When Prostitution is Called 'A Marriage of Convenience'

MEL SEESHOLTZ

David Kuo is a conservative Christian. Until 2003 he was deputy director of President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Even before his new book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction was released, fallout from the nuclear detonation – or “nu-cu-lar” as linguistically-challenged George W. would say – was being reported:

(pertinent excerpts from the book are at end of this article),

A former Bush aide claims that evangelical Christians were embraced for political gain at the White House but derided privately as “nuts,” “ridiculous” and “goofy.” … Kuo's account of how the faith-based office has been regarded inside the White House recalls that of another high-level alumnus of the program. John J. DiIulio Jr., the faith-based office’s first director, who quit in 2002, told Esquire magazine that “Mayberry Machiavellis” led by Rove based policy only on re-election concerns.

The evangelical Christian Right thought they’d finally found their messiah in George W. Bush who would lead them to the promised land of their New World Order. What they got was a screw-up who most of the world considers the greatest threat to global peace and whose domestic policies have been fiascos, failures, or both.

But Rove and Bush got what they wanted: a voting block that would support and serve them as long as they promised to work to fuel the faith-based bigotry that underwrote the good old days of the Dark Ages when Christian dogma reigned supreme and with an iron fist.

First step toward that goal: use selective biblical reading to deny civil equality to gay and lesbian Americans. After all, the Christocratic New World Order would need someone to demonize, despise and persecute. As “Mayberry Machiavellis” knew, that was also exactly what was needed to fuel Bush’s “election” and re-election campaigns. They had nothing else to work with except, as the late Ann Richards put it, a vacuous candidate “born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

As Kuo’s book documents, the Bush administration is not really happy with the fanatical leaders of the evangelical Christian Right. And as numerous posting on websites of the evangelical Christian Right document, they’re not exactly happy with George W. and his administration’s perceived “failure” to push their pro-discrimination agenda.

The flap over Condoleezza Rice’s recent comment at the swearing in of a Bush-appointed gay man as the nation’s new global AIDS coordinator underscored the Christian Right’s intolerance of anything or anyone that doesn’t totally surrender to their dour dogmatic fanaticism. It also demonstrated yet again the inevitable divisiveness and bigotry generated when religion and politics are conjoined:

The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation’s new global AIDS coordinator – a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul’s homosexual “partner,” Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire’s mother and called her Dybul’s “mother-in-law,” a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married. …



Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary’s comments were “profoundly offensive” and fly in the face of the Bush administration’s endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment…

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” says Sprigg. “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.”



Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, “it’s inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things.” He also notes that Rice’s comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. “So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner’s mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act,” the FRC spokesman states.

One blogger made the appropriate comment about Sprigg’s “henhouse” reference: “Gee, that’s funny. Bashing a fag and people with AIDS in the same breath – can the n-word jokes be far behind?”

Pastor Wiley Drake, second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention and a long-time Republican political activist in southern California, was right upfront with his ignorance and bigotry:

“I think it’s a tragedy to have a sodomite living with another man and being the AIDS coordinator,” says Drake, “because we all know that if we do away with sodomy we’d almost eradicate AIDS."

Apparently the pastor is unaware that heterosexual couples (including married ones) also engage in sodomy – “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex” – as well as the fact that HIV can be passed in a number of other ways.

Following Rice’s comments, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins asked “Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?” Translation: is our pro-discrimination agenda being rejected by a growing number of people and politicians, including the faith-based Republicans whose strings we thought we pulled?

But what really galled the Christian Right was that Dybul’s partner held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.

Why is the Bible used to swear in officials of a secular, civil government that’s based on a Constitution the First Amendment of which begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”? Shouldn’t a copy of the Constitution – not the Christian Bible – be used to swear in public officials?

While admitting he was not surprised that derisive comments were made about leaders of the evangelical Christian Right, Mr. Perkins also acknowledged the theo-political prostitution: “I see it really as a marriage of convenience. We are not without significant gains by working with this administration.”

A recent New York Times editorial titled “Faith-Based Profits” summarized some of those profitable prostituted “gains”:

Mary Rosati, a novice training to be a nun in Toledo, Ohio, says that after she received a diagnosis of breast cancer, her mother superior dismissed her. If Ms. Rosati had had a nonreligious job, she might have won a lawsuit against her diocese (which denies the charge). But a federal judge dismissed her suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act, declining to second-guess the church’s “ecclesiastical decision.” …



… the wall between church and state is being replaced by a platform that raises religious organizations to a higher legal plane than their secular counterparts.



