The essay is very much abridged , but the idea is to consider basic human psychological need and then examine how cults (and Scientology) manipulates these.

This is a response – among many, I’m sure – to evangelical politicians who are intent on “Taking this nation back for Christ.”

1. This nation was never a “Christian” nation.
    Thomas Jefferson was a deist who was interested in the ethics taught by Jesus and preferred to dismiss spiritual claims. John Locke and others from whom the Founding Fathers developed their ideas for the United States held similar religious understandings. They had no intention of founding a religious nation, especially considering the fact that they kicked their former ruler out who made that claim.

2. Jesus and the early church leaders had little to do with politics.
    Well, that’s only half true. When they did interact with politics, it usually ended with their execution. This is Rome, after all. What really chaps my ass is that not only did they distance themselves from the government (most of the time, anyway), when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion, many scholars would say that this was, in fact, a highly destructive move for the Christians (see Hauerwas/Willimon specifically).
    Once political power (and therefore money) entered the game, corruption spread through the church faster than the plague. Granted, the plague was usually right behind.

3. The Christian Scriptures are highly critical of wealth and power.
    The writers understood very well that it is easy to corrupt people. Here I would like to point out that it has corrupted many self-proclaimed evangelicals in government offices, but that implies they weren’t corrupt before taking office. I’m not entirely sure that is an accurate statement, and thus I will refrain.

4. Notable Christians in history are usually notable BECAUSE they rebelled against authority.
    After all, Jesus pissed a lot of people off which got him killed. Martin Luther should have been executed but escaped the wrath of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church a few times.
    Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged an authority that OVERTLY CLAIMED TO BE CHRISTIAN. He was assassinated. Soren Kierkegaard fought against the established church his entire life. Honestly, the list goes on.

My point: Many of the most highly regarded Christians throughout history have their status because they opposed corrupted power. Rarely do heroes stand on the side of power. Why? Be cause power always corrupts.

Huckabee, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Robertson, etc – you have all missed the point, and your corruption is bringing the demise and death of many, many people.

Oh, yeah, and you’re pissing off the rest of the world. That’s a bit more serious than some idiot blogger.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Within the cluttered attic of my memory, I recall briefly staying awake during a history class in high school. The teacher mentioned the farewell address given by George Washington when he stepped down from his office, and I thought that it might be fun to read it in light of the current political situation.

Ok, yeah. I had a decent idea of what Washington said, but when I read it, I became truly terrified.

Ol’ Georgy, in his address, managed to SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY warn us about the neo-con group that has hijacked our country. I can’t quite explain it; the guy must have been a prophet.

…that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained

How could anyone disagree with that? Of course, the trick is to convince yourself that you hold the Constitution sacred. Then you can justify anything. *ahem* Cheney.

On how to influence other nations:

…under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.

…for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize.

I seem to remember Ron Paul championing this type of thinking. Something about minding our own business, setting a good example… I don’t know. Perhaps it was just a minor point…(ha!)

The next is on unity within the nation, even though we may differ in many ways. Washington emphasizes this in terms of geographic differences (ie, the Civil War), but I think ideology fits into the spirit of his ideas:

…and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

But the Constitution… till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Mr. Bush, are you listening..er..reading? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

This next quote floored me, as his intuitive understanding of politics and people predicted a profound problem within our country today. Seriously, it is chilling:

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

I mean, he might as well have said, “Hey, when this group of neo-cons start getting uppity, deport them. Fast. Or hit them with a shovel. Then deport them… and then hit them again.”

He goes on:

…to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Washington starts to become creepy here. Like, Nostradamus-style creepy:

It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

So, Mr. Washington, you’re saying that these power-grabbing minority groups that seek to gain tremendous power over the government and the people may end up dragging the U.S. into needless foreign affairs?

Oh dear, that’s terrifying. Good thing that this is just a warning and therefore remains only theoretical…

Tell me what you think about government spending and debt:

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.

Ok, Mr. Washington, so illegally going to war for reasons you say are dangerous and thus subjecting the citizens and their descendants to debts reaching potentially trillions of dollars would possibly upset you?

Hypothetically, should we make a point to support a nation in a volatile region of the world?

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.

Great. Because there’s this country called Israel….oh, you have more to say:

The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.

…since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.

Damn.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I like Ron Paul.

I respect his consistency, experience, concern for the country, and most of his convictions. The idea that the federal government should be small, leaving most of the power to the states and individual citizens, is really the intention of the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. I want Ron Paul to be my president.

However, I have two concerns about putting him in the White House that have been tugging at my conscience since I first saw him on The Daily Show. The first is a statement, and the second is more of a question to Dr. Paul. And yes, I realize that he is way too busy to address the questions of no-name bloggers. That is a good thing, because it means that he is out there fighting against media bias.

1. The government, especially the Executive Branch, reminds me of what you get when you drop a bunch of spoiled children off at a daycare with no one to watch them, and tell them that 3 pieces of candy are hidden somewhere in the room: screaming, crying, greedy, and willing to do anything so their fat little stomachs get one more treat. They have used the Constitution to wipe the vomit off of their faces after gorging themselves in astounding gluttonous fashion. And their friends get a seat at their giant table also, completely without the ethical oversight one might expect from a system that is supposed to be run with checks and balances.
My conscience nags me because of something my mother taught me when I was young. Growing up, my brother and I trashed the house on an hourly basis. Yet, in her meanness, she made us clean it up. After I got married, I decided to learn how to brew beer. It worked, but when I heated and mixed the wort, I managed to create a thick layer of burnt malt all over the stove. Then in the bottling process I spilled the mostly fermented beer all over the kitchen floor in an awful sticky mess. Had I not cleaned up my own mess, she would have beaten me to death with our cat.
My point is obvious. I cannot imagine why Dr. Paul would want to clean up this horrendous train-wreck of a mess, but since he volunteers to, I feel awful. I’ll still vote for him and promote as much as I can. But wow. He must mean business if he wants to clean up years of illegal politicking.

2. This question is directed at Ron Paul, though realistically it is more to ponder. He’s a busy guy.
Dr. Paul, I think that you are needed as president because our government is spiraling out of control in a way that historically leads to horrible things. What the hell do we do if you aren’t elected?