One Nation Under God?
by
Denise Morris
on Apr 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Last night, Focus on the Family Institute's Dr. Chris Leland debated atheist Dr. Michael Newdow about the constitutionality of allowing "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was an interesting debate -- and I'm glad I wasn't the one doing the talking.
Newdow has filed lawsuits that bring into question whether or not "under God" and the words "in God we trust" on American currency are constitutional. He argues that government is not allowed to establish religion, and that the founding fathers were very careful to avoid references to any type of deity. As I wrote in an article:
Newdow repeatedly stated that currency with references to God, or pledges that acknowledge a deity, violate the equality that Americans — and specifically, him as an atheist — are entitled to. Just as Christians wouldn't want their children reciting a pledge that stated that God doesn't exist, he, as an atheist, doesn't want his children reciting a pledge that states God does exist.
Leland, on the other hand, talked about the history of religion in American discourse. God has repeatedly been acknowledge in the pledge, on our currency, at sessions of congress, by presidents and so on. He also pointed out that if God is removed from government, that spot won't be left vacant. Some type of ideology will replace it.
This debate brought up some interesting questions, most of which are in my article. I'll outline a couple of them here:
- Leland argued that it is not possible for everyone to be treated completely equally. Someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not. He argued that the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates. Do you think this is a valid point?
- Newdow continued to talk about how laws change based on oppression or incorrect interpretation (e.g. slavery was legal for many years and is now considered morally repugnant). Newdow acknowledges that religion has been a part of America's history, but he believes acknowledgment of God by the government is unconstitutional. So the question becomes, would Newdow support a popular vote about whether or not to keep the phrases "in God we trust" and "under God" in our public discourse?
What do you think about the constitutionality of these phrases? Do you agree with the idea that if God is removed, some ideology will replace Him?
1. Keb had the following to say on Apr 24 at 5:29 PM:
While it would take some serious de-doctrination to pull God out of the pledge for me personally, the truth is that it wasn't in the pledge when it was written. "Under God" and "In God We Trust" were both added fairly recently to the pledge and money--in the 1950s, as a way to distinguish Americans from the Godless Communists.
We're not fighting the cold war anymore, and while God does have a part in our history and our daily national lives, no American should feel oppressed by God. God himself would not, I think, approve--he wants us to love him of our own free will.
Democracy thrives when ideas can be freely exchanged. The founders did not want Americans to face the religious wars of the three centuries prior to their gathering in Europe. They also believed that people were most likely to come to the truth by a fair exchange of ideas, popular or not.
What I'd like to see is "Under God" taken out, restoring the pledge to its original state, in exchange for the end of the silliness about holiday displays in public places.
2. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 24 at 5:50 PM:
I think that a lot of ideology has already replaced God whether He gets technically removed or not.
I don't think the pledge of allegiance should be a required thing for anyone. If people don't feel they're 'under God' why should they feel peer-pressured into saying it? Unless God uses it as a seed to bend their hearts toward him...
Back to the question of ideology....so the Dalai Lama was in town recently.
Anyway...the leader of a small group I'm in passed along this link to a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. I think the author of the letter goes to my church. Her letter is the third one from the top...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/359165_ltrs16.html
It's interesting that in the letter below hers, the following is written:
"They have been drawn to it primarily because it is a spiritual way and not a religion. It is a quintessential Northwestern distinction to be spiritual but not religious. The implication is that spirituality is good and kind, and religion is perverse and corrupt. This strikes me as innocent and naïve. "
-->I think in the small group we were talking about how spirituality is commonly accepted but religion is not.
My guess is that that type of ideology is common in more liberal cities. It's interesting...
3. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 24 at 5:50 PM:
What is interesting is that Newdow is essentially arguing that atheism is a religion, something atheists have tried to avoid or deny. The original Humanist Manifesto and its signers had no trouble doing this, but later atheists have emphatically asserted that their belief system does not constitute a religion since they do not hold anything on faith, despite the fact that the very statement "there is no God" is an article of faith.
4. daniel had the following to say on Apr 24 at 6:40 PM:
Jacob -- you seem to misunderstand. Atheism is no more a faith than baldness is a hair color. My question is -- are people so insecure with their religion that they feel the need to ensure that everyone is reminded of what they believe? I'm an atheist. I don't need to put on my money "in no god I trust", I don't feel the urge to bring my lack of religion into any patriotic oath. I know what I believe, why I believe it, and don't look to meaningless oaths or to ever more irrelevant cash to validate it. It seems to me that the person who goes around saying "I'm a good boy, I am" is the one who has the most to hide. Likewise, the act of forcing others to continually acknowledge one's religion reeks of total insecurity. Faith should be private.
5. Hannah C. had the following to say on Apr 24 at 6:52 PM:
Until our nation starts actually acting like a Christian nation, then the words "one nation under God" have no place in our pledge. I don't see the US as under God. There are too many immoral things going on. It's hypocritical.
