My God,
My Constitution

Keep religion out of the Pledge of Allegiance

By Phil Donahue




The “Donahue” show on MSNBC premieres at a time when scores of Congressmen followed Speaker Dennis Hastert to the steps of the Capitol to pledge their allegiance to the American flag. When their united voices reached “under God”... they shouted the sacred words. Shouted. I was embarrassed.

The First Amendment admonition is intended to insure that no state official will be able to claim God’s endorsement in the creation of law and public policy.

RELIGION AND DEVOTION to God should, like St. Paul’s charity, not be puffed up. God does not reward the loudest voice. Moreover, the “under God” inclusion in the pledge is, as the much-maligned majority in the Ninth Federal Circuit ruled, unconstitutional.
Let us revisit the framer’s purpose in creating a wall between church and state. The First Amendment admonition is intended to ensure that no state official will be able to claim God’s endorsement in the creation of law and public policy.

No teacher in a public school will be able to legally fool with a child’s mind.
No Jewish child in a public school will be recruited to play a shepherd in a holiday Nativity pageant, (“Oh Divine Savior, thank you for dying for my sins”).
No public money will be used to the benefit of religious institutions or the evangelical promotion of any faith.
The Separation clause ensures the continued vitality of the state and of religion. It ensures that religion will remain a private choice free of state promotion or interference.
And it is working.
America is the most religious society in history. We sing in more church choirs, attend more church services, throw more holy water and burn more incense than any other national community in the history of civilization.
God bless us for that.
But please, keep worship out of the government’s hands. Calling on God in public ceremonies requires that we choose a certain God, whose God? (” ... one nation UNDER ALLAH?”)

It is true that God appears on our currency, and prayer recitation opens our sessions of Congress. God is so popular in the U.S., so woven into the lives of so many American citizens that the task of keeping the First Amendment wall strong is often difficult, complex.
But it is worth the effort; its purpose is noble. It is to ensure that Americans remain free to worship a God of their choice, free to pray in one’s home and at one’s privately funded place of worship. It ensures that no money from other Americans will benefit someone else’s religion. That’s no small issue due to the billions in tax exemptions offered to religious institutions. This raises the tax bite of all our citizens.
The First Amendment also affirms the right of citizens to be without any faith at all. To be atheists. The late Madalyn Murray O’Hair used to say on the daytime DONAHUE show, “Your religious deductions are raising my taxes. Worship anything or anyone you please, but don’t make me pay for it!”
Our constitution obliges no one to worship, pledge allegiance, or believe in anything, not the flag, not even the United States itself.
Calling on God in public ceremonies requires that we choose a certain God, whose God? (” ... one nation UNDER ALLAH?)

In 1943 The Jehovah’s Witnesses won a Supreme Court decision that challenged Pennsylvania’s law requiring public school students to recite the pledge.
Witnesses argued that their faith disallowed the salute even without the “under God” reference which did not become the standard text until the early ’50s. Jehovah’s Witnesses were being abused everywhere, stones were thrown at their children, a Kingdom Hall in Kennebunk, Maine, was burned to the ground, over one thousand assaults were reported. America was at war and these kids would not salute the flag. There was no overstating the loathing for them.
I continue to marvel today at the courage of those first graders who, accepting the instruction of Mom and Dad, stood mute while the “good” American children, like the Congress on the Capitol steps, proudly pronounced their allegiance.
In one of the most important decisions in the history of the Supremes, U.S. Justice Robert Jackson wrote, famously ...
“If there is any fixed star in the Constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox, in nationalism, religion, politics or any other matters of opinion”
Justice Jackson concluded for the majority by pronouncing that neither can any official “force by word or deed” a citizen to believe a certain way in such matters of opinion.
Thus, eight of the nine old white men looked out from their elevated mahogany bench and (in the majority view) said to those Witness children, “You obey your parents!”
Yes. Yes. Yes. For this remarkable defense of individual and unpopular liberty, I am pleased to say from my own heart, on my own time, and in my own opinion, God Bless America!
The plea for the intervention of the almighty is more meaningful to me because no official, high or petty, can force me to say it or to believe it.
—Phil Donahue

Satan has made you his tool too "bible teacher." I don't know what "bible" you go by, but mine doesn't need Phil Collins to clarify anything.He isn't a godly man, he's a talk show host. DOn't you know what those talk shows are all about? Satanism, fornication, adultry, and all other sorts of perversion.

