HELL HATH NO FURY, LIKE A HATEFUL WOMAN

Throughout her many years of ranting and raving and spewing and spinning, Ann Coulter has made a career of enraging anyone left of Ronald Reagan, and, at times, even embarrassing some of her supporters on the right. Some of her more "engaging" comments have been to regret that the 9/11 highjackers didn't fly into the New York Times building, calling Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot,"calling Bill Clinton "a very good rapist," and suggesting that taking away the right of women to vote would eliminate the possibility of electing of Democrats.

And now she can add yet another feather to a skull cap that many thought was filled to the brim. The latest furor erupted over an exchange Coulter had Monday with CNBC host Donny Deutsch on his show, "The Big Idea," during which she said the country would be better off if everyone were Christian. When Deutsch -- who is Jewish -- asked if she wanted to get rid of Judaism, Coulter responded, "We just want Jews to be perfected."

The irony of the comment was not that it was offensive or bigoted; in deed it is difficult to find any comment that Coulter has made that hasn't been offensive or bigoted. But the real irony is that, without quite intending it, she has encapsulated what the Religious Right has been preaching for decades. These religious zealots, who call themselves Christians, have been actively trying to rewrite the Constitution, insisting that since the Founding Fathers were Christian, that America is a and should forever remain a Christian nation. But, rather than get all hot and bothered about Coulter's comments, it seems to me we owe her a debt of gratitude for bringing to light the real and dangerous intent that threatens the fabric of the Republic. For while only a lunatic would take Coulter's myopic world view seriously, behind the scenes there lies a far less benign contingent hell-bent on eliminating, or at the very least marginalizing, all who disagree with their strict interpretation of one nation under God. We may laugh at the clown with the bad makeup and defaming dialogue, but all of us who value freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech, should take special care lest the rantings and ravings one day turn to law.

As I have said on more than one occasion, do NOT think it cannot happen here. Look at Germany as an example of a weak democracy that eventually fell. Freedom may be a gift, but it is a fragile gift; one that we must all take measures to preserve.

Parting Is NOT Such Sweet Sorrow


The Architect of the Imperial Presidency Steps Down, But Unfortunately Has Not Stepped Aside.

The resignation of Karl Rove from the Bush White House might seem like a moral victory for those of us who have had to endure six and a half gut-churning years of watching the Constitution subverted for political gain, but it is a hollow victory.

Sure, it will be somewhat amusing watching this President twist in the wind for the remaining 16 months of his ill-fated and, some would say, illegitimate administration, but that, as they say at Planet Hollywood, is where the party ends. Rove's resignation, unfortunately, does little to alter the present direction of this administration. Bush is hell-bent on staying the course in Iraq; his Vice President continues to call for armed intervention in Iran, and the Democratic Congress seems unwilling or unable to do anything to bring about any substantive change. Adding insult to injury, Rove, now that he is no longer a member of the Bush cabinet, can devote his full attention to the next Republican heir to this mangled throne.

Few, if any, in the Senate have shown any initiative towards bringing this administration to justice. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the few bright spots for the country. Leahy issued the following statement this morning, "The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House."

Would that everyone in Congress could show as much zeal as Leahy. Concerned citizens must act and continue to act. If you haven't yet done so, and are inclined to do so, please click on to the site below and cast your vote to impeach Bush and Cheney. The site will be self-explanatory. As Steve has pointed out, you don't have to be a Democrat to do so; in fact, many Republicans are breaking with this President because of his arrogance.

Karl Rove may have been the brains behind Bush - I knew they were somewhere - but it hardly makes any difference in the grand scheme of things. A president, no matter how inept he may seem, is ultimately responsible for his actions. We don't need forty years to decide. This IS the worst administration ever in the history of the United States.

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88?ad=d1

KILLING THE PATIENT: How a Billion Dollar Industry, Entrusted With Saving Lives, Maybe Killing the Very Patients It Is Treating.

“The doctor of the future will give no medicine; but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.” - Thomas Edison


I first heard Gary Null on WBAI in the 1980s. His radio show, Natural Living with Gary Null, deals with alternative treatment for illnesses such as cancer, eating natural foods and maintaining a regiment of a balanced diet and exercise. During his career Null has been extremely critical of the medical profession for what he says is a steadfast refusal to consider the merits of alternative medicine as treatments for serious illnesses. His assertion is that rather than trying to save lives and bring about cures for diseases like cancer, the medical profession’s main goal is treatment. “There is no healthcare in the United States,” he says, “or in England, or anywhere else. It doesn't exist. We have sickness maintenance."

At the heart of the problem is the money the medical profession, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, rakes in each year from the treatment of these illnesses, to the tune of billions of dollars. “Any doctor in the United States who cures cancer using alternative methods will be destroyed." While stopping short of saying that physicians are guilty of conspiring with the pharmaceutical industry – he prefers to believe that they are simply trained to accept the premises of their profession – he does point out that doctors are given huge financial incentives for agreeing to dispense medications as the first line of treatment, while at the same time minimizing or suppressing alternative, non-evasive treatments “to protect the medical establishment's solid-gold cancer train.”

Critics of Null – and there are many – site his educational background, namely his PhD from Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, Ohio, in human nutrition and public health sciences. While the school is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools its accreditation does not cover awarding of PhDs in the sciences, only in the humanities. Another criticism regarding Null has to do with his methodology. James R. Laidler, MD, criticizes Null’s work for double counting statistics and for presenting a simplistic and skewed view of medicine. Still another area of criticism directed at Null has to do with the fact that he has overly and unjustly criticized the medical profession while failing to point out the good it does and how many lives it saves. Harriet Hall, MD, has accused Null of “doctor bashing,” while Dr. Stephen Barrett, who maintains a website he calls Quackwatch, disparages Null's PhD thesis, his alternative health claims, and several of his commercial products.[21]

Null’s latest venture will, like his previous ones, stir the pot on both sides of the debate. AIDS, Inc. is a film about the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry, and how it profits from continuing fears and misconceptions about the disease. While AIDS grabs the headlines and raises billions of dollars with celebrity endorsements and billionaire endowments, Null says we are no closer to finding a cure than when the scourge first appeared 30 years ago.

