The Religious Right's Favorite Newspaper is in Trouble

[Bruce Gourley]

The Washington Times is in trouble.

Here is the backstory:

While the Wall Street Journal is arguably the favorite newspaper of capitalistic-focused Christian conservatives, Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times (founded in 1982) has reigned, since the days of Ronald Reagan, as the favorite newspaper of political conservatives and the Religious Right at large. The Times was Reagan's favorite newspaper too, perhaps because during his presidency the paper reprinted the Reagan administration's press releases with a reporter's byline, and Moon's fortune funded the promotional push for Reagan's Star Wars defense program. Reagan said of the Times, "The American people know the truth. You, my friends at The Washington Times, have told it to them. It wasn't always the popular thing to do. But you were a loud and powerful voice. Like me, you arrived in Washington at the beginning of the most momentous decade of the century. Together, we rolled up our sleeves and got to work."

Moon, of course, is the cult leader of the Unification Church and claims to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ. He is (or at least, was) also close friends with North Korea's tyrant Kim Jong-Il (the "Dear Leader"), and evidence indicates he supplied the North Korean regime with arms. Yet the Religious Right has long partnered with Moon because of his conservative political and social stances (apart from, perhaps, the mass arranged weddings he periodically performs). Without Moon, Liberty University would have been shut down years ago (Moon loaned Falwell money to keep the school open at a time when Falwell was dealing with legal fallout from misappropriating money). Tim LaHaye was a paid employee of Moon's Coalition for Religious Freedom, Moon funds LaHaye's Council for National Policy and the Family Research Council, and he also funds an organization called "Christian Voice." (For all this and more - and there is more - about the marriage between Moon and the Religious Right, see Gorenfeld, Bad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American Kingdom).

Moon and his Unification Church came to America in 1971, thanks to the help of Strom Thurmond, who was seeking conservative, anti-communist allies. The Moonies wedged themselves into the Washington political machine by holding prayer breakfasts and rallies in support of Richard Nixon. In 1973 Moon advocated a similar ideology to that of theocrat Francis Schaeffer: Moon declared, “[W]e must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So we cannot separate the political field from the religious.” In 1976 Moon sponsored a "Bicentennial God Bless America" rally at a stadium.

Political scandals and federal prison time (tax fraud and IRS problems) followed for Moon. The founding of the Times became Moon's second act: “We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values,” James Gavin, special assistant to Moon’s top deputy, Col. Bo Hi Pak, told the Washington Post. “[i]The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down."[/i] (The line about communism must be understood against the backdrop of Moon's friendship with Kim Jong-Il).

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

The Religious Right and Moon have long shared the view that God is using their partnership to bring faith and morality back to America, with the Washington Times being central to this mission. In 2002 Moon proclaimed, "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God." Later, he added: "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." More specifically, God's truth equaled opposition to communism and liberalism (the stated reasons for the founding of the Times).

Former Times' writers have stated they were rewarded for giving their stories a conservative slant. And now the paper's survival is in question.

For more information about Moon, the Washington Times and the Unification church, click here.

[Jonathan]

For those of you who are either new to Baptistlife.com or were born close to 1980, Bruce will periodically try to play the guilt by association card because of some very close relationships in the 1980s with the WashTimes and some big names in what used to be the Religious Right. It never works because 1) not even the most bile producing liberal believes that conservative Christians share religious beliefs with the "rev" Moon and 2) the story is simply stale.

For those of you who are in the 35 and under set, there was a time when nearly all news was produced and reported by 3 major broadcast networks (based in NYC - all 3 of which had extensive radio news organizations that provided the national feed for many local stations), a handful of huge newspapers, 1 major and 1 minor wire service, and few weekly/monthly news magazines...and, surprise, surprise, the spin on and commentary about the news of the day was pretty much from the leftwing minority. So when the Washington Time started, conservatives (of every stripe) got a bit giddy....and folks on the Left (like our dear Bruce) first tried to ignore this little startup and then tried to denigrate it. Did some prominent conservative Christians (mega church pastors and the like) get a bit too close to Moon? Probably. Did this damage their personal credibility? Sure, with some. However, the majority of folks on the Right saw this for what it was: a desire to keep open the one D.C. news outlet that didn't take its cues from either the AP, the NYTimes, or the DNC.

Fast forward to 2008. Conservatives have access to the news industry and the old Leftwing grip on the news has been crumbling for at least 15 years. Now, in what would have been unthinkable to conservatives in 1980, there is actually competition among news outlets not controlled by the tired and dying MSM cabal. In D.C. alone, other organizations, like the Washington Examiner, are doing quite well with a stable of nationally known columnists and reporters.

