Some Good Quotes

On days where I fill less inspired its a good thing that I have access to Facebook so that I can borrow quotes from others. Here are a few inspiring ones for today:

Fill your bowl to the brim, and it will spill. Keep sharpening your knife, and it will blunt. Chase after money and security, and your heart will never unclench. Care about people's approval, and you will be their prisoner.

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centered; Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; Be Kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies; Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you; Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous; Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow; Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you’ve got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; It is never between you and them anyway. (Mother Teresa)

Don't be too hard on yourself for giving in to natural human tendencies. God doesn't want us to beat ourselves up about it, but to make sure we have the right response to it.

"It's not what we eat but what we digest that makes us strong; not what we gain but what we save that makes us rich; not what we read but what we remember that makes us learned; and not what we profess but what we practice that gives us integrity." -Sir Francis Bacon

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these." -George Washington Carver

"It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own." -Marcus Tullius Cicero

"To be trusted is a greater compliment than being loved." -George MacDonald

He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. -Confucius

Religion and Politics

I don't comment on political issues all that much on this blog, but I figured I'd touch the subject briefly, since I referenced just the subject a couple posts back when I wrote about America not being a Christian nation. I personally am irritated by both the Religious Right and the Religious Left-both seem to moralize unnecessary issues. As I've written before, it seems to me that the Religious Right expends all of their energy on two issues (abortion and gay marriage) that were never directly addressed by Jesus; while the Religious Left finds spiritual implications in a wide variety of political issues. Now I will say this: I do be live that there is a political dimension to faith, that spiritual beliefs certainly should have an impact on our political persuasions, memberships, positions and votes. Fair enough-I agree with that. Changing the world (which is part of the mission of virtually all spiritual traditions to some degree) requires some dabbling in politics, some changes to political structures. I can buy all of that.

But I have very real concerns when religion is reinterpreted to become interchangeable with a political platform or when spiritual theology becomes wedded to political theology. What you tend to get in these situations is corruption-religion becomes more interested in politics and salvation by legislation than in addressing the deeper spiritual needs that it is supposed to help people address, like the meaning of life (this was a prime concern during the formation of the AUC). One of my pastors has often commented that it was collusion between religious and political authorities that killed Christ, and generally when Church and State co-mingle they almost always get corruption. What's more, dogmatic religion in politics is dangerous-to quote Toby Ziegler of The West Wing "When God starts talking to you it kind of limits the conversation". When issues are seen in stark black and white God's will and Satan's, compromise becomes a sin, discussion becomes a sin, yielding so much as an inch becomes a sin. And that screws up the very essence of how our Democratic Republic is supposed to work.

I have a few general points to make about religion and politics, and I will take a couple of swipes at both the Left and the Right:

