e g r e g o r e s: Dec 26, 2009

Saturday, December 26, 2009

"A form of ministry" (Push Polling for Jesus, Part Four)

"You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike."

Introduction

Have you ever wondered what, if anything at all, Amway has to do with the Order of Charlemagne? Or how they are both connected to the modern business of public opinion research?? All this, and more, will be revealed in what follows.

This is a somewhat longish post, the bulk of which is divided up into four parts:

Part One focuses on George Gallup Jr, who has been, at times, very up front about how he uses the family business as a way to promulgate his own religious agenda.
Part Two discusses the strange idea of "Spiritual Capital", and also focuses on connections between the Gallups and the Templetons.
Part Three concerns the Cliftons, who bought The Gallup Organization in 1988.
Part Four focuses on the Christian "philanthropy" of the Pew Trusts, with special attention to Luis Lugo, Director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

There is also a very brief Conclusion.

While there is nothing new here, information-wise, I think there is some value in assembling this material in one place and attempting to provide a narrative tying things together. I hope that if you actually bother to read through all this, it will convince you to not look to outfits like Gallup, Templeton, Pew, etc, as sources of "objective research" on the subject of religion, but rather as purveyors of Christian propaganda, and rather crude propaganda at that, once you know what to look for.

Part One: George Gallup, Jr.
George Gallup Jr. (named for his father, the founder of The Gallup Organization) was a religion major at Princeton and almost became an Episcopal priest. For most of his long professional career, though, Gallup Jr has been somewhat circumspect about his intensely religious views. But he provided a glimpse of his inner life to Michael McManus in an interview for McManus' syndicated "Religion and Ethics" newspaper column in 1986 (for the youngsters out there, a "newspaper column" is basically a blog that is "printed" on material made from dead trees).

The headline of McManus' column for the last week of August, 1986, was The Powerful Religious Work of George Gallup Jr. The article is a mish-mash of Gallup poll statistics (about alcohol abuse, divorce, abortion, illegitimate births, and other signs of the decline and fall of western civilization) and homespun advice from George Gallup Jr. about how Churches "need to learn to think small", and how individual Christians need to form "small groups who meet regularly for fellowship, Bible study and prayer for each others needs." McManus refers to such small groups as "extended families", and says that "All readers of this column and every member of your church" should be in such an "extended family."

(Prior to 2005, McManus was primarily known for his column and also for the organization he founded called Marriage Savers: "a proven way to increase the success of marriage, reduce divorce rates, and provide a better environment for children to thrive." Since 2005, though, he is perhaps more widely known as one of the "journalists" caught taking money from the Bush Administration for "consulting" work, while writing about the very programs they were "consultants" for without revealing the blatant conflict of interest.)

A decade after the McManus column, which attracted little attention at the time, George Gallup Jr. seems to have decided to start talking more openly about his strong religious views, even going so far as to proudly proclaim that as a young man he had intentionally decided to go into the family business as "a form of ministry".

In January of 1996, Gallup Jr delivered a sermon for the program "30 Good Minutes": "a weekly ecumenical and interfaith program" on WTTW 11 (PBS) in Chicago. In his sermon, Gallup talks up his interest in small, home-based bible-study groups which he refers to as "Covenant Groups": "in which we share stories of how God is working in our lives, reflect on Bible passages, and how these apply to our daily lives, and join together in deep prayer."

Gallup also did an interview with one of the hosts of "30 Good Minutes", Floyd Brown. Here is a excerpt:

Brown: I want you to tell me about your cell group. You told us earlier about how you meet each week. What do you do at these meetings?

Gallup: Well I'm very, very excited about it. It's been the most important thing in my faith journey and my wife's faith journey. Basically we come together to share our lives and we come together to reflect upon the Bible, what it means to us in our daily lives. It's not really a head trip, it's a heart trip. And also these groups empower us for service to others. So it's really a transformational process. It's not a discussion group; it's an enriching group.

Later that same year, George M. Anderson (a Jesuit priest) interviewed Gallup Jr for America, The National Catholic Weekly. The resulting article, titled "Talking About Religion: An Interview With George H. Gallup Jr." begins like this:

"The light of Christ is shining through in a number of ways. The presence of the saints among us, ordinary people leading exceptionally good lives, is a sign of that light."

Then there came a puff piece in the Dallas Morning News (May 2, 1998) that positively gushes with Gallop Jr's missionary zeal. That article was later reprinted in Christian Ethics Today, with a note from the Editor that states "My own acquaintance with and appreciation for George Gallup, Jr. tracks closely with that of the author of this piece." The author, Diane Winston (who is now a professor at USC and a frequent contributor to religiondispatches.com), makes her own feelings quite clear when she praises Gallup as a "Spirit-filled layman". Here, Gallup once again talks about his "Covenant-Groups":

Mr. Gallup is keenly aware of his flaws. To stay honest and in touch with his “brokenness,” he participates in small groups for prayer and fellowship. He also “practices the presence of God.”

"If you believe God is here at any point, then God is here all the time,” said Mr. Gallup, who notes God’s presence by praying throughout the day. “The pieces fit together when you try to submit your life to God.”

While many Americans would voice similar sentiments, Mr. Gallup’s polls suggest that few really know what they believe, much less how to put it into practice.

“People’s faith is broad but not deep,” he said. “There’s a lack of charity, and spiritual disciplines—such as fasting, prayer, and meditation—have been ignored. The one good sign is the growth of the small-group movement. That’s where people can find a place to be vulnerable and honest."

Kingsley Gallup, wife of George Gallup Jr, was also active in and enthusiastic about the bible study groups at their home, and, along with her husband, she often spoke at churches around the country encouraging the formation of similar home-based "Covenant Groups" (she died in 2007). Kingsley was also a member of the Board of Directors of "VirtueOnline": "The Voice for Global Orthodox Anglicanism", and she, along with other members of the Gallup family, had formed the George Gallup International Institute in 1988, in honor of the family patriarch, George Sr. The Institute is a non-profit with the mission to "discover, test, and implement new ideas for society". George and Kingsley's son, George Gallup III, now sits on the Board of Directors of the Trinity School for Ministry, which describes itself as "An evangelical seminary in the Anglican tradition," and whose motto is "Forming Christian Leaders for Mission." George Gallup III is also Chairman of the Gallup Institute.

Obviously George Gallup Jr and his immediate family are "free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion" as Thomas Jefferson put it so eloquently. But the question is raised: what, exactly, is The Gallup Organization really up to? Jefferson had in mind citizens who openly and directly "profess" and "maintain" their beliefs in an honest and forthright manner, not those who deceitfully seek to influence the public without disclosing their true intentions. It is interesting to recall that Jefferson's proposed Act for Establishing Religious Freedom was strongly opposed by Christians who threw their support behind a counterproposal titled A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion (which was backed by Patrick Henry among others). Jefferson's bill was written in 1779, and was not finally passed until 1786, over the strong objections of Christians who wanted to have public subsidies for the promulgation of their religion.

In fact, both Congregationalists and Anglicans (the Gallups tend to be devout, and self-described "orthodox", Anglicans) in the colonies enjoyed public financial support from the Crown up until 1776. After the Declaration of Independence both denominations sought to convince the individual states to continue this subsidy, although they were now willing, in the spirit of democracy, to allow individual taxpayers a say in which Christian denomination their tax dollars would support. Such "Assessments" were actually approved by the state legislatures in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland and Georgia.

Part Two: Spiritual Capital

In January 2007 the Gallup organization and the Spiritual Enterprise Institute jointly released their "Spiritual State of the Union" report. The report was commissioned and paid for by the Spiritual Enterprise Institute, but the actual research and the writing of the report were done by Gallup. Although the press-release makes the claim that: "This is the first comprehensive survey of its kind since 1999," in fact Gallup had actually done another "Spiritual State of the Union" study in 2003, in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania.

The Spiritual Enterprise Institute (SEI, with offices in New York, Washington DC, and Palm Beach) turns out to be quite an interesting organization in its own right. The only thing at the SEI website main page other than glowing references to their (now almost three years old) Spiritual State of the Union report, is a link to a video featuring Michael Novak, a prominent Catholic writer and philosopher who publicly supported Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican primaries (although Novak also claims to be a "life-long Democrat"). In the video, Novak drones on about something that he calls "Spiritual Capital".

What, pray tell, is Spiritual Capital? Fortunately there is a Spiritual Capital Research Program that has been established to answer just such questions. Interestingly, this Program is "generously supported by funding from the John Templeton Foundation", which, in turn, also provided "the initial funding needed to organize and launch the Spiritual Enterprise Institute"! It all sounds very cozy. But it's even cozier than that: the Templeton Foundation also funded a 2000 Gallup survey to find out how many people, broken down by age group, "say they believe in God or a universal spirit", and Templeton also funded a "Biblical Literacy Report" conducted in 2005 by Gallup.

