Actually, in many ways, important ways, there are great differences between the President and those seeking to become president: the economy and how to heal it, the size and role of government in business and individual life, to name two big ones. But there is another level which is not discussed, nor analyzed by pundits and commentators. It is rarely mentioned; never, anyway, in popular media. But it a matter where a difference in approach would offer a clear choice to voters; it would change everything.
So what’s the difference? All current candidates, and almost all Westerners, are orthodox believers in two essential doctrines of the Enlightenment:
1) the essential goodness of humans, and
(2) the inevitability of human progress.
The first of these two must end in the latter, and the latter is wholly dependent on the first. In any system, political or otherwise, these two must exist together. One is not present without the other. To hold that humans are essentially good is to see humans can always be changed through therapy, education, medication, behaviour modification, etc. This is much of the reason why prisons are now called penitentiaries, a place for the penitent, those who have determined to change their ways. In this understanding of humankind, bad behaviour is the result of unresolved or unhealed issues in a person’s life. Through better programs, this can be changed. Both the “left” and the “right” believe this, although the diagnoses and cures for societal ills, as proposed, are radically different. Progress, too, is inevitable, because people are essentially good. So any setback is not systemic or necessary, but temporary, however great the setback. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc & etc are mighty setbacks indeed.
Both doctrines have an understanding of evil, or sin, and both have an idea of what is the good. It is at this point “left” and “right” separate, but both come from the same source. At the risk of oversimplification, the left tends to make poverty a virtue, and wealth a vice. The right, switches these two. Most of this is observable by how both the poor and wealthy are described by either system. One tends to see the poor as almost always the victim of wealthy capitalists; the other sees the wealthy victim as hamstrung by high taxation that funnels unreasonable resources to the poor. Whether from the right or left, solutions tend to assume that a new program will solve all, and tweaking the human condition into cooperation is all that’s needed. Unfetter the wise industrialist and wealth will trickle down; raise the standards of living of the poor and wealth will trickle up. Both see the problem from the standpoint of a naturally good humankind and neither approach accepts that this foundation is crumbling.
Both of these extremes (and for the sake of simplicity I did make them extreme) fail to understand human nature, and there’s the problem. Both the idea of the essential goodness of humans and the inevitability of human progress ignore the nasty truth about human nature, and the empirical evidence of history. As C. K. Chesterton said, “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”
I won’t deal here with history’s refutation of the goodness of man and the inevitability of progress. What concerns me is human nature, which is Biblically understood as depraved. Depravity means,
“Sin has permeated the totality of our being: body, mind, intellect, emotions, and will. Every aspect of human personhood has been corrupted radically by sin. This corruption reaches to the very core of our being so that everything about us is polluted by sin. Isaiah alluded to this when he said, ‘All our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment’ (Isa. 64:6). Sin has so radically corrupted us that we are ‘dead’ to spiritual things.” Scott E. Churnock, “Dead Men Can’t Dance” in Modern Reformation, January, 2012.
If sin has infected our thinking, it needs to be admitted as a possible cause of the current mess. It isn’t simply someone else’s sin (the party across the aisle), but everyone’s problem.
Think of the economic sphere alone. When, in the course of serious political debate, has greed come up as an essential part of human nature? Now depravity shows up in many places, and greed is one of them.
If speaking of greed, and therefore sin, makes this a “religious article,” then so be it. The secular mind often can not get its mind around the fact that a religion can be factually true. The Biblical description of humans as sinful, and in the realm of economics, given to greed, is, I think empirically true. If it is true, it is true for all people, whether or not they subscribe to a particular religion.
Poverty is not a virtue, although there are many virtuous poor. Scripture tells us that some are poor because they deserve to be, and some because they are impoverished by the misdeeds of others. Wealth in the Bible is not described as a virtue so much as a danger, with great responsibilities, with warnings against victimising the poor.
