Because the Masses Must Be Manipulated....

The "masses must be led", as there are many ways to frame our understandings and commitments in the world. Those that do not know this, but 'bite' on one way of thinking, or are not critical about their own "bias", are prone to be manipulated. Many have opposed such manipulation by leadership or by informing those that are so naive'. Sometimes advantages are gained because of conventional wisdom and there is no ulterior motive as to power, but other times, there is a desire to have power over the masses, so power can be expanded.

Martin Luther stood against the Catholic Church because the Church was using the teaching and belief of indulgences to gain power over those that didn't have any other recourse, as they couldn't even "worship" with understanding, because they were so dependent on the Magisterium. Church teaching was a way for the Church to maintain social order, but in Luther's eyes scripture was useful for educational purposes. The Church believed that they had a justified right over the masses because "God", had ultimate right over the masses. But, "God" ended up being really, the Magisterium.

The Roman Church also resisted change when it came to scientific discoveries that undermined Aritotle's view of "First Cause" as "God". The view that the Church was the center of the universe (the right interpretor/authority), just as Man/Earth was the center of "God's purposes" was to continue to bias the masses. Science and religion became competitors for man's bias.

Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators led the "masses" down their primrose path because they held the reigns of power over information in the press. Propaganda was useful to propetiate the "right message" so that the Germans would think their purposes were above and higher than other purposes. Propaganda was accepted because there was no other way of thinking or judging about "the outsider". Information/education was only allowed within a certain 'context".And these believe that the State, or the Dictator is to determine man's bias.

Marxist ideology believes that the purposes of economic equality can only be furthered with religion's assent. Religion is the opiate of the people, and it is needed after the revolution that creates and benefits the leaders's vision of equality or morality, at the expense of everyone else. Such is the case with class warfare, as it always ends in bloodshed. Vacumns are filled by dictators that create safety out of the chaos/revolution. These people want to use conventional wisdom to their advantage by "useful language" games. Theirs is an "Economic" bias.

Abraham Lincoln created  an environment where the States warred for their right of economic benefit. He filled the vacumn by enlarging the centralized State at the expense of the state's right to succeed. Centralization is a bias toward "Statism".

Individual heroes have always stood up, resisted, or lived without such manipulations. But, it takes courage to face one's own bias, and strength to continue to resist opposing forces that want to manipulate bias toward a "mass understanding" or use "mass understanding" to manipulate and control "outcomes".

Our Founding Fathers knew that divided and separated power was needed to protect against such centralized thinking and being in the world, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton). It is collective power that is not challenged that corrupts. Such have been the Nelson Mandelas, the Albert Einsteins, the Martin Luthers, the Martin Luther King, Jr.s,  the Anne Franks,  the Ayn Rands, the Alexander Solzhenitsyns these have discovered, resisted, stood up for, and made a difference against "collective thinking".

Children Say The Darnest Things About "Beasts" and Bring Wisdom to Light

Today, while swinging my grand-daughter on the swing, I asked her questions about why she was afraid to go higher. What was she afraid of, etc. And, then, I asked her about this afternoon's movie that we watched while she "rested". The movie was Disney's "Beauty and the Beast".

She kept saying after it was intially over that the beast changed into a boy, as if that surprised her. While swinging I asked her about whether she thought she could over-come her fear of the "beast". She said, "No". When I asked her "why?": she answered because I would be afraid of the beast. When I suggested to her that Belle was also afraid but that she also was couregeous, she still emphatically said she would still be afraid. I told her that Belle overcame her fear and her love for the beast changed the beast into a man. (It reminded me of "Phantom of the Opera".) I continued to ask her if she thought if love could make a beast a man, but she did not think so.

Then I asked her about "Cinderella", which we watched last night. I asked her about the wicked step-mother and if Cinderella's service to her step-mother made her step-mother change. "Of course not" Hannah said matter of factly. It was obvious to Hanah, that the step-mother proceeded to try to exclude, but lost in the end.

There is a commercial about "hood-winking" children that suggests that even children understand when they have been lied to. And it suggests that this is not the "character" of this advertised insurance company (I think it was an insurance company).

