Because I can. Why bother replying?
Hardly. I don’t need to prove it because it gets proven every second of every day. The fact that people still believe it is the amazing part. But I suppose indoctrincation with implacable dogma will do that to a child.
Stainless.
Some folks (haven’t seen clergy listed, but there may be) are:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/religion/8161097.htm
A fascinating thread and a fascinating argument. Practically something new right here in Great Debates, and that doesn’t happen often. I think it is a perfectly legitimate argument for those who worship the Bible.
Although I might add “moral support,” it seems to me that the constitutionality of a statute does not depend on whether there are a few or many who oppose it. An impartial tribunal should base its decision on the facts of the case, legal precedent, etc. Are the Justices really so biased that the viewpoint of a few Christians could sway their view?
It does not seem that pledging one’s political allegiance to a country necessarily violates any commitment to God. We are pledging mainly that we will be a good citizen by refraining from rebellion, insurrection, treason, etc. A Christian can and should submit to these requests from the state. I believe that a Christian is a citizen of “two kingdoms,” the kingdom of power (government) and the kingdom of grace (church). Both kingdoms derive their power from God. However, they have different purposes, duties, methods, and jurisdictions.
Jesus was confronted with the question of whether we should submit to the government’s authority to tax. He affirmed, saying that we owe Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s (Matt. 22:21). Peter wrote that we should submit to government, fear God, and honor the king (1 Peter 2:13-17). Paul argued, even in the context of pagan Rome, that we should render our allegience to our government. (“Let every soul be subject to the authorities, they are appointed by God, pay your taxes, etc.” Rom. 13:1-7) However, in the case that the government commands us to sin, we must obey God rather than men.
However, I do not “worship the Bible.” I worship God alone. I do understand what you mean, though.
ragerdude, speaking as another conservative Christian, I surprised myself by finding your arguments totally convincing.
KidCharlemagne, I think I now understand why public opinion is essential for the Court’s decision. The central issue is whether the language “under God” violates the Establishment Clause. In order to see whether this phrase endorses religion, we must know what people take it to mean. For example, if everyone agrees that “under God” is an empty, trivial phrase, then there is no real establishment of religion. (When people use the neutral word “Saturday,” they do not express belief in the god Saturn.)
But, however, we live in a country that includes many monotheists. And if people understand the phrase as having real religious significance, then there is a constitutional problem. And I for one, as a Christian, cannot rightly say the Pledge without intending serious religious import.
Now that I think about it, maybe I really should email Newdow.
Okay, my mistake. I thought I understood you to say that your complaint was on “Biblical grounds”. It is, of course, God Who grounds us and He alone Who is without flaw. Anything else revered as infallible is an idol in competition with Him. The Holy Spirit is sufficient for counsel and teaching, is He not?
That was not about taxation, but idolatry. The spies were carrying pictures of Caesar, which was unlawful for Jews. Calling that exchange an affirmation of taxation is like calling His instruction to eat His body an affirmation of cannibalism.
I think your argument will quadruple his chances. I can’t believe that someone as passionate as he didn’t think of enlisting someone with your views. The Straight Dope for Change! Let’s make history.
That got me thinking, it may very well be needed to have the phrase ‘under God’ in the PoA. It puts the pledge in proper context, God is higher then country. It may well be the only way some people will be willing to say it.
Just to clarify what you’re saying, you think it would be a violation of the establishment clause for the PoA to include the phrase “under Jesus”, because some religions (Judaism, Islam) don’t worship Jesus, but “under God” is not a violation, because, well, heck, everyone believes in some God, or at least every religion does? Do you see how an atheist or agnostic would find this argument disturbing?
To be totally honest, er, sort of, I guess.
What is God to a atheist or agnostic?
One thing that I can think of is this ‘fictonal’ all powerful entity who will hold us responsible for our actions eventually, I don’t really see a problem holding up a country to such a standard and actually see it as a benifit for our public officials.
By saying ‘under God’ for a atheist or agnostic might mean to the gov’t powers that you must act as if there is a God (as if you will be held ultimatly responsible).
btw what exactly is the difference between atheist and agnostic???
