PDA

View Full Version : Churches being used as propaganda devices for Obamacare




LittleLightShining
08-16-2009, 06:56 AM
From a newsletter sent out by the United Church of Christ:


FAITH COMMUNITY CONFERENCE CALL WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA! Wednesday, August 19, 5:00 PM Eastern

The United Church of Christ's campaign Don't Place A Period on Health Care: God is Still Speaking continues to work in partnership with many faith groups, including the Faithful Reform in Health Care Coalition, the largest interfaith coalition of denominations and national, state and local faith organizations working together on health care reform.

President Obama has agreed to be on a call with members of the faith community to talk about health care reform. It is anticipated that over 10,000 people will participate. We need to know from you how many of your congregational members and clergy will be able to join the call. Please contact Lynn Bujnak (bujnakl@vtcucc.org) as soon as possible to report the number of people from your congregation who wish to participate or click here to RSVP (Note: in the box for "Organization," fill in "United Church of Christ").

In addition, Vermont Interfaith Action has invited us to participate in a call to get ready for the conversation with President Obama. The Clergy Conference Call, Thursday, August 13, at 3:00 PM will help us maximize this opportunity and insure that the voice of the faith community is heard and not drowned out by those extremists who would de-rail the health care reform process. To participate in the clergy call, please RSVP at: rromaine@piconetwork.org. The call number on Thursday is 866-910-2586 , passcode 264744#.

In preparation for both calls you may with to read the following: Health-care rationing vs. abundance - The truth shall set us free, an article to help diffuse the rationing attacks by placing the conversation in the context of our faith values (written by Rev. Jackson Day, a United Methodist minister and health care reform consultant to the UMC General Board of Church and Society).

But wait, folks, there's more!

A self-described Tea Party patriot in VT got this newsletter and responded to her church with this reply:


I am extremely disappointed in the information regarding the health care proposals before congress. I support good health care available to everyone and I believe that it is entirely appropriate for the Church to support that goal. But as we know, the devil is in the details. I have done my best to read the bill—I’m working my way through slowly. Apparently that is more than can be said of most members of congress. I expect that few clergy have read it either. In any case, it will serve most people’s interests if the bill could be written in English and if everyone had ample opportunity to understand and discuss it. To characterize Americans—many of whom are members of the UCC—who have genuine concerns about this specific legislation as “extremists who would de-rail the health care reform process” is un-Christian at best. Most are not trying to de-rail an open and reasonable process to reform health care—we simply do not want this particular bill passed without anyone having a real opportunity for thoughtful analysis of the provisions. It is not appropriate for the UCC to blindly back a specific bill. The best you should do is encourage everyone to find out as much as they can and follow their Christian conscience. When did the UCC decide that it knows more about God’s will than its ministers (i.e. parishioners). Shame!


Now read the response she got back!

Dear _____,

A copy of your email was sent to me, as Vermont Interfaith Action has been doing a great deal of work around health care reform at the national level, and I have the opportunity to stay on top of legislative developments through involvement with our national network, PICO, which has a very active Washington office -- and which has been working closely with the UCC, along with 24 other denominations, on health care.

As you say, having good health care available to everyone is a worthwhile but broad goal, and the devil is in the details. Well-intentioned people like yourself are rightfully questioning what is going into reform proposals and are not completely satisfied with what they have learned. I certainly understand your point of view. A few thoughts to share with you, though:

1) You may have seen in your reading that there are currently three avenues along which proposals are proceeding: the House version of a bill, and two in the Senate: one from the HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee and one from the Finance committee. The House bill has already been approved by three committees but has not gone to the whole House yet; the Senate bills are stuck in committee. Now that Congress is on recess, nothing further will happen until September.
The different versions contain different elements. I have attached a chart that summarizes them so that you can compare them more easily. Many advocates feel that the House bill has a lot of what reformers are looking for and that the Senate bills are not as good. I'm not sure which version you read, but these are all current proposals that are being considered.

