Women Hold The Key To The Future

No longer content with the status quo, a majority of Americans are feeling bitter, unhappy, pessimistic about the minority control the moneyed power brokers have over the US economy, federal budget, and priorities. Unless we find a way to change things there will be no more middle class, no retirement savings or Social Security for our grandchildren, reductions in healthcare, the end of Planned Parenthood, continued subjugation of native and minority populations, a stripping away of hard-fought gains in education and workplace rights...

But, on the positive - visualize a world where women are listened to, even sought for their insights and wisdom - a world that realizes a brain has no gender and consciousness has nothing to do with genitalia. Let's share a vision where women simply step outside of the distraction, diminishment and oppression offered by the dominant society and begin working together like never before to not only call attention to all the problems suffered but to craft solutions.

With a concentration on reaching people of compassion and higher mind, becoming part of a larger movement where women use all the modern tools of communication, crowd-sourcing, grants, television, YouTube videos, etc. to simply bypass all the barriers - thousands of intelligent, caring women who are sick and tired of the struggle for recognition and empowerment could begin building a new and better world without waiting for the unenlightened power structure's acceptance.

The future won't be exclusively female - as "male friends of a soul-sister" there will be many allies of the opposite sex who understand - but we need a new movement for full access to education and human rights for all women and girls everywhere, as in Alice Walker's concept of democratic womanism, the Dalai Lama's belief that the western woman will save the planet, and Michelle Obama's initiative, Let Girls Learn.

The Civil Rights movement came close to building a coalition of blacks, Chicanos and egalitarian whites before the deaths of Malcolm X (a different man after his "hajj"), Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy changed the course of history. Women working together could create an alliance of over half of all "mankind" - and the best way to do this would be by quietly, consistently forging new methods and alliances for change - until it moves from open secret to common knowledge that the intelligence, organization, drive and vision capable of healing and improving human life on this limited resource of Planet Earth is vested in the matriarchal ethic and point of view.

We must move beyond the testosterone infused attitudes of kill or be killed, to win someone else must lose (zero-sum game theory), to be successful one must conquer. Rather than tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, work around the roadblocks and entrenched attitudes. No need to defeat anyone. Concentrate on building, helping and creating systems that favor cooperation, education and financial advancement through team-building and concern for others. Let it start with females until the movement becomes so powerful and effective that there is no counter-argument. Let young girls from grade school forward teach their brothers and other young males to love and respect and help other humans. Break the tradition of older males passing on misogyny and brutality to their sons and younger brothers.

Yes, I'm bitterly disappointed in the state of the planet. Growing from an innocent child to a world-weary adult has been a sad journey, illusions and ideals shattered one by one. Although at times tempted, I have never felt that violent revolution could solve anything. So much better to build rather than destroy! But then the realization that we need revolutionary change but lack a means to accomplish it leaves one depressed and disheartened - immobilized. A door closed - but - another one opens!

Reading the concluding paragraphs of a recent Bloomberg article on female solidarity offered a sliver of hope, catapulted me into a vision of a possible future. In a unique twist, there was no smooth wrap up from the author. Instead she revealed that the moneyed, suited women at the conference stopped tapping their mobile devices, many moved to tears by an eloquent plea - that beyond their aspirations and their intellect, they were all capable of empathy and compassion - and that's the ray of sunshine that gives me hope, the impetus for this writing. http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-feel-good-female-solidarity-machine/ (Start two paragraphs above Michelle Obama's picture near the end of the article.)

I've been puzzling over 40 years on the great dilemma of our times - the need for revolution, a non-violent pervasive change of heart, mind and spirit - but with no effective method in existence to date. And in a flash of insight the answer presented itself: the future we want lies in our tomorrows, with women leading the way!