Is the Washington Times dying? Perhaps? But it is more likely that the finishing blow will be market forces rather than the spectre of Rev. Moon and mass marriages.

As an aside, Bruce's rants on things RR usually produces a greatly hilarious line. As he feverishly types out a missive that just might finally blow the lid off the vast right wing conspiracy, the fever sometimes overcomes his decency or his common sense. Below is my nomination for the "best of post" award, comedy division:

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

Bruce, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Here's to much more of this in 2010.

[Mark]

Not even the most bile producing liberal believes that conservative Christians share religious beliefs with the "rev" Moon...

So... Bruce is worse than "the most bile producing liberal?" Now, that would be... what?

(Glad you're willing to admonish those who would begin 2010 using over-the-top rhetoric.)

So when the Washington Time started, conservatives (of every stripe) got a bit giddy....

I still hear conservative talk show hosts cite The Washington Times with affection. Quite frequently in fact.

Did (1) some prominent conservative Christians (mega church pastors and the like) get a bit too close to Moon? (2) Probably....

How about (1) Falwell and (2) Definitely.

[Bruce Gourley]

For those of you who are either new to Baptistlife.com or were born close to 1980, Bruce will periodically try to play the guilt by association card because of some very close relationships in the 1980s with the WashTimes and some big names in what used to be the Religious Right. It never works because 1) not even the most bile producing liberal believes that conservative Christians share religious beliefs with the "rev" Moon and 2) the story is simply stale.

For those of you who are in the 35 and under set, there was a time when nearly all news was produced and reported by 3 major broadcast networks (based in NYC - all 3 of which had extensive radio news organizations that provided the national feed for many local stations), a handful of huge newspapers, 1 major and 1 minor wire service, and few weekly/monthly news magazines...and, surprise, surprise, the spin on and commentary about the news of the day was pretty much from the leftwing minority. So when the Washington Time started, conservatives (of every stripe) got a bit giddy....and folks on the Left (like our dear Bruce) first tried to ignore this little startup and then tried to denigrate it. Did some prominent conservative Christians (mega church pastors and the like) get a bit too close to Moon? Probably. Did this damage their personal credibility? Sure, with some. However, the majority of folks on the Right saw this for what it was: a desire to keep open the one D.C. news outlet that didn't take its cues from either the AP, the NYTimes, or the DNC.

Fast forward to 2008. Conservatives have access to the news industry and the old Leftwing grip on the news has been crumbling for at least 15 years. Now, in what would have been unthinkable to conservatives in 1980, there is actually competition among news outlets not controlled by the tired and dying MSM cabal. In D.C. alone, other organizations, like the Washington Examiner, are doing quite well with a stable of nationally known columnists and reporters.

Is the Washington Times dying? Perhaps? But it is more likely that the finishing blow will be market forces rather than the spectre of Rev. Moon and mass marriages.

As an aside, Bruce's rants on things RR usually produces a greatly hilarious line. As he feverishly types out a missive that just might finally blow the lid off the vast right wing conspiracy, the fever sometimes overcomes his decency or his common sense. Below is my nomination for the "best of post" award, comedy division:

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

Bruce, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Here's to much more of this in 2010.

Nice job as an apologist for the marriage of the Religious Right, political conservatism and Moonies. The Rev. Messiah Moon would be proud of you.

Heritage Foundation Moon Connection

More about Moon's ties with the Heritage Foundation

TheConservatives.Com - was a new (2009) Moon / Heritage Foundation joint venture that failed; contributors included Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC); Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) ... and Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner

Nile Gardiner, current Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, is a Moonie. (see Bad Moon Rising, linked in previous post, for this and much more information about Moon's influence over the Heritage Foundation)

What led to the current marriage between Moonies and the Heritage Foundation? From a 1984 Washington Post article: "The Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is spending millions of dollars a year on a broad range of cultural and political programs, including academic conferences, foreign trips for journalists and conservative lobbying activities, that are designed to improve the church's image with the American public and promote an ideological "world war" against communism. The church also is using its vast financial resources to foster a budding alliance with the New Right and conservative political leaders."

Nice photo of Jerry Falwell and the Moon Messiah hugging

"Many conservative evangelical speakers have attended Moon-connected rallies including a Family Federation for World Peace event in 1986 where Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Gary Bauer, and Robert H. Schuller spoke. A 1998 Christianity Today article reported: "Conservatives find Moon attractive because they share many of his moral and political values," says James Beverley, theology and ethics professor at Ontario Theological Seminary. "Those similarities are significant enough that questions of theological differences are put on hold."

"there are probably two groups among conservative organizations that really have an infrastructure, that have grassroots clout — Concerned Women of America would and the American Freedom Coalition [a Moon organization]" (1992 quote from a Frontline report on Moon; read the entire transcript)

Moon and the Religious Right Council for National Policy

Moon's sponsorship of the American Freedom Coalition, in order to influence conservative and evangelical Christians.