Those words weren't there for almost two hundred years. I think we can manage without them.
6. Jordan Peacock had the following to say on Apr 24 at 7:12 PM:
Why fight?
Believing America to be a Christ has CAUSED problems for the church, not alleviated them; the rampant idolatry that is Americanism first, Christianity second has been prominent in every church in America I have witnessed with only two (small) exceptions.
I would far rather see America lose it's status as a 'Christian nation' and it's people regain their place as 'Christ's church' than the other way around.
That way, rather than needed to relying upon two words in the Constitution or what is printed on your money; both things that happened long after the nation was established, mind you; the American people (no longer identified as american but as Christ followers) would be the witness to a nation and world sorely in need of it.
7. Chris had the following to say on Apr 24 at 8:47 PM:
Denise writes:
He also pointed out that if God is removed from government, that spot won't be left vacant
God is not mentioned in the Constitution, the basis for our federal government. Well, "Lord" is used when referring to a date ("in the year of our lord"), but there is no mention of God.
I find it odd that evangelicals and the like were more than happy to work against the mixing of religion and government in the early part of our country's history (when they were in the minority and thus very aware of what being a minority sect was like) but now are quite happy to plaster religion on money, pledges, and political events.
As noted above, the insertions in the pledge and on our money were relatively recent and in response to those "godless communists." I find this as silly as "freedom fries" or questioning people's patriotism because they don't wear little flag pins.
8. Laura had the following to say on Apr 24 at 9:08 PM:
Well, in other instances of the use of the word "God" in public spaces (eg, on our money, in the motto), the courts have ruled that it is constitutional because it's essentially meaningless, meaning that most of us aren't thinking about trusting in God when we feed a dollar into the coke machine. My guess is that the court would find similarly in a case having to do with the pledge.
Thank goodness we don't need the government to affirm our faith.
9. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 24 at 9:17 PM:
Daniel (#4)
No, I think I understand the issue quite clearly. You cannot prove that there is no God. Thus, your belief that he does not exist requires just as much faith as my belief that he does exist.
10. Tyler had the following to say on Apr 24 at 10:04 PM:
Although I agree with Newdow, his logic is flawed. If God/Supernatural force does not exist then how can he claim equality. The equality of all humans is largely a religious one that at some point has to rest on a moral code. None of us think that all animals are equal! If we are simply highly evolved animals then there should not be equality either. Ironically, Newdow's desire to love others by establishing equality is essentially a Christian principle. Thanks Denise for the post!
11. Alex C. had the following to say on Apr 24 at 10:05 PM:
What I want to know is this: If what Leland, and others who agree with him, says is true, does that mean that "Religious Freedom" and "Seperation of Church and State" are actually impossible to obtain? That's what it seems to imply to me. I'm also curious as to what ideology Leland thinks would fill the void if "in god we trust" was removed.
"Leland argued that it is not possible for everyone to be treated completely equally. Someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not. He argued that the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates. Do you think this is a valid point?
"
Maybe, but only in that it points out one of the flaws of our democratic system, and one of the reasons why we NEED dis-establishment in the first place. Just because the majority rules, doesn't make them right. After all, a whole lot of people believe that abortion or homosexuality are ok, and for a long time it was the same for slavery. And what if, hypotheticly, our country suddenly gained a huge, say, buddhist population, with enough voting power to do something like changing the pledge to "in Buddha we trust"? Would christians just sit still and say nothing in such a situation? As for the "it's impossible to treat everyone equally", that may be true, but that doesnt mean we should stop TRYING to treat people as equal as possible.
'So the question becomes, would Newdow support a popular vote about whether or not to keep the phrases "in God we trust" and "under God" in our public discourse?
'
I think he'd probably say that its not even something that should be voted on, because, regardless of how the voting turned out, it would still be a violation of seperation of church and state. He would probably say that before "in god we trust" could be included in our pledge, or something like that, we'd need to vote on a new ammendment that altered the non-establishment clause. (or at least, thats what he would say if he's consistent)
12. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 24 at 10:38 PM:
Hi Daniel,
Welcome -- Just wanted to comment on: "Likewise, the act of forcing others to continually acknowledge one's religion reeks of total insecurity. Faith should be private."
-->Aside from the "In God we trust" and "One nation under God" stuff..
