Photo - Savannah Public School, Savannah OK
September is Survey Month, if you hadn’t guessed it by now. We have looked at prayer in public schools, the 10 Commandments, and have asked if Christians should be an active part of the secular government by voting. What’s next—a survey on whether In God We Trust should stay on our currency? You’re close. Let’s look at those two simple words that were added to the pledge of allegiance about half a century ago. Yes, this is the under God survey.
I am not asking you to consider whether we should leave these words on our currency. I am asking what is the root of this controversy. Is it truly that it violates the separation of church and state doctrine that evolved over the past 200 years? Or is this truly just rebellion against God?
I’m thinking that it is the latter. I understand that there are real issues with student-led prayers in school. I understand that such mandatory prayer time resembles the very thing that prompted many to leave Europe for the hope of freedom—and other things--in a new world. While I know that the cost of losing the latitude that Christians once had to practice their faith as part of the leadership and guidance of our public schools has been tremendous; I am not sure that I want the alternative. I understand that faithful Christians don’t want state-sponsored religion.
While I think the argument more often centers on grandstanding that it does merit; I understand that the display or engraving of the 10 Commandments in a public building seems to say that the Judeo-Christian way governs our government. I suppose there would be a greater outcry if we started posting the Tenants of Islam in our buildings. By the time the cults were done with us, we would need more public buildings.
I find in God we trust printed or stamped on our currency as something hard to argue with for anyone that believes in any kind of creator. The atheists already have currency, don’t they? Plastic? This will not be a rant on credit cards or one-world currency, and the last comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If we follow the example of the first two servants in the parable of the talents and put our money to work for our Master, the form of the money doesn’t matter much.
But even in this matter of in God we trust on our currency, I understand a little protest. What changes hands more often than money? Wouldn’t companies love to get advertising space on our money? The advertising and marketing industries are approaching the 200 billion dollar mark each year. They know the value of getting their product in front of you, whether on television, radio, the internet, or yes even in that dinosaur—the newspaper.
I like in God we trust on our money, but that doesn’t keep people from worshiping money instead of God. But it’s time to come home. It is time for today’s examination. It is time for us all to be an examiner in the query of this article.
Why is there an issue with the words under God in the pledge of allegiance? Our founding fathers tried to protect the freedom of all religions in the core documents of this country. Most were Christians and I suppose they might have been able to form a nation that preserved only Christian values—a sanctuary nation of sorts—but they didn’t. Their wisdom was focused on preventing tyranny, on government becoming too powerful and oppressing the people. They also knew that this wonderful system of government would fall apart without a country rooted in faith in God.
To the question—
Does the issue of putting in God we trust on our money or keepinig under God in the pledge have standing in our system of government (ok, enough politicospeak): is this a real issue?
Or
Is this plain and simple rebellion against God?
What? There’s no place to click to vote! That’s right. This survey is comments only, which means that you are liberated from the dichotomy of the previous surveys. Please weigh-in on this issue.
-------------------
What do you call a guy with degrees in Political Science and Biblical Studies? What do you call someone that served as a Marine Officer for over 20 years and now pastors a church? What do you call someone with this unique perspective of the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God?
Most folks just call me Tom.
For some occasional paradigm shifts, try The Biased Observer.
Comments
Actually, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with either phrase. "In God We Trust" was added to currency around the time of the Civil War - and Second Great Awakening. It was never an official motto until 1956. Similarly, "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. Note: the Cold War was in full swing then. Both were explicitly religiously motivated - to differentiate the U.S. from the 'Godless Communists'.
Removing "In God We Trust" from money or "under God" from the pledge isn't 'atheistic' or denying God. (For that, you'd need to change them to "We Don't Trust In God" or "under no God" - which nobody's calling for.) It's just disentangling an unwarranted mingling of church and state.
It's not a particularly *important* mingling, as things go, but fixing it's the right thing to do.
Obviously, EVERY issue has "standing" for discussion in a democratic republic. The root of this issue is not rebellion against "God" because that presupposes the existence of "God", which you obviously do. Therefore it may be hard to grasp this but it is impossible to rebel against something you believe is non existent. Instead the question is:
SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY ESTABLISHING A PREFERENCE FOR THE ABRHAMIC RELIGIONS (JUDIASM, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM, or B'HAI) OVER AND ABOVE OTHER RELIGIONS WHICH DO NOT CENTER ON THE ABRHAMIC NOTION OF "GOD"?
American citizens who are practicing Hindus believe in multiple gods. American citizens who are practicing Zen Buddhists believe in spiritual ideas but not gods. American citizens who are practicing Wiccans believe in what they refer to as "The Goddess". American citizens who are atheists, of course, believe in no God at all.
The pledge rates these folk as 2nd class citize
In answer to the question (see my earlier comment) the US Supreme Court first answers "NO" but then says the phrase "under god" and "in god we trust" do not estabish a preference for the religions with the Abrhamic notion of "God" because, according to the court, these phrases mean nothing religious at all but instead are theologically empty acts of "ceremonial deism". If so, then these phrases take "God's" name in vain, which if you believe in the 10 Commandments is a sin. And if you are happy to rely on the court's protection of those phrases by way of the "ceremonial deism" argument, while at the same time disagreeing with the court by believing the phrases actually refer to GOD, then you're happiness with the court is form of bearing false witness, which is also a sin.
So the issue to me is two fold:
1. I want my kid to learn integrity
2. I love the constitution and the republic but deeply fear that elevating any religion over others will destroy both.
Love your God all you want in your own private life. Just don't make anyone else do it just because you believe. Is that so hard to do ?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!