Little Known American History

(Revised 7-4-2008, 11:59 PM, PDT)

Most Americans do not know about certain pieces of history that are very important to be aware of right now, particularly with regard to how the founding fathers of the United States of America felt about religion.

You see, they wanted not only to establish freedom of religion. They wanted to establish freedom from religious bigotry. They wanted not only to ensure that no religious sect or denomination could rule. They wanted to ensure that no religion could rule. Their values were universal, common to all religions, and based on the universal divine imperative that I discussed on the page titled Real Spiritual Values.

That is especially important now because certain leaders of the so-called "Christian Right" have been and still are making false claims about the intent of the founding fathers, and they have succeeded to the extent that being a Christian has become a litmus test for being president.

After all, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has now identified with misguided and bigoted "Christian" leaders like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson and Franklin Graham, and McCain has claimed that America is a "Christian nation." Not only that, Democrat Barack Obama has resorted to talking about the role his Christian faith played in his community work to "fulfill God’s will," and do "the Lord’s work." That is not only pandering to the bigotry of the "Christian Right," it is in direct violation of the intent of the founding fathers.

So I’ll discuss that, along with political and economic issues, because Americans should be aware of the mind-set and intent of the founding fathers, and of crucial pieces of their nation’s history that are very relevant right now.

The founding fathers did their best to create and ensure freedom, equality and democracy, but they were, after all, British-Americans, and they were influenced by European traditions. In fact, the U.S. Government has its roots in European Empires, particularly the British Empire, and to a certain extent even the earlier Roman Empire, which is particularly evident in the U.S. legal system. And the U.S. economic system was carried over from Europe as well.

When a significant dispute arose early on between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson about economics, Hamilton won because he touted the existing British-American economic system. Hamilton liked it because it was built around corporate and private capitalism, while Jefferson wasn’t at all convinced it was good for all the people. But Hamilton prevailed because his views appealed more to the relative few who had become wealthy and powerful due to the economic traditions that had been carried over from Europe. Consequently, corporate and private capital wealth remained the ruling factor and the essential source of power, as it was in Europe.

Fortunately, though, when it came to democratic political ideals, Jefferson's views appealed to more people, because even wealthy and powerful Americans wanted to be free of monarchy as they had known it. That's why the seed of Jeffersonian democracy was planted in America. Even though the European economic model was carried over and continued, America at least became somewhat more democratic in its leadership. And, while Jefferson played a key role in that, he was able to do so because most of the other founding fathers of the United States of America were also pluralistic and democratic in their political ideals.

What many Americans are not aware of, however, is that the founding fathers were even more pluralistic and democratic in their views on religion. They did their best to establish freedom of religion and freedom from religious bigotry, and to ensure that there was a separation of church and state so that no religion or religious sect was favored or had special influence.

The writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Paine and Franklin were particularly adamant about that. For example, Jefferson wrote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

The writings of the founding fathers also show they were very wary and disapproving of religious superstition, bigotry, intolerance, hypocrisy, aggression, imposition, and persecution. They were very critical of the certain Christian leaders in that regard.

Indeed, Jefferson wrote: "The returning good sense of our country threatens them [the clergy] and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me, and enough too in their opinion, and this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

Jefferson incurred the wrath of self-important and self-righteous Christian preachers who were much like the leaders of the "Christian Right" today, because he did not hide his disdain for them. He dared to echo the feelings of many of his fellow educated men of faith, as when he wrote: "Whenever preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregations] off with a discourse on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract."

Jefferson also wrote: "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man."

Clearly, Jefferson felt that preachers should not use their pulpit as a partisan political soap box, especially when their personal beliefs and opinions were presented as divine truth. Jefferson stood up to their political grandstanding cloaked in religion, and he exposed their "tyrannical" aggression and imposition. And they hated him for it.

James Madison felt the same way. In 1875 he wrote: "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Madison also wrote: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by [Christian] Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

Benjamin Franklin, a founding father and a genius, felt the same way. He became a Deist after educating himself and turning away from his rigid and oppressive puritanical Protestant Christian upbringing. He learned to appreciate Deism, which was popular among many educated men of faith at the time, because it is the belief in the existence of God on the evidence of reason and nature, with rejection of superstition.

That is why George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, the first five presidents of the United States, were Deists, and their religious perspective was more close to that of today’s Unitarian Universalists than any other.

To give you an example of how Franklin felt, in an essay on "Toleration" he stated: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. [The Puritans] found it wrong in the Bishops [of the Church of England], but fell into the same practice themselves in New England [in America]."

Most of the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, understood that the "New Testament" Christian Bible had been compromised, whether by the original authors so long after the death of Jesus, or by later translators and interpreters. In 1820 Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Jesus by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

John Adams felt much the same way. In 1816 he wrote: "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

That shows how understanding, honest and realistic founding fathers like Adams and Jefferson were, and they said such things because they had the best interests of the people at heart. They also understood why they had to stand up to the religious bigots and against their "tyranny."

