In 2000, George W. Bush made "compassionate conservatism" a cornerstone of his presidential campaign. A big part of this was the so-called Faith-Based Initiative, specifically promising new funding of $8Billion per year for charities including religious-based charities. One person enlisted in this effort after Bush became president was David Kuo, who had worked for John Ashcroft, Bill Bennett, and other socially conservative lobbying groups. Kuo's book is an account of his life in politics as a devout follower of Jesus Christ and his journey from idealism to disillusionment at the limitations of using politics to advance a Christian social agenda.

Though Kuo has sometimes been labeled a liberal by opponents because of his overt endorsement of more funding for the poor and the needy, Kuo is staunchly pro-life, worried about the deterioration of American values, etc. In his book, he makes clear his dislike for Clinton's presidency and his character just as he makes clear his admiration for Ashcroft and Bennett.

With those credentials, perhaps religious conservatives will find it easier to accept Kuo's harsh criticism of the Bush White House political machine in particular. Kuo is not writing for liberals - he's writing for fellow social conservatives, and his book is full of religious language and little examples about how Jesus has affected his life. While I, as a non-believer, may strongly disagree with many of Kuo's views on life, I did find him a reasonable guy. His book therefore should appeal to a wide variety of people.


Basically, Kuo's candid account tells how the Bush political machine uses the religious right and gives them almost nothing in return. While Kuo is delicate in his criticism of Bush himself - a man he clearly likes - Kuo also makes it clear his great disappointment when, in the end, the Faith-based Initiative turned out to be a sham, simply a political tool used to advance Bush's political agenda. Perhaps his harshest direct criticism of Bush is that he lied about giving $8 Billion per year in new funding for faith-based charities and simply pretended that existing money was "new" funding. In fact, as Kuo points out, funding for charities has actually declined since Bush took office. Kuo's deep frustration, perhaps even disgust, with the effort is obvious, despite his careful and respectful criticism.

Meanwhile, as Kuo points out, with the reductions in the Estate Tax, charities are getting even fewer private donations because estate holders now no longer need to give so much money to charities to reduce their taxes.

Kuo's basic message to social conservatives is to stop trying to use politics to achieve great social change, because politics is still politics and it can corrupt, no matter how devoutly religious the president may claim to be. People should not use religious faith as a means to some other end like achieving social change through politics. Kuo even suggests that social conservatives completely "fast" from politics for a couple of years to regroup.

Besides all of this, Kuo's book is full of amusing little insider stories, such as Jerry Falwell's disgraceful behavior at the national memorial service for 9/11 victims, where Falwell made quiet jokes and even ridiculed Barbara Bush. Kuo gives you a great inside look at the White House, too, including a different look at the personalities we might think we know (such as Karl Rove, a man Kuo also seems to love). It's really an enjoyable book as well as a book with an important message.

http://www.amazon.com/Tempting-Faith-Inside-Political-Seduction/dp/0743287126/sr =8-1/qid=1165698532/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8349396-0512960?ie=UTF8&s=books

Andrew

Nice Trash and Bash by an atheist on matters of faith.

Why would an atheist's view on faith be any different than Castro's view on freedom?

Herb

I'm sorry, Herb, what in the world are you getting at? Did you even read what I wrote above before responding?

David Kuo was not writing for me - his primary audience is ***YOU***. Presumably you would relate well to someone who is pro-life, anti-Clinton, worried about the decline of American values, and devoutly faithful to Jesus Christ? I imagine Kuo is someone I might like if I met him, but you are the one who should be able to have common ground with him. He seems to relate much of his life experience to the Bible. What else would you want in a conversation partner?

Herb, I really really think you should read this book. There's no way to fake the guy's authenticity and his candor and his obvious devotion to Jesus. He writes from the heart. And you should pay attention to his message. It's not a pro-Democrat message at all. He certainly has less-than-nice things to say about the Democrats, the NAACP, black churches, etc. Open your mind for a change and consider what this bright young man is saying.

