Now I See...

This whole blog of mine has meandered around, like a person walking this way and that in shallow water, and has become murky. What began as an attempt to figure out what the smack is happening to my country, my religion, my political party, and the glorious state of Texas :-) has now morphed into something much more valuable, and that is something more of a spiritual nature. At least this journey has been valuable to me. I'm probably the only person READING my blog, but at least I can keep myself entertained!

Well, now to attempt to clear the water of some of its murkiness.

This will deeply offend some of you oversensitive types, but it must be done! If you're so fragile, cover your ears and flee to the farthest reaches of the blogosphere and under no circumstances risk voiding your spiritual warrantee by attempting to peer under the hood of your existence! OK, everyone else, ready now? Here goes--

I have found Eckhart Tolle, found my purpose in life, and come to a closer understanding of God! Heresy you cry? Didn't I tell you to cover your ears, oh fragile ones? Maybe you'll be scarred for life because of what I said. Whatever...

Last year I read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. I only read about a page a day, and sometimes only a paragraph a day. It took me forever to get through it at that pace, but I had to digest what I was reading, and meditate on it. That book planted a seed in me, of understanding what is going on and getting the big picture of all of creation. But it really didn't take hold of me very strongly until I went through some more pain and anguish this last Christmas. I won't go into great detail, but it was the worst Christmas I have ever had in my life. My wife was worried about me, genuinely worried for my sanity and my safety. She sicced a Jewish wise-woman on me, a real sage of a woman, and just sitting there quietly under her wise old gaze I was humbled, and I calmed down a bit. After that small, insignificant little meeting, I was able to refocus on my life.

One of the conclusions I had come to was that the whole world has gone freakishly insane. There is no sense to it whatsoever. And when I said the whole world has gone insane, I had to include myself, because I'm part of this world. But I didn't feel insane. Did that mean I was even more insane than I thought? So I thought maybe the best plan was to embrace the insanity inside myself, not to resist. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? Better to embrace a little bit of insanity in me in order to keep the greater part of me sane, was what I thought. Kind of like Spock saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

So I decided to listen to silly songs (Richard Cheese, for example), and the comedy channel on XM radio. I got very silly with people around me, my kids especially. But inwardly, I was weary to death. I prayed to God to just clue me in, let me understand.

I had given my wife an Eckhart Tolle book for Christmas, and I remembered how I liked his book, The Power of Now. I daren't touch my wife's Eckhart Tolle book or she'd think that I only bought it for me instead of her. So I bought another one for myself, A New Earth.

I began to read A New Earth, and it reminded me of the things I'd read and tried to understand in The Power of Now. But as I read A New Earth, I was suddenly able to understand it all.

This post is already on the long side, and there is no way I can cover Eckhart Tolle in just a couple of sentences, so let me assure you that I will write more later, in other posts. Suffice it to say-- I can accept this current moment in time, and I can accept how insane the world is, and I can accept that I have that insanity inside me for right now. For right now, my only assignment is to be like one of the lilies in the field, and just to live. I can do that. If I have a true faith in God and in his purpose, that his will will be done, regardless, then I have to accept the current moment in time. I have to live in the NOW. It's not a case of "it'll all work out in the end." All of everything that exists, right now fits together into one big puzzle. Some of those pieces have jagged edges, some soft, some red, some blue, and some green. But they all are part of the whole. I must accept all the pieces in order to have the full puzzle.

I highly encourage anyone out there to read Tolle for themselves. Regardless of what faith you come from, or even if you are athiest, his almost algebraic approach to psychology and the levels of our existence will enrich your life.

That's it for NOW. :-)

http://www.eckharttolle.com/home.php

http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth.info/index.php

http://now-for-you.com/forum/index.php

A new term- Anthropomirage

Duality of spirit & flesh -- Reality or Anthropomorphism?

QUESTIONS:

If our spirit has ears to hear, what do we hear?

If our spirit has eyes to see, what do we see?

Does our spirit have a brain to think, and feet to walk, hands to do things, or is that just being anthropomorphic?

If there is food for our spirit, is there also music?

Is there such as thing as spiritual wastes, spiritual waste products?

Is there a spiritual counterpart to sex, or procreation?

If what we do physically can affect us spiritually, is the converse possible?

