This string was getting traction, but was buried in our site, so we have brought it to the front-burner in order to kick it around again…
It’s weird. Hurricane Katrina rips through the Northern Gulf and people in desperation, even TV reporters, begin to liberally use the Name of God to cope with the situation, to bring help, to find assurance in living through the tragedies. However, we also have Michael Newdow, an attorney and medical doctor, who claimes that the reference, “under God” violates the right of children in the public schools to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” Now a federal judge in Sacramento ruled yesterday, Wednesday, that it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates the right of children in the public schools to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” Newdow won a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002.
In 02 the court ruled that Newdow, an atheist, had successfully made his case that requiring his daughter to recite the pledge of allegiance with the words “under God” violated his own first amendment freedoms. In essence, the California-based appeals court ruled that the mere presence of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance constituted an establishment of religion by the government.
However, the decision in ’03 was set aside last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s High Court dismissed the case after ruling that Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his daughter at the time the suit was filed. Given the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the actual merits of Newdow’s argument, the stage was set for a second round of litigation.
Newdow filed the current case on behalf of three unnamed parents who have children in the California public schools. Judge Karlton ruled that the unnamed families do have standing and are thus entitled to sue.
In the judge’s thirty-page opinion, he identifies the first two parents as “Jan and Pat Doe,” who are described as residents of Sacramento County who have a seventh grader in the Elk Grove United School District. The third plaintiff, identified as “Jan Roe,” is the father of a third grade student enrolled in the Sacramento area public schools.
Questions:
1. How Do We As Christians Engage on This?
2. Is this not a prime example of why God sends disaster on America?
3. Can items such as this be used by Christians as evidence reagrding why God sends Hurricanes and other disasters on America? Or, is that wrong to make such an assumption?
Based on the Sept. 15 Blog by Al Moulers
Hmmm, let’s change a couple of words…
I think “the judge’s ruling against one nation “under God” violates the right of children in the public schools to be “free from a coercive requirement to ignore God.”
It’s the myth of neutrality… you’re going to have some kind of values inherent in the system. It’s just a question of what values you get.
To answer the last two questions:
2. No, this is not a prime example of why God sends disaster on America. Read John’s blog and consider how little disaster we experience.
3. I think it’s wrong to assume that items such as this constitute evidence regarding God sending disasters. If God were going to send disasters on us because of one specific thing, I think he’d make it clear. Consider God’s M.O. when he brings disaster: he specifically made it know that he was taking out Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. The same goes for the Flood – he made his rationale known.
Disasters like Hurricane Katrina or last year’s tsunami or 9/11 are more in line with the collapse of the Tower of Siloam that Jesus spoke of… things like that are just going to happen in a fallen world. I think it’s bordering on blasphemy to ascribe any such natural or manmade disaster to God’s hand of judgment.
But that’s just me. 🙂
Barna reports:
Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. (2004)11% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2004)When you consider the large amount of atheists in the country (more than all other non-christian religions combined) try and put yourself in their shoes. Newdow states it like this:
There is often a misconception that it’s like we’re removing a section of the Constitution — like it is something that was created by our nation’s founders. The line “under God” was inserted in the 1950s to make people acknowledge the Creator and differenciate us from the atheistic communists.
President Eisenhower said the following at the time it was added:
Clearly, we are not one nation that views ourself as being under God. Especially when you consider all the others that acknowledge there is a God but think that they have no responsibility to Him — even those that identify themselves as Christians.
Do I like it in there? Sure. Does it do or mean anything if it’s not? I doubt it.
One other thing, quotes like:
Can sound awfully similar to something like:
Pat Robertson and company will not be satisfied until the United States government not only acknowledges a God but is a theocracy.
and…
Pro-lifers and company will not be satisfied until the United States government not only outlaws abortion but has reshaped the constitution into the Levitical laws.
and…
Intelligent Design lobbyists and company will not be satisfied until the United States education system not only acknowledges ID but only teaches the account found in the Bible.
The author of that blog entry says we must think clearly about this issue. I just don’t see what acknowledging the existence of God has to do with being an American.
(Yeah, yeah. I’m asking for it.)
David, don’t those quotes (even the Newdow one) exemplify not open intellectual debate, but anti-intellectualism? I think that’s the problem there.
Exactly. The “Newdow and company” one is from the editorial that Dan linked to that was written by the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
I get frustrated when I hear those types of arguments against ID and abortion, and find it interesting to see the same approach used here.
