Christianity is NOT Religion

May 24, 2009
God's appointed servants
God's appointed servants.... Truth....
Anyone who feels called to work for Me and to work on earth in My name always and forever has to let himself be drawn and guided by Me, he has to let Me speak to Him through the voice of His heart, he has to listen to what this voice tells him and comply with the prompting of his heart. Anyone who feels called has to stay in constant contact with Me, he has to subordinate himself unconditionally and without resistance to My will. Only then can I work through him, only then is he My servant in truth, the labourer, who conscientiously carries out the work for His Lord. However, he will feel his appointment by Me in the desire to proclaim My Word, My will.... he will feel urged to inform people about the meaning and purpose of earthly life, he will feel urged to admonish and warn them since he himself, if he has been appointed by Me to work for My kingdom, knows the pure truth and will also always want to spread it. The appointment by Me is the result of spiritual maturity which enables the human being to accept the pure truth from Me, and thus no person can ever be appointed by Me who was not taught by the spirit within himself first.

Although he is also able to accept knowledge intellectually it does not enable him to spread the truth because he does not completely recognise the truth in the knowledge he received. However, it is necessary to recognise the pure truth first before he can pass it on to his fellow human beings. And this recognition can only be imparted to him by My spirit.... The human being has to be spiritually reborn, only then will he have the right
understanding and recognition for pure truth, only then will he have been taught by Me Myself and will be able to work as My servant on earth. The inner desire to serve Me will also result in his calling by Me, because I will accept everyone who offers himself to work for My kingdom on earth and prepare him in accordance with his spiritual maturity. And if he gives himself to Me entirely he will follow the faintest prompting of his heart and thus always comply with My will when I require him to work for Me. For this reason he has to completely detach himself from the world, he has to look at his contact with Me as utmost bliss and as far as possible ignore all worldliness.

Then he will hear the spirit within himself ever more brightly and clearly and follow this voice ever more gladly, and then he will be a suitable worker for My kingdom on this earth....
Amen

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotrel.html
Christianity is NOT Religion

The Latin word from which the English word "religion" is derived means "to bind up." Jesus did not come to bind us up in rules and regulations or rituals of devotion, but to set us free to be man as God inended.


©1998 by James A. Fowler. All rights reserved.

You are free to download this article provided it remains intact without alteration. You are also free to transmit this article and quote this article provided that proper citation of authorship is included.

A Study/Discussion Guide of this article has been prepared by Mr. Pat Beccia.
For a printable PDF copy of these questions CLICK HERE

Home
Christianity is NOT Religion series


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The need of the hour is to distinguish and differentiate between "religion" and Christianity. Most people in the Western world have so long identified these terms and thought them to be synonymous and equivalent, that it takes a sharp can-opener of rational argument, or the sharper still "word of God" (Heb. 4:12), to reveal the contrasting dichotomy between Christianity and "religion." This attempt to differentiate between the two may indeed be presumptuous, but on the other hand it might be used of God to bring the revelation of spiritual understanding that would allow someone to make the important distinction and enjoy the reality of Jesus' life.

Many erstwhile Christian thinkers have made the distinction between "religion" and Christianity. In confronting the sixteenth century religionism of Roman Catholicism, Martin Luther explained, "I have often said that to speak and judge rightly in this matter we must carefully distinguish between a pious (religious) man and a Christian."1 The Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, was exposing the nineteenth century religionism of the state church in Denmark in his work entitled Attack on Christendom, wherein he noted that it is most difficult to explain to someone who thinks that they are a Christian already, what it means to be a Christian.2 German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, stood up to the spineless religionism of the German Lutheran Church during World War II and was killed by the Nazis. In his Letters and Papers from Prison he sets up the antinomy between faith and religion and argues for a "nonreligious" or "religionless Christianity." 3

Far and away the clearest delineation between "religion" and Christianity is drawn by the Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, who was without a doubt the greatest theologian of the twentieth century. In his voluminous Church Dogmatics, Barth wrote that

"the revelation of God is the abolition of religion." 4

"It is always the sign of definite misunderstanding when an attempt is made to systematically coordinate revelation and religion...to fix their mutual relationship. 5

"In opposition to all 'religionism' the proclamation of the grace of God is introduced as the truth..." 6

"Religion is unbelief. It is a concern of...godless man." 7

"Religion is clearly seen to be a human attempt to anticipate what God in His revelation wills to do and does do. It is the attempted replacement of the divine work by a human manufacture." 8

"It is a feeble but defiant, an arrogant but hopeless, attempt to create something which man could do. In religion man bolts and bars himself against revelation by providing a substitute, by taking away in advance the very thing which has to be given by God. It is never the truth. It is a complete fiction, which has not only little but no relation to God."9

"What is the purpose of the universal attempt of religions but to anticipate God, to foist a human product into the place of His word, to make our own images of the One who is known only where He gives Himself to be known."10

"The revelation of God denies that any religion is true. No religion can stand before the grace of God as true religion."11

French sociologist, legal scholar and theologian, Jacques Ellul, in like manner affirms that,

"There is no path leading from a little bit of religion (of whatever kind) to a little more and finally to faith. Faith shatters all religion..." 12

"The opposition between religion and revelation can really be understood quite simply. We can reduce it to a maxim: religion goes up, revelation comes down. 13

"The central fact of the revelation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Jesus Christ, is that God descends to humankind. Never in any way, under any circumstances can we ascend to God, howsoever slightly." 14

The American Episcopalian priest, Robert Capon, has an inimical straight-forward way of explaining the difference between religion and Christianity.

"Almost all people, inside as well as outside the church, find that the notion of grace stands in contradiction to everything they understand by religion."15

"The gospel of grace is the end of religion, the final posting of the CLOSED sign on the sweatshop of the human race's perpetual struggle to think well of itself. For that, at bottom, is what religion is: man's well-meant but dim-witted attempt to approve of his unapprovable condition by doing odd jobs he thinks some important Something will thank him for.
"Religion, therefore, is a loser, a strictly fallen activity. It has a failed past and a bankrupt future. There was no religion in Eden and there won't be any in heaven; and in the meantime Jesus has died and risen to persuade us to knock it all off right now."16

"I want you to set aside the notion of the Christian religion, because it's a contradiction in terms. You won't learn anything positive about religion from Christianity, and if you look for Christianity in religion, you'll never find it. To be sure, Christianity uses the forms of religion, and, to be dismally honest, too many of its adherents act as if it were a religion; but it isn't one, and that's that. The church is not in the religion business; it is in the Gospel-proclaiming business. And the gospel is the good news that all man's fuss and feathers over his relationship with God is unnecessary because God, in the mystery of the Word who is Jesus, has gone and fixed it up Himself. So let that pass."17

Many other statements from Christian writers could be adduced, but these will suffice to represent the awareness of the differentiation between "religion" and Christianity.


Background of the word "religion"

A brief study of the etymology of our English word "religion" will reveal that we might not want to allow the word "religion" to be associated with Christianity. There are several Latin words which may have served as the origin of our English word "religion." The Latin word religo meant "to tie or fasten."18 A similar word, religio, was used to refer to "respect, devotion or superstition."19 Religio was a recognition that men are often tied or bound to God in reverence or devotion. It can also convey the meaning of being bound or tied to a set of rules and regulations, to rituals of devotion, to a creedal belief-system, or to a cause, ideology, or routine. Some have suggested that "religion" may be derived from the Latin word relegere, which refers to re-reading. There is no doubt that "religion" is often associated with repetitious rites of liturgy and litany, and the reproduction of creedal formulas and expressions. Most etymologists, however, regard the English word "religion" to be derived from the Latin word religare which is closely aligned with the root word religo. 20 The prefix re- means "back" or "again," and the word ligare refers to "binding, tying or attaching." Other English words such as "ligature," referring to "something that is used to bind," and "ligament" which "binds things together," evidence the same root in the Latin word ligare. The Latin word religare, from which our English word "religion" is most likely derived, meant "to tie back" or "to bind up."

