WE GIVE THE LAW AUTHORITY NOT GOD

God has all power but that does not automatically give God the right to tell people what to do. And the fact that God is good still does not give God the right to boss people for before we can listen to him we have to be sure he is good meaning that we should know what good is and obey without him.
 
This tells us that strictly speaking nobody has any authority at all unless we give it to him. God has no right to give anybody authority. That is up to us.
 
If we can be good without God then he should not be bossing us for bossing is an evil thing and needs to be necessary to be justified. So God represents immorality and evil and unjustifiable power – the last thing is just what the clergy want him for. We are his slaves. Any rewards he gives he gives not because we are sons but they are like the gifts a slave master can give his slave. If it is right to have a slave then it is hard to see how it could be right to be kind to the slave if we don’t wish to be. If a person should not be compensated for their work they should not be compensated for their work. Rewards make God worse not better for they are not what he can think he ought to give though they are good for us. The answer that God made us out of goodness and therefore is entitled to treat us as his property in a good way is wrong for God should not need anything from us. He should have made us for goodness and not for himself.
 
Parents make their children but their children are never their property even when they are in prams. The idea of us being divine property is useful to any religious leader who wants us to feel inferior for his own sinister agenda.
 
The First Epistle of John says that the man who thinks he can love the invisible and untouchable God while hating the neighbour he can see and touch is being foolish. The implication is that loving people is more understandable than loving God for you can’t be as sure that there is a God as you can be that there are people. This totally contradicts and rejects the zany Jesus of the Synoptic gospels who insists that as the rep of God he comes before parents and wives and children and that God is to be loved above all things and things are only to be cared for because God says so and not for themselves.

EXAMPLES OF RELIGION WORKING AGAINST DEMOCRACY
 
The Roman Catholic Church through keeping the clergy away from the laity as a separate caste and clothing them in strange robes and involving them in secrecy and arcane rituals and using them as the usual teachers of the people is able to put an aura of divine authority around them. They seem like speakers of the oracles of God. The Church likes to use a little ditty, "Jesus never said hear the Bible but hear the Church". This gives Catholics a fear of contradicting the Church or a reluctance to think for themselves. The Catholics are the sheep and the priests are the shepherds. Too often then when a Catholic opposes contraception or abortion or whatever, it has less to do with having good reasons and more to do with the priests saying those things are wrong. The Gestapo were made to feel the same way. It's dangerous and lazy and immature. If you are confident in your arguments against or for something you are showing your insecurity by appealing to authority. Those Catholics who principally believe that birth control or euthanasia are wrong for the pope says so are showing that they aren't as sure as they pretend and are trying to hurt you. If God set up the Church then he set up a system of emotional and political manipulation. The true democrat eschews such things. Democracy is rule by the people and if they are being lied to and tricked and bullied then the result is not democracy.

Roman Catholicism is clear that anybody who opposes evangelistic activity or who promotes contraception should not be voted for. Some might reason that they will do much good that will make up for this aberration so that it is okay to vote for them. But the Church says the tendency is for anti-Christian laws to be made and stay made so there is no justification. There is no doubt about it: the Church is a danger to us all when it tries to manipulate our futures with its attempts to determine how we shall vote.
 
Barack Obama in January 2008 stated, "At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts regardless of the consequences. To base ones life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
 
This is grave heresy according to the gospels and the Christian faith. Clearly, a Christian cannot be a democrat or be involved in democratic politics. Obama is indicating that religion is uncompromising and dangerous which contradicts religion's claim to be right and good and guided by God.
 
Religion must be counteracted for even if most of its supporters do not believe in the fusion of Church and state the clergy can lead them to do so provided they have religious beliefs for them to use as a foundation for fanaticism which they do have. So the beliefs have to be destroyed as a precaution.