A Nation Ordained

Published on October 30, 2004 By stevendedalus In Philosophy

The greatest danger facing the nation today is not terrorism but the wave of followers of messianic leadership. True, as in Osama bin Laden, this leads to terrorism, or in the case of the likes of Saddam to brutal totalitarianism, but in more ostensibly sophisticated nations or groups of people, brutality is clothed in the subtlety of misshapen values.

In this country the early settlers were apostates of European religion and had suffered persecution; so naturally they founded their colonies on religious freedom and suspicion of secular government. The founding fathers were aware of the religious spirit of the people and therefore established that no law would prohibit freedom of worship. A wall was erected between the body politic and the right of religion.

But for minimal chipping away, the wall was secure for developing the management of law through which one pursued daily affairs in making a living , after which the Sabbath was set aside for religious matters. However, those with strong spiritual beliefs were unable to separate the two and increasingly interfered with secular law, claiming it was artificially separating sectarian beliefs from temporal behavior which omitted the essential guidance of divinity.

The shady inference that nature’s laws were always in truth God’s laws without stating such became intolerable to believers. No longer was faith a private thing or a unique matter for the Sabbath; inner conscience became public pronouncement. Taking an oath with a hand on the Bible and opening congressional sessions with prayer were ammunition for the self-styled spiritualists to make further demands for a more open religious entry into daily life. A woman no longer could make a private decision to abort a fetus in the cornfield. Since communism was deemed godless, the “under God” was inserted in the pledge when ‘under democratic principles” would have sufficed. In spite of all this, the nation managed to uphold to a reasonable degree the separation of church and state — that is, until the messianic prophets of the religious right grew in power.

Now, with the messianic epitome of George W. Bush who preaches and lectures his constituents that the law of the land is God given and therefore he has license to interpret from the mount what the Almighty judges: homosexuals, if not diseased, are hedonists; the poor weak and shiftless; the sick irresponsible; unions unpatriotic; single mothers sinners; a woman’s body subject to law; the military as cross-bearing crusaders; corporations as benevolent manna givers; and liberalism as effeminate atheism led by an apostatizing altar boy. Last but not least, Bush is an ordained wartime president because “God is on our side.”

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

stevendedalus

on Nov 01, 2004

oops sorry

Yeah, you should be sorry; the effort to get to the link was not worth it.

Madine, I'm not suggesting religion has no influence in conscience and behavior; these examples, are a reflection of the times wherein religious phrases were symbolic.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 01, 2004

hipparade: "Thanks to the supposed "reasonable degree" of separation between church & state, slavery, Jim Crow & segregation persisted far too long under secular "democratic principles."

Not true. The Jim Crow laws, slavery, segregation and laws banning inter-racial marriage were the result of racial bigotry within society and the flawed thinking of legislators who merely echoed the will of the majority by enacting these laws. It is precisely the same argument I have made again and again that in a properly functioning democratic republic, majority opinion is not the final arbiter of justice, liberty, and democratic principles. If anything, it was the strict interpretation of religious principles, to a certain extent, that helped form the misguided justifications for many of these laws as they were often couched in terms of "morality." In the past, the religious morality principle in question was rationalized and articulated by the notion that anyone who was not white was not a person but merely a beast or an animal. In other words, non-whites were property. Based on strict interpretations of religious doctrines, beasts, animals, and property have no soul and therefore are entitled to no rights. In the narrow sense, God created animals to SERVE man. The premise was that man could not give an animal that which God had already denied. (i.e. rights come from God).

Hence, these are the dangers of strict interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution. Strict interpretation requires that the reader apply what the author MUST have been thinking at the time of the writing, and no more. And this is done without the benefit of actually KNOWING what was in the author's mind because God and/or the Founders do not have a toll-free number where you can call them up and ask them exactly what they were actually thinking as they wrote these texts. Their intent in the strict sense, is therefore limited by the reader's own narrow or biased view. Thus, strict interpretation of the Bible/Constitution gives these texts a narrow meaning, excludes what the authors REASONABLY intended, and fails to recognize or acknowledge that there may be other, more satisfactory evidence of the authors' true intent. Strict interpretation fails to look at these texts within their broader context, when more often that not, the author’s intent can only be accurately fleshed out by looking at these documents in their entirety in lieu of narrowly examining particular words or phrases in isolation.