The purpose of Jesus' coming was not to "bind us" or "tie us" to anything or anyone, though it might be argued that in the reception of Jesus Christ by faith there is a spiritual attachment of our identity with Him. Jesus clearly indicates that He came to set us free ­ free to be functional humanity in the fullest sense, by allowing God to function through us to His glory. To some believing Jews, Jesus explained that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Further explanation of the personification of that "truth" in Himself was then made when Jesus said, "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." To the Galatians Paul affirms that, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery" by reverting back to the bondage of Jewish religion (Gal. 5:1). "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal. 5:13), Paul exclaims. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Cor. 3:17).

Jesus did not say, "I came that you might have religion, and practice it more faithfully," or "I came that you might have religion, and adhere to it more commitedly," or "I came that you might have religion, and define it more dogmatically," or "I came that you might have religion, and defend it more vehemently," or "I came that you might have religion, and thus behave more morally." What Jesus said was, "I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). The life that He came to bring and express within us and through us is His life. "I AM the way, the truth and the life," declared Jesus to His disciples (John 14:6). The apostle John wrote that "He that has the Son has life; he that does not have the Son does not have life" (I John 5:12). "Christ is our life," is the phrase Paul uses in writing to the Colossians (Col. 3:4), for Christianity is not "religion," but the life of Jesus Christ expressed in receptive humanity.


Biblical usage of the word "religion"

A closer look at the biblical usage of the word "religion" will demonstrate that the word is seldom used with any positive implication, but generally has a negative connotation.

When Paul traveled to Athens he observed an abundance of idols, even an idol to an "unknown god," lest they might have missed any. Paul stands up and declares, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects" (Acts 17:22). What does Paul mean by referring to their pervasive idolatry as being "religious?" The Greek word that Paul used was deisidaimon, which is derived from two other Greek words: deido, meaning "to fear or respect," and daimon, the word for "demon." What Paul was saying was that he had observed that they had "great fear or respect for demons," and were thus very religious or superstitious. Festus used the same Greek word to pejoratively refer to the Jewish religion, when he explained to King Agrippa that the Jews who brought charges against Paul "had some points of disagreement with him about their own religion" (Acts 25:19).

In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul was confronting the regional religionism of Asia as well as the Judaizing religionism that constantly followed his ministry. He wanted to show the superiority of the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ over all religion. In referring to the moralistic activities that religionists were attempting to impose upon the Christian believers in Colossae, Paul asks, "Why do you submit yourself to decrees, such as 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!'? These are matters which have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence" (Col. 2:20-23). The word translated "religion" is the Greek word ethelothreskia, which is a combination of two other Greek words: ethelo meaning "will, desire, delight or pleasure," and threskeia meaning "worship or religion." Paul is describing such moralistic religious actions as "will-worship" of "self-made religion;" activities which man imposes upon himself and others, believing that such willed self-effort serves as a benefit before God in moralistic performance. Paul denies the veracity of such thinking, regarding such as mere "self-made religion," and of no benefit against the selfish patterns of fleshly indulgence.

James explains that, "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless" (James 1:26,27). The Greek word that he uses is threskeia, meaning "worship or religion." Misrepresentation of the character of God in our behavior often indicates that we are engaging in "worthless religion." James continues, though, to use threskeia in a positive way when he refers to "pure and undefiled religion" (James 1:27), wherein the worth-ship of God's character is genuinely expressed in practical ministry to orphans and widows, and in the expression of the purity of God's character. In that case genuine Christian worship transpires as we are receptive to the activity of God and express the worth-ship of His character in our behavior.

In light of the predominantly negative inferences of the word "religion" in the New Testament, we should avoid applying this word to Christianity.


Christianity and "world religions"

Failure to differentiate between Christianity and "religion" has caused many to lump Christianity together as just another "religion" in the study of comparative world religions. Their criteria for the consideration of a "religion" is merely sociological, psychological, creedal, liturgical or organizational, all of which are inadequate to consider the radical uniqueness of Christianity.

The story is told of Guatama Buddha, who lived some four hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. He was dying. Some of his devotees came to Buddha and asked how they should perpetuate his memory. "How should we share with the world the remembrance of you? How shall we memorialize you?" Buddha responded, "Don't bother! It is not me that matters; it is my teaching that should be propagated and adhered to throughout the world."

Does that seem to be self-effacing? Does that sound like a noble ideal that attempts to avoid ego-centricity? "Don't focus on me, just remember my teaching."

If Jesus had said something like that, it would certainly legitimize much of what we observe all around us today in the so-called "Christian religion." The "Christian religion" that has formed around the teaching of Christianity is involved in the propagation of various understandings of Jesus' teaching as determined by various interpretations of the Bible. Most of those who called themselves "Christians" today seem to think that Jesus advocated the same thing that Buddha is alleged to have uttered. "Don't focus on me, just remember my teaching."

Jesus did not say anything like that! In fact, what Buddha said is contrary to everything Jesus taught, and everything recorded in the New Testament scriptures. Jesus did not say, "Just remember my teaching." Jesus said, "I AM the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). "I AM the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). He did not say, "I will show you the way; I will teach you the truth; I will give you the life." His own indwelling presence is the only way for man to be man as God intended. The reality of His person is the truth of God. The very personal presence of the risen Lord Jesus is the life of the Living God, the ontological essence of everything He came to bring to this world. In Buddhism the person of Buddha may not be of any importance except for historical observation, but in Christianity the living Person of Jesus Christ is the reality of God's presence restored to mankind.

Another story is told of Sadhu Sundar Singh, a convert from the religion of Sikhism to Christianity, who eventually became one of India's most well-known Christians. A European professor of comparative religions (who was himself an agnostic) interviewed the former Sadhu one day, with the evident intention of showing him his mistake in renouncing another religion for what he perceived to be the "Christian religion."

The professor asked Mr. Singh, "What have you found in the Christian religion that you did not have in your old religion?" Sundar Singh answered, "I have Jesus." "Yes, I know," the professor replied somewhat impatiently, "but what particular principles or doctrines have you found that you did not have before?" Sunday Singh replied, "The particular person I have found is Jesus."

Try as he might, the professor could not budge him from that position. He went away discomfited but thoughtful.

Sundar Singh was right. The religions of the world have some fine teachings, but they lack the person and life of Jesus Christ, the dynamic presence of God in man.

A personal friend of mine, Bill Hekman, was once seated on an airplane and struck up a conversation with the gentleman seated next to him. In their conversation the fellow-passenger explained that he was a professor of Islamic Studies. Bill Hekman indicated that he was a Christian and had been a missionary to Irian Jaya for twenty years, and that he was returning to Indonesia to engage in Christian teaching.

Their conversation eventually included a discussion of the extent to which the peoples of Indonesia had converted from the predominant religion of Islam to Christianity, and a mutual questioning of whether the Indonesian government statistics of the percentages of Muslims and Christians were accurate. Then the professor of Islamic studies said something very surprising. He indicated that he thought that Indonesia would someday be a primarily Christian nation. Bill, though obviously hopeful of such, was taken aback by such a prediction, and asked him why he thought that this would take place. The professor replied, "Because the Christians have Roh Allah." Roh Allah is the Indonesian expression for the "Spirit of God." This professor realized that there was a dynamic and power in the "Spirit of God" that was beyond anything that Islam had in their belief-system that traced back to the teaching of Mohammed. Indeed there is, for the "Spirit of Christ" is the vital dynamic of the living Lord Jesus, who as God comes to live in the Christian and empower him for the outworking of God's character and work. May his surprising prediction prove true!

There are many religions in the world, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Mohammed-anism (Islam), and Judaism. The ideologies of humanism and communism have also been identified as religions, as well as the individualism of "The American religion." 21 The tenets of Christianity can also be incorporated into a religion of "Christianism,"22 or the "Christian religion" as we are referring to this phenomenon within this study.