But I digress. Here is an extended excerpt from the Spiritual Capital Research Program website:

The concept of spiritual capital builds on recent research on social capital, which shows that religion is a major factor in the formation of social networks and trust. In addition, the impetus for focusing specifically on spiritual capital draws on the growing recognition in economics and other social sciences that religion is not epiphenomenal, nor is it fading from public significance in the 21 st century, and the importance to social/economic dynamics of human economic intangibles. Recent developments in the social sciences suggest a growing openness to nonmaterial factors, such as the radius of trust, behavioral norms, and religion as having profound economic, political, and social consequences.

Scholars have already made important advances in the areas of human capital and social capital. Both concepts are associated with the pioneering work of the economist Gary Becker (University of Chicago and 1992 Nobel Laureate in Economics). The specific term “spiritual capital” has been used variously over the past decade by scholars such as Robert Fogel, an economist from the University of Chicago and 1993 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and University of Pennsylvania political scientist John DiIulio. Broadly, spiritual capital may be construed to refer to that aspect of social capital linked with religion and/or spirituality. In one sense, then, spiritual capital might be a subset of social capital. Given that Robert Putnam’s influential work on social capital found that religion is by far the largest generator of social capital in the United States, contributing to more than half of the social capital in the country, this is a major subset and thus an area of worthy study on its own.

Although the concept of spiritual capital remains relatively broad at the outset of this initiative, it will be important for the researchers’ to define the concept in a clear and compelling way that draws on existing research, can be measured, and points the way toward new findings. As a first step toward this greater conceptual clarity, Metanexus organized a strategic planning meeting on October 9 & 10, 2003 to assess the potential for a spiritual capital initiative The focus of this meeting was to identify key questions for research and assess the potential for interdisciplinary research on the positive “externalities” of religious and spiritual commitments. The working definition of spiritual capital developed for that meeting was:

The effects of spiritual and religious practices, beliefs, networks and institutions that have a measurable impact on individuals, communities and societies.

We have provided several papers and the beginnings of a literature review generated from that meeting, which discuss different conceptions and understandings of spiritual capital. We not only acknowledge the existence of different understandings of spiritual capital, but also seek proposals that reflect diverse methodologies in studying the topic. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are necessary to gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of spiritual capital.

But now let's return to the Spiritual Enterprise Institute for a moment. The SEI is the brainchild of Theodore Roosevelt ~~Moloch~~ Malloch, who founded SEI in order to "measure, organize and direct new thinking about Spiritual Enterprise and Spiritual Capital. The fundamental goal of SEI is to stimulate new thinking and discovery with regard to the 'tool' of Spiritual Capital, and how it can best be employed to benefit social and economic development through Spiritual Enterprise."

"Ted" Malloch is a well connected and well-traveled fellow. He has worked for the UN, the Aspen Institute, the World Economic Development Congress, and the World Economic Forum. Malloch also claims to be a "Research Professor" at Yale, although he's a little vague on the details of this faculty position. And, not surprisingly, he is also on the Board of Directors of the Spiritual Capital Research Program, as well being on the Boards of the Templeton Foundation and Yale Divinity School. He is listed as a "Key Christian Business Leader" by the group Business By The Book, which is dedicated to providing a platform for "amazing leaders" from the "business world" to "share their life experiences but most importantly about their faith in God and its positive impact in their business and personal life."

Gee, that name Templeton keeps coming up, doesn't it? What would happen if someone were to do a google search just on the names Templeton and Gallup? Why, you would discover that Annette Templeton is the "Global Chief of Principals" for The Gallup Organization. And that John M. Templeton Jr. is on the Board of the Gallup Instiute. Templeton was on the Friends of Guiliani Exploratory Committee and is a member of some outfit called The Order of Charlegmagne (whose mission is to "bring into one group the descendants of his successors and heirs")! One also finds out that the Templeton Foundation funds the annual Seligman Award, part of which is a subsidy to help pay for the lucky winner to attend the annual Gallup International Positive Psychology Summit.

The Seligman Award, referred to above, is named for Martin P. Seligman, who, among many other accomplishments, is a past President of the American Psychological Association. In her 2008 book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals Jane Mayer writes

In the spring of 2002, the period during which the CIA was probing what it could do to Zubaydya, Seligman was invited by the CIA to speak at the Navy's SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) school in San Diego. Among the organizers was Kirk Hubbard, Director of Behavioral Sciences Research at the CIA until 2005. Neither Hubbard nor Seligman would comment on the special briefing. But in an email Seligman acknowledged that he spoke for three hours. Seligman emphasized that his talk was aimed at helping American soldiers "resist torture," not inflict it. But whether Seligman wanted his discoveries applied as they were or not, Mithcell [James Mitchell, a psychologist who works for the SERE Program] cited the uses of Learned Helplessness in handling human detainees. According to Steve Kleinman, a reserve Air Force colonel and an experience interrogator who has known Mitchell professionally for years. "Learned Helplessness was his whole paradigm." Mitchell, he said, "draws diagrams showing what he says is the whole cycle. It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoner's ability to forecast the future -- when their next meal is -- when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the KGB model.

Did I mention that the annual Seligman Award is part of the Templeton Foundation's efforts to promote "Authentic Happiness" and it "seeks to recognize talent and promise among young researchers exploring topics in the emerging field of positive psychology"?? Don't you feel more positive already?

Another thing that popped up when I did that google search mentioned above was a March 2009 article from religiondispatches.org, by Nathan Schneider entitled Seeing What They Wanna See: Religion Surveys Reflect Surveyors. I would encourage everyone reading this blog entry to follow that link and read Schneider's article for yourself. For now I will just provide this excerpt:

Thanks to Public Law 94-521, passed by Congress in 1976, the national census is prohibited from collecting information about religion. Keeping score in the American religious marketplace, therefore, has become a free-for-all among privately-funded polls and studies, and sectarian concerns have always hovered nearby. America’s best known pollster, George Gallup, was a devoted Christian, as is George Barna, whose Barna Group specializes in religion polls. In recent years, large foundations with religious roots have entered the field, bankrolling surveys and publicizing the results, notably the Lilly Endowment, which “exists to support the causes of religion, education and community development,” and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

One notable example is the John Templeton Foundation, founded in 1987 by the Presbyterian investor whose name it bears. It gave away $70 million in grants last year and boasts an annual Templeton Prize with a larger payout than the Nobel. Among fields as diverse as economics, theology, history, education, physics, neuroscience, and medicine, Templeton has become a force to be reckoned with in the sociology of religion. Some believe that Templeton’s syncretist approach to religion and reason is too weighted toward the theological.

“This is a really awkward time in the sociology of religion,” says Darren Sherkat, a sociologist at Southern Illinois University. He has noticed a “huge influx” of conservative Christians into positions of leadership in the field, editing journals and founding centers. According to his Web site, “I tend to focus on features of religion that are not necessarily so wholesome, with a particular focus on contemporary American conservative Christianity.” This, he believes, has made it harder to get his articles published. “Serious research which questions the Templeton line that religion makes you healthy, wealthy, and wise is unlikely to get a fair review at most journals,” said Sherkat in an interview.

Way back in 1997 Slate Magazine's David Plotz did a piece on Sir John Marks Templeton, titled "God's Venture Capitalist". Plotz describes Templeton as "the defining philanthropist of our time ... [a] religious philanthropist, investment wizard, amateur philosopher, and full-bore crank." I'll have more to say about Sir John, with more excerpts from Plotz' profile, in a future installment in this series.

Part Three: Meet the Cliftons

In 1988 The Gallup Organization was purchased by Selection Research, Inc (SRI). SRI had been founded in 1969 by Donald O. Clifton as a one-man operation that he ran out of his basement. Clifton was a decorated (Distinguished Flying Cross) WWII vet who went to school on the GI Bill after the war, and received a PhD in Educational Psychology. In addition to building one company from the ground up and purchasing another company (Gallup) Clifton has also authored multiple books on "positivie psychology" and was awarded a Presidential Commendation by the American Psychological Association in 2002.

