Dirty games and thefts are being played in the name of Christianity.

http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa100302.htm
Are Your Tax Dollars Funding Pat Robertson?

Taking a closer look at Operation Blessing International

From the moment President Bush began discussing his plans for diverting your tax dollars to "faith based" organizations, there were many who had grave doubts about the idea. To be expected, voices of alarm were raised by those who have consistently fought the idea that the government should be directly involved in promoting a particular religion. For example, Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, accused Bush of being so anxious to secure the support of the religious right that "he's willing to fund religious extremists." Lynn cited televangelist, Pat Robertson's comments on the 700 Club that an angry God had allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to succeed in retribution against a corrupt American society.

What surprised many commentators at the time was that much of the criticism of the Bush initiative was coming from the religious right itself, including Pat Robertson. Early this year, Robertson denounced the Bush proposal, warning that the program is a "Pandora's Box" that could make legitimate religious charities dependent on government and that the government would end up financing "cults that brainwash" prospective adherents. He went on to tell his 700 Club television audience that the groups getting such funding "will begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can't get off of it." He added, "It'll be like a narcotic; they can't then free themselves later on."

All the more surprising then, that among the very first organizations to be funded by the Bush administration's new program is Operation Blessing International, a Virginia Beach charity created by Robertson. This group is to receive $500,000 in the first wave of grants to be distributed under the faith-based initiative. The award to Operation Blessing is one of 25 announced on October 3rd by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.

Aside from the irony involved in Robertson's own organization applying for and then accepting such "addictive" government funding, one needs to take a closer look at the finances of Operation Blessing International. On the surface it looks very much like the sort of church sponsored, social service organization that the federal government has been funding for many years. Indeed, according to tax returns filed by the organization, its main purpose is to give "food, medicines and other necessities of life to individuals in need." What could be more appropriate than to have our federal tax dollars going to feed the hungry and house the homeless?

Unfortunately, to understand what Operation Blessing is actually doing, one needs to read a bit deeper into that tax return. In 2001, the organization solicited from individuals and corporations various products which it then distributed to mostly small churches and Christian missionary organizations. Among the products distributed, for example, were Ensure, a dietary supplement and Splenda, a no calorie sweetener. I suppose that few would object too strongly to such products, though one would wonder whether a no calorie sweetener ($2,572,548 of it to be exact) could be considered among the "necessities of life." Also, looming very large on the list of products being distributed by Operation Blessing International are panty hose and candy. ($10,465,640 worth of candy.) Do you suppose that those being asked to contribute to this organization understand that a significant portion of its money is involved in the distribution of panty hose and candy?

Share your thoughts about federal funding for Pat Robertson

Share your thoughts in our Forum

Prior Article about Operation Blessing International and the Faith Based Initiative

In addition, Operation Blessing makes direct cash grants to these same organizations "on behalf of individuals." Most of the grants are very small: $1,000 or less. There is one grant listed in Operation Blessing's financial report for the year that dwarfs all others. This grant is to none other that the Christian Broadcasting Network where Robertson holds forth with his 700 Club. The purpose of CBN has little to do with rendering social services to the truly needy. Rather, its stated purpose is "to glorify God and his Son Jesus Christ." This grant was not $100, not $1,000, not even $100,000. Rather CBN received from Operation Blessing International in 2001, a direct grant of $2,061,755.00. That is more than half of the entire OBI budget for direct grants. I suppose that Pat Robertson truly believes his television show ranks among the "necessities of life," but I wonder if the average American tax payer would agree?

A cynical view of all this, of course, is that the entire faith based initiative is simply a form of pay back for the support given by the religious right to the Bush presidential campaign in 2000. I would not go this far. I think the Bush administration actually believes that organizations like Operation Blessing do a better job of addressing basic human needs than government or secular social service organizations ever have. I think this view is wrong, and Operation Blessing's efforts in distributing no calorie sweetener, panty hose and candy to the poor is a case in point. Still, the relative effectiveness of private charity versus government anti-poverty programs is well worth discussing. And the Bush administration's view of this is at least defensible. What cannot be defended is the funneling of public money into the hands of religious organizations for their own sectarian purposes. At this point, even with the best of intentions in the world, the Bush initiatives constitute a dangerous precedent. It will not be long before the federal courts are deluged with complaints from tax payers who do not believe that the government should be taxing Americans to help keep Pat Robertson on television. It is outrageous that the person who suggested that Americans somehow deserve what they got on Sept 11 should turn around and ask those same Americans to pay him to continue promulgating such perversity!