I don't like the following question, because I choose to believe in God. But the question still must be dealt with sooner or later, because someone will ask it. Is 'spirituality' actually just another word or another way of thinking of our intellect? Is this duality for real, or actually just an illusion, an 'anthropomirage'?

Could there be a place where our spirits fly, our bodies unbeknownst to them? If that is so, then couldn't it be said that the spirit world is just a different interface to our existence? If so, what is the point? (Unless the spirit world somehow has different meanings.)

How can we connect better to our spirit? If we connect better, will we then see better the spirit world that coexists with this one? Or is the spirit world only a philosophical construct of concepts that must be understood in order to 'see'?

Could our spirit know things that we do not, here in our bodies?

Look at the following examples and see if you can draw a conclusion:
1. There is no such thing as cold, only abundance or lack of HEAT energy.
2. There is no such thing as dark, only abundance or lack of LIGHT energy.
Conclusions:
A. Could it be true that evil doesn't exist, merely an absence of GOOD?
B. Could it be true that flesh only exists as a departure or separation of SPIRIT?
If B. above is so, if we become fully cognizant of this, can we become free of the body, whatever that might mean?

On Being a Seeker

As Jesus said, "Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you."

QUESTIONS:

Does it ever end, us being seekers? What do you think Jesus wanted to convey, that at some point we may be arrogant, prideful in the knowlege that WE have ARRIVED (and by implication, uhh..., all of 'you' are still outsiders)?

Do you still have eyes to see, and ears to hear? Or are you like the 3 monkeys-- "Hear no evil!" "See no evil!" "Speak no evil!" Does God call Christians to be seekers, or have we found all we need to find? Are we 'there' yet? Has our journey ended?

Are we as mature or grown up as we need?

Are we open to learning anything else, even from God? When a tree stops taking nourishment from the ground and Sun, is that tree alive, or dead?

Is God threatened by our questions? Is God offended or angered by our questions?

Violence is a Disease

(Crossposted on Street Prophets)

I haven't written anything to this blog in a while now, for some good reasons. Not excuses, but reasons, I tell you!

For one thing, at the writing of my last blog I had been mulling over things, trying to get a handle on where we are, and where I stand. I had been wondering whether or not we Christians should work for political change, and I asked the question of why our humanitarian efforts couldn't be just as effective for God under any form of government, whether it be democracy, communism, or fascism.

I have solidified my beliefs on this. I do believe that the form of our government is not our primary mission, and that we very well may be the salt of the Earth regardless. So I, personally, choose not to be involved in politics. I am leaving that up to God.

What I will work for is to promote peace and harmony. I will preach peace to any who will listen. Peace is a big topic, however, and will probably take me to places I might not anticipate, like economics, ecology, and even the proper care of animals. Peace is not only an external concept, but also is to be sought on several internal, personal, and spiritual levels. Before we can get to the practicality of peace, however, we must examine the disease (or dis-ease) that seeks to squelch peace.

These are my thoughts on the disease of violence.

VIOLENCE

Violence is never constructive, and is always destructive. I use the term 'violence' instead of 'fighting' because there are many types of 'fighting' - even to including negotiations, which is inherently good and peaceful. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. Violence never meets needs, it instead makes it harder to meet your needs, because there is always 'payback'.

OF WAR

In my conversations with others on the matter, the example of our revolutionary war has come up as a possible example of how violence could be good. I disagree, for the following reason. The example of our revolutionary war being instrumental in the creation of the United States is because the violence of war created a void, in which we were able to install our fledgling government. If England had not eventually chosen to stand down we would still be at war with them. I am sure that the British decided it was in their best interests to retreat and let us have our country. War always is destructive, and is always when diplomacy breaks down or is not employed.

A peacekeeper must convince those who would resort to war or violence that nothing is ever built or constructed by destructive means. It is only when people decide to stand down from the violence that they can then turn to constructive efforts. When people tire of violence they turn to diplomacy anyways in the formation of treaties and the like. So why not just cut out the violence and go straight to the treaties?

OF TERRORISM

Violence in the form of terrorism never produces the effect that the terrorist desires; it always produces the exact opposite. The suicide bomber that blows up a bus or a nightclub never succeeds in winning people's sympathy, but does succeed in alienating people from his cause. The only time that violence can even come close to being used as a tool is if you can blame some other entity for the violence, so they get the backlash. Remember the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" when they trashed the jock's car and blamed it on the rival
school?

