bush said.


The documents sent to Congress will include broader tax deductions for Americans who make regular charitable donations.

Damn Bush for allowing faith based charities to help with feeding and helping the hungry and needy!!!



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
Damn Bush for allowing faith based charities to help with feeding and helping the hungry and needy!!!


That's right. Damn him.

If you're so against welfare, then why does filtering the exact same government monies through the pockets of some well appointed preacher men make it right?

It's still government sponsored welfare. Just welfare with a theocratic kick.

Does it really require $800,000 of yours and my tax dollars a year to teach the school children in Sioux Falls, SD to keep it in their pants or does it just cost that much to keep the local theologian driving a Cadillac?

Is abstinence really the only "value" they're teaching, or is another agenda inherant in every faith-based initiative? Does their "faith" also preclude them from telling the whole story? Do they teach about condoms? Oh hell no. That would be against their "faith" right?

For me, the criticisms of PK here (be it a sincere religious movement, insincere political movement, misogynist cult or men or enlightened interpretation of the Gospels) are irrelevant to the greater point of their example being used as a qualified group for tax monies and self serving lobbying.

They are certainly qualified to get fat on the governemnt dole under Bush integration of Church and State funding, on top of getting state sponsorship for their unconstitutional furthering of religious opinion on my dime.

Listen to the actual argument here. Don't just dismiss anything coming from a "leftie" because you assume it has to be wrong and Bush right.

He's not right here at all. The US Treasury should never have been opened to the grubby hands of priests, preachers and cult leaders no matter how influential the voting block.

What happened to the "fiscal" part of being a conservative anyway? When did spreading the Gospel of Christ at any cost take over as the prevailing responsibilty of right wing politics?

None of the so called "conservative" arguments make a bit of sense anymore. You're against public funding of education, so you want tax vouchers to send your kids to the Mormon Institute of Polygamy on my dime. Secular public works does not mean anti-religion. At least it didn't use to before right wing pundits perverted the discussion.

So you're angry? Want to "punish" Hollywood? Great. What do you do? Give them a tax cut and demand less regulation of the corporations that actually own them and keep pushing them in your face. Brilliant!

Upset over Fox entertainment pushing the envelope of decency over the past 20 years? Super. Then turn to Fox News to hear all about it. :shk:

Here's a frailing news flash. Conservative fiscal interests own and run everything. Everything! If anything was ever going to change, it would have a long time ago. Not keep getting worse year in and year out as they dutifully report on each and every instance of how awful things are in order to keep angry men angry.

I humbly submit the capitalist multi-national corporations shoving counter culture marketing, advertising and programming down your children's throat aren't about to stop doing so because you vote Republican as a result of your outrage. In fact, they'd be damn stupid to ever stop! Look what it gets them?

Anyone insistent on merging their religion with politics does so at their own peril and demise. Sure you may "win" elections, but what have you really won?

Does the conservative machine really have any incentive to "fix" anything given their empowerment via your outrage?

Did Bush decrease or increase welfare spending? Tighten immigration restrictions or ease them? Give corporate "Hollywood" less or more power and influence over your life? You know the answer. :shk:

What about the precious social issues so many are willing to lay down their lives and set aside their own personal economic interests for?

Abortion illegal yet? Is school prayer legal? Did you get that Constitutional ban on gay marriage? Hrm, and to think the ones that scream loudest for all these things have a "mandate" to run everything. Ironic isn't it?

If the party formerly known as "fiscal conservatives" wants to piss their hard earned money into a Church collection plate as part of their greater delusions, so be it.

But why must you force me to?

[edit on 5-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   
The problem is not who is going to pay for what of the needy out there but how they are going to allocate the funds, and how much of our tax hard earn working dollars are actually use for preaching not feeding.

And I rather buy some clothes and food to donate than giving my hard earn dollar to some of these so called religious organizations that will take advantage of bushes give away to build bigger churches because their god keep getting to big for its house of worship.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
As far as I am concerned, charities(ALL) could go back to being privately funded anyhow. I think our welfare money would be better spent on pushing sterilization vs giving more money the more kids you have. Welfare is a very broken system. Though I have to say that the welfare reforms that started with Clinton were a very good step in the right direction

Is Bush always right?? Did I say that? Did I even imply that?? NO. We have had an election twice in the last 8 years that we could vote for the lessor of two evils. Especially this last election.

I am not against Charities or any kind. I would not be against an all gay male charity if they helped feed the hungry and counsel those who needed it. Being they would be secular(I am sure) they, as a group could qualify for the charity route. I don't think that non secular charities should be banned from receiving Aid to help with *helping* people

What I want to see is more welfare reform, Disability reform and more job training. Not everyone needs college to get a good job, but you do need training for most jobs. Be it college or trade school. I have no problems with grants for education of any kind. I have no problems with programs like WIC who make sure that children and mothers get food. I have problems with open ended welfare where someone receives a check and a place to live forever.

