America just can’t figure out what to do with evangelical Christians who run for office. One could effectively argue that operationally at least, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were evangelical Christians. But so was Jimmy Carter in many ways an evangelical Christian. So what do we make of the effect of conservative Christian beliefs on the American politic? That is a good question. And the answer may surprise you.

Evangelicalism itself represents a broad spectrum of belief. Even within specific segments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, for example, there are hard right conservatives and quite liberal lefties. But the ELCA officially professes to support civil rights for gays and even gay marriage. It also has women pastors, supports belief in the theory of evolution and openly promotes environmental stewardship as signs of Christian faith.

At the other end of the spectrum there are evangelicals who contend the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, insists that women are only suited to submissive or background roles in the church and that creationism presents a more accurate view of the world than secular science.

How did the Christian church come to be so polarized?

The answer lies in how one reads the Bible, and analyzing the foundations of conservative evangelicalism will give us clear and simple answers why people on the far right of Christianity believe what they do. But the question is, are they right about what the Bible says on these topics and more?

Many evangelicals will tell you they believe in the infallible and inerrant word of the Bible. This means that they take every word of the Old and New Testaments pretty much literally, except for obvious examples in the parables of Christ, which were  stories told as metaphor to help people better understand the meaning of God. But we will get to the true significance of parables later, after we examine what it means to believe in the literal word of God as told through the Bible.

The hard truth is this: all Christianity embraces some portions of the Bible while necessarily ignoring others. The simple truth is that modern society has determined that significant aspects of the Bible can no longer be applied to secular society. Most of these determinations apply to sections of scripture that have been proven morally and scientifically wrong, with entire sections of Old Testament law (e.g. the laws in Leviticus) necessarily circumscribed to avoid confusion between traditions governing ancient civilizations and information we’ve gained through modern medicine, culture and social progress.

But on the most demonstrative level, unless evangelical Christians want to bring back slavery and start stoning people in the streets without a trial, they will forever be forced to leave those examples of behavior behind or be branded sociopaths for choosing to participate in human bondage and imposing martial law.

Be they liberal or conservative, that is the hard line all Christians face. The Bible is clearly not infallible or inerrant because it openly tolerates (even supports, in some cases) both slavery and martial law. Yet society no longer tolerates these practices in a more just and civilized world. So what are true Christians to do? The clear answer is a rational reconciliation, which means accepting that portions of the Bible are indeed anachronistic. That does not dictate they are without meaning. Just not literal meaning. So Christians must either come to grips with the need for rational reconciliation or wind up embracing a faith that amounts to self-deception. And that unfortunately amounts to a brand of faith whose foundation is based on pretending that the Bible does not say what it really says while striving to make the case that you possess the authority to determine what you want it to say.

It is a shocking truth to consider that conservative evangelicals, who have long blamed liberal Christians for being selective about what they choose to believe in the bible, are the true relativists in this case. But suddenly, when one realizes how blatantly fundamental Christians choose to ignore significant passages of the bible while claiming the entire text to be literally true, we see that it is fundamental Christians who are the most selective in their beliefs.

To make matters worse, this selectivity necessarily takes on the form of a rigid doctrine because it is a proverbial house of cards. The deep, dark secret of self-deception inherent in evangelical fundamentalism must necessarily be denied and protected in order to prevent the need (or temptation) among believers to actually think about what they believe. As a result, most brands of evangelicalism have necessarily evolved sophisticated and radically aggressive systems of self-defence that include claiming absolute authority for the word of God. Some evangelicals use promises of personal wealth and well-being that distract from the flawed theology and self-deception dwelling at the core of fundamental belief.

All these methods of fundamental deception and message control have precedents clearly documented in the Bible.  The Bible repeatedly shows Jesus Christ verbally attacking the Pharisees and Sadducees for constructing a faith tradition centered around legalistic interpretations of scripture that by no coincidence deliver power and authority to religious leaders while requiring literalistic self-deception among lay-believers.This pattern has been precisely replicated in evangelical circles today. The messaging may be delivered by smooth-voiced televangelists and radio talk show hosts and preached from the pulpits of populist churches across America, but the flaws are the strategy is the same in every situation: Control the message or you lose believers.

This is not only an insult to the intellect of rational Christians everywhere, it is certainly not in keeping with the message of Christ when we consider the frustration Jesus expressed with conservative evangelicals of his day. Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of God in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

That pretty much describes the practices of modern evangelical conservatives.

It is clear however that Jesus Christ was a person who believed in the practical, rational evolution of faith. Yet he represented so radical an evolution that the notion of a Messiah in the form of a humble man was an idea few could conceive. Pretty much everyone was expecting a kick-ass king of some sort, to be honest. Someone to deliver them from the Romans and other enemies. But Jesus only offered to deliver people from sin. It took a while for the idea to sink in.

Now conservative evangelicals want to tell us the Bible cannot be reconciled to science. And that God is not capable of creation through evolution. And that embracing in the basic tenets of science disqualify believers from the Body of Christ. This is all because conservative evangelicals want to pretend they know better than everyday Christians what Jesus wants us to think about and do. In many ways conservative evangelicals are just as rigid in their doctrine as the Catholic church so many abandoned because it had so many false requirements for faith.

The way Christ taught was radical and rational. He used parables, rife with metaphor and symbolism to communicate the meaning and message of God. And yet conservative evangelicals insist that the Bible, and especially the creation story, be taken literally and absent of metaphorical significance. Would Jesus have admired such rigid control of God’s word? Did Jesus appreciate how teachers like the Pharisees leveraged scripture for their own benefit? He did not. He called them hypocrites and a brood of vipers. The same holds true for conservative evangelicals today.

The really troubling aspect of this worldview is that it is now being vigorously promoted through political channels––positioned for imposition––upon millions of people because a somewhat rabid majority of believers have been deceived into thinking it is an accurate and Christ-like approach to interpretation of scripture. But really what it amounts to is mob rule and perversion of the apolitical message of Christianity. Recall the masses gathered before Pilate, calling for the death of a man the profligate priests were trying to present as a threat to Roman rule. It had less to do with the priest being Jews (and resultant anti-Semitism) than it had to do with an attempt to protect the conservative power base. They lied and deceived the people to accomplish their goals. That is the point.