Illegally imprison and torture people using (abusing) a loophole in the Geneva convention, and you do not gain good intelligence, you alienate any who hear of it, or any who see the pictures of it on the internet like I have. What is accomplished, but loathing of those who do such deeds? Was that the real purpose, to pour more fuel on the fire?

I like the movie V For Vendetta, but terrorist activities like the bombing of buildings in the movie would never win people's sympathy for whatever cause the terrorist is trying to promote. Here's how it would go in the real world- The terrorist detonates a bomb, and instead of making people understand him and sympathize with his cause, the violence turns it around backwards and there is alienation rather than sympathy. So although I like that movie I -completely- disagree with its premise.

The movie I do recommended is Changing Lanes, with Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. It's a great movie and I highly recommend it. It illustrates that the only way to stop the downward spiral of destruction from a violent feud is for at least one of the parties to CHOOSE not to fight, even if it means they give up. Violence is always destructive, no matter how much the characters involved think it could be constructive to their purposes. This is amply demonstrated in this must-see movie.

DIPLOMACY AND NEGOTIATION OF CONFLICT

When a nation has a neighbor that it is having problems with, it is similar to a failed marriage in many ways. In a messy divorce, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The lawyers. But who bears the burden of grief? The families. In a war, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The corporations. And who bears the burden of grief? The families. As an amicable divorce saves everyones dignity and there are no casualties of grief, diplomacy and negotiation save everyones dignity and do not result in casualties and grief.

WHEN NEGOTIATION BREAKS DOWN

What happens if someone tries to punch you and their fist meets yours? You will both be hurt! We need to find alternatives to terrorism or war, because our needs will not be met by those
methods. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. I would amplify this by saying that compassion is not an emotion. Exercise compassion on your opponent.

Morihei Ueshiba, founder of the martial art of Aikido, said the following: "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control agression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace."

He also said, "In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents. Redirect each attack and get firmly behind it."

Is persuing peace for the cowardly? No. Taking unfair advantage of your opponent by violence is cowardly. Apologizing, tearing down the defensive walls, and resisting the inner protective instinct to erect those defensive walls is only for the very brave. I won't lie to you, this path is dangerous because peaceful overtures may not be returned by the other party. It takes great courage to agree to talk, or even to ask your opponent for a talk.

The brave path of peace is a path of sharp stones, but it leads to the brook.

LET'S PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

Isn't there -any- situation where violence might work for good?

What about removing a diseased appendix, or amputating a gangrenous leg? I would have to answer that the disease or infection was the real source of the violence, the essence of the conflict. Removing the offender does not result in the loss of life, but the exact opposite, the saving of life. And surgery of this nature is not done from a motivation of agression.

If the above is true, what about executing criminals? I don't believe that capitol punishment is civilized, although I do believe that the Bible says we should expect this from governments. But what is accomplished? What is built? For instance, how did killing Stanley 'Tookie' Williams help anybody at all? Are victims ever returned to a state of pre-victim-hood? No. What is destroyed is any chance of the convict turning around, and making right with God.

What about the military use of a 'surgical strike' in a foreign country? This is another one of those 'live by the sword, die by the sword' scenarios that the Bible says we should expect from governments. This is a situation that requires great wisdom, and a grave obligation to do right, and underscores our need for leaders of great moral stature. And this is one of those situations that should weigh on their minds for years afterwards, requiring them to examine their motives.

What of freedom fighter guerrilla warfare, to overthrow a disfunctional and unhealthy government? Is violence then justified? No. I don't believe that is Biblical. Jesus said we are to take up our cross and follow him. He did not try to overthrow the Roman government, and we are NOT called to overthrow ours. He was executed for speaking the truth, promoting love, and caring for the needy. Should we expect anything less, for ourselves?

Was the violence against Jesus (or another martyr) constructive? Yes and no. It sure didn't have the effect that the perpetrators intended! (which is what we're talking about)

SUMMARY -- VIOLENCE 'IN A NUT SHELL'

To bring this to a conclusion, once more I will state that the disease of violence is always destructive, and never acheives the goals that the perpetrators of violence intend. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. And when violence has run its virulent and meaningless course and exhausts itself, negotiations will again begin where they left off before the violence broke out, making the violence worse than meaningless. If meaningless violence is not a trait of pure evil, I don't know what is.

Lessons Learned

Since the last time I left an entry I have learned some valuable lessons about myself and our world around us.

