Positive Thoughts Only: The coming advantages of another faith-based presidency

[Pure]

As far as the 'doing' of social work, mentioned by Perd, I wouldn't want to focus the discussion solely on 'feeding the destitute'. This is a *basic* level of social concern, that, although gracious, is hardly radical, or a challege to the estalished order.

Of course, it's pretty clear that even this minimum of 'feeding the destitute,' while very worthy, imo, and not engaged in, by most churches, directly. (Send money, as the Ochs song says.)

I agree with Cant, that the Salvation Army is the exception, not the rule, as far as helping with more than 'soup' from the soup kitchen--though that is a start. I know of a Unitarian group with a soup kitchen. I'm aware of RC 'charitable' orders.

What I wanted to highlight, as I did earlier, is something more than 'basic level' attempts at social welfare; I wanted to say that that "social activist" efforts are not common in Christian churches; Perd's Jesuits are NOT the rule. Neither are the Sally Anns or the Quakers. Neither is Unitarian lobbying for social justice.

What I mean to say, is ways of organizing and/or pressuring the government (e.g., legislators) are NOT approved of by most churches.

The established order is not worried if some 'good angels' pick up the destitute, the cast-off, and out of their own funds, feed and assist them. (That's what I call 'basic' effort at social welfare.) The established order is quite put off, if the 'angels' turn up and picket, organize their clients, and help them lobby the local, state, federal government to give more assistance to the needy.

This is the exact issue in Latin America. The Conservative component (upper hierarchy) of the RC church has no problem with some 'angels' going to the Indians and helping them with medical services. Neither do the governments. What both the conservative RC archbishops and the governments object to is something above this 'basic', i.e., social activism that would be seen 'politicizing.' For example, helping the Indians publicize their cause, pressure the government for 'justice,' etc. This activity being led or 'fomented' by leftish priests, in some cases.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If we accept that all of what Pure says is true - and I am not sure it is, but I'm not sure it isn't ...

Shouldn't you be happy about this?

After all, churches that organize their people to demand "social justice" from the government are churches that see their role as influencing government, period.

Churches that want to do that will also undoubtedly believe that it is their role to influence the government on other topics - birth control, adultery laws, rules about public expressions of religion or doubt, school curricula, etc. etc.

What Pure seems to be debating is not whether a church helps the needy, but whether it interacts with the government. I think we should consider carefully whether that is a good idea. It's not merely that it tries to make politicians into churchmen; it also remakes our priests and ministers into politicians. Let's think long and hard about whether we want that.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

That's a fair enough summary of the issue, Shanglan, but I would add that priests needn't buttonhole politicians; there may not be *direct* involvement, as in priests running for office.

WHERE a community is oppressed, there may be more to be done than feeding the destitute and medicating the ailing: there is organizing, and facilitating. Helping people (e.g., Aboriginal people) prepare their cases etc.

The Catholic 'liberation theologians' of Latin America have dealt with this issue. (And encountered resistance and intimidation and examination for 'orthodoxy' from the Vatican.)

None of this is new stuff, Shang. Consider the Lutherans in Germany in the 30s and 40s. Most went along with Hitler; he insisted that they 'stick to religion'. Fine, that was the deal. Let's follow that along, see if you're happy with it.

Bonhoeffer [and a small number of other Lutherans] did not go along, and lost his life doing so. After the war, the Lutheran church apologized to the Jews for their inaction.

A couple other points:

After all, churches that organize their people to demand "social justice" from the government are churches that see their role as influencing government, period.

If you mean 'only influencing government' and not 'tending souls', this would not follow at all.

Churches that want to do that will also undoubtedly believe that it is their role to influence the government on other topics - birth control, adultery laws, {{rules about public expressions of religion or doubt}}, school curricula, etc. etc.

Exactly. Except for the bracketed item, yes. To give a very pressing example. In Africa, AIDS spreads to millions. Much help could be had through 'birth control' (=disease control). The Catholic church, rather than favoring dissemination of condom information, or even standing aside, is lobbying against that, on grounds of encouraging premarital and extramarital sex. A humane stance, of a Church in a country losing thousands, is to *help* press for whatever will stop or slow down the dying. Arguably, if that is done, souls will be attended to.

Let's think long and hard about whether we want that.