Christianity cannot legitimately be compared to any of these religions, however. Religion and Christianity are as different as night and day, death and life, fiction and truth. To attempt to include Christianity in a course on "comparative world religions" is to compare that which cannot be compared, like comparing apples with oranges. Christianity is unique. It is one of a kind. It is the singular reality of God's activity to restore mankind from their fallen condition through His Son, Jesus Christ. Christianity is not the propagation of a philosophy. It is not the performance of religious procedures. It is not the perpetuation of an organizational program. Christianity is the reception of a Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God Himself, into one's being and behavior.

In all of the world's religions, you can take away the founder and still have the religion. You can take Buddha out of Buddhism and still have the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path. You can take Mohammed out of Islam, and still have the Five Pillars of Action and the Six Articles of Belief. And yes, tragically, you can take Christ out of that misnomer of "Christian religion," and still have the doctrines and the programs and the organizational machinery that masquerade as the "church." Liberal theologians within the "Christian religion" have indicated that it does not matter whether there was ever an "historical Jesus," as long as the "religion" benefits a person psychologically and ethically. On that premise of subjective religious impact being the existential essence of the "Christian religion," they go about "demythologizing" the New Testament scriptures to reduce them to psychological and ethical tenets.

The hypothetical question might be asked, "If God could and would die tonight, what would happen to the 'Christian religion' tomorrow?" The answer is "Nothing!" The "Christian religion" would keep right on functioning, because Jesus Christ, as God, is not the essence and the dynamic of what they are doing anyway! If God were to die tonight, it would be "business as usual" for religion tomorrow. It does not require God in Christ for the "Christian religion" to function; just man and money!

Genuine Christianity, on the other hand, requires the presence and function of the life and person of the living Lord Jesus. Christianity is Christ! Jesus Christ is not just the historical founder of a "Christian religion;" rather He is the vital spiritual essence of Christianity which is His dynamic ontological function within receptive humanity.

Another hypothetical question might be asked. "If you could take Christ out of Christianity, what would be left?" Again it is possible to answer, "Nothing!" Or it is possible that we might explain that the resultant spiritual vacuum is what we know as the "Christian religion." It has been suggested that if you take Christ out of Christianity, all you have left is the self-oriented, self-perpetuating religion of "-I-anity."

South African author, Albert Nolan, explains that

"Jesus cannot be fully identified with that great religious phenomenon of the Western world known as Christianity (Christian religion). He was much more than the founder of one of the world's great religions. He stands about Christianity (Christian religion) as the judge of all it has done in His name." 23

The "Christian religion" is a misnomer. Christianity is not religion! It is so radically different from all religion that it cannot properly be compared with the "world religions." All attempts to do so have preemptively reduced Christianity into its bastardized counterfeit of "Christian religion."


Scripture interpretation and "religion"

The new covenant implemented in the Person and work of Jesus Christ was designed to supplant and supersede all of the old forms of religion that had existed since the fall of man. Careful study of the new covenant literature, which we know as the New Testament, evidences the constant exposure of the radical difference between religion and the dynamic life of Jesus Christ in the kingdom of grace.

Beginning in the accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus in the Gospels (cf. Jesus Confronts Religion), it is apparent that Jesus was constantly confronting religion as He proclaimed the kingdom of grace that He came to reveal in Himself. The Pharisees and scribes of Judaism were the religionists who placed themselves in antagonism to all that Jesus did and said. They did not have the spiritual understanding to comprehend what Jesus was proclaiming. Approximately one-third of Jesus' teaching was in parables, which only served to befuddle the religious teachers for they seldom realized that Jesus was comparing their religious modus operandi with the function of the spiritual reign of God that He came to bring in Himself. Eventually the religious leaders realized that the parables were exposing them, and they began to take measures to silence their nemesis by execution.

In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke carefully explains that in the earliest history of the church, the initial Christian leaders were progressively made aware of the radical difference between the Christian gospel and all religion. Christianity had to be unencumbered and unhindered from any identification with Judaic religion. Peter's dream in Joppa, the inclusion of Cornelius and the Gentiles, the antagonism of the Jewish leaders in Judea, all represent pictorial vignettes of the progressive awareness of how Christianity had to break free from all religion.

Paul's epistles bear the repetitive theme of explaining the difference between religion and Christianity. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul explains that righteousness is not in religious rites or the Law, but in Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. In the epistle we know as First Corinthians, Paul counters the religious excesses that were developing in the young church at Corinth. In the epistle we identify as Second Corinthians, Paul carefully differentiates between gospel ministry by the grace of God and the manipulations of religious method being evidenced by the intrusive pretenders. Writing to the Galatians, Paul pits the gospel versus religion (cf. Gospel versus Religion), forcefully denying that there is "another gospel" as inculcated by legalistic religion. In contrast to religious exclusivism, Paul explains to the Ephesians that all men become a new humanity in Jesus Christ. Combating the effects of the regional religionism of Asia, Paul wrote to the Colossians emphasizing the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, who is our life. In all of Paul's epistles the theme of Christianity as distinct from and confronting religion is to be found.

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews likewise explains how the old and new covenants of God are to be differentiated, and the old tenets of Judaic religion are replaced by the life of Jesus Christ. The epistle of James indicates that merely going through the rituals of religion is vain, but Christian faith is the outworking of the life of Jesus Christ.

The Revelation of Christ as witnessed by John is indeed the climax of the new covenant literature. In pictorial form Jesus reveals that religion will continually attempt to overcome and secularize Christianity as it was doing in the seven churches of Asia. Jesus is the victor over religion (cf. Jesus: Victor Over Religion), though, and will overcome all the onslaughts of conflict that will inevitably come between Christianity and religion.

Throughout the entirety of the New Testament there is a continuous explanation of the difference between Christianity and religion. Why has this not been made more apparent to Christians in order that they might be more discerning and cease to equate the two? Dare we explain that the interpretation of the new covenant scriptures has been done primarily by commentators and theologians who are thoroughly inundated in "Christian religion?" Religious interpreters whose very livelihood is on the line would be hesitant to expose their own religious methods, even if they had the spiritual discernment to recognize that such religious practices were being exposed in the scriptures. We have witnessed a tragic history of misinterpretation of the Bible throughout the history of "Christian religion."


Evangelism and "religion"

The history of such misinterpretation also serves to explain why the gospel has been received so slowly throughout the world in the last two thousand years. "Christian religion" could only offer their brand of religion which "tied" people to a belief-system and "bound" them to moralistic rules and regulations in "attachment" to the ecclesiastical institution.

Jesus and the early church, on the other hand, proclaimed the gospel by contrasting the grace of God in Jesus Christ with the premises and methodology of religion. They exposed the self-serving practices of religion by manifesting and explaining God's desire to restore all men in Jesus Christ. They confronted the selfish inequities of religion with the love of God in Christ.

Does it not seem self-evident that the ineffectual efforts of evangelism engaged in by "Christian religion" through these many centuries are a result of proclaiming a belief-system to be assented to and advocating a morality to be adhered to, rather than offering the life of Jesus Christ to be received by faith? "Christian religion" usurped the message of Christianity, complete with all the abominable methods that are indicative of all religion, which are antithetical to God's functional intent in Jesus Christ.

"Christian religion" has become so thoroughly religionized that it is unable to perceive the contrast between Christianity and religion. They engage in the religious methodology of recruitment by propaganda in order to "bind, tie and attach" increasing numbers of people to the propositional ideology, the activistic cause, and the sociological organization they represent. Their contemporary marketing procedures of "church growth" reveal that they know nothing of the experience of the dynamic of the grace of God expressed in the living Lord Jesus by His Spirit.

Genuine evangelism is witnessing to the "good news" of the life of Jesus Christ as He comes to indwell us by His Spirit and live out the divine character in our behavior in contrast to the performance of religion. When an individual can see the impotence of religion, having experienced the frustration of religious performance, then the grace of God in Jesus Christ will be "good news" indeed. Such was Paul's testimony in Philippians 3:2-14 when he identified religion as a "total loss" and "nothing but rubbish," but rejoiced in his personal and spiritual identification with the living Lord Jesus.