That's why Abraham Lincoln later said: "The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." (And by the way, Lincoln later also wrote: "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years...")

The great Thomas Paine wrote: "Soon after I had published the pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

Paine was wrong in thinking that the American Revolution would include a revolution in the system of religion. In fact, even though Paine’s political revolutionary fervor caught on, he gradually lost favor because he was against organized religion and wasn’t afraid to say so, and conservative Christian preachers berated him for that.

Paine's credo, found in his book Age of Reason, published in 1795, is a good summary of Deist belief. He wrote: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope fervently for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."

I don't have anything against organized religion, as long as it serves its true purpose. I am only against religious bigotry, theocracy, myths, and false beliefs based on misunderstanding of divine intent. But I love all religions because, aside from all the distortions in organized religions, their actual and true purpose is based on the core universal truths that are common to all –– universal love, brotherhood and sisterhood, peace, freedom, equality, sharing, cooperation, collaboration, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism. That’s what all genuine and good prophets, avatars, buddhas, christs, siddhas, sages, imams, gurus, and other spiritual teachers have taught.

Most of the founding fathers felt the same way, but in that respect they were not influential for very long. Their political influence was great, but their feelings about religion were forgotten or ignored after a short time, because certain Christian leaders and their sects were driven by the desire to rule, just as some are today. That’s why I quote the founding fathers here, and on other pages, especially the page on Religious Pluralism vs Theocracy.

I point out these historical facts to expose and refute the claims made by the bigoted and hypocritical leaders of today's "Christian Right," like Pat Robertson, who are also driven by the desire to rule, and falsely claims that the founding fathers did not want separation of church and state or religious pluralism. In fact, Robertson falsely claims that the founding fathers instead wanted America to be "The Land of Jesus." But Robertson is blatantly wrong. He deludes himself and misleads his flock, because the founding fathers were very much against aggressive, power-hungry religious bigots and hypocrites who were just like Pat Robertson and all other right-wing ideologues who claim to be Christians.

You see, most of the founding fathers were very rational, independent, free thinkers, and many of them, as I said, were Deists. In their writings, they referred to God in distinctly non-Christian terms, such as Nature's God or the God of Nature, the Creator, Merciful Providence, Universal Parent, Great Author, the one-and-only God, and Divine Goodness. They did not use the typical or traditional Christian references to God as Almighty God, Lord, or Lord God. And, when they referred to the Christ Jesus, it was as a teacher and servant of God that he said he was, not as Lord or Savior.

In other words, most of the founding fathers knew that God is not an idol -- not a person, nor a thing, nor a place to be worshiped. The founding fathers did not worship an idol.

 

Their God is my God. And, even though I do use the term Lord God and Lord of Hosts, that is because I fulfill Judeo-Christian prophecy and must address Jews, Christians and Muslims, as well as the followers of other religions. And I’ve explained that God is the omnipresent, eternal Supreme Consciousness, the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, and the primordial “Word” that is made flesh in all of us.

 

Furthermore, many of the founding fathers were also interested in and influenced by the principles of Rosicrucian and Spiritualistic thought, and especially by Freemasonry, which is non-sectarian, pluralistic, respectful of all religions, and based on brotherly love, good will, and mutual assistance for the common good.

In fact, eight signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, and sixteen following presidents were also Freemasons. That is why the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States (seen on the dollar bill) is Masonic in character and declares (in Latin) "A New Order of the Age begins."

This is important, because the original Freemasons were among the first significant organizations to foster what are called "esoteric" spiritual teachings in the 1700s, first in Europe and then in America. They helped make Deism and esoteric spiritual teachings accepted and popular. Mainstream Western philosophers of the 1700s followed that trend, and they also became fascinated with Eastern culture, religion, literature and philosophy. That fascination began to reach its peak toward the end of the 1700s. In fact, the second American president, John Adams, had great interest in Eastern thought, and he read many English translations of Eastern religious works.

During that time, Tibetan Buddhist texts, the Koran (or Qur'an), Semitic, Sanskrit, Vedic (Hindu) and Chinese literature, and other Mid-Eastern and Eastern religious and spiritual philosophy became generally accessible and popular. This had a profound impact on the Western (European and American) cultural leaders by the middle of the 1800s, and it influenced such philosophers and writers as Schopenhauer, Emerson, Nietzsche, Baudelaire, James and Shelley, among others. A great respect for the esoteric teachings and Eastern religions grew, and their inclusive, universal spiritual approach was regarded as a refreshing and interesting alternative to the rigid, exclusive theocratic dogmatism of the American "Christian Right" of that time.

Such interests continued to become more widespread, so much so that in 1893 a Parliament of Religions was held in Chicago. It was a groundbreaking event and the first of its kind, and leaders from each of the great religions presented their views on life. This created even greater appreciation for Eastern religions, which were represented by notables such as Swami Vivekenanda, who spoke about Hinduism, and Soyen Shaku, a Zen-Buddhist abbot. Shortly after that, the first Buddhist society in the West was founded.