I just think that saying PK are inheriently BAD and Bush is behind their evilness is just wrong. There WILL always be bad people in every group. As long as the majority are not bad, it is just the nature of groups. ANY group has bad apples. I don't care what the affiliation

The tone of this thread was that PK was a bunch of female abusers who banged their women on the head with a bible and it was all funded by Bush. That is not denying ignorance, that is spreading it.

It is like saying all priests are gay men who are evil and get it on with 9 year old boys. YES, it has happened. It is not the norm though. No more than it is the norm for a non religious gay male to do the same thing. I am sure it has happened(NAMBLA) but it is not the typical gay male.

I give to charity. Too many charities as I am called by them and I can never say no. I donate all my old clothes, shoes, home appliances ect; I volunteer to help the poor and needy. I am sure some of the groups I donate to are given government grants. I believe in Planned parenthood and believe they are a good organization. I also feel it is a good thing to have abstinence taught. Teens WILL hear both and really it doesn't matter as they will do what they will. I know VERY smart educated people who disregarded all the info they had(believe me, they KNEW All sides) People are people and follow their own free will

I guess I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not so dumb that a group can overpower them. I do think that is what liberals tend to believe. That the American people are so stupid they need protection from anyone but their own agenda. Give people the right to hear EVERYTHING and make up their own mind.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think the concept of "faith based" is flawed because I believe that the real wording is "APPROVED faith-based charities." I don't think you'd ever see Wiccans being encouraged by the government and I'm not sure you'd see Muslims, either. I think the shrieks that would ensue if LaVey's Church of Satan showed up would probably be heard around the world.

And that's my objection: the bias makes it favorable for groups that say they're Christian, no matter how poorly informed or whacked out they may be.

Having them administered by the government is much better, frankly.

And personally, I don't care for Promise Keepers. I wouldn't want a husband like that. I adore my atheist, feminist husband, who is a far finer human being that someone who has to have a deity beating the concept of "be nice" into their heads. And someone who sees the woman as an equal is a far better spouse than the "I am the head of the household" dude.

Been there. It was awful. Got the divorce.

Great concept for some women and they are indeed welcome to have husbands like that. I support that. But I don't want every man in America turned into that kind of husband.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Ah dance, dance, dance. Around we go, never really debating the fundamental issue here. Our posts touch on it, make reference to it but never really allow it to be fully vetted and discussed. People are for faith based funding and they are against it. Some believe it to be a positive way to help society, others see it at supporting religious dogma. Neither of these two perspectives really address the central premise behind the issue nor do they directly seek to answer the question that this issue rests on. (Have I built enough suspence yet? I hope so because here I go recklessly into the void.:lol


The real premise being debated is: (drum roll please) Government should be neutral on religious values and not give either support or impedence to them.

The real question is: Can government fuction outside of religious belief or is it intrinsically and inseparably tied to the philosophy of its populace and leaders?

Your answer to the above question and opinion on the above premise will determine your position in this discussion. The productive portions of the arguments made so far are those points that directly impact the above statements. Perhaps this issue needs a vetting on an original thread dedicated to its tenants. This would help to minimize the semanitic bile that so often accompanies debate of specific faiths and organizations and would promote heated but hopefully respectful debate of the underlying issue.

I do not have time at the moment to open this debate but do wish to invite those who have an interest in such a discussion to U2U me your thoughts on the opening of a thread to debate the issue. If I find enough interest I will author an opening statement and we can let the games begin.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   


my atheist, feminist husband, who is a far finer human being that someone who has to have a deity beating the concept of "be nice" into their heads. And someone who sees the woman as an equal is a far better spouse than the "I am the head of the household" dude.


That is really presumptuous of you. What I hear you saying is that if you are not an atheist/feminist than you must be a deity beating head of the household dude. I guess your last husband was just a Jerk, not a representation of PK values.

ANYONE can twist things around to suit their purposes. What is *supposed* to be taught is to hold you wife on a pedestal, making her more than equal to you, but *cherished*. Loving her the way that Jesus loved the church. Treating her well, keeping your marriage vows, being a GOOD honorable man for your family that makes worthwhile decisions.

Not a chest beating man who drags his woman around by her hair. What you are portraying a Godly husband to be is the antithesis of what one SHOULD be.

