We know what we are doing because 27 States (including Minnesota) treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide (http://www.unitedforlife.org/fh_statutes.htm). That is, they have what are called "fetal homicide laws." Other states (besides these 27) have different kinds of penalties for attacks on women that result in harm to the baby she is carrying.
For example, in Minnesota in 1987, a teenage girl 6 ½ months pregnant went with her boyfriend on a suicide pact into the woods. She shot herself in the head, and he changed his mind and covered her over with brush and walked away. He was apprehended and charged with assisting a suicide and "inadvertently murdering the fetus during the commission of a felony." The fetal homicide law carried a stiffer penalty than assisting in a suicide. The verdict was upheld in 1991.
As I read about this in the newspaper one sentence leaped off the page because of its stunning implications. "The law makes it murder to kill an embryo or fetus intentionally, except in cases of abortion." Think about that for a moment. We have some laws that condemn the killing of a fetus as murder, and we have some laws that condone the killing of a fetus as abortion.
I agree. Once I heard the reason it was inserted, the more I was convinced it needed to go.
As the majority on the reply to list in my email are office mates, I expected to receive some quick replies. One has already told me we should remove the Pledge entirely from our schools, then he paused, and finished "We should just remove public schools."
I couldn't agree more.
I voted against the "under God" phrase. Currently, 78% oppose removing, 22% favor removing it.
Well, I'm certainly not advocating Judges acting like those judges did. I'm just expressing my "vote" so to speak and explaining why I "voted" the way I did.
I vote to ammend it to "One Nation under the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" No generic brands for me.
This is an ideal. Note the following phrase, "with liberty and justice for all." That is not a reality (ask Denise Brown), it is an aspiration.
I'm not for removing references to God at all!!!!
I agree with Dr.Eckleburg, who said: "I understand your position, and agree with you in principle. However, IMO, a greater evil resides in the forces who are working so hard to rid society of all religious significance."
I wouldn't be averse to changing the wording in the pledge to "...one nation FOUNDED under God ...", however, because it's more accurate, and because American history (reiterated below), leaves no doubt as to exactly *which* God we were FOUNDED under -- the "Christian" God.
If we take a _narrow_ perspective, we will think that the time in which we live is "the worst it's ever been". Not so. Look back over the history of the world and you will see that the pendulum always swings from one extreme to the other. Solomon: "That which has been is what will be again. ... there is nothing new under the sun." [Eccles.1:9-11].
That's why I'm an Amillennialist. :D
Amillennialism - Statement of view: "The Bible predicts a continuous parallel growth of good and evil in the world between the first and second coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ. The kingdom of God is now present in the world through his Word, his Spirit, his Church. This position has also been called, "realized millennialism".
There is only one reason for why things really get bad in any society. Solomon tells us why: "Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." [Eccles.8:11]
And since 99% of the worst criminal mentalities vote DemocRAT, the DemocRATs aren't interested in "swiftly punishing" and locking up the source of their power in prison. Jesse Jackson, et.al., worked feverishly making the rounds of all the jails and prisons in Florida signing up the inmates so that they could vote in the last presidential election. (DemocRATS are now trying to make it legal for convicted felons to vote before the next election, too)
Is there anyone who thinks those convicted criminals voted for the party with the REPUTATION for being "tough on crime"?????
Why did the criminal mentalites (DemocRAT emasculator/weakeners of America) try to prevent the absentee military vote from being counted in Florida? Because they were afraid they would be voting for DemocRATS????
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
America's CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW *FOUNDING*:
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/america.htm
America's Unchristian Beginnings? ©1995 Gregory Koukl
Greg responds to an L.A. Times Op-Ed article by this title (sans question mark), subtitled "Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus."
There has been a lot of confusion on the issue of whether or not we're a Christian nation, and I'm not exactly sure why. But it is hotly debated in our culture right now. The reason I say I'm not sure why is because the historical record is quite clear. I think that Christians, though, often make inappropriate, unfounded, or inaccurate applications of some of the information, and I want to speak to that in just a moment.
As to the faith content of those who were our Founding Fathers, there can be absolutely no confusion about the fact that virtually every single one of them shared a Christian, biblical world view. There is some question as to whether every single one of them held to all the orthodox teachings of classical Christianity; but it seems to me that there is very little question as to what their religious persuasions and world views were.
There was a piece in the L.A. Times on the third of this August on the Op-Ed page entitled "America's Unchristian Beginnings." It is subtitled "Founding Fathers: Despite preachings of our pious Right, most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus." There are a couple things that trouble me about this article, the biggest thing is the word "most" in the subtitle. "Most of our Founding Fathers" apparently were deists, according to this person's assessment. This is a canard that's been tossed around even by some Christians who ought to know better. This piece was written by Steven Morris who is a professor of physics at L.A. Harbor College and he is also a member of the L.A.-based Atheists United.
