Rankings often are subjective and, as a result, may not have much value. Nonetheless, it was interesting to see how Kansas’ congressional delegation stacked up in a new ranking of the most powerful lawmakers. As Alan Bjerga, The Eagle’s Washington, D.C., reporter, noted Sunday, lawmakers were evaluated based on 15 characteristics of power, such as position, influence and activity. Kansas came in 16th among all states in delegation power. Surprisingly — and this undermines the rankings’ credibility — Rep. Jim Ryun was Kansas’ highest-ranked House member compared with his peers. Ryun was 48th, or in the top 11 percent. Rep. Todd Tiahrt was close behind at No. 50. Rep. Jerry Moran was No. 172, and our state’s lone Democrat, Dennis Moore, was a distant No. 354. In the Senate, Pat Roberts ranked in the top quarter of senators at No. 24, and presidential hopeful Sam Brownback came in at No. 37.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
112 Comments
Jim who?
He may be the highest rank Congressional representative in our state, but he will be the one that will most likely have his seat removed in 2010 when Kansas losses a Congressional seat.
Perhaps Joe but he might run in one of the three surviving districts.
Isn’t he the one who wouldn’t allow his daughters to date anyone who wasn’t financially ready for marriage, and advocating parents arranging marriages for their children?
Ryun’s son, Neil Ryun, is the director of Generation Joshua which has the explicit goal of turning America into a radical Christian Theocracy. Even the wingnut, Hank Price, whom I am fairly sure has been divorced and remarried, would be relegated to a status of second-class citizenship by this group.[this info obtained from the book _Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism_, by Michelle Goldberg].
Yes, Outlander, there is a difference between mainstream Christians, and Christian Hate-Groups like Generation Joshua.
Ryun is a representative of extreme and destructive ideology. Any way to remove him (even, if by eliminating his seat) should be our goal.
Elect representatives “of the People”, not nutty hate-filled ideas!
Interesting DD. Read the Book of Joshua and you read a story of genocide of “inferior peoples” to make room for “God’s Chosen People”
Geez I didn’t even know there was such a group! Scary stuff.
Other than running the mile in under four minutes and being a religious kook, what qualifications does this man have to be in government?
Double D: I had not previously heard of Generation Joshua. I did pull up their website. Unless you have something to add, I think it is disingenuous and misleading to call it a “Christian Hate-Group”.
http://www.generationjoshua.org/dnn/
Read the above cited book, Ben. It is scary. It has convinced me, so far, that KFG is not paranoid and that there really are people out to get her and her out-group.
If the book is correct, there really is a growing parallel universe that on the surface looks harmless and good, but in reality is anything but. It does not make one proud to be an american.
Outlander,I have not read your link yet, but have the following to add:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/05/12/goldberg/index_np.html
If this type of ideology is what you advocate, then I believe you are relegated to the extreme wingnut crowd. And as I said earlier, there is a difference between true Christians and Christian hate groups. If you can’t tell the difference, then I would say that you are more than disingenuous.
Outlander,The group you cite, is the same one I am talking about.
This is a quote from the book I cite above (page 3):
“According to Generation Joshua’s philosophy, Christianity holds the answer to every public and private dispute. But because the American people do not yet accept this, Christian ideas need to be rationalized in secular terms. Ryun [Neil] teaches thousands of proteges this rhetorical two-step through online seminars, chats, and book clubs.”
Call me disingenous, Outlander? if you believe the above – I’d say that applies to you, not me.
The most scary thing about Generation Joshua is that they seem, on the surface, reasonable. They are not.
I know that the above makes me sound like Ed. I invite all to read the book: _Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism_ before making up your mind, however.
DD: Uh yes, it is their website. I’m surprised you hadn’t looked at it before you posted. Anyway, as I mentioned before, “unless you have something to add (to the info on the site), I think it is disingenuous and misleading to call it a “Christian Hate-Group”.
I did look at Outlander’s website. That group is whom I am talking about. They are a Christian Theocacy Hate-Group.
Those of you not yet assimilated, read Michelle Goldberg’s _Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism_ before making up your mind. The article I cite above is an introduction to this group.
The really unfortunate part of this controversy, is that it is hard to tell if people like outlander, are sincere, or useful idiots.
I am going to assume the latter, until it is otherwise demonstrated.
I’m going to assume the former.
I need to research this group. They are just the sort of people that make me so violently opposed to religion.Hence my “in your face” atheism and ridicule of “in your face”Christians.kfg in her personal experience may indeed have better knowledge of just how insane and dangerous to what most Americans consider deomcracy some of the nuttier religious groups may be.
DD: I guess I could assume that you are a partisan hack, but I won’t. I think that you are well-meaning and may be on to something, or maybe not. I have yet to see the evidence.
“I know that the above makes me sound like Ed”
Don’t be so hard on yourself!
I took a look at that site.
These folks are along the same nut line as the Westboro bunch. Only difference is Phelps and gang are up front about it.
I looked over their site and they look a lot like a Taliban movement. Establish their version of their religion as the Law of the land; a sort of Christo-fascist Sharia.
I don’t think taking an honest look at this group makes one a partisian hack, necessarily. I am guilty of being one, if it does.
I have a nephew, whom I thought was okay, who has a Christian rock band named – “Joshua’s Generation”, whom, I am suddenly, very worried about. I’ve just emailed my sister about it – to see what she knows. I had thought my brother-in-law and nephew where just misguided people who unintentionally pissed me off during Thanksgiving, but now I am more concerned, than before.
I am sorry, but I do think this makes me sound like our Ed. Maybe ignorance is bliss.
As I read this book, which I heard about on NPR, I will let you all know more.