"By 1989, U.S. News & World Report was reporting Moon had built "a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation," but that "conservatives ... fear repercussions if they expose the church's role." In 2004, a veteran Christian Right lobbyist, Gary Jarmin, arranged to have Moon coronated the "King of Peace" in a kitschy ceremony on Capitol Hill in which he wore a glittering crown and royal robes." (source)

"The Christian Voice": was housed at the Heritage Foundation, and is a Moon-sponsored organization.

2001 article from Christianity Today, "Why Are Pastors Flying to Moon?" - It is not just fundamentalists; some African American pastors have also been attracted to Moon. And Moon has spent a lot of money to recruit Christian pastors to his cause.

Moon in the Reagan era talking about the Washington Times: "With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times," Moon said, according to Soejima. "We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times." and "Moon said that James Whelan, then publisher of The Washington Times, "listens to what I say and makes the newspaper as I tell him"."

And, of course, Moon, long a friend of the Bush family, sponsored George W. Bush's Inaugural prayer luncheon event attended by SBC leaders.

[I'm still awaiting your apology, Jonathan]

[Jonathan]

Not even the most bile producing liberal believes that conservative Christians share religious beliefs with the "rev" Moon...

So... Bruce is worse than "the most bile producing liberal?" Now, that would be... what?

(Glad you're willing to admonish those who would begin 2010 using over-the-top rhetoric.)

You missed my point. I don't believe that even Bruce (who produces a decent quota of bile, btw) believes this.

So when the Washington Time started, conservatives (of every stripe) got a bit giddy....

I still hear conservative talk show hosts cite The Washington Times with affection. Quite frequently in fact.

Whoever owns it, there are real reporters and columnist who work for the Times. So, as a prominent news company, the Times tends to be cited. And some "quoters" are apparently more affectionate than others.

Did (1) some prominent conservative Christians (mega church pastors and the like) get a bit too close to Moon? (2) Probably....

How about (1) Falwell and (2) Definitely.

One characteristic that seems more evident among the mega bros is a lack of problem with "by any means" necessary principle. Perhaps this just comes with the territory in the profession itself. More than they would like to admit, no pastor is a stranger to the pull of compromise. But, so far, the only impact that Falwell's former proximity to Moon seems to be the periodic "lookie at how close the RR is with the Moonie!".

As an aside, from the perspective of a layman who routinely works in officeplaces with cultures that run from having no bias in favor of the Christian faith to being very much in opposition to the Christian faith, I do roll my eyes at the these guilt by association pronouncements from ministry professionals.

[Jonathan]

Nice job as an apologist for the marriage of the Religious Right, political conservatism and Moonies. The Rev. Messiah Moon would be proud of you.

So now you've graduated from lying about the words of others to losing the understanding of certain words themselves (i.e. "apologist"). Having a difficult New Year so far Bruce?

Heritage Foundation Moon Connection

More about Moon's ties with the Heritage Foundation

TheConservatives.Com - was a new (2009) Moon / Heritage Foundation joint venture that failed; contributors included Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC); Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) ... and Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner

Nile Gardiner, current Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, is a Moonie. (see Bad Moon Rising, linked in previous post, for this and much more information about Moon's influence over the Heritage Foundation)

What led to the current marriage between Moonies and the Heritage Foundation? From a 1984 Washington Post article: "The Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is spending millions of dollars a year on a broad range of cultural and political programs, including academic conferences, foreign trips for journalists and conservative lobbying activities, that are designed to improve the church's image with the American public and promote an ideological "world war" against communism. The church also is using its vast financial resources to foster a budding alliance with the New Right and conservative political leaders."

Nice photo of Jerry Falwell and the Moon Messiah hugging

"Many conservative evangelical speakers have attended Moon-connected rallies including a Family Federation for World Peace event in 1986 where Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Gary Bauer, and Robert H. Schuller spoke. A 1998 Christianity Today article reported: "Conservatives find Moon attractive because they share many of his moral and political values," says James Beverley, theology and ethics professor at Ontario Theological Seminary. "Those similarities are significant enough that questions of theological differences are put on hold."

"there are probably two groups among conservative organizations that really have an infrastructure, that have grassroots clout — Concerned Women of America would and the American Freedom Coalition [a Moon organization]" (1992 quote from a Frontline report on Moon; read the entire transcript)

Moon and the Religious Right Council for National Policy

Moon's sponsorship of the American Freedom Coalition, in order to influence conservative and evangelical Christians.