Some might say, what does a physicist know about history? Just because he is a physicist doesn't mean that he can't have an accurate opinion about this particular issue. I take issue with his research. It' s simply bad.
He goes on to reply to the Christian Right, who he says is trying to rewrite the history of the United States in its campaign to force its view of religion on others. His approach is to quote seven different people: Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and Ben Franklin. His point is to quote these individuals who he thinks apparently are, first of all, Founding Fathers, and secondly, characteristic of the lot of them in rejection of Christianity and in acceptance of deism.
I am frustrated by this because it is characteristic of the way a lot of people want to treat this issue. They think that they can take names that we associate with that period and are well known, sift through their writings and find some things that they think are hostile to Christianity, and therefore conclude that not only these people are anti-Christian, but all of the rest of them are anti-Christian, as well.
It's an example of Steven Morris turning the exception into the rule. Since he can find what he thinks are seven different people that are important personalities during this period of time, who at some time in their lives may have written something that can be understood to be non-Christian, then that characterizes the whole group of them as deists, ergo the subtitle "Most were deists who rejected the divinity of Jesus."
Morris' sightings are simply specious. Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen, for example, were in no- wise intellectual architects of the Constitution. Rather, they were firebrands of the Revolution. Was that important? Sure, they made an important contribution, but they weren't Founding Fathers. Period.
Now, as for Washington, Sam Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. If one looks at the literature of the time--the personal correspondence, the public statements, the biographies--he will find that this literature is replete with quotations by these people contrary to those that Mr. Morris very carefully selected for us. Apparently, he also very carefully ignored other important thinkers: John Witherspoon, for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry. All individuals who were significant contributors to the architectural framework of this country and who had political philosophies that were deeply influenced by Christianity, especially Calvinism.
But there is another thing that he completely overlooks in this analysis. Something that makes a mockery out of his analysis, and also answers the question quite simply and directly and in the affirmative for us about the Christian beginnings of our Republic.
This issue is actually very simple. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. In other words, Founding Fathers refers directly to a very specific group of people (although I think you could be a little bit flexible and include a little wider group of people). Those who intellectually contributed to the Constitutional convention were the Founding Fathers. If we want to know whether our Founding Fathers were Christian or deists, one needs only to look at the individual religious convictions of those 55 delegates of the Constitutional convention.
How would we know that? We look at their church membership primarily, and also at their correspondence. Back then church membership was a big deal. In other words, to be a member of a church back then, it wasn't just a matter of sitting in the pew or attending once in a while. This was a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.
Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists --Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.
To heap more fuel on the fire of my point, of the 55, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists, for goodness sake! In other words, these weren't just Christians, these were among the most extreme and doctrinally strict Christians around. Of the 55 delegates, virtually all of them were deeply committed Christians. Only three were deists. Even Franklin is equivocal because, though not an orthodox Christian, Franklin seems to have abandoned his deism early in life and moved back towards his Puritan roots. Indeed, it was 81 year old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was actually the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Constitutional convention. We have his appeal on record thanks to James Madison who took copious notes of the whole proceeding. His appeal contained no less than four direct quotations from Scripture. This does not sound like a man who was hostile to the Christian religion.
But this assessment doesn' t answer a more fundamental question: Are we a Christian nation? It seems clear that most of the Founders were Christians, not deists. But what about the question "Are we a Christian nation?" I think the answer depends entirely on what is meant by "Christian nation."
Are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into the fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. However, was the Biblical view of the world--the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights--was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical. Further, the founding principles of the Republic were clearly informed by biblical truth.
A question can be asked at this point. Given the fact that most of the Founding Fathers--either those who are among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional convention or those outside of that number who were significant architects to the Constitution--were in fact biblical Christians and had sworn to that, and those that weren't were at least deeply moved and informed by a biblical moral view, one could ask the question, "So what? What does that have to do with anything today?"
I think that Christians may be a little out of line on this part of the issue, and I want to bring it into balance. Regarding the question, Is America a Christian nation?, if we mean by that that Christianity is the official, doctrinal religion of this country, the answer is of course not. That's prohibited by the exclusion clause of the First Amendment. If we mean that we were founded on Biblical principles by Christian men who had a deep commitment to the Scriptures by and large, the answer is certainly yes.
But then the question is, So what? How does what happened 200 years ago influence what is going on now? I actually have two points to make.
