Why God Is Not On Our Side
Mood:  sad
Topic: Church and State
White Men to Return
To The Cold

Conversation With Bush Supporters Familiar
With SenderBerl's position

In recent days, I was able to speak with some people known to me who support President Bush and know my position otherwise on the president. I thought you could benefit from my notes from the meeting.

These people argue that President Bush is the only one willing to tackle regimes throughout the world likely and inclined to use WMD. Kerry, they believe, will not succeed in neutralizing a threat that they see as ultimately nuclear.

My first response is that if you build a platform for just action for the President you have to see if that platform is on a just foundation. I thus offered that Saddam Hussein was a man this country could have eliminated without the need of sending 300,000 troops overseas. The intent from Bush 41 leaving Saddam alive in the early 90s was to ultimately secure, after global media control was in place, global oil resources as the predicate for ultimate world domination and control. I reminded them that Clinton wanted to move against Saddam and Osama bin-Laden but shadow government interests always impeded any such intent by President Clinton. I reminded them that this was because these shadow government interests didn't want Clinton and his cronies securing a stranglehold on Iraqi oil. Thus, my point was that Saddam was kept around for many years until the environment was such that Bush 43 could move against him to secure the oil interest for Bush cronies.

I then asked the key question: did they think that the Bush administration would have moved against Iraq and taken the confrontational stance against Syria and Iran if Iraq and Iran were not major global oil producers?

Their answer was truthful. They said no.

I then said that then you can't justify the agenda when you acknowledge that the true motivation behind the seemingly just action of effectuating regime change is the oil. Then you know the agenda is pursued with unclean hands.

This group wanted Bush to win re-election because right after it he would pursue Syria, Iran and North Korea. I pointed out that first let's look at Iraq and remember that Bush's original agenda was to go into Syria and Iran had Saddam either used or possessed WMD. What I wanted these men to know is that if Bush was pursuing an agenda for good and G-d as some in the group truly believed that Bush would not have stumbled and failed as he did. Moreover, the US would not face the type of obstacles it now faces in the Middle East and throughout the world.

I said from the narrow one-dimensional plane it was a slam-dunk that leaderships willing to approve or covertly support WMD are wrong and should be removed. But I reminded them that in the Middle East the dynamics were anything but one-dimensional. If Bush was really bowing to G-d in the pursuit of the agenda, he would not have failed and I asserted that he would fail in obtaining re-election. I then pointed out the answer to why the polls were close.

I said look you guys believe that Bush will win handsomely over Kerry. That's great because if he didn't believe it himself, if he thought he were ten points plus behind Kerry into the Republican National Convention, then New York City may have experienced another bout of terrorism. But Bush believes he can win and that you do yourselves makes it legitimate. That had to be the intent of those behind Kerry wanting to remove the Bush danger and threat to this country. If I am right, I said, then you will now see a new Kerry, one that weekly encroaches on Bush until election eve 2004, where it will be Kerry over Bush.

So I made a wager Kerry over Bush. Moreover, they really believed that because of Bush's strength and commitment against terrorists, that this was the true dynamic behind why we faced no new terrorism. I asked them if they could deduce that with any further terrorism that Bush would then further militarily intercede in the Middle East. I said that was the basis of my highlighting that there would be no terrorism. I changed my mind in March 2004 and especially believed it was forthcoming in May 2004 when the White House agreed that there would be terrorism before the November elections. If you would remember this was when Kerry was strong against Bush (Abu Ghraib surfacing). Thus, since then, Kerry weakened, Bush strengthened, and now we were able to see a RNC without any terrorism. It is hard to prove that it would have occurred if the polls were negative against Bush, but what is not hard to prove is that gnawing reality that Bush even came to lead over Kerry as we moved in the RNC. It either proved Kerry an incompetent candidate, or it proved our point.

So what we have are Bush people believing that regimes in the Middle East are evil and likely to use and support WMD against American and global NWO interests. They believe that Bush is willing to take an unwavering stance to remove them while someone like Kerry will only result in these regimes gaining in power and confidence to ultimately invoke the use of nuclear weapons or other actions in contravention to US interests. They see the corruption of Bush and Cheney on other matters as a lesser evil and collateral consequence to Bush eliminating leaderships that pose such a serious danger.

