A Response To A Letter About Freedom Of Religion

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I can't see where this amendment says I must have any religion at all, if I so choose. So it can be interpreted to mean that indeed there is freedom OF and FROM religion as I so choose.

What has displaying Jesus or the nativity have to do with remembering we don't have a state religion? If a government office that is subsidized by all the taxpayers, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Athiest, etc. displays a symbol of any religion, then it can be construed that that government office is promoting that religion. Whether a nativity, a star of David, ANY religious object from ANY religion. The 1st Amendment prohibits the 'making of any law that respects the establishment of religion'.

As for your comment "and you're not supposed to have your front yard decked out in God, like someone would their favorite sports team. Any fool could do that, it doesn't mean you believe, it means your trying to convince someone you believe." Well, I suppose that could be so, but who says you aren't supposed to? But if the media, judges, government, is indeed trying to rid society of 'God' and 'Christianity', a person most assuredly doesn't have to buy into that. A personal, conservative statement of your belief in God would not necessarily mean to fill your yard with holy relics. It would mean to try and counteract the smothering of God by society by practicing what you believe.

As for not protesting and turning the other cheek? To me, that doesn't mean to let folks run all over you and your beliefs. Combat the unreligious TV shows, movies, newscasts,newspapers, by not watching or reading them. Support the many organizations on the 'net and TV that try to promote religious values in society.

It's true that the 'F' word is heard in public far too often, but pray for the people that are rude and unknowing that use foul language. A person's spiritual beliefs are, in my opinion, a very personal thing. Jesus taught the way of love and forgiveness. If people practice love and forgiveness, then God will not nor ever be excluded from society.

Yes, a truly spiritual life will be fraught with protest! Not a chest-beating, banner carrying, shouting protest. But an inner protest that if taken to its logical conclusion will not only change you, but can change society. It can lead to the protesting of world hunger, war, injustice, and the list goes on. If eradicating God and religion from society is wrong, then it is up to each individual to resist it according to their beliefs, and in their own fashion.

The Election Process

In a country that professes to be a democracy, honest and fair elections are absolutely essential. The debacle of the 2000 national election still hangs over our country, and now some are saying that all was not well with the election of 2004.

Is this hue and cry from a minority merely sour grapes from folks that supported the loser of the election? No doubt some of it is. But as long as there remains a question about the legality and fairness of an election, it can create doubt in the minds of the voters. What's the difference if a person votes or not if there aren't guarantees that the election is fair?

As long as the spectre of the 2000 election and the questions about the 2004 election remain, our entire electoral process is in jeaopardy. A democracy only works if the citizens participate, at least by voting. There should be appropriate non-partisan investigations, and a push for election reform. If there was any wrong-doing in these elections, it's time to uncover them and rectify the system. Regardless of the fact that this election resulted in the Republicans gaining further control of congress and maintaining their position in the executive branch, it's time to study and investigate and make the appropriate changes as needed.

This country will no longer be the hybrid of a republic/democracy without election reform. The stranglehold that the two major political parties have on the electorate will continue to create disinterest and apathy among the voters. It is time for the citizenry to make their feelings known to all of our elected officials. We can no longer afford to have only the rich be able to run for high political office. The rich will only work to sustain their self-interest, no matter which of the two parties they happen to belong to. The two major parties have made it so difficult for a third-party candidate to get on the ballot, even to the point of the Democrats suing Ralph Nader to keep him off. Suing someone because they want to run for office? Is this democracy? Does this reflect what the founding fathers had in mind for this country?

So let us as a nation scrutinize the election returns of not only Ohio, but the entire election. Let us smoke out the corruption and incompetence if it is there. Let us see to it that election reform is implemented, and release the power of the two major political parties so voters might actually have candidates to vote for that reflect their own beliefs. Our entire government and way of life depend on it.

The Heavenly Father

We were all born of parents, and those who were fortunate were raised by parents or parent figures. The time came for most of us to rebel against the loving care of our parents and make our own way in the world. A wise parent understood that rebellion was part of maturing for their children. While it may have been painful, the good parent accepted it and the child that once depended on those parents for everything now was on their own, hopefully mature enough to make their way in the world and be responsible for their actions.