Similarly, one can see this strict interpretation of the Bible and the Constitution at work within current arguments that assert abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research are immoral because they are based on strict religious interpretation, which is subsequently translated into morality. These religious moral arguments take on a very narrow and dare I say, selective, interpretation of words/phrases taken in isolation and are divorced from their overall context and meaning. Pundits of these arguments take their strict interpretations and subsequently misuse them to give their flawed and erroneous arguments legitimacy. What is dangerous is that since these arguments are based upon flawed religious interpretation, it is very difficult for one to question their legitimacy without having the feeling that one is being “unfaithful” or a “doubting Thomas.” Attempts at deconstructing the myth of strict interpretation of religious doctrines are therefore equated with sacrilegious blasphemy.

If democratic principles had been properly APPLIED throughout our history, the Court would have immediately struck down these insidious laws as unconstitutional. The proper functioning of the Courts, however, depends upon human endeavors that are by nature imperfect and subject to personal judicial/religious biases. The existence of laws, such as the ones that permitted slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, cannot be attributed to flaws in our democratic principles. Our democratic principles were always present and waiting-in-the-wings for us to fully understand and embrace them. It was flawed human beings and their strict interpretation of these applicable texts that failed to properly apply and fully understand our democratic principles. Our principles have always been sound. I wish I could say the same for our interpretation of the texts that espouse them.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 01, 2004

Madine, In response to your post that suggests that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, I have enclosed an excerpt from a very well written article which thoughtfully counters that view. I hope Steven does not mind the lengthy post but I felt that this was too important to go unanswered.

"The preference of ideology to the pursuit of truth of the people who would make theocratic claims concerning the founding of our constitutional democracy is demonstrated in the method that is their favored one: find "proof quotes" from the Founders to demonstrate their preconceived position. This method, however, demonstrates the logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest process of violently ripping quotations out of the context of their use. For example, let us take two quotations often used in this process. The first one is from George Washington, the second from Thomas Jefferson. The Washington quotation frequently used to demonstrate the "religious right" point is this: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." This quotation is frequently found on fundamentalist Christian web sites, without provision of citation. I searched forty-eight such sites before I found one that stated that the line allegedly uttered by Washington was from a speech he gave to the Dutch Reformed Synod in 1789. After extensive research, I was finally able to obtain a copy of this speech. I found three things in this research: first, it is not a speech; it is a letter Washington wrote. Second, it is an obscure letter, not easily found, and not certainly in the usual collections of his works. Third, it is only three paragraphs in length, and in it Washington never once utters such a line. In fact, there is nothing even close to this line in his speech, nor in any of the other speeches, letters, or writings of Washington I have read to date. This is not to argue, of course, that Washington never said such a thing. It is to argue that it is intellectually dishonest to throw such quotations around when one cannot site the source of it. Or worse, as in the Christian web site in which I found this speech, to forge the footnote!"

"The quotation from Jefferson is even more easily dispensed with when one puts it in its context. The quotation used by fundamentalist Christians is this: "I am a real Christian." While Jefferson certainly did pen those words, he was explicitly making reference in that very sentence to the ethics of Jesus, not the overtly religious overtones of the gospel. Just two sentences earlier in that same letter, he makes a direct reference to his own "version" of the New Testament, in which he cut the ethical sayings of Jesus out of a Bible and placed them on blank pages of a book. Jefferson saw Jesus as a great ethical philosopher, but certainly did not understand him as in any way divine or even claiming divinity. On most Christian accounts, this excludes him from the "chosen elect" of "true believers." Thus, Jefferson was claiming that he was "a real Christian," that is, one who follows the ethical teachings of Jesus, rather than those "false Christians" who used their profession of faith in the divinity of Jesus to gain, increase, and consolidate their religious and/or political power. It takes an incredible twisting and turning of Jefferson's words, as use of this quotation does, to argue for the alleged "Christianity" of this Founder of the country. At best, this method, then, is superficial; at worst, it is downright dishonest. "

