Abrazo, I don't think you and I are actually saying anything all that different...my main point, though, was that I personally saw the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to be a reference to the fact that America's entire existence and philosophy is traced back to those unalienable rights that can only come from a "creator"...and that I felt Phil Donahue only saw its inclusion as a way of the state sponsoring a christian belief system onto the public...and even then it's questionable since reciting the Pledge of Allegiance isn't a law...but it is a tradition and practice emphasized almost exclusively by state-run institutions(government, public schools)...so it walks a blurred line..

By the way, it's completely irrelevant whether or not the Declaration of Independence uses the term "Creator", "natural god" or "God"...they all refer to the same thing, that of a higher power...and they all force that belief in a higher power upon those who don't believe a power higher than man exists...so the use of "natural god" or "creator" has the exact same impact as using "God" does...

apollonia7 said:

Not brave...warped, maybe...but not brave...

I was just wondering, why is it that JWs donot vote, because it seems to me that a religious person has all the more reasons to vote, because it seems like they would want to vote against a canidate that is against praying in schools or vote against a person that is for abortion, and
you could go on and on.

I think this is very important could someone explain this to me?

wellbeyond said:

wise as well.

apollonia7 said:

Wise...warped...Wellbeyond... 8)

lovebird said:

To be brief, it is not because we are not interested in the welfare of our neighbors. We conscienciously endeavor to apply the command repeated by Jesus:"You must love your neighbor as yourself."(Matt 22:39) Also the counsel recorded by the apostle Paul:"Let us work good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith."(Gal 6:10) Jehovah's Witnesses are convinced that the greatest good that we can do for our neighbors is to share with them the good news of God's Kingdom, which will lastingly solve the problems facing mankind and which opens up to those who embrace it the marvelous prospect of eternal life. God's Kingdom is what we pledge our allegiance to. Jesus is the appointed king of that government. With that in mind, James 4:4 plainly states:"do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God."
Why is the matter so serious? 1 John 5:19 says "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." At John 14:30, Jesus referred to Satan as "the ruler of the world." So, no matter what worldly faction a person might support, it's ultimately under Satan's control. Only God's Kingdom will provide lasting, peaceful rulership that we can support without hesitation. All else is just being allowed to exist until, as fortold, this Kingdom replaces all these corrupt forms of human rule.(Dan 2:44) We want to be clear about whose side we are on when it comes to that time. There is no middle ground, as the Scriptures point out. Either you are with God or with the world. 1 John 5:15-17:"Do not be loving either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever."

We view this as a serious matter. That is why we steer clear of political activity. No matter what land we find ourselves living in. JWs are active in every country on earth. We share this same stand wherever we live as one united international group.

Abrazo said:

So y in another thread did u try 2 tell me that the term "God" or such like, was not mentioned?

wellbeyond said:

I agree, but I just think that the matter is a bit more subtle than you explained how you think it is.


I disagree, while it is true that "God" is also called the "Creator" by Christians... they do not so fast use the term "natural God"... which is really a term made up by natural right philosophers who were in search, just like religions, of a "Universal Truth" from which all the rights of men can be derived...

Hence the Declaration states a term for the "creator" that is not putting a mark of one or two exclusive religion(s)

The term "God" does do that, because it is in direct reference to the God of the Bible and not so much to the from other religions or belief systems. Moreover the people living in America in the 17th and 18th century were all from a different sort of Christianity and did not agree amongst themselves they believed in one and the same God. Moreover using the term"God" would have meant that they could have been talking about the same God as the English Crown, which had to be prevented, since we are talking about the Declaration of Independence.

Hence why the Declaration does not use the term "God" and only "Nature's God", "Laws of nature" and "Creator"
These worsds are really more neutral and gave for all believers back then some room to put their own"God" in the definition of "creator"...

Very important next is that the Constitution which was made aproximately 10 years later makes no mention of either the words "God", "Creator" or "Nature's God', which makes the Constitution a completely religiously NEUTRAL document and the only document that will grant you constituional rights.

Nep2nes said:

the term "God" nor "Creator" nor "Natural God" is used in the Constitution...only in the Declaration, but those two are not the same things. The Constitution is the source of your rights and the document that organizes Government in its relation to itself and the people.

