"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

[buckster75]

Ike is the one who signed to put it there.

 

[fromtheright]

Johnv,

You're right, ftr, there's no compulsion involved in the pledge. There's also no religious recognition in the pledge. The phrase "under God" is strictly patriotic. Hence, it passes constitutional muster, and can stay.

We agree--sort of. I believe it can stay but I have no problem with the view that "under God" is at least partly religious in nature, but it is not an establishment of religion.

My point is that if we claim that the phrase "under God" is a religious phrase, then we must by all Baptist traditiion of constitutional constructionism, not to mention the distinctive of separation of church and state, call for its removal.

I disagree. Baptist tradition did not require other religious declarations be done away with. Every President since and including George Washington has referenced God in his Inaugural addresses. As I said "under God" in the Pledge does not equal an establishment of religion.

It is not, and isn't even "primarily" religious, so it can stay.

I'm not sure if it is "primarily" religious so ultimately it appears we do still agree.


KJ,

ftr, no compulsion...YET. However, when people fight FOR using a Pledge of Allegiance instead of just leaving it to individuals' choice...it is a step toward compulsion given the "right" people in power to enforce it.

But no compulsion yet, means just that. We should not be doing away with it just because of what someone might do. And I disagree with the "might" by the way. The trend is completely the other way. The Supreme Court long ago in West Virginia v. Barnette said it can't be forced, a view that has been affirmed by the Court, and none of the parties to any Pledge case including Newdow's has seriously alleged that it is forced. Who would be the "right" people? No one is seeking the power to compel. It would take some wacky conspiracy theory to assert that there are some out there secretly trying to compel it. Statute certainly does not.

Does it honour God to have a Pledge of Allegiance with a vague God in it so everyone can refer to their own "god"?

It's a very good point but in a religiously pluralist nation, that is the best that we should expect and SEEK, unless one aims at a theocracy.


C4K, I must again second your earlier comment--it is truly nice to be part of a debate with such strong opinions, with no animus included.

 

[Johnv]

fromtheright, I think we agree more than you realize. If the pledge does to some extent respect the establishment of religion, it is still permissible, so long as the respecting of an establishment of religion is not its primary function. Clearly, its primary function is an expression of patriotism, not an expression of respecting an establishment of religion.

buckster, Ike has the legal authority to insert the phrase. He does not have legal authority to apply the phrase. If, for example, he had inserted the phrase "under the God of the Old and New Testaments" instead of "under God", it would never have legally been allowed to remain, even though his arguement applies.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

My point is that if we claim that the phrase "under God" is a religious phrase, then we must by all Baptist traditiion of constitutional constructionism, not to mention the distinctive of separation of church and state, call for its removal.

If, however, we recognize it for what it is, which is a phrase of patriotism, and not of religion, then we need not do anything of the sort.

I don't care what we call it as long as we keep it.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
I don't care what we call it as long as we keep it.

Well put, but in all seriousness, we must be honest about such a thing if we're to be credible and consistent witnesses. Sometimes, being a credible and consistent witness is more important that getting what we want. That's why we must be honest in recognizing that the phrase "under God" is primarily patriotic, nor religious, in nature.

 

[fromtheright]

Johnv,

I think you and buckster are both right. If the President's statement goes toward Congressional intent in the Supreme Court's weighing of establishment, Ike's statement seems to have a strong religious purpose. But I still don't think that constitutes an establishment.

Yes, we do agree more than I had thought. Many strict separationists cling tightly to the "respecting" element. I believe that another interpretation of that word is arguable, viz that by using this word it protected extant state establishments from any interference by Congress.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I am off to bed folks. Thanks again for this debate. It proves we can all have strong opinions, state them, and argue them, without attacking each other!!

 

[buckster75]

I am strong on separation too. A way way wall of separation. The Gov. leaves religion alone. Not freedom "from" religion. Freedom "of" relifion. I also believe in letting people know about the Truth.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Buckster, I would submit that you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. If a person chooses to be an agnostic or atheist, that is their right. Yes, we should try to reach them, but not by using the power of government. God gives free choice in these matters. Government should not coerce ANY religion on any citizen. The wall must be two-way. The First Amendment Free Exercise clause gives freedom of religion. The Establishment clause provides freedom from religious indoctrination by the government.

I also appreciate the tone of this fine debate.

 

[buckster75]

I will have to disagrre agnostic or atheist are religions they just don't claim they are. Absence of religion is religion. Beiliving in nothing is still something. You might not understand that. but think about it.