2) The major goal of the current reform is to get more Americans better insurance, not to massively overhaul the entire system. President Obama and most leaders of Congress are aware that many Americans are happy with their current insurance plans, 60% of which are supplied by employers, and that they would rather not have anyone tampering with them. They would, however, like to keep costs down, and insuring the 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured would help achieve that objective. It would also obviously improve the quality of life of those who are uninsured, as would improving the plans of the 25 million Americans who are underinsured (have little coverage with high deductibles). So the current reform centers around creating more options for people to buy plans, requiring that all Americans have plans, and regulating coverage so it is more consistent and equitable (like prohibiting insurance companies from not covering people on the basis of pre-existing conditions and putting a cap on out-of-pocket expenses so people no longer go bankrupt when they contract a major illness).
Most faith-based groups support some kind of reform that covers everyone; is affordable for all Americans, even low-income individuals and families; and is financially sustainable for our nation. These are the key elements that leaders of the denominations are looking at when they choose whether to ask their members to advocate for health care reform.

3) While some people, like yourself, are mostly supportive but asking hard questions that deserve answers, there is a concerted extremist effort led by groups called "tea baggers" who are organized in disrupting town hall meetings across the country, shouting obscenities at Congress people, and shouting down the comments of supporters of health care reform. This extremist movement is hopefully not the majority of people, but they do exist, and it is those people, not the ones who are asking thoughtful questions, who are behaving in a way that many UCC clergy and lay people find unacceptable.

4) Encouraging people to do what their conscience tells them is of course a fundamental principle of the UCC and many denominations. Yet there must also be some key values that we all share that we can take a stand on: that "we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers" and that "we love our neighbors as ourselves" are two of them, intertwined, that lead many people of faith to say that we must reform our health care system so that all God's children have access to the quality care they deserve.

I hope my comments address some of your concerns and add clarity. This is an important time in our nation's history, and it's good to see persons like yourself who care enough to read and express your opinions.

Best regards,
Rev. Debbie Ingram
Executive Director, Vermont Interfaith Action

Nice! :rolleyes:

So our friend replies:

Thank you for your email. I’m a bit confused. I assume that you have personal experience with the tea party groups. Those in Vermont, so far as I know from personal experience, urge everyone to remain civil and polite. They counsel against yelling, using profanities or otherwise personally attacking anyone who doesn’t agree with them. So, I’m not sure which ones you are referring to. On the flip side, it’s disconcerting to be a citizen trying to ask questions—and be referred to by some congress people and other administration officials as “angry mobs, hate mongers, fascists, ugly old people, crazed mobs”. It also annoys me that some accuse those who dissent with being mindless pawns. Thanks again. But, please refrain from judging based on hearsay.

And gets this in return:



Thanks for your reply. I haven't had personal experience with the Vermont tea party group, so I'm glad to hear they urge civility and courtesy. The accounts I've heard are from other directors in the PICO network in other places. I just spoke with the Los Angeles director, for instance, and he said at their event on Tuesday they had people shouting obscenities at their Rep and someone brought a poster with Obama made up to look like Hitler.

Often folks in Vermont are more civilized -- smaller state, people more likely to know one another personally -- so I'm not surprised at what you say.

Thanks,
Debbie

Beware wolves in sheep's clothing.

tonesforjonesbones
08-16-2009, 06:59 AM
I guess the New WOrld Order agenda was to also infiltrate the evangelical. tones

Anti Federalist
08-16-2009, 07:32 AM
If there was any justice in the world, that would lead to an instant revocation of the church's in question 501-3(c) status.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities.

Elections
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[12] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

"Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

"On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

"The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition."

Lobbying
In contrast to the absolute prohibition on political campaign interventions by all section 501(c)(3) organizations, public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [13]

Anti Federalist
08-16-2009, 07:34 AM
But then again, the "churches" are protected, being part of the government propaganda arm:

YouTube - Clergy Response Teams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIDNQNsUss)

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-16-2009, 08:32 AM
Ah religion, the timeless propaganda tool.

satchelmcqueen
08-16-2009, 12:48 PM
well, seems churches still have the "money changers" in them like they did when jesus threw them out long ago. but yet the article says that ": God is Still Speaking continues to work in partnership with many faith groups, including the Faithful Reform in Health Care Coalition, the largest interfaith coalition of denominations and national, state and local faith organizations working together on health care reform."

wonder whos wrong here? didne know the man up stairs was pro health care reform.