After the acquisition, Don Clifton became Chair of Gallup's Board, while his son, Jim, became CEO. George Gallup Jr. told the New York Times that "his company 'was not in the black' when it was sold." That changed, big time, under the Cliftons' stewardship. According to Jim Clifton's bio at the Gallup website since the change of ownership, "Gallup has enjoyed a fifteenfold increase in its billing volume and has expanded from a predominantly U.S.-based company to a global organization with more than 40 offices in 20 countries." (article by Lisa Belkin in the March 6, 1990 NYT issue)

On top of everything else, Don Clifton also founded his own degree granting educational institution, the Clifton Stengths School, offering Masters Degrees and Professional Development for educators, managers and other "performance leaders". There is also an annual "Don Clifton Strengths Excellence Award" which is "presented by Gallup and the Clifton Strengths Institute". For 2009 there were four finalists for the award, two of them self-described Christian institutions. The winner of the award for 2009 was Lee University, "A Christ-Centered Liberal Arts Campus".

Lee University's president, Paul Conn, is also a prolific author. For example, he has written no less than three books on one of his favorite subjects, Amway:

The Possible Dream (1987) tells the story of Rich Devos and Jay Van Andel, founders of Amway:

two young and aggressive entrepreneurs, fast friends and fellow adventurers who turned a basement business into a billion-dollar-plus-direct-sales empire.

Rich Devos and Jay Van Andel had a dream big enough to embrace anyone seeking to change his life and willing to work to do it. Make it happen, they challenged. Write your own rags-to-riches story, build your own future within the framework of Amway. Hundreds of thousands of people have, spurred on by incentives like freedom, recognition, accomplishment, friendship and, above all, money.
[from the back cover]

The Dream That Will Not Die (1996) tells "the rest of the Amway story."

Promises To Keep (2008) appears to be simply a rehash with maybe some updating of the first two books. The subtitle is "The Amway phenomenon and how it works."

Azusa Pacific University was one of the finalists for the coveted Don Clifton Strengths Excellence Award. Like Lee University, Azusa Pacific University is a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which awarded the John Templeton Foundation its annual Philanthropy Award in 2006, in recognition of the Foundation's "leadership in expanding research, scholarship, teaching and public awareness in several areas which are critical to the work of Christian higher education-most notably in character education, spirituality and spiritual formation and the interface between science and Christianity."

Azusa Pacific University has a very interesting "What We Believe" section on their website, containing a number of "documents" outlining "where APU stands as a faith community". Below are some excerpts:

Christian World View
The Statement of Faith, Mission Statement, Statement of Essence, Cornerstones, and the Motto of Azusa Pacific University provide a solid foundation on which to build positional statements of the institution as an evangelical Christian university. These documents evidence a strong Christian commitment and form the core of the increasingly far-reaching nature and scope of the APU community. They give expression to a strong, clear, unswervingly evangelical Christian worldview that permeates the university and guides its activity. As its guiding center, the university is able to grow more effectively in the confidence that its Christian nature will flourish.

Statement of Faith
We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God.

We believe that there is one God, creator of heaven and earth, eternally existent in three persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, and in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return to power and glory.

Human Sexuality
As an evangelical community of disciples and scholars who embrace the historic Christian understanding of Scripture, Azusa Pacific University holds that sexuality is a gift from God and basic to human identity as well as a matter of behavioral expression. We hold that the full behavioral expression of sexuality is to take place within the context of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman and that individuals remain celibate outside of the bond of marriage.

Part Four: "The Wider Vocation of the Christian Political Scientist"
In 1999 Luis Lugo was asked to give an address to the biennial meeting of Christians in Political Science. The title of his talk was "The Wider Vocation of a Christian Political Scientist" (click here to go to the archives section of the CPS website, where you can download a pdf of the Fall 1999 issue of their newsletter, containing Dr. Lugo's remarks). Lugo has held a variety of positions at the Pew Charitable Trusts, he is currently the Director of the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life. Below are some excerpts from Lugo's talk to the 1999 Christians in Political Science gathering (held at Calvin College, where Lugo had formerly been on the Political Science faculty):

I'm afraid I have to begin with a rather formal sounding disclaimer: "The opinoins expressed here are those of the speaker adn do not necessarily reflect the views of the Pew Charitable Trusts." Actually, at times, I will be speaking as the Director of the Religion program at the Trusts. So please attribute to the Trusts any part of my talk that you happen to like, and the rest blame on me personally....

I'm delighted to be here with you and to share some of my thoughts from the vantage point of my current professional perch. I've been out of the classroom now for almost four years (I was on leave from Calving working in Washington for a year before I took the position at Pew.) But since the focus of the Religion program at PCT is on religion and the public square, I continue to deal every day with religion and politics issues, just as I did in my former life. The difference is that now I do so not only as an analyst but also as an activist, helping to make things happen on the ground. I should add that it's precisely that combination -- analyst and activist -- that makes my job at the Trusts so professionally rewarding. As those of you who have dealt with us lately know, our approach to grantmaking increasingly is more strategic and results-oriented, and not all in conformity with the old model of foundations as glorified ATM's....

For CPS ... its mission needs to be framed in terms of the vocation of the Christian political scientist and its relation to issues beyond our strictly disciplinary concerns. In that regard, I would argue that the larger social reality with which we in the first instance must reckon is not the world of politics and policy, but of the community of faith. For the Christian scholarly vocation, as is true of other vocations, emerges "from the heart of the church" (Ex Corde Ecclesia).

As with everything else in our lives, then, our starting point as Christian scholars is the communion of saints. For it is there that we find our most basic identity. That means that Christian political scientists are, before anything else, at the service of God's people, providing intellectual leadership to help them as they seek faithfully to carry out their temporal calling as citizens. Now, to do that credibly, I would argue, we must be formed in our intellectual lives by the church's wrestling throughout its long history with political questions. As you know these range rather widely: from the foundational questions concerning the nature and limits of political authority, and how government should properly relate to the family and other institutions of civil society, to specific issues of war and pease and the provision of social services to the poor. These are matters which the church correctly has approached, not as something extraneous to the life of faith, but as a natural expression of its calling before the Lord. So as we do our political science and stay fully abreast of developments ithin the discipline, we must also join that other conversation, and enter fully into the church's long tradition of political reflection on these and other matters.

Paradoxically though it may seem, if we are going to make a distinctive and lasting contribution to the larger public conversation, we must make the Christian tradition our primary intellectual community. Might CPS have an important role to play in briddging these two conversations? I leave that for you to ponder. Let me quickly add, though, lest I be misunderstood, that what I am talking about here is something much more basic that the subfield we call political philosophy. In Catholic circles, it is often referred to as the social teachings or the social doctrine of the church. This teaching bears on the whole range of questions with which the discipline concerns itself. So this is not something simply for politcial philosophers, but for all of us. We all need a thorough immersion in the tradition.

We in the Trust are taking some steps along those lines through our Civitas Program in Faith and Public Affairs. In that program, which involves an intensive summer seminar followed by an internship in one of the major Washington think taks such as Brookings or AEI, we are targeting a select group of doctoral-level students who are working in policy-related fields. The point of the program is to build bridges: bridges between the students' academic work and the tradition of Christian political reflection, on the one hand; and between their life as scholars and their broader responsibility as public intellectuals, on the other. The goal is train, over the next few years, at least 120 of these promising young Christian scholars who will be equipped to provide that kind of leadership to church and society.

.... Through a major initiative which we are calling Religious Communities and the American Public Square, we are seeking to engage seven of the largest religious groups in this country -- from Catholics and Mainline and Evangelical Protestants, to Muslims and Jews, to African Americans and Latinos -- in a serious conversation regarding the current state of their own civic health and their future potential to make a significant contribution to the renewal of American democracy. Incidentally, this first inventory phase of that initiative entails rigorous survey work and case studies, and involves literally dozens of political scientists. I have also called upon numerous members of this craft, including Allen Hertzke, who is serving as our chief outside consultant, in crafting a strategy paper on religion and civic engagement that will lay out how we plan to build on the Religious Communities initiative. That paper is scheduled to go before the board in March.

We realize, of course, that if the larger American public is to be more informed on the role of religion in civic life, the gatekeepers of information -- the press, particularly political reporters -- must do a better job of covering this emerging story. That is why the second prong of our work focuses on Religion and the Media. The board just approved our strategy paper in that area (now posted on our Web site), and we will be ready to roll out the full educational program in 2000. I must say, even at this early juncture, and based on a couple of exploratory grants, that I have been very pleasantly surprised with how receptive journalists are to our efforts.