• Jesus was not a capitalist or a communist (check out this discussion from Andrew's blog). In fact there seems to be little evidence that he was interested in politics at all-he was more interested in reaching people on a personal level, of destroying the demons in the human heart (greed, lust, hatred) than he was about challenging the social systems of society. I am aware that it is fashionable in scholarly circles today to talk about Jesus as a political revolutionary (Borg writes of it all the time), but this seems to me to just be the latest scholarly "fad". I agree Jesus seems to frequently take subtle swipes at the Roman Empire and its domination system, and speaks of an alternative social vision, but this wasn't the heart of what he was about. Besides, the operative word is subtle. After all, his "Kingdom was not of this world"-to be a person of faith was to place trust in a Higher Authority than any earthly one, even if one was permitted to pay taxes and respect the governmental authorities on the one hand and pray that God's will would be "done on earth as it is in Heaven".
• It is likewise popular today to invoke the "prophetic voice"-leaders of social rights movements today love to invoke Gandhi and Dr. King, as well as the Israeli prophets, in an effort to show that they are following in the spiritual footsteps of giants, speaking for the oppressed and the less fortunate. While the prophetic comparisons are usually invoked by those with leftist political ideals they are occasionally invoked by those with conservative views today (albeit in a different context-the leftist would-be prophet talks about social racism, where the rightist rails about the threat of gay marriage). Unfortunately it seems to me that if one is really speaking like a prophet one shouldn't need to actually point out that they are speaking like one-the prophetic voice does not need clarification. As a friend of mine once put it, if President Obama were to walk into the room and declare that he is a great leader this should be a clear warning sign that he is not. Likewise with FOX News reminding us several times a day they are "fair and balanced" (hah!). If someone calls them self a "prophet" or hints that they are, its a fair bet they aren't anywhere near the Gandhi/Dr. King level.
• Both liberals and conservatives need to learn that government is incredibly poor tool for addressing social problems. I admit I have a libertarian bias, but even so, it really shocks me how some conservatives truly believe that the government can make people more moral or how some liberals believe it is the government's job to feed the hungry. Neither is true-it is our job to feed the hungry, and someone can only change their own heart with God's help. The government is impotent.
• As George Carlin says, if religious groups want to play in politics they should pay the same price of admission the rest of us do and pay taxes. For both liberals and conservatives the IRS has been rather weak in ensuring that tax-exempt status is not abused.
• Conservative Christians need to learn that secularism is not the enemy-secularism means that the government is neutral on religious issues, not out to persecute Christians. While sometimes I feel that the Religious Right has a valid point about the way Christians are treated usually they seem to go off on a rant about persecution whenever they are not given special treatment. There's a reason why we have separation of Church and State, and as I noted a few posts back, America was not founded to be a "Christian nation". While I don't want to sound like a Barack Obama apologist I love this one quote: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all". THAT is how the game is played. The fact that you cannot pass a legislative agenda simply going with the "Bible says so we must do " does not mean Christianity is being harassed.
• I believe faith demands that we have a social conscience, and understand that there is a social dimension to public policy and morality. That said I'm really tired of "social justice" constantly being translated to mean "socialism" as most progressives (both Christian and otherwise) usually do today. I'm sick of hearing about "social sin", as if social systems could be more evil than people (Marcus Borg made just such an asinine statement on BeliefNet at one point). I'm tired of hearing about liberation theology (which in many opinion is pretty much communism stamped with a cross), and hearing phrases like "Talking truth to power" (I agree with Steve H on that too). Social consciousness does not mean socialism.
• Lastly, and this is my final point, let's be careful not to put the cart before the horse. What I mean by that is our faith should influence our politics, not the other way around, something I think too many people are guilty of today, myself included. Spirituality should sanctify our politics-not the other away around (I think that would pollution, not sanctification).

More Random Musings

Here are a few random thoughts on spiritual matters for today:

1. On the subject of "being dead" : In a column I came across in a Chapel Hill newspaper the other day the writer bemoaned the increase in cremations in recent years, and went on to express the value people would obtain from having a grave site. A secretary I work with also commented that she questions whether cremations are Scripturally acceptable. I have never been able to understand this mentality at all. To me a deceased body is an empty shell: Once the soul has gone the body is destined to return to the dust one way or another-even those bodies that are buried decay. Whenever I hear someone talk about how they are afraid to be buried underground (which I have heard more times than I care to admit) I have to resist the urge to put my arm around them and explain how the dead tend to be, to put it politely, "awareness deprived". And if someone wonders if I care what happens to my body when I die...well, let's just say I don't give a sh*t. Donate me to science (which I seriously am considering), cremate me, or toss me over the back fence-I can guarantee at that point I'm not going to care.


2. I recently have done some reading on what is known in the New Thought tradition as the "Law of attraction". This law is basically the idea that our thoughts control everything in our lives-it basically is a sort of New Age take on the power of positive thinking (Norman Vincent Peale on steroids). Psychics often comment on people creating their realities in the spirit world with their mind and mystics often speak about creation emanating from the mind of God. While I find all of this interesting I personally take a rather dim view of the law of attraction and its applications-the prosperity Gospel (name it-and-claim-it), spiritual healing, and what I generally see an overemphasis on self-help via positive thinking. Self-help and self-improvement are important but are not the core of faith.
3. Several liberal spiritual groups enjoy distinguishing between "Jesus" and "Christ" (such as the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith), which is often generally translated so that Jesus is understood as the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, while Christ is understood as the divine nature inherent in all people. While I share a similar view (it is actually a common theme in mysticism that man is inherently divine and is transformed into an a true Divine-Man) I do not use such a distinction myself. "Christ" is simply the translation of "Messiah" and means "Anointed One". It is neither a name, nor a term for a mystical or metaphysical concept. I do sometimes refer to the "Christ within" or "becoming Christ", which even traditional orthodox Christianity sometimes does, but this is in reference to the fact that I believe Christ set the bar and is our "template" so to speak.