Just to offer another perspective on your statement: I think for me a reason I'd want others to know of my faith is because I believe it is something true and something so good that I want them to believe it too. Not for brownie points, though I admit that whatever 'good' thing I might want to do probably has bad motives mixed with ones that might be led by the Spirit (God). The Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags. Sure I am insecure in areas, but my faith is the most 'rock'est part of me, or I want it to be, I should say, even though I don't always turn to Christ as my rock or act like my faith is my rock. I'm not really political, but, I really don't want my faith to remain private. I often keep it private, but I hope it'll leak out more and more. Not that "I" am good. Far from it. In a small group tonight we were talking about legalism and living by the Spirit and motives...and I think we came to the conclusion that even if our motives are not good we shouldn't stop striving to do certain 'good things', but it is important to keep them in check. Another thing we talked about is that if we don't recognize our sinful motives that that is pride to think we are doing them out of pure motives. So it's good to acknowledge them...I guess I'm rambling.
Of course Biblical salvation is not equivalent to good works, but the good works are the fruit of the faith in Jesus Christ alone.
But I digress...
Anyway I guess my point is that the desire for others to know about one's faith is not simply a reflection of insecurity. But that's probably not what you're saying because I realize that you used the words "forcing" and "continuing to acknowledge" so you were probably not making a blanket reason behind all faith-sharing.
Anyway, anyway...
13. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Apr 24 at 11:25 PM:
Addressing the questions that Denise posted:
"Someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not. He argued that the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates. Do you think this is a valid point? "
Yes, as a Republic is supposed to mirror the will the people (i.e. a democracy without all the logistical problems). However, he should be aware that it cuts both ways. The will of the people could be "for God" (as in consistent with principles in the Bible) or it could be "against God". Would he be so quick to defend the will of the people in areas such as abortion (where most believe it should be legal [with caveats but legal nonetheless])? And of course there are exceptions where the system might trump the will of the people (the Electoral College comes to mind).
"Newdow continued to talk about how laws change based on oppression or incorrect interpretation (e.g. slavery was legal for many years and is now considered morally repugnant). Newdow acknowledges that religion has been a part of America's history, but he believes acknowledgment of God by the government is unconstitutional. So the question becomes, would Newdow support a popular vote about whether or not to keep the phrases 'in God we trust' and 'under God' in our public discourse?"
What's interesting is for many years, slavery (and as an extension, Black oppression) was considered "legal" and consistent with the Constitution because in many people's minds, Blacks weren't considered true "men" (as in "all men are created equal"). Just look at the early compromises saying that Blacks only counted as 3/5th (or some fraction) of a person for calculating House Representatives. Also, I honestly don't think women were intended to be completely equal either as they didn't earn the right to vote until 1920.
The Supreme Court allows the phrases "under God" and "In God we Trust" because they state it is more of a historical tribute than it is a government endorsement of religion (One could also argue it states, "In God we Trust" without specifying which God it is exactly).
Here's where it gets interesting though. In many instances, "the will of the people" is to acknowledge God such as invocations at high school graduations before the SCOTUS nixed it. SCOTUS felt that it was a government endorsement of a particular religion. However, you look at examples such as the military (a government entity) and they have spent taxpayer dollars on Chapels and Chaplains to support people's religion. I find some inconsistency there (one could explain it by saying that it hires Chaplains of multiple faiths, but why then couldn't the High School prayer be open to different faiths as well --saying more than one prayer?).
Here's the thing though about Mr. Newdow's argument (and also Mr. Leland's): Both essentially seem to imply that there exists an absolute truth outside the Constitution. To state "X is wrong" (such as slavery, Blacks/White/Women disparities, etc.) despite early support of X from lawmakers and even the SCOTUS. And that certain amendments to the Constitution were implemented because they appeal to some absolute truth. For example, I'm fairly sure Mr. Newdow wouldn't support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man + 1 woman. Yet many STATES have already done that with their state constitution. He cannot argue the legality of it (at least at the state level) because it's plainly in the State Constituion. So what does he have to go back on except his personal worldview about what the absolute truths are? Thus because the country's Constitution isn't explicit on the issues regarding mottos and pledges, and he doesn't believe that the "will of the people" is always correct, his only remaining argument of why it's wrong is his own individual interpretation of what the Constitution says.
This is a fundamental difference in Constitutional interpretation. There are those (like Scalia) who state that unless the Constitution is explicit, one cannot interpret heavily using arguments of, "If this issue existed back in the day of the founding fathers, this is how they would rule...". And there are those who believe that the Constitution needs to be a "living document" which essentially does that. And that sometimes the people cannot wait for legislation to fix the problems and needs the Court to intervene.
Given all of this, I definitely agree with Jason Peacock. Although I believe there were probably some Christians among our founding fathers I don't believe that they had in mind to create a "Christian" nation. Rather I believe a good lot of them were Diests and/or simply inserted God into the early documents because many of the colonists believed in God at the time.
And I wouldn't want to see America as a whole "Christian" nation myself. Constantine tried that a long time ago with the Holy Roman Empire and it didn't turn out so well.
