How the Bush Administration Is Destroying Our Country and Damaging the Christian Church

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2.

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." John 8:32.

PROLOGUE

The purpose of this essay is to show that inaccurate, even bogus, Christianity is destroying our country, and doing great damage to the Christian Church.

The establishment's long-term goal is to bring about what is known as the "New World Order," which will be an end to national sovereignty and an end to whatever individual liberty we have left. The people we know as the establishment are working towards a centralized world government which will, of course, supersede the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The only real dispute is, will the United Nations be turned into a world government, or will world government originate in Washington, D.C.? Either way, individual liberty will no longer exist, especially regarding land ownership and the right to self-defense, which I regard as the two most important of God-given rights.

I believe that President George W. Bush is in favor of this New World Order. He may seem to be lukewarm on the United Nations, but his actions prove him to be a centralist. The overseas imperialism, the piecemeal transfer of political power from states to the federal government, and within the federal government to the Executive branch, and within the Executive branch to the White House itself, the gravitation of wealth from ordinary people to establishment interests, the weakening of our national borders by agreements along the lines of the North American Union and so-called "free" (actually highly regulated and taxed) trade agreements, and any number of other examples show that the Bush administration is actively working toward the centralization of political power.

It was mainly the evangelical/fundamentalist (religious right) Christian vote that put George W. Bush in office in both 2000 and 2004, and it was the religious right leadership that stumped for him on the campaign trail and is still doing it.

How did this happen? Actually, the ruination of this country has been going on for many decades as I have shown in my last two blog essays (1).

In this essay, though, I want to demonstrate that the last seven years or so have ushered in what might well be the end of our country. The lapdog mainstream news media simply will not cover what I believe should be major news items and in order to find these out one needs to be on the Internet. At the end of this essay I will list a few sources of news that are from a variety of viewpoints, predominately libertarian but also from other dissident sources.

My theory as to why the country has taken such a nosedive into the big-government, intrusive nanny-state, authoritarian camp is the failure of people to think independently for themselves and their propensity to obey leaders. One, maybe the main, reason for this is poor education. Last year I said I would dig deeper into (I believe I used the word "flog") the "education" system. I won't do that right now and must apologize, but doing so would take the essay off on a major tangent.

Fundamentalist Christians obey, or at least greatly respect, their pastors. I guess they believe these pastors, at least the well-known ones, have a special hotline to God. These pastors came to believe that a George W. Bush presidency would turn the country away from paganism and back to God. The rest is history.

I read a few books on the fundamentalists, their belief structure, and their politics, to compare and contrast them with my own. My conclusion was that, while I agree with their religion and morality for the most part, as far as their political positions go they really should review what Jesus taught and also what St. Paul taught as exemplified by the scriptures quoted above.

I cannot comment on their knowledge of church history, as my own knowledge is extremely scant. I do know, however, that in the very beginning the church had little organization and what little it had was bottom-up rather than top-down. It is incumbent upon individual Christians to read scripture and apply their ability to reason. I also know that in the beginning Christians were pacifistic and gave the government a wide berth. They paid taxes to keep the bureaucrats out of their hair and otherwise dissociated themselves from government.

I have always said the only real authority is that of God. Who do these human beings think they are if they presume to have "authority" over other human beings? And, why in the world is anybody obeying them?

Is it because they know more? I have come to believe that there is authority and there is authority. Some people are truly experts in their field. Bach was an authority on music composition. Einstein was an authority on physics. Dr. James Dobson, while I disagree with him on some particulars, is an authority on child rearing. Were I the parent, or even the sitter, of a small child, it is his work I would consult for pointers, since I know nothing about the subject. Dr. Murray Rothbard was a, if not the, foremost authority on the libertarian philosophy, especially economic theory, and while I understand my own libertarian philosophy pretty well, whenever I am thinking through some ideas, my Rothbard collection is never far away. We are not always on the same page, but Dr. Rothbard has helped me question authority more than anyone else.

That brings me to the other kind of authority. This is the self-proclaimed special privilege of telling others what to do. I seriously question it.

Actually, no!! I do not question it! For I believe it does not even exist to question!