Justin D
08-16-2009, 05:17 PM
But then again, the "churches" are protected, being part of the government propaganda arm:

YouTube - Clergy Response Teams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIDNQNsUss)

The clergy should not be helping the government infringe on our "God-given" rights. Hopefully, some clergy response teams come out in a crisis supportive of the rights of the people.

Epic
08-16-2009, 05:19 PM
Shouldn't religious people be against theft?

PatriotOne
08-16-2009, 06:11 PM
The United Church of Christ is certainly no stranger working with and for Government agenda's. Seperation of church and state is for the plebs. Religion (ALL religion) is just another arm of the Gov.

See bolded part........

103RD UNITED STATES CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
Joint Resolution

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_103-150

To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents [hide]
1 Section 1. Acknowledgment and Apology.
2 Section 2. Definitions.
3 Section 3. Disclaimer.


Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion;
Whereas, a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawaii;
Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
Whereas, the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850;
Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;
Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government; Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17,1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;
Whereas, the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government:
I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.
Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.
Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms;
Whereas, on February 1, 1893, the United States Minister raised the American flag and proclaimed Hawaii to be a protectorate of the United States; Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government;
Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission;
Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown;
Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy;
Whereas, the Provisional Government protested President Cleveland's call for the restoration of the monarchy and continued to hold state power and pursue annexation to the United States;
Whereas, the Provisional Government successfully lobbied the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "Committee") to conduct a new investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the monarchy;
Whereas, the Committee and its chairman, Senator John Morgan, conducted hearings in Washington, D.C., from December 27,1893, through February 26, 1894, in which members of the Provisional Government justified and condoned the actions of the United States Minister and recommended annexation of Hawaii;
Whereas, although the Provisional Government was able to obscure the role of the United States in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, it was unable to rally the support from two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify a treaty of annexation;
Whereas, on July 4, 1894, the Provisional Government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii;
Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of Hawaii to officially abdicate her throne;
Whereas, in the 1896 United States Presidential election, William McKinley replaced Grover Cleveland;
Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of Hawaii;
Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;
Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres [7,280 kmē] of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government;
Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;
Whereas, the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;
Whereas, the Newlands Resolution effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States Government;
Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
Whereas, on April 30, 1900, President McKinley signed the Organic Act that provided a government for the territory of Hawaii and defined the political structure and powers of the newly established Territorial Government and its relationship to the United States;
Whereas, on August 21, 1959, Hawaii became the 50th State of the United States;
Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land;
Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people;
Whereas, the Native Hawaiian people are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territory, and their cultural identity in accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, customs, practices, language, and social institutions;
Whereas, in order to promote racial harmony and cultural understanding, the Legislature of the State of Hawaii has determined that the year 1993, should serve Hawaii as a year of special reflection on the rights and dignities of the Native Hawaiians in the Hawaiian and the American societies;
Whereas, the Eighteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in recognition of the denomination's historical complicity in the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 directed the Office of the President of the United Church of Christ to offer a public apology to the Native Hawaiian people and to initiate the process of reconciliation between the United Church of Christ and the Native Hawaiians; and
Whereas, it is proper and timely for the Congress on the occasion of the impending one hundredth anniversary of the event, to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


[edit] Section 1. Acknowledgment and Apology.
The Congress
(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.

[edit] Section 2. Definitions.
As used in this Joint Resolution, the term "Native Hawaiians" means any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.

[edit] Section 3. Disclaimer.
Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_103-150"

CCTelander
08-16-2009, 06:23 PM
But then again, the "churches" are protected, being part of the government propaganda arm:

YouTube - Clergy Response Teams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRIDNQNsUss)

Exactly.

Throughout all of recorded history the churches have acted in the interests of the state.

This is nothing new, or even shocking, really.

Dr.3D
08-16-2009, 06:28 PM
well, seems churches still have the "money changers" in them like they did when jesus threw them out long ago. but yet the article says that ": God is Still Speaking continues to work in partnership with many faith groups, including the Faithful Reform in Health Care Coalition, the largest interfaith coalition of denominations and national, state and local faith organizations working together on health care reform."

wonder whos wrong here? didne know the man up stairs was pro health care reform.
Could be they are confusing God with the government.

Stary Hickory
08-16-2009, 09:25 PM
Yes because Jesus would support making slaves of the people.

Kotin
08-16-2009, 09:27 PM
when aren't churches used for propaganda?