
##4000859 The Global Land Mine Plaque <p> As a little boy in the Gaza province of Mozambique , Luis dreamed of being famous . He wanted to be a soccer star , to see the world , and to help build the future of his beloved Mozambique , the pearl of the southern African nations . So each day he practiced and played , on and on into the dark hours of the early tropical night , until his mother would call him into their hut . His father had been a soccer player , and so had his three brothers , but none of them had ever become a star . But Luis was faster , stronger , and better at the game than all of them , so he had the right to dream his dreams . <p> Mozambique , in those days , was involved in an immensely cruel and seemingly endless war . As far back as Luis could remember , his country had been fighting : first against the Portuguese , then against the Rhodesians and the South Africans , and sometimes against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself . Some Mozambicans received weapons , supplies , and training from the Rhodesians and the South Africans . This group was called the Renamo , and it attacked government installations and communal settlements like the one in Gaza where Luis lived . <p> The fighters of the Renamo had a well-earned reputation for brutality and were considered by many Mozambicans to be little more than gangsters . They disrupted internal transportation systems . They blocked roads and railways , raided villages and set them on fire , and stole chickens and pigs . Often they raped and kidnapped children and taught them how to fight . Sometimes they even forced them to kill their own parents and made them drink their blood . The Renamo employed its terror tactics , which included both selective killing and wholesale slaughter , to frighten people away from supporting the government . In the process , it had created a massive refugee problem , perhaps the most serious one in the world . <p> " They were essentially bandits , " Luis now says reflectively . " They have been responsible for the depredations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the countryside . " <p> The Renamo fought the Frelimo , the armed forces of the government , whom Luis understood were no angels either-but maybe , just maybe , a little better than the Renamo . After all , the Frelimo was backed by the Russians ; they were socialists and that stood for more justice , more health care and education , and less difference between the classes . Or so they said . <p> Luis knew that in 1980 , when he joined the Frelimo , his dreams of becoming a soccer star were over . He knew this because the war ended most dreams . He was only 18 then . That was 16 years ago . <p> On his very first day with the Frelimo , Luis was put to work laying mines . He can not remember asking why he , a complete novice , should have been handling these deadly devices , nor what the military purpose was in laying them . Nor can he remember , 16 years later , exactly where he laid them or how many . He thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hard tropical grass , they would be forgotten-at least until some Renamo fighter stepped on them . <p> And it certainly never occurred to him that those mines would still be in place , armed and deadly and waiting to explode , long after the fighting had ended . <p> In December 1990 , a peace treaty was signed between the Frelimo and the Renamo . It lasted a couple of days , and then the fighting resumed . This led to more negotiations and more fighting . In October 1992 , the Renamo finally agreed to recognize the Frelimo as the constitutional government ; in December 1992 , peace came to Mozambique . And it was eight months into the peace when Luis , now a civilian , went into the forest to chop wood and lost his leg to a land mine . <p> It happened on August 13 , 1993 , close to Provincial Road Number 10 , some 35 miles south of Maputo , the capital . Luis remembers the events of that day in vivid and horrific detail . He says it was near the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way with a friend to cut wood so that he could build his family a new home . He also needed wood so that Alda , his wife , could cook the family a meal . <p> Luis and his friend were wading through the shallow waters of a rice field when suddenly they heard a bang . At first , Luis did n't feel a thing ; he even remembers wondering , for a split second , if his friend had stepped on a mine . Then a gurgling sound came from the water . Luis looked down . The water was colored red . It was then he realized his left leg was n't there any more . <p> Luis almost lost consciousness ; his friend , panic stricken , turned and started to run , then realized what had happened and came to an abrupt halt . Thanks to his days in the army , Luis knew that he had to tie the stump off immediately in order to stem the bleeding . He ripped off a piece of his shirt and created a tour , niquet and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took Luis ' friend nearly an hour to work his way out of the minefield , using a stick to probe the ground ahead of him every step of the way . In that time , he came across a second mine -- a little Chinese T-72 , a plastic cylinder not much bigger than a man 's first , with thirty grams of explosives packed into a military-green casing to make it more difficult to detect in tropical-grass areas . ( Mozambicans call these mines frogs because of their color and the noise they make just before exploding . ) <p> Half an hour later , the friend returned with help from the village . It took them another 30 minutes to clear a path through the minefield and drag Luis ashore . Once they returned to the village , someone came up with the idea of going to Boane to get help . Boane was a three-hour walk -- but at least there was a car there , and the car could get Luis to an ambulance and the ambulance could take him to the Central Hospital in Maputo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luis finally reached the medical facility . Within the hour , surgeons had amputated his left leg above the knee . Luis knew then that his life had changed forever . For one thing , he would never play soccer again . <p> Dr. Mack is a Red Cross surgeon who worked in Afghanistan and Rwanda before coming to Mozambique . He still remembers Luis very well . " One of his problems was that he had lost very much blood and an awful lot of mine mud had to be removed . We tried to save the right leg and had to clear all the affected spots . People who step on a mine lose one leg or foot at least , " he said , " but the mine mud very easily enters the other leg . That other leg has to be saved at all costs . If not , the victims are completely lost in a Third World country . " <p> Anti-personnel mines -- the kind of device that Luis lost his leg to -- generally do not kill more than 30 percent of their victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to inflict damage and to instill a sense of terror . " Strategically , the psychological effect of a mine is more efficient and important than removing a soldier from the battlefield , " says Tom Gowans , a mine-removal expert who works for Halo Trust in Quilimane , Mozambique . " A soldier who loses a foot or a leg or who suffers from severe internal bleeding has to be carried away by at least two other soldiers to receive medical care and attention . The rest of the soldiers are greatly affected in terms of morale . That is the perverse logic behind the use of mines . " <p> Halo Trust is a London-based humanitarian mine-clearance organization hired by the United Nations to conduct a nationwide assessment of Mozambique 's land-mine problem . The organization began working in early 1994 in the Maputo and Tete provinces . Six teams are being sent out with questionnaires to every district and municipality in an attempt to draw up a more scientific assessment of the worst areas for mines . This information is then put into a database and plotted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Children , Doctors without Frontiers , and the Red Cross . <p> As I speak with Gowans , a call comes over his mobile receiver . A good 150 miles up the provincial road toward Cariwa , his people have found a group of villagers who know where some land mines are located . He invites me along to watch the removal . <p> The provincial road is in poor condition , and many bridges have been destroyed . Upon arriving at the village , I meet two members of Gowans ' team -- one from England and the other from New Zealand . The village itself is small and , in the days of the Portuguese , must have been very beautiful . There are six or seven colonial brick homes in which Ernest Hemingway would have felt right at home . The houses are all gutted now , with war slogans displayed along their walls : " Long live the revolution ! " " Socialism or death ! " " Welcome , Fidel ! " <p> The Brit comes out of his landrover carrying two maps of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is where a land mine is supposed to be . As he points its location out to us , I notice that the pinky and ring finger of his left hand are missing . " Mind you , " he says , " you are now in a minefield . " Two marked lanes some 300 feet long extend to the side of one of the houses . In a very carefully dug hole , I see a small , rusty , grenadelike bomb that must have been placed there during the war . The removal team gingerly attaches electric wires to it and , a few minutes later , my tape recorder registers the explosion . <p> About a hundred villagers sit and watch the operation from the porch of the only store in town . A limping man approaches us and cries out that he has served in the army all these years and has become no more than a disabled beggar . That is not what life had in mind when he was created , he says : " I gave my youth and this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government just send me back to my mother ? She will take care of me . I just want to go home ! " <p> Gowans tries to explain that we are there only to remove the mines . The limping man insists that we must help , since the government does n't care . " You people have been sent to give aid to us , " he argues desperately , " to help us . If you do n't help , we have no one else to go to ! " <p> But there is nothing that any of us can do for him . <p> In the days of the civil war , Mozambique was a very poor country . It still is today . In fact , according to the World Bank , Mozambique is even poorer today than it was during the war years ; per capita income has actually fallen from $80 to $60 a year , making it the poorest nation on earth . And of every 1,000 children who are born in Mozambique , 300 die before they reach the age of five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land mines got to a country like Mozambique in the first place , it is not enough to point an accusing finger at the Renamo or the Frelimo-or even at the First World corporations which turn a tidy profit from the manufacture and sale of these devices . For the story of land mines is also the story of human inventiveness , especially when it comes to dealing out death and destruction upon other members of our species . It is the dark , disturbing underside of our much-celebrated technological progress . <p> Although land mines are a creation of the twentieth century , some military historians credit the Romans with pioneering a primitive version of minefields , laying salt on the farm , lands of Carthage to prohibit their use for decades . ( The Romans also developed steel bullets which were fired from slingshots placed in front of the enemy 's horses . ) <p> It was n't until the First World War , however , that the German war industry developed the land mine as we now know it in order to stop the tanks of the Allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mines could also be used to sow death and terror among an advancing infantry led to the invention of the anti-personnel mine . <p> During World War II , an estimated 300 million anti-tank and anti-personnel mines were laid by the Axis and Allied powers combined . Today , a territory of some 500,000 square miles in northern Africa is still infested by mines left over from that war alone . In the 1960s , a new generation of mines was developed that could be laid in any chosen territory by " sowing " them from a plane or helicopter . Today , we have a third generation of " smart " mines , delivered by the hundreds from cannons , rockets , or aircraft , which are equipped with acoustic and infrared sensors and can arm and trigger themselves after having been instructed by a computer . <p> " In the old days , " says Andre Milloret , head of the United Nations Organization Mozambique in Maputo , " mines were laid to stop and divert the enemy . But with improving technology , manufacturers have stressed their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it is a horrible truth today : this new generation of land