America’s civil religion is deceptive and dangerous

Image:

The Apotheosis of Washington, as seen looking up from the capitol rotunda, by
Constantino Brumidi (1865)

There are several interconnected myths or theological themes that permeate American civil religion. Most if not all of these themes have been present for many years (even dating back to before the nation’s founding), but of course they have evolved with the nation.

One foundational theopolitical conviction or sacred myth is exceptionalism, the idea that the United States has a unique place in God’s plan, that it is in some sense chosen. In American history this exceptionalism has manifested itself in such beliefs as the Puritan “city on a hill” (Matt. 5:14), Manifest Destiny, and the identification of the U.S. as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12; 9:5). Similar to and sometimes growing out of exceptionalism is American messianism, the notion that the U.S. has a special, central vocation in the salvation of the world, particularly through the spread of American practices of freedom and American-style democracy. This belief in an exceptional role and messianic destiny to spread freedom is the backbone of America’s national religion. Arising from it is a myth of innocence, of possessing “an element of messianic inerrancy.” This third myth holds that America always operates in the world according to the highest principles of ethics and justice, and that when criticized or attacked, America is the innocent, righteous victim.

Belief in an exceptional, messianic role naturally generates another sacred conviction (and associated practices), that of extreme patriotism, extreme love of country, and even nationalism, the belief that one’s nation state, in this case the U.S., is superior to all other nation states. “Nationalism” (as I am using it here) is extreme devotion to one’s country as “the greatest nation of earth” and therefore worthy of nearly unqualified—and sometimes thoroughly unqualified—allegiance. This devotion is often based on the conviction that the nation is chosen, blessed, and commissioned by God, its power and wealth being signs of God’s approval. The U.S. is “one nation under God.” Thus devotion to one’s country and its mission in the world is ultimately a religious devotion. Greatness is defined especially as financial, political, and/or military strength, and this definition carries with it the conviction that both America and Americans should always enjoy and operate from a position of strength and security. Weakness is un-American; Americans want to be number one. For many, these kinds of secular strengths are seen as manifestations of power from God.

American civil religion values human liberty and rights as a divine gift and considers it, perhaps on par with strength, as one of the highest national values. The protection and furtherance of freedom is therefore a divine mandate and mission. The operative notion of both political (corporate) and personal (individual) freedom is that of God-given (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, an idea derived from both the Enlightenment and from one of the most important sacred texts of this civil religion, the Declaration of Independence. A corollary myth is a form of secularized Calvinism, the notion that hard work mixed with a degree of generosity toward others will inevitably result in greater and greater freedom and prosperity, often understood as a sign of God’s blessing. (The so-called “prosperity gospel” is an offshoot of this myth.)

Yet another sacred myth in American civil religion is that of militarism and sacred violence. This is the conviction that part of America’s exceptionalism and messianic place in history is its divinely granted permission, indeed its divine mandate, to use violence (killing of native peoples, invasions, wars, etc.) when peaceful means are undesirable or unsuccessful. Such allegedly sacred violence has justified various forms of expansion and, more recently, of the messianic mission or protecting and promoting freedom and justice. This myth can foster a crusade mentality (“ridding the world of evil”) rooted in an apocalyptic dualism, but without the corollary commitment to nonviolence we will find in Revelation.

The “myth of redemptive violence undergirds American popular culture, civil religion, nationalism, and foreign policy,” argues Walter Wink [Engaging the Powers, 13]. It underwrites the belief that killing and/or dying for the nation—especially in military service, and particularly dying for one’s country—is the highest form of both civic and religious devotion. After all, the civil religion argument goes, quoting but misinterpreting Jesus, “greater love has no man that this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13; RSV).

These are some of the basic sacred myths and convictions of American civil religion. This ideology, or theology, has remarkable parallels with the Roman imperial theology discussed above.

+++

It has often been said that the most common idols in the West are Power, Sex, and Money; with this I am not in any profound disagreement. However, inasmuch as these idols are connected to a larger vision of life, such as the American dream, or the inalienable rights of free people, they become part of a nation’s civil religion. I would contend, in fact, that the most alluring and dangerous deity in the United States is the omnipresent, syncretistic god of nationalism mixed with Christianity lite: religious beliefs, language, and practices that are superficially Christian but infused with national myths and habits. Sadly, most of this civil religion’s practitioners belong to Christian churches, which is precisely why Revelation is addressed to the seven churches (not to Babylon), to all Christians tempted by the civil cult...