Could it be that after so many years of research, and so much money being spent, that the entire orthodox medical establishment has been wrong about AIDS, or even worse, has sought to profit on a system that it knew was flawed from the beginning? Doctor Robert Gallo who discovered the HIV virus said that there is no legitimate dissent when it comes to AIDS. But there are more than 5,000 physicians, microbiologists, journalists and activists who disagree and say that we have been misled about the real causes of AIDS and the nature of its treatment. The mainstream media has chosen not to provide an outlet for their opinions. In this important film, Null traveled to more than 30 countries over an eight-year period to seek them out and get their interviews.

The first issue that Null’s movie challenges is the assertion that HIV equals AIDS. In the first few years, there were no major dissenting voices on this issue. The medical community accepted the initial data and “lined up, virtually in unison, to get research grants to find the appropriate drugs or vaccines that would either help prevent or treat the condition.” That, by itself, would be inexcusable, but what happened after was, to Null, even more reprehensible. Whenever a scientist would challenge the data and findings, or even question the literature, he or she was criticized nonstop. They were intimidated, ridiculed and threatened with having their grants canceled. The lack of any open scientific forum, or dearth of any meaningful dissent at Congressional hearings meant a rubber stamp on the treatment of AIDS for more than 20 years.

Null takes a close look at AIDS treatments, particularly AZT, which is the number one treatment prescribed for AIDS’ patients. It was the first anti-HIV drug approved for use in the United States. But the inventor of the drug says, according to Null, the drug is too toxic for cancer patients. The “T” stands for DNA termination. “It’s a DNA disruptor,” Null says. “Can you imagine giving that to people.” One of the main points of the film is that AZT may actually be killing more people than the AIDS virus itself. But the medical profession continues to endorse and prescribe the drug, in spite of the overwhelming data. The slogan at lectures is, “Put time on your side and take AZT.”

Another point throughout the film that Null makes is the millions of dollars that AIDS groups are given to endorse the taking of AZT and other drugs. If they said “Yes, use condoms and take your drugs,” you got money. If you said, “Yes, use condoms but don’t take the drugs, rebuild your immune system,” you got nothing. As always, Null’s central theme is the money trail and where it leads. He refers to AIDS conferences as “an embarrassment. They look like an expensive flea market for pharmaceuticals. Dozens and dozens of booths. All about drugs. And, of course, who do they hire, and pay first class to get there? Gay activists. It’s all about, “Get this drug, this is the newest and hottest drug.”

Despite the recent uproar his movie is bound to cause, Null isn’t overly optimistic about the future. “Nothing will happen. They (the AIDS industry) will get away with it. I wish that I could say otherwise about the people who have exploited this crisis to their advantage, who have lied about it, who have kept false information going forward, and who have kept people in a panic. No body has ever been held accountable, as long as you’ve got a corporate title in front of you. Let’s face it. One hundred thousand people have died because of Vioxx*, and they knew in advance that it was dangerous, and they hid that information. Have you heard of a single person at Pfizer being held accountable? No. Only in America could you kill a hundred thousand people and get a raise!”

Like Michael Moore, Gary Null is unapologetically anti big business in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Curiously, while his critics have brought to light legitimate concerns regarding his education, methodology and lack of objectivity, what has never been questioned is his passion and dedication to uncovering issues and problems within the medical profession. His first paper on the harmful affects of caffeine was the first of its kind; he also was among the earliest professionals talking about the virtues of eating right and exercising regularly – unless, of course, you count Jack LaLanne. His latest movie, like Moore’s Sicko, uncovers important information and brings to light serious issues within the medical profession. It should be required viewing for all people, regardless of their political persuasions.

* These numbers have NOT been verified and are the opinion of Gary Null.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR!

A lesson is learned on the floor of the Senate; but will the Religious Right Take Notice?


The sight of a Hindu clergyman saying the US Senate's traditional morning prayer was too much for members of a Christian group, who yesterday tried to shout him down before being arrested.

As Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, offered the prayer, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" from the gallery.

The trio continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were taken away in handcuffs by police, yelling, "no Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "there's only one true God!". The male protester told the Associated Press, "we are Christians and patriots".

Police identified the protesters as Ante and Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Kristen, members of a Christian organization called Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.

The group said in a statement: "The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the one true god, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers."

Reverend Flip Benham, the leader of the group, said: "Not one senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'."

Once more, a valuable lesson is dumped into our laps; an opportunity to see what happens when the lines between Church and State are blurred. The Christian Right's encroachment on civil liberties and their insistence on rewriting history books - they have a particular fascination for the founding fathers - has now come full circle. In what can only be described as the irony of the decade a religious group about as 180 from Christianity as any religious group can be, took to the floor of the Senate to exercise its freedom of religious expression and was met by a strong dose of reality. In this increasingly myopic nation of ours, freedom of religious expression is reserved for those whom God has chosen. The zealots who run the Republican party would have you believe that the actions taken by this lunatic organization were justified because the Hindu god is a non-monotheistic god, not consistent with the Judaic / Christian God of the bible. That's code for, no God but ours. Apparently religious freedom only counts when it concurs with the beliefs of the majority. So much for a Republic.

None of this surprises me. I have been saying this now for two years. We are witnessing the birth of the Imperial Presidency, and the growing emergence of a theocracy. I don't care whether you agree with Hinduism or not, or even whether you agree that it should be allowed on the floor of the Senate. What is at stake here is far more serious than a simple prayer.