My short answer (yes, there is such a thing): no.
Why not? Well, look at why bad things happen. Because of sin, you say–because mankind rebelled and God righteously cursed the earth. Because man transgressed against the infinitely holy character of God and His explicit command. True.
Then, you go and say that taking “under God” out of the Pledge is the sort of thing that God punishes America for. I think that’s an unfortunate statement–here’s why. There is no explicit Biblical command that we should recite the words “under God.” (Obviously.) They are just words, and, in fact, have been recited by millions of people who rejected God, while millions more of the redeemed have never said those words (kind of like in Isaiah). My point is, the Pledge inherently means nothing. And it’s not a Biblical command. So, when you say that part of the sin of America is taking “under God” out of the pledge, our opponents will easily attack that as extra-Biblical and illogical (cf. Pat Robertson).
But, if we say that rejection of God and His existence is a sin of America that God may rightly punish, we’re getting closer to the truth. But still, this statement doesn’t sit right with me. It’s not America’s sin, per se: it’s mankind’s sin. America deserves no more nor less than anywhere else in this world that men live.
And so, to say that God sends disaster on America because of this kind of thing is partly true, but doubly wrong. It’s true that God visits disaster on sinful man in this sin-cursed world. But it’s not judgment on America–it’s judgment on man. And it’s not because of the Pledge–it’s because mankind has rejected Him.
Truth is truth–it’s universal: (1) saying God is judging American sin specifically when French sin and Russian sin is treated differently sets up a cloudy view of sin and judgment that smart secularists will easily tear apart. The truth is all men sin and deserve the cross. (2) saying that taking “under God” out of the Pledge is wrong sets up a distorted view of what offends God. It is sin to reject His existence and try to remove Him from mankind’s conscious remembrance–not to take words out of a man-made recitation. It’s the underlying theology (or lack thereof) that makes Newdow’s and others’ efforts wrong.
David, your response:
is interesting and well founded if it were not for our Constitution. There is nothing inherent regarding being an American and being a believer in God. However, the founders of this country did establish the essential connection between the founding of this country with God and, therefore, make it a cause. Let’s imagine I live in Mongolia, would I would have a basis for “fighting” this issue. I would have no legitimate, founding document on which Mongolia had been established and should abide by. Or, let’s say I lived in Haiti, which has been officially dedicated to serving Satan (see: Aug. 25 entry); could I have the same level of power in my argument that the term “In God we trust” is legitimate and should not be removed? No. The basis for my cause is not essential Christianity, but the document by which the founders established this Country.
Does that make sense?
I think you are thinking of The Declaration of Independence, but there in lies the rub.
It declares that our forefathers believed man has certain unalienable Rights. They credited these Rights to the Creator, not definining any particular religion but assuming that everyone at least believed in intelligent design. Did they ever ask themselves what about people that don’t believe in any god? I don’t think so because they called the idea of intelligent design to be self-evident.
IMO, it just doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution to demand that people pledge their allience to the country and any particular theology at the same time.
But no one is demanding that, David.
As a US citizen, are we not expected to have taken this pledge to heart and made it a personal committment of allegiance to America and its flag?
So what is the purpose of it being in there? It is part of a description of what America is supposed to be about.
But the more I think about it, the I see how no one is really taking the pledge seriously. How could we have said those words in the 50’s with so much racism? How can we say them now with so much political division that we make natural disasters into blame games? Sorry, that was a rabbit trail.
When you become a citizen you are required to say this pledge and be in agreement with it. I see that as aligning American citizenship with a particular view of God. Are we also not asking people to agree with “liberty and justice for all”?
If those two words were added with the purpose of making a distiction between us god-fearing Americans (which ever god you happen to believe in) and those evil atheistic Communists then how much consideration was there for those Americans that are also atheists – a pretty large percentage of our country?
I had a conversation with a friend today that helped me clarify what I’m thinking here.
I am ONLY talking about the pledge here, not The Declaration or the idea that our freedom is based on the idea of a Creator and our accountability to Him/Her/It/Them. ;^)
I was doing some research and found this:
My guess is that most atheists immigrants either don’t take the pledge seriously (like most natural born citizens, including myself) or their convictions seriously.
David, trying to wade into this again to clarify, so forgive me if I say something I already alluded to. My point is that those who would seek to erase the term God from any public record or remembrance is their way of rewriting history and will lead to losing the distictive that our founders desired. Sure, just saying, “God” is no magic potion or rabbit’s foot, but it is the intent of the founders. For that reason alone, I think it is a noble battle to fight. Shallow? Maybe. Filled with personal benefit? For sure. A battle worth fighting? I think so.