I know some atheists that treat women like crap. Does that mean all atheists do?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If that is how you are reading my words, then I am wasting my time....
It doesn't mean that I believe all men are abusers, or that all christian men are abusers. What I am saying is that you believe that God has ordained men to have this divine right, to do just about whatever he wishes, and that right is so sacred, that not even the government should really have the right to undermine it. I mean, you state that even after abuse has made it necessary to remove the husband, she is still in more a less subjugated role, subject to his decisions, since he is still head of the family. So, when the husband decides that he has learned to be better, and decides it is time to come back into the household, and well, the wife has misgivings, does that devine right say that this decision should be followed by her. Will she be advised to allow him, since it is his job to make such a decision to begin with? And, her job to obey?

By the way, sorry if there's a few errors in this, it took me a few hours to hunt down some links, then I lost one, so well, if anyone wants the link to Elizabeth's Stanton's Speech, let me know, I'll track it back down.
------------------------

"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... "

Look is there are any PK followers that can prove that this statement isn't a true quote? I don't care what was said after it, or before it.
--------------
Johannmon Stated:
"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. "

And, then this:
"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."
"PK does have teaching that shows how this can be done without breaking from a role of submitted love."

"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."
----------------------------------------------
Two thousand years of testing, let's take a glimpse of the result:
Here an interesting thought, we hear so much talk about how the labor unions killed this country:
"During the Progressive era between 1890 and 1920, a new social contract emerged to match the new industrial conditions of the era. Key to that social contract were the labor laws that regulated industrial working conditions. Passed at first at the state level, and very often initially for women only, eventually these laws were adopted at the federal level and extended to include men as well as women. "
womhist.binghamton.edu...
gee, what do you know and here we are being told that the purpose of unions was to drive that wages of the workers and lead us more strongly to the great socialist system. Gee, wonder just what these conditions were, that prompted society to move with such momentum for which must have been just a small portion of the population, since well, we had all those loving men out there, sacrificing themselves, giving up their own wants and desires, and providing for them while they stayed home and took care of their primary function.....tending the kids.....

One of the contributing factors that led to the movement according to some was the Triangle Fire, that occured in NY City in 1911. A 146 mainly young women, were lost in this fire. But, many lives were lost unnecessarily due to the fact that all but one door was locked. I've read another story, I am not sure if it is this one or another fire, maybe in chcago, where the doors were all locked, so the women wouldn't leave while they were susposed to be working- (I guess they just opt and decided to go shopping. But, in this story, there is only one door lock, because they were concerned about theft.
----------------------------------
"To prevent “theft” of the shirtwaists by the women who made them—a practice that amounted to no more than $15 lost to the owners per year—Blanck and Harris allowed workers to exit through only one door, where police could inspect the contents of their handbags and coats. Scores of workers died as they vainly attempted to pry open a door that, had it been unlocked, would have allowed for an easy escape. After the fire, a number of charred remains were found in the vicinity of the door, its lock still in place."
-----------------------------
And, well, gee, wonder why they would have to be locked into their place of work, to keep them from running away? According to a speech Elizabeth Stanton present to the NY Legislator, well, these women maybe have died, working in a factory for a paycheck that would be cut in their husband's names!! And, well, read further on in the speech, you will read that the husband, as the leader of the house, who decisions were ordained by god to be followed, had the right to hire out the kids, to work in the factories also, and more than likely, these paychecks were written in his name also.....still sounds like slavery.

And, well, I do believe that the same arguments that are being made about the submission thing closely resembles what a segment of the church body was saying about slavery. We teach men to love all his brethern, even the slave. So, he should love his slave, and the slave should submit to him, and gently teach him to be a good master. This is God's way(really the last statement is my sarcasm showing through). Or the devine right of kings to rule any which way they wish really. We should pray for him to be strong, and that God leads him. Or the priest that stood between God and men. It was consdered blasphamy most of the time to even question their decisions, let alone their authority. Well, something amazing happened, and guttenburg invented the press, and the people got their hands on the bibles, and learned just how much the preists had been lying to them. Man took back what they felt the church had claimed with no "Godly" authority, with violence when necescessary. And, next to go was the devine authority of the Kings. Again with violence they disposed him. And, well, then came the slaves, or at least the male slaves, as for the females, sorry, a slave is a slave, why should she care which master she has? There was a civil war, and then the civil rights movements, both pretty much violent. Every step of the way, the women raised their voice and spoke in support for the rights of people and didn't say much about their own until the slaves were free. And, well, it's been over a hundred years, she has advanced her cause, mostly with her voice, and there really has been no violence, no civil war, no inquisitions, ect. She has made progress and convinced man to relinguish that false authority that God susposedly ordained. And, not even a hundred years since she got the right to vote, well, here we are, we are disrupting society too much....(as if a civil was wasn't a major disruption!). We should allow ourselves to be the sacrificial lambs for society's sake.
----------------------------------
With all the nice words, niether of you have really conceeded that the husband doesn't have a divine providence issued by God to lead his wife to wherever he feels she should go. You point to just how he should be acting, and state how he shouldn't be acting by then well, even in cases of abuse, where it is wise to remove the husband from the family, you still put her in that submissive state. Laws have been laid out, that clearly state, that both the man and the women share in those inalienable rights that we are ALL endowed by our creator to some inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. But, in the end, you are more apt to see these laws as a hindrence to that divine authority of the husbands. Since you do, and because of the way you have said some things, you feel that the divine authority issued by god is supreme to these laws of man, and since it is supreme, then it should only be God who can truly intervene. All we can do is sit by, exclaim how the husband should be acting, note how the wife should always be in that submissive subservient role, and well, it's just a terrible shame just how badly some people act. Yes, we have abuse now, and all kinds of evil, but we don't set the evildoers on a pedestal, calling it God's supreme and perfect plan, and thus off limits to our intervention. The government can help, initiate policies, ect.

