Posted on 07/03/2002 7:42:01 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
| Under God, Under Man? Jim Babka | Should Christians be upset by court's decision on Pledge of Allegiance?
You must be living under a rock if you haven’t heard the news. Two “pin-head” federal judges said that mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment rights of second-graders (more correctly, one second-grader’s parent). The pin-head label came from the Rev. Jerry Falwell. He also called them “Dumb and Dumber” — of course he meant that with love. Something must be wrong with me. The news didn’t shock me, surprise me, worry me, anger me, or cause me to cry. I’m wondering why it caused such a stir?
So what’s the problem? It sounds like it’s already solved. But is it really a good thing if this court decision is overturned? Any time you find yourself in agreement with more than 400 congressmen and the majority of the major media, you better double-check your premises! In 1962, the Supreme Court told public schools that prayer was banned. Since then, indignant Christians have fought for a constitutional amendment and through the courts to restore that right. Forty years later, they have little to show for those efforts. Right around the same time, parochial schools experienced a renaissance. Christian schools sprung up like weeds all over the countryside. If the schools were going to separate God from their kids, then these responsible parents were going to separate their children from the government schools. I’m a product of that movement. My parents made the decision to switch me from a public to a Christian school in third grade—I’m glad they did. Now I’m a home-schooling parent, because I believe my children’s education is my responsibility. Please understand that even the big-government liberals (in Congress and the media) don’t like this decision because they believed it was too bold—too much ado over a very little innocuous thing. The decision was overreaching, and it could’ve sounded a well-overdue second alarm for those few Christian parents who’ve refused to accept the truth up to this point — education and “religion” (for lack of a better term), cannot be separated. This decision could’ve added the necessary fuel to the fire needed to separate school and state. Joseph Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily, put it this way, “If responsible Christian and Jewish parents did this [took their children out of government schools] all over America tomorrow, it would set off a revolution in this country. Gone would be the multi-billion-dollar Department of Education boondoggle. Gone would be the condom education. Gone would be the sexual propaganda and the moral relativism. No way tens of millions of parents are going to continue to be soaked in taxes for schools they don't use. Not only will your children be liberated, the whole country would be. … It will be like the collapse of the Soviet Union—hundreds of millions of people freed overnight.” Instead, the decision will be overturned, victory will be declared, and those Christian parents who insist on deluding themselves about the wonders of public education will remain where they are. The government education factory will continue to teach those children all kinds of things that are alien to most Christian values in areas like the origin of man, sexuality, and especially the environment—but they’ll say the Pledge of Allegiance correctly! Government schools will continue to endorse pantheism, teach secular humanism, and instruct students in post-modern thinking, even going so far as to directly challenge them to question the things their parents and churches teach them. … And then they’ll pass them to the fifth grade! Studies indicate that 94 percent of the country believes there’s a God, 84 percent believe in Jesus Christ, and 80 percent support voluntary prayer in school. Is it reasonable for Christian’s to expect any higher numbers? Do Christians need to continue fighting for 40 more years to make government schools right, or should they learn their lesson and withdraw their support? Besides, in this case, what’s there to fight for? Now I know for some I’m about to engage in great sacrilege — but what’s so great about the Pledge of Allegiance anyway? Who else, but to God do we, as Christians, owe allegiance? Should we swear allegiance to a plot of land or the state that controls it (Exodus 20:3-5, Matthew 5:33-35)? (In our country, doesn’t the state owe its allegiance to the people, rather than the other way around?) The pledge was created in 1892 by a socialist named Francis Bellamy as a way to begin indoctrination of children into utopian ways. At the time, Bellamy was a high-ranking official in the National Education Association (NEA) who had recently been forced from his pulpit as a Baptist minister. The words that caused all the controversy—“under God” — weren’t in Bellamy’s original. They were added by Congress in 1954 to provide contrast between the United States and “godless communism.” Bellamy’s granddaughter said he would’ve resented the change. And in the post-decision analysis Wednesday, constitutional scholars like Douglas Kmiec, Jonathan Turley, and others indicated that the Pledge didn’t establish, “any particular religion.” Rather, they advised, it upheld the tradition that we believe in some kind of a national “deity.” That’s the bold constitutional argument that will likely be used to “restore” the Pledge if this case makes it to the Supreme Court (sarcasm intended). If “under God” is retained in the Pledge, will that really be much of a victory? If it makes 400 congressmen and the media happy, it’s probably not such a great thing. The need to separate school and state, the history and purpose of the pledge, and the lameness of the constitutional argument, lead me to believe that retaining those words is not only not worth a fight, but it’s also, ultimately, a loss. |
Or, I could vote to change the Union.