Please define the distinctive that our founders desired and what reference you base them on.
With the addition of “under God” to the pledge, the changing of the motto to “in God we trust” and a proposition to change the Constitution to state The United States of America was a “Christian Nation” all occurring in the late fifties – all as a reaction to Communism – it just doesn’t seem very founding fatherish to me.
Here’s a long bit of info that James Dobson fails to mention on his radio shows:
I would recognize that the seperation of church and state was intended by the founding fathers. However, I do not believe there intent was for that to be taken to the xtreme of erasing any reference to God in public government activity nor personal life. Logically, it is impossible for the state to participate in religion since religious people make up the state. It is when the government says, “that’s the religion we should all follow,” or “we provide state resources, like money, for a particular religion a state endorses.”
However, you do have me in a position in which I do not have a resouce to cite my proposition. Therefore, I shall call on other bloggers to come to my aid in referece help.
I hope this blog is not too deeply barried, or I may be as well….
HEY YOU’ZE GUYS!!!!!
I don’t have references at the ready, but I prefer just taking an approachable, heart-of-the-matter look at things…
First of all, I say we should forget trying to divine what the Founding Fathers believed. What matters is what the text itself. Going to extra-Constitutional sources is like going to Josephus or archaeology to put the Bible in context: it’s the content of Scripture that counts, not the scholarship around it (valuable though it is). Likewise, it’s the content of the Constitution that counts, not whether we believe so-and-so-was a “Christian Deist” or whatever.
So to the text:
The question, then, is this: does the phrase “under God” constitute an establishment of religion? And if so, has Congress passed a law that so establishes a religion or “prohibits the free exercise thereof?”
By specifically mentioning “the free exercise” of religion, it seems to me that it’s talking about what the government cannot compel you to do. So it seems to me they cannot compel anyone to exercise a religious belief they don’t hold.
Nobody is compelled to recite the Pledge (so far as I know) and its “under God” clause. That’s tolerance. On the other hand, compelling a nation to expunge all references to God from its public discourse to mollify the concerns of an extreme minority is hardly tolerant, or for that matter, reasonable.
Some questions I have…
* What did the Founders mean by “religion?”
* By “religion,” did the Founders mean a matter of preference (subjective) or a matter of truth (objective)?
* Were they saying something like, “there is no truth,” “the truth cannot be known,” or “your religion may be true for you, but it’s not true for me?”
* How did the Founders deal with Native Americans who did not acknowledge God?
Hugh, see my post on 9/26. You can be denied citizenship if you refuse to say the pledge. As natural citizens it is assumed that we take this pledge (a solemn binding promise of loyalty) and its content seriously – we don’t. (A friend of mine says we shouldn’t even have a pledge because he pledges his allegiance only to God – like the Mormons.)
I would say the question is this:
Does the phrase “under God” constitute a respect for an establishment of religion – ie. monotheism? When you throw atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and whatever else into the mix the answer is yes.
So are you inferring that what they really meant to say was, “denomination of the ‘true’ Christian faith” instead of “religion”? What did they mean by “freedom” or “Government”? The spirit of the Amendment is saying, “the government will not require a religious belief system of its citizens.”
Congress passed the change in the pledge to include a national belief in a god (intended as Jehovah but justified as whatever god you choose), it was brought before the court, the court ruled based on the strict interpretation of the Constitution – no matter what the majority of public opinion was (mob rule). The system worked just as it was designed.
Good point. If someone were denied US citizenship because they declined to pledge allegiance on account of the “under God” clause, I’d have a big problem with that. In my mind, that would be grounds for the court to provide a “redress of grievances” – probably even to the point of striking down “under God.”
I wasn’t inferring (or implying – not sure which you meant) anything – it was an honest question. It occurs to me that the way we use the term “religion” is pretty loosey-goosey.
The more I think about it, a definition of the term is sorely needed. There are lots of things that get lumped in under the “religion” banner.
I agree, except perhaps to say “…will not require a particular belief system…”
More questions…
* For the Founders, what qualified something as a “religion?”
* Is atheism a “religion?” What about narcissism? Satanism? How about The Force?
* Is it fair to say that the First Amendment demonstrates an assumption on the part of the Founders that “religion” would be a fundamental feature of American life? How might such an assumption influence the debate surrounding this question – if at all?
