Human Dynamic


Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.

Cliff Potts
November 18, 2014



The ramifications of globalization are expressed in local outrage heaped upon those seen as abusers of the privilege of corporate citizenship. The distinction is often made in the name of God.
It is not religion. It is politics utilizing religious labels to form a bonding and identification of alliances along rather primitive tribal boundaries. When one part of a sub-culture feels disenfranchised, it often resorts to the religious expression of antiquity in order to evoke a self-assured moral right to oppose the primary culture. The end goal is to replace the majority cultural expression with a different expression to offset the perceived injustice of the dominant culture to their sub-culture.
This is the culture created when certain factions are allowed to lift one creed of belief over all others, and when that faction is later disenfranchised by the institutions which they had supported. While lost to the mainstream media, the larger resistance movement in Saudi Arabia did not become violent until after the distribution of oil revenue began to diminish. The disparity in the distribution of oil revenue created a cultural climate of relative want, and the method to address the disparity became entwined into the religious expression. This in turn allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to point to the existence of Israel as the manifestation of the controlling culture’s will, and identified the controlling culture as the Western occupiers. They drew upon the history of the crusades to inflame the disenfranchised masses. The internal issues of greed within the royal house were ignored. The internal greed factor was ignored because Islamic believers do not brutalize other Islamic believers, therefore the core problem must be the influence of the West. This, of course, denies what Christianity learned in the 1600s, and is not being learned by Islam in Iraq: religious expressions are of little value when resources become limited.
Politics are the philosophies which we use to determine how we will function within a society in regards to the distribution of scarce resources. Religion is how we justify and moralize those philosophies and identify our right to have the resources in opposition to another group seeking the same limited resources.
The goal of the Arabs, and it is specifically an Arab goal, is the reunification of the Ottoman Empire. Having lost the First World War and the support of the Soviet Union, there is no political will to reunite that dead empire. The territory in question extends from Budapest in Hungry in the North, to the Caspian Sea in the East, to the Persian Gulf in the South, and to Algiers in the West. The declared Islamic Jihad is an attempt to suck in political alliances from around the globe.
There was no outrage when the Ottoman Empire was broken up. People understood that it had acted aggressively against the Entente Powers of the Russian Empire, France, the British Empire, and the United States. The Russian Empire fell to internal turmoil due to this aggression. France, England and the United States (in that order) lost millions of men. There was no political sympathy for the Arabs.
The jihad declared against the west, as described in the work by Walid Phares, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America, has yet to be successful. With each passing decade the ante has been “upped.” That is how the United States ended up being directly assaulted by Islam in 2001.[1] While the Bush administration has repeated that this is not a war on Islam, Islam has declared war on the United States. It has very little to do with religion.
The mass belief in rightness, and justice, focused against a specific institution is a very powerful force to be reckoned with. It is the power which brought an end to slavery in the 1860s, and the end of segregation in the 1960s. Violation of the general population’s sense of right and wrong, especially in a time of war, can have serious repercussions. History tells us that the people’s will wins out in the end. What that will is and how it will be manifested is still a subject of speculation.
While much of the opposition to globalization has been under reported and marginalized by the main stream media, it can be summed up as an opposition to a winner-take-all approach to the capitalistic free market global economy.
Globalization may not be an erroneous concept. It may be a natural economic evolution. It may not be American imperialism as some critics claim. However, as we have seen, it is a business venture closely held by a few corporate entities which are controlled by even a fewer number of human beings. Those few are, at best, looking out for their own interest. As with any human endeavor sometimes they do well, and sometimes they make monstrous mistakes in judgment.
There is some speculation floating around in the intellectual underground that the Bush administration may indeed be preparing the United States for a catastrophic confrontation and possible collapse. How seriously one can take that speculation, is up to conjecture.
In 1949, Pat Franks wrote a book titled Alas, Babylon. The CBS drama Jericho echoes some of the themes in Franks’ early work. Alas, Babylon, detailing life following a full scale nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, eventually became required reading for every Civil Defense Director in the United States. Part of the work details how dependent the rural communities were to the central cities in the 1950s spoke-and-hub distribution system of the era. Since then, with the rise of McDonald’s and, more specifically, Wal-Mart, distribution has been dispersed from the cities and scattered around the United States.
What was a hub-and-spoke centralized distribution system has now become a non-hierarchical center-less matrix. This is just one area where survivability has increased. By moving the production centers outside the United States and scattering them around the globe such supplies are again secured by decentralization. Scattering production centers around the globe insures that most production sub-systems will survive an attack of one location. Sections which have been destroyed, or totally lost due to the use of nuclear weapons, can be swiftly replaced in alternative locations. That, at least, is the theory.
Another speculative argument holds that by moving the nation’s wealth into the hands of a few skilled businessmen who know how to creatively invest it against future loss will insure that in the aftermath of a future global confrontation or catastrophic environmental event they will have the resources to rebuild a stronger and more secure nation.
While all of this sounds good, in light of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, one has to question the validity of such assertions.
The human factor is at the core of much of the opposition to globalization. Do we know we can trust the few to wisely manage the resources of the globe? The captains of industry do not enjoy the divine right of kings, or the divinity of the Caesars. Business skills are a matter of a combination of individual genetics with resources and social opportunity to produce unique individuals who have a gift for business and commerce. Warren Buffett, estimated to be the third richest man in the world, admitted as much in a 2002 critique of the Bush administrations tax cuts.[2]
The globalized executive class can excel at running a business, but are often less than stellar in other areas of human venture. Mr. Gates’ ability to manage the team that first assembled DOS, and manipulate his product through the marketplace to become the dominant supplier of personal computer software in the world, does not mean that he is an excellent spokesman for other human ventures. While he does know the technical industry, and has been remarkably successful within the guidelines of capitalistic venture, he is not yet a gifted humanitarian. As repetitive as it may be, Mr. Gates has directly caused much of the situation which he is now begging Congress to fix. Yet, this is to be expected, Mr. Gates is just a human being. Moreover, he is but one of six million human beings alive on the earth today.
Globalization’s opposition is an opposition to these few men acquiring great amounts of wealth at the expense of the many whose gifts and visions are not in the realm of market activities and manipulations. All people are interconnected. Dysfunctional or not, what remains is a community and it remains interconnected. In the post 1960s environment of recovering addicts and “dry drunks” where bad life choices bred dysfunctional people and distrust, can there be any conjecture why the interconnections are strained, denied, and almost meaningless some forty years after Johnson’s Great Society?
In 1981, with the help of Norman Mailer, Jack Abbott published a series of letters he had written to Mailer while in prison. Mailer assisted Abbott, a life long career criminal, in obtaining a parole. On July 19, 1981, In the Belly of the Beast was given rave reviews by the New York Times. However, the day before, Abbot committed the murder of a waiter in the East Village in New York. He was again tried, convicted, and eventually committed suicide in 2002.
Such events illustrate just how we have become so apathetic about the sufferings of others. We see events like this splash across the headlines, and we think that everyone is somehow just another Jack Abbot waiting to fly into a rage on the world stage. We can no longer make the distinction between a hardened thug like Jack Abbott, and a working man, father, and gifted member of the community. As such we force the latter to break, through indifference to his attempts, and become a thug. And when he does, all we can do is condemn him, and scream for his blood.
All people have a function within the community at large. Sometimes they are icons of selfishness, so others know what not to do. Still others learn from mistakes and achievements of the past and show the way to a better productive future. This is the essence of the functionalist model.
Those who think they live outside the human dynamic, and are strong in their individualism, had best inventory how many ways they are dependent on others for their survival and comfort. Just ask those who invested in Enron, or those who supported Saddam Hussein. It may be cliché to say that no man is an island, but it is also the truth. Only simpletons think they can be successful in isolation, or even survive for that matter. As Ms. Clinton wrote, it does take a village.[3]




[1] Source unknown
[2] If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%." (2004, February 27). Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2003ltr.pdf
[3] Clinton, Hillary R. It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007.

The God Card

Chapter 22, The God Card, has as much to do with global competition within the afterglow of the Nixon Shock of 1971, as it does with the inevitable results of Crime Control now playing out in Ferguson, MO. There is a direct correlation between Flat Money, street crime, and terrorism. Once the ability to make a reasonable living wage is removed, then social unrest (in many facets) is inevitable.

As noted in previous post of this work, not everyone can, or should, go into nursing (as touted in the 2000s, not everyone can, or should, go into the construction trades (as expressed currently), not everyone can, or should, go into Information Technology (as advised in the 1990s). Such bubbles in the workforce lead to inevitable blowouts (this has been discussed elsewhere in this work).

Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson, are direct results of Nixon's decision in 1971, and no one, even Obama, wants to address the root cause of conflict; they only want to "crack skulls," or cheer on the ones who are "cracking the skulls."

The warning of John F. Kennedy is appropriate:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Cliff Potts
November 14, 2014

Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.



