Click here to go HOME
and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of uptospeedgoforit.com
What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...
Subject: The relationship of spiritual Darkness and Deception to Politics, Part 2
(Wed., March 2, 2011)
(approx. 5395 words, 10 pp.)
How religion, politics, law, education, and morality interrelate
The relationship between God, morality, Justice, and theories of the state
"On forgetting God" and on atheism’s not believing "nothing" but "anything"
The complex relationship between Darkness and Deception in all areas of life
No one would become an atheist or Liberal, if they thought it was a stupid idea
The question of the hour and the question of all history is: Is there a really a God and is there a true or real Justice? This is also the title and question of this small 3 Part series of essays, and it is the question of much of traditional education and of most of philosophy, jurisprudence, and political science! But this is not abstract intellectual stuff but rather it plays itself out everyday in the newspapers and on TV, etc.
In reality straightening out this relationship between God, morality, law, education, government, economics, philosophy etc. is pretty much all that stands between us and the literal Kingdom of God on earth as we saw in The Revolution essays, at length. Indeed, upon this question of "God and Justice," Rationally understood, hinges the entire future history of mankind on earth. However, understanding today’s political Liberalism and its relationship to Christian and Jewish Liberalism is no small task, and neither is how the Radical or atheist fits into all of this whether of a modern or postmodern variety with his usually totalitarian theories of the state as "God" for the Radical and utopian theories of the state for the Liberal.
Politically, the religious Liberal generally tends to embrace...
As we have seen before, politically, the religious Liberal (Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish) generally tends to embrace, openly, shamelessly, the notion of so-called "entitlements" or "positive rights" most famously developed in FDR’s "Second Bill of Rights," and the notion is also embraced by Jimmy Carter, who develops the notion in an openly religiously political manner explicitly (just as I am doing here). Both Jimmy Carter and John Danforth are (amoral, no-Gospel) Liberal "Christians" consciously trying to use their new "Christianity" to solve our moral problems, social problems, political problems, legal problems, education problems, culture and entertainment problems etc.
Their general idea, however, is absolutely correct in my opinion, namely, one’s view of God and morality (be it true or false) dominos through all of these questions of law, education, government, economics, etc. and determines our understanding of them, and one’s view of God and morality can even determine one’s ability to do good law and often even one’s good faith participation in the political process.
Danforth in particular is convinced that unity, tolerance and oneness (his new "Christianity") will solve all of our moral, social, political, legal, education, culture, and entertainment problems, while Carter is more into an absolute "love" or compassion as supposedly of First Corinthians 13 and all that business.
"Justice" is not compassion and "Justice" is not egalitarianism...
However, not to burst anyone’s bubble here too harshly, but in reality unity, tolerance, and oneness (or "love" and compassion) just as a practical matter can and will solve virtually no problems because unity, tolerance, and oneness are not strong enough Reasoning principles for Good or Truth, and hence education, law, morality, politics, etc. And furthermore they do not in themselves create "Justice." This is in addition to unity, tolerance, and oneness being a false, substitute Gospel, obviously, and it is not the Law of Moses either, equally obviously!
Clearly, the religious Liberal whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish (generally represented by mainline Protestant Liberalism, Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and Reform Judaism) is generally misguided or, that is, demonically deceived (the Bible indicates), as we have seen in various previous essays, but not in a demonic darkness outright of the Radical or atheist.
But, regardless, to the spiritual Liberal one can say Justice is not mercy, rather, Justice is getting what you deserve, while mercy is not getting what you deserve, on your merits, or have not earned, etc. This "mercy" the Liberal tends to call "Justice," in a very confused philosophical manner.
By contrast, the Radical calls "Justice" retribution or revenge or getting even for supposed or perhaps even real disparities and inequities etc. because the Radical feels anyone having more than anyone else is inherently unjust no matter how hard one works, etc. For the Radical the only person who gets more is himself (and his friends) trying to impose a very undesirable and unworkable egalitarianism on everyone else. Ironically, if you think about it, the Radical’s definition of egalitarianism is almost a definition of Injustice actually!
There is probably little or no hope for America at this time?
