The Lies of Joyce Meyer

Joyce Meyer Ministries attempts to portray itself as a humanitarian and Godly organization. Yet its magazine from April 2007 contains blatant lies, misrepresentation, and subtle ignorance. It contains more political discussion than one would assume from a so-called nonpartisan religious group.

The primary concern of mine is the obvious American Exceptionalism. Somehow America is great because we are Christian, and other countries need to be converted. The example in Joyce's April 07 issue is Thailand, Burma ( they call it Myanmar), and Laos. They call it "The Golden Triangle."

They claim that it is a region "known for its abject poverty and drug addiction." Personally, I do not think of nations solely for by their negatives but also by its many positives. If I only looked at America through this negative view, I would hate my country for its malicious treatment of others for greed. But I think America has many positive traits that can overcome these negative elements.

But Joyce conveniently ignores current statistics such as:

1) The global drug trade does not center on this region. Nor do its users represent a vast portion of its nation. According to the BBC:

Fewer people take illicit drugs than smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but the numbers are growing, and the figure is currently estimated at between 3% and 4% of the world population. Most widely used is cannabis, but synthetic stimulants are booming in popularity - especially among urban youth. Meanwhile, in some countries, heroin is finding a new market among the fashionable and wealthy.

Many Americans smoke pot, at least 34% have tried - a lot higher than in the countries stated. Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's heroin and is trafficked primarily through the former Yugoslavia to Europe.


The poverty of this region is falling. If Joyce wanted to focus on nations not improving, she might want to focus on the Christian nation of Ethiopia. The current regime in Ethiopia is American friendly; Meles Zenawi is nonetheless a tyrant. Christians in America have decided to support a tyrant rather than assist the people in Ethiopia to improve their lives.

The photo on the left shows where poverty is increasing and decreasing as of 2004. Notice that the nations Joyce is targeting are not increasing in poverty, yet their Christian numbers are not rising dramatically.

3) The attack on Buddhism. Now Joyce notices that Christianity is having a hard time in growing here. Christianity denies many tenets of Buddhism such as reincarnation, karma, and the fact the people are not primarily evil. Buddhists see humanity as essentially good, but ignorant.

The fact is that Joyce Meyers is just another James Dobson. Her magazine is against stores such as Victoria's Secret, because it promotes sex. Homosexuals, because they should be "cured." And the American preoccupation with "sensuality." While Buddhism has perspectives on theses, none are essentially evil. It is how we live our lives that can keep us in this ignorance. Simple adherence to rules without knowing why we follow them seems more foolish than questioning them. You won't read this in her magazine, because questioning her interpretation of the Bible is deemed a sin by her and her legion of followers.

Pierre Bottineau should be light rail

The Twin Cities is already the best metropolitan for anyone to live in Midwestern America. But it lacks decent transit. This will have to be improved upon in the next 20 years for it to continue its high livability standards.

The Hiawatha Light Rail opened despite constant criticism from skeptics. It was touted by one Republican as the "train to nowhere." Yet it has achieved more than its proponents ever imagined. The University LRT will have at least twice the ridership of Hiawatha, and wouldn't started sooner if Hiawatha had not been such a success.

I believe in living carfree, and supporting the foundations of a post-oil world. But transit isn't just for those who choose not to own cars. 2/3 of bus riders and 80% of train riders own a vehicle. Transit gives drivers a break from not just high gas prices but stressful traffic and accidents. It would be wise to continue building a system that our citizens can be proud of.

That brings me to the Pierre Bottineau BRT project in northwest Hennepin County. I think it should be light rail, because it would have much higher ridership. There are more benefits to a LRT line than BRT. And the demographics of this area are ripe for a line. North Minneapolis and its adjacent suburbs do not deserve to be ignored in the future transit makeup of the Twin Cities. I would even consider moving to this area because it is more lower middle class. Without easy access to the amenities of Minneapolis I will not.

Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat agrees with me on this issue. A Republican who is a true conservative. Republicans can't continue acting as if the next 3 months are more important than the next 3 centuries. We need leaders who will work for a better future for our families. We need more true conservatives who understand the value of government and are wary of it being wasteful/corrupt.

Keith Ellison the only Non-Christian in congress?

Some believe having a Muslim in Congress is bad, but allowing him to proclaim it with the Koran is too much. It reminds me of the GLBT Republicans, that when running for have to pretend to be straight. But anywho, a notoriously "pro-family" organization has a new survey: about Islam. It seems a bit skewed in its results already, unabashedly against Muslims.

One thing that disturbs me are the claims that Islam gives women few rights. Okay, maybe the Taliban was harsh - but they do not represent Islam. That would be like the Inqusition representing all of Catholicism and Christianity. Women have had the right to vote in Islamic democracies and a say in society long before the feminist movements of the 20th AD. What is ironic is that Muslim nations have produced more heads of state than Western Nations. Examples:

• Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as President
• Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister^[1]
• Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina as Prime Ministers
• Turkey, the fifth most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Tansu Ciller as Prime Minister

Moving beyond Islam, what about my own philosophy: Buddhism? There will be two sworn in the same moment that Keith Ellison is. And you hear not a peep from the media, well maybe a small NY Times article. But we Buddhists do not truly enjoy controversy as much as perpetuating truth and uncovering falsehoods.


Representative-elect Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat will use the Bible citing it as an American tradition. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat, has stated there not to be a Buddhist equivalent to the Koran or Bible. Even the Dhammapada, originating from the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, doesn't cover all of Buddha's teachings.

