But Bee-dubya-ell, I don't see Bush invoking the name of God to justify any actions. He's just acknowledging his Christianity as Christians in this part of the world do. It's not an attempt at justification, it's living who we are. No one thinks any less of people who don't. Isn't it's ridicules to start attributing specific religious attitudes to people when all you know is that the "talk religious"? Actually I think the word for that behavior is "prejudiced". Not really trying to saying you are prejudiced in the worst kind of negative sense, but in the more technical sense as when people hear something they don't understand and jump to conclusions, particularly arbitrarily negative ones.

Goodness, Bee-dubya-ell, I don't mean anything by this, but if the books you cite represent your view of religion, I can see why folks might not quite think your church believes in God. Anyone who comes from the perspective that religion is a mild (maybe not so mild) form of psychosis will have a hard time understanding the rest of Christianity.

You do know the difference between so called Liberal theology and fundamentalist theology, right? When you starting premise springs from psychological definitions of fanatism, you're sort of putting the conclusion ahead of the evidence aren't you? Not every "fanatic" is a fundamentalist and not every fundamentalist is a fanatic. Heck, not everyone you seem to consider fanatic is even a fanatic.