Is there really any hope at this time for America to get out of the religious, political, legal, educational nonsense or errors of the Liberal and Radical, which so dominate almost all of the institutions of our society? I personally am not very optimistic. I think Liberals and Radicals in their overt intellectual confusions are just too far gone. The religious Liberal in his false light thinks he doing true ‘religion," while, by contrast, the atheist is under no such religious delusion. He does not think he is being true Christian or Jewish but is rather rejecting both outright. The Radical thinks his darkness is a light, as Jesus says.
In any case, with faulty Reasoning about religion generally and the Gospel, as such, as well as what unity, tolerance, oneness, compassion, and love are capable of (and with a true desire to be genuinely compassionate, lacking in the Radical), the Liberal comes up with his crazy, irrational, impractical, utopian, semi-totalitarian, amoral, politically- corrupting idea of "positive rights" (or so-called "entitlements"), namely, the state can and should do everything for everyone; that is, the state is morally, legally, and metaphysically obligated to do everything for everyone as an "entitlement" as everyone demands it from housing to employment to healthcare to food, etc.
And, of course, this will all happen for you as you elect only "them," these wonderful Liberals, to office, and they will make sure you get anything you need or want from the government or state, etc., etc. This is very politically corrupting of the political process, of course, and it creates a highly destructive entitlement mentality in the populace, and hence "positive rights" are a total disaster, practically, Rationally, politically, and even morally Paul would say, since Paul is famous for saying "If you don’t work, you don’t eat." But Paul is highly unpopular with Liberal Christians, of course, on theological grounds as well as on moral and political ones.
I do not want to hit this too hard but it must be said I think, the Liberal’s and FDR’s positive rights and entitlements are virtually identical to the Radical’s "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." By contrast a traditional notion of safety net is not based on rights or entitlements but compassion or mercy, but how such a safety net should work is not at all clear? The point would seem to be glaringly obvious? Without a return to traditional notions of Justice and even God, we are finished as a nation?
We must differentiate "rights" from "policy goals"!
In any case, so-called "positive rights" are totally nutty, screwball, and of course utterly non-Rational but with the appearance or actually deception of being true Christianity or true Judaism in their political manifestations. Good housing, employment, healthcare, food, etc. are wonderful policy goals, that is, these are good things to be maximized with good policies, but these things are in many cases maximized by getting government out of the way or correctly involved more than overly involved!
FDR does not to my knowledge base his Second Bill of Rights on a faulty Jewish or Christian Liberal notion of religion, which goes astray with its concepts of God and Justice or morality, but Jimmy Carter does explicitly, and I think correctly. On the other hand, Harry Emerson Fosdick develops his Christian Liberalism with similar faulty notions of God and morality as a spirit of unity, tolerance, and oneness without the political implications. So not each thinker develops Liberalism in its entirety in the exact same way theologically, morally, philosophically and politically. In my opinion John Danforth does the whole package best of all, but without the so-called "positive rights" connection explicitly (to my knowledge anyway).
Spiritual oneness cannot get the job done for Justice, Rationally speaking...
In any case, unity, oneness and tolerance is not only a false Gospel with faulty notions of God and morality, but unity, oneness, and tolerance will not solve virtually any of our larger social, cultural, moral, legal, educational. political problems, etc., let alone all of them as the Liberal thinks! The Liberal is totally non-Rational, but that is the whole point, is it not of the Liberal and of the ancient Gnostic false Christian? The Rational Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God have supposedly failed us, or there is no Reason to go Liberal with a higher non-Rational Gnostic type vision of amoral spiritual oneness, etc.
The entire point of Christian Liberalism as well as Christian Gnosticism from the very beginning was the Gnostic and the Liberal have had a higher irrational vision or consciousness or understanding or "knowing" that you as a mere mortal have not had yet. This is overtly elitist as well as irrational (or, that is, non-Rational). The plain meaning of the Biblical text and of the Gospel is simply false, and the Gnostic or the Liberal has found the supposed true meaning of the text with a higher knowing or vision, etc., etc.
Where’s my Bible! Or at least classical Greek philosophy!
Gnosticism and Liberalism generally sell themselves as an irrational, amoral "enlightenment" of "another Gospel" and "another Jesus" that the average person (let alone average Christian) simply has not come to understand yet. Given this situation Liberals almost inevitably think they are better than everyone else, and understandably so with such high and lofty and caring visions, etc.!