Exactly. But there is no one answer for everyone. Those Christians who are truly concerned with social justice, however, will likely chose churches (or segments thereof) of that stripe.
It's not 'mere christianity', but it's 'christianity with a human heart' (and in accordance with Matthew 25).

----
PS. To return to a remark of yours that encapsulates the whole debate:
I believe that it is truly dangerous and ill-advised to conflate religion with whatever else one personally believes is important[...]

If one's religion involves the things one finds most important (and it's likely that "God" is going to be pretty important), then how does that stand apart from "whatever else one personally believes is important." Further, religious people, including Christians think that religion should *permeate ones life.*

So what is this "else", that is outside the scope of true or 'mere' Christianity? Sister Prejean thinks executions are barbarous; and wrong. How could that be 'whatever else' to her? Surely she would say, "Executions offend God, and Christian principles." That, I suppose is what you would call 'conflating' of religion with 'whatever else.'

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's a fair enough summary of the issue, Shanglan, but I would add that priests needn't buttonhole politicians; there may not be *direct* involvement, as in priests running for office.

I don't think one needs to run for office to be tainted by political manuevering. To influence a political process, one needs political influence. It does not come cheaply. On the whole, I prefer not to see my spiritual leaders down in the mud with the politicos.

But my point is primarily that you can't seperate this:

WHERE a community is oppressed, there may be more to be done than feeding the destitute and medicating the ailing: there is organizing, and facilitating. Helping people (e.g., Aboriginal people) prepare their cases etc.

from this:

In Africa, AIDS spreads to millions. Much help could be had through 'birth control' (=disease control). The Catholic church, rather than favoring dissemination of condom information, or even standing aside, is lobbying against that, on grounds of encouraging premarital and extramarital sex. A humane stance, of a Church in a country losing thousands, is to *help* press for whatever will stop or slow down the dying. Arguably, if that is done, souls will be attended to.

When you are dealing with church dogma, "greatest good for the greatest number" takes on vastly different ramifications. Any religion that believes in an afterlife has an automatic complicating factor of believing that some things that make you temporarily more happy on earth will damn you for eternity. They will, for perfectly humane reasons, want to save you for eternity, not for the 60 or 70 years you're on earth. For that reason, they'll resist things that they think damn you, however useful they might be in the sense of helping people in the pragmatic present physical reality.

If we embrace one, we embrace the other. I prefer to see a more limited role for churches in the secular government than to see some of the more restrictive elements enacted as law. Many of the broad elements - "it's bad to kill people," for example - are easily worked to a consensus in a secular setting and addressed therein. The things that can't get a secular consensus and organization behind them are probably better off not being rammed down people's throats by a religious organization cum political party.

If one's religion involves the things one finds most important (and it's likely that "God" is going to be pretty important), then how does that stand apart from "whatever else one personally believes is important." Further, religious people, including Christians think that religion should *permeate ones life.*

So what is this "else", that is outside the scope of true or 'mere' Christianity? Sister Prejean thinks executions are barbarous; and wrong. How could that be 'whatever else' to her? Surely she would say, "Executions offend God, and Christian principles." That, I suppose is what you would call 'conflating' of religion with 'whatever else.'

That I think is the nuts and bolts of it - we're talking at cross-purposes on what that phrase means, so let me have another swing at it by way of an example. I believe in democracy. I think that of the various flawed institutions in the world, it's probably the best at granting maximum freedoms to maximum number of people. That said, I don't believe that democracy is part of my faith. I like democracy a lot, but if there is a kingdom out there somewhere where people aren't being tortured, murdered, or similarly treated, and the king seems to be trying his best to treat his people morally, I wouldn't oppose him on religious grounds. I might choose to work with secular groups to foster democracy in his kingdom, but I don't think it's my church's business to get involved.

I think that the key question you asked was "If one's religion involves the things one finds most important (and it's likely that "God" is going to be pretty important), then how does that stand apart from "whatever else one personally believes is important." I think the answer to that is that most religions have dogma - "rules" or sets of beliefs that determine what constitutes that religion. Whatever I personally think is or is not important, I know what my church defines itself as. That's my religion. My other beliefs - whether animal rights, political afiliation, or fashion sense - are my own beliefs. I may or may not believe in them as strongly as I believe in my religion. The key issue is that I recognize that they are my own beliefs, and not those of my religion. For that reason, I don't expect my entire church to support them, because I am aware that my church is made up of many people, like me, with diverse beliefs. The ones that consitute our religion's dogma and current interpretation are what unite us. The rest are things we should pursue on our own with the recognition the others may have, in equally good faith, come up with a different answer as to how we feel God might view the matter.

