A Contrarian View of History and Events

Numerous controversial, independent Pentecostals, some of whom spent less than three years in the Assemblies of God, are listed but Sarah Palin, who grew up in the denomination all her life is not. In fact, rather than be forced to list Palin as a member of the denomination, Adherents fails to list her at all. Palin, who appeared on the cover of TIME magazine, is regularly mentioned as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Most serious of all is the charge that Adherents allows persons of one faith to use the website to attack persons of other faiths and with false information. According to this charge, enemies of the Assemblies of God are turned loose to attack without correction or oversight for their sources. While the site promises that “we are always striving to increase the accuracy and usefulness of our website. We are happy to hear from you. Please submit questions, suggestions, comments, corrections…” repeated attempts to correct false information have remained unanswered for many months.

While posts for other religious groups include input from their leaders and officials, the post on the Assemblies of God does not. “They don’t even do a spell check for our entry,” a pastor told me in Orlando. For example, Adherents posts a link to “Famous Mormons,” a site ran by the Church itself. The site is careful to respect non-Christian faiths. According to Adherents, there are now 5.6 million Jews in the United States and more than 13 million worldwide. Its site now rates more than 9,000 famous Jews. Meanwhile, Adherents says there are 2.8 million members of the Assemblies of God in America and 52.5 million worldwide, making it the fourth largest Christian religious body, and yet it lists only 31 famous members – almost all of them negative. Adherents lists close to 100 famous members of the Christian Scientist denomination, all positive. Its list of “Famous Catholics” numbers beyond 20,000.

Included in the lists of other denominations, but missing for the Assemblies of God, are the founders of the Church and all major ecclesiastical leaders. Adherents ignores the A-G General Superintendent and Mission’s Director. C. M Ward is not famous enough for the website. Ward was a friend of presidents. His ABC radio show lasted 25 years and rivaled Paul Harvey for audience size. His books line the shelves of pastors’ studies worldwide. Thomas F. Zimmerman, who led the denomination for almost 30 years, is not mentioned. Don Argue, friend of the Clintons, who was president of the National Association of Evangelicals and was appointed to the United States Commission on Religious Freedom and Jerry Rose – who served as President of the National Religious Broadcasters Convention – are likewise considered unworthy by Adherents.

In general, names on Adherents Assemblies of God “Famous List” must have been the subject of negative publicity or conform to a rigid, rightwing Republican stereotype. The talented, Joshua Dubois, a member of the United Pentecostal Council of the Assemblies of God, a small, predominantly black denomination, was Barack Obama’s choice to direct the Council for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, a White House position. He is ignored by Adherents.

My interest was piqued by my own entry. I had left the Assemblies of God 25 years before. When I organized the Charity Awards, receptions held in the White House, six first ladies and presidents serving as honorary chairperson, spinning off Mercy Corps as a prominent worldwide charity, Adherents ignored me. As they should have, I had not been a part of the A-G for much of my adult life. And as a presidential advisor, serving in the White House they continued to ignore me. When I wrote New York Times bestselling books and appeared on dozens and dozens of television shows there was nary a mention. Appropriately so. But suddenly, when the Bush taping controversy erupted, presto, I appeared as a “famous member of the Assemblies of God” on Adherents, even though my link to the denomination was 25 years cold.

The site about me was written by a person of another religion who attacked my motives and implied that I made money. What is interesting is that my accuser was herself embroiled in scandal and forced to withdraw as a nominee to the George W. Bush cabinet. None of her controversy appears on her own Adherents site, she is in one of their “protected” religions. As to her information and implications? They are false. I took no money from the taping controversy, went off television for six months, took no related speaking fees or book royalties, nor have I since published a book.

All of this raises the question, who is behind Adherents? Who runs its vitriolic Assemblies of God pages? Speculation in Orlando centered on enemies of Pastor Karl Strader, who were seeking revenge online. Others suggested that it was a writer for the independent Charisma Magazine with a denominational vendetta. (Highly unlikely, since the pages are riddled with grammatical errors and misspellings.)

Meanwhile, irritated by its critics, who hound Google and other search engines with complaints about the bigotry, Adherents only rubbed salt in the wounds by appending to their list of famous church members the following disclaimer. “[Note: Although some observers may consider the history of the Assemblies of God to be tainted by such famously scandalized televangelists as Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Gene Scott, and others, we would urge people to not judge the denomination only by these famous few. Although the denomination has more than its share of unsavory preachers and leaders, the general membership of the Assemblies of God is, for the most part, a bastion of strong values and sincere religious commitment. Statistically speaking, Assemblies of God members exhibit a higher than average (sic) commitment to Christian living and striving to live ethically.”