What does this say about the multi-religious future of America? Probably what Ms. Hirono says that we should have "respect and tolerance for other religions.” That is something Representative Virgil Goode,the AFA, and others of various faith and non-faith could work towards. A nation that truly values peace,freedom, and all it entails is where America needs to be.

Holy War or proxy war in the Horn of Africa?

Ethiopia, an ardently Orthodox Christian nation, is declaring war on Somalia - with U.S. support. The primary reason appears that Ethiopia fears a neighboring nation being an Islamist State. The United States does not want that either, for the irrational fear that it could become a "terrorist" state. For some odd reason, all Somalians have the unpolitically correct label of "Islamofascists." That is who we are are war with, according to many.

Eritrea, having just regained their lands from Ethiopia, supports the Islamist government because Ethiopia does not. Isaias Afwerki , President of Eritrea, wants a proxy war with Ethiopia. With Osama Bin Laden claiming Somalia as primary front for his war on the West, America will want a proxy war through Ethiopia. Somalia, having just regained some stability in 2004, faces the prospect of another harsh conflict.

When nations insist on war as a solution in Somalia, they key questions:

1) Do Ethiopian and Eritrean citizens gain from such a war?

Their money would be better spent diversifying their economies and tending to their own citizens. Their governments seem hellbent on destabilizing the entire region. The people of both nations and Somalia lose.

Ethiopia can certainly slaughter all of its opponents, especially if America chooses a more active role supplying weapons. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi probably assumes more aid from America if he does its bidding. This is quite foolish, like attacking a bees nest assuming you will get help. Neoconservatives may care about foreign aid, but Conservatives do not. And Democrats won't likely give Ethiopia more aid because they follow Bush as blindly as Kazakhstan.

Eritrea is rushing headfirst into fatalities. But they only want a way to hurt Ethiopia without officially declaring war. Foolish, but very ego driven.

2) Does lethality really solve anything?

I have long felt that we need to change the culture of lethality. For too long humans have generally lived peaceful family lives, but accepted that "their" nations military was on "their" side. Lethality is on no man's side but deaths. We need to see militarism for what is it - a last resort and not just a big stick worth wielding at the "other" AKA "the enemy of us."

Somalia is a stabler nation, and even if Islamists control it - will lethality make things better? Somalian Women, children, in addition to men of all ages await war. They wield machine guns ready to die for their nation. They will obey the will of Allah, otherwise the Americans have won.

3) What would no war in Somalia mean?

Imagine that all sides backed off from war. Bin Laden would have nothing to rally around except "Nation Building" in Somalia - what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq. Eritrea and Ethiopia could focus on domestic needs instead of fighting a pointless and irrational proxy war. The United States could focus on real issues, rather than supporting lethality further. All other nations not directly involved, the most signifcant being Kenya, would have no refugees coming caused by a regional war.

I can't imagine why any American would think they could change the mind of another country by use of lethality. Did we end Communism through brute force? How about Socialism in Latin America?

If China becomes the next superpower, would we want them to act as we have - spreading authoritian regimes around the world? America has a reputation and legacy to rebuild. If we are to pass the torch of global power to another nation or region we must become create the standards we want them to abide by. We should start by supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ensuring the UN enforces them.

Government marketing marriage?

The US Government has decided to market marriage with taxpayer money. If there are clear benefits of marriage, then perhaps promoting it will benefit society. With 4/10 children born out of wedlock in 2005 ,would marriage benefit these children? Does it make a difference when a majority of these births are not to teenage mothers, but women in their 20s?



Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution claims there are
Four Simple rules to not be poor ( AKA end poverty ) :

1) Graduate from High School
2)Get a job
3)Get married
4)Have a child

The Federal government will spend $100M per year for 5 years promoting marriage, $17B a year for welfare, $35B year for food stamps. The theory is if all those unmarried with children got married - and took on characteristics of those currently married - the poverty rate would drop by 30%. Children would gain because two parent heterosexual and homosexual homes are more stable. Children thrive in an environment low in conflict, which usually have sufficient incomes.

This is quite an undertaking by the Federal Government, because currently there is more emphasis on marriage than education in welfare laws. While all this occurs 10M Americans went hungry , 38M intermittently hungry in 2005. Would marriage have saved them or not?

In reality work,education, and childcare would reduce poverty greater than a marriage certificate. 80% of the fathers of children out wedlock make a median income of $16K, only $4K more than the Federal poverty level. Getting these men a decent education and assisting them in doing so would reap greater benefits than marriage.

Getting married will also not reduce odds of domestic violence. A person does not change their internal characteristics indefinetely once they gain a marriage certificate.

The funding for this project ( $100M annually ) has come from refugee resettlement and Native American development projects. I would rather the money be returned to these programs than squandered on a social experiment.

Is this idea really in existence to reduce poverty or promote a social conservative perspective of marriage? I have no qualms with marriage, just the idea that it is a cure-all for poverty. And if it is a cure-all will this notion be applied to those who cannot currently marry - both homosexual and polyamorous?

When a homosexual couple adopts, would their child be better off if they were married? What about bisexuals who get together after having a child with another partner? If this experiment proves correct, that marriage is of utmost importance to reducing poverty for children, social conservatives will be in a predicament regarding homosexual couples. They would have to support them marrying, while denouncing their relationship. How odd reality can be!

And if two incomes are better than one - what about five? What's wrong with a polyfidelitous relationship if it is stable and provides loving nurture to its offspring? That is an avenue few have thought to explore and truly should. These groups exist in America because we are a free nation. To promote only one form of marriage using taxpayer money is not American. You would have to promote all those that work to reduce poverty under this program.

But if you don't agree with my few points, an organization that supports the unmarried has a few more.