After all, churches that organize their people to demand "social justice" from the government are churches that see their role as influencing government, period.

If you mean 'only influencing government' and not 'tending souls', this would not follow at all.

No, I mean that a church that believes it a appropriate to influence the government in one matter will believe it appropriate to influence it in most issues.

Churches that want to do that will also undoubtedly believe that it is their role to influence the government on other topics - birth control, adultery laws, {{rules about public expressions of religion or doubt}}, school curricula, etc. etc.

Exactly. Except for the bracketed item, yes.

Why not the bracketed item? In England, at least, it's only been about 150 years that it's been legal to express doubt in a higher power in print. Not much longer than that it wasn't a lethal offense.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Hi Shanglan,

You said in part

BS: I think that the key question you asked was

{Pure}"If one's religion involves the things one finds most important (and it's likely that "God" is going to be pretty important), then how does that stand apart from "whatever else one personally believes is important."

{Shanglan continues} I think the answer to that is that most religions have dogma - "rules" or sets of beliefs that determine what constitutes that religion. Whatever I personally think is or is not important, I know what my church defines itself as. That's my religion. My other beliefs - whether animal rights, political afiliation, or fashion sense - are my own beliefs. I may or may not believe in them as strongly as I believe in my religion.

The key issue is that I recognize that they are my own beliefs, and not those of my religion. For that reason, I don't expect my entire church to support them, because I am aware that my church is made up of many people, like me, with diverse beliefs.

The ones that consitute our religion's dogma and current interpretation are what unite us. The rest are things we should pursue on our own with the recognition the others may have, in equally good faith, come up with a different answer as to how we feel God might view the matter.

----
I don't agree that most religions have 'dogma' and rules about what constitutes that religion. It's a feature of the mainstream of Christianity, esp. Anglican, Reformed, and RC. This is closely tied to the issue of creeds, and the mainstream of Christianity has its Nicene Creed, since the fourth century, when Constantine wanted some 'rules' laid down for the new 'official religion.' Then the rules were used to suppress dissenting Christians.

Jews have no creed. Even Orthodox Jews have no official creed, though they have the 631 commandments. Nor do Hindus. Nor Taoists.

Some Christians reject creeds; Quakers, traditionally, resisted a creedal formulation of 'quakerism.' To hold to a creed is essentially to say God stopped 'talking' to humanity at such and such date. (In technical terms, this is a denial of 'continuing revelation.') Catholics solve the problem by having authoritative additions to the core dogma.

In any case, assuming you want some dogma, that seemingly makes it easy to say "this is the core" and these are 'other things'

My other beliefs - whether animal rights, political afiliation, or fashion sense - are my own beliefs.

It sounds simple: Here's the trinity; There's rights for rabbits.

However, note that centering on non-evolving dogma/creed, tends to empty the Christian religion of its ethical content (which is handy if you're conducting a crusade); or greatly downplay it. You can go around saying "very God of very God" and 'born of the Virgin' and hang the poachers of apples on the royal lands.

In any case, I simply ask that you recognize that, for socially conscious Catholics and Protestants, even Catholics with 'dogma', (Like Sr. Prejean), there are core principles which regard how people should conduct themselves. (And simply adding the 10 C doesn't do it; or the Sermon on the Mount). These core (Christian) principles cannot avoid connection and 'conflation'-- as you call it--with other prime ethical commitments. And our understanding of them evolves, and is permeated with, not segregated from, religious understandings.

For Catholics, the situation is handled as follows: There is an official unfolding of these authoritative ethical principles [beyond the dogma of the Nicene Creed]; e.g., eventually you will see papal pronouncements against slavery. Hence in this capital punishment case, there is, if I'm not mistaken, a movement towards an official endorsement of 'no capital punishment' (that's my impression, as a non catholic.)

Now I don't say this is a license to repress, or subordinate; or to create a new 'litmus test'; that Sr. Prejean, heading a congregation, would say, "If you support capital punishment, get out of my church." But I do imagine she would earnestly entreat fellow church members: "How in the name of Jesus, in the virtue of 'love your enemies' and virtue of of 'vengeance is mine saith the Lord' can you approve judicially sanctioned murder."