Day care centers with religious affiliations are exempted in some states from licensing requirements. Churches can expand in ways that would violate zoning ordinances if a nonreligious builder did the same thing, and they are permitted, in some localities, to operate lavish facilities, like state-of-the-art gyms, without paying property taxes. …



… under pressure from politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only tangentially related to religion.



In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers. [italics added]

The Times editorial was a follow-up to a series of articles by Diana Henriques, two of which were titled “As Religious Programs Expand, Disputes Rise Over Tax Breaks,” and “Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books.”

“Putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers”: middle-class Americans – regardless of their religious beliefs, affiliations or lack thereof – are footing the bill. They are the ones burdened with ever-increasing taxes that go to advance Christian fundamentalism and support theo-political lobbying groups and “faith-based” organizations.

While the Republican party will undoubtedly continue to cater to the wealthiest Americans, will they – can they – continue to sodomize the Christian Right? Will the Christian Right continue to willingly take it? Can these self-righteous “moralists” afford not to continue prostituting themselves? Can the GOP afford not to be their political “Johns”?

Or is the “marriage of convenience” over?

http://www.counterbias.com

******************************

Excerpts from David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction
Published October 16, 2006


On President Bush's personal faith and its use:

"Out of the public eye Governor Bush was doing a lot of spiritual sharing. Whether he was meeting with religious leaders in Austin, or speaking to church groups, he emphasized a single thing: his personal faith in Jesus Christ….

He modeled this same approach throughout his presidency -- quietly reassuring Christian leaders and audiences of his passionate personal faith while trying to preserve a moderate public image. In so doing, he was playing the religious card more than any other American president." (pp. 124-125)

On the Bush administration's commitment to passing the faith-based initiative:

"Margaret [Spellings] listened cheerfully and said, 'David, darlin', you are doing a good job. Great job.' Then, lightly but seriously, 'But David, please. Just get me a damn faith bill. Any bill. I don't care what kind of bill. Just get me a damn faith bill.'" (p. 166)

On the administration's use of misleading figures to talk about faith-based funding:

"I was called into a meeting of black pastors from around the country. These ministers, most of them high-ranking clergy from the Churches of God in Christ, wanted to talk about what the White House initiative had done, and what it continued to do. I mingled with about twenty pastors before being tapped on the shoulder. A colleague whispered, 'The president wants to see you.'

"I headed over to the Oval Office with Jeremy White. He briefed me on the meeting so I could brief the president. I walked in to find the president prowling around behind the desk looking for something. 'Kuo! Tell me about this meeting.'

"I started by telling him that the group wanted to know about the faith-based initiative and that we recommended he talk about the administrative reforms we had implemented, and the tax credits we were still fighting for…

"He interrupted me. 'Forget about all that. Money. All these guys care about is money. They want money. How much money have we given them?'

"For two years I had bitten my tongue and toed the line. We in the faith-based office didn't speak too loudly or thunder too much. We were nice. I wasn't angry now, but I was no longer willing to lie. 'Sir, we've given them virtually nothing because we have had virtually nothing to give.'

"He had been looking down at some papers I had given him but his head jerked up. 'Nothing? What do you mean we've given them nothing?' He glared and angrily pointed toward the window. 'Don't we have new money in programs like the Compassion Fund thing?'

"Karl [Rove] was standing next to me in front of the president's desk. He looked stunned. I glanced at him and then looked at the president. 'No, sir. In the last two years we've gotten less than eighty million dollars in new grants.' I was probably being generous.

'What?! What do you mean?'

Karl looked a bit confused, too. 'But what about the other money? You know, the money we've opened up to new charities.'

He was remembering our own spin from the winter. Yes, I told the president, because of new regulations there was technically about $8 billion in existing programs that were now eligible for faith-based groups. But, I assured him, faith-based groups had been getting money from those programs for years.


'Eight billion in new dollars?'

'No sir. Eight billion in existing dollars for which groups will find it technically easier to apply. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years.'

