| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2005 08:08:27 PM |
| Object: |
The Problem with "Under God" |
The Problem with "Under God"
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3101
by Rodney Clapp
[excerpt]
Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in Oak
Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century, November
16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by
permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at
www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by
Ted and Winnie Brock.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling on whether "under God" should be part of
the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice, since the
case was rejected on procedural grounds. For those who paid attention to
the arguments, however, it conclusively exposed the incompatibility of
American civil religion with any kind of robust Christianity. If one
considers Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow theologically, with the
conviction that God ultimately refers to the Creator-Redeemer met in Israel
and Jesus Christ, then the "God" Americans are to pledge their nation to be
"under" is at worst an idol and at best the true God’s name taken in vain.
California atheist Michael Newdow originally went to court arguing that the
daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter’s public elementary school
was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In 2002, the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and found the pledge’s inclusion of the
God-phrase unconstitutional. The controversial ruling was appealed and
accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court might then have faced head-on Newdow’s argument that "under God"
in the regular recitation of the pledge constituted an endorsement and
establishment of religion. But a technical issue arose. Newdow and the
girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, had never married and are separated. Banning
legally retains primary custody over their daughter, including the final
say on her education. On that basis the court ruled that Newdow did not
have legal status to bring the case on his daughter’s behalf.
Why should Christians consider the case more closely? First, because the
solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government,
Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the God-phrase. This
was predictable, since Olson is an appointee of George W. Bush. Besides his
awareness of the president’s own personal and political support of "God" in
the pledge, Olson could not have been insensitive to the overwhelming
support for the phrase among conservative evangelicals, one of Bush’s most
powerful and intensely supportive constituencies. We can rest assured,
then, that Olson put forth as strong and "Christian-friendly" a case as
possible. Its theological assertions and implications are consequently
quite significant.
The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although the
court did not officially rule on the pledge’s inclusion of the God-phrase,
some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway. Their
opinions on the case reveal how, in the contemporary U.S., one might
legally argue for some reference to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Like
Olson, the justices had to make their arguments in light of U.S. legal
history, past and present religious pluralism, and variegated
religio-political support of the God-phrase in the pledge. Accordingly,
though they set no official precedents on the matter, their reasonings in
response to Newdow are theologically telling.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion summarizes the basic attitude
underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government’s argument
and the court’s response. Mindful of legal and constitutional precedents,
Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be stripped of theological content
to qualify as an admissible declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge.
He asserts bluntly that the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a
"religious exercise." The pledge instead "is a declaration of belief in
allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it
represents." As a "commendable patriotic exercise," the object of the
pledge is to unify and otherwise promote the good of the nation.
It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a
"religious exercise" -- no part of it, including the God-phrase, can be a
religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, "The phrase ‘under God’ is in no
sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion. . ." In reciting the
pledge, "participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to
any particular God, faith, or church."
However the chief justice’s reasoning stands up legally, it is incoherent
as a theological statement. Along with the other monotheistic faiths of
Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way, Christianity professes that
there is only one true and real God. To cite or refer to a "God" who is not
the subject or object of "any religion," who is not the "particular God" of
any given faith or church, is to introduce a "God" additional to and apart
from the "particular" living God of the Christian church. This puts
Christians (and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we worship
and acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
20 Sep 2005 07:12:28 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9l6ui1p7kimlgcp0iqmc5pgfora8rh6ur4@4ax.com...
The Problem with "Under God"
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3101
by Rodney Clapp
[excerpt]
Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in Oak
Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century, November
16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used
by
permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at
www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online
by
Ted and Winnie Brock.
The Supreme Court's June ruling on whether "under God" should be part of
the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice, since the
case was rejected on procedural grounds. For those who paid attention to
the arguments, however, it conclusively exposed the incompatibility of
American civil religion with any kind of robust Christianity. If one
considers Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow theologically, with the
conviction that God ultimately refers to the Creator-Redeemer met in
Israel
and Jesus Christ, then the "God" Americans are to pledge their nation to
be
"under" is at worst an idol and at best the true God's name taken in vain.
California atheist Michael Newdow originally went to court arguing that
the
daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter's public elementary school
was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In 2002, the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and found the pledge's inclusion of the
God-phrase unconstitutional. The controversial ruling was appealed and
accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court might then have faced head-on Newdow's argument that "under God"
in the regular recitation of the pledge constituted an endorsement and
establishment of religion. But a technical issue arose. Newdow and the
girl's mother, Sandra Banning, had never married and are separated.
Banning
legally retains primary custody over their daughter, including the final
say on her education. On that basis the court ruled that Newdow did not
have legal status to bring the case on his daughter's behalf.
Why should Christians consider the case more closely? First, because the
solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government,
Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the God-phrase. This
was predictable, since Olson is an appointee of George W. Bush. Besides
his
awareness of the president's own personal and political support of "God"
in
the pledge, Olson could not have been insensitive to the overwhelming
support for the phrase among conservative evangelicals, one of Bush's most
powerful and intensely supportive constituencies. We can rest assured,
then, that Olson put forth as strong and "Christian-friendly" a case as
possible. Its theological assertions and implications are consequently
quite significant.
Ted Olson, much like John Roberts, is/was a government employee whose job is
to promote the position of the government that employs him. If his employer
says that it wants a certain outcome, then Olson's job is to make arguments
that cause the outcome the employer wants. The employer is also his client,
and Olson's duty is to get his client a win in court. Even if he was a
Clinton appointee that stayed on in the Bush Administration, we should
expect him to make his argument in support of the Bush Administration. It
isn't important how Olson got to the job, it is only important that he
fights on behalf of his client/employer. That's his job.
Frankly, the court hasn't paid much attention of Olson as of yet because it
took the easy way out when it ruled that Newdow doesn't have adequate
standing.
The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although the
court did not officially rule on the pledge's inclusion of the God-phrase,
some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway.
Their
opinions on the case reveal how, in the contemporary U.S., one might
legally argue for some reference to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Like
Olson, the justices had to make their arguments in light of U.S. legal
history, past and present religious pluralism, and variegated
religio-political support of the God-phrase in the pledge. Accordingly,
though they set no official precedents on the matter, their reasonings in
response to Newdow are theologically telling.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist's opinion summarizes the basic attitude
underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government's argument
and the court's response. Mindful of legal and constitutional precedents,
Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be stripped of theological content
to qualify as an admissible declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge.
He asserts bluntly that the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a
"religious exercise." The pledge instead "is a declaration of belief in
allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it
represents." As a "commendable patriotic exercise," the object of the
pledge is to unify and otherwise promote the good of the nation.
That is the sole reason to have the Pledge. We are pledging allegiance to
the country, not to God.
It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a
"religious exercise" -- no part of it, including the God-phrase, can be a
religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, "The phrase 'under God' is in no
sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion. . ." In reciting the
pledge, "participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to
any particular God, faith, or church."
Rehnquist was correct.
However the chief justice's reasoning stands up legally, it is incoherent
as a theological statement. Along with the other monotheistic faiths of
Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way, Christianity professes that
there is only one true and real God. To cite or refer to a "God" who is
not
the subject or object of "any religion," who is not the "particular God"
of
any given faith or church, is to introduce a "God" additional to and apart
from the "particular" living God of the Christian church. This puts
Christians (and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we
worship
and acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.
It is not the duty of the court to make sense from a theological
perspective, it's only mandate is to make sense from a legal perspective.
Mr. Clapp has the mandate to make sense theologically, not Mr. Rehnquist and
the court.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
23 Sep 2005 11:46:51 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|That is the sole reason to have the Pledge. We are pledging allegiance to
:|the country, not to God.
So sayth Jeffy but we know about jeffy
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
To reply to jeffy I will offer the following
A question is asked in
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
A member asked: Is one of our fundamental values as a nation endorsement
of monotheism?
and provided this as a answer
Tribune Editorials
Flapdoodle over Pledge obscures need to really learn about liberty
Tribune Editorial
September 18, 2005
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=48406
and a very wise man who knows more about this than you will ever know said
this on the topic just last night about the above article::
------------------------------------------
Good post.
I observe that none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance in 1776. No signers of the
Constitution in 1789 ever recited the Pledge. George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison never recited
the "pledge". Abraham Lincoln never recited a "pledge". Grant never
recited a pledge. Hard to imagine that they were "true Americans",
isn't it?
Amazingly, our nation thrived for 120 years before the "pledge" was
written. Was public display part of "original intent"? Hard to
imagine.
Were we unpatriotic--lacking a pledge—before? for 120 years,
successful in domestic policy (too bad about Afros and Indians) and
several wars?
Odd that Southerners resisted pledging to the "United States".
Then in 1954 "under God" was added. Suddenly we needed a "god" to
protect us. Odd.
Our nation survived without being "under God" for 180 years? How
could this be? We prevailed in WWI and WWII without a pledge
of "under God". Perhaps the gods were looking the other way then.
After all, Hitler was sure "God" was on his side; Japan thought their
gods would protect them. In history, it is very weird how many claim
that their god supports claims to conquest or hegemony. Or that a
god specially looks after a "chosen nation". Weird.
The sheer number of competing claims to have "the one true faith, god
is on our side" makes one doubtful. Logically they can't all be
right.
But the "under god" types win all the arguments. If nothing bad
happens, then we are a "favored nation" among the 6 billion of us in
about 180 nations. If hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis happen,
then "god" expresses his displeasure and 'punishment'. Pretty neat
answer for everything.
***************************************************************************
To the above we stir in the following
Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace (3rd edition)
http://padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Intro.html
and
SATAN'S CRITIQUE OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
http://bc-alliance.org/CSS/satan.html
written and presented by Clark Moeller
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
23 Sep 2005 12:18:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|That is the sole reason to have the Pledge. We are pledging allegiance to
:|the country, not to God.
So sayth Jeffy but we know about jeffy
I notice you can't refute what he said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
02 Oct 2005 12:38:40 AM |
|
|
<snipped for brevity>
Again, the problem with "under God" is that people don't understand
that the states, not the federal government, should have made the
legislation which added "under God" to the Pledge. This is because the
10th Amendment delegated the power to legislate religion to the states
since the 1st Amendment prohibited only Congress (the federal
government) from having this power.
It must also be noted that atheists and anybody else who chooses not to
recite the Pledge are protected from being forced to do so by state
authorities because of section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
02 Oct 2005 01:53:10 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128213520.115918.32710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snipped for brevity>
Again, the problem with "under God" is that people don't understand
that the states, not the federal government, should have made the
legislation which added "under God" to the Pledge. This is because the
10th Amendment delegated the power to legislate religion to the states
since the 1st Amendment prohibited only Congress (the federal
government) from having this power.
It must also be noted that atheists and anybody else who chooses not to
recite the Pledge are protected from being forced to do so by state
authorities because of section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
How nice. And what happens to those who refuse to go along with the
crowd and recite the words, 'under God' or refuse to take part in the
'ritual' altogether because they feel the 'Pledge' has become religionized?
You get stigmatized, that's what. It happens to those who refuse to hold
hands and say the 'Serenity Prayer' or the 'Lord's Prayer' at AA meetings.
Or to the football player who refuses to hold hands with his teammates as
the team starts to pray before a game. It's something that would happen
to the unfortunate student who would refuse to participate in a 'voluntary'
school prayer. It coercion, pure and simple. Not participating in the Pledge
of Allegiance because on is repulsed by having to participate in what now
amounts to a religious invocation fosters a 'If you ain't with us, you're
agin
us' mindset - not mention the feeling that one is not being patriotic in the
eyes of one's fellow citizens by such a refusal. In the case of the
'Pledge,' I
say that we should omit the
words 'under God' until that day it is either proven 'God' exists, or 'He'
reveals himself to mankind. The phrase 'under God' is meaningless
without proof God exists, and an affront to those who are well aware that
'He' is an imaginary creature. It really wouldn't hurt the Pledge of
Allegiance
if the words 'under God' were removed, now would it? A religious person
could hold that sentiment in their heart and at the same time, stop the
coercion of nonbelievers into participating what is tantamount to a
religious
exercise. The nation won't disintegrate because of the absence of those two
(really meaningless) words.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nog" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
21 Sep 2005 03:07:19 PM |
|
|
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge
in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of it
being "Indivisible".
GET RID OF IT NOW!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
21 Sep 2005 03:14:28 PM |
|
|
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KdKdnV5jaLu-6qzeRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote
the original Pledge
in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance
to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what?
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the
'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of
the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my
Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
Good edit by the American Legion and the
DAR.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of
Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The
Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Excellent addition. It's what was missing.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the
nation instead of it being "Indivisible".
It doesn't divide the nation, but it does
get a few cranks, like Michael Newdow,
bent out of shape.
GET RID OF IT NOW!
And should the Declaration of Independence be
purged as well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
01 Oct 2005 10:48:28 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:oNeYe.37278$%w.395@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KdKdnV5jaLu-6qzeRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original
Pledge
in August 1892.
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.'
DID YOU NOTICE THERE IS NO MENTION OF "god"
So what?
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of
the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed
the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of
America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
Good edit by the American Legion and the
DAR.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic
oath and a public prayer.
Excellent addition. It's what was missing.
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the nation instead of
it being "Indivisible".
It doesn't divide the nation, but it does
get a few cranks, like Michael Newdow,
bent out of shape.
GET RID OF IT NOW!
And should the Declaration of Independence be
purged as well?
Yes, references to god are an embarrassment. It's embarrassing to see people
so vigorously defend something they can't justify. Purge it all, I say.
JD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
28 Sep 2005 02:29:10 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:oNeYe.37278$%w.395@twister.nyc.rr.com:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KdKdnV5jaLu-6qzeRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the
nation instead of it being "Indivisible".
It doesn't divide the nation, but it does
get a few cranks, like Michael Newdow,
bent out of shape.
77 % to 23 % is not dividing the nation?
By that standard neither did Jim Crow.
Secret Squirre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQziLgT/rA6+b3AyhAQE4uAgAsLffRi2sRG8xMlSTLDOJAiuq3728Ek1Y
IEq/l/BXGZeOJx87nUC3pkYI4ElG5ZT2LR4L+XaHH/tofQATEvLnSNeklWbRXrvS
fucyBipRRaDFNf+rGNHgvne+ilDOobO1TyuPZ9eUcksDQwTANKymWEy+wPnpbVJy
WYH6bglfXB9KJCUx6tiC6IinNfNiThHHnYWu5Rb8EIcSTJxK06Y/bIoaQCYamCyY
Nv46wOoGT/XDJ58BP5hNCa3b/L103UAjhDfjqnmYAx/RIS6ZbVoopOI6X2y2z+9/
A+LK6PBb7qVgznt8LBjHmno1zvw7iYpifkTV487JdihcAThudcjnLw==
=6oMK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
28 Sep 2005 08:09:57 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:oNeYe.37278$%w.395@twister.nyc.rr.com:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KdKdnV5jaLu-6qzeRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the
nation instead of it being "Indivisible".
It doesn't divide the nation, but it does
get a few cranks, like Michael Newdow,
bent out of shape.
77 % to 23 % is not dividing the nation?
By that standard neither did Jim Crow.
Secret Squirre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQzndAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGTCQgAhGxYZkRK5V2qCXZJiar3FtRqDGW8p8oE
0qcRCxiP8J8TRm6usFijTQ+Hfrnvt6ir5qTzAgrmnyLfcfu8C0GhF29GyzXe/xV7
DgdUh2tQHYsV8eh/kUf5oFqxWT4TTslJi70umJ1RMF0LWiL9p+Dd6HCkr2tHTqz2
5IWLNCXrX4q/FM4COEXmQOLYagqnvZbL3cX8J+kYq/OP8HSTIPsIgSa1lQGJQY7/
lyCbMsalU94hEwh1jkkMrZXCyvjcrkDlIOMu0sDQwbJ0ou5aTFBuMsjvrea9iBTA
hA+k+g1dmtjw3Hwu1Rh145FkfnUOGm23Cetp5z8aeIwMuT+d0AIMIQ==
=jA3q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
28 Sep 2005 10:34:41 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:oNeYe.37278$%w.395@twister.nyc.rr.com:
"Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KdKdnV5jaLu-6qzeRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
It's time to remove "Under God" because it DIVIDES the
nation instead of it being "Indivisible".
It doesn't divide the nation, but it does
get a few cranks, like Michael Newdow,
bent out of shape.
77 % to 23 % is not dividing the nation?
By that standard neither did Jim Crow.
Secret Squirre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQzndAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGTCQgAhGxYZkRK5V2qCXZJiar3FtRqDGW8p8oE
0qcRCxiP8J8TRm6usFijTQ+Hfrnvt6ir5qTzAgrmnyLfcfu8C0GhF29GyzXe/xV7
DgdUh2tQHYsV8eh/kUf5oFqxWT4TTslJi70umJ1RMF0LWiL9p+Dd6HCkr2tHTqz2
5IWLNCXrX4q/FM4COEXmQOLYagqnvZbL3cX8J+kYq/OP8HSTIPsIgSa1lQGJQY7/
lyCbMsalU94hEwh1jkkMrZXCyvjcrkDlIOMu0sDQwbJ0ou5aTFBuMsjvrea9iBTA
hA+k+g1dmtjw3Hwu1Rh145FkfnUOGm23Cetp5z8aeIwMuT+d0AIMIQ==
=jA3q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
22 Sep 2005 06:03:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:08:27 -0400, wrote:
The Problem with "Under God"
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3101
by Rodney Clapp
[excerpt]
Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in Oak
Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century, November
16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by
permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at
www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by
Ted and Winnie Brock.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling on whether "under God" should be part of
the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice, since the
case was rejected on procedural grounds. For those who paid attention to
the arguments, however, it conclusively exposed the incompatibility of
American civil religion with any kind of robust Christianity. If one
considers Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow theologically, with the
conviction that God ultimately refers to the Creator-Redeemer met in Israel
and Jesus Christ, then the "God" Americans are to pledge their nation to be
"under" is at worst an idol and at best the true God’s name taken in vain.
California atheist Michael Newdow originally went to court arguing that the
daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter’s public elementary school
was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In 2002, the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and found the pledge’s inclusion of the
God-phrase unconstitutional. The controversial ruling was appealed and
accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court might then have faced head-on Newdow’s argument that "under God"
in the regular recitation of the pledge constituted an endorsement and
establishment of religion. But a technical issue arose. Newdow and the
girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, had never married and are separated. Banning
legally retains primary custody over their daughter, including the final
say on her education. On that basis the court ruled that Newdow did not
have legal status to bring the case on his daughter’s behalf.
Why should Christians consider the case more closely? First, because the
solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government,
Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the God-phrase. This
was predictable, since Olson is an appointee of George W. Bush. Besides his
awareness of the president’s own personal and political support of "God" in
the pledge, Olson could not have been insensitive to the overwhelming
support for the phrase among conservative evangelicals, one of Bush’s most
powerful and intensely supportive constituencies. We can rest assured,
then, that Olson put forth as strong and "Christian-friendly" a case as
possible. Its theological assertions and implications are consequently
quite significant.
The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although the
court did not officially rule on the pledge’s inclusion of the God-phrase,
some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway. Their
opinions on the case reveal how, in the contemporary U.S., one might
legally argue for some reference to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Like
Olson, the justices had to make their arguments in light of U.S. legal
history, past and present religious pluralism, and variegated
religio-political support of the God-phrase in the pledge. Accordingly,
though they set no official precedents on the matter, their reasonings in
response to Newdow are theologically telling.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion summarizes the basic attitude
underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government’s argument
and the court’s response. Mindful of legal and constitutional precedents,
Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be stripped of theological content
to qualify as an admissible declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge.
He asserts bluntly that the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a
"religious exercise." The pledge instead "is a declaration of belief in
allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it
represents." As a "commendable patriotic exercise," the object of the
pledge is to unify and otherwise promote the good of the nation.
It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a
"religious exercise" -- no part of it, including the God-phrase, can be a
religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, "The phrase ‘under God’ is in no
sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion. . ." In reciting the
pledge, "participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to
any particular God, faith, or church."
However the chief justice’s reasoning stands up legally, it is incoherent
as a theological statement. Along with the other monotheistic faiths of
Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way, Christianity professes that
there is only one true and real God. To cite or refer to a "God" who is not
the subject or object of "any religion," who is not the "particular God" of
any given faith or church, is to introduce a "God" additional to and apart
from the "particular" living God of the Christian church. This puts
Christians (and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we worship
and acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.
***************************************************************
The Problem with "Under God"
by Rodney Clapp
Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in
Oak Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century,
November 16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century
Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscriptions
information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material
was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling on whether "under God" should be part
of the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice,
since the case was rejected on procedural grounds. For those who paid
attention to the arguments, however, it conclusively exposed the
incompatibility of American civil religion with any kind of robust
Christianity. If one considers Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow
theologically, with the conviction that God ultimately refers to the
Creator-Redeemer met in Israel and Jesus Christ, then the "God"
Americans are to pledge their nation to be "under" is at worst an idol
and at best the true God’s name taken in vain.
California atheist Michael Newdow originally went to court arguing
that the daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter’s public
elementary school was an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
In 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and found the
pledge’s inclusion of the God-phrase unconstitutional. The
controversial ruling was appealed and accepted for review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The court might then have faced head-on Newdow’s argument that "under
God" in the regular recitation of the pledge constituted an
endorsement and establishment of religion. But a technical issue
arose. Newdow and the girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, had never married
and are separated. Banning legally retains primary custody over their
daughter, including the final say on her education. On that basis the
court ruled that Newdow did not have legal status to bring the case on
his daughter’s behalf.
Why should Christians consider the case more closely? First, because
the solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S.
government, Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the
God-phrase. This was predictable, since Olson is an appointee of
George W. Bush. Besides his awareness of the president’s own personal
and political support of "God" in the pledge, Olson could not have
been insensitive to the overwhelming support for the phrase among
conservative evangelicals, one of Bush’s most powerful and intensely
supportive constituencies. We can rest assured, then, that Olson put
forth as strong and "Christian-friendly" a case as possible. Its
theological assertions and implications are consequently quite
significant.
The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although
the court did not officially rule on the pledge’s inclusion of the
God-phrase, some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of
it anyway. Their opinions on the case reveal how, in the contemporary
U.S., one might legally argue for some reference to "God" in the
Pledge of Allegiance. Like Olson, the justices had to make their
arguments in light of U.S. legal history, past and present religious
pluralism, and variegated religio-political support of the God-phrase
in the pledge. Accordingly, though they set no official precedents on
the matter, their reasonings in response to Newdow are theologically
telling.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion summarizes the basic
attitude underlying the theologically germane aspects of the
government’s argument and the court’s response. Mindful of legal and
constitutional precedents, Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be
stripped of theological content to qualify as an admissible
declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge. He asserts bluntly that
the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a "religious exercise." The
pledge instead "is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty
to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents." As a
"commendable patriotic exercise," the object of the pledge is to unify
and otherwise promote the good of the nation.
It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a
"religious exercise" -- no part of it, including the God-phrase, can
be a religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, "The phrase ‘under God’ is
in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion. . ." In
reciting the pledge, "participants promise fidelity to our flag and
our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church."
However the chief justice’s reasoning stands up legally, it is
incoherent as a theological statement. Along with the other
monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way,
Christianity professes that there is only one true and real God. To
cite or refer to a "God" who is not the subject or object of "any
religion," who is not the "particular God" of any given faith or
church, is to introduce a "God" additional to and apart from the
"particular" living God of the Christian church. This puts Christians
(and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we worship and
acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.
A related aspect of Rehnquist’s opinion is more coherent but hardly
theologically satisfying. He declares that the God-phrase in the
pledge is a recognition of America’s history, a history that
demonstrably includes, time and again, reference to "God" (Christian
or otherwise). As he parses it, "under God" is not in any sense a
current, efficacious act of religious devotion; it is rather a
historically "descriptive phrase," taking account of the attitudes and
beliefs of our ancestors.
Olson, in the government brief, takes a similar tack. He argues that
"under God" has no faith or religious content. He is explicit that it
does not even affirm "monotheism" but declares only a "belief in
allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that
it represents." As such it serves – "clearly" and "solely" -- a
"secular purpose." Citing former Supreme Court opinions, Olson
declares that the reference to the deity "may merely recognize the
historical fact [that the U.S.] was believed to have been founded
‘under God."’
In short, the God-phrase in the pledge is not a matter of theology but
of historical sociology. It makes no reference to the true or any
actual God, but only to the deity (or deities?) Americans once
believed in.
Furthermore, the brief makes it clear that the God-phrase does not
intend or attempt "communication with . . . the Divine. . . .The
phrase is not addressed to God or a call for His presence, guidance,
or intervention." In other words if this "God" who is met in no
monotheistic faith, who serves a "solely . . . secular purpose" and is
located only in the past should somehow attempt to be present, to
guide or to intervene in the affairs of those reciting the pledge,
that "God" (who sounds rather like the God of the Bible and
Christianity) would be distinctly unwelcome.
Note that this is the case put forward by the representative of a
strongly "conservative" administration, one deeply sympathetic with
American evangelicalism and at least some form of Christian orthodoxy.
It is not the argument of an administration indifferent or inimical to
traditional faith. Yet the best case it can make for keeping "under
God" in the pledge clearly empties the phrase of any substantive
theological content. It makes "God" a museum object confined to the
dead past and effectively (if inadvertently) posits polytheism in
place of monotheism. Not only that, it makes clear that the deity
cited in the pledge is appealed to instrumentally, in service of the
flag, and has no presence and may offer no guidance. God is put at the
service of the flag, not the flag at the service of a real, present
and intervening God.
In her opinion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor underscores how the deity
is emptied and instrumentalized in and for the pledge. She says the
phrase is a "simple reference to a generic ‘God,"’ and is
"inconsequential" in any religious weight or effect. Citing formerly
wrought judicial language, she calls the reference "ceremonial deism"
and pointedly insists that it does not intend to place the speaker or
listener in "a penitent state of mind," create "spiritual communion"
or invoke "divine aid." The speakers of the pledge refer to a "generic
deity" without any expectation or concern that it or any other deity
will actually interfere with their own purposes.
