A Buddhist for US President?

I am a Buddhist running for the office of US president. Even though this office has never been held by a Buddhist, I hope to get elected in 2012.

So, will my religion stop me?

Pledge of Allegiance

Maybe, just maybe, some of my countrymen might be upset because I can’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance. What? The President can’t [that is, won’t] recite the Pledge?

Actually, nobody should recite the Pledge:

·       It is one thing to say, “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America.” It is quite another to say,  “I pledge allegiance to the flag.” The second quote is a form of idol worship – that is, the flag is being idolized; that is, it’s an inanimate object being elevated to a position of equality with a living entity (“the Republic for which it stands”). I dare say there are none among the worshippers of the God of Abraham who could engage in this type of idol worship while remaining true to their faith.

·       Also, since I’m a Buddhist, how could I recite that part about “one nation, under God?” I do not believe there is, or ever was, or ever can be a God. There are pseudo-Buddhists who speak of God or of something call the godhead. They are wrong and, in fact, are heretical Buddhists for clinging to such a doctrine. The Lotus Sutra, the highest of Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings, doesn’t mention God or godhead even once (though it speaks of gods – highly advanced beings which all of us could become as we attempt to attain the highest level of attainment of all, Buddhahood itself).

·       Congress and President Eisenhower, in 1954, acted unconstitutionally by adding the words “under God” to the Pledge. This effort was an affront to the First Amendment rights of these Americans: atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, pagans, Buddhists, and liberals who favor separation of church and state.

·       For those who swear allegiance to God but who also realize that a person can swear many types of allegiance (to one’s country, wife, children, political party, etc.), the current Pledge should be bothersome. Why? The phrase “under God” is literally an after-thought, an add-on to the original Pledge. Allegiance itself is being pledged to a piece of cloth and a republic, but there’s no mention of any allegiance to God. Here’s an alternate pledge which such a person could appreciate; the second sentence of which (and only the second sentence) should replace the current Pledge: “I pledge devotion to God, thanking Him for the many blessings in my life, including my homeland. Of all the nations of the earth, I pledge allegiance only and exclusively to the United States of America.”

Why pick on the Pledge?

Why have I devoted so much of this posting to a critique of the Pledge of Allegiance? I want to show myself as a person who doesn’t take a lot for granted. I don’t robotically live my life, think my thoughts, or pledge my allegiance. Much of what is wrong in the USA stems from people who misuse words or ignore or twist their meanings. There are a lot of people who need to be reconnected to the importance of words, among whom I’d include those who embrace the New Testament. Especially this part from John 1:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God….And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…”

Words are important to me. And they should be to anyone who embraces what I’ve just quoted (above). I’m going to use this part as a metaphor: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” I want the words in my political contract to become “flesh,” as it were – to become incarnate, to become real (something that can be touched). That’s why I’m advocating the importance of words (that is, promises – as in “keeping one’s word”). I will be the only candidate in 2012 to offer his campaign promises (his “word”) in the form of a written contract. I violate my word, I forfeit my office.

Think/Reflect/Meditate upon what you’re about to say

…and [I might add] on what you’ve said already, since you might want to take back those words. I will give two examples:

·       In the case of Muslims: When someone pronounces the following words with conviction, then he/she has become a Muslim: “I testify that there is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a Messenger of God.” Where could such a “conviction” come from? Is it based on knowledge? Revelation? Gut-feeling? Faith? For that matter, Muhammad received the Quran from an archangel, but why not directly from God Himself? God spoke to Adam, and to Noah but…why not directly to Muhammad? Unless such questions are honestly answered by a person who wishes to say “I testify…”, the testimonial becomes hollow and empty of meaning.

·       In the case of the Jews: Jews make much of Israel as the land promised to them by God. But they don’t consider this possibility: Maybe God promised that land as a test – to see if they would consider sharing their home. God may well have promised that land to the Jews, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t share it or even give it away if they’d so desire. Once a gift is given, it becomes the property of the recipient – to do with as he pleases. It is not enough to cling to cling greedily to something by claiming “God gave it to me,” while refusing to consider what those words imply and what you might wish to make out of them.

The fact that so many Jews can’t integrate into other cultures has caused them to “fall back” to Israel for security or to be with their own kind. But this has caused hardship for the Arabic occupants of that land whom the Zionists ousted or harassed. And this is especially telling, since the Arab and the Jew are step-brothers [same father, Abraham; different mother, Sarah/Hagar]. And even more telling, in light of the commandment from God to “love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” [NOTE: If you can’t love your brother, how can you become a light unto nations?]

My brand of Buddhism

I call myself a Buddhist who comes from a sect with just one member – me. I hope the following helps paint a picture of just what that means:

ONE:  What Westerners refer to as "God" surely exists. However, this "God" is only one of many great enlightened entities existing throughout the ageless universe.  "God" decided to guide and protect living beings on our particular planet (or at least those of us who are Westerners). He did not create the universe. He did not create human beings. He does not hold ultimate power over the fate of humanity. Each person has the power to decide his or her own fate, based on the strength and nature of their own personal religious practice. This also goes for "God," who is constantly engaged in religious practice so that He, too, may become a Buddha.

TWO:  The basic message of God is: "Love me or I'll kill you." Think about it: After all the theology is unraveled, isn't this really what God is telling us: "If you don't believe in Me, if you don't worship Me, I will inflict great pain on you for an incredibly long time." But why torture the sinner for all eternity? Wouldn’t it be more merciful for God to simply dis-create the sinner? [We were created from nothing; why can’t we be dis-created back into nothingness?]

[NOTE: THREE and beyond to follow in a future posting.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Yes, having a Buddhist as President would be different, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad.”