Now, I must admit and even point out that Romans 13 does seem to tell us to submit blindly to the civil authorities as they are appointed by God. However, there are some of things to remember. One is that when Jesus walked the earth (and when the apostle Paul was living) the church authorities and the civil authorities were apparently not strictly separated. Jesus himself was "arrested" or kidnapped by the temple authorities and bound over to be crucified. And we need to remember that there is the real authority of knowledge and the phony authority of the person who tells others what to do. What is really being described in Romans 13? I believe that more study is needed on this.

This leads to a very important part of the topic. Exactly what is the separation of church and state? And is this separation something that the country's Founders wanted to assure? A resounding "YES!"

Founder Thomas Jefferson said:

"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." (emphasis mine.) (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.)
(2).

Founder James Madison also had some words to say about this:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (Emphasis the Web page's.) (Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819.)

"Strongly guarded as the separation between religion & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Emphasis the Web page's.) (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820.)

"Every new and successful example, therefore a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." (Emphasis the Web page's.) (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.)

· "I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (Emphasis the Web page's.) (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, spring, 1832).
· "To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina. I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself." (Emphasis the Web page's.) (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811.) (3)
I think that is enough said about the separation of church and state, as it seems to be a settled issue.

God gave each of us a perfectly good mind and a free will. Each is responsible to take the initiative to accept Christ. How, then, can we be counseled to blindly obey other fallible human beings?

For decades now, fundamentalists have bemoaned the government, but only because they believe the wrong people are in political and bureaucratic positions. Government itself would be wonderful, they believe, if they get their own people in. My question is, why is the big government of liberalism considered "socialism" or even "communism," while big government by Christians would be "freedom"? Both are socialistic, the difference only being in the kind of regulation.

The kind of socialistic regulation the fundamentalists advocate was outlined pretty well by Tim La Haye in 1982 (4). This was written at about the same time Jerry Falwell took to the airwaves. It exemplifies exactly what is going on to hoodwink religious people into believing that the separation of church and state is not mandated by the Constitution, and into actively working towards the destruction of this country (even as they believe they are saving it) and in the process doing great harm to the church by alienating the best and brightest.

Right now, the country's leaders, both the fundamentalist church leaders and the ones in high government office are taking the sacred and turning it into the profane. Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Bakker Messner, expressed it very well a few months ago on Larry King Live. He said that the "ice cream" of the Christian faith is being mixed with the "dung" of government. This is certainly going to ruin your ice cream.

So, let the study begin. We shall see if I was able to show that this is what is happening. I think I can, but not without the help of several authors.

(1) Please see The Three Worst American Enemies of Freedom and The Roots of Neoconservatism on this blog.

(2) Other relevant quotes may be found at http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm

(3) Still other relevant quotes may be found at http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

(4) La Haye, Tim, The Battle for the Family, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan (NJ), 1982.

Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction

Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction
David Kuo
Free Press, New York, 2006

Once the author became a Christian, he wanted to spread the Good News to the world, as is our job. But he was led astray early on, with the desire to use politics and government to do it. A talk by Chuck Colson in the mid-1980s galvanized him and he read everything by Colson he could get his hands on.

Colson introduced him to William Wilberforce, a British parliamentarian in 1700 who fought to abolish slavery. This made Kuo want to use government to do some good things such as work for human rights. To the libertarian Christian this would mean working towards the repeal of Jim Crow and apartheid-type laws, a major tax reduction, and the return of our troops home from overseas.

Kuo's minister is the one who turned Kuo on to Colson. Chuck Colson, before he became a Christian, was one of Richard Nixon's "dirty tricks" men. What caught my eye was that he authored Nixon's "enemies list." (1) Like the lists the Internet talks about today, any dissident who is not on some list is not doing her job. Now, even more than during the Nixon era, anyone who is working toward the return of this country to its true roots is a dissident.

Later, after the well-deserved fall of Nixon, Colson went to prison for some of the dirty tricks. When he got out of prison and became a Christian, he did some fine work helping prisoners.

The speech Kuo attended was spun in such a way (I am not in a position to know if Colson was being up front or if he was working on an agenda) as to point out that the "public square" was being stripped of Judeo-Christian influence. Colson said if this were to go on, freedom would be lost. In retrospect, nearing the end of this project, I have to say that his definition of freedom is something to be looked into. Morality was on the decline, and the country was becoming corrupt. A turn-around was needed. Christians were becoming apostate, i.e., were blending into the unchurched crowd.

Kuo's desire to use the government to do good things was different from that of the libertarian ideal of repealing bad laws. To him it would mean government funding of social programs and aid to the governments of poor countries. In other words, he was on the left, not realizing that these benefits (2) meant more tax money had to be stolen from the citizenry.