mines is able to ' look for ' its enemy and operate autonomously . " Milloret also observes that , in today 's wars , mines are not only being laid in battlefields but also around houses , churches , drinking wells , and even in schoolyards . <p> " It is appalling , " says Patrick Blagden , a British de-mining expert based in New York City . " It is utterly appalling what we are doing . Land mines are first produced against substantial costs , then sold and distributed ; then they lay there dormant until someone finally steps on them . It is a safe bet to say that , during the daylight hours of every day of every week of every month of every year , someone is maimed or killed by a land mine every 15 minutes . " ( For the record , the official figure , according to such organizations as the United Nations and the International Red Cross , is 2,000 victims every month . ) <p> Blagden himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 1992 . He knows there are an estimated 110 million active land mines scattered throughout some 60 countries and at least 100 million more still in the planet 's arsenals . Many producer nations -- including Russia , Italy , Belgium , Portugal , Spain , Canada , and the United States -- will often throw in a shipment of land mines as a bonus when some Third World nation makes a hefty weapons purchase . <p> Blagden describes the use of land mines by these countries as a form of economic suicide . When you factor in the social and medical costs , the strain on already inadequate health-care systems , the loss of wage earners , and the inability to create revenue , either from agriculture or industry , because whole areas lie fallow once they are mined , the cost to these countries is enormous . <p> So , too , are the costs of removal . Blagden shows me a picture of his mine-removal team at work in a Cambodian rice field . Every single blade has to be cut by hand with a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip-wires attached to them . These are Valmara 69s from the Valsella Meccanotecnica factory in Italy , a so-called bounding fragmentation mine . Once the tripwire is snagged , the V-69 shoots into the air and explodes at waist level , riddling the immediate area -- and anyone in it-with shrapnel . The V-69s are " intelligent " because they can " communicate " with one another : a single trip-wire can set off a whole string of mines . <p> Only after the grass has been meticulously cut can the real business of mine removal begin . De-miners go in on their knees and prod the soil 400 times per square meter . Using a metal detector is pointless , because in many parts of the world the soil contains high grades of iron ore . Then , too , many current anti-personnel mines are made primarily of plastic , with metal parts too small to be recognized by conventional detectors . Blagden estimates that de-mining costs anywhere between $300 and $1,000 per mine . This is because , unlike laying the mines , which can be done by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , de-mining requires the services of professionals who have to be trained , equipped , and insured . They incur travel and living expenses and have to be provided with backup and support . <p> But some mines , like the Chinese 72-A , are made chiefly of fiberglass and cost no more than $3 apiece . " Now , who is willing to poke around 400 times per square meter just to find a $3 mine ? " Blagden wonders . Altogether , the total cost of removing the 110 million mines already in place could easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars . No one knows how such a project could possibly be financed or even how long it would take -- to say nothing of having to spend such an appalling sum of money cleaning up the deadly relics of past wars when it could have been far better spent on education , health care , housing , and food . <p> In the African nation of Angola , 20 years of war have left behind over 15 million land mines -- at least one for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . No one knows exactly how many mines are buried in Mozambique , but current estimates run as high as 10 million . " But is that really important to know ? " Luis asks bitterly . " Since I stepped on one and lost my left leg , I know there is one less . When my wife , Alda , stepped on another one a few months later , I knew there were two less . And when my youngest daughter was killed by a land mine , I knew there were three less . I lost my child , a leg , and so did my wife . Since I am impaired , I ca n't get a job . I wanted to play soccer , and now I ca n't even watch a game properly . War is shit . Land mines are shit . " <p> In April 1996 , representatives of more than 50 nations met in Geneva , Switzerland , to debate a ban on land mines as part of a periodic review of the 1980 U.N . Convention on Conventional Weapons . Anti-mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration into joining a group of 24 nations calling for an immediate ban on anti-personnel mines . They were joined in their efforts by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation , which ran an ad in the New York Times demanding " Ban Land Mines Now . " And at least a dozen retired U.S. generals , including former Joint Chiefs of Staff chair David Jones , Desert Storm commander Norman Schwarzkopf , and former NATO commander John Galvin , signed an open letter to President Clinton urging their ban . <p> The results have not been encouraging . The Clinton administration chose not to press for a ban in Geneva , under the disingenuous claim that " we ca n't change our demands at the eleventh hour . " Instead , it offered a series of lukewarm amendments to the conventional-weapons accord : a requirement that anti-personnel mines be equipped to self-destruct after 30 days ; a prohibition of the sale of land mines to nations involved in civil war ; and ( perhaps most bizarre ) a rule that long , lived mines be used only in properly marked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also proposed a series of stricter export controls , although , if recent history serves as any guide , this will be merely a paper deterrent . Late in 1991 , for example , four executives of Valsella Meccanotecnica were prosecuted for the illegal sale and delivery of nine million land mines to Iraq for a payment of $180 million . Valsella never had an export license ; an investigation showed that the order was shipped through a company in Singapore and that some of the land mines reached Mozambique . <p> The executives were found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine . <p> ILLUSTRATION <p> By Anton Foek <p> <p> Anton Foek is a freelance writer based in New York City . <p> 
##4000860 How Secret Military and Intelligence Appropriations Suck Up Your Tax Dollars <p> Corrupt and undemocratic conditions within the United States government were evident last fall when Congress siphoned a half-billion dollars from an illegal slush fund maintained by the secretive spy satellite agency , the National Reconnaissance Office , and used it to fund more B-2 " stealth " bombers . Northrup Grumman Corporation , a military contractor with a sordid and criminal background , secured the money for more B-2 bombers on December 1 , 1995 , when the 1996 defense appropriations bill became law . The half-billion dollars appropriated for the B-2 is merely a down payment on 20 more planes , which will cost over $31 billion if completed . <p> Congress has forced the bombers on the military over the Objections of the Pentagon , the Joint Chiefs of Staff , and the Air Force . In a May 1995 study commissioned by Congress , the Institute for Defense Analysis concluded that , with the demise of the Soviet Union , there was no need for more B-2s . Nonetheless , Northrop Grumman 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC contributions from the B-2 's corporate beneficiaries , shrewdly disclosed the existence of the NRO slush fund just as they were completing their final maneuvers to fund the B-2 . They then applied over $1 billion of the slush fund-estimated at a total of $2 billion-to the B-2 and other unpopular weapons programs . If , as President Dwight D. Eisenhower once declared , " Every gun that is made , every warship launched , every rocket fired signifies , in the final sense , a theft from those who hunger and are not fed , those who are cold and are not clothed , " then Northrop Grumman has surely robbed the American public . Shamefully , President Clinton allowed the appropriations bill to become law . Most disturbing of all , the excesses involved in funding the B-2 and the National Reconnaissance Office are not isolated incidences but , instead , are typical of the practices used in dozens of weapons and intelligence program involving as much as $125 billion annually . CIA Director Investigates Himself <p> On September 24 , 1995 , the Washington Post reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $1 billion without informing its superiors at the Pentagon and CLA or its overseers in Congress . " White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta later confirmed the report , claiming that the money was " inexcusably hoarded " and that CIA Director John Deutch had ordered an investigation . Deutch also allegedly ordered " a restructuring of the NRO 's financial management and a complete review of its spending " in response to the news . Curiously , prior to taking charge at the ClA in May 1995 , Deutch oversaw military intelligence , including the NRO , in his capacity as Deputy Secretary of Defense . ( The government officially admitted the existence of the NRO in 1992 , although its budget and specific functions remain classified . The NRO 's fleet of costly satellites gathers photographs and signals for electronic eavesdropping on behalf of the CIA and military intelligence agencies . ) As deputy secretary of defense , Deutch was second in command at the Pentagon , as well as the chair of the NRO 's executive committee , which makes all critical decisions at the NRO . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security clearance at the Pentagon , either knew of the slush fund or chose to remain ignorant . Defense News , a widely read military journal , recently called for the dismissal of those responsible for what it referred to as the NRO 's " funding debacle . " As there is no adequate explanation why Deutch remained ignorant of a hoard placed at over 20 percent of the NRO 's $7 billion annual budget , he , too , should be dismissed . Climate of Secrecy Fosters Waste and Unaccountability <p> The NRO , a bottomless pit into which Congress pours money , can squander hundreds of millions of dollars and still remain awash in money . In 1994 , the NRO was found to have secretly and illegally spent $300 million on an office complex in Fairfax County , Virginia . The complex , which contains 30 percent more office space than is needed by the agency , was built in collusion with Rockwell International Corporation . ( Rockwell itself is a giant military contractor whose projects include manufacturing components for hydrogen bombs as well as the B-2 bomber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge complex was not an NRO project , millions of dollars in local property taxes-normally not paid by the federal government-were footed by taxpayers . Rockwell lied to local officials , telling them that the NRO complex was a Rockwell facility . <p> The secrecy surrounding the NRO and the absence of any meaningful oversight enabled the agency to obtain appropriations for operating expenses that were hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of its genuine needs . The excess funds were then channeled into a secret slush fund . Although Congress never appropriated the money for the complex , the NRO nonetheless spent $300 million , violating ARTICLE I of the U.S. Constitution , which stipulates : " No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury , but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . " <p> The NRO 's corrupt practices have been evident for over a decade . In his 1986 book Deep Black : Space Espionage and National Security , scholar and journalist William E. Burrows wrote : <p> Those who are acquainted with NRO operations and are able to discuss it . . . contend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts to a carte blanche for wild engineering schemes . . . . They charge that the NRO 's excessive secrecy prevents proper monitoring and encourages some dubious projects that can be pursued at almost any cost with the knowledge that mistakes will be concealed from Congress by the large black security blanket . <p> But while NRO operations are no doubt concealed from many members of Congress , huge PAC contributions from leading NRO contractors such as Martin Marietta , TRW , and Rockwell have assured that the agency 's congressional overseers simply rubber-stamp its projects . As early as 1990 , systems engineer Marty Overbleck-Bloem , an ex-employee