The sacred myths of civil religion are expressed, reinforced, honored, and propagated in sacred symbols, spaces, rituals, and holy-days. These occasions use sacred language, music, texts, and stories. Space does not permit a full discussion, but some of these American symbols and practices—often with close parallels elsewhere—are listed here.

Some Symbols and Practices of American Civil Religion

Sacred Symbols and Spaces:

• National flags as sacred objects

• Nationals flags (sometimes juxtaposed with “Christian flags”) in churches

• Crosses in military of other non-church contexts (e.g., military medals in the form of a cross)

• Blending of Christian and national images (e.g., cross and flag, Jesus and flag)

Sacred Rituals and holy-days

• Civil rituals made religious

• Official days of prayer

• National feast/holy days (e.g., Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans’ Day)

• State funerals

• Moments of silence

• Congressional chaplain

• Prayer at political and civic events

• Prayer around the flag pole

• National days of prayer, prayer breakfasts

• The pledge of allegiance, at school or other civic gatherings, to the flag as icon of the nation “under God”

• The national anthem at sporting events

• Swearing on the Bible

• Chaplain’s prayers before military combat missions

Religious rituals made civil

• Pledge of allegiance in church

• Recognition of military or veterans in church at national holidays

• Prayers for those “serving our country” or “the/our troops” in church

• Sermons and children’s sermons on patriotic themes

• Use of patriotic music in worship

• Religious events on national holidays

• Religious gatherings in times of national crisis

Sacred language

• War as “mission”

• “Sacred” duty/honor

• Divine passive voice: “we are called” (e.g., at a certain moment in history, usually before a war)

“God bless America”/“God bless our troops”

• Echoes of/allusions to the Bible in civic and political discourse

• Attribution of biblical language for God or God’s people to the U.S. (e.g., “the light of the world”; “city on a hill”)

• Lack of theological specificity (e.g., the omission of Jesus’ name from public prayer and Scripture reading)

Sacred music/national hymns

• Patriotic songs or sacred devotion with much (“God Bless America”), some (“America/My Country Tis of Thee”), or even no explicit religious language (the national anthem)

• Hymns with explicitly nationalistic and militaristic language (e.g., “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” “Navy Hymn)

• Hymns with allegorical militaristic language interpreted literally and nationalistically (e.g., “Onward Christian Soldiers”)

Sacred Texts

• The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights

• Famous speeches by sacred leader and heroes (e.g., Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King)

• Biblical texts that seem to underwrite national values such as freedom and redemptive violence

Sacred stories of sacred leaders and heroes (“saints”/“martyrs”/“prophets”)

• Founding Fathers

• Leaders in crisis (e.g., Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage)

• Great warriors (e.g., Patton)

• Veterans in general

These various aspects of American civil religion come to expression in two kinds of venues: the civil and political (speeches, parades, school events, sporting events, military ceremonies, etc.), on the one hand, and the religious (church worship services), on the other.

From this listing we can recognize another aspect of the similarity between Roman and contemporary American civil religion. The former involved the politicization (specifically, the imperialization) of the sacred, and the sacralization of the political (specifically, the imperial). This is parallel to what happened in the U.S.: many civic and political events have a religious dimension, and religious events sometimes take on a civic and political—specifically nationalistic, and even militaristic—dimension. This process continues to this day, despite the formal constraints of law and consequent changes in practice (such as the abolition of school prayer).

One major difference, however, is extremely important to recognize: the syncretism of Rome’s civil religion involved the blending of Roman ideology and pagan religiosity, but the syncretism of American civil religion involves the blending of American ideology and Christian, or at least theistic and quasi-Christian, religiosity. The early church had a natural suspicion of Roman civil religion because it was so blatantly pagan and idolatrous—though even it could be appealing. Contemporary Christians can much more easily assume that Christian, or quasi-Christian, ideas, language, and practices are benign and even divinely sanctioned. This makes American civil religion all the more attractive—that is, all the more seductive and dangerous. Its fundamentally pagan character is masked by its Christian veneer.

