I hesitate to start this thread because it has proven to be a divisive subject. In fact, it is an amalgam of divisive subjects: religion, politics, and George W. Bush. But be of good cheer. Had I wanted to start a real potboiler here on Mudcat, I would have somehow managed to work "define folk music" into the whole thing. But anyway. . . .

I often hear in the media, and right here on Mudcat, people saying that "Christians believe" this or believe that, as if Christianity were some kind of monolithic structure with everyone believing exactly the same thing and marching in lockstep. This, despite that fact that, here in the U. S., there are several major Christian denominations and a couple of hundred minor ones, some of which disagree strongly on major theological matters. Even in nominally single denominations, there are often strong divisions, e.g., the two major groups within the Lutheran Church: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (tends to be theologically and politically liberal) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (tends to be theologically and politically conservative).

Should one seriously ask, "Should the United States have a state religion?" there would be a substantial number of people who would respond with a loud and resounding "Yes!" I think you can guess who they're liable to be. That immediately raises a couple more questions: Which religion? The same people would respond, "Christian, of course!" ignoring the millions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Druids, Wiccans, worshippers of Kahless, and people who just want to be left the hell alone. If we could get over that hurdle, that leaves the really BIG question: Whose particular brand of Christianity? And that's when the fun would really begin. This was the basic question that led to the Thirty-Years-War in Europe, a war, or series of wars, that managed to kill off a third of Europe's population, all in an attempt to establish "whose brand of Christianity."

Thank God for the First Amendment! It guarantees us freedom of religion—and freedom from religion. But it, too, is under attack. I don't intend to go into such small matters as putting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance or the constant squabble about prayers in public schools. What I wish to draw your attention to is the temper of our present government and what it is endeavoring to do in ways much more far-reaching than this.

The idea that all Christians think alike often manifests itself in political discussions these days, aided and abetted when George W. Bush and other members of his administration rarely fail to pepper their speeches and press conferences with religious allusions. There are some religious leaders who maintain that George W. Bush was "ordained by God" to be president. In fact, Bush himself has said, "I believe God wants me to be president."

Well . . . not all Christians think so. I became acquainted with Sojourners magazine while my wife Barbara was the Pacific Northwest director of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship a number of years back. I hadn't seen a copy for awhile, but yesterday (Sunday, Sept. 21st), while moseying through Seattle's Broadway Market, I stopped at the Bulldog newsstand to paw through the magazines, as is my wont. I spotted a copy of Sojourners. It had an interesting cover. George W. Bush depicted as Caesar. I picked it up and thumbed through it, discovering a couple of interesting articles. A few hours later, googling my way through cyberspace, I learned that Sojourners magazine has a web site, and the articles are available there.

If you are under the impression that all Christians think alike and they all support the Bush administration, I suggest you read the following articles: Dangerous Religion, The Project for the New American Empire, and a commentary, Weapons of Mass Deception. The first article is quite lengthy, but if you have the stamina to stick with it to the end, I think you will find it quite illuminating. The second discusses something that I have brought up several times on Mudcat threads, complete with links, often to the irritation of some who would rather I didn't. The third is an editorial comment.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Don Firth