Andrew

The gullibility of the bible thumpers is astonishing to me. If I was a bible thumper, I would be pissed to hear this. Yet, the truly faithful just ignore it and continue to live in their self created fantasy world.

"Herb, I really really think you should read this book. There's no way to fake the guy's authenticity and his candor and his obvious devotion to Jesus. He writes from the heart. And you should pay attention to his message."

Pardon my skepticism toward a book penned by someone considered among the faithful.

However, just because one says they are a Christian isn't enough to lower my guard and buy what they're selling.

A prime example is Mr. Carter. I WANT to like the guy. I LIKE Habitat for Humanity. He's a former President and would normally automatically have my respect.

However, I'm bothered with the guy buddying up to dictators and trashing his own country, the one nation willing to shed its own blood to free the oppressed.

Maybe this Kuo guy is ok. But when the recommendation comes from someone generally hostile to faith like yourself, I think you can understand my initial reaction.

"Presumably you would relate well to someone who is pro-life, anti-Clinton, worried about the decline of American values, and devoutly faithful to Jesus Christ?"

These issues are indeed important to me. Thanks for the clarification.

Herb

I am a bit sceptical too especially if the recommendation comes from somebody who thinks Christianity is offensive and only belongs in churches.

Frankly, Herb, I'm offended that you consider me "hostile to faith" just because I disagree with you on so many issues and am not a Believer myself. I'm hostile to social conservatives who want to put restrictions on MY life, on our free society, one of the things that make America a great country. That's far from being "hostile to faith." I grew up with Christians and consider some devout Christians to be among my closest friends. And I had the feeling that David Kuo is actually someone I'd enjoy meeting, and if he has a reading at Powell's I will certainly go, not because of what he said about Bush but because of what kind of a person he seems to be.

Herb, I don't question your faith or even Bush's faith, and I think you are out of line to question Kuo's faith or Carter's faith or anyone else's. You haven't even READ Kuo's book. Open your mind.

By the way, why was it OK for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan (and George W. Bush) to cozy up to dictators but not OK for Jimmy Carter to "cozy" up to them? Just wondering. Why do you hold Democrats to different standards than Republicans?

Andrew

I question Carter's own faith the way he slammed conservative Christians. It was a big insult to us and not true what he said. I have never heard of the author and I am not sure if I even want to. But I for one am not interested in some author who is determined to slam conservatives and then hide behind his own faith. I don't trust anybody like that.

I might add that it is the liberals who want to put restrictions on peoples private lives.

"I might add that it is the liberals who want to put restrictions on peoples private lives."

Explain why Dubya wants unwarranted wiretaps on anyone "suspicious" of being a "terrorist"?? Explain why the whole Mayfield fiasco happened here, under the watchful eye of George W. Bush? You want to talk about putting restrictions on people private lives!

Liberals want gays to parade naked outside of my house. Thats an invasion of privacy. FDR used wiretapping too. So did Lincoln. Why do those men get a pass?

I don't know. Maybe they shouldn't. But nor should Bush.

And, ahem, not that you will, but theres a big weird thing you said: Lincoln used wiretapping.

Prove that.

andrew sez: "His book therefore should appeal to a wide variety of people."

Would I find it a good read? Or might there be a bit too much religious bible quoting for my tastes?

Skep, I do think you would like the book. Kuo seems like a reasonable guy. His book is not full of quotes from scripture. Kuo is careful, while talking a great deal about his faith in Jesus, not to get too deep. It's basically a mainstream book with an obvious religious overtone and no hidden agenda. It's the kind of book where you can respectfully disagree with the author yet still see his point of view.

Andrew

I know he would. That author seems liberal enough.

Lincoln used wiretapping.

Where did you hear that?

Didn't you know Thomas Jefferson had a thing for fast sports cars? Hitler was a big fan of CNN too.

King Tut wrote " Jesus Loves Me, This I know." and is actually Ben...or is it Jerry? I forget. He is also to blame for Y2K computing errors.