If that is the normal process of growing up, then can the same process be valid for a person's spiritual life? I was taught in Sunday school the stories of the bible, and of God the holy father. Like any good parent, God tried to teach me right from wrong through the bible and the teachings of the sunday school teachers. But there came a time that I rebelled against the notion of a heavenly father. Was I to be a spiritual child all my life, when I did not remain as a child to my parents?

For me, I sucessfully rebelled against my parent's authority and made my way in the world. Fended for myself, used what they had taught me to survive and thrive. And while I rebelled, I did not lose respect for my parents. I was fortunate in that both of them were not only the people that brought me into the world and nurtured me, but became good friends as well.

It is the same for the heavenly father. For me there no longer is a 'father' in heaven that watches over me. I have not lost respect for that notion, for it still is a very big part of many people's spiritual lives. But that heavenly father has now become integral to me, dwells within me. Is as much a part of me as the color of my eyes. Is that a sign of spiritual maturity? Perhaps.

But I am certain that the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke so often about is not something that will happen with the destruction of the world and the final judgement. It has already happened. It is here right now. For all people, for all races, for all cultures. What was once called the heavenly father to me has become the spirit. And it shows us the way if we are able to see. Not a spirit full of wild-eyed miracles of people raised from the dead, the healing of the sick, the parting of the sea. The growing of a sunflower from a small seed to a plant ten feet tall in but three months is miracle enough for me.

A spirit that not only is present within me, but present within every living thing. A spirit that represents love, and shows me that the only one I need to answer to is myself. The spirit is not authoritarian, does not judge, does not condone. It can nag at me to do the things I should through my conscience, but yet give me solace within myself for the inevitable times when I do wrong. The heavenly father has come down to earth, and resides in me.

Romans Chapter 13, In Times Of War

Why Romans thirteen? In this time of war this Chapter of the New Testament, especially verses 1-5 are being used more and more to justify the right of our leaders to wage war in Iraq. Furthermore, anyone who does not support current foreign policy has had their patriotism questioned, and these verses have been used as divine law to try and prove disloyalty. I do not agree, and my arguments are contained in this essay. To begin, here are the first five verses, Chapter 13 of the epistle of Paul to the Romans:

Romans 13 : 1-6
(From the NIV)

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Verse #1- Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Whoever is in power has gained their authority solely because of the will of God? No doubt this passage was used as a justification for the ‘divine right of kings’. But history is full of cruel leaders that gained power to rule through bloodshed. If you believe in a heavenly father that pulls our strings like we were his puppets, then perhaps this verse is justified. Nothing happens without the direct intervention of the heavenly father; hence whatever happens is what should happen. No matter how much harm is created, no matter the consequences. It is God’s will. Even an Idi Amin, an Adolf Hitler, a Genghis Khan, or a Saddam Hussein is God’s will. Even if murder, deceit and other evil acts may have been used to gain authority, that authority must be obeyed.

It must be remembered the times in which Paul wrote this epistle. Around the middle of the first century, Christianity was a fledgling religion, and Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. Most of the first Christians were born Jewish. It was a time of the Roman Empire, when going against any kind of Roman authority, even in trivial matters could cause you great harm, even to be crucified. And consider that the authority that Paul told the Romans to obey was a pagan roman emperor. Paul says that the authorities that exist have been established by God. So whatever the Emperor said had to be obeyed, for God had established him as ruler, even if the ruler did not believe in ‘God’ as the Christians did.

So to my mind, Paul was warning his Christian brethren to love one another and not openly refute the Roman authorities. Paul was much concerned with not only his brethren’s behavior but their survival as well. I believe he took his calling to ‘spread the good news’ very seriously. There would be no one to spread it to if the early Christians would have refuted Rome’s authority at every step.

As for the divine right of kings, when our country was founded the divine rule of kings no longer applied. In our democracy, there is but one group that ‘gives’ the authority to rule to anyone, and that is the people of the United States. In our democracy, God has given the populace the say via the election process to determine our leaders.

So to look upon this first verse as a law from God is a mistake. It was written two thousand years ago in a very different world and circumstance.

