Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., apologized in June for a campaign staffer who forwarded an e-mail questioning fellow presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion. Now it is Brownback who has had his faith challenged. A church pastor who supports former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sent a letter that, according to the Catholic League, urged evangelicals in Iowa to vote for Huckabee and that disparaged Brownback’s Roman Catholic faith. The supporter has now apologized and said that if Huckabee drops out of the race, he would support Brownback.
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
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
119 Comments
It used to be that a candidate’s relationship with his creator was his own business. He was elected to represent the people in his district, state or country, not his church. Now we have to fear that if elected, a candidate will turn his office over to the prejudices of his faith.When Kennedy was running, he was able to assure the voters that policy matters would be decided by him, not the Vatican. Now that the various churches have involved themselves in the influence of matters of state, can any candidate assure his constituents that they will be adequately represented even though they may not share his particular religion? Can he reassure his Mennonite voters that they can be represented by a Catholic President? What about the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Agnostic voters? Can they be reassured that their rights and freedoms will not be trampled by a Christian majority? It’s becoming less likely by the day as this once-free nation grinds its way to theocracy and another religious war.
Amen Jed
Jerk the SOBs tax exemption; a CLEAR violation. My wife is a minister of a liberal church and doesn’t even dare put a bumpersticker on her car. She could get fired for it.
Religion in politics. Gotta love it
RON PAUL 2008
Huckabee is far more entertaining to listen to than Brownback. However, entertainment value is not the way we elect Presidents is it.
Wait…there was that other Arkansas Governor that got elected for entertainment value…
…you know, what’s his name.
Maybe, just MAYbe, thats why Jefferson was so blasted American as to suggest that a wall of separation needs to exist between Church and State??? And not what this bozo President has done with his ill-founded “faith based initiatives” ???
Door King>>> Interesting notation here…
“My wife is a minister of a liberal church and doesn’t even dare put a bumpersticker on her car.”
Does this indicate that your wife doesnt support the liberal views of her congregation?? I am not clear what you mean here…
“faith based initiatives”
Care to list a few Chas?
Hilarious to watch Sunni/Shia-style sectarian conflict breaking out between the Fundos and the Catholics and the Mormons.
That’s what the Repukes get for boasting that they’re the “Big Tent” party. Evidently, they need a bigger tent.
Hilarious to watch CF2K to make analogies that don’t even make sense as the Muppet Blogger applies Middle Eastern values to American politics and Christianity.
Big Tent Party?
Perhaps we should start calling the Democratic Party the big Bordello Party? I mean they’ll accept any customer day or night and only ask for cash in advance.
Sen. Sam Brownback: A kid with a loaded gun.
Cut-off the funding today.
Great. A church pastor can now make national news by sending a letter.
Another non-story by a media that apparently has nothing worthwhile to write about.
Chas, why don’t you write a letter? I know for a fact that you can make people mad. Who knows, maybe you would go national too. :)
Here we go again. Poor persecuted majority christians. And sammy disparages mormons, and huckabee hollars about catholics and they all RUSH to kiss up to the evangelicals.
Heheheheheh. The repukes wanted the wingnut votes and they got ‘em. Which must surely be an example of “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it”.
Sectarian religious conflict.
They’re not just for Islam anymore.
And once again, listen to these guys SQUEAL like stuck hogs everytime someone DARES to criticize their religion.
They have a foot stompin’ hissy FIT whenever anyone dares to even question, much less criticize their religions.
What would they do if a foreign country came here and occupied their real estate and tried to force them to conform to THEIR religious dogma?
No wonder we are regarded the way we are in the Middle East. Just look at how sensitive these guys are and IMAGINE if they had to trade places with those facing REAL religious persecution.
walk on by…
The anti slavery movement began in churches. Anti-slavery leaders realized in order to outlaw slavery they had to work within the political realm. The Civil Rights Movement was born out of churches. And eventually impacted politics. In Nazi Germany, Lutheran Pastor Dedrick Bonhoffer was hung because of his outspokenness against Hitler. History is replete with ordinary and extraordinary christian’s decisions to organize and make there voices heard when they see
a social wrong in government.
I am, what is considered a christian conservative, or christian right. I have heard Pastors speak, from what I would lable as politically left.Proudly that before Roe.V Wade was the law of the land regarding abortion, part of their churches ministry was to take women for abortions into Mexico. I,however do not agree with those Pastors regarding abortion! One pastor in particular teaches in his church that a pregnant woman at full term is not carrying a baby. That it is a fetus until birth. Agnostic’s, and other non-christian religous people living in America have always been and continue to be outnumbered by people of christian faith. And, the right, left, or somewhere in the middle, christian people of faith have and always will impact the social course politically in our country.
NDH,
In each case, the social movements you speak of began in progressive churches rather than reactionary ones. And in each case, reactionary–that’s ‘conservative’ churches–stood in the way.
It’s “Dietrich” Bonhoffer, by the way.
The many Catholics I know who are anti-Brownback are NOT anti-Catholic.
Hey CF; what defines a “progressive” church? Are Baptist churches progressive? Then what were they doing in the anti-slavery movement.
Unless you are going to define “progressive” as those who are anti-slavery. In which case, not such good logic.
CF
“In each case, the social movements you [NDH] speak of began in progressive churches rather than reactionary ones. And in each case, reactionary–that’s ‘conservative’ churches–stood in the way.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that’s true, CF, doesn’t that show that in fact the concern of many here isn’t that religion is involved in political issues, but that religious conservatives are involved?
When democratic candidates use black churches as “pulpits” for campaigning, I don’t hear screaming from the left; trotting to those churches for endorsement is de rigueur for democratic candidates. King’s political movement, for example, began in, was organized from, and was driven by churches.
In fact, it seems, the complaint of the left here isn’t about religion in politics, but religious CONSERVATIVES in politics. Religious “progressives” (liberals) you like just fine.
In other words, this is not a pricipled stand, just a partisan/ideological one.