This is how David Kuo got snookered into believing political action would be part of evangelism. He was a Democrat then, working hard on the Dukakis campaign.

Two years later, the same pastor who introduced him to Chuck Colson got David Kuo a ticket to the Prayer Breakfast. Of course G.H.W. Bush was then in office. This introduced him to Washington, D.C., and he decided to try to go to work for a Democrat on Capitol Hill. Being a Christian, he was pro-life, so the Democrats snubbed him for not toeing the party line. Finally he found a job with the National Right to Life Committee.

That is apparently when the horse-trading began for Kuo. The NRLC was a heck of a powerful lobby, and Judge David Souter was being nominated to fill a Supreme Court seat. Souter's opinions on abortion were unknown and the NRLC's support depended on some trade-offs with the then White House Chief of Staff John Sununu (3).

I won't go into details, but this episode exemplifies the wheeling and dealing that goes on in Washington at the expense of liberty.

As time went on, and as Kuo thought the 1992 Clinton victory over G.H.W. Bush was the end of the world, he grew further from God and closer to politics. He hung on every word that was said on the mainstream news shows, all of which are strongly slanted in a pro-government direction.

Actually it is an exaggeration to say he thought the Clinton election was the end of the world, although it did put him into a major funk. He said the Bible says God chooses national leaders (4) and that an evil one may be chosen to show people how far astray we have gone. Once we are back on track, a Godly one will be chosen. If this is the case, we must be in really bad shape now in 2007, although there are still some Christians who believe that G.W. Bush is Godly.

The government has indeed done a great deal of harm to the Christian church if a plurality of Christians still support Bush. I believe the idea of using government authority and laws to enforce Christian beliefs is based on the belief in human authority and hierarchy on the part of some Christians.

Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition, headed by Ralph Reed, was making serious inroads into the Republican Party. As we will see later on, Karl Rove approached Reed possibly in an effort to garner religious leader (and follower) support during the 2000 G.W. Bush presidential campaign.

Kuo, having left NRLC, heard the infamous William Bennett had a job opening, applied, and was hired. One of the first words out of Bennett's mouth was one you would not expect from a Christian. Bennett worked with Reed to steer the Republican Party away from its devotion to free market economics (actually semi-free at best, according to the truly free market Austrian school economics (5) that libertarians advocate) and towards the codifying of what they believe is Christian morality and towards the spread of "democracy" worldwide. Bennett, Reed, and Jack Kemp believed (or tried to convince people) that good economics would follow if there was a moral turnaround in the country. This was either a hoax or they, too, were naive. I do not think these old pros were naive. Kuo, still being rather left-wing (remember, many neo-conservatives did come out of the Left) and distrusting of the semi-free market "supply side" economics, was eager to go along with Bennett and Kemp. This was actually more horse-trading, as Kemp had a history of being more free market than most.

This is an example of how the religious right and the religious left both fail to understand the difference between voluntary giving to privately funded Christian charity, and government welfare schemes funded by coercively collected (which really means stolen) tax money. I have to wonder what part of "Thou shalt not steal" they do not understand.

Moderate "supply side" economics was exemplified by Jack Kemp. After decades of the country wallowing in the Keynesian septic tank (even under Reagan, whose policies were not what they are cracked up to be), this seemed like a breath of fresh air. I remember Kemp's ideas on federal housing projects which he presented as relatively free-market oriented, and this excited me. I hoped Kemp would be nominated as the Republican candidate for president. He was no Harry Browne (6) but he was head and shoulders above any other, especially a guy named Bush.

But that was not to be. William Bennett teamed up with Kemp to form a new organization. Whether this was on purpose on the part of Bennett I don't know, but it diffused what affinity to the free market Kemp had, which was another step taken to get the religious right and the GOP over into a big-government camp. The new organization was Empower America (7).

The leaders Kuo worked for in the 1990s, such as William Bennett, were looked up to by Christians in the same way their pastors were. People followed and believed every word these leaders said rather than questioning. Of course it was all voluntary on the followers' part. People regard these "authorities" as such because they thought the leaders had some knowledge that other people didn't have. Not only that, but followers seem to be inclined to break down the line between the authority of superior knowledge and the "authority" to make people obey.

