News Intelligence Analysis



In the Beginning God Created an Open Society

(Guess Who’s Trying to Close It)

An Open Society Versus a Closed Society and Attributes of Both

By Katherine Yurica

July 21, 2006



It is not our abilities that
define us; it is our choices that
show who we truly are.

J. K. Rowling



The Prologue


Now the serpent was more subtle than any

beast of the field…And he said unto the

woman, ‘Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not

eat of every tree of the garden?’

And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may

eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of

the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the

garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it,

neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’”

And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall
not surely die; for God doth know that in the day

ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened and
ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

And when the woman saw that the tree was

good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes,

and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took

of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto

her husband with her; and he did eat.


Genesis 3:1-6 KJV


The Garden of Eden



In Genesis, the God of the Bible created an open society. We know this because God had the power to exclude the Serpent from the Garden of Eden, but God chose to allow the Serpent to stay along with his contrary voice and vision. It was a gamble God was willing to make. He simply rejected coercive power over his creation. In the end, it cost God everything he loved—including his only begotten son.


The Serpent not only chose to co-habit paradise with Adam and Eve but he devised a powerful challenge to God’s authority by lying about what God said, and by lying about God’s motives as well. The Serpent contradicted God’s clear statement that even to touch the forbidden fruit would bring death. The Serpent said, “Ye shall not surely die.” But God’s and the Serpent’s statements could not both be true. Here was the existential moment of the fledgling civilization. Adam and Eve had four choices:


1. They could have believed God’s word was the truth.


2. They could have believed the Serpent was speaking the truth. (And we know they opted for this solution.)


3. They could have accepted the responsibility to investigate, in order to determine the truth.


4. Or, perhaps the most intolerable: they could have lived with uncertainty by accepting both statements as true until proven otherwise at some future undetermined date, but this would have meant adopting or tolerating ambiguity in life, which automatically would remove any sense of infallibility or perfection they might have adopted about themselves.


Both of the first two options were undesirable from the point of view of maintaining an open society. They required no effort on the part of the first two humans—only blind faith. So the first two options would be correct for children—not adults, and as such could be considered authoritarian in nature.


From God’s perspective, he may have miscalculated the choices man would make. For he may have failed to see that man would actually choose an option that was against man’s best interests. He also may have failed to see that an open society inherently carries responsibilities that man might want to avoid at all costs. Man’s disinclinations made yielding to the Serpent’s argument extremely plausible. Consider the following:  Authoritarian manipulators have three advantages:


1. They offer man the appearance of certainty, power and control: they have the psychological insight that man is influenced by any person who acts with assuredness. Truth tellers, on the other hand, often speak with humility and humility is always perceived as weakness by man.


2. They offer to lift the burden of responsibility from off the shoulders of man. The “leader” will carry that burden for us.


3. They eliminate the necessity for man to do the hard mental work of investigation. In other words, they exploit man’s tendency toward laziness.


These three authoritarian “services” reveal the inherent difficulties buried within the very structure of an open society: it becomes clearer that an open society carries within itself, the seeds of its own destruction. Only the society that is on guard day and night can preserve it’s open status. (“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” John Philpot Curran)


So faced with a grave contradiction, Adam and Eve failed to investigate; they simply listened to the last person that spoke to them. At the very least, they failed to establish a fairness doctrine for their world: They failed to get both sides of the story.


Consider the fact that Adam and Eve, as inhabitants of a free world in a garden of plenty, chose to rely upon the assurances of a lying trickster instead of taking up the responsibilities imposed upon intellectually capable people to distinguish between what is true and what is false through an investigation of the facts, which necessarily entailed giving God the opportunity to answer the Serpent’s false assertions. This story of the first archetypical humans is the story of the epistemological fall of man. It illustrates how a form of dementia[1] was introduced and accepted by mankind with far-reaching consequences. As I previously wrote in my essay, “What the Fundamentalists Won’t Tell You about the Bible”:


“Death entered the human race not because God punished his creation, but because it had to do with something fundamentally part of the universe he created. Think about it: He—God—is ultimate reality. A lie therefore contradicts reality and creates delusions....Delusions, falsity and superstitions separate us not only from God (ultimate reality) but from life and health! This is as true today as it was in the Garden of Eden.”[2]


Death is necessarily the natural offspring of lies with illness and dementia preceding it. As far as intellectual laziness is concerned, it can be summed up by an old saying,

 “Following the easiest course is what makes rivers and men crooked.”