"By 1989, U.S. News & World Report was reporting Moon had built "a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation," but that "conservatives ... fear repercussions if they expose the church's role." In 2004, a veteran Christian Right lobbyist, Gary Jarmin, arranged to have Moon coronated the "King of Peace" in a kitschy ceremony on Capitol Hill in which he wore a glittering crown and royal robes." (source)

"The Christian Voice": was housed at the Heritage Foundation, and is a Moon-sponsored organization.

2001 article from Christianity Today, "Why Are Pastors Flying to Moon?" - It is not just fundamentalists; some African American pastors have also been attracted to Moon. And Moon has spent a lot of money to recruit Christian pastors to his cause.

Moon in the Reagan era talking about the Washington Times: "With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times," Moon said, according to Soejima. "We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times." and "Moon said that James Whelan, then publisher of The Washington Times, "listens to what I say and makes the newspaper as I tell him"."

And, of course, Moon, long a friend of the Bush family, sponsored George W. Bush's Inaugural prayer luncheon event attended by SBC leaders.

Sorry Bruce. None of these links support your statement that "By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups." All you've shown (and, for the moment, I'll set aside my laughter that you actually quoted from watch.pair.com) is that the Moonies have owned and subsidized the Washington Times since its beginning. You've not shown that any Moonie doctrine has infiltrated either the commentary or reporting by the contract employees of the Times nor have you provided any proof that the agenda of Heritage is being shaped by Moonie doctrine.

But I do give you a great deal of credit for taking guilt by association argumentation to greater heights.

[I'm still awaiting your apology, Jonathan]

The best way to avoid the charge of lying is to stop lying Bruce. Your own repentance is all that you really need at the moment.

[ET]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect that Moon's link to the religious right is about as weak a case (relative to the movement as a whole) as the one Jeff Sharlet tried to make in The Family concerning the religious right and their ability to manipulate American government power in the last century.

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

Only problem with this little jewel of idiocy is that the philosophy of the Heritage Foundation (and other similar groups) can be traced right back into the text of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Edmund Burke, John Locke and a whole host of classical liberals that pre-date Moonie by a hundred years or more.

As for the paper being in trouble, even the vaunted New York Times has been in the tanks of late along with the newspaper industry as a whole.

[ET]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect that Moon's link to the religious right is about as weak a case (relative to the movement as a whole) as the one Jeff Sharlet tried to make in The Family concerning the religious right and their ability to manipulate American government power in the last century.

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

Only problem with this little jewel of idiocy is that the philosophy of the Heritage Foundation (and other similar groups) can be traced right back into the text of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Edmund Burke, John Locke and a whole host of classical liberals that pre-date Moonie by a hundred years or more.

As for the paper being in trouble, even the vaunted New York Times has been in the tanks of late along with the newspaper industry as a whole.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I do roll my eyes at the these guilt by association pronouncements from ministry professionals.

As my grandma used to tell my sister and I, "Be Careful or they might get stuck like that"

[Bruce Gourley]

Nice job as an apologist for the marriage of the Religious Right, political conservatism and Moonies. The Rev. Messiah Moon would be proud of you.

So now you've graduated from lying about the words of others to losing the understanding of certain words themselves (i.e. apologetist"). Having a difficult New Year so far Bruce?

Heritage Foundation Moon Connection

More about Moon's ties with the Heritage Foundation

TheConservatives.Com - was a new (2009) Moon / Heritage Foundation joint venture that failed; contributors included Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC); Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) ... and Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner

Nile Gardiner, current Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, is a Moonie. (see Bad Moon Rising, linked in previous post, for this and much more information about Moon's influence over the Heritage Foundation)

What led to the current marriage between Moonies and the Heritage Foundation? From a 1984 Washington Post article: "The Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is spending millions of dollars a year on a broad range of cultural and political programs, including academic conferences, foreign trips for journalists and conservative lobbying activities, that are designed to improve the church's image with the American public and promote an ideological "world war" against communism. The church also is using its vast financial resources to foster a budding alliance with the New Right and conservative political leaders."

Nice photo of Jerry Falwell and the Moon Messiah hugging

"Many conservative evangelical speakers have attended Moon-connected rallies including a Family Federation for World Peace event in 1986 where Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Gary Bauer, and Robert H. Schuller spoke. A 1998 Christianity Today article reported: "Conservatives find Moon attractive because they share many of his moral and political values," says James Beverley, theology and ethics professor at Ontario Theological Seminary. "Those similarities are significant enough that questions of theological differences are put on hold."

"there are probably two groups among conservative organizations that really have an infrastructure, that have grassroots clout — Concerned Women of America would and the American Freedom Coalition [a Moon organization]" (1992 quote from a Frontline report on Moon; read the entire transcript)

Moon and the Religious Right Council for National Policy

Moon's sponsorship of the American Freedom Coalition, in order to influence conservative and evangelical Christians.