Modern day Christians can take comfort in the fact that they do not need to live such lies or hypocrisy. Taking the example of Christ to heart, we can draw the most significant truths from the bible through use of metaphor and understand that the inclusion of slavery in scripture can now function as a symbol of slavery to sin. It should not be taken literally and we do not need pretend that it should. Jesus himself backs us up on that.

So where do we go from here? Now that we recognize the ugly truth of self-deception behind conservative evangelicalism, how do we move beyond that brand of pretend Christianity, and what can it mean for our future?

We should resist wholeheartedly those who make literal claims on biblical, scriptural truth. For starters, we should speak out strongly against pretending that creationism is either scripturally or scientifically sound. And the same goes for the thinly disguised first cousin of creationism, intelligent design. Just like pretend Christianity, creationism and intelligent design are pretend science, with fatal flaws at their heart. They cannot be used for any real scientific purpose, because there are no scientific methods associated with a belief system that says there are no material foundations for the existence of life. There is not one iota of practical, functional science that can be traced back to creationism or intelligent design. Not one. All other claims of verity dissolve before this fact. Creationism in all its forms is a farce, not worthy of Sunday School, much less public school.

Again we can turn to Jesus Christ for absolution on this issue. The natural and organic metaphors used in his parables were part of the organic science in his teaching. The use of commonly known facts about mustard seeds, yeast and plants were specifically designed to draw parallels between what people materially understood about the world and what Jesus wanted them to know about spiritual concepts. To deny this fact is to deny the brilliance of Christ as a teacher.

To embrace science and ignore tolerance of slavery in the Bible is not to advocate relativism with regard to scripture. In fact it is the self-same evangelicals who want us to pretend that slavery never appears in the Bible. They are the true relativists. Why does any Christian need to tolerate such self-deception?

In truth we are encouraged to use scripture to correct our brothers and sisters who err in their beliefs, especially those caught in self-deception. As 1 Timothy says; “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness.”

But let us be clear. God-breathed does not by any stretch mean literal. In fact we find many biblical references to God taking many forms, including the wind. Yet God is not literally the wind. Or a burning bush. Or thunder. Those are instruments used by God to communicate a message.

So we can with confidence point out the self-deception of pretend Christians who want to ignore the reality of seemingly contradictory examples of human sin such as slavery and martial law in scripture, yet selectively point their fingers using scripture to condemn homosexuals based on similarly anachronistic and often anecdotal passages. Can we not see the hypocrisy in these practices?

The Bible has over time been used for many evil purposes. But the most common abuse has been use of the Bible as a tool for discrimination. Ironically the bible contains far more passages opposing discrimination in its many forms than it does against homosexuality. Yet homosexuality is a favorite target for persecution by evangelical conservatives who seek to deny the innate humanity of homosexuals and worse, play condescending word games with phrases such as “hate the sin but love the sinner” that are nothing more than than rationalizations for continued intolerance. It is time for earnest, God-loving Christians to put a stop to this deceptive abuse of faith.

Liberal Christians who have moved beyond the self-deception of pretend Christianity no longer view the literal indictment of homosexuality in the bible with any verity. Instead they are able to frame it in the context of a social order that poorly understood many aspects of human nature. These include the rights of equality for women and for people of varied races. All these at one point in time have felt the vicious fervor of literalistic discrimination.

Now is the time to change. We do not need to be pretend Christians anymore. We do not need to pretend the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth. We do not need to pretend the world was created in 7 literal days, or that life was created instantaneously. We do not need to pretend any of these things at all because Jesus did not pretend that he existed on this earth, for he embraced this world in his teaching and had great compassion for all people. Except those who manipulated scripture for their own benefit.

So we need to be like Jesus and resist people who pretend to represent the true message of God while promoting a worldview that is scripturally flawed. For all their supposed seriousness, modern evangelicals embrace an immature approach to the ascertaining true meaning of scripture.

Projected onto modern society, this immature worldview means certain trouble for any progressive society. Conservative evangelicals have consistently (and persistently) pursued political advantage as a means to impose their ideology on American culture. And what we face by electing such evangelicals to public office is a reframing of the Constitution around anachronisms that most of the world has long since outgrown. Their worldview is religiously intolerant of science, social progress and equal rights. That is hardly what the Founding Fathers conceived when they authored a Constitution guaranteeing American citizens freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

We must therefore protect against election any politicians who see their immature brand of faith as the necessary foundation to law in America. Our Constitution clearly was written to provide equality of law to all citizens and also to prevent the imposition of any faith tradition on the American people.

Excerpted from The Genesis Fix: A Repair Manual for Faith in the Modern Age by Christopher L. Cudworth

Revelations about the future

To have a future here on earth, of course, we must believe that there will be one. That is one of the sticking points of apocalyptic philosophy, and not a minor one. Apocalyptic cultures convince themselves that time as we know it will soon end. In a culture that believes the end of time is imminent and inevitable, there is no need to preserve resources for future generations. With this perspective the notion of dominion as presented in the bible becomes fatalistic.

The primary source of hand-wringing theology for apocalyptics is the Book of Revelation, where biblical literalism gets turned inside out. Apocalyptic believers contend that the events depicted in Revelation are about to come true any day if they are not happening already. Among modern apocalyptics, nearly everything in the Book of Revelation from frightening beasts to fantastic visions can be projected literally on modern day countries and events. The character of the anti-Christ becomes a real, flesh-and-blood person whom we can identify, perhaps a president or other charismatic figure. Projecting symbolic imagery on actual events in this manner can be described as reverse literalism.

Many Christian believers who are decidedly literal about the Book of Genesis and its creation story somehow embrace the symbolic prophecies of the Book of Revelation as if it were a fantastical tour guide to current and future events. Rather than focusing on the significance of scripture as a moral guide, reverse literalism focuses use of scripture to predict literal events, including the so-called “end of the world.”

Apocalyptic thinking invokes a sense of dread about events to come, and that is compelling stuff from an emotional perspective. But it is not a requirement to believe in God. Literalism of this nature is tricky business. It led some followers of Jesus to become obsessed with the idea that he was about to become king with an earthly rule. Such zealots were wrong about Jesus and missed the apparent focus of his ministry––the triumph of faith over earthly shortcomings. Modern apocalyptic thinking is no less misguided.