of Lockheed Missile and Space Company , builder of billion dollar NRO satellites , blew the whistle on the NRO . Quoted in Tim Weiner 's book Blank Check : The Pentagon 's Black Budget , Overbleck-Bloem said : <p> In a black project , people do n't worry about money . If you need money , you got it . If you screw up and need more , you got it . You 're just pouting money into the thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there to do it right the first time . Who 's going to question it ? Secrecy Violates Constitution and Undermines Democracy <p> The NRO 's functions have been classified and its secret budget unconstitutionally concealed since its creation in 1960 . ARTICLE I , SECTION 9 , CLAUSE 7 of the United States Constitution requires the government to publish a " regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money . " While the treasurer publishes an official budget annually , at least $28 billion in " classified " intelligence appropriations and billions more for secret weapons programs are falsely identified as belonging to other agencies , rendering the official budget a mere sham . <p> In the case of United States v. Richardson , decided in 1974 , the Supreme Court refused to enforce the receipts and expenditures clause of the Constitution . In Richardson , a citizen brought suit to require the U.S. treasurer to disclose the budget for the CIA as required by the Constitution . The Supreme Court ruled that citizen taxpayers have no standing to enforce this provision of the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government 's secrecy . If citizens do n't like the government 's violation of the Constitution , their only remedy is what the Court described as " the slow , cumbersome , and unresponsive " electoral process . To allow citizen taxpayers to challenge the government 's unconstitutional practice of failing to fully account for its receipts and expenditures , wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger , " would mean that the Founding Fathers intended to set up something in the nature of an Athenian democracy . . . to oversee the conduct of the National Government . " Burger 's candid contempt for democratic ideals and his related promotion of government secrecy reflects the prevailing views of U.S. governing elites at least since World War II . <p> The world 's most exclusive millionaire 's club-the United States Senate-has continuously maintained the secret government while acknowledging its unconstitutionality . In 1976 , the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recognized that classification of intelligence budgets causes " members of the public to be deceived " and " violates ARTICLE 1 , SECTION 9 , CLAUSE 7 of the Constitution . " @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget spending since 1976 . The budget of the NRO was $3.5 billion ( in 1994 dollars ) in 1980 , half of its current level . Keeping current spending levels secret-and suppressing domestic oversight along the way-remains a priority for the military intelligence community and its corporate allies . As journalist John Pike observed in the fall 1994 issue of Covert Action Quarterly , excessive public discussion could promote the idea that " much of the intelligence budget funds expensive satellites " which have been " rendered obsolete by the demise of their primary target , the Soviet Union . " B-2 Bomber : Created in Secrecy , Sustained by PACs <p> Like the NRO , the B-2 bomber has long been a classified project . An estimated $23 billion was spent for research and development on the B-2 during the 1980s , though everything about the B-2 budget was classified until June 1989 , six months after the first bomber was unveiled . Northrop Grumman initially placed the final cost of the B-2 at $550 million per plane , which made it the most expensive airplane in history . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per plane -- four times Northrop 's estimate . This did n't stop Northrop Grumman from claiming , as part of its lobbying effort in 1995 , that the next 20 bombers could be produced for only $570 million each . Later that spring , the Pentagon released its own figures , placing the cost at more than $1.5 billion per plane . <p> Senator Ted Stevens ( Republican-Alaska ) and Representative Norman Dicks ( Democrat-Washington ) were key players in identifying-or possible creating-the NRO hoard and then transferring these funds to the B-2 . Both men had been groomed for years with huge PAC contributions from B-2 contractors , including Northrop Grumman . According to Nancy Walzman and Sheila Crumholz in The Best Defense : Will Campaign Contributions Protect the Industry ? ( published by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics ) , Dicks raked in over $10,000 from nine major B-2 contractors in four months ' time , making him one of the largest House recipients of military PAC money just as the B-2 battle was heating up . Five thousand dollars of this money came from Northrop Grumman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles and Palm Springs on a promotional tour . During the 1993-1994 period , Walzman and Crumholz disclose , Dicks was a " top recipient of B-2 contractors ' PAC money , " receiving $23,000 from Northrop , Boeing , Lockheed , Vought Aircraft , and other B-2 contractors . However , B-2 contractors were not the only ones who rewarded Dicks ; military PACs paid him at least $96,500 in the 1993-1994 period alone . <p> As for Senator Stevens , the Center for Responsive Politics found that , from 1989 to 1994 , seven major B-2 contractors-Northrop Grumman , General Electric , Boeing , Hughes Air , craft , Loral , Vought Aircraft , and LTV Aerospace and Defense -made PAC contributions to his office of at least $37,000 . This makes him one of the top ten recipients of PAC money from B-2 contractors in the history of the United States . Stevens also tops the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with $207,000 in military corporate PAC contributions from 1989 to 1994 , ranking him as the second , highest recipient of military corporate PAC contributions in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key supporters of the B-2 . In the House , the bipartisan coalition of Republican representatives Duncan Hunter ( California ) , Floyd Spence ( South Carolina ) , and Buck McKeon ( California ) and Democrats Norman Dicks ( Washington ) and Ike Skelton ( Missouri ) reaped huge rewards . The CRFP conservatively estimated that members of Senate and House defense appropriations committees received over $8.5 million of military-related PAC and " individual " contributions in the 1993-1994 period . The rate of giving by B-2 contractors ' PACS dramatically increased in 1995 . <p> The defense contractors ' practice of rewarding their supporters with PAC contributions has been described by some as legalized bribery . While this analysis is accurate in many instances , it ignores other important institutional factors . Many recipients of military corporate PAC money would be inclined to support outlandish expenditures on the B-2 and other programs regardless of whether or not they received PAC contributions . Many B-2 advocates in Congress are retired military men . For example , Representative Hunter of San Diego , a long.time B-2 supporter , was an Army @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't necessarily buy loyalty ; it simply ensures that loyal supporters of the military-industrial complex will remain in office . Defense analyst Stephen Shalom has accurately described this effect in The V-22 Osprey and the Post-Cold War Military Budget : <p> If politicians with the " right " views get the funds they need to secure and retain office while those with the " wrong " views do not , then officeholders will tend to have the right views . The politicians may not be for sale , but the offices are . <p> Military , congressional , and corporate backing for the B-2 bomber has been assured by spreading subcontracts for it throughout at least 383 congressional districts in 48 states . Thousands of subcontractors and their suppliers benefit from B-2 production , and they have inundated pliable legislators with individual campaign contributions in addition to PAC money . Contributions from officers , directors , managers , and employees of these corporations , made in their " individual " capacity , do not fall within the limits placed on corporate PAC contributions . The senators and representatives nonetheless know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ " bundling , " in which several checks for up to $1,000 from managers , employees , and family members of contractors known to the legislators are given simultaneously . Illegal Practices Widespread <p> Although the payment of individual and PAC contributions is usually legal , the effects of illegal payments and practices -- including outright bribery -- should not be discounted . Key defense contractors , including Boeing and Lockheed , have been convicted of paying millions of dollars in bribes to obtain top-secret Pentagon planning papers , while Rockwell International was convicted of and fined $5.5 million for criminal fraud against the Air Force in connection with an NRO satellite project . <p> Likewise , illegally squeezing vendors and employees for PAC contributions is a skill at which Northrop Grumman should excel . The company was formed a year and a half ago with the merger of two corporate outlaws -- Northrop Corporation and Grumman Corporation . The former president of Grumman , John O'Brien , was recently convicted of fraud related to loans he received from James Kane , the former head of Long Island Aerospace PAC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his recent book , When the Pentagon Was for Sale , O'Brien and Kane specialized in shaking down Grumman 's vendors and employees : " Employees who aggressively raised campaign loot were rewarded with promotions and bonuses . Conversely , O'Brien threatened to fire or demote workers who were less wholehearted in aiding Kane . " Recalcitrant suppliers , such as Monitor Aerospace , which was reluctant to contribute to Grumman 's lobbying program , soon found that Grumman was doing its buying elsewhere -- a violation of federal law . Ultimately , Grumman paid the government $20 million to escape further criminal and civil liability . <p> Northrop 's criminal convictions reach back to 1972 , when it was convicted of maintaining a slush fund which was used to buy the silence of the Watergate burglars . More recently , it was convicted in 1990 of charges related to its intentional falsification of tests concerning nuclear cruise missiles and fighter jets , for which the company paid a $17 million fine . Raw Power Maintains High Spending Levels <p> By the raw power of money , the coalition of military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending for Cold War weaponry such as the B-2 while programs for low birth-weight babies , childhood immunizations , scholarship assistance , Medicaid , and Medicare are slashed . <p> Even the U.S. government 's official propaganda does n't suggest that these levels of spending are required because of threats from China or Russia . While the United States spent about $285 billion on the military in 1994 , Russia spent less than $80 billion , and China spent only $27 billion . Given this lack of military threats , the U.S. Defense Department was forced to stretch the truth in its 1995 annual report , which sought to justify current spending levels . According to the Secretary of Defense , the threats to be guarded against are " hostile regional powers , " the acquisition by " potential adversaries " of " weapons of mass destruction , " " terrorism , " ' and " the illegal drug trade . " Since none of these so-called threats is either new or sufficient to justify such extraordinary spending levels , the government has resorted to sophistry , arguing that the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight two major wars simultaneously anywhere in the world without allied assistance while remaining capable of defending the mainland from nuclear and conventional attack . In other words , the military must be ready to fight World War III at all times . Promising Signs for Democracy <p> The currently prevailing regime of subsidies to the military while domestic programs are cut is a direct challenge to the legitimate democratic expectations of the American people . In peacetime , democratic principles require that social and economic needs should take priority over military programs . Events within the military , Congress , the mass media , and religious and peace groups suggest that a grassroots movement is forming to resist the military-corporate challenge to democracy . <p> One promising development was the formation of a consortium of public-policy organizations in 1994 , the Military Spending Working Group , to coordinate the activities of peace and security organizations in the pursuit of a peace dividend . One