"By 1989, U.S. News & World Report was reporting Moon had built "a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation," but that "conservatives ... fear repercussions if they expose the church's role." In 2004, a veteran Christian Right lobbyist, Gary Jarmin, arranged to have Moon coronated the "King of Peace" in a kitschy ceremony on Capitol Hill in which he wore a glittering crown and royal robes." (source)

"The Christian Voice": was housed at the Heritage Foundation, and is a Moon-sponsored organization.

2001 article from Christianity Today, "Why Are Pastors Flying to Moon?" - It is not just fundamentalists; some African American pastors have also been attracted to Moon. And Moon has spent a lot of money to recruit Christian pastors to his cause.

Moon in the Reagan era talking about the Washington Times: "With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times," Moon said, according to Soejima. "We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times." and "Moon said that James Whelan, then publisher of The Washington Times, "listens to what I say and makes the newspaper as I tell him"."

And, of course, Moon, long a friend of the Bush family, sponsored George W. Bush's Inaugural prayer luncheon event attended by SBC leaders.

Sorry Bruce. None of these links support your statement that "By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups." All you've shown (and, for the moment, I'll set aside my laughter that you actually quoted from watch.pair.com) is that the Moonies have owned and subsidized the Washington Times since its beginning. You've not shown that any Moonie doctrine has infiltrated either the commentary or reporting by the contract employees of the Times nor have you provided any proof that the agenda of Heritage is being shaped by Moonie doctrine.

But I do give you a great deal of credit for taking guilt by association argumentation to greater heights.

[I'm still awaiting your apology, Jonathan]

The best way to avoid the charge of lying is to stop lying Bruce. Your own repentance is all that you really need at the moment.

You are well-known for two things, my friend: ignoring evidence you don't like, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your own words have convicted you as the one who is lying in our little tit-for-tat. I trust you somehow manage to live with the dishonesty.

[Jonathan]

You are well-known for two things, my friend: ignoring evidence you don't like, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your own words have convicted you as the one who is lying in our little tit-for-tat. I trust you somehow manage to live with the dishonesty.

If you have successfully convinced yourself of these things, Bruce, you have achieved shocking level of self-deception.

[Bruce Gourley]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suspect that Moon's link to the religious right is about as weak a case (relative to the movement as a whole) as the one Jeff Sharlet tried to make in The Family concerning the religious right and their ability to manipulate American government power in the last century.

By the late 1980s, the Moonies were basically shaping the agendas of the Heritage Foundation and other Washington-based right-wing groups.

Only problem with this little jewel of idiocy is that the philosophy of the Heritage Foundation (and other similar groups) can be traced right back into the text of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Edmund Burke, John Locke and a whole host of classical liberals that pre-date Moonie by a hundred years or more.

Federalism, as you know, was merely one view (interpretation) of government among America's many founding fathers, as debated preceding the ratification of the Constitution in what became known as the Federalist Papers. Only three founding fathers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay), contributed to the Federalist papers, and Madison declared that their views in no way represented the views of the founders as a whole. The anti-federalist view (interpretation) was represented by more founders than the federalist position. Madison was opposed to majority rule democracy in America, and instead advocated rule by representatives. Hamilton, for example opposed any amendments to the Constitution, while the anti-federalists won the day by advocating for amendments (the popular voice was pro-amendment); Hamilton wanted an official state religion; Madison (and Jefferson) opposed such (and separation of church and state won the day). Etc.

All this is to say that today's Heritage Foundation represents one particular view of the Constitution, a view that even Federalist author James Madison recognized as not representative of the founders as a whole.

[Bruce Gourley]

You are well-known for two things, my friend: ignoring evidence you don't like, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your own words have convicted you as the one who is lying in our little tit-for-tat. I trust you somehow manage to live with the dishonesty.

If you have successfully convinced yourself of these things, Bruce, you have achieved shocking level of self-deception.

Your own words have already convicted you, my friend.

[Jonathan]

You are well-known for two things, my friend: ignoring evidence you don't like, and playing fast and loose with the truth. Your own words have convicted you as the one who is lying in our little tit-for-tat. I trust you somehow manage to live with the dishonesty.

If you have successfully convinced yourself of these things, Bruce, you have achieved shocking level of self-deception.

Your own words have already convicted you, my friend.

You'll pardon me if I don't recognize a conviction where you are the sole judge and member of the jury. But count me amazed at the lengths you'll go to avoid your own responsiblity for lying about my words.