Of course, financial wealth still ruled in America, because the spiritual movement was based on humility and was non-materialistic, non-aggressive and pacifistic. They "rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's," as Jesus advised, and they didn't try to push their beliefs on anyone. They didn't impose, and they didn't fight the "powers-that-be," because their beliefs were based on the spiritual knowledge that the meek shall ultimately inherit the earth and share and share alike, which is a universal belief held by all truly faithful, spiritual people, regardless of their religion.

You see, true servants of God understand why the original Christians wrote: "No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:32-35) And "all the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2:44-45) They understood why Jesus said, "If you would follow me, sell what you have and give to the poor." They were the true Christians, as distinguished from many pretenders and misguided zealots who claimed they were Christians.

Of course, today no one would take that literally (about selling all you have), including me, but the point is well taken. It's about caring about each other, caring for one another, and sharing so that no one is in need and no one goes without. That's what a true Christian, like a true Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, etc., is supposed to do. It's what we are ALL supposed to do.

Unfortunately, that part of Christianity had long since vanished from the political ideology of most wealthy and powerful European and American Christians. In fact, the opposite has been the case ever since the 4th Century when Christianity was "adopted" by a patriarchal materialistic military empire. That is why aggressive and greedy wealthy people, who claimed to be Christians, were able to rule completely in Europe, and then in America. After all, post-fourth century Christianity and even post-Reformation Protestant Christianity established the "divine right" of kings and rich aristocrats in Europe, and that tradition carried over in America in spite of the efforts of the founding fathers to establish more equality.

The rule of the wealthiest few was greatly expanded by the invention and use of trains in the late 1800s. It enhanced the capability of the wealthy few in America to increase their wealth, power and domain, utilizing the power of the gun and all that money could buy.

In the early 1900s the invention of motorized vehicles expanded that capability even more. It enabled the wealthy few to rule even more totally, and, in certain cases, ruthlessly. After all, there were no labor unions to protect workers, and there was therefore practically no Middle Class. In fact, factory workers who tried to organize were brutally suppressed and even beaten by hired thugs. Garment workers in "sweat shops" were cruelly suppressed and treated as slave labor. The wealthy few dominated completely, particularly in more populated areas and cities where the industrial revolution was in full swing, and in effect everyone else worked to serve the wealthiest few people who ruled by using the power of their money.

At this point I feel it necessary to say that of course, not all wealthy people were bad then, just as not all wealthy people are bad now. In fact, some wealthy people are very deserving of their wealth and are very good people. But I must tell you the truth, and there is a very good reason why it is written that the love of money is the root of all evil. All too often it is true.

Meanwhile, however, good things were happening behind the scenes. For example, in 1925, Paramahansa Yogananda, the great spiritual teacher from India who wrote Autobiography of a Yogi, came to America and founded the Self-Realization Fellowship, a non-sectarian all-faith teaching organization. It gained considerable popularity in America (and it later flourished in the 1960s and is still growing and going strong today.) Additionally, the western esoteric spiritual tradition also found a following with new spiritual teaching schools, orders and movements in America, unobtrusively. And that was, as it still is, because true spiritual teachers do not do much to recruit students, and they certainly do not try to push their beliefs on anyone. They merely accept students who seek and have a keen desire to learn the real truth.

But, that was behind the scenes, and meanwhile the wealthy ruled completely, and the most ruthless of the wealthiest few lived very ruthlessly. They lived "high on the hog" in opulent, extravagant luxury, and their increasing excesses lead to "The Roaring Twenties." Granted, it was a time of general widespread optimism, and most average people who went along with the traditional ways generally did not suffer too much. In fact, it could be said that many average people didn’t have it too bad in the 1920s. However, it was a time when the wealthiest few lived like royalty, and some of them became very corrupt. In fact, it was when the term "filthy rich" was coined.

Much of that corruption was because the very wealthy were enabled by Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, who were in office from 1921 to 1932. They mistakenly believed that banks, stock brokerage houses, big businesses, corporations and the stock market should not be regulated by government, but should be left to their own devices.

It should be noted that back then, the Republicans were, especially in that respect, much like the later Republican Reaganites and Bushites who have deceptively claimed that we must "get government off our backs" and pushed for "deregulation" and "free market economy."

They say such misleading things because their goals were, and still are, to operate without any restrictions or regulations. They want the freedom and license to operate even without any regulation with regard to employee rights or protections, and without any regulation with regard to environmental protections, and they think they should just be trusted to do the right thing.

Republicans were very successful in achieving those goals in the 1920s (just as Republicans have had much success achieving them since 1980 under Reaganism and then under Bushism). Consequently, in the 1920s the wealthy few had great license and free rein, so greed was unchecked, and that led to some terrible corruption, unfairness, and abuses of all the power that money can buy.