* Is this an early form of what Francis Schaeffer called the “two story house,” in which we have an “upper story” to address “religion” and a separate “lower story” to address the “real world?”
* To what extent can our challenges with postmodernism as 21st-century Christians trace back to this kind of “religion/reality” dichotomy?
* Is the First Amendment a watershed in world history in which, for perhaps the first time ever, “religion” was formally established as being “out of bounds?”
* Did that “out of bounds” premise ultimately lead to the pervasive intellectual cleavage between “religion” and truth that we see today? That is, did the First Amendment give the world permission to say that religious truth is inferior to non-religious truth?
And y’all thought that Ennis boy was bad about asking lots of questions 😉
Now this is bugging me. Buckle up, gang.
1. We include the phrase, “under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. The Pledge makes no effort to affirmatively identify the God in question.
3. It is reasonable to believe the Pledge is more often than not recited in a careless fashion.
I’m concerned that this amounts to blasphemy.
I’m convicted by the contrast that becomes plain when you consider the Jews in America who are so careful with G-d’s name they neither speak nor write it out.
First, how can it be argued that we are “under God?” From the perspective of God’s sovereignty and supremacy, sure, but I do not believe that is how it is offered in the Pledge. It seems to have a connotation of “dependent upon” or “following after” that is patently untrue of America in 2005.
Second, how many Americans would still recite the Pledge if the phrase were changed from simply “under God” to “under the almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing and holy God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, one with His Son, Jesus the Christ, and with His Holy Spirit, who works even now in the lives of His redeemed and will judge all men for their works?” I think lots of people will say, “Oh, that God? Uhhhh…..no.” Once you clarify what is meant by “God” – one might say, spread His fame by making Him known for who He is – the issue is no longer the Constitution or a court, but the God whose name is being invoked… or mocked.
Finally, how many people truly mean under God and how many people just throw it on like a garnish – like parsley on the Pledge.
The more I think about it, the important thing is not what the Founders meant or believed, nor is it what the courts conclude.
The more I think about it, the more I think God would just as soon have us stop tossing His Name around as if it were some kind of catch phrase.
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” Exodus 20:7
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'” Matthew 7:21-23
How should we as followers of Christ handle the Name of God as invoked in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance?
You’re right, “implying” is a better word there. This should make for an interesting lunch discussion tomorrow.
As for your last post, now you’re touching on the other issues I take with it from my Christian perspective which I haven’t even gotten to yet. Just don’t touch my intellectual cleavage. ;^)
David, you asked that I:
“Please define the distinctive that our founders desired and what reference you base them on.”
Therefore, I would like to make the broad case that the Founders did intend for us to intergrate our country with the clear understanding of the existence of God and that is why it has been reflected throughout various expressions; one being the “pledge of allegiance.” At the moment, I am trying to defend the broad understanding of our founders.
Greg Koukl (Eric…. picture me whistling for you), said:
Refocus Question: Are you disputing that our founders desires this country to be based on and function by Biblical principles?
Preemptive strike – speaking to how the establishment clause addresses the “pledge of allegiance.” Again, this speaks to the intent of the founders of our Country.
Noah Feldman, J.D., Ph.D.,
Asst. Prof. of Law,
N.Y. University School of Law,
May, 2002
Dan – your question is really a claim and a question. Your claim is, The Founders desired this country to be based on and function by Biblical principles. Your question is whether we agree or disagree with your claim…
… and since you bring up Koukl, he also says that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof… 🙂
But the question of the Founders’ intent is kind of like the question of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity it’s not explicitly stated in Scripture, yet we affirm it as Christians because the text supports it.
Can we establish that the text of the Constitution supports such a “desire” on the part of the Founders?
I’m not sure we can, but let’s assume we can (just for the sake of discussion). I’m left with three more questions…
1. Does a “desire” that finds expression there possess the weight of the plain content of the text?
2. Is finding such a “desire” in the Constitution any different from the Supreme Court finding in the Constitution “a woman’s right to privacy” (or choose, or whatever) in Roe v. Wade? In other words, do you have to abandon strict construction in order to support your claim?
3. Is such a “desire” not open to amendment; that is, what is to stop America from saying, “that was then; this is now?” What consequences would follow from an effort to amend the Constitution to clarify our national disposition toward God?