Reverse literalism has the same function as biblical literalism, which is to control the thoughts and practices of believers through authority of faith. Hence the cults that spring up around End Time theology. It’s all about thought control.

The theological bookends of literalism and reverse literalism conspire to preclude all other worldviews through a doctrinal mandate that defines the beginning and end of time. That’s a powerful package for anyone seeking control over the cultural dialogue or rights to the title of the one true religion. There is at least one problem with this brand of apocalyptic thinking: It is brand of religious sociopathy based on a gross misinterpretation of scripture. As centuries of dire prophets carrying signs have proven, only misguided souls focus only on the day the world will end.  That is not what the book of Revelation is really about.

The Book of Revelation in a Nutshell

The world as it is addressed in the Book of Revelation has already, effectively ended. The churches to which each of the letters encompassed in the book are either dead or transformed along with enemies cryptically identified in the text, namely Rome and Babylonian. You migh throw in Greece for good measure? The whole idea was to resist such earthly powers with spiritual strength.

What we truly need to discover is the core message of Revelation, its symbolic significance to individual believers. We find this core meaning in Chapter 22, verse 11, where Jesus is quoted: “Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” That’s the book of Revelation in a nutshell. Jesus reminds us that every decision about faith and salvation is first and foremost a personal one. This perspective resolves the puzzle of Revelation by reminding us that our choices do matter and that life on earth has significance beyond mere materialism.

In Revelation 22:12 Jesus is quoted again, “Behold! I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” We should not regard the opening phrase “Behold! I am coming soon!” as a literal statement. That obviously has not happened in the last 2000 years. So we must derive some other meaning or risk labeling Jesus a liar. Yet generations of apocalyptic believers continue to push the literal agenda of a Second Coming when it is clearly our personal journey towards God and Christ that these words are intended to describe. When Jesus says in Revelation 22:12 that “My reward is with me…” it becomes clear that it is our job to go to him in faith, not the other way around. The Book of Revelation deals less with the end of the world than it does with the sense of personal apocalypse that occurs in ignoring the principles most dear to God. We reap what we sow, sometimes sooner than later. The singular nature of this prophecy is outlined in the Prologue of Revelation, Chapter 1:3: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.” In other words, it is incumbent on us to be repentant in our lives so that when we die we can go to the grave knowing we have lived with dedication and devotion to God and Christ. That, dear friends, is the real revelation in Revelation.

We have a choice: We can apply reverse literalism and interpret the prophecies of Revelation to condemn the world or we can focus on its significance as a message for each of our individual lives.

There is no doubt that religious industries have been built around the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation and the Bible. But the apocalyptic cultures that keep cropping up in history have the purpose and focus of Revelation all wrong. Apocalyptic obsession is indeed a religious sociopathy concerned more with the “end time” than with making the most of our real time. The sociopathy in apocalyptic thinking is vindictive in its hopes for a payback against anyone judged to be “the other” by those claiming to know the truth of Revelation, Daniel or other apocalyptic texts in the bible. These same themes or patterns are reflected in similar fears of “the other” among so-called Christians who ostracize people of another race, who are gay or even those in another political party. Such partisanship is all based on deep-seated fears of “the other.” End time theology rewards those fears by intimating that they perceived enemy will be killed or left behind when Jesus returns to end all time.

The apocalyptic tradition yearns for the time when believers will be swept up to heaven in rapture, the better to judge in loathing those left behind. This dismissive and prurient brand of faith certainly does not deserve the credibility it appears to sustain among many believers. The Bible tells us not to focus on when the end will come (Matthew 24:36––“No one knows about that day or hour”) but to live our lives in expression of the kingdom of God as described in Matthew 24:45–46: “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants of the household to give them food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.” But guess what? To the true believer, Jesus returns every day if you stop and think about it. New every morning! These are the hallmarks of a faithful and wise servant. But who among the apocalyptic set appears to be listening to these words?

It’s rather depressing to consider, but sometimes it seems as if people outside the Christian faith have a better grip on biblical concepts than those who claim to be true believers.

Apocalyptic thinking in a rational context

For a rational perspective on the reality of our existence, we turn to scientific educators such as Ann Druyan, widow of the late Carl Sagan and head of Cosmos Studios, a science-based entertainment company. Druyan is quoted on the Cosmos website (www.carlsagan.com) where she puts our material position in perspective: “The violent and brutal struggle to dominate this planet is a function of our inability to come to grips with our true circumstances, the reality of the pale blue dot that Carl (Sagan) was trying to convey. Once you grasp that all life is related here and that this is our heaven, you have a completely different attitude, you become less greedy and less shortsighted. The notion of stealing the oil from that country, or of dominating one little corner of this little dot, becomes pathetic.”⁶¹

Druyan expresses faint hope that this rational take on reality can be allowed to inform culture as to the right decisions on stewardship of the earth. “The Western religious tradition is based on a fear of knowledge. It goes right back to the Garden of Eden, to God’s threat that if we partake of the tree of knowledge, we will know only misery and death. So we keep one thing in our heads that says, yes, our cell phones work, our TVs work because of science, but we keep an infantile, geocentric view of the universe locked within our hearts. If only an elite minority understands science and technology,” Druyan warns, “there is no hope of democracy, because then we, the people, cannot make informed decisions. We will always be manipulated.”

A few religious believers who are also scientists have chosen to take an active role in trying to unite the tangible truths of nature with faith. The Rev. Canon Arthur Peacocke is a British physical biochemist and Anglican priest whose pioneering research into DNA and other scientific issues have led him to call for a new theology for a technological age. In a Chicago Tribune article dated March 9, 2001, Rev. Peacocke was quoted: “The search for intelligibility that characterizes science and the search for meaning that characterizes religion are two necessary intertwined strands of the human enterprise and are not opposed. They are essential to each other, complementary yet distinct and strongly interacting, indeed just like the two helical strands of DNA itself.” ² As Reverend Peacocke points out, Genesis and genetics may not be so far apart.