KFG and RD, I was going to let you read it when I was done. I am not sure I should do that now. It is like a real-life Da Vinci code or something. OH NO!
The author of Kingdom Coming certainly has an agenda too. That he’s written a book does not make his allegations true. That said . . .
Are there some nuts out there who would like to impose a theocracy? Probably. Are there nuts out there who would like to impose a Marxist dictatorship? Certainly. Are there nuts who advocate anarchy? Sure. Etc, etc. And the beauty of America is that all of them get to say what they like, and we get to criticize them to our heart’s content.
Are any of them any sort of realistic threat to our republic? NO. All of the above are so far in the fringe that they have almost no popular support.
What there really is, is a lot of fearmongering by those who point out the nuts to further their own agenda.
Is Gen. Joshua one of those nut groups? It doesn’t appear so, from their own website. But we know that appearances aren’t always truth.
Just a thought. Helps to tone down the “they’re taking over” hysteria.
I grew up with State-mandated Protestant prayer and Bible readings (King James) in public school. I only learned later about the implications of this for Jewish and Catholic students (I was raised Protestant). I consider any sort of “establishment” to be contrary to the United States Constitution.
“Jacob’s Generation” – is the band’s name.
I wonder if it was Freudian somehow that I substituted “Joshua” – no, maybe more Jungian.
GMC70- good post. But if these people reporting on GenJacob are correct, I am not aware that the other groups you mention have the explicit goal of taking over this country — lying in the process as necessary (not a typical Christian strategy, where I come from).
Back to the thread topic, the diversion above points to the problem I have with Jim Ryun; which is that he represents dogma more than he represents the citizens of Kansas, IMHO.
There was going to be a report on NPR which hasn’t aired, or maybe recently did, on this subject — viz., how the House is more a place of representing ideology rather than people.
Oh my goodness…
I don’t know anything about this Generation Joshua until now.
I read their webstie.
Where is there any hate onthat site?
You accuse them of being a Christian HATE group.
Explain how.
I don’t see fearmongering here GMC. I see honest concern and I call it warranted.
It is often said and by many that the beauty of our rights in America is that they are given not from man or law but God. Of course the more reasonable among us know that our laws are made by man for man. Some claim to channel God in this.
If the radical elements in the Christian faith community continue as they have for the last 30 years to accumulate power and be active politically, I am forced to consider seriously this question:
If laws and rights are of and defined by a Christian God, does an atheist have any rights under the law? What about a Muslim?We see daily and right here on the blog the advocacy for denial of rights to a group or person that some faithful person or other deems “outside Gods law” Had they greater power, would the circle of those to be denied rights increase?There is a reason for the separation of church and state and always a reason to be vigilant.
The problem here is not Christianity.
The problem is that you hate Christianity and do not tolerate it.
Any attempt by anyone that is Christian to influence politics is labeled as the “taliban takeover” etc…
Whether you want to admit it or not, their is a political war going on between Chrisitans and Atheists.
All over this country the ACLU and many of their cronies are waging a war against Christians and any form of it in the public areana.
Now Christians have advocacy groups and you are calling them the taliban?
JR,
Any Christian that is preaching that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven is probably viewed as a “radical” to you.
Any Christian who doesn’t fit into your tolerance and acceptance view of the world and just sits at home and prays in their closet is viewed as radical by you.
JR
“Of course the more reasonable among us know that our laws are made by man for man.”
Denying Him will not make Him go away.
I note that you advocate your “in your face” atheism. Certainly, that is your right. Would you deny the same advocacy to those who believe?
We’re back to the same problem we see all the time. If we constantly reject out of hand the points of views we disagree with as “unreasonable,” we accomplish nothing and further the divisions.
Let me pose this one, JR. Can reasonable people be believers? Simple question, JR. And capable of a simple answer.
And JR, I suspect you’ve had a bad church experience at some point in your life. That’s too bad. It’s put blinders on you.
GMC
I’ll answer your speculation when you answer mine.
If rights are “of God” could not a different strain of believer or non believer be denied them?
JR,
How so if they are from God JR?
GMC
Pretty good way to twist my arguement. I did not say that people of faith could not be reasonable.
I said that reasonable people know that laws are made by men for men. And unless you can show me Gods signature on the Constitution, or your legal briefs I am correct.
the question is not whether one can believe or not. the question can be posed in 2 ways. The first: is it “reasonable” to believe certain tenets and dogmas that are on their face false..by observation, definition, and experimentation. the second: is it “reasonable” to suspend observation, experimentation, and definition to make the tenets of one’s unprovable philosophy “possible” or “probable”.
It’s fine to have religious or spiritual beliefs, but once these beliefs make claims about the nature of man, the world, and the universe that are clearly false, then those beliefs fall to a distant second or third place.
Classical Christianity must give up its history as a “mystery” religion shrouded in miracles, angels, prophecies, and all the rest. If it is to have any future appeal at all, especially to the “uninitiated”, then it must be based on the “truth” of the world as we see it and the teachings of Jesus that man is inherently able to rise above his baser instincts to act in a way contraindicated by his instincts. “Goodness” is, after all, putting the welfare of others equal to or above one’s own welfare. And evil, or sinfulness, is putting oneself and one’s needs above those of others in more need.
Just a thought, but isn’t Senator Brownback a member of Opus Die
It is Opus Dei and that is the rumor. I do not think Brownback has ever acknowledged that.
There is a seperation of Church and State for a reason.
If one were to do research on this trend of dominionism – the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers, it would not be difficult to conclude that this group is a threat to the very foundation of democracy.