Good point. Let me clarify. Since the Founders designed the establishment clause to protect religious freedom and since that freedom was expressed in the pledge of allegiance; is the taking away of that pledge removing a freedom that the founders intended?
I understand that determining items such as this is exactly the role of the courts. However, the original discussion was related to how much Christians should engage in this issue and should we appeal (no pun intended) to the Founders intent to seek this being stopped? We realize there are no Christian nations only Christian people, but when does this become a license for passivity?
In relation to burden of proof, I would say you are correct that I assume that burden. However, I would say that the position I hold at present says that we should leave the pledge alone and therefore, the other side would bear the burden in this case.
Ironic Note:
–Ari Fleischer
U.S. Press Secretary
to Pres. George W. Bush (1/01 – 5/03)
Press Briefing of 6/26/02
Clarification of the Establishment Clause purpose…
“It would seem…that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion.
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson… The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”
U. S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist’s Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree 6/4/85 (472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479)
This goes back to an earlier question I raised… would it be the Founders’ intent to invoke the Name of God in a way that is arguably emptied of its value in identifying the Almighty?
The point you’re making about passivity could just as easily be applied to Christians who object to God’s name being taken in vain.
Don’t get me wrong… I’d love for the Pledge to be another vehicle for spreading God’s fame. It’s just that the more I process the argument, the less comfortable I am taking the stance “under God” must remain… and maybe even whether it ever belonged there in the first place.
What was the Plutarch quote from last week? Something about “use my name correctly or use it not at all?”
I am not arguing that we should remove God from American government – ie. the founding ideas behind the Declaration or the proceedure of day to day government.
You said:
Assuming that religious freedom is your argument for “under God” being in there, imagine if for some crazy reason Congress changed the Pledge to, “…one nation under Allah…” – something I also assume you would be against. What would your argument be then?
The idea of the Pledge is to unite people under one banner of the The United States of America. It was created in reaction to a large amount of immigration. (BTW: The writer was a minister who was well aware of God being acknowledged in various pledges and still decided not to include Him in it.) By inserting the idea of monotheism into the Pledge, it now divides our country. And not just atheists and agnostics but Muslims who use another name for god, Jews who don’t even say it, Buddhists who don’t have a god, Hindus who have many gods, and so on.
And think about the effect it has had on the Pledge itself. Since a specific belief system was introduced, the courts have had to rule it as being optional for natural U.S. citizens if you happen to disagree with it. So much for unity.
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again…
I get your point and it is well put. The idea of people blaspheming God is an interesting one. The idea that people don’t really understand the pledge or that the pledge can still be a pledge without a reference to God is also understood. I also get it that the pledge could be offensive to people who enter our Country and is this the issue we want to be offensive over? I get that too. But is there a difference between this issue between individuals and this issue and the promotion of orderly society? I am not sure both can be compared (i.e. rules for a person and rules for society made up of persons). For example, some of our larger cities (L.A. NYC, etc.) have so many people speaking so many languages it can be harmful. Yet, we don’t say English is THE official language. Why? People would not like it. However, when does it get to the point that society must take a stand because it is right vs. it is nice to everyone in society. In other words, just because people are coming to our shores, do we remove the pledge to not be offensive? Shouldn’t it be there responsibility to obey our laws and customs or not, at least, not oppose them?
Nice discussion…
My concern is the slippery slope and the sloppy Christian. If we remove the pledge for no other reason than it bothers people to say “God” or because Christians are too comfortable to get involved; then I get sideways.
Example: Prayer in public schools. It’s true that we don’t NEED, as Christians, to have prayer as part of the educational system. But wouldn’t we admit that the removal of such an observation has led to an degradation, to some degree, of public morals. Sure, no prayer, by itself, will stem the moral levee from breaking, but observation of things such as prayer seem to reinforce moral standards that otherwise would erode faster? Agree or Disagree?
Chicken or egg? Did morals go south because prayer went out, or did prayer go out because morals went south?
Impossible to say for sure, but which is more adequate as a cause for the effect? Which is a more adequate explanation:
A) cause = moral decline; effect = prayer evicted from public schools
B) cause = prayer evicted from public schools; effect = moral decline
If you say (B), you’re saying morality wasn’t in decline when prayer got the boot. This raises a question: if morality wasn’t in decline, what caused prayer to be evicted from public schools?
If you say (A), you’re saying that morality was already in decline and evicting prayer was merely a symptom of that decline. It doesn’t raise any new questions.