According to complaints, the modus operandi at Adherents continues unabated. Duane Chapman, star of the reality show Dog and the Bounty Hunter, was ignored by Adherents when his show was a hot feature of A&E. Chapman had gained notoriety for hunting down Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir, who had fled to Mexico after being charged with drugging and raping women. When Mexican officials tried to throw Chapman in prison for violating Mexican extradition laws, bragging that he would not last a year, 15 members of congress and the Secretary of State rushed to his defense. All ignored by Adherents. But when a negative controversy erupted over Chapman’s use of a racial slur, Adherents suddenly decided he merited inclusion in their famous members of the Assemblies of God list. Apparently, Chapman, who by his own admission has not been an active member of the denomination, once attended an Assemblies of God Sunday School as a child.

Hmmm… Well, okay, if Duane Chapman had to be rushed onto the Famous Assemblies of God list for using a racial slur, what about Bernie Madoff, who pulled of the biggest white collar crime in history? Does his name appear among the 9,000-plus “famous Jews” of Adherents. Nope. Not famous enough for Adherents.

Nor does the website, which felt compelled to say that “[the Assemblies of God] has more than its share of unsavory preachers and leaders,” make any mention in its Catholic section on the pedophile crisis that has erupted twice in modern times. Nor are any of the names of the accused priests mentioned among the 20,000-plus “famous Catholics.” In June, 2002, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The so called “John Jay Report”, which came out of the work of the Conference, found 11,000 allegations against 4,392 priests. Not a mention in Adherents.

The Adherents website, which has ignored repeated attempts to correct inaccuracies and offer some balance, apparently remains committed to the vilification of the Assemblies of God. While other sections have been co-opted by leaders of the religious groups named or have substantial input to guarantee accuracy, or at the very least, employ spell check, Adherents has given its anonymous Assemblies of God editor free reign to vent his or her anger. This is what happens when a website becomes hi-jacked by an agenda.

What can you do?

1) Register your complaint to Adherents for its bigoted coverage of the Assemblies of God.

2) Encourage professional websites, such as Wikipedia, which make an effort to get their facts right. Or new religious sites such as Ascension Gateway, which insist on strict factual guidelines, with no theological or socio-cultural agenda.

3) Register your complaint to Google for giving special status to a site that is inaccurate and bigoted. Not to mention rife with grammatical errors.

While Google does not normally interfere, employees tell me that they sometimes remove special search engine enhancements for sites that are deemed “junky”, inaccurate, libelous or intolerant. Google celebrates diversity, which is what the internet is all about, and is sensitive to attacks on gays and other minorities, but this includes religious groups, especially if a website is misrepresenting its purpose. Here is a page about how to get things removed by Google.

Now, sometimes in these movies, even the Democrat president needs a little nudging. Michael Douglas played such a character in the movie, The American President. It took a second wife, the gorgeous and common sense, woman of the people, Sydney Wade, played by Annette Bening, to convince a widowed president Andrew Shepherd not to give in to the evil Republicans and cut environmental programs. Oh, why are the Republicans so selfish? Why do they hate the planet and why do they hate the children? And why do they hate the innocent poor folks?

In Hollywood-land, the government has endless amounts of money and the programs cost nobody anything, except the very rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who actually want to pay more taxes, which prompts an immediate question. Why are Gates and Buffet giving billions of dollars to charities? If they believe in the government and are pleased with its spending and have no criticism of its bureaucracy and the efficacy of its social programs, why don’t they just give their donations to the government itself? In other words, why don’t they put their money where their mouth is?

It brings to mind that famous quote of Joseph Sobran. “Politicians never accuse you of greed for wanting other people’s money – only for wanting to keep your own money.”

Well, well. Yesterday I just flew back into the country from Europe to learn that Hollywood and the Democrat controlled congress had let unemployment compensation run out. It meant that hundreds of thousands of unemployed people have no more money from the government. They can’t pay rent, house payments or their electric and gas bills. And winter is upon us. What gives? Hollywood and the Democrats control congress. And they have shown that there is no end to the money they can spend. They just print more. Wheee, a trillion here, a trillion there.

Actually, I learned that the Democrat controlled House of Nancy Pelosi voted to extend the payments but only in 27 states? Like a lot of her recent legislation, “gotta reward our people and punish the people who didn’t vote for us.”

And the Democrat controlled Senate? It hasn’t even considered legislation to extend unemployment benefits. What’s the rush? After all, the people in the Red states won’t vote for us anyway and the unemployed people in the Blue States are so stupid they will vote for us whether we extend the benefits or not. Hmmm. Not quite like the movies is it?