FAITH BASED FRAUD IN THE NAME OF GOD:
Fraud in the Name of God?

How effective are faith based organizations?
In reaction to my earlier editorial about President Bush's decision to move ahead to provide federal funding and support for "faith based" organizations that deliver services to the poor, I have received numerous comments from Christians who believe that a compelling reason for supporting the President's initiative is that religious organizations are more effective than other agencies. That is, they are more efficient at delivering help to the people who truly need it than secular or government organizations. In many people's minds the very term "government" is a synonym for waste and corruption. Government programs are run, as we all "know," by bureaucrats and are hampered by needless "regulations and red tape" that prevent real help from ever arriving where it is most needed.

One such note came to me from Tony who makes the point against government and for faith based organizations very clear: "The administrative costs of government welfare programs is 76%. Only about 24 cents of every dollar the government spends actually goes to the people in need. The administrative cost of faith based organizations ranges from zero to 10%. Some programs are actually cost free because everything is donated. Imagine how effective our tax dollars would be in the hands of those who run such programs. Imagine the multitudes of people who could be helped. Imagine how many billions of dollars would have been saved if the relationship between faith based organizations and government had been in existence in previous years as President Bush desires."

Now admittedly I am not an expert on government programs, but I do know something about religious organizations, having worked for more than 35 years within Christian churches and other "faith based" organizations. I know something about the funding of such organizations, having been responsible for fund raising and budgeting in these organizations for my entire professional life. What really struck me about Tony's note was his view that there are some faith based organizations that spend nothing on administration and are able to deliver 100% of what they raise directly to those in need. He suggests that the most a faith based organization will ever spend on administration is 10%. The range being, according to Tony, 0% to 10%.

Some research into Tony's background reveals that he is no ordinary web surfer. Tony is, in fact, the author of a book on this topic: "Jesus, Politics and the Church" by Tony Nassif. Readers of this editorial are invited to check out his website. In other words, Tony purports to be an expert on this topic in a position to advise others on how to spend their hard earned money, as well as advocating for changes in government policy based upon his expert knowledge.

The idea that faith based organizations spend as little as 10% on "administrative costs" while sending 90% to those in need is pure fantasy. Any organization involved in direct service to the poorest of the poor will of necessity spent a very large percentage of budget on salaries, for example, as working with people is labor intensive. No program worth its salt simply hands out money, food, housing, etc. Rather the challenge is to motivate human beings to change their lives. This is expensive no matter who runs the programs. Even a program designed to distribute donated food, for example, would involve substantial "administrative costs" in the form of storage facilities, liability insurance, transport, distribution, etc. The biggest item in any program designed to address real problems of real people is for the salaries of those delivering the services. This would be true whether the salaries go for "government bureaucrats" or "dedicated servants of God." Spinning the words used to describe those who labor at tasks like feeding the hungry or speeding relief for disaster victims around the world does not change the reality of the situation: such persons, whether they are employed by "faith based organizations" or secular relief agencies funded by government, must be paid. A Boeing 727 chartered to deliver medical supplies to a nation in Africa will be flown by qualified pilots no matter what sort of organization charters the plane. Chartering airplanes or trucks is not "cost free."

Since I was indeed quite skeptical of Tony's facts, I wrote to him, asking for the names of organizations that he believes spend little or nothing on administrative costs. Tony came up with a list. At the very top of his list was Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing, which Tony cited as spending only 1.4% of its budget on administration and by implication, 98.6% of every dollar donated going directly into the hands of those in need.

I looked up the tax returns for Operation Blessing on the Internet. Here is what I found. To be sure, on the front page of this "faith based" organization's tax return under the category "management" there is a figure of $745,416 for the year 1999 out of a total budget of about 36 million. Is that what Tony has in mind when he speaks of "administrative costs?" Even that exceeds the 1.4% that Tony mentions. But the plot thickens quickly. Deeper into the report amounts for what most rational people would refer to as "administration" are listed as follows: fund raising: $2,219,902; salaries $1,100,240; staff travel $605,624.

