# General Discussion > Opinions >  Should God be removed from politics and law?

## LeBrok

Do you think, that at this time and age, in countries with separation of religion from state, we still should tolerate any mention of God, gods or any other supernatural creatures, in our anthems, oath, constitution, law proceedings, etc? 

Should we continue with it on grounds of tradition or dominant religion only?

Should we include all walks of life believing in multiple gods or spirits and accommodate their beliefs in socio/political system beside christian religion? 

What about atheists who don't believe in supernatural, how would we accommodate their "beliefs" in anthems, constitution and oaths?

Should we go for simplicity now and skip all spiritual aspects from constitution, anthems, court oaths and remove religious symbols from public institutions?

----------


## Goga

What if I want to choose a different option. I'm against constitution, oaths and anthems. It is a sign and the beginning of the fascism. I'm pro the 'modern' tribalism. Every high-cohesive group should have their own 'accepted' rules. Instead of a common *national* constitution, social contract & Commonwealth (Leviathan) a la Hobbes or 'Du Contrat Social' of Rousseau I'm for treaties between high-cohesive groups. Society = many different high-cohesive groups together. Each high-cohesive group in a common society needs to have own rules. I'm talking about pluralism, about *many* _'Du Contrat Social'_ within a society: be it a federal (non-uninational) state, confederalism between 'tribal' communities . To run a society properly is to make good treaties between people and not to obey to only 1 fascist constitution, since groups with a common society do differ from each other. I don't want to go deeper, since it is not the moment to talk about positive and negative liberty/freedom.

Those treaties between high-cohesive groups have nothing to do with God. We shouldn't involve God into the earthly matters.

----------


## Goga

If there has to be a fascist "_constitution, oath and anthem_" for everybody within let say a nation state, then there should be no reference to god(s). Religion is something personal, you don't have to bring other people in your personal life. That's why I have chosen the first option.

----------


## Joey D

Good question.

Has the increased secularisation of the Western world aided economic and social progression over the last few centuries?

On most measures you would have to say yes, so there is an argument for keeping religion and all mentions of God out of the law, out of parliamentary procedure, out of public administration, out of government policy, etc.

Having said that, any tradition which has lasted two millennia has some value of itself - as long as it does not diminish any of the above (economic and social progress).

So I have zero problem with people wanting to follow certain christian practices (such as baptism, marriage, funeral rites, Christmas and Easter) even though they don't really believe in either of the old and new testaments, or the holy trinity, or the resurrection, or the infallability of the pope, etc - as long as there is no hindrance to economic and social progress, people can follow whatever rites they wish.

In the Australian Parliament, and I assume this occurs in other Western parliaments such as in Canada and America, there are non-denominational prayers before the opening of each parliamentary session. This can be viewed as a traditional act, as a moment of reflection, a nod to some higher power, whatever, I don't have a problem with such traditions - as long as it does not hinder economic and social progress.

Re the Christian based holidays, in a country such as Australia, non-christian denominations are probably growing at a faster rate than christian denominations because of migration, although the christian denominations remain the overwhelming majority. At what point does a society question whether it's appropriate to base holidays on one segment of the population? I guess that has to be determined by the citizens of individual nation-states, weighing up tradition, the make-up of religious ideology, the importance attached thereto, cultural significance, the time of year, schooling and business requirements - ultimately through the democratic process.

----------


## Fire Haired14

I'm iffy on this. You can't fully separate religion from government because religion is a huge part of society/culture and it's people of societies/cultures who populate our governments. Religious opinion is one type of opinion out of many opinions. An official opinion is expressed by our governments which not everyone agrees with. It's up to us to pick and chose which opinion types should be removed from our governments.