As a consequence of their choices, Adam and Eve were banished from Eden.[3]


But the story doesn’t end there. The problem Adam and Eve faced is similar to the problem facing all Americans today: While living in an open society, we, like the first society, are failing to take responsibility for the preservation of our open door. Like Adam and Eve, millions of Americans are choosing to believe the Serpent dementors,[4] who appear this time in the robes of clergymen who speak to huge congregations, and to vast television and radio audiences with smooth and sincere lies, urging Americans to refocus on essentially un-American and unbiblical religio-political doctrines and to simply ignore the contradictions between the Serpent’s statements and the statements God spoke in the Bible. Once again willful ignoration is being urged upon us. Once again it is being urged upon us by those who prefer a closed society—by those who refuse to allow the Truth the same opportunity to speak as Falsity has! We are witnessing a renewal of the primeval battle. For the unintended effect of God’s beautiful creation was that he created the psychological and intellectual environment in which evil could grow and even take over this world. To fully understand what happened and how it happened, we need to comprehend the differences between open and closed societies.


An Open Society Is Pluralistic


An open society is a society that honors and protects pluralism.[5] It’s a society with exciting variety: it’s sweet and sour pork, mash potatoes, apple pie, enchiladas, tacos, sushi, goulash, gravlux, pizza and spaghetti, croissants and French rolls, ice cream and cheese cake! It’s all the races, kindreds, nations and people from all over the world. It’s the polka and square dancing, it’s Serbian and Vietnamese; it’s Buddhists and Pentecostals, Baptists and Roman Catholics, Atheists, as well as Muslims—liberals as well as conservatives, progressives as well as regressives—all living together in harmony in one nation. In short, pluralism allows divergent views and opinions. And it is this latter quality that defines pluralism more than any thing else: It is the society that John Milton describes in Areopagitica, Milton’s famous speech on freedom of the press: Open societies allow “Truth and Falsity to grapple together in the open market place.” [6]  Thus if Falsity writes a column, takes out an ad, or broadcasts a speech, the open society grants Truth the opportunity to answer, (but the reverse is also true: If Truth speaks—Falsity is granted the power to contradict it.) An open society gives equal time and space so that readers and listeners can make informed choices on matters that affect the entire society.


Note that there is one caution: an open society requires individuals—not a corporate power, nor an ecclesiastical power, nor the power of the state—to determine which is which. Often, those watching the struggle between the two grappling forces follow Adam and Eve’s example— and repeat the fall of man through their own laziness and failure to investigate to determine who is speaking rot, thus making themselves subject to the moving currents of the moment, and worse, to a form of dementia. For every lie we believe, we grow less healthy, our minds contain less reality, and we become more and more demented.[7]


A Closed Society Is Singular


A closed society, in contrast to an open one, is authoritarian in nature and it regards pluralism to be an enemy that must be defeated since a closed society seeks to impose a single blue print upon its citizens, that is, a single religion or ideology, a single weltanschauung (world view). A closed society shuts down all dissenting voices. Adults are reduced to children—actually to demented [8] children—children who are joyless. A closed society must necessarily rule by fear, for they need to create terror and a common enemy that unites the whole in order for their manipulation to work. However, it is a fundamental rule of power: “Those who lie hate those to whom they lie.”[9] Those skilled in coercive lies suck the joy out of their society like the dementors in J. K. Rowling’s famous novel.[10]


A closed society manipulates the truth. It resorts to misinformation, propaganda and to lies. In a closed society “truth” is dictated—it is predetermined. And what is called “Truth” may actually be false and what is labeled “false” by the government or corporate entities may be the truth. A closed society is quick to denounce truth-tellers as “liars.” In contrast, in an open society, each individual must make Truth his goal.


The closed society appeals to many people because they believe they are being fed truth by their sources of information. If they consume only “truth,” they reason, there is no need to do the hard work of discernment. Yet in America today, the opinions of such personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter often go unchallenged and pass for truth when their outpourings are habitually scornful and consist of mocking personal attacks that employ unmitigated falsehoods, which is, by the way, an intentional means of suppressing opposition. If we want to keep American society open, their voices must not be shut down—their words should, however, be investigated by each listener and reader and the open market place must allow the counter arguments to be heard. In fact, the open market place must remain open to all if an open society is to be preserved.[11]


A closed society has an additional vice, it ignores the rule of humility that requires us to acknowledge our fallibility and therefore to respect other views when we cannot know which view is best, for often, Truth may be obscured. On the other hand, a closed society teaches the doctrine of one’s own infallibility. It teaches the perfectibility of man—a particularly potent doctrine when wrapped in religious dogma—such as the “once saved—always saved” heresy. It teaches and reinforces the concept of certainty in opposition to humility. It seeks to export its doctrine around the globe—since it has cornered the market on truth. I intend to return to the advantages of fallibility below, but first, we need to see how God tried to make corrections.