As a corollary to this enlightenment, I see now that all people of high mind and compassion need to get behind Hillary Clinton for president. I think Bernie knows (as we all know) that the office of president has been straight-jacketed by the Republican puppets of the uber-rich. And when the time comes he will become a passionate supporter for Hillary's campaign, content that he at least brought some light to the concerns of "small s" socialism. And electing Hillary will inspire women and girls planet-wide, helping to fulfill the nascent promise (thus far ignored) of the Age of Aquarius. The mystics, the seers, those who see Jesus as the avatar of the Piscean age all recognize that change does not come instantly or smoothly with any regularity. Indeed, the prediction is for "perturbation at the cusp." The dark forces are offering Trump, and the death throes of male domination - colonialism, imperialism, sexism, Isil - centuries of erroneous thinking are creating waves. But these are only the ripples caused by the collision of epochs - love will prevail. And who better than the women of this planet to lead us? Those who bring and nurture life, those who instinctively "help ever, hurt never," you are our hope, our benison, our guides.

Trump as Hitler - the Donald and der Fuehrer

Trump as Hitler... An illogical rant coming from a leftist resentful of the political ascent of the moneyed big-mouth real estate mogul from Manhattan? Or perhaps a warning rooted in an understanding of human nature, and the malleability of our collective conscience.

First, I want to establish my concern for the state of the American body politic. The heinous attack on New York - September 11, 2001 - may prove to be the seminal event that will characterize the 21st century as an epoch fraught with fear, distrust and irrationality. Although American foreign policy and CIA intrigue have promoted acts of violence and foreign incursion for over 60 years - Guatemala and Iran 1953, Cuba 1959-1962 etc. - the war of aggression against Iraq that followed 9-11 was unprecedented in scale, poor judgement, and popularity! The initially small outcry of concern over president G. W. Bush's inept leadership was characterized as unpatriotic and there was even some consideration of sedition laws - a mark of despotism and dictatorship. Perhaps trying to "get even" for the eventual crescendo of criticism that later dogged the Bush presidency, Republicans mounted a campaign of ridicule and disrespect against the succeeding Democratic president, derisively referred to as Mister Obama - they couldn't even address him as President. The result of these two diametrically opposed presidencies is an ever widening gap between "conservatives" and "liberals."

I place these words in quotes because their meaning has changed from their classic definition. "Conservative" has become a rallying cry for anti-establishment sentiments that in reality fit the dictionary definition of radical! And a concentrated effort from self-termed neo-conservatives has turned the word liberal into a pejorative: "What's the definition of a liberal? Someone who'll give you the shirt off someone else's back..." The well-orchestrated conservative movement has co-opted the alienation and disgust of an increasingly impoverished blue-collar worker class and married it to the haughtiness and imperialism of the cynical rich by appealing to feelings of disenfranchisement, re-defining the words and achievements of liberals, and (dirty word!) socialists. The nation has no dialogue now, only flag-waving, sloganeering and appeals to bigotry through coded dog-whistle discourse.

The present schism between sarcastic regressionism and frustrated altruism can only be healed by a review of the principles of the Enlightenment that were refined and incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the more erudite founders of the United States. How ironic that the freed U.S. colonies in turn became a colonial empire, and in spite of our rhetoric of equality we had to fight a great Civil War to break the shackles of slavery, a scourge which reverberates in inequalities still suffered today. We have an inability to review our history and learn from it, and control of school curricula is an untouchable sacred cow almost immune to thoughtful revision. It seems more important to propagandize our youth than to teach the art of critical thinking! And mass culture is more intent on turning a dollar than any attempt at providing unbiased information and rational discussion.

So we are now ripe for the ascent of the demagogue. A beleaguered citizenry has no time for thought, parroting the attitudes of elders and talk-show manipulators. Even though unemployment has been cut in half, taxes have decreased, millions of people previously denied health care now have it, rapacious bankers are kept in check, clean energy and automotive industries are prospering - nevertheless - with stagnant wages and the constant tirade against "big government" there is a poisoning of our national pride, and the modern artifact of 9-11 is constant fear. The negative phenomena carry too much weight - bad news sells - and those who crave power will fan the fires of negativism for their own benefit. Termed "agnotology," spreading confusion and deceit to strengthen one's position is a classic ploy of the power seeker, a la Hitler.

Speaking of the devil, Hitler was one of the first demagogues to sense the power of technology and use it to further his desire for dominance. The public address system was invented in 1908, and in 1919 Woodrow Wilson was the first president to use it in this country. But the decorated stadium with an array of distributed loudspeakers adding a touch of magic to the occasion - shocking and impressing a naive populace - that was a hallmark of the Third Reich. It doesn't require a lot of insight to see that Donald Trump is a master at the use of broadcast media in today's America. He tells us he has a cadre of followers who would stick with him even if he fired a pistol in the streets of New York. His followers find this humorous, while rational thinkers find his rhetoric frightening.

Now, to be clear, the process here is a comparison of methodologies. We have an incomplete picture of who Mister Trump is at heart. His desire to make America great - an appeal to nationalism - or an honest evocation? But his concept of building a wall - this belongs to a post-war Stalin cordoning off East Berlin. And his attitude toward Muslims has dangerous parallels in our incarceration of Japanese citizens after Pearl Harbor, and Hitler's persecution of the Jews. He may not be a monster, but Trump is no statesman. His use of television to shoot from the hip and sound off on thoughtless premises presages a hostile stance from government that would create more enemies than friends should his popularity translate into a rise to the presidency.

The most frightening aspect of Trump's lust for the presidency is his ability to satisfy a need for authoritarianism. A few years ago there was a psychological study on basic values held by Democrats versus those of Republicans. A conclusion of the study found that most Democrats come from families that shared chores, shared decision-making, respected majority rule and freedom of the individual. And Republicans were more often products of top-down, hierarchical and patriarchal families. People tend to replicate their family dynamics through their politics. Donald Trump has great authoritarian appeal. His rudeness and brashness may be symptomatic of a snobby, spoiled rich, brat - but for the struggling working class folk feeling disenfranchised - here's a guy who acts out in ways that they aren't allowed, and his outbursts have great appeal. He answers their need for an authority figure and he seems to be in consonance with their frustrations.

Hopefully our man Trump is not evil incarnate, as we view Hitler today - but he's using the same devices - and the national substrate in present day America may be just as volatile as pre-war Germany. Trump's recent boycott of the Republican presidential debate shows his disdain for party standards. And while there was some talk early on about starting a third party campaign, a coup (rather than a putsch) taking over the Republican party is a more likely possibility.

If Trump's ascendancy continues, if he maneuvers the giant dominoes of agnotology, media control and authoritarianism and brings them crashing down on a society alienated from the status quo - inspiring voters to try his brand of emotionalism and knee-jerk, unstudied policy - we may end up with a loose cannon on the world stage. An unprepared president with a fanatical following, coming from the far right could veer into territories every bit as unfair, unconstitutional and abusive as a Hitler - only he'd do it his way.

I hope we don't get a chance to find out what life would be like under a Trump presidency.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site6/american%20enlightement%20page1.htm

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

The Gift of Love

As the species homo sapiens learns of the primacy of thought through the study of quantum physics, our understanding of the true nature of creation increases, and a re-ordering of priorities occurs. Science proves rather than disproves the existence of God. We learn that Love is the force that propels, nourishes and sustains all life.

This Universal Force knows no dogma -- all religions are mere constructs of the human mind. And as our thoughts collapse down from the Sublime into our nested shells of actuality, the cultural imperatives we construct as a result of geographical and tribal history tend to divide rather than unify the planet.

It should be possible to share universal objectives even while retaining tribal and national autonomy. Once we agree upon basic human imperatives, isolate the folly of war as unnecessarily destructive and learn to work toward unified Earthly goals -- then we may enjoy maintaining our formerly divisive religions and political philosophies as cultural artifacts.

In this new perspective we value inner peace and embrace the tools of religion, but no longer allow any hierarchy of religion or state that would divide us from our fellow humans. Destruction, disempowerment and hubris disappear when education and understanding replace old schools of thought with respect for all life, through the divine gift of Love.

Build Bridges, Not Walls

Travel! And when you do -- pay attention. Once widely respected for our actions in World War II, visiting Europe today brings a different reaction. There's a widespread anger and disrespect for America and Americans born of our increasing insularity and reliance on subterfuge and warfare to gain our objectives.