The God Card



In the beginning of this report we discussed utilizing the writings of antiquity as the basis for the social contract. We examined this in some depth in the last chapter concerning institutional religion in the United States.
In the first century Rome, at the height of the Roman Empire, we know that the production of products ensured a good economy for skilled workmen. We are told by the economist, that production and not jobs is the key to economic strength today. Some like, Bryan Caplan, author of The Myth of the Rational Voter, point out that most people in the United States today do not understand the difference between jobs and production. This was pointed out in the June 14, 2007 edition of The Economist.[1] This conceptually diminishes the argument for the need of economic opportunity. It may be just another corporate smoke screen.
The United States, due to the decisions made in the 1970s to kill stagflation (the conjunction of a stagnant economy and a post-war inflationary spike), shifted away from production, and the by-product of employment. How one can build a productive economy with less than a fully utilized working population seems unanswered. There seems to be an outlook which emphasizes that less employment opportunity is somehow healthy for the economy. While fewer employees do reduce cost for the corporations, the whole argument seems a little shortsighted. Where it seems to fail is in the arena of human dynamic and the individual and group response to diminished economic rewards.
Within the framework of the hard line response to the inevitable spike in crime as a result to the lack of opportunity there is a “crime control” mentality. That fails society on a number of levels. One, it increases the need for a wide range of law enforcement personnel; that is a cost without adding to production of goods and services. Two, such jobs are low paying with little to no benefits resulting in the same economic conditions for the watchers as the watched. The resulting effect is collusion between the watched and the watchers for economic gain. We use to call this “corruption;” if we keep it up we will be calling it “standard operating procedure.” This will also push the population further and further away from any additional support of the operative status quo. Those who do not end up incarcerated will be hard pressed to continue to support those who are. However, through taxation, they will be forced to take on the burden of increasing the support of the increased prison population.
The “get tough” advocates are working on the assumption that only a small portion of the population will engage in criminal activity. That is a bad assumption. We are already seeing an increase in the prison population which is disproportionate to the demographic which commits crimes. There are fewer people in the United States population in the ages of fifteen to thirty, yet more people in prison. That shows that the assumption is a fallacy, and reinforces the connection between crime and economic opportunity without the expert arguments of the economist. It never ceases to be amazing just how well we can rationalize the base motives of humanity; in this case being corporate egoism or debauchery.
In the 1980s, the shift away from the economics of production through opportunity was pushed even further in the application of “supply side economics.” In the span of six years the U.S. abandoned two thousand years of economic practices which built the economy from Imperial Rome to the U.S. Superpower. Within an evolutionary framework it makes a certain amount of sense. The collectiveness of the functional social order has been abandoned in favor of a Darwinist approach to economics. We have come to the conclusion that somehow we do not need each other. This shift in philosophy is how we have come to the present situation: wealth is controlled by a few talented and gifted business savvy individuals and the skilled craftsman is left to fend for himself against the corporate behemoth.
The craftsman is not competing against equally skilled craftsmen from around the globe. He is competing against the goods sold locally which are produced in far flung locations in underdeveloped economies. The local craftsman’s CODB (Cost of Doing Business) is fixed, based on the pricing of the local economy. The craftsman from an underdeveloped country, often subsidized by their local government – as seen in Japan, sells his product for less because his CODB is less and the additional collective resources are  provided by his government. This subsidization is also the case in China and India. It is worth noting that our three competitors have cohesive societies, and have criticized the United States as being a mongrel nation, then turned around and chided the U.S. for being racist. These countries are not stupid; they are playing on our worse social fears. What is worse, is that our corporations sell us out to them. During a time of war, presuming that we are really at war, would such actions not be considered treasonous?
This brings up another point of contention between the corporation and the individual. No matter how strong, or how wealthy, the corporation cannot continue to function in a way which is considered disloyal to the local geographical social order. Politics will find a way. History shows that the corporation’s will shall be pushed aside for the sake of the combined individual will within the politics of a given region. It may take a generation of living under the yoke of deprivation, but it does occur. Moreover it occurs quite often.
Maybe the concept of the nation state is dead. Maybe, due to technology, we are truly a global community. However, ponder this: did the telegraph, linking far flung communities prevent the Civil War, or did it exacerbate it? Rather than use the communication tool to alleviate problems, the wires sung with stories of challenges and abuse until the nation broke down in utter chaos. The south seceded from the Union out of fear of what the Union would do once Abraham Lincoln took office, not because of anything that was done by James Buchanan prior to the inauguration of Lincoln. The only thing which was aided by the communication technology was the heightening of the fear and misgiving of what would happen. Bring this forward. The telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. It did not prevent World War One. Nor, for that matter, did the wireless radio. Transatlantic cables, radio, and the airplane did not prevent World War Two. Television did not prevent the Cold War, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, and the wide assortment of bush wars around the world. These technologies did make the world a much smaller place.
In today’s global economy we are dependant upon the interconnectivity of people on the individual level via the internet to facilitate the globalization process. Yet, the same technology which has made the world smaller may have sped up the friction between cultural differences. The technology made the world a smaller place, facilitated global trade, but the cultural differences still do exist.
Philosophical differences still exist. Generational differences still exist. Demographic differences still exist. All of these prejudicial differences come into play in the world around us. Our ability to communicate globally does not negate those differences. Just because these differences are taboo discussion points in polite society, does not mean they do not exist; it simply means that that we have decided to ignore the rabid red dragon in the living room.
Many old philosophies dictate specific tribal and/or racial superiority. These philosophies are often couched in proverbs which include the phrases “God’s will,” “God’s law,” “Natural Law,” etc. etc. When there is plenty to go around and there is relative prosperity for all, such prejudices are academic and irrelevant. It is during these times that society is motivated to do away with as many forms of prejudice as it deems detrimental to society as a whole. However, when resources are lean, primal tribal identity becomes a primary factor within a geographically specific location. From this tribal identification is derived the self-assured justification necessary for one group to have, or acquire, the resources of another group, or individual.
The arguments concerning the existence of Israel are good examples. According to popular Western religious tradition, Israel exists because “God” ordained that portion of the land to the Jews. Based on the standard Jewish text, the land deeded to the Jews by God extends from the Mediterranean to Iraq and consumes much of the Arab land today. This would consume Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. This is far more than the beachfront and scrubland which Israel occupies today.
In spite of Arab assertions, Syria was created by the League of Nations as a colony of France in 1922, and Palestine (including at the time Jordan) was ceded to Great Britain in 1916. Saudi Arabia’s existence dates back to 1744; which makes it only slightly older than the United States itself. The argument against Israel is somewhat self-serving. The Balfour Declaration establishing, at least conceptually, a Jewish homeland was made in 1917. The whole region fell into the hands of the Western powers because the Ottoman Empire sided with the Austrians and Germans and lost World War One. The Arabs have no more legal right to control the land or its destiny than the Jews do.
Criminal activity in opposition to a legal mandate is only as good as the ability to gain control and hold it in a negotiated peace. This is something which the Arabs have not been able to do since 1948 when the Balfour Declaration was finally implemented. The deeper discussion concerning what the Arabs did when to whom, and what Israel did to whom when, is beyond the scope of this report. For a detailed discussion on the situation see A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time by Howard M. Sachar.
When political arguments fail, and survival hangs in the balance it is from the writings or antiquity that the God of the Jews and the Christians arises and final authorization and ultimate justification. The Jews, however, never did occupy the amount of territory ceded to them in their scriptures. The current location of Israel is roughly the size of Chicago, Illinois and occupies the same track of land which they held tribally in the days of the Greek and Roman Empires following the last Babylonian captivity period. In spite of the overwhelming disinformation concerning Israel, the current conflict does not date back millennium; it is relatively new on the geopolitical landscape.
According to Western historic record, Israel ceased to exist in 73 A.D. Rome, growing tired of the chronic Jewish uprisings, murdered, enslaved, and scattered the Jewish people. This account is in dispute by the Arabs who held that stretch of real estate from the fall of Rome (Constantinople) in 1453 to 1919. In 1948 the Jews were finally granted the sovereign state of Israel as reparation for the allowed Nazi genocide during World War Two. This secured a westward leaning political state in the Soviet sphere of influence. The Soviet Union, needing friendly neighbors as a buffer against Western Europe and the United States gave Islamic nations favorable status until 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The preferential treatment to Islam remains an oddity in Soviet History. In Richard Pipes’ A Concise History of the Russian Revolution the blatant discrimination against the Jews and Christians is documented; the preference towards Islam is also documented. Islam was given preference for totally pragmatic reasons.[2] The religions of antiquity had nothing to do with the decision. The U.S decision to support Israel equally had little to do with religion. Religion is simply a safe all-encompassing label to differentiate complex political states of affairs.
These facts are, as stated, opposed by the Arabs who controlled the land from mid 1400s, under the Ottoman Empire, to the late 1940s under the French and British empires. The Arabs rebuff that there never was a Jewish State in the region around Jerusalem. Their view, sees the power shift from the Greeks, to the Romans, to Mohammad, and through Mohammad’s obedience to God, the establishment of God’s true kingdom (and one true religion) through the Ottoman Empire. It was an Empire which stretched from the Middle East across North Africa, north to Spain and the Basque region. The core of the Empire lasted from the fall of Constantinople until the end of World War One with the capitulation to Great Britain and France by Germany and her allies.
The occupation of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire by France and Great Britain (and subsequent U.S. influence) is seen by the Arabs as a continuation of the struggle which began with the Crusades. Those crusades, popularized in the peasant class nobles as the righteous against Islam, were triggered by the Arab’s excessive tolls penalizing the Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem and more importantly, interference with the all important spice trade along the silk road from India. Spices played a major part in the preservation of meat in Medieval Europe. As Christendom rallied around the Cross of Christ, Arabs rallied around Muhammad. The economics of the situation were pushed aside, and the series of wars, at least in popular mythology became a struggle of religions.