I agree with your remarks about the sloppy & comfortable Christian, but I think it’s actually a more powerful argument in a different sense than you put forward: I would argue that issues like “under God” and prayer in school are examples of what can happen when Christians become complacent.
The symptoms match the diagnosis: the complacent Christian “passes the buck” on being salt and light, and simply rests on the laurels of those who came before them to give birth to this great country.
Our debt to them ought to be to carry the torch in the arena of ideas – not just say “this is the way we do things around here (so y’all better say ‘under God’ and pray with us in homeroom)” and expect everybody to fall in line.
Yea, I get the logic related to prayer and it is sound, but now that we are on this side of the equation in regard to the pledge do we still say it’s OK to remove it? Also, regardless of the logic, would it not be true that we have declined in morals since the decision has been imposed?
It’s easier to say we can punt on this, but when do you not punt? When do you grind it out and go for the first down? Is it only when the Gospel message is being attacked via the Law of the land? I guess what I am saying is: What is the defining line? It’s easy to say it’s not here or it’s not there, but where is/what is the tipping point? Is it a pure individual thing or is there a basis for unity that all Christian’s can appeal to?
The problem is there isn’t anything in the Constitution about respecting an establishment of language. No matter how much I agree with “under God”, it’s not a matter of comfort or tolerance, it’s a matter of Constitutional religious freedom guaranteed by this country for all its citizens.
Your concerns about the “slippery slope” are the same as I pointed out on September 15th — people have gained their ground and they aren’t willing to budge in fear of losing it all. ie. teaching intelligent design along with evolution. As a Christian who is not too comfortable to get involved I think there is so much more to gain in letting go what should have never been there in the first place. In a discussion last week Hugh offered the question, “Is blaspheming the name of God ever the moral thing to do?” And I would add, ” – no matter what side of the equation we’re on?”
I go with choice A. When you look at the timeline there simply wasn’t enough time for the sizable shift in morality during the 60s to be considered an effect of removing prayer from public school – 2 years at most.
I suspect the parents of the mid-forties and early 50’s lost their sense of morality chasing after the American dream of wealth or somehow failed to raise their children with similar values – maybe they were too busy trying to declare the U.S. a Christian nation. ;^)
You go for first down when you’re either desperate and have nothing to lose, or when you’re ahead and you want to crush your opponents’ spirit by showing them you can do whatever you want.
Then there’s the question of whether it’s even worth it at any price. Is it really an asset we need in our arsenal in order to wage the culture war? or is it (at best) a white elephant or (at worst) a Pyrrhic victory?
But you have me wondering about the Law of Unintended Consequences. Hypothetically, if Christians were to make an about-face on the issue and say, “on second thought, no, this is an abuse of God’s name,” might that do more harm than good?
This was the context in which I raised the question David referred to. Are there any consequences – intended or unintended – that are sufficient to set aside the issues around God’s name?
David – I totally agree about the unwillingness to concede ground that ought to be abandoned… it’s like the accounting principle of “sunk costs;” the fact that you’ve invested heavily in something that turns out to be a poor investment is no justification for continuing to pour resources into it.
Let me moderate a bit here… I’m not as convinced as I’ve probably made it sound… I haven’t even made an argument, really – just a lot of observations and questions.
Can anybody make a good case for keeping “under God” in the Pledge? I’d really like to hear a sound argument for it, because I don’t like the idea of being on the same side as Michael Newdow, the ACLU, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals… in practice if not in principle, anyway…
The Pledge is an ideal of what America was based on and should strive to be.
If the Declaration of Independence declares the idea of intelligent design to be “self evident” and our freedoms and laws are based on the idea of an almighty Creator giving us our right to life, liberty and property, shouldn’t the same general core belief also be expected of an American citizen?
The pledge doesn’t force anyone to believe anything. No one’s 1st Amendment rights are being violated by it. It is a pledge from the individual (no matter what they believe) to a country that is based on the idea that liberty and justice are the natural rights given by our Creator (God) for all people.
No, this isn’t a set up. I’m just thinking critically.
Ya’ got me. I think your argumentation is sound and your conclusion is realistic. The “pledge” is a non-issue for Christians since enforcing it neither promotes Christianity (it may actually incure God’s wrath more with people just saying it without heart) nor is it in keeping with the essential intent of the “framers” of our country. I am ready to face more evidence from anyone else who would like to throw out a lifeline…
“Hurricane Rita, this is like the 9th hurricane out this season. Maybe this isn’t the time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.” — Jay Leno