What’s good for the goose . . . . .
Outlander,
In the 19th century, Northeastern Free Baptists would have definitely been considered “progressive,” over against, say, Southern Episcopalians and Presbyterians.
21st Century Southern Baptist churches are decidedly reactionary and regressive. And they stood in the way of civil rights for African-Americans. Here’s a stat from Wikipedia:
“A survey by SBC’s Home Mission Board in 1968 showed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit Americans of African descent.[4]”
To be fair, the SBC has since gone on record as renouncing its racist past.
What defines a progressive church? How about, one that promotes the emancipation and full social and political equality of all persons, regardless, that rejects all forms of scapegoating and persecution, and that strives for a conception of the Kingdom based on social justice?
Perhaps we should start calling the Democratic Party the big Bordello Party? I mean they’ll accept any customer day or night and only ask for cash in advance.
Posted by: Kansas
Again, we find Kansas’ mind in the gutter. This is so typical of you holier-than-thou Conservative Republicans.
It is no wonder Republican candidates are throwing mud at each other’s religion. That is what religion does – it divides. The majority of American voters decided in 2006 to throw the ‘christian’ bums out of office. That should be a clue as to what 2008 will look like.
If Republicans don’t care if their candidates use churches to spread their propaganda, then why pounce on the Democrats using their black churches?
Are the Republicans arrogant enough to actually think they are above the rules? I know they like to use the victim label alot.
If Republicans don’t care if their candidates use churches to spread their propaganda, then why pounce on the Democrats using their black churches?
.
Posted by: fred | August 02, 2007 at 09:20 AM
Let’s see if we can clarify:
If the Democrats don;t care if their politicians go to black churches to pontificate and propagandize, why do they care if the Republicans do the same?
The majority of American voters decided in 2006 to throw the ‘christian’ bums out of office. That should be a clue as to what 2008 will look like.
Posted by: kate | August 02, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Wow. what a narrow view of the election. I thought it was because of Bush and Iraq? Liberals told me so.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Senator Sam Brownback says if the U-S pulls out of Iraq too quickly, soldiers will have to return to — quote — “clean up an even bigger mess.”
…. so pretty much he’s saying is if we pull out too soon, we’ll have a big mess to clean up. Who knew Senator Sam could be so nasty?
Farmgirl?
Just when, exactly, has the United States done this??:
“What would they do if a foreign country came here and occupied their real estate and tried to force them to conform to THEIR religious dogma?”
Thanks for the spell check on Bonhoffer! For the gay marriage supporters who write comments(1 in particular comes to mind)Is it okay that liberal “progressive” churches support gay marriage, and political changes in the law?
If so,from where does their teaching come?
It is possible to love as Jesus taught. The Samaritan women that met Jesus at the water well was considered lower class to most of society. She was amazed that Jesus would remain at the well and even speak to her. He pointed out that she had been married many times and the man with whom she was currently living was not her husband. She accepted the message of God’s love thru Christ. When she was departing He didn’t tell her to go back and continue to live as she had.
Support of Gay Marriage IS not the same as Civil Rights for Blacks!! If a gay person is harmed, they have the same protections under the law as every American. They have not been denied voting rights. The Gay marriage movement started using churches, and comparisons to Black Civil Rights as a means to change the definition of marriage.
I’m afraid of anyone using their religion as the foundation of their campaign promises.
Gay marriage is the same as blacks being able to marry whites. It’s their right. So it’s either take marriage back to a religious ceremony where the state isn’t involved, or put it into the state’s hands where religion isn’t involved and call it a civil union for anyone.
Gay marriage is the same as blacks being able to marry whites. It’s their right.
Given where?
I don;t recall anywhere in history that this was a “right” or was condoned and officially sanctioned by any state in history.
Now, 75% of the people in Kansas has spoken. I would suggest that they did so because they believe that homosexuality is a choice. And that if you choose a radically differrent lifestyle, you have to accept the consequences, meaning no government sanction.I however, believe that there is no compelling reason to not give sanction to gay marriages. It is no threat to either the state or it’s citizens. As a proponent of limited government, they should sanction gay marriage. No real reason not to. However, I would not necessarily think it was a “right” to be certified, but that is quibbling over details.
This particular thread is interesting because most of the comments are based on false beliefs and false pride — on the LEFT!
The left sanitizes history to make themselves feel better.
Yes, the “Right” tries to do that, too, but the liberals in the press and in academia don’t let us get away with it, to the same degree!
The left is Progressive?
Well, lets pop that myth right now:
Women’s sufferage and civil rights for Blacks were OPPOSING views, to many, many people. Yes, some good, decent people supported both goals, but it is simplistic to think that all of our “progressive” movements were motivated by high principal, alone.
Women’s suffrage, or “Votes for Women” — was seen as a way to offset the Black MALE vote, by the racist KKK, and MANY others.
I invite you to read Kathleen Blee, “Women of the Klan” or “Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement”
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Organized-Racism-Women-Movement/dp/0520240553
http://www.mens-network.org/klanwomen.html—–
Anti-liquor laws were primarily anti-Catholic in nature. The “Know-Nothings” portrayed in “Gangs of New York” were racists and very Democrat in political views, even just PRIOR to the Civil War. The North “Won” the Civil War, in large measure, but “enslaving” poor Irish, right off the boats, putting the IRISH in Blue uniforms, and sending THEM off to fight the South.
The “Women’s Christian Temperence Movement” was very intemperate, what was that Wichita Woman with the AX’s name? Anyway, that movement was understandable, since alcoholism was a HUGE problem at the time. (And I admit that Catholics should do more to guard against alcoholism.) But the anti-Catholic roots of the movement can’t be denied.
I can’t find ANY statements, at the time, that said these religious women had NO RIGHT to impact politics, can you? So — Historically, CHURCH HAS ALWAYS HAD AN IMPACT ON STATE!——The NORTH had the HIGHEST level of Klan activity, in the 1920’s. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana were the strong-holds, of the Klan, in that period. These States also had some laws against the hiring of Catholic school teachers, etc. So, YES, abuse of religious people has always been a problem. The Constitution HAS protected many religious people from OBVIOUS violation of their rights.