Interestingly, Lugo's brief bio at the Pew website does not mention his faculty position at Calvin College, his membership in Christian Political Scientists, or his stint as Associate Director of the Center for Public Justice, the last job he held before coming to Pew. The CPJ website has this to say concerning "Homosexuality":

Marriage is one of the most important institutions of any society and should be recognized as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman that includes and legitimately bounds sexual intercourse (coitus). Sexual intercourse holds the potential for life-generation and should therefore be contained within marriage. From marriage may emerge children and the parental responsibility of spouses, who with their children constitute a nuclear family.
Homosexual relationships do not entail coitus and do not have the potential for life-generation. Consequently, such relationships neither constitute marriages nor, through procreative capability, can become families. The attempt to attain for a homosexual partnership the legal identification of marriage is thus a legal error based on an empirical mistake.

Public law does not create marriage or the family, which originate outside the political bond. But the law should recognize these two institutions and may, for purposes of public health and social wellbeing, support and regulate them. The primary aim of public recognition, support, and regulation should be to protect and encourage these institutions and the parental care of children. This is essential for a healthy and stable society.
If “domestic partnerships” are given legal recognition for the purpose of opening certain health care and death benefits to homosexual partners, the same privileges should be made available to non-homosexual non-marital partners and friendships. It would be discriminatory to single out one kind of non-marital relationship for a privilege usually granted to marriage partners while denying that privilege to other kinds of enduring partnerships and committed friends.

Lugo described his work at CPJ as follows: "At CPJ I studied how to legally incorporate religiously-based organizations into the welfare system," (from the Fall 1996 issue of Spark, the Calvin College Alumni newsletter).

One of the areas that Lugo has a strong interest in is Pentecostalism. He is, for example, listed as "principle investigator" for the 2006 "Global Pentecostalism Survey Project", which was bankrolled by a half million dollar grant from the Templeton Foundation. Here are some excerpts from the Executive Summary of that Survey:

In all 10 countries surveyed, large majorities of pentecostals (ranging from 56% in South Korea to 87% in Kenya) say that they have personally experienced or witnessed the divine healing of an illness or injury. In eight of the countries (India and South Korea are the exceptions) majorities of pentecostals say that they have received a direct revelation from God.

Pentecostals around the world also are quite familiar with exorcisms; majorities in seven of the 10 countries say that they personally have experienced or witnessed the devil or evil spirits being driven out of a person. Generally, fewer charismatics, and even fewer other Christians, report witnessing these types of experiences....

In addition to their distinctive religious experiences, renewalists also stand out for the intensity of their belief in traditional Christian doctrines and practices. For instance, in eight of the 10 countries surveyed (all except the U.S. and Chile), majorities of nonrenewalist Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word; but this view is even more common among pentecostals than among non-renewalist Christians. Similarly, large majorities of all Christians, renewalists and nonrenewalists alike, believe that miracles still occur today as in ancient times. But this belief tends to be even more intense among pentecostals and, to a lesser extent, charismatics than among nonrenewalist Christians....

Pentecostals' frequent attempts to spread the faith are consistent with their widespread belief that faith in Jesus Christ represents the exclusive path to eternal salvation; in every country surveyed except South Korea, at least 70% of pentecostals completely agree that belief in Jesus is the only way to be saved from eternal damnation.....

U.S. renewalists, like renewalists around the world, also often stand out for their moral conservatism. Eight-in-ten U.S. pentecostals say that homosexuality is never justified, for instance, and nearly six-in-ten charismatics share this view. Among the public as a whole, by contrast, roughly half say homosexuality can never be justified. Renewalists in the U.S. also are more likely than others to oppose drinking alcohol.

And just as renewalists around the world favor a role for religion in public life, the same holds true for renewalists in the U.S. For instance, nearly eight-in-ten American pentecostals (79%) say that religious groups should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions, compared with 61% of the public as a whole. And more than half (52%) of American pentecostals say that the government should take special steps to make the U.S. a Christian country, compared with only 25% among Christians overall.

It is interesting to note that when Pew recently published a global assessment of "restrictions on religion", the report specifically cites the existence of a "movement in India which seeks to define India as a Hindu nation" as evidence of "social restrictions" on religion in India. No mention is made anywhere in that report of the fact that one in four American Christians "say that the government should take special steps to make the U.S. a Christian country"!!!

Conclusion
There is absolutely nothing wrong with rich people (or anyone else) spending their money to support ideas they hold dear. But the organizations discussed above -- Gallup, Templeton and Pew -- all claim to be non-partisan and dedicated only to educating the public on the basis of objective, scientific research. The reality, and this becomes immediately apparent as soon as one bothers to look below the surface, is that all three are engaged in the promotion of Christianity. In the case of the recent Pew report on "religious restrictions" mere promotion of Christianity is not the end of it, as the report goes out of it's way to smear the nation of India and it's Hindu majority as among the very worst enemies of religious freedom in the world.

Here are some other online sources (these are all cited in the post above):

Will the Vitality of the Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century 1996 sermon by George Gallup Jr.
A Measure of Faith Diane Winston's 1998 profile of George Gallup Jr.
God's Venture Capitalist 1997 Slate article by Marc Slotz on Sir John Marks Templeton
Seeing What They Wanna See: Religion Surveys Reflect Surveyors 2009 article by Nathan Schneider about how "Religion surveys have become a battleground for the American religious marketplace—and a magnet for big money."

And here are the previous three posts in the series "Push Polling for Jesus":
Comparing Apples and Bad Apples (on the Pew Report on "Religious Restrictions")
Baseless India Bashing in Pew's Latest Report (self-explanatory)
How Gallup and Pew Proselytize in the Guise of "Research" (mostly quotes from George Gallup, Jr, including the original "form of ministry" quote)

About the "egregores" welcome banner

FAR LEFT: "Goddess of Freedom", sculpture by Thomas Crawford, placed atop the US Capitol in 1863. CENTER: from the painting "Bacchante", by William Adolphe Bouguereau, 1894. FAR RIGHT: "The Tyrannicdes", Roman copies of the original sculpture by Antenor from Athens (ca. 408 BC), commemorating Harmodius and Aristogeiton. ALSO shown are a practitioner of African Traditional Religion, Hypatia and her father Theon, the Saxon Heathen war leader Widukind, Crazy Horse, Sri Aurobindo and Alexandra David-Neel.

"The part of life we really live is small."

Seneca: De Brevitate Vitae

The majority of mortals, Paulinus, complain bitterly of the spitefulness of Nature, because we are born for a brief span of life, because even this space that has been granted to us rushes by so speedily and so swiftly that all save a very few find life at an end just when they are getting ready to live. Nor is it merely the common herd and the unthinking crowd that bemoan what is, as men deem it, an universal ill; the same feeling has called forth complaint also from men who were famous. It was this that made the greatest of physicians exclaim that "life is short, art is long;" it was this that led Aristotle, while expostulating with Nature, to enter an indictment most unbecoming to a wise man - that, in point of age, she has shown such favour to animals that they drag out five or ten lifetimes, but that a much shorter limit is fixed for man, though he is born for so many and such great achievements. It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested. But when it is squandered in luxury and carelessness, when it is devoted to no good end, forced at last by the ultimate necessity we perceive that it has passed away before we were aware that it was passing. So it is - the life we receive is not short, but we make it so, nor do we have any lack of it, but are wasteful of it. Just as great and princely wealth is scattered in a moment when it comes into the hands of a bad owner, while wealth however limited, if it is entrusted to a good guardian, increases by use, so our life is amply long for him who orders it properly.

Why do we complain of Nature? She has shown herself kindly; life, if you know how to use it, is long. But one man is possessed by an avarice that is insatiable, another by a toilsome devotion to tasks that are useless; one man is besotted with wine, another is paralyzed by sloth; one man is exhausted by an ambition that always hangs upon the decision of others, another, driven on by the greed of the trader, is led over all lands and all seas by the hope of gain; some are tormented by a passion for war and are always either bent upon inflicting danger upon others or concerned about their own; some there are who are worn out by voluntary servitude in a thankless attendance upon the great; many are kept busy either in the pursuit of other men's fortune or in complaining of their own; many, following no fixed aim, shifting and inconstant and dissatisfied, are plunged by their fickleness into plans that are ever new; some have no fixed principle by which to direct their course, but Fate takes them unawares while they loll and yawn - so surely does it happen that I cannot doubt the truth of that utterance which the greatest of poets delivered with all the seeming of an oracle: "The part of life we really live is small." For all the rest of existence is not life, but merely time. Vices beset us and surround us on every side, and they do not permit us to rise anew and lift up our eyes for the discernment of truth, but they keep us down when once they have overwhelmed us and we are chained to lust. Their victims are never allowed to return to their true selves; if ever they chance to find some release, like the waters of the deep sea which continue to heave even after the storm is past, they are tossed about, and no rest from their lusts abides. Think you that I am speaking of the wretches whose evils are admitted? Look at those whose prosperity men flock to behold; they are smothered by their blessings. To how many are riches a burden! From how many do eloquence and the daily straining to display their powers draw forth blood! How many are pale from constant pleasures! To how many does the throng of clients that crowd about them leave no freedom! In short, run through the list of all these men from the lowest to the highest - this man desires an advocate, this one answers the call, that one is on trial, that one defends him, that one gives sentence; no one asserts his claim to himself, everyone is wasted for the sake of another. Ask about the men whose names are known by heart, and you will see that these are the marks that distinguish them: A cultivates B and B cultivates C; no one is his own master. And then certain men show the most senseless indignation - they complain of the insolence of their superiors, because they were too busy to see them when they wished an audience! But can anyone have the hardihood to complain of the pride of another when he himself has no time to attend to himself? After all, no matter who you are, the great man does sometimes look toward you even if his face is insolent, he does sometimes condescend to listen to your words, he permits you to appear at his side; but you never deign to look upon yourself, to give ear to yourself. There is no reason, therefore, to count anyone in debt for such services, seeing that, when you performed them, you had no wish for another's company, but could not endure your own.