Understanding the difference between Christianity and religion will make all the difference in the world in the way that we engage in evangelism. Rather than presenting unbelievers with a package of doctrine to believe in, or a codification of behavior to conform to, or a sociological institution to join and be involved in, Christians will allow the living Lord Jesus to "re-present" Himself to His created human beings through them, contrasting what He came to bring in Himself with all religious method as He did during His personal and historical incarnational ministry here on earth.


The abuse of humanity in "religion"

In his Provincial Letters, Blaise Pascal charges the Jesuits with "sporting with religion, in order to gratify the worst passions of man." 24 It is inherent within the methodology of all man-made religion to offer a counterfeit fulfillment to the needs of mankind. Religion sets itself up in a self-deified position to extend a false-fulfillment of man's God-given desires with a "religious" solution. When the basic God-given needs of man are offered false-fulfillment in religious counterfeit, humanity is being used and abused.

Here are some examples of God-given desires being falsely fulfilled by religion. The God-given desire to be loved is offered a cheap imitation of "a thing called love," wherein one might develop a degree of intimacy with others. The desire to be accepted is appeased as religion offers to accept a person "just as they are," until further instructed. Our human desire to belong is offered false-fulfillment in the encouragement to "get involved" in the "fellowship" of our "community." The desire for sociability is stroked when religion invites a person to relate to their group and let them be their "family." Man's desire for security is offered the secure provision of "once saved, always saved." Religion offers uniformity and conformity to satisfy mans need for order. The basic desire to believe and to be correct in that belief is placated with dogmatism, intellectualism, and the absolutism of orthodoxy. Religion offers a raison d'etre and a cause celebre to satisfy our need for meaning. Stimulating emotional "highs" and experiential subjectivism provide for the desire for excitement. The need for uniqueness is provided for in the exclusivism and elitism that posits that "we are the only ones." If it is identity that you need, join with us and you will be "somebody," a socialistic identity by association. Religion offers approval and affirmation, often by affirming "I'm OK; you're OK." The desire to work can be accommodated by religious activism which encourages adherents to "get involved" and "work for Jesus." The desire to possess is titillated by the "health and wealth" gospel that falsely asserts that "God wants you rich." The need to give is a favorite target of religion as they urge people to contribute by tithing ten-percent of their income. Religion promises to fulfill the need for destiny by providing the correct techniques, procedures and formulas whereby a person will be guaranteed a place in heaven.

These religious counterfeits are nothing less that an abuse of humanity. Instead of leading mankind out of the addictive false-fulfillment of their God-given desires, religion offers nothing but another form of addictive dysfunction. Religion is co-dependent to the sins of the people. Religion is an aider and abettor to the sinful dysfunction of humanity, enabling and encouraging mankind to seek their solutions and their "salvation" in religion rather than in Jesus Christ.


The Satanic source of "religion"

Religion is the devil's playground. The diabolic efforts to inhibit and impede the gospel have been ever so subtle, as they turned Christianity into the "Christian religion," continuing to use the same vocabulary, and using the very inspired scriptures which were designed to be the written record of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the basis of their belief-systems and morality codes.

Major W. Ian Thomas writes,

"It is one of the subtleties of Satan which causes men to flee from God and seek to silence His voice in the very practice of religion. So it is that man, to suit his own convenience, has reduced God to a theological formula, an ethical code, or political program, a theatrical performance in a religious setting, the hero worship of some vivid personality..." 25

In his masterful presentation of diabolic activity, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis has the senior devil, Screwtape, say to his nephew, Wormwood, "One of our greatest allies at present is the church itself," 26 i.e. "Christian religion." In another vignette Screwtape explains that "it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by 'religion' ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar." 27 Blaise Pascal likewise noted that "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." 28

To identify religion with the activity of Satan will seem to be blasphemous to those who have not differentiated between Christianity and religion. Once that distinction has been clearly made however, the antithetical alternative to Christianity that takes place in religion will of necessity be identified with the activity of the Evil One.

Norman Olson explains that

"Satan uses religion and the idea of 'doing good' to make people blind to the fact that these have no saving value whatever, to say nothing of spirituality.
"Any system of religion is satanic in nature, no matter how beautiful the package might appear to be. Satan is the author of 'do good'."

"Religion is often portrayed by the devil as a mass solution to man's problem. If he can get everyone into some religion, he knows that he can keep people in some false hope, in some anesthetic, and prevent them from seeing their real need. Nothing that Satan has ever devised has been as successful as religion in blinding men's minds to the truth." 29

In like manner, Dave Hunt has written that,

"Satan's primary tactic in opposing God is not to foster atheism, but religion. A perverted 'Christianity' is Satan's ultimate weapon." 30

If we are to understand religion correctly we must recognize its satanic source and the spiritual conflict that is taking place between God and Satan in Christianity and religion.


The sociological attachment of "religion"

It might be pointed out that mankind has a natural tendency to develop religious practices, and that every known civilization of man has engaged in some form of religion. Indeed it is "natural" for man to form religions, for "the natural man does not understand spiritual things" (I Cor. 2:14). His "natural" wisdom is demonically inspired (James 3:15), for "the prince of the power of the air is the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).

Sociologists have on occasion argued that religion serves a beneficial social purpose of attaching people together in group unity. Such social bonding ties a group of people together as they set their sights on a "higher" common goal. Religion thus gives a group of people a collective sense of identity, purpose and meaning, and provides for social continuity. When engaged in such a collective mutual pursuit of religious striving, their religion provides a legitimacy and validity to the rules and regulations that are imposed upon them, and when religion wanes the weight and authority of social and moral law diminishes.

It is indeed possible to analyze religion sociologically or psychologically31, but these are just observations of the phenomena of religion. It cannot be concluded from these observations that religion constitutes a social or moral "good," or that religion is the "better" or "highest" feature of the natural world system of man, especially when it is abusing people as previously noted. Religion is, on the contrary, the most subtle and insidious feature of the diabolically inspired world of natural men, and as such it is the most abominable and damnable.

There is nothing "good" about religion. Religion relativizes the goodness that is derived from God alone. Religion engages in the relativistic goodness of the "good and evil" game that has been played by natural man ever since man fell by partaking of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 3).


The world's view of "religion"

Many of those who call themselves "Christians" have been unable to differentiate between Christianity and religion. As they participate in the counterfeit of "Christian religion," they mistakenly think it is Christianity, and are blinded in the belief that religion is an admirable pursuit.

On the other hand, there are many who are not Christians who view the activities of the "Christian religion," and who likewise fail to differentiate between religion and Christianity. They in turn reject Christianity, believing it to be equivalent to the "Christian religion" they have observed.

Many abominable activities have taken place under the guise of "Christian religion." Man-made religion always seeks power and will revert to militaristic warfare to achieve that power. The history of religion, including "Christian religion," is but a succession of religious wars wherein religionists slaughter one another under the flag of "religion," usually with political overtones. The Crusades of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries are but one historical example among many.

Religious bigotry has been evident in every century as religious leaders engage in racial, national, sexual, ideological and denominational exclusion, ostracism and persecution. There are always the religious attempts to purge those who disagree, and to punish those who do not conform to legislated morality. The period of the Inquisition is a sad example in the history of "Christian religion."

People of the world observe the big religious organizations with their huge ecclesiastic superstructures. They are often rich, powerful, tax-evading, and political in nature. They observe the religious fanatics who try to justify any activity from bombing an abortion clinic to murdering a doctor who works therein. Any means seems to be justifiable if it achieves their religiously deified end-cause. They observe the seemingly endless and meaningless religious activities of church services, ceremonies and programs which seem to be just "pomp and circumstance."

Is it any wonder that many of the people of the world speak derisively of religion? They have read their history books and have heard of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of "religion." They hear of the vast gold reserves and corporate holdings of religious conglomerates gained through tax-exemptions and unfair advantage. They can see the exploitation of the populace through superstition and fear. They see through the ecclesiastic politicizing and cultural manipulation. They see the people going through their meaningless motions of religious ritual to try to appease God. Often they have come to the conclusion that they do not want anything to do with "religion," and I, for one, do not blame them! The world has a right, even an intellectual obligation, to reject the religious folderol that is so prevalent, and to demand reality.