The NORTH had some of the bloodiest protests against forced-bussing. Boston and New York and Detroit all had more riots than the South. That was more recently.
My point, with the NORTHERN KLAN info, is to dispel the myth that Democrats are the champions of civil rights, and that the South is the heart of racism. Most of the big-city Klan activity, from the 1920’s forward, was DEMOCRAT activity. In many cases, the Klan leaders and the Democrat leaders were the SAME people.
The “KKK Act” was written to protect “Catholics, Negroes and Republicans in the Reconstruction South.” The DEMOCRAT PARTY was the historical champion of slavery.
During EACH of these periods, a VERY healthy debate between religious views took place.
“‘Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.
John Adams had FAR more to do with the Constitution than did Thomas Jefferson, who only wrote the “Danbury Baptist” letter, meant to dispell fears that there would be a declared, NATIONAL religion. Jefferson was in FRANCE, as Ambassdor, he had NOTHING to do with the Constitutional debate at all. Adams actually had a hand in DRAFTING the Constitution.
Also, most STATES had official STATE Churches, even after the Constitution was ratified. Those relationships lasted for decades after ratification. Most STATE Constitions recognize God.
Church has a DUTY to inform the STATE, and our leaders. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the Church from voting based on conscience:http://home.earthlink.net/~acts20.24/forbes.htm—-
My Point?
Religion has a DUTY to speak out on political matters.
Religion has ALWAYS shaped our laws.
Religious views can be WRONG, but in our system, the answer to bad speech is MORE speech.
For instance, minimum wage laws were first pushed by racist labor union leaders, as a way to keep unskilled Blacks OUT of the labor pool. I think it is interesting that modern, Liberal Churches, do not understand the racist roots of the “minumum wage”. However, I do not claim that the liberal congregations have no right to push their harmful economic views.
There is no historical, legal argument for keeping religious views out of politics.
In fact, the ONLY prohibition comes from our income tax law. Income taxes are a relatively recent issue. Prior to the income tax, churhes were even MORE involved in politics.
It is NOT a Constitutional issue, it is a TAX issue!
Tax Deductable money cant be spent on political campaigns.
Tax Exempt property cant be used for political purposes.
PERIOD!
Nothing prevents a pastor from speaking about political issues.
When a religious leader says something dumb, it is the duty of other religious leaders, and the public at large, to correct that error.
“It used to be that a candidate’s relationship with his creator was his own business.”
Really? When was this? Are you saying that an athiest could run for President at any time in America’s history, no questions asked?
And Econ101, you post a lot of stuff intended to make a point, but it irks me when someone points out ignores the fact that Dems and Repubs switched bases during the civil rights era. Lincoln’s electoral map was nearly identical to Kerry’s. To say the Dems supported slavery is to ignore the fact that the descendants of slave owners by and large vote Republican today, and the descendants of abolitionists vote Democrat.
And guess what. If you were an atheist in the 1700s, you didn’t tell anyone if you valued your life or your place in society. If you wanted to keep your seat at the table, you attributed everything to God so everyone would know not to burn you at the stake. So enough of this Christian Nation crap, okay folks?
To say the Dems supported slavery is to ignore the fact that the descendants of slave owners by and large vote Republican today, and the descendants of abolitionists vote Democrat.
Posted by: leftcoaster | August 02, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Wow. A geneologist in our midst.
The Eagle Blogs about Brownback and Anti-Catholic comments by other candidates. I’m sure readers, Catholic and others of christian faith appreciate the Eagle using that particular area of the paper to report the story.
When readers can watch the Editor, and only Cartoonist for the paper particiate, in a video, set in a church(what Wichita church was used?) mocking Brownback and social issues important to many christians. The Eagle(head Editor,Brownlee) has made it BLANTANTLY clear to readers not to expect fair editorial comments or cartoons regarding Brownback, christian’s opposed to gay marriage, and conservative Republicans. There has always been a liberal bias in Crowson’s cartoons. By ommission, no equal mocking of liberal democrat office holders or religous left activities.
It’s one thing for the paper to use the 1st Amendment protection powers as a bully pulpit. But, Eagle Editor Brownlee, has completely stepped over the line, by abusing his power of the press. Are he and Crowson hoping to get “discovered” and the video make it in national markets? John Stewart, Jay Leno, ect? It’s now offical, out in the open; no more hiding behind veiled editorials, or cartoons. Crowson and Brownlee are protected 1st Amendment prostitutes!
leftcoaster
James McClung of Virginia was the ONLY member of the Constitutional Convention who can not be proven to be a member of any church.
MANY of our founders tithed to more than one denomination.
Also,
LABOR UNIONS WERE RACIST TO THE CORE, at their founding. This is a DEMOCRAT base, for the most part, throughout our history.
You, sir, are the type of Naive liberal I was talking about.
You seem to believe that your “heroes”, throughout history, agreed with YOU on everyting!
Republican votes were higher than Democrat Votes on almost EVERY civil rights law.
The KKK ActThe Voting Rights Act.
The Northern Republicans stayed Northern Republicans. They never switched parties or beliefs. Civil Rights has ALWAYS been a Republican ideal.
Forced Bussing? That was a dumb idea, but the violent protests against it were mostly in the North, in Democrat big cities!
To say the Dems supported slavery is to ignore the fact that the descendants of slave owners by and large vote Republican today, and the descendants of abolitionists vote Democrat.”Posted by: leftcoaster | August 02, 2007 at 11:38 AM
What orifice did you pull that data from leftcoaster?
My family back in the 1800s were part of the Underground Railroad, were abolitionists and some of the first to enter Kansas because it was a “free” state.
They were also among the first to vote Republican and stayed that way until my generation which remains Republican.