Happy endings happened in both the fairy tales, but real life is not as happily ended. So I told Hannah that not always do people change, no matter what we do. It is really up to us to discern when we are dealing with "evil" or those that will not be changed.

I think this is what fundamentalism is about. Fundamentalists claim absolutes about the larger issues of life, without stopping to think that possibly their worldview is a limited one. Fundamentalism is simplistic theologizing and it leaves real answers for the real world a little less than desired.

We cannot battle evil in one way, only in the way that seems appropriate to us, at a particular time. Evil is personal because it is controlling, manipulative and all consuming. Evil is not satisfied with bits and pieces, but wants to consume the whole of a person.

Evil does not value liberty. This is what some believe discipleship or holiness is about. But, then these would defend their claims based on views of scripture, which are ancient passages about transcendence that was attempting to explain reality the only way they knew how at a particular historical time. God was representative of history within the believing community. It was a interpretive frame that created the community's understanding and "world".

Evil also exists in governmental authority that doesn't limit power, by disrepect of privacy and the right of autonomy. Therefore, do not let your good be evil spoken of and have the heart of a child, to fear that which is to be feared. Stay away from things that are beyond one's ability to understand. That is wisdom in the heart of the child.

Military Rules in Today's Deployment

I have stated before that my husband and I admire the military, because the military believes in ethics. They do not condone fratenization, adultry, or disrespect for authority. The military believes in "team effort" and pursuing the ideals that made our country great. The military is a great tradition to be involved with.

Westpoint's motto, "We don't lie, cheat or steal and don't tolerate those who do", is the motto of character. I value the training that our men and women in uniform submit to, for the sake of liberty. These lay their lives down willingly for the sake of democratic ideals and our national interests.

Today, I was listening to a program on NPR that had a former military commander, a professor of military law from Yale, and others that were talking about he recent General's pronouncement that anyone found to be pregnant during their service under his command in northern Iraq would be court-martialed. It is my understanding that the pronouncement was tempered a bit. But, the lawyer from Yale said that if this pronouncement was challenged in the courts, it would be upheld. The military "owns" you. And with that, a woman called in to say that she was a former military wife whose husband was told by his commander that they owned his body. One of the other officers had gotten sunburned and was disciplined, because no one should be in any condition that subverts their readiness to serve.

I respect the military's commitment to the ideals of our govenrment and their commitment to one another, as team members serving the same goals. This is an environment any business envies and tries to emulate. Productivity is high in this environment, because of the voluntary nature of entrance, one understands and knows what he/she are serving and why.

The military is not respected by some that think that a pacificist stance is more true to the ideals of humanity's interest. But, this commitment is based on an idealized view of man, where man is not prone to the "disease" that free societies call oppression, and the religious term "sin".

The military will always be needed and should always be applauded not because of what they have to do, but what they protect and what they value. These are the ideals that free societies uphold, even by force, if necessary, because otherwise, none of us will be free for long.

Using Religion

If religious truths are true, then they should be followed by all. But, if religious truths are relative in human devleopment, then they should remain 'in their place". I am no expert, but it seems to me that since there has been research that does not appeal to the religious realm for human developemnt, then religon is an apendage, a periforal, but unnecceary "extra", as there is "no truth but God's truth". There is no "special revelation, only general revelation. And general revelation is not defined necessarily within the relgious "confines" of church and religious community.

Religion gives meaning, defines values and give man an outside source of authority. But, modern man knows that humans develop apart from religion and traditon can be understood in many different ways, as cultural or familial identification factors.

I got an e-mail from a friend today that told me of her struggle ot overcome an abusive religous environment. She talked of moving away and thinking she would never recover. She revealed how protective she and her husband were toward religious environments and religious "purposes". She encouraged me to walk carefully in regard to "belonging to a religious community", or looking for affirmation within that sort of environment. She said that her healing came from outside of religion and the community of faith, from a friend that wasn't connnected to religion. I think she has fully recovered, as she sees things clearly, now.

