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.
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.
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.
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.