"Second, this fundamentalist dogma that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" fails to delineate clearly two important issues: the activity or goal of founding a democratic form of government, and the fact that many of the Founders were believers in a deity. The textual evidence nowhere indicates that the purpose of their founding such a government was exclusively or even predominantly religious in nature. Nowhere is the division between these categories more clear than in Thomas Jefferson's intellectual hero, John Locke. Locke explicitly states in his Two Treatises of Government - and it is clearly echoed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence - that the founding of a democratic commonwealth was for the purpose of ensuring our "lives, liberties, and properties." Nowhere does Locke say that the purpose of a democratic form of government was religious in nature. In fact, Locke states quite precisely in his "Letter Concerning Toleration [of religion]" that "the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to...civil concernments," and that the state "neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls." Moreover, the fact that Jefferson and other Founders appealed to God in their writings does not mean that we are a theocracy! All one need do is read Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution to make this point abundantly clear. This Article reads in part as follows: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." When fundamentalists attempt to make the Founders out to be Christian and therefore founders of either a religious or a Christian democracy, they do terrible damage to the fundamental aim of democracies of the eighteenth century: freedom of the individual. Even if this happened to be informed by their faith, it is only that: to be informed is not to be determined by or subservient to their faith. Their primary concern was with the "natural law" of human reason and individual liberties. Divine revelation had nothing to do with their political aims. On the contrary, to a man they clearly believed that rationality was to be the guiding light of democracy, not appeals to the divine. Let us examine a statement from Thomas Jefferson in this regard: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason, than that of blindfolded fear..." (Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr) "

" Third, and more to the point, although some of the Founders were Christian, many more were Deists. There is a fundamental difference between what Deists believe and the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. Deists maintain that a Divine Creator of the universe exists, but deny that he is personally interested in human history. Accepting no revelations, no persons as "God incarnate," the Deists reject the divinity of Jesus as well. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were indubitably Deists; they admitted to such many times in their writings. For just one of many examples, I will quote the "real" Thomas Jefferson, far more accurately referred to as a Deist than a Christian. This should demonstrate the misleading nature of any attribution of Christianity to him: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding..." There are numerous such passages in the writings of Jefferson, if fundamentalist Christians would but just look before attempting to write their revisionist histories. "

"Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the former the author of the Declaration of Independence, the latter the author of the Constitution and the First Amendment to our Constitution protecting religious freedom, were both very alarmed at the possibility that some parties would attempt to foist their single-minded Christian religious beliefs on the majority. Both of them wrote and lobbied extensively for laws prohibiting this kind of interference from Christians in politics. For instance, Jefferson wrote in his "Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." Madison, for his part, maintains in his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," his opposition to a Virginia bill to tax people to pay those who taught the doctrines of Christianity, that "the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world; the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." Even more to the point, says Madison, "A just Government needs [religious clergy] not." "

"Fifth, the position as stated by those who subscribe to the "Christian nation" dogma fails to make another critical distinction: that between religious belief and Christianity. There is no doubt that the Founders partook in the former practice; there is considerable doubt that this is the same practice as the latter. One will read precious few references to Jesus or Christ in most of the writings of the "big name" Founders. Even where one does find these references, it is not at all in reference to the forming of the new democratic government. This indicates clearly that the Founders had something else in mind than creating a government based on or imbued with, religion, least of all the Christian version. Furthermore, assuming that the alleged Christianity of the Founders could be established with certitude, it does nothing at all to "prove" that they therefore wanted to establish a Christian nation. To reach this conclusion would require a quantum leap in logic. "