Which is how I vote.
You're just as much as a thief as anyone else if you want to argue that way.
Au Contraire. You vote for the Commission of State Theft. I vote for the Abolition of State Theft.
You advocate that the State break the Eighth Commandment, an anti-Christian advocacy on your part. I advocate that the State obey the Eighth Commandment.
'Nuff Said.
So? So is drinking. That doesn't make the constitution an endorsement for drinking. One can be an athiest and be excercising his rights as well. Surely you don't think that the founders only wanted people who practiced religion to have their rights protected given that the constitution forbids any "oath or affirmation" which demands a religious test.
Of course I didn't vote for Bush. I have little more desire for slow GOP socialism than I desire fast Democratic socialism. I vote against socialism, thank you.
It's hard to find anyone who is openly for the abolition of public schools. You must not vote often.
I vote often.
You support the system that funds the work of the devil then.
Sure, in the same sense that I "supported" the drug- or alcohol-habit of the Mugger when he stole my wallet -- Against my will and under the compulsion of Force.
But unlike you, I do not vote to continue the Theft when I have the chance to vote on it. When my Vote is requested, I vote against the Breaking of the Eighth Commandment.
By contrast, when your Vote is asked of you, you vote for the Breaking of the Eighth Commandment, thereby doing service for the Adversary of Christ.
I object to government school on the same grounds that I'd object to a government grocery store. It's socialism. I object to it and I'm doing what I can to change it. It's not only government school that I object to. There are many other government wealth-redistribution programs that I also object to.
If your state legislature has consented to issue taxes for schools than you have consented because you have agreed to live under subjection of the law of that state.
Because the state legislature has decreed something doesn't mean everyone has consented to it. Government is a tool of coercive force. People are forced to comply with government.
Do you think that under the Constitution you can just arbitrarily choose which taxes you pay and which you can't?
If there absolutely has to be a tax (and I'm not saying there has to be) the only truly "fair" tax (if there is such a thing) is a consumption tax.
I would love to see state and city govs. issue forms on which you can choose which taxes to pay.
I'd prefer that governments not issue forms at all. They're not necessary.
If you wanted to fund trash pickup...That means the state would have to issue a flat tax to everyone and divide up that amount evenly among the taxpayer's chosen tax groups.
Trash pickup should be something you purchase in the free-market just like the gardener you might hire to trim your grass and trees. There is no need for government to manage waste reclamation anymore than it's needed to manage landscaping.
The states can have public schools, however, if the people in that state vote for a legislature that allows for such.
Education is something that people should purchase on their own in the free-market just like shelter, clothing, groceries, and transportation. There's no need for the state to meddle.
But school choice is a good alternative.
If, by school choice, you mean vouchers then I disagree. I don't disagree with you because I oppose school choice. On the contrary, I support school choice just so long as the choice is made by parents spending their own money in the free-market and not government redistributing wealth in the form of coupons. How could this be accomplished? Repeal the income, property, capital gaines, Social Security, and death taxes. Reinstate the Gold Standard to stave off inflation. Repeal the hundreds of thousands of regulatory mandates which increase the costs of goods and services.
You're asking me why people break the law? Cause they think they're better than everyone else and don't want to play by the rules...