Once again, the ultimate authority and justification to continue the struggle is God. However, God, and the specifics surrounding God, are used only as a tribal identifier, and it has very little to do with the nature of the conflict. The conflict remains socioeconomic and political. God, or religion, has nothing to do with it. Today it is about the control of the oil resources in the region.
One can leave the existence of the monotheistic God of the Near East and Middle East to the philosophers, theologians and the preachers. The events in the world today have very little to do with “the true living God.” Current events come about due to market manipulations, technological factors, human inventiveness, and the lack thereof.
The reason for the Jewish/Arab conflict is resource scarcity. The first resource is the land itself. The second resource which brings the west into the conflict is oil. The God card is played only to bring in the sympathies of the mass supporters on each side of the conflict.
Admittedly this is a lightly glossed over view of the complexity of the Arab/Jewish conflict, but it is sufficient for the purposes of this report. It illustrates how the God card is played to justify a conflict which is due primarily to resource scarcity.
The Jews traveled from relative deprivation in post World War Two Europe and the Soviet Union, to a location where they would not be prosecuted because of their view of God. The Jews, due to the litigious nature of their own religious tradition, have a propensity to be articulate, independent, free-thinking, and quite adapted to the capitalistic system. It is not their system, but one inherited by the Jews over eons of wanderings around the old.
Money lending in antiquity was considered a dirty business, as such it was one of the business in which the Jews were allowed to excel by European and Russian Royalty. They became good at the business and were persecuted for excelling at the very business to which they had adapted out of necessity.
Hitler’s destruction of the Jews was due to the amount of wealth perceived via propaganda to be held by the Jews. The Holocaust had little to do with religion. It was mass murder to secure the wealth held by a minority in Europe; a case of competition gone out of control in the capitalist system due to the deprivation imposed upon Germany after World War One.
A huge debt was imposed on the Germans, and they were given little economic ability to repay that debt. This economic deprivation created a criminal nation state. In the aftermath of this massive genocide, the Jews pressed Great Britain to live up to the agreement under the Balfour Declaration, and the exodus to the Promised Land began again.
The Jews chose that stretch of beachfront and scrub land because their writings of antiquity deeded that stretch of land to them in the days of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The original occupation took place around 1290 B.C.E. (approximately 3297 years ago). Even that exodus has its roots in the proscription of a minority by a majority due in no small part to politics, and socioeconomic status of the Jews within Egypt.
Israel did offer to live at peace with the Arab majority in the newly formed nation in 1948. The offer was rejected. Where Jordan exists today was, under the Balfour Declaration, where the Palestine State was to exist. While today’s news feeds are filled with the horrible Jews backed by the horrible United States oppressing the honorable Arabs, this is not quite the facts. The Arabs are quite capable of sophisticated propaganda in their own right. The Arabs backed Germany and lost. The Arabs backed the Soviet Union and lost. Now they perpetuate that story that the United States was founded by Satanists, exiled from Egypt, who infiltrated the Masonic Lodge in England in the 1600s.
At some point in the near future, it is doubtful that the United States will be so sympathetic toward the rights of the Arab peoples who live in the United States. Another terrorist strike during another economic slump may be all it takes to completely strip any sympathy toward the Arab population.
In an unfortunate twist of events, the West subsequently became dependent upon the oil resources under Arab lands. Had our technology not become so dependent upon oil the Near East would have become more of a back water on the world stage.
Ford’s automobile was originally designed to be fueled by ethanol or gasoline. The first production engine was a hybrid. Gasoline derived from oil proved to be more effective at a lower energy cost. The same holds true for diesel fuel. The original diesel engine was designed to run off peanut oil. What was a bright technology improvement in the early 1900s has become a source of intrigue and global conflict in the early 2000s.
Ethanol is still a poor tradeoff for gasoline as the off-spec grains used to produce Ethanol are usually reserved for feed-lots. Bio-diesel derived from recycling cooking oil is proving to be a useful alternative.
Due to the amount of income which could be generated in the oil business, the corporations, using their influence, maneuvered the Eisenhower administration into utilizing a resource which was limited and non-renewable. This in turn trapped the United States into the middle of the Arab/Israeli conflict beyond the political games of the Cold War.
The ultimate authority to justify the conflict is God. However, God, if the monotheistic God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims does exist, seems to have little to nothing to do with the conflict; except as an endless source of disagreement to add fuel to the fire. All the real issues surrounding the decisions concerning the development of the region’s resources are made by men within the corporations based on the capitalist world view on both sides of the globe.[3]
Having attacked soft targets in Africa, and military sites around the Saudi peninsula, the Islamic fundamentalists whose culture is in direct conflict with the Western free market values traveled to the United States to strike at the heart of their economic enemy. They organized their cells. They executed their crimes. They did not hit various religious institutions within the United States. While we have been given religious objections as their rational for their actions, none of the targets were Jewish or Christian institutions. Had the attacks been based on religious bigotry, one would expect the targets to be religious in nature. They struck at the transportation system (the airlines themselves were part of the targeting) and the economic and military power hubs of the United States.
The rhetoric following the events on 9/11 does pose some questions which remain unanswered in the political debate of the early 21st Century.
Who, in the United States, knew there attacks were going to occur? Rumor has it that the Saudi royal family in the U.S. fled the nation days before the attack.
Who supported the Islamic Judaists who perpetuated the attacks?
Where did the support funding come from?
How involved were the local communities (Islamic or otherwise) who might have economic reasons to benefit from the attacks?
Since 16 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, what gains have the Saudis made since 2001?
Did the Saudis benefit from the fall of Afghanistan’s Taliban or the fall of Saddam?
Why was no one in the United States held accountable for the events of September 11, 2001? No one in the CIA, NSA, or FBI even resigned for the biggest Foreign Intelligence blunders since Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Unfortunately these answers are hard to pinpoint. Internal factors have been fogged up because the attacks have been used to engage in global political adventurism. This adventurism is based on cultural, or tribal, motivations of the current administration. It is no exaggeration to say that the power structure has had a quasi-secular, religious view that the United States under the neo-conservatives has the right to rule the world.
Whatever can be said about the current administration, it has to be said that the last four administrations have done a poor job in protecting the interests and safety of the population of the United States. When Reagan faced the terrorists in Lebanon, he pulled out. He further supported Saddam with arms during the Iran/Iraq war. George H.W. Bush escalated the cultural class by placing foreign troops into Saudi Arabia under the guise of opposing Saddam’s aggression. Clinton blatantly ignored the threat and sought to appease the Islamic Fundamentalists by intervening in the Balkans, and doing little to aggressively investigate the rise the Al-Qaeda. George W. Bush used the events of September 2001 to launch a war into Iraq which has no connection whatsoever to the events of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, in the current scheme of things, what rational government cuts taxes as it goes to war? What rational government supports crippling the national economy during a time of war? What rational government supports shifting economic growth to a foreign power during a time of war? What rational government supports building the economy of a possibly aggressive enemy during a time of war?
One of the common jabs of the current conservative commentators is that the opposition doesn’t “get it.” They are right! Many of the current administration’s detractors “don’t get it.” The actions of the Bush administration are utterly irrational, and blatantly criminal. Could it be that the administration and its supporters have been operating at level two of Maslow’s pyramid and are failing to find the needed safety at that level?
Much of the world today views the United States as a greater threat to the world than the Islamic terrorists. While the terrorists are well armed, trained, motivated street gangs they are running out of funding. The use of gasoline, and propane tanks indicate that conventional munitions are becoming scarce for them. This would seem to indicate that they no longer have the support of a nation state even at a clandestine level. This could indicate that the Saudi and the Iranian government support, long implied and never proved, are drying up.
Lacking military munitions, one can conclude some of the actions taken by the United States during this administration are paying off. Al-Qaeda may be hanging out on its own.
Whether one agrees that there is a threat posed by the Bush administration’s actions or not, the perception following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq can only mean that the United States and the corporations are viewed as a negative liability in the general population.
Case in point: Halliburton is moving its world headquarters to the Middle East. While they are touting that this is a move to better serve their customers, even conservatives are viewing the move as a mean of escaping prosecution in light of the alleged fraud committed during the current operations in Iraq.
Dubai does not have an extradition treaty with the U.S. and the current administration is in short time mode as seen with the “Scooter” Libby presidential intervention. Mr. Bush and his neo-conservative cronies will be out of office in January of 2009. Barring some kind of catastrophic attack against the United States it is doubtful that the GOP will retain the presidency in the November 2008 elections. Once again in this political climate a major corporate citizen and a primary government contractor are engaged in activities which are not good for its primary customer, the United States of America, its owners, or its employees.
One has to question if such a move is in anyone’s best interest, or if it is only further proof that the corporations are flawed by their make-up and corrupt in their activities. Moreover, will it create a view in the current political and socioeconomic environment that the corporations are a pariah on the social landscape?
Errors in judgment by one corporation can have ripple effects which will paint all corporations in a dim light. That much, if nothing else, is proved in the discussion on Critical Criminology.
Enron, an energy company out of Texas, has already created certain skepticism about the ethics within the energy industry. Will the actions of Halliburton further diminish the trust and good will towards the remaining Texas corporate community and the energy industry? Will it force the rest of the nation to review their affiliations as well? Remember Andersen Consulting was virtually destroyed when Enron’s house of paper collapsed. They were acquitted later of any wrong doing, but the damage was already done. Corporations do not trust each other to do what is right, but they demand that the people put their trust in the corporations.
Whatever the answer is, one thing is for certain, God has little or nothing to do with the activities of the corporations. God created people. People created corporations. We created them. They are our responsibility.