I thought it. So it must me true.

I think Wayne meant wire-trapping...those damned liberal rabbits.

I have read only excerpts from Kuo's book. I believe he is a person of integrity even though I may disagree with him on some spiritual issues.

Christians disagree all the time. I attend a Presbyterian church. When the Presbyterian Church was being formed here in America, by-laws and protocol were put into place so when disagreements happened there was a way to work through them and a place where people could be heard.

Some church historians believe that it was the Presbyterian Churches protocol that was used to form much of our government’s protocol. Christians can disagree but still respect each other. Even the Disciples had disagreements….it’s only human.

Herb-I have shared my faith and Christian belief on this message board many times and I have never felt any hostility from non-believers. I don’t presume what I believe is what everyone else should believe. Faith is personal but rarely private.

From what little I have read of Kuo’s book I believe he is being honest, and maybe that’s the hardest part to accept. How could a conservative Christian in the Bush White House criticize this President?

Herb I would ask that maybe you should step back just a bit a try and see the bigger picture. I know that has helped me when I have been criticized.

"Herb I would ask that maybe you should step back just a bit a try and see the bigger picture."

That sounds reasonable.

"I don’t presume what I believe is what everyone else should believe."

That does not.

Here's why:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12

Otherwise, the inoffensive version of Christianity would be fine.

But it isn't and we're clearly told so.

Herb

So you think.

From where do you derive YOUR beliefs, reinstate?

The spin starts here.

Herb

Atheists
Castro
Nixon
Bashing Christians
Leftists
Pinko
Commie
SPIN
SPIN
SPIN
SPIN ON

Have we all grown tired of these words???

Trixter, you are slipping HUGE MAN!

You forgot socialist!

I derive my beliefs from my life experience.

I derive my beliefs from "faith" Herb just like you do. I don't have or need proof for what I believe - it just feels right to me.

Andrew

My belief comes from faith and not from proof also. The proof I need comes from the Bible.

Kuo dares to be honest. That's what pisses off the Herbs and Waynes of the world. They will believe what they want, truth or no. That's why the right panders to them.

"The proof I need comes from the Bible."

Touche' Wayne!

Herb

“Tempting Faith” is a relief. We now know that all dire warnings about the Bush Administration trying to make America into a theocracy are NONSENSE. The Christian Right have really been dismissed and patronized.

No we are alive and well thank you. I think one has to realize that the left in America doesn't have the corner on honesty. I have seen plenty of dishonesty from them. Why is it that leftists never want to admit that they are leftists? One would expect that the book in question would be appealing to the leftists. It probably is a put down of everything that right wingers stand for.

Author: Aok
Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 3:31 pm


Kuo dares to be honest. That's what pisses off the Herbs and Waynes of the world. They will believe what they want, truth or no. That's why the right panders to them.

----

Right wingers can be honest too. Liberals don't hold the corner on honesty. They never admit they are liberal.

You guys are so gullible...

As a Christian who was saved by and loves Jesus, I am offended by people who use Bible quotes to support their own human opinions. That's a misuse of scripture.

God gave us all different stuff to work on in our lives.

Stop using the Bible as a weapon, and look for what God is telling YOU to work on about yourself.

As a Christian you have to believe in the Bible, Sutton! The Bible is our authority when it comes to what God is saying to us. The thing we can't do is go by our feelings because feelings can deceive. We have to go by what God has written down. I am sure Jesus would say the same thing.

As far as you know.

I think Sutton has a better take on things.

Not if he doesn't believe the Bible. Does he believe in the Bible at all? Remember Jesus said "Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter my kingdom but whoever does my Father's will."

Read Sutton's post again, Wayne, and think about it for oh, say, 30 seconds.

Then maybe you should delete your "exhibit A" directly above.

Unbelievable!

The things Jesus said ... like his two greatest commandments (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Love God with all you got" and "as far as your love goes, let there be no difference between yourself and other folks" ... were all geared towards fixing what was ungodly about each of us as individuals.