14. obewan had the following to say on Apr 25 at 6:45 AM:
I do not get spun up about this issue one way or the other. Is the God on our money and in the pledge intended to be the God of the Bible, or the God of Freemasonry? If our government is involved we could be forced to pay homage to Troth, Isis, or the "Great Architect of the Universe", or Allah, etc... Is this what we want? Honor given to a generic "GOD" like that society in the Bible did when they gave honor in the rituals to "The Unknown God" (just to roll the dice and cover all the bases so no one god got offended)?
Personally, if I had children in school, I would rather have the church teach them to pray a Christian prayer than the government teach them to pray a Freemason’s (ie. New Age) prayer. As for the Atheists, they can just remain silent for the two words "under God" during the pledge.
15. Charity had the following to say on Apr 25 at 8:13 AM:
I think Mr. Leland's comment on the impossibility of equality is right on. We see it in every decision made by government. Not a law is passed in congress or a politician elected that isn't an example of the will of the majority being imposed upon the minority. Majority votes in congress pass laws, majorities in elections place people in power. I think one of the beauties of democracy is the way the will of the majority is protected from the demands of the minority while at the same time the minority has the constitutional right to try to become the majority through the wonderful right of freedom of speech. I'm not a big fan of the way courts are hijacked for years by people who want to push an agenda or want to bypass the democratic process. I'm certainly no expert and may be wrong in this (I often am)...so if I am, remember this is my first boundless post and be gentle with me. :)
16. Priscilla had the following to say on Apr 25 at 9:37 AM:
Let me offer a different perspective on this issue.
I'm from India, a nation where Christians are a tiny minority (less than three per cent of the population, and that's including those born into Christian families, but who don't believe in Christ). We are therefore on the opposite side of the line to many Christians from the United States. We fight hard for secularism, for religion to remain out of government and government-aided institutions like the education system.
So Christian parents argue against the mandatory singing of the national song which invokes a Hindu goddess, in schools. When the government plans to make yoga classes (along with the preliminary invocation to the sun god) compulsory in schools, Christians protest. (You see, we have our own culture wars.)
Here, we are in the minority. The majority of Indians, who are Hindus, would have no problem singing that song or practicing yoga.
But the Indian constitution specifies that religion is to be kept out of government. (After all, it is in many ways a legacy of Western ideas of the seperation of church and state.)
The Indian constitution also defines our nation as a democratic republic. If this meant that the will of the majority ruled, we might be living under a Hindu rule by now. In India, Christians -- and Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and even most Hindus -- are thankful and proud that being a democracy does not mean that the religious beliefs of the majority can be imposed on the minority. (The system can be fragile at times, we have our religious fanatics, and our tragic moments, but on the whole, India is still an amazingly tolerant place to live. And that is because we can hold on to a constitution that insists on keeping religion firmly out of government.)
Therefore, I don't agree with Leland's argument that "someone's ideas will be imposed and someone else's will not... the will of the majority rules — it's the way our democratic republic operates."
And I'm sure he would not agree with it for people from other parts of the world -- he would not agree with the fact that state-supported atheist thought can be imposed on Christians in China, or that government-sponsored Muslim ideology can be forced on Christians in West Asia. He would stand with these persecuted Christians (with much of the persecution caused by official, government-approved religion). In that case, he cannot hold to a double standard and insist that the will of the majority prevails in the issue of religion and the government in America.
(Besides, mixing up the state and the church are not just bad for the state and its citizens who don't believe in the church's precepts. History proves that it's much worse for the church. The Crusades and the Inquisition were only the worst examples of that.)
17. Chris had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:02 AM:
Charity writes:
I think one of the beauties of democracy is the way the will of the majority is protected from the demands of the minority while at the same time the minority has the constitutional right to try to become the majority through the wonderful right of freedom of speech.
The true beauty of our government, as it was intended with limited powers and rights reserved to the people (and states), is that the rights of the minority cannot be violated by the will of the majority. Your statement has things reversed, implying the majority has some right to enforce its will with the consolation prize that one day the minority may become the majority. This leads to a might-makes-right situation in which the majority-du-jour can do what it wants.
18. Chris had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:13 AM:
obewan writes:
As for the Atheists, they can just remain silent for the two words "under God" during the pledge.
So, if it said "under Allah" instead, would we just ask the Christians and Jews to be silent? What if it was "under the Goddess" the Wiccans like (or whatever they're calling it/her/them nowadays)?
19. Lydia had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:13 AM:
I think both Leland and Newdow have good points. They are essentially arguing the same thing: that the passing of American laws and bills have always been challenged for change, and it has inevitably evolved with time. Moral relativism and religious ambiguity has replaced God and if Leland believes in his observation, sooner or later, the majority may rule that "under God" and "in God we trust" have no place in a spiritually divided America. Whether he accepts this progress as fact or if he plans to fight against it (in hopes that the majority may swing the country back towards God) is unclear. Basically, it resonates with Newdow's point that when the people feel oppressed or that something is outdated, a "majority" may feel it is necessary to facilitate change and go about doing so.
