Posted on 07/01/2002 3:05:21 PM PDT by Lennon
What does "God" mean?
When you take the SATs there is a section on analogies. You know those great questions like, "Wolf is to Pack as Lion is to _____." Now think of this in the since of the worlds religions. Here are a few examples:
Buddha is to Buddhism as Jesus is to Christianity. (Buddha and Jesus were men who walked the Earth, prophets if you will)
Vishnu is to Hinduism as Zeus is to Greek Mysticism. (Vishnu and Zeus are specific names for God placed by a particular culture)
Allah is to Islam as Yahweh is to Judaism. (as are Allah and Yahweh)
(Note: Yahweh, and not Jehovah, is the true name of the God of Abraham, however, Jehovah was used to prevent one’s self from "taking the Lord’s name in vain")
So would you say that: God is to Christianity as God is to Islam?
Now we change from a religious debate to a word usage debate.
You can say that:
God is to English as Gott is to German.
Dios is to Spanish as Allah is to Arabic
Allah is to Arabic as Elohim is to Hebrew
God, Gott, Dios, Allah, and Elohim, in their own culture refer to that culture’s supreme being. However, these words can be used to refer to someone else’s God. Your God, or Su Dios, or Ihr Gott. Refering to someone else’s God, doesn’t change the word, so it must not be the name of that particular God.
So is saying, "under God" the same as saying "under Zeus" as the 9th circuit court seems to think it does? Or is it more like saying "under Dios" or "under "Elohim" (the Hebrew word for God, used in the contexts of "no other Gods before me").
So if this is the case, the pledge of allegiance does not favor a particular religion, just the English language. However, it does make the case that there is a God, that there is a higher power. Notice who brought this lawsuit. It was someone who doesn’t believe in any God, an atheist. To me, there would be a concern if the pledge stated, "under Yahweh." This would make others, who do not believe Yahweh is the name of God, feel as if the pledge did not apply to them.
The capitalized noun "God" refers to a specific being, but does not refer to what religion one most follow to believe in that being, nor that one must follow a religion at all. Nor does it imply what or who that being is. It could be a space alien for all the constitution is concerned. What makes the pledge perfectly constitutional is that it does not embrace any religion, however, states that a force, larger then you or I, exists. This is spirituality not religion. The constitution was written with the idea that there was a God (read the first paragraph on the Declaration of Independence and other documents written around the same time and by the same people), but that no man should be in a place of power to force his ideas of that God upon others, as it had been in Europe.
Our founding fathers also understood that there were people who did not believe that any god existed. This is plain in Article II, section 1, clause 8 of Constitution (and in other places of the constitution) where it is stated that the President, before entering his office, shall take an Oath (a pledge before his God) or Affirmation (a pledge before man). Men should not be forced to take a pledge before a God they do not believe in. Nor does it mean anything if they do. This is the point for having an Affirmation clause in the constitution. Yet we still have Oaths. This would cause me to believe that, although our founding fathers understood that some people do not believe in any god, there is no good reason to remove references to God for their sake.
Think of all the places we refer to God in our public (Government) life. The pledge of allegiance, "One nation, under God." Above the Speaker of the House’s seat as well on all of our money, "In God we trust." When the President is sworn in, at the end of his oath, he states, "So help me God." (This is not required by the Constitution, however most say it). When you take an oath to tell the truth in a court you swear to tell the true, "So help you God."
So, if you were to replace "God" with "Jesus" in any of these phrases, would they then be unconstitutional? On the money, yes. On the plaque above the Speaker of the House’s seat, yes. But not in the pledge, and not in any Oath you are asked to take. If you believe in Jesus, you can state that. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t.
What do I mean by this? You can never require some one to say, "So help me Jesus," just like you can’t ever require anyone to say anything (even the pledge of allegiance). However, you can’t ever stop someone from saying it either, and this is what the 9th circuit is trying to do. They want to say, that you can’t say "God" in school. This is not only an infringement upon your freedom of religion, but it is an infringement upon your freedom of speech. Don’t let them do it!
© David Klinge 2002
I could say "None of us have any way of knowing, if there isn't, so be it."
...and which one of us will be sorry if we are wrong.
I don't think they should have any effect on what you or anyone believes. And forcing people to NOT say "under God" by ruling it unconstitution is doing just that.
And the answer of course.. is NONE.
Which is why all of these rants regarding the Pledge of Allegiance miss the true point of the issue.
The issue isn't the Pledge. It is compulsory funded government education factories, which are inherently socialistic entities, which force people to pay for the advancement of ideas they may not share or approve of.
Get government out of the school business, and allow people to keep their own money, and purchase the education that THEY desire for their own children.
Do this, and the pledge issue (and countless other sources of animosity and strife over control) become irrelevant.
Wrong on both counts.
Buddha is not God, since true Buddism has no personal God. (most Buddists recognize God, but that's another story).Buddha is not a prophet, since by definition a prophet is one sent by God.
Buddha was a seeker of truth and unity with a higher power.
Jesus, on the other hand, is a prophet to Muslims, but the one and a half billion Christians consider him God incarnate.
Similarly, Zeus was a God, but later philosophers recognized a higher GOD. Vishnu is an immanation of God, and all the other millions of Hindu Gods are immanations of God.
a closer analogy, one used by many New Agers, is that Jesus is to God as Krishna is to God.
Go back to college and learn comparative religion before you discuss the subject.
While writing this, I was trying to come up with some good analogies because I knew people would rip them apart. You did miss one, however, Allah is actually the Arabic word for God, and not the name of God.
At any rate, the analogies are irrelevant if you understand that none of them equate God.
Oh, and BTW, I've never been to college so it would be a bit hard to go back, but I do know a bit about comparative religion. Oh my, someone actually learning out side of school...
While it's reasonable to state that we finite creatures do not have the independent capacity to reveal the infinite to ourselves, it is nonetheless entirely logical to presume that if a supreme being possessing intelligence and personality exists, such a being would not only be able to, but likely would, reveal himself to the lesser beings he has created. And that's exactly what many of us believe has happened as recorded in various religious writings. Then it becomes a matter of investigating specific incidents and determining whether the accounts are credible or not. In any case, it's an intellectually lazy argument to say "nobody can know," and sit back on one's ego.
And of course, aside from the matter of a personal god revealing himself, there is an abundance of inferrential evidence found in the complexity of natural processes which we observe. Chaos is not so clever. Those determined to inexplicably put man in the position of being the biggest and best intelligence in existence will jump through countless flaming logical hoops and circular scientific arguments in order to achieve that end, so any evidence of a greater being not only is, but MUST be dismissed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.