First of all, I wrote what I thought was a masterpiece of writing, a critique of the church and Christianity today. I laid it all out beautifully, and then when I tried to post it here, my computer locked up, and all my efforts were gone. Then I wrote somewhat the same piece, discussing the same things about my grudges with the church, and again my computer froze up solid like before. So I thought, well maybe, just maybe, it's not meant to be. Maybe I'm supposed to take some time off to read, meditate and pray about these things before I write about them. Whether the lockups were from a computer virus or from providence, I am glad that I waited.

I started thinking about the time Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. In placing this in context with all other scripture I am becoming convinced that the things of this world, including politics, are not really for us Christians. I am toying with the idea that it does not matter to a follower of Jesus if the nation he or she lives in is ruled by a dictator or monarch or a president. It should not matter what the ruling party is, or even if there is complete anarchy, or even if Christianity itself is outlawed.

I am thinking that it is quite possible for a follower of Jesus to be effective in our community regardless of anything else, if we just get back to basics. What is our mission? What have we been told we are to do? When Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself, what does that entail? When Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me?" and then told Peter, "Feed my sheep." I believe Jesus was laying out exactly what love really is as plain as could possibly be told. Love is not 'liking' someone, as in liking an ice cream cone. Love is caring about or caring for someone, enough to make a difference in their life. So we should be caring for others as we care for ourselves. And how do we care for God, if God by definition doesn't really 'need' us? We respect God, and we care for those 'little ones' whom God cares about.

Our society seems to be governed by fear more and more each day. We are afraid of the terrorists, afraid of the government, afraid of economic hardship, afraid our spouse will cheat on us, afraid our neighbors will sue us. Those fears lead us to withdraw and avoid conflict, and then those fears convince us to hate. We may not even be completely conscious of these processes within us, and the reasons for why we feel the way we do and why we persue self-destructive behaviours. We may not realize that we use these buried emotions as a justification for lashing out at those around us, our family and friends, when we should be doing just the opposite.
Well, the Bible says that "perfect love casts out fear." So if we strive for perfect love, which is truly caring for, or taking care of, someone, we no longer have any reason to fear. If I live magnanimously, sensitive and responsive to people's needs, then I have no reason to fear anything from them. If we try to see our enemy's needs and solve them, they just might decide not to be our enemy any longer.

But do you take care of someone in order to get something back from them? No, that isn't perfect love, it's manipulation. We need to look for needs that we can meet, then meet them with no strings attached.

I recently started the book, "The Irresistible Revolution - Living as an Ordinary Radical" by Shane Claiborne. What a terrific book this is! This book really puts rubber to the road as far as how we should be living as Christians, and he does it in a positive and exciting manner. It is exciting because interacting with the needy is exciting and seeing God at work is renewing.

The church is not a building any more than a labor union is a building. The church are the people. Is money placed in the church's offering plate out of love, or from a feeling of obligation? Maybe we shouldn't be so concerned with real estate and put the money where it really is needed, with the needy.

Which Conspiracy Theory?

I used to have trouble believing what I saw in the news, probably partly because I assumed the news media to be liberal. So I figured that a lot of things were staged. I remember seeing footage of a Palestinian man and his young son who were taking shelter as they were being fired upon. If I remember right, his son was shot. Please forgive me if I'm wrong on the exact details, but my point is concerning my reaction. My reaction was disbelief, that possibly those pesky Palestinians had staged the whole thing to make the Iraelis look bad. I thought I was being clinically skeptical, but I was actually believing in a conspiracy theory, wasn't I?

Nowadays, after my conservative to liberal conversion, I realize that when I saw things like that in the news that I should've taken them more at face value. Why? Because the preponderance of evidence says that the event is true. That's all I have to go on, after all.

And now I'm looking at things that, back when I was conservative, I would have considered to be conspiracy theories! I'm talking about things like 9-11 and the buildup to the war on Iraq. See, now we have several situations in which we have either A)- a lot of information that is in contradiction to what we are being told, or B)- conspicuous absence of evidence where that evidence would substantiate what we are being told by our government. Or we have a combination of those two. So, if I'm trying to discern what is going on, I should go on the preponderance of evidence, not on bias or gut feelings, right? If there is a preponderance of evidence contradicting the government's cover story, and/or a dearth of the evidence that they say they have, that would support their story, I cannot think of it as a conspiracy theory, can I?

It is true, that we are not privy to everything that our government leaders are. Some things they have to keep secret, for whatever reason we do not know. But in the case of the 9-11 hit on the Pentagon, for instance, there are several cameras that footage could have been taken from to substantiate their story that it was an airplane and not a missile. Wouldn't it make the critics 'shut up' if they just released the footage, from several camera viewpoints? Why grab up all the tapes from the surrounding hotels and gas stations, etc. and not let us see for ourselves what happened? It would be very dramatic, wouldn't it?

In the case of evidence contrary to the cover story, like the Downing Street Memos, and video tape of various changing answers made by our administration for reasons for going to war, etc. what are we to believe? Are we to believe the cover story, or our lying eyes?

In judging whether or not to believe the various individuals that make up our government, a common sense approach should also be used. Have we found that we can trust them in the past, or have we found that they have betrayed our trust, or been plainly incompetent? Where is all the money flowing? Who is grossly benefitting by these admittedly bad decisions? Who is being indicted, or convicted? Can we get a 'feel' for who to trust?

Finally, do we have to have all the answers ourselves, in order to have the right to demand that questions be asked? No, I don't believe so. I think we citizens have the right, and the obligation, to demand that someone impartial find us the answers!

Until then, the only conclusion I can logically come to is this-- that to believe that our administration is outright lying to us, or at least heavily bending the truth, can not be a conspiracy theory. To deny all the damning evidence that is out there, and to deny the implausibility of the holding back of corroborating evidence, and to instead think that what they are telling us is the truth, this is actually the conspiracy theory.


http://www.911busters.com/
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://www.911truth.org/portal.php?what=link&item=20051205112658960
http://www.st911.org/ (Scholars for 9/11 Truth)

Why I am Me

In my previous post, Former Dittohead Voted Today! I tried to show a little of the process I went through in my change from conservative Republican dittohead to proud liberal. And I must add right here that it feels great to loosen up. It feels great to care about others. Having life more abundantly (something Jesus wanted for us) comes from giving and living, interacting with others, and does not come from selfishly trying to grab more stuff. We always say it but rarely mean it, that it is better by far to be rich with friends than money. I am here to tell you that it really is true. It gets down to happiness. If you are the richest of all, but have to eat dinner alone, well, that's pretty sad.

So, if you're interested, here is some more of the process that deposited me right here in this seat.

I wasn't really a very good little kid. I got caught with a Playboy in kindergarten. So, I was sent to a different school for 1st grade, where I got into fights daily. At yet another school in 2nd grade I stabbed a kid with a dinner fork. So is it any surprise to anyone that I was sent to a private school for 3rd grade? And to complicate things, it was a Baptist school, and we went to a Church of Christ.

Even though these two protestant branches both call themselves 'Christian' they don't really mix very well, because of some narrow viewpoints in each. And my grandparents were staunch Church of Christ non instrumental, which is even narrower.

We went to church activities for two services Sunday morning and also the Sunday evening service, the Wednesday night and sometimes the Saturday night service as well. We also were involved in Vacation Bible School and youth group activities like skating and summer camp. I don't know how many hours that would be, that I was indoctrinated from that side.

That indoctrination did conflict with the 35-40 hours I spent in Baptist school during the week. I constantly got sad looks and mournful shakings of the head when I'd relate what I'd learned in school that day to my parents. And if I spoke at school about what the Church of Christ doctrine was all about, I'd get either those sad looks and shaking heads or I'd be told by a fellow student or two (or eight) that I was going to hell. I was told at my church and at home that we had to take communion every Sunday morning, and that if we didn't that we just couldn't be very good Christians. The Baptists didn't have communion every Sunday. My church believed that if you died without being immersion baptized that there was no way you could go to heaven. The Baptists believed that you must be immersion baptized, but it wasn't as critical as in the Church of Christ's view. And I remember from both sides varying critical views on everything from what soap you used (if you were supporting Satan, or alternatively communism) to what music you could listen to, to how you ended prayers (whether, in praying to God, you could say, "in your son's name" or if you actually had to say the name 'Jesus' for it to work). Another thing was getting the tracts and photocopied outlines of directions on how to witness to people of other faiths, like Catholics and Jews, both of whom were, sadly, going straight to hell.

You'd think that would mess with a kids' head? Well, I guess it wasn't enough, because I found myself going to Bible college.