This group does not just want to the freedom to practice their religion, but the authority to make you practice it. On its face, this would seem like an impossible mission, but that does not seem to deter folks like this.
I am aware that many loudest complainers never do any research. Wouldn’t want the facts to interfere with their closed minds, now would they?
Nathan – it is not anti-Muslim for me to oppose establishment of Sharia law in the USA. It is not anti-Hindu to oppose the establishment of their laws as the law in the USA. Similarly it is not anti-Christian to oppose establishment of Biblical Christian law as the law of the USA.
Those among the faithful ought not go too easy on blurring the line between religion and politics.
I understand that there are more than 300 sects of Christianity. If one of the more strident were to gain political power, the other 300 or so would no doubt be found wanting in some way or other and posssibly persecuted because of it. ( I cite the treatment of Catholics in the past)
Another way to say it?If God says you are right, lucky you! But unless and until God tells me or anyone else that they are wrong (no I don’t qualify the bible) keep this special dispensation to and for yourself.
Ben, excellent AND parsimonious, as usual.
JR
Twist? I think not. Shall I quote the entire passage?
“It is often said and by many that the beauty of our rights in America is that they are given not from man or law but God. Of course the more reasonable among us know that our laws are made by man for man.”
Again – may a reasonable person be a believer? Or are believers to be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable?
Ben:”Classical Christianity must give up its history as a “mystery” religion shrouded in miracles, angels, prophecies, and all the rest.”
Classical Christianity is 1) Christ is divine, being God among us 2) he died in our place as atonement for sin 3) he rose from the dead to conquor death and promise eternal life for all who accept his gift.
Is this the “mystery” you insist Christianity must surrender? – because, at its core, this is Christianity.
Your truth – and I quote – “the “truth” of the world as we see it and the teachings of Jesus that man is inherently able to rise above his baser instincts to act in a way contraindicated by his instincts.” – is not the “truth” of Christianity at all, and that is not the teaching of Jesus.
On the contrary, human history displays repeatedly the opposite. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Salvation comes from faith, not by works. If we have to “earn” our way to heaven, we are ALL in trouble. It is a gift, not something earned.
I know this is not a theology thread, but it is important to understand Christianity. And I know there are hundreds of sects, but these cores are almost universal. Deny them, and we have not faith – we have only a philosophy of man, a sorry thing to have any faith in at all.
Just my rant.
GMC – that was Brian, not me. I did not raise the question of “mystery”.
Now some questions from me. In today’s paper Rev. Sam Muyskins raised the issue of “justice” in regard to the chronic homeless. In the Catholic Advance immigration reform has been discussed. In the Bishop’s Letter on Economic Justice they even refer to the need for “state ownership of the means of production” in order to assure that Christian-mandated economic justice be achieved for all. In all of these they are significantly to the “left” of my positions.
Seems like we need some more Constitutional Amendments to assure that all these things are done.
GMC
You repost my words but still seem not to have read them……”laws are made by man for man” Probably I should have said “laws are made by men for men” but other than that I don’t think you can REASONABLY dispute that statement.
I’m sorry if the course I took was confusing to you. My point was that some of the very folks who call our rights and laws divinely given might use that same “moral high ground” to take them away. History would tend to reaffirm this.
As a high school track runner, I was inspired by Jim Ryun’s amazing feats. If his district is “downsized” out of existence, maybe he can move back to Wichita and run against Todd Tiarht, who after all is a MISSOURI-NATIVE, not even a native native Kansan.
From Michelle Goldberg’s book – (see reference above):__________________________________Michael Farris, the founder and president of the evangelical Patrick Henry College . . . states:
“the homeschooling movement will succeed when our children, the Joshua Generation, engage wholeheartedly in the battle to take the land.
He admits it’s a large task. “This is the land of MTV, Internet porn, abortion, homosexuality, greed, and accomplished selfishness,” he observed. Giants stalk America, “giants that live in the fields of law, government, journalism, and history. And we are going to look in depth at the elite colleges and universities of our nation. The enemies of freedom and truth dominate these institutions and thereby dominate our nation.”
What Farris wants is a cultural revolution. He is trying to train a generation of leaders, unscathed by secularism, who will gain politcal power in order subsume everything – entertainment, law, government, and education – to Christianty, or their version of it. That might sound like fantasy, but it’s worth pondering what Farris has achieved so far.__________________________________
Does this man’s stated intentions offer any proof about his motives?
I don’t think any reasonable person would confuse Farris and his ilk for the majority of Christians in this country; anymore than one would confuse Fred Phelps and his church for mainstream Baptists.
But, to deny the danger of this variety of totalitarianism is rather stupid if you ask me.
Oh no! Gasp!
It is those evil Christians and their morals and values wanting to make society better!
Run for the hills you secularist liberals!
So, Nathan, I assume that means you endorse my suggested amendments.
“Oh no! Gasp!
“It is those evil Christians and their morals and values wanting to make society better!
“Run for the hills you secularist liberals.”
Do you think that you can force your religious values on others? Answer that simple question.
I get nothing from “god” All I ask of those who do is that they leave me and others alone. I do not deny them their embrace of their supersticions that give them comfort. I require the same deference.
If they cannot do that, then their churches need to be paying taxes.
JR:very good.
DD
They prefer a more covert approach so I doubt you will get an honest answer if any answer at all.
As to whether they will attempt to force their religious views on others they already are. There is no denial of personal private faith. People who want prayer in schools don’t need freedom for their kid to pray. They want license to make my kid pray.
“Do you think that you can force your religious values on others? Answer that simple question.”
I should add that I don’t think you can, dumb ass!
Prove me wrong, numbnuts! Don’t think you can do that, either.