Little discussed among the Democrats Econ101 is that Senator Al Gore Sr. had troubles because he got on the Civil Rights bandwagon very late.
This was also the case for John F. Kennedy who decided since the Republicans were already dealing with Civil Rights issues, he had better put it in his campaign.
KFG,
When you can figure out the difference between questioning and criticizing someones religion and the blatant lies and complete mischaraterization you make then you can talk about people crying when you do it.
CF2K,
I would hardly call a couple of people writing letters a comparison to the Shiite/Sunni conflict.
I find it rather funny watching people like you make dramatic over simplified comparisons between things so obviously dissimilar.
Econ,Women’s suffrage came about because of the abolition cause, but not for the reasons you state. It was because a few women went to the abolition convention in England only to find they were relegated to the balcony and were not allowed to speak at the convention. This so angered them that they began to look at their own subjugation. Women were regarded as chattel at that time, so they began to fight for their own rights as well as the slaves.
Do you know the building in America that has the most rest rooms? It’s the Pentagon, built during a Democratic administration and designed for segregated Virginia and Maryland in the 1940s. That was then. This is now.
And this recurring argument as to whether Democrats or Republicans are “better” at civil rights constitutes a total misuse of historical labels.
The Republic Party stopped being “the party of Lincoln” in 1964, when Barry Goldwater took up the cause of States’ Rights. In his wake, Solid South Democrats (such as Strom Thurmond, Phill Gramm, Trent Lott… there’re millions of them) rejected the inclusion of African-Americans as full-fleged American citizens and turned de facto Solid South “Demccrats” into a New Republican Party.
What JFK did nearly 50 years ago, or what Lincoln said nearly 150 years ago has little relevance to what the two major parties in America stand for today.
“Redneck Republicans,” “Socialist Democrats,” “Christian Conservatives,” “Neo-Con,” “Progressive,” “Protectionionists,” “Free Traders,” … all are labels of propagandists and all are designed to muddy the water.
The true political division in America today is between folks who think “you’re on your own,” and those who think “we’re all in this together.”
The former constitute what’s generally labeled as “conservative” thought. The latter is generally labeled as “liberal” or “progressive” ideology.
And here’s why the “liberal” thought process will always prevail: because the lessons of civilization all add up to societies that work together, knowing that individual prejudices that don’t serve the commonwealth of the whole are always doomed to failure.
Cultures, societies, cities and states, civilizations may have been born out of prejudice or manipulations of “God’s” Will, or sheer military power spun to be interpreted as Divine Right… but the people — the ordinary schlubs like you and me — the *PEOPLE* have always progressed in the history of humankind by realizing we have much, much more in common with one another than all our petty differences.
That great 20th Century philosopher of Republican Thought, Calvin Coolidge, declared “the business of America is buisiness.” That’s a far cry from the first Republican president who fought for government of, by, and for the *people.”
People of the Republic Party have decided corporations are more imporant than people. And they’ve sown the seeds of destruction of their pro-corporate ideology.
Yes, universal healthcare in America is likely to ruin the for-profit health insurance industry, just like Teddy Roosevelt’s FDA put a crimp on the tainted meat industry. A concentrated effort for developing alternatives to fossil fuels is gonna put a crimp on the oil business, just as Henry Ford’s invention ruined the thriving buggy-whip industry a hundred years ago. (There are still “conservative” laws on the books that require anyone driving a car through a town to walk ahead of it, ringing a bell, to warn the horses. That law, as with most historical “conservative” legislation, has become an absurd monument to the right wing.
Liberals will always win. We always have.
Wichiwomn
Did you LOOK at my links, to Kathleen Blee?
Here is another one:
http://www.pitt.edu/~socdept/faculty/blee.html
She had a few more credentials on the subject than anyone else on this Blog.
You are being simplistic and naive. Again, there were radical racist women who supported “votes for women” as a way to offset the Black vote.
The thinking was that White women would vote in higher percentages than Black women. The theory might have been flawed, but the theory, racist as it was, motivated many in the sufferage movement.
Grow up!
Politics is not a profession dominated by saints.
Never, ever, has it been so.
However, Politics has always been enfluenced by Religion.
Pall,The Republican party of the last half of the 19th century, the party where Robert Ingersoll, an outspoken agnostic, could make the “Plumed Knight” speech nominating James Blaine, and have schoolkids quoting it all over the country, the party of Lincoln, was a far cry from the Republicans who spit on me while quoting passages from the bible that they said supported white supremacy when I registerd black voters back in the 1960’s, and it’s even more reactionary today!
NDH,Do you have any points in your posts? Sure Christians, church-goes, and anyone else can individually support whoever and whatever they like. The distinction is that the Church, as an organization cannot be involved in politics. Its members can, it cannot. Subtle but distinct difference there.
“Econ 101″ wrote:
” …Politics has always been enfluenced by Religion.”
True.
And Religion, has a purely human construct, is always flawed.
It’s when religionists start confusing their beliefs for *God*-ness when it becomes a problem.
That is the genius of the Constitution of the United States of America. There is plenty of evidence that the Founding Fathers understood the power of Religion. The specifically wrote that no religious test was valid when it comes to how the government of the United States would be operated.
They founded a government that was not anti-Religion; it’s supposed to be non-religious. Just like it’s three-strikes-you’re-out and four-balls-take-your-base in Baseball (whether you’re a Baptist or a Lutheran), the Constitution of the United States pays no attention to your religious furvor. That’s what it’s for.
“In fact, the ONLY prohibition comes from our income tax law. Income taxes are a relatively recent issue. Prior to the income tax, churhes were even MORE involved in politics.
It is NOT a Constitutional issue, it is a TAX issue!
Tax Deductable money cant be spent on political campaigns.
Tax Exempt property cant be used for political purposes.
PERIOD!
Nothing prevents a pastor from speaking about political issues.
When a religious leader says something dumb, it is the duty of other religious leaders, and the public at large, to correct that error.