In her book, "Twisted Scriptures", Mary Alice Chrnalogar, a international recovery counselor of abusive discipleship programs and abusive churches, has many "signposts" that signify an abusive spiritual environment. She develops the history of the discipleship/spiritual mentoring program and shows the ill effects upon the naive and trusting.

I find that most evangelical and all fundamentalist teaching that I have been exposed to, is prone to this sort of abuse. Many do not recover their individual identity and some have break-downs because of authoritarianism, and distorted views of spritiuality. I know many who have experienced such abuse and wonder how many suffer under thei ill-effects of such environments.

This friend's husband also compromised his career because of such "commitments". Commitments that are useful for leadership and their goals, use terms such as: "covenant", "total surrender", "consecration", "full commitment", "wholehearted", "sanctified", and many other such terms. The definitions of these terms, of course, are "understood" best by leadership. And one that wants to be so commited will do whatever the leader requires to be "approved" to have passed the test to recieve the "sanction' of the "special intiation" into the religous community of faith. This is a CULT! GET OUT!

Cults breed undue dependence, and demand obedience, as their authority is derived from God, not man, or so they assert. Cults do not allow independent thinking, critical analysis, or academic development. Such "outside sources" might challenge the 'status quo" that would change the very authoritarian structure, undermining the leaders power and control over others.

Individuals need to find thier unique gifts and interests and follow these. This will be a defense against those that wish to prey upon those who seek outside approval. Everyone should come to a place where they will be settled in 'who they are', as innately gifted and created. And say with me:
"I will be, who I will be, not who some else thinks I should be and I will do what I will do, not what someone else determines for me to do. I will be free."

Embodied Minds or Minds Embodied in an Ethical Ideal

We had a speaker just recently at our university, who proposed that we were what we DO, first and foremost. Intention or action is all that matters. Minds are not formative of behavior, but behavior of mind.

I don't want to suggest that I have full academic understanding of this subject, but I do have experience and some knowledge of the question.

Does doing what is in opposition to reason appropriate? Does irrationality breed good behavior? Do we become what we do? Aristotle believed we do become through habit formation.

Although habits can be good or bad, don't we first choose which habits we want to be a part of our life in our behavior? And don't we choose these behaviors for reasons? If I want to loose weight, there are certain behaviors that are necessary. And these behaviors are chosen because I know I am overweight and it is bad for my health.

This particular speaker said that as a faith community ritual was all important, as ritual bred communion and made us believers (?)! If Richard Dawkins took communion, would that affect his belief system or behavior? I thought this sounded a little off the wall, although I recognize that he was just trying to form a way to bring about a wholistic understanding of mind and body. He was thinking in opposition to a dualistic formula. But, it misses the mark, it seems to me...

In attempting to form a "more perfect union" between mind and body, he suggested behaviorism in the form of ritual. The Catholic believes that the elements of communion literally become the body and blood of Christ and that taking in the elements of Communion gives the "life" of Christ to the believer. I disagree.

Luther's view of Communion was not transubstantiation, but consubstantiation. He believed that the elements became the body of Christ when mixed with faith. Faith was the pivot point for him. The elements are not important, it is the belief of the person. Richard Dawkins taking the elements would not change his belief system or behavior. The believer must have faith first. As the Reformers believed that faith was a gift of God, then there is no way that behavior can give faith. Behavior follows belief.

Sociologists understand human behavior to be connected to identification factors. If an individual identifies with a certain group that has certain behavioral standards, then the individual is likely to conform. This is part of accepting the 'social norm" of the group. But, the group has a reason why they believe a certain behavior to be appropriate or inappropriate. Appropriate behavior is considered "moral". "Immoral" is inappropriate behavior. These are cultural norms.

America's "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based more on ethics, where the individual can choose his "own way of life". These ideals cannot be chosen in a way that impinges on another's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without legal ramifications. We believe that individuals have rights to form their own way of life, as individuals are equal under law. This radical individualism terrorizes the religious because of their fear of anarchy or immorality, as they see an outside authority as necessary.

Character is not understood in specified belief systems, or affirmation of outside authority, but in respectful behavior. Repectful behavior is demonstrated in our tone of voice, and our way of interacting with another. So, while minds reflect our ultimate values, behavior reflects our heart.