Rev. Peacocke is unafraid to ask the big questions: “Why is there anything at all? And why does it develop this extraordinary form? If you put all considerations together, the best explanation for the existence of some kind of world we have is some other being that has characteristics that we normally in English call God. Scientific discoveries in astronomy and molecular biology during the past 50 years have for the first time opened to humans the extraordinary vistas of the whole sweep of cosmic development. We need a theology that will give meaning and significance to those advances.”

Rev. Peacocke epitomizes a truly hungry soul, one who wants to know the answers that might lead one to God. The challenge is to overcome the clinging weight of anachronistic and dogmatic tradition. Rationalists such as Arthur Peacocke and Ann Druyan identify the importance of developing connections between religion and naturalism that can help us develop a comprehensive worldview informed by reason and affirmed by tradition. The Bible can play an important role in the future of the human race, but its influence may ultimately be limited if forced to play the role of a tyrant determined make the world play by its own, literal rules.

The American movement from representative government to reprehensible government

rep·re·hen·si·ble   [rep-ri-hen-suh-buhl] –adjective : deserving of reproof, rebuke, or censure; blameworthy.

There are clear signs that the American social contract is on a reverse course from human compassion to animal instinct. The most pressing factors in this devolution are twisted economics, confused moral values and imbalanced political power. The shift toward politics red in tooth and claw is nearing completion across the entire political spectrum. Now the question is what to do about it.

Specifically the nation is debating what guarantees (if any) should be provided in the social contract with its citizens. If rights to affordable health care and social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance are not the guaranteed product of U.S. citizenship, then what does the future hold for those in need? And what role, if any, should government play?

The debate over issues such as these drew hard line attention upon election of Tea Party candidates claiming a mandate to reduce the size of government and with it, government spending. Rising American debt does threaten the security of the nation and our global challenges include 3 expensive wars in the Middle East, spiraling energy costs, trade imbalances with multiple nations and large-scale unemployment at home.

The result of these pressures is a cumulative move toward a bottom line mentality. The trends are clear. American businesses that survived the economic downtown hunkered down after the crash, hoarding cash, refusing to hire more employees. Even stable companies rich in cash refused to hire, preferring to draw more productivity from existing employees.

The employment picture has fitfully improved in 2011, but not fast enough to put millions of disenfranchised Americans back to work. The protracted sag in employment has been depicted as a potential “new normal” where unemployment remains 10%. Some analysts suggest the real unemployment level is near 20% if you add in people who have quit looking for jobs. Neither case is good news for lower and middle class America.

Behind the scenes a more sinister view of the “new normal” emerged as politicians committed to cost-cutting and reducing government rolled out broad plans to slash state budgets and eliminate collective bargaining for government workers as well. Legislative bills were introduced to not only cut government spending, but also to take control of the social contract at its most visceral level, controlling or eliminating the ability of government and union workers to engage in collective bargaining to negotiate their working conditions and wages. This is Social Darwinism in action.

At the federal level, the proposed Pathway to Prosperity budget bill introduced by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) goes even further in its efforts to edit the American social contract. Ryan’s proposal seeks to overturn national health care reforms and suggests “repairing a broken Medicaid system” because “one size fits all” is an ostensibly “onerous method” for implementing health care.

The Ryan budget proposes replacing the current Medicare system by issuing government voucher checks equal to approximately three months of typical nursing home care for seniors. But the Ryan budget seems to raise more questions than it answers. When asked by talk show host Bill Maher what would happen to seniors once the voucher money proposed in the plan ran out, former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairperson Michael Steele could only reply, “We don’t know.”

The Pathway to Prosperity is actually full of such “we don’t knows.” It also contains language that reeks of double-speak. For example, it proposes “saving Medicare” by privatizing it, never mentioning that seniors would need to cover more than 70% of their total care.

Meanwhile the Ryan budget proposes individual and corporate tax reforms that deliver plenty of tax relief for corporations and the wealthy while doing little to protect the economic welfare of middle-class Americans supporting an economy 2/3 dependent on consumer spending. How is this a pathway to prosperity? To gut the middle class in favor of top down economics is a sure path to collapse in our consumer-based economy.

Arguably it was a lack of regulation among top-level speculative interests that led millions of middle class families to lose their retirement savings and even their homes. In other words, the wealthy were allowed to gamble with America’s future while taxes from middle class Americans have been used to pay the debt.

Depressingly, it appears the Pathway to Prosperity wants to recreate these cycles again by privatizing even more government functions, pushing social security (of the generic brand) into the craw of raw market forces that produced the recent recession. The Ryan budget proposes turning our nation’s social contract over to the very same corporations, investment bankers and insurance companies that nearly bankrupted America in 2008. This is plainly reprehensible politics at its worst.

With a sustained push toward privatization and deregulation, America is rapidly becoming a nation of Social Darwinists and mercenaries. We’ve already gone down that road with massive privatization of our current military operations and the results are frightening. A mercenary military culture led to torture, prisoner abuse, and the soiling of America’s reputation by military vendors. All these behaviors are reprehensible symbols of a Social Darwinism in politics driven by partisan pursuit of power and greed. And it has been occurring on both sides of the aisle; one through the aggression, the other by passivity in the face of such aggression. It all adds up to the same thing; a reprehensible failure to protect the architecture of a health social contract for America’s citizens.

The Pathway to Prosperity seeks to foster these corrupted values here at home, freeing corporations to exploit the middle class at every turn. Even our Supreme Court has gotten into the act, with five conservative judges consistently passing activist judgments favoring rights of corporations over individuals.

The Ryan budget cynically contends the United States has the “highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, driving jobs overseas.” This is an operative lie based on the idea that a majority of large American corporations actually pay those taxes. Need proof? Global corporate giant GE recently admitted it paid no corporate taxes at all for its fiscal year even as it accepted millions in corporate welfare payments from American tax dollars. Meanwhile the company cut thousands of workers from its payrolls here in America.

But facts like these do not stop politicians lusting for power and casting favors to moneyed interests. Using fear-based language designed to frighten Americans into believing the current social contract is unsustainable, the Pathway to Prosperity budget cites an “existential threat” posed by growing government debt. But strangely the Ryan bill makes no mention of unrestrained military spending that runs into trillions of dollars. During the Bush presidency military spending was treated as an unbudgeted national expense, a policy that sucked billions out of the economy as investment in social programs, public education and infrastructure repair costs was blamed for creating debt or called too expensive.