Posted by: Econ101 | August 02, 2007 at 11:21 AM”
You are exactly correct Econ (wow, I don’t write that often).
Politics and religion have always overlapped, and probably always will. The distinction many people have trouble making is that between religion and Church as an organization.
Religious folk can be as political as they want; political folk can be as religious as they want. Organizations in general can be as political or as religious as they want.An organization that has been given tax-exempt status by the IRS cannot conduct political activities. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand, but it sure seems to be.
An organization that has been given tax-exempt status by the IRS cannot conduct political activities. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand, but it sure seems to be.
Posted by: brian | August 02, 2007 at 01:04 PMA
Are pacs not 501c3s? I don’t really know. How about the Sierra CLub, which certainly gets involved in politics. Are they not tax exempt? Are all 501c3s unable to conduct political activities? I must profess my ignorance here. I simply do not know
Wichiwomn
Did you LOOK at my links, to Kathleen Blee?
Here is another one:
http://www.pitt.edu/~socdept/faculty/blee.html
She had a few more credentials on the subject than anyone else on this Blog.
You are being simplistic and naive. Again, there were radical racist women who supported “votes for women” as a way to offset the Black vote.
The thinking was that White women would vote in higher percentages than Black women. The theory might have been flawed, but the theory, racist as it was, motivated many in the sufferage movement.
Grow up!
Econ: I wish I had time to debate this with you. Alas, I do not. However, I will say that I am neither simplistic nor naive, but I do refuse to grow up. :) I did look at your links. One is a link to buy the book on Amazon, the other, a book ‘review’ by an unknown person. Review being a polite word; it was more like a rant, one which I found a bit offensive. While not an expert, and certainly not a professor, I DO have experience in this genre.No organization is without its radical members, it’s the nature of the beast. That, and I’m sure the culture of 150 years ago lent itself to irrational fear and mistakes being made. Mistakes that I pray have been rectified. The ‘review’ also states that the idealogy behind the WKKK was created by the Klan, so draw from that what you will.
However, I still believe that the intent of the suffragette movement was intended to be a noble one and not just a smokescreen for racism.
I will say that I am intrigued as to what her book really says, and won’t rely on the biased rants of someone who has an obvious axe to grind.
Anyone who wants to see how a Political debate should be conducted should look at the debate hosted by Tim Russert with Cuomo and Gingrich as participates.
The debate was civil, the questions answered were thorough and thoughtful.
I think it was called the Cooper Union Debate (a place where Abe Lincoln first was recognized as a Nationally powerful, capable and influential candidate for President.)
Littlejohn,
c3’s cannot advocate for the election or defeat of any candidate for political office. Furthermore, they cannot spend a “substantial amount” of their budget on direct issue-advocacy (lobbying, issue campaigning, advertising). The IRS has never set a fixed amount for “substantial amount,” but it’s generally accepted as 15% to 20% of an organization’s budget. Donations to c3’s are tax deductible.
PACs are regulated by state and Federal law, and are organized specifically for candidate electioneering. PAC’s can accept donations, but the givers can’t deduct them from their taxes.
Econ, After a little more research here is a more accurate synopsis of the book which is about RACISM, not the suffragette movement. I retract my statement about being curious to read it, although historically important information I really don’t relish the idea of reading about people with so much hate.
Kathleen M. Blee wrote _Women of the Klan_, which covered the 1920’s. Because readers of that work were curious about women in the contemporary Klan, she began researching her current book, _Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement_ (University of California Press). To do her work, she interviewed women members of the Klan, Christian Identity, and other organizations. This meant sitting uncomfortably with women with skinheads and tattoo swastikas, and also having coffee with women who ran homes and dressed themselves just as June Cleaver did, but who uttered vile declamations about blacks and Jews. (She found many of them by subscribing to racist mailings sent to her Post Office box; she says, “Going to the post office was so embarrassing. I’m sure they were horrified.”) She went to the group meetings, which included church services, volleyball, pancake breakfasts, and social hours, like many a harmless community gathering, but were then capped by cross or swastika burnings. She found out that many of her assumptions about the women were wrong.
Many had joined on their own, not because of a husband, family, or boyfriend. They were not seeking a hate group to agree with, but came around to racist views after joining.The attitudes of the women toward the groups they are in, however, are less doctrinal than those of the men. Some differences in belief are due to particular women’s issues. Some resent being excluded by all-male rituals of the historic Klan, for instance, or resent having to play the homemaker role that fundamentalist Christianity encourages.
All I’m saying is this is not the best source about the suffragette movement.
Good day to you….
Littlejohn and Tom
ANY tax exempt can set up a seperate PAC.
It is simple.
The “I HATE YOUR Liberal Views” PAC can be started by the conservative 501C — The PAC bylaws simply state that the board of the PAC shall be the same as the Board for the 501c3
The “I Hate YOUR Coservative Views” PAC can be structured the same way.
Keep the funds seperate, keep the fund raising seperate, and you have no problem.
Econ,
It’s a VERY VERY bad idea for a c3 to have an affiliated PAC. C4’s, which are expressly advocacy (not candidate) organizations, can set up affiliated PACs without question or scrutiny. Any church or c3 that sets up an affiliated PAC is just asking for HUGE trouble.
Econ,
Tom is correct about there being great dangers in a 501(c)(3) org establishing a PAC.
Tom and Vaughn agreed, points taken, with exceptions:
There is a TAX DEDCUTABLE Planned Parenthood 501c3, I believe, as well as a PP c4.
There is also a PP PAC.
The pro-lifers do the same thing.
In those cases, I think the C-4 might have established a C-3, for purely “educational” or charitable purposes. It is possible to make tax deductable contributions to an organization affiliated with PP, is it not?
Look at the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation.
It is possible to give to affiliates of those organizations, with tax-deductable contributions, so they MUST have a C-3, correct?
So, maybe a stand alone C-3, tax deductable organization, such as a church, should not set up a political arm.