Justice, Moral Values, and Universals in Public Policy

Justice is maintaining equality under law. It is balanced and informed governing and government. Everyone is enriched, and blessed when government runs as it should, which is inclusive of the purpose of government.

Government is comprised of leaders who rule, make the rules, and determine direction. While our government is run by policy that is made by leaders, policy itself is fully informed (or should be) before determining which and what policy should be legislated. Legislation makes demands upon all of us, as policy is to better society. And better societies are for human flourishing.

Today, during an honor's college luncheon, a scholar whose discipline was political science gave a talk about the interface of Christian faith with the university, society, and public policy. The Christian traditionally had understood all of truth to be informative of "God's world". Thus, the disciplines were studied to further and undergird faith, not the other way around. But, what happens when science undermines a particular understanding of faith? This is where the Christian world is today, as each discipline has its own "story" or understanding of the "facts". What is the universalizing or whole understanding of truth? Postmodernity calls for there to be interdependence of the disciplines, which is responsibility and accountability of knowledge.

This scholar argued that the secularization of the university was the result of separating faith from "fact" (this was not her term, but mine). I also believe that all Truth is God's Truth. This means that there is no special revelation, but that all is revelation, as we learn and grow. But, I also believe that what we know is but "in part" therefore, there should be a real and honest humility in our policy making and listening to the various "experts".

One legal case study of a particular situation is not a valid argument to make for universiality, when it comes to moral universals, unless the Supreme Court so rules. But, it may influence courts in sucessive cases. So, it is important that the facts are all known. So I do not believe that a relgious authority, whether in Church or text, should be the universal determinant of the value of life. Science should be consulted in such cases, and not the Church alone. The Church should not be an oppressive ruling party, such as the Taliban, but a "voice" in our public square. And that voice should not be a shrill, unreasoned, irrational voice of fear and intimidation, but one of reasoned hope. A voice that appeals to reason and not filled with emotion. Reason is what postmodernity needs most.

"Universal" morality is defined in many ways. The arguments are always based on authorial sources, outside the "self". These sources in the Quadralateral are reason, scripture, tradition, and experience. Since postmodernity has undermined absolute reason, contextual texts, specific traditions, then the experience of the individual is all that is left, as a universal. Experience is only of value when one is appealing to a more unified way of arguing for moral value, which is "human experience". Human experience is based on a hierarchal "need" base, such as Maslow argued. But, even in arguing and agreeing on the universal of human experience and universal human needs, one does not validate a specific universal moral value. (Is poverty more important than education? It depends on the context. Is pastoring a Church more important than encouraging a young adult to pursue their dreams?)

Our country's values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are of greatest moral value to our people. Without liberty, one does not have life, as life must be free to choose what is of ultimate value. Liberty is not freedom to do anything one wants, such as cheating, lying, or stealing, but it is for seeking what one desires to be of value in one's life to bring happiness, and benefit society at large.

Life is of universal value as all people have it, but not everyone has liberty. We must fight for freedom above all because dominating traditions, or different voices that want to universalize the insignificant are undermining to the individual in their pursuit of happiness and their value of life.

Realism's Relativity

Realism is about truth based in the real experiences of life. Our experiences are the very contexts that we understand and bring meaning into our lives. Those who live in different situations think differently about "truth".

Truth is survival to those who live in poverty and disease, whereas truth is liberation for those who live under oppressive regimes. Truth is about reality, life's situatedness, and personhood. If truth is disconnected to what we experience, or our individuality, then there is cognitive disconnect from what is being touted as "universal truth".

When David ate of the shewbread in the Scriptures, he was not reprimanded, because his need for sustenence was greater than his need for the "holy". Traditionalists condemned him, but Jesus did not. Compassion looks on others in thier situatedness and does not judge, but seeks to help. On the other hand, understanding that our helpfulness can also be short-sighted unless we acknowledge that each of us is different and the differences of our experiences and understanding will always limit how much we can help.

Theology "speaks for God" in traditionalists circles, but, theology is really about "man speaking about God". We cannot attain to God's mind, or God's personhood, as we just cannot know. We only have models of experience and religious representations of God.