Instead of acknowledging the unsustainable war elephant in the room, the Ryan budget attacks Medicare using charts showing bloated red graphics to scare people into thinking the program is unsustainable. The solution is simple: tax all Americans including the wealthy who currently pay nothing into Medicare and the program shortfall begins to disappear.

The privatized health care industry already operates this way, creating corporate health care pools to lower overall liability. It is also how so-called Obamacre proposes to level the playing field for Americans as a whole. By requiring all Americans to participate in a health care insurance program, it increases the revenue pool necessary to pay for everyone’s coverage by decreasing the burden of liability for health care insurance companies and health care providers. This is not a perfect fix. In fact all it does initially is increase profits for health care insurance companies. But it is a step in the right direction and the moral thing to do because with additional moves to control costs it can create a health care complex that can cover all Americans while eventually eliminating pre-existing condition clauses now used by health care insurance companies to exclude people with from coverage.

What America needs is a public option in which all citizens can enroll at an affordable level, and without penalty for pre-existing conditions. Right now millions of Americans are excluded from gaining coverage based on so-called pre-existing conditions while even basic health care insurance can be prohibitively expensive for individuals that do not work for giant corporations. This is a system of institutionalized discrimination that amounts to class warfare. The Ryan budget takes that discrimination to new heights, targeting the elderly and poor by cutting programs like Medicare and Medicaid by 70%. Ryan essentially proposes balancing our national budget on the backs of the elderly and the poor. This is Social Darwinism at its worst, and the most reprehensible of actions.

The real challenge is not only how to pay for health care of course, but how to control costs associated with delivering it. The Ryan budget ignores this fact because it is favors profits for huge scale insurance companies and health care providers that do not want to give up opportunities to create monopolies over health care markets.

Already smaller hospitals are being forced to consolidate in order to compete in the health care industry. Economics 101 states that corporate consolidation ultimately reduces competition leading to price escalation. Meanwhile consumer expectations related to health care have escalated, with patients essentially demanding expensive treatments that may or may not guarantee positive outcomes. We all need to understand that even good health care coverage does not make us immune to disease or immortal. But the existing health care system, by catering to only the healthiest of Americans who qualify for the best insurance pools plays a Darwinistic game of genetic selection.

One of the basic precepts that health care reform should recognize is that life itself is a pre-existing condition. No one gets out of this world alive. But that means everyone should receive fair coverage while they do live on this earth. It also means that end of life counseling and palliative care is sometimes the best option for someone who is elderly and/or critically ill. Yet conservative gadflies pounced on provisions in health care reform legislation providing for end of life counseling. Sarah Palin called them “death panels,” when in fact the counseling proposed in health care reform delivers guidance on compassionate care for the critically ill or elderly.

Meanwhile the real problem in America is the nation’s addiction to a diet too high in salt, fat and sugar, leading to debilitative (yet largely preventable) diseases such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer and other diet-caused conditions. Sadly, these are the foods that large corporations excel in producing. But if the government attacks these foods on principle as unhealthy, its contentions often ridiculed by right-leaning political forces as being intrusive for trying to tell Americans what to do.

The problem does not stop there. While unhealthy diets are literally killing Americans, an insidious level of pesticides, heavy metals and other pollutants have made their way into the food chain and environment, costing even more American lives. Yet a faction of political forces consistently resists environmental regulation on claims that such laws cause harm to business. But the truth is that the environmental pollution harms human health far more than it can ever affects business.

Undermining environmental laws is a form of Social Darwinism because it has been proven many times it is the poor and underprivileged who typically live in areas where environmental degradation is least enforced. Likewise the large segment of the agricultural industry that has become dependent on chemicals, hormones and bioengineering in efforts to industrialize food and fuel production seems to refuse any proposals to change.

So here’s the sneaky truth: The Paul Ryan budget bill Pathway to Prosperity is essentially a “code” message to various constituencies that buy into policies that amount to Social Darwinism and class warfare. Paul Ryan may be an intelligent, motivated young man, but his budget proposal is either deceptive and immoral or painfully naive. The Pathway to Prosperity may be a serious attempt to get spending and entitlement under control, but it does so by ignoring serious baseline moral values upon which the social contract and prosperity of America have been built and sustained. It especially attacks the tradition of compassion and moral values upon which the New Deal was based, and that is foundation on which the modern day social contract is constructed. Until the Pathway to Prosperity engage this fact, it is simply an uninformed anti-government screed, an ideologically polemic rich in numbers and poor in spirit.

There is after all a reason why the New Deal played such a large role in driving America’s prosperity to new heights from 1950 through the 1990s. It affirmed the basic precept that Americans could pursue wealth while still providing for vulnerable members of society. This drove our national pride as well as respect worldwide as we helped other nations prosper as well.

The Neocon Deal would reverse all that, throwing compassion out the window in favor its brand of Darwinistic economics. And this is said with all due respect for Charles Darwin, who would likely been disgusted at seeing his theory of evolution co-opted as an excuse for bad behavior in human beings.

The fact that conservatives promote Social Darwinism is ironic since many on the political right do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. As many as 50% of Christians in American do not believe in the basic evolutionary principles described by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species. Perhaps people who refuse to understand the raw truth of evolution cannot comprehend why the presiding social contract of compassion and protection driving American prosperity needs to exist in order to prevent the country from dissolving into a nation red in tooth and claw. Perhaps the Red states are really red for reasons we have not even considered? Their bloodthirsty nature is perhaps obscured by a corrupt veneer of religion?

The truth is that all political parties have played roles in moving America toward the brand of Social Darwinism we’re now seeing played out in politics and culture. What we’ve lost to corporate, lobbyist and personal interests is representative government. Instead what we have now is reprehensible government, as in every man or woman for himself or herself. Social Darwinism. In case you have not figured it out by now, this is how great societies go into decline.

The following is an excerpt from The Genesis Fix: A Repair Manual for Faith in the Modern Age (2007) by Christopher Cudworth. The book analyzes how biblical literalism affects politics, culture and the environment. 