Other big ticket items include employee pension and retirement benefits, legal and accounting services, postage, shipping, telephone. In short, all the things I would have said are part of administration and certainly is not money going directly to those in need. The total of all these administrative items comes to over $11 million, leaving a balance of $25 million for "services to individuals and organizations."

At this point we have 30% of Operation Blessing's revenues going, according to its own reports to the IRS for administration -- triple what Tony believes is the very most any such organizations spend on administration. But the plot thickens even further. A large portion of the remaining $25 million does not go to individuals, but rather to "organizations" that are providing the actual services to individuals. Here the trail becomes murky as one would have to follow the money through the finances of each of these organizations to find out what percentage of their income, including the income from Operation Blessing, goes for administration.

I'll wager that an additional percentage -- if the are as "efficient" as Operation Blessing itself the figure would be 30% -- is sliced off the top of the money they receive from Operation Blessing to pay for THEIR administrative expenses. That being the case, we would have about half of all donations to Operation Blessing reaching those who are truly needy.

If Operation Blessing were a government agency people would be outraged at this discrepancy between the figures being circulated as its "administrative costs" and its actual costs of operating. More than two million dollars spent in one year on fund raising? Six hundred thousand on travel? If this were a government agency people like Tony would be crying "Foul!" and "Fraud!" Congress would be holding an investigation to find out who was responsible for such blatant deception.

I use this not to diminish the importance of what organizations like Operation Blessing can accomplish. I would not be surprised at all to find that Operation Blessing is in fact an efficiently run organization managed by dedicated people of faith who are doing the very best they can to address dire human needs. Let there be more of such people and may the work of Operation Blessing prosper! But people of faith need to be as scrupulous as any others in telling the truth about how expensive it is to deliver real help to real people. Suggesting, as Tony does, that faith based organizations can miraculously defy the laws of economics and assist people without spending ANY money in doing so (that's what 0% for administration would amount to) is down right deceptive. Perpetrating a fraud in the name of God is wrong. Doing this to justify sending tax payer dollars to "faith based" organizations in the mistaken belief that such organizations can work miracles of efficiency not only violates the ethical norms that apply to religious and secular organizations alike, but in the long run is certain to backfire, causing grave harm to those truly effective organizations that are trying the hardest to make a real difference.

When faith based organizations, seeking government funding, come under the closer scrutiny of government as a condition of receiving help, the degree of deception involved on the part of those who advocate on their behalf will suddenly come into the light of day. This may result in widespread disillusionment on the part of millions upon millions of Christians who have contributed to such organizations under false pretenses.

well this group thinks the end justify the means-no matter how immoral or hypocritical they are:
http://yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDes...ngOfAmerica.htm



The Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli

I suspect that most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli, nevertheless, it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been accepted, praised, and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White House and his precepts are blindly adopted by the so-called “Christian” Dominionists. Kevin Phillips tells us in his masterful book, American Dynasty that Karl Rove, political strategist for President George W. Bush, is a devotee of Machiavelli, just as Rove’s predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the elder Bush.[26] In fact, there has been an incredible effort to dilute the immoral implications of Machiavelli’s teachings. Today’s best apologist for Machiavelli is one of the most influential voices in Washington with direct connections into the oval office.

Michael A. Ledeen was a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a counselor to the National Security Council and special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig in 1985. His relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least to the early 1980’s.[27] Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate for military intervention in Nicaragua and for assistance to the Contras. (Ledeen was also involved in the Iran-Contra affair.)[28]

Today, in 2004, Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute and according to William O. Beeman of the Pacific News Service, “Ledeen has become the driving philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the military actions it has spawned.”[29]

Ledeen made a number of appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980’s. Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: “What would you recommend if you were going to advise the President [Ronald Reagan] as to foreign policy?”

Ledeen responded:

“The United States has to make clear to the world and above all to its own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then we must make it clear to everyone that we are prepared to fight and fight fiercely to defend those interests, so that people will not cross the lines that are likely to kick off a trip wire.” (Emphasis added.)