Verse #2- Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

With any country or state, and especially a democracy, comes responsibility to follow the laws of the country. Without civil authority there is chaos. But civil authority does not mean the authority to crush peaceful dissent. Indeed, if a citizen doesn’t agree with a specific law or policy, they can have a hand in changing things. Look at how much has been changed over the years by people who have disagreed with current law. Whether you agree with the changes or not, such examples as the banning of prayer in school, passing of child labor laws, and many other changes prove that a person can make a difference. Whether a person agrees with the changes or not is of course a personal matter. But a person has just as much right to protest the banning of prayer in school as in protesting a foreign policy, and just as much right to try and change it.

If a person that is in favor of prayer in school tries to lead a classroom in prayer, naturally they must be prepared for the consequences. And if a person that is against foreign policy chooses to break into a military installation without authorization, then they too must be prepared for the consequences. I’m speaking about the right of U.S. citizens to peacefully dissent and to peacefully congregate if so desired to express their opinion. These actions do not denote rebellion, no matter what the issue is. These actions do not denote anti-patriotism, no matter what the issue is. Furthermore, these actions do not denote a breaking of religious law with God. Again, we the people of the United States have given our leaders the right to rule. Hopefully, with reflection and prayer we can elect the right leaders. What would have happened over two hundred years ago if the colonists put their faith in the literal interpretation of this verse? Rebellion against King George would be tantamount to rebellion against God, and there would be no United States of America.

Verse #3-For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

What is Paul speaking of when he says ‘do right’? Does he imply by that a blind obedience to anyone that is in authority? Does ‘do wrong’ mean anything that is against the authorities wishes? If the above questions are answered with a ‘yes’, then of what use is our Constitution? If the above questions are answered with a ‘yes’, how can we have a democracy?

Verse #4- For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

I do not believe that our leaders are God’s servants to do us good. I do not believe that God has servants that cater to people and groups that have the biggest wallets that contribute the most to campaign funds. I do not believe that God has servants that continually give more to those that have, and continually give less to those that have not. I do not believe that God has servants that cut aid for education, and ask an already downtrodden lower and middle class to absorb an increasing tax burden for ‘defense’. I do not believe that God has servants that allow forty one million people to be without any kind of health insurance as medical costs keep escalating out of control. I do not believe that God has servants that allow big business to pay indecent wages to workers while the fat cats get fatter. Our leaders are merely people. Not necessarily divinely guided, but with all the ulterior motives, faults, blind spots and selfishness that all humans have.

Verse #5- Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

In this era, blind obedience to authority while ignoring conscience is wrong. To truly participate in a democracy means to acknowledge our conscience. The conscience is the dwelling inside of us where the Spirit truly resides. God is not in heaven pulling strings. He is within us all, urging us to do what is right. The founding fathers were very wise men, but they really didn’t invent democracy. The person that told us (the followers of Jesus) we were all equal, no matter if a prostitute, tax collector, Samaritan, or leper, was Jesus. We are all equal in the eyes of God.

So while I fully understand that if I break laws in this country, I could be punished. But peaceful dissent, differing opinion, and trying to change things are not breaking this country’s laws or disobeying God-given authority. These verses of the bible are being used out of context, and being used by some as a permission slip from God that allows our leaders to wage war where ever they see fit, and as a warning from God that we the citizens must support our leaders or face the consequences. Dangerous happenings, when words written so long ago are used as a defense of modern aggression!

On Being A Non-Exclusive Christian

The term non-exclusive Christian is a relatively recent one. It is a way to define a person and their beliefs within the Christian religion. But what does it mean? A definition for me is:

Someone who has made a choice in their spiritual life to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but at the same time that person recognizes that there are many ways to lead a spiritual life.

If the span of human history is considered, it wasn’t long ago that for someone to make such a statement would lead to dire consequences. Can you imagine, for example, what the medieval Christian church’s reaction would have been to any member of its congregation saying such a thing? Whether Catholic or Protestant, the answer would be the same:

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. The only way to the Father is through the Son.

