From the moment we're born, society's rules and regulations are imposed upon us. What this means, is that our thoughts and actions are not our own. Therefore, the majority of the population remains unaware of who they really are, and how they live. I say "the majority", because it is possible to fight this process. Now to do so, we must somehow re-manufacture ourselves. And if we don't, we will continue to do the bidding of a racist, sexist, and exploitative system that just doesn't care.

Haralambos,
We are all products of our conditioning and grow up within the parameters of our cultures and societies. I am not sure how you could be raised in a completely non-influencing or conditioned environment. Groups or tribes set up rules often to ensure their survival even if the rules are rudimentary it would be difficult to be raised in a vacuum (if you get my meaning).

When we grow and mature we become more aware of some of the flaws (if that is what we perceive) in our own culture and this is when we, as adults, can take action to correct them even if it is just by our own individual relationships with the people around us.

Hopefully as we evolve, exploitation, sexism and racism might be minimised as our lines of communication open up and people of different cultures learn to live together harmoniously. This tolerance will come at the local and individual level rather than by any mass social reform and it will take time.

Ah that reminds me of some lyrics from Paul Dempsey.

'I don't want to slide into apathy, and I don't want to live in captivity.'

Hmmm.

'Therefore, the majority of the population remains unaware of who they really are, and how they live.'
I thought that was part of the maturing process.

'What this means, is that our thoughts and actions are not our own. '
I can't agree really. Actions are always your own. I believe in personal responsibility. I think thoughts are shaped by your experiences thus far, and in the end everyone really lives in their own world. I know my world is vastly different to other people's, and I know I'm just wallpaper in other people's lives.

How Emo.

Bugsy: "How Emo."

*nearly spurts coffee out of mouth but manages to contain it*

v. funny

This rather challenging topic needs to be psychologically unpacked so that the easily outwitted are not.

PROPOSITION 1 Haralambos claims "we are all products of our environment and out thoughts are not our own"

PROPOSITION 2 In direct contradiction to 1 above, he then says we can "re-manufacture ourselves"

He also alludes to the 'majority' being the dimwitted masses it seems, and those with 'special knowledge' i.e..HIM and his cronies, or.. 'the enightened ones' (sounds a tad like the ELITE) AAAH.. "they" know how to fix it.

But the problem is.. just a second ago ur telling us that 'our thoughts are not our own' hmmmm *scratches head*..

How pray tell, do those who's thoughts are not their own, suddenly come up with a re-manufacturing plan? One what basis? by who's rules?

OH WAIT.. I get it now....

And if we don't, we will continue to do the bidding of a racist, sexist, and exploitative system that just doesn't care.

So.. it appears that only a small enlightened few (Haralambos and crowd) know what 'racist' and 'Sexist' mean.. and they will interpret these truths to the rest of we dimwits.

Again.. I come back to 'our thoughts are not our own'...and does it occur to Hara...that HIS thoughts about sexism and racism might not be his own?

Is it possible that Hara has been brainwashed by some ideology which he now feels is going to re-manufacture us?

Now.. that's what I and Gibo and Runner and others would claim for the work of Christ in our lives.

The difference is, what we proclaim (however bunglingly or to some laughably) is based on the most significant event on earth, and from which we define time "BC/AD" it is now 2008 years from.....? yes, we know it.

Hara, if you want to be re-manufactured, or society to be, I suggest you allow Christ to flood your being, mind, will and emotion.. and be renewed in Him.

Haralambos is of course quite correct - we're all products of socialisation and enculturation, which we do tend to experience without being conscious of it. S/he is also correct to assert that we can "re-manufacture ourselves", although the extent to which we can do this is constrained by various factors.

One of these is education, which can serve to reinforce early sociocultural conditioning, or more usefully, to develop skills in rational inquiry so that individuals can transcend their childhood indoctrination. Alternatively, some unfortunates who are educationally or intellectually deprived may be indoctrinated in irrational beliefs, such as those espoused by religions or other totalitarian ideologies.

As Boazy points out, we experience numerous examples of the latter form of indoctrination in this forum. Whether these emanate from educational or intellectual deprivation I shall leave for others to decide.

Yes. lets us decide.

All the best.

EVO

Haralambos,

You have obviously been indoctrinated into the belief that our society is " racist, sexist, and exploitative" and "just doesn't care."