There has been a zillion arguments about this topic on this board. I would say that :
In theory, an agnostic is someone who states that it’s impossible to know whether there’s a god or not, hence that both believing in god(s) and denying him/them are equally untenable positions. In practice, it’s most often someone who simply isn’t sure either way.
An atheist is someone who states there’s no god(s). Generally on the basis that lacking any evidence of the existence of this being, there’s no more reason to hold such a belief than any other arbitrary belief. By “arbitrary”, I include existing beliefs (haunted houses), former beliefs (trolls) or made up beliefs (there’s a dragon behind me which turns invisible each time I look its way).
Apart from that, we have in this thread, for once, a whole new argument and a very original point of view about a very often discussed topic. Kudos to the OP.
The quick answer is that an atheist is someone who actively and decisively believes that God does not exist, and an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know whether God exists. Personally, I can’t claim that I KNOW God doesn’t exist or can PROVE God doesn’t exist, but I see no reason to believe he does exist, and thus choose to live my life under the assumption that there is no God. So I call myself an agnostic, but I don’t view myself as particularly wishy-washy about it.
You’re asking, “if we don’t believe, why should we care? How does it hurt us?”? Well, one obvious answer is that religion in general, and organized religion in particular, is an enormously powerful force (for good or evil) which influences the lives of a large number of Americans. Those of us who aren’t a part of it (or who are parts of non-theistic organized religions, if there are any) are, naturally, a bit leery of it. Enormous and powerful organizations whose motivations are mysterious to me, which have great influence in society and in government, and which might somewhat arbitrarily decide that I, my children, or my loved ones are EVIL, do not particularly make me comfortable. Thus, it’s important to me that the fact that those organizations are NOT part of the government in any way shape or form be made very clear to everyone. Which is why I’m pretty anal about separation of church and state issues. Sure, having “In God We Trust” on coins doesn’t actually physically harm me. But it’s part of a culture which could.
ragerdude, I love reading intelligently written posts that I can sink my teeth into and still disagree with.
I am a liberal Christian and we arrive at the same conclusions – that under God should be removed from the Pledge and In God we Trust discontinued from the minting of coins. I don’t like the trivialization or federalization of God. But, as you might guess, we have reached our conclusions by different paths. I don’t put my faith in the Bible or in the men who wrote it. And I also believe that Jesus is the Shepherd for many who are not of this flock, so to speak.
You are welcome here.
Teachers do well to encourage their students to research the motivations for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Pearl Harbor and any historical event – with a little guidance from adopted textbooks and their own educations, of course. That is allowed.
Episcopalians aren’t generally considered to be theological conservatives.
All accounts describe taxation as the question (Matt. 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, Luke 20:20-26, G. Thom. 100).
The Pharisees opposed the Roman occupation and oppression, while the Herodians supported Rome. The issue is whether our duty to God is an excuse that can be used to avoid our duty (taxes) to the state. They asked Jesus a “trick” question: Should we pay taxes or not? The trick was this: If Jesus said yes, then he is a traitor to Israel. If no, then he commits treason against Rome. Jesus cunningly avoids the trap. He implies that there is no conflict between giving one’s coins (being in the image of Caesar) to Caesar, and giving one’s self (being in the image of God) to God. In fact, the word for “render” (apodote) means to pay or give back, which implies an obligation to both.
Even if concern for idolatry was the underlying excuse for avoiding taxes, this more strongly proves my point. Then Jesus is teaching that we are still obligated to pay our taxes, even at the risk of appearing idolatrous.
Finally, Jesus himself submitted to payiing the temple tax in Matt 17:21.
Yes, it is God alone who grounds us. However, God reserves the privilege of using any means, if he wishes, to ground us. Do you deny that God has the power and privilege of grounding us through his own Word, if he so chooses?
Yes, God is perfect and without flaw. He can do no wrong. Therefore, everything he does is without flaw. And if the Bible is something God has done, then it, too, is without flaw.
An all-powerful being should have no trouble giving us a perfect communication, if he wishes. I confess that God has superintended the composition of Scripture in such a way that was written was exactly what he wished it to be. The Bible is God’s Word given through human writers. Of course, human authors have the tendency, out of human weakness, of introducing errors into their writings. But which is stronger, the strength of God or the weakness of man? If “God” cannot overcome human limitations, then there is no hope, no salvation, and no true God.