Thanks, JR:Better watch out, the Price family is making up lies about you and the world in general as we speak.
Heartlander, Tiahrt is not a native Missourian, but a rudimentary reading of his bio clearly states he was born in S.D. Which, of course, means, well, nothing about his ability to represent this district. Want to defeat Hillary, too? Thought not.Libs, once again, can’t even get the most basic facts straight.Sigh.Next!
I for one am sick of psuedo-Christian, cookie cutter neo con dem/rep hack polticians use religion as a fig leaf for their evil and nonsense. Most of these so-called Christians end up do the bidding of the zionists and corporate America to the detriment of the rest of us.
I would sooner vote for an atheistic, pro-white poltican than one of these clowns.
I see that Nathan is still fighting the good fight! :)
viva la Raza Blanco!!!
Not funny John Titor, go back to the future you coconut!!!
Titor is IAN? I’m dissapointed to learn that.
Darwins I am sending you email.
“I for one am sick of psuedo-Christian, cookie cutter neo con dem/rep hack polticians use religion as a fig leaf for their evil and nonsense.”
Welcome back, Ian. Numbnuts is not fighting the good fight. He is fighting the only fight he knows which is: Nothing: less logic than can be found in a bowl of alphabet soup; total B.S. and the very definition of pathetic — an argument that one could only hope to impose on nearly unthinking people.
Nathan: The news source for mouth breathers.
DD,
I am a devout SSPX Catholic but supposed “Christian” charlatans like shrub, clinton and yellowback bug me. Has anyone ever seen bush at an actual church service?
v.L.R.B!!!
Bush family values= morphing into whatever shape will garner you the most votes. That’s why brother jeb “became” a Catholic to appeal to conservative Catholic Cuban Americans. Those “people” have no shame!
V.L.R.B!!!
Questoion:”Has anyone ever seen bush at an actual church service?”
Yes, the one (on a Friday) after 9-11 and the only speech he gave that was any good. It was a homerun. I do not know anyone who doubts that.
DD
“Thanks, JR:Better watch out, the Price family is making up lies about you”
I’m used to the Price family making up lies about me. I consider the source. I hope others do too. I no longer respond to their posts.
Alrighty then, lets break this down with a bit of though.
Do you have values?
Where do your values come from?
What is the root of your values?
What is it that makes your values right?
Yeah, my values are rooted in the truth that Christ is our Lord and Savior and he died for our sins.
The mere fact that my values come from God and the Bible makes them no less valid than your values coming from whatever they do.
DD,
I see the ignore button must be off…LOL
You even took the time to insult me again! I feel so special.
GMC,
“Classical Christianity is 1) Christ is divine, being God among us 2) he died in our place as atonement for sin 3) he rose from the dead to conquor death and promise eternal life for all who accept his gift.
Is this the “mystery” you insist Christianity must surrender? – because, at its core, this is Christianity.”
In short, yes. This IS classical Christianity, and it is ragged at the edges. There are very few major names in the world’s best theology departments (and I don’t mean “Liberty” or “Oral Roberts” – think “Oxford”, “Harvard”, and other schools with respected theology departments that research and publish in the area of religion and spiritual belief) who still accept the “Jesus is divine, a scapegoat who died for our sins, and who got up (physically from the dead), and who performed miracle after miracle”. I’d suggest you take a look at the Westar Institute and the jesus Seminar and that you read major Christian philosophers like John Dominic Crossan or Marcus Borg.
Unfortunately, this Christianity hasn’t made it out into the professional leagues where fire, brimstone, human sacrifice, and all the rest pack the seats.
If the history of religious dogma is any guide, we can expect more proven failures than just 1) the earth is the center of the universe, 2) the Bible is literally and inerrantly true, 3) the earth is flat, 4) bats are birds, 5) rabbits chew cud, 6) grasshoppers have 4 legs, 7) it is sinful to wear blended fabrics, and of more recent vintage…A) God is punishing America by killing soldiers, B) Pat Robertson “foresaw” hurricane Katrina, C) Islam is an evil religion spawned from the devil….blah, blah, blah, then your opinions DO count less IMHO.
“Unfortunately, this Christianity hasn’t made it out into the professional leagues where fire, brimstone, human sacrifice, and all the rest pack the seats.”
Nor will it ever Brian, since it is not Christianity. The Jesus Seminar consisted of a group of self-selected liberal scholars who met to try to validate their pre-conceived ideas. Their conclusions were not surprising.
They also help explain and highlight the deterioration that has occurred in the main line protestant churches in Europe, and is occurring in the U.S. When man starts to think he is smarter than God, disaster awaits.
GMC 70 stated it well when, referring to the cores of Christian belief he said, “Deny them, and we have not faith – we have only a philosophy of man, a sorry thing to have any faith in at all.”
Faith, Brian. Without it we are nothing more than smart animals with a short, puny existence.
Brian:
First, sorry I attributed your comment to Ben. My bad.
Second, I could not possibly care less what the “experts” in the “proper” theology departments think. Truth does not depend on me, or them. It simply is. If we have not the core of Christianity, we have not Christ at all, and I have no hope. It is Christ that gives the gift of salvation, not Harvard, etc. And if they deny those core truths, no matter what label they profess to wear, they do not have Christ.
Let me be clear. I have no intention of participating in any way to impose my faith on this society. It would be a worthless undertaking in any case; faith must be individual and based on belief, not imposed. So, JR, if these folks are bent on gutting the 1st Am., I’m with you. I’ll fight to stop them.
However, I insist that my faith be permitted in the public square, just as your faith is (yes, your atheism is in fact faith, and nothing more).