I think it would be more enlightening to see how Leland believes equality should be demonstrated in an ideal world and to see, like the question Denise poses, whether Newdow would think the results (especially if they are against his view) of a popular vote on the topic is an exercise in freedom and equality.
20. Phil Williams had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:22 AM:
The the constitutionality of these two phrases and the one included in our US National Anthem ("In GOD is our Trust"), has already tried in our courts an good number of times and validated for its constitutionally correct governmental use in motto form.
"Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that:
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
"Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al." 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ms. O'Hair is (in)famous for successfully challenging compulsory prayer in U.S. public schools. The United States District Court, Western District of Texas, referring to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled that:
"From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion."
This ruling was sustained by the Fifth Circuit court. 1
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. conducted a national survey which showed that "In God We Trust" was regarded as religious by an overwhelming percentage of U.S. citizens. They initiated a lawsuit on 1994-JUN-8 in Denver CO to have it removed from U.S. paper currency and coins. They also wanted it to be discontinued as the national motto. Their lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial, on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase! The Tenth-Circuit federal judge confirmed the dismissal, stating in part:
"...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion."
It will likely resurrect in additional attempts to have their usage removed from government uses many times hence.
The Pledge of Allegiance is voluntarilly recited in "Public Schools" not Government run Schools.
Our currency having long time been commemorative in nature, depicts many things which usually go overlooked, though some in various camps of thought may fine offensive, still as a useful medium of exchange is used and accepted for its monitary value and does little if anything to endorse a religion. Yes, the 'Slippery Slope' comes in removing such phrases from every incidental use in the realm of government. The Star Spangled Banner, State Charters, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, just to name a few, would then become vulnerable targets of this purging. And if we did then we would become Historical Revisionists of the history our collective forefathers as Americans wanted us to preserve.
The scary part isn't so much that people like Newdow believe such phrases should be removed, our shivers should come from the fact that today's modern court system comes frighteningly close to concurring.
21. Phil Williams had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:24 AM:
The the constitutionality of these two phrases and the one included in our US National Anthem ("In GOD is our Trust"), has already tried in our courts an good number of times and validated for its constitutionally correct governmental use in motto form.
"Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that:
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
"Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al." 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ms. O'Hair is (in)famous for successfully challenging compulsory prayer in U.S. public schools. The United States District Court, Western District of Texas, referring to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled that:
"From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion."
This ruling was sustained by the Fifth Circuit court. 1
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. conducted a national survey which showed that "In God We Trust" was regarded as religious by an overwhelming percentage of U.S. citizens. They initiated a lawsuit on 1994-JUN-8 in Denver CO to have it removed from U.S. paper currency and coins. They also wanted it to be discontinued as the national motto. Their lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial, on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase! The Tenth-Circuit federal judge confirmed the dismissal, stating in part:
"...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion."
It will likely resurrect in additional attempts to have their usage removed from government uses many times hence.
The Pledge of Allegiance is voluntarilly recited in "Public Schools" not Government run Schools.
Our currency having long time been commemorative in nature, depicts many things which usually go overlooked, though some in various camps of thought may fine offensive, still as a useful medium of exchange is used and accepted for its monitary value and does little if anything to endorse a religion. Yes, the 'Slippery Slope' comes in removing such phrases from every incidental use in the realm of government. The Star Spangled Banner, State Charters, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, just to name a few, would then become vulnerable targets of this purging. And if we did then we would become Historical Revisionists of the history our collective forefathers as Americans wanted us to preserve.
The scary part isn't so much that people like Newdow believe such phrases should be removed, our shivers should come from the fact that today's modern court system comes frighteningly close to concurring.
22. Louise had the following to say on Apr 25 at 11:03 AM:
Re comment 20,
Madelyn Ohair is deceased.
She was murdered a few years ago, along with a son and a granddaughter.
23. obewan had the following to say on Apr 25 at 11:59 AM:
Chris #18 wrote:
“So, if it said "under Allah" instead, would we just ask the Christians and Jews to be silent? What if it was "under the Goddess" the Wiccans like (or whatever they're calling it/her/them nowadays)?”
I suppose I would choose to remain silent if that were the case. My point about the current “under God” clause was that it does not say what God. It very well could mean “under Allah” since many of our government officials are/were involved in Freemasonry. Look on the dollar bill. It says “In God We Trust” and then invokes well known occult imagery. The “all seeing eye” above the Egyptian pyramids is used to represent “God”. It has roots in ancient Egypt, with ties to Troth and the Egyptian mystery schools. The great seal has Cabbalistic/Kabalistic roots, which was a Jewish cult that was not allied with the one true God of Israel. Knowing the real history of our own Government’s “theology” (New Ageism/all paths lead to God etc) I am tempted to remain silent as it is rather than utter a hypocritical oath.