Of course this secular position giving support and thus legitimacy to the Bush/N.W.O. agenda misses addressing the other dimensional dynamics that we all should be aware of at this point in history. Thus, I offered some truly important postulates to them. The first one was whether they had any feelings that Bush/N.W.O. control of oil contravened the idea that they were gifted with the oil by G-d? Secondly, and equally important, whether the Bush/N.W.O. intent to secularize the Middle Eastern oil nations, taking G-d and religion from its central role there, suggested that the Bush/N.W.O. agenda opposed G-d and thereby was likely to fail.

Here is where man gets muddied up. It calls into question the dynamic of Jacob in bible bowing to Pharaoh when approaching him and bowing again when leaving him and unlike his son, Joseph, never bringing up G-d in between, albeit without G-d both the descendants of Jacob and Egypt would have faltered, one worse than the other. Further complicating it is that man refuses or finds it impossible to see that what is seen as perceived enemies are messages parallel in time that man is pursuing the wrong course in the Middle East.

Thus, to simplify these complex dynamics addressed in full by me over the years on these web pages and within the bounds of this Website, I simply asked why then would the President and others with secular agendas under an umbrella of good find out time and time again that they stumble and fail. I then reminded them what I said in 1998: that this N.W.O. campaign highlighted by me in 1998 and 1999, before anyone could imagine it, would by design fail despite all the resources put forth to assure its success.

The bottom line is that this group reflects what man repeatedly does: make the same errors and fail to accept what he well knows but wants to forget: that by putting G-d in the background, the result will be the same. If Bush wins re-election, he will surely move to finish his original agenda, one he cannot win. I agreed that he would pursue it and I highlighted that if they thought there was no terrorism because the Middle East leaders feared Bush, they were going to see terrorism and that their predicate was the wrong one. Terrorism, the only response to superior militarily power, was in check to allow the people of the USA to bring in someone not subscribing to the agenda in pursuit by Bush and his oil cabal. If Bush wins re-election holding back terrorism serves no purpose because it is a given that Bush will move against, Syria, Iran and North Korea - in that order.

If Kerry wins, it would be a serious sign that Bush invokes G-d's name wrongfully, carrying forth policies for oil under the banner of good and G-d when seizing the oil contravenes its status and gift for the Arab/Islamic nations and the foundation for an effort to distance the world further from G-d. Thus, if Kerry wins, I trust that it will be a sign for the USA and Israel and others that Bush's agenda was wrong. While the N.W.O. group opposed to Bush winning a second term will believe that they deftly manipulated Kerry's win while containing Bush as the danger he and Rove and his cabal represent, the truth of it is that Bush would succeed without G-d's intervention, the N.W.O. design and effort to stop him putatively successful only because of it.

G-d has patience. He sees that Israel let the Rabin assassination pass and we in the USA let 9-11 pass. Evil succeeds without G-d's intervention. I also pointed out to the group that the N.W.O. building up China contravened G-d's agenda as well. China without G-d's intervention would have probably ruled the world. They are outstanding achievers on plateaus we admire, especially business, where they and Asia would control global commerce. But G-d made it that China and Asia were economically weak and secondary to the USA, but the N.W.O. reflective of their distance from G-d, failed to recognize the ultimate implications of making China and Asia strong. Ultimately they would undermine the N.W.O. single world government itself, and establish a little recognized historical fact that those from the Caucasian race are subject to defeat by the other races in the world. However, Caucasians who compromise a large segment of monotheism, who resided by necessity in the colder regions of the planet, received G-d intervention, and ironically the N.W.O., who today cause so many to turn their backs on G-d and promote hedonism, are replatforming China and Asia back into the place they would have otherwise held but for G-d's intervention. You may have to pause and think about this exclusive SenderBerl postulate, but in doing so, you come to recognize that the scope of the issues are multi-dimensional.

This postulate exhausted this group of men. While they stood by their position, I made them again aware that the issues before their noses were made by them to be as simplistic as the time when Israel said that G-d would help them destroy the evil Romans who wanted to destroy their connection with G-d. Biblical history attests that man must understand why Israel did not receive G-d's support against the Romans and why they lost big time and were expelled altogether from the land. Without such an understanding, man today has little chance of undertaking the correct course. If this group of men who know my position still only see it from one dimension, a narrow secular one, it seems more and more apparent that but for G-d's intervention, man will never see it, yet to say accept it.

Again, nations under monotheism throughout history either move to or away from G-d. When they move away from G-d they enter a portal to a dark and dire future. We are doing that and what personally upsets me is that Bush like Israel after the destruction of the two temples invokes war, battle, and mayhem, in G-d's name, to justify actions for good. The people of Israel when they waged war against Rome had very good reason to wage the war and believe that G-d would be on their side (even better reason than Bush does). However, they lost big and were thrown out of Israel.