Michael J. Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly (pp. 48-50; 56; 50-54)

Whether a man may merit anything from God?

Image: Detail from Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas over Averroes by Benozzo Gozzoli (1420–97)

It is written (Jeremiah 31:16): “There is a reward for thy work.” Now a reward means something bestowed by reason of merit. Hence it would seem that a man may merit from God.

Merit and reward refer to the same, for a reward means something given anyone in return for work or toil, as a price for it. Hence, as it is an act of justice to give a just price for anything received from another, so also is it an act of justice to make a return for work or toil. Now justice is a kind of equality, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3), and hence justice is simply between those that are simply equal; but where there is no absolute equality between them, neither is there absolute justice, but there may be a certain manner of justice, as when we speak of a father's or a master's right (Ethic. v, 6), as the Philosopher says. And hence where there is justice simply, there is the character of merit and reward simply. But where there is no simple right, but only relative, there is no character of merit simply, but only relatively, in so far as the character of justice is found there, since the child merits something from his father and the slave from his lord.

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man's good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man's merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (I-II Question 114, Article 1)

Whether the justification of the ungodly is the remission of sins?

Justification taken passively implies a movement towards justice, as heating implies a movement towards heat. But since justice, by its nature, implies a certain rectitude of order, it may be taken in two ways: first, inasmuch as it implies a right order in man's act, and thus justice is placed amongst the virtues—either as particular justice, which directs a man's acts by regulating them in relation to his fellowman—or as legal justice, which directs a man's acts by regulating them in their relation to the common good of society, as appears from Ethic. v, 1.

Secondly, justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior, i.e. to the reason; and this disposition the Philosopher calls “justice metaphorically speaking” (Ethic. v, 11). Now this justice may be in man in two ways: first, by simple generation, which is from privation to form; and thus justification may belong even to such as are not in sin, when they receive this justice from God, as Adam is said to have received original justice. Secondly, this justice may be brought about in man by a movement from one contrary to the other, and thus justification implies a transmutation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid state of justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the ungodly, according to the Apostle (Romans 4:5): “But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly,” etc. And because movement is named after its term “whereto” rather than from its term “whence,” the transmutation whereby anyone is changed by the remission of sins from the state of ungodliness to the state of justice, borrows its name from its term “whereto,” and is called “justification of the ungodly.”

Reply to Objection 1. Every sin, inasmuch as it implies the disorder of a mind not subject to God, may be called injustice, as being contrary to the aforesaid justice, according to 1 John 3:4: “Whosoever committeth sin, committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.” And thus the removal of any sin is called the justification of the ungodly.

Reply to Objection 2. Faith and charity imply a special directing of the human mind to God by the intellect and will; whereas justice implies a general rectitude of order. Hence this transmutation is named after justice rather than after charity or faith.

Reply to Objection 3. Being called refers to God's help moving and exciting our mind to give up sin, and this motion of God is not the remission of sins, but its cause.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ((I-II, Question 113, Article 1)

On media provoking panic way out of proportion to the risks

Of course government officials can’t grab the media megaphone if the media themselves don’t make it available. The mass media tend to magnify the latest health concern and broadcast it to millions of people at once. This has the effect of elevating an issue to a grand scale and provoking panic way out of proportion to the risks. I call this phenomenon the “bug du jour”. . . Many of the bugs du jour are cause for concern only among narrow segment of the population. Only a small portion of those who believe they are at risk really are, and few who become infected actually die. But a strange disease that kills only a few people still makes for good headlines if the story is strategically hyped.

Marc Siegel, False Alarm: The Truth about the Epidemic of Fear (pp. 17, 19)   

Panic over SARS was public health run amok

Panic over SARS was public health run amok. All the public posturing took SARS out of its proper context and contributed to a scare that ultimately did more harm than the virus itself. By focusing only on worst-case scenarios regarding the spread of SARS, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control were in effect controlling the population through fear… while striving to commit massive resources to their agendas… Make people afraid, make people feel they need you to protect them, and they allow you free reign with your agenda. For SARS, fear was the central pathogen, where the risks of acquiring the new mutated cold virus were far less than the fear of being infected… Uncertainty about what the risk really was promoted the panic—seeing SARS in the news caused us to personalize it… In reality, SARS was a garden variety respiratory cold virus, nothing sexy, nothing sinister.