If you recall, the people Jesus hated most were the Pharisees, who acted all holy and full of themselves, and judged others as less than themselves. They were all about the rules and not at all about love.

Jesus was all about antiestablishment, unselfish love.

There's no place in the Bible where any divine authority says, "Yo, people, I'm busy, so YOU start measuring others against the standards I'm setting up!" No, it's all about trusting in God and working on your own stuff. That is, measuring yourself against the standards that God sets up.

See, you can't force others to change, but you can decide (bit by bit) to give up your own selfish will to do things God's way. That's why quoting the Bible to criticize others is like peeing on God's feet.

Jesus didn't hate the Pharisees. What he told them is that they were wrong to be such hypocrites. But he loved everybody. If Jesus was "antiestablishment" why did he tell us to "render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods?"
Nobody is forcing anybody to change. But the Bible is our authority here. If we want to follow Christ we have to obey the Bible.I think the problem you may have with the Bible is that it is in fact God's way of communicating himself to man. If one is uncomfortable with what the Bible says thats his problem not God's. The Bible is more than a book. It is supposed to encourage the downtrodden and make uncomortable those who think they have all of life's solutions themselves.
so let me ask again: Do you believe in the Bible? I don't see how someone who says he is a Christian can deny how important that is.

Author: Mrs_merkin
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 5:32 pm


Read Sutton's post again, Wayne, and think about it for oh, say, 30 seconds.

Then maybe you should delete your "exhibit A" directly above.

Unbelievable!

----
I think you should try reading the Bible, Mrs. M

I think I like reading Sutton's posts.

And you're almost the last person on Earth who I'd take advice from.

Are Herb and Wayne modern day Pharisees?

There has never been anyone who was more anti-establishment than Jesus. What he said during his time on earth about how to act and treat others was more radical than anyone else before him and most people to date.

OK, he didn't hate the Pharisees. But he did more than tell them things. He scorned how they acted. If he didn't hate them, we saw how angry the Son of God could get about their behavior.

Hey, if you go back and read the book of Matthew around that famous quote you use, you'll know that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into saying something about paying taxes to Rome that would either show he wasn't the ultimate authority ... or say something that would allow the powers that be to persecute him.

So his powerful-yet-diplomatic statement about rendering unto Caesar could be interpreted as saying that we should keep government and faith separate.

Or, perhaps I'm wrong about that. But that's my point: you can't assign your opinion to God's words. If you stop and think about them long enough, you can often find other meanings that God might have had in mind. And the incredible thing about the mind of God is that it is inevitably far more powerful and works in more dimensions that our minds do.

Maybe not "modern", but "currently practicing" applies.

Author: Reinstatepete
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 6:42 pm


Are Herb and Wayne modern day Pharisees?

No Pete, the Pharisees rejected Jesus didn't they? Herb and me both believe in him.



Author: Mrs_merkin
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 6:42 pm


I think I like reading Sutton's posts.

And you're almost the last person on Earth who I'd take advice from.

------
Don't take my advice read what the Bible says!

Paying Taxes to Caesar Luke 20
20Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

23He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

25"Caesar's," they replied.
He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

26They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
-----
This doesn't look very anti-establishment to me Sutton.

So his powerful-yet-diplomatic statement about rendering unto Caesar could be interpreted as saying that we should keep government and faith separate.
-----
I don't see that anywhere in the Scriptures Sutton. Jesus stood before Pilate did he not? Wasn't he part of the government? wasn't Jesus crucified by the government? I think so.

Considering that Rome was ruled by an emperor who was considered a God, what Jesus said was just this side of blaspheming Rome's state-sponsored religion.

Then why was he crucified? He should have led a revolt against Rome if he was against Rome's government. But he did not. Romes government was pretty evil if you remember.

Wayne, what he lead was a revolt against powerful men acting as God and focused on our ability to have a personal, one-on-one relationship with God.