[ET]

Federalism, as you know, was merely one view (interpretation) of government among America's many founding fathers, as debated preceding the ratification of the Constitution in what became known as the Federalist Papers. Only three founding fathers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay), contributed to the Federalist papers, and Madison declared that their views in no way represented the views of the founders as a whole. The anti-federalist view (interpretation) was represented by more founders than the federalist position. Madison was opposed to majority rule democracy in America, and instead advocated rule by representatives. Hamilton, for example opposed any amendments to the Constitution, while the anti-federalists won the day by advocating for amendments (the popular voice was pro-amendment); Hamilton wanted an official state religion; Madison (and Jefferson) opposed such (and separation of church and state won the day). Etc.

All this is to say that today's Heritage Foundation represents one particular view of the Constitution, a view that even Federalist author James Madison recognized as not representative of the founders as a whole.

The anti-Federalist position was even more restrictive on the powers of the federal government than the Federalist view. Hamilton opposed any amendments because, in his view, there was no need to specify the things in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution did not give the government the right to meddle in those affairs in the first place. He viewed such a Bill of Rights as superfluous and unnecessary, whereas the anti-Federalists were so skeptical and mistrusting of government that they demanded the Bill of Rights, fearing that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power.

Even with their differences, both the anti-Federalists and the Federalists would be considered "radical right-wing extremists" by today's left. I tend to associate the anti-Federalists with the libertarians these days (CATO institute and similar), while the Federalists would be associated with the more conservative elements of the Republican party (Heritage Foundation and similar). May not be the best comparison, but both views were radically skeptical of growing national government power. Ironically, such skepticism of government power is largely viewed as a "radical right wing extremist" position by those on the left side of the political spectrum these days. Reading the writings of these guys and their views on the role of government, I can't conceive of them viewing modern American government as anything less than the very thing from which they sought independence. They certainly possessed no view of government that would come anywhere near the intrusiveness of what we have today. One literally can't use the modern version of the outhouse without running into federal regulations governing how much water can be used in flushing away the waste. There's probably a good many more should anyone dig into that bit of federal regulatory trivia.

Anyway, back to the post. The (majority of) ideas underlying the Heritage Foundation, CATO institute, etc. have existed since this country's founding and before. Whether or not Moonie wishes to provide financial support for the advancement of those ideas is not of great importance to me. The Mormons have vast theological differences with my beliefs, also, but there are instances where I might work with them to accomplish some common goal. Some would consider them a cult.

Of course, all this Moonie stuff is rather moot unless one cares to venture into explaining why the Heritage Foundations guiding principles are contrary to basic American or Christian beliefs and values. Is there some restriction on Christians of any variety to not associate with those of differing beliefs, even if that association advances a cause in which those Christians believe?

[Bruce Gourley]

You'll pardon me if I don't recognize a conviction where you are the sole judge and member of the jury. But count me amazed at the lengths you'll go to avoid your own responsiblity for lying about my words.

Again, it is your own words that convict you as the liar in this tit-for-tat. Enjoy your personal delusion; it seems to be your permanent state of mind, my friend.

[Bruce Gourley]

Of course, all this Moonie stuff is rather moot unless one cares to venture into explaining why the Heritage Foundations guiding principles are contrary to basic American or Christian beliefs and values. Is there some restriction on Christians of any variety to not associate with those of differing beliefs, even if that association advances a cause in which those Christians believe?

There is no one set of "guiding principles" or one "basic American or Christian" belief system or value system. The Founding Fathers disagreed among themselves, the Federalists were a minority on many if not most points, and there is much disagreement concerning both American and Christian values. The Heritage Foundation holds fast to one of many interpretations, and the one that fits with the highly capitalistic ideology of the organizations founders. In other words, they staked out a modern position, and then looked to a particular historical interpretation for justification.

[Chris]

I wish Reagan could be around to see this.

[ET]

Whatever, Bruce. So if there are so many different interpretations, then what is your obsession with the association of the religious right and "highly capitalistic ideology". You provide next to nothing in the way of alternatives to such an association and why another type would be preferable. You rarely fail to criticize, but offer nothing in the way of constructive discussion.

[Bruce Gourley]

Whatever, Bruce. So if there are so many different interpretations, then what is your obsession with the association of the religious right and "highly capitalistic ideology". You provide next to nothing in the way of alternatives to such an association and why another type would be preferable. You rarely fail to criticize, but offer nothing in the way of constructive discussion.

That's an odd criticism; a cop-out, it seems. Of course there are many interpretations - or do you deny this fact?

I have stated on numerous occasions that capitalism (a wealth redistribution system that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor) is workable and even quite helpful and good if tightly regulated by government in order to prevent the rich from taking too much advantage of the poor (this was the position of Adam Smith).

