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 3
(Wed., March 16, 2011)
(approx. 5325 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 atheismís 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 relevance of "religion" as such in relationship to the moral Laws of Nature and hence to politics and education is immense.
Say good-bye to the Logos, it was nice knowing you...
The reason why we have taken Solomon, Socrates and Cicero and their (Logos) Rational moral theism out of education and Constitutional Law is because education and Constitutional Law are being run by a bunch of religious Liberals in the de facto spiritual tradition (whether Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) of Harry Emerson Fosdick, or as bad, if not worse, education and Constitutional Law are being run by a bunch of humanist atheist Radicals outright.
It really does not matter which of the two because neither the religious Liberal nor the atheist believe in "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God," or that is to say the Natural moral Law or the Special Revelation of the Bible given to Moses at Sinai and given in Christ in the Gospel. There are some exceptions, of course, but these are the major sociological, philosophical, religious, educational, and Constitutional Law groups in America today and have been for 100 years.
100 years, maybe even 300 years, in a nutshell...
Again the 3 basic views are 1.) traditional Christianity and Judaism with their Rational moral theism, 2.) Liberal Christianity and Judaism, which tend to be actually a spiritual humanism and definitely without a Rational moral theism (Creator and Logos) and 3.) atheism outright with not a mis-defined morality and God but no God or morality at all and generally no mind nor spirit, nor real meaning, good, truth, etc. simply matter and pleasures and pains, with the state or self as a de facto "God," and in the last 50 years this atheist humanism has gone from modern materialist humanism of the Epicureans (and Marx) to the postmodern materialist humanism of the no-truth Sophists (and the postmodern Marxists Sartre and Rorty).
Hence, the humanists are often political Radicals of a Marxist sort as well as atheists, though occasionally they are radical Libertarians like a David Hume or even political moderates like a Bertrand Russell, but regardless for virtually all atheists the Christianity of the 18th century and the American founders as well as their political theories based on an accompanying Rational moral theism are no good, and they never have been any good.
The American founding was generally for the atheist not a great accomplishment even for the 18th century, and hence the founders tend to be seen by the atheist as a bunch of racists, sexists, capitalists, and homophobes, etc., etc., with little or no redeeming values, and they were supposedly spouting a bunch of religious gibberish and meaningless flowery political language that in truth was just a justification for their exploitations based on race, class, gender, etc., etc. And, similarly, the Constitution does not now and never really has had much if any value for the Radical or atheist, period.
The atheist or Radical (as Obama) is ridiculously over the top for me, personally...
Traditionally for the Radical, the Radical political and atheist agenda, as such, is all that has mattered as well as seizing power, and this agenda has often had to be concealed of course, for fairly obvious power-seizing reasons. And as humanism has gone postmodern they have added to their modern humanist foolishness, the overt postmodern absurdity that whatever you "feel" from your life "experiences" is "true," "good, and "just," is supposedly really true, good, and just, etc.
And of course holding to this nonsense has become almost the main qualification for a Supreme Court judge today! And we are all sitting around in this Alice-in-Wonderland situation, acting like it is totally brilliant. The less radical Liberal tends to have much sympathy with this absurdity because he or she is so into irrational subjective feelings as the basis of his or her Liberalism, but Liberalism has a significantly different humanist and religious heritage than Radicalism and atheism.
By contrast, Liberals have a different heritage than Radicals and atheists
Fosdick, a modern-day Gnostic (as opposed to being a modern-day Epicurean or Sophist, as the atheist tends to be), held explicitly that 18th century Christianity of the Great Awakening was great and noble stuff, but with the rise of modern science 18th century Christianity simply no longer could be seen as true, for modern, enlightened man, and hence we need a new Liberal "Christianity" with a new "morality" and new "God" and new "Jesus" and new "Gospel" etc., etc., and Fosdick was supposedly providing us with this higher vision, amoral, new Gospel, and so forth and so on.
Similarly, with the Constitution and the Natural moral Law, the political Liberal (in doing Law and politics and not religion as such) tends to say the Constitution and the Natural moral Law were truly wonderful concepts for the 18th century and for the Christianity of that day, but neither is any longer relevant for today. Hence, for the Liberal the infamous "living new Constitution" concept is the philosophical, legal, political, Constitutional counterpart to the new "Christianity," as such, of Fosdick.