By the way, I didn't "make up" the stories I listed from the Bible, they've been there for thousands of years, for anyone to open and read.
As far as what is wrong the the government giving money for the charity work of faith based institutes, well.....
maybe this story will enlighten you:
www.nytimes.com... KBPPSUUql4g&pagewanted=print&position=
I already stated, all the counseling services in this area are booked solid, the more affordable ones and those directed towards the poor, last I heard have waiting lists up to a hear. Close to 50% of the personal bankruptcies are brought on by the need for medical services. There's not enough money now available to help all those in need of healthcare, and well, Bush is slashing the budget, while sending part of it over to "faith based" initiatives. Many of this counseling is due to court orders, and so, well, it could be very likely that the fact that there is so little money and such a large need, that they will be forced into these programs, and then forced to at least pretend that they are accepting religious beliefs that they just don't want to. And, I can't help but wonder just how many the basic concepts of their faith are being inserted into the services that they are offering....like abstinance is. I am singling out the one concept that I find most objectionable, that I find would interferes with my ability to serve my God....there's quite a few other things that our government is doing, but nothing compares to this one. And, the Promise Keeper's philosophy in this one area is quite typical of that of many churches. And, they are known to sound a little militant, have connections to the White House, and well.....what can I say. Maybe I shouldn't have singled them out, but only time will tell just which group will be given the job to intruct men and women "how to respect women", and how to teach men to be good masters through you faithful love and subservience.

I'm sorry, if the man is a losey master to be with the intention of enslaving me, why would I want to teach him how to do a better job?



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
I still don't know where PK teaches that women must give up everything and listen to their husband's whims and demands.


Read "Seven Promises of A Promise Keeper" by Tony Evans. I went out on a date with a very confused "Promise Keeper" in the late 90's and the first thing he did was give me this book. We didn't go out on more than one date for obvious reasons (he was a conservative Promise Keeper looking to break his promises with a non-religious liberal), but I got to keep the book. I found it pretty funny and pretty scary at the same time, but Promise Keepers certainly advocates men taking back the "leadership" role that they have lost to women. I have since relegated the book to storage, but this is a heavily used money quote from the book....


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. If you simply ask for it, your wife is likely to say, Look, for the last ten years, I've had to raise these kids, look after the house, and pay the bills. I've had to get a job and still keep up my duties at home. I've had to do my job and yours. You think I'm just going to turn everything back over to you?

Your wife's concerns may be justified. Unfortunately, however, there can be no compromise here. If you're going to lead, you must lead. Be sensitive, Listen. Treat the lady gently and lovingly. But lead!


Look, this works in some families--the man is the breadwinner, the wife stays at home, the husband makes all of the decisions. I have no problem with these types of families. Personally, the situation described in the Promise Keepers book is a bit odd and I think it is more of the man's fault for not speaking up if he didn't like what his wife was doing. And I wouldn't stop pursuing my goals because a man has felt emasculated--then again, I wouldn't be with a man who would feel emasculated by my career. But some women may welcome this kind of change and if two people are happy with this type of arrangement, go for it. (Just don't whine to me when things fall apart down the road because somebody isn't happy foregoing their career and someone else isn't happy because they find their spouse boring... but maybe not..)