And clearly this irrational, amoral higher if not outright secret knowledge or enlightenment is a deception in that it is a false spiritual light (if ever there was one), and Liberalism gets all screwed up because it changes the traditional definitions of God and morality, and hence Justice, as given in the Bible, as well as given philosophically in Rational moral theism.
And the Radical is even more confused than the Liberal!
By contrast for the modern atheist of the 18th century and afterwards "enlightenment" was seeing the truth of atheism of the Radical, supposedly based on Reason, of course. However, the Radical in his false Enlightenment of atheism was under no delusion that he was doing supposedly true Christianity. He was trying to get rid of it altogether! As Jesus says the darkness of his atheism was his supposed "enlightenment." It should be obvious why traditionally atheists and Liberals do not get along very well. But, of course, both atheists and Liberals define themselves over and against traditional Rational moral theists, who have traditional notions of God and morality in a true wisdom and enlightenment of Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero. Not complicated?
However, with time the atheists and Liberals combine energies and efforts over and against traditional Rational moral theists to take over the society politically in the three branches of government not to be based on the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God (since they do not exist for them) but on impossible utopian positive human rights, legal positivism (with no higher moral Law) and the virtually absolute authority of the state to control all aspects of life and society where the populace will then serve a virtual dictatorial ruling elite. This coalition of Liberal and atheist or Radical forces to this ends seems to be Obama’s vision in The Audacity of Hope, in order to so "re-make" or "transform" America. How lovely and visionary! And this then becomes an undesirable totalitarian government of one sort or another rather than a desirable limited government with liberty and justice for all. (It has been my personal experience that if you read people’s books they will generally tell you what they think, more or less anyway.)
The Audacity of Audacity...
Still, this coalition of Liberals and Radicals (generally atheists) is something of an uneasy coalition. Radicals tend to see and use Liberals as so-called "useful idiots." This is definitely not in Obama’s book where he presents himself as an arbiter between these two groups of Liberals and Radicals in trying to unite them in a common cause against traditional Christians and Rational moral theists generally such as the American founders. I personally do not see him to be sincere on this point of truly respecting Liberals, but perhaps he is, but it doesn’t matter because both the Liberal and Radical are opposed to the traditional Rational moral theist regardless, and this is what serves his ends he says (correctly I think).
However, to be fair to everyone, the Liberal (as opposed to the atheist or Radical totalitarian) tends to be in good faith but (as we saw in The Revolution essays) in an at times presuambly demonically deceived and certainly misguided Christianity and Judaism, politically, morally, theologically, and otherwise. For this reason I personally do not think the Liberal lusts for the outright darkness or evil of absolute dictatorial power as the atheist Radical (Castro, Chavez, etc.), but, tragically the Liberal tends to slide into it slowly in order to do his misguided "good" for the state to supply all of everyone’s needs and even wants, and of course fame, fortune, and power can be very captivating to anyone given our fallen natures.
Liberals, Radicals, and traditional Rational moral theists...
By contrast, dictators or totalitarians (as opposed to Liberals) generally want absolute power for themselves as their goal and as the very point of their political activity. And though dictators or totalitarians generally claim to be atheists, many (again as we saw in The Revolution essays) see themselves as being demonically driven outright as Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky, who described himself, no less, as a follower of Satan, believe it or not.
This means the false religion Liberal is presumably a demonically deceived person with a faulty higher vision sincerely trying to do "good" while the atheist or Radical is not misguided trying to do "good". The Radical or atheist totalitarian or dictator knows exactly what he trying to do. He is trying to do the evil of absolute power, in the name of "good" or "social or economic justice," etc., which generally do not concern him in the least. When any politician says "social or economic justice," grab your wallet! He means he wants your money for redistribution, but this situation is not all bad.
I think the effort to appropriate of the word "Justice" (for so-called social or economic "justice") by the Left whether Liberal or Radical may be a Godsend! Why? Because Justice is, indeed, the issue of Government! Now we all agree on that! And, so, we can now talk about it Rationally, which the Liberal and Radical as irrational ideologues and often demagogues do not want to do, hence their obsession with limiting free speech and simply doing agenda advocacy in place of Rational discussion! But they can be backed into a corner Rationally speaking, because Liberalism and Radicalism cannot stand up to Rational analysis in discussing true "Justice" or anything else for that matter.