If Ledeen’s advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellian—it may be because it is Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes the existence of something or several things that are life threatening to the nation by the use of the word “vital.” Yet Ledeen asserts that which is life threatening must be made manifest or defined. If an interest must be defined, then it is not apparent; yet the nation will nevertheless ask its sons and daughters to fight and die for something that is not apparent. Therefore, whatever “interests” Ledeen wanted to be defined, cannot have been vital interests, which are apparent—so in reality he advised the President to call discretionary interests vital—which is a lie.)
Be aware that Ledeen is in complete accord with Machiavellian thinking. And so is Pat Robertson.[30] Robertson agreed to virtually every nuance Ledeen presented. In fact, it’s not clear which of the two first proposed invading Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the 1980’s,[31] a refrain that also echoed in the reports of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), one of the major homes for neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen and Robertson targeted the same nations that PNAC lists as America’s greatest enemies in its paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (published in September 2000.)[32]
In 1999, Ledeen published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martin’s Griffin, N.Y. 1999.) Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes rough edges and presents a modern Machiavelli:

“In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. It is why we are drawn to him still…” (p. 91)
Again, Ledeen writes:
“Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil ensures the victory of a good cause.” (p. 93)
Ledeen clearly believes “the end justifies the means,” but not all the time. He writes “Lying is evil,” but then contradictorily argues that it produced
“a magnificent result,” and “is essential to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises.” (p. 95)

Ledeen adds this tidbit:

“All’s fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your heart’s desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!” (p. 95)

By George, I think you've got it!

I've been following these shysters for over 30 years.

Pigs at the trough...souuuuuuuu eeeeeeeeeeeeePatPatPat..........

from http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/icyblue...nvironment_too/


An article titled "The Godly Must Be Crazy: Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment" by Glenn Scherer over at the environmental news and commentary site Grist takes a good look at how American politicians who are also Christian Fundamentalists are basing their decisions about environmental legislation that comes before them on their beliefs about the always-right-around-the-corner Apocalypse as opposed to anything science might have to say on the topic at hand. The article is long and mainly focused on issues of the environment, but should still be of interest to anyone worried about this country being turned into a Theocracy. .........

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/macchiav.htm


political thinker and historical figure at the turning point of the Middle Ages and the Modern World. Machiavelli stated in The Prince, the then revolutionary and prophetic idea, that theological and moral imperatives have no place in the political arena. "Men are always wicked at bottom unless they are made good by some compulsion." With Hobbes (1588-1679) Machiavelli is considered one of the great early modern analyzers of political power.

"Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer." (from The Prince, 1515)
Niccoló Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy. Little is known of his early life, although he once described his background: "I was born in poverty and at an early age learned how to endure hardship rather than flourish." Niccolò's father, Bernardo di Niccolò di Buoninsegna, belonged to an impoverished branch of an influential old Florentine family. Bernardo was a lawyer and he had a small personal library that included books by Greek and Roman philosophers and volumes of Italian history. Bernardo died in 1500, Machiavelli's mother, Bartolomea de' Nelli, had died in 1496.

"Machiavelli went on to read the ancient philosophers and, especially, historians: Thucydides, who told of the war between Sparta and Athens that tore Greece apart; Plutarch, who told of the lives of the great statesmen, generals, and lawmakers of ancient Greece and Rome; Tacitus, who recounted the corruption and perfidy of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero; and above all, the work by Livy..." (from Niccolò's Smile: A Biography of Machiavelli by Maurizipo Viroli, 2000)
Machiavelli might have been involved in overthrowing the Savonarolist government in 1498 - Girolamo Savonarola was executed just outside his office. Machiavelli was appointed head of the new government's Second Chancery, and secretary of an agency concerned with warfare and diplomacy (1498-1512). During these years he travelled on several missions in Europe for the Republic of Florence visiting Cesare Borgia (1502), Rome (1503, 1506), France (1504) and Germany (1507-08). Among his achievement was helping to set up a standing army, which reconquered Pisa in 1509.

As a thinker Machiavelli belonged to an entire school of Florentine intellectuals concerned with the examination of political and historical problems. His important writings, however, were composed after 1512 when he was accused of conspiracy in 1513. The Medici family had returned to power and had ended a year before the Florentine Republic. Lorenzo de' Medici fired Machiavelli, the Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria. He was suspected of plotting against the Medici, jailed, even tortured, and exiled to Sant'Andrea in Percussina. He found himself out of job after 14 years of patriotic service, and spent most of his remaining years on a small estate where he produced his major writings. He achieved some fame as a historian and playwright, but with The Prince he hoped to regain political favor. It tells how to gain, maintain, and centralize power.