We all saw what happened in Germany when learned men stood by and let a bunch of thugs hijack a nation by rewriting its history, and then "silencing" anyone who challenged the authority of its new authors. DO NOT think it cannot happen here. This isn't about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion you care to name; it's about the legacy of a nation founded by men who knew all too well the perils of a state dominated by religious oppression, whose leaders considered themselves ordained by God Almighty to rule without question. Above all else, they wanted to avoid a repeat of that very same system in this new country they had formed. This bold, new experiment is called the United States of America, and the document they wrote to protect us from just such a system is called a Constitution. And that Constitution does NOT, contrary to what the Religious Right says, care which religion you belong to. ALL are welcome, and ALL are free to express and practice their beliefs free from persecution and ridicule.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These historic words taken from our Declaration of Independence illustrate plainly the difference between a constitutional form of government and a monarchy. In the former, the government gets its power from the governed; in the latter it is derived from God. No matter what the zealots on the Right say as they pervert our history, the United States is NOT, and was NEVER intended to be, a Christian state. Such a state would have been inconsistent with the ideals and values of our founding fathers.

When you worship at your local church, you have the same rights as the Jew, the Hindu, the Buddhist, or the Muslim: the right to worship your God in your own way. There is no other country like this, and I will be damned if I'm going to let a bunch of religious Nazis steal away my heritage.

SICKO IS AS SICKO DOES.

The Sheep and the Goats – Matthew 25:31-46

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Whatever else you may think of Michael Moore, he is very good at two things: making an entertaining movie, and making you squirm in your seat. His latest film Sicko is a case in point; it takes a serious and critical look at the current state of health care in the United States. Like his other films – Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling For Columbine, and Roger and Me – Moore is hardly objective in his criticism of the current problems in America’s health care system. And while some of his data might be faulty – for instance he states that the average cost of health care for each U.S. citizen is $7500 compared with $25 for the average Cuban citizen, when in fact the actual numbers are $6096 and $226 respectively – Moore has on point nailed three undeniable truths.

1. Health care in the United States is run by the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries. Both of these industries care about one and only one thing: how much profit they can make for their investors. Denying health care is an essential vehicle in increasing profit for the insurance industry, and prescribing medication – whether it is needed or not – is equally vital to the pharmaceutical industry. Both of these industries have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying the United States government in an attempt to thwart even the suggestion of a universal health care system.

2. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the Western hemisphere NOT to have a universal health care system. Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan all have such systems and all enjoy the fruits of health care with no out of pocket expense. While there may be some issues with all of the universal systems, these “issues” have been dramatically blown out of proportion by the American media. France, vilified by the conservative press in this country, has the number one rated health care system in the world!

3. There is a rabid paranoia over any mention of such a system of universal health care within the United States. Those who attempt to do so are branded Communist and / or unpatriotic. Virtually every politician who has taken up the issue of universal health care has either been defeated or been forced to “see the light.” Hillary Clinton, as former First Lady, once championed the cause of universal health care. Now, as the Democratic frontrunner for the Presidency, she has been strangely mute on the subject. Not coincidentally, she also has received almost a million dollars in campaign contributions from the insurance lobby – the largest percentage among Democrats. Hmmm.

It didn’t take long for Moore’s detractors to come out swinging against Sicko. Websites like freemarketcure.com are advocating that what is needed most is for the Congress to administer a strong dose of capitalism. “Cures” such as reducing the size of the FDA (you know that agency that determines if the drug or food you’re consuming is poisonous or not); giving grants to the states for Medicaid spending thus reducing overall costs of funding the program (where have we heard that one before?); and instituting HSA’s - Health Savings Accounts - to individuals that would act like the school voucher program proposal, allowing participants to “opt” out of an insurance plan that they don’t like. (Curiously, such proponents fail to point out that such defections from current health care plans would mean an increase in premiums for those still left in them. That increase would be born on both the employee AND the employer. Just goes to show you that even capitalists forget to use their calculator from time to time!)

No health care plan is perfect, that is for sure. But it is time for the United States to wake up and smell the anesthesia. Allowing almost 50 million people to be without health insurance is criminal; and yes, in spite of anything you may hear to the contrary like some “prefer” not to be insured, there are almost 50 million uninsured. Allowing those who do have insurance to be denied treatment on strictly financial grounds is equally criminal. And in a supposedly Christian nation, for us not be out front on this issue belies the very principles we espouse most.

There are many things that a free-market, capitalist society brings to the table, and certainly no sane person would wish for a society where we are told what to buy, what to do, what to say, and where to go. But a truly free-market approach to health care is simply inconsistent with a compassionate and caring society, and ultimately in such a society we all pay for its shortcomings, either morally (through our burning consciences) or financially (by subsidizing substandard care for us all).

The words of Jesus serve as a warning to us all. Isn’t time we heed them?

Much Ado About Nothing!

A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).

According to this survey, only 2.3% of the males surveyed considered themselves to be homosexuals; 1.8% considered themselves to be bisexuals. Among men ages 18-44, 92% said they were attracted “only to females” and 3.9% “mostly” to females. Among women, 86% said they were attracted only to males, and 10% “mostly” to males.

For most of the last four decades the prevailing sentiment, thanks in large part to the studies done by Alfred Kinsey, was that the percentage of homosexuals or bisexuals was around 10% of the population.

Not one to miss an opportunity, the Religious Right, in an obvious “We Told You So” manner has been harping on this latest evolution – oops, sorry, another dirty word – in theory. As usual, nothing seems to satisfy these myopic individuals. When it was thought that 10 percent of the population was gay or bisexual, their theme was to stop the homosexual agenda from ruining the American Way. Their fear was that homosexuals would spread their perversion – like it was some kind of black plague – throughout the millions of decent, upstanding heterosexuals. Now that the actual number seems to be approximately half of what it was thought to be, the goal is to slam the gay-loving scientists that spread their contempt for good old-fashioned family values, by conducting unscientific research.