Both Constitutional law and Christianity "live," as it were, to improve upon and actually reject and ultimately oppose the old Christianity and original Constitutional Law. (How wonderful?) And this then becomes a qualification for law schools and seminaries, which I, personally, am trying to flip back to traditional notions of God, morality, the Gospel, theology and Law with this and other writings, of course. I am, as it were, sort of "purifying" things, what the heck, somebody needs to? In fact, curiously, Christian Liberalism and Liberal spirituality generally are something of an Hegelian synthesis of materialist humanism atheism and traditional Christianity.
Having fun with Hegel who lived from 1770-1831...
Interestingly, Liberal Christianity and Judaism tend to be an Hegelian syntheses of atheism and Rational moral theism. (I am unaware of anyone pointing this out previously.) What does that mean? Hegel thought famously that human knowledge progressed by a process he called "dialectic." For Hegel this was a spiritual dialectic; for Marx after him this was a self-described material dialectic, which of course is a self-contradiction as many have pointed out since matter cannot have a dialectical property even in theory, and so the starting foundation thesis or premise of Marxism is false and hence so is virtually everything that follows in Marxís theory of dialectical materialism, as Bertrand Russell points out.
Still, for Hegel his original dialectic (before Marx took it up) was a spiritual phenomenon, which is correct, though Hegelís theory of dialectic is generally held not to be true and to have little or no useful application, but curiously it does tend to explain both the Liberal Christian and Liberal Jewish positions. Hegelís dialectic held that one starts with a given thesis, and from there one develops an opposite antithesis, and from this thesis and antithesis one develops a synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis, and the process supposedly goes on forever as manís knowledge increases, etc.
Liberalism as an Hegelian synthesis...
The synthesis is supposedly something of a neither/nor (or perhaps a both/and) to the prior thesis and antithesis. What in the world does this have to do with Liberal Christianity and Judaism and not being ignorant of Satanís devices? Well, if you think about it, Liberal Christianity and Liberal Judaism not only have attributes of the Sadducees and Gnostics, but they are a synthesis of Rational moral theism and atheism or, that is, materialist humanism.
The Liberal Christian or Liberal Jewish person wants to dispense with a God of the supernatural as a concession to atheism, but keep the spiritual as a concession to Christianity and Judaism, and the Liberal Christian or Liberal Jew wants to get rid of real morality as facts and as part of the real Natural Order just as the atheist does but keep a real good in "love." That is to say, the Liberal Christian or Jewish person buys into the faulty non-Rational fact/ value distinction of the 18th century (and following) of the materialist humanist since values are not material facts.
But in concession to the traditional Christian and Jew, the Liberal Christian and Jewish individual tends to hold there are irrational higher understandings that have some desirability or real "value" (like unity, oneness and tolerance) if not actual ontological or metaphysical value in the God-given (Logos) order of things, which of course the atheist or, that is, materialist humanist is not interested in, and even rejects outright
Liberal Christianity and Judaism are basically a spiritual humanism
Basically Liberal Christianity and Judaism are not a material humanism but rather one of many forms spiritual humanism or what is sometimes called a "cosmic humanism." Further, the Liberal Christian and Jewish person buys into the faulty "faith versus Reason" arguments of the atheist of the 18th century and following, but the Liberal Christian and Jewish person still wants to maintain a real irrational "faith" of sorts, as a concession to traditional Biblical Christianity and Judaism which the atheist does not of course.
The Liberal Christian and Jew is clearly trying to split the difference between atheism and Biblical Christianity and Judaism, and he winds up with neither, and very interestingly generally both the outright atheist (that is, materialist humanist) as well as the traditional Biblical Christian and Jew think this is a foolís errand, and often so say so, though the Liberal Christian or Jew thinks he is "fixing" both atheism and traditional Biblical religion with a higher vision, etc.