Marc Siegel, False Alarm: The Truth about the Epidemic of Fear (pp. 145-7)

Thomas Aquinas on operating and cooperating grace

Image: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. xvii): “God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, begins by operating that they may will.” But the operations of God whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:110:2) grace may be taken in two ways; first, as a Divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us.

Now in both these ways grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. For the operation of an effect is not attributed to the thing moved but to the mover. Hence in that effect in which our mind is moved and does not move, but in which God is the sole mover, the operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that we speak of “operating grace.” But in that effect in which our mind both moves and is moved, the operation is not only attributed to God, but also to the soul; and it is with reference to this that we speak of “cooperating grace.” Now there is a double act in us. First, there is the interior act of the will, and with regard to this act the will is a thing moved, and God is the mover; and especially when the will, which hitherto willed evil, begins to will good. And hence, inasmuch as God moves the human mind to this act, we speak of operating grace. But there is another, exterior act; and since it is commanded by the will, as was shown above (I-II:17:9) the operation of this act is attributed to the will. And because God assists us in this act, both by strengthening our will interiorly so as to attain to the act, and by granting outwardly the capability of operating, it is with respect to this that we speak of cooperating grace. Hence after the aforesaid words Augustine subjoins: “He operates that we may will; and when we will, He cooperates that we may perfect.” And thus if grace is taken for God's gratuitous motion whereby He moves us to meritorious good, it is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace.

But if grace is taken for the habitual gift, then again there is a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is “being,” and the second, “operation”; thus the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ((I-II, Question 111, Article 2)

"Satan has taken over in Bogalusa" - Sheriff Randy "Country" Seal

Image: Washington Parish Sheriff Randy “Country” Seal

“It’s about drugs, it’s about meanness, it’s about sin… Satan has taken over in Bogalusa and it’s time that we take it back.” ~ Washington Parish Sheriff Randy “Country” Seal

BOGALUSA, La. — Thirteen people were wounded during a shooting this weekend in Bogalusa.

The shooting occurred as a large gathering was taking place for a memorial service for Dominique James, a man whose body was found this week in a wooded area, police said.

Bogalusa Police Major Wendell O'Berry said in a Monday press conference, "The scene was chaos" upon officers arriving to the scene.

Gunfire broke out at 9:12 p.m. Saturday around Martin Luther King Drive and East 4th Street, according to the Bogalusa Police Department.

Officers said upon their arrival, shots were still being fired.

Over 50 shell casings of various calibers were recovered at the scene. O'Berry says it is believed multiple shooters were involved.

O'Berry says the crowd size of the memorial service was estimated between 500-800 people at the time of the shooting.

It is believed that the shooting was drug related, according to Bogalusa Police.

The victims included 12 men and 1 woman, aging in range from 22-45, according to officials...

Read more: Bogalusa Police: 'Chaos' ensued at memorial service mass shooting attended by estimated 800 people https://www.wdsu.com/article/multiple-people-wounded-in-bogalusa-shooting-officials-say/32549664

Thomas Aquinas on divisions of grace

Considered as single, he [Aquinas] takes grace to be God’s action in people leading them to the beatific vision. Considered as divisible, he views it as something that we can classify in six ways.

To be precise, Aquinas distinguishes between (1) “sanctifying grace” (gratia gratum faciens), (2) “freely bestowed grace” (gratia gratis data), (3) “operating grace” (gratia operans), (4) “cooperating grace” (gratia cooperans), (5) “prevenient grace” (gratia praeveniens), and (6) “subsequent grace” (gratia subsequens). And the breakdown here amount to the following conclusions:

1. Sanctifying grace is grace by which God makes people holy or directed to God or united to God.

2. Freely bestowed grace is grace by which God supernaturally helps people who help others to become holy. Here Aquinas is thinking that, for example, someone might be given the gift of prophecy and thereby aid someone else to will what God wills.