You "...must somehow re-manufacture (yourself)" so that you can see that your belief is not true. :)

As a boy and young man, I was indoctrinated with left-wing Labor politics, and probably had similar attitudes to the ones you have now.

Fortunately, I was able to "re-manufacture" myself, and I have happily and successfully adopted conservative (NOT Liberal Party ) views.

I obviously don't know how old you are, but you seem very young in outlook, to me. Hopefully, you too will one day reaslise that nothng is set in stone, and attitudes and beliefs can change.

In the meantime, you should resist all indoctrination.

Hands up all those who also got a giggle about people being advised that the way to re-manufacture oneself after being indoctrinated was to "flood oneself" with Jesus?

Or do I just have a weird sense of humour?

Hi pelican,

I agree. Change mainly happens at the individual level. But, it doesn't have to take time. For example, we can choose to be influenced by mainstream views, or not. I do believe that most people are not aware of this choice. So instead, they just go with that flow.

Dear Haralambos,

Our behaviour is a product of an interaction between our basic biological heritage and the learning experiences of the particular culture in which we happen to live.

For example, we have the biological capacity to speak, but which language we use and how we use it depend on our environment. We have the biological capacity to laugh, to cry, to blush, to become angry, but the circumstances under which we might do any of these things are learned. Nature provides us with legs, but we are not obliged to use them only for walking. We can use them to kick a ball, or to ride a bicycle, or to sit cross-legged while contemplating.

We also have a few inborn, basic drives - organic urges that need satisfaction, such as our desires for self-preservation, for food and drink, for sex, and perhaps for the company of other people. But the way we actually satisfy these drives is learned through cultural experience. Most people, as you point out, learn to fulfill their drives in the way their culture tells them to.

But we are not programmed to satisfy them in a particular way. If we were, we would all fulfill our drives in a rigid, identical manner. In fact, unlike all other species, we can override our drives completely. We can ignore the drive for self-preservation by committing suicide or risking our lives for others. Protesters can ignore the drive for food and go on hunger strikes, even if it means starvation. Some clergy can suppress the sex drive and live out their lives in celibacy. Hermits can override the drive for human company and live in isolation.

Within very broad limits, "human nature" is what we make of it, and what we make of it depends largely on the culture in which we happen to live. The culture of every society is unique, containing combinations of norms and values that are found nowhere else

CONT'D

However, it is up to us, whether we want to help build a better society, whether we have a genuine desire to help others, particularly those in need.

It is up to us whether we want to belong to a society where no-one is disadvantaged or isolated from the community.

Philip Freier, wrote in, The Age, May 5, 2008:

"At the recent 2020 Summit in Canberra, "social inclusion" was one of the 10 key areas for discussion. It is a vague term that can mean different things to different people. For me, it must mean, first and foremost, building a society where all people, from all backgrounds and regardless of their circumstances, are genuinely incorporated.

There must be no forgotten people in 21st century Australia, whether we are speaking of Indigenous people, refugees, recent migrants, the elderly, the disabled, or those without work. If we are to create a cohesive, harmonious community, it is important that we find the will to change the structures that have left so many people disadvantaged."

"One of these is education, which can serve to reinforce early sociocultural conditioning, or more usefully, to develop skills in rational inquiry so that individuals can transcend their childhood indoctrination. Alternatively, some unfortunates who are educationally or intellectually deprived may be indoctrinated in irrational beliefs, such as those espoused by religions or other totalitarian ideologies." - CJM

CJM,

You should read William Sheridan Allen’s [1966] "The Nazi Seizure of Power". It is about a smallish (10,000 people] German town's indoctination between 1932-33. Adults were easily indoctrined. Especially, those with some property to lost [farmers & marchants]. The key people were in no sense unfortunates or lacked intellect, the NAZi's played on their fears that because of the Jews et al they could loose their saving and be poor like itinerate works, whom liven in a disused arm barracks. Then again, you might think it silly. I thought it an excellect book.

No Romany, not just you. I was verging on being impressed by BD’s logic, when all of a sudden JC pops up from nowhere. My bad, should have known better.

Yes boaz, I concurred with what you were saying until your Christian indoctrination came to the fore. Aside from that, you make some very good points.