What would politics look like if it was accepted that we are all sinful, and given the opportunity, will be sinful in finances? Would being financially poor be enough to receive benefits? What other kinds of tests might be applied? If not all the poor are “deserving,” then why are the wealthy necessarily so? If it may be assumed that progress will not necessarily follow our best efforts, how can governments lead the governed into times that are truly dark?
The Western world is in a horrible financial state. The United States particularly so. History tells us that no country survives indefinitely, and it may be that the USA is near its end in the sense that most of us think of it. It may not be. But until reality is brought to the discussion, there is simply no cure. An economics that does not recognize human weakness will come to institutionalize it. No society can build on an un-real foundation.
“Since no level of government has released cost figures for abortion, we can only estimate what the direct costs of abortion are.”
- Who pays?
- Who decided?
- Medically necessary?
- What have the courts said?
- What does it cost taxpayers?
- Some published estimates on the cost of abortions
- Do taxpayers want to pay for abortions?
- Provincial summary
In Canada, almost all abortions are paid for by taxpayers. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland, abortion is paid for under the publicly funded system whether it is performed in a hospital or private clinic. In New Brunswick, hospital abortions are paid for by taxpayers but private clinic abortions are not. No abortions are performed in Prince Edward Island. The province does cover abortions performed elsewhere if they have been declared by a doctor to be medically necessary and have been pre-authorized and approved.
Under the Constitution, health care is a provincial responsibility. Provinces decide what services will be covered by the publicly funded health care system. In his March 2001 interim report on health care, Liberal Senator Michael Kirby, chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, wrote that “the determination of what services meet the requirement of medical necessity is made in each province by the provincial government in conjunction with the medical profession.”
For provinces to receive funding from the federally-administered Canadian Health and Social Transfers, they must follow the guidelines of the Canada Health Act (CHA) which requires provinces to fund “medically necessary” services, but it does not define what those are and there is no list of specific services.
This was confirmed by Health Canada in response to an access to information request from MP Garry Breitkreuz. Health Canada replied: “This is further to your request under the Access to Information Act, dated August 1, 2001, for: documents, reports & correspondence in the department that provide evidence that abortions are “medically necessary”. I regret to inform you that after a thorough search of all likely record holdings, departmental officials have confirmed that they have no records relevant to your request.”
Politicians sometimes say they pay only for medically necessary abortions but most do not require any evidence of medical necessity. Physicians simply submit the bill to the health care system for reimbursement. Only Prince Edward Island requires a specific medical reason for abortion to be covered by taxpayers.
In 2001, the president of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League argued before the House of Commons Finance Committee that, “Women who make the decision to abort a child at a certain point in their lives do so for socio-economic reasons. Sometimes it is a desire to complete their education and become financially independent. In many cases, couples with children wish to restrict their family in order to provide adequate financial support.” (Hansard, October 31, 2001)
Almost all abortions performed in Canada are done because a pregnant woman chooses to end the pregnancy for personal reasons, not medical ones. Medical necessity is rarely part of the decision.
Until 2005, no court in Canada had ever ruled that abortions must be publicly funded. In 2005, Winnipeg judge Jeffrey Oliphant ruled that the failure to pay for private clinic abortions was a “gross violation” of women’s rights. The decision was overturned in 2006 by the province’s Court of Appeal because the judge had not heard any evidence on the issues involved. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused. The provincial government had already begun paying for all abortions in 2004 but not as a result of the court case.
In 2006 a Quebec judge ordered the province to pay the full costs of private clinic abortions. The province had been covering a portion of these costs. The provincial government complied without appealing the decision.
Since no level of government has released cost figures for abortion, we can only estimate what the direct costs of abortion are. (These estimates exclude any indirect costs, that is, costs for follow-up procedures for immediate complications and side effects, and longer-term treatments for associated post-abortion problems. See book,Women’s Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence. Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2002.)
We use the figure of $80 million a year, based on an average cost of $800 per abortion for 100,000 abortions. In 2004, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported 100,039 abortions performed in Canada on Canadian women. They admit that is at least 10% below the actual number of abortions performed because of reporting problems from some provinces and private clinics. Also, in 2004 the number of abortions performed in Manitoba clinics went unreported. So, the $80 million figure is already low for the 2004 year.