[1] Douglas, B. (2007). The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lexington (2007, June 14). America's irrational voters. Economist .
[2] Pipes, R. (1995). A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.pp 312-342
[3] As human beings, we do find way to disenfranchise others. In doing so, one group enhances its own status and economic leverage over another. We do this individually. We do it along tribal lines. While religion is one of those identifiers, race is another one. It is no error to conclude that a racial minority within a given region is granted less resources and opportunity than the majority within the same region. Gender discrimination has also played a role in deciding who gets what resources.


God and Country U.S.A.

No discussion about in  US in 2007 could be complete without a look at the religious fervor of the popular culture. Chapter 21, one of the longest in Wealth, Women, and War, covers that topic. Since it is long, you might want to print it out and read it at your leisure.

Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.

Cliff Potts
November 8, 2014



God and Country U.S.A.



We have lost any rational sense of judgment in the United States. We cannot tell the difference between who needs help and who does not. We have also lost any sense of how to help. The famous “hand-up” of Compassionate Conservatism is nonexistent. The phrase “Compassionate Conservatism” is an oxymoron. The hand-up is a dead end job for less than share cropper’s wages. Congress struggles with a $7.50 an hour minimum wage when it requires $14.50 an hour to keep a family of four going. Job boards are filled with advertisements for on-line universities whose credentials are questionable at best and whose business practices are less than ethical. Monster.com now makes special listings for people over 40 because age discrimination runs rampant. Young men and women are running the show now. They want cubicles filled with their own pretty people. Older workers need not apply in most cases. The hardship inflicted by the corporations goes unnoted. It is considered selection.
In an era of abortion on demand the younger managers know that at some level they missed the surgeon’s knife. Their existence could have been terminated in the womb. Somewhere there is a feeling of natural selection’s kiss, and by some reckoning they are the best of the human generation to date. This sense is mimicked in Steven Levitt’s work in Freakonomics.[1] The younger managers would do better to consider it blind luck, or parental love than natural selection. However, those considerations is discounted in the current era and would take some forethought to consider the larger ramifications. Levitt’s work draws a corollary to the decline of crime in the 1990s and abortion. That drop in crime, however, is explained in Terrie E. Moffitt’s Pathways in Life Course to Crime which shows that crime activity peaks at age 15 and steadily declines to age 30 for most offenders.[2]
The younger managers look in the mirror and it tells them that they are the individual around which the universe revolves. This is reflected in the character of Johnny Storm (in the 2005 movie Fantastic Four. Showy, self-absorbed, full of commercial ventures, and yet, still able to get the job done. This is the essence of their religion as well. God is their God, and their God loves them. There are no circumstances beyond one’s control. Everything that happens is an act of individual will. This is the essence of the 2006 film The Secret. While there is some truth to the effect of the individual’s perspective on the world around them, it is taken to a manic level when it is promoted as a panacea for the world’s ills. When a hardship occurs, it is reasoned that it is due to some lack in an individual’s life. That is the teaching of today. The insurance corporations are very willing to help this idea along since it alleviates them of the responsibility of paying out settlements when losses occur. The concept of Christian kindness has been utterly lost even among the Christians.
In 1992 Moody Press released Larry Burkett’s Whatever Happened to the American Dream. Larry Burkett was a Christian author and radio personality, who specialized in financial accounting and economics for the Evangelical Christian community. He toured the country promoting his particular brand of “Godly” economics, and was largely ignored by the main stream media. Yet, his work raised much of the pseudo-Calvinist economic concepts at play today.[3] He was wrong. Even if one believes that God ordained the Torah, the economic system created within the first five books of the bible is no longer valid.
That system was based on specific land grants dividing the land of Israel to the specific tribes. The tribes then divided up the allotment to the specific families within the tribes. When hardship occurred and a Jew became a slave, the other Jews were to restore him or her to freedom as soon as possible. The community, in essence, was to make sure that no one Jew was to be left in destitution. If a slave was abused, he was given his freedom. If a slave ran away he was not to be returned to his or her master. Land was never sold in perpetuity. Every 50 years it reverted back to the family which owned it. It was deeded back to the oldest living member of the family (male or female). Land was valued only on what it could produce from the time it was sold. Land did not appreciate in a never ending inflationary spiral.
Since Israel of antiquity was an agricultural based economy, the ability of the tribe, or the family within that tribe, was secured through the basic subsistence produced by the land available to them at all time. Even the priest class, which had no land allotment to speak of, was taken care of this way. They did have seven cities and the land around these cities was allocated to them. They were not destitute either, nor were they completely dependent upon what was “donated” by the congregation of Israel. Added to this, every seven years a plot of land was to be left unattended “that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat.”[4] The Jew of antiquity, as ordained by God, had a welfare system coded into their constitution (which is what the Jews still call the first five books of the bible). Nothing in the United States today reflects this biblical economic system. We have crated a system that is no longer dependent on the agriculture base.
There is one passage worth noting from the Old Testament in regards to the attitudes we see today:

For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.[5]

It is sufficient to say that this is not what we are hearing taught from the pulpit in the Churches or the Synagogues. We are hearing how the poor are lazy. They want to have a hand out. They are ignorant. Contrast that against comments made by Rev. Falwell concerning Union activity.

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.[6]

The latter parts of that passage become interesting because many rabbis teach that if a employee and an employer agree that wages are paid once or twice a week then it is acceptable by mutual agreement. The catch there is “mutual” agreement. Rarely does the employee stand on equal footing with the employer. The tasks are left to the employer’s notion, and payment schedules are left to the judgment of the employer. There is no equity in the matter. The employee takes it or leaves it as he can. No negotiation will alter what is decided based on the best interest of the employer.
In today’s world, with the advent of personal computers and accounting software available through Quicken, a firm could roll out a payroll at the end of the each day. However, due to cash flow considerations,  employers have to play the float until some predetermined pay period. The onus is put upon the employee to “make ends meet” between pay periods. If we concede that there are sound financial reasons for not abiding by this commandment, then we have to conclude that our economic system today is not aligned with anything which existed 6000 years ago. All we are left with then is to abide by the principle of the command and not it literal application. Yet, with the nature of wages today, even the principle is ignored.

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates….[7]

It is a shame that so little has been written on these basic premises over the past forty years. It is as if it is ignored in the public debate. Yet, the passages sit there staring at us, and showing us the millennium ago someone was working to make a just and kind society. They are goals which we seem to have decided are not in the best interest of the nation. Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t seem to matter one iota.
Larry Burkett came from a background which included the Strategic Air Command, NASA, a defense contractor. He was the product of the Military Industrial Complex. His views come straight out of the corporations. They had a Christian flavoring to them, but they were pure corporate-speak.
One of his many themes in Whatever Happened to the American Dream was that the injured worker was responsible for his own injury. His take can be summed up that the government intervention by OSHA was a socialist intervention by a secular humanist government and in itself was depriving people of taking responsibility for their actions. His diatribe was that government regulations were killing the God ordained prosperity in the United States. It is hard to imagine how that could be since the government’s safety programs began in the days of Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal; and the nation prospered quite well from 1901 to 1980. The destruction of the American Dream began with Nixon, when wealth was separated from work, production, and delivery of product. Mind you, Burkett says little about the abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement. It is simply easier and far more lucrative to tell people what they want to hear. To him, OSHA removed the individual responsibility.[8]
The employee has little to no control over the work environment. The decision makers, making their living by pushing electrons around from desk-top computers and telephones have forgotten (if they ever knew) what it is to actually work for a living. The employee can either do what he is told, or be terminated.
In Texas, some time ago, an employee was ordered to cut apart an old steel storage tank. It had been excavated from a demolished gas station, and it had to be scrapped. A discussion occurred which ended with “do it or you are fired!” The employee descended into the tank. Exactly what occurred after that is unknown. The tank exploded. The man’s body was ejected through the six inch diameter filler nozzle. It was recovered two blocks from the site of the explosion. The workman’s compensation insurance company refused to pay. Their position is that the employee should have known better, and brought about his own death. At last report the case was winding through the Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission. The rights of the insurance company have to be protected. The TWCC system is about as impartial as is a college fraternity house where the injured workers, or the surviving families, are about as welcome as campus police. This is, to some people’s thinking, right and just, and explaining the absurdity is like describing the color red to a blind person.
Insurance premiums are paid to the insurance companies so that when an accident occurs to one person there is money pooled, to care for the survivors. That is what the money is for. It is not the insurance company’s money. The premium paid to the insurance companies is held in trust for when it is needed by the insured. They are allowed to invest that money and keep any profit from the investment, but it is not their money. It is the customer’s money held in trust for the customer.
We seem to have forgotten anything resembling justice in the U.S. today. The institutions turn on the injured worker, or the survivor, as if they were pariahs. One has to question whatever happened to the instructions “do justice” and “love mercy.”
When people are suffering, then it is the institutional religious organizations responsibility to come to their aid. If the religious institutions are overwhelmed by the number of people in need, then perhaps there is a problem in capitalism itself. To hear it from the pulpit, “This can never be; the system was ordained by God.” That is nonsense. This is our system, created by us. Capitalism, or at least the free market, came into existence in the 1340s when the Black Death killed between one-third and two-thirds of Europe’s population. Some would place its origins in antiquity, but Rome had no middle class, or merchant class, to speak of, and Feudalism was in full sway prior to the 1300s. It simply came about in response to the manpower shortage, and the power vacuum left as the old order died off. As with any human institution it is what we make of it. The institutional religions’ ability to recognize this stems from the nature of the individuals within the institutions. Burkett, who died on July 4, 2003, was a product of capitalism with a background in finance, not theology.
The people within the religious institutions are trained in the ethics of the corporations to be judgmental, critical, skeptical and unwilling to aid anyone. Moreover, even the few who have made a commitment to intervene are low on funds. Take the Salvation Army for instance.
If anything, the Salvation Army’s statement on personal financial responsibility does not reflect the edicts of the corporations in the United States today. It is a statement of a specific faith, and given the aid they do render, should be used as a guide in principle at least for other institutional religions in the United States:

People can learn skills in handling money that enable them to use what they have responsibly, and thereby benefit themselves, their families and communities. Unfortunately, modern society with its emphasis on materialism, and its virtually free and unlimited access to debt has produced increasing numbers of individuals who find themselves in desperate financial conditions. The Salvation Army deplores those lenders who prey on the poor, enticing individuals with limited financial stability to incur debts at high cost and then refusing to deal fairly with the inevitable financial disasters that follow.[9]


While the statement does address the corporations culpability in the “our culture’s greed, selfishness and deification of money,” they go much further in seeing their responsibility as an institutional religious expression. As they say, “The Salvation Army believes that people with these problems deserve compassion, assistance and sound Christian counseling.” That is more than one has heard from so many others in the religious institutions today.
  Each Salvation Army Church is autonomous to the parent organization. They have only the resources contributed in the local community. When the local community lacks resources then the local charity lacks resources. Every holiday season, there is at least one news story about some corporation limiting the collection activities of the Salvation Army. Not only do the corporations refuse to help, but they often refuse to let others help. That has to give one pause.
Wal-Mart, on the other hand, makes a big show of their charitable contributions; it is the ultimate photo op for them in the local community. They strive to create an image as a public minded corporation. However, considering the amount of capital drained from the local community, the infusion of charitable capital is a pittance. Wal-Mart’s employees are often so impoverished that they have to utilize those same charities for assistance.
We are letting this happen to our own people because we no longer can make a distinction between who needs help and who doesn’t. Moreover, we don’t give a damn. The “hand-up” of the “Faith-Based Initiative” of “Compassionate Conservatism” never materialized because it was political rhetoric to attract the religious vote. The followers of Jesus Christ are instructed to give to charity even to those who are in prison. The distinction of who deserves charity and who does not is irrelevant. If is it true that “all have sinned,” then it is equally true that all deserve charity.

As Saint Paul wrote,

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up …”[10]

If there are too many in need, the failing is systemic, and not the functions of individual choice, no matter what the corporations or mass media have to say about it. The individuals in the religious institutions are blind, however.
There are, based on whose numbers you chose to use, or find on the World Wide Web, approximately 157 million Christians in the United States. Since there is no official count by government census the numbers can be weighted to give the advantage to whichever group one wants. They spend seven days a week immersed in the capitalistic culture of the corporations. For the majority of the week’s 168 hours they are focused on “winning” and “losing.” That focus undermines the ideals of the “Christian Life”.
At best the Christians spend four hours each week in the teachings of Christ. How in all rationale can someone expect even a minority of 157 million Christians of various denominations to wake up one day and live the ideal Christian existence when they live in the amoral capitalistic system for 164 hours a week? Even the most devout, who spend the daylight hours in on their chosen Sabbath in the institution do little better. The corporate ethos has grabbed their souls and will not let go. The competition of capitalism has more sway in their lives than the teachings of their God. The corporate competitiveness is the source of the “we” are better than “them” sermonizing which is the core of many religious expressions today.
Men, with their predisposition to focus on one prioritized issue at a time, are less likely to be paying attention during the short span of Sunday school, socializing, worship services, teachings, and afterglow. Moreover, in what one may call an Orwellian twist, they don’t even have a conceptual vocabulary to address what is and is not charity. Some would call it “love in action,” but the term love has become synonymous with lust in the current culture, and at that point there is an utter logic disconnect. Even where it is not automatically translated to “lust” the word love loses meaning in a society which cannot and will not acknowledge that human beings are expected to act as if each individual within society, regardless of station or status, matters. The struggle for recognition of status within the society is as competitive as the struggle for monetary resources.
If these men do some work outside their self-defined, cubicle-ized, definition of their function within society (attorney, accountant, doctor, technician, teacher, writer, shop keeper, athlete) then they define it as charity. Even if the charity is ineffective or lacks defined goals then they accept that charity as “God’s will.” Many para-church organizations exist today which fit this category of charity; they do nothing practical, but preach a good sermon twice on Sunday, and once on Wednesday.
To challenge this general concept of ineffectual charity is to invite a quick and sharp rebuke. That rebuke, however, is meaningless. The rebuke may stifle the question but it has convinced no one of anything. It adds to the overall state of official indifference. This only adds, based again on Colvin’s work on coercion, to hostility until, one, or both, leave for another Christian institution rather than come to blows. The idea of coming to blows is well within the thoughts of both parties, but is considered uncivilized, and ethically unchristian … no matter how much it may be a natural response to the stimuli. As such the valid questions concerning the institution’s morality and ethics, or their support of unethical and immoral conduct, are never answered.
It is worth saying that no one on earth speaks for any god, and that we all are ultimately judged as to our value by what we accomplish among the affairs of man. As Robert A. Heinlein stated in Time Enough for Love, “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, con a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”[11]
The questions asked do not fit the simplistic conventional wisdom of the given institutional community, remain unasked and unanswered, and the situation decays into the kind of narcissistic idolatry of the self. The concern of most people within the institution is to fulfill some personal obligation to a far away spiritual deity, while fixating on issues concerning home, self, and work. It is seldom on the religious instructions. If an empty belly is a poor political advisor it is an equally poor spiritual advisor.
The one main “feeling” which the 157 million Christians are trying to mitigate from the 164 hours spent in the larger community is: guilt. They know their actions do not fit the ethics which they know intuitively that they are violating. They know that the violation will eventually bring reprisal. This breeds a deeper sense of unease. So guilt is layered with fear. They become paralyzed in the situations because they cannot or will not walk away from the abusive environments because they will suffer economic loss. Then they cannot be good consumers. They cannot be good citizens if they cannot consume. Their ability to be good providers is in jeopardy. Their self-worth becomes questionable. Rather than address the cause; they blame the liberals, or the conservatives. They cannot come to grips with the system itself. They use the religion to cover up the guilt, and alleviate the fear and pain. As Marx said, “religion is the opiate of the people.”
Given the insecurity brought about by the corporate activities within the United States, the lack of opportunity and economic resources, more than likely the man’s mind is fixated on what Maslow refers to as safety issues, and not contemplating the instructions of the preacher, or teacher. The situation grows worse when the sermon is somehow wrapped up in the general insecurity of the era.
Many sermons pray on people’s insecurity and fear of loss. This has become so prominent that in the early 2000 decade time frame, the chairmen of  one of the nation’s Christian Broadcasting Associations was forced to step down because he suggested that they preach about the love of Jesus Christ rather than the conservative social agenda. He received so much resistance from the rank and file over that suggestion that he tendered his resignation. It was a suggestion, not a policy change, yet the man was forced to step down. The rank and file, so firmly fixed on the idea that they are in competition against the secular society that to take any other direction is untenable. However, if they were to actually put their faith in their own teachings they are in competition with no one; according to Saint Paul, they have already won. Yet, they perpetuate the idea that they are in competition with “the world.” This can only be a conditioned response to the world in which they live.
Dating back to the late 1980s, the reason behind institutional religious attendance was to “feel better” about oneself. The Flower Children had grown up and become institutionalized into the main stream religious expressions. The 164 hours in the larger, general culture molded their thinking into the corporate model. They desperately wanted something to release them from the taint of that model. They were not interested in some man in clerical garb challenging what they had to do during the 164 hours at work and home. The message shifted to become more conciliatory when addressing the 164 hours. Themes like “name-it-claim-it” and “God wants you to be rich” became standard fare.
Anyone who has the audacity to question these teachings is considered rebellious against God, and against church authority. The institutions will do everything in their power, which is admittedly little save for social ostracism and possible exorcism with prayer and cooking oil, to convince the heretic that he is wrong. It is heresy in the United States to question the capitalistic system and the edicts of the corporations in many of the institutional religions today. The individual is questionable, but the institution is beyond reproach. This is how religion gets it reputation as being one of the worse forms of tyranny. However, such tyranny is not about God’s intervention for man, it is the tyranny of unfailing support of a system which in itself at odds with the religions upon which the institution is based. This shift in the message can only be explained in terms of bolstering the standards of the era, in the name of God. Those standards, right or wrong, are not to be questioned. Yet, Jesus asked, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”[12] Of course we see what the institutions of His era did to him.
By 1982, the Vietnam War was a receding memory. The Civil Rights era was over. The free love era had been codified into the social matrix, as had the drug culture. Individual lawlessness became the rule not the exception. Cocaine had replaced pot as the drug of choice in the corporate boardrooms. Crack was appearing on the streets. All that was needed was to reassert the conservative values that spoon fed people. The essence of the message was that the corporation was good, the system was good, and the individual was at fault. If the individual was not at fault because they did not behave like “those people” then all was right with the world. No on wanted any more social agendas. That was passé at best. This involved a subdued version of “greed is good” and “might is right.” To support the “feel good” need, the controlling bodies of the individual institutional religions sought out people who extolled the Calvinist doctrine within the approved understanding of the corporate ethos.
While it is true that the humorless, pain ridden, reformation theologian of the 16th Century, John Calvin, did teach the virtues of hard work and thrift, it is equally true that he had a well documented distain for excessive profiteering. The latter part is lost in the current era. The teachings of the current era are derived specifically from sensitivity to what is acceptable within the current era. This was true during the Clinton administration, and true now under Bush. Going against the flow of the current conventional wisdom can create even more hardships for the individual.
Anything which questions the comfort zone established by the main stream agenda is utterly unacceptable in Christianity today. While not directly apparent, the activity of the church is based on the corporate model; all power resides with the “boss” (i.e. the pastor). No only does this go against the teachings of Jesus Christ and Saint Paul, but it also flies in the face of the philosophy which founded the United States of America. The United States was founded on the idea that power is derived from the consent of the people. Power is not derived from a divine right to rule. The founding idea of the United States, of course, was not a Christian ideal. The U.S. is based on Hermetic philosophy of individual enlightenment; under this even the Puritan Christians found acceptance. However, it is very much at odds with the authoritarian ideals of neo-Calvinism.
The capitalist structure of the churches in the United States has caused some rifts in the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, and in the Roman Catholic Church. In the Episcopal Church it has fired the debate over the acceptance of gay clergy. To the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, this is a purely religious issue. The capitalistic underpinnings are not openly apparent. The root opposition to the acceptance of gays in the community at large would force the corporations to accept the standards of  civil unions as binding as marriage, and the corporations would incur the added burden of providing additional benefits which it does no now have to bestow.
The riff between the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church is far more philosophical. The Roman Catholic Church does not understand that the American Catholic Church has to be competitive with its non-Catholic counterparts. The more conservative expression of Catholicism from Rome is not always in line with the culture within the United States. The sensitivity to the conventional expression of the current culture is nothing less than the competition for a portion of the entertainment dollar.
While many adherents to religion will balk as such an assertion the churches are an inexpensive form of community based live theater. Both theater and popular music are rooted in the church. The first plays produced were morality plays based on the scriptures in support of the Christian teachings. As the era changed the teachings changed. The function remained the same. Today’s pastors and choir directors will openly admit that the choir can make or break a church. This was taken one step further in Barrington, Illinois in the late 1970s when the flagship mega church Willow Creek Community Church was formed. The backbone drawing the people to the church was live theater of well produced morality plays, small Jesus-Rock bands, and conciliatory preaching of Jesus as savior. Today entertainment is still the backbone of this church. Bill Hybels, the founder of Willow Creek Community Church, was studying business before catching the vision of Acts Chapter 2. It began with 125 people in 1975, and grew to 2000 a week in three years. It is estimated the church draws 6000 people over three services on Saturday evening and Sunday Morning. Willow Creek Community Church is an impressive practice of successfully applying the principles of competitive capitalism to institutional religion. Bill Hybels and the Willow Creek Association have successfully exported their model through a number of books and seminars. There is no mistake, institutional religion is big business, and it is rooted in capitalism and the corporate model.
The Southern Baptist Convention is also based on this model. The SBC, as it is called, is a more Antebellum expression of contemporary Christianity. It links its linage to Calvin and purports a active membership of over six million, and a world wide membership of 16.3 million. Its core message is one of the superiority of Jesus Christ as the leader of the world, and the privileged status of the Anglo-Saxon male in the church leadership as taught by Calvin’s interpretation of Saint Paul’s writings. Saint Paul, however, may not have been setting up the social standard for the church, but instructing the church in the first century how to comport itself within the socially acceptable cultural patterns in Rome. While the Protestant Church, including the SBC and independent churches like Willow Creek Community Church believe that the Bible is infallible, the Catholic Church which codified the Bible in the 1500s, hold that the scriptures are inspired by God, but reflect the understanding of God at the time it was written; faith and human experience with God to the Catholics is a dynamic and evolving expression. The Catholic Church is somewhat more flexible over the long run, but is slow to make changes. It takes its job of guarding the souls of its membership very seriously.
The competitive nature for the support of institutional religion in the United States has yet to fully catch on in the Catholic Communion where the institution is used to depending on the support of a faithful following out of loyalty to the Christ and the teachings of the Church. That following has thinned out since Vatican II, which allowed Catholics to participate in Protestant services without threat of excommunication. Now, even the Catholic Church has to vie for the entertainment dollar.
To the faithful lay person this smacks of blasphemy. It will be rebuked with righteous indignation. According to Saint John, Saint Paul, John Calvin, and Martin Luther, only God can save souls. As Saint John wrote, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”[13] The whole evangelical thrust is to put “butts in the pews” in the hopes that the a few of them will become inspired to give a full 10% of their earning and will keep the physical plant in operation.
While the concept of tithing in the Old Testament is far different than the concept of tithing in the current western expression, the current tithing model is derived from necessity of functioning within the capitalist system.
When a lamb was sacrificed in the Old Testament, the equivalent of the tithe in contemporary religion, the lamb was butchered carefully, and the entrails which were inedible were consumed in the fire of the alter, the blood was drained, and the meat was roasted. The priest took a portion of the roasted meat for their service, and the remaining was consumed by the family offering the sacrifice. There was plenty to go around.

Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:  And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household …[14]

In today’s society the tithe becomes a regressive voluntary religious tax where the 10% is turned over to the religious institution to be used for the institution’s needs. It is a further hardship for the poor within the community. Much ink has been wasted on the arguments convincing the poor that they will somehow be blessed if they give from their already diminished economic resources. However, giving of alms is still a charitable act, and Jesus himself did praise the poor widow who contributed two coppers to the temple’s collection box.[15] As such, one can say that giving at any level is honored by God. However, giving to the point of self-destruction will not buy any favors from God. In the Old Testament the idea was that one was to give from the excess profit, not the funds needed to sustain life: “Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.”[16]
Pastors today spend more time raising funds to keep the plant in operation than they do in preparing for their sermons.
Many a Christian worker at Billy Graham’s crusades has noted the phenomenon of marketing religion. The majority of Mr. Graham’s converts are not “sinners coming to Christ.” They are wayward Christians who have forsaken the church. Through Mr. Graham’s missions, the local Churches which are closely related to the Southern Baptist Calvinist and supportive to individual spiritual growth, are infused with new blood. That builds the support base for the SBC, and increases the funding from which it can support its operations.
The Southern Baptist Convention, founded in 1845, was created for socioeconomic reasons in support of the Antebellum South’s specific flavor of capitalistic expansion. It was not formed in support of any given specific inspiration of a supreme being. The Southern Baptist Convention came into existence specifically to support African American chattel slavery. It is debatable that one can consider that spiritual authority.
Its message, over the past 142 years, has not changed much. Capitalism is good. Capitalist exploitation and abuse is godly. The only necessary education is to be able to read the Bible. All other approaches are of the Devil. Therefore, the corporation is ordained by God. Rejection of the corporation, represented (modeled after) by the plantations of the Old South, is a rejection of a Godly way of life.
This of course is beyond the awareness of most thinking Christians. Any question of this Church is of the Devil, the institutional church is of God, so anyone questioning the Southern Baptist is attacking God. Furthermore, an attack on God is an attack on a personal friend who was killed for the sake of the faithful … and not so faithful. The watering down of the Christian Gospel to support the corporations is simply a function which Currie defined as “the weakening of social and political alternatives” and “the erosion of informal and communal networks of mutual support.”[17] The institutional religions are, in effect, victims of the harsh capitalistic system in the United States as well. This is the system in which we all live.
While the competition may not be apparent in the rural United States where people are dedicated, baptized, married and buried in the same community church for generations, the urban church has a much different story going for it. A good example of the competition is Chicago, Illinois.