----------


## Goga

some important non-secular theocratic nation states:

ISRAEL
Saudi Arabia
Iran

----------


## bicicleur

how far do you go?
is a christmas tree a religious symbol?
you can go ad infinitum in these kind of debates, and some people do
I agree with Goga, you can question oaths and anthems too as 'nationalistic'
in the end, you strip all values

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm iffy on this. You can't fully separate religion from government because religion is a huge part of society/culture and it's people of societies/cultures who populate our governments. Religious opinion is one type of opinion out of many opinions. An official opinion is expressed by our governments which not everyone agrees with. It's up to us to pick and chose which opinion types should be removed from our governments.


Opinions are cool, but why atheists need to swear on the bible in court?

----------


## LeBrok

> I agree with Goga, you can question oaths and anthems too as 'nationalistic'
> in the end, you strip all values


They are nationalistic, therefore they should unite nation and not divide. They should agree with values of the whole nation, not only part of it. Even if it is a bigger part.

----------


## bicicleur

> They are nationalistic, therefore they should unite nation and not divide. They should agree with values of the whole nation, not only part of it. Even if it is a bigger part.


I don't think replacing religion with nationalism is a good idea.
Everybody should make up his own set of ideas and values, it should not be imposed.

----------


## bicicleur

> Opinions are cool, but why atheists need to swear on the bible in court?


It is a tradition. It can be abolished. But why should atheists have a problem with that. For them it is just a book.

----------


## LeBrok

> It is a tradition. It can be abolished. But why should atheists have a problem with that. For them it is just a book.


For "god sake" bible didn't even stop Christians from lying. Do you want to continue this charade?

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't think replacing religion with nationalism is a good idea.


If there is one religion in a country it will unite people. If there are many religions they will divide a country. Whether you like it or not religion is a nationalistic force. Nation making or breaking. 



> Everybody should make up his own set of ideas and values, it should not be imposed.


So there shouldn't' be one anthem for all, but everybody should have their own?

----------


## bicicleur

> For "god sake" bible didn't even stop Christians from lying. Do you want to continue this charade?


So for you the bible isn't just a book.

----------


## bicicleur

> If there is one religion in a country it will unite people. If there are many religions they will divide a country. Whether you like it or not religion is a nationalistic force. Nation making or breaking. 
> So there shouldn't' be one anthem for all, but everybody should have their own?


for me it is ok to abolish all religions

I just don't need an anthem either

----------


## LeBrok

> So for you the bible isn't just a book.


 That's the point, so swearing on it and expecting positive results is just a farce. That's why it should be stopped. It is even worse for spiritual people of other religions. To acknowledge existence and direct an oath to someone's god is sacrilegious. In what way this will help them to tell the truth and only truth?

Remember that the whole purpose of swearing on the bible is to make people to tell only the truth.

----------


## bicicleur

and in which countries do they still do this?

----------


## LeBrok

> and in which countries do they still do this?


http://religionandamericanlaw.blogsp...ible-oath.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion/obeidallah-bible/
I'm sure we could find few others.

----------


## Joey D

I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.

The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.

We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.

Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).

Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.

Some predominantly Islamic states have occasionally experimented with modernity and a degree of secularisation, Turkey being the most notable, but even then, this tension has always existed which stops Turkey from continuing along that path of secularisation.

Other examples are Indonesia and Malaysia, which both have significant minorities, and have had some success at a form of secularisation, but even then, those same tensions lurk, and underscore the difficulty Islam faces in undergoing its own Reformation.

----------


## LeBrok

> I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.
> 
> The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.
> 
> We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.
> 
> Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).
> 
> Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.


Rome yes, and it was peachy till Constantine made Christianity religion of the state and the dark ages started. It lasted way into Renaissance and beyond. Even in 20th century experimentation with democracy and secularization in Europe collapsed when new ideologies of fascism and dictatorial violent communism took hold in place of religion. There were and are various stages of development of countries, notably in Eastern Europe, when religion comes back with vangines to bite freedoms of others.