Since hospital abortions constitute more than half of all abortions performed in Canada, we used an average of the $500 cost (at the low end) of a clinic abortion and $1000 (again, at the low end) estimate for hospital abortions. The $800 cost per abortion is in fact a very conservative estimate and the $80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions.
- “Abortions at clinics are significantly more cost-effective than abortions at hospitals (mostly because hospitals use general anaesthesia (sic) rather than a local anaesthesia (sic)). The average cost for an early surgical abortion at a clinic is about $500, while the cost for the same abortion at a hospital can exceed $1000.”
- Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, “Position Paper #2,”http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/funding.html
About 500 abortions are performed at Morgentaler’s clinic in Fredericton each year. Patients pay between $500 and $750 for medical care.
- Canadians for Choice, “Reality Check: A close look at accessing abortion services in Canadian hospitals,” 2006.
- “Women who have BC medical coverage are required to pay $80.00 to cover the cost of medications … women who do not have BC medical coverage are required to pay $370.00 … if you do not have valid medical coverage from a Canadian provincial/territorial medicare insurance plan then you will be required to pay the full cost of the procedure which is $1300 for surgery done at the hospital.”
- Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic, www.viwomensclinic.ca/cost.html
“The average cost for an early surgical abortion at a private abortion clinic is about $500, while the cost for the same abortion at a hospital can exceed $1000,” said Joyce Arthur of Pro-CAN. “Hospitals have bigger bureaucracies and more overhead. Most use general anesthesia for abortions, while clinics use less expensive local anesthesia and conscious sedation. Abortion clinics deliver more ‘bang for the buck’ than hospitals.”
- Abortions are significantly more expensive in hospitals. An early surgical abortion at a clinic costs between $450 and $550, while the same abortion at a hospital can be estimated at about $900 to $1200.
The opinions of Canadians toward the use of public funds for abortion have not changed much over the last several years. Only 32% of Canadians indicate that abortion should always be financed using a health-funded tax system.
Just under half of Canadians (47%) think abortion should be financed through taxes but only in case of medical emergencies, such as a threat to the mother’s life or in the case of rape or incest and 17% think that abortion should be a private responsibility, either out-of-pocket or using Blue Cross or other private health care plans. Almost two-thirds of Canadians polled therefore, do not support tax-funding of all abortions, the current situation in 8 of 10 provinces.
Environics Poll Results from September, 2007
Environics Poll Results from October, 2006
Environics Poll Results from November, 2005
Environics Poll Results from October, 2004
Leger Poll Results from November 20, 2003
In 2004, Statistics Canada reported 901 abortions in Newfoundland. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital and clinic abortions. There is one private abortion clinic in the province. In 2006 three of the fourteen hospitals in Newfound and Labrador offered abortion services.
There were 1,936 abortions performed in Nova Scotia in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions. There are no private abortion clinics. The Morgentaler clinic closed its doors in 2003. Of the 30 hospitals in Nova Scotia, four provided abortion services in 2006.
Prince Edward Island
There were 143 abortions performed on women from PEI in 2004. However, no hospitals in the province perform abortions. Women who want abortions must leave the province. Taxpayers pay the cost of abortions in out-of-province hospitals if the procedure is determined to be medically necessary by a doctor in PEI. These must be pre-authorized and approved. A spokesman for PEI’s health department reported in 2007 that about 10 such abortions are approved each year. Clinic abortions are not covered by the provincial health care system.
Statistics Canada reported 1,042 abortions in New Brunswick in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions. They do not pay any of the costs of abortions performed at the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton. Henry Morgentaler is suing the province to have taxpayers pay the full cost of abortions performed at his for-profit clinic. The Morgentaler clinic is the only clinic in New Brunswick. Three of the 28 hospitals provides abortion services.