On Foster Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, between Milwaukee Avenue and Elston Avenue, there are no less than twelve different churches. At Milwaukee and Foster, behind the floral shop and across from King’s II restaurant is the Jefferson Park Evangelical Free Church. Around the snake turn on Foster, heading east to Long Avenue is Saint Cornelius Catholic Church. South on Long Avenue, right across the street from the old Chicago and Northwestern station (now Metra), is the Jefferson Park English Lutheran Church. From Foster and Long, straight east on Foster, is Forest Glen Baptist Church. That small Anglo-Saxon based congregation with its northern version of the Southern Baptist message shares its building with a Korean Baptist Church. Two congregations in one building. The Forest Glen Baptist Church corporation owns the building and the Korean Baptist Church leases the use of it from them. Within sight of Forest Glen Baptist Church is Trinity Lutheran Church on Foster. The Knanaya Catholic Society is also there, as is the Bong-Bool-Sa Buddhist Temple. Holy Mountain Evangelical Church is a few blocks away on Lawler Avenue, as it the First Congregational Church. Northwest Bible Chapel and High Praises International Ministries are a leisurely stroll northwest on Elston Avenue.
All of these are within walking distance for the average Chicagoan. Give yourself a few hours on a warm autumn day, and you can visit all of them. Mind you, this is in Chicago, Illinois, the home of the world famous Moody Bible Institute, Moody Church, WMBI radio, and Willow Creek Community Church and all of its affiliate churches. This is not an atypical Chicago neighborhood.
Logan Square, a rougher part of the city, has approximately 10 different churches which can be visited from the corner of Fullerton and Central Park. One of which is a very modernistic looking Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day saints. This is a mixed neighborhood of first generation Polish Catholics, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans.
In walking distance, within two separate neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois are at least 22 different flavors of Christianity. From a consumer perspective this represents the quintessence of choice. Yet, with all these expressions of spirituality and goodness, Chicago, the Windy City, is also the city of Al Capone and the Jungle of Upton Sinclair. It is a city with the reputation of crime, political corruption, and scandal. One cannot help but wonder why.
It is not a lack of individual morality, or the lack of God in the schools. Both those causes are wishful thinking on behalf of the fundamentalists looking for a simple answer to a complex social problem. The cause of the corruption, scandal and mayhem is that the people who fill the pews are a product of the environment in which they live. It goes back to the 164 hours a week in which they immersed in the ethos of the corporation. From sun-up to sun down the 2,896,016 inhabitants of Chicago are engaged in capitalistic competition where group-think can easily override individual morals and ethics.
Church attendance is still an expected ritual for people of the relatively middle class culture. To live the idea of Christianity is not expected. This can best be described in a reversal of the old cliché. It would be, “do as I do, not as I say.” The expectation is to park one’s fanny in the pew for four hours a week, pay the weekly dues, and go about life without rocking the boat, or asking any real questions. This does go back to the function of the Church in the United States.
It is neutral ground upon which a person can stand and for a few hours, once a week, feel good about themselves, or find a personal fix for a personal problem so long as that fix does not require a long term investment of real capital. Primarily, the people of the United States go to church to convince themselves they are living right within the structure of the corporate environment. One is favored in the community if one shows that he has a spiritual life through some form of religious observance on a regular basis. There are those within the general community who will find fault with the observant, and harass them, but that too builds the ethos of the Christian observance. If one is so bold as to point this out to the faithful, they will denounce the observer, and they will proclaim that the observer does not understand Christianity. However, these observations apply equally to the Christians, Jews, Muslins, Pagan, and the wide assortment of other religious expressions. It is all striving to feel good about oneself with the superior being while existing within the capitalist society.
One of the fascinating points of the church’s relationship to society at large is that the church as a private institution functions the same way in the capitalistic system as it would in socialism or communism. Its support in the United States is directly in the hands of those who attend it.
This is very much unlike the Church-State marriage which initiated the struggle against religion. The struggle began in earnest in during the French Revolution with the separation of the French State from the Catholic Church. Even now, if an individual wants to show that he or she is an independent free thinker, apart from the status quo and society, it is expressed in the separation from institutional religions. Religion is denounced and ridiculed. This has given rise to various non-institutional spiritual expressions. Some of these non-institutional expressions fall under the heading of New Age Religion, and Neo-Paganism. Wicca, included in the latter, is striving to become an institutional religion with equal protection under the law and full social acceptance.
At no point, however, do the rebellious within society truly distance themselves from the capitalistic system. The system lays the groundwork by which we all survive no matter how independently one likes to think they are. The church is an easy target to rebel against since it holds no real power within society and it a voluntary organization. To rebel against the church is empty symbolism as it requires no sacrifice. One might summarize the act of rebelling against the church as cheap street theater. It is a rebellion against an institution which does not care if the individual is rebelling against it or not. There is no effect. Just like so many other corporations, the church figures that any individual who leaves will eventually be replaced by another one. Constant rotation of bodies in the pews is understood and accepted. Call it apathy towards customer satisfaction if you wish, but it is real.
The church is not the enemy of the people. At worst, it is a form of community entertainment. At best it is an institution which simplistically upholds the values of the current era as an expression of the conventional wisdom of what is good in the name of a generic deity referred to as God, and coupled within the Christian expression to the historic figure of Jesus Christ.
The church’s pastor is nothing more, and nothing less, than an imperfect person brought up in the current society who is trying to do some good for some of the people within the congregation. When he stays true to his vocation, he is a good role model and spokesman for the conservative values within society. Minimally, he attempts to perform some form of spiritual infotainment, and renders solid conservative capitalist advice. Hard work, frugality, charity, faithfulness, and honesty are not bad character traits. Pastors are not perfect representatives of the ideal Christ. They are not, however, the enemy of the people either. They attempt to balm the wounds of those suffering from the shock of the remaining 164 hours a week.
The majority of church members are there to escape the grind, and find some form of social contact not defined by the absolute structure of the corporation.
It is hard to argue that the state is an extension of the church. Both the state and the church are institutions within the economic system. While each church has influence in upholding certain conservative values, they don’t influence society as much as they reflect the mood of society once that mood has been institutionalized within the corporate community. The church is more a barometer of social acceptability. It does not exactly wield any real authority in any individual’s life in the United States. While this may not be reflected in rural America, this is reflected in urban America. If someone does not like one church, he can go to another, or not go at all, without penalty of law. They may suffer some social fallout for that decision but in the United States that social fallout is minimal at best.
Those who chose to reject the concept of God, or the specific God of the Bible as understood by the Jews, Christians, and adapted to Islam, are equally allowed to do so in a free society.
While the Theist argues that the cause of the decline of society is the “sinful nature of man,” the Atheist, and the Agnostics, argue that the source of the decline of society is the unenlightened and unscientific superstitions of humanity. Included in this, of course, is the constant bombardment of anti-religious propaganda. They site as their authority the writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and, Karl Marx. They uphold that the tribalism contained within the sacred writings and belief systems are a pestilence on humanity, and that the only real god is the natural universe and the laws of the universe. The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read edited by Tim C. Leedom, released through Truth Seeker Company, Incorporated (Freethought Publishers), states that there are as many Atheist, Agnostics, and Freethinkers as there are Christians in the United States today.[18] This is a dubious statement at best. There are 300 million people in the United States as of 2006. According to polls there are 157 million Christians. As such the remaining citizens, less than half the total population, are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan/Neo-Pagan, etc. This remainder would include atheists.
The alternative view is contained in the arguments of the spiritual humanist, and religious humanist. They are derived from Carl Sagan’s approach to spiritual expression:

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge. -- Carl Sagan[19]

This is not a new expression. The key to understand it lays in the term “modern science.” Much of what is called superstition today (i.e. Tarot Divination, Magick, Astrology, Numerology) were in their era, considered modern science. Tarot Divination is a form of analysis of a question. Magick is a form of autosuggestion applied to the inner-self, and the outer world. Prayer is equally a form of auto expression. Astrology was a guide to aid in overcoming the confusions of daily life. The old superstitions were at one time, state of the art science. Science, by definition, means “knowledge.” Now there is the Scientific Approach:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
6. Go to step 3 and make new predictions.