Was Marx correct in his appraisal that "religion is the opiate of the people"?


Christianity is not "religion"

Religion emphasizes precepts, propositions, performance, production, programs, promotion, percentages, etc. Christianity emphasizes the Person of Jesus Christ, and His life lived out through the receptive Christian believer.

Religion has to do with form, formalism and formulas; ritual, rules, regulations and rites; legalism, laws and laboring. The "good news" of Christianity is that it is not what we do or perform, but what Jesus has done and is doing in us. Jesus exclaimed from the cross, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). The performance is hereby accomplished! Jesus has done all the doing that needs doing for our regeneration, and continues to do all the doing that God wants to do in us. "God is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

Some have tried to explain that "Christianity is not religion; it is a relationship." Such a statement is too ambiguous, for it is possible to have a "relationship" with religious peoples and practices. Although Christianity does involve a personal relationship between an individual and the living Lord Jesus, it must be pointed out that this is effected by the ontological presence of the Spirit of Christ dwelling within the spirit of a Christian who has received Him by faith, and the Spirit of Christ functioning through that Christian's behavior. It is not just a casual relationship of acquaintance with the historical Jesus or with the theological formulations of Jesus' work. Perhaps it would be better to indicate that "Christianity is not religion; it is the reality of Jesus Christ as God coming in the form of His Spirit to indwell man in order to restore him to the functional intent of God whereby the character of God is allowed to be manifested in man's behavior to the glory of God.

Christianity is not religion! Christianity is Christ! Christianity is "Christ-in-you-ity." Jesus Christ did not found a religion to remember and reiterate His teaching. Christianity is the personal, spiritual presence of the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ, manifesting His life and character in Christians, i.e. "Christ-ones." Paul explained, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20).

The Media Moguls, the Bankers & the CFR

http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/10/media-moguls-bankers-and-cfr.html

Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Media Moguls, the Bankers, and the CFR
While browsing an online forum I came across a very interesting thread where the posters had done some research on the media.

What the posters have found is that in the board of directors of some of the 6 corporations that own most of the media, some names appear over and over again; some of them also appear in the board of directors of some very large banks and other financial institutions; some are on the boards of large oil companies, and have relationships with some of the highest people in government, and some are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Below is a copy of the thread. At the bottom is someone's post about oligarchy and plutocracy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While doing a little research, I happened to open a Pandora's Box so to speak. I was curious about some of the ownership and leadership of the Media Machine.
One of my first searches was for Time Warner.

Time Warner owns, CNN, AOL, HBO, New Line Cinima, WB, etc.

Heavy investors are Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch

When looking at the board of directors, this is what Wiki has to say...

Quote »
* James L. Barksdale - Barksdale Management
* Stephen F. Bollenbach - Hilton Hotels Corporation
* Frank J. Caufield - Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
* Robert C. Clark - Harvard University
* Mathias Döpfner - CEO of Germany's Axel Springer AG
* Jessica P. Einhorn - Johns Hopkins University
* Reuben Mark - Colgate-Palmolive Company
* Michael A. Miles - Altria Group (Parent co. of Philip Morris)
* Ken Novack - former Time Warner - Affiliate Director
* Richard D. Parsons - Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
* Francis T. Vincent, Jr. - Vincent Enterprises
* Deborah C. Wright - Carver Bancorp
* Edward J. Zander - Chairman and CEO of Motorola Inc.



The Senior Executives are:
Quote »
* Richard D. Parsons, Chairman/CEO of Time Warner Inc.
* Jeffrey L. Bewkes, President/COO of Time Warner Inc.



If you click on Richard D. Parsons you get some interesting info.

Quote »
Positions held
A liberal African-American Republican, Parsons served an internship at the New York State Legislature, at which time he was invited to work as a lawyer for the staff of the then New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. When Rockefeller was appointed Vice President of the United States, in 1974, Parsons followed him to Washington D.C., where he worked directly with President Gerald Ford. He also met a deputy attorney general, Harold R. Tyler, and one his aides, a young Rudolph W. Giuliani, with whom he was to be closely associated - supporting him in his campaign for New York mayor and heading his transitional council.[1]

In 1977, Parsons returned to New York and became a partner after only two years at the Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler law firm; Working at the firm was Giuliani. During his eleven years at the firm he took on Happy Rockefeller, the widow of Nelson (who had died in 1979) as a high-profile client.[2] In 1988, he was recruited to serve as chief operating officer of the Dime Bank by Harry W. Albright Jr., who was a former Rockefeller aide. He later became chairman and CEO[1] and oversaw a merger with Anchor Savings Bank; gaining a substantial sum when the Dime Bank was demutualized.

Three years later, in 1991, on the recommendation of Nelson's brother Laurance Rockefeller to the then CEO Steven Ross, Parsons was invited to join Time Warner's board; he subsequently became president of the company in 1995, recruited by Gerald Levin.[1] He helped negotiate the company's merger with America Online in 2000, creating a $165-billion media conglomerate.

In December 2001, it was announced that chief executive Gerald Levin would retire and Parsons was selected as his successor. The announcement surprised many media watchers who expected chief operating officer Robert Pittman to take the helm. In 2003, Parsons made the announcement of the name change from AOL Time Warner to simply Time Warner.[2]

[edit] Prominent connections

From the early 1980s through much of the 1990s, Parsons owned a house at the Rockefeller family estate in Pocantico Hills, (see Kykuit), where his grandfather was once a groundskeeper. For a brief time he had worked for Nelson at the family office, Room 5600, at Rockefeller Center (he currently has a Time Warner office in Rockefeller Plaza at the Center).[1]

Parsons is chairman emeritus of the Partnership for New York City,[3] established by David Rockefeller in 1979,[4] who has known him for many years. He is an advisory trustee of the family's principal philanthropy, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and he sits with David Rockefeller on the board of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation. Parsons is also on the board of the family created Museum of Modern Art.

In 2001, United States President George W. Bush selected Parsons to co-chair a commission on Social Security. Parsons also worked on the transition team for Michael Bloomberg, who was elected Mayor of New York City in 2001. In 2006, Parsons was selected to co-chair the transition team for the incoming Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.[5]

In August 2006, an article in New York Magazine reported that Parsons will likely run for Mayor of New York City in the 2009 New York mayoral election, claiming that "insiders say it's all but official".[6]



But wait, it gets better. Richard Parsons is ALSO on the board of directors for Citi Group.

Citi Group Board of Directors:
Quote »
* Michael Armstrong, Retired Chairman, Hughes, AT&T and Comcast
* Alain Belda, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcoa
* George David, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, United Technologies Corporation
* Kenneth T. Derr, Chairman, Retired, Chevron Corporation
* John M. Deutch, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Retired CIA director
* Roberto Hernández Ramírez, Chairman, Banco Nacional de México
* Ann Jordan, Consultant
* Andrew N. Liveris, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Dow Chemical Company
* Dudley Mecum, Managing Director, Capricorn Holdings LLC 1
* Anne Mulcahy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox
* Richard D. Parsons, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner
* Charles Prince, Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup
* Judith Rodin, President, Rockefeller Foundation
* Robert E. Rubin, Chairman of the Executive Committee and Member of the Office of the Chairman, Citigroup
* Franklin A. Thomas, Consultant, TFF Study Group
* Sanford I. Weill, Retired Chairman, Citigroup



Sorry, didn't mean to post yet, still researching. This is just ONE example of the conflict of interest so to speak. But you guys should get the idea. There is such an influence between Major Money, Politics, and Media. So if your just listening to the Major News networks about the Economy or Elections, consider the source, literally.

More to come.....

Oh, Prescott Bush former member of Directors for CBS.