Some want to make absolute assertions about God and demand that others follow their suit. What transpires is tragically a "social convention" that is passed off as "God". And God's name is "used in vain" by promoting, and demanding that everyone see and experience the same thing, the same way. Apart from conformity, there is no "real salvation". I personally think this is idolatrous, for we cannot know but in part, and we certainly don't understand the "other", they way we need to.

Those who have closed minds concerning diversity/difference are doomed to oppress and stifle, while those who have no way of measurement, have no gauge, where values can even be discussed.

All of us have limited understanding and we base our understanding upon different authorities. Each authority is a limited one and we must humbly acknowledge that to one another in seeking after and commiting to "truth seeking understanding"...

The Ethical Questions Posed....

I went to hear two of our professors talk about genetic engineering yesterday, in regards to changing behavior. The two professors represented religion, and biology. And the discussion crossed those disciplinary lines concerning sin, salvation and sanctification.

The discussion is not new to me, as my husband is a Bio-physist and we had been exposed to these discussions over 25 years ago at the University of Rochester during his post-doctoral experience.

The premise was that if behavior is determined to be genetic, such as alcoholism and certain mental disorders have been, then, the solution for "sin", salvation and sanctification would be to genetically correct the problem.

I have nothing against changing genes, per se. But, this opens up a "can of worms" for me concerning ethics. When is the genetic predisposition determined? at birth or when the behavior manifests itself? Or when families have this propensity? Who keeps the records, the State?

What is sin? How is it defined and by what authority? Will there be religious freedom if one believes in another type of authority, than societal? Is genetic "salvation" mandated by the State? the Chruch?

What is sanctification, then? Is it only behaving in a certain way, when the predisposition is there but the societal norm is prohibitive?

Is the determination of human genetic predisposition to be based upon any finding in the physical world, as it was argued that homosexual behavior among certain insects showed this tendency? If so, how does one keep from reducing man to the physical alone, i.e. reductionism?

I recognize that the Scriptures are written in an ancient context and it must be "transformed" in some way to have relavancy at large, but how do we protect religious freedom? Or should we look to ethics as a means to answer the questions concerning man in the face of scientific discovery, so that man is not reduced to his lowest denominator. And should we also limit the political realm of deeming a scientific "solution" mandated, thus, protecting religious conscience?

These are interesting questions that must be discussed by all of the disciplines, so that all voices that represent man, are heard and heard loudly, before any political determinants can be made...Science has always given "grief" to the Church, but it has also blessed man. We must understand how to use science, politics, and religion as a means of blessing. These areas are of most importance in today's climate of globalization.

Yesterday's Reading Touches Today's

Yesterday, while at a friend's house, I picked up her book on temperaments. In the book, it not only described the differences among the temperaments, but also, what their strenghs were and where they most 'fit" as it concerned career. I was interested as my grand-daughter is getting ready to go to pre-school and I wondered how she would fare and what we should expect concerning her interactions with others.

Today, someone brought up the issue of authority. In the post, the Pope was mentioned. The Pope demands obedience because he is God's authority figure. Protestant Christians base their authority on Scripture, which is still a limited understanding of authority due to the differences of the authors and the emphasis of the writings themselves. Tradition throughout the ages has understood different emphasis in Christian faith. So, it is a matter of faith in how one understands. It is not about authority.

I have written before about overbearing parents, who do not allow any type of expression in the child other than what the parent thinks is right. I am hoping that what I have learned through my mistakes will help my grandchildren. Things that do not matter, as to "morality", as to the choice of vocation, is of importance in allowing the child to find what is of interest to him. This makes for a exploring of different topics, and jobs, before there is a commitment of life. Otherwise the parent has failed to help the child to form and be prepared for the future. Of course, things are different in socialized countries, as it is assumed that society will be responsible for the upbringing of the children. Ours is a mixture of personal convictions with public education being open, if that is what one chooses.

Authority is not important after one has reached maturity where one's values are clear and one's commitments are made. These are personal decisions that must be made in free societies by the adults within them.

Can Anyone Show You the Way?