But Promise Keepers is a Trojan Horse organization. Under the guise of being a Christian men's ministry, they advocate intolerance and bias across society. They have cultivated close relationships with presidents and political leaders and actively pursued legislation that denies equal rights to groups other than Christian men. All people should be equal under the law. The concept of Christian male supremacy is not something that should be enforced by the government (or should I say, re-enforced--the battle against oppression by Christian males has been waging since America was founded. Painting men as a "victim" might work as a marketing tool to increase PK membership, but it is hardly a reality.) Promise Keepers believes that male supremacy is a mandate from God and would like to stunt every effort to establish equality. Women (and gays) should know their "place."

Being that this group supports a religious ideology--and an ideology that wouldn't pass any corporate gender discrimination smell test at that--it would follow-on that the government should steer clear of associating with it, correct? Well, it has been agressively supported by both Clinton & Bush. The military even offers "spiritual training" given by Promise Keeper ministries.

Can anyone think of a reason why the government would support a patriarchal family structure? Oh, I dunno.. perhaps so that men will support their families instead of the state? Could it be that this is the same reason why this concept was incorporated into the writings that later became known as the bible? Religion transcends the legal system--perhaps if fear of eternal damnation wasn't hanging over people's heads, men and women wouldn't get married...

Consider this--how did the concept of marriage get into the bible? Was this one of the concepts handed down by God or was this just a very successful attempt by early politicians to co-opt legitimate spirituality to codify a societal infrastructure that supported political and economic goals? Even Hammurabi claimed that the Gods had bestowed on him the power to write and enforce the laws he was making up. Simply saying "Hey, I'm Joe, and here are some things that we should do to make life easier.." wouldn't really inspire the Babylonians to listen to him--he needed a higher power to give his Code some street cred.

Wouldn't it make sense that everything that was a threat to this infrastructure would be declared "evil"--adultery, bastard children, homosexuality....Claiming that these laws were handed down by God would give them much more weight than if they were just a worldy, common law--especially as something like sex is difficult to control.

And this formula is one that has stood the test of time--Government continues to support Judeo-Christian ideals. Some may say it is because "the people" are inherently religious, but I believe that it is still a means of control. A patriarchal society still takes a lot of economic burden off of the state, which would explain the close ties between Promise Keepers and government.

This doesn't make the premise of traditional family values wrong--but it does make declaring other non-traditional lifestyles evil and an abomination (which the founders of Promise Keepers are fond of doing) terribly wrong.

www.publiceye.org...
www.promisekeepers.org...
www.buildingequality.us...
www-tradoc.monroe.army.mil...
www.wsu.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You know, if the "public eye" website was TRUTH, I would agree with you. Problem is it is a site dedicated to oppression, or the falsely preceived oppression.

I have NEVER heard of PK making their wives submit a schedule to their husband. I will ask around. I will send this article to my FIL to see if it is fact, as he has been a PK since the 90's. I know his wife doesn't do such things.

I will give an example of how it can be easier to let a man take over things I did. I always did the bills, alloted how much and where we could spend, what we were going to do ect; and so on. I Kept control as, I like to be in control! We almost divorced because it was such a one sided relationship. The crap hit the fan, he complained bitterly on how I kept the finances, and that we had more money that we did. I gave up control. He spent all the money(hello, why I kept control to begin with) Once he did that, I gave him the books to balance and told him not to talk to me AT ALL about finances. He could spend what he wanted, when he wanted and on what he wanted. Don't complain about the kids private school or my horse though. The horse came with me and is a part of my life(part of the deal) the kids need a quality education.

Lo and behold, perspective changed. Yes, it has been a hard lesson on us all Yes, I was right. But bitching and with holding just caused resentment. Now, he makes the same choices I would, as he sees what life really costs. I think that is what PK is trying to teach.

Neither of us has EVER spent more than $200 on something(besides a present) without a quick phonecall to the other. That is called "respect". Not asking for permission, but being a team.

The quotes from the bible used above make sense, you don't follow a man who isn't leading down the right path. You don't submit to a man who is not treating you with the utmost respect and love. Submit is also a word that is taken wrong.

I think the feminist view that all women must work to be REAL women, or worthy women is such a crock. If you choose not to have children, than of course you will work. Having the best of everything is not the goal in life. Once you have kids, raising them to be good members of society is the most important thing. YOU become second to that. As parents, we made a choice to bring them into this world and now, must do our duty TO SOCIETY and the children themselves to parent them. To teach them. To love them.

If both the man and the woman are on this equally hectic career path, where does that leave the kids?? In daycare 12+ hours a day? I have no problem with people who work(I do). I do have a problem with feminists acting like women who do not work are setting them back. That when women place their kids first ,they are belitting themselves.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
As parents, we made a choice to bring them into this world and now, must do our duty TO SOCIETY and the children themselves to parent them. To teach them. To love them.


Wait, so now you guys are pro choice?