4. On that note, I recall in a conversation on JP's blog where I referenced a statement about the distinction between Jesus and the "Cosmic Christ", a popular term amongst liberal Christians today such as Deepak Chopra and even Eric Elnes (this, by the way, is a term that I never use myself). Amber, another reader, called this notion an insult to rational thought. Fair enough-but I asked myself (I did not ask on the blog) "Does this mean the traditional 3-in-1 doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are somehow supposed to be a compliment to rational thought?" What exactly is rational thinking? In religion it seems to have variable meaning. In Religulous Bill Maher notes that Christians often mock Mormons or scientologists as being crazy when there are some truly bizarre ideas in Christianity itself (be it drinking blood at church or the events of revelation). I often get irritated by the fact that literalist Christians mock the stories of Native Americans, other indigenous cultures and Buddhists, but fail to see the double-standard in how literally they take equally bizarre stories in their own Bible (a talking snake is OK but the idea of Sasquatch is crazy?) I also find it interesting that Universal truths are still interpreted through the narrow lens of the myths and symbols of one ancient Near Eastern culture. A book series called The Masks of God offers a good snapshot into the many images used by the "first peoples" of this world. Let's not pretend we are dramatically different. And on that note-what makes a thought rational? It seems to be that any form of spirituality is trans-rational...I do not believe religion needs to reject reason (I'm a good Unitarian, I believe reason is good and compatible with religion) but ultimately faith and spirituality must go beyond reason, beyond symbols. Besides opposing positions can sometimes both be equally rational-and, as Maher points out, equally nuts.


5. I've realized I have little interest in the specifics of metaphysics, which philosophers, theologians, New Agers, and psychics all seem to enjoy spending a great deal of time analyzing and picking apart. That irritates me about Near-Death.com-the focus on explaining things like how the spirit and soul are different, technicalities about the "silver cord", specific realms in the afterlife (are there 7 hells or 9?), and so on and so forth. I find anything at that depth a turn-off. NDEs and psychics have given us some wildly contradictory versions of the 'Beyond' (note that they get increasingly contradictory the more specific they get), and theologians have gone so far with some doctrines that they basically telling us how God relates to and works with Himself! I'm more comfortable with the notion of Mystery-I love philosophical ruminations, so I'm not anti-metaphysics, but none of these things are verified truths-or really even verifiable, despite scientific advances. I believe in God, the soul and life after death, but I don't claim to know anything more, though I have a few theories.


6. It seems to me that some spiritual ideas seem to occur naturally to people without dictation from external religion-and sometimes even in spite. The idea of people possessing a soul and immediate life after death, for instance, seems to be something people just intrinsically know...or at least we all seem to conclude it. That I find interesting. Someone once asked if I believe in pre-existence (before we're born), and I answered that while I don't remember a pre-mortal life this doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Heck, I sometimes forget what I had for lunch!


7. In several conversations on the AUC Forum I expressed that while I disagreed with various positions I could see the concerns of the other side and shared them to some degree. The person I was having the discussions with took this to mean that somehow deep down I actually agreed deep down that the other side was right-in other words that subconsciously I knew the truth and was trying desperately to rationalize and compartmentalize. Another position I don't understand-having doubts about my beliefs is something I take for granted. I see it as normal, not something to fear. And yes there are times I can agree with the other side or at least see what bothers them. But that doesn't mean that I really don't believe what I'm saying or that I'm trying to rationalize a lie. At least if I'm doing so it isn't something I'm doing consciously.


8. Lastly, I've found myself missing Spiritus Christi, my home church in Rochester and Elmira. I have lots of issues with Spiritus and I've found myself gradually moving away from it on various spiritual issues, but I still love the people there and accept the church despite its numerous flaws. The fact that the church hasn't shown much interest in succession planning suggests to me that the movement may die out before long. In the meantime I have yet to decide where I will go to church once I leave New York after finishing at Cornell. I'm sure I'll have options (a theistic UU church, a mainline Protestant church, maybe a house church) but I'm not worried about that yet!

Family Values

Following the loss of my grandmother I found myself giving a lot of thought to this notion of "family values" which comes up quite often in this country today-indeed it has become a political buzzword of sorts, and is usually translated to mean opposition to gay marriage. That aside, I think there is much more to this issue. Although I rant about them very little on this blog I am no fan of Dr. James Dobson and his "Focus on the Family" empire. Dobson irritates me to no end because of his arrogance-he speaks as if were appointed as the spokesman for all of America's Christians directly by God himself, and as if he were the leader of the Republican Party (his bemoaning the position of Christianity in America notwithstanding Dobson had clout in Washington during the Bush Administration that Pat Robertson could have only dreamed of). Dobson also likes to pretend that he is not political, but rather a reluctant warrior drafted to save Christian values-and if you believe that I've got great beachfront property in Iowa for sale. Dobson may have started out that way but he is now political to his core-and it seems to me so is Focus.