Meanwhile, we are told that we still don’t have a health care plan because of the evil health insurance companies who are lobbying congress. Olympia Snowe is praised for voting a plan out of Committee today but they say we still need more Republicans onboard. But wait a minute? The Democrats control congress. You mean, the Democrats are accepting bribes to vote against their own conscience, against their very own programs? Put that in a movie.

Meanwhile, the BBC ran a hilarious segment on American discrimination. They interviewed an African American worker, asking him if the new government program rebuilding the infrastructure will help create jobs. “Well, not for us,” the man intoned seriously into the camera. “The government discriminates against us.”

The BBC correspondent did the segment straight and the anchor did not even bat an eyelash. No one but the audience seems to grasp the irony that the president is himself an African American and it is he who enforces the laws and appoints the Attorney General. And the Civil Rights Commission? Four are appointed by President Barack Obama, two by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two by the Pro Tempore of the Senate, Harry Bryd. All Democrats.

Oh how the news media and Hollywood and Europe miss having the Republicans in power. How hard it is to govern. How hard it is to do it all right. How easy to criticize. Look at me? Ha. Well, don’t worry Hollywood. Don’t worry Democrats. Print as much play money as you can get away with. And stash it where the Republicans can’t find it because your celebration will not last forever. Play while you can. Ruin the country as quickly as possible. Because common sense is sure to return. And we can all again enjoy Hollywood angst in the cinema.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan made prayer in school and abortion big deals in his campaign, but never touched the subjects or proposed legislation on them in the eight years of his presidency. He called for the abolition of the Department of Education - instead he grew it.

In 1988, George H. W. Bush ran as “the ethics president,” promising to upgrade the office of government ethics and make it answerable directly to the president. But he never did a thing about it. The position remained a low-level slot which answered to the Director of OPM. He also said, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” but he raised them anyway.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for health care reform but when his ideas crashed on the rocks in his first year and helped elect a Republican majority in congress the second year he never brought it back again. He ignored it for the rest of his eight years. And btw, he famously said, “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” But we all know about that.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran against nation building, but after the election committed billions of dollars to Iraq and Afghanistan. We know the story of Saddam Hussein’s bogus uranium purchases in his State of the Union address.

So all presidents forget or change their minds or tell lies. Even so, Reagan was a consistent foe to Soviet Imperial expansion and ended the Cold War. Clinton balanced the budget. Bush the younger kept us safe after 9/11. They all have some bragging rights. And they all have moments of leadership. The problem for President Obama, at least for now, is that nothing is clear. No promise is sacred. Everything is on the table. There are no fixed stars to guide his course. His liberalism is indeed open-ended existentialism.

He said he wouldn’t tax the middle class, but his massive infusion of new paper money will eventually amount to a tax on all Americans and will hurt the poor the hardest, as inflation always does. And it looks like he will tax the middle class anyway. He just won’t admit it. He is using devices, such as redefining the middle class as a means to confuse the public.

He promised a non-partisan Washington, but used the economic crisis as a cover for passing a massive political pay-out to unions, gays and democrat shill organizations.

He is on again, off again on tort reform and a “public option” in his health plan.

He promised new jobs through a program that would rebuild the infrastructure, it was one of the few suggestions that critics felt had some merit, but then he set the timetables so far off that no immediate meaningful jobs appeared. It provided little relief for the economic crisis and unemployment is up.

He ran against the Bush fumbling of the mortgage crisis but refuses even to tweak the simplest banking rules that would allow millions of homeowners to stay in their own homes and unleash new investors who which would raise the values of those homes. All of his noise and promises offer relief to a tiny percentage of homeowners. This is a tragic and extravagant lost opportunity.

He ran against the overstretched military that is breaking up families, causing divorces and spiking suicide rates and now he is sending those same boys back again and again. So what is different?

He is against tort reform, he is for tort reform. He thinks the doctors are scamming the system, he thinks doctors are the leading the way. He is for a public option in the healthcare plan, he is against it.

He ran for change you can believe in, but the only things changing are his daily positions. And yes, he has a lot of goodwill, especially in the liberal media, who cast any opposition to any policy or position as racist, although that tactic didn’t work with the International Olympic Committee, leaving the president and his team a bit stunned.

The problem is that some of these changes are beginning to reach critical mass.

From the standpoint of presidential history, once an opinion sets in – positive or negative – it is very hard to erase. So this president should be very careful. He needs to stand for something, whatever it may be. He needs to avoid the reputation of uncertain and unprincipled leadership. It would almost have been better politically for him to have stood up to the doctors yesterday and gotten booed, and let the nation see him as a leader, than to contradict himself again by playing to his audience.