> Some predominantly Islamic states have occasionally experimented with modernity and a degree of secularisation, Turkey being the most notable, but even then, this tension has always existed which stops Turkey from continuing along that path of secularisation.
> 
> Other examples are Indonesia and Malaysia, which both have significant minorities, and have had some success at a form of secularisation, but even then, those same tensions lurk, and underscore the difficulty Islam faces in undergoing its own Reformation.


 I don't deny that countries with dominant Islam will struggle for a long time towards democracy, inclusiveness and equality for all citizens, but I don't see their struggle much different than what Europe went through for centuries. Actually their way might be easier and faster, when we give them good example, proven solutions and some slack. 
And no, no slack for fundamentalism and terrorism. No tolerance for intolerance.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Rome yes, and it was peachy till Constantine made Christianity religion of the state and the dark ages started. It lasted way into Renaissance and beyond.


Blaming a thing which existed alongside a negative event for that negative event is simplistic. And were the "dark ages" really that negative of an event or did romantic thinkers in the renaissance exaggerate the greatness of ancient times and exaggerate the darkness of their own time. Also, the predecessor for many countries wasn't the impressive Roman empire. Were Pagan Poles better off than Medieval Catholic Poles? Were Pagan Swedes better off than Medieval Catholic Swedes?

----------


## Joey D

> I don't deny that countries with dominant Islam will struggle for a long time towards democracy, inclusiveness and equality for all citizens, but I don't see their struggle much different than what Europe went through for centuries. Actually their way might be easier and faster, *when we give them good example*, proven solutions and some slack.


Well, this is problematic, the example is mostly good, but not always a shining light. I'm not sure it will be all that easy, and the recent "help", some Islamic countries have received from the West would be enough to put anyone off.

In any event, the starting point is that the interconnectedness of religion/law/politics/economics in Islam is far, far tighter than it ever was for Christianity, and that is a real stumbling block. It would be the equivalent of asking Western countries to completely ignore Christmas, not have public holidays, not to give gifts, not to celebrate it in any way, form or manner. At this point in time, Muslims find it impossible to seperate out God/law/politics, etc, it is very deeply ingrained - there will be no major secularisation in Islamic countries in our lifetime.

----------


## LeBrok

> Well, this is problematic, the example is mostly good, but not always a shining light. I'm not sure it will be all that easy, and the recent "help", some Islamic countries have received from the West would be enough to put anyone off.
> 
> In any event, the starting point is that the interconnectedness of religion/law/politics/economics in Islam is far, far tighter than it ever was for Christianity, and that is a real stumbling block. It would be the equivalent of asking Western countries to completely ignore Christmas, not have public holidays, not to give gifts, not to celebrate it in any way, form or manner. At this point in time, Muslims find it impossible to seperate out God/law/politics, etc, it is very deeply ingrained - there will be no major secularisation in Islamic countries in our lifetime.


It could be accomplished first in Bosnia and Albania first, or maybe it already is?

----------


## bicicleur

> http://religionandamericanlaw.blogsp...ible-oath.html
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion/obeidallah-bible/
> I'm sure we could find few others.


nobody is obliged to swear on the bible in court
affirmation is sufficient
https://www.quora.com/Do-atheists-ha...fying-on-court
I think you're making a fuss about nothing

----------


## bicicleur

> It could be accomplished first in Bosnia and Albania first, or maybe it already is?


look at the middle east 50 years ago and today
look what is happening in Turkey today

there is no progress, these countries are going backward

----------


## Maleth

> I was just listening to an interesting discussion on the radio about why it's so difficult for predominantly Islamic nation-states to follow the secularisation path which the West has followed for hundreds of years.
> 
> The overwhelming alignment of religion/politics/economics/law in Islam, actually, the word I'm looking for is stronger than just alignment: inter-connectedness, entwined, interdependence, etc - suggests the quasi impossibility of Islam undergoing its own Reformation, or if it is to undergo its own Reformation, it will be longer, harder and bloodier.
> 
> We can trace the roots of this all the way back to the Prophets of the respective religions.
> 
> Despite, being the son of God, a part of the Holy Trinity, Jesus still commands his followers to obey the law of Caesar - so there is immediately a distinction between civil law and the law of God from the outset, the two live side by side, and thus the opening to lever one from the other exists and has progressively played itself out in the West to reach the point where we are today (which is a good thing in my view).
> 
> Muhammad was an altogether different type of prophet, who was able to spread Islam during his lifetime, as a political leader and military general. During his lifetime he was able to establish the principle that there can only be one law, what we know today to be Sharia law.
> ...