The notion that Christianity has a monopoly on family values is somewhat strange to me. When did this happen? Everybody loves their families (in fact I recall Jesus saying that even sinners could do that). All religions and cultures have taught variants of "Honor thy father and mother". Does Christianity really have the audacity to presume that it alone understands the meaning of family? Yes, there have been variants in the family structure throughout human history (matriarch vs patriarch) but virtually all cultures have such a structure. Besides, Christianity's track record with divorces, child abuse and the other little goodies of life are pretty much the same as those of society at large. And as author Bruce Bawer once pointed out, one could make the case that Christianity is not about reinforcing family values at all-it is about challenging them, reaching beyond the family to love all of humankind as our family. Not hard to draw from a faith where we call each other "brothers and sisters", and where the founder left his family to preach a message that alienated him from said family-indeed, Jesus went so far as to call the misfits he hung around with his true family. Not exactly good Jewish family values. The Nazarene also suggested to a prospective disciple that he couldn't return home to bury his father-an indication that following the "Way" trumps any family relationships.

But even while I agree with Bawer that the message of Christ is meant to push beyond families and that God comes first, I still think family is a prime part of the spiritual experience. And I don't think family values should be about defending the 1950s "Leave it to Beaver" structure of the family, or about focusing on the hot-button issues like gay marriage that seem to fire up the conservative Christian base. We rarely hear talk about child abuse, which strikes this blogger as far more heinous and more urgent than gay marriage, nor do we hear any commentary about abuse of the elderly. On child abuse, Collin Raye speaks of the 11th Commandment as "Honor thy children", and says that "God does not overlook it". This is a huge problem in our country today-and it seems our society still hasn't fully come to terms with it yet.


The abuse and neglect of our elderly is an inexcusable stain on this country. The commandment "Honor thy father and mother" does mean to genuflect in the presence of our parents, indeed I see its deepest meaning in taking care of and providing for our parents as they age. Even Christ, when he was dying on the Cross, ensured that Mary would be well taken care of. I have wondered if Jesus and his mother had a somewhat strained relationship at times, perhaps referenced in Scripture when Jesus informs his followers that his "mother and brothers" were a bunch of misfits. Could it be the two had a period of time that they were not on speaking terms? If so (and this is pure speculation) it adds all the more power to the Lord's words on the Cross. How ironic is it that a so-called Christian nation abandons our parents and elderly? An Indian woman I worked with expressed to me how shocking it was to her how in this country grandparents are left in nursing homes, forgotten. In her culture such a thing was unthinkable-a culture where the elderly are regarded as possessing great wisdom, where grandparents live with their children and grand-children. That's the Hindu-Indian culture by the way.

My Mom cared for my grandmother closely for the 3 years she lived with us, even as her physical and mental health declined. My grandmother died loved and well-cared for. I consider my mother a virtual saint for all I went through-but how sad is that? Isn't that what everyone is supposed to do? I know my parents will be well cared for in their old age, that's for damn sure. To the other members of this society who have neglected your parents-you should be ashamed of yourselves. For a nation like ours, this is purely inexcusable-our elderly vulnerable, lonely, struggling to make ends meet. I adore my grandparents (if I ever write a book it will be dedicated to them) and it makes no sense to me how our society can do this to that generation. It makes no sense at all.

How do I feel about other family values? Well, I think we've forgotten the art of parenting-many parents today are too permissive, too New Agey with their kinds (you know, the parents who frame everything as a choice for their kids). I was extraordinarily lucky in that I had good-great-parents growing up who knew how to do their job, and knew who the boss was. I truly believe good parents are the key to becoming successful adults-and my Indian friend, who is a great parent, believes the same thing. Yet I also believe that many people become parents today who aren't meant to be parents, or at the very least are not ready. Our society needs to let go of the notion that there is something wrong with childless adults-the "Be frutiful and multiply" commandment notwithstanding, our species won't die out if some people don't reproduce (it might be more responsible from a global population perspective). The same goes for marriage-not everyone is meant to be married. Society needs to stop sending the message that those who are in the 30s or older and single are somehow deficient.