Sins of power

Proclivity for wealth and power is a byproduct of the struggle for existence, a fact long recognized by the world’s religions. In a world where one of the main priorities of civilizations is to create profit and economic growth, the socially disadvantaged or “the meek” may come to be regarded as a drain on resources and a frustration to the flow of civil business. So the aspirations of the ambitious and the directives of faith often come in conflict.

Yet scripture tells us to care and provide for the meek and socially disadvantaged.  To mistreat an equal soul by any means; physically, socially, economically or politically––is a “sin of power.”

Specifically, the Bible consistently warns against choosing material over spiritual gains because focus on material possessions leads to covetousness and abuse. The New Testament offers classic condemnations of this behavior, as in 1 Timothy 6:9-10: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.” Matthew 6:24 is just as succinct: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (material wealth.)”

From a more conservative vantage point, the Bible offers guidance on how to be a fair and just manager in the event one is placed in a position of authority over others. Matthew 25:21 provides a paradigm of good conduct in the employer/employee relationship. “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!” People who are good with money clearly can be of great benefit in the world. It all comes down to how you handle the gifts you have been given.

This model of decorum is often neglected when pressure for survival tempts people to view the meek as a target for exploitation. It isn’t a bad thing to put people to work if there is a mutually equitable arrangement. But it is obviously wrong to take advantage of people through duress, slave labor or economic dominance. These practices violate the biblical principle of equal souls. For historical perspective, here are just a few of the ways the meek have been exploited throughout history:

#1 Eliminating “the meek”

The most brutal response to the problem of the meek is to eliminate them. That has been the approach of dictators and cultures of the absolute throughout history.  The Roman Emperor Nero made Christians the targets of hatred by blaming them for social ills that were the product of his own failed policies. Adolf Hitler targeted Jews for elimination along with all those he judged to be of an inferior race. Ethnic and religious “cleansings” have also been implemented whenever one culture stands in the way of another’s progress. Indigenous peoples in North America and Australia were persecuted and in many cases wiped out in the battle for land and resources.

These conflicts were also a fight to control the cultural imperative. A raw interpretation of the doctrine of Christian providence or Manifest Destiny formed at least part of the ideology for white settlers on both American and Australian continents.

So we see that competitions of race, religion, social status and economics virtually guarantee someone will be targeted as “meek” and a drain on society. Sadly the Christian faith and especially the brand of faith founded on biblical literalism has been used to fuel this absolutism, especially when it is used to confer the notion of superiority on a self-declared “chosen people” and to foster an “us or them” mentality necessary to justify killing or eliminating people who right should be seen as equal souls, not targets for exploitation or extirmination.

#2 Enslaving the meek

A similarly callous treatment of the socially disadvantaged is to enslave them. In early human history losing a war meant slavery for the people of a conquered civilization. There was also slavery created to feed the needs of commerce. Slave traders and the cultures they served obviously did not support the biblical principal of equal souls. Even America’s first swipe at the U.S. Constitution did not completely accomplish the goal of delivering equality for all its citizens. It took a Civil War and an amendment to the Constitution to complete that process.

#3 Ignoring the meek

Another common response to the meek is to simply ignore them. The Bible provides examples of how the physically or mentally disabled, poor, diseased or widowed were often ignored or ostracized. In a cruel application of religious literalism, illness or poverty was often blamed on a broken relationship with God. As a result, ancient cultures often made no plans to accommodate the needs of the weak, who were left to fend for themselves and suffer.

But faith based on the example of a loving God requires compassion, especially in a world where competition for survival often sends an entirely opposite message. Jesus Christ clearly and consistently called on all people to help the meek. The bible even advises that the meek shall inherit the earth (Psalm 37:11, Matthew 5). What a warning to those who would concern themselves primarily (or only) with material possessions.

#4 Exploiting the meek

There is certainly no crime in being needy or disadvantaged. But you wouldn’t know that from the attitude of people whose “I’ve got mine” mentality translates to politics of discrimination and exploitation of the poor and needy for profit or power. This attitude is not only sin of biblical proportions but also a violation of democratic principles as well.

Democracy and social welfare

At a theoretical level, the democratic ideal endeavors to provide equal opportunity to all its citizens. Yet a certain portion of the population will always require assistance to survive. The democratic response to chronic need has been to use governmental resources to sustain social assistance programs for groups at risk in a competitive society. This welfare also reaches beyond national boundaries to countries in need around the world. At home our government provides support to the elderly, health care safety nets, foster child initiatives, public education and other efforts to assist America’s citizens and immigrants. These programs mimic the Christian call to charity by caring for people in need. Independent faith-based initiatives may accomplish the same aims but a responsible government does not leave the welfare of its neediest citizens to chance or charity.

Considering that money for government programs comes from taxes, people in a democracy do have a right to decide how much tax should be collected and how it should be distributed.  It is a colloquial rule of thumb that imposing higher taxes to fund social welfare programs also produces bigger government. The corresponding assumption is that a cut in funding for social welfare programs reduces the size of government. But we should always challenge such assumptions if we hope to fully understand and sustain the foundations of democracy.

Critics of social welfare programs argue that government handouts diminish personal initiative and create a permanent welfare state. Efforts to initiate welfare reform have focused on changing the circumstance and mindset of the “welfare class” by helping people find work instead of relying on government checks. This effort to place people in jobs may reduce their financial dependence on the government. But putting people to work does not automatically improve the quality of their lives or alleviate social obstacles such as wage, gender or racial discrimination. They must earn pay sufficient not only to buy food and housing, but to afford health care, education and invest in retirement.

The first priority is to eradicate prejudice of any kind, be it racial, economic or discrimination based on sexual orientation or any other factors that impinge the rights of individuals––equal souls. Put another way, there has to be acceptance and love for all people to expect them to succeed. These are the equal rights to which the U.S. Constitution and democracy refer.

These rights align with the liberal core of Christian theology. Any agenda that ignores the liberal agenda of Jesus Christ by implementing fiscal or social priorities that discriminate against the meek or the poor is a sin of power. These are the national values to which politicians of good character adhere.

In a March, 2011 Salon.com piece titled War Room: The erosion of the Civil War consensus, Civil War buff Glenn W. LaFantasie documents the return of a landscape in which political operatives show more loyalty to the states in which they live than the nation to which they belong. The article focuses on some legal ramifications of the 14th Amendment and how nebulous aspects of the law leave room to pull political shenanigans, to the point of secession from the Union. All over again.