Moses and How to Eliminate What Is False


It is not our part to master all the tides of
the world, but to do what is in us for the
succour of those years wherein we are set,
uprooting the evil in the fields that we know,
so that those who live after may have clean
earth to till. What weather they shall have is
not ours to rule.


J. R. R. Tolkien, The Return of the King



If our mental health is dependent upon choosing between Truth and Falsity, how do we do it?


Following their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, mankind did not grasp the need to make Truth their goal in life. In fact, man made a right royal mess of things and the Bible tells us that God regretted that he made man and he grieved over it.[12] One is forced to see God as a victim of his own miscalculation at this point for God proceeded to destroy what he had created (all except one righteous family and a sampling of all the wonderful animals God had created). Then God started over and eventually after another series of missteps by man, God placed all of his hopes on one individual named Moses. God gave Moses the Law, which in a certain light was perhaps a desperate act to save mankind. It was another corrective measure. For it, at long last, forced reasoning to become elevated; for the first time, critical thinking would engage man’s mind on a societal level. God further inspired Moses and in two of the greatest passages in all literature (which must be read together as one), Moses wrote the definition of the “scientific method” more than three millenniums before modern man breathed the word, “science.”


In Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and Deuteronomy 13, Moses established the criteria for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science.[13] Moses carefully framed the criteria in precisely the negative terminology which characterizes the statements of Karl Popper, who was the distinguished professor of logic and scientific method at the London School of Economics.[14] If we paraphrase the text into modern language, Moses’ criteria reads:


1. When a scientist (or prophet) speaks in the name of Truth and makes a prediction or offers a statement, if the prediction does not come to pass or a statement does not prove true, that is a theory or statement that Truth has not given.


But what happens if the prediction does come to pass—should we accept the words of the man as Truth and follow him? Moses said “No!”


2. If a man claims to be speaking in the name of Truth and either insists that he is utilizing a valid scientific methodology or is a promoter of a new epistemology (a new way of obtaining knowledge) or that he is speaking for God, and he makes a prediction ostensibly as a test and it eventuates—before accepting the man’s epistemology, system, statements, or theory—one must critically investigate his methodology to determine the presence of false reasoning and errors. If they are found, the man and his theories must be rejected.


Thus the prophet’s (or scientist’s) predictions are subject to tests of refutation not confirmation; they are falsified by observation. The biblical literature also demands that the methodology of the prophet be examined!


In the words of Karl Popper, “Einstein consciously seeks for error elimination. He tries to kill his theories; he is consciously critical…” As I previously stated it:


“The pseudo-scientist, on the other hand, loves his theory above everything else. It is his baby. He raises it up, applauds it, and makes it the standard by which everything else should be measured or interpreted. It is his idol. He tries to save it from refutation at all costs. And because it is the theory first and truth second—a pseudo-science is wedded to such incorrigible bedfellows as falsehood, dogmatism, and delusion. This difference in attitudes marks the essential demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Karl Popper put to rest the myth of ‘invincibility’ of their results: ‘irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory as people often think, but a vice.’” [15]


It appears that God wanted us to see that in our thirst to “be right,” we had to search for what is wrong and make corrections in our thinking. In this process of elimination the recognition of our own errors is actually a God-send. As George Soros showed us fallibility:


“…opens the way to critical thinking and there is no limit to how far our understanding of reality may go. There is infinite scope for improvement not only in our thinking but in our society. Perfection eludes us; whatever design we choose, it is bound to be defective.”[16]


Then Mr. Soros gave us a profound definition of an open society:


“We must therefore content ourselves with the next best thing—a form of social organization that falls short of perfection but is open to improvement. That is the concept of the open society: a society open to improvement.”[17]


Mr. Soros’ definition succinctly implies all the attributes I have listed above for an open society, including pluralism and granting opportunities for opposition arguments. An open society values ideas and encourages and rewards their expression.


Indeed, a society open to improvement encourages curative actions and as we have seen, the God of the Bible showed mankind that he repeatedly employed corrective measures.[18] In fact, God is a self-correcting entity and it’s important to note: he made man in his own image.[19] The urge for improvement therefore is an intrinsic part of man’s nature. It cannot be eradicated or suppressed without endangering the future of civilization.