Lastly, I promised I'd reference Governor Sanford. It's not my place to condemn the man (I haven't cheated on my non-existant significant other, but he who is without sin gets to cast the first stone). I will say his David reference wasn't exactly smooth (those are the type of references you shouldn't make about yourself-someone else should make that). There is something ironic about Sanford attacking Clinton and falling himself, but so did many other Republicans and besides Clinton wasn't exactly innocent. All I can really say is that this whole thing was unfortunate-from Sanford's decision to what the ridicule SC has to endure.

Overall, my point is that Christian family values are hardly exclusively Christian. The values are important, but the real values are complex-they transcend families (we need to love everyone, including our enemies) and reinforce them at the same time (which isn't always easy-we need to love even those relatives we may not like). These values are universal, a lesson Dr. Dobson may learn one of these days-I'm not optimistic, but you never know. Family values are critically important, with that I agree-but he should stop acting like he's got a monopoly on some great secret. He doesn't.

(Post) 4th of July Reflections Part II

Yet, I still believe in this country. The USA isn't perfect, yet she has shown a remarkable ability to evolve. The Constitution, and its philosophy of a nation rooted in liberty, was brilliant-the result of the brilliant, brave men who founded this land. We overcame the problem with slavery, we've witnessed women's rights and civil rights movements, and regardless of the endless amount of criticism this is a land of great economic opportunity and aside from the endless stream of bitching and whining from the left and the right we have it pretty well here. In fact that bitching is proof that our right to free speech is doing pretty good. This is still the land of the free and the home of the brave.

America, as I quoted The West Wing's CJ Craig in an earlier post, is an ideal, a dream, challenge that every generation in this country has to grapple with. It is an unfulfilled promise, but one that we have come a long way towards. Brave, brave men and women have fought for this promise, and have paid high prices for it-many the ultimate price. There are values in this country-hard work, family, devotion to community and God, respect. This nation prevented Hitler from seizing control of Europe. It has been a model of hope for generations of immigrants. And through it all we have lived in a land of freedom that we simply do not appreciate enough. The protected do not know the price of freedom well, nor do we often realize how good we have it here. There are plenty of wingnuts and lunatics in this country-on both the Left and the Right, plenty of conspiracy theorists convinced that our rights are being taken away.

Its all bullsh*t. Most people who cry "Persecution!" today in this country have no clue what "Persecution!" really means. This who dwell only on the flaws of this country don't understand how great it is. And that means the whole land-red states, blue states, from San Francisco to the rural heartland, this country is great. The dream, the promise of America is lived out everyday in the people who make it up-the farmers, the factory workers, the teachers, the businessmen, the clergy, the soldiers. The soul of America is a shining example of the promise, of the dream, a land where we rise up and better ourselves, as Dr. King challenged us to do. That is the real America. I hope to God that the Creator didn't bless us for the horrible acts we committed in the past, but I do think He is well aware that we are devoted to a good dream.

I celebrate the Fourth of July as a holiday to remember this promise, our challenge of furthering it, and the price we have paid and continue to pay for it. I remember the giants Washington and Adams, the soldiers who gave everything. To my high school friends in the military, to the American Legion staff of 2003 Boys State, to my late Uncle Ray who was at Midway, to my friend Bill who was part of the D-Day Invasion, to all the others who are serving and who have served, thank you all so very much for your service. It is not unappreciated. I try to avoid conflating faith and patriotism, to get swept in nationalism, and especially I try to avoid rewriting history. But I know lucky I am to be here, I know what a truly great promise America is, and I am very thankful for that. I believe it is best to be honest about our history, not buying into the revisionist heresies of the Left OR the Right, each of whom attempts to selectively remember the past. One can be patriotic and not nationalistic, a believer in the promise of America and honest about its reality. Yes, our ultimate allegiance is to God, a Higher Power, but that does not mean that we can't acknowledge and express our loyalties to our country as well. We can love all humanity, be a citizen of the world, and still be loyal and faithful to America. The liberal and conservative values can be reconciled. And I have to admit I like having similar religious beliefs to Jefferson and Franklin!

I believe, after all, that countries are human constructs and God loves as individuals, not based on groups. Do I believe God "blesses" America more than any other nation? No. Do I believe this country is God's gift or favored child? No. Do I believe faith is more important than patriotism? Yes. But I am proud to be in this country? Do I think this land, my home, is a great place? Damn straight I do. Its a human nation, as flawed as any other, composed of flawed human beings like you and me, a mix of good and bad.

