www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13257.html
Permalink Given the political climate, it would appear the religious right movement is at a crossroads. Whereas its political power and influence were once unquestioned, there's ample reason to believe these groups, leaders, and activists may soon be an afterthought on the landscape. Key religious leaders have died recently (Jerry Falwell, D James Kennedy), some major groups have nearly disappeared (Christian Coalition), the movement's legislative agenda is rejected by Dems and ignored by the GOP, and several of the leading Republican presidential hopefuls are anything but friendly with the movement.
could use a Democratic Congress to scare the bejeezus out of its donors. My friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State argue that these flush bank accounts reflect a movement that is far from dead. "I wish I could say the Religious Right is dead," said the Rev. Barry W Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The top Religious Right groups are taking in huge amounts of money," he continued. "They are also quietly organizing churches into a partisan political machine. Now they just have to find a presidential candidate who will carry out their agenda." I frequently wonder whether the movement is on its last legs, but the people who write the checks that keep the religious right afloat clearly haven't gone anywhere. They're still true believers, they're still active, and they're still willing to pony up when the latest Focus on the Family pitch arrives in the mail. Looking at just last year, the combined fundraising total of Focus, FRC, AFA, ADF, and CBN was nearly a half-billion dollars. That, in a time when one might expect the religious right's fundraising would suffer because the movement had what it wanted -- a right-wing Congress and a right-wing White House.
He laid off 30 employees due to reduced funding in Sept. The article (no longer on a Denver TV website) claims that his revenue fell about 10 million over the year before. Think about it this way - with all the money currently NOT going to GOP candidates, it might be going to these religious groups who are promising results the GOP is not delivering. Convincing their sheep that there is strength in their numbers, pooling money together (and of course, the leaders cutting a big chunk of that green for themselves), the sheep are hoping that cash will be used not only to finance the sham church of their choice, but to promote their sham church's agenda. But in 2008, when the Dems get the White House and a wider majority of both houses of Congress, that money will (hopefully) not be used to peddle influence, because not enough of the right people (hopefully) will be for sale. At that point, either the sheep realize they wasted their money and stop, OR the movement gets big enough to splinter off from the GOP, who will be lost for a generation as anyone who actually cares about the freedoms and liberties assured in the Constitution vote Dem. And if you think they'll get the arguments about the seperation of church and state, think again. None of the ministries participate or fund in political activities. James Dobson speaks politically for himself not for his ministry. would some one please remind me again why we don't tax this outrageous amount of income? Apparently a lot of people figure their money is best donated to these groups for some reason. This doesn't necessarily indicate its good for Republicans - its good for the Religious Right. For all we know the threats to go third party are just what a lot of people want. These are political organizations promoting candidates and political issues who are receiving tax exempt funding under the guise of being religious organizations. They have political lobbyists promoting candidates with the promise of funding and votes to follow their political agenda. They have all this money because they don't pay taxes but they are using it not to build hospitals and charitable institutions but to build government coalitions and law schools to support their political agenda. Did I mention that Jesus was a democrat and the pharisees that turned him over to the Romans and demanded his crucifixion were against the S-CHIP program too. "These healed children could have afforded to pay for their own private insurance and are just looking for hand outs". Like Jesus, they want to crucify all the non believers in their agenda.
On October 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, Marc said: I have thought of some of these religious leaders as being global corporatists first with religion as their vehicle. It would be interesting to look into their financial records, to the extent we can, and see what sources of income and assets they have other than the small donor true believer xianists. Can't find it now but Falwell was apparently tied into some global big finance types. Understand he is still with some of these religious organizations.
None of the ministries participate or fund in political activities. So paying a lobbyist to chat with a Congress critter isn't a "political activity"? Hosting a candidate to speak at an event about political issues isn't "political activity"? Telling those who support you who you should vote for isn't a "political activity"? So what, pray tell, do you define as a "political activity"? James Dobson speaks politically for himself not for his ministry. Then why are all of this screeds given at his ministry, or mailed out with his ministry's letterhead and stationery, or given on his ministry's Web site? I'm hoping you're a parody, because it's sad to think someone is this ill informed.
On October 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm, Lauren Smith said: I have to disagree on Dobson. He laid off 30 employees due to reduced funding in Sept. The article (no longer on a Denver TV website) claims that his revenue fell about 10 million over the year before. It's actually Dobson's PAC, FOF Action, that took in $10 million less in FY '06 than it did in FY '05.
On October 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm, Someone wise said: Obama and other Democrats frequently use churches to raise publicity and cash. Seems that the AU and other groups aren't too concerned about that.
On October 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pm, Quatrain Gleam said: How much of that income was investment income compared to fundraising from the congregation? Many big endowments have been doing well in the market for the past couple of years. I can see why a partisan group might want to be vague about the distinction, since if they attribute their wealth to the popularity of their message it swells their apparent power. Moral Majority and Christian Coalition were inflating their membership counts for years for the same reason.
On October 16th, 2007 at 8:57 pm, CalD said: Well whatever they did with all that money, it doesn't seem to have done Republicans a hell of a lot of good in the mid-term congressional elections. That last bullet, the one for CBN says 2005 BTW, not 2006.
On October 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm, Dan said: One thing the religious right excels at is creating a sense of siege and persecution that can weather all seasons. We are facing a radical homosexual agenda, a crusade to drive God out of America, an assault on the sacred institution of marriage, a quiet holocaust of the unborn, the ever-lurking evil of socialism, and the existential threat of Islamofascism. The only thing that changes is the events to which they peg it.
University Update - White House - Religious right groups are raking in the cash on October 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website The following tags are allowed in comments: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> Submit Comment In order to help us keep comment spam to a minimum, please answer the following question: What color is an orange?
|
http://csua.com/feed/