For example, a very wealthy few were able to totally control and manipulate the stock market, and they got a whole lot of other people to invest their hard earned money too. It was sold as an easy way to make money for nothing. Consequently, many people bought shares of stocks, hoping to make a profit. However, while many people did reap some rewards along with some losses, the very wealthy few made huge profits. They would buy stocks that were low and then spark interest in the stocks, start a buying spree, and then sell as soon as the stock price rose sufficiently. Thus they made huge windfall profits while leaving all the other investors with losses, and they got richer and richer and lived more and more palatially, in fantastic luxury. Many of them even had many live-in servants, gardeners, grounds-keepers and chauffeurs. They were the American aristocracy, and "class" distinctions were very sharp and pretty much like they were in Europe.

Then, inevitably and consequently, all the greed, corruption, materialistic excesses, and the growing widespread desire to make a "quick buck" and a financial "killing," led to some inevitable bad consequences. For one thing, it led to the stock market crash of 1929, when in three days the New York Stock Exchange erased over 5 billion dollars worth of share values, and before long 16 billion dollars of stock capitalization were erased. And in those days, those numbers represented far greater monetary value than they do today. And to make matters worse, banks that had invested their deposits in the stock market lost them. Bank customers tried to withdraw their money, but $140 billion of depositor money disappeared and 10,000 banks failed.

The stock market crash was beneficial for some who saw it coming and cashed in, but it was disastrous for most Americans and for the whole economy. It caused the Great Depression, which lasted from October 1929 to the mid 1930s. It plunged many people into poverty. Many workers lost their jobs and were forced to live in shacks in shanty towns (makeshift slums). They had to depend on charitable soup lines and bread lines to get anything to eat. In fact, thirty percent of Americans were reduced to conditions of poverty, hunger and homelessness.

In 1932 Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt offered a New Deal that gradually helped average people and the great majority. He was a great leader who, in spite of being a victim of Polio and mostly confined to a wheelchair, unified the American people, led them out of the horrible depression, and to victory over the German and Japanese tyrants who threatened to conquer and rule the world by force of arms. He also led the average man to far greater prosperity than ever before.

During Roosevelt's first term many reforms of the economic system were established, and some much needed regulations were put in place. Moreover, many New Deal programs such as Social Security and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) helped tremendously. For while President Roosevelt is now best known as the president who won the Second World War, it was the domestic programs he established before the war that helped most and saved millions of Americans from poverty. The CCC, for instance, put more than a million people to work and produced many wonderful and immensely useful public works projects that are still used and enjoyed by the public even today. It was a marvelous and worthy investment in people, in the infrastructure, in the country, and in the land.

Roosevelt's and New Deal Democrats' efforts were boosted because, at the same time, a grass roots political protest-liberation movement had begun, led by great and courageous people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Joe Hill, Paul Robeson, Josh White, Dorothea Lange, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many others who were instrumental in that progressive political liberation movement. They tried to expose the corruption of the greediest, wealthiest, powerful few, and they especially tried to point out the plight of the poor and the working poor. And, together with the moral support of those in the spiritual movement, they produced a lot of progress.

Unfortunately, in the mid-1930s, in reaction to the success of the good liberal progressives, there was a revival of right-wing political activism, driven by right-wing conservative, materialistic, dogmatic Christian sects. They sought to establish more firm "Christian" control in the United States. They founded a so-called "Legion of Decency" designed to do that. It consisted of right-wing conservative Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists, conservative Catholics, and others --- pretty much the same denominations, sects and factions that even today make up the "Christian Right" and what they call a "Christian Coalition." They think they are the true Christians, but they ironically act in opposition to true Christians, because true Christians actually care for and/or advocate for the poor and the least of our brethren.

The right-wing conservative "Christian Revival" started by the Christian Right in the 1930s continued sporadically throughout the 1940s and 1950s, but it had a significant impact. That's why the television programs of the 1950s were so superficial and unrealistically "perfect." Rigid censorship was imposed on the broadcast and entertainment industry by a very powerful minority conservative clergy.

The trouble is, rigid censorship always proves to be counterproductive, because it produces repression. And that produces unnecessary guilt, rebellion, and other negative consequences. We are, after all, human, and, if we are conscientious, we learn from our mistakes. But, in spite of that, and because of what was politically and socially "correct" at the time, strict conformity was the general rule.

However, there were many who rejected it and rebelled. In fact, that's when the Bohemians and "Beatniks" (the forerunners of the "Hippies") became influential, with their liberation poetry and songs, and it is when many young people simply ignored authority when no one was looking. After all, when authorities are overly and unnecessarily prohibitive and restrictive, young people are especially rebellious. That’s because distrustful and rigidly strict church and state authorities, just like distrustful and rigidly strict parents, tend to do things that are counterproductive, because most people, and especially young people, resent and resist being rigidly controlled.

Ironically, though, in the 1950s America was, for the most part, united. That was mainly because the Second World War (1941-1945) helped to bring the American people together very noticeably. And, because of that unifying event, along with the efforts of President Roosevelt and New Deal Democrats and all those in the political liberation movement and the pluralistic spiritual movement, many things improved. The most notable example was that by the late 1950s Labor Unions had grown significantly, the American Middle Class had become very large and great, and the minimum wage was actually close to a living wage, not poverty wage, as it had been and is again today because of the deceptive but highly successful Reaganite war on labor unions. Most workers had it pretty good in the 1950s.