Once a welcome ally, many Europeans now regard us as unwanted, uncultured interlopers. Of course individual visitor experiences will run the full range -- from meeting people delighted to greet us warmly and without prejudice -- to being shunned by those who sneeringly despise us. Before we disregard such disapproval as anomalous, dismissing anti-Americanism as immature jealousy or simply a negative mind-set, we might consider these rude experiences as a statistically small but significant sample of public perception of the American heritage.

Upon examination we will discover a litany of sins we are held accountable for. And rightly or wrongly accused, it behooves us to study, modify and improve our policies, actions and even our cultural imperatives. America's international unpopularity must be understood, and in the context of national security, let's improve. Let's become better global citizens!

Consider the impact of misguided foreign policies, news of our domestic inequalities and offensive cultural exports. We can and should do better than exporting implements of war for profit, masquerading arms sales as foreign aid. We must stop perpetuating the legacies of slavery, native genocide and disrespect for women. And let's ask for moral responsibility in the production of entertainment media, a decrease in violence, an end to puerile pandering -- halt the seemingly endless escalation of perverse modernism -- shift our values and create a renaissance in American literature, film, art and dance based on eternal values rather than titillation.

Surely there is a better way to control our southern border instead of building a great wall. And though the task is daunting, we must help our ally Israel achieve security without colonizing, walling and cordoning the ancient Holy Land they were deeded without consent at the end of their nightmare of Holocaust and Exodus.

Our planet Earth has been irrevocably changed by industrial revolution and technological advance. We are all neighbors now, and we are influenced by events half the planet away like never before. Nations have lost their license to dominate and subjugate. Annihilating those who simply think, act or believe differently is not a proper solution for overcoming differences. The great challenge that lies ahead is to find a way to unravel histories of attack and reprisal, build a climate of ideals that will nurture dialogue, respect and cooperation between disparate ideologies, cultures and governments.

The health and survival of our planet, our humanity, depends on our ability to understand and accommodate one another. No matter how distasteful, difficult or impossible it may seem, we must learn to build bridges and not walls.

How do we get ourselves back to the garden?

Another reprint, but I found this well-written and thought-provoking...

by Chris Hedges, Truthdig! August 25, 2014

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_the_brutalized_become_brutal_20140824

The horrific pictures of the beheading of American reporter James Foley, the images of executions of alleged collaborators in Gaza and the bullet-ridden bodies left behind in Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are the end of a story, not the beginning. They are the result of years, at times decades, of the random violence, brutal repression and collective humiliation the United States has inflicted on others.

Our terror is delivered to the wretched of the earth with industrial weapons. It is, to us, invisible. We do not stand over the decapitated and eviscerated bodies left behind on city and village streets by our missiles, drones and fighter jets. We do not listen to the wails and shrieks of parents embracing the shattered bodies of their children. We do not see the survivors of air attacks bury their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. We are not conscious of the long night of collective humiliation, repression and powerlessness that characterizes existence in Israel’s occupied territories, Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not see the boiling anger that war and injustice turn into a cauldron of hate over time. We are not aware of the very natural lust for revenge against those who carry out or symbolize this oppression. We see only the final pyrotechnics of terror, the shocking moment when the rage erupts into an inchoate fury and the murder of innocents. And, willfully ignorant, we do not understand our own complicity. We self-righteously condemn the killers as subhuman savages who deserve more of the violence that created them. This is a recipe for endless terror.

Chaim Engel, who took part in the uprising at the Nazis’ Sobibor death camp in Poland, described what happened when he obtained a knife and confronted a German in an office. The act he carried out was no less brutal than the beheading of Foley or the executions in Gaza. Isolated from the reality he and the other inmates endured at the camp, his act was savage. Set against the backdrop of the extermination camp it was understandable.

“It’s not a decision,” Engel said. “You just react, instinctively you react to that, and I figured, ‘Let us to do, and go and do it.’ And I went. I went with the man in the office, and we killed this German. With every jab, I said, ‘That is for my father, for my mother, for all these people, all the Jews you killed.’ ”

Any good cop, like any good reporter, knows that every criminal has a story. No one, except for perhaps a few psychopaths, wakes up wanting to cut off another person’s head. Murder and other violent crimes almost always grow out of years of abuse of some kind suffered by the perpetrator. Even the most “civilized” among us are not immune to dehumanization.

