Regent University plays hide and seek with 150 Bush admin alumni -- Now they're here... Now they're not!

The sequence of statements:

As late as 6 April, 2007, Regent University's "facts" web page proudly boasted that they had:

"150 graduates serving in the Bush Administration."

Between April 6 and April 12, the University removed that statement from their web site and, for at least several days, (April 12-16) there was no statement listed at all about any Regent U. graduates working for the Bush administration.

Sometime on April 16, a new statement appeared on their "facts" page:

"150 students have served in the Bush administration."
http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm

Apparently, not all of the 150 are still "serving" Bush. With this sequence of statements, is Regent U also implying that some of those 150 students never actually graduated?

Based on the quality of his arguments, my only question for Krugman is what ideology was it that allowed him to slip through the Times' screening process.

Consider his example of Rachel Paulose, who he condemns because she quotes scripture. She graduated from Yale Law School, and her appointment was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Another example cited was Claude Allen, who, "built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right". Apparently the undergraduate degree from Chapel Hill and the law degree from Duke had nothing to do with it.

He also throws in some cheap smear tactics by pointing out that Kay James was subsequently hired by Mitchell Wade, the man who bribed Representative Randy Cunningham, a fact in no way related to the point of the article. However, while including such facts, he neglects to point out that she resigned after less than 2 months when that scandal broke, forgoing a $350,000 salary and incurring a lawsuit for her troubles.

He ends with the threatening future of this infiltration of Christians by pointing out that Rudy Giuliani is scheduled to speak at Regent University. Apparently, in Krugman's world, pro-abortion, drag-wearing, thrice-married Rudy Giuliani is the next pawn of the vast Christian conspiracy.

This world will not be free until the last monarch is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
--Voltaire

Ela, I agree; any group who calls itself a church that advocates, or makes its facilities available for the uses of, a politcal party or campaign should have its tax exemption revoked.

There are laws on the book dealing with this misuse of churches; unfortunately in the Bush era, the FBI has been negligent in enforcing them with regard to right-wing churches, but they did go after Christian anti-war ministers. Imagine, in a faith that's supposed to espouse peace, the government is pursuing clerics for publically speaking out in favor peace.

Since the White House is now occupied by right-wing Christian fanatics, we are being pushed into a global holy war they think is "Armageddon" and "The End Of Days". Those whom God would destroy are first made mad.

What's striking about Krugman's column is how it seems to pull its punches. The danger he properly focuses on is much more sinister and pervasive than he suggests, and not just because he didn't write a lengthy article. I did write one, from which I will extract some key claims (see http://manning120.blogspot.com/).

The Christian Reconstructionist (Dominionist) strategy to transform the U.S. into a "Christian" theocracy can be traced to Romans 13. Dominionists here mirror Islamic fundamentalists abroad who want to universalize Sharia, which features, among other things, the death penalty for adultery, apostasy, and homosexuality. It's perhaps less well understood that Dominionists would impose similar laws in the U.S. See http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm.

Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe were Deists. They rejected divine intervention, the virgin birth, the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, and the infallibility of the Bible. They helped create a Constitution that didn't require religious beliefs or practices and even forbade a religious test for office. In 1868, the 14th Amendment imposed those guarantees on the states.

Today, our leaders never come close to suggesting that these devices be installed in the nations we've decided to subject to makeovers. Domestically, the Republicans have systematically sought to dismantle the separation of church and state. Consider Supreme Court appointments,"faith-based" initiatives, the ban on funding for stem cell research, the proposal to outlaw same-sex marriage, and the continual assault on abortion rights. Bush's adoption of the "unitary executive" theory suggests he thinks God, who wanted him elected, endowed him with power to override the other branches of government. Thus we have eavesdropping without warrants, tossing out human rights, censoring or ignoring government scientists, and elevating commander and chief of the armed forces to commander and chief of the entire country.

Another element of the problem is the fecklessness of those we would expect to stand up for the endangered virtues our founding fathers instituted. Congress lacked the wit and will to stop the appointment of Samuel Alito, who joined dominionist Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Members of the Judiciary Committee thought it improper to ask Bush's nominees about their fundamentalist beliefs. Democrats flaunt religiosity to counteract the impression that they're too secular. "God bless America" is a required ending to every political speech.