The type of indoctrination Haralambos speaks of, could just as easily be described as persuasion. To resist any attempt to persuade you of anything, is just being stubbornly ignorant.

So there's many layers of indoctrination, but to view all society as one big bad exercise in indoctrination to me, seems like the height of condescension.

There are a multitude of views. I tend to view Australian society, by and large, as one of the better ones.
To ascribe this personal belief to simply being manipulated, is to disregard anyone elses point of view.

That sounds just as much like indoctrination as anything else.

Anyone can simply claim the opposing side has been indoctrinated. I view that, as akin to sitting down with your hands over your ears and pouting.

Hands up all those who got a giggle from :

a) Romany and Seekers statements,

b) TRTL saying:

<<To resist any attempt to persuade you of anything, is just being stubbornly ignorant.>>

Dear Seeker, Romany and TRTL

the reason the Lord Jesus 'pops up' in the midst of my otherwise 'good reasoning' is because He is the solution to the human dilemna.(alienation from our Creator)

You dear folks wander around talking about or addressing 'symptoms' and I prefer to go right to the core of things.

My basis for using the word 'flood' is this:

a) There is the prophetic condemnation of people who have 'stubbornly' wandered from God.

"My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn themselves cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water." Jeremiah 2:12-13

b) Jesus own words:

"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink," said Jesus. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." John 7:37-39

Now..I'll freely admit, no..I'll boldy declare that to give one's life to Christ means 'indoctrination'.
Paul puts it this way:

"Be transformed"
by
"the renewal of your mind"

and this is exactly what happens. But oh what joy it brings! :)

Actually I don't get a "giggle" out of the predicament of others who are outside of Christ.. I was just following the theme set by Romany.
It's not a laughing matter in the slightest.

Paul sought to persuade people about Christ in the Hall of Tyrannus for a year in Corinth.. I don't mind spending a few years on OLO for the same reason.

blessings.

Boazy: << Paul sought to persuade people about Christ in the Hall of Tyrannus for a year in Corinth.. I don't mind spending a few years on OLO for the same reason. >>

How many of us heathens do you reckon you've brought to your Christ, Boazy, or even closer to him? At last count I recall it was zero.

Hands up everybody who has converted to Christianity on the basis of Boazy's interminable preaching at OLO!

boaz, I see you're implying that when I stated, "to resist any attempt to persuade you of anything, is just being stubbornly ignorant" was somehow hypocritical. Although I see you did it in a lighthearted manner to make it appear less confrontational, that point remains.

Back in the dim dark earlier days of OLO, I'd pay your posts more attention.

But they never change. It's always the same. More Christian preaching, more doomsaying about Islam.

I listened. I rejected it as being the product of a one-track mind, which does a pretty good job of ignoring evidence to the contrary of what it has latched on to.

Most fundamentalists are quite good at that.

When you bring something new to the table, like the first half of your earlier post which I concurred with, I listen. When you spout the same repeated schtick over and over, then no.

In another thread, Vanilla made the comment that "cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the lazy option."

Similarly, you made another lighthearted comment to imply hypocrisy. She didn't take the bait like I am, simply saying you're an exception.

I concur with Vanilla, but I'd have added a different qualifier. I'd say that cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the lazy option.

Unless they have made their motives transparently clear, time and time again, and based on the clear evidence before you, you've no choice but to dismiss their ravings, because you know what they're going to say before they say it, and it fits neatly into their prejudices.

My hand's up, CJ Morgan!

Oh, wait. I thought you said "alcoholism", not "Christianity". I'm taking it down again.

Hands up those who think that BD’s guerrilla Christianity should be left to fester outside the scope of the war on terrorism (since we must have one, that is). Ambushing the good people of OLO with blind faith may be good for giggles, but what purpose does incitement against Islam serve?

Well, Seeker, it serves the goals of fundamentalist Christian indoctrination (that being the thread topic).

Fundamentalism hinges on the belief that the faithful are the Big Good, and they oppose the Big Evil. Without a clearly identifiable nemesis, the fundamentalist lacks a moral landmark.

Islam and Christianity have slotted into a cosy, mutually beneficial relationship of opposition which allows them to fulfil their divine obligations through hatred and violence, rather than the considerably more difficult exercise of tolerance and accommodation.

Haralambos “From the moment we're born, society's rules and regulations are imposed upon us.”