But what of the deep motivations for secession? What underlying emotions could drive a will to secede? In what category of human endeavor do we find such passion to exceed even the national trust?

Only in the foundations of religion. But seeing that religion and politics are quite commonly mixed, and mixed up, it should be no surprise. Many a nation has determined that God is on their side only to find out their opponents think the same. Certainly that was the case in the war between the Confederacy and Union in the American Civil War. There seem to be people, especially those on the Right, that still question who was right. We certainly face the possibility that our nation’s great efforts to resolve issues of state versus federal control have never been resolved. But as the start of this paragraph suggests, the problems of America run even deeper than that. While the surface issues fester and boil, in truth we are dealing with what people consider the deep down soul of America. And tradition there runs against progress.

If progress is by definition a liberal enterprise (and it is, in being open to change) then why does a nation known for progress always seem to be re-fighting its battles over issues of human rights? It is because the human temptation to rule over others is so strong and severe that people cannot resist using any means possible ro gain or keep social advantage. These include politics, commerce and yes, religion. We’re talking primeval urges here. And to the roots of human civilization we must go to find answers.

But first let us consider the present. There are moves being made this minute to reverse American social progress and gains in areas of equal rights by gender, race and sexual orientation. It is no coincidence that behind these attempts to reverse social progress lurks a brand of corrupt and anachronistic biblical interpretation that also fuels the movement against scientific knowledge and intellectualism. The stubborn pride of Old Time Religion stands ready to fight progress at every turn. It has done so for millennia and will continue to do so as long as people of rational faith refuse to confront religious corruption and the perverse effect it has on politics, culture and religion.

The Conservative/Liberal Divide

The current-day battle between liberals (or Progressives, as they now like to be called) and conservatives carries the same stridency and stubbornness that marked the American Civil War. The difficult question we must now face is whether we can anticipate the rise of a neo-confederacy in the modern age.

The original, Southern Confederacy stemmed from dissatisfaction with the state of the Union, the future of government and the use of slavery to support commerce. It might seem easy to assume that the Union was 100% on the right side of political issues in the Civil War. But no matter how correct the Union cause might appear in retrospect, the Confederacy was not by definition without virtue. As a political entity it may well have been justified defending itself against economic and military aggression by the Union. And in spite of the notion that the ideology of the Confederacy was purged through the Civil War, the nature of the personal and political freedoms advocated by the South are alive and well today in modern society, woven into the politics of libertarians and other conservatives who contend that the best government is that which governs least. These principles in part the Confederacy sought to defend. And we all know the sense of pride in defending these perceived moral principles has never been lost on at least part of the South. That mindset has now spilled over into political entities such as the Tea Party, whose motto might as well be the age-old motto of Don’t Tread On Me, repurposed for the modern age of course.

However unfortunate it may have been for the Confederate South to secede, one can admire the determination of a movement still somehow symbolic of the American revolutionary spirit. But it is a daunting reality that partisan politics could again produce an America so divided over ideology, geography, oligarchy, or all of the above.

Perhaps the most likely scenario is the formation of a “neo-Confederacy” around doctrinal states. Proponents on either side of the political fence have begun to see the value of the “winner-take-all” approach. We are not far from a moment in history when battles over doctrinal authority could lead to a secession of some form in the hands of the neo-Confederates and the states or ideologies they represent.

But there are other parties with a stake as well. The next Civil War may be fought not in the fields and forests of America, but in courtrooms where armies of lawyers battle over the rights of corporations to control America’s life and politics. Corporate lobbies and revenue now influence every facet of American life.  The largest corporations and the individuals who run them have more money and power than many countries in the world. It is not a stretch to say that one cannot become a governor, senator or representative without the backing of corporations.

In essence a neo-Confederacy of corporate largess already exists in America, and it is not limited to the Republican side of the political fence. It may not be long before the power vested in corporations becomes a mandate where America is forced to choose between its original model of a democratic republic and a corporate society in which companies literally run the business of America.

It is not corporations themselves that are at fault. Like a handgun, they only kill when put to the purpose. But if they are killing democracy through manipulation of our elected officials, then they should be disarmed in that respect. But who will do the disarming? Our Supreme Court recently tried a case in which they effectively decided to remove all restrictions on how much companies can give to politicians in public and in secret. Whether we have the courage as a nation to resist this takeover of American life is a question for our age. Any government owned and run by business will obviously favor the interests of business over that of individual citizens. This of course is the death of democracy as it was written in the United States Constitution where rights of individuals (and not corporations, despite the Supreme Court ruling) are protected.

But here’s the real democracy-killer. If religion should also be used to add clout to to the rule of corporate rights over those of individuals, then a nation has not only lost its grip on democracy and turned itself over to commerce as rule of law, it has lost all ability to monitor its soul. The very things that supposedly make America great; freedom of speech, freedom of commerce and freedom of religion, become enemies of the state when turned against it. That is exactly what is happening now, and on all three fronts.

Part of the reason doctrinal politics, economic aggression and triumphal religious language make such a potent combination is that all three are tools of pride and power. Some people even refuse to distinguish between the three. For a potent illustration of faith at play in the real world of business and politics, we quote the May 5, 2001 obituary of one Carl Bagge, a successful businessman, former leader of the National Mining Association and former National Coal Chief. Mr. Bagge’s obituary outlined the passionate manner with which he did business on behalf of the coal industry and also coal-burning electrical plants. Mr. Bagge called clean-air groups “environmental elitists,” declaring evidence that acid rain came from the pollution generated by coal plants “inconclusive” when in fact the science is quite conclusive and well documented. But Mr. Bagge was practicing a well-known Public Relations ploy of planting doubt in the minds of people by denying the truth in the face of all evidence. The same ploy is being used to this day by people who refuse to confirm the evidence behind manmade global warming, climate change and for that matter, even the science of evolution.

But let us return to the story of Mr. Bagge, who apparently saw his work on behalf of the coal industry as a religious mission. In reference to his occupation, he was quoted as saying; “We’re doing the Lord’s work here, people. Anybody who doesn’t believe that may as well leave, go and work for the other side.” As if the so-called “other side” were automatically opposed to God! Where is the stewardship of creation in that ideology?