However, a C-4 would be free to set up a related Charity or a Related PAC.
Yes, I see the dangers too, but many, many advocacy organizations have affiliated PAC’s as well as affiliated charitable foundations.
— with interlocking boards of directors, but no CORPORATE liability or responsibilty transfered from one legal entity to the other.
Econ,
Kansas Equality Coalition is structured in a way similar to Planned Parenthood and Kansans for Life; it’s fairly typical:
A c4 lobbying/advocacy org;A c3 foundation;A PAC.
If you’ve got 100% crossover (or any % close to that) between your c3 and c4 boards, it’s best that the PAC not be affiliated. You can either keep the c3 and c4 close, or you keep the c4 and the PAC close. KEC has chosen to leave our Foundation independent. While there is some crossover between the c3 and c4 boards, it’s incidental. The c4 board has no control over the c3’s fundraising or expenditures. Our affiliated PAC, however, is a standing committee of our c4, but with a separate bank account.
TomAnd — your PAC and your C-4 can “rent” the mailing list for fundraising purposes?
Econ,
Our c4 owns our mailing list, not our c3. The c3 is more focused on grants for charitable and community education work.
way too complicated for me. Gives me a headache to think about, though it probably not that difficult if I concentrated. Anyway, thanks for the info
Brian, my posts make the points I want to make! In response to other posts or an Eagle article! I’m sorry if they don’t measure up to your standards of what constitutes a point.
Littlejohn,
Headache? HAH! I have to live this crap. I keep tylenol, ibuprophen and naproxen in my desk. When I feel the pain coming on, I take two of each, and pray for the pounding to stop.
Tom, I understand and totally empathize. I’d follow the pills with a bit of medicinal alcohol, to improve their efficacy.
Witchiwoman
Blee ALSO was quoted, by Ann Carey, a free-lance, reporter as saying that —
“There was a segment of women who already had been politically active in women’s rights in the suffrage movement. But the reason they were in the suffrage movement was that they wanted to get votes for white women to counterbalance votes that black men already had. The vote was a way to preserve white supremacy, so when women got the right to vote in 1920, the Klan was a natural way to exercise their vote.”Another group was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The bulk of women involved in the suffrage movement and the WCTU were women who really had a commitment to their movement. But part of the movement was composed of people who actually had an anti-Catholic sentiment. They saw alcohol as tied to the immigrant populations that were largely Catholic” Kathleen Blee, Reported by Ann Carey, Our Sunday Visitor, March 29, 1992.
Actually, what I am trying to do is make a point here:
HUMANS are HUMANS!
I am tired of the “right wing racist republican hate group” la la la garbage.
I think it is wrong for some Christians to blame “Jews” for the crucifixion of Christ, especially since Jesus WAS a Jew.
The Crucifixion story is about pride and envy and human failures common in ALL races and ALL religions.
Likewise, I don’t like it when bad examples of our past are attributed to the Republican Party.
Republicans are human.
Democrats are human.
Americans are human.
We all fall short of the Glory of God.
Stories about human failures should humble all of us, because we are all human.
Sadly, there is a rich history of racism in the USA. The Republican Party has done much to get us past that problem.
No, we arent perfect, but we sure don’t deserve the “racist” label any more than the Democrats.
I might add that Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist. Great Democrat interest group that it is!
“I might add that Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist.”Posted by: Econ101 | August 02, 2007 at 06:44 PM
Why are you spreading a falsehood?http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-14115.htm
To the subject of Sam Brownback and some religious group not supporting him.
So what? The guy only has 1% approval rating from Republicans?What difference does loss of one more group of Americans make?
He should drop out NOW along with most of the other republican candidates with little support. The party needs to solidify behind one or two leaders NOW. We gotta fight getting names into the media. If the party does not concentrate on the leader soon, there is little chance against Clinton/Obama ticket.
And I’m trying to be nice.
Margaret Sanger admired Adolf Hitler.She wrote favorably about Hitler’s Eugenics program in her newsletter, “Birth Control Review” prior to WWII.
“We must not let word go out that we are trying to exterminate the Negro populaton”
“Human weeds”
“More from the fit, less from the unfit”
These are all direct quotes from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_98/feature.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/618http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
Cosmos, you LOST this one.
Sanger was, actually, one of the most successful racists of ALL time.
But she was STILL a racist!
My point, again, my Democrat friends:
Avoid the “racist” label, unless you have actual proof of malice, before you use that word.
Labor Unions and the Pro-Choice lobby are the back-bone of the Democrat Party.
I do not deny that both labor and “anti-labor” (anti birth, sorry for the pun) groups have well meaning people in them, today, including minorities, who did not join for racist reasons.
However, BOTH the American Labor Movement and Planned Parenthood have very racist histories. At NO TIME were these two groups heavily associated with the Republican Party.
Name an organization, with Racist roots, that is a foundation of the Republican Party, today?
Margaret Sanger one of the founders of PPH was a eugenicist and a racist. She loved abortion and birth control because it was a way to get rid of societies undesirables.
It’s no different today. Most libs support abortion as either a consumer procedure to eliminate inconvenient pregnancies that would inhibit ones social life and as a means of welfare reform in Sanger’s mold by killing minority babies.
Libs are intrinsically racist. While they look down on whites who are evangelicals, it’s OK for black folks because they consider them to be ignorant children anyway. Liberalism, the final plantation.
Also, The Eagle is one of the most bigoted rags in the state. For any member of this editorial board to talk about someone else’s religious intolerance is the height of hypocrisy. Bigots one, bigots all.
Great. A church pastor can now make national news by sending a letter.
Another non-story by a media that apparently has nothing worthwhile to write about.
Outlander 7:53 a.m.
=========================
Seems to me that a Pastor from one state writing to folks unknown in another state, urging them to vote or not vote for a candidate based on the candidate’s religious persuasion is VERY newsworthy, and should be published nationally.