Happy Birthday America, God Bless us all, and thank you to those who have fought. And as Lee Greenwood would say:

And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I gladly stand up
. . next to you and defend her still today
Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land
God bless the USA

(Post) 4th of July Reflections Part I

A belated Happy Independence Day to all. I consider myself a patriotic person-I am deeply grateful to live in the United States of America, which despite its many flaws is truly a great country. I differentiate between patriotism and nationalism-I have written elsewhere that I consider the latter to be a form of idolatry, in that creates a false idol of America and proceeds to worship said idol, while denying the reality that America has some extraordinarily dark spots in its history. I have said before, and I say it again now, "Manifest Destiny" is simply the American term for lebensraum. This nation became a superpower through the genocide of Native Americans, through the enslavement of another race, and a relentless drive for profit. Let's not give God credit for America becoming an economic superpower: That honor belongs to Mammon.

On the 4th I caught a special on TV that was attempting to prove America was a "Christian nation", because of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers (who, according to this program, all evangelical Christians). I'll return to that momentarily, but let me say first that phrase makes me want to laugh-bitterly. What is so "Christian" about this nation? The slaughter of Native Americans? Slavery? Does God deserve credit for this? More importantly, God was A-OK with America up until the Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s that stopped mandatory school prayer? (Yes, that's what the ruling did-it prevented schools from forcing kids to pray, it in no way "banned prayer in public schools"). By this so-called "logic" God was blessing America into prosperity while we slaughtered and stole our way up, but then a simple court ruling triggered a series of events that angered God. Uhhhh...right. Mmmhhhmmm. I buy that. And by that I mean what a load of #&#*@. America became a superpower through luck (an abundance of natural resources), hard work and lots of-sin.

And the deeply idealized image of America as a Christian nation? Mostly its been airbrushed. The pilgrims-portrayed as meek children of God-included some fanatically religious individuals-the kind who would have made Jerry Falwell look positively liberal by comparison. Those who had been persecuted for their beliefs in the Old World rapidly became the persecutors once they had settled into the New. "Religious freedom" did not mean religious freedom for all. Contrary to popular misconception the phrase "under God" did not enter the pledge until the Cold War, and it entered then with a political agenda. But nothing irritates me more than the attempt of revisionists today to prove that the Founding Fathers were devout evangelical Christians, latter day Apostles, out to found a nation that would be a Christian beacon of light in a dark world.

Now, some of the Founders were devout Christians, indeed probably a fair few. And yes, there has been plenty of liberal revisionism too-America was not founded to be a godless nation. But the core Founders-Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, Washington-were not orthodox Christians. They were men who had highly complex, liberal religious beliefs that seemed to be a unique mix of Unitarian (Jefferson once predicted that America would become a Unitarian nation), Deist and Christian, in the non-orthodox sense. This becomes extremely clear when one researches this topic and looks closely at the writings of the Founders-which is, by the way, a fascinating subject of study to me. The Founders were men who questioned, who believed that the most important thing was to be good, and who embraced the thinking of the Enlightenment. Indeed, John Locke had more influence on this country than Jesus Christ, at least if we are looking at the basis of the Constitution. I once enraged a friend at school when she insisted American government was "based on the Bible" and could not provide a single specific example. American government, with its basis on rights and liberties, was born of Enlightenment thinking, and the Founders had such an approach toward religion-how else does one explain the Jefferson Bible? Or the fact that the Declaration uses Deist language? ("Nature's God"?)

The real problem today is that many only selectively quote the Founder, which is an issue on both sides (Bill Maher made a similar mistake in Religulous). The real picture shows that these were men with highly complex views, which changed over time as they do for all of us-Franklin, for instance, was more orthodox in his youth; while it appears Alexander Hamilton used religion for political gain during his life and may have "gotten it" on his deathbed (sort of like Constantine). The religious views of George Washington are of particular controversy (it even has its own page on Wikipedia). Washington is a paradox-one of America's most venerated yet lest understood historical figures. He was practically canonized while still alive and separating myth from fact is a challenge (think of the cherry tree). While some cling to the notion that Washington was a devout Christian an honest analysis of the man does not suggest this is the case-Washington was a believer alright, but his beliefs appear to be a hybrid between Deism and Christianity. He almost never mentioned Jesus, though he referenced God often (the prayer book he allegedly wrote is like the cherry tree story), and he rarely discussed the subject in his life (Jefferson, writing to Adams years later, remarked that the "Old Fox was too cunning" to discuss the subject).