G-d would never intervene for any nation following an agenda to dilute His name to nations declared by man to be worthy of attack and occupation. He surely will not allow them to enrich themselves from such an effort and endeavor and here demean His gift to nations continuing to make His name central to their government and lifestyle. This we knew in 1997 and 1998 (we knew it before then, but only published it in 97 and 98) and thus why Bush pounds the table in frustration. It is not that G-d is not with George Bush but George Bush opposes G-d. Between us, we know that Bush does not really believe in G-d. While he may pay homage at times to Him, no one who can order shock and awe and no one who could close down hospitals to wounded children, not to say allow troops to push buttons that kill and maim countless faceless children and innocents, can believe in G-d or truly desire to honor His name in the decisions he makes. Those decisions serve himself, his family and his cronies, first, second and third. G-d is nowhere to be found except where His name proves politically helpful.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc

Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked
Mood:  bright
Topic: Church and State
'Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked':

An Interview with Tony Campolo

Interview by Laura Sheahen
BeliefNet.com

Friday 12 November 2004

Speaking out on gays, women and more, a progressive evangelical says 'We ought to get out of the judging business.'

Evangelical leader, sociology professor, and Baptist minister Tony Campolo made headlines in the 1990s when he agreed to be a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton.

A self-described Bible-believing Christian, he has drawn fire from his fellow evangelicals for his stance on contemporary issues like homosexuality.

He talked with Beliefnet recently about his new book, Speaking My Mind.

Q - It's a common perception that evangelical Christians are conservative on issues like gay marriage, Islam, and women?s roles. Is this the case?

A - Well, there's a difference between evangelical and being a part of the Religious Right. A significant proportion of the evangelical community is part of the Religious Right. My purpose in writing the book was to communicate loud and clear that I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.

Q - When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?

A - There are a group of evangelicals who would say, "Wait a minute. We?re evangelicals but we want to respect Islam. We don?t want to call its prophet evil. We don?t want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our Islamic brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war."

We also raise some very serious questions about the support of policies that have been detrimental to the poor. When I read the voter guide of a group like the Christian Coalition, I find that they are allied with the National Rifle Association and are very anxious to protect the rights of people to buy even assault weapons. But they don?t seem to be very supportive of concerns for the poor, concerns for trade relations, for canceling Third World debts.

In short, there?s a whole group of issues that are being ignored by the Religious Right and that warrant the attention of Bible-believing Christians. Another one would be the environment.

I don?t think that John Kerry is the Messiah or the Democratic Party is the answer, but I don?t like the evangelical community blessing the Republican Party as some kind of God-ordained instrument for solving the world?s problems. The Republican Party needs to be called into accountability even as the Democratic Party needs to be called into accountability. So it?s that double-edged sword that I?m trying to wield.

Q - Are the majority of evangelicals in America leaning conservative because they see their leaders on TV that way? Or is there a contingent out there that we don?t hear about in the press that is more progressive on the issues you just talked about?

A - The latest statistics that I have seen on evangelicals indicate that something like 83 percent of them are going to vote for George Bush and are Republicans. And there?s nothing wrong with that. It?s just that Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion and homosexuality.

These are important issues, but isn?t poverty an issue? When you pass a bill of tax reform that not only gives the upper five percent most of the benefits, leaving very little behind for the rest of us, you have to ask some very serious questions. When that results in 300,000 slots for children's afterschool tutoring in poor neighborhoods being cut from the budget. When one and a half billion dollars is cut from the "No Child Left Behind" program.

In short, I think that evangelicals are so concerned with the unborn?as we should be?that we have failed to pay enough attention to the born?to those children who do live and who are being left behind by a system that has gone in favor of corporate interests and big money.

So as an evangelical, I find myself very torn, because I am a pro-life person. I understand evangelicals who say there comes a time when one issue is so overpowering that we have to vote for the candidate that espouses a pro-life position, even if we disagree with him on a lot of other issues.

My response to that is OK, the Republican party and George Bush know that they have the evangelical community in its pocket?[but] they can?t win the election without us. Given this position, shouldn?t we be using our incredible position of influence to get the president and his party to address a whole host of other issues which we think are being neglected?

Q - Like what you just said - poverty, or our foreign policy?

A - Exactly. And we would also point out that the evangelical community has become so pro-Israel that it is forgotten that God loves Palestinians every bit as much. And that a significant proportion of the Palestinian community is Christian. We?re turning our back on our own Christian brothers and sisters in an effort to maintain a pro-Zionist mindset that I don?t think most Jewish people support. For instance, most Jewish people really support a two-state solution to the Palestinian crisis. Interestingly enough, George Bush supports a two-state solution.