News Corporation (Believe Fox News) Board:

Quote »
* K. Rupert Murdoch
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
News Corporation
* José María Aznar
President
FAES - Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis
Former President of Spain
* Peter Barnes
Chairman
Ansell Limited
* Chase Carey
President and Chief Executive Officer
The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
* Peter Chernin
President and Chief Operating Officer
News Corporation
* Kenneth E. Cowley
Chairman
R.M. Williams Holdings Pty. Limited
* David F. DeVoe
Chief Financial Officer
News Corporation
* Viet Dinh
Professor of Law
Georgetown University
* Rod Eddington
Non-Executive Chairman for
Australia and New Zealand
JPMorgan
* Andrew S.B. Knight
Director
Rothschild Investment Trust C.P
* Lachlan Murdoch
Illyria Pty Ltd
* Rod Paige, Ed.D.
Chairman
Chartwell Education Group, LLC
* Thomas J. Perkins
Partner
Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers
* Arthur M. Siskind
Senior Advisor to the Chairman
News Corporation
* John L. Thornton
Professor of Global Leadership
Tsinghua University of Beijing

------------------------------


Haha, this is only the tip of the iceburg IMO.

Check out some of the other Citi Group board of directors.

Lets go down the list. Again, I'm using wiki so far for all my references.

Micheal Armstrong is also on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Quote »
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an influential and independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921 and based at 58 East 68th Street (corner Park Avenue) in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C. Through its membership, meetings, and studies, it has been called the most powerful agent of United States foreign policy outside the State Department.


Alain Belda is also a member of The Conference Board, and has a little bit of history behind him.

George David Quote »
George David is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United Technologies Corporation. David was elected UTC’s President in 1992 and Chief Executive Officer in 1994. He joined UTC’s Otis Elevator subsidiary in 1975 and became its President in 1986.....
He has served on the boards of the Graduate Business School at the University of Virginia, the National Minority Supplier Development Council, the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council, the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue and the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Fine Arts.

In 1999 the Russian Federation awarded David with the Order of Friendship for his contributions to that nation’s economy, particularly to its aerospace industry. In 2001, he received the Air Force Association's John R. Alison Award for contributions to national defense by an industrial leader. In 2002, France named him to its Legion of Honor.

In 2000, he was named as one of America's Most Powerful People by Forbes magazine; and CEO of the Year by Industry Week' in 2003.



lol, this keeps getting better.

Kenneth Derr Quote »
Kenneth T. Derr is a member of the board of directors of the Halliburton Company. He is a Retired Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation (international oil company). He served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron Corporation, 1989-1999. Derr is also a Director of AT&T Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Citigroup Inc., and Potlatch Corporation. He is also on the Council on Foreign Relations.



John M. Deutch Quote »
John Mark Deutch (born July 27, 1938) is an American chemist and civil servant. He was the United States Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1995 and Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from May 10, 1995 until December 14, 1996. He is presently an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and serves on the Board of Directors of Citigroup, Cummins, Raytheon, and Schlumberger Ltd.


Schlumberger = Quote »
Schlumberger Limited is the world's largest oilfield services corporation operating in approximately 80 countries, with about 70,000 people of 140 nationalities. Schlumberger supplies a wide range of products and services from seismic acquisition and processing; formation evaluation; well testing and directional drilling to well cementing and stimulation; artificial lift and well completions; and consulting, software and information management. Schlumberger also provide similar products and services for the groundwater industry.....

Operating revenue in 2006 was US $19.23 billion with a market capitalization as of January 31, 2007, of US $74.5 billion.



Roberto Hernández Ramírez is also a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - 2002 to present.


Judith Rodin Quote »
Rodin became president of the Rockefeller Foundation in March 2005.
She is currently on the the Board of Directors of Citigroup, AMR Corporation (the parent company of American Airlines), and Comcast Corporation where she served as the presiding director until 2006. [6] Rodin has also served on the Board of Directors for corporations such as Aetna, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and BlackRock. [7] She continues to serve as a trustee of the Brookings Institution.



Quote »
In 2004 Rodin was touted as one of Pennsylvania’s best Democratic candidates for the United States Senate. [11] During the lead up to the 2006 United States Senate election, one which would eventually result in the ousting of incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum, Judith Rodin was again listed among the Democrats' short list favorites. [12]


Robert E. Rubin... just a BIT on this guy. Quote »
Robert Edward Rubin (born August 29, 1938) is an American banker who served as the 70th United States Secretary of the Treasury during both the first and second Clinton Administrations.


Quote »
Rubin was briefly mentioned as a potential vice-presidential candidate for 2004 Democratic Party presidential nominee John Kerry. He did serve as an economic policy advisor to Kerry's campaign and was expected to be a front-runner for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve upon Alan Greenspan's retirement if Kerry had won. Rubin's heft as a Wall Street tycoon added a stamp of approval to Kerry's economic plans.



Quote »
During his time in the private sector, Rubin has served on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange, the Ford Motor Company, the Harvard Corporation, the New York Futures Exchange, the New York City Partnership and the Center for National Policy. He has also served on the board of trustees of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Mt. Sinai Hospital and Medical School, the President's Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Market Oversight and Financial Services Advisory Committee, the Mayor of New York's Council of Economic Advisors and the Governor's Council on Fiscal and Economic Priorities for the State of New York. He is currently the co-chairman of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations.


Franklin A. Thomas ..... Quote »
Other directorships: Citigroup Inc., Cummins, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., Alcoa and PepsiCo, Inc.


Sanford I. Weill Quote »
In April 1998 Travelers Group announced an agreement to undertake the $76 billion merger between Travelers and Citicorp, and the merger was completed on October 8, 1998. The possibility remained that the merger would run into problems connected with federal law. Ever since the Glass-Steagall Act banking and insurance businesses had been kept separate. Weill and Reed bet that Congress would soon pass legislation overturning those regulations, which Weill and Reed and many other businesspeople considered obsolete. To speed up the process, they recruited ex-President Gerald Ford (Republican) to the Board of Directors and Robert Rubin (Secretary of Treasury during Democratic Clinton Administration) whom Weill was close to. With both Democrats and Republican on their side, the law was taken down in less than 2 years. (Many European countries, for instance, had already torn down the firewall between banking and insurance.) During a two-to-five-year grace period allowed by law, Citigroup could conduct business in its merged form; should that period have elapsed without a change in the law, Citigroup would have had to spin off its insurance businesses.
In November 1998 Jamie Dimon was forced to resign from Citigroup.

In 2001, Sanford A. Weill became a Class A Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Class A Directors are Board Members who are elected by Member Banks (of the Federal Reserve System) to represent the interests of Member Banks. (See article on Federal Reserve Bank Board Membership).

In 2002 the company was hit by the wave of "scandals" that followed the stock market downturn of 2002. Chuck Prince replaced Mr. Weill as the CEO of Citigroup on October 1, 2003.



------------------------

Some others.

This guy is on the board for HSBC

*The Rt Hon the Lord Butler of Brockwell, KG, GCB, CVO

Quote »

Age 69. Master, University College, Oxford. A non-executive Director since 1998. Chairman of the Corporate Responsibility Committee and the HSBC Global Education Trust. A non-executive Director of Imperial Chemical Industries plc. A member of the International Advisory Board of Marsh McLennan Inc. Chaired the UK Government Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2004. Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service in the United Kingdom from 1988 to 1998.


Some from JPMorgan:

Stephen B. Burke

Quote »
Stephen B. Burke has served as our Chief Operating Officer since July 2004, and as our Executive Vice President and President of Comcast Cable and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings since November 2002. Prior to November 2002, Mr. Burke served as an Executive Vice President of Comcast Holdings and as President of Comcast Cable since January 2000. Mr. Burke is also a director of JPMorgan Chase & Company.


Lee R. Raymond
Quote »
Lee R. Raymond (born August 13, 1938) was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of ExxonMobil from 1999 to 2005. He had previously been the CEO of Exxon since 1993. He joined the company in 1963 and has been president since 1987 and a director since 1984....
Raymond was appointed to Chair a committee to lead America's Alternative Energy Future by President Bush in fall 2006...