To be a non-exclusive Christian, in the traditional views of the church, would have been heresy, pure and simple. Many people suffered horrible torture and painful death for less radical beliefs, so what would the fate of a non-exclusive Christian be? Although the church no longer tortures or beheads people, the fact is that many Christians would still say that a non-exclusive Christian is a heretic. For these people, their core beliefs have been shaped by two thousand years of official interpretation of scripture by man. For them, there is and can only be one way to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. Period. Everything else is false.

For me to believe that only Christians are on the right path would also mean that no matter how ethical, compassionate, and unselfish a person may be, they are without hope. They are denied the grace of the spirit. I cannot believe in this. The spirit does not deny anyone grace, nor can I deny anyone their worthiness of it. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everyone, nor does it excuse the evil-doer (which at times includes myself). Does that mean I don’t ever judge when I shouldn’t, or condemn some for their actions? Of course not. If nothing else, I am human, with thoughts and emotions that are sometimes wrong, sometimes inappropriate, and (not nearly often enough) compassionate.

Does a murderer deserve grace? A wife-beater? A pedophile? An embezzler? A thief? A liar? Any doer of anything ‘wrong’ you care to mention? I answer yes. Without a doubt. Our society might rightly forbid these actions and deny the evil doer of their physical freedom. We can abhor their actions, condemn them to life imprisonment or even physical death, but the spirit is still there for them. So if the spirit is there for someone who commits the most heinous act imaginable, then I can’t believe that it would be denied to any spiritual person, regardless of their particular faith.

To deny the believers of a different faith would be to discard my belief in a ubiquitous spirit. A spirit that was, always has been, and always will be, and that doesn’t exist in the stratosphere, but within us all. A spirit that created all of us with a heart to feel and a mind to think. And that belief I cannot discard. It has been a long time coming for me, and was just as much a result of whatever intellect I possess as well as whatever emotions I have.

Being a non-exclusive Christian means to discard many things that were taught to me as a child. And (to use an overused and misunderstood phrase) to be born again of the spirit. But born again with the knowledge that the choice I have made is the right choice for me, and that the spiritual choice anyone else has made, if done with conviction and honesty in their heart, is the right choice for them. Their beliefs do not diminish mine, and mine do not diminish theirs. It means to have courage in what I truly believe, but yet have an open mind to what others believe.

It means to search for answers, even when there aren’t any, to go beyond mere religious tolerance and flow into the grace of accepting others for what they believe and who they are. If the spirit shows grace to all people, can’t I attempt to show grace by acceptance? We are all different, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in large ways. But the key word is different. Being different from some and alike with others can’t be avoided, nor should it be. But when your own personal beliefs (or any given talent you have) gives you a sense of superiority over others, then I believe that is wrong. Different does not mean better or worse. It merely means different.

Non Interest

Words from Oriah Mountain Dreamer, Native American Elder

It doesn't interest me what you do for a living. I want to know what you ache for,and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart's longing.

It doesn't interest me how old you are. I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love for your dream for the adventure of being alive.

It doesn't interest me what planets are squaring your moon. I want to know if you have touched the center of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life's betrayals or have become shriveled and closed from fear of future pain. I want to know if you can sit with pain,mine or your own,without moving to hide it or fade it,or fix it. I want to know if you can be with joy,mine or your own, if you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your toes without cautioning us to be careful,be realistic or to remember the limitations of being human.

It doesn't interest me if the story you are telling me is true. I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself,if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul. I want to know if you can be faithful and therefore be trustworthy. I want to know if you can see beauty even if it's not pretty everyday,and if you can source your life on the edge of the lake and shout to the silver moon,(YES)!

It doesn't interest me where you live or how much money you have. I want to know if you can get up after a night of grief and despair,weary and bruised to the bone,and do what needs to be done for the children.

It doesn't interest me who you know or how you came to be here. I want to know if you will stand in the center of the fire with me and not shrink back.

It doesn't interest me where or what or with whom you have studied. I want to know what sustains you from the inside when all else falls away. I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.

Rambling About Religion

Never in my life have I thought as I do now. In the past I usually floated along with the flow, rather conservative in politics and my life in general. But the older I get, the more my opinions swing to the progressive view of issues. Is this contrary to what usually happens? Don't folks tend to get more conservative as they age?