Phil Donahue's new show is not a talk show. It is a news commentary show for MSNBC. I thought it to be interesting especially in light of the mention of the little known bitter persecution Jehovah's Witnesses and their children faced during the war. Not saying you have to agree with or disagree with this commentary politically. I, for one, am politically neutral, as are all Jehovah's Witnesses. But, I know this had been a much spoken of topic, and thought it to be an interesting commentary.

For you to call me Satan's tool, is a bit rediculous. You, sir/madam, are out of line.
[This message was edited Tue Jul 23 22:19:48 PDT 2002 by Bibleteacher89]

Thanx teacher, you just made me realize that there ARE sensible north-americans yet...

oh btw Phil D. might want to reconsider "America is the most religious society in history"

No problem, alf.
And, yeah, I hear ya. I kinda wondered why he said that,too. Not that there aren't a lot of religious folk here. But, that statement sounds like hyperbole to me too.
I never did care for Donahue much, anyway.

Bibleteacher89 said:

I'm out of line, you're out of line this whole freakin' site is out of line. I may be "rediculous" as you say, but I'm not being used by Satan to force Anti-christ pro talkshow stuff on people. Speaking of topics, doesn't this seem it will be deleted before the sun comes up? It ain't got a dang thing to do with Prince. So your Satanic propaganda will be gone very soon. SO I ain't sweatin you any more. But you may be sweating in the pit of hell if you continue letting Satan blind you. you won't be sweating to the oldies either.

Bibleteacher89 said:

If you're so politically neutral, how come you came on here waving your victory flag over a US Court decision to protect the religious freedom of JWs? The judicial system in this country is written out in the same Consitution you're supposed to be shunning.

ok...remind me b/c I forgot. How am I an anti-Christ something or other? Seems to me, you are the only "tool" on this thread so far.

As far as its relavency...it's about as relavent as Jesus being black or a fish or Larry Graham's shoes or half the other things on here. So, go bother them. And quit slandering me. Jesus would not approve of that. Maybe you are anti-Christ. Your actions thus far seem to point that way.

LadyCabDriver said:

Well, if you knew what you were talking about, you would understand politiacal neutrality has nothing to do with "shunning" the constitution. We obey the governments in their relative positions as well as respect their constitutions. If you don't want to abide by your own rules, as a government, we'll be there to point that out. Recent supreme court decisions, case in point. The one(and many others in that year) mentioned in this thread also. As long as the government we happen to be living under doesn't have any laws conflicting with God's commands, we obey. We render their due, as Jesus stated. But, as the Bible is also clear on, we are to obey God rather than men. If we have a legal case involving laws being formed that not only discriminate against us, but also violate their own constitution, we will be quick to point this out, and win. This is going on in Russia and other former USSR republics such as Georgia and Turkmenistan. We are pressing our case under those respective governments' laws as well. Even taking our case before the European court of human rights.

So, cabby, think before you try and slanderously speak. We are indeed politically neutral. We are advocates of God's Kingdom. Doing so we obey the Scriptures and follow the model of Christ and the early Christians. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jesus.

jesus said "caesar's things to caesar, god's things to god." JWs pay taxes and thus deserve protection under the law just like any law-abiding, tax-paying citizen...

Stop preaching this JW bullshit here!
You'll NEVER convert me! hehe!

apollonia7 said:

Yeah, okay. But your avatar is still freaking me out.

Hey apollonia7, I know this might not be the place to ask this, but what is your avatar from. It truly is freaky.

thanks for the highlight bible teach. very upbuilding 2 those who wish 2 be upbuilt. and apollonia, i love your avatar (but u know that already). waterhead, u are a truly scary individual. and a... waterhead!

Oh, brother!


