Story Synopsis

In this day and age we have people who have sued the Fast Food industry because they are are obese and they have won. Others have sued the Tobacco industry because they have lung cancer and emphysema and they have won. We live in a Nation where people have no responsibility for their own actions. It is always someone else's fault.
This book takes that concept to the next level. This story is about the nation talking about a man named Joe Lucky. You see Joe lost his wife, daughter and foot in a series of tragic acts of God. Seriously distraught by the loss Joe sues his church (the direct representatives of god). During the first trial the church defense uses the argument how do you know that this church is the true church? With thousands of churches to choose from which church is the true church? The case is sent to the Supreme Court and that is where the book begins as the Nation waits to hear the verdict of which church is the true church.

Why did you write this?

One Nation Under God... Indivisible? is really my attempt to explore religion. I consider myself a Deist. therefore I believe in a creator but I don't really like the idea of organized religion. I didn't really grow up in a church although I had plenty of extended family that was heavily involved in their religion. I would go to their church and see what it was about. I liked the moral messages we would learn as we explored the stories of the bible and I understood that these moral messages were timeless and worth passing along to our children.

I always had questions along the way. they may have been a little deeper than most peoples questions but who knows maybe not. for example "I understand the moral message here but it is the same message other religions teach yet that religion and this religion disagree on things and they are separate for some reason. why separate religions when they use the same book?" of course some answers were well some religions use different books some have updated versions of the bible. Those answers would often lead to bigger questions like "Why all the changes?" or more importantly "Why form a church at all? why not just have philosophy type groups?" of course I feel like I know the answer to that. Churches throughout history have always been the very first "special interest" groups. They have influence in numbers and can use that influence to bend the ear of the king and or president or other political bodies.

So I can see the power and good that organized religion can do but I do worry about the difference between belief and ideas. You can have an idea and change your mind about that idea but it is hard to change a belief. History is full of people who are willing to kill for these beliefs and I find that frightening. Religious leaders are able to rape, murder, molest, steal, and imprison people in the name of their religion. readers right now are screaming "religions don't do that!" I am here to tell you yes they do. I am including all religions in this including the small "cults" and the world wide massive religions. for instance all acts of terrorism were done by religious groups and the deeply held beliefs of the member who committed the acts is what gave them the strength to perform the act of terrorism. I am not going to use the Muslim terrorists as a example I will instead tell you about less known acts. In Tokyo Japan there was the sarin gas attacks inside the subways. Many died and countless others were injured. This act of terrorism was performed by Aum Shinrikyo. A religious group roughly translated means "religion of truth". Of course there is also the famous Oklahoma City federal building bomber Timothy McVeigh. He was operating under religious beliefs as well. He was influenced by religious leader William Luther Pierce who wrote the book The Turner Diaries.

This book is not a bash religion book. This book is written as conversations between people. It is a what if scenario. How far would you go to protect your beliefs, if the United States Government had to choose a true religion?

The title of the book is a question, are we truly indivisible as a country? As people we have a tendency of separating ourselves from one another. I guess my question is, "is it really worth it? Who wins when you argue about who's beliefs are factual or true? Both sides are not gonna suddenly change beliefs. So is it size of religion that matters most? We have more members so we are obviously correct.

My hope and the reason I wrote this book is I really wish for people to talk about this subject. I believe open dialogue will help deter any future strife.