Even so, most of the improvements were made in spite of the efforts in the 1950s by some very unscrupulous and maliciously ruthless right-wing partisan conservative Republican politicians who rose up, led by Republican Senators Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon. They labeled and condemned all the people in the political protest-liberation movement as "Communists," just because they advocated for the majority and especially for the working poor. It was called "red-baiting," and McCarthy, Nixon and their right-wing cohorts did it with terrible malice. They demonized those in the protest-liberation movement in a terribly unfair, slanderous, deceptive, misleading way, and they were successful. They ruined the lives of many good people in the liberation movement, many of whom were in the entertainment industry and other influential professions, who were "black listed," ostracized and punished in many different ways.

By the time we entered the 1960s, those dishonest and deceptive right-wing conservative tactics had produced their desired affect. Laws and policies enabled the very wealthy few to enjoy even more privilege and license, and, consequently, many of them had fallen into temptation and let the power of their wealth corrupt them.

Then, ironically, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who, in his farewell address in 1961, warned America about the dangers of allowing the "Military-Industrial Complex" to gain too much power and get out of hand. It was very appropriate and needed advice, but, unfortunately, most Americans didn't listen and consequently the military-industrial complex did get out of hand. However, some aware and conscientious people did understand why Eisenhower issued that warning. In fact, in response to all the corruption, and in response to the prudish repression that had been caused by the right-wing conservative clergy in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, the protest-liberation movement was reborn in the early 1960s.

Indeed, the protest-liberation movement was not only reborn, it was greatly expanded by many different folk singers, rock bands, entertainers, political activists and spiritual leaders, including Joan Baez; Bob Dylan; Pete Seeger (again, God bless him); Peter, Paul and Mary; Gloria Steinham; Martin Luther King Jr.; Baba Ram Dass; Stephen Gaskin; the great rock band Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; Richie Havens, and many others far too numerous to mention here.

In fact, huge numbers of people joined the liberation movement, part of which was known as the political New Left, but was better known as the love, peace and freedom movement, and they were and still are good, fair, compassionate, conscientious people. They tried, and most of them still try, to point out true spiritual values having to do with love, peace, freedom and equality, that are really at the core of all religions.

People in the movement warned about the growing income disparity and gap between the rich and the poor, because once again the rich were getting much richer while the working poor and the poor were becoming much poorer. In 1962, Michael Harrington’s book, The Other America, pointed out that at least 20 percent of the American population were living below the poverty line and had missed out on the prosperity of the 1950s. That gave the movement authority in speaking out on the behalf of the working poor and the poor, even though they met very strong and well-financed resistance from right-wing conservatives.

Another book was published in 1962 that was very important and influential. It was Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson. But, as Al Gore wrote in 1994 in his introduction to that year’s edition of the book, Carson’s book met with considerable resistance from those big businesses and corporations who were profiting from being the sources of pollution. Major chemical companies tried to contradict the facts in the book and made false claims to the contrary. Carson was even accused of being "hysterical and extremist." And Al Gore understood such misguided criticism, because when he was a young member of the U.S. Senate, he was labeled as "Ozone Man" in disparaging remarks made by George H. W. Bush (George W. Bush’s father). Nevertheless, Silent Spring helped originate the conservation and environmental movement in the 1960s, and many environmental protections began to be established.

The best thing, though, in my view, was that in the 1960s the idea that there is a unity at the core of all religions emerged once again. The basics of the esoteric spiritual teachings, along with an influx of Eastern religious teachings, created the "New Age" movement that blossomed in the United States in the 1960s. That's when "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius" was widely announced in the great classic musical, Hair, which was great and wonderful, even though it was premature in announcing the beginning of the new age.

The huge peace-freedom-liberation movement in the 1960s was extremely effective politically and socially. However, it must be said that most of the "hippies" and "flower children" of the 1960s were non-political, contrary to current widespread claims made by conservatives. Most of them were involved in a "back to the earth" and "back to nature" movement. That's when the interest in natural foods, ecology, environmental protection and conservation really began to flourish. In fact, it was when the "Green" movement really began in America.

Unfortunately, what got more of the media's attention was the political part of the protest- liberation movement. As I said, it was called the New Left, and it was very influential because it was very motivated. After all, they were seriously trying to save the world and establish peace, freedom, and social and economic justice and equity.

Granted, there was some foolishness demonstrated by certain small radical political elements of the New Left, because they responded in-kind to the violent right-wing suppression of dissent and protest. But, in spite of that, most of those in the political New Left were more rational and they succeeded significantly. Their influence ultimately produced many welcome reforms in environmental protection and criminal justice, and established more civil rights, more women's rights, and many other rights and protections for the majority of people and the environment.

Now, of course, part of the success of the New Left was due to the presidency of Democrat John F. Kennedy, a great charismatic man whose inclinations were truly democratic. He had become president in 1961, and he helped to inspire the younger generation with great hope and courage. His Peace Corps was and still is great, and it has done and still does a lot of good in the world. He was also instrumental in getting the minimum wage increased, and he issued an executive order to provide surplus food to unemployed Americans.

