The WorldPeace Peace Page
Home About John WorldPeace Contact Us Site Map
Blog Email
WorldPeace Web Design Peaceunite Us (Peace org Index) John WorldPeace Galleries

God in Politics

Last year when I ran for governor of Texas, I wrote extensively about the fact that one nation "under God" was in the Pledge of Allegiance when I discussed school prayer. My argument was that a moment of silence to acknowledge God was not unconstitutional unless "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on our coins was also unconstitutional. I pointed out that "under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954 and "In God We Trust" was added to our coins in 1864. In other words in both cases God was added long after the Constitution of the United States was adopted.

The solution to the problem is really very easy to understand if one considers that God and religion are not the same. Religion is a bureaucracy set up and maintained for the sole purpose of promoting a particular path to God: the path of Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Bahai"s. There is only one God but many religions. Virtually the entire world population believes in God but the religious paths to God are many.

The framers of the Constitution were concerned about the establishment of religion; the establishment of a particular bureaucracy focused on God's will. They never outlawed God, just the establishment or promotion of religious bureaucracies.

Generally speaking, God is defined in two ways by the religionist: 1) The all knowing, all inclusive force from which all things manifest and back into which all things eventually disintegrate (the Infinite Potential). 2) An anthropomorphic super being like Allah, Jehovah and Yahweh. The Hindus and Buddhist subscribe to the first concept and the Jews, Christians and Muslims emphasize the second concept. The Hindus are accused of having many gods but this is untrue. The Hindus have many avatars (like Jesus) who come to earth to reveal the truths of the all inclusive one God. Avatar has been wrongly translated in the religious literature as god. 

The Hindus call the all inclusive god Brahma and Brahma's best known messenger was Krishna. The Christians refer to God as Jehovah whose best known messenger was Jesus but Jehovah is the anthropomorphic super beings aspect of the all inclusive God. Neither the Christians, Jews, nor Muslims have a particular name for the all inclusive aspect of God.

The point is that an acknowledgment of God is not necessarily the establishment of a particular religious bureaucracy. The primary objective of religious bureaucracies is to preserve the bureaucracy first and spread their holy word second. This is why the Catholics refused to acknowledge their pedophiles. It is also why religions are dangerous. They tend to use God as an excuse to deny personal freedom. They try to equate religion and God as the same thing when they are not. 

Surely the Pope and the mega rich tele-evangelist have little to do with the non materialistic Jesus they tout. In the name of Jesus, a man who had nothing, the bureaucrats of the various religions have amassed untold riches. Religion is about money and power first and about God second. No one will ever convince me that God needs money to make his presence known.

I believe in God but I do not believe in religion. I believe that God daily works miracles on earth through his saints and his angels. And I believe that every human being has a direct connection with God whether that connection is acknowledged or not and regardless of whether one belongs to a religious bureaucracy or not. 

To deny the existence of God is ridiculous. When God is understood as being all inclusive of things seen and unseen, to deny God's existence is like a whale denying the ocean from which it manifests and back into which it eventually disintegrates.

Atheists tend to deny the anthropomorphic God of Allah, Jehovah and Yahweh. So atheists are for the most part fighting Jews, Christians and Muslims. Since Buddhists and Hindus have no anthropomorphic God greater than the Jesus like avatars, there is nothing for the atheist to confront. Atheist believe only in the physical manifestations of the universe. Therefore, for them, what cannot be seen or proved does not exist. 

Yet when God is defined as the Infinite Potential, one has to understand that any definition of God is limiting and therefore does not describe the one God. The nonphysical aspects of God are infinite compared to the finite universe. The atheist denial of the nonphysical aspects from which this reality manifests means that they believe that all physical things are made of smaller things infinitely. This is ridiculous. Eventually, one has must acknowledge that the physical manifests from the nonphysical.

Much of what I have said is beyond the comprehension of the average person. But in a word, God does exist and men have corrupted the message of God through religious bureaucracies dedicated to the self aggrandizement of the bureaucrats who run them. It is the influence of these self appointed bureaucrats of God that the framers of the Constitution feared. It was a fear of men who claimed to speak for God: men (and women) who would enslave the population and deny self evident freedoms in the name of God that the framers feared. It was the holy wars between religious bureaucracies that was to be avoided.

But the framers never denied God. Therefore, this is still one nation "under God" and as our money says "In God We Trust". 

The legislators in all the states and in our nation need to either abolish one nation "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on our money and the singing of "God Bless America" at public events or endorse all of these in addition to allowing a moment of silence to acknowledge God in our schools. 

As a nation, we will either acknowledge God or we will deny God. There can be no middle ground.

John WorldPeace
June 27, 2002

Flag Pledge ruling draws fire

.c The Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (June 27) - Lawmakers rushed to the steps of the Capitol to defiantly recite the Pledge of Allegiance following a federal appeals court's decision declaring it unconstitutional.

Others moved just as quickly to try to overturn a decision Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., called ``just nuts.''

``What's next?'' asked Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Texas. ``Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw 'God Bless America' too?''

The House and Senate recite the pledge every morning before starting work - the House since 1988 and the Senate since 1999.

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Wednesday that the use of the words ``under God'' violates the Constitution's clause barring establishment of religion. The ruling, if allowed to stand, would bar schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine Western states covered by the court.

Less than four hours later, senators passed a resolution denouncing the court's decision, which came in a lawsuit filed by a California father who objected to his daughter being compelled to listen to her second-grade classmates recite the pledge.

``I think we need to send a clear message that the Congress disagrees, the Congress is going to intervene, the Congress is going to do all that it can do to live up to the expectations of the American people,'' Daschle said.

Other lawmakers, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a potential 2004 presidential candidate, called for a constitutional amendment to make sure the words stay in the pledge.

``There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it,'' Lieberman said.

For their part, House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge en masse - the same place they defiantly sang ``God Bless America'' the night of Sept. 11 attacks.

If Wednesday's ruling is not overturned by the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court probably will review the case next year, constitutional scholars said.

The court has flip-flopped on the pledge, first ruling in 1940 that public school students could be forced to salute the American flag and say the pledge. Three years later the court said an individual who doesn't want to salute the flag or say the pledge may refuse.

Experts were split on what the court would do.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said he believed the appeals court ruling would be overturned.

``The Supreme Court would be forced to change its own ceremonial opening ... `God save the United States and this honorable court,''' Sekulow said.

But University of Southern California Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky said he believed the appeals court was right. ``I believe the government can't act to advance religion,'' he said. ``That's what Congress did by putting 'under God' in the pledge.''

President Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, branded the appeals court decision ``ridiculous'' and said the Justice Department would fight it. ``The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision,'' Fleischer said.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said the Justice Department believed in the right of Americans to say the pledge. ``The decision is directly contrary to two centuries of American tradition,'' Ashcroft said.

The decision was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, whom Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called an ``atheist lawyer.''

``I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered,'' Byrd said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called for more conservative judges. The 9th Circuit Court is known as the most liberal appeals court in the nation.

Democrats and Republicans have been fighting all year over the pace of the Senate's confirmation of Bush's conservative judicial nominations. Three of Bush's 9th Circuit nominees, Carolyn Kuhl, Richard Clifton and Jay Bybee, have yet to be voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

``This highlights what the fight over federal judges is all about,'' Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. ``We feel that putting men and women on the appellate courts who would make this kind of decision is bad for America.''

Democrats pointed out that it was a Republican, President Nixon, who appointed Goodwin to the appeals court in 1971.