In fact, the adoption of the doctrine of man’s fallibility is at the heart and soul of Jesus’ message to mankind—one is ‘born again’ in practice, not once, but repeatedly in an ongoing cycle throughout life, for repentance means literally to “change one’s mind,” and correcting one’s perceptions is continuous. Living for truth is a way of life. As long as an individual thinks of himself as infallible—as perfect—he is separated from the very nature of God. His ego labors under an enormous burden in order to maintain the illusion of his perfection. As Scott Peck said, the evil cannot entertain any idea of imperfection of themselves. They run and hide from the knowledge of their own imperfection. They are forced to keep truth at a distance. “Mental health,” Peck wrote, “is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.”[20] Those “Christians” who pride themselves as being reborn yet fail to implement truth in their daily lives actually live in darkness and have never understood the emancipation of Christianity.[21]



How Our Open Society Is Being Converted into a Closed World



If we seriously think about it, it probably makes
more sense to assume this is a naturally evil
world that has somehow been mysteriously
‘contaminated’ by goodness, rather than the
other way around. The mystery of goodness
is even greater than the mystery of evil.


Scott Peck



It appears that God’s efforts at saving mankind have all gone astray—even the Advent of God’s son has not succeeded as the ultimate corrective measure. For the fact of the matter is this: Jesus of the Bible revalidated pluralism by showing his disciples that no one should be treated as an outcast. Jesus’ view of society was completely open—he removed all restrictive barriers and made it clear that a sense of moral outrage at the behavior of so-called “sinners” was rooted in hypocrisy and evil. Consider the fact that he sat and ate with sinners, tax collectors, Samaritans and publicans. He allowed a woman street walker to wash his feet with her tears. Jesus was clearly a pluralist.[22]


And Jesus’ teachings were revolutionary. He showed us that sexual issues are a private matter and ought not to be the subject of public opprobrium. He allowed all manner of “sinners” to touch and be touched by him—this in a society that practiced severe discrimination and shunning! In his day, churchmen did not even speak to a prostitute, a Samaritan or a publican. Yet these ‘sinners’ were the very people Jesus called his “neighbors” and he loved them as he loved himself. Every right that Jesus had—he granted to his neighbors. He did not condemn. He did not throw a stone. He did not hold people who violated sexual mores up to public ridicule. But he did call the churchmen who pointed fingers of superiority at others, “hypocrites!” Significantly the Pharisees of Jesus day believed sexual moral issues were the most important issues of their day. They considered themselves to be the protectors of their society, but Jesus came to heal the sick, minister to the poor, clothe the naked and love those who were despised.


Today, the Pharisees have returned to power with a vengeance! As I write, the future of mankind—let alone the future of America—is at stake. The churches have turned militant once again. They now seek to rule, and Voldemort[23]—not Jesus is their god. The contrast could not be stronger: Voldemort seeks dominion and power. But Jesus urged us to love our neighbor—regardless of his political, religious, or ethnic background; regardless of his or her sex, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. The very process of loving one’s neighbor as oneself establishes social equality—which is the very foundation of democracy.[24] Voldemort seeks to impose his will on others—Jesus rejects this road and asks us to love others.


In order to impose a single blue print upon a society like America, a political movement must be launched that would seek to control every elective office as well as the judiciary throughout the country. In addition, the conquering dementors would need to control all the sources of information. As I have shown in my essay, “The Despoiling of America,” that is the intent of the religious right and the so-called Neo-Conservatives. But first they had to create an enemy and develop a strategy to conquer that enemy.


The enemy for the Neo-Conservatives and their religious partners was and is something called “godless liberal humanists.” What they mean by it is that everyone who is not a member of the in-group—the religious-right “Christian group,” is unacceptable, whether others are Christian believers or not, they—that is we—are the enemies.[25]In fact, democracy itself is under siege.


As I have written in my essay, “Conquering by Stealth and Deception,”[26]


“[T]o get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons.”[27]


I have paraphrased four immoral principles of the movement which reveal their Machiavellian origins:


“1) Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.


“2)   It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”


“3)    Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.


“4) The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.”[28]


These fundamental principles of domination are nothing short of evil. Allow me once again to show that the adoption of such methods by Republican Party elected officials and operatives is actually converting our open society into a closed world.




Creating the Enemy


Good religion teaches men that politics
is the most important enterprise in the
eyes of God. Like Moses, Machiavelli
wants the law of his state to be seen,
and therefore obeyed, as divinely


Michael Ledeen, Machiavelli on
Modern Leadership




Tim LaHaye, author of the fictional Left Behind series is also the author of an earlier book, the vitriolic and poisoned Battle for the Mind. [29]  In it, LaHaye created a new “evil” religion in America.