He?s the first president to actually say that the Palestinians should have a state of their own with their own government. However, he?s received tremendous opposition from evangelicals on that very point.

Evangelicals need to take a good look at what their issues are. Are they really being faithful to Jesus? Are they being faithful to the Bible? Are they adhering to the kinds of teachings that Christ made clear?

In the book, I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry?their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors.

They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church. In Galatians, it says that in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, all are one in Christ Jesus. In the Book of Acts, the Bible is very clear that when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Church that both men and women begin to prophesy, that preaching now belongs to both men and women. Phillip had four daughters, all of whom prophesied, which we know means preaching in biblical language. I?d like to point out that in the 16th chapter of Romans, the seventh verse, we have reference to Junia. Junia was a woman and she held the high office of apostle in the early Church. What is frightening to me is that in the New International Translation of the Scriptures, the word Junia was deliberately changed to Junius to make it male.

I?m saying, let?s be faithful to the Bible. You can make your point, but there are those of us equally committed to Scripture who make a very strong case that women should be in key leaderships in the Church. We don?t want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.

Q - What position do you wish American evangelicals would take on homosexuality?

A - As an evangelical who takes the Bible very seriously, I come to the first chapter of Romans and feel there is sufficient evidence there to say that same-gender eroticism is not a Christian lifestyle. That?s my position.

Q - So you mean homosexual activity?

A - That?s right. What I think the evangelical community has to face up to, however, is what almost every social scientist knows, and I?m one of them, and that is that people do not choose to be gay. I don?t know what causes homosexuality, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. There isn?t enough evidence to support those who would say it?s an inborn theory. There isn?t enough evidence to support those who say it?s because of socialization.

I?m upset because the general theme in the evangelical community, propagated from one end of this country to the other--especially on religious radio--is that people become gay because the male does not have a strong father image with which to identify. That puts the burden of people becoming homosexual on parents.

Most parents who have homosexual children are upset because of the suffering their children have to go through living in a homophobic world. What they don?t need is for the Church to come along and to lay a guilt trip on top of them and say ?And your children are homosexual because of you. If you would have been the right kind of parent, this would have never happened.? That kind of thinking is common in the evangelical Church and the book attacks on solid sociological, psychological, biological grounds.

But even if evangelicals came to believe that it was not a choice, how should they approach the topic?

Well, beyond that, they seem to offer an absolute solution to the problem. They are saying, ?We can change every gay. We can change every lesbian.? I have heard enough of the brothers and sisters give testimonies of having changed their sexual orientation to doubt them?I believe them. But that?s rare: people who stand up and say, ?I was gay but Jesus came into my life and now I?m not homosexual anymore.?

But the overwhelming proportion of the gay community that love Jesus, that go to church, that are deeply committed in spiritual things, try to change and can?t change. And the Church acts as though they are just stubborn and unwilling, when in reality they can?t change. To propose that every gay with proper counseling and proper prayer can change their orientation is to create a mentality where parents are angry with their children, saying, "You are a gay person because you don?t want to change and you?re hurting your mother and your father and your family and you?re embarrassing us all."

These young people cannot change. What they are begging for, and what we as Church people have a responsibility to give them, is loving affirmation as they are. That does not mean that we support same-gender eroticism.

Q - What do you wish evangelicals might accept in terms of salvation for non-Christians?

A - We ought to get out of the judging business. We should leave it up to God to determine who belongs in one arena or another when it comes to eternity. What we are obligated to do is to tell people about Jesus and that?s what I do. I try to do it every day of my life.

I don?t know of any other way of salvation, excerpt through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, "Are only Christians going to get to heaven?" I can?t answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience. I do not claim to be able to read the mind of God and when evangelicals make these statements, I have some very serious concerns.

For instance, they say unless a person accepts Jesus as his personal savior or her personal savior, that person is doomed forever to live apart from God. Well, what about the many, many children every year who die in infancy or the many children who die almost in childbirth and what about people who are suffering from intellectual disabilities? Is there not some grace from God towards such people? Are evangelical brothers and sisters of mine really suggesting that these people will burn in hell forever?

And I would have to say what about all the people in the Old Testament days? They didn?t have a chance to accept Jesus.