You said, "...we all agree to live under the law of the land and pay taxes to the public toilet, nobody is stealing anyone's money."
If nobody is stealing anybody's money then why do people have their property seized and why are they imprisoned when they don't pay?
Woooooo man OP, you are on a roll man!! What did you have for lunch? Keep up the great work. I haven't met your match on this thread yet. (come to think of it, on any thread you post on)
My take is this (sorry for the long response time; will "been very busy" suffice me as an excuse?)...
Late 19th-Century Orthodox Protestants were fools for supporting "State Education" as a methodology for "De-Romanizing" the Catholic Parochial schools. It scarcely matters how "noble" were our efforts to "save" Roman Catholic children from the "chains" of Roman Catholicism; State Education is nonetheless a form of Theft, and we Protestants have reaped what we have sewn.
It surprises me not at all that Horace Mann sought to emasculate Calvinism (which is the Soul of Protestantism) from the curricula of "Public Education". We Protestants sought to employ the State** as our Agency for "De-Romanizing" the Catholic Schools and turning these immigrant Irish and Italians into good "Orthodox Protestants", and for our efforts we ended up with neither -- Romanists who considered their Religion to be a "family matter", unrelated to the Society at large; and Protestants who considered their Religion to be of no consequence at all -- a mere sub-set of "Greater Americanism".
The result has been an American Romanism in which their Romanism is strictly confined to a mere Family Tradition (since Americanism is fundamentally Protestant, Romanism is just "a thing you do at home"), and an American Protestantism in which their Protestantism is whatever Society defines (Since "Protestantism" is "Americanism", whatever is "american society" is therefore "american protestant"!!)
In other words, Religion matters not at all. American Romanists regard their faith as a mere "tradition at home", because "Protestant Americanism" has defined the Public Discourse in terms of Protestantism; whereas Protestantism has been defined (which is, truly, a far greater loss for Protestants) as "whatever the Public Discourse makes of it".
Romanists have been told that their Faith is irrelevant to an "American Protestant" Public Discourse, and this is bad enough; but Protestantism has suffered a far greater sort of cheapening and perversion -- since "Americanism" is "Protestantism", Protestantism is whatever Society makes of it.
All of which convinces me all the more that our Calvinist Presbyterian Forefathers (and some Calvinist Baptists also, it is only fair to say) had it right when they sought to exclude the State from perverting matters which rightly concern the Church.
We have reaped what we have sewn. It is, perhaps, fitting that Orthodox Presbyterian Rev. R. J. Rushdoony was -- throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's -- God's principal advocate to American Protestantism for homeschooling their children and removing them from the Publik Skools. His Prophetic advocacy was Just and Righteous; but in the end, in declaring War on the Publik Skools, Rushdoony has only advised American Protestants to withdraw from the very Monster we have ourselves created -- OUR ENEMY, THE STATE.
Interesting argument about Christians and swearing allegiance, but the rest is a muddle here. It's not entirely clear just what we are pledging allegiance to. To the flag, which stands for the republic, of course, but what is the republic? A government? A form of government? The Constitution? The laws? A "plot of ground?" A people? The ambiguity is such that Babka can make pledging allegiance sound more ominous or senseless than it is. Our officials do have to swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws. It's not wholly off the wall that citizens might do the same.
Maybe it is "ominous". Maybe it is "senseless".
Why should any Christian pledge "allegiance" to any Government which does not attend itself to the Law of God?
It's not wholly off the wall that citizens might do the same.
Maybe it is "off the wall" that citizens should tolerate the current Despotism. Render unto Caesar that which is his.... maybe the only reason that Christians are not In Arms, is the fact that the second clause of the Command has not been preached.
Render unto Caesar that which is his.
In that respect the current problems of the American Catholic Church would dovetail perfectly to the history of the church's relationship with the state based upon asking for and receiving 501(c)3 status.
After all, you get what you give, no?
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.