24. Charity had the following to say on Apr 25 at 12:02 PM:
Thanks for the response, Chris. :) I totally agree that the rights of the minority are considered sacred and justly protected by the constitution. I was referring not to the rights, but to the will of the majority in the passing or repealing of laws and amendments, as well as elections on every level. All of those things are examples of the way that our government bows to the will of the majority of people. Around the world we can see detestable examples of both the tyrannical dominance of majorities over minorities and also the stranglehold of ruling minorities that give no ear to the cries of the majority of their people. Both are dangerous and I am ever thankful for a country that protects the rights of the minority while respecting the will of the majority.
25. BDB had the following to say on Apr 25 at 2:05 PM:
Daniel (#4) wrote:
>>Faith should be private.<<
That's like saying human rights should be a private matter.
For people to live in community, certain standards of behavior must be agreed upon. Much of U.S. Criminal law comes out of Deuteronomy 20. A great example is the division of property crimes vs. crimes against persons. That distinction is Biblical.
The critical failure of atheistic governmental systems is that their is no outside standards. The only standard becomes power - those in power can do whatever they wish if the hold no standard higher than themselves.
If there is no understanding of a larger moral order by the people in power, what would prevent them from simply killing or imprisoning those who oppose them? In many countries this happens. And that would be a terribly frightening place to live.
26. daniel had the following to say on Apr 25 at 5:16 PM:
No, BDB, human rights are to be protected, and enforced, by the government. Religion is to be a private matter, with the government staying out of the discussion altogether. This is the basis of our laws, if you don't like that, there are plenty of countries on this planet which are more accommodating to your views. Unfortunately, most of them tend to be Muslim.
U.S. law has almost nothing to do with the Bible. It's based on the ideas of Enlightenment, which was a humanistic movement. Equality, democracy, etc. are all non-Biblical ideas, they are humanistic. Not even the 10 Commandments are enshrined in our laws.
Your last question deals with morality of atheists. This is irrelevant, and a question which would take too long to answer. Suffice to say, putting "God" on a dollar bill is not going to solve anyone's moral problems.
27. John had the following to say on Apr 25 at 9:08 PM:
How many times do I have to correct the erroneous assertion that blacks were counted as 3/5th of a person because they were considered less than human?
Seriously?
They were counted as such as a compromise, because the south wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
The south wanted to treat blacks as less than human, YET count them as 100% human in order to have more representation, more votes and, of course, more power!
Please, please, please, before everyone starts go on about "American" history, "US" history, etc., you need to read about and study federalism.
It is perhaps the linchpin of true American history.
It is maybe the greatest difference between us and any nation in history.
States' rights are supposed to, don't anymore, but did very much, matter!
Watch John Adams if you want any idea of just how loose "these united states" were.
It was a group of self-governed colonies agreeing to work together for a common cause. They were successful, but then the infighting and fracturing started. That's why they had to start over and scrap the articles of confederation. (Notice the word confederation, very important)
They recognized that there was strength in unity, but they did not get along like pals.
Northerners hated slavery; to southerners it was as much apart of life to them at that time as a 19 year old college co-ed aborting a "mistake" is for us today.
(Never mind the fact that the abolition of the trade and later institution of slavery in America should be a cause for celebration and a testament to our founding ideals, especially when considering that chattel slavery continued throughout much of the word AND sex slavery is still very much in existence today. But you all go right on condemning America for its perceived past atrocities meanwhile not lifting a finger to do anything about an atrocity right in your contemporary "backyard")
So, "history judgers"*, until you can pull the contemporary plank out of your own contemporary eye, leave the past's speck in the past's eye alone!
Ain't it quaint how individuals love to invoke these "damning" examples of horrible American transgressions, even though they are clear examples of compromise, the very thing that these God-haters are pretending to champion? The reality is they are looking for anything to use against those who would deny them the unmitigated wielding of power which would be the logical conclusion of their agendas. God-haters don't want compromise; they want power to do as they please. (Who, sadly do to our fallen state, doesn't?) Does no one here understand that THAT is the reason for federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances? The founders understood the corrupting effects of power and the only way to ensure the greatest liberty for the most people was within the governmental structure of a republic? And is anyone so gullible to believe that Newdow and his ilk would stop at expunging any reference to God at the federal level? Is nobody here familiar with the strategy used by the ACLU and other demonic organizations to hem in the church in this nation? It's called the 14th amendment and it's been the back door through which God haters have forced evolution, secularism, etc. down the throats of the vast majority of unsuspecting and sheepish believers and non-believers alike, here in the United States, for decades! The 14th Amendment has been like the blood sucking vampire bat siphoning out the life of the states in the name of "equal protection under the law". (Not to mention of the liberty of the individual) You may be shocked, shocked I say to find this out, but the ACLU crowd isn't interested in "equal protection" or compromise. (If you're not shocked, you may want to look into new media, there's this great new invention, it's called the internet. No, Walter Cronkite doesn't deliver you the "news" there, but it's a great place to catch up on the goings on in the world.) They want 100% victory peeps. They want to eradicate any mention of God, the biblical one that is, where ever they may find it. Don't get me wrong, I'm no chicken little. I'm just trying to draw a real clear picture. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. Anti-Christians are not looking for a "live and let live" existence. They actually believe that believers are sick and silly at best, and dangerous at worst. They don't just want our faith to be private; they want it out of every area that they perceive as influencing government policy.