That is so

“What this means, is that our thoughts and actions are not our own.”

That is not so.

We are all free to accept or disregard society’s rules and regulations or to find a society with a different set of rules and regulations to those we were born into (which is one reason I migrated from UK to Australia - to benefit from the difference to the social rules and regulations as they existed in UK).

Some folk disregard the rules at their peril, hence we have prisons.

We are all born with freedom of choice, simply exercising that freedom of choice is the challenge society’s rules and regulations and to make the resultant actions an expression of our own, individual thoughts.

I am not responsible for the majority of the population, I am only responsible for me and my own thoughts and actions. I do stand by what I feel and am on say this site, challenged for doing so.

I did not re-manufacture myself, I simply tuned what was already a pretty good personality and thought process. Not all would agree but I do not give a rats what others think of me, anymore than they should concern themselves of what I might think of them.

As for a system which does not care, it is the system which reflects the compromise we all have to make. A system which “does not care” and leaves individual people free to act as they see fit, is infinitely superior to a system which expresses care through the curtailment of the rights of individuals who it is supposed to be there to serve.

US “and I know I'm just wallpaper in other people's lives.”

but what are those other people in your life and do you need the services of an interior decorator ?

Dear Seeker TRTL, Sancho...(and CJ)
it's not exactly that I have notches in my spiritual gun which I joyfully and proudly count each morning 'YES YES..another scalp.. or trophy of grace"

Paul argued, with good reason, and with good evidence. The goal is to make the claims of God in Christ known, and call men and women to repentance and faith. NOT...to drag them into 'my' denomination or tradition.

Sancho raises an interesting and important issue, that of the 'mutual benevolance society' of hate between Islam and Christianity, which gives them a reason for living kind of....

No mate.. no no no... it is always a temptation to run too far and too excluslively on the 'they are the bad guys' road, but in the end it is self defeating as a number of you testify.

Keep in mind there are 2 primary objectives with criticising Islam (and any faith or set of ideas)

1/ Public information, and balancing propoganda.
2/ Warning of any danger inherrent in that set of ideas.

Now.. very few of you if any, have actually taken the time to examine the points I've raised, the scriptures, so your rather passionate attack on me is understandable, albeit based on a pretty high level of ignorance.

There is no particular advantage to the Christian faith in simply 'picking on' other faiths, though, by way of contrast an open minded person can see the stark difference between a man who is celibate for the sake of His mission,(and thus to avoid the charge of immorality) and one who surrounds himself with women, including a child and claims that for him personally, there is no limit to the number of said women and children he can take this way.

If such a contrast does NOT trigger some serious questions in one's mind, then I suggest that mind is not very open at all.

It may just be that because of my 'Christian' stance, such truths and contrasts are seen in a different light than if one of your own political and secular persuasion made them?

Racism, sexism and exploitation are all loaded words which must be placed in their context to have meaning. It is considered racism or ethnocentrism to oppose the mores of another society. Most of us including myself in this society oppose female genital mutilation. However, it is an accepted practice in other societies. To oppose it is to put our cultural values upon another society. In that respect I believe our cultural values are superior. We generally believe that practice is exploitation of and demeaning to women. However, seen from the view of that society it is in the natural order of things, and our opposition can be seen by them as racism.

We can cite other examples where the meanings of racism, sexism and exploitation differ according to those who define the terms. Rather than attempt such a grandiose goal as ridding our society of racism, sexism and exploitation where definitions differ it would be more fruitful to set up more easily defined goals such as limiting the arms trade and curbing population growth. Others would disagree in setting those goals as a priority and have other choices. However, I think the elimination of racism, sexism and exploitation, especially the last term, is an an unreasonable goal because of the difficulty in getting definitions we can all agree on.

Foxy wrote:

"It is up to us whether we want to belong to a society where no-one is disadvantaged or isolated from the community."

If one disagrees with the values of a community it is right to isolate oneself from the community to the degree that one finds possible. People may differ on the definition of being disadvantaged. My income is sufficient for me, but many people with the same income and different tastes would feel disadvantaged.

The society Foxy advocates has an implicit compulsion and might demand an unreasonable uniformity of values. I do not want to belong to such a society.

Hi Foxy,

It is up to us. We have to decide whether we are part of the problem, or part of the solution. Sitting on the fence, or simply discussing issues, isn't enough, is it? So again, we have a choice to make.