There were 30,588 abortions reported to Statistics Canada in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions and, since 2006 the full cost of clinic abortions. Of the 129 hospitals in Quebec, 31 provide abortion services. Eighteen CLSCs (provincial government health clinics) offer abortion services. There are at least four abortion clinics in Quebec.
There were 35,238 abortions reported in Ontario in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital and clinic abortions. There are eight private abortion clinics in the province. Out of 194 hospitals, 33 provide abortion services in 2006.
There were 2,752 abortions performed in Manitoba in 2004, according to Statistic Canada. Manitoba taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital and clinic abortions. There is one private abortion clinic in the province. Of the 52 hospitals in the province, two provide abortion services
There were 1,806 abortions performed in the province in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions. Four of the 68 hospitals in Saskatchewan provide abortion services. There are no private clinics in Saskatchewan.
There were 11,283 abortions performed in Alberta in 2004, according to Statistics Canada. Taxpayers pay the full cost of abortions in six out 100 hospitals that provide abortions and in the province’s two private, for-profit clinics.
Statistics Canada reported 14,738 abortions performed in B.C. in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of all hospital and clinic abortions. There are four private abortion clinics in B.C. Of the province’s 90 hospitals, 26 provide abortion services.
The number of abortions in the Yukon in 2004 was suppressed in order to meet the confidentiality requirements of Canada’s Statistics Act. Taxpayers pay for hospital abortions. Of the two hospitals in the Yukon Territories, one provides abortion services. There are no private clinics in the Yukon but the province pays part of the cost for women to have abortions at a B.C. clinic.
There were 270 abortions in the NWT in 2004. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions. Abortion services are provided at two of the three hospitals in the Territories. There are no private clinics in the NWT.
Due to incomplete reporting to Statistics Canada, residents in Nunavut who obtained abortions were excluded from the official 2004 abortion statistics. Taxpayers pay the full cost of hospital abortions and the travel expenses to the nearest facility when referred by a doctor. The one hospital in Nunavut does provide abortion services although women over 13 weeks must travel to Ottawa.
Some great Schaeffer quotes collected by Doug Groothuis:
We as Bible-believing evangelical Christians are locked in a battle. This is not a friendly gentleman’s discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ. It is a conflict on the level of ideas between two fundamentally opposed views of truth and reality. It is a conflict on the level of actions between a complete moral perversion and chaos and God’s absolutes. But do we really believe that we are in a life and death battle? Do we really believe that the part we play in the battle has consequences for whether or not men and women will spend eternity in hell? Or whether or not in this life people will live with meaning or meaninglessness? Or whether or not those who do live will live in a climate of moral perversion and degradation? Sadly, we must say that very few in the evangelical world have acted as if these things are true. Rather than trumpet our accomplishments and revel in our growing numbers, it would be closer to the truth to admit that our response has been a disaster.
-Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984), pp. 31-32
Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless. If our reflex action is always accommodation regardless of the centrality of the truth involved, there is something wrong. Just as what we may call holiness without love is not God’s kind of holiness, so also what we may call love without holiness, including when necessary confrontation, is not God’s kind of love.
-Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984), pp. 64-65
Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measels. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true. When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, “not many men are in the room” — that is, although world views have many variations, there are not many basic world views or basic presuppositions.
-Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), p. 20
Suppose we awoke tomorrow morning and we opened our Bibles and found two things had been taken out, not as the liberals would take them out, but really out. Suppose God had taken them out. The first item missing was the real empowering of the Holy Spirit, and the second item the reality of prayer. Consequently, following the dictates of Scripture, we would begin to live on the basis of this new Bible in which there was nothing about the power of the Holy Spirit and nothing about the power of prayer. Let me ask you something: what difference would there be from the way we acted yesterday? Do we really believe God is there? If we do, we live differently.
-Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 4, p. 40
(a) Holiness is the habit of being of one mind with God, according as
we find His mind described in Scripture. It is the habit of agreeing in
God’s judgment–hating what He hates–loving what He loves–and
measuring everything in this world by the standard of His Word. He who
most entirely agrees with God, he is the most holy man.
