Religious Pluralism vs Theocracy

(Revised 5-28-2009)

I am thoroughly, totally against theocracy — of any kind. And I suggest to you that those who wear their religion on their sleeve and try to impose it on others through government or military action, do not know what true religion is.

As history and even current events show very clearly, theocracy just provides a convenient excuse for certain men to rule over people, and even commit horrible atrocities, all in the name of religion -- especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I submit that regardless of what "religious" clergy would like to rule over you, government must be secular and respect all religions as equal, and there must be a "wall of separation" between religion and government. After all, Thomas Jefferson was very correct in his views on religion, as I will show you below, and as I have discussed on the page titled Little Known American History.

Still, even though I expose and rebuke "theocrats" like the Christian, Muslim and Jewish extremists who want government to rigidly and strictly reflect their religious beliefs, some critics have accused me of being a theocrat myself.

My critics have claimed that my work is designed to create a one world government and a one world religion because I state the fact that there will be a "New Kingdom of God, under God only."

My critics conveniently ignore that God will "reign" in Spirit only. They also ignore that my views regarding religion and government are much like Thomas Jefferson’s, and, like Jefferson and most of his fellow founding fathers, I also declare that we should have secular government and religious pluralism, where all religions are treated equal and no single religion or religious sect dominates.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, the U.S. Constitution provides that the legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," in order to build "a wall of separation between church and State." That was meant not merely to establish freedom of religion, but freedom from religious bigotry and imposition. And it was not meant to give license to the clergy of any religion or religious sect so they could influence federal or state laws or public school curriculum according to a political agenda based on their own religious beliefs.

I wholeheartedly agree with the founding fathers of the United States of America, who said or wrote the following criticizing the bigoted, power-hungry, right-wing clergy of their day:

"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." – Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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." – Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the clergy has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." – Thomas Jefferson

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin

"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." – James Madison

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity." – Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

"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)." – Benjamin Franklin, in an essay on "Toleration"

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most dishonorable belief against the character of the Divinity, the most destructive to morality and the peace and happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist." – Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." – 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (ratified unanimously by the US Senate)

"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?" – John Adams

"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..." – Abraham Lincoln

So, like the founding fathers, I am very much against religious theocracy, and very much for democracy. In fact, I am for true democracy and against what passes for democracy these days, because partisan politics produces government of, by and for the rich.

Indeed, as I said in the commentary at the bottom of the page regarding the New Declaration of Independence, I am in agreement with the scholars who are of the opinion that the early Greeks established a pretty good form of democracy 400 years before the birth of the Christ Jesus. After all, one of them wrote that "power should be in the hands of the whole people," rather than in the hands of one monarchial chief executive or an oligarchy of a relative few.

They had the right idea, and as the Greek democracy matured, the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, wrote that "all citizens must be equal, and in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them."

Unfortunately, over time, especially during the Dark Ages of Christian Theocracy and thereafter, that Aristotelian idea was treated as erroneous ancient pagan theory. So Aristotle’s idea about the poor being more powerful than the rich died out pretty quickly after about the fourth century A.D.

Throughout history since then, power has been in the hands of the richest few who have been able to impose their will by hiring paid political advocates and spokesmen, paid armed guards, and even paid armies and police forces. And that practice gradually evolved from blatant monarchy into the "democratic" political systems we have today, wherein the wealthy are able to pay or support or bribe politicians who do their bidding. Consequently, most nations and states have actually been ruled by the richest few who have considered themselves royalty, nobility, aristocracy, or, more recently, the benefactors of the political "representatives of the people."

Of course, people like Thomas Jefferson, no doubt influenced by the Englishman John Locke, tried to plant the seed of democracy in 1776, believing like Aristotle that government should exist only by the consent of the governed, and that all citizens are (or should be) equal. And that started to get people back on the right track.

But it didn’t take hold. Not really. The wealthiest few, regardless of Jeffersonian ideals, still ruled even in America. In fact, sporadically and at various times, and especially during the last 27 years, they have increasingly become like aristocracy once again. The rich keep getting richer, the poor and the working poor keep getting poorer, and the middle class gets smaller and smaller as more and more people fall into the working poor population. (See the pages on Poverty in America, and Little Known American History.)

Most people in most nations are in the same boat. But, while some people think partisan party politics will do the trick if only they can achieve victory over the opposing party; while some other people think the only answer is in some form of Communism (which Karl Marx came up with in the mid-1800s); and while still other people think that religious theocracy will establish good and righteous government, they are all wrong.