And Brian, it is exactly this kind of intolerance that is troubling:
” . . . then your opinions DO count less IMHO.”
You decry the attempt of some to impose Christianity. Yet apparantly, given the choice, you would impose your faith on me, or at least deny me my place in the public square. You’ve answered my question to JR, even if JR won’t.
You have decided that a person of faith cannot be reasonable, and may be dismissed out of hand. That is exactly the intolerance you claim to oppose. Hypocracy? Absolutely. The only thing that is surprising is that you admit it.
Things must be slow over in butler county again. Maybe their employees need to be working instead of blogging.
I bet Ryun supports those christian lawsuits.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer
Heheh. No christian agenda to dominate ALL secular institutions?
No christian agenda to force us all to live by nathan’s narrow minded beliefs?
No christian agenda to put guys like gmc in charge of YOUR life?
Heheh. There is even a name for it. Google “dominionism”.
Or for the fact challenged, let me help out.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007719.php
I support those law suits.
Forgot some things for those who can still think:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
And if you think you are safe because you are a moderate christian, read on. They want to dominate you too!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
Oh, but KFG is just paranoid and hateful. Heheh.
Unlike the dumber frogs here, I am jumping out of the pot now before the water actually boils. I think it is already too late for most of you.
Feeling the heat yet? Just sit tight. Jesus WANTS you boiled alive!
Dont forget to thank jim ryun before your eyes close for the last time.
Oops, sorry, the correct links didnt copy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html
So…. when the bushies and the neocons and the nathan type christians come for you and yours….
….I will be markedly silent. But of course, it could NEVER happen to YOU!
I cant believe all the true believers want to IGNORE ryun’s corruption. And his association with other corrupt politicians like the Christian Coalition’s Ralph Reed. You know, the one who hearts jack abramhoff and filled his pockets with jack’s gambling jack?
Jim RyunJames Ronald (”Jim”) Ryun (born April 29 1947 in Wichita, Kansas)Ryun’s commitment to fundamentalist Christian beliefs provides a foundation to the decisions he makes as a Congressman. His has spoken in tongues at at least one campaign rally.[46]
The National Journal has rated Ryun as one of the nation’s most conservative members of Congress, more so than 90% of his collegues [1].
2000 townhouse purchaseD.C. property records show that the a townhouse in the District of Columbia was sold to Ryun and his wife for $410,000 on December 15, 2000. [2] According to the Washington Post, the townhouse had been purchased slightly less than two years earlier for $429,000 by Ed Buckham’s U.S. Family Network and was used to house Buckham’s consulting firm Alexander Strategy Group and Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC.[47]
An appraiser who focuses on residential properties in the D.C. area said that the property should have appreciated at least 15% during that time, meaning that it should have sold for around $500,000. Another appraiser said that the townhouse should have appreciated “by $100,000 at least.” He said the low sale price “wouldn’t make sense at all unless there was a fire and the place was gutted.” He added, “It looks like they gave it away.” [48]
The townhouse was never put on the market; it was sold to Ryun in a private sale. Ryun said he negotiated the sale price after a housing inspector found a structural problem that would require up to $20,000 to repair. He also agreed not to use a real estate agent, saving the group a 6 percent sales commission of $24,600.
Ryun’s office released documents showing that another home on the same block was sold for $409,000 on the same day he bought his home.
Property records show the other home is on a land area about half the size of Ryun’s and is now assessed at $236,000 less than Ryun’s home, which is now assessed at $764,310. [49]
The U.S. Family Network, which sold the house, was a sham nonprofit controlled by Tom DeLay’s former chief of staff, Ed Buckham; funding to the organization came mostly from Jack Abramoff’s lobbying clients. The organization ceased to exist in 2001.[50]
Property sold to a member of Congress at substantially under market value can, in some instances, be construed as a de facto gift, which would require disclosure on an annual financial report. [51]
Here is the scoop on ryun’s little piece of the republican corruption pie.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/jim_ryun/
What a HUGE surprise
“I support those law suits.
Posted by: Nathan | May 25, 2006 at 09:48 AM ”
So there ya go. Vote for ryun, vote for tanker todd, vote for any of these holy roller republicans and you put NATHAN and his type in charge of the constitution.
Hee hee hee. Cant wait for you true believers to disagree with nathan’s direct line to god.
Ya know, you wont just be able to just be christian when he and his kind are in charge of the interpretation of the constitution.
You will have to be HIS kind of christian.
You have seen how he regards those christians who dont drink his particular brand of kookaide.
Cant wait.
heheh. and some of you are worried about the non-existant gay agenda?
heheh. Let’s see. Who is more likely to harm you and your family. My sweetie and I in a legally recognized civil relationship… or…..
nathan, outlander, hank, etc and all these dominion christians interpreting the constiution for you and your family?
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Wow, I sounded just like bush/cheney didnt I?
kfg: More like Ed about the Jews. But don’t worry yourself about being on the extreme edge. The fringes define the middle.
I’m kidding. Sort of.
Yeah outlander, we see how you have been kidding in your posts about everyone who wont bow to YOUR domination.
Please all. vote republican and put outlander in charge of YOUR right to privacy and YOUR right to manage your own life without the domination of terry joe and fred.
Please, let outlander and nathan inspect your christianity and YOUR heart before you enter the pearly gates.
And I am the one on the fringes? heheh.
Today it is me. Tomorrow? Oh of course, they would never turn on YOU would they?
Jesus wept.
kfg, you are the classic pot calling the kettle black. I am sorry that I am making personal comments, but as usual, I am defending some ridiculous accusation from you. You are always the negative one, always attacking, always cynical. You make things up about people and about religion to suit your purposes. I am sure you are a nice person in person, but boy, on paper…
“Jesus wept”.