Now frankly, I’ve always thought it extremely amusing that a group that has as much use for science as a roach has for a can of Raid, would make such a fuss about getting scientific research right, but in this case, I must grudgingly agree with them. Not because I agree with their views, but because bad science is just that: bad science. While no field of scientific endeavor is immune from its share of mistakes, when those mistakes are the result of bad research, and that research is followed up by still more bad research, it tarnishes the good research, thus giving religious groups the thunder and political capital to challenge other areas of scientific research; i.e. evolution, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, etc… The latest “push” by certain evangelical movements to foist Intelligent Design into public schools as a scientific theory equal to evolution is a classic case in point. When God wasn’t preoccupied with bending the light of stars that were millions of light years away so that they could be seen by us in the here and now, He’s making sure we all understand that he “limited” himself to a mere week to create everything we see and hear. This is the kind of nonsense St. Augustine addressed in 415 AD when he wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis. More than 1500 years later and we’re still dealing with this crap! These people won’t be satisfied until everything that disagrees with their world-view is eliminated or marginalized.

For my vantage point, having met and gotten to know several gay men, my feeling is that this is much ado about nothing. The only agenda here is the one that seeks to condemn a group of people who, regardless of their numbers, have been among us for thousands of years. Wishing them away because you feel superior to them, or because you find something intrinsically defective in them reminds me of the passage in John when the Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus to be stoned who had been accused of adultery. They quoted the law of Moses, but Jesus refused to play along. Finally when they gave up and left, he asked the women where her accusers had gone. "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. Now I know what many of you will say next. Peter, you left out the part where Jesus says to the woman “go and sin no more.” True, but I’ve always wondered if that quote wasn’t meant as much for us as it was for her.

We are all sinners, but the greatest sin is believing you are superior to another of God’s creatures. Let us not forget the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18: 9-14. "Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Don’t we have enough Pharisees in this world?

Looking Back Through the Key Hole: Be Afraid, Be VERY Afraid!


One of my favorite TV shows of the last ten years was West Wing. I loved the topics, the writing and the acting on it. I also loved that in a nation that seemed to be getting increasingly conservative, it had the moral courage to stand up and provide a platform for those people, like my wife and I, who didn’t subscribe to the “belief” system being perpetrated on the nation. As the Clinton administration continued to crumble, partly due to the unwarranted crusade of Ken Starr, partly due to Clinton’s own personal failings as a man, the show actually set a standard that regardless of ideology served as a power of example for how all administrations should conduct themselves.

In one particular episode, Josh Lyman – the Deputy Chief of Staff for those of you not familiar with the show or its cast – is having a conversation with a Republican congressman. “It’s interesting,” Josh says, “how you people want to reduce the size of government just small enough so it can fit through a keyhole.” Josh had a habit of leaving his bedside manner home when it came to talking about such topics.

The scene got me thinking, though, about how different the Republican Party is from what it used to be. I’m not that old but I remember a time when learned men like William F. Buckley would vehemently argue for conservative capitalism and rage against oppressive government control and regulation. I remember watching him on his show, Firing Line, in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. While I agreed with some of his points, and strongly disagreed with the rest, I remember thinking how the argument was always about the role of government in the economy. Social conservatives, it was thought, were irrelevant. They were tolerated, only in as far as they could be counted on to get out the vote in certain strategic places in the South.

That was then, this is now. As some would say, this ain’t your daddy’s Republican party anymore. The party that espoused laissez-fair (which literally means let them do or hands off) economics has now been kidnapped by a gang of men whose goal is anything other than hands off. As Josh would say they want to peek through your keyhole to see if you’ve been naughty or nice.

Some of these men are very familiar within the conservative Right. The key players are Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins. I was going to mention Jerry Falwell, but alas nature took care of that.

Pat Robertson, born March 22, 1930, is the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and hosts the controversial program The 700 Club where he expresses his opinions on a regular basis. Some of the more notable have been as follows:

On January 14, 1991, on The 700 Club, Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."[20] He has never recanted this statement, though he has supported the election of certain Episcopalians. [1]

On the June 8, 1998 edition of his show, Robertson denounced Orlando, Florida and Disney World for allowing a privately sponsored "Gay Days" weekend. Robertson stated that the acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombings and "possibly a meteor."[25] The resulting outcry prompted Robertson to return to the topic on June 24, where he quoted the Book of Revelation to support his claims.[2]

While discussing the Mark Foley scandal on the October 5, 2006 broadcast of the show, Robertson condemned Foley saying he "does what gay people do".[26][3]

On his November 10, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson told citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania that they had rejected God by voting out of office all seven members of the school board who support intelligent design.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city", Robertson said on his broadcast. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because He might not be there."[39] [4]

The lead story on the January 5, 2006, edition of The 700 Club was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hospitalization for a severe stroke. After the story, Robertson said that Sharon's illness was possibly retribution from God for his recent drive to give more land to the Palestinians. He also claimed former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's 1995 assassination may have occurred for the same reason.[41] [5]

But the crowning achievement of his theology came on the August 22, 2005 broadcast of The 700 Club, when Robertson said of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez: “I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” [6]

I could go on and on. On the March 21, 2006 broadcast of The 700 Club, while reviewing The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz, the subject of which is radical academics in American universities, Robertson went on to say that the 101 professors named in the book are only but a few of "thirty to forty thousand" left-wing professors in the United States, all of whom he accused of being "racists, murderers, sexual deviants and supporters of Al-Qaeda", further labeling them as "termites that have worked into the woodwork of our academic society".

Later in the broadcast, he went on to say, "these guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, they are, you know, some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order... you don’t want your child to be brainwashed by these radicals, you just don’t want it to happen. Not only brainwashed but also beat up, they beat these people up, cower them into submission."[66] [7]

And last but not least, in May 2006, Robertson declared that storms and possibly a tsunami would hit America's coastline sometime in 2006. Robertson supposedly received this revelation from God during an annual personal prayer retreat in January. The claim was repeated four times on The 700 Club.