(b) A holy man will endeavour to shun every known sin, and to keep
every known commandment. He will have a decided bent of mind toward
God, a hearty desire to do His will–a greater fear of displeasing Him
than of displeasing the world, and a love to all His ways. He will feel
what Paul felt when he said,”I delight in the law of God after the
inward man” (Rom. vii. 22), and what David felt when he said, “I esteem
all Thy precepts concerning all things to be right, and I hate every
false way.” (Psalm cxix. 128.)
(c) A holy man will strive to be like our Lord Jesus Christ. He will
not only live the life of faith in Him, and draw from Him all his daily
peace and strength, but he will also labour to have the mind that was
in Him, and to be “conformed to His image.” (Rom. viii. 29.) It will be
his aim to bear with and forgive others, even as Christ forgave us–to
be unselfish, even as Christ pleased not Himself–to walk in love, even
as Christ loved us–to be lowly-minded and humble, even as Christ made
Himself of no reputation and humbled Himself. He will remember that
Christ was a faithful witness for the truth–that He came not to do His
own will–that it was His meat and drink to do His Father’s will–that
He would continually deny Himself in order to minister to others–that
He was meek and patient under undeserved insults–that He thought more
of godly poor men than of kings–that He was full of love and
compassion to sinners–that He was bold and uncompromising in
denouncing sin–that He sought not the praise of men, when He might
have had it–that He went about doing good–that He was separate from
worldly people–that He continued instant in prayer–that He would not
let even His nearest relations stand in His way when God’s work was to
be done. These things a holy man will try to remember. By them he will
endeavour to shape his course in life. He will lay to heart the saying
of John, “He that saith he abideth in Christ ought himself also so to
walk, even as He walked” (1 John ii. 6); and the saying of Peter, that
“Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow
His steps.” (1 Peter ii. 21.) Happy is he who has learned to make
Christ his “all,” both for salvation and example! Much time would be
saved, and much sin prevented, if men would oftener ask themselves the
question, “What would Christ have said and done, if He were in my
(d) A holy man will follow after meekness, longsuffering, gentleness,
patience, kind tempers, government of his tongue. He will bear much,
forbear much, overlook much, and be slow to talk of standing on his
rights. We see a bright example of this in the behaviour of David when
Shimei cursed him–and of Moses when Aaron and Miriam spake against
him. (2 Sam. xvi. 10; Num. xii. 3.)
(e) A holy man will follow after temperance and self-denial. He will
labour to mortify the desires of his body–to crucify his flesh with
his affections and lusts–to curb his passions–to restrain his carnal
inclinations, lest at any time they break loose. Oh, what a word is
that of the Lord Jesus to the Apostles, “Take heed to yourselves, lest
at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness,
and cares of this life” (Luke xxi. 34); and that of the Apostle Paul,
“I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any
means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”
(1 Cor. ix. 27.)
(f) A holy man will follow after charity and brotherly kindness. He
will endeavour to observe the golden rule of doing as he would have men
do to him, and speaking as he would have men speak to him. He will be
full of affection towards his brethren–towards their bodies, their
property, their characters, their feelings, their souls. “He that
loveth another,” says Paul, “hath fulfilled the law.” (Rom. xiii. 8.)
He will abhor all lying, slandering, backbiting, cheating, dishonesty,
and unfair dealing, even in the least things. The shekel and cubit of
the sanctuary were larger than those in common use. He will strive to
adorn his religion by all his outward demeanour, and to make it lovely
and beautiful in the eyes of all around him. Alas, what condemning
words are the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the Sermon on the
Mount, when laid alongside the conduct of many professing Christians!