member organization of the MSWG is the Center for Defense Information , which is directed by retired high-ranking military officers ; it has been scathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of military spending " given the greatly diminished military dangers that confront America . " <p> Another promising development is the emergence of a split within the Republican Party , where significant divisions have developed between traditional " hawks " and " cheap hawks , " who claim to be willing to reduce deficits by cutting military spending . Major newspapers such as the Boston Globe have inveighed against current military spending levels , and national magazines like the Nation , the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , the Progressive , Z , and the National Times have all published commentary criticizing the lack of a peace dividend . <p> Religious groups have also objected to the degree of militarism and have engaged in inspiring acts of civil disobedience challenging ongoing nuclear weapons deployment . On August 7 , 1995 , on the fiftieth anniversaries of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki , six Catholic activists calling them , selves Jubilee Plowshares entered weapons facilities on both coasts , hammering and pouring blood on nuclear weaponry and suffering criminal prosecution . One of the activists , Susan Crane , later wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand these weapons are a direct theft from the poor of the world who need food , shelter , medical care , and jobs . " <p> Such efforts to publicize nuclear threats are particularly important because the high costs and risks presently posed by nuclear weapons remains a mystery to most Americans . According to John Lehman , former Secretary of the Navy , the costs of strategic nuclear weapons alone are about $70 billion per year . Given the United States ' historical position as the only remaining superpower , the compelling moral grounds to curtail military spending , and the broad . based protest activity which is occurring , the seeds for a democratic resistance movement are present . <p> As long as the public remains unorganized and tolerant of the status quo , the military-corporate alliance will dictate a level of military spending which keeps its coffers filled to overflowing . Since at least World War II , this alliance has been the dominant force in the U.S. economy . It is not going to cede power simply because the prior justifications for its dominance -- World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War -- have ended . Instead , as President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address 36 years ago , it will invent new reasons and create new conflicts in order to justify its existence . <p> By J. Whitfield Larrabee <p> <p> J. Whitfield Larrabee is a Boston attorney who specializes in defending the indigent in criminal cases and in the prosecution of civil-rights violations . He is also an organizer of grassroots action to reduce military spending and promote peace . He can be reached by e-mail at JWLarrabee@aol.com . <p> 
##4000861 Most of us strongly object to the idea , raised from time to time , that we do n't have free will . Such a suggestion seems almost unthinkable , or needlessly pessimistic , and we ordinarily reject it out of hand . After all , not having free will seems to threaten the very foundations of moral judgment and contradicts the undeniable feeling that our future is open to us . Most of us suppose , rather , that if the tape of history were replayed , we could have done otherwise in virtually all situations . Even if every fact coming to bear at a given time -- even our own motives and desires -- were the same , we could have made a different choice . <p> The essential " I " rules , shaping behavior in a way that ca n't be fully accounted for by our genetic inheritance , our life history , or our immediate circumstances . We want to believe that in some essential respect the self stands outside of nature and culture , bearing originative responsibility for its acts . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creditworthy self . <p> On the other hand , we very much like to explain things -- in particular , what makes us tick . We want to know how the human body works , what causes mental illness , what lies behind crime and deviance , what determines sexual preference , what accounts for addiction , obesity , poverty , creativity , religious fanaticism , and so forth . In short , there is nothing in human behavior that is n't , in this scientific age , being exhaustively scrutinized from a causal perspective . The interacting effects of biology and society on the individual are enumerated , classified , and built into theories and useful rules of thumb , and generally we congratulate ourselves at our success in discovering the springs of action . <p> Could there be , perhaps , just the slightest tension between these two predilections ? We really ca n't have it both ways , after all . We ca n't , for instance , conduct a serious investigation of what caused Susan Smith to let her car slide down the ramp into a South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing that the act must be finally attributable to her own free will . To believe the latter is to render a causal explanation of her crime superfluous , since no matter what her physical and psychological conditions were at the time she could have done otherwise . On the other hand , to believe that Susan Smith did not have free will seems to undercut the requirements of justice . If she was not raving mad ( and it seems likely she was not ) , then a complete explanation of her act that omits mention of free will seems to exonerate her . No wonder , then , that the conflict between scientific explanation and our cherished exemption from natural causality is so rarely made explicit , and no wonder it is so often the subtext of our debates about responsibility . <p> It is also the source of a good deal of political disagreement . Liberals are fond of pointing to the social and economic causes of crime , addiction , and poverty , while conservatives are more likely to hold , as Justice Clarence Thomas put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuses " for failings that derive essentially from free personal choices . The liberal interest in rehabilitation and the conservative penchant for punishment are closely linked to these opposing stances -- one of which understands the individual as the potentially malleable product of outside factors , while the other insists that persons , at bottom , are self-made , hence deserving of just rewards and punishments . <p> Of course , this distinction is not quite so clean . For example , many liberals wince at the biological determinism of The Bell Curve , and conservatives often justify welfare reform on the grounds that behavior is indeed responsive to external , government-controlled incentives . Hardly anyone -- yet -- is the sort of pure , hard determinist who gladly bites the bullet of causal explanation , and no one , however insistent about the existence of free will , denies the obvious : that behavior is at least partially a function of social and biological conditions . Nevertheless , in our debates about human nature and behavior , the opposition between causality and freedom is often the forensic fulcrum . Attitudes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mentally ill , homosexuals , the obese , as well as criminals , are frequently conditioned by the underlying supposition that the ultimate cause of someone 's problem or status lies in his or her choice , finally , to be that way . It is time to begin the public , explicit questioning of this assumption , however uncomfortable it may occasionally make us . Only by doing so are we likely to come to grips with the basic structure of our disagreements . <p> This questioning , in fact , is well under way but not yet very public or explicit . The academic philosophical debate about free will has , of course , continued on in articles and books too technical for most readers . And most would suppose that such hermetic discourse has little to offer the wider world in all its messy practicalities . But it is not that philosophical investigations into the concept of free will are inapplicable to everyday life -- many such investigations have explored real world consequences -- but , rather , that the conclusions reached , for the most part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will : the belief that we are , in some important sense , the uncaused originators of our acts . The vast majority of modern philosophers dismiss this notion as incoherent and take the position that free will consists simply in being able to act , without hindrance , on one 's desires and motives . And desires and motives , like everything else in the world , have causes . <p> This so-called compatibilist view , in which free will is compatible with determinism , is a far cry from the idea of our being uncaused originators . It is not , to put it mildly , what most people suppose they possess -- or what they suppose we must possess -- in order to be moral agents deserving of praise and blame . We do not want to be told that our free will is just a matter of negative freedom -- the freedom from constraint . We like to believe , rather , in the radical , positive , libertarian freedom that permits the self to determine behavior without the self being completely determined . Only such freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deserve approval and censure , reward and punishment . It is no surprise , therefore , that philosophers find their investigations and conclusions widely ignored . The compatibilist version of free will is simply not the sort of free will most of us imagine we have , and we do n't much appreciate having our cherished notion of human causal privilege denied . Most folks outside the academy are incompatibilists , seeing a basic contradiction between determinism and moral responsibility . <p> This no doubt explains why explicit challenges to free will in the popular media are few and far between . Since so much seems to depend on having it , why rock the boat ? Yet some challenges have been mounted , most recently and notably by Robert Wright in his book The Moral Animal . In a chapter entitled " Blaming the Victim , " Wright pulls no punches , showing how the increasing success of scientific explanation must shrink the domain of libertarian freedom to the point where we might as well admit that " we are all machines , pushed and pulled by forces that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul Cotton , writing about free will in the March 1993 Journal of the American Medical Association , also worries that " science may be on a collision course with one of society 's most cherished beliefs . " Leaving aside the question of whether , if determinism is true , it is useful or apt to describe ourselves as machines , Wright 's conclusion about free will -- that it is simply a delusion without intelligible foundation -- is not a little disquieting and , perhaps for this reason , has been passed over in reviews of his book . <p> After all , is n't it simply crazy to suppose that , first , we really do n't have free will and , second , that society could get along without it ? Is n't our intuition that usually we could have done otherwise indisputable , and would n't it obviously invite havoc into our lives if it were shown that people , in fact , are not originatively responsible for their behavior ? Given the apparently dire consequences of challenging the existence of free will , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . But , in fact , it is n't crazy to suppose we do n't have the libertarian sort of freedom : indeed , most academic philosophers believe precisely that , our intuitions notwithstanding . Nor is it unimaginable that society could function successfully in the absence of this assumption , since these same philosophers , along with Wright , have argued that our personal and social good can emerge unscathed in a fully deterministic world . Given that this ground has been broken but not yet made particularly visible , the next step is to legitimize a vigorous public debate on free will . Those who question it are not totally off their rockers , nor do they threaten everything we hold near and dear . They may , in fact , offer the best hope for achieving a less punitive society -- if we can suppress the affront to our dignity long enough to give them a fair hearing . <p> The Susan Smith case is a good place to start reconsidering free will , since the commission of the crime was never in question -- only why it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Smith have done other than what she did that night , or was her act simply part of an ineluctable train of events ? The case illustrates the tension between the desire to blame and the desire to explain and shows how the retributive impulse , always linked to the assumption of free will , fades when a causal explanation of a crime is forthcoming . A report on the trial by Rick Bragg in the July 9 , 1995 , New York Times captured the polarity nicely in the first two sentences : <p> Her lawyers are expected to argue that Susan Smith has been the victim of destructive relationships and influences since she was born , swept helplessly through life like a cork down a quick-moving creek . <p> The prosecution is expected to paint her as a scheming monster who lied to her hometown and the entire world for nine days , blaming a phantom carjacker for the disappearance of her sons before confessing that she had drowned the two little boys in a dark lake . <p> After Smith 's confession , sentiment in the town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ " view of Smith held sway immediately following the revelation that she had concocted , out of whole cloth , the story of her children 's abduction by a black carjacker . What could be a better sign of a deliberate , freely willed crime than the fabrication of an alibi , maintained as a bare-faced lie for nine days under intense national attention ? If anyone deserved the death penalty sought by the prosecution , it seemed Susan Smith did . But as time went on and the details of her life became public , perceptions changed . It turned out that the " scheming monster " had an early history of depression and mental instability , well hidden behind a facade of cheerful normality . Her biological father had committed suicide shortly after her sixth birthday , and she later suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her stepfather . Onlookers began to consider that perhaps Susan Smith had not created herself out of whole cloth , that perhaps her state of mind at the time of the murders was the fatal culmination of a life history and recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerations , not unexpectedly , began to soften support for the death penalty . After all , when we start to understand the causal history of a person 's behavior , we ordinarily tend to blame that person less and our desire for retribution abates . This is so because one sort of explanation -- the explanation involving an autonomous , freely willing agent deserving of retributive justice -- is supplanted by another : that of antecedent causes and influences . Retributive rage is fueled by our belief that an autonomous agent-self is in control , and when the existence or capacities of the agent are called into question -- as they were in Susan Smith 's case and in other " abuse excuse " cases such as the Bobbitt and Menendez trials -- the rage diminishes . <p> The defense could not argue that no such agent existed in Susan Smith , for that would have gone far beyond the pale of judicial precedent , even though science supports such a view . Rather , it had to play by the current rules of the game and try to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defect -- an argument made marginally plausible by her history of abuse . The bone of contention between defense and prosecution was thus the state of the presumptively autonomous self . Was the potential for freely willed choice present or not ? Did Susan Smith have , in legal parlance , the " capacity to conform her conduct to the law " or , even though she undoubtedly appreciated the wrongfulness of her act , was she in the grip of an " irresistible impulse " ? The outcome of the trial would hinge on the extent to which the jury bought the defense 's argument that the forces of her remote and recent history overrode the assumed ability to freely choose right over wrong . <p> Under the rules of the game -- that is , under the presumption of free will -- the prosecution 's case looked far stronger , since unless the defense could prove a substantial mental defect ( which a history of depression and abuse does not necessitate ) , the jury might well have imposed the death penalty . The prosecution had merely to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , that she freely selected her actions in the service of depraved motives . Since she chose to kill , she deserved to die . <p> But why , some pesky philosophers and scientists ( or any inquiring mind ) might have asked , did the freely willing Susan Smith choose to kill ? If she was not compelled by circumstances to this heinous deed , why did n't she choose otherwise ? Had the prosecution been forced to answer such questions , it could not , of course , have cited any influences on her ( that is in the defense 's interest , after all , since it tends to exonerate ) . Instead , it could only have cited her motives -- for instance , the self-aggrandizing desire to promote an affair with her wealthy employer 's son . But even then the assumption about free will is that even a motive or impulse is not sufficient cause for an act , since the agent could have chosen to ignore its prompting . So again , the question repeats : why did n't Susan Smith decide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially considering the means she hit upon ? <p> At this point , the prosecution would have had little to say , except that Susan Smith out of her own free will simply chose not to ignore it . ( Again , the prosecution could n't say the desire was overpowering , since that would suggest she was incapacitated by an irresistible impulse ) . Finally , it turns out , there is no plausible explanation for what she did in terms of influences , factors , motives , or desires consistent with free will and , thus , with our traditional notion of responsibility . <p> A related , equally vacuous reply the prosecution might have offered is that Susan Smith is simply a monster , someone who decided naturally and dispassionately to sacrifice her children . Since , under a corollary of the free-will assumption , we are all responsible for our characters , Susan Smith could have chosen ( years ago , perhaps ) to become a very different sort of person , someone who would have resisted the impulse to kill . Since she did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimately , we ask again : what led her to choose to become such a distasteful character ? Well , she just chose to become that person , comes the answer . And on such an answer rests the traditional determination of criminal and moral responsibility . <p> It is embarrassing , to say the least , that proof of criminal guilt depends on blocking plausible explanations of both behavior and character , but this , in fact , is what the law requires . For it is widely reported that , once we allow a person 's actions or character to be explained in terms of cause and effect , the primary basis for personal responsibility -- the freely willed choice -- evaporates . Unless the agent somehow acted on its own ( or created itself ) in some important respect independently of influences and circumstances , we forfeit the fundamental retributive justification for punishment . The prosecution therefore wanted the jury to believe that the essential Susan Smith -- the self/agent/controller pulling her own strings -- deserved capital punishment for an act that she alone originated . <p> Unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exerting an influence but itself in some essential respect uninfluenced -- is an impossibility . The causal continuum -- whether physical , biological , psychological , or social -- leaves no gaps in which such agents can reside . Locating a distinct entity in space and time guarantees that it will be causally connected to the world around it . The motto for science might be " No one gets to cause without being caused in turn " or perhaps " You ca n't have your causal cake and eat it too . " On the other hand , if science proved that some of our behavior was essentially indeterminately or randomly generated , it 's hard to see how that could serve as the basis for ascribing behavior to an intentional agent . Neither causality nor a causality , therefore , support the com-mon-sense notion of free will . <p> So much the worse for science , some might say . If the traditional concept of responsibility , both moral and criminal , requires free will , then science is obviously out of order in its critique of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands of our moral concept but our common-sense notion of explanation itself . When we ask why a person has committed a particular action , we are n't necessarily asking for anything terribly technical . We just want to place the act into a context which makes it understandable and perhaps predictable next time around . To have put the prosecution on the spot by asking why Susan Smith killed her children would n't have been scientism but , rather , only healthy inquisitiveness . The answers " because she simply chose to do it out of her own free will " or " because she 's a monster " seem patent evasions since we can still reasonably want more of an explanation . On the other hand , the defense 's answer -- that a history of depression and abuse led to a tortured and confused mental state -- may or may not be true , but at least this attempts to actually account for her behavior . If we believe Susan Smith acted coldly and rationally out of selfish motives , so be it ; but we need not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -- buy the notion that she chose to act out of some mysterious , uncaused capacity called free will . <p> All this does not mean , however , that Susan Smith ( or Lorena Bobbitt or the Menendez brothers ) should have been acquitted . Even if a plausible explanation of her crime rules out the freely willing agent and so undercuts the justification for retributive punishment , there are nevertheless other very good reasons to detain her . Had she been judged insane ( always unlikely given her calculated lies ) , then treatment in a secure facility would have been appropriate . Since she was judged sane , it is obviously important to protect ourselves , as well as deter others harboring similar motives , by imprisoning her . Time spent in the right sort of facility , with the right sort of interventions , might even work to ameliorate a flawed character . But the primary rationale for imposing capital punishment -- that by freely choosing to commit murder Susan Smith deserved to die -- has no force if we dispense with free will . That the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , bears this out . The good citizens of that town ( and the jurors who decided Smith 's fate ) quite properly sensed -- perhaps unconsciously -- that you ca n't put her crime into a causal , explanatory context and still justify retributive punishment . <p> But are feelings of rage against a murderer and the wish for retribution never justified ? If Susan Smith killed her children simply in order to advance an affair , are we wrong to condemn her ? Obviously we are not wrong to condemn the act , whatever its causes , and it 's hard to resist the initial , angry surge of desire to impose comparable sufferings upon the perpetrator . As Robert Wright points out in The Moral Animal , such feelings are simply the naturally evolved response to a horrific violation of a central human value . They serve to ensure that such transgressions are swiftly attended to , for if reliable sanctions were not imposed , no ordered society could last for long . But whether or not we should freely indulge the retributive impulse , given what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very much an open question . <p> That impulse , science has shown us , is emphatically not justified by the existence of a freely willing agent who deserves condemnation for having autonomously originated the act . No such agents exist anywhere -- or ever have or ever could -- since humans are as much a part of the causal continuum as molecules and machines . And even if human behavior were partially attributable to some random element , that would do nothing to endow us with originative agenthood . Therefore we must , as Wright suggests , learn to accommodate ourselves to the fact that our rage at the " scheming monster " has no metaphysical justification in free will . The desire for retribution points us in the right direction , perhaps , but we need not follow that bitter path to the end . <p> Our concept of moral responsibility need not rest on the myth of originative agency but only on the necessity for social order . We must assign credit and blame and impose legal and moral sanctions not because freely willing agents exist but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this realization sinks in , the desire to inflict comparable suffering on those proven guilty may lessen , and our attention might shift from punishment to prevention , from retribution to rehabilitation . To explain is not necessarily to excuse , but explanations can help considerably in moving us away from anger toward a more constructive response to crime and deviance . <p> By Thomas W. Clark <p> <p> Thomas W. Clark , a frequent philosophical contributor to The Humanist , has pursued graduate studies in philosophy at Tufts and Harvard universities and served as associate director of the Institute for Naturalistic Philosophy in Cambridge , Massachusetts . <p> 
##4001377 The current study examined differential patterns of interrelationships between meditators and nonmeditators on issues pertaining to psychosocial adaptation . Subjects ( N = 66 ) were randomly selected from mailing lists provided by the Association of Transpersonal Psychology or were solicited via classified advertising in the Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News . The findings of the current study indicate that there are no differences between meditators and nonmeditators on level of psychosocial adaptation . However examination of the zero-order correlations between dependent measures revealed differential patterns of interrelationships within the meditator and nonmeditator groups . The findings suggest that further research is needed which expands upon the influence of meditation on psychosocial adaptation by addressing topics specific to meditative practice . The implications for the development of qualitative research methods designed to investigate psychosocial parameters in transpersonal psychology are discussed . INTRODUCTION <p> Previous literature in transpersonal psychology with the focus on meditation has generally examined the influence of meditative techniques by comparing differences between meditators and nonmeditators . Most recently , investigators have examined the influence of meditation on counseling/therapy outcome , personality development , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document the positive influence of meditation on stress reduction ( e.g. Humphrey , 1993 ; Janowiak , 1993 ; Sethi , 1990 Beauchamp-Turner &; Levinson 1992 ) ; while others have discussed reduction of anxiety through meditation ( e.g. , Castillo , 1990 ; Abrams &; Siegel , 1978 ; Beauchamp-Turner &; Levinson , 1992 ; Alexander , et al. , 1993 ; Pearl &; Carlozzi , 1994 ; Snaith , Owens , &; Kennedy , 1992 ) . Further , researchers have suggested that meditation may be beneficial in alleviating both hostility and depression . Regarding the efficacy of various meditation techniques , the positive effects of transcendental meditation ( TM ) have been documented in virtually every area of traditional meditation research ( Staggers , Alexander &; Walton , 1994 ; Fergusson , Bonshek &; Boudigues , 1994 ; Lasalle &; Russell , 1993 ; Cranson , et al. , 1991 ) . Investigations without a nonmeditator comparison group have primarily focused on the influence of meditation on development of consciousness and altered states of consciousness ( e.g. , Comptom , 1991 ) . Shapiro 's work ( 1992 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not yet generated a significant change in the type of meditation studies published . <p> The current study sought to examine differential patterns of interrelationships between meditators and nonmeditators on issues pertaining to psychosocial adaptation . Specifically , the current study compares meditators and nonmeditators on level of psychological distress , gender stereotyping , and dogmatism . Several assumptions about the relationship between psychological distress , dogmatism and gender stereotyping formed the initial basis for the selection of these three variables . Previous research suggests that psychosocial real adaptation occurs as a function of a restricted range of viewing others , dogmatism and personal rigidity ( Millon , 1990 ) . Dogmatism has been shown to be related to racism , sexism , antiegalitarianism , and authoritarianism ( Raden , 1994 ; Sidanius , 1993 ) . Also , persons high in dogmatism have shown greater belief persistence even with evidence that contradicts their original assumptions ( Davies , 1993 ) ; exhibited more polarized attitudes ( Leone , 1989 ) ; and exhibited lower self esteem ( Fernandez , 1990 ) . <p> Previous literature has suggested that self actualization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . According to Maslow ( 1972 ) , self-actualized persons are involved in life beyond simplistic dichotomies and allow a holistic experience of self and others . Further , they choose growth over stagnation and new insight over confirmation of the status quo . Thus , individuals who are more self-actualized would typically exhibit less dogmatism , gender stereotyping , or psychological distress ( Sakairi , 1991 ) . For the purpose of this study it was assumed that meditators as a group differ from non-meditators in the degree of self-actualization , and consequently would report lower levels of psychological distress , dogmatism , and gender stereotyping . METHODS Participants <p> Participants included 33 meditators ( 9 males , 23 females , 1 no response ) and 33 non-meditators ( 9 males , 24 females ) . No significant differences were revealed between meditators and non-meditators for age , M = 43.8 ( SD = 11.9 ) and M = 34.8 ( SD = 10.8 ) , respectively ( p > .05 ) . The total sample was primarily Caucasian ( 86.4% , n = 57 ) ; 34.8% ( n @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( n = 20 ) single , and 18.2% ( n= 12 ) divorced . No differences were found between groups for ethnicity chi 2 ( 3 , N = 64 ) = 2.29 , p > .05 or marital status chi 2 ( 5 , N = 64 ) = 8.37 , p > .05 No differences were found between groups for income , averaging $24,000 annually , chi 2 ( 7 , N = 64 ) = 13.21 ( p > .05 ) . <p> Concentrative and insight/mindfulness were the most prevalent forms of meditation , with 79% ( n = 26 ) utilizing one or both forms . However 21.2% ( n = 7 ) responded " other " ( e.g. , Tai Chi ) . The most common influences to begin meditating were personal experiences ( 39.4% , n = 13 ) and another meditator ( 21.2% , n = 7 ) . The number of days practiced per week varied within the sample , including 31.3 % ( n = 10 ) one to three days per week , 37.6% ( n = 12 ) four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ = 10 ) 7 days per week . The majority of the meditators practiced between 15 and 45 minutes ( 78.8% , n = 26 ) at each session , while only 9.1% ( n = 3 ) practiced less than 15 minutes and 12.1% ( n = 4 ) practiced longer than 45 minutes . Of the individuals currently involved in a relationship , 50% ( n = 10 ) of the sample had " significant others " who also practiced meditation . PROCEDURE <p> Participants were randomly selected from mailing lists provided by the Association of Transpersonal Psychology or were solicited via classified advertising in the Chicago Tribune and the Dallas Morning News . Participants were sent a letter providing information about the current study and a self-addressed , stamped postcard . Participants were to indicate on the postcard if they were interested in participating in the current study and the number of meditator and/or non meditator questionnaire packets they would like to receive . Thus , after the return of the postcard , packet(s) and a self-addressed stamped envelope were mailed to the individual . The questionnaire packets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a consent form for participation in the study . Also , for individuals requesting meditator packets , an additional form was included which inquired about their usual length of meditative practice , type of practice , feelings when not practicing , retreat participation , and perceived effect of meditation on everyday life . Measures <p> The Symptom Checklist 90-Revised ( SCL-90-R ; Derogatis &; Spencer , 1989 ) was utilized as a measure of psychological adaptation . The SCL-90-R is a 90-item self-report inventory measuring nine clinical dimensions of psychological distress ( e.g. , depression , anxiety , somatization , etc. ) and provides a global index of distress ( GSI ) . T-scores are available for each dimension and the GSI ( M = 50 ; SD = 10 ) . The authors have shown the SCL-90-R to have high internal consistency and reliability . <p> The Traditional Egalitarian Sex Role ( TESR ; Larsen &; Long , 1988 ) is a 20-item self-report scale measuring attitudes toward traditional-egalitarian beliefs about sex roles . Items are on a 5-point continuum from " strongly disagree " to " strongly agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior . The TESR has been shown to have high internal consistency and test-retest reliability . <p> The Short-Form Dogmatism Scale ( SFDS ; Schulze , 1962 ) is a reduced version of the Rokeach 's ( 1960 ) dogmatism scale . The SFDS is a 16-item self-report scale . Responses are coded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from " strongly disagree " to " strongly agree " ; thus higher scores reflect increased levels of dogmatism . The SFDS has been shown to have high internal consistency and test-retest reliability ( Robinson &; Shaver , 1973 ) . RESULTS Analysis of Dependent Variables Between Groups <p> A 2 x 2 ( group x gender ) MANOVA was performed to examine for differences on all indices of psychosocial adaptation ( see Table 1 for means and standard deviations ) . The analysis yielded no significant interaction ( Wilk 's F ( 3,58 ) = .86 , p = .469 ) for level of psychological distress , gender stereotyping , and dogmatism . There were no significant group ( Wilk 's F ( 3,58 ) = 1.22 , p = .31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ = 2.53 , p = .07 ) differences for level of psychological distress , gender stereotyping or dogmatism . Analyses of Dependent Variables Within Groups <p> Interrelationships between dependent measures were examined utilizing zero-order correlations ( see Table 2 ) . For the non-meditators , analyses yielded significant correlations between increased gender stereotyping and both higher levels of psychological distress ( r = .44 , p < .01 ) and higher levels of dogmatism ( r = .59 , p < .001 ) . In contrast , for the meditator group , analyses yielded no significant correlations between indices of psychosocial adaptation ( p > .05 ) . <p> Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was utilized to explore further the interrelationships between dependent measures . The index of gender stereotyping was utilized as the criterion measure ( see Table 3 ) . To minimize between-group variability , demographic parameters were entered simultaneously in block one . Indices of dogmatism and psychological distress were entered in block 2 utilizing stepwise entry ( i.e. , entering only if contributing significant variance ) . For the nonmeditators , demographic parameters were not significant predictors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ = .35 ) . However , both dogmatism ( R 2 change = .27 , p = .01 ) and psychological distress ( R 2 change = .09 , p = .04 ) contributed significant variance to the model . For the meditators , the demographic parameters were not predictive of gender stereotyping ( R 2 change = .19 , p = .14 ) . Indices of dogmatism and psychological distress did not contribute significant variance in prediction of gender stereotyping . CONCLUSION <p> The purpose of the present study was to examine differences between meditators and non meditators on indices of psychosocial adaptation . Further , the interrelationships between psychological distress , gender stereotyping , and dogmatism were explored within each group . The analyses of group differences revealed no significant differences between meditators and non meditators on indices of psychosocial adaptation indicating a relative degree of similarity between groups . Although findings from the analyses of group differences are inconsistent with our initial hypothesis , examination of the interrelationships between dependent measures did in fact reveal differential patterns within each group . <p> Findings from the correlational analysis within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both dogmatism and psychological distress . These findings are consistent with previous literature ( e.g. , Raden , 1994 ; Sidanius , 1993 ) which suggest that maladaptation occurs as a function of a restricted range of viewing others . However , for the non-meditators , dogmatism was not related to psychological distress . In contrast , no significant relationships were found between indices of psychosocial adaptation for the meditators . The multiple regression analyses revealed similar findings , with both dogmatism and psychological distress predicting gender stereotyping for the non-meditators , but not for the meditators . <p> What could account for the within group variability that was not detected in between-group analyses ? Although the measures utilized in the current study have proven to be both valid and reliable , limitations do exist in utilizing self-report measures to detect between group variability on sensitive issues such as gender stereotyping and dogmatism ( Isaac &; Michael , 1985 ) . Given that the participating meditators and non-meditators were both self-selected and well-educated , differences between groups could be masked due to the nature of the responses required of the participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be an advanced meditator to respond to questions about gender stereotyping or dogmatism in a manner that would resemble advanced levels of self-actualization . Similarly , the moral development literature clearly documents that moral reasoning , a purely cognitive expression , usually occurs at a " higher " level than moral behavior ( Gilligan , 1982 ; Kohlberg , 1984 ) . <p> The findings of the present study point towards the limitations of conventional research methodology in exploration of personality variables thought to be influenced by the practice of meditation . Although between-group analyses yielded no differences , multicollinearity existed on indices of psychosocial adaptation for the non-meditators , but not for the meditators . Future research is necessary which applies both quantitative and qualitative research methodology . Self-report measures , such as those utilized in the current study can provide a global index of psychosocial adaptation . The information obtained can then be utilized as a guide in the development of frameworks for a variety of qualitative research methods , such as participant observation or grounded theory approach . The use of qualitative research methodologies might result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each individual ( Dey , 1993 ; Jorgensen , 1989 ; Strauss &; Corbin , 1990 ) . Although there is a vast amount of literature on meditation and types of meditation practice , qualitative research could be utilized to determine if meditative practice differentially influences psychosocial adaptation of individuals from diverse ethnic , educational , and socioeconomic backgrounds . Due to the diversity among meditators , qualitative research might more clearly delineate the psychosocial differences between individuals within specific meditation practices . <p> 