He wrote, “[T]he most dangerous religion in the world today—[is] humanism.”[30] This concept was shocking to me for I’d always thought that God was a humanist because of John 3:16: “For God so loved [humanity] that he gave his only begotten son…” And in fact, Christian Humanism does devote itself to human welfare, largely because that is the heart and soul of Jesus’ teachings. But this essential aspect of Christianity is an anathema to Tim LaHaye and dominionists and Battle for the Mind can be viewed as the declaration of war against Jesus’ love and concern for humanity—for the poor, the naked and helpless. For example, Joe Bageant offers these quotes that describe a very different Jesus:


“Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again.”

-- From Glorious Appearing by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins


“The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God.”


-- 15-year old fundamentalist fan of the Left Behind series



Undaunted by the Jesus of the Bible, Tim LaHaye repeatedly sells the idea that even secular humanism is a religion[31] that is unacceptable and incompatible with his brand of “Christianity.”  In his effort to create an enemy to Christianity, he described humanists as people who “become obsessed with the idea that they render a service for humanity by stamping out Christianity…”[32] (Yet he admits that humanists make up only six percent of the population.)[33] But as I pointed out in my essay, “Outing Creeping Dominionism,” he states that “over 50 percent of our legislators are either committed humanists or are severely influenced in their thinking by the false theories of humanism.”[34]


But if humanism is a religion as LaHaye insists, he digs a trap for himself when he states emphatically:


“No humanist is qualified to hold any governmental office in America” from “United States senator, congressman, cabinet member, State Department employee, or any other position…” [35]


By making it clear that no humanist is qualified to hold any office in America, he violates one of the most basic prohibitions in the Constitution.[36]There simply is no reconciliation between his exclusionary thinking and the Constitution of the United States. Article VI, which reads in pertinent part:


“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”


LaHaye makes it clear that candidates for office must meet his criteria—his test—he says only those who have a “true Christian consensus” are qualified to hold office.[37]


And what is a “true Christian consensus” to Tim LaHaye? It is only “Christians” of a certain kind—those who endorse laissez-faire capitalism, those who believe in the horrendous doctrine of the survival of the fittest—(nothing less than social Darwinism), and those who fearfully believe homosexuality is a learned behavior that makes their sons and daughters potential victims. LaHaye put it this way: children “with no predisposition toward [homosexuality] can be led into it by a homosexual teacher, particularly before puberty.”[38] In other words, the so-called “Christian consensus” appeals only to those who believe that homosexuality is like a contagious disease, so all homosexuals should be permanently quarantined. These people must be among the most prejudiced people on the planet. Equally appalling is the appeal to those who believe the false doctrine that abortion is a sin and is murder in the Bible[39]—clearly—only those who are ignorant, fearful and pliable need apply to this heretical distortion of Christianity.


Like Joseph McCarthy before him, LaHaye labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization of Women, the Urban League and others as “humanist organizations,”[40] the modern day equivalent to “communist organizations.”


What is at stake is control and power. Tim LaHaye and the religious right intend to take over every elective office in the United States. They said so. And just the statement alone is a complete disregard of the Constitution. Although I have quoted this passage several times, allow me to place it here for those of my readers who never heard it before. Tim LaHaye outlined the plan to take over America on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club show on September 25, 1985:


“Suppose that every Bible believing church—all 110,000—decided to…raise up one person to run for public office and win… If every church in the next ten years did that, we would have more Christians in office than there are positions…there are only 97,000 elective offices.”


As James Madison said in Federalist Paper 47:


“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”


The War against Pluralism



On two days in 1985, Pat Robertson appeared on his 700 Club television show to contrast what he considered to be the failed example of the ancient Greeks[41] and to describe not only America’s lack of unity but to define the term “pluralism.” He said:


“You see where we’re going if we continue humanism. There is no absolute, there is no standard, and when that happens you have what is laughingly called pluralism. One thinker said, ‘Pluralism is a euphemism to describe a transition from one orthodoxy to another.’” (September 19, 1985.)


The next day, Robertson continued talking about the nation and asked rhetorically:


“Why don’t we agree? … Why don’t we pray together that God will touch the hearts of the people that there might be unity?”


Then Robertson provided the key ingredient of a new religio-political blueprint:



“We advocate the Bible as the best thing to unify around, the great moral law of God. That we would say, ‘This is it!’” (September 20, 1985.)