Epictetus: On Freedom
[Discourses IV.1]
He is free who lives as he likes; who is not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence; whose pursuits are unhindered, his desires successful, his aversions unincurred. Who, then, would wish to lead a wrong course of life? "No one." Who would live deceived, erring, unjust, dissolute, discontented, dejected? "No one." No wicked man, then, lives as he likes; therefore no such man is free. And who would live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, with disappointed desires and unavailing aversions? "No one." Do we then find any of the wicked exempt from these evils? "Not one." Consequently, then, they are not free.

If some person who has been twice consul should hear this, he will forgive you, provided you add, "but you are wise, and this has no reference to you." But if you tell him the truth, that, in point of slavery, he does not necessarily differ from those who have been thrice sold, what but chastisement can you expect? "For how," he says, "am I a slave? My father was free, my mother free. Besides, I am a senator, too, and the friend of Caesar, and have been twice consul, and have myself many slaves." In the first place, most worthy sir, perhaps your father too was a slave of the same kind; and your mother, and your grandfather, and all your series of ancestors. But even were they ever so free, what is that to you? For what if they were of a generous, you of a mean spirit; they brave, and you a coward; they sober, and you dissolute?

"But what," he says, "has this to do with my being a slave? " Is it no part of slavery to act against your will, under compulsion, and lamenting? "Be it so. But who can compel me but the master of all, Caesar?" By your own confession, then, you have one master; and let not his being, as you say, master of all, give you any comfort; for then you are merely a slave in a large family. Thus the Nicopolitans, too, frequently cry out, "By the genius of Caesar we are free!"

For the present, however, if you please, we will let Caesar alone. But tell me this. Have you never been in love with any one, either of a servile or liberal condition? "Why, what has that to do with being slave or free?" Were you never commanded anything by your mistress that you did not choose? Have you never flattered your fair slave? Have you never kissed her feet? And yet if you were commanded to kiss Caesar's feet, you would think it an outrage and an excess of tyranny. What else is this than slavery? Have you never gone out by night where you did not desire? Have you never spent more than you chose? Have you not sometimes uttered your words with sighs and groans? Have you never borne to be reviled and shut out of doors? But if you are ashamed to confess your own follies, see what Thrasonides says and does; who, after having fought more battles perhaps than you, went out by night, when [his slaves Geta would not dare to go; nay, had he been compelled to do it, would have gone bewailing and lamenting the bitterness of servitude. And what says he afterwards? "A contemptible girl has enslaved me, whom no enemy ever enslaved." Wretch ! to be the slave of a girl and a contemptible girl too! Why, then, do you still call yourself free? Why do you boast your military expeditions? Then he calls for a sword, and is angry with the person who, out of kindness, denies it; and sends presents to her who hates him; and begs, and weeps, and then again is elated on every little success. But what elation? Is he raised above desire or fear?

Consider what is our idea of freedom in animals. Some keep tame lions, and feed them and even lead them about; and who will say that any such lion is free? Nay, does he not live the more slavishly the more he lives at ease? And who that had sense and reason would wish to be one of those lions? Again, how much will caged birds suffer in trying to escape? Nay, some of them starve themselves rather than undergo such a life; others are saved only with difficulty and in a pining condition; and the moment they find any opening, out they go. Such a desire have they for their natural freedom, and to be at their own disposal, and unrestrained. "And what harm can this confinement do you?" "What say you? I was born to fly where I please, to live in the open air, to sing when I please. You deprive me of all this, and then ask what harm I suffer?"

Hence we will allow those only to be free who will not endure captivity, but, so soon as they are taken, die and so escape. Thus Diogenes somewhere says that the only way to freedom is to die with ease. And he writes to the Persian king, "You can no more enslave the Athenians than you can fish." "How? Can I not get possession of them?" "If you do," said he, "they will leave you, and be gone like fish. For catch a fish, and it dies. And if the Athenians, too, die as soon as you have caught them, of what use are your warlike preparations? " This is the voice of a free man who had examined the matter in earnest, and, as it might be expected, found it all out. But if you seek it where it is not, what wonder if you never find it?

A slave wishes to be immediately set free. Think you it is because he is desirous to pay his fee [of manumission] to the officer? No, but because he fancies that, for want of acquiring his freedom, he has hitherto lived under restraint and unprosperously. "If I am once set free," he says, "it is all prosperity; I care for no one; I can speak to all as being their equal and on a level with them. I go where I will, I come when and how I will." He is at last made free, and presently having nowhere to eat he seeks whom he may flatter, with whom he may sup. He then either submits to the basest and most infamous degradation, and if he can obtain admission to some great man's table, falls into a slavery much worse than the former; or perhaps, if the ignorant fellow should grow rich, he doats upon some girl, laments, and is unhappy, and wishes for slavery again. " For what harm did it do me? Another clothed me, another shod me, another fed me, another took care of me when I was sick. It was but in a few things, by way of return, I used to serve him. But now, miserable wretch ! what do I suffer, in being a slave to many, instead of one ! Yet, if I can be promoted to equestrian rank, I shall live in the utmost prosperity and happiness." In order to obtain this, he first deservedly suffers; and as soon as he has obtained it, it is all the same again. "But then," he says, "if I do but get a military command, I shall be delivered from all my troubles." He gets a military command. He suffers as much as the vilest rogue of a slave; and, nevertheless, he asks for a second command and a third; and when he has put the finishing touch, and is made a senator, then he is a slave indeed. When he comes into the public assembly, it is then that he undergoes his finest and most splendid slavery.

[It is needful] not to be foolish, but to learn what Socrates taught, the nature of things; and not rashly to apply general principles to particulars. For the cause of all human evils is the not being able to apply general principles to special cases. But different people have different grounds of complaint; one, for instance, that he is sick. That is not the trouble; it is in his principles. Another, that he is poor; another, that he has a harsh father and mother; another, that he is not in the good graces of Caesar. This is nothing else but not understanding how to apply our principles. For who has not an idea of evil, that it is hurtful; that it is to be avoided; that it is by all means to be prudently guarded against? One principle does not contradict another, except when it comes to be applied. What, then, is this evil, --thus hurtful and to be avoided? "Not to be the friend of Caesar," says some one. He is gone; he has failed in applying his principles; he is embarrassed; he seeks what is nothing to the purpose. For if he comes to be Caesar's friend, he is still no nearer to what he sought. For what is it that every man seeks? To be secure, to be happy, to do what he pleases without restraint and without compulsion. When he becomes the friend of Caesar, then does he cease to be restrained; to be compelled? Is he secure? Is he happy? Whom shall we ask? Whom can we better credit than this very man who has been his friend? Come forth and tell us whether you sleep more quietly now than before you were the friend of Caesar. You presently hear him cry, "Leave off, for Heaven's sake! and do not insult me. You know not the miseries I suffer; there is no sleep for me; but one comes and says that Caesar is already awake; another, that he is just going out. Then follow perturbations, then cares." Well, and when did you use to sup the more pleasantly,- formerly, or now? Hear what he says about this too. When he is not invited, he is distracted; and if he is, he sups like a slave with his master, solicitous all the while not to say or do anything foolish. And what think you? Is he afraid of being whipped like a slave? No such easy penalty. No; but rather, as becomes so great a man, Caesar's friend, of losing his head. And when did you bathe the more quietly; when did you perform your exercises the more at your leisure; in short, which life would you rather wish to live, -your present, or the former? I could swear there is no one so stupid and insensible as not to deplore his miseries, in proportion as he is the more the friend of Caesar.

