“Imagine no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill and die for. And no religion, too.” –from John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”

By Phill Courtney
Like many people, I’ve always appreciated the messages contained in John Lennon’s seminal 1971 song, which was released just after I’d graduated from high school. In fact, it perfectly captured some of the feelings I’d had for some time, as it did for many other people as well.
Of course, we now know that this wasn’t and still isn’t a feeling shared by everyone, and, even today, the song—which some said insulted people of faith because of that line about “no religion”—remains controversial, with perhaps the most recent example of that being the ironic push-back it received after it was played at President Jimmy Carter’s memorial in January of 2025.
Yes, ironic is the word because it was one of the favorite songs of a man, it could be argued, who was perhaps one of the most—if not the most, religious of our U. S. presidents, and certainly more so than the man who currently occupies the White House.
But, sadly, despite this song being played endlessly on the way to its status as one of the most iconic of the 20th century—heard at countless memorials and services for those who have died or were killed in various tragedies, including his own—I suspect that John Lennon would trade all the tributes to its “greatness” in exchange for far more people embracing Imagine’s messages in a world still badly beset by blind allegiance to numerous and divisive fundamentalist religions, and to the malignancies of nationalism.
So, too, I suspect, would Martin Luther King, Jr., who would undoubtedly also trade all the speeches; the streets; the statues; as well as the holiday dedicated to his memory, in exchange for a world which actually listened to his words, and both remembered and then followed them.
For instance, through the years, many people, including King and his contemporaries, the African American writer James Baldwin, and the black Muslim activist, Malcolm X, have made this observation about our country: that the United States is never more segregated than it is on Sunday mornings.
That’s when Americans all go off in different directions to one of our many places of worship such as churches; mosques; temples; synagogues; and the scads of other “sacred spaces” we can choose from. Of course, for many, this observation also applies to Saturdays as well, or any other day of the week for that matter.
And why is that? Well, beyond the fact that, by numbers, there are basically five major religions in the world: Christianity; Judaism; Buddhism; Islam; and Hinduism, it’s also been estimated that there are possibly over 4,000 other religions and sub-groups, which helps to explain the array of options to choose from. For instance, within American Christianity itself, there are a plethora of churches to pick, many with its own claim that theirs is the “best” or “truest” form of Christianity.
Again: why is that? And again, we can attribute these divisions basically to the many conflicting claims made by various religious faiths which focus on questions about the supernatural realm, such as: What happens when we die? Is there a soul? Are there angels and demons? Is there a heaven and a hell, or do we enter into a cycle of endless reincarnations? The answers too are endless.
Once again: why? And the basic reason can be found in the fact that these answers can’t be discerned by observing the natural world around us since they are entirely supernatural—therefore unprovable due to the absence of any evidence that can only be acquired through our five senses, and rely, instead, on “faith.” Hence, all the conflicting arguments about religion.
As one way of moving this from the specific to the general, here’s a story. Back in the Sixties, when my family moved to another town, my mother selected the First Baptist Church not because of any specific creeds (nor did my dad), but because they had “good programs for youths,” which they did, and which I enjoyed for many years, even though I never become a Baptist.
But, a couple of years after we started attending the church, it underwent a painful schism when the minister (whom my parents liked so much they asked him to speak at my dad’s father’s memorial service), instigated that schism when he began insisting that the Biblical verse about speaking in tongues must be one Baptist “proof of faith.” However, after that, most of the congregation chose not to go along with it, and that eventually resulted in the dismissal of the minister, who then, in turn, took some third of the church with him.
For me it was an early “wake up call” about the many spiritual questions that fixate on—and are summed up in that one memorable question: “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”—questions that lead inevitably to the many debates that divide people rather than bring them together, which, for me, has always been one of the most harmful aspects of religions in general.
So, the most important question that remains is this: how can we cross these chasms? And it’s always seemed to me that one of the best ways we can do that is by focusing exclusively on what we can agree on rather than what we can argue about.
And what might some of these points of agreement be? Many truths, of course, can be taken from various faiths, but, since I was raised in the Christian tradition, it’s pleasing to know that a number of them can be found within the teachings we’ve been told were espoused by this man called Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.
Some of these teachings might include much in the Sermon on the Mount; the implications contained within perhaps my favorites parable: The Good Samaritan; the message to “welcome the stranger;” the “Golden Rule,” and, of course, Jesus’ main message to “love God and love your neighbor,” but also, and importantly, those considered our “enemies” — a “radical” proposition when considered in the context of recent history, when many people claiming Christianity have bombed their enemies rather than loved them.
Which is not to say that we haven’t seen many arguments about what it means to, for example “welcome the stranger,” and just who our “neighbors” are, but I’ve encountered basically no one (and perhaps I’ve been fortunate) who say they can’t see the wisdom contained in the “Golden Rule” (even when they don’t follow it), and loving everyone (even the unlovable) —and it’s there where we can find the common ground necessary for one religion.
I recognize that this particular “leap” is difficult for many people who want certainty about such ideas as the resurrection; that heaven awaits “believers;” or, for others, the possibility of reincarnation; that there is some “meaning” beyond, as Shakespeare put it: “this veil of tears,” and the comfort of “knowing” you’ll see your loved ones again.
However, as one of my favorite unencumbered theologians, Alan Watts, once put it in the title of perhaps my favorite of his many books: The Wisdom of Insecurity, the arguments arise because we can’t with honesty have the security of certainty in this world, and that it might be best not to concentrate on convincing others that our particular supernatural explanations are the “correct” ones.
Instead, let’s embrace a theology that recognizes what we can know for sure about our present existence: that we’re physical creatures living on the surface of a physical planet in the midst of a universe that’s, yes, still mysterious in many ways, but still physical, and that the lives of everyone who has to live on this planet would be immensely improved if everyone embraced what could be called a “one world” religion based on the Golden Rule and loving your neighbor—and your enemies.
Imagine: wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could go anywhere in the world and when we went to a “sacred space,” or even anywhere, find ourselves fully embraced by those around us because we’ve all simply agreed to “love one another,” free from the divisiveness that emerges when we cling to the idea that “my religion is true—yours is false” and, instead, embrace the same religion. Maybe that’s what John Lennon had in mind when the sang the words “imagine…no religion…” in his song.
But, at a time when, for millions, religion is withering away on many fronts, that doesn’t mean that the world doesn’t still need it. And it doesn’t mean that religion necessarily must be a negative word when we know that it refers to a universal religion of love embraced by all. Which is why I say, instead of no religion: imagine one religion. It isn’t hard to do.

Phill Courtney has taught high school English and was a candidate for Congress with the Green party in 1998 and 2002. Although he is a board member at the Redlands Center for the Realization of Spirit, which bases itself on the Science of Mind teachings, the views expressed here are his alone. He can be reached at: pjcourtney1311@gmail.com