 

[buckster75]

the other point on freedom "of" religion is that if my belief says I must tell others they have no right to say "I want to be sheilded from his words so law makers make a law to keep buck silent."

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
I don't care what we call it as long as we keep it.

Well put, but in all seriousness, we must be honest about such a thing if we're to be credible and consistent witnesses. Sometimes, being a credible and consistent witness is more important that getting what we want. That's why we must be honest in recognizing that the phrase "under God" is primarily patriotic, nor religious, in nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. As long as I'm alive, I will always recite the pledge with "under God" in it. No matter what the courts decide.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Interesting thread.

Believe it or not, I would say that the clause "under God" should stay. The main reason I say so is because it is there. If it were not included in the pledge at this time I might well argue to keep it out, but it is there now. And, it has been there for over 50 years, what about that precedent?

Also, if someone doesn't want to say the words "under God" they can be silent during this brief segment of the pledge, or don't say the pledge at all.

 

[fromtheright]

You're right, Terry, that is hard to believe. I thought you were a die-hard, certified liberal. Or have I been wrong about that?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
I don't care what we call it as long as we keep it.

Well put, but in all seriousness, we must be honest about such a thing if we're to be credible and consistent witnesses. Sometimes, being a credible and consistent witness is more important that getting what we want. That's why we must be honest in recognizing that the phrase "under God" is primarily patriotic, nor religious, in nature. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. As long as I'm alive, I will always recite the pledge with "under God" in it. No matter what the courts decide. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, that is one of the joys of real free speech.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
You're right, Terry, that is hard to believe. I thought you were a die-hard, certified liberal. Or have I been wrong about that?

So the definition of "liberal" would be one who wanted "under God" taken out of the Constitution? You guys have a million and one definitions of liberal and more coming eh?

 

[OCC]

KJ,

ftr, no compulsion...YET. However, when people fight FOR using a Pledge of Allegiance instead of just leaving it to individuals' choice...it is a step toward compulsion given the "right" people in power to enforce it.

But no compulsion yet, means just that. We should not be doing away with it just because of what someone might do. And I disagree with the "might" by the way. The trend is completely the other way. The Supreme Court long ago in West Virginia v. Barnette said it can't be forced, a view that has been affirmed by the Court, and none of the parties to any Pledge case including Newdow's has seriously alleged that it is forced. Who would be the "right" people? No one is seeking the power to compel. It would take some wacky conspiracy theory to assert that there are some out there secretly trying to compel it. Statute certainly does not.

To which I would once again say, YET. Do you think when the antichrist comes along he's going to care what your statutes and Constitution say? Maybe noone here is seeking the power to compel but there are people who do, aren't there? What I can't figure out is, why do you guys even care??? Say any pledge you want...it does not have to be legalized. I hope I am wrong but I get the impression that conservatives want to force their Christianity on everyone else through politics, etc. and they have to do it slowly. That's why I believe the pledge is not compulsory YET.

The "right" people would be certain conservatives in power who believe they can enforce Christianity on everyone else through politics and legislation...I honestly thought you would know who I meant by that. Sorry I wasn't clear enough.

Does it honour God to have a Pledge of Allegiance with a vague God in it so everyone can refer to their own "god"?

It's a very good point but in a religiously pluralist nation, that is the best that we should expect and SEEK, unless one aims at a theocracy.

You're right there but I have a better solution. No theocracy...and no "god" anywhere in politics. You either end up with a theocracy or a system that does not please God to begin with by including everyone's "god" in the pledge. Why do Americans think it so important to force Christianity through politics? (and that is what they do, whether you see it or not)

 

[buckster75]

Originally posted by buckster75:
I will have to disagrre agnostic or atheist are religions they just don't claim they are. Absence of religion is religion. Beiliving in nothing is still something. You might not understand that. but think about it.

I thought about this some more. Don't those people actually have to have more faith than anyone.

 

[carpro]

Does taking God out of politics mean taking Godly people out of politics?

I can't take God out of my life no matter what my politics are.

Does that mean I can't take part in politics?

Can we really expect a person to be something other than what they really are when they participate in politics?

Someone please explain to me exactly how we take God out of politics.

The only way I can see to accomplish that is to not allow Godly men and women serve in political capacities.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't see where anyone advocated taking God out of politics. Impossible for "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsover He will."

That is not our topic here. The topic here is the suitability of two relatively new phrases in American society.