This fact doesn' t give Christians a trump card in the debate on public policy, in my view. Just because Christians were here first doesn't mean that their views should continue to prevail. Within the limits of the Constitution, the majority rules. That's the way this government works, ladies and gentlemen.
But let's not rewrite history to relegate those with religious convictions to the sidelines. That is the other half of this. The privilege of citizenship remains the same for all despite their religious convictions. Everyone gets a voice and everyone gets a vote. Christians don't have a leg up on everyone else because we were here first. Even the Christians who wrote the rules didn't give us that liberty. They didn't give us that leg up. They made the playing ground even for everyone, every ideology, every point of view.
Having said that, though, in writing the First Amendment and the non-establishment clause, they did not have in view this current idea of separation--that the state is thoroughly secular and not informed at all by religious values, especially Christian. This view that is popular now was completely foreign, not just to the Founders, but to the first 150 years of American political thought. It's absolutely clear that the Fathers did not try to excise every vestige of Christian religion, Christian thought, and Christian values from all facets of public life. In fact, they were friendly to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular, and encouraged its education and expression.
As to the durability of this tradition, I suggest that anyone who has any doubts about this simply read Lincoln's second inaugural address, which is etched into the marble of the northern wall of the Lincoln Memorial. Go there and read it. Face Lincoln, turn right, and there it is. It contains no less than three or four biblical references.
After that you can reflect on Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/thanksg.htm
It begins this way: "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions [By golly, how did that get in there?] in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord."
I think that pretty much settles it.
=====
Thanksgiving Gregory Koukl
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/thanksg.htm
Which president made a proclamation to make this an official holiday?
I thought it would be interesting to read Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation in light of the recent understanding of the separation of church and state. By the way, Thanksgiving has been celebrated since 1621, but it became a national holiday thanks to Abraham Lincoln. Thanksgiving isn't just a time to give thanks, because we ought to be giving thanks on a regular basis. It is a time when we give thanks corporately , as a community--and specifically as a nation, as Abraham Lincoln did in 1863.
I was trying to remember where this was exactly in the Civil War--1863--I guess the tide had just turned. Gettysburg was the turning point in early July--the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of 1963--and the 4th Vicksburg fell under Grant after a long five or six month siege there. So there was a big turning point in July and things started going the way of the Union, so there was plenty to give thanks for in a sense. Yet at the same time there was a tremendous war continuing, and lives were still being lost. It was two bloody years before the Civil War would end.
In any event in the midst of this difficult time, President Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a national holiday and he did so with these words. Listen closely, especially in light of the present atmosphere of so-called separation of church and state.
"Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace" ~~ A. Lincoln
It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God. [What a way to start! Can you imagine any president making a Presidential Proclamation today that started this way? It gets better.] To confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the [watch this] Holy Scriptures--and proven by all history--that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.
We know that by His divine law, nations like individuals are subject to punishments and chastisements in this world. May we not justify fear that the awful calamity of Civil War, which now desolates the land, may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins--to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.
But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us. And we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace--too proud to pray to the God that made us.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.
I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our benevolent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. ~~ A. Lincoln
And so we have done now for some 131 years. We've done it for a long time. We have set aside the day. On that day all over this country the post office is closed, banks are closed, people take off the national holiday. But are they taking off the holiday that Abraham Lincoln instituted in 1863? No, not quite, because such a thing in now illegal in this country. It is essentially illegal for there to be a national holiday in which we give thanks to the God that made us. We recollect that we owe everything to Him. We confess our sins with contrition, and we ask for His mercy and give Him praise for his love, for all of His care for us.
You can't do it in public places
We can't do that anymore. You can't do it in schools. You can't do it in public places. You can't do it just about anywhere in which the government owns the property. You can't even put a cross on a hill in San Diego because people are offended by that. Why? Because it's in government air, I guess.
Now, my point is not to try to get prayer back into schools. My point is to show how ridiculous the present atmosphere of so called separation is, and how far removed the notion of separation of church and state that is popularized now is from what was understood by our forefathers, and when people pretend that this is the way it has always been, that that is not the original notion of non-establishment that the Constitution speaks about.
Notice how natural it was for someone like the President of our country--many would say the greatest president that our country has ever seen, President Abraham Lincoln--in the midst of a trial to call the nation to repentance, prayer and thanksgiving to God. I think he's probably the saddest president that our country has ever seen. His country was being torn asunder. And he suggested that the country may be punished by God, who made us all, who are violating the laws that He has given us in His Holy Scriptures--laws that are clear to all.
What a thing to say. What a man. And what a change we have gone through since then to be at the place we are now. ~~~
I have pretty much ignored debates on the second coming etc., but that amill view sounds pretty reasonable.