This theme has been expressed even more emphatically by others. For example Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, addressed an audience in Fort Wayne, Indiana on April 15, 1993:


“Our goal is a Christian Nation….We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules.”[42]


To get a flavor of a recent event, people attending a “Reclaim America” conference in Florida in February, 2005, received material written by James Kennedy. The material revealed not only how the idea of controlling America has spread, but how seriously the Dominionists take their new role: Kennedy says:  

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.” [43]

Pat Robertson and the other leaders of dominion politics are all too willing to offer the portions of the Bible to which they subscribe and to which they ask Americans to pay attention. Like many false prophets before them, it’s an easy thing to clip out 99 percent of the Bible and build a religio-political philosophy on their one percent and say, “This is it!” But in so doing they make a lie of the scriptures.


But how can Robertson and LaHaye and the hundreds of other followers and promoters of this scheme succeed? I think it is because American churchgoers are ignorant of what is and what isn’t in the Bible.


In fact, in America only a scant few have ever read the Bible from cover to cover. As Bill McKibben pointed out in his essay, “The Christian Paradox: How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong,” three out of every four Americans believe that the Bible teaches that ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ In fact, neither the phrase nor the sentiment it expresses is from the Bible, it’s from Benjamin Franklin.[44] McKibben sites a poll that shows “only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.”[45]


So America’s churchgoers are content to allow their “pastors” to offer a total revisionist interpretation of the biblical literature they know nothing about. They, like Adam and Eve, have handed over their responsibilities to evil men who are trying to remake America into their own greed-induced image: and you can be sure that it is a closed society they aspire to—the only kind that allows men to totally dominate. And you can be sure those pastors ignore what Jesus said:


“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24.



“Soon we will all face the choice
between what is right and what is easy.”

J. K. Rowling



Reference Notes



[1] From Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: “n. 1: a condition of deteriorated mentality that is characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual level…” 


[2] Katherine Yurica, “What the Fundamentalists Won’t Tell You About the Bible,”  Yurica Report, July 31, 2005.


[3] There is something else that occurred when man was banished from the Garden of Eden: the banishment forced man to place a priority on discovering the Truth—his very survival was dependent upon it. Man had to discover how to grow crops, what plants were edible, how to hunt, how to read the sky for signs of coming storms—and all of these learned facts had to be passed on to the next generation—man’s survival was at stake.


 [4] From J. K. Rowling’s book, The Prisoner of Azkaban, Scholastic, Arthur A. Levine Books, 1999.


[5] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “pluralism” in the sense I am using it as: “4 a: a state or condition of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.”


[6] Unless of course criminal misrepresentations are being proffered, in which case they can be halted by statute for the protection of society from fraudulent schemes.


[7] See Scott Peck’s excellent analysis of the “walking schizophrenics” in his book, The People of the Lie, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1983. In particular, see his chapter: “Toward a Psychology of Evil,” beginning at page 36.


[8] From the archaic meaning of the verb: “to deprive of reason,” hence one who is deprived of reason.


[9] Proverbs 26:28 And note that hating is equated with murder at 1 John 3:15.


[10] J. K. Rowling, The Prisoner of Azkaban,  Scholastic, Arthur A. Levine Books, 1999.


[11] And those who call themselves Christians need to take to heart the assertion in the Bible that a righteous person will not “sit in the seat of the scornful.” (Psalm 1:1)  It is perhaps too much to ask that the clergy who hate pluralism point out that God hates “A lying tongue, and he who sows discord among his brethren.” (Proverbs 6:19 but read 6:16-19.)


[12] Genesis 6:6.


[13] This material is from my unpublished book, The Great Superbook Trial, 1978, and Who Really Wrote the Bible?, a 1995 edition. pp. 269-261. Also portions are quoted at:


[14] Karl R. Popper, Conjectures & Refutations, Basic Books, New York, London, 1962.


[15] This material is from my unpublished book, The Great Superbook Trial, 1978, and Who Really Wrote the Bible?, a 1995 edition. pp. 269-261. Also portions are quoted at:


[16] George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, Public Affairs, New York, 1998, at page 19.


[17] Ibid.


[18] Genesis 3:14-24 expulsion of man from the Garden; Genesis 6:1-3 God warns “My Spirit shall not always strive with man…”; Genesis 6:5-7 God repents that he made man; Genesis 7, God destroys man with the flood; Genesis 11:1-9 tower of Babel and how God scatters man abroad; Genesis 19:15 God destroys Sodom; Exodus: God selects Moses and gives the Law; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Advent of God’s son.


[19] Genesis 1:26.


