I object, on Biblical grounds, to the current practice of encouraging our nation to pledge that our country is “one nation under God.” (I give a theological, rather than legal/political defense of my view. Obviously, my reasons are not intended to convince to those who do not believe the Bible. But even then, it may be useful for them to hear.)
As the Pledge is usually done, it encourages people to violate the Second Commandment by taking the name of the Lord in vain (Ex. 20:7). Many people recite the pledge carelessly and without meaning or thought. This is wrong, since God desires nothing other than an honest, sincere, and intentional expression of faith (Rom 10:9). Empty, meaningless repetitions are not pleasing to God (Matt. 6:7), and an insincere invocation of God can only incite his anger. Secondly, many people justify the phrase “under God” as mere ceremonial language, and not as true religious language. However, Christians should not participate in a nominal, token reference to God. We should take God seriously, and the Pledge discourages this.
Some people justify the phrase in reference to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. However, many of these believed in an impersonal god of deism or Freemasonry. This is not the one true God. Furthermore, in our country, the distinction between religious, nationalistic, and cultural activities is frequently blurred, resulting in the generic “God” of American culture. A proclamation of this “God” violates the First Commandment (Ex. 20:3), for it is a false god.
It is clear that saying the words of the Pledge in the wrong spirit could lead to sinning. Because of this possiblility, it is irresponsible to place the Pledge in front of our children without giving them Christian instruction on what it means, the nature of the commitment implied, the warnings and cautions involved, and what it truly means to be a “nation under God.” However, since the public schools cannot teach our children these things, they should not encourage them to pledge to something without a proper explanation. As our Lord said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6). (By the way, I do not trust that the public schools are even able to teach the Biblical truth correctly, even if they could legally do so. That is the duty of the Church.)
What does it mean to claim that our nation is “one nation under God”? It seems to be intended as a boast of our collective faithfulness to God. If it means that we, as a nation in general, are obediently following God’s leadership, then the statement is a hypocritical lie. As it is, our country has become quite “godless.” (However, if the phrase means that our country is under God’s providential care, then it is a correct statement. However, this does not seem to be the original intent of the phrase, for then it would also be correct to say that even a throroughly atheistic, anti-Christian country is “under God” in this sense.) I also deny that “In God We Trust” is an honest depiction of the general sentiment in this country.
The non-specific phrase “one nation under God” seems to imply that all monotheistic religions are valid and acceptable. However, I deny this, for Christ said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Christians should not affirm any God but the Triune God.
I think the real motivation behind the movement to preserve “under God” in the Pledge is this: some Christians feel the need to use the government to encourage people people to believe in God. However, an all-powerful God does not need our weak help to prove his existence, and even if he did, it is not the duty of the government to do so. For God has given us sufficient proof of himself through his creation (both nature and our internal conscience, Ps. 14:1, 19:1, Acts 14:15-17, 17:26-28, Rom. 1:19-20, 2:14-15). Therefore, people who need the Pledge to bolster the case for his existence are actually expressing doubt, rather than faith. They act as if God’s existence is so uncertain that it needs the support of a government-sponsored advertising scheme. This is an insult to the Creator’s abundandtly clear testimony of his own existence.
In fact, there is another problem with their apparent plan: I fail to see how the Pledge really could convince someone of God’s existence, or even make belief more likely. Forcing others to recite the Pledge does God no good. Actually, it could even backfire, by giving unbelievers the impression that God is oppressive and coercive, rather than the loving and compassionate Father that he really is. Our message wins people for the truth, not through sneaky attempts to force God on others, but by showing others Jesus’ love. “We love, because God first loved us.” (1 John 4:19).
Your post inspired two rather odd emotions in me. One- anger, because of the somewhat casual way in which you dismissed every religion other than your own.
Then it occurred to me that I’m a deist, and really can’t be angered by that.
Also, curiosity- you make a very strong case, which leads me to ask why conservative clergymen aren’t making the same one.
I agree, you certainly take a unique aspect of it, and I appreciate that. You raise a lot of good points that I can respect as a non-Christian religious person, and you state them well. It will certainly be interesting to see someone argue these points - I suppose it would have to be a Christian. I mean, unless more ahteists feel like defining religion for everyone again.
I’d say (WAGging, of course), that it’s got more to do with their brand of “conservative” than with them being clergy. Throughout US history, there has been this pernicious strain of the heresy of Triumphalism, more particularly political Triumphalism. Among these Triumphalists, the USA is the “New Israel” of prophecy (yes, even the ones in the current Israel’s “Amen Corner”). For them, the USA is a the physical manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven. Unfortunately, it seems that even “heaven” is infested with the ungodly, who must be battled at every turn.
