Keep the Pledge of Allegiance Legal

"I pledge allegiance.... to the flag?!?"

Brother, you have your priorities wrong. The "Under God" controversy is a red herring. Christians should be pledging their allegiance to no one but Jesus.

I instruct my children to not say the pledge in school. It is unChristian and unAmerican. The pledge was written by a socialist!

 

The pledge is not illegal.

The only thing that the court declare illegal was the school using official school time and their influence to motivate the children to make the theological affirmation ("One nation under God") that is in the pledge.

Christians have little credibility when they get up in arms about issues like this and fail to do the hard stuff like love their neighbor and tell others about the Lord.

 

That is because most Christians are "talking" New Testament while "living" Old Testament.

 

Hey folks, I live in the area under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The pladge is alive and well at our public schools and other pulic activities. Nothing has changed, since, within a day of the ruling, the order was stayed pending higher judicial review.

Most people aren't all that concerned; the ruling is expected to be overturned by the US Supreme Court on appeal (the 9th district is the most overturned court in the nation).

 

The fight should not be only to keep the pledge legal as it stands but to keep our legal system firmly entrenched in the Judeo-Christian Ethic in which it was formed. Then all this nonsense would be over.

 

Nonsense. Right.

The phrase is, in fact, an establishment of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, and as such, should not be in the pledge.

How is it nonsense to keep the spirit and letter of the Constitution alive?

 

Whatever we know or do not know of the framers' religious beliefs, the word "Creator" is not the sole property of Christians to represent God.

Most religions refer to a creator (big "c" or little "c," depending on who you talk to).

But still, given what you just said, how can you explain the first amendment's anti-establishment clause?

 

The phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegience does not violate the 1st Amendment restriction of recognition an establishment of religion. However, "one nation under Jesus Christ" would. Of course, since Baptists are categorically in favor of the separation of church and state, we would be against that anyway

Kelly's right on this one. The purpose of the D of I was not to espouse a religious belief. It was to make a public statement that among the reasons the US decided to become independent was the belief that the English Crown had denied rights to its citizens, rights which had been given not by the Crown, but endowed upon all people by their creator. The US vowed, not to give rights, but to guarantee these endowed rights.

Additionally, the first amendment was penned to not only forbid the state from recognizing an official religion, but to guarantee religious freedoms to all the land's inhabitants, regardless of religious creed.

[ December 12, 2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Honestly, I don't see that as being much different than saying "one nation under Jesus Christ." Sure, "one nation under God" doesn't specifically endorse Christianity, but the only other religion I know of that it would also be considered to endorse is Judaism. The capitalization of "G" is a Judeo-Christian phenomenon, and as such, it's use is the endorsement of Judaism and Christianity.

Now, if you want to argue that endorsing both, but not just one, is okay under the first amendment, then that's one thing, but "God" is a Judeo-Christian word and as such, is an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian god.

 

And I do believe we are entitled to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

This applies to all religions, including, but not limited to, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Shinto. It also applies to being able to refrain from participating in organized religion if one desires.

 

True.

It also means we have the freedom to abstain from religion and religious practices without being treated as second-class citizens.

Amen!

Atheists can't and don't disallow your freedom to worship. But people who advocate separation of church and state (a historic Baptist principle that we fought to have included in the Constitution -- the foundation of our government and laws) don't want the government meddling in religion - that includes promoting/supporting it or hindering it. The government should be completely neutral toward religion.

I think I understand you fine. It sounds like the argument made by people like David Barton and those of like mind.

I think this is a mischaracterization of separation of church and state. I don't care how atheists *feel* -- I am concerned about presenting the Christian faith as a civil religion -- a "faith" that is faithless and meaningless.

Some atheists would indeed like that. Of course people of faith (many of them here at Baptist Board) continue to promote separation of church and state to the glory of God.

Nope. Actually, I think all good Christians would likely support separation of church and state when they understand Baptist history and the history of persecution and the corruption of the gospel that occurs when church and state are united.

Amen. Why try to persuade non-believers to profess something they do not believe, like "one nation under God"?

You can. No one is stopping you from doing that on your own time according to your conscience. Just don't ask the government to help you or promote your religious point of view to others.

Yeah... not a very good witness.

I think we can. Just don't ask me to reject separation of church and state.

 

So if a Muslim American recites the Pledge and says "One nation under God", do you really think the Muslim is thinking Allah? No way... it is very clearly the God Jehovah. Does a Buddhist think the Pledge is talking about Buddha? The Wiccan thinking it is referring to some Goddess?

The problem is that it is a Fact that God Jehovah was the God originally implied in the phrase and therefore it is an establishment of religion and thus violates the Constitutional Amendment.

Plus, I don't mind leaving God out of any Government Propaganda that it wishes to team up with for the purpose of controlling the people. We don't need the Government to push religion, it needs to stay out of the Religion area and stay in the taxing, lying, railroading, and violating our other human rights... like all Governments do.

Other than keeping the roads up and crime down to a minimum, I have very little use for Governments, I respect even less, their idea of manipulating God's connection in my life. That's for me and my Church to do, not Al Gore, Bush, or Trent Lott to do. It appears they have enough on their plates already.

 

I've read the Declaration of Independence. I didn't need to read it again.

I got your point, and I refuted its validity in this conversation.

In any case, it's not illegal to say the pledge as it currently stands. No ruling would make it illegal to say it that way. The ruling affected only the official, government endorsed version of the pledge.

And as it should have. in no way does removing "under God" from the pledge infringe on your right to worship as you choose.

It wouldn't even have been illegal for kids to say "under God" at school - only for the government to maintain the phrase in the pledge.

 

So if a Muslim American recites the Pledge and says "One nation under God", do you really think the Muslim is thinking Allah?

I asked a Muslim that question. THe answer to the question is "yes".

 

In that case why is America supporting the Statement that Allah is the God that America is under. Even in this case, the statement "Under God" is an establishment of Religion.