That is the core underpinning of WHY we need a verfiable WALL of Separation between Church and State… as noted by Thomas Jefferson!!
As for my letter writing, it’s already been there nationally… it made a few mad, a few sad, but many glad!! ROFL!!!
Chas
You are proposing a NEW law.
You are advocating a completely different America than what our Founders had in mind.
You want a system that is NOT supported by current law, past law, the Constitution, the history or the culture of the United States.
There is NO legal problem with religious people involving themselves in politics.
Econ, you idiot!! I am not proposing a new law!!! How do you figure that applying the First Ammendment is proposing a new law??? Or doesnt the world you live in honor the Bill of Rights?? and the Articles of the Constitution, that absolutely forbid the use of religion in establishing the appointment of judiciary??
How in the WORLD do you see this as NEW LAW???? And suppose you prove me wrong when I said Jefferson himself advocated for a WALL of separation between Church and State???
You shouldnt mess with people who really know how to read history, and how to find the raw data!!! You will lose bad every time!!
Now, go back to your Reich Wing Hole in the wall, and fuss all over the leftists(meaning those who disagree with you)….
You facist PIG!!!! You and all the others LIKE YOU!!!
And further mopre, I am complaining about the Political involving itself in the life of RELIGION!!! NOT the other way around…. Of Course, religion has the sanction to call government to task when it is wrong!!! Read the Prophet Nathan, and the way he handled King David, when David like his neighbors wife, and had her husband sent to the front lines, and killed in battle!! Of course the Church calls the state to accountability…. always has, in one way or another….
But NOW…. NOW we have the Church(parts of it) wanting to RUN the country… And we have Politics, wanting to implement RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS into government….
THAT IS THE TRAGEDY, AND WILL BE THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA!!!
kumbaya Chas :D
You know 4th Reich…. IF Margaret Sanger would have been an advocate of requiring birth control for just ONE race, or even TWO races of people… you might have something… But she advocated birth control be available for ALL PEOPLE…. regardless of WHO they are, or what socio-economic group they are from….
That is a LONG WAY from being a eugenicist, or racist!!!
YOU better go back to school, and learn how to read again!!! Cause you sure arent reading something with your whole brain engaged!!! Damn nazi!!
Econ, you wrote:I am tired of the “right wing racist republican hate group” la la la garbage.
Likewise, I don’t like it when bad examples of our past are attributed to the Republican Party.
Republicans are human.Democrats are human.Americans are human.
———-And before that, I said:No organization is without its radical members, it’s the nature of the beast.———-I have said nothing about ANYONE being Democrat, Republican, white, black, or pink with purple polka dots, and yet you continue to bring up specific names of mostly liberal groups and call them racist. You say we are all humans that fall short of glory, yet demand that it be acknowledged the Republican party has no faults whatsover.
You can’t have it both ways. People are inherently good, bad, and in EVERY organization regardless of affiliation with whatever cause. Unfortunately SOME people are, in fact, racist. We should focus energy on changing the future, not trying to figure out who’s to blame in the past.
ChasTry switching to “de-caff” —
Thomas Jefferson has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the drafting or the ratification of the Constitution.
Jefferson coined the phrase, “Seperation of Church and State,” in a letter the Danbury, Ct Baptists. The Baptists were concerned about State Control of Religion.
The reasons were clear: Several individual states HAD official State Religions, at the time. NOBODY at the Constitutional Convention seemed to have a problem with that.
Candidates FREQUENTLY spoke and campaigned in churches, at the time of the Convention, and for YEARS thereafter, until we came up with the Income Tax!
YOU do not understand history, Sir.
And, again, Jefferson was in FRANCE during ratification. He had NOTHING to do with the Constitution’s drafting.
Don’t you think the opinions of those who ATTENDED the Convention, or WROTE the document, have more weight?
Adams, “Our Constitution was written for a moral and religions people, it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other!”
Econ101,
Chas is in his own little world. If you do not agree with him or see things like he does, regardless of how much proof you have, you are still wrong.
Of course the Constitution doesn’t say anything about a wall of seperation.
The 1st Amendment was written to protect individual freedoms, like the others in the Bill of Rights. It was not written to restrcit them.
Freedom of religion NOT freedom from it.
ChasTry typing “Margaret Sanger” into your browser.
You will come up with lots of quotes, lots of references to racism and Eugenics.
Sanger WAS a racist. You can not win this one. The documentation is just too overwhelming.
Also, Sanger viewed the Polish and the Irish with the same disdain she had for Blacks.
Therefore, your suggestion that she wanted to cut down on the (Catholic) immigrant populations does not make her an equal-opportunity bigot, in any way.
She was just a very successful bigot, in that most liberals consider her a hero, yet she was one of the most outspoken racists of all time!
Yes, what you said was she wanted birth control for white people, in so many words.
— she wanted birth control or forced sterilization for those she considered “inferior” regardless of color.
Econ, Nathan, your stance on birth control, and planned parenthood is quite clear… Now you can stop with your racist CRAP… Because I KNOW you cant PROVE any of your allegations regarding Sanger… except for other quotes from people like YOU who believe what you want in spite of the FACTS….
And as to the gentleman who was in FRANCE at the time of the drafting of the Constitution — That would have been Ben Franklin, NOT Jefferson…. Go get your history book out again!! Stop trying to re-write history to fit fundamentalist thinking!!
Your GREAT fallacy is here >>>
she wanted birth control or forced sterilization
BIRTH CONTROL is in no way FORCED sterilization… It is, rather, a means of controlling how many children a couple might have in a given time frame…
BIRTH CONTROL is a way for families to better manage their own socio/economic status in life… And, Sanger wanted that available to ALL people…. regardless of RACE!!!
Where you get your lunatic idea that Birth Control is a racist idea must come from somewhere other than this planet!!!
I am tired of this Reich Wing FALSE rhetoric!!! Try selling it to the Neo Nazi’s… They would love it!!
Eugenics by its original definition is racist because it seeks to identify trait characteristics and “breed” them out by selection.
