Kimstu,
I don’t know what you are defending here, I couldn’t tell, but your tone pretends it to be obvious. If you think it all makes sense regardless, well, you failed to convince me. So, just to summarize a main point, you hint or suggest that it is natural for Christians to want to attempt to control the government, fine. Now I then must ask, if they want such control and power, doesn’t their style of government then need to reflect their religious stance, such as providing the same service they are “enjoined” to do as Christians? It seems to be contradictory to get politically active and enforce certain Christian dogmas, but then say that poverty and education are individual concerns and priorities, not theirs as national leaders. Then what good are they to anyone as leaders if they have no integrity? I happen to think that poverty and ignorance are like diseases that need as much top-level coordination to eradicate as is possible to provide. So we disagree perhaps.
As I said in my orginal reply, there is philosophical common ground (what I call “poverty-elitism”) among a wannabe world financal aristocracy and ancient-minded feudal Christianity (the tenets of which derive from ancient priesthoods sponsored by kings and emperors, and whose legendary founder, Jesus, once importantly advised a young prince to impoverish himself, who then refused, the lesson implying the movement is only for the poor). It is obvious to me that elitism requires religions like Christianity to become a pacifying force among those who are dispossessed by elitism. The key here is lowering expectations, especially environmentally and socially. If huge masses of impoverished citizens can buy into the ludicrous idea of “taking no care for the morrow” then feudalism can thrive again. Keep in mind that Christianity has always had royal sponsorship to thrive. If Republicans represent elitism, then it follows that a common religious idea is necessary for them to pull it off, by the logic of supplying sentiments for everyone else to mull over as they are asked to suffer the economic waste of elitism.
Also, if I disparage Republicanism wholesale, excuse me, but I happen to live in one of their little theocratic proving grounds (Utah) where the education spending per-pupil is dead last and classrooms overflow with 35 kids per. I see predatory (mandatory) tithes competing with tax dollars, and religion is overtly used to get people not only to have alot of kids (to dilute the labor force?), but to also vote over 70% Republican everytime, despite being a relatively poor state (no surpise). Republicanism and religion work together here, in concert, to get a majority of people who otherwise have no economic interest in Republicanism to vote that way. That is no miracle, that is elitism controlling people’s opinions the old fashioned way (by threat of heavenly reward and punishment).
I think it is sinister to disguise Republicanism as a moral force, when it is anything but. I see much of the Christian parables the way any graduate literature student can see it, as a handbook of symbols that feature the coin-laden rich versus the working poor. I see Hellenistic freedom, justice, and equality replaced with submissive peace, artifical love, and supply-side charity. I see in Christians a desperate condition of needing to be told to be kind to strangers. Personally, I think they are victims of their own victimology, which is the dogma’s self-pity, self-righteousness, and self-love, which has served them poorly (no pun needed) and functions to atomize society. The religious propensity for faith in words places a high value on taking dogma at face value. The problem is that these words are passionate, full of symbolism, and hell-bent on rewards and punishments.