[Timothy Bonney]

For those of you who are either new to Baptistlife.com or were born close to 1980, Bruce will periodically try to play the guilt by association card because of some very close relationships in the 1980s with the WashTimes and some big names in what used to be the Religious Right.

I didn't see you dispute the information that Bruce share, just impune the messenger. Born before or after 1980 that is a pretty transparent tactic.

Also calling Bruce a "liberal" is another laugher.

[Jonathan]

For those of you who are either new to Baptistlife.com or were born close to 1980, Bruce will periodically try to play the guilt by association card because of some very close relationships in the 1980s with the WashTimes and some big names in what used to be the Religious Right.

I didn't see you dispute the information that Bruce share, just impune the messenger. Born before or after 1980 that is a pretty transparent tactic.

I wasn't trying to dispute Bruce's information about the role of Rev. Moon in the founding of the Washington Times. The point I made was toward the relevance of this information. The reason I referenced being born before or after 1980 had to do with the fact that few folks around 30 years of age have an understanding of the era when the introduction of a media outlet like the Washington Times (i.e. not controlled by folks with the standard MSM left leaning bias).

I would argue that it is a healthy thing that there is now such competition that the Washington Times is struggling.

Bruce argues guilt by association but can't point to any specifics (i.e. where has Moonie doctrine influenced conservative reporting or commentary?).

Also calling Bruce a "liberal" is another laugher.

You're probably correct. Bruce is more of an old school socialist progressive.

[ET]

Whatever, Bruce. So if there are so many different interpretations, then what is your obsession with the association of the religious right and "highly capitalistic ideology". You provide next to nothing in the way of alternatives to such an association and why another type would be preferable. You rarely fail to criticize, but offer nothing in the way of constructive discussion.

That's an odd criticism; a cop-out, it seems. Of course there are many interpretations - or do you deny this fact?

I have stated on numerous occasions that capitalism (a wealth redistribution system that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor) is workable and even quite helpful and good if tightly regulated by government in order to prevent the rich from taking too much advantage of the poor (this was the position of Adam Smith).

Actually, I have no idea what you envision when you talk about "many interpretations". Of course there are probably no two people who view every issue in the same light, but even so one can usually boil them down into a handful of general viewpoints. In the old days one had the "strict constructionist" and the "loose constructionist". Folks within those groups may not have had homogeneous views on how those views addressed various issues, but they were of general agreement on most issues that one could classify them into one camp or the other.

As I did when you posted this notion some time back, I reject your classification of capitalism as a "wealth redistribution system that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor". I read or heard within the last couple of years that 80% of the millionaires in America are first-generation millionaires. That's pretty good for a "system that rewards the rich at the expense of the poor". If anything, it proves in a free society that an equal people with unequal abilities, motivations and desires will lead to unequal outcomes.

America is still a highly income mobile society: Income Mobility, by (economist) Walter Williams (emphasis mine)

..a recent U.S. Treasury study of income tax returns from 1996 and 2005. The study tracks what happened to tax filers 25 years of age and up during this 10-year period. Controlling for inflation, nearly 58 percent of the poorest income group in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. Twenty-six percent of them achieved middle or upper-middle class income, and over 5 percent made it into the highest income group.

Over the decade, the inflation-adjusted median income of all tax filers rose by 24 percent... In fact, only one income group experienced a decline in real income. That was the richest one percent, who saw an income drop of nearly 26 percent over the 10-year period. The editors explain that these people might have been rich for a few years, had some capital gains, or could not stand up to the competition with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

The U.S. Treasury study confirms previous studies dating back to the 1960s, concluding, "The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade." As such, it points to a uniquely American feature: Just because you know where a person ended up in life doesn't mean you can be sure about where he started. [b]Most of today's higher income and wealthy did not start out that way.

There is still much income mobility in this country, hardly the stuff of the rich being rewarded at the expense of the poor. Adam Smith may have recognized that capitalism needed controls (as does any economic system or government given the sin nature of man), but I doubt he had anything in mind such as your definition of "tight controls".

I will re-post here an article from MSN.com: CEOs who went from rags to riches: Meet 9 corporate leaders who set outsized examples of the American dream on their paths to wealth and status. I would be interested in how you view any of these people as having been rewarded with their wealth at the expense of the poor. You seem to argue the archaic economic idea that economics is a zero-sum game - that any gain by one must result in a loss to another. In the cases of these folks, it would seem their gain would require that the poor suffered to some extent.

I would say in America today, that those tight controls you desire work for the poor against the rich just as much as the other way around, or work for one group of citizens against another group. After all, what program of recent origin, proposed or implemented, is not paid for - or will supposedly be paid for - with more taxes on "the rich" or on "Big Business"? While I acknowledge that the rich may use government power to benefit themselves, I also acknowledge that the "non-rich" are just as likely to attempt to use that power to benefit themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens.