Chas is arm flailing now trying to justify his defense of a racist theory and those racists like the founder of Planned Parenthood who promoted the theory of Eugenics.
A racist is a racist.
OK idiot… How can you possibly callit racist if Birth Control Available to ALL, and yet forced on NONE, is freely available to ALL!!! That doesnt single out ANY group for selected breeding, or for racial extinction, or any of that BS you refer to….
It just aint RACIST Kahn!!!
So, just SHOVE IT!!! I am tired of the Reich Wing agenda!!
Nice try on changing the direction of the topic Chas.
We were talking about your defense of Eugenics and its racist founder.
But thanks for playing.
…and also the primary promoter of Eugenics in the U.S. who also founded the progenitor of Planned Parenthood.
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.
HERE KAHN…. Show me Margaret Sanger in THIS>>>>
Eugenics is a social philosophy (sometimes labeled a “science”, a “movement”, or a “pseudoscience”) which advocates to improve human hereditary qualities. Proposed means of doing so have included but are not limited to selective breeding, encouragement and discouragement of certain types of reproductive practices, genetic engineering, and, historically, extermination of the designated “unfit”. …en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
This is NOT Birth Control… such as what was always proposed by Planned Parenthood!!!
YOU got the wrong information on Planned Parenthood… Better go get your information straightened out… Try talking to a Planned Parenthood OFFICE… or did that not occur to you???
“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
As an advocate of birth control I wish … to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation….On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
Chas. Bail out. You stepped in it and are getting your ass kicked. You lost this one BAD brother.
You know what Nathan??? Our GOVERNMENT today is still doing such things as you suggest here, when it comes to Downs Syndrome people, and others of a “retarded” diagnosis… So, does that make our government Racist too???
SOL — The Reich Wing has been bad mouthing Planned Parenthood for years… Many of them dont believe in practicing Birth Control, except by Rhythm… This is just their usual smear campaign… Most of that crap they quote Sanger as saying was long ago re-written, and now regurgitated by those who oppose planned parenthood, and abortion
…give dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.[1]
“A Plan for Peace”, April 1932, pp. 107-108
The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.
“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.
Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda”, October 1921, page 5.
Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.
“Morality and Birth Control”, February-March, 1918, pp. 11,14.
So it’s true then Chas, you support racist theories that created Planned Parenthood.
The United States in itgs origins was largely dependent on Slave Labor, for is early economic development… especially in the Southern Mills, and cotton growing areas…
Is it fair then, NOW, to say that the United States propagates Slavery as a form of controlling economy???
Of course it doesnt….
So, why do the same CRAP with Planned Parenthood???
focus Chas focusTry to stay on what is currently being discussed. :)
Planned Parenthood began as the National Birth Control League, which was founded in 1916 under the leadership of Mary Ware Dennett.
The League was influential in liberalizing laws against birth control throughout the 1920s and 1930s before changing its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in 1942.
I accepted one branch of this philosophy, but eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands. It could not stand against the furious winds of economic pressure which had buffeted into partial or total helplessness a tremendous proportion of the human race. The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.
Chapter 30, “Now Is the Time for Converse”, pp. 374-375.
So it’s true then Chas, you support racist theories that created Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: Republican | August 03, 2007 at 10:05 AM
===============
NO… do you??? You have all the quotes supporting eugenics… Maybe YOU support ethnic cleansing??? Hey, if the shoe fits, man, wear it!!
Our ‘overhead’ expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded ‘captains of industry,’ financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community.
Chapter 12, “Woman and the Future”
[Charity] conceals a stupid cruelty, because it is not courageous enough to face unpleasant facts. Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such programs would inevitably hasten, we may question its value even to the normal though unfortunate mother. For it is never the intention of such philanthropy to give the poor over-burdened and often undernourished mother of the slum the opportunity to make the choice herself, to decide whether she wishes time after time to bring children into the world. It merely says ‘Increase and multiply: We are prepared to help you do this.’ Whereas the great majority of mothers realize the grave responsibility they face in keeping alive and rearing the children they have already brought into the world, the maternity center would teach them how to have more. The poor woman is taught how to have her seventh child, when what she wants to know is how to avoid bringing into the world her eighth. …Such philanthropy, as Dean Inge has so unanswerably pointed out, is kind only to be cruel, and unwittingly promotes precisely the results most deprecated. It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.
Chapter 5, “The Cruelty of Charity”
GO NATHAN GO!!! None of your posts are going to change anybody’s mind on the present day use of Birth Control… which in NO WAY is Eugenic, or Racist, or anything even CLOSE!!
So, keep posting irrelevant S**T
Let’s face it… Brownback is just plain loser… He has NO chance of getting nominated…. His brand of religious tyranny will not fly in this country, and not many others, except for maybe those who already have it…
He is a washed up loser…
I guess Chas bailed out and is waiving the surrender flag Nathan.
Take a look at the ENTIRE thread, my liberal friends.
Brownback was attacked for his Catholic Faith. Previously, Romney was attacked for his Mormon faith.
The left, on this thread, commented that the right somehow deserved all of this, for mixing religion with politics.
The point was made that religion and politics have ALWAYS been mixed, in this country.
Then, some “right wing” type insults, towards conservatives, came up.
That is how we got to this point.
Not fun, is it liberals?
Your “heroes” don’t stand up very well, do they?
Chas,
My postings were in response to your rabid defense of the lady.
“Because I KNOW you cant PROVE any of your allegations regarding Sanger…”
“That is a LONG WAY from being a eugenicist, or racist!!!”
My point in posting all these quotes was in response to your disbelief of what Margaret Sanger actually has said and believed.
Do you still deny that she was an Eugenicist now?
yea, Nathan, and the United States was founded on a Slavery based economy, so lets still post all of those articles, and call it valid — idiots!!!
Doctors should have, should not have the permission to end the life of a terminally ill patient
Global Warming Isn’t A Threat