DCM
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 12:40:43 PDT 2002 by dcm]

I always took "separation of church and state" to refer more specifically to religions, to make sure that no one belief is forced upon the citizens by the government...not to make sure there is no mention of the belief or acknowledgement of a belief in a higher power...afterall, the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were significant because it was said that these rights were not given to us by our government or by each other, but by that "higher power" who/which created us...that while a multitude of other "rights" can be assigned and taken away, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could only be granted by--and thus, could only be taken away--by that which granted them to us to begin with...although we can definitely argue that we have gone against that belief in our laws and in our government(death penalty, for instance...slavery...etc, etc..)..

But to me, "one nation under God" was more or less always seen as an acknowledgement of that thought that a higher power has given us the ultimate "rights" that are the foundation of all other rights in America...

By the way, I don't really think "under God" belongs in the Pledge, either...actually I'm not all that crazy about their being a pledge of allegiance to begin with..lol...but I understand why both exist...and I guess I'm not as bothered by their existence as obviously Phil is..

LadyCabDriver said:

Hi LadyCabbie,

Didnt you know that everything that BT89 says is totally true and if you say anything contrary, that you are a slanderous, libelous, apostate!! (He would probably be less persecuted if he didnt come on a prince music site with this JW victory crap!)

DCM

Bibleteacher89 said:

Bibleteacher, I have some comments I would like to make. First off, I understand that you say you are "politically neutral" as many non-JWs are as well. But, being politically neutral, wouldn't that mean you are neither for or against whatever political issues are posed? Rather, you are against such things as saying the Pledge of Allegiance and serving the country. So, could that mean you are politically neutral, but when it comes to the government, you are against the government? The Mennonites are neutral politically as well as when the government is concerned. They are very quiet individuals and keep to themselves.

I know you do not take part in any government activities, such as voting and running for elections, saluting the flag, saying the National Anthem, but do use the country's court system which I suppose must also "conflicting with God's commands" because they are all linked as one. Executive, judicial, and the legislative branches are all one in the system of checks and balances within the government. After all, it is the Supreme Court that enforces the laws "conflicting with God's commands". But, do you realize that our own government, though I see problems with as well, is actually based on the laws in the Bible? Did you know that the Supreme Court still prays together? Over the years, laws have had to be added to those core laws to keep people from infringing upon other's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness so that people can maintain their lives. The court and government in this country are not trying be God. Doing research into this would show you that there is no real separation of "church (God) and state (country)".

Another thing is that you said "we are to obey God rather than men", but don't you obey the laws that have been laid down for you by men in your church? And, don't you obey the laws created by people in the Supreme Court? And you said, "Doing so we obey the Scriptures and follow the model of Christ and the early Christians." I see some discrepancies with that, too, but at least you are wanting to follow Christ.

God Bless you.
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 14:20:05 PDT 2002 by daisy]

dcm said:

right on, dcm. You know, I'm beginning to think that BT just posts these threads to bait people so when they disagree with him, he can make smartass comments and get defensive. After I answer his reply to me word for word, I'm not getting involved in his religiously hypocritical banter anymore.

2the9s said:

And your avatar is frickin', freaking me out!

sag10 said:

I love Apollonia's avatar......that sh!t's cool...

great piece bible teacher, thanks for passing it on.

wellbeyond said:

That's basically true, but it is a little more subtle yet...Read some Locke and Montesquieu, and while you are at it, some Rousseau wouldn't hurt either lol...the founders of the United States were very charmed by these philosophers..., because while they didn't deny the existence of a supreme divine being, they focused their philosphies of law much more on "Man" and it's "State" in "Nature", which was very much the "state" of the colonists when they set foot on the shores of "America"... "free" from often (religious) prosecution in a european country/kingdom or other misery...but also in a complete state of nature in a land unknown and wild to them...

The funny thing is tho', that the US Constitution doesn't mention the word "God", however... the Declaration of Independence " does acknowledge the existence of "The Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" in order to justify the Declaration of independence of the English Crown...and also that this "God" is the source of "Man's rights"... it literally says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident- that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness-, "

And then... very important:

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

So it is indeed the "Creator" or "Nature's God" who gave "Men" their rights, but it are these same "Men" who give power to "Government" to secure these rights.

Among these rights to be secured is also freedom of speech and religion
The US constitution itself lays this right down very well in the first amendment, that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So in fact; Government/Congress must secure that everyone is free to worship or not.... That no one can force another to do something against this inalienable right...