One of the jobs Kuo did for Bennett was to compile "scientific" statistics on the country's "moral decline" using indicators such as abortion, divorce, teen pregnancy, and low educational achievement between 1960 and 1990. All these indicators showed a steep rise. I have to ask about the possibility of bias here, and also have to entertain the possibility that in 1960 people were hiding the fact of teenage promiscuity, "back-alley" abortions, and other ills. These ills have been here as long as people have. Then, too, possibly the incidence has been rising because of the legalization of abortion and more openness about lax attitudes. This set of statistics was called the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators. It is very much like the Index of Leading Economic Indicators or Consumer Price Index which the establishment economists are so fond of – don't get me started on that.

The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators got Rush Limbaugh's attention, and from there Empower America took off at the grass roots.

The statistics rang alarm bells among their followers. Bennett, Kuo, and the others came to the conclusion that the conservative drive for a reduction in the size and scope of government would do nothing to halt these trends, so this drive was generally abandoned. Libertarians could see right through this even before the conservatives themselves realized that in order to have the power to do anything about these ills they would need (and they wanted – they are not fooling libertarians) a strong government to back them up.

Empower America, consciously or otherwise, played a big role in the final demise of our freedom.

The Clinton victory in 1992 demoralized not just Kuo, but the whole Christian right. Empower America grew like the weed it was by inducting some establishment heavy-hitters such as Donald Rumsfeld, Steve Forbes, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. The last was the former U.N. ambassador whom I will remember mostly for her snide remark about lives being lost in a war being "worth it." How does she know? Did those who died come back in a séance and tell her? Those lives belonged to those who died and whether their loss was "worth it" was their call to make and not hers. So much for any regard for the individual.

In any case I really don't know how many of these heavies in Empower America were with the Christian right or how many had their sights set on a world government. Neoconservatives Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak were on board. Novak had stated that America's job of spreading democracy throughout the world was a Christian task, as this form of government is "ordained by God" (8).

Those in Empower America did believe in churches and charities helping the poor, and they did regret the welfare system getting in the way and undermining these efforts. But instead of advocating the churches and charities working harder in fighting the system to take back their God-given responsibilities, they opted to work with the government via federal funding (and regulation, as one follows the other as surely as night follows day) of Kuo's hand-picked charities.

In 1994 - 1995, during the libertarian-leaning "Republican Revolution" (the Libertarian Party gave it something like a "B" or "B+" grade at the time; too bad it fell on its caboose) when many in the new GOP-controlled Congress still had a little understanding of economics, David Kuo got into more arguments with Republicans than with Democrats. The Christian Coalition types did not want any free market. They were already moving towards a Bush-type system and, sure enough, in the late 1990s, George W. Bush rode in like a knight in shining armor to socialize Christian charity. Bush asked to meet with Kuo to see if Kuo would make a good speechwriter for him. Kuo was hired on the spot. The knight had ridden in; Kuo was snowed.

I am now beginning to figure out what the neo-cons and theo-cons are doing. They are probably not purposely trying to destroy the Church. (At least, I don't think they are – well, we'll see.) What they are doing is increasing the power of government by encroaching on the Church's role as charity. This will necessarily make the government bigger and more powerful: A bigger welfare system, manipulating people's behavior, higher taxes, with more bureaucrats and more people becoming dependent on faith-based and other social engineering programs the administration wants (9).

The main purpose of the Church is to tell the Good News. However the Church, and Christians as private individuals, are also to follow the example of Christ by feeding and clothing the poor, and nurture the sick, for Jesus said, "As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me" (10). This work is important in itself, but it is also a vehicle to convey the Good News. If the government takes it over, this will adversely affect the work of the Church.

This isn't rocket science. These people must know that.

But, once on the campaign trail, Bush started right in. First he would say that the churches and charities must help those who get left behind by prosperity. Economic conservatives believe this, of course, but then he would say that his administration would follow up with government money. We had been asking charity to "make bricks without straw," he would say, but now the "straw" would be provided. Of course this isn't true. Americans generously fund charities. We could do a lot more if government would back off (especially in the tax department) rather than step in.

A lot of this was actually a leading-on of evangelicals, who were instrumental in electing Bush. Kuo points out that the faith-based office had the lowest priority of all the White House offices, of which there were many. There was a lot in the way of talk, meetings, show, and busy-work, at tax-paid high salaries. One thing was the conference calls between the White House (not Bush himself, but a staffer) and evangelical and fundamentalist leaders where suggestions were bandied about. These ideas rarely got any further than the conference call. Public liaison staffers said what people wanted to hear.