Whether you like it or not, we're in a cultural war. Politics affect you, what other people believe affects you.
And, point of fact, faith, worldview, beliefs, etc. are impossible to separate from politics. Politics and religion are a part of humanity. They're as much a part as breathing and eating. There's no such thing as "a separation of church and state".
Now, the "Church of the United States" is something that can and should be avoided, BUT that does not mean that, as has been mentioned, through the republican mechanisms that are in place, the people can't choose to recognize the supernatural, a deity, deities or the one true God, pretty much however they want (i.e. on money or in pledges).
So the next time someone wants to drop some of their half-whit knowledge about "3/5th", tell 'em you've got more than a cursory history from an anti-Christian, liberal, communist, America hating, NEA member.
But seriously folks, the arguments are pretty silly with all the talk of, "well America, blah, blah, and back when, blah, blah, and blah"
Take a look at the original STATE constitutions. Back when states had power they wrote things like:
Original State Constitution
North Carolina
"No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the [Protestant] religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit in the civil department, within this state."
Massachusetts
"[All persons elected must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. "I do declare; that I believe the Christian religion; and have firm persuasion of its truth."
Delaware
"Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, to writ: "I do profess faith in God the father, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forever more, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Pennsylvania
"And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."
But don't worry, Newdow et al, probably 95% of high schoolers don't even recite the pledge. They just sit at their desks and talk right through the pledge. That's what 8+ years of government indoctrination will do to ya, especially when that indoctrination is Godless and anti-Christian.
The funny thing, though, to me is, doesn't Newdow and his buddies know that the church grows under persecution? And even more obvious, don't they know that the more they try to force kids to do anything OR tell them they can't do something, that kids usually do the exact opposite?
Wouldn't it be just a little humorous if instead of reviling Newdow et al, we should be grateful for their lack of common sense?
Lastly, let's remember our fight is not against flesh and blood. Ephesians 6:12
We must love for our enemies.
Matthew 5:44
*History judgers are individuals who love to condemn people of the past, who look down their noses at people in the past as less cultured, less civilized, less "evolved" as they perceive themselves to be. They never stop to take into considerations the intricacies and complexities that is life when judging the past. They are the first to cast stones on the "awful" and "inhuman" actions and activities of the past, while doing nothing about modern moral transgressions (save, perhaps, classifying the air humans exhale as somehow being a pollutant. Go figure.) Wouldn't they simply hate it to know that some day in the distant future, when they can no longer voice their opinion or defend their actions, because they will be long gone, some other contemporary snob is going to condemn them (the current history judgers) for not doing "this" or "that" because they were too "uncivilized" or "uneducated". Poetic justice:)
28. John had the following to say on Apr 25 at 9:10 PM:
Charity,
Amen!
My only criticism is that you explained to simply. Most people think it needs to be as difficult as trig. The reality, is, of course, exactly like you stated.
Lord bless.
29. Al had the following to say on Apr 25 at 10:28 PM:
Daniel, what exactly do you mean by "private"? If you mean that government shouldn't publically sponsor a state religion, I can agree with that. I might even concede with taking out references to God that were inserted late as a response to communism.
However, if you mean by "private" that individuals should keep their beliefs to themselves, you would in essence be denying the real spirit of freedom of speech, religion, and debate-- all the while asserting your own moral assumptions about whether it's right to state one's beliefs enthusiastically. In a way you would challenge the right of individuals to be whole, integrated persons and be allowed to state, enact, and display what they believe to be true when it comes to matters of faith. So if that's what you mean by "private", I would have to vehemently disagree, just as I would also defend your right to be vocal about your atheism and how things ought to be according to an atheist's perspective-- the latter of which you're currently enjoying as you argue from an atheistic world view on a site primarily serving Christians.
What makes this country great is that we're protected in both practicing and being vocal in our beliefs, even to the annoyance of others-- provided that we also learn to bear all the things that others say that will inevitably annoy us. In all the talk about religion being "private", I hope we don't forget that sharing one's faith-- an essential act of worship for the Christian-- is one of the protected human rights that you mention in our Constitution.