I don?t know how far the grace of God does expand and I?m sure that what the 25th chapter of Matthew says is correct--that there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day as to who receives eternal life and who doesn?t. But in the book I try to make the case that we have to stop our exclusivistic, judgmental mentality. Let us preach Christ, let us be faithful to proclaiming the Gospel, but let?s leave judgment in the hands of God.

But in the book you also mention the decline of mainline churches. Some people would say that this lack of taking a firm stand is wishy-washy, and that if evangelicalism is infected by relativism, that could be its downfall as well.

I didn?t say anything that was relativistic. I am just saying that when we don?t know what we?re talking about, we shouldn?t make absolute statements. And we don?t know how God will judge in the end. We do not know the mind of God.

As for mainline churches declining, my own particular analysis is that they're declining because they have been so concerned about social justice issues that they forgot to put a major emphasis on bringing people into a close, personal, transforming relationship with God. The Pentecostal churches, the evangelical churches, attract people who are hungry to know God, not just as a theology, not just as a moral teacher, not just as a social justice advocate, but as someone who can invade them, possess them, transform them from within, strengthen them for their everyday struggles, enable them to overcome the guilt they feel for things in the past.

Mainline churches have not sufficiently nurtured that kind of Christianity. They believe in it, they articulate it, it?s not where they put enough emphasis. They are not putting enough emphasis on getting people into a personal, I use the word mystical, transforming relationship with Christ.

I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society?to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls "the fruit of the Spirit." Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect the one for the other.

Q - In your book, you put forward a sort of ideal creed for 21st-century evangelicals. What?s most crucial to understand about the additions you made to this creed?

A - The Apostle?s Creed I think is the ultimate measure for Christians. Some say it goes back as far as 1800 years. It has been the standard statement of faith that the Church has maintained, and I wanted to say, "An evangelical is someone who believes in the doctrines of the Apostle?s Creed." However, the thing that evangelicals would add to the Apostle?s Creed is their view of holy scripture. They contend, and I contend, that the Bible is an infallible message from God, inspired. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and [the Bible] is a message that provides an infallible guide for faith and practice.

And not only that. It's necessary to know Jesus in an intimate and personal way. That's what it means to be an evangelical. I don't think it means evangelicals are necessarily in favor of capital punishment. I'm one evangelical that is opposed to capital punishment. I do not believe being an evangelical means women should be debarred from pastoral ministry. I believe women do have a right to be in ministry. It doesn't mean evangelicals are supportive of the Republican party in all respects, because here's one evangelical who says "I think the Republican party has been the party of the rich, and has forgotten many ethnic groups and many poor people."

I am an evangelical who holds to those three positions [Creed, Bible, personal relationship with Jesus] and is a strong environmentalist. I am an evangelical who raises very specific questions about war in general, but specifically the war in Iraq. The evangelical community has been far too supportive of militarism.

Q - You were criticized when you counseled Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Are you still in touch with Clinton?

A - Yes, and very much in the way I was before: trying to be a faithful follower of Jesus. I think it's the task of Christians to speak truth to power.

The president of the United States called upon me to help him and nurture him into some kind of relationship with God. He obviously had strayed away from what he knew was right, and he called me one day and said can you help me?

I don't know what you're supposed to say to that: "I'm sorry, but evangelicals only pray with Republicans?"

I was appalled that evangelical leaders wrote me nasty letters and said you should have no time for this man after what he's done to this country, to Monica Lewinsky, to his family. I can't understand that mentality. We're talking about being the follower of a Jesus who would never turn his back on any person seeking help.

If you're an evangelical, you should believe that every person, no matter how low or high, is capable of being converted, of repentance.

Q - If John Kerry or George W. Bush were to call you up and ask for your guidance on issues facing America today, what would you tell each of them in turn?

A - To Kerry, I think my major issue would be "Do you understand us? Do you understand evangelicals and why we're so upset about the pro-life issue? Do you understand why we believe all life is sacred?" I'd encourage him to do justice and to do righteousness.

To George Bush, I'd say "The God of scripture is a God who calls us to protect the environment. I don't think your administration has done that very well. The God of scripture calls us to be peacemakers. We follow a Jesus who said those who live by the sword will die by the sword, who called us to be agents of reconciliation."

I would point out to George Bush that the Christ that he follows says "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy"-which doesn't go along with capital punishment.

I would say different things to each candidate, but I would respond instantaneously to the invitation to speak to each of them. All the way to the White House, I would be praying, "God, keep me from chickening out. Help me to not be so overawed by the high office of these people that I fail to recognize I answer to a higher authority."