But it doesn’t end there. When Mr. Bagge became president of the National Mining Association, he changed the group’s number to 202-GOD-COAL in an attempt to convince its members that God was the only force that could keep them from their aims. The number is still in use.

Mr. Bagge exemplified the manner in which the some people freely mix religion with corporate aims. People who take pride in their religion and their work often find it hard to keep the two separate.  The only problem with a close relationship between faith and business is that so close an association has been known to corrupt both.

When religion becomes the cause of corruption

As religions have traditionally has been a source of conscience for cultures throughout the ages, it can be particularly difficult to castigate faith when it becomes complicit in its allegiances concerned only with earthly or political power. Yet so-called Christian values continue to be promulgated in America as tools to get elected. Yet we consistently find that those who treasure the authority of religion either try to create a theocracy or ignore their campaign promises entirely. Few are able, as was Abraham Lincoln, to effectively integrate their faith with actions of conscience and not step over the line where their personal faith is imposed upon other Americans as the Constitution is written to prevent. Religion in politics is tricky because those who dare place a stake in the middle ground get accused of weak doctrine by those on the right and suspicious motives by those on the left.

Yet the issue of faith in politics is vital and real. When religion fails in its role as a protectorate for our souls by abandoning the true voice of faith, all sorts of corruption follows. A faith that lends itself to corruption becomes part of the problem or worse, even a probable cause.

To avoid this corruption in faith or purpose, we can look to an example text from the New Testament, Galatians 6, for guidance: “And let the one who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”

Galatians 6 reads like a manifesto of liberal faith, encouraging us to invest in the spirit as well as good works, and to avoid political aims that are clearly selfish. We must remember that the ultimate message of our nation’s Constitution is to protect equal rights, and that implies compassion for others. Also humility, charity and an abiding belief in the principle of equal souls is manifested in these respects. Perhaps most importantly in relation to our national trust, one does not have to believe in God to express these principles. To quote the cliche, America guarantees freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

It can be difficult to sustain such principles where the harsh reality of bottom line ethics is known to override the best intentions of the faithful. Yet Galatians 6 and many other biblical texts remind us that human beings who believe in God, and even those who don’t, should strive do good works in all things as citizens of a nation that depends on liberalism for progress as well as conservatism for tradition. Only in that balance can we be expected to conduct business without compromising the soul of the nation in which we live.

History suggests it is difficult to separate the ideologies of religion and politics. Therefore it is important to develop a thorough understanding of the manner in which religion wields its influence on political issues. It is equally vital that we examine how well we are interpreting sources of faith and religion as we apply these impassioned influences in modern society. This essay examines how the authority of religion is leveraged through politics to gain advantage for the privileged while excluding the disadvantaged. Excerpted from an update of The Genesis Fix: A Repair Manual for Faith in the Modern Age by Christopher Cudworth

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination.”

–Mark Twain

Religion as a slave to literalism

American author and humorist Mark Twain was a keen skeptic on the relationship between religion and politics in American culture. “It is agreed, in this country,” Twain observed, “that if a man can arrange his religion so that it perfectly satisfies his conscience, it is not incumbent on him to care whether the arrangement is satisfactory to anyone else or not.” Twain grudgingly admitted the value of fervent faith in a country where promotion of one’s convictions, politics and religion is a respected trade. But he did not necessarily regard the adopted determination of the masses to be the mark of a healthy republic, or the sign of an enlightened populace.  “All you need is ignorance and confidence,” Twain grousingly observed, “then success is sure.”

America’s famously rambunctious mix of ignorance and confidence nearly tore the country apart in Twain’s era as war erupted between the Union and Confederacy over states rights and a system of commerce dependent on slavery. The Rev. Peter Fontaine of Virginia was an Early American cleric (1687-1757) whose views on slavery exemplify the subtle yet distinctive manner religion––and especially biblical literalism––contributed to the acceptance and proliferation of slavery leading up to the Civil War. Rev. Fontaine called upon the Genesis character of Adam to explain man’s inhumanity to man. “Like Adam, we are all apt to shift off the blame from ourselves and lay it upon others, how justly in our case you may judge. The Negroes are enslaved by the Negroes themselves before they are purchased by the masters of the ships who bring them here. It is, to be sure, at our choice whether we buy them or not, so this then is our crime, folly or whatever you please to call it.”

Here we find the Reverend Fontaine transferring blame for the slave trade to others while advancing the notion that people are powerless to change as the direct result of Adam’s original sin.  But for all his seeming sensitivity to the frail state of human will, the Rev. Fontaine demonstrates a startling willingness to subvert principles of human equality as a means to justify the economic and political climate of his era.

Fontaine recruits the literal character of Adam to indemnify his claim to the authority of God, but the obligation to moral action seems to end there as he dismisses believers from moral responsibilities in favor of the blessings of material gain.  From this coarse subjectivity one might construe that submission to commerce is an act of atonement and pursuit of profit a form of salvation.

Fontaine does agonize over the struggle to keep slaves for commerce and still earn a place in heaven: “Nevertheless I cannot help expressing my concern at the nature of our Virginia estates, so far as they consist in slaves. I suppose we have, young and old, one hundred and fifty thousand of them in the country, a number, at least, equal to the whites. It is a hard task to do our duty towards them as we ought. We run the hazard of temporal ruin if they are not compelled to work hard on the one hand and on the other, that of not being able to render a good account of our stewardship in the other and better world, if we oppress and tyrannize over them.”

Here we find Fontaine making a case for slavery by paying lip service to issues of moral consequence. He strives to balance the economic mood of the times against concerns about earning a place in heaven. In the end, Fontaine sides with unrepentant capitalists seeking cheap labor by employing the confessional language of evangelical literalism to justify keeping slaves as if it were the biblical thing to do.

That very same phenomenon is occurring today as wealthy corporate interests, generally sided with Republicans and Tea Party activists beholden to wealthy capitalists, seek to eliminate labor protections such as collective bargaining rights in hopes of capitalizing on wealth opportunities for themselves. It is truly ironic that the political party that has positioned itself for years as representing “family values” and the appropriate use of politics in religion should stand on the side of blatant attempts at exploitation and subversion of hard-won laws protecting the labor market in America.