Since, then, neither they who are called kings nor the friends of kings live as they like, who, then, after all, is free? Seek, and you will find; for you are furnished by nature with means for discovering the truth. But if you are not able by these alone to find the consequence, hear them who have sought it. What do they say? Do you think freedom a good? "The greatest." Can any one, then, who attains the greatest good be unhappy or unsuccessful in his affairs? " No." As many, therefore, as you see unhappy, lamenting, unprosperous, -confidently pronounce them not free. " I do." Henceforth, then, we have done with buying and selling, and such like stated conditions of becoming slaves. For if these concessions hold, then, whether the unhappy man be a great or a little king, - of consular or bi-consular dignity, - he is not free. " Agreed."

Further, then, answer me this: do you think freedom to be something great and noble and valuable? "How should I not?" Is it possible, then, that he who acquires anything so great and valuable and noble should be of an abject spirit? "It is not." Whenever, then, you see any one subject to another, and flattering him contrary to his own opinion, confidently say that he too is not free; and not only when he does this for a supper, but even if it be for a government, nay, a consulship. Call those indeed little slaves who act thus for the sake of little things; and call the others, as they deserve, great slaves. "Be this, too, agreed." Well, do you think freedom to be something independent and self-determined? "How can it be otherwise?" Him, then, whom it is in the power of another to restrain or to compel, affirm confidently to be by no means free. And do not heed his grandfathers or great-grandfathers, or inquire whether he has been bought or sold; but if you hear him say from his heart and with emotion, "my master," though twelve Lictors should march before him, call him a slave. And if you should hear him say, "Wretch that I am! what do I suffer ! " call him a slave. In short, if you see him wailing, complaining, unprosperous, call him a slave, even in purple.

"Suppose, then, that he does nothing of all this." Do not yet say that he is free; but learn whether his principles are in any event liable to compulsion, to restraint, or disappointment; and if you find this to be the case, call him a slave, keeping holiday during the Saturnalia. Say that his master is abroad; that he will come presently; and you will know what he suffers. "Who will come? " Whoever has the power either of bestowing or of taking away any of the things he desires.

"Have we so many masters, then?" We have. For, prior to all such, we have the things themselves for our masters. Now they are many; and it is through these that the men who control the things inevitably become our masters too. For no one fears Caesar himself; but death, banishment, confiscation, prison, disgrace. Nor does any one love Caesar unless he be a person of great worth; but we love riches, the tribunate, the praetorship, the consulship. When we love or hate or fear such things, they who have the disposal of them must necessarily be our masters. Hence we even worship them as gods. For we consider that whoever has the disposal of the greatest advantages is a deity; and then further reason falsely, "But such a one has the control of the greatest advantages; therefore he is a deity." For if we reason falsely, the final inference must be also false.

What is it, then, that makes a man free and independent? For neither riches, nor consulship, nor the command of provinces nor of kingdoms, can make him so; but something else must be found. What is it that keeps any one from being hindered and restrained in penmanship, for instance? " The science of penmanship." In music? "The science of music." Therefore in life too, it must be the science of living. As you have heard it in general, then, consider it likewise in particulars. Is it possible for him to be unrestrained who desires any of those things that are within the power of others? "No." Can he avoid being hindered? "No." Therefore neither can he be free. Consider, then, whether we have nothing or everything in our own sole power, - or whether some things are in our own power and some in that of others. "What do you mean?" When you would have your body perfect, is it in your own power, or is it not? "It is not." When you would be healthy? "It is not." When you would be handsome? "It is not." When you would live or die? "It is not." Body then is not our own; but is subject to everything that proves stronger than itself. "Agreed." Well; is it in your own power to have an estate when you please, and such a one as you please? "No." Slaves? "No." Clothes? "No." A house? "No." Horses? " Indeed, none of these." Well, if you desire ever so earnestly to have your children live, or your wife, or your brother, or your friends, is it in your own power? " No, it is not."

Will you then say that there is nothing independent, which is in your own power alone, and unalienable? See if you have anything of this sort. "I do not know." But consider it thus: can any one make you assent to a falsehood? " No one." In the matter of assent, then, you are unrestrained and unhindered. "Agreed." Well, and can any one compel you to exert your aims towards what you do not like? "He can. For when he threatens me with death, or fetters, he thus compels me." If, then, you were to despise dying or being fettered, would you any longer regard him? "No." Is despising death, then, an action in our power, or is it not? "It is." Is it therefore in your power also to exert your aims towards anything, or is it not? "Agreed that it is. But in whose power is my avoiding anything? " This, too, is in your own. "What then if, when I am exerting myself to walk, any one should restrain me? What part of you can he restrain? Can he restrain your assent? " No, but my body." Ay, as he may a stone. "Be it so. But still I cease to walk." And who claimed that walking was one of the actions that cannot be restrained? For I only said that your exerting yourself towards it could not be restrained. But wherever the body and its assistance are essential, you have already heard that nothing is in your power. "Be this, too, agreed." And can any one compel you to desire against your Will? "No one." Or to propose, or intend, or, in short, not to be beguiled by the appearances of things? "Nor this. But when I desire anything, he can restrain me from obtaining what I desire." If you desire anything that is truly within your reach, and that cannot be restrained, how can he restrain you? "By no means." And pray who claims that he who longs for what depends on another will be free from restraint?

"May I not long for health, then? " By no means; nor for anything else that depends on another; for what is not in your own power, either to procure or to preserve when you will, that belongs to another. Keep off not only your hands from it, but even more than these, your desires. Otherwise you have given yourself up as a slave; you have put your neck under the yoke, if you admire any of the things which are not your own, but which are subject and mortal, to which of them soever you are attached. " Is not my hand my own?" It is a part of you, but it is by nature clay, liable to restraint, to compulsion; a slave to everything stronger than itself. And why do I say, your hand? You ought to hold your whole body but as a useful ass, with a pack-saddle on, so long as may be, so long as it is allowed you. But if there should come a military conscription, and a soldier should lay hold on it, let it go. Do not resist, or murmur; otherwise you will be first beaten and lose the ass after all. And since you are thus to regard even the body itself, think what remains to do concerning things to be provided for the sake of the body. If that be an ass, the rest are but bridles, pack-saddles, shoes, oats, hay for him. Let these go too. Quit them yet more easily and expeditiously. And when you are thus prepared and trained to distinguish what belongs to others from your own; what is liable to restraint from what is not; to esteem the one your own property, but not the other; to keep your desire, to keep your aversion, carefully regulated by this point, -whom have you any longer to fear? " No one." For about what should you be afraid, - about what is your own, in which consists the essence of good and evil? And who has any power over this? Who can take it away? Who can hinder you, any more than God can be hindered? But are you afraid for body, for possessions, for what belongs to others, for what is nothing to you? And what have you been studying all this while, but to distinguish between your own and that which is not your own; what is in your power and what is not in your power; what is liable to restraint and what is not? And for what purpose have you applied to the philosophers, - that you might nevertheless be disappointed and unfortunate? No doubt you will be exempt from fear and perturbation! And what is grief to you? For whatsoever we anticipate with fear, we endure with grief. And for what will you any longer passionately wish? For you have acquired a temperate and steady desire of things dependent on will, since they are accessible and desirable; and you have no desire of things uncontrollable by will. so as to leave room for that irrational, and impetuous, and precipitate passion.

Since then you are thus affected with regard to things, what man can any longer be formidable to you? What has man that he can be formidable to man, either in appearance, or speech, or mutual intercourse? No more than horse to horse, or dog to dog, or bee to bee. But things are formidable to every one, and whenever any person can either give these to another, or take them away, he becomes formidable too. "How, then, is this citadel to be destroyed?" Not by sword or fire, but by principle. For if we should demolish the visible citadel, shall we have demolished also that of some fever, of some fair woman,-in short, the citadel [of temptation] within ourselves; and have turned out the tyrants to whom we are subject upon all occasions and every day, sometimes the same, sometimes others? From hence we must begin; hence demolish the citadel, and turn out the tyrants, -give up body, members, riches, power, fame, magistracies, honors, children, brothers, friends; esteem all these as belonging to others. And if the tyrants be turned out from hence, why should I also demolish the external citadel, at least on my own account? For what harm to me from its standing? Why should I turn out the guards? For in what point do they affect me? It is against others that they direct their fasces, their staves, and their swords. Have I ever been restrained from what I willed, or compelled against my will? Indeed, how is this possible? I have placed my pursuits under the direction of God. Is it his will that I should have a fever? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should pursue anything? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should desire? It is my will too. Is it his will that I should obtain anything? It is mine too. Is it not his will? It is not mine. Is it his will that I should be tortured? Then it is my will to be tortured. Is it his will that I should die? Then it is my will to die. Who can any longer restrain or compel me, contrary to my own opinion? No more than Zeus.