Your logic is inherently flawed. If Christians had their way, there would be no "choice", and that reveals the crux of everybody's arguement agains the promise keepers.

Keep them lady folks barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Love the thought provoking input of everyone. The PK research from dawnstar. Real life anecdotes from Byrd, llpoolej and lmgnyc (especially that PK date
)

Good boiled down resolution for debate from Johannmon too.


Originally posted by Johannmon
The real premise being debated is: (drum roll please) Government should be neutral on religious values and not give either support or impedence to them.

The real question is: Can government fuction outside of religious belief or is it intrinsically and inseparably tied to the philosophy of its populace and leaders?


Which I believe lmgnyc is well on her way to establishing a position on, of which I'm inclined to agree.


Originally posted by lmgnyc
Religion transcends the legal system--perhaps if fear of eternal damnation wasn't hanging over people's heads, men and women wouldn't get married...

Consider this--how did the concept of marriage get into the bible? Was this one of the concepts handed down by God or was this just a very successful attempt by early politicians to co-opt legitimate spirituality to codify a societal infrastructure that supported political and economic goals? Even Hammurabi claimed that the Gods had bestowed on him the power to write and enforce the laws he was making up. Simply saying "Hey, I'm Joe, and here are some things that we should do to make life easier.." wouldn't really inspire the Babylonians to listen to him--he needed a higher power to give his Code some street cred.

Wouldn't it make sense that everything that was a threat to this infrastructure would be declared "evil"--adultery, bastard children, homosexuality....Claiming that these laws were handed down by God would give them much more weight than if they were just a worldy, common law--especially as something like sex is difficult to control.

And this formula is one that has stood the test of time--Government continues to support Judeo-Christian ideals. Some may say it is because "the people" are inherently religious, but I believe that it is still a means of control. A patriarchal society still takes a lot of economic burden off of the state, which would explain the close ties between Promise Keepers and government.

This doesn't make the premise of traditional family values wrong--but it does make declaring other non-traditional lifestyles evil and an abomination (which the founders of Promise Keepers are fond of doing) terribly wrong.


Meaning not only are Promise Keepers a mere trojan horse for the government, but all religions are! ...barring exceptions noted by Byrd (wicca, etc) that don't support the patriarchal heirarchy of land owning white Christian male framers.

In the western world then, Christianity (all forms) has been inseperable from government since 324 AD in fact when the still pagan deciever Constantine rendered it the official religion of the Roman Empire soley for benefit in wars of conquest!

Has anything changed since? From Emperors, to Popes, to Kings...(prior to that Pharohs pressing other religions of governmentism)?

I've heard of a place that promised such change. A distant, young place a mere 200 years old supposedly founded on the contrary tenants of freedom. Freedom of speech, religion, indeed freedom of mind from all forms of tyranny and oppression.

If the framers of such were indeed as corrupted as their predecesors and had Judao/Christian ulterior motives for patriarchal gain of political and monetary power...does that mean we give up and give in? That's just the way it is and always shall be?

Or focus instead on the superior ideals of admittedly flawed men?

Obviously I tend to agree Johannmon that government and religion are inseperable... but only as a result of man's flaws and failings. If the American experiment is worth anything (and I believe it is) why roll over so easily and accept governance by priests and tyrants once again?

Even if they do "mean well" in their oppression?

Edit: Can anyone answer without asserting, ah, but secularism is a religion too? Though we'll have that argument soon enough I'm sure.


[edit on 5-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I agree assuming the side of the increasingly popular "2000 year old proof" requires one to ignore the past couple hundred years of change and progress almost entirely.


Originally posted by dawnstar
Two thousand years of testing, let's take a glimpse of the result:
Here an interesting thought, we hear so much talk about how the labor unions killed this country:
"During the Progressive era between 1890 and 1920, a new social contract emerged to match the new industrial conditions of the era. Key to that social contract were the labor laws that regulated industrial working conditions. Passed at first at the state level, and very often initially for women only, eventually these laws were adopted at the federal level and extended to include men as well as women. "
womhist.binghamton.edu...
gee, what do you know and here we are being told that the purpose of unions was to drive that wages of the workers and lead us more strongly to the great socialist system. Gee, wonder just what these conditions were, that prompted society to move with such momentum for which must have been just a small portion of the population, since well, we had all those loving men out there, sacrificing themselves, giving up their own wants and desires, and providing for them while they stayed home and took care of their primary function.....tending the kids.....

One of the contributing factors that led to the movement according to some was the Triangle Fire, that occured in NY City in 1911...


The turn of the last century was an inspiring time. 1890's to 1920 era America was one ripe for intellectualism and man aspiring to better society and the world, not just his own selfish interests.