On May 8, 2006 Robertson said, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." On May 17, 2006 he elaborated, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."[67] While this claim didn't garner the same level of controversy as some of his other statements, it was generally received with mild amusement by the Pacific Northwest media. It should also be noted that the History Channel's initial airing of its new series, Mega Disasters: West Coast Tsunami, was broadcast the first week of May. [8]

And these are only the highlights, imagine the low lights!

Tony Perkins, born March 20, 1963, has been the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think-tank and public policy foundation, a political offshoot of James Dobson's Focus on the Family since September 2003.

Perkins was one of the organizers and hosts of the 2005 Justice Sunday event organized by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, along with James Dobson and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The event was organized to mobilize the evangelical Christian base in putting pressure on Democrats to end the use of the filibuster to block the confirmation of nominees to the federal judiciary by President George W. Bush. [9]

Perkins has come under fire from various organizations for having appeared in 2002 as a speaker at the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group sometimes considered white supremacist in orientation. [3]

The Nation claims that in 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for use of his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was campaign manager for Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[2] [10] While both Perkins and The Family Research Council call the article’s claims false, stating that the Duke “connection was not known until 1999,” it is hard to believe that no one in the campaign knew of David Duke or his views.

Like many conservative evangelicals, Perkins is not a fan of the environmentalist movement. He was quoted as saying that global warming was “part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity. We're not going to allow third parties to divide evangelicals, and I think that is what is happening in part with the global warming issue." [11] Perkins was also one of the many conservative evangelicals who signed a letter in January of 2006 demanding that Richard Cizik, the Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), be restrained from putting forth his views on global warming. The following year, James Dobson – more on him later – called for Cizik to resign.

Perkins attended Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and when Falwell died earlier this month, said of him in his blog, “As a spiritual giant in the political world, Dr. Falwell stood for family, faith, and freedom—even when the stands he took were unpopular.” One of those “unpopular” stands occurred after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when Falwell said on The 700 Club, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" [12]

And now for the granddaddy of them all.

James Dobson, born April 21, 1936, is the chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization he founded in 1977. In this function, he produces the daily radio program Focus on the Family, which is broadcast in more than a dozen languages and on over 7,000 stations worldwide, and heard daily by more than 220 million people in 164 countries.[1] [2] Focus on the Family is also carried by about 60 U.S. television stations daily.[1] [13]

Dobson's Family Research Council is identified as an dominionist organization by TheocracyWatch[20][21], which says that the Congressional scorecard of the Family Research Council illustrates its success and the strength of dominionists in Congress.[22] Dominionism describes a movement among socially conservative Christians to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action — seeking either a nation dominated by Christians or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is matter of controversy.[1][2][3][4][5] [14] Chris Hedges described Dobson as "perhaps the most powerful figure in the Dominionist movement" and "a crucial player in getting out the Christian vote for George W. Bush." [15]

Although Dobson initially remained somewhat distant from Washington politics, in 1981 he founded the Family Research Council as a political arm through which Biblical values could achieve greater political influence.

In late 2004, Dobson led a campaign with social conservatives to block the appointment of Arlen Specter to head of the judiciary committee because of Specter's stance on abortion. Responding to a question by Alan Colmes, of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, on whether he wanted the Republican Party to be known as a "big-tent party," he replied, "I don't want to be in the big tent... I think the party ought to stand for something."[3] In 2006, Family Research Council spent more than a half million dollars to promote a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in its home state of Colorado.[4]

On January 1, 2005, The Washington Times reported that Dobson promised six Democratic senators "a battle of enormous proportions" if they filibustered conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. "He singled out six Democrats up for re-election in 2006: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida." According to a 2005 Washington Times article, in 2004 Dobson played an important role in the defeat of then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.[5] Five of the six senators went on to win reelection and the sixth, Dayton, was succeeded in office by another Democrat.

In November 2004, Dobson was described by the online magazine Slate.com as "America's most influential evangelical leader."[28] The article explained, "Forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who in their dotage have marginalized themselves with gaffes... Dobson is now America's most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak... Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.[28] Further, "He's already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush 'needs to be more aggressive' about pressing the religious right's pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would 'pay a price in four years.' [16]

Dobson has sometimes complained that the Republican party may take the votes of social conservatives for granted, and has suggested that evangelicals may withhold support from the GOP if the party does not more strongly support conservative family issues: "Does the Republican Party want our votes, no string attached--to court us every two years, and then to say, 'Don't call me, I'll call you'--and not to care about the moral law of the universe? ... Is that what they want? Is that the way the system works? Is this the way it's going to be? If it is, I'm gone, and if I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible."[2]

However, in 2006, Dobson said that, while "there is disillusionment out there with Republicans" and "that worries me greatly," he nonetheless suggested voters turn out and vote Republican in 2006. "My first inclination was to sit this one out," but according to The New York Times, Dobson then added that "he had changed his mind when he looked at who would become the leaders of Congressional committees if the Democrats took over."[29]

The Council for National Policy, of which Dobson is a member, emerged from a February 2007 meeting dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.[30] On May 17, 2007 Dobson announced that if Rudy Giuliani were to receive the Republican party nomination, he would not vote for him. "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision." [31] [17]

Besides his myopic views on politics and the environment, Dobson has some rather interesting things to say about women, education, and tolerance.

Women: While women are not inferior to men because both are created in God’s image, the wife must submit to her husband’s authority. He overtly advocates male leadership with regard to the Christian family and he functions in exactly the same way with regard to Focus on the Family's office, as if he believes there is a divine order in which men are ordained to lead corporations."[8] [18]

Education: Dobson is a staunch supporter of private school vouchers and tax credits for religious schools. His organization has consistently called for the removal of any mention of evolution from the public education system and has called for the teaching of intelligent design as a science, as well as school prayer. Curiously, Dobson favors student-led prayer in public school but doesn’t support teacher-led prayer for fear that a teacher would encourage students “to pray to Allah, Buddha, or the goddess Sophia against the wishes of the parents and/or students.”[2] [19] Apparently, it has never occurred to Dobson that there might be Muslim or Buddhist students in the school system who might actually enjoy praying to their God, and whose parents might actually WISH for that!

