The Pledge of Allegiance: Watershed Moment or Factious Fad?

You think Mr Jefferson would look askance at that spectacle?

Yes, I do. Thomas Jefferson would have been absolutely appalled at the tragedy of the Mt. Carmel Center massacre near Waco, the most complete and insidious trashing of the U.S. Constitution by Federal agencies on record. From the search & seizure violations, the Posse Commitatus violations, the right-to-life violations, the freedom-of-religion violations, freedom-of-speech violations, obstruction of justice violations, destruction of evidence violations, to the sheer, arrogant GALL to carry it out even when the FLIR video evidence of Government misconduct was so unmistakably clear and convincing!

I'm still amazed that the Mt. Carmel travesty was not followed by one of Jefferson's 'healthy' revolutions....all-out, full-scale, civil disobedience, riot and revolt. Had so many Americans at the time not been been focused on greedily trying to get rich through FRAUD, inventing Arthur-Anderson accounting schemes, World-Con scams, En-Ron energy shortage debacles courtesy of Mr. Ross 'Farm Animal' Perot's holey and bug-ridden computer programs, it might have happened...

If the Founders' intent was to form a government based on a religious belief in inalienable rights endowed by God, and they included the establishment clause merely to prevent any one particular religious sect from gaining special governmental power over others (but not intending to bar religion in general from its influence in government), then what to make of the following John Adams' quote from his "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"?:

You'd have to ask Mr Adams that and while you're at it, ask him why he didn't dissent from the Declaration of Independence which declares that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Exactly. You have made my point. 100 true Christians in Somolia - very little blessings in that nation. Probably plenty more true Christians in this country - obviously, more blessings. It is not the nation but the individual Christians of that nation that predicate the blessing. There has never been a true Christian nation in the history of the world! Has there? I'm not aware of any. In fact, to strive for such is unBiblical. I can show you many Scriptures that tell believers to evangelize the world but never to convert a country. In fact, Heaven will be populated by individuals from every nation, kindred, tribe and tongue. But we will not find a complete, individual nation there. Am I wrong?

It is not my position that blessing is not given individually. There is really no real distinction IMO between a nation receiving a blessing through the individual Christians in her and receiving the blessing directly. Therefore, I see our nation to be blessed. I'm just not picky about the vehicle used to bless her.

BTW, here is a Biblical example of a Pagan nation that has been blessed: EGYPT! God raised her up and placed her at the top of the world among other things to show HIS POWER 400 years later.

I'd hardly call Japan a professedly Christian nation. Yet she seems to receive a pretty good blessing these days. 50 years ago they were worshipping their leader as a god.

But, really, this is secondary to the real discussion of whether or not in the professing church in America we have been taking the Name of the Lord in Vain. (Thanks to OP for reminding me that there is an EXACT Biblical name for this thing--I guess I got lost in the forest and forgot about the trees) If memory serves me, 80% + of people in this country profess to believe in "God".

A few minutes ago I left to go to the Sonic and get my wife a banana split (hot fudge and a cherry of course--the duties of a husband ;-) and passed the little Baptist church a block from my house. They are proudly displaying on their marquee: America, One Nation under God. My radio station (Air1.com), a professing Christian rock station (sometimes they play some real good stuff) proudly declaring that we should all be out tomorrow as we are One Nation under God.

Just as Israel made their sons and daughters pass through the fire as and provoked Him so we make our sons and daughters pass through the fire of the Abortion clinics. How long will the Lord suffer to be mocked by this professing Christian taking His name upon our lips?

Surely, the "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" has gone on long enough. Any thoughts?

All I'll say is what I said previously, but in summary.

The patriot view of the new government had at its core a concept of our rights being granted by God, and nobody else.

Which made them irrevokable by man. Following from that, I distrust anybody who would attempt to disassociate God from the original formula.

I think the founding fathers in their wisdom incorporated the Biblical concept of free will into their view of a new form of government; people have rights granted by God, and that they will (or should) exercise them based on such a model. It's integral.

Everytime I see or hear about some Godless socialist or communist launching an assault on this aspect of the Constitution, I see an assault at the core of our Constitution. That's what I see.

Another poster made the point the other night that the Soviets made pledges to their country, on its face, as seemingly devout as others may lay claim to.

We always were different; we always have had a tradition which has been of one thanking God for smiling upon us, and that we would return His benevolence with good deed and action.

Now there are those who come along, and want to preach doctrines of "America, let's remove God from here, there, everywhere, and we'll be all the better for it"

I don't think so......if anything, America has the most ungodliest of forces arrayed against it at this time, and I'm not inclined to subscribe to some New Age belief that suddenly we don't need Him. The patriots of 1776 needed Him, and knew it, and the patriots of 2002 need Him just as much......and we'll win as long as we are true.

If the Founders' intent was to form a government based on a religious belief in inalienable rights endowed by God...

The question is not "if", but "why". John Adams did not only not dissent, he SIGNED the Declaration of Independence. Did he not know what he was signing? There is no doubt that they intended to form a government based on a religious belief in inalienable rights endowed by God.

Adams' point was NOT that there was no Divine Law or Lawgiver, but that in the building of governments, as in building of ships and houses, the Divine Law is dicoverable by the use of reason and the senses.

James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution put the point succinctly this way:

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

When Adams refers to "The natural authority of the people alone", he is referring the the right of the people to SELF-GOVERNMENT, OVER AGAINST the so-called divine right of kings. That "divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both" was also Adams' view can be seen in his writing that

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

Cordially,

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.