Posted on 07/03/2002 6:18:44 AM PDT by sola gracia
"Congress made a mistake when they added God to the Pledge"
The people's representatives once again play second fiddle to the judicial branch.
That is the future. But in the hear and now, I'm not inclined to suggest we cede the territory to the enemies of the cross.
When the story first broke, it was advertised in the media as, "the Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional," which I thought was absurd and wrong. As I thought about it further, it has never been obligatory to recite the pledge in any forum nor, when reciting it, necessary to say the words, "under God," if it conflicts with individual beliefs. It is not unconstitutional in either form with, or without, God.
In retrospect, I can understand why the Knights of Columbus lobbied for the words, "under God," why the Congress approved the addition and the 9th Circuit's opinion that to a non-believer it would seem to convey, by not believing, he/she is somehow not included as an American.
My true concern is that for believers everywhere, if they don't really think about the words they recite, they are truly not including God. That breaks my heart and does His no good either. I only hope He understands, and I think He does as He gave us free will to choose for ourselves, individually.
And heeeeere 's the Stupid Party... the appointment of judges can't even be considered by this idiot. Of course, notice they chose a New England Republican for comment on this ruling....
We should fight to keep "under God" in our pledge but it is far more important that we fight to get back the ability to teach His existence as fact in our schools, and that the reason we should "love," and be "merciful" is because He wants us to.
We should throw out the idea that unqualified "tolerance" or undefined "diversity" are good things.
The fact that kids say "under God" in the pledge every morning is not in any way what the Church's problem is today.... in my opinion.
Well I think you're right; if the Church is operating on "ceremonial deism", it ought to get rid of it. Respectfully, though, the court decision does not concern church government. It does concern civil government. And it is wrong. The court's notion that a state government school recitation of the phrase "under God" is an unconstitutional ecclesiastical establishment, ie, an interference in church government, is idiotic, and diametrically opposed to the the intentions of those who wrote the Constition.
I agree with the article's wry observation that, "... references like "In God We Trust," which appears on United States currency and coins, were protected from the Establishment Clause because their religious significance had been lost through rote repetition" (emphasis mine). In other words, leftists have taken a constitutional phrase, "establishment of religion", which referred to civil government interference in church government, and distorted it beyond recognition into a requirement of extirpation of religious language from civil government, so that the only time such language can be uttered by civil government is when it is meaningless. Such liberal insanity stems not from any coherent legal or Constitutional principle, but simply from a willful ignorance and hatred of God.
I believe that the Founders view was that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits civil government from being Christian in principle. The Constition simply prohibits the civil government from interfering in Church government, doctrines and practices, etc. Both can (and should be) Christian, but the two simply have different spheres of responsibility. That very separation of roles is itself a Biblical idea; witness for example Moses' separation of the levitial priesthood, and king Uzziah's (civil government) wrongful intrusion into the temple (levitical) government. I believe the evidence shows that from the Mayflower Compact onward to the time that men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, and who wrote the Constitution, were not doing so simply of "ceremonial deism", but simply out of a very Biblical worldview.
That elitist, national socialistic judges seek to prevent us from having the more local types of self- government that some of us may desire is maddening to me.
Cordially,
I think the church's purification depends very little on whether or not the term "under God" is in the pledge of allegience or not. The church's purification is only dependent on putting the living Christ back in his rightful position as head of the church and removing the stranglehold of the doctrines and methods of men from the church. A "Christless" Christianity was in full bloom way before the Congress ever put "under God" into the pledge.
And if you've seen my previous comments on this thread, you'll note that the concept of this nation being "under God" is not a proclamation of civil religion, but is the recognition of a historical fact, that the Founders attributed the "inalienable rights" upon which the country was founded as having their source in God. The rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are larger than a civic religion, and larger than popular consensus. Whether anyone likes it or not, this is a nation born "under God," who is recognized as a creator who created all men and women equal. Anyone who disagrees with the term "under God" in the pledge must also, by necessity, have an issue with the Declaration of Independence.
It will remove God's blessing from our nation, some appear to be arguing, if we remove his name from our daily recitation of the Pledge in our public schools.
Sorry, but it does appear to be quite plain that God began to remove His blessing from this nation years ago. Our land is stained with the blood of the unborn and until we repent as a nation of our Blasphemey, Butchery, and Barbarism I think that God will continue to remove even His name from the lips of idolaterous people. How long will He suffer to be mocked before He removes His hand completely and 911 looks like a pebble in the road of ruin this nation is on?
Psa 50:16-7 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or [that] thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.
What right do we have as a nation to take up the Name of God to our lips seeing that we hate instruction and cast His words behind us? In a TRUE sense, every nation is a nation under God. But it cannot be said that "we" are a nation under God. We live in the Pagan nation of Baal.
Don't worry Jerry. As my father used to tell me, "You're big enough and ugly enough to take it."
We keep talking about "nation" and "church" but the important thing to remember is that both are made up of "individuals." And that is where the change has to start. In my heart and in yours, etc.
Question: In this New Covenant age we live in, does God bless nations or individuals within a nation? I am of the understanding that blessings are given or withheld from individuals and the Church as a whole. I can't seem to find a "national" teaching in the New Testament anywhere. (Regardless of what dispensationalists say about the nation of Israel.)