In the realm of religion, in my younger years I never bought into it. I was raised in the Methodist Church, went to Sunday School and all that, and I was confirmed a Methodist. But I remember just a few days before the confirmation ceremonies, we had to have a one-on-one meeting with the pastor. After some chit-chat, the preacher got to the crux of the meeting, and started asking me questions:

Pastor: Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
Me: No
Pastor (after looking at me over his glasses): You don't believe in the virgin birth?
Me: No
Pastor: Why not?
Me: Things don't happen that way.
Pastor: Jesus was God on earth, He was God's son.
Me: Okay.
Pastor: He was God's gift to us.
Me: Okay
Pastor: He died for our sins.
Me: Whatever you say.

And the meeting went on in the same vein. By the time I walked home, the pastor had evidently called my Mother, for she was waiting for me.

Mother: What did you say to the pastor?
Me: He asked me questions, and I answered.
Mother: Well don't be saying that kind of stuff to a preacher, especially just before you get confirmed.
Me: But it's what I believe.
Mother: That's all well and good, but don't be saying that kind of stuff to a preacher!

Bless my Mother's memory, she didn't try to convince me otherwise. She just wasn't happy that I was so honest, with a pastor of all people! So I was soured on the whole idea. I went through the confirmation ceremony, but it didn't mean much to me. This was my attitude for a number of years. Why in the hell even bother with something where what I truly believe is not to be uttered?

This was the world I lived in. But then I met a man that happened to be a preacher. Met him by circumstance, still wasn't interested in church, religion, spirituality. He was the first person I met that was willing to listen and not condemn. Not only listen, but actually agreed with some of the things I said, blasphemous as they were. This set me aback. I was fairly certain I had all this religious mumbo-jumbo figured out. But I wasn't even close. I had many talks with this man, still do on occasion but not as frequent as before, for he now lives out of town. But he showed me that it is possible to have strong convictions and still be spiritual, if not essentially religious. He actually showed me the difference between the two.

And what a difference there can be! Ideally perhaps the two should go hand in hand. But it often seems that they don't. There are many reasons it seems for folks to attend church. For the social aspect, to show off some new clothes, to do their one-hour duty, and actually to worship. I don't berate anyone for any reasons they might have for going to church. All I'm concerned about is why I started to attend again. Not every Sunday for sure, but a damn sight more than I used to. All I know is that I, like most everyone that is willing to admit it, am a spiritual being. A wise person once said that "We are not human beings trying to live spiritual life, but spiritual beings trying to live a human life". I still don't buy into the dogma, but I also know that that makes absolutely no difference to my spiritual life.

A few times a year I work up a piece for the piano to play for the congregation. Not being a natural talent, I have to work very hard which means I do a lot of practicing on the sanctuary's piano. Pianos are like people, they have their own personality, and it takes awhile to get to know them. I know the piano at church very well. A Baldwin upright, not in the best of shape, it has it's own little quirks, but all things considered it doesn't sound too bad. When I am alone in the sanctuary practicing, the same sanctuary and church that my Mother was so involved with, I can feel the presence of her spirit there. That is but one part of my spiritual life. As my preacher friend has said, "Be concerned with your spirituality. The rest is only fluff and stuff."

Before my Mother passed, I talked to her about the incident with the preacher and my confirmation. She was quite a free thinker for her generation. She told me that I was right, and that if a preacher didn't want to hear what a person really thought, they shouldn't ask. She admitted at the time that she was too wrapped up in the social aspects of church, and that after a long life she had become a doubter of organized religious thought. But she also said that church was a vital part of her life in her declining years, and that the church was her family that she accepted, warts and all. My Mother taught me many things in my life, and probably the most important thing was how to leave this earth with grace and dignity. After eighty-six years, raising seven children, losing one to death at the age of eighteen, and 'raising' my Father too, and prevailing over many trials and heartbreak, she knew when it was her time. She faced it bravely and matter-of-factly, and passed a restful, peaceful, noble death.

The spiritual is what I'm concerned with. Not the supernatural, not some ancient miracle story that some insist is literal fact. A spiritual awakening, if you like. The rest is only fluff and stuff. Indeed!