3. Operating grace is the grace by which God moves us to start willing what God wills.

4. Cooperating grace is the grace by which God continues to move us to will what God wills.

5. Prevenient grace is grace that comes to people before what they go on to do by means of grace.

6. Subsequent grace is grace that comes after what God has previously brought about in them by grace.


Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae: A Guide and Commentary  (pp.225-26)

Thomas Aquinas on the need for grace

Image: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

He [Aquinas] argues: (1) While people can know some truth without grace, there are truths to which only grace can lead them to assent (1a2ae,109,1); (2) While people can do some good without grace, they need grace to act perfectly (1a2ae,109,2); (3) While people considered as human are naturally drawn to the goodness that is God, the descendants of Adam need grace in order to love God above all things (1a2ae,109,3); (4) We now need God’s grace in order to be morally perfect and to act in accordance with ways in which God has taught us by revelation to behave (1a2ae,109,4); (5) Nobody can merit eternal life without the assistance of grace (1a2ae,109,5); (6) People cannot prepare themselves for grace without the assistance of grace (1a2ae,109,6); (7) Nobody can “return from the state of guilt to the state of justice” without grace (1a2ae,109,7); and (8) The descendants of Adam, unlike Adam himself, cannot refrain from sinning mortally without grace and need grace in order to persevere in good even after they have already received grace (1a2ae,109,8 and 10).

Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica: A Guide and Commentary  (p. 225)  

Man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well

Man’s nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (Article 1). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfill it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ((I-II, Question 109, Article 2)

"The content of this book has to be read quickly and worldwide..."

If everything that politicians, researchers, and journalists sell us as truth is actually false, how could all the mistakes go undiscovered for so long? Shouldn’t the conclusions outlined in this book have gone off like a bomb a long time ago?

The primary reason this has not happened is that it’s too simple for many people to imagine. Intelligent researchers have chosen to overlook it for decades. It is too shocking for us to believe we’re been lied to by the very people charged with safeguarding our health. Above all, none of them are interested in these simple pursuits [e.g., proper nutrition and exercise, avoiding toxins and pharmaceuticals]. Doctors would have to go on a totally different path in order to achieve fame and honor (or abandon such a goal altogether and change the definition of success). Medical statisticians would be sawing off the very branch on which they perch. Pharmaceutical companies would have to completely overhaul their bottom line-obsessed industry and actually invest resources in developing effective medications instead of ones that do nothing, harm, or even kill.

Ultimately, the only individuals who would profit from this would be patients. But first, they have to educate themselves and take back control of their own bodies. And with this book, we hope we can make a contribution to this pursuit—for a better, more peaceful, and healthier future for our beloved planet and all its inhabitants.

Torsten Engelbrect & Claus Köhnlein, Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense (p. 266)

Foreword to Virus Mania by Etienne de Harven...

The Content of this Book Has to be Read, Quickly and Worldwide

The book Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein presents a tragic message that will, hopefully, contribute to the re-insertion of ethical values in the conduct of virus research, public health policies, media communications, and activities of the pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, elementary ethical rules have been, to a very dangerous extent, neglected in many of these fields for an alarming number of years.

When American journalist Celia Farber courageously published, in Harper’s Magazine (March 2006) the article “Out of control—AIDS and the corruption of medical science,” some readers probably attempted to reassure themselves that this “corruption” was an isolated case. This is very far from the truth as documented so well in this book by Engelbrecht and Köhnlein. It is only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption of research is a widespread phenomenon currently found in many major, supposedly contagious health problems, ranging from AIDS to Hepatitis C, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination practices (human papillomavirus or HPV vaccination).

In research on all of these six distinct public health concerns scientific research on viruses (or prions in the case of BSE) slipped onto the wrong track following basically the same systematic pathway. This pathway always includes several key steps: inventing the risk of a disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines. This guarantees large financial returns. But how is it possible to achieve all of this? Simply by relying on the most powerful activator of the human decision making process, i.e. FEAR!

We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear. And both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears, fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business. Research hypotheses covering these areas of virus research are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they are established by “consensus.” This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses. An important tool to keep dissenting voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels ranging from the popular media to scientific publications.