While spiritual humanism is a minority expression within the larger Atheist community it is without a specific expression of God, and is within their scope of acceptance. The contention between the Atheist and the Theist comes from a power struggle as to who holds sway in the society today.
On April 8, 1966 the cover of  Time magazine asked the question Is God Dead? The inside story concerned the theothanatology (God is dead) movement in Christianity at the time, stating that there needed to be a new expression of deity. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the classical, fundamental approach to God was in question. This was part of the wider social questioning experience of the era.
The word Atheism means there is No Theis, or no God. It supports, by its adherence to the natural order of the world, a certain form of social Darwinism. This supports the tenets of the capitalistic system in operation today. Those who “win” have the right to rule because they are “winners.” The fact that they are a protected class who sit outside the trauma and crime inflicted upon society as a whole is never mentioned in their considerations. It would not be. To consider it would call into question the crimes committed in the name of the science of economics.
Atheists pride themselves on reciting tales of the atrocities committed in the name of religion. In the United States it is specifically the atrocities committed by the Christian Church. Very little is mentioned of Jewish or Muslim atrocities. Even less is said about the crimes committed by the Soviet Union, or the Communist Chinese. It has to be pointed out that neither the Soviet Union, nor the Communist Chinese have stellar records when it comes to human rights or civil rights.
The purges of Stalin can be written off as the events of a bygone era, however, acts of oppression are still going on in China today. As of July 6, 2006 there is documentation that Communist Chinese using members of the Falun Gong as host for organ harvesting. Amnesty International's Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet sites sexual torture as a form of punishment routine in the Communist state now supported by Western capital.
Where the Atheist argues that the crimes of the Communist Chinese are specific to the political nation state, then the crimes of the Middle East attributed to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims are equally crimes committed by specific political factions and nation states. It is either that, or Atheism as a specific religious philosophy is just as much a failure in honoring and protecting humanity as are the other religious philosophies. That is a simple conclusion which can be drawn on based on the scientific method.
The Atheist scientists who site the Galileo affair as a crime against science by the Catholic Church do so out of ignorance. It was Galileo’s propensity for being offensive to his peers in the 1630s which brought him under the question of the inquisition. The inquisition at the time functioned much like our FBI and was autonomous of the Church itself. His science was supported by the Church’s own scientific community, and was supportive of Nicolaus Copernicus’s work. It was not the Pope who triggered the initial investigation but Galileo’s own peers. The rest of that story has little to do with religion or science, and more to do with legal issues of the era. Heresy was not a label of a philosophical argument. It was a specific crime of rebellion against the church’s authority. The Galileo issue was not one of science; it was an issue of free speech.
While Galileo was an obvious genius, he was, as is often the case, a bit of an ass. He had a habit of haranguing his peers. They took offense and decided to give him a lesson in humility. They filed charges against him for heresy. The heresy, or rebellion, was harassing the other scientists. Galileo, a good Catholic by even today’s standards, was personal friends with Pope Urban VIII. It was Pope Urban who convinced him to admit to heresy to get the inquisition off his back. This affair, seen to be scientific in nature, is anything but.
His predecessor, Copernicus, was fully supported by the Catholic Church, and all of his findings were published by the church just before his death by natural causes. Fiction not withstanding, the Catholic Church, since the time of Saint Augustine (circa 408 C.E.), reasoned that science of the physical universe did not conflict with the sacred writings. The physical universe was as it is, and the sacred texts were meant as spiritual arguments, metaphoric in nature, to bring people to an understanding of God, and salvation through Jesus Christ. As such, Galileo’s science was not a threat to the church, his behavior was.
This whole picture gets messy when you bring in current Protestant expressions up to the inclusion of fundamentalism. Part of the protest of the Protestant movement is the exaltation of scripture. It is worshiped as if it is an incarnation of God himself. The Protestants will not openly admit to that, but the essence of the arguments is that God’s Word is infallible. As such it is an extension of God. God, if he exists, may be infallible, but humans are anything but. The Catholic Church is well aware of this human fallibility. The Catholic Church’s approach to the Holy Writ is that it is advisory and relative to the understanding of the people of the era in which it is written. One can say they are stodgy and slow to change, but that is in the nature of any large organization. This is no different than Ford Motor Company’s assertion that small cars are cheap cars and the American population was not interested in cheap cars. If one can criticize the Catholic Church for anything, it is that it is a human institution which is not perfect.
While science did not explode until the Catholic Church lost political control of Europe, that may be more of a function of exponential human development. It is undeniably a function of a conservative institution which is loath to make errors on a spiritual matter. Any institution which has existed for 2000 years, give or take half a century, is not bound to the lifetime of any individual. Yet, it still grows and changes over time like any human creation. It was none to keen on capitalism, mercantilism, free enterprise, or Protestantism. It periodically terrorized the Jews and others who did not consent to their authority; not unlike other political factions through history. However, it did adapt, and it did correct it errors.
Those who wish to continue to brow beat the Catholic faithful or the faithful of any religion, for being unscientific are doing so with a specific political agenda. At the same time, those who are holding that science is in conflict with God, know nothing of science or of God, and are equally bent on a specific political agenda. Much of it has to do with status within the competitive nature of capitalism and little about truth. At the street level, most people have little concern for philosophical truth, and would not know it if it bit them.
A good case is the GOP’s running on a Pro-Life (anti abortion) platform. This is done to pull in the religious community. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all ran with a Pro-Life plank in the platform. Yet none of them proposed an amendment to the constitution which would completely outlaw the procedure. Based on the demographics explained in the late 1980s book Attitudes and Latitudes, while the urban citizens support Pro-Choice, the rural citizen of the United States support the Pro-Life stance.[20] As such an Amendment to ban abortion would probably pass. Yet, to ban abortion would remove the emotional issue which has given the Republicans such a strong support base.
The same holds true for the arguments concerning stem-cell research. It has nothing to do with religious ethics. The programs, or lack thereof, have little to do with science, or religious ethics, and everything to do with upholding the capitalistic ideal. If the scientific community wants to extend the research then the scientific community has to sell that research to the capitalists; evidently that has failed thus far.
According to Saint Paul, the oppression of religious tradition is for bragging rights. It has nothing to do with the Christianity given to the heathen gentiles in Galicia. Those who insisted that the Galicians observed the Jews customs of circumcision were doing so for the status of bragging that they made the new Christians uphold the old traditions. This is not unlike the fundamentalist movement in the U.S. today. If there is any argument here, it is with a small sect which is trying to force its will on the population as a whole. One does not have to uphold unscientific beliefs to be a Christian nor do they have to bow to the dogma of the Southern Baptist Convention to be a Christian. There is nothing in the Authorized Bible of King James of the Gospels or Epistles which dictates adherence to a literal bible for the sake of salvation.
The reason is not found in the authorized work of the King James era, it is found in the Gnostic writings which were not recovered until 1945. The founders of Christianity had a more fluid understanding of spirituality. From 525 C.E. to approximately 1550 C.E. the bible did not even exist as a single unit. The Catholic Church had the text which had survived, but it was the Lutheran challenge which forced the Catholics to finally codify what it considered scripture and what it considered commentary on scripture. By the 1500s, the Gnostic works had long since gone underground. This was simply due to politics. Gnostics had a tradition of being unruly and independent minded and did not “play well with others.”[21] The Gnostics did not consider it necessary to submit to an established church.
Today the strife between the Atheist and the Theist is much the same. It is political in nature and is far more about bragging rights and status than the true nature of the universe. No one knows what happens after death. No one knows the nature of God. All any of us have is what we see in the physical universe and our subjective understanding of the spiritual universe. That spiritual universe may indeed be nothing more than the random synaptic firing within the brain. Even proof, if it exists, is subjective. That proof revolves around the individual’s perception which cannot be tested in a controlled study. At one time we get a study which states that prayer and emotional support aid in the treatment of cancer. At another time we get a report that states it does not. The institutional religions uphold that their scripture is authoritative proof of their position. The Atheist holds that science is their proof. Both, however, are human creations, and are prone to error. The scientific study on prayer is one such proof of the fallibility of science.
The Atheists want to be depicted as some form of minority. Yet, as sited, they also claim to have as many adherents as the Theists. It is hard to have it both ways. For reasons as personal as any individual believer’s they have decided for themselves that there is no god. Bigotry, discriminatory behavior, divisiveness, not to mention political agendas, and bragging rights, has to be recognized as part of the game. This too is part of the capitalist system. It is about money, power, and status. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was anything but broke when she was murdered in 1995.
The recent argument over the phrase “under God” serves little function in a civilized society. The argument does little but distract from the remaining phrase in the pledge of allegiance: “… with liberty and justice for all.” Since  Atheism, whose adherents balk at the wording “under God” is itself a religious expression, their view is no more constitutional than the fundamentalists who want to have the United States labeled a Christian nation. While the concept of the U.S. being a Christian nation is a misnomer derived from the Confederate constitution, it is equally a mistake to say that the U.S. is an amoral nation. To address the issues within the amoral capitalist system the ideal of enlightenment drew heavily upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. As Thomas Paine wrote concerning the teachings of Jesus, no one has done worse than he did in teaching morality, nor better. The implication being that the founders respected the teachings of Jesus as a moral guide.[22]
When the nation lacks “liberty and justice for all” due to economic conditions which favor the rich and powerful and deprive the population of adequate opportunity, then there is a much bigger problem than the generic phrase “God” in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
Religious institutions are not the enemy of the people. If they are an opiate, then they function as a pain killer. Rather than being attacked, they need to be supported and encouraged.
The Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Covens and enlightened free-thinkers all need to dig deeper into their scriptures and traditions to find a better expression of what is good which does not endorse the social, economic, and physical violence embraced by the corporations in pursuit of capital gains.






[1] Freakonomics. (2008, June 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:54, June 18, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freakonomics&oldid=220172402
[2] Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Pathways in the Life Course to Crime. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological Theory: Past to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
[3] Larry Burkett. (2008, June 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:58, June 18, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Burkett&oldid=218697870
[4] Exodus 23:11
[5] Deuteronomy 15:11 AV
[6] Leviticus 19:13 AV
[7] Deuteronomy 24:14
[8] Burkett, L. (1993). What Ever Happened to the American Dream. Chicago: Moody Press.
[9] Recommended for approval by the Commissioners' Conference Approved by International Headquarters ©2000 to 2007 The Salvation Army http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf
[10] 1Corinithians 13:4 AV
[11] Heinlein , R. A. (1973). Time Enough for Love. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
[12] Matthew 8:36
[13] John 3:17 AV
[14] Deuteronomy 14:22-26
[15] Mark 12:43-44
[16] Deuteronomy 14:22
[17] Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (2nd ed.). New York: Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 338.
[18] Leedom, T. C. (Ed.). (1993). The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read. Los Angeles: Freethought Publishers.
[19] Sagan, C. (1994). Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. New York: Random House.
[20] The information was part of a radio interview that I was listening to on the radio in L.A. back in 1987, while working in a fiberglass cutting line for Manpower.
[21] Personal summation of everything I have read on the subject of Gnostic Christianity.
[22] Paine, T. (2003). Common Sense. Oxford, MA: The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.

A Chance for Peace

There is a Chance for Peace Many years ago I took a class in the nature of war. I got it from a Liberal Christian Publication ca...