'Eight billion. That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups. Okay, let's go.'" (pp. 239-240)

On how White House aides privately talked about prominent Christian leaders:

"Christian leaders, Christian media, and Christian writers, however, didn't dare question or challenge him or the White House. He wasn't a political leader to them, he was a brother in Christ…

"What they didn't get to see was what the White House thought of them. For most of the rest of the White House staff, evangelical leaders were people to be tolerated, not people who were truly welcomed. No group was more eye-rolling about Christians than the political affairs shop. They knew "the nuts" were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness…

"Political Affairs was hardly alone. There wasn't a week that went by that I didn't hear someone in middle- to senior-levels making some comment or another about how annoying the Christians were or how tiresome they were, or how "handling" them took so much time.

"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.' The leaders spent much time lauding the president, but they were never shrewd enough to do what Billy Graham had done three decades before, to wonder whether they were being used. They were." (pp. 229-230)

On placating and patronizing those Christian leaders:

"Rove's Public Liaison office had a religious outreach team in constant contact with evangelical and social conservative groups about every facet of the president's policy and political agenda. Leading that team was Tim Goeglein…

"He talked to religious conservatives about everything: judges, stem cell research, abortion, presidential appointments, health care, and anything else they wanted to discuss. As part of their outreach they held weekly – or more often, as necessary – conference calls to update that community on events and announcements while simultaneously soliciting their feedback. Regulars on the call were Tom Minnery, head of public policy for James Dobson's Focus on the Family; Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and head of the National Association of Evangelicals; Deal Hudson, conservative Catholic and publisher of Crisis magazine; Jay Sekulow, head of Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice; Ken Connor, then head of the Family Research Council; Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; and Christian talk radio hosts Janet Parshall and Michael Reagan, among others.

"This network of people covered virtually every area of evangelical Christianity. The calls began with an overview of what the president would be talking about in the coming week. If necessary, participants were asked to talk to their people about whatever issue was pending. Talking points were distributed and advice was solicited. That advice rarely went much further than the conference call. There wasn't any malice or negligence behind this. It was just that the true purpose of these calls was to keep prominent social conservatives and their groups or audiences happy." (pp. 170-171)

On using the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives during campaign years to help Republicans locked in tight congressional races:

In 2002:

"A few days later, Jim [Towey] and I were sitting with Ken Mehlman, head of Political Affairs. We laid out a plan whereby we would hold 'roundtable events' for threatened incumbents with faith and community leaders. Our office would do the work, using the aura of our White House power to get a diverse group of faith and community leaders to a 'nonpartisan' event discussing how best to help poor people in their area. Though the Republican candidate would host the roundtable, it wouldn't be a campaign event….

"Ken loved the idea and gave us our marching orders. There were twenty targets…. "'We can't be requesting the events [Mehlman said], we'll have to have the candidates request them. And it can't come from the campaigns. That would make it look too political. It needs to come from congressional offices.'" (pp. 201-202)

"Between June and the election we visited all twenty targeted races…. In November we celebrated 19 out of 20 wins…. The only political hiccup came in mid-September when Tom Edsall, a veteran Washington Post reporter, called to say he was working on a piece describing how Republicans were using the faith-based initiative to woo voters. He had figured out what was going on…. He was absolutely correct, falling short only by not grasping the size of his story. He had only tracked down two or three of the events." (pp. 205-206)

In 2003 and 2004:

"More than a dozen conferences with more than 20,000 faith and community leaders were held in 2003 and 2004 in every significant battleground state, including two in Florida, one in Miami ten days before the 2004 election. Their political power was incalculable. They were completely off the media's radar screen." (p. 212)

"On Election Day [2004] some of the early exit poll numbers looked awful…. I called one of [the president's] senior campaign advisers to see what was going on. 'Can't talk now, on the phone with Ohio pastors. They've gotta turn out, just gotta turn out and they will. Say a prayer. We'll get it done.' He hung up.

"Later that night Ohio turned for the president…the real difference was in a small but significant switch in black voting patterns…. Every church and charity in Ohio had received an invitation to at least two (some received three) faith-based conferences in surrounding states. More than a thousand pastors and religious leaders from Ohio attended the conferences. There can be little doubt that Ohio's success and the president's reelection were at least partially tied to the conferences we had launched two years before." (p. 252)

On use of faith-based bills in Congress as a means of gay-baiting conservative voters:

"Existing federal law permitted churches and other faith-based organizations to hire only people who shared their faith…. Now, however, staffers for Republican representatives Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert told us their bosses wanted to let organizations hire and fire based on 'beliefs and practices.' They wanted the law to allow organizations to require that its employees adhere not just to the religious beliefs, but also to the practices of the organization….