The enemies on the modern battlefield seem elusive because death is usually delivered by industrial weapons such as aerial drones or fighter jets that are impersonal, or by insurgent forces that leave behind roadside bombs or booby traps or carry out hit-and-run ambushes. This elusiveness is the curse of modern warfare. The inability of Sunni fighters in Iraq to strike back at jets and drones has resulted in their striking a captured journalist and Shiite and Kurdish civilians.

U.S. soldiers and Marines in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israeli soldiers in assaults on Gaza, have been among those who committed senseless acts of murder. They routinely have gunned down unarmed civilians to revenge killings of members of their units. This is a reaction I saw in several wars. It is not rational. Those murdered were not responsible, even indirectly, for the deaths of their killers’ comrades, just as Foley and the Shiites and Kurds executed in Iraq were not responsible for the deaths of Sunni militants hit by the U.S. Air Force.

J. Glenn Gray, who fought in World War II, wrote about the peculiar nature of vengeance in “The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle”:

When the soldier has lost a comrade to this enemy or possibly had his family destroyed by them through bombings or through political atrocities, so frequently the case in World War II, his anger and resentment deepen into hatred. Then the war for him takes on the character of a vendetta. Until he has himself destroyed as many of the enemy as possible, his lust for vengeance can hardly be appeased. I have known soldiers who were avid to exterminate every last one of the enemy, so fierce was their hatred. Such soldiers took great delight in hearing or reading of mass destruction through bombings. Anyone who has known or been a soldier of this kind is aware of how hatred penetrates every fiber of his being. His reason for living is to seek revenge; not an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but a tenfold retaliation.

Those killed are not, to the killers, human beings but representations of what they fear and hate. The veneer of the victim’s humanity, they believe, is only a mask for an evil force. The drive for vengeance, for “tenfold retaliation,” among those who are deformed by violence cannot be satiated without rivers of blood—even innocent blood. And Americans do as much of this type of revenge killing as those we fight. Our instruments of war allow us to kill from a distance. We therefore often lack any real consciousness of killing. But this does not make us any less depraved.

Christopher Browning in his book “Ordinary Men” tells of a German reserve police battalion that was recruited to carry out mass executions of Jews in World War II. Browning’s book echoed the findings of the psychologist Stanley Milgram, who concluded that “men are led to kill with little difficulty.” Browning, like Milgram, illustrates how easily we become killers. This is a painful truth. It is difficult to accept. It forces us to look into the eyes of Foley’s executioners and see not monsters but ourselves.

“Few of us ever know how far fear and violence can transform us into creatures at bay, ready with tooth and claw,” Gray wrote. “If the war taught me anything at all, it convinced me that people are not what they seem or even think themselves to be.”

I am teaching inmates at a supermax prison this summer. We are reading William Shakespeare’s “King Lear.” Every student in my classroom was charged with murder, and, though the American judicial system imprisons its share of innocents, it is a safe bet that many if not most in my class have killed. At the same time, once you hear the stories of their lives, the terrifying domestic abuse, the crushing poverty, the cruelty of the streets, including police use of deadly force against unarmed people, the societal and parental abandonment, the frustration at not being able to live a life of dignity or find a job, the humiliation of being poorly educated—some went into prison illiterate—you begin to understand the power of the institutional racism and oppression that made them angry and finally dangerous.

Marguerite Duras in her book “The War” describes how she and other members of the French Resistance kidnapped and tortured a 50-year-old Frenchman they suspected of collaborating with the Germans. The group allows two of its members who were beaten in Montluc prison at Lyon to strip the alleged informer and repeatedly beat him as onlookers shout: “Bastard. Traitor. Scum.” Blood and mucus soon run from his nose. His eye is damaged. He moans, “Ow, ow, oh, oh. …” He crumples in a heap on the floor. Duras wrote that he had “become someone without anything in common with other men. And with every minute the difference grows bigger and more established.” She goes on: “Every blow rings out in the silent room. They’re hitting at all the traitors, at the women who left, at all those who didn’t like what they saw from behind the shutters.” She departs before finding out if he is executed. She and her small resistance band had become Nazis. They acted no differently than Hamas did when it executed more than 15 suspected collaborators last week in Gaza.