In 1519 Machiavelli was partly reconciled with the Medici and was given various duties, including writing a history of Florence. When the Medici were deposed in 1527 Machiavelli hoped for a new government post. Now, however, he was distrusted by the republican government for previous association with the Medici.

Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21, 1527. Just a few weeks before his death, Rome fell to the poorly armed Spanish infantry. Machiavelli had foretold how such tragedy could be avoided but no one had listened to him.
Machiavelli's political writings became more widely known in the second half of the 16th century. In 1564, when considered dangerous, they were placed on the Church Index of officially banned books. Othello's ensign Iago in Shakespeare's play was partly based on the common misconception of Machiavelli as a cynical defender of fraud in statecraft. Machiavelli admired Cesare Borgia (1476-1507), an able ruler, who was ruthless and treacherous in war but a patron of artists, including Leonardo da Vinci.

Machiavelli's best known works are DISCORSI SOPRA LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO (1531) and IL PRINCIPE (1532), whose main theme is that all means may be used in order to maintain authority, and that the worst acts of the ruler are justified by the treachery of the government. "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." (from The Prince, 1532) Many of Machiavelli's thoughts, as "it is much more secure to be feared, than to be loved" or "it is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved, if he is to fail in one of the two", have lived for centuries as slogans. And his notion "All armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed" could be approved by contemporary fanatical religious leaders. Il Principe was condemned by the pope, but its viewpoints gave rise to the well-known adjective machiavellian, synonym for political maneuvers marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith. Machiavelli draws upon examples from both ancient and more recent history and also uses his own insight gained during his observation of the Italian city-states and France. What distinguishes Machiavelli's manual from other such works, is the originality and practicality of his thinking. Neither the attempts to interpret Machiavelli's ideas as first steps to democratic thought nor as examples of evil reflect a balanced view of his writing.

The interest in Machiavelli has continued, although contemporary scholarship may have its reservations about transforming his writings into prophecy or a manual of modern politics. However, in the United States Machiavelli's pragmatism has not been forgotten and Dick Morris, close to President Clinton, has written his own version of The Prince.

I just saw an article stating the adult leaders of Boy Scouts are teaching their scouts to lie.They inflate their membership numbers in TX and another state so they get more matching government funds and more United way funds.As a gay man that was a scout and attained LIFE level , and now see gays discriminated against in scouts AND these miserable lying thieves allowed,it breaks my boy scout heart!

And when you have TV stations hiring self-righteous guys, like Joe Scarborough, more and more Americans' minds are going to be warped.

Perhaps, Scarborough has a psychotic reason to appear holier-than-thou because he's trying to hide his past.

It was great to see that Chandra Levy has been laid to rest, now 2 years after her disappearance. Rest in Peace Chandra. It's too bad her family had to deal with the whole controversy surrounding her disappearance and murder. I can't help but wonder why another similar case did not get the same attention.

I'm talking about of course former Republican Congressman from Florida, Joe Scarborough, who now has a cushy job reporting for MSNBC. Back in July 2001, in the middle of the summer of Chandra frenzy, a young intern by the name of Lori Klausutis was found dead in the Florida office of Joe Scarborough Initial reports said that there was no signs of trauma to the body. Several weeks later, the autopsy report was finally released:

The official medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland, then conducted an extensive autopsy - more than 80 hours - before announcing his findings last week.
Berkland said Klausutis died from a blow to the head, probably caused when she fainted and fell to the floor after an attack of a previously undiagnosed "valvular condition of the heart." Klausutis, an avid runner and member of the Northwest Florida Track Club, had never evinced heart problems before - but such things happen, Berkland said. He also admitted that authorities had previously lied about her fatal wound in order to forestall media inquiries into the case. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury," he told the Northwest Florida Daily News.

Berkland moved to Florida after his medical license was revoked in Missouri following a 1998 case in which he was found to have falsified information in an autopsy report, American Political Journal reported.