The Welfare state tries to split the difference between free and totalitarian society
What is even more interesting here is the same way the atheist develops his own theories of government, generally totalitarian, with no higher moral Law or God, so too the religious Liberal adds a corresponding theory of political Liberalism to his religious Liberalism that seems brilliant and desirable to him but is actually pretty nutty and irrational, and, as with the atheistís political theory, generally very self-serving. (Surprise, surprise?)
The Welfare state of the Liberal tries to split the difference between the free and totalitarian society, by having an all-controlling state and all-providing government provision without embracing outright totalitarian dictatorship with no rights and liberties at all. Arguably, the Liberal entitlement Welfare state is something of an irrational and undesirable Hegelian synthesis of a free society of the American founding and an outright totalitarian society of the 20th century.
And, again, as with the darkness of the atheist so too it is with the deception or false light of religious Liberalism; when one stops believing in traditional notions of God (and morality) one is not going to believe "nothing" but virtually "anything," and it is going to be really pretty nutty, but you are going to think it is really very brilliant not just in your religious synthesis but political one as well where the Liberal tries to develop in a free society a total welfare state to meet all manís needs but in a state that is not totalitarian outright as the atheistís similar all-powerful state is with its no real Laws of Nature and of Natureís God, etc.
The political as well as religious synthesis of the Liberal is usually a foolís errand
This political synthesis of the Liberal is also generally held to be a foolís errand by both the free society person (who wants to base the state on the moral Laws of Nature and of Natureís God) as well as the atheist totalitarian outright, who sees the Liberal Welfare state as ineffective halfway measures. But the political Liberal welfare state person (where the state supplies all oneís needs and wants) thinks he is fixing both the free society and the totalitarian state with his synthesis, which in his mind has all the good aspects of the free society as well as the totalitarian state, without the evils of either.
Unfortunately this political synthesis does not work in theory or practice, and the total welfare state, which the Liberal seeks to establish, simply winds up being just another form of an (amoral, impractical) humanistic state, and it becomes just a watered-down, even unworkable utopian version of the outright totalitarian state of the atheist, who is generally just as contemptuous of political Liberalism as he is religious Liberalism. We see here again (as in The Revolution essays) that he Liberal (utopian) welfare state as an attempted synthesis of totalitarianism and freedom fails the two basic questions of the practical and the moral.
Practically and politically this plays out a bit differently than merely philosophically
However, as we have seen before, in the long run the Liberal (politically and religiously) is going to make a practical alliance with the Radical and atheist to oppose traditional Christians and more generally any other traditional Rational moral theists.
This analysis appears to me to be clearly President Obamaís view as well, and I agree with it entirely. Whether Obama is uniting the Liberal and Radical groups because he cannot decide between them, as he himself says, or whether he is actually a stealth Radical is actually somewhat irrelevant. He is without a doubt Americaís most brilliant and capable politician ever?
3 worldviews, 3 spiritual armies
In can be instructive to think of this 3 major worldview situation (Liberal, Radical, and traditional values) in terms of 3 great spiritual armies at play in the world and in history, at least in modern times. Two formed up in the 18th century en masse, and one in the 20th century. And when the dust settles virtually everyone today tends to be in one of these 3 groups or to be a philosophical or religious descendant of one of these three groups.
The three groups or great spiritual armies are, first, the followers of John Wesley, and other great Evangelical Christians of the 18th Century and the Great Awakening. There are of course Rational moral theists who are not Evangelical Christians but there are not a lot of them these days, such as traditional or conservative Jews, pre-Vatican II or that is non-ecumenical Roman Catholics, perhaps even Mormons and so forth. (The modern Methodist church rarely reflects Wesleyís views in my opinion, so one often needs to think in pre-Hegel 18th century terms on this.)
The second major army is the followers of Voltaire
The second major army is the followers of Voltaire and the other great modern atheists of the 18th century, but Voltaire for me and many others is something of the quintessential, even defining modern atheist of the last 250 years. This is much as Wesley tends to embody 18th century Christianity, which for the Bible Christian was good for then and is still good, important and even central for now (while the Liberal with his new Christianity tries to fix it to fit "modern science").
Voltaire is a modern humanist/atheist of course, but the postmodern atheist/humanists are his direct philosophical descendants. Or, to put it another way, if there had not been a modern humanism in the first place, which incorrectly thought it was being "Reasonable," there could not have been a postmodern humanism in the second place to discover the actual non-Rational absurdity of modern humanism.