The so-called liberal news media have similarly sputtered. It took a non-reporter to ask Bush about his fundamentalist beliefs last year, drawing laughter from the press corps. Even Krugman seems to underplay the scope of the dominionist agenda.

When federal judges in the Ninth Circuit determined that public school children shouldn't be forced to intone each day that the United States is "under God," presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich declared, "any judge who would drive recognition of God from the public arena so profoundly misunderstands the nature of America that they should not be allowed to stay on the bench." Gingrich is considered a legitimate presidential aspirant.

I could go on to many specifics, but will touch on the question of the Biblical prophesies of Armageddon and the second coming. Bush, as an evangelical, surely believes there will be a second coming of Christ following Armageddon and the unification of Israel. He and his cohorts in government must have begun laying out how the U.S. will respond when the Anti-Christ and Christ arrive. They must be planning how U.S. power should be used to help bring about God's will with regard to non-believers, who are slated to be killed or "left behind."

Yes, Krugman is right, but he vastly understates the problem.

Anyone else ruling a country through fear and oppression are generally refered to as dictators. Religion rules their flocks through the same tactics.

To me, you don't need a building to worship, nor do you need someone to tell you how to worship.

Any kind of church (if they want to be politically organized) should be forced to forgo their tax exempt priviledges. The amount of money that they make on the sweat of their flocks is rediculous. First they expect (and in some cases, dictate) a specified amount to be tithed to the church, and then they get even more from our government through not being required to pay property taxes (I don't know about any other kind of tax exempt status that they may have).

If the church at least paid property taxes, maybe we wouldn't have so many neighborhoods and schools going downhill.

One point I forgot to include was that the cunning Ralph Reed and others in the Christian Right have been quietly training their nutcase flock to insinuate themselves into positions of political power in everything from local school boards to the Justice Department. (Hence we have the debate about teaching evolution and Creationism as if they both had equal scientific footing.)

The fly in this ecumenical ointment is that those with an excessive amount of faith in Jesus or George W. Bush turn out to be too confused to competently do jobs in the real world. (Ah, the bane of unintended consequences.) It turns out that rabid zealots have a hard time dealing with life as it is, which, of course, is probably what drove them to become rabid zealots in the first place.

Many years ago, well before Bush, a social scientist whose name I can't recall at the moment, quantified this phenomenon, pointing out how horribly inadequate at their work were most average Nazis, Stalinists, and other zealous followers. The habits of clear thinking and imagination needed to resolve problems and deal with new situations were not present in their mental tool kit.

More recently, John Dean has written about the Authoritarian Personality in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience." The Authoritarian Personality is very similar to the zealot. As Dean said on Democracy Now, referring to studies done by Dr. Bob Altemeyer:

"Altemeyer makes that point, because it's very real. And he actually, ironically, started writing some of his peer journal material in peer-level books during Watergate, when he was struck at how long so many Americans clung to the Nixon presidency, never willing to say that this man had done anything wrong, down to -- it gets to about 23% to this day thinks he did no wrong. He said, 'John, that's a very typical pattern in the demographics in the United States of the hardcore authoritarian followers, that their leaders can do -- or their authority figures can do no wrong. They won't question them. They will hang with them forever. They're like lemmings.'"
-- Democracy Now, August 15, 2006.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1327200

(More on Altemeyer and the AP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality )

This number, 23 percent, closely correlates with the approximately 30 percent who still support Bush, and a similar number who have embraced the radical Christian movement.

Fortunately, most Americans have been rejecting both Bush and the ultra-right Christian agenda lately.

"In fact, as I have mentioned in earlier posts, almost all the neo-cons are followers of the Straussian philosophy."

That's true in regard to the top tier in the Bush Misadministration, hybridoma2001, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle (Wolfowitz actually had Strauss as a professor at the University of Chicago), but I don't think Cheney, Rummy or lesser lights are in Strauss' philosophical thrall; they are plain, old-fashioned Republican money and power-mongers. Of course, the lowest rungs on the ladder -- the Kyle Sampson's and Monica Goodling's, et al -- are simply useful idiots and handy fall guys.

