« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Christian News Show Poses The Real Question On C St.: How Many Affairs Has It Thwarted?
Here's some summer Friday fun.
The right-wing Christian Broadcasting Network does damage control for C Street, explaining that the real question isn't, how many affairs were covered up, but rather, "how many affairs were thwarted."
Best part: In a moment which gets at the, um, tensions inherent in a religious-based journalism enterprise, anchor Gordon Robertson applauds C Street for its secrecy, which, he says, allows it to minister more effectively to its members. Says Roberston: "God bless em!"
Watch:
Late Update: The video now seems to have been pulled. Here's the text of CBN's story.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
So the Bush Administration should be applauded for all the Iraqis they didn't kill?
August 14, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT SELF DESTUCTING?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6082
.
September 3, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This C Street group does not actually reflect Christianity. It's a deeply perverted and self-serving vision of same.
August 14, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much describes Christianity as we know it. I know it hurts to hear but its been that way a long long time. My favorite quote is Ghandi saying: "I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."
As for C Street Thwarting affairs, I'd be willing to bet that it is thousands and thousands, because without the intense scrutiny of their fellow travelers these Christians can not control themselves. They have no self will, its been handed over to a "higher power" so once they are away from that influence, Katey bar the door, cuz things are gonna get wild. That's why they're always praying, want pray in school and public places and its why they are always dragging their "spiritual" advisers around. They need to be watched constantly. Finally that's why the want to legislate morality, they think everyone is like them. Pity them, but keep them away from you wives, daughters and the levers of power.
August 14, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henk:
Pure brilliance. Bravo.
August 14, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pretty much describes Christianity as we know it."
Not unless you have a really limited view of Christianity. What it describes is a common dynamic in religion. Over time, people will alter their religions to make themselves more comfortable. And you'll see preachers telling you that Jesus, who told us not to pile up riches, wants you to be rich. This doesn't mean all Christians buy into it.
You can't fight this stuff if your picture of the problem is a cartoon.
August 15, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
AlphaLiberal said: "This C Street group does not actually reflect Christianity"
You say that as if there is a real Christianity, instead of thousands of groups each claiming to be the real Christians. It's odd that the word of God is so clear to each of them, yet they end up with different interpretations.
So, no, the C Street group reflects Christianity and is a part of Christianity as a whole. No, it isn't Christianity "in toto," but pretending it is not at all related to your favorite flavor of Christianity is just damage control.
When you believe you have God's ear and believe you understand His will, just about anything can be justified.
August 14, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
They themselves say they're not Christian but "followers of Christ". They believe that powerful men (and not women) are favored most by God who has put them there to act as a quasi-paternal caretaker of the lower classes. They believe that communism and unions are an expression of lower class greed and godlessness.
They seek to bring about a totalitarian government headed by Jesus who guides them through prayer. Literally. According to them, unfettered capitalism allows the paternal owners of capital, guided by Jesus, to organize and administer society for the lower classes.
I suppose that strictly speaking they're Christians, yes. Are they anything resembling the vast majority of Christianity? No.
August 14, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that I have a very clear view of Christianity and yes it is cartoonish, but with good reason.
I was raised Catholic. Are you aware that Catholics are not Christian? That's what I was told in the early 70's by a friend who had been "reborn." (I've been watching the rise of the Born Agains since that time.) He'd traded his addiction for drugs in on this new model of Christianity. My sister was reborn too. Years later as she lay dieing, with breast cancer, comfortable in our mothers house, these "Chrisitans" fought mightly to have her removed because my mother and father were Catholic. They actually told my dieing sister, days before her death, that she was going to hell! Comfort the sick my ass. My Brother is married to a devout southern Baptist. He quit attending services during the Bush admin, because he could no longer tolerate the mindless support for the Iraq war and the anti-muslem rants. In a nutshell, that church supported the death and destruction. Christian?
I live, I watch and I learn. Christianity has done some good things in the country. Civil rights come to mind, but for every good there are dozens and dozens of bad. Currently we have the Ministry of Prosperity, being expoused here in the US. Basically it gives people an excuse to be selfish. It tells them that those who are poor are poor because they didn't give enough to the church so God makes them that way. How can you help someone if God wants them that way, eh?
I won't get into the atrosities perpetrated on the world in the name of Christianity.
As I said my view of Christianity is quite clear.
August 16, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is so obvious that there is not one thing Christian about the C street group. It is a cover for the most disgusting anti-family behavior and as a Christian I am appalled that this group of perverts is trying to represent themselves as anything Christian. Amazing that this group is so up front about their disgusting sexuality in their behavior. They are a sad commentary of the Christian lifestyle that truly demands that we leave those self aggrandizing behaviors and give all up to serve our fellow man. Of all things, this bunch even makes Bill Clinton seem saintly by comparison. And as I recall, that same bunch spent lots of time feeling so superior to Mr. Clinton.