At the same time, however, there were very strong right-wing conservative Republicans vying for power. Indeed, the dissenting protests of the New Left provoked vehement and violent reaction from the Right. The earliest and most notable example of that was in the early 1960s, instigated by Ronald Reagan, who was at that time the newly elected Republican Governor of California. He reacted with intolerance and brutal violence against the student Free Speech Movement in Berkeley at the University of California, where the political New Left movement was born. Reagan was vehemently against it, and he falsely claimed it was led by "outside agitators, communists, and dirty bums who simply wanted to tear down society." He also said that if it took a "bloodbath," he would stop them. And sure enough, Reagan did create a bloodbath, because he used terribly brutal armed forces to try to suppress dissent and protest.

In doing that, Republican Governor Ronald Reagan set the tone for the violent right-wing reactionary confrontations that swept across America in the 1960s -- first in reaction to the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, and then eventually in reaction to the civil rights and anti-war demonstrations and marches all across the country. Militant right-wing leaders used tremendous violent force to suppress protest and dissent in America.

The corrupt few were so corrupt that they resorted not only violent suppression of dissent and protest. They even resorted to murder and assassination, because President Kennedy was tragically assassinated on November 22, 1963. But, while that caused a lot of disappointment and frustration in those who were trying to reform our political-economic system, it soon made them stronger and more determined. Unfortunately, that created an even stronger right-wing reaction against them. Conflict and violence increased, and it caused a tremendous amount of grief, despair and suffering. When it peaked during the brutal police riots against anti-war demonstrators in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, it left the country deeply divided and terribly polarized. We were split between those who knew the truth, and those who bought the propaganda of those in the U.S. Government who claimed they were doing the right thing. And while some of them were misguided Democrats, many were right-wing Republicans.

Of course, because I say that, right-wing conservative Republicans will claim that I am merely being biased and partisan, and that I'm just trying to start "class warfare." That's what they claim whenever anyone advocates for the poor and the working poor and criticizes the greediest of the wealthiest few. But the truth is the truth, even if it hurts.

To get back to 1968, it was a very crucial time, because when the nation was deeply split and polarized, the balance of political power began to sway slightly to the right again. That happened for several reasons. Two more heroes of the democratic New Left, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, were assassinated, like so many liberal and progressive champions and heroes of the people have been. And, with Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy out of the picture, Democrats then became split between conservative traditionalists and progressive liberals. Progressives were led by Eugene McCarthy, who went into the 1968 Democratic National Convention as the frontrunner, having won most of the presidential primary elections. Unfortunately, the democratic party bosses favored and nominated the relatively conservative and traditional Hubert H. Humphrey, even though he had not taken part or campaigned in the primary elections. That was why so many progressive and liberal anti-war democrats demonstrated in the streets of Chicago, and that was why the traditional (and corrupt) Mayor of Chicago at the time ordered his police forces to crack down and crack heads, which caused the bloody police riots at the time.

Consequently, with Democrats divided and with their candidate not really representing the majority of them, right-wing conservative Republican Richard Nixon was able to become president in 1969. And he was able to do so not only because democrats were divided, but also because he sold the misleading notion that the whole New Left was just a radical misguided minority and that he represented the "Silent Majority." It was not true, because by that time the actual majority of Americans identified more with the peace and freedom movement, and even somewhat with the values of the "Woodstock Generation" because most of them were really loving and caring. However, many Americans were so disgusted with partisan politics and conflict by that time that they did not even vote, and Nixon swayed just enough people who did vote to get elected.

With Republican President Nixon in power, the Military-Industrial Complex became even stronger and more out of hand. He expanded U.S. involvement in the Viet Nam War, which was very profitable for certain U.S. corporations. After all, there was a tremendous amount of military hardware needed and used there during the war years, including huge numbers of very expensive helicopter gun ships, huge numbers of other weapons and military vehicles and hardware, 11.2 million gallons of Agent Orange (the most toxic and long-lasting chemical ever synthesized by man), and countless tons of expensive and horribly destructive high explosive bombs that were dropped and inflicted on the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians during many years of senseless, careless and fruitless saturation bombing by the American air force.

Now, an overlooked fact is that a good part of the peace and freedom movement in the 1960s was the same spiritual-philosophical movement that had become popular in both Europe and America in the 1700s and 1800s. It had not only survived, it flourished again and successfully advocated the ideals of universal love, peace, freedom, equality, and religious pluralism. It recognized that all spiritual teachings and all religions have, at their foundation and core, the same eternal, universal values and principles. And, behind the scenes, the popularity of the movement continued and grew in the 1960s and through the 1970s, and even though it didn't receive the media attention that the political protest movement did, it was very influential socially.