##4001967 Section : EDITORIAL <p> Americans are a remarkably religious people . Virtually every poll measuring the state of religious belief in the United States reports that at least 90 percent of Americans possess some form of religious faith . The latest poll , conducted by Goldhaber Research Associations , reports that 90.7 percent of Americans profess to have a religion . Of these , an overwhelming majority ( 83.8 percent ) identify their religion as either Protestant ( 55.2 percent ) or Catholic ( 28.6 percent ) . These figures indicate that despite the steady growth of non-Christian religions in the United States , most Americans still describe themselves as Christians . In view of this , and as another national election day approaches , it is appropriate to give consideration to several issues facing Christians as they engage in the political process . <p> Most Christians want to be good citizens , but are confused by the demands of dual citizenship ( heaven and earth ) . As a result , they are constantly wrestling with questions about how their faith affects their politics . How politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as the church to achieve spiritual goals ? Does God favor the agenda of one political party over that of others ? Should the Ten Commandments be legally enforced ? When confronted with questions like these , many Christians would of course disagree on the answers , but perhaps many more would admit to being unsure of how to respond . <p> There is , to be sure , a great deal of confusion today about the guidelines for Christian engagement in the political arena . Indeed , it has been controversies over the role of Christianity in shaping the nation 's law and public policy , especially the restrictions placed on that role by the doctrine of separation of church and state , that have been among those issues at the forefront of the debate now taking place across America on the important question of who will win the right to control America 's destiny . <p> I <p> The battle now being waged to direct America 's future might best be described as a " culture war . " What is this culture war all about ? According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Virginia who has written extensively on the subject , the culture war is essentially about " political and social hostility rooted in different systems of moral understanding . " Hunter identifies the combatants as the " orthodox " and the " progressives . " The " orthodox , " he says , are social conservatives from a variety of traditional religious perspectives , but mostly Catholics , Protestants , and Jews , who basically understand that human beings are on this earth as God 's agents to carry out His will in all dimensions of life . They see the increased secularization of America as a call to redivinize the culture , to put God back in society and culture . If political means will assist in achieving this end , so be it . America will be the better for it . <p> The " progressives , " on the other hand , are warriors from a far more diverse religious landscape . They too are Catholics , Protestants , and Jews , but are joined by many Muslims , Hindus , Buddhists , Taoists , Native Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by many unbelievers . They differ from the " orthodox " in that they see religion as fundamentally a private matter rather than a public concern around which civil society should be shaped . They favor compromise in politics , and are very concerned about anyone at the political level being able to impose God 's will on others . <p> Regardless of the labels employed to classify those fighting the so-called culture war , most would agree that Americans today increasingly find themselves at odds on many important questions . Is America a secular state or a Christian state ? Is the nation becoming so secularized that it risks the very judgment of God ? Should not Christians take charge of their nation in order to bring it back to its moral senses ? Is church-state separation a help or a hindrance to the realization of a healthy America ? To what extent should our nation 's law and public policy on such issues as education , sexual immorality , and school prayer reflect religious , even biblical values ? Americans , and yes , even Christians disagree on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides in the conflict increasingly refuse to forfeit the nation 's destiny to the other , the outcome is nothing less than a culture war . <p> If we think about it , those fighting the culture war are actually only trying to bring about a unified America . There is nothing wrong with a goal of unity , to be sure , but must it be achieved at the expense of others ' religious views ? Must those holding to a particular set of religious ideas be pushed to the periphery , freeing those of a different religious persuasion -- the victors in a culture war -- to reshape culture on their own terms ? Is religion even the basis upon which we should seek unity ? Pat Buchanan , for one , believes that it is . In 1993 , several months after the Republicans lost the presidential election to Bill Clinton , Buchanan organized and held a conference titled " Winning the Culture War . " This is certainly one approach to bringing about unity in America , but are there not other , less combative approaches ? @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer competing approaches to performing their dual citizenship as Christians . These are the Reconstructionists , the Religious Right , the Civil Religionists , and the Pluralists . The first two fit Hunter 's " orthodox " category , the latter two his " progressive . " I shall argue that we err not so much in being " orthodox " or " progressives , " but in using religion as the primary basis for cultural and political unity . The first three approaches commit this fatal error ; only the Pluralists seek unity on other , less specifically religious grounds , which I shall suggest is the more biblical approach . <p> II <p> Reconstructionism is a growing Christian movement which believes that the law given by God for the political and legal ordering of ancient Israel is intended for all people in all ages ; therefore , the United States is duty bound to install a political system based entirely on biblical law . Reconstructionism , which claims 20 million adherents in America but probably is considerably smaller , actively seeks to unify the nation by imposing a theocracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role of a nation by God through divinely selected spokespersons , has many exemplars in the modem world . Saudi Arabia , Iran , and Iraq are nations with obvious theocratic tendencies . But the Reconstructionists advocate what may be the purest form of theocracy . According to Rousas J. Rushdoony , a leader of the movement , the society that fails to implement a biblical theocracy " places itself on death row : it is marked for judgment . " The Reconstructionsts ' revamped polity would require capital punishment for adulterers , homosexuals , and incorrigible children . No profession of faith other than Christianity would be tolerated . Were it otherwise , say Rushdoony , " in the name of toleration , the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist , the pervert , and criminal and the adherents of other religions . " In other words , religious liberty , the right of all citizens to worship according to the demands of their consciences , would cease . All heresy would be stamped out through the enforcement of biblical law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributions . America would be a democracy in name only . <p> From a biblical standpoint , Reconstructionism is problematic because of the dispensational character of the Old Testament order . Christ 's announcement in Matthew 5:17 that He had come to fulfill the Law indicated that he was the One to whom all of the Law ( civil , moral , and ceremonial ) had pointed and was to find its ultimate fulfillment . In other words , all of the holy demands of the Law , all of the strict requirements of being a nation ruled by God , found their completion in Jesus Christ , who alone could satisfy them . Add to this Christ 's admonition to obey the Roman secular authorities , and the fact that He never took steps to reinaugurate Israel 's old theocratic system , and we are left with the conclusion that America should avoid , on biblical grounds , constructing a theocracy based on the teaching of the Old Testament . <p> III <p> What we have come to know in our day as the Religious Right , dominated organizationally by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but a more subtle yet pervasive infusion of Christian principles into the way the nation operates . In many ways the rhetoric of the Religious Right is indistinguishable from that of the Re-constructionists . Jerry Falwell , for example , asserts that " God promoted America to a greatness as no other nation has ever enjoyed because her heritage is one of a republic government by laws predicated on the Bible . " David Barton , in his widely circulated book , The Myth of Separation , argues that the Founding Fathers intended " that this nation should be a Christian nation ; not because all who lived in it were Christians , but because it was founded on and would be governed by Christian principles . " In the Religious Right 's program for America , law would become " Christianized , " and those outside the fold would , over time , become convinced of the merits of a nation constructed on biblical principles . Non-Christians would not be denied the right to worship privately according to their own beliefs , but they would be expected to submit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarters . There would be Christian prayer in the public schools , Christian symbols in the public square , public monies available to religious enterprises ( with most going to those operated by the culturally dominant faith , Christianity ) , and governments in which the principle seats were held by Christians . <p> As evangelical scholar Richard V. Pierard notes , " The Religious Right . . . are not willing to accept the idea that we have a secular state . . . . The genius of the American system is that in religious matters the government remains neutral . This environment allows all to practice their faiths freely and not impose them through government . " <p> The real failure , then , of the program of the Religious Right is its failure to deal with religious pluralism . It ignores our nation 's increasingly pluralistic makeup in favor of a program to create political unity on distinctively religious terms . Indeed , non-Christian religions in the United States -- Jews , Muslims , Buddhists , Hindus , and others -- now claim an increasing percentage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christ would approve of a nation 's neutral status toward all religions , a framework which gives no legal preference whatsoever to Christianity . Christ never suggested in his own day that the Roman