30. Michelle had the following to say on Apr 25 at 11:15 PM:
So I'm sure this will be 'horrible', but I think we should take it off for nothing having to do with constitution. Foreigners see two things when they see us; In God we Trust on our money, and our movies. Talk about a bad witness for our God. :( Go to any foreign country and you'll learn everyone thinks americans are those two things; all Christians, and all sleeping around doing drugs etc.
...you know?
31. Bekah had the following to say on Apr 26 at 11:58 AM:
I agree with the fact that atheism is not really a religion. The fact that Christians want to include God in their pledge or on their money speaks of certain ideologies in Christianity. Christians are taught to include God in every aspect of their lives. Putting it on money is a way of showing God our commitment to him, not insecurity. Christians rely on God's direction and wisdom, we believe God knows best. Therefore, including God when it comes to spending money and even more so in government affairs, reflects the Christian's relationship with God. It's more an act of worship to God than a reminder to everyone else. Obviously it may not be fair to one who is an atheist, but that's just the reasoning behind it. Maybe we should have some money with "In God we Trust" and then some that does not include it.. wouldn't everyone be happy then? (I'm joking... that would cause chaos)
32. daniel had the following to say on Apr 26 at 5:21 PM:
Al, by "private" I do mean "not sponsored by the government". We have no right to stop anyone from propagating their religion in whatever way they see fit (unless it infringes on rights of others, of course). However, this propagation is to be undertaken exclusively by private organizations -- religions, cults, what have you. Government is to stay out of this battle of ideas altogether. That's what I mean.
And with "In God we trust" and "... under god..." government does take a side. These statements, on our country's money or in our pledge, imply that the government is taking a side. It's coming down on the side of major monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) to the disenfranchisement of others -- be it polytheists (Hindus & Sikhs), other theists (Wikkans / female goddess worshipers), and atheists / agnostics.
Now personally, I don't care. I never said "under God" when I recited the Pledge, I never read what's written on money. But this is still the government taking a stand, and that should not happen.
33. BDB had the following to say on Apr 26 at 11:04 PM:
Daniel (#26) wrote:
>> human rights are to be protected, and enforced, by the government.<<
And yet, all over the world, governments fail to protect human rights - this is particularly true in those countries without a deep, written legal tradition. Government power severed from a larger ethical truth simply becomes "might makes right."
>>U.S. law has almost nothing to do with the Bible. It's based on the ideas of Enlightenment, which was a humanistic movement.<<
Both of these statements are false.
Criminal law, which resides heavily in the states, is very Biblical. Anyone who doubts this is invited to take a criminal law textbook and go through the basics of criminal law. You will find that they match closely with the crimes and degrees of crime listed in Deutoronomy 20.
Even modern law for things like welfare (designed for poor children without fathers) matches up with the New Testament "pure religion" of providing for widows and orphans.
The enlightenment became possible directly due to changes such as the reformation, including the idea that individuals have a relationship directly with God, without the need for a priest to intervene. It is this idea that is at the core of representative government - there is no need for a king to be the governing authority as the mediator of power. It is no accident that the first successful representative government in the world is in the U.S., where there was already more than a century of experience with congregational-level democracy where congregants voted on things like choosing a pastor. That basic concept creates the building blocks for federalism, where each level of government (town, county, state, federal) has a different set of elected representatives - just like denominations do.
>>Equality, democracy, etc. are all non-Biblical ideas,<<
Again, this is false. The New Testament is precisely where these ideas come from. Particularly relevant is the equality of both Hebrew and Greek Christians. The early church had to wrestle with this concept of ethnic diversity 2000 years ago. They came up with a structure that required everyone to be equal before God.
Some comes from ancient Greek and Roman ideas of citizenship. Both those societies had equality for citizens and slavery for the conquered. But it was Christian Protestants like William Wilberforce who first moved governments towards eliminating the African slavery created by the Enlightenment.
Finally, there could be no representative democracy without a written legal tradition. Literacy is a fundmental requirement of a government of laws, not men handing out favors. It is only when everyone can read that the poor can read the law for themselves and demand justice. The change to individual, widespread literacy was precisely because of the printing press and Bibles that were for the first time widely available - making it possible for a now-literate population to read for themselves what God's commandments were. And the ability of citizens to read the legal tradition of English Law is why so much of it remains as the precedent for U.S. common law.
34. BDB had the following to say on Apr 26 at 11:08 PM:
Bekah (#31) wrote:
>>Maybe we should have some money with "In God we Trust" and then some that does not include it.. wouldn't everyone be happy then? <<
Apparently. They're called Credit Cards, and you can use them at grocery stores now...
35. Christy had the following to say on Apr 30 at 10:46 AM:
There's actually a book coming out in August about this topic called "Unchristian America" by Michael Babcock. I got to read an advanced reader copy & it's pretty interesting, so look it up if you have a chance!