" When all of these issues are considered, one is only left to conclude that the fundamentalist position on this issue is not fundamentally rooted in reason or in history, but rather in a vain desire to proselytize for a distinctively Christian revisionist history. When any group uses the banner of a political party in order to engage in dogmatic ideological assertions of an allegedly religious nature, that group in effect hijacks the political process only for the purpose of achieving their own narrow ends. When that happens, it must be challenged by the majority of citizens. In this case, it is important to challenge the people who espouse such positions, in the name of intellectual honesty, to do more reading and thinking, beyond what their Bible allegedly tells them. "

This excerpt was taken from an article written by: Dr. Robert Abele, "A Turn to the (Religious) Right ," September 13, 2004, available at http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_13309.shtml

*Dr. Robert Abele is a professor of philosophy at Illinois Valley Community College, located near Chicago. He has written articles on political philosophy and also on ethics and warfare, and is now in the process of completing a book on ethics and the invasion of Iraq. He also has a new book entitled A User's Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act, published by University Press of America, due out in November.He can be reached at rabele@ivnet.com.

Madine

on Nov 01, 2004

My point was simply that references to God in relation to public policy is not something that was started recently by GW Bush or the religious right.

Interpreting the bible is an entirely different subject altogether. Interpretation of the bible is not the equivalent of interpreting the constitution.

I don't see how you need to know the thoughts of the author in order to take a strict interpretation of the constitution. A strict interpretation would be to read the words and decide what they mean.

Slavery was around long before Christianity, so I don't think it would be correct to cite Christianity as a cause of slavery. Also, it wasn't as though all American Christians supported slavery. Many abolitionists opposed slavery primarily because of their Christian beliefs.

I would argue that unjust laws are not so much a failure of democracy as they are a failure of morality. America was founded on the idea that there are Higher laws, that neither a king nor the will of the majority nor anyone else has the authority to violate.

RedneckHunter

on Nov 01, 2004

Hmm, i thought it was global warming, nuclear proliferation, AIDS, heart disease, obesity, handguns, automobile accidents, crime, poverty, lack of education, drug and alcohol abuse, osama bin laden (may allah burn his ass) and a whole slew of other, real dangers.

First off, Guns don't kill people, people kill people. My Handgun is not going to jump up and kill someone on it's own. I will have to physically apply force to the trigger, to release the hammer which strikes the firing pin, which inturn hits the primer cap and the resulting bang is a round downrange.

More people die from AIDS than gun related crime. More people die from obesity/heart disease than gun related crime. In states that have the CHL(Conceal Carry), crime has dropped.

Slavery was around long before Christianity, so I don't think it would be correct to cite Christianity as a cause of slavery. Also, it wasn't as though all American Christians supported slavery. Many abolitionists opposed slavery primarily because of their Christian beliefs.

Yeap, slaves built the wonders of the world.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 01, 2004

Madine, I never said GW Bush invented the use of religion in public policy but I would say that he has done more damage to church-state separation than any other president in our history. He rules by an iron-fisted theocracy and tries to pawn it off as domocratic governing. As for your other comments: "A strict interpretation would be to read the words and decide what they mean." I believe I adequately defined what "strict interpretation" means and since I defined it precisely the way Black's Law Dictionary defines it, I believe my definition is more accurate than yours. Both the Constitution and the Bible can be interpreted strictly or by a number of other methods. Strict interpretation does not mean "reading the actual words" when the words are clear. It means relying on the reader's interpretation of what the author MUST have been thinking at the time of the writing, and no more, when the actual words could have multiple meanings. Most things in the Bible and the Constitution fit into this category. You confuse strict constructionism with strict interpretation although there is some overlap. However, there is a difference. Yes, and with strict interpretation, you have to read the words and decide what they meean but the key is what criteria you use in determining what they mean when the actual language is not clear. Strict interpretation ONLY tries to determine what the author meant. Period. It ignores other necessary criterium and broader analysis required to place the author's intent in proper context.