Indeed, it was so influential that in 1979, a very deceptive and cunning right-wing conservative backlash began, and its most well known kingpins were presidential candidate Ronald Reagan and "Christian conservatives" like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They were reacting to the influence and success of the love, peace, freedom and equality movement, and to the influence and success of the political New Left, which identified with the love, peace and freedom movement. It was very similar to what had occurred in the 1930s and history repeated itself, because all right-wing, patriarchal theocrats hate real religious freedom and pluralism, and they seem to think that religious freedom means they have the right to try to impose their rigid and distorted brand of religion and ideology on the whole country and world. They always have, and they have always falsely claimed that God is on their side.

Reagan was supported in his bid for the presidency not only by extreme right-wing conservative religious leaders like Falwell and Robertson, but by other like-minded right-wing conservative political leaders and ideologues, and especially by very wealthy corporate executives and attorneys. Together they created the Reaganite New Right and the early "Neo-Conservative" Movement, which has, for the most part, operated ever since then under the guise of patriotism and religious "Christian values."

The trouble is, the New Right Reaganite (and later Bushite) Republicans have, in the name of God and Country, steadily and increasingly been chipping away at Roosevelt's democratic New Deal programs, in spite of the fact that they are actually Christian because they care about and for the poor and the least of our brethren. In fact, the Reaganites and Bushites have tried to do away with and reverse all the rights and protections that had improved the lives of the American people and the environment during the 1930s, ‘40s, '50s, and '60s.

When Ronald Reagan gained the power of the presidency in 1980, he appointed people to the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency who reversed much of the progress that had been made. It started a huge setback. They simply ignored the facts put forth by scientists, environmentalists and advocates of the poor. They pushed for "deregulation" to benefit big business and corporations and claimed it was to "get big government off our backs," which was very misleading and deceptive. They claimed that modern technology does not harm the environment, and they also claimed that "we cannot afford a welfare state." But all that was not merely misleading and deceptive. It was blatantly dishonest. They like big government when it suits their purposes. What they really meant, and what they still mean, is that they and their wealthy supporters do not want to pay their fair share of taxes, or pay for correcting what they have done that is wrong and harmful.

That is why Reagan insisted that tax cuts for the rich are absolutely necessary and good for the country, just as Bush has done since he gained power in 2000. And the Reaganites and Bushites have done so even though all their tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthy and actually and inevitably plunged the country into debt and proved disastrous in many ways.

Anyway, to get back to the story, with the rise of Republican Ronald Reagan to the U.S. presidency in 1980, the Military-Industrial Complex grew even more, and it took on a new aspect. With the influence of so-called "Christian evangelists" like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, it then became the Religious-Military-Industrial Complex, and it established a culture I call Reaganism. It claims to serve all the people in the name of God and Country, but it actually serves what Jesus called "Mammon." But, unfortunately, because Ronald Reagan was a very good television pitch man, and because he appealed to those who thump their bible, wave their flag and rattle their sword, the Religious-Military-Industrial Complex grew under Reaganism, and it got even more out of control.

Part of the reason for that was because in 1982, encouraged by the new power and success of the Reaganite New Right, a large group of right-wing extremist ideologues who were attorneys established a so-called "Federalist Society," which I fully discussed and exposed in my second book because it was actually designed to impose right-wing partisan political ideology into the U.S. legal system in order to establish even more firm control by the wealthiest few. (And that, by the way, is why a good number of members of the Federalist Society later became part of George W. Bush's administration in 2001.)

Unfortunately, the New Right Reaganite movement succeeded in America. Their misleading, deceptive and hypocritical words and actions have achieved many of their political goals during the last twenty-seven years. They have been instrumental in electing right-wing conservatives in many political offices, from local school boards to the U.S. Congress to the presidency. Consequently, the Religious-Military-Industrial Complex grew even more. And, with their support, right-wing conservative Republicans have created policies and laws which favor the very wealthiest few, at the expense of the majority, at the expense of the environment, and especially at the expense of the working poor, the poor, and the disadvantaged.

However, in spite of their political success, the Christian Right has been far less successful socially. That's very obvious if we consider the content of television and movies. Their attempts at censorship have been considered prudish and backward by most people, and right-wing politicians have had to be content with the manipulation and control of the political-economic system.

That is why the Christian Right has been so politically active, because their goal is to politically and legally force all of us to be subject to their will. They can't be honest about that, of course, which is why they have been so adamant in claiming that their political action is simply an effort to "restore God to America" and "fulfill the intent and desire of the founding fathers." It is a concerted attempt to win power and control, and they have resorted to dishonest, deceptive and misleading tactics in that attempt.

Unfortunately, they’ve been pretty successful, so much so that today there are lot of Americans who think that you are a "True American" only if you: 1) Proudly proclaim yourself to be a Christian; 2) Resent that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas; 3) Do not criticize your government and do not dissent from or disagree with President Bush’s opinions and decrees; 4) Believe every person in American should speak only English, and look down upon those who do not.

Of course, some of them go much further in their discriminatory and prejudicial beliefs, but those three positions are held by many Americans who sincerely believe that a "True American" is a Christian and should hold those positions. The truth, however, is that those who believe that have swallowed right-wing conservative propaganda that is extremely bigoted and hypocritical.