Similarly, Quakers don't persecute anyone with the Peace Testimony, but they feel free to educate. And they do not accept to be told, "Well, that's personal and not in the Nicene Creed, so leave my military leanings out of discussion."

With a historical view, Shanglan, one can see the problem of the 'pure Christianity' or 'mere Christianity' formulation. Though you may continue it, if it suits you. If you don't like the present AIDS issue, simply look at the slavery issue, as it unfolded in the 17th-19th centuries. Some groups tried to sidestep the issue and concentrate, as you put it, on 'what unites us' (theological dogmas). But today, you would find it hard, but not impossible, to find a churchgroup endorsing slavery or saying that 'this churchgroup is neutral; make a personal decision'; (i.e, slavery is allowable). Yet 'no slavery' isn't part of core Christian dogma, by a long shot; nor is the Bible, esp. the OT exactly clear on the subject. (It *is* part of the official position, the 'evolving dogma', authoritative pronouncements of the RC church.)

 

[cantdog]

I don't have Shanglan's difficulties, but atheism brings me its own. I had to join and support and write letters for Amnesty International, exactly because there is no God and no afterlife.

For perfectly humane reasons, I can't leave it to some Last Judgement for the slimeballs in repressive, torturing governments to receive their long-overdue comeuppance. It must happen in this life, and the prisoners of conscience, slaves, and tortured must be freed and made whole in this life.

It must be lovely to believe this to be unnecessary, but I cannot.

Similarly, I find the position of the Bushites and the Vatican about condoms and AIDS education not just unacceptable, but abhorrently, hideously irrational and callous.

Justice is not to be deferred. No lightning from the sky will free the slaves and punish the torturer. No dead AIDS baby will have a post-mortem apotheosis to glory.

Usually, I can be tolerant of the afterlife fantasies as one more crutch for the weak minded who cannot face the real world. But when they use it as an excuse to turn a blind eye to injustice, it irks me.

Condoms:
When they save the non-existent "souls" by allowing the miserable, slow death of millions;

Religious war:
when they orchestrate such an ugly, heinous spectacle as the "shock and awe" attack on the population of an impoverished city because they have hold of the wrong view of God and Jesus;

AIDS:
placidly watch the plague march through their fellow men because AIDS is God's scourge for sodomites;

James Watt:
and allow the strip mining of the wilderness because this is the End Times and we need no longer preserve the earth for future generations, since there will not be any

I go beyond despair for the sheer boiled-in stupidity and cowardice of my fellow humans to a hot rage at the reasonless blue-sky lunacy of man's beliefs. Beliefs, moreover, to which the pious attach a virtue due to the fact that they hold them with no evidence! Just faith, they say, the grace of being blessed with beautiful, ineffable faith! --I swallowed this with no supporting evidence whatsoever, I am saved, I am reborn in the blood of the Lamb, dude!

Let the innocent be blown to bits with rockets, if they are followers of the demon-led Mohammed! Let the queers die hideously, do not allow their life partners to act as next of kin! They can die in our armies but they better not get married! They deserve AIDS! For my baseless beliefs tell me that the prevention of it imperils their souls!


Atheists have a lot to put up with.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There are many points here on which we disagree; I shall try to avoid tedium by not going into them all. I think it suffices to say that we clearly make different assumptions. I'll just touch on this one as a particularly clear-cut difference:

However, note that centering on non-evolving dogma/creed, tends to empty the Christian religion of its ethical content (which is handy if you're conducting a crusade); or greatly downplay it. You can go around saying "very God of very God" and 'born of the Virgin' and hang the poachers of apples on the royal lands.

I think this quite an unreasonable assumption on several levels. First, you rather than I suggested that dogma should be non-evolutionary. I'm not particularly invested in defneding a concept I never raised. Second, the inherent fairness of any rules surely lies in the rules themselves, not in whether or not they evolve. "Thou shalt not kill" is still pretty handy despite not "evolving" for quite some time, while other ideas are nasty from start.

In any case, I simply ask that you recognize that, for socially conscious Catholics and Protestants, even Catholics with 'dogma', (Like Sr. Prejean), there are core principles which regard how people should conduct themselves. (And simply adding the 10 C doesn't do it; or the Sermon on the Mount). These core (Christian) principles cannot avoid connection and 'conflation'-- as you call it--with other prime ethical commitments. And our understanding of them evolves, and is permeated with, not segregated from, religious understandings.