One of the best examples of this that I have heard of in the last several years is an issue taking place in a few states out west, where "interior designers" have used government controls to limit their competition from lowly "interior decorators". Yes, the law actually makes a distinction. It is a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1000 and up to a year in prison, to list yourself as an "interior designer" if you are not "certified", a nice way of limiting competition from others in an attempt to shield yourself from competition and therefore be able to charge your fellow citizens more. It is illegal, in Nevada, "-- unless you are licensed, or employed by someone licensed -- to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, more than 69 inches tall. A Nevada bureaucrat says that 'placement of furniture' is an aspect of 'space planning' and therefore is regulated -- restricted to a 'registered interior designer.'" I would consider these tight controls. Would you?

Such idiocy is the fulfillment of the Law of Unintended Consequences for those who buy into the idea of "tight controls". At some point the other guy is going to say, "hey, if the poor can manipulate the system to benefit themselves at the expense of the rich or the rich against the poor, then why can't I do it to benefit myself at the expense of my competitor?" All it takes then is some money, some politicians and some good rhetoric. "Protecting jobs". "Good paying jobs". "Unfair competition". I'm sure we can think of many more similar phrases regularly tossed around. For more the full story behind such silliness, read Regulating Interior Designers by George Will.

It's about time to start thinking about working on that tax return for 2009. For those of us who itemize, we'll answer questions about all sorts of deductions. How are tax deductions, in principle, for things such as children, mortgage interest, gambling losses, home equity interest, etc. any different than whatever manipulations of the capitalistic system you believe the rich put over on the poor? In both cases, it is one group of citizens (homeowners, parents, gamblers) using government controls to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Many times it is politicians making proposals to bribe their constituencies in the next election or something slipped in to a bill after being bought and paid for by a lobbyist.

You may find such controls over your fellow citizens desirable, but Jefferson, Madison, et al never envisioned government as tightly regulating much of anything except protecting one person from injuring another, certainly not conceiving of something as intrusive as what passes for legitimate government behavior today. Tightly regulated means control, and control means force, and government is nothing but brute force. The major evils of the last century were a direct result of men trying to tightly control their societies. Hundreds of millions of people died not because there wasn't enough government control, but because of too much of it.

There are also other consequences of that tight control. When those burdened with working and running businesses under that tight control decide it is more advantageous to perform that work elsewhere, the same ones who pushed those tight controls will then turn around and cry "shipping jobs overseas" and other such rhetoric. This is why the tight control of progressives/socialists/communists/"liberals" usually puts a nation on the "road to serfdom". When the free people decide to take their business elsewhere or manufacturers decide it is in their interest to manufacture elsewhere, the "tight controllers" have to restrict even more freedom to attempt to control the consequences of their previous attempts at controls, and the cycle continues.

Let us also not forget that of those at the top of Obama's administration who will originate and implementation these tight controls, less than 10% of them have any business-world experience. They are clueless about the world in which they want to meddle. How many of us would want someone who had never worked a job in our profession making up rules by which we must to our job? And would we expect them to help or hinder our job?

But these philosophical discussions don't do anything for the thread topic. You've tossed out some stuff attempting to knock the religious right and "highly capitalistic ideology" of the Heritage Foundation by association with the chief Moonie, yet I view it as weak as the case Sharlet tried to make in The Family about the religious right's influence on American government policy. You say there are many interpretations, but you seem to assert that the whole of the religious right is homogeneous in its view and that the Heritage Foundation speaks for them.

Seems that the articles associating members of the religious right with Moon events are 10-15 years or more ago, with the most recent one being in 2001 and Morris Chapman and others stating that they didn't know until they were in the middle of it that Moon was behind the thing. Do leaders of the religious right still have much to do with Moon? Judging from the 2001 Baptist Press article, I would find it surprising if these guys continued, or continue, to show up at events sponsored by Moon. Anything more recent than 2001?

Would I want my pastor to show up at a Moon event? Probably not, unless it was something confined to the policy arena. I would take the same view with an LDS-sponsored event. We may have common cultural and moral goals, but anything that might specifically promote their theology I would find disagreeable. Too many possible scenarios to make a blanket statement on this.

So the Moonies have certain philosophical goals that are in agreement with some of those at the Heritage Foundation (and the CATO Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Heartland Institute and others) as well as those of some of the religious right and even the Mormons? If the religious right breaks (supposed) ties with the Heritage Foundation, then will you find the same objections if they support CATO, Hoover, Heartland or another? From what you provide and based on the lack of recent articles, I would tend to believe that the religious right has (hopefully and wisely) distanced itself from anything directly tied to Moon outside of general political goals of a common nature.