As I’ve shown, the founding fathers not only wanted a wall of separation between church and state, they were very much against religious bigotry and they wanted to ensure that no religion or religious sect could dominate. They realized the need for secular government that respected all religions and all religious sects. They also realized the need for religious freedom, and freedom from religious bigotry and persecution, so that the people could worship according to whatever faith they chose, or not worship at all if they so chose.

Furthermore, representative democratic government can work properly only if and when the people are free to voice their dissent and disagreements. Otherwise, we would have tyranny. (And, by the way, regarding nationalities, the fact is that all white Americans are immigrants. America is a nation of immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, and the only truly native Americans are Native American Indians. And another fact is that most Mexicans who are forced to enter the U.S. illegally in order to do our dirty work and escape poverty are not the descendants of white Spaniards, but the descendants of Native Central Americans, who have perhaps even more right to be here than white descendants of Europeans.)

Perhaps now you can see why I have pointed out the fallacy in the claim of today's leaders of the "fundamentalist" Christian Right, because they are NOT doing what America's founding fathers would have wanted. As I've shown you, the founding fathers and many other early leaders of the United States did not rigidly cling to a narrow view of religion, nor did they favor one religion or religious denomination over all others.

Right now George W. Bush is the most powerful right-wing conservative Reaganite claiming to be a Christian. He is supported by like-minded right-wing conservative ideologues who boast that they are the "true" Christians, but are not. In fact, they tend to ignore the universal core teachings and principles that the Christ Jesus taught.

Under the reign of George W. Bush, the Religious-Military-Industrial Complex has grown totally out of control. Corporations (especially oil companies, banks, health insurance companies and drug companies) have been raking in record profits and indulging in terribly unfair price gouging, "ripping off" the public and rewarding their corporate Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) absurdly excessive financial "compensation" amounting to tens of millions of dollars per year. (See the page on Poverty: America's Secret Shame and the Failure of the Rich.)

Bush has even "privatized" (corporatized) war and allowed private corporate contractors to profit enormously from his war in Iraq. Many roles and jobs formerly done by moderately paid military personnel are now done by highly paid corporate profiteers. That is apparently one of the reasons why Bush persists in his war, despite growing opposition to it. (See the page on the Sunni-Shiite Conflict and the Real Motivation for Bush's War.)

The plain fact of the matter is that rather than abide by real and true Christian values, the Reaganite/Bushite Republican New Right, which includes the "Christian" Right, focus instead on the man-made patriarchal doctrine of preeminence and superiority that has been used over the last sixteen centuries to justify imperialism, colonialism and genocide, all in the name of "saving souls" and "spreading the Christian Word of God." And they have continued and even expanded the Reaganite policies that heavily favor the wealthiest few at the expense of everyone else and the environment.

They push a right-wing partisan political ideology, and they are in cahoots with a large group of politically like-minded right-wing "conservative" ideologues, including many corporate chief executives, corporate attorneys and judges. They are aided by many influential authors, pundits and speakers who serve as attack dogs who have launched misleading, deceptive, dishonest, venomous attacks on good people who are trying to stop the militant right-wing "neo-conservative" movement from doing any more damage.

Granted, there are extremists on the far left who are also divisive. But, generally speaking, even leftist extremists don't usually stoop to deception and dishonesty. Usually their worst indulgence is in sarcasm, condescension, patronization, and mockery. Nevertheless, as has been the case so many times throughout history, the left generally has truth on their side.

That is in fact why so many leftist revolutions have been successful, like the leftist American Revolution of 1776, which was victorious over the right-wing military imperial rule of the King of England. Those on the political left are usually motivated by the best interests of the vast majority, while those on the political right usually represent the powerful wealthy few. And they have no choice but to be dishonest and deceptive in order to pretend that they serve all the people when in fact they serve the wealthiest few. They have no choice but to appeal to the right-wing "conservative" group ego, and to emotions, prejudices, nationalism and religious bigotry, which is why they "get tough," wave their flag, thump their bible, rattle their sword and use anger and fear of an enemy to stir up support.

In the last 28 years they have had a lot of political success doing that. Consequently, because of the corruption and deceptiveness of right-wing Reaganism and Bushism, the rich have continued to get richer. That’s part of the reason the seed of Jeffersonian democracy did not grow into maturity. The main obstacle has been and still is partisan politics, which breeds conflict, division and corruption. That is why the U.S. Government now most represents the divided "Babylon" of Bible prophecies, and according to real prophecies, this government of "Babylon" will fall. (See the pages on Babylon and The Future.

When the message from the Spirit of truth is finally spread all over the world, there will be a reformation of religions and governments. The seed of Jeffersonian democracy will finally grow again and mature. We will finally establish a true family of nations under God only, with governments that are truly democratic and really of, by, and for the people. And that process will be aided by a united family of religions that finally acknowledge their true purpose, which is to teach all human beings that we are all equal in the sight of God, and ONE in the Spirit.

That's what real prophecy is all about.