"Critics insisted that this provision targeted gays and lesbians…. Behind closed doors, everyone knew what it was about, and why they were pursuing it. For evangelical House members, their staffers, and for the conservative Christian advocacy community, preventing expansion of gay rights was an almost peerless priority. As they saw it, the single greatest threat to the American family came not from divorce, pornography, gambling, workaholism, materialism, or faithlessness, but rather from the mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians. The most powerful Christian interest organizations (as opposed to charities), such as the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and everyone else, from the home-schoolers to the private Christian school associations, agreed….

"For House conservative leaders like Tom DeLay, who wanted the most powerful wedge issues he could find against the Democrats, it was a fight with no downside. If the bill passed, it would be the most 'faith-friendly' legislation ever. If it didn't pass because the Democrats succeeded in blocking it, a great political purpose would have been served. As one conservative said in a meeting, 'If the Democrats object they'll just be the anti-God party.'" (pp. 163-165)

On the White House severely underfunding the faith-based initiative while still talking it up:

"Unfortunately, those charity tax credits weren't listed by the White House as must-haves [in the Bush tax-cut package of 2001], so the House skipped over them. They did make it into the Senate's version of the tax bill, but only because then Senate Finance Chairman Grassley insisted on it. He assumed that the White House had omitted the charity provisions by oversight.

"When the White House and congressional negotiators sat down to hammer out the details of the final bill, however, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Nick Calio told Grassley to get rid of the charity tax credits. Republican and Democratic jaws hit the floor. Russ Sullivan, chief Democratic staffer to the Finance Committee, and Mark Prader, his Republican counterpart, both asked Calio if he was serious. Each man had worked hard to ensure that those provisions were in there. Yes, Calio said, he was absolutely in earnest. The White House didn't want them any more." (p. 161)

On religious groups friendly to the White House being favored for grants:

"The grants process is fairly straightforward. Grants are received and then reviewed by peer groups. Grants are supposed to be reviewed 'objectively,' in line with the strict parameters of the grant request as published by the government…

The faith-based policy world is fairly small….Virtually all of them are very compassionate and dedicated evangelical Christians who tend to be politically conservative. That meant that the group that gathered to review the applications was an overwhelmingly Christian group of wonks, ministers, and well-meaning types. They were supposed to review the application in a religiously neutral fashion, and assign each applicant a score on a range of 1-100. But their biases were transparent.

"Many of the grant-winning organizations that rose to the top of this process were politically friendly to the administration. Bishop Harold Ray of Redemptive Life Fellowship Church in West Palm Beach had been one of the most vocal black voices supporting the president during the 2000 election. His newly created National Center for Faith-Based Initiatives somehow scored a 98 out of a possible 100 on the grading system used by the fund's 'peer' reviewers. Pat Robertson's overseas aid organization, Operation Blessing, scored a 95.67….

"All of this information trickled into our office…. It was obvious that the ratings were a farce. National organizations like Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America scored an 85.33 while something called Jesus and Friends Ministry from California, a group with little more than a post office box, scored 89.33…

"The more we looked at the list the more baffled we were. The numbers were not objective….

"Much of our fear about the list was political. Once the list was made public it would show once and for all that the initiative was purely about paying off political friends for their support." (pp. 213-215)

On Christians taking a two-year 'fast' from politics:

"Some, like James Dobson, argue that we need more Christian political engagement. Our lack of success simply shows that we need to be more passionate, strategic, and engaged. Others, such as the prominent and respected theologian and pastor John MacArthur, believe Christians need to do exactly the opposite; Christians need to flee the political arena and focus instead on telling people the truth about Jesus, that he alone is the way, the truth, and the life, and that he is the only way to God.

"Both Dobson and MacArthur are good men who obviously love Jesus, and they have dedicated their lives to following him. But maybe there is another option.

"Maybe Christians need to begin a fast – from politics….

"We need to eschew politics to focus more on practicing compassion. We need to spend more time studying Jesus and less time trying to get people elected. Instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year in support of conservative Christian advocacy groups such as the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, and the panoply of similar groups, let's give that money to charities and groups that are arguably closer to Jesus' heart. And we Christians should spend less time arguing with those on the other side and more time communing with them." (pp. 261-263)

http://www.abpnews.com