[20] M. Scott Peck, M.D. People of the Lie, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1983. At page 162.


[21] John 3:20-21. “For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” KJV.


[22] “And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city, who was a sinner…began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet….Now when the Pharisee who had bidden him saw it, he spoke within himself, saying, ‘This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him; for she is a sinner.’ Luke 7:36-50.


He had dinner with Zacchaeus, the despised chief tax collector. When the good citizens saw this they were morally outraged: “They all murmured, saying that he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.” Luke 19:2.


Jesus refused to condemn a woman taken in the act of adultery. John 8:3-11.


Jesus healed a centurion’s servant. Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10.


Jesus sat eating in a house and many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with him. Matthew 9:36.


Jesus was moved by compassion for the multitudes who followed him. And he fed them with loaves and fishes. Matthew 14:15-21.


Jesus touched the leper and healed him. Matthew 8:2-4; Luke 5:12-14, Mark 1:40-42.


Jesus sat with the mentally deranged man he healed. Mark 5:15-17


Jesus called a despised Samaritan a neighbor, who should be loved as oneself. Luke 10:30-37.


Jesus described a beggar named Lazarus who was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Luke 16:19-31.


Jesus spoke to a woman of Samaria who had five husbands and was living with a man not her husband. John 4:5-30.


Jesus spent two days with the Samaritans. John 4:39-40.


Jesus healed a nobleman’s son. John 4:46-50.


[23] The evil antagonist of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Lord Voldemort a.k.a. Tom Riddle, (born December 31, 1926) is the fictional arch-villain in the Harry Potter series. He is an evil wizard bent on securing unmatched power and achieving immortality through the practice of Dark Magic. See the free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia’s information at:


[24] See: “Can Democracy Be Christian?” at:


[25] I’ve written an essay, “The Big Lie GOP Combatants Tell About Democrats and How to Respond.” It’s at:


[26] See the essay at:


[27] Excerpts are published at the Yurica Report.  And we have also published the original complete document at:


[28] To give a true flavor of the intensity and breadth and width of the movement’s strategy, I want to quote from my earlier article again: The complete essay is at:


Eric Heubeck, the author of Mr. Weyrich’s manual, does not mince words. Here is a sample of the most immoral political program ever adopted by a political movement in this country. Notice that the manual begins with the adoption of the fundamental fact of Machiavellianism:


“This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea’s promoters—in other words,

“We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it—if it is to succeed at all—because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society….


“There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture….


“Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions….


“We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.  We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.


“We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime…”


[29] Tim LaHaye, The Battle for the Mind, Fleming H. Revell Company, New Jersey, 1980.


[30] Ibid. at page 29.


[31] Ibid at page 128. The reference is to Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961 and a footnote by Justice Hugo L. Black. LaHaye claims the Supreme Court agrees with him by citing dictum in a footnote—on an issue which was not adjudicated.


[32] Ibid, page 30.


[33] Ibid at page 147: “Only a few thousand of them [humanists] can literally govern 216 million people.” At page 179: “According to the August 26, 1973 issue of The New York Times, there were only about 250,000 humanists in America. Allowing for a 10 percent increase, they would number about 275,000 today.”  At page 182: “If we grant that for every hard-core, doctrinaire humanist in America, there are 50 who have been seriously influenced to humanist-style thinking, they would still total…just over 6 percent of the population.”


[34] Ibid., pp. 78-79


[35] Ibid, page 78.


[36] Ibid, page 172.


[37] Ibid, page 172.


[38] Ibid, page 174.


[39] On the issue that abortions were never a sin in the Bible, I’m quoting from “Is There a Legal Tie-in Between Abortion and Corporate Power” at:


“The following is a quote from Bloodguilty Churches by yours truly that summarizes the biblical position on miscarriages and abortions. This information is necessary in order to see how ludicrous the churches, corporations and the office of the president are on this topic! First of all, a definition is necessary. The difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is that while both are defined as the expulsion of a human fetus, a miscarriage is the ‘expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable, usually between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation’ and an abortion is ‘the expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable during the first 12 weeks of gestation.’ Okay, with that in mind let me quote several pertinent passages from my book:


Civil Torts: There was an obvious problem with the ‘eye for an eye’ law as it was stated. It did not deal with an injury inflicted by a man upon a woman where the man lacked a corresponding bodily part. For example, if a man was swinging his sword around and cut a woman’s breast off—he had no comparable part on his body that could be severed to fulfill the eye for an eye law. What to do? It appears the Bible took the first step toward pecuniary compensation. Exodus describes a new case: Two men were fighting and one of them injured a pregnant woman in the scuffle, causing a miscarriage. The law said the defendant was required to pay whatever amount was demanded by the woman’s husband after assessment by the judges. [Exodus: 21:22] (Do note that the Bible does not equate the loss of the fetus to be a death of a person. For if the fetus had been considered a person, the defendant, who caused the miscarriage, would have been put to death or suffered another punishment if his act was unintentional. More on this below.)