So, faith-based charities were being led on. The money, at least most of it, was not forthcoming. Of course, I do not think government should subsidize charities, but it is even worse to promise and then stall on delivery. Churches and charities have to budget, and to become dependent on a source of money that does not deliver is likely to ruin them.

If I wanted to destroy giving, stonewall the Church, and make needy people dependent on government, this is exactly how I would do it.

Fundamentalists are especially vulnerable. They have, in many cases, led sheltered lives. I often wonder if they are reading the same Bible I am, as they are very deferential toward civil government, obedient to human "authority" that is over them in the hierarchy, and thus very easily intimidated. The White House, the way it is physically arranged, is an intimidating place, Kuo points out. So, when such people are there, they take everything its inhabitants say as gospel. They are like tiny children seeing Santa: I've been good, so toss me a little gift. They receive souvenirs like pens or cufflinks and then cherish them like young teenagers cherish autographs obtained from a favorite star.

The ABC program 20/20 on Friday, December 1, 2006, dealt with the propensity of full-grown people to obey. I realize many segments on such shows are tabloid journalism and one needs to allow for this, even though, as in this case, the trustworthy John Stossel was involved. Briefly, the segment dealt with a criminal who phoned fast-food restaurant managers posing as a policeman, who then commanded these managers to sexually and otherwise abuse a teenage female employee. These managers, thinking he was a policeman, did exactly as they were told, and so did the young employee. Now, this episode was very hard to assimilate, and I am not sure I believe it, but, if true, these were all adults (or young adults) who should have used their God-given ability to think independently and apply their understanding of the difference between right and wrong. They were more obedient than I ever was, so I must hold them all responsible (except possibly the victim that segment concentrated on, since by the time she realized what was happening it was too late).

Contemporary America is very obedient and respectful of human "authority," and the White House is taking full advantage of this in its efforts to destroy what little is left of the country our Founders worked to create, and in some cases went to jail and died for.

Related to the obedience issue, there is also the party loyalty issue. Regardless of anything, Kuo makes it plain, politics come first. Any politician who does not walk in step with his or her party affiliation is reprimanded. It does not matter why. Bush's faith-based subsidy program is basically liberal, but Democrats had to oppose it. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) (11) was a case in point. It was because neither major party wanted to lose voters to the other, and the whole scene is comical considering how alike the two major parties really are.

Despite this, Kuo (at the time) believed Bush was above all this, a man of genuine faith who spent substantial time in prayer.

The Faith-based office seemed stalled in early 2002 mainly because of politics, but also because the White House had its hands full with the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Not only that, mid-term elections were coming up so the office decided to make an effort to help incumbents get re-elected and get new Republicans elected to bolster funding for their office. We must remember that this office is a government bureaucracy and its participation in the campaigning is no more legal than the drug czar's touring on the taxpayer dime to defeat medical marijuana initiatives. Campaign events were thinly disguised as events for which selfless candidates took time away from their campaigns to "help" faith and community leaders "serve their community" (12). I guess they believe the populace is as dumb as a dodo. Well, in the light of the obedience and party loyalty I just described, maybe they are. Possibly the neo-con, theo-con Bush supporter would fall for the left-wing rhetoric since it was being presented by the Republican candidates. The scheme was set up.

The faith-based initiative never really got off the ground because it was all talk, all propaganda. Maybe it was not on purpose, but it was geared to do two things: 1. Cause disruption in private charities by telling them to expect federal funding and then not following through (although I have to wonder if there was follow-through on the criteria they must meet, meaning regulation) and 2. Train religious and other conservatives to think in terms of government involvement, getting used to this involvement in yet another area of life.

Well, finally some money began to trickle to faith-based organizations (not actual churches). This is what is called "compassion" as it went to really compassionate causes such as mentoring the children of prisoners, and drug treatment programs. But, of course it was mostly show. The liberal press ran with the ball decrying the bias toward Christian organizations and the waiving of regulations requiring non-discrimination in hiring people of all faiths. Nobody ever questioned the federal involvement with charities to begin with or the fact that taxpayers who have problems of their own were being forced to contribute. And, of course, its dubious (at best) Constitutionality was seldom or never questioned.