That which is difficult should never be confused with that which is impossible. The task is, in fact, one that is quite difficult, and one that requires a great deal of soul-searching and questioning of mone's motives. I would argue that those actions are good in and of themselves, as well as for their results. That religion permeates our other ethical choices, I have never denied. I have only argued that we must be cautious not to work the other way - to allow ourselves to give the sanctity of religion to our own personal biases or sympathies. That, in my opinion, is where one actually gets the "let's hang people for poaching the king's deer" rules. They come from people unable to distinguish between what they want and what God might want.

With a historical view, Shanglan, one can see the problem of the 'pure Christianity' or 'mere Christianity' formulation.

Actually, it's the historical view that brings me to it. History is replete with people unable to distinguish what they want from what religious duty should impel others to do. I don't enjoy people who drag out lists of every nasty thing done in the name of religion - if we go by sheer numbers, Darwin's got nearly as much to answer for as Christ. But while you appear to cite those who believe truly, but fail to act, as the prime problem, I see as many difficulties or more with those who believe falsely, and have convinced themselves that their own desires are part of their religion.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Shang said,
I don't enjoy people who drag out lists of every nasty thing done in the name of religion - if we go by sheer numbers, Darwin's got nearly as much to answer for as Christ.

That is quite a bizarre statement; even if so called 'social darwinists' are included.

Would you cite some of Darwin's numbers?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't have Shanglan's difficulties, but atheism brings me its own. I had to join and support and write letters for Amnesty International, exactly because there is no God and no afterlife.

For perfectly humane reasons, I can't leave it to some Last Judgement for the slimeballs in repressive, torturing governments to receive their long-overdue comeuppance. It must happen in this life, and the prisoners of conscience, slaves, and tortured must be freed and made whole in this life.

I just wanted to reiterate that I do support these goals - personally and philosophically - and that I don't see religion and social work as antithetical to each other. I have only said that I think it wise that people know where their religion's dicatates and their personal goals differ. Often religion and social justice can and do join together, and it's wonderful when that happens. Most religions have a great deal to say about feeding the hungry, helping the less fortunate, rejecting greed and the desire for material goods, being peaceful and generous, etc. I'm all for encouraging these virtues. I'm also all for a number of other causes; I just think it's wise not to suggest that my interest in seeing a united Irish Republic is part and parcel of my religious beliefs. That would muddle my thinking and possibly lead to dangerous repercussions. Assuming that one is on a holy crusade is a heady thing.

Usually, I can be tolerant of the afterlife fantasies as one more crutch for the weak minded who cannot face the real world. But when they use it as an excuse to turn a blind eye to injustice, it irks me.

Personally, I believe things because I think that they are true. I normally do my associates the kindness of believing the same of them. This is not only the gentlemanly way to proceed, but the wise one. While it's a very popular theory, "everyone who believes differently to me is a weak-minded idiot" is rarely true.

Religious war:
when they orchestrate such an ugly, heinous spectacle as the "shock and awe" attack on the population of an impoverished city because they have hold of the wrong view of God and Jesus;

To suggest that a war fought by a religious man is a religious war is kin to suggesting that food cooked by a Frenchman will be French food. It might be; it might not be. I don't think this one ever really has been presented as one, and on the whole I don't think it is one. I think it's a war pretty much like most wars; humans acting like idiots to each other. We've never really needed much excuse for that sort of thing. While people tend to use the language of religion to try to solace or cheer themselves, one normally finds the causes of wars rooted firmly in things like economics, control of vital resources, or simple xenophobia.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shang said,
I don't enjoy people who drag out lists of every nasty thing done in the name of religion - if we go by sheer numbers, Darwin's got nearly as much to answer for as Christ.

That is quite a bizarre statement; even if so called 'social darwinists' are included.

Would you cite some of Darwin's number's?

I'm referring to the interesting trend one can follow from the mid-1800's to the 1940's. The theory of evolution gets a lot of ugly little minds ticking along on all sorts of ugly little paths, including a fear of degeneration and a desire to continue the evolution of the human race in the "right" direction. Many miscegenation laws owe their crafting to this sort of thinking - a desire not have "interbreeding" between "more" and "less" evolved humans - as do all sorts of strange thinking from the likes of Lombroso and Nordau. The eugenics movement has its roots there, and some of its more repellant flowers, of course, in the Nazi atrocities. Just some attempts to tidy up the gene pool and ensure that we evolved in the best possible fashion.