Putting the word "God" in a allegiance (which is a form of a duty) to the State itself, who is supposed to protect this right of "worshipping 'God(s)'or not", is a contradiction of what the entire foundation of the United States and its Constitution is about...

here is a sample of a piece written by Locke,
chapter 2 of "Of the State of Nature"...

"To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, whithin the bounds of the Law of Nature, [u]whithout asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man."

So "Man" is essentially free from any others Man's will to order his Actions, so he is also free from its will to pledge allegiance to the State and thus also free from its will to pledge allegiance to the State while using the word "God"...
whether the "founding fathers" believed in one or not...

Telling people to pledge allegiance to the State, while refering to "God" in doing that, is not respecting the freedom of Man to worship a "God" or not.
And it must be made clear that taking the word "God" out of the pledge or of your dollar bills is in no way a form of prohibiting the freedom of religious (in this case mainly christian) people to excercise their faith in their "God".

Letting it there, IS however a way of forcing your Will upon others .


-
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 18:45:31 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 18:46:25 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

Abrazo said:

Wellbeyond's statments were more on target. True, the government can't establish a religion, but the D. of Independance states our inalienable rights come from a Creator/God. This is thus stated on money, in the pledge, etc. Contradiction? Belief in a Creator is the bedrock, the foundation, the source of our rights, not an imposition of any religious state doctrine. No one is being forced to worship, but we recognize a God/Creator as the source of their rights. That's a key point which I guess isn't likable news for atheists.

I believe the intepretation and philosophical views you stated were believed by some at the signing, but not the majority. Time for more research, heck how's a man supposed to keep a job on this site...

daisy said:

To make this perfectly clear, no. Absolutely not. We are neither for nor against. Hence the term, neutral. When Jesus was approached to support growing anti-government tension in Judea at the time, he rejected this course and even responded to Pilate "My Kingdom is no part of this world.", assuring Pilate that he was not politically motivated nor a threat to Caesar. (John 6:15; 18:36)
That being said, we also have to keep in mind that The Scriptures command us to be in subjection to the authorities that govern us. Why? Because they stand in their relative positions by God's allowance. They are what is permitted now to keep order. No government could exist without God's allowance. By not obeying the superior authorities in most matters, we are actually disobeying God. Regardless of the conduct of individual officials, true Christians show respect because of the office they occupy. (Romans 13:1,5-7; Mark 12:17)


Only when there is direct conflict between human commands and the requirements of God, do we imitate the example of the apostles in this case by putting obedience to God first.(Acts 5:28,29)



Again, no. This is not the case. There are no "laws" laid down by men in the Christian Congregation. The only laws that govern us are clearly in the Scriptures. We obey Gods laws and allow the principles taught in the Scriptures to govern us and our conduct. The ones responsible for shepherding the flock really have no authority other than this. It is up to them to watch over the flock and protect it; To provide guidance and counsel based on Scripture. Not to make laws. In the case where there is a question about personal application to things that aren't explicitly laid out in the Scriptures, then it is up to the individual to make his/her own decision based on his/her Bible-trained conscience. (1 Thes 5:21;Acts 17:10,11)

bonojr said:

Heck!.. you don't have to believe it

that's what it is all about....

Whatever the people believed who wrote the Declaration, which were most likely a mingle of protestants, catholics and other christian groups, quakers etc...

They did NOT believe all in the one and same "God".

Also the Declaration may be very important, but it is not as important as the Constitution. Only the Constitution grants you your constitutional rights.

Also the term "creator" and "natural god" , which are used in the Declaration are more neutral than the term "God" which is a term used traditionally in Christian Judean circles and not necessarily believed in by the countless of other American citizens.

These others do not have to have a "God" forced down upon them. If that is what the Supreme Court will decide (if they will...), then that will be a good decision...in my opinion of course.





-
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 21:56:17 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]
[This message was edited Wed Jul 24 21:58:24 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]

BTW, Abrazo...

I enjoyed you last post. You must be pretty well versed in constitutional law etc. It was a very intelligent and compelling comment. Good to hear a well thought out post on here once and a while.

sag10 said:

just don't look her in the eyes... she will turn you to stone.

wellbeyond said:

brave man.