Empire should become Christian ; in fact , he advocated submission to a form of government that embraced emperor worship . When Christ said in John 18:36 : " My kingdom is not of this world , " he was affirming that Christian witness is not centered on the making of temporal Christian kingdoms , but on the making of Christian persons who will enjoy an everlasting heavenly kingdom . There is little reason to think that the emphasis for Christians today should be any different . <p> IV <p> It is natural that Reconstructionists and the Religious Right , as representatives of the " orthodox " in today 's culture war , would attempt to unite America around her culturally dominant faith , Christianity . Others , however , seeking to be more accommodating to the growing presence in America of non-Christian religions , have sought in a less particularistic way to find a set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Franklin called " public religion , " or what has become known in our own day as " civil religion , " represents an effort to locate that common ground , that shared set of symbols that can be transmitted across regions , generations , and peoples in America . The search for a civil religion perhaps springs from the belief of most Americans that God is sovereign over their nation , that He is the one who gives meaning to their shared existence , and that all Americans must in some way bind together as a people in recognition of this fundamental reality . <p> The symbols and ceremonies of civil religion include the national motto , " In God We Trust " ; the inclusion of " God " in the pledge of allegiance ; the display of the American flag in church auditoriums ; the blending of God and country in national holidays such as Independence Day , Memorial Day , and Thanksgiving ; and the now common presidential statement appended to virtually all public addresses : " God Bless America . " <p> Many Christians see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil religion and even to blending them . Many , for example , heartily approved of President Bush 's speech at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 1992 , which included this statement : " In the Persian Gulf we fought for good versus evil -- it was that clear to me . . . . And American stood fast so that liberty could stand tall . Today I want to thank you for helping America , as Christ ordained , to be a light unto the world . " Bush 's statement points out one of the dangers of civil religion : it sometimes uses religion as a tool to legitimize governmental policies . Hence it politicizes religion to make it a function of the nation . Examined in this light , we might say that Bush 's statement trivialized religion by making it serve only a small segment of the world 's population instead of relating it to universal truths applicable to all people . How do we know that God approved of America 's attack against Iraq ? Perhaps God would have preferred to spare the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying the $64 billion price tag to more humanitarian purposes . No one , I submit , can answer these questions with the kind of certainty presupposed in Bush 's statement . <p> Since one of the major reasons for civil religion is to unify people behind government , there also is always the danger that government will abandon its " neutral " role in dealing with the nation 's diversity of religions . This is evident in the perennial call for more prayer in the public schools . Prayer in a religiously plural society must inevitably be nonsectarian or content neutral and hence becomes an aspect of civil religion . For many people of faith , generic , watered-down prayers are a sacrilege , and they would prefer no prayer to bland prayer crafted to unify and offend as few of the listeners as possible . <p> It is hard to be against anything that can help to unify ' America . Civil religion should not be neglected out of hand ; it might have a significant role in bringing the American people together . But Christians must never allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . As John Swomley has written , the " god " of civil religion can be " a very small and exclusive deity , a friend to American power and prestige , and the object of a national folk religion with little claim to truth . " <p> V <p> Another available option toward unifying the country , more palatable to " progressives " than to the " orthodox , " is simply to affirm that religious pluralism is real , that people understand ultimate concerns differently , and that the freedom to disagree on fundamental religious questions is not in itself undesirable -- in short , recognizing that we will never create an earthly " utopia , " and that we must lay aside divisive religious questions and concentrate on seeking to unify politically around a core of more secularly-oriented concerns such as peace , justice , liberty , and equality . Adherents of this approach might be called " Pluralists . " <p> Many Christians would object to this alternative on the grounds that God 's main concern is the salvation of all people , that He " desires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of the truth " ( 1 Tim . 2:4 ) . Why not , they would argue , use all available means , including political means , to bring about what is God 's will ? The answer to this is to recognize that Christ taught that spiritual goals and political goals are not synonymous . In Matthew 22:21 , Christ said that Christians are to " render to Caesar the things that are Caesar 's ; and to God the things that are God 's . " Christ here was affirming that spiritual commitments are to be distinguished from political commitments . <p> Christ perfectly modeled this distinction between spiritual and temporal ends . He never advocated the overthrow of the Roman government , or even its adjustment , in favor of a more theocratic order . He never identified Himself with any particular form of government , nor did He even remotely suggest that it was the duty of human government to aid His mission . Christ was amazingly unconcerned with much of what falls under the rubric of politics . He preached against tyranny and oppression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men to Himself and it was apparently a secondary matter to Him what specific form of government ( monarchy , democracy , etc. ) men live under . The temporal was for him far less important than the eternal ; thus He focused on the spiritual rather than the physical aspects of Kingdom building . The idea of a " Christian " nation , it seems , was foreign to him . <p> If Christ was largely unconcerned with many of the details of politics and far more concerned with soul winning , perhaps Christians should be too . Christians in America , it seems , frequently become too concerned with the need for government to become identified with Christian principles . Many Christians wrongly believe that Christianity will flourish in a more Christian political environment . History shows the opposite to be true . Christianity grew more rapidly than at any time in history in the first three centuries after Christ 's death when Christians were persecuted for not bowing the knee to Caesar . Christians understandably sought more favorable political conditions for themselves . By the fourth century , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it by means of outright persecution ; the emperor Constantine placed it on a neutral basis with other religions in 313 A.D. , and in 380 A.D. Theodosius made it the official religion of the empire . The faith thereafter lost much of its vitality , distinctiveness , and vigor , owing to its preferred political status . Merged with government , Christianity became consumed with temporal affairs -- armies , police , crime , taxation , commerce , economics , etc. -- and less focused on the mission outlined for it by Christ and the apostles . In its witness , the Church gradually began to rely less on the power of its spiritual message than on the power of the sword to enforce its political will . The persecuted had turned persecutor . More recently , much the same phenomenon occurred in China following the Communist Revolution in 1949 . An immediate crackdown on religion that lasted some twenty-five years resulted in the greatest spread of Christianity to have occurred in China before or since . <p> I would hope not to be misunderstood here . I am not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , politics is part of the moral universe , and Christians are rightly concerned with morality . In their daily lives , Christians are to be Christian citizens , not merely Christians . But because the Bible does not require that political and governmental affairs be Christian , those who are Christians are free to join with non-Christians in our democratic form of government to make laws that from the perspective of the American people as a whole , not from the perspective of their own interpretation of the Bible , best ensure the common good . In this process , negotiation and compromise are not dirty words , and Christians should be satisfied with laws that fall short of biblical standards as they understand them . Biblical standards may dictate the contributions that Christians make toward the formation of laws , but Christians do not fail God if the negotiated product , even laws on such controversial areas as abortion , school prayer , and homosexuality , do not meet their standards . The goal , even duty , of Christians should be to assist the government in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shared morality , not to set up a Kingdom of God on earth . <p> Meanwhile , Christians should vigorously pursue the spiritual mission of the Church , which is to do good to all people ( Galatians 6:10 ) , and to spread the gospel ( Matthew 28:19-20 ) . They might call upon the government to assist them in the first task , but not in the second . They can expect government to assist those who struggle against the common enemies of man -- tyranny , poverty , disease , and war -- but to expect the government , or to attempt to use the government . to spread the gospel is a perspective that is absolutely foreign to the Bible . In fulfilling the first task , Christians participate with other citizens who share membership in our nation . In fulfilling the second , they look only to the Christian community , what the apostle Peter called a " holy nation " ( 1Peter 2:9 ) . This approach pays a healthy respect to the principle of separation between church and state . If Christians want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make America a religious state with the authority to define its religious character in ways that might impede their ability to determine God 's truth for themselves and to share it with others . <p> VI <p> Many of Hunter 's " orthodox " are victims of the rising tide of American nationalism , which seeks to express itself in terms of religious faith and which would make Christianity in America a culture religion or tribal faith . As James E. Wood , Jr . has said , " To be a good American and a good Christian are not one and the same and can never be . Americanism can never be synonymous with true Christian faith . God and Christianity are not something our nation can possess or which can be contained within our national life ; nor is God some national resource we can harness or use to serve our national interests . God remains always above culture and nation , which are under His divine judgment . The mere claim of any nation that it is on God 's side is of no real consequence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blasphemy than godliness . " To give to Caesar that which belongs only to God is surely one of the great profanations of modern man . The genius of the American tradition is the affirmation that authentic religious faith is a voluntary thing . True religious commitment does not issue from political initiative or legislative decree , but only from the voluntary responses of free men to God 's calling . <p> Christians should never take pride in being engaged in a culture war . The very language of culture war is self-defeating . It pushes people into opposite camps instead of encouraging them to seek areas of common ground . The " us against them " approach hardly lives up to the love and compassion that Christ called His people to live by . Christians are better off encouraging all Americans to be full and equal participants in the political process , not to see who wins , but to share in crafting a government that best serves all of the people . It was Reinhold Niebuhr who said that it is the achievement of democracy , not a sectarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public philosophy . In the end , Christians ' greatest priority should be the gospel , not creating a Christian state . The result might be a more but never completely Christian culture , but one achieved through persuasion , not law . <p> By DEREK H. DAVIS <p> 