God is not in competition with his own Word. When I say, “Einstein is an authority” and “Einstein’s writings are authoritative,” I mean the same thing. Certainly, the Divine Author has the authority to make his book authoritative for us! How can a Teacher be infallible, if his teaching is not infallible?
You warn me against idolatry. However, I do not worship the Bible. I am, like you, opposed to fundamentalism. However, I believe God, and I believe what he says, because of, not in opposition to, my reverence for a trustworthy God.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan, he grounded his replies in Scripture. Did he thereby commit idolatry? Likewise, in a controversy over just one word of Scripture, he proclaimed, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Throughout his teaching, Jesus consistently appeals to Holy Writ as his authority. Was it wrong for him to make his case on biblical grounds?
Yes, the Holy Spirit is sufficient for counsel and teaching. Now, since the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, it is clear that Scripture is authoritative for counsel and teaching. Furthermore, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit bears witness in us of his own authorship of Scripture.
Ragerdude
I’m not talking about the question. Taxation might be the question, but it isn’t the answer. The answer is that the spies were caught carrying graven images of the son of god, Caesar. That’s why the turnaround on their trick worked. As you yourself have so painstakingly pointed out, either to pay or not to pay would have caught our Lord in a trap. It was by turning the issue from one of taxation to one of idolatry that He escaped the trap.
This is something Jesus often did. Consider, for example, the rich man. The question was about qualifying to enter the kingdom of heaven, but the answer was about abandoning the kingdom of earth. I’m sure you know the verses.
I think you meant 27, not 21. But in that verse, He said explicitly that the sons are exempt. And He performed a miracle out of thoughtfulness not to offend. By that miracle, Peter found two drachmas in the mouth of a fish. It seems to me that a literalist must hold to these exemptions and precedents.
Certainly not. But His Word is not a book. His Word is the Christ. The Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible.
Thank you all, you have indeed shown me your way of thinking on this one, and though I will continue to say and support ‘under God’ in the PoA, I have seen it in another light.
Also to this:
That was not was I was asking, I was asking if we limit the gov’t activities under the authority of a good but truly nonexistant ‘god’ then that should be good for the people, since it would limit the power of gov’t.
Don Asmussen uses his twist comic humor to weigh in on the subject. 
It does not seem that pledging one’s political allegiance to a country necessarily violates any commitment to God. We are pledging mainly that we will be a good citizen by refraining from rebellion, insurrection, treason, etc. A Christian can and should submit to these requests from the state. I believe that a Christian is a citizen of “two kingdoms,” the kingdom of power (government) and the kingdom of grace (church). Both kingdoms derive their power from God. However, they have different purposes, duties, methods, and jurisdictions.
Determining whether pledging allegiance to a country necessarily violates a commitment to God, is a deeply personal decision and one, with all due respect, you cannot answer. (Except for yourself) Certainly one can be a citizen of two kingdoms; one of faith and one temporal. The question is not of citizenship though; it is of “allegiance.”
Jesus was confronted with the question of whether we should submit to the government’s authority to tax. He affirmed, saying that we owe Caesar what is Caesar’s, and God what is God’s (Matt. 22:21). Peter wrote that we should submit to government, fear God, and honor the king (1 Peter 2:13-17). Paul argued, even in the context of pagan Rome, that we should render our allegience to our government. (“Let every soul be subject to the authorities, they are appointed by God, pay your taxes, etc.” Rom. 13:1-7) However, in the case that the government commands us to sin, we must obey God rather than men.
As noted, we are citizens and such should be in “subjection” to the higher authorities. This means of course paying taxes, respecting the various laws and doing other things that would generally be considered a “good citizen.” There is a fundamental difference though between being in subjection and pledging allegiance. Paul elequently spoke of the need for a Christian to be in subjection, but he did not state that we owed allegiance. Even then, as you noted, our subjection is relative. (As long as it doesn’t conflict with God’s laws)
However, I do not “worship the Bible.” I worship God alone. I do understand what you mean, though.
[/QUOTE]