No, Vince, you put the discussion in alight I hadn't considered. It could simply be nothing more than what you wrote. The churches saw the number of faithful dropping and thought that the government was intruding on their turf.
If people no longer needed to find help and solace through religion, then they were doomed - doomed only financially of course. The various religions will always have their followers but with the government helping, it was cutting into their cash flow.
I had to stay at a Salvation Army center for a while. While I was their, they did force feed their take on Jesus. But I had a bed to sleep in and food to eat. The catch was this: it was a form of modern day slavery. All they truly cared about was getting as much work out of you as possible. Religious issues and teaching was way down on their list of priorities.
I am thankful that I was able to endure the slave work and as soon as I was on my feet again, I left. One last thing: you get paid about ten cents an hour, so it was impossible to save while there. I was fortunate enough to meet some new people and do some couch hopping while I saved money from a job that paid real wages. Finally, I could afford to share the rent on a small place and from there, rebuild my life.

Regent University has scrubbed from its web site any mention of its 150 graduates that work for the Bush administration.

Google cache has a screen capture from April 6 2007 of a Regent University's "facts" web page where they proudly boast "150 graduates serving in the Bush Administration"

Their current "facts" page has that info removed: http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm

Why? Isn't Regent University proud of those graduates anymore?

Religion and capitalism are systems fueled by fear. They have a symbiotic relationship:
capitalism promotes the insecurities that religion feeds on. Perhaps "symbiotic" is too elegant a word; parasitical is more appropriate for this low function. Now, if mankind was fearless, educated and SPIRITUAL, then religion would be up against a very high barrier to entry. Ever wonder why education is being dismantled by the "no child left behind" ---which is anti-learning and which disables analytical thinking skills---doctrine based on testing? It's all about power, control, and suppression. That tree of knowledge is rather threatening...as Eve found out the hard way! Mr. Pat Robertson is the perfect embodiment of that religion/capitalism fusion; I guess worshipping the golden calf is OK by him.

Perhaps the most important point being made here is that it took years of patient planning and resolve to transform the landscape and put so much power into the hands of the religious right. It would be prudent to consider that it could easily take years to rekindle the American spirit and return the Constitution to its rightful place in our culture. http://www.gpln.com/simplenoteasy.htm

sorry hybridoma, if I'd read your post instead of just scanning it, my redundancy wouldn't have been needed.

There's another point that is usually missed in this never-ending discussion. Part of the reason that the religious right began to fight back so virulently is that, for a while at least, this country through the federal government, actually began to implement some of the basic tenets of the simple Christ - charity and hope. The better the gov took care of its citizens the less the church was needed in its traditional role of caring for the downtrodden. More so that the needy wouldn't have to suffer through proselytization or conversion to get assistance.

Church congregations dwindled everywhere and the "church" itself began to seem more and more irrelevent. I'm not suggesting this as the sole or primary cause of the hysterical christian right, but if you review some of their pronunciations of the last thirty years against government programs you can see that they were often miffed at being upstaged and out-resourced.

To add to the discussions of Mormon infiltration in the Republican party and the government. Well they run the government here in Utah to no ones's surprise and self dealing corruption is the norm. Orrin Hatch is exhibit A on the federal level as he is unfortunately reelected everytime he runs with barely token opposition. Mitt Romney is another matter since he fooled the good people of Massachusetts into electing him governor in 2002 even though they thankfully defeated him for senator in 1994. Romney did not run for reelection in 2006 because he new the voters had wised up and a defeat would sully his chances for winning the presidential bid. The 2002 Winter Olympics that he claims he saved had been obtained by corruption of two fellow Mormons who had managed the bid process by paying bribes of various sorts to IOC members. He was placed in charge of cleaning up the mess that his ilk had created in the first place. Disclosures: non mormon taxpayer and nearly 30 year resident of beautiful Utah from Oklahoma.