First, partisan party politics only perpetuates conflict, division, and instability. Secondly, while Marx was justifiably angered at the European capitalistic nobility and aristocracy, he was wrong in calling for violent revolution to overthrow and destroy the capitalists, and most subsequent Communists have been even more wrong in advocating and perpetuation totalitarian rule. And thirdly, "good religious theocracy" is an oxymoron, because true servants of God do not seek to rule the people, but to liberate, unite, and empower them.

Now, my critics also ignore that I use the word God, not only to tell you what God really is, but also because I must, in order to satisfy religious expectations and to fulfill religious prophecies. And they ignore that I use it because I actually know what God is, because I know what God’s will really is, and because I must turn the tables on religious bigots and hypocrites who falsely claim to serve God in the name of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. For while they want to rule you and the world, I empower you and liberate you from all those who want to rule over you.

My critics ignore that on the home page I state that: "...we are all equal joint heirs to the ‘kingdom’ to come, wherein we shall all share the thrones of secular governments and religions that will be truly of, by and for the people, while only the Holy One in heaven reigns as the Savior, in Spirit."

They ignore the context in the declaration of independence in which I state that: " ... in this new kingdom we shall at long last live by government of the people, for the people, and by the people, under God only; that we shall no longer allow one individual person to play god or act as a king or presidential head of state; that we shall no longer be divided by a competitive rivalry for the throne; that we shall freely choose, nominate and elect, by secret write-in ballot, an executive council of six men and six women to serve and represent us in the executive branch of our government; that political advocacy will be confined to free public service messages; that there shall be no paid commercial political advertisements..."

I think the problem my critics have is that I speak of God "reigning in Spirit." But that’s either because they are misguided religious zealots who believe "God Himself" will come to rule as a Superman-King, or because they are agnostics or atheists who have developed a "knee jerk" negative reaction to the mention of God. And I don’t blame them, because religious bigots and hypocrites have given God a bad name, especially during the last 28 years that they have been trying to impose their religious beliefs on us all.

When I say God will reign in Spirit, it means that all religions and governments will live by the core universal values common to all good governments and religions; that we shall live under the umbrella of true spiritual values that should be held and honored by all religions and governments. But it will have nothing to do with man-made patriarchal doctrine or dogma. It will have to do with what we know in our hearts and souls is right, and good.

The true values we should live by have to do with the golden rule and the universal divine imperative: that we should treat others as we would want to be treated if we were them. After all, as I said on the home page, that has always been and always will be the essential, main rule and best advice, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because we "reap what we sow" due to the karmic consequences of our words and actions.

All religions were originally founded to try to ensure that we would abide by that imperative, and all good governments have tried to ensure the same thing. Our best laws were designed to make sure that we treat others as we would like to be treated if we were them, and to provide law enforcement and punishment if and when we do not.

And again, I use the word God because I must, in order to satisfy religious expectations and to fulfill religious prophecies. And I use it because I know what God is, and what God desires, which is universal peace, universal prosperity, and universal love.

We do not have that now because of the vain folly of men who try to play god, as if they were superior to us and all the rest of our brethren. And we will not have it as long as they continue fighting for power over each other, claiming that God is on their side. But we will have it when they stop, and let God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. For God, by whatever name, is the Universal Supreme Consciousness, the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, and every human being is a child of God.

It is particularly important that people in America understand that, because being a Christian was a litmus test for being a presidential candidate in 2008, and that is in direct violation of the intent of most of the founding fathers, as I’ve shown you.

I should also say that back in the days before the Bush Regime’s popularity plummeted, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld supplied President Bush with Pentagon intelligence briefings that were laced with biblical references and quotes. And, while that might seem like merely a part of the Bush-era disregard for the Constitution, the problem began way back in the 1980s and has been steadily and increasingly eroding the wall of separation between church and state.

That problem has become deeply rooted within all branches of the U.S. Military, particularly in the Air Force. Consequently, many leaders of the U.S. Military now use the name of Jesus Christ to build up "unit cohesion," and to erase doubts about a mission, or the command. They justify themselves not with the need to fight a just war, but with the religious conviction to fight a "holy" war. But, in this respect, they are similar to the misguided, bigoted, militant Jews and Muslims who want to fight and kill in the name of their God, as opposed to other people’s name for God. (Listen to this song, titled The Name Game.)

As I’ve said, now is the time for all good, conscientious people to come together, to stand up and demonstrate your will and be counted, to bring about a peaceful, nonviolent revolution and reformation and establish government that is truly of, for and by the people. For I tell you that the average people who are the humble and meek of this world shall indeed inherit the earth. But it will not happen unless and until you make it happen. (And that is spelled out on the pages titled Declaration of Independence, and How the Meek Shall inherit the Earth.)