Crossing the Church-State Line
Mood:  blue
Topic: Church and State
Crossing the Church-State Line
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Thursday 11 November 2004

Thomas Jefferson warned of the dangers of becoming a "priest-ridden people," but a conservative clergy was essential to Bush's victory.

The election of 2004 marks the rise of a quasi-clerical party for the first time in the United States.

Ecclesiastical organization has become transformed into the sinew and muscle of the Republican Party, essential in George W. Bush's reelection.

His narrow margins in the key states of Florida, Iowa and Ohio, and elsewhere, were dependent upon the direct imposition of the churches.

None of this occurred suddenly or by happenstance.

Nor was this development simply a pleasant surprise for Bush.

For years, he has schooled himself in the machinations of the religious right, and Karl Rove has used the command center of the White House as more than its Office of Propaganda.

Bush's clerisy represents an unprecedented alliance of historically anti-Roman Catholic, nativist evangelical Protestants with the most reactionary elements of the Catholic hierarchy.

Preacher, priest and politician have combined on the grounds that John F. Kennedy disputed in his famous speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960.

Every principle articulated by Kennedy has been flouted and contradicted by Bush:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President - should he be Catholic - how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope or ... any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

From the White House, Rove operated a weekly conference call with selected religious leaders.

A WEEKLY CONFERENCE CALL WITTH SELECTED RELIGIOUS LEADERS !!! THIS IS PALASTINE AND ISRAELI SHIT FOLKS! MJK

Evangelical churches handed over their membership directories to the Bush campaign for voter registration drives.

According to the Washington Post, "clergy members attended legal sessions explaining how they could talk about the election from the pulpit."

A group associated with the Rev. Pat Robertson advised 45,000 churches on how to work for Bush.

HOW TO WORK FOR BUSH ?!?!?! MY GOD IN HEAVEN !!!

One popular preacher alone sent letters to 136,000 pastors advising them on "non-negotiable" issues - gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion - to mobilize the faithful.

The faithful ?!?! You mean "The PROGRAMMED"... Cult shit! -MJK

Perhaps the most influential figure of all was the Rev. James Dobson, whose radio programs are broadcast daily on more than 3,000 stations and 80 TV stations, and whose organization has affiliates in 36 states, and this year created a political action committee to advance "Christian citizenship."

BUSH USING THE MEDIA AND THE CHURCHES.. But, THE MOST POPULAR CHURCHES THAT TELEVISE! Right? MY GOD! -MJK

On June 4, Bush traveled to see the pope.

In another meeting that day, with Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, according to a Vatican official,

Bush "complained that the U.S. bishops were not being vocal enough in supporting [Bush] on social issues like gay marriage and abortion," and suggested to Sodano that the Vatican "push the bishops."

The Vatican was astonished at the brazen pressure and did not accede.

Nonetheless, more than 40 conservative bishops worked in league with the Bush campaign against John Kerry - part of a crusade against their own declining moral authority.

The American church is in crisis as Catholic opinion on abortion and stem cell research leans closer to that of the general public.

And the exposure of rampant pedophilia among priests has undermined traditional belief in the church's sanctity.

Electing a liberal Catholic as president would have been a severe blow.

So conservative bishops denounced Kerry, spoke of denying him Communion and even talked of excommunication.

Sunday after Sunday, from thousands of pulpits, epistles were read and sermons delivered telling parishioners it was sinful to vote for candidates who supported gay marriage and abortion.

The Catholic Kerry received 5 percent less of the Catholic vote than the Southern Baptist Al Gore did four years ago.

In the crucial state of Ohio, where an anti-gay-marriage initiative was on the ballot, Bush won two-thirds of the "faithful" Catholic (those who attend mass every week) vote and 55 percent of the Catholic total.

Combined with the support of 79 percent of white evangelicals, this gave him his critical margin nationally and in the swing states.

The religious right is not a majority and hardly a "silent majority," but it was indispensable to Bush's victory.

Across the country, it has become the most energetic, reliable and productive part of the Republican organization.

The ultimate value in its values-based politics is power, just as it was worldly power that sustained the medieval church, and the assertion of that power began within days after the election.

When moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who is seeking the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, said that he would oppose any nominee to the Supreme Court who would seek to outlaw abortion (a nomination that might come soon, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist is dying), Dobson denounced Specter, "He is a problem and he must be derailed."

Who will rid the president of this troublesome senator?

Almost instantly, Specter clarified his position, announcing that he meant no such thing and that he had supported many judges who were against abortion.

"History, I believe," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

But we're not all Jeffersonians now.