Again, as I stick to my Straussian philosophy and its direct connection with the neo-cons, what RSJ says about the religious fundamentalists having no real power is true. According to Leo Stauss, there are the Wise, the Gentelmen, and the Vulgar.
The Gentlemen were the foot soldiers, ready and willing to carry out the decrees of the Wise. In short, they were just tools to be used. In the present case, the "Gentelmen" are the Christrian Fundamentalists.
For Strauss, government must be run by the wise in a covert manner. And the great unwashed were to be kept in their place through whatever means.
Bertand Russell was of the same school as Leo Strauss and shared his world views. In fact, as I have mentioned in earlier posts, almost all the neo-cons are followers of the Straussian philosophy.
It's a philosophy that doesn't recognise morality as valid. It's everyone for themself. It is an extention of Nazism. You will find that almost everyone since the Reagan administration has been a believer in Leo Stauss. It's no surprise we are in the position we are in today. Strauss saw modernity as giving the Vulgar too much power, and that could not be tolerated. Hence, since Reagan, there has been a steady declince in every area of government designed to help the less fortunate. It's all about the wealthy and how to become wealthier.
Earlier today I read somewhere where Bush 43's grandfather was a supporter of the Nazis. I have also read this in other articles about the past of the Bush family.
We need impeachment now. We need to give this country back to all the people - especially the "Great Unwashed."

"I am not convinced that the authentic believers in the Bush administration have any real power. To me, they look like useful idiots that the powerful use and then throw away when they have served their usefulness. Why wouldn't the totally unprincipled and amoral (Bush, Cheney, and Rove) want to use the most gullible and ignorant to be their foot soldiers?"

Good point, Kivals. Since the days of Reagan the GOP has used the fundy Christians to advance their corporate agenda -- deregulation of everything pertaining to international trade and funneling our tax money to welfare schemes for wealthy corporations. (For an example, look at the obscene amounts of money Halliburton, et al, are making in Iraq.) Many years ago, I read somewhere that Republican strategists would habitually listen to people such as Robertson and Falwell, promise them action, do nothing, and then wait a respectful fifteen minutes after the 'Christian leader' left the room before bursting into laughter.

And, as the prolific author Anonymous once said, "If the Antichrist were to appear on earth, he would disguise himself as the most devout Christian on the planet as he rose to power."

The problem with people who have an excess of faith is that they stop responding to factual arguments and the proof of their own eyes; consequently, they continue to believe in scoundrels such as Bush and Rove long past the time where a normal person would have abandoned them.

Re: Whether this is a 'Christian nation' as the right-wingnuts insist, you need only read the writings of Deist Thomas Jefferson, fellow Deist Ben Franklin, James Madison, Tom Paine and a host of the other Enlightment founders of this country. Jefferson roundly rejected the notion that English Common law, on which our laws are based, had anything to do with Christianity, seeing as how they originated in England before Christianity was accepted as the state religion. Jefferson also rejected the divinity of Jesus.

As far as the US government officially endorsing Christianity, one need look no further than President John Adams signing the Treaty of Tripoli June 7, 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-- Article XI, The Treaty of Tripoli.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

For further info on the religious leanings of the Founders, go here:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Plainly these 18th century products of the Age of Enlightenment established this country as a place of religious freedom, but not government-sanctioned religious indoctrination.

As another Anonymous quote instructs Christians, "Rather than being born again, why not just grow up?"

I love to reflect on the titles which famous people have used.

In 1995, on my 62nd birthday, I just HAD to go hear Alice Walker (she was 51 at the time) speak at Union Seminary in New York. Her title:

"The only reason you want to go to heaven is, you've been driven out of your mind. Reflections on inherited religion by a Womanist Pagan."

Then, about a year later in Ithaca, New York (I missed the lecture) Martin Marty's title was:

"Worldwide Fundamentalism — What a Way to End a Millenium!"

I wonder how many people commenting on this site live in or have passed through the US Bible belt? There are regions of this nation where the only social gathering place is Wallmart, McDonalds or the local church. There are regions where about the only radio station you can pick up is Christian. Although thanks to a form of spiritual DNA that bypasses the organic stuff, a certain number of rebels and blacksheep will be born into families of the staunchest fanatics (fundamentalists of ANY sect), generally most do NOT question the paradigm they are born into, particularly if a socialization process as strong as the impact of the church with its chants of "sin" or "hell and damnation" are begun at an impressionable age. Shakespeare asked rhetorically, "How can thinking men and women think so wrongly." For me, it is impossible to look upon the beauty of this world and not feel the grace and presence of a Supreme Being, a presence so beyond what our simple, long-programmed finite minds can imagine; and therein lies the rub. We are insufficient to the task of defining the Infinite, and this is where so much blood is shed, as one group claims the singular unimpeachable truth. There are none more heinous in their disregard of their fellow man and woman, than those who think they have THE word of God. In the US there are megachurches filled with this ilk, and possibly on account of life's uncertainties, things like global warming & terrorism and jobs being exported, a certain type of individual seeks the "security" of a "father" figure that can tell them lies that sound like protection. Saddest of all, followers of these schools of religious exclusivism would bar all others from what they believe to be thus and so, therefore they are by nature antithetical to democracy and/or a diversified society. These people are "unteachable" as they are often completely brainwashed. How about hanging those Ten Commandments in a court that OKAYS capital punishment? The paradoxes of their own beliefs are capable of contortions that would do gymnasts proud.

"Religion is based … primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly … the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes"

I'm sorry, but as important a thinker as Russel was, he had a very simple-minded, narrow view of religion borne of his protestant English roots.

Buddhists don't create beautiful symbols of the Buddha, meditate and seek the eightfold path,

Hindus don't decorate their homes with beautiful images of Ganesh or Shiva;

Orthodox Christians don't crate their beautiful icons of the saints and celebrate their ornate slavonic masses;

Japanese don't have their Zen tea ceremonies;

Catholic monastic orders disn't create hautingly beautiful gregorian chant;

Muslims don't follow their rules of prayer, pilgramage, hospitality and aid to the poor;

And all of these religions don't build stunningly beautiful expresions of unique architecture,

out of just some kind of primitive fear and superstition.

Most people around the world practice religion it because it is a vital part of their culture, ntionhood, sense of identity, unity, and a way to revere the ultimate mystery that simply "being" is. For many, prticular Muslims, it is also a bulwark agaionst the honogeneous cultural sterility that amoral western capitlism and imperialism, being violently forced on them, represents.

nnmbrs,

I must confess, I do not remember the title as it was over a quarter century ago that I read it (I am no spring chicken). However, I remember being shocked about the tales of the space alien origins and about the Africans and African-Americans having no souls. It was much more bizarre than I had ever imagined.

jdpst44:

If you're interested in a once insider's view of the Mormon mindset as well as some of the fundamental beliefs, history, etc. check this out: http://www.mccue.cc/bob/postmormon.htm

kivals:

At one point I thought Romney might be smooth enough to pull it off with obfuscating skilz -- but then came the "life-long hunter" (once or twice that is) debacle -- so I'm not so sure any more

The issue for me is fundamentalism, be it the kind that believes Science has all the answers, or Religion. Fundamentalism of either kind leads to blindness. There are mysteries that science cannot solve.

Both in their own way are describing the same thing. It's semantics, which the heart of fundamentalism.

If you want to fight against fundamentlism/Religion, then fight with their Bible. Jesus, whether he was or was not God's son, was extremely clever when he said "You will know them by their fruits." I think that's what kathyodat is pointing out: people are starting know these extremists by their fruits and it tastes nothing like anything else they've ever eaten [digresssion: do you see how eating the fruit wasn't the fall of man? It was believing that s/he wasn't divine already!].

What book did you read about Mormons?

nnmbrs,

I read a book about the Mormon religion once and I was shocked. It is the reverse of the usual situation as the more most Americans know about Mormonism, the more frightened they will be of Mormons. I still do not understand how Mitt Romney hopes to cross the minefield of Republican primary politics while avoiding any substantive discussion of the Mormon religion that would almost surely drive off the great majority of Republican primary voters.

kivals said: To me, they look like useful idiots that the powerful use and then throw away when they have served their usefulness.

Don't make that mistake, kivals. Once you let people like this in the tent, they won't stop until they burn it down and own everything. They destroy freedom, intelligence, reason, liberty, democracy, civil rights, all the things we've fought for the last few hundred years. Once they're in, you can only get rid of them with a focused, intense, no-holds-barred effort. And then of course they turn around and cry that they are victims and martyrs, and use that to recruit more delusional, sick people to their cause. Bush and his crew of nutcases may think they're using the religious right, but one day they'll turn around and find themselves against a wall and an oh so holy and righteous firing squad pulling the trigger.