(g) A holy man will follow after a spirit of mercy and benevolence
towards others. He will not stand all the day idle. He will not be
content with doing no harm–he will try to do good. He will strive to
be useful in his day and generation, and to lessen the spiritual wants
and misery around him, as far as he can. Such was Dorcas, “full of good
works and almsdeeds, which she did,”–not merely purposed and talked
about, but did. Such an one was Paul: “I will very gladly spend and be
spent for you,” he says, “though the more abundantly I love you the
less I be loved.” (Acts ix. 36; 2 Cor. xii. 15.)
(h) A holy man will follow after purity of heart. He will dread all
filthiness and uncleanness of spirit, and seek to avoid all things that
might draw him into it. He knows his own heart is like tinder, and will
diligently keep clear of the sparks of temptation. Who shall dare to
talk of strength when David can fall? There is many a hint to be
gleaned from the ceremonial law. Under it the man who only touched a
bone, or a dead body, or a grave, or a diseased person, became at once
unclean in the sight of God. And these things were emblems and figures.
Few Christians are ever too watchful and too particular about this
(i) A holy man will follow after the fear of God. I do not mean the
fear of a slave, who only works because he is afraid of punishment, and
would be idle if he did not dread discovery. I mean rather the fear of
a child, who wishes to live and move as if he was always before his
father s face, because he loves him. What a noble example Nehemiah
gives us of this! When he became Governor at Jerusalem he might have
been chargeable to the Jews and required of them money for his support.
The former Governors had done so. There was none to blame him if he
did. But he says, “So did not I, because of the fear of God.” (Nehem.
(j) A holy man will follow after humility. He will desire, in lowliness
of mind, to esteem all others better than himself. He will see more
evil in his own heart than in any other in the world. He will
understand something of Abraham’s feeling, when he says, “I am dust and
ashes;”–and Jacob’s, when he says, “I am less than the least of all
Thy mercies;”–and Job’s, when he says, “I am vile;”–and Paul’s, when
he says, “I am chief of sinners.” Holy Bradford, that faithful martyr
of Christ, would sometimes finish his letters with these words, “A most
miserable sinner, John Bradford.” Good old Mr. Grimshaw’s last words,
when he lay on his death-bed, were these, “Here goes an unprofitable
(k) A holy man will follow after faithfulness in all the duties and
relations in life. He will try, not merely to fill his place as well as
others who take no thought for their souls, but even better, because he
has higher motives, and more help than they. Those words of Paul should
never be forgotten, “Whatever ye do, do it heartily, as unto the
Lord,”–“Not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the
Lord.” (Col. iii. 23; Rom. xii. 11.) Holy persons should aim at doing
everything well, and should be ashamed of allowing themselves to do
anything ill if they can help it. Like Daniel, they should seek to give
no “occasion” against themselves, except “concerning the law of their
God.” (Dan. vi. 5.) They should strive to be good husbands and good
wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants,
good neighbours, good friends, good subjects, good in private and good
in public, good in the place of business and good by their firesides.
Holiness is worth little indeed, if it does not bear this kind of
fruit. The Lord Jesus puts a searching question to His people, when He
says, “What do ye more than others?” (Matt. v. 47.)
(l) Last, but not least, a holy man will follow after spiritual
mindedness. He will endeavour to set his affections entirely on things
above, and to hold things on earth with a very loose hand. He will not
neglect the business of the life that now is; but the first place in
his mind and thoughts will be given to the life to come. He will aim to
live like one whose treasure is in heaven, and to pass through this
world like a stranger and pilgrim travelling to his home. To commune
with God in prayer, in the Bible, and in the assembly of His
people–these things will be the holy man’s chiefest enjoyments. He
will value every thing and place and company, just in proportion as it
draws him nearer to God. He will enter into something of David’s
feeling, when he says, “My soul followeth hard after Thee.” “Thou art
my portion.” (Psalm lxiii. 8; cxix. 57.)
J. C. Ryle, Holiness.
Exported from Logos Bible Software 4, 11:19 PM January-26-12.
This needed said. Jesus vs Religion is a straw man, a false dichotomy. Jesus spoke against legalism, not religion.