If that's not a revolt, I don't know what is.

No, it's not a revolt in the usual sense of the word. In Jesus-style, it's more powerful than that!

WW...
You should REALLY take Suttons advice... It might do you some good....
You don't see me spouting off about scripture there or how I was saved in 87'.....
God knows I BELIEVE in him! He knows what is in my heart and I DON'T need everyone to know it!

You need to take the Bible's advice and forget about what either Sutton or myself has said. You say you believe? You do well. The devils also believe and tremble.

That might be why you believe so well....

Author: Sutton
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 7:13 pm


Wayne, what he lead was a revolt against powerful men acting as God and focused on our ability to have a personal, one-on-one relationship with God.

If that's not a revolt, I don't know what is.

No, it's not a revolt in the usual sense of the word. In Jesus-style, it's more powerful than that!

-----
With all due respect I couldn't disagree more. He could have called 10,000 angels to free himself and then what you said might have been true. But how could the prophets of old have been fulfilled if he had done that?
Maybe we need to define what we mean here. Jesus certainly did say some things that were different than what people were used to hearing. But if you remember he addressed the fact that many of the Pharisees had taken the Scriptures and rewritten them so that the whole point of them was lost. What Jesus did was remind them of what Moses wrote and that somehow they had gotten away from that.

"You need to take the Bible's advice and forget about what...(I have) said.

Exactly.

Wayne, shut the hell up and let the rest of us stay on the topic. Take your little "I-know-what-God-said-more-and-better-than-Sutton-does pissing match elsewhere, OK?

(And Sutton, I'm enjoying your reasonable, non-judgemental posts)

Nice foul-mouthed, ham-fisted, mean-spirited verbal attack there, Mrs. Merkin.

You sure dish it out really well.

And the topic is regarding faith?

Herb

Herb, which one of your heros do you think had the more foul mouth: Richard Nixon or George W. Bush? Both have been known to swear like sailors and Nixon can be heard doing so repeatedly on his tapes.

Andrew

It's a fair question.

God bless Mr. Nixon, but I don't defend it from him, either.

Herb

Yet you ridicule Mrs. Merkin for some very PG-13 language while Nixon and Bush spoke/speak far worse? Herb, how much more of a hypocrite could you be?

Andrew

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote.

I don't defend it from Mr. Nixon, either.

And the snide viciousness pointed at Wayne makes me want to defend him all the more.

Leave the guy alone and you might be surprised at what could happen. Keep baiting him and things aren't likely to change for the better.

Herb

Defend on, Herb, Wayne will never, ever change for the better, it's only getting worse.

No matter how people here respond to him; beyond the exasperation and eye-rolling he so richly deserves by his own hand, we've seen kindness, attempts at understanding him, a few agreements, huge lengthy explanations that took a long time to write, hard facts that have been dumbed down to the very basics for him, and so many "easy outs" for him, and it makes absolutely no difference to him. His tunnel vision (he thinks it's dedication) is not admirable. And he can't even apologize when the facts prove it and he's 100% dead wrong.

I realize Wayne's views here may be in the minority [like mine], but how about treating him like you would your kid brother? At least that might remove much of the venom.

Herb

Author: Mrs_merkin
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 9:22 pm


"You need to take the Bible's advice and forget about what...(I have) said.

Exactly.

Wayne, shut the hell up and let the rest of us stay on the topic. Take your little "I-know-what-God-said-more-and-better-than-Sutton-does pissing match elsewhere, OK?

(And Sutton, I'm enjoying your reasonable, non-judgemental posts)

----
Thats funny I thought this was the topic. And the Bible forbids comparison among Christians.

Then stop trying to argue with Sutton!

And Wayne, you have compared yourself to other Christians here about 6,000 times. Hypocrite!

Whew!!

You guys feel better yet?

Sutton: Enjoy your posts as well! Keep 'em coming.

Author: Mrs_merkin
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 11:14 pm


Then stop trying to argue with Sutton!

