How much of this development aid is packaged with their brand of Christianity in it?

Test

Also how much of it is inoreder to capatilize on these peoples once we "developed" them. I say leave 'em alone and clean up the mess at home first.

Listen up Young Fella,

You cannot be normal if you find G Wacko Bush funny. Give your head a gentle shake. You must not be too well!

Spencer.

I guess I should have known I was setting myself to get beat down ; >

My point is that if you are interested in issues of social activism abroad, it is foolish to ignore a large segment of US society that is successfully pushing for many of the same goals!

I don't know Sandeep - the clout they have is scary. It tends to gloss over the kind of demons they really are. Here's a related article from today's NYT.

November 7, 2005

When Cleaner Air Is a Biblical Obligation
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 - In their long and frustrated efforts pushing Congress to pass legislation on global warming, environmentalists are gaining a new ally.

With increasing vigor, evangelical groups that are part of the base of conservative support for leading Republicans are campaigning for laws that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which scientists have linked with global warming.

In the latest effort, the National Association of Evangelicals, a nonprofit organization that includes 45,000 churches serving 30 million people across the country, is circulating among its leaders the draft of a policy statement that would encourage lawmakers to pass legislation creating mandatory controls for carbon emissions.

Environmentalists rely on empirical evidence as their rationale for Congressional action, and many evangelicals further believe that protecting the planet from human activities that cause global warming is a values issue that fulfills Biblical teachings asking humans to be good stewards of the earth.

"Genesis 2:15," said Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for governmental affairs, citing a passage that serves as the justification for the effort: "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

"We believe that we have a rightful responsibility for what the Bible itself challenges," Mr. Cizik said. "Working the land and caring for it go hand in hand. That's why I think, and say unapologetically, that we ought to be able to bring to the debate a new voice."

By themselves, environmental groups have made scant progress on global warming legislation in Congress, beyond a nonbinding Senate resolution last summer that recommends a program of mandatory controls on gases that cause global warming.

Officials with the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council said they welcomed the added muscle evangelicals could bring to their cause. But they agreed that it remained uncertain how much difference it could make.

A major obstacle to any measure that would address global warming is Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and an evangelical himself, but a skeptic of climate change caused by human activities.

Mr. Inhofe has led efforts to keep mandatory controls on greenhouse gases out of any emission reduction bill considered by his committee and has called human activities contributing to global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

"You can always find in Scriptures a passage to misquote for almost anything," Mr. Inhofe said in an interview, dismissing the position of Mr. Cizik's association as "something very strange."

Mr. Inhofe said the vast majority of the nation's evangelical groups would oppose global warming legislation as inconsistent with a conservative agenda that also includes opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. He said the National Evangelical Association had been "led down a liberal path" by environmentalists and others who have convinced the group that issues like poverty and the environment are worth their efforts.

At the same time, Mr. Inhofe said he took the association's stance seriously because of the influence its leaders had on people who generally voted Republican. Evangelical groups including the Noah's Ark Foundation lobbied successfully in 1996 to block efforts by the House to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

Now known as the Noah Alliance, the group continues to work on environmental issues, along with groups like the Evangelical Environmental Network, which describes itself as a "biblically orthodox Christian" organization. It subscribes to a policy of "creation care," which it defines as "caring for all of God's creation by stopping and preventing activities that are harmful," like air and water pollution and species extinction.

Mr. Inhofe said many other evangelical organizations held opposing views on the environment. He cited a coalition of faith organizations, scientists and policy experts known as the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship. The council formed in 2000 only to issue a statement of concerns that declared global warming problems caused by humans as only "speculative." A new version of the council is planning to organize shortly, and members are re-examining their stances.

A member of the original group's advisory committee, Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies moral issues and public policy, said more recent disputes among conservatives over global warming focused not on the science behind it but on ways to address it.

Mr. Cizik said the alliance's draft position on global warming was still under review by its leaders and would not be issued unless they voted unanimously to support it. If only a majority supports it, he said, it could be released as "an evangelical statement on climate change."

While he was reluctant to predict its potential political impact, he said, "I don't think there's a Republican running for the White House in 2008 who will not have to deal with the emergence of evangelicals on creation care."

John Green, a senior fellow for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said a policy statement from the National Alliance of Evangelicals could influence Congress. But the real test, he said, was whether the group's leaders could influence their congregants.

"It's still early in the process," he said of evangelical involvement in the environmental movement. "Among rank and file, evangelicals are as environmental as the rest of us. They're in favor of environmental protections, at least in principle."

On the other hand, he added, "they don't like environmentalists. They associate environmentalists with the Sierra Club and with people who have nontraditional religiosity. Alliance leaders have a real opportunity here, but the impediment is getting over the image of environmentalists."

Mr. Green said the full impact of the alliance position would not be known for several years. But if their support for global warming legislation increases, "then," he said, "Senator Inhofe is going to have to sit up and listen."

If you take money from these people you can rest assured that at some future point they will try to save your soul. Whether you want to or not.

Nothing they give is without a huge hook in it.

Whats with the bad marriage thing?????

The person at the top of the ladder will always be a subject of critisism. To be a leader is a burden to carry most of the time because when all is said and done you are the one who has to try and take on board the problems of the many.

