"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

[fromtheright]

Thanks, C4K. It just seemed that things were being taken personally that weren't meant personally, so it just seemed that silence was the best way to keep this on a pleasant level. 'Sorry for the distraction.

Now where were we?

C4K,

Carpro said:

A lawsuit to stop the mention of God in the pledge by a student wouldn't surprise me in light of other court rulings such as barring a student from praying aloud at a school lunchroom table. One seems a lot like the other.

The real goal is to eliminate all mention of God by anyone for any reason in the public venue, period. And activists allready take aim on the school systems. They won't stop just because they get "one" thing they want.

He raises an excellent point. Though I understand your reasoning for taking it out(i.e., the hypocrisy of leaving it there), the reason that most of its opponents want to take it out is to further secularize our society, removing all traces of God from the public square. I don't believe a sterile public square will be a clean public square given the things that are already crawling and sliding into our society to replace God and Judeo-Christian influences/references.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here there may be some validity to the argument. A further weakening and a precedent setting aspect to the removal.

I have not seen the lawsuit. I don't know what they are trying to accomplish since most states don't require students to say the Pledge at all.

This is part of the problem with a federal government education system. Our local school systems seem to be local in name only. The federal government should not be able to tell local school districts what they can or cannot do with the Pledge, IMHO.

I just can't see this as a place to draw the battle line, since there is not a long term precedence for the inclusion of the phrase "under God." Is fifty years enough time to make it a part of our culture? I honestly don't know.

Since I am about as old as the inclusion of the phrase it doesn't seem like a very long time to me .

BTW, I wasn't aware until recently that a child could not pray out loud at the lunch table. That was indeed food for thought.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

On Wednesday, September 14, 2005, a federal judge from the Eastern District of California ruled that it was unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
According to David Kravets of Associated Press News:

"Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools.

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court."
9/14/05 Associated Press

The scope of this case was reduced on 7/18/05 to include only the legality of reciting the pledge in public schools.

http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/Newdow2.htm

 

[Johnv]

I think I brought this up elsewhere, but appeared to have fallen upon deaf ears. The case here in question is whether reciting the pledge as a whole is legal or not, not whether the words "under God" as a specific are legal or not. There is sufficient legal prededent to keep recitation of the pledge as it now stands as legal.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The discussion of the legality of saying the Pledge at all was the topic of another thread, and anyone may feel free to open that topic again. This thread was to discuss if "under God" and "in God we trust" are appropriate for us in the US as she now stands.

 

[buckster75]

John posted
It doesn't matter if one is liberal, conservative, moderate, or anywhere in the spectrum. "God" isn't in the Constitution.

If I ask "but why is God absent?" would that be too far off topic?

 

[Johnv]

To that end, it seems that all agree the answer to be "yes". The discussion seems to revolve around to what extent, if any, those phrases respect an establishment of religion, or to what extent they're phrases of faith vs phrases of patriotism.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Why is God absent fits the theme of this thread.

Why is God absent in the Constitution, but present in the Pledge and as our national motto?

It seems as though our founding fathers intended that faith and citizenship were not to be intertwined.

The 1st amendment seems to support that contention. There will be no state church and the state will not infringe on one's right to worship.

I am not sure how the Pledge argument fits into that. Except for this, if the founding fathers believed in a state acknowledgement of God, does it not seem that they would have at least mentioned him in the Constitution?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by C4K:
Why is God absent in the Constitution, but present in the Pledge and as our national motto?

Simple. Because the Constitution is not a document of patriotism. It's a document of law.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and is complusory in its application to all.

The motto and pledge are noncompulsory, non legal, and nonbinding. That doesn't mean they have no value, just that they have no value as law.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But can a pledge, by its very definition, truly be non-binding?

 

[buckster75]

I think I said someting along these lines before as to why I think it is absent. I think it is because (and I posted some quotes from George Washington about this) the founders never dreamed of this nation getting so far away from God so they did not think it necessary to include.

 

[Scott J]

The Founders didn't ask the question "What places should God be excluded from?" They asked the question "What places should government be excluded from?"

The problem we have is that government is now allowed into just about every endeavor and area of life... God according to liberals should be limited to home and church.

If our government was even relatively close to being within its constitutional bounds... the "Pledge" in school wouldn't be an issue.... since all schools would be rightly private thus preventing government from indoctrinating children.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by C4K:
But can a pledge, by its very definition, truly be non-binding?

It's a matter of the heart. One can say say the pledge and have it be a vain repitition. One can say the pledge and take it to heart. Or one can refrain from saying the pledge completely.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Scott J:


If our government was even relatively close to being within its constitutional bounds... the "Pledge" in school wouldn't be an issue.... since all schools would be rightly private thus preventing government from indoctrinating children.

BINGO!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
But can a pledge, by its very definition, truly be non-binding?

It's a matter of the heart. One can say say the pledge and have it be a vain repitition. One can say the pledge and take it to heart. Or one can refrain from saying the pledge completely. </font>[/QUOTE]I'd like to take this up in another thread. Is it Biblical for a Christian to pledge loyalty to a secular government.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/3620.html#000000

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by C4K:
I'd like to take this up in another thread. Is it Biblical for a Christian to pledge loyalty to a secular government.

Interestingly, the Constitution allows the POTUS oath to "affirm" his duties, instead of swearing an oath. At least one POTUS made use of that. The accommodation was included by the Framers to accommodate those who, like the Quakers, morally objected to the swearing of oaths.

Scripture encourages us to not have to rely on oaths, but to simply be our yes be yes, and our no be no (aka, an affirmation). But I don't see that swearing an oath, in and of itself, violates scripture. However, I think that "requiring" the swearing of an oath may be a scriptural violation. Does that make sense?

I recently was a court witness in a traffic case, and had no problem swearing an oath to tell nothing but the whole truth.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread has started page ten. It has been an excellent debate and a model of decorum.

However, our rules state that we have a ten page limit. This thread will be closed no earlier than 2100 EDT today.

 

[Johnv]

You can't close this thread. We haven't resorted to bickering and namecalling yet!!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm going to bed in the next couple of hours, but you all still have a few hours to make this a normal thread

. If we are lucky the other mods won't see it and I won't be able to close it till I get up, around midnight EDT

.

 

[buckster75]

that is kind of where my thinking goes. that it was not intended to be a secular gov. I might even go as far as the original thought of free religion was: "you can be and kind of believer in the God of the Bible you want to be."