Sancho,
'Fundamentalism hinges on the belief that the faithful are the Big Good, and they oppose the Big Evil. Without a clearly identifiable nemesis, the fundamentalist lacks a moral landmark.

Islam and Christianity have slotted into a cosy, mutually beneficial relationship of opposition which allows them to fulfil their divine obligations through hatred and violence, rather than the considerably more difficult exercise of tolerance and accommodation.'

You continue to comfort yourself with misinformation or untruths. I think you have substituted the word Christianity in place of human secularism. You are obviously blinded to the death culture that secularism has produced as opposed to the dignity and respect of life Christ's teachings have brought. At least try and be honest with your slander.

Dear David f,

The point I was trying to make was - the best way to help disadvantaged people is by giving them the capacities they need to gain control of their own destinies. That means education and re-training, relevant work experience, and integration into suitable employment, together with adequate housing and access to transport.

Getting people into meaningful work also restores them to full social inclusion, and ensures their children are incorporated fully into society as well. In this way we replace intergenerational poverty with intergenerational inclusion.

Social inclusion is not just about employment, of course. Many other groups for whom paid employment is not an option are currently isolated from mainstream Australian life, including the disabled and the elderly. It is up to us to have a desire to build a better society, because we genuinely want to help others, particularly those in need. It is up to us to want a society where no-one is disadvantaged, especially people who are vulnerable.

But as you pointed out - the choice is ours to make.

"Therefore, the majority of the population remains unaware of who they really are, and how they live. I say "the majority", because it is possible to fight this process. Now to do so, we must somehow re-manufacture ourselves. And if we don't, we will continue to do the bidding of a racist, sexist, and exploitative system that just doesn't care."

Oh what truth you speak my friend the OP

as you say we must reinvent ourselves but you did not say that involves pain by way of those who want you to STAY in the fold and the pain of giving up that warm & cuddly feeling of just going with the mob

but hey, it IS worth it

this issue is simply the old chestnut, currently called political correctness

Dylan described it in 2 classics

1/ God on our side to describe the EASY path of just go along with the govt/masses eg the war in Iraq or be a good Catholic or whatever

2/ Mr Tamborine Man described the joys of THINKING, a commodity that has become far rarer in our time

and Hitler described as

It is a great fortune for governments the people do not think

so all of you back to Big Brother, yo all hear

seems to me people will do ANYTHING these days [by way of availing themselves of some form of "entertainment"] to AVOID the dreaded thought of having to think for themselves

but hey, as I said [same as OP] once you throw your "thinking sub contractors" overboard [be they Howard, the church or whoever] a great weight lifts from your shoulders

In every society there are leaders and followers and those that want to be uncommitted and alone.

I note Haralambos has been carefully indoctrinated in the English languade. Why has'nt he developed his own language? Is it because he can engage in an indoctrinated society? When will he discover himself rather than use to tools and disciplines of a computer age? All these things are governed by laws and disciplines. Tell us when you are no longer the indictrinated you but the new you. Or perhaps the new you will develop you own language, laws and disciplines that cannot communicate with the brain washed majority. Ugg homen eld?

Divorce Doctor said "It is a great fortune for governments the people do not think". Too true my friend, sadly too true. To think outside the square is somewhat painful. Giving up the "warm" fuzzies threatens the integrity of the order of things. I think it was Timothy Leary who said we should "tune in and drop out". He was right, because we leave behind our conditioning, and re-create ourselves anew.

Hey Philo,

Is it not possible to "use the master's tools to bring down HIS house"?

Boaz & CJM,

I am hapy to listen to argument from both Theist and Atheists sides. nly, former essentially use two book OT & NT and "human" doctrine from councils. The latter are more inclined to bring a wide of science and history to the debate. While, leaning towards atheist side, I thought Dawkin's "God Delusion" poorly written, Not on the same planet as "The Selfish Gene".

Dawkins was writing out of his feild of expertise. I have thought saw since buying an earlier copy and the respected journal ISIS said the same thing: the ISIS writer was ab atheist.

What I don't see is Boazy and Sells finding faults in the Bible in the way othe disciplines do about their peers. George and Philo seem better read and so fundamentalist. So, there are exceptions.

