This article http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030420/ap_on_go_co/renting_from_religion_5 from Yahoo is by Lara Jakes Jordan of the Associated Press.
In it she says
This “Fellowship” offers four elements that I think may be combustible when combined: Congression Representatives, religion, money (by way of subsidized rent) and secrecy.
What are your thoughts on this combo?
If the congressmen’s constituents are fully aware of the situation, and still vote for them, then I don’t believe there is a problem, since there are only six of them out of the whole congress.
If their constituents believe that these congressional members’ religious beliefs make them good congressmen, they have every right to vote for them and pay for their housing howsoever they choose.
If, however, these congressional members do not fully disclose their situation to their constituents, if the people who gave them their votes would not approve of the situation if they were to know about it, I might wonder about the congressional members’ ethics.
They represent their constituents, of course, but they affect all our lives. How many would be too many?
I totally agree that the constituents have a right to elect people based on their religious beliefs. But this is a secret organization. How can their constituents know what is going on?
Do Congressional ethics depend of the approval of the constituents?
Not sure how much I can add to the debate, but I’ve actually been to a “Fellowship” event held at this kinda double secret probation but really opulent mansion-house in NoVa, and a couple of my friends lived in a group house (though not the same one) that was owned by the “Fellowship.”
I wouldn’t really say that this group is all that secretive, but they are kinda creepy. And imho if they’re going to subsidize congressional housing, then Zoe’s 4 elements stated in the OP are well put.
I should probably clarify what I meant when I said they’re not that secretive. When I went to their event, I suppose technically I was a guest of then-Sen. Ashcroft (duck, cover, run…), who I suppose held some influence with the “Fellowship” though I don’t really know. I didn’t know Ashcroft personally, but a college friend interned for him and we both went to this event. Well, it was actually in conjunction with some sort of college leadership conference, so college students were roaming all over the halls of Congress, about 80 or so of them. We met Reps. Tony Hill (D-OH, iirc, a pro-life Democrat) and Largent, and everybody knew what the “Fellowship” was. I think they put on prayer breakfasts or something like that.
Bottom line: IMHO these guys are sort of creepy, but we’re not talking Stonecutters here.
In what way are they creepy? (Other than having very fundamentalist views?)
And no, I’m not saying that all fundamentalists are creepy. 
I bet Stephen King is kicking himself, he didn’t think of this first.
“They represent their constituents, of course, but they affect all our lives. How many would be too many?”
Zoe: Welcome to represntative democracy. If you live in Wyoming, you don’t get choose the Representatives from Florida. It’s really that simple. The fact that there are 10 or 100 Reps with whom you disagree doesn’t change things either. Even if you strongly disagree with them. With the number of reporters snooping around everywhere in this country, I myself am not too worried about any secret cabals opperating in Congress. If they’re a cabal, they’ll be outed soon enough.
I have no issue with whether or not they agree with me. But I am wondering if the “financial assistance” is legal and/or ethical. I’m not talking about voting anyone out of office, although one of the Reps is from my home state.
I am concerned about separation of Church and State. Personal beliefs are one thing. And if a church sponsored group wants to have devotionals and prayer meetings and discussions on how best to serve fill in the blank, then good for them. My objection is to the combination of elements.
Zoe:
It doesn’t seem like these guys are all that secretive. You seem to know a lot about them. What specific laws do you see that they are violating?
All I know is what I read in the one article that I linked to. But it has stirred my curiosity.
I don’t know that they are violating any laws at all. As I stated above, I am wondering if what they are doing is legal. If it’s legal, then I’m wondering if it is ethical.
If it is both legal and ethical, then would the same be true for Satanists?