It is thus that cautious travellers act. Does some one hear that the road is beset by robbers? He does not set out alone, but waits for the retinue of an ambassador or quaestor or proconsul, and when he has joined himself to their company, goes along in safety. Thus does the prudent man act in the world. There are many robberies, tyrants, storms, distresses, losses of things most dear. Where is there any refuge? How can he go alone unattacked? What retinue can he wait for, to go safely through his journey? To what company shall he join himself, -to some rich man; to some consular senator? And what good will that do me? He may be robbed himself, groaning and lamenting. And what if my fellow-traveller himself should turn against me and rob me? What shall I do? I say I will be the friend of Caesar. While I am his companion, no one will injure me, Yet before I can become illustrious enough for this, what must I bear and suffer ! How often, and by how many, must I be robbed ! And then, if I do become the friend of Caesar, he too is mortal; and if, by any accident, he should become my enemy, where can I best retreat, -to a desert? Well, and may not a fever come there? What can be done, then? Is it not possible to find a fellow-traveller safe, faithful, brave, incapable of being surprised? A person who reasons thus, understands and considers that if he joins himself to God, he shall go safely through his journey.

"How do you mean, join himself? " That whatever is the will of God may be his will too; that whatever is not the will of God may not be his. "How, then, can this be done?" Why, how otherwise than by considering the workings of God's power and his administration? What has he given me to be my own, and independent? What has he reserved to himself? He has given me whatever depends on will. The things within my power he has made incapable of hindrance or restraint. Bat how could he make a body of clay incapable of hindrance? Therefore he has subjected possessions, furniture, house, children, wife, to the revolutions of the universe. Why, then, do I fight against God? Why do I will to retain that which depends not on will; that which is not granted absolutely, but how, - in such a manner and for such a time as was thought proper? But he who gave takes away. Why, then, do I resist? Besides being a fool, in contending with a stronger than my self, I shall be unjust, which is a more important consideration. For whence had I these things, when I came into the world? My father gave them to me. And who gave them to him? And who made the sun; who the fruits; who the seasons; who their connection and relations with each other? And after you have received all, and even your very self, from another, are you angry with the giver, and do you complain, if he takes anything away from you? Who are you; and for what purpose did you come? Was it not he who brought you here? Was it not he who showed you the light? Hath not he given you companions? Hath not he given you senses? Hath not he given you reason? And as whom did he bring you here? Was it not as a mortal? Was it not as one to live with a little portion of flesh upon earth, and to see his administration; to behold the spectacle with him, and partake of the festival for a short time? After having beheld the spectacle and the solemnity, then, as long as it is permitted you, will you not depart when he leads you out, adoring and thankful for what you have heard and seen? "No; but I would enjoy the feast still longer." So would the initiated [in the mysteries], too, be longer in their initiation; so, perhaps, would the spectators at Olympia see more combatants. But the solemnity is over. Go away. Depart like a grateful and modest person; make room for others. Others, too, must be born as you were; and when they are born must have a place, and habitations, and necessaries. But if the first do not give way, what room is there left? Why are you insatiable, unconscionable? Why do you crowd the world?

"Ay, but I would have my wife and children with me too." Why, are they yours? Are they not the Giver's? Are they not his who made you also? Will you not then quit what belongs to another? Will you not yield to your Superior? "Why, then, did he bring me into the world upon these conditions?" Well, if it is not worth your while, depart. He has no need of a discontented spectator. He wants such as will share the festival; make part of the chorus; who will extol, applaud, celebrate the solemnity. He will not be displeased to see the wretched and fearful dismissed from it. For when they were present they did not behave as at a festival, nor fill a proper place, but lamented, found fault with the Deity, with their fortune, with their companions. They were insensible both of their advantages and of the powers which they received for far different purposes, - the powers of magnanimity, nobleness of spirit, fortitude, and that which now concerns us, freedom. "For what purpose, then, have I received these things?" To use them. "How long?" As long as he who lent them pleases. If, then, they are not necessary, do not make an idol of them, and they will not be so; do not tell yourself that they are necessary, when they are not.

This should be our study from morning till night beginning with the least and frailest things, as with earthenware, with glassware. Afterwards proceed to a suit of clothes, a dog, a horse, an estate; thence to yourself, body, members, children, wife, brothers. Look everywhere around you, and be able to detach yourself from these things. Correct your principles. Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own; nothing to grow to you that may give you agony when it is torn away. And say, when you are daily training yourself as you do here, not that you act the philosopher, which may be a presumptuous claim, but that you are asserting your freedom. For this is true freedom. This is the freedom that Diogenes gained from Antisthenes, and declared it was impossible that he should ever after be a slave to any one. Hence, when he was taken prisoner, how did he treat the pirates? Did he call any of them master? I do not mean the name, for I am not afraid of a word, but of the disposition from whence the word proceeds. How did he reprove them for feeding their prisoners ill? How was he sold? Did he seek a master? No, but a slave. And when he was sold, how did he converse with his lord? He immediately disputed with him whether he ought to be dressed or shaved in the manner he was; and how he ought to bring up his children. And where is the wonder? For if the same master had bought some one to instruct his children in gymnastic exercises, would he in those exercises have treated him as a servant or as a master? And so if he had bought a physician or an architect. In every department the skilful must necessarily be superior to the unskilful. What else, then, can he be but master, who possesses the universal knowledge of life? For who is master in a ship? The pilot. Why? Because whoever disobeys him is a loser. "But a master can put me in chains." Can he do it, then, without being a loser? "I think not, indeed." But because he must be a loser, he evidently must not do it; for no one acts unjustly without being a loser. "And how does he suffer, who puts his own slave in chains?" What think you? From the very fact of chaining him. This you yourself must grant, if you would hold to the doctrine that man is not naturally a wild, but a gentle, animal. For when is it that a vine is in a bad condition? "When it is in a condition contrary to its nature." How is it with a cock? "The same." It is therefore the same with a man also. What is his nature, -to bite and kick and throw into prison and cut off heads? No, but to do good, to assist, to indulge the wishes of others. Whether you will or not, then, he is in a bad condition whenever he acts unreasonably. "And so was not Socrates in a bad condition? " No, but his judges and accusers. " Nor Helvidius, at Rome? " No, but his murderer. " How do you talk?" Why, just as you do. You do not call that cock in a bad condition which is victorious, and yet wounded; but that which is conquered and comes off unhurt. Nor do you call a dog happy which neither hunts nor toils; but when you see him perspiring, and distressed, and panting with the chase. In what do we talk paradoxes? If we say that the evil of everything consists in what is contrary to its nature, is this a paradox? Do you not say it with regard to other things? Why, therefore, in the case of man alone, do you take a different view? But further, it is no paradox to say that by nature man is gentle and social and faithful. "This is none." How then [is it a paradox to say] that, when he is whipped, or imprisoned, or beheaded, he is not hurt? If he suffers nobly, does he not come off even the better and a gainer? But he is the person hurt who suffers the most miserable and shameful evils; who, instead of a man, becomes a wolf, a viper, or a hornet.

Come, then; let us recapitulate what has been granted. The man who is unrestrained, who has all things in his power as he wills, is free; but he who may be restrained or compelled or hindered, or thrown into any condition against his will, is a slave. "And who is unrestrained? " He who desires none of those things that belong to others. "And what are those things which belong to others?" Those which are not in our own power, either to have or not to have; or to have them thus or so. Body, therefore, belongs to another; its parts to another; property to another. If, then, you attach yourself to any of these as your own, you will be punished as he deserves who desires what belongs to others. This is the way that leads to freedom, this the only deliverance from slavery, to be able at length to say, from the bottom of one's soul,-

“Conduct me, Zeus, and thou, O Destiny,
Wherever your decrees have fixed my lot."

But what say you, philosopher? A tyrant calls upon you to speak something unbecoming you. Will you say it, or will you not? "Stay, let me consider." Would you consider now? And what did you use to consider when you were in the schools? Did you not study what things were good and evil, and what indifferent? "I did." Well, and what were the opinions which pleased us? "That just and fair actions were good; unjust and base ones, evil." Is living a good? "No." Dying, an evil? "No." A prison? "No." And what did a mean and dishonest speech, the betraying a friend, or the flattering a tyrant, appear to us? "Evils." Why, then, are you still considering, and have not already considered and come to a resolution? For what sort of a consideration is this: "Whether I ought, when it is in my power, to procure myself the greatest good, instead of procuring myself the greatest evil." A fine and necessary consideration, truly, and deserving mighty deliberation ! Why do you trifle with us, man? No one ever needed to consider any such point; nor, if you really imagined things fair and honest to be good, things base and dishonest to be evil, and all other things indifferent, would you ever be in such a perplexity as this, or near it; but you would presently be able to distinguish by your understanding as you do by your sight. For do you ever have to consider whether black is white, or whether light is heavy? Do you not follow the plain evidence of your senses? Why, then, do you say that you are now considering whether things indifferent are to be avoided, rather than evils? The truth is, you have no principles; for things indifferent do not impress you as such, but as the greatest evils; and these last, on the other hand, as things of no importance.