Sigh…
GMC,
You have misunderstood what I have said. You’re entitled to believe whatever it is you want to believe. However, your beliefs carry less to no weight when they contradict the evidence which someone else can produce…belief versus evidence…one carries more weight than the other….
If you are a true fundamentalist Christian who believes in the inerrancy of every word of the Bible, and, someone like galileo proves portions of your belief system wrong, then your belief is worth less than the evidence presented by Galileo. Ditto if you believe rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, or that common descent has not happened.
JIan is entitled to his opinion that 18 million Jews control a world population of 7+ billion and the Holocaust never occurred. That opinion, however, is worth little since the weight of the evidence is so much against him it’s ridiculous.
Interesting how you “see” my intoleranc but casually gloss over your own when you ention that you don’t care what the most studied and educated clericals and theologians in the world have discovered, even proved, about the origins and meaning of Christianity.
I guess intolerance is in the eye of the beholder.
I see outlander refutes nothing, just whines about “made up”. It is all true outlander until you proove otherwise. I know it must hurt to hear the truth about you and yours.
And if we want more proof about how you and yours regard the freedom of others to manage their own lives without your domination?
“You are always the negative one, always attacking, always cynical.”
Tell the truth and you are a raving lunatic who makes up wild accusations. If the truth were not so ugly, my posts wouldnt sound so ugly either. But please, continue to deny how you and the people you support would control regard the lives of those who disagree with you.
I think I’ll just let the readers evaluate our posts outlander. If they want to vote for people who believe like you, kansas will continue on it’s “glorious” path.
BTW, how’s that working for us?
KFG,
Wow, those links posted above were pretty interesting and scary. :-{
“It is Opus Dei and that is the rumor. I do not think Brownback has ever acknowledged that.”
Brownback is Catholic?
Not just catholic, but opud dei catholic. He even attends services separately from his family.
Yeah Brian, but I’m just paranoid :)
Brian -
“If you are a true fundamentalist Christian who believes in the inerrancy of every word of the Bible, and, someone like galileo proves portions of your belief system wrong, then your belief is worth less than the evidence presented by Galileo. Ditto if you believe rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, or that common descent has not happened.”
WHAT??? And what is the reference to bats, rabbits, and Galileo about? What corner of your mind are you scurrying through? “True fundamentalist christian?” You make that assumption and attach that label, assuming it’s an insulting one. If you can attach that label, you can dismiss those persons as irrelevent. Just crazies, huh?C’mon Brian, this is not complicated, but it is important.Three central ideas, noted above. They’re not controversial, certainly not fringe. They are, as even you note, the core of Christianity. Can they be “proven,” in the scientific sense of the word? No. Can they be disproven, in the same way? NO. But you, apparantly, would relegate anyone who accepts those tenets on faith (not blind faith, of course, but ultimately faith nontheless) as irrelevent and worthy of dismissal.
In the same sense, can your faith as an athiest be proven? Again, NO. So in a sense, that puts us in the same boat. Should I dismiss your point of view as not worthy because it cannot be scientifically validated? I don’t think so.
You are not willing to give others the same courtesy? That is the very definition of intolerance.
must be lunch time in butler county
KFG
I note the sites you link to all (’cept Wikipedia, which decidedly does not have the paraniod tone of the others)have their own agenda. How ’bout what the alleged dominionists say about themselves?
But of course, they can’t be relied upon? And the “opponents” can?
C’mon. We can all point to fringes of nearly any political stripe. They’re out there, on both ends of the spectrum.
But let’s be real. Is there, within the Christian community, even the typically-identified fundamentalist community, a movement to impose a Christian theocracy on America that has any relevence or significant support? That has any more than a handful of supporters? NO, NO, NO.
If you think otherwise, yes, that’s wild-eyed paranoia.
Does the left have it’s own revolutionaries bent on imposing a socialist/communist state in America? Sure. Do I take them seriously? Do they have any traction? No, NO.
Tempest. Very small teapot.
“must be lunch time in butler county”
And your point would be . . . . what, exactly?
Sigh,
GMC, the ‘you’ was the ‘general’ you…you know..like the imperial ‘we’.
Apparently, you haven’t read too much of the Bible if you don’t know that bats are referred to as birds, grasshoppers as having 4 legs, spiders as insects, mixing two fabrics together is a sin…I’d suggest you go back and read your Leviticus.
Now, with regard to the 3 centralk ideas. The ’standard’ Christian line is that we were created perfect and immortal, we goofed and lost it (perfect and we goof…hmm), and that God punished us with death. But, in an act of good will, he promised a redeemer who would return us to our condition before the sin..perfect and immortal. That is the story, isn’t it?
Evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt (familiar with the term ??) that we evolved from imperfect, mortal life forms. Therefore we never lost anything and therefore we never needed anyone to restore to us that which we never had.
Second, HOW does Jesus’ death restore us? What exactly is the mechanism? Do you subscribe to the ‘ransom’ theory? That is, Jesus was given by God to satan to ransom the world (of course God knew that Jesus would triumph). Or do you more favor the “God’s perfection makes only a perfect offering acceptable for man’s transgressions”..therefore only an innocent, perfect, being could be a worthy sacrifice….quite a troubling motive for the act, I’d think..for an attorney. Justice is about holding those responsible for the crime accountable, at least to some degree. It should seem rather odd to you that we get off scott free while Jesus pays the ultimate penalty. I’m sure you don’t get angry with your children, but forgive them entirely when they sacrifice the innocent family dog.
The idea of a blood sacrifice should also be bothersome. God is allegedly omnipotent, all just, and all merciful. Why, then, was the blood sacrifice the only, or the preferred route to our redemption?