We haven’t learnt well from past experiences. There are still many unanswered questions on the causes of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and on the role of viruses in post-WWII polio (DDT neurotoxicity?). These modern epidemics should have opened our minds to more critical analyses. Pasteur and Koch had solidly constructed an understanding of infection applicable to many bacterial, contagious diseases. But this was before the first viruses were actually discovered. Transposing the principles of bacterial infections to viruses was, of course, very tempting but should not have been done without giving parallel attention to the innumerable risk factors in our toxic environment; to the toxicity of many drugs, and to some nutritional deficiencies.

Cancer research had similar problems. The hypothesis that cancer might be caused by viruses was formulated in 1903, more than one century ago. Even today it has never been convincingly demonstrated. Most of the experimental laboratory studies by virus-hunters have been based on the use of inbred mice, inbred implying a totally unnatural genetic background. Were these mice appropriate models for the study of human cancer? (we are far from being inbred!) True, these mice made possible the isolation and purification of “RNA tumor viruses,” later renamed “retroviruses” and well characterized by electron microscopy. But are these viral particles simply associated with the murine tumors, or are they truly the culprit of malignant transformation? Are these particles real exogenous ineffective particles, or endogenous defective viruses hidden in our chromosomes? The question is still debatable.What is certain is that viral particles similar to those readily recognized in cancerous and leukemic mice have never been seen nor isolated in human cancers. Of mice and men…

However, by the time this became clear, in the late 1960s, viral oncology had achieved a dogmatic, quasi-religious status. If viral particles cannot be seen by electron microscopy in human cancers, the problem was with electron microscopy, not with the dogma of viral oncology! This was the time molecular biology was taking a totally dominant posture in viral research. “Molecular markers” for retroviruses were therefore invented (reverse transcriptase for example) and substituted most conveniently for the absent viral particles, hopefully salvaging the central dogma of viral oncology. This permitted the viral hypothesis to survive for another ten years, until the late 1970s, with the help of increasingly generous support from funding agencies and from pharmaceutical companies. However by 1980 the failure of this line of research was becoming embarrassingly evident, and the closing of some viral oncology laboratories would have been inevitable, except that…

Except what? Virus cancer research would have crashed to a halt except that, in 1981, five cases of severe immune deficiencies were described by a Los Angeles physician, all among homosexual men who were also all sniffing amyl nitrite, were all abusing other drugs, abusing antibiotics, and probably suffering from malnutrition and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). It would have been logical to hypothesize that these severe cases of immune deficiency had multiple toxic origins. This would have amounted to incrimination of these patients’ lifestyle…

Unfortunately, such discrimination was, politically, totally unacceptable. Therefore, another hypothesis had to be found—these patients were suffering from a contagious disease caused by a new...retrovirus! Scientific data in support of this hypothesis was and, amazingly enough, still is totally missing. That did not matter, and instantaneous and passionate interest of cancer virus researchers and institutions erupted immediately. This was salvation for the viral laboratories where AIDS now became, almost overnight, the main focus of research. It generated huge financial support from Big Pharma, more budget for the CDC and NIH, and nobody had to worry about the lifestyle of the patients who became at once the innocent victims of this horrible virus, soon labeled as HIV.

Twenty-five years later, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has totally failed to achieve three major goals in spite of the huge research funding exclusively directed to projects based on it. No AIDS cure has ever been found; no verifiable epidemiological predictions have ever been made; and no HIV vaccine has ever been successfully prepared. Instead, highly toxic (but not curative) drugs have been most irresponsibly used, with frequent, lethal side effects. Yet not a single HIV particle has ever been observed by electron microscopy in the blood of patients supposedly having a high viral load! So what? All the most important newspapers and magazine have displayed attractive computerized, colorful images of HIV that all originate from laboratory cell cultures, but never from even a single AIDS patient. Despite this stunning omission the HIV/AIDS dogma is still solidly entrenched. Tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of major pharmaceutical companies continue to make huge profits based on the HIV hypothesis. And not one single AIDS patient has ever been cured…

Yes, HIV/AIDS is emblematic of the corruption of virus research that is remarkably and tragically documented in this book.