Tolerance: Dobson has been steadfast in his contention that tolerance and diversity are nothing more than buzzwords for the homosexual agenda. He recently went after the We Are Family Foundation founded by R&B artist Nile Rodgers on the grounds that because it promotes tolerance, diversity, respect, and multiculturalism among individuals of all ages, it has encouraged the very doctrines that have led to the decline of western civilization. Despite having no proof, Dobson has said of the Foundation that “childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children." [20] In actuality, The We Are Family Foundation celebrates the vision of a global family by creating and supporting programs that inspire and educate people about mutual respect, understanding, and appreciation of cultural diversity. [21]

So there you have it, the three unwise men. Like I said I was going to include Falwell in this and refer to them as the Fabless Four, but timing is everything. Still, you get the picture. These are the key role players in the power struggle within our country. Their obsession with homosexuality, evolution, abortion and anything that smacks of pluralism has blinded them to the true goals of Christ. They are more concerned with whether Rosie O’Donnell is a fit mother than whether a single mother can support her child. They care more about whether a child prays in school than whether he or she has enough food to eat; they care more about the interests of corporate America rather than worrying about how corporate America continues to destroy the very planet we are entrusted with protecting.

They have kidnapped the Republican party, put on stain on our faith, and severely divided and weakened a country that has been bitterly polarized for almost a decade. They are watching you and me and their agenda is obvious. They want to turn the United States into a theocracy. They have little or no regard for a constitutional form of government, since such a form of government would rest power in the hands of the people and their elected officials. In their narrow-minded view, only a Christian-based form of government is fit to rule over us, and any one who disagrees is threatened and intimidated. In their society, they would be the perfect arbiters of acceptable behavior.

A look at the latest round of political debates between the various candidates in both parties was most illuminating. The Democrats seemed to engage the issues and had some real ideas about how to lead; the Republicans seemed overly concerned that their answers appeal to their base. Guess which side was quaking in its boots?

It is not too late to stop these ideologues. People of good conscious, be they Christian or not, can and must stand up to them. The last two years have given hope to those of us who still believe in democracy. As the Bush administration continues to plunder its political capital and bring about its own mini division among prominent Republicans, the Democrats must seize the opportunity. They cannot run away from God like it’s a dirty word, and hence be thought of as the party that opposes God; rather they must embrace their own form of spirituality and remind the nation that the Religious Right does not have a monopoly on faith or, for that matter, even speaks on behalf of the millions of God-fearing people, both Christian and non. The choice in ’08 cannot and must not be between James Dobson’s world-view and atheism. I fear that if that is the choice than we may have lost the war after all, and I’m not talking about Iraq.

In the meantime, look back through the keyhole. Be afraid, but be resolute. Pray to God. Write your congressman, senator, governor, whomever you can. Remind them that not all Christians believe or behave as these modern-day Pharisees do. Also remind them that your vote counts as much as any one’s and that you’re looking for real leadership. There’s always a light at the end of the tunnel; sometimes it’s not even a train!

____________________________________________________

[1] From Pat Robertson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson.
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] From Tony Perkins, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(evangelical_Christian_figure)
[10] ibid.
[11] Global Warming Gap Among Evangelicals Widens, CNN reports, see link http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
[12] From Jerry Falwell, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell.
[13] From James Dobson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson.
[14] From Dominionism, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
[15] From James Dobson, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.
[16] Ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] ibid.
[19] ibid.
[20] ibid.
[21] We Are Family Foundation, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, see link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_Family_Foundation

I’M BACK. . .

For those of you who know me, and for the benefit of those who don't but who would occasionally tune in from time to time, I have struggled mightily with this blog.

I have been torn between what I would like it to be, and what I think God would have it be. Often the two would clash, and rather than do either a disservice, I decided to shut it down.

I am not, by trait, one of those people who comments on how wonderful the day is, or how deep and blue the sky looks, and how wonderful life must be now that we’re all in the Kingdom. I’m not knocking such individuals, God knows when I need a pick me up, I can always count on either calling one of you, or just reading one of your blogs. Like OJ in the morning, it just gets me off to a good start.

But, for me - yes it is all about me isn’t it – I felt and still feel that my biggest contributions lie in calling out the hypocrisy that exists not so much within the world, but within the Kingdom itself. I have never been able to shake this feeling, and believe strongly that it is from God.

But how to proceed? That is the question that plagued me. Clearly some things need to be said, and still do, that are likely to cause waves and ruffle feathers. How does one “call out” such things in a Godly way? How do you cure the disease without killing the patient?

One of the things I have always admired most about Paul was how he was always able to cut right to the chase. If he saw something that needed rebuking he would come right out and say it, regardless of how it might be received. In 2 Corinthians 7:8-13, Paul writes, “Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it, I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while, yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this Godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. At every point you have proved yourselves to be innocent in this matter. So even though I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong or of the injured party, but rather that before God you could see for yourselves how devoted to us you are. By all this we are encouraged.”

Now before you all start blogging in, let me just head you off at the pass and come right out and say it, I am certainly no Paul! The last I checked I was not chained to a dungeon wall, did not have death threats against my life, nor even had anywhere near the obstacles with which he had to overcome. Though, the way my career is going, one could say if I don’t get it together soon, well let’s just say I will have a lot of time on my hands to blog!