Our failure to understand the psychological mechanisms involved means that the brutality we inflict, and that is inflicted upon us, will continue in a deadly and self-defeating cycle in the Middle East as well as within poor urban areas of the United States. To break this cycle we have to examine ourselves and halt the indiscriminate violence that sustains our occupations. But examining ourselves instead of choosing the easy route of nationalist self-exaltation is hard and painful. These killings will stop only when we accept that the killers who should terrify us most are ourselves.

"...leaders are the custodians of morality."

"Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." -- Mother Teresa

reprinted from London Guardian/Observer:
Desmond Tutu: pulled out of a seminar which Tony Blair was scheduled to attend. (September 1, 2012)

Photograph: Str/REUTERS

The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.

Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.

If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.

On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.

Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?

Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.

If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?

My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it. You are a member of our family, God's family. You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.

I did not deem it appropriate to have this discussion at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week. As the date drew nearer, I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort about attending a summit on "leadership" with Mr Blair. I extend my humblest and sincerest apologies to Discovery, the summit organisers, the speakers and delegates for the lateness of my decision not to attend.

I Pledge Allegiance...

Regarding the emotionally charged issue of the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag, some study of the history of our nation and the history of the Pledge would seem to be in order.

The founders of our first colonies were often motivated by escape from religious persecution. Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn and the Quakers encouraged to leave Britain. Maryland under Lord Baltimore was a haven for British Catholics. Massachusetts was colonized by Puritans fleeing the Church of England. In turn the intolerance of the Pilgrims led to the founding of New Hampshire by John Mason, Connecticut by Thomas Hooker and Rhode Island by Roger Williams who was banished from Massachusetts for advocating the separation of church and state.

History is replete with stories of religious intolerance, but one should not indict all religion on the basis of its historic atrocities. Indeed, the private right to worship or think as one chooses is arguably inviolate. And in America we have secured the individual right to speak as freely as we wish on any topic. This is a direct result of our heritage, bequeathed to us in perpetuity by the authors of our country's charter. America was blessed to find many great philosophers and scholars engaged in the quest to establish our new nation free of the stifling restrictions of the Old World. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are documents carefully crafted by the diligent consideration of many great minds, and the concept of religious freedom, even freedom from religion is embodied in their writings. Thomas Paine's treatise, The Age of Reason, is particularly cogent and worth a study.

Today the concept of secular government as a hedge against the fighting of holy wars has been blurred by oil men and neo-conservatives using the specter of "Muslim Terrorists" to hijack the democratic process. They lied to Congress about the weapons of mass destruction supposedly hidden in Iraq to mount the United States' first open war of aggression, very nearly invoking a new Crusade. And the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his famous "Cross of Iron" speech subverts both patriotism and love of God into justification for global bullying, destruction and collateral killing of innocents. These actions certainly do not endear our nation to those we affect so senselessly and profoundly. And the irony is that this carnage is done in the name of God and the establishment of democracy. We would all do well to reacquaint ourselves with the true meaning of both God and democracy!

For one, democracy does not mean rule of the many vanquishes the concerns of any group or community just because they are few in number. The halls of Congress are divided into two houses: one representing the citizenry apportioned by number, the House of Representatives, and then the Senate with two Senators per state regardless of population. And the court system is dedicated to insuring a fair and equal application of the laws in consonance with the wisdom embodied in the Constitution by our founders. Thinking people around the planet take cause for rejoice from the American Revolution and the documents it produced to guide our ship of state. In our country, one can have a minority point of view and live free of  fear of reprisal from the state. The exceptions are few and quite logical: one cannot seek to overthrow the Constitution, the Government or espouse harm to our elected officials.