From my own perspective, “under God” is being flung around like a talisman. If we truly are “under God”, there is no need to make it part of a fundamentally political oath. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”, and religious alliegiance is not Caesar’s. If we are not truly “under God”, then to claim it is a lie. Either way, having it in the Pledge of Alliegance is tantamount to blasphemy.
I’m also a fan of abolishing “in God we trust” from our money. As scripture says: “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
I dare say that one, that is anyone, can find little to criticize the church prior to Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as a state religion. Curiously, that move was rewarded with the eventual demise of the Roman Empire.
Plus, don’t forget that their personal beliefs, regardless of whether they were stone atheists or bible-thumping believers, means exactly nothing. They crafted a governmental system which was theoretically entirely secular and separate from religion, taking great pains to leave religion (or lack thereof) completely individual.
I’d add that requiring students to pledge every day, whatever its content, weakens the very idea of a pledge; suggesting that it must be renewed every day implies that it is only valid for one day.
ragerdude, Newdow’s case would be three times stronger with these arguments from a believer. I don’t know if Newdow has any more chance at testimony but I seriously think you should consider getting in touch with him.
I see it an an acknowleagement that there is a higher power who has final judgement on us and that our country is acting because He permits (or at least tolerates) it.
Also your arugment that it should be removed because may encurages sin if used incorrectly, I would say that if you use that line of reasoning you could also say the same and ban all marriages since people might get married for other reasons then true love (i.e. Britney Spears).
As I stated in the other thread – I am also a conservative Christian who objects to the pledge for many of the same reasons that you cite (although you do it with such eloquence). I would like to add another reason however which is at the heart of my disagreement with the pledge. Should Christians be pledging or swearing thier allegance to anything other than God? I love this country with all my heart and I honestly believe that it is the greatest society in the history of humanity – but I don’t feel comfortable pledging my allegance to it. If the country takes a wrong turn somewhere I would have to break that pledge. I pledge my allegance only to God.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I see it an an acknowleagement that there is a higher power who has final judgement on us and that our country is acting because He permits (or at least tolerates) it.
[quote]
Well, I don’t believe it was intended that way, but you’re certainly free to see it that way, and you’re not alone in that.
Still looks like government endorsement of religion, though.
Isn’t there a big difference between adults and children?
So I should be OK with the fact that the government coerces my seven year old son to acknowledge a religious being that I don’t believe in? How can you reconcile this with the first amendment’s “respecting an establishment of religion” prohibition?
I can understand why but I see religion and faith as sepperate (Actually totally seperate) again just my view. The ‘Congress shall make no law…’ has to do with not enforcing mans view of God on anyone, but I really don’t see it as not acknowleaging God at all.
As for the second part, I assume that Gov’t should not force kids to say the PoA, or at least the part ‘under God’.
Well I think we will have to debate if the Gov’t should force kids to say anything at all including their a,b,c’s , if they shouldn’t then perhaps the public school system should be disbanded. If it’s just the phrase ‘under God’ then can the public school system teach anything about God at all, including the motivation behind (well at least the reason given to the surfs) of the Crusaides, and for that matter the attacks on NYC and the pentagon 2 1/2 years ago?
A quick question for you CurtC do you beleive that there is no God? That is how I read you in your question. Also you do have the choice to homeschool if you disagree with the public school system.
Back to the original post, I sort of tuned out when the poster claimed to know what god may desire.
My position: I am as atheist as you can get. I don’t believe there is a god, that there ever was one, apart from inside people’s own imaginations, or that there ever will be.
When you get right down to it, one man’s god is another man’s advanced civilization.
Every time someone says “God wants you to do this…” or “God told me …” They’re just plain lying, or are completely deluded. They want so badly to believe something has control over the universe that they could not stand the alternative.
Sorry for the rant folks, but religion REALLY annoys the hell out of me, pun intended.
This doesn’t really help his legal case. My theological argumentation cannot (and should not) convince a secular court. My claim is intended to challenge other Bible-believing Christians. (I’m sorry if I offended anyone by “casually dismissing” other religions.)
A clarification: As others have noted, I am not saying that something should be illegal or forbidden just because it could be sinful. I did not argue that saying the Pledge should be prohibited by law. All people still have the free speech to affirm whatever they wish, etc.
My line of argument is different. I am not forbidding people from sin, but failing to promote a program that compels people to sin. I say that Christians have no reason to support a plan to manipulate many people into confessing “under God.” To use the marriage analogy, I am not banning any marriages, I am just saying that our schools should not enter our children into marriages (another public vow) at school, especially without the ability to explain what that means and the risks involved.
I disagree. The content of your argument may not be relevant but the fact that someone who does believe in God finds it offensive on any grounds complements an atheist’s case. IIRC, one of the justices made a comment something along the lines of ‘why should we change it just for a few atheists.’ If not technically, then in spirit. Expressing your desire to have the line removed makes his case much stronger.