So, I was wondering a bit after reading an impressive article regarding the Muslims and third world issues when I came across the comment section. One of the posters posted his 'review' of the article criticizing and dismissing what seemed to be some very important key factors. His reasoning was at then end of his post... he said he just could not give credit to such things from a 'new age spiritualist' because he found it difficult enough to do so for those who are labeled as Christian within this Christian nation and he himself is Christian. I took pause because I come from fundamentalism, however, I am also not nearly as veiled as most seem to be... even if they are not. My question is this... Does the spirituality of the candidates, of the political parties (as a whole) and such really make that much of a difference when there is obvious evidence of wisdom and knowledge represented? There were things throughout history that proves alternative spiritual paths to have been sought out by political figures such as: "http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1520/psychic_in_the_white_house.html" And of course, one of my most favorite and seemingly most significant form of 'spirituality' used within politics: "http://www.symbolism.org/writing/articles/internal/psychology/home.html" Anyways. The best of foundations and groundings are obviously important, there isn't a question about that, however, the definition of 'spirituality' and effective religion may need to become redefined or better defined for the best success possible. The sad truth of the matter is that the modern churches do not seem as productive as they need to be, as they could be, considering the empowerment in which they represent. Also, there is a great rift between the 'know better religious ones' and the 'shepherded obedient to death ones'. Yet that may be a whole other topic.