Televangelist Paula White joins White House staff

a reply to: Klassified

None of our presidents have been a reality TV star either.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

None of our presidents have been a reality TV star either.

You want this bill ?!? You want me to sign and pass this bill ?!?

Then get your arse up that obstacle, swing over the ledge and hit that button congressman ! If you do it in record time, I'll throw in a bonus pork spending bill round !!!


CSpan viewers triple over night.....

a reply to: Klassified

I, like others it seems, am at a loss as to why this liaison troubles you so much.

The US is so secularized now that there truly is no risk here of the State forming a religion. The government needs to cater to all of us and since we are a super majority, it only makes sense to communicate with religious groups.

Me, I appreciate the freedom we have to be whatever we want to be and all our votes count equally in the end. The real danger lies in losing that freedom. Removing the majorities voice in government affairs seems like it would be more about religious bigotry than protecting anyone else.

I'd hate to see us move towards something more like China where they have started confiscating religious books again and punishing people for having them in their possession. I think we have a nice balance here.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

It's always hard to say with atheists. Generally, they will fall out with the left just because the left is so inimical to faith in general and most atheists want all faith scrubbed from every corner of public life, not just government public, but every type of public.

Since the left is the game in town most likely to grant them that, that's where they jump.

You are correct, but the constitution guarantees freedom of religion as it should. That amendment is just as valuable to the atheist as it is the religious, whether or not they can see it.

a reply to: Klassified

Claiming a Christian can't be a good advisor is just as asinine saying that a judge can't make a judicous decision because they were appointed by a Democrat (or a Republcian.)

This kind of divisiveness is what has been implanted into us for the last 20 years or so. Yes, I know that "divisiveness" gets misused and abused ... but it is true.

The lady is a Christian and a pastor. There's nothing in the Constituion that says a person can't have religious faith (in fact, it says the opposite) and work in the government.

I would agree whole-heartedly that Dominionism and radical fundamentalism is a factor we should ALL maintain an awareness of. There is no more dangerous combination than religion and politics, especially fundamentalist religion and authoritarian politics ... BUT ... the US was and is an experiment ... how can we allow absolute religious freedom and not have it overrun the government.

We are going to have to stop excluding people as if they only have one quality. (Christian, Non-religious, Left, Asian,etc) IMO.

There are many "on the Left" who are religious. Most are Christian and patriotic.

Such blanket exaggerations are merely partisan rhetoric.

a reply to: Gryphon66
The problem to the OP is this is a televangelist prosperity preacher, pretty much a scammer as far as I'm concerned..jm2c.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Gryphon66
The problem to the OP is this is a televangelist prosperity preacher, pretty much a scammer as far as I'm concerned..jm2c.

I grew up in that "faith" trust me I'm aware.

Still, their beliefs, their business, as long as they stay away from me and mine. IMO

a reply to: Gryphon66

I hear ya, was just pointing out that I don't think the issue was the Christian part of it, more the "prosperity preacher" probable scammer aspect..of course that is in the eye of the beholder.

I have no idea what her job will entail, or influence on policy she might have.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Gryphon66
The problem to the OP is this is a televangelist prosperity preacher, pretty much a scammer as far as I'm concerned..jm2c.

I grew up in that "faith" trust me I'm aware.

Still, their beliefs, their business, as long as they stay away from me and mine. IMO

Copy that...I too grew up in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Texas family. Perhaps I'm painting with a broad brush but I don't trust Christians with their spiritual arrogance, lies and holier than thou attitudes.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Klassified


Honestly though, if you were Trump at this point, who WOULD YOU TRUST? I wouldn't trust ANYONE!

It's like Nixon and his paranoia. I think we're at that same point now.

At least Trump doesn't drink heavily and talk to the paintings of past presidents yet.

If he did could you blame him?

No, I wouldn't blame him. I think he and Nixon are very much alike.

You want to know what I think?


If you were Trump you would have already ate a bullet!


What this man has had to endure for wanting to serve his country is unconcionable!

Everyone knows those bone spurs weren't real.

originally posted by: Klassified
This is a true statement, but it has little to do with the purpose or point of the thread. Yes, past presidents have done similar, and I disapproved, but none have appointed a televangelist that I'm aware of.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with this all. Are you against religion as a whole or just televangelists as a whole?

Sorry ladies and gents, I have had my hands full today and this evening with business matters. I will try to get some responses made tomorrow...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I would agree whole-heartedly that Dominionism and radical fundamentalism is a factor we should ALL maintain an awareness of. There is no more dangerous combination than religion and politics, especially fundamentalist religion and authoritarian politics ... BUT ... the US was and is an experiment ... how can we allow absolute religious freedom and not have it overrun the government.

THIS is the crux of the OP.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Klassified
This is a true statement, but it has little to do with the purpose or point of the thread. Yes, past presidents have done similar, and I disapproved, but none have appointed a televangelist that I'm aware of.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with this all. Are you against religion as a whole or just televangelists as a whole?

See my last post to Gryphon66. He sums it up well. Awareness.

In my personal opinion, religion has stunted the growth of the human species, and has done a lot more damage than it has good, televangelists being akin to sleazy used car salesmen. Religion has no place in a secular government, especially those of a dominionist or fundamentalist persuasion. I also count anti-theists like myself among those who do not belong in secular government. Freedom of religion is a right that should not be infringed upon by the religious or the non-religious.

Placing people like Paula White in a "harmless" position is a slippery slope we would do well to avoid.