But, though I am no Paul, I do have several things in common with him. I know what it is like to persecute people I don’t even know, to prejudge them, to sin against them. Like Paul and, in deed, so many of the main characters in the Bible, I am a chip off the old block. I find it strangely encouraging that God seems to seek out such scoundrels as me to do His bidding. With the exception of Jesus, there isn’t anybody in the whole Bible who was righteous enough to get into heaven; and even Jesus needed to draw on His Heavenly Father for strength.

So with that in mind, now what? What do I do about this blog and how do I proceed?

The topics are easy and, sadly, plentiful. But the real trick will be how to expose the truth in a way that as I mentioned earlier cures the disease without killing the patient. I will have to rely on God to show me the way.

Over the next few weeks some of the topics I will tackle will be as follows:

Dividing and Conquering: How the Conservative Right Squashes Real Debate Within the Evangelical Community, Thus Preventing The True Works Of Jesus To Flourish.

How Green Was My Valley, How Big Is My Church: Christianity As Big Business. This one is going to hit close to home.

All In The Godly Family: The Pluralistic Argument That Won’t Go Away.

Monkey See Monkey Do: What The Unchurched See Going On Within Our Ranks, and Why It Matters.

Genesis and Revelation: The Two Books That Never Seem To Go Away, and Why Certain Pastors Can’t Resist Quoting From Them.

Science and Religion – Oil and Vinegar or Hand and Glove?

The Way We Never Were: How and Why The Right Insists On Rewriting The Past.

One Nation Under God: State-Sponsored Religion and What The Founding Fathers Really Had To Say About It.

Of course I’m sure I’ll come up with other topics in due time. In the meantime, I would appreciate all the prayer any of you might be willing to throw my way. God knows I’ll need it.

Until next time…

REINVENTING THE WHEEL OF RECOVERY: Knowing When To Leave Well Enough Alone.

No doubt most, if not all, of you are familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous. In deed many of you either attend, or know of a friend or family member who attends, that fellowship. Well lately a movement has arisen among Christians to “better define” the term Higher Power that Alcoholics in this program often site. The movement is called Celebrate Recovery, a “Christ-centered” 12-step ministry founded in 1991 by John Baker, an associate pastor of Saddleback Church. To quote Baker, its purpose “is to fellowship and celebrate God's healing power in our lives through the "8 Recovery Principles." This experience allows us to "be changed." By working and applying these Biblical principles, we begin to grow spiritually. We become free from our addictive, compulsive and dysfunctional behaviors. This freedom creates peace, serenity, joy and most importantly, a stronger personal relationship with God and others. As we progress through the program we discover our personal, loving and forgiving Higher Power - Jesus Christ, the one and only true Higher Power.”

The 8 Recovery Principles are as follows:

Principle 1 -
Realize I'm not God; I admit that I am powerless to control my tendency to do the wrong thing and my life is unmanageable.

"Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor"

Principle 2 -
Earnestly believe that God exists, that I matter to him, and that he has the power to help me recover.

"Happy are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted"

Principle 3 -
Consciously choose to commit all my life and will to Christ's care and control.

"Happy are the meek"

Principle 4 -
Openly examine and confess my faults to God, to myself, and to someone I trust.

"Happy are the pure in heart"

Principle 5 -
Voluntarily submit to every change God wants to make in my life and humbly ask Him to remove my character defects.

"Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires"

Principle 6 -
Evaluate all my relationships; Offer forgiveness to those who have hurt me and make amends for harm I've done to others except when to do so would harm them or others.

"Happy are the merciful" "Happy are the peacemakers"

Principle 7 -
Reserve a daily time with God for self examination, Bible readings and prayer in order to know God and His will for my life and to gain the power to follow His will.

Principle 8 -
Yield myself to God to be used to bring this Good News to others, both by my example and by my words.

"Happy are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires"

In the forward to Celebrate Recovery, Rick Warren, head pastor of Saddleback, writes, “Most people are familiar with the classic 12 step program of A.A. and other groups. While undoubtedly many lives have been helped through the twelve steps, I've always been uncomfortable with that program's vagueness about the nature of God, the saving power of Jesus Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. So I began an intense study of the Scriptures to discover what God had to say about "recovery." To my amazement, I found the principles of recovery, and even their logical order, given by Christ in his most famous message, the Sermon on the Mount.”

Warren is not alone in his belief about the “vagueness” concerning the nature of God in A.A. and other 12-step programs. There is a prevailing and pervading sentiment among certain groups, particularly Christian groups, that the 12-step process is not only vague on God, but that it is not even spiritual. Such sentiments have sadly taken root because of two key factors, neither of which has ever represented A.A. or any other 12-step group: The first is sheer ignorance; the second is misapplication. A look at both is in order.

Most of the critics of A.A. fall into two categories: those who have never been a part of it, and hence have no idea what goes on at an actual meeting; and those who have gone, but who have refused to apply the basic “spiritual” principles of the program. While neither speaks on behalf of the program – in deed A.A. has no official spokesperson – both end up defining for the world what A.A. is. I suppose the rest are too busy staying sober!

I won’t dwell on the latter – those who simply refuse to “work” the program. I’ll leave such souls to the torment of their disease. Instead, I wish to concentrate on the group that seems obsessed with branding A.A. as a non-spiritual (i.e. non-Christian) program. This obsession has its roots in a belief that if only the 12 steps of A.A. simply defined God from a Christian perspective then the power of Christ would be unleashed in the lives of millions of people, thus permanently freeing them from their “addictive, compulsive and dysfunctional behaviors,” as Baker put it. Such a 12-step group would be truly unique in its approach, a successor to the venerable, if worn out, ambiguity of A.A.

If only Baker and Warren actually knew the true origins of Alcoholics Anonymous, actually knew something about what they were talking about, their demeanor, and that of countless others, might be different. For those who care, and for those who already know, it is time to pull back the curtain and get at the truth of the matter.

For those who believe that until 1991, there had never been a Christ-centered recovery program, I present to you the Oxford Group. The group was a self-styled first-century Christian movement founded by Frank Buchman, a Protestant evangelist, in about 1919. It advocated finding God through surrender to Him, a moral inventory, a confession of defects, elimination of sin, restitution, reliance upon God, and helping others. It appeared from the successes of several alcoholics in the Oxford Group that a conversion experience (which they chose to call a spiritual experience, and later a "change") would relieve alcoholics of the mental obsession that kept sending them back to alcoholism after periods of sobriety.

One of its members, Ebby Thacher, visited an old school friend of his, Bill Wilson, in November of 1934. Wilson had been hospitalized several times over the years for alcohol poisoning and had been warned that he would wind up either dead or in an asylum if he did not stop. Still, though he knew the state of his malady, he found he didn’t have the will to keep from drinking. Ebby announced, “I’ve got religion.” Then he proceeded to tell Bill of his story. In Bill’s own words, "My friend sat before me, and he made the point-blank declaration that God had done for him what he could not do for himself."

Bill was deeply impressed by Ebby's words, but was even more affected by Ebby's example of action. Here was someone who drank like Bill drank - and yet Ebby was sober, due to a simple religious idea and a practical program of action.

Sadly, Bill would need to make one more trip to the hospital due to his drinking. While there, he finally had what many have called a conversion. The Conference approved biography, Pass It On, quotes Bill as describing this experience: "What happened next was electric. Suddenly, my room blazed with an indescribably white light. I was seized with an ecstasy beyond description. Every joy I had known was pale by comparison. The light, the ecstasy - I was conscious of nothing else for a time.

”Then, seen in the mind's eye, there was a mountain. I stood upon its summit, where a great wind blew. A wind, not of air, but of spirit. In great, clean strength, it blew right through me. Then came the blazing thought, "You are a free man." I know not at all how long I remained in this state, but finally the light and the ecstasy subsided. I again saw the wall of my room. As I became more quiet, a great peace stole over me, and this was accompanied by a sensation difficult to describe. I became acutely conscious of a Presence, which seemed like a veritable sea of living spirit. I lay on the shores of a new world."

Bill questioned whether he had a genuine conversion or was on the verge of madness. Dr. Silkworth advised him that "hopeless alcoholics" sometimes report conversion experiences before being "turned around" toward recovery. Ebby brought Bill a copy of William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. Silkworth had also read this book, which contained many conversion accounts. Bill spent the better part of the day poring through its contents and concluded that his experience was like those reported by James. Silkworth advised Bill that he had undergone a genuine conversion. In AA Comes of Age, Bill states that Dr. Silkworth "reminded me of Professor William James's observation that truly transforming spiritual experiences are nearly always founded on calamity and collapse."

Bill found that his own sobriety seemed to grow stronger when he shared his personal alcoholic experience with other alcoholics. He was on the verge of a relapse while on a business trip to Akron, Ohio. Desperate, he decided to phone local ministers from the lobby of his hotel and ask if they knew of alcoholics he could talk to. Eventually, he found his way to Dr. Bob Smith, another hopeless alcoholic. The two talked for hours about their respective problems. Dr. Bob would eventually go out on one more spree before finally putting down alcohol for good. That date was June 10, 1935, the official birth of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Unfortunately, Ebby, the man who brought the message of hope to Bill, would end up getting drunk, and for the remaining years of his life would continue to battle alcoholism. He eventually died in 1966. He was never able to come to grips with his disease, and often resented the fact that Bill was thought of as the founder of A.A.

As for the Oxford Group, prior to World War II it changed its name to Moral Re-Armament, in a belief that divine guidance would prevent war from breaking out. While Bill and Dr. Bob were inspired by the Oxford Group, they eventually split with the group because of one – and only one – underlying reason. While it was true that many alcoholics found hope in the spiritual principles espoused by the group, its primary mission statement (or primary purpose, if you will) was not to help alcoholics recover from alcoholism; it was to encourage non-believers to convert to Christianity. Like Ebby, it put the cart before the horse. While A.A. would grow into the program we know today, spawning more than a dozen off-chutes, the Oxford Group became a footnote in the annals of recovery.

Christianity has been responsible for bringing the message of Christ to millions of people, and in the process, has brought light and salvation to the world. But it was not until A.A. was formed that a program of true recovery, where the alcoholic can finally find freedom from his or her affliction, was made available to the world.

For those who still insist that its spirituality is vague, I give you these parting words from Dr. Bob. “If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you. If you still think you are strong enough to beat the game alone, that is your affair. But if you really and truly want to quit drinking liquor for good and all, and sincerely feel that you must have some help, we know that we have an answer for you. It never fails, if you go about it with one half the zeal you have been in the habit of showing when you were getting another drink. Your Heavenly Father will never let you down!”

People who worship the coffee pot at a meeting are no measure of the true success of any 12-step program, let alone the grand daddy of them all. If it bothers you that the word Christ does not appear in the Third Step, well then get over it. There are countless Jewish and Muslim people who got sober through A.A. Some of them might even have gotten saved later on in their journey. All deserved the same chance at recovery that you and I got. In deed, my own journey led me first to A.A., then to Christ. Imagine if when I first walked into an A.A. meeting and was told I had to accept Jesus first before I could get sober, what my response would’ve been. I dare say I would not be around to witness to God, much less write a blog about it.

If we truly believe in a God that pre-ordained everything from the beginning of time, then he must’ve willed that there would be an A.A. where the struggling alcoholic could be relieved from his malady, walk free under His direction, and spread the light of freedom to others who still struggled. If that isn’t spiritual, I don’t know what is. Why would anyone in their right mind want to mess with something like that? Would that the rest of the world be so uncomplicated. If you feel that you need more than A.A. in your walk, fine, but for God’s sake, let’s stop trying to reinvent a wheel that never needed to be reinvented in the first place.

Let’s, as they say in the rooms, Keep It Simple!