Ridiculous postmodern humanism owes its existence to modern humanism
The French Sartre (as well as Sartreís America counterpart, Richard Rorty) is just a disillusioned Voltaire who has come to deal with the fact that modern atheism was never really based on Reason in the first place, and Sartre and Rorty understand that the very point of a revolution of a Communist is a totalitarian state not as a failed revolution of Lenin but its actual goal from the start!
And "Enlightenment" for the postmodern Existentialist is coming to see the absurdity of life and not the Reasonableness of life, as it had been for the modern humanist, but the Rational moral theist had been saying for two centuries that the atheist was not really being (Logos) Reasonable and that he was going to wind up in absurdity and where no-moral law and no-God leads, namely, everything is permissible for the individual, and ultimately for the totalitarian state with no real rights and liberties.
Again, when one stops believing in God, one does not believe "nothing" one believes "anything," and then anything is permissible (as Dostoevsky said). An all-powerful tyranny is, of course, great for the tyrant or dictator but generally pretty lousy for everyone else who gets to be a serf or peon in the tyrantís realm. The more things change, the more they remain the same?
The third great spiritual army or philosophical worldview: spiritual Liberalism
The third great spiritual army or philosophical worldview is, of course, religious or spiritual Liberalism with its amorality, and new "God" and new "Jesus" and new "Gospel" generally with an ecumenical message that tries to unite all religions as essentially the same, and of course this army is led by the great Christian Liberal Harry Emerson Fosdick, who represents false religion generally and false or apostate Bible Christianity in particular better than anyone else in my opinion, for better or worse, depending on how one thinks about these things! (Vatican II succumbs to this nonsense in my opinion, and it troubled the late Polish Pope greatly, but he had no solutions to this mess personally or officially.)
You can, of course, be a (Logos) Rational moral theist (that is, believe in the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God) without being a born-again Christian, but you cannot be a true Christian without being a Rational moral theist, which is what the Liberal does not understand, but interestingly the atheist usually does. The atheist understands exactly what is at stake with Christianity, and he rejects it, while the Liberal does not truly understand what is at stake with Christianity and wants to change it for a new "Christianity" with no real moral Law and no real Creator, covenant-making God of Genesis 1:1! And of course the atheist looks at the Liberal and says, "Why bother to make a new ĎChristianity,í why not just throw it out altogether?" (This is explicitly stated in other words in Humanist Manifesto I.) And the Liberal answers, "Because I have had a higher irrational amoral spiritual vision or experience of oneness or tolerance or compassion that I think is real." (And Fosdick himself does this response, in so many words.)
Some people like to try to create a fourth group...
Some people like to try to create a fourth group or philosophical position of skepticism or agnosticism, but it does not really work to so try. You either believe, for example, in God or you donít believe. If you do not believe, you do not believe, you are a non-believer. Not to decide is to decide, as the expression goes. Similarly if you do not buy into the Natural moral Law, you do not buy into it, you are a de facto Epicurean. Further nobody really acts or lives as if they do not really know or believe anything. Ridiculous.
And, of course, skepticism is a well-known self-contradiction in that supposedly all you really know is you donít really know, etc. I did this at length in the video series at the marker board and will not dwell on it here again, but it is a really big deal for todayís skeptic, however no one else finds this discussion to be interesting. Skepticism is, again, in essence, Paulís "forever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the Truth." Even atheists and Liberals tend to have little sympathy or time for the skeptic, who in fact is a pretty superficial and immature person.
Other supposedly different groups also generally fall into the 3 main ones...
There are other groups which try to do things politically and morally such as the racial civil rights movement, or the womenís civil rights movement, the Hispanic civil rights movement, etc. but in fact almost all of these groups operate within the same terms of three major worldviews where one buys into Rational moral theism with rights and liberties traditionally classically defined by 18th century Christianity and political theory, or one buys into a faulty, misguided compassionate Liberalism (which no longer buys into a traditionally defined rights by 18th century Christianity and the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God) or one buys into a destructive atheism and Radicalism that never has bought into 18th century Christianity and the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God.
