Anyway, the CDU doesn't have to pass a test set by you to determine whether or not they're allowed the "C" in their name. You're not the final authority on the matter (and neither am I).

Ah, the infamous "Who am I to judge". This sentence is indeed a quite unfortunate development in today's society.

To put it very simply: You dont have to be a lawyer to read and understand the law. The law is not written for the lawyers or the judges, but for the people. If the common people give up their right to read and understand the law, then they'd give up their freedom. Similarly, you dont have to be a politician (the final authority you are talking about) to read and understand the Bible. The Bible is not written for the politician X or pope Y, but for the common people. If the common people give up their right to read and understand the bible, then they'd give up their souls.

I'll leave you with a quote from Ayn Rand. You seem like the only reasonable man in this thread. Maybe you'll be the one to understand the passage:

Observe also that moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progressive antagonism to virtue. A man who struggles not to acknowledge that evil is evil, finds it increasingly dangerous to acknowledge that the good is the good. To him, a person of virtue is a threat that can topple all of his evasions — particularly when an issue of justice is involved, which demands that he take sides. It is then that such formulas as “Nobody is ever fully right or fully wrong” and “Who am I to judge?” take their lethal effect. The man who begins by saying: “There is some good in the worst of us,” goes on to say: “There is some bad in the best of us” — then: “There’s got to be some bad in the best of us” — and then: “It’s the best of us who make life difficult — why don’t they keep silent? — who are they to judge?”

And then, on some gray, middle-aged morning, such a man realizes suddenly that he has betrayed all the values he had loved in his distant spring, and wonders how it happened, and slams his mind shut to the answer, by telling himself hastily that the fear he had felt in his worst, most shameful moments was right and that values have no chance in this world.

An irrational society is a society of moral cowards — of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals. But since men have to act, so long as they live, such a society is ready to be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values — or from the thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility.