April 21, 2003
WHAT WALL?:
Pols find place to live in D.C. with secretive group (LARA JAKES JORDAN, April 21, 2003, AP)Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the ''Fellowship'' and the ''Foundation'' and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
The Fellowship hosts receptions, luncheons and prayer meetings on the first two floors of the house, which is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a church.
The six lawmakers--Reps. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)-- live in private rooms upstairs.
Rent is $600 a month, said DeMint, a Presbyterian.
''Our goal is singular--and that is to hope that we can assist them in better understandings of the teachings of Christ, and applying it to their jobs,'' said Richard Carver, a member of the Fellowship's board of directors.
If only our biggest problem was politicians living in group religious housing when away from their families. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 21, 2003 1:20 PM
Congressmen in Wasington on government business staying at a religiously oriented retreat house, hmmm....
If Article VI is so clear and definitive ("government out of religion, period", implying strict neutrality between belief and disbelief), does that mean reps or senators when on official business? All government employees? Since there is no religious test required for office does that mean that one can be religious? Is he permitted to endorse legislation due to it's conformity to his values? Does the nuetrality of the Federal government apply to atheism thus valuing atheism or irreligion as highly as belief and equally encouraged?
Please note that I am not bringing any sect into the question other than the acceptance of a Creator versus atheism.
Both points of view are to be respected by the government, but our history actually endorses one over the other as a basis for ordered liberty. Those are the facts. The U.S. has always, until recently, encouraged respect for all religious or irreligious views while our history suggests the official acknowlegement that respect for life and liberty does not exist in a metaphysically and morally neutral vacuum.
That article is a joke. It tries very hard to make this seem very mysterious and possibly sinister. "oooh, secretive religious group! ooooh, they don't want to talk about it! oooh!"
It's not until near the end of the article, not quoted here, that you discover that this, in fact, is a very commonplace thing (so commonplace that even the United Methodists do it!). And nowhere in the article does it mention, as Orrin does, that these are needed because the men are living away from their real homes and families.