One thing the West will not grasp is that while Religious law runs supreme in Most Islamic countries, there are lots and lots of things happening clandestinely in the Islamic world. Gambling, prostitution, drugs....you name it and its there. Its a don't ask don't tell policy. Its just that publicly they need to look good but they still sin heavily (like most humans do) if you know what I mean :). These systems have been entrenched for so long even pre Islamic times, that are very much accepted part of the system. Its mostly, Islamic people that lived in the west that push for 'democratic' reforms and not the locals themselves.

----------


## Boreas

> What if I want to choose a different option. I'm against constitution, oaths and anthems. It is a sign and the beginning of the fascism. I'm pro the 'modern' tribalism


Definitely fasicm, if those are about race based nationalistic constitution, oaths and anthems.




> We shouldn't involve God into the earthly matters.


 :Good Job: 




> but everybody should have their own?


How will that possible? Sorry but I don't agree. 

Some symbolic things should be single, such as flag, anthem etc.




> look at the middle east 50 years ago and today
> look what is happening in Turkey today
> 
> 
> there is no progress, these countries are going backward


Actually, Erdogan was a totally good politician, Even he is denying what he said in the begining of the week, in the last day of week. He said I gave the order to hit Russian plane, but now he is saying "FETO" did.

About that issue which LeBrok said, Erdogan took great steps.

Like canceling T.C (Summary of Turkish Republic) infront of many formal organisation in Turkey.



People put this symbol into their names as a prostest. These people right nationalistic or *secular followers of Ataturks party.* 


Cancelling Students oath. I read that Oath in every school days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Oath_(Turkey)

These steps were taking just to make Kurds happy.

Actually I am very pleased about these. The problem he is starting to put his owns and not obey laws.

----------


## bicicleur

> One thing the West will not grasp is that while Religious law runs supreme in Most Islamic countries, there are lots and lots of things happening clandestinely in the Islamic world. Gambling, prostitution, drugs....you name it and its there. Its a don't ask don't tell policy. Its just that publicly they need to look good but they still sin heavily (like most humans do) if you know what I mean :). These systems have been entrenched for so long even pre Islamic times, that are very much accepted part of the system. Its mostly, Islamic people that lived in the west that push for 'democratic' reforms and not the locals themselves.


It is very hypocrit, especialy when you consider that certain priviliged groups are allowed to commit all these sins, as long as they don't do it publicly and other groups will be punished very severely for that.

----------


## LABERIA

> It could be accomplished first in Bosnia and Albania first, or maybe it already is?


I can not speak about Bosnia but Albania is a secular country and is not an muslim or christian country. There are different religions in Albania. A large part of people who are from an muslim background are atheists or agnostics. The marriages between people of different religions are a common thing. In a table during a family holiday, you can find united people even belonging to more than two different religions. As for the religiosity of the people, the Albanians are not the best example. lol

----------


## LABERIA

I voted for the third option. In our anthem God is mentioned only once:

Fourth stanza (not usually sung)

Se Zoti vetë e tha me gojë
Që kombe shuhen përmbi dhé,
Po Shqipëria do të rrojë;
Për ty, për ty luftojmë ne!

For God himself proclaimed:
The nations of the earth shall wane,
And yet will live, will thrive Albania.
For you, for you we fight.