“To understand the biblical view of abortions, one must examine miscarriages and how the Bible treated them. In fact, the Bible makes no distinction between a woman who miscarried and a woman who was having her regular menstrual period: she was unclean until all the bleeding stopped in either case. In this respect, an abortion or miscarriage was equal to a woman’s menstrual period and the fetus was not ever considered a person. There are three passages that demonstrate this point: First a woman’s monthly menstrual cycle is described: ‘And if a woman has a discharge, her [regular] discharge of blood of her body, she shall be in her impurity or separation for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.’ Leviticus 15: 19.


“Secondly, a miscarriage or anything that causes bleeding is dealt with at Leviticus 15: 25: ‘And if a woman has an issue of blood many days not in the time of her separation, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her [regular] impurity, all the days of the issue of her uncleanness she shall be as in the days of her impurity; she shall be unclean.’ The Bible makes no distinction between the aborted fetus and the discharged blood—both make her unclean.


“Thirdly, the woman cannot have intercourse during her regular menstrual period or during the period of bleeding surrounding an abortion. ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with a woman during her [menstrual period or similar] uncleanness.’ Leviticus 18: 19 (Amplified.)


“By reviewing the law regarding punishment, we can see this even more clearly. As I discussed above, the ‘eye for an eye’ law got into trouble because of the physical differences between men and women. If a woman was injured in a part not shared by a man—the remedy had to be pecuniary. But what would happen if the biblical example in the second paragraph given above was between two pregnant women? What if one pregnant woman injured the other in some way that caused the victim to have a miscarriage? Under those circumstances the ‘eye for an eye’ law would come back into play. The defendant would have to undergo an abortion in the same way she inflicted the abortion on the injured woman. Significantly, Hosea 9:14 describes abortions as a punishment: ‘Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.’


“The real topping to this issue that reveals the hypocrisy of the churches is the fact they have never believed a miscarried fetus is a sentient human, else they would have held funerals for them.”


“If we examine the scripture at Exodus 21:22-24, we find that the KJV reads as follows:


 ‘If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follows; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follows, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’ (Emphasis added.)


“The key word here is ‘mischief” what does it mean? The obsolete but first meaning according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is ‘calamity: misfortune’ as in Shakespeare: ‘to mourn a mischief that is past and gone is the next way to draw new mischief on.’ The second meaning is this: a specific injury or damage caused by a person or other agency. The 2 b definition reads: ‘harm, evil or damage that results from a particular agency or cause.’


“What this is saying is that the loss of the fetus was not mischief—not a serious problem equivalent to the loss of a life. The scripture is saying that if the woman then dies—that’s mischief following—then the person who injured her—will be put to death!”


[40] Ibid, pages 163-163.


[41] Robertson said, “The Greeks were constantly debating. They were trying one religion, they were trying another. They were trying discourse. They were trying another. And what happened in their society is they began to be fragmented because they couldn’t agree on which was the philosophy to choose…” September 19, 1985.

As an example of America’s decline, Robertson talked about an artist who had an encounter with Christ and changed not only his “lifestyle” but his “painting style: from mystical surrealism to positive symbolism.” Citing scripture to justify this change in painting style Robertson went on to expound on Art in America:

“But you see the mental confusion, the anarchy, the nihilism of today’s art and today’s literature, and today’s films that doesn’t have any meaning, doesn’t have any purpose. You say there’s got to be something better! Well there was better and there has been better.”


[42] Reported on April 16, 1993 in The News-Sentinel. From Steve Weissman, “America’s Religious Right—Saints or Subversives?”


[43] “Reclaiming America For Christ” by Bob Moser. “In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe.’” 


[44] Bill McKibben points out “Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love [our] neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, [it’s] as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.”  From August 2005 Harpers magazine and Sojourners Newsletter. At:


[45] Ibid.



Katherine Yurica is a news intelligence analyst. She was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.



Send a letter 
to the editor 
about this article

Related Essays and Articles

Read a Minister's Letter 
about this article

Political Philosophy and Analysis Directory

Directory on the Rise of Christian Dominionism

Directory on Religious Trends

Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2006 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.