The birth of the modern left came then, not from eastern think tanks (havens of imperialist Republicanism at the time) but fiery dustbowl preachers pounding full blown socialism with the same fervor as they did the Gospels. The New Deal that followed was as much an agreement between man and government based on the teachings of Jesus Christ as anything today.

So again, religion in government... All that's really changed since is the "left" stopped quoting scripture to make and support governmental policy whereas the "right" started doing so.

What a topsey turvey turn of the century we just had. In the past hundred years Christ went from being a card carrying socialist of the Golden Rule to a monoplistic corporate hawk more likely to proclaim he who makes the gold, makes the rules...


For the love of God, I wish we ALL could just keep Him out of it.


[edit on 5-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I don't think you'd ever see Wiccans being
encouraged by the government and I'm not
sure you'd see Muslims, either.


When I was in the Army (1981-1986) I was a
Chaplain Assistant. We were given a big ol' fat
book with the 'approved' religions. These were
religions that the government considered to be
authentic or whatever, and we were supposed
to support them in any way that we could, as
long as it didn't interefere with our mission.
(like the wiccans couldn't hold a religious ceremony
on a full moon, if we were supposed to be attacking
the enemy on that full moon ... see?)

Wiccans and Muslims were in our book. They were
considered 'real' (or whatever) and the military is
required to accomodate them.

There were some other religions in that book that I
had never heard of (Happy Healthy Holy, etc.). I
wish I had kept that book.

Anyways ... I have never heard of Promise Keepers
before. I'm reading the info on them on this thread
with great interest .... please continue ....

(BTW - Hi Rant. Haven't seen ya' for a while.
WHERE have you been???)



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Well, I went to a PK rally about ten years ago and I thought it was a good thing. I don't recall any stuff about government funding or the Secret Penis Cub or anything like that; I was there to praise God and committ myself to be a good husband and father. Every other man there, near as I could tell, was doing just what I was; everyone I talked to about it thought it was a wonderful experience.

I gather that johnamon has been to a PK rally; I have; and I don't think anyone else one this thread has. Yet it doesn't seem to stop any of you from bad-mouthing PK, just like not having any first-hand knowledge of the Masons keeps people from ascribing all sort of crapola to them.

Of course, you're all entitled to your own views, but I tend to listen to people who have actual experience in the stuff they talk about. I guess it's just one of my peccadilloes and all....



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Wiccans and Muslims were in our book. They were
considered 'real' (or whatever) and the military is
required to accomodate them.


I figured as much. Though to Byrd's point, I still doubt Wiccans would ever get a grant to teach abstinence even if they are technically eligible, whereas Promise Keepers would...and fringe groups like Moonies currently do.


Anyways ... I have never heard of Promise Keepers
before. I'm reading the info on them on this thread with great interest .... please continue ....


The teachings aren't that different from your local Southern Baptist ministry. I've been to a few "Men's Prayer Breakfasts" with my Dad (shudder) where the finer points of male supremecy (I mean responsibility, yeah that's it) are discussed away from prying eyes.

The Promise Keepers, being a closed group of men is no different. They just get noticed when 40,000 of them descend on your city for a convention. Though the strip clubs LOVE it! (I used to date a DC city planner with PK convention anecdotes that would make a sailor blush.)

But all gender closed (secret society) groups get scrutiny. Just look at our Masonry forum. Even if there is some diminutive Promise Keeperettes, the teachings are the issue, with the additional issue of government sponsorship at hand.



(BTW - Hi Rant. Haven't seen ya' for a while.
WHERE have you been???)


In withdrawl.
I have ongoing ISP issues. Shiny new DSL router recently blew and had no internet (again) the past week. Back for now!