The report of 18 July 2007 by the National Petroleum Council, of which Lee is a member, argues, contrary to Lee’s former position on this matter, for an international framework to tackle emissions of carbon dioxide, suggesting that Lee has taken a greener stand on energy policy after his retirement from Exxon



Ellen V. Futter
Quote »
She formerly served as Chairman of the Board of New York Federal Reserve Bank and Chairman of the Commission on Women's Health of The Commonwealth Fund. She has received numerous honorary degrees, including from Yale, and awards.
She is currently:

Director of American International Group

Director of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co

Director of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Director of Consolidated Edison, Inc

Director of Viacom

Member of the Council on Foreign Relations

Board of Overseers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center




--------------------------------

the deeper I dig, the more apparent that is. MANY of the names above are on the board of other super companies. They are completely tied together, it's really amazing. What I have above is just a HINT of the total picture.

Banks, Media, Oil, Policy are all tied together at the TOP levels. They know exactly what they are doing, and seem to be in total control.

------------------


I don't usually quote Wikipedia entires...but here is a good one for our current state of affairs.

Quote, originally posted by wikipedia »
Oligarchy, aristocracy, and plutocracy
Historically, many oligarchies openly gave the political power to a minority group, sometimes arguing that this was an aristocracy ("organization by the 'best' and the 'brightest'"). Such states were often controlled by powerful families whose children were raised and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. However, this power may also not be exercised openly, the oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting control through economic means. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group.

Oligarchy vs. monarchy

Early societies may have become oligarchies as an outgrowth of an alliance between rival tribal chieftains or as the result of a caste system. Oligarchies can often become instruments of transformation, by insisting that monarchs or dictators share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society (while oligarchy means "the rule of the few," monarchy means "the rule of the one"). One example of power-sharing from one person to a larger group of persons occurred when English nobles banded together in 1215 to force a reluctant King John of England to sign Magna Carta, a tacit recognition both of King John's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy (the nobility). As English society continued to grow and develop, Magna Carta was repeatedly revised (1216, 1217, and 1225), guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for English constitutional monarchy.

Oligarchies may also evolve into more autocratic or monarchist forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies established during the late Middle Ages began in this way.

Examples of oligarchies

Examples include Sparta (excluding the Helots, who were the majority of the population, from voting) and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (only the nobility could vote). A modern example of oligarchy could be seen in South Africa during the 20th century. Here, the basic characteristics of oligarchy are particularly easy to observe, since the South African form of oligarchy was based on race. After the Second Boer War, a tacit agreement was reached between English- and Afrikaans-speaking whites. Together, they made up about twenty percent of the population, but this small percentage ruled the vast native population. Whites had access to virtually all the educational and trade opportunities, and they proceeded to deny this to the black majority even further than before. Although this process had been going on since the mid-18th century, after 1948 it became official government policy and became known worldwide as apartheid. This lasted until the arrival of democracy in South Africa in 1994, punctuated by the transition to a democratically-elected government dominated by the black majority.

Russia has been labeled an oligarchy because of the power of certain individuals, the oligarchs, who gained great wealth after the fall of Communism. Critics have argued that this happened in illegitimate ways and was due to corruption.

The Iron law of oligarchy

Some authors such as Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Thomas R. Dye, and Robert Michels, believe that any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the "Iron law of oligarchy". According to this school of thought, modern democracies should be considered as elected oligarchies. In these systems, actual differences between viable political rivals are small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position, and politicians' careers depend heavily on unelected economic and media elites.

The historian Spencer R. Weart in his book Never at War argues that oligarchies rarely make war with one another.





Posted by redpillguy at 7:02 PM
2 comments:
oliver said...
interesting post, nice research. thanks for the extensive info.

September 18, 2008 6:42 PM
John Wallace said...
THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND TACK'S TACKLE SHOP

This is a rather long article about the Council on Foreign Relations and how I believe that it is a "front organization" for international bankers. If you would rather download the artcle to read at a later date, here is a link to it: http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/JohnWallace-Article-CouncilOnForeignRelations.PDF

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business. It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop. When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on. The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men. We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded in 1921 by a very select group of international bankers, Wall Street lawyers and wealthy “old money” families sometimes called the Establishment or the Elites. Among the CFR’s founders were JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, “Colonel” Edward House (Marxist. globalist and close advisor to President Wilson), Paul Warburg (international banker), Otto Kahn and Jacob Schiff (both international investment bankers). The CFR’s stated purpose at that time was to improve the understanding of US foreign policy and international affairs through the exchange of ideas. The select membership has been gradually expanded over the years, now totaling around 3,800 and includes various professionals, corporate CEO’s, college presidents, media owners and reporters, high-ranking government officials and even high ranking US military officers.

These same international bankers that started the CFR were instrumental in getting President Woodrow Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act into existence in 1913 that basically gave these international bankers the power to print money and control our entire economy. To show you the mind set of this core group, one of the founding CFR members, Edward House, authored a book in 1912 entitled “Philip Dru: Administrator” in which he laid out a fictionalized plan for the conquest of America. In the book, he told of a conspiracy by which a group of wealthy businessmen would gain control of both the Democratic and Republican parties and use them as instruments for the creation of a socialist world government.

After signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson later admitted, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country….(America is) no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." He was, of course, talking about the international bankers and the creation of the first great nationwide “front organization” called the Federal Reserve that was designed to directly benefit the international bankers at the expense of the American taxpayers.

The late Carroll Quigley (mentor and advisor to President Clinton) who was a long term member of the CFR, wrote in his book “Tragedy & Hope”: "The CFR is the American Branch of a society….which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the CFR for 16 years, sounded the alarm about the real intent of the CFR and pointed out that there was two separate cliques within the CFR:

1. The first and most powerful clique wants to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States.

2. The second clique of international members is comprised of Wall Street international bankers and their key agents who want to receive a world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government.

Congressman John Rarick, a recipient of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart in World War II and a Democrat from Louisiana who once argued with his party over its increasing liberalism, said, "The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government, and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.”


By using the CFR as a front organization to push their globalist agenda for America and the world, the “Establishment Elites and International Bankers” have managed to gain significant influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of our government. They can not only advocate their new world order ideas from within the government by using their CFR members in high government positions, but they can also use individual CFR members and research groups financed by their non-profit foundations to bring pressure from another direction. The international bankers use this process to implement the step by step decisions that will gradually convert the US from a sovereign nation to a subservient position in the new world order run by appointed bureaucrats selected by the international bankers. The CFR is being used much in the same manner as “Tack’s Tackle Shop” was used by an organized criminal group. The international bankers behind the CFR want to give the public the outward appearance of legitimacy in order that they can slowly accomplish their illegal objectives to usurp the US Constitution and the sovereignty of this country.


Many of the most influential international bankers, Wall Street CEOs, politicians, academics and media owners and TV personalities are members of the CFR. They join the CFR for the same reasons that other people join similar business organizations: to make political or business contacts, to enjoy the prestige of being in the organization or to simply use their connections to make more money. The CFR in turn, uses the broad influence of these people and their organizations to slowly infiltrate their globalist ‘New World Order’ plans into American life. CFR members and their ghost writers author scholarly articles that are designed to specifically affect public opinion and future government decision making. These authors and researchers are oftentimes funded directly by one or more of the international bankers’ non-profit foundations. The CFR’s well paid academics expound on the wisdom of a united world and the CFR media members disseminate the message.


In the 1940’s, President Roosevelt began bringing CFR members into the State Department and they have dominated it ever since. CFR members were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations. The American delegation to the San Francisco meeting that drafted the charter of the United Nations in 1949 included CFR members Nelson Rockefeller, John Foster Dulles, John Mc Cloy and the Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss, who was later arrested as a spy for Russia. In all, the CFR sent at least forty-seven of its members in the United States delegation, effectively controlling the outcome.


These same CFR members were also instrumental in using our country’s new membership in the United Nations to create the concepts of “limited wars” and “police actions” that were designed to circumvent the US Constitution and permit an administration to send our troops to war without a formal Declaration of War. It should also be pointed out that these two concepts benefit the international bankers and large corporations most because they allow these entities to make huge profits by providing financing and/or equipment and products to the enemies of our country during the conflict. It definitely did not benefit the US military men and women who were wounded or died in these conflicts. If a Declaration of War was declared, these same bankers and corporation CEO’s would be charged with treason for aiding the enemy during a time of war.