I cannot help noticing that when Christian conservative author Kuo complains that there is not enough money, he blames it on this minuscule "tax cut" that we were supposed to have received (13) (but will be more than reversed because of enormous deficit spending), which sounds very much like the liberal Democrats to me. To be fair, he also blames the war in Iraq which is a black hole for taxpayers' money.

Kuo's tax cut remark underscores what I wrote in last year's blog essay The Roots of Neoconservatism. The neoconservative and the modern liberal are pretty much the same: both are for big, active government, the difference being only in the details.

The compassion program was consistently stonewalled by White House staffers outside the faith-based office even as clergy and other leaders were being led on. The faith-based office was always treated like a step-child. One day it hit the fan when Kuo was at a black clergy meeting in the White House and he was pulled out by the president. Asked by President Bush how much more these money-hungry people wanted after they had been given so much ($8 billion had gone to faith-based charities), Kuo told him they had really been given hardly anything. I guess to a White House bureaucrat, even a "lowly" one, $8 billion is not much. The president was ballistic, stomped into the meeting and promised another $8 billion on the spot of your tax money! Of course, this was all talk and no action, too!

Kuo left his job disappointed. His father, who had fought in World War II, had taught him the White House could save the world. As students of history, at least history that has broken out of the politically correct box, know, the reverse is true. The White House cannot save the world, but it could and might destroy it. Kuo still seems to believe that the White House could save the world, and would have had Bush and the faith-based office not been stonewalled. This "conservative" belief is thoroughly modern liberal. Churches and charities themselves, while they cannot "save the world" can go a long ways to help people back on their feet, but government involvement does nothing but harm. Had the government followed through with its promises, the faith-based charities would have become dependent on, and obedient to, the government and this would have been stealth socialism in much the same way that educational vouchers socialize private education. Its failure to follow through with funding certainly made a shambles of charities that were counting on the funds.

Either way, great harm was done not only to the charities and connected churches, but also to the donating public who now believed that donations were less needed.

I don't know which is worse. Both of them, I'd say.

Meanwhile, much legislation was being passed through Congress that would trash our precious Bill of Rights (often being voted in favor of without congresspeople reading it) and funded without any snags.

Finally, David Kuo seems to have learned his lesson. When it comes to Christian evangelism and charity work, government is not the answer. He calls for Christians to take a two-year hiatus from politics. My answer is, how about a two-century hiatus? If Christians just go ahead and do the work on their own and forget about legislation, they will be following the example of Jesus.

And, I might add, it will get done and get done right.

(1) Kuo, David, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, Free Press, New York, 2006, P. 11.

(2) Whether these programs, especially aid to foreign governments, are beneficial is highly questionable at best.

(3) Ibid P. 32-35.

(4) It does??? That is news to me. Many religious leaders seem to think that and this is part of the problem.

(5) See the Ludwig von Mises Institute at http://www.mises.org/ .

(6) Harry Browne was the Libertarian presidential nominee for 1996 and 2000.

(7) Learn more at http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1464. By the way, for a good laugh at the expense of Kemp, read my Lincoln segment in The Three Worst American Enemies of Freedom at http://alicelillieandher.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_alicelillieandher_archive.html and then see P. 45 of the Kuo book on the naming of Empower America.

(8) Ryn, Claes: America the Virtuous, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J., 2003, P. 127-128. There is also a world government undercurrent here. Scary, isn't it?

(9) Kuo, P. 179.

(10) See Matthew 25:31-40.

(11) Kuo, P. 174-175.

(12) Ibid. P. 201-202.

(13) Ibid. P. 225.

The Right Wing Assault on America's Founding Principles

Saving General Washington: The Right Wing Assault on America's Founding Principles
J.R. Norton
Penguin Group, New York, 2006

The book, although it contains a little language that some might consider offensive, is very good. In the most down-to-earth way it contrasts the Founders' philosophy with that of the Bush administration. (There is not much in the way of comparison, most likely because there really are no comparisons.) The author has such a handle on the Founders that I think he is more libertarian than leftist; he realizes that the Founders were interested in the rights of the individual rather than the general welfare of society as a collective.

I have already pointed out that Thomas Jefferson called for the separation of church and state as part of the First Amendment. James Madison echoed him (1).