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
as far as a schedule thing, I've done something similar, and know others who have. After having husbands that come home day after day, not having any idea just what was involved with being a stay-at-home mom, well, the griping would start because he felt that not enough was done. We'd just keep a record of what we did for a week or so, and waited until the griping got to us, and then presented him with the list, here, this is what I've done, and this here is what I'll be doing the rest of the night while you've flown the coop, to do whatever it is you do. Now shut the **** up!!! It does work....
I'm not sure where it came into the discussion at, I know I didn't bring it up. But, well, maybe it came from the links that have been listed in the past day or so. I usually don't have that much time to play on the computer during the weekend. Which is why I am up 4 in the morning playing.
But, well, now that you mention it, one of the two that chatted with me on yahoo mentioned something about it. and well, I didn't agree much with his version of it.
I keep hearing how women do have a choice, they can chose to ignore the desires of their men, thay can chose not to submit, but if it is a command from god, well, wouldn't that be disobedient. And, well, the fact of the matter is, we all have choices, the slave had the choice of not doing the work he was told to do, the consequences of that action wasn't too great though, was it? And, well, the bank robber passing the 1st national bank also has a choice, doesn't he? he can chose to walk by, and be free to live out his life, or he can rob it, and well, more than likely lose that freedom as a result, since he broke one of our non-secualar based laws. Regardless of what religion says, we all really don't like it when someone steals our money, so we all kind of agree that those who don't should be punished. So, I guess in a way, the amount of freedom to chose one's own actions directly relates to the consequences that result from them. Slaves usually obeyed, they didn't like being beaten, some people rob banks, prison life isn't really as bad and being tied to a pole and whipped to a pulp.
So, let's see, the unions, which well, according to what I read was more of a result to the slave like working conditions of women, are bad to the ultra conservative right. So, isn't the social service systems....and social security, and planned parenthood, ect. ect.....all the little systems that were put into place to lighten the consequences that the women would find if they chose not not live under the "god ordained" rulership of the husband. Like I said, if it is a divine right, well, then no one has any right into interferring with how that rulership is carried out, except of course to keep preaching to the man about love....(love thy enemy is also commanded, we are still out bombing towns and villages in third world nations!), the women to submit, and pray to what many now days consider to be an imaginary God. I think it was rant who made the remark, over 2.000 years of experimenting with the idea that men were made to rule, women to follow, and well, we've made more progress in the last couple centuries than that experiment has made that whole time. On social issues, on technological issues, on the issue of living standards, labor, ect. ect. Isn't this because we've denied the idea that some people are naturally given more rights than another by god, and therefore have the freedom to intervene on the little person's behalf in more productive ways?

Why would it be necessary for the children to be in childcare for 12 hours a day for the women to work. I admit that his may be true in some cases, like, umm....when the husband is a truck driver, or has another occupation that takes him away for a long period of time. But, well, they typical work day is around 8-10 hours, and well, there's jobs available anytime, day or night. So, in essence, there could always be a parent home with the kids, couldn't there be? Just work different hours. But, well, let me ask you this, the women decides she wants to work, but well, finds that the wages are too low and the child care too high to make that feasible. She knows that she could work a different shift, if her husband would be willing to stay home afterwork and take care of the kids, and asks him to do that, which he refuses. So well, she decides to stay home, I mean the baby is only two years old, and needs someone to take care of it! Well, the baby is sick there is no money for the medicine, and well, gee, wouldn't it be nice to have that extra money now. But, well, just what is at fault here. It's just an unfortunate event, too bad it's happening, but that's the way it is, ya know, the wages are so crappy now days, that a man just can't earn a good living. Or is it more that the man failed in his responsibility to support his wife, by shoving HIS resonsiblity of tending to the kids for part of the day so she could tend to her financial needs, off onto her.
Four generation of the mothers in my family have had to work to either fully support the kids, or partially. No childcare was needed! In a few cases, like my mom and dad, my dad took over. In others, there was the extended family helped out.(when the dad flew the coop, or died) ....unfortunately, the extended family is shot to heck, isn't it? Why is it now, that women having children equates to children in day care if not that the dad isn't around to do his job.....and being divorced or separated isn't an excuse for a dad not to do his job. If the children are to be first, then well, it should a priority of his to stay around in the area of his children, offer to care for them if she can find a job during his free hours, instead of allowing strangers to do it for him.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Oh, and I see another conflict here, according to our president, everyone on the earth has a deep desire and need to have freedom and liberty, so we go and "show our love to our enemy" by bombing Iraq expected to be greeted as liberators by people spiritually inclined to desire freedom and liberty, only well......I guess bush meant only half of Iraq is so inclined, right.
And, since women are also physically inclined to do worse in science and engineering and math, well, why waste money providing education for them in those areas, when we know that they would be much happier in another field, right?
And, well, african americans are much more inclined to die young aren't they, so, well, maybe they shouldn't pay as much into the social security system, since they won't be getting as much back, and hey, wouldn't they be good candidates for Bushes private retirement accounts....
I've known african americans that have lived a long time.
and there have been many good women scientists in years gone past, you can thank one for this little machine you are using to surf the web. A little admiral during WW2 who played a leading role in inventing the first computer.
And, well, I met alot of men who were losey, irresponsible leaders, and Joan of Arc, and even Mohammad's little young wife eventually became skilled enough to lead armies.
According to scripture, we are all naturally inclined to want to lead a very sinful life, maybe we should just stop fighting that sinful nature also, go out, rob, cheat, steal, rape, murder, enslave whatever.....since that is what we were programed to do.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
hey man being scared is not bad im that videz touched me ican still here it in ma head ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 


:



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join