James Warburg, a CFR member and son of CFR founder Paul Warburg testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, defiantly telling the Senators that: “We shall have world government, whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”


On November 25, 1959, the Council on Foreign Relations published “Study No. 7”, which openly declared its true purpose to bring about a New World Order through the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy and through international economic interdependence:

· "...building a New International Order [which] must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, [and] for social and economic change...an international order [code for world government]...including states labeling themselves as 'Socialist.' "

The plan for the New World Order and the ultimate control of America by the international bankers, was clearly outlined once again in the April 1974 issue of “Foreign Affairs” the Council of Foreign Relations’ own publication, when CFR member and former Secretary of State Richard N. Gardner, wrote an article entitled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he stated:

· “In short, the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault…” one way to garner public support for new international treaties would be to propagandize world wide predicaments. If people are scared of terrorism, financial chaos or global warming, they will be willing to cede their national sovereignty, freedom and liberties for global authority.”

Since the FDR administration, all transition teams and administrations have been full of CFR members. It didn’t matter whether they were liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. The Nixon administration had over 115 CFR members all in key Executive branch positions, most of who continued into the Ford years. Ronald Reagan wasn’t a CFR member, but his Vice President George HW Bush was a CFR member, and so were 28 members of his transition team alone. The Clinton administration had over 150 CFR members in key executive positions. George W. Bush is not a CFR member either, but his father and uncle are, his Vice President Dick Cheney is, and his administration is swarming with CFR members. The incoming Obama administration’s transition team is packed with CFR members and he is already looking to staff many of its administration’s key executive branch positions with CFR members.

Did you vote for change in the 2008 Election? If you did, here’s a partial list of Mr. Obama’s transition team:

Susan E. Rice – (CFR) former State Department Asst Secretary for African Affairs; Anthony Lake (CFR) – Bill Clinton’s first national Security advisor; Zbigniew Brzezinski – (CFR) and Trilateral Commission - Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan; Richard Clarke (CFR) - Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush; Robert W. Kagan (CFR) argues that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies; Dennis B. Ross (CFR) and Trilateral Commission - Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton; Lawrence J. Korb (CFR) - Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to "spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East"; Bruce Reidel (CFR) - Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir; Stephen E. Flynn (CFR) - Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted "Civilian Security Force". Flynn has written: "The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees”; and Madeline Albright (CFR) and Brookings - Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors and was Former Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton.

Here’s the list of possible cabinet positions in the new administration: James B. Steinberg – CFR and the Trilateral Commission; Chuck Hagel (R) – (CFR); Robert M Gates – (CFR), Hillary Clinton – Husband Bill is a CFR member; Bill Richardson (CFR); Sen John Kerry (D) (CFR); Susan Rice (CFR); Robert Rubin (CFR); Lawrence Summers (CFR); Timothy Geithner (CFR); Paul A. Volcker (CFR); David L. Boren (CFR); Thomas H. Kean (CFR); Gary Hart (CFR), and Jane Harman (CFR) – Defense Department Special Counsel (1979).


At time of writing of this article, President-elect Barack Obama's has apparently selected Arizona Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security; Timothy Geithner, the current New York Federal Reserve head, as the Secretary of the Treasury; and Texas Democratic Gov. William Richardson as the Secretary of Commerce. Guess what? They are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations. So much for change!

What do Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jim Lehrer, Marvin Kalb, Diane Sawyer, Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw have in common? Answer: They are all members of the CFR.

What does the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street journal, LA Times, Boston Globe, Baltomor Sun, Chicage Sun-Times, Houston Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Arkansas Gazette, DesMoine Register and Tribune, Louisville Courier, the AP, UPI, Reuters, the Gannett Co, Walt Disney, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox Networks, Clear Channel have in common: Answer: They are all members of the CFR.

Freedom of the press has always been vital to the preservation of our American Republic. Ever since the early years of our country, it was the American “free press” that stood tall between us and the crooked international bankers, industrialists and corrupt government officials. While some of the major newspapers in the big cities were controlled by establishment types like William Randolph Hearst, who definitely influenced the content, most of the newspaper owners and reporters were independent and honorable people who chose to keep their integrity by pursuing the truth. Most local newspapers, radio stations, and later on TV stations, were owned locally.

As they grow larger and eliminate their competition, major media corporations and international bankers are choosing what you will see on the nightly news while trying to trick you into believing it is unbiased reporting. The very news stories that you are fed by the mainstream media are manipulated to mirror the public relations campaigns of corporations, international bankers and even their favorite presidential candidates. If this is not the case then why, during the course of the 2008 election, was there no mention of the issues that were important to Americans: the threat by big government to our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty; the actions of the Federal Reserve and the issuance fiat money; the drugging of 6 million of our nation’s youth; or amnesty for illegal aliens. Popular candidates like Ron Paul were either ignored by the media, excluded from most of the TV debates, or asked fewer questions than their CFR candidate counterparts. Of the top twenty media corporations in the U.S, 18 are members of the CFR.

The CFR's strategy is to use their members in the media to promote the need for world government in order to fight international threats like global warming. Both Obama and McCain made the environment a major issue in the campaign, but avoided mentioning the immigration issue. The CFR has long identified the worldwide environmental movement as a means to advance its agenda and has even suggested a global tax on all developed nations, payable to the United Nations of course. Most of the major media companies are now controlled by individuals or organizations that are members of the CFR, including the international bankers. One of the techniques used by the CFR and its membership has been to manipulate the news in such as way as to push their internationalist views on the rest of us.

As the big media corporations keep merging into larger and more powerful companies, they will be able to control public opinion as never before. With their friends in congress and in key government agencies, all the international bankers and their CFR members need to do is advocate bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” and regulating the internet and their control of the media will be complete.

The average American might find the CFR’s powerful influence over America's government very difficult to understand or believe, but never forget that the CFR was founded by international bankers for the express purpose of bringing about socialism and world government. It is the deliberate plan of these international bankers, who hide in the shadows and pull the strings of their marionettes, to gradually increase their influence and domination over America’s domestic and foreign affairs. CFR members have been in control of our government since the 1940’s. If CFR members are supposedly to be the nation’s best and brightest in running the federal government and overseeing foreign affairs, why is the country in such a mess under their eighty year watch? The answer is: That’s the plan.

The international bankers behind the Federal Reserve and the CFR are deliberately trying to usurp the US Constitution and gradually destroy our freedoms, liberties and sovereignty in the process. They are using the Federal Reserve System to bankrupt the country so we will be at their mercy. The deeper in debt our country goes, the richer and more powerful these international bankers become. If action is not taken to take back control of our nation’s currency from the criminals in the private international banking cartel and if the CFR’s influence over the highest levels of our federal government isn't soon broken, America will be reduced to a third world nation controlled by a socialistic world government where our freedoms and liberties would have disappeared and our national sovereignty is but a fond memory.

Many Americans believe that we may have reached a point where it no longer matters which party or candidate wins the election, because both candidates are already beholden to special interest groups and the winner will most like staff the high level executive positions with CFR members.

The activities of the international bankers behind the Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve should be thoroughly investigated by an independent prosecutor. If criminal activities are uncovered, then those involved should be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as an ongoing criminal conspiracy. The American people must not give up their liberties for the false sense of security offered by the international bankers and their CFR puppets. The grip of these international criminals must be broken and the threats against our liberties, freedoms and our nation’s sovereignty must be eliminated. It can only be accomplished by a demand for action by a determined and educated American citizenry, as well as by an honest and thorough federal criminal investigation.

I close this article with a quote from David Rockefeller, the former Chairman and the current Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relation and ask you to consider the implications of what he has said:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."


- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany

By:

JOHN W. WALLACE

New York Campaign for Liberty

www.NYCampaignForLiberty.com