August 16, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is perfect logic, as I sit here drafting my PFS review. I'll just tell my boss, it's not about my accomplishments, it's about how many screw ups I never committed!
August 14, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good one. I will remember that
August 17, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it Christian News or The Daily Show? You decide.
August 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the coffee spit-take and ROTFLOL I did when I heard "the real question" (how many affairs were thwarted?), I'd have guessed The Daily Show.
August 14, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doonsbury's doing a good job on C Street lately, too.
August 14, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can they prove the "C" Street boys club 'thwarted' any? It seems more like they propagated it if the former Rep.'s old lady is right in her divorce filing. Didn't she claim her old man diddled his mistress in the "C" Street club house? These people are more full of sh!t than a Christmas goose. They provided a place that was safe until Ensign screwed it up. I never suspected Ensign was as lame as he is. Who knew?
August 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, while Ensign was screwing his friend's wife in the clubhouse, he wasn't out screwing someone else's wife, so for each sexual encounter there was one affair thwarted. See how that works?
August 14, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
nellieh, we don't need proof. All we need is faith. If it is good enough for Him, it is good enough for me.
August 14, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many mass murders, hurricanes and tiger attacks has C Street thwarted?
August 14, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Henk, here's an actual quote from a South Carolina born-again Christian who argued with me about forgiving Mark Sanford ... "At least he had morals in the first place." I'm not making this up.
August 14, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those republicans are a randy bunch.
August 14, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that "C" Street is cracking down.
From now on, guys like Ensign & Sanford will be required to wear one of those lost jungle tribe wooden schlong tubes that tie off at the neck.
Pecker wood abstinence.
August 14, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the scarlet A when we really need it?
August 14, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please hear me out on this.
Republicans will never gain real ground in either the Bay area or Massachussetts. Why? Because when right-wingers get together they talk gruesome shit about people from those places and they are per se excluded from the "fun."
Progressives will never gain real ground among Christians. Why? Because of the kind of blanket-rhetoric prejudgment that you hear on this site.
MLK was a Christian. Dorothy Day was a Christian. The first wave of British socialists were all Christians. I would venture a guess that most anti-Christians hate it because they value Christianity's own moral standards and resent Christian hypocrisy.
Is the C-Street Family a gang of fraudulent, crooked scumbags? You bet. Is this an indictment of Christianity in toto? Absolutely not.
Right wing Christianity is a haven for moral frauds and pretenders. It is like a "Witness Protection Program," or a "Sinner Protection Program" for the most vile trash in our political world. We can recognize this, but we fail to distinguish between politicized right-wing Christianity and its alternatives at our peril.
August 14, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would venture a guess that most anti-Christians hate it because they value Christianity's own moral standards and resent Christian hypocrisy.
Then you would be wrong. My guess is that people who are pro-tolerance (NOT anti-Christian, nice try, but that's an obvious ploy to portray us in a negative light) feel that way because we have the SAME morals you do, but don't need a book of mythology to tell us to have them. Oh, and we resent the hell out of the assumption you just made -- that we have NO morals simply because we aren't "Christian."
I was prepared to hear you out because you so reasonably asked us to right up front, but your ugly prejudice just showed itself.
August 14, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the chunk of text that you cut-and-pasted, ProgressRVA did say that you have morals. You quoted the passage but totally reversed its meaning.
Moreover, you say that you are incensed at being called "anti-Christian" (although nobody named or pointed to you). You are volunteering to take the epithet "anti-Christian" and then objecting to it! No one accused you of being anti-Christian except -- you. Sounds like faux outrage to me.
At the very same time, you speak of how tolerant you are, and say "we have the SAME morals you do, but don't need a book of mythology to tell us to have them." Shall I catalog the internal contradictions in what you say? No, I will not. You can look at what's written, and consider how inappropriate your response was. If you're not willing to do that, then you are just another troll, not worth my time.
August 15, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I've finally been called a troll for the first time since the Internet was invented by Al Gore! I guess you're more discerning than anyone on any of the dozens of boards I've ever been to, bureaucat.
Not particularly logical, with that twisted way YOU twisted my words, but discerning, no doubt, and of course I'm not worthy of your greatness.
You are right about one thing, I did misunderstand the previous poster. I'm just SO used to being told I don't have values, and I'm "anti" Christian just because I'm not PRO Christian -- that I misread. Anti-Christian? Does that mean if I'm not with you, I'm against you? Pffft. Please believe me, my rage is not "faux." I'm one of those people who it is STILL fashionable to be prejudiced against and I have every right to feel rage about it. Of course, you may be one of those people who bears that prejudice, if your over-the-top response to me is any indication.
At any rate, I apologize to ProgressRVA for misunderstanding. Though I hope he/she will reconsider the negative "anti-Christian" name you ascribe to people who don't believe exactly as you do.