Just my opinion, take it or leave it.

originally posted by: Klassified

In my personal opinion, religion has stunted the growth of the human species, and has done a lot more damage than it has good, televangelists being akin to sleazy used car salesmen.

First you will find that most Christians feel the same way about many of the televangelists.

You are completely wrong about religion stunting the growth of the human species. It gave us law and order and a set of moral values that became modern laws. The Mosaic Law even gave us the first health guidelines about cleanliness.

When you focus on the bad done by a few and ignore the good done by many, it warps the whole perspective of religion.

The top group of givers to charities are Christians over 45 and that excludes what they give to their churches. The least giving group are non religious folks. Something I know a great deal about. That sense of morality is also a product of religion.

Like I said, focusing on the negatives, often referring to people who claim Christianity but are not truly Christians except in name, paints a false picture.

Religious people are probably the most lied about group on the planet. Look at the Muslims, who are the number one victims of Radical Islam. How often are they wrongly labeled due to the actions of the terrorists, a tiny minority of Muslims.

Look how often Christians are condemned wrongly for things that happened hundreds of years ago. Or, condemned due to the actions of cults and groups of crazies who are not actually Christians in the first place.

Look at the phonies who actually claim that simply driving by a cross on the side of the road somehow harms them, as if that were actually true and those bigots do it with a straight face. Most atheists are not like that, so even they are impacted by the concept of blaming the whole for the actions of a tiny part of a group.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I know what you are saying but I'd come closer to trusting my friends at the bar than my Christian family or Christians in general.

Subjective, yes and born from experience. If you don't like being painted with broad brush strokes; practice what you preach!!


Paula White and trump "the chosen one"....a match made in heaven...lol

a reply to: olaru12

You know what I said is true. I have little patience for haters who condemn entire groups of people for the actions a small number of them. Even less patience for those who hate people for things that happened hundreds of years ago.

Your experience with your family is not representative, so that's something you need to work out in your own head. Hate is insidious and has a way of spreading and becomes like a cancer that eats it's host. Saying or thinking all Christians are bad is not only an intellectual lie, it's just plain old fashioned bigotry and ugly.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Klassified

I guess I'm baffled exactly how this is and issue. A liaison is simply a person who acts as a go between with constituents and since over 80% of his base are religious, or claim to be?

Seems to me you're saying you don't like people of faith, therefore they should be ignored.

The whole we are going to turn into a theocracy thing is just nonsense IMO. That may have been possible 150 years ago or more, but now? Must be a boring news day? No way, no how is the US in danger of becoming a theocracy.

Given some states approaches to hot button topics like sex ed, abortion, gay marriage and alcohol a lot of people would say that America is already rather a theocratic places at the state level, and that this might see a broader theocratic approach at the federal level too.

Some would actually welcome this as they see the side lining of religion as being a side lining of tradition American values and the culture on which the nation was founded.

Whereas others don't like the idea of a president who might start to think that he is in some kind of faith mission, and that he can justify his action based on him having support from a higher power.

Then again there are also others who are deeply wary of the commercial approach taken by televangelists. In particular their commoditization of faith. When somebody goes on to tv and intimates that the poor can pay out money in this life in order to receive favor in the next, or that the rich can buy indulgences to mitigate bad things that they do to others, this does not sit well with traditional small town folk. It smells like snake oil to them.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You are completely wrong about religion stunting the growth of the human species. It gave us law and order and a set of moral values that became modern laws. The Mosaic Law even gave us the first health guidelines about cleanliness.

That law and order came from religion is a debate that could be had ad infinitum, so I'll just take that as granted for now, because we know that some laws have indeed been inspired by religion. Among the "law and order" given to us by religion is slavery, stoning for misdemeanor infractions, murdering people of a different faith by the thousands, women as property, genital mutilation, death for not being a virgin, death for being a victim of rape, and the list goes on and on and on. And these are just the abrahamic faiths, I haven't touched non-abrahamic faiths for the sake of brevity. Just because a few common sense ordinances come from the same place as a host of barbaric ones doesn't make religion the arbiter of morality.

The top group of givers to charities are Christians over 45 and that excludes what they give to their churches. The least giving group are non religious folks. Something I know a great deal about. That sense of morality is also a product of religion.

Those numbers would make sense in the U.S. since the majority claim Christianity as their religion, and their religion shames them for not giving their money away to whatever cause the church and others deem "godly". Obviously non-religious givers would be the minority since they ARE the minority.
Something you know a great deal about? I don't know what kind of heathens you hang out with, but the heathens I hang out with are as giving as any Christians I've ever met, they just don't go around tooting their horn after they do it. Your sense of morality is a product of the culture you grew up in. It has little to do with religion except that our culture in the U.S. happens to revolve in large part around Christian values, both good and bad unfortunately.

Like I said, focusing on the negatives, often referring to people who claim Christianity but are not truly Christians except in name, paints a false picture.

Religious people are probably the most lied about group on the planet. Look at the Muslims, who are the number one victims of Radical Islam. How often are they wrongly labeled due to the actions of the terrorists, a tiny minority of Muslims. Look how often Christians are condemned wrongly for things that happened hundreds of years ago. Or, condemned due to the actions of cults and groups of crazies who are not actually Christians in the first place.

Look at the phonies who actually claim that simply driving by a cross on the side of the road somehow harms them, as if that were actually true and those bigots do it with a straight face. Most atheists are not like that, so even they are impacted by the concept of blaming the whole for the actions of a tiny part of a group.

The line between the individual and the ideology has always been blurred, especially by religion itself. Being of any faith or non-faith doe not automatically make you a good or bad person. Your choices do.