As mentioned before by me in OLO, feel Dawkins should have edited an anthology using topic experts.

Boaz & Sells,

What are the three biggest faults in the Bible?

"Divorce Doctor said "It is a great fortune for governments the people do not think". Too true my friend, sadly too true. To think outside the square is somewhat painful. Giving up the "warm" fuzzies threatens the integrity of the order of things."

may I put is another way my friend

to think/act outside the square [and WIN] is for sure the greatest joy I have had in my life

the PAIN comes from the swords [above AND below] who feel insecure BY your brave break FROM the fold and set about to make THEIR single agenda item being a pedant to your cause

it is sad but that is the way since the days of Adam

IT'S TOOOO WIERD :)

Speaking of indoctrination... some of you will love this.

I found it both thrilling but also ironic and sad at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WOzF9ZGA7A&feature=related

The SHOW...."American IDOL"

The SONG...."Shout to the LORD"

The SPONSOR.."Coca Cola"

I must confess, all the hype, bad theology (idol?) and sponsorship aside, it was heartwarming to see the finalists of 'Idol' sing

"My Jesus, My Savior Lord there is none like you" with great passion.

There was a mild hiccup though, the day before, with the same song, some bright spark took out 'Jesus' and substituted "Shepherd" ..hmm a bit of PC no doubt.

The song was composed by Darlene Zschech from Hillsong Sydney.

I would be full of unspeakable joy if all of us could sing that song from the heart.

I think I'm going to puke.

"American Idol" + Coca-Cola + Jesus = Chunder.

CJ,
Haven't been around OLO much lately so can't remember where you posted your email address. If you contact me at faedoh@gmail.com I'll give you the blog address you intimated you might like to read.

Haralambos,
I note you have a destructive attitude toward social order, laws and discipline that assists a diverse society to cooperate peacefully.

You are not more than an anachist in your world view, and in our ordered society a criminal for undermining good relationships based in social accepted boundaries. The reality is: human maturity is the application of self denial and the sacrifice for the wellbeing of the greater good. When you establish a great society that follows your principles there will be boundaries (laws), social values (disciplines), and self denial (living with conscience). Any other society will be based in greed and self destruction.

totally confused by:

"You are not more than an anachist in your world view, and in **our ordered society** a criminal for undermining good relationships based in social accepted boundaries. The reality is: human maturity is the application of self denial and the sacrifice for the wellbeing of the greater good. When you establish a great society that follows your principles there will be boundaries (laws), social values (disciplines), and self denial (living with conscience). Any other society will be based in **greed and self destruction**."

are you talking of the same society, ie the Howard/Bush greed and self destruction, use all the oil and blow the sh** out or Iraq to get more type one, as being the **Ordered society**

not the sort of order I like

'From the moment we're born, society's rules and regulations are imposed upon us. What this means, is that our thoughts and actions are not our own. Therefore, the majority of the population remains unaware of who they really are, and how they live." - H.

I think you touch on issue that is debated more often than you suggest, "nature vs. nurture", socliology, anthropology and political economics. Perhaps, as block these disciplines do have a left wing slant, but with the exemption PE not necesarily so. It is one thing to say the peole need arrest/control power hungary politicians, but, to say we are lost or we need anarchy [Philio's impression of you] is exaggeration, a disportionate perspective, I suggest, with respect.

Toynbee cited 23 civilizations. Why do they fall in the more ancient ones. Perhaps the people are in cities and these folks are attacked by less advanced mobile barbarians tribes [Goths vs. Romans]. But, more significantly, it what happens is the rich and power try to maintain the status quo when the environment has changed.

What is important is, that, there is separation of powers. Church/State: Police/Judges: Corporations/Persons: The Monied/Politicians ...

I fear we have a big problem with latter. Moreover, I am supporter of citizen referenda and the potential mid-term ostacization of political leader [not necesarily the party]. Perhaps, since WWII, we have been drifting away from intensifing democracy and enhancing state capitalism. The Marshall Plan set-up the foundation for transnationals.

I have no problem with capitalism. But companies are not people and no govenments. There place I beleive is be efficient and produce wealth, not to veto the will of the People.

As a near-Atheist I am happy for the churches to stay until we no longer require them, say in two hundred years? A near-Atheist means that I don't beleive Theists and Atheists are infalliable.