I agree with you. However, sad to say the average "Christian" today lives in the world of "symbolism over substance." Let the state remove all that pertains to "religion." Even remove the tax exempt status from churches. If this would happen, Christians would have to start thinking seriously about what keeps them in the Way. As Christians, we have had it way too easy in this country. The longer we are led to believe this is a "Christian" nation, the longer it will take for persecution to come. It takes persecution to purify. I say, "Bring it on!" Let's separate the "men from the boys" so to speak. (no slam at gender here folks - so hold your cards and letters)
Something's awry here. I have some close friends who attend a church in Elk Grove, CA, and they know some people who know the Newdows. They report that Michael Newdow's ex-wife and daughter are Christians. So, his claim that his daughter was made to feel like an "outsider" as others pledged allegience to a nation "under God" is, reportedly, baloney, or at the very least is "hypothetical". If so, he's pushing a personal agenda, and using his daughter as the foil in his personal crusade.
it would be helpful to have a little perspective on the facts involved in this particular situation. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. It wasn't, however, until 1954 that President Dwight Eisenhower and the congress added the words "under God" in support of a civil religion that was increasingly popular in the early post-World War II era. This development of a renewed civil religion joined with the anti-Communistic pressures of the McCarthy era
If the author wants to give a historical perspective to this issue, he needs to go back to the founding, where the Founding Fathers expressed our independence from England by asserting certain "inalienable rights" conferred upon man by God -- rights that transcend the laws of man and states. This is the true context in which our nation is "under God" -- a context the author ignores.
From a constitutional standpoint, the words "under God," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote in the 2-to-1 decision, were just as objectionable as a statement that "we are a nation `under Jesus,'...
No, not from a "constitutional" standpoint, but from the personal standpoint of Judge Goodwin. "Under God" tells us nothing about the nature or character of God. "God", to the little secular humanist elementary school child, could be "We the People," for all the term conveys.
Jerry Falwell, seemingly always willing to appear on camera and tell the nation his view of such things
Only because he's always invited to do so by the news programs...
Sorry. Other threads.
I agree with you on this. But would the removing of our sanctioned religious symbolism help? I doubt it would help or hinder the health of the church.
The particular axe I grind is over the formalized, organized church. Having a format in which hundreds of people sit in pews, have minimal interaction with the people around them, and then stare at the back of someone's head while a professional religionist gives a monologue (which often is a presentation of half-truths about our relationship with God) is not my idea of an optimal church experience. I don't know that the church will be purified until we are all driven away from the formal organization, and back into the catacombs or at least into home churches. I'm a strong advocate of the cell church movement, but cell churches apparently are not what American Christians want. I'm also a strong believer in revivals (e.g. The Great Awakening; the Wesleyian Revivals in England; the various Welsh Revivals, as examples). I understand from church history that revivals are when God supernaturally pours out His Spirit in a major and unusual way, and hoses out the cobwebs of complacency within the church. We need that more than we need worry about the phrase "under God" and what that represents as symbolic civil religion.
Question: In this New Covenant age we live in, does God bless nations or individuals within a nation? I am of the understanding that blessings are given or withheld from individuals and the Church as a whole. I can't seem to find a "national" teaching in the New Testament anywhere. (Regardless of what dispensationalists say about the nation of Israel.)
Well, I doubt that anyone would contend that this nation has not at least seemed to enjoy a particular peace and prosperity that no existing nation enjoys. Even in these days where we seem to be seeing "wars and rumors of wars" this nation has enjoyed a particular isolation from that, even if we have sent our troops to fight and die in these wars. As Reformed brothers, we both believe God alone restrains the wicked. Thus, even by restraining the hand of evil men against this nation we have enjoyed a blessing.
Contrast that with a nation like Somolia. Although I will not discuss my source, at the last count there were only a little more than 100 TRUE saints in the entire country. Look at how that nation is rocked by the violence of its warlords. The saints there are telling us that to even utter the name of the Lord is to invite death.
Yet, I cannot say that we are more deserving of peace or less deserving than any other people. It is simply the unmerited blessing of the Lord that we do enjoy peace. And the godless in this country along with the saints have both equally enjoyed this blessing. It is both national and individual.
I simply conclude that this nation has enjoyed a particular blessing, whether because we were founded as a nation of believers or because God blessed this nation to be founded by believers is really not important. I simply notice that we have been spared the violence of the world until recently.
I can with certainty state that the Lord alone makes us to dwell in safety (Psa 4:8, Psa 127:1, etc.). So, I do believe that the safety under which we have lived has been a direct blessing from the Lord. And I will state that we as a nation have spit in God's face for it, by continually turning aside to other gods. We have stained our land with abortion (Psa 106:38).
And what is even more disturbing is that as a nation we claim to be a people under God in some ways that are similar to the OT nation of Israel. I do believe that God will not continue to suffer to have us as a nation profane His name. I see the continual efforts to remove the name of God from our lips as the doing of the Lord Himself. God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:11, Acts 15:18, Psa 33:11, Isa 46:9, etc.) and He freely turns the hearts of those in authority whichever way He will (Pro 21:1).
It should be a warning to us saints that this nation has mocked God and stands at the edge of the Lord completely removing His hand of restraint for our benefit.
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.