And in Albanian Constitution:

Preamble

We, the people of Albania, proud of our history and with faith in the future; with determination to build a social and democratic state based on the rule of law; with the aim of respecting universal human values; with a spirit of tolerance and religious coexistence; with belief that human dignity and personhood should be protected, as well as the prosperity of the whole nation, toward the goals of peace, well-being, culture and social solidarity; with the centuries-old aspiration of Albanianism, and national identity and unity; with a deep belief that justice, peace, harmony and cooperation among nations are among the highest values of humanity, We establish this Constitution:

Article 10

The Republic of Albania does not have an official religion.
The state is neutral in questions of belief and conscience, and also, it guarantees the freedom of their expression in public life.
The state guarantees equality of religious communities.
The state and the religious communities respect the independence of one another mutually and work together for the good of each of them and for all.
Agreements between the state and religious communities are regulated on the basis of agreements entered into between their representatives and the Council of Ministers. These agreements are ratified by the Assembly.
Religious communities are juridical persons. They have independence in the administration of their properties according to their principles, rules and canons.

----------


## Tomenable

> They are nationalistic, therefore they should unite nation and not divide. *They should agree with values of the whole nation, not only part of it. Even if it is a bigger part.*


So we should change our anthem every time when values of the nation change (basically every generation or so)? Or for example when ethnic, racial or religious composition of the nation changes dramatically, due to massive immigration?

For example the Swedish anthem dates back to times when Sweden was 99% White and 99% Christian.

Should they change it now only because they allowed some Non-Whites and Muslims to immigrate?

Nope, immigrants should adjust their own values to values of the place where they migrate.

----------


## LeBrok

> I can not speak about Bosnia but Albania is a secular country and is not an muslim or christian country. There are different religions in Albania. A large part of people who are from an muslim background are atheists or agnostics. The marriages between people of different religions are a common thing. In a table during a family holiday, you can find united people even belonging to more than two different religions. As for the religiosity of the people, the Albanians are not the best example. lol


Any religiosity in anthem, oath or coarts?

Edit, I saw your second post. Thanks

----------


## Sile

It is not about GOD, it is about the *anti-Gender equality* that these religious constitutions promote.............a promotion that should not be accepted by any nation.

----------


## LeBrok

> So we should change our anthem every time when values of the nation change (basically every generation or so)? Or for example when ethnic, racial or religious composition of the nation changes dramatically, due to massive immigration?


It already changed few times in Poland and other countries. It is a normal thing to update an anthem. The problem is that your conservative side doesn't even want to believe that it is a normal thing. Is Poland running out of poets and musicians?




> For example the Swedish anthem dates back to times when Sweden was 99% White and 99% Christian.


They don't sing Viking songs anymore. Times changed, right? They don't sing pagan religion songs either, because they became Christians at some point and totally changed character of their country. 
Don't be so afraid. If anything, the change is normal and not status quo.




> Should they change it now only because they allowed some Non-Whites and Muslims to immigrate?
> 
> Nope, immigrants should adjust their own values to values of the place where they migrate.


Again you are scared of changes. Who are you to tell Swedes what to do? They chose their destiny, and you acting like a tyrant who would force them to do what you want.
Should emigrants change religion too? Should atheist Swedes change their "values" too and start believing in christian god? Just because they are changing the christian character of a country and you don't like it.

I do believe that social values of emigrants should match values of destination country. For sake of both involved parties. I just don't get why would you mention it in this context, if social values have little or nothing to do with religion. So what the values have to do with removing god from anthem and oaths?

----------


## LeBrok

> It is not about GOD, it is about the *anti-Gender equality* that these religious constitutions promote.............a promotion that should not be accepted by any nation.


Do you mean "promoting gender inequality"? Could you elaborate how so?

In Canadian anthem, word "sons" was replace with "all", which is more inclusive.