And Wayne, you have compared yourself to other Christians here about 6,000 times. Hypocrite!

----
At least I am one, whats your excuse, Mrs M? Why can't you believe in God?

"Hypocrite!"

"At least I am one"

Wow Wayne, you really ARE making HUGE leaps lately.

Waynes_World says:

Jesus certainly did say some things that were different than what people were used to hearing. But if you remember he addressed the fact that many of the Pharisees had taken the Scriptures and rewritten them so that the whole point of them was lost. What Jesus did was remind them of what Moses wrote and that somehow they had gotten away from that.

-----

It's hard not to read the Bible and not get overwhelmed; some people spend a lifetime studying it, and still don't run out of things to ponder.

If you've found a way to make Christianity work that gets you closer to God, then (IHMO) that's a blessing in your life.

However, for myself, I see Christianity as more than Judaism 2.0. It's more than refocusing people on what the Old Testament said. This is not to dis Judaism, which is indeed the foundation of Christianity. However, what I read in the New Testament says to me:

What was then is then, what was now is now. The rules have changed. There's a new sheriff in town, and he's the Prince of Peace, offering a chance for everyone to have a 1:1 relationship with the divine.

It's not just continuity ... yes, Jesus may have come to fulfill the promises made in the Old Testament ... but with that, there was a radical overthrow of the spiritual possibilities open to people. Everyone. You. Me. Everyone.

I'm going to go back to living my life now instead of just preaching it.

(btw -- Reinstatepete and mrsmerkin -- thanks for the kind comments on my earlier posts!)

What Jesus did was to make himself as the way to access God. Jesus was the fullfillment of the Old Testament law. he said so himself, remember? He said that he didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. I think living a life is a very effective way or preaching the gospel. Of course the liberals will spin that one too and say that only those they agree with can live that kind of a life.

By the way the only reason those compliments were made at all was to show up me. I don't think they were sincere.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:12 am


"Hypocrite!"

"At least I am one"

Wow Wayne, you really ARE making HUGE leaps lately.

-----
Let God worry about me. Why don't you believe?

"FDR used wiretapping too. So did Lincoln. Why do those men get a pass?"

The wrongs of the past do not justify the wrongs of today, Wayne,or would you prefer women did no have the vote (as they did not in Lincoln's day) or Blacks did not have civil rights (as they did during FDR's day)

Wayne asked - "Let God worry about me. Why don't you believe?"

Why don't I believe what?

That Jesus died for you and wants to be your savior. Remember you asked!

Author: Radioblogman
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:54 am


"FDR used wiretapping too. So did Lincoln. Why do those men get a pass?"

The wrongs of the past do not justify the wrongs of today, Wayne,or would you prefer women did no have the vote (as they did not in Lincoln's day) or Blacks did not have civil rights (as they did during FDR's day)
-----
Blacks have civil rights because the Republicans voted for the bill that LBJ pushed in 64. Why did the Dems vote against it? Also did you know that if Lincoln didn't use wiretapping we would still have slaves today? Don't tell me that the past doesn't affect the present.

"Also did you know that if Lincoln didn't use wiretapping we would still have slaves today?"

Really? If traditional conservatives had their way, blacks would still be slaves.

Conservatives help free the slaves. We voted for the civil rights bill. The liberals voted against it, including Al Gore's father. Did you know that Clinton's mentor is segragionist William Fullbright?

The GOP is the racist modern day party.

http://feedback.pdxradio.com/show.cgi?tpc=2186&post=158663#POST158663

I guess I have to point it out AGAIN to Wayne.

Point out what? You show that you and Pete have very little tolerance toward anyone they don't agree with. The Democrats voted against the civil rights bill of 1964.

Do you want a shovel so you can dig that hole in the sand deeper to stick your head into?

I have several in the shed. I'll loan all of 'em to ya.

Lets see. The topic was about "tempting faith" originally. Which really is about tempting conservatives.