The really fascinating thing about Nordau's ability to class anyone he doesn't like as congenitally degenerate is that he doesn't see where that's headed. Every time I read "Degeneration" I hear jackboots marching - yet poor Nordau was a Jew himself. It doesn't appear to have occurred to him that when you classify large groups of people as incurably "morally insane," genetically degenerate, and a menace to society, there's really only one practical answer left as to what one ought to do with them.

I am not, of course, suggesting that Darwin advocated the Final Solution - any more than Christ suggested butchering people in the name of Christianity. I'm only pointing out that humans have a charming habit of taking even quite good ideas and doing quite awful things with them, and that religion is only one of many victims of this tendency.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

PS

Incidentally Shang, I'm quite aware of the problem of religious busy bodies and meddlers (sort of the reverse side of the coin from our previous topic). After all, there's a cabinet person who wants to check into (maybe stop) my downloading of porn, and a president on a 'crusade' in the middle east, and who thinks stem cell research is against the supposed RC 'culture of life.'

That said, falling back on dogma and creed--theological beliefs and 'faith' exhibited in certain doctrinal formulations [we believe that on the third day, he rose from the dead...]-- as the essence of religion, is, IMO, a wrong headed solution to the problem.

In any case, a little reflection on the comparison of Ashcroft's anti-porn cause and Prejean's reveals some obvious differences.

----
PPS, I do see in a general way that you're speaking of misuse of ideas, but let it be noted that the writers of 'miscegenation' laws, are typically DISbelievers in evolution. Nor do I accept the implied equation: "Yes, we christians killed lots of witches and heretics, but the secular-scientific biologists and their followers founded nazism, which exterminated millions of Jews, so the latter can be even more dangerous."

I'd say, if you want to blame atheists for some largescale evil, try Stalin and Mao.

=======
=======
Added: One last point of possible miscommunication:


Pure said, "However, note that centering on non-evolving dogma/creed, tends to empty the Christian religion of its ethical content (which is handy if you're conducting a crusade); or greatly downplay it. You can go around saying "very God of very God" and 'born of the Virgin' and hang the poachers of apples on the royal lands."

------

Shang replied: I think this quite an unreasonable assumption on several levels.

It's not an assumption, it's an observation, and a sketch of an argument. {Dogma/doctrine centered implies less ethical emphasis]

First, you rather than I suggested that dogma should be non-evolutionary.

No, I did not so suggest. I *observed that for many Christians, *esp. Protestants* dogma does not evolve. That is to say, in the Anglican Church, the points of dogma in the Nicene Creed (325/381) and in the official position embodied in the Book of Common Prayer (1552) and the 39 Articles (1563), stay the same. That the Church condemns slavery since (let's say) 1800 (?), is NOT part of the basic required package (of official beliefs/dogma).

I'm not particularly invested in defneding a concept I never raised.

Well, I believe you did raise it, though I may be mistaken. It's been 20 years, but I believe "Mere Christianity" tries to centre Christianity in a 'timeless core'-- the 'mere Christianity'; teachings about Jesus as Son of God, etc. It's leery of attempts to link Christianity (intrinsically) with organized efforts for social justice. Please correct me if I'm wrong and cite the 'modern' or 'evolved' content of the book. Is there anything of the book's core that couldn't have been written in 1563 CE? For that matter, in 400 CE? IN any case, I hope you don't think I intentionally mischaracterized your position.

Best

J.

 

[Pure]

What's to come? Christians need no longer be afraid.

One upshot of this and the parallel thread, is that is easy to state one of the prime advantages of the second term of the faith based presidency.

The State sponsored atheism that one finds in the US will be fully brought down. The courts, with new Christian personnel will break the 'headlock' that atheists have on state/church issues.

Courts will be able to take a more flexible approach that honors Christian traditions, even if the small percent of atheists etc. do 'feel good' about it, as Judge Fernandez put it. They don't have a right to 'feel good' anyway.

In short, the frightened and intimidated Christians everywhere came come out into the sunshine of full citizenship, and not have to cower in closets as they had to in Stalinist Russia. Christian employees no longer need fear legal sanctions and firing from posting crucifixes and prayers inside their work stations.

As the demonic pall is lifted, there will again be the sound of joyful prayers, hosannas, and "Praise the Lord" rising up from city squares across the nation.