Fulfilling everybody’s wants and needs is not Justice.
Fulfilling everybody’s wants and needs is not Justice. The Liberal is simply wrong. Fulfilling everyone’s needs may be compassionate (even that is debatable), but it is clearly not Justice. And trying to make sure everyone is the same by the Radical is not only not Justice but actually the opposite of Justice, is it not? America originally started down the Leftist path not by following the Radical in his egalitarianism but by trying to fulfill everybody’s wants and needs as human "entitlements," innocuously enough, with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, that is, "positive rights" or "entitlements."
FDR was, of course, not some sort of evil dictator, but he was clearly a very misguided, and presumably demonically-deceived Liberal, at least in his Second Bill of Rights (because it is self-evidently so non-Rational even screwball?), though it seems to sum up much entire economic and political theory?
I saw a poll recently that America’s "leading intellectuals" have once again decided that FDR was America’s greatest president ever! This in itself tells one nothing about FDR, but it tells one a lot about America’s supposed "leading intellectuals," just as it would if they had said George Washington, or the Republican Lincoln or whomever. Still, once you put yourself on a path of the Second Bill of Rights, you are putting yourself on a slippery slope to a Liberal LBJ and the Great Society welfare or entitlement state, as such, which this writer does not see FDR as embodying outright.
The slippery slope to Radicalism, and here we are...
And after LBJ it is presumably only a matter of time until someone more Radical like Obama emerges, whom I see to be categorically different from the merely politically Liberal FDR or LBJ. But when one gets on any slippery slope one in most cases eventually changes qualitatively as well as quantitatively, that is the whole point of "the slope" and its slow transition, as it were.
I think this may be one of the only original and correct thoughts Karl Marx ever had, namely the quantitative change over time can eventually become qualitative? I think he is even famous for it, and it is generally considered false, which it often isn’t in my opinion, though slippery slope models do not always work well. But the slippery slope model as well as the downgrade model or boiling frog model does work well for the Supreme Court disaster. Why? Quantitative slippery slope shifts are not just political or economic, but can be philosophical more generally.
The Supreme Court mess as a slippery slope
Once one starts doing as a judge, say, "living" Constitutional activism to enact a given social agenda (well-intentioned it may be), with time someone is going to come up with a theory to justify the practice, but this tends to be more rationalization than Rationality!
And then with more time accepting the outrageous theory and practice (in this case living Constitutional law) becomes itself accepted (politically correct), and then with more time the outrageous theory and practice becomes a virtual requirement qualification for the Liberal and Radical judge, which means the more one openly rejects the Constitution, the more qualified you supposedly are! (Alice in Wonderland, as they say, and so here we are.)
Again all hinges on traditional concepts of God and morality, and ultimately Justice
All of this is a result of the complex relationships and playing out of no God/ no morality (of the Radical), false "God"/ false "morality" (of the Liberal), and true God/ true morality (of the traditionalist or Rational moral theist). And no God/ no morality is a darkness that the atheist or Radical thinks is a light, and false "God"/ false "morality" is a deception that is a false light that the Liberal thinks is a true light, and true God/ true morality is a true Light of the Rational moral theist of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, which was the philosophical foundation of America before we went Liberal to Radical, both of which reject the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and the government, law, and state which go with them because the Liberal to Radical reject traditional notions of God and morality, as the very point of their positions as well as traditional concepts of "Justice," and hence the Liberal and Radical have very undesirable and non-Rational and unworkable concepts of the state, freedom, government, education, law, justice, etc., and not just ‘religion" as such.
The very interesting case of the Liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith
The desire to do Good is indeed good and even praiseworthy, but what is true Good? Similarly the desire to do Justice is good, but what is true Justice? In fact, the practical playing out of this is often not philosophical or religious, as such. I got this following analysis years ago from someone on television. I think from Bill Buckley.
It is the strange but very interesting case of the Liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who was something of a leading figure in FDR’s command-and-control economy for production and wage-and-price controls and rationing in World War II, or at least that is Galbraith’s main claim to fame, though he did other stuff in subsequent years and even won the prestigious Medal of Freedom twice, no less. This is a very interesting and ironic award for someone whose main claim to fame is government planned production and wage-and-price controls!