There is also the problem of the fact that the Founders may well have used more Christian language in public for the sake of appearance rather than as an expression of their true beliefs. This problem remains alive today-it would be foolhardy for a politician not to conclude by saying "God Bless America" and I think many Democrats and Republicans find (or rather feign) faith when it is politically expedient. For God's sakes there was a disgraceful uproar when Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to Congress (but he was sworn in on Jefferson's copy of the Koran-woot!), and while there are several Jews in that body there are only 2 Buddhists and 1 atheist (who is "out of the closet" at least). By the way, on the subject of the Founders I highly recommend the book Moral Minority by Brooke Allen, and American Gospel by Jon Meacham-the latter is a moderate look at religion in American history, and even received semi-positive feedback from Focus on the Family.

The point to all of this, is that America is not a "Christian nation"-it was not founded to be one, and the motivations that drove its formation are as temporal and as dark as they are "Christian". The idolatry of Christian nationalism should be repugnant to Christians-it is based on lies and half-truths about this country. It scares me to hear some Christian activists talk about this country, and how we need to "take it back", how God is "angry at us", how we have "turned away". None of this rhetoric is true.

Commentary on Michael's Post

RedLefty made another great post recently, which I thought I'd add a few thoughts too:

1) Maybe they meant that God's standard is perfection, and we all fall short. Therefore, we all need grace. Since this was a Baptist church, perhaps they were trying to spark thoughts of Jesus as the vehicle for us to be seen as perfect by God.

An interesting interpretation...I could buy that.

2) Maybe they meant that God is looking at "sinners" disapprovingly, knowing that they are surely lost because they aren't living up to His divine standards. To this possible message, I have some questions:

-- Didn't God create us as fallible? So didn't he know that everyone will constantly fall short of a perfect standard? Why then would he look so disapprovingly upon people for being exactly as imperfect as He made them?

I've been asking this question for years. How could God hold us to a standard that we can't-and could never-meet, because of the way we were created?

-- Does Jesus project the image that God sits proudly on His perfect standards, with no accomodation? Or did Jesus draw near to everyone, especially those looked on as the least likely to live up to standards of righteousness (foreigners, unbelievers, prostitutes, etc...)? What might this behavior of Jesus teach us about how God sees us?

I think the message revealed in Jesus is of a God willing to go to Hell itself to reach those who need Him-and that God is willing to touch the hands of the worst sinners.

-- If I assume that even Jesus or even godly grace has its limits, and we still have to be pure... can anyone show me a single person who has lived up to this standard? I sure can't find anybody in the bible who pulled it off.

True that.

I find it very sad that some people think God is so ashamed of them. I find it frustrating that some people think God is ashamed of everybody else except their group of the "in" club.

Regarding the first point, Max Lucado said it best: God loves you just the way we are, but he refuses to leave you that way. And for the second: If someone believes that God is not ashamed of one particular group that by default its the group that that someone belongs to.

-- For a church that prides itself on being based solely on the New Testament text and the 1st Century church, I find it odd that the church is so politically passionate. This type of activism is almost completely absent from Jesus' teachings, his example, and the behavior of the early church.

Indeed it is-it seems to me that Jesus had little interest in political activism-from either a left or right-wing perspective. From the right, it seemed Jesus was more prepared to let sinners go their own way and reap the consequences of their actions rather than use legislation to save people. And for the left-it seems to me that the Nazarene wasn't interest in confronting systemic injustice but rather destroying the emotions in the human heart that fed the systems-rather than attack economic systems, for instance, I think Jesus would be more interested in cutting off the greed that fueled the systems.

-- I continue hearing from Christians how concerned they are that America will become "socialist". I find this odd as well, since theoretically socialism is probably more Christian than capitalism is. Welfare, social programs, redistribution of wealth... sounds like the 1st Century church. My guess is that Protestants today see the gospel as the epitome of individualization and free will -- in other words, we each take control of our own salvation and eternal destiny. This spiritual mentality of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps fits in very well with the fiscal mentality of free markets.

It makes me wonder... would Jesus fight a trend to socialism?

This is just my own guess, but I don't think Jesus would be interested in whether a society was capitalist or socialist. His greatest interest is what lies in the hearts of society's members.