By the same token, a citizen is to be protected from harm by fellow citizens. We have no right to cause harm to another because we disagree with their point of view, be it political, religious, or personal. And we have no right to harm another by imposing our will on them, forcing them to activity they would otherwise choose not to perform. Various forms of slavery are reprehensible, illegal, punishable by law. The McCarthy era taught us that loyalty oaths are demeaning, destructive and illegal. Eventually we come to the conundrum that the nation that nurtures liberty, the nation that we respect and love, offers the opportunity to share our love of country in group situations through the singing of the national anthem and the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but the latter activity has been altered to include a religious "litmus test."

There should be no problem with a public display of love for country. Every nation has an anthem, where all rise and sing. We commemorate the defense of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 in our Star Spangled Banner. We only sing the first of four stanzas. The reference to God doesn't appear until the 4th:

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Since we never get that far, the issue of proclaiming one's belief and praise for God in a public forum doesn't come into play when singing the anthem. But the Pledge of Allegiance is a different matter. The courts consistently find the phrase "under God" as contained in the flag pledge to be in violation of the letter and spirit of the United States Constitution. If 86% of the population has no problem with the pledge, it still means we are discomforting and scrutinizing the 14% who would prefer to simply pledge allegiance without having to claim a belief in a deity. And in a democracy of well-thought laws and a structure designed to encourage reason rather than mob rule, the majority should respect the wisdom of the court and the founding fathers.

The United States is a secular nation. It may be comprised of a majority of Christians, but one's worship should be confined to one's home and Church. There is no place in a public school, shared workplace or sporting event for a forced profession of belief in an implied Christian God. You may say that the respondents can stay silent when the "under God" phrase comes up, but what of those who will glance about to check on the participation of others, and seek retribution against those who were silent? No, it's too much like a loyalty oath. Those who are old enough to remember 1954, when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed, will tell you that it became a test. If you didn't say "under God" you were suspected of atheism or Communism or both. The pledge had a very nice rhythm and included everyone before it was changed!

The principle of separation of church and state is important, but the process of standing in a public place and either falsely proclaiming a belief or being exposed to scrutiny for not professing such a belief is not a gross violation of human rights. Not performing the full Pledge of Allegiance will not result in arrest or spark an investigation. But the pledge flowed nicely in it's 1942 incarnation, and without the "under God" phrase it would become totally acceptable for 100% of the Americans who would choose to recite it. As a matter of courtesy, grace and common sense, we should restore the pledge to its pre-1954 reading. We are all free to pray for the continued success of our country in private, in our own way. Although many people are just fine with publicly vocalizing the "under God" phrase, there are millions who are not, and we need all Americans pulling together to be truly indivisible. The McCarthy era is over, loyalty oaths are not required, the Pledge of Allegiance should be secular and all-inclusive.

Speaking pragmatically, the Pledge will stay unchanged. And if you're one of the approximately one in six Americans who find the phrase "under God" problematic, you'll just have to shrug it off and go with the consensus. Meanwhile, love your neighbors, help educate them, inform them about differences in culture and belief through casual conversation. Tolerance, empathy, understanding can be taught. Can bigotry be reversed? Perhaps through the experience of personal revelation. Peace, love and morality consistently practiced, patiently taught will prepare us to receive the divine message of equality. When we all come to live in harmony with Creation, every moment we live will be an affirmation of divinity, and the verbalization of our status "under God" will be superfluous and unnecessary.

-- Don Baraka

Some history, from Wikipedia:

Reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute. This was done when Congress officially adopted the Flag Code June 22, 1942.

The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words "under God" which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. The Knights of Columbus tried repeatedly, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent.

It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him. While raised a Jehovah's Witness, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year earlier. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life".

According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law.

Senator Homer Ferguson, in a report to Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said:

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

In the 1940s Jehovah's Witnesses, whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements.

Since the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge in 1954 many critics contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation.

On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in their favor. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to "one Nation under God"

A bill was introduced in Congress in 2005 which would have stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to government's requiring or promoting the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed due to the Senate's not taking it up. Proponents of the bill argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights. (Amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2.)

In 2006, a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  (Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142, S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006)