As for slavery, I was making a specific response to a specific bloggers comments about slavery in the U.S. I did not say that religion was the cause of slavery. You misread what I actually wrote. Read it again and I will be happy to discuss it with you. I also realize that many abolitionists were influenced by their religion. But it is worth noting that they were very progressive thinkers for their time...what many literalist Christians would have characterized as "out of the mainstream" at that time. That is precisely the point I was making. Abolitionists were predominately the liberal religious thinkers of their day. The point is not to be so rigid in your thinking just because you think you have cornered the market on truth. The moment you claim to be a wise man, is the moment you have proven yourself a fool. That's my mantra.

Lastly, I didn't say that unjust laws are a failure of our democracy, it is the failure of people to understand exactly and fully what a democratic republic means and how it is supposed to function. It was the people who failed, not democratic principles. Again, big difference.

stevendedalus

on Nov 01, 2004

There are no 'waves' of followers of messianic leadership, steven, church attendance is down across the board, and even if there were increases of the type you fear, id hardly call them the greatest danger facing the nation today.

Tell that to native Americans and the duped billions of Muslims suppressed by so-called spiritual dicta--let alone the 40% of the populations that are miltant evangelicals.

stevendedalus

on Nov 01, 2004

Can you prove your belief that Bush has done more damage to church and state seperation than any other president in our history? One single shred of evidence other than your belief and the belief of others?

How about the Almighty took us to war? Plus if he's re-elected the Christian coalition will demand more theocratic laws.

If democratic principles had been properly APPLIED throughout our history, the Court would have immediately struck down these insidious laws as unconstitutional.

Thanks for the support.

Madine

on Nov 01, 2004

Hence, these are the dangers of strict interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution.

This statement prompted my comment about Christianity causing slavery. Anyway, in the mock pro-slavery argument you gave, the lynchpin is the assertion that Africans are not humans. Last time I checked, the Bible doesn't support that assertion.

I believe I adequately defined what "srict interpretation" means and since I defined it precisely the way Black's Law Dictionary defines it,

I don't have Black's Law Dictionary, but I will take your word for it.

But it is worth noting that they were very progressive thinkers for their time...what many literalist Christians would have characterized as "out of the mainstream" at that time.

Aren't literalist Christians always out of the mainstream? Was Lincoln out of the mainstream?

The point is not to be so rigid in your thinking just because you think you have cornered the market on truth.

So, would it have been better for Lincoln to take a "live at let live" attitude towards slavery? Would it have been better for the founding fathers to say, "I'm not so sure about this inalienable rights thing"? No one has all the answers, but surely claiming to have some wisdom is not foolish?

it is the failure of people to understand exactly and fully what a democratic republic means and how it is supposed to function. It was the people who failed, not democratic principles.

I think "democractic" might be the wrong word. Perhaps liberal (classical definition) would better? I don't think it is a question of "how should government operate" so much as it is "how should people operate".

Plus if he's re-elected the Christian coalition will demand more theocratic laws.

What theocratic laws has Bush passed?

stevendedalus

on Nov 02, 2004

School vouchers, favoring parochial; faith-based organizations he knows will not separate proseltyzing from community work; if re-elected will follow through with his marriage amendment; his philosophy is predicated on God's law--have you forgotten that Jesus is his "favorite philosopher"?

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 02, 2004

Helix the II Posted: Monday, November 01, 2004
Can you prove your belief that Bush has done more damage to church and state seperation than any other president in our history? One single shred of evidence other than your belief and the belief of others? Seriously, some sort of proof? You can feel one way, I can feel the other way, but in the end neither of our "beliefs" hold any weight..except that the evidence to support my claim is the lack of your own evidence to support yours...(Wow, that's kinda goofy). Please enlighten me, ye ol Wise one in the knowledge of politics.

Steven has nicely already provided some evidence and I will provide some as well. I will post it shortly.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 02, 2004

Helix the II: "Please enlighten me, ye ol Wise one in the knowledge of politics." I never claimed to be wise and your derisive commentary to the contrary shows that you would prefer to attack the messenger in lieu of debating the issues. This usually happens when a person cannot debate the issues so they resort to personal attacks. Just a thought...

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 02, 2004

Madine: "Anyway, in the mock pro-slavery argument you gave, the lynchpin is the assertion that Africans are not humans. Last time I checked, the Bible doesn't support that assertion."

That is precisely my point...yet the Church used their strict interpretation of certain biblical passages to support the notion that non-whites were not actual human beings! It was a DISTORTION caused by highly questionable selectivity and strict interpretation of certain biblical passages. They took them completely out of context! You have to keep in mind, that no matter how much you love your religion, faith, church, these doctrines are interpreted and espoused by flawed institutions and imperfect human beings. These institutions and a lot of the humans who run them, are also very POLITICAL in nature. They are centers of POWER and not just faith and religion.

"Aren't literalist Christians always out of the mainstream? Was Lincoln out of the mainstream?"

Literalist Christians have become the mainstream...that is the problem. Secondly, Lincoln relied on his religious beliefs for inspiration but he did not allow his faith to dictate his political positions. Big difference. In fact, Lincoln said (I'm paraphrasing) that he would have rather kept slavery in place if would preserve the Union, than to abolish it and have the Union split in two. Hardly the words of a man allowing his religioius beliefs to dictate government policy.

"So, would it have been better for Lincoln to take a "live at let live" attitude towards slavery? Would it have been better for the founding fathers to say, "I'm not so sure about this inalienable rights thing"? No one has all the answers, but surely claiming to have some wisdom is not foolish?"

No. That is not what I am arguing at all. But the Founding Fathers did not establish a theocracy, they established a democratic republic which allows religious freedom but also established solid boundaries between church and state. The notion of inalienable rights were espoused by the Founders' (in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere) understanding of philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu. These philosophers were influenced by many things, including religion, but their beliefs in the existence of inalienable rights were rooted in reason, logic, and "natural law." Look at some of their writings such as "the Glorious Revolution," which states that certain rights self-evidently pertain to individuals as human beings because these rights existed in the state of nature before humanbeings entered into civil society. Their notions of government and inaleinable rights are grounded squarely in the "social compact" theory (i.e. that upon entering civil society at birth both you and the government are contractually bound) and that humans surrender to the state only the right of the government to ENFORCE these natural rights. The government does not BESTOW those rights upon you. The state's failure to secure your "natural rights" is a breach of the compact and provides justification for popular revolution. Hence, the wording of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It is these same philosphical teachings that laid the foundation for Human Rights Law, Humanitarian Laws (i.e. genocide, ethnic cleansing, (etc...)). While it is conceded that "religious" teachings played a role in influencing these philosophers, it was logic, reason, and natural law that were the predominent forces that guided them.

T_Bone4Justice

on Nov 02, 2004

Madine, "What theocratic laws has Bush passed?"

I believe Steven adequately addressed this issue. It isn't so much laws he passed, (since the President does not pass laws, the legislature does), it is the way he uses his faith as the sole driving force to justify his policies and in the way he governs. I will refer you to an article in my blog that addresses this administration's governing style: "Is Karl Rove America’s Self-imposed Mullah? A look at Ironfisted Theocracy Posing as Democratic Governing…" and I recommend that you take a look at an article entitled "Dangerous Religion; George W. Bush's theology of empire." written by Jim Wallis in SOJOURNERS magazine, September-October 2003 issue. You can read the article at:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

As a final thought:

"Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering."

—Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)

stevendedalus

on Nov 04, 2004

these doctrines are interpreted and espoused by flawed institutions and imperfect human beings. These institutions and a lot of the humans who run them, are also very POLITICAL in nature. They are centers of POWER and not just faith and religion.

Great statement!

Whip, fair criticism, but the population explosion, 40% of the electorate are evangelicals.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!