August 15, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, I got two posts intertwined in my reply above.
ProgressRVA, the fact that 80%-ish of the US population self-identifies as Christian and the fact that Barak Obama was elected President belies your claim. Obviously many Christians did vote for the more progressive candidate.
What is "it" referencing in this quote?
Who are these anti-Christians you speak of? I know many non-Christians, but haven't met anybody I would describe as anti-Christian. (disclosure: I am an atheist that grew up in a Catholic family and spent a number of years as a dutiful altar boy.) What I resent about the C Street types isn't their hypocrisy, but their attempt to impose their religious standards on the rest of us.
August 14, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, that's good. Very well said.
August 14, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that certainly has detracted from the clarity of this issue is the way in which the MSM have insisted on using the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and D. James Kennedys of the world as spokespeople for "Christianity," with no acknowledgment whatsoever of such entities as, say, the National Council of Churches, which is way to the left of Falwell's ilk. About the best they can do is put Jim Wallis on the air once in a while, and I suspect the only reason he gets any air time is that he opposes abortion.
August 15, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love."
H. L. Mencken
August 14, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent quote.
August 14, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The C street group have caused me to consider 'turning the other cheek' in several new perspectives.
August 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they havent thwarted this one...in fact, they may well be the "close friend" chosen to keep Kig David happy.
Maria Chapur is in S. Carolina NOW
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/08/14/wheres-maria/#comments
"In fact, sources tell FITS that Chapur has been in South Carolina for “several days” now, first staying at a guest house on the governor’s Coosaw Plantation in Beaufort County and most recently staying at “a friend (of the governor)’s house in Columbia.”
That progression would certainly fit with what we know of the governor’s schedule over the past few days. Sanford spent last weekend on his plantation in Beaufort County before returning to Columbia on Monday evening for meetings with constituents.
On Wednesday, Sanford denied a report published here on FITS that he was “contemplating” moving Chapur into the Governor’s Mansion, which was vacated last Friday by S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford and the couple’s four boys.
While issuing his denial, however, Sanford refused to give a straight answer as to whether or not he had been communicating with Chapur.
August 14, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if the C Street group thwarted lots of illicit extramarital affairs, it doesn't address the fact that far too many of the priggish, holier than thou Christian conservatives are engaging in that behavior. As bad as it is, the real problem is the fact that they are so self righteous about how everyone should behave, when they have feet of clay themselves, they lose any moral standing to tell anyone how to behave.
August 14, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A poster at the State newspaper website provides more confirmation on the Mark Sanford-Maria tryst that was reported first by fitnews.com. Maria Chapur is indeed here, and Mark Sanford is indeed on another "vacation" this time under the guise of reserve duty in Florida. Note that Ben Fox his spokesman, refuses to say if Sanford left by road or by air and when. so much for transperancy.
"Swirling talk that Mark Sanford and Maria Chapur travelled together to Panama City, FL late Thursday night.
Sanford took private transportation courtesy of a close friend and left the mansion under cover of darkness last night with Chapur who is said to have been in Columbia staying at a Sanford's loyal friend's house since Monday this week.
Sanford and Chapur are said to have spent the weekend at the Sanford family plantation house in Coosaw and that Chapur has been formally introduced to Mark's mom.
Chapur is spending time with Sanford prior to his reporting for reseve duty tomorrow and Sunday. They will also be together for most part of Monday before returing to Columbia in the evening."
Chapur came in to the US via Miami.
More information on fitsnews.com
August 14, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
By providing housing for so many like-minded recessivist men . . . There is ample evidence to suggest facilitating moral depravity rather than deterring or mitigating debauchery be their usual mode of operation.
August 14, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard,
to use an old saying: "Birds of a feather flock together."
August 15, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We should not expect people who believe in
zombies to think rationally.
August 15, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proposition (that C Street may have prevented / "thwarted" some affairs) is ridiculous on its face, because the leaders preach that those in positions of power—i.e., the members of C Street—are inherently morally superior, simply by virtue of being in power, and therefore can and should do anything they personally feel like doing, and it will be Right and Proper Behavior.
Thus, according to Ko, if they have the urge to have an affair, they should go do it. That suggests that C Street actually promoted affairs, rather than preventing them.
August 15, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the only time you are allowed to be alone with a woman is when you are having sex, what happens the next time you are accidentally alone with a woman?
Thinking about woman only as sexual temptations rather than as people is certainly not the best way to learn to practice self-control.
Also suggest that C Street skip the King David passages -- they seem to have a deleterious effect on behavior.
August 15, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
HEADLINE:
Under the fold:
Happy Birthday to our 6,000 year old Earth.
August 16, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how few people live there, already their quota of affairs is filled to over flowing. If there would have been more without counseling, what does that say about people who indulge in frequent Bible readings?
August 17, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink