"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

"If we acted like we were under God and trusting Him than I would have no problem with these sayings, but we do not."

Some of us do.

 

Since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision I don't see how anything else we do collectively as a nation to recognize God could possibly please Him, short of repenting and reversing the law.

 

C4K,

Jefferson's god was a god of Deism....Surely, his views of God have little credence to believers.

Jefferson's views in general still have great credence here. You need to come back home and see for yourself. And the point was not necessarily that Jefferson said it but the truth of the matter. Do you deny that truth?

Do we, as a nation, really believe that we are under God? Do we, as a nation really accept, "In God We Trust"?

I don't mean to be dismissive or sarcastic, but I've already answered that. The fact remains that we were founded on principles that recognized God and God's hand. To toss that declaration is for the US to stand up and concede to the rest of society, to a secularized Europe, and to the world that "God is dead". I would rather teach our children the Pledge as an ideal than to toss it in the trash. I will concede one point that I've not heard you specifically make, which is what may be taken as a lesson, " This is how a nation under God behaves?" No, but if they learn some real history and spend some time in church, they might understand the difference. Saying an oath before testimony in court doesn't mean that the witness is honest or about to tell the truth but it declares a standard of behavior.

Those who ignore the deistic thought of many founding fathers also are guilty of revisionist history.

If you want to debate American history and the beliefs of our Founders you should start with a definition of deism. If you can't define it, the term shouldn't be used.

I content that it dishonours God to do so only with our lips, and not our actions.

My contention is that if do not at least do so with our lips then we are excusing our actions and validating that there is not at least a standard by which those actions are to be judged.

Personal note - I have really enjoyed the spirit of this debate, not one personal attack!! Thanks to all.

As in all your other threads, C4K, you set a high standard. We appreciate it too.

You and PamelaK raise a good point that God is not pleased that don't actually repent, but the Pledge at least helps us to recognize as a nation that it is Him to whom we are accountable, in a sense the Law is honored in the breach, as "under God" in the Pledge reminds us of the standard.

[ September 19, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

At the bottom of this page was a google ad, "Under God" - Pros & Cons. It has some very interesting information on it. It is a nonpartisan site.

http://www.undergodprocon.org/

I didn't realize this was just filed a few days ago by the same atheist that started it a couple of years ago (supposedly on behalf of his daughter) only to be found that he was a liar...

If no one pays any attention to these words, in the pledge, and recite them by rote - why does this atheist want them removed so badly?

 

C4K,

I well know what deism is, but this is not the thread for that. I probably should not have added that aside.

The reason I made the comment about deism is that so many claim that the Founders were deists which is usually understood to be the "God as watchmaker" argument, only then to be confronted with the repeated references by the Founders to a providential and judging God, who injects himself into history, which hardly meets that definition of deism.

I did not need to come to Ireland to give little credence to President Jefferson. Reading the Jefferson Bible many years ago did that to me.

He's not one of my favorites but he is still an important Founder.

 

"Is it wise and does it really honour God when our country dishonours Him in so many ways?"

I still think we should look at what Ike said it was added for. Those ideals are worthy of note and part of the history. I still contend the history and science teachers to be the biggest witness in the school. Why could not a history teach tell the class "we will analyis the pledge word by word" from a history stand point and explain what those who came up with it were thinking. not what the teacher thought.

 

We Baptists traditionally require a strict constuctionist application of the Constitution. The Constitution forbids government endorsement of religion. If the phrase "under God" is an endorsement of religion, then it should be removed. However, it's not a phrase of religious endorsement. It's a phrase of patriotism. Hence, it should stay, imo.

The use of a bible by presidents is a voluntary tradition that presidents have engaged in. There's no contritutional requirement for them to do so. In fact, LBJ's first inauguration did not involve a Bible, but a Sunday Catholc Missal. Franklin Pierce did not swear, but instead affirmed, his POTUS oath. Theodore Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur did not use bible at their private swearing in ceremonies.

BTW, the Constitution guaranteess all federal and state officials the right to avoid taking oaths of office.

[ September 19, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

So because the country dishonors God in so many ways, we should not honor Him at all?

 

I'm sure you'll agree that no one individual should be compelled to honor God. Honoring God should be voluntary. Compulsory honor is not honor at all.

Yes, it would be great if everyone voluntarily honored God, but the fact that so many don't isn't reason to mandate it.

 

My honoring God goes beyond lip service.

I spend money with the words, "In God We Trust" on it, and say the pledge of allegiance with the words, "Under God" in it. It makes me feel good.

I surely can't be the only one left in this country who feels that way...

 

No, you are not the only one.
I'm with you.

 

C4K says:
Of course not, but to compel those who do not honour God with their lives to "honour" Him with their lips surely is not wise.

I say:
They can leave "under God" out if they want to, but don't tell me that I can't say it.

 

Why not? The teaching of ungodly things should not mean that the Godly things should be taken away. If anything, the Godly things should be pushed even harder.

Satan wants God out of the public schools.

We have set by, doing nothing, and let him have his victories.

Besides, I have heard it said that if something is said often enough, people will start to believe it.

It works for evil - why not for good?