I think it was Bill Buckley who said...
However, Galbraith occasionally got some things right, to his credit. He correctly predicted the 2010 Revolution against 60 years of Liberalism and Radicalism, epitomized by President Obama and the 2008 Congress, by saying, "All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." Has there ever been in the history of all mankind on earth a more "rotten door" than this current administration and the 2008 Congress? Not to my knowledge. Give Galbraith some credit, please!
In any case, I think it was Bill Buckley who said, in so many words, look, "Galbraith had a youthful experience in a position of great power in World War II planning and running the society, and its production, wages, prices, rationing, etc., etc., and the effort was enormously successful, arguably unprecedented in the entire history of mankind on earth, no less." So, Buckley’s point is in reality it is very understandable how this unprecedented wartime authority for the executive branch would make such a strong impression on a young Galbraith and cause him to think this type of economy and state control would solve all our problems.
Command-and-control does not and cannot work well in the long run?
In short, this executive, virtually dictatorial, power over almost every area of the economy and production given the true wartime needs of the moment for World War II became for many Liberals almost the ideal model for peacetime, no less. However in a free society it is certainly not desirable for peacetime, and in truth it would not and probably could not actually work well in peacetime over an extended period of time. I think this can be seen to a degree perhaps in how similar the Soviet Union and America were in the 1950s immediately after World War II, but by the 1970s the Soviet Union was still in many ways in the 1950s in their government-run economy and society, and we weren’t. With time we out-produced them greatly, and among other various things that led to the downfall of the Marxist model, among everyone but certain American university professors and most Latin American dictators?
Quite simply, evil dictatorship or not, command-and-control Marxist type societies simply do not work. They fail both the moral and practical questions (of The Revolution essays). In fact, the old Soviet Union was something of an economic disaster, no less, and good economics was supposed to be Marxism’s strongest point, and it was what one was surrendering one’s freedom for! This is the promise of the dictator generally, is it not? Marxist or not? "Surrender your freedom for a promised prosperity," but in the end you wind up with neither? These types of discussions, observations and problems are common in the beginning of political science, of course, in Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero as well as the American founders. In any case the fact is for us in the modern world, generally when one surrenders one’s freedom for prosperity one will wind up with time with neither!
I cannot believe this is happening in America...
And so here we are! A failing economy, a virtual dictatorial or certainly at least Radical or transformational Obama administration, which flouts Constitutional government, an enabling Senate, and an often outrageous, rubber-stamp, activist Court system. Who would have ever thought it, and in America of all places! Here, Mr. President, is a trillion dollars, spend it as you see fit to stimulate the economy! What kind of legislature produces such legislation? Obviously Obama is going to spend the money to build a political machine for himself not the Democrat Party, you useful Democrat Liberal idiots!
Here, Mr. President, is an affirmative action/ quotas financial reform bill that allows you to take over private institutions as you see fit in some given crisis with said-to-be little or virtually no legal or Constitutional recourse for the doomed parties! Too bad! Or, here, Mr. President, is a healthcare bill that gives you personally almost total control over private healthcare since you can tell insurance companies what they can and cannot do, and can and cannot sell etc., at your personal "discretion," and further what every person in America can and cannot buy, and what every single person must buy, no less, at your personal "discretion," and to whom the law even applies, etc., etc. I personally have a hard time getting my mind around this and believing it is really happening!
What is the larger point here? The same as The Revolution essays...
What is the larger point here? All of this Liberal and Radical fallout is the result of Americans for the most part rejecting Rational moral theism, that is the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as the foundation of our own lives, politics, law, education and the country, or that is to say, we have thrown out traditional notions of God and morality for one or the other of the two faulty humanist worldviews of Liberalism or atheist Radicalism where there is either no real God or real morality for the atheist or Radical, or there is a false notion of God as well as morality for the Liberal Protestant, Catholic or Jewish person, usually in terms of unity, tolerance, oneness, supposed compassion, or being "progressive," etc., etc., all of which do not mean much of anything and can be used to justify almost any nutty or irrational idea someone comes up with?
And in fact our age or time has become so so-called "postmodern" that frequently people no longer even claim to be Rational and are proud of it and think they are being brilliant (enter one or even several recent Supreme Court nominees?). But what does this mean for real "Justice," the question at hand here?