Like Rehnquist, Olson and O’Connor would retain the God-phrase in the
pledge. But they can do so only by expressly denying that the God here
referred to is the God of Israel, met in Jesus Christ. And they can do
so only by admitting outright that for such a pledge they want an
amorphous "God" who is always and only on the side of the flag and the
Republic for which it stands. They frankly argue not for a Christian
(or Jewish or Islamic) monotheism, but for what H. Richard Niebuhr
called henotheism, that is, loyalty to the "god of my country over all
others."
Henotheism in premodern times, according to Niebuhr, centered on clan
or tribe. Its pervasive form in the modern world is nationalism.
"Nationalism shows its character as a faith whenever national welfare
or survival is regarded as the supreme end of life; whenever right and
wrong are made dependent on the sovereign will of the nation, however
determined; whenever religion and science, education and art, are
valued by the measure of their contribution to national existence."
Henotheism is not the theism of any stripe of serious, intentional
Christianity -- especially not after the German church’s experience
under Nazism. What Olson and O’Connor propose at worst is idolatry --
if they mean to posit a henotheistic and false "God" of the American
flag in addition to the one and true living God. At best, if they mean
merely to allow or encourage professed Christians to confuse the
Living God with the "generic God" propping up the pledge’s "ceremonial
deism," they propose a taking of the Lord’s name in vain. Either way
lies serious theological error and offense.
Newdow definitively exposes the theological incoherence and
dubiousness of "ceremonial deism" in its many forms. American civil
religion, and its construction of "God," has necessarily always been a
vague, makeshift affair. Though many early Americans surely heard
patriotic and public references to "God" as a reference to the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit of classical Christianity, it is clear that
Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
intended the word less specifically, regarding "God" as a more
removed, impersonal and deistic entity. The unfolding, increasing
pluralism of the U.S. population has meant that national, official
references to "God" have had to become more and more plastic and
elusive. In today’s America, the word must be stretched to include not
only Protestants, Catholics and Jews, but significant numbers of
Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other citizens representing various world
religions. If that is not enough, more than 10 percent of American
citizens declare themselves atheistic or otherwise nonreligious.
Official references to "God" must be capacious -- or insignificant --
enough not to disenfranchise these citizens.
Short of hanging on to the muddy, vacillating devices of ceremonial
deism, Christians appear to face one of two choices. One is the open,
deliberate restoration of Christian theocracy. Then the referent of
"God" in the pledge would be clear and honest. Some evangelicals and
conservative Catholics lean in this direction, but gingerly and
equivocatingly, if not disingenuously, because of the sheer
in-feasibility of theocracy in a pluralistic America. With most
contemporary Christians, I would argue that theocracy is not only
politically dangerous but theologically disastrous.
We are on much more solid theological ground if we turn to the other
choice. That choice is to recognize what the Bible and such exemplars
of the Christian tradition as Augustine have taught us: to see and
trust that the church and not any nation-state is preeminently the
social agent through which God works God’s will in history. The church
catholic stretches throughout the world and is its own "public,"
crossing the comparatively sectarian boundaries of nation-states.
Knowing themselves first of all as "citizens with the saints,"
Christians may then, like the Babylon-dwelling Israelites counseled by
Jeremiah, work and pray for the welfare of the cities (and nations) in
which they now dwell, but never confuse those cities with the kingdom
for which the church stands.
This means and entails many things. In the case of the pledge it means
that atheists should not be alone in hoping to see this "God" dropped
from it. Faithful and thoughtful Christians should also want the
pledge to be returned to its pre-1954 form, and thereby end any
pretense of embracing a henotheistic God or cheapening their own faith
language.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
23 Sep 2005 11:46:27 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
:|On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:08:27 -0400, wrote:
:|
:|>The Problem with "Under God"
:|>http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3101
:|>by Rodney Clapp
:|>[excerpt]
:|>
:|>Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in Oak
:|>Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century, November
:|>16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by
:|>permission. Current articles and subscriptions information can be found at
:|>www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by
:|>Ted and Winnie Brock.
:|>
:|>The Supreme Court’s June ruling on whether "under God" should be part of
:|>the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice, since the
:|>case was rejected on procedural grounds. For those who paid attention to
:|>the arguments, however, it conclusively exposed the incompatibility of
:|>American civil religion with any kind of robust Christianity. If one
:|>considers Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow theologically, with the
:|>conviction that God ultimately refers to the Creator-Redeemer met in Israel
:|>and Jesus Christ, then the "God" Americans are to pledge their nation to be
:|>"under" is at worst an idol and at best the true God’s name taken in vain.