People are unique. People grow, think, learn, and express these differences in many ways. This is why a democratic form of government is the best for human flourishing! Democracy allows the individual to choose what community, which people and what ideals/values they will affirm, and commit to....

There has been a big flurriy in conservative segments of evangelicalism to "mentor" another in "spiritual formation". What does spiritual formation mean? What is the "end result" desired? Is the "end result" a programmed universal? or is it fine-tuned to the needs of the individual? What is useful for spiritual formation? Is the "mentor" to choose the material, or is it left to the individual? If "spiritual formation" is about "making disciples", then it is a form of bringing about conformity to traditon.

Some groups are goal focused, such as Alcoholics Annonymous, Parenting W/out Partners, or Grief Support. These groups help individual to cope, manage and grow in different ways. There is nothing wrong about these groups, but they are not mandated.

"Spiritual formation" groups are useful in those traditions that believe that there is a universally understood 'goal" to be sought in the discipleship process. These groups hold others accountable to spiritual disciplines, like prayer, bible study, self reflection, or other forms of reading. There is nothing wrong with these groups either, but is the individual free to choose which group s/he will commit to based on interests? or is there a hierarchal "eldership" that determines where the individual "has" to grow and how they are to grow, and therefore, the relationship, and group is determined? I believe that determination is anti-humane, if not immoral, because, the individual must be motivated to change. Al-Anon encourages those who live with alcoholics to not try to change the other, but to change themselves. This is good because it supports the abused, to know how to respond and how to accept. But, "spiritual formation", if understood as a "program" would not understand diversity in decision or choice, as spiritual formation would be forming "christ" in the individual, instead of allowing the individual free discovery and expression. It is a form of spiritual dictatorship. And especially if the major source of authority is Scripture.

"Lordship", Discipleship, and Faith

Christians have defined their faith in many ways, and the implications upon their lives was the result. "Worldviews" within Christendom have attached to them certain expectations, and understandings of itself and those who are intiated by the indoctrination of these traditions within the Christian Church understand the mores, customs and traditions that are implied. These are absolutized views of faith based on Scripture. Those who are not and are not submissive nor teachable are doomed to suffer consequences, as their views are absolute, but do not allow diversity in viewpoint.

I just read where a certain "Name" of an evangelical/fundamentalist leader of "lordship" teaching was based on a nominalistic faith without true discipleship. I disagree, as not only have I read his book (many years ago), have family who attended his seminary, and a friend's whose mother's church was split over the "lordship" teaching...but I think that any faith has an understanding of itself and a resulting expected behavioral "standard"...

The problem with any "lordship" theology is who determines what behavior and by what standard is a life measured? The Pharisees, during Jesus day, had certain purity standards that were specified, so that the behavior could be judged. Jesus, acted in an unconventional way according to their standards. Jesus morality was outside their box and this was the way that his life has led to a higher development of understanding morality. But, his life is not the only moral model.

Lordship can be viewed by many different standards, such as one's dress, custom, behavior, beliefs about ethical views, laws, etc....conformity is the name of the game for those within these types of environments. Questions are not appreciated, in fact, may be the very behavior that subjects one to shunning, criticism or rebuke. Authority's power is mandated by the leadership and judged as the necessary stated or implied behavior...this is the standard within the sect.
Most conservatives work within a conventional frame of reference, whether the authority comes from a written texts, or annointed leaders who speak, and judge for the people, even outside their borders. This attitude breeds prejuidice and unenlightened view, and limits the young in their intellectual development and interests. Some things are just not allowed as vocations within these traditions.

Our democracy allows freedom of speech, which allows questions, discovery, and journeying toward a larger view, a greater good, a more enlarged way of thinking than local and provincial ways of thinking and behaving. The world is too complex to describe in one demension. In our physical reality, we can only take in three demensions whereas, there are many more demensions that we can't "see". but are only understood by higher mathmatics...The order and structure of the world is a mystery which lives beyond reason, and yet is reasonable...Lordship theology and thinking describes faith and discipleship in only a certain way and by a certain standard and moral model...

Without Faith....

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.

Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....

Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.

What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.

There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.

While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.

Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.

The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...

I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....