The classic Radical position as expressed by President Obama and similar thinkers sees the founders as mere rich (that is, capitalist) white men, or something similar and all else is supposedly irrelevant. This is the whole point of the racial Marxist and feminist and multiculturalist, etc. Look, not to be a funny guy here but as I pointed out in the video series, the American founders could have all been Alaskan Eskimo women with one leg, and the American founding would have still been a great accomplishment and event in history, but the radical and multiculturalist simply cannot see this. One is either blind as a post to this fact and to the importance of the founding in history as President Obama appears to be, or as the Radical, atheists, Black Civil Rights movement, feminist, etc. generally claim to be (and often as the very point of their positions) or you are not. And it is not easy to Reason with a post?
What is multicultural philosophically classically defined?
Please note, this analysis is not Christian-based as such but Logos or Rationality based, and it is straight out of Cicero. "Multicultural" does not mean that different people groups do not have different very valid customs. That is obvious they do. "Multicultural" philosophically means Justice and Good in one place are not Justice and Good in another. This is absurd and anti-Logos, of course. This question for Western civilization was resolved once and for all at Nuremberg, was it not?
Racial ethnic Radicalism is getting a bit tiring, is it not? Time to "catch the vision"?
It appears to this writer that many of these groups have fallen not just into Liberalism but actual Radicalism and are seeking an endless redress of grievances by law based on group identity or even in disregard of traditional law, rights, freedoms, etc. In far too many cases many hold that today preferential treatment and equality of outcomes have been substituted for traditional notions of equality of opportunity, etc., and unfortunately this may indeed be the case it would seem. A person does not have to be a white male to fall into Humanism, Liberalism, or Radicalism. Women and minorities can as well? Maybe?
California actually belongs to the Mexicans and Indians, and we should give it back, etc., etc. Obama and his gang need to give this type political rhetoric and nonsense a break in my opinion, and for this writer it is getting a bit tiring, when it is not just plain outrageous and offensive, and it is destroying America. The point is the Radicals need to get off the grievance bandwagon, apart from whatever sociological sub-group they put themselves into or identify with. This administration seems to have become all race, all ethnic group all the time, and it may be getting a bit tiring for many Americans?
These grievance Radicals need to "catch the vision" of the founding; that is the whole point for us today, and that is the whole point of Jefferson and the founders, though the Radicals say they cannot because of their race, gender, ethnic group, class, etc. etc. In truth, all these different sociological sub-groups will probably only get there to that founding vision by way of the salvation Gospel, just like everyone else who is not in their particular sociological sub-group (of race, gender, ethnic group, proletariat class, etc., etc.)
We today need a larger unifying vision as citizens in the Republic...
The point is apart from the particular sub-group the various Liberals, atheists and Radicals fall into or want to put themselves into, we today need a larger unifying vision as citizens in the Republic based on God and morality or that is "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God," as the remarkable founders had, and we can then pretty easily sort out all of our other problems in politics, law, education, culture, and so forth. And without this unifying vision based on God and morality for the individual and Justice for the state or, that is, real "Laws of Nature and of Natureís God" (the thing the legal positivist denies exists), we do not as a nation have much of a chance of sorting out almost anything in my opinion, and we will remain in endless division, strife, moral decline and irresponsible, utopian Liberal nonsense.
And, tragically, the whole point of Liberalism and atheism or Radicalism (and all the sub-groups within these groups) is that "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God" are a no-go, and so here we are in 2011 with a big mess on our hands in law, education, politics, and religion, and in the society, culture, and nation more generally, and we are passing what appears to be very bad or unwise legislation and even potentially destructive legislation to our Republic (and often have been for decades?), as well as championing Liberal and even Radical humanist judges.
The problem is and has been since antiquity, we either do not believe in the reality of Justice, and Good, and Right, and True at all, or we radically re-define the concepts to suit our irrational and very faulty non-Rational ideological agendas, that are usually nothing more than a political manifestation of an underlying spiritual or religious deception that is not worshipping God correctly in spirit and truth, as we saw at length in The Revolution essays.
The Kingdom come on earth...