:|>
:|>California atheist Michael Newdow originally went to court arguing that the
:|>daily recitation of the pledge in his daughter’s public elementary school
:|>was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. In 2002, the Ninth U.S.
:|>Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and found the pledge’s inclusion of the
:|>God-phrase unconstitutional. The controversial ruling was appealed and
:|>accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
:|>
:|>The court might then have faced head-on Newdow’s argument that "under God"
:|>in the regular recitation of the pledge constituted an endorsement and
:|>establishment of religion. But a technical issue arose. Newdow and the
:|>girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, had never married and are separated. Banning
:|>legally retains primary custody over their daughter, including the final
:|>say on her education. On that basis the court ruled that Newdow did not
:|>have legal status to bring the case on his daughter’s behalf.
:|>
:|>Why should Christians consider the case more closely? First, because the
:|>solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government,
:|>Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the God-phrase. This
:|>was predictable, since Olson is an appointee of George W. Bush. Besides his
:|>awareness of the president’s own personal and political support of "God" in
:|>the pledge, Olson could not have been insensitive to the overwhelming
:|>support for the phrase among conservative evangelicals, one of Bush’s most
:|>powerful and intensely supportive constituencies. We can rest assured,
:|>then, that Olson put forth as strong and "Christian-friendly" a case as
:|>possible. Its theological assertions and implications are consequently
:|>quite significant.
:|>
:|>The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although the
:|>court did not officially rule on the pledge’s inclusion of the God-phrase,
:|>some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway. Their
:|>opinions on the case reveal how, in the contemporary U.S., one might
:|>legally argue for some reference to "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Like
:|>Olson, the justices had to make their arguments in light of U.S. legal
:|>history, past and present religious pluralism, and variegated
:|>religio-political support of the God-phrase in the pledge. Accordingly,
:|>though they set no official precedents on the matter, their reasonings in
:|>response to Newdow are theologically telling.
:|>
:|>Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion summarizes the basic attitude
:|>underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government’s argument
:|>and the court’s response. Mindful of legal and constitutional precedents,
:|>Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be stripped of theological content
:|>to qualify as an admissible declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge.
:|>He asserts bluntly that the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a
:|>"religious exercise." The pledge instead "is a declaration of belief in
:|>allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it
:|>represents." As a "commendable patriotic exercise," the object of the
:|>pledge is to unify and otherwise promote the good of the nation.
:|>
:|>It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a
:|>"religious exercise" -- no part of it, including the God-phrase, can be a
:|>religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, "The phrase ‘under God’ is in no
:|>sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion. . ." In reciting the
:|>pledge, "participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to
:|>any particular God, faith, or church."
:|>
:|>However the chief justice’s reasoning stands up legally, it is incoherent
:|>as a theological statement. Along with the other monotheistic faiths of
:|>Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way, Christianity professes that
:|>there is only one true and real God. To cite or refer to a "God" who is not
:|>the subject or object of "any religion," who is not the "particular God" of
:|>any given faith or church, is to introduce a "God" additional to and apart
:|>from the "particular" living God of the Christian church. This puts
:|>Christians (and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we worship
:|>and acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.
:|>
:|>***************************************************************
:|
:|
:|
:|The Problem with "Under God"
:|
:|by Rodney Clapp
:|
:|Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in
:|Oak Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century,
:|November 16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century
:|Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscriptions
:|information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material
:|was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
I am curious why you posted the entire article here?
What I posted had the URL for it and an excerpt.
Why did you feel a need to post the entire article, seems kind of silly to
me
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Problem with "Under God" |
24 Sep 2005 06:07:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:46:27 -0400, wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
:|On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:08:27 -0400, wrote:
[]
:|The Problem with "Under God"
:|
:|by Rodney Clapp
:|
:|Rodney Clapp is a senior writer for Christianity Today. He lives in
:|Oak Brook, Illinois. This article appeared in The Christian Century,
:|November 16, 2004, pp. 30-33. Copyright by the Christian Century
:|Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscriptions
:|information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material
:|was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.
I am curious why you posted the entire article here?
What I posted had the URL for it and an excerpt.
Why did you feel a need to post the entire article, seems kind of silly to
me
Fair question and there's several reasons;
Links have a habit of not being valid for long.
Generally, the article is only available for a short time.
Often to even get to the article (I won't play the registration game)
requires a search
And, all too often, dishonest sacks of ***** theists specialize in
nattering something important was left out of the excerpt or the
article once it is no longer readilly available.
Google is a open repository which allows access to the article if it
is needed in the future.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