John Locke, who lived in the late 17th Century, was a real mentor to Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders, pioneered a great deal on the libertarian philosophy (2) and refuted monarchial authority. He believed that human individuals should follow reason. The purpose of government, Locke believed (3), is to keep people from harming one another and to protect private property. This is the basis of the libertarian philosophy, and it loomed very big at the Constitutional Convention. Author Norton compares Locke's writing with the Declaration of Independence. Locke, too, opined that it would be a mistake to codify any religious doctrine into civil law.

In the Founders' writings, God is rarely mentioned, presumably because these writings were about civil government and the Founders strongly believed in the separation of religion and state. It was not because they were unbelievers. Some of them were indeed Christians and many were deists.

I used to believe they were all Christians. The religious right would have us believe that and also that the Constitution would ensure a Christian nation. This was not hard for me to accept as I have always believed that Christianity is libertarian. After all, the individual must take the initiative to accept Jesus Christ, and one needs to do this oneself if one does not die before one has a chance to make that decision (for example, aborted babies, children too young to understand, or others for whom there is no way to receive the Good News). Nobody can do it for you.

I learned that some Founders were not Christians at a Christian church from a Christian minister. I used to volunteer a half day once a week to help the church staff. One hot day, I was in a dank basement room enjoying the coolness while we were sorting, dusting and re-shelving books. I came across a copy of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Norton mentions this on P. 158 and tells us that Jefferson had edited his own version. "Look at this!" I said to the minister. We began to talk about Jefferson and the wonderful ideas from which sprang all the prosperity and other goodness we are still enjoying to a point. I wanted to borrow the book, but it was an antique copy of the original Jefferson edition. I wanted to see how it compared to the Bible's translation we now use. The minister informed me that Jefferson was not a Christian, and that he and about half of the Founders were deists. He suggested they might be a bit like today's Unitarians, but he was not that familiar. Norton says that Jefferson did not even think of Jesus as a primary influence. I have to admit my great disappointment about that, but, like Ayn Rand, they had a corner on some important aspects of the truth.

For our purposes, this underscores the fact that our Founders had no intentions of mixing the ice cream of religion with the dung of state, regardless of what George W. Bush, James Dobson or Jerry Falwell say.

The Founders, who had a range of political and religious views, were all of like mind on one thing: religion and government don't mix. Government must be secular. The people in government may or may not have religious beliefs, but the moment we start reaching government into personal areas, freedom suffers. The Founders themselves, at least enough of them, were in fact pro-religion. By setting up the Constitution the way they did, they sought to protect religion from the state, thus allowing Christianity and other faiths to flourish here. Additionally, James Dobson might also be right; perhaps they were also trying to protect the state from religion.

Bush's faith-based initiative is in direct conflict with the Constitution. As I pointed out previously, the conflict is there whether religious charities get federal dollars or whether they are injured by being led to believe the money is forthcoming when it is not.

If the ice cream and dung are mixed, religion can be commandeered by the wrong kind of people to achieve their selfish ends, people like Bush, Cheney and the rest in high places (4). This is destructive of the church. It is worse than destructive to the country. In the long run it will be destructive to the state as eventually people will become tired of the yoke, and force the necessary changes. I hope this is soon, before a literal blood-bath occurs.

George W. Bush, Norton points out (5), is the very kind of chief executive the founders wanted to avoid.

The Norton book is very, very good. As I stated, it is not for children because of some questionable language, but he does describe the contrast between the Bush administration philosophy and that of the Founders in such a way that, despite my anger against the administration, I laugh while I am learning.

(1) J.R. Norton: Saving General Washington: The Right Wing Assault on America's Founding Principles, Penguin Group, New York, 2006 ,P. 93.

(2) Mises, Ludwig von, Human Action. Also see works by Rothbard, Hospers, Hoppe, and other libertarians.

(3) Norton P. 96.

(4) Ibid. Chapter 8, "President Jesus." This shows, in part, why Bush's actions on behalf of Jesus, the Bible, and the church are skewing Christianity in the minds of the best and brightest, turning them against Christianity.

(5) Ibid. P. 177-178

Fleeing Fundamentalism

Cross, Carlene
Fleeing Fundamentalism: A Minister's Wife Examines Faith
Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill (N.C.), 2006

This is an autobiography of a young woman who was raised by (presumably) non-Christian parents on a Montana farm. She and her brother found Jesus at a vacation Bible school. Later, she and her brother went to a Bible college, he to become a minister, she to marry the top student who became a minister, and a very good one at that.