And again, at some point we, as a nation, are going to want to completely Re-do and Rationally re-do, practically and morally and justly, all of the irresponsible and faulty legislation of the past which was based on the assumption that the government can and should supply all of oneís wants and needs as an entitlement or positive right, and not based on Logos Rationally, practically and morally speaking. And there is really not a whole lot more to the Kingdom Era than this, but much of it hinges on determining the proper size and scope (and role and function) of government for the good of the society and the just and desirable interaction of the parts of the Body Politic, and this of course is the vision of Paul for the Church and Cicero for the state, and is implicitly if not explicitly the founding vision of America based a real and desirable "Laws of Nature and of Natureís God" or, that is, Rational moral theism generally, and we will probably only get there as a result of a revival of Bible salvation Christianity and its entire cosmology, which means the days of mainline Protestant Liberalism are limited, as are the days of Vatican II Roman Catholicism as well as Reform Judaism. But, practically, not theologically those of us who still believe in "the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God" should presumably, as the founders, pledge "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" accordingly to these particular political ends?
What is the Kingdom, American vision point here?
"The knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea." "Knowledge," but what "knowledge"? The knowledge not just of the Gospel but that the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God are correct or, that is, the Rational moral theism of Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero is correct as is the Special Revelation of Natureís God in the Bible and in particular to Moses and through Jesus to the Apostles, simple enough, and this means that the humanism of spiritual Liberalism and of atheism or Radicalism are false, irrational, and undesirable. (In truth, a spirit of mere unity, oneness, and tolerance of the Christian Liberal is not only amoral but actually man-centered.)
And what is the knowledge of Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero? "Fear the Lord and keep His Commandments because all will be brought into Judgment." This is not a cringing fear but a healthy fear or respect for God, and from this truth and reality people will en masse embrace a personal Christian salvation with its new spiritual life in Christ with the indwelling holy Spirit and new heart born again from its fallen nature in Adam.
In the Kingdom Age, each knows the Lord and Devil is bound...
And then "each shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest." And God will indeed as prophesied give us new hearts and write his Law in our hearts. So, Christ did indeed die on the cross for our sins in order to give us new spiritual Life in Him and give us an Abba Father relationship to God with the indwelling holy Spirit, none of which were available to Solomon, Socrates, and Cicero. And this will then all be part of the human knowledge-claim condition of mankind on earth.
And the Devil shall be bound to "deceive the nations no more." Deceived with what? Atheism and false religion such as seen in Radicalism and Liberalism, which produce faulty, undesirable (not Good) non-Rational (non-Logos) political states with no real rights and freedoms.
Satan, today, is said to be "the god" of the nations and to go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour in a personal manner, and presumably this will also cease as well though I am not aware of a particular Scripture verse or promise to that effect though if individuals are no longer subject to the demonic captivity of irrational, untrue and undesirable political ideologies as well as false religions and moralities then presumably this would include being devoured more generally in other ways as well (as we "judge" fallen angels?), so that the binding would be total and absolute of all demonic power and influence, which is so common and pervasive today and has been from the very beginning of man on earth.
In the Kingdom Age, the Light, Truth, Rationality, and Desirability of the Gospel
In short, in the Kingdom Age, the Light of the Truth, Rationality, and Desirability of the Gospel will be obvious to all, and hence "the knowledge of the Lord" (of knowing factually or intellectually as well as knowing personally in understanding and relationship) "will cover the earth as waters cover the sea."
Essentially, we are talking about the triumph of the Laws of Nature and of Natureís God in religion, politics, law, education, culture, society, art and entertainment, etc., that is, of the Natural Law both morally and physically and the Special or direct Revelation of Scripture, and how they interface Rationally speaking, not much more complicated than that? And little of this would be new to the American founders?
And the fallout from all of this is the Liberal to Radical humanist positions in law, education, religion and politics simply will not resonant with virtually any citizens, voters, or taxpayers, etc. any longer, but we are a long way from that, but maybe not as far away as it seems at this hour? And so ends this Part 3 and this entire miniseries on God & Justice, but we still specifically need to think more about what the elements of a Just Republic are, if indeed that is going to be our goal in the years and generations and even centuries ahead, not just in America but around the world...