Bible college was great, but now I saw that there were many more positions and points of view, on literally everything. And everyone was calling themselves Christians! Even the different professors had different views on things, not that they would openly criticize each other.

I won't go into how I learned this (after college), but I finally learned that we should be looking for the similarities and not the differences between us and others. And when you try to appreciate others you can finally get to the place where you stop beating on yourself, thank God.

I guess for most of my life I took others criticism of me and what I said or did, to heart.
Whether it was private Bible school, or church, or Bible college, I was never left wanting for people to criticize my faith and how I worshipped. And I have come to the conclusion that this spirit of criticism, this negativity, is not Christian! It never was!

It took me a long time learning lessons in that other school, the School of Hard Knocks, before I discovered that it is harmful to be constantly thinking that God is over your shoulder ready and strangely happy to hit you with a big stick. Do you fondly think of your father as always wanting to punish you? Of course not. I hope not!

Jewish religious leaders criticized Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners and common men, but do you think Jesus was in there lecturing the outcasts of his society? Maybe even pounding on the table and pacing back and forth, for effect? We don't know, but I don't think so!

What most conservatives, the right wing, republicans, and neo-cons (and maybe many Christians too) lack is empathy, compassion. When your heart is hard, it does not bleed. God calls us to soften our heart. Good Christians should not have a hard heart to the poor people of the world, like immigrants or Iraqis. So if anyone wants to call me a 'bleeding-heart liberal' go right ahead! I think Jesus Christ was a 'bleeding-heart liberal' as well, so I'm in good company!

Where someone else is, you could be, if history had gone differently. The great thing is to appreciate every bump and skinned knee that got you to where you're at, because those experiences, no matter how hard, have given you substance, stability, and power. Do not hate or fear people who are different, because no matter what they do they cannot ever take away your stability, your substance.

You are like a person on top of a cliff, who looks down and sees someone clinging to the cliff wall. Don't be afraid, but reach down and lift them up and you will both be on top.

On Not Being Silent

I come from a Christian (and Republican) family that strongly believe that the United States of America was created as a Christian nation, by Christians. Therefore they believe that it is only right to return this country to its roots, Christianity. I do empathize with that faulty point of view because up until just a couple of years ago I believed that way too. I did not understand why there was such a furor over allowing prayer groups or Bible studies at a school, and I didn't understand why it is so wrong to prominently place the Biblical 10 commandments in courthouses. I, like my family, considered this not only part of our American heritage but also to be the foundation for our country.
So, from that point of view, my sister's email to me a few days ago was right and good and correct. Here is my response to her email, and following that is her original email.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I sincerely hope you don't seriously think this way. I think rather than this being "totally awesome" that it is a total abomination. I'm not talking about the altered Pledge of Allegiance, per se, but about the idea that the United States of America was created as a Christian nation, fell away, and that now we need to return it to being a Christian nation. This is not factual. Go to the sources, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights and read it for yourself. Please, please, please visit this link (don't be put off by the title, and scroll down) for excerpts and quotes of our founding fathers that you can read for yourself, of their intent.
It is very true that many of our founding fathers were church-going Christians. But not all of them were, and very few were espousing any sort of Dominionism or Christian Nationalism. As much as we Christians would like to be able to say that this was started as an explicitly Christian nation, it is not factual.
Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954. From what I have read, and from my examination of the original founding documents and not seeing any support of a particular religion or specific deity, I would have to surmise that the founding fathers would have been completely against this phrase being added to the pledge. And what is it you are saying was the result of adding it to the pledge, that now it is not said in classrooms because of its declaration that we are all under God? Maybe that phrase should not have been added, because that is our personal faith, not politics.
My kids tell me that they still say the pledge in school every morning, and as a matter of fact at the graduation ceremony a couple days ago all of us, students and parents alike, stood and said the pledge of allegiance. So, saying that the pledge of allegiance has been banned from the classroom is not factual either.
Maybe this disinformation is designed as another wedge issue to get us all fighting each other again? Why? Because if we are fighting each other we are distracted and ineffectual in politically opposing our real enemies, those who only care about one thing, money. Our entire nation, all of us and our jobs, are being sold out to the interests of megacorporations who care not a whit for the United States of America. Money is their God, their idol, their lover, their sustenance and their language. Money is their king, and we are merely subjects. These megacorporations have bought out the administration, the news media, and they are replacing the courts too.
But the megacorporations cannot buy us all, with money. Those of us of sincere Christian faith do not put money first, right? We put our faith in God first. So in order to buy us, they first try to sell us on a prosperity gospel, that God wants us to be rich. Bible scripture is taken out of context to support these claims. But not discussed is the biblical (Luke 12:48) idea of noblesse oblige, that if we are successful we are to support those who are less successful (this idea is too liberal for their selfish tastes). So if you don't fall for the prosperity gospel they hit you with the ideas of theocracy, but warped with extreme nationalism. This is not the Old Testament Hebrew theocracy, this is modern day fascist dominionism, and its sole purpose in life is to support corporations.
Not only was this not the intent of the founding fathers, it is not the intent of God. Jesus is our messiah, our leader, correct? He showed us the way, correct? (Many times people forget this. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he always remained humble, telling people to follow him in worshipping God, praying to God. He was showing us the way, not just God on display.) So when did Jesus ever say that we need to rule politically? What about, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"? Although two of the Apostles were 'zealots' did Jesus ever encourage them to act on their zealotry? Not that I can see.
Another way we Christians are manipulated nowadays is by a faulty interpretation of scripture regarding the end times, and an even more faulty actualization of that interpretation. Everyone nowadays seems to hold to the idea of the 'rapture' -- that all Christians will be caught up to the sky to go back to heaven for a time, while what is left on Earth festers and boils with turmoil and dissention. I'm not saying this is wrong, but check this out. Jesus said in Matthew 24:39-42:

"and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.
40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.
42 Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

What really happened in the time of Noah? Weren't the bad guys the ones that were taken away, not God's chosen? Be very careful that what you hear, even from your own, trusted, pastor, is correct biblically and not an assumption or an interpretation of their view of the Bible. We are to be like the Bereans, who examined everything they heard and squared it with scripture.
I previously talked of a "faulty actualization of that interpretation" (of the rapture of Christians into to the sky), and here's what I meant. Believe it or not, there are some believers that think it's perfectly OK for all of the war and inhumanity that is going on right now because "it's the 'End Times.'" They don't feel an obligation to fight this, because they want Jesus to come now, to rapture them up so they don't have to care about any of the atrocities or worry about the future. This suicidal pattern of thought is nothing more than trying to twist God's arm to suit their selfish wants. But what if it's not the time that God wants? And what if their interpretation of the 'rapture' is incorrect and all of us actually go through the 'tribulation?'
I don't believe God wants us to re-create America into His Chosen Nation on Earth. And I can't find any scripture to back up that crazy idea either. What I can find are lots of passages that say we are to feed the poor and needy, and take care of widows and orphans. And we are to speak confidently of the message, the way, that God offers us through our messiah Jesus.
To say that if we are ashamed of this faulty pledge of allegiance that we are ashamed of God is abhorrent, and utter rubbish. Hypothetically, if we say that to be ashamed of the real pledge of allegiance is to be ashamed of God, that is equally as bad!
Please, I love you, but do not spread this piece of dung to anyone else. If we are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ then we need to loudly speak out whenever we hear nonsense like this, otherwise if we don't speak out then we implicitly accept what is being promulgated as the truth. If we care about God's 'little one's' we will not stand for these falsities to be thrown around without a healthy dose of facts.
I still love you! And I'm still your brother! Take care,

And here is her original email I was responding to:

New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME).


New Pledge of Allegiance!




Since the Pledge of Allegiance

and

The Lord's Prayer

are not allowed in most
public schools anymore

Because the word "God" is mentioned....

A kid in Arizona wrote the attached
NEW School prayer.


I liked it.





Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd.






If Scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.




Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise.

Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.




For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the state.






We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.




We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.






We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

!




It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen



If you aren't ashamed to do this,

please pass this on.


Jesus said,

"If you are ashamed of me,

I will be ashamed of you before my Father."





Not ashamed. Pass this on.

What makes it difficult is that I know her heart is in the right place and that she's a good person, it's just faulty philosophy. Why does a person's particular philosophy matter? That's a big topic for another post, but here's a brief example. Some people may think it's OK to run a red light, as long as there are no cops or cameras around, and as long as the coast is clear. Is this a dangerous philosophy, and to whom is it dangerous? Shouldn't we talk to them? I'll let you think about it. Take care.