They taught female submission which, of course, thanks to Dr. Scott Bartchy and other “state-of-the-art” Christian researchers, we now know is at least partially erroneous as what the Bible is really saying is that spouses are to submit to each other. My own opinion is there is really no differentiation between the genders any more than there is differentiation among the races. There is no hierarchy. There are really only individuals under God, no two alike, who are equal in value and all have the same God-given rights. This is one of the things that put Christianity head and shoulders over other religions.

The trouble started for the author, and for Christian fundamentalism, when Jerry Falwell and other Christian leaders started calling for more Christian involvement in government (1). They led people to believe that this would be going back to the original intent of the Founders, and the gullible members of the public believed it. They were aiming to stop the Equal Rights Amendment (which Amendment I supported), to crack down on pornography (which crackdown I opposed as I support the First Amendment as it is written), to overturn Roe v. Wade (I agree with that), and to condemn homosexuality (this is not even close to a government function).

I have previously discussed my stands on some of these issues before and will do so again.

The author's husband became more strict and overbearing over time. I personally have no experience in this area, being single for one thing, and having broken off with a few boyfriends when they began to think they could call more than half of the shots. (In all fairness, I have more than once been on the receiving end of the break-up too. I happen to be a highly energetic and assertive person and can get a little out of hand that way also. Of course, there are times to step up to the plate and insist on defending one's rights, but there are also times to stand down and cut the other guy some slack. There have been times when I foolishly opted not to tell the difference.)

The author's marriage progressed down lines that I find predictable, as I have read of these patterns before. First, he insisted that she keep the house white-glove clean and have everything in its place. After all, what would people think? Because he was a pastor they were living in the parsonage, and congregation members were always coming around, sometimes only to use the bathroom (2). Because the church owned the house, they could comment on its contents. This woman had no time to herself, but she believed it was God's will and hung in there.

I have come to consider “What will people think?” as a syndrome. Well, that syndrome and that of patriarchy escalated in what I would assume is a typical fashion. She, and another wife, began drinking. Husbands became more dominating. Later she learned that he had been going to strip joints. Later still, she found what she and most others would consider hard core pornography and alcohol hidden away. Other wives were finding the same thing.

Was this being played out among fundamentalists across the country? Or was it a local phenomenon?

In any case, this was happening at the same time the Moral Majority was agitating for a crackdown on strip joints and pornography!

That this is hypocrisy is so obvious that I do not need to say it. Less obvious is the harm it is doing to the church. And to our country. If intelligent people are leaving the church in droves, this has got to be one of the main reasons.

Certainly they are right in saying that the Constitution does not specifically mention the separation of church and state. Not in those words, as I pointed out earlier, but the First Amendment is clear on one thing and that is freedom of speech and press. The fundamentalists and the ACLU are both wrong. Both are calling for federal regulation and censorship. The Christians want to censor porn. The ACLU wants to censor prayers by students in public schools and to censor Christmas and other religious decorations on public property.

Likewise, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to privacy, even though the word “privacy” is not used. Look up “privacy” in the dictionary and compare its definition to the Fourth Amendment. It is not exactly the same, but it is similar enough.

The author, at the end, debunks many of the fundamentalist tenets, which interpret the Bible's commonly used translations literally. She throws out the baby with the bath.

This essay is not meant to deal with that subject, but allow me to say that new and better ways of learning what the original scripture said are becoming more available, so we are getting a far better handle on it. Rather than interpreting the Bible as a whole literally or symbolically, I think we must interpret it intelligently. God gave each of us, to one degree or another, a mind and it is incumbent upon each individual to explore the issues. I believe there are parts that must be taken literally and parts that are symbolic. The Good News of salvation is so simple that any person can understand it, and it needs to be simple because God did not give everyone a high intellect. But the Good News, and a degree of initiative, is all a person needs in order to go into the presence of God. The key is individual initiative.

If the state makes laws codifying good behavior (whether it be laws regulating strip clubs, the socialization of the institution of marriage, or the censorship of student prayers), it is taking away the individual's God-given right to decide for himself whether and how to relate to God.

(1) Cross, Carlene: Fleeing Fundamentalism: A Minister's Wife Examines Faith, Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, 2006, P. 86-88.

(2) Hmm, I wonder where the pastor of my church lives in relation to the hiking trails I use. Very often I need to re-route a hike due to the need for a bathroom.