No, this Pauline explanation has grown long in the tooth. Jesus was an imperfect man with the divine intuition (there’s the miracle) that orthopraxy (’right action’) wins over orthodoxy (’right belief’). Jesus illustrated this often, most famously in ‘The Good Samaritan’ where an ‘orthodox’ jewish priest and an ‘orthodox’ levite pass up an injured man for fear of breaking the law, while a dumbass, uneducated, unsaved, Samaritan, does the right thing.
So now, I hope everything has become clear as mud for you. You cannot accept common descent AND logically accept the standard pauline explanation for Jesus. Of course, you can reject the evidence and believe the flawed Pauline interpretation..which makes your belief just that much more intellectual dishonesty.
the wise man will seek to reconcile the nature of his vision of God with the facts that that very God puts before his eyes.
Hoo boy ya miss a little ya miss a LOT!
GMC? Thank you for affirming? that you would stand up to keep religion from too much undermining freedom. But I am a bit perplexed that you ask the same from me. If anyone was in any way prevented from practicing their own private religious beliefs, I would be the FIRST person to have a problem with it. As I have posted, I do not deny folks their faith. I generally leave them alone about it so long as they don’t bother me or anyone else.
I need to go read kfgs links. If you haven’t you probably should too.
Brian:
You argue that the evidence of evolution, in effect, guts Christian theology?
I see no such thing. The Bible is not a science text, doesn’t claim to be one. The two are not incompatable.
I won’t get into theology here. If we ever meet, I’d be glad to go into it. But this is not the time or place, nor is that what this thread (as it has evolved) is really about. It’s whether we are willing to tolerate and accept as worthy, and at least listen to, a person with religious faith, even one which you reject.
I do not reject your point of view out of hand because you follow an atheist faith. It is worthy of listening to and consideration, even if I disagree. We may agree on some things; there is much we would disagree with. I may accept your position, I may not. But I would not bar you from the public square.
Do I read you wrong? Would you deny me the same? If so, you are every bit as dangerous as you claim the “fundamentalists” are.
“There is a way which looks right to a man, but its end is the way of death. 14:12.
“There is a way which looks right to a man, but its end is the way of death. 14:12.
Sounds like values boy
GMC,
As I said, you’re free to believe what you want, and I’d be the first to defend that right. But the foisting it on others is where i suppose we part company.
No, common descent is not the lynchpin of the argument, and you’re right, this is not the place to discuss theology, but it should be clear to anyone that the theology as interpreted by most Christians runs into some roadblocks or at least some delays in the face of what we know now versus what was known 1600 years ago. If your belief is that you’re unwilling to reconsider the foundations of your belief, then your belief is constructd upon a pretty unstable foundation. re-evaluation of old information in light of new information is a hallmark of a rational, deliberative, person, in search of the truth, or at least what we can know of the truth, wherever that truth might take him.
“How ’bout what the alleged dominionists say about themselves?”
Since I am not one of them, I do not know.
Why dont you tell us when you get a break from working on the taxpayers dime?
While you are at it, why dont you link to what gays say about the gay agenda?
Yesterday when this battle got started, I had the feeling that there was information out there about the fundamentalist agenda. I’d no idea how right I was. Those links are positively chilling kfg.
One poster said in not so many words that he supported suits trying to overturn laws as to harrassment of others on religious grounds. That being he agrees that he believes he should have the right to condemn/chastise/assault? people that his religion tells him are sinners. It’s his right under freedom of religion! This is the same poster who routinely whines that his faith is attacked. Hypocricy anyone?
Before I’ll countenance someone telling me that “God” doesn’t approve of this or that, I think I’ll oblige “god” to weigh in.
Hate to say it folks, but the God some of you seem to believe in would be more apt to get the back of my hand than my devotion.
KFG:
I can multitask!! Yippee!!
And again, your point would be . . . .what?
KFG,
Where do your values come from?
Brian,
Where do your values come from?
DD,
Where do your values come from?
JR,
Where do your values come from?
When you figure out where they come from, then we might be able to have an honest discussion.
Values have to come from somewhere.
Antoher question for you to start thinking about is what makes where your values come from right?
Hmmmm,Is the water comng up, or the ship going down?
gster,
Where do your values come from and what makes them right?
I think kfg is right upthread. You know, about how some want judgement and legal rights over anyone their religion has quarrel with?
We have one such person posting this thread. And maybe a handful of others on the blog. They warrant watching if not answering.
Cristian Dominionism may be a far greater and insidious threat than Muslims 7000 miles away.
Witness the illustrative meltdown of a poster who would make his voice that of his god in judging 5 count them 5 other posters as he DEMANDS “where do your values come from??!!” He having a perceived “divine perspective” or some other higher knowledge that gives him the self righteuosness to dismiss others values by questioning their origin. He does not ask out of curiousity. He demands with the preconception that he is right and they are wrong.
Be wary of such folk.
JR,
All I asked was a question. I didn’t demand anything. Tone is something difficult to not only convey in this blog but also read.
You seem to have no trouble jumping to any conclusion you want to though…
It appears as if “Dominionism” is the word of the week.
By the way, where do your values come from JR?
Nathan..
“Dominionism” definately is the word of the week, although it is hardly a new concept.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050501-124025-3104r.htm
Being a Christian, it is wise for us to understand what it is all about, and determine where we stand on the issue. Personally, although I am a literal Bible believer, I do NOT believe that we we should or even could “force” people to become Christians. That is the Lord’s work, and we need to be an example of what is GOOD about becoming a Christian. Sin is sin, all sin is equal, and ALL people are sinners. Only the Lord can change that. There are things about the Christian Nationalist movement that I find very troubling.