Research programs on Hepatitis C, BSE, SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination policies all developed along the same logic, that of maximizing financial profits. Whenever we try to understand how some highly questionable therapeutic policies have been recommended at the highest levels of public health authorities (WHO, CDC, RKI etc.), we frequently discover either embarrassing conflicts of interests, or the lack of essential control experiments, and always the strict rejection of any open debate with authoritative scientists presenting dissident views of the pathological processes. Manipulations of statistics, falsifications of clinical trials, dodging of drug toxicity tests have all been repeatedly documented. All have been swiftly covered up, and none have been able to, so far, disturb the cynical logic of today’s virus research business. The cover-up of the neurotoxicity of the mercury containing preservative thimerosal as a highly probable cause of autism among vaccinated children apparently reached the highest levels of the US government... (see article “Deadly Immunity” from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in chapter 8)

Virus Mania is a social disease of our highly developed society. To cure it will require conquering fear; fear being the most deadly contagious virus, most efficiently transmitted by the media.

Etienne de Harven, MD
Professor Emeritus of Pathology at the University of Toronto and Member of the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York (1956 - 1981)
Member of Thabo Mbeki’s IDS Advisory Panel of South Africa
President of Rethinking AIDS

Link to .pdf of this Forward here
Link to purchase Virus Mania here
Link to .pdf of this article here

Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?

Image: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

All the differences assigned between the Old and New Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection. For the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed in another way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous habits, are directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of some outward cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or the promise of some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the like. Hence the Old Law, which was given to men who were imperfect, that is, who had not yet received spiritual grace, was called the “law of fear,” inasmuch as it induced men to observe its commandments by threatening them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises. On the other hand, those who are possessed of virtue, are inclined to do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not on account of some extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is called the “Law of love”: and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of the virtues, chiefly of charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of themselves to those objects, not as to something foreign but as to something of their own. For this reason, too, the Old Law is described as “restraining the hand, not the will” [Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a man refrains from some sins through fear of being punished, his will does not shrink simply from sin, as does the will of a man who refrains from sin through love of righteousness: and hence the New Law, which is the Law of love, is said to restrain the will.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Question 107, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2)

The law of the Gospel, called the New Law

Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Romans 3:27): “Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith”: for he calls the grace itself of faith “a law.” And still more clearly it is written (Romans 8:2): “The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death.” Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that “as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful”: and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): “What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit?”

The Apostle says (Romans 1:16): “I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” But there is no salvation but to those who are justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): “There,” i.e. in the Old Testament, “the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid”; “here,” i.e. in the New Testament, “it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified.” The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 3:6) “The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth”: and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ((I-II, Question 106, Articles 1&2)

Subjection to princes and obedience to magistrates

Image: John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1). 

Remind them to be subject to principalities and powers - From many passages it is evident that the Apostles had great difficulty in keeping the common people subject to the authority of magistrates and princes. We are all by nature desirous of power; and the consequence is, that no one willingly is subject to another. Besides, perceiving that nearly all the principalities and powers of the world were at that time opposed to Christ they thought them unworthy of receiving any honor. The Jews especially, being an untamable race, did not cease to mutiny and rage. Thus, after having spoken of particular duties, Paul now wishes to give a general admonition to all, to observe peaceably the order of civil government, to submit to the laws, to obey magistrates. That subjection to princes, and that obedience to magistrates, which he demands, is extended to edicts, and laws, and other parts of civil government.

What he immediately adds, To be ready for every good work, may be applied to the same subject, as if he had said, “All who do not refuse to lead a good and virtuous life, will cheerfully yield obedience to magistrates.”  For, since they have been appointed for the preservation of mankind, he who desires to have them removed, or shakes off their yoke, is an enemy of equity and justice, and is therefore devoid of all humanity. Yet if any prefer to interpret it without any immediate relation to the context, I have no objection; and indeed there can be no doubt that, in this sentence, he recommends to them kind offices towards their neighbors throughout their whole life.

John Calvin, Commentary on Titus 3:1

The right ordering of rulers in a state or nation

Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the “kingdom,” where the power of government is vested in one; and “aristocracy,” which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Question 105, Article 1)

Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?

Image: Law and Gospel (or Law and Grace) by Lucas Cranach the Elder from about 1529

The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only “dead,” but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.

The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above (Article 2). For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Galatians 3:24. Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet come.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ((I-II, Question 104, Article 3)