It's all quite sketchy. A medical examiner with a recent history of falsifying information on autopsies comes up with a far fetched explanation that even Lori's own family doesn't buy. And isn't it odd that at the same time the "liberal" media was in a frenzy over a Democratic Congressman's possibly connection to a missing intern (at the time), not a peep was made about the Republican Congressman who had a dead intern turn up in his office? It just doesn't add up. It's time for Joe Scarborough to come clean and tell Lori's family what REALLY happened.

Did anyone make the connection between the merchant empire of the Medici in Florence, and our modern day fascist corporate control of democracy? Machiavelli wrote the Prince as a gift to the Medici family in order to get back into their good graces. He merely expanded on, in writing, the practices used by the Medici in order to gain power in the first place. He simply wrote what he observed. The Medici were the predecessors to Mousolini's fascism, which has taken root here in America.

"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State." (p. 41).
Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Incidentally, 1935 is the same year that Sinclair Lewis wrote "It can't happen here"

50% of all faith based organization todays (including churches) are bereft

with fraud. Defraud the flock out of money. Elders not doing the job and letting

pastors embezzle, adulter and leave the group with nothing

Serendipity strikes again - was just looking for a place to post this:

The New York Times
February 5, 2005
Greek Church Struggles to Quell Raft of Scandals Involving Clergy
By ANTHEE CARASSAVA

ATHENS, Feb. 4 - Greece's top Orthodox clerics scrambled this week to salvage the church's credibility as scandal after scandal has emerged with clergymen implicated in drug dealing, antiquities theft, trial rigging and lewd conduct.

On Friday, the Athens bishop was suspended for six months as an investigation proceeded into accusations that he embezzled $2.9 million and tried to rig a court case in which he was fighting for control of a monastery.

The suspension was just one of the latest chapters in a tale of corruption that has scandalized all of Greece, a country where 97 percent of the people belong to the Greek Orthodox Church and the government enforces church law and pays priests' salaries.

The suspension, of Metropolitan Panteleimon of the Attica region, which includes Athens, was announced live on television, a day after church leaders appealed to the faithful to report improprieties and help root out corruption and strengthen the institution. The punishment was the harshest ordered against a high church official in two decades.

On Thursday, the Holy Synod of church leaders gave another bishop a week to answer allegations made by his predecessor that he was arrested last year during a drug bust in a "bar of ill-repute" in central Greece.

"This is no doubt the worst crisis in decades," said the Rev. Epifanios Economou, spokesman for the Greek Church. "We are determined, however, to act fast and decisively. Our greatest priority at this point is to restore faith and trust in the church, not to see people losing it."

The suspension of Metropolitan Panteleimon came 48 hours after a radio station broadcast excerpts of what it said were taped telephone conversations between the prelate, his lawyer and a senior judge in an attempt to win a favorable ruling in the case involving control of the monastery.

Although he questioned the authenticity of the tape, the metropolitan, who is the equivalent of a high-level bishop, publicly confirmed that he had in fact spoken to the judge about the case. Adding to the controversy, the judge was suspended by Greece's highest court last month on accusations of taking large bribes to free convicted drug dealers from jail.

Four other judges face similar disciplinary action, and at least nine other legal officials are under investigation for involvement with lawyers and priests suspected of promoting prostitution, helping get drug dealers acquitted and influencing church elections.

Among the clerics implicated is a former monk who was arrested Friday while en route to a prosecutor's office in the port city of Piraeus, to testify in connection with charges of antiquities smuggling. The former monk, Archimandrite Iakovos Giosakis, also faces embezzlement charges in connection with his work as a priest in Chicago.

The Synod suspended him from his religious duties on Thursday, when it asked the government to amend its ecclesiastic laws and allow the church to take tougher action on its own against its wayward clergymen.

Under the country's Constitution, the state can enforce laws in church affairs. Theodore Roussopoulos, spokesman for the conservative New Democracy Party that rose to power last March vowing to stamp out widespread cronyism and corruption, said the administration would support every effort toward reform.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top

Remember the "Bakers, Tammy Fay, etc." Gold plated sink fixtures and a palace to live in. You would not want them to live in less would you?

If God didn't want me to have a Lincoln Continental, he wouldn't have given me one.

Bump

Pig is right
Robertson I wouldn't_____ with Gannon's _____ :o