Abrazo said:

What about those, though, who don't subscribe to any type of "creator" or "natural god" whatsoever??...they would feel "forced" to acknowledge and give credence to something they did not believe in, even if "natural god" and "creator" were used, wouldn't they??...the use of those more "neutral" terms would have the same effect as using "God" for these people..."natural god" and "creator" are only for those who do have a belief in some higher power, some unseen force...and if it's the government's role to eliminate all references to anything that hints at a particular belief, then "natural god" and "creator" fall into the same catagory as "God" does...


True...but we're talking of the Pledge of Allegiance, which has no lawful impact nor gives no legal rights or authority...so what the Declaration of Independence is to the Constitution, that is what the Pledge of Allegiance to the Declaration of Independence...and if we can "overlook" the existence of "creator" or "natural god" in the Declaration of Independence because it grants you no constitutional rights, then we surely can overlook the use of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for that same reason..




....whew..
[This message was edited Thu Jul 25 0:22:49 PDT 2002 by wellbeyond]

Oh by the way


what is also of great importance is that the term "God" was not part of the allegiance before the '50's
So in the original pledge there was no mention of "God"

better think about that one too.

Ironically the 50's were (imo) the most paranoid time in US history, considering the tensions with the USSR back then...and all the communist hunting...

waterhead said:

WOW.

Religion can really blind people. What's worng with quoting a well written commentary to spur some discussion??

AlfofMelmac said:

IMO, America is pretty darn religious. What America isn't is spiritual there's a big difference. The lack of spirituality in America I think is a big cause of our social problems. I advocate no religion. I do advocate every individual exploring their spirituality and embracing wherever that leads them.

wellbeyond said:

They could have been, but the funny thing is that there were not that many non-believers those days, it was only the MOST important fact that more or less everybody believed in some form of higher power/creator, but not in one and the same!
Tha's basic Christianity for ya... take a look at the history of the western european countries and how they dealt with religious differences and state affairs...
It all connects in the bigger picture...


Yes,for the true non-believer this could be seen as possibly offensive or against his rights. Hence a completely religiously NEUTRAL constitution, granting this non-believer also the right to not believe and to not be forced upon the believes of others.


No , because a pledge is "swearing" "loyalty" to the State in public and a pledge is at least socially imposed on people in the USA, as is often the case with singing the national anthem or saluting the flag.

And if the pledge also contains the word "God"... you swear loyalty to a State connected to a Christian or possibly Jewish God and if a person has to pledge it is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Congress made a law in the 50's that changed the pledge into something with the word "God"... that is essentially making a law respecting an establshment of religion in full connection with an affair of purely the people and the State (the pledge).

No religiously laden terms should be used.

Abrazo said:

Even though the original intent of the Pledge of Allegiance may have been to get citizens to "swear" their "loyalty", it's never been used as such, as far as I know...placing your hand on a Bible and being sworn in as a citizen of the United States, in my eyes, come much closer to crossing that line...there's a legal aspect connected to an act like that, as where the Pledge of Allegiance really has no teeth to it whatsoever...more a tradition than any real act of pledging allegiance and loyalty...

But even with that, like I said waaay up there(lol), I'm not really sure God belongs in the Pledge of Allegiance...and I'm not all that sure there should even be a Pledge of Allegiance...but I understand the existence of both, and am not bothered by either to nearly the extent Phil Donahue seemed to be...

wellbeyond said:

well I can tell you that there ARE a lot of people bothered by it. And I am not so much expressing my own personal opnions on this subject as well as explaining what the constitutional problems with the pledge are.

and you are right ...placing your hand on the Bible in Court, swearing to tell the truth "so help you God" is a perfect example of yet another contradiction with the Constitution. This swearing on the Bible is something that should thus not be obligatory. One does not necessarily have to get rid of it, but one does need to give the citizen testifying the right not to swear on the Bible if it goes against his personal beliefs or convictions.

You will not EVER have to place your hand on the Bible in a Court of a western european nation. It is trictly kept out of the court system. But if you commit contempt of the court it is seen as just as bad as in the USA...

you do not absolutely, no way whatsoever need such a "tradition" like that in order to testify and have a proper procedure.


-
[This message was edited Thu Jul 25 1:37:22 PDT 2002 by Abrazo]