Federal Appeals Court in California Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

Michael Newdow will regret hating God. His knee will bow one day and he will confess to God.

 

Intermingling government and religion has never turned out well. Newdow is right on this one.

 

As the court noted, the sentence is OK because it is not a religious statement.

 

YOU may deny it....... but there can be no rule without God.

 

No, he's not.

 

In addition to being antithetical to American values of inclusion and self-government, the insertion of the phrase "under God" is an unnatural break of the phrase "one nation, indivisible"...one thing that cannot be divided. The idea of rule by divine right is exactly what the founding fathers threw out during the Revolution.

 

"One nation under God" is not a religious statement???

Really?!

An affirmation/assertion that God is Lord over the nation is not a religiously instructive statement?

Wow. We need to engage our brains here.

 

Agreed - for the VAST majority of Americans who quote the pledge it is purely cultural.

At little surprised at the ruling since it has less than 60 years of history on its side.

 

My statement stands: There is no rule without God.
Going from there to the 'divine right to rule' as with kings, etc..... is a broad jump. The only promise concerning human rule (that I'm aware of) was delivered to the house of David. All authority and power comes from God, either as a reward for righteous rule within his will, or as a permission in the areas of His judgement upon the wickedness and straying of people and the fulfilling of his purpose.

I agree that is is primarily a 'cultural' statement although it implies a source recognition of spiritual power, provision, and/or watchfulness. Some of these type phrases can be used across the many barriers of specific religious beliefs without real offense of other than a few who are atheists, agnostic, or just like to be argumentative as these phrases, while sounding good, say very little about who God is nor define him to the people. It is the interpretation perception of each person who gives it individual meaning... and groups of people do not have to agree in their religious divisions when they acknowledge such phrases. Another somewhat 'generalized' phrase is "God bless America" which many officials end their speaches. For many of us who are Christian and think these have 'our' meaning and are comforted....... we are also easily misled by the masses who say the same in seemingly all sincerity, without knowing which or how many of them the concept of 'God' and the 'blessings' invoked may have a different meaning....... even in opposing our own.

On one hand, still I'm glad to see the ruling..... and yet a part of me is ambivalent because I'm troubled by how easily misleading such statements can be when we hear and automatically assume 'they are one of us' when, whoever 'they are' the phrases are too generic to really determine a difference in the species...... the false vs the real, the sheep vs the wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Excellent perspective.

 

>At little surprised at the ruling since it has less than 60 years of history on its side.

My kids think the Vietnam War is ancient history.

 

==That statement is antithetical to the view of most of the founders. While they did not foresee America as a "Christian" nation like that found in Europe, they certainly did see America as a religious and moral nation. Whether we have lived up to that vision is a different story. However there are certainly many examples of different founders making that point very clear. The inclusion of "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" does not violate America's doctrine of "inclusion".

==The phrases "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" does not equal "rule by divine right". What the founders "threw out during the Revolution" was the type of rule seen in England, and other European countries, during the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

==While I believe America is not "one nation under God" and while I believe that putting "In God We Trust" on coins is rather meaningless in our sinful culture, I am glad to see that court come out with the ruling. "In God We Trust" and "one nation under God" are not examples of an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

 

As far as rule goes..... it seems some kind of religion is necessary in a people for some kind of rule to exist. Even if the atheist believes he lives without a religion....... even that is a spiritual belief and often is rooted in some kind of 'ism' to which he adheres..... even if it is humanism, or making himself a god.

Even the anti-christ will depend upon the presence of religion in order to maintain his rule.