For thus has been your practice from the first. "Where am I? If I am in the school and there is an audience, I talk as the philosophers do; but if I am out of the school, then away with this stuff that belongs only to scholars and fools." This man is accused by the testimony of a philosopher, his friend; this philosopher turns parasite; another hires himself out for money; a third does that in the very senate. When one is not governed by appearances, then his principles speak for themselves. You are a poor cold lump of prejudice, consisting of mere phrases, on which you hang as by a hair. You should preserve yourself firm and practical, remembering that you are to deal with real things. In what manner do you hear, - I will not say that your child is dead, for how could you possibly bear that?- but that your oil is spilled, your wine consumed? Would that some one, while you are bawling, would only say this: "Philosopher, you talk quite otherwise when in the schools. Why do you deceive us? Why, when you are a worm, do you call yourself a man? " I should be glad to be near one of these philosophers while he is revelling in debauchery, that I might see how he demeans himself, and what sayings he utters; whether he remembers the title he bears and the discourses which he hears, or speaks, or reads.

"And what is all this to freedom?" It lies in nothing else than this, - whether you rich people approve or not. "And who affords evidence of this? " Who but yourselves? You who have a powerful master, and live by his motion and nod, and faint away if he does but look sternly upon you, who pay your court to old men and old women, and say, " I cannot do this or that, it is not in my power." Why is it not in your power? Did you not just now contradict me, and say you were free? " But Aprylla has forbidden me." Speak the truth, then, slave, and do not run away from your masters nor deny them, nor dare to assert your freedom, when you have so many proofs of your slavery. One might indeed find some excuse for a person compelled by love to do something contrary to his opinion, even when at the same time he sees what is best without having resolution enough to follow it, since he is withheld by something overpowering, and in some measure divine. But who can bear with you, who are in love with old men and old women, and perform menial offices for them, and bribe them with presents, and wait upon them like a slave when they are sick; at the same time wishing they may die, and inquiring of the physician whether their distemper be yet mortal? And again, when for these great and venerable magistracies and honors you kiss the hands of the slaves of others; so that you are the slave of those who are not free themselves ! And then you walk about in state, a praetor or a consul. Do I not know how you came to be praetor; whence you received the consulship; who gave it to you? For my own part, I would not even live, if I must live by Felicio's means, and bear his pride and slavish insolence. For I know what a slave is, blinded by what he thinks good fortune.

" Are you free yourself, then? " you may ask. By Heaven, I wish and pray for it. But I own I cannot yet face my masters. I still pay a regard to my body, and set a great value on keeping it whole; though, for that matter, it is not whole. But I can show you one who was free, that you may no longer seek an example. Diogenes was free. " How so?" Not because he was of free parents, for he was not; but because he was so in himself; because he had cast away all which gives a handle to slavery; nor was there any way of getting at him, nor anywhere to lay hold on him, to enslave him. Everything sat loose upon him; everything only just hung on. If you took hold on his possessions, he would rather let them go than follow you for them; if on his leg, he let go his leg; if his body, he let go his body; acquaintance, friends, country, just the same. For he knew whence he had them, and from whom, and upon what conditions he received them. But he would never have forsaken his true parents, the gods, and his real country [the universe]; nor have suffered any one to be more dutiful and obedient to them than he; nor would any one have died more readily for his country than he. He never had to inquire whether he should act for the good of the whole universe; for he remembered that everything that exists belongs to that administration, and is commanded by its ruler. Accordingly, see what he himself says and writes. "Upon this account," said he, "O Diogenes, it is in your power to converse as you will with the Persian monarch and with Archidamus, king of the Lacedemonians." Was it because he was born of free parents? Or was it because they were descended from slaves, that all the Athenians, and all the Lacedemonians, and Corinthians, could not converse with them as they pleased; but feared and paid court to them? Why then is it in your power, Diogenes? "Because I do not esteem this poor body as my own. Because I want nothing. Because this and nothing else is a law to me." These were the things that enabled him to be free.

And that you may not urge that I show you the example of a man clear of incumbrances, without a wife or children or country or friends or relations, to bend and draw him aside, take Socrates, and consider him, who had a wife and children, but held them not as his own; had a country, friends, relations, but held them only so long as it was proper, and in the manner that was proper; submitting all these to the law and to the obedience due to it. Hence, when it was proper to fight, he was the first to go out, and exposed himself to danger without the least reserve. But when he was sent by the thirty tyrants to apprehend Leon, because he esteemed it a base action, he did not even deliberate about it; though he knew that, perhaps, he might die for it. But what did that signify to him? For it was something else that he wanted to preserve, not his mere flesh; but his fidelity, his honor, free from attack or subjection. And afterwards, when he was to make a defence for his life, does he behave like one having children, or a wife? No, but like a single man. And how does he behave, when required to drink the poison? When he might escape, and Crito would have him escape from prison for the sake of his children, what says he? Does he esteem it a fortunate opportunity? How should he? But he considers what is becoming, and neither sees nor regards anything else. " For I am not desirous," he says, " to preserve this pitiful body; but that part which is improved and preserved by justice, and impaired and destroyed by injustice." Socrates is not to be basely preserved. He who refused to vote for what the Athenians commanded; he who contemned the thirty tyrants; he who held such discourses on virtue and moral beauty, - such a man is not to be preserved by a base action, but is preserved by dying, instead of running away. For even a good actor is preserved as such by leaving off when he ought; not by going on to act beyond his time. " What then will become of your children? " “If I had gone away into Thessaly, you would have taken care of them; and will there be no one to take care of them when I am departed to Hades?” Plato, Crito, i. 5. You see how he ridicules and plays with death. But if it had been you or I, we should presently have proved by philosophical arguments that those who act unjustly are to be repaid in their own way; and should have added, "If I escape I shall be of use to many; if I die, to none." Nay, if it had been necessary, we should have crept through a mouse-hole to get away. But how should we have been of use to any? Where must they have dwelt? If we were useful alive, should we not be of still more use to mankind by dying when we ought and as we ought? And now the remembrance of the death of Socrates is not less, but even more useful to the world than that of the things which he did and said when alive.

Study these points, these principles, these discourses; contemplate these examples if you would be free, if you desire the thing in proportion to its value. And where is the wonder that you should purchase so good a thing at the price of other things, be they never so many and so great? Some hang themselves, others break their necks, and sometimes even whole cities have been destroyed for that which is reputed freedom; and will not you for the sake of the true and secure and inviolable freedom, repay God what he hath given when he demands it? Will you not study not only, as Plato says, how to die, but how to be tortured and banished and scourged; and, in short, how to give up all that belongs to others? If not, you will be a slave among slaves, though you were ten thousand times a consul; and even though you should rise to the palace, you will never be the less so. And you will feel that, though philosophers (as Cleanthes says) do, perhaps, talk contrary to common opinion, yet it is not contrary to reason. For you will find it true, in fact, that the things that are eagerly followed and admired are of no use to those who have gained them; while they who have not yet gained them imagine that, if they are acquired, every good will come along with them; and then, when they are acquired, there is the same feverishness, the same agitation, the same nausea, and the same desire for what is absent. For freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire. And in order to know that this is true, take the same pains about these which you have taken about other things. Hold vigils to acquire a set of principles that will make you free. Instead of a rich old man, pay your court to a philosopher. Be seen about his doors. You will not get any disgrace by being seen there. You will not return empty or unprofited if you go as you ought. However, try at least. The trial is not dishonorable.

e g r e g o r e s

Saturday, December 26, 2009

"A form of ministry" (Push Polling for Jesus, Part Four)

other sentient beings

"Trials of the Moon: Reopening the Case for Historical Witchcraft" by Ben Whitmore

Freedom of Expression: Secular Theocracy Versus Liberal Democracy

About the "egregores" welcome banner

Apuleius Platonicus

Search This Blog (powered by GOOGLE)

Follow me, and I'll set you free.

tagzzz

alaya vijnana

"The part of life we really live is small."