In something as dynamic as society there are millions of different views and ideas about how the world should be, and as a leader of society that person has to sometimes make decisions that many people will disagree with, there are some things that can not be disclosed to the public because in reality lets face it the public are dangerous and stupid by large. So Politicians are Liars by default and with good reason in some cases, if we all knew every single detail about what was leading up to the gulf war then maybe we would think, thank god a decision was taken to do something about the malicious powers that were massing in Iraq.

Many lives have been lost, Much Blood lost, many tears shed, many homes destroyed, because of the decisions made by the person at the top, what would you decide if you had to make the choice between 20 thousand lives or 300 million lives? would you even have the courage to stand in the shoes of a person who would have to make that decision?.

There will always be critisism for the man at the top because he can not please all of the people all of the time.

All he can do is his Duty and yes maybe even sometimes he gets it wrong or his people get it wrong. I think that maybe he even disagrees with his decisions at times... but his views are secondary to what needs to be done and what is done.

You wont all agree with that, but I cant please all of the people all of the time either.

Love xx

It really depends where that money is going and what it will fund. Absolute figures are useless without context.

So for example, Bush wants to give money for AIDS prevention. What do they see as the best way to prevent Aids? Not by giving out cheap protection. Oh no, that would be too easy! They prefer to teach people on abstinence of sex, as good born-again Christians, rather than do the right thing. So while more money is being pumped and it all sounds good, its a monumental waste because those classes don't mean much.

The same has applied in recent months to debt relief and all sorts of announcements on climate change etc.

Did the money really get there?

They said they spent it, but whose pocket did it end up?

There were some investigations and scandals over the last couple decades that followed the money trail back to US corporations and congressman Bob's brother in law.

AIDs prevention.

If want to stop AIDS feed them Amaranth.

The HIV virus cannot penetrate the skin, it needs an opening. A sore or a tear in the skin.

AIDs is the result of poor nutrition or subjecting thin tissue to strains it is not designed for. And of course needles.

It doesn't say much for the academics, medical professionals and leaders of the world that they do not see or execute the solution and you wonder why the world is as it is.

Sandeep,

Great post and even greater point.

I see so often on this blog so many decrying the "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to Christian/Muslim, Muslim/Hindu, etc. while in the same breath having nothing good to say about GW, Republicans or evangelicals. That mind set is just "us vs. them", with the only difference being the supposed "other side".

I find it interesting that we so much want to have a villian in the story we twist things around so that no matter what that object of our projection does, it is evil...or for some ulterior motive.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder that it's important to remember that we are all doing our best no matter what our political philosphies are.

Peace,
Scott.

Anyone that uses labels is doing the work of the devil, I assume he must pay well and adorns the ego which is why they are so prolific.

Labels destroy unity, they divide, and they obscure reality.

I suppose they are a fun tool to play with while engaging in our finite games.

How else could you create an opposition which you could engage?

But your right you should Love Bush, because he is you, just a different point of view.

Love George Bush?
I thought there were only two options: Be a George Bush HATER, or a George Bush Supporter.

Dear Sandeep; I recieved a virtual, visual of GWB when I read the monkey part; thank you for the giggle this morning.

North

Hey! I'm gettin' a hang of this whole bloggin' concept.Hah! Talk 'bout being a quick learner!!

Keeping in mind that everyone's got a right to their own opinion, I have to post mine here. I personally feel somebody's got to be pretty disturbed to support Bush in his run for President of the World, leave alone love him!! (And puhleese, no comments about how we ought to love one 'n' all in God's name!)

Toral,

I beg to second the motion!

Rog.

Norm,

You really went on a little rampage and thought that you would get away with it. Well, well, "Big Norm," here at Intent, you really cannot get away with too much. This is a savvy community.

So comic Sandeep Sood 'praises' Bush for increasing funding for "overseas development assistance" to 19 billion, up from a measly 7 billion Clinton gave.

So Norm, Bush gave 19 billion to help less-fortunate nations. Clinton gave 7. Who is the more fiscally responsible, Norm?

Bush has blown 300 billion dollars, and counting, fighting a phanton threat in Iraq, another less fortunate, third-world nation. Clinton spent a miniscule fraction of that in the Bosnian affair. Who is the more fiscally responsible, Norm?

"You libs invented demonization of an opponent." Do you have proof of that, Norm?

You conveniently omitted to mention the master of demonization of an opponent, Karl Rove. No surprise!

According to the doctrine of Karl: you repeat an untruth long enough and often enough, the masses will eventually begin to think that it is the truth. Sinisterly brilliant, indeed; because it works.

A huge segment of the US population, who are of Republican persuasions, is under-educated, or simply uneducated. You can often tell by the quality of their writings and speeches. Many, like bush himself, cannot spell at an intermediate level. Bush is the quintessential example of a malaprop. His malapropsism has given many late night comedians much stuff to laugh about. (Just in case you don't understand what malapropism is, I will be more than happy to explain.)

Yes, most of the libs who write in here, and elsewhere, are unequivocally great spellers and great writers because they are better informed and better schooled. That's the way it is, Normie. No offense.

On the other hand, many of the conservatives, like you Norm, aren't. "Almost undescribable" as you wrote above, is a clear example of that. Maybe, it's just a typo.

Sorry, Buddy, for nickle and diming you like this. But I felt I had to call you out on it since you decided to brag and blab and call me out as "joining the chorus."

Good night, Norm.