More lions, we need more lions!!!

kivals said: To me, they look like useful idiots that the powerful use and then throw away when they have served their usefulness.

Don't make that mistake, kivals. Once you let people like this in the tent, they won't stop until they burn it down and own everything. They destroy freedom, intelligence, reason, liberty, democracy, civil rights, all the things we've fought for the last few hundred years. Once they're in, you can only get rid of them with a focused, intense, no-holds-barred effort. And then of course they turn around and cry that they are victims and martyrs, and use that to recruit more delusional, sick people to their cause. Bush and his crew of nutcases may think they're using the religious right, but one day they'll turn around find themselves against a wall and an oh so holy and righteous firing squad pulling the trigger.

More lions, we need more lions!!!

Don't give short-shrift to the Mormons in this discussion--remember Kyle Sampson and Mr. Torture Memo Jay Bybee? They have mastered the art of masking their cultish extremism with outwardly moderate appearances (a la Mitt and Orin), but underneath it all is a view at least as radical as the more transparent of the fundamentalists. I know. I used to be one.

I am not convinced that the authentic believers in the Bush administration have any real power. To me, they look like useful idiots that the powerful use and then throw away when they have served their usefulness. Why wouldn't the totally unprincipled and amoral (Bush, Cheney, and Rove) want to use the most gullible and ignorant to be their foot soldiers? Wouldn't they be the easiest to fool and to use? The most important members of the Bush gang worship only one god -- the Almighty Dollar.

We have to destroy the religion from the political debate. Once the God-talk starts the conversation ends.

As a Christian, that is a follower of Jesus Christ, I am horrified at most of the behavior of the so called "Christian Right" much like, I imagine, were many Muslims on 9/11. Just because some use faith to spread hate doesn't mean the problem is with the faith. It is not difficult to compare the words of Jesus with the words of the current administration. You will simply see that they don't match up.

Marc Maron has a term for these folks: Christo Fascist Zombie Brigade.

(Note well: Not all Christians are part of this neocon cult.)

We call Islamists who believe this way fanatics. We think they're crazy, bloodthirsty, madmen. Well, these so-called Christians are no different. Put them in power and blood will flow here.

Frankly, I think the term psychotic is too kind.

And if we won't tolerate Imus, et al, why should we tolerate Falwell and Robertson and their ilk? Okay, maybe some pity for Robertson - he's a crazy, pathetic, deluded, delusional, sick little man. Hmmm. Well, so was Hitler. Screw pity. Run the little creep over with a truck.

The top 1/2 of 1% of big business is also alarmed at the rise of christian fundamentalists in the government. (Read Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power.) Even though they put profit above all else, the top elite of big business are educated people and they don't want to be told what to do by christian radicals. They don't want religious radicals running the country. So there is a division between big business and the religious wackos and that is a good thing.

I have no problems of people with deep religious convictions in public service. What I do have a problem with is people with deep religious convictions who believe it is their sole duty to change public policy to reflect only their viewpoint and expect others with differing ones to submit to them. It seems sad that most forget one of the reasons many flocked to these shores was to escape oppression by one religious sect toward another. That is one segment of the religious heritage of this country is so insecure in their own faith that they require stealth to achieve their goals says more about them than the things they fight against. To see the world as your enemy, something to subjugate is the antithesis of what they proclaim to believe in. How can you be a follower of Jesus when he in essence said that the old rules (i.e, Old Testament) no longer apply (hence New testament)? After all wasn't he at loggerheads against the old guard (Pharases)? Now today we have people who are in our government who want to not only destroy it as we know it but put in place what? A theocracy? Hasn't history told us how well that works? If there was ever a biblical endorsement for the separation of church and state look no further than: "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's; render unto God what is to God". I thought that was pretty clear. Where is the disconnect?

I see a lot of similarities between the Christian right wing and the Taliban. Scary. Fortunately the majority of Americans don't hold these views and are getting restless.

"Fear for the Foundation of Religion--Bertrand Russel
p70
Religion is based ... primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly ... the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the Churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look round for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the Churches in all these centuries have made it."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bertrand_Russell/God_Religion.html

This just proves that the Romans didn't have enough lions.