IMHO, Christians are entitled to and MUST defend their rights, but we must also be very careful not to let this “dominion” replace our love. In the same way, the anti-Christians need to heed the last 3 or 4 paragraphs of the article.
Kansassam,
I fully believe in understanding things. I was just pointing out that “Dominionism” seems to be the word of the week to bash Christians.
Nathan.. I agree. I see it on almost every thread.. amazing how every topic seems to turn quickly into Christian bashing. Oh boy… bet I get bashed for saying that!
Raptor made a great comment on the thread about WE bloggers.
Nathan,
My values come from the social experiences of my past. Some people say that these are from “God”. IMHO, they are just as easily attributed to “good manners” for social beings.
In order to live as social beings, as do ants, bees, dolphins, whales, chimps, benobos, etc., certain rules of behavior have been established over the millenia. these are necessary for group cohesion, group harmony, and, in the long run, survival. They are a kind os social contract. I’d suggesd you pick up a few books, other than those in the “Christian” section at Barnes&Noble on theories of the origin of human social interaction and morals. You’ll find that there is no need to invoke a divine personage to “give” us moral perspective.
Think of it economically. I make cars, you make shoes. We settle on a ‘fair trade’ of a certain number of shoes for a car. This settlement is amicable and satiisfies both parties (in theory) and did not require the intervention of a divine being.
Now imagine that you decide to kill a kid of mine. Naturally, my first animal response would be to kill you or someone or something close to you, leading to an increasingly unstable and untenable situation that eventually destroys us both as well as many others in our immediate circles – not a good strategy for living under any circumstances..On the other hand, if we learn to cooperate as much as we can and to settle our disputes in some fashion that is acceptable to all parties (in theory), then we come to a set of guidelines, behaviors, call them what you will, that allows us as a group to live somewhat amicably and at the same time bring the power of the group to bear on our environment…the reason societies (bees, ants, us) get together in the first place.
darn, that was me…sometimes I HATE the stupid “autofill” feature for fields. I usually catch it when it does something like this, but every once in a while one slips by.
So in your opinion values are only what a general plurality of society needs at any given time in history to stay “civil?”
If by that you mean do “morals” evolve and change over time and distance, and do they diffuse from one time and place to another and mix, then yes. We in the west no longer cut off a man’s penis for adultery and sew it into the mouth of the adultress even though this still goes on in some parts of the world…by concensus of the society in both cases. We no longer wipe our asses with our left hands and eat exclusively with our right hands. In some societies the punishment for a particularly heinous offense is to cut off their right hands…they are not allowed to use their left hands to eat from the family or communal table…works for them. Over time, they will be exposed to “modern” ideas and will in all likelihood adopt some of them both in the short term and in the longer term.
“Antoher question for you to start thinking about is what makes where your values come from right?”
What makes your values right nathan?
Oh, I forgot. Here on earth, YOU are the decider for us about what YOUR god wants us to do.
God gives free will, but nathan doesnt. Nathan knows better than god.
We have no values nathan. Is that the answer you wanted? I am quite sure it is the answer you will give.
I mean, if they arent YOUR values, they arent god’s values, therefor, they are not values.
When did god decree that YOU and brent own the term values? Damn, I HAVE to get on god’s email list. I am apparantly missing way too many directives.
Not that it matters since I don’t have “divine reaffrmation” in the form of some old book or other artifact to wave about as proof.
I guess the very best way I could define my values would be a piece I read once called “Everything I need to know I Learned in Kindergarden” Maybe someone can post a link to that.
SOMETIMES, maybe a lotta times, I think I get true Christianity better than some Christians. But since I don’t believe in God I can’t invoke him to vindicate me.
I like this part JR.
When going out into the world, it is always best to look both ways and hold hands with others.
I also like Everything I Needed to Know I Learned From My Dog.
Nathan didn’t ask me where my values come from. Perhaps he thinks I have none? (jk Nathan)
My values come from my heart. They come from spending years of living, from watching others and how they treat people, along with their reactions to how they’re treated, whether good or bad. If my values were based on religion, they wouldn’t be what they are today, and I consider them fair and loving. I try not to judge. Well, until someone steps in to judge me. Turn about’s fair play, ya know. ;)
Believe it or not, I often think I have a Puritan soul. There are things that I, personally, wouldn’t be comfortable doing, but I would never tell someone else that they couldn’t, unless they would harm someone else in some way by doing them.
I have a ‘live and let live’ attitude, but when it comes to my family and those I love, I will defend them to the nth degree. If I disagree with them, I let them know. I’ve learned to give my children my opinion and why I have it, and then give them time to form their own. They haven’t disappointed me greatly. Natural consequences have proven to be the best teacher.
We (my family and I) are fairly tolerant of others, to the point of being a very accepting bunch. But if you harm one of us physically or emotionally, you’ll wish you hadn’t. Being females, we have our ways. ::evil grin::
My early upbringing was fairly religious (father was Catholic, mother was Christian), and I made sure my children had some religious instruction, too. When they were older, I gave them the freedom to make their choices where that was concerned. Believe me, we’ve had a lot of talks about what you call “values.” I see goodness in all of them. They aren’t perfect, but they’re far from bad.
I once talked to one of my daughters when she was young about how anger and “hate” make a person feel inside. About how it’s dark when you’re thinking “bad” thoughts about someone or something, but sunshiny when everything is okay. Personally, I like sunshiny much better. :)
I’m the person who, when given more change back from the clerk than is due me, will point it out and make it right. They usually look at me as if I’ve lost my mind.