This is the important point on religion

[kristopher]

Those that have been disillusioned by Bush and his religious policies are largely rethinking the role of religion in government - at least the one's I've talked to.

Please Read this paper carefully and take the time to share it with regular churchgoers that are important to you.

This doesn't attack religion - at all! But it does show very very convincingly the results of weaving church and state too closely together.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

It is amazingly convincing and I hope this post is recommended and the paper gets out there.

Please.

Kris

Just a short snip. MAke sure you include the graphs
The Belief that Religiosity is Socially Beneficial

<3> ...As he helped initiate the American experiment Benjamin Franklin stated that “religion will be a powerful regulator of our actions, give us peace and tranquility within our minds, and render us benevolent, useful and beneficial to others” (Isaacson: 87-88). When the theory of biological evolution removed the need for a supernatural creator concerns immediately arose over the societal implications of widespread abandonment of faith (Desmond and Moore; Numbers). In 1880 the religious moralist Dostoyevsky penned the famous warning that “if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.” Even so, in Europe the issue has not been a driving focus of public and political dispute, especially since the world wars.

<4> Although its proponents often claim that anti-evolution creationism<1> is scientific, it has abjectly failed in the practical realms of mainstream science and hi-tech industry (Ayala et al.; Crews; Cziko; Dawkins, 1996, 1997; Dennett; Gould; Koza et al.; L. Lane; Miller; Paul and Cox; Shanks; Wise; Young and Edis). The continuing popularity of creationism in America indicates that it is in reality a theistic social-political movement partly driven by concerns over the societal consequences of disbelief in a creator (Forrest and Gross; Numbers). The person most responsible for politicizing the issue in America, evangelical Christian W. J. Bryan,<2> expressed relatively little interest in evolution until the horrors of WW I inspired him to blame the scientific revolution that invented chemical warfare and other modern ills for “preaching that man has a brute ancestry and eliminating the miraculous and the supernatural from the Bible” (Numbers: 178).

<5> In the United States many conservative theists consider evolutionary science a leading contributor to social dysfunction because it is amoral or worse, and because it inspires disbelief in a moral creator (Colson and Pearcey; Eve and Harrold; Johnson; Numbers; Pearcey; Schroeder). The original full title for the creationist Discovery Institute was the Discovery Institute for the Renewal of Science and Culture (a title still applied to a division), and the institute’s mission challenges “materialism on specifically scientific grounds” with the intent of reversing “some of materialism’s destructive cultural consequences.” The strategy for achieving these goals is the “wedge” strategy to insert intelligent design creationism into mainstream academe and subsequently destroy Darwinian science (Johnson; Forrest and Gross note this effort is far behind schedule). The Discovery Institute and the less conservative, even more lavishly funded pro-theistic Templeton Foundation fund research...

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

[struggle4progress]

1. From a scientific point-of-view, the social dysfunctionalities of (say) the United States

should be studied in terms of the actual nature of social relationships and in terms of the popular social theories that individuals use to negotiate those relationships. If popular social theories do not match realities of relationships, then individuals will have difficulty negotiating relationships in a satisfactory manner, and a certain unhappy tension will result

The popular social theories arise in various ways. For example, they arise as the spontaneous product of experience, and as such are taught from one generation to the next in the form of (evolving) traditions: if the society changes quickly, traditions are not modified quickly enough and therefore remain out-of-date, reflecting earlier social realities that may no longer exist. The social theories and traditions may also be imposed externally by force, as in the case of relationships between ruling and oppressed groups (such as masters and slaves). With the growth of communication technology, there is also the possibility that social theories and traditions may be transmitted through mass-produced entertainment: in that case, the notions transmitted are likely to reflect the interests of those who control the media

It is, of course, possible for these social theories and traditions to be transmitted through apparently religious language or theological perspectives, but this is not the only manner of transmission. Since religious language or theological perspectives often change only slowly, the attempt (to convey social notions through religious language or theological perspectives) may reflect obsolete concepts. On the other hand, if mass media convey social ideas, using apparently religious language or theological perspectives, then (as before) the notions transmitted are likely to reflect the interests of those who control the media

The text linked in OP seems extremely naive to me