There probably is no "magic bullet" to fix the economy or to make good laws
In truth, progressive Liberal and Radical notwithstanding, there probably is no "magic bullet" to fix the economy or to make good laws or, that is, good rules and regulations more generally for the good of the society and of the economy and for limited government and its proper role and function. "No joking?" No joking. To make good and fair laws, rules, and regulations requires wisdom on the part of the legislator and a certain a desire or will to make such laws, neither of which the Liberal or Radical have or seek, Solomon would say, I think.
The humanist generally cannot see beyond interest group politics where one group dominates over another in an undesirable and certainly unjust manner because there are no Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God; the American founders were simply wrong, and the Liberal cannot disengage himself from the Leviathan positive right, entitlement Welfare State which in point of fact tends to make everything worse in the long run, not better, but the utopian Liberal cannot see this in his efforts to do "good" in "compassion," etc., etc.
In truth, we are failing in knowledge and understanding...
In truth, we are failing in knowledge and understanding in politics, law, education, religion, and otherwise. Either there is the true Light of a real God and a real moral law as the Rational moral theist holds, or there is the darkness of neither (God and moral law) as the atheist holds, or there is the false Light of deception in re-defining them both (God and morality) as the Liberal does. And everything else in life tends to follow from which of these three you choose, all as pretty much Solomon, Socrates and Cicero asserted, and the question becomes which of these 3 is really knowledge or enlightenment, and each of the 3 takes one down a path to good or bad theories of law, education, politics, government, society, religion, culture, entertainment, etc. and ultimately of "Justice" for the state.
In fact (traditional) God-and-morality are True, Real, Good or Desirable, and Rational, and lead to good theories and practice in law, education, politics, entertainment, etc. And no-God and no-morality as well as false-God and false-morality are neither True nor Good nor Rational, and lead not only to bad but disastrous theories and practices in law, education, politics, entertainment, etc. But the atheist and Liberal simply cannot "see" almost any of this. Look, in my personal opinion, it would be wonderful for the Rational moral theists to get 51% of the vote and then to get all the Liberals and Radicals out of the legislatures, courts, and White House, etc. But that is not the solution to America’s problems more generally, as some hold.
What we really need is a national consensus on Rational moral theism
What we really need is a national consensus on Rational moral theism, and we are probably only going to get there by way of a (Bible) Gospel revival. And from there we need a national debate on the proper role and function of government, and its size and scope, etc., but the only way we are going to get there is to develop a national consensus that Liberalism and Radicalism are simply wrong, and neither is really Rational, True, or Good, and neither supports a workable, desirable and truly just system of government, try as each might. If we can develop such a consensus and discussion (that Liberalism and Radicalism are simply wrong or misguided in politics, education, law, and morality as well as religion), we will be back on track as a nation with the original vision for the country based on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," and at that time politics, law, education, entertainment, etc. will pretty much sort themselves out with a good faith effort by all involved.
But in truth, of course, people are not going to wake up one day and all want to jump on board for the Rational moral theism of Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero as true knowledge or enlightenment about the human condition, but if there is a great awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel (Jesus died on the cross for our sins in order to give us new spiritual life in Him), it will carry with it in its wake the Rational moral theism of Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero as true knowledge or enlightenment about the human condition, just as it did for the American founders, no less, and as it did for the traditional Protestant, Catholic, and Jew up until the rise of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish Liberalism, big time, in the 20th century for all three of these religious groups.
Evangelical Christians, last folks standing? Pretty much, but not always
And so here we are with Liberals, atheists or Radicals, and conservatives or, that is, traditional Rational moral theists, who in our time are usually Evangelical Christians (or conservative Roman Catholics), but not always nor need one be. But as things have played out in history and in America, it is today pretty much only Evangelical Christians (Protestant or Catholic) who are on board for Rational moral theism, but often even Bible Christians shun such philosophical "worldview" thinking and "spirit of the times" thinking. It is too controversial and daring for some, is it not? But gird up your lions and strengthen your weak knees, we are going into battle and will finish up Part 3 on "God and Justice," and "worldview thinking" and "the spirit of our age," next time in two weeks on Wednesday, March 16, 2011, so join us then.