----------


## Twilight

In my opinion, It is up to the local Government to decide. I don't believe the "Star Spangled Banner" had any reference to God however our national Anthem was written in the battlefield of the Battle of Baltimore in 1814. However there is a reference to God in the pledge of Allegiance, American coins and the Declaration of Independence. I personally believe we should keep the old documents the way they are in spite of religious references because part of the first amendment is "freedom of religion"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore

https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02...-constitution/

----------


## LeBrok

> In my opinion, It is up to the local Government to decide. I don't believe the "Star Spangled Banner" had any reference to God however our national Anthem was written in the battlefield of the Battle of Baltimore in 1814. However there is a reference to God in the pledge of Allegiance, American coins and the Declaration of Independence. I personally believe we should keep the old documents the way they are in spite of religious references because part of the first amendment is *"freedom of religion"*
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore
> 
> https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02...-constitution/


And I believe it includes* freedom of no religion* too.

----------


## Twilight

> And I believe it includes* freedom of no religion* too.


Good point, in retrospect the first amendment might have not been the best argument and attached to the origional documents also. Well, either way your country chooses it's fine with me. But It would be cool if the American documents did get some editing, then the origional Drafts would be preserved to capture the aura and attitudes of the American Revolution at the time ^_^

----------


## LeBrok

> Good point, in retrospect the first amendment might have not been the best argument and attached to the origional documents also. Well, either way your country chooses it's fine with me. But It would be cool if the American documents did get some editing, then the origional Drafts would be preserved to capture the aura and attitudes of the American Revolution at the time ^_^


You know that the idea behind "freedom of religion" is not to help religion to flourish. It is not like creation of reserves to protect endangered species. The main idea behind crafting this law in US, or other places like Europe, was to make sure religious wars stop. In 15, 16 and 17 century there was a lot of religious killing and wars going on in US and in Europe. Millions of people died on many sides. Something had to be done. That's why we have a law "freedom of religion", which guarantee that nobody can kill you because of your religion. Meaning that religious wars and killing is illegal. It gives power to the state to stop any religious war or killing, and this gives everybody a right to believe in what they want. By this spirit of "freedom of religion" right, atheist's right to chose not to believe in spiritual world, is protected too.

----------


## Twilight

> You know that the idea behind "freedom of religion" is not to help religion to flourish. It is not like creation of reserves to protect endangered species. The main idea behind crafting this law in US, or other places like Europe, was to make sure religious wars stop. In 15, 16 and 17 century there was a lot of religious killing and wars going on in US and in Europe. Millions of people died on many sides. Something had to be done. That's why we have a law "freedom of religion", which guarantee that nobody can kill you because of your religion. Meaning that religious wars and killing is illegal. It gives power to the state to stop any religious war or killing, and this gives everybody a right to believe in what they want. By this spirit of "freedom of religion" right, atheist's right to chose not to believe in spiritual world, is protected too.


Yes of course don't get me wrong, you have the right to be atheist for sure? Although Im not sure what you mean by endangered species but it seems you are catching my drift when I meant "aura and attitudes". If we talk about Geneology, Religious persecution was the reason why almost half of my ancestors came to America. And we must learn from the mistakes of our elders if we are not to repeat the mistake of religious fighting, true stuff gets repeated anyway but the blow can be cushioned by love; to drive out hatred. ^_^

----------


## LeBrok

> Yes of course don't get me wrong, you have the right to be atheist for sure? Although Im not sure what you mean by endangered species but it seems you are catching my drift when I meant "aura and attitudes". If we talk about Geneology, Religious persecution was the reason why almost half of my ancestors came to America. And we must learn from the mistakes of our elders if we are not to repeat the mistake of religious fighting, *true stuff gets repeated anyway but the blow can be cushioned by love; to drive out hatred. ^_^*


 Amen, my friend. :)

----------


## firetown

Removal thereof is impossible as long as there is an appeal within it to a substantial percentage of the population. What bothers me about this however is the pandering aspect and that type of mirroring exists on a much higher level than just the religion or the belief system. These references merely reflect something that "is there" and easily used and manipulated by those who have researched the effect of their statements tailored towards them.

----------

